Ken, what Myasishchev projects are included?

I have lots of model pics, drawings and the odd painting for M-18, M-20, M-30, M-31, M-32, M-34, M-50, M-52, M-54, M-56, M-57. M-60, M-70. Often with several variants of each design.

Myasishchev’s bureau was reformed on 24 March 1951 to work on the Bison (“Project 25”). They then worked on the M-50/52 Bounder, which was unsuccessful, but in 1960 all work was terminated and they were reassigned to Chelomei to work on Khrushchev’s beloved missiles.

With Khrushchev’s fall from grace in the mid 60s, Myasishchev were reformed and allowed to resume work on aircraft. They were doing preliminary design work on new multirole bombers first as M-20 and later as M-18. They studied a vast range of possible layouts including canard deltas, tailless deltas, canard VG, tailed VG, twin, single and T style tails.

Undoubtedly the final M-18 design looks quite like the B-1A, but Myasishchev tried pretty much every possible layout and the M-18 design was felt to be the right balance between risk and performance.

Sukhoi’s T-4MS “won” in the sense it promised the most, but Sukhoi was considered to be too busy on the T-10 project.

Tupolev’s own design was basically a militarised Tu-144 and the Soviet Air Force hated it.

Myasishchev’s design was the right balance between risk and performance, but their factory was now producing missiles for Chelomei and they had no facilities to build a prototype.

So, Tupolev won the tender, with all documentation regarding the T-4MS and M-18 being passed to them. Tupolev at once rejected the T-4MS as too risky (even today, it would be a considerable challenge!) but considered the M-18 was a reasonable design and used some ideas from it. Initial designs of the Tu-160 show a blending of Tu-22M and M-18 influences, and as the design was refined it looked even more like the M-18.

The latest Agat seeker is claimed to implement new technical solutions and have a range up to 90km vs a 5 sq m RCS target. It operates in passive, semi-active and active modes.

R-77M is an updated version supposedly being studied.

K-30 is a short range AAM to replace the R-73. Drawings have been shown.

It is probably not too dissimilar in basic performance to the earliest AIM-120 models. However, the AIM-120 has had the benefit of continuous development and large bundles of cash invested in it.

I disagree with SK on why it never made large scale service though. I think its because Russia has no suitable platforms for it. Without a radar at least of Zhuk level its really not worth bothering with. The prime concern of the Soviet AF was missiles that outranged the opposition, and the R-77 was worse in this respect than R-27E.

The R-77 missiles that have been made have, IIRC, been put together by Vympel’s experimental facility and never put into mass production at a factory. Hence, they are basically prototypes still. There has never been an order big enough to justify setting up a full production line.

A plasma stealth generator would appeal to the Soviet/Russian way of thinking. Its like the T-64/72/80 being upgraded with reactive armour, as opposed to building a whole new tank. If there was a promise of a small “black box” that would make expensive investments in new manufacturing technology and RCS research irrelevant, I can imagine it gaining approval. If it then turned out to be impractical/impossible, then they would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

The basic R-77 does not have a lofted profile. The older AIM-120 versions didn’t either, IIRC. The R-77M is supposed to have a lofted profile and new motor, and is presumably being funded by exports of the old (basically Soviet era) R-77 model.

SK- you are wrong on this one.

There have been several articles in Avweek etc from a Russian bureau who have worked on RCS reduction. I can send you the article if you want. They said that they had cut the RCS on the Tu-160 to 1/6th, the Su-47 Berkut 1/10th, and the Kh-101 to 1/14th compared to the unmodified design provided by the OKB. The Tu-160 did undergo RCS reduction; the intakes were kept shrouded in public for quite a while to prevent the treatments becoming public knowledge. How many aircraft were modified, I don’t know.

Separately, they worked on the Su-35 cutting its RCS to 1/10th with minor modifications, including developing an aerosol based RAM for treating munitions hotspots.

The thing about RCS is very small things can contribute very large amounts to the RCS. By treating these hotspots, you can significantly reduce RCS. Not to the level of stealth aircraft, clearly, but potentially significant.

Russian companies have full access to RCS prediction software now, but they currently lack the manufacturing capabilities to implement real stealth design.