Мясищев 3M-M4

significantly redesigned. The last version of the 2M bomber sketch project was considered by customer representatives in the autumn of 1953. However OKB-36 called VD-5 studies off because of the existence of the new more powerful VD-7 engine project. The VD-7 had a thrust of 16000 kg. When designing the original bomber layout, Myasishchev had been interested in the non-afterburning version VD-7. Thus Project 28 was halted and OKB-23 began studies to improve the M-4 design.

The aircraft featured a new wing with larger area and span. Stall performance improvement was assisted by revised profile, aerodynamic twist and retaining only one pair of wing fences. Trailing edge turn was eliminated. I. E. Baslavsky had proposed various ideas to improve the wing and, led by L I. Balabuch, the OKB-23 Structural Strength Department together with TsAGI engineers under the tutelage of A. I Makarevsky achieved significant wing weight reduction. The new wings retained the necessary mechanical strength.

The tail unit was redesigned without a lateral dihedral. The rebuilt fuselage incorporated a number of modifications including a radome in place of the canopy and the nose section being lengthened by 900 mm. The bomb sight was placed under the cockpit. One of crew station was transferred to the tail and this reduction in crew resulted in a weight savings of the fuselage F-1 section by 500kg. This, combined with the aerodynamic improvements of the fuselage led to a better performance than that of the earlier M-4 model. The aerodynamic quality was 18.5.

The forward landing gear was fitted with a pneumatic actuator instead of the M-4"s hydraulic system. The aircraft's control system was entirely rebuilt. More reliable boosters were introduced and outer aluminium push-pull rods were replaced by steel ones.

Despite having a greater maximum thrust (11500kg at take-of mode) than the old AM-3s, the new engines were smaller and lighter. They were thus mounted in the nacelles without any problems. However the nacelle interiors were redesigned. The new nacelle exteriors differed only in the arran­ gement of service hatches.

Being more powerful, the new engines had a smaller specific fuel consumption. This provided an increase in payload and range. Armed with one nuclear bomb (normal payload version) the aircraft could carry additional fuel tanks set in the bomb bay and two 65000I drop tanks beneath the wing. They were placed between the engine nacelles. In the case of shorter range flights, the bomb bay accommodated 241 of conventional bombs (4xFAB6000 or 8xFAB-3000). Contemporary versions of the B-52 Stratofortress could carry the same payloads.

The new bomber was equipped with the Rubin (Ruby) radar and navigation-bombardment auto­ maton, which could automatically guide an aircraft to the target and deploy the bomb load. The aircraft was named 3M. The project left the drawing board in 1955 and the full-scale models were prepared.

Two production M-4 bombers (bu. # 5300201 and bu. # 5300203) were used for trials. But the Rybinsk OKB-36 had only been able to deliver two VD-7 engines only by then. Thus the first experi­ mental a/c # 0201 was fitted with two AM-3M turbojels in the left nacelles with two VD-7 in the right. The latter were adjusted to provide equal thrust to the AM-3M engines.

The first flight on 27 March resulted in an emergency incident. The aircraft's nose began to raise quickly soon after takeoff. To prevent a stall the pilot immediately pushed the aircraft's nose down and carefully continued to climb. Having

ascended to a safe height the new bomber performed an emergency landing. Parabrakes and the standby hydraulic system were used because of the high approach speed and primary hydrosystem failure,

However the ЗМ'ь development was less eventful than that of the M-4. There were no more serious incidents during the trials. Fitted with Der548 drop tank racks, the second 3M soon began trials. Furthermore, both planes were equipped with the Konus refuelling system. It was found that the 3Ms, with a normal payload of 5000kg could achieve a range of 11800km. Altitude performance showed a slight improvement over the M-4. The second pair of wing fences were introduced because of hazardous wing airflow breakdowns existing under certain conditions. The main problem was very significant self-sustained vibrations of the VD-7 engines' first-stage compressors. This was solved by reducing the engines' RPM. Consequently the series production engines had a maximum thrust of only 9500 kg and were named VD-7B. Neverthe­ less due to the new engines' lower fuel consumption, range was 10500 km without air refueling — a 15% increase over the M-4. However the VD-7B lacked sufficient operational life and the customer called for improvements.

In the meantime the designers decided that the old RD-3M-500A turbojets should power the 3M bomber. Given all the structural and techno­ logical improvements, the 3M had to offer some increase in performance. This version was named 3MS. Those aircraft fitted with VD-7 turbojets bomber had the designation 3MN .

The first production 3M bomber (bu. # 6320301) was built in 1956. Production was accelerated through 5 aircraft batches. New bombers were allocated to the 22nd TBAD in Engels. Its structure had been slightly altered by then. The M-4s had been already rebuilt as tankers. Each bombardment wing (TBAP) was asigned a squadron of Tu-16 tankers except separate squadrons in Shaulyai and Seryshevo. Furthermore, training squadrons equipped with Tu-16s were formed.

Having been adopted by the Soviet Air Force, the 3M bombers showed better reliability than the M-4. The 3M was easier to fly. But mastering air- to-air refueling still resulted in many difficulties. Because of the 11500 kg thrust of the VD-7 engined variant, external fuel tanks were not employed, however the 3MN bombers retained the racks. The Internal tanks saw extensive service. Having a shorter operational life, the VD-7B turbojets required frequent replacement. Nevertheless range became sufficient to attack targets in the USA and return home. The bombers were equipped with the new generation thermonuclear bombs. On 6 October 1957 Product 37 hydrogen bomb trials demon­ strated a theoretical destructive power of 2,9 Mt. Improvements to the bomb were undertaken at once and it resulted in a lOMt test explosion on 27 September 1962.

Long range bombers were also armed with less powerful nuclear weapons.

RP-30 and RP-32 nuclear bombs with a power of 200kt were adopted during the 1950s. IAB-3000 drill bombs were introduced to imitate nuclear explosion and to train nuclear weapon use. 3M bombers had white undersides, leading and trailing edges to reduce an explosion's impact. The bombers could carry RAT-52 jet torpedoes and IGDM naval mines, MDM-2-500M, Lira (Lyre) etc.

The aircraft's defensive armament was rein­ forced with the Argon radio sight station. It served all turrets and could operate in the lower hemisphere of the aircraft. Nose turrets were armed with 1100 shells and tail turret 2000 shells.

Due to its aerodynamic shape, 3M bomber had a rather small radar signature. During various military exercises, hundreds of kilometers of Soviet territory boasting updated air defense systems were overflown unchecked by these long range bombers. The 3M's signature was reduced yet further by the application of a special paint, created on the basis of German materials. As an added bonus, the bomber also adapted quite well to low altitude flights.

Soviet Long Range Aviation constantly refined its tactics to breach enemy air defences, however N. S. Chrushchev decided that nuclear submarines and ICBMs would assume the role of the long range bombers. Long Range Aviation Commander-in-Chief V.A. Sudets saved the service from complete disbandment during the rocket boom and the heavy bombers were assigned other duties.

During the Caribbean crisis In 1961, 3M bombers were loaded with real thermonuclear bombs and were prepared to attack targets from Shaulyai and Seryshevo front line airbases. Concerning other duties, 3Ms were considered the a suitable form of deterrent against the West. The bombers could demonstrate Soviet military presence in many parts of the World and sought out American aircraft carriers.

At first American carrier-borne fighters even unwittingly assisted the 3Ms in finding their carriers but they did attempt to prevent Soviet crews from taking photographs. In 1964 a NATO naval group lost track of a mock attack by Soviet bombers near the Russian coast. The potential foe began to change track and used various countermeasures. NATO fighters carried out very aggressive approaches and training attacks. Sometimes they tried to prevent air refueling and Soviet gunners had to fire warning shots.

In the case of a real war, 3M bombers were in demand to seek out aircraft carriers and relay their coordinates back to missile carriers or combat ships. However the 3M had poor reconnaissance equipment because the Designer General had not paid full attention to this issue. Normally 3M bombers were equipped with the obsolete AFA-42 camera. To perform nocturnal photo reconnais­ sance, flares were employed. The radio commu­ nications equipment necessitated the creation of relay or command centres to send data on to the submarines. ECM equipment incorporated the SPS-2 radio-station only.

There was only one attempt to improve 3M bomber as a reconnaissance platform.

Experimental 3Ms featured additional equip­ ment in the bomb bay but trials proved unsuc­ cessful.

Despite the M-50 project research, significant quantities of new materials and technologies already existed to be employed in 3M bomber development by the time production commenced. The wing was rebuilt once more. It lost the leading edge turn and two wing fences only remained. The refuelling probe was shortened and the rudder redesigned.

In 1959 the Central Committee of the CPSU and Council of Ministers of the USSR placed an order calling for the development of the K-14 missile weapon system using the 3MD bomber as a platform and designed by OKB-155 under the leadership of M. I. Gurevitch.

The new aircraft was equipped with the Rubin-1 (Ruby) radar, created in Leningrad by OKB-283, in place of the Rubidii (Rubidium) MM-2. The Rubin-1 differed from the latter system in having a smaller target designation degree of error. Two K-14 missiles were to be slung beneath the wing main panels, moreover the plane was fitted with two drop tanks between engine nacelles. The new bomber

Сергей Мороз

ЗМ на стоянке. Фото А. Андреева ЗМ aircraft at a stand. (A. Andreev)

datively smoothly the 3M bombers did nol fly to Afghanistan. In the 1980s all remaining airworthy M bombers were rebuilt as tankers, according to SibNIA documents. The last one was rebuilt in 1987, In the mid-1980s as perestroika gathered pace, i number of peace initiatives were floated. Among

nem was a Soviet commitment to reduce the ;uantity of long-range bombers. It was decided to •crap the old 3M bombers remaining at Engels,

.vhich had not been airworthy since the mid-1970s, 'he demolition of 3Ms proved a very successful nedia event as pictures of the Soviet strategic ютЬег graveyard were flashed across the World, 'he Soviet Air Force's association with the 3MN ,od 3MD finally came to an end in the 1980s. The emaining 3MS-2 tankers were fitted with RD-3M- 500A turbojets and consolidated in a single wing. Due to the long operational life of the engines fitted at Engels, the 3MS-2 tankers remained in service until 1994.

Atlarrt

During the 1970s the USSR began the creation of a powerful space transport system, Energia (Energy). The Ministry of Common Machine Manufacturing required the construction of a special cargo aircraft to transport Energia system subassemblies. The Aviation industry subcontracted the aircraft to the Antonov Design Bureau. However the Energia system and Buran (Snow-storm) space shuttle were completed earlier than the intended transporter, the Antonov An-225 Mriya (Dream). A special ferry aircraft was required at once. The EMZ plant suggested that a 3M bomber might be adapted. The cargo would be mounted on the aircraft's upper surface.

In 1979 the rebuilding of two standard 3M planes was begun at the EMZ plant. The new aircraft were fitted with twin tail units and a redesigned fuselage tail section. Together with TsAGI and SibNIA engineers, the plant strengthened the aircraft structure to avoid cracking. The new aircraft featured a PKU-50 loader to facilitate cargo mounting, removal and loading into a transporter. The Maximum cargo weight was 32 t. At first the new aircraft was designated 3M-T . But when Vladimir M. Myasishchev died on 14 October 1978, the plane was renamed VM-T .

Trials were undertaken at the Lll in Zhukovsky from 1981. The first flight was made on 6 January 1982 in hands of A. Kucherenko, N. Generalov, B. Aizatulin, V. Padukov, I. Semuchin and S. Sokolov. The plane was evaluated with four types of external cargo all proved successful. The new aircraft's official name became the VM-Atlant. On 4 April 1982 Baikonur Space Centre received its first cargo transported by VM-T.

Sadly technical problems and economic crisis halted the Soviet space shuttle programme.

In 1992 the EMZ plant, together with TsAGI and the A. M. Lyulka scientific-production enterprise (Saturn) began joint aircraft research using a 3Mdemonstrator. The aircraft incorporates the VM-T airframe and a booster section fitted with two D-57 cryogenic rocket engines, designed for the N-1 moon rocket under leadership of A. M. Lyulka. It enables the aircraft to complete the launches of small satellites and reusable spacecraft such as Hotol and Senger. Thus life of Myasishchev's aircraft continues.