Military Review

Russia is developing a bomber capable of performing "shock missions" from space

183
Russian designers are developing a hypersonic strategic bomber capable of delivering strikes from both airspace and space, reports RIA News report of the teacher of the branch of the Military Academy of the Strategic Missile Forces, Lieutenant Colonel Alexei Solodovnikov.



“The idea is this: from ordinary airfields it will take off, patrol the airspace. On command - the exit into space, to perform the tasks set percussion, and returns back to its aerodrome. This is a strategic aircraft, ”said Solodovnikov.

According to him, “the plane will have ample opportunities and will be able to reach any point of the planet in one or two hours through the exit to space”.

“We attract TsAGI (Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute), because they will have to help with the glider, now we will be determined with the characteristics of the aircraft. I think that the starting mass will be tons of 20-25, so that it is a shock. It is planned that there will be a hypersound on the rocket mode, ”said Solodovnikov.

He noted that creating a prototype engine for a bomber could be completed by 2020. “Now we want to first discuss the nuances, somewhere in the year, our work will pass, and we will make a scheme, perhaps it will be completely different. When we decide on the scheme, we will do the engine itself. In the second year, that is, in the 2018 year, we will begin to make iron. Maybe I'm in a hurry and there will be some questions, but by 2020, the hardware should be working, ”said the lieutenant colonel.

“The idea is that the engine turns out to be dual-circuit, that is, it can work both in the atmosphere and switch to space flight mode without air, and all this on one installation. At the moment, such engines are not yet available in Russia, in one power plant two engines are combined at once - aircraft and rocket, ”he explained.
Photos used:
http://bastion-opk.ru
183 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. klaus16
    klaus16 14 July 2016 12: 41
    +6
    Well, cho, good thing! Let the defense work. The device will not be superfluous!
    1. hirurg
      hirurg 14 July 2016 12: 44
      +27
      Oh, how far to the apparatus, so many cones will be filled. But, as they say, only one who does nothing is not mistaken. In any case, the technology will be useful.
      Go ahead men !!!
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 14 July 2016 13: 10
        +12
        Quote: hirurg
        Oh, how far to the apparatus, so many cones will be filled. But, as they say, only one who does nothing is not mistaken. In any case, the technology will be useful.
        Go ahead men !!!

        They have been talking about two or three medium-sized aircraft for quite some time now, and they are trying to develop it even longer. This is not an easy task at all. And given hyper sound speed, the task turns from difficult to quasi-difficult.
        And if they started talking about it now, it may very well be that these developments have been going on since the times of the USSR and the X-90 "Gella".
        And therefore, if I am right, it is perfectly acceptable that such a bomber will really appear in the arsenal of Russia in the near future.
        And if this happens, it will fundamentally change the rules of the game in the world.
        1. Stalker.1977
          Stalker.1977 14 July 2016 13: 25
          +18
          If it has a take-off mass of 20-25 tons, then I apologize on which engine it will fly and what fuel to use, I would still believe if they wrote 120-125 tons taking into account fuel, and there’s some kind of nonsense.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 14 July 2016 13: 32
            +4
            Quote: Stalker.1977
            If he has a takeoff weight of 20-25 tons,

            Believe me, 25 tons is also not a little. And given the fact that it will all be from space, the arsenal may not be "heavy" at all, but very long-range. That is, the rockets on board do not need any second stages or a large amount of fuel , as well as efforts to overcome gravity, takeoff, etc. And the effectiveness of such an arsenal will be many times greater than that of the same Swan, because the same rocket launched from near space, maneuvering on a hyper sound (and hyper sound is achieved not due to the efforts of the engine , but due to the attraction of the earth) will fly away not by 5000 km, but by 10-15 km.
            1. _Vladislav_
              _Vladislav_ 14 July 2016 16: 52
              +1
              If hypersound is assumed, then this is a UAV. By the fact that the presence of man in such a machine will limit its capabilities.
          2. Keysi
            Keysi 14 July 2016 16: 54
            +8
            Well, the MIG-31 weighs 47 tons!
          3. dauria
            dauria 14 July 2016 21: 55
            +7
            , I would have believed if only they wrote 120-125 tons taking into account fuel, and so some nonsense.


            For philologists and lawyers article .... wink
            ... In the first flight, the launch mass of the Space Shuttle MTKS was 2022 tons, the mass of the manned orbital vehicle during launch into orbit was 94.8 tons, and during landing - 89.1 tons.
            What, have we already invented a gravitap? Or canceled universal gravitation by a decree of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions?
        2. g1v2
          g1v2 14 July 2016 14: 04
          +3
          Well, then technology is moving forward. Computing power of computers too. More sophisticated calculations and simulations become available. Th two-medium cars will surely appear - the only question is price and timing. request
        3. rammjager
          rammjager 14 July 2016 16: 31
          +2
          But actually, what for such a device? Isn't a hypersonic missile easier? Both cheaper and more cheerful. Imho.
        4. Blondy
          Blondy 14 July 2016 16: 40
          +12
          I don’t understand what to talk about, to give out secrets when nothing has been done, in principle, but the main directions of R&D are already blurred. And this is from the Strategic Missile Forces Academy.
          Secondly, I somehow vaguely imagine a strategic bomber with a take-off weight of 20-25 tons, when only to maintain the reputation of the bomb you need a bomb load of about 10 tons + fuel, well, what to fly on so that it does not fall apart, and even in hypersound (for comparison - the mass of empty Tu 22 M3 - 54 tons)? Next - the timeline: in the 18th they will start making iron - and in 20 g it will already be working. All this is very similar to hanging noodles on the ears to maintain the tone of sofa enthusiasts VO.

          Or maybe everything is much simpler - the harsh secret fieldman from the Strategic Missile Forces simply poked fun at the journalist who was eager for sensations.
          1. _Vladislav_
            _Vladislav_ 14 July 2016 17: 16
            +5
            Quote: Blondy
            I don’t understand what to talk about, to give out secrets when nothing has been done, in principle, but the main directions of R&D are already blurred. And this is from the Strategic Missile Forces Academy.

            Reception with misinformation of the probable opponent has not been canceled yet.

            By the way the task is AHOVA. We don’t have technologies that we didn’t have - should already be in 2020, that is, after 4 years. We can’t put a hypersonic missile into service.
            And here.
            Take off, go out into space, hypersound, enter the atmosphere, go back - the task of the level of space shuttle.

            Do not get me wrong, I believe in the domestic defense industry. But if we have technologies of this level, then why some T-50 is not yet in the army.
            1. Ze Kot
              Ze Kot 14 July 2016 17: 54
              +1
              Quote: _Vladislav_

              Reception with misinformation of the probable opponent has not been canceled yet.

              By the way the task is AHOVA. We don’t have technologies that we didn’t have - should already be in 2020, that is, after 4 years. We can’t put a hypersonic missile into service.


              There is a possibility that this is some kind of work of the Buran type. The Americans have the X-37 - a mini-shuttle
          2. Blondy
            Blondy 14 July 2016 22: 10
            +4
            Ha, well, here are the explanations about:
            But what actually happened? With this question "KP" turned to a high-ranking official of the Russian Ministry of Defense, who, as they say, is in the subject. And this is what he answered us:

            “The development of promising engines for space exploration has been continuously conducted in Russia since the middle of the last century. However, there can be no talk of creating “space bombers” in the Serpukhov branch of the Strategic Missile Forces Academy. The conduct of such developments, at least, is not within the competence of the military educational institutions of the Ministry of Defense of Russia. There is a misinterpretation of the words of the teacher of this military university about the hypothetical possibilities of using his own theoretical ideas in the field of engine building for defense needs. ”

            In short, the teacher was "misunderstood." But the question is: why did he even open his mouth on this topic? (http://www.dv.kp.ru/daily/26552.4/3571481/)
      2. serega.fedotov
        serega.fedotov 14 July 2016 13: 24
        +8
        Quote: hirurg
        Oh, how far to the apparatus, so many cones will be filled. But, as they say, only one who does nothing is not mistaken. In any case, the technology will be useful.

        To create a fundamentally new engine from scratch for 2 years, a ridiculous period seems that at least the engine models are ALREADY ready!
        1. CT-55_11-9009
          CT-55_11-9009 14 July 2016 14: 10
          +3
          And most likely it is, here last year there were messages about the creation of a dual-mode engine suitable for an aerospace aircraft. By the way, also seem from the Academy of Strategic Rocket Forces.
        2. Pushkar77
          Pushkar77 14 July 2016 18: 10
          +5
          Well, the "comrades" write that the sixth generation fighter will be equipped with an electromagnetic gun, although I have a wild imagination, but it is not enough to imagine the dimensions of this "miracle of engineering". Such a contraption is not easy to place on a destroyer, but on a fighter. And in general, why is it needed there, a power plant must fly behind this pepelats so that he can shoot from this thing. Here are the little articles, according to their fantasies, they have long been surfing the space of the universe (academic theaters) on spacecraft. laughing In fact, the T-50 still needs to grow to the fifth generation, and this is not soon, there are no engines, and they are going to build engines for the sixth generation and the space bomber. In general, the time is not easy, it is necessary to saturate the army and navy with new weapons (real, not fantastic), saturate today, and at the top all the real programs are pushed back, the same destroyers, MiG-35, MiG-41 (it is already possible to build it today), Su -30CM is also a little bit in the videoconferencing, and we put another wunderwafe in first place, taking money from projects that can be launched today. For aircraft carriers, shipyards also need to be built, R&D funded by the aircraft carriers and destroyers themselves, the MiG-41, because these sixth pepelats and a space bomber are much more expensive than everything that I have listed together. Most likely, “the dog is buried right here.” Our design bureaus are buying out banks, so they push similar projects like a fighter jet with an electromagnetic gun, and advertising runs ahead for twenty years.
          The question arises, is there a gene. UAC designer Sergei Korotkov, he signs all these projects, while he was just the head of the RSK MiG, then at least he pushed through and achieved the production of the MiG-35 and the R&D of the MiG-41, now he is silent, all the money is redirected to these wunderwafe. A mess is going on there, people are pushing for something for which it is still necessary to prepare scientific support, and this is a very long time, but we need to arm ourselves now. In general, in order to create a hypersonic machine flying in the atmosphere, it is necessary to influence the laws of physics, which is still unrealistic, with American funding, their machines fall apart in ten twenty seconds, precisely because it is impossible to overcome the laws of physics. There must be a fundamental discovery, mattress makers do not have it, and even more so we do not, since our Academy of Sciences has been "reformed" and is working on the current whims of those in power, although it must work on what we will grow to in thirty or fifty years. In general, it is difficult to trace the logic in all these movements. To begin with, we would create a normal bomber so that there was something to start from, otherwise we cannot produce the Tu-160, but we climb into space. This can be done in parallel, but the vital problems of the army and the navy should be in the foreground, first of all, it is necessary to finance the real and deal with the prospect along the way, and not vice versa.
          1. sharp-lad
            sharp-lad 14 July 2016 20: 05
            0
            Electromagnetic weapons - not only dispersed metal blanks, there are simply radiating options. For example, a maser or EMR of narrow action. By the way, back in the Union there were small-radius EMI developments based on the principle of explosive pumping.
          2. Svidetel 45
            Svidetel 45 14 July 2016 22: 19
            +1
            And who said that we can not reproduce the T-160? Perhaps there are some problems, because they created it in the USSR, and now it will have to be done in Russia when production ties are broken, but the practical work has already begun, according to the media. And then, one cannot live only today, one must work for the future, foresee new methods of warfare and create new means of warfare with an eye on promising technologies and production capacities. Even during the war, when the country exerted all its efforts to secure a front, work was underway to create jet aircraft or nuclear issues. The main thing is to allocate within reasonable limits and effectively spend finances and material resources on the development of promising types of weapons, without prejudice to the current needs of the Armed Forces.
          3. Dima_ZD
            Dima_ZD 18 July 2016 21: 51
            0
            I agree with you.
            Moreover, all this venture reminds the next loot-writing project ...
            The noise screen is generally focused on housewives ...
        3. Zveruga
          Zveruga 17 July 2016 05: 22
          0
          This engine has been developed for 9 years.
      3. activator
        activator 14 July 2016 14: 42
        -3
        Well, everything is logical fighters are already going into space; now it’s up to the bonboners laughing, and PAK YES it already yesterday it makes no sense to develop it, let us tolerate another fifty years, and then immediately right into space. fellow And then they’ll need to fly to Mars right away ... it’s not better to tolerate two hundred years and then right outside the boundaries of the solar galaxy repeat Don’t promise our people how much, but everything is small and small. request
        1. 33 Watcher
          33 Watcher 14 July 2016 15: 46
          +1
          Quote: activator
          Well, everything is logical fighters are already going into space; now it’s up to the bonboners laughing, and PAK YES it already yesterday it makes no sense to develop it, let us tolerate another fifty years, and then immediately right into space. fellow And then they’ll need to fly to Mars right away ... it’s not better to tolerate two hundred years and then right outside the boundaries of the solar galaxy repeat Don’t promise our people how much, but everything is small and small. request

          Well, actually - everything that Russia is building now began to be developed in the 70s and 80s of the last century. Design Bureau, and design bureau, that would not stop, if, not now - then in 20 years these developments will be needed, but they are there. yes
          1. rammjager
            rammjager 14 July 2016 16: 36
            +2
            I completely agree with you. It’s not clear why they’ll be minded? Such projects have not been implemented in a year, two, three. This is a question of decades. Sadly.
          2. activator
            activator 14 July 2016 16: 39
            0
            Quote: Observer 33
            Well, actually - everything that Russia is building now began to be developed in the 70s and 80s of the last century. Design Bureau, and design bureau, that would not stop, if, not now - then in 20 years these developments will be needed, but they are there.

            Developments are of course good, but it’s better when they are in the iron and in the right amount, but here’s the trouble. by 160 they promise an engine for an engine pack but it’s not clear at all. PAK FA to develop a 20th generation airplane to buy 20 tails didn’t cut it? but in the end to reach 5 units it’s awesome Americans f 50 are going to suck all allies and even more they want to buy things. T 12 from t 35 refused because Armata, but when she goes to the army xs, but for now my buys t 14 b90. Only the Kurgan BMP went in the parade when the news appeared that mo was going to buy bmp 72, and today in The article says in general that Mo considers the Kurgan to be a grenade launcher’s dream. I wonder who gave those tasks or didn’t they see the project? and what now to invent a new bmp? Boomerang in general is not listed in the priorities. It turns out that all this technique was developed for the parade? Well, still amuse patriotic feelings.
        2. An60
          An60 14 July 2016 16: 33
          0
          Here with such a flag and bear, jumping.
        3. Simon
          Simon 16 July 2016 19: 44
          0
          Well, why are you scratching your friend - PAK-YES, this is today, but as you say, "let's tolerate another fifty years"Russia cannot wait 50 years. And then engineers and scientists will have experience in building such aircraft much earlier than you suggest. fool
    2. Pavel1
      Pavel1 14 July 2016 12: 48
      +8
      in general, a dual-circuit engine is completely different and calling an engine that will work as a dual-circuit rocket engine is illiterate if not worse ...
      1. bulvas
        bulvas 14 July 2016 12: 59
        +1
        Quote: Paul1
        in general, a dual-circuit engine is completely different and calling an engine that will work as a dual-circuit rocket engine is illiterate if not worse ...


        such an idea ...

        - Once told, another time - explained Colonel Alexei Solodovnikov.


        So far, all this is only an information weapon



      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. FID
        FID 14 July 2016 13: 02
        +7
        Quote: Paul1
        in general, a dual-circuit engine is completely different and calling an engine that will work as a dual-circuit rocket engine is illiterate if not worse ..

        Moreover, Solodovnikov is an assistant professor of the engine building department ...
        1. Pavel1
          Pavel1 14 July 2016 13: 45
          +3
          Quote: SSI
          Quote: Paul1
          in general, a dual-circuit engine is completely different and calling an engine that will work as a dual-circuit rocket engine is illiterate if not worse ..

          Moreover, Solodovnikov is an assistant professor of the engine building department ...


          fuu actually a double-circuit engine is a turbojet engine, when the air flow from the fan and the exhaust hot stream from the nozzle give the apparatus a jet movement, this is called TWO CIRCUIT. Well, when is the LRE principle applied to this process, as it can be called TWO CIRCUIT? Maybe Solodovnikov lacks words? So help.
          1. Zveruga
            Zveruga 17 July 2016 05: 27
            0
            And where did you get the idea that there will be two circuits in air mode? smile
            In air mode there will be one circuit + second, in rocket. wink
        2. Aleksandr1959
          Aleksandr1959 14 July 2016 15: 51
          +3
          “The idea is that the engine turns out to be dual-circuit, that is, it can work both in the atmosphere and switch to space flight mode without air, and all this on one installation. At the moment, such engines are not yet available in Russia, in one power plant two engines are combined at once - aircraft and rocket, ”he explained.

          Well, I also wondered what kind of phrase this was about the dual-circuit engine. This is the illiteracy of a journalist .... or someone who was interviewed. In the second case, this leads to certain thoughts.
          If we are talking about a hybrid engine, then this is a slightly different conversation.
          And here we are not alone.
          The British company Reaction Engines has developed a key component of the Skylon spacecraft engine. This development is expected to revolutionize the aerospace industry around the world.
          Skylon is being developed as a hypersonic aircraft capable of entering orbit, including the ISS, as well as covering distances between opposite points of the Earth (for example, between Hong Kong and Jujuy) not in 22 hours, like modern planes, but in four.
          For this, the aircraft needs a hybrid engine that can switch from turbojet to rocket mode. A key obstacle to the development of this technology was the need to constantly cool the air flow from more than 1000 to -150 degrees Celsius in less than a millisecond.
          The Saber engine developers have solved this problem with the help of an innovative pre-cooling system with a helium circuit. Equipped with such a hybrid engine, Skylon will be able to reach speeds of up to 5 max (6125 km / h) in the atmosphere and up to 25 max (30 626 km / h) in space. 30 engineers took 22 years to develop the technology.

          The message is quite old, from 2012
          Here is the link
          http://www.ridus.ru/news/39615/
      4. Riv
        Riv 14 July 2016 13: 40
        0
        But for the loot to cut the term come down?
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 14 July 2016 13: 47
          +6
          Quote: Riv
          But for the loot to cut the term come down?

          Of course ... because there are thieves, crooks and embezzlers all around. Just a thief on a thief and a thief drives, starting from a simple welder and ending with the chief designer. fellowBredyatina about the eternal cut are not tired of writing? In your opinion, nothing is built and not developed, but just sit and saw the loot?
          1. vv3
            vv3 14 July 2016 14: 22
            -8
            I agree with you. All through the ass. I want to remind you that at first the concept is developed by the military based on the planned methods of warfare, and then the task is given to the defense ... And only so. Of course, if the developer makes toys at his own expense, please .... But here is the other side, often the military doesn’t plan anything, they don’t order anything, they mow under the fool. They act as extras. There are especially many complaints against the General Staff. You have heard something about the methods of conducting modern combat operations without the use of nuclear weapons, about the tasks of introducing information technologies, about methods of conducting a contactless war .... Judging by the methods of conducting military operations in Syria, there is no progress ... Is it time to ask these idiots with general epaulettes, or did they, as always, decide to sit out?
      5. Tibidokh
        Tibidokh 14 July 2016 15: 23
        0
        Quote: Paul1
        actually a dual-circuit engine

        And also the plane (not the rocket) turns out to have a starting mass ?!
        Well, okay ...
        But how can an aircraft with a mass of 20-25 tons (empty? Normal? Maximum?) Be strategic, with the possibility of patrolling, and with access to space, yes hypersonic ?! belay Will he work in a nuclear reactor or what? Or how does the SR-71 refuel in the air?
        the starting mass will be 20-25 tons so that it is shock

        And where does the mass and purpose of the aircraft?

        Probably an assistant professor on the Kolchak fronts ... that ... this ... request
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 14 July 2016 15: 29
          +1
          Quote: Tibidokh
          But how can an aircraft with a mass of 20-25 tons (empty? Normal? Maximum?) Be strategic, with the possibility of patrolling, and with access to space, yes hypersonic ?!

          And how can a Boeing X-37 weighing 5 tons hang for months in space and be a strategic aircraft, do not tell me?
          1. Tibidokh
            Tibidokh 14 July 2016 15: 48
            +3
            Quote: NEXUS
            Boeing X-37 weighing 5 tons

            Quote: NEXUS
            Could you tell?

            It's Easy! hi
            You give as an example a spacecraft launched into orbit by a launch vehicle. An orbital device (shuttle, satellite) is not a strategic bomber (aircraft). He is a spacecraft.
            It is the plane that is being "forced" to us. Those. An aircraft capable of independently taking off from an airfield. Yes, even loitering for a while, and then, on command, switch to hypersound and go into space.
            To go into space, you need at least a speed V = 8 km / s. Those. to enter space, the aircraft will have to "carry" a sufficiently large supply of fuel for the rocket engine.
            It is interesting, but if spacewalk is not carried out, how to land with the rest of the fuel. This is dangerous ...
            With respect! smile
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 14 July 2016 15: 53
              +3
              Quote: Tibidokh
              Yes, even for a while, and then, on command, go to hypersound and go into space.

              In 77, the MIG-25 climbed more than 37 km ... and flew at that altitude. And this is a fighter-interceptor, not a rocket launched into orbit by another LA. Do you already think that work was not carried out since the year 77? to increase the ceiling of the aircraft, with the prospect of leaving the stratosphere in outer space?
              1. Tibidokh
                Tibidokh 14 July 2016 16: 19
                +1
                Quote: NEXUS
                In 77, the MIG-25 climbed over 37 km ...

                I respect the brainchild of Mikoyan and Gurevich, but ...
                MiG-25 rose only to the stratosphere.
                Quote: NEXUS
                out of the stratosphere to go into near space?

                Between the near space, the stratosphere still has a mesosphere. Space starts at 120 km.
                Quote: NEXUS
                Do not you already think that since the year 77 there has been no work to increase the ceiling of the aircraft

                Been conducted. "Ajax" for example.
                But what we, I repeat, are "forced" is an absolutely delusional listing of incompatible characteristics of the aircraft.
                Imagine such an aircraft, we get:
                - A fairly complex life support system, respectively, occupying a significant part of the mass of the aircraft.
                - A huge supply of fuel (and possibly even an oxidizer).
                - The need to use ablative materials and refrigerant.

                Which of these 20-25 tons will remain on the airframe. I'm not talking about the payload.
                In general, an absolutely impossible set of features.
                1. vv3
                  vv3 14 July 2016 19: 16
                  +1
                  In general, why is it needed? What tasks will it perform? What is its need? Or they will come up with it later ... Our army does not have combat information systems that provide target designation to weapons in real time, which should receive information about targets in automatic mode. All these systems should be integrated and have common closed communication channels, or rather information field on our element base. You can't buy these ... This is the "Achilles mint" of our army. Without these systems, our army cannot wage a modern non-contact war ..
                  1. Tibidokh
                    Tibidokh 15 July 2016 10: 19
                    0
                    Quote: vv3
                    But in general, why is it needed? What tasks will perform?

                    The presence of such a "pepelatsa" in the army will definitely fulfill the task of deterring potential partners from making questionable decisions.
                    Quote: vv3
                    We have no military information systems in the army that provide real-time targeting of weapons

                    Suppose we don’t have such perfect (exactly perfect as you present) RCU systems, but even a Chinese $ 100k drone is quite capable of revealing the launchers of some missile system. And the coordinates of stationary targets ...
                    Thus, the goals, read the tasks, for the proposed "pepelatsa" will not be difficult to find.
                    But to develop an engine, put it into series, train pilots ... so that the Chinese like the S-400 and Su-35 do not copy in the future - this is a disaster.
                    Quote: vv3
                    Without these systems, our army cannot wage a modern, non-contact war.

                    For me, non-contact warfare is akin to an inertial system. Those. in a vacuum it looks good (against savages with DShK), and against an enemy with electronic warfare, anti-satellite weapons, and in conditions of electromagnetic radiation from nuclear weapons ... request
                    Regards in your opinion! hi
                  2. Zveruga
                    Zveruga 17 July 2016 05: 30
                    0
                    An orbital bomber will be able to bypass any air defense.
                2. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 14 July 2016 19: 45
                  +2
                  Quote: Tibidokh
                  Between the near space, the stratosphere still has a mesosphere. Space starts at 120 km.

                  And between 1977 and 2016, almost 50 years. Let me remind you that a hundred years ago, mankind was trying to learn to fly on antediluvian airplanes.
                  Quote: Tibidokh
                  Been conducted. "Ajax" for example.

                  And not only. For example, the Spiral, Gella ... and God knows something else that I just don’t need to know.
                  Quote: Tibidokh
                  - A fairly complex life support system, respectively, occupying a significant part of the mass of the aircraft.

                  Imagine a pilot of the beginning of a century of the past who is told about the same thing as the MIG-25 ... I think he will say about the same words. hi
                  1. Tibidokh
                    Tibidokh 15 July 2016 10: 38
                    0
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    And between 1977 and 2016, almost 50 years.

                    This is not enough ...
                    An example is an internal combustion engine. Petrol, diesel, rotary. When were they invented ?! And only now they are introducing electric motors. So revolutions in different areas for 50 years do not occur.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Let me remind you that a hundred years ago, mankind was trying to learn to fly on antediluvian airplanes.

                    It's funny ... Well, yes ... and 120 years ago they fought on horses. Sorry for the sarcasm. repeat
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Spiral, Gella

                    All these are air launch systems. Again you give an inappropriate example.
                    The only analogue of the system proposed in the article could be (conditionally) "Ajax", which was supposed to be able to take off from airfields on its own.
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Imagine a pilot of the beginning of a century of the past who is told about the same thing as the MIG-25 ... I think he will say about the same words.

                    Dear NEXUS, with all my disagreement with your arguments, it is pleasant to argue with you. You at least do not be rude, but do not call an all-crawler.
                    However, you are essentially not refuting my arguments (about impossibility from a technical point of view), but translating them into philosophy.
                    Yes, even 30 years ago no one dreamed of Skype. But then Skype. But the blasters from Star Wars and the SDI system, no one saw.
                    Compare the characteristics of the proposed "pepelats" and the "Proton" rocket, and you will understand that the article is absolutely delusional.
              2. Aleksandr1959
                Aleksandr1959 14 July 2016 19: 04
                +3
                Andrey, how long did the MiG-25 fly at this altitude, what version of the MiG-25? RB or P? Was it a static ceiling or a dynamic ceiling? The MiG-25 had a very interesting engine, which was originally designed for a cruise missile. Due to the low compression ratio of the compressor, the engine was efficient at high speeds, where the phenomenon described by the GTE theory as "degeneration of the GTE into a ramjet engine" took place, that is, the compression was not due to the compressor, but mainly due to the high-speed pressure.

                And as for the article ... the Russian Defense Ministry stated that these statements are Solodovnikov's personal statements regarding his theoretical developments.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 14 July 2016 19: 40
                  +1
                  Quote: Aleksandr1959
                  Andrei, how long did the MiG-25 fly at this altitude, what is the version of the MiG-25? RB or P? Was it a static or dynamic ceiling?

                  Alexander, it’s not in vain that I indicated the date of this record, and not just the height. Almost 50 years! And I very much doubt that for half a century, nothing in the USSR and further in Russia on this issue has been developed and studied.
                  Perhaps this means the notorious glider Yu-71, who knows ...
                  After all, you must understand that now there is a struggle for the near space.
                  And therefore, I am almost sure that the prototype was created. Another question is why it was just said about it now ...
                  1. Aleksandr1959
                    Aleksandr1959 14 July 2016 20: 43
                    +1
                    Andrey, I agree with you.
                    why right now it was said about it ..

                    So I'm thinking ... why? Almost simultaneously, two reports of a 6th generation aircraft complex capable of reaching low orbits ... and a bomber .... also capable of entering low Earth orbit from a position of duty in the air and delivering a strike.
                    Sources are very different.
                    In the water case this is an almost official statement, in another (according to the RF Ministry of Defense) personal opinion of one of the military experts regarding his theoretical developments, moreover, either repeated inaccurate, or expressed illiterate.
                    Oh, about the near space, i.e. low Earth orbits and the ability of the aircraft to at least briefly go to them, then this is a question that has long been worked out, oddly enough, by a number of science fiction writers. But ... a number of predictions by these writers, for example, Zlotnikov Roman Valerevich, one of the leading Russian science fiction writers (incidentally, the colonel of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the reserve) ... for some reason they begin, maybe not quite as described, embodied. Foresight ... or good consultants ... or maybe both places ????
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 14 July 2016 20: 57
                      +2
                      Quote: Aleksandr1959
                      Sources are very different.

                      I can assume that this is an inform war with relatives of what the Union had partly bought at one time, namely, SOI, with the only difference being that, I am sure, not just words ...
                      And I will not believe that for half a century of research and work, a prototype has not been created.
                      And today, the question of supremacy in the near space is of the highest priority.
                      1. Aleksandr1959
                        Aleksandr1959 14 July 2016 21: 56
                        +1
                        I can assume that this is an inform war with relatives of what the Union, which was partly bought at one time, namely, SOI, with the only difference being that, I am sure, not just words ..

                        Yeah, it seems ... Throws are coming from different directions. By the way, about hybrid aircraft engines, this is also from the same opera. In the 70s, many translated books from English on this topic suddenly appeared. But, after a certain number of years, I found out that it was a special throw-in from the West. How much our specialists were led to this ... I don’t know, he was too young yet, but. the fact that this disinformation (exactly what was published) was disclosed by our specialists is for sure.
                        And about the prototype .... Look on the Internet for materials on the program "Maximum B / R" (reconnaissance / bomber) of the Mikoyan Design Bureau. This is the 80s.
                        We are talking about hypersonic machines. You can see something here.
                        http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=801
                        http://testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/301/mig301.htm
                        And on this project, work was really going on before the collapse of the USSR.
                      2. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 14 July 2016 22: 18
                        +1
                        Quote: Aleksandr1959
                        And about the prototype .... Look on the Internet for materials on the program "Maximum B / R" (reconnaissance / bomber) of the Mikoyan Design Bureau.

                        Mikoyanovtsy is really now working on the PAK DP (long-range interceptor) ... and from the West, information about him first surfaced and even high-speed TTX-4,5-5 misses were published ... and after that ours voiced the same info, but declared more modest speed TTX-4,2-4,5 max.
                        The jester knows him. Because about the same Armata, until she was shown, too, there were many fairy tales ...
                      3. Aleksandr1959
                        Aleksandr1959 14 July 2016 23: 04
                        0
                        Mikoyanovtsy is really now working on the PAK DP (long-range interceptor) ... and from the side

                        Andrey, the topic "Maximum B / R" was really carried out. We accompanied this development from the then 8 GNIKI (929 GLITs). But .. like many projects it was closed. It is possible that the materials were not in vain.
                        Look at the material on T-60S (ed. 54s)

                        https://topwar.ru/1082-t-60s.html
                        http://testpilot.ru/russia/sukhoi/t/60/t60.htm
                        The machine was supposed to perform the tasks of both the Su-24 and Tu-22M3
                        Also, I think that the materials have not disappeared.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
    3. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 14 July 2016 12: 53
      +2
      Quote: klaus16
      Well, cho, good thing! Let the defense work. The device will not be superfluous!

      The idea may be good, but the "stuffing" of information is somehow vague ...
      I don't pretend to be specific, let the overseas "partners" get scared, but ...
      I think that the starting mass will be 20-25 tons, so that it is shock. It is planned that there will be hypersonic sound in rocket mode, ”Solodovnikov said.

      What is the mass for such an apparatus of 20-25 tons, if the SU-34 has, according to the data, 39-44 tons?
      Correspondent mistake or such a presentation?
      And the idea of ​​the device is good!
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 14 July 2016 14: 30
        +1
        Probably, all the same, 200 - 250 tons, he will need tons of 100 fuel to reach a height of 100 kilometers.
        1. Zveruga
          Zveruga 17 July 2016 05: 33
          0
          This is if the rocket engine on the ground is turned on, and it will turn it on from the air, having previously accelerated to supersonic at an altitude of 20 km.
    4. vkl.47
      vkl.47 14 July 2016 13: 12
      0
      from the idea to the model, the path is not small. Here it is necessary at the Soviet pace 《catch up and overtake America》
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 14 July 2016 13: 20
        +1
        Quote: vkl.47
        from the idea to the model, the path is not small. Here it is necessary at the Soviet pace 《catch up and overtake America》

        The fact of the matter is that for example I’m not sure that there is no prototype of this bomber, given the developments of both the Soviet period and the Russian one. The work on hyper sound did not stop and there are several examples of this — Sarmat, Rubezh, Zircon, etc. .
        It is clear that it is a "wishlist" to receive such a bomber in the near future ... but there is no smoke without fire, and if they have announced this now, then at least work is underway.
        But something tells me that the work is going into the test phase. May God grant it to be so.
        1. xant
          xant 14 July 2016 14: 42
          0
          MOSCOW, July 13. / TASS /. The combined engine, with the help of which aircraft will be able to perform flights both in the atmosphere and in near space, was created in Russia and will be presented at the Army-2016 forum. This was announced to reporters by the commander of the Strategic Missile Forces (Strategic Missile Forces) Sergei Karakaev.
          "The branch of the Strategic Missile Forces Military Academy named after Peter the Great (Serpukhov) has developed an engine for a promising aerospace aircraft. This know-how made it possible to solve the problem of creating a combined power plant for an aircraft to transfer the engine from an air mode of operation when flying in the atmosphere to a rocket - in outer space, "said Karakaev.
          The commander of the Strategic Missile Forces said that at the Army-2016 international defense forum, which will be held in early September in Kubinka near Moscow under the auspices of the Russian Ministry of Defense, the military will present a working model of this engine. According to him, the model has passed firing tests and "the unit's performance has been proven."
          INTERVIEW

          Vladimir Mikheev: 6 generation fighter will be armed with electromagnetic guns
          In spring, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin announced that Russian aircraft manufacturers had begun developing a sixth generation combat aircraft.
          As the adviser to the first deputy general director of the concern "Radioelectronic Technologies" (the company is conducting research on onboard equipment for a new generation of fighters) said in an interview with TASS, one of the main technical features of these aircraft will be the ability to go into near space and perform a controlled flight there at hypersonic speed.
          It is planned that the prototype will make its first flight until 2025.
          SEE ALSO

          The sixth generation Russian aircraft will fly into the air until 2025


          More on TASS:
          http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3450192
          1. FID
            FID 14 July 2016 14: 50
            +3
            Quote: xant
            The sixth generation Russian aircraft will fly into the air until 2025

            On AEX. message:


            July 14, 2016, AEX.RU - Information in the media about a strategic bomber being developed in Russia that is capable of carrying out missions in space is not true, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement, writes TASS
            1. Svidetel 45
              Svidetel 45 14 July 2016 22: 35
              +1
              Where and when did this MO message appear, so far you have given only AEX RU message?
    5. Kimimilk
      Kimimilk 14 July 2016 13: 50
      +2
      the main thing is that Buran does not finish
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 14 July 2016 13: 54
        +2
        Quote: Kimimilk
        the main thing is that Buran does not finish

        Buran is an invaluable experience, as well as developments in the "Spiral", X-90, etc. Together with all this and with the fact that to this day under the signatures, a baggage of knowledge is obtained, with the help of which it is quite possible to create a two-medium aircraft ...
    6. Buffet
      Buffet 14 July 2016 15: 46
      0
      Moscow Region has already denied information about the creation of such a bomber. Because our institute has never done this. And engines are being developed there.
    7. Ze Kot
      Ze Kot 14 July 2016 17: 52
      0
      Quote: klaus16
      Well cho, good thing



      Well, how much fuel is needed for such a job? And the flight in the atmosphere and outside it ... These are completely different things ...
    8. dima mzk
      dima mzk 15 July 2016 23: 01
      0
      if we miss now, then for now!
    9. Simon
      Simon 16 July 2016 19: 31
      0
      This device is not only, not superfluous, but very necessary! It would be nice if he would be put into operation faster.
  2. bad
    bad 14 July 2016 12: 43
    +1
    “The idea is that the engine turns out to be double-circuit, that is, it will be able to work both in the atmosphere and switch to space flight mode without air, and all this on one installation. At the moment, there are no such engines in Russia yet, in one power plant two engines are combined at once - aircraft and rocket ”
    ..if they embody in metal and I emphasize, they will successfully embody, then the mattresses will urgently begin to compose the next RDMD or something like that ... yes God ... would have lived more ..
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 14 July 2016 13: 12
      +1
      That is, we are developing the Tu-160M2, PAK DA and a new hypersonic bomber capable of leaving the atmosphere into space. I hope there is enough money for everything.
  3. Evgeny RS
    Evgeny RS 14 July 2016 12: 45
    +1
    Why then will the modernized TU-160 be needed?
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 14 July 2016 12: 51
      +5
      Quote: Eugene RS
      Why then will the modernized TU-160 be needed?

      Then, what you will see is described in the article iron, so after 25 years.
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 14 July 2016 13: 02
        -1
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Then, what you will see is described in the article iron, so after 25 years.

        And at first they will be made by pieces of 3, well, 5 maximum.
      2. Tatar 174
        Tatar 174 14 July 2016 13: 06
        0
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Then, what you will see is described in the article iron, so after 25 years.


        Based on Kapitsa’s article, it may be earlier. Although 25 years is not far away.
      3. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 14 July 2016 13: 14
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Then, what you will see is described in the article iron, so after 25 years.

        The first prototype of the 6th generation fighter is promised to be lifted into the air in 2025. That is, after 9 years, it is unlikely that the bomber will do longer. And the Americans are constantly urging us to build up the pace of development of countermeasures.
        1. potroshenko
          potroshenko 14 July 2016 13: 43
          +6
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          The first prototype of the 6th generation fighter is promised to be lifted into the air in 2025.

          Just as the 5th promised?
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 14 July 2016 14: 31
            -1
            We do all the weapons like that - they promise earlier, but it turns out later.
            1. 33 Watcher
              33 Watcher 14 July 2016 15: 56
              0
              Quote: Vadim237
              We do all the weapons like that - they promise earlier, but it turns out later.

              Why with us? Everyone has. laughing
          2. Zveruga
            Zveruga 17 July 2016 06: 12
            0
            You confuse the time of raising the first fighter and launching in series.
        2. potroshenko
          potroshenko 14 July 2016 13: 49
          0
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          That is, after 9 years, it is unlikely that the bomber will do longer.

          “The aircraft will have great capabilities and will be able to reach anywhere in the world in one to two hours through spacewalk”

          Do you even understand what you are writing about?
          The idea is that the engine turns out to be double-circuit, that is, it will be able to work both in the atmosphere and switch to the space mode of flight without air, and all this on one installation. At the moment, there are no such engines in Russia yet, in one power plant two engines are combined at once - aircraft and rocket
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 14 July 2016 13: 51
            +6
            Quote: potroshenko
            The idea is that the engine turns out double

            Not a two-circuit, but TWO-MODE.
            1. Zveruga
              Zveruga 17 July 2016 06: 15
              0
              Isn't the circuit two? After all, there are two different sources of oxygen.
          2. Muvka
            Muvka 14 July 2016 13: 59
            0
            Quote: potroshenko
            Quote: Lt. air force reserve
            That is, after 9 years, it is unlikely that the bomber will do longer.

            “The aircraft will have great capabilities and will be able to reach anywhere in the world in one to two hours through spacewalk”

            Do you even understand what you are writing about?
            The idea is that the engine turns out to be double-circuit, that is, it will be able to work both in the atmosphere and switch to the space mode of flight without air, and all this on one installation. At the moment, there are no such engines in Russia yet, in one power plant two engines are combined at once - aircraft and rocket

            And two days ago I read on done, that such an engine is in the iron and it even passed some kind of tests.
          3. Zveruga
            Zveruga 17 July 2016 06: 14
            0
            This engine has been developed for 9 years. I even know how he will look in the final.
            Now there is only a model.
      4. NEXUS
        NEXUS 14 July 2016 13: 22
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Then, what you will see is described in the article iron, so after 25 years.

        I'm not sure. Since the time of "Gella" we have gained experience and groundwork for hyper sound ... and this is a good 20 years (and maybe more). And therefore, it may well be that the results are already there.
        1. Lemon1972
          Lemon1972 14 July 2016 14: 14
          0
          More than 20 years. I remember that in 86-87 I went to the computer class at the Rybinsk Institute then, there were all kinds of posters about engines such as forward flow and something else.
    2. Muvka
      Muvka 14 July 2016 12: 52
      +3
      Quote: Eugene RS
      Why then will the modernized TU-160 be needed?

      And why upgrade the T-72 when there is a T-14? Why produce a Su-35 when there is a T-50? Why do Yars, if there is Sarmat?
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 14 July 2016 13: 15
        +2
        Quote: Muvka
        Why do Yars, if there is Sarmat?

        Well, Sarmat is a heavy liquid rocket mine, and Yars is a mobile-based solid propellant rocket.
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 14 July 2016 13: 32
          -1
          Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
          Quote: Muvka
          Why do Yars, if there is Sarmat?

          Well, Sarmat is a heavy liquid rocket mine, and Yars is a mobile-based solid propellant rocket.

          I meant Yars mine-based.
    3. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 14 July 2016 13: 26
      +3
      Quote: Eugene RS
      Why then will the modernized TU-160 be needed?

      Tu-160M2 supersonic bomber.
      PAK YES subsonic bomber with stealth technology
      The article describes a hypersonic orbital bomber.
  4. cost 75
    cost 75 14 July 2016 12: 46
    +2
    starting weight is not small?
    1. FID
      FID 14 July 2016 13: 11
      +5
      If you carefully look at the picture, you will see a small little thing on the hump ... A well-forgotten old - Lozino-Lozinsky Spiral ...
      1. Baby doll
        Baby doll 14 July 2016 13: 44
        +4
        The Spiral project was closed for several reasons. But the main one is the absence of a booster plane. And here a "non-core" type of troops "developed" an aircraft with a launch weight of 20-25 tons, capable of taking off, loitering, going into space, performing a mission and landing thanks to a miracle engine. Well, all this does not fit into the possibilities of modern developments and technologies! Sorry, but this is pure nonsense ...
        1. FID
          FID 14 July 2016 14: 16
          +2
          Quote: Pupsen
          Sorry, but this is nonsense of pure water ...

          Of course, nonsense ...
  5. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 14 July 2016 12: 47
    +2
    This is voiced in two cases. If you already have practical experience, for the deadlines are short, and the task is ambitious! And secondly, we don’t still listen to us about the railgun! laughing Information about (shock spaceship spacecraft), foreign audiences will also like it!
  6. cost 75
    cost 75 14 July 2016 12: 48
    +1
    if possible, this is a breakthrough in aviation
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 14 July 2016 13: 43
      +3
      For me, a breakthrough in aviation will be the replacement of the rearview mirror on the Su-25 with something digital hi
      1. Zveruga
        Zveruga 17 July 2016 06: 39
        0
        Su-25 will be a thing of the past, like its drunk A-10.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 July 2016 18: 08
      -1
      Unfortunately, this breakthrough will not be ours.
  7. kirieeleyson
    kirieeleyson 14 July 2016 12: 50
    +1
    .. in one or two hours to reach any point of the planet through access to space. "

    It is planned that there will be hypersound in rocket mode "

    What kind of engine is needed to accelerate 25 tons to a speed of 3-4 mach almost "instantly", in 15 seconds of flight?
    Or is it a "breakthrough"?
    1. RESEARCHER
      RESEARCHER 14 July 2016 12: 57
      +2
      Quote: kirieeleyson
      What kind of engine is needed to accelerate 25 tons to a speed of 3-4 mach almost "instantly", in 15 seconds of flight?
      Or is it a "breakthrough"?

      In fact, it will be an overload of the order of 88g.
      1. kirieeleyson
        kirieeleyson 15 July 2016 10: 51
        0
        well, like, if you use the "delivery man" as a hypersonic stage AKS and MTKK from the "Spiral" project
      2. Zveruga
        Zveruga 17 July 2016 06: 40
        0
        Therefore, he will be unmanned.
    2. Wiruz
      Wiruz 14 July 2016 13: 41
      +1
      Have you taken into account the lack of aerodynamic drag in space?
      1. FID
        FID 14 July 2016 13: 50
        +2
        Quote: Wiruz
        Have you taken into account the lack of aerodynamic drag in space?

        Newton's Law: F = m * a ... Where is the aerodynamics here? And acceleration is a change in speed per unit. time, the time is small, the change is large, we have a large acceleration, therefore, the force pressing the pilot to the seat (overload) will be large. Something like this, I think ...
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 14 July 2016 13: 58
          +1
          Quote: SSI
          Something like this, I think ..

          Good afternoon, Sergey Ivanovich. hi
          And if you take into account that the rocket does not fly along a ballistic trajectory, but enters the atmosphere only in the last section of the trajectory?
          As for LA, I believe that in the near space the laws will work different.
          Sincerely. hi
          1. FID
            FID 14 July 2016 14: 22
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            As for LA, I believe that in the near space the laws will work different.

            Hello Andrei! Why do you think the F-1 racers experience overload during braking and cornering? We immediately discard the atmosphere (it is everywhere on Earth) ... Change in speed in a short time, i.e. acceleration appears with one or another sign ... When entering the atmosphere - similarly, the device brakes. When flying in space, when changing the trajectory, the effect will be the same ...
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 14 July 2016 14: 28
              +1
              Quote: SSI
              Why do you think the F-1 racers experience overload during braking and cornering?

              The comparison is slightly incorrect. The conversation is about flying in near space, where there is NO ATMOSPHERE.
              Quote: SSI
              Upon entering the atmosphere - similarly, the device is braked.

              On the final portion of the trajectory of the rocket entering the dense layers of the atmosphere, and not perpendicularly, but along the tangent trajectory, I believe that the speed initially does not decrease much, with a subsequent increase, due to the Earth's gravity.
        2. Wiruz
          Wiruz 14 July 2016 14: 27
          -2
          Newton's Law: F = m * a ... Where is the aerodynamics here? And acceleration is a change in speed per unit. time, the time is small, the change is large, we have a large acceleration, therefore, the force pressing the pilot to the seat (overload) will be large. Something like this, I think ...

          I’m talking about this and that there will be no air resistance in space, which means that plans to fly in a couple of hours to anywhere in the world are not so crazy.
      2. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 14 July 2016 14: 13
        +1
        In an almost absent atmosphere with 200 km? Good luck with the calculations!
  8. kotuk_ha_oxote
    kotuk_ha_oxote 14 July 2016 12: 51
    +2
    For the T-50, they can’t cut the engine, and then the wunderwafel in four years ... Well, well.
    1. CT-55_11-9009
      CT-55_11-9009 14 July 2016 14: 16
      +2
      Since the development of the engine for the T-50 since when? Well, about 5 years old, correct those who are head over heels in the subject. What about the experience in aerospace aircraft? Since the shaggy 60s in the USSR and in the USA That's it!
  9. Armored optimist
    Armored optimist 14 July 2016 12: 52
    +8
    Something some strange statements. Some kind of subfloor, the teacher voices things strategic, breathtaking in cost and complexity, which should clearly be in the deepest secrecy, and in such a tone as if everything is in the ointment, there is no problem with anything, but there is a clear schedule and it will be completed. Maybe he was talking only about the thesis of his listener, and the rest is journalistic imagination?
    Since when have our academies replaced design bureaus?
    1. Riv
      Riv 14 July 2016 13: 41
      +1
      And the answer is simple: they will cut the loot.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 14 July 2016 13: 43
        +4
        Quote: Riv
        And the answer is simple: they will cut the loot.

        You yourself about the cut did not get tired of scribbling posts?
      2. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 14 July 2016 14: 16
        +1
        Yeah, everywhere, students and professors, with saws and toothpicks!
  10. Aleksandr69
    Aleksandr69 14 July 2016 12: 52
    +1
    VKS strive to make it a priority))
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 14 July 2016 13: 40
      0
      I do not want to offend our VKS, but someone once said: "People do not know anything about the Earth yet, but they are already trying to explore space" request
      1. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 14 July 2016 14: 19
        +1
        So people will not know anything until they dismiss those theories that do not fit into the framework of modern science.
  11. guzik007
    guzik007 14 July 2016 12: 56
    +2
    from the series, just to crow. And there, either the donkey will die, or the padishah will die.
  12. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 14 July 2016 13: 01
    +2
    first do the transport, and the "boyings" are going to be used ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 July 2016 18: 10
      0
      This will also be in 2025.
  13. 1536
    1536 14 July 2016 13: 08
    +1
    Logically and physically feasible. And then tired of these asymmetric responses to the actions of the adversary.
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 14 July 2016 13: 38
      +2
      But let's not forget that the "foes" already have something to intercept such an aircraft. The current SM-3 interceptor missile already flies 500 km "up" and 700 "sideways", the new one will fly 1500 km "upward" and 2500 km "sideways". Although the characteristics of the latter seem to be slightly overestimated, all the same, having in service with so many URO destroyers, the US Navy will be able to intercept such our bomber.

      And in general, where is our GRU? Why don't we have our own SM-3? request
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 14 July 2016 13: 40
        +1
        Quote: Wiruz
        But let's not forget that the "foes" already have something to intercept such an aircraft. The current SM-3 interceptor missile already flies 500 km "up" and 700 "sideways", the new one will fly 1500 km "upward" and 2500 km "sideways".

        With what fright the SM-3 Standard missile is capable of intercepting hyper sound maneuvering targets, can you tell?
        1. Wiruz
          Wiruz 14 July 2016 14: 43
          0
          With what fright the SM-3 Standard missile is capable of intercepting hyper sound maneuvering targets, can you tell?

          But what about us, will a bomber be directly super-maneuverable? The satellite, flying at a speed of 7,5 km / s, the Americans have already shot down hi
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 14 July 2016 14: 50
            +2
            Quote: Wiruz
            But what about us, will a bomber be directly super-maneuverable?

            On hyper sound, any maneuverability will be super maneuverability, as it will absolutely not miscalculate for interception.
            Quote: Wiruz
            The satellite, flying at a speed of 7,5 km / s, the Americans have already shot down

            At the same time, knowing the trajectory, time and altitude of the orbit. That is, laboratory conditions. That is, what for we are developing Sarmaty with Boundaries, if the adversary already has antidote?
            The Standard missile is far from intercepting hyper-fast maneuvering targets. In addition, it is capable of intercepting our Poplars only at the acceleration section; therefore, the same Yarsov has an acceleration section much smaller than that of Topol. And in the active section of the anti-missile, it simply does not catch up with either ICBMs or hyper-speed aircraft (especially maneuvering).
            1. Wiruz
              Wiruz 14 July 2016 15: 02
              0
              I don’t want to argue, because I’m not very strong in this matter, but still I think that unfortunately it will be possible to shoot down such a bomber with the SM-3 missile. hi
              1. CT-55_11-9009
                CT-55_11-9009 14 July 2016 15: 07
                +4
                Can. As well as knock down a piston fighter with a sledgehammer. That is, with a small probability.
              2. NEXUS
                NEXUS 14 July 2016 15: 11
                +3
                Quote: Wiruz
                but still I think that to shoot down such a bomber with an SM-3 missile will be possible, unfortunately.

                It's easier to catch a bullet with your teeth, believe me. hi
      2. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 14 July 2016 14: 20
        +1
        What for? What do you dislike about the S-500 complex and its missiles?
        1. Wiruz
          Wiruz 14 July 2016 14: 45
          0
          I don’t know the exact characteristics of the S-500 missiles, probably like you. Undoubtedly, in the defeat of aerodynamic targets, he will be ahead of the rest, like the S-400 today. But with regards to the defeat of objects in space ... It was rumored that its height would be a ceiling of 200 km. Only 200 km sad
          1. CT-55_11-9009
            CT-55_11-9009 14 July 2016 15: 11
            +1
            Naturally, nobody owls us on a silver platter. will not give secret information. I heard that the S-500 will be sharpened for hypersonic and space targets, and this is a source of the type of OBS, what else to check and verify. But after all, the General Staff and missile design bureaus also do not slurp their soup.

            Sorry, 200 km is already quite a space. True, at such an altitude, except that weather satellites knock down ...
            1. Wiruz
              Wiruz 14 July 2016 15: 32
              0
              Sorry, 200 km is already quite a space. True, at such an altitude, except that weather satellites knock down ...

              Here I am about the same
  14. Palch
    Palch 14 July 2016 13: 25
    +3
    Bold minus. Full of crap. The engines for the T50 can’t be done in any way, but then they immediately went out into space and the working engine for 2 years. Bredyatina.
    1. Wiruz
      Wiruz 14 July 2016 13: 38
      0
      And to Mars in a month and a half bully
  15. Engineer
    Engineer 14 July 2016 13: 30
    +2
    Is it right after the sixth generation hypersonic spaceship fighter?
  16. Recoil
    Recoil 14 July 2016 13: 33
    0
    Posted by balabol overdosed by Starwars
    We are not able to build a primitive strike drone.
  17. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 14 July 2016 13: 37
    +1
    Everything new is well forgotten old:

    Since the beginning of the 60-s, the projects of the MP-52, M-1, P-12 and P-1 orbital missile plans have been developed at Vladimir Chelomey OKB-2. The scope of such devices was revealed. The analysis showed that purely winged rocket planes, which allow maneuvering in a wide range of speeds and directions, have the greatest prospects.
    After the well-known events of the 1964 year, when the verification commission arrived at OKB-52, I had to forget about promising projects.
    Once again, they talked about missile plans in OKB-52 (TsKBM) in the 1975 year. At the same time, design work on cruise spacecraft was resumed. In particular, in the 1979 year, an advance project and a full-scale mock-up of the LKS reusable lightweight spacecraft with a length of 19 meters and a mass of 20 tons were presented.


    I recommend looking at other projects:

    http://www.xliby.ru/istorija/bitva_za_zvezdy_2_kosmicheskoe_protivostojanie_chas

    t_ii / p1.php
  18. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 14 July 2016 13: 39
    +2
    Everything is extremely foggy. Dual-circuit engine? What engines are going to integrate and how are they going to achieve a high degree of integration in general? To prevent the combination of a refrigerator with an electric stove, completely different principles of work.

    Only one engine is clearly marked - LRE. But its appearance is not clear - it is mandatory only at speeds greater than 12-15-17 max. Why such speeds for a simple jump? Having them you can already really go out into space.
    But so far no one has succeeded in creating a single-stage (aircraft!) Device capable of entering orbit - with any engines and any combination of them, and all projects were of enormous size - what are there 20-25 tons, when the designers say that 1000 tons or about that. It seems that the person who voiced the idea lives in some kind of parallel universe.

    Anyway; let the rocket engine. What is the second engine? Ramjet or even scramjet with supersonic combustion, hydrogen? Not bad, only these engines need to be initially accelerated to high free speed - is that the third engine, already separate?

    Or turbojet engine, theater? And how can they be integrated with LRE if the main element of both is a turbine; there will be a cross between a refrigerator with an electric stove - two independent engines, at best, on a common frame or with TNA integration (scanty gain). Of course, I would be glad if such a Lefthander would appear in Russia, which would combine a turbojet engine and a liquid propellant rocket engine in a single unit, with a single combustion chamber, a single thermal propulsion unit, and running on different fuels - kerosene for a high pressure engine and hydrogen for a liquid propellant rocket, just something tells me that this is impossible.
    1. CT-55_11-9009
      CT-55_11-9009 14 July 2016 14: 28
      +2
      Quote: Gormengast
      Only one engine is clearly marked - LRE. But its appearance is not clear - it is mandatory only at speeds greater than 12-15-17 max.


      CHEGOOO ??? WHAT 12-17 Machs ??? Yes, 4M LREs are already ineffective, and indeed they accelerate gorgeously from 0! And with 4 Machs, the hypersonic ramjet engine (scramjet) is the most! Teach the materiel!

      Quote: Gormengast
      Anyway; let the rocket engine. What is the second engine? Ramjet or even scramjet with supersonic combustion, hydrogen? Not bad, only these engines need to be initially accelerated to high free speed - is that the third engine, already separate?


      Yes, it’s just the liquid propellant rocket engine and it will accelerate the device to 4 Machs, from where the scramjet will start working. Back to the materiel link.

      I won’t say anything about the turbines, not my battlefield.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 July 2016 14: 59
      +2
      In the UK, they have been working on such aircraft for a long time - they promise the first flight in 2025.
    4. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 July 2016 15: 02
      0
      SABER Hypersonic Hybrid Air-Jet / Rocket Engine with Pre-Cooling
  19. Rom14
    Rom14 14 July 2016 13: 40
    -1
    Quote: vkl.47
    from the idea to the model, the path is not small. Here it is necessary at the Soviet pace 《catch up and overtake America》

    In the meantime, "catching up, overtaking", send more grenades to the ISS, accurate guidance ... And if you can throw a thunderstorm of amers, the SU-9 has to be directed from the stratosphere, it's a pity it has been removed from service .., the Americans danced for a week.
  20. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 14 July 2016 13: 45
    +2
    The author is a woodpecker !!! Firstly, the engine is not a dual-circuit, but a dual-mode one, well, and then it is worthless on a market day, because when starting from the ground, a three-mode engine is needed - on acceleration it is a turbojet and until the second hypersonic mode starts. And when entering space, the air intakes are closed or retracted into the fuselage and the engine works like a rocket engine, because in a vacuum there is simply no other version of the engine, that is, it should be a single non-versatile multi-mode engine. Attempts to supply rocket boosters or jettisonable jet engines will increase the mass of the structure and severely deplete the ship's fuel supply. Now the mass. 25 tons is a joke, or what? The aircraft a priori for "diving" into the atmosphere must have increased heat and armor protection, otherwise it simply will not withstand thermal and mechanical stress. Therefore, the article was written by a person who is very far from this topic.
    1. kartalovkolya
      kartalovkolya 14 July 2016 14: 04
      0
      I can agree with you or not, but I remembered one meeting with P.R. Popovich at which one of our officers asked the question that we are de-lagging behind the United States with their shuttles, to which P.R. replied that we have a flying "development" capable of taking off like an airplane, going out into space and having made a couple of orbits to land like an airplane! Maybe the author writes something wrong, but the question is not what he writes, but in that is WHY he writes like that ... I also want to remind you of the development by the team of the academician of the Lozinsky apparatus under the playful name "LAPOT".
      1. Banishing liberoids
        Banishing liberoids 14 July 2016 14: 24
        -2
        There were lots of Kartalovkolya projects, but only "Buran" was embodied in hardware, and besides, now there are railroad projects - but there is nothing in hardware for a primitive reason - the result does not match the ordered product! In short, the army asks for what science is not yet able to do, because ours require narrowly focused specifics, and not something more and no one knows why it is necessary.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 14 July 2016 18: 15
          0
          This has only one reason - simply the lack of funds for the implementation of projects - so these planes would have already flown in the early 80s.
    2. CT-55_11-9009
      CT-55_11-9009 14 July 2016 14: 32
      +1
      Then why are the rockets quite well taking off EXACTLY on the rocket engine? Why did our engineers put such unsuitable engines on them? But in terms of mass - I agree. Underestimated, and at times.
      1. Banishing liberoids
        Banishing liberoids 14 July 2016 15: 32
        0
        st-55_11-9009-the tasks of launch vehicles and reusable vehicles are fundamentally different - the carrier removed the load and spoiled the existence, and here the ship needs to be constantly maneuvered, when using only liquid fuel, it will need to be measured in the same way as you know, the carrier starts in the atmospheric window - there is no barrage of wind or thunderstorm, - fly. and this bird needs to be universal, it must fly up by its readiness and not depend on the vagaries of nature. The rocket engine was justified for carrier rockets, and for such vehicles their use as a minus huge amount of fuel on board and the inability to actively maneuver at a vertical launch makes such a ship just an ordinary payload, and not an independent maneuvering combat unit.
        1. CT-55_11-9009
          CT-55_11-9009 15 July 2016 17: 44
          +1
          Well. Firstly, aviation also does not fly in stormy weather, you know. There are limitations in any case.
          But why a vertical start? There is also a horizontal one with booster blocks. Otto Senger also proposed such a scheme. And booster blocks with LRE and TTRD are possible.
  21. Evgeny RS
    Evgeny RS 14 July 2016 13: 56
    -1
    As I understand it, NATO must be scared)))
  22. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 14 July 2016 14: 12
    +6
    From the FSB top-secret archive: The Supreme Commander-in-Chief and the Minister of Defense personally monitor the construction of the prototype. smile
  23. Vladimir
    Vladimir 14 July 2016 14: 30
    0
    The question arose: is it necessary? After all, I suppose now the problem is not where and how to drop the bomb, but how to protect your territory from this type of discharges, and the same ICBM is more than enough to destroy everything more than once.
  24. iouris
    iouris 14 July 2016 14: 42
    +1
    Pants turn, pants turn ...
    Sorry, little technical problem.
  25. iouris
    iouris 14 July 2016 14: 42
    0
    Pants turn, pants turn ...
    Sorry, little technical problem.
    Teleportation work is also underway.
  26. alex261313
    alex261313 14 July 2016 14: 45
    -2
    Great. Now pen-dos should develop reusable diapers in response ...
  27. Vadim237
    Vadim237 14 July 2016 14: 47
    +1
    Yes, even in the 70s and 80s, such aircraft developed M 19 360 tons, payload from 9 to 35 tons, Mig 2000 - weight 300 tons, payload 9 tons, Tu 2000 weight 350 tons, load on DOE 6 - 10 tons. Most likely this new aircraft is just an improved project of the M 19 aircraft and the Nuclear Forces for him will soon be completed by Rosatom.
    1. CT-55_11-9009
      CT-55_11-9009 14 July 2016 15: 50
      +1
      Mmm, Myasischev-Gurko, M-19.
  28. DimYang
    DimYang 14 July 2016 14: 52
    -2
    Personally, I want to see him live. And what would the division immediately inflicting irresistible blows on our enemies. What would once and for all.
  29. Indifferent
    Indifferent 14 July 2016 14: 54
    0
    Strange people! Why, if an airplane consumes kerosene, does it need hydrogen for space? We have all new kerosene rockets! He needs oxygen, moreover, in liquid form, with the same kerosene, and the operation of such an aircraft may not cover any costs. American F-22 F-35, which in terms of cost equal to the cost of the same mass of gold, seem like children's toys.
    25 tons touches me. Space plane - 25 tons. What are we sending rockets of 700 tons to throw the same 25 tons into low orbit. In general, a 25-ton bomber with the cost of operating an aircraft carrier must also bear the combat load, like that of an aircraft carrier. Otherwise, it's worthless to him! It should be a machine weighing like a Tu-160 and with a payload of at least 30 tons.
    I believe that most likely we are talking about an unmanned large cruise missile. It will start as a cruise missile, and at high altitude it will turn on rocket engines, which will throw it into space and allow it to reach the adversary in an hour. Planning for the goal, it will be like a glider at hypersonic speed.
    This is a completely feasible and not very expensive system to operate.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 14 July 2016 15: 09
      +1
      Quote: indifferent
      Why, if an airplane consumes kerosene, does it need hydrogen for space?

      The hangar is on hydrogen. Why does this aircraft not work on it?
      Quote: indifferent
      25 tons touches me. Space plane - 25 tons. What are we sending rockets of 700 tons to throw the same 25 tons into low orbit.

      Now think ... to overcome the gravity of the earth strictly flying up you need two steps, a bunch of fuel, and at the same time, say the same Angara-5 useful weight thrown into orbit in my opinion is 35 tons.
      And what is needed for an airplane that flies not up, but along an arc-shaped trajectory, first entering the stratosphere, and then into the near space. I recall that to this day the MIG-25-37650 m altitude record for airplanes. And this is the stratosphere. And the record This one was installed back in 1977 on August 31.
      Quote: indifferent
      In general, a 25-ton bomber with the cost of operating an aircraft carrier must also bear the combat load, like that of an aircraft carrier.

      What for? Firstly, where does this cost estimate come from? Second ... why does the same space-surface rocket have two stages, a lot of fuel and a large size from it? At the same time, the range of such a missile will be many times greater than that of any air-to-surface missile with much larger dimensions.
      An example is the Caliber rocket. From the ship it flies 3000 km, because it needs effort to accelerate, take off, etc. ... but the X-101 rocket (an analogue of Caliber rockets) flies 5500 km ... the question is, why? Because she does not need to spend fuel on take-off, overcoming gravity, acceleration, etc., and therefore the range is many times greater.
      Now, let's return to the space-to-surface rocket and think about how far it can have in comparison with the air-to-surface or earth-to-earth rocket.
  30. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 14 July 2016 15: 06
    0
    You read and marvel at, from the heading "magpie on the tail brought." Since when, news of such a technical, and most importantly, level of access to information, the RF Armed Forces began to trust in public presentation
    report of the teacher of the branch of the Military Academy of the Strategic Missile Forces, Lieutenant Colonel Alexei Solodovnikov.
    Most likely, the lieutenant colonel was asked to comment on some well-known, old developments and that’s all.
  31. Wiruz
    Wiruz 14 July 2016 15: 06
    +2
    Gentlemen-comrade-colleagues, the Ministry of Defense of Russia has denied information about the development of a "space bomber" hi

    https://russian.rt.com/article/312161-minoborony-rf-prokommentirovalo-dannye-o-r
    azrabotke-kosmicheskogo
  32. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 14 July 2016 15: 14
    0
    Quote: CT-55_11-9009

    CHEGOOO ??? WHAT 12-17 Machs ??? Yes, 4M LREs are already ineffective, and indeed they accelerate gorgeously from 0! And with 4 Machs, the hypersonic ramjet engine (scramjet) is the most! Teach the materiel!



    It is written - at such speeds the rocket engine is MANDATORY (no other one works). This does not mean that the LRE cannot be applied from scratch. Maybe, by the way, that doesn't mean it should.


    Quote: CT-55_11-9009


    Yes, it’s just the liquid propellant rocket engine and it will accelerate the device to 4 Machs, from where the scramjet will start working. Back to the materiel link.

    I won’t say anything about the turbines, not my battlefield.


    You yourself think about what you wrote. smile You offer the most uneconomical scheme; nothing worse to come up with. For each engine there is an optimal speed range for its application. At initial speeds, setting a rocket engine is simply monstrous, since this range (in terms of economy) belongs to the turbojet engine. Guess why all supersonic fighters fly on a turbojet engine and not on a rocket engine? smile

    The optimal economical scheme for such an "aircraft" is a turbojet engine (up to M = 3-4); Scramjet engine (up to M = 12-17, depending on fuel) and rocket engine (up to M = 25, orbital). But my message is that these engines cannot be deeply integrated; they need to be set separately, and then you get some kind of monster, the size of a UFO from Independence Day.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 14 July 2016 16: 04
        +1
        Quote: Rollback
        Everything is already, Mr. Tsiolkovsky, calm down, the Ministry of Defense has denied the message.

        Dear, why do you think the rebuttal is true, and the statement that such an aircraft is under development is a lie? For example, there is information about the development of the MIG design bureau of a new long-range hyper-high-speed interceptor. or is a two-bomb aircraft being developed? Because MO denied? It would be foolish to think that our Moscow Defense Forces will ring around the world about developments that have the most stringent secrecy stamps.
  33. v.yegorov
    v.yegorov 14 July 2016 15: 31
    +3
    A muddy article, in the style of fantasies of Jules Verne. And the weight of the device is unreal, and the engine, even in the project, is not. Only intentions.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 July 2016 17: 59
      0
      Such engines already exist and are tested both here and abroad.
  34. Recoil
    Recoil 14 July 2016 15: 54
    +2
    Gentlemen, I was right: you grabbed a duck. MO refutation:
    http://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/578782759a794732e549d063?from=newsfeed
  35. 76SSSR
    76SSSR 14 July 2016 16: 46
    +1
    The duck grunted and flew away, leaving behind itself fertile ground for passionate polemics.)
    1. DimYang
      DimYang 14 July 2016 19: 41
      0
      In in. So I wrote, I want to see it live, or else they’re developing it ... Who? And it smacks of promises for cheers - patriots. I am only for (with both hands) for such a bomber, but show it or at least a project so that I have something to be proud of for my Homeland.
  36. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 14 July 2016 16: 53
    0
    That I do not understand the purpose of this unit. BR faster and easier to solve the issue of impact on enemy territory. It’s unprofitable to keep the device for the sake of the USA.
  37. Turkestan
    Turkestan 14 July 2016 20: 25
    +1
    Everything has already been invented for us by magnificent SOVIET DESIGNERS
    This: Bor, Max, Spiral, Rax well, etc.

    But I liked the SPIRAL project, the 1965 project

    In accordance with the five-year Thematic plan of the Air Force on orbital and hypersonic aircraft, practical work on winged astronautics in the USSR in 1965 was entrusted to OKB-155 A.I. Mikoyan, The topic of creating a two-stage air-orbital aircraft (in modern terminology - aerospace systems - AKS) received the index "Spiral".
    Combat manned single-seat reusable OS (see the figure below) provided for the use in the variants of daytime reconnaissance, radar reconnaissance, space target interceptor or strike aircraft with a space-to-Earth missile and could be used to inspect space objects. The weight of the aircraft in all versions was 8800 kg, including 500 kg of combat load in the reconnaissance and interceptor versions and 2000 kg in the attack aircraft. The range of reference orbits was 130 ... 150 km in altitude and 450 ... 1350 in inclination in the northern and southern directions for launches from the territory of the USSR, and the flight task had to be performed within 2-3 orbits (third landing orbit). The maneuverability of the OS using an onboard rocket propulsion system operating on high-energy propellants - fluorine F2 + amidol (50% N2H4 + 50% BH3N2H4), had to provide a change in the inclination of the orbit for the reconnaissance and interceptor by 170, for a strike aircraft with a rocket on board ( and reduced fuel capacity) - 70 ... 80. The interceptor was also capable of performing a combined maneuver - a simultaneous change in the orbit inclination by 120 with an ascent to an altitude of up to 1000 km.
    After performing an orbital flight and switching on the brake engines, the OS should enter the atmosphere with a large angle of attack; control during the descent stage was provided for by changing the roll at a constant angle of attack. On the trajectory of a planning descent in the atmosphere, the ability to perform an aerodynamic maneuver over a range of 4000 ... 6000 km with a lateral deviation of plus / minus 1100 ... 1500 km was set.
  38. Mentat
    Mentat 14 July 2016 20: 47
    +2
    Quote: NEXUS
    And given hyper sonic speed, a task from a difficult turns into a quasi-difficult

    The word quasi has a different meaning. Before writing smart words, look in the dictionary.
  39. shinobi
    shinobi 14 July 2016 21: 42
    0
    For a bomber, the mass is ridiculous. Front-line fighters are already over 20 kilograms in weight. Either they are clumsy disinfectants or outright fakes. Actually 25 flashes can make a jump of 70 km vertically, but as the developers themselves said, the problem was to bring it back to the atmosphere. ready and show it threatened this year at an army exhibition. Most likely we are talking about a strategic hypersonic drone for targeted actions. Then yes, the mass is optimal and everything else fits into the picture. Such a device is on duty in the sky somewhere in the neutral at normal speeds and heights. Then, a jerk with a jump. Quite, quite ...
  40. Skifotavr
    Skifotavr 14 July 2016 23: 14
    0
    Fresh tradition ...
  41. denssss
    denssss 15 July 2016 03: 14
    0
    some kind of fantasy
  42. gorunov
    gorunov 15 July 2016 07: 47
    +1
    It is necessary to provide refueling from the ISS smile
  43. teron
    teron 15 July 2016 11: 45
    0
    Then it seems like they decided to revive the production of the Tu-160, the last century of development, and they promise not soon. This is if at all pulled. But this is either the journalists did not understand, or just an irresponsible statement. Or incompetence.
  44. Petr7
    Petr7 15 July 2016 16: 31
    0
    It's funny! A few hours later, a refutation came out, as Solodovnikov said - "The journalists did not understand him that way" !!! Yes, and in some places this interview was deleted altogether!
  45. jonht
    jonht 9 August 2016 04: 18
    -1
    From the open press, the problem with the materials for the glider was solved, the problem with the fuel components for the worthless was solved, the device will obviously not be metal, and the fuel does not seem to be kerosene. They solved the heating problem, but the technology under the heading is top-secret ;-) (about the same as at the time with torpedo weapons, when torpedoes were made at a speed of 200 knots (about 380 km / h). As they say, everything ingenious is simple. Technology of rocket engines on At the moment, the most advanced in our country (RD-XXX series engines). If you put these components together, here you have almost ready-made solutions for the glider. Yes, we also solved the problem of communication with the device, there are indirect confirmations ... That's what At the moment, it’s not decided, so it’s providing normal conditions for the pilot.And there is no ready-made two-mode engine, although there are hypersonic and rocket engines with the necessary characteristics, but installing two types of devices into the device at once is very expensive. And my opinion is 2 tons unmanned vehicle is probably the minimum, with a payload of 25-1,5 tons (nuclear charge for hummingbirds less than 3 kg) there will already be from 450 to 2 warheads. Fuel will be spent only to go to cmos, and there the available speed will last for a long time, even with intensive maneuvering (on satellites the fuel for maneuvers is 6-1% of the mass).
  46. Cruor vult
    Cruor vult 23 September 2016 17: 01
    0
    Better to return to Lozino-Lozinsky's Molniya project. 1 engine for flying in space, but in the atmosphere it just plans. As planned, the device "jumps out" into space on the "back" of the aircraft, turns on the engine, does what it needs and returns to the atmosphere. Energy, according to calculations, will be enough for a flight of 1000 km (if I am not mistaken). And spending time and money on a dual-medium engine is long and expensive.
  47. Balferov
    Balferov 24 September 2016 05: 38
    0
    Quote: dauria
    In the first flight, the launch weight of the Space Shuttle was 2022 tons,

    And let's remember the starting mass of the MTKS Energia-Buran?
  48. Balferov
    Balferov 24 September 2016 05: 46
    0
    Quote: activator
    beyond the limits of the solar galaxy

    before writing about the galaxy, it might be worth googling, what kind of thing is this, huh, ignoramus?
  49. Balferov
    Balferov 24 September 2016 06: 07
    0
    Quote: Wiruz
    I don’t want to argue, because I’m not very strong in this matter

    well, don’t blather then!
  50. AdekvatNICK
    AdekvatNICK 24 September 2016 13: 02
    0
    And why then did the CSTO countries approve a project on not placing weapons in space?