Military Review

Source: the design of the new version of the Tu-22М3 is completed

77
The designers completed the development of documentation for a modified version of the Tu-22М3 bomber — the Tu-22М3М; the first deep modernization of airplanes in service will begin in the 2018 year. Tu-22M3M will receive a modern high-precision weapon, its radio-electronic equipment and engines will be the same as those of the newest Tu-160М2, a source in the Russian military-industrial complex said.


Source: the design of the new version of the Tu-22М3 is completed


The production of documentation for the Tu-22М3М is completed, production is being prepared at the Kazan Aviation Plant for the repair and modernization of bomber planes located in the Air Force of the Russian Federation. The first deep modernization of these aircraft from the time of their creation will begin next year.
- Said the source agency.

He noted that "the Tu-22М3М avionics complex will be completely new and unified with the Tu-160М2".

This applies to all avionics, including navigation and sighting system
- clarified the source, stressing that after upgrading the Tu-22М3М will be able to use "modern long-range high-precision weapons."

The power plant, according to him, will be Tu-22М3М identical to Tu-160М2 (new engines НК-32-02 of Samara Kuznetsov PJSC).

The source noted that the terms of modernization and the number of updated aircraft depend on "the capabilities of the plant, on how the work on the first machines will go." Official confirmation of this information has not yet been reported.

Earlier it was reported that up to the level of Tu-22М3М 30 airplanes will be upgraded, which will accommodate the new on-board equipment complex SVP-24-22, HB-45 radar, will improve cabin ergonomics, install new on-board systems, extend the life of the airframe to 35 years. The aircraft can carry precision non-nuclear weapons, including the X-32 cruise missile with a range of up to 600 km.

The long-range supersonic bomber bomber Tu-22М3 is a deep modification of the Tu-22 aircraft. Developed by the Tupolev Design Bureau in the middle of 1970's, made the first flight of 20 on June 1977 of the year, was adopted in 1989. Maximum speed - 2000 km / h, ceiling - 13,3 thousands of meters, combat load - up to 24 tons (X-22 and X-15 missiles, bombs, sea mines).

Total 268 released such aircraft. Currently, according to the magazine The Military Balance, there are 62 Tu-22М3 in the Air and Space Forces of Russia. They are actively used in the Syrian campaign, striking at various objects of terrorists, reports TASS
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com/
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 17 November 2017 12: 54
    +1
    Wonderful news, if only with the implementation did not disappoint
    1. NIKNN
      NIKNN 17 November 2017 13: 21
      +8
      Quote: Siberian barber
      Wonderful news, if only with the implementation did not disappoint

      I think, as always, “shifts to the right” cannot be avoided, but the news is good for many reasons. In fact, the unification of equipment and engines with the Tu 160, first reduces the cost of modernization, and secondly seriously increases the combat capabilities of the aircraft. The range of 1000 will increase (I’ll say a lot), the use of the latest weapons significantly expands the scope, etc. In general, not bad ... hi
      1. jjj
        jjj 17 November 2017 14: 41
        +1
        In a short time, the aviation strategic component is growing. There is no other way but to upgrade very successful platforms. New developments are still a rather distant prospect. But you need to bomb now
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN 17 November 2017 15: 24
          +1
          Quote: jjj
          New developments are still a rather distant prospect. But you need to bomb now

          And there is.
  2. weksha50
    weksha50 17 November 2017 12: 55
    +3
    " terms of modernization and the number of updated aircraft depend on the "plant capabilities, on how the work will go on the first machines "" ...

    And from financing - also first of all ... Will this work be included in the next rearmament program from 2018?
    1. Jedi
      Jedi 17 November 2017 13: 01
      +5
      Quote: weksha50
      Will this work be included in the next rearmament program from 2018?

      2018 is just around the corner, so let's see if expectations are met.
  3. stolz
    stolz 17 November 2017 13: 05
    +2
    Quote: Siberian barber
    Wonderful news, if only with the implementation did not disappoint

    This “wonderful” news somehow sounds depressing, all the time the modernization and improvement of all the junk developed and released back in the USSR, and will something new ever appear?
    1. BLOND
      BLOND 17 November 2017 13: 24
      +1
      Quote: Stolz
      Quote: Siberian barber
      Wonderful news, if only with the implementation did not disappoint

      This “wonderful” news somehow sounds depressing, all the time the modernization and improvement of all the junk developed and released back in the USSR, and will something new ever appear?

      You bent at the expense of junk!
      Recently, under the news of the Tu-160th in comments, a man called the "troika" (M3) "anthem" and you are old
      Mattresses called him the killer of aircraft carriers
      1. BLOND
        BLOND 17 November 2017 13: 33
        +2
        “This aircraft was originally created as a“ killer of aircraft carriers, ”which is why the US military is so afraid of them,” says Andrei Lyadov, deputy production and repair director. - In the United States, aircraft carriers are the main striking force, and several “carcasses” can quickly and safely sink any of them. And the modernized Tu-22M3 with the latest electronic suppression system is able to go on a “hunt” in the oceans and complete the combat mission alone.

        The details of directly upgrading the Tu-22MZ at the plant are preferred not to be distributed.

        “The main task is to increase combat effectiveness through the use of a new sighting system and radio equipment, as well as weapon modernization,” Eduard Shorkin, technical director of the plant and director of the engineering center of Tupolev OJSC in Kazan, explains carefully selecting words. - Everything necessary is being done to improve the combat qualities of the aircraft. In fact, this is a new combat aviation complex.
    2. Don
      Don 17 November 2017 20: 12
      +1
      Quote: Stolz
      This “wonderful” news somehow sounds depressing, all the time the modernization and improvement of all the junk developed and released back in the USSR, and will something new ever appear?

      You will not please winked What are the conversations, plans, promises about having no PAK DA analogues, which will replace both the strategist and the Tu-22 range. Probably in a year or two, mass deliveries to the aerospace forces will begin. And PAK FA has been untwisted for how many years! I think that at least five regiments are already in service, no less, otherwise there would not be so much noise. They won’t tell us everything, state secret, you understand. wink . And Armata, you probably saw her! Yes, the whole world has already seen her and heard about him! Behind the Urals, most likely, no less than a tank army, consisting only of Armat, is reliably sheltered and disguised so that the enemies do not calculate the exact number, but it’s not enough. I will still please you. We already have hundreds of Sarmat missiles, dozens of Leader atomic destroyers, thousands of Kurganians and Boomerangs. And how many S-500s, PAK SHA, PAK TA, PAK have already been built, how much is hidden, only Shoigu knows. Only I have a big request to you, I do not need to name their real number. I believe only the promises of our Defense Ministry and the military-industrial complex. If they promised that they would build, then they built. After all, the allocated money is being mastered, which is about 19 trillion, which means that the latest weapons are coming.
      I hope I immediately understood my sarcasm. But how else to survive in this madhouse laughing
  4. ImPerts
    ImPerts 17 November 2017 13: 12
    +2
    Quote: Stolz
    and something new will ever appear?

    PACK YES, work is going on.
    Quote: Stolz
    modernization and improvement of all junk

    At one time, a huge modernization potential was laid, a sin not to use it.
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 17 November 2017 13: 35
      +2
      Quote: ImPerts
      Quote: Stolz
      and something new will ever appear?

      PACK YES, work is going on.
      Quote: Stolz
      modernization and improvement of all junk

      At one time, a huge modernization potential was laid, a sin not to use it.



      At the beginning of the 60's, the fiat-124 "had a huge modernization potential." In connection with this, 50 was produced for years ... it was a sin not to use it ..
      1. ImPerts
        ImPerts 17 November 2017 14: 06
        +5
        Quote: Town Hall
        At the beginning of the 60's, the fiat-124 "had a huge modernization potential." In connection with this, 50 was produced for years ... it was a sin not to use it ..

        I will add, the B-52 took off in the 1952, like the Tu-95, in the 1952, they still fly. The first, because dofig money, the second because of their lack.
        I will say more. At the Black Sea Fleet there is a rescue ship, called Komunna. In operation since the 1915 year and is still in operation. More than 100 years.
        Who is the vinouvat in such bradybezia ???
        1. Town Hall
          Town Hall 17 November 2017 14: 23
          +3
          Quote: ImPerts
          I will add, the B-52 took off in 1952, like the Tu-95, in 1952, they still fly. The first, because dofig money, the second because of their lack



          Well, modernization is such a word .. universal. Under this word, you can hide anything. You can change the engine and gearbox for example. And you can shape the headlights and grille. Both that and another - Modernization ...

          Well, or you can suddenly open endless deposits of modernization stocks laid down 50 years ago of different T-72, Su-27, Varshavyanka, Tu-160, Gvozdik, etc., etc. ... after 15 years they spoke and spent a minimum on Armata, Su -57, Lada with VNEU, PAK TP, Coalition, etc., etc.
          1. ImPerts
            ImPerts 17 November 2017 19: 46
            +1
            Quote: Town Hall
            Well, the word modernization is ... universal.

            Why can't Americans make rocket engines and buy / bought RD-180 (RD-170)? After all, it is only necessary (exaggerate) in the control units from transistors to microcircuits to switch, and with new technologies, to 10 nm?
            You just have to repeat Fiat-124 with new technologies. What is in the way?
          2. Filxnumx
            Filxnumx 18 November 2017 00: 41
            0
            Do not confuse the upgrade with tuning. In the Tu-22M3M, only the bare body will remain from product 4503, and that one will undergo changes due to remotorization: the NK-25 and NK-32, although close in terms of overall dimensions, are still not identical. NK-32 has a different suspension power scheme in the engine nacelle, which determines a radically different order of installation and removal of engines. In order to shove the NK-32 into the Tu-22M3, the latter will need to slightly increase the building height of the fuselage (since on the “three” engine nacelles are located in the fuselage and are part of its structural-power scheme, on the “white swan” engine nacelles are suspended under the fuselage) , change the channel profiles of the air intakes. Of course, the difference between the Tu-22M3 and Tu-22M3M will be significantly less than between the Tu-22 (Product 105) and Tu-22M and even less than between the Tu-22M2 and Tu-22M3, but in fact the Tu-22M3M will be a completely different plane according to its combat capabilities. And you "change the headlights" ...
        2. Iline
          Iline 17 November 2017 18: 40
          +2
          Quote: ImPerts
          I will add, the B-52 took off in the 1952, like the Tu-95, in the 1952, they still fly. The first, because dofig money, the second because of their lack.

          You are deeply mistaken, dear. Tu-95 of the first releases (series B, VM, K (KD), and K-22 based on them) completed their military service in the 90s of the last century. Tu-95MS brand new aircraft, the release of which was completed in 1991.
          1. ImPerts
            ImPerts 17 November 2017 19: 41
            0
            Quote: Iline
            Deeply mistaken

            I was told about
            Quote: Town Hall
            At the beginning of the 60's, the fiat-124 "had a huge modernization potential." In connection with this, 50 was produced for years ... it was a sin not to use it ..

            How does this relate to your opinion, dear?
            1. Iline
              Iline 18 November 2017 07: 55
              +1
              And this correlates in such a way that the Tu-95 died in the 90s in the K-22 variant, slightly not reaching the age of 50. And the B-52 just never really was re-released, but only modernized in terms of equipment. TU-95MS was built on the basis of the Tu-142. And in general - changing the size of the fuselage, wing profile, and the like things cannot be called any modernization. This is, in fact, a completely new aircraft with its completely different characteristics. It is only at the sight of an ignorant person that the entire Tu-95 line is absolutely the same. And the name is a little misleading people.
              1. ImPerts
                ImPerts 18 November 2017 13: 06
                0
                Excellent.
                Now compare what you wrote about Tu with what you wrote
                Quote: Town Hall
                At the beginning of the 60's, the fiat-124 "had a huge modernization potential." In connection with this, 50 was produced for years ... it was a sin not to use it ..
      2. The comment was deleted.
  5. tchoni
    tchoni 17 November 2017 13: 16
    0
    will they put air-to-air missiles into service?
    1. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 18 November 2017 01: 09
      0
      it makes no sense, for the air cover there are IAP pilots
  6. Krasnyiy komissar
    Krasnyiy komissar 17 November 2017 13: 22
    +1
    What's the point? It is better to increase the production of Tu-160M2, replacing them with all Tu-22M3.
    1. Bronevick
      Bronevick 17 November 2017 14: 10
      +2
      Tu-160 is incredibly expensive, complex
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 18 November 2017 03: 54
        0
        These are "strategists" of a different class. Tu-22M - European format, Tu-160 for (conditionally) the United States. In addition, the Tu-22M is an anti-ship aircraft, its main weapon is the X-22 missile. Tu-160 does not carry such a missile.
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 18 November 2017 09: 18
      +1
      They are upgrading the Tu-22 for a reason, the Tu-95 is getting old, and the Tu-160 will not be in the right quantity, so they are trying with little blood (using the maximum number of common parts) To make an ersatz strategist - the carrier of the Kyrgyz Republic (normal)
  7. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 17 November 2017 13: 31
    0
    Well, just great, we do not need to rush with new military aircraft in order to at least somehow save in finances for use in other areas. After all, a deeply modernized TU-22 with new weapons can carry out some work for TU -160M2
  8. pvv113
    pvv113 17 November 2017 13: 40
    +4
    Tu-22M3 - a deep modification of the Tu-22.

    The news is good, but the error repeating from article to article upsets. Tu-22 and Tu-22M3 are NOT MODIFICATIONS, but completely different cars.
    This is the Tu-22

    And this is the Tu-22M3
    1. urman
      urman 17 November 2017 15: 13
      +2
      Quote: pvv113
      completely different cars.

      At one time, Tupolev realized that the 22nd unsuccessful car and, under the guise of its modernization, created a new Tu 22 M. airplane. This is such a feint, and they won’t tell us what will happen after the current modernization in the old shell.
      Glider is still at least where.
      1. pvv113
        pvv113 17 November 2017 15: 27
        +2
        I came across an article that Tupolev was not given money to develop new equipment, but allocated funds for the modernization of the Tu-22, and he created the Tu-22M under this pretext. Hence the confusion in the similar name of different cars
        1. urman
          urman 17 November 2017 15: 30
          +1
          Here I am about the same thing that will remain in the old shell, the engines are different, the avionics too, BP, NEW, and the plane seems to be the same with only an extra letter.
          1. pvv113
            pvv113 17 November 2017 15: 39
            +2
            Honestly, when they decided to restore the production of the Tu-160, I hoped that the release of triples would also resume
          2. zivXP
            zivXP 17 November 2017 21: 24
            0
            Also, the crews are different. And the catapults shoot in different directions. Yes, everything is different there, only the nose is a bit like.
      2. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 18 November 2017 01: 10
        +1
        everything rests on the development of technology, so that so far nothing superhigh-speed has been invented will focus on electronics ..
  9. NEXUS
    NEXUS 17 November 2017 13: 54
    +7
    It seems to me alone that the speed in TU-160M2, TU-22M3M, Borey-A and Borey-B, in the arsenal of new for strategists and so on, began to gain momentum? I read articles today and find myself thinking that the defense industry has taken up modernization and updating with renewed vigor. The question is, what would it be?
    1. newcomer
      newcomer 17 November 2017 14: 48
      +5
      besides, why the full restoration / modernization of our flower artillery.
    2. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 18 November 2017 01: 13
      0
      it's simple: at first they thought about making new ones, and then they thought it was cheaper to upgrade old cars, it's about planes .. But in general, the modernization of the army has one goal, to create such a potential that will make the war against Russia unjustified in view of the losses .. And this means that in the future, the Kremlin thinks about feint with their ears, up to the refusal to sell Russian goods for currency, it looks especially interesting with the fact that the Chinese are going the same way ..
  10. Nemesis
    Nemesis 17 November 2017 13: 56
    +4
    On the Tu-22 you need to return the air refueling system ...
    1. zivXP
      zivXP 17 November 2017 21: 21
      0
      There is nothing to return to the Tu-22. There are no more of them, from the word at all.
      1. Nemesis
        Nemesis 17 November 2017 21: 26
        0
        There is a Tu-22M3, which I had in mind ... But the plans and the project of modernization to the level of M4 were still in the USSR
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 18 November 2017 03: 58
      0
      You cannot return what was not there. Serial cars according to the agreement with the USA were manufactured such that it is impossible to “refund” the refueling system, it is simply not provided there.
      In addition, if you return the refueling system there, this aircraft will become not a "pocket" but a full-fledged strategic carrier of nuclear weapons and it will have to be taken into account when calculating the number of carriers allowed by the strategic nuclear weapons. And why is it?
      1. Nemesis
        Nemesis 18 November 2017 05: 15
        +1
        The United States has long ago scored a missile defense agreement and deployed launchers at the borders of Russia from which it is possible to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, which violates the INF Treaty ... It makes no sense to abide by the agreement with the United States if this is not beneficial to the Russian Federation, and today it is no longer beneficial ... The air refueling system on the Tu-22 can be installed and must be installed ....
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex 18 November 2017 15: 21
          +1
          You did not understand. On the Tu-22М there is no refueling system in the air, the aircraft was specially redesigned to exclude this system. To install it, you need to send the plane for a major upgrade related to the rearrangement of the mass of components and assemblies. And most importantly, why? This machine fulfills its function as a "pocket strategist" 100%, it keeps control of all of Europe and Asia, it successfully bombes Syria. And if you want to make him a real strategist, then you need to work on his weapons. Give him an “younger sister” X-101 (102) and an “older sister” X-22. And then he will be able to control all of Europe.
          The issue is not compliance with the agreement, but that it is not advisable to remake airplanes.
          1. Nemesis
            Nemesis 18 November 2017 17: 50
            0
            On the Tu-22M, an air-to-air refueling system was installed and removed by agreement with the United States on the reduction of strategic offensive weapons ... the SALT-2 Treaty ... which is no longer relevant for Russia. You are not in the subject ...
            1. abc_alex
              abc_alex 18 November 2017 20: 28
              +1
              She was in the first episodes. But the agreement specifically stated that the refueling system should not just be dismantled, but to exclude, without the possibility of quick recovery.
              There, not only the bar was removed, there the fuel line and refueling equipment were excluded. The contract then fell precisely on the "middle" of the production period of the Tu-22M2.

              And again you ignore my question: WHAT FOR? Just to make the States beat hysterically? The increase in the range of the Tu-22M2 due to the backup was relevant when his main weapon "on the ground" were bombs. When we didn’t have a missile system with a range of 3000-4000 km, it made sense to try to increase the range, although no one in the USSR was going to send it to the United States.
              See: the flight range of the modern Tu-22M3 with one heavy X-22 without supersonic sound is about 5000 km, in super-sound - 1600 km. And the X-101 flies from 6 to 9 thousand km. while it is twice as light as the X-22, weighs 2,4 tons against 5,7 tons. If you need a Tu-22M strategist, then hang on it X-101 \ 102 and you will be happy. Of course, it’s unlikely that it will be possible to hang more than three missiles on it, and you won’t have to wait for a range of 5000 km, but even if 1600 + 6000 = 7200 km are not enough for you?
              1. Nemesis
                Nemesis 19 November 2017 04: 25
                0
                And the more, the better. By installing a refueling system in the air on the Tu-22, you can increase the capabilities of the Russian Air Force, and if so, you need to do this. Of the Tu-95, the strategist is not important, the Tu-160 is too small, so you need to transfer all Tu-22 to this category
                1. abc_alex
                  abc_alex 20 November 2017 01: 44
                  +1
                  And with the new CDs, any machine capable of patrolling in the air can become a strategic bomber. :) Although the IL-76. Only need a suspension system and data transmission about the target. The Tu-95 is not bad here, 6000 km of range is enough to fire at the US Pacific coast, being above Kamchatka. And if you shoot from the pole through Canada, then you can shoot up to Washington. Tu-22M3 may well reach Kamchatka and the pole. There is no need for refueling, but airfields in the right places. And the suspension system of new missiles.
                  Tu-22M3 is heavy bomber supersonic and with a range sufficient to strike at any state surrounded by Russia. At least in Japan, at least in Syria. Based on the Crimea, Tu-22M3 can be bombed already in Egypt or France. From Kaliningrad, Spain and Great Britain will get. If "cast iron" and without supersonic.

                  It turns out that the Tu-22M3 refueling system is not needed, the new weapon makes it a "strategist" and so on.
                  1. Nemesis
                    Nemesis 20 November 2017 07: 02
                    0
                    Tu-95 is an old spike, with the speed and visibility of a passenger plane, and then not the fastest and most modern ... Speed ​​still matters. So to return to the Tu-22 air refueling system makes sense and reason ...
                    1. abc_alex
                      abc_alex 20 November 2017 21: 27
                      0
                      But the Tu-95 does not need to be secretive and very fast. His task is
                      patrol. During it, his task is to fly for hours in the launch area in a state of readiness. And as I said, he can have a launch area over the territory of Russia. Under the protection of their air defense and electronic warfare. It is already equipped with means of refueling in the air and can be in the sky for almost 15 hours at one gas station. And carries on the external sling 8 X-101 \ 102.

                      And he is no older galosh than the B-52. But the Tu-95MS and all, consider it fresh, has been produced since 1981, no older than the Tu-22M3
                      1. Nemesis
                        Nemesis 21 November 2017 10: 34
                        0
                        You need to patrol in such a way that you can be inconspicuous, and when enemy fighters accompany you, there is no sense in such patrolling ... There is no crew rescue system on take-off, landing and low altitude on the Tu-95, this is an anachronism ... And for launching missiles from its airspace, the Tu-22 will also be enough ... where with rescue systems it is much better and only refueling systems in the air are lacking ... Speed ​​helps to avoid interception, over neutral waters and strike from a relatively close distance .. .X-101 are not supersonic and the longer they are in the air, the greater the chances of their interception and destruction at the enemy’s air defense ...
            2. abc_alex
              abc_alex 21 November 2017 16: 31
              0
              Why Tu-95 to be invisible when patrolling over your territory? To not be noticed by anyone?
              In this case, the patrolling strategist is protected by his own air defense system, which will notice enemy fighters in advance and aim interceptors or missiles, and electronic warfare, which will make it difficult for enemy fighters to point weapons and detect Tu-95.

              Regarding the evacuation of the crew, yes, this is an argument against the Tu-95.
              But it is simply impossible to replace the Tu-95 with the Tu-22M3: the first carries 8 missiles, and the second can two, maximum three. Instead of one “bear” you have to use three or four of the 22nd. But for a strategic strike and one Tu-95 is not enough. Here you need to attack dozens of KR. We simply do not have so many Tu-22M3, especially since there is a lot of work in the Navy for this aircraft.
              1. Nemesis
                Nemesis 21 November 2017 16: 57
                0
                They patrol over neutral waters, and not over their territory ... I’m tired of arguing with you, you’re not at all in the subject and do not understand: What? Why? and why?! Moreover, you ignore what I wrote to you, including the use of missiles ...
                1. abc_alex
                  abc_alex 21 November 2017 17: 38
                  0
                  The absence of words means the absence of thought. Good luck.
                  1. Nemesis
                    Nemesis 21 November 2017 18: 41
                    0
                    What kind of thoughts are there if you don’t see the difference between a supersonic airplane and an old barge ... If you don’t understand the difference between launching cruise missiles from the territory of the Russian Federation and from neutral waters ... If for you there is no difference between an airplane without rescue equipment the crew on takeoff, landing and at low altitudes and the aircraft having such means ... If you do not know what combat patrol missile carriers carry in neutral waters and do not understand why this is necessary.
  11. stolz
    stolz 17 November 2017 14: 00
    0
    Quote: BLOND

    Recently, under the news of the Tu-160th in comments, a man called the "troika" (M3) "anthem" and you are old
    Mattresses called him the killer of aircraft carriers

    This is all propaganda and desire, at least somehow to justify their own inaction and poverty. Do not trust anyone!
    1. glk63
      glk63 18 November 2017 03: 30
      0
      This is from Rene Descartes: De omnibus dubitandum (that is, “doubt everything”)? .. :)
  12. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 17 November 2017 14: 17
    +2
    Made by 268 aircraft. Now in the VKS - 62 CARCUSES. Where are the others?
    1. xtur
      xtur 17 November 2017 15: 23
      +2
      yeah, curious.
      If the engines and all the electronics are already changing, then they could not only upgrade the living ones, have the rest of the gliders really rotted / lost their life?
      Or were the Herods just using them for scrap at one time?
    2. Don
      Don 17 November 2017 20: 24
      +2
      Quote: 16112014nk
      Made by 268 aircraft. Now in the VKS - 62 CARCUSES. Where are the others?

      If you find out how many of these 62 planes are fully operational, then you will generally have a migraine smile
      1. 16112014nk
        16112014nk 18 November 2017 14: 12
        0
        Quote: Donskoy
        how many of these 62 aircraft are fully operational,

        If you consider that 6 planes fly to bomb Syria, then not much more.
    3. Filxnumx
      Filxnumx 18 November 2017 01: 20
      0
      268 aircraft, probably, are referring to all modifications: both “nulls” and “ones” and “two” and “triples”. Although the first two modifications were released by no more than three dozen, the first truly large series was just 4502 for sailors, as they were decommissioned, they were later replaced by 4503. In Ukraine, at least 2 regiments remained, and in the days of the Navy aviation went well with brooms , there were a lot of triples, in the DA regiment in Zavitinsk reduced. 2 years ago there were 72 cars. With NK-25, there’s a lot of tension, Samara has not released new engines since 1993, assembly equipment has been completely destroyed, the cannibalism method is used to repair the remaining ones, they are sorted out from 2-3. Yes, it makes no sense to restore production if there is already an existing repair of two engines NK-1 at a price of half the total amount allocated for the repair of the entire aircraft. Well, at least the production of NK-25 was resumed.
  13. faiver
    faiver 17 November 2017 14: 19
    +1
    they’ll upgrade, the plane is good, but it’s a pity that little is left ....
  14. brr1
    brr1 17 November 2017 15: 19
    +2
    Will they return the refueling bar?
    1. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 18 November 2017 01: 15
      0
      refueling is interesting in terms of patrolling or when the exact location of the target is unknown .. with modern intelligence this is not a problem ..
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 18 November 2017 09: 20
        0
        A classic of the genre, an airplane takes off with full BC (but with incomplete tanks) and refills upright in the air ...
  15. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 17 November 2017 16: 21
    0
    The power plant, according to him, will be Tu-22М3М identical to Tu-160М2 (new engines НК-32-02 of Samara Kuznetsov PJSC).
    This is interesting!
    1. Filxnumx
      Filxnumx 18 November 2017 01: 26
      0
      I agree! We need to talk with colleagues from Kuznetsov, find out what and how.
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 18 November 2017 04: 13
      0
      Not just interesting, but amazing. They wanted to pile on the Tu-22M NK-30 back in the USSR, in order to avoid the need to produce a unique NK-25. Even the index was assigned Tu-22M4. But only one plane managed. Really revive?
      True, if I understand correctly. Remotorization will not give any additional opportunities. Unless it eliminates the problem of replacing motors.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 18 November 2017 09: 22
        +1
        Well, given the fact that the NK-30 was modernized too ... the thrust has grown and the economy is the same. As a result, the range will increase .... Given the fact that the Tu-160 will produce (as well as the engines for them and a lot of what will be common), the cost of maintenance and simplification of the Tu-22
  16. mark1
    mark1 17 November 2017 19: 09
    +1
    Is it worth it to be so kind to the ancient OSV-2 treaty? All the parameters agreed upon by the USSR and the USA changed a long time ago, there were already a bunch of successive treaties, OSV-3, START (also, like not one). Well, take and refuel the refueling rod, why not. from. a. be it?
    1. Don
      Don 17 November 2017 20: 31
      0
      Quote: mark1
      Is it worth it to be so kind to the ancient OSV-2 treaty? All the parameters agreed upon by the USSR and the USA changed a long time ago, there were already a bunch of successive treaties, OSV-3, START (also, like not one). Well, take and refuel the refueling rod, why not. from. a. be it?

      Are you really so naive? But do you know that the states didn’t destroy their missiles under the START treaties, but twisted the "extra" warheads and stored them in a warehouse, unlike Russia, which, for financial reasons, did exactly the opposite. Suppose if a missile carries five warheads, then they left one. Under certain circumstances, they can quickly increase the number of nuclear warheads on their missiles in a short time.
      1. mark1
        mark1 18 November 2017 08: 11
        +1
        Quote: Donskoy
        Are you really so naive?

        Well, by naivety, I’m probably not very different from you. OSV-2 limited the number of strategic carriers (to which the Americans also wanted to rank “Backfires” with a refueling bar), according to the current strategic offensive arms, we have no such restrictions (the same plans for 50 Tu-160M2 or PAK YES), so it's a little cheap and cheerful build up striking power does not prevent us from anything other than our (your) complexes.
  17. zivXP
    zivXP 17 November 2017 21: 19
    0
    Tu-22M3 - deep modification of the Tu-22

    Maybe the modification of the Tu-22M?
    The Tu-22 is different, it can not be transformed into a Tu-22M. These are just the names with the numbers that are similar, but in reality they are different cars.
  18. GPU-M
    GPU-M 17 November 2017 22: 39
    +1
    In short, that USA for you ... We will do everything to bring you to an end!
  19. vlanis
    vlanis 18 November 2017 00: 03
    +1
    Quote: Krasnyiy komissar
    What's the point? It is better to increase the production of Tu-160M2, replacing them with all Tu-22M3.

    You do not buy KRAZ for transportation of milk to the shops, these are airplanes of different classes and purposes,
  20. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 18 November 2017 01: 06
    0
    but I remember 10 years ago they cried that we won’t be able to do the engine and that’s all ..
  21. FEDY
    FEDY 18 November 2017 18: 07
    +1
    returned the refueling rod ...
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. The comment was deleted.