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

Here are some interesting photos:







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.

This booster should allow a slow flying launch of this weapon allowing it to achieve normal flight performance from a slow and low launch.

This would be a very potent weapon for a naval Ka-52 operating from a Mistral carrier for use against small to medium sized enemy ships.

I have read that while the MA-31 anti ship test missile version the USN bought and used was not so reliable and had shorter range than they expected, they apparently tested it 17 times against defended targets and it hit all 17 times.

So against a smaller less potent navy than the US such missiles are excellent and potent threats.

Against the USN of course there will be problems getting close enough with a Kh-31 armed aircraft to launch the weapon let alone score a hit, but not all naval combat occurs in open ocean...

You are right, this Kh-31 is interesting. If Russians actually managed to integrate Kh-31 missile with Ka-52 helicopter, than I think it could use both versions of Kh-31, anti-ship and anti-radar version. ESM suite in Ka-52 is in my opinion advanced enough that it could be used for anti-radar missile. Maybe they only need to modify radar in Ka-52 nose, that it could be used in anti-ship role. Ka-50 could use Kh-25 ASM, so Ka-52 for sure could use it also and if Ka-52 could have such heavy missile as Kh-31, than Kh-29 could also be integrated on Ka-52. Together with Hermes missiles Ka-52 could actually be a helicopter class as fighter-bomber class in airplanes.

You are correct, higher this EO ball is placed, better visibility it have could see low flying or surface objects on longer distance. So the mast of the ship is proper place for it as well as for radar. Anyway, this complex could do a lot of functions and could be integrated with almost all weapons on the ship.

Pakistan and China have been working on some kind of data link for these types of missiles.

They want to launch their YJ-93's (Kh-31 copy) from submarines and hit things over the horizon their reconnaissance might see and target. Launching them from submarines they will likely have bigger solid fuel stage for more range.


Likely before it gets close enough to the ship for SeaRam to shoot at it, explosive charge in warhead "shotgun" fires many many depleted uranium rounds, they continue with extreme speed and rattle tin can ship with holes.

No way to shoot down such a missile unless you take it out with airborne laser no?

If Russians actually managed to integrate Kh-31 missile with Ka-52 helicopter, than I think it could use both versions of Kh-31, anti-ship and anti-radar version.ESM suite in Ka-52 is in my opinion advanced enough that it could be used for anti-radar missile.

Certainly the anti radiation version should be easy to integrate as enemy radar emissions should be detectable I certainly agree with that.

Maybe they only need to modify radar in Ka-52 nose, that it could be used in anti-ship role.

For use against smaller enemy vessels that might be a threat to the Mistral platform I suspect a Ka-31 with Ka-52 combination might be more potent.

Ka-50 could use Kh-25 ASM, so Ka-52 for sure could use it also and if Ka-52 could have such heavy missile as Kh-31, than Kh-29 could also be integrated on Ka-52.

The Kh-38 is supposed to be the replacement for both the Kh-25 and Kh-29 with a range of 40km and a reasonable payload and a choice of terminal seekers. It is double the weight of a Kh-25 but then with 4 weapon pylons carrying 4 lighter weapons with shorter range or 4 heavier weapons with much longer range and heavier payloads I think the choice is clear.

They want to launch their YJ-93's (Kh-31 copy) from submarines and hit things over the horizon their reconnaissance might see and target. Launching them from submarines they will likely have bigger solid fuel stage for more range.

The missiles sold to China were older model Kh-31s and new models with double the range in both the anti ship and anti radar models are now available.

A bigger solid fuel rocket will accelerate the missile to a slightly higher speed initially and perhaps allow it to gain more altitude which would improve range, but adding more fuel to the ramjet sustainer would be much more efficient in extending range.

The newer model Kh-31s are slightly heavier but have double the range.

Think in terms of a cruise missile with a kerosene powered jet engine that needs a solid fuel engine to get moving.

The purpose of the solid fuel rocket is to start it moving... on the ground there is too much drag for its jet engine to get it moving and at zero speed its wings give no lift to help it.

The solid rocket only burns for a few seconds... making it twice the size will increase its speed but will not greatly increase performance except in some cases.

Once the solid fuelled rocket has lifted the missile off the ground it falls away and the large solid fuelled rocket down the centre of the missile ignites and accelerates the missile to a higher speed and altitude to where the ramjet engine can be started. The solid rocket engines burn for less than 15 seconds while the ramjet engine burns for minutes. Adding fuel to the ramjet is a more efficient way to increase range... in the same way that a solid rocket booster to get a heavy transport aircraft airborne from a short strip makes sense, but to double the rocket boosters to try to extend the flight range of the transport aircraft does not make sense. It makes more sense to slightly increase the rocket boosters and use that extra energy to add more fuel to the transport to extend its flight range once airborne.

The SA-19 uses a small slim low drag missile that is launched by a booster. The original booster accelerated the SA-19 to 1,000m/s and then falls away and a small very low power rocket motor on the SA-19 starts up to reduce drag and maintain speed to the target area.

It has a range of about 8-12km depending on the model. The Pantsir-S1 has a larger more powerful rocket motor that accelerates the missile to 1.3km/s which doubles the range of the low drag missile to 20km.

The difference here is that the Kh-31 is not a low drag design rocket and derives most of its range from its ramjet engine. The purpose of the solid fuelled rocket is not to get the Kh-31 to the target, it is to accelerate the weapon to a speed where its ramjet engine can be started from stationary (helos) or slow moving targets (aircraft) operating at relatively low altitude.

Likely before it gets close enough to the ship for SeaRam to shoot at it, explosive charge in warhead "shotgun" fires many many depleted uranium rounds, they continue with extreme speed and rattle tin can ship with holes.

SEA RAM would probably start engaging at 9km which is too far for a shotgun warhead to be effective.

I see that the Russian navy is ready to introduce the naval version of Pantsir-S1 to their new ships and ships for export, so that means 20km range missiles... in fact the news report is here:

The Russian Navy will soon receive a new ship-based gun/missile air defense system, KBP Instrument Design Bureau, the developer of the system, said on Monday.

The system, dubbed Pantsyr-M, has been developed on the basis of the land-based Pantsyr-S1 (SA-22 Greyhound).

"Pantsyr-M will replace the Kortik air defense systems and will be installed on all new classes of Russian combat ships, from corvettes to cruisers," said Alexander Zhukov, a senior KBP official.

Zhukov cited specifications for an export version of Pantsyr-M as the data on the system for the Russian Navy is still classified.

The export Pantsyr-ME version has a response time of 3-5 seconds and can track and destroy simultaneously up to four targets.

Its missiles have a range of 20 kilometers and can hit targets at altitudes from 2 meters to 15 kilometers, while its guns have a range of four kilometers and can hit targets at altitudes up to 3 kilometres.

source: http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110718/165263833.html

Response time is impressive and the ability to take on 4 targets at once is also impressive with the range of 20km and altitude from 2m to 15km makes it a very potent system for small vessels, while for larger vessels it will be even more useful with multiple turrets managed and coordinated with larger longer range systems (radar and missiles).

Kh-37 (3M24E1) - proposed upgrade with 250 km range and a land-attack capability, GPS mid-course guidance and an imaging infrared seeker akin to the Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM). Some sources attribute the name Uran or Bal to this variant

http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Air-Launched-Weapons/Kh-37-Russian-Federation.html

Some sources attribute the name Uran or Bal to this variant

Uran is Kh-35, and Bal is the shore based anti ship battery name for the same missile.

I think they are talking about the extended range updated model, that is sometimes called Uranium and has the designation Kh-35UE.

Here is its webpage:

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/512/563/

Land attack models certainly wouldn't be impossible, and the original weapon was good enough that the Indians bought them without tender or much negotiation.

The thing is that for an air launched land attack missile with optical guidance the Russians already have the Kh-59 and Kh-59M missile systems (AS-13 Kingbolt and AS-18 Kazoo respectively).

Mindstorm wrote:

George1 wrote:What about standoff missiles like new Kh-59MK2?

George for what reason at world Russian Air Force should procure for itself the downgraded export version of its missile -the Kh-59MK2 with range limited within the limits of MTCR - when it has the domestical ,vastly superior, version of this same missile ?
George ,if you allow me to provide a little piece of advice, when you see the letter "K" in a russian weapon denomination don't put never this same weapon in any discussions about Russian Armed Forces,

Which is the domestic version of this missile?

You make a good point Mindstorm, but in some respects it is also not 100% true.

Domestic models of Russian equipment has no range or payload limits... the MTCR limits range to less than 300kms, but it also limits deliverable payload to 500kgs or less.

The domestic Russian models have no such limitation, however until recently orders for any domestic models have been limited by the small number of operational aircraft actually able to carry and operate the new domestic weapons, so the very small batches purchased likely had more in common with export missiles than domestic ones.

A good example is the Mig-29K... the Indians have pretty much paid for its development and production, and the Russian military are going to tack on an order for themselves, though they wont be getting the same aircraft... they will likely fit newer model engines with slightly more thrust (have heard of a 9.5 ton thrust version of the RD-33) and likely other modifications as well.

In terms of missiles like the Kalibr family of missiles the range limitations are software based, so essentially the domestic and foreign missiles are the same, but with the right software patch the range of the land attack missile goes from 280km to 2,000km...

I have also read recently that the new Kh-38 missile with options for IIR, MMW radar, semi active laser homing and GLONASS guidance options and combinations of these which has been reported to have a range of 40km for export as a replacement for the Kh-25 family and the Kh-29 has a range of 80km in the domestic version.

Another example is the RVV-BD with 200km range against an 8g target while the domestic R-37m has a range of 280km against an 8g target.

@George1
A domestic version of the Kh-59MK2 would be the Kh-59M2 or something similar.

The external engine pod would probably prevent the Kh-59M from being used in the internal weapon bay on the Backfire, but it could probably carry two missiles on each of its 4 external weapon points, though max load would probably be 7 as a datalink pod needs to be carried to communicate with the missile as it nears its target.

I would think, in terms of conventional cruise missile attack that something like the Kh-555 would be a better choice... 3,500km range would be useful.

GarryB wrote:
A domestic version of the Kh-59MK2 would be the Kh-59M2 or something similar.

and its range?

and its range?

George1 to the contrary of US military tradition ,culturally linked (in any field) to pompous self-boosting "shows" and claims to maintain public opinion national support and cohesion, Russian military tradition stress enormously on the central importance of information denial ,conflicting information or ,even worse, plain disinformation ,elements refined and perfected ,in the course of more than three decades, up to the point to become even a parts integral and of its military doctrine ,from the high strategic up the lower tactical level.

This enormous difference become self evident when we examine pasted conflicts : for a Russian Generals order the employ an up-to-date and/or potentially crucial weapon system for an eventual war against NATO in a regional conflict against an immensely inferior enemy would be totally unconceivable .
Only to provide a recent example, Russia in the 2008 South Ossetian conflict has destroyed half of Georgian naval unities employing exclusively....P-120 Malakhit !!!... in spite in the same naval group was present units equiped with modern supersonic and subsonic anti-ship missiles, among the 140 MBT used the most modern was 28 T-72BM of the older type with equal number of...T-62 and even some T-55 and that in spite the southern 19th and 20th motorized brigades of 58th Army was equiped with modern T-80UM and T-90A MBT ,not a single precision missile or bomb even close to life expiring (such as first optronic guided KAB bomb family of which Russia has even an excess) has been used and no modern tracking or communication equipment was employed (leaving in this way the hopes of USA analysts, with the USS Mount Whitney ,the most advanced ELINT unit of USA Navy purposely send in the area, shatter against a brick wall ).
The result of those choices has been a victory in less than 5 days ,employing very limited forces at negligible costs and without surrender to western analysts even the shadow of any useful data...or even worse data completely wronged .
The high efficiency of this doctrine ,foreseeing also the export to secondary allies of vastly downgraded specimen designed as a potent mean for conduct completely out of track western military analysts , become evident after Germany reunification when western scientists of the sectors get the chance to test original Soviet versions of T-72B with K-5 , discovering with horror that them was practically impervious to all the anti-tanks weapons present in NATO arsenal at the time and widely used in Desert Storm , or the outstanding capabilities of Krasnopol artillery rounds or the deadly efficiency of the R-73 and HMS on the east Germany Mig-29 or the fearful ECM/ECCM capabilities of the original soviet N019 radar mounted on them .
You can realize why among Russian generals are very common ,still today, jokes on the "Yankees" employing theirs ,at the time, just completed and crucial F-117 and Ah-64 in ...Panama conflict !!!


Returning to your initial question i give to you some hints

the Saturn 39-01E cruise engine power the export version of Novator Klub family of missiles this version is limited to 280-300 Km, the domestic version with increased trust and fuel economy has a range of .....more than 2000 km !!!

The Saturn 36MT cruise engine power the Kh-59M family, the export versions of those missiles have a range up to 285 Km and Jane's Defence say that on the element

The 285 km range figure is likely to be an artificial 'book figure', quoted to keep the Kh-59MK within Class II Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) guidelines (which forbid the export of weapons with a 300 km+ range). Exactly the same range is quoted for the Kh-59MK.

The domestic version with increased trust and fuel economy has about the same trust to weight ratio of engine powering the AGM-158B a slightly better fuel fraction and obviously a not compromised aerodynamics layout "exchanged" for reduced X band radar observability .... "intelligenti pauca".

Mindstorm wrote:

The domestic version with increased trust and fuel economy has about the same trust to weight ratio of engine powering the AGM-158B a slightly better fuel fraction and obviously a not compromised aerodynamics layout "exchanged" for reduced X band radar observability .... "intelligenti pauca".

That means 1000km range...

Keep in mind that a 1,000km range missile will rarely be used against targets 1,000kms from the launch aircraft.

Just like an assault rifle might have iron sights that go to 1,000m but the rifle will spend most of its time set for a 300m or less battle sight range.

Such a weapon as Kh-59M will fly high and low to maximise its flight range and to make it difficult to detect. Over land it might fly dogleg turns around known radar sites or mountain ranges, or strongly defended positions with significant SAM capability...

How does the soviet equivalent of the AGM-65 fare against it? Is it more or less accurate?  Does it have the same destructive power? Can it be an extremely effective tank killer like the maverick and does it have a HEAT version?

The X-25/Kh-25 is a missile in a very similar class to the Maverick and on paper its performance is very similar.

The main difference is that the loiter for long periods behind enemy lines hitting targets of opportunity with an A-10 simply didn't exist for the Soviets/Russians.

The Su-25 is not a tank buster, it is a direct fire support aircraft and most of the time it will engage targets with unguided rockets or bombs rather than any sort of missile.

The standard anti tank weapon of the Su-25 was the RBK-500 cluster bomb with sensor fused anti tank submunitions.

A direct comparison between them is difficult because the TV and IR guided models of the X-25/Kh-25 were not widely deployed, the most common types to see service were called AS-10 and AS-12 by NATO. The AS-7 was briefly used but its command guidance made it a poor choice for most single crew aircraft.

The laser homing Kh-25 (AS-10) and the radar homing Kh-25 (AS-12) were widely deployed and used and their 90kg HE warheads really wouldn't need a shaped charge design to kill a tank... a direct hit and the blast alone would likely kill the crew.

The Maverick was widely deployed in TV and IR guided models, but AFAIK had no anti radiation model that entered widespread service... the only US equivalent of the AS-12 would be Sidearm, the ARM version of Sidewinder.

http://lenta.ru/news/2013/01/16/missile/

So, Izvestia claims Kh-38 passed trials and was accepted in December 2012. This year combat rounds are going to be delivered.

I remember a Russian official saying the Kh-38 has a range of 40km in the export model and 80km in the domestic model.

80km?!?!

I would imagine practical guidance and targeting would become an issue at such ranges.

With a favorable launch profile + proper flight profile it should be feasible physically though.

Su-34 could carry a huge bag of these guys.

I would imagine practical guidance and targeting would become an issue at such ranges.

Based on the descriptions of the export models... ie:

- Kh-38MAE - inertial + active radar guidance;
- Kh-38MKE - inertial + satellite guidance;
- Kh-38MLE - inertial + semiactive laser guidance;
- Kh-38MTE - inertial + thermal-imaging guidance.

There shouldn't be a problem. Targets detected and IDed at 40km should be able to be detected and IDed at 80km.

The active radar guided model can be locked and launched from an Su-34 using its own ground radar to detect the target... whether it is a building or a bridge or a tank.

The satellite guided weapon would simply require the coordinates of the target so 80km is no different from 40km.

SALH means you need a laser to mark the target, but that laser does not have to come from the launch aircraft... assets like UAVs or ground forces near the target can mark it with a laser... the extended range simply means the missile can be launched from a safer distance.

And finally a thermal guidance system wouldn't work from 40km so it wouldn't work directly from 80km either. Clearly the Thermally guided missile has an EO guidance system perhaps like AS-13 or AS-18 that allows the missile to be flown to the target area and transmits an image of the target area back to the launch aircraft where the weapon officer can mark the precise target with a cursor and the missile will be sent target information to engage the target.
The alternative would be for the IIR guided missile to have a range of IR signatures in its memory and it can be launched to look for specific targets. The former would be easier and cheaper to implement and would also be more flexible as you can target what you find.

They will be useful weapons but I still think that for some roles the Kh-25M would be more useful as a smaller and lighter missile with a potent warhead.

Nice to hear the LMFS and other projects are being worked on...

___


Su-34 armed with Kh-38M?

The Kh-38 is to be the multipurpose air to ground weapon for the Russian military... sort of a replacement Kh-25... a bit like Maverick in the US inventory... so yes... I would expect the Su-34 to carry them... and the Su-35... 80km range in the Russian domestic model.

Cyberspec wrote:Nice to hear the LMFS and other projects are being worked on...

___


Su-34 armed with Kh-38M?

Nice to see, they are in service.

Cyberspec wrote:Nice to hear the LMFS and other projects are being worked on...

___


Su-34 armed with Kh-38M?

May I have the link for this Youtube video? It looks interesting.

I've been wondering just how common were they in the MiG-27, Su-17M4 and Su-25 regiments? Did some regiments lack them?

Were LGBs and X-25s widely used for antiinsurgency support in Afghanistan or Chechnya?

In the soviet air force were guided weapons allowed to be fired in exercises ? I've heard that in soviet tank units gun launched ATGMs were extremely expensive(Kobra for example costs as a much as a lada) and were only fired occasionally by officers.

My father was a guardsman of a fighter bomber regiment which had MiG-23BNs and said that the only weapons fired by the aircraft were training dumb bombs, S-5 rockets and occassionaly FAB-100s . Not once were X-23s or any kind of other weapons(gun pods, BetABs, ODABs, S-24s) used in exercises.

Was the soviet air force more generous in using more advanced ordnance in training? Are there enough guided weapons available for the Russian frontline aviation today?

They had an abundance and a serious shortage all at the same time...

For Hind units there were plenty of ATGM for hitting point targets, but the vast majority of ordinance carried by Hinds was 57mm and 80mm unguided rockets and small calibre bombs and of course cannon shells.

For aircraft there were plenty of guided air to air missiles, but not so many guided air to ground weapons.

They certainly had them, but didn't tend to use them in large numbers as most targets they didn't really know exactly where they were so often an air strike with Su-25s using rockets to hit point targets were more common than stand off guided strikes.

They had Kh-25 missiles with laser guidance and anti radar models and they had Kh-58 guided weapons too, but of the main platforms the Su-24 was the most common aircraft to carry guided weapons while the single engined aircraft were retired rapidly at the end of the cold war and the remaining aircraft didn't have the capacity to use most of the guided air to ground weapons.

Now however they are introducing a range of upgraded and new aircraft able to use the new sophisticated guided weapons and so money is now being invested in new guided munitions and the C4IR equipment that actually makes them useful.

Also however the aircraft are getting upgraded avionics to allow dumb weapons to be delivered more effectively.

For instance the new Mi-35N has laser range finders and ballistic computers and stabilised night vision equipment is used so even dumb rockets are rather more accurate that with the older models where range was guessed and the target area obscured with smoke after the first launch.