Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-22M3: News

    Share

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:44 am

    Repair is not possible without a contract

    Companies Joint Engine Corporation (JDC) will begin to repair engines NK-25 bombers Tu-22M3.

    According to the Executive Director of the JDC Basil Lapotko, "by NK-25 provides for only the repairs that are not produced since 1992. At the same time, there is no contract with the Defense Ministry to carry out repairs NC-25 this year, so we can not exclude that he will only begin in 2011. Lapotko noted that JDC consider it necessary to upgrade and start reproduction for long range aircraft of Russian Air Force aircraft engines NK-25 for the Tu-22M3 and NC-32 for strategic bombers Tu-160.

    Executive Director of the JDC said that "both engines need to upgrade, but the military insisted on the reproduction of only NC-32. Such decisions are taken by the customer, and we will only sell them. "

    http://vpk.name/news/38676_remont_bez_dogovora_nevozmozhen.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:38 am

    Two very similar engines for aircraft with similar performance requirements.

    I would think it would make a lot of sense just to upgrade and improve one engine and then modify the other aircraft to take that new engine.

    Of course, with the new upgrades making the Tu-95 and Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 capable of precision conventional strike missions if you are planning to make more Tu-160s then the question must be asked do you need all three types?

    Before it was not a problem because the Tu-95 and Tu-160 were strategic aircraft only while the conventional bomber was the Tu-22M3. With the upgrades however it would probably make more sense to use two instead of 3.

    Of course instead of scrapping the Airforces Tu-22M3 they could be handed over to naval aviation as spares.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:28 am

    The last Tu-22M3 was made in 1992 so it can serve another 15-20 years. Getting a contract for engine maintenance should be a no brainer. Understand not building more engines, Tu-160 is the production aircraft so stick with it. There are well over a hundred Backfires that are available for cannibalisation for a fleet of 84 aircraft. Waste of money to put the SVP-24 in an aircraft thats best place is as a naval strike platform. Money would be better spent developing a successor to the Kh-22. It hasn't been deployed in three years which tells us it is no longer serviceable. So it is a safe bet to say today, we have no naval support from the Backfires. Now that I think about it, that is probably why there is a delay for the engine orders.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:13 am

    Western 'experts' claim there is already a replacement for the AS-4... that looks just like the AS-4 externally but has higher speed and double the range and is called the Kh-32 or something.
    The AS-4 missile has been displayed at western airshows as a mach 5 test bed for research.
    Is there such a missile as Kh-32 or have those western experts got the wrong end of the stick again?
    Equally the Kh-15 has really only been seen deployed on the Tu-22M3 AFAIK, is that missile still in use? Some western sources claim the Tu-160 can carry it, with 12 mounted in each of the two weapon bays to suppress enemy air defences. Other western sources claim it was only carried by the Tu-22M3 for the same purpose.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:09 pm

    From what I read, Kh-32 was just a modernised Kh-22. That was like 10 years ago. I don't think anything came of it since no one has talked about it since 2001. Kh-15 was pretty much a nuclear weapon. The conventional role they wanted to give it never materialised as the guidance was not accurate enough. I would like to see an extended range hypersonic Brahmos put into the rotary launchers. You could carry enough to saturate the AEGIS air defence from one aircraft.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:02 am

    I doubt any modification of Brahmos would fit in the rotary launcher of the Tu-22M3.
    It was pretty much designed for the Kh-15 I think and for conventional use it was to carry 1,500kg HE bombs.
    By weight it should be able to carry 4 large weapons externally on 4 external hard points.
    The Brahmos should be much lighter than the Kh-22 so it could possibly carry 4 externally.
    The max payload of Kh-22s was three, with two on the wing pylons and one semi recessed where the bomb bay is.
    With the lighter Brahmos you could probably carry two more on the forward points where it often carries multiple ejector racks for bombs making a max practical load of 5 weapons.
    With hypersonic speed they would be devastating weapons... I wonder if the Americans would mind if the Russian AF removed them from the inventory and handed them over to the Navy in a non-strategic role and fitted them all with inflight refuelling probes again... Twisted Evil

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:19 am

    Need a picture of the beast...




    Waste of money to put the SVP-24 in an aircraft thats best place is as a naval strike platform.

    By the look of this photo there are SVP-24s for every aircraft... including helos:



    And that plane again... Smile :



    Just noticed the above plane with Kh-?? missiles with the copyright notice for 2008.
    Hope they have updated the missiles and they are now Kh-32s and hopefully solid fuelled missiles now, because the old missiles had liquid propellants that sounded really nasty (Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (IRFNA) to be mixed with hydrazine fuel.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:04 am

    SVP-24 = poor mans bomb sight

    The flight envelop to get an accurate drop is skirting the edge of MANPADs. While other air forces have turned to PGMs that can stand off from SHORAD, we are still paying for this shit. The government is too cheap to make a serious upgrade and really has little intention of buying smart bombs in numbers.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:24 pm

    Actually I read somewhere that part of the new submission for the procurement spending plan for 2011-2020 includes what was called an 18 fold increase in guided munitions. This was supposed to increase the percentage of GMs to 70% of the inventory. This suggests the current figure is 4% which is clearly too low.

    I think you are being a little harsh on the SV-24 system I think it is a good thing to have a CCIP system it seems to have made the Su-24 pilots happier. The difference between being able to drop bombs accurately in free flight while manoeuvring will likely greatly improve their survival chances. Remember not all weapons deployed by aircraft are guided... the purpose of many weapons is to engage area targets like cluster bombs or KGMU containers.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5627
    Points : 6280
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Viktor on Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:50 pm

    Basically as US has done conversion from dumb to guided bombs Russia has chose to do it with SVP-24. How effective that solution is remains to be seeing. Different approach thats all.

    Kh-22 is intended for different purposes (nuclear, against ships and airdefences), as I read it can reach Mach 6 and 70km attitude witch is formidable.
    Kh-32 refferes to its upgrade.

    As part of the plan to upgrade Tu-22M3 bombers to Tu-22M5 standards, Raduga has extensively modernized the Kh-22 missile. Designated Kh-32, the new weapon features a new propulsion system and a new warhead. Its capability to attack land targets is better than that of the Kh-22.[12]

    Raduga also assists in the modernization of Tu-95MS and Tu-160 bombers, which will enable them to carry the new Kh-101 and Kh-102 ALCMs. Modernization work is performed at the 360th Aircraft Repair Facility in Ryazan under the Air Force modernization plan in effect until 2005. Tu-22M3 bombers are also being modernized to accept Raduga's Kh-32 missile. The modernization plan will cost up to 1.1 billion rubles.[13]

    http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/delivry/raduga.htm

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:58 am

    GarryB wrote:Actually I read somewhere that part of the new submission for the procurement spending plan for 2011-2020 includes what was called an 18 fold increase in guided munitions. This was supposed to increase the percentage of GMs to 70% of the inventory. This suggests the current figure is 4% which is clearly too low.

    Their answer isn't to increase spending 18 fold. The answer is to dispose of 2 million tonnes of munitions. When 90% of the fleet will be incapable of using the new PGMs, reaching a 70% ratio will be a piece of cake. Even the French arsenal will dwarf Russia. KTRV was promised an order worth $160 million at MAKS, they have yet to get paid.

    I think you are being a little harsh on the SV-24 system I think it is a good thing to have a CCIP system it seems to have made the Su-24 pilots happier. The difference between being able to drop bombs accurately in free flight while manoeuvring will likely greatly improve their survival chances. Remember not all weapons deployed by aircraft are guided... the purpose of many weapons is to engage area targets like cluster bombs or KGMU containers.

    When was the last time NATO aircraft dropped dumb bombs? 1991? Even Turkey is using JDAMs to take out PKK.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:20 pm

    It appears MoD has bailed on SVP-24 link

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:40 am

    Basically as US has done conversion from dumb to guided bombs Russia has chose to do it with SVP-24. How effective that solution is remains to be seeing. Different approach thats all.

    I disagree. Up until very recently only a very small percentage of Russian air force aircraft even had precision guided weapon capability. The vast majority of guided weapons were carried mainly by customised aircraft like the Su-24 or the Mig-27K and the less expensive Mig-27M. With all the single engine aircraft withdrawn from service and most aircraft not getting upgrades this meant that most guided weapons were air to air missiles fitted to fighters and anti tank guided missiles fired from helicopters with most of the rest of the air fleet carrying dumb bombs and dumb rockets.
    The standard armament of the Su-25 was bombs, including cluster bombs, rockets and the built in gun and of course gun pods.
    It never had the role of the A-10 of behind the front lines loitering looking for armour to attack so most targets could be dealt with using rockets or bombs.

    Right now however with upgraded and new aircraft entering service it actually makes sense for them to spend money on guided weapons, but the problem here is that a single guided weapon is more effective than say 15 unguided weapons of the same type they tend to cost 5-10 times more so while on paper your performance is greatly improved you had better hope for a short war, which of course can not be guaranteed.

    GPS stops working above a certain height and above certain speeds to prevent its use in military applications, so for most of its weapons to use satellite guidance the Russians really do need Glonass because there is no alternative.
    As GLONASS improves in accuracy and performance satellite guided weapons will become more useful and more effective and production of these weapons in significant numbers will reduce costs and make a GLONASS guidance package and INS system for every bomb cheap enough to make all bombs guided. For rockets a simple laser seeker with nose mounted canards can be used like the Ugroza system to make rocket pods much more cost effective weapons and of course in cases where accuracy is not needed (ie area target suppression) then unguided rockets can be used.

    BTW interesting info on the Kh-32... thanks Victor.

    Their answer isn't to increase spending 18 fold. The answer is to dispose of 2 million tonnes of munitions.

    Their answer is to spend the money in the budget so that 70% of the weapons bought are guided. This compares to 4% previously.

    I think this is a move in the right direction.

    I think this will expose the problems of a large portion of the fleet not being able to use the new munitions and will hopefully lead to more upgrades of existing aircraft.

    So far it is clear more Su-27s will get upgrades, the Su-24s that were going to get upgrades have had them, the Tu-22M3, Tu-160 and Tu-95 are going to receive upgrades, the Su-25 is going to receive upgrades and possibly re-enter production, the Mi-28N and Ka-52s should already be capable of using guided weapons already and will get Hermes when it has been tested. The Mig-31BM upgrade is continuing. As far as I can tell they are actually talking about guided air to ground or air to surface weapons and not air to air missiles, so this really only effects aircraft designed and operated in the air to ground role. The fact that most of the Mig-29 fleet can't use laser guided bombs wont be an issue because that is what the Su-24 and Su-34 are for. The Mig-29 pilots wont even get air to ground training most likely, just as Su-24 will only get defensive air to air training.

    Any of those munitions they want to get rid of much of it will be obsolete and unsafe.

    Even the French arsenal will dwarf Russia. KTRV was promised an order worth $160 million at MAKS, they have yet to get paid.

    And this is a problem because you would think once they heard the order announced that they would take steps to prepare to fill that order... this costs money.

    The Russian military has been talking tough about new stuff and shaking the military industrial complex into action after years of forced inaction. The problem is that if there is no money then they are just blowing smoke... again.
    Why should UVZ come up with new tank designs when programs keep getting cut and they never get money promised? Why not just sit on their backsides and wait and eventually the Government will decide to licence produce Leopards or Leclercs and then the money will have to come.

    When was the last time NATO aircraft dropped dumb bombs? 1991? Even Turkey is using JDAMs to take out PKK.

    When was the last time Russia was invading a country on morality grounds and feared bad publicity because they knew they were the aggressor?

    A dumb bomb accurately dropped in the midst of an all out Chinese attack will still do the job. The whole point of the Su-25 is to get in close and see the target and drop bombs on them... if you replace your dumb bombs with guided bombs then you need to replace the CAS aircraft with medium altitude Su-27SM and Mig-29SMTs.

    It appears MoD has bailed on SVP-24 link

    Further equipment Su-24 by systems [SVP]-24 is located open to question In the text of the news the following themes of the library are mentioned Production A -50 KA -50 MiG-27 Su-24 Su-24[M] Su-25 Tu-22[M]3 Personas [Popovkin] Vladimir Other news on the themes indicated, you can see on the personal pages of the themes Moscow. On December 9. Airport - further modernization of combatant aircraft Su-24 into the version Su-24[M] with the installation of system [SVP]-24 is located open to question, reported " [AviaPortu]" the Director-General of the privately held company of " Hephaestus [T]" Alexander Panin. " The deputy minister of defense Vladimir [Popovkin] forewent the planned for the following year financing of conducting the modernization of combatant front bombers Su-24[M] with the equipment with their specialized computational subsystem [SVP]-24, in spite of the solution at the level of [glavkoma] VVS about the need of conducting similar of [modernizatsii]" , collocutor noted. He supplemented, that " today it cannot be spoken, that the modernization of combatant Su-24[M] is ended, since inside the Ministry of Defense for this problem there are different of [mneniya]". [A].[Panin] emphasized that the effectiveness [SVP]-24 was confirmed by the crew of the line unit, into service with which entered the equipped with the series technology bombers Su-24[M]. [Ekspluatanty], which fly in the modernized combatant machines, they indicate that this modernization is necessary. " Those modernized Su-24[M] showed excellent results during all studies, including of " West -2009" and " Vostok-2010". From the system there are no observations, all [ekspluatanty] indicate that the tested in the system solutions very of [effektivny]" , collocutor noted. According to [A].[Panina], it is until today modernized in the series order of " more than 10 combatant Su-24[M]" and one bomber Tu-22[M]3. It refined that the privately held company of " Hephaestus [T]" modernized for its own calculation one strategic bomber Tu-22[M]3. " However, on this entire modernization of aircraft of this type (Tu-22[M]3), judging by everything, and [zavershilas]" , assumes the director general of company. Privately held company of " Hephaestus [T]" also developed the versions of the modernization of aircraft Su-25, MiG-27, L -39, A -50 Tu-22[M]3. Analogous TO [SVP]-24 system was tested on the helicopter KA -50, as a result of which the combat effectiveness of machine it increased 2,5 times. However, this theme did not obtain development. Dmitriy Kozlov


    I would edit that down to its important points like this:

    Further equipment Su-24 by systems [SVP]-24 is located open to question
    Ie the decision to upgrade more Su-24s has not been made yet.

    further modernization of combatant aircraft Su-24 into the version Su-24[M] with the installation of system [SVP]-24 is located open to question, reported " [AviaPortu]" the Director-General of the privately held company of " Hephaestus [T]" Alexander Panin. "

    ie The director of the company that makes the SVP-24 says he does not have funding or an order to install their product on more Su-24s.

    The deputy minister of defense Vladimir [Popovkin] forewent the planned for the following year financing of conducting the modernization of combatant front bombers Su-24[M] with the equipment with their specialized computational subsystem [SVP]-24, in spite of the solution at the level of [glavkoma] VVS about the need of conducting similar of [modernizatsii]" , collocutor noted.

    ie They haven't given us money to continue the upgrade on more aircraft despite the VVS claiming a need for the upgrade... the director continues.

    He supplemented, that " today it cannot be spoken, that the modernization of combatant Su-24[M] is ended, since inside the Ministry of Defense for this problem there are different of [mneniya]".

    ie the Director says that the Su-24 will be upgraded further and that within the ministry of defence there is a disagreement on what is upgraded rather than whether it will be upgraded.

    [A].[Panin] emphasized that the effectiveness [SVP]-24 was confirmed by the crew of the line unit, into service with which entered the equipped with the series technology bombers Su-24[M]. [Ekspluatanty], which fly in the modernized combatant machines, they indicate that this modernization is necessary. " Those modernized Su-24[M] showed excellent results during all studies, including of " West -2009" and " Vostok-2010". From the system there are no observations, all [ekspluatanty] indicate that the tested in the system solutions very of [effektivny]" , collocutor noted.

    ie Our product has been tested in exercises and the users think it is wonderful and a necessary piece of kit.

    According to [A].[Panina], it is until today modernized in the series order of " more than 10 combatant Su-24[M]" and one bomber Tu-22[M]3. It refined that the privately held company of " Hephaestus [T]" modernized for its own calculation one strategic bomber Tu-22[M]3. " However, on this entire modernization of aircraft of this type (Tu-22[M]3), judging by everything, and [zavershilas]" , assumes the director general of company. Privately held company of " Hephaestus [T]" also developed the versions of the modernization of aircraft Su-25, MiG-27, L -39, A -50 Tu-22[M]3.

    ie we developed an upgraded SVP-24 for the Tu-22M3 and installed it and we have also developed versions for the Su-25, Mig-27, Ka-50, L-39, A-50, and Backfire. (Note not sure why an AWACS like the A-50 would need a bombing computer...)

    Analogous TO [SVP]-24 system was tested on the helicopter KA -50, as a result of which the combat effectiveness of machine it increased 2,5 times. However, this theme did not obtain development. Dmitriy Kozlov

    ie self explanatory.

    So overall it sounds to me like this story is actually the director of a company selling his product and at the same time asking the government why they aren't buying more of his product.

    There are no comments by the government itself so I pretty much see this as airing their laundry in public to get a continuation of their upgrade order.

    The facts as the director of the company sees them is that his system is popular and effective so why aren't you ordering more.

    Sounds a bit like the first post in this thread... the engine company has contracts to upgrade NS-32 engines and it is wondering out loud where the contracts to upgrade the NS-25 are.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:40 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Their answer is to spend the money in the budget so that 70% of the weapons bought are guided. This compares to 4% previously.

    The answer is to make a quantitative reduction of the arsenal. Scrap the old dumb bombs so the low numbers of guided looks big. The number of guided munitions is more in the .4% range. We have over 100k dumb bombs, but only several hundred smart, most of which do not work.

    I think this will expose the problems of a large portion of the fleet not being able to use the new munitions and will hopefully lead to more upgrades of existing aircraft.

    The existing aircraft are already 25 years old. Without expensive reinforcement and overhaul, they will not last more than 27. By the time upgrade takes place, they will be on their way out. Upgrade does not take place because it is too little too late. Hopefully they are saving the money for new builds.

    So far it is clear more Su-27s will get upgrades,

    Somebody posted an RIA Novosti article stating VVS is not likely to get them.


    the Su-24s that were going to get upgrades have had them, the Tu-22M3, Tu-160 and Tu-95 are going to receive upgrades...The Mig-31BM upgrade is continuing.

    Keep up Garry, only one Tu-22M3 was upgraded at the expense of the company and no more coming. Tu-95 finished their upgrades in 2005, 34 total. Tu-160 too few to worry about. Su-24SM = 10 and the government has refused to place more in GAZ. MiG-31BM upgrades are completed at 10. VVS pays lip service to modernisation.

    The fact that most of the Mig-29 fleet can't use laser guided bombs wont be an issue because that is what the Su-24 and Su-34 are for. The Mig-29 pilots wont even get air to ground training most likely, just as Su-24 will only get defensive air to air training.

    I hope we won't be left behind with that Soviet era thinking. Multi-role means doing more with less, and we are certainly headed for quite a bit less.

    Any of those munitions they want to get rid of much of it will be obsolete and unsafe.

    The US uses bombs left over from Vietnam and turns them into JDAMs. Dumb bombs have a very long shelf life. Making conversion kits for the tens of thousands of FAB-500s should be a top priority. Not detonating them because we are too cheap to come into the 21st century.


    When was the last time Russia was invading a country on morality grounds and feared bad publicity because they knew they were the aggressor?

    A dumb bomb accurately dropped in the midst of an all out Chinese attack will still do the job. The whole point of the Su-25 is to get in close and see the target and drop bombs on them... if you replace your dumb bombs with guided bombs then you need to replace the CAS aircraft with medium altitude Su-27SM and Mig-29SMTs.

    The PLA has large numbers of SHORAD, going on short bomb and rocket runs would be suicide. We need fighter bombers with the capability of stand-off from SHORAD to deal with them. This requires pods like Domacles which gives the resolution and range to do the job. Modern fighters can fly high to take out those SHORAD then Su-25s can finish them off.


    I would edit that down to its important points like this:

    Further equipment Su-24 by systems [SVP]-24 is located open to question
    Ie the decision to upgrade more Su-24s has not been made yet.

    I would edit it to the one fact posted. "Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin abandoned plans for next year's funding for combatant modernization of the Su-24M, equipping them with specialized computer subsystem of the SVP-24, despite a decision at the Air Force Commander of the need for such modernization,"

    Once you understand what that means, the effect becomes self explanatory. T-95 ring any bells?


    Sounds a bit like the first post in this thread... the engine company has contracts to upgrade NS-32 engines and it is wondering out loud where the contracts to upgrade the NS-25 are.

    It is a clear cut case of priority. Tu-160 over Tu-22M3. Only 1 Backfire upgraded and at the expense of the supplier. It is self explanatory VVS has no intention investing in Tu-22M3, especially after the Georgian bungle. Su-34 will fill its tactical role while longer range bombers its strategic. We already know MiG-31 has no contracts for engines, just waiting for word on Su-24 to nail its coffin. This piece is the first.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:51 am

    The answer is to make a quantitative reduction of the arsenal. Scrap the old dumb bombs so the low numbers of guided looks big. The number of guided munitions is more in the .4% range. We have over 100k dumb bombs, but only several hundred smart, most of which do not work.

    Well if that is what they are doing then I think they are making a mistake. Dumb bombs can easily have guidance packages attached and suddenly they are guided weapons for a reduced price and if you do it properly they wont need modification of the aircraft to use them.

    Perhaps they will go the same way as NATO and most pilots will only ever fire "simulation" weapons in training. Cheaper. No chance of UXO littering the range. Not totally realistic.


    The existing aircraft are already 25 years old. Without expensive reinforcement and overhaul, they will not last more than 27. By the time upgrade takes place, they will be on their way out. Upgrade does not take place because it is too little too late. Hopefully they are saving the money for new builds.

    Based on this:

    General-Lieutenant Sadofyev told RIA Novosti the VVS will receive 1,500 new, and 400 modernized aircraft by 2020. The Chief of Aviation said the State Defense Order (GOZ or ГОЗ) for 2011 includes acquisition of Su-27SM, Su-30M2, Su-34, Su-35S, and Yak-130 aircraft for the VVS, as well as Ka-52, Mi-28N, Mi-8AMTSh (MTV-5-1), Ka-226, Ansat-U helicopters for Army Aviation. But he provided no specific procurement numbers for next year.
    For Long-Range Aviation (LRA or ДА), he said the VVS will modernize existing Tu-160, Tu-95MS, Tu-22M3, and Il-78M aircraft. The goal is to update 80 percent of this inventory in what he calls the medium-term future – defined by him as 2020. What he has in mind here is service life extension and the replacement of some electronics and other systems.

    I would say the upgrade of the Su-27SM will continue and that the Tu-22M3 will get an upgrade but most of the aircraft listed above are new builds except for the long range aviation aircraft, but I would expect the improvements in electronics alone there is enormous scope to upgrade those aircraft.

    Somebody posted an RIA Novosti article stating VVS is not likely to get them.

    The quote above is from RIA Novosti and suggests there is funding for the Su-27SM.

    Keep up Garry, only one Tu-22M3 was upgraded at the expense of the company and no more coming.

    The Gefest company upgraded one Tu-22M3 with their computer bombing system... clearly in the hopes that the Russian military will try it and like it enough to order it. They have already stated the Tu-22M3 is getting upgraded along with the other long range aviation assets, but they haven't mentioned what will be upgraded. This is the Gefest company fishing.

    Tu-95 finished their upgrades in 2005, 34 total. Tu-160 too few to worry about. Su-24SM = 10 and the government has refused to place more in GAZ. MiG-31BM upgrades are completed at 10. VVS pays lip service to modernisation.

    One of the series problems of the Tu-160 is that no two are the same. An exaggeration I know but the purpose of the upgrade was a unification of systems, radar, and weapons between the Bear, Blackjack, and Backfire to improve commonality, reduce maintainence costs and operational costs and to give them all conventional attack capabilities. The Bear and Blackjack being cruise missile carriers till the post cold war period and the air to ground capacity of the Tu-22M3 was significant in terms of weapon load, but poor in terms of delivery performance against point targets. It was an area bomber or grid square bomber.

    I hope we won't be left behind with that Soviet era thinking. Multi-role means doing more with less, and we are certainly headed for quite a bit less.

    That is what I thought but you need to change a few things first. Mig-29s operate as point defence interceptors and the Flankers basically similar but with longer reach and a bit more independence from ground controllers.
    Strike missions are handled by Su-24s, and Tu-22m3s and now Su-34s.
    CAS is Su-25s and Helicopters.
    The idea of multirole aircraft is nice, but in actual practise the units equipped with Flankers and Fulcrums wont be performing missions of Fencers and Frogfeet.
    That is why the Russian military was never interested in the SMT upgrade for the Mig-29 or the Su-39 or Su-25TM... they have fighters and they have bombers... why spend money making a fighter a bomber or a bomber a fighter when you already have both.

    The US uses bombs left over from Vietnam and turns them into JDAMs. Dumb bombs have a very long shelf life. Making conversion kits for the tens of thousands of FAB-500s should be a top priority. Not detonating them because we are too cheap to come into the 21st century.

    I fully agree. As Glonass becomes more accurate it just makes sense to develop guidance kits... I mean even these days you can get a palm computer with GPS receiver chips built in that could perform the calculations to shift a couple of control surfaces to manoeuvre a bomb into a target. They don't have to be big or expensive.

    The PLA has large numbers of SHORAD, going on short bomb and rocket runs would be suicide.

    Bazalt have already shown wing glider kits for dumb bombs that allow bombs to glide distances of 50km or more to a target.

    We need fighter bombers with the capability of stand-off from SHORAD to deal with them.

    The Hermes missile would have a range of about 20km from an Su-25SM and with its own terminal guidance the Frogfoot would not need to keep closing the target like the Su-25TM would with Vikhrs.

    This requires pods like Domacles which gives the resolution and range to do the job. Modern fighters can fly high to take out those SHORAD then Su-25s can finish them off.

    Agree though I would add that your modern fighters would be more effectively used dealing with enemy fighters and other aircraft, and perhaps some form of UAV drone flown low over the enemy to draw fire with a higher flying UAV noting where the ground fire is coming from and marking the coordinates and passing those back to HQ for targeting by all sorts of assets including Smerch, Hermes, Tochka and Iskander, and also passed to ground forces.

    I would edit it to the one fact posted. "Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin abandoned plans for next year's funding for combatant modernization of the Su-24M, equipping them with specialized computer subsystem of the SVP-24, despite a decision at the Air Force Commander of the need for such modernization,"

    If that were true then there would be no point to the article.
    Whether the upgrade program will get funding next year or not gives and indication that money cannot stretch to everything right away and that some programs have to wait.
    I would also say that while the Su-34 is being produced at such a slow rate that upgrades of the Su-24 become important in my opinion and I think this upgrade that gives the aircraft the ability to use unguided weapons in free flight with a good chance of hitting the target they are aiming at would be a good thing for any aircraft but fairly crucial for a strike aircraft like the Su-24.

    It is self explanatory VVS has no intention investing in Tu-22M3, especially after the Georgian bungle.

    I rather doubt the aircraft used in Georgia was a Tu-22M3 bomber. It is much more likely to have been a Tu-22MR recon aircraft, and I would suggest its failure in the Georgian campaign would have the same results as the effect of lack of Russian UAV recon capability.


    Just read on Ria novosti that the Russian army is to spend 300 billion rubles ($10 billion) in a drive to digitize its communications systems by 2012, the chief of the Russian General Staff Nikolai Makarov said on Tuesday.

    Regarding the Georgian campaign I would expect the Su-25 excelled in its role and was rather let down by two major concerns... lack of night and all weather capability and lack of being able to receive data from other platforms about targets and threats.

    Perhaps a deeper upgrade might be on the cards... one that includes DIRCMs and Hermes perhaps.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:45 am



    Nice shot of a Tu-22M3 with 6 x Kh-15 Kickback missiles n the internal rotary launcher plus two Kh-22M misiles underwing. This is a very heavy load.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:00 pm

    I have read that there are plans to produce a new engine for the Tu-160 starting in 2013, I have no other information, but talk of keeping Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 and Tu-95 in service suggests that perhaps the new engine might be adaptable for both the Tu-160 and the Tu-22M3.

    No other details given.

    I also recently read that the Su-25SM upgrade is being revisited and that a new upgrade is planned based on experience from the Georgian conflict and that new Single seat and two seat Su-25s will be built.

    ie
    Tests of advanced Su-25SM will be completed in 2012.
    15.08.11 12:12 Army, military, intelligence agencies

    Tests of advanced Su-25SM, equipped with a number of new aircraft systems is scheduled for completion in 2012, "Interfax-AVN," the military-industrial complex.

    "To date, the advanced Su-25SM has made about 20 successful test flights," - said the official.

    According to him, the Su-25SM "established new systems of defense, communications, new calculators."

    After completion of the test set for the defense of the Su-25SM, they will be equipped with all modernized single attack aircraft of this type and, possibly, new double-Su 25UBM. Set in a modern complex of Defense aircraft will significantly increase the combat capabilities of attack aircraft.

    source: http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/news/view/60825/

    Hopefully the new systems will include SVP-24 because if any aircraft needs to be able to deploy unguided weapons in free flight with some precision it is the Su-25.

    Against poorly armed opponents (ie ones not supported by a superpower with MANPADS et al) dumb bombs and dumb rockets accurately delivered is still a perfectly viable weapon for some targets.
    For MANPAD equipped targets a DIRCM system like the MANTA system being developed for the Ka-52 would be a useful addition and an active IR jammer and active radar jammer too.

    In fact a further upgrade of the Su-25TMs self defence suite might be useful, though the main threat will be small arms fire (taken care of with speed and low altitude and armour) and MANPADS (DIRCMs and high flight speed giving short engagement time as well as guided weapons for standoff attacks).

    Perhaps another aspect that might be improved is the gun where during the Georgian campaign I remember reading several pilots felt the rate of fire of the 30mm cannon was a little high and that even very short bursts was directing a lot more ammo down range than they wanted. They probably also wanted more ammo.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 732
    Points : 915
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:53 am

    Against poorly armed opponents (ie ones not supported by a superpower with MANPADS et al) dumb bombs and dumb rockets accurately delivered is still a perfectly viable weapon for some targets.
    For MANPAD equipped targets a DIRCM system like the MANTA system being developed for the Ka-52 would be a useful addition and an active IR jammer and active radar jammer too.


    GarryB in all the publiations i have read , the integrated DAS tested and planned for implementation on Kamov-52 is the much,much,much superior Vitebsk-M self protection suit (President-S in its export incarnation) which include an integrated MAWS and ARH missile jamming system a full spherical DIRCM and Chaff/Flare dispensers.
    You can read an interesting article on the subject here:

    www.scribd.com/doc/49794092/Self-Protection-Eastern-Style-Defence-Helicopter-Magazine

    Here instead you can see the DIRCM integrated in the system (naturally its export version President-S) in a video showing its main characteristics.


    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyPR6uL6NBI


    .... and in action in live tests


    www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hvZ5lU0MA0

    From all mine informations MANTA system is merely a joint venture program purposely aimed to export , in particular for integration on not russian aircraft and is optimized for VIP civil airplanes and slow transport aircraft (A400M, C-17, C-27, C-130 and C-295 etc..).
    Do you have any information that Russian Defence have abandoned,in the last few months,an highly advanced integrated DAS like Vitebsk-M, fruit of a long R&D program,in favour of an immensely inferior joint-project mainly designed for export and for protection of civil airliners from MANPADS ?




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:31 am

    Forgot about the President system, yes... substitute President for Manta in my previous posts.

    Hopefully it will be used in the new Su-25SM upgrade along with integration with Russian helos etc.

    I remember seeing components of President on a Mi-26 too.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 732
    Points : 915
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:34 pm

    GarryB wrote:Forgot about the President system, yes... substitute President for Manta in my previous posts.

    Hopefully it will be used in the new Su-25SM upgrade along with integration with Russian helos etc.

    I remember seeing components of President on a Mi-26 too.


    Yes the system was already tested two years ago and validated in live fire tests,on Mi-26 in both the improved internal version Vitebsk-M and the export version President-S.
    What sincerely i find truly worrying is that Mi-28N ,at today, don't have any serious integrated DAS on the horizon (a version of Vitebsk-M for Mi-28N/NM will be no ready before 2013 ...);if the situation is not a problem for the mass induction in Russian Armed Forces inserted in the 2020 modernization plan, which will ostensibly wait for the near completion of MI-28NM upgrade,with integration of "Hermes" AG missile and the new radar and optronic tracking system, the situation represent a significant problem for export potential of Mi-28E for at least 5-6 years .
    We all know that the Kamov product is ,obviously, vastly superior in pratically any cardinal parameter to Mi-28N .....but in the same measure also much more mantaineance intensive and difficult and slow to produce...,but taking into consideration that the high-composite hull of KA-50/52 is already (at least in its internal version) absurdely resilient to enemy fire


    http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/10/russian-approaches-to-combat-helicopter.html


    and that the lack of tail rotor render it much less prone to the type of damages responsible for majority of helicopter's downings and that the Mi-28E is offered now as the standard export attack helicopter in international tenders ,i find truly unexplicable that the priority for the adaption of the integrated DAS was not gived to Mi-28N/NM.
    From the last news seem that even the integration of the first helicopter AESA radar by Phazotron-NIIR will be for Ka-52/K , it is understandable to give the priority for new system test and integration to the platform by the greater potential ,but neglect in this way the platform which will be mass produced for Army truly puzzle me.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:05 am

    You raise a lot of valid questions... even late model Hinds had ESM equipment and jammers and warning systems etc.
    The fact that they have tested the system on the Mi-26 clearly shows they have worked with the system makers and the videos showing the system tests include videos of Mi-8s too.

    I didn't see any video footage of the Ka-52 with the system, and have seen only a couple of Kamovs with the system fitted, but the new Ka-52s seem to have the turret positions for the system if not the system itself which is a worry because there are no similar equivalents for the Mi-28Ns that I have seen.

    Apart from the wingtip pods earlier models don't seem to have the sensors you'd normally expect for a self defence suite, though I do remember seeing sensors on a recent build Mi-28N.

    I would expect both the Ka-52 and Mi-28N are amongst the best protected helos in the world with regard to armour protection.

    The vulnerability of the tail rotor to enemy fire is mainly during takeoff and landing and the threat is from unguided RPG rockets as few MANPADS will home in on a tail rotor structure. It is probably more of an issue for western helos as they tend to hover more, while Soviet and Russian helos don't hover to fire as much because their missiles don't trail control wires like TOW and HOT do.

    Therefore it is mostly transports that are vulnerable to RPG fire... and the best defence from that is good suppressive fire during landing and takeoff.

    From the last news seem that even the integration of the first helicopter AESA radar by Phazotron-NIIR will be for Ka-52/K , it is understandable to give the priority for new system test and integration to the platform by the greater potential ,but neglect in this way the platform which will be mass produced for Army truly puzzle me.

    An AESA radar in X band will give the helo a ground attack capability comparable to a modern fighterbomber, which is to say probably not as good as a MMW radar setup in the air to ground mode. It will be far better at much longer range to detect surface vessels and aircraft. I think there are two reasons for this... the Ka-52 already has the nose position for a radar array, and of course in the role of naval strike an AESA radar makes rather more sense than for an attack helo on land.

    It is very likely that the new Mi-28M will have a very different nose as the thimble antenna for the Shturm/Ataka will likely go and the optics arrangement will change completely. The sides of the cockpit will be expanded outwards for the cheek positions for ammo storage for the 30mm cannon.

    Whether they move the MMW radar to the nose or not I don't know, but with this DAS system the need for the 360 degree air search radar is reduced... it is not a fighter and would call on air protection if air threats became a problem.




    As you can see in this photo the upper EO ball has two small sensors either side of it (and outside of those are two retractible lights in the retracted position.)

    Due to the non retractible nature of the Mi-28s undercarriage I would expect a wingtip position for any DIRCM turret as shown on the President video for the Mi-8s.
    I would think an above wing pylon with an array of chaff and flare launchers might be a useful addition to free up the wingtip pylon for sensors and laser turrets.
    A tail tip turret would assure 360 degree coverage and protection for the aircraft with a flare launcher to fire a flare cloud to the rear in case of an attack from the side.
    An attack from the front or rear could be countered using wing mounted flare launchers to create flare clouds to either side of the aircraft, but these might not be so effective in an attack from the side.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  George1 on Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:57 pm

    I have counted about 170 Tu-22M3 in various active bases through google earth. Their number seems to be larger than the numbers given by various sources in internet

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:35 pm

    Well first of all, congrats... I am impressed... that would take a lot of patience.

    AFAIK the Air Force has about 100 Tu-22M3 aircraft, and the VMF (Russian Naval Air Arm) has a little over 50.

    I would suggest that the extra airframes you have counted are likely retired and in open storage on the respective airfields.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  George1 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:38 am

    28 Tu-22M3 are in the closed military base of Soltsy, so if we dont count them we have approx 150 as you said.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15439
    Points : 16146
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:12 pm

    And that is probably where the people who make estimates of in service aircraft get their numbers from.

    The Russian Air Force has mentioned it is overhauling and upgrading the Tu=95, Tu-160, and Tu-22M3, with fundamental changes to all three aircraft.

    Previously the Tu-22M3 was tasked with three primary roles... one was SEAD, and was intended for western Europe... long range strike taking on enemy radar stations and major SAM sites with ARM versions of the Kh-22M, and the other primary role was naval strike for use against ships, which is the role it is most often identified with in the west. The third role is as a level bomber with a large conventional payload of dumb bombs.

    There are also Tu-22MP and Tu-22MR versions, though there are reported to have ever been only a max of 1-2 dozen of each ever in service as they are expensive, and they are long range recon and jammer aircraft.

    The Tu-160 and Tu-95MS are cruise missile carriers and apart from their primary armament all three aircraft are otherwise limited to dumb bomb use with navigation bombing capability... a bit like a WWII bomber in many ways, though the max payload of a Tu-22M3 on a mission to a target 2,500km distant is about 24 tons, which is twice what an F-111 can carry, or about 10 times the warload of a WWII bomber.

    The new upgrades add guided conventional weapons like glonass guided bombs and missiles as well as full avionics upgrades to use dumb bombs with precision in free flight (ie a CCIP system, or a continuously computed impact point system) that generated an impact point and overlayed it over a TV view of the ground so you could release the weapons with a good chance of a hit.

    Other things include a unification of weapon types so all aircraft can use all the same weapon types and all types using similar radars and avionics though radar antenna sizes will be different they will all get new functions and capabilities so that for the first time in a long time they will have a conventional as well as a strategic role.

    As far as I can tell however they have not extended the upgrade to include engines, which is a bit disappointing.
    The NK-25 and NK-32 are very similar engines yet they are not compatible so the 16 odd Tu-160s have different engines to the 150 odd Tu-23M3s. This means 64 in service NK-32s and 300 inservice NK-25s, so developing a new 5th gen engine for the PAK DA that could be fitted to 350 existing aircraft to improve their performance and at the same time retire two different engines I think would be a good idea.

    The resulting improved 5th gen engine would be ideal to create a stealthy but supercruising PAK DA with likely half the number of engines it would need if they use the engines being developed for the PAK FA. More importantly if they can get the dry thrust up to about 20-25 tons and the AB thrust to 35-40 tons then there becomes a potential to create a real supersonic transport with only two engines and in supercuising mode save a lot of fuel.
    They could create several other types of aircraft based on such an engine including heavy interceptor and theatre strike aircraft that is not bound by the START treaty.

    They could even eventually make a PAK FA with a single PAK DA engine.

    The idea of a light 5th gen fighter to compliment the PAK FA crossed my mind, but I think it would be better if they limited the thrust to a single PAK FA engine as that will force them to keep it light weight, and likely force them to keep it cheap and simple. If they do to it as was done to the F-16 which eventually became as expensive and complicated as the F-15 then it spoils its whole reason for being... cheap light numbers fighter.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:01 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:01 pm