Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-22M3: News

    Share
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 612
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  LMFS on Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:15 pm

    franco wrote:
    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.
    Yeah, I think franco is right here. Bombers have advantage according to new START (700 BMs and bombers in total, max 1550 warheads, where each RV on a BM and each bomber count as one warhead), which makes little sense seen from today's perspective if you think they carry CMs with ranges in excess of 5000 km... those carriers are not that easy to neutralize if they do not need to come close to your airspace anymore, though they are not really capable of a decapitating surprise strike. That can explain why Russia is investing so heavily in its long range aviation, it is a great force multiplier and they already have many of the airframes...

    As for the range, is stated as 8000 km in the article from TsavoLion above
    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 Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:24 am

    Isos wrote:

    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.

    Tu-128 radar consumed 600kW What a Face What a Face What a Face


    @Stealthflanker

    unless missile is smart and has wider spectrum analyzers and other anti jamming devices. Burning sets issue for all. Weight of guns turret can be used to place capacitor for pulses if needed. Tu-95 engine delivers ~11,000 kW power, each. I guess Tu-22M 2 engines can deliver couple hundred of extra kW, just in case missile gets thru ECM suite.

    BTW ECM in bobmber are heavy and consume enormous enrgy and Smile

    OK I am speculating of course Smile
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 612
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  LMFS on Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:54 pm

    Article about the Tu-22M3M

    https://regnum.ru/news/2466818
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:06 pm

    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.

    None of the aircraft were upgraded into new models. Versions received upgrades but none were upgraded from one level to another... some lost their inflight refuelling probes but no Tu-22M2s were upgraded to Tu-22M3s for instance...

    The Tu-22M2 has air intakes like a MiG-23s air intakes and older less powerful 22 ton thrust engines, while the Tu-22M3 has MiG-25 type air intakes, more powerful engines and something like 25% increased RCS because of the new air intake shape... but it was worth it for the performance improvement.

    talking about my grampa s warhammer

    Actually... that was a lie... it does not have WiFi... it has bluetooth...

    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.

    When their new short range AAM enters service (Morfei) then they will have the option... the question is, will they bother with it... The lock on after launch is intended for launches from an internal weapon bay and the few articles I have seen mention the LOAL Morfei mention internal weapons bays on fighters and bombers...

    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.

    If a rabbit or bird is sitting still I will use a 22 simply because it is cheaper and quieter, but a moving target is always easier with a shotgun and those pellets are subsonic... of very poor aerodynamic shape so they slow down real fast, and fairly light.

    The gun in the tail turret of an aircraft has radar ranging and with a known trajectory for the rounds being fired hitting the target should not be an issue... remember despite this round being a 23x115mm pipsqueak, if you load it with the same round in a 20mm phalanx turret the muzzle velocity jumps higher to about 1.2km per second... being fired backwards they could use sabot ammo if they wanted because there is no chance of it getting sucked into an engine intake... the point is that they went for a very heavy HE projectile so when you get hits it does some real damage.

    The shell case is slightly bigger than a 14.5 x 114mm round but the projectile from a 23x152mm AA gun shell is rather heavy and quite potent on aircraft targets.

    Firing at 3,500 rpm it is practically a Phalanx (which normally fires at 4,500rpm) but moving away from a target coming from behind at 800km/h+

    As mentioned... a chaff and flare round burst for half a second puts up about 50 shells that would rapidly form a cloud to one side or the other of the aircraft...

    Yes, but it was not 95-99% redesign resulting in 95-99% new plane compared to its predecessor.

    They kept nothing of the old design... everything was changed... the only thing they kept were the letters T and u and the number 22.


    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.

    The Tu-22M was a clean sheet of paper design... only the basic layout the aircraft shared was wings and tail and twin engines in the rear and crew up the front in the nose of the aircraft is shared... but it is also shared with a lot of other aircraft with a similar layout.

    I mean obviously new ECM is going to be the better choice but I just loved the glorious anachronism of it

    I loved the fact that during peacetime when NATO aircraft "intercepted" it, it could train its gun on them and scare the shit out of them... Twisted Evil

    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.

    Actually the rear area of an aircraft is not so important at supersonic speeds... bullets with flat bases are fine while they move at supersonic speeds... it is when they drop down to subsonic speeds that tail drag becomes and issue and boat tailed rounds have lower drag and reach much further...

    The whatever it is on the nose is also a shame aesthetically.

    That would be the inflight refuelling probe... a very valuable addition... who cares if it is not pretty... Smile

    People are presuming its a retractable refuelling tube, alternately some kind of ECM antenna.

    It has been stated it has a new inflight refuelling probe... where else would they put it?

    BTW ECM in bobmber are heavy and consume enormous enrgy and

    I remember reading in an article that they were developing Tu-22M3 based jammer platforms but also an Il-76 based jammer platform... and it was the Il-76 model that proved the most effective because there was more take off power from the four engines on the Il-76 than from the two engines in the Backfire...
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 820
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:56 pm

    Well, even the engines of the Il-76 couldn´t provide the energy for the jammers. The plane was fitted with large fairings that blended into the main gear fairings, each one had a APU based on the Al-24VT turboprop engine and 4 90kW generators.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:49 pm

    They kept nothing of the old design... everything was changed... the only thing they kept were the letters T and u and the number 22.
    To say that the TU-22M wasn't particularly influenced by the TU-22 is ignoring the facts. They have at least as many similarities as differences between them, if not more.
    Except for the unfinished airframes they may have, all M3Ms will be former M3s:
    Tu-22M3M
    Tu-22M3 for the Russian Air Force with engines from Tu-160M2 (NK-32-02), upgraded avionics (SVP-24-22 bombsights, a NV-45 radar and an improved cockpit) and the ability to use precision air-to-surface weapons. Prior to 2020 it is planned to upgrade 30 Tu-22M3 with new hardware components and adapted for the extended range weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#Variants
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 820
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:05 pm

    Read the book Tu-22 and Tu-22M from Yefim Gordon. Tupolew himself stated that it was a trick because the government didn´t want a new bomber at that time.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 682
    Points : 676
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:02 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    They kept nothing of the old design... everything was changed... the only thing they kept were the letters T and u and the number 22.
    To say that the TU-22M wasn't particularly influenced by the TU-22 is ignoring the facts. They have at least as many similarities as differences between them, if not more.
    Except for the unfinished airframes they may have, all M3Ms will be former M3s:
    Tu-22M3M
    Tu-22M3 for the Russian Air Force with engines from Tu-160M2 (NK-32-02), upgraded avionics (SVP-24-22 bombsights, a NV-45 radar and an improved cockpit) and the ability to use precision air-to-surface weapons. Prior to 2020 it is planned to upgrade 30 Tu-22M3 with new hardware components and adapted for the extended range weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#Variants

    The similarity is superficial .

    I think the similarities between them just as deep to convince anyone checking a picture about that he see different versions of the same plane.

    Example the tail shape make the impression of the engine on the M , but it doesn't need to be shaped like that.

    It is like the buran vs space shuttle, , the buran was designed to looks like the shuttle , but the similarity was paint deep and purposely made.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:34 am

    Hole wrote:Tupolev himself stated that it was a trick because the government didn't want a new bomber at that time.
    I'm aware of it. He wanted a green light & $ for a "Modified" bomber that was actually a new plane as far its capabilities r concerned. But even a more capable bomber with the same/similar missions as its predecessor is going to have many features in common with it. The laws of aerodynamics used in optimization apply to all aircraft. So, even if just 1-5% of their design share commonality, they r still directly related. After it was built & accepted, it didn't matter anymore & perhaps was to their advantage to tacitly admit that it is a "newly designed plane"; but to my knowledge, they never implied that it has nothing to do with the TU-22!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:59 am; edited 1 time in total
    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 Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:51 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    It is like the buran vs space shuttle, , the buran was designed to looks like the shuttle , but the similarity was paint deep and purposely made.

    pity it was discontinued Sad
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:58 pm

    They couldn't & didn't want to dump more $ on it like the US had with their Space Shuttles, which were retired to save $:
    https://gizmodo.com/why-did-nasa-end-the-space-shuttle-program-1721140493
    The project was the largest and the most expensive in the history of Soviet space exploration.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_programme

    After the first flight of a Buran shuttle, the project was suspended due to lack of funds and the political situation in the Soviet Union. The two subsequent orbiters, which were due in 1990 (informally Ptichka) and 1992 (informally Baikal) were never completed. ..
    At the time of its cancellation, 20 billion rubles (roughly US$71,534,000) had been spent on the Buran programme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_programme#Cancellation_of_the_programme_1993
    Russia has heavy rocket designs to do w/o Buran:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia

    [TU-22]
    Role Medium bomber
    Manufacturer Tupolev
    ..Developed into Tupolev Tu-22M
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22

    [TU-22M]
    Role Strategic bomber/Maritime strike
    Manufacturer Tupolev
    ..Number built 497
    Developed from Tupolev Tu-22
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

    If 1 was developed from the other, then they r related by default!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:13 am

    To say that the TU-22M wasn't particularly influenced by the TU-22 is ignoring the facts.

    Depends on your definition of influenced... if you are going to say the Tu-22M3 is related to the Tu-22 because they are both twin engined jet bombers of medium range, then I could say the Tu-22M3M is based on the Il-28... it also has no components in common, but it has crew at the front in the nose and it has two engines too.

    The Tu-22 did not influence the design of the Tu-22M family because the Tu-22 was a failure, while the Tu-22M3 was a successful design that was much more capable... in fact it was rather feared by those in the USN who had a grasp of the actual difference in performance between those two different designs.

    Well, even the engines of the Il-76 couldn´t provide the energy for the jammers. The plane was fitted with large fairings that blended into the main gear fairings, each one had a APU based on the Al-24VT turboprop engine and 4 90kW generators.

    The power take off from four large engines was greater than the power takeoff from the two engines in the Backfire... the main reason it was picked over the Backfire model was because it had significant capacity for even more powerful jammers because it could carry extra generators too.

    Except for the unfinished airframes they may have, all M3Ms will be former M3s:

    Whether finished or not, only Tu-22M3s could be upgraded to Tu-22M3M standard.

    Tupolew himself stated that it was a trick because the government didn´t want a new bomber at that time.

    Thank you... that is what I said before. There is no way Tupolev would get funding for a new medium range twin jet engined bomber... because at the time the Tu-22 was not that old...

    It is like the buran vs space shuttle, , the buran was designed to looks like the shuttle , but the similarity was paint deep and purposely made.

    The Buran is an excellent example of superficial external similarities, but craft that are basically totally different...

    Think of the US space shuttle as an C-130 transport aircraft with a 10 ton payload capacity but no internal fuel... to get it airborne it needs an external fuel tank bigger than the entire aircraft, but all that extra weight means it needs huge rocket boosters to get it moving...

    Buran is a glider that sits on a huge energyia rocket to get it into space.

    They look the same because NASA spent 2 billion dollars and several years perfecting a shape... why would the Soviets spend their own money, when they can look at the NASA tests and make up their own minds as to what design to use without needing all the expensive testing.

    So, even if just 1-5% of their design share commonality, they r still directly related. After it was built & accepted, it didn't matter anymore & perhaps was to their advantage to tacitly admit that it is a "newly designed plane"; but they never said that it has nothing to do with the TU-22!

    So what you are saying is that the F-35 is directly related to the F-16 because it looks a bit similar and they both have more than 1% of parts the same... (same ejector seat).

    The Su-34 is related to the Su-27, the MiG-31 is related to the MiG-25... you are trying to say the Su-27 is related to the MiG-25 because they are both twin engined twin tail finned "fighters"... but they are not related... even if Su-27s might be used in the interception role.

    but to my knowledge, they never implied that it has nothing to do with the TU-22!

    The only thing the Tu-22M has to "do" with the Tu-22 is that it is its replacement twin engined jet bomber.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:10 am

    All tree branches r related to the same "tree trunk" they come out off, just like the Andean & California condors, or kengurus & wallabies, or African & Asian elephants, camels (& S. American llamas, guanacos & vacunas), crocodiles, leopards & lions.
    But the TU-22M is even more so, as it was the next logical step in the evolution of the preceding TU-22. Again:
    [TU-22]
    Role Medium bomber
    Manufacturer Tupolev
    ..Developed into Tupolev Tu-22M
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22

    [TU-22M]
    Role Strategic bomber/Maritime strike
    Manufacturer Tupolev
    ..Number built 497
    Developed from Tupolev Tu-22
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M
    If 1 was developed from the other, then they r related by default!
    The TU-22M3 is related to the TU-22M which is related to the TU-22; therefore, the TU-22M3 is distantly related to the TU-22, just like the TU-95/114/116/126/142s r distantly related to the B-29 & its TU-4 copy.

    hoom

    Posts : 1075
    Points : 1067
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  hoom on Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:42 am

    It has been stated it has a new inflight refuelling probe... where else would they put it?
    A bunch of articles say it but I haven't noticed any that quote a govt/airforce official saying it.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:32 pm

    The plane "345" will have a crew of only two people (instead of four on the Tu-22M) and will be equipped with a retractable barbell for refueling in the air, in addition, the use of conformal fuel tanks on top of the airframe is considered. In combination with the more economical engines of NK-32, this will significantly increase the range of the aircraft, bringing it in the ferry variant (without refueling in the air), supposedly up to 9-10 thousand km (compared with 6800 km at Tu-22M3).
    ..At present, the Kazan Aviation Plant has at least four unfinished suspended airplanes Tu-22M3, which will be used to build prototypes and pre-production models of the restored bomber. The first prototype of the "345" can thus be raised in the air already in 2021. Serial production can be organized in Kazan from 2026-2027 at a rate of up to three or four aircraft per year.
    The article notes that this program for the restoration of production of the Tu-22M reflects the general trends in the Russian aviation industry, which increasingly gravitates toward the "revitalization" of Soviet-era aircraft (or their deep modernization), rather than creating fundamentally new platforms.
    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3142782.html
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201509210752-3svv.htm

    With them, no need to build 50 TU-160Ms, smaller 25-35 will be enough!

    mnztr

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

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  mnztr on Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:45 pm

    Some articles I have read seem to indicate a new engine is part of the program, although the prototype is nott fitted with it. The engine from the TU-160, I guess the upgraded new production spec is not flight ready yet. I suspect they will show out on later test articles.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:07 am

    If 1 was developed from the other, then they r related by default!

    Developed from requires some components and design feature to remain in the design.

    When they replace everything and change features like internal engines and hard points for missiles and swing wings then it is not developed from... it is replaced by... where the role might be similar but perhaps expanded, but the new model is rather better at the original role and capable of other roles too.

    Tu-22 did not carry missiles.

    The TU-22M3 is related to the TU-22M which is related to the TU-22;

    Tu-22M is not related to Tu-22.

    TU-95/114/116/126/142s r distantly related to the B-29 & its TU-4 copy.

    There is no relationship between the Bear and the B-29... that is just absurd.


    With them, no need to build 50 TU-160Ms, smaller 25-35 will be enough!

    If they are not upgrading the engines then by 2030 they will start to withdraw them. If they are going to build Tu-160s they might as well make a decent number, because the production facilities would not be cheap.

    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Aug 26, 2018 6:32 am

    Developed from requires some components and design feature to remain in the design.
    They have similar planform, landing gear, nose & tail. It's not just general similarities like "2 wings, 2 engines, cockpit in the front, gun in the tail", etc. u mentioned.

    Tu-22 did not carry missiles.
    They did:
    Missiles: 1 × Kh-22 (AS-4 Kitchen) cruise missile
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22#Specifications_(Tu-22R)

    Tu-22M is not related to Tu-22. ..
    ..no relationship between the Bear and the B-29... that is just absurd.
    U can believe what u want, but they r as related as the TU-134 is related to the TU-16 via the TU-104 & the Tu-124, & other examples I posted before. They all succeed each other & even if they don't very closely resemble their predecessors, they r still products of related development by the same general designers & their design teams. Radical new designs don't appear very often in aviation. That's why there r many families of aircraft, military & civil, consisting of many variants of a base model.
    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 Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:52 pm

    mnztr wrote:Some articles I have read seem to indicate a new engine is part of the program, although the prototype is nott fitted with it. The engine from the TU-160, I guess the upgraded new production spec is not flight ready yet. I suspect they will show out on later test articles.

    me too Smile



    GarryB wrote:

    With them, no need to build 50 TU-160Ms, smaller 25-35 will be enough!

    If they are not upgrading the engines then by 2030 they will start to withdraw them. If they are going to build Tu-160s they might as well make a decent number, because the production facilities would not be cheap.


    @Tsavo && Garry

    I think that the reason is different: Tu-22s are to fight fleet both defending homeland and "clesring the way" for Tu-160 going for US mainland.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:46 pm

    I think that the reason is different: Tu-22s are to fight fleet both defending homeland and "clearing the way" for Tu-160 going for US mainland.
    The US E & W Coasts will be covered by the Status-6s; the rest of the CONUS is best reached from Russia via the mid-Arctic, & there won't be any USN CVNs there any time soon. Sending TU-22M3s & into N. Atlantic &/ N. Pacific ahead of the TU-160Ms will only telegraph the NORAD that an attack is imminent, alerting dozens of interceptors in Alaska, Canada, Norway, UK, Iceland & Greenland. As a last resort, the USAF may explode a few nukes high above to EMP large areas & disable them before they come in range to launch their ALCMs.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System

    mnztr

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

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  mnztr on Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:40 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    I think that the reason is different: Tu-22s are to fight fleet both defending homeland and "clearing the way" for Tu-160 going for US mainland.
    The US E & W Coasts will be covered by the Status-6s; the rest of the CONUS is best reached from Russia via the mid-Arctic, & there won't be any USN CVNs there any time soon. Sending TU-22M3s & into N. Atlantic &/ N. Pacific ahead of the TU-160Ms will only telegraph the NORAD that an attack is imminent, alerting dozens of interceptors in Alaska, Canada, Norway, UK, Iceland & Greenland. As a last resort, the USAF may explode a few nukes high above to EMP large areas & disable them before they come in range to launch their ALCMs.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System

    Most military gear is hardened against EMP, that won't work.

    mnztr

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

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  mnztr on Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:26 am

    does anyone know the dimensions/weights of the NK-32 vs NK-25? How big a job is it gonna be to get this fitted?
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 612
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  LMFS on Mon Aug 27, 2018 2:24 am

    mnztr wrote:does anyone know the dimensions/weights of the NK-32 vs NK-25? How big a job is it gonna be to get this fitted?
    There is some information here, but it is not conclusive IMO:

    http://www.leteckemotory.cz/motory/nk-25/

    I did not find anything more accurate. The engines seem reasonably close in size but I  don't know if they could be exchanged without mayor modifications to the airframe.

    mnztr

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

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  mnztr on Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:00 am

    Seem the 32 is 7 cm narrower and slightly heavier and 15 cm longer Should be NP fitting them without major surgury

    hoom

    Posts : 1075
    Points : 1067
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  hoom on Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:09 am

    They have similar planform, landing gear, nose & tail.
    The only things possibly not changed of that list is the upper part of the tail & the nose landing gear.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:06 am