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...
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...
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...