Tu-22M3: News

Tu-22M3M

Τhe video also says that Tu-22M3M will become part of the nuclear tiad. Probably they mean with the new Kh-50 cruise missile

They should integrate the Kinzhal into it. Replace the Kh-32 with the Kinzhal.

How did you figure that they didn't?
Besides, they still have Ch-22 stock and a working line for Ch-32.
Both are deadly and out of reach to any western AD system - which we know crystal clear.

ALAMO wrote:How did you figure that they didn't?
Besides, they still have Ch-22 stock and a working line for Ch-32.
Both are deadly and out of reach to any western AD system - which we know crystal clear.

It is basically a one of a kind weapon, it uses an engine nothing else uses, it requires handling of toxic hypergolic fuel at air bases. And it is slower and has less range than the Kinzhal.

Little to recommend about it. It probably has more advanced guidance and sensors. But you could in theory put those in Kinzhal as well.

No no no. It was not my point.
Tu-22M was cited as a Kinzhal carrier from the very beginning.
So I guess all of the modernized ones are capable of.
It will have a slightly smaller range as the release envelope won't match the MiG-31, but can be longer ranged as a system - Tu-22M has a much longer range rather than MiG-31 and is more suitable for long endurance flights.
But they have hundreds of Ch-22 in storage, an a running line for production of ch-32 and ch-22 modernization to the standard. It is a perfectly suitable missile with a devastating 1000km range. NATO can't intercept it as a log as they won't place an AEGIS on its flight path.

Arrow wrote:SM-3 Block II is able to cintercept Kinzhal, Kh-32, Tsirkon class missiles? Is the missile able to intercept targets only outside the atmosphere?

A missile designed specifically against ballistics missiles is not a good option for intercept manouvering missiles, they would use SM-6 instead.

Τhe video also says that Tu-22M3M will become part of the nuclear tiad. Probably they mean with the new Kh-50 cruise missile

Now they have working scramjet motors and flying hypersonic missiles in operational service I rather suspect they will soon developing much longer ranged missiles with much better performance that are smaller and lighter than the Kh-32 rocket propelled missile.

They should integrate the Kinzhal into it. Replace the Kh-32 with the Kinzhal.

Kinzhal is probably only 50% lighter than the Kh-32 and uses solid rocket technology.

Right now carrying three Kh-32 is probably good enough, but the potential for carrying large missiles makes the Backfire useful, but they have MiG-31K for the Kinzhal, for which it is optimised. I would say the Tu-22M3M with the family members of Club but without the export restrictions makes rather more sense.

The mach 3 rocket propelled Club uses a turbofan engine for long range subsonic flight... in the export model it is limited to about 250km because the missile is limited to 300km range in total.

I would say a Club with a new rocket payload and 1,500km range of flight would be rather interesting.

But the new missiles they are working on should be plenty... scramjet propulsion on its own will revolutionise how Russian planes destroy western targets.

It is basically a one of a kind weapon, it uses an engine nothing else uses, it requires handling of toxic hypergolic fuel at air bases. And it is slower and has less range than the Kinzhal.

Most modern high energy fuels are going to be nasty.

It is an operational in service weapon that is probably amongst the most effective their navy currently operates.

I would say an air launched version of Zircon would make more sense... being much lighter and faster and with equivalent range from a Backfire.

SM-3 Block II is able to cintercept Kinzhal, Kh-32, Tsirkon class missiles?

If Patriot PAC-3 can't do it then SM-3 probably wont either... these missiles were designed with such defences expected and are designed to evade defences as much as to hit targets.

Is the missile able to intercept targets only outside the atmosphere?

AFAIK it is designed to hit ballistic targets that are just going fast. It is not designed to hit a target that is actively trying to evade its interception.

Arrow wrote:SM-6 meringue is very difficult to capture Ch 22/35, Kinzhal/Tsirkon. The missiles fly much higher than the ceiling of the SM-6. The only chance of interception is in the terminal phase before the target.

Yes. but ABM missiles couldn't catch a missile that could easily change its own direction in the horizontal plane, so game, set, match.

Going back to the TU-22 M3M how many have they delivered? did they end up replacing the engine with the NK-32?

Zero. And no it is still using the NK-25.
I assume it was physically impossible to fit the NK-32 in the airframe. There was a Tu-22M4 variant which never entered serial production in Soviet times with the NK-32 but that was with a new airframe.

the NK-32 is actually a smaller diameter then the 25 and only 15cm longer. So its definitely doable, but who knows if its worth it, how many 25's they have instorage, parts how long do they want to operate the tu22 or there maybe some other reason its not feasible to switch.

Just an observation, the Tu-22M is proving itself to be a very capable missile launch platform with a carrying capacity between the Tu-160 and Su-34. I don't know why the Russian airforce decided to stop production of such aircraft but I think it is worth taking a second look at this class of medium-sized bomber and develop replacements in the future. I think the main advantages of the Tu-22m is its supersonic speed and higher payload capacity compared to the Su-34, while its not as heavy/ bulky as the Tu-160.

As a bomb truck the supersonic speed capacity is not that useful I would guess... the new upgraded glide kits with the larger wing surfaces that extend glide bomb range from 50-60km to 70-80km would be a great way to turn dumb iron bombs into standoff guided weapons at a very respectable price.

The replacement for the Backfire will likely be the PAK DA, which will also replace the Bear in the theatre and strategic roles respectively.

The flying wing design will be subsonic, but should be rather fuel efficient and relatively cheap to operate.

For theatre missions some of the extra fuel will be offset to carry a heavier internal payload, while for strategic missions a smaller payload and extra fuel enables strategic flight ranges.

The PAK DA will also likely have self defence air to air missiles and also the new equivalent of the short range attack missiles like the Kh-15 to hit ground and air targets with a nuclear device to defeat air defences and enemy aircraft.

PhSt wrote:Just an observation, the Tu-22M is proving itself to be a very capable missile launch platform with a carrying capacity between the Tu-160 and Su-34. I don't know why the Russian airforce decided to stop production of such aircraft but I think it is worth taking a second look at this class of medium-sized bomber and develop replacements in the future. I think the main advantages of the Tu-22m is its supersonic speed and higher payload capacity compared to the Su-34, while its not as heavy/ bulky as the Tu-160.

They are in the process of upgrading 30 to the Tu-22M3M standard. It will probably still be able to carry a fairly heavy bomb load, but the main role will be a hypersonic missile carrier. A true "no analogues" strike aircraft!

They have dozens of those out of combat service and stored.
Can do that any moment, as new engines are already available.
There is no need to "produce" them, only modernize the existing fleet in being.

Chinese have H-6.
Don't be fooled by the fact that it is Tu-16 development.
It is a perfectly fine strategic bomber, and younger than most of the competitors out there other than Tu-160M and freshly modernized Tu-22.

GarryB wrote:
The flying wing design will be subsonic, but should be rather fuel efficient and relatively cheap to operate.

I agree that PAKDA is a good successor to the Bear, its got stealth features, perhaps slightly higher speeds, and almost double the payload capacity (27,000 kg for PAKDA vs 15,000 for Bear)

But I think the Supersonic speed of the Backfire allows it to move in more quickly to a firing area, giving the enemy less time to react. Perhaps the stealth capability of the PAKDA will compensate for its lack of speed, I think another factor is how the enemy is able to detect the takeoff of an aircraft in preparation for missile strikes.

Mir wrote:
They are in the process of upgrading 30 to the Tu-22M3M standard. It will probably still be able to carry a fairly heavy bomb load, but the main role will be a hypersonic missile carrier. A true "no analogues" strike aircraft!

Yes, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Backfire is a unique supersonic missile carrier, where it fills in the niche position between the Tu-160 and the Mig 31.

ALAMO wrote:
There is no need to "produce" them, only modernize the existing fleet in being.

I'm not sure about the accuracy of the sources I'm looking at but it mentioned that close to 500+ units of the Backfire have been produced, with an unknown allegedly large number being inherited by Ukraine.
At the moment, sources claim that Russia currently has 57 Backfires in active service, I guess it's not bad considering the USAF operates 62 Lancers. Its surprising to know that the Backfire has a slightly higher payload capacity than the Lancer.

As for my proposal, its not to restart production of the Backfire, but to develop a successor, a supersonic missile carrier of the medium class. (Tu-160 being heavy class while Mig-31/Future Mig-41 being the light class)

PhSt wrote:As for my proposal, its not to restart production of the Backfire, but to develop a successor, a supersonic missile carrier of the medium class. (Tu-160 being heavy class while Mig-31/Future Mig-41 being the light class)

I suspect the MiG-41 will be much bigger than the MiG-31 but smaller than the Tu-22, which would make it closer to a medium-class supersonic missile carrier. It wouldn't be able to fly around at Mach 4+ while carrying 7 ton Kinzhals externally so a bigger aircraft with a large weapons bay to carry the payload internally is a no-brainer.

Even though the PAK-DA is the official successor to the Tu-22, in reality the MiG-41 will fulfill the functions of both the MiG-31 and Tu-22.