Can the Russian army do without bomber aircraft?

October 6 2023 24

One of the most serious problems faced by the Russian army during the special operation is the inability to fully dominate the skies over Ukraine, which is hampered by a huge number of foreign-made MANPADS, as well as air defense systems in service with the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The use of gliding bombs by the Russian Aerospace Forces seems to be a rational solution, but is it possible to somehow radically increase the scale of their use?

"Bandwidth"

We will talk in detail about what gliding bombs are and how important they are for domestic aviation. told previously. The author of the lines is aware of the development of the UPAB-50S glide bomb for use with Orion-type drones, as well as UPAB of 250, 500 and 1500 kg caliber for manned aircraft. How effective the use of one and a half ton aerial bombs gliding towards a target on wings with a correction module can be can be judged from the report of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, given just the day before.

It is reported that with the help of such a modified FAB-1500 ammunition, the headquarters of a separate tactical group of the Armed Forces of Ukraine “Soledar”, which was located in the area of the village of Aleksandro-Kalinovo, was completely destroyed. Minus fifty “two hundredths” and the same number of “three hundredths”, everything that was within a radius of one hundred meters from the epicenter, including armored vehicles, was destroyed. At the same time, a one and a half ton aerial bomb equipped with a UMPC is several times cheaper than a hypersonic “Dagger”. It would seem that this is it - an almost ideal weapon against Ukrainian fortified areas and infrastructure such as bridges and railway stations!

However, there is one caveat. Now blocked on the territory of the Russian Federation, the Ukrainian specialized publication Defense Express, which is considered the mouthpiece of Western intelligence services, expressing deep concern about the appearance of Russian planning aerial bombs, reassures readers that they do not have enough carriers for truly massive use:

We can make the assumption that it seems that the main factor that limits the Russians from using winged bombs with a UPMK module for attacks on Ukraine is only the number of “aircraft” and crews of tactical aviation capable of performing such tasks. The 25 Russian tactical aviation aircraft involved (for strikes with precision-guided munitions) are actually not that many, given the fact that the Russian Aerospace Forces at the front may have more than 100 Su-34 aircraft and more than 100 Su-35 units.

At the same time, we note that the enemy considers 250-kilogram ammunition even more dangerous than 500-kilogram ammunition due to its greater flight range and the quantity that can be dropped in one combat mission:

The appearance of such 250-kg aerial bombs, which can glide at a range of up to 80 km, is even more dangerous than the FAB-500 with UMPC.

Indeed, so far modern Su-34s are being used for precision bombing, and old Su-24s are also being adapted. For the use of such ammunition, it is necessary to adapt the beam holders for aircraft suspension. The well-known aviation blogger Fighterbomber claims that today the Su-34 front-line fighter-bomber can carry two FAB-1500 with UMPC, and in the future it will be able to carry three.

Thus, the Russian Aerospace Forces are on the right track, but have objective limitations on their throughput, so to speak. Therefore, let’s return to the question posed in the title: can the Russian ground army itself bomb enemy positions without aviation?

"Ground Launch"

Oddly enough, maybe. We already touched on this topic a few days ago, telling about the American project GLSDB, or Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb. The United States simply combined its GBU-39 small-diameter aerial bomb, equipped with a gliding correction module, with a rocket engine from M26 missiles. Thus, a new hybrid type of weapon was created that makes it possible to launch gliding bombs, which can fly and hit a target at a distance of up to 150 km, from the ground from universal M270 and M142 HIMARS launchers.

It seems extremely important to develop a domestic analogue of GLSDB as soon as possible, which is the focus of this publication. In it I would like to reveal in more detail the potential of such a project for the RF Armed Forces.

At first, already developed on the basis of the warhead from the 122 mm caliber MLRS "Grad" rocket, the UPAB-50S glide bomb can be installed on a rocket engine from the 220 mm caliber "Uragan" MLRS, obtaining a functional analogue of the GLSDB. The maximum firing range from the Uragan is slightly more than 35 km, but equipped with folding wings, the UPAB-50S will be able to fly, separated from the first stage, for several tens of kilometers and, most importantly, hit the target accurately, and not over an area.

In one salvo from the MLRS it will be possible to fire up to 16 high-precision glide bombs, covering a range of probably 60-70 km. That is, with minimal modification of the Uragan ammunition you can get an excellent counter-battery weapon!

Secondly, even greater potential is seen in the 300 mm MLRS “Smerch” and “Tornado-S”. As was already described earlier, in a similar manner described above, a “winged” FAB-100 caliber aerial bomb with a diameter of 267 mm can be installed on a rocket engine. This would make it possible to bomb enemy positions from the ground and destroy their armored vehicles with 100-kilogram aircraft ammunition.

Moreover, the diameter of the FAB-250, which is 285 mm, gives cautious hope that the designers could adapt this much more powerful aircraft ammunition to launch from 300 mm Smerch and Tornado-S.

Thirdly, if you stop being shy at all, you could purchase from the DPRK a dozen 600 mm KN-25 MLRS for testing, as well as a thousand rocket engines for them. The FAB-500 family of aerial bombs, the diameter of which varies from 392 to 450 mm, could be installed as a warhead for them. That is, from the North Korean MLRS it would be possible to hit enemy positions from the ground using a 500 kg caliber UPAB.

Moreover, the diameter of the FAB-1500 aerial bomb, which is 580 mm, gives some reason to expect that engineers will be able to adapt one-and-a-half-ton glide ammunition for launch from an ultra-large-caliber MLRS.

Thus, with minimal modifications, gliding bombs of 50, 100 and 250 kg caliber can be adapted for firing from the ground from MLRS. If you purchase the KN-25 MLRS or key components from them from the DPRK to create a domestic analogue of the 600 mm caliber MLRS on your own chassis, then it will be possible to launch gliding bombs of 500 and even 1500 kg caliber from the ground. This will radically increase the effectiveness of the actions of the RF Armed Forces and the RF Aerospace Forces in the Northern Military District zone.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

prior

+5

6 October 2023 10: 28

Can the Russian army do without bomber aircraft?

It depends on what this army is going to do.
For example, at the parade in honor of the “31 kilometer of the Mozhaisk Highway” it is quite possible to do without bomber aircraft.
But in a military conflict you can’t do without it.
The presence of enemy air defense systems does not determine the need for bomber aircraft, but only raises the question of the need for effective means of destroying enemy air defense.
sannyhome

+5

6 October 2023 10: 41

Can the Russian army do without bomber aircraft?

The entire article can be summed up in one phrase - No army can if it wants to win.
Pembo

-1

6 October 2023 11: 25

Control and correction modules are quite expensive. In addition, the aircraft launches a glide bomb from a high altitude and at aircraft speed. When launching from the ground, the acceleration due to gravity must be subtracted from the acceleration thrust of the rocket engine. The flight range of a glide munition is proportional to the launch speed, flight altitude and aerodynamic quality. Trying to gain altitude we will lose speed. The idea of reducing the cost and increasing the power of warheads and cheaply launching a glide bomb with a jet engine from a Smerch missile, from an MLRS installation, looks tempting, but this is apparently a technical utopia. It is easier to develop a Smerch glide projectile with a UMPC with an increase in warhead, but miracles do not happen; attaching a wing to it will not radically increase the mass of the warhead. Or you will have to pay for it with range.
1. Adm Hts
  
  0
  
  7 October 2023 20: 37
  
  Stop pretending to be smart...
  Everything before you has not only been calculated, but done - pin to sy, since 2006, they have armed themselves and natu with similar systems...
  They are going to give the Ukrainians...
  And only our brains are fuming - we need to calculate...
  Chatterboxes ...
  The trick is what needs to be done here, but the world-eaters are not happy with this - you can’t save money...
Vladimir Tuzakov

+2

6 October 2023 11: 26

Introduction. At the Northern Military District, the use of aviation as an accelerating means of aircraft weapons was revealed, this is the “Dagger”, gliding bombs, etc. According to the article, when specialized weapons are not created, you have to dodge by means of footwork, this is about the use of FAB, attaching a wing. The whole question is why the Russian Armed Forces still do not have modern specialized long-range aviation glide vehicles, like the United States, because these are not new products for a long time. This is a question for the RF Ministry of Defense, why there were no orders and no production, because the money was allocated for new weapons. (perhaps personal needs were more important). The strategy and weapons are bad, it cannot be otherwise when there are not professionals in the main positions, because it is possible to remain incompetent only when surrounded by hangers-on, which is what we see in the Northern Military District. Conclusion: in the absence of proper weapons, any craft will do...
sgrabik

+1

6 October 2023 11: 37

One does not exclude the other, we really need modern fighter and bomber aircraft, we need to have many times more modern aircraft than now and the SVO clearly proves this, at the same time this does not exclude the development of new types of weapons and methods of using them if we have modifications adjustable glide munitions that can be launched from ground-based launchers, this will only expand and complement the possibility and effectiveness of their combat use.
svoroponov

0

6 October 2023 13: 48

As a former pilot, I can directly say that there are no particular problems with domination. There are certain risks as in any other conflict. The management just wants to exclude them too. Tasks are determined by reconnaissance, target designation and flight time for execution. Well, and the presence of air defense in the area. And if the front line doesn’t seem to have any special problems, then in the rear there are problems with reconnaissance, approach time and target designation. Much air defense is simply not covered due to the lack of this air defense. The raising of their air force is carried out individually, for a short time, to launch something, and even then this is a one-way takeoff.
It’s not worth just plowing up areas, just like simply leveling cities and villages to the ground. In addition, there is also the problem of the number of aviation - to complete the task, you need a detachment of forces that are not subordinate to the command at the moment, and attracting additional forces takes time, and the moment of striking may be missed.
It is easier to target the rear areas and targets scouted there with missiles and drones.
One Ukrainian woman who works for us and was on vacation told how she saw an attack by two drones. They buzzed over the house one by one and blew something up. After 10-15 minutes, sirens began to buzz and they started shooting into the sky. At the same time, one of the bursts hit the windows of the 5th floor of a high-rise building opposite her house, from an armored vehicle that was parked in the courtyard on the playground.
DO

+2

6 October 2023 15: 44

a new hybrid type of weapon that allows you to launch glide bombs

Lancets have proven themselves to be excellent weapons in counter-battery warfare. The problem is their insufficient range.
The range of Lancets can be increased by launching them both from an aircraft carrier and through MLRS. In the MLRS projectile, the standard warhead can be replaced with the latest version of the Lancet with folding wings.
1. sgrabik
  
  +2
  
  6 October 2023 15: 56
  
  It would also do well to increase the lancets and warhead, from the current 3 kg to at least 5 - 6 kg.
  1. DO
    
    0
    
    6 October 2023 19: 00
    
    Well, they’ve already increased it to 5 kg.
2. JD1979
  
  -1
  
  7 October 2023 14: 44
  
  Quote: DO
  The problem is their insufficient range.
  
  Which can be determined by the communication range. Preliminary launch of repeaters is required.
  But the problem with launching a lancet from an MLRS launcher may be a design weakness to overloads. It seems to me that it was not designed for such acceleration from the very beginning.
  1. DO
    
    +1
    
    7 October 2023 16: 55
    
    Which can be determined by the communication range. Preliminary launch of repeaters is required.
    
    There is an alternative to operator control. According to the chief designer of the Lancets, their latest version can find and attack targets autonomously, without operator participation.
    
    But the problem of launching a lancet from an MLRS launcher may be a design weakness to overloads.
    
    Back in the USSR, electronic devices were produced that were fired from a cannon. But a cannon projectile has significantly greater overloads when fired than a MLRS projectile, which accelerates to maximum speed over a period many times longer. In any case, this issue will, in principle, be resolved by the developers.
lord-palladore-11045

+2

6 October 2023 23: 14

So that the Armed Forces of Ukraine did not have air defense systems and MANPADS, it was necessary to bomb transport hubs, bridges, roads, and airfields from the very beginning. And now they realized it too late - apparently one gyrus in the general’s brains is still not enough.
1. In passing
  
  0
  
  22 October 2023 17: 22
  
  So the shoulder straps are hopeless... it takes its toll.
TsarBomba

0

7 October 2023 03: 35

en plus des planantes il faudrait des "chiens robots" parachutés ou déposés au sol et capable de se rapprocher au sol donc de la cible et tout seul. d'ailleurs, il me semble que l'OTAN charge un robot à la place de l'ogive explosive dans certain gros missile et simule un écrasement suite à une guerre électronique par exemple mais en vrai dépose une ogive robotisée autonome en manoeuvre sur le sol . tout seul sur 50 km si il faut et ça existerait en format sous terre en tunnelier donc le missile ou le bateau hélicoptère etc ne servent qu'a déposer un robot kamikaze voir un robot saboteur. comment couper les câbles marins de l'occident de manière efficace? lacher des torpilles furtives autonomes qui des qu'elles trouvent des câbles de petits bras sortent avec une pince coupante....
E NOT

-1

7 October 2023 07: 31

The “experts” complained, passing off their reluctance as an inability to destroy the bridges and tunnel, saying that there was not enough power, that the damage would be insignificant and that they would be repaired immediately. But no, it turns out, if

everything that was within a radius of one hundred meters from the epicenter, including armored vehicles, was destroyed.

We would have already decided on the vector of nonsense.
Elena123

+1

7 October 2023 11: 13

Of course, it can, provided that you don’t have to fly further than 1000 km.
Quite a huge production of heavy military reconnaissance UAVs, carrying a large number of good and powerful bombs, controlled UAVs are a very terrible force, and save the human resources of the army. Such ships should also be produced unmanned and capable of launching missiles.
JD1979

-3

7 October 2023 14: 34

The author has problems again, this time with geometry and spatial thinking. Before writing nonsense about stuffing FAB-100, and even more so FAB-250, into the guides from Smerch, I advise you to take a banal compass, a piece of paper and draw circles of 300mm and 267mm and 285mm inside them, and try to understand where in those 15mm gaps they will fit the folding mechanism and the wings themselves. It feels like they pulled snippets of text from different places, but forgot to read and understand what was written there. Because behind the idea, sound from the point of view of logic and, most importantly, physical parameters, to assemble an analogue of the GLSB from a combination of the warhead of the Grad projectile and the upper stage of the Hurricane projectile, where 122mm fits into 220mm, there is something incomprehensible about pushing classic FABs into the pipe.
Listen... Isn’t it because))) that you just SMASHED this idea? Without any understanding, because they couldn’t develop it further. And I’ll even tell you where:

Somehow you have wandered somewhere wrong. GLSDB is launched from a standard block of guides and they did not create any new PUs. Why then do we need it? It is necessary to make a warhead with wings so that it fits into a standard 220 or 300mm tube + standard accelerator. I think the 220 caliber can accommodate a 122mm warhead with Grad wings. And there will be a minimum of alterations only to make a docking unit and a planning module.

Do you know what this is? This is MY comment under your PAST publication))) “Can Russia create its own analogue of the American ground-based aerial bomb GLSDB” dated October 4, 2023)))
I was just too lazy to write an obvious continuation about the Uragan 220mm warhead based on the Smerch 300mm accelerator))) And the mass of explosives there is just about 100 kg, and not 45 kg as in a completely non-aerodynamic product called FAB-100.
1. Beidodir
  
  0
  
  7 October 2023 15: 38
  
  Isn’t it because))) that you just SMASHED this idea? Without any understanding, because they couldn’t develop it further. And I’ll even tell you where:
  Somehow you have wandered somewhere wrong. GLSDB is launched from a standard block of guides and they did not create any new PUs. Why then do we need it? It is necessary to make a warhead with wings so that it fits into a standard 220 or 300mm tube + standard accelerator. I think the 220 caliber can accommodate a 122mm warhead with Grad wings. And there will be a minimum of alterations only to make a docking unit and a planning module.
  Do you know what this is? This is MY comment under your PAST publication))) “Can Russia create its own analogue of the American ground-based aerial bomb GLSDB” dated October 4, 2023)))
  I was just too lazy to write an obvious continuation about the Uragan 220mm warhead based on the Smerch 300mm accelerator))) And the mass of explosives there is just about 100 kg, and not 45 kg as in a completely non-aerodynamic product called FAB-100.
  
  Yes, the author is still a thief of ideas. It's stolen from you.
  True, you stole it from him first, judging by the chronology:
  https://topcor.ru/39936-mozhet-li-rossija-sozdat-svoj-analog-amerikanskoj-nazemnoj-aviabomby-glsdb.html
  
  The idea that I would like to voice to a wide audience is to create a Russian analogue of the GLSDB by combining a jet engine from a rocket for a Smerch or Tornado-S MLRS and a 100-kilogram bomb equipped with drop-down wings with a gliding correction module. By analogy with the M270 and M142 HIMARS, the MLRS will have to act as a ground launcher, the rocket engine as the first stage, throwing the bomb to its maximum height and range, and then it will rush to the target in gliding mode.
  Such a technical solution would make it possible to significantly increase the range of domestic MLRS and allow the Ground Forces to begin using 100-kilogram bombs without involving aviation. If you increase the amount of fuel in a rocket engine, the destruction range will also increase.
  
  Adjust your crown
  
  a completely non-aerodynamic product called FAB-100.
  
  Yes, the aerodynamics of a bomb are like a brick, for sure.
  1. JD1979
    
    -1
    
    7 October 2023 16: 20
    
    Quote: Beydodyr
    Adjust your crown
    
    I couldn’t figure out the meaning of the text, maybe reading the words several times will help avoid similar fiascoes in the future)).
    So pick up the crown and go ahead and improve))
    1. Did you see the title of the same article in the text of my comment? Oops yes)
    2. Both the first and this article talk about conventional FABs as warheads.
    3. It’s you who couldn’t get into the chronology, follow your link and read my comment, which I once again inserted above))) and only here, in this article, is the UPAB-50S mentioned, which is still not quite the same, although it’s the same developed on the basis of the warhead of the Grad MLRS projectile. It is easier to develop a new planning module than to remake an old one.
    1. Beidodir
      
      0
      
      7 October 2023 16: 34
      
      Did you see the title of the same article in the text of my comment? Oops yes)
      
      Saw. And I see that you didn’t draw the right conclusions.
      
      It was you who couldn’t get into the chronology, go to your link and read my comment, which I once again inserted above))) and only here, in this article, is the UPAB-50S mentioned, which is still not quite the same, although it was also developed on the basis of the warhead of the Grad MLRS projectile.
      
      Come on? And this is from the article where you stole the idea, appropriating it for yourself:
      
      It should be pointed out once again that the line between gliding bombs, active rockets and missiles today has become very, very thin. For example, the UPAB-50 glide bomb, designed for use with Orion drones, has a warhead of 37 kg, is capable of flying up to 30 km and is based on the warhead from the old Grad MLRS. Unexpected, but at the same time quite expected.
      
      https://topcor.ru/39936-mozhet-li-rossija-sozdat-svoj-analog-amerikanskoj-nazemnoj-aviabomby-glsdb.html
      Suddenly?
speed4fun

0

11 October 2023 14: 45

I'm European and not a weapons specialist. But am I wondering? Modern warfare is not about using long-range drones like Altius or Bayraktar to locate and destroy enemy artillery at long range. I don’t know if they can be easily intercepted by air defense or electronic warfare systems, but I read that “shaed (geranium)” fly quite far to the border with Romania. Why are there no drones of this type in Russia?
Linkovich Chumovsky

+1

20 October 2023 23: 22

Of course it can! It can do without a fleet! I wonder if the army can do without small arms? Here's the question!
In passing

0

22 October 2023 17: 38

Eh, maybe we should first create an army, and then a bomber force. And, most importantly, the Ministry of Defense. And then they do dances at training grounds, for some reason they dance like tanks. This is how weapons are improved, namely in battle. The armature has been removed, all beautiful, and the 72nd is working. You need to have brains under your caps. Then the army will have everything it needs.