Tu-22M3: time to retire?

The very meaning of military aviation lay in the creation of bombers. It was the attack of objects and groupings of troops from the air that was the main goal. Then designers began to think about creating fighters to gain air supremacy. Before the advent of the bombers, no one needed this domination.

And now bombers can be attributed to the main combat unit of the Air Force. True, they are now harder and smarter. More precisely, it is no longer “Ilya of Murom”.

Bomber Ilya Muromets

Now it is fighter-bombers. They can effectively hit both ground targets and stand up for themselves. The reduction in the number of classic interceptors, or fighters, began actively with the departure from the scene of the USSR. Now there are no serious fighters in the sky, so modern cars are trying to make more versatile. For example, F / A-18SH, F-16, F-35, F-15SE - all fighter-bombers. At its core, to summarize roughly, they are similar to Su-34, Mig-35.

There was also a separate class of more classic bombers. Such as B-2, B-52, Tu-95, Tu-22М3, Tu-160, etc. Their main disadvantage is that they can not stand up for themselves in air combat, but there are also some advantages.

However, it is nevertheless necessary to single out the Tu-22М3 from the total number. He is a long-range bomber, not a strategic one. Long-range aviation, in general, is something special for our stories. While the West with the passage of time and the development of technology went to the strategists, we continued to improve long-range bombers in parallel with the strategic ones. Now only two countries have long-range aviation - this is China with a copy of our Tu-16 and, naturally, the Russian Aerospace Force of the Russian Federation with the Tu-22М3.

Chinese copy of the Tu-16 (Xian H-6)

So why do we need long-range aviation when the whole west refused it? At the time of the Union, it was certainly a formidable force. And with the advent of the Tu-22, it only increased. The first Tu-22 and modern Tu-22М3 are completely different machines (albeit with similar indices). Omit the stages of development of the Tu-22 and go directly to the Tu-22М3.

The first flight of the Tu-22М3 took place in 1977. Serial production began in 1978, and lasted until the 1993 year. According to its tasks, it was not even a bomber, it is, rather, a missile carrier. His main task was to "deliver" missiles X-22. In standard loading, the Tu-22М3 was supposed to carry two missiles under the wing on each side, but could also take another under the fuselage.

Mount X-22 missiles under the fuselage of the Tu-22М3

The X-22 were of various modifications: with an active homing head (anti-ship), with a passive head (anti-radar modification) and guided by the ANN (the progenitor of modern Calibrov and Tomahawks). A feature of these missiles was a huge range for that time - 400 km, and according to some information, to 600 km! Naturally, for their guidance, serious intelligence and external central commandment were required, with which there were no problems in the Union either (for example, Tu-95РЦ)! Another huge advantage of the X-22 was the supersonic flight speed. For the air defense of that time, it remained a very tough nut to crack.

The first flaws of the X-22 began to appear already in the 80-x. With all the uniqueness of this rocket, its development was launched in 1958, and the creation of RCC with ARLGSN for that time was a very nontrivial task. Even now, in many missiles (for the sake of justice, not RCC, but, rather, SAM), the use of ARLGHSN does not always take place due to the complexity of implementation and the increase in mass. Therefore, in 80-x already have questions about the X-22 noise immunity. But this should not put an end to its application. As an example, we can recall the Fokland war. Argentina was bombarded with unexploded “cast iron” by the praised fleet of Her Majesty. If they had a couple of squadrons of Tu-22М3 and X-22, the Focklands would have a different owner, and London would become a district of Argentina.

However, in actual combat, the Tu-22М3 with the X-22 missile was not particularly noted. Dear unique bomber basically served as a simple bomber. The ability to carry FAB was rather a pleasant advantage than the main task. Often Tu-22М3 was used in Afghanistan, in places where front bombers had a hard time reaching out. It should be especially noted when the Tu-22М3 "leveled off" the mountains of Afgan during the withdrawal of Soviet troops, covering our caravans. And all this time the most complicated and intelligent machine was used as a “pig-iron” distribution.

It should also be mentioned about the use of Tu-22М3 in Chechnya, it is particularly interesting that he dropped light bombs. And, of course, the apogee is the use of Tu-22М3 in Georgia, which ended up very sad.

Now let's talk: Do we need Tu-22М3 now? Was it needed in the nineties and now, in the twenty-first century? Definitely, modernization is necessary to continue its life cycle. It had to consist in the appearance of the new X-32 rocket. But is it unique and new? X-32 is nothing more than the development of X-22 while preserving all its archaic and flaws for modern times. The lesser of the evils is noise immunity. Perhaps, on X-32 it was planned to use a fairly modern ARLGSN, for example, from the X-35 rocket. But there is still a live rocket engine. And this is perhaps the stupidest decision for a modern rocket. The complexity of the operation of the LRE is the high toxicity of the components, the risk of fire when in contact with the oxidizer, the need for constant and qualified maintenance. At cost, this does not go to any comparison, not only with a solid-fuel engine, but also with a compact TRD. An RCD on a PKR can only be found that in China (but they fly to the Tu-16), which they are gradually removed from duty (for more details on China’s CRP here: Part 1-I, Part 2-I), and maybe North Korea. The whole modern world has long abandoned such engines.

Rocket X-35

Another X-32 problem is the flight profile. To achieve the stated characteristics of the range it needs to go at a huge height in rarefied atmospheric layers. Even a pseudo-combined flight profile is still excessively high, as the rockets attack the ship by diving. A high-altitude flight is a gift for a “blue-plate saucer” for modern air defense systems. In addition, this almost six-ton ​​carcass, rushing against the background of space, will be less dangerous than a boat with an RPG-7 for a modern destroyer or frigate.

X-22 / 32 Missile Flight Profile

As a development of the Tu-22М3, an option was implemented with the placement of X-15 aeroballistic missiles on it, which already have a modern solid-fuel engine. In addition, they can be placed in the internal compartments of the Tu-22М3. It would seem to be a fairly modern solution, but we turn to world experience. Its counterpart is AGM-69A SRAM, developed in 60-ies in the United States. And for its replacement, AGM-131 SRAM II was developed at the end of 80-x. However, this rocket did not go into the series. One of the reasons is the end of the Cold War. But there is another reason - the development of air defense systems. Both AGM-131 and X-15 possess a ballistic flight path, which is a good gift for modern radars.

Placement of X-15 missiles in the Tu-22М3 bomb bay

Prototype AGM-131a SRAM II

It is worth considering the option of equipping the Tu-22М3 with modern X-101 / 102 cruise missiles, which are fully suitable for the "Carcass" in terms of weight and dimensions. However, one nuance arises - the range of the Tu-22М3 is substantially less than that of the strategic Tu-160. Rockets, in contrast to the “White Swan”, will be on the external sling, and therefore will also contribute to the reduction of the radius of action. And there is no refueling bar on Tu-22М3. However, even its equipment with a refueling bar does not fundamentally save the situation. The reason is that it is two-engine, and this greatly affects the safety of flying over the ocean. By analogy, in civil aviation there is the concept of ETOPS, which determines how far the aircraft can be removed from the nearest airfield (the parameter is given in minutes of flight). Only modern aircraft with modern engines were able to reach more or less significant values ​​by ETOPS (among other things, this requires highly qualified staff). In military aviation, there is no such thing, but it is quite clear that the old aircraft with not the most modern engines will not be able to provide the required safety. Of course, the performance of a combat mission may be more important than life, but the theory of Japanese kamikazes is very far from ideal! On X-101 / 102, it is impossible not to note a more scrupulous moment. When placed on the Tu-22М3, it automatically falls under the START Treaty. And when the "Carcasses" become the carriers of nuclear missiles, the number of real warheads will need to be reduced (follows from the START Treaty).

Rocket X-101 / 102

So what can be done to extend the life cycle of the Tu-22M3? It had to be adapted to modern types of missiles, of which we have plenty. For example, he could become a carrier of P-700. Given its weight, which is about two times less than the X-22. We can assume the possibility of placing two missiles on each side, and at least one under the fuselage. But the P-700 is also not ideal. It is better to put a "Caliber" ZM-54 with a low-altitude flight profile and a supersonic warhead. By analogy with the 3М-14, for a non-export variant, the potential in range can be at least as good as the X-22 (naturally, with an external DD).

Rocket 3M-54 "Caliber"

But all this for the Tu-22М3 would be a waste of budgetary funds due to the inefficiency of the aircraft itself in modern conditions. It would be possible to justify such modernization if the Tu-22М3 was still produced, but for modern Russia it is not only impossible, but absolutely not necessary. Modernization of the remaining park is also a very controversial issue. To begin with, according to data from open sources, about 40 "Carcasses" are in a flying state. All others are written off due to the release of the resource. In their production, no one has ever thought about the magnitude of the ESR. The huge car is perfectly visible on the radar. The low-altitude flight units have been removed from all Tu-22М3. The EW Tu-22М3 complex had a lot of problems in fine-tuning, therefore group departures were supposed to cover EW Tu-16P aircraft, which have not been in service for a long time. The version of a full-fledged EW aircraft based on Tu-22М3 was not made.

In addition, every departure of the Tu-22М3 must be accompanied by cover planes, since the “Carcass” cannot stand up for itself. An example would be a company in Syria, where Tupole was covered by Su-30CM. In this regard, the question arises about the only advantage of the Tu-22М3 - its flight range. If in any case they should be covered by escort airplanes, whose flight range is shorter. Those. either escort planes should be met by a refueling truck, or they should be based closer to the target than the “Carcass” departure aerodrome (which was the case in Syria). Then what is the advantage of range?

In addition, heavy anti-ship missiles can now not only Tu-22М3. Frontline aviation does not stand still, and since the days of Afghanistan has gone far ahead. For example, Su-30CM copes with the delivery of the P-700. Theoretically, Su-34, well, or Su-35С, can carry two or three 3М-54 missiles. The question remains in range. The distillation range of the "Carcass" is about 7000 km, the Su-34 range with one PTB is approximately 4500 km. Of course, there is a difference, but the most important thing is that the Su-34 can stand up for itself. Or in its place may be, for example, Su-35C with a range of 4000 km with one PTB, which will surely stand for itself. At the same time, on the Su-35 it is possible to hang, in addition to the two “Caliber” anti-ship missiles, another pair of RVV-SD and two RVV-MD, in addition also containers of EW “Khabin”. Calculate the distance with all the body kit is impossible, and no one will give such data. But do not forget that the range of the Tu-22М3 will drop dramatically, since the rockets will also be on the external suspension, and the HK-25 due to its venerable age does not have a hefty appetite!

Where did the modernization of the Tu-22М3 go? Installation of the complex "Gefest" (SVP-24-22) for navigation and the formation of aiming modes. It helped to more accurately throw fabs in Syria. And again, the expensive and sophisticated rocket carrier acted as a delivery of "pig-iron" pigs on the heads of terrorists. The creators did not prepare such a fate for him. The flight hour of a car of this class costs a fortune, it is much more expensive to operate than the Su-34. The operating time of the engineering staff is much longer per flight hour than that of front-line bombers. At least two people more crew.

Monitors SVP-24-22 in the cabin Tu-22М3

In addition, he has very controversial engines for modern times. NK-25 is based on the old NK-144. But the NK-25 is also a three-shaft engine. At such a complication of the design, we went because of the absence, at that time, of more optimal technologies for increasing power. Diagnosis of three-shaft engines is a very non-trivial task, due to the complexity of access to many nodes, and especially supports. At the same time from open sources, NK-25 has a very modest resource - about 1500. For comparison, the F-135 engine, with a weight per ton less, produces almost comparable thrust at the unforced mode (it is much simpler to increase the afterburner than the unforced mode, therefore we do not take it into account), has a simpler turbine design and is two-shaft.

All this directly affects the cost of service "carcass".

NK-25 engine turbine section

So where could the money be diverted for servicing the Tu-22М3 fleet? For example, the purchase of Su-34, bringing them to avionics to the possibility of using the RR “Caliber”. This option, with a bunch of advantages, has only a disadvantage in the quality of the range, which was already mentioned above. And who is much more “cheaper” to pour in FABs than the missile carrier Tu-22М3? Well, for example, IL-112, or MTS (work on it is suspended, but this is another story), at least, it will be much cheaper with comparable efficiency (more on using transport workers as bombers Antonov Bombers). Enough to put the NKPB-6, well, or a container for the control center (what the hell is not joking!) At the same time, our military transport aviation also needs them like air.

Military transport aircraft IL-112

Scope NKPB-6 from military transport aircraft An-26

Do we need modern long-range aviation in Russia? The key here is precisely “modern”, and not Tu-22М3. Of course, needed, only with a completely different aircraft. Let it not be for readers a serious shock, but the prototype should serve as the American experimental YF-23. It was he, but in scale. The design of the keels allows you to go on a supersonic flight, while maintaining low visibility for radar. A kind of compromise between the flying wing and supersonic. Between the engines you need to increase the distance for a long compartment of weapons, which could put two missiles "Caliber" or P-700. Additionally, a pair of side compartments for RVV-SD and RVV-MD, BRLS AFAR "Belka", built-in container for the control center ("ala" EOTS JSF). And there are almost even engines - Р79В-300, the afterburner of which was planned to be brought to 20 tons. But these are all dreams, all this another time and in another country.

The author is grateful to Sergey Ivanovich (SSI) and Sergey Linnik (Bongo) for the consultations.

,

Based on:
http://www.airwar.ru/
http://aviation.gb7.ru/
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/
http://militaryrussia.ru/

Comments

[Evgesh91]

Now there are no serious fighters in the sky- I'm sorry, what??
I do not agree with the article, the West has refused a lot of things, and we need long-range aviation! these are only satellites near the ovaries, and we have Europe, China, and everything else, where strategists are driven too much.

[Sweles]

Tu22m3 has grown old, his Kh22 missile has also grown old, but the GOALS for this aircraft, as they were and have remained, is the EUROPEAN THEATER of action. There is only one conclusion: modernization of the aircraft aimed at lowering maintenance costs, increasing the overhaul life of components and the entire aircraft. Weapons for it are caliber and ha35, but the engines need to be changed to more modern if of course we want to extend the life of this very good bomber aircraft ...

[Throw]

Consultations, hike, were like "under a snack"

The article mixed conily, but the concept of using Tu at the present time is not defined.
But she is simple. Potential cross-border conflicts over which this machine can work from the depths of the territory is mass.
And here to write off a working machine for a penny, by the standards of the budget, savings, leaving a void - this is some kind of young reformism.

And the fact that the Westerners do not have YES is because the States have long entered NATO on the topic of bombers, and they do not need long-range guns. But Canada is not Honduras with Guadeloupe.

Putting the removed / new equipment on the carcasses is not a problem.

Replacing Dryers -

Su-35С with a range of 4000 km with one PTB, which certainly stands up for itself. At the same time, on the Su-35, you can hang, in addition to two Caliber RCCs, a couple of RVV-SD and two RVV-MD, in addition to the Khabina electronic warfare containers. It is impossible to calculate the range with all body kits ..

Su-34, well, or Su-35С, will be able to carry two or three 3M-54 missiles. There will be a question on range. The driving range of the “Carcass” is about 7000 km, the range of the Su-34 with one ATG is approximately 4500 km. Of course there is a difference, but the most important thing is that the Su-34 can stand up for itself.

With such "body kits" Dryers can only lie down for themselves! And that's not far.

The idea of ​​replacing the supersonic at the breakthrough of the anti-aircraft bomber with subsonic transporters arose, apparently, when the snack ended

And with the "successor prototype" it turned out to be an enchanting Lego-scrambled eggs: we take amerovsky under-underderwaffe "on a scale", here we will stretch, here we will expand, here we will stick "Caliber" ... General designers nervously smoke around the corner.

PS And what the hell is this - "Khabina" ??

[Falcon]

Quote: Lance

The idea of ​​replacing the supersonic at the breakthrough of the anti-aircraft bomber with subsonic transporters arose, apparently, when the snack ended

But how does supersonic now penetrate modern air defense? Sonic boom? And how will subsonic b-2 or the package deal with this?

Quote: Lance

And with the "successor prototype" it turned out to be an enchanting Lego-scrambled eggs: we take amerovsky under-underderwaffe "on a scale", here we will stretch, here we will expand, here we will stick "Caliber" ... General designers nervously smoke around the corner.

It’s not for you to teach me how to design airplanes. I defended this diploma many years ago.

[Cat man null]

Quote: Falcon

I defended this diploma many years ago.

And then they constructed many, many planes (this is my assumption, no more).

Quote: Article

To achieve the declared range characteristics, she needs to go at a great height in discharged layers of the atmosphere.

Correct, plz, it hurts your eyes. The layers are sparse, from "rare".

[Throw]

A. Suddenly, don’t get away .. the article became available again. Let's continue :)

And how will subsonic b-2 or pack cope with this

Here. Here again, a mixture of horses with people in a bunch ..
Do you also offer strategists to replace transport workers?

Falcon
I defended this diploma many years ago.

And why, just like that for a diploma and taught airplanes to design: "We take what the Americans have thrown out, scale it up, push the rolls of engine gondolas and stick our missiles there" ??

[Falcon]

Quote: Lance

Here. Here again, a mixture of horses with people in a bunch ..

Do you offer to compare the Tu-22M3 with analogues in long-range aviation? Or decided to just arrange an empty polemic?

Quote: Lance

And why, just like that for a diploma, they taught planes to construct:

I proposed a concept. And they have been teaching how to design 6 for years, you can’t explain.

[Throw]

You will hardly be able to "explain" anything to me, because I studied for those 6 years. And not only those.

And no "concept" has been proposed, there is a mixture of "on the topic" with grammatical errors and technical blunders, and written in places without understanding what you are writing about ...

"Khabina" damn ...

[Falcon]

Quote: Lance

technical mistakes, moreover, written in places without understanding what you are writing about ...

Well, if you do not understand, then I'm sorry. To each his own
In fact, I understand there is nothing to argue?
Well, nothing, there are many

Quote: Lance

You will hardly be able to "explain" anything to me, because I studied for those 6 years.

Quote: Falcon

When Lenin said: each cook will rule the state. Was wrong.

[Cat man null]

Quote: Falcon

Well, nothing, troll more, troll less

Would you be more careful or something .. but the person told you the matter - the article is really slap-swab ..

From my submission, you yesterday uncharged layers of the atmosphere were removed (and yet, it must be understood, there are charged ones, huh).

A little literate person will not even write such a hard drunk, believe me, no?

"Khabina"- this, too, is FIVE. Making two mistakes in six letters is skill ... you need to be able to do that.

Somehow

[Falcon]

Quote: Cat Man Null

and the person told you the matter - the article is really sloppy sloppy ..

I wait, on points of counter-arguments.

Quote: Cat Man Null

A little literate person will not even write such a hard drunk, believe me, no?

Well, then I'm not literate for you? Even so, I propose to write a refutation!

[Throw]

They themselves wrote - "illiterate" is written together

[Falcon]

Quote: Lance

They themselves wrote - "illiterate" is written together

How did you end up in VO?
You should discuss on the site of noble girls of Pushkin!

Does the article have anything to say?

Sorry, this is not for you.

[Throw]

If a person is not able learn the native language, then he is up to mathematics and physics, as well as to engineering with design work, like to the moon cancer.
That is - no way.

[Falcon]

Quote: Lance

If a person is not able to master his native language, then he is up to mathematics and physics, as well as to engineering with design work, like to the moon cancer.
That is - no way.

Did you hear that at the phillip?

Cool! Still decided to go to the individual? What about a discussion of technology? What about the counter arguments? No no how

Korolev was a round threesome

[alexmach]

I don’t know, for example, in my native language, and in any other language, I write very illiterate. At the same time I work as an engineer, and they say they are not bad. In his school years, he spoke at the Olympiads in physics and mathematics, went to the region.

[leshiy076]

I also spoke at physics olympiads and also work as an engineer, but I still know elementary grammar. To confuse Khibin with a habin, here you are. The man on military review is not the first day; publications must be reading.

[Falcon]

Quote: Cat Man Null

"Khabina" is also FIVE. Making two mistakes in six letters is a skill ... you need to be able to do that.

In addition to typos, more specifically, is it possible?

[Cat man null]

Quote: Falcon

I'm waiting on counterargument points

You all were painted at the very beginning .. Well, okay .. Repetition is the mother of learning ...

Quote: Lance

The article does not define the concept of using Tu at present.
But she is simple. Potential cross-border conflicts over which this machine can work from the depths of the territory is mass.
And here to write off a working machine for a penny, by the standards of the budget, savings, leaving a void - this is some kind of young reformism.

And the fact that the Westerners do not have YES is because the States have long entered NATO on the topic of bombers, and they do not need long-range guns. But Canada is not Honduras with Guadeloupe.

Putting the removed / new equipment on the carcasses is not a problem.

Replacing Dryers -

Su-35С with a range of 4000 km with one PTB, which certainly stands up for itself. At the same time, on the Su-35, you can hang, in addition to two Caliber RCCs, a couple of RVV-SD and two RVV-MD, in addition to the Khabina electronic warfare containers. It is impossible to calculate the range with all body kits ..

Su-34, well, or Su-35S, will be able to carry two or three 3M-54 missiles. There will be a question on range. The driving range of the Tushka is about 7000 km, the range of the Su-34 with one anti-aircraft gun is about 4500 km. Of course there is a difference, but the most important thing is that the Su-34 can stand up for itself

With such "body kits" Dryers can only lie down for themselves! And then not far.

The idea of ​​replacing the supersonic at the breakthrough of the anti-aircraft bomber with subsonic transporters arose, apparently, when the snack ended

And with the "prototype of the successor", we got an enchanting Lego-scrambled eggs: we take amerovsky under-underderwaffe "on a scale", here we will stretch it, here we will expand it, here we will stick it in "Caliber" ...

General designers nervously smoke around the corner

Here, in fact, the canvas. Sapienti sat.

I would be in your place after this killed on the wall:

[Falcon]

Quote: Cat Man Null

I would be in your place after this killed on the wall:

Clear
For those who have not read the article - all this is said.

About the super-sound breakthrough is especially interesting. By intimidation and sonic boom to break through modern air defense?

And what kind of air defense does NATO have? I’ll tell you a terrible secret - it is based on fighter planes. Is he going to get away from them on super-sound?

By body kits - with body kits, the range of carcasses is not taken into account?

He also wrote about the depth of the territory, in view of the need for cover.

In short, it’s really easier to kill yourself against the wall than to repeat ALL THAT ALREADY TOLD.

[Cat man null]

Quote: Falcon

In short, it’s really easier to kill against a wall than to repeat ALL THAT ALREADY TOLD

Mdja .. ... okay:

You have problems with the Russian language, hire a tutor or corrector of your choice:

- or "everything already said"
- or "everything that has already been said"

You also have problems with logical thinking, but this is already for other specialists.

I carefully watched how you lead the discussion. You, IMHO, have the only goal - to prove to your opponent that he goof incompetent, and you are Alain Delon. Constructively, well .. You don’t hear your opponent at the same time. You do not need it.

What pleases - your opinion is only your opinion. And why do you need to prove something if you don’t have any influence on the decision (to write off / not to write off) .. just in vain stomp the keyboard

Then let me take my leave, you are not interesting to me

[Falcon]

Quote: Cat Man Null

You also have problems with logical thinking, but this is already to another specialist.

Super

Quote: Cat Man Null

I watched you lead the discussion. You, IMHO, have the only goal - to prove to your opponent that he is a sucker incompetent, and you - Alain Delon. Constructively, well .. You don’t hear your opponent at the same time. You do not need it.

I apologize if I offended you! I'm serious.
The point is different. When they start making fun of my posts, I reciprocate.

In fact, I am always open to criticism from technically savvy people. Which also did not agree with my article. They gave quite reasonable arguments - which are the place to be. But they did not try to make fun of it.
I have not yet heard full arguments from you. For everything else, I wrote above. If you don’t think so, I’m still ready to analyze the technical issues with which you do not agree. Only in a row.

And without straws plz. This is not serious

Quote: Cat Man Null

- or "everything already said"
- or "everything that has already been said"

And here is the article?

Quote: Cat Man Null

You have problems with the Russian language, hire a tutor or corrector of your choice:

Is this a self-affirmation option?
Do not tell me what to do and I won’t tell you where to go. If I need the opinion of a Russian language expert, I will ask my wife

[andj61]

Quote: Cat Man Null

You have problems with the Russian language, hire a tutor or corrector of your choice:

- or "everything already said"
- or "everything that has already been said"

Greetings, Roman!
Here I completely agree with you. True, now graduates and universities have problems with the Russian language.
True, there is another option - for example, there is an expression "incredibly happy". But if there is "unspeakable", then logically there should be "said" ...

[Cat man null]

Quote: andj61

Greetings, Roman!

Mutually

You see, IMHO it’s not only there and so much in the language itself .. the matter is a certain level of literacy, incl. military-technical .. okay, just technical.

Lance, as far as I understand, tried to awaken in the Author the idea that his creation ... is not quite perfect. What was called "troll"

Well, the author likes his article, and he likes himself - but what about me? Let him .. amuse himself

Something like this. Everything under IMHO, naturally.

[Throw]

CatMan, "khabina" is not the author's mistake, so you cannot make a mistake or seal it, this is exactly the "ringing that he heard", but does not understand

It was especially amusing how the consultant Bongo, appointed for solidity), in the very first comments sharply denied his participation in this opus and in support of this he even made several "fatherly" remarks to the author.

[Cat man null]

Quote: Lance

"khabina" is not a mistake of the author, so you cannot make a mistake or seal it, this is exactly the "ringing that he heard", but does not understand

Thank you, "so French I know." In addition - "rarefied layers of the atmosphere". Having a technical education (present, from the Union. I am a metallurgical engineer by diploma, and a physical chemist by specialty. But in life, for 25 years now, I have been an ERP developer and programmer), I would not have imagined this in a nightmare.

Quote: Lance

appointed for the sake of solidity) the consultant Bongo in the very first comments sharply denied his participation in this opus and in support of this even made several "fatherly" remarks to the author.

Did not see. I believe. Significant

[Throw]

Bongo RU Yesterday, 08: 01 ↑

Quote: Falcon
Hi Sergey! Thanks, at least someone appreciated

Hello! I have been waiting for this for a long time! drinks Although, as a consultant, I practically did not help in this case. wink

and higher and lower on kamentam, they there with the ancient cheer the guy in the style: "you wrote lapses, of course, dofiga, and wait, they stick you, but don't worry too much"

[Falcon]

Quote: Lance

and higher and lower on kamentam, they there with the ancient cheer the guy in the style: "you wrote lapses, of course, dofiga, and wait, they stick you, but don't worry too much"

Girls, when will you stick in the case? And then I'm tired of waiting!

[Falcon]

Quote: Lance

CatMan, "khabina" is not the author's mistake, so you cannot make a mistake or seal it, this is exactly the "ringing that he heard", but does not understand

As I understand it, the rest of the words are not clear.

Quote: Cat Man Null

I would never have imagined such a thing in a nightmare.

Well, philologists are harnessing.

When there is nothing to say on the case, you need to at least cover the priest.

Somehow sharply the arguments ended. I was hoping to at least really argue with experts. And here is one phil-fak

[Foofighter]

The point is different:

Quote: Aqela

So, we increase the size of Wi-Ef-23 by 1,5 times, well, to push rocket-bons ... What do we have?
1.5 * 1.5 * 1.5 = 3.375

Quote: Falcon

Which cube fool
what construction fool

well, etc ...

Quote: Cat Man Null

What was called "troll"

from such a redhead and

[Foofighter]

Also in:

"But what about supersonic air defense now penetrates? With a sonic strike? And how can a subsonic b-2 or a pack-yes cope with this?"

too many letters, so there can be no typo ...

[Foofighter]

Another "comrade" writes that aeroballistic missiles are not modern, and therefore we should probably refuse from ICBMs and IRBMs flying against the background of space ...
Well, there are many more FAQs besides "typos" can be listed

Quote: Cat Man Null

You see, IMHO it’s not only there and so much in the language itself .. the matter is a certain level of literacy, incl. military-technical .. okay, just technical.

It's about the "level of consciousness" and "who paid".

[xtur]

> In short, it's really easier to kill yourself against the wall than to repeat EVERYTHING ALREADY SAID

maybe it’s really worth taking the chance of NOT repeating yourself?

And yes - the maximum mass of the Su-34 45t, the Tu-22m3 126t. I would be very obliged to you if you could explain to me how to compare their combat use.

And yes - Nikolsky, who pours poison on the Soviet Navy, considered Tu-22M3 to be the only correct military solution in the conditions of Russia / USSR, referring to the naval use of this aircraft.

[Falcon]

Quote: xtur

And yes - the maximum mass of the Su-34 45t, the Tu-22m3 126t. I would be very obliged to you if you could explain to me how to compare their combat use.

And why not, if they can carry comparable ammunition?
Three X-22 rockets in the carcass against 2-x calibers on the su-35. For instance.
Difference in range, but no cover needed. Why not compare?

Quote: xtur

referring to the marine use of this aircraft.

But he was taken out of naval aviation ...

[xtur]

> Why not, if they can carry comparable ammunition?

Well, let's just raise the question - a large plane allows you to use large Raman / Raman missiles, i.e. with a large warhead and long range and with a higher average flight speed.

From the point of view of combat use, the flight range of the KR / RCC is a critical value, including its average flight speed. Therefore, it is very difficult to compare the combat use of two balanced aircraft

> But he was taken out of the naval aviation.

I suspect that one of the reasons for the re-launch of the Tu-160 was precisely the lack of the necessary quantities of naval aviation, which can be used against the AUG. Tu-160 may well pick up the required number of missiles that can be launched with safe distances.

[Falcon]

Quote: xtur

Well, let's just raise the question - a large plane allows you to use large Raman / Raman missiles, i.e. with a large warhead and long range and with a higher average flight speed.

You are theoretically right. But in practice, you need to look at exactly which missiles. Of the heavy RCCs, we only have the x-22, n-800 and caliber.
X-22 will not be able to take the dryer - but it is also outdated.
P-800 drying can take one already. The caliber will be able to lift two three pieces.
In this regard, yes, the Tu-22m3 can take away more missiles. But with regards to range and average speed - this is not correct. Since besides x-22, the rest of the rockets are identical.
Or do you want to propose to develop a new missile specifically for the carcass - with the best parameters?

Quote: xtur

I suspect that one of the reasons for the re-launch of the Tu-160 was precisely the lack of the necessary quantities of naval aviation, which can be used against AUGs. Tu-160 may well pick up the required number of missiles that can be launched from a safe distance.

Maybe

[Falcon]

Quote: Cat Man Null

With such "body kits" Dryers can only lie down for themselves!

Especially liked
Nothing that's two-thirds of the full combat load

How does it seem that they don’t fly with PTB?

[andj61]

Quote: Falcon

When Lenin said: each cook will rule the state. Was wrong.

Did Lenin say that?
Here you are misinterpreting Lenin: in your article “Will the Bolsheviks Hold State Power?” (1917) Lenin wrote: “We are not utopians. We know that any laborer and any cook are not able to take control of the state now. But we (...) demand an immediate break with the prejudice that it is to rule the state, to carry on the everyday, daily work of the administration, only wealthy officials or wealthy families can take officials. "We demand that training in public administration be given by conscious workers and soldiers, and that it be started immediately, that is, all workers, the whole poor, immediately begin to be involved in this training."

[Aqela]

Judging by the presence of a mass of grammatical and logical errors, the conclusion follows: or a diploma defended himself (without the participation of the author, of course) a very long time ago, or "auto RU" this diploma is someone "fitted". I somehow don’t believe in the existence of a higher education diploma with such illiteracy in writing words other than arguments in the kitchen, and the inability in the browser to enable spelling control in the settings.
By the way, if you are such a cool aviator, you should know that with an increase in linear dimensions, the mass of the structure increases in the cube.
So, we increase the size of Wi-Ef-23 by 1,5 times, well, to push rocket-bons ... What do we have?
1.5 * 1.5 * 1.5 = 3.375 
Hey citizen engineering! And an increase in mass of more than three times will not require radically (i.e. fundamentally) rework the entire structure? Maybe that's why even the appearance of the I-15 and TB-3 differed so much?

[Falcon]

Quote: Aqela

So, we increase the size of Wi-Ef-23 by 1,5 times, well, to push rocket-bons ... What do we have?
1.5 * 1.5 * 1.5 = 3.375 
Hey citizen engineering! And an increase in mass of more than three times does not require a radical (i.e. radically) rework of the entire structure? Maybe that's why even the appearance of the I-15 and TB-3 was so different?

Which in the cube
what design
A concept has been proposed, and the article is not about that at all.
First look at the maximum take-off carcasses - then carry nonsense.
When Lenin said: each cook will rule the state. Was wrong. So do not meddle in your own subject

[Cat man null]

Quote: Falcon

Which are in the cube? what design?

It was about this:

Quote: Article

The prototype should be the American experimental YF-23. It is he, but on a scale

By "stretching" the linear dimensions of this apparatus by 1.5 times (at least), you will get a threefold increase in mass. That will inevitably require redevelopment .. yes, everything, practically .. the materials from which the device is made remained (conditionally) the same, right?

And now - remember the diploma .. design engineer

Quote: Falcon

Proposed concept

I wouldn’t call it .. it's .. a horse chain

Quote: Falcon

First look at the maximum take-off carcasses - then carry nonsense

This phrase is not in the cashier at all .. They tried to illustrate to you .. sorry, the nonsense of your idea to "stretch YF-23", and you ..

In general, I repeat:

- I am sincerely glad that you do not influence the decision "to write off / not to write off"
- I do not intend to teach you anything at all .. they don’t pay me for this ..

Somehow

[Falcon]

Quote: Cat Man Null

By "stretching" the linear dimensions of this apparatus by 1.5 times (at least), you will get a threefold increase in mass. That will inevitably require redevelopment .. yes, everything, practically .. the materials from which the device is made remained (conditionally) the same, right?

What does stretching mean ?! How can I stretch a plane? You can only increase the length of the fuselage of a civilian liner.

I proposed a glider circuit and engines that can be put on it. Nothing to stretch. And he should have a take-off comparable to that of 22m3. That's all. And this is generally just a dream and not the main thing in the article.

Quote: Cat Man Null

I don’t intend to teach you anything .. I don’t get paid for it ..

Oh, fire from your training.

[Cat man null]

Quote: Falcon

Oh, fire from your training

With pleasure

[Falcon]

Quote: Cat Man Null

With pleasure

Well, what about the arguments besides UV-23?
Or while you continue to search for commas in the text?

[aszzz888]

So why do we need long-range aviation when the whole west abandoned it?

The question is of course rhetorical and multidimensional. It is simply impossible to answer whether or not long-range aviation is needed. Although the extreme use of TU 22 in Syria, it has been shown that it is too early to write them off. Perhaps you need to modify, because colossal finances are needed for new ones, but I just can’t remove them simply.

[Mobius]

Quote: from article

So why do we need long-range aviation when the whole west abandoned it?

Actually, we heard something similar in the 90s, right up to this: "Why do we need an ARMY? After all, no one is going to attack us!"

Although of course not being any, even the smallest specialist in aviation, and even more so in its application, I’ll try to judge the need to maintain and develop such aircraft as the Tu 22M3 in our aircraft.
Yes, this aircraft belongs to YES, which by itself narrows its scope, the range of tasks available to it ...

But here it is necessary to note that heather from the "Western partners", which at one time referred to the presence of the air refueling system in the air, which made it essentially a "SMALL STRATEGY".

Small but daring.

[Falcon]

Quote: Möbius

In fact, we heard something like that in the 90s, up to the following: "Why do we need an ARMY? After all, no one is going to attack us!"

In 90's, the price of oil was different.
Again, from my point of view, the money spent on Tu can be directed to a more effective strengthening of OUR army. There was such a promise.
But in fact, I agree with the rest of your comment.

[Mobius]

Quote: Falcon

In 90's, the price of oil was different.
Again, from my point of view, the money spent on Tu can be directed to a more effective strengthening of OUR army. There was such a promise.
But in fact, I agree with the rest of your comment.

That means they agree that the airplane is still too early to retire ...

Did I understand you correctly ?

He will live still, "old man" ... Bringing HERE WHEREVER, "extreme anxiety and concern."

Cheap and angry.

[Falcon]

Quote: Möbius

That means they agree that the airplane is still too early to retire ...

Did I understand you correctly ?

of course not!
here with this:

Quote: Möbius

Yes, this aircraft belongs to YES, which by itself narrows its scope, the range of tasks available to it ...

and with that

Quote: Möbius

But here it is necessary to note that heather from the "Western partners", which at one time referred to the presence of the air refueling system in the air, which made it essentially a "SMALL STRATEGY".

Key in due time

[alexmach]

Old airplanes must be operated where it is rational, until they develop a resource - and it is also necessary to develop a shift for them, and with this now, as I understand it, it’s tight.

A separate question is whether Russia generally needs strategic aviation, and which one.

[Aqela]

Firstly, Russia simply does not have attack aircraft carriers. Secondly, across the expanses of the Urals, Siberia, Tuva, Transbaikalia and the Far East, aircraft-carrying ships, such as mobile airfields, are somehow inconvenient to dissect ... Third, compare the cost of developing and building an attack aircraft carrier + the cost of a ton of carrier-based fighter jet bomber (preferably F-35, for greater clarity) and the price of aviation fuel ... The difference is impressive?

[ancient]

Quote: Möbius

But here it is necessary to note that heather from the "Western partners", which at one time referred to the presence of the air refueling system in the air, which made it essentially a "SMALL STRATEGY".

So YES, you just keep silent about the fact that then the Tu-22M was like mud and the land and sailors and in all directions ... that's why there was .. "heather from Western partners"

[Mobius]

Quote: ancient

So YES, you just keep silent about the fact that then the Tu-22M was like mud and the land and sailors and in all directions ... that's why there was .. "heather from Western partners"

Let me ask you a question:
- How many Tu-22x NOW, and do they complement the very not numerous, unfortunately, the fleet of supersonic Tu-160?
And are they, so to speak, "help"?

[ancient]

Quote: Möbius

How many Tu-22x NOW,

The question is extremely "incorrect" , but I will answer locally - "now it is much less than it was before"

Quote: Möbius

and do they complement

Well, they can’t complement the Tu-160, because. these are ABSOLUTELY different machines, "sharpened" for completely different tasks.

[Aleksandr1959]

When we compare the tasks of the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3, this is one thing. but I would like to draw attention to the serious difference in comfort, if this can be called comfort in the cabs of these machines. This moment, even if the air refueling system is again installed, limits the capabilities of the Tu-22M3 in terms of flight duration.

[Nikolaevich I]

There is so much "crap" expressed in this article that it is not easy to "get" to the truth! I did not understand the author's justification for the difference between strategic and long-range bombers! In the USSR, as a rule, the name "long-range bomber" was similar to the name "strategic bomber"! Somewhere, in the 70-80s of the last century, NATO took up arms against the Tu-22 for the reason that NATO "declared" Tu-22 ... ,, Backfire ,, "" an average strategic bomber "!; And the USSR stubbornly argued that the Tu-22 was a front-line bomber .... As a result, from the SSR it was necessary to "cut off" the Tu-22 "fuel receivers"! Therefore: 1. For what reason, the Tu-22 is not a strategic "bomber" when NATO has long recognized it as "strategyM"?; 2. "Fuel receivers" have long been "conceived" for the Tu-22 ... 3.Finally .... a decision has been made to further modernize the Tu-22M3 ... as a result, the Tu-22M3M should appear ... PS Actually, I agree with the concept that it is enough to use appropriately converted military transport aircraft for ISIS bombing ...

!

[Falcon]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

There is so much "crap" expressed in this article that it is not easy to "get" to the truth!

Garbage is not in the article ... If something is not clear, you need to ask and search. To scold and study once again as the great Lenin bequeathed, then there will be no garbage

Quote: Nikolaevich I

as a rule, the name "long-range bomber" was similar to the name "strategic bomber"!

nonsense!

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Why on earth is the Tu-22 not a strategic bomber when NATO has long recognized it as a strategic bomb?

did not read the article? Fab strategist he

Quote: Nikolaevich I

PS Actually, I agree with the concept that for the bombing of ISIS it is enough to use appropriately converted military transport aircraft ...

Although I wrote something in plain language, it seems.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Falcon

PS Actually, I agree with the concept that for the bombing of ISIS it is enough to use appropriately converted military transport aircraft ...

Although I wrote something in plain language, it seems.

Actually ..... the idea of ​​a "transport bomber" has long been "hovering" in my "reasoning" ... By the way, there was an article (no, no, not mine!), Where it was stated that the "transport" An-124 "Ruslan" was supposed to be used ("if something happens") and as a carrier of cruise missiles Kh-55 ...

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Falcon

Quote: Nikolaevich I
Why on earth is the Tu-22 not a strategic bomber when NATO has long recognized it as a strategic bomb?
did not read the article? Fab strategist he

"Have you read the article?" ..... well ..... Read-read .... very soon!

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Falcon

Quote: Nikolaevich I
as a rule, the name "long-range bomber" was similar to the name "strategic bomber"!
nonsense!

In vain is it you .... the history of Soviet bomber aviation "asserts" otherwise ...

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Falcon

Quote: Nikolaevich I
There is so much "crap" expressed in this article that it is not easy to "get" to the truth!

Garbage is not in the article ... If something is not clear, you need to ask and search. To scold and study once again as the great Lenin bequeathed, then there will be no garbage

Actually ... in my word, the letters are in a slightly different order.

[Iline]

Quote: aszzz888

extreme use of TU 22 in Syria, showed that it is too early to write them off

It is not bitter to state this, but these planes should have been written off for a long time. I don’t argue a good plane. It was. For its time.
Improvements are all tailings. Gliders are very worn out.
In no case do I want to belittle the merits of the veteran, but there is no rumor about the new developments of the long-range aircraft. This is sad. Initially, PAK DA was positioned as a replacement for both the Tu-22M3, and Tu-95MS, and Tu-160. Only here something tells me the sixth sense (and in YES I served 23 years) that the tasks of the strategists and the long-range fighters are different, the tasks to be solved are different, the equipment for performing these tasks needs different. Universal plane?
Someone tell me how the Tu-160 was bombed? But he can even have a bomb sight.
Need a new plane instead of a veteran.

[glasha3032]

Where are the gliders worn out. If 90-00 years stood in the parking lot? The average flight time was 1200-1500 hours for 2008

[dauria]

It’s simply impossible to answer whether or not long-range aviation is needed.

Yes, a competent article, you should not. And there are only two questions
1 Need aviation with such a radius? - Of course it is. There are more than goals beyond the operational depth (where the Su-34 is no longer getting). Themselves shouting bases overlaid. Yes, and aircraft carriers have not gone anywhere.
2 Do you need to change? Yes, we’re not going anywhere, of course it is. Or fly to TB-3 Berlin to bomb.
Well, and cut? So no one offers, all the same there is no "dough" for new ones.

[PPD]

TB 3 as a night bomber was quite successful until the end of the war, with minimal losses. So for reference.

[dauria]

quite successfully until the end of the war,

Eh hehe. Yes, and at the beginning of the war it was not used for a good life. And at the end-
Even according to the Finnish results:

report of the 9th Army Air Force: “The use of TB-3 aircraft as combat aircraft is not practical due to the large size and low speed, but use by day is completely unacceptable."


From the beginning of 1943, obsolete bombers began to be returned from the front to flight schools. So, in August 1st Guards. ADD regiment transferred 12 of the oldest and worn-out vehicles to Chelyabinsk. There they were used to teach bombing and aerial shooting until the very end of the war. Since the beginning of 1944, TB-3 finally switched to the role of military transport and training vehicles, and they were operated mainly in the rear. This is indirectly evidenced by the statistics of losses. In 1944, the Air Force wrote off 15 TB-3s with M-17 engines, one with M-34 and three with M-34RN, but only because of accidents and wear.

To our justification, the Germans didn’t have a decent mark in this regard either.

[Aqela]

I allow myself to note that these arguments are not entirely adequate. The technology of that time did not contribute to the prolonged use of technology. The same Yak-3 ... 9 and La-5 ... 7 that survived the Patriotic War? No, in a few years everyone fell apart at the airfields due to the wear of the structure. Whereas the MiG-21s, the last ones seemed to be taken out of service last year, and the An-2s fly here and there. They were made - in the post-war period, there was an opportunity to work out designs and technologies at a qualitatively different level ...
By the way, about the An-2

ASH-62IR is a star-shaped 9-cylinder engine developed at A. D. Shvetsov Design Bureau in 1938 for transport and civil aviation. It is still operated on the An-2 aircraft. The motor was mass-produced in the USSR and Russia for more than 50 years.

[Aqela]

I agree. I myself was very surprised how many TB-3s survived until the end of the Second World War. By the way, I recall, Po-2 also showed itself not very badly. So in many cases it is the correct tactics of using one or another weapon that is beneficial. Well, for example, the "mosinka" is not very good when fighting in a trench or landing on parachutes, but as a "sniper" - wow ...

[Signaller]

When placed on the Tu-22М3, it automatically falls under the contract
Who will it stop during the time of sanctions ???? Well, it’s possible even before the ban on everything to talk .. Like it’s impossible then it’s impossible. When you want to fuck, it’s impossible - this is the best excuse for the lazy.

[Gray brother]

Quote: Signaller

When placed on the Tu-22М3, it automatically falls under the contract
Who will it stop during the time of sanctions ????

The war will begin (God forbid), all contracts will go to the furnace.

[Falcon]

Quote: Signaller

When placed on the Tu-22М3, it automatically falls under the contract
Who will it stop during the time of sanctions ???? Well, it’s possible even before the ban on everything to talk .. Like it’s impossible then it’s impossible. When you want to fuck, it’s impossible - this is the best excuse for the lazy.

Of course no one!
It is necessary to withdraw from all treaties, close borders, hang up Western ambassadors, and have long since begun to destroy the decaying West with Topol and Yars
I generally for it!

[Bongo]

Quote: Falcon

Of course no one!
It is necessary to withdraw from all treaties, close borders, hang up Western ambassadors, and have long since begun to destroy the decaying West with Topol and Yars
I generally for it!

Cyril, take it easy! Perhaps you shouldn't get carried away like this, and the criticism is still mostly constructive. Another question is that now we can in many ways allow us to behave more freely. The Americans, for example, declared all of their B-1Bs "non-strategic bombers." And nothing...

[Falcon]

Quote: Bongo

The Americans, for example, declared all of their B-1Bs "non-strategic bombers." And nothing...

There are no cruise missiles in service with nuclear warheads. If the Kh-160 and Kh-55 are “removed” from the Tu-101 and this fact is proved, then they can also be removed from the START list.
For the same reason, the Tu-22M3 is not in START.

[Bongo]

Quote: Falcon

There are no cruise missiles in service with nuclear warheads. If the Kh-160 and Kh-55 are “removed” from the Tu-101 and this fact is proved, then they can also be removed from the START list.
For the same reason, the Tu-22M3 is not in START.

What do you think, how long does it take to create CDs with nuclear warheads or adapt existing ones?

[Falcon]

Quote: Bongo

What do you think, how long does it take to create CDs with nuclear warheads or adapt existing ones?

Not much, I agree!
But the fact is. In fact, not too much time is needed to adapt the Tu-22M3 to x-101. But why, then another question?

[Foofighter]

The bomber without missiles to him ceased to be a supersonic strategic, and turned into a tactical biplane?

[Bersaglieri]

On the JASSM SBN adapt compact - a lot of time is not required. A B61-12 V-1B and so can carry.

[alexmach]

They are not armed with cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Yeah, but there are planning bombs ... and suitable for use with the F-15 ..

[ancient]

Quote: Bongo

The Americans, for example, declared all of their B-1Bs "non-strategic bombers." And nothing...

And anyway .. he flies great

[Sweles]

Quote: Falcon

It is necessary to withdraw from all treaties, close borders, hang up Western ambassadors, and have long since begun to destroy the decaying West with Topol and Yars
I generally for it!

about withdrawing from the treaties is right, after Russia was on the verge of death, after the Americans brazenly steal the death, I think now we need to think not about world peace, but about how to survive in this situation. from the agreement on not placing nuclear weapons in outer space and hanging a military station with nuclear missiles above America’s head is under our power to bring a spiral to mind and not let anyone into space with nuclear weapons. And you won’t bother to put on international treaties, we were not the first to start ...

[Cap.Morgan]

Quote: Falcon

Quote: Signaller

When placed on the Tu-22М3, it automatically falls under the contract
Who will it stop during the time of sanctions ???? Well, it’s possible even before the ban on everything to talk .. Like it’s impossible then it’s impossible. When you want to fuck, it’s impossible - this is the best excuse for the lazy.

Of course no one!
It is necessary to withdraw from all treaties, close borders, hang up Western ambassadors, and have long since begun to destroy the decaying West with Topol and Yars
I generally for it!

They will also withdraw from all contracts.
Our situation is worse than with the union.
Smaller territory, population, industry.
They will be able to produce more weapons, and since their treaties also no longer bind them to place missile bases near Kharkov and Riga.
What will you do? Riga Tomahawk will fly to Peter for five minutes.
And what a wonderful neutron bomb they have!
By the way, do you sweat in a chemical protection suit? Is there no allergy to a gas mask?

[Falcon]

Quote: Cap.Morgan

Quote: Falcon

Quote: Signaller

When placed on the Tu-22М3, it automatically falls under the contract
Who will it stop during the time of sanctions ???? Well, it’s possible even before the ban on everything to talk .. Like it’s impossible then it’s impossible. When you want to fuck, it’s impossible - this is the best excuse for the lazy.

Of course no one!
It is necessary to withdraw from all treaties, close borders, hang up Western ambassadors, and have long since begun to destroy the decaying West with Topol and Yars
I generally for it!

They will also withdraw from all contracts.
Our situation is worse than with the union.
Smaller territory, population, industry.
They will be able to produce more weapons, and since their treaties also no longer bind them to place missile bases near Kharkov and Riga.
What will you do? Riga Tomahawk will fly to Peter for five minutes.
And what a wonderful neutron bomb they have!
By the way, do you sweat in a chemical protection suit? Is there no allergy to a gas mask?

That sarcasm was

[Aqela]

Wow you even a word sarcasm you know Have you started reading dictionaries after reproaches for illiteracy? Happy!
By the way:

Examples of sarcasm manifestations:
1) - Your logic must be sent to the front.
- What for?
- She's killing!
2) Anger is a state of mind when the tongue works faster than the brain.
...
The virtues of sarcasm
Sarcasm, although it is a negative manifestation of intellectual abilities, but still has its positive qualities, and therefore, the advantages can be distinguished:
- Verbal weapons, which helps to keep self-defense on an intellectual level and in case of disputes, do not resort to the use of force;
- The manifestation of wit and developed intelligence;
- It can be a veiled context that helps to hide the essence of the conversation from strangers;
- It can be used in pictures if verbal expression is excluded;
...
Disadvantages of sarcasm
The ability to build an implied context in conversation in heightened contrast carries a negative manifestation of human wit, and, accordingly, is a generally accepted drawback. These disadvantages include the following:
- A peculiar form of ridicule of the actions and actions of others, as well as the situations and circumstances that arose;
- Causes negative perception and can lead to unpleasant consequences;
- Contains in its context a high probability of the manifestation of high intelligence among those who express sarcasm, making it clear that the opposite side does not have high intellectual qualities;
- Does not cause joy and fun;
- It is a form of black PR;
- Allows you to express hatred and unfriendly attitude to something;
- Has a fine line with humor.
Sarcasm Sayings:
Sarcasm is the last trick of the bashful and chaste in heart people who rudely and obsessively climb into the soul.

By the way, no one personally entered your soul. The publication is being discussed, and your awkward, unsubstantiated and unsubstantiated attempts to defend some of the provisions of this publication.

[Falcon]

Quote: Aqela

By the way:

Philologists and theorists on another site

[Aqela]

Then nef.ig stated that somewhere there is sarcasm and so on ... Of course, if you consider visitors to this site for dull nedo.umkov ... Then yes ...
By the way, regarding theorists. And what is your practical touch on the Tu-22M3? Eh?

[Falcon]

Quote: Aqela

And what is your practical touch on the Tu-22M3?

Did I say somewhere that I am a pilot?

[ancient]

Quote: Aqela

By the way, regarding theorists. And what is your practical raid on the Tu-22M3? Huh?

And then ... "ask"

This is for theorists .. a practical raid, but for PILOTS it is .. ACTUAL and from WHICH PLACE (that is, as someone) and separately INDEPENDENT, well, it would not hurt to inquire about the CBP PREPARATION YES

Then it’s a QUESTION, not ....

[Signaller]

So for fun about flight characteristics. Sometimes speed is a good substitute for a low altitude. Well, for what I bought .....
The new missile was a development of the projects of the K-10P and K-14 systems, but it represented a qualitative step forward. The use of a rocket engine as a propulsion system made it possible to achieve high flight speeds, up to M = 3,5 at an altitude of 22,5 km (i.e., to a speed 3,5 times higher than the speed of sound at a given altitude), guaranteeing overcoming any the air defense system that existed at that time.

[bober1982]

The West never had long-range aircraft, therefore, to refuse what they do not have, and it was never somehow strange to say. Discussions about the need for the Tu-22m3, the NKPB-6 sight, the effectiveness of using the Il-112, the use of Tu -22m3 as a delivery "chugunins" are very naive.

[Bersaglieri]

How did it not have? And what about the F-111B? And what about Mirage-IV? And the "V-series"? Everything is in the niche of "long-distance but not strategists". And the current LRSA in terms of performance characteristics is more suitable for "distant" ones.

[bober1982]

what distant are these? got excited

[Amurets]

Quote: bober1982

The West has never had long-range aircraft, therefore, to give up what they do not have, and it never has been, it is somehow strange to say.

Here I completely disagree with you. Great Britain had long-range aviation. This is the famous series V. In addition to this, the USA produced a large series of B-47 and B-58 "Hustler". Look: Ilyin "Bombers". Whatever they say and do not wrote, but the characteristics of the B-47, Valiant, Victor, Vulcan have always been compared with our Tu-16, and the Tu-16 is a long-range bomber.

[bober1982]

Heavy bombers (missile carriers) can only have two countries in service: Russia and the United States, so the British did not pull, there is no power. It is not correct to compare the Tu-16 (DA plane) and Tu-22m3 (DA plane), these are different planes level, solved and solve different problems.
Tu-16, B-47, B-58 is all antiquity, old honored old men.

[Amurets]

Quote: bober1982

Heavy bombers (missile carriers) can only have two countries in service: Russia and the United States, so the British did not pull, there is no power. It is not correct to compare the Tu-16 (DA plane) and Tu-22m3 (DA plane), these are different planes level, solved and solve different problems.
Tu-16, B-47, B-58 is all antiquity, old honored old men.

I don’t argue with you! It’s simply incorrect to say that there was no long-range aviation in Europe. But for the rest I agree with you and do not even try to compare the Tu-16 and Tu-22m3. Cars of different generations, but the goals and objectives of the Tu-16 have passed to Tu-22m3

[Bongo]

Quote: Amurets

Cars of different generations, but the goals and objectives of the Tu-16 passed to the Tu-22m3

Different generations, but used in parallel. I watched both in Vozdvizhenka.

[Amurets]

Sergey! These are planes planes 326TBAD.303-TBAP was part of this division and was based on the Zavitinsk airfield. And in Vozdvizhenka there was an 444 regiment of this division. Therefore, I wrote that when changing planes, the tasks did not change. My wife's relative served there.

[Bongo]

Quote: Amurets

Sergey! These are planes planes 326TBAD.303-TBAP was part of this division and was based on the Zavitinsk airfield. And in Vozdvizhenka there was an 444 regiment of this division. Therefore, I wrote that when changing planes, the tasks did not change. My wife's relative served there.

In Vozdvizhenka, the Tu-16 flew somewhere before the 1993 year, there was also an intelligence regiment on the Tu-16R in Spassk.

[Aqela]

The famous V series is powerful. We were unable to make a single normal plane for a specific task, they swarmed up "celebrities". Comparing a knot with a finger is not an objectionable occupation, but strange, let's say.

Vickers Valiant is a British long-range bomber, the first of the V-series bombers. He made his first flight on May 18, 1951. He was in service with the Royal Air Force in 1955-1965.
...
Handley Page Victor is a British jet strategic bomber. Designed and manufactured by Handley Page Aircraft Company. The third and last of the V-Series bombers (Vickers Valiant, Avro Vulcan and Handley Page Victor). Created as part of the British Airborne Nuclear Deterrence System. A total of 86 aircraft were built.
He made his first flight on December 24, 1952. He entered the service of the Royal Air Force in 1958. Victor was briefly used as a bomber - in 1968, Viktor was expelled from the nuclear deterrence program ...
...
Avro Vulcan is the British strategic bomber, the second of the V-series bombers. He made his first flight on August 31, 1952. A total of 136 aircraft were produced, including prototypes.
The "Volcano" was in service with the Royal Air Force in 1956-1984, thus becoming the last British strategic bomber. This type of aircraft made several sorties during the Falkland War ...
Volcano aircraft participated in the bombing of Port Stanley during the 1982 Falkland War (Operation Black Buck). As a result of the raids, the runway on the islands captured by the Argentines was damaged and the radar installation was destroyed. However, this practically did not affect the course of the war. This operation was the first and last combat use of the Volcanoes.

Impressive results of the "famous series" ... Eh ... About the Tu-16, can you just as poorly say?

[Aqela]

Better than in "Corner of Heaven" is difficult to say. All idle speculations are noted in one fell swoop:

In the second half of the 40s, the aviation industry of the leading aviation powers of the world faced the task of creating long-range bombers equipped with turbojet and turboprop engines. For the USSR, the creation of a long-range jet bomber capable of hitting targets within a radius of 3000 km in the post-war period has become one of the vital programs in the field of military aviation. A plane of this class, along with intercontinental strategic aircraft, was an effective deterrent. The need to counter the superiority of the surface forces of the West over the Soviet Navy, required the development of a class of aircraft capable of hitting surface ships of a potential enemy. Therefore, the USSR, unlike its western rivals, all the post-war years constantly developed precisely these types of aircraft.

In the West, the class of medium strategic bombers and missile carriers gradually faded away: the B-47 was removed from service in the 60s, a small number of supersonic B-58s quickly disappeared from the scene. The British Valiants were soon removed from service due to design flaws, and the Volcanoes and Viktors, having experienced a short renaissance as missile carriers, gradually turned into refuellers and have now been removed from service. The French carrier of the national nuclear bomb "Mirage-4" can hardly be attributed to this class of aircraft due to its relatively small payload and relatively short range. Thus, the USSR remained the only great world power that persistently, due to its specific geopolitical and military-strategic position, continued to design and build aircraft of the medium long-range bomber class. One of the most important figures in this global game between the West and the East was the Soviet long-range bomber Tu-16, created in the early 50s at the Tupolev Design Bureau.

[Dimon19661]

After modernization, they still serve the Russian aerospace forces quite well. The article put the minus author is clearly poorly versed in this topic. The author's conclusions and suggestions, sorry, but this is complete nonsense.

[Falcon]

Quote: Dimon19661

After modernization, they still serve the Russian aerospace forces quite well. The article put the minus author is clearly poorly versed in this topic. The author's conclusions and suggestions, sorry, but this is complete nonsense.

Yes, I'm generally far from aviation.
More in ballroom dancing.
I suggest you write a full-blown rebuttal article, like a real pro!

[Dimon19661]

Oh .. and so what, criticism is not perceived? Then explain how a single-seat American experimental fighter rejected by the US Air Force can serve as a prototype for a Russian long-range bomber? Did our designers take part in the work on this aircraft, or advised NORTROP? Or will the Americans give us all documentation and technology for the aircraft.
Compare Tu-22M3 and Su-34,35 incorrectly-completely different planes, both in type and application.

[Falcon]

Quote: Dimon19661

Oh .. and so what, criticism is not perceived? Then explain how a single-seat American experimental fighter rejected by the US Air Force can serve as a prototype for a Russian long-range bomber? Did our designers take part in the work on this aircraft, or advised NORTROP? Or will the Americans give us all documentation and technology for the aircraft.
Compare Tu-22M3 and Su-34,35 incorrectly-completely different planes, both in type and application.

Have you criticized? sorry did not notice. So far I see that you simply did not understand anything from what was written, judging by the questions.
And then the documentation? where do the Americans?
The only thing you understand is that they are different in type. Well this is not bad

I get the feeling that many just read the headline and watch the pictures Since instead of counter arguments, questions already asked are asked

[Bongo]

Quote: Dimon19661

Conclusions and suggestions of the author, sorry, but this is complete nonsense.

The author stated his reasoned point of view, having done a lot of work, for which worth respect. Do you agree with his point of view or not, your business. For example, I also can not agree with some of the conclusions set forth in the publication, but this does not give anyone the right to infringe on anyone's dignity. If you do not agree, please argue reasonedly.

[Lopatov]

Here's a word, I found only one argument, and very, very controversial. "West refused"

But I apologize, the Russian Armed Forces operate in fundamentally different conditions than the European countries of NATO and the United States. Due to our geographical location, vast territory and relatively small population.

Well, the rest of the arguments are more likely to criticize the means of destruction than the aircraft itself. For some reason, by default, the goal of modernization is not the task of giving the aircraft greater versatility, greater informatization, closer inclusion in the reconnaissance, target designation and defeat system.
And this is wrong.

RPG-7 could not fight armored vehicles with reactive armor systems. But instead of abandoning it, a "tandem" was developed. A TB and a fragmentation shot added versatility to the grenade launcher. The weapon model must work until the modernization resource is completely depleted.

[xtur]

> If you do not agree, please argue with reasons.

I joined your statement, in the sense I set a plus, although I do not agree with many of the author’s conclusions.

but Falcon needs to take criticism of his article more calmly - opinions will be different, and incorrect too. This is an inevitable copyright burden.

[bistrov.]

Tu-22, at one time, was created as a means to destroy aircraft carriers. Then it turned out that it can destroy ground targets quite well. So, the United States cut its aircraft carriers for scrap? Or was the decision of Soviet strategists to create such an aircraft wrong? Something I do not understand the author. He complains that the TU-22M3 is too complicated and expensive. In his opinion, a modern aircraft should be at the level of the Mosin rifle and consist of three parts: pieces of iron, pieces of wood and belts. That is why he brought us here as an example of a contemporary of the aforementioned rifle "Ilya Muromets"?

[Aleksandr72]

There was also a separate class of more classic bombers. Such as B-2, B-52, Tu-95, Tu-22М3, Tu-160, etc. Their main disadvantage is that they can not stand up for themselves in air combat, but there are also some advantages.

So it was not required of them - bombers - their task was purely shock - to deliver missiles or bombs to the target, and if we take into account that the planes were created for a global nuclear war, then in such a war bombers essentially became a one-time weapon - just a breakthrough to the goals and precise unloading of it justified both the creation and maintenance of these aircraft. And returning to the native airfield ... is not a fact that in a nuclear war there will be where to return. Against this background, there was no need to adapt bombers to aerial combat.

Tu-22, at one time, was created as a means to destroy aircraft carriers.

- It’s not entirely true that the Tu-22 (first), like the Tu-22M (a completely different plane) were created precisely as supersonic long-range bombers for delivering a bombing missile (including special ammunition) against targets in Western Europe and others NATO countries and their allies. But after, under the terms of the contract with Tu-22M2, equipment for refueling in the air and accordingly the creation of the Tu-22M3 modification was removed, it was decided to use these vehicles as missile carriers to counter carrier-based aircraft (primarily American) by striking aircraft carriers.
I don’t put a minus to the author of the article, but the conclusions in it are somewhat far-fetched. The Tu-22M3, as a fighting vehicle, has not yet outlived itself, of course, it needs modernization, but in a modern difficult environment it is much wiser to keep these aircraft in service than to cut them into needles.
I have the honor.

[your1970]

Yes, he doesn’t offer to cut them into needles, they themselves will leave us by resource, it’s not eternal, you can’t change the glider unlike AO, REO, engines

[ancient]

Quote: Alexander72

So from them - bombers and it was not required

Here I agree completely

Quote: Alexander72

Not quite right

And here it’s not exactly right with you exactly the Yak-28B and Tu-22B were created for .... further in the text, but in supersonic only overcoming the enemy’s air defense responsibility zones.
But K and in the future, M2 were created specifically for the MARINE tasks and the first to receive them were SEAMERS !!!
It was later that "packages # 2" appeared.

[Falcon]

Quote: bistrov.

In his opinion, a modern aircraft should be at the level of the Mosin rifle and consist of three parts: pieces of iron, pieces of wood and belts. That is why he brought us here as an example of a contemporary of the aforementioned rifle "Ilya Muromets"?

At the club level, Mosin is too expensive.
The question is spending efficiency.
Either you didn’t read further this photo, or I wrote too much to understand

[Aqela]

Your reasoning is strange to me. Firstly, as a cold weapon, the Mosin rifle was rather a good spear, with the ability to shoot, and not with a club or a reed there. Secondly, the cost of producing the "mosinka" was slightly more than 100 rubles, while the average salary of an industrial worker in 1941 was about 300 rubles. So it's hard to call it a road. And this despite the fact that SVT-40 cost about 1000 rubles, PPD and diesel fuel - about 1200. The platoon commander's PPD + a standard machine gun cost a little less than the armament of all the platoon's fighters with "three-lines".

[ancient]

Quote: bistrov.

ev Then it turned out that he could well destroy ground targets. What, the United States cut its aircraft carriers into scrap metal?

How are you "interesting" reasoning ..... just for some reason are silent that AUG and AUS in their combat strength have become practically different with great capabilities, and the Tu-22M as it was ... and remained in .. " ", all the former security has disappeared ... or are you like a true" urya-patriot "... with a naked ... yes on a hedgehog"?

[Bongo]

Cyril, you did it all the same! I must admit that such an article requires a lot of courage, because no doubt a lot of poop will fly to you. Moreover, most of them will be from people poorly versed in the issue and based on emotions. So, be ready ... but from me "+"" for courage. "
Now let's get down to business, let's start with the armament:

The first shortcomings of the X-22 began to appear already in the 80's ... the use of ARLGSN does not always take place due to the complexity of implementation and the increase in mass. Therefore, questions about the X-80 noise immunity have already appeared in 22's.

The main disadvantage of the Kh-22 is not low noise immunity, the "head" and other guidance equipment can be changed. You did not mention that this is a liquid anti-ship missile system that requires a highly aggressive oxidant refueling and time consuming and dangerous maintenance. It is because of this that her time has passed. The X-32 is a hopeless and archaic project.

However, in real combat operations, the Tu-22М3 with the X-22 missile especially not marked.

Not marked at all.

And, of course, the apogee is the use of the Tu-22М3 in Georgia, which ended up very sadly.

Not the fault of the car. Any most advanced technique can be ruined by misuse. In this case, the Buk-M1 air defense missile system was shot down by the closing Tu-22M3, which was carrying out photo control of the results of the bombing, by the way, they were bombed by a "three with a minus". Results in the picture.

The plane was lost as a result of illiterate planning for a combat mission, lack of a REP, and routine actions.

[Falcon]

Quote: Bongo

Cyril, you did it all the same! I must admit that such an article requires a lot of courage, because no doubt a lot of poop will fly to you. Moreover, most of them will be from people poorly versed in the issue and based on emotions. So, be ready ... but from me "+" "for courage."

Hi Sergey! Thanks, at least someone appreciated
Already flew, it seems to me many commentators have not even read everything. Yes, actually, God bless them, I did not expect quality criticism.
They probably saw the American plane in the last photo, and concluded from the name ...

Quote: Bongo

You did not mention that it is a liquid RCC requiring refueling with an extremely aggressive oxidizing agent and time-consuming and dangerous maintenance.

Well, he said:

Quote: Falcon

But there still remains the rocket engine. And this is perhaps the most stupid solution for a modern rocket. The complexity of the operation of the rocket engine is the high toxicity of the components, the risk of fire when in contact with the oxidizing agent, the need for constant and qualified maintenance. In terms of costs, this does not go to any comparison not only with a solid fuel engine, but also with a small turbojet engine

I just probably in the wrong place probably said. As if not separating the X-32 from the X-22.

Quote: Bongo

Not marked at all.

Yes !

Quote: Bongo

Not the fault of the machine. Any most advanced technique can be ruined by misuse. In this case, the Buk-M1 air defense missile system was shot down by the closing Tu-22M3, which was carrying out photo control of the results of the bombing, by the way, they were bombed by a "three with a minus". Results in the picture.

Agree with you. Generals always prepare for the last war. But here is the moment too. perform photo control on the Tu-22М3 Well, how to go on a tank for beer ...

[Bongo]

Quote: Falcon

Hi Sergey! Thanks, at least someone appreciated

Hello! I have been waiting for this for a long time! Although, as a consultant, I practically did not help in this case.

Quote: Alexander72

The Tu-22M3 has not yet outlived itself as a combat vehicle, of course, it requires modernization, but in a modern difficult environment it is much wiser to keep these planes in line than to cut them into needles.

Then I completely agree with Alexander, the car still has a modernization potential. Yes, and we are not in the position right now to scatter, if not with the newest, but still quite combat-ready bombers.

Quote: Falcon

Generals always prepare for the last war. But here is the moment too. to carry out photocontrol on the Tu-22М3 well, how to go on a tank for beer ...

You can read more about that war here:
August 2008 of the year. War in the air

[Falcon]

Quote: Bongo

Although as a consultant I practically did not help in this case

Well, truth is born in dispute. Plus, for completeness, your article (Antonov Bombers) is just what you need.

Quote: Bongo

Then I completely agree with Alexander, the car still has a modernization potential. Yes, and we are not in the position right now to scatter, if not with the newest, but still quite combat-ready bombers.

Maybe it should be, who knows. In our case, they can withdraw and cut money - this is also possible ...

Quote: Bongo

You can read more about that war here:
August 2008 of the year. War in the air

Thank you, I will definitely look! If - what in PM on it I will write to you. I'm just running away now

[Bongo]

Quote: Falcon

In our case, they can withdraw and cut money - this is also possible ...

Quote: Falcon

The question is spending efficiency.

Cyril, and the plane is to blame for what? With the same success they can plunder the money allocated on the Tu-160M
This is not a question for technology, but for the "tsar" and his "boyars" who revel in impunity.

[Falcon]

Quote: Bongo

Cyril, and the plane is to blame for what? With the same success they can plunder the money allocated on the Tu-160M

For its time, it’s quite good, and not to blame. And about the Tu-160M naturally, but this is generally a separate issue ...

Quote: Bongo

This is not a question for technology, but for the "tsar" and his "boyars" who revel in impunity.

+! Vicious circle...

[ancient]

Quote: Bongo

I must admit that such an article requires a lot of courage, because no doubt a lot of poop will fly to you. Moreover, most of them will be from people poorly versed in the issue and based on emotions. So, be ready ... but from me "+" "for courage."
Now let's get down to business, let's start with the armament:

Seryozha, I absolutely agree and support !!! The author has a very big "+"!

Although .. he has a lot of "lapses" in his article:

1. Indicated are some "beyond the block" launch ranges of the X-22 = x, that with the PG, that with the PSI.
2. X-22P were used only on the Tu-22KP / KPD and that .. they could be counted on the fingers.
3. Range or tactical range ... these are only DREAMS (if I noticed that the BK-45K was even taken to the machine to somehow reduce the CLS, well, etc.
4. Serious reconnaissance and additional exploration as paradises was not required.
5. I have never met a single machine equipped specifically with MVK .. maybe the author meant something else?

Well, now, according to your comments, it is BAD, or rather .. in general, NO IMMUNITY for "active" heads is the main disadvantage of these missiles and the entire complex (well, for PSI .. this is accuracy. Although for SBCH + - 10 km does not play no grand pianos "... they would only let me fly.

For the photocontrol of the results of b / m on the Tu-22M3 (like M2_ AFA-42/20 is installed and if they put NAFA-MK-75 at night .. on EVERYONE !!!!!

So your conclusion at the end exactly reflects the whole ESSENCE !!!

Well, for the rest of the "speeches" of the urya-patriots .. I will not even stop ... since so much nonsense, .. well, we have it as always

[Bongo]

Quote: ancient

Well, for the rest of the "speeches" of the urya-patriots .. I will not even stop ... since so much nonsense, .. well, we have it as always

Hello my friend! Well, I did not expect another from you! I did not see the X-22 missile live, but I did observe the SAM with the S-75 and C-200 SAM systems. There, the refueling and maintenance system is approximately the same as on the X-22 and the fuel + oxidizer components are very similar.
Glad you came back healthy!

[ancient]

Quote: Bongo

There the refueling and maintenance system is about the same as on the X-22 and the fuel + oxidizer components are very similar.

Yes ... the filling station "called names .." death to summer cottages and vegetable gardens " if there was a "siphon" .. which happened quite often but you won’t get anywhere from this.

Well, what about .. "alive and well !, and especially .." returned ".. you got very excited

[Bongo]

Quote: ancient

Well, what about .. "alive and well !, and especially .." returned ".. you got very excited

Come on, in your years, maybe not very healthy, but alive! Are you generally for a long time or again on business trips?

[ancient]

Quote: Bongo

or again

AGAIN!!!

[Bongo]

Quote: ancient

AGAIN!!!

[Falcon]

Quote: ancient

The author has a very big "+"!

Thank you

Quote: ancient

1. Indicated are some "beyond the block" launch ranges of the X-22 = x, that with the PG, that with the PSI.
2. X-22P were used only on the Tu-22KP / KPD and that .. they could be counted on the fingers.
3. Range or tactical range ... these are only DREAMS (if I noticed that the BK-45K was even taken to the machine to somehow reduce the CLS, well, etc.
4. Serious reconnaissance and additional exploration as paradises was not required.
5. I have never met a single machine equipped specifically with MVK .. maybe the author meant something else?

X-22 from open sources + consulted.
range is distillation - since there is no reliable range data with combat load. Therefore, he brought distillation for everyone. So to speak, to understand the delta.

Without intelligence, how to direct the X-22? According to external data, do they suggest it?

for the rest I did not understand

[ancient]

Quote: Falcon

X-22 from open sources + consulted.

Well, "open sources" .. they are ... these ... "sources"
But .. "consulted"
The rocket itself is not flying ... it needs a COMPLEX ... which will give it a control system - these are two options ... either a PNA (for an active head) or "Orbit-10tS", through NK-45 (through DZU or RAM) no difference, but here too ... the PNA will be "present" (for the formation of the "floating spot" mode).
Now we "take" data on the capabilities of the PNA (ie, zoom modes and long-range sweeps), which we see ... that's right, + to this you understand that you need more:
1. Form the aiming mode.
2. Identify the target and the accuracy of the development of the aiming mode.
3. Produce the control unit by Range.
4. Produce the control unit in azimuth (or elevation).
5. Get the ACS mode.
6. Make "manipulations" to prepare the rocket for launch.

The plane flies at a speed of 900 ... it covers 1 km in 15 minute. all operations for a rocket with a Passive head are much easier, but the same ... it takes .. "... minutes"
So there’s nothing left of your 600 ... nothing.

Now it is more difficult with the active one, because if the passive is an ordinary trigger range counter and DISS, then in the active one it is the "capture" by the head of the missile itself of the marks from the target both in Range and in elevation, and what would be the capture of AKR, you need to do so that there would be a capture of both the PNA and the Range, from which the ability to execute the CO in range begins is completely different and analysis is required for "stable capture" and so on.
So you yourself can’t see from the ranges indicated by you ... nothing.

Now, according to the Range, the weight is 70 tons ... fuel for traffic jams 52 tons, start-up, warm-up, control check, taxiing out - 2 tons, take-off, set to MBFR up to N of the most favorable cruising mode - 3 tons.
Milestone 100 and approach with a decrease to N circle -2 tons, approach from the circle-1 ton, the remainder at the landing - 8 tons. (Okay .. let it be 6)
Now subtract all this from the total amount of fuel and you get that fuel .. which you can .. "burn" (you can calculate the specific costs yourself).
Now it’s clear why a maximum of 12 pieces of 250-k were brought to SCIR

X-22 is guided by coordinates that are known in advance (if stationary for targets), if moving, then according to intelligence and additional intelligence, and after entering the area by independent search.

For the rest, do you mean about the MVK?

[Falcon]

I understood the range of the missile, thanks!

By range, the question remains. This calculation is for flying without external suspension. You can’t calculate the resistance and overload

Quote: ancient

For the rest, do you mean about the MVK?

Yes

[ancient]

Quote: Falcon

By range, the question remains. This calculation is for flying without external suspension. You can’t calculate the resistance and overload

Cyril, I already wrote everything to you ... subtract from 52 tons what I counted ... here and you will get .. range.
There are no overloads .... here is either fuel .. or bk .. that's where and ... range
KLS was designed a long time ago and everything is RLE .. for all weights and flight modes, even with "hedgehogs".
Well, if the "overload" .. it's like the site's "uya-patriots" .. you give 24 tons, then .. it's toshda so ... until the 4th turn (exaggerating, but .... not much)

The entire MVK is an automatic mode of operation of the ABSU through the NK-45 in 2 modes at low and medium altitudes and at high altitudes, ie. automatic flight mode in the horizon, = the ability to automatically land.
And on WWI, only navigator's navigation and crew training, precise execution of flight along the LZP, control over the altitude by low-altitude radio waves, well, the eyes of the commander and the pravak, well, the stabilizer is worked out for pitching, so you keep the "horns" a little away from you .. here and the entire MVK

[Falcon]

Quote: ancient

Cyril, I already wrote everything to you ... subtract from 52 tons what I counted ... here and you will get .. range.
There are no overloads .... here is either fuel .. or bk .. that's where and ... range
KLS was designed a long time ago and everything is RLE .. for all weights and flight modes, even with "hedgehogs".
Well, if the "overload" .. it's like the site's "uya-patriots" .. you give 24 tons, then .. it's toshda so ... until the 4th turn (exaggerating, but .... not much)

Understood thanks!

RLE then I did not find on it ...

[ancient]

Quote: Falcon

RLE then I did not find on it ...

Sent in PM

[Mountain shooter]

Aircraft modernization, if the glider resource allows, is much more economical than developing new ones. Does he fly badly? Replace the electronics, install a more economical engine, and the long-distance driver will quietly turn into a strategist. The development of the PAK DA still has unclear prospects, but you need to cover your "ass" now ...

[Falcon]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

The development of the PAK DA still has unclear prospects, but you need to cover your "ass" now ...

The Tu-22M3 will not cover the "priest" with fabami. Your remark is more likely true for the Tu-160, but not for the Tu-22M3

[kote119]

In your article, you mention P-700 missiles, which theoretically can be used from this carrier. Question: What kind of rocket is it, what does it eat with? I liked the article, you are a plus. respectfully

[Falcon]

Quote: kote119

In your article, you mention P-700 missiles, which theoretically can be used from this carrier. Question: What kind of rocket is it, what does it eat with? I liked the article, you are a plus. respectfully

Thank you!
P-700 anti-ship missile. Placed on the nuclear submarine, Kuznetsovo and on the ave. 1144
More details http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/granit/granit.shtml

Where I mentioned it in terms of use from front-line bombers is a mistake. There I wanted to say P-800 Onyx / Yakhonit / BrahMos (aka). Just now I noticed a typo, did not check ...

[kote119]

I think granite is not suitable for several reasons:
1. large in size
2. rocket development 70 years (morally and technically outdated)
3. its trick is volley fire (in order to ensure a missile outfit as when shooting with a prark pr 949 a, 24 pcs., It is necessary to use 12 aircraft, provided that each will have 2 units of this pcr).
4.that to fit (theoretically) under the aviation complex you need so much money, in general, the game is not worth the candle

[Falcon]

Quote: kote119

I think granite is not suitable for several reasons:

I agree. We must consider the P-800.

[Amurets]

Quote: Falcon

The Tu-22M3 will not cover the "priest" with fabami. Your remark is more likely true for the Tu-160, but not for the Tu-22M3

Kirill! Congratulations on your debut! The article is problematic, how many people, so many opinions. "Ilya Muromets" was conceived by Sikorsky as a passenger and transport aircraft, but the war made it such, laying the foundation for a new class of combat aircraft. Right are those who say that the Tu -22m3 great modernization potential. What you bring in the war on 08.08.08 is a coincidence. Moreover, not ordinary soldiers were sitting at the consoles, but engineers and workers who were repairing the modernization of the Buk air defense system, and this is a different level of preparation of calculations. I ask: do not get excited, read all the comments carefully, think it over and sit down for a new article.

[Bongo]

Quote: Amurets

Cyril! Congratulations on your debut

Hi Nikolay! This is not a debut. The debut, as I understand it, was here F-15E vs. SU-34. Response article

Quote: Amurets

Therefore, I ask: do not get excited, carefully read all the comments, think over and sit down for a new article. Good luck.

I completely agree with this!

[Falcon]

Quote: Amurets

Kirill! Congratulations on your debut! The article is problematic, how many people, so many opinions. "Ilya Muromets" was conceived by Sikorsky as a passenger and transport aircraft, but the war made it such, laying the foundation for a new class of combat aircraft. Right are those who say that the Tu -22m3 great modernization potential. What you bring in the war on 08.08.08 is a coincidence. Moreover, not ordinary soldiers were sitting at the consoles, but engineers and workers who were repairing the modernization of the Buk air defense system, and this is a different level of preparation of calculations. I ask: do not get excited, read all the comments carefully, think it over and sit down for a new article.

Hello Nikolai!
Thank you for your kind words.
I will study according to your tip

[ancient]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

Is he flying bad?

Of course, he flies ... not bad ... but only would he also "shoot"?
And the BREO new one still needs to be created, and even the armament wouldn’t hurt him ... about the engine .. so far it’s only a dream ... so that he’s like a strategist .. up to one place .. on foot.
And to fly in the GP mode, on the ceilings and from there "smack" with cast iron (which is not enough), but at the same time to burn 50 tons of kerosene ... won't it be expensive?

Well, drive the barmalei, and especially if they are at ranges under 1000 km from the airfield ... so far it’s

[Vikxnumx]

One-sided view of things.
"everything is lost!" (from)
And where is the view from the air defense side when installing a normal REP system?
Or the problem of low-altitude flight is not solved?
And a bunch of questions to the author ...
Article on "-"

[ancient]

Quote: VIK1711

One-sided view of things.

Let me disagree with you categorically!

The author wrote an article about realities, and you ... "call" for my French, are engaged in regular "reasoning" (which is now, by the way, in a baal trend ), take at least the "mythical Tu-160M2" .... here we have them now and .. by 25-30-50.

[xtur]

> "mythical Tu-160M2"

I hate realists. They do not survive in Armenia
From their point of view, in 1994 it was impossible to start up nuclear power plants in Armenia - an economy that was killed to zero and whose energy system the frequency during the day walked a few hertz, complete lack of gas in the country for several years, dismantled metal engineering enterprises and others sold to Iran as scrap metal (neatly mounted and working in Iran)

Thieves, grabbers and criminals in all authorities. The Minister of Energy claimed at a press conference that water seeps out of the reactor vessel due to high pressure, and that this is normal ...

Launching a nuclear power plant in such conditions seemed less real than, say, launching it on Mars.

But they did let them in - the staff was recruited and trained.
A frequency meter was installed at the control room, which was not provided for by any project, because of the floating / changing current frequency in the network, all parameters naturally changed, and if the reactor operator did not see the synchronization of these changes with the current frequency, it would make absolutely wrong decisions.
During the day, during the first year after the restart, a maneuver with a capacity of tens of megawatts was regularly performed, which, as it were, VVERs should categorically not do. Each NSAES began the shift with the fact that the material of the dispatcher was ARMENERGO for the floating frequency, and ended the shift with the same obscenity ...

Thieves and grabbers are still here. Naturally, they saw money at the station, of course, due to safety (in terms of sense, it does not fall, but could have been higher if the money had not been sawed).

BUT the ANPP is nevertheless a safe station with competent personnel and working equipment.


Against the background of what has been said, realism is such a mannered / decadent way to elevate oneself

[dvg1959]

Long-range aviation is needed in Russia. And in relation to the Tu-22M3, the optimal solution will still mature, I hope.

[AlNikolaich]

Colleagues, I read it, I thought ... The car, of course, is a little outdated, however ... Now it is the only machine sharpened to destroy the AUG, which is in sufficient quantity. The fact that they carry cast iron on it is tough, and not in terms! The machine has modernization potential, but there are no analogues to replace it with! The fact that the article posed a lot of unpleasant questions is good, makes you think! To think about the future of such an aircraft as a class. Will there be a replacement for him, and in what form? Will there be a modernization of the machine and the armament complex for it? I also thought about creating a cheap bomber and a cheap attack aircraft ...
We need a modern Tu2, possibly redone from a transport vehicle. And undoubtedly, we need a modern Il2, with an armored hull, with a modern turboprop engine, or a piston, with a small thermal signature, and the cost of a flight hour is cheaper than a helicopter!

[Falcon]

Quote: AlNikolaich

Now this is the only machine sharpened for the destruction of AUG, which is in sufficient quantity.

No, it is not. From naval aviation, all Tu-22М3 transferred to the distant. Those. just to destroy AUG they are no longer used. And the X-22 rocket is not suitable for this (in modern realities).

[Bongo]

Quote: Falcon

No, it is not. From naval aviation, all Tu-22М3 transferred to the distant. Those. just to destroy AUG they are no longer used. And the X-22 rocket is not suitable for this (in modern realities).

We have no naval missile-carrying aviation now. Several years ago, in accordance with the directive of the General Staff and with the consent of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, all Tu-22M3s were transferred to the DA. Bombers capable of taking off from the Far Eastern airfields Vozdvizhenka and Kamenny Ruchei were ferried to the European part of the country. Most of these machines are now awaiting their turn for repair and modernization at the Olenya airfield. Cars that were unable to rise into the air for ferrying, including due to minor malfunctions, were "scrapped".

[ancient]

Quote: AlNikolaich

Now this is the only machine sharpened for the destruction of AUG, which is in sufficient quantity.

I strongly recommend reading about the tactics of maintaining a database against AUG and AUS ... then there will be no more such "slogans" about ... "enough"

[borisov1]

We need a deep modernization of the Tu-22M3. We need to modernize the armament and electronic warfare systems. In the European theater of war, the Middle East, and the Asian directions, the Tu22M3 will completely pass for strategists. They are not intended for the American direction.

[Glagol1]

To the author minus. The very presence of these machines in the VKS BS cools
Hot heads of adversaries

[Vadim237]

The presence of nuclear weapons, namely ICBMs, cools the heads of all "friends"

[Olezhek]

The presence of nuclear weapons, namely ICBMs, cools the heads of all "friends"

So can only rockets leave?
You cannot launch ICBMs and then return them to the mines.

[reklats34]

24 people are fans of all kinds of "Caspian monsters" conservators

[Tambov Wolf]

The author, most likely, "jacket" or even writes from someone else's words. Let him first see what medium-range bombers are for.

[proud]

Cutting is easier than building! The operation in Syria showed that the elderly are still at peace early, with proper use, these aircraft will bring much more benefit, the main thing is to conduct a competent modernization! Enemies of Russia have now divorced quite a lot because the TU-22 M3 will not be redundant, and it’s better to write off a couple of squadrons in the Crimea for nothing — they’ll just once again cool the military outburst of the Turks, and we’re not building anything new from the heavy, and if, God forbid, than we will protect the Russian land at distant frontiers?

[Andrey VOV]

The whole thing, blah blah blah blah, loaded with numbers, read the head starts to buzz .. and then in the window on, get the main conclusion, after reading that everything falls into place ... buy American !!!! you are the author .... litter gosdepovskaya ... sorry moa per syllable

[Bongo]

Quote: Andrey VOV

you are the author .... litter gosdepovskaya ... sorry moa per syllable

Dear, please re-read the site rules again

[Falcon]

Quote: Andrey VOV

The whole thing, blah blah blah blah, loaded with numbers, read the names you read, the head starts to buzz.

Well, sorry. It’s like military review compound words and unintelligible phrases are very common

Murzilka magazine at another link You apparently made a mistake on the site - it happens.

Quote: Andrey VOV

you are the author .... litter gosdepovskaya ... sorry moa per syllable

Just threw them a link to the article. Soon money will be transferred to the card. I'm going to buy Coca-Cola and a hamburger

[Aqela]

That Coca-Cola is over-sweetened, that a hamburger is fatty, overcooked and with a starchy white roll - are not at all useful for health.
By the way, I want to note that I do not condemn your conclusions, but most of the arguments are not very accurate and convincing. And the reference to Wi-Ef-23 is generally ridiculous. So the article, in my opinion, is very uneven: a lot of useful information is mixed with nonsense, and even diluted with grammatical errors. Pichalka, adnaka
By the way, the fact that you once defended a diploma on a topic is a very sad argument, since it doesn’t mean the level of completion of this thesis. In recent years, I have seen candidate dissertations that would not have been pulled during my studies and course. So this statement is not a sign of a competent professional, but a plaintive squealing to replace the argument with an unfounded statement about a diploma. It is humiliating and not productive.
No need to do this, please!

[Falcon]

Quote: Aqela

And the reference to Wi-Ef-23 is generally ridiculous.

Judging by your comments, apart from YF-23, you didn’t understand anything. Since besides trolling counter arguments I did not see.

Quote: Aqela

substitute argument with a diploma statement

What is the argument? So far I have not met counter arguments from you.

or they are:

Quote: Aqela

That Coca-Cola is over-sweetened, that a hamburger is fatty, overcooked and with a starchy white roll - are not at all useful for health.

Quote: Aqela

. I'll tell you a secret, the word optimum in Latin means

Quote: Aqela

heaps of facts that are the essence of a set of letters without a clear understanding of their meaning.

Quote: Aqela

In everyday life - an elementary juggling of facts.

Powerful! Right first grade second quarter!

Quote: Falcon

Discussed publication

While you just troll a picture of an American plane
Funny of course

[Aqela]

By the way, there are no objections adequate on your part.
In addition, I want to note that I, as opposed to some, did not blame you as a hiring of sultry P.I.
About a bunch of facts as a set bukoff - the way it is. All sorts of indices, and comparisons of the meaning of the technical hiding under them, no, no. You, like, are the author of the article, so the severity of the adequacy and persuasiveness of the arguments, the defense of the stated position is yours.
Let me also remind you that when I spoke about the YF-23, I didn’t say anything about the photo. What are you talking about here? Another thing is that about 300% increase in the mass of the system with the modifications you propose, you still did not answer.
He’s hurt, so hurt! He answered unanswered questions, reproached the injustice of incomplete quotes taken out of context ... Awesome art of polemic! Are you, by chance, not a descendant of the Roman rider Gorokhov (Cicero)?
By the way, my main rebuke to you was precisely the focus on the free shuffling of facts. You already accused the former aviator of comparing the incomparable, in the absence of technical and tactical specifics. Were you affected by his reference to the model on the bookshelf 1: 144?

I would like to warn some authors against amateurism and idle chatter. Before you publish pictures and list the brands of missiles, you need to know their device, operating conditions and combat use, the ability to place launch equipment in the cockpit, and much more. Su-34 - front-line bomber and compare it with the TU-22M3 ,. at least incorrectly.

And note: I didn’t say that!

[Falcon]

Quote: Aqela

By the way, there are no objections adequate on your part.

To a photograph of an airplane, or what should I answer?

Quote: Aqela

About a bunch of facts in the form of a set of bukoff - the way it is. All sorts of indices, and comparisons of the meaning of the technical hiding under them, no, no.

Well, I already realized that besides yf-23, nothing is clear to you in the article

those. without understanding anything, decided to continue trolling
If someone does not understand indexes, then this is not the author’s problem. Rather, the ignorance of a reader who does not want to understand.

Quote: Aqela

Are you, by chance, not a descendant of the Roman rider Gorokhov (Cicero)?

add counter arguments to the article

[Falcon]

Quote: Aqela

Another thing is that about 300% increase in the mass of the system with the modifications you propose, you still did not answer.

First look at the mass of Tu-22m3. how much more is it. And where does the increase, if the plane is completely different
Or you will print it on an 3 printer

And again, to the only line you understand, about yf-23
well there are letters

[Falcon]

Quote: Aqela

By the way, my main rebuke to you was precisely the focus on the free shuffling of facts.

I only saw about UV-23.
You still haven’t seemed to figure out other facts.

Quote: Aqela

You already accused the former aviator of comparing the incomparable, in the absence of technical and tactical specifics.

Well, I have been waiting for a constructive explanation of these points from this aviator
As for example, the ACTING aviator Dear Comrade Ancient

Quote: Aqela

Were you affected by his reference to the model on the bookshelf 1: 144?

Have you read such a statement somewhere?

Quote: Aqela

And note: I didn’t say that!

Yes, I noticed. You then have nothing to say on the case, except for a discussion of the photos of UV-23. This is something I have long noticed
I'm just wondering when you yourself will get tired of trolling! The Troll should burst from gluttony once!

[Andrey VOV]

Quote: Bongo

Quote: Andrey VOV

you are the author .... litter gosdepovskaya ... sorry moa per syllable

Dear, please re-read the site rules again

I apologize .. it’s boiling up .... flushed ... well, I can’t when it seems the article is going smoothly, pulls for research, and so on, and in the end .. bang ... American is better ..

[Bongo]

Quote: Andrey VOV

I apologize .. it’s boiling up .... flushed ... well, I can’t when it seems the article is going smoothly, pulls for research, and so on, and in the end .. bang ... American is better ..

This is your subjective opinion, the author only tried to present comparative options.

[bad]

an article-amateurish vinaigrette with a bunch of variegated pictures .. the author and his "consultants" apparently get dollars for these opuses ..

[Bongo]

Quote: bad

an article-amateurish vinaigrette with a bunch of variegated pictures .. the author and his "consultants" apparently get dollars for these opuses ..

Do you have a spring exacerbation? As for the dollars, do not tell me where to turn? Okay, I and Cyril, and Sergei Ivanovich, who shone aviation throughout his entire conscious life, why should mud be watered?

[Aqela]

Google immediately asked me:

Did you mean: dedicated

As a more clear rationale:

It will be correct to both "dedicate" and "initiate". This word is spelled differently.
In order not to make mistakes and choose the right variant for writing, it is enough just to pay attention to the meaning of the sentence:
"shine" is used in the sense of the word "light / shine / illuminate something" - Shine a flashlight, otherwise it is dark and nothing is visible;
"to consecrate" is used in the sense of "holiness / holy / consecrate to something" - We will devote today's topic of the lecture to integrals.
If you correctly identify the topic of the proposal, then there will be no problems when writing.
http://www.bolshoyvopros.ru/questions/698902-kak-pravilno-posvetit-ili-posvjatit
-primery-usereblenija.html

It's all about Coca-Cola ...

[Falcon]

Quote: bad

an article-amateurish vinaigrette with a bunch of variegated pictures .. the author and his "consultants" apparently get dollars for these opuses ..

Do not worry, consultants only on technical issues. They do not agree with my opinion. All grandmas flow to me
I already wrote

Quote: Falcon

Just threw them a link to the article. Soon money will be transferred to the card. I'm going to buy Coca-Cola and a hamburger

[Olezhek]

An explanatory, competent article. I hope someone writes a counter article at the same level. (The one who understands modern aviation)

In general, taking into account the growing tension on the European continent, the option of "returning to the origins" in the option with refueling is not excluded.

It is quite a worthy task, given the fact that the Americans are actively training pilots of non-nuclear powers of NATO on the use of nuclear warheads.

[DesToeR]

Quote: reklats34

24 people are fans of all kinds of "Caspian monsters" conservators

maybe 24 people (already more) who understand that it is easy to "play" 40 unique aircraft, but will tire of looking for an adequate replacement? The author probably wrote a lot correctly, but one of the readers noticed him well: WHERE IS THE ANALYSIS OF THE ENEMY'S EXPENDITURE TO MAINTAIN AN ANALYZE SYSTEM FROM A POSSIBLE IMPACT OF A TU-22M3? And one more thing. The Tu-22M3 is not the plane that they wanted to sell to the rice beetles, but someone was smart enough to calculate that the cost of modernizing the air defense will exceed the profit from the deal.

[Kenneth]

A bit reminiscent of Khrushchev with his idea to replace planes with missiles

[Bongo]

Quote: DesToeR

WHERE IS AN ANALYSIS OF THE ENEMY'S COSTS FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM FROM A POSSIBLE IMPACT OF THE TU-22M3?

The costs of the "enemy" to maintain air defense are minimal, unlike us in the United States, there are no air defense missile systems with air defense systems, and in Europe their number is negligible. The main burden in providing air defense in NATO lies with the IA.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Bongo

The costs of the "enemy" to maintain air defense are minimal, unlike us in the United States, there are no air defense missile systems with air defense systems, and in Europe their number is negligible.

Do you not take into account the aviation component of NATO air defense in principle, or do you consider the costs of modern fighters and the aerodrome structure to be insignificant?

[Bongo]

Quote: Spade

Do you not take into account the aviation component of NATO air defense in principle, or do you consider the costs of modern fighters and the aerodrome structure to be insignificant?

The aviation component is capable of simultaneously performing shock functions. All types of aircraft can also take on paved airfields. Unlike our country, where the approach is comprehensive in NATO, and especially in the United States, everything is assigned to fighters.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Bongo

The aviation component is capable of simultaneously performing shock functions.

Not capable. If, for example, 100 planes are necessary to repulse a massive air strike, they will either stick out at airfields or be on duty in the air. But there is no way to work on ground targets. And even more so, they cannot be transferred to other places of basing.
Moreover, when operating airfields, it is always necessary to count on the need for a quick rise into the air of all these machines. That is, the "carrying capacity" of air bases is also limited under the influence of the possibility of using Russian aviation.

[Bongo]

Quote: Spade

Not capable. If, for the reflection of a massive air strike, it is necessary, for example, 100 aircraft

Do not tell me how many NATO fighters carries a database in Europe?
Until September 11, no more than six interceptors carried no more than six interceptors in the United States on alert in 15-minute readiness for departure throughout the continent. Now the situation has changed, at each airfield where fighters are based there is a link on duty, in extreme cases, a couple. There is absolutely no situation with the air defense system in the states. The only city covered by anti-aircraft systems is Washington. Washington is protected by three launchers of the Norwegian-American NASAMS air defense systems, which are arranged in the shape of a triangle. In Europe, the situation is about the same, but unlike the United States, several Patriot air defense systems are deployed here.US Air Defense

Quote: Spade

That is, the "carrying capacity" of air bases is also limited under the influence of the possibility of using Russian aviation.

In order not to arrange squabbles of which there is already enough, I do not want to assess the strike capabilities of our tactical and long-range aviation without the use of special ammunition. But the capabilities of NATO and the United States in this are significantly higher. One way or another, the aviation of the "probable partners" has a pronounced strike - offensive focus.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Bongo

Do not tell me how many NATO fighters carries a database in Europe?

I will not prompt. Moreover, the NATO will also not prompt. The information is clearly classified.
Also, they will not tell you how much the number of aircraft on combat alert will increase during an aggravation of the situation.

Quote: Bongo

In order not to make a squabble of which is already enough, I do not want to evaluate the strike capabilities of our tactical and long-range aviation without the use of special ammunition.

Well, Duc special ammunition to NATO bases in Europe also need to be delivered. Moreover, in the absence of medium and small missiles, with the help of ICBMs, the number of which is clearly limited.
Or aviation, or to facilitate the work of the US missile defense.
Moreover, NATO cruise missiles with special warheads also need to be shot down by NATO, if not cool. And for this you need ... right, planes.

These are the pies with kittens. The very presence of Russian long-range aviation distracts a significant number of NATO aircraft from attacks on units, units and formations of the Ground Forces of the Russian Armed Forces.

[Falcon]

Quote: Spade

These are the pies with kittens. The very presence of Russian long-range aviation distracts a significant number of NATO aircraft from attacks on units, units and formations of the Ground Forces of the Russian Armed Forces.

In much the same way that il-476 is distracting. True, he’s even worse

[Lopatov]

Quote: Falcon

Around the same as the IL-476 distracts

?
I do not think that they consider a strategic airborne operation likely. This is exactly what aviation is not enough for us.

[Falcon]

Quote: Spade

I do not think that they consider a strategic airborne operation likely. This is exactly what aviation is not enough for us.

Then why should they consider that they are now being razed to the ground by the FABs, from a huge carcass? Fabs are not enough

[Lopatov]

And here is the FAB? We kind of talked about special warheads. Which must be delivered to the place before applying.

[Falcon]

Quote: Spade

And here is the FAB? We kind of talked about special warheads. Which must be delivered to the place before applying.

What special warhead is used on the Tu-22M3?
At the moment, it can only be a freely falling bomb. He does not carry cruise missiles.

[Kenneth]

If you recall the history of WW2, it becomes obvious that German industry, like Japanese, did not get up from strategic attacks on enterprises, but when long-distance ’thunderbolts, etc. began to terrorize transport routes, bridges, fuel storage, steam locomotives and individual cars. Without transport, economics and production went down.

[Olezhek]

It is worth considering the option of equipping the Tu-22M3 with modern X-101 / 102 cruise missiles, which are fully suitable for the "Carcass" in terms of their overall dimensions. However, there is one caveat - the flight range of the Tu-22М3 is significantly less than that of the strategic Tu-160. Missiles, unlike the White Swan, will be on the external sling, and therefore will also contribute to reducing the radius of action.

Worth considering. Tu 22M3 has not only a shorter range but also a much lower cost compared to Tu 160
And Russia is not the USSR.
Unsuccessful examples of application in a "small war" does not mean anything yet
That 22M3 was not created for her.
And if you remember our "friends" from Berlin, claiming the Crimea, Donbass and Kharkov
or our "friends" from Tokyo, claiming the southern Kuril Islands,
then Tu 22M3 is exactly what the doctor ordered.
In order to cool down the heads of our Japanese and German partners, which are excessively heated by democracy, this is exactly what is needed.
And "six-ton ​​carcasses with a nuclear charge against the background of space ..." is exactly the sight that they hardly want to see
Or here is Turkey with its Erdogans, wrapped in a green turban in their head ..

[Aleksandr1959]

Replace Tu-22M3 could project T-60S OKB them P.O.Sukhogo ... but it was covered in the 90s.

[rubin6286]

The article aroused some interest, as many comments say. The author was assisted by respected and competent people, and this is also very important.
I piloted the Tu-22M3 and I know this plane as a surgeon or pathologist knows the structure of man. My work was related to working out the issues of combat use and increasing the combat effectiveness of the weapons used.
In my opinion, an airplane “lives” when it is fit for its intended purpose. Conceived initially as a missile carrier, the Tu-22M3, although it had a bomb bay, was intended to destroy sea and ground targets from medium and high altitudes. The rapid development of air defense systems made it impossible to solve this problem in modern warfare. The main condition for modernization, indeed, is the location of the machine and its components in production. Only then can modernization be comprehensive and affect all structural elements - a glider, engines, an on-board cable network, a control system, an aiming and navigation system, an on-board weapon system, a fuel supply system, landing gear exhaust and cleaning systems, radio and electrical equipment, etc. etc. The modernization of individual units and systems does not extend the “life” of the aircraft, but allows it to “serve” it in a narrowly defined quality until something new appears to replace it. This is how the issue was resolved with respect to the Tu-22M3.

I would like to warn some authors against amateurism and idle chatter. Before you publish pictures and list the brands of missiles, you need to know their device, operating conditions and combat use, the ability to place launch equipment in the cockpit, and much more. Su-34 - front-line bomber and compare it with the TU-22M3 ,. at least incorrectly. Talking about air cover over the target, based on the operation of the airborne forces in Syria, is wrong, because it is carried out in the absence of enemy air defense and resembles "beating babies."

Here it stands on my shelf on a scale of 1: 144, white-blue, with red X-22 under the fuselage. Fast, beautiful. Aircraft. like people, alas, not eternal. We are leaving, they are leaving too ... ..

The situation with the Tu-160 is even more complicated, and if they do not take it seriously, the country may end up without strategic aviation at all.

[Falcon]

Quote: rubin6286

Before you publish pictures and list the brands of missiles, you need to know their device, operating conditions and combat use, the ability to place launch equipment in the cockpit, and much more

Well, explain, tell us something new about their device? And what is the relationship of pictures with knowledge? Pictures are just for decoration, all the necessary information is given.

Quote: rubin6286

Talk about air cover over the target, based on the operation of the aerospace forces in Syria, it’s wrong, because she held in the absence of air defense the enemy and resembles "beating babies."

And in the presence of air defense and a "serious operation" cover is not needed ?! That's the logic

[Dimon19661]

Now local sofa experts will explain everything to you (((

[Aqela]

Thank! Briefly and to the point! Impressed! Good feedback about a bunch of facts that are a set of letters without a clear understanding of their meaning.

[iouris]

The question had to be raised based on the results of 080808. According to GLONASS data, "throwing" bombs on terrorists is one thing, breaking through the air defense of AUG is another.
The "city killer" rockets are a strong enough argument for now. The war between Russia and NATO is almost unbelievable. The negative development of internal processes and the economy and the betrayal of the "elites" pose a greater danger.

[Alex_59]

Any call to abandon anything in our aviation causes fierce rejection - even if it is not the most economically viable, but let it fly, let people increase the flying time. I don’t think that the decision to write off all Tu-22М3 will lead to some gushing growth in Su-34 purchases. Better a tit in the hands.

Therefore, questions about the X-80 noise immunity have already appeared in 22's.

So what's wrong with noise immunity? I assume that they stupidly stopped modifying the rocket leaving the old GOS, it is probably also single-frequency. Modern anti-ship missiles have no problems with noise immunity due to the ability to quickly tune out interference by changing frequencies, or switch to passive. Rather, this missile has a problem in the overall bulkiness of the ancient design with a rocket engine, but this is not a reason to chop the carrier. An example is B-52.

He is a long-range bomber, not a strategic one. Long-range aviation is, in general, a thing special for our history. While the West over time and the development of technology went to strategists, we continued to improve long-range bombers in parallel with strategic ones.

Because western aviation has zero aircraft carriers, zero helicopter carriers, and only a dozen cruisers for priority purposes. And our aviation for priority purposes includes more than ten aircraft carriers, about 15 UDC and about 100 cruiser / destroyer targets. Long-range aviation is needed !!!

The reason is that it is twin-engine, and this greatly affects the safety of flight over the ocean.

Damn him! And P-8 Poseidon they are going to fly over the sea, on two engines? Very far-fetched thesis. With this sauce, the entire Su-90 and MiG-17 fleets were already killed in 27 ahead of schedule.

In addition, it has very controversial engines for modern times. NK-25 is based on the old NK-144.

But the Tu-160 and Tu-95 type are all good with this, right? And the American B-52? And do Su-25 / 24 or IL-18 / 20 / 22 / 38, IL-76, An-12 any engines that are not controversial for modern times? Or are they also in the furnace?

[Falcon]

Quote: Alex_59

Any call to abandon anything in our aviation causes a violent rejection - even if it is not the most economically viable, but let it fly, let people increase the plaque

This has its own logic.

Quote: Alex_59

Rather, this missile has a problem in the overall bulkiness of the ancient design with a rocket engine, but this is not a reason to chop the carrier. An example is B-52.

Does the B-52 have rockets with LRE? And the B-52 as an example can be given in the context of comparison with the Tu-95.

Quote: Alex_59

And our aviation for priority purposes includes more than ten aircraft carriers, about 15 UDC and about 100 cruiser / destroyer targets. Long-range aviation is needed !!!

Long-range aviation now does not carry anti-ship missiles. And withdrawn from naval aviation. In the list of goals, she definitely does not have aircraft carriers!

Quote: Alex_59

Damn him! And P-8 Poseidon they are going to fly over the sea, on two engines? Very far-fetched thesis. With this sauce, the entire Su-90 and MiG-17 fleets were already killed in 27 ahead of schedule.

The concept of ETOPS is generally accepted in world aviation. P-8 based on 737 buoy for which ETOPS is equal to 180 min. if I'm not mistaken. Which is approximately equal to its combat radius!

Su-17 and Mig-27 are a completely different story.

[Alex_59]

Quote: Falcon

Long-range aviation now does not carry anti-ship missiles. And withdrawn from naval aviation. In the list of goals, she definitely does not have aircraft carriers!

The same stupidity as the fact that the Tu-22M was not created to work with cast irons. The hunt for aircraft carriers was the MAIN mission of the MPA and secondary to the Air Force DA. Actually, nothing has changed today. The MRA has disappeared, but the Air Force YES still has one of the typical tasks of working on AB. Regarding the fact that YES does not carry anti-ship missiles, see the photo taken in February 2016.

Quote: Falcon

Does the B-52 have rockets with LRE? And the B-52 as an example can be given in the context of comparison with the Tu-95.

The B-52 had rockets with liquid propellants that went into scrap metal, God knows when, and the carrier was reoriented to another weapon and it flies and flies. And it is not a shame to use an "expensive" plane to throw pig-iron over Iraqis and Vietnamese. Why should we be ashamed?

[Falcon]

Quote: Alex_59

The same stupidity as the fact that the Tu-22M was not created to work with cast irons. The hunt for aircraft carriers was the MAIN mission of the MPA and secondary to the Air Force DA. Actually, nothing has changed today. The MRA has disappeared, but the Air Force YES still has one of the typical tasks of working on AB. Regarding the fact that YES does not carry anti-ship missiles, see the photo taken in February 2016.

Forgive me, but working with cast irons is just an addition. And the main thing is rockets. This is said by the creators themselves.

And why are you sure that this is RCC?
Even so, I have already spoken out about X-22 / 32.

Quote: Alex_59

The B-52 had rockets with liquid propellants that went into scrap metal, God knows when, and the carrier was reoriented to another weapon and it flies and flies. And it is not a shame to use an "expensive" plane to throw pig-iron over Iraqis and Vietnamese. Why should we be ashamed?

Well, at least in view of the budget difference in 5 times.
We have many more important holes in the Air Force, from my so-called.

[Alex_59]

Quote: Falcon

And why are you sure that this is RCC?

Are there many options? This is one of the varieties of the X-22. Which one I can’t presume.

Quote: Falcon

Well, at least in view of the budget difference in 5 times.
We have many more important holes in the Air Force, from my so-called.

There are many holes. But do not throw in the trash what is already there! Moreover, I have already said that for those who have 5 times the budget, such machines are simply not needed. And we need. If a big war begins, our surface fleet will not go to the ocean to sink convoys and aviks. This will go to do the submarine, breaking through the Farrero-Icelandic border. At this turn, the NATO fleets will defend the stationary SOSUS from sabotage and catch our submarines. Since going out to sea for surface ships is a sure suicide, the only tool we can reach the Farrero-Iceland line to make it easier for our submarines to break into the Atlantic is the hell with the Tu-22! You can’t get Il-34x on Su-78. Yes, for the Carcasses it will be a very dangerous job, but they can do it. They are also not easy to catch, they can also give out supersonic sound at the radius of this line and resemble it at low altitudes. Something like this.

[Falcon]

Quote: Alex_59

Are there many options? This is one of the varieties of the X-22. Which one I can’t presume.

X-22 is not only RCC. Exactly photo 2016?

Quote: Alex_59

to make it easier for our submarines to break into the Atlantic - damn the Tu-22! You can’t get Il-34x on Su-78.

Well, there are only 40 of them, and they carry old missiles. Plus, they need cover, and overlap aircraft also need IL-78.

I am not against this type of machine. But with my TZ they are no longer able to solve such problems.

Quote: Alex_59

There are many holes. But do not throw in the trash what is already there! Moreover, I have already said that for those who have 5 times the budget, such machines are simply not needed.

There is logic, I agree with you, as I said.
Well, let's say they just can afford a more extensive nomenclature.

[Alex_59]

Quote: Falcon

Exactly photo 2016?

http://russianplanes.net/id182975
There are others, such as September 2015:
http://russianplanes.net/id176668
You can dig there, there are many photos.

Quote: Falcon

X-22 is not only RCC.

Do you think it is PSI or ON? I doubt something.

Quote: Falcon

Well, there are only 40 of them, and they carry old missiles.

40 is in active use, with RF numbers. They are really about 40. But not all cars in storage are killed to a non-flying condition. Here is an example: http://russianplanes.net/id185957
The board seems to be from storage.

Quote: Falcon

I am not against this type of machine. But with my TZ they are no longer able to solve such problems.

With the old X-22 probably not very capable. So they need a new weapon.

[Falcon]

Quote: Alex_59

http://russianplanes.net/id182975
There are others, such as September 2015:
http://russianplanes.net/id176668
You can dig there, there are many photos.

Oh thanks! Interesting - rummaging around

Quote: Alex_59

Do you think it is PSI or ON? I doubt something.

I just assumed.

Quote: Alex_59

With the old X-22 probably not very capable. So they need a new weapon.

Well, yes, I wrote about this.

[Tektor]

How would I look at all this, but it’s very simple ... Since we have a Tu-22, we need to cherish them and cherish: you never need anything! The weapon is being improved, a new one appears, so it seems to me that it is necessary to maintain the maximum possible number of Tu-22 platforms. Naturally I want to upgrade them! First of all, engines, especially the most advanced NK-32-2, which can dramatically change the performance characteristics of an aircraft and even change their status, which will be very profitable in view of the offset in the START-3 bomber per 1 BG. refueling system and expand the type of SVP to the maximum. Well, the installation of all new electronic warfare systems. This may be the main function of the updated carcass: an electronic warfare aircraft. I would leave machine guns behind, as a tribute to tradition, and they can come in handy on an extreme.

[Tektor]

Yes, in addition to EW aircraft to accompany older brothers, the Tu-22 can be the rearguard arsenal for fighters at the forefront.!. And of course, no one removed the carcass from the position of the carrier of the main means of anti-ship missiles - X-32. It turns out that at least 3 destinations for use are visible with the naked eye. Early in their resignation.

[Falcon]

Quote: Tektor

And of course, no one removed the carcass from the position of the carrier of the main RCC means - X-32.

X-32 is a project - which has not been adopted.
Tu-22 is withdrawn from naval aviation and does not even wear X-22

[sivuch]

About X-32 - are you sure?

[Falcon]

Quote: sivuch

About X-32 - are you sure?

This is a project, no more. The point is in it, when there are about 40 pieces of Carcasses left

[complete zero]

Quote: Evgesh91

Now there are no serious fighters in the sky- I'm sorry, what??
I do not agree with the article, the West has refused a lot of things, and we need long-range aviation! these are only satellites near the ovaries, and we have Europe, China, and everything else, where strategists are driven too much.

it’s not that we don’t need long-range aviation ... but in BABOS ... we can’t spend as much on the defense as the United States, and from this we must choose (rational)

[Yarhann]

I don’t know how, for me, the plane has now naturally exhausted itself - the weapons for which it was created now are ineffectively equipped with practically no defenses, as well as very high visibility. Modern multifunctional combat samorelets of the type Su 34 and Su 30 Moght do an excellent job of a wide range of tasks, while they are self-sufficient and able to protect themselves and are quite secretive, and at the same time they can use both conventional ammunition and high-precision weapons while all the new weapons that are being created are being created specifically for these media. Because it would be clear that this plane should retire.
The replacement for this side should be PAK DA - which will most likely have subsonic speed and the use of stealth technologies, and it is also possible to have an airborne defense system of the near zone and also electronic warfare systems - such an air cruiser will be able to overcome ground or airborne air defense system itself or in a group to launch promising hypersonic missiles or possibly planning bombs.
Although, as for me, it’s even better to use multifunctional modern heavy aircraft such as 34 and 30 dryers and work separately on the line of strategists, that is, the same as 160 and in the long run PAK YES.
So it’s time to retire and indeed each aircraft has its own time.

[Olezhek]

Modern multifunctional combat samorelets of the type su 34 and su 30 can perfectly cope with a wide range of tasks, while they are self-sufficient and can protect themselves and are quite secretive, and at the same time they can use both conventional ammunition and high-precision weapons

Sounds like a flyer

[Radical]

Quote: Sveles

Tu22m3 has grown old, his Kh22 missile has also grown old, but the GOALS for this aircraft, as they were and have remained, is the EUROPEAN THEATER of action. There is only one conclusion: modernization of the aircraft aimed at lowering maintenance costs, increasing the overhaul life of components and the entire aircraft. Weapons for it are caliber and ha35, but the engines need to be changed to more modern if of course we want to extend the life of this very good bomber aircraft ...

In fact, in the West, the Tu-22M3 was considered a "killer of aircraft carriers" all their life, since most of these aircraft were in the combat composition of the USSR Navy aviation! What are we arguing about? What, the US has run out of aircraft carriers? Or do we have modern missiles?

[Bongo]

Quote: Radikal

What, have the US aircraft carriers run out? Or do we have modern rockets?

In the years of "getting off the knees", our naval missile-carrying aviation unexpectedly ended.

[Ruslan67]

Quote: Bongo

In our years of "rising from the knees"

(Lying in a puddle90) was better? Or have not all 142s written off yet?

[Bongo]

Quote: Ruslan67

(Lying in a puddle90) was better? Or have not all 142s written off yet?

Strange as it may seem, in the 90 years, naval aviation was capable and flew much more. Tu-142 in flight condition was no more than a dozen, and besides, they were never missile carriers. If you're interested, take a look:Naval Aviation of Russia. What's next?
This publication was written three years ago, but since then, little has changed.

[glasha3032]

Naval aviation ended apparently because all Tu-22М3 were transferred from subordination of the Navy to the Air Force, and not by the liquidation of the aircraft themselves.

[Bongo]

Quote: glasha3032

Naval aviation ended apparently because all Tu-22М3 were transferred from subordination of the Navy to the Air Force, and not by the liquidation of the aircraft themselves.

It is sometimes useful to read the comments above.

Quote: Bongo

We have no naval missile-carrying aviation now. Several years ago, in accordance with the directive of the General Staff and with the consent of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, all Tu-22M3s were transferred to the DA. Bombers capable of taking off from the Far Eastern airfields Vozdvizhenka and Kamenny Ruchei were ferried to the European part of the country. Most of these machines are now awaiting their turn for repair and modernization at the Olenya airfield. Cars that were unable to rise into the air for ferrying, including due to minor malfunctions, were "scrapped".

In any case, the Tu-22М3 did not remain at the Far Eastern airfields.

[Alex_59]

Quote: Bongo

In the years of "getting off the knees", our naval missile-carrying aviation unexpectedly ended.

If you are an intelligent person, then you probably understand that "getting off your knees" is not very appropriate here. For example, if you stop feeding a person, he will die only after a month. Aircraft were no longer fed in the 90s, but the period of withering away was more than one month. They began to kill under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, under Putin they only buried an emaciated body. And in general, “getting up from your knees” is a propaganda cliche, in the 00s they did not start getting up from their knees, but only began to slow down the fall.

[Bongo]

Quote: Alex_59

If you are an intelligent person, then you probably understand that "getting off your knees" is not very appropriate here. For example, if you stop feeding a person, he will die only after a month. Aircraft were no longer fed in the 90s, but the period of withering away was more than one month. They began to kill under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, under Putin they only buried an emaciated body. And in general, “getting up from your knees” is a propaganda cliche, in the 00s they did not start getting up from their knees, but only began to slow down the fall.

Alexei, let's not comment on the intellectual level of each other, because it will not lead to anything good. Under Putin, unfortunately, the collapse of the fleet and naval aviation reached its zenith. And resources were spent on image projects and plundered. I don’t know, maybe you should go to the Far Eastern airdromes where Tu-22M was once based.

[Alex_59]

Quote: Bongo

I don’t know, maybe you should go to the Far Eastern airdromes where Tu-22M was once based.

I regularly visit B. Savino, and my uncle served in the 943 mrap. And I live under the glide path. In 90, silence was a typical occurrence. From 2005, the roar began to grow, and citizens were indignant that it was impossible to sleep. Now a rare day is complete without a roar.

[Bongo]

Quote: Alex_59

I regularly visit B. Savino, and my uncle served in the 943 mrap. And I live under the glide path. In 90, silence was a typical occurrence. From 2005, the roar began to grow, and citizens were indignant that it was impossible to sleep. Now a rare day is complete without a roar.

Alexei, frankly I did not understand what you wanted to say with this comment
Bolshoye Savino is the Perm airfield, the Tu-22М3 is not there and most likely it will never be on a permanent basis. At the moment, there is a squadron based on the MiG-31 interceptor, what does this have to do with the Tu-22M3? As far as I remember, the disbanded 943 MRI was based at the Oktyabrskoye aerodrome in Crimea, now everything is very sad there, about the same as in Vozdvizhenka. Permanent airfields at the moment are Shaikovka and Olenya. The number of capable Tu-22М3 is approximately 40 units, most of them need repair and modernization.

[Alex_59]

Quote: Bongo

Alexei, frankly I did not understand what you wanted to say with this comment

I would like to tell you that I’m not just another sofa balabol and I am familiar with the topic of discussion in a certain sense.

Quote: Bongo

Bolshoye Savino is the Perm airfield, the Tu-22М3 is not there and most likely it will never be on a permanent basis. At the moment, there is a squadron based MiG-31 interceptor

Savino is certainly not a long-range airfield, before Serdyukov there was an IAP, then an "air base". And the MiG-31 never had squadrons in the OShS, there were detachments, if that.

Quote: Bongo

As far as I remember, the disbanded 943 MRI was based at the Oktyabrskoye aerodrome in Crimea, now everything is very sad there, about the same as in Vozdvizhenka.

Yes, it’s not just very sad there, it’s not at all there. The regiment was brought to the squadron in 90, and finally killed somewhere in the 95-98 years. Oktyabrskoye airfield with an excellent runway was sold to a poultry farm. Now this field is built up by chicken coops. Passed by him in the 2012 year ...

[Bongo]

Quote: Alex_59

I would like to tell you that I’m not just another sofa balabol and I am familiar with the topic of discussion in a certain sense.

That you are a balabol, I have never claimed this.

Quote: Alex_59

Savino is certainly not a long-range airfield, before Serdyukov there was an IAP, then an "air base". And the MiG-31 never had squadrons in the OShS, there were detachments, if that.

Yes, you can even call it a division, but the interceptors available there - it’ll be typed into the squadron.

[Angler]

Immediately cut the eye the first paragraph. In fact, the bombers were the last of the planes that appeared over the battlefield. The first were scouts! It was precisely to combat them, and also to protect them, that fighters began to be constructed.

[Foofighter]

recent photos, too, the name itself - saw the shura refueling rods, saw ...

[Termit1309]

The question is, if you cut all the Tu-22M3, the money saved on their maintenance will definitely be enough for at least an equal amount of Su-34, plus a certain number of new tankers (to compensate for the shorter range), plus the cost of a new modification of dry missile weapons, plus maintenance new cars themselves? Accurately counted?
There are a lot of problems in our videoconferencing, but the article is very authoritative, according to him, the specialist resembles the behavior of a small child. He tramples under his feet sandpipers in the sandbox, it did not work, I won’t sculpt anymore. I’ll go on a bike ride.

[Alex_59]

And where does the Su-34 just do it? Is Su-34 a very modern aircraft? Does it have much less EPR with suspensions, or is Cx much less? Then it’s better to cite the T-50 as an example - you need to bring it to mind, in the shock version.

[Aqela]

We went for such a complication of the design because of the absence, at that time, more optimal technologies to increase power.

expression more optimal touches. I'll tell you a secret word optimum in Latin means the best, the best of all that is and can be, i.e. - the ceiling, better, simply does not exist above. When the author wants to climb even higher ... To break through the ceiling and dismantle the roof?
I mean, in addition to the optimum, there is also a pessimum (i.e., it does not happen worse). If the author has little idea of ​​the meaning of the words that he uses, then the question arises: If you use a curved hammer, then how great is the opportunity to hammer nails correctly?
In addition, there is a lot of questions peremptory of both halves of the statement

Now there are no serious fighters in the sky, so modern machines are trying to make more universal

Let me remind you that the production of fighter-bombers was quite characteristic for the Northern P. Indostan at all times. Therefore, listing a long series of their cars looks wretched. In scientific statistical calculations in such cases they say there is no representative sample. In everyday life - an elementary juggling of facts.
Even the identification of these two points makes it justifiable and logical to conclude that the selection of factual material is biased, that its analysis is untidy, hence the conclusions are sucked out of the finger.
The funny thing is, I personally agree that both the design and the concept of using the Tu-22M3 are outdated. Another thing is that the actual material needs to be handled more carefully, and not litter brains to people.

[demiurg]

Quote: Termit1309

The question is, if you cut all the Tu-22M3, the money saved on their maintenance will definitely be enough for at least an equal amount of Su-34, plus a certain number of new tankers (to compensate for the shorter range), plus the cost of a new modification of dry missile weapons, plus maintenance new cars themselves? Accurately counted?
There are a lot of problems in our videoconferencing, but the article is very authoritative, according to him, the specialist resembles the behavior of a small child. He tramples under his feet sandpipers in the sandbox, it did not work, I won’t sculpt anymore. I’ll go on a bike ride.

And if you need to bomb not in Syria with a flight over friendly Iran, but for example in Spain? How to fuel a Su-34 over Germany from IL-78? Instead of bombs, you can enter missiles, this does not change the essence. There are no bases, but a long arm is needed. Here let the eggheads and think how to modernize the carcass. We will not see new aircraft with a comparable range in combat units in the next 10-15 years, but we will replace them completely even later. So have to upgrade.

[db1967]

Economy
The price of a modern new information security is not one hundred million rubles.
And what - will we save so much by "landing" one Tu22m3 per year?
Not funny.
And as Syria has shown, there is a considerable need for accurate casting of simple "iron".
Turkey, Afghanistan, Central Asia, the Persian Gulf - possible solid-state fire - are quite within the range of tu22m3 and there is no real air defense there.

[Aqela]

I would say more. It has already been noted above (not by me) that it makes sense to think about the use of piston aircraft, well, like the IL-2 for what is sometimes called "counter-guerrilla warfare." By the way, the overwhelming majority of drones also "wave" propellers, so a piston aircraft can "hoot" them quite well. The same Brazilian Tucano does not suffer ...

[demiurg]

Quote: Aqela

I would say more. It has already been noted above (not by me) that it makes sense to think about the use of piston aircraft, well, like the IL-2 for what is sometimes called "counter-guerrilla warfare." By the way, the overwhelming majority of drones also "wave" propellers, so a piston aircraft can "hoot" them quite well. The same Brazilian Tucano does not suffer ...

This is if the partisans have nothing more serious than a karamultuk. And if the partisans are partisan, with stingers / arrows and a bunch of mza, however, the plane will suffer. And if there is any overwhelming radar, then drones and supertukans thoughtfully smoke aside, while adult uncles in the form of su-24/35/34 will understand all the threats.

[voyaka uh]

Here the matter is not even whether the T-22 is good or not.
The point is the huge range of aircraft types in service
and in the production of Russia. No country will be pulled to contain so many species.
Or each type will be in almost single "museum" copies.

[Taoist]

Strange conclusion and strange article. To write off a long-range vehicle with a combat load of two tens of tons, capable of a supersonic breakthrough at an ultra-low altitude and possessing, as they once said, "European strategic range"? At the same time, having neither a replacement nor even a development concept for such?
Actually, the "emki" were at one time primarily the strike fist of the naval aviation, which threatened the AUG potential foe who risked approaching their radius of action ... Have we written off the AUG "on the other side"?

I myself did not service these machines, but from the "neighbors" I did not hear any special complaints from techies about the complexity of maintenance and repair ... as well as complaints about the resource ...

[Falcon]

Quote: Taoist

We have that "on the other side" AUG was written off?

40 Carcasses with X-22 able to sink AUG?

Quote: Taoist

as well as complaints about the resource ...

For this reason, they are written off / removed from duty.

Quote: Taoist

Write off a distant vehicle with a combat load of two dozen tons

It has already been said what range and with what load he flew to Syria (actually and not on paper)

[Taoist]

Well, as far as I remember the textbooks the outfit (with a guarantee) on the 1 AUG is just the 2 regiment ... So there is enough hit on the 1, especially since we did not have other heavy carriers.
Refueling systems were removed from them just because the US insisted on this especially ... this does not mean that they cannot be returned.

The reasons why we wrote them off? Oh, I'm afraid this was the last resource ... I remember what we almost turned the fleet aviation into ... We propose to continue?

This is how the alternative will appear, so I myself am the first, but for now it’s not even in the bud ...

[Falcon]

Quote: Taoist

Well, as far as I remember the textbooks the outfit (with a guarantee) on the 1 AUG is just the 2 regiment ... So there is enough hit on the 1, especially since we did not have other heavy carriers.

Ok, about yes - two regiments. But the question is different. What AUG will let forty carcasses on 400 km? At the same time, they also need fighter cover.

Quote: Taoist

Refueling systems were removed from them just because the US insisted on this especially ... this does not mean that they cannot be returned.

Of course you're right. But what about cover and flight over the sea?

Quote: Taoist

Oh, I'm afraid this was the last resource ...

Well I do not know. Quality of service if only. The Far East transferred only those from the sea to YES - which were able to take off ...

Quote: Taoist

This is how the alternative will appear, so I myself am the first, but for now it’s not even in the bud ...

So I wrote about this. It is better to bring the aviation version of the Caliber and Su-30cm. It is more effective (in the sense of caliber) and they themselves will be able to cover themselves. Such a thought was

[alexmach]

So I wrote about this. It is better to bring the aviation version of the Caliber and Su-30cm. It is more effective (in the sense of caliber) and they themselves will be able to cover themselves. Such a thought was

Tucked to the eyeballs for long-distance flight + with a healthy rocket?

Ok, about yes - two regiments. But the question is different. Which AUG will allow forty carcasses to 400 km?

Enlighten the amateur, flying at low altitude is no longer in fashion?

[Falcon]

Quote: alexmach

set to the eyeballs for long-distance flight + with a healthy rocket?

The carcass also flies with hefty rockets and tucked to the eyeballs.
But it also needs to be covered.

Quote: alexmach

Enlighten the amateur, flying at low altitude is no longer in fashion?

Blocks providing low-altitude flight removed from all Tu-22M3. And now he is not performing a low-altitude flight.

[Bongo]

Quote: Taoist

this does not mean that they cannot be returned.

Hello, Alexey. Unfortunately it is impossible, about which Sergey Ivanovich (SSI) repeatedly wrote.

Quote: Falcon

Blocks providing low-altitude flight removed from all Tu-22M3. And now he is not performing a low-altitude flight.

Unfortunately, this is also true.

[sivuch]

In principle, you can fly on PMV in your arms. Of course, a limited time. But the same Mig-23 and Mig-27 it turned out quite well

[zyablik.olga]

Quote: sivuch

In principle, you can fly on PMV in your arms. Of course, a limited time. But the same Mig-23 and Mig-27 it turned out quite well

How to compare the Tu-22M with MiGs is strange Yes, it is unlikely that pilots of long-range bombers are now taught to fly manually on the PMV.

[sivuch]

of course strange
Backfire, with its huge wing load, behaves at criminal low altitudes much more stable

[Filxnumx]

Believe the one who served the entire service in the training center YES (Diaghilev), they teach. And from the KBP YES program, PMV flights have not yet been removed.

[Radical]

Quote: Bongo

Quote: Radikal

What, have the US aircraft carriers run out? Or do we have modern rockets?

In the years of "getting off the knees", our naval missile-carrying aviation unexpectedly ended.

In the course, just salt on the wounds did not begin to pour!

[Taoist]

Quote: Falcon

What AUG will let forty carcasses on 400 km? At the same time, they also need fighter cover.

Yes, they do not need cover ... precisely because of the speed to intercept them is not such a simple matter. Exactly as in the textbooks it was described that the output in the radio silence mode under the radio horizon is a supersonic fling to the attack line under the cover of massive interference, a slide, shooting of anti-ship missiles and, God forbid, feet ... not a very easy target for carrier-based aircraft. Again, due to the size and load, they could go on for supersonic sounds for a long time ... but for the same Hornets, the supersonic is extreme ... Doesn’t catch up with the Hornet M3 ... and Gornet’s fuel for 5 minutes of afterburner pull ...
what with regards to "what AUG will let them on 400 km"? Well, it was not implied that they would be cutting long and tediously over the sea ... AUG, in order to strike, itself must come to the shore ... approximately at these same 400-600 km. Therefore, airfields in the Far East and the North for these machines ... And in the Black Sea Fleet, they generally controlled the entire sea and straits.

[Falcon]

Quote: Taoist

Yes, they do not need cover ... precisely because of the speed to intercept them is not such a simple matter. Exactly as in the textbooks it was described that the output in the radio silence mode under the radio horizon is a supersonic fling to the attack line under the cover of massive interference, a slide, shooting of anti-ship missiles and, God forbid, feet ... not a very easy target for carrier-based aircraft.

I fully understand your logic Yes, such an application is adequate for the Tu-22!
In fairness - to determine them you can raise AWACS.
And the blocks of low-altitude flight from all the carcasses are now removed.

Quote: Taoist

Again, due to the size and load, they could go on for supersonic sounds for a long time ... but for the same Hornets, supersonic is extreme ...

I do not agree with this. Specific consumption at supersonic in NK-25 space.

[Cat man null]

Quote: Falcon

Quote: Taoist

Again due to size and load they could go on supersonic for a long time... and here for the same Hornets, supersonic is extreme...

I do not agree with this. Specific consumption at supersonic in NK-25 space.

Falcon, do you hear the other person?

You were told: Hornet cannot “chase” the TU-22 in supersonic mode for a long time (and, therefore, will not “catch up”).

You answer ... about the fuel consumption of the TU-22 .. but what, in general, does this have to do with what your opponent was talking about?

And after that you propose to talk to you "constructively" .. yeah, schazz ... IMHO this is technically impossible

There are no words .. except obscene

[Falcon]

Quote: Cat Man Null

You answer ... about the fuel consumption of the TU-22 .. but what, in general, does this have to do with what your opponent was talking about?

Can't you read?

Quote: Taoist

Again, due to the size and load, they could go on for supersonic sounds for a long time ... but for the same Hornets, supersonic is extreme ...

They are Tu-22. Therefore, the flow rate matters. With high consumption, you can’t fly for a long time

And where I said:

Quote: Cat Man Null

IMHO this is technically impossible

You seem to not only haven’t read the article, but it’s also difficult to cope with comments. And also the phylax ...

[Cat man null]

Quote: Falcon

They are Tu-22. Therefore, the flow rate matters. With high consumption, you can’t fly for a long time

Um .. cool .. you are explicitly told the following:

Quote: Taoist

Again due to size and load they could go on supersonic for a long time... but for the same Hornets, supersonic is extreme ... Does not catch up with Hornet M3, and Gornet’s fuel for 5 minutes afterburning...

... and you start to talk about what a big fuel consumption the TU-22 has on supersonic sound ..

Why would it seem?

Quote: Falcon

And where I said:

Quote: Cat Man Null

IMHO this is technically impossible

It is not you who said it, I said .. about you, by the way:

Quote: Cat Man Null

You propose to talk to you "constructively" .. yeah, shchazz ... IMHO this is technically impossible

Quote: Falcon

Can't you read?

I know how to .. but you, the campaign, no ..

Somehow

[Falcon]

Quote: Cat Man Null

and you start to talk about how much fuel consumption of the TU-22 is supersonic ..

Afterburner consumption and supersonic are not correlated
Or maybe these are two things independent of each other?

Or maybe the flight time is independent of consumption?

[Cat man null]

Quote: Falcon

Or maybe these are two things independent of each other?

Or maybe the flight time is independent of consumption?

- the words "correlate" do not exist in nature .. that is, the diploma of "airplane designer" you, hike, bought

Quote: Falcon

Or maybe these are two things independent of each other?

Dependent. In direct ratio

Only this has absolutely no meaning after what you were explicitly told four (!!!) times there

Quote: Falcon

Or maybe the flight time is independent of consumption?

What does this have to do with ?!

In short: clever further, you are doing well. You, I repeat, are more uninteresting .. writer, damn it

[Falcon]

Quote: Cat Man Null

- the words "correlate" do not exist in nature .. that is, the diploma of "airplane designer" you, hike, bought

The philologist found a straw again

Quote: Cat Man Null

only this has absolutely no meaning after what you were explicitly told four (!!!) times there

And now we consider how much the carcass will gobble up fuel when it reaches the target and how much balance it needs to fly back to supersonic. I'll give you a hint, for 10min, she spends 17ton on afterburner. And how long can you cut it?

Quote: Cat Man Null

You, I repeat, are more uninteresting .. writer, damn it

And you to me very much! It's very funny to watch you copy other people's phrases as arguments, and look for commas in the text. Instead of a concrete example

[Cat man null]

Quote: Falcon

You copy other people's phrases as arguments

This, dear, just to show you .. dear, that you have already explained everything twenty times .. and you either troll or dumb - the result is the same .. You are told "haircut", and you - "no, brito ". Such is the "scientific" dispute turns out.

Quote: Falcon

You copy other people's phrases as arguments and look for commas in the text

And what to look for, here it is.. And if in the case, then:

- an engineer (if he is really an engineer and not bought a crust) cannot say "correlates-SY". His tongue will not turn so to speak
- an engineer cannot write "discharged" layers of the atmosphere. For the same reason
- a specialist cannot write "Khabina" instead of "Khibiny" .. from the writing it is already clear that you do not understand what it is and why it is ..

Well, in the logic of the race you have observed that you have repeatedly shown.

Quote: Falcon

Instead of a concrete example

Yes, much more specifically ..

[Falcon]

Quote: Cat Man Null

- an engineer (if he is really an engineer and not bought a crust) cannot say "correlates-SY". His tongue will not turn so to speak
- an engineer cannot write "discharged" layers of the atmosphere. For the same reason
- a specialist cannot write "Khabina" instead of "Khibiny" .. from the writing it is already clear that you do not understand what it is and why it is ..

Oh how! Russian language engineer?

I agree with the specifics. With those who justify something. For example, Taoist, Ancient, Alex_59, Bongo and a couple more people.
They didn’t agree - they justified. Ok, no questions.
So far, I only see knowledge of the Russian language from you, and trolling of the UV-23 picture. Where did you somehow intend to "rubber" an American plane?

[Cat man null]

Quote: Falcon

Where did you somehow intend to "rubber" an American plane?

It is not me, it is you "gathered"

Quote: Article

It may not be a serious shock for readers, but the American experimental YF-23 should serve as a prototype. It is he, but on a scale. The design of the keels allows you to go on a supersonic flight, while maintaining low visibility for radars. A kind of compromise between the flying wing and supersonic. Between the engines you need to increase the distance, for a long weapons compartment in which two Caliber or P-700 missiles could be placed. Optional pair of side bays under RVV-SD and RVV-MD, radar AFAR "Belka", integrated container TsU ("ala" EOTS JSF)

Before my eyes there is a sandbox and a child in it, playing pies ...

Constructor, damn .. planes, damn .. according to the diploma

[Falcon]

Quote: Cat Man Null

Before my eyes there is a sandbox and a child in it, playing pies ...

Ah ha ha! Continue with UV-23
I said that this is a glider diagram and engines proposed for it.
Well, they don’t, they just need another

[Cat man null]

Quote: Falcon

I said that this is a glider circuit and engines proposed for it

You said much more there, IMHO (see the quote from the article)

[Filxnumx]

When asked how long you can cut. The NK-25 engine of the 2nd series in the MFR mode (maximum afterburner mode) has a resource limit of 30 minutes for the entire operation period. Then it can be written off. Full refueling of Tu-22M3 - 53 tons, just for half an hour of work on the full afterburner. You can calculate the tactical radius yourself.

[sivuch]

and interesting comment
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
And here once there were details about the X-32 program
http://russianarms.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1284&p=8
post227
some explanations about the X-32
For example, Su-30СМ perfectly copes with the delivery of П-700
And here I would like more detailed explanations. Personally, I do not have the imagination to imagine Granite suspended under the Su-30СМ.

[Falcon]

Quote: sivuch

For example, Su-30СМ perfectly copes with the delivery of П-700
And here I would like more detailed explanations. Personally, I do not have the imagination to imagine Granite suspended under the Su-30СМ.

This is a typo, as I said above. P-800, not P-700

[Taoist]

Quote: Falcon

I fully understand your logic. Yes, such an application is adequate for the Tu-22!
In fairness - to determine them you can raise AWACS.
And the blocks of low-altitude flight from all the carcasses are now removed.

This is not logic, this is a textbook on naval aviation tactics - I'm still a personnel ... AWACS (the same Hawkeye) is also not a panacea ... he also has blind spots and he also chokes on interference. Yes, and for anti-radar missiles, he is the first target ... Well, as for the "blocks" (by the way, what do you mean by that?) As far as I know, no one has taken autopilots or Doppler altimeters from anywhere ... , it is short-lived. By the way, Emka has just an advantage in terms of the crew, there are two pilots and two navigators, especially since aerobatics for guidance and use of weapons are separate ... on the pilot ... It's not in vain that the "drummers" are all at least doubles ...

[Alex_59]

Quote: Taoist

As far as I am aware of, neither autopilots nor Doppler altimeters have been taken from anywhere ... How it was shot and delivered will be short-lived.

And do they need some special automation to fly over the sea? Well, let's say something was taken there, but he can fly at an altitude of 200-300 meters (even if not 50-100). There are no mountains or folds of terrain on the sea. And at an altitude of 200 meters, the Tu-22 is very well masked from all ground-based radars.

[Falcon]

Quote: Taoist

As far as I am aware, no one has taken anywhere from autopilots or Doppler altimeters ...

A low-altitude flight could be carried out ONLY by Tu-22М3 equipped with ABSU-145.

All VNP and BUNP units have been withdrawn from the ABSU-145 product.

Quote: Alex_59

And do they need some special automation to fly over the sea?

VNP and BUNP from the product "ABSU-145"

Quote: Alex_59

o fly at an altitude of 200-300 meters (even if not 50-100) he can

On hands - maybe. Like Drying, but on hand

[Alex_59]

Quote: Falcon

On hands - maybe. Like Drying, but on hand

Of course, I'm not so familiar with the Tu-22M, but are there really no toggle switches "On. AP" and "Stab. H"? What prevents them from clicking at an altitude of 200-300 meters, if they are there? And already, as it were, it turns out on hands ...

[Falcon]

Quote: Alex_59

Of course, I'm not so familiar with the Tu-22M, but are there really no toggle switches "On. AP" and "Stab. H"? What prevents them from clicking at an altitude of 200-300 meters, if they are there? And already, as it were, it turns out on hands ...

Automation is tuned to a specific flight mode. Again, protection from the fool, so that where you do not need not stuck.

But, I am not a pilot, and specifically Tu-22М3 did not serve. Such a question is better to ask Comrade. To the ancients. Or SSI - since he collected these carcasses.

[Alex_59]

Quote: Falcon

Automation is tuned to a specific flight mode.

"Stab. H" is a toggle-switch of the usual "domestic" autopilot, almost every airplane has it. It does not adjust to anything, it just maintains the current height, balancing the car and preventing it from going higher or lower. If this toggle switch is turned on at 200 meters, then the AP will withstand these 200 meters. I think there should be an autopilot in Carcass. It should be enough to fly over a flat sea surface.

[Falcon]

Quote: Alex_59

"Stab. H" is a toggle-switch of the usual "domestic" autopilot, almost every airplane has it. It does not adjust to anything, it just maintains the current height, balancing the car and preventing it from going higher or lower. If this toggle switch is turned on at 200 meters, then the AP will withstand these 200 meters. I think there should be an autopilot in Carcass. It should be enough to fly over a flat sea surface.

Well, not an autopilot, but ABSU. About Tu-22m3 I do not know, as I said.
On Tu-154m I can say - Stab. n does not always work. EMNIP not at all heights and speeds. You can turn it on, but the automation is not involved

[Falcon]

Quote: Alex_59

He does not tune to anything, he simply maintains the current height by balancing the car and not letting it go higher or lower.

Write in a PMI PM this question. He will definitely put everything on the shelves for you. At the same time, then enlighten me You can also in PM

[Falcon]

Quote: Alex_59

And already, as it were, not on hand it turns out ...

I tried to find RLE Carcasses for the article - but could not.
SW Ancient - I was given a link to lectures on the Carcass - maybe there I will find the answer to this question

[Taoist]

Quote: Falcon

A low-altitude flight could be carried out ONLY by Tu-22М3 equipped with ABSU-145.

Here we are talking about the flight mode "with a rounding of the terrain" on a digital map thereof (i.e. without using onboard RES) - yes, this system was removed, under the same agreement as the refueling booms ... - but this system was intended exclusively for work on targets in Europe (above ground)
Its absence absolutely does not affect the ability of the machine to fly at extremely small above the sea ... (due to the lack of terrain) - on-board systems allow this flight to be performed automatically at altitudes from 20 meters.

[Foofighter]

But it affects the flight over Canada, or over Alaska even without it.
Well, the Tu-160 generally went far beyond the length of the bar, so (especially since I want it) it was possible to cut without any contract far-fetched ...

[sivuch]

But this is written about the non-existent X-32
http://trud-ost.ru/?p=403713
Currently, the main products of the enterprise are the product U 501 AB1.000.119. According to open sources, this product is a component of the X-32 product (9-A-2362, air-based cruise missile, anti-ship missile, anti-radar missile). These missiles are fired at the Dubna Machine-Building Plant, which is supplied by Radiopribor. A contract with this plant at Radio Appliance was signed several years ago. More accurate information could not be found due to the confidentiality of the data.
It is noteworthy that the product U 501 AB1.000.119 is produced only in Vladivostok.
By the way, the P-800 is also not so easy to attach to the Su-30SM. Here, the Indians can’t bring their Bramos-Light to mind. Recently, the first launch from the Su-30MKI was postponed again. Right, of course, this summer.

[Bongo]

Quote: sivuch

It is noteworthy that the product of 501 AB1.000.119 is produced only in Vladivostok

Igor, and at which aircraft manufacturing enterprise of Vladivostok do they produce it? In general, about the X-32 I have big doubts LRE is a stone age.

[Taoist]

Quote: Bongo

LRE is a stone age.

Why such a "profound" conclusion? LRE, like any other RD, has its pluses and minuses ... this does not mean at all that it is "morally obsolete" ... If only because this is how to combine the minimum weight, thrust and the ability to control this thrust so far to no other RD fails.

[sivuch]

Sergey, it says “Radiopribor” in the same place. And this, of course, is not an airline, but the very nonsense in Dubna.
I don’t think that they were riveted a lot, but even 20-30 — a reason for concern to the crew of one particular AV.RE - I’m not sure that such toxic muck is there. But even so, with limited use it can be lived. there were S-75 complexes, and nothing, they were refueling.
At least you don’t have to do the mouth of the OT

[Bongo]

Quote: Taoist

Why such a "profound" conclusion? LRE, like any other RD, has its pluses and minuses ... this does not mean at all that it is "morally obsolete" ... If only because this is how to combine the minimum weight, thrust and the ability to control this thrust so far to no other RD fails.

It's like that But there is one but... All these advantages are depreciated by the need to use toxic fuel and an extremely aggressive oxidizing agent, the slightest leak of which threatens with serious consequences. X-22 missiles have always been unloved by the flight and technical personnel for this reason. I don’t know if you have encountered rockets with LRE, but I had to. True, they were SAM, but the problems are the same. In the air defense forces of the country, accidents including fatal accidents during refueling, servicing and transportation of missiles were not uncommon. How much do you know in the world moderntypes of rockets with rocket engines? We do not take into account pH - this is a separate issue.

[Taoist]

Any high-energy fuel is aggressive, and even less oxidizing. This is a fee for compactness. Already in Soviet times, this problem was solved by the introduction of ampoule storage. Those. in the troops, missiles, in principle, were not fueled or served. I am somewhat t.s. I know. Because after the comment I was about to be transferred to the storage and training base of the Navy of the Kyrgyz Republic near Engels.
By the way, for aeroballistic missiles we have a rocket engine in general, then no options ...
http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/pkr/x45.html

[Bongo]

Quote: Taoist

Any high-energy fuel is aggressive, and even less oxidizing. This is a fee for compactness. Already in Soviet times, this problem was solved by the introduction of ampoule storage. Those. in the troops, missiles, in principle, were not fueled or served. I am somewhat t.s. I know. Because after the comment I was about to be transferred to the storage and training base of the Navy of the Kyrgyz Republic near Engels.
By the way, for aeroballistic missiles we have a rocket engine in general, then no options ...
http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/pkr/x45.html

Alex, and where does the experienced X-45? Which of ours serial SAM or RCC with LRE had ampoule storage?

[Taoist]

Quote: Bongo

Which of our serial missiles or rocket launchers with LRE had ampoule storage?

"In addition, ampoule refueling was introduced in the later modifications of the Kh-22, which greatly simplified the operation of these missiles." (C)

http://topwar.ru/37561-krylataya-raketa-h-22.html

[Bongo]

Quote: Taoist

http://topwar.ru/37561-krylataya-raketa-h-22.html

This publication cannot be considered a reliable source, sorry but Ryabov Kirill is not an authority on this issue.

Quote: ancient

Yes ... the filling station "called names .." death to dachas and vegetable gardens "if there was a" siphon ".. which happened quite often, but you can't get away from it.

When refueling missiles the same thing happened, with the C-200 we operated until about 2005 of the year. No amplification was discussed there.

[Taoist]

The latest modifications (this does not mean at all that the previous modifications were taken out of service) - in any case, our neighbors at the "watering" (Nikolaev) in the 88th year received 22s from the base and never refueled them. Unfortunately, I can't say what kind of modification it was ...
So Ryabov may certainly not be credible, but the fact that the latest versions were already produced using ampoule technology is 100%

[Bongo]

Quote: Taoist

The latest modifications (this does not mean at all that the previous modifications were taken out of service) - in any case, our neighbors at the "watering" (Nikolaev) in the 88th year received 22s from the base and never refueled them.

I will not argue, X-22 I do not know, it may well be. But even amputated missiles are a smut. The shelf life in the refilled form is still less than that of solid fuel and the slightest mechanical impact threatens major troubles.

[Taoist]

Yes, who would argue, but the TT is unfortunately not regulated and has less traction ... Therefore, if we are talking about long-range multi-mode missiles, we do not have many options.

[Taoist]

Violetta Basha
2005

The order is to the West!
The engines roared!
My heart is on fire!
I am a bomber!
I am a bomber!
Tu-22 M3!
Who's in charge there?
Pray one last time!
Your hour of judgment has come!
I have been given the right!
My name is “backfire”!
The trumpets of Jericho!
I am the carrier angel
Warheads!
Your righteous judgment and law!
Games are over!
Enough with the tricks!
What peace is to me!
What is Rome
What Sodom!
And the one in me
Gives orders:
- Forward! 2M – for sunset!
One blow - for everything and at once -
The neutron road to Hell!
Order - to the West!
And I have no equal!
I hate
God given!
And the one who
Your world is topped
Call me "Satan"!
...But what is this? What?
Order to return!?
And was it a training flight?
He betrayed me,
The one who is twenty years old
Leads me with him!
I can’t help but obey him,
I flew into a deadly arc!
Let the one who
Sits at the controls
Bring me out of my dive!
After all, there was an order -
To the west! And period!
And at the horizon - look! -
I see it already
Cape Rock sharpening -
Western edge of the Earth!
But he said -
Back! Which means -
I need to trust him!
To the one who
I'm destined
And I will accept whose confession!
Now at its peak
We'll finish together
With the torment of doubts and thoughts!
But there was my mind
Confused by the order!
And my mind was red-hot!
And I'm at nine o'clock
I'm ditching my friend
And I make a U-turn -
Home to base!
And a thorn in the heart
The steel vein beats.
Everyone is still roaring
Two powerful motors.
But my soul is burning with pain!
I am a bomber!
I am a bomber!
Tu-22M3!
I didn't know then
I didn’t think, I didn’t know,
That they are not waiting for us at home.
And if my friend
Wouldn't betray me -
We both knew the route!
To resign - him.
They will cut me!
Better a squadron in paradise!
And I with all my might
Crashing into the ground
In the last
His
Fight!

[Alexey Vasilievich I]

The article is certainly a vinaigrette One gets the impression that the author does not even understand what he is writing about. What kind of P700 are in aviation??? What aircraft do we have in service with Granit??? Or at least Caliber??? Onyx is also passing by. One might assume that this is a typo about Granit, but the P700 was mentioned in the article 4 times, if not more. Therefore, this is hardly a typo, just a banal misunderstanding of the author about what he is writing about.
About a motor boat with an RPG-7 against a destroyer - this is generally a masterpiece! :)))
And who told you that a target coming at a high altitude and at great speed would be a gift on a silver platter? Do you think the X32 is a gift at an altitude of 40 km and a speed of 5M? I can imagine how our “partners” on the aircraft carrier will sweat from such a “gift” :)))