Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Does anyone have useful info on the MTP version of the Karen missile?

 

This would be with a thermal imaging seeker. I like the Kh-25ML very much, but it is no fire-and-forget missile like the IR/TV Maverick. The MTL would allow similar tactics: approach, shoot and run.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted

If I'm not mistaken, I think Chizh once commented that this weapon never entered service. IIRC, the Kh-29 was found to be a more appropriate match than the Kh-25 for the TV seeker's characteristics.

 

Note that neither would be a real Maverick analogue, since they lack the shaped-charge warhead for penetrating armor.

 

-SK

Posted

In my view, the Kh-29T/L is a mistake on this aircraft. It is way to heavy, and seriously limits manoevrability. You in fact need to engage autopilot to do it right. The real advantage of the AGM-65G (or in the case of Lockon, the AGM-65K), is that it is a true fire-and-forget weapon, and it doesn't hamper the aircraft's flight characteristics (of course if you load only one on each hardpoint as IRL).

 

For the moment, I quite like the Kh-25ML on the Su-25T: it is areodynamically OK, weighs not to much, doesn't impose to much drag and it is very usable (even against moving vehicles if you fire it from close enough).

 

The Vikhr is a drag disaster and the Kh-29's are way to heavy. Try to fly at higher speeds and you'll notice the BIG difference.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted

The Kh-25/-29 are tactical missiles and can't be realy compared to the AGM-65 in my opinion. The 130kg/320kg warheads are a complete different league than the Mav and the west doesn't realy has equivalent weapons to it. The closest thing might be the AGM-130 Skipper ( GBU-16 with a rocked strapped to it ). The Kh-25/-29 are ideal weapons for the strike role.

 

On the other hand russia realy needs a good anti-tank weapon for aircraft that is smaller than the Kh's and fire and forget. The Vikhr is in my opinion a failure for fixed wing aircraft. Short range and the need for laser designation means that you are exposed for a realy long time. The Vikhr is nice to kill tanks on the target range, but it doesn't offer enough surviveability on the battlefield. It is clearly a weapon intended for the use on helicopters. Plus it creates a sh*tload of drag :)

On the other hand the east historicaly didn't have the need to hit single moving tanks in the past. Easter tactical airpower didn't have the task to stop thousends of advancing tanks like NATO, rather strike stationary defensive positions in support of the own advancing troops. Therefore little need for a Maverick class weapon.

Posted

The Russians/CIS are concentrating on affordability for their weapon developments, one one side because of the money needed for totally new weapon platforms (which they rather stick in their own pocket), and the cost per unit also plays a role both for the customers and the manufacturers.

 

As a sidenote, both sides are sons of bitches (I know, irony, self hatered), one side wants money and continued budget for its weapon industry and to artificially create threats, the other continues its old tradition of geopolitics and wants to expand its empire and area of influence.

 

The laser guided S8 rounds are a good example of recent developments in this area, they ensure limited precision in close range scenarios (aka insurgent hunting), while keeping the costs down.

Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:

Posted
The Kh-25/-29 are tactical missiles and can't be realy compared to the AGM-65 in my opinion. The 130kg/320kg warheads are a complete different league than the Mav and the west doesn't realy has equivalent weapons to it. The closest thing might be the AGM-130 Skipper ( GBU-16 with a rocked strapped to it ). The Kh-25/-29 are ideal weapons for the strike role.

 

 

 

The AGM-65B/D/H have indeed the smaller shaped-charge warhead, but the G/K/F have a 135Kg warhead, designed to knock-out small infrastructure, buildings or, in the case of the F, small boats. In this sense it compares to the Kh-25.

 

The Marines' AGM-65E is laser-guided just like the Kh-25ML, but it has smaller warhead and there is a big difference in employment, since the Marines fire it using buddy lasing from a ground FAC. In this sense it is even more simple to use than the IIR-versions.

 

You are right the Russian approach is more suitable for the strike role, not for CAS.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted

The odd part is that RuAF used for tank killing S-5K. The high ranking pilots where named Sniper after being capable to hit moving targets with at least 3-4 Rocket projectiles.

Posted
Does the S-5 even has a chance to penetrate a tank ? Perhaps against top armour ?

 

I think he means the 5-tube launcher for S-13

Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.

Posted
I think he means the 5-tube launcher for S-13

 

Nope... S-8 and S13 where born during Astan war .. mid 80's... to have more "Booom" for cave busting ...

 

S-5K penetration was 130mm.

S-5 had also concrete piercing warhead... I guess for airfield runaway piercing too.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...