The Evolution of Guided Bombs and UAVs: Where Is This All Heading?
I’d like to share an article with you that discusses various ways to increase the flight range and accuracy of FABs without using motors. It covers the current status of efforts to solve this problem and what engineers and designers are working on.
Contents:
The “Condor” Project
In September 2022, the author published an article titled “Project ‘Condor’: Death from the Skies,” in which he proposed the creation of extremely affordable long-range kamikaze unmanned aerial vehicles—or, more precisely, extended-range guided gliding munitions (UPB-BD).
Specifically, the “Kondor” UPB-BD project proposed completely eliminating the use of engines and replacing them with an airframe featuring exceptional aerodynamic performance. The airframe design called for fabrication from polymer materials using thermoplastic injection molding or extrusion, with an internal aluminum frame, and guidance was to be provided by signals from satellite navigation systems.
The following were considered as ammunition for the UPB-BD “Kondor”: warheads for 122-mm shells used in the (MLRS), as well as 152-mm high-explosive fragmentation (HE-F) artillery shells or other similar mass-produced products.
Rendering of the UPB-BD “Condor” with a swiveling wing
Production at the UPB-BD “Kondor” plant was planned to be launched on a massive scale—with an estimated annual output of 150,000–300,000 units. To implement such an ambitious project, it was necessary to build a specialized plant equipped with 20–40 robotic assembly lines, including extrusion machines, machining stations, assembly stations, and much more.
It was planned to use modernized Il-76 transport aircraft, equipped with racks for transporting and dropping the “Kondor” UPB-BD, for this operation.
The “Condor” fixed-wing variant of the UPB-BD
At the time of publication of the aforementioned article, the Russian Armed Forces did not have ammunition of this type in their arsenal—the sporadic use of FABs equipped with UMPCs in the Ukrainian theater of operations did not begin until November–December 2022.
Meanwhile, the use of standard ammunition with minimal modifications has become common practice for FPV drones. For example, the “Privet-82” and “Privet-120” UAVs, developed by the Oko Design Bureau, use 82-mm and 120-mm mortar rounds, respectively, as their warheads.
Even today, despite the development and widespread use of FABs equipped with UMPCs, the author believes that planned kamikaze UAVs of the UPB-BD “Kondor” type remain relevant and effective. By focusing on production efficiency, they can be manufactured in the hundreds of thousands per year.
But let’s get back to the FAB with the UMPK—what can the “Kondor” UPB-BD concept offer this weapon?
The answer is simple: long-range planning and the potential for widespread use.
If one takes a close look at the FAB with the UMPC, it becomes clear that the wingspan—which determines the aircraft’s range—is relatively small, especially given the size and weight of the bombs it carries.
This is most likely due to the limitations imposed by the delivery platforms—tactical aircraft. Removing this obstacle would be enough to pave the way for exploring the possibility of increasing the size of the FAB airframe with UMPC.
But how can we overcome this limitation?
Use other types of platforms, such as transport aircraft, to deploy FABs with UMPK, as provided for in the “Condor” UPB-BD deployment concept. But let’s take it one step at a time.
Limit Parameter Glider
For the UPB-BD “Kondor,” we considered two variants—one with a swiveling wing and one with a fixed wing: specifically, in the swiveling-wing variant, the UPB-BD “Kondor” units were arranged in parallel rows, while in the fixed-wing variant, they were arranged in series. For the FAB with the UMPC, the airframe could also potentially be designed with either a swiveling or fixed wing.
In the swing-wing variant, the wingspan of the airframe can be increased, which, in turn, can extend the gliding range. Furthermore, in this case, the FAB with the UMPC-P can be deployed not only from transport aircraft but also from other types of platforms, as will be discussed below. However, among the drawbacks are increased design complexity, the risk of failure of the deployment mechanism, or the loss of the munition when the wing pivots.
In the fixed-wing configuration, the risk of failure is minimized, but the wingspan is limited by the width of the cargo compartment of the carrier aircraft. For example, the Il-76 has a cargo compartment width of 3.4 meters, whereas existing UMPCs have a wingspan of 2.5 meters. Is it worth the effort just to increase the wingspan by less than a meter?
Probably not. However, there are hybrid designs in which the wing surfaces are slightly extended from the start, which makes it easier to unfold them further and reduces the load on the deployment mechanism.
In general, there are many options here, including the use of a deployable X-shaped wing, as in the concept presented in the article: “When Size Matters: UMPC on a High-Power FAB.”
Alternatively, it could be a biplane or a one-and-a-half-plane, with the wings positioned above and below the FAB with the UMPC, as shown in the image at the beginning of this article. The disadvantage of the “biplane” configuration is high “profilic drag” caused by the interaction of the two pairs of wings with each other; while lift increases by only 20%, the structural strength of the aircraft is enhanced.
In any case, the optimal aerodynamic configuration for an airframe operating at its limit parameters can only be selected based on the results of structural and aerodynamic calculations.
There’s one more question: How will a larger airframe affect the visibility of the FAB with the UMPC?
Of course, visibility will increase, but the gliding speed will decrease. On the other hand, radar stations, which operate based on the Doppler effect, have a harder time detecting low-speed targets. If swept wings are used, however, their sweep angle can be adjusted to minimize the reflection of radiation toward the radar, redirecting it to the sides in accordance with the principles of stealth technology.
There is also a “matryoshka” option, in which a glider designed for extreme performance parameters is mounted on top of an existing UMPC.
In other words, after the FAB is jettisoned, the UMPC-P utilizes the capabilities provided by the limit-parameter glider, which consists merely of a frame with wings and a deployment mechanism (if necessary). Control is carried out using the standard control systems of the existing UMPKs.
At a certain distance—for example, several tens of kilometers from the target—the outer airframe is jettisoned or ejected, and the UMPC deploys its standard wings. This somewhat complicates the design and increases the total weight of the vehicle; however, in the final stage of flight, the enemy will be dealing with conventional, fairly high-speed, and compact FABs equipped with UMPCs.
Another advantage in this case is that there is no need to revise existing design specifications; only the external layout of the limit parameters is being developed.
Now let’s get back to potential carriers.
Transportation and More
As we mentioned earlier, transport aircraft of the Il-76 family are being considered as the primary platform for the FAB with the UMPK-P.
Il-76-MD-90A
Why them, specifically?
Well, we don’t really have any alternatives—no other transport aircraft with comparable or greater payload capacity are manufactured in Russia.
It is important to understand that transport aircraft deployed with FABs equipped with UMPC-P are not considered a replacement for tactical aircraft.
If tactical aircraft primarily deliver FAB strikes using UMPC against targets located on the line of contact (LCL) and adjacent territories, transport aircraft employing FABs with UMPC-P must target facilities located deep within enemy territory.
In fact, there is nothing particularly unusual about using transport aircraft as platforms for various types of weapons; on the contrary, this is a promising area that has not yet been fully developed in our country, We have previously discussed this in our articles “The Feasibility of Using Strategic, Long-Range, and Transport Aircraft as Carriers for FAB-3000 Bombs with UMPC” and “The Wartime Missile-Carrying Bomber”: the issue is not the aircraft itself, but its payload.
Is it worth putting transport aircraft at risk?
If the FAB’s drop range from the UMPK-P is 150–200 kilometers, there will be no risk—the enemy simply does not have any anti-aircraft missile systems (AAMS) capable of operating at that range, of course, unless someone decides to send them deep into enemy territory in order to reach some particularly attractive target.
In addition, the Russian aviation industry is currently producing 6 Il-76-MD-90A aircraft per year; no other aircraft of comparable size and payload capacity are being produced at this rate. According to publicly available data, plans call for increasing production capacity to 8 units per year or more.
From a distance of 150 kilometers, transport aircraft will be able to launch massive strikes using FAB bombs with UMPCs against targets deep within enemy territory
According to publicly available data, in order to maximize the range of FABs equipped with UMPCs, the Su-34 fighter-bomber accelerates to high subsonic speeds and drops the bombs from an altitude of approximately 11–12 kilometers.
Transport aircraft will most likely use FABs with UMPK-P in a different manner, approaching the drop point and turning away from the target while simultaneously climbing to an altitude of 11 to 12 kilometers—that is, reaching the service ceiling. The release will be gravity-fed—the FAB with UMPK-P will drop freely from the guide racks.
In other words, the drop altitude may be comparable to that of tactical aircraft, but the initial drop speed will be practically zero, which should be offset by the greater lift and aerodynamic advantages of the FAB equipped with the UMPK-P. Incidentally, extrusion machines can also be used to produce a streamlined “cover” for the FAB, further enhancing its aerodynamic efficiency.
The dimensions of the cargo compartment on Il-76 family aircraft could potentially allow them to carry two or three dozen FAB bombs equipped with UMPK-P, and possibly even more—this will depend on the caliber of the bombs and the configuration of the airframe at its maximum operating parameters.
There is another option for a FAB delivery platform equipped with the UMPK-P: the Tu-22M3 long-range supersonic missile-carrying bombers.
At present, little is heard about the use of these aircraft—either their service life is being preserved, or their primary weapons—the X-22 and X-32 supersonic cruise missiles—are being preserved.
A single Tu-22M3 aircraft can potentially carry four FABs equipped with UMPK-P on twin underwing pylons and drop them, like the Su-34, from an altitude of 11–12 kilometers at the maximum permissible speed, as determined by the capabilities of the UMPK-P. Of course, such a deployment scheme would place increased demands on the structural strength of the UMPK-P; furthermore, the Tu-22M3 would only be able to carry FABs with the UMPK-P in the folding-wing variant.
The combined weight of even two FAB-500s equipped with UMPC-P would be significantly less than that of a single X-22/X-32 cruise missile
Accordingly, while transport aircraft will ensure mass deployment, the Tu-22M3 will be responsible for delivering FAB bombs using the UMPC-P system at maximum range—a range approaching that of certain types of cruise missiles.
From a distance of 200 kilometers, FABs equipped with UMPK-P warheads could potentially strike targets as far away as Kyiv
Conclusions
Of course, as with the UMPK-R, the UMPK-P discussed in this article is merely a concept that requires numerous calculations, as well as access to confidential information, to confirm its feasibility and practicality.
Theoretically, it is possible to extend the operational range of FABs equipped with UMPCs by using an airframe designed for maximum performance parameters, but in practice, things may turn out to be much more complicated. At the same time, we should follow the example of the enemy, who demonstrates far greater open-mindedness and flexibility when it comes to testing various weapons concepts and the tactics for their use.
Just look at the numerous hybrids of Soviet / Russian and Western weapons—just imagine if the author had tried a couple of years ago to write about integrating the “Buk” air defense system with Western air-to-air missiles, or Western cruise missiles with Su-24, Su-27, MiG-29—just imagine the backlash: “The author doesn’t understand a thing about this… the protocols are incompatible… different design philosophies…”
It is worth mentioning separately the use of transport aircraft as delivery platforms—this is something we simply cannot avoid if we want the Russian Air Force (Russian Air Force) to be able to deploy large numbers of high-precision weapons covertly and simultaneously, whether they be FAB bombs with UMPC-P guidance, cruise missiles, or aeroballistic missiles.
Currently, FABs equipped with UMPKs are causing the enemy significant trouble along the line of contact, and if their range is increased, we could even aim to tackle other tasks using FABs.
For example, to simultaneously “take out” all substations in Kharkiv or all territorial mobilization centers (TCCs) and police departments, thereby disrupting mobilization efforts; or to simultaneously strike any major enemy industrial facility producing for the defense sector, resulting in the total destruction of its production capabilities.
And finally, “it’s not just about air bombs”—after all, we don’t have an unlimited supply of them either—so the “Condor” UAV-BD concept also has every right to exist as the most cost-effective, high-precision method of delivering munitions deep into enemy territory.
Source — https://topwar.ru/257020-fab-s-umpk-p-planer-predelnyh-parametrov.html
