Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-22M3: News

    AMCXXL
    AMCXXL

    Posts : 335
    Points : 337
    Join date : 2017-08-08

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  AMCXXL on Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:42 pm

    Isos wrote:
    JohninMK wrote:

    Rob Lee
    ‏ @RALee85
    Jan 28

    Nice shot of the Russian Naval Aviation Ty-134UB-L (white # 54, registration # RF-12037) training aircraft for Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 pilots. This aircraft was overhauled last year at the Minsk Plant of Civil Aviation No. 407.




    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 DyA5UYcXQAEFWLN


    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 DyB6FyeWoA4gony

    According to Eehnie this is clearly a Tu-22. There is no such thing as tu-134 Very Happy  just look at the nose !!

    No longer UBL is an airliner for VIP transport , is just Tu-134A-4 , probably after overhaul

    Navy does not need UBL since have not strategic bombers in their ranks.

    Several old UBL now are Tu-134A4  used as airliners for VIP transport for the chiefs of  Naval Fleets and Air Armies
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21769
    Points : 22315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:06 am

    Well flogging a point to death the claim that the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M are the same aircraft because they both have crew in the front and they have two engines and they are a theatre bomber and they both have wings would also apply to this aircraft too... it has crew up front in the nose and it has two engines and wings and is intended to simulate bombing missions with a Tu-22M3 and a Tu-160...

    But like the Tu-22M and the Tu-22 the engines are different and mounted differently, the wings are different and fixed, the entire shape of the aircraft is different... the only extra difference between this aircraft and those is that this one is not called Tu-22.

    There is a light twin engined bomber from the early post war period that is called Tu-22 and it looks nothing like the Tu-22 we know let alone like the Tu-22M we also know.

    The Tu-22M designation was not reused because this aircraft was related to the Tu-22, it was used specifically because it wasn't... because there was no funding for a brand new design, but there was always money for upgrades.

    Ironically the opposite of the US... they cancelled the B-1A and the B-1B, but there was plenty of money for the B-2 dead end white elephant...

    Nice pics BTW.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2759
    Points : 2757
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:56 am

    claim that the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M are the same aircraft
    Btw their noses r also similar. No1 said that here! "Directly related" isn't the "same"!
    The Russians not affiliated with Tupolev I quoted said that 1 came from the other. I also mentioned an analogues history with Tu-124 & Tu-134, only in reverse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-124
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-134

    Their wings & tails have different shapes, engines r mounted differently, but the fuselages & noses r identical.
    Also, there r Yak-40 & Yak-42:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-40
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-42

    The latter is larger, has swept wings, different engines, 7 better performance.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:47 am

    GarryB wrote:Ironically the opposite of the US... they cancelled the B-1A and the B-1B, but there was plenty of money for the B-2 dead end white elephant...
    actually  PAK-DA aka Messenger has the same form as B-2.  US  needs B-1/B to do what?  Attack Russian CSGs?



    AMCXXL wrote: Navy does not need UBL since have not strategic bombers in their ranks.
    Several old UBL now are Tu-134A4  used as airliners for VIP transport for the chiefs of  Naval Fleets and Air Armies

    Not really. Tu-134UBL is still being used to train Tu-22/Tu160 pilots. Including naval aviation. It was shortly written off but in 2013-2014 returned to service.



    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1783898.html
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2759
    Points : 2757
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:54 pm

    Tu-134UBL is still being used to train Tu-22/Tu160 pilots. Including naval aviation.
    All Tu-22Ms were transferred to the AF after 1991 & now r in the VKS.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 6590
    Points : 6657
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  JohninMK on Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:55 pm

    AMCXXL wrote:

    No longer UBL is an airliner for VIP transport , is just Tu-134A-4 , probably after overhaul

    Navy does not need UBL since have not strategic bombers in their ranks.

    Several old UBL now are Tu-134A4  used as airliners for VIP transport for the chiefs of  Naval Fleets and Air Armies

    Even if its a Tu-134A4 the Navy still needs it so they get first dibs, as their VIP transport. Anyway, that's a brilliant colour scheme.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2240
    Points : 2238
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:56 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Tu-134UBL is still being used to train Tu-22/Tu160 pilots. Including naval aviation.
    All Tu-22Ms were transferred to the AF after 1991 & now r in the VKS.

    Last planes were transfered in 2011.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:58 pm

    Hole wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Tu-134UBL is still being used to train Tu-22/Tu160 pilots. Including naval aviation.
    All Tu-22Ms were transferred to the AF after 1991 & now r in the VKS.

    Last planes were transfered in 2011.

    Yet still Tu22 are flying, their tsk is CSG deterrence so somewhere pilots need to be trained on?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21769
    Points : 22315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:14 am

    Btw their noses r also similar. No1 said that here! "Directly related" isn't the "same"!

    Their noses are not that similar.

    Directly related means like a father son relationship direct lineage... not came from the same country and had the same last name.

    Their wings & tails have different shapes, engines r mounted differently, but the fuselages & noses r identical.

    Look at the photos again... the fuselages are completely different shapes and the noses are different too... not to mention the content of the noses is different and the engines are different... three crew in line in one and four crew and two sets of two side by side in the other...

    actually  PAK-DA aka Messenger has the same form as B-2.

    The B-2 was intended as a bomber that would penetrate enemy airspace right to the target and release munitions over the target... it has evolved because they have started to realise that is not going to happen and low altitude penetration bombing was the new plan.

    The Russian aircraft is a cruise missile carrier that might be a bomb truck on short range non nuclear missions... they are not the same.

    US  needs B-1/B to do what?  Attack Russian CSGs?

    Really don't care... they wanted a Tu-160 and then scaled it down to something similar to a Tu-22M3 but still treat it like a strategic bomber... it has been a bit of a black sheep that no one seems to want to own...

    Yet still Tu22 are flying, their tsk is CSG deterrence so somewhere pilots need to be trained on?

    Well army aviation moved their attack helos to air force control but they still train and perform their missions with the Army forces and still do all the training etc they did before... would assume the same for the naval forces... still perform naval strike missions but from the air force instead of the navy...[/quote]


    Last edited by GarryB on Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:34 am; edited 1 time in total
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2759
    Points : 2757
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:03 am

    Look at the photos again... the fuselages are completely different shapes and the noses are different too... not to mention the content of the noses is different and the engines are different... three crew in line in one and four crew and two sets of two side by side in the other...
    Look at the site again, last line in the text under the 1st picture- the Tu-134 developed from the Tu-124:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-134

    Their wings & fuselages are not completely different shapes, & the noses both r glazed the same, for pilots & the navigator:
    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Tu124_3
    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ78qvn_m3DEqWPcL_iH8UsfjZZGZMGXjhf_bigVjmlusbfRgVwGw
    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQskRaPo-nh7Wia6Uj5pbSKOAADiGkoV-vjRkfVS520WDKJxaHdmA
    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Pic_1358661300
    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 11.Proektsii-Tu-134-GDR.-Risunok.

    Their small differences doesn't change that they r closely related. I saw them up close.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21769
    Points : 22315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:12 am

    They do have a history of reusing or having related designations for related designs.... an obvious example is that the upgrade of the Il-76 is called the Il-476 and there is a reduced size model with two engines to be called Il-276... clearly the 4 means four engined upgraded Il-76 (Il-76M has already been used), while the Il-276 means twin engine model of the Il-76.

    This is especially with airliners, which often were directly based on each other or related in some way.

    This does not apply to the Tu-22 and Tu-22M because they changed everything... they are not related... they kept a similar designation so they could get funding by pretending it was an upgrade, but it was a complete redesign... even the engines are different...

    But of course if that was enough then you could argue that this test plane has the same nose as the latest model Tu-22M3M because it holds the radar of that aircraft so this transport plane is as much related to the Tu-22M as the Tu-22 is related to the Tu-22M...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21769
    Points : 22315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:12 am

    Their small differences doesn't change that they r closely related. I saw them up close.

    They are closely related.

    The Tu-22 and Tu-22M are NOT and don't look the same.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 214
    Points : 220
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  marcellogo on Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:44 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Ironically the opposite of the US... they cancelled the B-1A and the B-1B, but there was plenty of money for the B-2 dead end white elephant...

    actually  PAK-DA aka Messenger has the same form as B-2.  US  needs B-1/B to do what?  Attack Russian CSGs?

    There is a lot of difference between B-2 and both PAK-DA and new B-21, first one is an huge intercontinental plane with four engines, other are smaller and have just two i.e. are about the size of a Tu-22M3 but with greater range.

    B-1A was though to fly at high quote reaching 2+ mach, B-1b traded high speed with low quote capability and semi-stealth.

    And it was not cancelled at all: 100 were ordered as an interim solution between B-52 with ALCM and ATF (i.e. B-2 Spirit) and 100 were produced.





    AMCXXL
    AMCXXL

    Posts : 335
    Points : 337
    Join date : 2017-08-08

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  AMCXXL on Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:53 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Hole wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Tu-134UBL is still being used to train Tu-22/Tu160 pilots. Including naval aviation.
    All Tu-22Ms were transferred to the AF after 1991 & now r in the VKS.

    Last planes were transfered in 2011.

    Yet still Tu22 are flying, their tsk is CSG deterrence so somewhere pilots need to be trained on?


    Navy transferred the last regiments to Air Force in 2009
    However all of these units were disbabded in 2011

    By 1991 , USSR have a lot of regiments of Tu-22 in the Navy, probably about a dozen of regiments between the 4 fleets with several types of airplanes: Tu-22M2 , Tu22M3 and Tu-22MR
    The most regiments were disbanded in the large cuts of years 90´s
    By 2008 only one regiment in Olenya and other in Sovetskaya Gavan remained
    In 2009 were transferred to the Air Force , but both were closed in 2011

    Several days ago one Tu-22M3 crashed at Olenya, and bmpd said that was part of 40º Heavy Bomber Regiment, but this is not true
    Olenya regiments were disbanded, the last in 2011.
    The airfield is used by Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 of other regiments, and the decomissioned Tu-22M3 and Tu-22MR remain in storage:
    https://www.google.es/maps/@68.1604788,33.4531742,282m/data=!3m1!1e3

    The airplane crashed RF-94159 Nº35 was a test airplane , part of the 929 GLITs:
    https://russianplanes.net/id218966
    Бортовой: RF-94159 / 35 тип
    Россия (СССР) - ВВС
      → ГК НИИ ВВС (929 ГЛИЦ МО РФ)

    Navy had its own Training Center:  444 TsBPiPLS at Ostrov (Pskov Oblast)
    Today this airfield is the base of  the new 15 Brigade of Army Aviation (Helicopters), but still there are stored several decomissioned airplanes of the Navy (Tu-142 , Tu-22M3 , Tu-134UBL Be-12 and Su-24)
    https://www.google.es/maps/@57.2848988,28.4196764,205m/data=!3m1!1e3


    Today, the Training Center of the Air Force for Heavy Bombers, (43 TsBPiPLS), is at Dyagilevo airbase , in Ryazan
    However most of airplanes are decomissioned, waiting tor the modernized Tu-22M3M and Tu-95MSM
    https://www.google.es/maps/@54.6475513,39.5663232,564m/data=!3m1!1e3


    The 43 TsBPiPLS has also other regiment , the 27º Composite Regiment in Tambov for basic training with 2 squadrons, one of Tu-134UBL and other of An-26
    However, the most of Tu-134UBL are stored in reserve since a lot of years
    https://www.google.es/maps/@52.7000507,41.3826185,577m/data=!3m1!1e3

    The Tu-134UBL used in Tambov for training of Heavy Bombres are like that:

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 237556


    AMCXXL wrote: Navy does not need UBL since have not strategic bombers in their ranks.
    Several old UBL now are Tu-134A4  used as airliners for VIP transport for the chiefs of  Naval Fleets and Air Armies

    Not really. Tu-134UBL is still being used to train Tu-22/Tu160 pilots. Including naval aviation. It was shortly written off but in 2013-2014 returned to service.
    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1783898.html

    Al of this airplanes have 40 years old and have been overhauled several times each
    Some have been transformed on airliners for VIP transport or for transport personnel, in the Navy and in the Airforce:


    RF-12000 Nº20 , also Tu-134A-4 , VIP transport/airliner of Black Sea Fleet
    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 221670

    RF-95950 of 929th GLITs used for transport personnel between Akhtubinsk and Chkalovsky (Moscow) , the two main locations of GLITs
    Here: https://www.google.es/maps/@55.8792285,38.0382372,99m/data=!3m1!1e3
    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 211240

    RF-66054 Nº54 of the Transport Regiment of East Military District
    Here: https://www.google.es/maps/@48.4627805,135.1463674,118m/data=!3m1!1e3
    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 229442

    RF-65733  Nº31 of the Transport Rgiment of Central Military District
    Here: https://www.google.es/maps/@56.7479418,60.8280571,97m/data=!3m1!1e3
    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 236805


    The reason could be that there are not more Tu-134 available and the only reserve is at Tambov , were are Tu-134UBL stored

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 221250


    Last edited by AMCXXL on Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:27 am; edited 1 time in total
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:19 pm

    marcellogo wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    actually  PAK-DA aka Messenger has the same form as B-2.  US  needs B-1/B to do what?  Attack Russian CSGs?

    There is a lot of difference between B-2 and both PAK-DA and new B-21, first one is an huge intercontinental plane with four engines, other are smaller and have just two i.e. are about the size of a Tu-22M3 but with greater range.

    B-1A was though to fly at high quote reaching 2+ mach, B-1b traded high speed with low quote capability and semi-stealth.

    And it was not cancelled at all: 100 were ordered as an interim solution between B-52 with ALCM and ATF (i.e. B-2 Spirit) and 100 were produced.


    All your wrote above is true but it was not my point. My point was US builds planes it needs o fulfill doctrine. US dont need Tu-22 type bombers to attack CSGs, because they so far are the only ones using them.


    BTW B-2 and PAK DA do have same form - flying wing. We dont know what the range of PAK DA is going to be but since it is strtegic bomber its range is unlikely to be below intercontinental.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2759
    Points : 2757
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:06 am

    US dont need Tu-22 type bombers to attack CSGs, because they so far are the only ones using them.
    They'll need them now, in case of confrontation with the PLAN.
    USAF B-52s armed with harpoons/naval mines & B-1Bs (the direct Tu-22M counterpart) have a 2ndary maritime strike mission.
    Thirty B-52Gs were further modified to carry up to 12 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles each,..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#Armament

    New US Navy's maritime strategy in early 1980s called for aggressive use of carriers and surface action groups against the Soviet navy. To help protect the carrier battle groups, some B-52G were modified to fire Harpoon anti-ship missiles. These bombers were based at Guam and Maine from later 1970s in order to support both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. In case of war B-52s would coordinate with tanker support and surveillance by AWACS and Navy AWACS planes. B-52Gs could strike Soviet navy targets on the flanks of the US carrier battle groups, leaving them free to concentrate on offensive strikes against Soviet surface combatants. Mines laid down by B-52s could establish mine fields in significant enemy choke points (mainly Kurile islands and GIUK). These minefields would force the Soviet fleet to disperse, making individual ships more vulnerable to Harpoon attacks.
    From the 1980s B-52Hs were modified to use Harpoons in addition to a wide range of cruise missiles, laser- and satellite-guided bombs and unguided munitions. B-52 bomber crews honed sea-skimming flight profiles that should allow them to penetrate stiff enemy defenses and attack Soviet ships.
    Recent expansion and modernization of China's navy has caused B-52s to dust off abilities for finding and attacking ships. Quite recently B-52 fleet has been certified to use Quickstrike family of naval mines using JDAM-ER guided wing kits. This weapon will give the ability to lay down minefields over wide areas, in a single pass, with extreme accuracy, and all while standing-off at over 40 miles away. Besides this, with a view to enhance B-52 maritime patrol and strike performance, an AN/ASQ-236 Dragon's Eye underwing pod, has also been certified for use by B-52H bombers. Dragon's Eye contains an advanced electronically-scanned array radar that will allow B-52s to quickly scan vast Pacific Ocean areas, so finding and sinking enemy ships will be easier for them. This radar will complement Litening infrared targeting pod already used by B-52s for inspecting ships.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#B-52_and_maritime_operations

    The LRASM was not originally planned to be deployed on the B-1, being intended solely as a technology demonstrator, but in February 2014 the Pentagon authorized the LRASM to be integrated onto air platforms, including the Air Force B-1, as an operational weapon to address the needs of the Navy and Air Force to have a modern anti-ship missile. In August 2015, the Navy officially designated the air-launched LRASM as "AGM-158C". The LRASM achieved Early Operational Capability on the B-1B in December 2018.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM#AGM-158C_LRASM

    The VMF & other navies that get on the US bad side may also face them in the future.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:16 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add a quote)
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:25 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    US dont need Tu-22 type bombers to attack CSGs, because they so far are the only ones using them.
    They'll need them now, in case of confrontation with the PLAN.
    USAF B-52s armed with harpoons/naval mines & B-1Bs (the direct Tu-22M counterpart) have a 2ndary maritime strike mission.

    But they so far they are not much of use. OK when Chinese CSGs will roam close to US shores the question returns. But Harpoons and B-52 can work only against Iranian navy.

    With LRSMs situation can be different but I wonder how slow LRSMs will work against CSG full equipped with AWACS and potent air wing/AAM. I'd rather suspect that US would deploy PGS in counter CSG role.







    GarryB wrote:
    actually  PAK-DA aka Messenger has the same form as B-2.

    The B-2 was intended as a bomber that would penetrate enemy airspace right to the target and release munitions over the target... it has evolved because they have started to realise that is not going to happen and low altitude penetration bombing was the new plan.

    The Russian aircraft is a cruise missile carrier that might be a bomb truck on short range non nuclear missions... they are not the same.


    the form .i.e. flying wing is the same. Tasks different but they are build to different doctrines. IMHO B-21 and   PAK-DA will be much closer in mission profile.



    GB wrote:
    US  needs B-1/B to do what?  Attack Russian CSGs?

    Really don't care... they wanted a Tu-160 and then scaled it down to something similar to a Tu-22M3 but still treat it like a strategic bomber... it has been a bit of a black sheep that no one seems to want to own...

    Let me disagree about that. After Soviet Union fell it was  true but not anymore. Tu-22Ms are actually in demand and very capable navy bombers. AFAIK all 30 Tu-22M3M re going to carry Kh-32 (and or Kinzhals).  6 of them can carry 12 Kh-32s or 24 Kinzhals what might be too much for CSG to enter Russian no-access zone.[/quote]
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21769
    Points : 22315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:50 am

    I said wrote:Look at the photos again... the fuselages are completely different shapes and the noses are different too... not to mention the content of the noses is different and the engines are different... three crew in line in one and four crew and two sets of two side by side in the other...
    .... you replied
    Look at the site again, last line in the text under the 1st picture- the Tu-134 developed from the Tu-124:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-134

    Their wings & fuselages are not completely different shapes, & the noses both r glazed the same, for pilots & the navigator:

    I was talking about the Tu-22 and Tu-22M.

    There is a lot of difference between B-2 and both PAK-DA and new B-21, first one is an huge intercontinental plane with four engines, other are smaller and have just two i.e. are about the size of a Tu-22M3 but with greater range.

    Amusing... but I really don't know how you can be so sure about what the design of the PAK DA is when we have not seen it yet.

    the form .i.e. flying wing is the same. Tasks different but they are build to different doctrines. IMHO B-21 and PAK-DA will be much closer in mission profile.
    The purpose of the PAK DA is to replace both the Backfire and the Bear in theatre and long range strategic missile strike roles... this requires enormous internal space and does not really require much in the way of flight speed so you might find the PAK DA is a rather fat wing aircraft that is not a twin of the B-2 so it can carry large ordinance internally like the Father of all bombs and various cruise missiles and other weapons.

    The B-1A was designed to replace the B-52 but the operational cost of big supersonic bombers made the baulk at the cost... them... but by then they had realised speed was no solution anyway, so they went for stealth and made a half arsed attempt to make the B-1A stealthy... which ended up as the not stealthy B-1B as an interim model until the B-2 was ready... that ended up being so eye wateringly expensive they only made 20 and decided to keep using the B-52s...

    In comparison the Tu-160 was never intended to penetrate enemy airspace with speed... it merely carried cruise missiles intended to do the low flying penetration which is fine... they only made a couple of dozen because they ran out of time and money... if the cold war had not ended they would probably have 150 by now and the Bear would probably have been retired.

    The B-1B is the black sheep, not the Tu-22M3M... it is a very potent and capable modern aircraft that will become even more capable as new weapons like GZUR and Kinzhal enter service.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:58 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    the form .i.e. flying wing is the same. Tasks different but they are build to different doctrines. IMHO B-21 and   PAK-DA will be much closer in mission profile.
    The purpose of the PAK DA is to replace both the Backfire and the Bear in theatre and long range strategic missile strike roles... this requires enormous internal space and does not really require much in the way of flight speed so you might find the PAK DA is a rather fat wing aircraft that is not a twin of the B-2 so it can carry large ordinance internally like the Father of all bombs and various cruise missiles and other weapons.


    B-2 has payload 2x18 tons? PAK DA was supposed to have 30t? Im not sure what do you mean they re so different in form or performance?



    GB wrote: In comparison the Tu-160 was never intended to penetrate enemy airspace with speed... it merely carried cruise missiles intended to do the low flying penetration which is fine... they only made a couple of dozen because they ran out of time and money... if the cold war had not ended they would probably have 150 by now and the Bear would probably have been retired.

    Tu-95? not really I see Tu-160s in ASW / Maritime patrol role.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21769
    Points : 22315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:49 pm

    B-2 has payload 2x18 tons? PAK DA was supposed to have 30t? Im not sure what do you mean they re so different in form or performance?

    Well, I would rather like to know more about the PAK DA before giving a definitive comment, but the B-2 is a subsonic flying wing bomber that was intended to carry nuclear bombs on strategic missions. It has had that mission expanded to include a conventional role in the various imperial colonial conflicts the US has gotten itself involved with, and the performance of the Russian air defence forces has changed its mission from an easy medium altitude stealth penetration so low level penetration and stand off weapons.

    The PAK DA on the other hand, while it is also a flying wing design that is most likely subsonic, has the primary role of cruise missile carrier in the strategic role and bomber in the theatre role.... which demands rather huge internal volume... for bulky weapons options over shorter ranges of the theatre bomber role, and a lot of extra fuel and cruise missiles for the strategic role.

    I think it will have a thicker profile than the US aircraft to allow more internal volume for bigger weapons to be carried internally... along with extra fuel for strategic missions (with smaller cruise missile payloads).

    The payload of the B-2 appears to be almost as good as the Tu-22M3...obviously over rather greater ranges though.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21769
    Points : 22315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:50 pm

    Tu-95? not really I see Tu-160s in ASW / Maritime patrol role.

    Tu-160s would burn too much fuel in the MPA role... you need subsonic planes like Tu-142 or PAK DA for the long range patrol mission...
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 214
    Points : 220
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  marcellogo on Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:25 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    All your wrote above is true but it was not my point. My point was US builds planes it needs o fulfill doctrine. US dont need Tu-22 type bombers to attack CSGs, because they so far are the only ones using them.  


    BTW B-2 and PAK DA do have same form - flying wing.  We dont know what the range of PAK DA is going to be but  since it is strategic bomber its range is unlikely to be below intercontinental.

    Difference BTW B-2 and B-21 (and as it seems also PAK-DA) is that first one got 4 engines (being so of the same category of Tu-160 or almost B-1) while the second just two (so being of about the same category of Tu-22M), production and maintenance cost would be so smaller allowing for a more consistent buy.

    And NO, USA definitively doesn't build planes it need to fulfill a doctrine, a.t.c.it usually build an ad hoc doctrine to justify in front of its (warmongering) public opinion and of (an always too eager of being convinced) Congress the latest hi tech gimmick the military industrial complex have the necessity to sell for their own interest...

    And the history of the B-1 in its two versions is one of the most clear example of this.

    They started in the sixties with AMSA program in order to obtain an high speed, long range bomber able to flight at low quote (something B-58 and XB-70 were not able to do) to better penetrate soviet SAM defences of the time.
    McNamara however discarded the project and planned to acquire instead 300 FB-111 i.e. a specific strategical strike version of its most beloved plane.
    Republican president Nixon however resumed the project that led to the B-1A version i.e. a Mach 2+ plane initially though to be able of reaching supersonic speed at low quote also, a performance that was however discarded in order to simplify production and lower costs.  
    That's was because Democrats were strongly against project and cancelled it when Carter went in charge.
    Their main arguments against it were that B-52 launched ALCM had the same low quote flight pattern at a fraction of cost while introduction of look down/shoot down radars in soviet PVO and above all the news about a Super-Foxbat (i.e. the MiG-31) ready to be produced would have made it redundant.
    In the meantime however Carter started, fully in secret, the ATB program about a stealth plane that led in the end to the B-2.
    When Republicans went back, the Lancer had a comeback also but in a diverse form and mission, ending in the actual B-1B version
    Main reason for this changes was the somewhat wrong assumption that the B-52/ALCM would soon became obsolete while the actual scenario following the soviet Afghanistan intervention dictated a wider range of possible conventional mission for the bombers fleet instead of an almost exclusively strategical strike one.
    Variable intake ramps of B-1A were so forfeited, strongly limiting its own max hi quote speed and incrementing instead low quote one of a way smaller amount, some initial RCS limitation measures were undertaken and just 100 of them were produced.
    The final result was something that had an insufficient speed to made any difference in every mission that required a dash run while in the same time was excessively complicated and costly for a purely conventional one and was not good either as an ALCM carrier when compared with a B-52.
    Semi-stealth measures also, although costly and performance limiting, were not enough for keeping pace with radar tech evolution.
    So SAC obsession about the necessity of having planes able to penetrate into enemy AD (also in order to justify their own fair share of the bill...), the necessity of industrial complex to sell their gimmicks coupled with the flip flops of partisan politics led to the introduction of three different planes (FB-111, B-1B and B-2) either unable to perform an impossible mission or too damn complicated of costly to cover the actual strategic need.
    It seems that only with the B-21 they have finally realized how the idea of a penetrating strategic bomber was utterly unfeasible and are finally going toward s stand off missile carrier one instead i.e. something their counterpart already realized even before the Tu-22M introduction.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2240
    Points : 2238
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:10 pm

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 24654010
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3768
    Points : 3756
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Isos on Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:38 pm

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-bombers-idUSKCN1QZ1WV

    MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia has decided to deploy nuclear-capable Tupolev Tu-22M3 strategic bombers to the Crimean peninsula in response to the U.S. rolling out missile defense systems in Romania, the RIA news agency cited a senior Russian lawmaker as saying on Monday.
    AMCXXL
    AMCXXL

    Posts : 335
    Points : 337
    Join date : 2017-08-08

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  AMCXXL on Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:05 pm

    Isos wrote:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-bombers-idUSKCN1QZ1WV

    MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia has decided to deploy nuclear-capable Tupolev Tu-22M3 strategic bombers to the Crimean peninsula in response to the U.S. rolling out missile defense systems in Romania, the RIA news agency cited a senior Russian lawmaker as saying on Monday.

    Tu-22M3 flight over the Black Sea


    Sponsored content

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 21 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:24 am