FAB with UMPC-P: limit parameters glider

73
FAB with UMPC-P: limit parameters glider

Let's return to the topic of aerial bombs with unified planning and correction modules (UMPK), or more precisely, to increasing the range of use and safety for the carrier of this weaponsSince the majority of aerial bombs used with the UMPK are high-explosive, we will henceforth refer to them as “FABs with UMPK”.

In the previous article FAB with UMPK-R: Inexpensive, Long-Range, High-Precision Munition we considered the possibility of equipping the FAB with the UMPK with one or several solid-fuel rocket boosters borrowed from the composition of some serial products, for example, unguided aviation missiles (NAR), with or without modification, as well as the feasibility of using the said FAB with UMPK-R from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) of the Grom type, of course, if the said UAVs are accepted for supply to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (AF RF) and are mass-produced in the foreseeable future.



Today we will talk about an alternative way to increase the range of FAB with UMPK, without using any engines, as well as increasing the mass of their simultaneous use.

"Condor"


In September 2022, the author published the material Project Condor: death from heaven, within the framework of which it was proposed to create the most inexpensive long-range kamikaze UAVs, or, more precisely, long-range guided gliding munitions (LRGM).


In particular, the UPB-BD "Condor" proposed to completely abandon any engines, to use a glider with high aerodynamic quality, to manufacture it from polymers using injection molding machines or extrusion, with an aluminum internal frame, and to carry out guidance using signals from satellite navigation systems.

It was planned to use warheads of 122-mm projectiles of the Grad multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), high-explosive fragmentation (HE) as ammunition for the UPB-BD "Condor" artillery 152 mm caliber shells or any similar serial products.


Proposed appearance of the UPB-BD "Condor" with a rotating wing

The production of UPB-BD "Condor" was supposed to be carried out in huge batches - approximately 150-300 thousand items per year, which would require the creation of a plant with 20-40 robotic conveyor lines, including extrusion machines, machining sections, assembly and much more.

To use the UPB-BD "Condor", it was planned to use modified Il-76 type transport aircraft equipped with racks for transportation and dropping.


Fixed-wing version of the UPB-BD "Condor"

At the time of publication of the above article, the Russian Armed Forces did not have ammunition of this type - episodic use of FAB with UMPK in the Ukrainian theater of military operations began in November-December 2022.

By the way, using standard ammunition with a little modification has become the norm for FPV-dronesFor example, UAVs "Privet-82" and "Privet-120" from KB "Oko" They use 82mm and 120mm mortar mines as warheads, respectively.

Even now, despite the creation and active use of FAB with UMPK, in the author's opinion, gliding kamikaze UAVs like UPB-BD "Kondor" can be both relevant and effective. By prioritizing manufacturing technology, they can be produced in hundreds of thousands per year.

However, let's return to the FAB with UMPK - what can the UPB-BD "Condor" concept give to this weapon?

The answer is a greater planning range and mass application.

If you look at the FAB with the UMPK, you can see that the wingspan, which provides the gliding range, is relatively small, especially considering the dimensions and weight of the delivered aerial bombs.


Most likely, this is due to the limitations imposed by the carriers - tactical aircraft. It is enough to remove this limitation and we can consider the option of increasing the FAB airframe with UMPK.

But how to remove it?

Use other types of carriers for the use of FAB with UMPK, for example, transport aircraft, as in the concept of using UPB-BD "Condor", however, let's take everything in order.

Limit Parameter Planner


For the UPB-BD "Kondor" we considered two options - with a rotary and with a fixed wing: accordingly, in the variant with a rotary wing, the UPB-BD "Kondor" were located in parallel, in rows, and in the variant with a fixed wing - in series. For the FAB with UMPK, the glider can also potentially be made in the form of a rotary or fixed wing.


In the variant with a rotary wing, the glider's wingspan can be larger, which means the gliding range can be higher, in addition, in this case, the FAB with UMPK-P can be used not only from transport aircraft, but also from some other types of carriers, which is discussed below. The disadvantages include increased complexity of the design, the risk of failure of the deployment mechanism or loss of ammunition when the wing is unfolded.

In the fixed-wing version, the risk of failure is minimized, but the wingspan will be limited by the width of the cargo compartment of the carrier aircraft. The Il-76 has a cargo compartment width of 3,4 meters, while the existing UMPK has a wingspan of 2,5 meters. Is it worth the effort to increase the wings by less than 1 meter?

More likely no than yes, however, combined options can also be implemented, when the wing planes will initially be slightly open to simplify their further opening and reduce the load on the opening mechanism.

In general, there are many options here, for example, the use of an opening X-shaped wing, as in the concept depicted in the material: When size matters: UMPC on FAB of increased power.


Or it could be a biplane, or a sesquiplane, with the wings placed above and below the FAB with UMPK, as in the image at the beginning of this article. The disadvantage of the "biplane" scheme is the high "profile drag" caused by the influence of two pairs of wings on each other, while the lift increases by only 20%, but the strength of the product structure increases.

In any case, the optimal aerodynamic design of a glider with limiting parameters can only be selected based on the results of strength and aerodynamic calculations.

There is another question: how will a larger glider affect the visibility of the FAB with the UMPK?

Of course, visibility will increase, and the gliding speed will also decrease. On the other hand, radar stations (RLS), whose operation is based on the Doppler effect, see low-speed targets worse. If indirect wings are used, their opening angle can be selected in such a way as to minimize the reflection of radiation in the direction of the radar, reorienting it to the sides according to the canons of stealth technologies.

There is also a “matryoshka” option, when a glider with maximum parameters is placed on top of the existing UMPK.


That is, after the FAB is dropped, the UMPK-P uses the capabilities provided by the maximum-parameter glider, which is just a frame with wings and an opening mechanism (if necessary). Control is carried out by the standard control bodies of the existing UMPK.

At a certain distance, for example, several dozen kilometers from the target, the outer glider is dropped / shot off, and the UMPK opens its standard wings. This somewhat complicates the design and increases the total weight of the product, but at the final stage of the flight, the enemy will be dealing with conventional, fairly high-speed and small-sized FABs with UMPK.

The advantage in this case is also that there is no need to rework the existing UMPK; only the external glider of the limit parameters is developed.

Now let's return to potential carriers.

Transport and more


As we have already mentioned above, transport aircraft of the Il-76 family are considered as the main carrier of the FAB with UMPK-P.


Il-76-MD-90A

Why exactly them?

In fact, we don’t really have an alternative – other transport aircraft with comparable or greater carrying capacity are not produced in Russia.

It is important to understand that transport aircraft using FAB with UMPK-P are not considered as a replacement for tactical aircraft.

If tactical aircraft mainly carry out strikes with FAB with UMPK on targets located on the line of combat contact (LBC) and adjacent territories, then transport aircraft using FAB with UMPK-P must work on objects located in the operational depth of enemy territory.

In fact, there is nothing special about using transport aircraft as carriers of certain weapons; on the contrary, this is a promising direction that has not yet been developed in our country; we have already talked about this in our materials. The feasibility of using strategic, long-range and transport aircraft as carriers of FAB-3000 with UMPC и Wartime missile-carrying bomber: the question is not the plane, but its contents.

Is it worth putting transport planes at risk?

If the range of the FAB drop from the UMPK-P is 150-200 kilometers, then there will be no risk - the enemy simply does not have anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) capable of operating at such a range, unless, of course, someone decides to send them deep into enemy territory in order to reach some very attractive target.

In addition, the Russian industry has now reached the production of 6 Il-76-MD-90A units per year; no other aircraft of comparable size and load capacity are produced at such a rate. According to open data, it is planned to reach a production capacity of up to 8 units per year or more.


From a distance of 150 kilometers, transport aircraft will be able to deliver massive FAB strikes with UMPK on targets located deep in enemy territory

According to open data, in order to ensure the maximum range of the FAB with UMPK, the Su-34 fighter-bomber accelerates to high subsonic speed and launches it from an altitude of about 11-12 kilometers.

Carrier transport aircraft will most likely use FAB with UMPK-P differently, approaching the drop point, turning in the direction "away from the target" while simultaneously gaining altitude at an echelon of 11 to 12 kilometers, i.e. reaching the "ceiling". The drop will be carried out by gravity - self-descent of FAB with UMPK-P from the guide racks.

That is, the drop altitude can be comparable to that of tactical aircraft, but the drop speed will initially be almost zero, which should be compensated by the greater lift and aerodynamic advantages of the FAB with UMPK-P. By the way, an additional streamlined "cover" for the FAB can be made on extrusion machines, increasing its aerodynamic perfection.


The dimensions of the cargo compartment of the Il-76 family of aircraft will potentially allow them to carry two to three dozen FABs with UMPK-P, and possibly even more – this will depend on the caliber of the aerial bombs and the configuration of the airframe’s maximum parameters.

There is another version of the FAB carrier with UMPK-P - these are long-range supersonic bomber-missile carriers Tu-22M3.

At present, little is heard about the use of these machines; either their resources are being preserved, or their main weapon – the supersonic cruise missiles (KR) Kh-22/Kh-32 – is being preserved.

Potentially, one Tu-22M3 aircraft can carry four FABs with UMPK-P on twin underwing pylons, dropping them, like the Su-34, from a height of 11-12 kilometers at the maximum permissible speed determined by the capabilities of the UMPK-P. Of course, such a scheme of use will put forward increased requirements for the strength of the UMPK-P design, in addition, the Tu-22M3 will only be able to hang FABs with UMPK-P in the version with folding wings.


The mass of even two FAB-500 with UMPK-P will be significantly less than the mass of one Kh-22/Kh-32 cruise missile.

Accordingly, if transport aircraft provide mass production, then the Tu-22M3 will provide the delivery of FAB with UMPK-P to the maximum range, approaching that of some types of cruise missiles.


From a distance of 200 kilometers, FAB with UMPK-P can potentially reach even Kyiv

Conclusions


Of course, as in the case of UMPK-R, the UMPK-P considered in this article is only a concept that requires a lot of calculations, as well as access to classified information to confirm its feasibility and feasibility.

Theoretically, it is possible to increase the range of FAB with UMPK using a glider with extreme parameters, but in practice everything may be much more complicated. At the same time, we must take an example from the enemy, who shows much greater breadth of views and flexibility in matters of testing various concepts of weapons and tactics of their use.

What are the numerous hybrids of Soviet/Russian and Western weapons worth? If the author had tried writing a couple of years ago about the integration of the Buk air defense system and Western air-to-air missiles or Western cruise missiles and Su-24, Su-27, MiG-29 aircraft, what would have happened? "the author doesn't understand anything about this... the protocols are incompatible... different design schools...".

It is necessary to separately mention the use of transport aircraft as carriers - we definitely cannot avoid this if we want the Russian Air Force to have the ability to covertly and simultaneously use a large number of high-precision weapons, be it FAB with UMPK-P, cruise or aeroballistic missiles.

Currently, FABs with UMPKs cause significant inconvenience to the enemy at LBS, and if their range increases, it will be possible to aim to solve other problems with the help of FABs.

For example, to simultaneously “take out” all substations in Kharkov or all territorial assembly centers (TACs) and police departments from four transport aircraft, disrupting busification activities, or to simultaneously cover any large industrial enterprise of the enemy working for the defense industry, with the total destruction of its production capacities.

Well, and finally, “not just aerial bombs”, because we don’t have an unlimited number of them either, so the UPB-BD “Condor” concept also has every right to exist as the most inexpensive, high-precision method of delivering ammunition deep into enemy territory.
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    9 January 2025 04: 46
    By eye, all these options with an increase in wing are not particularly viable, for reasons if not of strength, then of dimensions, and also with an insignificant increase in range. In my opinion, simplified booster units are more promising, perhaps based on rocket engines for heavy MLRS.
    1. +5
      9 January 2025 06: 40
      Maybe it's worthwhile to DAC the American SDB, also known as GBU-39.
      Why reinvent the wheel?
      These SDBs are attached to each suspension point with the help of special holders, 4 units. You can hang 6 bombs on 24 suspension points. If you place 34 suspensions on the Su-10, you will get 40 bombs per sortie. This is more than enough. Try to find so many targets. This is not 2-4 bombs (in the future 6) with the UMPK per sortie. Yes, there is a difference in the power of the bombs, but 250/500 kg is often excessive.
      In addition, the small diameter combined with high speed makes it possible to use it as an anti-bunker bomb. There is also an air blast function. I saw on YouTube how they work above trenches at a height of several meters.
      Well, what a range. It's about 100 km.
      And it is considered an inexpensive bomb, well, by American standards.
      And no transport workers will have to conjure up anything for this matter.
      1. +4
        9 January 2025 06: 53
        Any carrier will do for SDBs: Su30/34/35/, even Yak-130.
        For the Su-57, this is just what the doctor ordered. Several dozen will fit into the internal compartments.
        Overall, this GBU-39 SDB turned out to be a successful bomb.
        I think it makes sense to take a closer look at it.
        Surely the failed samples can be studied.
        1. +2
          9 January 2025 07: 21
          Quote: Beetle1991
          Overall, this GBU-39 SDB turned out to be a successful bomb.
          I think it makes sense to take a closer look at it.

          There is already an analogue, and it can be launched from the MLRS UMBP D-30SN, I won’t say at what stage. But here is the main application masses of ready-made bombs 250-500 m and.d kg.
      2. 0
        11 January 2025 15: 53
        Quote: Beetle1991
        range. It's about 100 km.

        So our FAB with UMPK already fly up to 85 km. At 50-60 km. so long ago and in large quantities. If such a FAB is attached to an engine from an old aircraft NUR, the range will easily be up to 100 km. But to be in large quantities, such a system must be as simple, cheap as possible, but at the same time sufficiently accurate and effective. And this is possible only by using old FAB, attaching UMPK modules to them. And as carriers, ordinary MFI. To use such FAB from lower altitudes and at lower speeds, it is necessary to install jettisonable ones after the development/acceleration of the TTD.
        The bet on a smaller caliber FAB leads to the need for a larger number of UMPK, therefore, in terms of a unit of power, the cost of such ammunition will increase. The mass production of course can seriously affect the cost, and of course we have 100 kg. FAB ... but here again the question of the damage caused with a certain accuracy, and the number of such BP on the carrier will arise. It is on the FAB-100 that engines from 80 mm. NUR can be integrated, which will provide a decent range when launched from medium / low altitudes and at transonic speed. That is, at close rear and front line. So that attack aircraft could launch them according to target designation from UAVs.
        The main work is now being done by FAB-500 and FAB-250, and they are doing quite well.
  2. +12
    9 January 2025 04: 57
    If tactical aircraft mainly carry out strikes with FAB with UMPK on targets located on the line of combat contact (LBC) and adjacent territories, then transport aircraft using FAB with UMPK-P must work on objects located in the operational depth of enemy territory.

    That is, specialized strike aircraft with decent speed and sanitation, coupled with good KBO, operate at the front at maximum distance, and low-maneuverability, slow, gargars, and with what number of crew? Should they operate in depth, approaching the LBS closer than 34s? And the loss of which is much more sensitive, since their main function - transporting cargo - cannot be shifted to frontline aviation. Someone needs to quit crazy ideas. If military transport aircraft can carry bombs, this does not mean that they should be used in this capacity.
    1. +1
      9 January 2025 11: 01
      Quote: JD1979
      That is, specialized strike aircraft with decent speed and airworthiness, coupled with good KBOs, operate in the front at maximum range, while slow, unmaneuverable, and gargars, and with what number of crew? Should they operate in depth, approaching the LBS closer than 34s?

      No. It is written directly in the article:
      If the range of the FAB drop from the UMPK-P is 150-200 kilometers, then there will be no risk - the enemy simply does not have anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) capable of operating at such a range, unless, of course, someone decides to send them deep into enemy territory in order to reach some very attractive target.

      That is, due to the greater flight range of the UMPK-P, their carriers will be able to operate outside the enemy air defense fire zone.
      1. +3
        9 January 2025 15: 08
        Quote: Alexey RA
        That is, due to the greater flight range of the UMPK-P, their carriers will be able to operate outside the enemy air defense fire zone.

        Yeah, they'll be able to work the same way as that unfortunate Il-76 did in the AWACS version over its territory. How many kilometers were there? About 250, I think.
        The fantasies of some klavodaves in the desire to hype up current topics, but unfortunately lacking basic common sense and the desire to imagine how their super idea will work in reality, sometimes border on delirium or actually are it. I already have a selection of such ideas from both VO and Topkor. Especially since some are trying in both places.
        1. +1
          9 January 2025 15: 24
          Quote: JD1979
          Yeah, they'll be able to work the same way as that unfortunate Il-76 did in the AWACS version over its territory. How many kilometers were there? About 250, I think.

          I am guided by the bourgeois PJDAM, for which the manufacturer of the crashed planes declared a range of >300 nautical miles for a 500-pound bomb. Well, that is, they will really stretch 400-450 kilometers. So it is quite possible to work from the line "beyond 250 km".
          1. 0
            10 January 2025 03: 27
            Quote: Alexey RA
            I am looking at the bourgeois PJDAM, for which the manufacturer of the crashed planes declared a range of >300 nautical miles for a 500-pound bomb

            Well, then let's orient ourselves to the end. The method of using the bourgeois PJDAM, thanks to the logic of a healthy person, assumes dropping it from a NORMAL carrier from a height of ~15 km and a speed of 1000 km/h, but in reality probably about 1500-2000. in the DIRECTION of the target. When the acceleration from the rocket boosters is added to the carrier's speed, which still quite possibly throws the bomb several kilometers up. And this synergy gives these same 300 miles.
            And what does our Klavodaw offer: a slow transport aircraft, up to 800 km/h. It is not yet known at what speed it can open the ramp. Flight altitude up to 12 km. And! Dropping with distance from the target. That is, the aircraft must first approach closer to the LBS and turn in the opposite direction. And how many km does this turn take? Then we pour the bombs on pallets overboard (one by one or in packs? How will they be distributed to the sides?) They must somehow be stabilized by their TAILS against the direction of the initial velocity vector. HOW? Then brake using the RU and begin accelerating towards the target. Moreover, in the process of stabilization and braking and acceleration, they will lose altitude very quickly. And there are still many technical issues here. But it is clear that getting 250+ km at reasonable costs is not science fiction, when there are NORMAL carriers and normal methods of use. But someone wants to either remove appendix through the mouth, or treat teeth through the ass. But why post such things for everyone to laugh at? It's probably time to introduce at least some technical moderation on the site.
            1. 0
              10 January 2025 10: 45
              Quote: JD1979
              When the speed of the carrier is added to the acceleration from the rocket boosters, which still quite possibly throws the bomb several kilometers up. And this synergy gives these same 300 miles.

              The PJDAM has no boosters, only a J85 turbojet engine.
              And yes, the Yankees are actively working on a program of airborne missile arsenals - transporters loaded with guided missiles. It is called the Rapid Dragon system for the C-130 and C-17. True, they are planning to use AGM-158 JASSM there, unloaded in flight from the cargo cabin through a ramp.
              1. 0
                11 January 2025 03: 31
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The PJDAM has no boosters, only a J85 turbojet engine.

                It doesn't matter in principle what is used there - what is important is that, in general, each element of this system (fast carrier, high altitude, release during movement) works to increase the range of the ammunition, unlike the one proposed by the author.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And yes, the Yankees are actively working on an air-to-air missile arsenal program.

                They are probably finishing their work and preparing to deploy "shadow" strategists. It's a shame that this is essentially a technology ripped off from us. Only after the collapse of the USSR did we give up on the possibility of getting a large number of cheap cruise missiles, and during our rise from our knees we resorted to useless and defenseless small missile ships and, again, expensive and useless wonder weapons like Poseidon and Burevestnik. And now, if they want, their entire fleet of heavy and not so heavy military transport aircraft can instantly turn into an armada of strategists, and no one will sound the alarm in the event of a mass flight of such aircraft along the borders of Russia, unlike classic bombers. And this thing can very well arrange a decapitating strike on the European part of the Russian Federation.
      2. 0
        9 January 2025 16: 21
        Due to the greater flight range of the UMPK-P, their carriers will be able to operate outside the enemy air defense fire zone.

        Even if the flight range with the UMPK-P is 200 km, which is highly doubtful, their IL-76 carriers will be forced to operate from 165-190 km from the LBS. If closer, they can simply shoot down. You don’t have to go far for examples. We all remember how our A-50U AWACS aircraft, IL-28 SAR aircraft were shot down over the Azov Sea, over an airfield in the Krasnodar Territory or Rostov Region. But these aircraft were about 160 km from the LBS. The Patriot or S-200 air defense missile systems deployed by the enemy closer to this line made it possible to do this. Therefore, there can be no talk of hitting targets deep in the enemy’s rear with FABs from transport aircraft. This is a utopia. Only at the LBS or nearby at most. To significantly increase the range of the FAB with UMPK, it is necessary to install cheap solid-fuel rocket engines from the Uragan or Smerch MLRS on them. With the latter, these bombs can be launched from the ground installation itself, and not only from standard carriers. As the Americans have long been doing with their GBU-39 SDB bombs, launching them from the Himars MLRS.
  3. +4
    9 January 2025 05: 32
    It is necessary to mention separately the use of transport aircraft as carriers.
    It seems like we're churning out military transport planes like hotcakes.
  4. AVP
    +7
    9 January 2025 06: 31
    fairy tales of the level - "let's launch rockets from barrel artillery."
    The author seems to have a very vague idea of ​​what he is writing about. With such dimensions, the biplane box will simply be torn off by the oncoming flow. Or should it be made of titanium? And there are a lot of problems with the crosswind, with the same flutter? Or should the wing be made non-folding from the start? And how to launch it? From the silt? All attempts to attach the transport to the bomber - as expected, led to nothing. Because this idea is not viable even with minimal air defense.
  5. +6
    9 January 2025 06: 35
    What got you hooked on the UMPK? The UMPK is extremely effective as long as the stockpiles of bombs are used. But they will run out (the FAB-3000s seem to have already run out and an order for production has been opened). In the future, we need to immediately produce bombs with wings and control units. At the same time, of course, we need to work on their aerodynamic quality, which will increase the flight range. Installing engines is not an option, their main advantage over air-to-ground guided missiles - low price - immediately disappears. Well, using transport aircraft is also not an option. There are Su-24, Su-34 (currently the most widely produced and modern), Tu-22M3, MiG-31 - we should focus on them.
    1. +1
      9 January 2025 11: 11
      Quote from Andy_nsk
      Installing engines is not an option, as their main advantage over air-to-ground guided missiles - low cost - immediately disappears.

      It will not disappear. If we take a similar PJDAM - JDAM with a turbojet engine to increase the range, then the turbojet engine for it is estimated at less than 190 kilobucks, which gives the total cost of the kit at about 200-210 kilobucks (in the version without a seeker, only with a SNS). At the same time, the price of a full-fledged AGM-158A missile exceeds 1 megabuck.
      1. +2
        9 January 2025 16: 36
        How is a cruise bomb with a turbojet engine different from a missile with a turbojet engine?
        1. 0
          10 January 2025 10: 53
          Quote from Andy_nsk
          How is a cruise bomb with a turbojet engine different from a missile with a turbojet engine?

          In terms of price, the "JDAM collective farm" is much cheaper.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          If we take a similar PJDAM - JDAM with a turbojet engine to increase the range, then the turbojet engine for it is estimated at less than 190 kilobucks, which gives the total cost of the kit at about 200-210 kilobucks (in the version without a seeker, only with a SNS). At the same time, the price of a full-fledged AGM-158A missile exceeds 1 megabuck.

          Payment - the ability to work only on stationary targets.
          In principle, even a seeker head on a JDAM can be easily attached (work in this direction is being done in the interests of the USN), but the price increases sharply.
          1. 0
            10 January 2025 11: 13
            In terms of price, the "JDAM collective farm" is much cheaper.

            No, it won't be cheaper. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.
            The most expensive component in a cruise missile is the turbojet engine. If you install a turbojet engine on a cruise bomb, you get a cruise missile, and it will cost as much as a cruise missile.
            As for the cost of the seeker, GPS/GLONASS is the cheapest option, it's a small board with a penny MS and a printed antenna - we use these. It's a good option for stationary purposes. Optoelectronic or matrix IR seekers are much more expensive. And then there's the wing drive - a brushless motor with a gearbox, which differs from those used in children's toys only in military acceptance.
            I can't say anything about the cost of explosives, but judging by the fact that bombs and shells are produced in hundreds of thousands and millions - probably not the most valuable thing in the cruise missile. And yes, the hull and wings. Instead of steel, I would use glass-basalt-plastics, durable, light and do not reflect EM waves. As for the striking elements - they should have a large mass and be made of heavy metals (at least steel).
            1. 0
              13 January 2025 15: 36
              Quote from Andy_nsk
              The most expensive component in a cruise missile is the turbojet engine.

              Not anymore. The cost of a turbojet engine for a Williams F107 cruise missile is only 190 kilobucks, while the cost of the entire cruise missile is over a megabuck.
              1. 0
                14 January 2025 03: 11
                The cost of any product, in addition to the cost of components, includes: the salary fund (the most significant part, at least in the US), overhead costs, depreciation, tax deductions, deductions for R&D, etc. There should also be a profit, no one works at a loss, so if the cost of one unit is 20%, then it is the most expensive. The rest is trifles.
    2. 0
      9 January 2025 13: 06
      The carriers you listed, such as the Su-24, Su-34, Tu-22M3 and MiG-31, are very expensive aircraft.
      Another thing is that the proposed Il-76 cannot be called cheap.
      We need a drone the size of the RQ-4 Global Hawk and even bigger, both in manned and unmanned versions. This will help meet the needs of both naval aviation and heavy unmanned bombers.
      1. +1
        9 January 2025 16: 38
        Regarding drones, I agree with you, of course, human lives are more valuable than any piece of iron.
        1. 0
          9 January 2025 16: 39
          It is also clear that such development will require a decent amount of resources and time.
          1. +2
            9 January 2025 16: 43
            It just pisses me off, what was our Ministry of Defense doing for so many years before the start of the SVO? Was it really not clear that it was necessary to deal with UAVs and gliding bombs? Although now, after the arrests in the Ministry of Defense, it is already clear that they had other goals in life.
            1. 0
              9 January 2025 16: 46
              Light drones have been developed after all. There are already Lancet, Orlan, Inokhodets. But there is no heavy one yet, capable of working as a reconnaissance aircraft and a bomber.
              Naval aviation is about to end and fade away. That's where they mainly need something decent and in different versions.
            2. 0
              10 January 2025 01: 55
              At the very least, the Ministry of Defense does not send Il-76s to bomb the LBS.
              ...is there censorship/editing on VO?... Such opuses should be sent straight to the sport lottery.
  6. +2
    9 January 2025 06: 53
    When will VO start writing the author's name at the beginning of the article, and not at the end?
  7. -6
    9 January 2025 07: 06
    Thank you, Andrew!
    Very interesting.
    The ideas are sound, but the majority is always characterized by inertia. When Hercules and Globemasters shower us with such gifts - then the majority will scream about this topic!
    For my part, I would like to take the liberty of proposing (or rather repeating my proposal from a year ago) the following:
    1) If you are planning to manufacture ammunition for strategic bombing (not to be confused with carpet bombing!), then the maximum range of a missile aircraft (which is more than a thousand kilometers, taking into account the launch range and altitude) can only be achieved by using a low-power pulsejet engine located on the back of the glider in the shadow zone for observation from the ground.
    2) At a great distance, guaranteed target destruction is achieved by using bomb charges of 1000 kg caliber and higher, which determines the enormous dimensions of the glider with an aerodynamic quality of 25 - 30. So, taking into account all the necessary options, fuel and guidance system, such a projectile will have a mass approaching twice the mass of the original munition and a simply monstrous wingspan (remember the ANT-25!). This excludes dense loading of the transport aircraft, but on the contrary - increases the range of possible carrier aircraft due to the positive lift force arising on the glider of the projectile aircraft with an open mount "on the back" of the towing aircraft. At the same time, old transport and passenger aircraft that have exhausted their service life, equipped with a system for attaching the projectile aircraft "on the back", are suitable as carriers.
    3) Structurally, the flying bomb can be manufactured using the FAB as a supporting beam, onto which a fairing with a wing, a thruster jet engine above the fuselage, conformal fuel tanks and a guidance and control system are placed.
    Usually, the vulnerability of the A-2, Fi-103V-1 (Vergeltungswaffe Eins) flying bombs to interceptor aircraft and anti-aircraft fire is noted as a disadvantage (although this did not prevent at least half of the flying bombs that reached England from overcoming the air defense). In this case, it is necessary to provide for the placement on the flying bomb of appropriate means of overcoming the air defense system by firing false targets and (or) active countermeasures, such as electronic warfare and anti-radar missiles.
    1. +1
      9 January 2025 08: 50
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      the maximum range (which is more than a thousand kilometers, taking into account the launch line and altitude) can only be achieved by using a low-power pulsejet engine located on the back of the glider
      By installing a "stupid" cast iron pulse engine, you simply turn it into a wretched semblance of a cruise missile. The essence of the UMPK is that the carrier drops it from a great height and at an extremely high speed, after which it continues its flight inertia, using the navigation system and its tail for this. With the installation of an engine on it, the flight range, of course, will increase, but the possibility of its detection by air defense systems will also increase. For large bombs, it seems, gunpowder accelerators are sometimes installed, but there is very little information about this.
      1. 0
        9 January 2025 09: 11
        You didn't understand:
        A new airframe is put on the "stupid cast iron", and the engine (thrust 200 - 400 kg) is small and shielded by the body and wing.
        As for the speed, it’s still subsonic, and that’s without an engine – a hundred kilometers from the LBS.
        And this is for large-caliber bombs (1000 kg and more), and a cruise missile with a 5000 kg warhead is generally unthinkable.
  8. +1
    9 January 2025 08: 14
    transport aircraft of the Il-76 family are considered as the main carrier of the FAB with UMPK-P

    It would be better to have the Yak-130 family. A war of attrition requires maximum savings on everything possible.
  9. +7
    9 January 2025 09: 07
    I envy Mitrofanov with a "good" envy! After all, I am also involved in fantasy and I have "more than enough" fantasy projects of military equipment and weapons! But! Fantasy is not "bubbling" in me! And Mitrofanov is "gurgling"! What is the cause-and-effect relationship? Maybe it is that Mitrofanov, "having developed" a fantasy project, begins to fill it with real monetary content, offering it for a "modest bribe" to Internet sites ...; and at this time I am in a hurry to take up the next "fantasy" idea that flashed among the convolutions!? For example, Mitrofanov's idea with a rotating wing of a biplane design for a FAB! Well, I also have "projects" for UAVs of a similar type! (Only non-strategic purposes, like Mitrofanov!) And a drone interceptor with one rotating wing, "variable" length, made of plastic water pipes and launched "by hand"! But all this is not "gurgling"!
  10. +2
    9 January 2025 09: 28
    Mitrofanov is the Jules Verne of our time...Our everything.
  11. +5
    9 January 2025 09: 32
    There is one thing I don’t understand: where did the authors get the idea that this “brilliant” idea never occurred to anyone else except them?
    Despite the fact that the concept of glide bombs is a hundred years old.
    And before reinventing the wheel, you need to think about how necessary it is?
    Even if the aerodynamic quality is raised to 20 units, which is unthinkable for such a design, then for a range of 300 km, it is necessary to carry out the release from 15 meters. At the same time, this is achievable only in calm conditions and in a standard atmosphere. And the ammunition itself will fly along the line, without maneuvering.
    It turns out that in order to hit targets just at the front line, the carrier must enter the long-range air defense zone.
    The ammunition itself, with such quality, will have prohibitive dimensions (wingspan), complexity and very low speed with disgusting maneuverability. Not the most difficult target, even for small anti-aircraft missiles.
    In short, you need to shorten the wings, add an engine, increase the speed and... end up with a cruise missile.

    And what the proponents of “cheapening” ammunition propose looks like this:
    You can take a unit of soldiers from 1812, arm them with AKMs, and after a couple of days of training, their combat effectiveness will increase significantly.
    What the UMPK supporters are proposing is the same as arming a unit of modern motorized riflemen with muzzle-loading guns from the aforementioned 1812. How many wars will they fight?
    1. +1
      9 January 2025 09: 50
      Analogies are not appropriate in this case. Bombs with UMPK have proven their effectiveness and there are no particular interceptions of them.
      But you are absolutely right when you limit the area of ​​use of these bombs to a hundred kilometers from the LBS.
      In this version we are talking about a glider with high aerodynamic quality, but its application niche is completely different from that of the FAB-500 with UMPK.
      These are targets located at a distance of 500-1000 km from the front. Therefore, the charge of this machine must correspond to the task. It is quite possible to have 3000 kg, 5000 kg, and for some targets even 9000 kg.
      For this reason, it would not be harmful to add a low-power ramjet in the shadow zone of the glider. In addition, in the depth of the defense, the air defense can only be focal + patrolling fighters. So there is a chance of breaking through the air defense.
      .
      1. +2
        9 January 2025 10: 30
        Analogies are not appropriate in this case. Bombs with UMPK have proven their effectiveness and there are no particular interceptions of them.


        Have you forgotten about the Elusive Joe principle?

        In this version we are talking about a glider with high aerodynamic quality, but its application niche is completely different from that of the FAB-500 with UMPK.
        These are targets located at a distance of 500-1000 km from the front. Therefore, the charge of this machine must correspond to the task. It is quite possible to have 3000 kg, 5000 kg, and for some targets even 9000 kg.


        Have you already taken it this morning (even though the holidays seem to be over), or is it normal to talk nonsense? lol
        A bit of math. The most modern gliders have a quality of 60 units, and to launch to those same 1000 km, you need to approach the front line at an altitude of 17 meters. An ideal target for an air defense missile system.
        And further, to provide the FAB-3000 with such a range, it is necessary to build a glider of the mentioned quality around it. And with all conceivable and inconceivable stretches, this is a minimum of 1000 kg of the structure weight, a total of 4000 kg. And accordingly, with a maximum permissible wing load of 40 kg/m2, it must be 100 m2 in area. That is, 50 meters in span with an average chord of 2 m.
        And considering the speed of record gliders of 70-100 km/h, such a UMPK will drag itself to its destination in more than 10 hours. lol

        For this reason, it would not be harmful to add a low-power thruster jet in the shadow zone of the glider.


        And what will this give besides the additional takeoff weight? Calculations in the studio. wassat

        In addition, in the depth of the defense, the air defense can only be focal + patrolling fighters. So there is a chance of an air defense breakthrough.


        Did someone tell you this nonsense, or did you come up with it yourself?
        1. 0
          9 January 2025 12: 03
          Thanks for the reply.
          Only this glider with a ramjet will have a speed of about 300 - 400 km/h. Well, and the quality - 25-30. Hence the other parameters. The fighters will shoot down something, but neither we nor they have a continuous air defense. Well, the experience of the British will help you. The entire super-powerful continuous air defense intercepted less than half of the V-1s that reached the island.
          1. -1
            9 January 2025 12: 35
            Only this glider with a ramjet will have a speed of about 300 - 400 km/h. And the quality is 25-30.


            What are you saying? Provide aerodynamic calculations to obtain such optimistic data.

            The fighters will shoot down some, but neither we nor they have a complete air defense. And the experience of the British will help you. The entire super-powerful complete air defense intercepted less than half of the V-1s that reached the island.


            It is already clear that you have no idea about the organization of air defense. And the experience of the British is not suitable, there was no SAM system then, no normal radar observation, and the guidance systems of the air defense were far from perfect.
            And the V-1 is still a cruise missile.
            1. 0
              9 January 2025 16: 18
              The English experience is a carbon copy:
              The southern and western coasts are a zone of continuous radar control, air defense batteries, including 114 mm caliber with a radar fuse, in three echelons. Radar guidance of fighters (modification of the mosi) with IR sights. The last line of defense is aerostats.
              And yet...
              The Germans simply took over with numbers.
              We have:
              - active radar suppression;
              - false targets;
              - low reflectivity fuselage.
              And you can spend enough bombs if the target is worthy. Plus - if there is no direct hit, but only loss of flight characteristics or control, then the bomb will still work on enemy territory.
              And the calculations - if you are interested, you can download the MAI coursework, but that is not interesting. It is clear that the parameters can be selected, it is important that it is technologically feasible.
              1. 0
                9 January 2025 16: 26
                P.S. I didn't understand your remark about takeoff weight:
                - during the carrier's takeoff run, this weight is compensated by the aerodynamic quality of the glider on the carrier's back BEFORE the carrier's takeoff speed. The total weight of the carrier with the glider does not exceed the maximum takeoff weight for the carrier. And there is no need to climb to super-height for launch.
              2. +1
                9 January 2025 17: 23
                The English experience is a carbon copy:
                The southern and western coasts are a zone of continuous radar control, air defense batteries, including 114 mm caliber with a radar fuse, in three echelons. Radar guidance of fighters (modification of the mosi) with IR sights. The last line of defense is aerostats.
                And yet...


                What, however? Even if the British had air defense of the 1980s, a single V-2 would not have broken through.

                We have:
                - active radar suppression;
                - false targets;
                - low reflectivity fuselage.


                Don't overestimate the capabilities of electronic warfare. Here on the LBS the problem is suppressing UAV guidance points, and you are aiming at the operational and strategic level.

                And you can spend enough bombs if the target is worthy. Plus - if there is no direct hit, but only loss of flight characteristics or control, then the bomb will still work on enemy territory.


                You will waste more carriers arming them with such worthless weapons.

                And the calculations - if you are interested, you can download the MAI coursework, but that is not interesting. It is clear that the parameters can be selected, it is important that it is technologically feasible.


                - during the carrier's takeoff run, this weight is compensated by the aerodynamic quality of the glider on the carrier's back BEFORE the carrier's takeoff speed. The total weight of the carrier with the glider does not exceed the maximum takeoff weight for the carrier. And there is no need to climb to super-height for launch.


                Well, at least you'll pump yourself up. But miracles don't happen. Either make normal cruise missiles, or slow-moving ersatz shelving units.
                With the same success, the infantry could be armed with self-propelled guns like fusees, to save money.
                1. 0
                  9 January 2025 18: 40
                  Take the Blanik, attach it to the Kukuruznik and instead of 2 pilots - 160 kg of explosives.

                  As they say, how do you like this Elon Musk? laughing
                  1. 0
                    9 January 2025 20: 37
                    Take the Blanik, attach it to the Kukuruznik and instead of 2 pilots - 160 kg of explosives.

                    As they say, how do you like this Elon Musk? laughing


                    The most advantageous gliding speed is 85 km/h. What targets can it hit? Considering that it can be easily destroyed by means of a UAV.
                    Why then were missiles with a bunch of M's invented?
                    1. +1
                      9 January 2025 22: 06
                      This is of course a joke, given the topic of the article.
                2. 0
                  9 January 2025 20: 54
                  With the same success, the infantry could be armed with self-propelled guns like fusees, to save money.

                  Watch Brat and Brat-2 - given the situation, a fusee is better than a knife.
                  Either make normal cruise missiles, or slow-moving ersatz shelving units.

                  And what do the racks have to do with it? This is for the author with biplane technology. I proposed the V-1 as a prototype. It's just that when taking off from an airplane (and the airplane can be a converted civil one, we don't need either efficiency or cabin ergonomics - takeoff and landing) we don't need afterburner for takeoff or the climb mode.
                  You will waste more carriers arming them with such worthless weapons.

                  Only three Tallboy bombs hit the Tirpitz, and one of them decided its fate. For this, 90 sorties were flown and 77 such bombs were dropped on the target. One bomber was lost. But in the opinion of the British, the game was worth the candle.
                  If you need to bring down a dam or a major bridge behind enemy lines without using nuclear weapons, 5000 kg and 9000 kg bombs are practically the only means. But delivering them to the target is very difficult. Suggest an alternative.
                  1. 0
                    9 January 2025 21: 36
                    Watch Brat and Brat-2 - given the situation, a fusee is better than a knife.


                    Are you out of your mind? What do knives have to do with it when they offer fuzes instead of Kalashnikovs? lol

                    And what do the racks have to do with it? This is for the author with biplane technology. I proposed the V-1 as a prototype. It's just that when taking off from an airplane (and the airplane can be a converted civil one, we don't need either efficiency or cabin ergonomics - takeoff and landing) we don't need afterburner for takeoff or the climb mode.


                    10X and its variations have long been removed from service. You are a bit late with your "innovations".

                    Only three Tallboy bombs hit the Tirpitz, and one of them decided its fate. For this, 90 sorties were flown and 77 such bombs were dropped on the target. One bomber was lost. But in the opinion of the British, the game was worth the candle.
                    If you need to bring down a dam or a major bridge behind enemy lines without using nuclear weapons, 5000 kg and 9000 kg bombs are practically the only means. But delivering them to the target is very difficult. Suggest an alternative.


                    Iskanders, Daggers, Kalibrs and so on. What, you just came from the cellar?
                    1. +1
                      10 January 2025 05: 27
                      Iskanders, Daggers, Kalibrs and so on. What, you just came from the cellar?

                      First of all, Vovochka, don't be rude. I'm older than you.
                      Second:
                      The Kalibr, Kinzhal and Iskander missiles that you respect cannot carry penetrating warheads weighing 5 and 9 tons. Read about Tallboy and Grand Slam to see how they work against objects like "dams" and "bridge supports". I would like to point out that the Crimean Bridge or the Dnieper Hydroelectric Power Station dam can be taken with just such warheads, if you do not use special warheads.
                      1. 0
                        10 January 2025 10: 33
                        First of all, Vovochka, don't be rude. I'm older than you.


                        Judging by your speech, you are an elementary school student.

                        The Kalibr, Kinzhal and Iskander missiles that you respect cannot carry penetrating warheads weighing 5 and 9 tons. Read about Tallboy and Grand Slam to see how they work against objects like "dams" and "bridge supports". I would like to point out that the Crimean Bridge or the Dnieper Hydroelectric Power Station dam can be taken with just such warheads, if you do not use special warheads.


                        Well, here's another portion of a schoolboy's fantasies. lol
                        First of all, why on earth did you decide that a warhead of this weight is needed to hit the targets mentioned? Did you decide that with the cooks in the kitchen? lol
                        Secondly, for heavy warheads there are ballistic missiles.
                        Thirdly, a PENETRATING WARFARE BLOCK is a warhead that has HUGE KINETIC energy, that is, SPEED, which extended-range UMPK missiles cannot provide in principle.

                        Today we have real Kalashnikovs, as it were, just barely enough. And there is a terrible shortage of figurative ones (I know the state of them from the facts). But the enemy's state is also somewhere around the same, so they don't have the first-class air defense that you threaten them with either.


                        You are also as naive as a schoolboy. If Ukraine doesn't have something now, it means that the West hasn't considered it necessary to supply it yet.
                        And why, if the property, capital, children of our powers that be are there, in the West. This is the best air defense.
                      2. 0
                        10 January 2025 12: 17
                        I know that you are a combat pilot.
                        But your knowledge is very mediocre, especially when you talk about high-power ammunition. The kinetic energy of a free-falling 9000 kg bomb dropped from a height of 3000 m exceeds the energy of the missile warheads you mentioned. The transverse load when working with soil is also comparable (and it is this that determines the depth). And there is nothing to say about the seismic wave as a result of the explosion. It is negligibly small for the warheads you listed. So you have no methods against the specified targets, except for Dambuster!
                      3. 0
                        10 January 2025 12: 26
                        I know that you are a combat pilot.
                        But your knowledge is very mediocre, especially when you talk about high-power ammunition. The kinetic energy of a free-falling 9000 kg bomb dropped from a height of 3000 m exceeds the energy of the missile warheads you mentioned. The transverse load when working with soil is also comparable (and it is this that determines the depth). And there is nothing to say about the seismic wave as a result of the explosion. It is negligibly small for the warheads you listed. So you have no methods against the specified targets, except for Dambuster!


                        You are definitely a schoolboy. Because an adult cannot be so delirious. The maximum speed of a bomb dropped from 3000 meters is 250 m/s at most. And we are not talking about free-falling bombs, but about the UMPK, where the speed is several times lower. And if we are talking about increasing the gliding range, then there is generally 70-100 km/h. lol
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. 0
                        10 January 2025 19: 54
                        The energy of the FAB-9000 falling at a speed of 250 m/s is equal to 28700 tm, the energy of the warhead of a 450 kg rocket falling at a speed of 900 m/s (clearly overestimated) is equal to 18600 tm.
                        You don't understand anything about the subject, talking nonsense about the speed of free planning of some antediluvian devices, and you ignore the modern experience of the Americans. Well, God be with you, you are already used up material anyway. hi
                      6. 0
                        11 January 2025 09: 09
                        The energy of the FAB-9000 falling at a speed of 250 m/s is equal to 28700 tm, the energy of the warhead of a 450 kg rocket falling at a speed of 900 m/s (clearly overestimated) is equal to 18600 tm.
                        You don't understand anything about the subject, talking nonsense about the speed of free planning of some antediluvian devices, and you ignore the modern experience of the Americans. Well, God be with you, you are already used up material anyway.


                        Do you even read yourself? The FAB-9000 is 450 times heavier than a 20 warhead!!! But only 1,5 times heavier in kinetic energy!!!
                        Are you sure you're all right in the head? lol
                      7. 0
                        11 January 2025 09: 28
                        Here is an interesting question: how to destroy serious infrastructure with a high level of durability: tunnels, bridges, port facilities, etc.

                        Nuclear weapons weren't invented for nothing - a fighter with a regular air-to-ground missile, but with a nuclear charge, can destroy everything that's needed.
                        And without 9-ton bombs and corresponding carriers for them.

                        And if without nuclear weapons, then either a multi-ton bomb or a large number of missiles/bombs with small charges to pick at (and it’s not a fact that it will work).
                      8. 0
                        11 January 2025 09: 37
                        Here is an interesting question: how to destroy serious infrastructure with a high level of durability: tunnels, bridges, port facilities, etc.

                        Nuclear weapons weren't invented for nothing - a fighter with a regular air-to-ground missile, but with a nuclear charge, can destroy everything that's needed.
                        And without 9-ton bombs and corresponding carriers for them.

                        And if without nuclear weapons, then either a multi-ton bomb or a large number of missiles/bombs with small charges to pick at (and it’s not a fact that it will work).


                        Things are much worse. There are not enough new, relevant aviation weapons. So they are scooping up old stockpiles trying to adapt them.
                      9. 0
                        11 January 2025 11: 21
                        Do you even read yourself? The FAB-9000 is 450 times heavier than a 20 warhead!!! But only 1,5 times heavier in kinetic energy!!!

                        However, by the weight of the explosive, it is still about 20 times. Fabs are basically not designed for kinetic damaging impact.
                      10. 0
                        11 January 2025 11: 34
                        However, in terms of the weight of explosives, it is still about 20 times.


                        A significant part of which is simply thrown away. Find out at your leisure why the "bast shoe" was removed from the front, while the Il-2 with its PTAB had a significant impact on the course of the war.
                    2. +1
                      10 January 2025 05: 34
                      Are you out of your mind? What do knives have to do with it when they offer fuzes instead of Kalashnikovs?

                      Today we have real Kalashnikovs, as it were, just barely enough. And there is a terrible shortage of figurative ones (I know the state of them from the facts). But the enemy's state is also somewhere around the same, so they don't have the first-class air defense that you threaten them with either.
    2. +4
      9 January 2025 09: 53
      There's one thing I don't understand: where did the authors get this idea from?
      Yes, this is Mitrofanov, he has thoughts - like Mitrofanov has good things behind the bathhouse.

      But this article doesn't measure up to the three most brilliant ones yet - "put PMC on quadcopters";"saw off the 636 submarine's conning tower, load it with 2KT dynamite and make an underwater kamikaze drone";"make a kamikaze drone based on the Il76". I rate these articles with the highest score - “one Mitrofanov” (a unit of measurement for Mitrofanov’s content in an article).
      But this article - it lacks the fire of thought, the flow of content and the hurricane of ideas - I rate it as "0,25 Mitrofanov" or "a quarter of Mitrofanov". Technically, as always, illiterate, but in general in terms of madness - weak.
      1. 0
        9 January 2025 12: 38
        But this article - it lacks the fire of thought, the flow of content and the hurricane of ideas - I rate it as "0,25 Mitrofanov" or "a quarter of Mitrofanov". Technically, as always, illiterate, but in general in terms of madness - weak.


        Perhaps you are right. I couldn't read all of his articles.
        1. 0
          9 January 2025 15: 38
          I didn't manage to read all of his articles.
          And you don't need to read them all, read one - you have an idea about them all. The level of thought/techno-nonsense is always approximately the same: a mixture of what was not accepted in "Young Technician" and a bit of "handicraft" in the pictures.

          Incidentally, "in days of doubt, in days of painful thoughts about destinies..." I recommend finding Mitrofanov's articles about "fighting off the BEC with a water cannon" and "covering the ship with a net" - there are very funny pictures and text.

          Mitrofanov also tries himself in tactics and strategy, he has an "imperishable" work on the topic "to land troops in the middle of Ukraine to cut off supplies from the West" This is really hard to read, I don't recommend it. IMHO, "one and a half to two Mitrofanovs" per article is a strong, heady piece.
  12. +1
    9 January 2025 10: 40
    Any thoughts are useful for discussion, in theory. In practice, we are experiencing a severe shortage of IL-76, everyone "wants" it..... So we can immediately say that it will not be possible to have more than 1-2 aircraft to conduct R&D on this topic. And this is where the discussion can end.
    On the other hand, the author suggests using artillery shells and NURs or something similar from them or similar products as BBs.
    On the one hand, this is a plus, because such lightweight crafts can be carried by any aircraft equipped with pylons. Including the AN-2, which was hotly discussed on this resource.
    On the other hand, these are low-power BBs. And here the question arises, is it worth it? All this hassle with rotating wings (how much will it cost?), plus the cost of operating the carrier aircraft???
    And what will be the effectiveness of a projectile sent a couple of hundred kilometers? For its high effectiveness, the accuracy of hitting 1-2 meters will be needed. And how much will it cost?
    I think that this is all nonsense.
    However, the very idea of ​​creating gliding bombs with a payload of several hundred kg, based on a glider of the maximum dimensions (and a couple of hundred km of flight), does not cause rejection, if the contractor can fit into the budget.
    In practice, we are talking about creating a cruise missile, but without an engine, in order to reduce its cost. Although it is possible to optionally use solid-fuel rocket engines from serial NURs, to improve some characteristics.
  13. +1
    9 January 2025 10: 50
    Did Author learn a new word?
  14. +1
    9 January 2025 12: 43
    Even if we raise the aerodynamic quality to 20 units, which is unthinkable for such a design, then for a range of 300 km, we need to carry out the drop from 15 meters.

    You can also lift it higher on an aerostat. And if the wind direction is favorable, the range will be very large.
  15. 0
    9 January 2025 12: 54
    In my opinion, everything has already been invented. It's just that information from one area doesn't flow well into another. In Russia, the company "Eniks" mass-produces flying targets based on the PU-JET, a close relative of the pulse detonation engine. It needs to be slightly modified for a bomb.
    1. 0
      9 January 2025 20: 57
      The main thing is a serial pulsejet engine and a mastered technology.
  16. 0
    9 January 2025 14: 55
    The short wings are determined not least by strength considerations. Even at the speeds inherent in transport aviation, the load on the glider "made of shit and sticks" will be sufficient to destroy them. In this regard, the only carrier of such FABs with UMPK is a high-altitude balloon, to which, in addition, false targets can be attached to simulate a bomb drop, in the form of inflatable or deployable corner reflectors.
  17. 0
    9 January 2025 16: 27
    The author is clearly an Army General.
    Only a "statesman" of very high rank can be so out of touch with reality.
    What we read is not a secret? I hope not.
  18. 0
    10 January 2025 14: 58
    It's time to transfer the FABs to a small diameter and high elongation. It's unlikely that anyone will allow them to bomb with cast iron. And if they do, it will be like in the SAR from heights inaccessible to MANPADS using VTOL-24.
  19. 0
    11 January 2025 00: 18
    Question amateur.
    If Condor has no propulsion, but is just a glider, how will it control its rotating wings? And how will it be guided to the target? Radio channel? Topography program?
    If Condor has some kind of engine, then noise, heat. And still, how to control the wings, and how to control the targeting?
    The good thing about a bomb is that it's dropped and it falls there, approximately where it falls.
    A gliding bomb, to put it mildly, could be blown back by the wind.
    And controlled? With a propulsion system? Almost a rocket. And it needs control.
    Controlled, but without a motor? And what to power the control with? Batteries? Control via radio channel? By wire? By topographic map?
  20. 0
    12 January 2025 13: 05
    To increase the lift and range of the FAB with UMPK, with a fixed wing area, a rotating propeller can be attached to the FAB, like on an autogyro.
    A rotating (even two-bladed) propeller has the same lift force as a parachute with an area equal to half the area swept by the rotating propeller.
    See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYiSO9U-jn8&t=26s
  21. 0
    12 January 2025 16: 42
    What a turn of events - Damantsev has already "developed" my UMPK-P concept...

    https://www1.ru/articles/2025/01/12/novye-umpk-p-dostaviat-rossiiskie-aviabomby-na-rasstoianie-do-165-km-cto-pro-nix-izvestno.html