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

This retarded Western shill Oryx does not seem to know what is a TV guided missile.
Even the Soviets had the Kh-25MT. TV guided missile. Kh-25MTP had IR guidance.

They were not widely used or produced because their weak payload of between 50kg and 90 kg was not that effective against a range of targets.

On the other hand the Kh-29T with its 320kg HE warhead was devastating, and of course the Kh-59 and Kh-59M TV guided standoff range missiles (40km and 120km) with a targeting pod allowing the launch aircraft to fire a missile towards a target area and use the video TV footage from the missile itself to find and lock on targets after launch made it very interesting against a wide range of land and sea targets. Its passive TV guidance would make it an ideal anti ship weapon in good weather conditions.

Krasnopol is essentially a warhead and guidance and steering equipment to glide towards the target... dropping it from an aircraft would just eliminate the massive acceleration being blown down the barrel by burning propellent...

The drone or a drone with it could mark the target so essentially it would be all warhead.

As FP and others point out, it is essentially a laser guided bomb... if the drone flys at above 8km altitude the odds of it being shot down are tiny, but being a guided round its accuracy to hit the target should be very good... if they want to use up BUKS and S-300s to shoot them down that is actually a win for Russia because every missile they waste on drone is a bonus.

The critical thing is that without modification... these things are in mass production already so they are ready to go so all they really need is some attachment or release mechanism to carry on the drone.

A custom designed drone would be interesting that had down the centreline of the fuselage holes in the top you put the rounds point down (they have ballistic caps to protect the optics during handling which are blown off explosively once the round is in flight to the target, but the bottom of the drone could be open with something holding the rounds in place with a servo to release the round to let it fall straight down and perhaps knock the optics cap off so it can see its target and steer to hit it.

Already in mass production and dropped from a height would have quite decent kinetic energy let alone the HE power of the rounds.

The KGMU2 is a cluster bomb munition container that looks like a bomb but it is not dropped by the aircraft normally.

When used normally the bottom section of it opens on command and munitions are released and the munition container stays attached to the aircraft and can be refilled and reused with any combinations of munitions you please.

Perhaps a bomb shaped container could be developed to hold these guided rounds aligned vertically downwards ready for individual release that can be carried on wing pylons on aircraft and drones... having a pod with a dozen rounds would mean you would want to use it on a medium sized drone with decent endurance where it could hit a dozen targets before needing to be rearmed... and they are HE rounds so they would be very effective against troops and buildings and other targets on the battlefield...

Edit: if they want to do this with all their guided artillery rounds then they could use 152mm, 125mm, 122mm, and 120mm as well as 100mm guided rounds...some of which do have built in rocket motors to get them to the target after being barrel launched...

An excellent opportunity to test experimental new and even older weapons against HATO equipment like battlefield radar and air defence systems.

"Product 305" will change the principle of warfare, by Alexander Timokhin for VZGLYAD. 03.03.2023.

The Izdeliye 305 rocket will open up new opportunities for the Russian Aerospace Forces in the NVO zone.

The latest development of the Russian military-industrial complex is able to turn the situation that has developed in the air of the special operation zone. Russian aviation is acting extremely carefully to protect pilots and vehicles from enemy fire. However, the Product 305 - if used correctly - creates new rules for the game on the battlefield. In what way?

The fighting in Ukraine was not easy for the Russian Aerospace Forces. On the one hand, Ukrainian aviation has no chance against Russian aircraft, and the statistics of downed Ukrainian aircraft is quite impressive. On the other hand, it has not yet been possible to completely suppress Ukrainian air defense. This is especially noticeable from the point of view of the work of aviation along the front line of the enemy.

The result of this state of affairs was the method by which the front-line aviation of the Russian Aerospace Forces operates today. These are launches of unguided missiles from a pitch-up. Cabrating is a special maneuver, a kind of jump that a pilot makes to strike at a target. It provides greater security from enemy air defenses.

However, this method has problems. Firstly, it still does not guarantee complete security from air defense. And secondly, such launches, to put it mildly, are inaccurate. There are too many factors to consider in order to put such a volley exactly on the target.

But in a curious way, the same Russian Aerospace Forces have already tested weapons during the NWO, which can become our future means of working along the front line, and very accurate and powerful, with which you can safely work on the enemy on the line of contact (LBS). The problem of working on point targets on the battlefield completely solves. What is it about?

"Product 305" and air support

Let's formulate the task: you need to hit the target on the battlefield, but without flying up to the line of contact. Is there a weapon in the arsenal of the RF Armed Forces that can be used against targets moving across the battlefield, seeing their progress, controlling the means of destruction to prevent a miss, and at the same time keeping the weapon carrier at a safe distance from the front line? Yes, there are such weapons.

"Product 305", known as LMUR, is a light multi-purpose guided missile. A product that (if its price is kept within acceptable limits) can become a real hit on the battlefield.

LMUR - a rocket weighing 105 kg, carrying a fairly heavy warhead - 25 kg. Being retrofitted with special suspension units, it can be used by Ka-52 and Mi-28 helicopters. Also, several Mi-8 special-purpose helicopters were built for the FSB, capable of using an early version of this weapon.

The missile’s range of 14.5 kilometers, as well as a very small loss of altitude when launched from a carrier, makes it possible to use it from a distance at which portable anti-aircraft missile systems, machine guns and small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery cannot reach it in range, and full-fledged anti-aircraft missile systems will be very it is difficult to detect an aircraft flying at an ultra-low altitude.

The combat use of this missile since 2022 in Ukraine confirms this. The use of LMUR (at least, as far as can be judged from open sources) was safe for carriers - our helicopters.

Was it effective? Yes, it is quite. The combat unit of the LMUR was quite enough to destroy any armored vehicle up to the tank and to destroy small buildings. Several missiles were used to destroy large objects. Some of the shortcomings of this rocket completely cover its main advantage - it can be controlled by the operator from the carrier in flight, like a drone, just a disposable one. And this gives our troops new opportunities.

All helicopter anti-tank guided missiles and many aircraft air-to-surface guided missiles require the aircraft crew to first locate the target. And for this you need to be in line of sight with her. This allows enemy air defense systems to at least detect the carrier, as a maximum - if the range allows - to open fire on it.

For a long time, the only missile that could be launched from an aircraft from outside the air defense zone, and then manually guided from its side, was the Kh-59 guided missile and a number of its modifications. But these are large and expensive missiles carried by the Su-24M front-line bomber and a number of other heavy aircraft. You can't use such a missile against a tank. It can only be spent on a serious purpose that justifies its cost.

LMUR is a missile that can be used against a tank, but at the same time it gives the carrier the opportunity not to be in the line of sight with the target, remaining invisible behind the terrain at low altitude. If the position of the target, even a moving one, is approximately known, then the operator will find it through the missile lens and accurately point it, without even approaching the enemy.

And this raises an interesting question. Why are our combat helicopters so "cool"? The same Ka-52 has powerful armor, ejection seats, and many more complex systems that it needs. What is this all for?

For survival. Everything that is possible will shoot at the helicopter. Anti-aircraft missiles will be launched at him, anti-aircraft shells will burst in the air next to him ... if he works with his usual weapons - anti-tank and unguided rockets and guns. And LMUR takes him out from under fire. With this missile, he will operate from a relatively safe distance from fire from the ground.

And this, in turn, means a sharp decrease in the requirements for the carrier - now the Mi-8 also has sufficient security, or even some hypothetical, now defunct light aircraft. What difference does it make if you have armor or not if they don't shoot at you?

This should not be understood as a call to abandon full-fledged attack helicopters in favor of something else. But LMUR as a weapon gives Russia the opportunity to dramatically increase the number of strike units in aviation. And they will not risk under the fire of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, they simply have nothing else to do under this fire.

You can put the control post directly in the cargo compartment of the Mi-8 and use these missiles from it. You can use them even with the An-2, if pressed. Again, this is not a recommendation, but simply a demonstration of the versatility of the weapon created. But one issue must be resolved, which, to tell the truth, has long been overripe.

UAV for strike aircraft

As mentioned above, if the operator knows approximately where the target is, then he will find it through the "head" of the rocket after launch. But if the accuracy of information about the target is insufficient? Then it simply will not fall into the field of view of a missile moving along the course, and it cannot maneuver like a winged drone.

Since we are arming the aircraft with a missile that allows us to strike from afar, then we will have to share the strike weapon with the reconnaissance one. This means moving the “eyes” of an attack helicopter or aircraft forward, towards the enemy, to a place where our attack vehicle not only does not exist, but will never exist. Today, this can only be done with the help of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Moreover, the expensive, heavy and complex "Orion" is not at all necessary, something like "Orlan-10" is enough.

"Orlan-10" cannot perform a joint flight with a helicopter or aircraft. But this is not necessary. Where there is enemy activity, forward air controllers (PAN) should operate. The latter may well, on command from an attack helicopter or aircraft, lift something like the Orlan into the air.

And here we need that technical possibility, which is not difficult to implement, but which has not yet been implemented. The control of the UAV after takeoff must be transferred to the attack manned aircraft, from which the LMUR is launched.

Then everything is simple. The pilots themselves conduct additional reconnaissance, starting from what they managed to find from the drone, use LMUR, record the results of the strike, and then return control of the drone to the ground group. All without approaching the line of contact. Almost no risk. And hitting targets with their missiles is extremely accurate.

These things should be started right away. All the equipment for this is not only at the disposal of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, but has already been tested in battles, and there are weapons and aircraft. You just have to bring these things together. And then it turns out that no matter how much our country can produce expensive attack helicopters, the number of attacking units in the air can be increased many times over in a matter of months. For very little money. And losses, on the contrary, to reduce. If only there were enough of these missiles, which are not simple in design, the production of which must be increased as quickly as possible.

The only task that such a missile cannot solve near the LBS is the defeat of dispersed infantry. But for this there are other solutions that are quite effective. But everything that can be attributed to point targets, including mobile units such as tanks and self-propelled guns, can be destroyed very effectively in this way. It's time to take advantage of these opportunities.

https://vz.ru/society/2023/3/3/1201256.html

Armour and self protection equipment are always needed for platforms operating in a war zone because they only have to surprise you once to kill you.

And interestingly reading all that they say why not An-2/Baikal... I would ask why not an armoured vehicle...



Perhaps a pairing of one vehicle with missiles and one vehicle with drones and missiles... you wouldn't need a vehicle with 15 missiles and a vehicle with 15 drones because the drones are reusable and recoverable, so maybe a unit of 6 vehicles with 12 missiles each and two drones each... that would be 72 missiles and 12 drones per squad... maybe with a couple of Terminators for self defence and support against ground and air targets.

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...

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.