Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-22M3: News

    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2453
    Points : 2610
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Cyberspec on Thu May 23, 2019 4:09 am

    dino00 wrote:The future of sea missile carriers: Tu-22M or Su-34

    Transfer of long-range bombers to naval aviation may not be feasible.

    Ilya Kramnik


    https://iz.ru/880913/ilia-kramnik/budushchee-morskikh-raketonostcev-tu-22m-ili-su-34

    Thanks...interesting read.

    If I remember correctly, the the Su-34 was originally marketed for export as the Su-32FN Naval strike aircraft. I wonder whether they will return to that concept
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21100
    Points : 21648
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 23, 2019 5:33 am

    Interesting... they had Kh-22 missiles in storage as it was withdrawn from service for a while... (it uses rather nasty propellent that needs to be loaded into the missile before takeoff...)

    They are going to return them to service after upgrading them to Kh-32 standard... ie 40K metres flight altitude at mach 4.5 with a mach 5 plus dive on the target and flight range of over 1,000km... quite a potent missile..

    https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/https/iz.ru/740556/aleksandr-kruglov/glavnyi-kalibr-vernuli-v-stroi


    That's how I usually do but on my smartphone I can't on instagram.

    That explains it... Smile


    If I remember correctly, the the Su-34 was originally marketed for export as the Su-32FN Naval strike aircraft. I wonder whether they will return to that concept

    I hope it is multi role enough to not need a new naval strike variant... they can just upgrade them all to do the job...
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2453
    Points : 2610
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Cyberspec on Thu May 23, 2019 8:26 am

    I don't think the Su-34 can carry the X-22/X-32...so can't completely replace the Tu-22M
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21100
    Points : 21648
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 23, 2019 11:13 am

    I don't think the Su-34 can carry the X-22/X-32...so can't completely replace the Tu-22M

    True, but as they will be producing a lot of new Blackjacks and PAK DAs then to start with they will have a lot of extra Tu-95s... and after a period they will likely have excess capacity so they could build a few extra PAK DAs to replace those Bears in naval service...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2506
    Points : 2502
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu May 23, 2019 4:48 pm

    For the NAF, they should have considered modernizing their Tu-16s &/ or produce a new variant to have something like H-6D/K, which have more range & payload:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#Specifications_(Su-34)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-16#Specifications_(Tu-16)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6#Specifications_(H-6)
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Badger.html
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 339
    Points : 339
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Thu May 23, 2019 7:13 pm

    From what I have read they plan to make a version of the Tu 214-as ASW/ Maritime patrol, similar to the american P-8 (derived from the 737).

    This could replace the Tu- 142s.

    In addition, I believe they want also a smaller maritime patrol aircraft derived from the Il-114.

    And for anti ship hypersonic missile carriers... what about
    Restarting production of a modernised Tu22M3M with the new engines of the Tu-160.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5015
    Points : 5170
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu May 23, 2019 7:54 pm

    Cyberspec wrote:
    dino00 wrote:The future of sea missile carriers: Tu-22M or Su-34

    Transfer of long-range bombers to naval aviation may not be feasible.

    Ilya Kramnik


    https://iz.ru/880913/ilia-kramnik/budushchee-morskikh-raketonostcev-tu-22m-ili-su-34

    Thanks...interesting read.

    If I remember correctly, the the Su-34 was originally marketed for export as the Su-32FN Naval strike aircraft. I wonder whether they will return to that concept

    This seems more like hyperbolic pessimism more than anything. They say about the need for many more Tu-22m3's for the oceanic fleets (at least 50) than that are in service (60 approx), but that's flawed logic:

    1.) Naval surface fleet ships are relatively slow compared to aircraft, the need for supersonic aircraft for naval aviation is very far less urgent than they're suggesting, especially so when you factor in recent successful development of hypersonic weapons. Nothing stops them from restarting production of Tu-142's loaded with hypersonic weapons like Zircon with +1000km range (of which the air launched version could significantly greater range) and using them for that purpose, yes they might not be as fast but they have vastly superior range in comparison.

    2.) Speaking about hypersonic weapons, the INF-Treaty is dead, nothing stops the development of the extend range versions of Iskander-M, or +1000km range land based Zircon, or even land based 4,500km extended range 3M-54's on truck based TEL's, of which they could probably produce several dozen a month at a fraction of the cost.

    3.) They're speaking of no new naval helicopters is in fact a red herring, they like to pretend like the development of Ka-52K doesn't exist, or the fact they'll be able to launch Kh-35's fairly soon. The Ka-52 has a combat radius of 470km's, and the max range for Kh-35U's are 300km's, which means Ka-52K's would able to destroy targets (sea and land) to about 770km's away, and could defend an area 1540km's in diameter.

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 06-3885436-ka-52k-s-raketoj-kh-35ue
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3564
    Points : 3556
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Isos on Thu May 23, 2019 8:25 pm

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
    And for anti ship hypersonic missile carriers... what about
    Restarting production of a modernised Tu22M3M with the new engines of the Tu-160.

    They have tu-160 in production and soon pak da. Three heavy bombers is expensive to build and operate.

    Mig-31k and kinzhal is also some sort of replacement for tu-22M and kh-32.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2146
    Points : 2144
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Thu May 23, 2019 9:30 pm

    There are around 50 Tu22M3 in storage. Some of them could be brought back and be modernised. If the need would really be there.
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2453
    Points : 2610
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Cyberspec on Thu May 23, 2019 10:34 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Cyberspec wrote:
    dino00 wrote:The future of sea missile carriers: Tu-22M or Su-34

    Transfer of long-range bombers to naval aviation may not be feasible.

    Ilya Kramnik


    https://iz.ru/880913/ilia-kramnik/budushchee-morskikh-raketonostcev-tu-22m-ili-su-34

    Thanks...interesting read.

    This seems more like hyperbolic pessimism more than anything. They say about the need for many more Tu-22m3's for the oceanic fleets (at least 50) than that are in service (60 approx), but that's flawed logic....

    Yes you are right.

    Still, adding the Su-34 to Naval Aviation would be a good idea. I think it's better suited to naval strike role than the Su-30

    Hole wrote:There are around 50 Tu22M3 in storage. Some of them could be brought back and be modernised. If the need would really be there.

    They probably will if the initial batch proves successful in service
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21100
    Points : 21648
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 24, 2019 8:36 am

    As they introduce PAK DA into service they are going to have a lot of Tu-95s available that already have wing pylon space for 10 cruise missiles... extending its weapon bay like they did with the Tu-22M3M would enable another 6 large long range missiles to be carried... which could be 16 Zircon missiles per aircraft.

    The Bear is not fast but already equipped to fly long distances over water and they have quite a few of them.

    Strategic Aviation would have Blackjacks and PAK DA, while Naval aviation can have their Tu-22M3Ms back and some Tu-95MSM16s, plus Su-34s which should be able to carry Zircon as it was supposed to be able to carry Brahmos/Onyx fairly easily.

    A reduced size increased performance Onyx (using better fuel and improvements from Zircon programme) might be an option for under wing carriage... ie a mach 5 missile with range extended to perhaps 800km is still a devastating weapon... especially if you can carry four of them on a Fullback.

    A much bigger aircraft like a Bear or Backfire would be better with the bigger longer ranged missiles for safer standoff ranges.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 194
    Points : 200
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  marcellogo on Fri May 24, 2019 9:12 am

    GarryB wrote:As they introduce PAK DA into service they are going to have a lot of Tu-95s available that already have wing pylon space for 10 cruise missiles... extending its weapon bay like they did with the Tu-22M3M would enable another 6 large long range missiles to be carried... which could be 16 Zircon missiles per aircraft.

    The Bear is not fast but already equipped to fly long distances over water and they have quite a few of them.

    Strategic Aviation would have Blackjacks and PAK DA, while Naval aviation can have their Tu-22M3Ms back and some Tu-95MSM16s, plus Su-34s which should be able to carry Zircon as it was supposed to be able to carry Brahmos/Onyx fairly easily.

    A reduced size increased performance Onyx (using better fuel and improvements from Zircon programme) might be an option for under wing carriage... ie a mach 5 missile with range extended to perhaps 800km is still a devastating weapon... especially if you can carry four of them on a Fullback.

    A much bigger aircraft like a Bear or Backfire would be better with the bigger longer ranged missiles for safer standoff ranges.

    There is a consideration to be made: PAK-DA, like its american counterpart B-21 will be a way smaller plane than the B-2: two engines and an empty weight just marginally superior to the Tu-22M3M one.
    Stealth would increase cost and complexity but so do also being supersonic capable, so one would compensate other.
    In the meantime using the refurbished Kazan plant to built Tu-160M and to refurbish and upgrade Tu-22M3 instead than to wait idle until the PAK-DA would finish its own development would be the best thing to doo.
    Also because on the other side all their current bombers are out production, so that they would not be able to increment their number in any way, if nor recuperating something from the Boneyard, like they have done with a B-52.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13324
    Points : 13811
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  George1 on Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:35 pm

    Νew bomber sight for upgraded Tu-22M3M bomber


    According to the magazine "Jane's International Defense Review" in an article by Miroslav Gyürösi "Belarus reveals enhanced 'Backfire' EO package", at the 9th international exhibition of armament and military equipment MILEX-2019 Belarusian OJSC held in Minsk from 15 to 18 May 2019 Peleng (Minsk) presented the new ST-22-1 electron-optical bomber sight, developed as part of the modernization program for long-range Tu-22M3 Russian Aerospace Forces bomber to the Tu-22M3M version.

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 6901266_original
    A new electron-optical bomber sight ST-22-1, developed by the Belarusian company "Peleng" for the modernization of long-range bombers Tu-22M3 of the Russian Aerospace Forces, in the exposition of the exhibition MILEX-2019. Minsk, May 2019 (c) Miroslav Gyürösi / Jane's

    Sight ST-22-1 is designed for use on land and sea targets and is equipped with automatic capture and target tracking devices. OJSC "Peleng" provided only limited information about ST-22-1, which was officially designated in the exhibition as "television system". It is reported that the CT-22-1 has four switchable fields of view - wide (8 ° × 6 °), medium (4 ° × 3 °), narrow (2 ° × 1.5 °) and two-fold narrow (1 ° × 0 , 75 °) - in all cases with independent stabilization in the vertical and horizontal planes. According to the manufacturer, a narrow installation of the field of view allows you to detect a target the size of a tank at a distance of 15 km with a probability of up to 90%.

    The sight optics has a range from -40 ° to + 70 ° vertically and ± 30 ° in the longitudinal direction, with a maximum speed of movement of 30 ° per second and a minimum speed of tracking the target within the line of sight of only 0.05 ° per second.

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 6901753_original

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3662745.html
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2453
    Points : 2610
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Cyberspec on Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:53 am

    George1 wrote:

    Νew bomber sight for upgraded Tu-22M3M bomber


    Thanks.

    So is an integral sight better or is a targeting pod a better solution ?


     

    George1 wrote:Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 6901753_original

    So looks like the refueling pod is definitely being re-installed on the Tu-22M3M
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21100
    Points : 21648
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:59 pm

    Integrated sights give standard base capacity for a range of roles, but that doesn't mean it wont use external pods.

    External pods can be bought in smaller numbers and shared between a variety of aircraft and are easier to improve or upgrade generally with only minor effects upon drag.

    External pods can also be fitted backwards when useful too.

    It would be easier to add brand new optical technology to a pod than integrate it into a fixed system in an aircraft, and more importantly that pod could be shared by a wide range of aircraft in a wide variety of roles including recon, bombing, as well as targeting air and land/sea targets as well as navigation...
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2453
    Points : 2610
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Cyberspec on Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:38 am

    GarryB wrote:Integrated sights give standard base capacity for a range of roles, but that doesn't mean it wont use external pods.

    External pods can be bought in smaller numbers and shared between a variety of aircraft and are easier to improve or upgrade generally with only minor effects upon drag.

    External pods can also be fitted backwards when useful too.

    It would be easier to add brand new optical technology to a pod than integrate it into a fixed system in an aircraft, and more importantly that pod could be shared by a wide range of aircraft in a wide variety of roles including recon, bombing, as well as targeting air and land/sea targets as well as navigation...

    Thanks Garry.

    Personally, I think larger aircraft need an internal system which should be more capable than a podded one ....you can always add a pod for any specific situation when the internal one is not suited
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21100
    Points : 21648
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:30 pm

    External pods add capability and flexibility and are easier to retrofit to aircraft.

    They can use the latest and most expensive cameras and equipment... you don't need to fit it to every aircraft in the air group even, you could fit it to one aircraft to get target coordinates and those coordinates can be transmitted to other aircraft including ones in the same flight, which could programme the coordinates to onboard GLONASS guided weapons and released blind lofted from a different direction.

    When new pods become available you can adopt those and cascade the older models to other aircraft within the flight or move them on to other aircraft... a plane like an Su-25 of an older model could benefit from a targeting pod mounted on its body centre to allow it to target all sorts of things with laser and TV guided weapons... they could also be used by Yak-130 trainers on their centreline pod to target air and ground targets passively.

    On an aircraft like a Tu-22M3M with four crew you could have pilot and copilot but with the new automated self defence suite and navigation system the two rear crew could use their own separate targeting pod each to engage ground or air targets...

    They not only convert existing aircraft types into effective bombers, but also effective real time recon aircraft as they can scan for targets and pass that info up to HQ for later operations or even damage assessment.

    The Soviets generally specialised aircraft for roles and therefore didn't generally use pods, though some anti radiation missiles did require targeting pods and the AS-18 Kazoo used a datalink for transmitting the TV image of the target via the missile to the launch aircraft via a pod, but these days such things could be built in to their datalink systems...
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5015
    Points : 5170
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:00 pm

    Basically all arms limitations agreements are effectively dead (START is extremely unlikely to be renewed), hence the installation of the refueling rods.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2506
    Points : 2502
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:17 pm

    It's not a fact that the IRP is actually there. The airframe has the provision for it for future installation; the START is officially still active.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21100
    Points : 21648
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:08 am

    My understanding is that it is NewStart that is in effect which does not include any verification and is pretty weak in terms of restrictions... and when it expires in 2021 I don't think the US will want any agreement that does not include hypersonic weapons included... which I don't think the Russians will agree to...
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1912
    Points : 1902
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  hoom on Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:14 am

    I don't think that it would breach whatever START.
    It might count towards Russias' launcher allocation but I'm pretty sure they are well short of their allocation -> a bunch of Tu-22M3M with refueling probes can bring Russia up to allocation but not be a breach.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21100
    Points : 21648
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:09 pm

    I agree. Most of the previous START restrictions were not ratified by the US anyway, and New START waters everything down completely... in fact it is so weak it is in effect for one day... as long as you comply on that day you are not breaking the rules... you could have 100,000 nukes in operational status right up to the day before... move them all except 1,550 warheads into storage for that day and then bring them all back out and on duty the following day and completely comply with New START... but most importantly there are no verification and or checking components so you basically are taking them at their word.... HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE...
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2453
    Points : 2610
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Cyberspec on Sun Jun 23, 2019 8:47 am

    Nice pic...

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 D9fHfDlW4AALSIH?format=jpg&name=large
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21100
    Points : 21648
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:23 pm

    There is a consideration to be made: PAK-DA, like its american counterpart B-21 will be a way smaller plane than the B-2: two engines and an empty weight just marginally superior to the Tu-22M3M one.

    We really don't know that it will though will we... I mean its engine is supposed to be a high bypass engine based on the core of the NK-31, so its thrust could be rather high for a subsonic aircraft and we really have no idea if it will be a twin jet or a four jet engined aircraft.

    Certainly two sets of twin jets spaced apart would leave plenty of internal volume for fuel and internal weapons bays big enough to carry very large conventional bombs and missiles.

    I mean the father of all bombs will probably be about a 12m long weapon to be compatible with the Blackjacks weapon bays, so I would expect similar sized bays on the PAK DA... but it might have a centre line 12m long weapon bay and two sets of engines either side of that (one or two engines each) and then another set of weapon bays outside those also 12m long... in effect three Blackjack like weapon bays for weapons or fuel.

    The intention of the aircraft is to both replace the Bear for long range subsonic strategic cruise missile attack, and also theatre range bombing roles to replace the Backfire with less internal fuel and more conventional bombs and missiles... so it will need lots of internal volume for either role.

    Being subsonic means the wing can have a rather thick profile cross section enabling large internal weapon carriage and large volumes of internal fuel for longer ranged missions... the Backfire could carry up to 24 tons over theatre range missions of bombs, while the best Bear could carry up to 16 cruise missiles with 6 internal and 10 external on weapon pylons... of course being a stealth aircraft it would need internal carriage, but with three Blackjack like weapon bays that would be three times 6, which is 18 weapons... which is better than a Bear... but without the drag of external weapons.

    Stealth would increase cost and complexity but so do also being supersonic capable, so one would compensate other.

    Agreed, Supersonic planes burn a lot of fuel which makes them expensive to operate... they could even take advantage of the large internal volume and design access to most systems from internal panels rather than external panels that increase maintenance and support costs.
    (Ie with an external panel you need to remove the RAM material and then unscrew the panel and find and correct the fault and then replace the panel and then tape up the panel joins and then paint over with RAM and then allow time to cure before the plane can be flown again... it explains why the F-35 requires so much down time for maintenance simply because accessing the electronics from external panels takes so much time and effort...)

    In the meantime using the refurbished Kazan plant to built Tu-160M and to refurbish and upgrade Tu-22M3 instead than to wait idle until the PAK-DA would finish its own development would be the best thing to doo.

    Well I don't think the plant will be idle... it will have Tu-160s to upgrade to M2 standard and of course 50 new Tu-160M2s to actually make... in addition to upgrading at least 30 Tu-22M3s to Tu-22M3M standard... possibly more if they like it.

    As they introduce the Tu-160M2s into service they will transfer strategic bombing crews to the new plane... presumably from Tu-95s, so those Bears will become available for other roles... a Tu-22M3M type upgrade could easily be applied to these aircraft which are still relatively new... they were made in the late 1980s and 1990s and are no where near as old as the American B-52s... with modern up to date hardware and software and new weapons they would be rather capable for other purposes... the standard aircraft carries 10 Kh-101/-102 missiles on wing pylons and can carry 6 shorter Kh-555s in an internal weapon bay... extending that weapon bay so it can carry the larger new missiles would make it rather more capable, but even as it is it should be easily able to carry Zircon missiles in its internal bay and on its wing pylons without too much trouble... 16 Zircon missiles would be very potent... as a launch platform the Bear can't get as high as a MiG-31 or fly as fast but its range performance is excellent so those hypersonic missiles could be coming from any direction...

    And they are cheap to operate... which is why they bothered to build new ones in the 1990s... without the forge for making enormous titanium structures that was in the Ukraine there was little to no chance of making new Blackjacks, but that has changed now too...

    Also because on the other side all their current bombers are out production, so that they would not be able to increment their number in any way, if nor recuperating something from the Boneyard, like they have done with a B-52.

    Well they are restarting production of the Blackjack... and I suspect the forged titanium structure for the swing wing box used in the Blackjack was the tricky part and why they hadn't made any more till now... this new forge could be used to make new stronger lighter Backfire box structures for its swing wing design to make even better Backfires if they wanted.

    They justified building this new huge forge because they could use it to work with enormous pieces of titanium with no gaps... which is actually pretty ideal from the stand point of stealth... joints and corners are bad M'kay... Smile

    Perhaps a new air intake for the Backfire that is as efficient as the angled MiG-25 type ones but are more stealthy could be designed... from what I have read it greatly improved flight performance but also increased RCS from the front by something horrendous like 30%...

    Personally, I think larger aircraft need an internal system which should be more capable than a podded one ....you can always add a pod for any specific situation when the internal one is not suited

    Built in targeting systems are more generic and general purpose, whereas external pods can be optimised for a particular task and therefore carried for specific missions... perhaps with extra features those extra missions might require.

    Much of the older pods added things that aircraft often got during upgrades anyway, like satellite navigation and communcations systems as well as range finders and IRST capability... most Russian aircraft already had IRSTs etc so for specialist aircraft they really didn't have much meaning.

    For example the MiG-27K had the Kaira targeting system in its nose... I think from memory it was based on the system fitted to the Su-24, so you are putting on a light short range strike aircraft the EO system of a medium strike aircraft. The Kaira system in a pod carried by an Su-22 type would give your cheap simple strike aircraft capabilities normally only very expensive dedicated strike aircraft had...

    Over time however new EO systems will be developed and retrofitted to your expensive aircraft, but podded versions could upgrade cheaper aircraft with the new tech faster and cheaper.

    Very specialised pods could be used for specific missions on more expensive aircraft or on cheaper ones... it is quicker and cheaper to create a new weapon or sensor pod than to integrate new sensors for a specific aircraft to replace older equipment.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5015
    Points : 5170
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:18 am

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 251621

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 251611



    As mentioned before the nose bump where the refueling probe was an addition with the Tu-22m3m upgrade, but what's not talked about is it's color scheme. The fact they've been flying with the anti-flash white color (same as the white swans), alongside with the probes means:

    1.) MOD can't foresee START being extended.

    2.) The backfire's will definitively be quasi-strategic aircraft.

    The anti-flash white scheme is a dead giveaway, even more than the probes, that it'll shift in to a doomsday bomber aircraft. It's also fitting that in the second image you see it juxtaposed to a half silhouette lunar phase, because whatever land the Tu-22m3m is unleashed against will look like the irradiated cratered landscape of the moon!

    Sponsored content

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 23 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:19 pm