Tu-22M3: News

The Tu-22M3 is one of my favourite planes and I think it has enormous potential and flexibility.

the room for growth is huge as is the space inside her, if only they
would be refitted with inflight refueling probes and removed from the
strategic nuclear role which i feel is very limited. they would serve
multirole missions, deep strike, sead, anti surface.

The huge irony is that its primary role within the Russian long range aviation is not strategic and never has been, it was a theatre strike aircraft with targets most likely being major radar centres and HQ and Comms and its primary weapon in the 1980s was the kh-15 Kickback with a nuclear warhead. It is described as being able to carry 10 missiles and as it can carry 6 Kh-15s internally I assume that means it can also carry 4 more externally.
The most common weapon load it is seen with is one or two large Kh-22M missiles which are available in a range of versions including anti radiation (Mach 3 and about 300km range), anti ship/anti significantly large land target with a radar in its nose, and a nuclear armed weapon with intertial navigation to get it "near" the target an an 800KT nuclear warhead.
It could also carry a range of dumb bombs.
This was very limiting.
The growth potential is enormous but then again the question is should effort be used to upgrade this aircraft, or develop newer aircraft?
Personally I think it has a lot of potential and while the Su-34 can certainly fill many of the shorter ranged missions and for the longer ranged missions the Blackjack and Bear are also being upgraded too I do believe the large size, the crew size, and the payload range performance of the Tu-22M3 makes it worth looking at.
Options include:
-a huge AESA radar in the nose and possibly rear and sides with a large payload of long range AAMs like R-37Ms where its flight range and large fuel reserve should result in long operational radius and low interception times and two pilots plus potentially a radar/IRST operator (ideally with a damocles pod too) and someone to manage counter jamming and ESM.
-a ground scanning radar for ground targets, and the equivelent of 2 or three Damocles like pods on the front central belly area with two pilots able to work in shifts for long missions plus the two other crew looking for ground targets in real time close to friendly forces, and of course using GLONASS guided bombs of very small size like FAB-50s with satellite guidance to minimise the risk of collateral damage in a guerilla conflict... note for this new external racks for small bombs and attachment points for targeting pods and a couple of MFDs in the rear two positions would be all that is needed for an aircraft that can operate 6-8 hours over the combat zone looking for targets and supporting ground forces above the range of groundfire.
-Or a multipurpose upgrade... change the engines so they are the same as fitted to the Tu-160 to reduce costs and make Blackjack operations cheaper too. Upgrade the electronics so that it can use modern guided weapons and update its radar to match the Bear and Blackjack upgrades. Add capabilities like the ability to carry the father of all bombs that the Blackjack can carry. Add a bombing computer like the one fitted one Su-24 to allow bombing in free flight.

Brahmos is a large missile and Brahmos II wont be any smaller. I would expect that the 4 external hardpoints on the Backfire should be able to carry one Brahmos or Brahmos II each which with the potential for 6 Kh-15 equivelent weapons carried internally would make it a very potent anti shipping or anti land target system.

I would even keep the tail gun with its ability to fire Chaff dipoles and flares in bursts high enough to form IR or radar reflecting clouds rapidly away from the actual aircraft...

A more fundamental upgrade might consider dropping the max speed requirement and reducing to one engine and larger fixed wings able to carry external weapons and internal fuel and of course towed decoys.

Another option I missed out is the large size and raw power of the aircraft could be used to make a super growler covered in ARMs and jamming pods and towed decoys able to keep up with strike packages. Give it a large AESA that can be used for jamming and some long range anti radiation missiles for SAM threats and some long range AAMs for anti AWACs use and perhaps a large belly pod with 10 disposable towed jammers and fuel in the front... again the 4 man crew is an asset too.

I remember reading a while back that they tested a jammer version of the Backfire but it lost to a jammer version of the Il-76 because the latter had a much more powerful jammer. I wonder if it would have had more power with the Blackjacks engines instead of its own? I also wonder if a dedicated jammer Backfire could have an extra third engine whose only purpose is to generate power for the jammer so it would have no conventional payload capacity but a belly mounted extra jet engine and the weapon bay could be sealed and filled with fuel and an extra 18 tons of fuel carried in lieu of payload. (The max payload of 24 tons is at the expense of some internal fuel so adding say a 2 ton engine and not offloading any fuel to allow for more payload should allow for an 18 ton payload... which in this case we will use for extra fuel and an inflight refuelling probe because it is not a strategic bomber... it is a jammer... that should be able to keep up with pretty much any strike package.

The extra engine mounted in the belly like the semi conformal position of the Kh-22M will generate electricity for the jammer but it will also generate thrust which will improve performance and if chosen carefully could be used in cruise flight with the main engines shut down even.

BTW this backfire stuff is a bit off topic so perhaps we should move it to perhaps here:
http://russiadefence.forumotion.com/t820-fate-of-tu-22m3-engine-production-discontinued

Nice shot of a Tu-22M3 with 6 x Kh-15 Kickback missiles n the internal rotary launcher plus two Kh-22M misiles underwing. This is a very heavy load.

While the Tu-22M3 is a scary and deadly platform, its an older design created in the Cold War enviroment.
Like many other designs from that era, it too big, too costly to operate, no need to kill a bug with a cannon.

The Su-34 platform is targeted to fill in a nice between the older Su-24M and the Tu-22M3.
Sure its a compromise from the Tu-22M3.
But the whole RuAF is in the middle of a huge re-structuring and it includes new airforce doctrines and operational capabilities, likewise getting rid of older doctrines and capabilities dating back to SV times.

One of the resons for the re-structure of the RuAF is to save cost, making it more streamlined and dynamic.
There is no more need for the ageing T-22M3 as more Su-34 comes on service.
Pity though, i like the Tu-22M3.

It is a fairly successful aircraft and its operating costs could be reduced by changing its engine to be the same as the Blackjack. In most terms the performance and weight and in many other areas the NK-25 and NK-321 are similar or identical.
Both put out 25 tons of thrust. They have the same fuel consumption rating at take off power. The NK-321 has a higher inlet temperature but only 30 degrees Kelvin higher and both engines are 3.65 tons.
The NK-25 has a bypass ratio of 1.45 and the NK-321 has a bypass ratio of 1.36.

Personally I think a brand new engine using 5th gen technologies should be developed and put in the Tu-22M3 and the Tu-160. A junior version of it could be used in a single engine fighter design if they could halve its weight of course... but one of the features of newer engines is fewer stages and fewer parts so making them lighter should certainly be part of the process.

The problem I have with the suggestion that the Su-34 can do the job of the Backfire and the Fencer... the first problem is how many Su-34s are there and is the low rate of production going to change soon enough to make up enough numbers to do the Fencer mission let alone the Backfire mission?
The second problem is that for the Su-34 to perform some Backfire missions deep in Europe or Asia it will need inflight refuelling tankers and there aren't enough for strategic aviation let alone tactical aviation.

Considering the B-52 is still doing a good job I see no reason to race to scrap the Backfires or Bears or Blackjacks for that matter... and if Backfires are hard to maintain that is because the AF is too cheap to replace all the old hard to get components and update them so they are cheaper to maintain and operate.

According to flight international as of December 2010 there were 93 Tu-22M3s in Russian AF service and a further 58 in the Russian Navy force. That means they have more Backfires than Bears and Blackjacks combined... and that includes Tu-142 Maritime Patrol Aircraft... 16 Blackjacks, 50 Bears, and 15 Tu-142s... compared with 151 Backfires.
With twice as many engines I would suspect the Blackjack is the more expensive aircraft to maintain and operate...
Apart from the US and Russia the next most powerful heavy bomber is the Tu-16 knock offs China makes. Or perhaps it would be Australias F-111s... but even Carlos Kopp... SUPER F-111 fan admits one Backfire = 2 F-111s with inflight refuelling support.

I agree with streamlining, but I think that useful assets should be kept till there is a real replacement.

Well for me

Loss of Tu-22M3=Loss of Strategic Carrier Killing Machine

The only real difference between the Su-34 and Tu-22M3 in terms of Carrier-killing capacity are their missile carrying capacity, to which the Tu-22M3 has more and the Su-34 has less. They'll still be able to do the same job, as the Su-34 has enough range regardless. The biggest difference however is the fact that the Su-34 is multi-role and cheaper, while the Tu-22M3 can only do so much tasks.

The Russian AF have said they want to retain all three Tupolevs in service and give them all upgrades till the mid 2020s when a new design will replace all three.

As such the Tu-22M3 could easily be made multirole and its enormous payload potential can be exploited.

...to quote Carlos Kopp:

External
beam ejector racks can be fitted to the outboard glove stations and
inboard ventral inlet tunnel stations, each carrying 9 x FAB-250 500 lb
dumb bombs, which including the 24 round bomb bay stations permits
carriage of up to 69 FAB-250 rounds, more than the Mk.82 payload of the
B-52H.

From: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Backfire.html

Now a 250 kg bomb could be fitted with satellite guidance kits and used in a precision carpet bombing raid...

If it could be fitted with new engines that could also be fitted to the Tu-160 that would be a huge boost for both aircraft, because a production run of 64 engines to replace those fitted to the 16 Tu-160s could be turned into a production run of over 350 when the Backfire is added to the mix. Further developments of the new engine could be used for the PAK DA or as its basis... so it would improve performance now of the majority of long range aviations bombers, it will reduce maintainence costs and narrow logistics costs by removing two engines from the inventory and replacing them with one new one.

I have counted about 170 Tu-22M3 in various active bases through google earth. Their number seems to be larger than the numbers given by various sources in internet

Well first of all, congrats... I am impressed... that would take a lot of patience.

AFAIK the Air Force has about 100 Tu-22M3 aircraft, and the VMF (Russian Naval Air Arm) has a little over 50.

I would suggest that the extra airframes you have counted are likely retired and in open storage on the respective airfields.

28 Tu-22M3 are in the closed military base of Soltsy, so if we dont count them we have approx 150 as you said.

And that is probably where the people who make estimates of in service aircraft get their numbers from.

The Russian Air Force has mentioned it is overhauling and upgrading the Tu=95, Tu-160, and Tu-22M3, with fundamental changes to all three aircraft.

Previously the Tu-22M3 was tasked with three primary roles... one was SEAD, and was intended for western Europe... long range strike taking on enemy radar stations and major SAM sites with ARM versions of the Kh-22M, and the other primary role was naval strike for use against ships, which is the role it is most often identified with in the west. The third role is as a level bomber with a large conventional payload of dumb bombs.

There are also Tu-22MP and Tu-22MR versions, though there are reported to have ever been only a max of 1-2 dozen of each ever in service as they are expensive, and they are long range recon and jammer aircraft.

The Tu-160 and Tu-95MS are cruise missile carriers and apart from their primary armament all three aircraft are otherwise limited to dumb bomb use with navigation bombing capability... a bit like a WWII bomber in many ways, though the max payload of a Tu-22M3 on a mission to a target 2,500km distant is about 24 tons, which is twice what an F-111 can carry, or about 10 times the warload of a WWII bomber.

The new upgrades add guided conventional weapons like glonass guided bombs and missiles as well as full avionics upgrades to use dumb bombs with precision in free flight (ie a CCIP system, or a continuously computed impact point system) that generated an impact point and overlayed it over a TV view of the ground so you could release the weapons with a good chance of a hit.

Other things include a unification of weapon types so all aircraft can use all the same weapon types and all types using similar radars and avionics though radar antenna sizes will be different they will all get new functions and capabilities so that for the first time in a long time they will have a conventional as well as a strategic role.

As far as I can tell however they have not extended the upgrade to include engines, which is a bit disappointing.
The NK-25 and NK-32 are very similar engines yet they are not compatible so the 16 odd Tu-160s have different engines to the 150 odd Tu-23M3s. This means 64 in service NK-32s and 300 inservice NK-25s, so developing a new 5th gen engine for the PAK DA that could be fitted to 350 existing aircraft to improve their performance and at the same time retire two different engines I think would be a good idea.

The resulting improved 5th gen engine would be ideal to create a stealthy but supercruising PAK DA with likely half the number of engines it would need if they use the engines being developed for the PAK FA. More importantly if they can get the dry thrust up to about 20-25 tons and the AB thrust to 35-40 tons then there becomes a potential to create a real supersonic transport with only two engines and in supercuising mode save a lot of fuel.
They could create several other types of aircraft based on such an engine including heavy interceptor and theatre strike aircraft that is not bound by the START treaty.

They could even eventually make a PAK FA with a single PAK DA engine.

The idea of a light 5th gen fighter to compliment the PAK FA crossed my mind, but I think it would be better if they limited the thrust to a single PAK FA engine as that will force them to keep it light weight, and likely force them to keep it cheap and simple. If they do to it as was done to the F-16 which eventually became as expensive and complicated as the F-15 then it spoils its whole reason for being... cheap light numbers fighter.

GarryB wrote:
The third role is as a level bomber with a large conventional payload of dumb bombs.

Tu-22 can carry other standoff missiles like Kh-59 for example?

The standard Tu22M3 can only carry a very limited range of missiles, some of which are likely no longer in service.

AFAIK they could carry the Kh-22M, the upgraded replacement of the Kh-22M(Kh-32), and the Kh-15 as guided weapons.

Note the photo at the top of this page showing 6 x Kh-15s on the internal rotary launcher, and two large Kh-22M missiles under the wing hard points.

Western experts like Carlos Kopp suggest the aircraft can carry other weapons like Oniks and long range cruise missiles, and it probably can operate Kh-55SM, and Kh-555, and likely now Kh-101 all externally, but I have only ever seen photos of the aircraft carrying Kh-15s and Kh-22Ms. (Kh-32s are externally identical to the Kh-22Ms so I am assuming that any recent shots of Kh-22Ms are actually Kh-32s.)

The talk about weapons upgrades has not led to any photos of Kh-59s or Kh-31s or other guided missile types being seen on any of the three aircraft, so for the moment I suspect the upgrade will include a CCIP system for bombing in free flight... which increases bombing accuracy from near zero for point targets to over 80%, and will also add laser, TV, and satellite guided bombs to their inventories.

This is incredibly useful for the Tu-22M3 as it can carry more 250kg (500lb) bombs than a B-52 in its short range loadout. (according to Kopp)

If they were satellite guided then that means a huge number of point targets hit per mission at low cost... it would have been invaluable to Soviet forces in Afghanistan as an all weather day and night strike and support capability.

The Tu-160s were upgraded as they were built so each aircraft is slightly different to the next so an upgrade to get them all the same is important, but it will also add conventional all weather strike, so the question is... do they need Tu-22M3s and Tu-160s?

(When Tu-160s and Tu-95s were strategic only then a threatre bomber was needed).

I would think having both is best... especially if you could modify them to carry the same engine and systems, because the numbers will reduce costs, but at the end of the day I am sure their preferred option would be to produce another two dozen Tu-160s and have a fleet of about 45 of them and get rid of the Tu-22M3s.

The problem there is that the factory that made the huge aluminium castings for the centre box beam structure for the swing wing design is in the Ukraine... and in ruins.

So with no more Tu-160s that means Tu-22M3s are worth keeping, but a unification of systems and parts and engines in my opinion will cost money now but save money in the future and offer the best capability.

All reports talking about the upgrades for the aircraft mention new weapons, but are never specific.

All three aircraft have the payload capacity to carry the father of all bombs, and guided and unguided versions of all the bombs in the Russian arsenal, which would make them quite formidable in service.

Well 6 Kh-59 standoff missiles on the MKU-6-1 rotary launcher in its bomb bay, plus 4 missiles on two underwing pylons would be a sufficient payload.

I don't know if the Kh-59 (AS-13) is in production.

It has largely been replaced in service by the Kh-59M (AS-18) though the numbers have not been large till recently when they started spending money on guided missiles and bombs.

AFAIK the small jet engine under the Kh-59 in fixed which would make it incompatible with the internal rotary launcher of the Tu-22M3.

The Tu-22M3 is a large target so I personally would want a weapon of greater standoff range... I would think Kh-555s would make more sense, with its 3,500km range it would make the Backfire semi-strategic in performance.

The Su-34 can reportedly carry three Kh-59Ms with the two inner wing pylons carrying one missile each, while the other missile is carried on the front centreline pylon and the rear centreline pylon is fitted with the datalink pod needed to use the Kh-59M.

3,500km is a long range for the Kh-555, so their might be shorter models that could fit in the Tu-22M3s weapon bay (as well as the Tu=95s internal weapon bay) that would be better options than the Kh-59M.

The Kh-38 will likely be compatible with the Backfire, and their might be a few other weapon types that will also fit because they have been designed for newer stealthier platforms for internal carriage (ie like several versions of the Kh-31 and Kh-58 (AS-17 and AS-11) shown with the SKATE and PAK FA stealth aircraft.)

Air launched P-800 Oniks, could be a replacement for Kh-22 missiles?

Could be, but has not been seen on Backfires.

The Kh-22M uses Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (IRFNA) to be mixed with hydrazine fuel which are nasty liquid chemicals that were awful to work with.

If the Kh-32 has solid fuel or long term storable liquid propellents that don't need to be loaded into the missile before loading it onto the aircraft it will be a great step forward.

An air launched Oniks would be interesting too, but as far as I know the Kh-32 doubled the range of the Kh-22M and increased the speed to mach 4.5.

If this is true then the Oniks will be hard pressed to match that.

When Oniks II comes out with its ramjet engine replaced with a scramjet engine then it would certainly make sense to adopt those over the Kh-32.

Nice but i have a wonder. Kh-32 actually exists?

It exists, but it is externally identical to the Kh-22M.

I think I remember reading the Kh-22M has been withdrawn from service because of the dangerous fuelling process before takeoff, so any modern photos of Backfires carrying what appear to be Kh-22Ms should be Kh-32s.

But obviously considering this situation it is hard to say.

One could say that there is a new Tu22M5 that looks exactly the same as the Tu-22M3 but has all new internal equipment but double the range and speed and is much better. How could you prove it one way or the other?

Equally how could you disprove it?

The Kh-32 is not brand new, but the fact that it is not mentioned much could mean it is dead, but why would Tu-22M3s still carry Kh-22M missiles?

If it met the requirements what killed the Kh-32? Or is it the case that it has entered service and is not proving a problem so they don't have anything to talk about.

GarryB wrote:It exists, but it is externally identical to the Kh-22M.

I think I remember reading the Kh-22M has been withdrawn from service because of the dangerous fuelling process before takeoff, so any modern photos of Backfires carrying what appear to be Kh-22Ms should be Kh-32s.

But obviously considering this situation it is hard to say.

One could say that there is a new Tu22M5 that looks exactly the same as the Tu-22M3 but has all new internal equipment but double the range and speed and is much better. How could you prove it one way or the other?

Equally how could you disprove it?

The Kh-32 is not brand new, but the fact that it is not mentioned much could mean it is dead, but why would Tu-22M3s still carry Kh-22M missiles?

If it met the requirements what killed the Kh-32? Or is it the case that it has entered service and is not proving a problem so they don't have anything to talk about.

Kh-32 has also anti-radiation variant?

Kh-32 certainly exists, as does Vulkan, both of them have been constantly questioned by the non-believers though because of external similarities.

While an anti-radiation variant would be very likely, the relevant question is do RuAF units actually operate it. All recent pics I have seen (rusplanes.net) do not seem to show it.

Then we must wait until the next war, to be assured for the existence of some weapons.

They will have developed the Kh-32 for the same roles as the Kh-22M so an anti radiation model is certain.

I would expect there will be a nuke armed model that flys to a coordinate and detonates a large nuke warhead to hit targets operating in an area that are hard to pin down.

This missile is also used against entire carrier groups.

There will be an anti radiation model for use against large SAMs like Patriot, Nike, and now THAAD, these were also anticipated to be used passively against enemy ships with their radars operating and would be fired in a second wave of missiles against a carrier group that was now alerted and with radars operating.

And the other model of the Kh-22M that will likely have a Kh-32 model is the active radar homing type that was used against ships or large targets like buildings or dams or bridges etc.

The missile designed to fly to a specific coordinate and then explode was nuke only as the inaccuracy meant a conventional warhead was pointless.

The other missiles came with nuke or conventional warheads.

It all depends on when the Kh-22Ms were withdrawn... if they were withdrawn in the 1990s then any recent photo of a Tu-22M3 carrying what appears to be a Kh-22M will actually be a Kh-32.

I rather suspect they got rid of the Kh-22M rapidly with the low flying hours of the aircraft and availability of a replacement that presumably uses storable liquid propellents that can be kept in the missile for its operational life will be much safer in terms of handling and operation.

http://russianplanes.net/images/to65000/064335.jpg

2012, Tu-22M fueled up and armed .

I suspect those are Kh-22s though. For some nagging reason.