Tu-22M3: News

diabetus wrote:
More of the same old delusion that permeates this forum. Then again certain people here argued against the use of guided bombs until Russia decided to actually use them.

And no, we've never seen the Kh-22 hit anything with pinpoint accuracy. It's not capable of that, and the manufacturer never claimed that. You've also never seen any evidence of that so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Sorry bud but the Kh-22 proved to be very accurate indeed! Lots of video evidence on Youtube.

Zero evidence of it being used for SEAD. Maybe the kh-58.

Lol! The Kh-22, Kh-32, Kh-31 - all of them have an anti-radar variants

small sample: the one on the left is the anti-radar variant...



...so stop talking bs and go get an education.

And no, we've never seen the Kh-22 hit anything with pinpoint accuracy. It's not capable of that, and the manufacturer never claimed that. You've also never seen any evidence of that so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

There are very few photos of videos of Kh-22s coming in because they come in at about three times the speed of sound... the Kh-32s come in at about mach 5.

They carry 930kg HE warheads and are designed to take out ships and large SAM radar arrays so super precision is not really needed, but they seem to be hitting their targets just fine.

No, the target was the city block sized factory. That missile barely managed to make it inside the perimeter fence. Does it hurt being that delusional?

Well logically speaking you are full of it... how can you claim a missile is inaccurate when you don't know what the point of aim was... it might have hit exactly where it was supposed to, or it might have missed the point of aim by 10m... the confidence you have that it is inaccurate suggests ideological reasons more than anything useful or interesting.

Hahahaha... just looked at the wiki page on the Kh-22 and it says:

The UK Ministry of Defence stated that Russia is possibly using anti-ship missiles, like the Kh-22, against ground targets. Such missiles "are highly inaccurate and therefore can cause severe collateral damage and casualties".

So the UK Ministry of Defence states that they are not accurate... they hit malls and apartment buildings... malls with artillery vehicles operating from them, and apartment buildings with military forces operating near by.... hahahaha.

Zero evidence of it being used for SEAD. Maybe the kh-58.

The fact that one is an anti radiation homing version that us used against emitting radars and would not be much use against anything else.

Any inaccuracy I have seen by Russian satellite guided long range munitions in this conflict is more attributable to issues of lack of precision in the current GLONASS network than specific issues with the missiles themselves. When GLONASS has like 5m accuracy at best I do not know why you expect it to hit targets with pinpoint precision. The whole satellite constellation was supposed to have been upgraded to GLONASS-K by now but we know what happened.

All of the claims of inaccurate Russian weapons normally end up being revealed to be failed Ukrainian SAMs trying to intercept incoming munitions and failing... like that S-300 SAM that killed people in Poland... or tiny weapons hitting apartment buildings that blow down part of an exterior wall like an S-300 SAM might if it hit... and not like a mach 3 plus 7 ton missile with empty fuel tanks and a 1 ton payload attached to it would.

Kh-22 isn't satellite guided so i don't know what you're talking about.

But that is the point... a satellite guided weapon like HIMARs can be fooled off course with GPS jammers, but a radar guided missile scans the land in front of it as it comes down and can see the pattern of buildings near its target and locate its target amongst other buildings to hit... GLONASS jammers wont mean squat to it.

GLONASS has like 5m accuracy at best

Which means it´s better than GPS.

pinpoint accuracy

This is not a military term.

For comparison: official accuracy of JDAM is max. 7m. If nobody jams it.

Mir wrote:Sorry bud but the Kh-22 proved to be very accurate indeed! Lots of video evidence on Youtube.

Yes, evidence of it barely landing inside a perimeter fence. Amazing precision.

Mir wrote:Lol! The Kh-22, Kh-32, Kh-31 - all of them have an anti-radar variants Rolling Eyes

small sample: the one on the left is the anti-radar variant...

Great, a photo that proves nothing. Zero evidence of tu-22Ms being used for SEAD, which is smart as they would be vulnerable. Also, the sead variant of the kh-22 is ancient and there's no documentation saying it's seeker is designed to engage s-300 radars.

diabetus wrote:

Mir wrote:Sorry bud but the Kh-22 proved to be very accurate indeed! Lots of video evidence on Youtube.

Yes, evidence of it barely landing inside a perimeter fence. Amazing precision.

Mir wrote:Lol! The Kh-22, Kh-32, Kh-31 - all of them have an anti-radar variants Rolling Eyes

small sample: the one on the left is the anti-radar variant...

Great, a photo that proves nothing. Zero evidence of tu-22Ms being used for SEAD, which is smart as they would be vulnerable. Also, the sead variant of the kh-22 is ancient and there's no documentation saying it's seeker is designed to engage s-300 radars.

Russia developed a program to upgrade the KH-22 to KH-32 specs. No details on how many they did. But it would make sense and clearly be quite cost effective.

Garryb wrote:There are very few photos of videos of Kh-22s coming in because they come in at about three times the speed of sound... the Kh-32s come in at about mach 5.

They carry 930kg HE warheads and are designed to take out ships and large SAM radar arrays so super precision is not really needed, but they seem to be hitting their targets just fine.

Ok so now you have to see the round in the air before it hits the ground? I guess we can't talk about artillery or MLRS because you don't see the round in the air to know what it is for sure. That's just dumb.

Garryb wrote:Well logically speaking you are full of it... how can you claim a missile is inaccurate when you don't know what the point of aim was... it might have hit exactly where it was supposed to, or it might have missed the point of aim by 10m... the confidence you have that it is inaccurate suggests ideological reasons more than anything useful or interesting.

Stop cheerleading and use critical thinking for once. What other possible targets are around that factory? Even Russia said they were targeting it.

GarryB wrote:The fact that one is an anti radiation homing version that us used against emitting radars and would not be much use against anything else.

Sounds like you don't know how ARM seekers work, especially ancient ones from the 1970s that were meant to engage a specific radar and not any radar that exists.

Ok so now you have to see the round in the air before it hits the ground?

How else can you tell what type of missile it was?

Stop cheerleading and use critical thinking for once. What other possible targets are around that factory? Even Russia said they were targeting it.

The missile carries a 1 ton warhead, which is more than most other weapons they have with a range over 300km, it would be most useful against very big ships and also large area targets like large buildings... like HQs and major SAM sites and comms centres and also bridges and dams and other heavy structures.

It would also be very good for doing serious damage to large factories fixing tanks or aircraft or other equipment, or making drones or engines or ammo.

It is not designed to go through a specific building window on a target like a cruise missile might, but against a factory fixing tanks precision is not critical.

But the cock suckers in the UK defence department say it is wildly inaccurate against ground targets because they are ignorant bastards who want to down play the Russian weapons that are destroying the toys of their nazis. (they are not trying to educate the general public about the real performance of a Russian weapon, they are trying to make fun of and ridicule their enemy to justify them being the enemy).

Sounds like you don't know how ARM seekers work, especially ancient ones from the 1970s that were meant to engage a specific radar and not any radar that exists.

Different types work differently.  HARM for instance homed in on the signal and were largely useless when the signal switched off. The Kh-58 had a guidance communication pod that was used with it that detected the signal from the radar but triangulated the location of the radar emitter before missile launch so if the radar detected the launch or was just lucky enough to turn off after it was launched the missile would still land very close to it.

The new versions have IR sensors so radars that have recently turned off can still be hit because radars generate a lot of heat when they are working and it takes a while for them to cool down after they are turned off.

The Kh-22M has an enormous radar the size of a MiG-21s radar so its ability to see ships and large structures like buildings in the active radar homing version is excellent... you can't hit a tank or aircraft factory with an anti radiation seeking missile but the radar guided missile can see ships and large buildings because that is their primary target.

The Russians constantly update their missiles and their anti ship missiles have all had upgrades to allow land based targets to be engaged too, but as the Tu-22M3 is a theatre strike bomber/missile carrier it always had missiles that could engage ground targets.

The largest number of missiles the Tu-22M3 can carry at once is 10 missiles and that is 10 x Kh-15 nuclear armed rocket powered short range land attack missiles that don't come in an anti ship version... they are all nuclear armed which is why they were withdrawn from service, but their nuclear role was for land as well as sea... they use inertial guidance and detonate at a coordinate... either near the ground to take out an airfield or SAM site or Comms centre or HQ, or a ship or group of ships, or in the air to take out a whole group of interceptors or aircraft flying in formation.

Normally they are used to destroy air defences (SAMS and interceptor aircraft) so the aircraft can get to its launch position to fire off cruise missiles.

Sounds like you don't know how ARM seekers work, especially ancient ones from the 1970s that were meant to engage a specific radar and not any radar that exists.

Yes there is. It was developed later on to deal with jammers and other threats allowing the use of passive guidance to sink ships amongst active radar homing missiles.

After the first wave of missiles were hitting targets decoys and jammers and chaff would be everywhere along with SAMs and other missiles so the second and subsequent waves of missiles would include missiles running on passive radar homing to take down AEGIS class ships trying to defend the carriers... they did not emit anything and it was hoped they might sneak through in the confusion and seriously weaken the air defences.

@diabetus and Isos

Perhaps you dumb asses can try to Google Kh-22P

Not a particularly accurate source above

Anyway this is what Ru-Wikipedia has to say about the Kh-22P:

The X-22P, adopted in 1976, has a passive homing system (guided by the radiation of enemy radio equipment). In this variant, a warhead with a conventional charge of slightly reduced power was installed.

Mir wrote:Not a particularly accurate source above

Anyway this is what Ru-Wikipedia has to say about the Kh-22P:

The X-22P, adopted in 1976, has a passive homing system (guided by the radiation of enemy radio equipment). In this variant, a warhead with a conventional charge of slightly reduced power was installed.

You got me! I'm sure a missile from 1976 has a state of the art ARM seeker for radars that simply didn't exist back then. Brilliant post from you. As i said, ancient.

Mir wrote:@diabetus and Isos

Perhaps you dumb asses can try to Google Kh-22P

I mentioned it before, not my problem if you can't read.

diabetus wrote:

You got me! I'm sure a missile from 1976 has a state of the art ARM seeker for radars that simply didn't exist back then. Brilliant post from you. As i said, ancient.

Well that was just the start

It was followed by the KH-22M - an upgraded variant that was a thousand km/h faster than the original Kh-22!
It had is own anti-radar variant known as the Kh-22MP

This in turn was radically upgraded to the Kh-32 with an extended range of up to 1000 km. Old but definitely not cold as we've seen in the SMO

diabetus wrote:
I mentioned it before, not my problem if you can't read.

Are you in the snake oil business?

You got me! I'm sure a missile from 1976 has a state of the art ARM seeker for radars that simply didn't exist back then. Brilliant post from you. As i said, ancient.

They keep their old missiles upgraded... the Granit anti ship missile is from the mid 1980s too and all their ship launched anti ship missiles were upgraded to add a land attack capacity, so I would expect their air launched anti ship missiles would have the same modifications... especially because components made in the mid 1970s wont still be in production now so hardware upgrades would be a necessity.

Kh-31 and Kh-35 and Granit and Moskit and Vulcan etc etc all had land attack capacity added, the technology was developed with India when they gave Onyx the ability to hit land based targets too.

Mir wrote:

diabetus wrote:
I mentioned it before, not my problem if you can't read.

Are you in the snake oil business?

No, I'm just able to read and comprehend English.

GarryB wrote:

They keep their old missiles upgraded... the Granit anti ship missile is from the mid 1980s too and all their ship launched anti ship missiles were upgraded to add a land attack capacity, so I would expect their air launched anti ship missiles would have the same modifications... especially because components made in the mid 1970s wont still be in production now so hardware upgrades would be a necessity.

Kh-31 and Kh-35 and Granit and Moskit and Vulcan etc etc all had land attack capacity added, the technology was developed with India when they gave Onyx the ability to hit land based targets too.

Not surprised that you assume that due to you lack of objectivity about the actual state of the Russian military. However, evidence of it actually being in place is lacking to put it incredibly mildly.

Of course... evidence that Russia is able to use anti ship missiles to hit ground based targets accurately is completely absent, and the millions of Ukrainian civilians butchered by wayward Russian missiles is astounding... of course when your missiles miss then you have to fire more of them which is probably why they were running out by the second week of this conflict and have had to go to masters of modern weaponry like Fiji and the islands of Tokalau to get more long range precision guided missiles... just look at western media and british newspaper websites for all the proof you need...

Their weapons look solid and they are producing what they need to get the job done and if the west wasn't throwing weapons and ammo and fuel and money at Kiev they would have collapsed within about 4 months of this conflict starting.

Instead after enormous numbers of Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in meaningless attacks and incursions there is a bit of a stalemate, except it is not a stalemate, it is a meat grinder chewing up anyone Kiev wants to send to the front line while western countries send more and more money to sustain a losing side that only stays together to receive money with no oversight.

Elections in the US will likely end this conflict if Kiev does not collapse before then, because this is Bidens war... his family is just making too much money on this for him to let it stop.

The Kh-22 and Kh-22M were horrible missiles for the ground crew... the fuel was called something like red fuming nitric acid and was horrible stuff that had to be loaded into the missile just before being loaded on to the aircraft.

I rather suspect the stuff that the Kh-32 uses is probably more energetic and therefore worse.

Being rocket fuel it contains both the fuel and the oxygen containing substances to rapidly burn that fuel.

I am sure the ground crews would love for both to be replaced, but the Kh-32 flies to the target at 40km altitude at mach 4.5 so not very many things can engage it and it is in mass serial production.

The Kh-32 is basically the same design as the Kh-22M but with upgraded electronics and new rocket motors so I would think if they are inclined they could convert most of the old missiles to the new standard and get thousands of new faster missiles.

They are supposedly working on a new missile that is 11m long that is a two stage missile with the rear stage based on the Kh-32.

Personally I would think such a two stage missile would work best with the front section being a fuel tank that uses the fuel to absorb the heat from flight at such speeds and then is released with the rear portion continuing on to the target with full fuel and its scramjet switching from front fuel tank to internal fuel tanks for the rest of the flight.

Based on the design that could mean the rear missile could be a Zircon type weapon but double the fuel, and the front missile could probably carry four times more fuel as it would be all fuel, which should massively increase flight range for the entire weapon... it is supposed to be a strategic missile (12K km range at mach 10+ speed).

Well the fuel it uses is very energetic, but I don't think the fuel Zircon uses is any less energetic... the difference is that Kh-32 carries a tank full of a chemical the main fuel is mixed with which essentially causes it to explode in the combustion chamber.... I would suspect the scramjet motor design is intended to compress enough air to contain enough oxygen for the fuel that is added to burn fully, but not having to slow it down means a very high velocity exhaust stream without needing large volumes of fuel.

Perhaps the Kh-32 uses a more energetic oxidiser?

Either way they still use the Iskander and Kinzhal and they are solid rocket propelled, and of course their subsonic weapons also use liquid fuel and indeed their scramjet powered missiles like Zircon still use high energy fuel, but scoops up the oxidiser in flight so is less likely to detonate if ruptured.

They were working on a huge range of new missiles they were about to release but I suspect things already in production that work make rather more sense to continue to using in large volumes and to change to newer systems later on... perhaps with testing now to tweak the design and get it right before clearing it for mass production.

Obviously the LMUR missile and various drones seem to have been experimental and are now in serial production...

GarryB wrote:Kh-31 and Kh-35 and Granit and Moskit and Vulcan etc etc all had land attack capacity added, the technology was developed with India when they gave Onyx the ability to hit land based targets too.

Rubbish! Zero help from India. Land attack Algorithms were developed by Tactical Missile Corporation themselves.

Vulcan is at least two generations ahead of Brahmos. When fired in a swarm  one of the Vulcan missile climbs to a higher altitude and designates targets while the others attack. Brahmos never had any such capabilities.

GarryB wrote:Personally I would think such a two stage missile would work best with the front section being a fuel tank that uses the fuel to absorb the heat from flight at such speeds.

If the front section is the fuel tank it will be destroyed during the cruise phase because of extremely high Mach speed (Mach 6 and above).

@Tolstoy

Vulcan is pretty potent but I think you are confusing it with Granit.

Brahmos was developed from Onyx - which in turn was designed to eventually replace a number of missiles including Granit.