Russia’s devastating use of Soviet-era ‘glide bombs’ shows how urgently Kyiv needs air defence systems
Gerald Hughes, Reader in Military History and Intelligence Studies in the Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University
Much has been written about Russia’s use of “glide bombs” in Ukraine. These munitions represent a manifestation of what is known as “stand-off” weaponry, an important facet of modern warfare.
Stand-off weaponry allows attackers to bombard an enemy while remaining outside the range at which they can be expected to be vulnerable to defensive countermeasures. After the second world war demonstrated the decisive role of air power, the need to reduce casualties for attacking forces led to a demand for munitions that could attack targets from aircraft, ships, submarines or ground-based launchers positioned well away from the battlefield.
Stabilising wings
Basically, glide munitions are standard (“free-fall” or “iron”) bombs that have been modified by the addition of stabilising wings and navigation aids, so as to facilitate the elimination of a designated target. The technology for glide munitions was largely pioneered by Nazi Germany during the second world war. In November 1943, for example, an Allied troopship was sunk with the loss of 1,000 men by an air-launched Hs-293 missile.
This encouraged the Allies to adopt similar technologies after 1945. This included adapting existing munitions – not least air-dropped “iron” bombs that were basically unchanged from those used in the second world war. One example of the Russian upgrades of these iron bombs is the FAB-500 (the “500” indicates its weight in kilograms), a Soviet air-dropped bomb originally introduced in 1954. The FAB-500 – which was deployed in Afghanistan and, more recently, in Syria – demonstrates how Moscow has been able to give vintage munitions a new lease of life.
Striking from a distance
In March 2023, it was reported that Russian Su-35 aircraft had been equipped to launch FAB-500M-62 glide bombs fitted with pop-out wings that extended their range to 70km. This allowed Russian aircraft to hit Ukrainian targets while minimising risk from Ukrainian air defences by engaging in saturation attacks.
Ukraine’s best air defence system, its US-made Patriot surface-to-air missile (SAM), has a range of up to 145km and can destroy Russian aircraft before they release their munitions. In February, Ukrainian air defences shot down 13 Russian aircraft in as many days. But this meant Ukraine had to deploy its Patriot batteries close enough for an Iskander missile to destroy at least two of Ukraine’s precious Patriot launchers. As a result, Ukraine had to pull back its air defences.
Kharkiv. Photo Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine
Alexander Kovalenko, a Ukrainian military analyst, says that glide munitions allow the Russians, “without entering the area of our air defence systems, [the ability to attack] both the … Ukrainian armed forces … and [our] cities”. Indeed, the Russians have used some 3,500 guided aerial bombs this year, a 1,600% increase over 2023.
Recent Russian advances have multiple causes – but weapons including Moscow’s modified FAB-1500 are inflicting severe damage to Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-biggest city, as well as frontline towns such as Sumy, which has taken a heavy pounding in recent weeks.
The FAB-1500 is the largest glide munition weapon currently deployed by Russia against Ukraine. According to military expert David Hambling: “The current version has an accuracy of better than 10 metres, which pretty much guarantees destruction with a weapon as big as the FAB-1500.”
🇷🇺🪖 How Russia’s FAB-1500 bombs could change the shape of War?
“It’s not the fact that they are very destructive which makes them effective, but the new correction module which has been recently upgraded to ensure precision,” says Dr @Marina_Miron.
— War Studies (@warstudies) March 13, 2024
Of course, Ukraine also uses guided munitions, such as the US-manufactured Joint Direct Attack Munition system (JDAM) – but the supply of these is limited. John Foreman, a former UK defence attaché to Russia, observes that FABs are inferior to the JDAM, but they are also much cheaper and far more numerous.
Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), believes that: “Russia certainly has the capacity to produce more glide bomb kits for older FAB series bombs than Ukraine has to resupply its [SAM] systems … [and] shooting them down directly isn’t a sustainable strategy.”
Wanted: long-range air defence systems
Russia’s current campaign means that Kyiv needs to secure longer-range air defence systems. Last week, the Ukraine president, Volodymyr Zelensky, stated publicly that if the Russians kept hitting Ukraine “every day the way they have for the last month, we might run out of missiles, and [our] partners know it”. Small wonder that Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba is pleading for more Patriot missiles In the past year, Moscow has turned increasingly to the use of glide bombs. These weapons have allowed it to conserve its inadequate inventory of air-launched missiles, and to minimise the use of free-fall iron bombs that would expose valuable pilots to great risk.
The consequence of this is clear. As a recent article from respected security thinktank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, concluded: “Kyiv is confronted by the threat that an attritional war in the air domain will increasingly favour Russia without adequate support from the US and its allies. Ukraine’s ability to continue to counter Russian air threats and impose costs on the Russian Aerospace Forces remains important to the outcome of the war.”
George Barros, a defence analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, has observed that: “When the Ukrainian air defence … is all tied up, [the Russians] then move in with the fixed-wing aircraft to conduct these glide-bomb attacks … If Ukraine had better air defences, they might be able to preclude the use of glide bombs by forcing the fixed-wing aircraft to stay further away from the front line.”
It’s hard to disagree with such a bleak prognosis. And it is unlikely to improve while the US Congress continues to tie itself in knots over the provision of vital military aid to Kyiv. As congressman Mike Turner, the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, told CBS News on March 31.
This article was first published on The Conversation
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
Trump’s GOP in the US are handing Ukraine to putin on a silver platter. There is no other way to call it.
Surely a negotiated settlement is the best solution. The bottom line for Russia is for Ukraine to remain independent of NATO and the EU. This has been offered on many occasions during and prior to the start of the war. Surely that wouldn’t be difficult to agree to?.
NATO is one thing, but why the EU? Its an economic union not a military one. Ukraine is a sovereign country and can join any international organisation it wanted to.
This isn’t about that, that’s why! The aim of NATO is to Balkanise Russia so it’s easier to mange and easier to play them off against each other in the coming decades and centuries.
The same NATO that is terrified of Iran getting the bomb? Balkanising Russia would mean multiple rogue states with their own nuclear stockpile, I don’t think thats in their interest. The Budapest Memorandum signed in the early 90s where both the US and Russia pressured Ukraine into getting rid of their nukes in exchange for their Sovereignty and territorial integrity being respected. As much as the US and Russia have hated eachother since 1945, they both understand the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.
I very much doubt that NATO is ‘terrified’ of Iran getting nuclear capability any more than they are worried about North Korea obtaining that capability – indeed, both almost certainly possess that capability. What worries any sane person is the stability of the leadership of those countries who have nuclear weapons and the means with which to deliver them. However, for both Iran and North Korea the possession of nuclear weapons has far more value as a bargaining chip, in much the same way as Putin uses Russian nuclear capability. The biggest worry would be if countries like Iran or… Read more »
Any sane person should be worried about the leadership of every country that hold nuclear weapons, not just those you mentioned, but also the usa, the uk, china, france, israel, India and Pakistan.
When I grew up in ’70s and ’80s I was more scared of the one country that had actually used nuclear weapons not once but twice!
Also, after WW2 churchill went around the usa telling people the usa and uk should launch an unprovoked attack of multiple targets in the USSR using nuclear weapons!
I think you mean the Russian empire. Russia itself is hardly likely to become balkanised, but I suspect many of the countries that make up the present day Russian empire, AKA The Russian Federation would dearly love to be independent. What you are saying suggests that you’d describe the break up of the UK as the balkanisation of Britain.
No. Putin is a tyrant, and any negotiated settlement short of Russia’s complete capitulation and withdrawal from all Ukrainian territory would only give pause to Putin to rearm and invade even more territory. The whole NATO/EU objection from Putin is a lie, and demonstrably so. Ukraine needs to be in both NATO and the EU as it’s the only way to guarantee that Putin will respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and all the other countries bordering Russia, the Baltic states, Finland, Sweden etc as well as Poland Moldova and subsequently maybe others. To those who are are so prepared to… Read more »
Well said Padi. We all want peace, but as Chamberlain learned you won’t get it through appeasement.
Well, recognise Don-bass and Luhansk as independent of Ukraine as they voted for and their ethnic backgrounds hints at and we will have peace. But this isn’t what this is really about is it? It’s about turning Putin into a 21st century Hitler. Something Every generation needs to fight against apparently. We had Bin Laden, Saddam, now Putin. Are they good guys? No! But what politician is! Let’s stop acting like ours aren’t taking us all for a ride…shall we?!
Thats assuming that those referendums were fair and legitimate. Even if they were its not Russia’s place to say if one should be held. If a foreign power intervened to ‘impose’ a referendum on Chechnya we know damn well that Putin would never tolerate it. The best way for us to have peace would be for all nations states to comply with the UN Charter that states all members states should respect the Sovereignty and territorial integrity of all other member states.
Talk about false equivalence! Is it because it’s Saturday, or is the Moon in some kind of special phase as the comments here today are bordering on the deluded. Too many going square-eyed after viewing too much RT!
Well if you are going to say people who don’t agree with you are just regurgitating talking points from RT they could say the same about the other side drinking American neocon KoolAid
Putin used nuclear and chemical weapons in the UK, the Salisbury attack left enough of that nasty substance around to kill thousands. He murders political and press people that question him. Voting in the USSR is not exactly fair. He is raping and murdering his way through Ukraine. He creates his self, no one else. The evidence is a nation taken apart for a mad mans whim, how long do you think officials lected as Ukraine official last when they take a town? How long do you think Zelensky was going to survive if they had won as they expected?… Read more »
I thought the USSR was dissolved in 1991?
Its back, its big and its bad.
The 1950s called and wants its Cold War propaganda back.
Putin called and wants the USSR band countries back together, and few others if he can get them.
Putin has not used nuclear or chemical weapons in the uk.
The Salisbury incident, and many before it, were biological attacks.
Well, I am not an expert but the one used in Salisbury is called a fourth generation chemical weapon by the press releases, the reports are numerous. The press briefing for US congress but does it matter? He is prepared to deploy such weapons on other nation states. So, Chemical weapons attack. It was deployed on Putins orders. It was in a quantity that could have caused mass deaths. You defend him if you want. I wont.
Quote: “their ethnic backgrounds hints at and we will have peace”
Just because people are ethnically Russian doesn’t necessarily mean that they want to be part of Russia. One could argue that if people want to Russian then they can move there. Quite a few people in Flintshire, Monmouthshire and Pembrokeshire are ethnically English. Would you be willing to give up those counties to England?
Two air battles with contrasting dynamics going on, a lesson in InterPol at work…