Tu-22M3: News

From recollection Tu-22M were included in START/SALT as Strategic due to US insistence, I forget if there was a concession gained for it though.

Before the iranian revolution russian fighter used to fire on iranian planes.

...supplied by the US, many of which were flown by US pilots, from US constructed & operated bases and which were intentionally crossing the border into USSR territory as part of a CIA spy program

Can Tu-22M carry air-launched Onyx?

hoom wrote:.........
Can Tu-22M carry air-launched Onyx?

It could but compared to stuff Tu-22M usually carries Onyx is a firecracker

Yeah I was just looking at stats of Kh-22/32 and realising that
I kinda assumed similar ~Mach 2 speed not Mach 4.6/5
And yeah if it's gonna also have Mach 10 Kinzhal...

LMFS wrote:Roll-out of the Tu-22M3M announced for 16 of August:

http://tass.com/defense/1016295

I wonder if the new engines will be part of this yet.

[quote="mnztr"]

LMFS wrote:

I wonder if the new engines will be part of this yet.

It said what it gets, avionics and the possibility of using new missiles. It is a modernisation on the cheap.

Avionics are not cheap, and the new engines are possibly cheaper then sustaining the use of the old ones as they will be the same engines are the TU-160...and more efficient.

mnztr wrote:Avionics are not cheap, and the new engines are possibly cheaper then sustaining the use of the old ones as they will be the same engines are the TU-160...and more efficient.

Switching out dials and gauges for touch screen displays is far cheaper than integrating and testing new engines, much less buying the engines.

They don't really need to reengine them, as there r many good engines in storage, on/off the older TU-22Ms. 30 Tu-22M3 to be upgraded to Tu-22M3M: https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/08/19/tupolev-tu-22m-strategic-bomber/

As I posted, 2 Kinzhals under the wings + 2 under the fuselage:
https://twitter.com/nawapon10/status/1025913010332741632/photo/1

New TU-160M2s r the priority. https://www.rt.com/newsline/432885-tu-160m-production-plan/

After enough of them r built, a few older TU-160Ms may take on some tactical roles, easing the TU-22M3s optempo.

My understanding was that the new engines were supposed to be the NK-32s that are upgraded for the Tu-160, so these upgraded Tu-22M3Ms will have the same avionics and engines as the Tu-160... if that is the cheap option it is also the clever option.

Having a different NK-25 engine with similar thrust and fuel consumption for Backfires to the engine used in the Tu-160 made no sense at all... I mean it is not even as if one is a Tupolev and one is a Sukhoi or MiG... normally the Soviets were smarter and more practical than this.

Do they have so much $ for at least 60 engines+20-30 spares for 30 Tu-22M3Ms? I doubt their performance will be so good over the current 1s to justify it.

GarryB wrote:My understanding was that the new engines were supposed to be the NK-32s that are upgraded for the Tu-160, so these upgraded Tu-22M3Ms will have the same avionics and engines as the Tu-160... if that is the cheap option it is also the clever option.

Having a different NK-25 engine with similar thrust and fuel consumption for Backfires to the engine used in the Tu-160 made no sense at all... I mean it is not even as if one is a Tupolev and one is a Sukhoi or MiG... normally the Soviets were smarter and more practical than this.

It was originally proposed to add NK-32 but the cost was prohibitive so they went with the cheaper option of cannibalising engines. At this rate they will be gone by 2030.

It is crazy... they are basically the same thing but slightly different.

They were talking about making the Tu-22M3M into a two seater with a slightly longer weapon bay to allow Kh-50 and other similar mid sized cruise missiles compatible... the really sad thing is that if they were in external pods by the vertical tail fin it like the totally different Tu-22 it would be easier and cheaper to change them.

I assume they worked out the cost of having to use a much bigger four engined strategic bomber for jobs like bombing in Syria...

Ahh well, so their future plans are for PAK DA and Tu-160M2.

So I would guess they would restore bombing capability to the Tu-160 and expand its weapons options perhaps?

Do they have so much $ for at least 60 engines+20-30 spares for 30 Tu-22M3Ms? I doubt their performance will be so good over the current 1s to justify it.

Well the NK-32s are getting money spent on upgrading them for the Tu-160M2, but they are not even producing more NK-25s so there is that...

If they do build 50 Tu-160s that is 200 engines plus spares, so building 120 more for the 60 or so Backfires they will likely still have is not such a big deal...

I mean they are testing the Tu-22M3M to carry Kinzhals, and of course the new Kh-32s are not really compatible with any other Russian aircraft at the moment either... so these are both pretty much dead ends that make engine upgrades pretty useful, but if they have already decided it is not cost effective... who am I to argue.

Of course most of the Tu-22M3s will be VVS, while the Kinzhal armed models will be VKS and I suspect their budget would be rather bigger...

If the US invades Iran and Oil goes to $200 per barrel then who knows what they will be able to afford....

Only 30 Backfires will be modernized to M3s; the TU-160 is "Blackjack". https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/bear-blackjack-and-backfire-a-look-at-the-russian-bombers-alarming-europe-45444

All r in VKS, formerly VVS and the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces (PVO); the Frontal Aviation now has only Army ground attack planes & helos, & perhaps special mission aircraft.

Future looking good for Tu-22M3's. It would likely be workhorse of heavy bomber, saving hours for Tu-160 and 95's.

Im curious tho if they ever really consider integrating the KAB-500-S-E or other precision bombs. Or maybe Kh-59MK2.

There is always the option of changing engines at a later phase when the current ones are done, who knows what they are planning? Modernization works never stop in Russia

The old & continuously upgraded USAF B-52Hs will be re engined:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-04-13/usaf-fly-b-52-2050s-new-engines-radars

TU-16/95/142/160s were flown & upgraded for decades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-16#Variants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6#Developed_versions

http://www.airvectors.net/avbear.html

https://fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/russia_nukescurrent/tu95.html

http://www.airforceworld.com/bomber/eng/tu95.htm

https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2017/8/4/9412/

The TU-22Ms have big upgrading potential for decades to come.

Isos wrote:
You can't upgrade for ever. They need a new design to replace them.

No, they don't.  Airframes can be refurbished and upgraded as long as the basic airframe isn't suffering from structural integrity issues such as corrosion or metal fatigue.  Barring those, the only limit is cost effectiveness, ie how much combat capability is gained for how long and for how much.  

The Tu-22M is a large potent aircraft with decades of upgrade potential. The only thing the retirement of the Tu-22M fleet would accomplish would be to please the USN...

Augmented by MiG-31s, it can also do CAPs armed with long range AAMs & act as an interceptor of tankers, AEWACes, MPA, transports, UAVs, & bombers, as what TU-128s did for the Soviet PVO, only better thanks to higher speed & ~3x more range & payload:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-28#Operational_history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#Specifications_(Tu-22M3)

Only 30 Backfires will be modernized to M3s; the TU-160 is "Blackjack"

The Backfire, or Tu-22M3, has two 25 ton thrust jet engines called NK-25s.

It is very similar to the 25 ton thrust NK-32s that the Blackjack has four of... similar size, similar weight, similar power, similar fuel consumption.

The upgrade proposed over a decade ago was to upgrade all the Tupolev bomber/cruise missile carriers with the same avionics, the same radar and in the case of the Backfire and Blackjack jets the same engines. The Bear also has a jet engine in the form of a turboprop, but there were no plans to change that.

The fact that they are going to upgrade 30 Backfires to Tu-22M3M level does not mean they will get rid of the other Tu-22M3s.

The MiG-31K is not the latest upgraded version because all it will do is launch Kinzhal for the VKS.

They are testing the Tu-22M3 with the Kinzhal too, and one suspects if that is successful there would be no need for this Tu-22M3M upgrade for any aircraft the VKS might use.

If pak da is suppose to be a new tu-160 then it is too much to replace also tu-22 with it. Tu-160 was already expensive. Pak da will be more.

They need a new tu-22 replacement.

The PAK DA will replace the Tu-95 and the Tu-22M3.

To replace the Bear you need a modest payload (9-12 tons of cruise missiles) over a very large range (12K kms or so).

So lots of extra fuel plus some cruise missiles.

For shorter range missions the same aircraft can reduce the amount of fuel it carries and carry more weapons, so it would replace the Backfire by having a larger payload of weapons over a shorter range... though the latter is not so important as it will have inflight refuelling anyway.

The TU-22Ms have big upgrading potential for decades to come.

Avionics that allow precision bombing with dumb bombs means it is a cheap effective system for the COIN wars most large countries and superpowers seem to get involved in.

The only thing the retirement of the Tu-22M fleet would accomplish would be to please the USN...

Exactly... its lower flight speed and ceiling compared with the MiG-31K reduce the performance of the Kinzhal, but being able to fly 2,000km and to operate there for a few hours before launching an attack and returning home adds a new dimension to its capability... and having to send 4 Tu-22M3s with 16 Kinzhals instead of 16 MiG-31s makes a serious difference in costs and capabilities... of course if you want the extra performance you could always send some MiG-31s to lead an attack with high performance kinzhals and some Backfires to clean up what is left...

The potential is enormous with the Backfire... you could use it as a high speed inflight refuelling aircraft for Su-34s... put an enormous AESA radar in its nose with dozens of heavy long range air to air missiles from R-37M to S-400 and S-500 based missiles...

The Backfire, or Tu-22M3, has two 25 ton thrust jet engines called NK-25s. It is very similar to the 25 ton thrust NK-32s that the Blackjack has four of... similar size, similar weight, similar power, similar fuel consumption.

Then why re engine TU-22Ms now, if those engines have similar specs & r still good? No word of it!

The Bear also has a jet engine in the form of a turboprop,..

It has pure turboprops; the high speeds & fuel economy r achieved by huge contra rotating variable pitch props. Tupolev chose it as there was no jet engine then for intercontinental
range a strategic bomber required. The M-4 bomber had 4 jet engines but didn't have the range to come back w/o refueling. Later some were modified as tankers & VM-T transports.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-4#Specifications_(M-4)
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/m-4.htm
http://www.airvectors.net/avbison.html#m4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_VM-T

Only 30 Backfires will be modernized to M3s; the TU-160 is "Blackjack". https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/bear-blackjack-and-backfire-a-look-at-the-russian-bombers-alarming-europe-45444

This link says nothing about the number of Tu-22M upgrades.
I believe the 30 number has been quoted elsewhere recently, not as a total though: an initial order for 30 doesn't preclude further orders.

Though they might do something like with the Mig-31s where a bunch of older version are 'upgraded' for Kinzhal service mainly by ripping out obsolete gear.


I'm still having issues coming to grips with the idea of Tu-22M carrying mach 4.5+ missiles since the '70s.
Its kinda broken my idea of the balance of power over decades

I remember reading stuff talking up the scariness of Backfires as a kid back in the late Cold war/early post but I'd assumed the missiles were only mach 2-2.5 like other Soviet era supersonics so while its a cool plane I've presumed they could only beat '80s Aegis with a big saturation strike.

From recollection its actually only post 2000, maybe even post 2010 that Aegis has successfully demonstrated interception of Mach 3/3.5 missiles (drones based off Soviet missiles) so even though Russian sources quote a lower Mach 3.5 cruise & only hits Mach 4.6 in the terminal dive that still means Tu-22M/Kh-22 combo would have low probability of interception for at least 25yrs & is probably still pretty marginal

Tsavo Lion wrote:

The Backfire, or Tu-22M3, has two 25 ton thrust jet engines called NK-25s. It is very similar to the 25 ton thrust NK-32s that the Blackjack has four of... similar size, similar weight, similar power, similar fuel consumption.

Then why re engine TU-22Ms now, if those engines have similar specs & r still good? No word of it!

I agree, until there are serviceable engines with similar specs, it does not make sense, but it could be worth to consider when they will neee new engines or if they restart production. Anyway, the earlier versions of the Tu-22M had a different engine (I believe the NK-22), and the NK-25 was introduced for the Tu-22M3.

By the way, where was the Tu-22M produced?

Kazan?

Do you believe they could restart production?

P.S.
If I think how many Tu-22M and Tu-160 has Ukraine scrapped in exchange for pocket money from US.....