Tu-22M: I haven't said everything yet!

As we have already said, fifty years is often not a long time for an aircraft if it is a good aircraft.

The Tu-22M, which became the successor to the Tu-22, differing from it in everything except for the number, the aircraft is more than peculiar, but today we will talk about how “in the know” it is and whether it is worth counting on it in military conflicts of the future.

Tu-22M0

First flight in 1969. It was originally created as part of the "106" project, that is, a radical modernization of the Tu-22, which was an aircraft whose combat value was in doubt. By the time work began on the 106 project, the concept of using bombers in the world had changed and the Soviet Air Force came to the conclusion that the so-called dual-mode aircraft was needed. That is, an aircraft that was supposed to be suitable for supersonic high-altitude flights, long-range flights at subsonic speeds, and low-altitude flights at transonic speeds.

All these requirements in the aggregate looked very contradictory, but an aircraft with a variable sweep wing could meet them under a successful set of circumstances. Takeoff at the minimum sweep angle of the wing and further supersonic flight at maximum angles of attack.

For everything, as they say, you have to pay, and in our case we had to pay with an increase in the mass of the structure, since the wing turning systems, already massive, required further strengthening of the entire fuselage structure.

Work on the project of a new long-range missile carrier "145" was started in 1965, moreover, on an initiative basis. After all, at that time the plane, which was presented as a "killer of aircraft carriers", was already in service - the T-4 designed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau. So in the Tupolev Design Bureau, work was carried out semi-legally, under the guise of modernizing the Tu-22. But the result was a plane that had nothing to do with the original prototype at all.

As a result, after many alterations, the final appearance of the aircraft was formed: a mid-wing with a variable sweep wing and a fixed middle part of the wing, which had a sweep angle of 65 degrees. The movable part could occupy fixed positions of 20, 65 and 72 degrees.

Each of the positions corresponded to a precisely calculated optimal aerodynamic configuration of the aircraft for a certain flight mode:
20 degrees - for takeoff, landing and flight at maximum range in subsonic mode;
65 degrees - for long-range flight at supersonic speed;
72 degrees - for flight at transonic speeds at low altitudes.

The aircraft could develop a maximum speed of 1100 km / h at an altitude of 50 to 100 meters. In general, this altitude range was inaccessible to the bombers of that time.

At an altitude of 14 m, the maximum speed was 500 km/h.
Cruising supersonic speed was 2200 km / h.

In general, it was planned to use the new aircraft as a strike aircraft from medium and high altitudes. In the face of strong anti-aircraft defense, the aircraft had to overcome it at ultra-low altitudes (up to 200 m) at a speed of 1100-1200 km / h. There was a certain chance to “slip through” and hit the target with rockets or bombs. The targets were missile launchers of both mobile and silo placement.

In addition to the bomber, it turned out that the aircraft could be used as a high-altitude missile carrier by arming it with the Kh-22 missile. This multifunctional missile, depending on the GOS, could destroy a variety of targets. The aircraft could also be used as a reconnaissance, jammer and anti-submarine defense aircraft. This was facilitated by a large carrying capacity, a decent size bomb bay and powerful power sources.

Compared with the Tu-22, significant work was carried out to equip the crew. The experience of operating the Tu-22 was taken into account, as a result of which the navigator's cockpit was moved behind the cockpit, the operator's cockpit was shifted back and turned to face along the flight. The most important alteration was the system for ejecting the crew up, and not down, as on the Tu-22. This made it possible to save the crew in the height range from 10 meters, while for the Tu-22 the minimum ejection height was 350 meters.

The redesign of the cockpit made it possible to introduce a second pilot into the crew, who was placed next to the first pilot / crew commander. During the alterations, the navigational and operator's cabins were combined, creating a compartment for two.

The reshaping of the cockpit also affected the wing. The sweep of the middle, fixed part of the wing was reduced to 56 degrees, and the angle of change of the sweep of the turning parts was made smoothly varying from 20 to 60 degrees with the possibility of fixing in any position. They refused to place ailerons in the moving part of the wing, but they introduced spoilers and a deflectable stabilizer, and slats were installed to improve takeoff and landing.

The engines were placed on the sides of the aircraft. In general, the scale of changes in comparison with the Tu-22 made it possible to say that a new aircraft had actually turned out, which differed not only externally, but also internally. Only the bomb bay and payload remained unchanged.

For two years at the Tupolev Design Bureau they worked on the aircraft, and finally, in November 1967, the official Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 1098-378 on the Tu-22M was issued, according to which the design bureau was tasked with designing a modification of the Tu-22K - Tu-22KM with a variable sweep wing and two DTRDF NK-144 (NK-144-2).

This missile carrier was planned as a carrier of one Kh-22 missile. This monster weighing 5,5 tons and 11,5 meters long could carry a nuclear warhead with a capacity of up to 1 megaton or a cumulative fragmentation weighing 1 ton. The rocket flew on a mixture of the most dangerous substances, which made its use very difficult. But it was weapon, capable of sweeping a strike aircraft carrier grouping of a potential enemy (that is, the United States) from the water surface, therefore the carrier was necessary.

The process of creating a missile carrier according to the requirements of the military dragged on for as long as 10 years. Appetites flared up as the Tupolev Design Bureau worked out one task after another.

The Air Force insisted on strengthening the bomb load so that, in addition to the rocket, the new aircraft could take up to 3 tons of bombs, in order to have decent defensive weapons, the aft gun mount had to be equipped with radar and television sights, and in addition to them, the aircraft had to be equipped with jamming equipment.

As a result, the Design Bureau worked out two versions of the aircraft: with a stern gun mount and with a unified tail compartment with electronic warfare equipment. But that was only the beginning.

Further, a number of requirements were put forward to strengthen the strike capabilities of the aircraft, which very much took the car away from what was originally required in the Decree of the Council of Ministers. As a result, the new aircraft was required to take THREE X-22 missiles, and increase the bomb load to 24 tons. That is, a sort of Tu-95, but supersonic. In reality, three X-22s could be suspended, but in such an overloaded version, by about 4 tons, that it would definitely not be necessary to talk about a normal flight.

And without that, the plane, which had been worked out for quite a long time, was overgrown with new products that rained down on it one after another. New navigation complex NK-45, automatic on-board control system ABSu-145m, new instrumentation, radar and flight equipment. Yes, this definitely improved the aircraft, but it took time, time and time again for debugging and testing. Because the Tu-22M for more than 10 years did not leave the stage of bringing to the standard.

But by August 1969, all work was completed and the aircraft made its first flight. Further, everything went as it was with other machines: the first began to fly around and test, at the same time, construction of an experimental batch of five Tu-22Ms began in Kazan for comprehensive testing. Another five aircraft were built for the Long Range Combat Training Center. aviation in Ryazan, where the process of retraining crews for new equipment began.

And then thunder struck. During the tests, the Tu-22M0 did not show the declared results. With one X-22 missile powered by NK-144-22 engines, the aircraft showed a maximum speed of only 1540 km / h instead of 2200 km / h, and a range at subsonic cruising speed of 4140 km instead of 7000. To take off, a 120-ton machine needed a runway of 2600 meters .

In general, the Air Force was disappointed and, having not entered service, before reaching the stage of serial construction, the Tu-22M went for modernization. More precisely, the modernization work began before the start of flight tests, the Tupolev Design Bureau was also not stupid, and they understood that the machine, obviously overweighted by the military’s Wishlist, would not give even half of the expected results.

So the Tu-22M0 began to be converted into the Tu-22M1 long before the aircraft received a residence permit at the airfields.

LTH Tu-22M0

Wingspan, m
- maximum: 31,60
- minimum: 22,75
Length, m: 41,46
Height, m: 11,08
Wing area, m2
- maximum: 183,58
- minimum: 175,80

Weight, kg
- empty: 88 000
- maximum take-off: 121 000

Engines: 2 DTRDF NK-144-22 x 20 kgf
Maximum speed, km/h: 1
Practical range, km: 4 110
Practical ceiling, m: 12 000

Crew, prs: 4

Armament:
- two 23-mm guns GSh-23 in the stern installation
- bombs - 3000 kg (normal) and 11000 kg (maximum) or one X-22 missile.

Tu-22M1

We will not focus on this version of the Tu-22M, since a total of 9 aircraft and one airframe for static tests were manufactured. All aircraft were involved in the test program, three of them were lost in accidents. Five aircraft were transferred to the 33rd Naval Aviation Combat Training Center in Nikolaev, where they were subsequently cut into metal. One Tu-22M1 ended up in private hands in Latvia and is located in Riga, on the territory of the aviation museum.

Tu-22M2

Work on bringing the Tu-22M to the level of the requirements of the Decree of the Council of Ministers of 1967 went in almost the same direction: more powerful engines were needed, then all problems would be solved.

The new NK-25 engines or the improved NK-22 could solve the issue of speed. Plus, work was carried out to reduce the weight of the aircraft, which, although they gave some improvement by 1,4-1,5 tons, but they should not be called successful.

In general, the aircraft was considered as a long-range missile carrier armed with the K-22M complex and capable of carrying three Kh-22 missiles. But if necessary, the missile carrier had to "be able" to use conventional bombs. Moreover, the conversion into a bomber should have been as simple as possible and technicians in the field had to cope with it.

The lead Tu-22M2 made its first flight on May 7, 1973, tests and various refinements went on until 1975 inclusive. Flight characteristics have increased somewhat compared to the Tu-22M0, but only an inveterate optimist would call these improvements cardinal.

The takeoff run was reduced to 2 m (-300 m).
Range at subsonic speed increased to 5100 km (+ almost 1000 km).
The maximum speed has increased to 1660 km/h (+ 130 km/h).
Maximum speed without rocket 1800 km/h (+110 km/h).

The work was carried out simply on a huge scale and gave a certain result. The result was the adoption of the Tu-22M2 into service in August 1976. The Tu-22M2 was in serial production until 1983, in total, the Kazan Aircraft Plant built 211 Tu-22M2.

In the flight units of the Long-Range Aviation and Navy Aviation, where the Tu-22M2 began to arrive, it was met more calmly than the Tu-22. I liked the plane. The general refinement of the machine, modern equipment, which gave more opportunities in flight, improved ergonomics of the crew's workplaces and the inclusion of a co-pilot, played their role here. All this made it possible to work more efficiently, especially in long-distance flights, for which the Tu-22M2 was sharpened.

But I especially liked the system of "normal" ejection, up, which removed the restrictions on the minimum height of the emergency escape of the aircraft. Tu-22 and all the negativity associated with it, gradually left and was forgotten.

Although the Tu-22M2 was not equipped, like the American B-1 bomber, with an automatic terrain avoidance system, it was capable of making relatively long low-altitude “throws”, evading enemy air defenses. This also played a significant role in the evaluation of the aircraft.

In the 70s, information about the Tu-22M penetrated into NATO and caused quite a decent concern there. After analyzing the performance characteristics of the aircraft, which the bloc's scouts were able to obtain, NATO came to the conclusion that the USSR had created a new intercontinental strategic carrier of nuclear weapons capable of reaching the United States. This was not entirely true, of course, in theory, with several refueling, the Tu-22M could fly to the United States, but the aircraft was not created for this at all.

Nevertheless, the Tu-22M2 became one of the main characters in the SALT-2 negotiations between the US and the USSR. The United States really wanted to "kill" this plane and they almost succeeded. At least within the framework of SALT-2, the USSR undertook to limit the production of Tu-22M2 to three dozen per year, and the in-flight fueling equipment from already produced aircraft was dismantled. This significantly reduced the value of the entire complex as a whole. From a long-range missile carrier, an ordinary heavy bomber turned out.

Nevertheless, the modernization program was not curtailed and work on bringing the aircraft in the 70s to the level laid down in 1967 continued. Actually, there was only one problem - the engine. NK-22 could not be brought to the design power in terms of thrust and fuel consumption. That is, it had to be changed. NK-23, which was a forced version of NK-22, could not solve the problems and did not go into the series. The NK-23 engine generally showed that the entire line of NK-144 - NK-23 has exhausted itself to the end.

With superhuman efforts, a new engine was created in the Kuznetsov Design Bureau, called the NK-25. It was a two-circuit turbojet three-stage engine with a common afterburner and an electronic control system ESUD-25, which made it possible to optimize engine operation in a variety of modes.

The maximum takeoff thrust of the NK-25 was 25 kgf, while the design 000 kgf could not be achieved from the NK-22. More powerful, the NK-22 was also more economical than the NK-000.

It was the appearance of the NK-25 that became the first step in the creation of the Tu-22M3.

LTH Tu-22M2

Wingspan, m: 34,28
Length, m: 41,46
Height, m: 11,05
Wing area, м2: 183,60

Takeoff weight, kg
- normal: 121 000
- maximum: 126 400

Engine: 2 DTRDF NK-22 x 22 kgf
Maximum speed, km/h: 1
Speed ​​with UR Kh-22M, km/h: 1

Practical range, km
- subsonic: 5100
- supersonic: 1630
Fighting radius, km: 2200
Practical ceiling, m: 12 600

Crew, prs: 4

Armament:
- two 23-mm guns GSh-23L
- combat load - 24 kg (maximum), 000-1 UR type X-3

Tu-22M3

The new version of the aircraft made its first flight in 1977. By that time, the Soviet Air Force command was puzzled by the possibility of carrying new aeroballistic missiles by aircraft. This was required by the program of rearmament of the air force and strategic forces of the Soviet Union.

On the basis of the Tu-22M2 aircraft, a number of tests of new weapons, Kh-22MP and Kh-28 missiles, were carried out. The X-28 was intended to destroy working radars, including those on ships. In 1979, tests of the K-22MP complex with the Kh-22MP missile were successfully completed and the complex was recommended for adoption.

The need to modernize the carrier was also understood and implementation work was underway. The NK-25 engine has passed comprehensive tests on Tu-22M2 and Tu-142LL laboratories. The development of the engine took four years.

At the same time, the Kuznetsov Design Bureau was working on an even more promising NK-32 engine, which was generally planned to be made common for all heavy attack aircraft, both Tu-160 and Tu-22M. Initially, the Tu-160 was designed for the NK-25, but first these engines went to a new modification of the Tu-22M3. And largely thanks to them, the plane began to sparkle with new colors.

In June 1974, a Government Decree was adopted, which determined the further development of the Tu-22M with NK-25 engines and a new weapon system. The version was officially named Tu-22M3.

Modification or modernization of the Tu-22M2 into the Tu-22M3 is a whole range of works that again greatly changed both the appearance of the aircraft and its content:
- NK-22 engines were replaced by NK-25;
- the refueling system was returned to the aircraft;
- changed the bow and the fuel receiver rod itself;
- air intakes with a vertical wedge replaced air intakes with a horizontal wedge;
- the maximum deflection angle of the wing was increased to 65 degrees;
- the stern gun mount became single-barreled;
- fire bulkheads steel titanium;
- carried out a set of works to lighten the aircraft structure, which caused a weight reduction of 2300-2700 kg;
- stable frequency generators appeared in the electrical system;
- reworked the chassis system and switched to a different type of wheels and many other changes.

It was planned to significantly expand the range of weapons, install a new Obzor radar, and install an electronic warfare complex instead of individual electronic warfare devices. And most importantly, all these measures were supposed to eventually bring the aircraft to the values ​​laid down in the decree of 1967. Even after 10 years.

In fact, if all the innovations could be implemented, it would again be a new aircraft, different from the Tu-22M2 as the Tu-22M was different from the Tu-22. They even decided to give the plane a new name - Tu-32. But alas, much of what was planned could not be implemented for a number of reasons, so the aircraft was named Tu-22M3.

But in this form, the Tu-22M3 first took off from the ground in June 1977. After eliminating the shortcomings found during comprehensive tests, the Tu-22M3 was put into serial production in 1978, and until 1983 the Tu-22M3 was built in parallel with the Tu-22M2, and since 1984 only Tu-22M3 was mass-produced. Serial production of the Tu-22M3 was discontinued in 1993.

Tests and the start of operation of the Tu-22M3 showed that in terms of their flight and tactical characteristics, the aircraft of the new modification are significantly superior to the Tu-22M2. Moreover, they really managed to reach the level of indicators of 1967 and even surpass them somewhat. The tests were completed in 1981, but until 1984 the aircraft underwent an additional test cycle, including for equipping with aeroballistic missiles. New weapons systems required more time to fine-tune and refine them, but in our case there was no rush at all, the Tu-22M2 coped well with the tasks assigned to it.

So, despite the fact that in 1981 the Tu-22M3 was recommended for adoption, the actual adoption took place only in 1989.

Practically, in terms of flight characteristics, it was possible to reach the requirements of 1967, with a significant increase in the combat capabilities of the aircraft and the entire complex. Joint state tests of the Tu-22M3 were completed in 1981, and the aircraft was recommended for adoption.

From 1981 to 1984, the aircraft passed an additional set of tests in the version with enhanced combat capabilities, including in the version equipped with aeroballistic missiles. New weapons systems required additional time for their refinement and testing, so in the final form, the Tu-22М3 was officially accepted for service only in March of the 1989 year.

And from that moment on, the Tu-22M3 performs the tasks of deterring and countering sea and land strike formations of a potential enemy. The aircraft was repeatedly used in military conflicts: Afghanistan, Chechnya, South Ossetia, Syria, Ukraine. The use of Tu-22M3 armament showed its effectiveness, despite the fact that the aircraft was mainly used in a bomber configuration. Losses for all time amounted to 1 aircraft, which was shot down during the enforcement of Georgia to peace.

Aircraft armament today is a very impressive force. The "main caliber" is the X-22N missiles, which the Tu-22M3 can take up to three pieces. One missile is suspended under the fuselage in a semi-recessed position, two missiles are placed under the wing. It is possible to carry Tu-22M3 Kh-15 short-range aeroballistic missiles, which the aircraft can take up to 10 pieces. Six missiles are placed on a drum launcher in the bomb bay, and four on external hardpoints.

Bomb weapons, consisting of free-falling bombs (both conventional and nuclear) with a total mass of up to 24 kg, are located in the fuselage (up to 000 kg) and on four external suspension units on beam holders. The easiest accommodation option is 12 FAB-000 or 69 FAB-250. Used with Tu-8M1500 and heavier FAB-22.

LTH Tu-22M3

Wingspan, m
- maximum (65 degrees): 34,28
- minimum (20 degrees): 23,30
Length, m: 41,46
Height, m: 11,05
Wing area, m2
- maximum: 183,57
- minimum: 175,80

Weight, kg
- empty: 78 000
- normal takeoff: 112 000
- maximum take-off: 126 000

Engine: 2 x DTRDF NK-25 x 25000 kgf
Maximum speed km / h
- at height: 2300
- near the ground: 1050
Cruising speed, km / h: 930
Practical range, km: 7000

Combat radius of action, km
- at supersonic speed: 1500-1850
- at subsonic speed near the ground: 1500-1650
- at subsonic speed along a mixed profile: 2410
Practical ceiling, m: 13 300

Crew, prs: 4
Armament:
- one 23 mm gun GSh-23L
- combat load - 24000 kg (maximum) and 12000 kg (normal)
1-3 Kh-22M missiles, 10 Kh-15 aeroballistic missiles, free-fall bombs

Now let's talk about perspectives.

The fact that the Tu-22M3 has a certain potential for modernization is a fact. The aircraft is able to work not only against aircraft carrier formations, it generally has a wide range of targets both at sea and on land. Let's put it this way: the Tu-22M3 is a modern means of delivering weapons in military conflicts. Diverse. From cruise missiles to nuclear bombs.

The base was laid in the distant sixties just fine. It remains only to maintain the existing aircraft at the proper level, as long as the resource of the gliders allows it. Farther? Further production and modernization is possible. The aircraft will remain "in the know", despite the time, especially if the onboard radar equipment and weapons are updated.

Tu-22M3M

As an example, the contract announced back in 2012 for the modernization of about three dozen Tu-22M3s to the level of Tu-22M3M.
The latest electronic equipment that will allow the use of modern high-precision weapons, such as Kh-32 missiles. Today, the Russian Aerospace Forces has about 115 Tu-22M3 units, of which only about 40 vehicles are combat-ready. Of these, 30 vehicles are being upgraded at the first stage. The rest is a question. So far, in 2018, one aircraft was converted, which began to be tested.

During the modernization, the Tu-22M3 will receive the same electronic equipment and engines as the latest Tu-160M2. The modernization will affect all avionics, including the navigation and sighting system, the aircraft will be able to carry and use, in addition to the Kh-32, up to 4 Kh-47 Kinzhal hypersonic missiles, as well as long-range cruise missiles: the air version of the Caliber, (" Product 715"), X-101, X-555.

What is the main problem in the world today for all air commanders? The problem of air defense systems that are evolving at a cosmic pace. And the second: the increase in the cost of aircraft. Both problems today have reached such a level that it is cheaper to leave aircraft on the ground than to expose them to modern air defense systems.

Therefore, a cheap aircraft that has a chance of breaking through air defense barriers is a very useful thing in the arsenal. Yes, 40 bombers, albeit long-range ones, are not something that can scare NATO or Europe. Considering that in the Soviet years more than 500 Tu-22M aircraft of all modifications were manufactured.

However, there is a certain reserve that can and should be used. 115 aircraft are 8 full-fledged regiments in the DA of the Russian Aerospace Forces. This is power.

It may seem to someone that it would be worthwhile to direct efforts to create something such as always "not having ...". However, if you look at what our opponents are doing, then just the opposite is true - with all their might they “drag” very old planes into tomorrow. Yes, and we, too, for example, the same Su-24M2, which are equipped with more or less modern avionics SVP-24-22, are quite relevant today.

And since the SVP-24-22 can also be installed on the Tu-22M3M, the missile carrier can be turned into an aircraft to break through the air defense systems of European countries, equipping it with anti-radar missiles and other high-precision products.

It is assumed that the Tu-22M3M will receive the NV-45 radar station, which in turn is a descendant of the Novella-P38 search and sighting system, which was very good for its time, which was equipped with Il-38N anti-submarine aircraft.

If NK-32-02 engines (like the Tu-160M2) and modern electronics are added to this, which will make it easier both to control the aircraft in flight and to aim and hit targets in battle, the full range of Kh-32, Kh-55, X-555, X-101/102, promising X-50, and ...

Why not? Yes, Dagger.

The Tu-22M3M flies, of course, not at the same speed as the MiG-31, because the upper stage is somewhat worse. But the range is 1000 km more than that of the interceptor, and the "Daggers" by weight can take at least four. Two will be on the middle part of the wing, and two, for example, on the turret in the bomb bay.

And here's something for everyone in Europe to think about. The United States is far away, but for Europeans, especially for those who like to rattle weapons and shout towards the borders of Russia, this is a very reason for reflection. A hundred "Daggers" is, excuse me, a hundred "Daggers", which are almost impossible to reflect.

Yes, perhaps, it is not worth saying goodbye to the Tu-22M. He really hasn't said his last word yet.

Comments

[Dilettante grandfather]

In general, only fairly successful aircraft were put into service in the USSR. Of course, the Tu-22 had a lot of problems and shortcomings, but the Tu-22M3M is its development. Despite the fact that it is very different from its predecessor. In general, the Soviet design school, in my opinion, was the best. For example, I do not see an analogue of the Tu-22 among the Americans. Strategists - yes, but I don’t remember a medium-range bomber. I wonder if the Europeans don't have this either? Once upon a time there were all sorts of Volcanoes, now they seem to be gone.

[Uncle lee]

A hundred "Daggers" is, excuse me, a hundred "Daggers", which are almost impossible to reflect.

"The dagger is good for the one who has it, and bad for the one who does not have it at the right time."

[yuriy55]

Quote from Uncle Lee

"The dagger is good for the one who has it, and bad for the one who does not have it at the right time."

Classic:

 Show / Hide text

[Romario_Argo]

Tu-22M3 under the Dagger is certainly good,
but along the way it is better to further increase the potential of land launchers,
Brigades with OTRK Iskander to be understaffed - up to Missile divisions
By the way, there was a project in the USSR / RF for the modernization of the MiG-31M for 6 R-33 missiles

[White Tiger]

wow, this is the first time I've heard of this!

[bayard]

Quote: Romario_Argo

Tu-22M3 under the Dagger is certainly good,
but along the way, it’s better to increase the potential with land launchers,

The author fantasized about the current potential of the Tu-22M3 ... What are the 115 sides available ?? They were scraped together in the bottom of the barrel for restoration and return to service 61 or 62 pieces. - TOTAL . The rest died of cannibalism at their former airfields.
And there were no available ones suitable for modernization to the M3M level (of which they planned to receive 30 units). In connection with the development of the resource and the general technical condition. About 10 boards are suitable for modernization, including several boards from the backlog at the plant, which were not in the troops.
And it’s also expensive, complicated and irrational - if you upgrade suitable 10 ... or even 12 - 15 pieces. They will not make the weather in the MRA, but they will delay the forces and means, be healthy.
When upgrading to NK-32M2 engines with a conventional replacement, it is impossible - it consumes more air, it needs a new air intake or the organization of feeding the engine with a special complicated alteration of the existing air intake ... Replacing the entire avionics complex, overhauling the airframe ... All this will result in the cost of a pair Su-34. And at the same time, 10-15 such aircraft by the end of the decade ... it’s about nothing at all - blowing off steam into a whistle.
But new aircraft for the MPA are needed. And we need it today. For new GM anti-ship missiles are on the way, for which a NEW effective carrier is needed. And time to develop something fundamentally new, or the modernization of 30-40-year-old aircraft killed during the years of wild capitalism not .
But there is a solution.
Simple and obvious.
Order 120+ new Su-34M\M2 bombers for the MRA - with AL-41F-1S engines and avionics, unified with the Su-35. Such an aircraft will be able to carry at least 2 new anti-ship missiles + RVVSD and RVVMD missiles for self-defense ... at a distance (combat radius) of 1500 - 2000 km without refueling + the range of the anti-ship missiles themselves is 1000 - 1500 km.
Why not a replacement?
One such aircraft in a new configuration will cost the treasury about 40 million dollars. (in its current form it costs about 30 million dollars), the Chkalov plant will be able to build them at a rate of 18-24 aircraft per year. As a result, by the end of this decade, the MPA will be able to receive five regimental sets of such aircraft, and provide satisfactory cover from the threat from sea directions.
And the issue will be resolved.
Less combat radius than the Tu-22M3?
You can take the PTB to the central pylon and refuel in the air. On the other hand, its GZ anti-ship missiles will be much more long-range and effective than the Kh-22, which will compensate for the reduced combat radius of the carrier.
And you can do it RIGHT NOW.
And for the future, you can take care of obtaining for the VKS and MRA a promising bomber based on the Su-57 airframe (but not its size) with a take-off weight of 80 - 85 tons, with the possibility of hanging two anti-ship missiles in the internal compartment and, if necessary, two more on removable pylons. Two R-579-300 engines with thrust up to 23 kg.s. afterburner and 000 kg.s. at a non-afterburning maximum, they will provide him with excellent speed and flight characteristics. Such a machine would make an excellent MRA aircraft and a "Euro-strategic" bomber with a range of about 14 km. and able to stand up for themselves against enemy fighters.
but such a promising aircraft, even if work on it starts right now, will be ready for mass production no earlier than in 15 years. We don't live in a fairy tale after all.
Therefore, at the moment it is necessary to order Su-34M \ M2 for MRA as soon as possible in the amount of 120 units +. Based on the calculation - two regiments (24 units each) in the Pacific Fleet (Kamchatka, Primorye), one in the Northern Fleet, one in the Black Sea Fleet, and one more regiment in reserve for emergency reinforcement of any direction during a threatened period or for missions abroad.
This is the minimum that needs to be done right now to compensate for our acute naval insufficiency and stop threats from maritime sectors.

[storm]

order for MRA Su-34M \ M2 in the amount of 120 pcs. +. Based on - two regiments (24 each) in the Pacific Fleet (Kamchatka, Primorye), one in the Northern Fleet, one in the Black Sea Fleet, and one more regiment in reserve for emergency reinforcement of any direction during a threatened period or for missions abroad

What an optimist you are, God forbid that all Su-30SMs be transferred to MA, of which six regiments of 24 units will be formed.
- 2 regiments Pacific Fleet
- 2 regiments SF
- 1 BF regiment
- 1 regiment of the Black Sea Fleet
Include a bomber squadron of 12 Su-34M2s in each regiment
A total of 72 aircraft.

[bayard]

Quote: assault

What an optimist you are, God forbid that all Su-30SMs be transferred to MA, of which six regiments of 24 units will be formed.

I'm talking about the revival (and it is necessary) of Naval Missile Aviation, but this is somewhat different.
Su-30SM is a good aircraft, but it is an MFI capable of carrying Kh-35, Kh-31, Kh-59 missiles from strike weapons, no more. For the sake of adapting their Su-30MKI, the Hindus had to seriously strengthen the airframe and the central pylon, for the sake of placing a LIGHT version of the Brahmos anti-ship missile, weighing only 2500 kg. (A full-weight BRAHMOS weighs about 3800 kg., And "Zircon" weighs even more - at least 4600 kg.). So it will not come out of the Su-30SM missile carrier. Yes, and it is not convenient for such tasks.
The Su-34M \ M2 is another matter. Even in the basic version, it has a range of 4000 km. (without PTB) and payload - 8 tons at normal load and 12 tons with a slight underfilling of fuel.
In the Su-34M \ M2 version with more powerful engines, it will be able to take two anti-ship missiles + air-to-air missiles for self-defense.

Quote: assault

Include a bomber squadron of 12 Su-34M2s in each regiment

Again mixed shelves?
Haven't played enough in such zoos yet?
How to conduct combat training, maintenance, spare parts in the warehouse ... Let's let the MFIs do their own thing, and the search and destruction of the enemy's AUG and KUG is for the MRA. They have completely different combat training plans.
So my proposal is more optimal and balanced.
The Russian Federation has practically no Navy.
At all !
If we talk about combat capability.
And this problem cannot be solved quickly by building new ships ... We cannot build them - there are no engines.
But the danger from sea directions must be stopped and this issue resolved as soon as possible.
How ?
The revival of the MRA.
The minimum is the deployment of five MRA regiments in three theaters.
And you can get these regiments as soon as possible only by choosing the MPA - Su-34M2 as an aircraft.
There is simply no other solution.
as Comrade Stalin once said: "This is the only correct decision in the current situation."
And there are simply NO other solutions.
They are not possible to implement and will not be able to solve the problem in an acceptable time frame.

Quote: assault

A total of 72 aircraft.

This is not enough.
I have already named a minimum - five two-squadron regiments on the Su-34M2.
One in Kamchatka.
Second in Primorye.
The third on the Kola Peninsula.
The fourth in the Black Sea Fleet (basing is best organized in the Kuban.
And the fifth - reserve, as a fire brigade for any theater of operations based in the Caspian.
Less is impossible.
Over time, you can bring these five deployed regiments to a NORMAL three-squadron composition.
As a result, by the end of this decade, we will have MPA regiments in all fleets. And even if the Fleet is not built, they will be able to control the water area at a distance of 2500 - 3000 km. from native shores.

[storm]

And what offended the Baltic Fleet?

[bayard]

And why does the Baltic "fleet" need an MRA? There, for the eyes of the Su-30SM, it will be enough. And BRK.

[Flying]

Why invent?! It has a range of 3000 km with 3 tons of bombs, and a radius of only 3000x0,32 = 960 km, which is, as it were, more than half the M3! If we take brahmos under the belly, then we throw out the central tank with 1,5 fuel and the range is completely ridiculous. In terms of maneuverability, the f / a-18 is no match. So why do we need this UNDERBOMBER and UNDERfighter?

[bayard]

Quote: Flying

Why invent?! 3000 km with 3 tons of bombs he has a range

With 3 tons of bombs and 4 missiles (2 x RVV AE + 2 x R-73E), this is already at least 4 tons. This is the first.

Quote: Flying

If we take brahmos under the belly, then we throw out the central tank with 1,5 fuel

Why do we need "Brahmos" under the belly of a front-line bomber? I wrote about the need to choose the Su-34M2 (!!) as an MRA aircraft. Not the Su-34 in its current form, which was put into service somewhat hastily after the Five-Day War ... in a completely different capacity.
In the Su-34, the titanium armored capsule (armored tank) of the cockpit weighs about 2 tons. , which is completely redundant for an MPA aircraft. AL31F engines deliver 12 kg.s afterburner thrust. , and the Su-500M34 will have AL-2F-41S with a thrust of 1 kg.s. and with almost twice as much resource.
We are talking about a new modification of the Su-34 with radically improved performance.

Quote: Flying

the radius of only 3000x0,32 = 960 km is, as it were, more than half the size of the M3!

And the coefficient you, excuse me, why did you take it?
For MFIs? Or a front-line bomber?
And we are talking about a naval missile carrier, with hypersonic / hypersonic missiles under its belly, carrying its payload to the point \ to the launch line according to external target designation. He does not need to search for a target in the zone, make several visits to the target, engage in combat or evade it. For such an aircraft (sea missile carrier GZ anti-ship missiles), the coefficient will be completely different.

Quote: Flying

In terms of maneuverability f / a-18 it is no match.

And who does his neighbor, maneuverable, offer to start? Although ... the Su-34M2 has AL-41F-1S engines with an all-angle controlled nozzle, greater thrust, and the airframe will be lightened by eliminating the cockpit reservation ... The maximum operational overload for the Su-34 is 7,5 ... and for What will be M2?
And if you don’t stint on such an MRA aircraft and put the all-aspect BRLK "Squirrel" from the Su-57 ... then what kind of F-18 can you even stutter about? He (Su-34M2) will not even turn around on the "Hornet", but will hit with a rocket immediately after the appearance of it from any angle.

Quote: Flying

So why do we need this UNDERBOMBER and UNDERfighter?

Su-34 (without M) - a supersonic front-line fighter that replaced the Su-24M \ M2, its "need" is spelled out in its classification. And he fully justifies his existence. That is why he needs the videoconferencing.
VKS ... Su-34 (without M).
The Su-34M2 is a proposed aircraft for Naval Missile Aviation with an optimized, lighter (due to the exclusion of cockpit armor) fuselage and increased volumes of internal fuel tanks, with new more powerful engines, better maneuverability, takeoff and landing characteristics (UHT) and a larger payload.
I'm talking about a completely different aircraft with much better performance in a modified Su-34 fuselage.
And for the Aerospace Forces, such an aircraft will also be of interest.

[Flying]

Quote: bayard

With 3 tons of bombs and 4 missiles (2 x RVV AE + 2 x R-73E), this is already at least 4 tons. This is the first.

R-105 weighs 73 kg, RVV-ae 180 kg. Where is the ton?

Quote: bayard

Why do we need "Brahmos" under the belly of a front-line bomber?

What else? Pukalki like X-35 and X-31 or others in their mass and dimensions do not pull against serious boats. Or do you believe in fantasies of hypersound + 1000 km for 500 kg?

Quote: bayard

In the Su-34, the titanium armored capsule (armored tank) of the cockpit weighs about 2 tons. , which is completely redundant for an MPA aircraft.

ALL armor on it and 1,5 tons does not weigh, why round up? We will remove the armor and the entire head part of the fuselage, together with the weight distribution, will say see you soon! It is easier to make a new NORMAL aircraft than to sculpt this misunderstanding.

Quote: bayard

AL31F engines deliver 12 kg.s afterburner thrust. , and the Su-500M34 will have AL-2F-41S with a thrust of 1 kg.s. and with almost twice as much resource.

How long does the rotary nozzle run? I'll give you a hint: 500 hours. And what about the engine compartments? Redesign again?

Quote: bayard

And the coefficient you, excuse me, why did you take it?
For MFIs? Or a front-line bomber?
And we are talking about a naval missile carrier, with hypersonic / hypersonic missiles under its belly, carrying its payload to the point \ to the launch line according to external target designation. He does not need to search for a target in the zone, make several visits to the target, engage in combat or evade it

Strike teams will assemble in the blink of an eye? Will we break like sheep from one direction? Will the formation of ships stand still and notify the world of its location? Well, you can, like the Americans, divide Dprakt into 2 in their booklets, but what's the point? Reality is different. And you also lay an air battle.

Quote: bayard

And who does his neighbor, maneuverable, offer to start? Although ... the Su-34M2 has AL-41F-1S engines with an all-angle controlled nozzle, greater thrust, and the airframe will be lightened by eliminating the cockpit reservation ... The maximum operational overload for the Su-34 is 7,5 ... and for What will be M2?
And if you don’t stint on such an MRA aircraft and put the all-aspect BRLK "Squirrel" from the Su-57 ... then what kind of F-18 can you even stutter about? He (Su-34M2) will not even turn around on the "Hornet", but will hit with a rocket immediately after the appearance of it from any angle.

Yeah, but if you put a laser and a rocket engine, then in general it will be possible to shoot from orbit You can dream up and screw the plate from the A-50, only this will remain a fantasy.
Overload is given by strength, and increased strength is increased mass. 7,5, it does not allow 45 tons, especially for beam holders, the limit is 5. They do not hold locks above.

Su-34 (without M) - a supersonic front-line fighter that replaced the Su-24M \ M2, its "need" is spelled out in its classification. And he fully justifies his existence. That is why he needs the videoconferencing.
VKS ... Su-34 (without M).

We needed a NORMAL front-line soldier without fighter zakosy. As a result, the "creation" as a fighter is worse than the original Su-27 and MiG-29, worse than the Su-24 in terms of small flight, totally worse than the Tu-22M3 in terms of range-load. Low visibility like the f-35 does not compensate for its "ironness". The war is at the threshold, and we are sitting with an ancient plane tree at the broken trough. We bury our fighters every day because of the inability of the air force (precisely in small letters) to crush the enemy.

Quote: bayard

Su-34M2 - the proposed aircraft of Naval Missile Aviation with an optimized, lightweight (due to the exclusion of cockpit armor) fuselage and increased volumes of internal fuel tanks

How much more fuel? 45 tons of fools out of 30 tons of Su-27 are not enough? Free volumes appeared by some miracle?

Quote: bayard

better maneuverability, takeoff and landing characteristics (UHT)

How's that?

[bayard]

Quote: Flying

R-105 weighs 73 kg, RVV-ae 180 kg. Where is the ton?

Of course, this was an approximate extrapolation.

Quote: Flying

What else? Pukalki like X-35 and X-31 or others in their mass and dimensions do not pull against serious boats. Or do you believe in fantasies of hypersound + 1000 km for 500 kg?

No, we are talking about the air-based version of the Zircon. In fact, the first throw tests of the Zircon were carried out precisely with the Tu-22M3, but after the noise raised by the Americans, it was decided first (?) to make a ship-based version. And the weight of such a product is about 4600 kg. - not a feather, if a lightweight version is not made for aviation.

Quote: Flying

Or believe in fantasy hypersound + 1000 km

Tests of "Zircon" for surface ships have been completed, so what's the question? Or is such an air-launched missile somewhat more complicated than its ship-based version with a vertical launch?

Quote: Flying

ALL armor on it and 1,5 tons does not weigh, why round up? We will remove the armor and the entire head part of the fuselage, together with the weight distribution, will say see you soon!

Will say.
But wasn’t the T-10 airframe itself and its control system created as an initially statically unstable system? Yes, you will have to make adjustments to the algorithms of the control and stabilization system. But even transferring 1,5 tons of excess, unjustified weight to a new aircraft is already too much.

Quote: Flying

It is easier to make a new NORMAL aircraft than to sculpt this misunderstanding.

Is it really easier?
How much does it take us in the current realities to develop a new aircraft from scratch? For testing and refinement? On the organization and debugging of industrial cooperation?
With the new aircraft, we will confidently enter the middle of the century. And the plane for the MRA was needed yesterday. That is, as soon as possible, because the new GZ anti-ship missiles are on the way to it.
And in general, this "misunderstanding" works quite well as a front-line bomber. And the replacement for the Su-24M \ M2 turned out to be quite decent.

Quote: Flying

How long does the rotary nozzle run? Hint: 500 hours.

But will this nozzle rotate during the entire flight? In addition, an all-aspect nozzle is useless for such an aircraft, but one like that of the Su-30SM is very useful.

Quote: Flying

What about engine bays? Redesign again?

They are already being redesigned / redesigned, exactly for the Su-34M, which is being prepared for production. And they conjured with air intakes - for greater productivity, and with engine nacelles. And in the course of the future medium overhaul, the entire series of the first Su-34s will be upgraded to the level of the Su-34M.
But the cabin at "M" is left the same.
By the way, the replacement of engines with AL-41F-1S was started not so much for the sake of more power, but for the sake of their greater resource (4000 hours versus 2500 hours) and for the sake of unification with other 4+\++ generation aircraft. The Su-30SM2 will also be with the AL-41F-1S, radar and avionics from the Su-35 - all for the sake of unification and increasing combat capabilities.
But for the MRA, the airframe and the Su-34M will have to be somewhat modernized - in order to increase the range and increase the payload.

Quote: Flying

Strike teams will assemble in the blink of an eye? Will we break like sheep from one direction? Will the formation of ships stand still and notify the world of its location?

Why do you need aerial refueling?
Or did they put refueling rods on the planes for beauty?
This refueling will fix the issue with the combat radius.

Quote: Flying

And you also lay an air battle.

The possibility of accepting it. These are different things.

Quote: Flying

Yeah, but if you put a laser and a rocket engine, then in general it will be possible to shoot from orbit. You can dream up and screw the plate from the A-50

What's impossible here? Screw the "Squirrel" on the Su-34M2? There is definitely enough space for it, but there will be all-perspective awareness and it is possible to launch explosive missiles at targets from any angle. It seems to me that such radars are the future for modern aviation. And to snap at an enemy fighter without changing course, for a bomber / MPA aircraft - this is a very useful option.

Quote: Flying

Overload is given by strength, and increased strength is increased mass. 7,5 he is far from allowing 45 tons,

Yes, no one will go to the dog dump on the MRA missile carrier, unless there is no other way out. But a more powerful engine with UVP will definitely add maneuverability to an already good aircraft, the pedigree of which is just from super-maneuverable fighters.

Quote: Flying

We needed a NORMAL front-line soldier without fighter zakosy

And how can you order his heart to survive? Without maneuverable and "fighter zakosy"?
Front-line bomber of our time, this is a new iteration of the old fighter-bombers. And those, in turn, appeared from the modification of FIGHTERS into carriers of missile and bomb weapons.
And abroad, they have already forgotten about such concepts as "fighter-bomber" and "front-line bomber", there, for the sake of economy and unification, MFIs are involved in everything.
But we have MFIs, even if it is the Su-30SM \ SM2, they will not be able to cope with the tasks of the MRA. And the Su-34M2 is quite. And even then - as a temporary measure, until the appearance of a specialized MPA aircraft.
And I also wrote about such a promising MPA aircraft more than once.
It is preferable to make it on the basis of the Su-57 airframe (but not in its size), with a cockpit like that of the Su-34, with a take-off weight of 80 - 85 tons, with two R-579-300 engines (afterburner thrust up to 23 kg .s., without afterburner 000 14 kg.s.) and an armament compartment for two GZ anti-ship missiles. The range of such a device can be 000 - 7000 km. , combat radius as a missile carrier - 7500 - 3000 km. The radius, like that of a bomber, is less.
But the design, creation, testing and development of such an aircraft will require at least 12-15 years, with proper funding and control from the customer. Another 10 years will take the construction of the entire series ... So, there is no way to do without an intermediate model of an aircraft for an MPA. It should appear within the next 3-4 years, on the basis of a serial aircraft, and go into the series immediately.
So we have no other solution to this problem, except for the Su-34M2.

Quote: Flying

worse than the Su-24 in terms of flying at small

Let's say more precisely - on extremely small . But the MPA aircraft is unlikely to need this. Its task is to reach the launch line and launch the GM anti-ship missiles BD outside the enemy's air defense zone of the KUG / AUG.

Quote: Flying

totally worse than the Tu-22M3 in terms of range-load.

Well, you still don’t equate a genital organ with a finger - the Tu-22M3 is almost 3 times heavier.
But with the new GZ anti-ship missiles, the Su-34M2 will be able to engage naval targets at no less distance than the Tu-22M3 did with Kh-22 missiles in the past.

Quote: Flying

How much more fuel? 45 tons of fools out of 30 tons of Su-27 are not enough? Free volumes appeared by some miracle?

There are opportunities to increase internal volumes. In words, I don’t want to, but I would show with my finger where and how. And do not forget that we have a reserve of at least 1,5 tons only because of the refusal to book the cabin. And there are other reserves. Incl. increased engine thrust (as much as 4000 kg.s. with afterburner, and 2000 kg.s. without it).

Quote: Flying

Quote: bayard
better maneuverability, takeoff and landing characteristics (UHT)

How's that?

Due to UVT. But of course, this is only take-off characteristics. Boarding will remain the same.

[Flying]

Quote: bayard

No, we are talking about the air-based version of the Zircon. In fact, the first throw tests of the Zircon were carried out precisely with the Tu-22M3, but after the noise raised by the Americans, it was decided first (?) to make a ship-based version. And the weight of such a product is about 4600 kg. - not a feather, if a lightweight version is not made for aviation.

Will the wing of the Su-34 withstand such a burden?

Quote: bayard

Tests of "Zircon" for surface ships have been completed, so what's the question? Or is such an air-launched missile somewhat more complicated than its ship-based version with a vertical launch?

Which aircraft in service is its carrier? What are the requirements for a rocket carrier? What are the launch conditions? What about interfacing with on-board equipment?

Quote: bayard

But wasn’t the T-10 airframe itself and its control system created as an initially statically unstable system? Yes, you will have to make adjustments to the algorithms of the control and stabilization system.

Are you familiar with the concept of balancing resistance? Does it add range? What is the CG range of the Su-27?

Quote: bayard

Is it really easier?
How much does it take us in the current realities to develop a new aircraft from scratch? For testing and refinement? On the organization and debugging of industrial cooperation?

So you offer exactly this with your project! Strengthen and enlarge everything.

Quote: bayard

But will this nozzle rotate during the entire flight?

Who cares? The resource before overhaul is recorded in the form. This is an axiom.

Quote: bayard

In addition, an all-angle nozzle for such an aircraft is useless

These downloads are not clear to me, do you need it in the end or not?

Quote: bayard

By the way, the replacement of engines with AL-41F-1S was started not so much for the sake of more power, but for the sake of their greater resource (4000 hours versus 2500 hours) and for the sake of unification with other 4+\++ generation aircraft.

Firstly, there is nothing on the Su-34 other than al-31fm and is not planned. Secondly, the real resources are different. Or do you think the 23rd series, ed.99, is less finished than the second 117s?

Quote: bayard

Su-30SM2 will also be with AL-41F-1S

They won’t because it doesn’t fit into the engine compartment. There will be a new engine based on it as a replacement for the entire al-31f family, but this is the future.

Quote: bayard

And how can you order his heart to survive? Without maneuverable and "fighter zakosy"?

Be inconspicuous. Even an old 9-12 will eat fat dry with fucks.

Quote: bayard

And abroad, they have already forgotten about such concepts as "fighter-bomber" and "front-line bomber", there, for the sake of economy and unification, MFIs are involved in everything.

Abroad they cut the loot. Export first. The Air Force of small countries needs both a Swiss and a reaper, and a player on the pipe. They would keep the F-22 if the F-35 is so cool.

Quote: bayard

with two R-579-300 engines (afterburner thrust up to 23 kg.s., without afterburner 000 kg.s.)

This engine is only in Armenian advertisements, all its characteristics are drawn. There are no more glorious engines with the letter R-300. Reality is Lyulka and Klimov.

Quote: bayard

Well, you still don’t equate a genital organ with a finger - the Tu-22M3 is almost 3 times heavier.
But with the new GZ anti-ship missiles, the Su-34M2 will be able to engage naval targets at no less distance than the Tu-22M3 did with Kh-22 missiles in the past.

Until it turns out that he can't. Reality is 1000-1100 km of t.radius + 250 km X-35. How to draw in 2200 + 300 km from these introductory I have no idea.

Quote: bayard

Its task is to reach the launch line and launch the GM anti-ship missiles BD outside the enemy's air defense zone of the KUG / AUG.

To do this, you need a weapon. Yes, one that does not exist, and even if there were a Su-34, it is too tough.

Quote: bayard

There are opportunities to increase internal volumes. In words, I don’t want to, but I would show with my finger where and how.

I'll ask. Given Y, naturally.

Quote: bayard

Due to UVT. But of course, this is only take-off characteristics.

Come on? So I'll tell you: it all works only in the "maneuver" mode

Quote: bayard

Why do you need aerial refueling?
Or did they put refueling rods on the planes for beauty?
This refueling will fix the issue with the combat radius.

How many miles will she add? How many litaks do we fill? In what time? Will the tanker hang out directly at enemy fighters?

[bayard]

Quote: Flying

Will the wing of the Su-34 withstand such a burden?

If he takes one GZ RCC, then under the belly. But the chief designer of the Su-34 claimed that the Su-34, with some refinement, is capable of carrying up to three Onyxes, therefore the other two are under the wings.
The weight of "Onyx" is approximately 3800 kg.
He proposed to make a special modification for the MPA. So the chief designer of this aircraft knows better.

Quote: Flying

Which aircraft in service is its carrier? What are the requirements for a rocket carrier? What are the launch conditions? What about interfacing with on-board equipment?

There is no such aircraft, the Tu-22M3 was originally planned, and the first throws were also carried out on it. But the resource of the Tu-22M3 remaining in service is small and it makes no sense to upgrade them for a promising missile. There is no other . The question arises - which aircraft from those produced can now?
And of those available in production, there is one - the Su-34. But of course in a special modification and equipment. And since the chief designer of the Su-34 allowed such a (similar) load, then it is necessary to choose the Mu-34 in the modification for the MPA.

Quote: Flying

Are you familiar with the concept of balancing resistance? Does it add range? What is the CG range of the Su-27?

It's better for you to contact the Sukhoi Design Bureau. Su-27, Su-30 \ 30SM, Su-35 fly without an armored cockpit, the Su-30SM has a PGO. Of course, in the new Su-34M2 airframe, the centering will be different without an armored cabin, but it will also have other changes in the airframe, so this will have to be calculated in combination. And I don't see anything impossible here. the game is definitely worth the candle.

Quote: Flying

Quote: bayard
Su-30SM2 will also be with AL-41F-1S

They won’t because it doesn’t fit into the engine compartment. There will be a new engine based on it as a replacement for the entire al-31f family, but this is the future.

I heard about those ordeals. But then it was about serial Su-30SM and Su-34, in order to later modernize and install new engines during the middle repair. And in these - serial buildings and their engine nacelles, the AL-41F-1S does not fit.
And in the engine nacelles of the Su-35S climbs .
Why about the Su-35S?
Yes, because it is better to make a new fuselage for the Su-34M2 initially with engine nacelles from the Su-35S, with unification according to the avionics, some lengthening of the fuselage, some increase in the wing area is possible. For an MPA aircraft, this would be justified.

Quote: Flying

So you offer exactly this with your project! Strengthen and enlarge everything.

This is not me, work on the unification of the entire Su-30SM \ 34 \ 35 line has been going on for a long time, and it is a sin not to use this to shape the appearance of the new MPA aircraft.
And "strengthen, increase, improve" is the fate of any successful aircraft.

Quote: Flying

Be inconspicuous. Even an old 9-12 will eat fat dry with fucks.

I also wrote about this - the appearance of a promising MPA aircraft based on an enlarged Su-57 airframe. But with the Su-34 glider, this will not work. But it will turn out to quickly get the necessary carrier of the GZ anti-ship missiles for the MRA.

Quote: Flying

They would keep the F-22 if the F-35 is so cool.

Different aircraft, especially by age and purpose.

Quote: Flying

There are no more glorious engines with the letter R-300. Reality is Lyulka and Klimov.

Let's see, they seem to have opened funding, contracts for the development of some types of such an engine have appeared. Maybe these engines will return. Moreover, these were the best engines at that time (early 90s).
But Lyulka does not cope well with the "Product-30" - the resource cannot be obtained acceptable. Yes, and for VTOL aircraft, an engine is needed, and here you definitely cannot do without the R-579-300. And for the Su-75, this would be very useful.

Quote: Flying

Reality is 1000-1100 km of t.radius + 250 km X-35.

Have you heard about the new modification of the X-35? With a range of 500 km. ? Already in service.
But the MRA will work with promising GZ anti-ship missiles.

Quote: Flying

To do this, you need a weapon. Yes, one that does not exist, and even if there were a Su-34, it is too tough.

This weapon exists, the ship version has passed all the tests and has been adopted, and the aviation version is in the final stage, they promise to bring it to the test soon.

Quote: Flying

How many miles will she add? How many litaks do we fill? In what time? Will the tanker hang out directly at enemy fighters?

Well, you are a "flyer", you should know how refueling is carried out and with what. For the MRA, there will most likely be an Il-78MD90A, this one can give up to 60 tons, so divide by how many aircraft. And at what distance from the airfield. If you distribute 5 tons not far from the airfield, then you can feed the whole squadron.

Quote: Flying

will the enemy fighters hang out?

So he can feed his escort fighters. Everything depends on the type and nature of the task. Maybe 500 km. refuel from the airfield, you can 1000 km.
And everything will work out for us.

[Flying]

Quote: bayard

If he takes one GZ RCC, then under the belly. But the chief designer of the Su-34 claimed that the Su-34, with some refinement, is capable of carrying up to three Onyxes, therefore the other two are under the wings.

His colleague, with a "certain refinement", carries ONE. Moreover, there is such a database that it does not fit under the wing uup.

Quote: bayard

He proposed to make a special modification for the MPA. So the chief designer of this aircraft knows better.

Did. Su-32FN is called. Only now, no one needed him. In short, a commercial failure.

Quote: bayard

But the resource of the Tu-22M3 remaining in service is small and it makes no sense to upgrade them for a promising missile.

I only hear "the resource is small." And how small is that? And how much does the Su-34 have? More?

Quote: bayard

And since the chief designer of the Su-34 allowed such a (similar) load, then it is necessary to choose the Mu-34 in the modification for the MPA.

Zircon allowed? How much does he weigh? What is the length? Does he need SQ?

Quote: bayard

It's better for you to contact the Sukhoi Design Bureau.

Drain counted

Quote: bayard

Of course, in the new Su-34M2 airframe, the centering will be different without an armored cabin, but it will also have other changes in the airframe, so this will have to be calculated in combination. And I don't see anything impossible here. the game is definitely worth the candle.

New glider = new aircraft. By that time, the pack will fly.

Quote: bayard

I heard about those ordeals. But then it was about serial Su-30SM and Su-34, in order to later modernize and install new engines during the middle repair.

What is an average repair? There is no such concept.
The direction of modernization has not changed. Now on the basis of 117 they make 3 modifications of engines for fighters of the 5th generation and one other la. And on the basis of 117c one for the 4th generation. This is the same 30cm2 (not to be confused with smd). These will be Ufa engines. And there will be no other Su-34s except for the Moscow 31fm.

Quote: bayard

This is not me, work on the unification of the entire Su-30SM \ 34 \ 35 line has been going on for a long time, and it is a sin not to use this to shape the appearance of the new MPA aircraft.

34/35 and 30cm are products of DIFFERENT manufacturers from three DIFFERENT factories. They have different levels of equipment. To launch one of them at another plant, a huge amount of technological pre-production is needed.

I also wrote about this - the appearance of a promising MPA aircraft based on an enlarged Su-57 airframe. But with the Su-34 glider, this will not work. But it will turn out to quickly get the necessary carrier of the GZ anti-ship missiles for the MRA.

Again 25. Change everything, but leave the nameplate. Now a normal full-fledged aircraft, edition 80, is being created.

Quote: bayard

But Lyulka does not cope well with the "Product-30" - the resource cannot be obtained acceptable. Yes, and for VTOL aircraft, an engine is needed, and here you definitely cannot do without the R-579-300. And for the Su-75, this would be very useful.

Who said it doesn't work? He's not in the series yet. Do you know what resource the first AL-31F had? Less than 50 hours. And now? p579 generally has 0 because there is NO such engine.

Quote: bayard

Have you heard about the new modification of the X-35? With a range of 500 km. ? Already in service.

Designation? Carriers? So far, the X-35U is the top one. At 300 km.

Quote: bayard

Well, you are a "flyer", you should know how refueling is carried out and with what. For the MRA, there will most likely be an Il-78MD90A, this one can give up to 60 tons, so divide by how many aircraft. And at what distance from the airfield.

And how much time? How much will a tanker and heavy crackers dangling at 5000 burn for it? How many will gather again in the bp? And what will others do at that moment? At what distance will the su-34 release 5 tons?

Quote: bayard

Maybe 500 km. refuel from the airfield, you can 1000 km.

Under the hockey eye and within the radius of the hornets? No, please.

[bayard]

Quote: Flying

His colleague, with a "certain refinement", carries ONE. Moreover, there is such a database that it does not fit under the wing uup.

To attack a target on a database, one GZ RCC under the belly is enough. And the chief designer of the Su-2 spoke about 3 and even 34 Onyx missiles (not lightweight) when it came to the promising MPA aircraft.

Quote: Flying

Su-32FN is called. Only now, no one needed him. In short, a commercial failure.

Deck?
Combat training?
But who, besides the Soviet Union, needed him? Who else had such aircraft carriers? He couldn't help but die.

Quote: Flying

I only hear "the resource is small." And how small is that? And how much does the Su-34 have? More?

The new Su-34M \ M2 definitely has a multiple of . Or do you propose to resume the production of Tu-22M3M?
While the production of the Su-34M2 for the MRA can begin in the very coming years.

Quote: Flying

Zircon allowed? How much does he weigh? What is the length? Does he need SQ?

When throwing tests on the Tu-22M3, the weight of the Zircon prototype was about 4600 kg. , linear dimensions are approximately the same as those of "Onyx".
In the variant with 2 and 3 rockets, ch. the designer probably meant a suspension for engine nacelles, the details are unknown to me, and it doesn’t matter. For even with one such GZ RCC, a Su-34M \ M2 squadron will be able to attack and destroy the AUG at a distance of 1000 km. from the starting point.

Quote: Flying

New glider = new aircraft. By that time, the pack will fly.

Will not fly. New planes don’t fly so fast with us ... Even passenger or transport ones. But there is a Su-34, and the Su-34M is almost ready. The organization of the production cycle of a new modification will not pose any particular problems, compared to a completely new aircraft. Moreover, PAK YES, in the first place, will not be produced for MPA. And the speed / reaction time (preparation time for departure, lower flight speed) will be much less than the Su-34M / M2. Therefore, as a quick solution for the revival of the MRA, the Su-34M \ M2 is more interesting. In a short time and on existing media.

Quote: Flying

Now a normal full-fledged aircraft, edition 80, is being created.

No one has yet assessed its normality and usefulness, has not seen it in the eyes, and the engine for it has not even passed bench tests yet. What are we talking about anyway? Look at the ordeals with the MS-21 ... yes, you won’t look at the attempts to resume production of the IL-76MD90A without tears and gnashing of teeth. And do you believe that PAK YES will take off and enter service in the coming years? Yes, after the first take-off, they will bring it up for another 10-15 years. An example for you is the Su-57.
And the Su-34 is in production, and on the basis of its airframe it is much easier and faster to get exactly what you need to stop threats from sea areas.

Quote: Flying

Do you know what resource the first AL-31F had? Less than 50 hours.

A magpie on the tail brought me here that they are now dreaming of a resource of 500 hours. And this is after so many years of fine-tuning and delays. The campaign has raised the bar too high for itself in such a dimension and weight.
And for the R579-300, both in weight and in dimension, everything looks quite realistic. Lyulkovtsy, becoming monopolists, relaxed rolls without competition. It looks like the competition decided to return. Moreover, there are those who wish and customers for different modifications of such an engine - for completely different aircraft.

Quote: Flying

Designation? Carriers? So far, the X-35U is the top one. At 300 km.

Gossip from the last exhibition, the news slipped on several resources. On this resource too. But it's still a light anti-ship missile, with warheads weaker than those of the "Harpoon".

Quote: Flying

And how much time? How much will a tanker and heavy crackers dangling at 5000 burn for it? How many will gather again in the bp? And what will others do at that moment? At what distance will the su-34 release 5 tons?

MPA airfields are never placed near the coast, they are hidden several hundred kilometers inland. So you can refuel within your own territorial waters. Everything depends on the task. And more than one tanker should refuel a squadron. Moreover, he can feed two dryers at the same time ... Maybe three, but here it’s already as a matter of safety.

Quote: Flying

Under the hockey eye and within the radius of the hornets?

Yes, why would it, if the range of destruction of the "Zircon" is 1000 km.+? Especially under the supervision and cover of their own fighters.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Flying

His colleague, with a "certain refinement", carries ONE. Moreover, there is such a database that it does not fit under the wing uup.

The center section of the Su-34 is designed differently. It is significantly reinforced and allows two close hardpoints to carry heavy missile weapons.

And uv. bayard I have repeatedly written to you that the aircraft designer R.G. Martirosov himself spoke about the possibility of creating a strike aircraft for naval missile-carrying aviation. He talked about the possibility of hanging at least two Onyxes on the wing nodes.

Quote: Flying

Did. Su-32FN is called. Only now, no one needed him. In short, a commercial failure.

did NOT. Planned to do. The project did not take place in the 90s. And at that time, let me remind you, nobody needed anything at all. All modern weapons, including the Ka-52 and Mi-28, Iskander and Caliber, were exposed as a commercial failure. To evaluate the technical perfection of a sample by the parameter "commercial failure of the 90s" is, excuse me, a profanity.
In any case, the MPA park simply does not have any other real prospects. If you are waiting for the naval Su-57, then in vain, a machine of this class simply cannot become mass-produced, even the United States did not succeed in this, despite the absolutely crazy size of their defense budget. The Su-30, no matter how you adapt it, has been and will remain a fighter. He will not be able to carry more than one heavy anti-ship missile, and in the form of "one carrier - one missile" MRA simply does not make sense, which was clearly shown by the history of the same Tu-22M.
And no one will make a new aircraft specifically for the MPA. Exactly for the same reason why no one will make a new helicopter for the fleet. Small size series. You can criticize the Su-34 and this criticism will be fair somewhere, but somewhere not, but reality leaves no choice: if the MRA of our fleet has a future, then this is the Su-34 modernized and adapted to the needs of the fleet. The objective reality is that the fleet can only count on SINGLE samples with other branches of the military.

Moreover, you may be surprised, but in 2018 a plan to modernize the Su-34 for naval needs (actually a modernized project from the 90s) was proposed to the naval command. And aroused genuine enthusiasm. Since he intended to create a universal aircraft for naval aviation. But in 2020, the program was stopped among many others.

[militarist63]

"The dagger is good for the one who has it, and bad for the one who does not have it at the right time"

That's right!

[Snail N9]

As the development showed, with "cosmic speed" according to the author, air defense systems, the era of classical aviation "rested in Bose." The future belongs to unmanned aircraft and stealth aircraft with super-maneuverability based on a deflectable thrust vector. Such sabzh - "flying irons", their era of the 60s of the last century, no matter how they are modernized, will not even reach the enemy - they will be destroyed along the way. And you can shoot missiles from your territory, even from a converted airliner or transporter, and even cheaper, just from a transport and launcher in a car. There is no place left for classical aviation in the conditions of the modern battlefield, saturated with a variety of ultra-fast means of detection, response and destruction.

[puteovii]

B1B Lancer is to some extent an analogue of the Tu 22. Not a direct reflection, but still. Yes, and no, neither the United States nor the Europeans have such specific tasks as: Bistro to bring to the line of attack N the number of massive anti-ship missiles.

[IVZ]

The Tu-22 had a lot of problems and shortcomings, but the Tu-22M3M is its development

. "Beaute" - "Charm" aka Tu-22 and Tu-22M3M have nothing in common. "Work on the project of the long-range missile carrier" 145 "began at the design bureau in 1965. At the initial stage, the design bureau led the design on its own initiative. Indeed, back in 1962, the T-4 Design Bureau P.O. The government decree on the development of the aircraft appeared only at the end of 1967, and so far there was only a joint decision on the topic by the Minister of the Aviation Industry P.V. Dementiev and the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force P.S. Kutakhov, which received the support of D.F. Ustinov, who was responsible for Military-industrial complex. The Design Bureau conducted all the work without state subsidies. Since the work in the Design Bureau was carried out on a "semi-legal" basis and, apparently, due to the requirements of the regime, the topic at all levels was declared as a deep modernization of the Tu-22K, and if at the beginning of work on the project this more or less corresponded to reality, then in the course of the development of the general project they had a tactical purpose, and a bomb bay capable of holding up to 12 tons of bombs.As a result, the project of the "145" aircraft, which receivedThe official designation of the Tu-22M (aircraft "UM", "AM", "45") in the course of its development turned into a completely new machine that had little resemblance to the Tu-22. http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/tu22m0.html

[Sergey39]

The last one was F 111

[IVZ]

More precisely FB-111 and Mirage-4

[Sergey Valov]

“I don’t see an analogue of the Tu-22 among the Americans” - the Americans have no analogues, because they don’t need them.

[bk0010]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

I don’t see an analogue of the Tu-22 among the Americans

They do not need an analogue of the Tu-22: they do not have the tasks of destroying the enemy's AUG with base aviation. And so - it looked like the F-111 in the bomber version.

[puteovii]

F 111 was just a museum for Su 24.

[bk0010]

The Su-24 is our answer to one of the F-111 modifications, and there were options from a naval interceptor to a strategic bomber.

[Lt. Air Force stock]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

Tu-22M3M its development.

Yes, this is good, but this is a modernization, but what about a replacement? It seems that they plan to use the subsonic PAKDA.

[Dilettante grandfather]

Wait and see.

[bayard]

Quote: Lt. air force reserve

It seems that they plan to use the subsonic PAKDA.

There, the hen is still in the nest ... and the rooster did not trample on it.
The Su-34M (with AL-41F-1S and new avionics) is quite suitable for replacement, as the carrier of two promising anti-ship missiles. The smaller radius of the carrier is compensated by the increased range of hypersonic anti-ship missiles. In addition, he will be able to carry explosive missiles for self-defense. And it is possible and necessary to build such aircraft for the MRA now. And one of these will cost about 40 million dollars. (in its current form, the Su-34 costs about 30 million dollars).

[Fitter65]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

The Tu-22 had a lot of problems and shortcomings, but the Tu-22M3M is its development.

Of course of course!!! Here is the Tu-22

True, this is a Tu-22 KD - a missile carrier, 1965, carries one X-22 type missile. Could be converted into a bomber by the forces of the combat unit.

This is Tu-22PD - jammer. But this is Tu-22m2

As they say - find the difference! Regarding the Tu-22m1- A total of 9 aircraft and one airframe for static tests were manufactured (ser. No. 405). The Tu-22M1 never entered the combat units of the USSR Air Force. I don’t know if Roma rewrote it in his opus, to be honest, I didn’t read this work. And here is his article

Who's next in line for re-education?

even upvoted. But we dance on

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

For example, I don’t see an analogue of the Tu-22 among the Americans

It's just that you're looking in the wrong place.

Introducing- Convair B-58 "Hasler" (Eng. Convair B-58 Hustler) - the world's first supersonic long-range bomber, which was in service with the US Air Force Strategic Command in the 1960s !!! Do not believe that the first?!!! The first flight- November 11 1956 years. Tu-22 (product 105) - 21 June 1958 year. Tu-22m - August 30, 1969. And the B-58 was withdrawn from service on January 16, 1970, 4,5 months after the first takeoff of the Tu-22m.

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

I wonder if the Europeans don't have this either? Once upon a time there were all sorts of Volcanoes, now they seem to be gone.

Vulcan and all sorts of Valients and Victors were subsonic, but one of the first strategists. The so-called V-bombers ... The French had a Dassault Mirage IV (fr. Dassault Mirage IV) - a French long-range supersonic all-weather bomber. He made his first flight on June 17, 1959. It took off only a year later than our Tu-22. The bomber was decommissioned in 1996, and the reconnaissance aircraft based on it as early as 2005. Instead of the Mirage IV, in the 80s, carriers of tactical nuclear weapons began to enter service with the Mirages -2000 ... Now they have a carrier of nuclear weapons - Rafale BM (original name Rafale N). As they say, big boys have big toys. The little ones are not very big, those who doubt whether they took away such toys as a boy (in the UK, all carriers of nuclear weapons belong to the United States, like nuclear weapons themselves). Let's keep quiet about Germany, Italy, or the "great Netherlands".

[Dilettante grandfather]

Convair B-58 "Hasler" (eng. Convair B-58 Hustler) - the world's first supersonic long-range bomber, which was in service with the US Air Force Strategic Command in the 1960s !!! Do not believe that the first?!!! First flight - November 11, 1956. Tu-22 (product 105) - June 21, 1958. Tu-22m - August 30, 1969. And the B-58 was withdrawn from service - January 16, 1970-

I'm talking about today. And still I don’t see an analogue in the USA with our Tu-22. Which, by the way, are quite in service.
Yes, the Tu-22Ms that are now in service are not the same Tu-22s. But this is a direct descendant of the 22nd. The glider, albeit with changes, remained the same.
The Tu-104 is also never a Tu-16, but is a close relative, which is why I am writing here that the current Tu-22M is a development of the Tu-22.

[Fitter65]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

And still I don’t see an analogue in the USA with our Tu-22. Which, by the way, are quite in service.

Tu-22s are only in museums.

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

Yes, the Tu-22M, which are now in service, are not the same Tu-22

If you do not distinguish between a bull's tail and a traffic controller's baton, then why are you trying to be smart here

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

But this is a direct descendant of the 22nd. The glider, albeit with changes, remained the same.

As I understand it, you even read an article to Romin through a paragraph. In common, the Tu-22 and Tu-22m had only the design of the nose landing gear. This joke went to the Design Bureau of A.N. Tupolev during the design of the Tu-22m. I can recommend YOU PERSONALLY to read these publications. Of course, about the Tu-22, no problem.

According to Tu-22m/m3. there are articles and monographs in magazines, to be honest, I’m too lazy to look, I’ll throw off what you can find on the first click

Of course, there is also a corner of the sky ... But of course there is one minus - it all needs to be read, somehow perceived and comprehended.

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

The Tu-104 is also never a Tu-16, but is a close relative, which is why I am writing here that the current Tu-22M is a development of the Tu-22.

If you read a little more, you would know that the Tu-124, and then the Tu-134 were a further modification of the Tu-104, a passenger aircraft based on the Tu-16, like the Tu-114 based on the Tu-95. Here, in the first, in the second, the basis of the design is the same - the bomber, roughly speaking, only the fuselage is different. It is possible to cite the An-10/12 for general development, with the An-24/26/30/32, there is generally (if simplified) an external difference in the tail section. Unlike the Tu-22 > Tu-22m, there are only 2 in common letters, hyphens and numbers, and the main difference is the letter "M". It's like the T-58 was the Su-15, but the T-58M became the Su-24 (T-6) a completely different aircraft.

[Luminman]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

I wonder if the Europeans don't have this either?

I don't think so. They do not allow to have such an aircraft in very limited territories ...

[Paladin]

There is nothing even close to it.

[Region-25.rus]

The plane is beautiful! For a year and a half (out of two) I watched the flights of "Backfires" In Mongokhto! Epic spectacle! And no less epic soundtrack (performed by afterburner engines) Then there were Tu-22M2

[Paladin]

115 aircraft are 8 full-fledged regiments in the DA of the Russian Aerospace Forces.

Actually, 115 aircraft, these are three full-fledged regiments. If we stretch, then four, maximum.

[NSV]

It’s good that these beauties are not left in the pig farm !!! The pitchforks painted on the tail are clearly out of place here!

[AlexVas44]

... was already in service - T-4 designed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau ...

Unfortunately, this did not happen.
Question to the author: were there really no aircraft with Russian or Soviet identification marks to illustrate the TU-22M3?

[AlexTss]

Question to the author: were there really no aircraft with Russian or Soviet identification marks to illustrate the TU-22M3?

[Fitter65]

Quote: AlexVas44

Question to the author: were there really no aircraft with Russian or Soviet identification marks to illustrate the TU-22M3?

Having stumbled upon your question, I decided to look, what did Roma throw here? In reality, Tu-22M3 with Ukrainian OZs are very relevant in Russia today. Especially considering that they only had it in the museum. And so, Roma usually shoots photographs (I can’t find another synonym) according to the method - if only there were. Without being distracted by the captions under the photo. Well, some photos in the articles even drive 2 times. So everything is fine.

[U-58]

And why not take IL-86/96, place drum kits in the fuselage, charge them with Mosquitoes, Storms, Gremlins.
Let these planes in the third echelon and ... completely defeat the adversary with mass launches. The idea is not new, invented by the Americans back in the late 70s

[IVZ]

Different standards for the design of not only avionics, but also a glider. Will not pass the MO test.

[Sergey Valov]

“Why not take the IL-86/96, place drum sets in the fuselage” - this is almost impossible.

[Thorvlobnor IV]

The Americans came up with a slightly different idea: a transport aircraft carries special pallets with cruise missiles and drops them from the rear cargo hatch. The pallet, having fallen out of the plane, fires missiles that go to the targets.

[Mustached Kok]

First of all, they weren't the only ones who came up with it. We also planned to use the An-22 for the same tasks
Secondly, experiments both with them and with us have shown the extreme unreliability of such a launch system. That's why the programs for them and for us were curtailed

[Thorvlobnor IV]

"They" did not turn anything. Last December there was a real launch of a JASSM combat missile from a pallet.

[Fitter65]

Quote: U-58

And why not take the IL-86/96, place drum sets in the fuselage,

And this is asked by a person who here designates himself as an aviator !!! Well, they placed drum kits in the fuselage of the IL-86/96, loaded them with Mosquitoes, Storms, Gremlins ... And then what? How will they "shoot" them? Through where? For general development. The USSR Air Force used transport Li-2NBs as night bombers. True, only some of them could carry cassettes for the FAB-100 in the cabin, the alteration was not worth the sheepskin, the bulk (about 200-odd aircraft) were equipped only with an external suspension of bombs under the center section - between the chassis. And if we compare the maximum speed of the Li-2 and the take-off speed of the Il-86 .., then the question is simply stupid, I said this gently.

[U-58]

Then, when I was an aviator, there were such topics. Accurate after 1975. And the device was meant (by whom, I won’t say) TU-134
But then fate threw me into other, higher spheres.

[Fitter65]

Quote: U-58

But then fate threw me into other, higher spheres.

Place drum sets in the fuselage of the IL-86/96?

[U-58]

Much higher)))

[Kim]

Quote: Snail N9

And you can shoot missiles from your territory, even from a converted airliner or transporter, and even cheaper, just from a transport and launcher in a car.

by the way
a few years ago it was described - EMNIP, nuclear - a weapon in container format, 40 or 80 feet
"lose" a hundred of them on the territory of the "probable enemy" ...

[Monar]

On Discovery (if I'm not mistaken) there was a transmission. In the US, abandoned containers are sold at auction. Don't let anyone dig inside.
I imagine the reaction of the American. I spent 3k of their rubles and got a modern nuclear loaf.

[Ros 56]

A beautiful plane, it flies beautifully, and for a long time, with the appropriate changes.

[Whowhy]

Takeoff at the minimum sweep angle of the wing and further supersonic flight at maximum angles of attack.

[Alexey RA]

Oh yeah... supersonic flight at maximum angles of attack.

Fuck feathers - I want to see it!

©

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

Tu-22M3 (hereinafter - Tu-22), the only long-range aircraft that can carry bombs. Both the Tu-160 and Tu-95 are pure missile carriers.
In the event of a global war, yes - they are the basis of our air part of the TRIAD. But in conflicts of lesser tension, it is sad to remain without the possibility of heavy bombing, and the Tu-22 can even drop the "dad of all bombs", and other heavy bombs, including those to destroy buried objects, or fill the area with several tens of 500 at a time .. .
Over time, the Tu-22 will be replaced by the PAK-DA, but it will change them in the first place. The Tu-160m2 will gradually replace the Tu-95, this is why they launched their production, but these are pure missile carriers, and the PAK-DA will be able to carry bombs (that's what stealth is for).
By the way, the Tu-160 also used stealth technology, even on the first versions. They are not as perfect as on special machines, but its EPR is reduced to the MiG-31 EPR that covers it, as a result, even if the group was seen, the enemy thought that it was fighters flying supersonic, also did not know how many bombers were in the group, and also very it was hard to pick a target. As a result, even if the ship suddenly fired a salvo of missiles, or the MiGs could not shoot down all the fighters before they launched the missiles, there was a great chance that the missiles would hit the MiGs, and the Tu-160s would be able to enter the launch area and strike at enemy territories.
But PAK-DA will go into production no earlier than the 40s, so that until the middle of the century the Tu-22 will continue to be in service, making up the mosh of bomber aircraft, well, using daggers, as well as carrying air-based anti-ship missiles, a salvo of the Tu-22 regiment should once again put a potential enemy to the bottom of the AUG.

[neworange88]

.But PAK-DA will go into the series no earlier than the 40s,

According to the plan, in 2027 the serial production of PAK DA.

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

And how many of them will be made in 2027? 2 aircraft a year, this is ridiculous ... In fact, they will work out production for many years before scaling it up. On a normal series before the 40s will not come out. Well, if they come out, I’m only glad, but my experience tells me that they will reach normal production rates only in the forties, and just by the middle of the century, 22 will begin to be massively decommissioned. For this, PAK YES should be at least 70-80 pieces, and better built more ...
It will be earlier, well, I indicated not the most optimistic, but a real option ... Until I build 70-80 pieces, they will not write off massively 22.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Georgy Sviridov_2

Tu-22M3 (hereinafter - Tu-22), the only long-range aircraft that can carry bombs. And Tu-160 and Tu-95 are pure missile carriers.

TTX Tu-160

https://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/air/weapons/aviation/more.htm?id=10332841@morfMilitaryModel

[AC130 Gunship]

Park Yes? What are you talking about?

[bk0010]

Quote: Georgy Sviridov_2

Both the Tu-160 and Tu-95 are pure missile carriers.

No. Tu-160 was taught to bomb not so long ago.

[Bad_gr]

In addition, the Tu-22M3 has the largest bomb bay among our bombers:

[Radical]

Quote: U-58

And why not take IL-86/96, place drum kits in the fuselage, charge them with Mosquitoes, Storms, Gremlins.
Let these planes in the third echelon and ... completely defeat the adversary with mass launches. The idea is not new, invented by the Americans back in the late 70s

It is better to make strategic tankers out of these aircraft, which we, unlike the United States, do not have. They would just come in handy for the same Tu-22M3, Tu-160, Su-34, and escort fighters.

[Vikxnumx]

Author, check the text when copying! I even tore different speeds ... The T-4 was not in service.

[Yellow bubble]

We will not be, and even in a hundred years it will be modernized and the thing will fly.

[bk0010]

Practically, in terms of flight characteristics, it was possible to reach the requirements of 1967, with a significant increase in the combat capabilities of the aircraft and the entire complex. Joint state tests of the Tu-22M3 were completed in 1981, and the aircraft was recommended for adoption.

Hmm ... 14 years ... The trouble is with our engines.

Although the Tu-22M2 was not equipped, like the American B-1 bomber, with an automatic terrain following system

It's a pity. There is clearly nothing to go around over the sea, but such a system would be useful now.

[zombirusrev]

We need orbital rocket platforms, at least throw stones, then no one will prove anything, because the material is natural ..

[iouris]

The era of bombers is over, because planes do not fly where there is air defense. And why are air-launched missiles needed if the time for pre-flight preparation of a YES aircraft is several hours (if not days) plus the time for delivering missiles to the launch point. In addition, the vulnerability of basing sites, operating costs ...

[Bad_gr]

Quote: iouris

if the pre-flight preparation time of the aircraft is YES - several hours (if not days) plus the time for the delivery of missiles to the launch point

And he is not needed for this, in order to take to the air in the case of "H" and respond to the aggressor. Its main purpose is to fly near the border with a vigorous bomb and remind that in which case something will fly from us ...
A nuclear submarine, of course, will be more terrible, but you can’t see it, but this one is in all its glory, and very close by.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: iouris

And why are air-launched missiles needed if the time for pre-flight preparation of the YES aircraft is several hours (if not days)

You can, of course, cook for months, but you can do it differently - as the Americans used to be on duty. In readiness to raise a regiment of B-52s according to a nuclear attack seen from satellites - that is, the time to take off was measured by strength in tens of minutes

[iouris]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

takeoff time was measured in tens of minutes at most

You can probably prepare for such a take-off for a long time, and even take off, but it will not work for a long time to ensure such a level of combat readiness for long-range bombers (and fighters too): the reliability of equipment is a factor that is not visible to outside observers, and it significantly affects combat capability. RSDs of the SS-20 type, therefore, were barbarously cut, because they held the whole of Europe at gunpoint and could destroy it in tens of minutes. And the planes, if they manage to take off, will be intercepted.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: iouris

You can probably prepare for such a take-off for a long time, and even take off, but it will not work for a long time to ensure such a level of combat readiness for long-range bombers (and even fighters):

It turned out. It is clear that not the entire park is in such readiness, but a significant part of it.

Quote: iouris

And the planes, if they manage to take off, will be intercepted.

What? :))) Where are the fighters over the North Pole from? :)

[iouris]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

What? :))) Where are the fighters over the North Pole from? :)

The Arctic direction of the United States is considered as important. The whole NORAD command is following this direction. It is not necessary to defend the North Pole. There are fighter jets in Alaska. Study the question.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

I studied, unlike you, and I know that fighters in Alaska can work at maximum on cruise missiles, but not on their carriers. And I also know that the presence of strategists forces the Americans to spend significant forces on the cover of their early warning system.

[AC130 Gunship]

Elmendorf is a huge base. Fighters were always there. The F22 was almost the first to be sent there to replace the F15

[AC130 Gunship]

This has never happened. I served in the mid-80s and it was my job to keep track of their Air Force. They raised several hundred B52s, but that was once a year at the Global Shield in the middle of the summer. It was called "mass start". It took weeks to prepare for it.

[Dimcor]

Every time someone said that the era of something was over, then it was very often returned to service. In Syria, get out bomby and bomby, why not? And when Mariupol was in a tight ring, from a great height, it was also no problem at all. A bomber is tons and tons of bombs.

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

A very sensible article. But, by today's standards, it's too big for one time. For the convenience of the TikTok generation and other victims of the Unified State Examination and the Bologna system, it would make sense to divide it into three parts.

[Stalnov I.P.]

All aircraft must be repaired and put into operation, used depending on the purpose. Such massive aircraft, old modifications with new missiles. I'm sure they'd make a fuss. So cruise missiles from submarines and ships were decommissioned, and why not use them in the NWO, the power is such that they will run away from fear, a simple charge of 1 ton. We need to be careful about these issues.

[Horfrost]

And what chances does he have against AUGs and surface ships, if he is really equipped with daggers or zircons?

[Bogatyrev]

But by the way, what in Europe can be attacked with this "hundred irresistible Daggers"? Well, so that even straight they were scared, as the author believes?
If these are government buildings, then they will say - and to hell with them. We are unlikely to attack nuclear power plants. And then what is the real weight of this factor of hundreds of Daggers?
How many "irresistible accurate" strikes have already arrived in Ukraine? Not one hundred. And not two. And not five. And the result?

[Puper driver]

And why is he, in the light of SVO? It will fly, it will be shot down, because there the air defense is guaranteed not to be suppressed. And from thousands of kilometers, "Caliber", "Iskander", etc., will be launched. Unless, of course, they stick. Of our entire type, "there are no analogues", only "Solntsepek" is effective. Too bad it doesn't shoot very far. And, in general, a strange war. Sorry SVO. Something, or someone, is preventing the rink from rolling. Or the cunning plan did not work out from the very beginning. The ears are tired of chatting.

[Eug]

Among my fellow villagers there is (I really hope that everything is in order with him and his relatives) a test pilot who "put on the wing" even the first versions of the Tu-22 - with a "pillar" in the cockpit and ejection down. Unfortunately, they talked with him mainly when receiving humanitarian aid (there were no other options, they were already flying around the village then, although not in the same way as later) and discussed mainly his further work at KhAZ, where he was also a test pilot. Over time, I hope to learn and lay out more details, but only with his approval.

[Eug]

It is strange that the article does not mention (or I did not find) the very popular "name" of this aircraft - "Backfire". That's what Western "voices" called him in the 80s. And its meaning and "popularity" was already indicated by the fact that we listened to musical broadcasts by "voices", but Backfire was mentioned quite often in them ... and how they roared ... guarded the gardens near Guards, on the corner of the garden was located long-range drive of the Tu-16 regiment from the airfield of the same name, but when Tu-22 M (x) flights began from Oktyabrsky, it was HEARD ... Eh ... where is the music of flights ... And their combat use for AUGs and AUSs is detailed painted in one of the books of Maxim Kalashnikov.

[Yellow bubble]

We need to return, the air refueling system. And so, this plane has just begun.

[komvap]

Funny - "aircraft carrier killer".
We first need to return the Russian lands,
near which there are no aircraft carriers in principle.

[Grossvater]

was already in service - T-4 designed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau.

Wow! But the men don't know!

[Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev]

With the help of the Tu-22M3M in the element, it is possible to destroy all the defensive structures of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Donbass in a few days. To ship 20 tons of bombs to enemy combat positions in one sortie is impressive. Due to the density and power of bombing, this is the most effective means of delivering a fire strike on areas. Imagine, after bombing on enemy territory, instead of military equipment and concrete firing points, only a plowed field remains.

[AC130 Gunship]

The guidance systems of modern missiles require modern imported microchips, which are now very difficult to buy. Therefore, "hundreds" of missiles is a distant future.
And the question is: how do you plan to form 115 regiments out of 8 aircraft?

[Spichka]

Can you tell me exactly which foreign microcircuits the Russian Federation needs to buy for guidance systems of modern missiles? Of course you can't tell because you don't know.

[AC130 Gunship]

A criminal case was opened against the former minister, who on the air called both the brand of microchips and what nameplate they stick on him to hide that he is not Russian...

[bsk_una]

Looking at such beauties, I am proud of the time in which we lived, where the power of the USSR was adequate. Why are modern leaders from the president to the last clerk so blaming the USSR? About the Chubais, Silyanovs, Kudrins, Khristenkovs, Golikovs, Nabiulins and the like, of which there are already about two million in the country, it is clear that they are all vassals of the impudent Saxons. But what the president took such a position is not clear? After all, the country lives on the fragments of the USSR, they use the labor of millions of Soviet people, who created the basis of security for the present! Where are the modern developments and weapons?! Where is the modern economy. which is the stabilizing and attractive force for the whole world?

[MakStVik]

"Takeoff at the minimum sweep angle of the wing and further supersonic flight at maximum angles of attack." - the angle of attack is not the sweep angle of the wing. After all, at that time the plane, which was presented as a "killer of aircraft carriers", was already in service - the T-4 designed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau. - did not know that "Sotka" was in service

[sifgame]

Yes, in general, the Tu-22M3 has not yet said anything serious.

[Sergio63]

A beautiful and most importantly necessary aircraft for Russia !!! Glory to our Motherland-Russia!!!!

[Sergey Drozdov]

This is what life-giving socialism did...

[TANKISTONE]

Aviation Museum, mid-August 2021:

Tu-22m0
Tu-22M0 (nozzles)
Tu-22M0 (nozzle)
Tu-22M0 (tail)

Tu-22M0 (chassis)

[TANKISTONE]

Aviation Museum. OK. Antonova:

Tu-22M0 (root and moving parts of the wing)
Tu-22M0 chassis followed by Tu-22M2 chassis

Tu-22M2

[TANKISTONE]

Aviation Museum. O.K.Antonova in Kiev in August 2021:

Tu-22M3
Tu-22M3 air intake
Tu-22M3 and X-22 under the left wing

Tu-22M3 and X-22 under the right wing

[Private SA]

Quote: Sergey Valov

“I don’t see an analogue of the Tu-22 among the Americans” - the Americans have no analogues, because they don’t need them.

Fb-111s were once bombed at Gaddafi's palace after the Boeing crash at Lockerbie.
Departing from bases in the UK. The speeds are comparable, the bomb load, of course, is smaller
according to Wikipedia. Sorry, I didn’t fly either in the pilot’s seat, or in the seat of the “navigator-scorer” ...