It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sukhoi Su-24BM T-60 T-60S izdelije 54 (advanced russian tactical bombers)

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Four years of research. The result:

- in 1979 the beginning of the work on the heavily modernised Su-24BM Big Modernisation (new engines AL-31F, new longer centroplane for the internal weapons bay, new air intakes, stronger landing gear...) The project was approved by the VVS, full scale wooden mockup was built and the initial preparation for the serial production begun in NAPO.

- 1980 - 1981 under the B-90 program the new perspective bombers are studied. Mikhail Simonov pressed the idea, that the new airplanes should be designed in TsAGI and then transferred to the OKBs for further development. TsAGI started to work on the new tactical bomber. It was the visual copy of the Sukhoi T-4MS, only smaller, with the two controversial sollutions: double path jets from KB P. A. Kolosov and variable geometry wing that moved fully under the fuselage. It seems that the project was designated T-60 and in 1981 was transferred to OKB Sukhoi. The lenght of the aircraft was 40 meters.

- this eliminated the further works on the Su-24BM, strongly supported by the air force representatives. This made the conflict between Simonov and P. Kuthakov (strong supporter of Su-24BM). The radical action was made - Su-24BM received the fixed wing, two vertical tails and avionics developed for the T-60. The new aircraft was presented to the officials, but under the strong pressure from Simonov and Silayev the further work was stopped.

- after transfer of the T-60 to OKB Sukhoi, the project was completely reworked. Managed by Oleg Samoylovich the plane received the scheme of the double delta, internal weapons bay and two engines in the joint console on the upper side of the aft fuselage. Designation changed to T-60S (serial) and the plane was prepared for the manufacturing of the prototype. In may 1985 Simonov returned to OKB Sukhoi and forced Samoylovich to leave. He moved to the OKB MiG together with the group of other engineers and take the T-60S project with him. In the short time it was transferred to the MiG 7.01 MDP. The two versions were proposed: heavy range interceptor to replace MiG-31 and the tactical bomber.

- for the project of the tactical bomber in OKB Sukhoi there was made the new team, so they started once again from the beginning. They decided to use the already developed solutions from the previous projects. It seems, that the project received designation izdelije (object) 54. The airplane was the delta lifting body with the two vertical tails slanted inward, B-2 like centroplane, air intakes on the upper side of the fuselage, cockpit extended forward and once again variable geometry wing with the swept 28 - 65 degrees that in the maximal swept moved fully under the fuselage. The full scale mockup of the half of the fuselage was made, in NAPO they built the new hall and started the preparations for the serial produciton. There are the rumours, that the aircraft was powered by the two Al-41F engines and that the flad 2D thrust vectoring nozzles, tested on the Su-27LL-UV (PS), were made for the izdelije 54. The construction of the prototype begun, but the project was by order of Sergey Yelcin terminated in 1992. The prototype remained untact not far away from the completition (for example the engines were missing). The only official confirmation of its existence is from the Moscow aerosalon in 1993.

- because of the complications in the T-60/T-60S/izdelije 54 development, the interesting things happened with the T-10V/Su-27IB project. Originally it was ground attack aircraft, developed from the Su-27 two seater and approved in 1986, but as the project progressed, it took many solutions and technologies from the T-60S/izdelije 54. Namely all the studies of the cockpit and the front fuselage from T-60S were used also on the T-10V. The same happened with the Leninets B004 Predator radar and the result was, that there was the plane, that was able to do a lot of things that were planned for the izdelije 54, but because it was derived from existing Su-27 family, it was much cheaper and ready for production. Now it is in service and we know it as the Su-34.

Full article with the all illustrations/photos and the possible English machine translation here: www.hitechweb.genezis.eu...





Thanks to all who helped me




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Damn. The Russians finally built themselves an F-111



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
No they just made a picture of one.


An oversized F111, but I can also see major rip offs of the B1.

If this is what Russia is passing off as "advanced" well, they are clearly in trouble.

The USA debut the B2 Spirit over 20years ago. Where is Russia's stealth bomber.

Bah I wont even bother... these are pointless questions.

Want to know how to beat the Russians in war? Use Rust-seeking missiles.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Bill Hicks said it best:

"shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" (making spraying motion around neck and torso)

"hey what's that?"

"its musket repellent!"

Those who know the whole joke will laugh at this, those who don't probably won't.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by matej
 


and for dramatic affect they show the pentagon under them flying. Nice.
Is stealthy the same as stealth? I wonder.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sorcha Faal
reply to post by matej
 


and for dramatic affect they show the pentagon under them flying. Nice.
Is stealthy the same as stealth? I wonder.


No "stealthy" and "stealth" are totally different.

For example, the Rafale and the B1-Lancer are "Stealthy" which means they have integrated a few features which reduce their radar cross section, but not by very much.

However a truly "Stealth" aircraft was designed purely to evade radar, and it's radar cross section would be extremely small.

Many jets in modern air forces are "stealthy", but only very very few are actual "Stealth" aircraft, like the F22 or B2



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
JIMC5499: Russians built the F-111 and it is called Su-24. The plan for the radical modernisation that led to the Su-24BM is the response for the VVS requirement for the modern tactical bomber with internal carriage of the cruise missiles. Its the same process that led to the F-111G/H that was in the same way cancelled.

Sorcha Faal: I made that drawing so yes, I choosed the background that will look cool. And as was said before, "stealthy" is not the same as "stealth". Its good to note that the 100 % stealth does not exist at all. And every modern aircraft is optimized to (much or less) shorten the effective distace to which the enemy radar can do the positive match. But its not only radar but also four others areas that can reveal the aircraft (IR signature, engine exhausts, accoustics and visual). It is used to use the term "stealth" for the plane, for which the stealth is the priority. Stealthy plane is the vehicle, where the stealth technologies are applied in much common sense, where they dont limit other important characteristics. Russians never go with the so absurd solutions as the flying flatiron F-117 (sadly they have their own way of absurdness) when they knew, that they aready in the 80s had the access to the unique passive radar Bozena/Ramona/Tamara developed in Czechoslovakia, that was and still is able to detect any flying vehicle on the
impressive distance.

muzzleflash: Tell me about that rust-seeking missiles when I once again see the fifty years old B-52 over my head! Russians stealth bomber unfinished prototype is in the dark corner of the novosibirsk NAPO plant since cca 1987 and will not be revealed to general public anytime soon. In fact, it will never be finished because it was effectively replaced with the smaller, but equally (and more) capable Su-34 combined with the long range cruise missiles, that is entering the service last years. Lastly - izdelije 54 was not the direct B-2 competitor. This belongs to the Tu-202 further development that was cancelled in the early 90s. Izdelije 54 is the category that the USAF currently dont have in the inventory (namely F-111G/H, something between standard F-111 and B-1B). On russian side it is represented by the supersonic Tu-22M3/M5.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Want to know how to beat the Russians in war? Use Rust-seeking missiles.


Hahahaha! You can say that again


The Russians actually have some great planes. But they'll never get ahead of the United States. Back in the Cold War days they were too busy designing new SAMs to shoot down our U2s and SR-71s...



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

The USA debut the B2 Spirit over 20years ago. Where is Russia's stealth bomber.


I'm afraid that the B-2 was purely the product of US military thinking, and not necessarily a demonstration of overall requirement in every military the world over.

The US wanted stealth aircraft for use as a first strike capability - give your stealth bombers the green light to hit Moscow and the leadership bunkers well before you made any other public display of aggression, and your enemy will be in disarray while you can leisurely launch your non-stealth bombers and ICBMs to finish them off.

The US already had tactical first strike capability in the F-117, but they wanted it across the board - they wanted to be able to beat MAD when it suited them.

Remember, the B-2 was ordered and designed during a period when the USSR was becoming severely less aggressive toward the western world - that alone shows the thoughts here.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Thats a very good point about the misson requiremets Richard, however I will correct it a bit. B-2 was not build to attack the Moscow. For that task you need the completely different plane - fast, supersonic deep penetration strike bomber. B-2 was intended to cruise inside the large soviet territory and together with the other recce and intellingence gathering systems (such as Tier III) search for the mobile (car and train based) ICBM launchers. And of course to destroy them. This is why it is subsonic, with great endurance and high degree of stealth/survivability.

Soviets simply didnt have that kind of the requirements. What they needed was the modern ASW plane with long endurance for hunting the US Trident submarines. This is why the Tu-202 was created. And T-60/T-60S/izdelije 54 were true tactical conventional/nuclear bombers for the operative and flexible use in the ww3.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
hmm so when this fails like the f111 will there be a russian f-14.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I went looking for that TU-202 that was mentioned above and couldnt find much on it...

but I did find a website, not sure of the language, that has some pics of assorted russian planes and a model and schematic for a supposed B2 counterpart (bottom of the page)

no idea what the rest of the page says, but I've never seen it before so I just thought I'd throw it out there

probably bunk so no shooting me down in flames people

linky


EDIT: haha oops, scratch that, it's the poster above's personal website
perhaps he can explain what it is? just a model? fiction? or something real





[edit on 24-1-2010 by maintainright]



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Luke.S: What was not understandable on the statement that the izdelije 54 project is dead for almost 20 years and now obsolete?

maintainright: Yes, its my web. You can find some basic info about the Tu-202 by clicking on the link in the first post. Regarding the link you mentioned, there are some of the dozens designs of the Myasischev M-67 project. The black B-2 like thing is M-67 Kruiser LK-M. It is not a bomber but airborne surveillance aircraft for the detection, tracking and target discrimination methods, as well as providing ICBM tracking information to the ground radar. But these designs /from Myasischev/ were much the engineering exercise rather than something that should be really built. There was also another large project Myasisichev M-63 with a lot of interesting designs, but they are too almost 25 years old and the work progressed much since then. Just one example, the original M-63 variant 21 sketch:

img684.imageshack.us...



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
dam. I was doing homework at the time so not concentrating.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Luke.S
 



That's puts a new meaning to the phrase 'Do your homework before sharing an opinion' ...


Anyhooo.. Matej,

Your post seems to indicate that the Su-34 got some of its design features from this project and I can see the resemblance in the cockpit tandem seating structure (presuming this is tandem).
I wonder though if the T-50/PAK-FA ever to any design cues from this, to accommodate a swing-role capability. any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by muzzleflash

The USA debut the B2 Spirit over 20years ago. Where is Russia's stealth bomber.


I'm afraid that the B-2 was purely the product of US military thinking, and not necessarily a demonstration of overall requirement in every military the world over.

The US wanted stealth aircraft for use as a first strike capability - give your stealth bombers the green light to hit Moscow and the leadership bunkers well before you made any other public display of aggression, and your enemy will be in disarray while you can leisurely launch your non-stealth bombers and ICBMs to finish them off.

The US already had tactical first strike capability in the F-117, but they wanted it across the board - they wanted to be able to beat MAD when it suited them.

Remember, the B-2 was ordered and designed during a period when the USSR was becoming severely less aggressive toward the western world - that alone shows the thoughts here.


Not correct. Aircraft like the B-2, are bought hopefully not to be used as a first strike weapon., but as a deterrent It was not NATO doctrine for a first strike on Moscow, and actually much of what it was to be tasked to do what locating and destorying rail launched nuclear missiles. The B-2 was not designed and ordered to lead a NATO strike on the USSR.

And the B-2 project started well before the F-117 was operational, nor was the F-117 a weapon to go to downtown Moscow either for decapitation strikes.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Your post seems to indicate that the Su-34 got some of its design features from this project and I can see the resemblance in the cockpit tandem seating structure (presuming this is tandem).


It is clearly not the tandem but side by side seating. The cockpit of the izdelije 54 and the one on the Su-34 (with the more glass, especially above the heads) is even bigger than on the Tu-160. The special attention was paid to the possibility for the pilots to be able to rise on the legs and stand during the long flights for a while.







Originally posted by Daedalus3
I wonder though if the T-50/PAK-FA ever to any design cues from this, to accommodate a swing-role capability. any thoughts?


If you mean cockpit/forward fuselage, not at all. PAK FA will be only the single seater. Two seater (in tandem) is requested only by the India and it is PAK FA derivate called FGFA (see bottom of the linked page).

www.hitechweb.genezis.eu...



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by matej
It is clearly not the tandem but side by side seating. The cockpit of the izdelije 54 and the one on the Su-34 (with the more glass, especially above the heads) is even bigger than on the Tu-160. The special attention was paid to the possibility for the pilots to be able to rise on the legs and stand during the long flights for a while.


I apologize, seems I didn't do my grammar h/w
.. I meant non-tandem, i.e. side-by-side..



If you mean cockpit/forward fuselage, not at all.


No I meant the other features that are more attenuated towards a bomber role, but from your answer, I presume the PAK-FA is not envisioned as a swing role bomber?



PAK FA will be only the single seater. Two seater (in tandem) is requested only by the India and it is PAK FA derivate called FGFA (see bottom of the linked page).
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu...


Good read.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
The Never Ending Story...
Any article posting something new from Russia is not being discussed like an article by facts only with inappropriate USA patriotic blinded pride. Insults take place and WOW We had this years ago...
Let me tell you and one can find many facts on the internet that ex Yugoslav army had produced radars for all USAF stealth fighters and bombers... Russians have improved it and it works perfectly. So there is no stealth for Russia... but they have developed Sukhoi 47 that is indeed very stealthy to all USA radars
Those are facts with no unneeded insults about rusted tech in Russia. This so called rust is just a US propaganda to make you USA people think there is no one and can't be no one better than you. Also Russia has developed first operating satelite Sputnik long before USA, Russia has developed first space station with live people on it called MIR... and many other things... first man in space, first live creature called Laika - dog. They have developed hard fuel for rockets and as far as I know they have the only rocket that can reach Mars with live people on board. This project was to be done with USA after cold war ended.
Now, we all know all those are facts and I wonder do some primitive patriots still can comment posts about Russian weapons or other stuff developed there as RUST?
Comm on give us a brake!!! One posting Russia is rust only makes a fool out of him as I hope this ATS pages mostly read highly educated people and of course many more just to know more, but there are dumb people that really should be blocked on those ATS forums as they are posting insults and what is most funny they are so stupid they post child story's told in school's by 10 yo children who actually believe that Iron man exists

Keep your posts on a level of normal IQ or do not post here.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Academic painter
 


Don't forget they were the first to send a probe with a rover to moon as well.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join