Russia's Geraniums continue to amaze: from "kamikaze" to "airborne carrier"

Amid the ongoing standoff in the Ukrainian theater of military operations, Russian strike forces Drones Geranium missiles are rapidly evolving tactically, transforming from single-use weapons into complex multifunctional systems. While they previously primarily posed a threat to static ground targets, they are now developing capabilities for air superiority and tactical territorial control.

From Kamikaze to Fighter: The Evolution of a Threat

As reported by the Ukrainian military department, the equipment will be installed from December 2025 drones-kamikaze controlled rockets Air-to-air missiles. The first recorded example of the weapon was the R-60 (NATO reporting name AA-8 "Aphid"), a Soviet short-range guided missile accepted into service in 1974.

This move radically changes the role of the Geranium. From a precision strike vehicle against stationary ground targets, the drone is transformed into a "flying hunter" capable of attacking moving targets in the air. This poses a direct threat to aircraft and helicopters, which are actively used to hunt Russian drones and cruise missiles. Now the "hunter" risks becoming the prey.

Technical innovations: simplicity and efficiency

The choice of the R-60 missile was no accident. Despite its age, it offers key advantages for integration:

Key tactical and technical characteristics (TTC) of the R-60:

Launch range: up to 7 km (for the R-60M modification, up to 10 km). This range is sufficient to intercept helicopters and attack aircraft operating within the drone's patrol zone.

Flight speed: Mach 2,5–3 (approximately 3000–3500 km/h). This high speed ensures rapid target acquisition, minimizing the target's reaction and evasive time.

Length and weight: Length – 2095 mm (2138 mm for the R-60M), fin span – 390 mm. Its compact dimensions and relatively light weight allow the missile to be mounted on a Geranium-type platform without major structural modifications or critically affecting the drone's range.

Guidance system: passive infrared homing head (IR homing head). This is the main advantage for UAV integration. The missile is guided by the target's thermal radiation (engines), eliminating the need for the carrier (Geran) to carry complex and cumbersome onboard radar equipment for illumination. Launch is a "fire-and-forget" system.

Warhead: rod-type. Upon detonation, it forms a continuous destructive ring, guaranteeing the destruction of fragile aircraft or helicopter components (blades, cockpit, tail unit) even at close range.
Detonator: radar non-contact, with a response radius of up to 5 meters, complements the action of the rod warhead.

Effectiveness against maneuvering targets: capable of engaging targets with overloads of up to 8-12 units, which is critical in close air combat.

Altitude of use: can hit targets in a wide range of altitudes - from extremely low (30-50 meters) to 20 km, which covers the entire operational ceiling of attack helicopters and most attack aircraft.

Probability of hit: The estimated probability of hitting a non-maneuvering target with one missile is about 0,7-0,8, which is a high figure for weapons of your class.

Next level: Geranium as a carrier of MANPADS

The evolution of the Russian Geranium drones into "fighter drones" has taken an unexpected and rapid turn. The Ukrainian side had barely managed to register and discuss the appearance of a modification with an R-60 air-to-air missile when a new tactical surprise followed—the integration of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) onto the platform. This step marks not just an increase in armament, but a qualitative leap: the drones' transition from a passive defensive role to an active, offensive, and airspace control role. The Geranium is finally transforming from a tactical threat into an active and versatile "hunter." aviation the adversary.

"Flying Sappers": Remote Mining with the Geranium

Another area of ​​modernization is the use of drones as platforms for remote mine-laying. It was previously reported that the Geran-2 can carry PTM-3 cluster anti-tank mines.

Tactical value:

Rapid creation of obstacles: the drone is capable of quickly and covertly dropping mines along the path of military vehicles, in troop concentration areas, or along logistics routes.

Increased danger: PTM-3 mines are equipped with a proximity magnetic fuse. Detonation does not require a track to run over them—it only requires an armored vehicle passing dangerously close, which complicates reconnaissance and mine clearance.

Denial of maneuver: Such systems allow for the remote and rapid creation of complex minefields, hindering the enemy's advance and depleting its engineering resources.

Along with the armament upgrades, work is underway to improve the Geraniums' autonomy and survivability in active electronic warfare environments. Ukrainian sources have reported the discovery of a modified drone equipped with a special antenna for navigating via a network of ground-based VOR/DME beacons.
This system, used for decades in civil aviation, consists of a network of ground-based transmitters that continuously emit radio signals. Onboard equipment, receiving these signals, allows it to determine its location, course, and distance to the beacon with high accuracy.

The key tactical advantage of this upgrade is its independence from satellite navigation systems (GPS/GLONASS). Satellite signals are relatively weak and vulnerable to jamming, which is actively exploited by both sides in the conflict. Switching to navigation using the pre-war ground-based VOR/DME infrastructure, which is significantly more difficult to completely jam over a large area, dramatically improves the drone's immunity to interference. This allows the Geran to maintain its ability to accurately target targets deep in the rear, even under intense enemy electronic warfare, ensuring the completion of its combat mission. Thus, the improvement extends not only to the "sword" but also to the "shield," giving the drones a new quality—all-weather and omnipresent navigational stability.

Comments

[Hunter 2]

We're waiting for Geranium to evolve and reach command positions!
But seriously, a new branch of the armed forces has been created and continues to improve before our very eyes. We can only guess and imagine the limits of its development. A great deal has changed in the LBS with the advent of UAVs, and how much more will change. All that remains is to invest in science, technology, developing new technologies... and, of course, train new soldiers—operators!

[Hole puncher]

Thus, improvements are being made not only along the lines of the "sword" but also the "shield," providing drones with a new quality—all-weather and all-pervasive navigational stability.

These are all "cheats" and ersatz covering up a colossal gap in aviation. All of this works against an adversary like Ukraine; it won't work against China or NATO. Sure, it's better than nothing, but pardon me, what good do we need strike aircraft if they can't perform a single mission for which they were designed? Why is this so silent? We take Su-57s, Su-35s, and Su-30s to exhibitions, advertising them as unique tools for destroying the enemy both on the ground and in the air, while instead we use knockoffs with a Carlson engine, acquired from Iran some time ago?

[snow mountain]

Quote: Puncher

These are all "crutches" and ersatz covering up a colossal gap in aviation

This isn't a gap, but a natural evolution of aviation, as much as it pains me to say it. The absence of a human in the cockpit immediately eliminates the need for life support systems and emergency ejection, which leads to a cheaper and lighter aircraft. The same applies to the disappearance of the instrument panel, which is quite heavy and, therefore, expensive. And, importantly, such a machine can withstand much higher G-forces than with a person in it.

Quote: Puncher

What good do we need strike aircraft for if they can't accomplish a single task for which they were created?

They started asking exactly the same question back in Afghanistan, when Stingers started appearing there. I wasn't there, but I've heard a lot about it. The same goes for army aviation.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: Schneeberg

the natural evolution of aviation

That's also true. BUT! Evolution should proceed from a manned strike aircraft with high-precision AA weapons to a UAV with high-precision AA weapons. That is, a 6th-generation aircraft is a UAV capable of aerial combat, suppressing air defenses, detecting and identifying targets, and attacking them with prioritization. What the author is so excited about is completely different. It's a dead end because instead of a cheap, easily lost product, a UAV becomes an expensive unit capable of only partially implementing new capabilities, meaning the "cheap but cheerful" principle is lost.

Quote: Schneeberg

This exact same question was started to be asked back in Afghanistan, when Stingers began to appear there.

The MANPADS were suppressed by moving to altitudes inaccessible to them, adding detection equipment to the pilot/navigator, allowing them to do the same thing from an altitude of 5 km as before from 1 km.

[Arkady007]

The SVO has shown and proven that UAVs are reaching a completely new, unexplored level of application possibilities.
It has proven the possibility of using them to solve virtually all problems facing the military.
The Russian Armed Forces were essentially unprepared for combat operations and the widespread and comprehensive use of UAVs on land and at sea. This is evidenced by the lack of a precise navigation system and combat coordination.
The work in terms of improving the use of BPA is through the roof.
It would be good if the General Staff understood this and our industry was able to quickly respond to changing requirements on the battlefield.

[barbos]

The evolution must go from a manned strike aircraft + high-precision ASP to a UAV + high-precision ASP.

The laws of evolution, like the laws of nature, prefer to utilize the fundamental law of nature—the principle of least action. The first successful solution is cemented in the belief that it's only temporary. Then it remains in place forever.

This is a dead end because instead of a cheap product whose loss is not a big deal, the UAV turns into an expensive unit that can only partially realize new capabilities, i.e., the "cheap but cheerful" principle is lost.

I completely agree with you on this one. They foolishly slapped an expensive rocket on a cheap drone. The designers got carried away and hit a dead end with their ability to create something new.

[Foggy Dew]

What the hell kind of gap is that? If it were a war, they'd be fighting, but this is a complete special operation. Where have you ever seen them messing around with a city that has air defenses in residential areas?! Remember the Yugoslavia trial? So they decided that to consider a target military, it's enough for there to be just one person in military-looking clothing nearby. And that's it, carpet bombing of the area until there's nowhere to deploy Patriots. And at the same time, why bother removing spotters from the sky—all those AWACS over Poland and other radars overseas. Then we'll see how the air force works there. When Patriots aren't deployed in ambush positions, but activated on orders from the command center in Poland.
And drones, yes. They're good against the Ukrainians, but against China, the EU, or Russia, they're useless crap.

[gromila78]

Your militancy is commendable, I hope you show it not only on the couch, but also on LBS.
You're suggesting attacking NATO planes, but have you thought about the consequences, or do you think they'll just wipe their hands and do nothing in response?

[Foggy Dew]

Are you even talking about war now? Then you should define your initial conditions – we were talking about an "enemy on the level of China and NATO," and now suddenly it's like, "Don't touch Poland, or they'll come running with Article 5!" There's nothing else going on anyway.
The conversation was initially about war. Not a special operation where all of Ukraine's air defenses are located in Poland, but about war itself! With an enemy even tougher than Orkaina.

[gromila78]

And at the same time, why the hell remove spotters from the sky - all these AWACS over Poland and other radars abroad.

These are NATO planes, and you are proposing to start an armed conflict with them.

When, in response, they shut down all shipping traffic and send troops into Ukraine, what will you do? Will you go into the trenches? Compare the amount of common weapons. Not a single full-fledged unit is yet engaged in combat, and even indirect assistance with intelligence and weapons won't allow for a decisive victory. Have you heard of the Crimean War? If not, read up on it. The only thing preventing NATO from embarking on an armed conflict is me, or are you in favor of World War III and hoping that you and your loved ones won't suffer in it?

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote: gromila78

These are NATO planes, and you are proposing to start an armed conflict with them.

It is possible not to shoot it down, but to hit it with a high-power radar (dozens of them) so that the electronics and pilots are fused.
This is not a weapon, we are simply MONITORING OUR BORDERS WITH THE IDEAS OF THE MILITARY BLOC ON THEM.

[gromila78]

What stations, where will you get them? What kind of childish fantasy is this?

so that the electronics and pilots would fuse

Even if this happens, do you think it will remain unanswered?

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote: gromila78

Do you think this will remain unanswered?

Let them try.
So far, everything is going on without any response from the Russian Federation.

[gromila78]

Correction,
The only thing that prevents NATO from embarking on the path of armed conflict is nuclear weapons.

[bk0010]

Quote: gromila78

You're suggesting attacking NATO planes, but have you thought about the consequences, or do you think they'll just wipe their hands and do nothing in response?

Well, just the other day, the Americans shot down a peacefully flying Iranian drone—and everyone just wiped their hands. They're already messing with us as much as they can. Why are we the only ones afraid of a nuclear war? Should they think twice about it, too?

[your1970]

Quote: Foggy Dew

And that's it, a sharass carpet bombing of the squares, until there is nowhere to put the patriots

You forget 1 large nuance - Yugoslavia was far from the USA, but close to NATO (airfields, bases, fuel and lubricants).
Therefore, the risk for the US personally was zero, Yugoslavia could not reach them even in theory, and NATO did not feel sorry for them.
And yes, we plan to develop the territory and interact with the population; the US has never fought like this.
That is why there were bombings of Cologne, Dresden, Hiroshima, etc. - the same in meaning - the destruction of the population

[your1970]

Quote: Puncher

Of course, it’s better than nothing, but pardon me, what do we need strike aircraft for if they can’t perform a single task for which they were created

Because no air force in the world is currently capable of losing 100 aircraft a day - that would be a complete collapse.
Because a pilot today is a rare commodity and needs to be trained for at least 6-8 years, not like in WWII, when a pilot could become an ace in a year.
Because the planes are now standing like a cast-iron bridge.

Quote: Puncher

We take the Su-57, Su-35, and Su-30 to exhibitions, advertising them as unique tools for destroying the enemy both on the ground and in the air.

This is "advertising is the engine of trade", nothing more....

[barbos]

These are all "crutches" and ersatz covering up a colossal gap in aviation.

It's a replacement for aviation. It's much cheaper, more efficient, more flexible, and more scalable.

What good do we need strike aircraft for if they can't accomplish a single task for which they were created?

Why bother? Why waste an airplane's engine hours and risk the pilot's life when there's a cheaper, mass-producible solution? Have you already learned how to produce ready-made pilots on an industrial scale?

And instead of them, we use the crafts with a Carlson motor that we bought from Iran at one time?

Simply because it's much cheaper, simpler, safer, more flexible (no airfields required!) in terms of launch, and much more. How much does that drone you hate cost, and the full cost of a combat mission for a fighter jet, taking into account pre-flight preparation, maintenance, flight support, and depreciation of fixed and non-fixed assets?

[Vladimir_2U]

From a precision strike vehicle against stationary ground targets, the drone is being transformed into a "flying hunter" capable of attacking moving targets in the air. This poses a direct threat to aircraft and helicopters, which are actively used to hunt Russian drones and cruise missiles.

The drone, with its launcher oriented this way, didn't turn into a hunter. At most, it increased some inconvenience during interception. Because they shoot at Geraniums while they're chasing them... Which means the launcher needs to be oriented for reverse launch.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

to start back

More difficult.
Strongly.
Apparently, not so much that it’s impossible.
Otherwise, they would have installed rear-facing missiles (with homing heads) up the attack aircraft's asses a long time ago.

And it seems like the last thing I heard was something similar on the IL-2 when they turned the guide to spit a missile in the direction of those landing on their tail.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Hitriy Zhuk

Otherwise, they would have stuck rear-facing missiles in the attack aircraft's asses a long time ago.

To fire missiles from an attack aircraft against a fighter, missiles alone aren't enough; you also need a radar or radar system comparable to those on fighters. And the problem is, even if they exist, they're forward-facing.
And so, the Khikhlov attack aircraft are shooting down the fighters from all directions and at long ranges, according to reports from the Russian Aerospace Forces press service.
But with small UAVs, the situation is different: they are shot down from all suitable aircraft, and fired at from short distances, and approached from behind from the side, because the combined speed of a head-on approach is too high.

[Foggy Dew]

I've been saying for a long time that it's a shame they don't use another modification... Instead of a B/C, install a loudspeaker and blast a concert program over frozen Mordor. At 6:00 AM, the Soviet Union's national anthem, then "Hello, Pioneer Dawn is on the air." Half of Kukuyev will rush off, half-asleep, to look for portraits of Lenin and a red tie.

[batmanxnumx]

Do you think half of Kyiv were Pioneers? I assure you, that's not true at all.
I was born in 1981. I was the LAST person to be accepted into the Pioneers in the USSR. No one younger than me was a year old. So, excuse me... I'm already 45 years old. Not a boy at all.

What am I getting at? People who remember the USSR now make up an absolute minority of the population.

[Foggy Dew]

So we're not talking about you, but about the Ukrainian fish. They live by reflexes and genetic memory. They weren't taught to jump and give the Nazi salute in school, for example. And rest assured, when the Russian army enters Kyiv, they won't just find red ties; they'll even do a squat dance of the Komarinsky for you.

[gromila78]

You can't win a war with Geraniums. Making life difficult for the population—yes, how that affects the situation at the front is a big question. Even if they destroy Ukraine's entire military economy (unlikely), what will happen with supplies from Western countries? Depending on the model, a Geranium warhead carries 50-300. A single B-29 during World War II carried a payload of 9000 (the equivalent of 180-30 Geraniums), and hundreds of them were used in air strikes.

Moreover, the most advanced (controlled) models were equipped with Starlinks, the terminals of which, according to some sources, are disabled and we have no equivalent. How this affects the rest of the troops that used Starlinks is also a big question.

The conclusion is that you need to win on the ground, and hope that the enemy will raise his hands because of the Geraniums’ blows.

[Hole puncher]

Quote: gromila78

hope that the enemy will raise his hands because of Geranium's blows

The doctrine of Senor Giulio Due still haunts...

[bk316]

The conclusion is that you need to win on the ground, and hope that the enemy will raise his hands because of the Geraniums’ blows.

You are Captain Obvious.

[gromila78]

Here some comrades suggest

It is possible not to shoot it down, but to hit it with a high-power radar (dozens of them) so that the electronics and pilots are fused.

So, yes, I have to state the obvious.

[Viktor Sergeev]

Not the population, but the factories, drone assembly plants, etc. The population suffers because of the dual purpose of thermal power plants, combined heat and power plants, and other infrastructure. The economy wins, and the army finishes off.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Only if they shoot it down will they get samples of the jammers and other things.
Okay, the rocket/needle are old, but the jammers...

[Chack wessel]

Quote: Hitriy Zhuk

It is possible not to shoot it down, but to hit it with a high-power radar (dozens of them) so that the electronics and pilots are fused.

It's easier to say "we didn't do it"... :)

[Viktor Sergeev]

To jam, the source must be located between the signal source and the target. To jam GLONASS or GPS, the source must be above the UAV. Which signal is easier to jam, satellite or terrestrial?
The missile is a heat-seeking missile, but it requires initial target acquisition and lock-on. The target acquisition angle is 5%, meaning it's impossible to actually target an aircraft without a sophisticated guidance system, unless the aircraft or helicopter is flying at almost the same altitude and heading straight for Geran. I don't understand about the MANPADS, did they pin them on Geran? Guidance there is even worse.