Posted on 03/28/2024 8:04:45 PM PDT by hardspunned
As a result of modernization, it became possible to launch Russian aerial bombs from the ground, from the Tornado-S multiple rocket launcher. For this, engineers have developed a special kit consisting of an accelerating jet engine, folding wings and a control module.
(Excerpt) Read more at x.com ...
Last fall I pooh, poohed the reports from the very same sources that the Russians had turned FAB 1500s into precision cruise missiles at $3000 a pop. Well, I’m sure you’ll agree, seeing is believing. Turning the entire inventory of FABs into cruise missiles has been the biggest game changer of the war after drones.
But you’re right, just because the Russians already have 300mm rockets designed for these systems, why on earth would they want increase their stores of projectiles by millions and millions of rounds? Forget that! Let’s hope the Russians are as stone stupid as the MIC and they’ll destroy the FAB 250s and will waste hundreds of millions replacing them with new 300mm rockets. You need to get a job in DC, working for the MIC. You’re a natural for their money wasting department. Geesh!
I’m not sure but guaranteed less than building a new 300mm rocket.
Why does it mean they’ve run out? Maybe, just maybe, the same genius who figured out how to turn them into cruise missiles said, what if again? Maybe, just maybe, he then said we can use these millions of old “worthless” Soviet bombs to supplement our vast stores of 300mm rockets and use that production line for some other kind of ordinance. If an engineer at Raytheon came up with the same kind of brilliant, cost saving ideas, he’d be fired and blackballed from the MIC on the spot.
Now please explain how Russia is going to fit an FAB-250 version of the GLSBD into the Tornado launcher, when it is too heavy to fit in the launch tubes. Look up the weights of the bombs and rockets, I did.
If the Russian MOD made this claim, actually showed a mockup, that would have credibility. A telegram channel making claims is not a production run of working weapons.
You’ve got to talk to the Ruskie engineers for that answer, fella, not me. The rest of your reply is just prattling puff. When the FAB 250s, fired from rocket tubes, are raining down on the Ukes, maybe you can ask them.
No sh!t......
Forget it, he’s a troll, circular arguments, ignoring or not responding to criticisms.
His posts amount to tinkling cymbals and empty, sounding brass.
He likes to gas on like he knows more than anyone and his own farts smell the best (to him).
Your claims that Russia is doing everything right are really funny.
Adults with brains like to discuss reality, not the latest Russian fake news.
Since you seem to have some technical background could you share with us the necessary steering rudder force needed to keep a FAB-250 stable as it is accelerated by the rocket booster?
It isn't impossible to build launchers and their projectiles like that, an RPG works that way, but it isn't easy to do so either. Stabilizing a rocket with the center of mass, and drag force very close to the front is not easy.
You’re asking about parasitic drag. It is negligible at low velocities and at low velocities you can’t steer for that very reason.
These missile concept approaches will not have propulsion present for very long. Typical A/A missiles are only boosting a few seconds. The rest is coast. They are not flying, they are coasting. The fin size is small for this reason. No lift is sought.
The guidance algorithm will face the problem of maneuvers based on targeting. The US used a concept of “compassionate targeting” where impact on a target is from a direction the algorithm was informed pre launch would minimize the splash of debris on a sensitive (hospital) facility. Point being, there’s not much steering required for high mass vehicles. They are largely ballistic and need only wind compensate.
So your question about fin force applied will vary with algorithm. If no request is made of the vehicle to do an approach from a side that won’t generate dangerous splash, that is more fin force than a direct, near ballistic approach.
From a general, Circular Error Probability perspective, you aren’t really doing much. You are seeking to reduce a purely ballistic munition’s error of 150 feet down to 20 feet. It’s not much steering. It was already pretty accurate to begin with, if programmed correctly and there is no hurricane blowing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.