Tu-22M3: News

It is like suggesting they want and F-35 but they want the Russian upgraded version... there is no Chinese upgraded version of any model Backfire... you can't upgrade something you have never had access to.

It is just silly...

Iran has never given any indication of wanting a Backfire... it is not a question of whether Russia wants to sell it or not... this is just an oil website trying to bait the US and Israel to go apeshit over Iran possibly getting a powerful strike bomber they have never shown any interest in before...

Ignore it.

Iran has rules against allowing foreign countries having military bases on their territory.... and that is understandable considering they have had the US there in the past and they can see around the world the only way to get them out is by force... and they don't want to be put in the same situation with China or Russia doing the same. Perfectly understandable.

Flight of long-range Tu-22 bombers as part of the exercise "Slavic Brotherhood-2020" in Belarus

Hole wrote:


Launch of a Kh-32

Google search is telling me 12 meters in length .92 meter diameter. The kinzhal is 1 meter in diameter, estimated 8 meters in length and more than twice the speed and range of the kh-32. I am just wondering if kinzhal is a way better weapon to always choose than the kh-32.

The figures for range and speed are based on a launch at mach 2+ from a MiG-31 at over 14km altitude.

Kinzhal is a solid rocket fuelled modification of the ground launched Iskander missile. The Kh-32 is a liquid fuelled missile that is developed from the Kh-22M.

Having both in production and service is a good thing and both would be dangerous for enemy shipping.

The Backfire can carry up to three Kh-32s... I am not aware of any that have had Kinzhal compatible launch pylons.

Essentially Zircon will replace Onyx eventually, that is its place.

The Kh-32 is replacing the Kh-22M, but its liquid fuels are highly toxic and not popular so an air launched version of Zircon could be a fairly obvious replacement for Kh-32.

The Kh-32 is a natural evolution of an older system that externally looks the same... the difference is better liquid rocket motors and improved energy fuel.

The Kinzhal is an air launched version of the ground launched Iskander solid fuelled rocket and is a quick fix stopgap solution.

Zircon has the most potential as it will be the lightest of all these weapons, but also the fastest and probably ultimately the cheapest, because its scoops up oxygen as it moves through the air like other jet powered objects.

The solid rocket and liquid rocket models need to carry their own oxygen with them which quadruples the weight of "fuel".

Zircon will fit into all land based and ship and sub based UKSK launch tubes, and likely will be adapted to be carried by their strategic bombers and the Backfire as well and perhaps a smaller model for lighter aircraft like the Su-34 and Su-35/30.

Being jet powered it can throttle up or down to use fuel much more efficiently, so being launched from very high altitude and very high speed wont impact its performance as much as the same would with a solid rocket motor powered missile.

They will likely continue to use all three weapons, and indeed upgraded Onyx models as well because they are already paid for... and all are rather potent against a range of target types.

I would never say helpless. They have some pretty capable ships, but its unlikely they can defend against these missiles with their current defensive systems

Certainly not helpless.... in fact if they remain in port in the US I would say impervious to most Russian anti ship missiles most of the time....

One big advantage of the Kh-32 is that it uses essentially the same shell as the Kh-22M which they probably have enormous numbers of.

I would suspect a few minor upgrades to the older missiles and they could be rather more potent than they are too, and with Zircon they will likely be doing something similar to the Onyx missiles that preceeded them it means the production for the new missiles are not so urgent and can transition from making the old missiles to making new ones and upgrading old ones in a nice orderly fashion that keeps missile numbers rather high.

One of the reasons they have so many, IMHO, is for exactly that reason, to provide some kind of anti air defence for ports. The US and all other seaside NATO countries don't have much else to do the job.

Well lets face facts... if they didn't keep poking the bear they wouldn't need anything better than they currently have now anyway...

Kh-32 cruise missile was tested by the upgraded Tu-22M3M bomber.

https://en.topwar.ru/179735-krylatuju-raketu-h-32-ispytali-s-borta-modernizirovannogo-bombardirovschika-tu-22m3.html

Not just a question of how many Tu-22Ms are in storage... M0 and M1s were not made in any numbers, but they made quite a few M2s which are rather different from the M3s.