Tu-22M3: News

GarryB wrote:

with new engines the flight range of the Tu-22M3M will be almost 10 thousand kilometers.

Nice... so a radius of about 5,000km... plus likely more with inflight refuelling that makes them very potent theatre strike aircraft...

They didnt specify in article with or without refueling though. I'd say with . The funny this is why now refueling bar is included? it was dropped for some reason. Is this treaty dead?

The upgraded electronics will allow the aircraft to use the Kh-32, Kh-55, Kh-555, Kh-101/102 missiles, and prospective Kh-50, GZUR and Dagger .

Dagger... Kinzhal? Mach 10 2,000km range missile... impressive...

[/quote]

Tu-22M ceiling ~ 13000m,  speed max - 2300 km/h
MiG-31  ceiling  +20,000m speed  max  3000 km/h

unlikely Kindzgal gets same initial kinetic energy so perhaps range will decrease too.

If they can rebuild the Tu-160 then rebuilding Tu-22M3s would be easy as it is a smaller lighter aircraft...

That's the idea I'd say. Cheaper to get massive increase in air component deterrence. That would explain so little investment in ships now. More money for economy same fending off effect.

Now I mean current Konradiev Cycle/Wave untill hi tech is mastered perhaps this is the cheapest way to stay safe.

So two pilots makes sense because of long flight times, but it also suggests the issues with navigation and self defence have been fully automated to the point where the extra crew are clearly not needed anymore.

Hmmm I wonder why Tu-160 still has crew of four...

With 50 new Blackjacks that means about 60-65 Blackjacks in total... x4 = 240 to 260 engines on aircraft plus a couple of dozen spares, and with 50 odd Backfires that means another hundred engines as well... makes the upgrades much more cost effective and savings in fuel are further increased...

The addition of inflight refuelling will be a huge bonus too...

refueling is not violating any START? or this is just over? BTW article say 36 to be upgraded but everything can change as situation can change too.

I wonder if the Chinese might be interested in some now...

Last time in 2013 they were rejected but now... I wouldn't be so sure



No negotiations were conducted with China on the delivery of Tu-22M3 bombers and are not being conducted - Rosoboronexport[/b]

Policy January 24, 2013

, 12:18 UTC + 3
Deliveries of Tu-22M3 to foreign countries are in principle impossible, since these aircraft are strategic weapons

Подробнее на ТАСС:
http://tass.ru/politika/658978

 imagine all your 65 Blackjacks are out hunting US carriers and WWIII starts.... not time to rush back home and change into your ball gown for the Grand ball....

In comparison the Tu-22M3M would be ideal for dealing with any threats near the Russian coast... 5,000km radius for the aircraft plus 2,000km reach for the Kinzhal mach 10 missile... that is plenty of protection against any sort of ship...

The idea is they will help that it will not start because of many well armed bombers that ill clean world oceans if needed. After  CVSG are cleaned sea bases are available to long range missiles...

First wave of Tu-22 cleans Pacific then wave of Tu-160 closes to say 1500 km for US shores so no fighter can reach them and shoot salvos of 5000km missiles...

dino00 wrote:The weapons are realy impressive.
Maybe kh-mt?
Great post GunshipDemocracy!

[/quote]not me it was just quoting 2 articles  
BTW what is Kh-MT?[/quote]

I knew, i was saying your post bring great information
Kh-MT is a developing supersonic missile for tu 160M2, ~1500km range

GunshipDemocracy wrote:...Hmmm I wonder why Tu-160 still has crew of four......

When you are hauling nuclear ordinance it makes sense to have people who are tasked with keeping an eye on Armageddon toys so others can relax and fly the plane.

PapaDragon wrote:

When you are hauling nuclear ordinance it makes sense to have people who are tasked with keeping an eye on Armageddon toys so others can relax and fly the plane.

Ruskies are such down shifters! 4 people is 2 times less work efficiency comparing to B2!

dino00 wrote:I knew, i was saying your post bring great information
Kh-MT is a developing supersonic missile for tu 160M2, ~1500km range

hmm for me Kh- is for missile code not manfacturer but I dotn calim to know all

BTW offically source is Janes, in Russianthis si also here:
https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/463687-vks-rossya-rakety

Ah my bad GZUR is to be 6Ma not 8Ma apologies

According to Jane's Missiles & Rockets, one of the most secret projects of the Russian defense industry is an airborne hypersonic guided missile (GZUR). The magazine, like the rest of the media, does not indicate the code of this ammunition, but at the same time cites the data: the weight of the rocket is 1,500 kg, and the length is 6 m. The speed of the GZUR will correspond to 6 Mach (about 7 thousand km / h) , which will neutralize the capabilities of any existing missile defense system. The main purpose of GZUR is to fight large surface forces.

Presumably, the Russian missile will be equipped with a straight-through air-jet engine "product 70" developed by PJSC "Turaevskoe engineering design bureau" Soyuz "(Moscow region). At GZUR, according to some information, the head of homing "Gran-75", which manufactured JSC "Ural Design Bureau" Detail "(Kamensk-Uralsky, Sverdlovsk region) will be installed.

Analysts believe that now GZUR is at the testing stage, and upon completion will be issued annually in an amount of 50 units. It is very likely that these missiles will be used by the military aviation and naval aviation. Weight, dimensions and functionality of the ammunition suggest that, first of all, it will complement the arsenal of Tu-22M3 and Su-34.

On the implementation of the hypersonic aviation missile project in April 2013, Colonel-General Alexander Zelin, former commander-in-chief of the Air Force, spoke in his lecture. According to him, by 2020 Russia should receive a compact operational and tactical aviation missile with a range of 1,500 km and a speed of 6 Mach.

I thought Kinzhal is GZUR (hypersonic guided missile).

Hole wrote:I thought Kinzhal is GZUR (hypersonic guided missile).

Technically yes BUT       in Janes refers GZUR as new missile developed with Kh-50 specially for Tu-160/Tu-22M bombers.
GZUR is to fit into internal bomb bay of Tu-22 (1x6)  and Tu-160 (2x6). Thus length ~ 5m not ~8m as Kinzhal. Smaller range and speed too.

Surely the KH-32 will still be part of the weapons suite. That is one formidable weapon that came into place only in 2016. AFIK. I doubt any other plane can launch the Kinzhal without a booster rocket. It seems tailor made of the Mig-31s unique blistering speed and altitude capabilities.Maybe an SU-35 can get close to launching it as well but the SU-34 does not have the speed.

I read somewhere, that the bomb bay of Tu-22M3M will be reconstructed to accommodate bigger missiles. Maybe then a Tu-22M3M could carry up to 6 Kinzhal (4 inside + 2 on wings) or Cirkon missiles. Two crew members less, lighter Avionics will benefit in more fuel. GZUR, Kh-50 and Kh-32 of course are the other missile options for Tu-22M3M. With modern avionics the Tu-22M3M will be able to use over 10 Kh-35U or Kh-31PD, for saturisation attacks on US carrier battle groups. With inflight refueling a big potential.

The Tu-22M3 should be able to carrie two Kinzahl under each wing. The Kh-22/-32 are much larger and heavier.

Kh-32 and Kinzhal are typical for russian weapon development. Like belt and braces. Kh-32 is a deep modernisation of the Kh-22. Kinzhal is completely new. If the Kinzhal had failed (or would only be ready in four or five years), the already had the Kh-32.

GJ Flanker wrote: Tu-22M3M will be able to use over 10 Kh-35U or Kh-31PD, for saturisation attacks on US carrier battle groups.    

Unlikely taking into account small range of above. with lett than 300km range this is a suicidal mission. That's why range of all perspective weapons are minimum 1000 km (Kh-32) till 2000km + Kinzhal. This keeps pretty nicely US CVSG at bay.

mnztr wrote:. I doubt any other plane can launch the Kinzhal without a booster rocket. It seems tailor made of the Mig-31s unique blistering speed and altitude capabilities.

Tu-22M is also 500km/h faster then Su-34 but anyway they stated Kinzhal is perspective Tu-22 ordnance.

Hole wrote:The Tu-22M3 should be able to carrie two Kinzahl under each wing. The Kh-22/-32 are much larger and heavier.

but still drag is high with GZURs is less drag longer range. I guess it depends on mission.

Kh-32 and Kinzhal are typical for russian weapon development. Like belt and braces. Kh-32 is a deep modernisation of the Kh-22. Kinzhal is completely new. If the Kinzhal had failed (or would only be ready in four or five years), the already had the Kh-32.

well that'sin short is called risk management

The Kinzahl already has a Booster. For slower aircraft it will get bigger/longer.

Yup, risk management. Something the west never heard of. The plane (F-35, A-400M, etc.) will work, said the company that produces it.

Hole wrote:The Kinzahl already has a Booster. For slower aircraft it will get bigger/longer.

never heard about interchangeable boosters but it would make sense. As for Kh-32 and Kiznhal besides speed, weight or range there is one substantial difference: Kh-32 has liquid propellant and Kinzhal not...

Yup, risk management. Something the west never heard of. The plane (F-35, A-400M, etc.) will work, said the company that produces it

Those are not examples of lack of risk management but politics over matter. I am sure engineers would do it another way but they didnt decide

how much more efficient are the new engines?

Any guesses on how many Kinzhals it will be able to carry? And what will they do with 2 extra seats now?

I would suspect the two extra seats will be replaced with more fuel... and they are talking about making the internal weapons bay bigger/longer.

Regarding Kinzhals... they don't seem to be very heavy... the two main wing pylons can take 7 ton missiles and I would say the front multiple ejector racks could be replaced with proper missile pylons so I would say a reasonable load would be four external Kinzhals with internal space for 6 Kh-15 or short cruise missile type weapons.

If they wanted to go hard out they could probably fit 8 Kinzhals in side by side on the four weapon pylons... and have 6 positions internally for other weapons.

I 'd say also range will drop till some degree as neither range nor speed is same as for MiG-31.

Just changing to NK-32 wont give any extra power, but will improve fuel efficiency and reliability... so flight radius at top speed is something like 2,000km... which is actually better than the MiG-31, though at mach 2.0, and not potentially mach 2.4-2.8.

I don't think it would loose that much performance...

They didnt specify in article with or without refueling though. I'd say with . The funny this is why now refueling bar is included? it was dropped for some reason. Is this treaty dead?

The way I read the article, it said 10,000km range was because the NK-32 is more fuel efficient... the aircraft always had a flight radius of between 2,000km (supersonic all the way) and 4,000km, so this is only a modest boost in range... but the new engines are the same thrust and only slightly more fuel efficient so that is no great surprise. Inflight refuelling would make it semi strategic... in the same sense that an F-111 becomes semi strategic with tanker support...

Tu-22M ceiling ~ 13000m, speed max - 2300 km/h
MiG-31 ceiling +20,000m speed max 3000 km/h

unlikely Kindzgal gets same initial kinetic energy so perhaps range will decrease too.

If you only use a supersonic dash for launch purposes the MiG-31 has a flight range of 1,400km-2,000km... supersonic-subsonic, the Tu-22M3M has a supersonic all the way 2,000km radius, or 5,000km radius subsonic perhaps with a supersonic acceleration for launch...

Hmmm I wonder why Tu-160 still has crew of four...

Well the Tu-160 is a real strategic bomber with a flight radius of 10,000km, but remember the new M upgrades are being applied to all the new Tupolevs... so maybe they all end up with two crew from Tu-95MSM, Tu-160M2, and Tu-22M3M and the PAK DA... all sharing avionics and radar and weapons...

refueling is not violating any START? or this is just over? BTW article say 36 to be upgraded but everything can change as situation can change too.

New START is limited in details... it limits numbers of weapons and platforms but does not contain all the limitations of the previous agreement... ie banning MIRVs etc.

Deliveries of Tu-22M3 to foreign countries are in principle impossible, since these aircraft are strategic weapons

Western pressure there... this US and in particular the CIA considers them strategic weapons... the Russians use them as theatre weapons... ironically now that the west is being so irrational perhaps Russia might not consider their wishes and offer a naval version of the Tu-22M3M...

Be aware also that the NK-32 is being upgraded for the Tu-160M2 programme so it is entirely possible than in a couple of years the engine thrust might grow from 25 tons to 32 or even 35 tons thrust per engine in the same way the Al-31 has grown from 12.5 tons to the new Saturn engine of 18 tons thrust for the PAK FA.

Ruskies are such down shifters! 4 people is 2 times less work efficiency comparing to B2!

I don't think we have seen any numbers regarding the Tu-160M2 yet, or the PAK DA...

Weight, dimensions and functionality of the ammunition suggest that, first of all, it will complement the arsenal of Tu-22M3 and Su-34.

Weights suggest a replacement for the Kh-15...

Maybe then a Tu-22M3M could carry up to 6 Kinzhal (4 inside + 2 on wings) or Cirkon missiles

I suspect Zircon and Kinzhal would be too fat for internal carriage... the internal weapons bay is more for long slim weapons like Kh-15 or the new short cruise missiles.

Kh-32 and Kinzhal are typical for russian weapon development. Like belt and braces. Kh-32 is a deep modernisation of the Kh-22. Kinzhal is completely new. If the Kinzhal had failed (or would only be ready in four or five years), the already had the Kh-32.

Kinzhal might be optimised for specific targets... the Kh-32 can certainly sink ships and would be standard armament.

never heard about interchangeable boosters but it would make sense. As for Kh-32 and Kiznhal besides speed, weight or range there is one substantial difference: Kh-32 has liquid propellant and Kinzhal not...

Speculation on my part... the Kh-35 has a booster rocket for launching from the ground or ship or Helicopter but no booster for launch from fixed wing aircraft...

I rather suspect Kinzhal is scramjet powered and uses a solid rocket booster to get moving and climbing...

how much more efficient are the new engines?

Not hugely so... I suspect most of the extra range comes from removing two seats... but then some of that will be eaten up with a larger bomb bay...

The unification of engines is excellent and means upgrades and design improvements applied to the NK-32 will benefit both types...

I don´t think they will reconstruct them so much, GarryB. To costly. Back in the 80´s they didn´t even rebuild the older MiG-31´s so that they could get inflight refuelling.

"GarryB"

Tu-22M ceiling ~ 13000m,  speed max - 2300 km/h
MiG-31  ceiling  +20,000m speed  max  3000 km/h

unlikely Kindzal gets same initial kinetic energy so perhaps range will decrease too.

If you only use a supersonic dash for launch purposes the MiG-31 has a flight range of 1,400km-2,000km... supersonic-subsonic, the Tu-22M3M has a supersonic all the way 2,000km radius, or 5,000km radius subsonic perhaps with a supersonic acceleration for launch...

It still there is a a 0,8 Ma speed and 7000 meters in ceiling difference. With hypersonic speed this has to make difference. Air density. But still ~ 1000km should be ok.

Deliveries of Tu-22M3 to foreign countries are in principle impossible, since these aircraft are strategic weapons

Western pressure there... this US and in particular the CIA considers them strategic weapons... the Russians use them as theatre weapons... ironically now that the west is being so irrational perhaps Russia might not consider their wishes and offer a naval version of the Tu-22M3M...

This was AFAIK statement form 2013... now times changes and I'd love Russia said YES

Kinzhal might be optimised for specific targets... the Kh-32 can certainly sink ships and would be standard armament.

Kinzhal on Putin's presentation it was dashing to meed CVSGtho tho )

I rather suspect Kinzhal is scramjet powered and uses a solid rocket booster to get moving and climbing...

again speculation from my side -if this is just reworked Iskander then there is no scramjet. Just solid propeland rocket.

I don´t think they will reconstruct them so much, GarryB. To costly. Back in the 80´s they didn´t even rebuild the older MiG-31´s so that they could get inflight refuelling.

The article says only two crew instead of four and an extension to the bomb bay area on the aircraft.

I dare say replacement of some materials and parts is likely too... they are making entire new Tu-160s, I am sure they could build a few outer wings out of lighter stronger materials too for the Tu-22M3M.

The new electronics and systems going in to the Tu-22M3M is likely the same as the systems going in to the Tu160M2 as well...

Design unification makes sense where it is practical.

It still there is a a 0,8 Ma speed and 7000 meters in ceiling difference. With hypersonic speed this has to make difference. Air density. But still ~ 1000km should be ok.

An external solid rocket booster to help it accelerate to a higher speed might add 200kgs to the weapon... I am pretty sure the Backfire can handle it... I rather doubt the standard launch parameters are that extreme anyway... I rather suspect it can be launched at mach 2 and 10,000-12,000m would be more normal than launching from any higher or any faster... the solid rocket booster it uses is likely scaled to fill the combustion chamber for the scramjet and not specifically designed for use on one aircraft or another... solid rocket boosters are not fine scalpels... they burn for x seconds at x thrust and then they burn out... considering the thrust is fixed and duration is limited as long as it is high and moving fast the period of solid fuel rocket burn is not hugely important and would not halve the range of the weapon if it is launched lower and slower.... most of the powered flight is with the scramjet motor so the choice of thrust settings and flight speed and altitude will have rather more impact on the range and speed of the weapon than launch parameters.

This was AFAIK statement form 2013... now times changes and I'd love Russia said YES

I am sure there is a joke about the recent western actions in Syria making a kneejerk reaction like offering this missile and this plane to China being the ultimate BACKFIRE... DA?

Hehehehe... Ultimate Backfire... yes?

When you get to version 3 and there are two Ms in the designation I think calling it ultimate is justified...

See what I did there?      

Kinzhal on Putin's presentation it was dashing to meed CVSGtho

True, but was the missile hunting the ship or the radar signal?

The MiG-31 is not really equipped to detect ship targets at 2,000km range so what sort of target detection and acquisition systems are we talking about?

Talk of satellite feed to inflight Tu-22M3M suggest it could be almost anything that detects the target and passes on target data I guess...

again speculation from my side -if this is just reworked Iskander then there is no scramjet. Just solid propeland rocket.

Solid propellant fuel technology is very impressive but to achieve a mach 10 performance over 2,000km... even with a high altitude high speed launch just makes me think solid propellant technology in that size missile is not really an option.

A scramjet motor on the other hand would explain the top speed and the range... scooping up air on the way is rather more efficient than carrying all the air and fuel inside the missile at launch...

I wonder if this news will energise Dr Kopp into further expanding his excellent articles on auspower about the aircraft... I remember one of his charts showing one Tu-22M3 with 8 cruise missiles, which compared with F-111s required two F-111s and one inflight refuelling tanker to match in terms of payload and range... without the F-111s you would need four F-35s or F-18s and two inflight refueller aircraft.

AFAIK his last report on the Backfire was in about 2007 and to be honest I didn't think they were going to bother upgrading it any further... it looked superfluous with the Bear and Blackjack being used as conventional bombers too, but I guess elimination of conventional bombing capability for the Blackjack has meant upgrades of the backfire become essential...

I would assume the upgraded electronics and sensors pretty much make it a multipurpose aircraft...potentially meaning theatre bomber, SEAD aircraft, wild weasel aircraft, armed jammer and recon aircraft, as well as theatre anti surface vessel strike platform....

I wonder if they might consider also an air to air heavy interceptor with internal long range AAMs like R-37M missiles... an 8 position rotary launcher with tandem missiles meaning 16 ready to launch missiles plus further missile options externally mounted... missiles that could be used for self defence on all bomber types to shoot down enemy aircraft and incoming enemy SAMs or AAMs....

I wonder what they will do with the gun... I hope they keep it as a rapidly formed IR and Chaff cloud should be a useful self defence capability along with towed decoys and towed jammers.

GarryB wrote:I wonder if this news will energize Dr Kopp into further expanding his excellent articles on auspower about the aircraft...

He stopped like2014 of either he get bore or retired. Or CIA sent eraser...
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-270209-1.html

I would assume the upgraded electronics and sensors pretty much make it a multipurpose aircraft...

Russian sources claimed his main (note: not only) role is anti CVNSGs. This would explain lack of hurry with blue ocean fleet. Maritime borders are protected.



[quote]
I wonder if they might consider also an air to air heavy interceptor with internal long range [quote]
nope, too expensive and MiG-41 is for this.

I wonder what they will do with the gun... .

didnt they removed it in 22M3

nope, too expensive and MiG-41 is for this.

Mig-25 wasn't always sole interceptor... there were Fiddlers too.

I would think a Tu-22M3M would be an ideal interceptor as it has a relatively high dash speed when needed, and excellent range when not... is big enough to carry an enormous air to air radar and lots and lots of missiles... plus inflight refuelling.

In fact it would be a useful inflight refuelling aircraft for faster aircraft.... it could loiter around near the front line topping up interceptors on their way back or lurking looking for cruise missiles trying to sneak through.

didnt they removed it in 22M3

Not as far as a I am aware... the MiG-31 lost its gun, but AFAIK the backfire did not.

Modern sensors are not fooled by individual flare hot spots, but a twin barrel 23mm gun able to fire at 3,000 rpm... ie 50 shells a second... means a cloud of IR spots and an area of Chaff can be set up rapidly with a short 1 second burst to either side of the aircraft or behind... and then another.

With modern aiming computing and radar you could probably even use it to shoot down incoming missiles, though I suspect new small missiles would be better suited to that role (Morfei).

He stopped like2014 of either he get bore or retired. Or CIA sent eraser...

New info might bring him out of hiding...

GarryB wrote:
Not as far as a I am aware... the MiG-31 lost its gun, but AFAIK the backfire did not.

No, the MiG-31s continue carrying their guns. The MiG-31M wouldn't have, but this version didn't reach operation stage anyway.

Ahh, yes, you are right.

However I do remember reading they were considering dropping the 23mm gatling due to the amount of gas it generated... with unburnt propellant being a serious fire risk for the aircraft that carried it... or was it the MiG-27 and Su-24 with their 30mm gatling...

Seems odd that they are problems in aircraft and not at sea...

I also remember seeing a ground based unmanned weapons platform with a 23mm gatling... the 23x115mm round is compact but with a very high rate of fire is devastating...

GarryB wrote:Ahh, yes, you are right.

However I do remember reading they were considering dropping the 23mm gatling due to the amount of gas it generated... with unburnt propellant being a serious fire risk for the aircraft that carried it... or was it the MiG-27 and Su-24 with their 30mm gatling...

Seems odd that they are problems in aircraft and not at sea...

I also remember seeing a ground based unmanned weapons platform with a 23mm gatling... the 23x115mm round is compact but with a very high rate of fire is devastating...

It was definitely the 30 mm cannon that you were confusing with. The 30 mm cannon was causing air-frame problems with the MiG-27 with all that recoil and high rate of fire. The 23 mm cannon was high rate of fire but relatively low recoil, and was perfect for defeating cruise missiles. Cruise missiles weren't flying at mach speed, so it would of been a waste of missiles to use them against cruise missiles, and this was were Gsh-6-23 excelled. In reality you didn't need the whole warhead of a missile for defeating cruise missiles, a small burst of 1-3 shots of the Gsh-6-23 could damage the wings and the engine enough to cause them to crash to the ground. Quite ingenious really, just damage the cruise missile enough to cause it to crash to the ground, you could definitely defeat several dozen cruise missiles with the gun platform alone.

Was also used to shoot down balloons.

It was definitely the 30 mm cannon that you were confusing with. The 30 mm cannon was causing air-frame problems with the MiG-27 with all that recoil and high rate of fire. The 23 mm cannon was high rate of fire but relatively low recoil, and was perfect for defeating cruise missiles. Cruise missiles weren't flying at mach speed, so it would of been a waste of missiles to use them against cruise missiles, and this was were Gsh-6-23 excelled. In reality you didn't need the whole warhead of a missile for defeating cruise missiles, a small burst of 1-3 shots of the Gsh-6-23 could damage the wings and the engine enough to cause them to crash to the ground. Quite ingenious really, just damage the cruise missile enough to cause it to crash to the ground, you could definitely defeat several dozen cruise missiles with the gun platform alone.

I appreciate what you are saying but the 23mm gatling generates a lot of vibration too and the explosive gases they generate (unburnt powder gases) that can start fires and create explosion risks are also a problem.

The 30mm ammo is much more powerful and generates much more recoil, but at 10-12 thousand rounds per minute the 23mm cannon is also a very powerful weapon.

The 23mm cannon was a flexible weapon that could be used against cruise missiles and would also be devastating against B-2 and B-52 and B1B bombers, though bursts of 10-20 rounds would be used to generate a sort of shotgun blast of hits around the point of aim making evasion pretty near impossible.

Normally 250 shells are carried for the gun so between 12 and 15 or so bursts could be fired.

The most common weapon used however is the R-33 against bombers and cruise missiles, but also R-60M missiles were often intended for use against cruise missiles too from much shorter range.

R-40TD were intended for use against high flying fast SR-71s in head on attacks... when R-60Ms were carried top speed was limited to subsonic as they weren't heat rated to mach 2.83 flight speed for the duration of a mission like the R-40 and R-33 and new R-37s are.

Actually it would be interesting to see a four warhead model of Pantsir adapted for use on interceptor aircraft to deal with large groups of cruise missiles where one missile has four independent missiles that each attack a separate target in the same general direction...