US Air Force intends to equip B-1B Lancer bombers with hypersonic missiles

The remaining strategic Rockwell B-1B Lancer bombers, which remain in operation, will be upgraded to equip them with promising hypersonic missiles AGM-183A ARRW (Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon) and a non-nuclear version being developed aviation strategic cruise missile LRSO (Long-Range Stand-Off). It is reported by the US Air Force Strategic Command.

As General Timothy Ray, commander of the US Air Force Strategic Command, explained, there are plans to modernize the remaining B-1B bombers after the reduction. In total, it is planned to write off 17 aircraft, and the remaining 44 will be modernized, which will include the restoration of eight external suspension units dismantled in connection with the Russian-American strategic arms reduction treaties, which provide for the abandonment of the use of B-1B bombers as nuclear carriers weapons.

My goal would be to get at least one squadron (18 aircraft - approx. BO) of B-1B aircraft equipped with external suspension components for carrying the ARRW hypersonic cruise missile

- declared the general.

At the same time, he noted that the modernization of V-1 has not yet been budgeted for the financial year 2021, but he is sure that funds will be allocated for this.

It was previously reported that the US Air Force, together with the Department of Defense Advanced Defense Research Agency (DARPA), is also working on the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC). As part of this program, it is planned that the B-1B and B-52 bombers will be able to carry hypersonic missiles simultaneously on both the internal and external suspension. Using external pendants and the CSRL fuselage turret launcher, the B-1B could carry 31 hypersonic missiles simultaneously.

Comments

[Mavrikiy]

US Air Force intends to equip B-1B Lancer bombers with hypersonic missiles

This USA will not save. Left behind forever.

[Tusv]

Quote: Mavrikiy

This USA will not save. Left behind forever.

What missiles do they launch their missile targets for missile defense testing? Boeing. They’re a bit of a lift, stuffed into a Lancer and not at all funny

[Insurgent]

It was previously reported that the US Air Force, together with the Department of Defense Advanced Defense Research Agency (DARPA), is also working on the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC). As part of this program, it is planned that the B-1B and B-52 bombers will be able to carry hypersonic missiles simultaneously on both the internal and external suspension. Using external pendants and the CSRL fuselage turret launcher, B-1B could simultaneously carry 31 hypersonic missiles.

Thirty One Rocket... not bad, not bad

But show at least onecapable of fully flying, carrying a combat load, and meeting hypersonic requirements ...

[bayard]

Quote: Insurgent

But, show at least one that is able to fully fly, carry a combat load, and meet hypersonic requirements ...

In fact, this (airborne hypersonic aeroballistic missile) is not so difficult if you sculpt it on the basis of existing products. For example, based on the engine of an anti-aircraft missile, or anti-aircraft missile, as such. They had experience in creating aeroballistic missiles of this class, and it was precisely the V-1B that was their carrier. Our Tu-22M3 also had its own counterpart - the X-15.
Our "Dagger!" Is an example of such a solution (aeroballistic versus ballistic).
Here's the funny in another -

Quote: Insurgent

Thirty-one rockets.

THIRTY ONE.
On the Lancer.
Which has a maximum bomb load of 32 tons .
Is that for ONE ton per rocket?
And ONE ton, on TWO launch drums and EIGHT wing pylons?
Do they blind them from cardboard?
General Timothy Ray has surpassed even the youngest and most enthusiastic cheers of our site. Bravo general!
I amorted to fame.

But I believe that EIGHT of these missiles will fit on its pylons. For exactly 4 tons for each (Vanguard, Zircon and Onyx in the same weight category), this is normal.
The question remains whether the V-1B airframes will put together modernization and such a load - they are old, worn out.

[Insurgent]

Quote: bayard

In fact, this (airborne hypersonic aeroballistic missile) is not so difficult if you sculpt it on the basis of existing products. For example, based on the engine of an anti-aircraft missile, or anti-aircraft missile, as such. They had experience in creating aeroballistic missiles of this class, and it was precisely the V-1B that was their carrier.

We are talking about real hypersound in M = 10-12, like in "Dagger", and not about "ersatz", not experimental prototypes, and "quasi hypersound", right?

[bayard]

Quote: Insurgent

We're talking about a real hypersound at M = 10-12, like the "Dagger"

Says an American general. The fact that the United States will soon have an aeroballistic hypersonic air-based missile. Hypersound starts at 5M. , and I don’t think that the American rocket will far exceed this figure. I admit that the speed will be from 4 to 5M, and it will still be called that.
There is no doubt that they are capable of making such a missile on the TTD, taking the engine of one of the missiles as the basis - they already had aeroballistic missiles and their speed was about 4,5M. (Range of about 400-500 km.). So there are no technical barriers here.
But in the declared weight (judging by the declared ammunition load of the B-1B of 31 missiles), this cannot be achieved. Basically . Because in addition to the engine, the rocket must also have a warhead of several hundred kg. , AGSN, thermal protection ... all this has its own weight and in 1 t., Even in 1,5 t. All this does not fit. The banal "Tomahawk" with a warhead of 400 kg weighs one and a half tons. and a range of just over 1500 km.
But they can make a smaller analogue of our "Dagger". And it was about this type of missile that the American general spoke.

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

Which has a maximum bomb load of 32 tons

Let me say that you are absolutely right in pointing out this "lapse" or .... as it is now called .. "publicity stunt" (both with them and with us .. everywhere "everything is the same") ...
Since if you hang a Gmax b / c on a plane, then .. it will be able to fly to ... 4th turn (a joke, of course, but ... with a very large share of truth).
Therefore, in order to somehow fulfill the BZ, and in connection with the current restrictions, the US Air Force command decided to limit maximum take-off weight up to 145 150 kg, which led to a sharp decrease in the practical range with normal combat load (10 900 kg - eight SD SRAM and eight B61 bombs) up to 5950 km.

Quote: bayard

THIRTY ONE

Well, they got excited ..... on B-1 there are only 3 compartments where 3 drums with 8 AGM-69 SRAM or AGM-158B missiles enter.

Quote: bayard

But the fact that EIGHT of these missiles will fit on its pylons, I believe

And on pylons you can hang only 12 missiles

Quote: bayard

For just 4 tons each

What kind of AKP do they have in 4 tons each?

[bayard]

Quote: ancient

What kind of AKP do they have in 4 tons each?

Yes, it was I who visually visually estimated the weight of that rocket, that not so long ago they dragged a model on a B-52 - 2,5 - 4 tons. It all depends on what range they want to get. If about 500 km. then it’s enough for them to repeat their

Quote: ancient

AGM-69 SRAM or AGM-158B.

, and if something is more serious, with a range of up to 1000 km, then 2,5-3 tons are already easier. For a range of 1500 km, the starting weight will creep up to 4 tons. This is if we are talking about hypersonic speed at least in the middle section of the flight.

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

Our Tu-22M3 also had its own analogue - X-15

There was, but ... due to design flaws, the rocket was withdrawn from service.
1.Very small launch range.
2. "Affection".
3. The inability to convert the media to any other options (purely bomber or with the installation of the BD-45F).
Previously, 3s with the X-15 were outwardly distinguished - if the "hedgehogs" (MBD-3-U9) hang, since no one canceled the bombing training, then this is with the X-15 .... if there are no hedgehogs, then ... clean with the X-22. Well, fasting t "hedgehogs" osta wagged on a permanent basis.

[bayard]

So it remains now to wait for the airborne "Zircon", and if 4 - 6 "Zircons" are on the external sling, then the internal compartments can be used either to accommodate 2 drums for the X-50 (12 pcs.), Or to accommodate an additional fuel tank (as is done in the B-1B). Everything will turn out quite harmoniously and completely without "hedgehogs".

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

So it remains now to wait for the airborne Zircon

Well, yes ..... there is the most .. "small"
But the carrier is only Tu-95MS and Tu-160M ​​and M2 ... Tu-22M3 only if there are 3 missiles, but ... but what about SNiTSU ?.
After all, under the x-32, almost everything is already there, but under the "Zircon" .... also the horse ... did not roll around

[bayard]

Quote: ancient

.Tu-22M3 only if 3 missiles

This is if you hang on the pylons from the X-22 one missile, and not two, like the Tu-95MSM, or during the modernization, make two pylons under the fixed part of the wing.
Or is the starting weight of the Zircon so great that it caught up with the X-22 \ 32?
Zircon is still positioned as an anti-ship missile, and the Tu-22M3 is returned to the naval aviation.

Quote: ancient

but ... but what about SNICU ?.
After all, under the x-32, almost everything is already there, but under the "Zircon" .... also the horse ... did not roll around

Since only 30 Tu-22M3s have been announced to be upgraded to the level of Tu-22M3M, and the rest will only be repaired and updated, I think that the former will receive the X-32, and the latter - the Zircon and the X-50.
There were rumors about the desire to resume the construction of the Tu-22M3M or another modification from scratch (possibly using the reserve). If true, it would be nice to bring their total number to 100 - 120 units.

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

This is if you hang on the pylons from the X-22 one missile, and not two, like the Tu-95MSM, or during the modernization, make two pylons under the fixed part of the wing.

Already answered this question, even illustrated ... this act is not possible a priori

Quote: bayard

Or is the starting weight of the Zircon so great that it caught up with the X-22 \ 32?

6 tons at X-22/32.

Quote: bayard

"Zircon" is still positioned as anti-ship missiles, and Tu-22M3 is returned to naval aviation

Is the aircraft's SUV already ... "ready" for "Zircon"? ... I doubt very deeply

Quote: bayard

Since only 30 Tu-22M3 modernization is announced to the level of Tu-22M3M, and the rest will only be repaired and updated

Well, what and .. "to declare from .. high tribunes" we still love ... though in the USSR, like this "blurted out" and did not, at least flew from his post, but now .... well, and "what"
Yeah .... X-32 .... still ... "get"

Quote: bayard

There were rumors about the desire to resume the construction of the Tu-22M3M or another modification from scratch (possibly using the reserve)

This complete utopia .. since there is no groundwork, like everything else

[bayard]

Quote: ancient

6 tons at X-22/32.

This figure (6 tons for the X-22) is well known. But the Zircon has an expected launch weight of about 4 - 4,5 tons.
Or I'm wrong ?
I judge by its dimensions, because it starts from the UKSK, therefore, the diameter is 640 - 650 mm. like Onyx. And its length is about the same - the size of the UKSK is one. Specific gravity cannot be very different, because both ramjet engines have approximately the same warhead. .. So - 4 - 4,5 tons.
THREE "Zircon" by weight are equal to TWO X-22.
Therefore, the task is made easier in the case of the Zircon - less weight, more fuel, greater radius, less load on the glider.
In my opinion, all in one cash desk. and 3 missiles on suspensions (Zircon) will give the line of destruction of targets from the take-off point of 2500 - 3000 km. (3000 km. in the case of the use of an additional intrafuselage tank of about 10 tons). With refueling and even more.
12 tons for a glider is not at all an overload, but a classic norm (50% of max.).

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

12 tons for a glider is not at all an overload, but a classic norm (50% of max.).

Confusing "soft" with warm " - 12 tons b / c of course not an overload, that's just the goal, well, or the launch line should be ... "not far away" or you will need to relocate to .. "the very shore of the sea .." okiyana " "which is fraught with getting ..." all over the proletarian face "with something from under the water
You do not think the probable enemy is well, really .. "stupid" and he. the enemy, will meekly sit and wait until you deign to prepare, what would fill him .. "face"?
You already decide ... or BC or fuel (tactical range) a .. "rubber tank" ..... and where are you going to take off the maximum takeoff weight?

Quote: bayard

THREE "Zircon" by weight are equal to TWO X-22

Well, I heard a little about other "weights" but even with your weights it’s 1,5-2 tons more.
And there is also such a "thing" as CLS ... has a very strong effect on the specific fuel consumption
Pay attention, and what "wing" flew to Syria? Right ... absolutely " smooth "

[bayard]

Quote: ancient

You are confusing "soft" with warm "- 12 tons of b / c is certainly not an overload, that's just the target, or the launch line should be ..." not far away "or you will need to relocate to .." the very shore of the sea .. "okiyana"

If, with such a combat mission, there are 500 km. to fly over the native expanses, then it’s not a sin to refuel at the coastline, since the refueling rods are already starting to return where you want.
But even without it, even when starting from the turn of 500 km. from the native coast, the range of defeat will be up to 2000 km. , and this is quite a lot.
... And I wouldn’t really want to get in the face, and even from under the water , although the "face" of the native Fatherland is now difficult to call proletarian ... I even find it difficult to classify this phenomenon ... but with PLO we really have so far Not really .

Quote: ancient

You really decide ... or ammo or fuel (tactical range) and .. "rubber tank" ..... and the maximum take-off weight, where are you ... "get away"?

You want to say that 24 tons of maximum load is achieved only with underfilling of fuel by half the weight of the load? This changes a lot ... I thought, if max. load 24 tons, and BC only 12 - 14 tons, then the remaining reserve can be used for additional fuel in the bomb bay. And, by the way, in the V-1B add. the fuel tank is half the bomb bay, and it’s not rubber at all, but quite dural, just 10-12 tons (I don’t remember exactly now).
This is the combination I had in mind.
But if 24 tons of load, this is minus 12 tons of fuel. , I just have no words ... Only two missiles, especially if they are almost like an X-22 weighing ... which was somewhat surprising, based on the dimensions.

Quote: ancient

And there is also such a "thing" as CLS ... has a very strong effect on the specific fuel consumption

This is just understandable, but the Zircon has no wings, only stabilizers, but the pylons remain ... but the range has increased by 2 - 2,5 times ... for the rocket.
Nothing, and did not cope with such problems :
- Pechenegs were defeated ...
- And Polovtsy?
- And Polovtsy!

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

You want to say that 24 tons of maximum load is achieved only with underfilling of fuel by half the weight of the load?

Here the only way and no other way -70 is empty, 52 fuel ... NK can also be accelerators, then 124 then. and all ... no more drops.
There have been cases, in order to increase the tactical radius, "refueled" already at the preliminary start (inspection and refueling) (after all, at start-up, warm-up, control check, taxiing, too ... you burn fuel )
So the BD-45K also has no ... "wings" (some burdock holders stick out small) and then ... they eat a lot

[bayard]

Quote: ancient

Here the only way and no other way -70 is empty, 52 fuel ... NK can also be accelerators, then 124 then. and all ... no more drops.

Oo-yo-yo-yo ...
And with such initial capabilities, they also removed the fuel rod ... And I thought that at one time, when describing future modernization, they constantly said about increasing the wing area ... now everything is clear ... Maybe in a new modification - with a new (larger area) wing and new, more powerful engines (like NK -32M2 promise to give a couple of tons more afterburner traction) and at the same time more economical ... yes with a cab for two ... This will be a good idea for MPA ...
Or will not work ...
But then all hope for the Su-34 and PAK YES.

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

But then all hope for the Su-34

The thrust will be the same ... specific consumption ... yes it will be a little more economical (I will not voice specific costs ) but they are quite .. "not bad", especially on the MFR.
We have not yet grown to a cabin for two on this type of ... "minced meat", unfortunately.
I am for the Su-34 (when it was the Su-32FM)

[bayard]

Quote: ancient

I am for the Su-34 (when it was the Su-32FM)

I also ! As well as Klimov, who advocates for this.
I think that in the new modification, which seems to be actively conjured, with the AL-41F and the new avionics, reinforced with a pylon under the belly ... it will be a little ball MPA. Although with half the BC (one missile defense instead of two) and slightly shorter range, but without problems with refueling ... mechanization of the rotary wing and other problems of the Tu-22M3. In addition, they are in serial production and were produced by the plant up to 16 - 18 pcs. annually. A good pace in our time.
He (Su-34) has a comfortable cabin, and with refueling, he can be on duty for quite some time ... And he needs an airfield as usual, as for other Su-30 \ 35 \ 27. And his price (at least for the first modification) is quite comfortable ...
And anyway - I like him.
Yes, and the pilots that fly on them, as I heard - too.
So let's drink for the bright future of MRA and its pilots !!! For the growth of its number, ramification, equipment and power!
And for the air defense covering it!

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

Our "Dagger!" Is an example of such a solution (aeroballistic versus ballistic).

Well let's say ... yes , but here's how the Tu-22M3 "carrier" ... well, the 1st, well, in extreme cases, 2 missiles may be (if the target is not far away), well, as the media say - 4th ... this is utopia

[bayard]

Two "Daggers" for the Tu-22M3 is not a question at all - for pylons instead of X-22 \ 32, but for four, it is either to alter and reinforce the pylons into T-shaped ones, like in the Tu-96MSM, or to put two pylons under each wing (in the fixed part), or, as with the maximum load with the Kh-22, two under the wings and a third under the belly.
The weight of the "Dagger" is declared at 4 tons, so the load is 4 pieces. pulls easily (16 tons at 24 tons maximum load). But you have to conjure up the suspension.

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

it’s either remodeling and reinforcing the pylons into T-shaped ones, like the Tu-96MSM

Neither paired nor t-shaped is structurally possible:
1.

2. Well, about the "T" - shaped pylons ..... the height is not enough from .... concrete

Quote: bayard

as at maximum load with the X-22 - two under the wings and a third under the belly.

Well yes .. hung, flew and ....... B / W is canceled ... then what do we do? We go into the zone in ... accidentally drop military missiles on ... scrap metal? (After all, do you need to somehow sit down? And the RLE says something about this ...... what is the maximum G max. pos allowed?)
On a bucket of kerosene, of course, you can try, but with 3 ... it's ......

[bayard]

Quote: ancient

Quote: bayard
as at maximum load with the X-22 - two under the wings and a third under the belly.

Well, yes .. hung, flew and ....... B / W is canceled ... then what do we do? We go into the zone in ... accidentally drop military missiles on ... scrap metal? (After all, do you need to somehow sit down? And the RLE says something about this ...... what is the maximum G max. pos allowed?)
On a bucket of kerosene, of course, you can try, but with 3 ... it's ......

But you are counting the weight of 3 X-22s (6 tons each), and in our case there will be quite enough "Zircons" (4 tons each). As a result, the weight of 3 Zircons will be the same as that of 2 X-22 \ 32 - that is, about 12 tons. And it is quite possible to sit down with three.
If I am mistaken in the weight parameters of the Zircon, then correct me, but based on the dimensions (diameter / length as that of the Onyx, for from one UKSK), the starting mass, even with a ground / sea launch, will not exceed 4 - 4,5 tons ...

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

But you are counting the weight of 3 X-22s (6 tons each), and in our case there will be quite enough "Zircons" (4 tons each)

But let's all the same count for "Zircons" (3 full-weight) all the same 14 tons.
Normal landing G settlement = 78-88 tons. (empty weight 70, fuel as a rule at the first approach 10-12 (4th turn) is calculated taking into account the departure to the alternate aerodrome ... (but ... often much less )
G max. 96 tons, but such landings should be no more than 2% of the total number (number) of landings. And after such a landing, a TEC, tragus, leveling is mandatory. KB commission and conclusion ......

Quote: bayard

And it’s quite possible to sit down with three

So the term "completely" ... is removed completely.
From practice: it is possible to land also with 3, but .. empty (i.e., on landing, the cargo B / C is 4,5-5,4) Or one (full).
Very rarely .... with 2 (full-weight), but ... this is to your airfield and good weather, then leave the rest for landing 6-8 tons

[bayard]

Sorry ...
And so it all started well ...
It remains to wish increased wing area in the new version as promised in the past ... for the M3M. And happiness was so close ...

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

(16 tons at 24 tons of maximum load)

The tactical radius in this case will be ....... "few hundred kilometers"
1. They flew to Syria, what weight was b / c?. And the tactical radius was so .... normal for this type of device (but landing ....... only once )
2. In Afghan flew what was the weight of the b / c (so everything was close by, even back to .. "with a whistle" enough ")

Quote: bayard

as at maximum load with the X-22 - two under the wings and a third under the belly.

Already wrote earlier - this is for "show" or only in the transport version, but the missiles are "empty" (1,5 each)

[bayard]

Quote: ancient

Quote: bayard
(16 tons at 24 tons of maximum load)

The tactical radius in this case will be ....... "few hundred kilometers"

If we consider the Tu-22M3 \ M3M with "Zircons" on board (3 units), then the load will be 12-13 tons - half of the maximum, and this is good.
But let's say, even with such a load, the Tu-22M3 flies "a few hundred kilometers." But we have hypersonic anti-ship missiles with a range of up to 1500 km. Even with a combat radius of 500 km (which I doubt, but let's say air resistance), we are capable of hitting naval targets at a distance of up to 2000 km. from the coast. The real radius of the aircraft will be at least 1000 km. air refueling is also possible (while 30 Tu-22M3s are being upgraded to M3Ms, you see, tankers will arrive in aviation), and do not forget that it is technically possible to place an additional fuel tank in the bomb compartment (like in the B-1B) for 10 - 12 tons of kerosene.
Moreover, in a real combat situation, if a powerful enemy grouping with KR carriers is coming to the shores, it is extremely important to stop it before the turn of their launch - say, at a distance of 2000 km. , which means you need to take off with maximum load, because the second attempt at time may not become.
Therefore, the ability to take on board 3 Zircons is even much more comfortable than in the case of the Kh-22 \ 32 - 12 tons instead of 18. And with two Kh-22 Tu-22M3 they flew always and without any problems.
It seems to me .
I did not serve in aviation, but I served at the RIC of the air defense unit, that is, as my friend says, "I fought with her all my life" (in my case, not all of it, but it happened), besides, we had our own fighter aircraft. And you look like them (Tu-22M3) and did you fly / fly?

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

But we have hypersonic anti-ship missiles with a range of up to 1500 km

If you have such missiles, but then why bother "fencing" a garden with air carriers at all? The range of the AUG against ground targets is 1100-1200.
We will "bury" them permanently in the fortification. districts or put on "wheels" by making the BPRK and all business ... "shoot" as in a shooting range
Or it will be necessary to accelerate on the carrier to a number of M much> than 1 ? Well, by analogy with the "Dagger"? .... Then in general .... it's not for .. Tu-22M

Quote: bayard

The real radius of the aircraft will be at least 1000 km.

Close to the truth and even a little more, but for 2 AKP But .... only on the most advantageous flight mode ... but after all, you are forced to "want to" secretly "? ... That is, to go out before the launch line on the PMA, then we cut in the MFR, a sharp set," jump out "to the line start and ... forward ... then there will be much ... less
About refueling ... forget now and later
About the tank is the same.

[bayard]

Yesterday was a feast of the military branch - Air Defense Day, remembered the service ...

Quote: ancient

If you have such missiles, but then why bother "fence" a vegetable garden with air

Quote: ancient

We will "bury" them permanently in the fortification. districts or put on "wheels" by making the BPRK and all business ... "shoot" as in a shooting range

It looks like it will be - the decision to create a land mobile version of the Zircon was announced a year ago, and it is quite logical to have such missiles in the coastal SCRC. But their range will be slightly less than with an air launch. Let's say - 1200 km.
But along the whole coast you won’t find such SCRCs, and the line of attack of coastal targets for the AOG using a new missile defense (930 km. Range) will be about 1750 km. That is, we no longer get it and we have to react with aviation at the turn of just 2000 km. That is the line that I wrote about before.
To ensure such a line of containment, you can use not only the Tu-22M3 \ M3M with the Zircon or X-32, but also the Dagger on the MiG-31, or (in the future) the Su-30 or Su-34 with the same Zircon "under the belly (if you manage to get married). In case of adaptation of the Su-30 or Su-34 (the latter is more preferable) for carrying the "Zircon", the line of defeat / containment is 2000 km. can be implemented even without refueling, subject to action from coastal airfields.
The very Klimov just advocates the use of an adapted Su-34 in the MRA, as compensation for the lack of Tu-22M3 \ M3M. And it's hard to disagree with him.

Quote: ancient

Close to the truth and even a little more, but for 2 AKR But .... only in the most advantageous flight mode ... but do you "want to" stealthily "? ... That is, go out before the launch line on PMV, then we cut in the MFR, a sharp set, "jump out" to the launch line and ... forward ... then it will be much ... less

And why such difficulties with reaching the line of attack / launch?
If the range of such a launch is up to 1500 km. ?
What is the point of spreading over the water surface burning precious kerosene? Who will see you at such a distance?
At ANY height?
Even the "Hokkai" flew from the aircraft carrier for 300 - 400 km.
And if the enemy has powerful and farsighted ZGRLS, then at what height do not steal, they will see your maneuver ... as a beam reflected from the ionosphere. So fly bravely at your echelon, at cruising speed (if time is running out) and launch a volley from a distance absolutely safe for you. The enemy will only be able to see you from outer space.

Quote: ancient

About refueling ... forget now and later

I would love to, but still put the bar on the Tu-22M3M ... however, I’ll remember about it when these pepelats arrived in combat units.

Quote: ancient

About the tank is the same.

But what if ?
Suddenly, as promised, with a new engine (NK-32M2), an extended wing (they promised such a thing), could the updated Tu-22M3M at least two missiles, and tear the tank from the concrete?
And if they also pile up a new cabin for him - a double, compact one, and instead of the saved volume and weight, add more kerosene ... WOW AND FLY !!!
Dreaming well ...

[Victor67]

Even cartoons can’t take off)))

[ancient]

Quote: Tusv

What missiles do they launch their missile targets for missile defense testing? Boeing.

Absolutely right

[Lopatov]

which will include the restoration of eight external suspension components dismantled in connection with Russian-American strategic arms reduction treaties

Then ours must return to the Tu-22 refueling system in the air. In the process of modernization.

[Victor_B]

Quote: Spade

Then ours must return to the Tu-22 refueling system in the air. In the process of modernization.

It seems they’ve already returned?

[Lopatov]

It seems only on the M3.
On several M3

[Tusv]

Quote: Spade

It seems only on the M3.

There is no refueling system on the M3. Only on M3M. Such a small revenge for the US exit from the INF Treaty

[venik]

Quote: Victor_B

It seems they’ve already returned?

=======
And not like, but EXACTLY! The modernized Tu-22M3M already has a "rod";

[svp67]

Quote: Spade

Then ours must return to the Tu-22 refueling system in the air. In the process of modernization.

Already returned. Other interesting

The B-1B could carry 31 hypersonic missiles simultaneously.

What dimensions and characteristics will such missiles have and what will they be intended for? To break through the air defense?

[Tusv]

Quote: svp67

What dimensions and characteristics will such missiles have and what will they be intended for? To break through the air defense?

Lancer himself was originally designed to break through air defense. Not what tribe Tumba Yumba, but ours. Here we are talking about Lancer B, partially subtle, A Lancer A will be written off as not able to deliver a paramilitary headache. Everything is logical

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: Tusv

we are talking about Lancer B, partially subtle, A Lancer A ..

Wildly sorry, only the B-1b is in service. B-1a was not released: they cut the program, then they still looked at the cost ....

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: svp67

The B-1B could carry 31 hypersonic missiles simultaneously.
What dimensions and characteristics will such missiles have and what will they be intended for? To break through the air defense?

Well, about ARRW missiles, for example, they have already managed to write a lot ... and specifications ... and what they are for ... But now I’d like to figure out what Russia will answer! Maybe this option will give a ride ....Another Russian development, designed to operate in conditions of strong enemy air defense, is a new operational tactical hypersonic missile, developed jointly by the parent company Tactical Missile Corporation Corporation in Korolev and GosMKB Raduga in Dubna as part of the Hypersonic program guided missile ”(GZUR). The military designation of this rocket to this day remains unsolved.

According to reports, GZUR is a missile with a speed of M = 6 and with a flight range of 1500 km when flying along a high-altitude profile. The length of the rocket is 6 m, and the weight is about 1500 kg. As you can understand, the missile has mainly anti-ship assignment. The missile will be equipped with the Item 70 ramjet engine developed by PJSC Soyuz TMKB in Turaevo and will be equipped with a combined active-passive homing radar known as Gran-75, which is being developed by Ural Design Bureau "Detail" in Kamensk-Uralsky; the broadband passive channel (Gran-75PK) for this homing head is being created by the Central Design Bureau of Automation JSC (TsKBA) in Omsk. “Fringe-75” refers to the modification of the homing head “Fragment-K” used in the tactical anti-ship missile X-35U.

According to sources in Russian industry, by 2020 it is assumed that the GZUR rocket will be mass-produced at a rate of “up to 50 products per year,” which suggests that it is currently being tested.

Jane's comment

The most complete information about the current Russian program of supersonic aircraft weapons was provided by the former commander in chief of the Russian Air Force, Colonel General Alexander Zelin in a lecture delivered at a conference of representatives of the aviation industry in Moscow in April 2013. According to Colonel General Zelin, a two-stage program for the development of hypersonic missiles is currently being implemented in Russia. The first phase provides for development by 2020 “A compact operational-tactical aviation missile with a flight range of 1500 km and a speed of 6 Machs”; This is the aforementioned HLD. It should be supplemented in the next decade with weapons with a speed of M = 12, suggesting a global range. As you know ... in Russia it is almost a "tradition" to shift the dates to the right!

[bayard]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

“A compact operational-tactical aviation missile with a flight range of 1500 km and a speed of 6 Machs”; This is the aforementioned HLD. It should be supplemented in the next decade with weapons with a speed of M = 12, assuming a global range

I am wildly sorry, but what is this Miracle? Our people here are hardly used to the fact that the Zircon with a launch weight of about 4 tons and a warhead of 300 - 400 kg. capable of a range of 1000 km. And here is a HYPERSONIC missile with a launch weight of 1500 kg per 1500 km. ? !!!
And what is her, sorry, warhead? How many kilos?
And how does it accelerate to cruising speed?
And how much does the booster block (stage) weigh?
Does he come in these 1500 kg?
Or is it just about the "Zircon" and its weight WITHOUT the upper stage?
Then it may be true, because the overclocking unit in our case must exceed the hypersonic part proper by weight. 2500 kg + 1500 = 4000 kg.
BUT IT IS 4 kg. starting weight.
And it was the Tu-22M3 in 2012 that was the carrier at the first launch of the Zircon. Your quote from 2013, then everything fits together - we are talking about "Zircon". And one Tu-22M3 will be able to carry from 4 to 6 such missiles. Tu-22M3M. And their range during an air launch can really reach 1500 km (with a ground launch - somewhat less).

It remains to wait for the Zircon in all its modifications in service with both the Navy and the Aerospace Forces, coastal missile systems and the Ground Forces (as a hypersonic missile system of a medium-range ground missile system). They promised by 2022.

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

And it was the Tu-22M3 in 2012 that was the carrier during the first launch of the Zircon

Let me ask myself ..... maybe all the same with a .. dummy-dump?

[bayard]

Judging by the report to the US Congress from the intelligence community, there was a launch that was successful. If you are right in your information (only reset), then the American intelligence cant. But they started talking seriously about Zircon from that moment.

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

If you are correct in your information (reset only)

Absolutely and .. throwing in 2013.
Previously, "everything" .. "flying air - ground" aircraft engines and aircraft models were thrown from the special. side Tu-16LL

[bayard]

Quote: ancient

Quote: bayard
If you are correct in your information (reset only)

Absolutely and ... throwing in 2013

Well, it means the US intelligence has added several years of "courage" to its leadership, for they voiced the information "the launch was successful." One can only congratulate our counterintelligence for successfully carrying out disinformation. Nevertheless, the "Zircons" on the Tu-22M3M suspension are a very impressive sight.

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

Nevertheless, the "Zircons" on the Tu-22M3M suspension are a very impressive sight.

Maybe ... did not see after all this is all behind .. "big fence"
Well, earlier ... (when the ground was flat and stood on 3 whales), then during the "work" of such a plan, the Tu-154 first took off and hung from above with an excess of + 300 meters
With the measures for the APDIT, "there" was before .. very strict

[Nikolaevich I]

Information about the so-called GZUR appeared some time after the reports about the "Zircon" ... In some media reports about the GZUR "it was emphasized" that this is an aviation version of the "Zircon" ... or the development of an aircraft missile based on the "Zircon" ... After the messages about the GZUR "walked" on the Internet for some time, they practically disappeared from the media (in the sense that new messages stopped appearing ...) Having posted here a "note" about the GZUR rocket, I just decided to remind the "masses" of this: a project ... a product ...!

[bayard]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Having posted here a "note" about the GZUR rocket, I just decided to remind the "masses" of this: whether a project ... a product ...

And thank you very much for this, because from this note we now know that the hypersonic part of the Zircon weighs 1,5 tons, and its range during an air launch is projected at 1500 km.
And this is very encouraging, in the light of the soon adoption of it into service at once in several forms: sea, air, coastal, land.

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

And one Tu-22M3 can carry from 4 to 6 such missiles

No, you’re wrong .... from a technical point of view, it can (hang up for show or in the transport version empty transport).
But with the practical .... because it is necessary and somewhere to fly? Therefore, the best option is 1 missile (under the belly) .... well, 2nd, under the wing, in case of emergency. but 4-6 ... these then where to cling?

[bayard]

In principle, 3 missiles are also good, especially since their effectiveness is expected to be much higher than the X-22. In addition, if each of them has a starting weight of about 4 tons, and the maximum load of the Tu-22M3 is 24 tons, then there is continuous arithmetic: 4 - in normal load, 6 - in maximum. But they try not to give the maximum load to the airplane, so 3 pcs. This is already very good. 4 - an alteration is already needed - either two pylons instead of one under each wing, or two pylons for suspension under the belly (or a half-recessed type of suspension), but already with the closure of bomb hatches tightly.
In the latter case, it turns out a fair amount of crap, so I agree - it is more rational still two or three "Zircon" on each side. Then the departure of one flight will be enough for any KUG, and the squadron - for the AUG. With a guarantee. Moreover, these missiles will be very expensive.
By the way, with the suspension of two Zircons, the Tu-2M22M will be able to take one X-3 drum (50 pcs.) And an additional fuel tank into the bomb bay, thereby increasing the combat radius.

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

By the way, with the suspension of two Zircons, the Tu-2M22M will be able to take one X-3 drum (50 pcs.) And an additional fuel tank into the bomb bay, thereby increasing the combat radius.

Is it like this, like this, like this?
G \ O suddenly became .... "rubber"?
Do you want AKU for 6 missiles, and even an additional tank?

Quote: bayard

Then the departure of one link is enough for any KMG, and the squadron - for the AUG. With a guarantee

In YES only
In my time, 3-4 "striker regiments" were counted on to attack the AUG, the support was reconnaissance and, additional reconnaissance of targets, an electronic warfare regiment, two regiments of IA to cover the UG, a regiment to suppress the enemy's electronic warfare and radioactive missile systems, the PSS.
And you have .... 9-10 carriers and..AUG no longer ..... great

[bayard]

Quote: ancient

Is it like this, like this, like this?
G \ O suddenly became .... "rubber"?
Do you want AKU for 6 missiles, and even an additional tank?

Pardo, forgotten. By analogy with the performance of the V-1V, I figured it out - it seems like instead of 2 old drums 4 are being made for new missiles, but they are more compact than our X-50 ... Well, again, by analogy with the V-1B, the option is when the fuel tank is on floor compartment, and a drum for aeroballistics ... In our case, either-or.
But the variant with a 6 X-50 drum in an anti-ship design and 2 Zircons under the wing I leave for consideration. With their approximate maximum launch range of 1500 km. (for the Kh-50 in the usual version "on the ground" - 2500 km.), you can fire a sequential salvo from one distance. The Zircons knock out the main ships of the order, and the Kh-50s come up later and finish the job. The total weight of the BC is 6 x 1500 = 9 kg. + 000 (two "Zircons") = 8000 - 17 tons. For a serious departure, it seems normal.
... I lost it with the internal volumes - they didn’t publish the X-50 sizes, but the American toy was spinning empirically in my head, and it easily entered the F-35 bomb bay.
So again sorry.

Quote: ancient

In YES only

I counted on a squadron of 10 to 12 sides. They seem to be larger and will not be - 10 pieces for each fleet of Tu-22M3-x. And the Tu-22M3M still when to wait.
So you have to make do with what you have. It turns out that 10 boards at the maximum can be counted on in one sortie: 20 Zircons and 60 X-50 in the anti-ship version for the line of destruction of 2500 - 3000 km. from the base. If target designation does not disappoint, then such a volley at the AUG may be enough. In any case, to disrupt their combat mission.
The launch line at 1500 km from the target (even 1000 km) excludes the possibility of interception by AUG fighters. So far they have nothing to shoot down the Zircons, and when the X-50 comes up (in 1,5 - 2 hours), the main ships of the order will most likely be disabled ... But that is if you are VERY lucky.

In addition, I counted only strike aircraft at the turn of 1000 - 1500 km from the base. Without reconnaissance, cover, electronic warfare.
However, if it is possible to pick up the Zircon under the Su-30 or Su-34, they will theoretically also be able to reach such a line, but with refueling.
Dreams ...
About the beautiful.

[ancient]

Quote: bayard

Dreams ...
About the beautiful.

Here I completely agree
As taught in school ... "theory and practice are not compatible things"
When there are no speakers, no AKP ... all that remains is ... "sweet dreams"
Plus, do not forget that due to the "successful" almost 30-year ... "government" ... a very dead airfield network.
Indeed, you must agree that in the threatened period all carriers will be dispersed across operational aerodromes and with such carriers and for such a purpose as AUG, it is desirable that the aircraft be within a maximum of 500-600 km from the coastline
What "gets" the SLCM of surface and submarine forces ... at a time.
So, having practically nothing but a "special answer", we can easily "puff out our cheeks" and ..... "dream ... how we do them"

[bayard]

Quote: ancient

So, having practically nothing but a "special answer"

Such complex processes must be considered in a complex and dynamic way. MRA (naval missile-carrying) has not yet revived, but there are Onyx coastal complexes that force the enemy to keep a distance of about 550 - 600 km during a threatened period. from our bases. There are over-the-horizon radar systems capable of both opening both a salvo of the KR and the deployment of enemy surface forces (just compare the data from the ZGRLS with the data from the transponders of civilian ships). ZGRLS "Container" has already been deployed in the western direction, the deployment of one more in the eastern direction is coming to an end. And this is a completely different quality of illumination of the air and surface environment.
That is, the volley will not be missed (if the duty shift does not sleep ).
There is EW, the means of which can disorient the CD of such a volley.
There are means of fighter aviation (in the sea it’s not enough, but it has only just begun to revive and the main problem is personnel / pilots who simply do not exist. Thanks to stool reforms), which are just effective in combating low-altitude subsonic targets.
But this is certainly not the Soviet Army and its Navy.
And of course, a nuclear club native to tears of affection, which (native), in any unpleasant case, has a place to be, and the doctrine authorizes the application even in the case of a nuclear-free, but massive attack on our beloved Motherland. With a kind word are reproachful.
So the club must be loved, cherished and lubricated.
And from time to time to remind about her, with a kind smile, throwing his hand from hand to hand.

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: svp67

What dimensions and characteristics will such missiles have and what will they be intended for? To break through the air defense?

Well, not for nuclear war. It is clear that in a direct clash, nuclear countries are trying to enter the periphery of the world. This is primarily due to the fact that all superpowers understand how direct a clash is suicidal for them.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Spade

Then ours must return to the Tu-22 refueling system in the air. In the process of modernization.

Yes, it’s kind of like slowly returning
After all, we left the contract

[ancient]

Quote: Spade

Then ours must return to the Tu-22 refueling system in the air.

And that you have a lot of "live" Tu-22M3 aircraft? Where do you plan to "install" the SZV?

[Mytholog]

... it is planned to write off 17 aircraft ...

... the modernization of V-1 has not yet been budgeted for 2021

What, man, is it a shame to watch how your favorite handsome men are cheated? You also start frantically searching, how to save them?
Now you have to go through it. Get used to it.

[Whirlwind]

Maybe they will, or maybe not ...
There is no hypersound.

[Amateur]

Have they already made a hypersonic rocket or are they following the example of "Wishlist" from Roscosmos?

[Lipchanin]

[quote] However, he noted that the modernization of B-1 has not yet been budgeted for fiscal year 2021, but I’m sure that funds will be allocated for this. [/ Quote]
Of course there will be
The printing press operates in three shifts without a break for lunch and weekends

[Essex62]

Here, released to frolic, the epidemiological weapon squanders a sufficient number of recipients of benefits, extra mouths. Reduce the burden on the budget and you can think about upgrading B1.
Very beautiful airplane.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Essex62

Reduce the burden on the budget and you can think about upgrading B1.

Yes, they will upgrade it in any way.

Very beautiful airplane.

A matter of taste)
Let me be accused of; leavened patriotism, "but I do not like more than one American outwardly.
I'm not talking about performance characteristics. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the "appearance" of the plane
I have the entire lineup of Su, starting from the Su-27 and ending with the Su-35 is much prettier than the same F-35
They are "clumsy"
But in "Drying" you can see the speed, even when he is on the ground
It seems like it breaks into the sky ..

[bars1]

F-35 is considered beautiful, probably, only by American “hurray-patriots.” And even then with some willpower.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: bars1

F-35 is considered beautiful, probably, only by American "hurray-patriots".

I wonder how our pilots called him)

[bars1]

On the Russian Internet, the F-35 is called the Penguin, or even more offensive - The Pregnant Penguin. Probably the pilots his name

[Lipchanin]

Quote: bars1

On the Russian Internet, the F-35 is called the Penguin, or even more offensive - The Pregnant Penguin. Probably the pilots his name

The second is more informative

[Essex62]

That you are not comparing. I agree on drying, definitely beautiful. Lancer with our swan, on the contours, is very consonant. Beauties!

[rocket757]

All sorts of plans are outlined, all sorts of plans .... fulfilled / not fulfilled! It happens in different ways.

[sanik2020]

They will print dollars, we will buy them, that’s the budget for hypersonic equipment.
Enough for something else and to equip the cornmen.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: sanik2020

we will buy them

Not us, but you will buy
We don’t need a vegetable for it

[Thrifty]

Why not attach such missiles on top of the wings, on each side of the plane? It doesn't matter whether the plane takes off with such a load or not, but it will look "scary" at takeoff! At the sight of him, the US military will demand more money for "improvement for improvement" !!!

[askort154]

For the second time, the United States found itself in a catch-up position.
The first time - 1957-1961, the USSR launched the first "Earth satellite", and the first man into space.
The second time - 2019 Russia, the first in the world, put on combat duty
hypersonic weapons - the Avangard complex and the Dagger missile.
The first "official" launch of the "Avangard" (UR-100N) took place on December 26, 2018, from the territory of the Orenburg region and having developed a speed of 33 thousand km, successfully hit the target at the Kura training ground. (President Putin personally oversaw this.)
The USA is decently behind. Experts believe - for 10 -15 years. And as Putin said, Russia during this time will develop a hypersonic missile defense system.

[Zaurbek]

Is it about an air-launched BR?

[Operator]

Yesterday, Trump approved a request for federal assistance from the last of the 50 US states, as a result of which a massive disaster regime was declared throughout America.

What, damn it, is there a modernization of the bombers?

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Operator

What, damn it, is there a modernization of the bombers?

So also gathered to provide assistance to Spain

[Operator]

Italy, however - the ancestors of the US Secretary of State from there

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Operator

Italy,

Oh how
I have already confused Austria with Australia.

[bars1]

Americans claim for AGM-183A speed M = 20. If so, then our Dagger against its background looks like a miserable misunderstanding ...

[Aleks1973]

Quote: bars1

Americans claim for AGM-183A speed M = 20. If so, then our Dagger against its background looks like a miserable misunderstanding ...

And ours will declare M = 40 and what? We will compete, who will declare more?

[Vadim237]

The ability to reduce air resistance by two or more times is left to create high-energy gunpowder for the turbojet engine - since the scramjet engine has a working limit of 3 to 17 M - 40 M, only the turbojet engine and the engine will pull.

[Chingachguk]

Well, why not !!!! It remains only to invent the appropriate rocket !!!!!. I have generally got the impression lately that all sorts of different, important American generals are paid for language trepidation mainly .....

[Old26]

Quote: bayard

Here's the funny in another -
Quote: Insurgent
Thirty-one rockets.

THIRTY ONE. fellow
On the Lancer. belay
Which has a maximum bomb load of 32 tons smile.
Is that for ONE ton per rocket? laughing
And ONE ton, on TWO launch drums and EIGHT wing pylons? wassat
lol Do they blind them from cardboard?
General Timothy Ray has surpassed even the youngest and most enthusiastic cheers of our site fellow Bravo General! good soldier
I amorted to fame.

But I believe that EIGHT of these missiles will fit on its pylons. yes Because just 4 tons for each ("Vanguard", "Zircon" and "Onyx" in the same weight category), this is normal.
The question remains whether the V-1B airframes will put together modernization and such a load - they are old, worn out.

I, too, the number 31 was surprising. True, not for the reasons that you have. And the maximum bomb load of the V-1B is by no means 32 tons, but up to 60 tons. Still depends on the combat radius. And 32 tons, more precisely 34 tons, is the load inside the bomb bay. And according to various sources, from 24 to 26,7 tons on external sling. And one more remark. The B-1B had SIX external suspension components. Why did it suddenly turn out to be EIGHT - you need to ask the author of the article.
As for the mass and size characteristics of the American hypersonic missile - so far nothing is known about it plainly. Neither the mass nor the exact dimensions, although there was infa that the length is 6 meters. True, then 31 will not work. Even if less than 1 ton (or a little more), then at 6 knots (each is designed for 4 tons), you can hang a maximum of THREE rockets (I’m already fantasizing about this). Three missiles multiplied by 6 knots are 18 missiles. Plus, if the missile is 6 meters high, there’s still another 8. Total 24. But not at all 31

[Old26]

Quote: bayard

I am wildly sorry, but what is this Miracle? Our people here are hardly used to the fact that the Zircon with a launch weight of about 4 tons and a warhead of 300 - 400 kg. capable of a range of 1000 km. And here is a HYPERSONIC missile with a launch weight of 1500 kg per 1500 km. ? !!!
And what is her, sorry, warhead? How many kilos?
And how does it accelerate to cruising speed?
And how much does the booster block (stage) weigh?
Does he come in these 1500 kg?
Or is it just about the "Zircon" and its weight WITHOUT the upper stage?
Then it may be true, because the overclocking unit in our case must exceed the hypersonic part proper by weight. 2500 kg + 1500 = 4000 kg.
BUT IT IS 4 kg. starting weight.
And it was the Tu-22M3 in 2012 that was the carrier at the first launch of the Zircon. Your quote from 2013, then everything fits together - we are talking about "Zircon". And one Tu-22M3 will be able to carry from 4 to 6 such missiles. Tu-22M3M. And their range during an air launch can really reach 1500 km (with a ground launch - somewhat less).

Generally speaking, we are talking about a rocket being created at KTRV, and not at NPO Mashinostroyenia (Zircon). In addition, if there is data on the launch weight about the KTRV rocket (it is directly stated that it is 1,5 tons), then there is no such exact data regarding the Zircon. At least I have not met them.