The feasibility of using strategic, long-range and transport aircraft as carriers of FAB-3000 with UMPC

92
The feasibility of using strategic, long-range and transport aircraft as carriers of FAB-3000 with UMPC
In the background is a FAB-3000-M54. Image by mil.ru


One of the most effective types of weapons used by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (RF Armed Forces) during a special military operation (SVO) in Ukraine were aerial bombs equipped with unified planning and correction modules (UMPC).



Initially, high-explosive aerial bombs (FAB) of 500 kilogram caliber - FAB-500 - began to be used on the battlefield with UMPC, then they were supplemented with smaller products FAB-250, as well as RBK-500 cluster munitions and ODAB-500 volumetric detonating ammunition. Recently, the most powerful FAB-1500 aerial bombs with UMPC have been used.

Each ammunition of one caliber or another has its own advantages and disadvantages.

On the one hand, reducing the caliber allows the carrier to take more bombs from the UMPC at a time and destroy more targets in one flight, but provided that the destructive power of these ammunition is sufficient to destroy/destroy the given targets.

On the other hand, larger-caliber aerial bombs are capable of destroying more protected objects; in addition, it can be assumed that the main limiter in the use of aerial bombs with UMPC is the high-tech filling, and not the aerial bombs themselves, and therefore it is more expedient to spend it on those aerial bombs that will inflict on the enemy more harm - we talked about this earlier in the material “When size matters: UMPC on FAB of increased power”.

The first “bell” was the appearance of the aforementioned FAB-1500 with UMPC, which in its destructive power exceeds most guided munitions, not only in Russia, but also abroad, capable of laying down huge buildings and structures.


FAB-1500 with UMPC are already flying to enemy positions

And during his visit to Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced the resumption of production of high-explosive bombs FAB-3000-M54 (hereinafter referred to as FAB-3000). The explosive mass of these aerial bombs is approximately 1 kilograms, the rest is made up of a massive steel body, capable of breaking through high-strength fortifications and detonating the bomb inside the object being destroyed.

Nothing has been said yet about the use of the FAB-3000 with the UMPC, but it is extremely unlikely that the Russian Armed Forces will decide to use the FAB-3000 without the UMPC - even taking into account the weakening of the Ukrainian air defense (air defense) recently, the FAB-carriers will be approaching the release point 3000 is deadly - the enemy will make every effort to destroy our aircraft.


Funnel from FAB-3000

In the above-mentioned material, we said that the main factor limiting the use of UMPC on aerial bombs of the FAB-9000, FAB-5000, FAB-3000 types will be the number of carriers that can use them, as well as the release range, which determines the survival of the carrier aircraft in conditions of countering enemy air defenses.

The problem of finding the optimal carrier for aerial bombs with UMPC has been raised by the author more than once; the fact is that aerial bombs with UMPC are weapon “mass application”, and not some kind of “silver bullet”, accordingly, carriers of aerial bombs with UMPC should also be widespread and inexpensive, both in their cost and in operating cost - for these purposes it is not very rational to use such complex and expensive combat vehicles, like the latest Su-57 and Su-35 fighters, since the complex and expensive avionics (avionics) they have are not required to use air bombs with UMPC against targets with pre-known coordinates.

However, with FAB-3000 carriers it is still more difficult, since not every aircraft is capable of lifting this product, and for those who are capable, being carriers of these aerial bombs, even taking into account their equipment with UMPC, may be too risky.

Let's take a closer look at the potential FAB-3000 carriers with UMPC; we will immediately make a reservation: we are not considering the use of FAB-3000 without UMPC, since this would mean the complete suppression of enemy air defense, and in this case it is no longer critical what to throw and from what.

Tu-160(M), Tu-95MS(MSM)


It would seem that the most logical would be the use of strategic aircraft as carriers of the FAB-3000 with UMPC. aviation Tu-160(M) and Tu-95MS(MSM) - their significant payload capacity will allow the use of up to half a dozen such ammunition in one flight.

However, firstly, according to open data, all Tu-160(M) and Tu-95MS(MSM) currently in service are adapted for striking with long-range cruise missiles (CR), to ensure the possibility of using FAB- 3000 with UMPC, they will have to be modified, and the ability to use long-range missiles by these aircraft may be temporarily/partially lost.

And secondly, the RF Armed Forces don’t have so many of these aircraft to risk them by flying too close to the line of combat contact (LCC), especially since their huge size, low maneuverability, and high visibility in the thermal and radar wavelength ranges make their easy target for enemy anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM), plus there is a possibility that such aircraft will be detected by enemy HBTSS and PWSA reconnaissance satellites, with target designation being issued directly to the air defense system.


Tu-160 and Tu-95MS. Image by Wikimedia Commons / V. Savitsky / Sergey Krivchikov – Russian AviaPhoto Team

And according to the “cost-effectiveness” criterion, these aircraft do not look very good as carriers of aerial bombs with UMPC - they are too expensive, and the flight hour of these aircraft is too expensive.

Tu-22M3(M3M)


Immediately behind the “strategists” is the long-range bomber Tu-22M3 (M3M), which confirmed its ability to use FAB-3000, dropping them on the Ukronazis entrenched at the Azovstal plant. But the Tu-22M3 (M3M) can hardly be called an ideal carrier of the FAB-3000 with UMPC, the problems are still the same - the large size of the aircraft, low maneuverability, significant visibility in the thermal and radar wavelength ranges, limited number in the RF Armed Forces, high cost of the aircraft and his flight hour.

There is another important question - how large will the UMPC be for the FAB-3000?

There is a possibility that due to the large size of the UMPC, aerial bombs with it simply will not fit into the internal compartments of aircraft; in this case, the Tu-22M3 (M3M) could potentially carry two such aerial bombs with UMPC on modified underwing pylons, where it previously carried anti-ship missiles (RCR) X-22.


Tu-22M3 with Kh-22 anti-ship missiles weighing over 5 kilograms each

By the way, it is the significant dimensions of the UMPC that can become an obstacle to equipping such ammunition as the FAB-5000 and FAB-9000 with them - they simply will not fit into any existing carrier.

In general, although strategic and long-range aviation aircraft can be used as carriers of FAB-3000 with UMPC, this can hardly be called an optimal solution.

Still, the Tu-160(M) and Tu-95MS(MSM) are more needed as carriers of long-range strategic cruise missiles Kh-555 and Kh-101 (and The Tu-160M ​​could potentially also become a carrier of hypersonic missiles of the Kinzhal complex), and Tu-22M3(M3M) are needed as a carrier aeroballistic anti-ship missiles X-22/X-32.

IL-76


It would seem, what does transport aircraft have to do with it? After all, dropping aerial bombs, even with UMPC, is not their purpose at all?

However, in reality, there are many cases of using transport aircraft to drop ammunition for various purposes, moreover, there is a clear tendency that in the future the use of transport aircraft as delivery vehicles for various types of weapons will only increase.

Let’s not talk about the use of conventional free-fall bombs from transport aircraft in conditions of complete or almost complete air supremacy, for example, when American C-130 transport aircraft were used to drop BLU-82 bombs in Vietnam. Although training for the crews of transport aircraft in terms of dropping air bombs in the Russian Armed Forces is still carried out, for example, in November 2021, Il-76 transport aircraft successfully bombed for training purposes at the Kushalino training ground in the Tver region from an altitude of about 500 meters.

Ранее transport aircraft were even considered as a platform for launching air-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).


Launching an air-launched ICBM from a transport aircraft

Tested in the USA the possibility of using transport aircraft as carriers of small-sized unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), capable of operating both in kamikaze mode and being reused after returning to the carrier. Russia is considering the possibility of a similar use of the Il-76 as a carrier of the Molniya UAV.


Image of receiving a UAV onto a C-130 transport aircraft and a test flight with transportation of the UAV on the receiving device

The Rapid Dragon system is being actively tested, which involves placing special pallets for JASSM-ER cruise missiles in American transport aircraft. The C-130 can carry 12 JASSM-ER cruise missiles, while the larger C-17 can carry 5 pallets of 9 missiles each for a total of 45 JASSM-ER missiles.

In addition, the possibility of using JDAM-ER guided bombs and ADM-160 MALD decoys from transport aircraft in a similar way is being considered - the latter two types of weapons, by the way, are used in Ukraine, and how would we not end up among the “beta testers” of this American weapons, since the US interest in it is quite high. Something similar is being developed in Japan.


Rapid Dragon system. Image from Lockheed Martin presentation

Why such a long preamble?

And to the fact that of all the “large” aircraft, perhaps it is the Il-76 transport aircraft that can become the most effective carriers of the FAB-3000 with UMPC.

What is their advantage?

In the size of the cargo compartment.

As we said earlier, FAB-3000 with UMPC can be quite large products; in addition, the size limitation will not allow installing UMPC with a wingspan that provides a greater range of use on the FAB-3000. A number of sources suggest that the significant weight and dimensions of the FAB-3000 with UMPC will make it possible to ensure a gliding range of no more than 40 kilometers, which seriously puts the carrier aircraft at risk.


Il-76 cargo compartment. Image by Wikimedia Commons/User#101

The Il-76 transport aircraft has a cargo compartment with dimensions of 20x3,45x3,4 meters (in general the length of the cargo compartment is 24,5 meters, but there is a 4,5 meter ramp from it), a payload capacity of 28–60 tons, a flight range with a payload of 40 tons - 6 kilometers.

Based on the above dimensions of the cargo compartment, we can talk about the potential possibility of placing in the Il-76 in specialized transportation and discharge devices from 3 to 16 units. FAB-3000 with UMPC (3–4 units in length, 1–2 units in width in the bottom row, 1–2 units in width in the top row), depending on the dimensions of the UMPC with the required wingspan.

By the way, previously the possibility of placing glide ammunition with a high aspect ratio wing (relative to the ammunition body) in the cargo compartment of an Il-76 transport aircraft was considered by the author in the material "Project Condor: Death from Heaven".


Project "Condor". Author image

The use of transport aircraft as carriers of aerial bombs with UMPC removes the restriction on the use of such super-heavy ammunition as FAB-5000 and FAB-9000 with UMPC, it’s just that fewer of them will be placed in the cargo compartment, for example, only 3-6 units. FAB-5000 with UMPC or 1–2 units. FAB-9000 with UMPC.

Possessing strike accuracy comparable to that of a modern cruise missile, FAB-5000 and FAB-9000 ammunition with UMPC will leave no chance for such capital structures as bridges, dams, factory floors, port facilities and much more.

Conclusions


Of all the strategic, long-range and transport aircraft - potential carriers of the FAB-3000 with UMPC, the use of modified Il-76 transport aircraft is presumably optimal. Their transport compartment can accommodate from 3 to 16 units. FAB-3000, equipped with a UMPC with a high aspect ratio wing, providing a large gliding range, minimizing the risk of hitting an enemy air defense missile carrier aircraft.

Also, the use of transport aircraft for dropping aerial bombs potentially allows us to consider the possibility of equipping UMPC and more powerful ammunition, such as FAB-5000 and FAB-9000.


FAB-9000-M54

It should be noted that the FAB-3000 can potentially be used from tactical aircraft, but we will talk about this in the next article.
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    April 1 2024 05: 26
    The author missed a couple of nuances about the use of the Il-76 as a bomber. The first is that even if we consider the Il-76 to be completely equal in terms of release conditions to bombers like the Tu-22, then its enormous size and complete lack of stealth remain. Those. The IL-76 will be easy prey for long-range missiles.
    Second - IL-76 IS NOT EQUAL according to the reset conditions! Because the bombs will be pulled out from the ramp, which means the drop height will be 5-6 km, and more importantly they will be pulled out by parachute, which means that the speed of the bomb will be much lower than the already low speed of the Il-76 during landing (no more than 400 km/h ) Well, 600 km/h with the ramp open.
    There can be no talk of any safe bomb planning range...
    1. +3
      April 1 2024 05: 47
      In 1943, they tested the FAB-8NG with PE-5000, then they threw it at the Nazis! But it didn’t even go into the bomb bay, they flew with the doors slightly open. But we managed. It was the Tsar Bomba.
      1. +6
        April 1 2024 06: 36
        It remains to consider the decommissioned An-24 passenger aircraft. Tu-154, etc., and then it will come to balloons. fellow
        1. 0
          April 1 2024 18: 32
          If the Ministry of Defense had bought all the fresh Tu-10Ms from commercial companies in the early 154s and put them in storage, it would now have a reserve of airframes to create a plane version for the near future.
    2. 0
      April 1 2024 10: 48
      I saw information about the 400 km/h limit, but where is it said about the 5-6 km altitude limit?

      I assumed not a parachute drop, but a gravity drop, when a turn is made in advance, for example, by 8-10 km, and then a climb to a maximum of 11-12 km of the practical ceiling with the simultaneous release of bombs (on the return course).

      Yes, the Il-76 still has the same huge size and low maneuverability, but the dimensions of its cargo compartment make it possible to make a UMPC for the FAB-3000 on a larger scale than when suspended under the Tu-22M3, due to which a larger gliding range should be achieved , for example, not 40-60 km for FAB-3000, but about 100 km.

      In addition, all of our downed large aircraft were destroyed due to the fact that the enemy knew about their location according to foreign intelligence data (NATO) and was “preparing for a meeting.” It is more difficult to track all transport aircraft than bombers, because... there are simply more of them. Although, of course, there is a risk, air defense must be taken into account.
      1. +1
        April 1 2024 17: 42
        Quote: AVM
        I saw information about the 400 km/h limit, but where is it said about the 5-6 km altitude limit?

        And this is a restriction on work for the crew in the cargo compartment. Clarified - 7 km.

        Quote: AVM
        I assumed not a parachute drop, but a gravity drop, when a turn is made in advance, for example, at 8-10 km, and then a climb to a maximum 11-12 km of the practical ceiling with the simultaneous release of bombs (on the reverse course).... on a large scale. ... due to which a larger gliding range should be achieved, for example, not 40-60 km for FAB-3000, but about 100 km.
        Christmas tree sticks, and even a three-ton, not to mention 5-ton pig from an airplane, how to pull it out? But not only that, the bomb will either have a negative horizontal speed when dropped with its nose towards the target, or it will have to turn 180 degrees towards the target, gaining speed due to the altitude. That's it, at such a speed and such a height, even a super-wonderful wing will not fly any 100 km. But this is without even remembering the strength of the extended wing and deployment unit.

        Quote: AVM
        In addition, all of our downed large aircraft were destroyed due to the fact that the enemy knew about their location according to foreign intelligence data (NATO) and was “preparing for a meeting”
        This is because they did not purposefully fly up to the LBS, they didn’t fly up to them at all.
      2. 0
        April 1 2024 19: 33
        Air defense will knock all this down even before entering the combat course.
    3. 0
      April 1 2024 16: 34
      what kind of double standards are there?
      The Indians hung their 3 (three) Brahmos anti-ship missiles 2500 kg on the Su-30MKI max take-off weight 39 tons
      3 anti-ship missiles of 2500 kg = 7500 kg = 7,5 tons
      i.e the Indians have 7,5 tons on the Su-30 - but we don’t have a more powerful Su-34 type
      Su-34 max take-off weight 45 tons - Onyx anti-ship missile weighs 3000 kg
      - so that under the fuselage the suspension system will support 1 FAB-3000 with UMPC and 2 under the wings
      I’ll say more: Su-34 will receive Zircon anti-ship missiles
      1. 0
        April 1 2024 17: 56
        Quote: Romario_Argo
        The Indians hung their 3 (three) Brahmos 2500 kg anti-ship missiles on the Su-30MKI

        2500 kg one. Three is obtained with small BrahMos-NG.

      2. +1
        April 1 2024 19: 37
        Especially for Romario: the Su-30MKI carries one Brahmos. One, but it is 3000% lighter than the FAB-20. And: no experience in combat use.
        1. 0
          April 2 2024 09: 30
          this was a provocation - otherwise only strategists
          URA
          - we found out that the Su-34 can carry one FAB-3000 with UMPC under the fuselage
          and in addition under the wings 2 more FAB-1500 bombs with UMPC and 2 R-77 missiles
    4. 0
      April 1 2024 18: 40
      Or maybe they are not going to be dropped from an airplane?
      The Americans made the GLDSB bomb with a rocket booster, fired by a ground-based installation. What prevents us from creating a ramp for launching a rocket plane with a powder accelerator and a sustainer turbofan engine based on a railway car. And build a rocket plane around this bomb. So to speak, repeat the experience of 100 years ago with artillery armored trains at a new technical level.
      1. 0
        April 2 2024 05: 10
        Quote: clou
        What prevents us from creating a ramp for launching a rocket plane with a powder accelerator and a sustainer turbofan engine based on a railway car. And build a rocket plane around this bomb.

        Yeah, happy April 1st to you too!
        1. 0
          April 2 2024 09: 41
          it's like the Syrian MLRS Golan-1000 with 6 guides
          - but it will still be NOT more than FAB-250
          - and the range is small, no more than 10 km
    5. -1
      April 2 2024 19: 13
      The only option is to modify these heavy FABs, namely, to stick rocket boosters or engines into the **pull or on the sides for a longer release. Then it will be possible to work with them from the 76th, and from any others. I'm sure some similar options are being explored...
    6. 0
      April 8 2024 00: 07
      In fact, everything is much simpler. It is strange that the author and most commentators do not know that the UMPC was developed and used only with M62 bombs. No one has ever developed or will develop a UMPC with bombs of the M54 type, which includes the FAB-3000. Bombs with an M54 profile are barrel-shaped and there can be no talk of any planning. Barrel bombs were designed to be placed inside the fuselage, had a shorter profile to save space, and were completely aerodynamic.
      1. 0
        April 8 2024 03: 55
        Quote: Plot Plotov
        Barrel bombs were designed to be placed inside the fuselage, had a shorter profile to save space, and were completely aerodynamic.

        You are writing some kind of crap... The bomb has the same proportions as the FAB-1500, so why is it without aerodynamics? Apart from the possibility of installing fairings...
        1. -1
          April 10 2024 00: 01
          Yah? Well, look at the difference between fab-500m62 and fab-500m54..
          The original M-54 model released in 1954, in a form easy to transport by a heavy bomber; a low-drag version of the M-62 was assigned to the fighter-bomber's external carriage in 1962. How will a barrel bomb glide? It has the aerodynamics of a brick.
          1. 0
            April 10 2024 02: 56
            Quote: Plot Plotov
            Yah? Well, look at the difference between fab-500m62 and fab-500m54..

            And look at the photo in the article.
            That's all...
  2. +5
    April 1 2024 05: 28
    Have you made a bomb and don't know how to deliver it? Gee!
    1. +3
      April 1 2024 06: 05
      The author does not know this. Before production began, specially trained people had already carried out calculations. I think that airplane crews have been training for a long time.
      1. +3
        April 1 2024 07: 22
        Fortune telling on coffee grounds...or as they say here, “another Mitrofanovism” winked
        1. +3
          April 1 2024 09: 10
          Quote: Popuas
          Fortune telling on coffee grounds...or as they say here, “another Mitrofanovism” winked

          The other day there was an article about FAB5000 and FAB9000. Then I wrote that these power supply units in the current conditions are a source of pride, but they are of no practical value, even with the UMPC, until the enemy’s air defense is 100% suppressed. They downvoted me to death then! But now Mr. Mitrofanov (with all his extravagance in technical matters) confirms my point of view.
          - We cannot use these bombs without UMPC for obvious reasons.
          - The UMPC has not yet been created for these bombs. And it is unlikely that a UMPC will be created that would ensure the flight of a bomb at a distance greater than the range of action of modern air defense systems.
          - We have almost no suitable media (even if suitable UMPCs are created). And those that exist (transport IL and AN) are busy with other things, and their number, unfortunately, does not increase, but decreases.
          Something like that!
    2. 0
      April 1 2024 06: 35
      “““They made a bomb and don’t know how to deliver it? Gee! ""
      These bombs were made a long time ago, then there were enough carriers for them. In those days, there simply were no such advanced air defense systems and bombs could be dropped relatively safely where needed.
    3. 0
      April 1 2024 14: 15
      I think they know, I think they will rush a hundred kilometers in a blink of an eye. Since daggers are launched once a month, why are the pilots chilling? Let them throw too
  3. +4
    April 1 2024 05: 31
    I think that if it had not been possible to use them, they would not have been made again. Apparently everything has already been worked out - we'll see. good
    1. 0
      April 1 2024 05: 49
      It can be assumed that they will produce a small series just to test the reset methods. By the way, it is possible to test the installation of powder accelerators to gain altitude after the drop and increase the gliding range.
      1. 0
        April 1 2024 05: 55
        Well, working on the front line is certainly a mess. And 1,2 tons of TNT is also not a cheap pleasure... and there was no mention of it at MGM either (with a charge simulator). So it’s difficult to say what to work off recourse
    2. +3
      April 1 2024 07: 07
      Most likely, they are made in order to iron all sorts of factories and bomb shelters in large cities, dropping them directly over the target, like Mariupol, when the enemy’s air defense has already been suppressed and nothing threatens carriers in the target area, and the city is surrounded.
      1. +2
        April 1 2024 13: 07
        In my opinion, this is the most realistic option so far. But it is not clear where they will find such a tactical situation as in Mariupol. After all, it became possible only in 2022 as a result of the rapid advancement and ovation of the city.
  4. +3
    April 1 2024 05: 33
    [the problems are still the same - large size of the aircraft, low maneuverability, significant visibility in the thermal and radar wavelength ranges, limited number in the RF Armed Forces, high cost of the aircraft and its flight hours.]

    The above words of the author refer to strategic and long-range aviation!
    So it turns out that all of the above does not apply to transport aviation?
    The author did not confuse anything?
  5. +5
    April 1 2024 05: 38
    Those. The Tu-22M3 is low-maneuverable, expensive, and will easily become a target, and the IL-76 is inexpensive, with low ESR, and will easily perform an anti-missile maneuver... The girls are dancing interestingly!
    1. 0
      April 1 2024 05: 57
      A little different. The TU-22 is expensive because it can carry nuclear weapons. And the loss of such an aircraft will be a hole in the system of strategic forces. The loss of the Il-76, no matter how severe it may be, will not reduce the arsenal of strategic forces.
      1. 0
        April 1 2024 13: 08
        TU-22 is expensive because it can carry nuclear weapons

        And what kind of nuclear weapons can the TU-22 carry in our time? free falling bomb or what?
        1. 0
          April 1 2024 15: 54
          What are you doing? What about the Kh-22/32 missiles?
          This is not nuclear weapons. Effectively destroys aircraft-carrying strike groups of enemy fleets.
          By the way, and bombs too.
          1. 0
            April 1 2024 16: 53
            What about the Kh-22/32 missiles?
            This is not nuclear weapons.

            Anti-ship missile? Well, anything could be them now and they are shooting at the ground, but most likely no, these are not nuclear weapons. For nuclear weapons they had the now decommissioned X-15s.
            Effectively destroys aircraft-carrying strike groups of enemy fleets.

            They were very unlikely. The X-22s are hopelessly outdated, the X-32s - there were a lot of rumors about them, but it is not clear whether they were produced at all or what they actually are.
            By the way, and bombs too.

            About as much useless as the huge FAB-9000
            1. 0
              April 1 2024 17: 48
              Quote: alexmach
              Anti-ship missile? Well, anything can be them now and they’re shooting at the ground

              Cruise missile. It has been able to shoot on the ground since its creation.

              Quote: alexmach
              this is not nuclear weapons

              For any modification there are special warheads.

              Quote: alexmach
              X-32 - there were a lot of rumors about them, but it is not clear whether they were produced at all or what it actually is.

              Produced and used. What is not clear?

  6. -3
    April 1 2024 05: 42
    First, politicians destroy their own SS-20 RSDs “to the ground” and with the loss of technology, and then the military must find ways to compensate for the “highest” stupidity and betrayal.
  7. +2
    April 1 2024 05: 50
    How do you get out after a reset? The Il-76 is not a Su-34; it cannot perform a sharp maneuver after being dropped. And in general, a transport worker so close to the belt is already a gamble. In short, the author sucks
  8. 0
    April 1 2024 06: 00
    Once they started doing it, it means there is a carrier and a solution. The author misleads with fortune telling.
    1. 0
      April 1 2024 13: 09
      The author misleads with fortune telling.

      Exclusively because the issue of application from the point of view of existing open knowledge is not trivial.
  9. +1
    April 1 2024 06: 10
    The optimal option is to use modified Il-76 transport aircraft.
    Yes, no type of aircraft is the optimal carrier of this bomb. Using them with these sides means exposing the carriers to a high probability of destruction in advance. The sad fates of the Il-76, near Belgorod, and the A-50, shot down by air defense missiles, are an example of this.
    You can try to solve the problem by equipping this UMPC+FAB3000 system with an additional rocket engine in order to dramatically increase the radius of combat use. But I’m afraid that even in this case it will be of little use; its dimensions and materials make it vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft fire
    1. +1
      April 1 2024 13: 41
      I think that anti-aircraft weapons are unlikely to be dangerous to such a thick-walled steel “fool” (if it is not medium-caliber artillery). And they will probably be able to damage the UMPC, but the module is covered from below by the bomb itself.
      Theoretically, after modification, the Su-34 can take a pair - the load capacity will allow it, there are suspension units for such a load (for the PTB), but serious modification is needed.
  10. +2
    April 1 2024 06: 53
    Throwing bombs from transporters is a good idea. All that’s left is to take out the enemy’s air defense.
    1. 0
      April 1 2024 09: 46
      it’s easier to upgrade the 9M723 missile for the Iskander OTRK
      increase the length of the rocket by changing the mixed fuel but reducing the range from 500 km to 200 km
      increase and lengthen the head from 480 kg to 1500 kg
      and you don’t have to worry about air defense at all
  11. +3
    April 1 2024 09: 26
    First of all, I recommend remembering the fate of our flying radars. The cars are damn expensive and quite protected (in theory), due to their high cost and importance. Over our territory. And still - they were shot down. Now let's ask ourselves the question - how many FAB-3000s do we need to drop on targets at least adjacent to our border? I think at least several dozen. Of course, they will cause good damage (although I have no illusions about the accuracy of home-made UMPCs for such kgb. products with significant weight), but what could be the price for using something like this? Unlike RO, free-falling bombs have a much smaller radius and their carriers are forced to act more predictably for enemy air defenses. As recent months have shown, the enemy understands this and uses a combination of reconnaissance and ambushes to operate in areas of greatest direct activity of our aviation.
    The use of the FAB-3000, as the author points out, will result in significant losses for our difficult-to-replace aviation - this exchange will be for targets that, in the best case, will be disabled in a short-to-medium lag (bridges are meant primarily) because the territory is under the enemy and his restore the brigades have not been canceled, the accuracy of the UMPC is not absolute, there are quite a lot of bridges across the Dnieper.

    Of course, if necessary, in theory you can “bloodyly push through” like this, but you need to understand that the situation with NATO is “heating up”, and wasting large aircraft in front of it is what they generally want from us.

    I believe that our “first discoveries of the navel”, discovered by the Americans already 50-60 years ago, are a big step forward (in terms of adjustable aerial bombs, of course), but it will be an even bigger step forward to open such a necessary element to this as ensuring local air superiority for such operations to preferably greater depth and the need for a significant, comprehensive increase in the survival of our bomber units. In their (the Americans’) case, this is a stealth approach, but you can’t figure out stealth on your knees, so an option here could be to overload the air defense during a simultaneous large-scale and multi-domain operation, in which UMPC bomb strikes will be combined with local knocking out of exposed air defenses and disorganization of control, and which should probably go in conjunction with missile strikes against targets outside the local operation (control centers). To overload air defense, you can (and should) use decoy targets, UAVs, electronic warfare and other tricks. There will still be losses, but in a couple of such strikes it will be possible to achieve significant strategic damage with a minimum of losses.
    In the mid-to-long term, as I already wrote here, as a carrier for such bombs (preferably bicaliber, 1500-3000) you need a stealth geometry UAV with an internal compartment, technically these are the parameters of the “Hunter” in terms of wearable weight, but this product should be cheaper and aerodynamically more tailored to the task than the “Hunter”.
    1. 0
      April 1 2024 14: 40
      The flying radars were shot down by our air defense. Accordingly, they can shoot down anyone, anywhere, with or without fabs.
  12. +2
    April 1 2024 10: 10
    For some reason, everyone wants to destroy support structures and shelters. Isn’t it possible to bypass, block and simply wait until the enemy, starving, comes out of the shelter into the wide world?
    1. 0
      April 1 2024 10: 47
      Quote: Yuras_Belarus
      Isn’t it possible to bypass, block and simply wait until the enemy, starving, comes out of the shelter into the wide world?

      Where can I get personnel for blocking?
      There will be a repeat of the situation of 1945, when numerous festungs took over the forces of the Red Army, significantly weakening the strike forces.
      1. +1
        April 1 2024 14: 36
        Oh, this negative experience of 1945! They came up with the idea, you know, to drive the enemy into cauldrons! It is necessary to release the enemy from the encirclement, because with the main forces he is weaker. And then build camps for prisoners of war, guard them, the horror of the hassle!
    2. 0
      April 1 2024 16: 51
      Quote: Yuras_Belarus
      For some reason, everyone wants to destroy support structures and shelters. Isn’t it possible to bypass, block and simply wait until the enemy, starving, comes out of the shelter into the wide world?

      Exactly. The next milestone in the art of war will be to expect enemy soldiers to die from natural causes (old age) when they reach retirement age.
  13. 0
    April 1 2024 10: 40
    The use of IL-76 as a platform for missiles is an interesting topic in itself. There are a number of BUTs. Il-76 is not enough anyway. And you need a specialized missile, not a bomb, to avoid the aircraft from falling into the enemy’s air defense zone.
    1. 0
      April 1 2024 11: 33
      Another option is to still produce a heavy single-engine drone with a civilian PS-90 engine from the same Il-76. You can also use decommissioned, used engines of a smaller size, in the PD-8 size.
  14. +1
    April 1 2024 11: 36
    As long as there is a threat from the Patriot air defense system, nothing larger than the Su34 will be able to carry such bombs. Another downside is that the design of 1500-3000kg OFAB from the 50s, specially adapted for braking during a fall....for 500x there is a design of 60x strokes with a different shape.
    1. 0
      April 1 2024 14: 18
      I already wrote for the article about the deployment of production: the M-54 has aerodynamics COMPLETELY unsuitable for planning. In principle, the M-54 is about the maximum caliber with minimum dimensions in the BOMB BAY; M-62 - maximum streamlining for EXTERNAL suspension, even on the MiG-25RB.
      It seems that in the M-62 line the heaviest FAB-1500T (heat-resistant). The designation suggests that these cannot be found now, because from the operating speeds/ceilings of the MiG-25 it was only possible to hit a “city” type target. And the FAB-3000 M-62 was not created at all.
      Staff members are equipped with planning-correction modules on bombs with a reduced diameter and increased body elongation. To do this with the FAB-3000 M-54, you need to cut off the tail and attach nose and tail fairings, as long as...
      1. 0
        April 1 2024 15: 05
        Quote: Quzmi4
        I already wrote for the article about the deployment of production

        Yes, there is no production, this is a story. Well, the maximum that can be allowed is that the shells are filled with explosives from old stocks. If new cases are being manufactured based on UMPC, there is no point in ballistic rings. And stabilizers are hardly needed.
        1. 0
          April 1 2024 20: 46
          It’s not a fact, the equipment and injection molds could have been left over specifically for this modification, and the aerodynamics would then be corrected with light fairings, either made of plastic or stamped aluminum.
          1. 0
            April 1 2024 20: 50
            Quote: AVM
            Not a fact, there could be equipment and injection molds left specifically for this modification

            Only the head cones are cast, the rest is welded.
      2. 0
        April 1 2024 17: 59
        Quote: Quzmi4
        It seems that in the M-62 line the heaviest FAB-1500T (heat-resistant).

        FAB-1500T model 1976, it has a different design.
  15. 0
    April 1 2024 12: 45
    The IL-112 could carry and throw such bombs. One, sometimes even two. But...

    In principle, you can even modify some old Su-25s. If the FAB-3000 fits under the fuselage. The maximum combat load is designated as 4400 kg. Of course, he will carry such a bomb slowly and for a long time, but he must get it to the release point.

    You can also remember "Hunter". Which is already here. Somewhere on the way. Almost. But in theory it is an ideal carrier. Inconspicuous, radars should not see it at the distance of the UMPC release.

    If we had an analogue of the F-117, that would also be an excellent option. In overload, he could probably lift such a bomb.
    1. 0
      April 1 2024 14: 22
      But the Su-25 can at least take something under the fuselage, have you been interested?
      Transporters will have to throw themselves from the ceiling, because the bomb's starting speed will be zero, and it will be possible to gain speed for gliding only by exchanging altitude.
      1. 0
        April 1 2024 14: 37
        Quote: Quzmi4
        But the Su-25 can at least take something under the fuselage, have you been interested?

        Something can - see the picture. And it was not for nothing that I wrote the word “rework” there.
        1. 0
          April 2 2024 12: 16
          Yes in your file name
          https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2024-04/suhoj_su-25-28-39_moskva_-_zhukovskij_ramenskoe_rp298.webp
          This is a Su-39, they are gone((((((((((((
          1. 0
            April 2 2024 12: 22
            Quote: Quzmi4
            This is a Su-39, they are gone((((((((((((

            Does this fundamentally change the possibility of hanging something under the fuselage on an aircraft modified for this purpose?
            1. 0
              April 2 2024 12: 33
              Well, the Russian aviation industry has already produced 100 aircraft over the past financial year. This is sarcasm, if anything.
              In my opinion, if you need to hack something like Azovstal, then you don’t need UMPC. If you need to build a bridge across the Dnieper (three times ha-ha, and you know why), then you need to attach it to the rocket, but the UMPC will be missed again.
              1. 0
                April 2 2024 12: 44
                Quote: Quzmi4
                Well, the Russian aviation industry has already produced 100 aircraft over the past financial year.

                What does this have to do with it? I deliberately wrote about old Su-25s, with almost exhausted service life.

                Quote: Quzmi4
                and UMPC passes by again

                This is a separate issue.
      2. 0
        April 1 2024 14: 50
        Quote: Quzmi4
        Transporters will have to throw themselves from the ceiling, because the bomb's starting speed will be zero, and it will be possible to gain speed for gliding only by exchanging altitude.

        It's true. But a simple calculation shows that it is very possible to exchange height for speed. The kinetic energy of 1 kilogram accelerated to 300 m/s is 45 kJ. And the potential energy of 1 kilogram raised to a height of 10 kilometers is 100 kJ.
        1. 0
          April 1 2024 15: 36
          The kinetic energy of 1 kilogram accelerated to 300 m/s is 45 kJ. And the potential energy of 1 kilogram raised to a height of 10 kilometers is 100 kJ.

          wassat It's hard to even comment on this
          1. 0
            April 1 2024 15: 42
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            It's hard to even comment on this

            Understand. But no one is forcing you.

            Or does he force it?
            1. 0
              April 2 2024 12: 28
              Lilienthal began exchanging altitude for speed and vice versa, when aerodynamics and flight dynamics were only in projects.
              What am I talking about? The higher the initial speed and altitude, the higher the flight range.
              Conventionally: the MiG-25RBT throws the FAB-1500T from 20000 m at a speed of 2000 km/h, it flies 20 km without the UMPC. At what maximum altitude can the IL-76MD depressurize the cargo compartment without fatal consequences? Let’s say that at 6000 m and 400 km/h the parachute pulls a bomb of the same caliber out of the plane; Its initial speed is 200 km/h, and with the UMPC it flies the same 20 km, if you’re lucky.
              Now the question is: which of the mentioned carriers is a more convenient target for air defense?
              1. 0
                April 2 2024 12: 41
                Quote: Quzmi4
                At what maximum altitude can the IL-76MD depressurize the cargo compartment without fatal consequences?

                Interesting question. Its practical ceiling, as they say, is about 12 km. What would be the fatal consequences of depressurization of the cargo compartment at such a height?

                Quote: Quzmi4
                Let's say at 6000 m and 400 km/h a parachute

                Why 400 km/h and why is a parachute necessary? Is it possible to do 800 without a parachute?
                1. 0
                  April 4 2024 11: 59
                  The machine was designed for certain operating conditions. Normal landing was assumed for specific speed-altitude ranges. How will the depressurization of the cargo compartment outside these ranges affect the pressurized volumes? Who, besides the Ilyushin designers, will say? Yes, and they will count first.
                  And the parachute is a pilot chute, a standard scheme for unloading the VTA in flight. You can’t suggest pushing a three-ton fool out with your hands))))))) You can, of course, suggest dumping it out of the nose-up, but is there a pilot ready to experiment with SUCH changes in alignment?!
                  1. 0
                    April 4 2024 12: 16
                    Quote: Quzmi4
                    How will the depressurization of the cargo compartment outside these ranges affect the pressurized volumes? Who, besides the Ilyushin designers, will say?

                    How can this affect you? Does the skin, inflated by pressure differences at altitude, really play a serious role in the strength properties of the fuselage? How then does the plane take off?

                    Quote: Quzmi4
                    And the parachute is a pilot chute, a standard scheme for unloading the VTA in flight. Do not suggest pushing out a three-ton fool with your hands)))))))

                    Shouldn't you be generous with an electric winch? )))))

                    Well, or a basic inclined slide. They have a cart with a bomb on it. Electronic lock.

                    Quote: Quzmi4
                    You can, of course, suggest dropping it out of the nose-up, but is there a pilot willing to experiment with SUCH alignment changes?!

                    How are changes in alignment fundamentally different in pitching up from those in level flight?
                    1. 0
                      April 4 2024 12: 53
                      Shouldn't you be generous with an electric winch? )))))

                      Well, or a basic inclined slide. They have a cart with a bomb on it. Electronic lock.

                      I’ll repeat myself: The plant made something convenient and profitable FOR ITSELF. And how and why to use this suitcase without a handle - there is a crowd of enthusiasts ready to invent.
                      How are changes in alignment fundamentally different in pitching up from those in level flight?

                      Do you have the slightest idea about flight dynamics?
                      1. 0
                        April 4 2024 12: 58
                        Quote: Quzmi4
                        I’ll repeat myself: The plant made something convenient and profitable FOR ITSELF. And how and why to use this suitcase without a handle - there is a crowd of enthusiasts ready to invent.

                        Why not get creative? For example, I have long believed that the most suitable platform for the massive launch of cruise missiles is transport aircraft.

                        Quote: Quzmi4
                        Do you have the slightest idea about flight dynamics?

                        No. Tell me.
    2. 0
      April 1 2024 14: 28
      How many IL-112s do we have, even if they don’t fly?
      Maybe I'm behind the times?
  16. BAI
    0
    April 1 2024 13: 09
    In general, the cheapest way is to revive Buran and drop it from space. Without any modifications
    1. 0
      April 1 2024 14: 26
      I hope that was sarcasm.
      "Buran" is the legacy of a disappeared highly developed civilization, and restoring it is not something to stick into an iPhone((((((
      And the planning and correction module will have to be supplemented with a head fairing from an ICBM to enter the dense layers of the atmosphere and decelerate to the operating speeds of the UMPC.
  17. 0
    April 1 2024 13: 15
    The use of IL-76 is possible, but in the case of “clear skies”. This argument can be presented to Bankova when we reach the Dnieper, throwing the enemy behind it.
  18. 0
    April 1 2024 16: 52
    Su 34 and Mig 31 will calmly solve the problem, relax.
  19. 0
    April 1 2024 17: 18
    Ultimately, victory is determined by the number of tons of cast iron and explosives dropped on the enemy’s heads. At the same time, the cost of each such ton, including delivery, is important.
    A priori, bombs from strategic bombers come out golden.
    .
    On the other hand, there are practically no field fortifications capable of resisting a six-inch caliber. In terms of price-result ratio, it is unrivaled.
    .
    Therefore, it is necessary to increase the production of all weapons. Firstly, six-inch guns and shells for them. We need production of 150 guns per day and 300 shells. In a day! Today, according to ours, we produce half as much per month. It is not surprising that in 000-2022 there was such an impressive drape nach osten.

    Naturally, there is a hole in the fire effect that has to be plugged with golden strategists. What is not good. We need to increase the production of shells.
    For more powerful objects, short-range missiles with a charge from a hundredweight to a ton are needed. These can be modified hail, hurricanes and Tochki with an over-caliber warhead of greater weight due to a decrease in range. At short range and high power, accuracy is not particularly important. It will be possible to get by with inertial guidance systems from the 60s and even simpler.
    When launched from single-charge launchers, satisfactory camouflage can be achieved even at a distance of less than one km from the LBS. Before the launch, of course, and after the launch, the enemy will also spend a chimera on them.
    .
    For targets at a distance of up to hundreds of kilometers from the LBS, surrogates of the current FABs are just useful. But they need carriers that will launch a couple of hundred kilometers from the LBS. Making a lightweight unmanned carrier for a three-ton vehicle is not easy, but very simple. There are a lot of options, everyone can come up with their own... What’s most offensive is that there was an abundance of early 80s technology for their production, but hardware itself can be made even in the XNUMXs!
    .
    As the Americans build up Ukrainian air defense, targets in the depths of the defense will be accessible only to ballistic and cruise missiles.
    .
    After the Finnish one there is always a domestic one. It can only be averted by demonstrating our power to the world. The developed production of shells and missiles is the power of the country.
    There is no need to be afraid of the militarization of the economy. Arms production is just the tip of the iceberg. By spending Nabiulin's billions on the defense industry (or rather, on the production of materials, equipment and components...) we will receive colossal capacities. Technologies, equipment and materials will be in demand in a peaceful economy by 90%. The country will double its industrial power.
    And the remaining main production facilities, 10% of the new capacity, can be mothballed after the Victory.
    .
    I wrote all this back in the spring-summer of 2020...
    1. 0
      April 1 2024 17: 27
      Sorry, summer 2023.
  20. 0
    April 1 2024 18: 36
    The author only considers it from the point of view of how to carry this 3-tonne truck; the thought that why it’s not needed doesn’t occur to him tongue -What is the advantage of this bomb over the same 1 ton or even lighter weight? Yes, and all these UMPCs are stupidity
  21. 0
    April 1 2024 19: 14
    On April 1, 2024, an unmanned Yak-130 on an extended chassis takes off from the UMPC-2-1500-FAB-3000 UMPB (biplane), carrying two pairs of Hurricane projectiles without warheads on the wing pylons as accelerators. Or they carry it. A pair on takeoff, a pair in the set when entering a combat reset. The unmanned Yak exits the attack near the ground in a low-level flight, skirting large and small terrain.
    Photo 1:
    An empty PTB-3000 easily lifts 6-8 people.
    The rest of the photos are simply beautiful.
  22. 0
    April 2 2024 01: 11
    I’ll probably tell everyone a military secret, but there is only one carrier for the FAB-3000 with UMPC. And this is a MIG-31K (modification, with a pylon for a four-ton “dagger”). There are no photos, but (people say) the UMPC modules are quite organic, one with a solid fuel accelerator, the other without. The fairing is the same as on the FAB 1500. At the same time, the bomb is smaller in diameter than the “Dagger” and even lighter with the UMPC.... It is already being tested at a test site in the Khabarovsk Territory. Don't thank...
  23. 0
    April 2 2024 02: 44
    Quote: quaric
    I’ll probably tell everyone a military secret, but there is only one carrier for the FAB-3000 with UMPC. And this is a MIG-31K (modification, with a pylon for a four-ton “dagger”). There are no photos, but (people say) the UMPC modules are quite organic, one with a solid fuel accelerator, the other without. The fairing is the same as on the FAB 1500. At the same time, the bomb is smaller in diameter than the “Dagger” and even lighter with the UMPC.... It is already being tested at a test site in the Khabarovsk Territory. Don't thank...

    Well then, another question is brewing: how long will a Fab 1500 fly with an Umpk dropped from an Mig-31?
    1. 0
      April 2 2024 08: 38
      Exactly the same as with the SU-34. Let me tell you one more secret: the UMPC is released at subsonic speed.
  24. -2
    April 2 2024 10: 25
    Let's continue on the first of April, the unmanned Okhotnik-RBV, deeply modernized from a batch of Egyptian MiG-25s from storage by replacing a pair of engines with one new one at Uralvagonzavod, from comfortable compartments at supersonic speed throws wingless KAB-3000 50 kilometers, and 120 in the winged version with the installation opening angle of the reinforced UMPC-1500-1-3000 by forty-five degrees of sweep.
  25. 0
    April 2 2024 18: 01
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Yeah, happy April 1st to you too!

    Am I not joking, or am I making an article?
  26. 0
    April 3 2024 11: 08
    It is necessary to use the FAB (3000-9000) with the PRD of the S-75, S-125, S-200 missile systems that have been withdrawn from service
  27. 0
    April 5 2024 17: 42
    How many transport workers do we have...nowhere to put them? That is the question . Technology is good when you have an excess of what it is designed for. So no
  28. 0
    April 7 2024 19: 55
    I re-read the article and comments. Conclusion:
    Old bombs need new subsonic carriers adapted for them, old aircraft need new guided bombs adapted for supersonics. These carriers should be as cheap as possible, unmanned and controlled from the ground. Important: An air defense missile must be more expensive than such a device.
    .
    While they are not there, we are using old surrogates, but the development of enemy air defense will require new equipment. We need to invest now, it will cost more later. Or drive this equipment in such quantities that there simply aren’t enough air defense missiles, and then, using air supremacy, destroy all threatening objects before they cause us losses.
    .
    Anyone can come up with specific design options. I can share too. Yes, I already described something before...