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.

Comments

[Victor_B]

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 the Tu-22M3M will also be carried 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 nothing at all, except for the beautiful name "Zircon".

[Sky strike fighter]

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 nothing at all, except for 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.

[Victor_B]

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.

[bayard]

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 is a multi-medium weapon, and its first tests were 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 it 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 is launched only at 2,5M, and the range is over 1000 km. , a sophisticated search and guidance system for a moving sea target and a tangible warhead in ... a starting weight of 1500 kg. ? This is how much the banal subsonic "Caliber" weighs. And at the Zircon, only one accelerating stage (up to 2,5M) will take up to 40-50% of the starting mass ... And fly another 1000 km.
I think the Zircon ground and ship launch will have a launch weight of about 4 tons. Air launch - 2,5 - 3,5 tons.

[Sarmat Sanych]

Hypersonic "Zircons" on the Su-34 - this is already serious!

[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.

[Sarmat Sanych]

This is called "Complete Denial of Access"

[SovAr238A]

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 ...

[Sky strike fighter]

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.

[Whalebone]

Dagger is a ballistic missile. Do you catch the difference?

[SovAr238A]

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 ...

[bayard]

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.

[Sky strike fighter]

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.

[bayard]

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 sophisticated search and guidance system for a moving sea target and a tangible warhead in ... a starting weight of 1500 kg. ? This is how much the banal subsonic "Caliber" weighs. And at the Zircon, only one accelerating stage (up to 2,5M) will take up to 40-50% of the starting mass ... And fly another 1000 km.
I think the Zircon ground and ship launch will have a launch weight of about 4 tons. Air launch - 2,5 - 3,5 tons.

On the Tu-22M3M they are going to place up to 12 X-50s on 2 launching drums, and the same Tu-22M3M will pull Zirkons from 4 to 6. Moreover, 6pcs. - at the limit of combat load.

[Zaurbek]

Another "unique plane" with a unique missile ..... And why is the Su30SM not a carrier? If the rocket is in the size of "Brahmos", then the Indians perfectly placed the missile under the belly of the Su30MKI ... and this is primarily a sea version. Such missiles are not needed for land targets.

[Sky strike fighter]

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.

[Zaurbek]

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.

[figwam]

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.

[Zaurbek]

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?

[figwam]

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.

[Zaurbek]

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.

[bayard]

Zaurbek, most likely in the naval aviation the Zircon will be carried by the Su-30, if only because it was chosen as the SINGLE fighter of naval aviation - for the sake of unification, for the convenience of maintenance 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 the naval aviation for two reasons: firstly, this aircraft was originally created as an aircraft not only for naval aviation, but also for carrier-based aviation (in the Su-32 version for AB type "Kuznetsov" and "Ulyanovsk"), secondly, the remaining and modernized Tu-22M3 is clearly not enough for the revival of the naval missile-carrying aviation, and no hypothetical appearance of the new assembly of the Tu-22M3M will solve the problem (at best they will simply replace the outgoing Tu-22M3), so he proposes to compensate for the shortage Tu-22M3 \ M3M specialized for "Zircons" Su-34. In principle, this is a sound idea and is worthy of consideration and even acceptance. But as part of the SPECIALIZED regiments of naval missile aviation. This is faster, easier and cheaper.

[Zaurbek]

I thought the same thing. The hole in naval missile-carrying aviation must be closed ....

[bayard]

This will be a compensation for our insufficiency and weakness in surface ships with shock weapons of the 1st and 2nd rank.

[maksbazhin]

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

[Whalebone]

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.

[Zaurbek]

"A head better" in what? Zircon and Onyx cannot be suspended on F18 ... maybe the range. All.

[maidan.izrailovich]

... 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.

[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.

[Pavel57]

Any carrier is suitable for Zircons. At least the Tu-16. Arrange assembly in Samara from Chinese components.))))

[Sky strike fighter]

Why Tu-16? It can also be launched by Sushki, not just strategic bombers.

[Pavel57]

Chinese Tu-16 carries 6 missiles. A Su-34 maximum 2.

[Zaurbek]

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.

[Sarmat Sanych]

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.

[Pavel57]

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.

[Zaurbek]

And the cabin is even more spacious, you can put a bed

[Sarmat Sanych]

Pavel, seriously write this nonsense? 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.

[Pavel57]

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.

[Sarmat Sanych]

This is not a "channel of polemics", but ignorance of the material. At the same time, the Tu-16 has a low range compared to strategic bombers, at the same time, high visibility, and even ancient engines. That is, all the possible disadvantages in one plane, the Tu-95MS, V-2, Tu-160, V-52 and Su-34 have one or more of this, at most two, but in the Khrushchev's Tu-16 rattle, all together, not counting the very unreliability of its design, many other limitations. What the hell to him "aircraft carriers", he with such a snail's speed will not be able to quickly reach the attack distance, it is not for nothing that the Union created the T22M for this, and we are now using the MiG-31K with hypersonic X47M2. By the way, the Chinese not only do not have a replacement for the Tu-16 (and will not be in the next 20 years), but they have nothing to attack with, they do not own the technologies for creating hypersonic X-32 and X47M2. On the Tu-16 in the PRC, there are only subsonic CDs, they are not for aircraft carriers.

[Pavel57]

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.

[Sarmat Sanych]

Pavel57, yes, and the Union, which had a design school for creating them from scratch, was much more technologically advanced in terms of long-range missions - it was so stupid that it took and abandoned its Tu-16 mammoth, ancient as kakakhi, in favor of the Tu-22, which has no analogue in world aviation, and even a plus created a masterpiece of humanity Tu-160 - all this the Union did of course "by mistake". 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.

[Pavel57]

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.
Modernizing the Minutemans may well be justified. And the presence of a dozen types of missiles from three or four factories in service with 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.))))

[Sarmat Sanych]

Pavel57, naturally I do not class all these samples into a single class, I just explain to you that for the destruction of an aircraft carrier group, all of the above aircraft are ORDERLY more effective (even economically, not to mention the military aspect) than the ridiculous Chinese disgrace H-6. I repeat, this rattle car is not able to use hypersound, it does not happen at 3000 km of CD, it does not happen, it cannot break through 800 km from the order, by definition, there were no analogues of our X32, X47M2 and even the old X22 in Sinanthpops, the range it has 3 times less than the Tu95MS and this list of minuses can be continued for a couple of paragraphs. Understand, everything is a little more complicated than "on the Su-34 two missiles and the H6 will take four missiles." With regards to the "Minutemans", the mattress makers have completely lost the production of new ICBMs and SLBMs (if I need to write in more detail), therefore, they are trying to extend these rarities from these rarities while cancer whistles on the mountain. But even such procedures do not save, the Minutemans have about 30% of launches unsuccessful, they usually launch without a blank at all, and T2 with an equivalent weight and size model was last tested back in 91. The situation is developing in such a way that the amers do not have the fact that even half of the nuclear potential remains, but Russia globally dominates in the quantity and quality of nuclear weapons not only over the United States, but over the entire planet combined. What is actually expected.

[Pavel57]

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.

[Sarmat Sanych]

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.

[Pavel57]

Sarmat Sanych (Sergey), you repeat the word inferiority with respect to Tu-16 over and over again, but there is no specifics. The fact that "Soviet designers and military leaders were an order of magnitude smarter ..." and removed the Tu-16 from service is not an example, since the Tu-16's successor, Tu-22, was frankly unsuccessful. And the peers of the Tu-16 - B-52 and Tu-95 are still perfectly used. Since why change a successful platform, it is necessary to change the equipment - equipment and weapons.

And the Tu-22M was offered to the Chinese - they refused.

[Sarmat Sanych]

You deny objective things, the Chinese offered Yeltsin a lot of money for the Tu-22M, but even that corrupt government flatly refused, there are a lot of facts and documents on this topic. The Tu-22M and its development is an extremely successful invention, its modernization potential is inexhaustible, with the new Kh-32 and Kh47M2 missiles, this (along with the MiG31K) is the only weapon for fighting aircraft carrier groups. Excuse me - the subsonic Chinese H6s are not capable of this. As practice shows - despite their presence (as well as lazy "anti-aircraft" df-21d), American aircraft carriers entered the South China Sea and entered, but not a foot to our Pacific shores. In general, my message is not to groan the Tu-16 (at one time it was excellent), but that people finally stop covering up the inability of the Chinese to create something worthwhile (to replace) stories about a "successful platform".

[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.

[Whalebone]

Come up with. Tu-16 is being built so as not to interrupt the technological chain.

[Sarmat Sanych]

In terms of strategic bombers, the Chinese came up with nothing but pictures and a layout. It is not surprising that they "invent" only that the Union, Russia, the outskirts, the States and Europe gave them free of charge, sold or that they themselves were able to copy. But here is bad luck - Europe has no long-range vehicles, the Union and Russia flatly refused to sell the Tu-22M and Tu-22M3 (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]

If only Onyxes are fastened to the Su-34, it will already be nice.

[Sky strike fighter]

Probably not just because Borisov makes such statements.

MOSCOW, 12 March - RIA Novosti. The Dagger system's hypersonic missiles, which are equipped with modernized interceptor fighters, can strike potential enemy aircraft carriers, destroyers and cruisers, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said in an interview with the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper.

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

https://ria.ru/20180312/1516128741.html

[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.

[Sky strike fighter]

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

[BREAKTHROUGH READY]

Can Iskander work on moving targets?

Nobody has yet seen the 9E436 optical seeker on a rocket "live", while any missile can work on moving targets, the question is how efficiently and efficiently.
Something like how to burn tanks with packets of "hail", the practice of real conflicts has shown that NURs cope with armored vehicles and without any godless GOS.

[Sky strike fighter]

Quote from rudolf

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

https://tass.ru/opinions/7179719

[novel66]

they can do something, but it seems they don't give money, but "What kind of washing is there without a gang? There is only one sin" (c)

[alexmach]

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.

[alexmach]

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.

[timokhin-aa]

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 the one "exposed" 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]

"Dreaming is not harmful!" ... "The plans are huge!" .... "Life has become lou ...., life has become more fun!" ... "The revolution has a beginning, the revolution has no end!"

[Warrior MorePhoto]

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 coast, the AWACS under the cover of air defense will perfectly be 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.

[Zaurbek]

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.

[Whalebone]

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]

"Onyx" and X-31 and X-35 and so can carry. The right decision. The only thing, due to the dimensions of the Zircon's mass, it will be just one rocket on the central suspension unit. It is possible, by the way, and "Kanzhal" there.

[Zaurbek]

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.

[Bersaglieri]

For coastal defense and operations at the World Cup, SM, BM, that's what you need.

[Ros 56]

In magazines you can write anything you like, it’s good that they don’t make decisions.

[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 ??

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.

No one yet knows the mass-dimensional parameters of the Zircon. It is still unknown whether it is heavier or lighter. How unknown even the appearance

Quote: Victor_B

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

From the TA, as far as 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 ...

Quote: Zaurbek

Another "unique plane" with a unique missile ..... And why is the Su30SM not a carrier? If the rocket is in the size of "Brahmos", then the Indians perfectly placed the missile under the belly of the Su30MKI ... and this is primarily a sea version. Such missiles are not needed for land targets.

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 from rudolf

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 on one single occasion. If the "Dagger" had 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 about "thinking out" yourself? Especially if the missile has no detachable warhead?

[Mishiko]

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 ??

First, answer the question: "What is a hypersonic missile for?" And then you can only guess, not being a hypersound specialist, and not assert.

[timokhin-aa]

Ah, you have already seen))

Well, here it is.

[lvov_aleksey]

who is he at all - Klimov ????

[Warrior MorePhoto]

Quote from rudolf

This is an article by Maxim Klimov. On this topic. Interesting for discussion.

Cool!
Really "small" forces can seriously secure their shores, in general, just not even let or even attack the AUG. The defense depth of the Su 34M will exceed the defense depth of the AUG.
Operational transfer is what we need, not even in the fact that we have "the wrong fleet" but in case of destruction, with a quick replenishment both in air defense and in the shock version, as well as assistance to operating 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 is interesting about the help of NSNF, in general it was and is weak, but it is possible to pull up decently again "not expensive", it would be dangerous to come freely to our shores for 1000-2000 km, in the absence of helicopter carriers and aircraft carriers.
+ much is applicable for the land variant (air defense, for example), which will also give "versatility".
In general, it is very right and necessary!
I'm for two hands

[Pavel57]

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]

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.