Tu-22M3: News

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

a bit off from the running chat. but I am surprised that the Tu-22M was never sold/purchased to/by China or India especially as a maritime bomber both having large sea areas it would have been pretty good to have as anti shipping and Russia has loads of them.

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.

looks like it' not happening

Shamanov denied media information about the deployment of TU-22M3 bombers in Crimea

The Chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee stressed that a self-sufficient interspecific grouping of forces was currently formed in the Crimea, capable of repelling any attempts to attack the enemy.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6232440

d_taddei2 wrote:a bit off from the running chat. but I am surprised that the Tu-22M was never sold/purchased to/by China or India especially as a maritime bomber both having large sea areas it would have been pretty good to have as anti shipping and Russia has loads of them.  

too advanced I suppose

d_taddei2 wrote:a bit off from the running chat. but I am surprised that the Tu-22M was never sold/purchased to/by China or India especially as a maritime bomber both having large sea areas it would have been pretty good to have as anti shipping and Russia has loads of them.  

I think china tried to get it and build its own version but russia never sold it. India bought tu-142 and il-38 for antishiping and antisub missions.

Without the kh-22/55 it is useless as those are the only missile carried for antishiping. And russia will never sell them.

The Chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee stressed that a self-sufficient interspecific grouping of forces was currently formed in the Crimea, capable of repelling any attempts to attack the enemy.

Tu-22 is not a weapon for reelling attcks .

GarryB wrote:I suspect they want to keep that move up their sleeve in case the US starts placing ground based cruise and ballistic missiles in Poland and other lap dog states in eastern europe.

It will add weight when Russia places Kinzhal capable Backfires and ground based intermediate ranged missiles in that area and in Russia facing the Ukraine...

Testing waters perhaps too. BTW Romanian ABM site is like 860km form Sevastopol, Polish Redzikowo is 350km form Kalinignrad. In Romanian case You dont need to leave Crimea to use Kinzhals...

Shamanov denied media information about the deployment of TU-22M3 bombers in Crimea

Didn't seem a sensible plan to me, you might launch above Crimea but you'd want to be at height & speed already ie take-off inland.

hoom wrote:

Shamanov denied media information about the deployment of TU-22M3 bombers in Crimea

Didn't seem a sensible plan to me, you might launch above Crimea but you'd want to be at height & speed already ie take-off inland.

Crimea size is max distances 320 width 200 height It could be enough

Tu-22M3 Backfire , Air International Piotr Butowoski

Austin wrote:Tu-22M3 Backfire , Air International Piotr Butowoski

Hey Austin, weren't you guys supposed to purchase the Tu 22M3 ? There were some recent reports like this one

https://www.rbth.com/economics/defence/2016/07/14/india-seeks-four-strategic-bombers-from-russia_611501

Have these plans been shelved ?

Never heard of kh-32M, kh-mt was supposedly supersonic, it would be great if they bring back more tu-22

jhelb wrote:

Austin wrote:Tu-22M3 Backfire , Air International Piotr Butowoski

Hey Austin, weren't you guys supposed to purchase the Tu 22M3 ? There were some recent reports like this one

https://www.rbth.com/economics/defence/2016/07/14/india-seeks-four-strategic-bombers-from-russia_611501

Have these plans been shelved ?

Just media speculation nothing more much like we had S-300 operating for long time