Military Review

Cruise missiles X-101 and X-102

51
The main armament of Russian strategic bombers is currently the X-55 family of cruise missiles. The ammunition that appeared in the early eighties had high characteristics, but this fact did not stop the development of the missile direction. Immediately after the adoption of the Kh-55 missile, the Raduga ICB started a new project, but due to the difficult economic and political situation in the country, active work in the late eighties and early nineties began only 10-12 years after the development of the previous missile. Currently, work is underway to create a new cruise missile for strategic aviation coming to an end.


Cruise missiles X-101 and X-102
Presumably prototypes or mock-ups of the X-101 CBRD under the Tu-95MS board No. 317 (red), photo published by 27.09.2012 (http://forums.spacebattles.com)


Approximately in the first half of the nineties, the Raduga ICB began a project aimed at creating two long-range cruise missiles: X-101 and X-102. It is worth noting that some sources mention other dates for the start of the project, from the first half of the eighties to the mid-nineties. It was assumed that both missiles will be as unified as possible, and all the differences will affect only the warhead. X-101 was supposed to carry high-explosive fragmentation warhead, X-102 - nuclear. Unfortunately, most of the information about the X-101 / 102 project is still classified and therefore part of the available information about it is evaluative. However, even with the current data deficit, a plausible picture can be made.

In the second half of the last decade, photographs of Tu-95MS bombers began to open to public access on a regular basis; some new missiles were located on the external load. The lack of information on any similar projects other than X-101 gave rise to corresponding assumptions. According to the most common estimates, the new X-101 has become larger and heavier than the previous X-55. The starting mass of the new missile is estimated at 2400 kilograms, of which 400 falls to the warhead. The length of the rocket is about 7,5 meters, the span of the folding wing does not exceed 4,5-5 meters. The diameter of the hull, presumably, remained at the level of the dimensions of the X-55CM rocket - near the 0,75-0,8 meter.

Presumably prototypes or mock-ups of the X-101 CBRD under the Tu-95MS board No. 317 (red), images no later than 2007 (http://forum.keypublishing.com)


Based on the information that X-101 / 102 is a further development of the concept embodied in the X-55 project, it is possible to draw conclusions about the type of its propulsion system. This is probably an in-flight turbojet engine. Such a power plant will allow the rocket to fly at a cruising speed of 700-750 kilometers per hour or with a maximum of no more than 1000 km / h. The greatest interest of all the characteristics of a promising missile is the range. According to available information, the X-101 and X-102 missiles will be able to hit targets at ranges of about 5000 kilometers from the launch point.

Accurate data on the type of missile guidance system is missing. At the same time, several years ago, information appeared in the media, according to which the X-101 is equipped with a certain optical-electronic trajectory correction system with television guidance in the final stages of flight. Due to the lack of information it is difficult to say how true this information is. However, another version looks much more plausible: the rocket has an inertial guidance system, as well as equipment for radar or television correction in the final leg of the flight.

Estimated projections KBD X-101 (c) http://militaryrussia.ru, updated version of 30.01.2011,


The available data on the accuracy of the new rocket are interesting. According to domestic sources, the circular probable deviation of X-101 is within 10-20 meters. According to Jane's, this parameter does not exceed 6-10 meters for a missile with a conventional warhead and 100 meters for a nuclear-equipped version. For obvious reasons, both versions of the accuracy information have not yet received official confirmation, nor have they been refuted.

Some sources mention the third variant of a promising cruise missile for long-range aviation. Ammunition with the conventional name X-DM should have an average range, which will significantly expand the capabilities of the developed family of missiles. At the same time, this development based on X-101 was last mentioned several years ago, which can be interpreted differently. In particular, it is impossible to exclude an option in which the customer refused a medium-range cruise missile and all work on it was abandoned.

Open data on the time and course of testing is also missing. Different sources mention different dates for the start of such works, from the second half of the nineties to the middle of the two thousandth. It is worth noting that the bulk of photographic materials, which depict Tu-95MS aircraft with new missiles, have appeared in the past few years. This may indicate intensification of the tests and their final stage.


Two photos of the TU-95MS in a test flight allegedly with the prototype of the X-101 CCDB of model 2010, summer of 2010 (photo by Denis Apalkov, http://rplanplan.net)


Last year, 2012 in the official statements of the leadership of the Ministry of Defense mentioned several times the completion of work on a new project and the early adoption of a missile for service. Moreover, in the spring, Defense Minister A. Serdyukov mentioned that the air force had already received a new missile. However, several months later, in September, other information appeared in the press. With reference to the Deputy Minister of Defense A. Sukhorukov, it was asserted that in the coming months a new ammunition for long-range aviation would be put into service. Probably, the statements of both heads of the military department dealt specifically with the X-101 and X-102 missiles.

Several months have passed since those statements, but there have not yet been official reports of the adoption of the X-101 / 102 cruise missile. Thus, it is likely that in the near future the arsenal of strategic aviation will indeed be supplemented by two types of new cruise missiles with conventional and nuclear warheads.


On the materials of the sites:
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/
http://testpilot.ru/
http://ktrv.ru/
Author:
Photos used:
http://militaryrussia.ru
51 comment
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 8 July 2013 07: 22 New
    15
    Oh, how we need such missiles with a range of up to 5000 km. Without entering the air defense zone, flying somewhere over Kamchatka, you can keep the entire territory of the United States under fire. I’m not talking about China - it goes without saying.
    1. Apologet.Ru
      Apologet.Ru 8 July 2013 16: 13 New
      +9
      But in practice, it might look like this -

      1. old man54
        old man54 8 July 2013 19: 21 New
        0
        and what kind of movie?
        1. Apologet.Ru
          Apologet.Ru 8 July 2013 20: 20 New
          +1
          hi "The Price of Fear" yes
        2. Romeo Tarzanov
          Romeo Tarzanov 1 July 2020 16: 40 New
          0
          Time has passed ... Cinema? ..
    2. Vlad_Mir
      Vlad_Mir 8 July 2013 18: 47 New
      +2
      With such missiles, the whole world can be kept at gunpoint, not just the above-mentioned "clients"!
    3. old man54
      old man54 8 July 2013 19: 19 New
      0
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Without entering the air defense zone, flying somewhere over Kamchatka, you can keep the entire territory of the United States under fire.

      and what, for the launches of missiles X-55 SM and or X-555, it was necessary to enter the air defense zone of a probable partner or something? strangely spelling out.
      1. VAF
        VAF 8 July 2013 19: 25 New
        +4
        Quote: old man54
        strangely spelling out.


        Normally he sets out, because targets. designed for these missiles are located just in the depths of the enemy’s territory wink
        1. old man54
          old man54 8 July 2013 21: 48 New
          +4
          Quote: vaf
          targets. designed for these missiles are located just in the depths of the enemy’s territory

          Then it’s even weirder! :) That is, we believe that the CR at subsonic speeds, well, or even at pre-sonic speeds, go 2,5 km into the US territory, and no one will capture and intercept it? With their air defense and detection systems, including satellite ??? Well, even if it goes towards the goal at the minimum height, but today is this really a guarantee of overcoming air defense?
          As I see it, similar to the Kyrgyz Republic, like the Tomahawk, is the weapon of the first strike aimed at suppressing air defense systems at the 1, the external detection line. Next should go either tactical aviation or ICBMs. But to independently break through to the goal to the depth in 2500 is not serious for them! Sorry.
          1. VAF
            VAF 8 July 2013 23: 11 New
            +3
            Quote: old man54
            But to break through to the goal to a depth of 2500 on their own is not serious for them!


            Unfortunately, these are the realities, there is nothing else yet! Naturally, the task of destroying stationary objects (Over-the-horizon radars, KP and PU, etc.) all this remains, but unfortunately we have different concepts for the use of AKP.
            They really have this weapon of the first strike, but for us ... destruction of infrastructure and priority goals + do not forget how many Axes they can launch and how much we recourse
            1. old man54
              old man54 8 July 2013 23: 55 New
              +1
              Quote: vaf
              Unfortunately, these are the realities, there is nothing else yet! Naturally, the task of destroying stationary objects (Over-the-horizon radars, KP and PU, etc.) all this remains, but unfortunately we have different concepts for the use of AKP.

              But neither the X-55/555 nor the X-101/102 are suitable for retaliatory weapons, we understand this perfectly well !? If I don’t confuse anything, then earlier. even under the USSR, strategic aviation was assigned the role of "cleaning up" the undefeat of targets behind both mine and sea-based ICBMs, after their first (repelled) strike. Otherwise, the presence of such missiles in the Armed Forces is generally incomprehensible. Well, well, you can vindyurit them to states like Israel or Georgia, if you ask for it, but with serious "strategic partners" it will not work. request
              do not forget how many Axes they can let and how much we

              I am unforgettable and I understand that the situation is again not in our favor, like 60 years ago, "thanks" to the traitors in the Kremlin, but this is not a reason to get discouraged, right? :)) angry For me it’s better that I and my loved ones burn up in the fire of a total nuclear war than in Russia fiddling and juvenile justice will prevail !!!
              designed for these missiles are located just in the depths of the enemy’s territory

              and I still do not understand, in the light of the above, why make a product with a flight range of 5000 km, when in reality it cannot hit targets deep in the enemy’s territory, say at a distance of 2500km from its border! After all, launching a KR from an airplane over the sea, even at a distance of 1000km from the coast, it is impossible to detect radar systems today, Sergey agree? Then why is this all? It may be better that 2 times less range, but constant hypersound and the height of the envelope of the surface in 10 / 15m? winked
  2. Zubr
    Zubr 8 July 2013 08: 07 New
    +4
    Information slipped through that the missiles of this class had a range twice as high as 10 thousand km.
    Well, if so, that’s great too.
    1. TRAFFIC
      TRAFFIC 8 July 2013 12: 06 New
      +2
      A rocket flying to the target for 13 hours is an overdose, this is how you have to be perverted because of the "Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles" laughing
      1. neri73-r
        neri73-r 8 July 2013 12: 41 New
        +3
        The main thing that would fly !!! hi
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 8 July 2013 12: 55 New
      0
      Well, a 2.5-ton missile of such a range cannot have it. And I can hardly believe in 5000 km, I think this is for the X-102, which will have easier warheads, because. it is nuclear.
      1. VAF
        VAF 8 July 2013 15: 19 New
        +9
        Quote: patsantre
        Well, a 2.5 ton rocket of this range cannot be. And at 5000 km


        Maybe dear, maybe! wink



        Take the weight of the X-55th and the weight of the X-101, now compare the flight range of the X-55, well, the 101st wink even according to "Pupkin's arithmetic" it turns out, and the X-102 has an even greater range. the weight and dimensions of the warhead are less bully (as a result of which more fuel can be added)! wink
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 8 July 2013 16: 35 New
          +4
          So, Pupkin's arithmetic.
          X-55 weight - 1700 kg. X-101 - 2400 kg. (like). minus warhead, minus the engine and its associated components. Remains approximately 1100 and 1800. At the same time, X-55 fuel has about 250 kg., I.e., other things being equal, X-101 can carry 2,5-3 times more fuel, because there is a mass reserve. And the elemental base is newer, which saves some weight.
          2000 km x 3 = 6000 km. Plus conformal fuel tanks are possible by analogy with the X-55СМ. This is an increase in range by at least a quarter. We get 7500 km. Roughly and on his knee. But a gain in the mass of fuel by several times will increase the range.
          1. VAF
            VAF 8 July 2013 19: 36 New
            +3
            Quote: Bronis
            So, Pupkin's arithmetic.


            Thought and theoretical calculations are absolutely correct, +! drinks and here .. the numbers .. nea bully
            X-55-1170 kg, (X-555 (with conventional warhead) -1280 + 220 kg of fuel in comfortable tanks, X-55SM-1710 kg, X-101 - 2530 kg bully
            Weight warhead X-555 370 kg, X-55SM-340 kg, X-101-430 kg bully
            Now you can count more ... more precisely! wink

            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 8 July 2013 19: 46 New
              +2
              In theory, rocket speed should also affect range. Slow speeds should be more economical, all other things being equal
              1. VAF
                VAF 8 July 2013 19: 55 New
                +3
                Quote: Spade
                In theory, rocket speed should also affect range.


                And this is true ... therefore, the rocket provides 2 modes of operation of the marching engine and as a result ... two speeds! +! drinks

                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 8 July 2013 20: 00 New
                  +2
                  The normal decision.
            2. Bronis
              Bronis 8 July 2013 20: 55 New
              +2
              Quote: vaf
              Now you can count more ... more precisely!

              I won’t, time is a pity and health. laughing But offhand, the difference will be larger. And good. Let the Pentagon take care ... its, after all, problems sad And then the SSI disappeared. Are you still visiting Raul or did the "bloody gebnya" figure out with no less humane officials?
              1. VAF
                VAF 8 July 2013 23: 17 New
                +3
                Quote: Bronis
                But offhand, the difference will be larger.


                Well, what am I talking about +drinks ! And then too many do not believe that we can. and we .. really CAN !!! That's just with the media .... will not be enough wassat

                Quote: Bronis
                And then the SSI disappeared. Are you still visiting Raul or did the "bloody gebnya" figure out with no less humane officials?


                Works in the sweat of his brow ... "without taking out" good A huge hello to everyone! drinks

                5 days ago, his "brainchild" was in Vnukovo wink

                1. Bronis
                  Bronis 8 July 2013 23: 51 New
                  +1
                  Well, the SSI bow to us ... hi
                  Quote: vaf
                  That's just with the media .... will not be enough

                  Well, that is, they are modernizing them on the sly (I admit that the main word here is "slowly"). PAK YES - still beyond the horizon. Although it is so clear that it will not become widespread. If he replaces 1 to 1 what is now the year by 2032-2035, he will be very lucky. In reality, there will be less, most likely - expensive "toys".
                  the main thing is that the money does not end. I don’t know what the federals have in the power block. But they began to run into regions in terms of finances. May decrees must be followed. There is no money below for their implementation. From above - they don’t give, almost a grand system is introduced. Like a beauty contest. We will give these money to them for what we invented ourselves. but with this - we will not let it - for this they are neither garnas nor loves. Although it looks something like a defense.
                  So now almost the main question is finance (availability and effective use). Well, performing discipline ... otherwise there will be no efficiency.
      2. beard999
        beard999 8 July 2013 15: 20 New
        +3
        Quote: patsantre
        And it’s hard to believe in 5000km, I think this is for the X-102, which will have easier warheads, because. it is nuclear.

        In a range of 10000 km, I will not believe the same. But here is a range of 5000 km, and it is with a conventional warhead, it is quite likely. Recall the "nuclear" X-55. This cruise missile was created on the basis of technologies available to the USSR in the 70s. X-55 had a starting weight of 1185 kg and a maximum range of 2500 km. Own mass of SBN was not openly disclosed. According to Western sources, it was in the range of 140-200 kg. It is known that a new engine and fuel system are used on the X-101, the control system is based on a new component base, and the starting weight, in comparison with the X-55, has doubled. I will assume that the warhead weighing 2-400 kg, at a range of 500 km, the X-5000, is completely capable of being thrown.
        1. Apologet.Ru
          Apologet.Ru 8 July 2013 18: 30 New
          0
          Children hi , let's live in peace!

          Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          TTX
          Parameter Value
          Developer - ICD "Rainbow"
          Test Start Year - 1999
          Length, m - 7,45
          Diameter, mm - 742
          Wingspan, m - 3
          Starting weight, kg - 5000-7000
          Mass of warhead, kg - 400 kg.
          Fuel mass, kg - 1250 kg.
          Speed, m / s, cruising - 190 — 200
          Speed, m / s, maximum - 250 — 270
          Launch range, km - 5000-5500 km
          Flight Profile - Variable
          Flight profile height, m ​​- from 30-70 m. To 10 000 m.
          EPR, sq. m. - 0.01
          Type GSN - optoelectronic correction system + TV
          Powerplant - DTRD RD-95TM-300 engine with 500 kgs thrust
          Accuracy (KVO), m - 10
          Nuclear missile variant - X-102
          1. beard999
            beard999 8 July 2013 19: 59 New
            +1
            Quote: Apologet.Ru
            From Wikipedia

            On the wiki, part of the LTH cited is frankly sucked from the finger. For example, a starting weight of "5000-7000 kg." The fact that this is frank nonsense can be understood even by looking at the characteristics of the Tu-95MS, which has a maximum combat load of 20 tons, and 25 tons during overload. At the same time, the Tu-95MS takes on four pylons 8 KR X-101 (in the first photo, in this article, this is clearly visible). If each missile ship was 5-7 tons fun, then their total weight would be 40-56 tons, which is two to two and a half times the maximum Tu-95MS BN. So, wiki, this is not a source ... Everything that is known is more or less reliable about the X-101, it is said here http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-440.html.
            1. Apologet.Ru
              Apologet.Ru 8 July 2013 21: 47 New
              0
              hi 2200-2400 kg is also a controversial issue, since one of the sources stated that "the X-101 still turned out to be about three to four times heavier than the X-555," while the X-555 had a starting weight of 1280-1500 kg. repeat
      3. Bronis
        Bronis 8 July 2013 16: 47 New
        +1
        http://izvestia.ru/news/535063
        Naturally, the nuclear range is somewhat larger. But the greater the mass of fuel, the smaller the range spread. With conformal tanks, 10.000 km is also possible. in non-nuclear performance. The question is the mass of fuel and engine power. But this is theory.
    3. silver_roman
      silver_roman 8 July 2013 13: 27 New
      +2
      it cannot be ... 10 km - many ballistic missiles have less. despite the fact that the speed is 000 km, it will fly a day to the goal ...
      1. Dimka off
        Dimka off 8 July 2013 15: 37 New
        +1
        the main thing that will fly! For static purposes, that’s it.
        1. VAF
          VAF 8 July 2013 16: 09 New
          +2
          Quote: Dimka off
          For static purposes, that’s it.


          +! Only not by static, but by "stationary" wink
          1. Dimka off
            Dimka off 8 July 2013 20: 33 New
            +2
            sorry, a mistake happened smile
      2. Bronis
        Bronis 8 July 2013 20: 50 New
        +3
        KR and BR are somewhat, so to speak, different in principle of action. The BR is "forced" to accelerate itself, often sending the warhead into suborbital flight (A R-36 orb - and into orbital). The active phase is the minutes during which you need to reach the highest speed. Further - everything - ballistics ... Energy costs - huge. Hence the weight.
        CD on Tu-95 is somewhat "simpler". She no longer needs to spend money on acceleration and delivery of herself to a certain height - this was partially done by the missile carrier.
        KR needs to be supported, in general, not at very high speed, but for a long time. The wings and, in a certain area, the height help.
        ICBMs and CDs are round and purple. Both are rockets, but it's hard to compare them.
    4. Dimka off
      Dimka off 8 July 2013 15: 35 New
      +1
      correctly noticed by you.
      here's an interesting thing))) the claimed range of 5500 km. The speed of 200 m / s cruising and 270 m / s maximum. If translated into km / h, it turns out 720 and 972 km / h, respectively. Some sources claim a flight time of 10 hours. And if you make small calculations, it turns out that the rocket can travel not 5500 km but at a speed of 200 m / s - 7200 km, but at a speed of 270 m / s - as much as 9720 km. Here is the math. But the rocket is without a doubt gorgeous and surpasses analogues at times.
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 8 July 2013 17: 38 New
        +1
        you do not take into account such a parameter as fuel consumption in a rocket. The higher her speed, the more she eats fuel. I am not an expert in this matter, but it seems to me that banal calculation does not roll here.
        and in terms of speed and flight time, I can say that this missile is more suitable for aggression, i.e. an attack on a specific object, when there is time for maneuver and there is no acute threat. 10 hours is far from fast, and we are not going to attack anyone. In addition, it is not clear how the rocket behaves in the active phase of the flight: does it maneuver to overcome missile defense. I believe that before launch the parameters for missile defense are laid down and this affects the flight itself and, as a result, the range. If you shoot in a terrain not covered by missile defense, then it can fly in a straight line, at max. range, and if for the same amers, then it’s worth it to be vigilant. and besides, the probability of interception is high ... although I think the rocket in flight goes at low altitudes with an envelope of relief ... in short there are questions ... and there is reason to think too!
        1. Mikhail Zubkov
          Mikhail Zubkov 18 September 2017 23: 33 New
          0
          Different missiles - for different TVDs. Atlantic, Arctic, Asian, Balkan, Middle East, Far Eastern, Transcaucasian, Mediterranean, Pacific and Black Sea (alphabetically). Where what ranges and trajectories, heights are needed, the location and nature of the targets, reliefs and coverings on the approaches. Attacking the coast in the Pacific Ocean - you need a range in the first place, and maneuverability in the second place, and in the Balkans you already have a rounding of the relief in the first place. On the Black Sea - speed first. Different things are needed.
        2. Mikhail Zubkov
          Mikhail Zubkov 18 September 2017 23: 45 New
          0
          Do not consider the technical ability to attack (and even preemptively attack) lightning fast and destructively as an indicator of aggressiveness or peacefulness. The entire US fleet will defend its coast by 80%, and will not go to ours if it knows for sure that all its bases and industry on the coast will be attacked. Response or preventive - this is already a matter of a specific alignment of forces and means in a particular crisis tension.
    5. old man54
      old man54 8 July 2013 19: 22 New
      +1
      Quote: Zubr
      Information slipped through that the missiles of this class had a range twice as high as 10 thousand km.
      Well, if so, that’s great too.

      from which fright already 10t.km. ?? :)
  3. Ivan79
    Ivan79 8 July 2013 09: 08 New
    +2
    Put the tomahawks on our belt! smile
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 8 July 2013 12: 56 New
      0
      Amer’s missiles are inferior to ours in range, but superior to KVO, and much more.
  4. Nayhas
    Nayhas 8 July 2013 09: 51 New
    +2
    I met that on the X-101 the engine is recessed in the body, and does not extend like on the X-55, I hope so, because Retractable engine utter idiocy. Conformal tanks that increase range are also installed.
  5. JIaIIoTb
    JIaIIoTb 8 July 2013 10: 43 New
    +2
    It would not be bad if it were made universal and not just air-based.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 8 July 2013 13: 04 New
      +4
      There are calibers for ships ... but their performance characteristics are a big question. It is very difficult to compete with the tomahawks, with their range of 1600 km, a military missile defense of 5 meters and the ability to shoot at both ground and surface targets ... and transfer in flight.
      And for airplanes, they have JASSM with a range of up to 1000 km and a 3-meter airborne missile defense. Chips like stealth and the ability to transfer in flight are attached. It weighs more than 2 times less than the X-101. That is. in fact, we have no analogue of their rocket, and they have no analogue of ours.
  6. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 8 July 2013 14: 31 New
    +1
    The caliber range in the variant ship surface or air land is up to 2500 quo from 3 to 10 depending on the range.
  7. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 8 July 2013 16: 00 New
    0
    Pre-terrestrial basing I can assume Iskander K. It was stated that he would be able to use various missiles not only caliber. I think the powder accelerator is not difficult to put.
  8. WW3
    WW3 8 July 2013 19: 31 New
    +5
    Soaring above the spruce without knowing the barriers
    Cruise missiles fly, fly, fly.
  9. old man54
    old man54 8 July 2013 19: 32 New
    0
    it's good that the design bureau "finished off" the rocket, that is. brought to mind! Pleases! Still, a sufficient number of weapons were adopted, and there are more carriers, and it would be time to move away from the Tu-95, no matter how 1957 was development. Although they also remained within the regiment, probably.
  10. Dimka off
    Dimka off 8 July 2013 20: 45 New
    0
    and still I want to believe that our designers made a rocket capable of hitting 10 km. Indeed, there are so many geniuses among Russian people! And if not, then the range of 000 is also very, very good. smile
  11. 0255
    0255 8 July 2013 21: 51 New
    0
    Cool missiles look under the wing of the Tu-95! I hope that they will be produced in larger quantities, and not in single copies, like most new Russian weapons. And do not sell to China
    1. VAF
      VAF 8 July 2013 23: 24 New
      +4
      Quote: 0255
      Cool missiles look under the wing of the Tu-95!


      this, by the way. and not very cool ... because. the suspensions are all comfortable, and the DB is the same ... not a "masterpiece" in the sense of aerodynamics, as a result of which the drag coefficient has increased significantly. As a result, the D practical "dropped" by almost 30% recourse

      Therefore, for the Tu-160, yes ... a masterpiece. but for the Tu-95MSM and Tu-22М5 (especially) not very sad
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 9 July 2013 12: 24 New
      -2
      The Chinese are already riveting them. Industrial espionage is their hobby. Licensed copy and China things are incompatible. :)
  12. bublic82009
    bublic82009 8 July 2013 22: 43 New
    +1
    it’s bad that we all keep secret. sometimes just the thought of using a weapon stops the aggressor
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 9 July 2013 12: 21 New
      0
      According to tradition, we secret everything and from everyone. Foreign intelligence agents of competitors have long been aware of everything. And vice versa, our agents know what not everyone knows at the Pentagon ... Know-how is not possible in the defense industry.
  13. Zubr
    Zubr 9 July 2013 10: 13 New
    +1
    Quote: vaf
    Quote: 0255
    Cool missiles look under the wing of the Tu-95!


    this, by the way. and not very cool ... because. the suspensions are all comfortable, and the DB is the same ... not a "masterpiece" in the sense of aerodynamics, as a result of which the drag coefficient has increased significantly. As a result, the D practical "dropped" by almost 30% recourse

    Therefore, for the Tu-160, yes ... a masterpiece. but for the Tu-95MSM and Tu-22М5 (especially) not very sad


    Here I am about the same. Well, since there is fuel, there are tankers flying. Refuel, and then reach the launch point and go home to the base, and there our satellites and VKS will be blown away. I hope to work out the goals as expected. drinks
  14. voliador
    voliador 22 August 2013 00: 00 New
    -2
    If only we wouldn’t have pulled away finances, otherwise our bureaucrats would leave for some wings from rockets of money.
  15. Orionvit
    Orionvit 18 November 2015 23: 50 New
    0
    Quote: Apologet.Ru

    Powerplant - DTRD RD-95TM-300 engine with 500 kgs thrust

    First, the RD-95TM engine has a maximum thrust at 100% rpm, no more than 350 kg. Secondly, Russia has not purchased these engines for its armed forces since the collapse of the Union. Thirdly, 180 pcs. engines were purchased by the corporation "Tactical missile weapons" in Korolev for the Indian project. The last batch was delivered to the customer for "Motor Sich" in Zaporozhye in August 2013. Fourthly, the RD-95TM (in contrast to the RD-95 of the third series for the X-55) has an estimated resource range much less. Fifth, due to the coup in Ukraine, rocket engines are no longer produced in Zaporozhye. So, the motor on the X-101 is worth some other, maybe Tomsk.
    1. Orionvit
      Orionvit 19 November 2015 01: 46 New
      0
      I apologize for the mistake, the engine is not Tomsk but Omsk. Although many say that they are produced in Rybinsk.