Tu-22M3: News

Inconsistent relation of updates, some say the range increased and other even that the engines are the NK-32-02. Some pictures show guys working in the cabin and it is still for four crew members... is this maskirovska or simply clueless journos at work?

Tsavo Lion wrote:What the reason for deleting the tailgun? Does it have something better for self defence? Or perhaps it'll always be escorted by fighters?

Rather IMO marginal use for the weight and space consumed. The aircraft seems to have won some radome (maybe for ECM) instead.

Main survivability strategy of the Tu-22M3M should be high speed + range + stand-off weapons. Can hardly see it using the tail gun at all.

Has the plane won an IFR probe or just the provision for it? I understand it was removed in order to comply with some arms reduction treaty, so this could be a nice wake-up call for the US to start thinking seriously on what side has more to lose in a new arms race, or am I seeing too much in it? 60 Tu-22M3M with inflight refuelling, improved avionics and new weapons is a significant force to consider.

EDIT: in the link below more than 100 units are mentioned (by Austin)
http://militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=488182

Why 30xTu-22M3M and not 60?

Apparently NK-32-02 are under test and first units are going to be delivered before the end of the year for the production of the Tu-160M2, so it wouldn't be strange not seeing them on the M3Ms... in case they are going to be used at all of course.

https://aviation21.ru/pervye-postavki-dvigatelej-nk-32-02-dlya-raketonosca-tu-160m2-ozhidayutsya-do-konca-goda/

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"!

What they have in common is the Tu-22.

That was a political decision because a new jet bomber type would not have been funded so they pretended it was an upgrade.

All the planes you listed could be compared... even an adaptation like the Su27 and Su-34 is less of a change...

And no the difference is not just everything but the wings and the forward section... the crew compartment is different... three crew in a single file row, compared with two rows in tandem, and large pods in the wings for the wheels and swing wings...

Similar design features by different designers & manufacturers is 1 thing, but with the same people designing & building planes in succession with similar planforms, dimensions, & functions, it's safe to classify them belonging to 1 family of Tupolev jet bombers

Except if they are related then they would retain components and parts like engines and ejection seats... yet in this case everything is totally different so THEY ARE NOT RELATED.

This is my granddads hammer... it has only had three new heads and four new handles... it has wifi.

to say that they r not related is like saying that bees r not related to flies & humans r not related to apes!

Related but all the parts are different?

Go to a US military forum and claim the F-22 is just a warmed over MiG-25... I dare you.

Can we at least agree that Tu-22 was pretty meh in performance & looks while Tu-22M3 is a glorious beast

In terms of performance the Tu-22 is fairly ordinary and the Tu-22M3M is looking like what a B-1B was supposed to be...

Some pictures show guys working in the cabin and it is still for four crew members... is this maskirovska or simply clueless journos at work?

They might have needed more space for avionics and so put them where the two rear seats are?

I never believed the claims that the crew will be reduced to two.

With modern avionics systems I think a two crew setup should be possible and indeed likely...

What the reason for deleting the tailgun? Does it have something better for self defence? Or perhaps it'll always be escorted by fighters?

I suspect their EW systems have improved to the point where they would be more effective than a gun.

Also there was talk of anti missile missiles called Morfei that are lock on after launch from internal weapon bays that could be directed at threatening missiles... some of which will come from the front rather than rear.

Can hardly see it using the tail gun at all.

The best thing about the gun in my opinion is its ability to fire bursts of chaff dipoles and flares very very rapidly so a cloud of chaff and flares could be rapidly set up in a half second burst on either side of the aircraft or behind it... clouds of chaff and flares are more convincing than strings...

Has the plane won an IFR probe or just the provision for it? I understand it was removed in order to comply with some arms reduction treaty, so this could be a nice wake-up call for the US to start thinking seriously on what side has more to lose in a new arms race, or am I seeing too much in it?

START I and START II were very strict on what was or what was not included... the latter limiting MIRVs and max weights of ICBMs too, but New START is weak and wishy washy... so inflight refuelling returns as an option...

Of course for US aircraft they could be based in Europe so it really only penalised Russia/The Soviet Union.

BTW it was AFAIK 2x23mm gun with v0~ 700m/s. That cannot hit anything except P-51 or Me-109 :-)

Actually the gun is amazing... small, light, compact, with lightweight ammo (the 23x115mm ammo is slightly bigger than 50 cal HMG ammo, but with a much heavier HE payload).

The muzzle velocity is very low for a cannon, but velocity is not important... shotgun pellets have a low velocity too, but are effective because they are delivered in bursts all around the point of aim.

If an aircraft wants to shoot down another aircraft with cannon it will generally get within 500m of the target before firing... this gun would devastate any aircraft trying that...

Why 30xTu-22M3M and not 60?

They need to make sure it works and is worth it before committing to converting the whole fleet.

So, here u have it: deep modernization produces a new plane; with the TU-22/-22M pair, it was both outside & inside "deep modernization" with some new features/solutions that resulted in a similar, but more capable plane. The same thing was being told about the IL-476 vs. IL-76MD:

Rubbish. The only way to upgrade a Tu-22 to a Tu-22M is to replace everything. When they talk about the Tu-22M3M becoming a new aircraft it is like an IBM computer... you can take an ATX IBM PC from 1997 and take out the motherboard, the harddrive, and the powersupply and all the EO drives and replace them with a brand new motherboard with brand new CPU and new memory cards and new graphics card and new power supply and new solid state and disk hard drives... outside it looks the same but inside it is as good as any brand new computer with the same components.

that would allow to the upgrade of 4-5 Tu-22 to Tu-22 M3M standard per year.

The only aircraft being upgraded would be Tu-22M3s... even any Tu-22M2s would not be converted, let alone any previous models or the totally different Tu-22.

Does anybody now many Tu-22M3 are available? Have not found consistent information about this