Tu-160 "White Swan"

They are totally different engines of similar size and weight and dimension and thrust and performance.

The attachment points are different and the places for power leads and fuel lines are all different and not compatible... but then the Tu-22M3M is supposed to have fairly significant revisions in design including a lengthened bomb bay and reduced flight crew numbers as well as other major changes... surely modifying the two engine bays to make them suitable for the NK-32 engine can't be that impossible... especially if it means having one engine across the two aircraft types which makes it all worth it.

They can focus on upgrading one engine instead of upgrading two and carry spare parts and engine purchases for one engine instead of two that are nearly the same in most regards.

I would think after they have 50 blackjacks they wont be needing Backfire strike aircraft so much so they could flick them to another force... perhaps the Aerospace forces might want some with a revised design to carry 24 tons of air to air missiles for dealing with enormous swarms of incoming cruise missiles.... it could be a mix of small light cheap agile anti aircraft/anti missile missiles plus a few heavy missiles with nuclear warheads to deal with swarm groups while they are outside Russian airspace... preferably over enemy airspace or international waters...

A big AESA radar and a belly covered in conformal weapon launch positions...

Bear in mind that the difference between the RD-33 and the RD-93 is that the gearbox on top of the RD-33 is moved to the bottom on the RD-93...

Obviously it makes more sense to change the aircraft than change the engine because that makes the engines interchangeable...

Besides I like the blue afterburners, they are super cool.

The ABs are beautiful...

By the way after they modernize some the Tu22m3 they could even think about restarting production, if an interested foreign customer (as an example India or Iran) would pay for it. In that case also Russia could be interested in acquiring more of them.

The advantage of the Backfire is its ability to carry bombs... an ability they have not given to the Blackjack apparently...

The thing is that the PAK DA will also be a bomber and cruise missile carrier so the PAK DA will replace the Backfire most likely so there would be no need to put the Backfire back into production.

I am sure if India wanted one they could refurb as many as they want to M3M export standard.

Neither India nor China seem interested so I would just look at potential uses for Russia... I have mentioned low speed long range interceptor, but there is potential for jammer or other purposes...

I am sure the Brahmos would fit quite nicely as well. India should buy a bunch as they have nothing that remotely resembles a strategic bomber while China is about to roll out a flying wing bomber.

Could probably carry 8-12 externally on four weapon hard points (2-3 per pylon perhaps?)... the internal weapon bay could be filled with a fuel bladder to extend range performance...

As for spares, I think with 800+ sets for a fleet of 120 engines you are in good shape, unless this engine is a really parts eater. (possible for sure). If that is the case, then they should explore NK-32-02 swap.

The engines are essentially the same, but not designed to be compatible. Redesigning the aircraft to take the different engines makes sense simply because the new engines are being upgraded and improved with better thrust and better components and better design and better fuel efficiency... being able to use that in new bombers and retro fitting it to existing Blackjacks and Backfires means getting better value for money and improving the whole bomber force without having to duplicate the improvement effort across two different engines.

Considering they generate 25 tons of thrust in full AB why not fit the old Backfire engines to the An-124... imagine a blue AB takeoff with that baby...

Now that there's an environmentalist position if I heard one. Seems vaguely beneficial to the environment, if only on first glance, but sure to fuck the common people - put it on Greta's list of hostage demands for next time.

Actually rather than Kaira, I would go for several external small pylons located under the nose and belly and rear engine area clear of undercarriage and the main four weapons hard points and bomb bay where you could mount external weapons pods pointing forward and backwards that could use auto targeting to lock multiple targets at once and lase them for freefall laser guided bombs and missiles of other platforms... of course as well as various precision delivered dumb bombs and bomblets.

Some of the underbelly pods developed for the Su-34 could be carried on the four main wing pylons for various EW and recon roles over COIN battlefields... with a bomb bay full of bombs.

That was very interesting... didn't realise how much of a gap in the wing when the wings are straight... shame they didn't use the AB and go for some high speed with a short climb and swept wings...

Probably old but worth a post