Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Look the internal weapons bay with OFAB-250-270 bombs carried by Tu-22M3 long-range bombers
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1679182275657855
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1679182275657855
+82
Gomig-21
Tolstoy
ALAMO
TMA1
caveat emptor
Podlodka77
Mir
lancelot
Arrow
Krepost
Russian_Patriot_
Lurk83
limb
Finty
Backman
owais.usmani
magnumcromagnon
Isos
kvs
AlfaT8
thegopnik
ahmedfire
jhelb
AMCXXL
marcellogo
Azi
ATLASCUB
archangelski
Rodion_Romanovic
hoom
LMFS
GunshipDemocracy
Singular_Transform
Hole
GarryB
GJ Flanker
mnztr
dino00
Cheetah
MC-21
gaurav
Pierre Sprey
T-47
miketheterrible
PapaDragon
TheArmenian
ult
SeigSoloyvov
AK-Rex
Tsavo Lion
OminousSpudd
Benya
David-Lanza
bojcistv
eehnie
Morpheus Eberhardt
wilhelm
andrey19900
Giulio
Svyatoslavich
d_taddei2
JohninMK
Big_Gazza
franco
sepheronx
Mike E
Cyberspec
zg18
mack8
diabetus
Werewolf
flamming_python
Mindstorm
Austin
TR1
George1
IronsightSniper
Stealthflanker
haavarla
psg
Viktor
Admin
86 posters
Tu-22M3: News
George1- Posts : 18522
Points : 19027
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
andrey19900- Posts : 3
Points : 3
Join date : 2015-11-07
George1- Posts : 18522
Points : 19027
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Weapons bay of Tu-22M3M can carry laser guided bombs? (KAB series for example)?
franco- Posts : 7053
Points : 7079
Join date : 2010-08-18
George1 wrote:Weapons bay of Tu-22M3M can carry laser guided bombs? (KAB series for example)?
Integration of the 1,000 lb KAB-500L and 3,000 lb KAB-1500L Paveway-ski laser guided bombs would be relatively simple, exploiting hardware for the FAB-1500. Adaptation of the existing nine round FAB-250 rack to carry six KAB-500 is feasible. A thermal imaging laser targeting pod like the Sapsan-E could be carried externally, but also repackaged into the existing bombsight fairing under the flight deck, exploiting the extant Weapons Officer's display for the remote OBP-15T bombsight. The latter arrangement offers lower drag and a better field of regard, but would require additional infra-red transmissive window integration, yielding similar packaging to the JSF EOTS. Such as arrangement is likely to be attractive as it doubles up as a day/night thermal imaging sight to replace the OBP-15T, and with further integration via a HUD could provide a night penetration capability.
Clearance of the fire-and-forget KAB-500/1500Kr GBU-8-ski would present little difficulty, but inflight retargeting would require wiring additions to the glove and ventral inlet stations. The KAB-1500TK GBU-15-ski would require integration of the APK-9 Tekon pod, already carried by the Su-30MKK and Su-27SKU.
The new GPS/Glonass aided inertially guided KAB-500S-E 'JDAM-ski' based on the KAB-500 kit is currently being integrated on the Su-27SKM, Su-30MK and Su-35BM, with KAB-1500S-E integration now planned. These weapons would require software and wiring changes to integrate, and would essentially replicate the capabilities of the JDAM on US heavy bombers.
There are no fundamental obstacles to integrating the KAB family weapons on the Backfire C.
...Australian Air Power
GarryB- Posts : 40545
Points : 41045
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
There would be little problem upgrading the Tu-22M3 to carry guided bombs and missiles.
The Tu-22M3M by definition would not need any such upgrade... it already has been upgraded to use various types of guided bombs and missiles... that is what the second M is for.
I would suspect laser guided bombs would present no problem regarding internal carriage as the target is not normally lased until the weapon is 3-5 seconds from impact.
Regarding TV guided weapons that is more interesting because normally they are lock on before launch. the main exception to that is the Kh-59 and Kh-59M (Nato AS-13 and AS-18) which have datalink pods that allow the weapons to transmit the view from their seekers back to the launch aircraft so the weapons officer can mark the target with the weapon seekers view of the target area as it approaches the target.
I would expect satellite guided bombs could be easily carried internally and also conventional dumb bombs accurately delivered using the Gefest & T bomb aiming system.
Otherwise I would expect optical guidance bombs with no lock on after launch capability would be carried on external weapon racks... the four external hardpoints with 9 hard points each would allow up to 36 bombs to be carried externally up to 250kgs.
Looking at the photos shown with 250kg bombs internally loaded in three rows of 11 bombs that would mean a total of 36 x 250kg plus 33 bombs of 250kg which equals 17.25 tons... and is the magic 69 250kg bombs often mentioned as the limit for the Backfire.
the four external hard points are also capable of carrying 1,500kg bombs in pairs so 3 tons on each of four pylons which makes 12 tons externally plus the 33 250kg (8.25 tons) bombs internally equals 20 tons and 250kgs... which is still 3 tons and 750kgs short of the reported max payload.
Assuming 6 1,500kg weapons can be carried on the internal rotary launcher (also used for the kh-15 Kickback missile) then that means 9 tons carried internally that means a payload of 21 tons with 6 bombs internally and 8 externally.
The only combination I have found to get to the magic 24 tons payload is 8 x 1500kg bombs on four external hardpoints in tandem and 24 x 500kg bombs internally....
The Tu-22M3M by definition would not need any such upgrade... it already has been upgraded to use various types of guided bombs and missiles... that is what the second M is for.
I would suspect laser guided bombs would present no problem regarding internal carriage as the target is not normally lased until the weapon is 3-5 seconds from impact.
Regarding TV guided weapons that is more interesting because normally they are lock on before launch. the main exception to that is the Kh-59 and Kh-59M (Nato AS-13 and AS-18) which have datalink pods that allow the weapons to transmit the view from their seekers back to the launch aircraft so the weapons officer can mark the target with the weapon seekers view of the target area as it approaches the target.
I would expect satellite guided bombs could be easily carried internally and also conventional dumb bombs accurately delivered using the Gefest & T bomb aiming system.
Otherwise I would expect optical guidance bombs with no lock on after launch capability would be carried on external weapon racks... the four external hardpoints with 9 hard points each would allow up to 36 bombs to be carried externally up to 250kgs.
Looking at the photos shown with 250kg bombs internally loaded in three rows of 11 bombs that would mean a total of 36 x 250kg plus 33 bombs of 250kg which equals 17.25 tons... and is the magic 69 250kg bombs often mentioned as the limit for the Backfire.
the four external hard points are also capable of carrying 1,500kg bombs in pairs so 3 tons on each of four pylons which makes 12 tons externally plus the 33 250kg (8.25 tons) bombs internally equals 20 tons and 250kgs... which is still 3 tons and 750kgs short of the reported max payload.
Assuming 6 1,500kg weapons can be carried on the internal rotary launcher (also used for the kh-15 Kickback missile) then that means 9 tons carried internally that means a payload of 21 tons with 6 bombs internally and 8 externally.
The only combination I have found to get to the magic 24 tons payload is 8 x 1500kg bombs on four external hardpoints in tandem and 24 x 500kg bombs internally....
wilhelm- Posts : 348
Points : 352
Join date : 2014-12-09
What base did the Tu-22M take off from in their attack on terrorist forces in Syria?
Was it Mozdok?
If so, did they return to Mozdok, or another base?
Was it Mozdok?
If so, did they return to Mozdok, or another base?
franco- Posts : 7053
Points : 7079
Join date : 2010-08-18
wilhelm wrote:What base did the Tu-22M take off from in their attack on terrorist forces in Syria?
Was it Mozdok?
If so, did they return to Mozdok, or another base?
Flying in and out of Mozdok.
wilhelm- Posts : 348
Points : 352
Join date : 2014-12-09
franco wrote:wilhelm wrote:What base did the Tu-22M take off from in their attack on terrorist forces in Syria?
Was it Mozdok?
If so, did they return to Mozdok, or another base?
Flying in and out of Mozdok.
Thanks Franco.
From the info graphics I've seen that were released, the flight path was over the Caspian sea, Southwards bound through Iran, then a wide loop south of Baghdad almost on the Kuwait border, toward Jordan, then up north into Syria.
Does anyone have the distance flown for the whole mission, or even an estimate?
George1- Posts : 18522
Points : 19027
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Russian Supersonic Tu-22M3 Bombers Joining Military Drills in Tajikistan
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160311/1036124438/tu-22-drills-tajikistan.html#ixzz42bMyt7Hy
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160311/1036124438/tu-22-drills-tajikistan.html#ixzz42bMyt7Hy
"[Bomber] crews will practice airstrikes using 500-kg [1,100-lb] bombs against camps of illegal armed groups at military [training] grounds in the foothills of Eastern Pamir [Tajikistan]," he added.
mack8- Posts : 1039
Points : 1093
Join date : 2013-08-02
Very nice photoreport here:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1814292.html
One thing that is irksome imo. Why on earth aren't they installing back the IFR probes on Tu-22M3, it will greatly help in expanding their capabilities, epsecially for scenarios like Syria (they could have carried maximum load if they could have been refueled in flight). I know about START and all that, but have the yanks removed the IFR facilities on the B-1? They have not.
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1814292.html
One thing that is irksome imo. Why on earth aren't they installing back the IFR probes on Tu-22M3, it will greatly help in expanding their capabilities, epsecially for scenarios like Syria (they could have carried maximum load if they could have been refueled in flight). I know about START and all that, but have the yanks removed the IFR facilities on the B-1? They have not.
Svyatoslavich- Posts : 399
Points : 400
Join date : 2015-04-22
Location : Buenos Aires
SALT treaties signed by the US and USSR limit the amount of strategic platforms (bombers included) that the signataries can have. Tu-22M was not considered a strategic bomber if it didn't have the IFR probe, and the earlier versions built with it had them removed. I don't know if M3 has provision for IFR probe, I've never seen one with it. Perhaps, as these were built after SALT treaties, they just don't have provision for IFR probes, for example, plumbing connecting the nose to the fuel tanks. But that is just speculation on my side.mack8 wrote:Very nice photoreport here:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1814292.html
One thing that is irksome imo. Why on earth aren't they installing back the IFR probes on Tu-22M3, it will greatly help in expanding their capabilities, epsecially for scenarios like Syria (they could have carried maximum load if they could have been refueled in flight). I know about START and all that, but have the yanks removed the IFR facilities on the B-1? They have not.
Morpheus Eberhardt- Posts : 1925
Points : 2032
Join date : 2013-05-20
Svyatoslavich wrote:
SALT treaties signed by the US and USSR limit the amount of strategic platforms (bombers included) that the signataries can have. Tu-22M was not considered a strategic bomber if it didn't have the IFR probe, and the earlier versions built with it had them removed. I don't know if M3 has provision for IFR probe, I've never seen one with it. Perhaps, as these were built after SALT treaties, they just don't have provision for IFR probes, for example, plumbing connecting the nose to the fuel tanks. But that is just speculation on my side.
Tu-22M3 uses a retractable probe, when fitted, similar to that on Tu-160. When retracted, it would not be a visible thing of the sort on, let's say, Tu-22M2.
Actually, the claim has been made that the two floodlights above the nose are for the purpose of night refueling.
During he charade that surrounds the "arm control treaties" some, at least "unofficial", noise was made regarding these floodlights.
George1- Posts : 18522
Points : 19027
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Modernization of bombers Tu-22M3
On the web-site forums.airforce.ru were posted interesting data from PSC "Tupolev" of the passage of repair with the modernization of the four long-range bombers Tu-22M3 for VKS Russia to the level of Tu-22M3M on public contracts concluded in 2016. Presumably, this is the first commercially modernized Tu-22M3M, and their deliveryr, apparently, is not expected until 2017.
The text states, in particular, that on the modernized Tu-22M3 old board PNA radar is to be replaced with new radar HB-45 production of St. Petersburg OAO "CSPA" Leninist "(This radar is a variant of the radar station, part of the search and sighting system "Novella-P38", which equipped with the modernized anti-aircraft Il-38N).
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1828679.html
GarryB- Posts : 40545
Points : 41045
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Today the number of submarines with some SAM capabilities is very very low, but this begins to change. It is very logical that in the future, strategic bombers that habitually work over the sea begin to have also some protection vs submarines. And the Tu-22 is not unknown in the Russian Naval Aviation.
There is no version of the Tu-22 or the very different Tu-22M aircraft that are strategic bombers.
Tu-22M naval aircraft are not fitted for any weapon that would allow it to engage a submarine directly.
there are some fuses that can be attached to conventional bombs so they can be used as mines in shallow waters but that is it... and unless the sub puts its periscope above the water for the Backfires radar to detect then it wont find them either.
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
GarryB wrote:Today the number of submarines with some SAM capabilities is very very low, but this begins to change. It is very logical that in the future, strategic bombers that habitually work over the sea begin to have also some protection vs submarines. And the Tu-22 is not unknown in the Russian Naval Aviation.
There is no version of the Tu-22 or the very different Tu-22M aircraft that are strategic bombers.
Tu-22M naval aircraft are not fitted for any weapon that would allow it to engage a submarine directly.
there are some fuses that can be attached to conventional bombs so they can be used as mines in shallow waters but that is it... and unless the sub puts its periscope above the water for the Backfires radar to detect then it wont find them either.
This is not about today, obviously, and less about aircrafts out of service like the first generation of the Tu-22, but if you want, would not be bad if you do the list of models of submarine that have SAM capabilities today, and their owners. Today are very few. In the future is likely to see submarines and strategic bombers (also supersonic) being able to engage.
First the supersonic aircrafts were very vulnerable, later when we realized that they can have a strong and effective escort flying at supersonic speed, the operation was too expensive (like Desert Storm, no less), and now, when we realized that would be a transport operation of less than 24 hours (likely without fire), there is a problem with strategic bombers of today engaging future SAM submarines. Well, we are advancing, we need only to realize that future supersonic strategic bombers for sea work, likely will be able to engage future SAM submarines.
Still, not so sure if you keep in the mind the right definition of strategic bomber, and of which are the strategic bombers of the last decades and today:
wikipedia wrote:A strategic bomber is a medium to long range penetration bomber designed to drop large amounts of air-to-ground weaponry onto a distant target for the purposes of debilitating the enemy's capacity to wage war. Unlike tactical bombers, penetrators, fighter-bombers, and attack aircraft, which are used in air interdiction operations to attack enemy combatants and military equipment, strategic bombers are designed to fly into enemy territory to destroy strategic targets (e.g., infrastructure, logistics, military installations, factories, and cities). In addition to strategic bombing, strategic bombers can be used for tactical missions. The United States, Russia, and China maintain strategic bombers.
...
Cold War[edit]
Weapons loads can include nuclear-armed missiles as well as aerial bombs
Reciprocating/Turbine engine
United Kingdom Avro Lincoln (22,000 lb)
United States Lockheed P-2 Neptune – small number converted as carrier-launched nuclear-armed bombers which would have to ditch/recover at land bases
United States Boeing B-50 Superfortress (28,000 lb)
Soviet Union Tupolev Tu-4 – reverse-engineered version of B-29 Superfortress
United States Convair B-36 Peacemaker (72,000 lb)
Soviet Union Tupolev Tu-95 (55,000 lb)
Jet engine
United States North American B-45 Tornado (22,000 lb)
United States Boeing B-47 Stratojet (25,000 lb)
Soviet Union Myasishchev M-4 (52,910 lb)
Soviet Union Tupolev Tu-16 (20,000 lb)
China Xian H-6 (20,000 lb)
United States Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (70,000 lb)
United Kingdom Vickers Valiant (21,000 lb)
United Kingdom Avro Vulcan (21,000 lb)
United States Douglas A-3 Skywarrior – nuclear-armed, carrier-based
United Kingdom Handley Page Victor (35,000 lb)
Supersonic
United States Convair B-58 Hustler (19,450 lb)
France Dassault Mirage IV (16,000 lb)
United States General Dynamics FB-111A – strategic bomber version of the F-111 swing wing strike aircraft
Soviet Union Tupolev Tu-22 Blinder (20,000 lb)
Soviet Union Tupolev Tu-22M Backfire (46,300 lb)
United States Rockwell B-1 Lancer (75,000 lb – use of external hardpoints restricted by START I)
Soviet Union Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack (88,200 lb)
others designed and built which did not enter operational service:
Soviet Union Myasishchev M-50 Bounder
United States North American XB-70 Valkyrie
Soviet Union Sukhoi T-4 Sotka
Post Cold War[edit]
United States Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit (40,000 lb)
GarryB- Posts : 40545
Points : 41045
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Don't really care about that loose wiki interpretation of strategic.
Last time I looked strategic means hitting your enemy on their soil, so for a Russian bomber that means flying to the US and back.
By definition in the START treaties that pretty much means 5,000km radius or more.
very simply the Bear and Blackjack are strategic bombers and the Backfire is a theatre bomber... even though only the backfire actually carries bombs as such now.
Last time I looked strategic means hitting your enemy on their soil, so for a Russian bomber that means flying to the US and back.
By definition in the START treaties that pretty much means 5,000km radius or more.
very simply the Bear and Blackjack are strategic bombers and the Backfire is a theatre bomber... even though only the backfire actually carries bombs as such now.
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
GarryB wrote:Don't really care about that loose wiki interpretation of strategic.
Last time I looked strategic means hitting your enemy on their soil, so for a Russian bomber that means flying to the US and back.
By definition in the START treaties that pretty much means 5,000km radius or more.
very simply the Bear and Blackjack are strategic bombers and the Backfire is a theatre bomber... even though only the backfire actually carries bombs as such now.
You will need a bigger effort to redefine the military theory. Not as easy.
As example your second sentence excludes ICBMs as strategic weapons because they can not return... Also would exclude kamikaze aircrafts (manned or unmanned). And your third sentence excludes as strategic bombers all the historic strategic bombers of the WWII and earlier.
START treaties are words of political convenience. Not of military theory.
GarryB- Posts : 40545
Points : 41045
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
You have to use common sense... a Kornet ATGM can be fired from Russian territory and hit NATO countries... that does not make it a strategic missile.
the criteria for strategic BOMRERS is for BOMBERs and would not include strategcic missiles or indeed small arms ammo which could also be fired from Russia territory to NATO territory.
the criteria for strategic BOMRERS is for BOMBERs and would not include strategcic missiles or indeed small arms ammo which could also be fired from Russia territory to NATO territory.
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
GarryB wrote:You have to use common sense... a Kornet ATGM can be fired from Russian territory and hit NATO countries... that does not make it a strategic missile.
the criteria for strategic BOMRERS is for BOMBERs and would not include strategcic missiles or indeed small arms ammo which could also be fired from Russia territory to NATO territory.
Sorry but this is not like the science works. Exact formulations valid for every case and invariable with the time are key for a right definition.
George1- Posts : 18522
Points : 19027
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
George1- Posts : 18522
Points : 19027
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
bojcistv- Posts : 6
Points : 8
Join date : 2016-08-17
Russian Tu-22M3 'Backfire' long-range bombers strike ISIS from Iran's Hamadan airfield / since I am a new member and as such I am not allowed to post external links or emails for 7 days so maybe some other could upload YT video of that action.
Any way with this deployment they cut the distance from Mozdok to Syria targets more than twice (2000 vs 700 km). I read somewhere Russians will base their TU-22M in Hammadan for some longer period of time, is this a true since Khmmeim base is going to be permanent Russia's air base modified to receive and operate TU-22M planes?
Any way with this deployment they cut the distance from Mozdok to Syria targets more than twice (2000 vs 700 km). I read somewhere Russians will base their TU-22M in Hammadan for some longer period of time, is this a true since Khmmeim base is going to be permanent Russia's air base modified to receive and operate TU-22M planes?
GarryB- Posts : 40545
Points : 41045
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
AFAIK Iranian law does not allow for permanent foreign bases on its territory.
The basing again, as far as I know is about the fight against terrorist and is a temporary thing to improve the performance of Russian aircraft in combating Daesh in allowing shorter flight times with heavier bomb loads and faster response times.
The basing again, as far as I know is about the fight against terrorist and is a temporary thing to improve the performance of Russian aircraft in combating Daesh in allowing shorter flight times with heavier bomb loads and faster response times.
bojcistv- Posts : 6
Points : 8
Join date : 2016-08-17
Yes I am aware of that Iranian regulative. I thought it should have been done earlier but probably this heavy fighting around Aleppo add some speed to finalization of that strategy.
Any way does anybody know by how much Tu-22 payload is increased by this cutting the distance?
Any way does anybody know by how much Tu-22 payload is increased by this cutting the distance?
David-Lanza- Posts : 2
Points : 2
Join date : 2015-05-01
- Post n°175
Russia orders new Kh-32 cruise missiles to arm Tu-22M3 bombers
David-Lanza Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:14 pm
The Russian Aerospace Defence Forces or VKO plans to order the new Kh-32 (also named X-32) cruise missiles to arm its Tupolev Tu-22M3 “Backfire” bombers.
The VKO has successfully conducted Operational Evaluation trials of the Kh-32 air-launched stand-off cruise missile. The Kh-32 can use a combination of GLONASS and GPS and radar terrain mapping to achieve extremely high levels of accuracy such as that found in modern cruise missiles.
According to the information available, Kh-32 missile made on the basis of Kh-22 and similar to its predecessor in most basic characteristics is to replace Kh-22. The maximum speed of Kh-32 will be 4000 km/h, which is quite similar to the previous missile.
However, its range should be must greater – it will be 800-1000 km vs. 450-600 for Kh-22. It is expected that Kh-32 will become available in 2018.
LINK: http://defence-blog.com/news/russia-orders-new-kh-32-cruise-missiles-to-arm-tu-22m3-bombers.html
The VKO has successfully conducted Operational Evaluation trials of the Kh-32 air-launched stand-off cruise missile. The Kh-32 can use a combination of GLONASS and GPS and radar terrain mapping to achieve extremely high levels of accuracy such as that found in modern cruise missiles.
According to the information available, Kh-32 missile made on the basis of Kh-22 and similar to its predecessor in most basic characteristics is to replace Kh-22. The maximum speed of Kh-32 will be 4000 km/h, which is quite similar to the previous missile.
However, its range should be must greater – it will be 800-1000 km vs. 450-600 for Kh-22. It is expected that Kh-32 will become available in 2018.
LINK: http://defence-blog.com/news/russia-orders-new-kh-32-cruise-missiles-to-arm-tu-22m3-bombers.html