The media reported on initial plans to equip the Su-34M with Zircon missiles


The publication “Military-Industrial Courier” published material that is also devoted to the program for creating the Su-34M naval fighter-bomber. The original plans were to create such multi-purpose aircraft for the Russian Navy with a large radius of combat use. The importance of the program was that the new aircraft could use the increased mass of the missile and bomb load without reducing the mentioned combat radius.


However, work to create a marine version of a fighter-bomber was postponed. And the reasons in this case, as reported, are not at all technical in nature.

The main reason, apparently, again lies in financing issues.

The author of the article “Su-34 asks at sea” in the “Military-Industrial Courier” Maxim Klimov writes that it was planned to arm the Su-34M with anti-ship missiles. One of the nomenclature positions on such weapons is the Zircon hypersonic anti-ship cruise missiles. Today, these missiles are being tested on surface warships, and soon they will be tested on submarines.

It also reports plans to arm the Su-34M with Onyx missiles.

Of Articles:

Current marine rate aviation The Navy, on “tactical” anti-ship missiles of the X-35 type, with a sharply increased range of SAM missiles of the enemy’s ships, brings our carriers under execution before they reach the range of missiles.

Not all experts agree with this interpretation of the situation. In particular, it is noted that when using naval aviation with the mentioned types of missiles, one should not forget about such a component as electronic warfare equipment. Modern Russian electronic warfare systems increase the security of aviation assets when the enemy uses sea-based anti-aircraft missile systems.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Victor_B 4 March 2020 09: 36 New
    • 8
    • 17
    -9
    The media reported on initial plans to equip the Su-34M with Zircon missiles
    Mind sparks iksperdy!
    Well, a hedgehog is understandable, if a successful rocket of moderate cost and weight appeared, then you need to screw it anywhere!
    I can easily “predict” that other Tu-22M3M aircraft will also be dragged by other naval aircraft.
    If it can work by land, then why not screw it to the Su-57?
    Nobody knows her weight and size.
    And indeed nothing but the beautiful name "Zircon".
    1. Sky strike fighter 4 March 2020 09: 55 New
      • 14
      • 1
      +13
      If it can work by land, then why not screw it to the Su-57?

      For the Su-57, a prototype of a hypersonic rocket of the intra-fuselage deployment was developed. And this is clearly not Zircon.
      Nobody knows her weight and size.

      On the Internet they talk about the weight of Zircon comparable to the weight of KAB-1500, that is, about 1500 kg.
      And indeed nothing but the beautiful name "Zircon".

      In January, Zircon was tested on board the frigate Gorshkov. A missile flew from the Barents Sea to the Northern Urals for more than 500 km on a ground target.
      1. Victor_B 4 March 2020 10: 39 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        For the Su-57, a prototype of a hypersonic rocket of the intra-fuselage deployment was developed. And this is clearly not Zircon.
        Hindus Bramos (Onyx), which do not shoot from torpedo tubes, were screwed to the Su-30.
        What prevents Zircon, which ...
        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        On the Internet they talk about the weight of Zircon
        ... it's easier to use Onyx widely on airplanes that can carry it on external the suspension? Or Tu-22M3M inside and out.
        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        In January, Zircon was tested on board the frigate Gorshkov. A missile flew from the Barents Sea to the Northern Urals for more than 500 km on a ground target.
        Am I denying that he is flying?
        This is initially RCC ship / underwater basing. Launch from containers, mines and TA.
        Airbase is an option that why not.
        1. bayard 5 March 2020 03: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Victor_B
          Initially, this is a ship / submarine-based RCC. Launch from containers, mines and TA.
          Airbase is an option that why not.

          Initially, the Zircon was a multi-medium-based weapon, and its first tests were carried out precisely from an air carrier - Tu-22M3 (2012, successful). So its use on the Su-34, Su-30SM, Tu-22M3 \ M3M, surface ships and submarines does not exclude one another, but will most likely be in various modifications.
          Quote: Sky Strike fighter
          On the Internet they talk about the weight of Zircon comparable to the weight of KAB-1500, that is, about 1500 kg.

          This is unlikely, rather, its weight is closer to Onyx, as well as dimensions / diameter - in the range of 2,5 - 4 tons. How do you imagine a hypersonic missile, in which the ramjet launches only at 2,5M, and the range is over 1000 km. , a complex search and guidance system for a moving sea target and a tangible warhead in ... starting weight of 1500 kg. ? The banal subsonic Caliber weighs so much. And at “Zircon” only one booster stage (up to 2,5M) will occupy up to 40 - 50% of the starting mass ... And another 1000 km to fly.
          I think the Zircon ground and ship launch will have a starting weight of about 4 tons. Air Launch - 2,5 - 3,5 t.
  2. Sarmat Sanych 4 March 2020 09: 38 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    Hypersonic Zircons on the Su-34 - this is serious!
    1. Sky strike fighter 4 March 2020 09: 44 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      It is also planned to arm the Su-34 KR X-50 (X-SD) .Analog JASSM-ER. Zircon and X-50 are comparable in weight to KAB-1500.
      1. Sarmat Sanych 4 March 2020 09: 47 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        This is called "Full Denial of Access"good
      2. SovAr238A 4 March 2020 11: 02 New
        • 7
        • 2
        +5
        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        It is also planned to arm the Su-34 KR X-50 (X-SD) .Analog JASSM-ER. Zircon and X-50 are comparable in weight to KAB-1500.


        It can not be.
        Aviation Bramos has a mass of 2550kg.
        It is supersonic, has an M-2 speed at low altitude, 2.5 at high altitude.
        And has a flight range of 290km.

        Hypersonic Zircon, which supposedly:
        - has a speed of 5-8-10M,
        - has a range of 800km,
        and it will have a mass of 1500 kg and it’s supposedly with an accelerating block, which is simply vital for the scramjet ????

        Fiction, even unscientific ...
        1. Sky strike fighter 4 March 2020 13: 57 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          And has a flight range of 290km.

          Onyx-M has a range of 800 km due to new fuel.
          Hypersonic Zircon, which supposedly:
          - has a speed of 5-8-10M,
          - has a range of 800km,
          and will have a mass of 1500kg

          The Zircon range is claimed to be more than 1000 km. And what surprises you so much? A Zircon of 1000 km will fly somewhere in 7 minutes due to the hypersonic engine, there is not much fuel for such a flight time, hence such a mass of a rocket. You should not compare supersonic flight and hypersound. There are slightly different processes.
          Fiction, even unscientific ...

          Dagger is also unscientific fiction? 3 tons of weight, 10 Mach, 2000 km range.
          1. Whalebone 4 March 2020 14: 12 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Dagger is a ballistic missile. Do you catch the difference?
          2. SovAr238A 4 March 2020 19: 31 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Sky Strike fighter

            Onyx-M has a range of 800 km due to new fuel.

            Wow.
            It turns out there was a revolution in chemistry, which, due to a change in fuel, was able to increase the range by almost 3 times.
            I hasten to disappoint you.
            All myths about 800 km were invented by Shirokorad, in his theory that it is allegedly possible to make a special long-range Onyx, with a twice accelerated starting accelerator, with a modified deciline engine for arming cruisers like Peter the Great and Nakhimov.
            In fact, it was only the theory of the archivist - having nothing in common with reality.

            There is no Onyx-M in nature.
            The use of modified decylin on X-101 type CRs gave an increase of 10-15%, which is very good indeed.
            And that reflects the actual actual situation with fuels.
            But, by virtue of Russian news cap-taking and deliberate lies, an increase of 250 km in the flight of the Kyrgyz Republic with a range of 2200 km (the very same 10%) was attributed to all missiles for some reason. And now the X-250 flies 101km further and for some reason Onyx also. Afiget logic of our newsletters-idiots and them sympathetic cap-takers ....

            Increasing the range by 3 times when comparing the same flight profile with kerosene on the one hand and modified deciline on the other hand is unrealistic, just in fact. This is an axiom. This is how the earth revolves around the sun. Not being discussed. Anyone who knows chemistry and physics.

            Look for sturgeon.


            Quote: Sky Strike fighter

            The Zircon range is claimed to be more than 1000 km. And what surprises you so much? A Zircon of 1000 km will fly somewhere in 7 minutes due to the hypersonic engine, there is not much fuel for such a flight time, hence such a mass of a rocket. You should not compare supersonic flight and hypersound. There are slightly different processes.

            approx.
            Let your speed calculations in 8M be taken into account.

            Maybe it’s the only secret that has eluded you.
            That would start the scramjet - you need a speed of at least 2M.
            The aircraft will not be able to disperse.
            I give the head of the commander in chief for clipping, but we don’t have an airplane capable of carrying and launching the same dagger at speeds above 2M - this is unrealistic.
            Mig-31 with a suspended dagger at a speed of 2M just tear.
            Yes. specially prepared Mig-31, was able to score almost 3000. But it was specially prepared.
            it did not have a single suspension unit.
            There was nothing on it.
            It was a record aircraft, not a combat aircraft.

            The same goes for Zircon, it is still heavy. It will be very difficult. In order to become at least the destroyer killer.


            And this is guaranteed to mean the presence of an accelerator. heavy, 500-700 kilograms ...
            What do you agree - sharply half your speculation about the mass of Zircon with a range of 1000 kilometers.

            Cook the sturgeon knife.


            Quote: Sky Strike fighter

            Dagger is also unscientific fiction? 3 tons of weight, 10 Mach, 2000 km range.


            Now 2000 already?
            A year ago, it was 1000.
            Kids grow up ...
            In six months, there will be 5000.

            Start trimming sturgeon ...
            1. bayard 5 March 2020 04: 30 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: SovAr238A
              Now 2000 already?
              A year ago, it was 1000.
              Kids grow up ...
              In six months, there will be 5000.

              Well, for the sake of clarity, 2000 km. , this is still with the range of the carrier, and the range of the MiG-31, taking into account acceleration to 2 - 2,5M to a height of 18 km. , no more than 600 - 800 km. Range of 2000 km. , this is still an officially declared figure and most likely it is correct, but precisely as the maximum. Working is likely to be within 1500 km.
            2. Sky strike fighter 5 March 2020 10: 45 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              What does Shirokorad have to do with it? You don’t even know that up to 300 km is the export Onyx (Bramos), for the Russian Navy, Onyx anti-ship missiles have a range of up to 600 km, and due to new fuel, Onyx-M anti-ship missiles were created with a range of 800 km. Onyx information M was widely covered in the media, including representatives of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. It was said about the Onyx-M tests. Why did you drag to Onyx-M X-101? What do they have in common? One supersonic anti-ship missile system, the other subsonic KR. Information about 2000 km from the Dagger was voiced officially.
      3. bayard 5 March 2020 04: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Sky Strike fighter
        It is also planned to arm the Su-34 KR X-50 (X-SD) .Analog JASSM-ER. Zircon and X-50 are comparable in weight to KAB-1500.

        A completely frivolous statement.
        Quote: bayard
        How do you imagine a hypersonic missile, in which the ramjet is launched only at 2,5M, and the range is over 1000 km. , a complex search and guidance system for a moving sea target and a tangible warhead in ... starting weight of 1500 kg. ? The banal subsonic Caliber weighs so much. And at “Zircon” only one booster stage (up to 2,5M) will occupy up to 40 - 50% of the starting mass ... And another 1000 km to fly.
        I think the Zircon ground and ship launch will have a starting weight of about 4 tons. Air Launch - 2,5 - 3,5 t.

        On Tu-22M3M they plan to place up to 12 X-50s on 2 launch drums, and the same Zircons Tu-22M3M will pull from 4 to 6. And 6pcs. - at the limit of combat load.
  3. Zaurbek 4 March 2020 09: 51 New
    • 10
    • 6
    +4
    Another "unique aircraft" with a unique rocket ..... And why is the Su30CM not a carrier? If the rocket was the size of the Brahmos, then the Indians perfectly placed a rocket under the Su30MKI belly ... and this is primarily a marine variant. For land purposes, such missiles are not needed.
    1. Sky strike fighter 4 March 2020 10: 08 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      The Su-30SM is multifunctional, and the Su-34 is a specialized fighter-bomber with a suitable range and is capable of carrying more bombs and missiles.
      1. Zaurbek 4 March 2020 10: 10 New
        • 7
        • 3
        +4
        Really? A plane with an armored cabin, with older turbojet engines, heavier ..., flies further and carries more load? His specialization is in the sighting system for bombing. The radar is older.
    2. figwam 4 March 2020 10: 15 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Quote: Zaurbek
      .And why is the Su30CM not a carrier?

      You offer to make a bomber out of a Su-30SM fighter, although there is already a Su-34 for these purposes, which is not logical.
      1. Zaurbek 4 March 2020 10: 26 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        The time of specialized fighters or tactical bombers is gone. And here we need a carrier of anti-ship missiles (not a bomber), with the appropriate range, powerful radar and carrying capacity.
        And for the Indians, Su30MKI with an aiming container is already there. Why is it worse than Su34?
        1. figwam 4 March 2020 10: 42 New
          • 3
          • 4
          -1
          Quote: Zaurbek
          The time of specialized fighters or tactical bombers is gone

          Where did it go? Su-34 works great on the ground in Syria.
          Quote: Zaurbek
          And here we need a carrier of anti-ship missiles (not a bomber), with the appropriate range, powerful radar and payload.

          By your logic, the radar is even more powerful in the Su-35 and the range is the same, but on the Su-57 the characteristics will be even higher.
          Quote: Zaurbek
          Why is it worse than Su34?

          It’s not even worse, let the Su-30SM go better as a fighter cover, and it’s more convenient for the crew to work on the ground when they are shoulder to shoulder like on the Su-34, and not in tandem like on the Su-30, and the presence of a toilet and space cooking is not an unimportant factor.
          1. Zaurbek 4 March 2020 11: 00 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            The Su35 radar is even better and more powerful and versatile. And they plan to put it on the modernized Su30SM. The issue of the cabin is being discussed ... maybe it is necessary, maybe not.
            1. bayard 5 March 2020 04: 46 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Zaurbek, most likely in naval aviation, the Zircon will still be the Su-30, if only because it was he who was selected as the ONE fighter of naval aviation - for the sake of unification, for the convenience of service and training.
              Su-34 can also become a carrier of these missiles, but not like a marine aircraft, but bomber aircraft. And here he has his own advantages. Indeed, a more comfortable cabin for a long flight, especially with refueling, long-distance flights when relocating for maneuver by forces.
              Klimov insists on the inclusion of the Su-34 in naval aviation for two reasons: firstly, this aircraft was originally created as an airplane not only for naval, but also for carrier-based aircraft (in the Su-32 variant for Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk type aircraft), secondly, the Tu-22M3 remaining and modernized is clearly not enough for the revival of naval missile-carrying aviation and no hypothetical appearance of the Tu-22M3M of a new assembly will solve the problem (in the best case, they will simply replace Tu-22M3, which will be eliminated by age), therefore, he proposes to compensate for the shortage Tu-22 3M3 \ M34M specialized under "Zircons" Su. In principle, it is a sound idea and worthy of consideration and even acceptance. But as part of the SPECIALIZED regiments of naval missile aircraft. So make it faster, easier and cheaper.
              1. Zaurbek 5 March 2020 07: 14 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                I thought the same thing. The hole in naval missile-carrying aviation must be closed ....
                1. bayard 5 March 2020 17: 27 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  This will be a compensation for our insufficiency and weakness in surface ships with shock weapons of the 1st and 2nd rank.
      2. maksbazhin 4 March 2020 10: 27 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Why does he need armor at sea? Zaurbek is right.
        1. Whalebone 4 March 2020 14: 17 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Not wrong! The Su-34 glider is stronger and more resourceful than the Su-30SM. The cabin is more convenient for long flights (more than 2 hours). Armor will save the lives of pilots when breaking SAM. Su-34 with minimal modifications such as conformal tanks and rescue equipment at sea - an ideal marine drummer. Head better than Hornet, for example. With long-range anti-ship missiles (more than 200 km), it will push the sea borders of the Russian Federation 1,5 thousand km from the coast. Squadron will sink any ship, the regiment will cause unacceptable damage to any KUG. And under the supervision of the Prime Minister, he will also beat off fighters and flee to the base.
          1. Zaurbek 5 March 2020 07: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            "Head better" in what? Zircon and Onyx on F18 can not be suspended .... maybe a range. All.
    3. maidan.izrailovich 4 March 2020 11: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      ... the Indians perfectly placed under the belly Su30MKI ...

      Because the Indians have nothing to choose from. Why do we need purebred fighters to translate? We have a sufficient selection of media.
      1. Zaurbek 4 March 2020 11: 18 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        No need to translate ..... it is necessary to mass-produce them and give them the opportunity to carry anti-ship missiles and, if necessary, with an aiming container to search for targets on the ground in any appearance, destroy them. Have the same pilots. And, if necessary, have many planes to perform and tasks in the air.
  4. Pavel57 4 March 2020 09: 52 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    Any carrier is suitable for Zircons. At least the Tu-16. Arrange assembly in Samara from Chinese components.))))
    1. Sky strike fighter 4 March 2020 10: 00 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Why Tu-16? It can also be launched by Sushki, not just strategic bombers.
      1. Pavel57 4 March 2020 10: 09 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Chinese Tu-16 carries 6 missiles. A Su-34 maximum 2.
        1. Zaurbek 4 March 2020 11: 07 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The Tu16 could carry the most powerful OF bomb 9tn (it seems) ... after it, the Tu22M3’s biggest bomb bay had a 4 or 5tn bomb.
    2. Sarmat Sanych 4 March 2020 10: 26 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Pavel57, on the Tu-16, in modern conditions of warfare, only humanitarian aid can be transported. The fact that the Chinese are using this Khrushchev rarity is because of hopelessness, they themselves cannot come up with another, it remains to modernize.
      1. Pavel57 4 March 2020 11: 03 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        With a launch range of 1000 km. aircraft - flying launch platform. And according to the cost-effectiveness criterion, the Tu-16, especially with Rybinsk motors, can surpass the Su-34.
        1. Zaurbek 4 March 2020 11: 09 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +4
          And the cabin is even more spacious, you can put a bed
        2. Sarmat Sanych 4 March 2020 11: 12 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Pavel, seriously write this nonsensewassat? I want to disappoint a little: a long-range bomber is far from being only a launch platform, otherwise they would shoot and transport would adapt. We’re talking about nothing, the Tu-16 is not underdeveloped by today's standards compared to any analogs, it is not suitable for launching hypersonic missiles, and it’s not dangerous for the rest of the list. I repeat - the Chinese are exploiting this museum exhibit because of hopelessness.
          1. Pavel57 4 March 2020 12: 11 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            I write in line with the controversy. As for the underdevelopment of the Tu-16, this is a controversial issue, the only real drawback is the huge EPR, although it is rather comparable to the Su-27 family.
            But the transport workers didn’t fit - the transport workers and passengers adapted for both AWACS and PLO. For many tasks, it’s a plane platform. And low-speed is not a critical factor - an example of low-speed PAK-YES,

            To defeat the AUG you need 20 missiles - this is 20 MiG-31 or Su-34, and the Tu-16 3-4 is enough.

            So the criterion of cost - effectiveness may be higher for the Tu-16 outfit.
            1. Sarmat Sanych 4 March 2020 14: 37 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              This is not a “channel of controversy,” but ignorance of the material. The Tu-16 simultaneously with low speed has a low range in comparison with strategic bombers, at the same time high visibility, and even ancient engines. That is, all the possible disadvantages in one aircraft, the Tu-95MS, V-2, Tu-160, V-52 and Su-34 have one thing from this, a maximum of two, and in the Khrushchev’s hut, the Tu-16 is all together, apart from the very unreliability of its design, many other limitations. What the hell are “aircraft carriers”, he cannot quickly reach the attack distance at such a snail's speed, not without reason the Union created the T22M for this, and now we are using the MiG-31K with hypersonic X47M2. By the way, the Chinese have not only no Tu-16 replacement (and will not be there in the next 20 years), but there is no attack whatsoever; they do not own the technologies for creating hypersonic X-32 and X47M2. On the Tu-16 in the PRC there are only subsonic KR, they are not for aircraft carriers.
              1. Pavel57 4 March 2020 15: 46 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Sarmat Sanych (Sergey),
                Tu-16 high visibility - how many meters of EPR, how many Su-34? I think it is comparable.
                The order of funds - I wrote, to defeat the AUG you need 20 Su-34s - will this flock be invisible?
                Tu-16 and Su-34 are not long-range bombers. Although at one time, the F-111 bombed Libya with refueling, flying out of England.
                What is the difference you go to the line of attack AUG for an hour or half an hour?
                And about PAK-YES, you did not say anything - it is subsonic.
                The cost of a squad of 3–4 aircraft of Tu-16 and 20 missiles is lower than 20 Su-34 and the same 20 missiles.
                The cost of ownership of the Tu-16 is not high.
                Old engines?)) - D-30 is much younger than TF33, which are on the B-52.

                So the Chinese are correctly guided by their H-6, and did not begin to buy the Tu-22M.
                1. Sarmat Sanych 4 March 2020 16: 26 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Pavel57, yes, but the Union, which was much more technologically advanced in terms of long-range targets, which had a design school for their creation from scratch, was so stupid that it took and abandoned its ancient Tu-16 mammoth as a kakahi, in favor of the Tu-22, which has no analogue in world aviation, and also a plus created the masterpiece of mankind Tu-160 - all this the Union did of course "by mistake"laughing. You know, any infirmity can be justified, for example, the Americans are justifying the modernization of their ancient 47-year-old Minutemans, the impotent is justifying himself not interested in his snx, Merkel justifies 3 million rabies by the fact that the Germans need to be tolerant, and so on.
                  Plus, you read inattentively, I did not say that none of those four shortcomings is present in the above samples. The problem is that each of them has only 1, maximum 2 of these shortcomings, for example, B2 has a low speed, the Su-34 has a short range, the Tu-22M3 has high visibility, the B52 has low speed and high visibility - but the crippled Tu -16 there are ALL four of these shortcomings. Instead, it is possible with the same efficiency to convert a passenger Boeing, but something no one decided to do such nonsense. Plus, the Chinese people do not even have modern weapons for them.
                  1. Pavel57 4 March 2020 18: 32 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Sarmat Sanych (Sergey),

                    What kind of Tu-22 are you talking about - which widow maker? Tu-160 is not a class of Tu-16/22 bombers. You always go on to compare with the class of distant bombers, which neither Tu-16 nor Su-34 belong to.
                    The modernization of the Minutemen can be quite justified. And the presence of a dozen types of missiles from three to four plants in the arsenal of the USSR clearly did not make the "economy economical."
                    My assessment has not changed, for the task of defeating a naval group within a radius of 3000 km. Tu-16 with a modern engine is more economically feasible.
                    Therefore, I considered the abstract version - N-6 (Tu-16) with Zircon and Su-34 with Zircon.
                    Aviation lives in the context of specific politics and economics. My comparison of the Tu-16 and Su-34 for a specific task in favor of the Tu-16 essentially does not change anything. These are just mind games.))))
                    1. Sarmat Sanych 5 March 2020 08: 12 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Pavel57, naturally I do not attribute all of these samples to a single class, I just explain to you that to defeat an aircraft carrier group, all of the above-mentioned aircraft are ORDERLY more efficient (even economically, not to mention the military aspect) than the laughable Chinese disgrace of the H-6. I repeat, this rattletone is not able to use hypersound; it doesn’t happen to hit moving targets at 3000 km; it has 800 times less than Tu32MS and this list of minuses can be continued with a couple of paragraphs. Understand, everything is a little more complicated than "on the Su-47 two missiles and the H2 will take four missiles." With regards to the Minutemans, the mattresses completely lost the production of new ICBMs and SLBMs (if I need to write more), that's why they are trying to extend these rarities while the cancer on the mountain whistles. But such procedures do not save, the “Minutemans” have about 22% of launches unsuccessful, they start as a rule without blanks at all, and T3 with the equivalent mass-size model was last tested in the distant 95m year. The situation is such that the amers have not the fact that half of the nuclear potential remains, and Russia globally dominates in the quantity and quality of nuclear weapons not only over the United States, but over the whole planet combined. What is really expected.
                      1. Pavel57 5 March 2020 10: 05 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Sarmat Sanych (Sergey), it seems we are talking about different things -
                        1. I did not say a word about Chinese missiles.
                        2. Tu-16 - not a disgrace, but a normal platform for launching missiles (naturally with modern electronics and engines). He brought the Tu-16 as a more effective means to accomplish a specific task - the defeat of a grouping of ships, assuming they were equipped with Zircons.
                        3. Why should the American Minutemans be involved in the topic, then the American B-52 is better, closer to aviation.

                        I propose to stop, we are already talking the same thing in circles.
                      2. Sarmat Sanych 5 March 2020 10: 13 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Pavel57, no offense, but you do not see the facts. Okay, I won’t persuade you, time has already said everything for me - Soviet designers and military leaders were an order of magnitude smarter than those who still can’t create a long-range synanthropic bomber — that's why they removed it from service long ago. You can’t imagine a greater confirmation of the H-6’s inferiority under modern conditions, the same as proving an advantage in racing cars from the 80s compared to the Hamilton car in 2019.
                      3. Pavel57 5 March 2020 10: 31 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Sarmat Sanych (Sergey), the word inferiority with respect to the Tu-16 you repeat time after time, but no specifics. The fact that "Soviet designers and military leaders were an order of magnitude smarter ..." and removed from service the Tu-16 is not an example, since the successor to the Tu-16 - Tu-22 was frankly unsuccessful. And the peers of Tu-16 - B-52 and Tu-95 are perfectly used until now. Since why change a successful platform, it is necessary to change equipment - equipment and weapons.

                        And the Tu-22M was offered to the Chinese - they refused.
                      4. Sarmat Sanych 5 March 2020 11: 53 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You deny objective things, the Chinese offered Yeltsin a lot of money for the Tu-22M, but even that corrupt government refused flatly, there are a lot of facts and documents on this subject. The Tu-22M and its development is an extremely successful invention, its modernization potential is inexhaustible, with the new Kh-32 and X47M2 missiles - this (along with the MiG31K) is the only weapon to combat aircraft carrier groups. Excuse me - subsonic Chinese H6s are not capable of this. As practice shows, despite their presence (as well as the creepy "anti-aircraft" df-21d), American aircraft carriers both entered the South China Sea and enter, but not a foot to our Pacific shores. On the whole, my message is not about cooling the Tu-16 (it was excellent at one time), but about people finally ceasing to cover up the Chinese’s inability to create something worthwhile (to replace) with stories about a “successful platform”.
  5. Whalebone 4 March 2020 14: 23 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    It is even easier to make a naval patrol nick / PLO from Tu-204. And load into it a couple of anti-ship missiles, along with torpedoes.
  • Whalebone 4 March 2020 14: 24 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Come up with. Tu-16 is being built so as not to interrupt the technological chain.
    1. Sarmat Sanych 4 March 2020 14: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In terms of strategic bombers, the Chinese did not come up with anything other than pictures and a layout. Unsurprisingly, they “invent” only what the Union, Russia, the Outskirts, the States and Europe gave them for free, sold them, or that they themselves could copy. But here's the misfortune - Europe has no long range, the Union and Russia Tu-22M and Tu-22M3 flatly refused to sell (they promised a lot of money by the way), and the Amers did not manage to copy the B-52 and B2 with the samples as expected.
  • sivuch 4 March 2020 09: 52 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    If only Onyxes are fastened to the Su-34, it will already be nice.
  • rudolff 4 March 2020 10: 05 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    Su-34 really asks at sea, it is the place in the MPA. It is too early to talk about Zircon. Also, the basic project has not been brought to its logical conclusion, and the aviation modification is still such a frail piece of work for more than one year. But why the Onyx in the aviation version is not, a little strange. Moreover, there is a beaten path by Bramos. There is no aviation version of 3M54 from the Caliber range. There is a Dagger, but there are more questions than answers. If I am not mistaken, there has not been a single launch on a moving sea target.
    1. Sky strike fighter 4 March 2020 10: 19 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Probably not just because Borisov makes such statements.
      MOSCOW, Mar 12 - RIA News. Hypersonic missiles of the Dagger system, which are equipped with modernized interceptor fighters, can hit aircraft carriers, destroyers and cruisers of a potential enemy, Deputy Defense Minister of Russia Yuri Borisov said in an interview with Krasnaya Zvezda.


      "This is a class of high-precision weapons that has a multi-functional warhead that allows you to work both on stationary and moving targets," Borisov said.

      https://ria.ru/20180312/1516128741.html
      1. rudolff 4 March 2020 10: 35 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        Probably not for nothing. But questions remain. There were no real launches for moving targets. For now, anyway. Another point. Assuming that the Dagger is an aviation version of Iskander, can Iskander work on moving targets? That is, can Iskander fulfill the functions of a coastal complex?
        1. Zaurbek 4 March 2020 11: 10 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          They showed a new rocket with a dagger like a dagger for Iskander .... but there were launches or did not go over moving targets, they did not report to the public.
          1. rudolff 4 March 2020 11: 24 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Yes, but they reported on stills.
            1. Sky strike fighter 4 March 2020 14: 20 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              The dagger can be movable, as well as Iskander-M.
              Destruction of the moving sea targets became possible after the expansion of the capabilities of the PTRC based on the use of a new type of homing heads of Iskander-M missiles.

              https://topwar.ru/145852-topit-korabli-protivnika-iskanderom-teper-i-jeto-vozmozhno.html
              1. rudolff 4 March 2020 14: 35 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                It talks about electronic launches. But in any case, interesting. I somehow missed it. Thank.
        2. BREAKTHROUGH READY 4 March 2020 11: 31 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Can Iskander work on moving targets?
          No one has ever seen an optical seeker 9E436 on a rocket “live”, while any rocket can work on moving targets, the question is how efficient and rational.
          About how to burn tanks with “hail” packages, the practice of real conflicts showed that NURs can cope with armored vehicles without any godless GOS.
        3. Sky strike fighter 4 March 2020 14: 08 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: rudolff
          Probably not for nothing. But questions remain. There were no real launches for moving targets. For now, anyway. Another point. Assuming that the Dagger is an aviation version of Iskander, can Iskander work on moving targets? That is, can Iskander fulfill the functions of a coastal complex?

          Quote: Zaurbek
          They showed a new rocket with a dagger like a dagger for Iskander .... but there were launches or did not go over moving targets, they did not report to the public.

          Iskander can work on moving targets, including ships. At the exercises, Iskander launches on ships were worked out. That's for sure.

          An autonomous radar homing head of a correlation type will launch the missile target using both a radar guidance station and an optical detection system in its design. Similar principles are implemented in the most modern American cruise missiles Tomahawk and CALCM. How they work, many have seen from CNN reports from Iraq, Yugoslavia and Syria. In contrast to them, the homing head of our complex is more sensitive, which allows us to hit the target successfully even on moonless nights, when there is no additional natural illumination, or hit the moving target with an error of plus or minus two meters. Apart from Iskander, no other tactical system in the world can solve such a problem.

          https://tass.ru/opinions/7179719
          1. rudolff 4 March 2020 14: 29 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Iskander launches on ships were being tested. Maybe I missed something, do not share the information?
            Tomahawk and CALCM are subsonic cruise missiles. Then the next question. What is the speed of the dagger in the final section? Given that the rocket is aeroballistic and actively maneuvers along the entire trajectory?
    2. novel66 4 March 2020 10: 26 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      they can do something, but apparently they don’t give money, but “What kind of washing is without a gang? One sin” (c)
    3. alexmach 4 March 2020 11: 52 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      But why the Onyx in the aviation version is not, a little strange.

      Someone wrote that there is no carrier under it and that for the SU-30 it is necessary to strengthen the design of the suspension housing in order to be able to carry such a heavy missile that, in turn, will affect maneuverability. It is hard to say how true this is.
      1. rudolff 4 March 2020 12: 26 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        But in India, they solved the same problem with a similar Bramos on the Su-30. Well, then we have a Su-34, Tu-22 as a last resort.
        1. alexmach 4 March 2020 12: 52 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Well, then we have a Su-34

          Not in maritime aviation.
          Tu-22 as a last resort

          In a very limited quantity and in an incomprehensible state ..

          But I agree with your thought. And in naval aviation there is complete discord and the absence of a clear concept of development.
          1. rudolff 4 March 2020 13: 09 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            So I, in fact, not so much about missiles, but about MRA. She is now in a kind of limbo. It seems that they transferred some Su-30s, it is unclear what with the Daggers on the MiG-31, like navigational training with the Su-34, but they don’t give it to the MPA, the situation with the Tu-22 is generally incomprehensible. Somehow everything is oblique. Clarity is needed.
            1. timokhin-aa 5 March 2020 14: 36 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Remember, I wrote to you about the project of using the Su-34 in the Navy? Here he is -

              https://mina030.livejournal.com/17860.html

              And this article is an echo of "illuminated" by Klimov.
              By the way, the project is stopped. Back in September. Despite the fact that his support was hoo.
              I don’t even know what to think.
  • Nikolaevich I 4 March 2020 11: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    “Dreaming is not harmful!” ... “Huge plans!” .... “Life has become better .... Life has become more fun!” ... “There is a beginning to the revolution, there is no end to the revolution!”
  • Warrior MorePhoto 4 March 2020 12: 11 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Zaurbek
    No need to translate ..... it is necessary to mass-produce them and give them the opportunity to carry anti-ship missiles and, if necessary, with an aiming container to search for targets on the ground in any appearance, destroy them. Have the same pilots. And, if necessary, have many planes to perform and tasks in the air.


    This is exactly what I wanted to write!
    It turns out a universal "bomber" and land and sea. From the shore of the AWAC, under the cover of air defense, it will be perfectly able to give target designation.

    Another option is to make such a Su 57, because they have less EPR, but here the situation is not for the next few years, and the Su 34M in a modernized version can (planned) be launched in 2022, with 18 sides per year.
    1. Zaurbek 4 March 2020 12: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The main thing is not to reinvent the wheel where it was invented .... There are F15 and F16, there are marine F18. There is a Su30MKI. F35 is already at a different technological level. After upgrading to 4 ++, these are universal aircraft. With the widest range of weapons.
    2. Whalebone 4 March 2020 14: 27 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      And for another 34 years, the Su-40 will be able to control and close the waters around the perimeter of the Russian Federation. They don’t need to figure out (they can), they don’t need OVT, the latest expensive engines, too.
  • Bersaglieri 4 March 2020 12: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "Onyx" and X-31 and X-35 and so can carry. Correct solution. The only one, due to the dimensions of the Zircon mass, will be only one rocket at the central node of the suspension. You can, by the way, and "Kanzhal" there.
    1. Zaurbek 4 March 2020 12: 35 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Apparently, there are not enough carriers. Tu22 is not produced, Tu160 is needed for nuclear weapons ... and decided to make it by the example of the Indians.
      1. Bersaglieri 4 March 2020 12: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        For coastal defense and operations at the World Cup, SM, BM, that's what you need.
  • Ros 56 4 March 2020 13: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In magazines you can write anything you like, it’s good that they don’t make decisions.
  • Old26 4 March 2020 15: 45 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    For the Su-57, a prototype of a hypersonic rocket of the intra-fuselage deployment was developed. And this is clearly not Zircon.

    The question so far is whether a hypersonic missile is needed on the SU-57. After all, this aircraft is positioned as a generation 5 car, if I am not mistaken. And the 5th generation car, in addition to stealth, should also have cruising supersonic sound. And how to launch a hypersonic missile from an armament compartment from a machine operating at supersonic sound ??

    Quote: Victor_B
    ... is it easier to use Onyx widely on airplanes that can carry it on an external sling? Or Tu-22M3M inside and out.

    Nobody knows the mass-dimensional parameters of Zircon. Heavier or lighter is not yet known. How unknown even the appearance

    Quote: Victor_B
    Initially, this is a ship / submarine-based RCC. Launch from containers, mines and TA.

    As far as TA is known, Zircon is not planned to be launched.

    Quote: SovAr238A
    It can not be.
    Aviation Bramos has a mass of 2550kg.
    It is supersonic, has an M-2 speed at low altitude, 2.5 at high altitude.
    And has a flight range of 290km.

    Hypersonic Zircon, which supposedly:
    - has a speed of 5-8-10M,
    - has a range of 800km,
    and it will have a mass of 1500 kg and it’s supposedly with an accelerating block, which is simply vital for the scramjet ????

    Fiction, even unscientific ...

    good

    Quote: Zaurbek
    Another "unique aircraft" with a unique rocket ..... And why is the Su30CM not a carrier? If the rocket was the size of the Brahmos, then the Indians perfectly placed a rocket under the Su30MKI belly ... and this is primarily a marine variant. For land purposes, such missiles are not needed.

    If. And if not?

    Quote: maksbazhin
    Why does he need armor at sea? Zaurbek is right.

    But what, the small-caliber artillery of ships or aircraft guns in extreme cases have already been canceled? A machine that must operate on point targets on the battlefield must be protected ...

    Quote: rudolff
    Probably not for nothing. But questions remain. There were no real launches for moving targets. For now, anyway. Another point. Assuming that the Dagger is an aviation version of Iskander, can Iskander work on moving targets? That is, can Iskander fulfill the functions of a coastal complex?

    Only in one single case. If the "Dagger" would have a detachable warhead with its own engines ...

    Quote: Zaurbek
    They showed a new rocket with a dagger like a dagger for Iskander .... but there were launches or did not go over moving targets, they did not report to the public.

    But what do you think of yourself? Especially if a rocket does not have a detachable warhead?
    1. Mishiko 5 March 2020 13: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: Sky Strike fighter
      For the Su-57, a prototype of a hypersonic rocket of the intra-fuselage deployment was developed. And this is clearly not Zircon.

      The question so far is whether a hypersonic missile is needed on the SU-57. After all, this aircraft is positioned as a generation 5 car, if I am not mistaken. And the 5th generation car, in addition to stealth, should also have cruising supersonic sound. And how to launch a hypersonic missile from an armament compartment from a machine operating at supersonic sound ??

      You answer first the question: "What is a hypersonic missile for?" And then you can only assume, not being a hypersound specialist, and not argue.
  • rudolff 4 March 2020 19: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Aircraft multipurpose complex with naval multipurpose fighter-bomber Su-34M.
    Maxim Klimov

    On February 27, at the age of 84, the Chief Designer of the Su-34 front-line fighter-bomber Martirosov Rollan Gurgenovich passed away.
    After graduating from the Moscow Aviation Institute in 1959, he joined the Sukhoi Design Bureau.
    “During his work at the enterprise, he held the positions of engineer, team leader, deputy head of the design department, head of the design department, and chief designer. He made a great personal contribution to solving complex technical issues during the development, testing and serial development of such well-known Sukhoi Design Bureau aircraft as Su-7BKL, Su-15, T-4, Su-24, Su-24M and Su-27. ”
    Since 1991, Martirosov R.G. - Chief designer of the Su-34 front-line bomber.
    March 20, 2014 Su-34 was officially adopted. The plane set 7 world records, not broken to date.
    By the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 2017 for special labor services to the state and people R. Martirosov awarded the title of Hero of Labor of the Russian Federation.
    The author had a short but vivid conversation with Rolland Gurgenovich on the issue of a promising marine multi-purpose aviation complex based on the Su-34 aircraft. Given the fact that, despite the great interest of the command (the Navy “turned on the green light”), the work was stopped (for “non-technical reasons”), it is advisable to speak about it publicly. The topic was fully and with great interest supported by Martirosov, but ... "here you need to fight, but age and health do not allow me to do this, all that is left is to launch the main modernization of the aircraft [Su-34 for the VKS]" (literally).

    Multipurpose Aviation Complex
    with the Su-34M naval multipurpose fighter-bomber.
    The main idea of ​​the plan to modernize the Su-34 fighter-bomber into an aviation multipurpose complex with the Su-34M ("marine") naval multipurpose fighter-bomber: to ensure a significant increase in the combat effectiveness of the Navy due to not only independent Su-34M operations on the sea (ocean) TVD , but also the effective support and interaction of Su-34M aircraft and Navy ships (including submarines and naval strategic forces (NSNS)), and the solution of other special tasks of the Navy in oceanic (marine) theater of operations.
    The creation of such an aviation group in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet is the first step towards the reconstruction of the naval missile-carrying aviation of the Navy (MRA Navy). Only such a group is able at the required level to meet the requirements of the decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 20.07.2017. No. 327 “On approval of the Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities until 2030.”: 51. Indicators of the effectiveness of measures to implement state policy in the field of naval activities are: ... d) the ability of the Navy to build up a naval grouping on a dangerous strategic direction due to the inter-theater maneuver by the fleet

    Given this (and significant financial constraints), the best option seems to be the transfer of the Navy (as part of the North-USS and OKVF Pacific Fleet) from the VKS 1-2 regiments of the first-series Su-34 fighter-bombers, with their modernization (taking into account touched the design of the Su-32FN aircraft, the experience of search and sighting system (PPS) "Sea Serpent" (Indian Navy) and Novella (Russian Navy), and the latest domestic developments of the Armed Forces), providing the following tasks:
    • delivering strikes (including joint strikes with ships and submarines) against sea and ground targets (including highly protected, over a large radius from the departure aerodrome) with modern and promising aviation weapons;
    • conducting independent reconnaissance and target designation (TsU) to the striking forces of the Navy and Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (and ensuring the integrated use of other reconnaissance and TsU systems over a large radius);
    • solving the problems of providing air defense for the ships of the Navy (and submarines (including the strategic nuclear forces) of the military service) and bases of the Navy (including when repelling a massive surprise strike by cruise missiles);
    • a significant increase in the combat potential of mixed groups of Su-30SM (35) and MiG-29K (31BM) aircraft with Su-34 aircraft during air battles (including against new enemy fighters and in the conditions of counteraction of enemy airborne warning and electronic warfare aircraft) ;
    • solutions to patrol and anti-submarine missions, including ensuring close tactical interaction with surface combat ships (BNKs) and Navy submarines (including strategic nuclear forces);
    • electronic warfare at the modern technical and conceptual level;
    • solutions to “other special tasks”.
    Note: the key feature of the proposed modernization of Su-34 aircraft was not only to increase their combat capabilities and expand the range of tasks, but also (most importantly!) To ensure close tactical interaction between ships (including submarines) and Su-34M aircraft (group aircraft) through the use of modern means of communication and placement on ships and submarines of special small-sized “information terminals of joint actions” (ITSD), which ensure effective interaction of the forces of the Navy and the Russian Armed Forces with aircraft C -34M (and other).
    The composition of the aviation multi-purpose complex:
    • Su-34M aircraft with a modernized airborne weapons system;
    • aviation weapons (including new and promising);
    • quick-change container means of ensuring application;
    • a set of ground equipment and operational and application support;
    • information terminals for joint operations on ships and submarines of the Navy.
    For the effective solution of anti-submarine missions, it was envisaged to use teaching staff with a fundamentally new “ideology”, which would ensure not only an up-to-date teaching staff, but also actually “overtake” foreign opponents (due to fundamentally new tasks and application models). The compactness of this promising teaching staff opened up the possibility of effective modernization of the Il-38 and Tu-142M aircraft.
    In comparison with the Su-30SM aircraft available as part of naval aviation, the upgraded Su-34M could be used over a larger radius and with a greater combat load, carry heavier anti-ship missiles (including Onyx and Zircon) and in increased quantities. It should be noted that the current rate of naval aviation of the Navy on “tactical” anti-ship missiles of the X-35 type, taking into account the sharply increased range of SAM missiles of the enemy, puts their carriers (even with the Kh-35U with an increased range) under execution, even before reaching the range of use of our anti-ship missiles .
    When solving air defense problems - use long-range missiles and carry increased (more than 20, when solving air defense tasks) ammunition for conventional missiles (short and medium range).
    1. rudolff 4 March 2020 19: 33 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      For effective use in various environmental conditions (dispersed basing conditions, in difficult climatic conditions and severe time limits when solving a number of problems, etc.), it was assumed that mobile equipment for operation and use would be included in the set of ground-based equipment for operating the Su-34M (including the long-term maintenance of high readiness for the departure of Su-34M aircraft and their crews with various combat load options (and ensuring its quick replacement)). This requires not only checking and suspension of weapons, but also the possibility of long standby of the aircraft in high readiness for departure, quick cleaning of the runway from snow, etc. (including at alternate aerodromes). This decision made it possible to sharply increase the readiness of Su-34M aircraft to solve missions for their intended purpose and to ensure effective aerodrome maneuver, the use of alternate aerodromes, dispersal and high combat stability of the aviation group.

      It was supposed to solve an extremely difficult problem - rescue pilots in the far zone: Be-200 seaplanes (radius not more than 1200 km) have very limited capabilities for take-off and landing on waves.
      The Mi-8AMTSh helicopter has much lower (compared to the Be-200) weather conditions during rescue operations (driving wind speed up to 25 m / s), providing a maximum radius of 600-650 km (with 4 additional tanks). To work at a larger radius, it is necessary to equip the Mi-8AMTSh helicopters with a removable refueling kit and the presence of tankers (Il-76-78 type) as part of the Navy.

      A common practice in the US and Navy is to refuel helicopters in the air.
      With all the urgency of this, we have, in fact, today "full zero."

      In addition, in the event of a crash or the death of an airplane over a large radius, funds are needed to ensure that pilots who find themselves on the water not only survive, but also enter the area of ​​their selection by helicopters. The solution was supposed to be due to the use of airborne boats (including the Zodiac type) from aircraft (including marine Su-34M), with the possibility of crewless movement and approach to the rescued. The capabilities of the boat should provide the subsequent long transition from the place of the death of the aircraft to the rescue area by helicopters ....
      When deciding on a complex with Su-34M planes (and transferring Su-34 planes to the Navy), it is advisable to simultaneously transfer the group of Il-76MD planes to the Navy, with modernization work being carried out on them, providing the possibility of installing additional fuel tanks and UPAZ refueling units and providing solutions to a number of other special tasks of the Navy "...
      The proposed aviation complex provides a significant increase in the effectiveness and combat stability of the Navy forces when solving missions by mission due to:
      • a significant increase in the range, quantity and effectiveness of the use of anti-ship missiles (including new and promising ones - Onyx, Zircon);
      • the ability to quickly and efficiently inter-theater maneuver a powerful naval aviation group;
      • the possibility of effective suppression of air defense (including ship formations);
      • the ability to effectively search (on call), destroy the enemy submarines and assist the Navy submarines (including emergency);
      • ensuring the transfer of information from submarines (including emergency (for example, about a surprise attack by the enemy) from the strategic nuclear forces, critical for the Supreme High Command of the RF Armed Forces);
      • the possibility of a significant increase in the potential of air defense bases and naval groups of the Navy (due to the possibility of high readiness for departure with an increased (more than 20) ammunition of air-to-air missiles);
      • the possibility of destroying "critical targets" such as AWACS (new missiles).
      Taking into account all organizational problems, its implementation is possible on the basis of a “single Decision” at the level of “Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation - Chief of the General Staff”.

      PS
      Given the fact that this issue is of great importance for the country's defense, not only at the operational-tactical level, but also strategic (as an effective tool for ensuring the combat stability of the strategic nuclear forces), the continuation and full-scale deployment of work on it is necessary.
      1. rudolff 4 March 2020 19: 35 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        This is an article by Maxim Klimov. On this topic. Interesting for discussion.
        1. timokhin-aa 5 March 2020 14: 37 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Ah, you have already seen))

          Well, here it is.
          1. rudolff 5 March 2020 15: 04 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Well, he himself gave me the link yesterday. I ventured into the squeeze in the comments. But now the people are busy with Syria, not to aviation.
            request
  • lvov_aleksey 5 March 2020 00: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    who is he at all - Klimov ????
  • Warrior MorePhoto 5 March 2020 03: 49 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: rudolff
    This is an article by Maxim Klimov. On this topic. Interesting for discussion.


    Cool!
    Really “small” forces can seriously protect your shores, in general, just do not even let in or even attack the AUG. The depth of defense of the Su 34M will exceed the depth of defense of the AUG.
    Operational transfer is what we need, not even that we have the “wrong fleet” but in the event of destruction, with quick replenishment both in the air defense and in the strike version, as well as assistance to existing ships.
    As I understand it about Onyx and Zircon, we are talking about 4 rockets at least. It already turns out 2 planes, one RTO covers, and the squadron, the squadron, while the undoubted gain is speed.
    It’s interesting about the help of the SNLF, on the whole it was and is weak, but it can be decently pulled up again “not expensive”, it will be dangerous to freely approach our shores for 1000-2000 km, in the absence of helicopter carriers and aircraft carriers.
    + A lot is applicable for the land option (air defense for example), which will also give "universality".
    In general, it is very right and necessary!
    I'm for two hands good
  • Pavel57 5 March 2020 10: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Whalebone
    It is even easier to make a naval patrol nick / PLO from Tu-204. And load into it a couple of anti-ship missiles, along with torpedoes.


    The idea of ​​making a Tu-204 maritime patrol nickname / PLO has been around for 20 years, but the Moscow Region buried this idea. but it seems now they are returning to her again. Hanging a couple of missiles on such an airplane is not a problem, examples are Poseidon with harpoons and Indian Il-38 with X-35, but the question is whether it is necessary. Modern ship’s air defense from 2 missiles will easily break off.
  • timokhin-aa 5 March 2020 14: 38 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Just in case -

    news - an echo of this topic on the reconstruction of naval strike aircraft:

    https://mina030.livejournal.com/17860.html

    So far, alas, suspended.