Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+68
Backman
owais.usmani
magnumcromagnon
Isos
kvs
AlfaT8
thegopnik
ahmedfire
jhelb
AMCXXL
marcellogo
Azi
ATLASCUB
archangelski
Rodion_Romanovic
hoom
LMFS
GunshipDemocracy
Singular_Transform
Hole
GarryB
GJ Flanker
mnztr
dino00
Cheetah
MC-21
gaurav
Pierre Sprey
T-47
miketheterrible
PapaDragon
TheArmenian
ult
SeigSoloyvov
AK-Rex
Tsavo Lion
OminousSpudd
Benya
David-Lanza
bojcistv
eehnie
Morpheus Eberhardt
wilhelm
andrey19900
Giulio
Svyatoslavich
d_taddei2
JohninMK
Big_Gazza
franco
sepheronx
Mike E
Cyberspec
zg18
mack8
diabetus
Werewolf
flamming_python
Mindstorm
Austin
TR1
George1
IronsightSniper
Stealthflanker
haavarla
psg
Viktor
Admin
72 posters

    Tu-22M3: News

    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1620
    Points : 1657
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 34
    Location : portugal

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  dino00 Fri May 22, 2020 3:11 pm

    GarryB I will answer your post without quotes...

    I think we will have to agree to disagree Very Happy  

    I sincerely don't understand why you doubt even the 500km range of the KH-59MK2, look at the improvement of the KH-59MK2 export version from the MAKS-2015 vs the missile with the same name http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/air-to-air-missile/kh-59mk2/ obviously the improvement was not using more fuel, but the materials used in the new missile, the new engine, and probably better solid fuel, they made all this effort to export.
    If the KH-59MK2 for SU-57 has only 500km range, or even less, they are giving away advanced technology...for me try aren't.

    The KH-55 family is obsolete, their improvements were "only" from different engines and conformal tanks(more and/or better fuel) KH-101 with only more 1.45 mt achieved more 50% range... better composite materials, aerodynamic, engine, fuel.

    I disagree with more things that you said, but the possibility of the different ranges of the new missiles being from different warhead sizes is a good point that I didn't thought...I think the 200km range missile could be the small kh-35 missile that we saw a few months ago, just a guess.
    I think KH-102 has a lot more than 5000km range. It could have the double of the KH-101, in my opinion.

    GarryB do you have any source that the weapons bay of the TU-22M3M aren't 6+ mt long?

    If they had made GZUR and kh-50 4.78 mt long for me that would be a big mistake, they would have a bad missiles for TU-22M3M ( compared with what they could achieve if it is 6 mt long) and a not so important missiles for a platform (TU-160) that they only had 16, and is the more important air force strategic plane.

    The question is the 2 missiles above were developed with TU-22M3M or Tu-160 in mind?
    Their development begun before the decision to produce more Blackjacks.
    If they want 24 subsonic cruise missiles to be launched from inside the Tu-160 they have the kh-59mk2, if they want the same number but supersonic they have KH-58USHKE, if they want the same number but Hypersonic they have the missile from the SU-57, all with ~4.2mt, they probably just need to adapt, or develop a new revolver.
    thumbsup
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4654
    Points : 4642
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Hole Fri May 22, 2020 4:52 pm

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 001216
    Weapons bay of a Tu-22M3 with Kh-15. Not much room left.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB Sat May 23, 2020 4:47 am

    I sincerely don't understand why you doubt even the 500km range of the KH-59MK2, look at the improvement of the KH-59MK2 export version from the MAKS-2015 vs the missile with the same name http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/air-to-air-missile/kh-59mk2/ obviously the improvement was not using more fuel, but the materials used in the new missile, the new engine, and probably better solid fuel, they made all this effort to export.

    The solid fuel is irrelevant... on the first few models that used it it was only used to fly the missile out to 1km ahead of the launch platform quickly so it could be gathered by the datalink pod so communication could be established... it would only burn for a few seconds and didn't accelerate the missile faster than high subsonic speed.

    The limits on the early models was datalink range, while the later models added extra fuel in the place of the solid rocket booster to reach almost 300km range... the export model wasn't allowed to reach further than that anyway so any extra potential would be used up making the warhead bigger most likely.

    The point is that the domestic model has a range of about 550km... which I have no huge problem believing... but suddenly turning that into 1,000km plus range is not likely... the turbofan engine used was rather fuel efficient already, and even if you replaced the entire missile with composite material that weighed nothing you still wouldn't increase range by that much...

    If the KH-59MK2 for SU-57 has only 500km range, or even less, they are giving away advanced technology...for me try aren't.

    The Kh-59MK2 is smaller and lighter than previous missiles that had ranges of just over half its reported range... the export model of the Kh-59MK2 is described as being a 290km range missile... which makes sense because export limits its range to 300km max anyway, but with a 310kg warhead and a total weight of 770kg and a length of 4.2m it is actually smaller and similar in weight to the AS-13 or Kh-59 which has a 147kg warhead, a 40km range, and weighs 760kgs and is about 5.4m long.

    I appreciate its range is not limited by its potential, but by international export agreement, but 550km sounds a reasonable distance for a weapon to carry on their new stealth fighter... at 4.2m it could also be carried internally by the Backfire which has a 5m weapon bay for weapons up to about 4.8m long like the Kickback.

    I don't think they could do anything to magically make such a weapon reach 1,000km...

    Remember these are subsonic cruise missiles and the altitude they operate at is going to effect their flight range and speed too... the Kh-59MK2 can operate at altitudes from 200m to 11,000m over land... it flys at 10-15m over water till it gets close to its target and then descends to 4-7m depending on the sea state.

    At low altitude its flight speed will be about 700km/h and range will probably be 250-300km, while at 11,000m altitude  it will fly at 1,000km/h and reach full range of 550km or so.

    The KH-55 family is obsolete, their improvements were "only" from different engines and conformal tanks(more and/or better fuel) KH-101 with only more 1.45 mt achieved more 50% range... better composite materials, aerodynamic, engine, fuel.

    First of all the Kh-55 and family is no where near obsolete. Second the Kh-101 is longer, but it is also a ton heavier... the standard Kh-55 is a 1,210kg missile with a flight range of 2,500km... the Kh-55SM with saddle tanks is heavier at 1,500kg and wider because of the external conformal tanks and with the extra weight basically being extra fuel its range is 3,000km.

    The Kh-101 is longer and as wide as the Kh-55SM with its external tanks and weighs one ton more than the heavier Kh-55SM and that extra ton is basically extra fuel... which gives it better range. The Kh-102 is about 200kgs lighter because the nuclear warhead is about 200kgs lighter than the conventional HE warhead of the Kh-101, but because it has the same fuel weight it gets a longer flight range of about 5,000km instead of the Kh-101s 4,500km flight range.

    All down to increased fuel weight and extra length meaning less drag in flight.

    I think KH-102 has a lot more than 5000km range. It could have the double of the KH-101, in my opinion.

    If they flew at 12km altitude all the way to the target at a low thrust setting to improve fuel consumption they might both fly much further, but for their roles they need to fly faster and they need to follow way points to take them around danger areas... they might need to drop down to 20m altitude and fly through mountain passes to get to their targets in secret... all of which will effect range and performance.

    GarryB do you have any source that the weapons bay of the TU-22M3M aren't 6+ mt long?

    Information about the Tu-22M3M is vague... they did mention extending the weapon bay but no hard details...

    If they had made GZUR and kh-50 4.78 mt long for me that would be a big mistake, they would have a bad missiles for TU-22M3M ( compared with what they could achieve if it is 6 mt long) and a not so important missiles for a platform (TU-160) that they only had 16, and is the more important air force strategic plane.

    Actually being 6m long missiles means having 6 weapons in each weapon bay on the Blackjack... a 6 metre missile sitting on a rotary launcher 11.35m long... if they had another 4.78m missile they could load that on there too in tandem but the only missiles I have read about that is that length or less in that category is the Kh-59MK2 and the Kh-15 which has been withdrawn from service.

    By making them shorter they can be deployed in much greater numbers by a much wider variety of aircraft... mounting a 4.8m long missile on an Su-34 or Su-35 or even a MiG-35 would be easier than mounting a 6m long missile... and having say 65 Tu-160M2s in service eventually means a potential for 1,560 Gzur near hypersonic 1,500km range land attack missiles, with another 10 per Backfire you are operating. At 6m long those 65 Blackjacks could only carry 780.

    Making them smaller makes them more flexible and increases the number that can be carried.

    It is like Granit vs Zircon.... Granit is a 7.5 ton enormous missile only carried on Oscar and Oscar II class subs, Kirov class cruisers and the Kuznetsov CV. Zircon  is about 5 times faster, with more than double its range and 1/3rd its weight and can be carried by any Russian ship fitted with a UKSK launcher which includes corvettes and subs.

    As for reduced performance... the Gzur is replacing an already withdrawn rocket powered missile with a speed of mach 5 and a range of about 250km. A shortened Gzur should be able to match the mach 6 speed and might perhaps reach 1,000km instead of 1,500km which is fine... put a slightly smaller nuke warhead in it...

    For the Product 715 it is supposed to be a short range tactical cruise missile with a range of at most 2,000km... having a range of 1,500km is not a big problem.

    Being able to be carried internally on the Tu-22M3 greatly improves the flight performance of that aircraft by reducing drag.

    The question is the 2 missiles above were developed with TU-22M3M or Tu-160 in mind?
    Their development begun before the decision to produce more Blackjacks.

    The two missiles are for two specific and different jobs... GZUR is a short range attack missile to help a strategic bomber penetrate enemy air defences... so the Blackjack would use it but likely not all of them... perhaps one in a flight would have one internal bay with 12 missiles and the rest would have long range cruise missiles. The Backfire would use the Kickback and therefore also the Gzur to penetrate hostile enemy airspace protected by air defence systems like Patriot and THAAD and AEGIS Ashore, but they would also use it like Kinzhal.... ie against ships which have their own IADS. GZUR II will be a mach 12 missile with strategic features and will likely be carried in the Blackjacks internal weapon bays... 6 per bay....

    The Kh-50, sometimes called Product 715 and occasionally called Kh-SD is a reduced size reduced range stealthy cruise missiles for theatre operations for a similar role to JASSM-ER, and as such could be carried by the Backfire or the Blackjack or Bear or PAK DA.

    In fact if the Kh-50 and Gzur are both less than 5m long then you could carry them in tandem in a Blackjacks bay... 12 air defence targets is a lot for a penetration, but also having them all in the same plane is a risk... perhaps having every plane in each flight with four Gzur missiles and the other 8 missiles on that rotary launcher could be 1,500km range cruise missiles... so the loadout for the Blackjack would be 4 x Gzur, 8 x Kh-50, and 6 x Kh-102... so they can penetrate air defences... which could include AEGIS cruisers in the Arctic ocean for instance... A loadout for an attack on Europe could be 4 Gzur and all the rest Kh-50... ie 4 x Gzur and 20 x Kh-50...

    They could step it up... a subsonic cruise missile is a tricky little bugger... but imagine replacing the turbofan with a ramjet and making it a supercruising mach 1.8 target that does not have an AB and therefore uses dry thrust, so you get long range and a missile that an F-35 can't chase down...

    If they want 24 subsonic cruise missiles to be launched from inside the Tu-160 they have the kh-59mk2, if they want the same number but supersonic they have KH-58USHKE, if they want the same number but Hypersonic they have the missile from the SU-57, all with ~4.2mt, they probably just need to adapt, or develop a new revolver.

    Kh-59MK2 has a range of 550km... not really enough. The Kh-58 has half that range...
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1620
    Points : 1657
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 34
    Location : portugal

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  dino00 Sat May 23, 2020 8:59 pm

    You are killing me Garry lol1 I hope you are not doing on purpose lol1

    GarryB Kh-59MK2 has a range of 550km... not really enough. The Kh-58 has half that range... wrote:

    If the kh-58 you are talking about is this http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/air-to-air-missile/kh-58ushke/. You are saying that the Russian version only has more 30 km range...


    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7324
    Points : 7473
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun May 24, 2020 1:13 am

    GarryB wrote:Kh-59MK2 has a range of 550km... not really enough. The Kh-58 has half that range...

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 DeOeuesX0AAKbvG?format=jpg&name=medium
    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 DeOeuqiW4AEqY5B?format=jpg&name=medium

    Well the Kh-59Mk2 is .4 meters wide, and the mid-section internal bomb bays are 1 meter wide. They should make a modification, call it the Kh-59Mk3, where instead of 2 missiles, it's just one missile that's .8 meters wide (with comformal drop tanks), probably giving it more than double the max range at something like 1,600-1,800km. The range could be more than doubled because as it stands the Kh-59Mk2 design has to share space for electronics, warhead, engine and fuel, while the drop tanks that doubled the width (and spans the whole length) of the missile only has to store fuel.

    Of course by making it wider it'll be more prone to drag, however less so due to the fact that the Kh-59Mk2 (and the Mk3) missile would be subsonic. To mitigate the additional drag caused by doubling the width, as I mentioned they could instead of having a uniform .8 meter wide munition, they could take the existing Kh-59Mk2 design, and add .2 meter wide conformal droppable fuel tanks on each side that could be bolted on. Kh-59Mk3 will have ports on each side to mount the fuel tanks, and fuel veins that lead to the engine. When the fuel is spent, they would be jettisoned leaving largely the same shape as the Kh-59Mk2 design (but with additional side ports), simultaneously shedding dead weight and reducing drag.

    Future iterations of the Su-57 should, ideally speaking have more modular mid section bomb bays. Ideally speaking in my opinion the 2 door bomb bays should be replaced with a modular revolving door system, which would degrade RCS significantly less, and reduce drag when launching munitions. To further reduce RCS degradation, they could have an electro-magnetic opaque aersol gas (aluminum-silica nanosphere aersol like the AFV smoke grenades) be injected in the bomb bays before launching munitions, which could possibly help mask the munitions from detection too (if it coats the munition).

    The revolving door bomb bays could be designed where set piece revolving doors could allow different sized munitions, like for long missiles (sub, super, or hypersonic) that fits the whole length (and the space between) of both bomb bays combined!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty tu-22 bomber

    Post  GarryB Sun May 24, 2020 9:01 am

    If the kh-58 you are talking about is this http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/air-to-air-missile/kh-58ushke/. You are saying that the Russian version only has more 30 km range...

    I am saying the Kh-58 has a long history in Soviet and Russian service and for most of that time its range was 120km from most of the platforms that carried it.

    The exception was the MiG-25 that could launch it from high altitude and high speed and it could reach 200km in that flight profile.

    For the new Kh-58 that is largely changed to be carried internally its flight range is about 250km from aircraft can can get to 15km altitude and mach 2 speed.

    If you think the Russian version can reach 500km then you are being very optimistic...

    I am impressed it can reach 250km.... it has a 150kg warhead which is huge for such a weapon.

    They should make a modification, call it the Kh-59Mk3, where instead of 2 missiles, it's just one missile that's .8 meters wide (with comformal drop tanks), probably giving it more than double the max range at something like 1,600-1,800km.

    If the missile has that sort of range you might as well carry it externally...

    Triples on external weapon racks would be interesting for the Tu-22M3M... the intake mountings for multiple ejector racks for carrying large numbers of iron bombs could be upgraded to carry twin or triple mounts with tandem missile load outs for heavier conventional payloads...
    thegopnik
    thegopnik

    Posts : 527
    Points : 533
    Join date : 2017-09-20

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  thegopnik Sun May 31, 2020 1:01 am

    Am I high right now or is this article saying this bomber flew at hypersonic speeds?

    https://tass.com/defense/1160783

    "The second prototype of the Tu-22M3M supersonic bomber underwent trials at hypersound speeds during its fourth test flight, a defense industry source told TASS on Wednesday.
    "Five flights have already been performed. The hypersound speed was achieved during the fourth flight. The aircraft demonstrated good stability and controllability. Modified systems and equipment are performing normally during the trials," the source said."
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11554
    Points : 11622
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  PapaDragon Sun May 31, 2020 2:56 am


    Just journalists being retards as usual, ignore it

    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 473
    Points : 479
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 52
    Location : Italy

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  marcellogo Sun May 31, 2020 8:48 am

    thegopnik wrote:Am I high right now or is this article saying this bomber flew at hypersonic speeds?

    https://tass.com/defense/1160783

    "The second prototype of the Tu-22M3M supersonic bomber underwent trials at hypersound speeds during its fourth test flight, a defense industry source told TASS on Wednesday.
    "Five flights have already been performed. The hypersound speed was achieved during the fourth flight. The aircraft demonstrated good stability and controllability. Modified systems and equipment are performing normally during the trials," the source said."

    Seems that also in the East general press journalists think that subsonic, transonic, supersonic and hypersonic are all new realeass of the Arcade game Sonic the Hedgehog.
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 450
    Points : 442
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Azi Sun May 31, 2020 2:23 pm

    thegopnik wrote:Am I high right now or is this article saying this bomber flew at hypersonic speeds?

    https://tass.com/defense/1160783

    "The second prototype of the Tu-22M3M supersonic bomber underwent trials at hypersound speeds during its fourth test flight, a defense industry source told TASS on Wednesday.
    "Five flights have already been performed. The hypersound speed was achieved during the fourth flight. The aircraft demonstrated good stability and controllability. Modified systems and equipment are performing normally during the trials," the source said."
    The author made a mistake! Should be supersonic. The first flights were subsonic and the fourth supersonic.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 9363
    Points : 9470
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  JohninMK Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:34 pm

    Wish I could take photos like this. The lighting is exquisite.

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 EZYq3eIXQAQMn7e?format=jpg&name=large
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1620
    Points : 1657
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 34
    Location : portugal

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  dino00 Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:30 pm

    I was still with doubts about the length of the TU-22M3M weapons bay, so I was searching and in one Russian forum I saw a comment about the Zvezda tv documentary about the Tu-22M3M, this one...https://youtu.be/5GbtjgPYxGw in what a member said the weapons bay will be enlarged, I asked some members in this forum that I know understand Russian, this is what Mindstorm translated about the 18:30 seconds in the video...

    Mindstorm:

    The video say that the Ту-22МЗМ weapon bay with the characteristic silhouette elongation ( personal note :already present in former models but never used to increase the lenght's limits of the missiles nountable) should supposedly allow the bomber to employ missiles with extended range, even those not compatible with the two weapon bays of the Ту-160.



    avatar
    wilhelm

    Posts : 268
    Points : 272
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  wilhelm Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:33 am

    https://youtu.be/d18Omx9gMK0
    Some footage of the. M3M flying.
    I notice the video always cuts away whenever it gets possible to have a close look at the new bump over the nose, right where you expect a retractable air refuelling probe to be......

    Edit: it appears to be shortened clips of the video dino00 posted above from the zvezda documentary.
    Can someone translate what is being said at around 4:15 and 17:40 in the video below that dino00 posted concerning the difference in nose profiles here please? I suspect they are talking about what the the new bump is, but do not speak Russian.
    https://youtu.be/5GbtjgPYxGw
    TheArmenian
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1883
    Points : 2030
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  TheArmenian Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:18 am

    wilhelm wrote:https://youtu.be/d18Omx9gMK0
    Some footage of the. M3M flying.
    I notice the video always cuts away whenever it gets possible to have a close look at the new bump over the nose, right where you expect a retractable air refuelling probe to be......

    Edit: it appears to be shortened clips of the video dino00 posted above from the zvezda documentary.
    Can someone translate what is being said at around 4:15 and 17:40 in the video below that dino00 posted concerning the difference in nose profiles here please? I suspect they are talking about what the the new bump is, but do not speak Russian.
    https://youtu.be/5GbtjgPYxGw

    Confirmed. They are saying it is the in flight refueling probe.
    avatar
    wilhelm

    Posts : 268
    Points : 272
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  wilhelm Fri Jun 12, 2020 4:01 am

    Thanks.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 9363
    Points : 9470
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  JohninMK Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:13 pm

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 EcPsb9oWoAAiGT6?format=jpg&name=medium


    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 EcPsdQzXsAAg_jW?format=jpg&name=360x360


    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 EcPsfRbXQAAMuSk?format=jpg&name=360x360

    GarryB, dino00 and Singular_Transform like this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1220
    Points : 1254
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  mnztr Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:37 pm

    China to deploy modified TU-22's? :

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/China-Inks-Military-Deal-With-Iran-Under-Secretive-25-Year-Plan.html
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 16725
    Points : 17232
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  George1 Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:32 pm

    mnztr wrote:China to deploy modified TU-22's? :

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/China-Inks-Military-Deal-With-Iran-Under-Secretive-25-Year-Plan.html

    China hasnt any Tu-22s
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1220
    Points : 1254
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  mnztr Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:28 am

    George1 wrote:

    China hasnt any Tu-22s

    how do you know they won't have them in the future?
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 473
    Points : 479
    Join date : 2012-08-02
    Age : 52
    Location : Italy

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  marcellogo Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:16 pm

    mnztr wrote:
    George1 wrote:

    China hasnt any Tu-22s

    how do you know they won't have them in the future?

    To acquire them it would have to buy to Russia, so WTH Iran wouldn't just buy them directly?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:21 pm

    Do you think the news of China starting licence producing Tu-22M3s will be revealed by an oil price website?

    And it would take years for China to set up production of Tu-22M3s... how hard do you think Israel and the US would work to prevent China from producing such aircraft and then selling them to Iran?

    Iran would at best buy some Tu-22M3 aircraft from Russia, but why would they consider a Chinese upgrade on such an aircraft... China has no experience or knowledge of the Backfire to base any potential upgrades on.

    Russia on the other hand has decades of operational experience with the aircraft and has their own upgrade in progress right now...

    Unless they were talking about Iran buying Chinese Tu-16s which is a rather different kettle of fish...

    But even then if they were looking at bomber aircraft in that category the Tu-22M3 is vastly superior in performance to the Tu-16, so why buy the latter instead of the former?

    Neither aircraft would be a huge amount of use to Iran anyway... Su-30s and MiG-29M2s and Su-25SM3s would be valuable buys and perhaps Gefest & T upgrades for their Su-24s, and indeed their new light fighters...

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1220
    Points : 1254
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  mnztr Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:37 am

    There have been rumors that China was going to license produce the TU-22 for about a decade now. How do you know this has not been an ongoing project for years? As for an oilsite, geopolitics and oil are often intertwined. Also I would expect Russia has quite a few frames in reserve.

    You assume TU-22's are available for Iran to buy..why does China persist with the TU-16 vs buying the TU-22?


    Last edited by mnztr on Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:44 am; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1220
    Points : 1254
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  mnztr Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:39 am

    marcellogo wrote:
    mnztr wrote:
    George1 wrote:

    China hasnt any Tu-22s

    how do you know they won't have them in the future?

    To acquire them it would have to buy to Russia, so WTH Iran wouldn't just buy them directly?

    Who says Iran are going to own them. If they are Chinese or Russian planes sitting on the tarmac of an Iranian Airbase, how do you think the US or Israel would feel about attacking them, as opposed to them being IRAF planes?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  GarryB Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:28 am

    There have been rumors that China was going to license produce the TU-22 for about a decade now. How do you know this has not been an ongoing project for years? As for an oilsite, geopolitics and oil are often intertwined. Also I would expect Russia has quite a few frames in reserve.

    China wanted to buy some Tu-22M3s in the mid 1990s and Russia said no. Russia said no because China wanted to buy 2.

    You assume TU-22's are available for Iran to buy..why does China persist with the TU-16 vs buying the TU-22?

    The Soviet Union sold Tu-22s to Iraq. I have never heard any comment before about Iran being interested in such aircraft, and I suspect the people behind this oil website are just stirring some shit up... creating speculations where none actually exist... playing geopolitical games...

    AFAIK Iran are not interested in the Backfire, the only reason it has been mentioned is Russian use of the Backfire in the region and potential operational use from Iranian airbases that would allow much heavier payloads be delivered over much shorter distances...

    Who says Iran are going to own them. If they are Chinese or Russian planes sitting on the tarmac of an Iranian Airbase, how do you think the US or Israel would feel about attacking them, as opposed to them being IRAF planes?

    The suggestion in the article was that the aircraft Russia wants to base in Iran are the same aircraft Iran wants to operate for itself, but made the mistake of suggesting a Chinese upgrade Backfire would be of interest... Anyone who follows aviation would see that as being obvious BS... a bit like Iran also considering a Ford Class carrier with Chinese EMALS and EM weapons fitted...
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1220
    Points : 1254
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  mnztr Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:03 am

    There is no suggestion iran would be acquiring tu-22s just that they would be based there and that there may be. A chinese modified version. The tu-22 is 10 years older now. Perhaps russia is less protective of the tech as its older and we able to obtain major oil and gas contracts with china in return for the technology. Russian and chinese bases give iran a great deal of security from US threats

    Sponsored content

    Tu-22M3: News - Page 29 Empty Re: Tu-22M3: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:17 pm