Tu-22M3: News

From april 2012

All this is fueling speculation that KLJ-7's true specs is lower than publicized by the closed-to-scrutiny Chinese Defence Establishments. This speculation turned out to be true when Janes Defence Weekly published that the Radar Range of KLJ-7 is actually 75km for a 3m2 Target.[Reference/Source 8]
KLJ-7 has a 75km detection range for 3m2 Target. Hence:
For 20m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 121km
For 15m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 112km
For 12.5m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 107km
For 10m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 101km
For 8.5m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 97km
For 5m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 85km
For 1m2, KLJ-7 detection range is 57km

APG-68(V)9 has a 105km detection range for 5m2 Target. Hence:
For 20m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 149km
For 15m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 138km
For 12.5m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 132km
For 10m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 125km
For 8.5m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 120km
For 3m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 92km
For 1m2, APG-68(V)9 detection range is 70km



RCS figures are confidential. However unofficially there are some figures available on the internet. They are:
Clean(meaning payload/ammunition not loaded) F-16 after Block 30, which includes block 52 - 1.2m2
Clean Mig-29B & Mig-29SMT - 5m2
Clean Su-30MKI - 10m2 to 15m2

JF-17 without RAM, its RCS would be more than a Clean F-16 block 52 which has RAM & is planform. F-16 block25 & the previous variants, which are planform in construction but without RAM, were said to have an RCS of 3m2-5m2, when clean. JF-17's TWR isn't very high, and adding RAM would mean increasing the weight. So we can expect little or no RAM on JF-17. Also, JF-17 isn't very planform in construction but has DSI and is a smaller aircraft. So lets consider a favorable assumption that the RCS of a clean JF-17 is as low as 2.5m2.[Reference 1]

Su-30MKI's RCS when carrying full 8000kgs AG load is said to be 20m2.[Reference 2]

Lets take Su-30MKI's clean RCS as 11.5m2, higher than a standard Su-27, due to canards & the extra seat.

Mig-29K's RCS is officially confirmed to be 4-5 times less than a old Mig-29, due to composites & RAM. So taking an average value between 4 & 5 = 4.5. When the unofficial RCS of 5 is divided by 4.5 we get an RCS of 1.11. "Considerable increase of flight range is also gained due to increased capacity of drop fuel tanks and in-flight refueling capability (with the possibility to refuel from the aircraft of the same type). Due to special coatings Mig-29K radar reflecting surface is 4-5 times smaller than of basic MiG-29."[Reference 3]

It's well known that RCS increases with external payload. JF-17 cannot carry larger payloads. Its load carrying capacity is only 7900lbs or less than 3600kgs. This compared to Su-30MKIs 8000kgs, Mig-29K's 5500kgs, & F-16's 7500kgs. So only a nominal increase of 2.5m2 RCS is taken into consideration for the JF-17. Eventhough Mig-29K carries less payload than a F-16 or Su-30, a RCS increase more than F-16's is considered for calculations, in order to get a uniform RCS. This is done purely for the ease of comparison, but as a result of this the MiG-29K's RCS figure is much more than what it would be been. In the end:

Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded Mig-29SMT as 8.5m2, 3.5m2 more.
Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded Mig-29K as 5m2, 3.9m2 more.
Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded F-16 Block 52 as 5m2, 3.8m2 more.
Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded JF-17 as 5m2, 2.5m2 more.
Take the RCS of a Air-Air loaded Su-30MKI as 15m2, 3.5m2 more.

With these RCS values and the above radar ranges, you can now see which fighters will be detecting their opponent fighters first... and first tracking which almost linearly follows detection.

Mig-29K will detect:
Su-30MKI at 158km
Mig-29SMT at 137km
F-16 Block 52 at 120km
JF-17 at 120km

F-16 Block 52 will detect:
Su-30MKI at 138km
Mig-29SMT at 120km
JF-17 at 105km
Mig-29K at 105km

Su-30MKI will detect:
Mig-29SMT at 160km
F-16 Block 52 at 140km
JF-17 at 140km
Mig-29K at 140km

Mig-29SMT will detect:
Su-30MKI at 158km
F-16 Block 52 at 120km
JF-17 at 120km
Mig-29K at 120km

JF-17 will detect:
Su-30MKI at 112km
Mig-29SMT at 97km
F-16 Block52 at 85km
Mig-29K at 85km

Mig-29K comes out as the clear winner. If provided with a long range BVR weapon which could match its powerful radar, Mig-29K navalised version will come out as the BVR winner.
Su-30MKI follows the Mig-29K Naval Fulcrum.
Mig-29SMT & F-16 Block-52 are tied at third, followed by the JF-17.

Radars & their Ranges on their respective Fighters
Zhuk-ME (on Mig-29 Upgrade & Mig-29K)
Can Track- 10 Targets
Can Simultaneously Engage - 4 Targets
Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 120 km
Max Track for 5 sqm RCS - 100.8 km (Tracking range is 0.83 - 0.85 of the detection range)
Reference 4

N-011M BARS (on Su-30MKI)
Can Track- 15 Targets
Can Simultaneously Engage - 4 Targets
Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 140 km
Reference 4
Reference 5
Reference 25
Reference 25 - Translation 1
Reference 25 - Translation 2

Kopyo-21I
Can Track- 8 Targets
Can Simultaneously Engage - 2 Targets
Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 57 km
Reference 4

Kopyo-M
Can Track- 10 Targets
Can Simultaneously Engage - 2 Targets
Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 80 km
Reference 4
(Mig-21 Bison has Kopyo radar. Some Bisons are equipped with Kopyo-21I and some with Kopyo-M.)

Grifo-S(Range of the largest antenna version)
Can Track- 10 Targets
Can Simultaneously Engage - 2 Targets
Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 93 km
Reference 6

KLJ-7 (on JF-17)
Can Track- 10 Targets
Can Simultaneously Engage - 2 Targets
Max Detection for 3 sqm RCS - 75 km
Reference 8
Reference 9

BARS-29 (Similar to MKI radar, but is newer, & its antenna adapted to Mig-29's smaller nose)
Can Track- 15 Targets
Can Simultaneously Engage - 4 Targets
Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 120 km
Reference 10
Reference 11

Irbis-E (on Su-35S)
Can Track - 30 Targets
Can Simultaneously Engage - 8 Targets
Max Detection for 3 sqm RCS - 375 km(mean of 350 and 400km)
Reference 13
Reference 13 - Translation 1
Reference 13 - Translation 2
Max Detection for 0.01 sqm RCS - 90 km
Reference 18
(Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 426 km)
(Max Detection for 1 sqm RCS - 285 km)

APG-77 (on F-22A)
Max Track for 1 sqm RCS - 200 km
Reference 12
Reference 14

APG-81 (on F-35)
Max Track for 1 sqm RCS - 160 km
Reference 12
Reference 14

Captor-M (on EF-2000)
Max Track for 5 sqm RCS - 185 km
Reference 14
Reference 12

Zaslon-M (on Mig-31)
Max Detection for 19 / 20 sqm RCS - 400 km
Reference 12
Reference 23
Reference 24
(Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 282.8 km)

RBE-2 (on Rafale)
Can Track - 40/8 Targets
Can Simultaneously Engage - 4 Targets
Max Track for 30 sqft(2.8sqm) RCS - 60nm(111.12 km)
Max Detection for 30 sqft (2.8sqm) RCS - 75nm(138.9 km)
Reference 22
Reference 15
(Max detection for 5m2 RCS - 160.6km)
(Max track for 5m2 RCS - 128.5km)

RDY-2 (on mirage 2000-5/-9)
Can Track - 8 Targets
Can Simultaneously Engage - 4 Targets
Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 105 km
Max Track for 5 sqm RCS - 80 km
Reference 14

RC-400 (Smaller radar based on RDY-2. Range of the largest antenna)
Can Track - 8 Targets
Can Simultaneously Engage - 4 Targets
Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 84 km

APG-68 (V)9 (on F-16 Block 52)
Max Detection for 5 sqm RCS - 105 km
Reference 16
Max Track for 5 sqm RCS - 80 km
Reference 14

APG-66(V)2 (on F-16 MLU)
Max Detection for 6 sqm RCS - 74 km
Max Detection for 0.8 sqm RCS - 50 km
Reference 19
Reference 20
Reference 21
(Assuming 6sqm for F-4 to be accurate and invoking the radar-range-RCS equation for 0.8sqm of T-37, the result is 45km, which almost tallies with the given range of 50km, thus proving the validity of the RCS and hence the ranges.)

@ Isos

It may have been you indeed. But I seem to recall you were quoting an article about possible upgrades for the Tu-22M prior to M3M upgrade came to be.

And it boils down to the fact that it could also act as somewhat of an AWAC's too. A command and control aircraft as well as missile truck. The main disadvantage over a typical awacs is that it wouldn't have full 360 degree viewing angle.

It's been a long time so my memory fails me a bit

I don't remember and can't be bothered looking back but I would think I would be thinking of an escort jammer with air to air and air to ground capacity to support M3M bombers operating with it... the room in the nose is enormous and would allow radar antennas several times bigger than radars fitted to their other aircraft to be used... this aircraft has the capacity to carry 24 tons of ordinance, and the potential is enormous... new replacement missiles for the Kh-31 family that use scramjet propulsion instead of ramjet propulsion that increases speed 3-4 times and probably quadruples current range against ground and air targets is just one example of what should be achievable... without spending a lot of money.

Of course the MiG-41 is on the way so it does not need to fly much faster than it does because that can do the intercept stuff while the Backfire could form a patrol element... the engine upgrades to improve the power of the NK-31 and NK-25 could lead to serious performance increases in dry thrust alone so super cruising could become a possibility too.

December 25, 22:26
New equipment of the RF Armed Forces

Updated missile carriers Tu-95MSM and Tu-22M3M will enter the Russian Aerospace Forces in 2023
The commander of long-range aviation, Lieutenant General Sergei Kobylash, specified that after modernization, they acquire improved characteristics and capabilities for their operation.

MOSCOW, 26 December. /TASS/. Long-range aviation of the Aerospace Forces (VKS) of the Russian Federation in 2023 will receive the first modernized Tu-95MSM strategic missile carriers and Tu-22M3M missile carrier-bombers. This was announced by the commander of long-range aviation, Lieutenant General Sergei Kobylash.

"In order to increase the combat capabilities of long-range aviation, a deep modernization of the main types of our combat aircraft to the level of Tu-160M, Tu-95MSM and Tu-22M3M continues, and the production of the Tu-160 aviation complex in the Tu-160M ​​variant has been resumed. Next year, the first such aircraft will go to combat units," he said in an interview with the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper, published on Monday.

Earlier, on December 21, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu at the final board of the military department with the participation of Russian President Vladimir Putin of Russia announced the need to accept three Tu-160M ​​missile carriers into the aviation strategic nuclear forces next year.

In turn, the head of the United Aircraft Corporation announced on December 23 that the first Tu-160M ​​strategic missile carrier built from scratch would be commissioned this year. According to him, it will be a deeply modernized aircraft based on the Tu-160 with new capabilities and new functionality.

According to the commander of long-range aviation, after modernization, the aircraft acquire improved characteristics and capabilities for their operation, as well as for more accurate use of aviation weapons.

Kobylash noted that in the interests of the association, the development of a promising long-range aviation complex capable of solving a wide range of tasks of both nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence is being simultaneously carried out. All aviation weapons are also being developed and supplied, including new cruise hypersonic missiles.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/16686003

At the end of December, PJSC "Tupolev", as part of the state defense order, handed over another Tu-22M3 missile carrier-bomber to the Long-range aviation of the Russian Aerospace Forces.

On the aircraft, the necessary complexes of improvements to improve the characteristics were carried out. After the familiarization flight, the aircraft was handed over to the operating organization.

@uac_ru

How many M3Ms have been delivered?

Afaik, none. They should to be delivered at the start of 2023.

What kind of incendiary does it use? Is it the dry phosphor kind or the napalm kind?

This aircraft definitely needs kh-555 or kh-101, far better than wasting kh-22s on ground targets.

The Tu-22M3 would be prohibited from carrying missiles with a range greater than about 3,000km because the US would claim that would make them strategic bombers, which they are not currently classed as.

The Backfires role is theatre defence for which Kh-32 and similar missiles are very good.

Some targets would require multiple hits with smaller weapons but with high speed heavy Kh-22M and Kh-32 missile types often a single missile will destroy an entire building complex including those with bunker levels below them.

The Backfire was not a naval programme and its anti ship role was secondary... its main role was SEAD with Kh-22 and Kh-22M and now Kh-32 being used to hit major HQs and comms centres and take out major SAM sites. It was also a bomb truck.



You can see here it carries three heavy ground attack missiles but also an external bomb rack under its air intake on the left side looking at the aircraft.

The kh-22 is incredibly inaccurate against ground targets. There's been no evidence of sead variants of the kh-22 being used. If range is an issue then the kh-50 should be fine.

They need to replace the Kh-32 with the Kinzhal. Tu-22M3M upgrade is also long overdue.

Kh-32 has been a half speed Kinzhal for the last decade or so and probably carries a 930kg warhead at mach 5 which is pretty devastating, and is in full mass production and available in significant numbers.

If the Backfire gets a hypersonic missile it will probably be Zircon, which is smaller and lighter and slightly faster and with much longer range from a Backfire.

Kinzhal is a solid rocket motor missile that seriously benefits from being air launched in terms of range and speed, but Zircon being a scramjet powered missile would also benefit from being launched from an aircraft too.

The kh-22 is incredibly inaccurate against ground targets.

Hilarious... who told you that?

There are about three distinct models of the Kh-22, one has active radar homing and is very accurate against ships and ground targets. A second has passive radar homing guidance for second wave attacks at carrier groups after the group has been alerted that it is under attack by the first wave of missiles and has all its radars on and scanning for incoming threats... obviously it is also rather accurate. The third missile option uses inertial guidance only and strikes a coordinate on the sea surface or on the ground and it carries an 800Kt nuclear warhead. Its accuracy is not amazing but any HQ or SAM site or carrier group is going to get vapourised either way.

If you are talking about the third type then it probably isn't highly accurate... the CEP might be 200-300m, but the warhead power means that does not really matter.

The Kh-32 is very accurate as has been shown by its use against hardened ammo and fuel bunkers in the Ukraine that it has destroyed.

There's been no evidence of sead variants of the kh-22 being used.

They talk about S-300 radars being taken out but they don't mention what type of weapon is used to do it and no footage is released.

They do mention the Kh-31 as performing rather well and I suspect that is in the SEAD role, but the Kh-22M and Kh-32 are being used too.

Their flight speed would mean their impacts are unlikely to be caught on video except where security video cameras were already in place... you would not hear any of them coming because they will be moving four to six times the speed of sound on impact... and the fireball will be rather large with almost a ton of HE as a warhead.

The Kh-50 has probably been tested but I am not sure it is in full operational service yet.

There are a broad range of new missiles that are coming online soon if they are not already in service that will make the Bear and the Backfire and the Blackjack rather potent attack aircraft.

diabetus wrote:The kh-22 is incredibly inaccurate against ground targets. There's been no evidence of sead variants of the kh-22 being used. If range is an issue then the kh-50 should be fine.

During the SMO we've seen a number of KH-22 being delivered with pin-point accuracy!

Mir wrote:During the SMO we've seen a number of KH-22 being delivered with pin-point accuracy!

More of the same old delusion that permeates this forum. Then again certain people here argued against the use of guided bombs until Russia decided to actually use them.

And no, we've never seen the Kh-22 hit anything with pinpoint accuracy. It's not capable of that, and the manufacturer never claimed that. You've also never seen any evidence of that so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

ALAMO wrote:In case if someone will miss that, the target is that building on the right that will be struck just in the middle.
Dumb Russkie.

No, the target was the city block sized factory. That missile barely managed to make it inside the perimeter fence. Does it hurt being that delusional?

GarryB wrote:They talk about S-300 radars being taken out but they don't mention what type of weapon is used to do it and no footage is released.

They do mention the Kh-31 as performing rather well and I suspect that is in the SEAD role, but the Kh-22M and Kh-32 are being used too.

Zero evidence of it being used for SEAD. Maybe the kh-58.

lancelot wrote:There is plenty of evidence of the Kh-22 being accurate enough to hit buildings. Is it that surprising that it can hit a building when the missile was designed to be accurate enough to hit moving ships at a distance of hundreds of kilometers?

Any inaccuracy I have seen by Russian satellite guided long range munitions in this conflict is more attributable to issues of lack of precision in the current GLONASS network than specific issues with the missiles themselves. When GLONASS has like 5m accuracy at best I do not know why you expect it to hit targets with pinpoint precision. The whole satellite constellation was supposed to have been upgraded to GLONASS-K by now but we know what happened.

Kh-22 isn't satellite guided so i don't know what you're talking about.