Nervous noise around the Tu-160
In general, of course, today is amazing. More precisely, the approach of many media. "The world's first aircraft with unique reverse launch missiles." Well, naturally, how can an aircraft be developed in Russia that is not unique and has analogues in the world? Of course not. And the rocket should be a match for him. That is, unique.
Yes, we have learned to make a win out of nothing. It will be interesting to read later how they will appreciate it there, among potential opponents.
I'm not sure that they will be hysterical (as our media usually portrays) from fear that here it is, a masterpiece that all of NATO will not be able to oppose.
So, victory! Russia has developed the world's first aircraft with "unique reverse launch missiles"!
Hurrah, comrades? Well, it seems like yes.
But "Military Review" is such a resource that can afford to impartially and closely consider any issue and express its opinion. What are we going to do shamelessly and without hysteria now.
In fact, the "world's first" aircraft was developed in the Soviet Union, almost 50 years ago.
Therefore, if you ask all the screamers the question: “What was developed in terms of the new aircraft”, I doubt that there will be a clear answer.
It is clear to all normal and understanding people that nothing. The plane is not new, with all the ensuing consequences. Modernization? Yes, but we'll talk about that a little later.
Next, we have a "unique reverse launch rocket."
In general, of course, it sounds. Approximately the same as "transfer of delivery dates to the right" instead of "delivery was disrupted."
It is difficult to say what is unique in the R-73 missile, which was put into service in 1983. The product will enter its XNUMXs next year, but it is still one of the best short-range air-to-air missiles on the world stage. Another question is that today the longer the arm of the aircraft, the better it is considered.
20 kilometers of confident work for the R-73 in modern air combat is not enough. It's like trying to portray something with PM versus AK. It's a matter of preparation and luck.
So, the new aircraft was not developed, as many media assure. The "unique" R-73 is not so unique, as practice shows. Ordinary short-range missile, invented in the last century in the last country. But the noise is all over the country. Tremble, enemies, be proud, ours!
Maybe the principle itself is new? The plane is "the first in the world." Well, at least, this eternal “unparalleled” has not yet been used, although, I think, everything is still ahead.
No, the principle of defending the rear hemisphere was formed during the First World War.
And many planes, and not only bombers, but also fighters, carried a machine gun on board, firing back and forth. It was very convenient to make holes in balloons, airships and balls of artillery spotters.
Before rockets, a very interesting invention was made in the USSR: aviation grenades. They were created by the designer A.F. Turakhin. It was meant weapon to protect the lower rear hemisphere of such aircraft as the Il-2, Il-4, Pe-2, in general, everyone who had problems installing machine guns firing back and down.
Aviation grenade AG-2 was a ball of cast iron weighing 2 kg.
The ball was filled with an explosive charge weighing from 80 to 100 grams. A brake parachute was attached to the ball. Grenades were placed in the holder of DAG-5 or DAG-10 aviation grenades, and when it was necessary to use a weapon, the pilot simply threw the grenade out of the holder with a drive. At the same time, the fuse fired and after 2,5-3 seconds the grenade exploded 40-50 meters below the aircraft at a distance of 250-300 meters, depending on the speed.
Efficiency was so-so, and even there was an opportunity to catch their planes flying in formation with shrapnel. But there were also cases of destruction of German aircraft up to the downing by shrapnel.
So the idea of protecting the rear hemisphere with machine guns and grenades is not new. Missiles... If the Germans had held out a little longer in time, most likely, they would also have come up with something like that... reverse launch. After "Schrage Music" I'm not surprised by anything anymore.
The conclusion suggests itself that this very “reverse start” was simply not needed by anyone. Until today.
And now we will look at the situation without the joyous cries of "unparalleled", "new", "unique" and other propaganda thunder and lightning.
Let's just look at strategic bombers as a type of weapon and the tactics of their use.
Today, this type of weapon is available only to three countries. Russia, USA, China.
We do not take into account the Chinese Xian H-6A, this is the Tu-16 with all its shortcomings. And while Chinese designers are very far behind in everything from nuclear weapons to their carriers.
There remain Russian and American strategic bombers.
For American strategists, everything is greatly simplified by an aircraft carrier group of 10 sheds, which house almost a thousand aircraft. That is, floating airfields can take positions in the world's oceans so that strategic bombers will be covered almost the entire distance of approach to the launch lines.
Of course, they may not have time to take it. But, given that a certain number of aircraft carriers are still on alert, it is easier for the Americans.
In addition, naval fighter pilots, taken from aircraft carriers, can very easily intercept Russian strategic bombers. At least the Americans count on it and hope for it.
And it turns out not a very pleasant alignment. Can our fighters provide escort for strategic bombers over the Pacific, Arctic or Atlantic Oceans? No. There will not be enough range, and in the case of the Atlantic, you will have to fly over the countries of the NATO bloc, so there will be more than enough adventures. Otherwise, alas. The Su-35, even with external tanks, will be able to fly to Svalbard or Iceland at most. And that's it.
It is not worth talking about our naval aviation now. And in the future, the prospects are so-so, we admit honestly.
But the Americans will be able to prepare a "ceremonial meeting committee" even for the Tu-160. I’m not even talking about the Tu-95, it’s clear that suicide bombers or a distraction, nothing more.
But the Tu-160 has a chance. The speed of the bomber and the speed of the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet are approximately equal, which means that the Super Hornet pilot will have problems intercepting.
Compounding the problems of the enemy and complicating his task is a very smart move.
The rear hemisphere surveillance radar is very promising. Although this technique is actually 80 years old, but nonetheless. For the first time, the British began to install radars for viewing the rear hemisphere on their Halifax and Lancaster heavy bombers. According to these radars (Monica and AGLT), the tail gunners fired at night on German night fighters.
Of course, in our time, no one will sit on the antenna of the emitter, but the idea itself is quite. The surveillance radar on which the missiles will leave is a very beautiful move. The main equipment of the bomber will not be so loaded, and I'm sure there will be enough food resources there.
As for the "breakthrough and unique missiles" of the so-called "reverse launch" - well, if you close your eyes to enthusiastic nonsense, it turns out that everything is in order here too. You just need to look more calmly.
What's the easiest way for a rocket to launch? With airflow or against? Physics says that the flow. So there is nothing so supernatural in missiles that launch towards catching up enemy aircraft. They could go forward, "the old fashioned way" to start, but this is the time. That is, until the rocket turns around, until it finds a target - and now the fuel has been exhausted. Of course, it's easier to meet.
And what did we get? Nothing so innovative, nothing "unparalleled". There were just more than enough analogues in the world in the military stories. The issue of protecting bombers, who need to be given additional protection, which means a chance for successful completion of the mission, was simply correctly considered.
Nothing new. Just a beautifully transposed old one.
Arrow, defending the rear hemisphere, replaced the radar. Yes, 80 years ago. The locator looks farther and sees better.
A machine gun or aviation grenades will successfully replace rockets developed in a country where they knew how to make good weapons.
Rockets are good. Yes, they do not turn inside out, do not make innovative somersaults. They just hang backwards. And they fly towards enemy aircraft. In fact, they don't know anything else. Find, chase, kill. Everything, but do you need more?
Well-done work within the framework of the previously announced deep modernization of the Tu-160. And after all, this is indeed the case: a deep modernization, the essence of which is aimed at ensuring that the crew and the aircraft can perform their combat mission as efficiently as possible.
Regarding the raised hysteria, in conclusion, I would like to say only one thing: a calm and confident voice is much more impressive than the loudest squeal.
And Kazan aircraft builders wish success in further work on the Tu-160.
Information