Tu-22M3: News

Scramjet solves those fuel issues.

Mir wrote:@Tolstoy

Vulcan is pretty potent but I think you are confusing it with Granit.

Brahmos was developed from Onyx - which in turn was designed to eventually replace a number of missiles including Granit.

Your explanation is correct. But it is GarryB who is comparing Brahmos with Vulcan. Brahmos is an inferior version of Onyx, leave alone comparing it with Vulcan.

Rubbish! Zero help from India.

That is the racist in you talking.

At the very least the Brahmos got land attack capacity because India wanted it and India funded it.

The Russian military then realised it might be useful to apply that to their own missiles.

Vulcan is at least two generations ahead of Brahmos.

Vulcan is enormous and does not have superior performance to Onyx from which Brahmos is indirectly developed from.

Brahmos is an improved Yakhont missile.

When fired in a swarm one of the Vulcan missile climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. Brahmos never had any such capabilities.

Vulcan does that, but so does Granit and surprise surprise Onyx does that too... except the upgraded electronics means Onyx can be grouped in much bigger groups than the older missiles can because improved electronics and datalinks means more communication channels and more processing power and memory capacity.

If the front section is the fuel tank it will be destroyed during the cruise phase because of extremely high Mach speed (Mach 6 and above).

The idea of the fuel tank in front is so the fuel can absorb the heat from high speed and then be pumped back directly into the engine where the heat can be used to improve ignition... when the fuel is used up in the nose mounted fuel tank it can be jettisonned and the internal fuel system of the missile can be used to maintain speed and altitude with a reduction in weight and volume with the loss of the front mounted fuel tank.

Your explanation is correct. But it is GarryB who is comparing Brahmos with Vulcan. Brahmos is an inferior version of Onyx, leave alone comparing it with Vulcan.

The only time I mentioned Vulcan was this:

Kh-31 and Kh-35 and Granit and Moskit and Vulcan etc etc all had land attack capacity added, the technology was developed with India when they gave Onyx the ability to hit land based targets too.

And my comment stands... Granit and Moskit and Vulcan are all big heavy rocket ramjet powered missiles... Granit is about 7 tons and Moskit was about 4.5 tons and Vulcan was about the same. They each had flight ranges of 200-500km or so and flew at about mach 2 with a big heavy warhead.

In comparison the Onyx is a 2.5 ton missile with a range of about 500km and a flight speed of about mach 2.

The Onyx is a new generation missile because its ramjet appears to be rather more fuel efficient so the missile does not need to be a similar weight to a light fighter jet like Granit.

Brahmos is an upgrade of Yakhont... a down graded export missile, but it adds features like land attack capacity to make it superior... but of course the Russians will introduce the upgrades and improvements to all of their domestically used missiles, but obviously the export Yakhont will not get those upgrades without Indian permission understandably... because they paid for them.

Zircon is essentially an Onyx with the ramjet replaced with a scramjet and obvious aerodynamic improvements and upgrades to deal with flying much much faster.

The main problem with Granit and Vulcan and even Moskit was that they were so big you need huge expensive ships to carry useful numbers of them... on the Kirov class cruisers they replaced 20 Granit tubes for 80 tubes that could carry Onyx or Zircon or land attack cruise missiles or anti sub ballistic rockets etc etc etc.

The 24 launch tubes on the Oscar II class SSGNs could be replaced by 72 missile tubes for Zircon or Kalibr, but more importantly smaller ships like the Sovremmeny class can carry more than 8 anti ship missiles at a time, and a ship like the Udaloy can carry more than 8 anti sub missiles... in fact frigates will be carrying 32 missiles, which means a single ship can carry the equivalent main armament of four cold war destroyers using much more potent missile to do a better job.

GarryB wrote:At the very least the Brahmos got land attack capacity because India wanted it and India funded it.

Russia didn't need the help of any country to design/fund land attack cruise missile. India went for Brahmos because they couldn't afford Onyx.

The main constraint of developing land attack cruise missiles in large numbers is that they are expensive to produce. The warhead weight is typically less than 50% of the total weapon weight, while the cost of these weapons is usually 50 times or more than guided bombs. That aside other cost drivers are complex guidance and propulsion systems.

GarryB wrote:Vulcan does that, but so does Granit and surprise surprise Onyx does that too.

Surprise, surprise Brahmos lacks swarming capabilities.

Russia didn't need the help of any country to design/fund land attack cruise missile.

The Russian MIC could obviously have developed Brahmos on their own, but the Russian military didn't ask for it and weren't prepared to pay for land attack capacity.

The Indians wanted an Onyx like weapon but the Yakhont, which was a down graded export model didn't appeal to them so they started a joint venture to get the missile they wanted.

At the time they made it it was better than Onyx in some respects because they added land attack performance that Onyx and Yakhont didn't have, but Onyx is not for export and has no flight range or warhead size restrictions on its design unlike Yakhont that Brahmos is based upon.

Now the Onyx will have all the upgrades developed for the Brahmos, but it is not for export, and of course they wont apply such improvements to Yakhont because if you want such improvements then India would prefer you bought Brahmos instead.

India went for Brahmos because they couldn't afford Onyx.

Brahmos was probably more expensive than Onyx. If you think about it it makes sense. If you like a cellphone made by a company that makes thousands of them but you want some very specific added features and you want to make them yourself then obviously the cost of setting up production and the cost of developing the new features and the cost of putting your new phone into production does not have the economies of scale the original phone already had so of course your new phone is going to cost more because you also have to pay for development and production and you wont be producing it in the huge numbers the original maker will be making theirs in.

But you get what you want and end up making a phone you can call yours... because you paid for it.

The main constraint of developing land attack cruise missiles in large numbers is that they are expensive to produce.

Ironically you hit on a real issue.

India wants to make the things it uses, and that makes sense, but if you are going to make things for yourself you should not pay to make the complex expensive things you wont need a lot of... like Su-57.... it will be an expensive plane but making it yourself makes it even more expensive... unless you plan to make thousands of them.

It makes more sense to licence produce things you need in enormous numbers and then you will get value for money and a secure supply in difficult times.

The things India should be licence producing for itself (in my biased opinion) are small arms ammo, ATGMs and AT rockets and munitions, MANPADS, Artillery shells and main gun rounds for vehicles, light fighter aircraft and helicopters and short range air defence missiles and of course drones.

I would include land attack cruise missiles too because they are like light aircraft... you can make tens of thousands... don't put fuel in them and leave the batteries out too and when you need them put in new batteries and fuel them up and you have the capacity to overwhelm the enemy.

Some could be modified to be like drones if you want.

Western countries often run out of cruise missiles during "incidents" because their missiles are so expensive they never have enough... Russia is in a much better situation because they not only have enormous numbers of weapons but they also have lots of different types of weapons.

During the first few days of the war you need the best weapons to sneak through the defences but as you destroy the defences then older more obsolete missiles can be used and they can be very effective.

If you are keeping things in storage then you are keeping them to use so use them when you get the opportunity to free up space for new production ammo to be stored ready to use later on.

Surprise, surprise Brahmos lacks swarming capabilities.

Why do you think that?

Yakhont has swarming capabilities... ironically against many western targets it seems they don't need it because flying low and supersonic is enough to evade most western defences anyway.

Nowadays in a same computer board you can just put the softwares for both anti ship and land attack modes. The land attack mode need a GLONASS chip that is maybe 2x2cm and some inertial navigation electronic that are maybe 10x10cm.

You can fit them in any missile.

Back in the days, such stuff would be as big as a car engine. That's why new missiles are smaller.

And against ships you don't need more than 300kg warhead. Any ship would feel such explosion very badly. Just like any ground target would be destroyed if you hit it directly with a precision of 10m or lees.

When the old missiles were first designed they would likely have a custom designed computer chip for the job like a modern calculator has a chip for calculations.

The processing speed of chips was so slow that you needed custom designed computer boards to make sure it could do what is needed, but with modern chips you can make a computer board and create features with software instead of hard wiring everything.

A modern cell phone sized computer would have the processing power to collect radar and sensor data and make decisions and transmit information to other platforms, where a 1970s computer to do that was simply not possible.

The advantage is that with new hardware a missile upgrade could be a software update with new equipment added... perhaps a chaff or flare launcher for instance to distract enemy air defence systems...

Hope this wasn't posted already. I hadn't scanned the whole thread but thought this pic was perfectly timed releasing bomblets.

Nice, but I am not sure it is real...

GarryB wrote:Nice, but I am not sure it is real...

Funny that thought never crossed my mind.  I just thought it was a great capture but you make a good point.  Being that the Tu-22 (in all its models) has an internal weapons bay, especially for a gaggle of bomblets.  I looked at a bunch of other pics and they all show it with its belly bay doors open and dropping a line of bombs.  Haven't found any ordinance clipped to or being dropped from under-wing pylons.  All other literature I looked into also doesn't mention pylons.

It makes sense why they wouldn't add such a complex feature on a variable geometry design.  Complex because having pylons on moving wings means there needs to be additional (and most likely complex) mechanisms for those pylons to pivot with the movement of the wings so that whatever ordinance on that pylon is always facing forward for proper aerodynamics.  Why add such complexity?

I believe the Panavia Tornado is the only one -- that I know of -- that has that feature for the pylons on a variable geometry plane.  I don't believe the Russians designed the Tu-22 with an internal weapons bay and variable geometry wings and then chose to add the complexity of pylons to it.  Is that what you were thinking?  I'll try to remember not to assume all photos are depicting the actual truth!



EDIT:  Looking at it some more, I think those wings are incorrect, too.  1/3 of the wing protrusions is a fixed portion where it meets the fuselage, then the remaining 2/3 of the wing is the pivoting portion.  Kind of like the Su-24.  The fixed portion is where pylons are installed on the Su-24 so they're not on the pivoting portion.

I think your picture is real although the dpi resolution is quite bad. The picture is just heavily cropped to exclude the swing wings.



Here is a picture showing all the pylons and the open bomb bay doors. Your picture also shows the open bomb bay.

Mir wrote:I think your picture is real although the dpi resolution is quite bad. The picture is just heavily cropped to exclude the swing wings.

Here is a picture showing all the pylons and the open bomb bay doors. Your picture also shows the open bomb bay.

Very cool. I couldn't find a single pic showing any triple-rack pylons (or any pylon for that matter) on this aircraft. You crushed it. What do you have to say about that, Gary!

I did notice the barely visible front edge of the opened portside bomb bay door. That said, it must've just finished delivering its internal payload as it just starts releasing the exterior one while the bay doors still haven't closed.

PhSt wrote:If ever the Russian airforce decided to retire this aircraft, they should develop a successor for its class. (unless the new PAK DA will takeover its role of a missile carrier, but it seems the PAK DA may lack the supersonic speed)

The successor to the Tu-22 (and MiG-31) will be the PAK-DP.

Any replacement for the Tu-22M3 should not just rely on stealth. The Su-57 offers the perfect blend between stealth, maneuverability and speed - not to mention electronics. Relying on stealth alone will be a huge and expensive mistake IMO.

The Tu-22M3M should be a nice stepping stone towards the eventual replacement for this legendary aircraft.

Funny that thought never crossed my mind. I just thought it was a great capture but you make a good point.

I have seen a lot of photos of the Backfire firing weapons that were part of a video game or movie... I thought the bombs looked at bit too big too... the Tu-22M3 is a big aircraft.

Haven't found any ordinance clipped to or being dropped from under-wing pylons. All other literature I looked into also doesn't mention pylons.

The nine round tandem triple ejector bomb racks are standard for all four weapon locations on the outside of the aircraft... namely the ones shown... two underwing that often also have large anti ship missiles attached, and two under the engine intakes as shown in your image.

It makes sense why they wouldn't add such a complex feature on a variable geometry design. Complex because having pylons on moving wings means there needs to be additional (and most likely complex) mechanisms for those pylons to pivot with the movement of the wings so that whatever ordinance on that pylon is always facing forward for proper aerodynamics. Why add such complexity?

That Backfire is the only heavy Tupolev that routinely carries bombs... the previous models of the Blackjack could carry bombs but the upgrades reportedly remove unguided bombs from the weapon options, and the Bear, like the Blackjack now only carry cruise missiles of conventional and nuclear armed versions.

I believe the Panavia Tornado is the only one -- that I know of -- that has that feature for the pylons on a variable geometry plane.

The MiG-27 and Su-24 and F-111 also carry weapons on their wing pylons on the movable portions AFAIK.

I don't believe the Russians designed the Tu-22 with an internal weapons bay and variable geometry wings and then chose to add the complexity of pylons to it. Is that what you were thinking?

Actually the Tu-22M3 is rated for a max of 24 tons of bombs and to carry that amount it has to carry quite a number of bombs externally.

I seem to recall it could carry 69 x 250kg bombs in total, which is only about 17 tons. The multiple ejector racks each carry two rows of three bombs or three bombs in tandem, and when carrying nine bombs on all four external weapon pylons if they are 500kg bombs that equals (9x4x500) = 18 tons, which leaves 6 tons for the bomb bay, which would be a further 12 x 500kg bombs, or 3 x FAB-3000, or 6 x FAB-1000.

Of course the advertised heaviest weight I have seen is 10 missiles, which as far as I can work out would be one AS-15 Kickback short range attack missile on each weapon pylon (4) plus the rotary internal launcher with 6 more missiles... but there is an image of a Tu-22M3 taking off with one Kh-22M (or could be Kh-32) under each wing pylon and another missile in the centre semi recessed into the bomb bay and a multiple bomb ejector rack on the intake trunks loaded with bombs too...





And the Su-24.

You crushed it. What do you have to say about that, Gary!

I said I wasn't sure it is real and I am still not 100% sure it is real... there are a lot of fake images around of that aircraft, and not an enormous number of real good quality images of it releasing weapons.

Most bombing images I have seen are from the main bomb bay only, places like Syria they have a long way to fly so the don't normally bother with external bombs.

Apparently the Tu-22M is capable of carrying up to 4 Kinzhals, this is an impressive feat,

I suggest that is probably just an assumption based on the four external hard point areas.

The Tu-22M3 can't fly as high nor as fast as the MiG-31K so the missiles flight performance would be reduced being launched from a slower lower altitude aircraft.

I wonder if there are any plans to further modernize or upgrade the design of this aircraft and manufacture new ones, its a cheap compliment (not alternative) to the Tu-160 and because of its decent payload capabilities and supersonic speed,

My understanding is that the PAK DA will replace the Backfire in the theatre bombing role and the Bear in the subsonic strategic missile launching role.

The Backfire is an excellent aircraft, but the amount of time it spends at supersonic speed would not be often or for very long.

It would be useful for evading subsonic F-35s because they don't have long range IR guided missiles that could chase down a supersonic plane in full AB... Sidewinder wouldn't have the legs to catch it and radar homing missiles are better at closing targets than retreating targets.

They are going to use stealth over speed for theatre bombing I suspect... most enemies apart from HATO will have trouble engaging high altitude targets and only bigger SAMs could reach and it is those bigger SAMs that are easiest to defeat with SEAD platforms, whereas you may never totally get rid of MANPADS, so flying high and of course using various countermeasure systems and not being noticed is your best chance of getting the job done and surviving.

The successor to the Tu-22 (and MiG-31) will be the PAK-DP.

The PAK DP is an interceptor and will be optimised for high speed just like the MiG31 except faster and likely with much longer range and a larger weapon load for targets inside and outside the atmosphere. There will likely be a MiG-41K model for launching anti ship missiles at land and sea targets, but I don't think it would replace the Backfire as a bomber.

The PAK DA is supposed to combine the features of the Bear and the Backfire because of their different requirements. The Backfire needs a heavy payload but over theatre distances, and with inflight refuelling if needed, whereas in the role of a Bear some of that payload can be offloaded to carry lots of fuel for strategic range with cruise missile payload... by the time it is operational we will likely be looking at 11 metre long missiles which on their own have strategic range.

The missiles do the penetrating defences either through speed with hypersonic missiles or with stealth... likely with a mix of both.

Remember in the strategic role by the time even the supersonic Blackjack gets to its launch positions Russias SLBMs and ICBMs will have already decimated the enemy countries and these cruise missiles will be arriving 4-8 hours later for the subsonic models or less than an hour later for the hypersonic weapons they might have, so the defences are going to be in a shambles anyway.

In the theatre strike role standoff missiles that are either subsonic and stealthy or hypersonic to take out air defences will be used before bombs but even bombs can use glide kits to extend their flight range.

Some glide kits include simple pulse jet engines to extend range like the german buzz bomb from WWII... simple and cheap.

Any replacement for the Tu-22M3 should not just rely on stealth. The Su-57 offers the perfect blend between stealth, maneuverability and speed - not to mention electronics. Relying on stealth alone will be a huge and expensive mistake IMO.

Su-34 and Su-57 and either MiG-35 or a 5th gen light fighter design can run SEAD or DEAD missions and the PAK DA can use stand off cruise missiles and bomb glide kits while the enemy air defence continues to operate...

Speed doesn't really make the Backfire safe.

Yes speed is not everything but it can give you a significant edge if the enemy can fly at a max of Mach 1.6 for a very short period only - when you can pick a spot (due to superior range and speed) to strike when it suits you best. It gets even better when you have a Mach4+ missile with a range of 1000 km to strike at the enemy.

Stealth gives you some advantage but it doesn't make you invisible. Even a reduced IR signature is not enough to protect you from attacking missiles. Flying at subsonic speeds will give you no chance to make an escape once you are detected. The Tu-22M3 can out-fly any US Navy fighter atm.

Point is stealth doesn't make you safe either. That is why the Su-57 is just perfect IMO.

I agree with your points, you agree speed does not make you safe and I agree stealth does not make you safe... the only thing that makes you safe would be standoff range not having to enter the enemy air defence area in the first place.

This means standoff weapons until the enemy air defence is degraded, but also that being able to fly supersonic would allow the more effective use of bombs with glide kits too to allow release from safer distances.

The new PAK DA will likely have electronic self defence systems including against radar and IIR guided weaponry, but will also likely be carrying self defence AAMs in the form of small ARH missiles that can be launched at any SAMs or AAMs directed at the aircraft.

Obviously flying low makes you vulnerable to all sorts of AA fire so flying high would reduce your fuel burn and increase your flight speed and range and also allow more warning of incoming threats so you would be better able to defend yourself.

Flying high is good for stealth and a flying wing shape and with their already proven automatic bombing systems for dumb bombs they can use cheap bombs for many targets where otherwise expensive guided weapons would be needed.

For all the western hype about guided bomb use the percentage of guided bombs used in Desert Storm for instance was only a small fraction of the number of bombs delivered. For Russia with the accurate delivery of unguided bombs they can keep this ratio but hit rather more targets.

Regarding defending yourself I rather suspect that in addition to small self defence AAMs that their next gen bombers might carry air to air missiles too to cover their escape if needed, but if not then a drone version of the PAK DA that is heavily simplified and loaded with long range AAMs and a replacement for the AS-15 might be used to clear a path through enemy air defences in and out. Actually to be honest I would say the S-350 missiles would be ideal... the 9M96 in two models of 120-150km range and 50-60km range, plus the 9M100 missile for short range self defence would be ideal... compact slim missiles that lack huge wings and bits that stick out with high performance ARH sensors and already designed for vertical launch where they are fired up into the air and nose mounted thrusters turn the nose of the missile in the direction of the target before a thruster on the other side stops the turn by firing briefly and then the main motor starts up and launches the missile towards the incoming target... an air launched version could do the same with the thruster firing to point the nose in the direction of the target (careful not to hit the launch aircraft... but it already is careful not to hit the ground so it already has such features) and then fire the main rocket motor to head towards the target... in any horizontal direction from the launch position... which would be good for a fighter or a bomber.

For theatre missions Su-57s could fly fighter escort to deal with any enemy fighters or air defence systems on the ground with S-70 carrying more weapons to increase the number of targets that can be engaged...

It is just a plane. The Russian military will decide how to respond I suspect and Kievs forces will suffer even more than they have been, which essentially turns this into an own goal, but they are not going to start learning now are they?

@charly0153
Something more about the Tu-22M3 and the J-32 missile

https://twitter.com/charly0153/status/1703325678542762014