Military Review

Russian aircraft M-55 "Geophysics" will be mothballed

88
High-altitude aircraft M-55 "Geophysics", which has been regularly involved in international scientific programs since 1996, will be mothballed and stored, reports Interfax-AVN a message from the chief designer of OAO Experimental Machine-Building Plant named after V.M. Myasishchev "Gennady Belyaev.




Since the Commission of the Council of Europe (CE) did not consider the possibility of new expeditions, the application for their implementation was not submitted. Thus, the participation of the M-55 "Geophysics" aircraft in the next scientific expedition, most likely, can take place only in 2020-2021 years
said Belyaev agency.

According to him, all European contracts, as a rule, are designed for 5 years.

Usually it takes two years to prepare for a scientific expedition, including the time to create new instruments and equipment, in the third year it is spent. It takes another two years to review and publish the results obtained during the expedition,
explained the designer.

M-55, he recalled, "flew over the Arctic, Antarctic, continental Brazil, Australia and Africa during expeditions."

The plane managed to fix the lowest temperature of the atmosphere, and not in the Arctic or Antarctic, but over the Indian Ocean. It was there that the instruments showed a minus 91,8 degree Celsius,
told Belyaev.

In the summer of this year, another StratoClim research program for the study of the upper atmosphere was completed.

The aircraft was involved in 22 international expeditions, having completed 21-ti flights with scientific equipment in 270 a year.

Help Agency: “M-55 is equipped with two PS-30B-12 engines with a take-off 4 500 kg each. Flight weight - 24 500 kg. Cruising speed - 740 km / h. Maximum flight range at an altitude of 17000 m - 5 000 km. The practical ceiling is 21 550 m. The time spent at 21 000 m is one hour. ”
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. pvv113
    pvv113 27 November 2017 16: 34 New
    26
    Council of Europe (CE) Commission did not consider the possibility of new expeditions

    And what - domestic science is not interested in aircraft capabilities?
    1. maxim947
      maxim947 27 November 2017 16: 36 New
      24
      Why during the Union there was enough money for all, and for different super-aircraft and for the research itself, etc., etc., This is a rhetorical question.
      1. Muvka
        Muvka 27 November 2017 16: 47 New
        +8
        Maybe because the USSR had 2 times the population?
        1. Deniska
          Deniska 27 November 2017 16: 56 New
          15
          Maybe because the USSR had 2 times the population?


          In the USSR there were 2 HUGE expense items: 1. Central Asia, 2. Chernozems of Ukraine. Now the Russian Federation has neither one nor the other. So that.....
          This is a rhetorical question.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 27 November 2017 22: 21 New
            +5
            Quote: Deniska
            In the USSR there were 2 HUGE expense items: 1. Central Asia, 2. Chernozems of Ukraine. Now the Russian Federation has neither one nor the other. So that.....

            Sales markets. Russia had access to sales markets for a total of more than 400 million people - hence the possibilities of industry, and not at all from expenses, which now are gone.
            In addition, there are macroeconomic laws.
        2. Setrac
          Setrac 27 November 2017 22: 19 New
          +1
          Quote: Muvka
          Maybe because the USSR had 2 times the population?

          Plus Warsaw Pact countries
      2. vkl.47
        vkl.47 27 November 2017 16: 52 New
        20
        In the Union, the entire camp worked for the defense industry. And there were no managers and other garbage. Found with what to compare. Would you like jeans and chewing gum in the 90s? Would you like crap? Receive and sign
        1. Vladimir16
          Vladimir16 27 November 2017 17: 33 New
          13
          They didn’t want to! The referendum showed that most wanted to live in the USSR.
          Jeans and a cocacola urgently wanted Humpback, Yeltsin, Chubaitis and the like thieves and gouging.
      3. pvv113
        pvv113 27 November 2017 17: 09 New
        +7
        Probably the Union lived not only today, but also looked to the future
      4. Vadim237
        Vadim237 27 November 2017 17: 10 New
        +6
        Because the USSR spent 70% of its budget on the military-industrial complex, respectively, all these super planes were paid for by the military program, Russia does not have an extra trillion to create such super planes, because they will not be in demand by the market, now everything that is created by the state should bring, to the state, profit.
        1. Vladimir16
          Vladimir16 27 November 2017 17: 36 New
          +5
          Quote: Vadim237
          Now everything that is created by the state should bring profit to the state.

          Live for the sake of profit and profit? Is the deathboard at the end of your life loot or profit?
          1. Greenwood
            Greenwood 27 November 2017 18: 08 New
            +2
            He simply argues as a typical capitalist or businessman. And for a terry capitalist, profit is more expensive than the state, the homeland, honor, even his mother.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 27 November 2017 22: 24 New
              0
              Quote: Greenwood
              And for a terry capitalist, profit is more expensive than the state, the homeland, honor, even his mother.

              It's not even about the advantages you listed. Terry capitalist does not see long-term prospects
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 27 November 2017 22: 40 New
                +3
                I see in the distant future, the combination of CNC machining centers and 3D printers in a monoblock system - as a production worker. And you in your long run - by profession, what do you see?
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 27 November 2017 23: 43 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  And you in your long run - by profession, what do you see?

                  The Krasnodar railway bypass and the Crimean bridge, I'm a railwayman.
                  Or are you interested in more distant prospects?
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 28 November 2017 18: 22 New
                    +1
                    And with the rolling stock, in the long run, what will happen, how will it change - any ideas?
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 27 November 2017 19: 55 New
            +4
            Without profit there will be no development, funds are needed for everything new, and the same is necessary for expanding production.
          3. Victor Dubovitsky
            Victor Dubovitsky 27 November 2017 22: 22 New
            +3
            Quote: Vladimir16
            Quote: Vadim237
            Now everything that is created by the state should bring profit to the state.

            Live for the sake of profit and profit? Is the deathboard at the end of your life loot or profit?

            If you campaign and collect the necessary money for research, the plane will fly. Or agree not to receive money for the work done, listing them there. He is right. Without money, no one will give, neither appliances, nor fuel, nor service staff, nor the salary of the same researchers and crew.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Victor Dubovitsky
                Victor Dubovitsky 28 November 2017 01: 30 New
                +2
                Quote: Mikado
                respect for you and Vadim ... hi The rest: men, tie with slogans. I'm serious. There is patriotism, there is logic. And this should get along together, and not separately. hi drinks

                Logic says that the homeland of law is ALWAYS. This is how I relate to this concept.
                1. Mikado
                  Mikado 28 November 2017 01: 37 New
                  +1
                  I agree. Just against the fact that sound thoughts are replaced by slogans in the discussion. with respect,hi
        2. Firstvanguard
          Firstvanguard 27 November 2017 18: 12 New
          +8
          Quote: Vadim237
          Because the USSR spent 70% of its budget on the military-industrial complex

          And the Russian Federation spends> 90% of its potential on the "Abromovichs" (the collective image, whoever you collect in it, they will).
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 27 November 2017 19: 56 New
            +1
            Abramovich already earn their own money.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 27 November 2017 22: 25 New
              +1
              Quote: Vadim237
              Abramovich already earn their own money.

              Yeah, he’s standing at the factory, sharpening the details, or in a tractor in the field - he feeds the country.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 27 November 2017 22: 35 New
                +2
                They work for him, but he pays taxes on profits.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 27 November 2017 23: 45 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  They work for him, but he pays taxes on profits.

                  Although I am not a supporter of the Communists, however ... the exploitation of man by man is vile.
            2. Victor Dubovitsky
              Victor Dubovitsky 28 November 2017 01: 38 New
              +1
              Quote: Vadim237
              Abramovich already earn their own money.

              I do not agree. This generation will never earn for itself. While treasures (state property) are lying under my feet. Why would he (Abamovich) groom and take care of his employees? Successfully lose poker to the governor, and tomorrow, the factory, and, far from being a candle, is yours. Now, when this source runs out - everything (almost) becomes private - only then WE HAVE to live by what I managed to erase. Then Kulibins will be needed.
          2. Victor Dubovitsky
            Victor Dubovitsky 27 November 2017 22: 29 New
            +2
            Quote: Firstvanguard
            Quote: Vadim237
            Because the USSR spent 70% of its budget on the military-industrial complex

            And the Russian Federation spends> 90% of its potential on the "Abromovichs" (the collective image, whoever you collect in it, they will).

            You are mistaken. The country's industry does not actually work. Where will the budget come from? What is earned on export, the currency, is added to stabilization funds. Otherwise, inflation will gobble up everything. We were already millionaires. But the rich, no. If everything earned is thrown in, then we can’t buy anything of our own. The goods are not manufactured. Buy overseas. And we will finance the same capitalists whom you hate so much. For the damned, prices reduce competition and high taxes; for us, prices reduce the lack of money. Neither competition, nor high taxes from the rich, the same Abramovich .....
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 27 November 2017 22: 35 New
              +2
              Now inflation is the smallest for all time - and who said that the industry is not working?
              1. Victor Dubovitsky
                Victor Dubovitsky 27 November 2017 22: 36 New
                +3
                Quote: Vadim237
                Now inflation is the smallest for all time - and who said that the industry is not working?

                You have already started buying Russian electronics, electrics, clothes, cars (sorry for that word). Or do not agree with the definition of MONEY? Money is the equivalent of labor. A commodity is a materialized labor.
                1. Elka13
                  Elka13 28 November 2017 11: 44 New
                  0
                  I almost agree, but only the economy is not only goods. The houses in which people live, electricity, gas, water, roads, hospitals, schools, services (including banks) are also all economies. Look at what (almost) the entire salary is spent, this is the economy. If all this is calculated, then not everything is so bad. And there are even competitive Russian goods: food, weapons, grain, oil, gas. But the modern mass production of goods with high added value is yes ... there is a failure.
                  1. dubovitskiy.1947
                    dubovitskiy.1947 28 November 2017 23: 02 New
                    0
                    Quote: Elka13
                    I almost agree, but only the economy is not only goods. The houses in which people live, electricity, gas, water, roads, hospitals, schools, services (including banks) are also all economies. Look at what (almost) the entire salary is spent, this is the economy. If all this is calculated, then not everything is so bad. And there are even competitive Russian goods: food, weapons, grain, oil, gas. But the modern mass production of goods with high added value is yes ... there is a failure.

                    This is all a product. Services, and more. A commodity is a materialized labor.
                    All that a person consumes is a commodity.
                2. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 28 November 2017 18: 26 New
                  +1
                  I buy Russian: electronics, tools, machines, products - some from the manufacturer itself at a discount.
                  1. dubovitskiy.1947
                    dubovitskiy.1947 28 November 2017 23: 05 New
                    0
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    I buy Russian: electronics, tools, machines, products - some from the manufacturer itself at a discount.

                    Russian assembly is possible. But this is only a percentage of all added value. You will be right if the product is made of materials, components, in Russia at a Russian enterprise, it is permissible on imported equipment.
              2. Victor Dubovitsky
                Victor Dubovitsky 28 November 2017 01: 42 New
                +4
                Quote: Vadim237
                Now inflation is the smallest for all time - and who said that the industry is not working?

                Inflation was crushed by withdrawing money from the budget. The population has no money. The purchasing power is the lowest. The enterprises do not have working capital, it comes to debts. For materials, salary, energy. What the hell is the work of industry?
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 28 November 2017 18: 29 New
                  +1
                  At least I have an increase of 15% in the first half of the year, we produce high-precision and not very components - on order. And my customers are almost all those involved in mechanical engineering.
                  1. dubovitskiy.1947
                    dubovitskiy.1947 28 November 2017 23: 06 New
                    0
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    At least I have an increase of 15% in the first half of the year, we produce high-precision and not very components - on order. And my customers are almost all those involved in mechanical engineering.

                    What is your 15% share in the total Russian production?
      5. Kent0001
        Kent0001 28 November 2017 15: 42 New
        0
        "Friends" do not really need science, and therefore the aircraft will be mothballed.
    2. svp67
      svp67 27 November 2017 17: 44 New
      +2
      Quote: pvv113
      And what - domestic science is not interested in aircraft capabilities?

      And this is most frustrating. SUCH an airplane, with SUCH capabilities and sucks. And then where to take the pilots on it?
      1. pvv113
        pvv113 27 November 2017 18: 43 New
        +2
        And pilots, probably on the fingers of one hand can be counted
    3. Normal ok
      Normal ok 27 November 2017 18: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: pvv113
      And what - domestic science is not interested in aircraft capabilities?

      And what does she have?
      1. pvv113
        pvv113 27 November 2017 18: 44 New
        +3
        It must be somewhere
    4. serriy
      serriy 28 November 2017 00: 30 New
      +2
      Yes. Oh. But the plane was created not for international riffraff, in the sense not for foreign programs. angry
      There was a time, we did not look at export potential, and did not get involved in "international cooperation", we did it ourselves, we did it for ourselves, for our tasks.
      Mlyn !!! am
      1. pvv113
        pvv113 28 November 2017 07: 59 New
        +2
        Yes, they created for themselves. And now in the minds only money, money, and again money
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. san4es
    san4es 27 November 2017 16: 34 New
    +6
    M-55 Geophysics 100 years of the Russian Air Force soldier
  4. 210ox
    210ox 27 November 2017 16: 36 New
    +7
    But the plane was originally intended for military purposes. It was built at the Smolensk aircraft plant in the 80s.
    1. san4es
      san4es 27 November 2017 16: 37 New
      +5
      Quote: 210ox
      But the plane was originally intended for military purposes.

      ...That's right soldier
      USSR response to U-2
      1. kpd
        kpd 27 November 2017 18: 40 New
        +4
        This is not at all an answer to U-2, Myasischevsky stratospheres were built like fighters, interceptors of balloon probes.
        1. san4es
          san4es 27 November 2017 19: 26 New
          +2
          Quote: kpd
          This is not at all an answer to U-2, Myasischevsky stratospheres were built like fighters, interceptors of balloon probes.

          ... By this time, the problem of reconnaissance balloons has already lost its relevance, and it was decided on the basis of the M-17 to create a high-altitude reconnaissance and strike complex, consisting of the actual reconnaissance aircraft and a ground guidance and control point providing target designation for ground-to-ground missiles and attack aircraft. The modified M-17RM aircraft completed its first flight on August 16, 1988. In the design bureau, the aircraft received the designation M-55 "Geophysics". A two-seat training modification of the M-55U aircraft has been developed. Work is underway to create a two-seat aircraft high-altitude surveillance "Geophysics-2", which has improved aerodynamics and an elongated fuselage.

          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/М-55_(самолёт)
    2. Piramidon
      Piramidon 27 November 2017 16: 48 New
      +3
      Quote: 210ox
      But the plane was originally intended for military purposes. It was built at the Smolensk aircraft plant in the 80s.

      The times when U-2 and M-55 could be involved in military (reconnaissance) purposes have passed. Satellites rule.
      1. Topgun
        Topgun 27 November 2017 17: 03 New
        11
        don’t tell the "global hawk", the satellites are expensive, in low orbits (where they can see well) they live a little and fly very quickly over the right territory (there is no constant monitoring) ...
        as for me, to make an unmanned aerial vehicle from such an airplane, the glider’s characteristics are excellent, and taking the hermetic cabin, life support systems and others from there, filling it with fuel can increase the capabilities of the aircraft ...
        the coolest drone would be (in terms of aerodynamics + in the active and passive radar systems all the rules), it is clear that there is a huge lag in the control and automation systems, but if you started work and gradually increased the capabilities of the device it would be cool, "your eyes are afraid - your hands do "..
        1. Piramidon
          Piramidon 27 November 2017 17: 21 New
          +1
          Quote: Topgun
          satellites are expensive, in low orbits (where they can clearly see) they live a little ..
          ... as for me to make a drone from such an aircraft

          Well, yes, satellites, in your opinion, do not live long. And how long will such a target live in conditions of normal air defense, and not against the Papuans with bows and slings?
          1. Topgun
            Topgun 27 November 2017 17: 37 New
            +5
            the satellite doesn’t live against normal air defense, why when they look at something in isolation from reality, the army is not alone in the tanks, and this device will also be undercover, especially in the Soviet Union for projects, tasks were assigned to it - target designation.
            an example this aircraft flies at an altitude of 20 thousand and sees it far, the enemy also sees fighters from daaalek, and meanwhile under it at low altitude its fighters are not visible due to the fact that the earth is round, the device gives target designations to its own and they do not see the enemy long-range missiles hit the enemy, even if in the end this vehicle is destroyed if it is unmanned, the loss is not great, it’s so coup-hepothetically, but not for nothing in the USA (and once in the USSR) everything is developed from robots to lasers, no one knows what will be the most effective, everyone is smart with a back mind ...
            1. Piramidon
              Piramidon 27 November 2017 18: 08 New
              +1
              After the word “Etot” I don’t want to object to you.
              1. bk316
                bk316 27 November 2017 19: 00 New
                +4
                After the word “Etot” I don’t want to object to you.

                And the "look" (probably from TIME-TWO) did not bother you?
                And then they’ll “bring down”, “hepothetically” and “effective”
                1. Piramidon
                  Piramidon 27 November 2017 21: 55 New
                  0
                  Quote: bk316
                  And the "look" (probably from TIME-TWO) did not bother you?
                  And then they’ll “bring down”, “hepothetically” and “effective”

                  I don’t know where you found such errors in my posts. This is the fruit of your irrepressible imagination. (please provide screenshots so as not to pass for peep ... balabol) But even if this is (hypothetically) assumed, then a single typo is not comparable with a triply repeated, illiterate scribble, such as "Etot".
                  1. Victor Dubovitsky
                    Victor Dubovitsky 27 November 2017 22: 56 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Piramidon
                    Quote: bk316
                    And the "look" (probably from TIME-TWO) did not bother you?
                    And then they’ll “bring down”, “hepothetically” and “effective”

                    I don’t know where you found such errors in my posts. This is the fruit of your irrepressible imagination. (please provide screenshots so as not to pass for peep ... balabol) But even if this is (hypothetically) assumed, then a single typo is not comparable with a triply repeated, illiterate scribble, such as "Etot".

                    Ostap Bender typewriter did not have the letter "E" Therefore, it was with a Turkish accent. Your counterpart doesn’t have the letter "E". Apparently, in the English aftershock bought.
                    1. Topgun
                      Topgun 28 November 2017 00: 21 New
                      +2
                      what are there vis?
                      a discussion of the spelling of "this" their level ...
                      1. Victor Dubovitsky
                        Victor Dubovitsky 28 November 2017 01: 47 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Topgun
                        what are there vis?
                        a discussion of the spelling of "this" their level ...

                        You need to know the Russian language. And respect. Then boldly step into the technique.
                  2. bk316
                    bk316 28 November 2017 15: 05 New
                    +2
                    I don’t know where you found such errors in my posts

                    Yes, not in yours, but in the one you didn’t read further.
              2. komvap
                komvap 27 November 2017 19: 03 New
                +1
                Quote: Piramidon
                After the word “Etot” I don’t want to object to you.

                Flea Catcher?
        2. kirgiz58
          kirgiz58 27 November 2017 23: 49 New
          +2
          Quote: Topgun
          it is clear that there is a huge lag in control and automation systems

          What a lag ?! Buran was a hundred years old on Thursday, and he did everything "on his own", so everything is in order with mathematics, control and automation.
          1. Topgun
            Topgun 28 November 2017 00: 25 New
            +1
            It was the case, but they "blew all the polymers" because all the problems of Russia with drones are precisely control and communication systems ...
        3. dubovitskiy.1947
          dubovitskiy.1947 28 November 2017 23: 09 New
          0
          Quote: Topgun
          don’t tell the "global hawk", the satellites are expensive, in low orbits (where they can see well) they live a little and fly very quickly over the right territory (there is no constant monitoring) ...
          as for me, to make an unmanned aerial vehicle from such an airplane, the glider’s characteristics are excellent, and taking the hermetic cabin, life support systems and others from there, filling it with fuel can increase the capabilities of the aircraft ...
          the coolest drone would be (in terms of aerodynamics + in the active and passive radar systems all the rules), it is clear that there is a huge lag in the control and automation systems, but if you started work and gradually increased the capabilities of the device it would be cool, "your eyes are afraid - your hands do "..

          The difference is that the satellites fly, and they can’t be forbidden to fly. And this car, even if it could fly, will never fly.
  5. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 27 November 2017 17: 02 New
    0
    It seems that our state has nothing more to study - everything has been studied, already (
    Good Monday: news, one is better than another ..
    1. Roma
      Roma 1977 27 November 2017 17: 57 New
      +8
      Scientists said no oil and gas was found at an altitude of 20 meters. So the authorities are no longer interested.
      1. Greenwood
        Greenwood 27 November 2017 18: 09 New
        +2
        Quote: Roma-1977
        at an altitude of 20 meters, oil and gas were not found
        And investors are not there.
  6. vanavatny
    vanavatny 27 November 2017 18: 21 New
    +1
    well, at least they don’t shove it under the press right away ...
  7. UVB
    UVB 27 November 2017 18: 21 New
    +1
    will be preserved and stored
    I hope it will be a real conservation, and not the way it often happens with us - just thrown out in the open without supervision of the looting!
  8. assa67
    assa67 27 November 2017 18: 45 New
    +3
    it’s unfortunate that you say it .... it seems that close attention is paid to the Arctic ... I think such a machine would be useful there ...
  9. Old26
    Old26 27 November 2017 22: 05 New
    +2
    Quote: Topgun
    against normal air defense and the satellite will not live.

    So often heard that air defense systems knock down satellites? The Americans performed this operation only once. For non-maneuvering targets. Preparation lasted a couple of weeks

    Quote: Topgun
    why when they consider something in isolation from reality, the army will not be alone in the tanks, and this vehicle will also be undercover, especially in the Soviet Union on projects it was assigned tasks - target designation ..

    Under the cover of whom? A car with a speed of 800 km per hour and a flight time of 17 km for 6,5 hours, and on the ceiling - 2 and a quarter hours - what will it hide behind? A fighter that can be in the air at such heights for 30-40 minutes? The car turned out to be useless to anyone for the reason that they made it 2 decades later than needed. By the time she was taken up into the air and the balloons were not launched in large numbers, and reconnaissance planes stopped plowing the sky of other states. And not knowing what to do with him, they came up with the idea of ​​making him part of a reconnaissance and strike system as a target aircraft. But on the M-55, no target designation equipment was planned. This is only in the future - at Geophysics 2. Yes, and that in the 80s it was possible to put on it when the payload was in the region of one and a half tons. In short, they tried by all means to save the plane, for which there were no tasks

    Quote: Topgun
    an example, this device flies at an altitude of 20 thousand and sees it far, the enemy also sees it from da-aalek, sends fighters, and meanwhile below it at low altitude its fighters are not visible due to the fact that the earth is round.

    Fiction have read? Maximum, he was supposed to be a target plane for missile systems. And it’s so beautiful - it’s high-high, and under it low-low fighters, so much so that they are not visible because of the curvature of the earth. From what distance, by the way?

    Quote: Topgun
    the device gives target designations to its own and they, without seeing the enemy with long-range missiles, hit the enemy,.

    That is, do we have over-the-air targeting missiles?

    Quote: Topgun
    if, as a result, this device is knocked down, if it is unmanned, the loss is not large, it’s so coupé-hypothetical.

    That's just "Geophysics" manned and unmanned is not even provided

    Quote: Topgun
    but not in vain in the USA (and once in the USSR) everything is developed from robots to lasers, no one knows what will turn out to be the most effective, everyone is smart with a back mind ...

    They then develop, especially robots. The drones have a dime a dozen. If we have, then either cars of the 70s, huge and fast, or crumbs. But the type of "Global Hawk" is not from the word at all. Like drums. About 15 years old, they really hang noodles on our ears about the shocking “Skat” ....

    Quote: Siberian barber
    It seems that our state has nothing more to study - everything has been studied, already (
    Good Monday: news, one is better than another ..

    Alas, science is now in the pen. There are no sums necessary for carrying out such scientific expeditions. In the West - alas, there is. So there are these cars that nobody needs and are waiting in the wings (if they wait)
    1. Topgun
      Topgun 27 November 2017 23: 23 New
      +1
      what do you want for each air defense exercise to bring down the satellite so that you are convinced that they can? :)))
      Russia, the USA, China already have an impressive arsenal of combat with satellites, both ground and air, based and are already working on space-based systems ...
      I didn’t offer to use the aircraft “today” for target designation, I proposed to work in this direction, ideally to create a drone based on it for target designation or reconnaissance ...
      about the horizon, the height is 2 km and the horizon is 160 km, does Russia have no air-based missiles that would fly further? and if you fly lower? is it possible to lower the horizon to 50km (if we say casting above the sea at an altitude of 100m), and calibrate naval targets?
      I just offered to work in the direction of the global hawk using the base of "geophysics", and you are already clinging to every word as if I issued a decree of legal force :)) this is a forum, here they discuss the options, or you defend the option "there is no problem;" we’ll bury the M-55 and we will not soar our brains) ...
      1. Victor Dubovitsky
        Victor Dubovitsky 28 November 2017 01: 56 New
        +1
        Quote: Topgun
        ..... I suggested working in the direction of the global hawk using the "geophysics" base, and you are already clinging to every word as if I issued a decree of legal force :)) this is a forum, here they discuss options, or you defend the option "no man no problems "(we will bury M-55 and we will not soar our brains) ...

        This car is hopelessly outdated. The main thing for us is not our own territory, but the potential adversary, his allies. It is important to hang (literally) over the global water area and track carrier groups. It’s good to look down into the depths so that the submarines do not lose sight of. What is this old man capable of, yes, all the more so, in a single copy? Yes, with it more trouble than the results obtained. There is no equipment capable of considering something. Radio intelligence, no. Optical in the infrared, no. There is nothing. He completed his task. On retire. Everything has its time.
  10. Old26
    Old26 28 November 2017 01: 22 New
    +3
    Quote: Topgun
    what do you want each satellite air defense exercise to shoot down the satellite so you can see if they can?:.

    Why not? Skill or skill to have bad? The Americans shot down, the Chinese shot down, and I didn’t hear that they shot down ours. But the "dead" satellites in bulk

    Quote: Topgun
    Russia, the USA, China already have an impressive arsenal of combat with satellites, both ground and air, based and are already working on space-based systems ....

    What are you talking about? Do they really have such impressive arsenals? Well, let's take a look

    1. Ground based.
    • USA - yes they do. GBI type missiles with a kinetic interceptor and with a strike height of up to 4000 km. But on satellites NEVER not tested. Arsenal as many as 44 missile defense at two bases.
    • China - Yes they do, the Old Weather Satellite was shot down in 2007. There were two setbacks before that.
    • Russia - currently does not have. systems with kinetic interceptor In the USSR there was an anti-satellite system based on fighter satellites

    In addition, the United States has a sea-based system, which was hit by a lost American intelligence satellite.

    2. Air based
    • SSHA - no. ASAT has been retired because of its antiquity. GSE on missiles expired
    • China - no
    • Russia - no. In the USSR they tried to create a system similar to the American ASAT system, but the collapse of the Union prevented this. There was no flight test

    3. Space based
    • USA - no information in the open press
    • China - no information in the open press
    • Russia - there is no information in the open press, although there are persistent rumors that such systems are being developed. In the USSR were, but have long been written off

    Quote: Topgun
    I didn’t offer to use the aircraft “today” for target designation, I proposed to work in this direction, ideally to create a drone on its base for target designation or reconnaissance ....

    There is nothing worse than trying to modify a manned aircraft into an unmanned one. It’s easier to make a new one.

    Quote: Topgun
    about the horizon, the height is 2 km and the horizon is 160 km, does Russia have no air-based missiles that would fly further? and if you fly lower? is it possible to lower the horizon to 50km (if we say casting above the sea at an altitude of 100m), and calibrate naval targets ?.

    For 2 km, the horizon is 180 km (a little more). There is a rocket. With a flight range of 200-300 km. But the capture of the target is only 40 km away. radio correction of the EMNIP trajectory up to 100 km from the carrier. But the whole question is not even that, but in the range of the radar of the target aircraft.
    If you fly at an altitude of 100 meters above the sea, then the radio horizon will be just over 40 km. From 100 meters, it is impossible to direct anything if the target is at a distance of 100 km.

    Quote: Topgun
    I just offered to work in the direction of the global hawk using the base of "geophysics", and you are already clinging to every word as if I issued a decree of legal force :)) this is a forum, here they discuss the options, or you defend the option "there is no problem;" we’ll bury the M-55 and we will not soar our brains) ...

    I do not cling. But to make an analogue of the Global Hawke an “artel in vain labor” out of a 35-year-old airplane. We bank a lot of money - the result is zero. In the first planes, only 5 were produced, and it’s silly to start something for the sake of 5 planes. Secondly, the parameters of the machine are much lower than the Global Hawke. That EMNIP can fly at an altitude of 20 km for more than 30 hours. "Geophysics" - a little over 2
    1. Topgun
      Topgun 28 November 2017 09: 25 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      If you fly at an altitude of 100 meters above the sea, then the radio horizon will be just over 40 km. From 100 meters, it is impossible to direct anything if the target is at a distance of 100 km.

      so for this we need a pointer which will be at an altitude of 20 km, by the way the SU 57 has stealth not bad (judging by its appearance) from the front upper point (poor from below due to gondolas) and therefore it is better to use it from low heights ...
  11. Old26
    Old26 28 November 2017 01: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: Topgun
    or are you defending the option "there is no man no problem" (bury the M-55 and we will not soar our brains) ...

    I will finish the answer. Yes, I believe that the best option now is to preserve the car in the hope that in a few years it will be able to participate in some international programs. I consider it a gamble to remodel it, especially under a Global Hawk drone. We’ll kill a lot of money, but we won’t be able to create an analogue of this American machine from Geophysics
    1. Topgun
      Topgun 28 November 2017 09: 37 New
      0
      there is an example of the Soyuz launch vehicle, on the one hand, an obviously obsolete missile, on the other, modern, highly reliable and cheap ...
      Why not create a group of dozens of engineers who would constantly work (with a file) on the device, for the state it would be worth a penny, they would not need to create control systems, etc., and go on other enterprises and take it there and integrate with them ( the task of integrating equipment and, if necessary, updating the glider), even if the success of these people is not great, Russia will have a dozen more people with experience working with such equipment is also a resource, and the human resource is the most important ...
      Well, if everyone decided that it was out of date, it means out of date
      And to create a "global hawk" with 0 - I think it's not realistic, you need to go a certain way ...
      1. dubovitskiy.1947
        dubovitskiy.1947 28 November 2017 23: 16 New
        0
        Quote: Topgun
        there is an example of the Soyuz launch vehicle, on the one hand, an obviously obsolete missile, on the other, modern, highly reliable and cheap ...
        Why not create a group of dozens of engineers who would constantly work (with a file) on the device, for the state it would be worth a penny, they would not need to create control systems, etc., and go on other enterprises and take it there and integrate with them ( the task of integrating equipment and, if necessary, updating the glider), even if the success of these people is not great, Russia will have a dozen more people with experience working with such equipment is also a resource, and the human resource is the most important ...
        Well, if everyone decided that it was out of date, it means out of date
        And to create a "global hawk" with 0 - I think it's not realistic, you need to go a certain way ...

        It feels like you can’t imagine the work of the designer 100%. It’s only to think of 10 people with files. I have not seen more idiocy.
  12. Eurodav
    Eurodav 28 November 2017 04: 32 New
    0
    Quote: Muvka
    Maybe because the USSR had 2 times the population?

    And what does this have to do with it?
  13. Eurodav
    Eurodav 28 November 2017 04: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Old26
    Quote: Topgun
    or are you defending the option "there is no man no problem" (bury the M-55 and we will not soar our brains) ...

    I will finish the answer. Yes, I believe that the best option now is to preserve the car in the hope that in a few years it will be able to participate in some international programs. I consider it a gamble to remodel it, especially under a Global Hawk drone. We’ll kill a lot of money, but we won’t be able to create an analogue of this American machine from Geophysics

    I agree! Do not saw the same as with labeled and EBN ...
  14. Eurodav
    Eurodav 28 November 2017 04: 45 New
    0
    Quote: serriy
    Yes. Oh. But the plane was created not for international riffraff, in the sense not for foreign programs. angry
    There was a time, we did not look at export potential, and did not get involved in "international cooperation", we did it ourselves, we did it for ourselves, for our tasks.
    Mlyn !!! am

    If everything is not politicized, then what's wrong with the fact that scientists, together with foreign colleagues, use the aircraft for scientific work?
  15. Eurodav
    Eurodav 28 November 2017 04: 55 New
    0
    Quote: Greenwood
    He simply argues as a typical capitalist or businessman. And for a terry capitalist, profit is more expensive than the state, the homeland, honor, even his mother.

    He's just trying, reasonably, to reason ...
    "... everything that is created by the state should bring profit to the state ..." - what’s wrong here?
    Where then this profit is distributed, this is another question! If part of it goes to create a modern replacement for Geophysics, then it’s generally wonderful ...
  16. Old26
    Old26 28 November 2017 11: 01 New
    0
    Quote: Topgun
    there is an example of the Soyuz launch vehicle, on the one hand, an obviously obsolete missile, on the other, modern, highly reliable and cheap ....

    The missile is really outdated in a certain sense. A rocket created 60 years ago cannot be modern. Yes, it can be modernized, modernized, but it contains certain ideas that are now not entirely relevant. Yes, you can replace the engines, change the analog control system to a digit (which is done), but this does not dramatically increase its carrying capacity. The design ideas that are being laid right now when creating new media are modularity. A kind of big "lego". It is necessary - I received a carrier with a carrying capacity of 1-3 tons, it is necessary in 15-20, it is necessary - in 100 tons. And the fact that super-reliable and cheap (relatively) - no one argues here.

    Quote: Topgun
    Why not create a group of dozens of engineers who would constantly work (with a file) on the device, for the state it would be worth a penny, they would not need to create control systems, etc., and go on other enterprises and take it there and integrate with them ( the task of integrating equipment and, if necessary, updating the glider), even if the success of these people is not great, Russia will have a dozen more people with experience working with such equipment is also a resource, and the human resource is the most important ...

    I did not quite understand the idea. Any work at the enterprise is a planned work. To "finish" with a file by engineers - I honestly don’t imagine how it is. In order to replace something on the same glider, the same control system, it is necessary for the creator company to conduct the appropriate research and development work, and confirm that with this replacement the glider will not fall apart in the air. And then integrate something. And I honestly very vaguely imagine how to integrate an electric remote control system into an existing machine with a mechanical control system that would be feasible on a drone. And experience with this type of equipment is obtained not as a result of working with a “file”, but with regular, targeted training. In order for the "old" specialists to transfer their knowledge and experience to the "young", as in principle it was in the USSR. Then, a young specialist in any field (whether an engineer or an installer) would do his job as expected, and would not “hammer” the sensors with a hammer, since they did not “sit down” in place. He would know, having experience, that the sensor board just needs to be rotated 180 degrees. But alas. There is no one to tell this, the old cadres leave, and sometimes there is no one to teach the young.

    Quote: Topgun
    Well, if everyone decided that it was out of date, it means out of date. And to create a "global hawk" with 0 - I think it's not realistic, you need to go a certain way ...

    It really is "out of date" and is not suitable for remaking into a car similar to the Global Hawk. Just look at the performance characteristics of these machines. Well, doing Global Hawk from scratch is certainly difficult, but if we want to have something like that - alas, we have to do it from scratch
    1. Topgun
      Topgun 28 November 2017 11: 41 New
      0
      the idea is that people gain experience and at the same time get rid of the bureaucracy that is necessary for security but slows down development ...
      all big companies started from a group of engineers, all ...
      even here is what we all could see literally right now - the formation of spacehas started with a group of people and they still work in such an "amateur" style, the chief engineers gather with Mask in the office, discuss possible improvement (price, profit, risks) make a decision and that’s all, neither you commissions nor discussions for years, etc. as a result, almost every LV flight develops ...
      It is clear that in large state-owned firms such an approach is not real, because they risk public money ...
      Come on, to the museum - it's easier ...
      And yes, engineers they also build a rocket :)) the engineer works at the computer, designs the part, then loads it into the machining center and starts it, gets up from the computer, takes the bike, rides through the factory to the center, arrives and takes it out, it’s clear there are operators of processing centers, but there are 1 person for 5-10 machines (the task is to carry out maintenance, the machines themselves are working), in general, the profession of turner and so on goes away (I have not heard from them about turners - there are all engineers (like trade managers )), all the engineers and there is nothing shameful for the engineer to sit at the processing machines for a day, all the more he should not work in a vacuum somewhere in the office without seeing reality ... Even I got into thoughts :))
    2. dubovitskiy.1947
      dubovitskiy.1947 28 November 2017 23: 25 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: Topgun
      there is an example of the Soyuz launch vehicle, on the one hand, an obviously obsolete missile, on the other, modern, highly reliable and cheap ....

      The missile is really outdated in a certain sense. A rocket created 60 years ago cannot be modern. Yes, it can be modernized, modernized, but it contains certain ideas that are now not entirely relevant. Yes, you can replace the engines, change the analog control system to a digit (which is done), but this does not dramatically increase its carrying capacity. The design ideas that are being laid right now when creating new media are modularity. A kind of big "lego". It is necessary - I received a carrier with a carrying capacity of 1-3 tons, it is necessary in 15-20, it is necessary - in 100 tons. And the fact that super-reliable and cheap (relatively) - no one argues here.

      Quote: Topgun
      Why not create a group of dozens of engineers who would constantly work (with a file) on the device, for the state it would be worth a penny, they would not need to create control systems, etc., and go on other enterprises and take it there and integrate with them ( the task of integrating equipment and, if necessary, updating the glider), even if the success of these people is not great, Russia will have a dozen more people with experience working with such equipment is also a resource, and the human resource is the most important ...

      I did not quite understand the idea. Any work at the enterprise is a planned work. To "finish" with a file by engineers - I honestly don’t imagine how it is. In order to replace something on the same glider, the same control system, it is necessary for the creator company to conduct the appropriate research and development work, and confirm that with this replacement the glider will not fall apart in the air. And then integrate something. And I honestly very vaguely imagine how to integrate an electric remote control system into an existing machine with a mechanical control system that would be feasible on a drone. And experience with this type of equipment is obtained not as a result of working with a “file”, but with regular, targeted training. In order for the "old" specialists to transfer their knowledge and experience to the "young", as in principle it was in the USSR. Then, a young specialist in any field (whether an engineer or an installer) would do his job as expected, and would not “hammer” the sensors with a hammer, since they did not “sit down” in place. He would know, having experience, that the sensor board just needs to be rotated 180 degrees. But alas. There is no one to tell this, the old cadres leave, and sometimes there is no one to teach the young.

      Quote: Topgun
      Well, if everyone decided that it was out of date, it means out of date. And to create a "global hawk" with 0 - I think it's not realistic, you need to go a certain way ...

      It really is "out of date" and is not suitable for remaking into a car similar to the Global Hawk. Just look at the performance characteristics of these machines. Well, doing Global Hawk from scratch is certainly difficult, but if we want to have something like that - alas, we have to do it from scratch

      The main thing today in science is not the transfer of old knowledge by the old new. The main thing is the possibility of implementing ideas by NEW specialists. What is needed for this?
      Instant provision with almost any material, purchased product, chemical reagent, tool, equipment, bench, testing equipment, experienced workshop, able to make quickly and efficiently. The army of programmers making programs, calculations, drawings in electronic form. The richest financial support. I do not quote the salaries of the developers themselves, because for the vast majority this is the latest need, the main thing is what I wrote above. Were these conditions, not a single specialist would have left us.
  17. Breard
    Breard 28 November 2017 16: 31 New
    0
    Damn ..... got the Russian patseroty.
    NOT the Russian M-55 Geophysics ... but SOVIET! ... designed designed built in the USSR ... no matter how not your Vashera!
    It was lucky that they did not sell, did not break into scrap metal.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 28 November 2017 18: 31 New
      +1
      Now he is Russian, along with the rest - with all the giblets.
  18. Old26
    Old26 28 November 2017 23: 49 New
    0
    Quote: dubovitskiy.1947
    The main thing today in science is not the transfer of old knowledge by the old new. The main thing is the possibility of implementing ideas by NEW specialists. What is needed for this?
    Instant provision with almost any material, purchased product, chemical reagent, tool, equipment, bench, testing equipment, experienced workshop, able to make quickly and efficiently. The army of programmers making programs, calculations, drawings in electronic form. The richest financial support. I do not quote the salaries of the developers themselves, because for the vast majority this is the latest need, the main thing is what I wrote above. Were these conditions, not a single specialist would have left us.

    I agree with your supplement regarding science. When I talked about "old people" and "youth" - this is more about enterprises, and not only or not so much scientific teams. The vocational education system is broken, and as I wrote, the young installer, when he does not succeed, begins to work not with his head (he has no experience in professional installation), but with a hammer
    As for non-science - I agree completely and completely. I can add the opinion of my friends and acquaintances working in science. A debilable system of tenders and everything else leads to the fact that what is bought (they require to buy) is not what is better, but what is cheaper. Money sometimes comes not in January-February, but in September-October. Plus a month from the date of the tender announcement. As a result, the “go-ahead” for the purchase of scientific research is obtained somewhere in December. This above applies primarily to grants ....
    1. dubovitskiy.1947
      dubovitskiy.1947 29 November 2017 02: 25 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: dubovitskiy.1947
      The main thing today in science is not the transfer of old knowledge by the old new. The main thing is the possibility of implementing ideas by NEW specialists. What is needed for this?
      Instant provision with almost any material, purchased product, chemical reagent, tool, equipment, bench, testing equipment, experienced workshop, able to make quickly and efficiently. The army of programmers making programs, calculations, drawings in electronic form. The richest financial support. I do not quote the salaries of the developers themselves, because for the vast majority this is the latest need, the main thing is what I wrote above. Were these conditions, not a single specialist would have left us.

      I agree with your supplement regarding science. When I talked about "old people" and "youth" - this is more about enterprises, and not only or not so much scientific teams. The vocational education system is broken, and as I wrote, the young installer, when he does not succeed, begins to work not with his head (he has no experience in professional installation), but with a hammer
      As for non-science - I agree completely and completely. I can add the opinion of my friends and acquaintances working in science. A debilable system of tenders and everything else leads to the fact that what is bought (they require to buy) is not what is better, but what is cheaper. Money sometimes comes not in January-February, but in September-October. Plus a month from the date of the tender announcement. As a result, the “go-ahead” for the purchase of scientific research is obtained somewhere in December. This above applies primarily to grants ....

      Science MUST make a profit. Science SHOULD move fundamental knowledge forward. These are actually two sciences. Industry and academic. Both that and another should have all tools for achievement of the purpose on which they are ground. Fundamental science should be financed by the state, for there are few such perspicacious capitalists who will pay for such distant and incomprehensible developments concerning something there on Cassiopeia. If he does not see future profits from the use of dark matter, then .... Applied science. Of course, it aims to ensure a rapid, almost constant growth in wealth. And, of course, the direct consumer-business executive must pay for these innovations. We now practically have neither one nor the other science. The state is busy with other things, and short-range innovations have no where to apply. The industry is quite costing purchased technology. The situation will be corrected only when we have competition between manufacturers. And for this it is necessary that ALL production become private. The state, owning, for example, railways, will never allow competition in this area.