Tu-22M3 - aircraft carrier thunderstorm

128
In modern realities, when relations between Russia and the United States escalated against the backdrop of foreign policy contradictions, the role of using operational tactical tactics has grown aviationcapable of carrying cruise missiles, for example, modernized Tu-22M3M aircraft. Today you can find an infinite number of both tales and real stories about how pilots on such planes, using the competent use of the combat capabilities of their machines, overcame land and sea air defense systems of the United States, Japan and other countries that opposed the USSR and the Soviet Union on the world stage then Russia.

In 1986, two aircraft from the 2nd Marine Missile Aviation Division of the Black Sea fleet during joint exercises in Bulgaria, imperceptibly for NATO aircraft, they immediately crossed two borders of the states that were part of this military bloc. The training of the crews was carried out as part of the joint exercises of the Warsaw Pact.

The most interesting thing was that the two Tu-22M, equipped with missiles to destroy aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean, changed their course by 13 degrees and “checked” the two borders with Turkey and Greece, after which they safely returned back to Bulgaria. Already after this flight, the pilots told that in the area of ​​the village of Drama in Greece there was an attempt to intercept them with F-15 fighters. Crews could even visually see NATO planes. But the interceptors were in a train that was significantly higher than the Soviet cars that flew below the mountains. They remained invisible to foreign pilots, who couldn’t even imagine that heavy missile carriers flew at a low altitude between the mountains. Soviet pilots did jewelry work.



In those years, Soviet long-range aviation flew a large number of flights, including over enemy aircraft carriers. The Tu-22М2, Т-22М3 and Tu-95МР missile pilots photographed American aircraft carriers in 1985: Enterprise, Midway, Coral-X. Aircraft removed aircraft carriers, making the passage above their deck at a height of 1000 meters. As a rule, American fighter "Tomcat" F-14 hung under the hatches of aerial cameras, but they still took everything in pictures: fighter, ships, and even waves.

The TU-22М3 pilot Nikolai Baranov spoke on the pages of the Zvezda TV channel about an interesting flight, when the Tu-22М3 bomber simulated a landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier. A pair of Soviet aircraft - on the slave two X-22 missiles designed to destroy aircraft carriers and other ships, and on the lead two X-28 with passive seeker to destroy ship and land radars - met an American carrier-based fighter over the sea. This meeting prompted the pilots that the carrier group was not far away. The commander of the lead Tu-22М3 decided to test in practice the tactics of the likely enemy, as well as to take off the aircraft on the deck of the aircraft carrier. Detecting an enemy carrier group in the Sea of ​​Japan and revealing its air defense system was a rather difficult task. The Americans well disguised such groups "in the shade" of numerous islands, so even from the air using radar they were quite difficult to detect, besides working radars allow ships to quickly detect aircraft and prepare for them a decent meeting.

Despite this, our pilots, having proved their professionalism, were able, until the last moment, without finding themselves, to find the aircraft carrier of the enemy. After that, the fighters took off to intercept them. One of them flew so close that you could see the smile on the face of the American pilot. He winked at the commander and showed the belly of his plane with air-to-air missiles. On this, the Soviet missile submarines turned their twin gun installations. It would seem that this “exchange of courtesies” will end, but the American pilot decided to joke. With a smile on his face, he began to offer the Soviet missile carriers to board the aircraft carrier. At this time, there was a multipurpose Kitty Hawk downstairs, on the deck of which were anti-submarine aircraft, fighters, and reconnaissance aircraft — flights were conducted.



It is worth noting that the Tu-22М3 is not a small car. The wingspan of the aircraft is about 35 meters, almost the width of the deck of the aircraft carrier. Yes, and the fuel on board - under 50 tons. At the same time, two American fighters cannot fly to the beginning of the runway, in a hurry one simply blocked the other. Most likely, the fuss arose after the Soviet Tu-22М3 appeared on the horizon. However, the F / A-18, which accompanies our cars and sets under the camera, makes it difficult to take high-quality pictures of the organization of flights. Therefore, the Soviet pilots also decide to "joke" and begin to imitate landing on the deck.

As it should be in real landing, landing gear and flaps are produced, the plane is reduced. Imitation or not, it is difficult to understand if you are not in the cockpit of an enormous missile carrier landed on the deck. Americans have already begun to imagine what would happen if such a machine would land on the deck. The Tu-22М3 would simply demolish all the planes and people from the deck, damage the superstructure and command post. And a fire from a collision with tons of kerosene and two powerful rockets onboard the 50, each of which weighs 5 tons, would have to be put out for days. Imitation landing failed. Considering the photographs taken later, it was possible to examine the panic that arose on board the aircraft carrier. In fairness it should be noted that this story more like an army bike. And in the network you can find another version of it, in which Tu-95 airplanes appear. The pictures taken from the aircraft are not declassified, as the names of the pilots performing this approach are unknown.

It is worth noting that the practice of flying combat ships continues to be carried out. For example, on October 17 of the 2000, another 4 Russian aircraft participated in the flyover of another American aircraft carrier of the Kitty Hawk type: two Su-24MR reconnaissance aircraft and two Su-27 fighter-interceptor fighters from the 11 Army of the Air Force and Air Defense. These events took place in the Korean Strait, Colonel-General Anatoly Nagovitsyn, the former deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, told journalists about them. According to him, the meeting of American carrier-based aircraft with Russian fighters was “as close to combat as possible.”



It should be noted that at that time the Americans conducted their naval maneuvers only 300 km from the Russian coast, which in itself could not be regarded as an act friendly to our country. Therefore, the actions of Russian aviation were legitimate and fully justified. The results of the aerial reconnaissance were excellent. Russian reconnaissance aircraft Su-24MR made several visits to an aircraft carrier, photographing it from the air. The photographs showed a panic on board the ship: the sailors even hurriedly chopped the hoses that connected the aircraft carrier to the supply tanker, which pumped fuel onto its board.

American F / A-18 fighters were able to ascend into the sky only after the second call, however, the Su-27 quickly took them away from the ship, making a diversion that allowed the Su-24MR to perform several more spans over the American ship. As it was said later, some time later, a letter arrived to the aircraft carrier, in which there were two photos of the deck of the ship, taken from the Russian aircraft. It is worth noting that naval aircraft of the United States and Russia quite often carry out overflights of warships that are in neutral waters. For this reason, the actions of the quartet of Russian aircraft while circling an aircraft carrier of the “Kitty Hawk” type did not cause any negative reaction from the US official administration.

Today in the combat training plans of naval pilots there is a section that is devoted to working out various techniques for overcoming the air defense of enemy ships. Riding excellence is considered to overcome a powerful air defense system of the American aircraft carrier group. This happens very rarely - it is worth paying tribute to the Americans, who are very competently building the protection of their aircraft carrier. But, as they say, the old woman is proruha.



Tu-22M3

The Tu-22М3 (according to NATO codification Backfire-C) is a long-range supersonic bomber-carrying bomber with a variable wing geometry. According to its layout and design scheme, the Tu-22М3 is an all-metal low-profile with two turbofans, which are located in the rear part of the fuselage. The aircraft is distinguished by the presence of a variable sweep wing and an arrow tail. Tu-22М3 has a three-bearing chassis with a front support column. Titan and aluminum alloys, heat-resistant and high-strength steels, as well as non-metallic structural materials are widely used in the construction of the airframe of the aircraft. In service with the Russian Air Force is about 40 ready to fly this type of aircraft. At the same time, before 2020, a modernization of the 30 Tu-22М3 is planned for KAPO.

This is a modification of the Tu-22М3М aircraft, which is distinguished by its updated avionics and communication facilities. At the same time, there is an onboard equipment complex onboard the aircraft - the digital specialized computing subsystem SVP-24-22 (developed and manufactured by JSC Gefest and T). This system is able to provide a single plane guidance to the target with the re-targeting already in flight, as well as a group attack of the target by rocket carriers of the compound from various arbitrary directions. Airborne equipment on the new element base expands the range of weapons used by the aircraft and allows the use of modern high-precision samples weapons. Among other things, a complex of works is carried out to extend the life of the aircraft to 40 years. Detailed information on the work carried out as part of the modernization of the Tu-22М3М is closed. The Tu-22M3M aircraft was adopted by the Russian Air Force 4 July 2014.

Supersonic bomber Tu-22М3 is able to fly at speeds up to 2300 km / h at a distance of up to 7000 km. Maximum combat load - 24 000 kg, normal - 12 000 kg. The main weapon of the aircraft are the X-22 cruise missiles and the X-15 aeroballistic missiles. The aircraft is able to carry up to 3's of X-22М guided anti-ship missiles with a maximum speed of 3700 km / h and a range of up to 480 km. The X-15 tactical airballistic missile attack aircraft can carry up to 10 units. Six of them are in a special drum PU inside the fuselage, and another four on the wing nodes of the suspension (2x2). The purpose of this rocket is the defeat of stationary area targets - air force and air defense bases, radar stations, command posts, military industrial facilities. A hypersonic rocket develops speed up to 5М in flight and is able to hit targets at a distance of 60-300 km.

Presumably in the photo rocket X-32


At present, Russia is testing new X-32 rocket. The development of the rocket, which was intended to replace the X-22, began as early as 1980 in the ICD Raduga. Structurally, the rocket is made according to the normal aerodynamic configuration and is completely similar to the prototype X-22. The range of these missiles was brought to 1000 km. And the flight speed according to information from various sources ranges from 4000 km / h to 5400 km / h. The warhead of the new anti-ship missile is smarter than its predecessor, it is able to identify the target itself, selecting the most important one. Due to the high speed of the flight to intercept this rocket is very difficult. According to the Zvezda TV channel, the rocket is able to withstand a line of Vulcan-Phalanks 20 anti-aircraft artillery system, hit by one Sparrow AIM-7 rocket or 2-3 Rocket of the AID-9 Rocket.

TU-22М3 is often called in the press "aircraft carrier killer", but to say so is not entirely correct. One aircraft of this type against full-fledged AUG, the fight against which its main purpose, is not a warrior. It would be more correct to call a group of similar machines a killer of aircraft carriers. The use of Tu-22М3 missile carriers for AUG-type targets presupposes the operation of a large group of vehicles up to a full-fledged regiment according to various schemes - from the usual frontal impact from one direction to diluting the aircraft into three groups, aligning them in two waves in range already launched anti-aircraft missiles. The distribution of targets in the warrant between cruise missiles was carried out by aircraft operators in coordination with the leading aircraft. At the same time, in the strike against the carrier group, aircraft were used not only with X-22М, but also X-22MP (anti-radar) missiles. With the defeat of a potential enemy aircraft carrier (permanently shut down or sinking), the task of the aviation group was considered completed.



Information sources:
http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201503071024-tvq5.htm
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/tu22m3.html
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-258.html
http://ruskline.ru/monitoring_smi/2009/06/02/faktor_x-32_dal_nobojnaya_asimmetriya
128 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +60
    30 March 2015 06: 01
    Unfortunately, the author is disingenuous in some points. Against the backdrop of the truly impressive past capabilities of our naval missile-carrying aviation, the current state of affairs is not so brilliant. In my opinion, if you say "A" then you must say "B". There is absolutely no need to embellish reality and form a misconception in an unprepared reader. And the truth is the following - the missile-carrying aviation of the Navy in Russia today, as it is not bitter, simply does not exist. The naval missile-carrying aviation has been eliminated under the current leadership of the country. All "conditionally serviceable" (prepared for a one-time ferry) aircraft of the Navy based on coastal airfields from where they could strike at AUG, in 2011 transferred to the Long-Range Aviation and are based in the central regions of the country. The rest of the Tu-22M, even with minor malfunctions, but suitable for restoration, were cut into metal. The Kh-22 missiles, which are quite problematic due to liquid-propellant rocket engines, have reached their service life, there are no new anti-ship missiles yet. I am perfectly aware that this comment will cause a bunch of disadvantages, but this will not change the situation with the Naval Aviation.
    1. FID
      +15
      30 March 2015 09: 39
      I apologize, but in Olenyaya, the base and regiment of the naval aviation of the SF are preserved ... In the Far East, yes ...
      1. +5
        30 March 2015 14: 05
        Quote: SSI
        I apologize, but in Olenyaya, the base and regiment of the naval aviation of the SF are preserved ... In the Far East, yes ...

        Sergey, are you sure that the regiment of naval aviation on the Tu-22M3 missile carriers has been preserved? what According to my information, the 924-th separate guards naval missile-carrying regiment is regiment subordinated to the Air Force.
        Naval Aviation of Russia.
        http://topwar.ru/27374-morskaya-aviaciya-rossii-chto-dalshe.html
        1. +4
          30 March 2015 14: 07
          Quote: Bongo
          According to my information, the 924-th separate guards naval missile-carrying regiment is regiment subordinated to the Air Force.

          Not only 924 Mrap, but the entire MPA (or rather, what is left of it) was transmitted YES.
          1. +4
            30 March 2015 14: 17
            Quote: Colonel
            Not only 924 Mrap, but the entire MPA (or rather, what is left of it) was transmitted YES.

            This is exactly what I wanted to say hi however dear FID insists that Tu-22М3 924 Mrap at the airport of Deer (pictured) are still part of Navy Aviation request
            1. FID
              0
              30 March 2015 17: 55
              Quote: Bongo
              This is exactly what I wanted to say, however, the respected SSI insists that the Tu-22M3 924 mrap at the Olenya aerodrome (pictured) is still part of the naval aviation

              I beg your pardon, but I did not mean reassignment, but the fact that the Fires remained at the airfield, and for example, in Mongokhto they were removed altogether. And "boots" or "boots" ... I don't know, I know that in 2010, even sailors flew.
              1. FID
                +1
                30 March 2015 21: 07

                This video is from Deer, St. Andrew’s flags on the air intakes ...
    2. +12
      30 March 2015 13: 18
      Quote: Bongo
      I am well aware that this comment will cause a lot of minuses, but the situation with the Navy Aviation will not change from this.


      And in such cases, either couch fighters-uryakalki, or simply ignorant people, are minus. As a veteran of the Naval Aviation (in different years it was called the Naval Aviation of the Navy, and the Air Force and Air Defense of the Navy), I know very well that there are "horns and legs" left of it. In the USSR, the "weakest" of all the air forces of the fleets - the BF air forces were much more numerous and more powerful than the entire modern naval aviation of the Russian Federation. And I generally keep quiet about the level of personnel training. In the 80s, only on VR (aerial reconnaissance) about 1500 (one and a half thousand) s / v were performed per year, now - 0 (zero). Formally, the plans include the implementation of VR, but it is carried out ALWAYS by aircraft of all types, since reconnaissance aviation in the Navy is completely destroyed. And the effectiveness of such "reconnaissance" is close to zero, since it is conducted only in the near sea zone, mainly visually and radar , and, moreover, by crews not trained to conduct VR on aircraft that do not have special equipment. From PLA (anti-submarine aviation) remained a pitiful 10-12 combat-ready aircraft. Etc...
    3. +2
      30 March 2015 23: 03
      I'm certainly not an expert, but what I read in books. So in the USSR it was considered overly difficult to destroy the AUG. To destroy the ACG, both surface and submarine forces in combination with aviation will be needed. At the moment, Russia does not have the forces that were in the USSR. Yes, and how to fly up imperceptibly to the launch distance, if the group constantly provides control from the air to a depth within 800 km ??? Just do not think that in wartime all systems will be turned off, and the military will sleep. Nobody will give such flights as in peacetime as it was recently in the Black Sea.
      1. 0
        31 March 2015 22: 30
        Quote: Atrix
        Yes, and how to fly up imperceptibly to launch distances, if the group constantly provides control from air to a depth within 800 km ??

        In the article:
        The range of these missiles was brought to 1000 km. And the flight speed according to various sources is from 4000 km / h to 5400 km / h.

        So, theoretically, you can shoot back without entering the air defense zone, and from different directions. And when the time of arrival of numerous missiles is less than 20 minutes, the ship's air defense does not have much chance to cope with all of them.
        Well, in practice - let the aviators correct me here.
        1. +2
          April 1 2015 01: 33
          Quote: Vasek
          So, theoretically, you can shoot back without entering the air defense zone, and from different directions. And when the time of arrival of numerous missiles is less than 20 minutes, the ship's air defense does not have much chance to cope with all of them.
          Well, in practice - let the aviators correct me here.

          Well, this missile is not in service and when it will appear is also not known. You can talk about plans for adoption, but as often happens, it remains a prototype. And it seems to me that it will remain so, it was planned to start producing it from 2008, then from 2010, and now it is already 2015 and "things are still there". So there is nothing to oppose the US AUG. Although if you collect all the Tu-22M3 aircraft into a single fist, how many of them are 40-50 pieces left in the ranks, maybe something will work out. But this will be a kamikaze mission and it will not be possible to repeat such a blow again due to the lack of naval aviation forces.
    4. +3
      31 March 2015 13: 07
      the article is written in places nonsense
      able to fly at speeds up to 2300 km / h for a range of up to 7000 km.

      cheers-patriots begin to write boiling water with happiness for such an ashtray, but
      the author modestly forgot to add one word OR, because at high speed of the Tu-22 fuel consumption increases sharply, and the maximum range is achieved with incomplete combat load, cruising speed and a favorable flight profile.
      Judging from the analysis of the capabilities of the Tu-22M3, it can really develop a speed of 2 Mach during a combat mission in an afterburner, but not for long - for several minutes, because otherwise it will not reach the airfield due to fuel consumption. But that’s enough to break away from the F-16 patrol.
      1. 0
        31 March 2015 14: 47
        By the way, he talked with one colonel who flew a lot on the Tu-22.
        the plane has one ergonomic problem: the instruments are far from the pilot, and since you have to fly for a long time, pilots develop farsightedness.
        A familiar flyer read books while lying, laying them on his feet, so he was more familiar ...
    5. +4
      31 March 2015 19: 27
      In my opinion, maybe I'm wrong, the Tu-22M3 became an anti-ship missile carrier by necessity. The fact is that the Tu-22M was originally created as a medium strategic bomber. However, the appearance in the USSR of a new long-range missile-carrier-bomber Tu-22M caused great concern among the leadership of the NATO countries. The first information about the development of a Soviet long-range bomber with a variable sweep wing leaked to the West in the late 60s. In the early 70s, information about the first Tu-22M appeared in the West. Analyzing the alleged flight and tactical data of the Tu-22M, Western experts attribute the quality of an intercontinental carrier to the aircraft, capable of striking US territory. As a result, the Tu-22M became one of the "stumbling blocks" in the strategic arms reduction negotiations between the USSR and the United States in the 70s. After long and difficult negotiations, the USSR agreed to an agreement with the United States within the framework of SALT-2, according to which the fate of the Tu-22M was not decided in the best way for this aviation complex: equipment for refueling in flight was removed from all Tu-22Ms that were in service, which significantly limited the capabilities of the entire aviation missile complex. In addition, under the agreement, the United States obtained from the USSR a limitation of the serial production of the Tu-22M at the level of thirty vehicles per year. This is how the Tu-22M3 version appeared, which has been put into mass production since 1978. Until 1983, the Tu-22M3 was built in parallel with the Tu-22M2, and since 1984, only the Tu-22M3 has been in the series. In total, 268 Tu-22M3s were built at the Kazan Aviation Production Association (KAPO). Serial production was completed in 1993.
      Because The Tu-22M3 was deprived of a system of refueling in the air, it could no longer be used as a strategic bomber-missile carrier, then it began to be used including and as an anti-ship missile carrier.
      I have the honor.
      1. +1
        31 March 2015 22: 22
        I wish you all good health! And I read everything in the article and comments. Question? And, what do we have, today, is better than the TU-22? Please answer the experts! hi
        1. +1
          31 March 2015 22: 44
          Quote: Nikoha.2010
          I wish you all good health! And I read everything in the article and comments. Question? And, what do we have, today, is better than the TU-22? Please answer the experts! hi

          there’s nothing in this category of medium-range strategic bombers. Moreover, there isn’t even production of the TU-22 either. And in the foreseeable future there will be no replacement for either the TU-160 or Tu-22 ... There is a PAK YES project, but it is under development. hi
        2. +1
          April 5 2015 10: 42
          I read somewhere that they want to replace the Tu-22 with the Su-34. I was surprised.
          But so, according to the technical characteristics, suitable.
          The radius is about the same, one five-ton X-32 can take, probably ...
          Figs knows him. what
  2. +8
    30 March 2015 06: 54
    The article is not bad, but .... It will be very difficult for carcasses in a real combat situation to find and destroy aug. The case described in the article happened in the 80s. Since then, NATO's borders have grown and our planes have been "grazing" very carefully. In addition to modernizing bombers, it is also necessary to think about clear target designation about covering them over the sea. Only then it will be possible to call the TU-22 Carrier Assassins hi
    1. +1
      30 March 2015 07: 58
      Quote: Magic Archer
      It will be very difficult for carcasses in a real combat situation to find and destroy aug.

      Today, it is the Tu-22 that is the biggest threat (non-nuclear) for AUGs, as ships and nuclear submarines still have to go with the ONYXES and GRANITES at a launch distance, but this is not so simple. But tactical aviation is indisputably necessary to develop and craft a worthy replacement for this handsome man . hi
      1. FID
        +6
        30 March 2015 09: 40
        Quote: NEXUS
        But tactical aviation

        I apologize, the Tu-22M3 is Long-Range Aviation, not Tactical ...
        1. +2
          30 March 2015 11: 06
          Quote: SSI
          I apologize, the Tu-22M3 is Long-Range Aviation, not Tactical ...

          I'm sorry ... of course, distant ... thanks for correcting hi
        2. +1
          30 March 2015 12: 03
          I apologize, the Tu-22M3 is Long-Range Aviation, not Tactical ...

          ..... Actually, it was created as a sea (carrier X-22) .... Then it was adapted for other tasks .... hi
    2. 0
      30 March 2015 10: 34
      Quote: Magic Archer
      It will be very difficult for carcasses in a real combat situation to find and destroy aug.

      In our situation, there is no need to plow the expanses of the oceans to look for AUGs. In the Baltic and the Black Sea, everything can be solved with the help of coastal complexes. From the Arctic side, our ally is ice - they can’t move far from the coast - we’ll have to snuggle closer. The only problem is the Pacific. But I think that you just need to patrol 2-3 thousand kilometers of the coastal zone. In the event of war, they themselves will come - and then water them.
    3. +2
      30 March 2015 12: 01
      ... TU-22 Aircraft Carrier Killers ...

      ..... Actually, this name was called another plane, which was ahead of its time .... And which was successfully wrinkled by the "genius of aviation" Tupolev ....
      Link to the article: http: //www.popmech.ru/weapon/7614-ubiytsa-avianostsev-tragicheskaya-istoriya-so
      tki-t-4 / # full .... hi
      1. KAB
        KAB
        0
        30 March 2015 16: 08
        Do you even know how much we flew weave. The information was as of the mid-seventies. I already do not remember exactly how many planes were cited as an example, but no more than two or three dozen, that's for sure. So, they cost as much as the whole city of Moscow, with enterprises, housing, hospitals, kindergartens, etc. .. The program was arch-expensive, and the country was sanctioned from its birth, we have not completely been weaned from the war. There were developments more abruptly before, but whether the country could pull them. Tu-22m was also not a cheap car, but much more acceptable, by all criteria, and this is proved by time. 35 billion green were spent on creating a super-duper, now think about how much the program for creating a fifth-generation fighter can cost and why they decided to stretch the program, but because the country was not left without pants.
        1. 0
          30 March 2015 16: 40
          spent 35 billion green ...

          ..... Where does the infa ???? .... Read better from the link .... The plane is ready for mass production ...... The military wanted to order about 250 pieces .... I think it would be relevant today not lost .... hi
          1. FID
            0
            30 March 2015 18: 26
            Quote: aleks 62
            Airplane ready for mass production

            If you are talking about "weaving", then remember that at the same time was created and "Goldfish", by the way, the same from titanium. This is one of the reasons, I do not claim that the main one, but given how much titanium is needed and the difficulties with its (titanium) production, then ...
            1. 0
              31 March 2015 22: 43
              Quote: SSI
              If you are about "weaving"

              If you compare the T-4 with something, then, in my opinion, with the Tu-160, and not with the Tu-22.
              And Tupolev was really a genius of aviation. As, however, and Sukhoi, and many others.
              It’s just that Tupolev’s design bureau initially had more experience creating heavy vehicles.
              1. -2
                31 March 2015 22: 50
                Quote: Vasek
                If you compare the T-4 with something, then, in my opinion, with the Tu-160, and not with the Tu-22.

                According to experts, the "Sotka" was more successful than the "Swan". And in terms of speed characteristics, the T-4 was faster. hi
          2. 0
            31 March 2015 13: 34
            the weaving program was stopped after it had achieved the first results, at that time it did not require huge expenses.
            As for the high cost, let me remind you that the development of a full range of avionics of a new type, which was then used on ALL aircraft, was included in the T-10 weaving project. Also, the project includes a number of works on new materials, element base and other things intended for the industry as a whole. So do not carry a stupid blizzard about costs. If it were not for the "weaving", the su-27 would have become many times more expensive, as well as the moment-29, and the su-25 and the tu-22.
    4. +2
      31 March 2015 13: 22
      no need to cover anyone over the sea. the best cover for a bomber is the range of its weapons and its own speed. The Tu-22M3 has all this.
      But there are still problems - intelligence !!! Previously, target designation was via satellites, a network of all kinds of scouts, including modifications of the Tu-95. Now this issue needs to be resolved virtually anew.
      1. +1
        April 6 2015 01: 46
        Quote: yehat
        no need to cover anyone over the sea.

        Then you do not need to send anyone there! am
  3. +1
    30 March 2015 06: 59
    That would be to grab on a wheelbarrow !!!! A dream is supersonic in your own hands!
  4. +13
    30 March 2015 07: 25
    Interestingly, if the Americans on "Donald Cook" instead of "drying" saw a "carcass" in such a flight, then the entire crew would probably quit. Don't say that, as long as we have such planes and such pilots, we will be on our enemies for a long time let's terrify soldier

    1. +3
      30 March 2015 08: 30
      Quote: wanderer_
      we will terrify our enemies for a long time

      Well, it’s unlikely to succeed for a long time .... The Tu-22 is not a pretty young machine, and the resource for modernization, taking into account technologies and new threats, is not rubber. And so yesterday we had to think about a worthy replacement for this tactical bomb. what
      1. avt
        +3
        30 March 2015 10: 03
        Quote: NEXUS
        ..Tu-22 is not a pretty young machine, and the resource for modernization, taking into account technologies and new threats, is not rubber.

        The question is not that. The question is - who will upgrade? Crowing about the fact that we will do PAK YES now and we will restore production of the Tu-160, we don’t need to think much. And then what? According to DAM - we won’t do it elsewhere, buy it? In Kazan, there were as many old people as 80 year olds who still raised the topic in the USSR, they raised it to the wing — to resolve the issue of organizing production.
        1. FID
          +7
          30 March 2015 10: 09
          Quote: avt
          Tu-22 is not a pretty young machine

          Tu-22 - yes this is true, but Tu-22М2 (already decommissioned) - 1976., And Tu-22М3 - 1983. For an 30 aircraft, years is the middle of a lifetime, compare with B-52 ....
          1. avt
            +3
            30 March 2015 10: 48
            Quote: SSI
            - This is the middle of the life, compare with the B-52 ....

            laughing hi This is not for me. I understand that. I’m just for it, well, if the resource of the glider allows and there is a new filling. The question is different - who will do it? Nobody wanted to renew the same Tu -160. There are no managers stomping - you can’t stop cancer to the moon, and the production workers - the cat cried, even from retirement they called in Kazan
            Quote: avt
            - to resolve the issue in the organization of production.
            1. FID
              +6
              30 March 2015 10: 51
              I apologize, I addressed it to NEXUS. and production - yes ... Previously, KAPO produced a new Tu-10M22 every 3 days, now, the completion of one machine is a year ...
            2. 0
              30 March 2015 23: 59
              So it’s like Kazan Aircraft Plant is engaged ...
          2. +1
            30 March 2015 11: 14
            Quote: SSI
            Tu-22 - yes this is true, but Tu-22М2 (already decommissioned) - 1976., And Tu-22М3 - 1983. For an 30 aircraft, years is the middle of a lifetime, compare with B-52 ....

            everything is true. In-52 indeed even older than our "Bear" will be. But I'm talking about the fact that the appearance and tactics of war are changing, and accordingly there are means of counteraction, improving the old methods and in the light of all these changes, our TU-22 is very will soon ask for a replacement for something more effective.
            Another question is where to get the capacities and production and specialists to create a new bomber, both the TU-160 and his younger brother. The question is really deadly and there is no reasonable answer to it today. hi
            1. FID
              +2
              30 March 2015 17: 58
              Quote: NEXUS
              Another question is where to get both capacity and production and specialists.

              Here, neither one nor the other, unfortunately, no ...
      2. 0
        April 1 2015 12: 28
        Tu-22m3 is not afraid because it is the coolest. This is not true. They are afraid of him because he is a good tactical bomber, who has a number of parameters suitable for strategists. Those. in fact, NATO believes that the Russian Federation does not have a couple of dozen strategic bombers, but a couple of hundred. And this is already very serious even on paper.
        I would point out 1 similar example - US bombers (it seems, B24), bombing Europe, flying across the Mediterranean Sea, which had a phenomenal range.
    2. +2
      30 March 2015 08: 55
      This is aerobatics !!!!!!!!! It is understood who goes below laughing bullies however good
    3. +1
      30 March 2015 10: 50
      impressive. the sound is not so weak
  5. +3
    30 March 2015 07: 52
    Currently, Russia is testing a new rocket X-32. The development of the rocket, which was intended to replace the X-22

    And what the hell do you need? Why not integrate the same 3M-54 "Caliber" on board?
    1. +4
      30 March 2015 10: 41
      Quote: Nayhas
      And what the hell do you need? Why not integrate the same 3M-54 "Caliber" on board?

      Of course, I am inclined to believe that the RCC version of the Caliber for our troops hits much more than 300 km, but this missile hits 1000 km. Plus, the speed is more than 5000 km per hour and high security. And also the mass of explosives in the X-32 is significantly higher than in the caliber.
      1. +3
        30 March 2015 14: 25
        Quote: Dimka off
        And also the mass of explosives in the X-32 is significantly higher than in the caliber.

        Yeah, and the size ... like the MiG-21. The enemy’s air defense will not notice it ...
        P.S .:
        Quote: Dimka off
        Plus, the speed is more than 5000 km per hour

        This is maximum speed, not constant ...
        1. +5
          30 March 2015 16: 20
          Are you sure that there is a direct relationship between the EPR and linear dimensions?
          By the way, forums.airforce.ru brought the video of the X-32 launches, and now the X-32M is under development. I don’t want to say that the 32nd are now stamped the same way as once the X-22, but some and, most likely, not a dozen, maybe in parts. They also mentioned the modernization of the existing X-22. There is no detailed information, of course, but this is at least logical.
          That 5000km.h-max speed, I agree, it is quite possible, but such a constant is not needed.
          1. +1
            30 March 2015 18: 05
            Good afternoon. It’s fun to read about the development of the x-32. In 1984 we were already told about it that they say our 22m3 will carry it, got it x22. Thirty years have passed and everything is in development
          2. +1
            30 March 2015 21: 20
            Quote: sivuch
            Are you sure that there is a direct relationship between the EPR and linear dimensions?

            The term EPR (effective scattering area) as it implies a dependence on the area of ​​the reflected surface.
            Quote: sivuch
            but a certain amount, and most likely not one dozen, may be in parts

            I have not seen references to the acceptance of the X-32 missile. But a missile not accepted in service cannot be in operation.
            1. 0
              31 March 2015 08: 51
              Only the dependence of the EPR on the area is by no means linear, I think you yourself know which one.
              And all sorts of pockets and corners for the X-22 and X-32 will probably be smaller. In the air intake, in any case, it does not need developed planes, too.
              Of course, since you have not seen references to the adoption of the X-32, it means it wasn’t received, but the Yak-28, for example, flew off without being accepted for service. So anything can happen.
              http://forums.airforce.ru/foto-video/1153-tu-22-a/
              Forum Aviation Photo-Video Tu-22
              I wonder who posted this video shot almost three years ago, the X-32 by the way is still prohibited to shoot according to the MPDITR.
              In the original, this video is longer, 1:37 fragments with a cabin are cut out. There were shooting starts, by the way. Let's see if they are laid out
    2. +1
      30 March 2015 15: 16
      Ie do you propose to hang such a fool on the carcass? http://militaryrussia.ru/i/284/395/UIzzV.jpg
      1. +2
        30 March 2015 21: 17
        Quote: Dog of war
        Ie do you propose to hang such a fool on the carcass?

        1. In the photo 3M-55 "Onyx"
        2. The ship option is always longer than the aviation one due to the launch accelerator which the aircraft does not need. When starting the RCC from a height of 10km. there is no need to overcome gravity.
        3. The length of the 3M-54 "Caliber" is 6,2m, the length of the Tu-22M3 bomb bay is 6,5m.
        1. 0
          31 March 2015 18: 33
          1. In the photo TPK and its length is the same for both KR.
          2. Which doesn’t eat up even half a meter in length, it’s another matter that the fuel supply can be reduced, as on BraMos-A, but we don’t start from the ship. But then again, it’s hemorrhoid, if the missile was originally ship-based anti-ship missiles, then it’s long and expensive to put it on an airplane, how much do aviation BrahMos bring?
          3. The length of the ZM-54 is greater than that of an 8-meter Onyx. You are obviously confused with the ZM-14.
  6. ICT
    0
    30 March 2015 08: 11
    but interestingly, does anyone know the conditions (losses!) under which in the union the task of sinking AUG would be considered successfully completed,
    1. FID
      +2
      30 March 2015 09: 41
      Division, 2-3 regiments ...
      1. +4
        30 March 2015 12: 11
        ... and interestingly, does anyone know the conditions (losses!) under which in the union the task of sinking AUG would be considered successfully completed,

        ..... Division, 2-3 regiment ...

        ..... 1 regiment - 1 aircraft carrier with her belongings .... hi.... At least in the Crimea in the 80s, the division (3 regiments -2 Tu-22M2,3 and 1-Tu-16) accounted for 2 AUGs in the Mediterranean ... hi
  7. +5
    30 March 2015 08: 37
    In today's realities, I do not understand what is called long ago retired. Of course, I have considerations based on the general situation, but that's all. Just for general understanding. We had neither AUG goals, but land objectives and what tasks were set for us. The regiment (Tu-22, product Yu) consisted of 3 squadrons. The first carriers, the second and third ensure the breakthrough of enemy air defense. Planned losses of 70%. It is quite optimistic.
    1. ICT
      +2
      30 March 2015 08: 43
      Quote: fomkin
      what is called long ago retired.


      the same not yesterday (but on Tu-22 only studied)

      Quote: fomkin
      Planned losses 70%. It is quite optimistic.



      here I am about the same
  8. +1
    30 March 2015 08: 41
    Yes, the main thing in the task of the strike group is incapacitate an aircraft carrier, prevent the use of aviation, as it has on board. This is in my opinion the most important thing. IMHO
  9. +3
    30 March 2015 08: 50
    The plane itself is probably not bad, but if the author considers it as a complex of weapons against the AUG, then the effectiveness of this weapon should be given. What was the effectiveness against AUG after being adopted, how it changed over time.
    If - ... SAM "Standard-2" - is considered a very effective means of combating anti-ship missiles. According to the foreign press, the probability of hitting an anti-ship missile with one anti-aircraft missile is 0,7, and with two - 0,91. Therefore, to intercept one such target, according to American experts, an average of 1,3 missiles of this type are required. Consequently, if the ammunition of the Aegis air defense system contains only Standard-2 anti-aircraft missiles (122 units), the ship is capable of hitting 93 - 94 anti-ship missiles of the enemy ... taking into account the number of ships with Aegis in the AUG order, not to mention the AUG aviation wing, it follows that the efficiency may be low.
    1. +6
      30 March 2015 11: 10
      It is not indicated which RCC. It is the standard that has an extremely low efficiency against supersonic anti-ship missiles. And on subsonic, going at a low altitude, it is difficult to give target designation. So nothing is clear about the claimed effectiveness against obscure targets.
      Just an advertisement.
      There were trials when the Americans could not intercept their 4 harpoons, even knowing the bearings of their approach.
    2. +5
      30 March 2015 11: 22
      Idjiks can simultaneously direct up to 3 missiles (the radar then has 3 pieces in all directions), which is, to put it simply, we get that 5 ships will shoot at best 15 missiles from a salvo, and if you really look at things, then up to 5 missiles. But whether it will be possible to direct missiles for a second attack is a matter of automation capabilities, crew training and the speed of intercepted rockets, if the speeds are close to hypersound ...
    3. +1
      30 March 2015 12: 41
      And how many target channels do Aegis have? And how many targets can he fire at the same time?
      1. +3
        30 March 2015 14: 50
        Quote: Vadim237
        And how many target channels do Aegis have? And how many targets can he fire at the same time?

        ... tracking 250-300 targets and guidance on the most threatening of them to 18 missiles. The decision to defeat targets threatening the ship can be taken automatically ...
        ... Standard SM-2ER Block IV - designated RIM-156A, has a mass of 1451.6kg, firing range up to 160km, reach at a height of 29000m. Maneuverability is improved, warheads and fuses are improved, advanced digital signal processing provides guidance on low-flying actively maneuvering supersonic targets in conditions of intensive use by the enemy of electronic warfare ...
        1. +4
          30 March 2015 15: 25
          The operating cycle of the SPY-1 radar includes three sub-cycles, which, depending on the situation, can be arbitrarily interleaved in time. Search (scanning) takes about half the time, when the radar sequentially generates narrowly directed rays that uniformly fill the corresponding quadrant of space. In this case, all targets located within a radius of 320 km from the ship are detected. For each detected target, several additional rays are formed within a few seconds after detection, which determine the speed (Doppler method) and the direction of movement of the target.
          For some purposes, at the direction of the operator or in automatic mode, a tracking mode can be set in which the targets are irradiated with radar at intervals of several seconds. The formation of rays for scanning tracking targets is the second sub-cycle of the radar. Thus, the radar provides a tracking mode during the review (TWS).
          The third subcycle is the control of flying anti-aircraft missiles (if any). For each launched anti-aircraft missile, the radar, with an interval of several seconds, determines the trajectory parameters and, if necessary, reprograms the autopilot, directing the missile toward the target along the most optimal trajectory. Radio command rocket control occurs only on the starting and marching sections of the trajectory. At the final site (a few seconds before meeting the target), the rocket is put into semi-active homing mode using special backlight radars.
          Missile launch moments are calculated by the control system in such a way that the number of missiles currently on the final section of the trajectory does not exceed the number of target illumination radars on the ship (4 on Ticonderoga cruisers, 3 on Arly Burk type destroyers). Using the described algorithm allows you to simultaneously fire several dozen targets (up to 20 targets for the cruiser type "Ticonderoga").

          This is from the same wiki. In fact, it is advisable to use more authoritative sources to obtain data close to realities. Also, spy radars have a rather cool relationship with the detection of low-flying targets against the background of the sea, due to its range of operation, it is more an anti-aircraft / anti-missile vehicle. Perhaps that is why they are used in GOS missiles, since a specialized millimeter radar is much more effective in terms of tracking accuracy. Moreover, the missile needs to be guided very accurately, at a speed of 3 mach, the PKR will fly about a kilometer per second, and anti-aircraft missiles have a very narrow viewing angle. So, the chances are good against non-maneuvering PCRs, but there can be problems with maneuvering goals.
          Do not forget about your aviation in the air - the receiver doesn’t have its own stranger; there is a considerable chance of hijacking your aircraft (especially those who fly from an aircraft carrier, fight with the cover of carcasses and the carcasses themselves, they are much more noticeable than PCR in the front ) So shooting at maximum distances can be dangerous.
    4. KAB
      KAB
      +3
      30 March 2015 16: 23
      This is a theory, in practice they could not intercept the low-speed "ax", although they knew which side it would come from, as a result the rocket entered the side (like "Burke") and greeted the sailors. It's good that the training. And you intercept the flock flying at four strides. Everything is beautiful on paper and in Hollywood, in life it is completely different.
      1. 0
        30 March 2015 17: 49
        Quote: KAB
        in life is completely different.

        Tests on the Aegis program began in 2002. As of 2014, 29 successful target seizures were carried out [7].

        November 6, 2007: For the first time, a successful interception of a group ballistic target was completed. Both targets were destroyed as a result of the direct hit of SM-3 missiles outside the Earth’s atmosphere, at an altitude of about 180 km. The fire was fired from the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) Ticonderoga missile cruiser under the control of Aegis version 3.6.

        On February 21, 2008, the SM-3 missile launched from the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) missile cruiser in the Pacific Ocean hit the USA-193 emergency reconnaissance satellite at an altitude of 247 km.

        June 24, 2008: successful testing of SM-6 missiles [8].

        April 5, 2011: successful interception of an intermediate-range ballistic missile [4].

        November 6, 2014: simultaneous interception of two cruise missiles and one ballistic missile over the Pacific Ocean. Shooting was conducted from a USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) Arly Burke missile destroyer in the Hawaiian Islands [7].
  10. +6
    30 March 2015 09: 44
    Quote: Bongo
    Unfortunately, the author is disingenuous in some points. Against the backdrop of the truly impressive past capabilities of our naval missile-carrying aviation, the current state of affairs is not so brilliant. In my opinion, if you say "A" then you must say "B". There is absolutely no need to embellish reality and form a misconception in an unprepared reader. And the truth is the following - the missile-carrying aviation of the Navy in Russia today, as it is not bitter, simply does not exist. The naval missile-carrying aviation has been eliminated under the current leadership of the country. All "conditionally serviceable" (prepared for a one-time ferry) aircraft of the Navy based on coastal airfields from where they could strike at AUG, in 2011 transferred to the Long-Range Aviation and are based in the central regions of the country. The rest of the Tu-22M, even with minor malfunctions, but suitable for restoration, were cut into metal. The Kh-22 missiles, which are quite problematic due to liquid-propellant rocket engines, have reached their service life, there are no new anti-ship missiles yet. I am perfectly aware that this comment will cause a bunch of disadvantages, but this will not change the situation with the Naval Aviation.

    In fact, there is nothing wrong with that. Back in Soviet times, the aviation of the Navy and the Air Force DA were fascinatingly pulling the blanket over each other on the issue of working with the US AUG. Long-range aviation logically convinced that since it is "long-range", then work with aircraft carriers in the ocean should be solved by its forces using the Tu-95 and other long-range strike aircraft. The naval aviation also logically convinced the country's leadership that naval issues should be in the naval department. At the same time, both for the DA of the Air Force and for the MA of the Navy, the topic of combating the AUG was secondary. But both structures would not mind taking over the opponent's aircraft and strengthening their influence. In Soviet times, there were still enough resources for both departments to have their own equipment, their own staff, their own airfields. But anyone understands that this is a luxury and excess. Today, when there is no money, they decided to bring everything under a single command to maintain both structures. Which is not bad from a military point of view as well. there is no need to organize interaction between the Navy MA and the Air Force DA. YES, the Air Force had previously worked in the ocean for naval targets, where naval TU-22s could not reach.
    On the other hand, the task of combating AUG is greatly exaggerated for Russia, and in fact, its importance is deeply secondary. The role of US aircraft carriers in the event of an attack on the Russian Federation will be negligible compared to the threat posed by submarines or from ground aircraft and cruise missiles. In Soviet times, they were too carried away by fantasies about the AUG, not thinking about reality - how will they "work" from aircraft carriers on the territory of the Russian Federation and what goals will they solve at the same time? From the Black Sea - not real. From the Baltic - too. In the north - the most powerful air defense, even today, after the wild cuts of the 90s and 00s, is still one of the strongest. And in the Far East - only if Petropavlovsk is bombed, there is no more need. In any case, the likely actions of the US AUG do not seem to be a decisive factor in a possible "military victory" over Russia.
    1. +3
      30 March 2015 15: 33
      I generally do not believe in landing on a less guarded, non-friendly coast, when it is possible for the Allies to land and calmly ride on the ground (respectively, and Augs in the cover of such actions). But as a cover for landing convoys to the allied shores, Augs will be very good.
  11. +5
    30 March 2015 10: 17
    Bah !!! Yes, there is no way graduates of the Orenburg Flight (takeoff and landing) describe passions. Everyone who didn’t sleep on tactics knows that at that time it would be impossible to launch an X-22 missile 350 km would not give an air defense warrant, with a circle of 650-1000 km in a combat stop, and this is without satellites !!!. BUT for the task of felling AUG there would be a dump with accompanying SU-27s and aircraft of an aircraft carrier and, according to the calculations of the SEC, it would be LEG, but it would have completed the task :-))) and this would be without nuclear weapons - with it the Yankees would have no chance at all, therefore the speed x -22 large - so as not to bring down the Yadren loaf - there’s no reason to bury the entire regiment, for a maximum of 1 crew they would cover and get out of the water.
  12. +6
    30 March 2015 10: 42
    When I was in the Kiev Aviation Museum, I saw all three modifications of the "TU": M1, M2, M3. They are standing nearby. And there was also an X-22 on a cart. An excellent thing, and asks to fly into the building of the State Duma.
  13. +10
    30 March 2015 11: 32
    I piloted the Tu-22 M3 and I know its capabilities well. It is good today - reliable, fast, simple and easy to fly, with good visibility. The machine is in service with long-range and naval aviation, but is no longer in production, a number of spare parts are not manufactured and removed from the machines at the storage bases. Tu-22M3 is rapidly aging, although many of the structural and technical solutions implemented on it are unique and quite modern. The aircraft is a carrier of nuclear weapons and with its deployment in the Crimea poses a threat to the southern flank of NATO, the United States and its allies in the Middle East.
    The decision on the modernization of the Tu-22M3, taken in modern conditions, I think is right. The potential of the car is not exhausted, but the matter is not limited to the modernization of the aircraft.

    The fact is that aircraft and cruise missiles flying in the altitude range from 100 m to 25 thousand meters, the AOG detects at a distance of about 700 km and has effective air defense systems for this. Therefore, for the destruction of the AUG by the X-22 and X-15 missiles, the planes had to enter the air defense zone of the ships and the task could be completed only with their massive use. So, in the tactics of combat use, there were provisions on the “wave strike”, “massive” and “combined” strike, relevant at the present time.

    It seems to me that in modern conditions, for the fight against AUGs, the aircraft should have a modern avionics and high-precision weapon system that can hit ground and sea targets covered by modern air defense and missile defense systems at a range of about 1200-1300 km with missile speeds of 4-5M. Then, probably, a single machine can hit the target.

    It is difficult for me to judge the characteristics of such missiles and the possibility of placing them (even one) on the Tu-22M3, because I flew in the late 80s, when the X-22 and X-15 were also no longer considered a miracle of technology. More than 20 years have passed, and science, as they say, does not stand still.
    1. 0
      30 March 2015 11: 42
      Quote: rubin6286
      The fact is that, aircraft and cruise missiles flying in the altitude range from 100 m to 25 thousand meters, AOG detects at a distance of about 700 km and has effective air defense systems for this.

      that's what I’m talking about ... counter-detection and detection systems do not stand still
      Quote: rubin6286
      So, in the tactics of combat use, there were provisions on the “wave strike”, “massive” and “combined” strike, relevant at the present time.

      this requires a sufficient number of such machines in a certain region. Therefore, Brahmos missiles are installed on lighter machines in order to reduce the load on the carcasses
      Quote: rubin6286
      It seems to me that in modern conditions, for the fight against AUGs, the aircraft should have a modern avionics and high-precision weapon system that can hit ground and sea targets covered by modern air defense and missile defense systems at a range of about 1200-1300 km with missile speeds in 4-5М.

      Namely, in order not to enter the zone of detection and operation of enemy air defenses, the range of the missiles would have to be increased several times and, accordingly, switch to hyper sound. hi
      1. +1
        30 March 2015 15: 01
        Dear NEXUS!

        Remember the joke when women in Europe chose the genitals of men. Russian said: "I would have English, but more cherished." That's the same with range at times and hypersound. Easy to say, but how to do it. An X-22 missile with a rocket engine when firing at a range of about 300 km weighs about 6 tons in running order and has a length of 11,6 meters. For the rocket to fly further and faster with the same characteristics of the control system and the mass of the warhead, a more powerful engine is needed, which leads to a larger tank capacity and, accordingly, an increase in its geometric dimensions and starting mass. If we consider everything very conditionally, then a new rocket with L = 1200 km should be 4 times larger: 24 tons weighing more than 40 meters in length. The Tu-22M3 will not pull it. The use of mixed solid fuels does not bear any benefit. All rockets with solid propellant rocket engines compared with liquid rockets at the same flight range have one step more, not to mention weight. Hypersonic rockets with ramjet engines have not gone further than experiments, although developed countries are vying with each other to shout about success. The problems are “above the roof”, especially with controllability in the formation of a cloud of highly ionized plasma. To achieve hypersound, the thrust of the engines must also be sufficiently large. How to be?
        In my opinion, the new weapon for the Tu-22M3 should be combined and combine the structural elements of ballistic and cruise missiles, not to mention the materials and technologies used. It seems to me that if it is created and shows its high efficiency, the cost of upgrading the aircraft can be considered justified.
        1. +1
          30 March 2015 15: 48
          Dear 6286 Ruby
          Thank you for the joke. Now on the issue of anti-ship missiles for the Tu-22 and generally about anti-ship missiles. As an example, let's take the BrahMos rocket ... its dimensions are quite impressive, while the 300 warhead kg ... but the Brahmos M (mini) missile was developed, which as the developers claim, it has retained both range and destructive effect, but has become smaller in size. In addition, they are working on the BraMos-2 anti-ship missile system, which will be hyper sound and longer-range. I think it will be adapted to carriers such as TU-22, and maybe to much smaller carriers. Will it work? This question is not for me. But I am convinced that on At the moment, minimizing and increasing speed characteristics, without prejudice to quality and slaughter, is the way that the designers of our missiles are going now.
          And as for the combined missiles, so who is against ... And our kulibins are also sure of considering these ideas. But one thing is certain, ditching the strategic bombers' division to destroy one AUG is too costly (we take into account both pilots and cars) for Russia. And there were no kamikaze pilots in Russia, so you need to start with effective anti-ship missiles, and then take on a new bomber. Although it’s clear what to say, this is one thing, but to do it another.
          I think some work in this direction is being carried out in India, as I said above, and probably with us. hi
          1. +3
            30 March 2015 17: 09
            Our views on the modernization of the aircraft coincide in many respects. The BrahMos air-ship cruise missile provides for the use of SU-30 and SU-34 aircraft. It is slightly smaller than the X-22 and almost two times lighter with the same mass of warheads. Its radius of action today is almost the same as the X-22 - 300 km. One of the main advantages of a rocket is its speed, reaching 3500 km / h, which makes it difficult to intercept air defense systems by ship. It is further assumed that the rocket will become hypersonic and will be able to reach speeds of more than 5M. So far, the efforts of designers are focused on testing the control system in hypersonic conditions. The parties expect to achieve positive results in 2015-2016. If this problem is solved at BrahMos, new anti-ship missiles will appear that will replace the X-22. Without a new weapon, the Tu-22M3 is not capable of being a “killer of aircraft carriers,” and its modernization is aimed at increasing combat capabilities primarily as a bomber - a carrier of nuclear weapons used to strike at area targets.
          2. 0
            30 March 2015 20: 43
            But we have Gastello and Talalikhin
        2. +1
          30 March 2015 18: 01
          Hi. In x22 fuel is not poured onto a specific range. 360 km with a conventional homing head and 500 with a penny from a Doppler mass. It’s like a curb weight of 6700. Heavy reptile push it. Speed ​​for diving up to 4000 km per hour. Data gave for retraining in Nikolaev .
        3. +2
          31 March 2015 02: 24
          Dear rubin6286 и NEXUS, I hope you will not mind if I insert "my five kopecks" into your discussion.

          To aim the anti-ship missile at a target / ship or their group, it is necessary to observe this target at least the onboard radar of the carrier, and because: http://www.dpva.info/guide/guidephysics/length/distancetohorison/, then the range of the missile more than 500 km seems redundant. On the other hand, the AUG air wing includes such aircraft as the E-2 Hawkeye patrolling at a distance of 300-400 km from the ship and at an altitude of 10 km with the company, and on the deck there is a "meeting committee". As a result of the above, I think that an unnoticeable AUG attack is unlikely and will be accompanied by an indispensable hack with security aircraft and "chips and dale" that arrived in time, which in turn can have a very detrimental effect on the health of the "rocket carriers" and, as a result, on the outcome of the attack itself. Therefore, for these purposes, in my opinion, a universal aircraft is better suited, capable of equally tearing both ships and enemy aircraft and having a flight range not lower than "Carcasses" or the ability to refuel in the air.
          In general, the choice in favor of the Su-30SM and "BrahMos" - I approve hi
          1. 0
            31 March 2015 08: 06
            Quote: srelock
            As a result of the above, I think that an unnoticeable AUG attack is unlikely and will be accompanied by an indispensable hack with security aircraft and "chips and dales" that have arrived in time, which in turn can have a very detrimental effect on the health of the "rocket carriers" and, as a result, on the outcome of the attack itself.

            Well, our carcasses either do not take a walk then they will leave ... there will certainly be cover fighters from our side, the same A-100 at a distance, etc. ... so the big question is for whom the meeting will turn out as a big surprise at the approach.
            Quote: srelock
            Therefore, for these purposes, in my opinion, a universal aircraft is better suited, capable of equally tearing both ships and enemy aircraft and having a flight range not lower than "Carcasses" or the ability to refuel in the air.

            the idea is tempting, I don’t argue. But let's really look at things. Until technology has grown to such heights as to create a universal, highly specialized flying platform. Americans with F-35 have been tormented for 15 for years trying to cross a hedgehog with a rasp and so far there are some problems and revisions. And so such missile carriers as the TU-22 are still in demand
            Quote: srelock
            In general, the choice in favor of the Su-30SM and "BrahMos" - I approve

            Brahmos rocket is certainly serious ... but there is infa that in Russia they created a rocket better on the basis of the same Onyx. But at the same time, it does not bother us to use the fruits of the Russian-Idian tandem too. hi
            1. 0
              31 March 2015 14: 31
              Of course, you can fit both fighters and the A-100, but the first in any case needs a refueling tank, and the second, along with the bombers, is generally target number 1 for the enemy’s security team. I assume that a multifunctional aircraft can reduce the number of attacking groups and increase its survival due to the capabilities of the machines themselves and the difficulties with identifying priority targets.
              As for the F-35 and its versatility, these are purely American sexual difficulties for us, nothing to do with them. Tu-22s are still in demand, but the process is already underway, for the land operations they chose the Su-34, for the sea-based Su-30SM and as the Su-35 fighter. The entire trinity is multifunctional, capable of using the entire spectrum of TSAs and, with some degree of efficiency, replacing each other.
              1. 0
                31 March 2015 15: 36
                Quote: srelock
                I assume that a multifunctional aircraft can reduce the number of attacking groups and increase its survival due to the capabilities of the machines themselves and the difficulties with identifying priority targets.

                I’m saying that while technology is at such a level that it’s impossible to cross like a hedgehog with a rasp ... a little knowledge and a level is not enough. It’s easier and cheaper at this stage to make RCC with a range of 2-3 thousands than to invent a unified flying strike platform.
                And also, in the issue of anti-ship aircraft, consider, as an option, the creation of an attack UAV capable of carrying anti-ship missiles.
                1. 0
                  31 March 2015 16: 33
                  The Su-30/34/35 are multifunctional machines, the construction of which in modern realities can only be carried out on the basis of the "heavy integral" which the Su-27 was and no one else has mastered such a scheme in the world. For obvious reasons, EFKs and European handicrafts are not suitable for "pushing in something that is not crammed" will still not be possible, how many files do not erase. As for the missiles, I wrote there below that it is necessary to count.
          2. +4
            31 March 2015 10: 41
            Dear Shooter!

            If the determination of the coordinates of AOG is made by irradiating its radar carrier, then the suddenness of a single-machine strike can be forgotten. “Hokai” “sees” 450 km and as soon as it detects a target, directs airplanes of the long-range interception range onto it, electronic warfare and air defense systems are activated, their activity increases as the target (Tu-22M3) approaches the border of missile launch.
            Therefore, other methods are used to detect AUGs, the essence of which is to have a plane (Tu-22M3) detect a travel order (i.e., AUG) before entering its air defense zone and be able to use weapons, which for this should have a launch range of approximately 1200-1300km, not to mention all its other features. The later the enemy detects a launch, the less time he has for active opposition.
            I have already explained to some amateurs that the AUG, traveling to any part of the globe, is well aware of the potential enemy’s capabilities and never approaches the distance that makes it possible to destroy it with coastal missile systems, front-line and ground attack aircraft, using all types of reconnaissance data during the transition (both own and friendly countries).
            Needless to think about the fighter cover of bombers in flight to AUG. Not enough range. It is possible only after they launch a missile strike, at the exit.
            "Bramos" so far showed hypersound only in a dive and almost within the same limits as the X-22. The range is also about the same and perhaps that’s why the adoption of the missile for arming in Russia is delayed, but the corresponding work is underway.
            1. +1
              31 March 2015 11: 58
              Dear 6286 Ruby!
              In many ways, I agree with you ... But there is one point:
              Quote: rubin6286
              Needless to think about the fighter cover of bombers in flight to AUG. Not enough range.

              I will argue with you on this issue ... AUG, in order to work on targets on the ground, must come up to a distance at which its air wing will reach these very targets. Then in this case, this group will be reached by aviation based on airfields. ground-based fighters are better, more powerful, more agile and faster than any aircraft from the AUG air wing. Accordingly, the cover fighters will "reach" the AUG. At the same time, do not forget about the assault aircraft, which is also capable of carrying anti-ship missiles. This is the first scenario.
              Secondly, this is the destruction of the ACG in the ocean, far from any coast. But let me, besides the TU-22, is there anything else that can counteract such a grouping? After all, it is logical to assume that the attack of the same carcasses will be intensified by the opposition of, say, the order with Peter or Nakhimov , as well as the Premier League group. In other words, it will not be so easy for the AUG to fight off a massive raid, while fighting a warrant, which also has something to drown this group with.
              In the foreseeable future, the range of the RCC can grow so much that the same TARK or a group of bombers will launch these missiles without entering the detection zone. And this is not a distant future, but tomorrow. hi
              1. +2
                31 March 2015 13: 28
                Dear NEXUS!
                Military people do not like, and should not "guess at the coffee grounds."
                Warfare has long been a craft and in this area a tremendous experience has been gained in conducting combat operations on land, at sea and in the air. To accomplish the task, practically everything is known - the procedure for reconnaissance of the terrain, determining the directions of the main attack, the time of the beginning and end of the operation, the calculation of forces and means, the enemy’s capabilities, his own and his probable losses, etc. etc.
                I will not “discover America” if I say that ACG is not included in the potential of the first strike. For this there is an ICBM, strategic aviation and SSBNs. The fleet today does not conduct independent actions even in local conflicts. It provides the action of ground forces or supports the airborne landing tactical assault. The task of naval missile-carrying aviation and submarine forces in patrol areas in Soviet times was the timely detection (with the outbreak of hostilities - destruction) of the enemy’s ACG at a distance that precluded the possibility of using carrier-based aircraft across the territory of the USSR.
                Our “friends” and “partners” were well aware of this and counted on the use of carrier-based aircraft in the tactical zone only after the suppression of the enemy’s active resistance (i.e. us). For this, other means had to be used before the AAG approach (army and front-line aviation, land and sea-based air defense and missile defense, long-range artillery. When landing an amphibious assault before an AAG approach, a powerful strike group is concentrated in this area, which initially takes the destruction of protected objects (including the positions of the Republic of Kazakhstan, ammunition and fuel and lubricant depots, KP and aerodromes) for 1500 km in depth, in which case you can forget about fighter attacks and maneuverable air battles. the airborne assault and the AUG comes into action, which, if necessary, can use tactical nuclear weapons.
                Today, the versatility of the aircraft is largely determined by the capabilities of the on-board weapons system used. Maneuverable combat was different than in the skies of Korea or Vietnam. In my opinion, specialization is still better, but I do not insist on it.
                1. +1
                  31 March 2015 13: 54
                  Dear 6286 RUBY!
                  I don’t guess on the coffee grounds, but described one of the options for the development of events.
                  Quote: rubin6286
                  Our “friends” and “partners” were well aware of this and counted on the use of carrier-based aircraft in the tactical zone only after the suppression of the enemy’s active resistance (i.e. us). For this, before the AUG approach, other means had to be used (army and front-line aviation, TR and KR land, sea and air based, long-range artillery.

                  I was sure that you would touch on the issue of suppressing resistance before the AUG approach, but the fact is that we are considering a military conflict without the use of nuclear weapons, and by this reason, with what fright you will answer, the enemy will be able to suppress both coastal systems and layered air defense , Missile defense and finally our squadron of the same coastal zone?
                  After all, all this "suppression" will be met with opposition multiplied by the fact that all air defense systems and coastal complexes are based on the ground. At the same time, one must not forget that while the enemy will be engaged in suppressing defenses in a narrow sector of defense, from remote airfields, which do not get it, fighters and interceptors and bombers will rise, in addition to those that will be in the war zone.
                  Russia is not Yugoslavia and the term "suppress" is correct for Yugoslavia, but for us this is a very controversial issue. hi
            2. +6
              31 March 2015 13: 03
              Quote: rubin6286
              as the target approaches (Tu-22М3) to the border of missile launch.

              Dear rubin6286, as mentioned above, you piloted the Tu-22, but for some reason you allow yourself inaccurate wording. Missiles are launched not from the "launch border", but from the line. There are no "long-range interception aircraft", there is a BVP (combat air patrol). But this is so, by the way. But in fact, you have completely wrong messages. For example, no one ever intended to strike at AMG with single aircraft, not even a regiment! A long time ago, the options for inflicting the AMG defeat were calculated and played dozens of times on the "Ocean" simulator in the VMA (there are OPERATIONAL STANDARDS FOR ESTIMATING THE IMPACT ON GROUPS AND OBJECTS OF THE ENEMY: destruction, defeat, defeat, weakening, etc.). So, to defeat the AMG, an outfit of forces of at least mrad (60-75 aircraft) is required to provide groups of GDD, EW, IA, control the results of a strike, etc., and the number of aircraft in support groups, depending on specific conditions, is approximately twice number of cars in UG! In total, we have 180-200 aircraft. And at the same time, the probability of AMG destruction is only 0.25-0.35! Where are we going to gather such a group now? So you can only dream about strikes on AMG or read from science fiction theorists like Oleg Kaptsov.
              Another very important point. With the early, even before the start of the database (and this is exactly what will be), the deployment of AMG in the areas of combat destination, carrier-based aircraft will be relocated to coastal airfields: in the area of ​​responsibility of the Northern Fleet - Norwegian, in the Pacific Fleet - Japanese. The experience of the teachings shows this. And thus, it makes no sense to flush the "empty trough" at all.
              This question is very extensive and interesting. For 25 years I worked with him (among others) in the service, studied in the most detailed way at the Military Aviation Administration, participated several times in SKSHT, KShU on this topic both in the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet. And so it’s funny to me to read sometimes the arguments of lovers ...
              1. +5
                31 March 2015 19: 55
                Comrade Colonel!
                The audience of “VO”, judging by the comments, is mostly young people. Many of them are interested in aviation and are still just choosing a life path. I believe that certain information for them is better to state in a generally accessible form, replacing individual concepts and terms. The main thing is that you can not only read what is stated in the commentary, but also, as they say, "turn on the brain."
                We will leave the provisions of the Standards for “political and ideological strategists” specifying where the rout, destruction, weakening, etc.
                In fact, it was always about something else.
                Referring to the experience of the exercises, you said that “in advance, even before the start of the database (and this will be the case), the deployment of AMG to combat mission areas, carrier-based aircraft will be relocated to coastal airfields: in the area of ​​responsibility of the Northern Fleet - Norwegian, at Pacific Fleet - Japanese "and the aircraft carrier does not make sense to drown, because he is an "empty trough." You must have forgotten that carrier-based aircraft are flown to coastal aerodromes well in advance of the database to make up for possible losses. This, figuratively speaking, is the “second set”. In 1973, the "first set" flew to Israeli airfields and made up for their losses, and the "second" from the Mediterranean countries boarded the ship.
                I agree that this question is very extensive and interesting. Like you, I studied at the VA, during the period of my service I also repeatedly participated in the KShU, KShT and saw the difference between theory and practice.
                Kaptsov may be a science fiction, but who were you at KShT and the crews in the air?
                In general, my message was as follows:
                1. TU-22M3 is still a modern combat aircraft, but needs modernization.
                2. With the current armament, he cannot be a “killer of aircraft carriers”.
                3. New air-to-ship missiles should have such characteristics that would make it possible to disable an aircraft carrier even with a single machine.
                1. +1
                  31 March 2015 20: 00
                  2. With the current armament, he cannot be a “killer of aircraft carriers”.

                  And here on the forum they proved to me that rockets developed 30-40 years ago are so cool that they can compete with the most modern.


                  I will add that the Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, MiG-29, MiG-35, T-50 also cannot be a fighter for gaining superiority in the air, having the same medium-range B-B missiles in service 30-40 years ago. Shoot down weakly maneuvering targets like B-52.

                  Further, we can continue the analogy by shifting to the class of front-line bombers and attack aircraft.
                  1. 0
                    31 March 2015 21: 24
                    Deniz hi Continue?
                    http://topwar.ru/71663-kak-za-400-milliardov-postroit-samolet-kotoryy-ne-letaet.
                    html # comment-id-4286702
                    1. +1
                      31 March 2015 21: 26
                      Why continue?
                      1. 0
                        31 March 2015 21: 54
                        Well, if not what, then I will summarize:
                        Missiles AIM-120 and R-27 began to enter service with the beginning of the 90s.
                        Finding armed with missiles of these types older than 2000 is not realistic.
                        The new AIM-120D and RVV-MD / BD / SD missiles are only coming into service.
                        Do you agree with that? If not, then why.
                      2. +2
                        31 March 2015 22: 10
                        AIM-120 has several options produced in different years. The most recent of them are variants c4-c7. c7 began to enter service in 2006. There is another option D, but was not interested. It seems that in 2013 they wanted to put them into service.
                        R-27 was put into service in 1984, and in 1987 finalized to versions - E with increased range.
                        The main difference from the R-27 and AIM-120 of their GOS. It is active on an American rocket, which allows it, at the right time, when it reaches the permitted launch range, to drop target tracking and slap it off. The missile enters the target prolongation mode and flies. At the final section of the GOS missile, it includes its own radar and the target is enough.
                        R-27 with a passive seeker needs constant tracking of the fighter’s radar target before it hits the target.

                        I know about the RVV family of missiles, but I say, bring me the name of the military unit, where are they in service? Show a photo from combat aircraft?
                        Airplanes from the years 80-90 cannot be used because of the SLA.
                        I myself was at many airfields and did not see these missiles. On all available video meetings in neutral waters, our planes with missiles of the R-27 and R-73 family.
                        When new weapons come into the arsenal of the Russian army, all the media, especially the Star, will ring about it. I have not seen a single report in my entire life.
                        And then for new expensive missiles, appropriate storage conditions are needed - heated storage facilities. At the old airfields, this economy is not in a very healthy condition.
                        Yes, and I read that it was planned to install new managed TSAs only in 2016.
                      3. +2
                        April 1 2015 00: 18
                        Quote: DeniZ
                        AIM-120 has several options produced in different years. The most recent of them are variants c4-c7. c7 began to enter service in 2006. There is another option D, but was not interested. It seems that in 2013 they wanted to put them into service.
                        Variants of the R-27, depending on the year of manufacture, can also vary in characteristics (for example, as a result of other components), have different indices and modules, and differ greatly from those missiles that were 25 years ago. The Americans have exactly the same cart and their AIMs, well, never newer than our eRoks.
                        The main difference from the R-27 and AIM-120 of their GOS. It is active on an American rocket, which allows it, at the right time, when it reaches the permitted launch range, to drop target tracking and slap it off. The missile enters the target prolongation mode and flies. At the final section of the GOS missile, it includes its own radar and the target is enough.
                        R-27 with a passive seeker needs constant tracking of the fighter’s radar target before it hits the target.
                        AIM-120, just like all other missiles designed to hit targets at ranges that exclude their guidance "from under the wing", goes to the target using its own INS and control unit from the carrier, and only when the missile head itself captures the target, you can the idea of ​​spanking home. The R-27 has heads with IK GOS and AR GOS.
                        I know about the RVV family of missiles, but I say, bring me the name of the military unit, where are they in service? Show a photo from combat aircraft?
                        Airplanes from the years 80-90 cannot be used because of the SLA.
                        I myself was at many airfields and did not see these missiles. On all available video meetings in neutral waters, our planes with missiles of the R-27 and R-73 family.
                        What missiles do the Americans fly with? And what do they show at the holidays? For example, I didn’t even see the AIM-120D experimental ones, the AIM-9X saw experimental launches on video, CUDA-only mock-ups at the exhibition ... Can I now be told that they don’t have anything and the polymers are gone?
                        When new weapons come into the arsenal of the Russian army, all the media, especially the Star, will ring about it. I have not seen a single report in my entire life.
                        And then for new expensive missiles, appropriate storage conditions are needed - heated storage facilities. At the old airfields, this economy is not in a very healthy condition.
                        Yes, and I read that it was planned to install new managed TSAs only in 2016.
                        The media, the Star channel and the arrival of new types of weapons are not interconnected things. Do you know what storage conditions the new missiles have? You have not even seen them ...
                      4. +1
                        April 1 2015 00: 34
                        I would like to turn to secret minusculeters. Throwing unsigned slippers is a sign of severe irritation in a known place, arising solely due to the lack of clear arguments.
                      5. +2
                        April 1 2015 10: 05
                        The media, the Star channel and the arrival of new types of weapons are not interconnected things. Do you know what storage conditions the new missiles have? You have not even seen them ...

                        How do you know if I saw or not?
                      6. 0
                        April 2 2015 03: 02
                        Quote: DeniZ
                        Where are your RVV?
                        I did not see them in my eyes, although it used to be at different airfields.
                        http://topwar.ru/71663-kak-za-400-milliardov-postroit-samolet-kotoryy-ne-letaet.

                        html # comment-id-4286256
                        ...
                        Quote: DeniZ
                        How do you know if I saw or not?

                        Of course, you should know better if you saw them or whether you saw them ... The riddle however ...
                      7. 0
                        April 14 2015 00: 38
                        "You haven't even seen them ..." - because they are NOT! therefore no one saw. The production of new ones was in Urkain, for obvious reasons it rotted. They are building a plant, but! by the age of 16 and that's not a fact
                      8. +2
                        April 1 2015 11: 15
                        I know about the RVV family of missiles, but I say, bring me the name of the military unit, where are they in service?
                        --------------------------------------------
                        Doesn't it seem to you that the question itself is incorrect? After all, those who have such information will not throw it on the Internet. Personally, I read that ed. 170-1 was produced and is in parts. Although, I am sure there are not many
                      9. 0
                        April 1 2015 11: 30
                        Wouldn't it be difficult to find a link about this?
                      10. +1
                        April 1 2015 15: 18
                        Bogatsky's article in Vympel and comments on it.
                        There is still a curious discussion on airbase.
                        http://forums.airbase.ru/2004/05/t26877,5--proizvodstvo-urvv-na-territorii-rf.ht
                        ml
                        Balancer.Ru »Forums» Old »Airbase Forums» Aircraft »Airborne Air Force Production in the Russian Federation?
                        ABOUT! But this is especially for "experts" who assure that there is no R-77 in the RF Air Force and is not expected. By the way, if RVVshnoe production in Fryazino is loaded with only one state defense order to the eyeballs, then these are very decent volumes
                        The discussion itself - for 2011
                      11. 0
                        April 1 2015 16: 07
                        Nevertheless, data confirming that they entered the military unit are missing. This topic discussions in 2011 and stopped.
                        When the missiles are in service they don’t hide them, but try to show the world that who is proud and who is afraid. For 4 years they would have been shown a hundred times, had they been in service.

                        I will be glad to make a mistake and see the material with a refutation. I will really be happy about it!
                      12. 0
                        April 1 2015 17: 10
                        In addition, not a word about this:
                        http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1021910.html

                        And not so long ago filmed reports:

                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cry_I6c1ioQ&list=FLstQ8mjkWcJ1Mxi0mEnAtgQ&index=1

                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzxcnIaSgqY&list=FLstQ8mjkWcJ1Mxi0mEnAtgQ&index=2

                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=124&v=ouVYXKF35SM
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttAItlY9HtQ
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYrc6_AlrpU
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXcEho5oZoM
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhMUaLke4Y
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhCzqPcsfZI

                        It can be brought to infinity.
                2. +2
                  April 1 2015 09: 36
                  Quote: rubin6286
                  and you on KShT and crews in the air were who?


                  We tried to be realistic. I studied at the VMA in the mid-late 80s, at the peak of the confrontation with the United States, we wanted to look like "eagles" at the "Ocean" rallies and during exercises, of course, but the computer gave objective results. And the aforementioned probability of destroying the AMG could not be increased by any tricks of the staff and commanding thoughts.
                  I fully agree with your first two conclusions, but the third
                  Quote: rubin6286

                  3. New air-to-ship missiles should have such characteristics that would make it possible to disable an aircraft carrier even with a single machine.
                  so far from the realm of fiction. drinks
            3. 0
              31 March 2015 16: 17
              Detection and attack of moving targets beyond the horizon is possible if someone sees this target, it can be: reconnaissance aircraft, UAV, ship, aircraft, submarine, satellite, long-range coastal ZGRLS, etc. and can transmit data to a carrier / rocket. The "eyes" themselves must be in line of sight with the target (except for ZGRLS) and it does not matter which method of detection / guidance is used passive or active. You can also use target data with a small time delay for specific missiles of the P-700/800 type, but someone has to provide this data anyway. Therefore, not having accurate and fresh information about the target from third-party means, there is no sense with missiles with a range of more than 500 km, tk. the carrier himself will have to perform the functions of reconnaissance / additional reconnaissance and control center and get into the air defense zone of the AUG.
              That is your option
              Therefore, other methods are used to detect AUGs, the essence of which is to have a plane (Tu-22M3) detect a travel order (i.e., AUG) before entering its air defense zone and be able to use weapons, which for this should have a launch range of approximately 1200-1300km, not to mention all its other features. The later the enemy discovers the launch, the less time he has to actively counter
              rolls only if there is a third-party control unit, and screwed to the AUG on a permanent basis so as not to burn off the attack time, and since we don’t have such an opportunity now, the way out is seen in the use of aircraft capable of fighting ships with entry into the far air defense zone.
              As for the missiles, everything is not so simple here either. If we are talking about hypersonic horizontal flight> 5M, then it is possible only at high altitudes ~ 20 km, which in turn allows detecting such a rocket ~ 500 km earlier. At a low altitude of ~ 10m, the maximum achievable speeds are ~ 2-3M on a short section and ~ 1-2M on the march, but the detection range is ~ 30 km, respectively, which and in which combinations it is better to choose, must be considered.
              1. James Cameron
                +1
                31 March 2015 22: 36
                As far as I know, the RTR satellite and target designation system (14-138, 14-145, 14-139 satellites) is currently operating - in conjunction with the X-32 (5M, 1000km range) rocket, an effective pair is being obtained.
                1. +2
                  April 1 2015 01: 40
                  Quote: James Cameron
                  As far as I know, the RTR satellite and target designation system (14-138, 14-145, 14-139 satellites) is currently operating - in conjunction with the X-32 (5M, 1000km range) rocket, an effective pair is being obtained.

                  There isn’t such a rocket in the arsenal of Russia, how many years they have been trying to take it and haven’t accepted it since 2005 or 2008, it should be in service.
                2. 0
                  April 1 2015 01: 51
                  Quote: James Cameron
                  As far as I know, the RTR satellite and target designation system (14-138, 14-145, 14-139 satellites) is currently operating - in conjunction with the X-32 (5M, 1000km range) rocket, an effective pair is being obtained.

                  If the info about these satellites is correct (http://www.aspos.mcc.rsa.ru/pls/apex/aspos_okp_portal.wvp_publications_doc.down
                  load? p_publication_id = 390 page 22), then a dozen pieces (passive RTR) should be enough to cover all the possible locations for American ships. In general, wonderful, there will be a reliable and all-weather means of control of the oceans. You can also think about missiles with a greater range, so that you can send directly from the continent from the mines fellow
              2. 0
                31 March 2015 23: 06
                You are right in many respects, but will ramjet only operate on 20 km? Does he have enough air ?.
                Fighters have a ceiling of about 20 km, the legendary scouts get to 26 km. At such heights, in order to create sufficient lift in rarefied air, a speed of 3 Mach (three speeds of sound) must be developed. At the same time, the engines breathe to the limit, and the housing elements are heated above 300 ° C from air friction.
                The whole balance is that hypersonic flight should take place at an altitude of about 10 km.
                1. +1
                  April 1 2015 03: 28
                  If we are talking about ramjet engine, then it is definitely more efficient than turbojet engine and turbojet engine at speeds higher than 3M, so I don’t see any particular problems here.
                  If we need hypersonic sound of 5M or more, then the scramjet, rocket engine, solid propellant rocket engine.
                  If we want to get 6M at an altitude of 10km, then this is more than 1500 ° C for a period of more than 8 minutes with a flight range of 1000km and they will find this missile with ~ 400km, which will give the enemy 3 minutes to make a decision, write a will, or whatever in such a case, it’s necessary, and I can’t imagine from what it is possible to make a fairly light rocket so that it would not boom in 8 minutes in an open-hearth furnace and at appropriate loads. If we take the speed of a 3M rocket at sea level, then the temperature will be about 550 ° C, and the time from detection to contact with a target of just over 30 seconds. Which option will we choose?
                  In general, of course, yes, the faster, farther and lower a rocket flies, the better for Us and the worse for them. bully
      2. James Cameron
        0
        30 March 2015 18: 55
        It turns out that the development of the X-32 (hypersound, range of 1000 km) is more than justified!
    2. +1
      30 March 2015 12: 07
      Quote: rubin6286
      at a range of about 1200-1300 km with rocket speeds of 4-5M

      Well, the X-32 will fly 1000 km. Without entering the air defense zone will be able to hit targets
  14. sazhka4
    +4
    30 March 2015 12: 28
    And where is the "photo" supposedly taken ?? To reprint "Mitya's tales" from "Zvezda" .. "Valor" is not great.
  15. +1
    30 March 2015 15: 42
    A strange publication containing too much, to put it mildly, "unverified information". When listing the past merits and achievements of domestic naval aviation, for some unknown reason, its current state is absolutely not shown. The impression is that the author "pulled" loud, often frankly invented or embellished stories from not always reliable sources.
    1. 0
      30 March 2015 17: 04
      A strange publication containing too much, to put it mildly, "unverified information". When listing the past merits and achievements of domestic naval aviation, for some unknown reason, its current state is absolutely not shown. The impression is that the author "pulled" loud, often frankly invented or embellished stories from not always reliable sources.

      So not only did the author write an article. He took information from the TV channel Zvezda, which was not seen in any serious comparison or analysis of the TTD. So, a military shirportreb for a casual.
  16. +1
    30 March 2015 16: 32
    The results of the air reconnaissance were excellent. Russian Su-24MR reconnaissance aircraft made several calls to the aircraft carrier, photographing it from the air. The panic on board the ship was recorded in the pictures: the sailors even hastily chopped the hoses that connected the aircraft carrier to the supply tanker, which pumped fuel on board.

    It's funny!

    How funny it was to read about the incident with Donald Cook wink

    Panic, reports on dismissals ... Still would be attributed to suicide.

    A smile comes even more from this:
    According to the Zvezda TV channel, a rocket is able to withstand a line of 20-mm Vulkan-Falanks anti-aircraft artillery system, a single AIM-7 Sparrow missile or 2-3 AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.



    The feeling is that all the flights by our aircraft over the aircraft carriers is our merit, and not just that they are not simply shot down.
    There is no feat and heroism. Neutral waters are neutral for everyone. I want to treat, I want not.
    1. -1
      30 March 2015 16: 42
      Quote: DeniZ
      It's funny!

      How funny it was to read about the incident with Donald Cook

      Panic, reports on dismissals ... Still would be attributed to suicide.

      I also laughed a lot about how Putin responded about this incident. laughing There were no suicides, but the mass going ashore due to the "unexpected emptying of the intestines" from the psychological trauma experienced was confirmed by the first person of the state.
      NOW LAUGH, DEAR. laughing hiStriped flag in your hands
      1. sazhka4
        +1
        April 1 2015 10: 34
        Quote: NEXUS
        I also laughed a lot about how Putin responded about this incident.

        You laughed "after". it is "possible" that at this moment they "crap" I did not see any confirmation. Bullshit, and nothing more. I'm sorry.
    2. -3
      30 March 2015 16: 47
      Quote: DeniZ

      The feeling is that all the flights by our aircraft over the aircraft carriers is our merit, and not just that they are not simply shot down.
      There is no feat and heroism. Neutral waters are neutral for everyone. I want to treat, I want not.

      but remind me since when the Black Sea is neutral waters ... I am especially interested in the water area of ​​the Crimea. With regards to "they just do not shoot down", because they worked on the Kuk land-based electronic warfare Monolith.
    3. 0
      April 2 2015 01: 06
      Since there is the possibility of contact with the US Navy, it is necessary to crush them more often, by airplanes, electronic warfare, etc., so that they fantasize less and are closer to reality. And then Iraq, Libya and so forth. Let them understand that in addition to beating children, you can run into a scribe
  17. +4
    30 March 2015 16: 43
    Quote: NEXUS
    Quote: DeniZ
    It's funny!

    How funny it was to read about the incident with Donald Cook

    Panic, reports on dismissals ... Still would be attributed to suicide.

    I also laughed a lot about how Putin responded about this incident. laughing There were no suicides, but the mass going ashore due to the "unexpected emptying of the intestines" from the psychological trauma experienced was confirmed by the first person of the state.
    NOW LAUGH, DEAR. laughing hiStriped flag in your hands

    Why is the military traumatized, huh? Not a kindergarten.

    In Iraq, the situation was much more serious when they fought. Fairy tales.

    Moreover, the Su-24 flew there without weapons. Simple passages, as they like to do on flights along taxiways or stripes. After the first pass, they could also joke and release a line next to the plane. Moreover, maritime law prohibits low-altitude passage over ships.



    1. -4
      30 March 2015 16: 50
      Quote: DeniZ
      Why is the military traumatized, huh? Not a kindergarten.
      In Iraq, the situation was much more serious when they fought. Fairy tales.

      you frank stupidity then do not write that. THERE IS CONFIRMATION OF THE FIRST PERSON OF THE STATE ABOUT THIS INCIDENT AND ABOUT THE MASS DEPARTURE OF SEAMERS FROM A COOK AFTER IT.
    2. -3
      30 March 2015 16: 54
      Quote: DeniZ

      Moreover, the Su-24 flew there without weapons. Simple passages, as they like to do on flights along taxiways or stripes. After the first pass, they could also joke and release a line next to the plane. Moreover, maritime law prohibits low-altitude passage over ships.

      the ground-based electronic warfare system MONOLITH worked on Kuku, so they could not start up something there. Besides, they saw that they were at gunpoint "BASTIONS" ... They would try to shoot
      1. +2
        30 March 2015 16: 55
        Quote: NEXUS
        Quote: DeniZ

        Moreover, the Su-24 flew there without weapons. Simple passages, as they like to do on flights along taxiways or stripes. After the first pass, they could also joke and release a line next to the plane. Moreover, maritime law prohibits low-altitude passage over ships.

        the ground-based electronic warfare system MONOLITH worked on Kuku, so they could not start up something there. Besides, they saw that they were at gunpoint "BASTIONS" ... They would try to shoot

        Did the ship commander tell you this? How do you know what worked and what didn’t?
        I would understand a foreign TV would show an interview with the crew, would show reports, trials of deserters. And I’m not used to taking a word.
        1. -2
          30 March 2015 16: 58
          Quote: DeniZ
          Did the ship commander tell you this? How do you know what worked and what didn’t?

          Yes, no, not the commander of the ship, take it higher ... Putin said that. Will you have enough?
          In the film CRIMEA, THE WAY TO THE MOTHERLAND! Everything is accessible stated by the president of Russia hi
  18. +3
    30 March 2015 16: 59
    Quote: NEXUS
    Quote: DeniZ
    Did the ship commander tell you this? How do you know what worked and what didn’t?

    Yes, no, not the commander of the ship, take it higher ... Putin said that. Will you have enough?


    No.
    And if I'm not mistaken, then in Soviet times one Tu-22 division stood out for one AUG. Well, maybe a person flying on them will say what?
    1. +2
      30 March 2015 17: 01
      Quote: DeniZ
      No.

      I don’t see the point to continue the discussion ... all the best to you.
      1. -1
        30 March 2015 17: 05
        And all the best to you!
  19. +2
    30 March 2015 17: 05
    And these treshki will never be modernized. Air Base Vozdvizhenka Primorye is about 18 units. And never fly, cut into scrap
    1. +2
      30 March 2015 17: 07
      I think no. This is the skeleton of aircraft, without blocks, aggregates, wiring, engines. Already gutted for scrapping. Pure glider and landing gear.
    2. +2
      30 March 2015 18: 27
      A sad sight. Once, in his lieutenant years as a starter in Akhtubinsk, he served both "twos" and "troikas". In 1987 he handed over the oldest "troika" in the Soviet Air Force to a re-base in Belaya Tserkov. They went over to the repair of NK-25, but there were no stands for them. Someone's clever head came up with the idea of ​​using Tu-22M3 instead of a stand. After repairs, roll in the engines there, run the engine race ... then roll out ... etc. How many aircraft engines were there ...
  20. +2
    30 March 2015 17: 54
    Good afternoon. Maybe I'm getting old. And I don’t remember something, but in 1986 Tu-16s from the guards garrison flew to Turkey, but not Tu-22m. I served in the neighboring, cheerful garrison. A telegram was read to us on this occasion, as if it was a disgrace. There may of course be a legend, but the guys the pilots were telling about the navigator’s mistake. The malfunction was incorrect. Turkey jumped, the Greeks took pictures, the Bulgarians helped. fired and not awarded. And this story who just does not tell how about valor ....
  21. +2
    30 March 2015 18: 07
    The most beautiful plane of all time!
    1. +1
      30 March 2015 18: 15
      Quote: Budilnik
      The most beautiful plane of all time!

      Well, this is debatable ... for me, all Soviet and Russian planes are impeccably beautiful ... but I think the elder brother of the TU-160 looks no worse than that. good
  22. 0
    30 March 2015 18: 43
    that's interesting. In my opinion, in the mid-sixties, the Lavochkin Design Bureau made a project for a heavy fighter, which, in essence, was a TU-22 missile carrier armed with 4 long-range (at the time) missiles and radar, with an aperture and power inaccessible to fighters of that time. A little off topic but nonetheless. In principle, what prevents repeating the same thing on the Tu-22? But adjusted for modern conditions .... An all-angle radar, a long-range missile system (of the R-33 type), but at short range - something like the 9M330 SAM. + On-board computer-controlled gun mount and electronic warfare system.
    It’s just that I personally have big doubts that the pilot of the 5th generation fighter will be able to 100% realize the capabilities of an all-terrain radar. And here are a couple of operators and please, you can implement anything you want up to all-perspective launches ... Yes, and antenna apertures, I think they will allow you to observe targets at significant distances ....
    1. FID
      +1
      30 March 2015 18: 52
      Quote: tchoni
      + on-board computer-controlled gun mount and electronic warfare system

      So it stands on Fire, although ABSU-145 + PNK can hardly be called a computer in the current sense of the word ...
  23. +1
    30 March 2015 18: 44
    One of the best aircraft Markov Dmitry Sergeevich (1905-1992), a Soviet aircraft designer ..
    D.S. Markov was awarded the title Hero of Socialist Labor, Honored Worker of Science and Technology. Three times laureate of the USSR State Prize, laureate of the Lenin Prize, was awarded three orders of Lenin, two orders of the Red Banner of Labor, two orders of World War II (1st and 2nd degree), and medals.
    I saw him several times in Akhtubinsk. It was already hard for him ... but always, in any heat, he was wearing a jacket and tie ... and wore a star of the Hero of Socialist Labor ... in his breast pocket of his jacket .. dressed in special cases

    Milestone for Markov was the creation of a multi-mode carrier rocket carrier bomber Tu-22M, one of the best combat aircraft of the late twentieth century. Dmitry Sergeyevich devoted the last 25 years of his life to this aircraft, its development and refinement.
  24. +2
    30 March 2015 18: 47
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Colonel
    Not only 924 Mrap, but the entire MPA (or rather, what is left of it) was transmitted YES.

    This is exactly what I wanted to say hi however dear FID insists that Tu-22М3 924 Mrap at the airport of Deer (pictured) are still part of Navy Aviation request

    Heaped up. (in the picture) what
    1. +1
      31 March 2015 05: 38
      Quote: Radikal
      Heaped up. (in the picture)

      Apparently, these Tu-22M3s in Olenya are in "storage" or are awaiting repair.
  25. 0
    31 March 2015 07: 07
    Who is tormented by nostalgia for the Tu-22, you can download an amateur video:

    http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1184095
    http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2774462

    If there is a poor download speed, tap in PM, I will stand for distribution.

    Here is a smaller volume:
    http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1228369
  26. +1
    31 March 2015 09: 29
    The plane is beautiful. There is swiftness even externally. Aesthetic, if you can say. Although the development has been several decades.
  27. 0
    31 March 2015 11: 33
    Beautiful and deadly bird
  28. 0
    April 2 2015 00: 53
    And the Americans removed their F-111 from service and calmed down ....
  29. -1
    9 October 2023 12: 52
    There is a fable about the Sea of ​​Japan of clear water. Firstly, there are no twin turrets on the Tu-22M3 (they are, for example, on the Tu-16), so ours simply have nothing to turn, and secondly, strategic aviation always works under the cover of fighters, for which reason a regiment of escort fighters has always been stationed at our base, which are not they will not allow any weapons demonstrators near the strategists, that is, again, pure fiction. I served in Vozdvizhenka and the Sea of ​​Japan was the area of ​​responsibility of the missile carriers (Tu-22M3) of my regiment, that is, it was we who shepherded the aircraft carrier group of the 7th American Fleet based in Okinawa, naturally we knew where it was and that it was therefore a pun about “difficult was to be found in the shadow of the islands" brings nothing but a smile.