Russian special military operation in Ukraine #54

https://t.me/belarusian_silovik/31758

Question is why they went with the M54 casings for these new builds rather than a more UMPK-friendly one. Counting on UA AD being so attrited as to allow for direct overflights by Tu-22Ms?

As you probably already know the M54 bombs are designed for internal carriage and for aerodynamic breaking so when dropped at relatively low level they rapidly slow down as they fall so they don't hit the ground directly below the bomber that dropped it and damage the bomber.

Because they are designed for internal carriage they are shorter and fatter and much much less aerodynamic and are intended for use on subsonic aircraft like the Su-25 or to be carried internally in bomb bays, or in tandem on multiple ejector racks that are not going to be aerodynamic on the aircraft anyway.

The aerodynamic M62 design bombs are designed be carried externally on supersonic or fast aircraft like MiG-27, Su-24, Su-34, Su-27/20/35 and MiG-29/35 and are longer but of a more aerodynamic shape on the wing pylon so they don't impose as much drag on the aircraft.

Obviously that is the concept but in practice you will see Tu-22M3s dropping a cluster of 9 to 12 M62 bombs from their bomb bays when hitting targets so it is not a hard and fast rule.

The thing is that AFAIK there are M62 models of 100kg and 250kg and 500kg and 1,500kg bombs but I don't ever remember seeing M62 models of the FAB-3000 or FAB-5000 or FAB-9000 because they are almost never carried externally and dropping them at low altitude would be suicide unless they had a parachute to slow them down.

As shown, the high drag design of the M54 bombs can be negated with a sheet metal fairing over the nose to restore a level of aerodynamic performance to the weapon and even though these thing will mostly fall at subsonic speeds the extra weight of the bigger bombs will have more influence on their throw range than minor aerodynamic features.

When talking about a rifle bullet a pointed nose will massively reduce drag for a supersonic bullet so most rifle bullets are pointy, but for bullets that are mostly subsonic or near subsonic like pistol rounds from a pistol or SMG or carbine their noses are rounded because at subsonic speeds it is the shape of the tail or rear end that effects drag more than the shape of the nose.

With these big bombs I suspect the rear end effects drag more than the big rounded nose too for all the same reasons.

With an FAB-3000 the speed it hits the target is not going to matter a huge amount.

Especially if it is the FAE model...  

The design for these extremely heavy freefall bombs is old from 1954 series. Redesign is time consuming job and we have seen that these can be easily modified to be glide friendly attaching simple aerodynamic cover front of them.

They wouldn't redesign them. They designed the 1954 model to replace the pishpash of all the different previous bomb designs from WWI onwards to the mid 50s.

As planes started getting faster they realised they needed a more aerodynamic shaped bomb to be carried on the wings of their planes as they got faster and faster so in 1962 they introduced aerodynamic versions of the bombs... but AFAIK only the lighter bombs that would be carried on the wings of their faster aircraft, so there were no M62 versions of the really big bombs because they were carried in aircraft like the Tu-16 and Tu-22M family planes and the Myasishchev bombers. These were planes designed to carry the early big heavy nuclear bombs so the FAB-9000 could be carried in the Tu-16, while the Tu-22M could carry the  FAB-5000s.

Molds are expensive but can be everlasting. That is the case for the Soviet Union created metallurgy.
They simply have those on hand, in big numbers, and the aerodynamic cap costs are bargain.

They produce both because they use both. There is no real advantage to carrying FAB-250M62 bombs on the MER for the Tu-22M3 because putting 12 bombs on each pylon is going to generate drag no matter the shape of the bomb.

Russian political scientist Sergei Markov: "If there is a war between Russia and NATO, it will be for Odessa."

Will be interesting to see which side the people of Odessa support...

Today's edition of the Financial Times claimed, that US insisted on the Ukrs to cease attacking Russian energy infrastructure, as it can brig both retaliation and stress to global energy prices ...

So the US says you can kill Russians and hit Russian targets, but don't damage fuel or energy that might end up making us pay more for fuel... sounds like Russia should stop selling energy to the US and the west and reduce exports for a year or so... at least until the US elections are over...

Should have done this two years ago but better late than never I guess....

Doing it this way Russia has a legitimate way to respond to Nazi attacks and anyone effected by the destruction of these damns can say... well they didn't destroy them until Kiev did something to Russia so in a way it is Kievs fault.

You don't destroy the infrastructure on the territories that will be yours soon, until not an absolute necessity.

Unless it needs to be replaced anyway... A bit of temporary discomfort for them to blame Kiev on might be useful about now.

Do any Western missiles have this feature?

Not as far as I am aware... and more importantly AFAIK western air defence systems don't expect to be targeting missiles that release flares and chaff and decoys and contain disposable jammers.  (Iskander is one of the best equipped as well as being very very fast and manouvering all the way to impact).

Thread continued here