Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-22M3: News

    Share
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 987
    Points : 987
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:12 pm

    The Kinzahl already has a Booster. For slower aircraft it will get bigger/longer.

    Yup, risk management. Something the west never heard of. The plane (F-35, A-400M, etc.) will work, said the company that produces it.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3444
    Points : 3482
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:31 pm

    Hole wrote:The Kinzahl already has a Booster. For slower aircraft it will get bigger/longer.

    never heard about interchangeable boosters but it would make sense. As for Kh-32 and Kiznhal besides speed, weight or range there is one substantial difference: Kh-32 has liquid propellant and Kinzhal not...



    Yup, risk management. Something the west never heard of. The plane (F-35, A-400M, etc.) will work, said the company that produces it
    Those are not examples of lack of risk management but politics over matter. I am sure engineers would do it another way but they didnt decide

    mnztr

    Posts : 105
    Points : 115
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  mnztr on Tue May 01, 2018 12:34 am

    how much more efficient are the new engines?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18413
    Points : 18971
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 01, 2018 9:59 am


    Any guesses on how many Kinzhals it will be able to carry? And what will they do with 2 extra seats now?

    I would suspect the two extra seats will be replaced with more fuel... and they are talking about making the internal weapons bay bigger/longer.

    Regarding Kinzhals... they don't seem to be very heavy... the two main wing pylons can take 7 ton missiles and I would say the front multiple ejector racks could be replaced with proper missile pylons so I would say a reasonable load would be four external Kinzhals with internal space for 6 Kh-15 or short cruise missile type weapons.

    If they wanted to go hard out they could probably fit 8 Kinzhals in side by side on the four weapon pylons... and have 6 positions internally for other weapons.

    I 'd say also range will drop till some degree as neither range nor speed is same as for MiG-31.

    Just changing to NK-32 wont give any extra power, but will improve fuel efficiency and reliability... so flight radius at top speed is something like 2,000km... which is actually better than the MiG-31, though at mach 2.0, and not potentially mach 2.4-2.8.

    I don't think it would loose that much performance...

    They didnt specify in article with or without refueling though. I'd say with . The funny this is why now refueling bar is included? it was dropped for some reason. Is this treaty dead?

    The way I read the article, it said 10,000km range was because the NK-32 is more fuel efficient... the aircraft always had a flight radius of between 2,000km (supersonic all the way) and 4,000km, so this is only a modest boost in range... but the new engines are the same thrust and only slightly more fuel efficient so that is no great surprise. Inflight refuelling would make it semi strategic... in the same sense that an F-111 becomes semi strategic with tanker support...

    Tu-22M ceiling ~ 13000m, speed max - 2300 km/h
    MiG-31 ceiling +20,000m speed max 3000 km/h

    unlikely Kindzgal gets same initial kinetic energy so perhaps range will decrease too.

    If you only use a supersonic dash for launch purposes the MiG-31 has a flight range of 1,400km-2,000km... supersonic-subsonic, the Tu-22M3M has a supersonic all the way 2,000km radius, or 5,000km radius subsonic perhaps with a supersonic acceleration for launch...

    Hmmm I wonder why Tu-160 still has crew of four...

    Well the Tu-160 is a real strategic bomber with a flight radius of 10,000km, but remember the new M upgrades are being applied to all the new Tupolevs... so maybe they all end up with two crew from Tu-95MSM, Tu-160M2, and Tu-22M3M and the PAK DA... all sharing avionics and radar and weapons...

    refueling is not violating any START? or this is just over? BTW article say 36 to be upgraded but everything can change as situation can change too.

    New START is limited in details... it limits numbers of weapons and platforms but does not contain all the limitations of the previous agreement... ie banning MIRVs etc.

    Deliveries of Tu-22M3 to foreign countries are in principle impossible, since these aircraft are strategic weapons

    Western pressure there... this US and in particular the CIA considers them strategic weapons... the Russians use them as theatre weapons... ironically now that the west is being so irrational perhaps Russia might not consider their wishes and offer a naval version of the Tu-22M3M...

    Be aware also that the NK-32 is being upgraded for the Tu-160M2 programme so it is entirely possible than in a couple of years the engine thrust might grow from 25 tons to 32 or even 35 tons thrust per engine in the same way the Al-31 has grown from 12.5 tons to the new Saturn engine of 18 tons thrust for the PAK FA.

    Ruskies are such down shifters! 4 people is 2 times less work efficiency comparing to B2!

    I don't think we have seen any numbers regarding the Tu-160M2 yet, or the PAK DA...

    Weight, dimensions and functionality of the ammunition suggest that, first of all, it will complement the arsenal of Tu-22M3 and Su-34.

    Weights suggest a replacement for the Kh-15...

    Maybe then a Tu-22M3M could carry up to 6 Kinzhal (4 inside + 2 on wings) or Cirkon missiles

    I suspect Zircon and Kinzhal would be too fat for internal carriage... the internal weapons bay is more for long slim weapons like Kh-15 or the new short cruise missiles.

    Kh-32 and Kinzhal are typical for russian weapon development. Like belt and braces. Kh-32 is a deep modernisation of the Kh-22. Kinzhal is completely new. If the Kinzhal had failed (or would only be ready in four or five years), the already had the Kh-32.

    Kinzhal might be optimised for specific targets... the Kh-32 can certainly sink ships and would be standard armament.

    never heard about interchangeable boosters but it would make sense. As for Kh-32 and Kiznhal besides speed, weight or range there is one substantial difference: Kh-32 has liquid propellant and Kinzhal not...

    Speculation on my part... the Kh-35 has a booster rocket for launching from the ground or ship or Helicopter but no booster for launch from fixed wing aircraft...

    I rather suspect Kinzhal is scramjet powered and uses a solid rocket booster to get moving and climbing...

    how much more efficient are the new engines?

    Not hugely so... I suspect most of the extra range comes from removing two seats... but then some of that will be eaten up with a larger bomb bay...

    The unification of engines is excellent and means upgrades and design improvements applied to the NK-32 will benefit both types...

    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 987
    Points : 987
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Tue May 01, 2018 11:28 am

    I don´t think they will reconstruct them so much, GarryB. To costly. Back in the 80´s they didn´t even rebuild the older MiG-31´s so that they could get inflight refuelling.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3444
    Points : 3482
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue May 01, 2018 1:21 pm

    "GarryB"

    Tu-22M ceiling ~ 13000m,  speed max - 2300 km/h
    MiG-31  ceiling  +20,000m speed  max  3000 km/h

    unlikely Kindzal gets same initial kinetic energy so perhaps range will decrease too.

    If you only use a supersonic dash for launch purposes the MiG-31 has a flight range of 1,400km-2,000km... supersonic-subsonic, the Tu-22M3M has a supersonic all the way 2,000km radius, or 5,000km radius subsonic perhaps with a supersonic acceleration for launch...


    It still there is a a 0,8 Ma speed and 7000 meters in ceiling difference. With hypersonic speed this has to make difference. Air density. But still ~ 1000km should be ok.



    Deliveries of Tu-22M3 to foreign countries are in principle impossible, since these aircraft are strategic weapons

    Western pressure there... this US and in particular the CIA considers them strategic weapons... the Russians use them as theatre weapons... ironically now that the west is being so irrational perhaps Russia might not consider their wishes and offer a naval version of the Tu-22M3M...


    This was AFAIK statement form 2013... now times changes and I'd love Russia said YES




    Kinzhal might be optimised for specific targets... the Kh-32 can certainly sink ships and would be standard armament.

    Kinzhal on Putin's presentation it was dashing to meed CVSGtho tho Surprised)




    I rather suspect Kinzhal is scramjet powered and uses a solid rocket booster to get moving and climbing...


    again speculation from my side -if this is just reworked Iskander then there is no scramjet. Just solid propeland rocket.


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18413
    Points : 18971
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 02, 2018 7:45 am

    I don´t think they will reconstruct them so much, GarryB. To costly. Back in the 80´s they didn´t even rebuild the older MiG-31´s so that they could get inflight refuelling.

    The article says only two crew instead of four and an extension to the bomb bay area on the aircraft.

    I dare say replacement of some materials and parts is likely too... they are making entire new Tu-160s, I am sure they could build a few outer wings out of lighter stronger materials too for the Tu-22M3M.

    The new electronics and systems going in to the Tu-22M3M is likely the same as the systems going in to the Tu160M2 as well...

    Design unification makes sense where it is practical.

    It still there is a a 0,8 Ma speed and 7000 meters in ceiling difference. With hypersonic speed this has to make difference. Air density. But still ~ 1000km should be ok.

    An external solid rocket booster to help it accelerate to a higher speed might add 200kgs to the weapon... I am pretty sure the Backfire can handle it... I rather doubt the standard launch parameters are that extreme anyway... I rather suspect it can be launched at mach 2 and 10,000-12,000m would be more normal than launching from any higher or any faster... the solid rocket booster it uses is likely scaled to fill the combustion chamber for the scramjet and not specifically designed for use on one aircraft or another... solid rocket boosters are not fine scalpels... they burn for x seconds at x thrust and then they burn out... considering the thrust is fixed and duration is limited as long as it is high and moving fast the period of solid fuel rocket burn is not hugely important and would not halve the range of the weapon if it is launched lower and slower.... most of the powered flight is with the scramjet motor so the choice of thrust settings and flight speed and altitude will have rather more impact on the range and speed of the weapon than launch parameters.

    This was AFAIK statement form 2013... now times changes and I'd love Russia said YES

    I am sure there is a joke about the recent western actions in Syria making a kneejerk reaction like offering this missile and this plane to China being the ultimate BACKFIRE... DA?

    Hehehehe... Ultimate Backfire... yes?

    When you get to version 3 and there are two Ms in the designation I think calling it ultimate is justified...

    See what I did there?   clown    russia

    Kinzhal on Putin's presentation it was dashing to meed CVSGtho

    True, but was the missile hunting the ship or the radar signal?

    The MiG-31 is not really equipped to detect ship targets at 2,000km range so what sort of target detection and acquisition systems are we talking about?

    Talk of satellite feed to inflight Tu-22M3M suggest it could be almost anything that detects the target and passes on target data I guess...

    again speculation from my side -if this is just reworked Iskander then there is no scramjet. Just solid propeland rocket.

    Solid propellant fuel technology is very impressive but to achieve a mach 10 performance over 2,000km... even with a high altitude high speed launch just makes me think solid propellant technology in that size missile is not really an option.

    A scramjet motor on the other hand would explain the top speed and the range... scooping up air on the way is rather more efficient than carrying all the air and fuel inside the missile at launch...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18413
    Points : 18971
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 02, 2018 8:08 am

    I wonder if this news will energise Dr Kopp into further expanding his excellent articles on auspower about the aircraft... I remember one of his charts showing one Tu-22M3 with 8 cruise missiles, which compared with F-111s required two F-111s and one inflight refuelling tanker to match in terms of payload and range... without the F-111s you would need four F-35s or F-18s and two inflight refueller aircraft.

    AFAIK his last report on the Backfire was in about 2007 and to be honest I didn't think they were going to bother upgrading it any further... it looked superfluous with the Bear and Blackjack being used as conventional bombers too, but I guess elimination of conventional bombing capability for the Blackjack has meant upgrades of the backfire become essential...

    I would assume the upgraded electronics and sensors pretty much make it a multipurpose aircraft...potentially meaning theatre bomber, SEAD aircraft, wild weasel aircraft, armed jammer and recon aircraft, as well as theatre anti surface vessel strike platform....

    I wonder if they might consider also an air to air heavy interceptor with internal long range AAMs like R-37M missiles... an 8 position rotary launcher with tandem missiles meaning 16 ready to launch missiles plus further missile options externally mounted... missiles that could be used for self defence on all bomber types to shoot down enemy aircraft and incoming enemy SAMs or AAMs....

    I wonder what they will do with the gun... I hope they keep it as a rapidly formed IR and Chaff cloud should be a useful self defence capability along with towed decoys and towed jammers.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3444
    Points : 3482
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu May 03, 2018 1:10 am

    GarryB wrote:I wonder if this news will energize Dr Kopp into further expanding his excellent articles on auspower about the aircraft...

    He stopped like2014 of either he get bore or retired. Or CIA sent eraser...
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-270209-1.html




    I would assume the upgraded electronics and sensors pretty much make it a multipurpose aircraft...
    Russian sources claimed his main (note: not only) role is anti CVNSGs. This would explain lack of hurry with blue ocean fleet. Maritime borders are protected.



    [quote]
    I wonder if they might consider also an air to air heavy interceptor with internal long range [quote]
    nope, too expensive and MiG-41 is for this.




    I wonder what they will do with the gun... .
    didnt they removed it in 22M3
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18413
    Points : 18971
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 03, 2018 4:42 am

    nope, too expensive and MiG-41 is for this.

    Mig-25 wasn't always sole interceptor... there were Fiddlers too.

    I would think a Tu-22M3M would be an ideal interceptor as it has a relatively high dash speed when needed, and excellent range when not... is big enough to carry an enormous air to air radar and lots and lots of missiles... plus inflight refuelling.

    In fact it would be a useful inflight refuelling aircraft for faster aircraft.... it could loiter around near the front line topping up interceptors on their way back or lurking looking for cruise missiles trying to sneak through.

    didnt they removed it in 22M3

    Not as far as a I am aware... the MiG-31 lost its gun, but AFAIK the backfire did not.

    Modern sensors are not fooled by individual flare hot spots, but a twin barrel 23mm gun able to fire at 3,000 rpm... ie 50 shells a second... means a cloud of IR spots and an area of Chaff can be set up rapidly with a short 1 second burst to either side of the aircraft or behind... and then another.

    With modern aiming computing and radar you could probably even use it to shoot down incoming missiles, though I suspect new small missiles would be better suited to that role (Morfei).

    He stopped like2014 of either he get bore or retired. Or CIA sent eraser...

    New info might bring him out of hiding... Smile

    Svyatoslavich

    Posts : 400
    Points : 401
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Buenos Aires

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Svyatoslavich on Fri May 04, 2018 2:07 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Not as far as a I am aware... the MiG-31 lost its gun, but AFAIK the backfire did not.
    No, the MiG-31s continue carrying their guns. The MiG-31M wouldn't have, but this version didn't reach operation stage anyway.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18413
    Points : 18971
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 05, 2018 7:36 am

    Ahh, yes, you are right.

    However I do remember reading they were considering dropping the 23mm gatling due to the amount of gas it generated... with unburnt propellant being a serious fire risk for the aircraft that carried it... or was it the MiG-27 and Su-24 with their 30mm gatling...

    Seems odd that they are problems in aircraft and not at sea...

    I also remember seeing a ground based unmanned weapons platform with a 23mm gatling... the 23x115mm round is compact but with a very high rate of fire is devastating...
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4473
    Points : 4632
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat May 05, 2018 6:27 pm

    GarryB wrote:Ahh, yes, you are right.

    However I do remember reading they were considering dropping the 23mm gatling due to the amount of gas it generated... with unburnt propellant being a serious fire risk for the aircraft that carried it... or was it the MiG-27 and Su-24 with their 30mm gatling...

    Seems odd that they are problems in aircraft and not at sea...

    I also remember seeing a ground based unmanned weapons platform with a 23mm gatling... the 23x115mm round is compact but with a very high rate of fire is devastating...

    It was definitely the 30 mm cannon that you were confusing with. The 30 mm cannon was causing air-frame problems with the MiG-27 with all that recoil and high rate of fire. The 23 mm cannon was high rate of fire but relatively low recoil, and was perfect for defeating cruise missiles. Cruise missiles weren't flying at mach speed, so it would of been a waste of missiles to use them against cruise missiles, and this was were Gsh-6-23 excelled. In reality you didn't need the whole warhead of a missile for defeating cruise missiles, a small burst of 1-3 shots of the Gsh-6-23 could damage the wings and the engine enough to cause them to crash to the ground. Quite ingenious really, just damage the cruise missile enough to cause it to crash to the ground, you could definitely defeat several dozen cruise missiles with the gun platform alone.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 987
    Points : 987
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Sat May 05, 2018 6:57 pm

    Was also used to shoot down balloons.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18413
    Points : 18971
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 06, 2018 6:21 am

    It was definitely the 30 mm cannon that you were confusing with. The 30 mm cannon was causing air-frame problems with the MiG-27 with all that recoil and high rate of fire. The 23 mm cannon was high rate of fire but relatively low recoil, and was perfect for defeating cruise missiles. Cruise missiles weren't flying at mach speed, so it would of been a waste of missiles to use them against cruise missiles, and this was were Gsh-6-23 excelled. In reality you didn't need the whole warhead of a missile for defeating cruise missiles, a small burst of 1-3 shots of the Gsh-6-23 could damage the wings and the engine enough to cause them to crash to the ground. Quite ingenious really, just damage the cruise missile enough to cause it to crash to the ground, you could definitely defeat several dozen cruise missiles with the gun platform alone.

    I appreciate what you are saying but the 23mm gatling generates a lot of vibration too and the explosive gases they generate (unburnt powder gases) that can start fires and create explosion risks are also a problem.

    The 30mm ammo is much more powerful and generates much more recoil, but at 10-12 thousand rounds per minute the 23mm cannon is also a very powerful weapon.

    The 23mm cannon was a flexible weapon that could be used against cruise missiles and would also be devastating against B-2 and B-52 and B1B bombers, though bursts of 10-20 rounds would be used to generate a sort of shotgun blast of hits around the point of aim making evasion pretty near impossible.

    Normally 250 shells are carried for the gun so between 12 and 15 or so bursts could be fired.

    The most common weapon used however is the R-33 against bombers and cruise missiles, but also R-60M missiles were often intended for use against cruise missiles too from much shorter range.

    R-40TD were intended for use against high flying fast SR-71s in head on attacks... when R-60Ms were carried top speed was limited to subsonic as they weren't heat rated to mach 2.83 flight speed for the duration of a mission like the R-40 and R-33 and new R-37s are.

    Actually it would be interesting to see a four warhead model of Pantsir adapted for use on interceptor aircraft to deal with large groups of cruise missiles where one missile has four independent missiles that each attack a separate target in the same general direction...
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12042
    Points : 12525
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  George1 on Tue May 15, 2018 1:59 pm

    MOSCOW, May 15. /TASS/. Russia’s upgraded Tupolev Tu-22M3M strategic bomber with a new Kh-32 supersonic cruise missile will join the Russian Aerospace Force’s long-range aviation in October, a source in the domestic defense sector told TASS on Tuesday.

    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/1004329
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18413
    Points : 18971
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 16, 2018 2:55 am

    He stopped like2014 of either he get bore or retired. Or CIA sent eraser...

    If we consider his job was probably to keep everyone aware of the Russian menace at a time when the Russian threat was largely forgotten... by 2014 he was no longer needed... it was clear the Bear had its claws back...

    I would suggest if he got any bribes or financial support to do what he was doing it was coming from the Australian military... of course he lost a lot of value for not really being a cheer leader for the F-35... I am sure he would have preferred an F-111M3 or something...
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 992
    Points : 990
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed May 16, 2018 9:52 pm

    More details: https://rueconomics.ru/vse-novosti
    To be more effective against ships, they better reinstall IRPs &/ make plans to deploy them on foreign bases.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 987
    Points : 987
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Wed May 16, 2018 10:24 pm

    There are rumours that the IFR probe makes a comeback.

    Foreign bases?
    Not neccessary. Aim is to protect Russia. Radius of the plane: 2.000 km + 1.000 km range of the Kh-32. Now take a map and look how far away from Russia ships can be hit.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 992
    Points : 990
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu May 17, 2018 12:14 am

    In certain scenarios it's better to have access to them 24/7. To reach launch points for targets in the N/C Atlantic from Russia, they must fly near Scandinavia &/ over the Baltic; in the Med. Sea & Indian Ocean, over the Black/Caspian Sea/Turkey/Iran/Syria/Afghanistan/Pakistan. Some of them won't let them do it w/o a fight. In the FE, the same with Japan, SK, & US bases all over the W. & N. Pacific.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3444
    Points : 3482
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu May 17, 2018 12:18 am

    Hole wrote:There are rumours that the IFR probe makes a comeback.

    no rumors it is confirmed, check article couple of posts before.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18413
    Points : 18971
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 17, 2018 1:58 am

    The Tu-22M3M will have inflight refuelling capability and could probably use that to increase its performance greatly.

    It has a maximum weapon load of 24 tons, so lets guess that Kinzhal is of similar weight to the similarly shaped Iskander... Iskander is 3.8 tons... so carrying four of these as a main payload means 15.2 tons of payload.

    The Tu-22M3 can carry 24 tons of payload with a reduced fuel weight, so that means the Tu-22M3M should be able to carry 24-15.2= 8.8 tons of extra fuel in the internal weapon bay... perhaps in a large tank made to fit.

    To take off with this heavy load the main aircraft fuel tanks will be limited so it wont carry its internal fuel tanks full of fuel so it can take off.

    Once it gets into the air however it should be able to refuel immediately and fill up those internal fuel tanks to greatly improve range performance... if it flys subsonic all the way it should be able to operate to a radius of 5,000km even with just one top up after take off...
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2344
    Points : 2501
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Cyberspec on Mon May 28, 2018 12:26 am

    Fully loaded

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3444
    Points : 3482
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon May 28, 2018 12:44 am

    GarryB wrote:so lets guess that Kinzhal is of similar weight to the similarly shaped Iskander.

    Unlikely. Kiznahl is specifically designed for MiG-31K (yes K is special "edition" ). Like  Kh-32 for Tu-22. Please note that practical ceiling for MiG is almost 2x higher then Tu-22 and top seped 1,5 x higher.




    Cyberspec wrote:Fully loaded

    how sweet! i wonder how many Kh-32s are needed to sink neutralize CSG...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2335
    Points : 2329
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Isos on Mon May 28, 2018 8:26 am

    how sweet! i wonder how many Kh-32s are needed to sink neutralize CSG...

    1 hit on the deck is enough to stop it. Sinking depends where you hit. Some big ships can sink because their crew is not fast to stop a small fire.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:08 am