Tu-22M3: News

Two very similar engines for aircraft with similar performance requirements.

I would think it would make a lot of sense just to upgrade and improve one engine and then modify the other aircraft to take that new engine.

Of course, with the new upgrades making the Tu-95 and Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 capable of precision conventional strike missions if you are planning to make more Tu-160s then the question must be asked do you need all three types?

Before it was not a problem because the Tu-95 and Tu-160 were strategic aircraft only while the conventional bomber was the Tu-22M3. With the upgrades however it would probably make more sense to use two instead of 3.

Of course instead of scrapping the Airforces Tu-22M3 they could be handed over to naval aviation as spares.

Western 'experts' claim there is already a replacement for the AS-4... that looks just like the AS-4 externally but has higher speed and double the range and is called the Kh-32 or something.
The AS-4 missile has been displayed at western airshows as a mach 5 test bed for research.
Is there such a missile as Kh-32 or have those western experts got the wrong end of the stick again?
Equally the Kh-15 has really only been seen deployed on the Tu-22M3 AFAIK, is that missile still in use? Some western sources claim the Tu-160 can carry it, with 12 mounted in each of the two weapon bays to suppress enemy air defences. Other western sources claim it was only carried by the Tu-22M3 for the same purpose.

I doubt any modification of Brahmos would fit in the rotary launcher of the Tu-22M3.
It was pretty much designed for the Kh-15 I think and for conventional use it was to carry 1,500kg HE bombs.
By weight it should be able to carry 4 large weapons externally on 4 external hard points.
The Brahmos should be much lighter than the Kh-22 so it could possibly carry 4 externally.
The max payload of Kh-22s was three, with two on the wing pylons and one semi recessed where the bomb bay is.
With the lighter Brahmos you could probably carry two more on the forward points where it often carries multiple ejector racks for bombs making a max practical load of 5 weapons.
With hypersonic speed they would be devastating weapons... I wonder if the Americans would mind if the Russian AF removed them from the inventory and handed them over to the Navy in a non-strategic role and fitted them all with inflight refuelling probes again...

Need a picture of the beast...

Waste of money to put the SVP-24 in an aircraft thats best place is as a naval strike platform.

By the look of this photo there are SVP-24s for every aircraft... including helos:



And that plane again... :



Just noticed the above plane with Kh-?? missiles with the copyright notice for 2008.
Hope they have updated the missiles and they are now Kh-32s and hopefully solid fuelled missiles now, because the old missiles had liquid propellants that sounded really nasty (Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (IRFNA) to be mixed with hydrazine fuel.

Actually I read somewhere that part of the new submission for the procurement spending plan for 2011-2020 includes what was called an 18 fold increase in guided munitions. This was supposed to increase the percentage of GMs to 70% of the inventory. This suggests the current figure is 4% which is clearly too low.

I think you are being a little harsh on the SV-24 system I think it is a good thing to have a CCIP system it seems to have made the Su-24 pilots happier. The difference between being able to drop bombs accurately in free flight while manoeuvring will likely greatly improve their survival chances. Remember not all weapons deployed by aircraft are guided... the purpose of many weapons is to engage area targets like cluster bombs or KGMU containers.

Basically as US has done conversion from dumb to guided bombs Russia has chose to do it with SVP-24. How effective that solution is remains to be seeing. Different approach thats all.

I disagree. Up until very recently only a very small percentage of Russian air force aircraft even had precision guided weapon capability. The vast majority of guided weapons were carried mainly by customised aircraft like the Su-24 or the Mig-27K and the less expensive Mig-27M. With all the single engine aircraft withdrawn from service and most aircraft not getting upgrades this meant that most guided weapons were air to air missiles fitted to fighters and anti tank guided missiles fired from helicopters with most of the rest of the air fleet carrying dumb bombs and dumb rockets.
The standard armament of the Su-25 was bombs, including cluster bombs, rockets and the built in gun and of course gun pods.
It never had the role of the A-10 of behind the front lines loitering looking for armour to attack so most targets could be dealt with using rockets or bombs.

Right now however with upgraded and new aircraft entering service it actually makes sense for them to spend money on guided weapons, but the problem here is that a single guided weapon is more effective than say 15 unguided weapons of the same type they tend to cost 5-10 times more so while on paper your performance is greatly improved you had better hope for a short war, which of course can not be guaranteed.

GPS stops working above a certain height and above certain speeds to prevent its use in military applications, so for most of its weapons to use satellite guidance the Russians really do need Glonass because there is no alternative.
As GLONASS improves in accuracy and performance satellite guided weapons will become more useful and more effective and production of these weapons in significant numbers will reduce costs and make a GLONASS guidance package and INS system for every bomb cheap enough to make all bombs guided. For rockets a simple laser seeker with nose mounted canards can be used like the Ugroza system to make rocket pods much more cost effective weapons and of course in cases where accuracy is not needed (ie area target suppression) then unguided rockets can be used.

BTW interesting info on the Kh-32... thanks Victor.

Their answer isn't to increase spending 18 fold. The answer is to dispose of 2 million tonnes of munitions.

Their answer is to spend the money in the budget so that 70% of the weapons bought are guided. This compares to 4% previously.

I think this is a move in the right direction.

I think this will expose the problems of a large portion of the fleet not being able to use the new munitions and will hopefully lead to more upgrades of existing aircraft.

So far it is clear more Su-27s will get upgrades, the Su-24s that were going to get upgrades have had them, the Tu-22M3, Tu-160 and Tu-95 are going to receive upgrades, the Su-25 is going to receive upgrades and possibly re-enter production, the Mi-28N and Ka-52s should already be capable of using guided weapons already and will get Hermes when it has been tested. The Mig-31BM upgrade is continuing. As far as I can tell they are actually talking about guided air to ground or air to surface weapons and not air to air missiles, so this really only effects aircraft designed and operated in the air to ground role. The fact that most of the Mig-29 fleet can't use laser guided bombs wont be an issue because that is what the Su-24 and Su-34 are for. The Mig-29 pilots wont even get air to ground training most likely, just as Su-24 will only get defensive air to air training.

Any of those munitions they want to get rid of much of it will be obsolete and unsafe.

Even the French arsenal will dwarf Russia. KTRV was promised an order worth $160 million at MAKS, they have yet to get paid.

And this is a problem because you would think once they heard the order announced that they would take steps to prepare to fill that order... this costs money.

The Russian military has been talking tough about new stuff and shaking the military industrial complex into action after years of forced inaction. The problem is that if there is no money then they are just blowing smoke... again.
Why should UVZ come up with new tank designs when programs keep getting cut and they never get money promised? Why not just sit on their backsides and wait and eventually the Government will decide to licence produce Leopards or Leclercs and then the money will have to come.

When was the last time NATO aircraft dropped dumb bombs? 1991? Even Turkey is using JDAMs to take out PKK.

When was the last time Russia was invading a country on morality grounds and feared bad publicity because they knew they were the aggressor?

A dumb bomb accurately dropped in the midst of an all out Chinese attack will still do the job. The whole point of the Su-25 is to get in close and see the target and drop bombs on them... if you replace your dumb bombs with guided bombs then you need to replace the CAS aircraft with medium altitude Su-27SM and Mig-29SMTs.

It appears MoD has bailed on SVP-24 link

Further equipment Su-24 by systems [SVP]-24 is located open to question In the text of the news the following themes of the library are mentioned Production A -50 KA -50 MiG-27 Su-24 Su-24[M] Su-25 Tu-22[M]3 Personas [Popovkin] Vladimir Other news on the themes indicated, you can see on the personal pages of the themes Moscow. On December 9. Airport - further modernization of combatant aircraft Su-24 into the version Su-24[M] with the installation of system [SVP]-24 is located open to question, reported " [AviaPortu]" the Director-General of the privately held company of " Hephaestus [T]" Alexander Panin. " The deputy minister of defense Vladimir [Popovkin] forewent the planned for the following year financing of conducting the modernization of combatant front bombers Su-24[M] with the equipment with their specialized computational subsystem [SVP]-24, in spite of the solution at the level of [glavkoma] VVS about the need of conducting similar of [modernizatsii]" , collocutor noted. He supplemented, that " today it cannot be spoken, that the modernization of combatant Su-24[M] is ended, since inside the Ministry of Defense for this problem there are different of [mneniya]". [A].[Panin] emphasized that the effectiveness [SVP]-24 was confirmed by the crew of the line unit, into service with which entered the equipped with the series technology bombers Su-24[M]. [Ekspluatanty], which fly in the modernized combatant machines, they indicate that this modernization is necessary. " Those modernized Su-24[M] showed excellent results during all studies, including of " West -2009" and " Vostok-2010". From the system there are no observations, all [ekspluatanty] indicate that the tested in the system solutions very of [effektivny]" , collocutor noted. According to [A].[Panina], it is until today modernized in the series order of " more than 10 combatant Su-24[M]" and one bomber Tu-22[M]3. It refined that the privately held company of " Hephaestus [T]" modernized for its own calculation one strategic bomber Tu-22[M]3. " However, on this entire modernization of aircraft of this type (Tu-22[M]3), judging by everything, and [zavershilas]" , assumes the director general of company. Privately held company of " Hephaestus [T]" also developed the versions of the modernization of aircraft Su-25, MiG-27, L -39, A -50 Tu-22[M]3. Analogous TO [SVP]-24 system was tested on the helicopter KA -50, as a result of which the combat effectiveness of machine it increased 2,5 times. However, this theme did not obtain development. Dmitriy Kozlov

I would edit that down to its important points like this:

Further equipment Su-24 by systems [SVP]-24 is located open to question

Ie the decision to upgrade more Su-24s has not been made yet.

further modernization of combatant aircraft Su-24 into the version Su-24[M] with the installation of system [SVP]-24 is located open to question, reported " [AviaPortu]" the Director-General of the privately held company of " Hephaestus [T]" Alexander Panin. "

ie The director of the company that makes the SVP-24 says he does not have funding or an order to install their product on more Su-24s.

The deputy minister of defense Vladimir [Popovkin] forewent the planned for the following year financing of conducting the modernization of combatant front bombers Su-24[M] with the equipment with their specialized computational subsystem [SVP]-24, in spite of the solution at the level of [glavkoma] VVS about the need of conducting similar of [modernizatsii]" , collocutor noted.

ie They haven't given us money to continue the upgrade on more aircraft despite the VVS claiming a need for the upgrade... the director continues.

He supplemented, that " today it cannot be spoken, that the modernization of combatant Su-24[M] is ended, since inside the Ministry of Defense for this problem there are different of [mneniya]".

ie the Director says that the Su-24 will be upgraded further and that within the ministry of defence there is a disagreement on what is upgraded rather than whether it will be upgraded.

[A].[Panin] emphasized that the effectiveness [SVP]-24 was confirmed by the crew of the line unit, into service with which entered the equipped with the series technology bombers Su-24[M]. [Ekspluatanty], which fly in the modernized combatant machines, they indicate that this modernization is necessary. " Those modernized Su-24[M] showed excellent results during all studies, including of " West -2009" and " Vostok-2010". From the system there are no observations, all [ekspluatanty] indicate that the tested in the system solutions very of [effektivny]" , collocutor noted.

ie Our product has been tested in exercises and the users think it is wonderful and a necessary piece of kit.

According to [A].[Panina], it is until today modernized in the series order of " more than 10 combatant Su-24[M]" and one bomber Tu-22[M]3. It refined that the privately held company of " Hephaestus [T]" modernized for its own calculation one strategic bomber Tu-22[M]3. " However, on this entire modernization of aircraft of this type (Tu-22[M]3), judging by everything, and [zavershilas]" , assumes the director general of company. Privately held company of " Hephaestus [T]" also developed the versions of the modernization of aircraft Su-25, MiG-27, L -39, A -50 Tu-22[M]3.

ie we developed an upgraded SVP-24 for the Tu-22M3 and installed it and we have also developed versions for the Su-25, Mig-27, Ka-50, L-39, A-50, and Backfire. (Note not sure why an AWACS like the A-50 would need a bombing computer...)

Analogous TO [SVP]-24 system was tested on the helicopter KA -50, as a result of which the combat effectiveness of machine it increased 2,5 times. However, this theme did not obtain development. Dmitriy Kozlov

ie self explanatory.

So overall it sounds to me like this story is actually the director of a company selling his product and at the same time asking the government why they aren't buying more of his product.

There are no comments by the government itself so I pretty much see this as airing their laundry in public to get a continuation of their upgrade order.

The facts as the director of the company sees them is that his system is popular and effective so why aren't you ordering more.

Sounds a bit like the first post in this thread... the engine company has contracts to upgrade NS-32 engines and it is wondering out loud where the contracts to upgrade the NS-25 are.

The answer is to make a quantitative reduction of the arsenal. Scrap the old dumb bombs so the low numbers of guided looks big. The number of guided munitions is more in the .4% range. We have over 100k dumb bombs, but only several hundred smart, most of which do not work.

Well if that is what they are doing then I think they are making a mistake. Dumb bombs can easily have guidance packages attached and suddenly they are guided weapons for a reduced price and if you do it properly they wont need modification of the aircraft to use them.

Perhaps they will go the same way as NATO and most pilots will only ever fire "simulation" weapons in training. Cheaper. No chance of UXO littering the range. Not totally realistic.

The existing aircraft are already 25 years old. Without expensive reinforcement and overhaul, they will not last more than 27. By the time upgrade takes place, they will be on their way out. Upgrade does not take place because it is too little too late. Hopefully they are saving the money for new builds.

Based on this:

General-Lieutenant Sadofyev told RIA Novosti the VVS will receive 1,500 new, and 400 modernized aircraft by 2020. The Chief of Aviation said the State Defense Order (GOZ or ГОЗ) for 2011 includes acquisition of Su-27SM, Su-30M2, Su-34, Su-35S, and Yak-130 aircraft for the VVS, as well as Ka-52, Mi-28N, Mi-8AMTSh (MTV-5-1), Ka-226, Ansat-U helicopters for Army Aviation. But he provided no specific procurement numbers for next year.
For Long-Range Aviation (LRA or ДА), he said the VVS will modernize existing Tu-160, Tu-95MS, Tu-22M3, and Il-78M aircraft. The goal is to update 80 percent of this inventory in what he calls the medium-term future – defined by him as 2020. What he has in mind here is service life extension and the replacement of some electronics and other systems.

I would say the upgrade of the Su-27SM will continue and that the Tu-22M3 will get an upgrade but most of the aircraft listed above are new builds except for the long range aviation aircraft, but I would expect the improvements in electronics alone there is enormous scope to upgrade those aircraft.

Somebody posted an RIA Novosti article stating VVS is not likely to get them.

The quote above is from RIA Novosti and suggests there is funding for the Su-27SM.

Keep up Garry, only one Tu-22M3 was upgraded at the expense of the company and no more coming.

The Gefest company upgraded one Tu-22M3 with their computer bombing system... clearly in the hopes that the Russian military will try it and like it enough to order it. They have already stated the Tu-22M3 is getting upgraded along with the other long range aviation assets, but they haven't mentioned what will be upgraded. This is the Gefest company fishing.

Tu-95 finished their upgrades in 2005, 34 total. Tu-160 too few to worry about. Su-24SM = 10 and the government has refused to place more in GAZ. MiG-31BM upgrades are completed at 10. VVS pays lip service to modernisation.

One of the series problems of the Tu-160 is that no two are the same. An exaggeration I know but the purpose of the upgrade was a unification of systems, radar, and weapons between the Bear, Blackjack, and Backfire to improve commonality, reduce maintainence costs and operational costs and to give them all conventional attack capabilities. The Bear and Blackjack being cruise missile carriers till the post cold war period and the air to ground capacity of the Tu-22M3 was significant in terms of weapon load, but poor in terms of delivery performance against point targets. It was an area bomber or grid square bomber.

I hope we won't be left behind with that Soviet era thinking. Multi-role means doing more with less, and we are certainly headed for quite a bit less.

That is what I thought but you need to change a few things first. Mig-29s operate as point defence interceptors and the Flankers basically similar but with longer reach and a bit more independence from ground controllers.
Strike missions are handled by Su-24s, and Tu-22m3s and now Su-34s.
CAS is Su-25s and Helicopters.
The idea of multirole aircraft is nice, but in actual practise the units equipped with Flankers and Fulcrums wont be performing missions of Fencers and Frogfeet.
That is why the Russian military was never interested in the SMT upgrade for the Mig-29 or the Su-39 or Su-25TM... they have fighters and they have bombers... why spend money making a fighter a bomber or a bomber a fighter when you already have both.

The US uses bombs left over from Vietnam and turns them into JDAMs. Dumb bombs have a very long shelf life. Making conversion kits for the tens of thousands of FAB-500s should be a top priority. Not detonating them because we are too cheap to come into the 21st century.

I fully agree. As Glonass becomes more accurate it just makes sense to develop guidance kits... I mean even these days you can get a palm computer with GPS receiver chips built in that could perform the calculations to shift a couple of control surfaces to manoeuvre a bomb into a target. They don't have to be big or expensive.

The PLA has large numbers of SHORAD, going on short bomb and rocket runs would be suicide.

Bazalt have already shown wing glider kits for dumb bombs that allow bombs to glide distances of 50km or more to a target.

We need fighter bombers with the capability of stand-off from SHORAD to deal with them.

The Hermes missile would have a range of about 20km from an Su-25SM and with its own terminal guidance the Frogfoot would not need to keep closing the target like the Su-25TM would with Vikhrs.

This requires pods like Domacles which gives the resolution and range to do the job. Modern fighters can fly high to take out those SHORAD then Su-25s can finish them off.

Agree though I would add that your modern fighters would be more effectively used dealing with enemy fighters and other aircraft, and perhaps some form of UAV drone flown low over the enemy to draw fire with a higher flying UAV noting where the ground fire is coming from and marking the coordinates and passing those back to HQ for targeting by all sorts of assets including Smerch, Hermes, Tochka and Iskander, and also passed to ground forces.

I would edit it to the one fact posted. "Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin abandoned plans for next year's funding for combatant modernization of the Su-24M, equipping them with specialized computer subsystem of the SVP-24, despite a decision at the Air Force Commander of the need for such modernization,"

If that were true then there would be no point to the article.
Whether the upgrade program will get funding next year or not gives and indication that money cannot stretch to everything right away and that some programs have to wait.
I would also say that while the Su-34 is being produced at such a slow rate that upgrades of the Su-24 become important in my opinion and I think this upgrade that gives the aircraft the ability to use unguided weapons in free flight with a good chance of hitting the target they are aiming at would be a good thing for any aircraft but fairly crucial for a strike aircraft like the Su-24.

It is self explanatory VVS has no intention investing in Tu-22M3, especially after the Georgian bungle.

I rather doubt the aircraft used in Georgia was a Tu-22M3 bomber. It is much more likely to have been a Tu-22MR recon aircraft, and I would suggest its failure in the Georgian campaign would have the same results as the effect of lack of Russian UAV recon capability.


Just read on Ria novosti that the Russian army is to spend 300 billion rubles ($10 billion) in a drive to digitize its communications systems by 2012, the chief of the Russian General Staff Nikolai Makarov said on Tuesday.

Regarding the Georgian campaign I would expect the Su-25 excelled in its role and was rather let down by two major concerns... lack of night and all weather capability and lack of being able to receive data from other platforms about targets and threats.

Perhaps a deeper upgrade might be on the cards... one that includes DIRCMs and Hermes perhaps.

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.

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.

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.

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.