Tactical aircraft are potential carriers of FAB-3000 with UMPC

126
Tactical aircraft are potential carriers of FAB-3000 with UMPC
In the version with the UMPC, the nose of the FAB-3000 will most likely be covered with fairings to increase the flight range after being dropped. Image based on photo by Alexander Beltyukov


In the material The feasibility of using strategic, long-range and transport aircraft as carriers of FAB-3000 with UMPC such potential FAB-3000 carriers with UMPC were considered as Tu-160(M), Tu-95MS(MSM), Tu-22M3(M3M) and Il-76. Today we will talk about tactical aircraft aviation, which are potentially capable of acting as a carrier of FAB-3000 with UMPC.



Considering the weight and dimensions of the FAB-3000-54 (hereinafter referred to as FAB-3000), especially in conjunction with the UMPC, the choice may not be particularly large, however, there are options. According to open data from the Internet, the role of carrier of the FAB-3000 with UMPC is predicted for the Su-34 fighter-bomber, but we will start not with it, but with the MiG-31K aircraft.

MiG-31K


Yes, it is the MiG-31K that could potentially become the carrier of the FAB-3000 with UMPC, because this aircraft has already been adapted to launch a hypersonic missile of the Kinzhal complex, whose mass exceeds 4 tons and its diameter is 1,2 meters. For comparison, the weight of the FAB-3000 is about 3 tons, and the diameter is 1 meter. There is just a decent margin in terms of weight and dimensions for the UMPC.


MiG-31K with a Kinzhal missile. Image aex.ru

The advantage of the MiG-31K is its ability to accelerate to high speeds, which will allow the FAB-3000 with UMPC to be thrown over a greater distance, as far as the strength of the UMPC design allows.

There are also disadvantages - the MiG-31K, judging by pilot reviews, is much more difficult to control than aircraft of the Su-27 family. It is possible that this shortcoming can be compensated for by highly specialized training of pilots, aimed at solving just one task - the use of UMPC.

In addition, MiG-31 aircraft are no longer produced - it turns out that this is a “non-renewable resource”, however, options are possible here too. Previously, the author considered the possibility of restoring from storage any decommissioned aircraft, for example, MiG-25 and MiG-31 fighters, if they are still in suitable technical condition, and turning them into highly specialized carriers of aerial bombs with UMPC.

Most likely, the MiG-25 is not capable of lifting the FAB-3000, but restoring decommissioned MiG-31s ​​from storage and upgrading them to some highly specialized modification intended only for the use of various air bombs with UMPC, including the FAB-3000, most likely quite real. Of course, provided that the above-mentioned MiG-31s ​​are still preserved in a form suitable for restoration, but if so, then it already turns out that we have a “limitedly renewable resource.”

Su-34(M)


Now let's return to the Su-34. The assumption about the possibility of using FAB-3000 with UMPC from Su-34(M) aircraft is based on information about the possible use of hypersonic missiles of the Kinzhal complex from this aircraft, similar to what is now happening with the MiG-31K.


Su-34 fighter-bomber. Image by Wikimedia Commons / Vitaly V. Kuzmin

Despite the fact that at the moment this capability has not been implemented for the Su-34, it can be assumed that the very elaboration of this issue potentially speaks to the Su-34’s ability to carry ammunition of such mass and dimensions. As we said above, the dimensions and weight of the FAB-3000 are significantly smaller than that of the Kinzhal missile, so the question is what dimensions and weight the UMPC for this aerial bomb will have.

In general, the maximum load capacity of the Su-34 is an impressive 12,5 tons, and with 100% fuel filling - 10,4 tons, which potentially allows us to talk about the Su-34 being able to carry two FAB-3000 with UMPC, but it is unlikely that the existing underwing units weapon suspensions are capable of withstanding such a mass without modification.

Theoretically, something like a “corset” could be created for the Su-34, that is, a certain bracket attached to all pylons or parts of the weapons suspension pylons and evenly distributing the load from two FAB-3000 with UMPC over the involved pylons. Of course, there are a lot of questions here, for example, is it possible to make a single bracket that will also use the pylons under the fuselage, without interfering with the operation of the wing mechanization and the extension/retraction of the landing gear? How will this affect the aerodynamics of the plane?

Or will combining the pylons under the wings be enough? It is possible that there is no point in using pairs of outer pylons due to the minimum load that can be placed on them - then the possibility of attaching to two inner underwing pylons could be implemented on the UMPCs themselves?


Distribution of payload among Su-34 hardpoints. Image by Wikimedia Commons / D. Ilyin

On the other hand, the Su-34 is capable of carrying two PTB-3000 on underwing pylons - accordingly, is it possible that it is only necessary to “gain” a little more carrying capacity for the UMPC?


Su-34 with one and two PTB-3000

There are images of the Su-34 with three PTB-3000s - the question is, are they empty or full?


Su-34 with three PTB-3000

A number of sources talk about the extremely limited maneuverability of the Su-34 when attached to two PTB-3000s. Most likely, the suspension of one or two FAB-3000s with UMPC will also negatively affect the Su-34’s ability to maneuver. However, the maximum threat to the aircraft most likely arises after the payload has been dropped, after which its maneuverability will “return” and it can undertake all the necessary maneuvers to evade enemy attacks.

Sioux 24M


Why not? Like the Su-34, the Su-24 front-line bomber can carry two PTB-3000, its total payload capacity is up to 7 tons. This aircraft can definitely carry three FAB-1500s, and it is possible that two FAB-3000s with UMPC will also be “up to par” after certain modifications. The question is rather one of expediency; after all, the age of these machines is coming to an end.


Su-24M with and two PTB-3000. Image by Wikimedia Commons/Alexander Mishin

Su-35U and Su-30SMU


In the material Lessons from the SVO: multifunctional weapons systems should complement highly specialized combat vehicles The author considered the possibility of developing and producing simplified, highly specialized versions of modern, mass-produced combat aircraft, such as the Su-35S or MiG-35. For example, such machines could be used specifically for dropping aerial bombs from UMPC.

As we said above, when working according to coordinates, according to previously reconnoitred targets, aircraft do not require any complex avionics, and its cost can be a significant part of the cost of a combat vehicle. Simplified, highly specialized modifications of combat aircraft, for example, the conventional Su-35U and Su-30SMU, could be cheaper, produced faster and in larger quantities, pilots for them could undergo an accelerated training course aimed at solving one but important task - mass use air bombs with UMPC.

In addition, reducing the weight of the aircraft due to the abandonment of part of the avionics would potentially make it possible to strengthen the airframe design, for example, in order to increase the number of 250, 500 and 1500 kilogram caliber bombs they can simultaneously use, equipped with UMPC, or to ensure the possibility of using FAB-3000 with UMPC.


Su-35S and Su-30SM. Image by Wikimedia Commons / Mil.ru/ Alex Beltyukov

Conclusions


At the moment, most likely, there are no tactical aircraft capable of using the FAB-3000 with UMPC without modification. At the same time, after modification, the MiG-31K and Su-34 (M) fighter-bombers could potentially receive this capability. The possibility and feasibility of modifications to ensure the possibility of using the FAB-3000 with the UMPC of Su-24M front-line bombers is in question.

At the same time, the creation of simplified, highly specialized versions of mass-produced modern combat aircraft Su-35S and Su-30SM (conventionally Su-35U and Su-30SMU) with an additionally reinforced airframe can be considered, which will allow them to use an increased number of aerial bombs with UMPC, and will also provide the ability application of FAB-3000 with UMPC.
126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    April 2 2024 04: 36
    Let's start with the fact that the FAB-300 is not a bomb for simulating combat operations, but a specific weapon capable of competing with tactical nuclear weapons. Therefore, the use of these weapons must be verified and appropriate.
    If there is a possibility of quick modification of the Su-34 or some other version, go ahead and sing. Only the plane must lift at least 2 bombs, I assume.
    The VKS Tu-22 is capable of carrying three such bombs, albeit accompanied by fighters.
    * * *
    To carry out specific missions, it would be possible to re-equip the Su-57... Don’t warn or draw red lines, but simply fly up unnoticed and drop what you need and where you need it...
    * * *
    It all depends on the availability of the necessary aircraft and the number of flight personnel...
    1. +4
      April 2 2024 05: 23
      Quote: ROSS 42
      Let's start with the fact that the FAB-300 is not a bomb for simulating combat operations, but a specific weapon capable of competing with tactical nuclear weapons.

      Not even close. And the point is not in power, but in the weight of the warhead, and therefore in the range of use.
      1. -5
        April 2 2024 09: 02
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Not even close. And the point is not in power, but in the weight of the warhead, and therefore in the range of use.

        Of course, I didn’t check the typo: it should be FAB-3000... Come on, tell me that within a radius of 300 meters the consequences of an explosion from a FAB-3000 or ODAB-1500 are radically different in the degree of destruction from tactical nuclear weapons with a power of 0,3 Kt. And the point here is precisely in the power of tactical nuclear weapons, which can ensure such a degree of destruction of manpower, equipment and structures IN A LARGE AREA... That’s the whole difference, if you do not take into account that FAB, ODAB are conventional weapons, but tactical nuclear weapons are not.
        1. +8
          April 2 2024 09: 23
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Come on, tell us that within a radius of 300 meters the consequences of an explosion from a FAB-3000 or ODAB-1500 are radically different in the degree of destruction from tactical nuclear weapons with a yield of 0,3 Kt.

          Hand face. Well, compare an explosion of 300 tons and one and a half tons, this is not counting thermal radiation.

          Quote: ROSS 42
          and specific weapons capable of competing with tactical nuclear weapons
          Spanish shame. And 250 kg easily competes with 3 tons within a radius of 2 meters, right?
        2. +4
          April 2 2024 09: 23
          Come on, tell us that within a radius of 300 meters the consequences of an explosion from a FAB-3000 or ODAB-1500 are radically different in the degree of destruction from tactical nuclear weapons with a yield of 0,3 Kt.

          Let me be boring - the TNT equivalent of FAB-3000 is not 0,3 kt.
          Therefore, tactical nuclear weapons with a TNT equivalent of 0,3 kt will cause more destruction than FAB-3000.
          Not to mention that comparison based on pre-set power is manipulative. Compare by “specific” power, that is, per unit weight of the product. ))) For example, B61 weighs 9 times less than FAB-3000.
          1. -2
            April 2 2024 09: 28
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            Let me be boring - the TNT equivalent of FAB-3000 is not 0,3 kt.

            Yes, as much as you like...You don’t want to understand that the degree of destruction from nuclear weapons and tactical weapons WILL DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER DIMENSIONS OF THE DANGER AREA!!!
            And here you are wasting time explaining the material that I studied in the early 70s of the last century. Thank you for your concern!!!
            1. 0
              April 2 2024 09: 32
              You don't want to understand

              how FAB-3000 competes with tactical nuclear weapons.
              Quote: ROSS 42
              but a specific weapon capable of competing with tactical nuclear weapons.

              Only request
            2. -2
              April 2 2024 09: 58
              in short
              Su-34 can carry 3 FAB-3000 bombs with UMPC + 2 R-77 Air-to-Air missiles
              and when covering the Su-35,
              Su-34 at a range of 1000 km = combat 500 km can take 12 tons
              those. 3 FAB-3000 bombs with UMPC + 2 FAB-1500 bombs with UMPC = 12 tons
              We are waiting for video and buzzing on the foreheads of the Ukrainian army
              1. +1
                April 2 2024 10: 13
                those. 3 FAB-3000 bombs with UMPC + 2 FAB-1500 bombs with UMPC = 12 tons

                And what suspension points are you going to hang all this stuff on?
                By the way, in your ingenious calculations, the UMPC has no weight lol
                Well, the R-77 on the Su-34 is also a masterpiece.
                1. -1
                  April 2 2024 10: 15
                  it's all air
                  let's still wait for the combat use of FAB-3000 with UMPC with Su-34
                  I think the Ukrainian Armed Forces will really appreciate our goodies
        3. +2
          April 4 2024 02: 33
          As far as I understand, a 0.3 Kton nuclear bomb is comparable in power to an explosion of 300 tons of TNT? Tons! Not a kilogram! FAB3000 is not even close.
      2. +3
        April 2 2024 16: 07
        Quote: ROSS 42
        Let's start with the fact that the FAB-300 is not a bomb for simulating combat operations, but a specific weapon capable of competing with tactical nuclear weapons.

        Not even close. And the point is not in power, but in the weight of the warhead, and therefore in the range of use.


        Engineers taught how to plan this bomb. What’s stopping you from “attaching” a simple solid-fuel engine to a bomb and launching it at the heads of enemies 200 kilometers away?
        1. 0
          April 2 2024 17: 26
          Quote: the most important
          Engineers taught how to plan this bomb. What’s stopping you from “attaching” a simple solid-fuel engine to a bomb and launching it at the heads of enemies 200 kilometers away?

          And the fact that it will no longer be a three-ton truck, but not five, certainly four. There is no complete confidence about the suspension’s ability to carry three tons normally, but here there are four...
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    3. +1
      April 2 2024 08: 19
      The VKS Tu-22 is capable of carrying three such bombs, albeit accompanied by fighters.
      Escorting a bomber with fighters is a thing of the past. Now such fighters are just additional targets for air defense.
      1. +1
        April 2 2024 08: 20
        . FAB 3000
        Such cast iron workers worked in Syria in the mountains along the barmaleys.

        They were developed during the Great Patriotic War to destroy the fortifications of the Wehrmacht and their allies.
        Rarely used.
        There are enough in warehouses.
        SU-34 delivery vehicle.

        Such is the symbiosis: one of the most advanced and effective tactical bombers and a piece of iron weighing 3 tons, proven over the years and wars, which, falling from a height, even without an explosive filling, can fold high-rise buildings and destroy underground bunkers only due to its mass and kinetic energy, but that’s all, What's underneath the iron shell is explosives. The crater from the explosion of such a bomb reaches several tens of meters.


        https://t.me/evgeniylinin/5960

        1. +3
          April 2 2024 08: 26
          In the first photo, the FAB-3000 is third from the left between the FAB-1500 and FAB-5000. In the second photo, the FAB-3000 is on the Su-34 pylon.

          1. +4
            April 2 2024 08: 33
            Quote: OrangeBigg
            The second photo shows a FAB-3000 on a Su-34 pylon.

            This is FAB-1500M-46.
            1. 0
              April 2 2024 08: 36
              I specifically posted two photos showing FAB-3000. In the first photo it is third from the left next to FAB-1500 and FAB-5000. In the second photo there is a FAB-3000 on the Su-34 pylon. Take a closer look and you will see that in the first and second photos it is FAB-3000. Here is another photo of FAB-3000.

              1. +2
                April 2 2024 08: 47
                Quote: OrangeBigg
                I specifically posted two photos of the FAB-3000.

                On the first FAB-3000M-46, on the second FAB-1500M-46. Visually easy to distinguish by relative elongation.

                Quote: OrangeBigg
                The second photo shows a FAB-3000 on a Su-34 pylon. Take a closer look and you will see that in the first and second photos it is FAB-3000.

                The Su-34 cannot carry 3000 kg bombs.
                1. +1
                  April 2 2024 08: 53
                  And yet, in Syria, the Su-34 used FAB-3000 as free-fall bombs.
                  1. +2
                    April 2 2024 08: 54
                    These are fantasies. Or is there confirmation?
                    1. 0
                      April 2 2024 08: 55
                      Here is a link that talks about this fact.
                      https://t.me/evgeniylinin/5960
                      1. +3
                        April 2 2024 09: 08
                        A post from someone who is just as misguided. He even gives the same photograph. By the way, what does the number "3" on the bomb mean?
                  2. 0
                    April 2 2024 09: 25
                    And yet, in Syria, the Su-34 used FAB-3000 as free-fall bombs.

                    Don't repeat nonsense
                  3. 0
                    April 2 2024 13: 13
                    Quote: OrangeBigg
                    And yet, in Syria, the Su-34 used FAB-3000 as free-fall bombs.

                    Quote: Lozovik
                    A post from someone who is just as misguided. He even gives the same photograph. By the way, what does the number "3" on the bomb mean?

                    The fact that an aircraft can carry PTB-3000 on these hardpoints does not mean that FAB-3000 can be mounted on these hardpoints. PTB-3000 is not a weight in kilograms, but a volume in liters, which is approximately 2400 kg. Again, fuel is produced primarily from underwing PTBs. In open sources
                    You can hang 3 FAB-1500 aerial bombs on the plane on BD4-U beam holders
        2. 0
          April 2 2024 12: 04
          Maybe we shouldn’t cheat?
          Here is probably a photo from the original source:

          AUTHOR'S COMMENT
          Assault OFAB-500ShR on the suspension of the latest Su-30 at the moment

          What difference does it make, 500 or 3000, both are gray((((((((((((((((((
          1. -1
            April 2 2024 13: 59
            At first I put the wrong photo. Here is FAB-3000.
            1. +5
              April 2 2024 14: 28
              Aren't you tired of repeating this stupidity?

              For reference (length x diameter/height):
              FAB-3000M-46 - 3332x820mm
              FAB-1500M-46 - 2763x630 mm
              BD4-USKM-1-B - 2635x300 mm
              The length of the bomb in the photograph is approximately equal to the length of the beam holder, and the diameter is twice its height. Can you draw a conclusion?
      2. -2
        April 2 2024 09: 11
        Quote: Aviator_
        Escorting a bomber with fighters is a thing of the past. Now such fighters are just additional targets for air defense.

        So, the strategists should be redesigned and have their own air-to-air missiles? Likewise, any “bomber” is an ideal target for an air defense system or interceptor.
        This meant escort for protection from enemy air defense systems and aircraft. Only to ensure the completion of the task...3 FAB-3000 is not a pound of raisins.
        But you can see better...from above... wink
        1. +1
          April 2 2024 19: 38
          This meant escort for protection from enemy air defense systems and aircraft.
          They will be an additional target for air defense systems. But the practice of escorting bombers with fighter cover did not work very well during the Vietnam War; it still worked in the Korean War, since there were no air defense systems at that time.
    4. +1
      April 2 2024 08: 48
      Quote: ROSS 42
      VKS has a Tu-22 capable of carrying three such bombs

      One or two in the cargo bay.

      1. 0
        April 2 2024 18: 26
        People, who's in the know? Is this the bomb bay of the Tu-22M2? M3? Or no letters at all, and this FUNDAMENTALLY changes things.
        1. +1
          April 2 2024 19: 33
          This is Tu-22M3. It is no different from the Tu-22M2, it differs little from the Tu-22R or KD, this does not fundamentally change the matter.
          1. 0
            April 4 2024 11: 48
            It’s fundamental in the sense that M2 probably won’t be found alive, and “without M” you definitely won’t be able to find it.
            1. +1
              April 4 2024 14: 21
              Everything except the M3 and MP were withdrawn from service 30 years ago, everything else is only in the form of monuments. What was the point of the question?
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. +3
      April 3 2024 09: 36
      It should be noted that the ability to carry does not mean the ability to correctly reset. For example, I have a hard time imagining the release of three tons when loading a carrier into 2 ammunition from the pylons of one wing while maintaining the same load on the second, or then there should be a release of both ammunition at the same time.
      1. 0
        April 3 2024 09: 45
        Quote from designer
        or then both ammunition must be released simultaneously.

        Interesting observation... In some ways you are right...
  2. +5
    April 2 2024 04: 40
    It will not be possible to restore the MiG-31 from storage, because... There is no place to get engines from. Production of the D30F6 ceased a very, very long time ago, so a flaming engine cannot be found. Restarting engine production seems to be a very elusive goal, especially in the current era.
    The idea of ​​producing “simplified” versions of modern airplanes, and even those controlled by “simplified” pilots, can only be considered as a theoretical idea.
    After all, in practice, no one will allow the production of such simplified “masterpieces”, which nevertheless have a drop-dead price. It is not worth it.
    It makes sense to consider the idea of ​​some kind of modern or promising transporter, which could become a “flying battery” for delivering bombs with rocket boosters and having a range of 90-120 km to the launch area. But such things need to be calculated by specialists.
    1. +6
      April 2 2024 04: 48
      I also laughed about the restoration of the Mig-31 from storage. The author probably did not see in what condition they were stored. There's only recycling...
    2. +6
      April 2 2024 04: 58
      Quote: U-58
      there is no place to get engines from

      What then is the point of MIG-31 flights over the Black Sea? Just generate motor resources...
      1. +5
        April 2 2024 05: 02
        Basically, this is a question for those who send them on flight. I don't know anything about this.
        I can only assume that there, over the sea, there is a process of combat patrolling and, in particular, scaring off air spies of sworn friends. That’s why I observe from Flytradar that they have begun to press closer to the Romanian shores.
        1. +4
          April 2 2024 05: 09
          Quote: U-58
          the process of combat patrolling takes place

          The idea itself is good, but using the MIG-31 as a scarecrow is very expensive and they are interceptors by definition, but you can use something simpler. hi
          1. +1
            April 2 2024 05: 13
            Actually, I thought that the patrols were carried out by naval aviation forces represented by the MiG-27.
            I haven’t heard about the flights of 31s. But in any case, the use of equipment to solve combat missions is the prerogative of the command. In the era of Northern Military Districts, issues of resource conservation are perhaps looked at somewhat differently.
            1. +3
              April 2 2024 05: 16
              Quote: U-58
              I haven’t heard about the flights of 31s

              The Guarantor sent the MIG-31 to patrol and threaten the Americans near the Gaza Strip
            2. +2
              April 2 2024 08: 21
              Actually, I thought that the patrols were carried out by naval aviation forces represented by the MiG-27.
              The MiG-27 has long been written off. M.b. MiG-29?
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. +2
                April 2 2024 09: 11
                I've got a jump. Of course, Su-27!
                We write Manchester, we read Liverpool..
        2. +1
          April 2 2024 07: 16
          Yes, they don’t really cuddle, yesterday the global hawk flew almost to Sochi and circled along the route. The Poseidons, yes, are huddling close to the shore, but they have other tasks.
    3. 0
      April 2 2024 08: 00
      Quote: U-58
      It will not be possible to restore the MiG-31 from storage, because... There is no place to get engines from. Production of the D30F6 ceased a very, very long time ago, so a flaming engine cannot be found.


      “In total, about 1500 D-30F6 engines were manufactured. The existing engine park allows MiG-31 fighters to be provided with these engines for about 20-30 years, ”said A. Inozemtsev, quoted by INTERFAX-AVN.

      Inozemtsev noted that it makes no sense to spend many tens of billions of rubles to restore the production of these engines. Earlier it was reported that today the repair fund has more than 1200 D-30F6 engines. The overwhelming majority of them are still in the first half of the resource development.
      1. +5
        April 2 2024 08: 06
        You described everything correctly. But we must keep in mind that the existing “stock” of engines is tied to the fleet of existing airframes.
        And there the turnover after repair and restoration is optimal. Adding aircraft from storage will eat up that fund pretty quickly. The topic is not entirely foreign to me. So, at one time, namely in 1977, I had the opportunity to participate in the manufacture of the very first production engine.
        1. 0
          April 2 2024 08: 11
          This is not me, I am deeply off topic, so I have no opinion. drinksI just read it and remembered it. feel
    4. 0
      April 2 2024 14: 30
      Quote: U-58
      It will not be possible to restore the MiG-31 from storage, because... There is no place to get engines from.

      And then what has the Sokol plant been doing for the last 10+ years?
      Just the restoration of the MiG-31 from storage, overhaul and modernization. Making a practically new aircraft in an old but “eternal” (stainless steel, titanium) airframe.
      Quote: U-58
      Production of D30F6 ceased a very, very long time ago

      Don't talk nonsense, it hurts. A new modification of this engine has been in mass production for a long time, thanks to which its thrust has increased to 17 t.p. (vs. 500 hp for its predecessor). And thanks to the new, more heat-resistant glazing of the canopy, the permitted speed of the MiG-15 increased from 500 km/h to 31 km/h and briefly to 2999 km/h.
      Quote: U-58
      . Restarting engine production seems to be a very elusive goal, especially in the current era.

      This decision was made more than 12 years ago and did not represent any illusory complexity.

      But using the MiG-31 to throw FAB-3000 is irrational; the Su-34 can handle this quite well. And in order to avoid difficulties due to misalignment at the time of release, the Su-34 will most likely carry one such FAB-3000 with UMPC on each flight. Because its weight, taking into account the mass of the UMPC, and possibly the accelerating engine, will be about 4 kg. And the power of one bomb is more than enough to hit the selected target.
      1. 0
        April 2 2024 15: 26
        Well, you know better
  3. +10
    April 2 2024 04: 55
    I liked the second article on this topic more than the first, which discussed strategists and transport workers.
    FAB-3000 with UMPC seems to me, as an engineer, a far-fetched idea. Why did the UMPC perform well with 500 and 1500 kg bombs? - because there are a LOT of such free-falling bombs in warehouses, and their modification greatly increases their effectiveness. Apparently there are not many three-ton trucks in warehouses, so they decided to resume their production. But if they start making a controlled glide bomb from scratch, without any bells and whistles, the efficiency will be much higher - primarily because it can provide much better aerodynamics, and therefore range. Can you imagine what will happen if the MIG-31 takes a three-ton bomb with good aerodynamics, rises to 20000 m, and accelerates before dropping at Mach 2,7?!! Okay, let it be 2,5 Mach. How far does she fly? 200 kilometers!!! This will really be the BOMB!!! In any case, the bridges on the Dnieper (including dams) will quickly suffer! Yes, and Kyiv, if desired, can be obtained (from Belarus).
    1. +6
      April 2 2024 06: 40
      Quote from Andy_nsk
      MIG-31 will take a three-ton bomb with good aerodynamics, rise to 20000 m, accelerate before dropping at Mach 2,7?!! Okay, let it be 2,5 Mach.

      They don’t fly at such speeds with bombs on an external sling. Air resistance is high. As for making a controlled glide bomb from scratch, I agree with you.
      1. 0
        April 2 2024 09: 33
        It seemed to me that at high altitude the air resistance would not be very critical, but I will not argue, Copenhagen is not in such matters. However, even when dropped at subsonic speeds, a bomb with good aerodynamics and sufficient wing area will fly far, and in terms of efficiency (warhead mass/price ratio) it will be far behind operational-tactical missiles.
        1. +2
          April 2 2024 12: 51
          Of course he will. Unless you take into account the overall price and risks of the flight. The bomb needs to be moved with something; it won’t go anywhere from the ground level. And given this, who knows. Well, I completely agree with the fact that for planning a flight over long distances outside the carrier, ammunition needs to be developed separately (especially if it is very massive). Now everyone is a little confused with these UMPCs due to media exposure, although in essence they are an ersatz weapon. To improve the range parameters, it will be necessary to create something more similar to a series of KABs, or even some kind of “flying wing” with maximum load-bearing properties.
      2. +1
        April 2 2024 10: 09
        They don’t fly at such speeds with bombs on an external sling.

        How can they not fly? For the MiG-25, special bombs were made for high temperatures
    2. 0
      April 2 2024 17: 42
      Quote from Andy_nsk
      Can you imagine what will happen if the MIG-31 takes a three-ton bomb with good aerodynamics, rises to 20000 m, and accelerates before dropping at Mach 2,7?!! Okay, let it be 2,5 Mach. How far does she fly? 200 kilometers!!!

      What will be the carrier’s turning radius at this speed and altitude?
      1. 0
        April 3 2024 04: 18
        The turning radius will be exactly less than the flight range of a winged bomb. The bomber must not cross the LBS. And if we take into account that long-range air defense systems (Patriot and S-300, of which our non-brothers have few) are unlikely to be placed close to the LBS, and they will attack the target from the depths of their territory, the chances of shooting down the target after them are almost zero, the MIG-31 will turn out very quickly outside the affected area, even if he is forced to enter it briefly.
        1. +1
          April 3 2024 10: 51
          Quote from Andy_nsk
          The turning radius will be exactly less than the flight range of a winged bomb.

          It will be about fifty kilometers.
      2. 0
        April 3 2024 04: 18
        The turning radius will be exactly less than the flight range of a winged bomb. The bomber must not cross the LBS. And if we take into account that long-range (or medium-range? - I don’t know the modern classification) air defense systems (Patriot and S-300, of which our non-brothers have few) are unlikely to be placed close to the LBS, and they will attack the target from the depths of their territory, shoot down the target in pursuit the chances are almost zero, the MIG-31 will very quickly be outside the affected area, even if it is forced to enter it for a short time.
    3. +1
      April 2 2024 20: 32
      Almost on topic:
      Mach 2,5 will not do anything for this bomb with UMPC, since the airframe and the bomb itself are not designed for supersonic flight.
      The same results in terms of range can be achieved by placing such a bomb in a streamlined glider, like in a case from a height of 11 thousand meters. and at a speed of 900 km/h. And if you add a small thruster above the glider, then it will fly until the fuel in the glider tank runs out (for a very long time with a lift-to-drag ratio of about 20 - 25). So these toys can be launched from long-range and strategic bombers without entering the air defense zone.
      1. 0
        April 2 2024 20: 36
        Yes, in addition, the airframe can be made using STEALTH technology, which, in principle, allows you to work out the tactics of using UMPC in areas with dense air defense.
      2. 0
        April 3 2024 04: 06
        It is an axiom for all developers and designers that a beautiful solution will be obtained if you design a product from scratch right away, and not try to adapt the product for new tasks through various gadgets such as an external case, at least there will definitely be a gain in weight and aerodynamics. Installing any engine deprives the main advantage of the bomb - its low cost. A bomb in a “case” and with an engine will be inferior in all performance characteristics and cost to an air-to-ground cruise missile.
        1. 0
          April 3 2024 07: 44
          An axiom is not a dogma!
          In terms of cost/effectiveness ratio, a glide bomb is many times superior to a cruise missile at a range of 100 - 200 km. At the same time, in terms of the specific gravity of explosives per ton of structure, a cruise missile is also three to four times inferior to a glide bomb. A low-thrust PURD (for a glide bomb with a total mass of 4 tons - a conversion from FAB-3000) with a lift-to-drag ratio of 20 will have a thrust of 230 kgf - a toy! And the range will be 500 - 600 km.
          In addition, the Americans are already testing such a bomb at 500 and 1000 pounds.
          Cruise missiles have their own niche. Their trump card is greater range, stealth, the ability to attack from various directions, performing “slide” type maneuvers and shooting traps at the final stage.
          1. 0
            April 3 2024 07: 53
            Again, this is if you make a glide bomb from scratch, and not try to attach wings and a fairing to an already existing FAB-3000. When reworking, the dimensions of the fairing will be disproportionate, and the aerodynamic quality will be disgusting, certainly 20 is out of the question.
            I know, of course, that the overseas people have been making gliding bombs for a long time, but 1000 pounds is 400 kg, an order of magnitude less, and they have long been designing them from scratch as a separate product - hence the excellent aerodynamic characteristics. If there is anything that surprises me in this story, it is why the Defense Ministry has been indifferent to such bombs for many years. I don’t see any other reasons other than inertia.
            1. 0
              April 3 2024 09: 59
              As an engineer: a free-falling bomb is the basis for the strength and rigidity of an aircraft.
              The Americans are designing a body kit for their bombs of 227 and 454 kg of high aerodynamic quality.
              With a light nose-fairing and changeable tail, equipped with a pulsating jet engine
              Our FAB-3000 will fully correspond to the V-1, so there is no need to worry about the aerodynamic quality, it will completely exceed 20.
              For lifting on standard suspensions, a traverse is quite suitable. After gaining speed, the glider planes will create additional lift.
              Something like that.
  4. +1
    April 2 2024 05: 01
    Simplified, highly specialized modifications of combat aircraft, for example, the conventional Su-35U and Su-30SMU, could be cheaper, produced faster and in larger quantities, pilots for them could undergo an accelerated training course aimed at solving one but important task - mass use air bombs with UMPC.

    Some kind of stream of consciousness. We even made fully combat aircraft for the Vityaz aerobatic pilots, but here it’s completely unclear what is being offered. Throw out the radar control system and stuff it with cargo instead, so as not to shift the alignment or what? What does faster mean, simply not installing some blocks will not give a big increase in production speed. All cyclic parts such as the aircraft frame will be manufactured in exactly the same way. And assembling these fuselages will take the same time. Just a conventional team of 10 people installing radar control systems or some other “unnecessary” avionics can be occupied with other work, that’s all the benefit.
    1. 0
      April 2 2024 17: 44
      Quote: Lelik76
      Throw out the radar control system - and instead stuff it with cargo, so as not to shift the alignment or what?

      But the radar was removed from the MiG-31K. In any case, that’s what they write on the Internet.
  5. -1
    April 2 2024 05: 03
    But I’m curious, is it possible to use the heavy UAV “Okhotnik” as a carrier of the FAB? It can lift such a load and its ceiling is not bad, and everything seems to be in order with radar signature, and it is positioned as an attack drone. In the end, FAB-3000 was not created at all to be shown at an exhibition. Who thinks what?
    1. +3
      April 2 2024 05: 10
      With such a fool on the external sling (even if you dream that they will somehow screw it on) you can forget about radar stealth.
      1. 0
        April 2 2024 05: 13
        you can forget about radar stealth
        If such a fool hangs on the pylon of some MiG or Su, then even there you can safely forget about radar stealth
        1. 0
          April 2 2024 05: 27
          They are not declared as such. Why do the same Su-57 and Okhotnik provide for the presence of weapons in the internal compartments, just to reduce the EPR.
          This is approximately how a Hunter should carry weapons, how to stuff a bomb with a diameter of 1 m into it
          Attach images

          1. -1
            April 2 2024 05: 32
            Su-57 and Okhotnik provide for the presence of weapons in the internal compartments, just to reduce the EPR.
            I don’t know what plans there are for the medium, but there are also exceptions to the rules. It’s also possible to make the “Hunter” suitable for FABs. But that's just my guess
            1. 0
              April 2 2024 10: 24
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              It’s also possible to make the “Hunter” suitable for FABs. But that's just my guess

              Surely it is possible, but for small ones. Fab-250 will definitely fit a couple of pieces. In general, fab-250 is also not so little
    2. +2
      April 2 2024 05: 22
      On the surface, the idea of ​​"Hunter" looks attractive. Only experts in combat use can give a practical conclusion on it.
      And here, on the public “military ferris wheel,” they will not do this for obvious reasons.
      1. 0
        April 2 2024 05: 28
        Only specialists can give a practical conclusion on it
        The whole point is that the real characteristics of this drone are not known to everyone, and its published performance characteristics are only for general use
        1. +2
          April 2 2024 05: 35
          Then, as a fantasy, one more “thought” can be put forward.
          Since a 3000-kilogram bomb is itself a small thing, capable of making a good bang at the right time, especially in the right place, shouldn’t we come up with air fire-ships?
          We take old and simpler planes from storage, fill them with RDX and whatever else is required, install a primitive control system from BALA (fortunately, they are now multiplying like rabbits) and send such a projectile on its last glorious flight. At the same time, it seems that the payload could be more than 3 tons.
          1. +2
            April 2 2024 05: 36
            We take old and simpler planes from storage and fill them with RDX
            Could be so. Why not?
          2. +1
            April 2 2024 05: 52
            such a “projectile,” unlike an aerial bomb, is easily shot down by standard air defense...
            1. 0
              April 2 2024 10: 26
              Such a projectile, unlike an aerial bomb, flies at a low altitude
          3. +1
            April 2 2024 10: 28
            Quote: U-58
            We take older and simpler aircraft from storage...

            ...we attach a simple control system to them for takeoff and landing, add the ability to send coordinates to the UMPC and begin to throw fabs with conditional unmanned MiG-21s!
            But we cut them all into metal
    3. 0
      April 2 2024 07: 28
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      "Hunter"? It can lift such a load and its ceiling is not bad, and everything seems to be in order with radar signature,

      With FAB-3000 and UMPC on an external sling with radar signature, of course, “everything will be fine” wink !
      1. 0
        April 2 2024 08: 18
        With FAB-3000 and UMPC on an external sling with radar signature, of course, “everything will be fine”
        This applies to any platform based on any aircraft
        1. 0
          April 2 2024 12: 41
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          This applies to any platform based on any aircraft

          Then what does the Hunter's invisibility have to do with it?
          1. +1
            April 2 2024 14: 51
            Then what does the Hunter's invisibility have to do with it?
            This is just part of the performance characteristics
  6. -1
    April 2 2024 05: 37
    Thank you to the author for hinting even to readers who are far from aircraft technology what a colossal stupidity the bosses did when they simply destroyed the RSD 30 years ago, .... Without even thinking about how to restore their production later, if necessary. They would be dropped on enemy military bases instead of FABs,
    the effect should be even worse.
    1. +2
      April 2 2024 05: 44
      You're right, it's a sore subject...
      8K14 swings
      Both in roll and pitch.
      Let the Chinese say goodbye to life,
      I will punish them for Damansky...
      Slowly, slowly chloropicrin spreads
      And climbs under the gas mask.
      Everyone, everyone believes in the best.
      Falling, falling nuclear bomb.
  7. +3
    April 2 2024 05: 47
    so we have come to the moment when classic front-line bombers in their classic version are no longer actually used... attack aircraft are also practically a thing of history... the question really arose about developing a new type of specialized "bomber" - a carrier of ammunition with a UPMK... and a capable one use the entire range of ammunition, including super-heavy ones... practice has shown their high demand... it would probably be appropriate to develop new types of high-tech ammunition/aircraft bombs with an elliptical cross-section to improve aerodynamic properties and increase the gliding range..
    1. +2
      April 2 2024 07: 34
      so we have come to the moment when classic front-line bombers in their classic version are no longer used... attack aircraft are also almost a thing of history

      Classic bombers and missile carriers are also not used, except for missile launches from territory not controlled by enemy air defense...
  8. +2
    April 2 2024 06: 20
    Unfortunately, for the MiG-25 and MiG-31, the usual OFAB-3000 will not be suitable, for them you will have to make special bombs of the FAB-3000T brand ("T" - heat-resistant), and accordingly, make a reinforced UMPC, but the truth will be possible, due to speed and height of release to obtain very high characteristics in terms of range of application.
    And of the other “candidates,” in my opinion, the best is the Su-30SM2. It has two pilots and a very high thrust-to-weight ratio
    1. 0
      April 2 2024 08: 47
      On the Su-30SM2, you still need to try to place this carcass between the air intakes in order to use 2 suspension points. I think the components under the wing are not designed for such a load.
      1. 0
        April 2 2024 15: 38
        Quote: Lelik76
        We still need to try placing this carcass on the Su-30SM2

        It would be a wish ...
  9. +4
    April 2 2024 07: 16
    New nightmare of the Ukrainian Armed Forces... The new weapons are very good, but the article just reeks of “We’ll win!” Somehow this reminds me of the “non-brothers” with their holy javelins, hymars, etc. etc., there’s really nothing yet, but delight...
  10. +2
    April 2 2024 07: 42
    The logic is not correct.
    To use any adjustable aerial bombs at all, you need drones, and not expensive (in any case) multifunctional aircraft.

    The device’s task is simply to go to a given area, that’s all. This does not require a pilot, does not require radar, and does not require other expensive fire control systems. You can even take a civilian engine. Maybe even written off.
    1. +1
      April 2 2024 13: 45
      One can even say more: Comrade I. Musk was the first to understand what was “needed”, no matter how anyone treated him. I need it stupidly rocket reusable first stage which will cover part of the distance to the target (the first maximum safe segment), release ammunition into hostile airspace and return, if possible, as close as possible and exactly to the starting point. All. Then it is recharged with fuel, receives new coordinates and payload, and moves on. Rinse off. Repeat until victory. Minimum costs/risks/downtime. Or the same thing when participating in such a role as a transport operator (if it is advisable to organize a large raid), but there are many more nuances (although at the price of a flight hour it makes sense to even stir up something for the future on the basis of modern passenger airliners, and definitely use the engines from them ).
  11. 0
    April 2 2024 08: 54
    It’s high time to collect all the rubbish that can be lifted into the air and sent one way as a flying bomb
  12. KCA
    0
    April 2 2024 09: 18
    Why fence a garden? The FAB-3000 has its own tasks, but the SU-34 and the FAB-500 are enough, there was a video recently, the SU34 dropped 4 FAB-500s, opened its wings and flew beautifully towards the target, 4 500 are of more use than one 3000, unless the goal is to destroy a building, bridge, bunker with one bomb
    1. 0
      April 2 2024 20: 23
      So fab 3000 is needed precisely for such targeted purposes. Moreover, with such a good range “into the depths” of the hostile sky.
      100 150 km. Piece by piece. Pointed. But it is necessary. But there is no safe way.
  13. 0
    April 2 2024 10: 12
    But they wanted to restore production of the Tu-22, only in the version with the letter M. In my opinion, this is the best solution on this topic, but I would not rush to say that they supposedly outlived their useful life. A lot of things from the past are returning, albeit in a modified version.
  14. 0
    April 2 2024 10: 25
    On the other hand, the Su-34 is capable of carrying two PTB-3000 on underwing pylons - accordingly, is it possible that it is only necessary to “gain” a little more carrying capacity for the UMPC?

    The author does not realize that the number 3000 in the name of the fuel tank is its capacity in liters, and not its weight. The fuel tank will weigh about 2,7 tons.
  15. 0
    April 2 2024 11: 13
    I don't understand anything else. Why fly an expensive aircraft at the risk of the life of the pilot and equipment to launch a FAB? You can attach a powder accelerator to this bomb and launch it directly from the front line. Cheap and cheerful - raised it to a height in the direction of the enemy, dispersed it, unfastened it, and then followed the usual algorithm. It’s stupid to attach a large powder bomb at the back and start with a primitive guide. It is justified to use the aircraft for efficiency; in other cases, an accelerator is enough
  16. -3
    April 2 2024 11: 20
    The MIG-27 takes 8 FAB-500s, which is 4240 kilograms, that is, it can easily carry away one FAB-3000
    1. +1
      April 2 2024 11: 37
      The MIG-27 takes 8 FAB-500s, which is 4240 kilograms, that is, it can easily carry away one FAB-3000

      Are the beam holders and locks on the 27th aware that they are going to hang 3 tons on them?
      1. +2
        April 2 2024 11: 58
        And who will ask them? People are interested in the overall load capacity; they think that you can hang the entire permissible load on one suspension point. At the same time, they do not take into account the dimensions of the product, so that it will not rest somewhere, for example, on concrete wink
  17. 0
    April 2 2024 11: 36
    Unfortunately, tactical aviation is not a partner of the Fab-3000. You not only need to hang it, you also need to maintain the dimensions. By definition, the module on this bomb will not be small. Plus height and release speed. Theoretically, the MiG-31 may be suitable, but in the attack aircraft version there are 10 of them, no more. Well, we need to modify it for the bomb. In general, the discussion around the Fab-3000 surprises many in the context of tactical aviation. There's the workhorse Fab-1500. It hangs, you can take 2 at once, it flies well. Well, in terms of power - very much so.
  18. 0
    April 2 2024 11: 53
    The author is manically - I can’t find another word - trying to stick the “suitcase without a handle” anywhere. For some reason or set of reasons, it is profitable for the plant to produce a new range of weapons; like, “Look at the TERRRASH destructive power we inflicted on the bonbu! Well, a medal on our chest!” - “How and where will it be used?!” - “But you, Mitrofanov, come up with this!”
  19. 0
    April 2 2024 14: 45
    Respect to the author, but he forgot about the SU-33 (24 units) in which they hang between the engine nacelles: anti-ship missiles Moskit, Yakhont and Onyx, Brahmos. All these missiles weigh over four tons. There is no need to even redo anything, since the reinforced pylon comes from the factory. So, there are no problems finding a carrier. .... there would be a desire.
  20. 0
    April 2 2024 15: 30
    In general, FAB3000 is already such a serious ammunition that it is possible to make an aerodynamic body and wings from 0... of small diameter.
    1. 0
      April 2 2024 18: 02
      Quote: Zaurbek
      In general, FAB3000 is already such a serious ammunition that it is possible to make an aerodynamic body and wings from 0.

      And at the same time we are assured that the production of short and fat three-ton “piglets” has been resumed. Moreover, with ballistic rings, which for UMPC are like an anchor for a cart.
  21. +1
    April 2 2024 18: 49
    We're already fed up with childish euphoria about 3 tonkas and bombs with UPMK laughing
  22. 0
    April 2 2024 19: 40
    SU-17 could also if it remained (((
  23. 0
    April 2 2024 20: 12
    Author's conclusion.
    At the moment, most likely, there are no tactical aircraft capable of using the FAB-3000 with UMPC without modification.
    Why produce FAB-3000 if there are no carriers?
    It may be easier to make a new glide bomb or aircraft missile, with an explosive mass of 2 tons, for existing carriers.
  24. 0
    April 2 2024 20: 33
    The Strategic Missile Forces are rearming at Yars in full swing. Where is it that is being taken off duty???
    Last time I joked about the MIG 31 as a 3-tonk carrier. Now I’m not joking. You can easily make a starting engine based on stages from ballistic missiles.
    And instead of the UMPC, a module with lateral correction motors. And don’t talk about easily shooting down targets walking along a ballistic trajectory. Well, an interceptor missile will hit. And what will he do??? Will it scratch the paint???
  25. 0
    April 2 2024 22: 05
    You shouldn’t have drawn two on the plane, he should have raised one. 3 tons, oh how the plane will turn. The wings will not withstand 3 tons, such bombs are only placed in the bomb bay, for example, Tu-22M3
    https://www.tkkolesov.ru/mashiny/gruzovik-foton/
    Just imagine, you hang a truck on the fender.
    1. 0
      April 2 2024 22: 10
      The Tsar Bomb weighed 27 tons
      Tsoig would have given instructions to make 9 tons and maybe 27 tons

  26. -1
    April 2 2024 23: 10
    But creating an analogue of tactical nuclear weapons in the usual version is quite simple. An IL-76MD is taken, 9 pieces of ODAB 9000 are stuffed into it, then they are pulled out one by one from the cargo compartment using a parachute at an altitude of 12 kilometers and a speed of 900 km/h, the powerful engine turns on, its UMPC opens and hello 0,044 Kt, at a time, 9 pieces are the same 0.4Kt, and more effective than just 0.4Kt tactical nuclear weapons. The dropping of free-falling 500 kg bombs from the cargo compartment of a simple IL-76 was carried out several times in Afghanistan by target designation from a bomber (now this is no longer necessary with gliding bombs.) The Amers also dropped their “Mother of all bombs” weighing 9 tons. to Afghanistan from an S-130 aircraft, modern IL-76MDs drop 500 kg flare bombs in a somewhat face-to-face manner, from pylons, but you can always go back to basics. The Ukrofashist simply begs the VKS “I’m not a magician, introduce me to Him, to the Pope...all the bombs.” Yes, and the Pope...is far from opposed to meeting a Ukrofascist. So when will Two Loneliness meet without an intermediary, in the face of a person who is not conventional and relatively dirty tactical nuclear weapons and without danger to the strategist TU-160 (and those closer than 500 km from the LBS are not allowed in, so they, alas, use only relatively light missiles, and those that are simply desperately needed by our non-brother Pope, which he did not have in his difficult childhood , so it grew as a result...this) It is clear that in reality, in this case, the almost strategic bomber IL-76MD should have air escort and powerful electronic warfare systems
    1. 0
      April 4 2024 22: 59
      You're eating sausage wrong, Uncle Fyodor... I mean, you think. With optimal mixing of the mixture with air, 1 ton of the mixture corresponds to 8 tons of explosives. The explosive effect of a nuclear weapon is approximately three times weaker than that of explosives of the same power. So the ODAB power you give will correspond to an explosion of 1 kiloton.
  27. 0
    April 3 2024 12: 40
    Quote: OrangeBigg
    I specifically posted two photos showing FAB-3000. In the first photo it is third from the left next to FAB-1500 and FAB-5000. In the second photo there is a FAB-3000 on the Su-34 pylon. Take a closer look and you will see that in the first and second photos it is FAB-3000. Here is another photo of FAB-3000.


    Looks like horseradish
  28. +2
    April 3 2024 16: 29
    When I called the words that the FAB-3000 is comparable to tactical nuclear weapons the replicated nonsense of a senile person (and this was first stated by an ex-Colonel of the SBU) - my comment was deleted for insult. Who do you work for, gentlemen administrators? The FSB is crying for you!
  29. +1
    April 3 2024 17: 08
    I propose to resume production of PE-8. They could carry and throw FAB-5000 smile Make an unmanned version.
  30. 0
    April 4 2024 10: 19
    The MiG-31 is a fighter-interceptor of high-speed air targets. Therefore, the very idea of ​​hanging bombs on it can only occur to seasoned aviation amateurs.
  31. -1
    April 4 2024 18: 51
    NATO was able to convert Soviet aircraft to fit its missiles, I don’t see anything difficult to modify the mounts for the Fab-3000 if the supporting structure allows it. We don’t buy planes, we produce them.
  32. 0
    April 4 2024 21: 44
    bayard
    in order to avoid difficulties due to misalignment at the time of release, the Su-34 will most likely carry one such FAB-3000 with UMPC on each flight. Because its weight, taking into account the mass of the UMPC, and possibly the accelerating engine, will be about 4 kg. And the power of one bomb is more than enough to hit the selected target.


    Perhaps the most sensible and reasonable comment of all!
  33. 0
    April 4 2024 22: 54
    Old high-explosive bombs require new unmanned carriers. For older aircraft, new guided bombs with suitable aerodynamics should be made. I don’t see what the problem is: stamping two half-hulls, welding, pouring TNT, screwing on the correction module... it’s better, of course, to insert the module inside so that the wings are released only after reset.
    The current FABs are subsonic, they can only be dropped from An-2 and An-24... Or from helicopters...
    Even though helicopters have a low altitude, an extreme range is not always needed. There are so many reports that our troops came within 500 meters of the stronghold, but couldn’t take it. This is where a helicopter can throw a bomb, then immediately leave, and the ground operator on the front line will accompany it...
    .
    Old high-explosive bombs require new unmanned carriers. However, having made bombs with supersonic contours, we can also use new carriers, but if we still have MIGs 21-23, then they would be ideal for the price. No specialized equipment has been built yet.
    .
    The requirements and design of new carriers instead of surrogates based on existing aircraft are obvious to me. And you?
    1. 0
      April 4 2024 23: 03
      about the operator on the front line. There are other options...