FAB-3000 and its prospects

156
FAB-3000 and its prospects
Defense Minister S. Shoigu inspects ammunition production


Russian defense industry supplies aerospace forces aviation bombs of a number of types. Recently it became known that the range of such products has been expanded to include large-caliber ammunition. Production of the FAB-3000 aerial bomb, designed to combat complex and protected targets of various kinds, was resumed. Now we can expect that in the near future such ammunition will reach the troops and be used as part of the Special Operation.



Back in the series


On March 21, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu visited one of the enterprises of the military-industrial complex in the Nizhny Novgorod region. The name of the plant was not officially disclosed by the Ministry of Defense. The plant produces a wide range of artillery and aviation ammunition of different classes, types and calibers. In particular, it produces high-explosive free-fall bombs.

The plant management reported on the success of production. Thus, compared to last year, the overall production rate of all types of ammunition increased fivefold. In particular, the production of FAB-500 bombs increased several times, and the production of FAB-1500 doubled. In addition, in February, the enterprise organized the process of mass production of FAB-3000 heavy bombs.

Such successes were achieved through the modernization and expansion of production, as well as through an increase in the number of jobs. From 2022 to the present, the plant has reconstructed, modernized and commissioned more than 45 thousand square meters of production space. In addition, over 1100 new jobs were created. Work was organized in three shifts and wages were increased.


Several types of bomb casings. Far left - FAB-3000-M54

The Ministry of Defense published a video report about the visit of the head of the department to the plant. It shows some production areas, gross products at different stages of production, etc. The video also included some reports from the plant management.

Of particular interest are the footage showing the production process of the FAB-3000 serial bombs. The bomb casings are shown in a vertical position, probably during loading with explosives, as well as the final assembly of the finished products. No more than two or three products appear in the frame at a time, but it is clear that even a daily release can be many times larger.

According to the management of the unnamed manufacturing plant, production of FAB-3000 was restored in February. This means that the first products of the new serial batches could already be shipped to the customer and delivered to the videoconferencing units. It is not yet known which parts will be used. However, there is no doubt that their combat use will not go unnoticed.

In large caliber


The FAB-3000 product belongs to the class of free-falling high-explosive general purpose aircraft bombs. This weapon intended to destroy manpower in open areas and in shelters, equipment and weapons at deployment sites and firing positions, control posts, logistics and rear facilities, etc. At the same time, the FAB-3000 differs from a number of other products of its class in its large caliber, which determines its increased power and special combat qualities.

In the video from the Ministry of Defense, the markings of serial bombs are not completely visible. However, the visible fragment and appearance of the products makes it easy to identify the modification returned to the series. The FAB-3000 shown has a characteristic shortened body and an anti-ricochet ring on the head fairing. This appearance corresponds to the line of domestic high-explosive bombs mod. 1954


Bombs of different models. In the foreground is FAB-1500, behind it is FAB-3000

FAB-3000-M54 has a total length of approx. 3,3 m with a case diameter of 820 mm. Stabilizer diameter – approx. 1 m. The bomb is made in a body of complex shape, formed by several conical units. The head fairing has an increased thickness to allow penetration into the ground. Ricochet is prevented by a special ring protrusion. The tail section has a stabilizer with eight planes and two rings.

The total mass of the bomb without fuses reaches 3067 kg. Of this, the body accounts for 1600 kg. The explosive charge is 1387 kg. Depending on the production period and series, TNT or mixtures based on it were used. The bomb is equipped with three fuses. Their nests are located in the head and tail parts of the body. Detonation is possible directly upon contact with the target or with deceleration, to break through a fortification or bury it in the ground.

The FAB-3000-M54 air bomb can be used by long-range bombers Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS. Ammunition is placed on the internal and external sling. There is also information about the fundamental possibility of placing the Su-34 on a front-line bomber, however, in this case there are limitations associated with the overall carrying capacity and the load on one suspension point.

Dropping such a bomb is possible at speeds of up to 1200 km/h and at altitudes of up to 16000 m. The bomb is free-falling and flies along a ballistic trajectory at a distance of up to several kilometers.


FAB-250 bomb with UMPC module

Detonation of a FAB-3000 at ground level is guaranteed to kill enemy personnel within a radius of 35-40 m. At distances of up to 155-160 m, injuries of varying severity are observed, incapacitating enemy personnel. In addition, the ammunition causes serious damage to equipment, incl. armored, fortified buildings, etc. A direct hit on an armored vehicle or field fortification is guaranteed to destroy it.

Practical application


The first version of the FAB-3000 aerial bomb was created back in the forties, and a few years later a modification mod. 1954 Products of all versions were used by Soviet combat aviation during various exercises and confirmed their potential. In the late eighties, such weapons were used for the first time against real targets - heavy bombs were used to attack enemy targets in Afghanistan. Overall, good results were demonstrated.

It is known that in the spring of 2022, FAB-3000 bombs of the basic version were used by long-range aviation against Ukrainian fortifications on the territory of the Azovstal plant in Mariupol. With their help, significant damage was caused to the enemy. In addition, large-caliber bombs had a significant psychological impact on the militants and contributed to their speedy surrender.

To date, a decision has been made and implemented to resume production of FAB-3000 bombs in the 1954 modification. The first batches of such products could already have reached the troops and are probably now being prepared for combat use. Reports of new attacks using heavy aerial bombs may appear at any time.


Several FAB-250 UMPC after reset

At the level of rumors and general discussions, the possibility of modernizing the existing FAB-3000 appears. There is a version that a so-called bomb could be created for such a bomb. universal planning and correction module (UMPC). With the help of such products, several free-falling bombs have already been turned into high-precision weapons, and it cannot be ruled out that a similar procedure will be done with three-ton ammunition, although this will not be easy.

The appearance of a 3000 kg caliber adjustable bomb in service will have a very serious impact on the combat capabilities of front-line and long-range aviation. Such a product can become a unique tool that allows you to accurately attack a selected object and inflict extremely high damage on it. At the same time, the VKS will have at its disposal a number of simple-designed and inexpensive guided munitions, which will provide obvious advantages.

Age and efficiency


Thus, the Aerospace Forces decided to replenish the existing stocks of FAB-3000-M54 aerial bombs, and industry ensures the implementation of these plans. Since February, products of new series have been shipped to the troops, and it is obvious that their production will continue until all plans are fully implemented. At the same time, defense enterprises will continue to produce other types of bombs.

FAB-3000 products of any modifications are not distinguished by their novelty in design. However, their high tactical and technical characteristics actually remove the issue of age, and such bombs still remain a convenient and effective weapon. In addition, there are developments that can further improve the combat qualities of the new heavy bomb. Which of these opportunities will be used will become known in the near future.
156 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    26 March 2024 04: 24
    Interestingly, it is possible to destroy the Dnieper bridge with a blow from one FAB 3000.
    Bombers would like to hear your opinion.
    1. +3
      26 March 2024 06: 41
      Are the Soviet reserves of FABs already exhausted?
      1. +14
        26 March 2024 10: 46
        The author touched on part of the question and I think intentionally! And with the help of what aircraft can we use such bombs?
        Here's an opinion from another article:
        Experts name two aircraft that the Russian Aerospace Forces can use to deliver “three-ton sledgehammers” to the drop site. These are the front-line supersonic fighter-bomber Su-34 and the long-range supersonic missile carrier-bomber Tu-22M3.

        https://topcor.ru/45669-massirovannoe-primenenie-upab-3000-potrebuet-reshit-problemu-s-ih-nositeljami.html
        Well, we won’t touch the barely alive Tu-22M3 missile carrier. There are few of them and they have other tasks.
        And we have only about 34 Su-120s on paper, listed throughout the entire vast country.
        When 5 years ago, I said that, given our situation, we need at least 300, and preferably 500 Su-34s, they laughed at me and twisted their finger at my temple. Remember the size of our aviation on paper:
        https://aviation21.ru/sostav-boevoj-aviacii-vks-rossii-na-2023-god/

        attack aircraft
        Type Qty. for 2021 Qty. for 2023
        MiG-29 255 ..... 240
        MiG-31 131 ..... 129
        Su-24 274 ..... 273
        Su-25 193 .... 197
        Су-27/30/35 242 253
        Su-34 125 ..... 127
        Su-57 - 1 (10*)
        Tu-22M 66 59
        Tu-95 42 47
        Tu-160 16 15**

        Now let’s clarify the substance and evaluate the level of postscripts. All simple Mig-29s are useless rubbish even for SVO. And there are no more than 29 new Mig-29s of the Mis-80SMT type. The Su-24M is a useless machine with a non-functional system. Less than half of the Su-25s are in service. In total, at least 500 aircraft are listed only on paper.
        https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4642641.html
        We have virtually no strike aircraft...And the SVO shows this. What kind of air superiority, even in a local conflict, can we talk about? 3 US aircraft carriers have more attack aircraft than Russia....
        1. +5
          26 March 2024 11: 20
          I would like to confirm the level of registration on paper of operational combat aircraft using the example of the Su-27. As of 2020, we had Su-27/Su-30/Su-35 as many 429 things:

          https://aviation21.ru/sostav-boevogo-aviaparka-vks-rossii-na-2020

          And in 2021 there is only 242 ?!!! Where did almost 200 planes disappear to? Fantastic ?
          The same will happen with Mig-29 and Su-24M. We look and are amazed at the skill of the generals... They blatantly lie to you and hide the catastrophic situation in combat aviation. And so we have nothing but successes and victories.
          1. +7
            26 March 2024 12: 50
            Quote: Vitov
            And in 2021 there are only 242 left?!!! Where did almost 200 planes disappear to?

            But the percentage of new equipment immediately jumped!
          2. +4
            26 March 2024 16: 20
            Quote: Vitov
            I would like to confirm the level of registration on paper of operational combat aircraft using the example of the Su-27. As of 2020, we had as many as 27 Su-30/Su-35/Su-429:

            https://aviation21.ru/sostav-boevogo-aviaparka-vks-rossii-na-2020

            What does this have to do with postscripts? Do you seriously think that the information on aviation21.ru has anything to do with domestic documents?
            However, I will disappoint you - all the data on our Air Force in the articles on the site is copied from the Western press, working using the “finger-to-ceiling” method:
            The fleet of military aviation equipment in Russia is in second place in the world in terms of the number of planes and helicopters. Such data are contained in the annual World Air Forces 2020 report, published on the website FlightGlobal.com.

            This magazine listed 2020 MiG-251s in the Russian Air Force in 29. I wonder if they just counted the trash in the distant parking lots, or if they also added aircraft graveyards?
            By the way, the data for 2023 is from the same place. Although even Aunt Vika gives more sane data.

            So all claims based on postscripts are directed at Western journalists.
            1. 0
              26 March 2024 16: 39
              Why all your thoughts? Of the 2 options, bad and very bad, I cited the bad option based on materials from foreign press. If you were given an expert analysis by a specialist, you would be completely speechless! But it is impossible to do or voice such an analysis, and it is fraught with consequences. And so, according to open press materials, there is already a complete mess. Is this not enough? Or do you think that there are only “dummies” at VO? Luckily not yet...
              1. +2
                26 March 2024 19: 01
                Quote: Vitov
                Why all your thoughts?

                And here's to this:
                Quote: Vitov
                Remember the size of our aviation on paper:
                https://aviation21.ru/sostav-boevoj-aviacii-vks-rossii-na-2023-god/
                attack aircraft
                Type Qty. for 2021 Qty. for 2023
                MiG-29 255 ..... 240
                MiG-31 131 ..... 129
                Su-24 274 ..... 273
                Su-25 193 .... 197
                Су-27/30/35 242 253
                Su-34 125 ..... 127
                Su-57 - 1 (10*)
                Tu-22M 66 59
                Tu-95 42 47
                Tu-160 16 15**
                Now let’s clarify the substance and evaluate the level of postscripts.

                Quote: Vitov
                The same will happen with Mig-29 and Su-24M. We look and are amazed at the skill of the generals... They blatantly lie to you and hide the catastrophic situation in combat aviation. And so we have nothing but successes and victories.

                So - this is not the strength of our aviation and postscripts. This is a mythical composition of some kind of aviation, taken out of thin air by British scientists, posing as the Russian Air Force. And our generals have nothing to do with it - these figures are completely made up in the West.
                So all complaints regarding the inconsistency of the fictitious figures with the real strength of the Russian Air Force and the abnormal fluctuation in the number of aircraft should be addressed to the editors of the British magazine Flight International.
              2. 0
                28 March 2024 00: 23
                Be so kind as to provide an expert analysis from a specialist, please. Or are you shaking the air in vain?
        2. +10
          26 March 2024 13: 01
          Quote: Vitov
          The Su-24M is a useless machine with a non-functional system.

          For some reason, in the hands of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, this is an extremely useful machine, with which they quickly learned to launch high-precision weapons. Throwing a UMPC generally means typing a couple of dozen numbers that intelligence transmits, and then it flies by itself. But if you do nothing, then nothing will happen.
          Quote: Vitov
          we need at least 300, and preferably 500 Su-34

          We need the appropriate amount of weapons multiplied by at least one hundred, or better yet two thousand. We probably had hundreds of all kinds of high-precision missiles in our warehouses for 2022, which quickly ran out, and apparently it was supposed to fight only with numerous cast iron
        3. +4
          26 March 2024 19: 35
          Su-24M is a useless machine with a non-working complex

          The Nazis actually launch Harm anti-radar missiles from the SU-24 KR scalp and storm behind our collars. Do you think we won’t be able to adapt them to launch the same FAB 250, 500, 1500 with UMPC?
        4. 0
          26 March 2024 21: 54
          And what? Which side of the caliber, to the used composition? Are you not interested in such pictures?
        5. 0
          26 March 2024 22: 35
          All simple Mig-29s are useless rubbish even for SVO....

          I don't agree. It may well prove itself as a carrier of guided bombs. And then for the sake of 4 bombs there is no need to drive the Su-34.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +3
      26 March 2024 08: 29
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      Interestingly, it is possible to destroy the Dnieper bridge with a blow from one FAB 3000.


      A maximum of two spans when hitting a support; simply, both spans and support can be very strong. So it cannot destroy, but it can completely disable it.
      1. 0
        26 March 2024 11: 45
        use of FAB-3000, makes sense only with UMPC at a range of 40 km
        and equipped not with TNT - but with 1400 kg. RDX or HMX
        - and exclusively in fortified areas on the forehead
        1. +3
          26 March 2024 11: 57
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          use of FAB-3000, makes sense only with UMPC at a range of 40 km
          and equipped not with TNT - but with 1400 kg. RDX or HMX
          - and exclusively in fortified areas on the forehead

          hi Personally, I don’t see any goals for it at all. The truth is strictly due to the range (very short) of use.
        2. 0
          26 March 2024 22: 07
          Why are FAB-250, 500 not suitable?
    4. +2
      26 March 2024 10: 16
      You need to hit the bridge support: in general, you need a correction module and a squad of 2-3 Tu-22M3s, in addition: air defense, both on the route and on the target, must be completely suppressed.
      1. -1
        26 March 2024 22: 10
        Support for the bridge over the Seine?
    5. +12
      26 March 2024 10: 19
      FAB-3000-M54 can be used by long-range bombers Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS.
      Author! Get ready at five!! They wrote a million times about the Tu-95, especially MS, only a missile carrier, it has neither beams corresponding to it nor a bomber sight!!!!
      1. +20
        26 March 2024 10: 31
        Hi Roman! hi You seem to be an old-timer, you know the author like crazy, you won’t confuse him with anyone from the first lines winked Every single line is a masterpiece that doesn’t carry anything meaningful.
        Direct hit into an armored vehicle or a field fortification is guaranteed to destroy them.
        Three tons without explosives can even kill a foreman if he is not wearing a helmet. laughing
        1. +7
          26 March 2024 10: 37
          Kolya, hi! hi too much even for Ryabov! By the way, the foreman may be killed, but the contractors, the bastards, will survive
      2. +3
        26 March 2024 17: 47
        Quote: novel xnumx
        no corresponding beams, no bomber sight!!!!

        Why does he need a bomber sight? Is someone going to bomb directly with cast iron, without UMPC?
        1. +1
          26 March 2024 17: 58
          Okay, where to hang it?? On ms?
          1. +2
            26 March 2024 18: 24
            On external beams. I don’t know if they hold up to 4 tons, but you can figure out a beam that is placed on two closely spaced holders. You won't be able to carry more than 4 of these bombs anyway.
            1. 0
              26 March 2024 19: 14
              Quote from alexoff
              On external beams

              They are only for rockets.

              Quote from alexoff
              I don’t know if they hold up to 4 tons, but you can figure out a beam that is placed on two closely spaced holders.

              Omitting other technical (and not entirely technical) questions, the most important one remains: why is this needed?
              1. +1
                26 March 2024 20: 21
                They are only for rockets.

                This is a truly discouraging answer; I feel like my IQ has dropped because of it. Are you not a general for whom the main thing is to fold the snowdrifts and fasten the buttons?
                why is this needed?

                What why? Why be able to launch big bombs?
                1. +1
                  27 March 2024 13: 46
                  Quote from alexoff
                  This is a truly discouraging answer; I feel like my IQ has dropped because of it. Are you not a general for whom the main thing is to fold the snowdrifts and fasten the buttons?

                  Whatever the statement, such the answer.

                  Quote from alexoff
                  What why? Why be able to launch big bombs?

                  Yes, why do the most vulnerable combat aircraft need them?
                  1. 0
                    27 March 2024 14: 03
                    Whatever the statement, such the answer.

                    That is, you yourself know that the game was frozen

                    Yes, why do the most vulnerable combat aircraft need them?

                    Yes, our other aircraft are also vulnerable. But I think if the army works as a single mechanism, then there should be no enemy air defense in the place where the bomber works. And the logic - what if there are a dozen F35s circling there - these are cowardly excuses, someone should do something to stop them circling.
                    1. +1
                      28 March 2024 18: 49
                      Quote from alexoff
                      That is, you yourself know that the game was frozen

                      Once again for those who are not particularly smart: the aircraft does not have beam holders for aerial bombs (for this caliber there are none on the external sling at all), does not have a control system for bomber weapons, and does not have an SUV interface with guided aerial bombs.

                      Quote from alexoff
                      Yes, our other aircraft are also vulnerable.

                      For example?

                      Quote from alexoff
                      But I think if the army works as a single mechanism, then there should be no enemy air defense in the place where the bomber works. And the logic - what if there are a dozen F35s circling there - these are cowardly excuses, someone should do something to stop them circling.

                      There is no logic here. What is the point of gliding ammunition if there is no danger to the carrier?
                      1. 0
                        28 March 2024 23: 36
                        the aircraft does not have beam holders for bombs

                        But there are suspensions for rockets weighing a couple of tons
                        for this caliber there are none on the external suspension at all

                        A practically unsolvable technological problem, it is necessary to first develop a neuroquantum microprocessor in 1 nm technology, and then apply a thin layer of panacea
                        does not have a bomber weapons control system

                        Which he doesn't need
                        does not interface the SUV with guided bombs

                        Tell me, is it possible that the incredible petabyte data arrays that are necessary to transmit target coordinates to the UMPC cannot be loaded along the same line along which the target coordinates are transmitted to the missile?
                        As I understand it, by your own logic, putting French missiles on the Su-24 and adjustable bombs and harmons on the MiG-29 is a task on the level of the Manhattan Project, it is clear that in the West they have been preparing for this for decades and poured in lards of dough. Well, or they didn’t beat around the bush, but just went ahead and did it. How the Iranians took and taught the Su-22 to throw gliding bombs without asking those for whom everything is difficult.
                        For example?

                        For example, the Su-34/35 turned out to be quite vulnerable during bombing if a patriot is pushed towards the front, but at our headquarters there is no sleep in sight.
                        What is the point of gliding ammunition if there is no danger to the carrier?

                        A few serious long-range ones should be eliminated, but something like beech is difficult to control. But of course, if the enemy is already that, then you can unscrew the UMPC and take it to the warehouse.

                        In general, I think this bomb was made for the MiG-31 and Tu-22, since they are landing nets. There are few daggers and Kh-32s produced, but much more Kh-101s. So the generals decided that they too would fight somehow, and not just cause alarm in Kyiv
                      2. +1
                        31 March 2024 21: 02
                        Quote from alexoff
                        But there are suspensions for rockets weighing a couple of tons

                        These are ejection devices, they are not intended for bombs.

                        Quote from alexoff
                        A practically unsolvable technological problem, it is necessary to first develop a neuroquantum microprocessor in 1 nm technology, and then apply a thin layer of panacea

                        Why solve this problem?

                        Quote from alexoff
                        Which he doesn't need

                        Who decided that?

                        Quote from alexoff
                        Tell me, is it possible that the incredible petabyte data arrays that are necessary to transmit target coordinates to the UMPC cannot be loaded along the same line along which the target coordinates are transmitted to the missile?

                        Can we first at least try to figure it out before asking stupid questions?

                        Quote from alexoff
                        As I understand it, by your own logic, putting French missiles on the Su-24 and adjustable bombs and harmons on the MiG-29 is a task on the level of the Manhattan Project, it is clear that in the West they have been preparing for this for decades and poured in lards of dough.

                        In your fantasies everything is easy, the reality, however, is completely different. For HARM, they created a transition beam to its standard APU, but the MiG-29 is not able to provide target designation, so the efficiency of use is below par. For JDAM-ER, a new database with a GPS receiver was created; the same story with target designation.

                        Quote from alexoff
                        How the Iranians took and taught the Su-22 to throw gliding bombs without asking those for whom everything is difficult.

                        So-so example. The Su-22 was already able to do this in KABs. And their bomb was created not on the knee, but from scratch, normal.

                        Quote from alexoff
                        For example, the Su-34/35 turned out to be quite vulnerable during bombing if a patriot is pushed towards the front, but at our headquarters there is no sleep in sight.

                        When did this happen during the bombing?

                        Quote from alexoff
                        A few serious long-range ones should be eliminated, but something like beech is difficult to control. But of course, if the enemy is already that, then you can unscrew the UMPC and take it to the warehouse.

                        The year is 2024, all modern air defense systems are serious and mobile. Have pity on the poor Tu-95MS, they don’t have much time left anyway.
              2. 0
                26 March 2024 20: 50
                So that Ryabov could declare
                The FAB-3000-M54 air bomb can be used by long-range bombers Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS.
        2. 0
          26 March 2024 17: 59
          By the way, there is no umpk for 3 tons
          1. 0
            26 March 2024 18: 29
            Is this said by the creators of the UMPC or some people on the Internet?
      3. 0
        26 March 2024 22: 12
        It's fine with a beer, for a former squadron commander finishing his beer.
    6. +4
      26 March 2024 14: 32
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      Interestingly, it is possible to destroy the Dnieper bridge with a blow from one FAB 3000.
      Bombers would like to hear your opinion

      I’m not a bomber, but I know for sure that neither the Tu-22 nor the Tu-95 will reach the drop point on the Dnieper bridge.
      1. +2
        26 March 2024 15: 06
        the Dnieper bridge will not reach.

        Yeah, especially with the advent of the f16, with the AMRAAM 120 which will hang in the rear. Even with the UMPC, the tu.22 will be an excellent hefty, clumsy target within the range of long-range missiles
    7. 0
      26 March 2024 21: 45
      Not interested in something as small as getting into a bridge. And how to get to the drop point.
    8. 0
      27 March 2024 10: 57
      If you hit the support accurately, then you can
  2. -10
    26 March 2024 04: 26
    In the absence of the SS 20, which were destroyed 33 years ago, we have to use developments from 70 years ago. I believe that in an RSD capable of delivering 1,5 tons over 5 thousand km, they could increase the warhead for shorter distances.
    Does it look like the SS-20 technology has been lost?
    1. +4
      26 March 2024 05: 30
      Quote: ivan2022
      Does it look like the SS-20 technology has been lost?

      Yes, what special technologies are there - cut-off RT2 (aka "Topol")
      1. -1
        April 1 2024 06: 44
        If the SS-20 technology is not lost, but it is still not there and is not being produced, then the situation is even worse than I thought.
    2. +4
      26 March 2024 06: 08
      We do not have missiles such as the SS-20, and the technologies of the Voevoda complex are used in the Republic of Kazakhstan Sarmat.
  3. +7
    26 March 2024 04: 39
    How to drop them from the heavy weights with active air defense? And it’s more profitable to take two one and a half tires - the affected area is larger
    1. -1
      26 March 2024 05: 10
      Quote: Tlauicol
      How to drop them from the heavy weights with active air defense?
      They don't go there. The bomb, having a sufficient reserve of altitude and speed, “steers” itself
      1. +8
        26 March 2024 05: 14
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        Quote: Tlauicol
        How to drop them from the heavy weights with active air defense?
        They don't go there. The bomb, having a sufficient reserve of altitude and speed, “steers” itself

        The problem is that there is a bomb, but there is no umpk for it. It's a free falling bomb
        1. +7
          26 March 2024 05: 23
          Quote: Tlauicol
          The problem is that there is a bomb, but there is no umpk for it
          I read, though on another resource, that there is. Without it, such a bomb is of zero use
          1. -2
            26 March 2024 06: 17
            There is no UMPC. And there are serious doubts that it is generally feasible in such a caliber (it will be the size of an airplane, which means it will be an ideal target for even the oldest air defense systems). The benefits of FAB-3000 are really zero. It’s just that someone somewhere is compiling a report on “the number of “new” weapons systems put into mass production. So the numbers in this report are being inflated in every possible way.
            1. +2
              26 March 2024 06: 25
              In general, this is a long-standing problem of our military-industrial complex - the desire to produce not what our armed forces need, but what it is easier and more profitable for them to produce themselves. In this case, the technology was 70 years old, there was a mothballed (as they say) line. And our MO loves everything big and well painted, so it all came together. The main thing is that in order to “justify” the production of this bomb, in order to account for the money spent, they do not send real planes and real crews to drop this FAB-3000 “for reporting” - it will be minus the plane and minus the crew. But I’m not sure that these considerations will stop anyone.
              1. 0
                27 March 2024 11: 03
                Don’t talk nonsense, no one will pay for unnecessary weapons. Especially now with contract delivery,
            2. +2
              26 March 2024 06: 29
              Quote: UAZ 452
              There is no UMPC. And there are serious doubts that it is generally feasible in such a caliber (it will be the size of an airplane, which means it will be an ideal target for even the oldest air defense systems).

              Nothing to add. Except that no one has repealed the laws of aerodynamics. In order for this “pig” to fly anywhere (except in a downward parabola), it will have to be shaped like a “flying wing” like a “Geranium”, or a high aspect ratio wing (three times longer than the body of the bomb), and then try to “shove the impossible” onto (“into” it won’t work exactly) media.
              Well, yes, apparently such an object at 10 km in altitude will be 200 km in range with the worst radar, with all that that implies.
              1. +3
                26 March 2024 10: 00
                Quote: Adrey
                it will have to be given the shape of a “flying wing” like that of the “Geranium”, or a high aspect ratio wing (three times longer than the bomb body), and then try to “shove in the impenetrable

                At UMPC for FAB-1500, it has already been worked out. Yes
                The wing is folding and opens after launch. The bombs themselves with UMPC are simply suspended under the carrier in a standard manner. The gliding range of the FAB-1500 under ideal conditions is more than 100 km.

                A too large wing is not required for the UMPC, since the main distance is covered at high altitude and speed. For the FAB-1500 the wing is about 3 m, for the FAB-3000, obviously, more will be required, but not critical.

                Shooting down a bomb from a UMPC is much more difficult than a comparable missile due to its lack of a hot engine, but it is possible. Moreover, the cost of anti-aircraft missiles spent on it will in most cases be several times higher than the cost of the bomb.
                1. +1
                  26 March 2024 11: 43
                  Wow! I see you are a great expert in the “subject” laughing.
                  Quote: Netl
                  At UMPC for FAB-1500, it has already been worked out.
                  The wing is folding and opens after launch. The bombs themselves with UMPC are simply suspended under the carrier in a standard manner. The gliding range of the FAB-1500 under ideal conditions is more than 100 km.

                  Link to the studio about 100 km.
                  Quote: Netl
                  A wing that is too large is not required for the UMPC, since the main distance is covered by high altitude and speed.

                  At high altitudes, the wing works worse (or a larger area is needed) due to rarefied air. The main "work" of the wing is after 6 km and below.
                  Quote: Netl
                  Shooting down a bomb from a UMPC is much more difficult than a comparable missile due to its lack of a hot engine, but it is possible.

                  Will they hit it exclusively with MANPADS? Have you ever heard about long-range air defense systems with ARGSN? And such a “suitcase” will “glow” in the radar a little less than a Boeing.
                  1. +3
                    26 March 2024 12: 14
                    Quote: Adrey
                    Link to studio about 100

                    https://rg.ru/2023/11/01/newsweek-umnaia-aviabomba-fab-1500-usilit-davlenie-na-pvo-ukrainy.html

                    Quote: Adrey
                    At high altitudes, the wing performs worse (or a larger area is needed) due to the rarefied

                    Or speed, as was written above. Yes

                    Quote: Adrey
                    exclusively from MANPADS or something they will hammer

                    IR seeker is not only for MANPADS. Yes
                    Moreover, there are multi-spectral heads including: IR. Accordingly, a less heated target will be more difficult to hit.

                    But even if we consider a seeker radar, then, all other things being equal, with a cruise missile of a similar warhead, the EPR of a bomb with a UMPC will be much smaller. Accordingly, again, it is a more difficult target to capture either a ground-based radar or a seeker radar.

                    In general, as I wrote above, it is possible to shoot down. But expensive air defense systems with expensive missiles are required, placed dangerously close to the LBS. Yes
                    1. +2
                      26 March 2024 12: 54
                      Quote: Netl
                      https://rg.ru/2023/11/01/newsweek-umnaia-aviabomba-fab-1500-usilit-davlenie-na-pvo-ukrainy.html

                      The American magazine Newsweek devoted material to the modernized Russian FAB-1500 aerial bomb with UMPC (controlled planning and correction module). An article translated by the InoSMI portal notes that this powerful ammunition, capable of hitting bunkers at a depth of 20 meters, will create problems for Ukrainian air defense.

                      Next are pictures from UPAB-1500B, which is never FAB-1500 from UMPC request
                      The American Institute for the Study of War drew attention to Russia's use of new one and a half ton bombs. "Moscow's forces are using modernized smart glide bombs, equipped with laser and satellite guidance for increased precision of strikes," - The institute reported with reference to a Russian military blogger. He noted that the FAB-1500 is the largest of a series of gliding bombs, which also includes the FAB-250 and FAB-500. It weighs 1 kilograms and has a damage radius of up to 550 meters. The bomb is capable of destroying an underground bunker at a depth of up to 500 meters and breaking through three meters of reinforced concrete. It can be carried by Su-20, Su-34 and Su-30 aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces.

                      Brilliant Spring laughing! And where is there even one mention of 100 km?
                      Quote: Netl
                      Or speed, as was written above.

                      Not one carrier with such a “stray” on an external sling will not “give” more than 800 km/h without the risk of losing it along the way. And people who are more “friends” with physics and algebra than me will quickly draw you (if they want, of course) a trajectory graph on which the horizontal speed of this device will tend to vertical with a quadratic dependence.
                      Quote: Netl
                      But even if we consider the seeker radar, then, all other things being equal, with a cruise missile similar in warhead, EPR bombs with UMPC will be much smaller.

                      What a fright!? Is this a device of considerable size, and even with a wingspan of ten meters?
                      Quote: Netl
                      In general, as I wrote above, it is possible to shoot down. But expensive air defense systems with expensive missiles are required, placed dangerously close to the LBS.

                      The ancient S-75 with a radio command guidance system will cope with “this” at 5+.
                      1. -2
                        26 March 2024 16: 23
                        Quote: Adrey
                        Brilliant source! And where is there even one mention of 100 km?

                        As if the Russian newspaper is a publication of the Government of the Russian Federation! Yes
                        Regarding 100 km, I copied another article:
                        there was information that the FAB-1500 plans to reach a range of almost in 100 km


                        https://rg.ru/2024/03/13/priletit-tiho-i-gromko-vzlomaet-ukreprajon.html

                        Quote: Adrey
                        the horizontal speed of this device will tend to vertical with a quadratic dependence

                        This is completely without a wing, but it is there!
                        And experimentally confirmed parameters:
                        Drop altitude is 12-15 km, carrier speed is 800-1100 km/h, planning time is 5-7 minutes.

                        Quote: Adrey
                        What a fright!? This is a device of considerable size, and even with a wingspan

                        With such a fright that for a cruise missile with a comparable warhead, you also need to carry an engine, fuel, body, and again a wing. Which will also affect the EPR.

                        Quote: Adrey
                        S-75 can cope with a radio command guidance system

                        In Vietnam, about 10 S-75 missiles were required for an aircraft type target. Which is no longer cheap. And here - the target is smaller, the reaction time is minimal. And it will be difficult to transfer, for example, the calculated trajectory from Avax to an analog complex, based on the trajectory of the carrier. We need modern complexes, which is even more expensive and dangerous for them.
                      2. 0
                        26 March 2024 18: 37
                        Quote: Netl
                        As if the Russian newspaper is a publication of the Government of the Russian Federation!

                        It’s like the argument is “iron”, and you can’t argue in our time laughing
                        Quote: Netl
                        https://rg.ru/2024/03/13/priletit-tiho-i-gromko-vzlomaet-ukreprajon.html

                        Moreover, there was information that the FAB-1500 plans to have a range of almost 100 km.

                        I am glad that you know how to draw information from Russian newspapers and boldly use itlaughing. I can only repeat myself - the argument is “iron”, and you can’t argue in our time laughing
                        Quote: Netl
                        And experimentally confirmed parameters:
                        Drop altitude is 12-15 km, carrier speed is 800-1100 km/h, planning time is 5-7 minutes.

                        I won’t ask you for a link, apparently I’ll get it again for newspaper material, but in any case, we’re talking about half a ruble (and I seriously doubt the reality of such performance characteristics), and the conversation was about three rubles, which is not at all the same thing.
                        Quote: Netl
                        With such a fright that for a cruise missile with a comparable warhead, you also need to carry an engine, fuel, body, and again a wing. Which will also affect the EPR.

                        Are you talking about this? That someone in a feverish delirium will try to design a missile launcher capable of holding 1.5 tons of explosives (although what the hell isn’t it, we can’t do that)? In the world, in my opinion, for about 50 years, no one has designed ammunition of such power in any form. Accuracy came first, not mass. Therefore, we will have to compare ordinary CDs and this (3t) monster.
                        Quote: Netl
                        In Vietnam, about 10 S-75 missiles were required for an aircraft type target.

                        Oh well. At the beginning of use, the effectiveness was close to 1:1.5. Afterwards, the Yankees worked well on technology and tactics (primarily on electronic warfare) and consumption increased sharply, as did our losses. But it’s not the S-75 that opposes us, but our electronic warfare led to the emergence of the UMPC request.
                        Let's leave it at that. I'm tired of discussing newspaper clippings and your fantasies.
                2. 0
                  26 March 2024 22: 23
                  Where did you read this? Especially about = since the main distance is covered at high altitude and speed =. LeDchik, al shtuErman Are you familiar with this? Perhaps you are interested in aerodynamics, or also meteorology?
            3. 0
              26 March 2024 07: 11
              Quote: UAZ 452
              There is no UMPC. And there are big doubts that it is generally feasible in this caliber
              Then how can this bomb be used? Is it stupid to dump it on the heads of Ukrainian aborigines?
              1. -1
                26 March 2024 07: 42
                It has already been used - it was demonstrated to Shoigu with pomp, they have mastered the budget for launching production, they continue to master it at the manufacturing itself, our media have been trumpeting about the “new” wunderwaffle for a week now... What else is needed? Our system, including the military-industrial complex, now has real goal-setting in this area.
            4. -2
              26 March 2024 07: 22
              Well, it’s doubtful to shoot something like that over a city, 1.5 tons of fragments are scattered, 1.5 tons of explosives are scattered.
            5. +4
              26 March 2024 09: 12
              And there are big doubts that it is generally feasible in this caliber

              It is possible to implement it, but the question is rather how effective this “implementation” will be. As a result, it may turn out that instead of a gliding bomb they will make an adjustable one, which is not the same thing.
              This bomb doesn't look good as a "glider". And it will fly just as badly as it looks. Especially if there are no nose cones.
              Okay, let's hope that even without us they know why everyone is doing this.
            6. -1
              26 March 2024 17: 58
              Quote: UAZ 452
              in this caliber (it will be the size of an airplane

              What kind of three-ton plane is this? Doesn't sound like much. They say planes are tens of times heavier. By the way, what if we made a biplane? Well, you know, you tie the UMPC for the fab-1500 on both sides, don’t you think it will fly?
              Quote: UAZ 452
              be an ideal target for even the oldest air defense systems

              -Comrade commander, the enemies shot down our gliding bomb!!!
              - Oh God, not this! That's it, let's go give up!
              1. 0
                26 March 2024 19: 27
                Quote from alexoff
                What kind of three-ton plane is this? Doesn't sound like much.

                L-29 or L-39 for example.

                Quote from alexoff
                -Comrade commander, the enemies shot down our gliding bomb!!!
                - Oh God, not this! That's it, let's go give up!

                What's the point of having a weapon that won't be effective? The flight path of such a bomb is simple, and its dimensions are large; it will be much easier to shoot it down than a missile.
                1. -1
                  26 March 2024 20: 14
                  Quote: Lozovik
                  L-29 or L-39 for example.

                  Well, with such wings, the UMPC will fly a hundred kilometers! But when folded they are not that big compared to the bomb
                  Quote: Lozovik
                  The flight path of such a bomb is simple, and its dimensions are large; it will be much easier to shoot it down than a missile.

                  The missile’s trajectory is also simple, but both MANPADS and cheap infrared-guided missiles will be launched at it, but a bomb requires a radar. And the radar is clearly visible from afar. And rockets for them are very expensive
                  1. 0
                    27 March 2024 14: 00
                    Quote from alexoff
                    Well, with such wings, the UMPC will fly a hundred kilometers!

                    Such a barrel will not fly 100 km, no matter what wings and fairings are attached to it.

                    Quote from alexoff
                    The rocket's trajectory is also simple

                    The rocket does not descend from a high altitude at a constant vertical speed.

                    Quote from alexoff
                    but it will launch both MANPADS and cheap IR-guided missiles

                    Don't forget about working hours.

                    Quote from alexoff
                    but a bomb needs a radar

                    Not necessary. Ancient Strela-10 or more modern Starstreak to help.
                    1. 0
                      27 March 2024 14: 33
                      Such a barrel will not fly 100 km, no matter what wings and fairings are attached to it.

                      This is if a normal fairing is not attached
                      The rocket does not descend from a high altitude at a constant vertical speed.

                      The rocket generally flies in a straight line, which is much easier
                      Ancient Strela-10 or more modern Starstreak to help.
                      The horizontal speed of the bomb, be healthy, is not much less than the speed of the carrier. You will need to shoot very quickly. And the bomb is not an airplane, it needs to cause more damage
                      1. 0
                        28 March 2024 19: 03
                        Quote from alexoff
                        This is if a normal fairing is not attached

                        What is normal? How will he, say, reduce the midsection?

                        Quote from alexoff
                        The rocket generally flies in a straight line, which is much easier

                        The missile either flies at an altitude of a couple of tens of meters, or a couple of tens of kilometers, and at a speed of a kilometer per second, or they are fired from such a distance that there is no time left to react.

                        Quote from alexoff
                        horizontal speed of the bomb be healthy

                        800, at most 900 km/h. Considering the altitude along most of the route, this is not much.

                        Quote from alexoff
                        You will need to shoot very quickly.

                        Compared to "Caliber" or Storm Shadow of time wagon.

                        Quote from alexoff
                        And the bomb is not an airplane, it needs to cause more damage

                        The bomb is steel, but the planning module is aluminum and very fragile.
                      2. 0
                        28 March 2024 23: 15
                        What is normal? How will he, say, reduce the midsection?

                        Well, for example, like what they put on the FAB-1500, although the swept one is better
                        The rocket either flies at an altitude of a couple of tens of meters
                        Well, the calibers seem to be flying at an altitude of more than 100-150 meters, and are still gaining altitude above the target for better penetration. The speed is about the same. But the price, I think, is 20 times higher. And the missiles are still designed for a different range. For example, it bothers me that Iskanders and X-101s are flying around Kharkov, they could have made the aerodynamic quality 8-10 and thrown so many of them at all sorts of factories from the safe zone that they wouldn’t have to turn off the electricity
                        Compared to "Caliber" or Storm Shadow of time wagon.
                        for a man with a shaitan trumpet, 10-15 seconds, and even then the target is not very contrasting
                        The bomb is steel, but the planning module is aluminum and very fragile.
                        The module is small and it is located on top. Of course, holes will appear in the wings, but whether the elevators will break is not a fact.
                        And regarding air defense - let them shoot, at the same time we will have data on the location of radars and the positions of air defense personnel. But it seems they don’t shoot bombs and missiles at the front, they just endure it. Protect only a few cities
                      3. 0
                        31 March 2024 21: 18
                        Quote from alexoff
                        Well, for example, like what they put on the FAB-1500, although the swept one is better

                        Urgently call Boeing and Airbus, it turns out they need Concorde noses on their airliners! What about the midsection? What other amazing discoveries await?

                        Quote from alexoff
                        Well, the calibers seem to fly at an altitude of more than 100-150 meters

                        No



                        Quote from alexoff
                        and above the target they still gain altitude for better penetration.

                        And no



                        Quote from alexoff
                        The speed is about the same.

                        Well, if it’s approximately plus or minus a hundred or two kilometers per hour.

                        Quote from alexoff
                        they could have made the aerodynamic quality 8-10

                        This is impossible with reasonable solutions.

                        Quote from alexoff
                        for a man with a shaitan trumpet 10-15 seconds

                        What did you think?

                        Quote from alexoff
                        and the goal is not very contrasting

                        For a blind person it is possible.

                        Quote from alexoff
                        The module is small and it is located on top. Of course, holes will appear in the wings, but whether the elevators will break is not a fact.

                        Large, but made of fragile elements. Even a MANPADS warhead will fail.



                        Quote from alexoff
                        And regarding air defense - let them shoot, at the same time we will have data on the location of radars and the positions of air defense personnel.

                        So low-contrast wink
            7. 0
              27 March 2024 11: 00
              They just wouldn’t have started production, which means there are some plans for them
          2. -1
            April 1 2024 06: 52
            The bomb was created at the turn of the 40s - 50s. Grandfather's weapon. Then free-falling ones were sufficient.
            The SS-70 was created in the 20s, but destroyed at the end of the 80s.....
            Now delivery vehicles are a problem.

            As they say: “anyone can use a tool, but just try driving a simple nail without a hammer!” I guess that our military constantly solves similar problems.
    2. -1
      26 March 2024 08: 12
      All bombs with a caliber of over 500 kg are designed for use against “point” targets. They don't care about the area affected. They want maximum exposure. On a deep, solid shelter.
      Let's leave the question of hit probability out of the question.
      1. +2
        26 March 2024 08: 18
        How important it is. Because the “point” for such a bomb is a circle with a radius of tens of meters. The miss is larger than the affected area. The circular probable deflection will make it useless if it misses by 20m on a fortification or bridge.
        1. 0
          26 March 2024 08: 25
          A small-caliber bomb simply cannot have the impact necessary for destruction.
          1. +3
            26 March 2024 08: 28
            Quote: garri-lin
            A small-caliber bomb simply cannot have the impact necessary for destruction.

            Fab 1500 is by no means a small bomb. And there is an umpk for her. It’s better to take two of these than one 3000 - more precisely, further, more destructive, safer
            1. -2
              26 March 2024 11: 50
              or better yet, a combined strike on the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ fortifications on the forehead
              2 bombs = 6 units
              FAB-3000 UMPC and FAB-1500 UMPC
              equipped not with TNT but preferably with hexogen
              and a couple more ODAB-1500 UMPC
            2. 0
              26 March 2024 15: 08
              You talked about the affected area. I just said that for such strands the affected area is not important. Impact matters. Two one and a half rubles driven into one point can and will be able to cause destruction comparable to one three rubles. But not necessarily.
              1. 0
                26 March 2024 15: 36
                Very important. The affected area of ​​the fab3000 is only 20% greater than the affected area of ​​the fab1500. Therefore, without umpk there is no point in it. She just won't be able to hit it accurately. And the plane will be shot down
                1. 0
                  26 March 2024 17: 30
                  And again. He said it. Let's leave it out of brackets.
                  We're just talking about impact. The radius is 20 percent larger. But the impact at the epicenter is twice as large.
                  Two one and a half rubles will not replace one three ruble for a particularly durable target. You need to think about how to improve accuracy and not make replacements.
                  1. 0
                    26 March 2024 17: 38
                    Or maybe you should first look for a goal before planting a garden? What should she bomb now? Trenches? Without the umpk, it's just a suicide vest, not a bomb.
                    And regarding a particularly strong target: even if the Tushka can safely throw it and hit it, its high-explosive impact will have less impact on the bunker, factory basements, etc. than the explosion of a semi-armor-piercing weapon of a smaller caliber. It is only used to demolish dachas or train cars at stations. But not lasting goals. Regular land mine
                    1. 0
                      26 March 2024 18: 09
                      Without the UMPC, it’s either a suicide belt. Or a complex operation involving a large number of means for cover. There are goals. Any complex of fortifications is buried not as a strategic bunker but as a defense unit.
                      An armor piercer will certainly work well against a bunker. When you know exactly where the bunker is. And if he can hit it accurately.
                      1. 0
                        26 March 2024 18: 16
                        Umpk will help you hit it accurately. But fab3000 won’t even hit the opnik
                      2. 0
                        27 March 2024 06: 40
                        Umpk will help you get there. I do not argue. Will it help you find out exactly where the bunker is??? And empty out the three-ton trucks. And instead of organized defense there will be a mass grave.
                2. 0
                  26 March 2024 19: 40
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  And the plane will be shot down

                  Won't a plane with a Fab-250 from the UMPC be shot down?
            3. 0
              26 March 2024 22: 48
              All that remains is for the bomber to find out the accuracy of the FAB-250,...1500 with our UMPC, and dream up why they started casting 3000-caliber cast iron. And who will take one FAB-3000 for an unmanned aerial vehicle in operational depth? For some reason, commentators do not compare the FAB-250 with the Tulip mortar mine, knowing the accuracy (SS mark) of our UMPC in comparison with the foreign one. Having at least an idea of ​​how it works, and what the pubic variator counts in the SRP on the ancient OPB-15, and how, but it’s not even the SVP-24 unit that counts thousands of times faster. Those. When our UMPC calculates and rejects the same formulas with the same drives with the same speed and accuracy, then instead of 2KhFAB-3000 on the SU-34 you can hang 12KhFAB-250, or better yet 6KhFAB-250, so as not to monitor the approaching M number to 1, occupying H=12m.
    3. 0
      27 March 2024 06: 00
      Is no one considering the option of using it, as described in the article about Azovstal? For example, they will surround a city like Mariupol and the fortifications in it can be destroyed with such bombs without UMPC.
  4. +1
    26 March 2024 04: 51
    Is the UMPC ready for the FAB-3000 to operate as a high-precision weapon without entering the air defense zone?
    1. +3
      26 March 2024 05: 08
      Without UMPC its use is impossible, we will only lose aircraft. I think that when making the decision to produce it, they also thought about this aspect. There was information that “they will improve it for FAB3000”, but nothing concrete in the open press
      1. +2
        26 March 2024 09: 09
        Quote: user1212
        There was information that “they will improve it for FAB3000”, but nothing concrete in the open press

        In addition to the use of UMPC, there are also rumors about accelerator. The last one is most likely...
        1. 0
          26 March 2024 11: 58
          there are rumors about the TOS-3 Dragon similar to the Syrian Golan-1000 with 3 missiles
          similar to ODAB-1500 with a range of up to 15 km
          this is just a finish line, not even for a platoon commander but a company commander
          1. +2
            26 March 2024 14: 53
            Quote: Romario_Argo
            there are rumors about the TOS-3 Dragon similar to the Syrian Golan-1000 with 3 missiles
            similar to ODAB-1500 with a range of up to 15 km

            TOS-3 Dragon is the same Solntsepek, but with launchers from Tosochka and missiles for it. Moreover, with a reduced number of guides.
            1. -1
              26 March 2024 14: 57
              I heard that too, but
              apparently there are several variants of TOS-3 in different calibers
  5. +1
    26 March 2024 05: 18
    For use with the UMPC, maybe they can come up with some kind of ballistic cap, otherwise the aerodynamics are not for horizontal flight.
    1. +7
      26 March 2024 06: 06
      Quote: mark1
      For use with the UMPC, maybe they can come up with some kind of ballistic cap, otherwise the aerodynamics are not for horizontal flight.
      There’s nothing to invent here - they put an aluminum cap on 2 clamps and that’s it...
      1. 0
        26 March 2024 06: 10
        Quote: VPK-65
        There’s nothing to invent here - they put an aluminum cap on 2 clamps and that’s it...

        So it (the cap) is already there, or is that how you see it?
        1. 0
          26 March 2024 06: 22
          That's right - I already have it, I didn't look at your photo right away.
          Well, it’s good that in Rus' I’m not the only smart one and not the most.)))
      2. +1
        26 March 2024 11: 53
        Quote: VPK-65
        There’s nothing to invent here - they put an aluminum cap on 2 clamps and that’s it...

        Can you tell me why the bombs have such a “chiselled figure” appearance, and not an initially aerodynamic shape?
        1. +2
          26 March 2024 13: 02
          I’ll assume that it was made short and thick (which is bad for aerodynamics) to fit more into the internal compartments, and that the shape is made of welded truncated cones, a free-falling bomb used from the internal compartments does not need low aerodynamic resistance, it needs aerodynamic stability in order to fall predictable. But production by welding from truncated cones is easier. Actually, the ballistic ring in the bow is precisely for the formation of a vortex, which gives greater stability along the trajectory of the fall, and not for anti-ricocheting. But this is my IMHO, this is not accurate.
          1. 0
            26 March 2024 13: 23
            Quote: Passing by
            I assume that it was made short and thick (which is bad for aerodynamics) so that it would fit more into the internal compartments,

            Clear. hi But if it is intended to be used with the UMPC, then it must be made initially in a new design for suspension under the “belly”.
          2. +1
            26 March 2024 15: 58
            Yes, that's right. For example, the cargo compartment of the Tu-22M3 can accommodate 18 FAB-500M54 bombs, while the FAB-500M62 can accommodate only 12.



            *in the photo there is BetAB-500, they are similar in shape to M62.
        2. 0
          26 March 2024 13: 23
          Quote: Askold65
          Can you tell me why the bombs have such a “chiselled figure” appearance, and not an initially aerodynamic shape?
          If based on the original shape of the bombs themselves, then not all of them are intended for emergency bombing, but where possible they are used that way.
          If you mean the planning module itself (its square cross-section), then it’s a standard duralumin sheet + bending, welding, the seams are slightly cleaned with a grinder and that’s it. Fast, easy and cheap. Aerodynamics will not suffer from the fact that it is not round - look, for example, at rockets that have a square cross-section, the same TAURUS for example.
          The economy must be economical, but I don’t see the point in making things “beautiful”, they won’t stay in the warehouse, and they won’t participate in presentations, parades and biathlons. So why show off...
          1. +1
            26 March 2024 13: 36
            Quote: VPK-65
            If based on the original shape of the bombs themselves, then not all of them are intended for emergency bombing, but where possible they are used that way.

            Such bombs are in the light with the possibility of using a shock absorber, and not as free-falling ones. Otherwise, what's the point of risking the plane and crew?
            Quote: VPK-65
            Aerodynamics will not suffer from the fact that it is not round - look, for example, at rockets that have a square cross-section, the same TAURUS for example.

            The comparison is not entirely correct. In terms of the ratio of the cross-section to the body length, and especially since these cruise missiles have a sustainer engine.
            We need a bomb in a new aerodynamic shape and design with an attached UMPC module.
            1. 0
              26 March 2024 14: 13
              Quote: Askold65
              We need a bomb in a new aerodynamic shape and design with an attached UMPC module.
              Will you buy it??? The price of 1 piece will be the same as 100 pieces. modified (if not more because all production will have to be completely rebuilt). After that, we will store them like armature in a sideboard under glass and blow off the dust particles from it. Once again: military the economy must be economical. IMHO: I wouldn’t even paint them - for the price of a barrel of paint, it’s better to drop a couple more bombs on the enemy’s head...
              1. +2
                26 March 2024 14: 18
                Quote: VPK-65
                Will you buy it??? The price of 1 piece will be the same as 100 pieces. modified (if not more because all production will have to be completely rebuilt).

                Why don’t you take into account the price of the plane and the pilot in your calculations? If such bombs cannot be used with UMPC, then the game is not worth the candle. Then it’s better to stop at those that have been modified and simply use them in larger quantities. Two pieces of 1500 kg instead of one of 3000 kg.
                1. -1
                  26 March 2024 14: 30
                  Quote: Askold65
                  If such bombs impossible to use with UMPC
                  Who told you such nonsense? If they want (if they deem it necessary), we will do so. The cost of pilots is completely off topic; in Mariupol we have already dropped three-ton aircraft at Azovstal without risking anything, and where there is a risk, they will of course not be used.
                  Create like the USA GBU-39 (40/70 thousand bucks + 150/200 thousand bucks) and similar gold products are not a very sound economic idea. That is why we followed the path of Iran (they don’t print dollars either).
                  1. +2
                    26 March 2024 14: 47
                    Quote: VPK-65
                    The cost of pilots is completely off topic; in Mariupol we have already dropped three-ton aircraft at Azovstal without risking anything, and where there is a risk, they will of course not be used.

                    In Mariupol, the Nazis had all their air defenses only in the form of MANPADS. And these bombs were dropped from a great height in free fall. No similar “boilers” are expected today, which means they will simply be sent to a warehouse.
                    Quote: VPK-65
                    If they want (if they deem it necessary), we will do so.

                    Will we do this, or won’t we for now, because we are “golden”? belay
                    1. 0
                      26 March 2024 15: 19
                      Quote: Askold65
                      No similar “boilers” are expected today
                      What makes you think it won't happen? Today no, but tomorrow yes - for example, until the Hours of Yar it’s already 650 m left. So they should definitely be in stock. Screwing it to a standard FAB with UMPC clamps takes a few minutes.
                      Quote: Askold65
                      Will we do this, or won’t we for now, because we are “golden”?
                      You are trying to turn them into gold, but for now they cost pennies. That’s the only reason we dumped 250 of them in a couple of days on the same Avdeevka, but if we had listened to you, maybe they would have been dropped... ONE, or maybe they weren’t there at all...
                      https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/8831623.html
                      1. +2
                        26 March 2024 15: 44
                        Quote: VPK-65
                        What makes you think it won't happen? Today no, but tomorrow yes - for example, there are already 650 meters left to Clock Yar. So they should definitely be in stock.

                        To use them safely, you will first need to surround Chasov Yar, and then move the front line tens of kilometers from the “cauldron.” As it happened near Mariupol. But this city, apparently, will be stormed according to the same scheme as Avdeevka using bombs with UMPC.
                        What’s the problem with casting or welding a new extended AB body? This is not an airplane or even a cruise missile. In any case, its cost will be lower or, at least, comparable in cost to the “gold” KR. But the power of the battery is several times higher than that of the battery.
            2. +1
              26 March 2024 14: 58
              Quote: Askold65
              We need a bomb in a new aerodynamic shape and design with an attached UMPC module.

              Please note that the progressive improvement of a simple aerial bomb gradually turns it into a cruise missile. First they install the wings, then the aiming systems, then the additional engine. So, over time, we will eventually come to a cruise missile again. Is it worth building a fence?
              1. 0
                26 March 2024 15: 05
                Quote: Gritsa
                So, over time, we will eventually come to a cruise missile again. Is it worth building a fence?

                Costs. The bomb is dropped and the rocket is launched. Therefore, in terms of the range of destruction and power of warheads, these are completely different “devices”. If you attach an additional engine to a 3-ton battery to launch it at a range of, well, at least 1 km, then this missile launcher will be comparable to the size of TU-500. No.
                1. 0
                  26 March 2024 23: 21
                  The missiles from the Tu-22 are unhooked.
          2. +3
            26 March 2024 16: 00
            Quote: VPK-65
            The economy must be economical

            That's it. What is the point of producing new bombs for UMPC with a shape that is not suitable for planning?
            1. 0
              26 March 2024 18: 26
              Quote: Lozovik
              What is the point of producing new bombs for UMPC with a shape that is not suitable for planning?
              The ideal “form” for planning is... a frying pan wassat Or do you want to cast iron directly in the shape of a wing (NACA profiles)?
              And everything else (cylinder, ball) is only about streamlining laughing
              Of course, a cast iron weight in the shape of a cylinder with good streamlining will fly further.
              Now consider the production costs of creating new injection molds, press molds, etc. The lead time for their production is long; the payback period for the products (if you sell them) begins after several tens of thousands of pieces. Does the enemy buy them from us, or do we dump them on his head for free?
              Buy yourself and your wife a Maybach, and each of your kids a Lamborghini, or remember that there is such a phrase as “family budget”. So, everything has a budget: a workshop, a plant, a concern, the state, etc. and, alas, it is not rubber... but who would argue, the Maybach will of course fly further...
              1. +2
                26 March 2024 19: 09
                Quote: VPK-65
                The ideal “form” for planning is... a frying pan

                For planning, the most suitable form will be one that provides small Cx, that is, the largest characteristic time.

                Quote: VPK-65
                Now consider the production costs of creating new injection molds, press molds, etc.

                What other forms? The head part is produced by casting into the ground using wooden models.

                Quote: VPK-65
                Does the enemy buy them from us, or do we dump them on his head for free?

                The enemy can shoot down a carrier that costs orders of magnitude more than aerial bombs.

                Quote: VPK-65
                So, everything has a budget: a workshop, a plant, a concern, the state, etc. and unfortunately it is not rubber...

                It turns out to be rubber, since it is possible to produce initially vicious weapons and then heroically fight this viciousness.
        3. +2
          26 March 2024 15: 00
          so in the article there is an answer to this. ricochet cone
        4. +1
          26 March 2024 16: 32
          Quote: Askold65
          Can you tell me why the bombs have such a “chiselled figure” appearance, and not an initially aerodynamic shape?

          In 1954, a system of highly effective high-explosive bombs was adopted in a wide range of calibers (from FAB-250 to FAB-9000), stable on the trajectory when bombing at supersonic flight speeds and from high altitudes. The system was assigned the index M-54. The high qualities of this system were confirmed by its longevity, but it was not without its shortcomings.
          Air bombs of the M-54 model had a blunt-nosed body with a ballistic ring, which caused their high aerodynamic drag and sharply reduced the flight-tactical characteristics of fighters and fighter-bombers carrying air bombs on an external sling.
          In 1962, high-explosive aerial bombs of the M-62 model with cigar-shaped bodies that had low drag (caliber 250 and 500 kg) were adopted.
          © History of aircraft designs in the USSR. 1951-1965

          That is, on the M-54, priority was given to stability on the trajectory (accuracy), and on the subsequent M-62, to reducing aerodynamic drag.
  6. -1
    26 March 2024 08: 57
    The name of the plant was not officially disclosed by the Ministry of Defense.
    Is there no secrecy in our country anymore? If the Ministry of Defense did not announce the name of the plant, then you can find out it in another way, for example, by identifying the identities of the management of this plant who appeared in the report.
    We have increased the production of ammunition - well done, why trumpet this to the whole world, where is this done?
  7. +4
    26 March 2024 09: 03
    FAB-3000 and its prospects
    Yes, the prospects are foggy. More than anything, this is a PSYCHOLOGICAL WEAPON. Somehow everyone forgets that the main advantage of our air bombs with a correction system with a caliber of up to 500 kg is their low visibility in the radar and infrared range, which cannot be said about a bomb of 3000, it will be much better visible in the radar range, and therefore there is an opportunity to hit her
    1. 0
      26 March 2024 12: 01
      Quote: svp67
      ....what cannot be said about a bomb at 3000, it will be much better visible in the radar range, which means it becomes possible to hit it

      The Ukrainian Armed Forces have very few such air defense systems (virtually none). For this purpose, they tried to drag one of the Patriots closer to the front line, which was supposed to shoot down our UAB carrier aircraft, but it was quickly identified and covered. According to some data, "Iskander", according to others - "Tornado-S". The video of this event went around almost all resources and “VO” too.
  8. +2
    26 March 2024 09: 37
    There is also information about the fundamental possibility of deploying a Su-34 front-line bomber,
    Hmmm...! As they said in Soviet times: But in principle, everything is there! Then tell me the address of this “Principle”! Counting on equipping the Su-34 FAB-3000 only based on the presence of a suitable fuel tank in the “range” of the Su-34 equipment is, comrades, voluntarism!
    1. +1
      26 March 2024 10: 23
      PS Counting on equipping the Su-34 with FAB-3000 only based on the presence of a suitable fuel tank in the “range” of Su-34 equipment is, comrades, voluntarism!

      And if you add UMPC to FAB-3000, then the “theoretical possibility” will even more likely tend to “practical impossibility”!
      As for the Tu-95, I heard that a bomber “converted” into a missile carrier can no longer use free-falling bombs as before! It is necessary to carry out the “reverse process”, which is expensive and time-consuming!
      1. 0
        26 March 2024 14: 28
        I also believed for a long time that the same Tu-160 is a pure missile carrier. However, according to some sources this is not the case. As I understand it, the bomb bay equipment can change relatively quickly, and instead of the same revolver installations, other holders can be installed, and there may also be options for installing different holders on the revolvers themselves. This can be seen in some photos of bomb bays. I think the same picture applies to the Tu-95ms; in addition, the Tu-95ms also has beam holders on the wing.
        1. 0
          26 March 2024 19: 19
          The Tu-160 has the ability to carry 50-1500 kg bombs, while the Tu-95MS does not.
  9. +2
    26 March 2024 09: 54
    Quote: Gomunkul
    The name of the plant was not officially disclosed by the Ministry of Defense.
    Is there no secrecy in our country anymore? If the Ministry of Defense did not announce the name of the plant, then you can find out it in another way, for example, by identifying the identities of the management of this plant who appeared in the report.
    We have increased the production of ammunition - well done, why trumpet this to the whole world, where is this done?

    "53 Arsenal", n.p. Yuganets, Nizhny Novgorod region, 56°15'35"N 43°15'25"E
    The workers have inscriptions on their overalls
    1. -1
      26 March 2024 10: 43
      Chatterbox - a find for the spy!
      It’s good that the plant wasn’t marked with missiles!
  10. +1
    26 March 2024 10: 02
    The release range is several kilometers - this is entry into the air defense system’s coverage area. To make a UPMK for it is a small aircraft - like the Yak-50. Wouldn't it be simpler - to increase the accuracy of the existing ASP, caliber 1500 kg?
  11. -2
    26 March 2024 10: 06
    Taking down the high-rise buildings of Ugledar is the first goal in line. They drank so much blood.
  12. +5
    26 March 2024 10: 14
    The FAB-3000-M54 air bomb can be used by long-range bombers Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS

    Question. Does the Tu-95MS know that it can drop conventional bombs? I won't ask if he ever released them, because I think the answer is never.
    1. 0
      27 March 2024 01: 05
      Quote: stoqn477
      Does the Tu-95MS know that it can drop conventional bombs?

      It’s just that the TU-95MS is not so difficult to modify for the FAB-3000. It has four underwing pylons, each carrying two missiles. A pylon carrying two Kh-101 missiles can easily carry one FAB-3000, you just need to make a suspension unit for the bomb.
  13. +5
    26 March 2024 10: 37
    On March 21, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu visited one of the enterprises of the military-industrial complex in the Nizhny Novgorod region.
    But I always wondered: why does Shoigu personally visit enterprises? If he needs some information from the enterprise, then ask the director for it! If the director needs to insert a wick, call him to your carpet and give him pleasure! Why did he go into the workshop himself? Will he understand anything there or recommend something smart? Is he a production connoisseur?
    Although, perhaps I should underestimate his abilities. He is our rescuer, and governor, and commander, and, they say, he paints pictures... “And an academician, and a hero, and a navigator, and a carpenter” (C)
    It seems to me that he has enough work in his office now!
  14. 0
    26 March 2024 11: 20
    Quote: article
    Total bomb mass without fuses reaches 3067 kg. Of this, the body accounts for 1600 kg. The explosive charge is 1387 kg.

    So 1600+1387=2987. I’m embarrassed to ask, but where did another 80 kg (2,6%) of something (housing/explosive, let me remind you that fuses are not taken into account) go? This is somehow too much for technological errors in mass (especially in aviation). Or if we assume that this is a mass after all with fuses...it’s still a bit too much... request
  15. +1
    26 March 2024 11: 56
    FAB-3000 - sounds.
    We have understood the psychological impact.
    A funnel of 30-40 meters is also understandable.
    But, most likely, these “toys” are just another T-14. Airplanes will be afraid to fly into the air defense zone. Bombs are simply ballistic, freely falling over tens of kilometers.
    Immediately a question:
    Lviv will see these toys in action??????
  16. +1
    26 March 2024 12: 02
    FAB-250 bomb with UMPC module

    Please note: the bomb is more like an M-62, but about the three-ton bomb everything is M-54, M-54...
    Well, a brick doesn’t fly, even a little one.
    With a high degree of probability we can predict that there will be no UMPC-3000.
    1. 0
      26 March 2024 19: 17
      In the photo, by the way, FAB-500M62. In the 250 kg caliber with UMPC, OFAB-250-270 is used.
  17. 0
    26 March 2024 12: 43
    Let's evaluate its use at AzovStal in Mariupol.
    Because of its cones, it stuck into the concrete floor of the building and destroyed it and all the equipment around it somewhere around 100-150m. The Ukrainian Armed Forces were sitting in multi-level underground basements and were not injured in any way. Only one case of a hit at the entrance to the bunker was recorded, but how many bombs were dropped?
    Bottom line: a new form of FAB-3000 is required, with a penetrating warhead to pierce tiers of underground floors.
    And what about the ocean?
    Earlier, American military analysts came to the conclusion that the 14-ton GBU-57 bunker bombs currently in service with the United States do not have enough power to reliably destroy Iran’s most fortified structures. For this reason, the US military command requested additional funding from Congress to modernize this ammunition in order to achieve the required performance.

    The GBU-57 guided bomb, nicknamed the “Bunker Destroyer,” replaced its predecessors, the GBU-28 and GBU-37 bunker bombs, which weighed more than 2 tons. These laser-guided and global positioning system munitions, capable of penetrating up to 30 meters into the ground and penetrating concrete floors more than 6 meters thick, were developed in the 1990s and are still in service with the US Army. However, the practical experience of military operations in Iraq in the early 2000s showed their insufficient penetrating and destructive ability when destroying some especially fortified objects, so the American military leadership decided to develop a new type of heavy-duty ammunition.
    Already in September 2011, the US Air Force confirmed the adoption of the first batch of twenty units of GBU-57 guided bunker bombs, intended for installation on B-2A Spirit stealth bombers. The new super-bomb, unofficially called Penetrator (from the English penetrate - to penetrate), has a length of more than 6 meters and a diameter of about 1 meter. The total weight of the “bunker buster” is almost 14 tons, and the weight of the warhead with high-power explosives reaches almost 2,5 tons. Tests show that Penetrator GBU-57 MOP can penetrate the ground to a depth of 60 meters and destroy multi-level concrete floors with a total thickness of over 20 meters. It is known that the cost of the project to develop, produce and modernize ammunition was about $400 million.
    1. +1
      26 March 2024 15: 17
      Three tons at 700 km/hour could not penetrate concrete??? What kind of concrete is this?
      1. 0
        26 March 2024 17: 30
        Quote: garri-lin
        Three tons at 700 km/hour could not penetrate concrete??? What kind of concrete is this?

        They exploded on the surface and cannot go deeper like the Yankees. Fugaska
        1. 0
          26 March 2024 17: 35
          It just depends on the fuse. And not from the strength of the case. The strength of the body is more than enough to overcome a concrete barrier. The problem is not with the ammunition, but with those who prepared it for departure.
          1. 0
            26 March 2024 17: 44
            Not only. Look at its shape. What kind of depth could there be?
            1. 0
              26 March 2024 18: 11
              Well, what is considered deepening and how many meters of concrete do you need to go through before that?
              1. 0
                26 March 2024 18: 21
                Such a thing should explode not in workshops, but in their basements. 5 meters of concrete or 20 meters of soil.
                1. 0
                  27 March 2024 06: 46
                  What basements are there 5 meters of concrete above?
                  I don’t agree about 20 meters of soil. 10 is enough. And about 3 meters of concrete above it. I don't have exact data. Will FAB 3000 be able to penetrate so deeply.
    2. 0
      26 March 2024 23: 25
      Quote: dragon772
      Bottom line: a new form of FAB-3000 is required, with a penetrating warhead to pierce tiers of underground floors.

      The use of special thick-walled FAB-1500-2600TS turned out to be particularly beneficial. Despite the “one and a half” caliber, they had an actual mass of more than 2,5 tons, and a durable cast “head” ten centimeters thick (versus the 18-mm walls of a conventional FAB-1500), like a ram, made it possible to go deep into the rock.
  18. 0
    26 March 2024 13: 40
    Ricochet is prevented by a special ring protrusion.

    Well, how long can you write this nonsense? Is anyone really going to throw a FAB-3000 at low level?
  19. +3
    26 March 2024 14: 08
    Lala. Some kind of baby talk. Su-34 does not take Fab-3000 on board. At all. Thank you, he takes 2 fab-1500 at once.
    Without the fab-3000 planning module, it is a waste of money and effort. The Tu-22M3 is a tasty morsel for air defense trousers; if it enters the affected area, it will be immediately shot down.
    If this bomb is produced only in the usual version, this is pure populism and fraud!
  20. 0
    26 March 2024 15: 09
    The aerodynamics of the bomb really don't look very good. Even with better wings and nose, it would not be able to achieve the low glide angle and therefore the range of other glide bombs.

    Does it make sense to install a correction module anyway? I think yes - under certain conditions.

    If you give up the long range, the tiny wings are enough to influence the trajectory and greatly improve accuracy. This assumes there is no active air defense in the area. MANPADS don't count, they don't reach the required height.

    My guess: the order for serial production of the bomb means that the command expects the complete suppression of enemy air defenses in the near future.
    1. 0
      31 March 2024 15: 40
      Or another fraud. It’s not realistic to suppress the air defense of the Sharovars, they’ve been kicking around for 25 months already, they’re giving them equipment, and their combat experience is multiplying. We don’t know much, perhaps we’ve found a modular solution, the lorry flies well, but the 3-tonne... okay, let’s see what the application will be, probably soon.
  21. +1
    26 March 2024 18: 08
    The author would just like a reason to clap his hands - what the hell is the difference in increasing the mass of a bomb-type - will the efficiency increase? tongue
  22. -1
    26 March 2024 23: 02
    Well, otherwise the boys were whining that we were running out of ammunition and we were saving on it. Guys, everything is for you!
  23. +1
    26 March 2024 23: 39
    Show this FAB-3000 in action, and we will evaluate the prospects ourselves! good hi
  24. 0
    27 March 2024 13: 43
    The production of bombs is of course useful for the defense of the country. BUT
    Our problem is not with bombs, but with reconnaissance, target designation and guidance systems.
  25. 0
    27 March 2024 19: 31
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Personally, I don’t see any goals for it at all. The truth is strictly due to the range (very short) of use.

    with such a section of the midsection it flies straight down like a brick. To get something you need a fairing and a powder rocket booster. And bigger wings! All this will pull up to 4 tons
  26. 0
    April 1 2024 16: 23
    Well, many people were surprised about the carrier, remember the USSR, Novaya Zemlya, what was the carrier? We got out of the situation.
  27. 0
    April 1 2024 19: 26
    Today I just listened to audio, memories of WWII pilots who flew the Pe-8. I was surprised, but even in those years they rarely threw FAB-5000.
    The Americans threw 6 tons to clear minefields and further break through in the first Iraq War. Maybe ours also want to use similar tactics?
    In any case, you must first suppress the enemy's air defense in order to throw such bombs in free fall. I hope they will make it suitable for long-distance planning.