Tu-22M3: News

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

Yes, but it was not 95-99% redesign resulting in 95-99% new plane compared to its predecessor.

..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...

Not only the Su-27/-34, but the A-6 & EA-6B have also different crew compartments:

A much more highly specialized derivative of the Intruder was the EA-6B Prowler, having a "stretched" airframe with two additional systems operators, .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder#Electronic_warfare_versions

EA-6B Prowler is a twin-engine, four-seat, mid-wing electronic warfare aircraft derived from the A-6 Intruder airframe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_EA-6B_Prowler

Derived: derive something from Base a concept on an extension or modification of (another concept)
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/derive

Related: connected by common ancestry..
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/related

Being related doesn't mean it must be a very close copy of the original. The TU-22M airframe didn't come out of a clean sheet; it was derived from the TU-22 airframe. "Derived"="Related".

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

So far nobody deployed self-defense missiles in bombers. I guess for a reason.  My bet is on EW to burn incoming missiles.  On large bomber there should be enough power supply to burn any incoming missile.

Nah, the jammer will do what it is designed for.

Burning missile takes fundamentally different approach, which involves tens or hundreds of kilowatts padded with high gain antenna. Something of which typical aircraft self protection jammer doesn't have (few watts is what is needed for jamming missiles)

Bit sad about the deletion of the gun
I mean obviously new ECM is going to be the better choice but I just loved the glorious anachronism of it

Worried about the shape of that new fairing, blunt rounded shape like that is not good for the rear end of a subsonic let alone supersonic plane.
Should come to a point or have a sharp corner & squared off end.

The whatever it is on the nose is also a shame aesthetically.
If its a refuelling probe then either the relevant treaty is expired, Russia doesn't currently fill (or is re-adjusting the balance of) its launcher quota or its some kind of bargaining chip as part of the goal to get US to negotiate new limitation treaty/ies.

Am I mistaken or is the bump on the top of the nose new? Other then that the TU22 has always been a pretty aeroplane and the update is no less, except for the nose tweaks...

Yes its new.
People are presuming its a retractable refuelling tube, alternately some kind of ECM antenna.

Tu-22M3 became closer to strategic bombers?
The plans for the modernization of 30 long-range Tu-22M3 bombers to the level of Tu-22M3M are known since 2012. Then it was about the implementation of work until about 2020, but now it becomes clear that these terms will move closer to the middle of the 2020s, as for today until the test comes only the first aircraft line. It is known that the main changes undergo the electronics of the aircraft - radio electronic and navigation equipment are being replaced, the aircraft is able to use modern high-precision weapons. The service life of the aircraft is also extended.
On the photo report with the rollout of the aircraft, another very interesting feature is visible - apparently, the aircraft was given the refueling system in the air. It was not put on the serial Tu-22M3 according to the Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (SALT-2) of June 18, 1979. I must say that this treaty was never ratified, but the parties have long adhered to its letter on certain points.
To date, the current START-3 treaty does not impose any restrictions on the Tu-22M3, it only limits the number of strategic weapons, including heavy bombers, carriers of nuclear weapons. According to paragraph 80 of the protocol to the START-3 treaty, these include aircraft with a range of more than 8,000 km (according to the same document, speech is about range without refueling in the air) and / or carriers of long-range cruise missiles (with a flight range of more than 600 km). If you approach the issue under the letter of the contract, then the point about the Tu-22M3 flight range does not make it a strategic bomber (although taking into account possible refueling its combat radius becomes practically unlimited). But there are already questions on the item on armament. The upgraded Tu-22M3M received a new cruise missile X-32. Its characteristics in different sources differ, however, its maximum flight range is estimated at 600-1000 km. And it is quite obvious that they will be used as missiles with non-nuclear and nuclear warheads. In this light, it is possible that there may be requirements for the inclusion of the Tu-22M3M in the list of heavy bombers under the START-3 treaty. This will not be a problem for Russia, since the inclusion of 30 new carriers will not even bring the country to a forbidden mark of 700 units (according to the latest data, Russia has 527 deployed strategic carriers). In this light, it is possible that there may be requirements for the inclusion of the Tu-22M3M in the list of heavy bombers under the START-3 treaty.  
As for the new capabilities of the aircraft, it is obvious that with the new cruise missile X-32 the machine will again become a serious threat to enemy ships and will be able to effectively combat ground targets without entering the enemy's air defense zone. In the future, the machine will be able to use both prospective subsonic cruise missiles X-50 (the assumed maximum range is 1500 km) and hypersonic aerial ballistic missiles "Dagger". In this sense, the Tu-22M3 will get completely new possibilities. It should be noted and another innovation - the aircraft lost the stern cannon (its presence in modern combat is unlikely to save it from the enemy fighters), probably receiving instead of it additional equipment for electronic warfare.
https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2466818.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START#Status_of_the_strategic_forces_of_Russia_and_the_U.S.

So, they can have IRPs w/o violating any treaty.
527+30 TU-22M3Ms=557; 700-557=143 more new nuclear warhead carriers Russia can still add even after 30 TU-22M3Ms inducted to her arsenal under the START3: https://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
So, they can have IRPs w/o violating any treaty. 527+30=557;
700-557=143 more new nuclear warhead carriers Russia can still add to her arsenal under the START3: https://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/.  

1 bomber = 1 unit or is the amount of warheads on board that counts?

As far as i can remember, the bomber is the carrier (like an ICBM/SLBM) and the cruise missile is counted like a warhead.

LMFS wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:
So, they can have IRPs w/o violating any treaty. 527+30=557;
700-557=143 more new nuclear warhead carriers Russia can still add to her arsenal under the START3: https://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/.  

1 bomber = 1 unit or is the amount of warheads on board that counts?

Correct, one bomber = 1 warhead under the treaty... even if they can carry 12 cruise missiles

As for the strategic bomber qualification believe it has to have a range in excessive of 5,000 kms but not 100% on that.

franco wrote:

LMFS wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:
So, they can have IRPs w/o violating any treaty. 527+30=557;
700-557=143 more new nuclear warhead carriers Russia can still add to her arsenal under the START3: https://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/.  

1 bomber = 1 unit or is the amount of warheads on board that counts?

Correct, one bomber = 1 warhead under the treaty... even if they can carry 12 cruise missiles

As for the strategic bomber qualification believe it has to have a range in excessive of 5,000 kms but not 100% on that.

Yeah, I think franco is right here. Bombers have advantage according to new START (700 BMs and bombers in total, max 1550 warheads, where each RV on a BM and each bomber count as one warhead), which makes little sense seen from today's perspective if you think they carry CMs with ranges in excess of 5000 km... those carriers are not that easy to neutralize if they do not need to come close to your airspace anymore, though they are not really capable of a decapitating surprise strike. That can explain why Russia is investing so heavily in its long range aviation, it is a great force multiplier and they already have many of the airframes...

As for the range, is stated as 8000 km in the article from TsavoLion above

Isos wrote:

Mig-25 radar is said to have a power output of 400 kW, compared to 20kW of Irbis E which is the most powerfull today. Using it with modern computers could damage electronics and even the airplanes.

Tu-128 radar consumed 600kW


@Stealthflanker

unless missile is smart and has wider spectrum analyzers and other anti jamming devices. Burning sets issue for all. Weight of guns turret can be used to place capacitor for pulses if needed. Tu-95 engine delivers ~11,000 kW power, each. I guess Tu-22M 2 engines can deliver couple hundred of extra kW, just in case missile gets thru ECM suite.

BTW ECM in bobmber are heavy and consume enormous enrgy and

OK I am speculating of course

Article about the Tu-22M3M

https://regnum.ru/news/2466818

Every variant of the Tu-22 that can be upgraded to the Tu-22 M3 standard can also be upgraded to the Tu-22 M3M standard.

None of the aircraft were upgraded into new models. Versions received upgrades but none were upgraded from one level to another... some lost their inflight refuelling probes but no Tu-22M2s were upgraded to Tu-22M3s for instance...

The Tu-22M2 has air intakes like a MiG-23s air intakes and older less powerful 22 ton thrust engines, while the Tu-22M3 has MiG-25 type air intakes, more powerful engines and something like 25% increased RCS because of the new air intake shape... but it was worth it for the performance improvement.

talking about my grampa s warhammer

Actually... that was a lie... it does not have WiFi... it has bluetooth...

So far nobody deployed self-defense missiles in bombers. I guess for a reason. My bet is on EW to burn incoming missiles. On large bomber there should be enough power supply to burn any incoming missile.

When their new short range AAM enters service (Morfei) then they will have the option... the question is, will they bother with it... The lock on after launch is intended for launches from an internal weapon bay and the few articles I have seen mention the LOAL Morfei mention internal weapons bays on fighters and bombers...

as long as they were Me-109 or P-51 you're right Suspect Suspect Suspect and you dotn shoot shot guns to fast moving targets. Flat trajectory is here much better option.

If a rabbit or bird is sitting still I will use a 22 simply because it is cheaper and quieter, but a moving target is always easier with a shotgun and those pellets are subsonic... of very poor aerodynamic shape so they slow down real fast, and fairly light.

The gun in the tail turret of an aircraft has radar ranging and with a known trajectory for the rounds being fired hitting the target should not be an issue... remember despite this round being a 23x115mm pipsqueak, if you load it with the same round in a 20mm phalanx turret the muzzle velocity jumps higher to about 1.2km per second... being fired backwards they could use sabot ammo if they wanted because there is no chance of it getting sucked into an engine intake... the point is that they went for a very heavy HE projectile so when you get hits it does some real damage.

The shell case is slightly bigger than a 14.5 x 114mm round but the projectile from a 23x152mm AA gun shell is rather heavy and quite potent on aircraft targets.

Firing at 3,500 rpm it is practically a Phalanx (which normally fires at 4,500rpm) but moving away from a target coming from behind at 800km/h+

As mentioned... a chaff and flare round burst for half a second puts up about 50 shells that would rapidly form a cloud to one side or the other of the aircraft...

Yes, but it was not 95-99% redesign resulting in 95-99% new plane compared to its predecessor.

They kept nothing of the old design... everything was changed... the only thing they kept were the letters T and u and the number 22.

Being related doesn't mean it must be a very close copy of the original. The TU-22M airframe didn't come out of a clean sheet; it was derived from the TU-22 airframe.

The Tu-22M was a clean sheet of paper design... only the basic layout the aircraft shared was wings and tail and twin engines in the rear and crew up the front in the nose of the aircraft is shared... but it is also shared with a lot of other aircraft with a similar layout.

I mean obviously new ECM is going to be the better choice but I just loved the glorious anachronism of it

I loved the fact that during peacetime when NATO aircraft "intercepted" it, it could train its gun on them and scare the shit out of them...

Worried about the shape of that new fairing, blunt rounded shape like that is not good for the rear end of a subsonic let alone supersonic plane.
Should come to a point or have a sharp corner & squared off end.

Actually the rear area of an aircraft is not so important at supersonic speeds... bullets with flat bases are fine while they move at supersonic speeds... it is when they drop down to subsonic speeds that tail drag becomes and issue and boat tailed rounds have lower drag and reach much further...

The whatever it is on the nose is also a shame aesthetically.

That would be the inflight refuelling probe... a very valuable addition... who cares if it is not pretty...

People are presuming its a retractable refuelling tube, alternately some kind of ECM antenna.

It has been stated it has a new inflight refuelling probe... where else would they put it?

BTW ECM in bobmber are heavy and consume enormous enrgy and

I remember reading in an article that they were developing Tu-22M3 based jammer platforms but also an Il-76 based jammer platform... and it was the Il-76 model that proved the most effective because there was more take off power from the four engines on the Il-76 than from the two engines in the Backfire...

Well, even the engines of the Il-76 couldn´t provide the energy for the jammers. The plane was fitted with large fairings that blended into the main gear fairings, each one had a APU based on the Al-24VT turboprop engine and 4 90kW generators.

They kept nothing of the old design... everything was changed... the only thing they kept were the letters T and u and the number 22.

To say that the TU-22M wasn't particularly influenced by the TU-22 is ignoring the facts. They have at least as many similarities as differences between them, if not more.
Except for the unfinished airframes they may have, all M3Ms will be former M3s:

Tu-22M3M
Tu-22M3 for the Russian Air Force with engines from Tu-160M2 (NK-32-02), upgraded avionics (SVP-24-22 bombsights, a NV-45 radar and an improved cockpit) and the ability to use precision air-to-surface weapons. 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#Variants

Read the book Tu-22 and Tu-22M from Yefim Gordon. Tupolew himself stated that it was a trick because the government didn´t want a new bomber at that time.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

They kept nothing of the old design... everything was changed... the only thing they kept were the letters T and u and the number 22.

To say that the TU-22M wasn't particularly influenced by the TU-22 is ignoring the facts. They have at least as many similarities as differences between them, if not more.
Except for the unfinished airframes they may have, all M3Ms will be former M3s:

Tu-22M3M
Tu-22M3 for the Russian Air Force with engines from Tu-160M2 (NK-32-02), upgraded avionics (SVP-24-22 bombsights, a NV-45 radar and an improved cockpit) and the ability to use precision air-to-surface weapons. 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#Variants

The similarity is superficial .

I think the similarities between them just as deep to convince anyone checking a picture about that he see different versions of the same plane.

Example the tail shape make the impression of the engine on the M , but it doesn't need to be shaped like that.

It is like the buran vs space shuttle, , the buran was designed to looks like the shuttle , but the similarity was paint deep and purposely made.

Hole wrote:Tupolev himself stated that it was a trick because the government didn't want a new bomber at that time.

I'm aware of it. He wanted a green light & $ for a "Modified" bomber that was actually a new plane as far its capabilities r concerned. But even a more capable bomber with the same/similar missions as its predecessor is going to have many features in common with it. The laws of aerodynamics used in optimization apply to all aircraft. So, even if just 1-5% of their design share commonality, they r still directly related. After it was built & accepted, it didn't matter anymore & perhaps was to their advantage to tacitly admit that it is a "newly designed plane"; but to my knowledge, they never implied that it has nothing to do with the TU-22!

Singular_Transform wrote:
It is like the buran vs space shuttle, , the buran was designed to looks like the shuttle , but the similarity was paint deep and purposely made.

pity it was discontinued

They couldn't & didn't want to dump more $ on it like the US had with their Space Shuttles, which were retired to save $:
https://gizmodo.com/why-did-nasa-end-the-space-shuttle-program-1721140493

The project was the largest and the most expensive in the history of Soviet space exploration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_programme

After the first flight of a Buran shuttle, the project was suspended due to lack of funds and the political situation in the Soviet Union. The two subsequent orbiters, which were due in 1990 (informally Ptichka) and 1992 (informally Baikal) were never completed. ..
At the time of its cancellation, 20 billion rubles (roughly US$71,534,000) had been spent on the Buran programme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_programme#Cancellation_of_the_programme_1993

Russia has heavy rocket designs to do w/o Buran:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia

[TU-22]
Role Medium bomber
Manufacturer Tupolev
..Developed into Tupolev Tu-22M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22

[TU-22M]
Role Strategic bomber/Maritime strike
Manufacturer Tupolev
..Number built 497
Developed from Tupolev Tu-22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

If 1 was developed from the other, then they r related by default!

To say that the TU-22M wasn't particularly influenced by the TU-22 is ignoring the facts.

Depends on your definition of influenced... if you are going to say the Tu-22M3 is related to the Tu-22 because they are both twin engined jet bombers of medium range, then I could say the Tu-22M3M is based on the Il-28... it also has no components in common, but it has crew at the front in the nose and it has two engines too.

The Tu-22 did not influence the design of the Tu-22M family because the Tu-22 was a failure, while the Tu-22M3 was a successful design that was much more capable... in fact it was rather feared by those in the USN who had a grasp of the actual difference in performance between those two different designs.

Well, even the engines of the Il-76 couldn´t provide the energy for the jammers. The plane was fitted with large fairings that blended into the main gear fairings, each one had a APU based on the Al-24VT turboprop engine and 4 90kW generators.

The power take off from four large engines was greater than the power takeoff from the two engines in the Backfire... the main reason it was picked over the Backfire model was because it had significant capacity for even more powerful jammers because it could carry extra generators too.

Except for the unfinished airframes they may have, all M3Ms will be former M3s:

Whether finished or not, only Tu-22M3s could be upgraded to Tu-22M3M standard.

Tupolew himself stated that it was a trick because the government didn´t want a new bomber at that time.

Thank you... that is what I said before. There is no way Tupolev would get funding for a new medium range twin jet engined bomber... because at the time the Tu-22 was not that old...

It is like the buran vs space shuttle, , the buran was designed to looks like the shuttle , but the similarity was paint deep and purposely made.

The Buran is an excellent example of superficial external similarities, but craft that are basically totally different...

Think of the US space shuttle as an C-130 transport aircraft with a 10 ton payload capacity but no internal fuel... to get it airborne it needs an external fuel tank bigger than the entire aircraft, but all that extra weight means it needs huge rocket boosters to get it moving...

Buran is a glider that sits on a huge energyia rocket to get it into space.

They look the same because NASA spent 2 billion dollars and several years perfecting a shape... why would the Soviets spend their own money, when they can look at the NASA tests and make up their own minds as to what design to use without needing all the expensive testing.

So, even if just 1-5% of their design share commonality, they r still directly related. After it was built & accepted, it didn't matter anymore & perhaps was to their advantage to tacitly admit that it is a "newly designed plane"; but they never said that it has nothing to do with the TU-22!

So what you are saying is that the F-35 is directly related to the F-16 because it looks a bit similar and they both have more than 1% of parts the same... (same ejector seat).

The Su-34 is related to the Su-27, the MiG-31 is related to the MiG-25... you are trying to say the Su-27 is related to the MiG-25 because they are both twin engined twin tail finned "fighters"... but they are not related... even if Su-27s might be used in the interception role.

but to my knowledge, they never implied that it has nothing to do with the TU-22!

The only thing the Tu-22M has to "do" with the Tu-22 is that it is its replacement twin engined jet bomber.

All tree branches r related to the same "tree trunk" they come out off, just like the Andean & California condors, or kengurus & wallabies, or African & Asian elephants, camels (& S. American llamas, guanacos & vacunas), crocodiles, leopards & lions.
But the TU-22M is even more so, as it was the next logical step in the evolution of the preceding TU-22. Again:

[TU-22]
Role Medium bomber
Manufacturer Tupolev
..Developed into Tupolev Tu-22M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22

[TU-22M]
Role Strategic bomber/Maritime strike
Manufacturer Tupolev
..Number built 497
Developed from Tupolev Tu-22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

If 1 was developed from the other, then they r related by default!
The TU-22M3 is related to the TU-22M which is related to the TU-22; therefore, the TU-22M3 is distantly related to the TU-22, just like the TU-95/114/116/126/142s r distantly related to the B-29 & its TU-4 copy.

It has been stated it has a new inflight refuelling probe... where else would they put it?

A bunch of articles say it but I haven't noticed any that quote a govt/airforce official saying it.

The plane "345" will have a crew of only two people (instead of four on the Tu-22M) and will be equipped with a retractable barbell for refueling in the air, in addition, the use of conformal fuel tanks on top of the airframe is considered. In combination with the more economical engines of NK-32, this will significantly increase the range of the aircraft, bringing it in the ferry variant (without refueling in the air), supposedly up to 9-10 thousand km (compared with 6800 km at Tu-22M3).
..At present, the Kazan Aviation Plant has at least four unfinished suspended airplanes Tu-22M3, which will be used to build prototypes and pre-production models of the restored bomber. The first prototype of the "345" can thus be raised in the air already in 2021. Serial production can be organized in Kazan from 2026-2027 at a rate of up to three or four aircraft per year.
The article notes that this program for the restoration of production of the Tu-22M reflects the general trends in the Russian aviation industry, which increasingly gravitates toward the "revitalization" of Soviet-era aircraft (or their deep modernization), rather than creating fundamentally new platforms.
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3142782.html

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201509210752-3svv.htm

With them, no need to build 50 TU-160Ms, smaller 25-35 will be enough!