Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQzAjCZr0BM

This guy is fucking retarded

He repeats the most ridiculous propaganda about russian missiles hitting toilets
He basically omits the modern Kh-29 is IR guided.

Idk why hes recommened as knowledgeabe by pro-russians on twitter

This guy is fucking retarded

The first few minutes he says he wont talk about the Russians because this channel is about technology and not about animals.

Why did you post this rubbish here?

Nazi lover propaganda belongs in the rubbish bin.

Such long range missiles are nice but what your image forget to show is that you need someone to find the target and have a direct and constant view on it to guided the missile.

That is why they talk about light aircraft acting like drones or why I talk about using drones along with missiles launched from vehicles on the ground.

The Russians have shown they have mastered using drones flying high looking down and finding and monitoring targets and then using other drones like Lancet or guided artillery shells to hit said targets, so the use of drones for monitoring and finding targets coordinated with artillery or other missile types to destroy the targets makes sense and is being used in the field with success.

What they could add are medium sized drones with much better optics and sensors like IIR sensors to find targets and monitor them from heights where the targets wont be aware they are being watched. The target information from such drones can be used by other platforms to mount standoff attacks with guided weapons from much safer distances.... Kh-38s could be launched from 30km plus (it has a range of about 40km) with a 250kg warhead it would devastate any target.

Then it's just cheaper to equipe that guy with a metis and blow up that target.

Launching missiles from a drone means with the information from the high flying drone a smaller lower flying drone could launch a smaller lighter missile towards a target from a most vulnerable angle... the new small missile called Bulat could be used to hit targets from medium range (4-5km) from a tiny drone... hit their sides and rear using stabilised lasers for guidance they are very accurate and the lighter warhead should still penetrate the rear of most tank turrets to get to the ammo and crew...

The Bulat is quarter the size and weight of Kornet so you should be able to carry a lot of them... perhaps 10kgs each...

He repeats the most ridiculous propaganda about russian missiles hitting toilets

And also destroying civilian buildings on purpose... how many Orcs would be dead if they actually did that after 1 year of war?

He basically omits the modern Kh-29 is IR guided.

I didn't bother watching it past the first two minutes, but the Russians have a wide range of missiles they can use including new and old types.

The Kh-29 has a 319kg warhead and is over the top for most targets, but it comes in TV and IR and laser homing models, but has largely been supplanted by the Kh-38 which has a smaller 250kg warhead and a 40km range (except for the cluster munition armed version with an 80km range).

They also have LMUR and older missiles like the TV guided AS-13 and AS-18 as well as brand new weapons types of a range of types including also bombs and glide bombs and missiles.

Idk why hes recommened as knowledgeabe by pro-russians on twitter

Russians are animals for all the Orcs they are killing and they are hitting civilian apartment buildings on purpose because their weapons are shit... he sounds perfect for the doomer 5th columnists you seem to listen to...

Riiiiight... I guess you haven't seen any of the miles of footage of Russian surveillance drones spotting Ukie AFVs or SPGs/towed arty etc and calling in Lancets or Krasnopols? Razz

I did. But such engagements involve the drone operator, the missile guy and some other commander on the front.

They are not useless but are complicated to use. They are also more expensive than a suicide drone. They also can't loiter above the target, they will fly straight at high speed and if the operator doesn't find the target it will loose that missile for nothing.

A metis or a kornet involves only one guy and the reaction time is 0s. See and shoot.

And a Lancet can just loiter with a better range and flight path to find and attack the target from the best angle.

Limb knew the video would piss people off. He is not dumb. Just a little gay.

They are not useless but are complicated to use. They are also more expensive than a suicide drone. They also can't loiter above the target, they will fly straight at high speed and if the operator doesn't find the target it will loose that missile for nothing.

I would say the opposite... a surveillance and target detection drone is more expensive per drone than a suicide drone but you use a suicide drone for each target you find, so lets say $30K for a surveillance drone and $5K for a suicide drone... suicide drones are not used until you find a target so without the surveillance drone they are useless short range weapons. When you do find a target you launch a suicide drone or you fire artillery or send an attack aircraft with guided weapons to attack the target... your surveillance system, whether on the ground or in the air provides target data so the attack mechanism can be launched from standoff safe distances with a very good chance of a kill without even being detected or receiving return fire.

The point is that 10 targets means 10-20 suicide drones to ensure kills you might need to hit some targets twice, but one surveillance drone could find dozens of targets because they are not destroyed when they find the targets and their target data can be shared with all sorts of platforms with HQ presumably deciding which attack platform to use to destroy the detected target.

HQ will know how much ammo each attack method has on hand and the relative cost of each form of attack and can decide on which to use for most efficiency.

They might have a ground based Kornet team nearby, or artillery might be the best suited or perhaps a suicide or armed drone that can hit multiple targets and return to be rearmed and reused... for the price of the fuel used...

A metis or a kornet involves only one guy and the reaction time is 0s. See and shoot.

When the enemy target is near the front line you could also pass target data to tanks and other armoured vehicles to engage with HE shells in direct and indirect fire modes, but the risk of having Metis and Kornet teams operating deep behind enemy lines to engage targets detected by drones would be too high... such teams would be horribly vulnerable.

Ironically a 2S1 or 2S3 with a full digital upgrade and laser guided shells that is 10km away from the target could stop calculate angle and elevation based on its own position from GLONASS receivers and target information from the drone and fire a single shell which the drone could then mark the target with a laser as the shell approached the target for a direct hit on even a moving target... the SP artillery vehicle is not super armoured, but can stop for a minute and fire a single round and then drive away from that position very quickly.

A Coalition could do the same to targets 50km away or more with its new ammo...

A Smerch battery could do the same to targets 120km away... with the drone over the target marking it a single rocket or shell should do the job most of the time...

The core problem is the enormous number of targets on a modern battlefield and the limited number of weapon systems that will already be supporting forces doing other things...

And a Lancet can just loiter with a better range and flight path to find and attack the target from the best angle.

Not really... they tend to use the higher flying drones to find the targets and then launch lancets for the kill... the Lancets don't loiter... those white wings makes them easy to spot and so they would have to fly low and fast nap of earth to get to the target... flying low means their ability to spot other targets would be poor... though the low flying altitude means HEAT warheads tend to do more damage in light vehicles because the horizontal strikes means penetration from front to back or side to side rather than top to bottom... you are more likely to hit ammo or fuel or people...

But if you look at the drone footage of attacks the drone is watching the target for some time but the crew of the target often bail out several seconds before we see the Lancet drone come in and smack the vehicle so they are spotting them early enough to save themselves, but not fast enough to shoot them down... would be a self preservation thing I suspect.

Russia has developed a new generation 80 mm unguided aircraft missile. According to Rostec, the missile is equipped with a highly efficient engine and combines the properties of concrete-piercing and high-explosive fragmentation ammunition. Work on this project was carried out by specialists from NPO Splav.

The new missile is capable of hitting both openly located targets and objects located in fortified structures or forests. A special feature of the development is the creation of multifunctional aviation ammunition, which has not previously been encountered in domestic and foreign practice.

According to Rostec, the new unguided aircraft rocket is superior to all existing domestic and foreign analogues. The basis of the rocket is a new small-sized, highly efficient rocket engine, which opens up broad prospects for the creation of various types of rockets, including adjustable and guided ones.

https://avia-pro.net/news/v-rossii-sozdana-unikalnaya-aviacionnaya-raketa-ne-imeyushchaya-analogov-v-mire

GarryB wrote:This is the first set of photos I have seen of the AS-17/Kh-31 with a solid rocket booster to allow it to be fired from slow moving aircraft like Helos or Su-25TM type aircraft.

Yankees copied the AGM-119 from the Kh-31 isn't it?

Yankees copied the AGM-119 from the Kh-31 isn't it?

Honestly I had to look up the AGM-119, and according to Wiki that is a US licence production Penguin, which is a european anti ship missile that is subsonic.

The American version of the Kh-31 is called the MA-31 which they bought from the Russians in the 1990s to test their air defence systems on their ships with... that is when they introduced ESSM and SeaRAM and didn't talk about Phalanx so much any more.

The Russians have tried lots of times to make a Kh-31 type missile and have failed... the Kh-31 is not easy to replicate... even though it entered service in the 1980/90s.

Edit: Oops... obviously that should read the west and the US have tried lots of times to make a Kh-31 type missile.... the Germans and French tried with the ANS and failed and the competition for the target missile for the US Navy that the MA-31 won had other competitors trying to do the same thing but they failed too.

Ironically the Americans actually wanted a Moskit... an air launched Sunburn missile to test but the Russians would only let them buy very early model Kh-31 that didn't have the modern materials their own Kh-31 had so while the US complained that it did not fly very far it was still rather better than anything they could make then or now.

I did. But such engagements involve the drone operator, the missile guy and some other commander on the front.

They are not useless but are complicated to use. They are also more expensive than a suicide drone. They also can't loiter above the target, they will fly straight at high speed and if the operator doesn't find the target it will loose that missile for nothing.

A metis or a kornet involves only one guy and the reaction time is 0s. See and shoot.

Sending a drone to fly over enemy territory and look for enemy artillery or enemy armour moving forward to attack your lines is actually much safer than putting men on foot deep behind enemy lines with Metis or Kornet... of course if they see something they can fire at it but their speed on the ground is low and how much ammo do you think they will be carting around with them?

In comparison a drone can cover vastly more area and fly high and see large distances in each direction and will be covering at least 100km per hour, and more often double that so it can search large areas  and see all sorts of things.

When it spots an important target a suicide drone can be launched immediately to that location and hit the target, or nearby artillery can load up and use the coordinates from the drone to fire on the target with the drone lasing the target if necessary (for a target like a tank or artillery vehicle or air defence vehicle), or the artillery group can fire a full battery salvo at a group of enemy troops hidden in a forest or crossing a field.

The point is that using recon drones covers more territory faster and can also be used to see how effective the attack is and while the attack method is being prepared it can continue to watch the target and see where it goes or if it hides where it hides (ie they go into a building ).

The recon drone can lase the target for a suicide drone to hit, for a glide bomb to hit, for an artillery shell or artillery rocket to hit, or an attack helicopter or aircraft.

We have seen Russian aircraft lofting rockets in 80mm and 122mm.... but they have laser homing rocket models now... they have been shown, so if a drone is over the target and an Su-25 approaches from 5km away and lofts a single rocket at the target area, if it is a laser homing model, the flight speed of the rocket is known so the pilot will transmit to the drone operator that he has launched the rocket so the drone operator can calculate when the rocket is coming down and activate his laser at the right time and boom you can kill point targets... whether that is a section of a trench, a vehicle, a building,  bunker, a sniper position... all done from a safe distance... and all done with one rocket that is cheaper than an ATGM.

The US made the GQM-163 Coyote missile target to replace their use of the MA-31.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GQM-163_Coyote

This uses a ducted ramjet and can hit Mach 3-4.

GarryB wrote:The Russians have tried lots of times to make a Kh-31 type missile and have failed... the Kh-31 is not easy to replicate... even though it entered service in the 1980/90s.

Rumor had it that the engineers behind the Kh-31 relocated to Ukraine. However, if this were to be true then Ukraine would have come up with a Kh-31, which they haven't. Probably there are other reasons why Russia could not make the Kh-31.

GQM-163 Coyote

More like Coyote ugly.

Russia could not make the Kh-31.

Completely modernised version is in serial production.

The US made the GQM-163 Coyote missile target to replace their use of the MA-31.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GQM-163_Coyote

This uses a ducted ramjet and can hit Mach 3-4.

Hahaha... yeah, as Alamo points out, they can't copy a Russian missile from the 1980s, so they take an enormous naval surface to air missile from the 1960s...

Its speed is mach 2.6 at sea level so it is slower than the Kh-31, it is also shorter ranged with the capacity to hit targets just over 80km away, but compare the nitty gritty... the Coyote is 5.6 metres long, but has a solid rocket booster to get it airborne and up to speed which makes the entire missile 9.5 metres long.

They only stopped using the MA-31 because Senator McCain did not want America to use a Russian product... they don't mention the weight of the Coyote on that wiki page but it is bigger than Onyx with performance less than Kh-31.

The specs for MA-31 is mach 2.5 at sea level in a 4.7m long missile that is less than 600kgs in weight that can be carried by light tactical fighters.

They claim its range is 50km but the early model anti ship Kh-31 for export can hit targets at 70km and the newer models can reach 180km in the anti ship version. (the anti radiation models fly high all the way and can reach about 120km and 240km respectively in the old and new models).

Rumor had it that the engineers behind the Kh-31 relocated to Ukraine. However, if this were to be true then Ukraine would have come up with a Kh-31, which they haven't. Probably there are other reasons why Russia could not make the Kh-31.

Sorry, that was my mistake... Russia makes Kh-31s and they are very effective and they are working on improved models with the ramjet component replaced by a scramjet which should triple flight speed and greatly extend flight range.

The difference between the Kh-31 and the Coyote is that a ramjet is mostly empty space, so the Russians filled that space with a solid rocket motor, which falls away when it has burned out leaving the empty space as the ramjet. This means it does not need an external solid rocket booster so it is much smaller and more efficient.

The French/German ANS programme was an attempt to create the same thing and the Americans had a similar project too... but the Russians/Soviets were first by a mile because the SA-6 also used a combined rocket ramjet propulsion system too... in fact you could say the Kh-31 is an evolution of the SA-6...

Solid rocket propulsion improved so the SA-6 was replaced with the solid rocket SA-11 BUK and then later models of BUK like the SA-17 and naval BUK missiles too... but I rather suspect the next generation might actually go back to the jet engine with a solid rocket booster and use a scramjet engine.

Completely modernised version is in serial production.

I posted the Combat Approved video showing it... put Russia when I meant to put the US and EU and the west.

I should point out that missiles with a solid rocket booster are not bad.... the Pantsir and Sosna missiles use solid rocket boosters and slim low drag second stages optimised for gliding to the target, and appear to be excellent weapons... so the idea is not bad.

I suspect the US Navy went to the Coyote because they have lots of old booster rockets left over from all their old SAMS, and this allows them to fit them into their VLS systems on their ships so they don't need to fly a Phantom to launch the missiles as targets.

If it wasn't for McCain they probably would have kept buying them up until 2014 or the Ukraine war started.

BTW if you look at the wiki page for the MA-31 it is rather interesting... like claiming the Kh-31 is based on the Moskit (I rather doubt the 600kg missile is based on the 4.5 ton missile at all).

It also blames the Russian Duma from stopping the deal...

This is Moskit:





This is SA-6 KUB:



And this is Kh-31:

Hole wrote:Completely modernised version is in serial production.

Which one is this?

Kh-31P was the more advanced version.

Kh-31P was the more advanced version.

As far as I know the Kh-31P is the old model and the Kh-31PD is the advanced double range model, while the Kh-31A was the old model and Kh-31AD is the newer advanced version.

The main difference is the more advanced models have built up boosters on their rear end...







The P type is the anti radar version, and the A model is the anti ship version as far as I know... the D models (AD and PD) are the improved advanced versions and weigh about 715kgs instead of slightly under 600kgs for the air launched models for fighters. The versions for helicopter launch were about 800kgs I think with a solid rocket booster to accelerate and climb to high altitude for better performance.

I guess you could probably use the anti radar version against ships too if they had good air defences... the first wave of missiles would be anti ship and then the second wave anti radar because by the second wave they will be alert and scanning for threats...

Very sensible the Soviets.

But of course I have heard for decades about how magical US carrier groups are... you see they can see all and hear all all the time but a the same time don't emit any electronic noise that could give away their presence so they can see all the things you try to attack them with (and destroy them early before they become a problem) but you have no idea of where they are.

I remember Jonesy on the Key Publishing forum telling me that the biggest mistake the Soviets made was more away from small long range subonic missile like Harpoon and go for big heavy exotic missiles like Granit and Vulcan that are too big so you need enormous ships to carry them and they can't carry many.

Of course what he ignored was that with a decent naval air defence network dealing with large numbers of slow low flying anti ship missiles is not a difficult problem and their combination of BUK and S-300 and TOR and other missiles and of course the Tunguska equivalent of Kashtans which were all widely deployed on their ships was probably good enough to ensure you would need the enormous numbers of missiles the west have to even have a chance of sneaking one through.

These days with Onyx and even Zircon the shoe is rather on the other foot where a tiny Russian corvette can fire one Zircon at a US or UK or French Carrier group and have a very good chance of getting a hit.

This is because the problem of an IADS is something the Soviets have thought about because they have taken the time to create one for themselves on land... they are not cheap so the sea based version was not quite as impressive but the new ship based ones have modern AESA radars and will have a lot more missiles than before... which they practise with all the time so the people making the anti ship missiles are not practising against one Standard SM-2 SAM and a Phalanx gun mount per ship...

It is also why I keep talking about an aircraft carrier because air assets contribute immensely to an air defence system, except the Russian air defence system isn't centred around air power only, the ground base component is actually bigger and more effective because it moves with your troops and makes operational conditions for aircraft hell... I suspect many of the Russian air losses might have been friendly fire because they have restructured it so there isn't an Army PVO and an Air Force PVO any more.

Having aircraft with ships is like having A-50 and S-400... it just makes the weapons on the ships better and increases you situational awareness of the battleground by an enormous amount because if you see something suspicious you can send a fighter out at 800km/h to investigate, and if it turns out to be hostile it can defend itself and warn the ships.

It is not important if you loose a plane if you detect a massive attack on your ships 30 minutes before the ships start detecting it... 30 minutes to power up your air defence systems and get ready to preemptively strike their attack could destroy it before it lands a punch.

A bit like Putin attacking Ukraine before Ukraine could attack the autonomous areas of Eastern Ukraine.

Look at Operation Barbarossa... if the UK spies were a bit more trustworthy Stalin might have believed what they and his own spies were likely telling him and he might have attacked the German forces in the bit of Poland they seized.... it might have dramatically changed how that conflict went and allowed the trained soldiers who started the war to not be captured and killed and taken out of the war so quickly.... the biggest word in the English language... if.

Success of the item 305 is leading to an item 306.

It says in the video accuracy and performance and ease of use of the 305 is good, but that the 306 will have a heavier warhead and more range.