Military Review

Advanced Research Foundation implements Air Launch

71

The Advanced Research Foundation (FPI) plans to implement the Air Start project in 2020-ies - launching an orbital plane (space plan) from a super-heavy transport plane, according to a report by the Public Council attached to the Military Industrial Commission under the Russian government in the State Duma on Tuesday.


"The first step in the way of commercial space exploration can be a multi-purpose aerospace system - a project of a two-stage space designation that was sufficiently developed in 80-90-s, which consists of an aircraft carrier (An-225" Mriya ") and launched from it orbital spacecraft - a rocket glider (spaceplane), called an orbital plane, ”- says one of the paragraphs in the section of priority areas of research and development of FPI.

According to the report, the orbital rocket glider can be both manned and unmanned. The launch of a disposable cargo rocket stage instead of an orbital plane is also considered.

The advantage of the project is that today one of its main elements has been created - the Anh-225 Mriya super heavy transport aircraft, “the construction of which can be resumed with minimal costs while implementing the project to restart the production of the An-124 Ruslan aircraft, Considering that “Mriya” is built on the technologies of “Ruslan” and on the basis of its aggregates, ”the report says.

To test the system, a second copy of the Mriya aircraft can be used, which remains unfinished in Kiev. “The acquisition of this aircraft in the interests of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is already being discussed,” the report authors say.

Development of the spaceplane and development of launch technologies may take 10-15 years from the moment of the decision to create such a system. “The result will be the construction of the first two or three spaceplanes in the second half of the 2020-s and the launch of commercial launches by the end of the 2020-s,” the report says.

In the future, to deliver cargo to orbit, the authors of the report suggest using a “space elevator”, which may appear during the next few years 60-70.

The authors of the report note that the space shuttles of the type of the Soviet Buran and the American Space Shuttle turned out to be redundant in features and too expensive to operate. “Nevertheless, the very idea of ​​a“ space plane ”- a reusable shuttle that can perform both military and scientific and commercial tasks, continues to be relevant. In the future, this technology, if properly implemented, will dramatically reduce the cost of transporting goods into orbit and open the way to further commercial and military use of space, ”the FPI’s research and development priorities are noted.

In addition to the creation of a spaceplane, the priority areas also included the search for new solutions in the energy sector, the development of military robotics, bioengineering of human organs, the production of human blood, cryopreservation, the creation of a resuscitation robot, the development of network technologies and new transport systems.
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. volan
    volan April 24 2013 11: 29
    +9
    225th - a beautiful car. Will things go beyond statements and slogans?
    1. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB April 24 2013 11: 37
      +4
      Well, here are some prospects, options have appeared, although not new ideas ...
      1. patline
        patline April 24 2013 11: 52
        +4
        Ideas are not new, but this does not mean that they need to be abandoned. These ideas need to be implemented and on the basis of the executed move on.
    2. Reasonable, 2,3
      Reasonable, 2,3 April 24 2013 12: 35
      0
      It won’t work. They have been talking about this idea since 1991, but they’re of no use.
      1. Suhov
        Suhov April 24 2013 14: 52
        +6
        Quote: Reasonable, 2,3
        Will not go. They with this idea since1991 are carried, and the sense is zero.

        No, it will!
        They began to rush with this idea even earlier. And until they realize it, they won’t calm down.
        Because throwing a payload into orbit is effective and profitable.
        Why?
        - at the initial stage, the oxidizer (oxygen) for fuel combustion is taken from the air (there is no need to "drag the oxidizer with you in the tanks"),
        - again, at the initial stage, the launch system "relies on the air" with the help of the wing, which also allows economical use of fuel.
        If you compare the weight of the rocket fuel and the weight of the payload (thrown into orbit), "you can be stunned."
        At the initial stage, fuel from the tanks is consumed in order to drag this tank with fuel.
        You can, at least partially, do not drag the oxidizing agent (oxygen) with you, but take it from the air as needed.

        Combustion product CO2, H2O.
        N-1, S-12, O-16
        Products (result) of combustion:
        CO2:
        C (carbon) -12 take with you in tanks
        ABOUT (oxygen) -32 (2x16 = 32) take out of the air.
        H2O:
        H (hydrogen) -2 take with you in tanks
        ABOUT (oxygen) -16 take out of the air.
        Here comes the savings.
        1. Tektor
          Tektor April 24 2013 15: 29
          +8
          The main thing in this system is the ability to quickly output the payload wink to the desired orbit passing over the desired bombing area ... oh? This is our good old fast global hit.
          MAX
          1. No_more
            No_more April 24 2013 18: 08
            +1
            International arrangements in orbit prohibit the deployment of weapons.
            But if you do not care about them, then it’s easier to launch a combat satellite, which can be done with current missiles.
        2. No_more
          No_more April 24 2013 18: 12
          0
          Savings are still in infrastructure, which is cheaper by an order of magnitude, reusability and the possibility of mass use by commercial organizations (they already find a way to cut costs, because they live on the difference and compete, including lower prices).
        3. Suhov
          Suhov April 25 2013 01: 11
          +1
          Quote: Sukhov
          Combustion product CO2, H2O.

          SO2
          Take carbon with you, Take oxygen from the air
          The result of oxidation is carbon dioxide - CO2.
          Now. 44 units of weight (carbon and hydrogen) are taken with them in tanks.
          Carbon. 12 units of weight. Oxygen 32 units of weight (2x16 = 32).
          Will be. 12 units of weight (carbon only) is taken with you in tanks
          Oxygen from the air as needed.
          Benefit The weight of the contents of the fuel tanks will decrease by 3,6 times.:
          44 / 12 = 3,6.

          Н2О
          Take hydrogen with you. Take oxygen from the air.
          The result of oxidation is water (H2O),
          In this case, the weight of the contents of the fuel tanks will decrease by 9 times:
          18 / 2 = 9.
          hi
    3. Quiet
      Quiet April 24 2013 18: 12
      +4
      Will things go beyond statements and slogans?
      Let's hope !!!
  2. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 April 24 2013 11: 31
    15
    The news of those that I (and probably not only me alone!) Was waiting for a very long time and with impatience. And I really want to see the successful implementation of this concept (in my humble perspective perspective) in practice ...
    I wish this project SUCCESS! ..

    I placed this art in a theme dedicated to Cosmonautics Day, and expressed a desire to see what is depicted on it in reality. Dreams Come True!..
  3. Vanek
    Vanek April 24 2013 11: 31
    +1
    Who knows? What's the number on Mriya? There should be like 225 there.
    1. B_KypTke
      B_KypTke April 24 2013 11: 47
      10
      This instance flew in Lebourg
      1. Vanek
        Vanek April 24 2013 11: 48
        +1
        Quote: B_KypTke
        This instance flew in Lebourg


        Thank you hi
  4. B_KypTke
    B_KypTke April 24 2013 11: 32
    +3
    But this is a solid step forward, provided of course the final implementation.
  5. ausguck
    ausguck April 24 2013 11: 33
    +1
    Well, let's see how it ends .... I would like to ....
  6. Krapovy32
    Krapovy32 April 24 2013 11: 34
    +4
    It pleases me, I hope that in terms of space exploration, we again all morning nose hi
  7. Yves762
    Yves762 April 24 2013 11: 36
    +2
    It is, of course, good ... I even support it ...
    But still, IMHO, it would be necessary to charge well into the development of the theory of quantum gravity: pepelats fly differently ... what

    Ps Sapienti sat ... wink
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker April 24 2013 17: 39
      +5
      Quote: Yves762
      it would be necessary to charge well into the development of the theory of quantum gravity: pepelatsi still fly differently ..

      The one (or those) who first decides on the fight against gravity will make such a contribution to science that cannot be overestimated - a breakthrough in technology, a breakthrough into FAR.
      1. Suhov
        Suhov April 25 2013 01: 52
        0
        Quote: stalkerwalker
        The one (or those) who first decides on the fight against gravity will make such a contribution to science that cannot be overestimated

        First, let the light be sorted out ...
        It is known that light is the darkest part of modern physics:
        on the one hand it is a wave, and on the other hand it is a particle.
        If this is sorted out, everything else is a special case ...
        laughing
      2. Suhov
        Suhov April 25 2013 02: 00
        +1
        Quote: stalkerwalker
        The one (or those) who first decides on the fight against gravity will make such a contribution to science that cannot be overestimated

        First, let the light be sorted out ...
        It is known that light is the darkest part of modern physics:
        on the one hand it is a wave, and on the other hand it is a particle.
        If this is sorted out, everything else is a special case ...
        laughing
  8. engineer74
    engineer74 April 24 2013 11: 38
    +5
    If at least 10% of such ambitious programs are implemented, then we will be leaders in the XNUMXst century!
  9. ziqzaq
    ziqzaq April 24 2013 11: 43
    14
    Finally, I waited for the revival of the Buran theme .... When the humpbacked scum "closed" Buran, it immediately became clear to whom this "you know who" was working .....
    By the way, here is a "cosmic" joke:
    Mars rover Curiosity suddenly stopped communicating ......
    After a while, the Soviet landing module "Mars-3" got in touch, he transmitted scientific data and ..... thanks for the delivered spare parts .....
    1. hrych
      hrych April 25 2013 02: 36
      +3
      To launch the Buran, it was necessary to burn the gigantic and expensive Energiya rocket, and even with a load suspended from the side, which made this scheme very flawed and economically unprofitable, although from the standpoint of progress everything is justified. It is regrettable, but there is no need to revive Buran, especially with the failure of the states with their ships. The "air launch" is completely different, both from the economic (the cost of the dropped cargo) and the strategic component. Instead of an expensive cosmodrome with all the infrastructure and a firm geographic reference, the most complicated process of assembly, installation, refueling of a super rocket, etc., you need a runway located anywhere, with the possibility of transferring a potential enemy to another (from eyes and hands). Well, Mriy about ten with combat shuttles. If it succeeds, it will be cool.
      1. ziqzaq
        ziqzaq April 25 2013 12: 17
        +2
        Quote: hrych
        It is not regrettable, but Buran is not necessary to object

        I did not say what to copy Buran, it is simply based on it to develop the direction of the reusable space complex, and the states failed a lot, do not be equal to them .....
  10. w.ebdo.g
    w.ebdo.g April 24 2013 11: 46
    24
    good speech Lukashenko ...

    1. Raven1972
      Raven1972 April 24 2013 12: 08
      10
      Excellent dad answered them !!!! Maybe it’s time for ours too? Stop sagging before the Westerners, and beat them with their own methods? good hi
    2. Maximus
      Maximus April 24 2013 12: 33
      +6
      Lukashenko is absolutely right! good
    3. Hudo
      Hudo April 24 2013 14: 22
      +4
      Quote: w.ebdo.g
      good speech Lukashenko ...


      I envy Syabrs with white envy that they have such a President.
    4. BARKAS
      BARKAS April 24 2013 14: 23
      12
      Well done Old Man here for comparison!
      1. Hudo
        Hudo April 24 2013 16: 21
        +1
        THANKS, dear BARKAS! With a laugh, the whole family was knocked down for a long time. Stoplus to you !!!
  11. Nayhas
    Nayhas April 24 2013 11: 54
    +1
    Here it is "Our answer to Bert Rutan!", Projections, projections ... If only the means to master, they will subscribe to any crap ...
  12. waisson
    waisson April 24 2013 12: 41
    +2
    returned to the idea and groundwork of the times of the USSR which they ruined in the wake of perestroika currents
  13. Wedmak
    Wedmak April 24 2013 12: 43
    +2
    Resume production of An-225? How many do you need? 1) The product is rather piecewise and expensive. 2) In what condition is the only flying instance now and how much is it flying yet? 3) In what state is the unfinished 2 instance?
    And then, let's say there is a plane, and who will sell the shuttle? It needs to be developed from scratch; Buran will not fit there. If they are going to launch 20-2 shuttles by the second half of the 3s ... It's hard to believe, to be honest.
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov April 24 2013 12: 56
      +1
      The news is yellow - No Mriya, No Max, NGO Lightning of the 80s level.
      The Americans landed in the village of 2 and quickly make a carrier for their shuttle with a drop down, and Mriya needs aerobatics to drop.
    2. explorer
      explorer April 24 2013 13: 03
      +4
      Quote: Wedmak
      Believed to be honest with difficulty.


      As long as there are still personnel capable of realizing old achievements (reanimating something, creating something anew) there is a chance. And even if it will be cut by 75%, but something will fall to the performers (middle and junior level) there will be a result, albeit limited. But in the future, these people will finish the job. good
      And if we again donate money to projects like Sochi, then in 10-15 years there will be no one to receive even a truncated result.

      In general, "hope dies last."
      1. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs April 25 2013 08: 00
        0
        Look again at Putin's visit to the East. They clearly said, first Soyuz-2.0, then Angara, then Cupid. In terms of time and money, everything is planned until the 30th year. The ball is ruled by stubborn rockets. They are going to do a heavy rocket for the fourth time, and one Proton flies. N-1 was under-tested, Energy was simply thrown away. We have excellent money cuts on R&D.
    3. No_more
      No_more April 24 2013 13: 09
      +4
      Great trouble - it will be necessary to work. This is not valid of course. Let’s continue to push money into rockets and spaceports, tearing your budget and clogging the near-earth orbit with the garbage that is already missing there.
      How much do you need? This is a purely production issue and a question of the market for launching cargoes into near-Earth orbit. According to the latest trends, this market is growing very fast and is constrained only by the limited means of launching into orbit and monopolization.
      By the way, the market for oversized air transportation is growing very fast, for which they are now using the same An-124, and there may be a new An-224.

      In any case, one must understand that all these investments pay off with interest.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak April 24 2013 13: 29
        -2
        I agree with you - you need to work. BUT! Maybe it's better to put this money into the orbital elevator ?? They dream about it in 50-60 years, but even now private companies and simply addicted people are designing these elevators. And they rise, of course not high and the load is small, but they rise! So maybe it is worth starting R&D on this topic at the state level? With adequate funding. Maybe in 5-10 years, after trial and error, a really breakthrough technology for delivering cargo to orbit will come out? And along the way, how many technologies will be born? Remember the same "Buran".
        1. Volkhov
          Volkhov April 24 2013 14: 50
          -2
          The elevator cannot even theoretically work - the electric field will burn it, and the satellites and meteorites will cut it.
          This scholastic model is mentioned in the article as a lie test so that normal people do not react to information.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak April 24 2013 15: 03
            0
            The elevator cannot even theoretically work - the electric field will burn it,.

            What ??? What tension, what electric field are you talking about? And how can this tension burn up the not-yet-honest material of the "base" of the elevator?
            and satellites and meteorites will cut

            Hope you joked ??
            This scholastic model is mentioned in the article as a lie test so that normal people do not react to information.

            Yes, nifiga is not a model, much less a scholastic one (what does this have to do with it?) ...
            1. Volkhov
              Volkhov April 24 2013 17: 28
              0
              100 volt / meter height - any material will become the basis of the arc.
              But if you do not believe, build on your own.
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak April 24 2013 20: 22
                0
                100 volt / meter height - any material will become the basis of the arc.

                The first time I hear this. Where does this potential difference come from? From what height, to what?
                By the way, for an arc you really need about 10 B at 0.1А, but breakdown occurs at a very small distance, this time. The second - there are ways to deal with the arc.
                But if you do not believe

                Of course I do not believe it, let’s lower the metal cable from the skyscraper and see if the current flows through it or not? I give a tooth - it won’t work, otherwise there would be no problems with the generation of electricity.
                1. Volkhov
                  Volkhov April 26 2013 23: 55
                  0
                  Have you seen a lightning rod?
                  The tension was found long ago and is in all the tables on the topic.
                  The first experiment with a cable was conducted by comrade Lomonosov Riemann - at first nothing, and then a spark jumped and killed - the tension is medium, but varies greatly.
                2. Volkhov
                  Volkhov April 27 2013 00: 02
                  0
                  From a high-rise building, lower the cable to a senseless place, the building is shunting, it is necessary to lift it with a kite or a balloon. Pretty dangerous.
                  What kind of tooth?
            2. Mikhail3
              Mikhail3 April 24 2013 19: 23
              0
              Already have material from which the rail can be made ?! Which one?
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak April 24 2013 20: 25
                0
                No, there is no such material. They prophesy carbon nanotubes to this place.
            3. Jurkovs
              Jurkovs April 25 2013 08: 06
              0
              In some ways he is right. An orbital elevator will connect the Earth with a geostationary orbit, with the current debris of space in orbits from 200 to 400 kilometers, anything can happen. Air start and will be an environmentally friendly means of output cargo.
        2. No_more
          No_more April 24 2013 18: 06
          +1
          This investment is too risky at the moment, according to the residual principle, it can be investigated, but I, as a taxpayer, would prefer to spend money on more real programs.
          There are a lot of unresolved issues with the orbital elevator and no authoritative studies were conducted on it at all.
          In addition, this project will give good groundwork for future orbital land launch planes, which are a logical continuation of the concept of launching from a carrier aircraft.
        3. Jurkovs
          Jurkovs April 25 2013 08: 02
          0
          In order to make an orbital elevator, first you need to put extra-heavy loads into orbit in the usual way.
    4. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs April 25 2013 07: 53
      0
      Literally reviving is not advisable. An-225 is a dual-purpose machine that can carry goods both in the cab and on the external sling. In the proposed project, it is better to make a flat flying wing, gain in weight and in aerodynamics.
  14. Conepatus
    Conepatus April 24 2013 12: 59
    -1
    I saw an advertising article for this project back in 1998, in the magazine "Military Parade" # 2 for 1998.
    Then they were even going to do the joint-stock company for this business. Nothing came of it. I don’t think that now something will work out. It would be better if the Clipper was brought to mind.
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 April 24 2013 13: 11
      +2
      In 1998, a crisis erupted. Maybe this is the case?
      1. Conepatus
        Conepatus April 24 2013 19: 45
        -1
        In 1998 there was not a crisis, but a default. The authorities, without further ado, "comunicated" money from their own country. Now they are doing thinner. Now they create all kinds of scientific funds and for this business COMMUNICATE THE MONEY OF THEIR COUNTRY !!!!
        1. Cheloveck
          Cheloveck April 25 2013 00: 56
          +1
          Quote: Conepatus
          The authorities, without further ado, "comunicated" money from their own country. Now they are acting more subtly. Now they create all sorts of scientific funds and for this business COMMUNICATE THE MONEY OF THEIR COUNTRY !!!!

          Fi, if not modern !!! laughing
          Do not communize, but capitalize, feel the difference! laughing
  15. USNik
    USNik April 24 2013 12: 59
    -1
    The latest news is encouraging, an air launch, ekranoplans, BZHRK, and today Shamanov said that a flying airborne combat vehicle would be developed !!!
    http://ria.ru/forces/20130424/934251486.html#13667939048803&message=resize&relto
    = register & action = addClass & value = registration
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 24 2013 13: 14
      -2
      What to be happy about? Noodles that hang on the ears? Why do we need BZHRK now when they destroyed the entire infrastructure, dispersed personnel, etc.? Don't you care how much money it takes? We need mine-based ICBMs, not coffins on wheels. Why do we need ekranoplanes now? We need a lot of frigates and corvettes, and the industry can hardly cope with small orders. Why BMD? Where to drop? Another aluminum "mass grave" not adapted to protect the landing. And this is generally a complete nonsense from the category "for your money we will raise the prestige of the Motherland", with the next ending neither money nor prestige, even Wedmak realizes this.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak April 24 2013 13: 59
        +4
        And this is generally a complete nonsense from the category "for your money we will raise the prestige of the Motherland", with the next ending neither money nor prestige, even Wedmak realizes this.

        Thank you for such a flattering review. smile
        But, I do not agree with you about the BZHRK, ekranoplan, BMD ... I will explain the points:
        1. BZHRK - a very mobile type of nuclear weapons, remembering the length of our railway, to hide from observation - one spit. It is very difficult to distinguish it from a satellite from an ordinary freight train. So it's a good thing. And unlike Topols, it is possible to organize good living conditions (and therefore more autonomy) for the crew.
        2. WIG is a controversial thing, of course. But as a shock, rescue, reconnaissance, it will even work. Here, the transportation of goods in a civilian version is sooo controversial in terms of efficiency.
        3. BMD - who told you that the landing party needs thick armor and 125 mm guns? If we are talking about throwing ourselves behind enemy lines, to capture and hold onto the main forces, some point, BMD, is what we need. Lightweight, maneuverable, with a gun and machine guns, bulletproof armor, having a decent power reserve. I very much doubt that if the opportunity appeared to drop MBT, it would find application. Too heavy equipment, small ammunition, short range, large, noticeable, does not swim.
        If we are talking about seizing the coast, then there is no longer just a landing, here an airborne assault brigade with the appropriate weapons is needed.
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv April 24 2013 14: 16
          +1
          1. BZHRK - a very mobile form of nuclear weapons, remembering the length of our railways, to hide from observation - just spit. It’s very difficult to distinguish it from a satellite from an ordinary commodity

          They are opened by agent methods. IMHO better Soil complex.
          . WIG is a controversial thing, of course. But as a shock, rescue, reconnaissance, it will even work. Here, the transportation of goods in a civilian version is sooo controversial in terms of efficiency.

          As a drummer no, I have written about this more than once
          How a lifeguard fits
          Like no transport.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak April 24 2013 14: 23
            0
            They are opened by agent methods. IMHO better Soil complex.

            Well, undercover methods and soil complexes can be opened. If you wish.
            As a drummer no, I have written about this more than once

            I guess I have not seen. In short, what are the arguments against the drummer?
        2. Nayhas
          Nayhas April 24 2013 15: 24
          +2
          Quote: Wedmak
          BZHRK - a very mobile form of nuclear weapons, remembering the length of our railways, to hide from observation - just spit.

          Here the question is somewhat financially. Re-creating from scratch is very expensive. Moreover, the effectiveness of the BZHRK in front of the mine ICBM is not much higher. The fact is that the size of the car is such that it is impossible not to notice it, i.e. there are no more such wagons in operation. In addition, the BZHRK destroys railways, or rather, wears out faster, which entails losses. In addition, the risks during operation are high.
          Quote: Wedmak
          BMD - who told you that the landing party needs thick armor and 125 mm guns?

          Firstly, for landing a parachute landing, it is necessary to suppress enemy air defense, which is extremely problematic in the event of a defensive war, the slow-moving armada Il-76 with a giant EPR will become easy prey for both air defense systems and air defense aviation, and we do not seem to be planning aggression. Secondly, in case of war, the enemy rear units or police forces will be equipped with at least RPGs, and the entrances to strategic facilities (bridges, airfields, command posts, railway stations) will be mined. Thirdly, even if part of the unit can land and, most importantly, gather under the general leadership, it needs to be supplied with ammunition, fuel (BMD does not eat grass), provisions, but what knowledge of the landing will allow it to be freely supplied?
          Quote: Wedmak
          I very much doubt that if the opportunity appeared to land MBT, it would find application.

          Because most in the world understand the futility of strategic landing. Helicopter tactical landing is yes.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak April 24 2013 16: 02
            0
            Here the question is somewhat financially. Re-creating from scratch is very expensive.

            Why from scratch? We had a rocket launcher, the question is, taking them as a basis to remake them under existing missiles.
            The fact is that the size of the car is such that it is impossible not to notice it, i.e. there are no more such wagons in operation.

            The size of the car is standard. But note, rockets then and now are different. And now they, with the same characteristics, are much smaller in size. So it is theoretically possible to stuff the filed YARS into a railway carriage.
            In addition, the BZHRK destroys railways, or rather, wears out faster, which entails losses.

            You know ... it’s kind of silly to talk about the losses in rebuilding our country's nuclear shield. So shamelessly and foolishly sawn into 90 and 2000.
            First, for landing a parachute landing, it is necessary to suppress enemy air defense, which is extremely problematic in the event of a defensive war, the clumsy armada Il-76 with a giant EPR will be easy prey for both air defense systems and air defense aircraft

            Who would argue. The first wave is a bunch of KR, then the bombers, then the landing. Americans are an example ... no matter how bad they are.
            Secondly, in the event of war, the enemy rear units or police forces will be equipped with at least RPGs, and the entrances to strategic facilities (bridges, airfields, command posts, railway stations) will be mined.

            Rear units with RPGs and mined objects? Not too hard to believe. Rather, all cash RPGs will go to the "front lines". By the way, the war is now - hell understand where the rear is, and where the front line. And something I doubt that the Airborne Forces will go head-on to fortified points.
            Thirdly, even if part of the unit can land and, most importantly, gather under the general leadership, it needs to be provided with ammunition, fuel (BMD does not eat grass), provisions, but what knowledge of the landing will allow unhindered supply of it?

            I agree, the landing is not partisans. But landing in the rear implies some one specific task. And do not live in the forests for months on the pasture.
            Because most in the world understand the futility of strategic landing.

            I agree.
            Helicopter tactical landing is yes.

            A helicopter take a lot of MBT? (By the way, which BMD-4M helicopter will take away?) And what should the tank do - a monster designed to break through the enemy’s defense in a tactical maneuver when it is necessary to act quickly and unexpectedly. BMD - that’s it. But bulletproof armor and anti-mine survivability should still be, I do not argue here.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas April 24 2013 23: 49
              0
              Quote: Wedmak
              Why from scratch?

              Yes, because the existing infrastructure was destroyed, if the training materials were preserved, then there are clearly no teachers. Repair shops, bases, warehouses. For ten years, little is left, Serdyukov, and his predecessors sold the necessary operating objects, what can we say about officially decommissioned?
              Quote: Wedmak
              You know ... it’s kind of silly to talk about the losses in rebuilding our country's nuclear shield

              You tell Yakunin this, he will take the price off the budget for the wear and tear of the roads. I repeat, the BZHRK has no particular advantages over the silo ICBM. Like Poplar by the way.
              Quote: Wedmak
              Who would argue. The first wave is a bunch of KR, then the bombers, then the landing.

              So we don’t have a heap of Kyrgyz Republic or a bunch of bombers. The meaning of deep landing is one, to capture strategic targets in front of the advancing troops. Bridges, railway stations, airports, power plants, etc. But this is only possible in the event of a surprise attack, when the enemy air defense is dozing in peacetime, and the objects of interest are guarded by a local WOHR with pistols. Already after the capture, the anti-tank capabilities of the BMD-based equipment are needed to repel the attacks of the awakened enemy. And if the aggressor attacked us, then he will strictly guard his strategic objects, starting from air defense systems and building fortifications, ending with attached forces with anti-tank weapons, machine guns, etc. There can be no talk of any suddenness; everything will end in terrible losses.
              Quote: Wedmak
              A helicopter take a lot of MBT? (By the way, which BMD-4M helicopter will take away?)

              Helicopter tactical assault is used in the absence of a clear front line, when you need to quickly capture key heights without using roads on which there may be mines or ambushes. Landed, took up positions, entrenched, received mortars, guns, equipment, etc. As an example, the same Afghanistan, Chechnya.
              Mi-26, in principle, can carry one BMD-4, but it is not adapted to work in the combat zone, it is very slow, unusually noticeable, absolutely not maneuverable especially with cargo on board, in general, it is extremely dangerous to use it in landing operations.
              1. Nitup
                Nitup April 25 2013 15: 40
                0
                The main advantage of PGRK and BZHRK from mine complexes is secrecy
          2. Cheloveck
            Cheloveck April 25 2013 01: 13
            +1
            Quote: Nayhas
            The fact is that the size of the car is such that it is impossible not to notice it, i.e. there are no more such wagons in operation. In addition, the BZHRK destroys railways, or rather, wears out faster, which entails losses. In addition, the risks during operation are high.

            1. Is something or someone forbidding the re-commissioning of such cars?
            2. This is a myth. Svdzh was transferred to railway sleepers after the utilization of the BZHRK, and, as you know, one of the bases was located on this railway.
            3. Risks during the operation of strategic nuclear forces are high, regardless of the basing method.
      2. Manager
        Manager April 24 2013 14: 27
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        Why rejoice? Noodles that hang on ears?


        Listen to you, then we need to dig in the trenches and build T80 tanks. What for something new to invest in? Like you, we already heard enough. In fact, we still do not have UAVs.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas April 24 2013 15: 51
          0
          Because it is necessary to measure forces, means and necessity in general. If with a UAV this is a priority, then BMD is generally the thirteenth question ...
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak April 24 2013 16: 03
            +1
            Just the same, these two directions can be linked and placed on a BMD small UAV as a standard unit. Who will be against such a "toy"?
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas April 24 2013 23: 19
              0
              An UAV is needed not for BMDs, but for a tank, a small one, you don’t need to fly far from the tank, you can even feed on wiring from the carrier, a good high-resolution camera on a stable platform and the capabilities of the tank will grow significantly. By the way, the aft niche in the tower is the best location for a vertically soaring UAV.
  16. washi
    washi April 24 2013 13: 02
    +5
    multipurpose aerospace system - a sufficiently developed as early as the 80-90s project of a two-stage complex for space purposes, which consists of a carrier aircraft (An-225 "Mriya") and an orbiting spacecraft launched from it - a rocket plane (spaceplane), called orbital plane
    And the Bor orbiter was ready. How many Soviet developments have been clicked ... Now start all over again.
    1. olegyurjewitch
      olegyurjewitch April 24 2013 13: 17
      +2
      Quote: Vasya
      Now start all over again.

      And you have to start, the world does not stand still.
  17. dmitreach
    dmitreach April 24 2013 13: 06
    +5
    Returned to the topic "MAKS" (reusable air commissary system). Right. An unfairly forgotten topic!
  18. fzr1000
    fzr1000 April 24 2013 13: 15
    0
    [media = http: //www.buran.ru/images/gif/bor4-14.gif]
  19. fzr1000
    fzr1000 April 24 2013 13: 15
    0
    [media = http: //www.buran.ru/images/gif/bor4-14.gif]
  20. k220150
    k220150 April 24 2013 13: 16
    0
    A remarkable designer, academician Nikolai Aleksandrovich Semikhatov in the late 80s, considered such a project as a main line in manned space exploration.
  21. fzr1000
    fzr1000 April 24 2013 13: 17
    0
    [media = http: //www.buran.ru/images/gif/bor4-14.gif]

    space-based maneuvering warheads were developed on the basis of BOR-4,
  22. shpuntik
    shpuntik April 24 2013 13: 21
    +1
    Some of us do not dance from the stove. :-) First you launch Mriyu on commercial flights, like Ruslan, and then finish building a second plane, upgrade if necessary, test it at work. And if everything is fine, then do the rest in parallel, ask for money for it.
    Why does Mriya not fly for cargo? They talk about commercial launches, and the finished plane has been idle for twenty years, idle.
    Maybe they think: they will not regret money for space, will they? "Rosspilschiki" completely unbelted? I repeat: let them first put a couple of planes on the wing, and learn how to make money like a Ruslan. Under a good pretext, they are being drawn into an economic scam. My opinion.
    1. pablik
      pablik April 26 2013 13: 24
      0
      Antonov Airlines regularly flies and never stands on the ground

      http://www.airliners.net/photo/Antonov-Design-Bureau/Antonov-An-225-Mriya/221495
      7/L/&sid=3028707d318d01853e447918c0d16497
  23. avt
    avt April 24 2013 13: 32
    +1
    It looks like a banal divorce. Who is he actually this FPI? What kind of structure is this, the second skolkovo? Who specifically will do in iron what Lozzino-Lozinsky suggested? The article is a bluff. negative
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 24 2013 13: 55
      0
      This is our analogue of DARPA, only that one is looking into the future, and our private equity fund has gone to delve into the past, because it's easier, you do not need to strain your brain ...
    2. fzr1000
      fzr1000 April 24 2013 13: 56
      +2
      On September 28, the State Duma adopted in third reading the law "On the Foundation for Advanced Research" (FPI), and recently it was approved by the Federation Council. There is no doubt that in the near future will begin the formation of the structure, which is called the Russian DARPA.

      The annual budget of DARPA is not more than three billion dollars. According to open sources, the financial resources that will be operated by the Russian private equity fund should be from three to 12,5 billion dollars a year. Some sources cite the figure of three billion rubles. According to other sources, the fund will annually develop 150 projects worth from one to 90 million dollars and ten projects from 50 to 90 million. Thus, the declared three billion rubles will not fit exactly. And of course, if in order to lay bad asphalt on a couple of kilometers long road section in the suburbs, it takes about six to seven million rubles, then there can be no question of a prospective study for a million dollars - 31 million rubles.

      DARPA is the US Department of Defense. It is independent only in a very narrow sense - its scientific developments are conducted in isolation from research in the main military scientific centers. R&D in the interests of the Pentagon can be divided into two main groups: internal, carried out in defense research laboratories - Livermore, Los Alamos National, Lincoln, US Army in Natick; external, carried out in corporations, universities, in small innovative enterprises, sometimes in cooperation with the listed defense laboratories.

      The Russian FPI, on the other hand, has no direct relation to either the military department or the leading defense research institutes. In what way, on what personnel and scientific-technical base his activities will be based, is still unclear.

      Our foundation, in accordance with the text of the law, "forms scientific ideas about possible threats critical to the country's defense and state security, the reasons for their occurrence and ways to eliminate it." It turns out that the FPI gains the right to deal with issues of a doctrinal nature and may to some extent be responsible for the formation of the state’s defense policy, that is, fundamental military science in Russia, apparently, will depend on its activities.

      In short, a dark horse.
      1. avt
        avt April 24 2013 14: 55
        +1
        Quote: fzr1000
        The Russian FPI, on the other hand, has no direct relation to either the military department or the leading defense research institutes. In what way, on what personnel and scientific-technical base his activities will be based, is still unclear.

        Quote: fzr1000
        In short, a dark horse.

        I say, the second is skolkovo, a divorce on budget grandmas.
  24. Vtel
    Vtel April 24 2013 13: 38
    +1
    Launching from the Earth Rocket Carriers allow launching payloads at a speed equal to or higher than the first space - 7.9 km / s, that is, sufficient to launch the satellite into low orbits.

    The practical ceiling of the An-225 Mriya is 11 km, it’s only worthwhile to block all of this, that when a rocket is launched from the equator (compared to Baikonur), the mass of the payload brought to the geostationary orbit can be increased by 25-30% - at the same fuel consumption.
    1. hrych
      hrych April 25 2013 03: 15
      +2
      Here it is still possible that Mriya is being "pulled up" with a sharp resumption of work on hypersonic vehicles, where its capabilities, especially in terms of model sizes, are unlimited.
  25. wax
    wax April 24 2013 14: 27
    +1
    In today's everyday discussions about the problems of space planes and other things, it is somehow lost sight of the fact that some 60 years ago, we children conjured with detector receivers. Technology has taken a giant step forward, and man has not changed his worldview one iota: all the same position of power, all the same state egoism, all the same greed ... No one is responsible for the state of the planet. So the most urgent question of the 21st century is whether humanity will survive in the next century.
  26. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 24 2013 14: 44
    +1
    Quote: w.ebdo.g
    good speech Lukashenko ...


    Lukashenko is confident. In which case, it is followed by Russia's strategic nuclear forces.
  27. magadanets
    magadanets April 24 2013 14: 59
    +1
    About ten years ago I remember saying that we would fly on Clipper spacecraft, if I remember the name correctly. Something similar to Buran, but only smaller. And where is it?
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak April 24 2013 15: 07
      +1
      And where is it?

      They stopped development, made a bet on partially returned vehicles — the Perspective Manned Transport System (PPTS) and the New Generated Manned Transport Vehicle (PTK NP). It seems even the documentation has already been prepared for them.
    2. hrych
      hrych April 25 2013 03: 22
      +2
      Perhaps after the death of Columbia, all models using a similar thermal protection system were simply frozen.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak April 25 2013 10: 03
        +1
        No, the death of Colombia is due to a fallen off thermal insulation tile on the wing. The plasma got inside the wing, the loads increased and the destruction of the whole structure began.
        1. hrych
          hrych April 25 2013 21: 36
          +2
          Clipper has the same thermal tiles and the same danger.
  28. nikolas 83
    nikolas 83 April 24 2013 16: 19
    +1
    The news is good. I hope we will revive everything, we must believe in something. We will make our own spaceplane and then the amers will no longer fly in orbit freely.
  29. zevaka84
    zevaka84 April 24 2013 22: 15
    0
    And what is all this for?
  30. Suhov
    Suhov April 25 2013 00: 50
    0
    [quote = Sukhov] Combustion product of CO2, H2O.

    Combustion Products:
    carbon dioxide CO2:

    Now. Rocket: Carbon and Hydrogen - in tanks with you.
    Carbon. 12 units of weight. In the tanks with you.
    Oxygen 32 units of weight (2x16 = 32). In the tanks with you.
    Total: 44 (12 + 32) weight units taken with you in tanks.

    Will. Aircraft: Carbon in tanks with you. Oxygen from the air as needed.
    Carbon. 12 units of weight. In the tanks with you.
    Oxygen from the air.
    Total: 12 weight unit taken with you in tanks.

    Benefit The weight of the fuel will decrease in 3,6 times.:
    44 / 12 = 3,6.


    If you take hydrogen with you and take oxygen from the air, the result of oxidation is water (H2O),
    In this case, the weight of the contents of the fuel tanks will decrease by 9 times:
    18 / 2 = 9.
    hi
  31. MEWTWO
    MEWTWO April 25 2013 10: 48
    0
    NASA Boeing 747-123 [N905NA] with Space Shuttle Endeavor at LAX we do it
  32. olegff68
    olegff68 April 25 2013 11: 31
    +1
    Judging by the latest trends (such systems are being developed not only in our country), "air launch" has competitive advantages in terms of the price of the cargo to be put into orbit - this is important for commercial use, plus expensive launch sites are not needed, the necessary airfields will be used by other departments as well; can be used for the commercial transportation of bulky cargo; launch vehicles will have fewer steps, i.e. they will become less complex and cheaper. But with such a time frame, we risk again catching up with the departed train.