Military Review

Tu-22M3: time to retire?

275



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”.

Tu-22M3: time to retire?

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/
Author:
275 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Evgesh91
    Evgesh91 26 March 2016 04: 28
    +36
    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.
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 26 March 2016 07: 29
      +24
      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 ...
      1. Throw
        Throw 26 March 2016 16: 15
        +16
        Consultations, hike, were like "under a snack" wassat

        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. laughing

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

        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" ?? laughing
        1. Falcon
          26 March 2016 16: 51
          -2
          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. wink
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null 26 March 2016 16: 58
            +6
            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".

            hi
            1. Throw
              Throw 27 March 2016 05: 47
              +3
              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" ??
              belay
              1. Falcon
                27 March 2016 12: 28
                +1
                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.
                1. Throw
                  Throw 27 March 2016 17: 54
                  +2
                  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 ... laughing laughing laughing
                  1. Falcon
                    27 March 2016 18: 28
                    -1
                    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 wassat
                    In fact, I understand there is nothing to argue?
                    Well, nothing, there are many wassat
                    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.
                    1. Cat man null
                      Cat man null 27 March 2016 18: 35
                      +4
                      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 yes
                      1. Falcon
                        27 March 2016 18: 41
                        0
                        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!

                      2. Throw
                        Throw 27 March 2016 21: 33
                        +4
                        They themselves wrote - "illiterate" is written together laughing
                      3. Falcon
                        27 March 2016 21: 42
                        +2
                        Quote: Lance
                        They themselves wrote - "illiterate" is written together laughing


                        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. lol
                      4. Throw
                        Throw 27 March 2016 23: 29
                        +2
                        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.
                      5. Falcon
                        28 March 2016 08: 49
                        0
                        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 crying

                        Korolev was a round threesome wink
                      6. alexmach
                        alexmach 28 March 2016 09: 51
                        +3
                        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.
                      7. leshiy076
                        leshiy076 31 March 2016 21: 41
                        0
                        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.
            2. Falcon
              27 March 2016 18: 44
              +1
              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?
            3. Cat man null
              Cat man null 27 March 2016 19: 04
              +2
              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:
            4. Falcon
              27 March 2016 19: 13
              -1
              Quote: Cat Man Null
              I would be in your place after this killed on the wall:


              Clear fellow
              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.
            5. Cat man null
              Cat man null 27 March 2016 19: 39
              +4
              Quote: Falcon
              In short, it’s really easier to kill against a wall than to repeat ALL THAT ALREADY TOLD

              Mdja .. what ... 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 request

              Then let me take my leave, you are not interesting to me hi
            6. Falcon
              27 March 2016 19: 50
              +1
              Quote: Cat Man Null
              You also have problems with logical thinking, but this is already to another specialist.


              Super good

              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 wink
            7. andj61
              andj61 27 March 2016 20: 06
              0
              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! hi
              Here I completely agree with you. True, now graduates and universities have problems with the Russian language. request
              True, there is another option - for example, there is an expression "incredibly happy". But if there is "unspeakable", then logically there should be "said" ... repeat laughing
            8. Cat man null
              Cat man null 27 March 2016 20: 11
              +2
              Quote: andj61
              Greetings, Roman!

              Mutually hi

              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" laughing

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

              Something like this. Everything under IMHO, naturally.
            9. Throw
              Throw 27 March 2016 21: 16
              +3
              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. laughing lol laughing
            10. Cat man null
              Cat man null 27 March 2016 21: 21
              +3
              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 laughing
            11. Throw
              Throw 27 March 2016 21: 52
              0
              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"
              laughing
            12. Falcon
              27 March 2016 21: 55
              0
              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!
        2. Falcon
          27 March 2016 21: 39
          +1
          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


          wassat 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. good

          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 lol
      2. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 6 2016 02: 37
        -1
        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
      3. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 6 2016 02: 48
        0
        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 ... lol
      4. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 6 2016 03: 27
        -1
        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".
  2. xtur
    xtur 27 March 2016 20: 34
    +5
    > 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.
  3. Falcon
    27 March 2016 20: 41
    -3
    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 ...
  4. xtur
    xtur 28 March 2016 16: 46
    +1
    > 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.
  5. Falcon
    28 March 2016 19: 49
    0
    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
  6. Falcon
    27 March 2016 19: 21
    +3
    Quote: Cat Man Null
    With such "body kits" Dryers can only lie down for themselves!


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

    How does it seem that they don’t fly with PTB? wassat
  • andj61
    andj61 27 March 2016 18: 51
    +3
    Quote: Falcon
    When Lenin said: each cook will rule the state. Was wrong.

    Did Lenin say that? what
    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
    Aqela 27 March 2016 12: 09
    +3
    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". request 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. lol
    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! fellow 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? fool crying
    1. Falcon
      27 March 2016 12: 32
      -2
      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 fool
      what design fool
      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
      1. Cat man null
        Cat man null 27 March 2016 20: 37
        +3
        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 wink

        Quote: Falcon
        Proposed concept

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

        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 .. sad

        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 yes
        1. Falcon
          27 March 2016 20: 47
          +1
          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. No.
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null 27 March 2016 20: 53
            +3
            Quote: Falcon
            Oh, fire from your training

            With pleasure laughing
            1. Falcon
              27 March 2016 21: 48
              +1
              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?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • aszzz888
    aszzz888 26 March 2016 04: 37
    +24
    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.
    1. Mobius
      Mobius 26 March 2016 08: 32
      +15
      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.
      1. Falcon
        26 March 2016 08: 45
        0
        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.
        1. Mobius
          Mobius 26 March 2016 09: 03
          +4
          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.
          1. Falcon
            26 March 2016 15: 17
            0
            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 wink
        2. alexmach
          alexmach 26 March 2016 15: 30
          +5
          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.
        3. Aqela
          Aqela 27 March 2016 12: 21
          0
          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?
      2. ancient
        ancient 26 March 2016 11: 58
        +5
        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" soldier
        1. Mobius
          Mobius 26 March 2016 20: 52
          0
          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"?
          1. ancient
            ancient 26 March 2016 22: 05
            +6
            Quote: Möbius
            How many Tu-22x NOW,


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

            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. soldier
            1. Aleksandr1959
              Aleksandr1959 26 March 2016 22: 28
              +2
              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.
      3. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 26 March 2016 15: 01
        +4
        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 ...

        !
        1. Falcon
          26 March 2016 15: 21
          0
          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 wink

          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 wink

          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.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 27 March 2016 03: 25
            +2
            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 ...
          2. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 27 March 2016 03: 29
            +1
            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 ..... repeat Read-read .... very soon!
          3. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 27 March 2016 03: 33
            +2
            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 ...
          4. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 27 March 2016 03: 35
            +2
            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.
    2. Iline
      Iline 26 March 2016 10: 59
      +4
      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.
      1. glasha3032
        glasha3032 27 March 2016 03: 20
        0
        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
    3. dauria
      dauria 26 March 2016 12: 41
      +8
      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.
      1. PPD
        PPD 26 March 2016 13: 14
        +2
        TB 3 as a night bomber was quite successful until the end of the war, with minimal losses. So for reference.
        1. dauria
          dauria 26 March 2016 22: 25
          +1
          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- request
          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.
          1. Aqela
            Aqela 27 March 2016 12: 36
            0
            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.
        2. Aqela
          Aqela 27 March 2016 12: 29
          0
          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
    Signaller 26 March 2016 04: 48
    +13
    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.
    1. Gray brother
      Gray brother 26 March 2016 07: 05
      +10
      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.
    2. Falcon
      26 March 2016 08: 05
      +4
      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! fellow
      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 am
      I generally for it!
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 26 March 2016 08: 13
        +12
        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! stop 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... request
        1. Falcon
          26 March 2016 08: 19
          +3
          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.
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 26 March 2016 08: 22
            +9
            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?
            1. Falcon
              26 March 2016 08: 26
              +2
              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?
              1. Foofighter
                Foofighter April 5 2016 11: 33
                0
                The bomber without missiles to him ceased to be a supersonic strategic, and turned into a tactical biplane? laughing
            2. Bersaglieri
              Bersaglieri 26 March 2016 09: 31
              +4
              On the JASSM SBN adapt compact - a lot of time is not required. A B61-12 V-1B and so can carry.
          2. alexmach
            alexmach 26 March 2016 21: 26
            +2
            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 ..
        2. ancient
          ancient 26 March 2016 12: 03
          +11
          Quote: Bongo
          The Americans, for example, declared all of their B-1Bs "non-strategic bombers." And nothing...


          And anyway .. he flies great good

      2. Sweles
        Sweles 26 March 2016 09: 35
        +4
        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 ...
      3. Cap.Morgan
        Cap.Morgan 26 March 2016 15: 29
        +4
        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! fellow
        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 am
        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?
        1. Falcon
          26 March 2016 16: 04
          +2
          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! fellow
          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 am
          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
          1. Aqela
            Aqela 27 March 2016 12: 47
            +1
            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. negative soldier
            1. Falcon
              27 March 2016 13: 06
              +1
              Quote: Aqela
              By the way:


              Philologists and theorists on another site wink
              1. Aqela
                Aqela 27 March 2016 16: 07
                +2
                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? wassat
                1. Falcon
                  27 March 2016 16: 16
                  +2
                  Quote: Aqela
                  And what is your practical touch on the Tu-22M3?


                  Did I say somewhere that I am a pilot? fool
                2. ancient
                  ancient 27 March 2016 16: 18
                  +5
                  Quote: Aqela
                  By the way, regarding theorists. And what is your practical raid on the Tu-22M3? Huh?


                  And then ... "ask" wassat

                  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 soldier

                  Then it’s a QUESTION, not .... tongue
  • Signaller
    Signaller 26 March 2016 04: 58
    +2
    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
    bober1982 26 March 2016 06: 20
    +3
    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.
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 26 March 2016 09: 33
      +5
      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.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 26 March 2016 09: 40
        +2
        what distant are these? got excited
    2. Amurets
      Amurets 26 March 2016 09: 57
      +3
      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.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 26 March 2016 10: 54
        0
        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.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 26 March 2016 11: 45
          +2
          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
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 26 March 2016 11: 50
            +6
            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.
            1. Amurets
              Amurets 26 March 2016 14: 14
              +4
              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.
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 26 March 2016 14: 19
                +6
                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.
      2. Aqela
        Aqela 27 March 2016 13: 02
        0
        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?
      3. Aqela
        Aqela 27 March 2016 13: 02
        0
        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
    Dimon19661 26 March 2016 06: 32
    +3
    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.
    1. Falcon
      26 March 2016 08: 02
      +4
      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. laughing
      More in ballroom dancing.
      I suggest you write a full-blown rebuttal article, like a real pro! good
      1. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 26 March 2016 09: 29
        +6
        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.
        1. Falcon
          26 March 2016 15: 33
          +3
          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 crying Since instead of counter arguments, questions already asked are asked
    2. Bongo
      Bongo 26 March 2016 08: 19
      +15
      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.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 26 March 2016 11: 30
        +12
        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.
      2. xtur
        xtur 27 March 2016 00: 06
        +3
        > 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.
    bistrov. 26 March 2016 06: 48
    +17
    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"?
    1. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 26 March 2016 07: 36
      +11
      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.
      1. your1970
        your1970 26 March 2016 11: 33
        0
        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
      2. ancient
        ancient 26 March 2016 12: 13
        +5
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        So from them - bombers and it was not required


        Here I agree completely drinks

        Quote: Aleksandr72
        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 !!! soldier
        It was later that "packages # 2" appeared. bully
    2. Falcon
      26 March 2016 07: 51
      +5
      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
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 27 March 2016 13: 26
        0
        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".
    3. ancient
      ancient 26 March 2016 12: 09
      +4
      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"? lol
  • Bongo
    Bongo 26 March 2016 07: 13
    +12
    Cyril, you did it all the same! fellow 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. No. 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.
    1. Falcon
      26 March 2016 07: 49
      +8
      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 drinks
      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 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 crying Well, how to go on a tank for beer ...
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 26 March 2016 08: 01
        +7
        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
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        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
        1. Falcon
          26 March 2016 08: 15
          +4
          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. yes

          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 hi
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 26 March 2016 08: 27
            +7
            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 am
            This is not a question for technology, but for the "tsar" and his "boyars" who revel in impunity.
            1. Falcon
              26 March 2016 08: 41
              +5
              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.


              +! crying Vicious circle...
    2. ancient
      ancient 26 March 2016 11: 20
      +7
      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 "+"! drinks

      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. wink
      5. I have never met a single machine equipped specifically with MVK .. maybe the author meant something else? request

      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 !!! drinks

      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 wassat
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 26 March 2016 11: 30
        +7
        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! drinks
        1. ancient
          ancient 26 March 2016 11: 50
          +5
          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 " wassat if there was a "siphon" .. which happened quite often whatbut you won’t get anywhere from this.

          Well, what about .. "alive and well !, and especially .." returned ".. you got very excited drinks
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 26 March 2016 11: 56
            +5
            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?
            1. ancient
              ancient 26 March 2016 12: 19
              +4
              Quote: Bongo
              or again


              AGAIN!!! wassat drinks
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 26 March 2016 13: 51
                +6
                Quote: ancient
                AGAIN!!!

                drinks
      2. Falcon
        26 March 2016 15: 41
        +5
        Quote: ancient
        The author has a very big "+"!


        Thank you hi

        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 request
        1. ancient
          ancient 26 March 2016 16: 20
          +3
          Quote: Falcon
          X-22 from open sources + consulted.


          Well, "open sources" .. they are ... these ... "sources" wassat
          But .. "consulted" wink
          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" bully
          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 bullyand 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 wink

          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? wink
          1. Falcon
            26 March 2016 16: 36
            +4
            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 request

            Quote: ancient
            For the rest, do you mean about the MVK?


            Yes
            1. ancient
              ancient 26 March 2016 16: 56
              +3
              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 wink
              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) soldier

              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 crying
              1. Falcon
                27 March 2016 12: 44
                +1
                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! hi

                RLE then I did not find on it ...
                1. ancient
                  ancient 27 March 2016 16: 20
                  +5
                  Quote: Falcon
                  RLE then I did not find on it ...


                  Sent in PM drinks
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 26 March 2016 07: 55
    +4
    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 ...
    1. Falcon
      26 March 2016 07: 59
      +2
      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
      1. kote119
        kote119 26 March 2016 08: 26
        +2
        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 hi
        1. Falcon
          26 March 2016 08: 38
          +4
          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 ...
          1. kote119
            kote119 26 March 2016 09: 16
            +1
            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
            1. Falcon
              26 March 2016 15: 42
              +4
              Quote: kote119
              I think granite is not suitable for several reasons:


              I agree. We must consider the P-800.
      2. Amurets
        Amurets 26 March 2016 10: 26
        +3
        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.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 26 March 2016 10: 37
          +7
          Quote: Amurets
          Cyril! Congratulations on your debut

          Hi Nikolay! This is not a debut. No. 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!
        2. Falcon
          26 March 2016 15: 44
          +3
          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 hi
    2. ancient
      ancient 26 March 2016 11: 54
      +3
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Is he flying bad?


      Of course, he flies ... not bad ... but only would he also "shoot"? wink
      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? recourse

      Well, drive the barmalei, and especially if they are at ranges under 1000 km from the airfield ... so far it’s wink
  • Vikxnumx
    Vikxnumx 26 March 2016 08: 34
    0
    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 "-"
    1. ancient
      ancient 26 March 2016 14: 56
      +4
      Quote: VIK1711
      One-sided view of things.


      Let me disagree with you categorically! soldier

      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 wassat ), take at least the "mythical Tu-160M2" .... here we have them now and .. by 25-30-50.
      1. xtur
        xtur 27 March 2016 00: 41
        +1
        > "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
    dvg1959 26 March 2016 08: 38
    +2
    Long-range aviation is needed in Russia. And in relation to the Tu-22M3, the optimal solution will still mature, I hope.
  • AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 26 March 2016 08: 44
    +4
    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!
    1. Falcon
      26 March 2016 08: 49
      +4
      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).
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 26 March 2016 09: 10
        +8
        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".
    2. ancient
      ancient 26 March 2016 14: 58
      +6
      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" wink
  • borisov1
    borisov1 26 March 2016 08: 48
    0
    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
    Glagol1 26 March 2016 08: 59
    0
    To the author minus. The very presence of these machines in the VKS BS cools
    Hot heads of adversaries
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 26 March 2016 10: 12
      0
      The presence of nuclear weapons, namely ICBMs, cools the heads of all "friends"
      1. Olezhek
        Olezhek 26 March 2016 11: 25
        0
        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
    reklats34 26 March 2016 09: 15
    0
    24 people are fans of all kinds of "Caspian monsters" conservators
  • Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 26 March 2016 10: 23
    0
    The author, most likely, "jacket" or even writes from someone else's words. Let him first see what medium-range bombers are for.
  • proud
    proud 26 March 2016 10: 35
    +4
    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
    Andrey VOV 26 March 2016 10: 38
    -9
    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
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 26 March 2016 10: 40
      +5
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      you are the author .... litter gosdepovskaya ... sorry moa per syllable

      Dear, please re-read the site rules again negative
    2. Falcon
      26 March 2016 15: 52
      +5
      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 request

      Murzilka magazine at another link wink 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 wink
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 27 March 2016 13: 46
        0
        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 sad crying
        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. request It is humiliating and not productive. No.
        No need to do this, please! stop
        1. Falcon
          27 March 2016 14: 26
          +2
          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 wassat
          Funny of course laughing
          1. Aqela
            Aqela 27 March 2016 15: 58
            -1
            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? wassat fool 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)? laughing
            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! fellow
            1. Falcon
              27 March 2016 16: 06
              +3
              Quote: Aqela
              By the way, there are no objections adequate on your part.


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

              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 lol

              those. without understanding anything, decided to continue trolling wassat
              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 good
            2. Falcon
              27 March 2016 16: 10
              +3
              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 wassat
              Or you will print it on an 3 printer wassat

              And again, to the only line you understand, about yf-23 wassat
              well there are letters hi
            3. Falcon
              27 March 2016 16: 25
              +2
              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. wassat
              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 yes
              As for example, the ACTING aviator Dear Comrade Ancient wink

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

              Have you read such a statement somewhere? laughing

              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 lol
              I'm just wondering when you yourself will get tired of trolling! The Troll should burst from gluttony once! wassat
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 26 March 2016 10: 48
    -2
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: Andrey VOV
    you are the author .... litter gosdepovskaya ... sorry moa per syllable

    Dear, please re-read the site rules again negative

    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 ..
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 26 March 2016 10: 50
      +5
      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
    bad 26 March 2016 10: 50
    -3
    an article-amateurish vinaigrette with a bunch of variegated pictures .. the author and his "consultants" apparently get dollars for these opuses .. negative
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 26 March 2016 10: 54
      +5
      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? fool 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? stop
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 27 March 2016 13: 57
        -2
        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-upotreblenija.html
        It's all about Coca-Cola ... sad
    2. Falcon
      26 March 2016 15: 54
      +4
      Quote: bad
      an article-amateurish vinaigrette with a bunch of variegated pictures .. the author and his "consultants" apparently get dollars for these opuses .. negative


      Do not worry, consultants only on technical issues. They do not agree with my opinion. All grandmas flow to me bully
      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
    Olezhek 26 March 2016 11: 07
    +1
    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
    DesToeR 26 March 2016 11: 09
    +2
    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.
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth 26 March 2016 11: 37
      +3
      A bit reminiscent of Khrushchev with his idea to replace planes with missiles
    2. Bongo
      Bongo 26 March 2016 11: 39
      +6
      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.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 26 March 2016 11: 41
        0
        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?
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 26 March 2016 11: 48
          +1
          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.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 26 March 2016 12: 00
            +4
            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.
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 26 March 2016 14: 05
              +4
              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.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 26 March 2016 14: 51
                +3
                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.
                1. Falcon
                  26 March 2016 15: 57
                  +3
                  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
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 26 March 2016 16: 49
                    +3
                    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.
                    1. Falcon
                      26 March 2016 16: 54
                      +2
                      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
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 March 2016 17: 13
                        +2
                        And here is the FAB? We kind of talked about special warheads. Which must be delivered to the place before applying.
                      2. Falcon
                        27 March 2016 12: 48
                        +1
                        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
    Kenneth 26 March 2016 11: 35
    +1
    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
    Olezhek 26 March 2016 11: 54
    +2
    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 ..
    hi
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Aleksandr1959
    Aleksandr1959 26 March 2016 13: 42
    +1
    Replace Tu-22M3 could project T-60S OKB them P.O.Sukhogo ... but it was covered in the 90s.
  • rubin6286
    rubin6286 26 March 2016 13: 57
    +14
    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.
    1. Falcon
      26 March 2016 16: 02
      +2
      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."


      belay And in the presence of air defense and a "serious operation" cover is not needed ?! That's the logic belay
    2. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 27 March 2016 12: 29
      -4
      Now local sofa experts will explain everything to you (((
    3. Aqela
      Aqela 27 March 2016 14: 08
      -1
      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
    iouris 26 March 2016 14: 18
    +3
    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
    Alex_59 26 March 2016 17: 15
    +8
    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?
    1. Falcon
      27 March 2016 12: 56
      +3
      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. yes

      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.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 27 March 2016 16: 45
        +3
        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?
        1. Falcon
          27 March 2016 16: 55
          +2
          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.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 27 March 2016 22: 07
            +1
            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.
            1. Falcon
              27 March 2016 22: 17
              +2
              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.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 28 March 2016 06: 59
                +2
                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.
                1. Falcon
                  28 March 2016 08: 16
                  +1
                  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 hi

                  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
    Tektor 26 March 2016 23: 43
    0
    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.
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 27 March 2016 12: 22
      0
      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.
      1. Falcon
        27 March 2016 13: 08
        +1
        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
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 27 March 2016 18: 22
          +2
          About X-32 - are you sure?
          1. Falcon
            27 March 2016 18: 38
            +1
            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
    complete zero 26 March 2016 23: 51
    +1
    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
    Yarhann 27 March 2016 00: 06
    +1
    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.
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 27 March 2016 08: 04
      +1
      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
  • Radikal
    Radikal 27 March 2016 00: 08
    +2
    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?
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 27 March 2016 01: 52
      +7
      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. crying
      1. Ruslan67
        Ruslan67 27 March 2016 01: 58
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        In our years of "rising from the knees"

        (Lying in a puddle90) was better? Or have not all 142s written off yet?
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 27 March 2016 02: 34
          +4
          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. No. 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.
          1. glasha3032
            glasha3032 27 March 2016 03: 50
            0
            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.
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 27 March 2016 03: 58
              +2
              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.
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 27 March 2016 08: 00
        +2
        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.
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 27 March 2016 08: 06
          +4
          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.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 27 March 2016 16: 37
            +1
            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.
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 28 March 2016 05: 33
              +4
              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 request
              Bolshoye Savino is the Perm airfield, the Tu-22М3 is not there and most likely it will never be on a permanent basis. No. At the moment, there is a squadron based on the MiG-31 interceptor, what does this have to do with the Tu-22M3? what 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.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 28 March 2016 07: 13
                0
                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 ...
                1. Bongo
                  Bongo 28 March 2016 13: 00
                  +4
                  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. request
                  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
    Angler 27 March 2016 02: 01
    +1
    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.
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 5 2016 09: 48
      0
      recent photos, too, the name itself - saw the shura refueling rods, saw ...
  • Termit1309
    Termit1309 27 March 2016 04: 30
    +2
    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
    Alex_59 27 March 2016 08: 03
    0
    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
    Aqela 27 March 2016 11: 54
    -1
    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. belay
    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 recourse not litter brains to people.
  • demiurg
    demiurg 27 March 2016 13: 49
    0
    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
    db1967 27 March 2016 14: 33
    +1
    Economy lol
    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.
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 27 March 2016 16: 03
      -1
      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
    demiurg 27 March 2016 18: 43
    0
    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
    voyaka uh 27 March 2016 18: 45
    0
    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
    Taoist 27 March 2016 18: 58
    +2
    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 ...
    1. Falcon
      27 March 2016 19: 06
      +2
      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)
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 27 March 2016 19: 44
        +3
        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 ...
        1. Falcon
          27 March 2016 20: 00
          0
          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
          1. alexmach
            alexmach 27 March 2016 20: 45
            +4
            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?
            1. Falcon
              27 March 2016 20: 50
              +1
              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.
        2. Bongo
          Bongo 28 March 2016 05: 54
          +4
          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.
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 28 March 2016 07: 24
            0
            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
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 28 March 2016 08: 54
              +3
              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 wassat Yes, it is unlikely that pilots of long-range bombers are now taught to fly manually on the PMV.
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 28 March 2016 12: 59
                +2
                of course strange
                Backfire, with its huge wing load, behaves at criminal low altitudes much more stable
              2. Filxnumx
                Filxnumx April 3 2016 03: 15
                +1
                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.
  • Radikal
    Radikal 27 March 2016 20: 45
    +2
    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. crying
    In the course, just salt on the wounds did not begin to pour!
  • Taoist
    Taoist 27 March 2016 22: 24
    +5
    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.
    1. Falcon
      27 March 2016 22: 33
      +2
      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 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.
      1. Cat man null
        Cat man null 27 March 2016 22: 46
        +1
        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? belay

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

        There are no words .. except obscene
        1. Falcon
          28 March 2016 08: 04
          0
          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

          fool

          You seem to not only haven’t read the article, but it’s also difficult to cope with comments. And also the phylax ...
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null 28 March 2016 12: 02
            +1
            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 .. laughing 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 yes
            1. Falcon
              28 March 2016 12: 15
              +1
              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 wassat
              Or maybe these are two things independent of each other?

              Or maybe the flight time is independent of consumption?
              1. Cat man null
                Cat man null 28 March 2016 12: 33
                +2
                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 wink

                Quote: Falcon
                Or maybe these are two things independent of each other?

                Dependent. In direct ratio lol

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

                Quote: Falcon
                Or maybe the flight time is independent of consumption?

                What does this have to do with ?! belay

                In short: clever further, you are doing well. You, I repeat, are more uninteresting .. writer, damn it laughing
                1. Falcon
                  28 March 2016 12: 47
                  0
                  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 wassat

                  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 wassat
                  1. Cat man null
                    Cat man null 28 March 2016 13: 03
                    +1
                    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 wink
                    - 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 .. request
                    1. Falcon
                      28 March 2016 13: 10
                      0
                      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? yes
                      1. Cat man null
                        Cat man null 28 March 2016 13: 25
                        +1
                        Quote: Falcon
                        Where did you somehow intend to "rubber" an American plane?

                        It is not me, it is you "gathered" laughing

                        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 laughing
                      2. Falcon
                        28 March 2016 13: 35
                        0
                        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 wassat
                        I said that this is a glider diagram and engines proposed for it.
                        Well, they don’t, they just need another wink
                      3. Cat man null
                        Cat man null 28 March 2016 13: 41
                        -1
                        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) fellow
              2. Filxnumx
                Filxnumx April 3 2016 03: 44
                0
                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
    sivuch 27 March 2016 23: 48
    +1
    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.
    1. Falcon
      28 March 2016 08: 04
      +2
      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
    Taoist 27 March 2016 23: 51
    +2
    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 ...
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 28 March 2016 07: 28
      +2
      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.
    2. Falcon
      28 March 2016 08: 12
      +2
      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
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 28 March 2016 08: 36
        +1
        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 ...
        1. Falcon
          28 March 2016 08: 54
          0
          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.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 28 March 2016 09: 07
            +2
            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.
            1. Falcon
              28 March 2016 09: 20
              +2
              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
            2. Falcon
              28 March 2016 09: 25
              +2
              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 good You can also in PM
        2. Falcon
          28 March 2016 08: 59
          +2
          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 request
  • Taoist
    Taoist 28 March 2016 10: 59
    +1
    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.
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 5 2016 11: 25
      0
      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
    sivuch 28 March 2016 13: 02
    0
    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.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 28 March 2016 13: 06
      +2
      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 No. LRE is a stone age.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 28 March 2016 14: 01
        +1
        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.
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 28 March 2016 15: 43
        +1
        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
    Bongo 28 March 2016 14: 09
    +4
    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 yes 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.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 28 March 2016 15: 03
      +1
      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
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 28 March 2016 15: 06
        +1
        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?
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 28 March 2016 15: 15
          +1
          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
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 28 March 2016 15: 24
            +1
            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. No.
            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.
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 28 March 2016 15: 31
              +1
              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%
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 28 March 2016 15: 36
                +2
                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. yes But even amputated missiles are a smut. wassat The shelf life in the refilled form is still less than that of solid fuel and the slightest mechanical impact threatens major troubles.
                1. Taoist
                  Taoist 28 March 2016 15: 51
                  +1
                  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.
                  1. The comment was deleted.