Tu-22M3: News

My understanding is that the Irbis-E radar was to be eventually used on the Tu-22M series aircrafts, which would give the aircraft ridiculously large detecting/tracking ranges. Dunno if the plan is still on but would be nice.

Stealthflanker wrote:

sepheronx wrote:My understanding is that the Irbis-E radar was to be eventually used on the Tu-22M series aircrafts, which would give the aircraft ridiculously large detecting/tracking ranges.  Dunno if the plan is still on but would be nice.

This only make sense if Russian think of making their version of "B-1R" a Supersized interceptor/missile truck.

Ground attack radar though, don't really need 20 Kw.

Air engagement would be roughly 600km but for air to ground, even more. It would benefit to strike enemy positions with guided munitions from so far out of sam engagement range. Hell, they could effectively turn it into an intercepter as well. But this is what was mentioned long before, and I would like to see that.

Very few journalists could tell an M1 abrams tank from a Humvee let alone an aircraft type... I remember during Desert Storm a US journalist standing outside an airfield in Saudi Arabia claiming B-52s were taking off on their mission to bomb Saddam... except the aircraft taking off were F-16s.

I do remember talk of moving Tu-22M3s to the Crimea... mainly in response to the movement of ABM systems into Europe.

Now that Russia has turned towards Asia and away from the west, I suspect they will be more likely to sell to China... the question would of course be, does China want 50 or do they want 2...

When they introduced the Su-34 many of the short to medium range missions the Backfire would normally be used for were replaced.

The thing is that all the sophisticated stuff they have crammed into the Su-34 they could cram bigger and better into the Backfire... and with the Bear, the Backfire and the Blackjack all getting upgraded unified systems then while the choice of Su-34 vs Backfire becomes less clear because the Backfire becomes more capable and still has enormous weapon and fuel capacity, the addition to the equation is that the Bear and the Blackjack suddenly becomes available for theatre conventional missions as well.

Before the Su-34, the Backfire was the only conventional option, but the Su-34 adds accuracy and guided weapons, though not able to match payload weight in dumb weapons or very large weapons like Kh-32, it should be a very potent aircraft with inflight refuelling.

Now, with Blackjack and Bear able in the near future to carry heavy conventional weapons... guided and unguided then the need for the Backfire weakens.

In the future when the PAK DA starts to replace the Bear and Backfire and the Blackjack is put into service in increasing numbers the need for the Backfire reduces even further and if there is an export potential it will be in the mid to late 2020s IMHO.

By then who will want the Backfire?

Well if Zircon or an export version comes with it... it might be very popular... but perhaps for 2 aircraft rather than 50.

I agree that China could probably make a nice aircraft, but the Backfire is a useful little aircraft with high speed, good powerful engines, and by 2025 perhaps, very potent hypersonic versions of the Zircon missile...

With its current upgrade the backfire will have a powerful radar and decent avionics and PGM capability with a range of land attack and anti ship missiles.