Category Soviet x-plenes

In the mid-1960s the tactical arm of the Soviet Air Force (FA) needed a replacement for the elderly Yakovlev Yak-28 Brewer tactical bombers. The Yak-28 proved disappointing due to short range and severe restric­tions in the use of its weapons. By the mid-1960s, two important factors became evident. The first was the superiority of equivalent US designs, such as the General Dynamics F-111, due to higher performance, wider weapons range and outstandingly superior avionics. The second factor was the rapid development in surface-to-air missile technology; this required new tactical bomber to have supersonic low-level attack capa­bility, which placed high demands on airframe strength and required automatic terrain following capability.

Thus the Sukhoi design bureau (OKB) started work on a tactical bomber which would be the Soviet counterpart of the F-111. Initially the designers settled for mid-set wings with 40° leading-edge sweep. Receiving the in-house designation S-6, it was to have a top speed of 2,500 km/h (1,550 mph) and an all up weight of 20,000 kg (44,090 lb). The two crew members sat in tandem, and the two 7,200-kgp (15,870- lb st) Tumanskiy R-21F-300 afterburning turbojets were placed side-by – side in the rear fuselage, breathing through lateral air intakes.

It soon became evident that a conventional layout was inadequate for the project, and attention was turned to variable-geometry wings and lift-jets, the work proceeding in parallel on these two lines. A com­pletely new project designated T-6 was started. The first prototype, known as the T6-1, entered flight test on 2nd July 1967 with test pilot Vladimir S. Il’yushin at the controls. It had double-delta wings with 60° leading-edge sweep on the inner wings. The crew of two was seated side-by-side. Behind the cockpit were four Kolesov RD36-35 lift engines intended to improve field performance. Initially, two Tumanskiy R-27F2-300 cruise engines rated at 10,200 kgp (22,400 lb st) in full after­burner (again fed by variable lateral air intakes) were fitted; the air for the main engines was used to cool the lift-jets. The intended 11,200-kgp (24,750-lb st) Lyul’ka AL-21 F afterburning turbojets were fitted later.

The T6-1 was intended to carry air-to-surface missiles, unguided rockets, air-to-air missiles, bombs and other stores on four wing and two fuselage hardpoints. The wing span was 10.41m (34.14 ft), overall length 23.72 m (77.8 ft), height 6.373 m (20.9 ft) and wing area 45.33 sq. m (487.9 sq. ft). Maximum TOW was 26,100 kg (57,540 lb).

In the course of trials the Soviet Air Force changed its requirements; the ordnance load was increased to such an extent that lift engines were no longer viable. Also, the contradictory requirements of attack at transonic speeds at ground level and short-field capability were still there. Studies by the Central Aero- and Hydrodynamics Institute (TsAGI) showed that variable-geometry wings compared so favourably with every other possible layout that the Sukhoi OKB radically redesigned the T-6 less than six months after the first flight.

The second prototype, designated T6-2I (the T denoting izmenyayemaya [gheometriya], variable geometry) was completed in late 1969 and took to the air on 17th January 1970, again with Vladimir S. Il’yushin at the controls. The most important change was the new VG wings; they had four sweep settings: 16° for take-off and landing, 35° for loitering and cruise, 45° for manoeuvring and 69° for transonic/super – sonic flight. The fuselage was redesigned to increase fuel capacity and the air intakes were modified. The undercarriage was strengthened to let the aircraft carry an increased warload.

Tests of the T6-2I continued until 1976. The aircraft was soon joined by two more prototypes, the T6-3I and T6-4I. The results were encour­aging and in December 1971 the bomber entered series production at the Novosibirsk aircraft factory No. 153, receiving the service designa­tion Su-24; the in-house designation at the plant was “izdeliye (product) 41”. Initial operational capability was achieved in 1973 but it was not until 1975 that the Su-24 was formally included into the inventory. This version was known to the West by the NATO reporting name Fencer-A.

Modifications to the design were continually implemented as pro­duction progressed. E. g., wing span and wing area were increased soon after the beginning of production. Problems with the variable air intakes caused the intakes to be widened from the 4th production batch onwards (1972) when the to give an increased frontal area. Pressure from the WS to increase range led the OKB to increase the capacity of the number 1 fuel tank by 1,000 litres (220 Imp. gal.) starting with Batch 8, with a concurrent saving in weight which could be used for extra fuel. Operational experience showed the airframe was strong enough to carry more weapons, so two more hardpoints were added on the cen­treline, increasing the total to eight and the weapons load to 8,000 kg (17,680 lb). Weapons delivery was controlled by a PNS-24 Tigr naviga – tion/attack system enabling automatic flight along a pre-programmed route, weapons delivery and return to base.

Important changes were introduced in Batch 15 when the shape of the rear fuselage was redesigned to reduce drag. The box-like structure around the engine nozzles was replaced by a more rounded one with a deeply dished bottom between the nozzles and the brake parachute container was moved up. Extensions were added to the fin at the top and along the leading edge; the upper extension supported the A-711 navigation antenna and the leading edge now accommodated the RSDN-10 long-range radio navigation (LORAN) antenna and a cooling air intake for the generators. SPO-15 Beryoza (Birch) passive radar warning antennae in triangular fairings were placed on either side of the fin near the top. Other changes made at this time included the addition of leading-edge flaps to the outer wings and a reduction in the number of flap sections from three to two each side. This version was known to the West as the Fencer-B. An updated version with Beryoza (Birch) radar homing and warning system (RHAWS) antennae on the air intakes and near the top of the fin was code-named Fencer-C.

By 1975 the ongoing problems with the variable air intakes were finally solved by introducing fixed-area intakes from Batch 21 onwards, which also gave a weight saving of 200 kg (440 lb). Aircraft previously built with variable intakes had that control disconnected. As a result, top speed was effectively limited to 1,400 km/h (870 mph) or Mach 1.4 at sea level, except for very short emergency bursts of Mach 2. This was considered an acceptable trade-off against the elimination of previous problems, as 1,400 km/h at S/L had become the standard attack mode. Concurrently the wings were redesigned and given a different airfoil.

Although improvements were constantly incorporated, this did not affect the designation. It was not until 1975 that enough design changes took place to justify a new designation, T6-M or Su-24M (modifi tseerovannyy – modified). The eighth prototype of the Su-24 sans suf – fixe (T6-8) was converted into the Su-24M prototype and redesignated T6-8M, making its first flight on 24th June 1977. Production began in 1978; the aircraft was known at plant No. 153 as izdeliye 44; the NATO reporting name was Fencer-D.

Major changes were made to the avionics; the most fundamental one was the fitment of a new weapons control system – the PNS-24M Tigr NS. To accommodate the new equipment the forward fuselage was extended by 76 cm and lowered by 15 cm. Apart from the reshaped nose, the Su-24M could be identified by the straight air data boom at the tip of the radome replacing the F-shaped antenna assembly of ear­lier versions, nicknamed “goose” because of its shape. A Kai’ra-24M

(Grebe) day/night low light level TV system/laser designator was fitted, enabling the aircraft to carry laser – and TV-guided missiles and "smart bombs”. Also, the number of weapons carried was increased by the addition of a ninth hardpoint.

Combat capability was greatly improved by the addition of an in­flight refuelling system. An L-shaped FPSh-5M retractable IFR probe was installed just ahead of the cockpit to allow refuelling from another Su-24M fitted with a UPAZ-1A Sakhalin "buddy” refuelling pack or an ll’yushin IL-78/IL-78M Midas tanker. A new Karpaty (Carpathian moun­tains) defence system was introduced. Rounded boundary layer fences were initially fitted on the edge of the wing glove in line with the inner wing pylons; on some aircraft they housed chaff/flare dispensers. Later, when it was discovered that the wing fences improved longitudinal sta­bility but impaired directional stability, they were removed and the dis­pensers relocated to the upper rear fuselage.

In the mid-1980s permission was granted to export the Su-24M. In the late 1980s the OKB brought out an export version designated Su-24MK (kommehrcheskiy – “commercial”, i. e., export version) or izdeliye 44M. The first flight took place in 1987 and small-scale produc­tion commenced in 1988. The Su-24MK differed little from the standard Fencer-D – mainly in the avionics (particularly the IFF system) and weapons options; for example, the Su-24MK could carry more bombs – 38 FAB-100s compared with 34 on the Su-24M and four air-to-air mis­siles instead of two. All export Su-24MKs had angular wing fences, even though they were being removed at the time from Soviet Air Force Fencers. Sales reported so far are: to Iraq (24), Libya (15), Syria (12) and Iran (9).

In 1978 the OKB started full-scale development of the T-6MR recon­naissance version of the Su-24M. Intended as a successor to the out­dated and “short-legged" Yak-27R, Yak-28R and MiG-21 R, it was to operate at a depth of up to 400 km (250 miles) from the front line, day or night in any weather. The first flight took place in September 1980; two prototypes (the T6MR-26 and T6MR-34) were tested and the aircraft entered production and service as the Su-24MR ([samolyot-] razved – chik, reconnaissance aircraft) or izdeliye 48. The NATO code name was Fencer-E.

The comprehensive BKR-1 Shtyk (Bayonet) reconnaissance suite included a Shtyk MR-1 synthetic aperture side-looking airborne radar (SLAR) in the nose covering an area of 4 to 28 km (2.5-17.3 miles) from the centreline; a Zima (Winter) thermal imager; an Aist-M (Stork-M) TV camera; a Kadr (Photo exposure) PHOTINT system comprising an AP-102 panoramic camera and an AFA-A-100 oblique camera; an Efir-1 M (Ether-1 M; pronounced efeer) radiation monitor in a pod under the starboard outer wing; and a Tangahzh (Pitch, in the aeronautical sense) radio monitoring pod or a Shpil’-2M (Spire-2M) laser line-scan pod providing an image of almost photographic quality on the fuselage centreline. Data was recorded on tape but could be instantly transmit­ted to ground stations if required. Three underfuselage hardpoints and the built-in cannon were removed; two R-60 or R-60M air-to-air missiles could be carried under the port wing for self-defence.

Design work on the Su-24MP Fencer-F (izdeliye 46) electronic countermeasures (ECM) aircraft began in 1976; its mission was elec­tronic reconnaissance and neutralisation of the enemy’s air defence radars while escorting attack aircraft to their targets. The two prototypes were converted from Su-24M airframes (the T6M-25 and T6M-35) which were then redesignated T6MP-25 and T6MP-35; the P stands for postanovschchik pomekh – ECM platform. (Strictly speaking, the des­ignation ought to have been Su-24PR) The first flight took place in December 1979. Very little technical information relating to this variant has been released, but it is known to have a sophisticated suite for detecting, locating, analysing, identifying and jamming all known elec­tromagnetic emissions. The bulk of this work is handled by the Landysh (Lily of the valley) system and the aircraft can carry active jamming pods, such as the Los’ (Moose), Fasol’ (String bean) or Mimoza (Mimosette), under the fuselage with no apparent loss of performance. Only about twenty Su-24MPs were reportedly built.

Believe it or not, the Su-24 found peaceful uses as well. In the late 1990s the Flight Research Institute in Zhukovskiy operated two Su-24s – Fencer-A “15 White” (c/n 1515301) and Su-24M “11 White” (c/n 1141613) equipped with an air sampling pod for environmental moni­toring purposes.

The Su-24 achieved initial operational capability with the Soviet Air Force (WS) in 1973, even though official acceptance of the type was not given until 1975 – a move not uncommon in the USSR. After being issued to training units, Su-24s were delegated to regiments operating in the Western areas of the USSR and in the Far East. By assigning them to the Ukraine or the Baltic Republics the WS ensured they could be quickly deployed in times of trouble to Eastern Europe. Later, Su-24 units were stationed in East Germany, Poland and Hungary, but the main Fencer force remained in the USSR.

Among those types displaced from bomber divisions of the Tactical Aviation’s Air Armies were the obsolete ll’yushin IL-28 Beagle and Yak-28. A division usually included three bomber regiments, each hav­ing three squadrons with 10 aircraft per squadron. As production rate grew it was decided to equip some of the fighter-bomber divisions in the 4th, 24th and 30th Air Armies with the Su-24 capable of a more strate­gic role. These armies had been created in the early 1970s, reporting to the High Command of the Armed Forces to act as a strategic reserve (rather than to Army Fronts or Defence Districts where there was a risk of their aptitude for attacking behind the battle line being wasted in local situations). It was also easier to maintain a tighter control on the use of the nuclear bombs which these aircraft could carry.

On entering service with FA regiments that had previously operated such types as the Yak-28 and MiG-27, the Su-24 proved to be much more demanding in maintenance and service. Considering the com­plexity of its systems, this was hardly surprising and extra headaches were caused by the fact that this was the Soviet Air Force’s first experi­ence with computerised systems.

The Su-24 required appreciably more time and effort to prepare it for a sortie; on average, it needed 45 minutes work by 15 technicians. This effectively doubled ground crew workload per flight – an insup­portable situation which was tackled with alacrity. The demands of time could not be reduced because 45 minutes was the minimum time taken to spin up the gyroscopes in the navigation/attack system; some mis­sions requiring a greater degree of accuracy needed as much as 1 hour 20 minutes. Nonetheless, improvements could be made to ease the ground crews’ workload.

The biggest headaches to ground and air crews alike came from the avionics. Such was the need for this type of bomber that, as noted ear­lier, it was rushed into service before the State acceptance trials were completed. The complexity of the many systems and the use of an on­board computer stretched the knowledge and patience of the crews. Malfunctions were frequent and there were cases in the early stages of the Fencer’s career when whole squadrons were grounded for several days until remedies were found.

In-flight malfunction of the navigation and targeting system could all too easily put the crew at risk, especially on supersonic nap-of-the-earth (NOE) missions. At best the aircraft was saved but the target missed. It has been known for farms to lose valuable crops, buildings and even livestock when crews failed to realise there was a problem with the equipment and continued the attack in automatic mode, dropping their deadly load on whatever was unlucky enough to be there. There was a case of a crew getting lost, running out of fuel and having to eject because the airmen did not realise in time there was a fault.

The Sukhoi OKB went to great lengths to reduce pre-flight check time by providing easier access to engines, all systems, filters, gover­nors etc. Wheel changing was simplified by eliminating the need for lift­ing equipment. Special attention was given to the reduction of refuelling time by providing single-point pressure refuelling.

Once the teething troubles had been recognised and acknowl­edged, they were relatively easy to resolve. One particular cause for sat­isfaction was the aircraft’s ability to withstand bird strikes; a collision with a large eagle and another with seventeen sparrows resulted in no serious damage – at least not to the aircraft.

In spite of these difficulties, he pilots liked the Su-24, affectionately dubbing it “Chemodahn” (Suitcase) – an allusion to the slab-sided shape of its fuselage. They appreciated the good field of view, the well – planned flight deck and the automatic flight systems, especially on low – level operations. Flight handling was reasonably easy, even though the Su-24 could be less forgiving in certain circumstances. Slowly but sure­ly the restrictions imposed during the service introduction period were lifted until the Su-24 emerged as a first-rate tactical bomber.

The Su-24 has seen action in several armed conflicts, drawing first blood during the Afghan War where the type made its debut in the spring of 1984. With its weapons load of 7 tons (15,430 lb) – more than double that of other Soviet tactical strike aircraft, its impressive range and sophisticated mission avionics, the Fencer would make a valuable addition to the arsenal of the Soviet contingent helping the pro-Soviet Kabul government fight the Mujahideen rebels. Until then the Su-24 had been unavailable for the war, but the need for such an aircraft was now evident. It was decided to use the type from Soviet bases in Uzbekistan and Turkmenia. Thus, two regiments were seconded to the 40th Army, as the group of Soviet forces in Afghanistan was known. In early April 1984 the 143rd BAP (Bomber Regiment) with 26 Su-24Ms, then based in Georgia at Kopitnari (Kutaisi-1) airbase, was detached to Khanabad – the one in south-eastern Uzbekistan (near Karshi), not the one in Afghanistan. At the same time the 149th GvBAP (Guards Bomber Regiment) with Su-24 Fencer-Bs based at Nikolayevka AB in Kazakhstan was relocated to the fighter base at Koka’fdy near Termez, right beside the border.

The primary motive for the presence of Fencers on the Afghan the­atre of operations was the need to subdue Ahmad Shah Massoud, the most capable Mujahideen leader. As a rule, the Su-24s were used against area targets such as Mujahideen fortifications. Prior to the sor­tie, reconnaissance aircraft would photograph the target. Its coordinates would be fed into the bomber’s computer, and everything else was largely automatic; the PNS-24 nav/attack system would take the bomber there and drop the bombs. In the 149th GvBAR Sqn 1 aircraft usually carried four 500-kg bombs each and Sqn 2 and 3 aircraft were armed with twelve 250-kg bombs each; additionally, two drop tanks were always carried.

Su-24 operations in Afghanistan were not very intensive, since the ground forces were more in need of close air support than of carpet bombing. Nor were they particularly successful; the Su-24 had been designed with the relatively flat terrain of Western Europe in mind, and the radar (which could pinpoint small targets such as tanks) had trouble picking out the targets among the jumbled rocks. NOE flying was out of the question because of the many canyons and mountain ridges. Weapons efficiency was low, as guided bombs and missiles showed poor controllability in the rarefied air of the mountains. Bomb-aiming accuracy in level flight was poor; dropping bombs in a 20 to 30-degree dive produced better results but took the bombers within range of the enemy air defences. During the following months, attacks were carried out from altitudes in excess of 5,000 m (16,400 ft) – safely out of range of the Stinger man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) supplied by the Western Alliance to the rebels.

The next time the Fencer appeared in Afghan skies was in 1988. At this stage, when the Soviet Union was already pulling out of the point­less conflict, Su-24 operations were mostly of a psy-war type, intended to exert a constant pressure on the Mujahideen and keep them busy. Sorties were flown not lower than at 7,000 m (22,965 ft) because of the omnipresent Stingers.

Generally the Su-24 had a good reliability record in Afghanistan. The few failures that did take place were mostly associated with hydraulics, flap and engine controls. Initially there were problems with the main nav/attack computer but these were quickly fixed as Afghan experience built up. Sometimes the drop tanks would refuse to give off fuel and had to be jettisoned – which the crews were reluctant to do, knowing that the tanks were in short supply. Because missions were prepared hastily, programming errors occurred and sometimes the navigation data mod­ules would even be installed on the wrong aircraft.

No Fencers were lost to enemy fire in the Afghan War. However, there were a few accidents and incidents. On the night of 13th December 1988 a 149th GvBAP forgot to set the wings and flaps for takeoff (they were always rotated to full sweep on the ground to save ramp space) and took off with the wings at maximum sweep. The fully fuelled and bombed-up aircraft managed to get unstuck at the last moment, crashing through the fence around the inner marker beacon and destroying the antenna in so doing; then it climbed away with a shocking 27-degree angle of attack and proceeded to the target. The rest of the sortie went normally, except for the flapless landing on return (the flap control unit had been annihilated when the aircraft hit a fence post). The crew was saved by the bomber’s rugged design and the fiat terrain around the base (eyewitnesses said the aircraft “could have run all the way to Afghanistan”!).

In December 1988 a 735th BAP Su-24 went off the side of the run­way when landing at Khanabad in a stiff crosswind. One of the main gear units hit a pothole and collapsed, rupturing a fuel line and causing a massive fire. The crew escaped but the WSO later died from burns.

Despite the Soviet withdrawal, the Su-24s stayed around for anoth­er month, ready to support Najibuilah’s government if the Mujahideen made an attack on Kabul. In the event, however, this was not needed and the aircraft returned to their home bases in March 1989, ending the Fencer’s Afghan involvement.

The type remained in active service in post-Soviet days. Apart from Russia, in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) the Su-24 was operated by the air forces of Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

The Russian Su-24s were also actively used in the First Chechen War (1994-96) and the Second Chechen War (1999-2001) against Chechen separatists. These missions did not always go without losses; three Fencers were shot down by MANPADS.

It is nearly 35 years since the first flight of the Su-24 prototype and 30 years since it first entered service with the WS. Despite many improvements to the airframe, avionics and systems, it does not incor­porate the latest state-of-the-art and no attempt has been made to ren­der it stealthy. Therefore, plans were in hand to replace it with a modern strike aircraft from the Sukhoi stable – the Su-34 (Su-32FN), a two-seat side-by-side derivative of the Su-27 Flanker interceptor. Yet budgetary constraints have caused these plans to be delayed, compelling the Russian Air Force to change its approach. Several Russian companies, such as Gefest&T, are offering mid-life updates for the Su-24M. Designated Su-24M2, the first upgraded aircraft having enhanced all- weather/night capability (38 White, c/n 1041643) was unveiled at the MAKS-2001 airshow. No doubt the introduction of the Su-34 will be a high-priority task, but shortage of funds (together with upgrade possi­bilities) will ensure that the Su-24M and MR will still be in Russian tacti­cal bomber and reconnaissance regiments for a few more years.

◄

Seen here at OKB-51 ‘s flight test facility in Zhukovskiy, the T6-1 (the first prototype of the Sukhoi T-6 tactical bomber) differed a lot from subsequent aircraft in the series. This view shows clearly the cranked delta wings similar to those of the Su – 15TM interceptor, the separately opening port and staboard canopy halves, the V-shaped window of the laser rangefinder ahead of the windscreen, the engine cooling air intakes on the rear fuselage and the land – ing/taxi lights on the sides of the nose. The closed dorsal intakes of the buried Kolesov RD36-35 lift jets in the fuselage are not vis­ible here.

▲

The T6-1 lacked a dielectric radome, fea­turing an all-metal nose ahead of the cock­pit windshield.

A “toad’s eye view” of the T6-1 seen head – on. Note the shape of the two-dimensional air intakes, the six weapons hardpoints, the straight pitot at the tip of the nose, the back-up pitot near the port wingtip and the nozzles of the lift jets between the under­fuselage pylons. The relatively narrow land­ing gear track is also noteworthy.

◄

A three-quarters rear view of the T6-1, showing the rectangular section of the fuselage forming a box around the engine nozzles, the lack of ventral fins, the brake parachute container at the base of the fin and the radar warning receiver (RWR) antenna near the fin tip. Note the unusual variant of the Soviet Air Force insignia on this aircraft with a pentagon incorporated into the middle of the star.

►

◄

After giving up on the use of lift jets which imposed an unacceptable weight penalty the OKB redesigned the T-6 radically, Incorporating variable-sweep wings to reconcile speed and field performance requirements. This is one of the prototypes of the Su-24 “sans suffixe”in the assembly shop of 0KB-51’s experimental plant in Moscow. This view shows clearly the wings at minimum sweep and the double-slotted flaps. Note that the rear fuselage, which was detachable for engine maintenance/ change, is still unpainted, indicating that the aircraft is undergoing conversion to a new variant (probably the Fencer-B proto­type). The aircraft in the background is the T10-1, the first prototype of the Su-27 fighter (NATO code name Flanker-A).

◄

The T6-2I (coded 62 Yellow) at the flight test facility during manufacturer’s tests. Note the warning markings near the radome (“Danger, HF radiation”) and the air intake bodies (“Danger, jet intake”). Note also the Sukhoi OKB’s “winged archer” logo beneath the cockpit and the red band near the top of the fin. The land­ing lights are still built into the forward fuselage sides. The all-movable stabilizers “bled” down to maximum nose-down posi­tion when hydraulic pressure fell off after engine shutdown.

The T6-2I at the Flight Research Institute (Lll) airfield in Zhukovskiy. All six hard – points are equipped with MBD3-U6-68 multiple ejector racks carrying 250-kg (551-lb) FAB-250 bombs. Due to take-off weight limitations the two MERs under the fuselage carry five bombs each instead of six; the total number of bombs is 34, equalling a warload of 8.5 tons (18,740 lb). Note the colour of the radome, the differ­ent Sukhoi OKB badge, three test mission markers and cruciform photo calibration markings beneath the cockpit and the blue fin stripe replacing the earlier red one. An ILS aerial is mounted above the air data boom carrying pitch and yaw sensor vanes.

◄

►

One more view of the fully loaded T6-2I at Zhukovskiy with wings at maximum sweep. As is the case with some Western strike air­craft, the pylons under the Su-24’s outer wings rotate as wing sweep chages, remaining parallel to the fuselage centre­line. This view shows well the intakes’ boundary layer splitter plates.

One of the Su-24 prototypes with the wings at minimum sweep. The aircraft carries 24 FAB-250s on MERs on the wing pylons and a pair of 500-kg (1,102-lb) FAB-500s on the fuselage stations, which equals an ord­nance load of 7 tons (15,430 lb).

►

◄

The sixth prototype Su-24 (T6-6) was coded 66 Yellow. Here the aircraft is armed with SPPU-6 gun pods with depressabie six-barrel 23-mm Gatling machine guns (here with the barrels at the maximum deflection of 45°) on the inner wing pylons, OFAB-250ShN low-drag bombs for low – level strike on the fuselage stations and Kh-23 rockets on the outer wing pylons. The T6-6I still had a straight air data boom with an ILS aerial above it and nose- mounted landing lights (they were moved to the wing roots on production aircraft); the fin top band was white.

Two views of the T6-27 (coded 27 White), another Fencer-B development aircraft, carrying three Kh-29 rockets on the inner wing and centreline pylons plus two Kh-23 rockets on the outer wing pylons. The red colour of the rockets identifies them as inert rounds for initial weapons trials; note the photo calibration markings on the rear fuselage. The wing fences were a recent addition at the time the pictures were taken – they have not been painted yet!

►

►

◄

The T6-8M, the prototype of the Su-24M (NATO code name Fencer-D), at the Lll air­field in Zhukovskiy in original guise. Note the extended nose, the extended wing leading edge root ECM fairings, the non­standard twin nose gear doors which remain open when the gear is down, the patch of bare metal and the absence of sensors on the underside of the nose where modifications have been made, the modified fin leading edge and the photo calibration markings on the fuselage. Despite the redesigned nose, the aircraft retains the "goose" typical of the initial – production Su-24 (compare this to the pro­duction aircraft on the opposite page).

►

The T6-8M at a later stage of the trials wearing an unusual three-tone camouflage and the Sukhoi OKB “winged archer” badge beneath the cockpit. The sensor array under the nose has been reinstated. The aircraft carried no tactical code.

Another view of the camouflaged T6-8M, showing the shape of the rear fuselage around the engine nozzles and the ventral fuel jettison pipes under the nozzles. These features are identical to the final production version of the Su-24 «sans suf- fixe» (Fencer-C).

◄

A

An early-production Su-24M coded «07 White». Note the long straight air data probe at the tip of the radome and the wing fences (making the NATO reporting name Fencer oddly appropriate). The port canopy half is secured by a retaining rod to keep it from slamming down on some­body’s head or hands when there is no pressure in the hydraulic system.

Another view of Su-24M “07 White’’, show­ing the characteristic profile of the nose radome. Production Su-24s and Su-24Ms were normally painted light grey overall with white undersurfaces.

►

◄

◄

Two views of Su-24s parked on a rain – lashed hardstand at Ostrov airbase near Pskov, north-western Russia. The base, whose name means “island” in Russian, hosts the Russian Navy’s Combat and Conversion Training Centre (i. e., opera­tional conversion unit).

The examples in these photos are repre­sentative of the very first production ver­sion known as the Fencer-A, as indicated by the boxy structure around the engine nozzles and the placement of the brake parachute container very close to the noz­zles. Oddly, the starboard airbrake-cum – mainwheel-well-door is open on all aircraft in the lineup while the port one is closed, as it should be on the ground. Note the fuel jettison pipe between the engine nozzles.

T

Su-24 “29 White” seen at OstrovAB in 1998 is an example of the penultimate version of the Su-24 “sans suffixe” called Fencer-В in NATO parlance. Note the 3,000-litre (660 Imp. gal.) PTB-3000 drop tank suspended on the centreline pylon.

A trio of Fencer-As at Ostrov AB; note the different location and smaller size of the yellow radiation and air intake warning tri­angles. While the aircraft are in flyable stor­age, the resident Fencer-As were awaiting retirement and disposal on site.

◄

Su-24 “05 White” is an example of the final variant of the Su-24 “sans suffixe ” known as the Fencer-C. Theis version can be identi­fied by the ECM antenna fairings on the air intake bodies and the fin sides.

►

A

Another view of Su-24s with PTB-3000 drop tanks under the wings in storage at OstrovABin 1998. The incredible fact that two neighbouring Fencer-As in the line-up carry the same tactical code, 29 White (quite apart from the Fencer-B shown on the preceding page!), is explained by the fact that the Su-24s were ferried to Ostrov for storage from various units and all three bombers obviously belonged to different regiments.

Close-up of the PTB-3000 on the centre­line hardpoint of Fencer-B “29 White”. The fins were set at more than 90° in order to provide adequate clearance between tank and wing/fuselage. Typically of the Soviet/Russian Air Force, drop tanks and such were marked with the aircraft’s tacti­cal code to stop them from being stolen and used on another aircraft – but clearly that did not always help; this drop tank comes from a sister ship coded 23! The yellow rectangles on the fuselage carry maintenance stencils.

◄

►

Front view of Su-24 Fencer-B “29 White”. The canopy is closed by a heavy canvas cover which protects the Perspex from the ultraviolet radiation of the sun, delaying the appearence of micro-cracks which gener­ate annoying reflections (this phenomenon is known as “silvering”).

The tails of these Fencer-As show how the Su-24 ’s rudder is cut away from below, with a radar warning receiver aerial at the base. On later versions the space between it and the fuselage was occupied by the brake parachute container which was moved up considerably.

►

A

The Su-24’s wings were moved aft into fully swept position after landing to save space on the hardstand. This view shows the Su – 24’s large spoilers used for roll control.

◄

This Fencer-A (52 White) at Ostrov AB has had the entire forward fuselage wrapped in tarpaulins. The wraps bear the aircraft’s tactical code on a black circle. The aircraft is a late-production example, as indicated by the dorsal heat exchanger fairing usually found on later variants.

►

As the wings are moved back into maximum sweep position the centre of gravity shifts aft, causing the Su-24 to assume a nose-up position. Fortunately, unlike some variable – geometry aircraft, even an unladen Fencer does not exhibit a tendency to tip over on its tail in this situation.

This Fencer-C undergoing maintenance has had a support placed under the tail – just in case. All wheel well doors are fully open. Note that skin panels mounting the centre portions of the ventral fins have been removed for access to some of the equip­ment in the rear fuselage.

◄

►

Fencer-A “26 White” at Ostrov AB. The slope behind it faced with concrete slabs functions both as a revetment wall and as a jet blast deflector, allowing the engines to be run after the aircraft has been aligned with the taxiway.

This late-production Fencer-A (note heat exchanger) operated by the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet is rather more fortu­nate. When this picture was taken in 1998 it was fully operational and based at Gvardeyskoye AB in the Crimea which the Ukraine has leased to the Russian Naval Air Arm. Note the generally better surface fin­ish on this aircraft and the different design of the nosewheel mudguard. It is hard to say why a car tire has been place on top of the aircraft. The vehicle in the background is an APA-5 ground power unit on a Ural – 375D truck chassis.

T

◄

Su-24 Fencer-C “23 White” on the hard – stand at Gvardeyskoye AB in the summer of 1998. This view illustrates the large, high – set brake parachute container and the fin leading edge air intake which are charac­teristic of the Fencer-B/C.

Preparations are in hand for another day’s flying training over the Black Sea as a gag­gle of Su-24s basks in the sun at Gvardeyskoye AB. The nearest aircraft is provided not with the usual tarpaulin but with a modern cockpit cover made of reflective metallised fabric which also keeps the cockpit from turning into a steam bath in the summer season.

T

A

Gvardeyskoye AB is a large and well – equipped base with a large flight line boasting an excellent surface and a con­crete-lined jet blast deflector, in post – Soviet days, however, it was not much used, and the arrival of the Russian Fencers (the Ukraine operates the type, too) was a welcome spell of activity. Note the bicycle leaned against the aircraft; ser­vicemen cycling around CIS airbases are a pretty common sight. Small wonder, as legging it around the place can get quite tiresome.

A

Su-24s «01 White», «21 White» and «07 White» in the maintenance area at Gvardeyskoye AB. The second aircraft is unserviceable, being minus the port engine.

Another angle on the maintenance ramp, with a fourth aircraft («27 White») on the left. Note the trestle under the tail of Fencer-B «21 White». Fencer-Cs «01 White» and «27 White» are obviously recod­ed, the tactical code being applied over a blotch of darker paint.

►

A

Fencer-C “28 White” (c/n 1715324) differs slightly in the design of the «goose» and undernose aerial from «27 White» on page 26. Interestingly, the port air intake cover comes from another example coded «26 White» (c/n 2215334).

A trailer-mounted ground power unit stands beside Fencer-C «01 White» to pro­vide electric power during maintenance.

►

Many operational Su-24s show consider­able signs of wear and tear, as exemplified by Fencer-C «27 White» at Gvardeyskoye. Note the unit badge beneath the wind­screen. Again, the aircraft is obviously recoded, the part of the intake body with the tactical code making a marked contrast with the rest of the weather-stained air­frame.

◄

A pair of Su-24Ms coded «53 Red» and «57 Red» makes a banked turn over the Volga River near Akhtoobinsk, seat of the Air Force Research Institute. The camera ship is a slow transport, so the bombers fly with the wings at 16° to keep formation.

This view of a Su-24M shows that the wing and stabilator leading edges are parallel when the wings are at 69° maximum sweep. The radome on this particular example is unspeakably dirty, and more dirt emanates from the wing glove fairings near the wing pivots. The retractable FPSh-5M refuelling probe is positioned on the centreline ahead of the windscreen. Note the white colour­ing of the wing/stabilator leading edges and the offset position of the dorsal heat exchanger.

►

►

Su-24M «67 White» parked at the Russian Navy Combat and Conversion Training Centre, OstrovAB. Note the red covers on the dipole aerial aft of the cockpit and the hemispherical sensor of the Mak-UFM missile warning sensor further aft.

Two more Su-24Ms, «64 White» and «68 White», under wraps at the Russian Navy Combat and Conversion Training Centre. Unlike the Fencer-As depicted earlier, these aircraft are not in storage but are actually based at Ostrov and belong to the 240th GvOSAP (Guards Independent Composite Air Regiment).

◄

►

Su-24M «66 White» is one of the Fencer-Ds belonging to the Russian Navy Combat and Conversion Training Centre. This example carries an L-080 Fantasmagoriya-A (Phantasm-A) electronic reconnaissance (ELI NT) pod on the centreline pylon.

Three more views of Su-24Ms «64 White» and «68 White». The main gear doors are fully open. Note the kinked nose gear door consisting of two parts, a characteristic feature of the Su-24M, and the curvature of the colour division line across the wing fences. Note that the tactical code is repeated on the «pig snout» plate at the tip of the nose pitot cover.

◄ ►

◄

In accordance with the 240th GvOSAP’s status Su-24M «66 White», seen here soak­ing under a horrendous downpour at Ostrov AB, wears a Guards badge (the old Soviet – style version) on the starboard side.

This late Fencer-D, a Batch 10 aircraft (c/n 1041611?) belonging to the 239th TsPAT (Aviation Hardware Demonstration Centre) at Kubinka AB, represents the export ver­sion designated Su-24MK. The blue tactical code is noteworthy, but the dark green/ dark earth tactical camouflage with pale blue undersurfaces similar to the one worn by Iraqi Air Force examples is even more unusual for a Russian Air Force Su-24. Note the lack of wing fences on this aircraft.

◄

◄

A

«94 Blue» is prepared for a mission amid a jumble of ground support equipment that

comes with other Su-24s. Note the packed _______________________________________

brake parachutes on the left. 239th TsPAT Su-24MKs await the next sor-

tie. The Su-24 hardstand at Kubinka is well equipped, with an energy supply system obviating the need for mobile ground power units.

▼

Two more views of Su-24MK «94 Blue» (c/n 1241613) as is taxies out for a training sor­tie at Kubinka AB, the canopy still open. Unlike the other Fencers operated by the 239th TsPAT, this aircraft wears the stan­dard grey/white colour scheme. Also, this aircraft lacks the wing fences; these were removed from many Su-24s in service.

◄

◄

A

«93 Blue», another camouflaged 239th TsPAT Su-24MK (c/n 1041623), taxies out for a training sortie. The aircraft is armed with S-25-OF heavy unguided rockets on the wing glove pylons and R-73 air-to-air missiles on the outer wing pylons. The «wet» centreline pylon mounts an UPAZ – 1A Sakhalin «buddy» refuelling pod allowing the Su-24 to refuel other tactical aircraft. The angular wing fences of «93 Blue» house APP-50 chaff/flare dispensers.

«94 Blue» is prepared for engine starting, using an APA-5D GPU in this instance; the brake parachute pack lies beside, ready for loading. The APA-5’s lateral cable booms swing out to the sides, allowing the vehicle to power up two aircraft at a time

◄

A

«92 Blue», the second of three camou­flaged Su-24MKs operated by the 239th TsPAT, fires up its Lyui’ka AL-21Fafterburn­ing turbofans at Kubinka on a bleak winter’s day. The aircraft shows signs of operational wear and tear, with weathered areas on the forward fuselage side touched up in fresher blue paint.

«92 Blue» taxies out, showing the steel plates protecting the inboard portions of the wing flaps from damage when they slide inside the wing gloves as wing sweep is changed.

T

A

Due to the unit’s «showcase» nature the Su-24MKs at Kubinka AB were frequently displayed to various visiting military dele­gations and at open doors days. In the upper photo «91 Blue» is seen together with a Su-25 of the Nebesnyye Goosary (Celestial Hussars) display team which was disbanded soon afterwards.

▼

Two more views of Su-24MK «91 Blue» during displays at Kubinka. The aircraft is fitted with six MBD3-U6-68 MERs (two of them in tandem on the

►

►

◄ A

Su-24M «11 White» (c/n 1141613) belong­ing to the Sukhoi OKB performs a simulat­ed refuelling of Su-30 «597 White» (c/n 79371010101) belonging to the Ispytateli (Celestial Hussars) display team of the Flight Research Institute during the MAKS-97 airshow.

◄

SU-24MK «93 Blue» (c/n 1041623) refuels a sister aircraft coded «91 Blue» during an open doors day at Kubinka AB.

Two Su-24Ms can take on fuel simultane­ously from an IL-78 tanker, as demonstrat­ed by Fencer-Ds «17 White» and «19 White» formating with IL-78M «30 Blue» over Kubinka AB.

T

A

Su-24M «45 Red» is one of several operat­ed by the 968th IISAP (Instructional & Test Composite Air Regiment) which is part of the Russian Air Force’s 4th TsBP і PLS (Combat and Conversion Training Centre) in Lipetsk. Note the unit badge and the five mission markers on the nose applied to mark successful live weapons training sor­ties.

►

►

Su-24M «42 Red» is prepared for the day’s flying at Lipetsk AB. Like the other resident Fencers, the aircraft has been recoded. The GPU in this case is an APA-5DM based on a diesel-powered Ural-4320.

«41 Red», another 968th IISAP Su-24M (seen here sharing the ramp at Lipetsk with a Mikoyan MiG-29), wears 14 mission markers. It is equipped with a UPAZ-1A refuelling pod.

◄

А

Su-24M «41 Red» features APP-50 chaff/flare dispensers on the upper side of the rear fuselage to enhance the aircraft’s protection against heat-seeking missiles (see also page 44).

Another view of the flight line at Lipetsk.

▼

►

►

Interestingly, none of the 4th Combat and Conversion Training Centre’s Su-24Ms has the tactical code repeated on the fin, as is customary in the Russian Air Force. On the other hand, the tactical code is repeated on the nose gear door, which is certainly unusual.

◄ ◄

The flight line in Lipetsk is equipped with removable jet blast deflectors made of steel. This type of structure is more com­mon at Soviet/CIS airbases than the «built – in» version of the kind seen at OstrovAB.

Although the Su-24M’s entire nose ahead of the windshield is painted white, not all of it is dielectric. Here the extent of the actual radome is clearly visible, as the special radio-transparent white paint used on dielectric fairings has become so weath­ered as to turn a dirty grey colour.

◄

A This view of a Su-24M shows the wings at minimum sweep, the high-lift devices (slot­ted flaps and leading-edge slats) and the four underfuselage hardpoints (two in tan­dem and two side by side). The foremost pylon and the two side-by-side pylons are fitted in this case. The airbrakes/main gear doors are just about to close as the aircraft «cleans up» after take-off.

Su-24M «44 Red» «burns rubber» at the moment of touchdown in Lipetsk. This is one of several Fencer-Ds upgraded by the Russian avionics/weapons integrator Gefest & T. The mid-life update can be identified by the faired chaff-flare dis­pensers on top of the aft fuselage; the fair­ings have small air intakes at the front. The aircraft carries RBK-500 cluster bombs on the centreline pylons. ◄

►

Close-up of the Gefest & T logo on the air intake ofSu-24M «40 Red», another exam­ple upgraded by the company. Note the «cross-hairs» in the middle of the Cyrillic letter F.

The Su-24Ms of the 4th TsBP і PLS are by far the most actively flying Fencers in Russia, surpassing even those the naval examples based at OstrovAB.

T

◄

The Su-24Ms of the 968th IISAP wear a badge depicting a rampant bull with the word «Vsegda» («always» in Russian). The badge signifies readiness to take on any adversary, anytime, anywhere (equvalent to the «Semper paratus» motto of some Western squadrons). A more unofficial interpretation is «we’ll have everybody, everywhere, every time and in every possi­ble way».

Su-24Ms «45 Red», «46 Red» and «40 Red» make a smoky flypast in echelon starboard formation. All three aircraft carry small bombs on the centreline; a minimum ord­nance load is enough for weapons training.

A

The Su-24M served as a basis for the Su-24MR Fencer-E reconnaissance air­craft. This head-on view shows the recon­naissance version’s characteristic asym­metric external stores arrangement with a Efir – 1M electronic intelligence (ELINT) pod on the starboard wing pylon and a dual missile rack with two R-60 AAMs for self – defence under the port wing.

The Su-24MR has a much smaller nose radome, as revealed by the discolouration of the dielectric parts on the T6MR-1 pro­totype («26 White») converted from a Fencer-A (c/n 0115305). The space aft of it is occupied by a Shtyk MR-1 side-looking aircraft radar (SLAR) with elongated flush dielectric panels. The prototype lacked the IFR probe of production examples.

◄

►

The nose of the Su-24MR is painted white right up to the windshield, just as on the regular Fencer-D, in order to conceal its special nature from the adversary’s aerial reconnaissance and space surveillance assets. This example coded «15 White» carries an Shpil’-2M laser line-scan pod on the centreline pylon. The white «hump» on the dorsal heat exchanger fairing is not a cap of snow but a dielectric panel. Note that the drop tanks apparently come from another aircraft; even writing the tactical code in really huge digits does not help!

Su-24MR «12 White», seen here at the moment of rotation, carries a large photo reconnaissance/ELINT pod on the centre­line pylon.

▼

к

This Su-24MR coded «40 Yellow» (c/n 0941648) is used as a demonstrator by the Sukhoi Design Bureau and based in Zhukovskiy, hence the flashy colour scheme in the Russian flag colours of fhite, blue and red. Here the aircraft is fitted with a PHOTINT/ELINT pod; the open camera port is visible here.

Su-24MR c/n 0941648 in the static park of MosAeroShow-92. In this instance it car­ries an Shpil’-2M pod; this near head-on persoective illustrates the pod’s elliptical cross-section. Note that the AAM adapter under the starboard wing is the wrong one, i. e., it is intended for the starboard side (the upper missile should be on the outer side!).

►

► This view of the Su-24MR demonstrator at MosAeroShow-92 shows to advantage the special colour scheme.

▲

Su-24MR «40 Yellow» (c/n 0941648) – this time with no external stores – takes off from Zhukovskiy’s runway 12 fora demon­stration flight during one of the MAKS air – shows.

«40 Yellow» completes its landing roll on runway 30 at Zhukovskiy. The aircraft is a regular participant of the flying programme during Moscow airshows.

▼

Su-24MR «40 Yellow» passes in front of the crowd. Note the Vee shape of the colour division lines on the underside and the dirty marks sloping downwards from the stabila – tor pivots (a result of the stabilators’ habit of«bleeding» down to maximum deflection when the engines are inoperative).

◄

◄

▲

The other special mission derivative of the Su-24M was the Su-24MP Fencer-F elec­tronic countermeasures aircraft. This view shows the square-shaped dielectric panels on the sides of the nose (hiding jammer antennas), the characteristic ECM aerials under the nose and on the air intakes, and the centreline Fasol’ jammer pod.

The few Su-24MPs were stationed in the Far East and the Ukraine (the latter aircraft were retained by the newly-independent Ukraine after the break-up of the Soviet Union). Here, a Russian Air Force Su-24MP in wraps sits on a snowbound ramp at Lipetsk. Note that the outer wings are wrapped up, too.

◄

►

This 4th TsBP і PLS Su-24MP coded «15 White» is apparently due to awaken from winter sleep and make a training flight; mechanics are about to remove the canvas covers from the airframe.

«15 White», a Ukrainian Air Force Su-24MP, sits in front of a hardened aircraft shelter (HAS) at Chortkov AB. The immaculate fin­ish on this aircraft is noteworthy.

T

к

Another view of Ukrainian AF Su-24MP «15 White». The nose gear doors are open for maintenance. The 118th OAPREB (Independent ECM Regiment) at Chortkov operating the type transitioned to the Su-24MP from the Yakovlev Yak-28PP.

►

This Ukrainian Air Force Su-24M coded «19 White» carries UAF roundels on the forward fuselage (which makes an interesting com­parison with the aircraft on the opposite page) and dragon artwork. Note the L-080 Fanmtasmagoriya-A ELINTpod on the cen­treline station.

Ukrainian Air Force Su-24 Fencer-B «49 White» (c/n 1615324) undergoing mainte­nance at its home base, Chortkov AB. The radome swings open to port, revealing the two antenna dishes; the larger one is for the Puma fire control radar while the small one underneath is for the terrain following radar.

▼

A

Two more views of Ukrainian Air Force Su – 24 «49 White» (c/n 1615324) unbuttoned for maintenance, showing the positioning of the UAF roundels on the wings and the removable panels on the upper fuselage for access to the control runs and other systems.

►

►

The nighbouring aircraft coded «50 White» is also being worked upon. The drop tank is inscribed «50 starboard» but the «5» has almost vanished – though it is hard to say why.

The Ukrainian Air Force also managed to keep some Fencer-As flying, as illustrated by «65 White» here. Note the variance in the shield-and-trident tail insignia on individual aircraft; the crudely overpainted red star is showing from under the UAF insignia on this one. The panels carrying the middle por­tions of the ventral fins are removed, show­ing that «65 White» is a bit unairworthy for the time being.

▼

◄

Soviet/CIS Air Force tactical bomber units sometimes operated a mix of different Su-24 versions, as illustrated by Fencer-A «65 White» sharing the flight line with a Fencer-C. The removed access panels with the middle portions of the ventral fins are lying behind the aircraft.

A ►

The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) was one of the few export cus­tomers for the Su-24. Apart from the Su – 24MKs delivered directly from Russia, the IRIAF retained several ex-Iraqi examples which sought shelter in neutral Iran at the closing stage of the 1991 Gulf War. Here, IRIAF Su-24MKs serialled 3-6853 (above) and 3-3810 (right) are seen at military hard­ware exhibitions at Teheran International airport.

Two IRIAF SU-24MK (3-6807 and 3-6811) cruise over the snow-covered mountains of northern Iran. These photos illustrate the two-tone camouflage worn by export Fencers.

►

A

The rear fuselage and tail unit of the Fencer-A, the first production version of the Su-24, showing the low-set brake para­chute container. This particular aircraft serving as a ground instructional airframe at the Ukrainian Air Force Technical School near Kiev is the T6-19 development aircraft («619 White»; c/n 0215307?). Note the photo calibration marking on the tail.

This view clearly illustrates the difference in rear end treatment between the Fencer-A (background) and the Fencer-C. Note the antenna and cooling air intake built into the latter aircraft’s fin leading edge.

►

A The rear fuselage and tail unit of the Su-24M (illustrated here by 239th TsPAT «92 Blue»), except for the shorter, upward – curved fuel jettison pipes.

Close-up of the Su-24M’s brake parachute container, with the radar homing and warn­ing system (RHAWS) antenna array above ◄

The outer wing pylons rotate as wing sweep changes, remaining parallel to the fuselage axis. This aircraft carries 32-round UB-32 rocket pods for firing 57-mm S-5 folding – fin aircraft rockets (FFARs).

▼

◄ A

MBD3-U6-68 multiple ejector racks can be carried on any of the Su-24’s hard points. Up to six of these MERs can be fitted at a time for carrying FAB-250 HE bombs. The starboard one of the two elongated ventral fairings visible in the left photo houses a 30- mm Gryazev/Shipoonov GSh-6-30 six-bar­rel Gatling cannon; the muzzle opening is closed by «eyelid» shutters.

Double launcher adapters for R-73 air-to – air missiles can be carried on the outer wing pylons. These are usually fitted to the Su-24MR (here, «40 Yellow», c/n 0941648) and Su-24MP.

►

The Su-24’s hefty wing pivot box is manu­factured as a singe whole with the fuse­lage. This is the port wing pivot and the riv­eted structure around it. Note the shallos strake which organses the airflow around the wing/fuselage joint.

◄

Up to three 3,000-litre (660 Imp. gal.) PTB-3000 drop tanks can be carried on the fuselage and inner wing hardpoints. Small canards with negative incidence are fitted at the front to facilitate separation when the tank is jettisoned.

T

Close-up of the antenna dishes of the Orion-A fire control radar and the Rei’yef terrain following radar below it forming the PNS-24 Tigr navigation/attack avionics suite. The antenns are mounted on a solid frame which swings out to starboard for access to the radar sets. The stencils on the antenna dishes read «Attention! Tuned, do not touch». Note also the V-shaped win­dow of the TP-23E infra-red seeker.

▼

►

The Su-24 features a sharply swept two – piece windshield made of strong polycar­bonate. It is designed to minimise drag at high speed and withstand birdstrikes which are quite likely during low-level dashes. Note the PVD-7 pitot head in line with the windshield.

The two halves on the canopy can be opened individually, leaving a splitter run­ning down the middle. The construction number is normally stencilled on this (though not on this particular aircraft).

►

▲

Close-up of the faired centreline pylons carrying MBD3-U6-68 MERs.

Close-up of the Chaika (Seagull) under­nose forward-looking infra-red seeker (FLIR)/laser ranger window and Filin (Horned owl) ESM antennas.

◄

◄

The instrument panel of the Su-24 featured illuminated push-button switches; some of the engine instruments are of the vertical strip type. The diagram in the centre with the aircraft silhouette and radial beams is the RHAWS indicator.

Overall view of the cockpit. The naviga – tor/weapons systems officer (WSO) sits on the right, detecting targets on the orange – coloured radar screen and the display above it. This aircraft is c/n 1215301 (note «12-01» stencilled in the WSO’s footwell).

▼

A

Another view of the cockpit with its conven­tional electromechanical flight instruments. The throttles are on the captain’s side con­sole.

As the Su-24 can only land safely with the wings at minimum sweep, a read emer­gency wing actuating handle is located on the l/l/SO’s instrument panel to the left of the airspeed indicator.

►

Aptly coded «62 Yellow», the T6-2I was the first variable-geometry prototype.

The T6-27 during weapons trials. The aircraft is a Fencer-B.

«40 White», a 149th Guards Fighter Regiment Su-24 Fencer-B which saw action in Afghanistan, operating out of Kokaidy, Uzbekistan. Note the 13 mission markers.

Another Su-24M in a highly unusual colour scheme applied in the early 1990s. Note the «eyes» painted on the forward fuselage for bird-scaring. The Russian flag addition to the red star was short-lived.

A Ukrainian Air Force Su-24MR. Note the old-style round tail insignia and the Guards badge.

An Iraqi Air Force (a! Quwwat al-Jawwiya al-lraqiya) Su-24MK serialled 24246.

A production Su-24M with the wings at 69" sweep.

Purpose: Experimental jet bomber.

Design Bureau: OKB-1, Podberez’ye and later at Kimry, General Director from October 1948 S M Alekseyev.

The first official history of OKB-1 to be pub­lished (in Kryl’ya Rodiny for December 1987, written by I Sultanov) stated that it was led by Alekseyev, whose own OKB had been closed, and that this aircraft was ‘designed in close collaboration with CAHI (TsAGI), the leading experts on aerodynamics and struc­tures being V N Belyayev, AI Makarevskii, G P Svishchev and S A Khristianovich’. At the end it briefly noted that ‘a group from Ger­many, led by B Baade, participated…’ It would have been more accurate to explain that OKB-1 was specifically formed on 22nd October 1946 in order to put to use several hundred German design engineers, led by Prof Brunolf Baade and Hans Wocke, who had been forcibly taken with their families to a location 120km east of Moscow where they were put to work in a single large office block. For the first three years they were fully occu­pied on the Types 131 and 140 described pre­viously. However, mainly because of doubts that the forward-swept wing would ever be
made to work, even before they left Germany they had completed preliminary drawings for a bomber of similar size but with a conven­tional backswept wing. By 1948 this had be­come an official OKB-1 project, called 150. The original Chief Designer was P N Obrubov, but Alekseyev took his place when he arrived. Workers were increasingly transferred to the 150, which grew in size and weight from the original 25 tonnes to produce a bomber inter­mediate between the IL-28 and Tu-16. The brief specification issued by the WS called for a take-off weight between 38 and 47 tonnes, a maximum speed rising from 790 km/h at sea level to 970km/h at 5km, a service ceiling of 12.5km and a range varying with bomb load from 1,500 to 4,500km (932 to 2,796 miles). Only a single flight article was funded, and this had to wait a year for its en­gines. At last it was flown by Ya I Vernikov on 14th May 1951. On Flight 16 on 9th May 1952 the aircraft stalled on the landing approach, and though the aircraft was marginally re­pairable nobody bothered, because of the clearly greater potential of the Tu-88 (proto­type Tu-16). The dice were in any case loaded against a German-designed aircraft. In late 1953 Baade and most of the Germans re­
turned to their own country, where in Dres­den they formed a company called VEB which used the Type 150 as the [highly unsuitable] basis for the BB-152 passenger airliner.

A modern all-metal aircraft, the 150 had a shoulder-high wing with a fixed leading edge swept at 35°. As this wing had hardly any taper the tips were extraordinarily broad, leaving plenty of room for slim fairings housing the re­tracted tip landing gears. The concept of tan­dem centreline landing gears with small wheels at the wingtips had been evaluated with Alekseyev’s own I-215D. At rest the wing had anhedral of-4°, reduced to about -1° 20′ in flight. Each wing had two shallow fences from the leading edge to the slotted flap. Out­board were three-part ailerons. The fuselage was of circular section, tapering slightly aft of the wing to oval. Fixed seats were provided in the pressurized forward section for two pilots, a navigator/bombardier and a radio operator who also had periscopic control of a dorsal turret with two NR-23 cannon. Underthe floor was the RPB-4 navigation/bombing radar, with twin landing lamps recessed in the front. Behind this was the steerable twin-wheel nose gear. Next came the large bomb bay, 2.65m (8ft Sin) wide and high and 7m (23ft)

long, with a load limit of 6 tonnes (13,228 Ib). Next came the rear twin-wheel truck, which on take-off could be suddenly shortened to tilt the aircraft 3° 30′ nose-up for a clean liftoff. The large fin was swept at 45°, with a two-part rudder and carrying on top the 45°-swept tailplane and three-part elevators with dihe­dral of 8°. In the tail was a rear gunner with a turret mounting two NR-23 cannon. Under each wing was a forward-swept pylon carry­ing a Lyul’ka AL-5 turbojet rated at 4,600kg (lO. HOlb). A total of 35,875 litres (7,892 Im­perial gallons) of fuel was housed in eight cells along the upper part of the fuselage, and additional tanks could be carried in the bomb bay. On each side of the rear fuselage was a door-type airbrake. Like almost everything else these surfaces were operated electrical­ly, the high-power duplicated DC system in­cluding an emergency drop-out windmill generator. Each flight-control surface was op­erated by a high-speed rotary screwjack.

Though flight testing revealed some buffet­ing and vibration, especially at full power at high altitude, the numerous innovations in­troduced on this aircraft worked well. Never­theless, it would have been politically undesirable for what was essentially a Ger­man aircraft to be accepted for production. Thus, hitting the ground short of the runway was convenient.

Dimensions Span 24.1m 79 ft 1 in Length (excluding guns) 26. 74 m 87 ft 8% in Wing area 125m2 1,346ft2 Weights Empty 23,064kg 50,84715 Loaded 54 tonnes 119,00015 Performance Maximum speed at sea level, 850 km/h 528 mph at 10 km (32,808 ft) 930 km/h 578 mph Service ceiling about 13km 42,650ft No other data, except that design range (see a5ove) was exceeded.

Soviet X-Planes. in colour Posted by admin in Soviet x-plenes on November 9, 2015

Top: Mikoyan Ye-4 with RD-9I engine Centre: Mikoyan Ye-2A Bottom: Mikoyan Ye-5

Photographs on the opposite page: Top: Mikoyan I-3U in late 1956. Bottom: Mikoyan I-7U.

♦Ир fifty іНМІ -*

;ч2йСЬЄЄі

Top: Mikoyan Ye-152/Awith K-9 missiles.

Right and bottom: Two views of the Mikoyan Ye-152P.

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top and centre: Two views of the Mikoyan Ye-8/2.

Bottom: Mikoyan Ye-50/3.

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top: Mikoyan Ye-152M (Ye-166) record version at Monino.

Centre. MiG-211/1 ‘Analog’.

Bottom: MiG-21PD (’23-31′).

Top: One ofthe Myasischev M-17 prototypes at Monino

Above, right and below: Three views of the Myasischev M-55.

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top and centre left: Two views of the Myasischev VM-T.

Centre left and bottom: Two views of the Sukhoi T-4 (‘101’).

Photographs on the opposite page:

Top and centre: Two views of the Sukhoi P-42 record aircraft.

Bottom left and right: Two views of the Sukhoi Su-27UB-PS test-bed.

Three views of the Sukhoi S-37, the lower two taken at the MAKS-99 air show. ,

Photographs on the opposite page: Top: Sukhoi Su-37 (T10M-11). Bottom: Sukhoi Su-37 ‘Berkut’.

Top: Tupolev Tu-155 test-bed at Zhukovskii.

Cen/re: YakovlevYak-141 at Khodynka.

Bottom: YakovlevYak-141 second prototype.

Midland Publishing book titles are carefully edited and designed by an experienced and enthusiastic team of specialists. A catalogue detailing our aviation publishing programme is available upon request from the address on page two.

We hope that you have enjoyed this book. .

Our associate company, Midland Counties Publications, offers an exceptionally wide range of aviation, railway, spaceflight, naval, military, astronomy and transport books and videos, for purchase by mail-order and deliv­ery around the world.

T o order further copies of this book, or to re­quest a copy of the appropriate mail-order catalogue, write, telephone or fax to: Midland Counties Publications Unit 3 Maizefield, Hinckley, Leics, LE10 1YF Tel: 01455 233 747 Fax: 01455 233 737

Purpose: KT, Kryl’ya Tanka, flying tank, a means for delivering armoured vehicles to difficult locations by fitting them with wings. Design Bureau: Oleg Konstantinovich Antonov, at Kiev.

From 1932 the Soviet high command studied all aspects of the new subject of airborne war­fare, including parachute troops and every kind of aerial close support of armies. One novel concept was fitting wings (with or with­out propulsion) to an armoured vehicle. Sim­ple tests were carried out with small cars and trucks, converted into gliders and towed by such aircraft as the R-5 and (it is believed) a TB-1. There was even a project to fit wings to a T-34, weighing 32 tonnes, using a pair of ANT-20b/s as tug s!

The KT was the only purpose-designed winged tank actually to be tested. The chosen tank was the T-60, specially designed for air­borne forces. Antonov designed a large bi­plane glider and flight controls to fit over the tank. The work was delayed by the German invasion of 22nd June 1941, but the prototype was ready for test in early 1942. The selected pilot, S N Anokhin, did a quick course in tank driving and was then towed off by a TB-3. He managed to land without injuring himself or overturning the tank, which was drivable afterwards.

The glider was officially designated A-T, and A-40 by the Antonov OKB. It comprised rectangular biplane wings joined by vertical and diagonal struts with wire bracing. Both wings were fitted with ailerons, joined by ver­tical struts. The upper wing also had two spoiler airbrakes, while the lower wing had full-span flaps which the pilot (who was the tank driver) could pull down manually prior to the landing. At the rear was the twin-finned semi-biplane tail, attached by two braced booms. Construction was of wood, mainly spruce. The covering was fabric, with ply­wood over the booms and some other areas. The airframe was lifted by crane over the tank and secured by latches. The towrope from the tug was attached to the tank, and cast off by the tank driver when close to the target. The intention was that he should glide down steeply, lower the flaps and then, when about to touch the ground, pull a lever to jettison the glider portion. The tank would then be left ready for action. The tank’s tracks were dri­ven through an overdrive top gear to assist take-off and smooth the landing.

Though the single test flight was success­ful, Anokhin, an outstandingly skilled pilot, found his task extremely tricky. He doubted the ability of ordinary ‘tankers’ to fly the loaded tank and bring it down to a successful landing. In any case, the real need was to fly in T-34s, and there seemed to be no practical way of doing this.

Dimensions Span Length, excluding tank Wing area	18.0m 12.06m 85.8m2	59 ft3/ in 39ft63/4in 923.6ft2
Weights
Weight (airframe)	2,004 kg	4,418Ib
with T-60	7,804 kg	17,205 Ib
Performance
Towing speed	120km/h	74.6 mph

Purpose: To design a jet fighter.

Design Bureau: B I Cheranovskii.

Again, the three-view drawing of this project was discovered only recently. There is no ev­idence that construction was even started. The drawing is dated 1944, at a time before any German turbojets had been captured but after publication of the existence of British and US engines of this type. The only turbojet then running in the Soviet Union was the Lyul’ka VRD-2, a slim axial-compressor en­gine rated at 700kg (1,543 Ib) thrust. This was probably the engine Cheranovskii had in mind.

The configuration appears to be an out­standing one, similar to many fighter projects of the present day. The engines were to have been buried inside the broad and flat delta­shaped wing, there being no fuselage. The drawing shows the location of the cockpit, two large guns, nosewheel-type landing gear and four fuel tanks. Each wing carried a sin­gle control surface with a balancing area
ahead of the hinge. Clearly each surface acted as a dual-function eleven. There was no vertical tail, just like today’s ‘stealth’ pro­
posals, and this could have made engine-out situations difficult.

A truly remarkable project. No data.

Bisnovat SK

Purpose: Experimental high-speed aircraft. Design Bureau: OKB of Matus Ruvimovich Bisnovat, Moscow.

In the mid-1930s Bisnovat was working in the newly formed OKO of VKTairov (pro­nounced tyrov), at Kiev. In 1938 he was per­mitted to organise his own team of design engineers in order to build and test the fastest aircraft possible, for research into wing pro­files, structures, flight controls and other problems. This was a time when aircraft tech­nology was making rapid progress. Initially his production base was the Central Work­shops of CAHI (TsAGI), but by 1939 this group was transferred to his own account.

Contracts were signed for two aircraft des­ignated SK and SK-2. The former was to be the research aircraft, while the SK-2 was to have a conventional cockpit canopy and be capable of carrying armament and other mil­itary equipment. Surprisingly no documents appear to have been found recently giving de­tails of this programme. All we have is Shavrov’s Vol.2 (published 1978 but written much earlier) which says the SK ‘was com­pleted on skis in early 1939’, and an article written in 1977 by Konstantin Kosminkov which says flight testing began ‘at the start of 1940’. There is little doubt the latter date is correct. The first series of photographs, show­
ing the aircraft on its wheeled landing gear, are dated ’20/1 40′ (Roman I, ie January). The SK did not fly in this form until later, and flight testing began on non-retractable skis. The first photographs on skis were taken on ‘ 17/II 40’. Flight testing of the SK-2 began on 10th November 1940, and was completed on 10th January 1941. The pilot assigned to the pro­gramme was Georgi Mikhailovich Shiyanov.

The SK was a beautiful-looking low-wing monoplane of diminutive proportions (mak­ing the l,050hp M-105 engine occupy nearly half the fuselage), entirely of light-alloy stressed-skin construction except for the fab­ric-covered ailerons and rudder. The wing was of NACA 23014.5 (14.5% thick) aerofoil profile, with wide-chord Vlasov (slotted split) flaps inboard of the ailerons. Structurally the wing was based on a Spitfire-like box with a heavy leading edge extending back to the sin­gle main spar. The ribs were Duralumin pressings. The outer surface (apparently of the wing only) was covered with marquisette (a fine light fabric) and powdered cork, all held by nitrocellulose glue. When fully set the surface was ‘polished to the brilliance of a mirror’.

The small wing was made in one piece and designed so that it would be simple to fit dif­ferent wings to the fuselage. The latter had a cross-section of only 0.85m2 (9.15ft2), this
being the minimum to fit round the engine. The pilot sat in a reclining seat in a cockpit whose canopy was flush with the upper sur­face. For take-off and landing the roof over the rear half of the canopy could be hinged up and the seat raised to give a forward view. Drag was further reduced by using an engine cooling system filled with water circulating at a gauge pressure of l. lkg/cm2 (15.61b/in2), which enabled the frontal area of the radiator to be only 0.17m2 (1.8ft2), half the normal size. The engine air inlet was underneath, ahead of the radiator, and the oil-cooler inlet on top. The propeller was a VISh-52 of2.95m (9ft Sin) diameter, with three blades with constant – speed control. Other features included 100% mass balance on the elevators and rudder and, according to Kosminkov, a hydraulic sys­tem to operate the flaps, pilot seat, cockpit hood and the long-stroke (wheeled) landing gear, which retracted inwards into bays closed by multiple doors. The tailwheel was steerable and fully retractable. The standard of finish was high, and except for fabric areas the surface was polished, with the spinner, nose and a cheat-line painted red.

In fact, in 1939 retractable skis had not yet been developed, and for this reason the SK was initially limited to a modest speed (see data). So far as is known the SK flew well, though Shavrov records that the SK-2 (and by
implication the SK) suffered from various de­fects which prevented it from being accepted as a fighter.

Compared with the SK, the SK-2 differed most obviously in having a normal cockpit, with a fixed more upright seat and conven­tional canopy, which could be jettisoned, with a sliding window on the left. The engine installation was modified, with a reprofiled coolant radiator, engine air inlets in the wing roots and the oil cooler under the cowling. This left the area above the engine clear for a neat installation of two 12.7mm BS heavy ma­chine guns with their magazines (Kosminkov states there was a 7.62mm as well). The SK-2
airframe was slightly modified, notably by in­creasing the height of the fin and the span of the horizontal tail from 2.75m (9ft /4in) to 3.26m (10ft 8%in). This aircraft was painted overall, in a deep colour.

In 1940 these aircraft were the fastest in the Soviet Union, and probably in the world. De­spite their ‘hot’ nature, and high wing loading, they appear to have been safe and attractive machines. However, with so many La, MiG and Yak fighters already in production, the SK-2 had little chance of being adopted as a fighter.

Dimensions (SK) Span 7.3m 23 ft m in Length 8.28m 27 ft 2 in Wing area 9.57 nf 103ft2 Weights Empty 1,505kg 3,318 Ib Loaded 2,100kg 4,630 Ib Performance Max speed (wheels) at sea level, 597km/h 371 mph at5,25 0m (17,224 ft) 710km/h 441 mph (skis) at 5,500m (18,045 ft) 577km/h 358.5 mph Service ceiling 10,450m 34,285 ft Range about 1,000km 621 miles

Top left and right: Two views of SK-2 Dimensions (SK-2)

(on right, note split flaps). Span 7.3m 23 ffllX in

Length 8.285m 27 ft 214 in

Wing area 9.57m2 103 ft2

Opposite page: SK on skis and on wheels.

Purpose: To design an improved Shturmovik attack aircraft.

Design Bureau: OKB of Sergei Ilyushin, Moscow.

In the Great Patriotic War Ilyushin became fa­mous, even outside the Soviet Union, mainly because of his IL-2 Shturmovik (assaulter). No fewer than 36,163 were delivered, the greatest production run of any single type of aircraft. One reason why so many were need­ed was that attrition was severe, despite their heavy armour. With the IL-10M Ilyushin frac­tionally improved flight performance, and by 1945 the availability of more powerful en­gines opened the way to a further increase in gross weight. In turn this made it possible to rethink the armament, in particular adding a more effective rear defence. The single IL-20 – dubbed Gorboon, hunchback – began flight testing in 1948, but by this time piston-en­gined aircraft for front-line use were becom­ing outdated. Ilyushin dropped the IL-20 and began work on the IL-40 twin-jet Shturmovik, as well as jet bombers and other types.

The IL-20 was a direct extrapolation of the IL-10 and related types, with similar all-metal stressed-skin construction. A basic shortcom­ing of the wartime Shturmoviks had been that, in most low-level attacks with bombs, the target disappeared under the nose before the bombs could be released. Ilyushin had spent much time trying to devise ways of giv­ing the pilot a better forward view. In 1942 he had tried putting the pilot in the nose, with a shaft drive from an engine behind the cock­pit, but dropped this idea. Various laborato­ries also failed to find good answers, one being the PSh periscopic sight. In 1946 he tried the even more unusual scheme of putting the pilot directly above the engine. The latter was an AM-47F (also called MF-47) liquid-cooled V-12, the last of Mikulin’s big piston engines, rated at 3,100hp, driving a 3.2m (10ft 6in) four-blade propeller. Despite being protected below by armour and with the cockpit above, the engine was said to be readily accessible and removable. The pilot had a cockpit with armour 6 to 9mm thick, with a field of view directly ahead up to 37° downwards, so that in a shallow dive he had a perfect view of the target. Behind the cock­pit was a large protected tank, and behind that a radio operator in a powered turret with an NR-23 cannon. The main landing gears re­tracted aft in the usual manner, the wheels ro­tating 90° to lie flat in the wings. Immediately outboard of these were four NS-23 cannon firing ahead. In one scheme; illustrated on this page, two further NS-23 were fixed obliquely in the rear fuselage firing ahead and

downwards. A bomb load of up to 1,190kg (2,623.5 Ib) could be carried in wing cells, and wing racks were provided for eight RS-82 or four RS-132 rockets. There was also to have been an anti-submarine version, never built.

Though clearly a formidable aircraft, the IL-20 actually had a flight performance in almost all respects inferior to that of the wartime IL-10. Ilyushin was certainly right to abandon it, and in fact the basic attack role was later assumed by the simple MiG-15 single-seat fast jet.

Dimensions Span 17.0m 55 ft 9 in Length 12.59m 41 ft 3% in Wing area 44.0m2 474 ft2 Weights Empty 7,535 kg 16,612 Ib Fuel/oil 800+80 kg 1,764+176 Ib Loaded normal 9,500kg 20,944 Ib Maximum 9,820 kg 21,6491b Performance Maximum speed at sea level 450 km/h 280 mph at 2,800m (9, 186 ft) 515km/h 320 mph Time to climb to 3,000 m 8min 9,843 ft to 5,000 m 12.5min 16,404ft Service ceiling 7,750m 25,430ft Range (normal gross weight) 1,180 km 733 miles (maximum weight) 1,680km 1,044 miles Take-off run 500m 1,640ft Landing speed 150 km/h 93 mph

Three views of IL-20.

Mikhel’sonMP Posted by admin in Soviet x-plenes on November 9, 2015 Purpose: To build a faster torpedo-carrying aircraft. Design Bureau: Factory No 3 Krasnyi Lyotchik ‘Red Flyer’, Leningrad, see below. The designation MP derived from Morskoi Podvesnoi, naval suspended. The reasoning began with the belief that to attack a heavily defended ship called for a small and agile air­craft with high performance, but that such an aircraft could not have a long range. Accord­ingly engineer N Val’ko suggested carrying the attack aircraft under a large long-range aeroplane in the manner pioneered by Vakhmistrov. In 1936 this concept was ac­cepted by the VMF (war air fleet) and as­signed to N G Mikhel’son in partnership with AI Morshchikhin, with assistance from Vakhmistrov. The design was completed by VVNikitin (see page 145). According to Shavrov ‘During prototype construction nu­merous problems arose, and since half could not be solved it was decided to discontinue development’. In fact, by 1938 the MP was ready for flight, but the political atmosphere (the Terror) was so frightening that nobody dared to sanction the start of flight testing in case anything went wrong. The MP was ac­cordingly given to the Pioneers’ Palace. The MP was superficially arranged like a fighter, with an 860hp Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrs engine driving a three-blade propeller and cooled by a radiator in the top of the fuselage behind the cockpit. The airframe was made almost entirely from duralumin, though the basis of the fuselage was a truss of welded Cr-Mo steel tube. The cockpit was enclosed and featured the then-fashionable forward – sloping windscreen. Flight-control surfaces were covered in fabric. The 45-36-AN, a full – size 553mm torpedo, was carried in a large recess under the fuselage. For ground ma­noeuvring the aircraft had wheeled main landing gear and a tailskid. The main gears re­tracted upwards, the shock struts travelling outwards along tracks in the wing. The loaded MP was to be hoisted under a TB-3 carrier aircraft and carried close to the target, such as an enemy fleet. The engine would then be started and the aircraft released, with the TB-3 in a dive to increase speed at release. The MP would then aim its torpedo and fly back to its coastal base. Before landing, the pilot would engage a mechanism which would raise the engine 20° upwards. The MP could then alight on the water and taxi to its mooring. The water landing was facilitated by the high position of the horizontal tail and the location of the engine radiator on top of the rear fuselage. The unladen aircraft was de­signed to float with the wings just resting on the water (see front view drawing), the wings serving as stabilizing sponsons. There is no reason to doubt that this scheme might have proved practicable. One of the drawings shows in side elevation a pro­posed faster next-generation aircraft devel­oped from the MP. Dimensions Span 8.5m 27 ft 10% in Length about 8.0m 26 ft 3 in Wing area 20.0m2 215ft2 Weights Empty about 2,200 kg 4,850 Ib Loaded 3,200 kg 7,055 Ib Performance not recorded. MP, with additional side view of projected high­speed development. Mikhel’son MP   Above and right: Details of engine and radiator (both marked ‘secret’).   MiG 105-11 Posted by admin in Soviet x-plenes on November 9, 2015 Purpose: To investigate the low-speed handling within the atmosphere of an orbital shape. Design Bureau: OKB-155 ofAI Mikoyan. By 1965 the Mikoyan OKB was deeply into the technology of reusable aero-space vehicles. Under ‘oldest inhabitant’ G Ye Lozino-Lozin – skiy a shape was worked out called BOR (from Russian for pilotless orbital rocket air­craft), and in turn this was the basis for the manned Epos (an epic tale). The BOR test ve­hicles had been fired by rocket and recovered by parachute, but a manned vehicle had to land in the conventional way. It was consid­ered prudent to build a manned test vehicle to explore low-speed handling and landing. Called 105-11, -12 and -13, only the first is be­lieved to have flown. The OKB pilot was Aviard Fastovets, and he began high-speed taxi tests at Zhukovskii in September 1976. On llth October 1976 he took off and climbed straight ahead to 560m (1,837ft). He landed as planned at an airfield about 19km (12 miles) ahead. On 27th November 1977 he entered 105-11 slung under the Mikoyan OKB’s Tu-95K (previously used for cruise-missile tests) and landed on an unpaved strip after release at 5,000m (16,400ft). The 105-11 made seven further flights, the last in September 1978. It was then retired to the Monino museum. The 105-11 was almost the size of a MiG-21, and was likewise a single-jet tailless delta. The fuselage had a broad ‘waverider’ shape, with a flat underside, and the cockpit at the front was entered via a roof hatch. From the sides projected small swept wings with elevens, and there was a large fin and rudder. The engine was an RD-36-35K turbojet de­rived from the previously used lift engines, rated at 2,000kg (4,409 Ib). It was fed by a dor­sal inlet with an upward-hinged door to fair the engine in when in high-speed gliding flight. Features of the eventual hypersonic Epos included a flat unfaired tail end to the broad fuselage, the upper surface comprising large upward-hinged airbrakes, and a struc­ture designed to accommodate severe ther­mal gradients, though the 105-11 was never designed to fly faster than Mach 0.8. Early test­ing was done with rubber-tyred wheels on the front two retractable legs and steel skis on the rear pair (the OKB record that the runway was lubricated by crushed melons). For the air-drop tests all four legs had steel skids. The brief flights ofthe 105-11 confirmed the design of a manned aero-space vehicle, lead­ing to the Buran (see later). Dimensions Span Length (excluding multi- PVD instrument boom) Area ofwing and lifting body 6.7m vane 10.6m 24.0 nf 21 ft 11% in 34ft93/Sin 258ft2 Weights Empty 3,500kg 7,716 Ib Fuel 500kg 1,102 Ib Loaded 4,220kg 9,300 Ib Performance Maximum speed (design) Mach 0.8 (actually reached) about 800km/h 500 mph Landing speed 250-270 km/h 155-168 mph 105-11, with skids   Above left and right: Two views of 105-11.   Left 105-11, with skids, preserved at Monino.   Polikarpov Malyutka Posted by admin in Soviet x-plenes on November 9, 2015 Purpose: Short-range interceptor to defend high-value targets. Design Bureau: OKB ofNikolai N Polikarpov, evacuated to Novosibirsk. This was the last aircraft of Polikarpov design, and he oversaw its progress himself. It was an OKB project, begun in June 1943. Construc­tion of a single prototype began in early 1944. Progress was rapid until 30th July 1944, when Polikarpov suffered a massive heart attack and died at his desk. Even though the proto­type was almost complete, work stopped and was never resumed. The key to the Malyutka (‘Little one’) was the existence of the NIl-1 rocket engine. De­veloped by the team led by V P Glushko, this controllable engine had a single thrust cham­ber fed with RFNA (concentrated nitric acid) and kerosene. Maximum thrust at sea level was 1,200kg, but in this aircraft the brochure figure was 1,000kg (2,205 Ib). Bearing no direct relevance to any previous Polikarpov fighter, the airframe had a curvaceous Shpon (plas­tic-bonded birch laminates) fuselage sitting on a wing of D-l stressed-skin construction. The tail was also D-l alloy. The pressurized cockpit was in the nose, behind which was the radio, oxygen bottles asnd gun maga­zines, followed by a relatively enormous tank of acid and a smaller one of kerosene. The tri­cycle landing gears and split flaps were oper­ated pneumatically, and the armament comprised two powerful VYa-23 cannon. Had it run a year or two earlier this might have been a useful aircraft, though it offered little that was not already being done by the BI and Type 302. At the same time, the death of the General Constructor should not have brought everything to a halt. Dimensions (performance Span Length Wing area estimated) 7.5m 7.3m 8.0m2 24 ft n in 23 ft 11 Min 86ft2 Weights Empty 1,016kg 2,240 Ib Propellants 1,500kg 3,307Ib Loaded 2,795kg 6,162 Ib Performance Max speed at sea level 890 km/h 553 mph Time to climb to 5 km 1 min 16,404ft Service ceiling 16km 52,500 ft Landing speed (empty tanks) 135 km/h 84 mph Malyutka   Sukhoi Su-37 Posted by admin in Soviet x-plenes on November 9, 2015 Purpose: To create the optimised multirole fighter derived from the Su-27. Design Bureau: AOOT ‘OKB Sukhoi’, Moscow. The superb basic design of the T-10 led not only to the production Su-27 but also to sev­eral derivative aircraft. Some, such as the Su-34, are almost completely redesigned for new missions. One of the main objectives has been to create even better multirole fighters, and via the Su-27UB-PS and LMK 24-05 Sukhoi and the Engine KB ‘Lyul’ka-Saturn’ have, in partnership with national laborato­ries and the avionics industry, created the Su-37. The prototype was the T10M-11, tail number 711, first flown on 2nd April 1996. The engine nozzles were fixed on the first flight, but by September 1996, when it arrived at the Farnborough airshow, this aircraft had made 50 flights with nozzles able to vector. At the British airshow it astounded observers by going beyond the dramatic Kobra manoeuvre and making a complete tight 360° somersault essentially within the aircraft’s own length and without change in altitude. Called Kulbit (somersault), this manoeuvre has yet to be emulated by any other aircraft. In 1999 low-rate production was being planned at Komsomolsk. Essentially the Su-37 is an Su-35 with vec­toring engines. Compared with the Su-27 the Su-35 has many airframe modifications in­cluding canards, taller square-top fins (which are integral tanks) and larger rudders, dou­ble-slotted flaps, a bulged nose housing the electronically scanned antenna of the N011M radar, an extended rear fuselage housing the aft-facing defence radar, twin nosewheels and, not least, quad FBW flight controls able to handle a longitudinally unstable aircraft. In addition to these upgrades the Su-37 has AL-31FP engines, each with dry and aug­mented thrust of 8,500 and 14,500kg (18,740 and 31,9671b) respectively. These engines have efficient circular nozzles driven by four pairs of actuators to vector ±15° in pitch. Left/right vectoring is precluded by the prox­imity of the enlarged rear fuselage, but engine General Designer Viktor Chepkin says ‘Differ­ential vectoring in the vertical plane is syn­onymous with 3-D multi-axis nozzles’. In production engines the actuators are driven by fuel pressure. It is difficult to imagine how any fighter with fixed-axis nozzles could hope to survive in any kind of one-on-one engagement with this aircraft. Dimensions Span (over ECM containers) Length Wing area 15.16m 22.20m 62.0m2 49 ft 8k! in 72 ft 10 in 667ft2 Weights Weight empty 17tonnes 37,479 Ib Maximum loaded 34 tonnes 74,956 Ib Performance Maximum speed at sea level l,400km/h 870mph(Machl. l4) at high altitude 2,500 km/h 1,553 mph (Mach 2.35) Rate of climb 230 m/s 45,276 ft/min Service ceiling 18,800m 61,680ft Range (internal fuel) 3,300 km 2,050 miles Purpose: To provide data to support the design of a superior air-combat fighter. Design Bureau: AOOT ‘OKB Sukhoi’, Moscow. Almost unknown until its first flight, this air­craft is one of the most remarkable in the sky. Any impartial observer cannot fail to see that, unless Sukhoi’s brilliance has suddenly be­come dimmed, it is a creation of enormous importance. Like the rival from MiG, it pro­vides the basis for a true ‘fifth-generation’ fighter which with rapid funding could swiftly become one of the greatest multirole fighters in the world. Unfortunately, in the Russia of today it will do well to survive at all, especial­ly as the WS has for political and personality reasons shown hostile indifference. In fact on 1st February 1996, when the first image of a totally new Sukhoi fighter leaked out in the form of a fuzzy picture of a tabletop model, the WS Military Council instantly proclaimed that this aircraft ‘is not prospective from the point of view of re-equipment within 2010­25’. In fact the first hint of this project came during a 1991 visit by French journalists to CAHI (TsAGI), when they were shown a model of an aircraft with FSW (forward – swept wings) and canard foreplanes called the Sukhoi S-32. At the risk of causing confu­sion, Sukhoi uses S for projects and Su for products, the same number often appearing in both categories but for totally different air­craft (for example, the Su-32 is piston-en­gined). In December 1993, during the Institute’s 75th-birthday celebrations, its work on the FSW was said to be ‘for a new fighter of Sukhoi design’. The model shown in Feb­ruary 1996 again bore the number ’32’ but clearly had tailplanes as well as canards. It had been known for many years that the FSW has important aeroelastic advantages over the traditional backswept wing (see OKB-1 bombers and Tsybin LL). At least up to Mach 1.3 (1,400 tol,500km/h, 870 to 930mph) the FSW offers lower drag and superior manoeu­vrability, and the lower drag also translates as longer range. A further advantage is that take­offs and landings are shorter. The fundamen­tal aeroelastic problem with the FSW can be demonstrated by holding a cardboard wing out of the window of a speeding vehicle. A cardboard FSW tends to bend upwards vio­lently, out ofcontrol. An FSW for a fastjet was thus very difficult to make until the technolo­gy of composite structures enabled the wing to be designed with skins formed from multi­ple layers of adhesive-bonded fibres of car­bon or glass. With such skins the directions of the fibres can be arranged to give maximum strength, rather like the directions of the grain in plywood. The first successful jet FSW was the Grumman X-29, first flown in December 1984. This exerted a strong influence on the Sukhoi S-32 design team, which under Mikhail Simonov was led by First Deputy Gen­eral Designer Mikhail A Pogosyan, and in­cluded Sergei Korotkov who is today’s S-37 chief designer. From 1983 the FSW was ex­haustively investigated, not only by aircraft OKBs but especially by CAHI (TsAGI) and the Novosibirsk-based SibNIA, which tunnel-test­ed several FSW models based loosely on the Su-27. By 1990 Simonov was determined to create an FSW prototype, and three years later the decision had been taken not to wait for non-existent State funds but instead to put every available Sukhoi ruble into constructing such an aircraft. Despite a continuing ab­sence ofofficial funding, this has proved to be possible because of income from export sales of fighters ofthe Su-27 family. Construc­tion began in early 1996, but in that year Western aviation magazines began chanting that the S-32 was soon to fly. Uncertain about the outcome, Simonov changed the designa­tion to S-37, so that he could proclaim The S-32 does not exist’. It had been hoped to fly the radical new research aircraft at the MAKS – 97 airshow, but it was not ready in time. It was a near miss, because the almost completed S-37 had begun ground testing in July, and by August it was making taxi tests at LII Zhukovskii, the venue for the airshow. After MAKS 97 was over it emerged again, and on 25th September 1997 it began its flight test programme. The assigned pilot is Igor Vik­torovich Votintsev. A cameraman at the LII took film which was broadcast on Russian TV, when the aircraft was publicised as the Berkut (golden eagle). On its first flight, when for a while the landing gear was retracted, the S-37 was accompanied by a chase Su-30 car­rying a photographer. It is a long way from being an operational fighter, but that is no rea­ son for dismissing it as the WS, Ministry of Defence and the rival MiG company have done. Fortunately there are a few objective people in positions of authority, one being Marshal Yevgenii Shaposhnikov, former WS C-in-C. Despite rival factions both within the WS and industry (and even within OKB Sukhoi) this very important aircraft has made it to to the flight-test stage. Whether it can be made to lead to a fully operational fighter is problematical. The primary design objective ofthis aircraft is to investigate the aerodynamics and con­trol systems needed to manoeuvre at angles of attack up to at least 100°. From the outset it was designed to be powered by two AL-41F augmented turbofans from Viktor Chepkin’s Lyul’ka Saturn design bureau. In 1993 he con­fidentially briefed co-author Gunston on this outstanding engine. At that time it had already begun flight testing under a Tu-16 and on one side of a M1G-25PD (aircraft 84-20). Despite this considerable maturity it was not cleared as the sole source of propulsion in time for the S-37, though the aircraft could be re-engined later. Accordingly the Sukhoi prototype is at present powered by two AL-31F engines, with dry and afterburning thrusts of 8,100 and 12,500kg (17,557 and 27,560 Ib), respectively. Special engines were tailored to suit the S-37 installation, but at the start of the flight pro­gramme they still lacked vectoring nozzles. The engines are mounted only a short dis­tance apart, fed by ducts from lateral inlets of the quarter-circle type. At present the inlets are of fixed geometry, with inner splitter plates standing away from the wall of the fuselage and bounded above by the under­side ofthe very large LERX (leading-edge root extension), which in fact is quite distinct from the root of the wing. The wing itself compris­es an inboard centroplan with leading-edge sweep of 70°, leading via a curved corner to the main panel with forward sweep of 24° on the leading edge and nearly 40° on the trailing edge. The forward-swept portion has a two – section droop flap over almost the whole leading edge, and plain trailing-edge flaps and outboard ailerons. Structurally it is de­scribed as ’90 per cent composites’. The main wing panels are designed so that in a derived aircraft they could fold to enable the aircraft to fit into the standard Russian hardened air­craft shelter. Aerodynamically the S-37 is an­other ‘triplane’, having canard foreplanes as well as powered tailplanes. The former are greater in chord than those of later Su-27 de­rivatives, the trailing edge being tapered in­stead of swept back. Likewise the tailplanes have enormous chord, but as the leading – edge angle is over 75° their span is very short. As in other Sukhoi fighters, the tailplanes are pivoted to beams extending back from the wing on the outer side of the engines. Unlike previous Sukhois the tailplanes are not mounted on spigots on the sides of the beams but on transverse hinges across their aft end. These beams also carry the fins and rudders, which are similar to those of other Sukhois apart from being further apart (a long way outboard of the engines) and canted out­ward. After flight testing had started the rud­ders were given extra strips (in Russia called knives) along the trailing edge. When the S-37 is parked, with hydraulic pressure decayed, the foreplanes, tailplanes and ailerons come to rest 30° nose-up. The landing gear is almost identical to that ofthe Su-27K, with twin steer­able nosewheels. In the photographs re­leased so far no airbrakes or centreline braking-parachute container can be seen. In­ ternal fuel capacity is a mere 4,000kg (8,8181b), though much more could be ac­commodated. The cockpit has an Su-27 type upward-hinged canopy, and a sidestick on the right. The airframe makes structural pro­vision for 8 tonnes (17,637 Ib) of external and internal weapons, including a gun in the left centroplan. It is also covered in numerous flush avionics antennas, though the only ones that are functional are those necessary for aerodynamic and control research. A bump to starboard ahead of the wraparound wind­screen could later contain an opto-electronic (TV, IR, laser) sight, while the two tail beams are continued different distances to the rear to terminate in prominent white domes, doubtless for avionics though they could con­ceivably house braking parachutes. These domes stand out against the startling dark blue with which this aircraft has been paint­ed. Sukhoi has stressed that this aircraft in­corporates radar-absorbent and beneficially reflective ‘stealth’ features, though again the objective is research. Also standing out visu­ally are the white-bordered red stars, though of course the aircraft is company-owned and bears ‘OKB Sukhoi’ in large yellow characters on the fuselage, along with callsign 01, which confusingly is the same as the MiG 1.44. The Russians have traditionally had a strong aversion to what appear to be uncon­ventional solutions, and this has in the past led to the rejection of many potentially out­standing aircraft. The S-37 has to overcome this attitude, as well as the bitter political struggle within the OKB, with RSK MiG, with factions in the Ministry of Defence and air force and, not least, two banks which are bat­tling to control the OKB. Dimensions Span 16.7m 54 ft m in Length (ex PVO boom) 22.6m 74 ft 1% in Wing area about 67m2 721 ft2 Weights Take-off mass given as 24 tonnes 52,910 Ib (the design maximum is higher) Performance Design maximum speed 1,700 km/h, 1,057 mph (Mach 1.6) (which would explain the fixed-geometry inlets. At Mach numbers much higher than this the FSW is less attractive) At press time no other data had emerged. Purpose: To study wings for transonic flight. Design Bureau: OKB-256, ChiefDesigner Pavel Vladimirovich T sybin, professor at Zhukovskii academy. In September 1945 the LIl-MAP (Flight Re­search Institute) asked Tsybin to investigate wings suitable for flight at high Mach num­bers (if possible, up to 1). In 1946 numerous models were tested at CAHI (TsAGI), as a re­sult of which OKB-256 constructed the Ts-1, also called LL-1 (flying laboratory 1). Almost in parallel, a design team at the OKB led by A V Beresnev developed a new fuselage and tail and two new wings, one swept back and the other swept forward. The LL-1 made 30 flights beginning in mid-1947 with NIl-WS pilot M Ivanov, and continuing with Amet- Khan Sultan, S N Anokhin and N S Rybko. On each flight the aircraft was towed by a Tu-2. Casting off at 5-7km (16,400-23,000ft), the air­craft was dived at 45°-60° until at full speed it was levelled out and the rocket fired. In win­ter 1947-48 the second Ts-1 was fitted with the swept-forward wing to become the LL-3. This made over 100 flights, during which a speed of l,200km/h (746mph) and Mach 0.97 were reached, without aeroelastic problems and yielding much information. The swept – back wing was retrofitted to the first aircraft to create the LL-2, but this was never flown. The original Ts-1 (LL-1) was essentially all­wood. The original wing had two Delta (resin – bonded ply) spars, a symmetric section of 5 per cent thickness, 0° dihedral and +2° inci­dence. It had conventional ailerons and plain flaps (presumably worked by bottled gas pressure). Take-offs were made from a two – wheel jettisonable dolly, plus a small tail – wheel. In the rear fuselage was a PRD-1500 solid-propellant rocket developed by 11 Kar – tukov, giving 1,500kg (3,307 Ib) (more at high altitude) for eight to ten seconds. Flight con­trols were manual, with mass balances. On early flights no less than one tonne (2,2051b) of water was carried as ballast, simulating in­strumentation to be installed later. This was jettisoned before landing, when the aircraft (now a glider) was much more manoeu­vrable. Landings were made on a skid. Vari­ous kinds of instrumentation were carried, and at times at least one wing was tufted and photographed. The LL-3 was fitted with a metal wing with a forward sweep of 30° (ac­cording to drawings this was measured on the leading edge), with no less than 12° dihe­dral. The new tailplane had a leading-edge sweepback of 40°. To adjust the changed cen­tres of lift and of gravity new water tanks were fitted in the nose and tail. Both LL-1 and LL-3 were considered excellent value for money. Left: LL-1. Below left: LL-2. Below: LL-2, left wing tufted.   LL-3, showing take-off trolley   Dimensions (LL-3) Span Length Wing area 7.22m 8.98m 10.0m2 23 ft 814 in 29 ft 5Л in 108ft2 Weights Loaded 2,039kg 4,495 Ib Landing 1,100kg 2,425 Ib Performance Maxspeedreached l,200km/h 746 mph Landing speed 120km/h 74.6 mph   Purpose: To create a winged strategic delivery vehicle. Design Bureau: OKB-256, Podberez’ye, Director P V Tsybin. In the early 1950s it was evident that the forth­coming thermonuclear weapons would need strategic delivery systems of a new kind. Until the ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) was perfected the only answer appeared to be a supersonic bomber. After much plan­ning , Tsybin went to the Kremlin on 4 th March 1954 and outlined his proposal for a Reak – tivnyi Samolyot (jet aeroplane). The detailed and costed Preliminary Project was issued on 31st January 1956, with a supplementary sub­mission of a reconnaissance version called 2RS. Korolyov’s rapid progress with the R-7 ICBM (launched 15th May 1957 and flown to its design range on 21st August 1957) caused the RS to be abandoned. All effort was trans­ferred to the 2RS reconnaissance aircraft (de­scribed next). The RS had an aerodynamically brilliant configuration, precisely repeated in the British Avro 730 which was timed over a year later. The wing was placed well back on the long circular-section fuselage and had a sym­metric section with a thickness/chord ratio of 2.5 to 3.5 per cent. It had extremely low as­pect ratio (0.94) and was sharply tapered on both edges. Large-chord flaps were provided inboard of conventional ailerons, other flight controls comprising canard foreplanes and a rudder, all surfaces being fully powered. The cockpit housed a pilot in a pressure suit, seat­ed in an ejection-seat under a canopy linked to the tail by a spine housing pipes and con­trols. The RS was to be carried to a height of 9km (29,528ft) under a Tu-95N. After release it was to accelerate to supersonic speed (de­sign figure 3,000km/h) on the thrust oftwo jet­tisoned rocket motors. The pilot was then to start the two propulsion engines, mounted on the wingtips. These were RD-013 ramjets, de­signed by Bondaryuk’s team at OKB-670. Each had a fixed-geometry multi-shock inlet and convergent/divergent nozzle matched to the cruise Mach number of 2.8. Internal di­ameter and length were respectively 650mm (2ft IHin) and 5.5m (18ft 1/2in). The 1955 pro­ject had 16.5 tonnes offuel, or nearly 3.5 times the 4.8-t empty weight, but by 1956 the latter had grown and fuel weight had in conse­quence been reduced. The military load was to be a 244N thermonuclear bomb weighing 1,100kg (2,4251b). The only surviving drawing shows this carried by a tailless-delta missile towed to the target area attached behind the RS fuselage (see below). Data for this vehicle are not known. Outstandingly advanced for its day, had this vehicle been carried through resolutely it would have presented ‘The West’ with a seri­ous defence problem. Dimensions Span (over engine centrelines) 9.0 m 29 ft 6% in Basic wing 7.77 m 25ft53/4in Foreplane 3.2 m 10 ft 6 in Length 27.5 m 90 ft 2% in Wing area 64 m2 689ft2 Weights Empty 5,200 kg ll,4641b Fuel 10,470kg 23,082 Ib Maximum take-off weight 2 1 , 160 kg 46,649 Ib Performance Range at 3,000 km/h (1,864 mph, Mach 2.82) at 28 km (91 ,864 ft) altitude 13,500 km 8,389 miles Landing speed/ 245 km/h 152 mph run 1,100m 3,610ft RS   1 2 3 … 12 Next » Tweet Copyright © 2023 Aviation – airports, aircraft, helicopters … - Everything about aviation. Aviation News from around the world. Commercial and General Aviation, airports, airplanes, helicopters and other aircraft.