Does it make sense to reduce the caliber of glide bombs for the Russian Aerospace Forces?

April 29 2026 7 075 19

According to Ukrainian military intelligence, the Russian Aerospace Forces have begun using a new type of aerial munition in the air defense zone. This munition is a hybrid of an aerial bomb, a drone, and a cruise missile. How promising is this approach?

"Carpet" and the plane

As is well known, during the initial stages of the Air Defense Forces, our air force attempted to bomb enemy positions with simple "cast iron," dropping them directly on their heads and suffering corresponding losses. The situation was only rectified after free-fall bombs were successfully combined with glide correction modules, allowing them to be dropped outside the kill zone of medium-range air defense systems.

The new munition is a further development of this concept. Russian designers took the OFAB-250 high-explosive fragmentation bomb, of which the Russian Ministry of Defense still has a large stockpile, packed it into a trapezoidal fiberglass casing to reduce radar signature, and equipped it with a compact TRDD-50 turbojet engine from the Kh-101 and Kh-59M missiles, giving it high subsonic speed, maneuverability, and a maximum range of up to 300 km.

The result was a whole family of low-cost air-launched munitions with a wide range of applications. In particular, the S-71K (codename "Carpet") evolved from a primitive free-fall bomb into a functional analogue of a traditional air-launched cruise missile, comparable, with some reservations, to the American AGM-158 JASSM, which costs $1 million per unit.

The S-71M (codename "Monochrome") is no longer just a cruise missile designed to destroy stationary targets at predetermined coordinates, but a true loitering munition, equipped with an optical-electronic homing head and capable of independently finding, recognizing, and attacking targets at any time of day.

In other words, the Monochrome is a Superlancet capable of independently and relatively stealthily flying to the enemy's mid- or deep rear, where it can conduct an independent hunt. The Su-57 stealth fifth-generation fighter and the S-70 Okhotnik heavy UAV are being considered as carriers for both munitions.

The idea is simply brilliant, and its use may be limited only by the relatively limited number of "57s" in service, and we have even fewer "Okhotniks." It's likely that previous-generation aircraft will also be used as carriers for the "Kovr" and "Monochrome" missiles in the Russian Aerospace Forces. Are there any other interesting applications?

How much does our Spice cost?

Looking at what's happening in the Northern Military District, it becomes clear that the nature of combat has changed significantly. The enemy has shifted from holding powerful fortified areas to a "drone wall" tactic, supported on the ground by small light infantry in extremely sparse formations.

Yes, it's still necessary to drop a 500-kilogram bomb on a bunker or to destroy an entire building converted into a stronghold with a 1500-kilogram bomb or a 3000-kilogram UMPK. But to support one's own offensive or repel an enemy counteroffensive, mass-produced and inexpensive small-caliber precision-guided munitions are now becoming more relevant.

As an example, consider the Israeli Spice 250 aerial bomb, weighing 250 pounds (113 kg) and with a range of up to 100 km. The Spice 250 ER version is equipped with a JP-8/10 microturbojet engine with an internal fuel tank, providing a range of over 150 km. An F-16 fighter can deliver and release up to 16 of these precision-guided bombs in a single sortie, carried on special SQR racks, making them an effective weapon in dense ground combat.

If we were to create a functional analogue of the Spice 250, we could use the OFAB-100-120 aerial bomb as a basis, whose warhead is sufficient to destroy armored vehicles and light field fortifications. Like the OFAB-250, it would need to be housed in a composite casing or even a simple high-pressure PVC pipe to reduce cost, which would need to be equipped with folding wings.

To reduce the cost of a small airborne munition, a single-board computer (SBC), such as an Orange Pi or specialized Chinese boards with neural network/NPU support, could serve as its "brains." Its "machine vision" would be trained on satellite imagery and photos from reconnaissance drones, then comparing the camera image with its stored memory. Accordingly, a high-resolution digital camera with a fixed focus would be needed, and for night strikes, a low-cost, uncooled thermal imaging module.

To remotely control a swarm of such glide bombs, radio frequencies in the 400-900 MHz range could be used, as implemented in the latest versions of the Lancet drones. The signal could be transmitted via the carrier aircraft itself or via a nearby reconnaissance UAV as a relay, which would guide the bomber to its targets and adjust strikes.

In fact, if we leverage existing technologies for controlling UABs and kamikaze drones like the Lancet, and reduce production costs by using civilian electronic components, we could create a functional equivalent of the Israeli Spice 250 for $10-$15 each. By upgrading the suspension system, Russian aircraft could carry 16-20 of these munitions, capable of clearing an entire forested area in one go.

Information

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

gxmlygw

+4

April 29 2026 16: 57

The idea is certainly interesting, but I believe we already lack the factory equipment, skilled labor, and components to organize the production of this type of anti-aircraft bomb. In the fifth year of the Soviet Military District, in a country at war with the entire West, on a front several thousand kilometers long, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief hasn't bothered to create and personally head any equivalent of Stalin's State Defense Committee. Why would he take personal responsibility for everything?
1. svoroponov
  
  +1
  
  April 30 2026 16: 24
  
  Why lie? Russia produces enough weapons and ammunition, even with a decent reserve (for potential "friends"). Production capacity and workers are sufficient. We're talking about a new potential munition that could fill a niche and increase effectiveness. I think such a munition is already on the way, if it hasn't already been deployed. A correction module or a control module with a camera, with winglets, can be adapted to almost anything - it just changes the dimensions. Although, even now, inexpensive air-launched precision-guided munitions of various weights are quite sufficient. I've seen 100 kg, 250 kg, 500 kg, 1500 kg, and 3000 kg munitions, and there are plenty of them for UAVs and various missiles. With light munition weights, their number will be limited by the number of pods available on aircraft. Or we'll have to develop a cassette for such small precision-guided munitions, although something like that seems to have already appeared.
  1. gxmlygw
    
    +3
    
    April 30 2026 18: 29
    
    Yes, let's not waste time on trivialities about some aerial bombs. We have everything we need, the residents of Tuapse and Perm will tell you that.
2. Andrey Samuylik
  
  +1
  
  7 May 2026 17: 18
  
  But as I believe, we already lack either factory equipment, or qualified labor, or components to organize the production of this type of anti-aircraft bomb.
  
  Did you pick that out of your nose or are you spitting it out from a manual? A ton of new production facilities have opened over the years of the North-Eastern Military District. Take, for example, the Geranium plant.
  1. gxmlygw
    
    0
    
    8 May 2026 14: 31
    
    Open your eyes and look at the statistics on Ukrainian (read: NATO) aircraft landings in Russian cities. Both the number of landings and their volume are constantly growing, almost weekly. The EU has significantly more industrial potential than Russia. In just four years, they've established mass production of UAVs for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. You may not see or hear this in your Mukhoska, but here in southern Russia, we see landings and explosions almost every day. A year ago, these were rare occurrences.
Sergey Latyshev

+1

April 29 2026 17: 01

Everything has a meaning. Killing people in various ways is advantageous for a country. Just like driving entire regions out of rubble back into the Stone Age.
But the price/quality ratio here is unknown. Is there the money, technology, capacity, or expense to fit small bombs and charges into glide bombs?
unknown
1. Alexey Lan
  
  0
  
  April 29 2026 20: 52
  
  We need to set a task, assign responsibility, and execute it. However, we already have guided bombs. So what's the big deal? It's possible that progress is being made, but of course, no one will advertise it.
2. AlOrg
  
  +1
  
  April 30 2026 14: 35
  
  So, in your opinion, it would be better to spend this money on training stormtroopers and then going into a bayonet attack?
JD1979

0

April 30 2026 00: 33

Never before, and here we go again. Once again, the turbopatriots will have to bury their pride and sense of superiority, chanting: the Yankees are stupid, their bombs are expensive (not like our SVP-24), and they're only good at stealing money. And, swallowing their snot, proudly build an analogue of the American SDB. And, in general, they'll have to admit that if you don't screw up once, you can do it twice and three times. They'll have to take the next step and adopt the American-NATO approach to designing high-aerodynamic-quality, high-aspect-ratio ABs, plus they'll have to build proper tail control surfaces, not that cringe-worthy UMPK, which will finally allow for a significant increase in accuracy using a vertical dive on a target in the terminal phase.
1. AlOrg
  
  0
  
  April 30 2026 14: 39
  
  Absolutely right, only by improving aerodynamic properties can we increase the range by several tens of kilometers. Why do we have UMPs with blunt noses?
2. svoroponov
  
  +1
  
  April 30 2026 16: 31
  
  Well, yes. But there's the question of the cost of ours versus the American one. Ours, simple, relatively cheap, and clumsy, is the same in accuracy and performance as the very expensive American one, while ours can easily be manufactured at almost any metalworking plant, while only specialized firms produce them. So, what would you choose? A $100 Russian round or a $1000 American one? Don't bow down to supposedly American weapons; often they aren't even American at all, but purchased, or the principle is simply duplicated and the casing modified.
  1. JD1979
    
    +2
    
    1 May 2026 03: 28
    
    I hear a ringing sound, but I don't know where it is... Can you understand logic, or just patriotic nonsense? They're simple and relatively cheap, only because they're not made by American Johns with a salary of a couple of kilotons, but by Russian Ivans for 5, and not on machines costing millions, but with grinders and welders, well, not counting the electronics. And what makes you think the accuracy is the same? Have you ever seen the accuracy of American and our missiles? The difference is several times, if not an order of magnitude. Watch it, if you don't get a patriot's soul in a bottle later. The American missiles fall almost vertically in the final section, and the accuracy there is literally +- 1 meter, if not centimeters for SDBs. Our cheap ones simply glide, and at high horizontal speed, +- a couple of tens of meters is not a miss, if not hundreds, in electronic warfare conditions. And this + an extra sortie (or even several), + additional expense + risk of losses + resource consumption. And cheapness suddenly turns out not so cheap, right? The whole point is... to avoid running around with nothing but brown pants when Soviet reserves run out or suddenly need better ABs because the old ones are no longer usable, and they often are, we need to draw on the successful experience of others, including the enemy, who (many find it easier to hang themselves than to accept reality) are experts in aviation and didn't consider others idiots, but actually prepared for war with what turned out to be idiots, creating excellent weapons. Once again, for those who got it in the tank: ABs are the cheapest means of air destruction, hence the most widespread among all. And not using a method for increasing range, the cheapest way, solely through a highly aerodynamic shape, is not stupidity, it's a crime. And making a detachable tail for them doesn't cost billions either. You want a conventional one, you want one with control surfaces and guidance equipment, or if you just need high-precision. If you need range and wings, modularity and quantity = low price. EVERYTHING. If Russia had an equivalent to the SDB, the same Su-34, carrying 3-4 of these high-altitude bombs in a single sortie, could obliterate strongholds and bunkers in fortified areas, so they could be recaptured in literally a couple of days.
prior

0

April 30 2026 10: 00

Does it make sense to reduce the caliber of glide bombs for the Russian Aerospace Forces?

How can you appreciate the taste of a pickled cucumber without trying it?
It's the same with bombs.
Develop, test, evaluate the results, and draw conclusions. Both the cost and effectiveness will become clear.
But how else?
1. Dmitriev
  
  +1
  
  2 May 2026 15: 06
  
  Time is running out, Karl...
Alexander

0

April 30 2026 11: 47

Does it make sense to reduce the caliber of glide bombs for the Russian Aerospace Forces?

And without consulting our forum, military experts are no longer able to resolve even this issue? Is it really true that they'll do as we say?
P.S.: Then let's ask them, without reducing the bomb caliber for now, to hit the bridges over the Dnieper... And once we've destroyed the bridges... then we can reduce the caliber. The bigger the bridge, the bigger the bomb...
1. AlOrg
  
  +1
  
  April 30 2026 14: 41
  
  It's already been forgotten that before the SVO, drones were considered toys by many military specialists.
2. AlOrg
  
  0
  
  April 30 2026 14: 44
  
  As a top expert, you'd take a ruler and look at the distance to the bridges on the Dnieper on a map. And then you'd look up the distance a UMP can fly without posing a serious risk to its carrier.
  1. Alexander
    
    +1
    
    April 30 2026 16: 11
    
    We can get a ruler later... What's the rush? We've been getting by without one for four years. Just using our eyes.
Andrey Samuylik

0

7 May 2026 17: 22

An 8-ton bomb has a blast radius only twice that of a one-ton bomb. This is the universal inverse-square law (its close analogue).

Therefore, it makes sense to buy eight one-ton bombs rather than one weighing 8 tons. And larger ones are only for destroying underground bunkers – concrete-piercing ones. A 250 kg FAB is essentially all that's needed in 90% of cases.