Not at 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 in 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, they need to work out the order. 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 person in uniform among the crying, it became interesting. They know how to put the topic in such a way that, willy-nilly, you think, if not about how right they are, then at least how much they lie. Therefore, having quickly thrown over the main problems voiced by the gentlemen on the salary in dollars, he climbed into the jungle of the Internet, looking for answers on forums where just volatile comrades are discussing such things.
It turned out that there are more than enough of such "warm and tube" forums. And here's what happened. I think that everything turned out quite logically, since I took answers to unasked questions from the opinions of people, one way or another connected with the work of aviation.
So is it really worth driving the Tu-22M to Syria at all? Let's try to figure it out.
First. Let's start by asking a simple question: why are all these movements at all? Why is there aviation in general and bomber aviation in particular?
In my opinion, everything that happens in any branch of the army is dedicated to one and only task: to be ready to carry out an order, if it arrives. This applies to absolutely everyone, without exception.
Another question is that aviation is probably one of the most expensive branches of the armed forces. No wonder, because training a pilot (and especially a good pilot) and, for example, an air defense missile system operator is still different things. It's clear.
Plus, there are at least 10-15 (and maybe more) service personnel per pilot. Engineers of all stripes, maintenance specialists, gunsmiths and other high-class specialists. And if you add service battalions, security guards and other ground personnel to this, then this figure can be increased at least threefold.
And that's okay. For the plane is the quintessence of complexity as a weapon.
But even in peacetime (especially, by the way), all this mass of personnel requires investment of money. He (personnel) must be dressed, put on shoes, fed and so on. Glory to those who need it, there are no problems with this in aviation today. Almost not.
What is the most important criterion for return? How to assess the quality of investment? The payoff is simple: high quality flight crew training and guaranteed ability to complete the assigned task. Point.
Under the USSR it was called "Constant combat readiness". I don't think the meaning has changed in any way today.
So, what is needed to complete tasks and receive returns? That's right, flights, flights and flights again. Pilot training programs, class raids, commissioning after breaks (I watched this in Halino: took a vacation - go ahead, at the helm, remember if you forgot something), all this requires one thing - flights. Circle flights in the area of airfields in simple and difficult weather conditions, flights in the zone, flights on routes from 2 to 5 hours. Plus practicing strikes against targets.
Everything here is clear even to a person far from aviation. These movements are included in the budget of the Ministry of Defense. You have to burn kerosene for anyone, alcohol, by the way, too. As I understand it, in the Tu-22M, up to 100 liters of this cute liquid hangs around the systems.
Flying. It is clear that the number of places in our country where you can fly and bomb is limited. And in this regard, Syria is a completely new route. Nothing different from any other in terms of components. And, if all this is arranged within the framework of the exercises, then the cost is penny. Additional costs in the form of travel personnel when working from jump airfields also do not particularly hit the budget.
And the return in the form of the implementation of the BZ, coupled with the political component - here is already an obvious profit. The destruction of terrorists and their infrastructure is a useful thing, especially considering the fact that they are destroyed systematically and regularly.
Second. Armament costs.
What is the main reason for hammering Tu-22M Basmachi? FAB-500 air bombs … As a product, the bomb was developed in 1932. Yes, it went through a bunch of modernizations, in 1954, 1962, 1978 and 1989. But its essence has remained unchanged since 1941. Uncontrollably fly from top to bottom and make badabum at the bottom. A question of aiming accuracy and fall calculation. Yes, except for the FAB-500, ours use bombs of other calibers, but the essence of this does not change.
Not just a lot of these ammunition have been produced. Meanwhile, each ammunition has its own shelf life. At the end of which it (the ammunition) must be disposed of. What is comparable in cost to the production of a new one. The only question that remains is what can be disposed of by disassembling and other things, or what can be bombed out. On the landfill or on the heads of the Basmachs. 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 has been used for a long time, back in World War II. But if you remember, for the effective implementation of this method, the Americans and the British needed air armada of hundreds of bombers. And the goals achieved by the carpet bombing were more than dubious. But the surviving residents of Dresden, Kiel, Hamburg and Tokyo would tell about this better than me.
The current T-22M3 has a new Hephaestus aiming system, which has increased the accuracy of targeting by an order of magnitude, taking into account all kinds of meteorological conditions and other factors. "Where will you please? Ah, such and such a square? Receive and sign …"
It’s strange, the whole world is watching, and the guardians have no time for it. And it would be worthwhile to see with what accuracy everything that is needed is carried out, such ancient things as the FAB-500. At an 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 same Kh-38 and Kh-15 are almost never used. Even the old X-55. Why, if the FAB-500 cope with the assigned tasks?
Third. It's quite funny here. Many sofa critics are outraged that, they say, why do they fly half empty? How should the bomber fly? Hanged all on the outside and with full bomb bays. Then, like, and there will be an effect. And so - stupid combustion of fuel, and nothing more.
External suspension is good. On it, the Tu-22M3 can carry as many as 36 FAB-250 bombs. On photographs and in exercises, it looks quite weighty and menacing. But the external suspension is also additional air resistance, which means a decrease in speed and range.
Fourth. One more aspect. Maximum allowable landing weight. Knowledgeable people say that it is unrealistic to find a photo of a Tu-22M3 with three Kh-22 missiles, although the technical data allows it to do so. For with three (this is 15 tons) it was not possible to sit down.
And with bombs, the same weirdness. In the event of a change or withdrawal of a combat mission, or a malfunction of the aircraft, a logical question arises - where to put everything hung up? Okay, if it happens in Syria, and if on our territory? To dump on the heads of the 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 will not be useful in Russia in the near future? Because if one Tu-22M dumps 9 tons from the outside, it will definitely be possible to forget about this area for an indefinite time. And if three?
Syria is far away, and therefore the crews are flying with a load only in bomb bays. It is logical even for a non-specialist in this field. This is, damn it, combat use, 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 out and return. And just Syria is a testing ground for such actions.
In my opinion, a layman, the use of "Carcasses" in full load can be only in one case: when the use and return are fully guaranteed. That is, close by.
The question arises: are we preparing long-range aviation to bomb our borders? So what? But what about "hitting the enemy on its territory," and what is then the meaning of YES in general?
Meanwhile, the Tu-22M that flew to Syria brings there "for three" almost 40 tons of bombs. As practice shows, this is more than enough. Especially when you consider the work of "Hephaestus", which allows you to lay high-explosive and concrete-piercing monsters with an accuracy that is not inferior to corrected aerial bombs.
Thus, it turns out that the main issue, namely the fulfillment of the combat mission, is being resolved in full. If the task is to destroy objects, then they must be destroyed. This is the main indicator of the effectiveness of flight personnel training. And, although my opinion differs from the opinion of the clever gentlemen from the TV, this process is going in the right direction. Long-range aviation is practicing combat missions (I emphasize, combat missions, not training missions) properly.
And for the country's budget it is not so stressful. The ability of YES crews to hit targets at long distances is more expensive. Especially when you consider that one Tu-22M flight costs less than the production of one "Caliber".
Yes, and then, such a thought came to mind at the end. Do not write off FABs. Although the thing is ancient, it has one plus. FAB, unlike cruise missiles, does not know what electronic warfare is. It wasn't really there yet. Therefore, he is not afraid. And, acting against the enemy, which has a developed combat system, the FAB is quite capable of solving the problem of neutralizing electronic warfare stations. And then "calibrate" as you like, for any format.
But that is another story.
