Well, to some degree it is the case
If you look at missiles and bombs produced/designed in the past 10-20 years you hardly find one that would benefit from GNSS that lacks GNSS …
It’s cheap so they put it everywhere they could benefit from it …
The GNSS modules are just very cheap
Commercial ones start from less than $5 …
Sure, military grade ones will cost more, but still very cheap compared to the cost of the missile
Even $500-1000 isn’t much for a missile that costs few hundred thousand dollars …
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.
planes can be at alot higher altitudes than helicopters so it would make sense to angle the seeker down
btw we moved past the “is it real” disscussion
3 Likes
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
Where do you see them listing a GNSS version along with a non-GNSS version?
why is there any point in disscussing the older variant?
There are old brochures and new brochures man. It’s just that simple
See the subtitles.
“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 …
…
Did you even read your own source on your bug report?
That isn’t his source
It doesn’t mean there are two variants
It only means it doesn’t strictly need the GNSS guidance (I.e. in a GNSS-denied or spoofed environment it can still work by disabling the GNSS guidance)
GNSS is provided by the “base module”
That’s just mental gymnastics
How are people still arguing this matter, it’s been already proved that the missile doesn’t exist at all by @MythicPi
1 Like
More like experience
Just look at my screenshot
What do you see in the subtitle/voice over?
“Compartment with an inertial satellite control system”
Now what do you see in the graphics?
“INS + Equipment compartment”
Where’s the mention of GNSS?
Why the subtitle/voice over says “Inertial + Satellite” but the graphic only shows “INS” with no mention of GNSS?
Because as I explained in my report, that’s what they mean by “INS” here.
They just make no mention of it because it’s not very necessary to mention it …
???