Military Review

"Nineties Bomber" - T-60С

The T-60 theme dates back to 1981, as part of the Nineties Bomber B-90 program. The aircraft was designed for the installation of two engines P-79 (18500 kgf), later - P-179-300 or AL-41F (ed. 20) with a load of 18500 - 21000 kgf.

At the time, MP Simonov, under the impression of the success of T-10C, insisted that, so to speak, the concept of a new bomber be developed at TsAGI.

T-10C at the Air Force Museum in Monino

Under the leadership of Samoylovich, now the T-60C has become a single-mode aircraft capable of breaking through to a target at high cruising speed and high altitude. The appearance of this vehicle is similar to the MN 70.1 KB MiG, but unlike this interceptor, the T-60C is equipped with an integrated Predator radar system. The 4 X-55 long-range cruise missiles were located in four compartments. It is also possible external suspension. Emphasis was placed on reducing visibility and improving the aerodynamic quality of the aircraft, which generally led to a record range of 11000 km. The on-board equipment developed under this theme was later used on the Su-34.


In 1985, OS Samoylovich, due to a conflict with MP Simonov, transferred to work at the MiG Design Bureau, together with him a group of designers went there, see TIR.

New people, taking responsibility for the theme "B-90", of course, completely redrew the project. Having received the index "object 54С", the new machine has absorbed the best solutions found by the predecessors. Retaining the tailless scheme (with the maximum sweep of the movable part), the 54C object acquired a variable sweep wing and, having lost a certain amount of inconspicuousness, received instead multi-mode, that is, the ability to fly effectively at both high and low altitudes. Probably, it was possible to equip the machine with promising missiles, now known as X-555 and X-101 / 102.

"54C object"

It was supposed to equip the "object 54C" with a "chip" fashionable at that time, with an active self-defense system in the rearview radar and P-73 missiles that were located in the load compartment along with cruise missiles.

The shape of the aircraft, by analogy with the F-117 suddenly announced at that time, became more angular.

Each of these projects — the T-6BM, the “54 object” and the “54C object” - were attempted to be launched into a series at the Novosibirsk aircraft plant. In 1985, a fuel system stand and several "54 object" stands were built at the plant for testing other systems. Later the project is closed and the stands are dismantled.

The subject "54 object" was discontinued by Yeltsin’s order in 1992. Officially, her fiasco was presented as another peace initiative in the framework of negotiations on the limitation of armaments.

In 1994, during the most terrible disruption, inflation and depression goes to launch a new project "54 object". The configuration of the nose is similar to the picture c60.gif, tail - on t54.gif. In the plan view, the cleaning of the wing wing consoles is almost completely under the fuselage, in the retracted position of the console in the plan they form a single surface with a stabilizer. Air intakes on the upper surface of the fuselage. Nozzles - flat, with reverse thrust. The refueling bar was folded with a parallelogram in front of the cabin and was completely closed with flaps. Provided radio absorbing coating. During 1994 - 1995, there was a design and launch of the stands: the fuel system, the "Marabu" - the nose of the fuselage (under the code "Marabu" was the design of the system of so-called "plasma stealth" - paralay), a flat nozzle. At the factory was a liaison, pre-production. Against the background of the factory, and the general post-perestroika poverty, the painful launch of the Su-34, all this looked ridiculous, the last attempts of the former power of the aviation industry of the USSR ...

(It should be noted that at about the same time, the MiG 1.42 was launched at the Sokol aircraft factory. Apparently, these facts are the result of one reason, paralay)

In 1985, one of the first versions of the promising ATF fighter was published, Peter Bytovsky presented T-60C drawings, almost completely replicating this ATF variant.

"Nineties Bomber" - T-60С

xnumx length m
span 20.0 - 31.4 m
120 wing area
maximum 100 000 kg
empty 50 000 kg
fuel 35 000 kg
load 15 000 kg

thrust engines AL-41F:
afterburner 20 000 kgf
maximum 15 800 kgf
working 12 400 kgf

maximum 2100 km / h
cruising 2100 km / h

subsonic 11 000 km
supersonic 7 000 km

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tronin.maxim
    tronin.maxim 17 July 2013 07: 31 New
    Fiction from the past! Sorry now does not fly! And the new one will not be soon!
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 17 July 2013 08: 19 New
      Quote: tronin.maxim
      Sorry now does not fly! And the new one will not be soon!

      Well, what is surprising:

      "The subject 54 object was terminated by Yeltsin’s order in 1992. Officially, its debacle was presented as the next peace initiative in the framework of arms limitation talks."

      the drunk country will go around for a long time.
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 17 July 2013 09: 06 New
        Quote: ...
        "object 54" was discontinued by Yeltsin’s order

        The main thing is that people remember this, as well as the shooting of their own people.

        54 this is of course a revolution, one worth Marabu
        1. Argon
          Argon 17 July 2013 12: 28 New
          It’s an extremely chaotic article, the author got it all in a heap, all three "Novosibirsk" projects. But in general, in this mess everything happened from the 80s to the early 00s series. I want to note that the variable geometry did not appear due to "multi-mode?" and in view of the unreality of getting engines with the given unit costs by regimes (in the foreseeable future). Moreover, as soon as it arose, resistance to the project from the Air Force immediately began to grow since the gain was doubtful, and the warriors did not want to step on the "old" rake, and the glider’s weight loss has fallen, initially being “not up to par”. In general, in my opinion it’s too early to describe those events, it’s not yet possible to talk about everything openly, and most importantly, there is no access to specific “administering” documents the whole picture in chronology, with the characters.
          1. mark1
            mark1 17 July 2013 16: 53 New
            Quote: Argon
            I want to note that the variable geometry did not appear in connection with “multi-mode?”, But in view of the unreality of obtaining engines with given specific flow rates by modes (in the foreseeable future

            Variable geometry was used to improve take-off and landing characteristics; during further flight, setting planes at a small sweep angle would lead to a sharp increase in EPR. Declared specifications for a range of 11000/7000 kM-fiction. Really - 7000/3600. Speed ​​2100/1600 kM / hour. (In any case, they told me so)
            1. Argon
              Argon 17 July 2013 23: 02 New
              Do not listen to anyone, do not you think that in the early 80s, there were no other methods for improving the HPC except for the solution of the mid 60s (I mean sweep), carrying a bunch of "hemorrhoids" with aerodynamics, mechanics, handling.
              1. mark1
                mark1 17 July 2013 23: 34 New
                I would like to know how the methods for improving the HPC of the 80s differed from the mid-60s. I know 3 - wing mechanization by changing its profile, (flaps, wing flaps, etc.), wing mechanization by changing its sweep, installing an additional bearing surface in front of the main wing (PGO), we do not take into account additional lifting power plants.
                The first method, without a combination with the two subsequent ones, may not be effective enough, the PGO immediately puts an end to radar visibility, but the IG in the proposed version is most effective. I think in this case the movable console does not make the design too heavy, because it should only work on take-off and landing and is not designed for any serious overloads. Otherwise, it will look like an attempt to cross a “hedgehog with a snake” - a single-mode stealth bomber with a multi-mode air defense breakthrough aircraft, indeed, the concept of the late 60s
                1. mark1
                  mark1 19 July 2013 11: 56 New
                  And so - "-" and understand how you want, such as "2rak itself". Where are the arguments? Or in this case, the main thing is to kick the damned Yeltsin past and admire the cool design?
                  1. Argon
                    Argon 21 July 2013 23: 47 New
                    I apologize dear mark1, I forgot to look here, and I won’t go deep into the theory. Let’s say that the IG carries such a lot of limitations in design issues that it’s practically not used anymore, I can say about the MiG-23 and Su-17 on domestic aircraft In the modernization projects proposed to foreign operators, IGs do not have (however, not one in the metal has not yet appeared). The most common methodology for increasing the HPC is the active blowing of the boundary layer both from bearing surfaces (MiG-21bis \ SMT) and from surfaces control (С-17), flaps, slats and everything that is possible are blown out. And the rejected thrust vector is not just ignored. Together with the EMF, the log on the glide path will hold. There are some aspects of the "vortex" aerodynamics but the amount of comment does not allow. .e. I have given you at least two more ways to improve the HPV.
  2. King
    King 17 July 2013 08: 34 New
    Object 54C is handsome. I would like to see faster PAK YES. We hope that the designers will not fail.
  3. Fastblast
    Fastblast 17 July 2013 11: 03 New
    Beautiful bird!
    It is a pity the 90s impeded the development of the military-industrial complex
  4. Kir
    Kir 17 July 2013 13: 30 New
    If I’m not mistaken, I saw somewhere and a more detailed article on this topic, and the “drawings” there were of better quality, and how is this maximum speed with a cruising one to one 2100-2100?
    Article minus.
    1. Mister X
      Mister X 17 July 2013 21: 54 New
      Quote: Kir
      somewhere I saw a more detailed article on this topic

      Excerpts from the book "The Battle for Speed. The Great War of Aircraft Engines" are published on the sites.
      Author Valery Augustinovich

      In this article, they pulled a little info from here:
      1. Kir
        Kir 17 July 2013 22: 11 New
        Thanks for the link, but this is definitely not the one I was talking about.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  5. Odysseus
    Odysseus 17 July 2013 15: 38 New
    By the way, it was the T-60S that was supposed to replace the Su-24. The idea of ​​changing them to Su-27IB is already the end of the 80s.
    But the T-60 turned out to be unrealistic even for the Soviet military-industrial complex. Well, after the start of perestroika, it became clear that the project was cheaper ...
  6. Alan
    Alan 17 July 2013 17: 17 New
    Quote: Vadivak
    Quote: ...
    "object 54" was discontinued by Yeltsin’s order

    The main thing is that people remember this, as well as the shooting of their own people.

    54 this is of course a revolution, one worth Marabu

    They will remember for a long time and in order not to forget the monument, they put it in granite ...... although it deserves a stake, aspen is needed!
  7. Constantine
    Constantine 17 July 2013 18: 11 New
    A lot of good projects came in this difficult time. The same Equip, for example. All this is very sad. I hope that the developments on this aircraft we will see in our promising aircraft :)
    1. Kir
      Kir 17 July 2013 19: 13 New
      According to our weather conditions and the possibility of repair in flight, plus basing at any aerodrome, and if with the expectation that it can be operated "in the civilian world", then, in fact, ECIP has no equal.
  8. studentmati
    studentmati 18 July 2013 00: 49 New
    The topic in the article is indicated by an interesting, but chaotic presentation.
  9. _KM_
    _KM_ 18 July 2013 18: 32 New
    Interesting plane. Just do not understand - what is the point of applying the tailless scheme?