Battle for hypersound

58
Mastering Competition aviation hypersonic speeds began during the Cold War. In those years, designers and engineers of the USSR, the USA and other developed countries designed new aircraft that could fly 2-3 times faster than the speed of sound. The race for speed has generated many discoveries in the field of aerodynamics of flights in the atmosphere and quickly reached the limits of the physical capabilities of pilots and the cost of manufacturing an aircraft. As a result, rocket design bureaus were the first to master the hypersound in their offspring - intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and launch vehicles. When launching satellites into near-earth orbits, the rockets developed speeds of 18000 - 25000 km / h. This far exceeded the limit parameters of the fastest supersonic aircraft, both civilian (Concord = 2150 km / h, Tu-144 = 2300 km / h) and military (SR-71 = 3540 km / h, MiG-31 = 3000 km / hour).

Battle for hypersound




Separately, I would like to note that when designing the supersonic MiG-31 interceptor aircraft engineer G.Ye. Lozino-Lozinsky used advanced materials (titanium, molybdenum, etc.) in the airframe design, which allowed the aircraft to reach a record height of manned flight (MiG-31D) and maximum speed in 7000 km / h in the upper atmosphere. In 1977, test pilot Alexander Fedotov set on his predecessor MiG-25 the absolute world record of flight altitude - 37650 meters (for comparison, the SR-71 has a maximum flight height of 25929 meters). Unfortunately, engines for flying at high altitudes in a highly rarefied atmosphere were not yet created, since these technologies were only developed in the depths of Soviet research institutes and design bureaus as part of numerous experimental studies.

A new stage in the development of hypersound technology was research projects to create aerospace systems that combined the capabilities of aviation (aerobatics and maneuver, landing on the runway) and spacecraft (going into orbit, orbital flight, descending from orbit). In the USSR and the USA, these programs have worked partly, revealing the space orbital aircraft Buran and the Space Shuttle to the world.
Why partially? The fact is that the launch of the aircraft into orbit was carried out with the help of a launch vehicle. The cost of the withdrawal was enormous, about 450 million dollars (according to the Space Shuttle program), which was several times higher than the cost of the most expensive civilian and military aircraft, did not allow the orbital plane to make a mass product. The need to invest gigantic funds in the creation of infrastructure that provides ultra-fast intercontinental flights (space centers, flight control centers, fuel filling complexes) has finally buried the prospect of passenger traffic.

The only customer, at least somehow interested in hypersonic devices, remained the military. True, this interest was episodic. The military programs of the USSR and the USA for the creation of aerospace aircraft proceeded along different paths. Still, they were most consistently implemented in the USSR: from the project to create a PKA (planning spacecraft) to MAKS (multipurpose aviation space system) and Buran a consistent and uninterrupted chain of scientific and technical groundwork was built, on the basis of which the foundation of future experimental flights prototypes of hypersonic aircraft.

Rocket design bureaus continued to improve their ICBMs. With the advent of modern air defense systems and missile defense systems capable of shooting down combat units of ICBMs at a great distance, they began to place new demands on the striking elements of ballistic missiles. The warheads of the new ICBM were to overcome the enemy's air and missile defense. So there appeared combat units capable of overcoming A / C at hypersonic speeds (M = 5-6).

The development of hypersonic technology for combat units (warheads) of ICBMs allowed the launch of several projects to create defense and offensive hypersonic weapons - Kinetic (railgun), dynamic (cruise missiles) and space (impact from orbit).

The revitalization of geopolitical rivalry between the United States and Russia and China reanimated the topic of hypersound as a promising tool capable of providing an advantage in the field of space and rocket-aircraft weapons. The increased interest in these technologies is also due to the concept of causing maximum damage to the enemy with conventional (non-nuclear) weapons, which is actually implemented by NATO countries led by the United States.

Indeed, if the military commanders have at least a hundred non-nuclear hypersonic devices that easily overcome existing air defense and missile defense systems, this “last argument of the kings” directly affects the strategic balance between the nuclear powers. Moreover, in the future, a hypersonic rocket can destroy elements of strategic nuclear forces both from the air and from space within a period of not more than an hour from the moment of the decision to the moment of hitting the target. It is this ideology embedded in the American military program Prompt Global Strike (quick global strike).

Is such a program feasible in practice? The arguments “for” and “against” were divided approximately equally. Let's figure it out.

American program Prompt Global Strike


the concept of Prompt Global Strike (PGS) was adopted in the 2000s at the initiative of the command of the US Armed Forces. Its key element is the ability to deliver a non-nuclear strike anywhere in the world within 60 minutes after a decision is made. Work within the framework of this concept is being carried out simultaneously in several directions.

First direction pgs, and the most realistic from a technical point of view, was the use of ICBMs with high-precision non-nuclear warheads, including cluster ones, which are equipped with a set of self-guided sub-munitions. As a test of this direction, the sea-based ICBM Trident II D5 was selected, delivering striking elements to the maximum range of 11300 kilometers. At this time, work is underway to reduce the QUO warheads to values ​​in 60-90 meters.
The second direction is PGS selected strategic hypersonic cruise missiles (SGCR). Within the framework of the adopted concept, the X-51A Waverider (SED-WR) subprogram is being implemented. On the initiative of the US Air Force and the support of DARPA, since 2001, the development of a hypersonic missile has been carried out by Pratt & Whitney and Boeing.
The first result of the ongoing work should be the emergence of a technology demonstrator with an installed hypersonic ramjet engine by 2020 year. According to experts, the SGCR with this engine can have the following parameters: flight speed M = 7 – 8, maximum flight range 1300-1800 km, flight altitude 10-30 km.



In May 2007, after a detailed review of the progress of work on the X-51A WaveRider, military customers approved the rocket design. Experimental SGCB Boeing X-51A WaveRider is a classic cruise missile with the ventral scramjet and four-console tail unit. The materials and the thickness of the passive thermal protection were selected in accordance with the calculated estimates of the heat fluxes. The nose module of the rocket is made of tungsten with a silicon coating, which withstands kinetic heating to 1500 ° C. On the lower surface of the rocket, where temperatures up to 830 ° C are expected, ceramic tiles are used that were developed by Boeing for the Space Shuttle program. The X-51A rocket must meet high requirements for low visibility (EPR no more than 0,01 m 2). To accelerate the product to a speed corresponding to M = 5, it is planned to install a solid-fuel tandem rocket booster.
As the main carrier SGKR it is supposed to use planes of strategic aircraft of the USA. So far there is no information on how these missiles will be placed - under the wing or inside the fuselage of the “strategist”.



PGS 3 are programs to create systems of kinetic weapons, hitting targets from the orbit of the Earth. The Americans calculated in detail the results of the combat use of a tungsten rod about 6 meters in length and 30 cm in diameter, dropped from orbit and hitting a ground object at a speed of about 3500 m / s. According to calculations, energy equivalent to the 12 tonnes of trinitrotoluene (trotyl) is released at the meeting point.

The theoretical justification launched projects of two hypersonic vehicles (Falcon HTV-2 and AHW), which will be launched into orbit by launch vehicles and in combat mode will be able to plan in the atmosphere with increasing speed when approaching the target. While these developments are at the stage of preliminary design and experimental start-ups. The main problematic issues are still basing systems in space (space groups and combat platforms), high-precision targeting systems and securing launching into orbit (any launch and orbital objects are opened by Russian missile attack warning and space control systems). The Americans are hoping to solve the stealth problem after the 2019 year, with the launch of a reusable aerospace system that will put the payload into orbit "on an aircraft" through two stages - carrier aircraft (based on Boeing 747) and unmanned space aircraft (based on prototype apparatus X-37В).

Fourth direction pgs is a program to create an unmanned hypersonic reconnaissance aircraft based on the famous Lockheed Martin SR-71 Blackbird.



The Lockheed division, Skunk Works, is currently developing a promising UAV under the working name SR-72, which should be twice the maximum speed of the SR-71, reaching values ​​around M = 6.
The development of a hypersonic scout is fully justified. First, the SR-72, due to its colossal speed, will be low vulnerable for air defense systems. Secondly, it will fill in the “gaps” in the work of satellites, promptly extracting strategic information and detecting mobile ICBM complexes, ships connections, and groupings of enemy forces in the theater of operations.

Two variants of the SR-72 aircraft, manned and unmanned, are being considered, and its use as a strike bomber, carrier of precision weapons, is also not excluded. Most likely, lightweight missiles without a main engine can be used as weapons, since they are not needed when launched at speed in 6 M. The weight released is likely to be used to increase the power of the CU. The flight prototype of the Lockheed Martin aircraft is scheduled to show in 2023 year.

Chinese project hypersonic aircraft DF-ZF


27 April 2016, the American edition of the Washington Free Beacon, citing sources at the Pentagon, reported to the world about the seventh test of a hypersonic Chinese aircraft DZ-ZF. The aircraft was launched from the Taiyuan Cosmodrome (Shanxi Province). According to the newspaper, the plane made maneuvers at speeds from 6400 to 11200 km / h, and fell at the test site in Western China.

“According to the intelligence of the United States, China plans to use a hypersonic aircraft as a means of delivering nuclear weapons capable of overcoming missile defense systems,” the publication noted. “DZ-ZF can also be used as a weapon capable of destroying a target anywhere in the world within an hour.”

According to the analysis conducted by the US intelligence of the entire test series, the launches of the hypersonic aircraft were carried out by short-range ballistic missiles DF-15 and DF-16 (range up to 1000 km), as well as medium-range DF-21 (range 1800 km). Further testing of launches on the DF-31А ICBMs (11200 km range) was not excluded. According to the test program, the following is known: separating from the carrier in the upper layers of the atmosphere, the apparatus of a cone-shaped form with acceleration planned down and maneuvered on the trajectory of the exit to the target.

Despite numerous publications by foreign media that the Chinese hypersonic aircraft (GLA) is intended to destroy American aircraft carriers, Chinese military experts were skeptical of such statements. They pointed to the well-known fact that the supersonic speed of a GLA creates a plasma cloud around the vehicle, which interferes with the operation of the on-board radar during course adjustment and aiming at such a moving target as an aircraft carrier.

As stated in an interview with China Daily by the professor of the PLA Rocket Forces Command College, Colonel Shao Yonglin: “The super high speed and range makes it (GLA) an excellent means of destroying ground targets. In the future, it can replace intercontinental ballistic missiles. ”

According to the report of the relevant committee of the US Congress, the DZ-ZF can be adopted by the PLA in the 2020 year, and its improved long-range version - by the 2025 year.
Scientific and technical background of Russia - hypersonic aircraft



Hypersonic Tu-2000

In the USSR, work on a hypersonic aircraft began in the Tupolev Design Bureau in the middle of the 1970-s, based on the Tu-144 production passenger aircraft. Conducted research and design of the aircraft, capable of speeds up to M = 6 (TU-260) and flight range to 12000 km, as well as hypersonic intercontinental aircraft TU-360. Its flight distance was to reach 16000 km. It was even prepared a draft passenger hypersonic aircraft Tu-244, designed to fly at an altitude of 28-32 km with a speed of M = 4,5-5.

In February, 1986 in the United States began research and development to create an X-30 spaceplane with an air-jet power plant capable of going into orbit in a single-stage version. The National Aerospace Plane (NASP) project was notable for an abundance of new technologies, the key of which was a dual-mode hypersonic ramjet engine, allowing to fly at speeds of M = 25. According to information obtained by the USSR intelligence service, the NASP was worked out for civil and military purposes.

The response to the development of the transatmospheric X-30 (NASP) was the resolution of the USSR government of 27 in January and 19 in July of 1986 on the creation of the equivalent of the American aerospace plane (VCS). 1 September 1986, the Ministry of Defense issued a technical task for a single-stage reusable aerospace aircraft (MVKS). According to this technical assignment, MVKS was supposed to ensure efficient and economical delivery of cargo to near-earth orbit, high-speed trans-atmospheric intercontinental transportation, and the solution of military tasks both in the atmosphere and in near space. Of the works submitted to the competition, the Tupolev Design Bureau, the Yakovlev Design Bureau and NPO Energia approved the Tu-2000 project.

As a result of preliminary studies under the MVKS program, the power plant was selected on the basis of proven and proven solutions. Existing jet engines (WFD) using atmospheric air had temperature limitations, they were used on aircraft whose speed did not exceed M = 3, and rocket engines had to carry a large amount of fuel on board and were not suitable for long flights in the atmosphere . Therefore, an important decision was made - that the aircraft could fly at supersonic speeds and at all altitudes, its engines should have the features of both aviation and space technology.

It turned out that the most rational for a hypersonic aircraft is a ramjet engine (ramjet), which has no rotating parts, in combination with a turbojet (TRD) engine for acceleration. It was assumed that for flights with hypersonic speeds, the ramjet on liquid hydrogen is most suitable. A booster engine is a turbojet engine operating on either kerosene or liquid hydrogen.

As a result, the working variant was adopted as a combination of an economical turbofan operating in the speed range M = 0-2,5, the second engine - RAMJET, which accelerates the aircraft to M = 20 and LRE to enter orbit (acceleration to the first cosmic speed 7,9 km / s ) and providing orbital maneuvers.

Due to the complexity of solving a set of scientific, technical and technological tasks to create a single-stage MVKS program, the program was divided into two stages: the creation of an experimental hypersonic aircraft with a flight speed of up to M = 5-6, and the development of a prototype orbital video conferencing system that provides the flight experiment flights, up to spacewalk. In addition, at the second stage of the MVKS work, it was planned to create variants of the Tu-2000B space bomber, which was designed as a two-seater aircraft with an 10000 km range and take-off weight of 350 tons. Six engines powered by liquid hydrogen were supposed to provide the speed M = 6-8 at an altitude of 30-35 km.
According to experts OKB them. A.N.Tupolev, the cost of construction of one VKS was supposed to be about 480 million dollars, in 1995 prices of the year (at a cost of OCR 5,29 billion dollars). The estimated launch cost should have been 13,6 million dollars, with the number of 20 starts per year.
For the first time, the layout of the Tu-2000 aircraft was shown at the Mosaeroshow-92 exhibition. Before the work was stopped in the 1992 year, for the Tu-2000, the following were made: the wing box made of nickel alloy, fuselage elements, cryogenic fuel tanks and composite fuel lines.

Atomic M-19

A long-standing "competitor" in strategic aircraft OKB im. Tupolev - Experimental Machine-Building Plant (now EMZ them. Myasishchev) also engaged in the development of single-stage video conferencing in the framework of research and development "Cold-2". The project was named “M-19” and included a study on the following topics:

Theme 19-1. Creation of a flying laboratory with a power plant on liquid hydrogen fuel, development of technology for work with cryogenic fuel;
Theme19-2. Design work to determine the appearance of a hypersonic aircraft;
Theme 19-3. Design work to determine the appearance of a promising video conferencing system;
Theme 19-4. Design work to determine the appearance of alternatives

Nuclear propulsion system with nuclear propulsion.

Work on the prospective VKS was carried out under the direct supervision of the General Designer V.M. Myasishchev and General Designer A.D. Tohuntsa To carry out the R & D components, joint work plans were approved with enterprises of the MAP of the USSR, including: TsAGI, CIAM, NIIAS, ITPM ​​and many others, as well as with the Research Institute of the Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Defense.

The appearance of the single-stage VKS M-19 was determined after studying numerous alternative aerodynamic configuration options. In terms of studies of the characteristics of a new-type power plant, scramjet models were carried out in wind tunnels at speeds corresponding to the numbers M = 3-12. To assess the future effectiveness of the VKS, mathematical models of the apparatus and the combined nuclear propulsion power plant (YARD) were also developed.

The use of VCSs with a combined nuclear propulsion system suggested enhanced possibilities for intensive exploration of both near-Earth space, including remote geostationary orbits, and deep space areas, including the Moon and near-moon space.
The presence of a nuclear installation onboard VCS would also allow it to be used as a powerful energy hub for the operation of new types of space weapons (beam, beam weapons, means of influencing climatic conditions, etc.).

Combined propulsion system (KDU) included:

The nuclear propulsion rocket engine (YARD) based on a nuclear reactor with radiation protection;
10 twin-turbojet engines (DTRDF) with heat exchangers in the internal and external circuits and afterburner;
Hypersonic ramjet engines (scramjet);
Two turbochargers to ensure the flow of hydrogen through the heat exchangers DTRDF;
Distribution node with turbopump units, heat exchangers and pipeline valves, fuel control systems.



Hydrogen was used as a fuel for DTDRDF and scramjet, it was also the working medium in the closed loop of the NRE.
In its final form, the M-19 concept looked like this: the take-off and initial acceleration of the 500-ton VKS performs as a nuclear powered aircraft with closed-cycle engines, and hydrogen serves as a coolant transferring heat from the reactor to ten turbojets. As acceleration and climb are made, hydrogen begins to flow into the afterburner chambers of the turbofan engines, and a little later into straight-through GPRVD. Finally, at an altitude of 50 km, at a flight speed of more than 16M, an atomic nuclear radiation rotor with a 320 mc thrust is activated, which provided an exit into the working orbit 185-200 altitude in kilometers. With a take-off mass of about 500 tons, the V-X M-19 had to launch into a reference orbit with an inclination of 57,3 ° a payload of about 30-40 tons.
It is necessary to note the little-known fact that when calculating the characteristics of the KDU on a turbo-ramjet, rocket-flow and hypersonic flight regimes, the results of experimental studies and calculations carried out at TsIAM, TsAGI and ITAM of the USSR Academy of Sciences were used.

Ajax "- hypersound in a new way

Work on the creation of a hypersonic aircraft was carried out in the SKB "Neva" (St. Petersburg), on the basis of which the State Scientific-Research Enterprise of hypersonic speeds was formed (now OJSC NIPGS HC "Leninets").

In NIPGS to create GLA approached a fundamentally new way. The Alax concept was launched at the end of the 80s. Vladimir Lvovich Freistadt. Its essence is that the GLA has no thermal protection (unlike most VKS and GLA). The heat flux arising during hypersonic flight is injected into the HVA to increase its energy resource. Thus, Alax GLA was an open aerothermodynamic system that converted part of the kinetic energy of the hypersonic air stream into chemical and electrical, simultaneously solving the issue of cooling the airframe. To this end, the main components of a chemical heat recovery reactor with a catalyst located under the airframe were designed.
The aircraft trim in the most thermally stressed places had a two-layer shell. Between the layers of the shell was placed a catalyst of heat-resistant material ("nickel wool"), which was a subsystem of active cooling with chemical heat recovery reactors. According to calculations, in all modes of hypersonic flight, the temperature of the elements of the airframe GLA did not exceed 800-850 ° С.
The GLA includes a direct-flow air-jet engine with supersonic combustion and a main (sustainer) engine - a magneto-plasma-chemical engine (MPCD) integrated with the airframe. MPCD was designed to control the air flow using a magnetic gas-dynamic accelerator (MHD accelerator) and generate electricity using an MHD generator. The generator had a power of up to 100 MW, which was quite enough to power a laser capable of striking various targets in near-earth orbits.

It was assumed that marching MPCD will be able to change the speed of flight in a wide range of flight Mach number. Due to the deceleration of the hypersonic flow by the magnetic field, optimal conditions were created in the supersonic combustion chamber. When tested at TsAGI, it was revealed that the hydrocarbon fuel created under the Ajax concept burns several times faster than hydrogen. The MHD accelerator could “accelerate” the products of combustion, increasing the maximum flight speed to M = 25, which guaranteed access to near-Earth orbit.

The civilian version of the hypersonic aircraft was calculated on the flight speed of 6000-12000 km / h, the flight range is up to 19000 km and the transport of 100 passengers. There is no information about the military developments of the Ajax project.



Russian concept of hypersound - rockets and PAK DA

The work carried out in the USSR and in the early years of the existence of new Russia on hypersonic technologies suggests that the original domestic methodology and scientific and technical background have been preserved and used to create Russian GLA - both in rocket and aircraft design.

In the 2004 year, during the command and staff exercises "Security 2004", the President of Russia V.V. Putin made a statement, still disturbing the minds of the "public". “Experiments and some tests were carried out ... Soon the Russian Armed Forces will receive combat complexes capable of operating at intercontinental distances, at hypersonic speed, with great accuracy, with a wide maneuver in height and direction of impact. These complexes will make any missile defense models unrealistic - existing or prospective. ”
Some domestic media have interpreted this statement to the best of their understanding. For example: “In Russia, the world's first hypersonic maneuvering rocket was developed, which was launched from a strategic Tu-160 bomber in February 2004, when command and control exercises“ Security 2004 ”were conducted
In fact, the PC-18 Stilet ballistic missile with a new combat equipment was launched at the exercises. Instead of a conventional warhead, there was a device on the PC-18 capable of changing the height and direction of flight, and thereby overcoming any anti-missile defense, including the American one. Apparently, the unit tested during the 2004 Security drills was a little-known X-90 hypersonic cruise missile (HRS) developed in the Raduga ICD at the beginning of the 1990s.

Judging by the performance characteristics of this missile, the strategic bomber Tu-160 can take on board two X-90. The rest of the characteristics look like this: the mass of the rocket is 15 tons, the main engine is the scramjet, the accelerator is the solid propellant rocket engine, the flight speed is 4-5 M, the launch height is 7000 m, the flight height is 7000-20000 m, the launch range 3000-3500 km, the number of warheads - 2, the power of the warhead - 200 CT.

In the dispute that the plane or rocket is better, the planes most often lost, since the rockets turned out to be faster and more efficient. And the plane became the carrier of cruise missiles capable of hitting targets at a distance of 2500-5000 km. Launching a rocket on the target, the strategic bomber did not enter the zone of opposing air defense, therefore it did not make sense to make it hypersonic.

"Hypersonic competition" between the aircraft and the rocket is now nearing a new denouement with a predictable result - the missiles are again ahead of the aircraft.

We estimate the situation. Armed with long-range aviation, which is part of the VKS of Russia, are the 60 turboprop Tu-95MS and 16 jet bombers Tu-160. The life of the Tu-95MS expires after 5-10 years. The Ministry of Defense decided to increase the number of Tu-160 to 40 units. Work is underway to upgrade the Tu-160. Thus, new Tu-160M will soon begin to arrive in the VKS. The Tupolev Design Bureau is also the main developer of the promising long-range aviation complex (PAK DA).

Our “probable adversary” is not sitting back, he is investing money in the development of the concept of Prompt Global Strike (PGS). The possibilities of the US military budget in terms of funding significantly exceed the capabilities of the Russian budget. The Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Defense are arguing about the amount of funding for the state armament program for the period up to 2025. And we are talking not only about current expenditures for the purchase of new weapons and military equipment, but also about promising developments, which include PAK DA and GLA technologies.

In the creation of hypersonic ammunition (missiles or projectile) is not all clear. The clear advantage of hypersound is speed, short time to reach the target, high guarantee of overcoming air defense and missile defense systems. However, there are many problems - the high cost of disposable ammunition, the complexity of control when changing the flight path. These shortcomings were decisive arguments in the reduction or closure of programs on a manned hypersound, that is, hypersonic aircraft.

The problem of the high cost of ammunition can be solved by the presence on board an aircraft of a powerful computing complex for calculating the parameters of bombing (launch), which turns ordinary bombs and missiles into high-precision weapons. Similar onboard computing systems installed in the warheads of hypersonic missiles can be equated to the class of strategic precision weapons, which, according to PLA military experts, can replace ICBM complexes. The presence of strategic long-range missile airplanes will call into question the need to maintain long-range aviation as having limitations on the speed and effectiveness of combat use.

The appearance in the arsenal of any army hypersonic anti-aircraft missile (GZR) will force strategic aviation to "hide" on airfields, since the maximum distance from which bomber cruise missiles can be used, such GZR will overcome in a few minutes. Increasing the range, accuracy and maneuverability of the GZR will allow them to shoot down enemy ICBMs at any altitude, as well as to disrupt a massive raid by strategic bombers before they reach the lines of launching cruise missiles. The pilot of the “strategist” will probably detect the launch of the GZR, but it is unlikely he will be able to divert the plane from destruction.

GLA developments, which are now intensively conducted in developed countries, show that they are searching for a reliable tool (weapon) that can guaranteedly destroy the enemy’s nuclear arsenal before using nuclear weapons, as the last argument in defending state sovereignty. Hypersonic weapons can be used on the main centers of political, economic and military power of the state.
Hypersound in Russia is not forgotten, work is underway to develop missile weapons based on this technology (Sarmat ICBM, Rubezh ICBM, X-90), but to rely on only one type of weaponry (miracle weapon, ") It would at least be wrong.
There is still no clarity in the creation of the PAK YES, since the basic requirements for its intended use and combat use are still unknown. Existing strategic bombers, as components of the nuclear triad of Russia, are gradually losing their importance due to the emergence of new types of weapons, including hypersonic ones.

The course of "containment" of Russia, proclaimed the main task of NATO, is objectively capable of leading to aggression against our country, in which the North Atlantic Treaty Army will be prepared and armed with modern means. In terms of the number of personnel and armaments, NATO exceeds Russia by 5 – 10 times. A “sanitary belt” is being built around Russia, including military bases and missile defense positions. In essence, NATO-led events are described in military terms as operational training of a theater of operations (theater of operations). In this case, the main source of arms supplies remains to the United States, as was the case in the First and Second World Wars.



A hypersonic strategic bomber can, within an hour, be at any point on the globe over any military object (base) from which the supply of resources to military forces, including the "sanitary belt", is ensured. Lowly vulnerable to missile defense and air defense systems, it can destroy such objects with powerful high-precision non-nuclear weapons. The presence of such a GLA in peacetime will be an additional deterrent to supporters of global military adventures.

Civilian GLA can become a technical basis for a breakthrough in the development of intercontinental flights and space technologies. The scientific and technical background of the Tu-2000, M-19 and Ajax projects is still relevant and can be in demand.

What will be the future PAK DA - subsonic with SGKR or hypersonic with modified conventional weapons, to decide customers - the Ministry of Defense and the Government of Russia.

“Who else before the battle wins by preliminary calculation, he has a lot of chances. Who else before the battle does not win by calculation, he has little chance. Who has a lot of chances - wins. Who has little chance - does not win. Moreover, he who has no chance at all. ” / Sun Tzu, "The Art of War" /

Military expert Alexei Leonkov
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cat
    +7
    11 March 2017 07: 18
    Thanks for the review!
    I especially appreciated that our projects were also considered.
    1. +8
      11 March 2017 09: 42
      Great and interesting article. Thanks to the author!
  2. +2
    11 March 2017 08: 11
    A lot of controversy in the review, but, actually, it was interesting to read.
  3. +2
    11 March 2017 08: 35
    Missiles will win. Actually they have already won. The expected cost of servicing a hypersonic aircraft is already equal to the cost of launching an ordinary rocket into orbit, which is several times cheaper. Therefore, PAK DA is sawn up according to traditional stealth technology in subsonic version for hypersonic cruise missiles. Unlike the Yankees, we already have them in metal.
  4. +4
    11 March 2017 09: 42
    "which allowed the aircraft to reach a record manned flight altitude (MiG-31D) and a maximum speed of 7000 km / h in the upper atmosphere." If possible, author, please indicate where the information about achieving this speed comes from. "
    1. 0
      11 March 2017 11: 45
      Maybe the author inadvertently confused X-15 with Mig31?
  5. 0
    11 March 2017 10: 14
    The article is interesting, informative. All the foreign and domestic projects described in it so far remain searchlights. The speed of 5-6M can be achieved, the problems are mainly related to the handling of the GLA and have not yet been resolved.
  6. 0
    11 March 2017 11: 20
    The cost of creation and ownership for such aircraft is too high, i.e. build them will be no more than a dozen (this is even if in the foreseeable future it is generally possible to do). For this money, it’s better to develop hypersonic missiles, especially air-based missiles (as an example for PAK DA) - which will simply be a launch platform - to barrage several thousand kilometers from the enemy and, if necessary, launch dozens of hypersonic missiles - which will be reflected in the foreseeable future no country is able to.
  7. +1
    11 March 2017 11: 46
    The battle for hyper speed has not yet begun. Man, as a small and unreasonable child who does not have all the potential for vitality, is trying to assimilate in a world where everything is opposed to his being. However, man is driven by the desire to set new tasks and solve them. But! For this, a person must develop his own abilities. The main thing in the new circumstances of people's lives is the question of how to analyze processes in the world of super-large volumes of information. In their tension and volatility. In their contrast and contrast. Therefore, the pioneers of new achievements are people with logic no longer based on duality in the analysis of events taking place around them, but capable of seeing the entire multipolar co-totality of processes. It is precisely the foundations of such an analysis that we can speak of when considering the function of a number in its constant value.
    The processes associated with the struggle for hyperspeed are a special issue in the analysis of rapidly dynamic transformations of complex physical processes that cannot be solved without new methods of such analysis, which will make it possible to do this in absolute completeness and accuracy of the analysis of the whole vast totality and connectedness of all particulars.
    1. +3
      11 March 2017 14: 06
      Gridasov, again you are for the old! In that case, let's start the battle for hyperspeed. We are waiting! The whole country relies only on you. Moreover, not even one country. I think that even though you broadcast in Russian, which some people don’t seem to like, well, God bless them, Ukraine secretly hopes for you too - when do you cope with the analysis of “rapidly dynamic transformations of complex physical processes”, or what there is something else, but you know better.
    2. 0
      11 March 2017 16: 51
      State your thoughts technically.
      1. 0
        11 March 2017 19: 18
        In technical terms, everything looks even much simpler. Modern propellers, turbines as their derivatives, do not use all the properties of hydro-gas-dynamic flow. More precisely, they do not use the main property. When we look at the movement of water, we see jets, we see such phenomena that are determined by the vectors of motion of these jets, and therefore geometric definitions. But when taking into account and calculating the motion of bodies in flows, we analyze only certain properties. We do not analyze the change in the trajectory of movement jets in streams, we do not see seals and concentrations, we do not see what happens after compression of the jet and stream. However, all this is crucial. Therefore, there is talk of such accelerating engines that use those properties of the gas-dynamic air flow that are the causes of destruction of both blades and turbines and rotor blades. There is the possibility of a fundamental change in the quality of the process in the ongoing thermodynamic processes in the engine. The engine becomes simpler, which means more solid. High-speed modes of rotation of the same rotor increase by multiple, without problems with destruction. The time will come and it will be possible to talk about such turbines, which so far do not fit into the imagination of scientists. Ultimately, mankind will fly on aircraft interacting with the environment through magnetic interactions. By the way, the turbine in question works in any environment without any upgrades or alterations.
        1. 0
          12 March 2017 02: 05
          Gridasov, stop hitting people with your knowledge of hydrodynamics. "Jets in streams" ... damn it! Seals and Concentrations! Something seems to me that you don’t even know what the current function is.
          1. 0
            12 March 2017 13: 13
            Ie you want to say. that the hydro-gas-dynamic flow is monolithic and there is no structure of separately moving jets that make up the system of this flow and which determine its energy. Yes, look how the water flows on the street or from the tap. I advise you to simply light up the stream from the tap with a flashlight and look at it from below. You will see the shape is far from cylindrical or conical. Secondly, electric current is a function of magnetic force processes. and not vice versa. But if the properties of magnetic fluxes are known in the form of their information functions — quantitative parameters of dimensions, direction vectors, and potential, then it is always possible to model the electric current in several functions of its form. Already the current itself and its qualitatively different types. Therefore, no one sees that electric current to electric current is very great discord. Hence the inability to build a direct current elementary transformer in direct action and without any additional email. devices or a more complex algorithm. In addition, the same direct current can be different in frequency and in basic amplitude parameters, but also in some parameters. In addition, the most important.
            1. +1
              12 March 2017 16: 35
              Gridasov, draw a couple of formulas. Better calm down
    3. 0
      11 March 2017 17: 30
      Try to express your thoughts more clearly so that it doesn’t work out. as in that song by Vysotsky: “He broke all brains into parts. He braided all the convolutions and the Kanatchik authorities injected us a second injection”
      1. 0
        11 March 2017 19: 26
        It remains only to regret, but nowhere is simpler. I do not invent complex and vague terms. We are talking about simple physical phenomena. I am in no way unique in my abilities. Just read it thoughtfully and grow. Is the medium elastic? then with increasing speed, the resistance for the aircraft increases. So this power can be used. Moreover, not only force is used, but also its concentration in individual nodes of the rotating rotor. . So the higher the speed and resistance, the lower the cost of overcoming this resistance.
  8. 0
    11 March 2017 11: 47
    You read and udamaesh, if it weren’t for the hunchbacked Misha, these cars would have flown.
    1. 0
      11 March 2017 13: 46
      It is NOT worth looking for the guilty, but it is worth looking for methods and solutions to problems. Cars would definitely not fly because it is a fundamentally different level of energy processes. It is surprising that those who build these machines and try to get the result without understanding the processes do not understand this. Just as heavy missiles do not fly, hyper speeds will not be reached because such physical processes occur. which must be analyzed differently and technically decided differently. All that remains is for all to wait to be convinced of this.
      1. 0
        11 March 2017 16: 33
        The dilemma is clear: to quickly remove heat, ideally, with the benefit of speed - or to resist it (without the cost of energy). Crossing is unlikely. Manage your environment - even less.
        I forgot, and this is if we still have enough engines
        1. 0
          11 March 2017 19: 29
          Heat is always a sign of a certain interaction of magnetic force interactions. Therefore, it is not necessary to solve problems that can not be created. It is really difficult to control the environment, but you can control the property of the substance of the medium. Air and water are substances that have their own properties.
          1. 0
            11 March 2017 20: 08
            come on, environment exists, it means that resistance can (and should) only increase
            1. 0
              11 March 2017 21: 15
              It is growing, but it is being used to the same and full extent. And why should I prove it when everything is so simple and obvious.
              1. 0
                12 March 2017 08: 44
                it is only obvious that “use” will have to increase the pressure on the walls of the body and their increased heating, and if you can do something else with heating, then with the drag - no
                1. 0
                  12 March 2017 12: 23
                  Of course, I will not give a complete and comprehensive explanation of how this is done. However, I can say that heating is always the interaction of magnetic force flows of a certain configuration and parameters. Therefore, the front of a hyper-speed aircraft can be arranged in such a way that the ionization processes in a certain part of the engine are not attenuated. on the contrary, amplified. Then it turns out the polarization will take the opposite direction and will compensate for the process that is happening in its modern form. Of course, the front of the aircraft should not be pointed. Well, everyone knows this and it is elementary that any pointed forms have the greatest degree of magnetic polarization. The rationale is simple and logical. At the same time, in simple terms, the shape of an aircraft during hyperspeed flights acquires the function of a generator., Or rather a redistributor of magnetic force flows. A similar technology can already be used for movement under water. And I admit that approximate effects are already observed when using torrents of SHKVAL. Only they used a chemical reagent, and we are talking about a mechanical way to achieve ultrahigh speeds. Therefore, when you look at modern aircraft engines, you understand that scientists and engineers simply do not see the process at the level of magnetic force interactions between the medium and the body., Moving in it. This also allows you to fly in a super-economical mode, as well as absolute safety. Since with a decrease in the mass of the overall parameters, it will be possible to put spare or regime engines, which will provide power availability orders of magnitude and higher than now. After all, everyone understands that we need more than just engine power. but you need their traction ability.
                  1. 0
                    12 March 2017 13: 36
                    a flurry is a cool trick that does not cancel the general problem, but only pushes its boundary. With a “dumb” face (I’m sorry) you won’t even go to the ultra-high speeds to apply your ideas. And the engine is not a turbine, but a straight-through
                    1. 0
                      12 March 2017 13: 46
                      Not with a "stupid face" for sure. And the engine is not direct-flow. Why not direct-flow? Because a ramjet engine can never be economical. In addition, the shortest path in space is direct, but for electromagnetic processes, the space is radial, which means high-potential electromagnetic processes, including flight at hyper speeds, are provided by energy in radial spatial interactions.
                      1. 0
                        12 March 2017 13: 53
                        hic ... better I drink more
  9. 0
    11 March 2017 12: 44
    It’s interesting how a war can develop between more or less equal opponents with the use of such high-tech stuff? If not at the "training grounds" of local wars, but seriously? After all, after the exchange of attacks, the infrastructure that ensures their production and generally the maintenance of the army at the modern level will most likely be destroyed.
  10. +1
    11 March 2017 13: 56
    Interesting article. But the impression is a lot of fiction. For example - the mysterious "ajax", which looks like crazy nonsense. Or an atomic plane with ten for some reason turbojet engines and mysterious heat exchangers. In general, in principle, it is doubtful that a flight with air capture at a speed of a higher velocity of outflow from the engine is possible. And typical flow rates are several kilometers per second. Here is the practical limit for an airplane that captures air and burns fuel in it. It is possible that this expiration rate can be slightly exceeded due to the fact that the working fluid also has a contribution from fuel, but such an aircraft, I think, will be very uneconomical, because the part of the working fluid that came out of the air will fly out of the aircraft at a speed less than what arrived (relative to the plane). That is, if there was no contribution from fuel, then such an engine would slow down the plane, and not move it. For a nuclear engine, the flow rate, it is argued, may be greater, even much greater, but it is complex and dangerous in catastrophes, and even during normal operation.
    1. +1
      12 March 2017 08: 40
      Quote: Falcon5555
      mysterious heat exchangers

      There is nothing mysterious in them. Replacing the combustion chamber. Heat is supplied to the working fluid not from burning fuel, but from the reactor.
  11. +3
    11 March 2017 14: 15
    Quote: Author
    Eventually first hypersound mastered rocket design bureaus in their offspring - intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and launch vehicles. At the conclusion to near-earth orbits rocket satellites developed speeds 18000 - 25000 km / h.


    Beyond the Karman line (over 100 km) talk about "hypersound" crazy.
    LV Proton in 5 minutes 37 seconds after launch from the spaceport at altitude about 155 km has a speed of more than 4,3 km / s (15600 km / h)
    If I am an author at 155 km of altitude find the air to sound (crackle) - I agree

    Quote: Author
    which allowed the aircraft to reach a record manned flight altitude (MiG-31D) and maximum speed in 7000 km / h in the upper atmosphere.


    wassat

    Military иkspert Alexei Leonkov ....
    Teach you how to quickly convert km / h to m / s and vice versa?
    3,6 (60 * 60 / 1000)
    So 7000km / h: 3,6 = 1944,4 m / s. sound speed 340 m // s +/-)
    total 5,72 M CARL, listen to Carl, this is 6 M. It's about 3500K (+ 2773grC = grC) on the skin
    If CHE, then:


    Quote: bouncyhunter
    Great and interesting article. Thanks to the author!


    / You can not read further
    1. +1
      12 March 2017 08: 47
      Quote: opus

      Beyond the Karmana line (over 100 km)
      If I am an author at 155 km of altitude find the air to sound (crackle) - I agree

      Well, you understand that the conditional boundary of the atmosphere is conditional. Above 100km there is air too. But, of course, the properties of the atmosphere change with height. However, there are known cases of meteor tanning at altitudes as high as 400km.

      So 7000km / h: 3,6 = 1944,4 m / s. sound speed 340 m // s +/-)
      total 5,72 M KARL, listen to Karl, it's 6 M

      For what height? For example, at a height of 30 km of airspeed of 7000 km / h, there corresponds a Mach number of 10.
      1. +1
        12 March 2017 19: 09
        Quote: Avis
        Above 100km there is air too. But, of course, the properties of the atmosphere change with height.

        at an altitude of 80000m V sound = 282,54 m/s
        at 100km there is NO sound, which means there is no sound speed either
        Vacuum engineering (Karman line)

        Quote: Avis
        For example, at an altitude of 30km airspeed 7000km / h, the Mach number 10 corresponds.

        and at what temperature?
        Threat.

        20000m 295,07 m/s
        50000 329,80 m / s
        I do not care M.
        7000 km / h for the MIG-31 D-bullshit.

        Military expert, Commercial Director Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine Aleksey Leonkov ...
        Let him do business.
        always sculpts nonsense

        “Better than stealth: the PAK DA Russian bomber is ready to surprise the West ...

        Alexei Leonkov noted that “the on-board defense complex in combination with electronic warfare equipment is better than stealth ....

        he had electronic warfare systems, electronic warfare systems at least once seen in his life.
        and milk on the radar screen from the action of REP systems?
        1. +1
          12 March 2017 20: 05
          Quote: opus

          at 100km there is NO sound, which means there is no sound speed either
          Vacuum engineering (Karman line)

          I did not write anything about the sound above 100km. I just noted that aerodynamics are above 100km. Look, for example, on the satellite Cosmos-149.
          Yes, at such heights, super-aerodynamics comes into play, but, nevertheless, aerodynamics.

          and at what temperature?

          Lazy to look, I used the counter.

          7000 km / h for the MIG-31 D-bullshit.

          This is not an objection to me. I wrote only what I wrote.
          About EW / REP / stealth is also not for me, and ask him why he is all this ...
  12. 0
    11 March 2017 16: 59
    Probably the Tu 2000 is the cheapest and easiest of all the listed VKS.
  13. 0
    11 March 2017 19: 44
    Quote: Vadim237
    State your thoughts technically.

    Gridasov? In technical terms? Are you laughing Indeed, apart from pseudo-scientific statements, you will not get anything from him

    Quote: kos 75
    You read and udamaesh, if it weren’t for the hunchbacked Misha, these cars would have flown.

    What kind? Tu-260 and Tu-360? So, by the time of Gorbachev’s arrival, there was only EP, further work was stopped. TU-2000? So the project was closed in 1992, already under Yeltsin. To fly already? Mythical X = 90 on TU-160 ??
    1. 0
      12 March 2017 07: 31
      Then they knew how to bring it to mind. Over the past 30 years, they would most likely have brought it. Compare the ideas of that time with the current draft of the pack. It is estimated that we have been stomping these 30 years if we are not going backwards.
      1. 0
        12 March 2017 23: 02
        We just have money, now, there is no money for such projects, the development of a videoconferencing system is at least 200-300 billion rubles.
  14. 0
    12 March 2017 09: 22
    Quote: kos 75
    Then they knew how to bring it to mind. Over the past 30 years, they would most likely have brought it. Compare the ideas of that time with the current draft of the pack. It is estimated that we have been stomping these 30 years if we are not going backwards.

    That one said for the astronautics that there is no forward movement, but we are marking time, now another for aviation ...
    What progress do you need? So that fighters fly at speeds of 10M? So that they could go into space and fight there? Nuclear or ionic aircraft needed?
    Damn, there has been and is progress, but many want everything at once, but it doesn’t. All these projects of the 70s remained projects. Until now, we do not have engines stably working in hypersound. And what would have been brought to mind in 30 years, if in the 80s it became known that hypersound would not appear tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Build aircraft without engines?
    As for PAK YES. Here, as always when designing complex systems, the basis is a compromise. Or to make a supersonic bomber, which modern radar tools will detect for several hundred kilometers, or to make a subsonic plane, invisible to radars? And only on the basis of the technical conditions that the military put forward and a new machine is being made. In this case - subtle, but subsonic. And more about progress. 30 years ago, only dedicated people knew about stealth technology. And they did not know how this technology would behave in a real-life apparatus. Now they know.
    Engines have become more powerful. Is this not progress?
    Engines have become more economical, which means the range has increased. Is this not progress?
    The nomenclature of weapons has changed radically. Is this not progress?
    The crew instead of 10-12 people began to have 2 pilots. Is this not progress?
    Etc.
    1. +2
      12 March 2017 10: 33
      Quote: Old26

      Engines have become more powerful. Is this not progress?
      Engines have become more economical, which means the range has increased. Is this not progress?
      The nomenclature of weapons has changed radically. Is this not progress?
      The crew instead of 10-12 people began to have 2 pilots. Is this not progress?
      Etc.

      These are all quantitative changes, not qualitative ones.
      Progress among gas turbine engines is the transition to turbofan engines. 1950s.
      In armaments, a radical change occurred in the 1940s. Since then, nothing fundamentally new has been invented.
      The same thing with the crew. M-50 and T-4 with two crew members flew back in the 1950s.
      In short, progress has stalled since the 1980s. To argue with this is stupid.
      1. +1
        12 March 2017 12: 29
        Real progress is modest and inconspicuous. Here is this little thing X-37
        hanging out (for months) on our heads it is not known where and on what trajectories ...
        1. 0
          12 March 2017 12: 32
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Here is this little thing X-37
          hanging out (for months) on our heads it is not known where and on what trajectories ...

          Yes of course. Why something, and monitoring such "invisibles" is well established.
          1. +1
            12 March 2017 12: 48
            "and monitoring such" invisibles "is well established" ////

            Yeah... No. amateur astronomers from different hemispheres of the Earth periodically chop it up here and there, and then, by joint efforts, calculate its “feints and pretzel”.
            1. 0
              12 March 2017 13: 02
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Yeah...

              Yes as it is
              Quote: voyaka uh
              amateur astronomers from different hemispheres of the Earth periodically chop it up here and there, and then, by joint efforts, calculate its “feints and pretzel”.

              And at this time, our "astronomers in civilian clothes" just work. Their service, apparently the little that still works. And yet, somewhere on our airfields, covered with covers, there are MiG31 on duty, on the pylons of which are "gifts" for such "invisibles", if they suddenly really start to play pranks
        2. +1
          12 March 2017 12: 44
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Real progress is modest and inconspicuous. Here is this little thing X-37
          hanging out (for months) on our heads it is not known where and on what trajectories ...

          Also a purely quantitative difference. Well, they removed the LSS from the shuttle and got a fully returned satellite reconnaissance. Nothing fundamentally new. Scouts since the 1960s "dump" their results on Earth.
          1. 0
            12 March 2017 15: 22
            Quote: Avis
            Also a purely quantitative difference. Well, they removed the LSS from the shuttle and got a fully returned satellite reconnaissance. Nothing fundamentally new

            - famously ... I can justify anything like that
            - a car? Nothing new; they took two bicycles, put an engine between them, and around all the garbage they turned. And the wheels remained as they were laughing

            If you have a task to amuse people, then you are coping with it very successfully, continue Yes
            1. +1
              12 March 2017 15: 35
              Quote: Cat Man Null

              - famously ... I can justify anything like that
              - a car? Nothing new; they took two bicycles, put an engine between them, and around all the garbage they turned. And the wheels remained as they were laughing
              If you have a task to amuse people, then you are coping with it very successfully, continue Yes

              Move the mirror away. If you are not aware that automatic spacecraft flew before Gagarin, these are your problems. If you can’t know the story so far, then an example is closer - “Buran”. If you do not understand that the entire flight profile of the X-37th has long been performed by hundreds of devices (the difference is only in the time spent in orbit), then only a psychiatrist will help you.
              And the analogy with two bicycles is just moronic, not even funny.
              1. 0
                12 March 2017 15: 38
                Quote: Avis
                And the analogy with two bikes is just moronic, not even funny

                - I agree. However, like yours

                Quote: Avis
                removed the SJO from the shuttle and received a fully returned satellite reconnaissance
                1. +1
                  12 March 2017 15: 42
                  [quote = Cat Man Null]
                  - I agree. However, like yours

                  I don’t care what a person thinks who does not understand the simplest things ..
                  1. 0
                    12 March 2017 16: 08
                    Quote: Avis
                    I don’t care what a person who does not understand the simplest things thinks

                    - Do not do it yourself ... deceit, say; You hiss and spit, which means that you, at least, "don't really care."
                    - when really do not care - it happens like this:
                    Quote: Anecdote

                    - sir, you won the competition ...
                    - I don’t care!
                    - but, sir ... an international competition, a lot of applicants, and it is you ...
                    - I don’t care!
                    - but sir ... you were awarded a cash prize ...
                    - I don’t care!
                    “Sir, is the prize big?”
                    - Yes it's big.
                    - and I thought you do not care ...
                    - I don’t care what you thought!

                    That's about as Yes
                    1. +1
                      12 March 2017 16: 14
                      Quote: Cat Man Null
                      Quote: Avis
                      I don’t care what a person who does not understand the simplest things thinks

                      - Do not do it yourself ... deceit, say; You hiss and spit, which means that you, at least, "don't really care."

                      Your imagination has run wild.
                      Well, the blunt jokes quoted by you describe the level of your "intelligence" even better.
  15. +1
    12 March 2017 14: 02
    Quote: Avis
    These are all quantitative changes, not qualitative ones ..

    And what is considered quality? Improving the fuel efficiency of engines - how? Qualitative and quantitative change?

    Quote: Avis
    Progress among gas turbine engines is the transition to turbofan engines. 1950s ..

    Yes? And the development of turbofan engines, an increase in their efficiency, is it qualitative or how is the change?

    Quote: Avis
    In armaments, a radical change occurred in the 1940s. Since then nothing more has been invented fundamentally new ..

    Really, really in the 1940s? And then nothing fundamentally new? Well, of course, you are one of those who believe that progress is “leaps” - everything else is stagnation and regression
    Yes, the FAU-1 was launched from an airplane, like the X-101. But these two cruise missiles are united only by the fact that they are cruise. Everything else is progress.

    Quote: Avis
    The same thing with the crew. M-50 and T-4 with two crew members flew back in the 1950s.

    AND? They were used in hostilities and it can be said that how effective would a crew of 2 in those years be? Even already on the T-4M it was already planned to increase to 3. Real strategists flew in those years with a crew of ten people. Cars 20-30 years old - already at 4. Now cost two. So the presence of a crew of 2 on experimental models still does not mean anything ...

    Quote: Avis
    In short, progress has stalled since the 1980s. To argue with this is stupid.

    What you are right about is that it’s stupid to believe that progress has stopped ...
    1. +1
      12 March 2017 15: 09
      Quote: Old26

      And what is considered quality? Improving the fuel efficiency of engines - how? Qualitative and quantitative change?

      I wrote - quantitative.

      Yes? And the development of turbofan engines, an increase in their efficiency, is it qualitative or how is the change?

      See above.
      Really, really in the 1940s? And then nothing fundamentally new?

      Nothing. Okay, almost nothing - GOS is also a qualitative change. But the first GOS appeared in the late 1940s.
      You yourself wrote about the "nomenclature of weapons." And this is AB, UAB, KR, NAR / UR, artillery. What exactly has changed in the “armament nomenclature”?

      Well, of course, you are one of those who believe that progress is “leaps” - everything else is stagnation and regression

      Almost, but not quite. The rapid growth of performance is progress. Catching percent - no. Namely, this aircraft industry has been dealing with the last 20-30 years (in different industries in different ways).
      The first years of turbofan engines showed an increase in efficiency by 10-25 percent every 5-7 years. Then the increase in bypass and temperature in front of the turbine ran into an insurmountable limit. From about the mid-to-late 1980s, fishing for percent of profitability began.
      The same is true in LA gliders: the “pipe with wings” exhausted itself even before there was a stagnation in engine building, but it is still pulled by the hair for some reason.
      Same thing with avionics. The first fully automatic flight (across the Atlantic) of the DC-4 was made somewhere in the late 1940s or early 1950s. It’s just that they learned to trust such avionics only by the 1970s.
      And there are many such examples, I limited myself to the first that I remembered.

      Yes, the FAU-1 was launched from an airplane, like the X-101. But these two cruise missiles are united only by the fact that they are cruise. Everything else is progress.

      What exactly? Switching from lamps to semiconductors?
      AND? They were used in hostilities and it can be said that how effective would a crew of 2 in those years be?

      The reverse is also not proven.
      Real strategists flew in those years with a crew of ten people.

      "Real strategists" do not exist. Not a single post-war "strategist" has ever been used for its intended purpose.
      the presence of a crew of 2 on experimental models does not mean anything ...

      He speaks. Everything was ready for such a transition, the question of fine-tuning the equipment and overcoming the psychological barrier. I do not know the reasons for the decision to switch to 3 people, but the conservatism of our military in this regard knows no boundaries. They still have a crew without a radar operator that is considered flawed (see IL-476).
      What you are right about is that it’s stupid to believe that progress has stopped ...

      Well, do not believe it, this is your right.
  16. +1
    12 March 2017 20: 15
    Quote: Avis
    Nothing. Okay, almost nothing - GOS is also a qualitative change. But the first GOS appeared in the late 1940s.
    You yourself wrote about the "nomenclature of weapons." And this is AB, UAB, KR, NAR / UR, artillery. What exactly has changed in the “armament nomenclature”?


    So what of the fact that the first homing heads appeared in the late 40s? On what principles did they work then and what variants of such heads exist now? Or is this also not progress?
    Based on this view, we can say that progress in the development of small arms has stopped at the level of 15-18 years of the last century. After all, nothing has fundamentally changed? Is not it
    Communication progress has stopped at the level of the beginning of the last century. After all, there are no fundamental leaps .. We do not use gravitational waves or anything else exotic in communication.

    Quote: Avis
    Almost, but not quite. The rapid growth of performance is progress. Catching percent - no. Namely, this aircraft industry has been dealing with the last 20-30 years (in different industries in different ways).
    The first years of turbofan engines showed an increase in efficiency by 10-25 percent every 5-7 years. Then the increase in bypass and temperature in front of the turbine ran into an insurmountable limit. From about the mid-to-late 1980s, fishing for percent of profitability began.
    The same is true in LA gliders: the “pipe with wings” exhausted itself even before there was a stagnation in engine building, but it is still pulled by the hair for some reason.
    Same thing with avionics. The first fully automatic flight (across the Atlantic) of the DC-4 was made somewhere in the late 1940s or early 1950s. It’s just that they learned to trust such avionics only by the 1970s.
    And there are many such examples, I limited myself to the first that I remembered.

    In one case, the process is irregular, explosive, revolutionary, in the other case evolutionarily. The same "catch percent"
    Pull by the hair - actually forward. You want leaps in everything - this does not happen

    Quote: Avis
    What exactly? Switching from lamps to semiconductors?

    At least. It is this transition that is progress. Control systems become less bulky, more noise-resistant. On-board computers from cars weighing several tens of kilograms turned into 1,5-2 kg of “product”.

    Quote: Avis
    AND? They were used in hostilities and it can be said that how effective would a crew of 2 in those years be?

    The reverse is also not proven.

    It was proved that the crew of strategists (intercontinental) should have been quite significant. But in the late 50s and 60s, two were enough - this just was not proved, since there were no such vehicles at all in combat units. Now 2 people on the V-2 are enough to fulfill their responsibilities

    Quote: Avis
    "Real strategists" do not exist. Not a single post-war "strategist" has ever been used for its intended purpose.

    In a global nuclear war? It was definitely not used due to the lack thereof. But in local wars, strategists with large crews were most often used, since it was not possible to reduce the number of crew in those years. And only progress in areas such as electronics, navigation systems, aiming systems, etc. allowed to reduce the crew without compromising the effectiveness of actions

    Quote: Avis
    He speaks. Everything was ready for such a transition, the question of fine-tuning the equipment and overcoming the psychological barrier. I do not know the reasons for the decision to switch to 3 people, but the conservatism of our military in this regard knows no boundaries. They still have a crew without a radar

    The reason was that 2 people could not cope with the complex of tasks that a heavy strategic bomber performs. And sometimes there is nothing wrong with conservatism. My friends, who flew both in our cars and in the western (passenger) with a minimum crew, admit that progress in reducing the crew is not always justified. Many incidents could have been avoided by the presence of another crew member. True, this applies to passenger cars
    1. +1
      12 March 2017 20: 58
      Quote: Old26

      So what of the fact that the first homing heads appeared in the late 40s? On what principles did they work then and what variants of such heads exist now? Or is this also not progress?

      The first is IR. The rest is just a shift in spectrum.

      Based on this view, we can say that progress in the development of small arms has stopped at the level of 15-18 years of the last century. After all, nothing has fundamentally changed? Is not it

      So. Although, it is possible that slicing a variable pitch promises something that normal automatic “trunks” learned to do only by the 1940s. I am poorly versed in small arms, including, do not drag these analogies into a conversation about aviation.

      Communication progress has stopped at the level of the beginning of the last century. After all, there are no fundamental leaps .. We do not use gravitational waves or anything else exotic in communication.

      There are several leaps in connection. Superheteroids did not appear at the "beginning of the last century." Some antennas also made jerks. Encryption. Including, here your example is again not in cash. Including because we are here about aviation.

      In one case, the process is irregular, explosive, revolutionary, in the other case evolutionarily. The same "catch percent"

      The improvement process is without question, even if at least a fraction of a percent is caught. But this is a halt to progress. Yes, sometimes before a new jerk. But a pause. Stop. Trample.

      Pull by the hair - actually forward. You want leaps in everything - this does not happen

      See above.

      At least. It is this transition that is progress. Control systems become less bulky, more noise-resistant. On-board computers from cars weighing several tens of kilograms turned into 1,5-2 kg of “product”.

      Believe me, I am in the know. Aircraft are only a little easier or less. They have not fundamentally improved.
      It was proved that the crew of strategists (intercontinental) should have been quite significant.

      Not proven. And do not enter new parameters ("intercontinental"). We talked about airplanes capable of solving strategic tasks. It is not necessarily intercontinental. Tu-22 ("awl") within Zap. Europe could well solve strategic problems. Three persons. M-50 and T-4 - also could. Two people. OK, ok ... let three. Not a big difference. French carriers of nuclear weapons - too. I don’t remember two people (Mirage-4) or one (other "mirages"). Perhaps I completely zipped up the example aircraft, but this is to complete the picture.
      Looking at them, the others would have pulled themselves up. The issue of refinement and psychological barrier. But the planes did not go into the series.

      But in the late 50s and 60s, two were enough - this just was not proved, since there were no such vehicles at all in combat units.

      As the opposite, I repeat.

      In a global nuclear war? It was definitely not used due to the lack thereof.

      That is what I was talking about.

      But in local wars, strategists with large crews were most often used, since

      ... there was neither time, nor desire to change what "already works."
      The reason was that 2 people could not cope with the complex of tasks that a heavy strategic bomber performs.

      I'm already tired of recalling the M-50 and T-4.
      My friends, who flew both in our cars and in the western (passenger) with a minimum crew, admit that progress in reducing the crew is not always justified.

      They failed to rebuild their thinking. A common problem among those who started flying until around the mid-1980s.

      Many incidents could have been avoided by the presence of another crew member.

      Well, not two or three? :)
      You tactfully remind them that 737 flies with a two-membered crew from the moment of the first flight at the request of one of the safest a / c of the world ("Lufthansa"). His predecessor and partner B-727 flew with b / y. The accident rate is approximately the same. With the then "oak" avionics and not always with normal ground support (beacons, for example).
      And about the fully automatic DC-4, remember.
      Do not like examples with foreign equipment? Please ... It’s quite a modern, for its time, Yak-40 aircraft was originally created for a two-member crew and squeezed the bortacha there not because two pilots could not cope. An-24 at the request of the customer, too, could be produced for two pilots without a flight engineer.
      By the way, about efficiency as an indicator of progress ... I remembered here an amusing example. I had a chance to compare the economic indicators (including, of course, fuel consumption) of the aircraft of the early 1980s (Tu-204 with PS-90) and the early 1990s (A321, engines are different). It turned out that at ranges> 3000 km Tu-204 wins in "technical" parameters (fuel consumption) in the 321st ~ 5-7%; on short lines it loses no more than the same 5-7%. This is the kind of "progress" in 10+ years. :)
  17. 0
    14 March 2017 11: 58
    I saw in a monino weaving, which is shown in the photograph, the plane makes an impression, and in two ways.
    it’s clear that the device is really extreme, but at the same time there is some impression of incompleteness
    looks too rude or something.
  18. KCA
    0
    15 March 2017 15: 55
    Well, as far as heresy can be written, the X-90 was not created at the Raduga Design Bureau, the work was suspended, but as part of the development of the X-90, a GELA was created and tested - the Hypersonic Experimental Aircraft, itself
    GELA is very famous because was exhibited at the booth of the ICD "Rainbow" at MAKS 1995, the photo is full. Perhaps in the year 16th and created the X-90, but not in 2004, in 2004 GEL could fly again

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"