Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
LMFS wrote: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
Tsavo Lion wrote: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
According to Douglas Barrie, an analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, "less than half are likely operationally available at any one time."
The plane's old school design is a holdover from the its legacy as an upscaled knockoff of the U.S. B-29 Superfortress bomber
Vladimir79 wrote:LMFS wrote: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 modernisation work stops when they see the bill and revised downwards. At some point they will have to stop rejuvenating and start building new ones.
...a recurring issue as we are seeing with Su-57, T-14 etc etc. Anglo-Saxon world is obsessively PR-conscious, maybe Russians are simply not paying that much attention to this issue? ....
It's possible more will be upgraded later, time will tell!It was reported earlier that the Russian Defense Ministry was planning to modernize about 30 aircraft of this type by 2020.
https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2016/1/12/4597/
Prior to 2020 it is planned to upgrade 30 Tu-22M3 with new hardware components and adapted for the extended range weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M
According to the plans that have been announced, 30 TU-22M3s will have been modernized to meet the M3M standard by 2020. This aircraft is not classified as a heavy bomber and therefore is not covered by the New START treaty.
https://southfront.org/upgraded-to-new-m3m-standard-tu-22-takes-to-sky-in-august/
Hole wrote:Yeah, and because all this russian officials are so dumb and incompetent they managed to equip their armed forces with 60%+ modern equipment in 6,5 years with less then a tenth of the money the western block spend in the same time for mostly obsolete weapons.
miketheterrible wrote:Something that can compete and go toe to toe - Su-35, Su-30, Su-34, Tu-22m3m, T-90M, T-72B3M, etc etc.
Rather out it, Russian systems faired quite well in Syria. Now there won't be tank vs tank head ons as much anymore. It will be atgms vs tanks mostly. Or aircrafts dropping guided or unguided munitions. Jet vs jet can still happen but I doubt Russia will venture far out of it's AD systems coverages.
Artillery forces being also very important. Not modern though besides Iskander missiles and some Tornados. Rest is not modern (Smerch, etc).
Then why re engine TU-22Ms now, if those engines have similar specs & r still good? No word of it!
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.
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
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
The plane's old school design is a holdover from the its legacy as an upscaled knockoff of the U.S. B-29 Superfortress bomber
The MiG-25 influenced the MiG-31:
The TU-22M is derived from the TU-22:
What constitutes 60% modern?
Artillery forces being also very important. Not modern though besides Iskander missiles and some Tornados. Rest is not modern (Smerch, etc).
Yeah, I've come to the conclusion those numbers were mixing up the Kh-32 stats for Kh-22They haven't.
They were mach 3 missiles back then. It was only in the 1990s that the Russians offered a mach 4.5 testing version of the missile using new more powerful propellents.
The old missile did fly at 40,000m altitude to fly above USN SAMs and F-14 missiles...
Yes thats the one!Phalanx totally failed, and those mach 3 missiles were MA-31s which were based on the Kh-31 anti radiation/anti ship missile
Indeed!And the MiG-25 influenced the F-15 and F-22...
I beg to differ: Specifications (Tu-22R)The TU-22M is derived from the TU-22:
No it wasn't.
The Tu-134 has the same fuselage as the TU-124, but T-tail, 2 rear mounted uprated engines, with similar but larger overall dimensions:the Su-17 is a Soviet variable-sweep wing fighter-bomber developed from the Sukhoi Su-7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-17
40km altitude & Mach 4.6 terminal dive is the Kh-32 which started development way back due to that issue, got shelved for a long time due to Soviet breakup/economic woes & only restarted 2012 apparently.
Kh-32 needs the M3M upgrade, T-22M3 can't run it.
Seems the M3M upgrade is based on older M4.
The quoted number of 30 to be upgraded goes back into the noughties at least.
Apparently there were 36 combat ready M3s in 2012, 115 airframes total, some articles from then specifically state 36 upgrades planned ie the whole current fleet.
Also supposedly Kazan plant has 4 incomplete airframes so there could be a possibility of completing them to new standard if they are in good condition.
W/o the TU-22, there wouldn't be the TU-22M.
As the pics above & below show, their progeny/relationship is indisputable, & it's not due to just their designations.
Yes, the same way IL-86/-96, IL-76/-476/-106, SU-27/-34, & MiG-25/-31, AN-124/-225, MiG-21/J-7/-8/-8II, Lavi & J-10 "r not related"!THEY ARE NOT RELATED!
Oh it was round the other wayFrom 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.
|
|
|
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
PapaDragon