Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-22M3: News

    Share
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 817
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:48 pm

    ECM instead of guns. It was the same for the Tu-160. The gun has a range of 2 - 3 km, even a MANPAD flies longer.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3103
    Points : 3145
    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 Aug 16, 2018 11:32 pm

    Hole wrote:ECM instead of guns. It was the same for the Tu-160. The gun has a range of 2 - 3 km, even a MANPAD flies longer.

    or better  electronic warfare to burn any incoming missile Smile like below: the whole salvo from Grad MLRS. EW complex Mercury in action:







    Tsavo Lion wrote:What the reason for deleting the tailgun? Does it have something better for self defence? Or perhaps it'll always be escorted by fighters?

    unless its a lacer or maser gun there is not really effective. This is just IIWW relic. Perhaps efficient with large slow drones not with current threats. just

    BTW it was AFAIK 2x23mm gun with v0~ 700m/s. That cannot hit anything except P-51 or Me-109 :-)
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 11912
    Points : 12387
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  George1 on Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:38 pm

    Why 30xTu-22M3M and not 60?
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3103
    Points : 3145
    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 Aug 16, 2018 11:42 pm

    George1 wrote:Why 30xTu-22M3M and not 60?

    Because fleet considers it is a minimum for duty in keeping at bay US carrier strike groups from Russia? AFAIK Tu-22 has alwasy been mainly fleet bomber to attack CSGs Kinzhal/Kh-32 just confirm this role.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 821
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:21 am

    H-6Ks & B-1Bs/-52s also don't have a tail gun.
    But I was thinking about using them against incoming A/SAMs or fighters w/o them coming for closer engagements.
    Has the plane won an IFR probe or just the provision for it?
    I'm sure they'll retain that capability, should the decision to install it be made later.
    The other related article talks about it being "a completely new plane inside" & "deep modernization of the TU-22M3" in the same breath:
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201808161818-ghni.htm

    So, here u have it: deep modernization produces a new plane; with the TU-22/-22M pair, it was both outside & inside "deep modernization" with some new features/solutions that resulted in a similar, but more capable plane. The same thing was being told about the IL-476 vs. IL-76MD:
    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/166155/ilyushin-continues-production-of-upgraded-il_76md_90a.html
    https://topwar.ru/29617-il-76md-90a-ili-izdelie-476.html
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 11912
    Points : 12387
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  George1 on Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:40 am







    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3103
    Points : 3145
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:25 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:H-6Ks & B-1Bs/-52s also don't have a tail gun.
    But I was thinking about using them against incoming A/SAMs or fighters w/o them coming for closer engagements.  


    theoretically this might be possible but rest of bombers prove it is not effective.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 611
    Points : 607
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:49 pm

    Apparently NK-32-02 are under test and first units are going to be delivered before the end of the year for the production of the Tu-160M2, so it wouldn't be strange not seeing them on the M3Ms... in case they are going to be used at all of course.

    https://aviation21.ru/pervye-postavki-dvigatelej-nk-32-02-dlya-raketonosca-tu-160m2-ozhidayutsya-do-konca-goda/

    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 387
    Points : 391
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  ATLASCUB on Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:50 pm

    Arms control agreements are all but dead except in name.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2261
    Points : 2282
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:31 pm

    LMFS wrote:Apparently NK-32-02 are under test and first units are going to be delivered before the end of the year for the production of the Tu-160M2, so it wouldn't be strange not seeing them on the M3Ms... in case they are going to be used at all of course.

    https://aviation21.ru/pervye-postavki-dvigatelej-nk-32-02-dlya-raketonosca-tu-160m2-ozhidayutsya-do-konca-goda/

    Taking into account the production plans of the engine, the upgrade of the current fleet of Tu-160 to Tu-160 M2 with the new engines was to be done by 2020-2021, that is when the stable serial production of new units of the Tu-160M2 would begin. Since 2021, until the start of the serial production of the Tu-PAK-DA, it will be about 8-10 engines free per year, that would allow to the upgrade of 4-5 Tu-22 to Tu-22 M3M standard per year. The contract of 30 seems fine and well adapted to this prospect.

    Before 2021, the delivery of 2 or 4 units of the engine for the Tu-22 M3M prototypes would not make a big difference in the procurement of engines for the Tu-160 M2.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18067
    Points : 18627
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:40 pm

    Yes, the same way IL-86/-96, IL-76/-476/-106, SU-27/-34, & MiG-25/-31, AN-124/-225, MiG-21/J-7/-8/-8II, Lavi & J-10 "r not related"!

    What they have in common is the Tu-22.

    That was a political decision because a new jet bomber type would not have been funded so they pretended it was an upgrade.

    All the planes you listed could be compared... even an adaptation like the Su27 and Su-34 is less of a change...

    And no the difference is not just everything but the wings and the forward section... the crew compartment is different... three crew in a single file row, compared with two rows in tandem, and large pods in the wings for the wheels and swing wings...

    Similar design features by different designers & manufacturers is 1 thing, but with the same people designing & building planes in succession with similar planforms, dimensions, & functions, it's safe to classify them belonging to 1 family of Tupolev jet bombers

    Except if they are related then they would retain components and parts like engines and ejection seats... yet in this case everything is totally different so THEY ARE NOT RELATED.

    This is my granddads hammer... it has only had three new heads and four new handles... it has wifi.

    to say that they r not related is like saying that bees r not related to flies & humans r not related to apes!

    Related but all the parts are different?

    Go to a US military forum and claim the F-22 is just a warmed over MiG-25... I dare you.

    Can we at least agree that Tu-22 was pretty meh in performance & looks while Tu-22M3 is a glorious beast

    In terms of performance the Tu-22 is fairly ordinary and the Tu-22M3M is looking like what a B-1B was supposed to be...

    Some pictures show guys working in the cabin and it is still for four crew members... is this maskirovska or simply clueless journos at work?

    They might have needed more space for avionics and so put them where the two rear seats are?

    I never believed the claims that the crew will be reduced to two.

    With modern avionics systems I think a two crew setup should be possible and indeed likely...

    What the reason for deleting the tailgun? Does it have something better for self defence? Or perhaps it'll always be escorted by fighters?

    I suspect their EW systems have improved to the point where they would be more effective than a gun.

    Also there was talk of anti missile missiles called Morfei that are lock on after launch from internal weapon bays that could be directed at threatening missiles... some of which will come from the front rather than rear.

    Can hardly see it using the tail gun at all.

    The best thing about the gun in my opinion is its ability to fire bursts of chaff dipoles and flares very very rapidly so a cloud of chaff and flares could be rapidly set up in a half second burst on either side of the aircraft or behind it... clouds of chaff and flares are more convincing than strings...

    Has the plane won an IFR probe or just the provision for it? I understand it was removed in order to comply with some arms reduction treaty, so this could be a nice wake-up call for the US to start thinking seriously on what side has more to lose in a new arms race, or am I seeing too much in it?

    START I and START II were very strict on what was or what was not included... the latter limiting MIRVs and max weights of ICBMs too, but New START is weak and wishy washy... so inflight refuelling returns as an option...

    Of course for US aircraft they could be based in Europe so it really only penalised Russia/The Soviet Union.


    BTW it was AFAIK 2x23mm gun with v0~ 700m/s. That cannot hit anything except P-51 or Me-109 :-)

    Actually the gun is amazing... small, light, compact, with lightweight ammo (the 23x115mm ammo is slightly bigger than 50 cal HMG ammo, but with a much heavier HE payload).

    The muzzle velocity is very low for a cannon, but velocity is not important... shotgun pellets have a low velocity too, but are effective because they are delivered in bursts all around the point of aim.

    If an aircraft wants to shoot down another aircraft with cannon it will generally get within 500m of the target before firing... this gun would devastate any aircraft trying that...

    Why 30xTu-22M3M and not 60?

    They need to make sure it works and is worth it before committing to converting the whole fleet.

    So, here u have it: deep modernization produces a new plane; with the TU-22/-22M pair, it was both outside & inside "deep modernization" with some new features/solutions that resulted in a similar, but more capable plane. The same thing was being told about the IL-476 vs. IL-76MD:

    Rubbish. The only way to upgrade a Tu-22 to a Tu-22M is to replace everything. When they talk about the Tu-22M3M becoming a new aircraft it is like an IBM computer... you can take an ATX IBM PC from 1997 and take out the motherboard, the harddrive, and the powersupply and all the EO drives and replace them with a brand new motherboard with brand new CPU and new memory cards and new graphics card and new power supply and new solid state and disk hard drives... outside it looks the same but inside it is as good as any brand new computer with the same components.

    that would allow to the upgrade of 4-5 Tu-22 to Tu-22 M3M standard per year.

    The only aircraft being upgraded would be Tu-22M3s... even any Tu-22M2s would not be converted, let alone any previous models or the totally different Tu-22.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2261
    Points : 2282
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:16 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    that would allow to the upgrade of 4-5 Tu-22 to Tu-22 M3M standard per year.

    The only aircraft being upgraded would be Tu-22M3s... even any Tu-22M2s would not be converted, let alone any previous models or the totally different Tu-22.

    Every variant of the Tu-22 that can be upgraded to the Tu-22 M3 standard can also be upgraded to the Tu-22 M3M standard.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 611
    Points : 607
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:14 pm

    Does anybody now many Tu-22M3 are available? Have not found consistent information about this
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 817
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:15 pm

    Sources differ, something between 40 and 60 in service and the same number in storage.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3103
    Points : 3145
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:27 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    This is my granddads hammer... it has only had three new heads and four new handles... it has wifi.





    talking about my grampa s warhammer Very Happy







    I suspect their EW systems have improved to the point where they would be more effective than a gun.

    Also there was talk of anti missile missiles called Morfei that are lock on after launch from internal weapon bays that could be directed at threatening missiles... some of which will come from the front rather than rear.

    So far nobody deployed self-defense missiles in bombers. I guess for a reason. My bet is on EW to burn incoming missiles. On large bomber there should be enough power supply to burn any incoming missile.





    Can hardly see it using the tail gun at all.
    BTW it was AFAIK 2x23mm gun with v0~ 700m/s. That cannot hit anything except P-51 or Me-109 :-)

    Actually the gun is amazing... small, light, compact, with lightweight ammo (the 23x115mm ammo is slightly bigger than 50 cal HMG ammo, but with a much heavier HE payload).

    The muzzle velocity is very low for a cannon, but velocity is not important... shotgun pellets have a low velocity too, but are effective because they are delivered in bursts all around the point of aim.

    If an aircraft wants to shoot down another aircraft with cannon it will generally get within 500m of the target before firing... this gun would devastate any aircraft trying that...

    [/quote]


    as long as they were Me-109 or P-51 you're right Suspect Suspect Suspect and you dotn shoot shot guns to fast moving targets. Flat trajectory is here much better option.


    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 821
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:52 pm

    That was a political decision because a new jet bomber type would not have been funded so they pretended it was an upgrade.
    Yes, but it was not 95-99% redesign resulting in 95-99% new plane compared to its predecessor.
    ..the crew compartment is different... three crew in a single file row, compared with two rows in tandem, and large pods in the wings for the wheels and swing wings...
    Not only the Su-27/-34, but the A-6 & EA-6B have also different crew compartments:
    A much more highly specialized derivative of the Intruder was the EA-6B Prowler, having a "stretched" airframe with two additional systems operators, .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder#Electronic_warfare_versions

    EA-6B Prowler is a twin-engine, four-seat, mid-wing electronic warfare aircraft derived from the A-6 Intruder airframe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_EA-6B_Prowler

    Derived: derive something from Base a concept on an extension or modification of (another concept)
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/derive

    Related: connected by common ancestry..
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/related

    Being related doesn't mean it must be a very close copy of the original. The TU-22M airframe didn't come out of a clean sheet; it was derived from the TU-22 airframe. "Derived"="Related".
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 817
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:35 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    So far nobody deployed self-defense missiles in bombers. I guess for a reason.  My bet is on EW to burn incoming missiles.  On large bomber there should be enough power supply to burn any incoming missile.


    Nah, the jammer will do what it is designed for.

    Burning missile takes fundamentally different approach, which involves tens or hundreds of kilowatts padded with high gain antenna. Something of which typical aircraft self protection jammer doesn't have (few watts is what is needed for jamming missiles)
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2128
    Points : 2122
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Isos on Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:07 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    So far nobody deployed self-defense missiles in bombers. I guess for a reason.  My bet is on EW to burn incoming missiles.  On large bomber there should be enough power supply to burn any incoming missile.


    Nah, the jammer will do what it is designed for.

    Burning missile takes fundamentally different approach, which involves tens or hundreds of kilowatts padded with high gain antenna. Something of which typical aircraft self protection jammer doesn't have (few watts is what is needed for jamming missiles)

    Mig-25 radar is said to have a power output of 400 kW, compared to 20kW of Irbis E which is the most powerfull today. Using it with modern computers could damage electronics and even the airplanes.

    I wonder what would be its detection range if it was used with modern Irbis E technology against a f-22. The radar absorbing coating could be also destroyed with such power.

    hoom

    Posts : 1073
    Points : 1065
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  hoom on Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:32 am

    Bit sad about the deletion of the gun cry
    I mean obviously new ECM is going to be the better choice but I just loved the glorious anachronism of it Cool

    Worried about the shape of that new fairing, blunt rounded shape like that is not good for the rear end of a subsonic let alone supersonic plane.
    Should come to a point or have a sharp corner & squared off end.

    The whatever it is on the nose is also a shame aesthetically.
    If its a refuelling probe then either the relevant treaty is expired, Russia doesn't currently fill (or is re-adjusting the balance of) its launcher quota or its some kind of bargaining chip as part of the goal to get US to negotiate new limitation treaty/ies.

    mnztr

    Posts : 82
    Points : 90
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  mnztr on Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:35 am

    Am I mistaken or is the bump on the top of the nose new? Other then that the TU22 has always been a pretty aeroplane and the update is no less, except for the nose tweaks...

    hoom

    Posts : 1073
    Points : 1065
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  hoom on Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:46 pm

    Yes its new.
    People are presuming its a retractable refuelling tube, alternately some kind of ECM antenna.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 821
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:13 pm

    Tu-22M3 became closer to strategic bombers?
    The plans for the modernization of 30 long-range Tu-22M3 bombers to the level of Tu-22M3M are known since 2012. Then it was about the implementation of work until about 2020, but now it becomes clear that these terms will move closer to the middle of the 2020s, as for today until the test comes only the first aircraft line. It is known that the main changes undergo the electronics of the aircraft - radio electronic and navigation equipment are being replaced, the aircraft is able to use modern high-precision weapons. The service life of the aircraft is also extended.
    On the photo report with the rollout of the aircraft, another very interesting feature is visible - apparently, the aircraft was given the refueling system in the air. It was not put on the serial Tu-22M3 according to the Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (SALT-2) of June 18, 1979. I must say that this treaty was never ratified, but the parties have long adhered to its letter on certain points.
    To date, the current START-3 treaty does not impose any restrictions on the Tu-22M3, it only limits the number of strategic weapons, including heavy bombers, carriers of nuclear weapons. According to paragraph 80 of the protocol to the START-3 treaty, these include aircraft with a range of more than 8,000 km (according to the same document, speech is about range without refueling in the air) and / or carriers of long-range cruise missiles (with a flight range of more than 600 km). If you approach the issue under the letter of the contract, then the point about the Tu-22M3 flight range does not make it a strategic bomber (although taking into account possible refueling its combat radius becomes practically unlimited). But there are already questions on the item on armament. The upgraded Tu-22M3M received a new cruise missile X-32. Its characteristics in different sources differ, however, its maximum flight range is estimated at 600-1000 km. And it is quite obvious that they will be used as missiles with non-nuclear and nuclear warheads. In this light, it is possible that there may be requirements for the inclusion of the Tu-22M3M in the list of heavy bombers under the START-3 treaty. This will not be a problem for Russia, since the inclusion of 30 new carriers will not even bring the country to a forbidden mark of 700 units (according to the latest data, Russia has 527 deployed strategic carriers). In this light, it is possible that there may be requirements for the inclusion of the Tu-22M3M in the list of heavy bombers under the START-3 treaty.  
    As for the new capabilities of the aircraft, it is obvious that with the new cruise missile X-32 the machine will again become a serious threat to enemy ships and will be able to effectively combat ground targets without entering the enemy's air defense zone. In the future, the machine will be able to use both prospective subsonic cruise missiles X-50 (the assumed maximum range is 1500 km) and hypersonic aerial ballistic missiles "Dagger". In this sense, the Tu-22M3 will get completely new possibilities. It should be noted and another innovation - the aircraft lost the stern cannon (its presence in modern combat is unlikely to save it from the enemy fighters), probably receiving instead of it additional equipment for electronic warfare.
    https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2466818.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START#Status_of_the_strategic_forces_of_Russia_and_the_U.S.

    So, they can have IRPs w/o violating any treaty.
    527+30 TU-22M3Ms=557; 700-557=143 more new nuclear warhead carriers Russia can still add even after 30 TU-22M3Ms inducted to her arsenal under the START3: https://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:41 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 611
    Points : 607
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  LMFS on Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:23 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    So, they can have IRPs w/o violating any treaty. 527+30=557;
    700-557=143 more new nuclear warhead carriers Russia can still add to her arsenal under the START3: https://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/.  

    1 bomber = 1 unit or is the amount of warheads on board that counts?
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 817
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:28 pm

    As far as i can remember, the bomber is the carrier (like an ICBM/SLBM) and the cruise missile is counted like a warhead.
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 3007
    Points : 3039
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  franco on Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:52 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    So, they can have IRPs w/o violating any treaty. 527+30=557;
    700-557=143 more new nuclear warhead carriers Russia can still add to her arsenal under the START3: https://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/.  

    1 bomber = 1 unit or is the amount of warheads on board that counts?

    Correct, one bomber = 1 warhead under the treaty... even if they can carry 12 cruise missiles

    As for the strategic bomber qualification believe it has to have a range in excessive of 5,000 kms but not 100% on that.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:13 am