Tu-22M3: News

I read the version for TU-22 will have a range of 3000km any info on this? I suppose it makes sense that if you are gonna make a booster stage for Kinzhal and the plane can already carry massive KH-32s you may as well put a huge fuel tank on it and add 1000 km range.

The flight radius of the Tu-22M3 would be about 3,500km, its flight range is about 7,000km but that would probably carrying a payload but not bringing back any payload however...

I suppose it makes sense that if you are gonna make a booster stage for Kinzhal and the plane can already carry massive KH-32s you may as well put a huge fuel tank on it and add 1000 km range.

I have speculated quite a bit about a booster stage for the kinzhal to allow it to be launched from slower lower flying aircraft like the Backfire (as opposed to the MiG-31), but have not read anything about them actually using one.

Without any additional fuel or solid rocket booster stage added to it the lower flight speed and altitude of the Backfire would probably reduce the effective range of the Kinzhal by quite a bit... possibly even reduce its speed to mach 7 instead of mach 10 and range to 1,000-1,200km instead of 2,000km, but the Backfire, while much slower than the MiG, also has much better range so it could fly 2,500km out in to the pacific ocean from land bases in Russia and launch a 1,000km range missile at a range of naval targets... which would make it a very potent weapon anyway... even without modification.

Yup I agree it would still be a very formidable weapon. With tankers accompanying the TUs and flying out to meet them the radius is staggering.

And with cold war agreements in tatters then you could reinstall the inflight refuelling system on them and get even better performance...

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bw3gKL0Hivs/

Huge picture but I can't upload it from instagram. Enjoy ! And share if you can.

Put your mouse arrow on the image and a small box with a big fat arrow pointing down will appear in the top left of the photo... click on that to download the image to your computer. Look at the downloads list in your web browser to see where the image was saved (probably download folder on your computer) and view.

GarryB wrote:Put your mouse arrow on the image and a small box with a big fat arrow pointing down will appear in the top left of the photo... click on that to download the image to your computer. Look at the downloads list in your web browser to see where the image was saved (probably download folder on your computer) and view.

I know that. It's just you can't take the image from instagram. Right click on the image and save the image doesn't work.

So why not left click the download link and download it to your computer and then click on the host image button and go to where the image was downloaded to and select it and upload it to the image hosting site and post the link here like this:



Which is how you are supposed to be posting photos to this forum... hot linking is bad.

The future of sea missile carriers: Tu-22M or Su-34

Transfer of long-range bombers to naval aviation may not be feasible.

Ilya Kramnik

https://iz.ru/880913/ilia-kramnik/budushchee-morskikh-raketonostcev-tu-22m-ili-su-34

GarryB wrote:So why not left click the download link and download it to your computer and then click on the host image button and go to where the image was downloaded to and select it and upload it to the image hosting site and post the link here like this:

Which is how you are supposed to be posting photos to this forum... hot linking is bad.

That's how I usually do but on my smartphone I can't on instagram.

dino00 wrote:The future of sea missile carriers: Tu-22M or Su-34

Transfer of long-range bombers to naval aviation may not be feasible.

Ilya Kramnik

https://iz.ru/880913/ilia-kramnik/budushchee-morskikh-raketonostcev-tu-22m-ili-su-34

Thanks...interesting read.

If I remember correctly, the the Su-34 was originally marketed for export as the Su-32FN Naval strike aircraft. I wonder whether they will return to that concept

Interesting... they had Kh-22 missiles in storage as it was withdrawn from service for a while... (it uses rather nasty propellent that needs to be loaded into the missile before takeoff...)

They are going to return them to service after upgrading them to Kh-32 standard... ie 40K metres flight altitude at mach 4.5 with a mach 5 plus dive on the target and flight range of over 1,000km... quite a potent missile..

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/https/iz.ru/740556/aleksandr-kruglov/glavnyi-kalibr-vernuli-v-stroi

That's how I usually do but on my smartphone I can't on instagram.

That explains it...

If I remember correctly, the the Su-34 was originally marketed for export as the Su-32FN Naval strike aircraft. I wonder whether they will return to that concept

I hope it is multi role enough to not need a new naval strike variant... they can just upgrade them all to do the job...

I don't think the Su-34 can carry the X-22/X-32...so can't completely replace the Tu-22M

I don't think the Su-34 can carry the X-22/X-32...so can't completely replace the Tu-22M

True, but as they will be producing a lot of new Blackjacks and PAK DAs then to start with they will have a lot of extra Tu-95s... and after a period they will likely have excess capacity so they could build a few extra PAK DAs to replace those Bears in naval service...

For the NAF, they should have considered modernizing their Tu-16s &/ or produce a new variant to have something like H-6D/K, which have more range & payload:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#Specifications_(Su-34)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-16#Specifications_(Tu-16)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6#Specifications_(H-6)
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Badger.html

From what I have read they plan to make a version of the Tu 214-as ASW/ Maritime patrol, similar to the american P-8 (derived from the 737).

This could replace the Tu- 142s.

In addition, I believe they want also a smaller maritime patrol aircraft derived from the Il-114.

And for anti ship hypersonic missile carriers... what about
Restarting production of a modernised Tu22M3M with the new engines of the Tu-160.

Cyberspec wrote:

dino00 wrote:The future of sea missile carriers: Tu-22M or Su-34

Transfer of long-range bombers to naval aviation may not be feasible.

Ilya Kramnik

https://iz.ru/880913/ilia-kramnik/budushchee-morskikh-raketonostcev-tu-22m-ili-su-34

Thanks...interesting read.

If I remember correctly, the the Su-34 was originally marketed for export as the Su-32FN Naval strike aircraft. I wonder whether they will return to that concept

This seems more like hyperbolic pessimism more than anything. They say about the need for many more Tu-22m3's for the oceanic fleets (at least 50) than that are in service (60 approx), but that's flawed logic:

1.) Naval surface fleet ships are relatively slow compared to aircraft, the need for supersonic aircraft for naval aviation is very far less urgent than they're suggesting, especially so when you factor in recent successful development of hypersonic weapons. Nothing stops them from restarting production of Tu-142's loaded with hypersonic weapons like Zircon with +1000km range (of which the air launched version could significantly greater range) and using them for that purpose, yes they might not be as fast but they have vastly superior range in comparison.

2.) Speaking about hypersonic weapons, the INF-Treaty is dead, nothing stops the development of the extend range versions of Iskander-M, or +1000km range land based Zircon, or even land based 4,500km extended range 3M-54's on truck based TEL's, of which they could probably produce several dozen a month at a fraction of the cost.

3.) They're speaking of no new naval helicopters is in fact a red herring, they like to pretend like the development of Ka-52K doesn't exist, or the fact they'll be able to launch Kh-35's fairly soon. The Ka-52 has a combat radius of 470km's, and the max range for Kh-35U's are 300km's, which means Ka-52K's would able to destroy targets (sea and land) to about 770km's away, and could defend an area 1540km's in diameter.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
And for anti ship hypersonic missile carriers... what about
Restarting production of a modernised Tu22M3M with the new engines of the Tu-160.

They have tu-160 in production and soon pak da. Three heavy bombers is expensive to build and operate.

Mig-31k and kinzhal is also some sort of replacement for tu-22M and kh-32.

There are around 50 Tu22M3 in storage. Some of them could be brought back and be modernised. If the need would really be there.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:

dino00 wrote:The future of sea missile carriers: Tu-22M or Su-34

Transfer of long-range bombers to naval aviation may not be feasible.

Ilya Kramnik

https://iz.ru/880913/ilia-kramnik/budushchee-morskikh-raketonostcev-tu-22m-ili-su-34

Thanks...interesting read.

This seems more like hyperbolic pessimism more than anything. They say about the need for many more Tu-22m3's for the oceanic fleets (at least 50) than that are in service (60 approx), but that's flawed logic....

Yes you are right.

Still, adding the Su-34 to Naval Aviation would be a good idea. I think it's better suited to naval strike role than the Su-30

Hole wrote:There are around 50 Tu22M3 in storage. Some of them could be brought back and be modernised. If the need would really be there.

They probably will if the initial batch proves successful in service

As they introduce PAK DA into service they are going to have a lot of Tu-95s available that already have wing pylon space for 10 cruise missiles... extending its weapon bay like they did with the Tu-22M3M would enable another 6 large long range missiles to be carried... which could be 16 Zircon missiles per aircraft.

The Bear is not fast but already equipped to fly long distances over water and they have quite a few of them.

Strategic Aviation would have Blackjacks and PAK DA, while Naval aviation can have their Tu-22M3Ms back and some Tu-95MSM16s, plus Su-34s which should be able to carry Zircon as it was supposed to be able to carry Brahmos/Onyx fairly easily.

A reduced size increased performance Onyx (using better fuel and improvements from Zircon programme) might be an option for under wing carriage... ie a mach 5 missile with range extended to perhaps 800km is still a devastating weapon... especially if you can carry four of them on a Fullback.

A much bigger aircraft like a Bear or Backfire would be better with the bigger longer ranged missiles for safer standoff ranges.

GarryB wrote:As they introduce PAK DA into service they are going to have a lot of Tu-95s available that already have wing pylon space for 10 cruise missiles... extending its weapon bay like they did with the Tu-22M3M would enable another 6 large long range missiles to be carried... which could be 16 Zircon missiles per aircraft.

The Bear is not fast but already equipped to fly long distances over water and they have quite a few of them.

Strategic Aviation would have Blackjacks and PAK DA, while Naval aviation can have their Tu-22M3Ms back and some Tu-95MSM16s, plus Su-34s which should be able to carry Zircon as it was supposed to be able to carry Brahmos/Onyx fairly easily.

A reduced size increased performance Onyx (using better fuel and improvements from Zircon programme) might be an option for under wing carriage... ie a mach 5 missile with range extended to perhaps 800km is still a devastating weapon... especially if you can carry four of them on a Fullback.

A much bigger aircraft like a Bear or Backfire would be better with the bigger longer ranged missiles for safer standoff ranges.

There is a consideration to be made: PAK-DA, like its american counterpart B-21 will be a way smaller plane than the B-2: two engines and an empty weight just marginally superior to the Tu-22M3M one.
Stealth would increase cost and complexity but so do also being supersonic capable, so one would compensate other.
In the meantime using the refurbished Kazan plant to built Tu-160M and to refurbish and upgrade Tu-22M3 instead than to wait idle until the PAK-DA would finish its own development would be the best thing to doo.
Also because on the other side all their current bombers are out production, so that they would not be able to increment their number in any way, if nor recuperating something from the Boneyard, like they have done with a B-52.

Νew bomber sight for upgraded Tu-22M3M bomber

According to the magazine "Jane's International Defense Review" in an article by Miroslav Gyürösi "Belarus reveals enhanced 'Backfire' EO package", at the 9th international exhibition of armament and military equipment MILEX-2019 Belarusian OJSC held in Minsk from 15 to 18 May 2019 Peleng (Minsk) presented the new ST-22-1 electron-optical bomber sight, developed as part of the modernization program for long-range Tu-22M3 Russian Aerospace Forces bomber to the Tu-22M3M version.


A new electron-optical bomber sight ST-22-1, developed by the Belarusian company "Peleng" for the modernization of long-range bombers Tu-22M3 of the Russian Aerospace Forces, in the exposition of the exhibition MILEX-2019. Minsk, May 2019 (c) Miroslav Gyürösi / Jane's

Sight ST-22-1 is designed for use on land and sea targets and is equipped with automatic capture and target tracking devices. OJSC "Peleng" provided only limited information about ST-22-1, which was officially designated in the exhibition as "television system". It is reported that the CT-22-1 has four switchable fields of view - wide (8 ° × 6 °), medium (4 ° × 3 °), narrow (2 ° × 1.5 °) and two-fold narrow (1 ° × 0 , 75 °) - in all cases with independent stabilization in the vertical and horizontal planes. According to the manufacturer, a narrow installation of the field of view allows you to detect a target the size of a tank at a distance of 15 km with a probability of up to 90%.

The sight optics has a range from -40 ° to + 70 ° vertically and ± 30 ° in the longitudinal direction, with a maximum speed of movement of 30 ° per second and a minimum speed of tracking the target within the line of sight of only 0.05 ° per second.



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3662745.html

George1 wrote:

Νew bomber sight for upgraded Tu-22M3M bomber

Thanks.

So is an integral sight better or is a targeting pod a better solution ?


 

George1 wrote:

So looks like the refueling pod is definitely being re-installed on the Tu-22M3M

Integrated sights give standard base capacity for a range of roles, but that doesn't mean it wont use external pods.

External pods can be bought in smaller numbers and shared between a variety of aircraft and are easier to improve or upgrade generally with only minor effects upon drag.

External pods can also be fitted backwards when useful too.

It would be easier to add brand new optical technology to a pod than integrate it into a fixed system in an aircraft, and more importantly that pod could be shared by a wide range of aircraft in a wide variety of roles including recon, bombing, as well as targeting air and land/sea targets as well as navigation...