Military Review

How does the winner of the Tu-160

68



Talking about the "bomber of the future" PAK DA, the media often use images of an airplane of fantastic outlines: with a very wide flat fuselage, retractable wings and wide-spread keels. There are no real images of PAK DA in the public domain - the plane is in the project, and that one is deeply classified - and not everyone knows that the pictures of the “plane of the future” depict the promising T-4MS missile carrier, developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau in the early 70s, writes “Weapon Russia ". Despite the fact that Sukhoi's development won the competition announced by the Air Force, the famous Tu-160, a competitor's car from the Tupolev Design Bureau, went into production for various reasons.
"Weaving"

The predecessor of the T-4MS was simply the T-4 (product 100 or "weaving"), a supersonic strike and reconnaissance missile carrier designed to search for and destroy aircraft carrier groups. The plane turned out to be fantastic: a titanium body, new control principles, the latest electronics ... Some 4 inventions were used in the T-600.

The cruising speed of the "hundred" was under 3000 km / h, so in supersonic mode the crew flew blindly - after takeoff, the nose cone was set to a horizontal position and covered the cockpit canopy, the glass of which would inevitably melt at this speed. Just in case, the commander had a periscope, but it was of little use.

The first prototype took off on August 22, 1972. The tests were successful, the military ordered 250 aircraft, but after 10 successful flights, the project was closed. There were several reasons for this. At that time, the Sukhoi Design Bureau was engaged in the T-10 heavy fighter - it later turned out to be the magnificent Su-27 - and the government decided not to scatter its forces. The Tushinsky machine-building plant, which is basic for the design bureau, would not have pulled the serial production of the innovative missile carrier, and the Kazan aircraft plant supposed for this was not transferred to Sukhoi.

When the Council of Ministers began to prepare a decree on the production of T-4 in Kazan, Pavel Sukhoi's main competitor, Andrei Tupolev, realized that he was losing the serial enterprise where his Tu-22 was produced ... And he made every effort to prevent this from happening. In particular, he proposed setting up production of the Tu-22M modification in Kazan - for this, it was allegedly enough to only slightly redesign production. And although the output turned out to be a completely new plane, the Kazan plant remained with Tupolev.

Because of the titanium case, the T-4 turned out to be very expensive and even the KB know-how to reduce metal consumption in production and welding could not convince industrialists and economists. They quite rightly judged that it is one thing to apply advanced developments in pilot production, and to introduce them at another plant during in-line assembly is quite another.

In addition, in 1969, the Air Force changed the requirements for the performance characteristics of the missile carrier and the "hundred" project already created by that time did not meet them. In 1976 the minister aviation industry Peter Dementyev signed an order to close the T-4 project and transfer all developments on it to the Tupolev Design Bureau for the creation of the Tu-160. The only copy of the "hundred" was sent to the Air Force Museum in Monino, and the rising fairing received a Tu-144 - albeit with windows. Fortunately, the cruising speed of the first stories passenger "supersonic" was not so high - "only" 2300 km / h.

"Two hundred"


Having failed with the "aircraft carrier killer", the Sukhoi Design Bureau reworked the project to participate in the competition for a strategic bomber. This is how the T-4MS (modernized strategic) was born. Along the edges of the triangular fuselage, small wings of variable sweep appeared, the keel bifurcated, the engines in the underwing gondolas shifted back, making room for weapons. According to the project, the aircraft carried 24 X-2000 ballistic missiles or four large X-45 cruise missiles in the internal compartments and on the external sling in special containers that improved aerodynamics at supersonic speeds. The T-4MS received the code “product 200” for its take-off weight, which was close to 200 tons.

Tests of the model in a wind tunnel showed that the "two hundred" has fantastic aerodynamics: 17,5 at subsonic speeds and 7,3 at Mach 3. The small area of ​​the rotary wing consoles and the rigid center plane made it possible to fly at high supersonic sound near the ground. The aircraft made a great impression on the military - in addition to aerodynamics, they were seduced by the speed, three times higher than the sound speed, and low radar signature. By all accounts, the T-4MS was a "breakthrough aircraft" that existing and future air defense systems could not intercept.

At the end of the meeting dedicated to the results of the competition for the development of a strategic bomber, the Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Air Force, Air Marshal Pavel Kutakhov spoke: “You know, let's decide this way. Yes, the design of the Sukhoi Design Bureau is better, we gave it its due, but it has already got involved in the development of the Su-27 fighter, which we really, really need. Therefore, we will make such a decision: we admit that the winner of the competition is the Sukhoi Design Bureau and we will oblige to transfer all materials to the Tupolev Design Bureau so that it can carry out further work ... "

By that time, the Tupolev firm was already making the Tu-160 and abandoned Sukhoi's developments. However, the revolutionary solutions "weave" and "two hundred" eventually appeared in the Tu-160, Su-27, MiG-29 and aircraft of the XXI century.










T-4 strike bomber bomber
Author:
Originator:
http://rg.ru/2016/02/16/pobeditel-tu-160.html#/15964_932dec82/1/
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 27 February 2016 07: 05 New
    18
    Hmm ... what Undercover games and confrontations between competitors even in one country do not always lead to the appearance of the best, and sometimes the result is a rejection of the best in favor of the good. Who benefited from this - shows the time ...
    Although history does not know the subjunctive mood.
    Now it is fashionable to say, they say, that was the time ... Nonsense. At all times there were people with their pride, their ambitions, their love for money and goods. But they were only concerned about their own interests, not the interests of the country. Therefore, the "weaving" was out of work. Now they will say, like, TU-160 is also not bad. But this is not an excuse, because the T-4 was better ... hi
    1. Civil
      Civil 27 February 2016 09: 31 New
      +7
      It is made of a titanium alloy, because of the price, including not passed (.
      1. prosto_rgb
        prosto_rgb 28 February 2016 02: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: Civil
        It is made of a titanium alloy, because of the price, including not passed (.

        On the submarine, the titanium was somehow scraped together, and the Tu-160 was not deprived of it
    2. Tambov Wolf
      Tambov Wolf 27 February 2016 11: 15 New
      10
      And remember the latest missile carrier M-50, which was at the parade and with one stroke of the pen sent Zhrushchov into oblivion. But at that time it was something that had no analogues in technology and materials.
      1. avia1991
        avia1991 28 February 2016 00: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: Tambov Wolf
        at that time, it was something that had no analogues in technology and materials.

        At that time, the industry could not really ensure the production of the necessary radio-electronic equipment. The plane was significantly ahead of its time, and that was what served it badly: it was TOO complex, the control system was very complex (technically), and it was difficult to pilot it: the crew was supposed to be only two people .. remember when such crews began to appear on civilian ships ? Relatively recently. And Myasishchev created a similar machine more than 50 years ago, when the "electronics" weighed an order of magnitude more, and "thought" thousands of times slower ..
        There were also subjective reasons - but there were enough objective ones AT THAT MOMENT. Another question: why was the development itself "thrown into the trash" ?! After 20-30 years, it was quite possible to realize!
    3. max702
      max702 27 February 2016 11: 37 New
      +6
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Hmm ... Covert games and confrontations between competitors even in one country do not always lead to the emergence of the best, and sometimes the result is a rejection of the best in favor of the good

      Everything is true, there are many examples, Tupolev crushed by an authority like Sukhoi never made bombers and they were led to it .. For the money, there is generally a state sabotage, ready for the production of a T-4 with all the drawings, equipment with technological maps, put under the cloth, and Tupolev was given money Tu-160 amounts there, to put it mildly, astronomical somewhere I read that they spent less for all 10 years of the Afghan war .. In the USSR, corruption was successfully replaced by undercover fuss and lobbying of enterprises, the brightest example of how the Mil Design Bureau ate the most promising KA-50 by using MO MI-28 which after 30 years has not been brought to mind! Moreover, they saw a similar excuse - those Kamov never made helicopters for the landowners, and even more so a revolutionary machine with one pilot, and the production capacity, as in the case of the "hundred", the Kamovites do not have a match for Milevksim. during the tests of the KA-50, he beat Milevtsev on all fronts, and this also applied to other Kamov helicopters, the same KA-29, despite the colossal opposition, Mil was tested in Afghanistan and showed excellent results .. BUT .. as always, everything was decided in high offices. A similar situation, but with a slightly different outcome, we see in the history of the MiG-29 and SU-27, if the SU-27 turned out to be the most magnificent family of the world's best cars, then nothing good came out of the MiG-29! Yes, the plane is interesting, but it took 20 years to build the engine for it! And then only on the MiG-35 (which is not yet alive) should the specified indicators be achieved, it turned out an aerobatic plane, not a soldier plane .. All conflicts have confirmed this, the inherent short-range problem nullified all the ideas in this aircraft, the mythical cheapness in comparison with the SU-27, it turned out to be a fake, and as it turned out during the entire operational cycle, the MiG-29 is more expensive than the SU-27, and this is with a lower combat effectiveness .. So the question is whether it was necessary to throw out colossal funds (the account goes to hundreds of billions \ dollar) for stillborn projects such as MiG-29 and MI-28? You say they are there and they are performing the tasks assigned! Sure! But the fact remains, look as an indicator, a well-known example of the same assortment in T-64, T-72, T-80 tanks can serve as an indicator .. Here you produce ONE SU-27 and how much money has been saved? One equipment, one parts, one training for pilots and technicians .. Think how much public money will be saved on this in decades? Despite the fact that they perform the same tasks! No need to play with words that one is for conquering in the air, and the other is frontline .. One hell is the same job and those and others will do it, although the Su-27 did it better ..
      1. tomket
        tomket 28 February 2016 00: 30 New
        0
        Quote: max702
        All conflicts have confirmed this, the inborn short-range problem has nullified all ideas in this plane,

        In fact, the MiG-29 initially did not have high range requirements. TTX were set for the FRONT fighter, and not for the HEAVY! In addition, after the tests it turned out that the MiG-29 and Su-27 were not kept in range from the declared ones, only the MiG-29 concept allowed to see it through fingers, but the situation had to be corrected on the Su-27. In general, with the calculation of folk remedies, you fell into explicit Pharisaism. For example, in your words, the USSR Ministry of Defense would have taken and left the T-64 in service. And what would become in the end? Torn to shreds as in Ukraine? In addition, at the moment it is Sukhoi Design Bureau that has fallen into obvious cognitive dissonance, releasing several modifications of the same Su-27 for the Russian Air Force, which in fact perform the same tasks. Question Nakoy us the same Su in different ways? so do not carry the blizzard.
      2. avia1991
        avia1991 28 February 2016 00: 34 New
        -2
        Quote: max702
        One hell is the same job

        The deepest error ..
        If you talk like that, then there was no need to invent both the Yak-3 and La-5 - they would build further the Po-2, what difference does it make - it flies anyway! And the budget savings are enormous! wassat
        Forgive me, of course, but being a person infinitely far from the army - only such a person can write
        Quote: max702
        a famous example can serve as an indicator the same raznosortitsy in tanks T-64, T-72, T-80 .. Here, the same issue ONE SU-27 and how much money is saved? One equipment, one spare part, one training for pilots and technicians ..
        - and so, being so far from understanding the strategy for the development of the Armed Forces, and the principles of maintaining their combat effectiveness, you should not go out with such an "analysis" ... you only present yourself as an amateur, and nothing more.
      3. Litsvin
        Litsvin 28 February 2016 02: 00 New
        +4
        Max702, right. And so it was. Well, also, such a behind-the-scenes struggle could be justified in the "decaying West", where the battle was not "for Stalin's prizes and purely symbolic sums in a country where there was no private property," but for quite specific government contracts with amounts of tens of billions dollars.

        And remember, how the famous attack aircraft "Su-6" was ruined to please the Ilyushin "Il-2". After all, for the "Su-6", which remained in a pair of experimental copies, Sukhoi received a prize from Stalin. Not for a combat aircraft put on the assembly line, but for an experienced experimental aircraft !!! Stalin personally wrote on the reports on the Su-6: "This plane urgently needs to be finalized and tested at the front." Unfortunately, despite this resolution and thanks to the "well-wishers", the Su-6 was "forgotten" and "left for the future." Although the SU-6 was twice as good as the IL-2 in terms of its overall combat characteristics, it also excelled in production technology and LIFE. How many lives of the pilots could have been saved if even by the end of 1942 the production of the Su-6 attack aircraft had begun instead of the Il-2, which, no doubt, was also a good machine and would have endured the first year of the war. Unfortunately, this did not happen. The result is obvious - it is enough to look at the number of Il-2 produced (if we assume that the Il-10 is a deeply modernized version of the Il-2, which does not correspond to reality, then in terms of the number of produced machines it is in first place in the world, surpassing even German fighter "Me-109") and the number lost in battles. The numbers of losses are unjustifiably large, even despite the fact that the Il-2 is an attack aircraft that must "walk over the heads of the enemy." And these losses are connected precisely with those constructive flaws of the Il-2 (not to be confused with the short-term absence of the second crew member on the first series), which the Su-6 did not have.

        Also about "konkuretnov", as you rightly said - MiG-29 and Su-27. My school friend, a former pilot (after school I went to the navy, and he went to aviation), who flew on many types of aircraft about the MiG-29 said something like this - "it's like comparing a sparrow with a hawk, like that and that bird." One Su-27 is capable of replacing three Miga-29s in battle. Hence the question, why was the people's money spent in the USSR on the creation and production of a "cheap" (as official propaganda says) front-line fighter, if it is deliberately worthless ??? And what does it mean cheap, it is not cheap at all.
        The same picture is for Mi-28 and Ka-50/52. Why start up people's money for the release of a knowingly losing helicopter? To compare the combat capabilities of the Mi-28 and the Ka-52 is like comparing a Zaporozhets with a Mercedes. That's it, it's time to understand that the glory of the Mi-24 will not go to his granddaughter Mi-28. Then why release it, it is better to make "Ka-52" at these production facilities.
        And such examples of sloppiness, bordering on sabotage, in fact, are many, we only considered the most visible examples ...
        1. Wheel
          Wheel 28 February 2016 03: 21 New
          +3
          Quote: Litsvin
          And remember, how the famous attack aircraft "Su-6" was ruined to please the Ilyushin "Il-2". After all, for the Su-6, which remained in a couple of experimental copies, Sukhoi received a prize from Stalin. Not for a combat aircraft put on the assembly line, but for an experienced experimental aircraft !!!

          Not so simple...
          No doubt, a good Su-6 aircraft, perhaps even a beautiful one, as well as the Polikarpov I-185 is the best fighter developed during the war (Polikarpov was also awarded the Stalin Prize for it).
          However, the trouble is that for these aircraft there were no serial engines.
          To deploy the M-71 production during the war is a suicidal project, which, in fact, did not go ...
          1. Andrey NM
            Andrey NM April 5 2016 17: 42 New
            +1
            Yes, they tortured M-71 for a long time, but they did not torture it. And in 1944 they tried to put the Su-6 on the M-42, but the Il-10 had better characteristics by that time. Many planes were "ruined" by the M-71 ...
        2. max702
          max702 1 March 2016 13: 45 New
          +1
          Quote: Litsvin
          Also about "konkuretnov", as you rightly said - MiG-29 and Su-27.

          These are not my words and not my thoughts, I heard this from the flyers from a kubinka, they said MIG-29, it’s a Su-27 soldier aerobatics, one to show off at the shows, and the other to fight, and even with the distances of our country, the MIG’s adoption -29 state crime .. Thank God they left this senility .. The MIG KB destroyed that same lobbyist resource, hoping for it they scored for work putting relatives and good friends (fellow countrymen) in warm bread places as a result of the Design Bureau degenerated and can do nothing good .. Alas .. And without competition it’s bad in any field.
      4. Griboedoff
        Griboedoff 28 February 2016 06: 53 New
        0
        All that you say is true, of course. You could save a lot on developing projects that were not successful. But the problem is that initially no one knows which of the projects will be more successful. If there were no competing projects, then often there would be no high results. Largely due to competition among the design bureaus, the Soviet Union received such high-quality equipment. Although, of course, the content of competing projects is an expensive pleasure.
    4. EvilLion
      EvilLion 27 February 2016 19: 32 New
      +2
      There are doubts about the reality of the mass construction of such a machine, even with modern technology.
    5. evge-malyshev
      evge-malyshev 27 February 2016 20: 23 New
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Now they say, like, the TU-160 is also not bad. But this is not an excuse, because the T-4 was better ...


      "T-4 was better" is your assessment. Do you really think that "Decisions ..." and "Government Resolutions ..." are made in a narrow circle of officials? Decisions and Resolutions appear after a thorough study of the Customer's Assignment in various research institutes of Industry and the Ministry of Defense (aerodynamics, motors, aviation materials, technologies, electronics, weapons, ergonomics, maintenance, etc. You cannot list everything) and alternative studies of aircraft design bureaus.

      Let me suggest why the T-4 and its variants were rejected for the "SIMPLE" reason that until now, no one in the world has engines that would provide a long (at least 3 - 4-hour ) flight at speeds close to 3M. Very high heat loads and fuel consumption.

      So your statement
      Quote: Rurikovich
      At all times there were people with their pride, their ambitions, their love of money and goods. But they just baked on their interests, and not on the interests of the country.

      wrongly. The decisions were collective and, as they say now, vowels.
      Sincerely ...
      1. goblin xnumx
        goblin xnumx 27 February 2016 23: 02 New
        +1
        that 160 would be more correct to call m 18 KB Myasishchev, so I think it would be more correct- google the story that 160- there was also a film about Myasishchev
      2. ARES623
        ARES623 27 February 2016 23: 25 New
        +2
        Quote: evge-malyshev
        The decisions were collective and, as they say now, vowels.

        In matters of adopting a model of complex technology, there is never publicity. And all collective decisions are not a process of discussion, joining the voice of the "hardest" member of the team. In general, Pavel Osipovich had a very hard time in the fight against "persons close to the emperor." Even during the war, his Su-8 was an order of magnitude more effective than the Il-2 Cement Bomber. But Ilyushin was a "big man" in the NKAP, and therefore pushed his attack aircraft with very weak flight characteristics into a mass production. And Sukhoi was "taxed" for months in a queue for procedures that Yakovlev and even Lavochkin spent a few days all the war. This is an eternal song, as Medvedev says today, the competition for government orders. And in this struggle, the winners are those who use all methods of overcoming competitors, including the "dirty" ones. Any designer, of course, has ambition and will fight for a name, money, an attached factory, for a trace in history, for awards and recognition by the country's leadership, behind all this there is POWER, unlimited. At the same time, I think, the galaxy of General Designers of military equipment and weapons was "sharpened" for the needs of the country. And their interests generally coincided with the interests of the Country, because they recognized the security of the Motherland as a personal interest. None of them fled to the bourgeoisie, and after all there their material well-being would have been incomparably higher. Sikorsky, in this case, only confirms my thesis.
      3. avia1991
        avia1991 28 February 2016 00: 17 New
        +2
        Quote: evge-malyshev
        "T-4 was better" is your assessment.

        Have you read the article carefully?
        Air Marshal Pavel Kutakhov: “You know, let's decide this way. Yes, the Sukhoi Design Bureau’s project is better, we paid him tribute, but it has already become involved in the development of the Su-27 fighter, which we really, really need. Therefore, we will make this decision: we acknowledge that Sukhoi Design Bureau is the winner of the competition and we are obliged to transfer all materials to Tupolev Design Bureau, so that it carries out further work ...
        ...? So WHOSE was that score?
        And the decision was made by will, according to the principle "but because!" And I must say, paying tribute to the genius of Tupolev, the last third of his life he seems to have been doing nothing but "throwing pigs" at the feet of competitors, himself being unable to abandon "for centuries neither a fertile thought, nor a genius of work begun .." (M.Yu. Lermontov)
        As for approval
        Quote: evge-malyshev
        to date, no one in the world has engines that would provide a long (at least 3 - 4 hour) flight at speeds close to 3M.
        I dare to send you to the TTX Tu-144, stupidly from the T-4 copied: the plane flew quite successfully, and the engines could well be brought to mind.
        In addition, the "strategist", as a rule, does not need a "long-term flight in the 3M" - especially now, in conditions when for launching missiles it is not even necessary to enter the enemy's long-range air defense zone. hi
        Py sy:
        Do you really think that "Decisions ..." and "Government Resolutions ..." accepted in a narrow circle of officials?
        The key word is highlighted: You are talking about today, but today, it seems, is the way it is - judging by the "successes" of the national economy. The military, thank God, are still different from the economic herd, which in a narrow circle "decides" how to ruin the economy even more effectively .. wink
        However, about the then
        The decisions were collective and, as they say now, vowels.
        You are deeply mistaken: decisions were made public only in case of success, and in hindsight - there was no talk of any publicity
      4. Litsvin
        Litsvin 28 February 2016 02: 13 New
        0
        Dear evge-malyshev. Let me tell you about "collective decisions".
        The fate of people in the "thirties" was also decided not by one person, but by a "collective decision" - a "troika" - an extrajudicial body consisting of a party representative, a prosecutor and an NKVD officer. Nevertheless, behind this "collegiality" in the country's mastabs, there was a very specific leader, well, or a small "bunch of leaders". Therefore, all the "collective decisions of the Politburo" were in most cases "the sole will of the chairman of the CPSU Central Committee." A concrete example is Khrushchev's personal decision to transfer Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR, formalized "collectively by a group of comrades - by the decision of the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces." The same "single-handed / collective scheme" of decision-making worked in all sectors of the USSR.
    6. Litsvin
      Litsvin 28 February 2016 01: 13 New
      +3
      Rurikovich, you are right. I read a lot of literature from the life and biography of Sukhoi. The most offensive thing is that Tupolev was the teacher of our outstanding countryman Sukhoi. And Sukhoi highly appreciated Tupolev. During one of the conversations on "competitive directions between the Sukhoi Design Bureau and the Tupolev Design Bureau," Tupolev said: "... You will not be able to make such an aircraft. No one else in the world has been able to do this yet ...", to which Sukhoi replied: "... It will work out, because I learned to design airplanes from you, Andrei Nikolaevich ...". The conversation was about the future "weaving". Of course, having seen the "weaving" in flight, Tupolev understood perfectly well that Sukhoi's product was a "breakthrough". Why Tupolev's personal ambitions prevailed over common sense is difficult to say, although he perfectly understood that the Sukhoi student far surpassed the teacher (this is how it should be in life !!! hi ). No other "primary source" is alive. Sukhoi did not express any serious accusations against Tupolev on this topic. If somewhere in his memoirs the topic of "weaving" slipped through, Sukhoi somehow bypassed it, adhering to the official point of view "about the high cost and great novelty of the new car." Although, if Tupolev "put his personal ambitions in ....... the back pocket of his trousers" and showed more qualities of a "statesman", then he could well support Sukhoi and the USSR would get a great car, compared to which the Tu-22 would look like a BT-7 tank against a T-62. And "Tu-160" is also not far off in such a "visual" comparison - it is about "T-34/1943" against the same "T-62". Moreover, the development of the "hundred" would not stand still, and now the aircraft of the mid-21st century would be in service with Russia. The only thing that pleases is the design "developments" in the design of the "weave", a small part of which is embodied on other aircraft of the Sukhoi Design Bureau. Apparently, indeed, the time for "weaving" has not yet come, although it is high time to pick up the drawings from the archive and continue Sukhoi's work in the fight for hypersound.

      As for the unreasonable reasoning of "Soviet party members" about "expensive, the body is made of titanium" - this is all from the evil one. ALONG THE SAME WAY - like "IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE TO SERVICE", our Gorbachev-Yeltsin democrats tried to ditch the "SHARK" type self-driving vehicles. Almost succeeded - out of 5 remained alive. 1. Boris left in time and the "military" were in no hurry to carry out the order.

      IT NEEDS TO REMEMBER - DEFENSE OF THE STATE NEVER HAPPENED AND WILL NOT BE CHEAP IN HISTORY !!! Let's hope for the birth of a new "hundred" or "two hundred" with a happier destiny in the Sukhoi design bureau. And then the enemies crept quite close - already beyond the Bug. Those who seemed to be friends were the first to betray (as in the Bible) - out, the Poles, who owe their existence to the Great Soviet Soldier, are already demolishing monuments. And so such a new "three hundred" on "from Belastok to Breslau with a courtesy visit and a gift in the bomb bay" will fly in 10 minutes, and the Poles will crap together with their overseas friends.

      Greetings from Belaya Rus from fellow countrymen Pavel Osipovich Sukhoi to all Eastern Slav brothers. drinks
      1. avia1991
        avia1991 28 February 2016 12: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: Litsvin
        As for the unreasonable reasoning of "Soviet party members" about "expensive, the body is made of titanium" - this is all from the evil one.

        In this I disagree with you: in a situation where the entire industry needs to be rebuilt cardinally to build a new aircraft, the decision is justifiably made in favor of a cheaper and unified option. But there is already a question for the designers of aircraft components: why did they not move forward at least two steps ?! everything is half a step, after the command "from above" .. and not enough attention was paid to the modernization of enterprises. The "era of stagnation" was already beginning to "mature".
    7. oldkap22
      oldkap22 29 February 2016 20: 30 New
      0
      And maybe it’s not for nothing that Tupolev worked in a sharazhka under Stalin ...!? The character of the master is still the same .... and did not always honestly promote his work ....
  2. Bayonet
    Bayonet 27 February 2016 07: 19 New
    19
    In the last figure, not the T-4, but the T-60S project.
    There is a good documentary film - "The Tragedy of the Russian Miracle. T-4 Sotka." I recommend, for the soul!
    Still from the film, the Aviation Museum in Monino, Hero of the Soviet Union, Honored Test Pilot of the USSR V. Ilyushin and Honored Test Navigator of the USSR N. Alferov commemorate "Sotka" - the plane they taught to fly ...
    http://www.aviavideo.ru/index.php?film_id=99
    1. gjv
      gjv 27 February 2016 07: 35 New
      18
      Quote: Bayonet
      Have a good documentary

      1. severniy
        severniy 27 February 2016 09: 44 New
        0
        Looked, thanks guys, longingaaaaaa ......
        1. siberalt
          siberalt 27 February 2016 10: 17 New
          +1
          Special thanks for the movie!
      2. Andrey Skokovsky
        Andrey Skokovsky 27 February 2016 16: 01 New
        +5
        Quote: gjv
        Quote: Bayonet
        Have a good documentary

        and what good is it? not a film but tyagomotina and longing
        a mustache is gone, a mustache is gone, a wake and glasses with a piece of bread ......

        it is necessary to talk about the past so that the soul remains a sense of pride for fathers and grandfathers, and not so that after watching it would be desirable to get drunk with grief .....
        in fact, such an interpretation is not very different from liberal lies.

        2 aircraft were developed, were? were.
        one of them, t-160, was adopted, good? a great!
        the one that was not accepted is also very good, but another and more expensive.
        best practices not accepted were used in further developments.
        where is universal sadness and where does the craving of the authors choke on the injustice of the world ???
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 27 February 2016 20: 27 New
          +5
          Quote: Andrey Skokovsky
          it’s necessary to talk about the past so that a feeling of pride remains in the soul

          We must speak the TRUTH about the past!
          In order not to repeat mistakes in the future.
          1. Andrey Skokovsky
            Andrey Skokovsky 7 March 2016 14: 21 New
            0
            Quote: Bayonet
            Quote: Andrey Skokovsky
            it’s necessary to talk about the past so that a feeling of pride remains in the soul

            We must speak the TRUTH about the past!
            In order not to repeat mistakes in the future.

            I agree, but in this case we are talking about the unreasonable negativity that permeates the entire film, I repeat:

            2 aircraft were developed, were? were.
            one of them, t-160, was adopted, good? a great!
            the one that was not accepted is also very good, but another and more expensive.
            best practices not accepted were used in further developments.
            where is universal sadness and where does the craving of the authors choke on the injustice of the world ???
        2. evge-malyshev
          evge-malyshev 27 February 2016 20: 47 New
          +2
          Quote: Andrey Skokovsky
          2 aircraft were developed, were they? were. one of them, the t-160, was adopted, good? excellent! the one that was not accepted is also very good, but another and more expensive.


          And why? Yes, because to date, no one in the world has engines that would ensure a long flight on a 3M strategic aircraft.
          Someone (I do not specify who) stated: "The best is the enemy of the good." And he was chosen GOOD. Pay attention - how much time and money the Americans spent on their super - F-35.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. gjv
      gjv 27 February 2016 12: 35 New
      +3
      Quote: Bayonet
      In the last figure, not the T-4, but the T-60S project.

      But did the T-60S project look like this?
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 27 February 2016 20: 29 New
        +2
        Quote: gjv
        But did the T-60S project look like this?

        Here is a photo from the movie.
  3. jetfors_84
    jetfors_84 27 February 2016 07: 36 New
    +2
    Repeat again. For two weeks I called this article already.
    1. Dryuya2
      Dryuya2 27 February 2016 08: 36 New
      +6
      Quote: jetfors_84
      For two weeks I called this article already.

      but in the top five news
  4. DesToeR
    DesToeR 27 February 2016 08: 18 New
    +3
    Quote: Rurikovich
    But this is not an excuse, because the T-4 was better ...

    Debatable. Weaving was developed for high altitudes, but by the time of its appearance, the conditions for the use of attack aircraft had changed. The standard was the F-111. Now the military needed not a high-altitude bomber, but a plane that could fly at extremely low altitude with the envelope of the terrain. That is why Sukhoi began to position its T-4 as a naval strike aircraft to combat enemy AUGs. At sea, the flight altitude determined the radio horizon of the detection locator - the higher you fly, the farther you see.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 27 February 2016 08: 54 New
      +6
      Maybe I won’t argue. The F-111 has its own analogue, the Tu-22. And they are tactical bombers with increased range. And the T-4 was designed as a strategist. And the attempt to change the conditions of use was only an attempt to SAVE the plane. Because in the backstage intrigues, Sukhoi clearly lost to Tupolev. That's why the Tu-160 appeared, and not the Sukhov machine hi
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 27 February 2016 10: 04 New
        +6
        Quote: Rurikovich
        .F-111 has its own analogue with us - Tu-22.

        The analogue of the F-111 is not the Tu-22, but the Su-24.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 27 February 2016 10: 25 New
          0
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          The analogue of the F-111 is not the Tu-22, but the Su-24.

          So be it. But still, tactical and strategic bomber are two big differences. hi
      2. tomket
        tomket 28 February 2016 00: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Because in the backstage intrigues, Sukhoi clearly lost to Tupolev. That's why the Tu-160 appeared, and not the Sukhov machine

        Because it ends with U. In general, the "weaving" did not go for the simple reason why the "Valkyrie" did not go, namely, after the destruction of U-2 Powers, it became clear that an altitude of under 20 km would not save missiles, and speed will not save either. Therefore, the Americans, and then we curtailed work on high-speed single-mode bombers, the stake was made on breaking through the air defense near the ground. And you are all behind the scenes, Tupolev. Ugh.
  5. Fitter65
    Fitter65 27 February 2016 09: 09 New
    11
    Today, the T-4 is in the Air Force Museum in Monino ... I would like to add in the light of the latest rumors while it is in the Air Force Museum, but how long will the Air Force Museum with its unique exhibits exist ... in the USA the "Spruce Goose" has flown 2 km at an altitude of 21 meters is a national pride, and we can send unique samples of aircraft to the lungs for metal, for example, the same Khodynka, or the first copy of the Tu-154, which was at VDNKh ...
    1. Maegrom
      Maegrom 27 February 2016 10: 49 New
      +1
      According to local rumors, they want to "transport" him in the summer. Rumors are persistent, but not supported by documents. To put it mildly, I, as a citizen of Obukhov, would not like this.
    2. tomket
      tomket 28 February 2016 00: 44 New
      0
      Quote: Fitter65
      and we have unique samples of aircraft in the light can be sent to metal.

      First, Serdyukov, now here the shoigu decided to follow in his footsteps. I don’t eat it, I’m biting it. What I can’t transport, I’ll send it to the scrap.
  6. 0255
    0255 27 February 2016 09: 42 New
    -4
    A very "informative" article. The author is not credited.
  7. iouris
    iouris 27 February 2016 10: 01 New
    +1
    The fate of the T-4 "Buran" becomes understandable only in the light of the decisions taken on the fate of the USSR.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 27 February 2016 12: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: iouris
      The fate of the T-4 "Buran" becomes clear only in the light of the decisions taken on the fate of the USSR

      "Sotku" was hacked to death in 1976! What decisions "about the fate of the USSR" were made then? request
  8. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 27 February 2016 10: 05 New
    +8
    Super-speed and super-high "Strategists" really outdated before they got to the series. Air defense was being improved too quickly. The Sotka was a terrific aircraft that surpassed everything possible, but what would these machines do at normal speeds on long-haul flights? At a hundred in general, the range was not easy. So - history has no subjunctive mood. The result is "White Swans" - the pride of our aviation. Also pride. And Sukhoi has nothing to complain about - Sushki - are unmatched.
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 27 February 2016 10: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Super-speed and super-high "Strategists" really outdated before they got to the series. Air defense was being improved too quickly. The Sotka was a terrific aircraft that surpassed everything possible, but what would these machines do at normal speeds on long-haul flights? At a hundred in general, the range was not easy. So - history has no subjunctive mood. The result is "White Swans" - the pride of our aviation. Also pride. And Sukhoi has nothing to complain about - Sushki - are unmatched.

      Anti-aircraft missiles fly at hypersonic speeds, so any of the fastest supersonic bomber will not leave them. As for launching missiles without entering the air defense zone, here too this bomber will be spotted long before and sent aircraft for interception (for example, Russia has a MiG-31BM with R37 missiles with a range of 300 kilometers, a KS-172 with a range of 400 kilometers is being developed). The USA realized that increasing the speed capabilities of bombers is a dead end, and began to work in the direction of low-altitude air defense breakthrough at supersonic speed, the maximum speed of B1B is 1491 kilometers per hour near the ground (you can’t accelerate at low altitude, it’s discharged at high altitude and you can set a record speed, at low altitude, air resistance is much higher), the United States also began to develop stealth technology.
      1. avia1991
        avia1991 7 March 2016 04: 37 New
        0
        Quote: Lt. air force reserve
        Anti-aircraft missiles fly at hypersonic speeds,

        How interesting .. And long ago? ..
        1. avia1991
          avia1991 7 March 2016 05: 17 New
          0
          At that time, when the project under discussion was being created, they could only dream of such speeds of missiles. Make an incorrect comparison hi
  9. engineer
    engineer 27 February 2016 10: 13 New
    +2
    I saw a hundred even then. when the museum in Monino was closed and to visit it, you had to have admission of at least the third (secret). excellent aircraft in all respects. Well. competition between dry. Tupolev and Mikoyan is the talk of the town. and was not always good for the cause. now a moment in the pen. but in vain. The MiG-31 long-range high-altitude interceptor has not yet surpassed the su. maybe Stalin was right. when he forced them to do a common cause by force. putting in 'sharazhki'.
  10. jetfors_84
    jetfors_84 27 February 2016 10: 19 New
    +1
    I don’t understand one thing. Yes, speed, but how could he bomb if he had all four engines in one package? What is only on external suspensions?
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 27 February 2016 10: 38 New
      +3
      He has an arms compartment. What are external suspensions on 3M +
  11. engineer
    engineer 27 February 2016 10: 37 New
    +1
    Tu-160 engines are also not on the wings. and pressed to the center section. and bombing from the fuselage through a rotational suspension. like a revolver.
  12. engineer
    engineer 27 February 2016 10: 49 New
    +1
    but the range of anti-aircraft hypersonic missiles is less than 300 kilometers. but consider the preparation time. capture. approach .. it's minutes. there is time to go in and shoot.
  13. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 27 February 2016 12: 15 New
    +3
    A mystery covered in darkness.
    Tupolev, having lost the competition of projects to his student Sukhoi, did not give up and continued the struggle. And he won it at the pre-production stage of the finished T-4 aircraft. Conclusion: never give up, fight to the end.
    And what did the country get from this struggle? The Tu-160 plane, of course, is good, but it did not surpass the T-4, and in some ways it yielded to the latter. In addition, how much more has the state spent additional funds on the development of the Tu-160!?!
    Personal ambitions and state interests do not always complement each other ...
  14. Atigay
    Atigay 27 February 2016 12: 19 New
    -6
    So that’s why Concord was licked ...
  15. Lex.
    Lex. 27 February 2016 13: 50 New
    +4
    The cruising speed of the “hundred” was under 3000 km / h, therefore, in supersonic mode, the crew flew blindly - after take-off, the nose fairing was installed in a horizontal position and closed the cockpit and glass lantern
    Something not in instant-25 not in sr-71 it did not melt
    1. kytx
      kytx 27 February 2016 18: 21 New
      +2
      for Lex. there the problem was not in glass melting but in aerodynamics. and what’s interesting can be seen at 3M at an altitude of 15km. :)
  16. bober1982
    bober1982 27 February 2016 14: 01 New
    +1
    Probably it is impossible to say with certainty that "weaving" is better than the Tu-160. In any case, the Air Force got an excellent strategist.
    The words of Tupolev are known, which irritably said to Sukhoi: Pasha, do fighters, you can do it well.
    1. avia1991
      avia1991 7 March 2016 04: 44 New
      0
      Quote: bober1982
      The words of Tupolev are known, which irritably said to Sukhoi: Pasha, do fighters, you can do it well.

      Well, yes, yes .. if Tupolev could also make fighter jets, perhaps it would turn out that Sukhoi had nothing to do in the aircraft industry! wassat
  17. search engine
    search engine 27 February 2016 14: 22 New
    +3
    project m-18 Myasishchev. This is where the roots of the Tu-160 are. This is just as true as the "weaving" of Sukhoi later turned into Tu-144. Tupolev had a huge influence.
    1. Alf
      Alf 27 February 2016 17: 13 New
      +2
      Quote: search engine
      This is just as true as the "weaving" of Sukhoi later turned into Tu-144

      Do you understand what you said? T-4 and TU-144 are completely different cars.
      There was a draft passenger version of the T-4, competitive to the realized Tu-144.

      The passenger version of the T-4 was in the project, and the TU-144 flew. A project and a flying airplane are slightly different things.
      1. avia1991
        avia1991 7 March 2016 04: 48 New
        0
        Quote: Alf
        T-4 and TU-144 are completely different cars.

        Oh really?! Justify? Arguments only: the layout of the airframe, aerodynamic design, the location of the engines .. etc. - specifically, please!
        You, sorry, have you ever seen the Tu-144 live?
        And by the way: re-read the article as it should - it clearly says about the requirement to transfer the acquired documentation to the Tupolev Design Bureau ..
        However, if we are to find out who is worth remembering about the "Concorde" - they were simultaneously developed with the Tu-144, and the task of the latter was to take off BEFORE! - which led to the wild incompleteness of the project, and 9 years (!!!) of fine-tuning the aircraft after the first takeoff, before the completion of the tests! Well, of course - the genius of Tupolev! laughing
        1. svp67
          svp67 7 March 2016 05: 19 New
          0
          Quote: avia1991
          Oh really?! Justify? Arguments only: the layout of the airframe, aerodynamic design, the location of the engines .. etc. - specifically, please!

          Well then, let's start with "Valkyrie", she appeared earlier
  18. gregor6549
    gregor6549 27 February 2016 15: 40 New
    +2
    What does it cost us to build a house? Let's draw, we will live. Why not draw a promising plane and then fly on it, drawn? We attach too much importance to the external outlines of the aircraft, forgetting about such trifles as engines, elemental base, avionics, etc. "kibenimatika" which should reach a completely different level of development than today, as well as all aircraft construction and related industries. And so far, even dances with import substitution for today's products are not much danced. After all, it is not enough to crow about him. it is also necessary to do everything for such a replacement to take place.
  19. EvilLion
    EvilLion 27 February 2016 19: 30 New
    +3
    The prospects of construction in commercial quantities of T-4 are very doubtful, the car is beyond the limits and a record for the number of innovations, such projects, as a rule, remain experimental or unfinished.
  20. xam0
    xam0 27 February 2016 22: 48 New
    +1
    I am not a pilot, but after reading the article and all the comments on it, I realized how much a great school of aviation design was laid down under the USSR. When you look at a Tu-160 flight, your eyes rejoice and your heart sings when you read those. 100 characteristics do not stop wondering at the perfection and innovation inherent in it, the aircraft has overtaken its time. And how would you like the new PAK DA strategist to turn out to be a combination of all these characteristics, so that we can be proud of our aircraft again and remain unsurpassed in the world of aircraft construction. So that the budget is not sawn up, and all the allocated funds go to the penny for the development of our army. And our designers often surprised us and the whole world with such masterpieces. As they say, from the heart.
  21. rubin6286
    rubin6286 27 February 2016 23: 02 New
    +1
    As of 1972, the air forces of the USSR consisted of medium-sized strategic bombers Tu-16 and Tu-95 of various modifications, which were produced and undergoing scheduled repairs at aircraft factories in Kazan, Kuibyshev and Voronezh. The main enterprise was the Kazan aircraft plant, where only Tu-16 was produced 800.th. almost as much as in Kuibyshev and Voronezh combined.
    The transition of the plant in Kazan to the production of the T-4 Sotka aircraft could have a negative impact on the state of strategic aviation as a whole, not to mention the “crushing” of the Tupolev Design Bureau, which categorically objected to this, especially since by 1972 the plant had already mastered the release of the Tu-22 and in the future was ready to move on to the release of the Tu-22M, which, in essence, was a completely new aircraft.
    The T-4 was created as a response to the creation of the XB-70 Valkyrie supersonic bomber in the United States, but the experience of the Vietnam and Arab-Israeli wars showed that a bomber capable of flying at high altitude with supersonic speed is vulnerable to air defense systems, especially those that developed rapidly this period. That is why, and not as a result of “undercover intrigues”, both aircraft were not taken into service, and the technologies used in their production were used to create high-altitude barrage fighter-interceptors.
    The creation of the Russian Aerospace Forces and the incorporation of long-range aviation in it, changes in the military doctrine and the nature of military threats invariably entail a revision of the requirements for certain types of weapons. It seems to me that in the next 10-15 years it is more important to master the production of upgraded TU-160M2, not getting carried away with the PAK DA project, if only because “a bird in the hands is better than a crane in the sky”.
  22. Dekabrev
    Dekabrev 27 February 2016 23: 13 New
    +2
    R. McNa-Mara, Secretary of Defense in the Kennedy administration, spoke about the Valkyrie as follows: “We have come to the conclusion that the B-70 will not be able to increase the power of offensive weapons enough to justify their extremely high cost. air, as well as the speed and altitude of the B-70 aircraft, it will not have significant advantages (over the existing bombers). Sources ik airwar.ru. I think that these words completely refer to the "hundredth". So if the Americans " The Valkyrie "was a little expensive, then for our country such an airplane was even more so. Of course, weaving was much less, but, anyway, it was very expensive. The range was short, and from which aircraft to launch long-range missiles is not so important. engines at the hundred, it seems, everything was fine. The plane, in contrast to the "Valkyrie", was completely finished. It's a shame, of course, but life is not an easy thing, nothing can be done about it.
  23. Litsvin
    Litsvin 28 February 2016 13: 34 New
    +1
    Quote: avia1991
    Quote: Litsvin
    As for the unreasonable reasoning of "Soviet party members" about "expensive, the body is made of titanium" - this is all from the evil one.

    In this I disagree with you: in a situation where the entire industry needs to be rebuilt cardinally to build a new aircraft, the decision is justifiably made in favor of a cheaper and unified option. But there is already a question for the designers of aircraft components: why did they not move forward at least two steps ?! everything is half a step, after the command "from above" .. and not enough attention was paid to the modernization of enterprises. The "era of stagnation" was already beginning to "mature".
    Dear avia1991. When it comes to the security of the state, they look at such things a second time. A concrete example from aviation: out of the 3 remaining B-29 aircraft on the territory of the USSR, Stalin ordered to make his own aircraft, capable of carrying the "special item" to the territory of the United States. Having disassembled the "samples by cogs", Tupolev and the team realized that the USSR, according to the aviation technologies available to it (AND THIS IS THE COUNTRY THAT WAS THE WAR !!!) simply would not be able to make the Soviet analogue of the B-29. We lagged behind the United States by 20 years. It was then that, indeed, the USSR had to perform a "technological feat" in a couple of years. To create the Tu-4, we needed not only to modernize the aviation production, but to create many processes from scratch. During the development of the T-4, the issue with the industry was not as acute as during the production of the Tu-4. The Soviet industry was able to organize the production of "hundred parts". At the same time, the USSR did not need a large number of "hundred parts". It was enough to make a series of 1-2 hundred aircraft and they would be enough for the tasks that were set for this aircraft. This is exactly the case when the "quality component" has repeatedly compensated for a small number of aircraft.
  24. xomaNN
    xomaNN 1 March 2016 17: 30 New
    0
    The "human factor" is often the main EVIL not only in plane crashes, but also in priorities when choosing the prospects for aircraft. Airplanes are competitors of KB Bartini, Myasishcheva ... and Tupolev (!).
  25. lazy
    lazy 5 March 2016 11: 43 New
    0
    the situation with the t-100 and tu-160 resembles the situation when not an excellent pupil (t-100 WINNER OF THE COMPETITION) enters the institute, but a three-player (tu-160 TAKING ONLY 3 PLACE) but whose dad has a blat. The sense of injustice will remain forever, and the Tupolevites will not be washed away from this spot, no matter how they get their feet