Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-22M3: News

    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1218
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  dino00 on Thu May 14, 2020 1:39 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:

    Anyway is important to do not concentrate the attention exclusively on the hypersonic products, here Isos  has surely a point.

    While Federation's MoD have very strongly, and with unrivaled success, invested in hypersonic and other highly innovative and/or even revolutionary technologies that greatly increase offensive and defenisve capabilities against the most highly protected or densely armed OTAN targets, it is very important to integrate a new generation of mass-produceable subsonic missiles with substrategic range.

    There exist a real gap in this engagement range of substrategic air-delivered missiles ( within 2000 km) in domestic air delivered weapons production - that instead can boast the best samples in the tactical and strategic ones -; ВВС has since a long time posed the requirements for those weapons that will be very important to destroy not heavily defended OTAN airbases from friendly airbases posed at stand off range in respect to those hosting enemy aircraft armed with JASSM-ER.

    At today those targets should be hit by X-555 and X-102, with a wide waste of potential range not used against those targets.

    Internal placement in the rotary weapon bay of Ту-22М3 will increase the combat range with this payload, thanks to reduced drag.

    [/quote]

    So your point is that Kh-50 from TU-22M3M will "release" TU-95MS and Tu-160M2 for deeper attacks and will be more cost effective?

    That's the kh-SD, Kh-MT, Gzur program, all to be launched from inside the TU-22M3M and Tu-95MS, what I don't understand is why the kh-50 should be launched from the Tu-160, I don't see what that plane gains from that.

    Could you say if the 4000km combat radius was with the kh-15? If so TU-22M3M could have an ~5000km combat radius with 3 Khynzal and 6 Kh-50  Cool


    And from your post we can guess kh-50 will be nuclear, or have a nuclear version...

    NATO/Hato/Nazto/OTAN lol1
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5277
    Points : 5269
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Isos on Thu May 14, 2020 2:05 pm

    The Kh-59 entered service in the 1980s and is ancient and subsonic and in no way related to the Kh-101... the original reporting name was AS-13. An improved datalink led to the AS-18 variant, but this missile is essentially a TV guided missile where the TV view of the target is sent back to the launch aircraft so the weapon operator can move the targeting cursor onto the target and send the attack command to hit specific targets from stand off ranges.

    AFAIK the only aircraft intended to operate it was initially the Su-24 but it has been seen on later Sukhois like the Su-34 and Su-35 and Su-30 families.

    I'm talking about the newest variant for su57. It has a range of 500km and is stealthier than other variants with probably Glosnass guidance without the need to turn on the video link (not sure about that however, maybe it's not the case and that why they develop new missiles which are real fire and forget).

    Very high speed weapons make sense in situations with enemy air defences, so in Syria and the Ukraine a hypersonic weapon does make sense but often slower weapons could also be used. BTW a scramjet is brand new technology but there is no evidence it needs expensive exotic materials to work properly... a scramjet is a ramjet which means no spinning blades or shafts for propellers... the actual design is pretty straight forward and should be quite cheap and simple to make once the design is perfected of course

    And what country beside Russia has AD able to intercept subsonic cruise missiles ? No one. Even Syrian AD modernized by russians can't deal with israeli subsonic missiles with 100% Pk.

    Against a better equiped country hypersonic missiles could be used to deal with big AD like patriot systems the first day but that's what ? Not even 4 systems per country. Then what's the point of using 2000km hypersonic missiles against undefended targets when a simple subsonic cruise missile like kh-59mk2 or kh35 can do the job with enough stand off for the launch aircraft.
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 865
    Points : 974
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  jhelb on Thu May 14, 2020 2:13 pm

    GarryB wrote:Ramjet propulsion is perfectly sensible for vehicles that operate at speeds of between mach 1.5 up to about mach 5-6 or so.  They are relatively cheap and simple with few moving parts and no expensive exotic materials required.
    China is using pre cooled engine instead of scramjet for hypersonic cruise missile.  They give very high thrusts.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5277
    Points : 5269
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Isos on Thu May 14, 2020 2:18 pm

    I want to add also that russian hypersonic missiles are mostly developed to counter NATO navies rather than attacking land targets because best NATO AD systems are on ships. Their land base AD is done with their air force which is the worst thing to use against cruise missiles.

    And apart kh-59, russian air force has no other tactical cruise missile with enough stand off range This missile has the disadvantage of needing the pilot to control it in last stage. The other missile is kh-101 but it is huge and I considere it as a strategic missile.

    Developing kh-50 for strategic aviation is good but I would rather have a missile that can be used by all of my sukhois and strategic bombers. But again this kh50 seems to be a strategical missile.

    IMO a kh-59 with guidance taken from kalibr is the best option for a widely used tactical missile.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1861
    Points : 1856
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu May 14, 2020 5:39 pm

    Isos wrote:I want to add also that russian hypersonic missiles are mostly developed to counter NATO navies rather than attacking land targets because best NATO AD systems are on ships. Their land base AD is done with their air force which is the worst thing to use against cruise missiles.

    And apart kh-59, russian air force has no other tactical cruise missile with enough stand off range This missile has the disadvantage of needing the pilot to control it in last stage. The other missile is kh-101 but it is huge and I considere it as a strategic missile.

    Developing kh-50 for strategic aviation is good but I would rather have a missile that can be used by all of my sukhois and strategic bombers. But again this kh50 seems to be a strategical missile.

    IMO a kh-59 with guidance taken from kalibr is the best option for a widely used tactical missile.

    Isn't that the Kh-59MK2?
    Granted 550km isn't a considerable stand-off range, but the guidance is definitely their.

    On a further note, after looking up the Su-34, Russia's main Strike fighter, it becomes clear that it has the ability to carry the Kh-41, aka: the Moskit, and the Moskit is a very large and heavy missile.
    More so than even the Kalibre-T.

    So what your asking is why Russia hasn't deployed an air launched version of the Kalibre, short answer, they have, except its for export, the 3M-14AE.
    Oddly enough there should be a domestic variant called the 3M-14A, but i don't see it listed, so it either exists, but isn't listed, like the domestic 91RE, or it doesn't exist at all.

    Regardless, giving the specifications, it shouldn't even be a challenge for Russia to deploy an air-launched Kalibre of 6,2m Length and around 2000kg Mass, with a 1500-2000km range.
    Heck it already exists in export, all they need to do is change the fuel and software, could be deployed in a matter of months.

    The Su-30 has a capacity to carry 8000kg, you could load 3 of these missile plus more.
    The Mig-29M could handle 2 of them.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 766
    Points : 756
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu May 14, 2020 6:07 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Just give it up lmao! lol1 Razz You were dead wrong with your laughable unfounded assertion that his research was click-bait designed by a random website. Wink Keep doubling down on your turd-sandwich, all your going to do is get these posts thrown in to the talking bollocks thread. Wink

    Sorry, mate, my first reaction was that , I haven't considered as an option the complete lack of basic physic understanding .

    My bad.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 6196
    Points : 6331
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  kvs on Thu May 14, 2020 7:00 pm

    What the combustion of aluminum nano-powder in pure CO2 shows is that addition of metal nano-powders such as aluminum and
    copper which have O2 affinity opens up new combustion pathways. This directly implies the increase of thermal energy output
    as more chemical potential energy is released.

    So the 500% burn efficiency increase from copper nano-particle addition is validated by the non-intuitive combustion behaviour
    of these particles. Chemistry is subject to Gibbs free energy constraints. Nano-particles have dramatically different surface
    effects compared to bulk materials. These surface energy effects cannot be neglected in the chemical potential and thus
    change the reaction rates and open up new reactions not possible with bulk materials.

    The most commonly known surface effect is called the Kelvin curvature effect. It is typically considered when dealing with
    condensation and evaporation of nano-particles (both liquid and solid). But it also affects the chemical potential via the
    fact that nano-particles are more surface active (the fraction of the surface mass diverges as the particle diameter goes
    to zero). At the same time, O2 molecules can attack nano-particle surface molecules or atoms (metal) more easily than
    is the case for bulk materials. So combustion efficiency increases.

    I see my comment was removed but the original troll post was not. Pfft. Miketheterrible is right about this site.



    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 942
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu May 14, 2020 7:55 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Against a better equiped country hypersonic missiles could be used to deal with big AD like patriot systems the first day but that's what ? Not even 4 systems per country. Then what's the point of using 2000km hypersonic missiles against undefended targets when a simple subsonic cruise missile like kh-59mk2 or kh35 can do the job with enough stand off for the launch aircraft.

    Isos wrote:I want to add also that russian hypersonic missiles are mostly developed to counter NATO navies rather than attacking land targets because best NATO AD systems are on ships. Their land base AD is done with their air force which is the worst thing to use against cruise missiles.

    And apart kh-59, russian air force has no other tactical cruise missile with enough stand off range This missile has the disadvantage of needing the pilot to control it in last stage. The other missile is kh-101 but it is huge and I considere it as a strategic missile.

    Developing kh-50 for strategic aviation is good but I would rather have a missile that can be used by all of my sukhois and strategic bombers. But again this kh50 seems to be a strategical missile.

    IMO a kh-59 with guidance taken from kalibr is the best option for a widely used tactical missile.


    Yes Isos, some of the points you have exposed are absolutely correct and ,as already said, just at the basis of the technical requirements for some sub-strategic weapons, to be employed not only by long range bomber fleet but also by some new tactical aicraft.

    Those airdelivered weapons are now in the final test phase.

    However is necessary to make some clarifications.

    1) X-50 is a sub-strategic missile, not a strategic one; this weapon must allow Federation's aircraft (both long range bombers that tactical aircraft that already enjoy a combat range advantage against western counterparts) to attack deep OTAN's airbases hosting refueling aircraft and aircraft that can carry JASSM and JASSM-ER beginning the offensive operation from Federation's airbases outside reach of those enemy aircraft.  

    2) The Federation Air Force has a very wide amount of tactical missiles , that will be even increased with the new lines of tactical missiles that have completed test stages recently, characteristics of which are, on average, superior to foreign counterparts.
    The unique segment of lag is in the sub-strategic range, particularly the niche occupied by JASSM/JASSM-ER.  

    3) Speed of the attacking missiles will be very important also against some forward OTAN airbase, even when those would be completely devoid of air defense coverage (as the wide majority of OTAN targets) , the reason for that is not so self-evident because you must take into account precise factors characterzing the Force composition of Federation and OTAN's military structure.

    In substance, wanting to simplify at maximum, is possible to assert that the historical central role entrusted by Federation planners to Ground Force's organization and efficiency created a situation where domestic forces would enjoy a big advantage on the ground (mostly thanks to superior armoured divisions and artillery), North Atlantic planners have always attempted to counterbalance and possibly overtrow this unbalance pointing on the progressive disorganization of those ground forces through extensive employment of highly mobile forces, in particular air based ones .
    From those foundamental OTAN's doctrinal postulates derive the important necessity to prepare air bases, placed near the first echelon of enemy Ground Forces to be prepared to disperse or also evacuate the aircraft/helicopters placed in those aerodromes.
    A very small number of very-high-speed weapons, delivered by ground, aircraft or naval units, capable to render the takeoff from those airbase impossible for some time (instead to having the necessity to phisically destroy all the aircraft/weapon depots with an high amount of those high-costly missiles) would render not only impossible for the enemy to evacuate the aircraft before the attack, but would allow the ground forces, or Airborne brigades to advance in theirs direction and complete theirs destruction /capture using theirs means -that are orders of magnitude cheaper and more efficient -
    Not less important, a similar instance would force OTAN Ground Forces to probably accept to directly confront domestic ones even if in huge disadvantage ,only to attempt to prevent hundreds of billions of aircraft and high precision from being captured or be destroyed by artillery of tank's fire.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5277
    Points : 5269
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Isos on Thu May 14, 2020 9:23 pm

    2) The Federation Air Force has a very wide amount of tactical missiles , that will be even increased with the new lines of tactical missiles that have completed test stages recently, characteristics of which are, on average, superior to foreign counterparts.
    The unique segment of lag is in the sub-strategic range, particularly the niche occupied by JASSM/JASSM-ER.

    That's the problem. They need one like that. Cheap subsonic cruise missile of 500-600km range.

    very small number of very-high-speed weapons, delivered by ground, aircraft or naval units, capable to render the takeoff from those airbase impossible for some time

    2000km iskander or kinzhal is the best solution and they have big warheads of 800kg with submunitions, cruise missile being more limited to around 300-400. Submunitions cover a wider area.

    Iskander are faster reload cheaper and more easy to operate and they can be armed and ready to fire 24/7.
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 942
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu May 14, 2020 9:52 pm



    Isos wrote:That's the problem. They need one like that. Cheap subsonic cruise missile of 500-600km range.

    Yes sure, that capability gap between tactical and strategic cruise missiles was a very serious problem, moreover Federation need significantly more than 500-600 km range from those weapons because the main targets would be OTAN airbases hosting mostly tactical aircraft (in the next two decades mostly F-35s) which can carry JASSM-JASSM-ER on external pylons and wanting to mantain the stand-off range of domestic airbases ,from which the attacks should take place, against those US-built aircraft you must take into account theirs combat range with a JASSM/JASSM-ER payload.


    Isos wrote:2000km iskander or kinzhal is the best solution and they have big warheads of 800kg with submunitions, cruise missile being more limited to around 300-400.

    At brief it will be present much better options, also for frontal aviation aircraft, for this mission.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 766
    Points : 756
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu May 14, 2020 10:18 pm

    kvs wrote:What the combustion of aluminum nano-powder in pure CO2 shows is that addition of metal nano-powders such as aluminum and
    copper which have O2 affinity opens up new combustion pathways.   This directly implies the increase of thermal energy output
    as more chemical potential energy is released.

    So the 500% burn efficiency increase from copper nano-particle addition is validated by the non-intuitive combustion behaviour
    of these particles.   Chemistry is subject to Gibbs free energy constraints.   Nano-particles have dramatically different surface
    effects compared to bulk materials.    These surface energy effects cannot be neglected in the chemical potential and thus
    change the reaction rates and open up new reactions not possible with bulk materials.  

    The most commonly known surface effect is called the Kelvin curvature effect.   It is typically considered when dealing with
    condensation and evaporation of nano-particles (both liquid and solid).   But it also affects the chemical potential via the
    fact that nano-particles are more surface active (the fraction of the surface mass diverges as the particle diameter goes
    to zero).   At the same time, O2 molecules can attack nano-particle surface molecules or atoms (metal) more easily than
    is the case for bulk materials.   So combustion efficiency increases.    

    I see my comment was removed but the original troll post was not.  Pfft.  Miketheterrible is right about this site.




    Increase the surace affect the speed of combustion, not the energy released by it.

    The energy depends on the mass/free electron ratio of the atoms , so it is severly restricted thanks to the periodic table.

    It is that simple.

    Mixing up hydrogen and oxigen is way better than any nanoparticle, and it gives the best practical energy ouptut for missiles.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24427
    Points : 24969
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 15, 2020 6:08 am

    That's the kh-SD, Kh-MT, Gzur program, all to be launched from inside the TU-22M3M and Tu-95MS, what I don't understand is why the kh-50 should be launched from the Tu-160, I don't see what that plane gains from that.

    The missiles that fit inside the Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS will fit double in the Blackjack... whose bomb bays are 12 metres long... so either 6 Kh-102s or 12 Kh-50s in each weapon bay.

    Depending on the flight path a Blackjack might have to fly relatively close to some targets for its longer ranged missiles to reach targets further away so instead of carrying 12 Kh-102s it could carry 6 Kh-102s and also 12 Kh-50s and hit 18 targets instead of 12...

    Or a theatre mission for a Blackjack into europe it might carry 24 Kh-50s instead.

    If so TU-22M3M could have an ~5000km combat radius with 3 Khynzal and 6 Kh-50  Cool

    The three missile arrangement with the Kh-32 has one missile on each wing root hard point and one along the centreline missile semi conformal... half inside the internal bomb bay... so with that configuration you can't carry weapons internally.

    Like this:

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 24289811

    The Kinzhal is supposed to be carried fully externally so the two weapon locations on the wing, plus under the air intakes they often fit multiple ejector racks for mounting triples of 500 kg bombs... usually three or four triples so it should be able to take the weight of a Kinzhal and that would leave the belly position for the rotary launcher.

    Note that for export of the Backfire it mentions it can carry up to ten missiles which I always took to mean 6 Kh-15 missiles internally and four externally.

    It might be the wing pylons are extended and two can be carried on each in tandem of course.

    And from your post we can guess kh-50 will be nuclear, or have a nuclear version...

    I would assume nuclear and non nuclear versions...

    I'm talking about the newest variant for su57. It has a range of 500km and is stealthier than other variants with probably Glosnass guidance without the need to turn on the video link (not sure about that however, maybe it's not the case and that why they develop new missiles which are real fire and forget).

    The new square body ones? I believe they have radar equipped noses with more sophisticated radar detecting and identifying targets, but it might keep the data link for selecting targets anyway. I remember the first model had a solid rocket motor to rapidly accelerate the missile out in front of the launch aircraft so the data link pod could gather it and then the jet engine took over. That data link had a range of about 140km, and the missile was called AS-13 Kingbolt or something. They upgraded the electronics so it no longer needed the rocket booster so they put in more fuel and doubled the flight range and extended the effective range of the data link and called it the AS-18 Kazoo or something.

    The new models don't have nose mounted optical ports and I suspect use radar... MMW radar most likely...

    Against a better equiped country hypersonic missiles could be used to deal with big AD like patriot systems the first day but that's what ? Not even 4 systems per country. Then what's the point of using 2000km hypersonic missiles against undefended targets when a simple subsonic cruise missile like kh-59mk2 or kh35 can do the job with enough stand off for the launch aircraft.

    I agree mostly, but while most western countries don't have IADS, they do have lots of fighter planes, which would be ideal to chase down subsonic cruise missiles, but next to useless against hypersonic missiles flying at 30km plus altitudes...

    Hypersonic missiles could be used against a wide range of targets with their short flight times being a real bonus in some situations... catching the other team napping so to speak... but I agree there is plenty of scope for subsonic missiles... they will likely be cheaper to start with, but the engines of hypersonic missiles wont be spectacularly more expensive than modern low fuel consumption turbojets...

    China is using pre cooled engine instead of scramjet for hypersonic cruise missile.  

    You cool engines to keep them from over heating and destroying themselves but generally engines produce heat for propulsion so running hot is only an issue for long term use which is not really a factor in the engine for a missile.

    their air force which is the worst thing to use against cruise missiles.

    If you have AWACS aircraft managing things it wouldn't be so bad, but keeping your planes up looking for cruise missiles sneaking down rivers or along the line of hills out of radar view then yes they are appalling.

    And apart kh-59, russian air force has no other tactical cruise missile with enough stand off range This missile has the disadvantage of needing the pilot to control it in last stage. The other missile is kh-101 but it is huge and I considere it as a strategic missile.

    Well that is what the 500km range Kh-22M and 800km range Kh-32 were for... that is what the Backfire would carry on SEAD and strike missions in to Europe. Some people mistake them for anti carrier missiles but they are heavy strike missiles first... a bit like a large version of the Kh-31 in the P and the A models.

    The land attack models had 800kt nuclear warheads, which should indicate what sort of occupation they were planning in Europe after WWIII.

    IMO a kh-59 with guidance taken from kalibr is the best option for a widely used tactical missile.

    The last model Kh-59 with the box shape has a radar sensor in the nose so it no longer uses optical guidance.

    Ironically a TV guided missile with a 320kg HE warhead and a 115km flight range that could be targeted against an object optically from a standoff launch range outside the range of most naval SAMs of the time would have been an excellent anti ship weapon... in the early 1980s... over water it operated at 7m altitude but over land you could set the height it operated at...

    Regardless, giving the specifications, it shouldn't even be a challenge for Russia to deploy an air-launched Kalibre of 6,2m Length and around 2000kg Mass, with a 1500-2000km range.
    Heck it already exists in export, all they need to do is change the fuel and software, could be deployed in a matter of months.

    The Kalibr is the conventionally armed land attack subsonic 2,500km range missile launched from ships and subs. The aircraft equivalents start with the Kh-55SM and Kh-555 3,000km range subsonic missiles with nuclear and conventional warheads respectively. The Kh-101 is the 5,500km range subsonic conventional equivalent with the nuclear armed Kh-102 also being available.

    The urgency for medium range cruise missiles is largely negated by having Su-34 and Tu-22M3 aircraft as well as Tu-95 and Tu-160 delivery platforms available.

    I see my comment was removed but the original troll post was not. Pfft. Miketheterrible is right about this site.

    Which comment? I didn't remove anything.

    That's the problem. They need one like that. Cheap subsonic cruise missile of 500-600km range.

    Do they?

    I would think land based cruise missiles with 500km range (allowed under the INF treaty) and the new variants with longer range allowed now the INF treaty is no more are always going to be cheaper than air launched models...

    2000km iskander or kinzhal is the best solution and they have big warheads of 800kg with submunitions, cruise missile being more limited to around 300-400. Submunitions cover a wider area.

    Iskander are faster reload cheaper and more easy to operate and they can be armed and ready to fire 24/7.

    So why not add some cruise missiles to those launchers... being a subsonic platform adding a 500 litre fuel tank could greatly extend range without making the missile much bigger or heavier or more expensive...

    Yes sure, that capability gap between tactical and strategic cruise missiles was a very serious problem, moreover Federation need significantly more than 500-600 km range from those weapons because the main targets would be OTAN airbases hosting mostly tactical aircraft (in the next two decades mostly F-35s) which can carry JASSM-JASSM-ER on external pylons and wanting to mantain the stand-off range of domestic airbases ,from which the attacks should take place, against those US-built aircraft you must take into account theirs combat range with a JASSM/JASSM-ER payload.

    I think the old solution was the best solution... some new SS-20 Sabre missile vehicles...

    Increase the surace affect the speed of combustion, not the energy released by it.

    Energy released is surely energy released over time, so increasing the combustion rate is going to release the energy faster... you pull back on the string of a bow slowly but when you release all that stored energy is released immediately moving the arrow through the air far faster than you moved your fingers drawing the string...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5277
    Points : 5269
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Isos on Fri May 15, 2020 9:43 am

    The last model Kh-59 with the box shape has a radar sensor in the nose so it no longer uses optical guidance.

    Ironically a TV guided missile with a 320kg HE warhead and a 115km flight range that could be targeted against an object optically from a standoff launch range outside the range of most naval SAMs of the time would have been an excellent anti ship weapon... in the early 1980s... over water it operated at 7m altitude but over land you could set the height it operated at...

    The latest kh-59mk2 keeps an optical guidance. Go see the pictures. Probably some dual guidance. That has some advantages like the pilot will hit what he sees but also disadvantages like the pilot needs to stay in range to control it and could be intercepted while the missile flies towards its target (not fire and forget like the kalibr).

    Older kh-59 existed in anti ship variants with a radar I think. And the optical guided one could also be used against ship.

    Do they?

    I would think land based cruise missiles with 500km range (allowed under the INF treaty) and the new variants with longer range allowed now the INF treaty is no more are always going to be cheaper than air launched models...

    And that would be a kalibr class missile which is big and overkill. Moreover, land base launchers are always behind frontline limiting their max range. A fighter launched missile can be launched behind the frontline benefiting from fighter's range.

    I was thinking of a missile in the class of Scalp or Taurus. Small, stealthy, subsonic and usable by all their fighter/bombers. The kh'59mk2 is te best basis for that.
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 942
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri May 15, 2020 12:36 pm


    Isos wrote:The latest kh-59mk2 keeps an optical guidance. Go see the pictures. Probably some dual guidance. That has some advantages like the pilot will hit what he sees but also disadvantages like the pilot needs to stay in range to control it and could be intercepted while the missile flies towards its target (not fire and forget like the kalibr).


    Isos missile Х-59МК2 ,also its "old" iteration not adapted for internal carriage like the new one , integrate the "fire and forget" principle since at least 15 years against its intended targets : enemy military installations with known location.

    It is realized through terminal "target to contour" image correlation and matching system; this allow to destroy intended targets also in total absence of satellite guidance, radar or infrared signature of the targeted structure and even in-site camouflage aimed at render the target irrecognizeable for precision guided munitions employing image collimation with those uploaded and stored in homing head memory.

    Therefore those missiles not only have a fully "fire and forget" capability, but contrarely to wide majority of those employed by foreign counterparts, could be fooled only by the combination of: EW satellite correction's interruption and employment of very-wide area multispectral obscurants such as that produced by ТДА-3.





    Luckily probable enemies lack completely similar wide area protection systems in theirs forces and also high power specialized EW system for wide-area satellite guidance's severance, therefore would be forced to phisically intercept each missile delivered......not having anything like domestic medium and short range SAM systems.

    Good luck.



    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1218
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  dino00 on Fri May 15, 2020 2:52 pm

    [quote="Isos"]


    I was thinking of a missile in the class of Scalp or Taurus. Small, stealthy, subsonic and usable by all their fighter/bombers. The kh'59mk2 is te best basis for that.

    Kh-59Mk2 in the Russian version is exactly that...one post from George1 should make it clear
    look at the range of the export version in one of the pictures

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t6570p25-russian-tactical-air-to-surface-missiles-asm#116854
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1218
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  dino00 on Fri May 15, 2020 4:42 pm

    Answering Garry:

    I think Tu-160 will carry 12 kh-50 not 24, all the sources I saw say that, if you have another source, even with 12m weapons bay(are you sure?) it's not enough.

    If they could launch 24 kh-50, they could launch 24 kh-555, right?

    Maybe with Tu-160M2 and almost certainly with PAK-DA.

    Yeah my question about the kh-15 was really silly...I was hoping that nobody saw that  Very Happy

    About the nuclear version of Kh-50, what I meant was exactly what you said.

    One interesting thing with the successful test of what we think is Gzur, is that when Putin in March first presented the Hypersonics weapons alongside the others, the western experts and the Pentagon official's talking points was that the American hypersonic program was more vast... now we know that Russia has 2 operational hypersonic missiles(Avangard and Khynzal), two successfully tested( Zircon and Gzur), one in a prototype phase (SU-57 internal missile) and others in development like what I like to call giant Zircon and 15y74 Hgv...so what is the American excuse now for being so behind despite the massive investment? The director of KTRV said Russia has more than 12 hypersonic projects...And i didn't forget anchar-rv that we don't know what it is.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24427
    Points : 24969
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 16, 2020 5:56 am

    The latest kh-59mk2 keeps an optical guidance.

    Well that is interesting... the Kh-59M2A dropped the optical guidance as shown here:

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 H-59mk10

    And all the photos I saw of the Kh-59MK2 did not show it from the front and below so the optical window was not visible so I assumed they didn't reintroduce the optical port.

    The Kh-59M2A is a dedicated anti ship modification of the Kh-59M, where the optical seeker of the original missiles is replaced by the MMW radar of the Kh-35.

    Go see the pictures. Probably some dual guidance. That has some advantages like the pilot will hit what he sees but also disadvantages like the pilot needs to stay in range to control it and could be intercepted while the missile flies towards its target (not fire and forget like the kalibr).

    The Russians have invested a lot of money on AI and image libraries, so I would suspect rather than using a datalink back to the launch aircraft that the seeker can automatically identify IR signatures of 3D objects and determine the target for itself. They are developing the same technology for their 9M100 IIR guided missiles.

    Older kh-59 existed in anti ship variants with a radar I think. And the optical guided one could also be used against ship.

    The first model was optically guided and could be used against land and sea targets... the first model AS-13 Kingbolt could reach about 120km but the requirement for having the guidance pod limited its use to Su-24M and Su-27 use only. They later extended the range of the datalink, but the AS-18 still used a TV seeker.

    It was the more recent Kh-59MK that is pictured above that seems to have replaced the optical seeker with a radar, and has a range of about 285kms or so.

    The Piotr Butowski book on Russian air launched weapons states the Kh-59MK2 uses the guidance system from the Kh-555. It has GLONASS and Inertial guidance to a location of known coordinates using a correlation matching imaging system to locate the precise point of aim... CEP is supposed to be less than 5m.


    And that would be a kalibr class missile which is big and overkill.

    Not overkill.. a ground launched two ton missile with a flight range of 5,000km from a ground launcher replacing a 20 ton aircraft carrying a 1.5 ton missile with a missile range of 3,000km. For the price of an extra ton of fuel you free up your aircraft for other jobs with a system ready to launch 24/7, day or night, and in any weather...

    Moreover, land base launchers are always behind frontline limiting their max range.

    Which is why you make them bigger 2 ton missiles instead of current 1.5 ton air launched ones.

    A fighter launched missile can be launched behind the frontline benefiting from fighter's range.

    A truck could carry 6 missiles that could have a flight range of 5,000km... take 2,000km away from that with a lighter missile and add perhaps 2,000km with the aircraft carrying the missile 2,000km closer and they work out perhaps even, but 6 missiles on a truck is cheap, while you have a limited number of aircraft that will likely have other things to do at the time... that probably don't include flying 1,000km into HATO airspace so the missiles it carries can reach Brussels.

    I was thinking of a missile in the class of Scalp or Taurus. Small, stealthy, subsonic and usable by all their fighter/bombers. The kh'59mk2 is te best basis for that.

    That is its role.

    I think Tu-160 will carry 12 kh-50 not 24, all the sources I saw say that, if you have another source, even with 12m weapons bay(are you sure?) it's not enough.

    Yes, I was wrong about that too... most of their early nuclear armed 1.5 ton cruise missiles like the Calibr and AS-15 Kent cruise missiles were about 6m long and were intended to be carried internally on the Bear and the Blackjack, as well as externally on the Bear. The Tu-95MS16 carried 10 missiles externally on four weapon hardpoints... the two inner pylons carried three missiles each and the two outer pylons carried two missiles each for a total of ten under the wings and 6 more missiles in an internal rotary launcher.

    The Blackjack has internal weapon bays over 11 metres long so there was a lot of empty space when they carried these missiles so the improved Kh-101/102 missiles were much longer... about 7.4m long and weighed 2 tons, but could reach 5,000km range, but their problem was they were now too long to fit into the Bears internal rotary launcher. The internal rotary launcher of the Backfire was never intended to carry long range cruise missiles, but it was intended to carry the Kh-15 short range attack missile. The Blackjack could also carry the Kh-15 and it could carry them in tandem in each of its rotary launchers so it could carry 24 Kh-15s.

    It should be able to carry Gzurs in tandem, but not the Kh-50.

    I had assumed the Kh-50 was going to be a smaller missile that can be carried by large fighters as well as strategic aircraft, but as you point out... at 6m it is too long to be carried in tandem like the shorter Kh-15 missiles so you end up with the situation where the Tu-95MS could return to having 10 wing pylons because the Kh-50 will be the same weight as the Kh-55 and Kh-555 that the Bear used to carry 10 of externally. Add another 6 internally and you have the Bear carrying 16 Kh-50 missiles and the Blackjack only able to carry 12.

    If they could launch 24 kh-50, they could launch 24 kh-555, right?

    It would not take much to extend the bomb bays of the new build Tu-160... they would only need to add 1-2 metres to each weapon bay... wonder how big the FOABs is...

    Anyway this is the Backfire thread...

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Tl4yx310

    Here is an old photo showing the internal weapon bay full of Kh-15s and two Kh-22Ms being carried ( likely not Kh-32s as I don't think their operational times overlapped ).

    Also notice in the photo I posted before... ie this one:

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 24289812

    It is worth noting that while the middle missile encroaches into the internal weapon bay and the fact that western experts always said three Kh-22M missiles was a short range max load extreme for airshow and marketing BS photos that would never be used in the real world... notice the bombs mounted on the multiple ejector racks on the engine intakes too in this photo?

    These are generally 500kg bombs on a rack that carries three triples of bombs... so 9 x 500kgs, or 4.5 tons times two, plus three 6 ton missiles... quite a load...
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2794
    Points : 2794
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Sat May 16, 2020 12:31 pm

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 000149
    FOAB

    There is a new cruise missile in development to make use of the length of the weapons bays of the Tu-160 = 11,28m.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5774
    Points : 5925
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat May 16, 2020 12:45 pm

    Hole wrote:Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 000149
    FOAB

    There is a new cruise missile in development to make use of the length of the weapons bays of the Tu-160 = 11,28m.

    FOAB is overdue for a modernization.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2794
    Points : 2794
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole on Sat May 16, 2020 4:49 pm

    To guided glidebomb?
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5774
    Points : 5925
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat May 16, 2020 6:01 pm

    Hole wrote:To guided glidebomb?

    Yes, in affect but a few other things as well. Glide wings, inertial guidance+GLONASS, the rear portion encompasses 1/3 the length of the bomb with the support structure struts and parachute, if it could be removed in favor of a slow-burning rocket motor to add some stand off range (ideally 150-300km at low subsonic speed), or a longer warhead case. The warhead portion could easily be 33% longer, add that to the existing 44 ton explosive yield which would translate to a 60 ton yield. With the longer warhead case they could develop a version that splits in to 3 different glide munitions with explosive yields of 20 tons each, which hit targets with a triangular pattern that is spread out at the very edge of each munitions blast radius, giving it a much larger blast radius in total than from a single large munition.

    There's also been reports back in 2015-16 that material scientists made breakthroughs in the developments of explosive all around (from HE-Frag to Thermobaric) that significantly improved there yield.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 6196
    Points : 6331
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  kvs on Sat May 16, 2020 6:13 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Hole wrote:To guided glidebomb?

    Yes, in affect but a few other things as well. Glide wings, inertial guidance+GLONASS, the rear portion encompasses 1/3 the length of the bomb with the support structure struts and parachute, if it could be removed in favor of a slow-burning rocket motor to add some stand off range (ideally 150-300km at low subsonic speed), or a longer warhead case. The warhead portion could easily be 33% longer, add that to the existing 44 ton explosive yield which would translate to a 60 ton yield. With the longer warhead case they could develop a version that splits in to 3 different glide munitions with explosive yields of 20 tons each, which hit targets with a triangular pattern that is spread out at the very edge of each munitions blast radius, giving it a much larger blast radius in total than from a single large munition.  

    There's also been reports back in 2015-16 that material scientists made breakthroughs in the developments of explosive all around (from HE-Frag to Thermobaric) that significantly improved there yield.

    I bet it is nano-emulsions. The same nano-particle chemistry gains seen in dry fuels can be applied to liquid fuels as well. Thermobaric explosives create
    a fuel aersosol which is detonated giving a large explosion. But the average size of the aerosol particles is much larger than 100 nm and more like tens of
    microns at best and even rain or drizzle sized drops that are just huge and act as bulk materials. Adding nano-particle accelerants would increase the
    rate of combustion of these fuel aerosol drops. Anything that increases the rate of combustion increases the force of the detonation which is the
    objective.

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5774
    Points : 5925
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat May 16, 2020 6:56 pm

    kvs wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Hole wrote:To guided glidebomb?

    Yes, in affect but a few other things as well. Glide wings, inertial guidance+GLONASS, the rear portion encompasses 1/3 the length of the bomb with the support structure struts and parachute, if it could be removed in favor of a slow-burning rocket motor to add some stand off range (ideally 150-300km at low subsonic speed), or a longer warhead case. The warhead portion could easily be 33% longer, add that to the existing 44 ton explosive yield which would translate to a 60 ton yield. With the longer warhead case they could develop a version that splits in to 3 different glide munitions with explosive yields of 20 tons each, which hit targets with a triangular pattern that is spread out at the very edge of each munitions blast radius, giving it a much larger blast radius in total than from a single large munition.  

    There's also been reports back in 2015-16 that material scientists made breakthroughs in the developments of explosive all around (from HE-Frag to Thermobaric) that significantly improved there yield.

    I bet it is nano-emulsions.  The same nano-particle chemistry gains seen in dry fuels can be applied to liquid fuels as well.   Thermobaric explosives create
    a fuel aersosol which is detonated giving a large explosion.   But the average size of the aerosol particles is much larger than 100 nm and more like tens of
    microns at best and even rain or drizzle sized drops that are just huge and act as bulk materials.   Adding nano-particle accelerants would increase the
    rate of combustion of these fuel aerosol drops.   Anything that increases the rate of combustion increases the force of the detonation which is the
    objective.


    I wonder if they could apply microwave ignition to increase the rate of combustion.
    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 1174
    Points : 1350
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat May 16, 2020 7:18 pm

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Screen10
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 6196
    Points : 6331
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  kvs on Sat May 16, 2020 9:34 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Hole wrote:To guided glidebomb?

    Yes, in affect but a few other things as well. Glide wings, inertial guidance+GLONASS, the rear portion encompasses 1/3 the length of the bomb with the support structure struts and parachute, if it could be removed in favor of a slow-burning rocket motor to add some stand off range (ideally 150-300km at low subsonic speed), or a longer warhead case. The warhead portion could easily be 33% longer, add that to the existing 44 ton explosive yield which would translate to a 60 ton yield. With the longer warhead case they could develop a version that splits in to 3 different glide munitions with explosive yields of 20 tons each, which hit targets with a triangular pattern that is spread out at the very edge of each munitions blast radius, giving it a much larger blast radius in total than from a single large munition.  

    There's also been reports back in 2015-16 that material scientists made breakthroughs in the developments of explosive all around (from HE-Frag to Thermobaric) that significantly improved there yield.

    I bet it is nano-emulsions.  The same nano-particle chemistry gains seen in dry fuels can be applied to liquid fuels as well.   Thermobaric explosives create
    a fuel aersosol which is detonated giving a large explosion.   But the average size of the aerosol particles is much larger than 100 nm and more like tens of
    microns at best and even rain or drizzle sized drops that are just huge and act as bulk materials.   Adding nano-particle accelerants would increase the
    rate of combustion of these fuel aerosol drops.   Anything that increases the rate of combustion increases the force of the detonation which is the
    objective.


    I wonder if they could apply microwave ignition to increase the rate of combustion.

    I was thinking about that, but they would have to produce a microwave detonation that covers most of the aerosol cloud.   I do not
    think there is any benefit igniting only a small part of the fuel aerosol volume.


    Last edited by kvs on Sun May 17, 2020 4:28 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Spelling correction.)

    Sponsored content

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 28 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat May 30, 2020 5:25 am