Tu-22M3: News

And that is probably where the people who make estimates of in service aircraft get their numbers from.

The Russian Air Force has mentioned it is overhauling and upgrading the Tu=95, Tu-160, and Tu-22M3, with fundamental changes to all three aircraft.

Previously the Tu-22M3 was tasked with three primary roles... one was SEAD, and was intended for western Europe... long range strike taking on enemy radar stations and major SAM sites with ARM versions of the Kh-22M, and the other primary role was naval strike for use against ships, which is the role it is most often identified with in the west. The third role is as a level bomber with a large conventional payload of dumb bombs.

There are also Tu-22MP and Tu-22MR versions, though there are reported to have ever been only a max of 1-2 dozen of each ever in service as they are expensive, and they are long range recon and jammer aircraft.

The Tu-160 and Tu-95MS are cruise missile carriers and apart from their primary armament all three aircraft are otherwise limited to dumb bomb use with navigation bombing capability... a bit like a WWII bomber in many ways, though the max payload of a Tu-22M3 on a mission to a target 2,500km distant is about 24 tons, which is twice what an F-111 can carry, or about 10 times the warload of a WWII bomber.

The new upgrades add guided conventional weapons like glonass guided bombs and missiles as well as full avionics upgrades to use dumb bombs with precision in free flight (ie a CCIP system, or a continuously computed impact point system) that generated an impact point and overlayed it over a TV view of the ground so you could release the weapons with a good chance of a hit.

Other things include a unification of weapon types so all aircraft can use all the same weapon types and all types using similar radars and avionics though radar antenna sizes will be different they will all get new functions and capabilities so that for the first time in a long time they will have a conventional as well as a strategic role.

As far as I can tell however they have not extended the upgrade to include engines, which is a bit disappointing.
The NK-25 and NK-32 are very similar engines yet they are not compatible so the 16 odd Tu-160s have different engines to the 150 odd Tu-23M3s. This means 64 in service NK-32s and 300 inservice NK-25s, so developing a new 5th gen engine for the PAK DA that could be fitted to 350 existing aircraft to improve their performance and at the same time retire two different engines I think would be a good idea.

The resulting improved 5th gen engine would be ideal to create a stealthy but supercruising PAK DA with likely half the number of engines it would need if they use the engines being developed for the PAK FA. More importantly if they can get the dry thrust up to about 20-25 tons and the AB thrust to 35-40 tons then there becomes a potential to create a real supersonic transport with only two engines and in supercuising mode save a lot of fuel.
They could create several other types of aircraft based on such an engine including heavy interceptor and theatre strike aircraft that is not bound by the START treaty.

They could even eventually make a PAK FA with a single PAK DA engine.

The idea of a light 5th gen fighter to compliment the PAK FA crossed my mind, but I think it would be better if they limited the thrust to a single PAK FA engine as that will force them to keep it light weight, and likely force them to keep it cheap and simple. If they do to it as was done to the F-16 which eventually became as expensive and complicated as the F-15 then it spoils its whole reason for being... cheap light numbers fighter.

The standard Tu22M3 can only carry a very limited range of missiles, some of which are likely no longer in service.

AFAIK they could carry the Kh-22M, the upgraded replacement of the Kh-22M(Kh-32), and the Kh-15 as guided weapons.

Note the photo at the top of this page showing 6 x Kh-15s on the internal rotary launcher, and two large Kh-22M missiles under the wing hard points.

Western experts like Carlos Kopp suggest the aircraft can carry other weapons like Oniks and long range cruise missiles, and it probably can operate Kh-55SM, and Kh-555, and likely now Kh-101 all externally, but I have only ever seen photos of the aircraft carrying Kh-15s and Kh-22Ms. (Kh-32s are externally identical to the Kh-22Ms so I am assuming that any recent shots of Kh-22Ms are actually Kh-32s.)

The talk about weapons upgrades has not led to any photos of Kh-59s or Kh-31s or other guided missile types being seen on any of the three aircraft, so for the moment I suspect the upgrade will include a CCIP system for bombing in free flight... which increases bombing accuracy from near zero for point targets to over 80%, and will also add laser, TV, and satellite guided bombs to their inventories.

This is incredibly useful for the Tu-22M3 as it can carry more 250kg (500lb) bombs than a B-52 in its short range loadout. (according to Kopp)

If they were satellite guided then that means a huge number of point targets hit per mission at low cost... it would have been invaluable to Soviet forces in Afghanistan as an all weather day and night strike and support capability.

The Tu-160s were upgraded as they were built so each aircraft is slightly different to the next so an upgrade to get them all the same is important, but it will also add conventional all weather strike, so the question is... do they need Tu-22M3s and Tu-160s?

(When Tu-160s and Tu-95s were strategic only then a threatre bomber was needed).

I would think having both is best... especially if you could modify them to carry the same engine and systems, because the numbers will reduce costs, but at the end of the day I am sure their preferred option would be to produce another two dozen Tu-160s and have a fleet of about 45 of them and get rid of the Tu-22M3s.

The problem there is that the factory that made the huge aluminium castings for the centre box beam structure for the swing wing design is in the Ukraine... and in ruins.

So with no more Tu-160s that means Tu-22M3s are worth keeping, but a unification of systems and parts and engines in my opinion will cost money now but save money in the future and offer the best capability.

All reports talking about the upgrades for the aircraft mention new weapons, but are never specific.

All three aircraft have the payload capacity to carry the father of all bombs, and guided and unguided versions of all the bombs in the Russian arsenal, which would make them quite formidable in service.

I don't know if the Kh-59 (AS-13) is in production.

It has largely been replaced in service by the Kh-59M (AS-18) though the numbers have not been large till recently when they started spending money on guided missiles and bombs.

AFAIK the small jet engine under the Kh-59 in fixed which would make it incompatible with the internal rotary launcher of the Tu-22M3.

The Tu-22M3 is a large target so I personally would want a weapon of greater standoff range... I would think Kh-555s would make more sense, with its 3,500km range it would make the Backfire semi-strategic in performance.

The Su-34 can reportedly carry three Kh-59Ms with the two inner wing pylons carrying one missile each, while the other missile is carried on the front centreline pylon and the rear centreline pylon is fitted with the datalink pod needed to use the Kh-59M.

3,500km is a long range for the Kh-555, so their might be shorter models that could fit in the Tu-22M3s weapon bay (as well as the Tu=95s internal weapon bay) that would be better options than the Kh-59M.

The Kh-38 will likely be compatible with the Backfire, and their might be a few other weapon types that will also fit because they have been designed for newer stealthier platforms for internal carriage (ie like several versions of the Kh-31 and Kh-58 (AS-17 and AS-11) shown with the SKATE and PAK FA stealth aircraft.)

Could be, but has not been seen on Backfires.

The Kh-22M uses Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (IRFNA) to be mixed with hydrazine fuel which are nasty liquid chemicals that were awful to work with.

If the Kh-32 has solid fuel or long term storable liquid propellents that don't need to be loaded into the missile before loading it onto the aircraft it will be a great step forward.

An air launched Oniks would be interesting too, but as far as I know the Kh-32 doubled the range of the Kh-22M and increased the speed to mach 4.5.

If this is true then the Oniks will be hard pressed to match that.

When Oniks II comes out with its ramjet engine replaced with a scramjet engine then it would certainly make sense to adopt those over the Kh-32.

It exists, but it is externally identical to the Kh-22M.

I think I remember reading the Kh-22M has been withdrawn from service because of the dangerous fuelling process before takeoff, so any modern photos of Backfires carrying what appear to be Kh-22Ms should be Kh-32s.

But obviously considering this situation it is hard to say.

One could say that there is a new Tu22M5 that looks exactly the same as the Tu-22M3 but has all new internal equipment but double the range and speed and is much better. How could you prove it one way or the other?

Equally how could you disprove it?

The Kh-32 is not brand new, but the fact that it is not mentioned much could mean it is dead, but why would Tu-22M3s still carry Kh-22M missiles?

If it met the requirements what killed the Kh-32? Or is it the case that it has entered service and is not proving a problem so they don't have anything to talk about.

They will have developed the Kh-32 for the same roles as the Kh-22M so an anti radiation model is certain.

I would expect there will be a nuke armed model that flys to a coordinate and detonates a large nuke warhead to hit targets operating in an area that are hard to pin down.

This missile is also used against entire carrier groups.

There will be an anti radiation model for use against large SAMs like Patriot, Nike, and now THAAD, these were also anticipated to be used passively against enemy ships with their radars operating and would be fired in a second wave of missiles against a carrier group that was now alerted and with radars operating.

And the other model of the Kh-22M that will likely have a Kh-32 model is the active radar homing type that was used against ships or large targets like buildings or dams or bridges etc.

The missile designed to fly to a specific coordinate and then explode was nuke only as the inaccuracy meant a conventional warhead was pointless.

The other missiles came with nuke or conventional warheads.

It all depends on when the Kh-22Ms were withdrawn... if they were withdrawn in the 1990s then any recent photo of a Tu-22M3 carrying what appears to be a Kh-22M will actually be a Kh-32.

I rather suspect they got rid of the Kh-22M rapidly with the low flying hours of the aircraft and availability of a replacement that presumably uses storable liquid propellents that can be kept in the missile for its operational life will be much safer in terms of handling and operation.

That is a pretty clear picture, and if you are sure of the date then all we need to find out is if the Kh-22Ms have been officially withdrawn from service... which I thought they were because of the problems with fuel handling as they need to be fueled up before takeoff.

I can understand not wanting to waste a lot of money on upgraded old stuff to save money for buying brand new stuff, but only upgrading 30 Backfires sounds like they don't intend to use it much...

I was hoping they would do to the existing bombers what they have been doing to the Su-35 in that they are using the older generation as a test platform for the new stuff.

Obviously he old planes will not equal the new designs, but certainly a new engine in the 30-35 ton thrust class developed for the PAK DA could have its early versions designed to fit the Backfire and the Blackjack, as that will remove two different engines from the inventory while at the same time aide development of the PAK DA and improve the flight performance of the existing jets and help reduce the price of the engines through serial production.

The Blackjack uses four engines but because there are only about 15 of them that means there are only 60 engines while the 140 odd Tu-22M3s with two engines per aircraft have 280 engines.

Instead of having to support 60 engines in service and 280 different engines in service and x number of new engines for the PAK DA, they could unify the design and produce 340 engines for existing types.

Lets face it they will likely build only about 40-60 PAK DA bomber aircraft to replace the Bears and perhaps keep the Blackjacks in service for a while.

Personally I would like to see the PAK DA being a flying wing design with a tail with no vertical tail structure. This would minimise RCS but allow supersonic flight speeds, and I would design the aircraft to supercuise at mach 1.6 or so for 14-18,000km with a 10 ton strategic payload and perhaps 4-6,000km with a theatre payload of maybe 50-60 tons.

It wouldn't need to be super stealthy as by the time bombers get to launch positions the ICBMs and SLBMs have already done their jobs.

Of course 30 is better upgraded than none.

The video you posted shows they have one Tu22M3M bomber with upgrades.

To put this in perspective previously the role of the Su-24 was to hit point targets in any weather like bridges or arms depots or oil or fuel supplies or power stations etc etc.

The role of the Tu-22M3 was as a dumb carpet bomber (as used in Afghanistan) in which role it is actually able to carry more 250kg bombs than a USAF B-52, but the accuracy is pathetic and only area targets or targets whose precise location is not known.

In other words cover the mountains of Afghanistan in lots of bombs because you know there are bandits there but not sure exactly where then call in Tu-22M3. If you know where the base is then Su-24 is used with much more accuracy... Su-24M even more so.

The primary function of the Tu-22M3 was to carry large and heavy missiles (Kh-22M) for use against strategic radar and major SAM sites on land and at sea similar missiles for an anti ship mission.

For a short period in the 1980s they deployed Kh-15 high supersonic missiles, of which 10 could be carried (4 externally and 6 in the internal rotary bomb bay) which came in an anti radiation model with a tactical nuclear warhead for DEAD (Destruction of Enemy Air Defences) in a nuclear attack.
There were suggestions of an anti ship model but no evidence to support its existence.

With the addition of TV and laser and satellite guided bombs this opens a huge opportunity for the Backfire as it is large enough to carry a wide variety of weapon weights and types.

A 24 ton payload gives it real combat persistence, while guided munitions along with wing kits to allow for standoff release of gliding bombs makes them even more interesting, and the accuracy would have seriously positive effects on its ability to operate over a mission area and supply direct and powerful and accurate support.

Part of the new upgrade might include things like a CCIP computer or continuously calculated impact point computer so bombs can be released in free flight with a floating aimpoint in the bomb aimers sight so when the aimpoint covers the target you press the button and release the (dumb) bomb aimed specifically for that particular target with a good chance of getting a hit.

Personally I would like to see 30 bombers upgraded to Tu-22M3M level plus 40-50 upgraded to a Tu-22MRM, or upgraded recon model, and a further 20-30 upgraded jammer models with larger more powerful equipment of a similar type to that being developed for the Su-34 and Su-35.