Tu-22M3: News

Let´s start with 10 cruise missiles = attack 10 targets simultanesly.

At the moment the Tu-22M3 is limited to 2.200km. It could carry only 12 250kg bombs in attacks in Syria. With IFR it could carry a full load and stay in the air much longer to attack much more targets as requested by ground forces.

For le$$, the Su-34s can carry almost as much from bases in Syria w/o mid-air refueling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#Specifications_(Su-34)

A rare sight:

Is that a recon version? Seems to have extra antennae there.

Yes. Tu-22MR.

Without wanting to reignite the debate I couldn't resist this picture.

See the 1st 2 planes, upper right corner. Their close relationship is clear:

Tsavo Lion wrote:See the 1st 2 planes, upper right corner. Their close relationship is clear:

There is no "close relationship". The Tu-22M is to all intents and purposes an all-new aircraft, all that has been retained is some internal structure and general rear tailfin/stabilsiser config.

Why do people keep arguing about the frigging obvious??? The Tu-22M designation was just a political ploy to secure funding, nothing more.

JohninMK wrote:

Rob Lee
‏ @RALee85
Jan 28

Nice shot of the Russian Naval Aviation Ty-134UB-L (white # 54, registration # RF-12037) training aircraft for Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 pilots. This aircraft was overhauled last year at the Minsk Plant of Civil Aviation No. 407.

According to Eehnie this is clearly a Tu-22. There is no such thing as tu-134 just look at the nose !!

Isos wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

Rob Lee
‏ @RALee85
Jan 28

Nice shot of the Russian Naval Aviation Ty-134UB-L (white # 54, registration # RF-12037) training aircraft for Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 pilots. This aircraft was overhauled last year at the Minsk Plant of Civil Aviation No. 407.

According to Eehnie this is clearly a Tu-22. There is no such thing as tu-134  just look at the nose !!

No longer UBL is an airliner for VIP transport , is just Tu-134A-4 , probably after overhaul

Navy does not need UBL since have not strategic bombers in their ranks.

Several old UBL now are Tu-134A4  used as airliners for VIP transport for the chiefs of  Naval Fleets and Air Armies

Well flogging a point to death the claim that the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M are the same aircraft because they both have crew in the front and they have two engines and they are a theatre bomber and they both have wings would also apply to this aircraft too... it has crew up front in the nose and it has two engines and wings and is intended to simulate bombing missions with a Tu-22M3 and a Tu-160...

But like the Tu-22M and the Tu-22 the engines are different and mounted differently, the wings are different and fixed, the entire shape of the aircraft is different... the only extra difference between this aircraft and those is that this one is not called Tu-22.

There is a light twin engined bomber from the early post war period that is called Tu-22 and it looks nothing like the Tu-22 we know let alone like the Tu-22M we also know.

The Tu-22M designation was not reused because this aircraft was related to the Tu-22, it was used specifically because it wasn't... because there was no funding for a brand new design, but there was always money for upgrades.

Ironically the opposite of the US... they cancelled the B-1A and the B-1B, but there was plenty of money for the B-2 dead end white elephant...

Nice pics BTW.

claim that the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M are the same aircraft

Btw their noses r also similar. No1 said that here! "Directly related" isn't the "same"!
The Russians not affiliated with Tupolev I quoted said that 1 came from the other. I also mentioned an analogues history with Tu-124 & Tu-134, only in reverse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-124
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-134

Their wings & tails have different shapes, engines r mounted differently, but the fuselages & noses r identical.
Also, there r Yak-40 & Yak-42:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-42

The latter is larger, has swept wings, different engines, 7 better performance.

GarryB wrote:Ironically the opposite of the US... they cancelled the B-1A and the B-1B, but there was plenty of money for the B-2 dead end white elephant...

actually  PAK-DA aka Messenger has the same form as B-2.  US  needs B-1/B to do what?  Attack Russian CSGs?

AMCXXL wrote: Navy does not need UBL since have not strategic bombers in their ranks.
Several old UBL now are Tu-134A4  used as airliners for VIP transport for the chiefs of  Naval Fleets and Air Armies

Not really. Tu-134UBL is still being used to train Tu-22/Tu160 pilots. Including naval aviation. It was shortly written off but in 2013-2014 returned to service.



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1783898.html

Tu-134UBL is still being used to train Tu-22/Tu160 pilots. Including naval aviation.

All Tu-22Ms were transferred to the AF after 1991 & now r in the VKS.

AMCXXL wrote:

No longer UBL is an airliner for VIP transport , is just Tu-134A-4 , probably after overhaul

Navy does not need UBL since have not strategic bombers in their ranks.

Several old UBL now are Tu-134A4  used as airliners for VIP transport for the chiefs of  Naval Fleets and Air Armies

Even if its a Tu-134A4 the Navy still needs it so they get first dibs, as their VIP transport. Anyway, that's a brilliant colour scheme.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Tu-134UBL is still being used to train Tu-22/Tu160 pilots. Including naval aviation.

All Tu-22Ms were transferred to the AF after 1991 & now r in the VKS.

Last planes were transfered in 2011.

Hole wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Tu-134UBL is still being used to train Tu-22/Tu160 pilots. Including naval aviation.

All Tu-22Ms were transferred to the AF after 1991 & now r in the VKS.

Last planes were transfered in 2011.

Yet still Tu22 are flying, their tsk is CSG deterrence so somewhere pilots need to be trained on?

Btw their noses r also similar. No1 said that here! "Directly related" isn't the "same"!

Their noses are not that similar.

Directly related means like a father son relationship direct lineage... not came from the same country and had the same last name.

Their wings & tails have different shapes, engines r mounted differently, but the fuselages & noses r identical.

Look at the photos again... the fuselages are completely different shapes and the noses are different too... not to mention the content of the noses is different and the engines are different... three crew in line in one and four crew and two sets of two side by side in the other...

actually  PAK-DA aka Messenger has the same form as B-2.

The B-2 was intended as a bomber that would penetrate enemy airspace right to the target and release munitions over the target... it has evolved because they have started to realise that is not going to happen and low altitude penetration bombing was the new plan.

The Russian aircraft is a cruise missile carrier that might be a bomb truck on short range non nuclear missions... they are not the same.

US  needs B-1/B to do what?  Attack Russian CSGs?

Really don't care... they wanted a Tu-160 and then scaled it down to something similar to a Tu-22M3 but still treat it like a strategic bomber... it has been a bit of a black sheep that no one seems to want to own...

Yet still Tu22 are flying, their tsk is CSG deterrence so somewhere pilots need to be trained on?

Well army aviation moved their attack helos to air force control but they still train and perform their missions with the Army forces and still do all the training etc they did before... would assume the same for the naval forces... still perform naval strike missions but from the air force instead of the navy...[/quote]

Look at the photos again... the fuselages are completely different shapes and the noses are different too... not to mention the content of the noses is different and the engines are different... three crew in line in one and four crew and two sets of two side by side in the other...

Look at the site again, last line in the text under the 1st picture- the Tu-134 developed from the Tu-124:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-134

Their wings & fuselages are not completely different shapes, & the noses both r glazed the same, for pilots & the navigator:






Their small differences doesn't change that they r closely related. I saw them up close.

They do have a history of reusing or having related designations for related designs.... an obvious example is that the upgrade of the Il-76 is called the Il-476 and there is a reduced size model with two engines to be called Il-276... clearly the 4 means four engined upgraded Il-76 (Il-76M has already been used), while the Il-276 means twin engine model of the Il-76.

This is especially with airliners, which often were directly based on each other or related in some way.

This does not apply to the Tu-22 and Tu-22M because they changed everything... they are not related... they kept a similar designation so they could get funding by pretending it was an upgrade, but it was a complete redesign... even the engines are different...

But of course if that was enough then you could argue that this test plane has the same nose as the latest model Tu-22M3M because it holds the radar of that aircraft so this transport plane is as much related to the Tu-22M as the Tu-22 is related to the Tu-22M...

Their small differences doesn't change that they r closely related. I saw them up close.

They are closely related.

The Tu-22 and Tu-22M are NOT and don't look the same.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

GarryB wrote:Ironically the opposite of the US... they cancelled the B-1A and the B-1B, but there was plenty of money for the B-2 dead end white elephant...

actually  PAK-DA aka Messenger has the same form as B-2.  US  needs B-1/B to do what?  Attack Russian CSGs?

There is a lot of difference between B-2 and both PAK-DA and new B-21, first one is an huge intercontinental plane with four engines, other are smaller and have just two i.e. are about the size of a Tu-22M3 but with greater range.

B-1A was though to fly at high quote reaching 2+ mach, B-1b traded high speed with low quote capability and semi-stealth.

And it was not cancelled at all: 100 were ordered as an interim solution between B-52 with ALCM and ATF (i.e. B-2 Spirit) and 100 were produced.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Hole wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Tu-134UBL is still being used to train Tu-22/Tu160 pilots. Including naval aviation.

All Tu-22Ms were transferred to the AF after 1991 & now r in the VKS.

Last planes were transfered in 2011.

Yet still Tu22 are flying, their tsk is CSG deterrence so somewhere pilots need to be trained on?

Navy transferred the last regiments to Air Force in 2009
However all of these units were disbabded in 2011

By 1991 , USSR have a lot of regiments of Tu-22 in the Navy, probably about a dozen of regiments between the 4 fleets with several types of airplanes: Tu-22M2 , Tu22M3 and Tu-22MR
The most regiments were disbanded in the large cuts of years 90´s
By 2008 only one regiment in Olenya and other in Sovetskaya Gavan remained
In 2009 were transferred to the Air Force , but both were closed in 2011

Several days ago one Tu-22M3 crashed at Olenya, and bmpd said that was part of 40º Heavy Bomber Regiment, but this is not true
Olenya regiments were disbanded, the last in 2011.
The airfield is used by Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 of other regiments, and the decomissioned Tu-22M3 and Tu-22MR remain in storage:
https://www.google.es/maps/@68.1604788,33.4531742,282m/data=!3m1!1e3

The airplane crashed RF-94159 Nº35 was a test airplane , part of the 929 GLITs:
https://russianplanes.net/id218966
Бортовой: RF-94159 / 35 тип
Россия (СССР) - ВВС
  → ГК НИИ ВВС (929 ГЛИЦ МО РФ)

Navy had its own Training Center:  444 TsBPiPLS at Ostrov (Pskov Oblast)
Today this airfield is the base of  the new 15 Brigade of Army Aviation (Helicopters), but still there are stored several decomissioned airplanes of the Navy (Tu-142 , Tu-22M3 , Tu-134UBL Be-12 and Su-24)
https://www.google.es/maps/@57.2848988,28.4196764,205m/data=!3m1!1e3


Today, the Training Center of the Air Force for Heavy Bombers, (43 TsBPiPLS), is at Dyagilevo airbase , in Ryazan
However most of airplanes are decomissioned, waiting tor the modernized Tu-22M3M and Tu-95MSM
https://www.google.es/maps/@54.6475513,39.5663232,564m/data=!3m1!1e3


The 43 TsBPiPLS has also other regiment , the 27º Composite Regiment in Tambov for basic training with 2 squadrons, one of Tu-134UBL and other of An-26
However, the most of Tu-134UBL are stored in reserve since a lot of years
https://www.google.es/maps/@52.7000507,41.3826185,577m/data=!3m1!1e3

The Tu-134UBL used in Tambov for training of Heavy Bombres are like that:

AMCXXL wrote: Navy does not need UBL since have not strategic bombers in their ranks.
Several old UBL now are Tu-134A4  used as airliners for VIP transport for the chiefs of  Naval Fleets and Air Armies

Not really. Tu-134UBL is still being used to train Tu-22/Tu160 pilots. Including naval aviation. It was shortly written off but in 2013-2014 returned to service.
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1783898.html

Al of this airplanes have 40 years old and have been overhauled several times each
Some have been transformed on airliners for VIP transport or for transport personnel, in the Navy and in the Airforce:


RF-12000 Nº20 , also Tu-134A-4 , VIP transport/airliner of Black Sea Fleet


RF-95950 of 929th GLITs used for transport personnel between Akhtubinsk and Chkalovsky (Moscow) , the two main locations of GLITs
Here: https://www.google.es/maps/@55.8792285,38.0382372,99m/data=!3m1!1e3


RF-66054 Nº54 of the Transport Regiment of East Military District
Here: https://www.google.es/maps/@48.4627805,135.1463674,118m/data=!3m1!1e3


RF-65733  Nº31 of the Transport Rgiment of Central Military District
Here: https://www.google.es/maps/@56.7479418,60.8280571,97m/data=!3m1!1e3



The reason could be that there are not more Tu-134 available and the only reserve is at Tambov , were are Tu-134UBL stored

marcellogo wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

actually  PAK-DA aka Messenger has the same form as B-2.  US  needs B-1/B to do what?  Attack Russian CSGs?

There is a lot of difference between B-2 and both PAK-DA and new B-21, first one is an huge intercontinental plane with four engines, other are smaller and have just two i.e. are about the size of a Tu-22M3 but with greater range.

B-1A was though to fly at high quote reaching 2+ mach, B-1b traded high speed with low quote capability and semi-stealth.

And it was not cancelled at all: 100 were ordered as an interim solution between B-52 with ALCM and ATF (i.e. B-2 Spirit) and 100 were produced.

All your wrote above is true but it was not my point. My point was US builds planes it needs o fulfill doctrine. US dont need Tu-22 type bombers to attack CSGs, because they so far are the only ones using them.


BTW B-2 and PAK DA do have same form - flying wing. We dont know what the range of PAK DA is going to be but since it is strtegic bomber its range is unlikely to be below intercontinental.