I know older sources don’t mention the satellite guidance for the ML and MT
But as I’ve explained in my report, it probably was just not mentioned due to not being very important
I.e. GNSS guidance costs very little and there’s no reason to omit it (it probably costs you money to omit it only on some variants)
It’s explicitly mentioned for the MK because for this variant it’s the main guidance method
For other variants it’s not mentioned as it’s only to correct for the INS drift and it’s not the main guidance method …
Well, I’ll leave you guys to it, you guys are smarter than me when it comes to this stuff. I’m just glad I picked up on the average missile speed being an issue
They don’t mention GNSS because there is lack of it, that’s all. At that point you can call every missile existing that they have GNSS because “it’s cheap”. Jam resistant with multiple modules GNSS isn’t “extremely cheap”. Also older Kh-38M have long wings, new has short wings.
That its really important Because there are two other missile with IR that has the same angle (LMUR and X-MD-E missile). The Kh-MD change from a missile without wings to an one wing in it dev. X-MD at the Army-2024 forum - Missiles.Ru in that link there is some pic of the IR seeker. I remember someone has posted some time ago the Kh-MD IR seeker next to a Lmur Seeker. Note that the Kh-MD its a 40km range missile for Choppers and drones…
You don’t have a source to the cost. You’re making the assumption on cost.
Did you also consider the following that Russia is under heavy sanctions, is currently still facing a massive chip shortage, which was so bad that they had to attempt to source chips from Texas Instruments?
It’s not as simple as it costs a couple dollars. Commercial cost vs Military Commercial cost is completely different.
If it was so cheap, they wouldn’t have had to list TWO different versions of guidance. Why bother listing a non sat version is the SAT version is so cheap that it wouldn’t make a difference in cost? Because its not cheap.
You don’t strictly need it, but it doesn’t make sense to omit something that costs peanuts
And from the Kh-38MLE video, the “inertial satellite navigation system” is part of the base module.
So it doesn’t make sense to spend money on redesigning the base module and maintaining two production lines to save a few dollars in components for other variants …
You are showing newer short wing 70km range variant vs long wing old GNSSless 40km variant. As well you show only INS module which is in every Kh-38M, not GNSS
“Compartment with an inertial satellite control system”
Which just makes sense
You want to supplement the INS with GNSS to correct for its drift
And it makes sense to put the GNSS module in the same compartment …
