Are Tu-22M flights to Syria so costly?
Not by nightfall, the aforementioned TV channel and its accompanying Internet resources recently erupted with another groan about the fact that our bombers continue to fly and bomb targets in Syria. Against the background of the fact that it is still possible to drive on Russian roads only on tanks, and pensioners continue to die of hunger en masse. It is clear that elections are on the way and all that, and despite the fact that in the elections these gentlemen will have nothing but Olympic participation, the order must be worked out. That is, to groan with a smart look and heartily about the misuse of funds.
Although in the studio of this channel I did not find a single man in the uniform among the crying, it became interesting. They know how to put the topic in such a way that, willy-nilly, you wonder, if not about how right they are, then at least how much they lie. Therefore, quickly throwing the main problems, voiced by the gentlemen on wages in dollars, climbed into the jungle of the Internet, looking for answers on the forums, where just volatile comrades discuss such things.
It turned out that there are more than enough such "warm and tube" forums. And that’s what happened in practice. I think that everything turned out quite logically, since I took answers to unasked questions from the opinions of people who were somehow related to work aviation.
So is it worth it to drive a Tu-22M to Syria? Let's try to figure it out.
first. To begin with, we ask a simple question: why, in general, all these movements? What is the purpose of aviation in general and bomber in particular?
In my opinion, everything that happens in any kind of troops is devoted to one single task: to be ready to execute an order, in the event that it is received. This applies to absolutely everyone, without exception.
Another issue is that aviation is probably one of the most expensive types of troops. No wonder, because to prepare a pilot (and especially a good pilot) and, for example, an air defense system operator, things are different after all. It's clear.
Plus, for one pilot, at least 10-15 (and maybe more) is the person of the attendants. Engineers of all stripes, specialists in routine maintenance, gunsmiths and other specialists of the highest category. And if we add to this the battalions of service, security and other ground personnel, then this figure can be increased at least threefold.
And that's fine. For the plane is the quintessence of complexity as weapons.
But even in peacetime (in particular, by the way), all this mass of personnel requires an investment of money. His (personnel) must be clothed, shod, feed and everything else. Glory to anyone, this is no problem with aviation today. Almost not.
And what is the most important criterion of return? How to evaluate the quality of investment? The payoff is simple: high quality training of flight crews and a guaranteed ability to complete the task. Point.
In the USSR, it was called "constant combat readiness." I do not think that today the meaning has changed at least somewhat.
So, to accomplish tasks and get feedback, you need what? That's right, flying, flying and flying again. Training programs for pilots, class raids, commissioning after the breaks (I watched this in Khalino: he was away on vacation - go ahead, at the helm, remember, if you forgot), all this requires one thing - flights. Circular flights in the area of airfields in simple and complex weather conditions, flights in the zone, flights on routes from 2 to 5 hours. Plus practicing strikes on targets.
Here everything is clear even to a person far from aviation. These movements are included in the budget of the Ministry of Defense. Kerosene has to burn for any, alcohol, by the way, too. As I understand it, the Tu-22M to 100 liters of this sweet liquid dangles through the systems.
Flying. It is clear that the number of places in our country, where you can fly and bomb, we have limited. And in this regard, Syria is quite a new route. No different from any other in terms of components. And, if all this is arranged within the framework of the exercises, then the cost is cheap. Additional costs in the form of travel personnel when working with airfields hopping is also not particularly hit on the budget.
And the return in the form of the implementation of the BZ, along with the political component - here is an obvious profit. The destruction of terrorists and their infrastructures is a useful thing, especially given the fact that they are being destroyed systematically and regularly.
Second. The cost of armament.
What is the main reason for hammering Tu-22M basmachs? FAB-500 air bombs ... As a product, the bomb was developed in 1932. Yes, I went through a bunch of upgrades, in 1954, 1962, 1978 and 1989. But its essence remained unchanged since 1941 year. Fly out uncontrollably from top to bottom and arrange badabum below. The question of the accuracy of aiming and calculating the drop. Yes, besides the FAB-500, ours use bombs of other calibers, but the essence does not change.
These ammunition produced is not just a lot. Meanwhile, each ammunition has its own shelf life. At the end of which it (the ammunition) must be disposed of. With a cost comparable to the production of a new one. It remains only the question of what can be disposed of by disassembly and other things, but you can take it out. On the ground or on the head basmacham. Given the presence of a political factor, the second option is more profitable.
By itself, the method of sprinkling the enemy with bombs from a great height was used for a long time, even in World War II. But if you recall, for the effective implementation of this method, the Americans and the British needed aerial armada of hundreds of bombers. And the goals achieved by carpet bombing were more than dubious. But the survivors of Dresden, Kiel, Hamburg and Tokyo would tell about this better than me.
At the current T-22М3, a new aiming system “Hephaestus” was installed, which increased the target targeting accuracy by an order of magnitude, taking into account all weather conditions and other factors. "Where are you going? And, square such and such? Receive and sign ..."
That's strange, the whole world is watching, but the gentlemen of the guardians are not busy. And it would be worthwhile to see how accurately everything that is needed is carried out, such ancient things as FAB-500. With absolutely penny cost of the product, comparable to the cost of the guardian.
I noticed that in Syria, relatively new and expensive weapons such as the X-38 and X-15 are almost not used. Even the old X-55. Why, if the FAB-500 copes with the assigned tasks?
The third. It is quite funny here. Many sofa critics are outraged by the fact that, say, why they fly half empty? Bomber how to fly? All hung on the exterior and with full bombs. Then, type, and will be the effect. And so - stupid fuel combustion, and nothing more.
External suspension is good. On it, the Tu-22М3 can carry as many 36 bombs as possible with FAB-250 bombs. In the pictures and exercises it looks quite weighty and menacing. But the external suspension is also an additional air resistance, which means a decrease in speed and range.
Fourth. Another aspect. Maximum allowed landing weight. Knowledgeable people say that it is impossible to find a photo of a Tu-22М3 with three X-22 missiles, although the technical data allow it completely. For with three (this is 15 tons), it was not possible to sit down.
And with bombs the same oddity. In the event of a change or removal of a combat mission, a plane malfunction, a logical question arises - where to put all the things hung up? Well, if it happens in Syria, and if on our territory? To fall on the heads of neighbors? It would be nice, especially on the heads of those who do not think, but actively speak and write. Or urgently look for a place that is not useful in Russia in the near future? Because if one Tu-22M dumps 9 tons from the exterior, you can definitely forget about this area for an indefinite time. And if three?
Syria is far away, so the crews fly with loading only in bomb bay. It is logical even for a non-specialist in this field. This is the damn battle application, not maneuvers! And the bomber should not just take off with a combat load, but go through the route, break through the enemy's air defense zone, bomb off and go back. And just Syria is a testing ground for practicing such actions.
In my opinion, a non-expert, the use of "Carcasses" in a full load can be only in one case: when the application and return are fully guaranteed. That is, by the side.
The question arises: are we preparing long-range aviation for the bombing of our borders? So what? But what about “beating the enemy on its territory”, and then what is the point of YES in general?
Meanwhile, the flown Tu-22M to Syria brings there “for three” almost 40 tons of bombs. As practice shows, the application is more than enough. Especially if you take into account the work of Hephaestus, which allows you to put high-explosive and concrete-breaking monsters with an accuracy that is not inferior to adjustable bombs.
Thus, it turns out that the main issue, namely the performance of a combat mission, is solved in full. If the task is to destroy the objects, then they must be destroyed. This is the main indicator of the effectiveness of the training of flight personnel. And, although my opinion is different from the opinion of smart gentlemen from the TV, but this process is going in the right direction. Long-range aviation fulfills combat missions (let me emphasize, namely combat, not training) in due course.
And for the country's budget is not so stressful. The skill of YA crews to hit targets over long distances is more expensive. Especially when you consider that one flight of the Tu-22M is cheaper than making one Caliber.
Yes, and then, such a thought came to an end. Do not write off FABs. Although the thing is ancient, it has one plus. FAB, unlike cruise missiles, does not know what EW is. It was not even then it really. Therefore, not afraid. And, acting against the enemy, who has a developed system of combat, FAB is quite able to solve the problem of neutralizing the EW stations. And then "calibrate" as you like, for any format.
But this is another story.
Although in the studio of this channel I did not find a single man in the uniform among the crying, it became interesting. They know how to put the topic in such a way that, willy-nilly, you wonder, if not about how right they are, then at least how much they lie. Therefore, quickly throwing the main problems, voiced by the gentlemen on wages in dollars, climbed into the jungle of the Internet, looking for answers on the forums, where just volatile comrades discuss such things.
It turned out that there are more than enough such "warm and tube" forums. And that’s what happened in practice. I think that everything turned out quite logically, since I took answers to unasked questions from the opinions of people who were somehow related to work aviation.
So is it worth it to drive a Tu-22M to Syria? Let's try to figure it out.
first. To begin with, we ask a simple question: why, in general, all these movements? What is the purpose of aviation in general and bomber in particular?
In my opinion, everything that happens in any kind of troops is devoted to one single task: to be ready to execute an order, in the event that it is received. This applies to absolutely everyone, without exception.
Another issue is that aviation is probably one of the most expensive types of troops. No wonder, because to prepare a pilot (and especially a good pilot) and, for example, an air defense system operator, things are different after all. It's clear.
Plus, for one pilot, at least 10-15 (and maybe more) is the person of the attendants. Engineers of all stripes, specialists in routine maintenance, gunsmiths and other specialists of the highest category. And if we add to this the battalions of service, security and other ground personnel, then this figure can be increased at least threefold.
And that's fine. For the plane is the quintessence of complexity as weapons.
But even in peacetime (in particular, by the way), all this mass of personnel requires an investment of money. His (personnel) must be clothed, shod, feed and everything else. Glory to anyone, this is no problem with aviation today. Almost not.
And what is the most important criterion of return? How to evaluate the quality of investment? The payoff is simple: high quality training of flight crews and a guaranteed ability to complete the task. Point.
In the USSR, it was called "constant combat readiness." I do not think that today the meaning has changed at least somewhat.
So, to accomplish tasks and get feedback, you need what? That's right, flying, flying and flying again. Training programs for pilots, class raids, commissioning after the breaks (I watched this in Khalino: he was away on vacation - go ahead, at the helm, remember, if you forgot), all this requires one thing - flights. Circular flights in the area of airfields in simple and complex weather conditions, flights in the zone, flights on routes from 2 to 5 hours. Plus practicing strikes on targets.
Here everything is clear even to a person far from aviation. These movements are included in the budget of the Ministry of Defense. Kerosene has to burn for any, alcohol, by the way, too. As I understand it, the Tu-22M to 100 liters of this sweet liquid dangles through the systems.
Flying. It is clear that the number of places in our country, where you can fly and bomb, we have limited. And in this regard, Syria is quite a new route. No different from any other in terms of components. And, if all this is arranged within the framework of the exercises, then the cost is cheap. Additional costs in the form of travel personnel when working with airfields hopping is also not particularly hit on the budget.
And the return in the form of the implementation of the BZ, along with the political component - here is an obvious profit. The destruction of terrorists and their infrastructures is a useful thing, especially given the fact that they are being destroyed systematically and regularly.
Second. The cost of armament.
What is the main reason for hammering Tu-22M basmachs? FAB-500 air bombs ... As a product, the bomb was developed in 1932. Yes, I went through a bunch of upgrades, in 1954, 1962, 1978 and 1989. But its essence remained unchanged since 1941 year. Fly out uncontrollably from top to bottom and arrange badabum below. The question of the accuracy of aiming and calculating the drop. Yes, besides the FAB-500, ours use bombs of other calibers, but the essence does not change.
These ammunition produced is not just a lot. Meanwhile, each ammunition has its own shelf life. At the end of which it (the ammunition) must be disposed of. With a cost comparable to the production of a new one. It remains only the question of what can be disposed of by disassembly and other things, but you can take it out. On the ground or on the head basmacham. Given the presence of a political factor, the second option is more profitable.
By itself, the method of sprinkling the enemy with bombs from a great height was used for a long time, even in World War II. But if you recall, for the effective implementation of this method, the Americans and the British needed aerial armada of hundreds of bombers. And the goals achieved by carpet bombing were more than dubious. But the survivors of Dresden, Kiel, Hamburg and Tokyo would tell about this better than me.
At the current T-22М3, a new aiming system “Hephaestus” was installed, which increased the target targeting accuracy by an order of magnitude, taking into account all weather conditions and other factors. "Where are you going? And, square such and such? Receive and sign ..."
That's strange, the whole world is watching, but the gentlemen of the guardians are not busy. And it would be worthwhile to see how accurately everything that is needed is carried out, such ancient things as FAB-500. With absolutely penny cost of the product, comparable to the cost of the guardian.
I noticed that in Syria, relatively new and expensive weapons such as the X-38 and X-15 are almost not used. Even the old X-55. Why, if the FAB-500 copes with the assigned tasks?
The third. It is quite funny here. Many sofa critics are outraged by the fact that, say, why they fly half empty? Bomber how to fly? All hung on the exterior and with full bombs. Then, type, and will be the effect. And so - stupid fuel combustion, and nothing more.
External suspension is good. On it, the Tu-22М3 can carry as many 36 bombs as possible with FAB-250 bombs. In the pictures and exercises it looks quite weighty and menacing. But the external suspension is also an additional air resistance, which means a decrease in speed and range.
Fourth. Another aspect. Maximum allowed landing weight. Knowledgeable people say that it is impossible to find a photo of a Tu-22М3 with three X-22 missiles, although the technical data allow it completely. For with three (this is 15 tons), it was not possible to sit down.
And with bombs the same oddity. In the event of a change or removal of a combat mission, a plane malfunction, a logical question arises - where to put all the things hung up? Well, if it happens in Syria, and if on our territory? To fall on the heads of neighbors? It would be nice, especially on the heads of those who do not think, but actively speak and write. Or urgently look for a place that is not useful in Russia in the near future? Because if one Tu-22M dumps 9 tons from the exterior, you can definitely forget about this area for an indefinite time. And if three?
Syria is far away, so the crews fly with loading only in bomb bay. It is logical even for a non-specialist in this field. This is the damn battle application, not maneuvers! And the bomber should not just take off with a combat load, but go through the route, break through the enemy's air defense zone, bomb off and go back. And just Syria is a testing ground for practicing such actions.
In my opinion, a non-expert, the use of "Carcasses" in a full load can be only in one case: when the application and return are fully guaranteed. That is, by the side.
The question arises: are we preparing long-range aviation for the bombing of our borders? So what? But what about “beating the enemy on its territory”, and then what is the point of YES in general?
Meanwhile, the flown Tu-22M to Syria brings there “for three” almost 40 tons of bombs. As practice shows, the application is more than enough. Especially if you take into account the work of Hephaestus, which allows you to put high-explosive and concrete-breaking monsters with an accuracy that is not inferior to adjustable bombs.
Thus, it turns out that the main issue, namely the performance of a combat mission, is solved in full. If the task is to destroy the objects, then they must be destroyed. This is the main indicator of the effectiveness of the training of flight personnel. And, although my opinion is different from the opinion of smart gentlemen from the TV, but this process is going in the right direction. Long-range aviation fulfills combat missions (let me emphasize, namely combat, not training) in due course.
And for the country's budget is not so stressful. The skill of YA crews to hit targets over long distances is more expensive. Especially when you consider that one flight of the Tu-22M is cheaper than making one Caliber.
Yes, and then, such a thought came to an end. Do not write off FABs. Although the thing is ancient, it has one plus. FAB, unlike cruise missiles, does not know what EW is. It was not even then it really. Therefore, not afraid. And, acting against the enemy, who has a developed system of combat, FAB is quite able to solve the problem of neutralizing the EW stations. And then "calibrate" as you like, for any format.
But this is another story.
Information