Tu-22M3: News

Azi wrote:@eehnie what kind of complete and utterly bullshit you are posting here?

The Mig-31K is a modification of the Mig-31, but the Tu-22M is a complete new design and not just a modification of the Tu-22! Just look at the picture! Do you have eyes or not???

Tu-22 is no swept wing design, the engines are at a complete different position, the airframe itself looks complete different! Not a single Tu-22 was modernized into the Tu-22M, because it's a a complete different plane. Of course they used a lot of technology and experience from Tu-22 for the Tu-22M (nearly same intended role), but the words "deep modernization" means something complete different...not old planes modernized from Tu-22 to Tu-22M, it means a nearly complete new design!

The Tu-22M designation was a ploy by the Russian military to develop a replacement for the Tu-22 which was a great disappointment.   They got the government approval based on "upgrading" the Tu-22 but the reality is that the Tu-22M is a new design that leveraged a few Tu-22 components (eg fwd fuselage sections and undercarriage?) to save money.

Some people continue to argue the Tu-22M is an upgraded Tu-22, just like others argue the Tu-95 is based on the Tu-4...  

Words "deep modernization" mean building a new aircraft on the basis of its predecessor, leaving some old design elements in place. There r no set rules on what should/shouldn't change during such modernization.
In the case of the Tu-22M, the nose & tail r similar to the Tu-22, while the rest of the fuselage, wings, cockpit & avionics r completely different. Tu-22:
Due to the disappointing performance of the Tu-22, the Tupolev design bureau was tasked with extensively modifying the design to produce the Tu-22M. The Backfire, as it is known in the West, features swing wings and more powerful engines located within the fuselage rather than on external pods. Thanks to these changes, the Tu-22M can reach speeds of Mach 2 at altitude and close to Mach 1 in low level flight.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/tu22m/




New variants of planes like Il-76/-18/-22/-38s, C-130s, Tu-95/-142s & B-1/-52s remained almost the same on the outside, but very different inside.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Azi wrote:@eehnie what kind of complete and utterly bullshit you are posting here?

The Mig-31K is a modification of the Mig-31, but the Tu-22M is a complete new design and not just a modification of the Tu-22! Just look at the picture! Do you have eyes or not???

Tu-22 is no swept wing design, the engines are at a complete different position, the airframe itself looks complete different! Not a single Tu-22 was modernized into the Tu-22M, because it's a a complete different plane. Of course they used a lot of technology and experience from Tu-22 for the Tu-22M (nearly same intended role), but the words "deep modernization" means something complete different...not old planes modernized from Tu-22 to Tu-22M, it means a nearly complete new design!

The Tu-22M designation was a ploy by the Russian military to develop a replacement for the Tu-22 which was a great disappointment.   They got the government approval based on "upgrading" the Tu-22 but the reality is that the Tu-22M is a new design that leveraged a few Tu-22 components (eg fwd fuselage sections and undercarriage?)  to save money.

Some people continue to argue the Tu-22M is an upgraded Tu-22, just like others argue the Tu-95 is based on the Tu-4...  

then Russians continue with the plot about the Tu-22, but not about the Tu-95/142 based on the Tu-4

I'm just going to ignore this dumb argument that is going nowhere. On to some other discussion, isn't there some 18 gutted Tu-22M airframes left at the abandoned Vozdvizhenka Airbase (Vozdvizhenka, Primorsky Krai)? Outside of weather corrosion, could a deep refurbishment, alongside deep modernization, could they be air-worthy airframes in 5 years time?

They could have saved them with a big hangar worth nothing to build. Wonder why they don't build some cheap ones to save them from bad weather . Now it will need a biig modernization worth millions just for corrosion.

Anyway better spend money on a new plane that on those destroyed airframes.

Hangars must also be maintained & environmentally controlled, so it's not cheap. Those planes may still yield some usable parts, but otherwise r only good to be sold for smelting.

Believe they were Tu-22M2's not the more modern M3's.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Words "deep modernization" mean building a new aircraft on the basis of its predecessor, leaving some old design elements in place. There r no set rules on what should/shouldn't change during such modernization.
........................
New variants of planes like Il-76/-18/-22/-38s, C-130s, Tu-95/-142s & B-1/-52s remained almost the same on the outside, but very different inside.

Sorry but that is not how I would use of that phrase in engineering in the UK.

To me "deep modernisation' is taking an existing structure, in this case an existing airframe, and updating parts of it with new elements, which may include virtually everything bar the main structure.

It is not redesigning the structure incorporating new elements. That is a new product.

franco wrote:Believe they were Tu-22M2's not the more modern M3's.

Tu-22M3´s. Look at the air intake. But they were old and had a lot flying hours, starts and landings. There are younger/less used planes in much better storage to modernise.

Bonus:

JohninMK wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Words "deep modernization" mean building a new aircraft on the basis of its predecessor, leaving some old design elements in place. There r no set rules on what should/shouldn't change during such modernization.

Sorry but that is not how I would use of that phrase in engineering in the UK.
To me "deep modernization' is taking an existing structure, in this case an existing airframe, and updating parts of it with new elements, which may include virtually everything bar the main structure.
It is not redesigning the structure incorporating new elements. That is a new product.

That too, like with the MiG-31 & Tu-95/-142/-22M. The quoted Russian article used that term regarding the Tu-22 & Tu-22M.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31#Variants
https://sputniknews.com/military/201607221043482724-russian-tu-95ms-military-analysis/
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/23198/Russia_to_Modernize_Tu_95MSM_Strategic_Bombers
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/23193/Russia_to_Roll_out_First_Prototype_of_Modernized_Tu_22M3M_Bomber_Thursday

JohninMK wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Words "deep modernization" mean building a new aircraft on the basis of its predecessor, leaving some old design elements in place. There r no set rules on what should/shouldn't change during such modernization.
........................
New variants of planes like Il-76/-18/-22/-38s, C-130s, Tu-95/-142s & B-1/-52s remained almost the same on the outside, but very different inside.

Sorry but that is not how I would use of that phrase in engineering in the UK.

To me "deep modernisation' is taking an existing structure, in this case an existing airframe, and updating parts of it with new elements, which may include virtually everything bar the main structure.

It is not redesigning the structure incorporating new elements. That is a new product.

This is why Tass used "deep modernization" in Russian.

Hole wrote:

franco wrote:Believe they were Tu-22M2's not the more modern M3's.

Tu-22M3´s. Look at the air intake. But they were old and had a lot flying hours, starts and landings. There are younger/less used planes in much better storage to modernise.

Bonus:

If I remember correctly the Tu-22M3M modernization included deep repairs, and replacement parts for additional 40 years of service, meaning airframes with lots of wear and tear could see a new lease on life. I don't see why they couldn't go under the same treatment. The only way to tell for sure is to inspect the main superstructure to see how much of it is intact, whether it's a flyable airframe, or totally FUBAR'd and only useful for cannibalizing parts and spares. Out of the 18 airframes, it's not impossible to possibly have 4-6 useful airframes, totally worth a shot for inspection purposes.

They r non-flyable & there is no local facility to do it. Dismantling & transporting them long distance is impracticable & costly; that's why they r still there now.

On to some other discussion, isn't there some 18 gutted Tu-22M airframes left at the abandoned Vozdvizhenka Airbase (Vozdvizhenka, Primorsky Krai)? Outside of weather corrosion, could a deep refurbishment, alongside deep modernization, could they be air-worthy airframes in 5 years time?

Actually the Tu-22M3 were much easier to build than the Blackjack... the Blackjack has an enormous box structure for the wing folding mechanism that is made from one piece of titanium that needs to be wielded in conditions of no oxygen.

A Tu-22M3 could be made without such a forge... and with newer materials could probably be made lighter and stronger.

Believe they were Tu-22M2's not the more modern M3's.

The ones in the pictures above are M3s.

This is why Tass used "deep modernization" in Russian.

I don't think we can fully trust what media calls anything... they are not experts in the field...

Out of the 18 airframes, it's not impossible to possibly have 4-6 useful airframes, totally worth a shot for inspection purposes.

The thing is that they were planning to withdraw all the Backfires at one stage, because they thought the Blackjack and Bear could do what they ended up using the Backfire for in Syria...

Now it appears as though they want Backfires again... also for Kinzhal too...

I wonder if the Tu-160M2 design could be scaled down in size and weight to a twin engine design to replace the Backfire?

Would be easier to restart the production of the Tu-22M.

Hole wrote:Would be easier to restart the production of the Tu-22M.

Because it is a tactical bomber rather than strategical one.

They should have another program for a stealthier replacement of tu-22M. They lost one of them to georgian airdefence. I doubt it would do well above a more contested airspace.

Its biggest advantage is Kh-32 dor anti shipping role.

The Tu-22M3 with IFR is a strategic bomber. The M3M has got IFR capability back and will also use Kinzhal, Kh-50 and Grom.

The aircraft was lost in 2008 due to poor mission planing.

And the replacement for the Tu-22M3 is the PAK-DA.

The Backfire is not really a strategic bomber... it is a theatre bomber that can have its range extended with inflight refuelling.

It is like saying the MiG-35 is a long range fighter because it has inflight refuelling too.

It could probably do the job, but a bigger plane would be much better suited.

There is plenty for the Backfire to do in Europe during a conflict and the seas around Russia, while the Bear and Blackjack deliver the nukes to the US...

The PAK DA is a stealthy replacement for the Tu-22M3... I just hope they don't make it too expensive to replace with numbers...

There are a new range of weapons that makes the Backfire still potent and relevant and the new upgrade with the EW tail looks rather interesting too.

Giving it the same engines as the Blackjack will simplify logistics and maintainence and streamline production, and should help reduces costs... making extra engines for the Backfire models upgraded would make them cheaper for the Blackjack too.

The aircraft lost in Georgia was due to arrogance and naivety... they didn't even have their EW helos in place when they executed that attack, without SEAD support...

The EW equipment on the Backfires was not up to date either...

Except very likely the data of range for the MiG-29/35 with refueling is still smaller than the data for the Tu-22 without refuelling.



Always the same....

The aircraft lost in Georgia was due to arrogance and naivety... they didn't even have their EW helos in place when they executed that attack, without SEAD support...

It was a recon variant & they used it as there were no suitable UAVs available then.
The Russian military acknowledged the loss of a Tu-22MR recon aircraft to Georgian air defences early in the 2008 South Ossetia war. One of its crew members was captured (Major Vyacheslav Malkov), two others were killed and the crew commander, Lt. Col. Aleksandr Koventsov, was missing in action as late as November 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#Russia

No it was a standard Tu-22M3 according to guys like Gordon and Butowski. It was used for some sort of recon, but it was not the dedicated version.

Did anybody heared that Tu-22M3M is only with onl NK-25 and Tus with NK-32' will be called Tu-22m7?

Something is missing there…

M4 was planned at the beginning of the 90´s with new electronics and K-32, Kh-57 and UPAB-1500 glide bombs.
M5 was the dedicated successor of the M4.
Now M7.
Where is M6?

Hole wrote:Something is missing there…

M4 was planned at the beginning of the 90´s with new electronics and K-32, Kh-57 and UPAB-1500 glide bombs.
M5 was the dedicated successor of the M4.
Now M7.
Where is M6?  

In Great Britain.

No seriously, maybe there is an internal project called M6 or they just think 7 sound better.

Hole wrote:Something is missing there…

M4 was planned at the beginning of the 90´s with new electronics and K-32, Kh-57 and UPAB-1500 glide bombs.
M5 was the dedicated successor of the M4.
Now M7.
Where is M6?  

M6 could be with NK-25 while NK-32 is with M7. The only explanation I can figure out


BTW What I've fund here:
https://iz.ru/778759/ilia-kramnik/staryi-novyi-samolet-na-chto-sposoben-tu-22m3m

According to the officers of the HKS of the Russian Federation who spoke with the correspondent of the portal iz.ru, the modernization of the Tu-22M3 in the M3M variant will not be a problem, and most likely 30 specified vehicles will be delivered by 2021-2022. At the same time, in the future, the option of a deeper improvement of existing aircraft, including, possibly, a part of previously written off aircraft, is being considered. A promising aircraft, presumably designated as Tu-22M7, can receive, among other things, the NK-32 engines, again launched in production, intended for Tu-160 bombers, whose production is expected to be resumed.