That's the kh-SD, Kh-MT, Gzur program, all to be launched from inside the TU-22M3M and Tu-95MS, what I don't understand is why the kh-50 should be launched from the Tu-160, I don't see what that plane gains from that.
The missiles that fit inside the Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS will fit double in the Blackjack... whose bomb bays are 12 metres long... so either 6 Kh-102s or 12 Kh-50s in each weapon bay.
Depending on the flight path a Blackjack might have to fly relatively close to some targets for its longer ranged missiles to reach targets further away so instead of carrying 12 Kh-102s it could carry 6 Kh-102s and also 12 Kh-50s and hit 18 targets instead of 12...
Or a theatre mission for a Blackjack into europe it might carry 24 Kh-50s instead.
If so TU-22M3M could have an ~5000km combat radius with 3 Khynzal and 6 Kh-50 Cool
The three missile arrangement with the Kh-32 has one missile on each wing root hard point and one along the centreline missile semi conformal... half inside the internal bomb bay... so with that configuration you can't carry weapons internally.
The Kinzhal is supposed to be carried fully externally so the two weapon locations on the wing, plus under the air intakes they often fit multiple ejector racks for mounting triples of 500 kg bombs... usually three or four triples so it should be able to take the weight of a Kinzhal and that would leave the belly position for the rotary launcher.
Note that for export of the Backfire it mentions it can carry up to ten missiles which I always took to mean 6 Kh-15 missiles internally and four externally.
It might be the wing pylons are extended and two can be carried on each in tandem of course.
And from your post we can guess kh-50 will be nuclear, or have a nuclear version...
I would assume nuclear and non nuclear versions...
I'm talking about the newest variant for su57. It has a range of 500km and is stealthier than other variants with probably Glosnass guidance without the need to turn on the video link (not sure about that however, maybe it's not the case and that why they develop new missiles which are real fire and forget).
The new square body ones? I believe they have radar equipped noses with more sophisticated radar detecting and identifying targets, but it might keep the data link for selecting targets anyway. I remember the first model had a solid rocket motor to rapidly accelerate the missile out in front of the launch aircraft so the data link pod could gather it and then the jet engine took over. That data link had a range of about 140km, and the missile was called AS-13 Kingbolt or something. They upgraded the electronics so it no longer needed the rocket booster so they put in more fuel and doubled the flight range and extended the effective range of the data link and called it the AS-18 Kazoo or something.
The new models don't have nose mounted optical ports and I suspect use radar... MMW radar most likely...
Against a better equiped country hypersonic missiles could be used to deal with big AD like patriot systems the first day but that's what ? Not even 4 systems per country. Then what's the point of using 2000km hypersonic missiles against undefended targets when a simple subsonic cruise missile like kh-59mk2 or kh35 can do the job with enough stand off for the launch aircraft.
I agree mostly, but while most western countries don't have IADS, they do have lots of fighter planes, which would be ideal to chase down subsonic cruise missiles, but next to useless against hypersonic missiles flying at 30km plus altitudes...
Hypersonic missiles could be used against a wide range of targets with their short flight times being a real bonus in some situations... catching the other team napping so to speak... but I agree there is plenty of scope for subsonic missiles... they will likely be cheaper to start with, but the engines of hypersonic missiles wont be spectacularly more expensive than modern low fuel consumption turbojets...
China is using pre cooled engine instead of scramjet for hypersonic cruise missile.
You cool engines to keep them from over heating and destroying themselves but generally engines produce heat for propulsion so running hot is only an issue for long term use which is not really a factor in the engine for a missile.
their air force which is the worst thing to use against cruise missiles.
If you have AWACS aircraft managing things it wouldn't be so bad, but keeping your planes up looking for cruise missiles sneaking down rivers or along the line of hills out of radar view then yes they are appalling.
And apart kh-59, russian air force has no other tactical cruise missile with enough stand off range This missile has the disadvantage of needing the pilot to control it in last stage. The other missile is kh-101 but it is huge and I considere it as a strategic missile.
Well that is what the 500km range Kh-22M and 800km range Kh-32 were for... that is what the Backfire would carry on SEAD and strike missions in to Europe. Some people mistake them for anti carrier missiles but they are heavy strike missiles first... a bit like a large version of the Kh-31 in the P and the A models.
The land attack models had 800kt nuclear warheads, which should indicate what sort of occupation they were planning in Europe after WWIII.
IMO a kh-59 with guidance taken from kalibr is the best option for a widely used tactical missile.
The last model Kh-59 with the box shape has a radar sensor in the nose so it no longer uses optical guidance.
Ironically a TV guided missile with a 320kg HE warhead and a 115km flight range that could be targeted against an object optically from a standoff launch range outside the range of most naval SAMs of the time would have been an excellent anti ship weapon... in the early 1980s... over water it operated at 7m altitude but over land you could set the height it operated at...
Regardless, giving the specifications, it shouldn't even be a challenge for Russia to deploy an air-launched Kalibre of 6,2m Length and around 2000kg Mass, with a 1500-2000km range.
Heck it already exists in export, all they need to do is change the fuel and software, could be deployed in a matter of months.
The Kalibr is the conventionally armed land attack subsonic 2,500km range missile launched from ships and subs. The aircraft equivalents start with the Kh-55SM and Kh-555 3,000km range subsonic missiles with nuclear and conventional warheads respectively. The Kh-101 is the 5,500km range subsonic conventional equivalent with the nuclear armed Kh-102 also being available.
The urgency for medium range cruise missiles is largely negated by having Su-34 and Tu-22M3 aircraft as well as Tu-95 and Tu-160 delivery platforms available.
I see my comment was removed but the original troll post was not. Pfft. Miketheterrible is right about this site.
Which comment? I didn't remove anything.
That's the problem. They need one like that. Cheap subsonic cruise missile of 500-600km range.
I would think land based cruise missiles with 500km range (allowed under the INF treaty) and the new variants with longer range allowed now the INF treaty is no more are always going to be cheaper than air launched models...
2000km iskander or kinzhal is the best solution and they have big warheads of 800kg with submunitions, cruise missile being more limited to around 300-400. Submunitions cover a wider area.
Iskander are faster reload cheaper and more easy to operate and they can be armed and ready to fire 24/7.
So why not add some cruise missiles to those launchers... being a subsonic platform adding a 500 litre fuel tank could greatly extend range without making the missile much bigger or heavier or more expensive...
Yes sure, that capability gap between tactical and strategic cruise missiles was a very serious problem, moreover Federation need significantly more than 500-600 km range from those weapons because the main targets would be OTAN airbases hosting mostly tactical aircraft (in the next two decades mostly F-35s) which can carry JASSM-JASSM-ER on external pylons and wanting to mantain the stand-off range of domestic airbases ,from which the attacks should take place, against those US-built aircraft you must take into account theirs combat range with a JASSM/JASSM-ER payload.
I think the old solution was the best solution... some new SS-20 Sabre missile vehicles...
Increase the surace affect the speed of combustion, not the energy released by it.
Energy released is surely energy released over time, so increasing the combustion rate is going to release the energy faster... you pull back on the string of a bow slowly but when you release all that stored energy is released immediately moving the arrow through the air far faster than you moved your fingers drawing the string...