Military Review

Sky with Tu-22M3 Backfire

33
History create
The Tu-22М3 aircraft was created by the AN OKB. Tupolev according to the Decree of the USSR SM № 534-187 1974, and represents a deep modernization of the Tu-22М2, which differs from the improved aerodynamics of the airframe, reduced weight, improved tactical and operational characteristics.

The first experienced Tu-22М3 took off 20 on June 1977, and the joint state tests ended in 1981. From 1981 to 1984. the plane passed an additional set of tests in the version with enhanced combat capabilities. In 1978, its mass production begins in parallel with the Tu-22М2, the release of which ended in 1984. In total, the Kazan Aviation Production Association (KAPO) built 268 machines, whose production was completed in 1993.
Officially in final form, the Tu-22М3 was adopted in March 1989.

appointment
The multi-mode long-range Tu-22М3 bomber is designed to destroy important targets on enemy territory.
In terms of its tactical performance, the Tu-22М3 is significantly superior to the Tu-22М2 at maximum (2000-2300 km / h) speed, tactical range (by 14-45%, depending on flight mode) and total combat effectiveness (2,2 times ).













































































































































33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Grigorich 1962
    Grigorich 1962 7 June 2013 08: 43
    +6
    Oh, beautiful, machine !! .... how much love designers, engineers and workers put into it. I remember in the 80s in Kaliningrad such planes took off from the Chkalovsky airfield. This usually happened in the evening. So the whole city was trembling from the rumble and roar ...... nice to remember
    1. svp67
      svp67 7 June 2013 21: 19
      +1
      Quote: Grigorich 1962
      Oh beautiful car !!

      100500
  2. MilaPhone
    MilaPhone 7 June 2013 08: 56
    +1
    Powerful beauty or beautiful power - everything fits this plane!
    Photo class! +
  3. OTAKE
    OTAKE 7 June 2013 08: 59
    +3
    Electronics would still be modern to hang on him and there would be a hell of a machine, I saw him a couple of times at a military airfield in the Khabarovsk Territory, the roar was hellish, a very impressive device
  4. sys-1985
    sys-1985 7 June 2013 09: 09
    0
    A breathtaking bird, nothing more, perfection.
  5. keeper
    keeper 7 June 2013 09: 13
    +1
    Yes, the ergonomics of quality and convenience do not shine unfortunately .. But outwardly they are beautiful, like swans.
  6. borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 7 June 2013 09: 23
    +1
    From the Don.
    He served in the Air Force 76 -78. We had such people and there were legends about them. And night flights? This is never forgotten!
    1. Indigo
      Indigo 7 June 2013 12: 14
      +2
      We stood there (Stryi, Lviv region) - a night take-off on the afterburner and the star quickly goes into the sky - indeed, an impression on the rest of my life ...
  7. Simple_Nick
    Simple_Nick 7 June 2013 09: 52
    +3
    Quote: Grigorich 1962
    Oh, beautiful, machine !! .... how much love designers, engineers and workers put into it.


    Beautiful, I agree.
    Yes, that's just the attitude to these beauties, frankly not beautiful.

    http://www.yaplakal.com/forum2/st/0/topic332698.html

    And so yes, very beautiful
    1. a
      a 7 June 2013 09: 58
      0
      on a low-level flight is something. such a colossus near the ground. even cooler than flying modern fighter jets
  8. Dima190579
    Dima190579 7 June 2013 09: 52
    +1
    Not just beautiful, but a very beautiful airplane.
  9. Capt.stryker
    Capt.stryker 7 June 2013 10: 39
    13 th
    An airplane is like an airplane, there is nothing unique about it! Although no - its uniqueness is that with such a size, there was no place for a banal latrine! This plane also showed itself "brilliantly" in the bombing of the Afghan mountains. What would have happened to him, if God forbid, he would have to fight against a real enemy - the United States and NATO, can be seen in the example of the Georgian-Asetian conflict.
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 7 June 2013 10: 49
      +3
      What would happen to NATO and the United States, if they had to fight with a real enemy, and not with the Arabs? “Nothing good.”
      1. Capt.stryker
        Capt.stryker 7 June 2013 11: 11
        -1
        Quote: fzr1000
        What would happen to NATO and the United States, if they had to fight with a real enemy, and not with the Arabs? “Nothing good.”

        I remember very well how Soviet generals in all seriousness predicted a bloodbath for the anti-Iraqi coalition on the eve of Desert Storm. The Iraqi army, hardened in battles with Iran, besides being armed with the best Soviet weapons in the world, will suit the damned "aggressors" from the USA and NATO with a second Vietnam! Well???
        1. il grand casino
          il grand casino 7 June 2013 11: 26
          0
          Wash to compare the desert with Vietnam - Stupid
        2. fzr1000
          fzr1000 7 June 2013 12: 03
          +4
          "Soviet generals ignored .....". Were you in the USSR General Staff at that time? Gorby ignored and gave such an order to others, that's for sure. And about the "Soviet generals" one can only guess who they ignored there. And in general, the presence of Soviet / Russian technology in someone is not a guarantor of victory, without competent and skillful use of it. People are fighting, not technology.
    2. Ratibor12
      Ratibor12 8 June 2013 03: 44
      +4
      Quote: Capt.Stryker
      What would happen to him, if God forbid, he would have to fight against a real adversary - the United States and NATO, can be seen in the Georgian-Asetian conflict.


      Come on! We all know what happened to dozens of B-52s, when they wi-wai had to "God forbid" to fight "only" with Vietnam! lol So far, one in Lake Hyutyep in Hanoi is lying around like a reminder! wink Oh! And what would happen to Amer’s aviation if they had to fight a real-equal enemy at least once in history ??? Against the USSR !!!
      And in 2008, the Tu-22 actually fought against the United States, NATO (target designation), and in addition to Ukraine ("Bukov" calculations). Our ho.khl.yati brothers have always been distinguished by a certain certain underlining. negative Either the "lads" of Dirlewanger burn us Khatyn, then the sixes from the "Unaunso" walk under the Chechens ... Damn! Even at the "Battle of the Nations"! Who is special in dirty tricks (like a false knee)? Heh! Guess! Sure! Who else!
      Well, the fact that they sometimes write at all without an emetic bag is difficult to read ...
  10. Capt.stryker
    Capt.stryker 7 June 2013 11: 04
    15 th
    Not so long ago I had the pleasure of watching the "big reportage" program specifically about the Tu-22M3 - this work was called "Night Hunters". The fun began from the very first minutes of this circus. The plane, it turns out, is not called Backfire in NATO, but BIGFIRE !!! Then I find out that Tu-22M3 is the heaviest supersonic aircraft in the world (!) Which is confirmed by the Guinness Book of Records! Another nonsense of this "cinema art" is the statement that the runway at AB "Belaya", where these aircraft are based, has a length of "almost five kilometers", which makes it the longest after the runway in "Zhukovka". I assure you with full responsibility - this is a LIE! The runway in Belaya has a length of just over 4 km, not even 4050, I don’t remember exactly, but somewhere around 4020-4030.
    Once again I was convinced that to watch Russian documentaries, whether it be a "big reportage", or "carbon monoxide" or an even more moronic-idiotic "military secret", and now also a new project "polygon" with hysterical loud presenters, if possible, then only by turning off the sound.
    1. Andy
      Andy 7 June 2013 11: 31
      +1
      ah-ah, "Further I learn that Tu-22M3 is the heaviest supersonic aircraft in the world (!) which is confirmed by the Guinness Book of Records!"

      those records are registered there that were announced. therefore, the Tu160 and B1 flew by without particularly bothering.

      "Once again, I was convinced that watching Russian documentaries, be it a" big reportage ", or" carbon monoxide "or an even more marasmus-idiotic" military secret ", and now also a new project" training ground "with hysterical loud presenters , if possible, then only by turning off the sound. "
      and you study the Guinness book. can master.
      1. Indigo
        Indigo 7 June 2013 12: 04
        +8
        I recommend watching discovery and letting snot out of tenderness .....
    2. fzr1000
      fzr1000 7 June 2013 11: 57
      +1
      Well don't look.
  11. Landwarrior
    Landwarrior 7 June 2013 11: 36
    +2
    I remembered the scene from T. Clancy's "Red Storm", how the 22nd hammered the American AUG. winked
  12. misham
    misham 7 June 2013 12: 11
    0
    The plane is cool. Maybe someone will clarify why he was removed from the Navy. This is the main striking force after the submarine. One MRA regiment is much cheaper and more efficient than a dozen missile boats or several missile cruisers.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 7 June 2013 17: 03
      +4
      They did not remove him. Just attack aircraft of the Navy fastened to the ground.

      And do not have illusions, it is not cheap. In addition, there are many nuances that are not reflected in the performance characteristics. For example, not everything is so simple with supersonic and X-22.

      And today these machines are an irreplaceable resource for Russia. Engines are not produced for them. And the engines there are such that they are created only for these machines. Nowadays, as a rule, combat effectiveness is maintained at the expense of "cannibalism".

      Well, again, being very perfect for its time at the moment, it is out of date. For example, modern supersonic airplanes do fine without a variable wing sweep :)

      Again, a very difficult question with anti-ship missiles X-22. It has impressive characteristics in terms of speed and power of warheads, but it has low noise immunity and fuel components are extremely toxic.

      And for the same Bramos there is enough Su-30, especially Su-34.
      1. Stix
        Stix 7 June 2013 23: 48
        +1
        do not drive a wave about fuel; ordinary aviation kerosene in 40 liters of alcohol is used for air conditioners and as an anti-icer
  13. Restor
    Restor 7 June 2013 13: 21
    +2
    Once, I could watch the flights of this handsome airplane from the window of my own apartment. Then I also saw a lot of scrap metal, which turned them into joyful Americans. Together with the Svidomo-corrupt authorities of Ukraine (for only a dozen green lamas, not to mention that clear sky overhead is priceless).
    What the current leadership of the Ukrainian Air Force is counting on is not clear. Perhaps there is a pair of 5th generation corncrackers in the zagashnik for targeted manure throwing over enemy heads ...
  14. Trevis
    Trevis 7 June 2013 13: 27
    +1
    Damn, gorgeous photos! good Thank you!
  15. iulai
    iulai 7 June 2013 15: 27
    0
    Not a car, but a song !!!
  16. angarchanin
    angarchanin 7 June 2013 15: 51
    +4
    I had a chance to fly on Tu-22M02 and Tu-22M03 (exactly through "0", because they went as edition 4502 and 4503). And for its time, this car is not entirely successful: for this it must be compared with the FB-111. But what they did on this type in the exercises (in 1983) to overcome the air defense of the Trans-Baikal and Dalnevostochny VOs is a separate story! The main thing is who controls the equipment, and Soviet pilots have always differed from others in their ability to take risks and squeeze more than 100% out of equipment. Unfortunately, today this is an outdated, very expensive technique without the possibility of deep modernization.
  17. gregor6549
    gregor6549 7 June 2013 17: 18
    +3
    The car was really cool for its time. But for such an 40 aircraft with a hook of years, this is a deep old age, especially for ego electronic equipment. We must not forget that the plane was once cut off its wings at the highest level, having agreed to dismantle refueling systems in the air from it, and without them it could no longer fulfill the functions of a strategic bomber which were assigned to the TTZ and began to be used mainly in naval aviation .
    But even in the Navy, such an aircraft is doomed to be destroyed by the enemy's AUG fighters if it does not have adequate cover by its fighters. And where to get them in the ocean, One "Admiral Kuznetsov" is not enough for everything and everyone. And the Kuznetsov's aviation grouping is rather weak compared to the groupings based on modern US aircraft carriers. Therefore, the beauty of the aircraft is one thing, but its real combat effectiveness in specific conditions is another.
    Does it make sense to upgrade it is also a question. After all, here it’s not enough to put more advanced electronics and engines. It is also necessary to extend the life of the airframe, and over so many years in the airframe’s design there are invisible but serious changes in the strength characteristics of the metal.
    In Australia, for example, they also tried to extend the life of the F111 bombers as much as possible. But extended only as long as it was profitable from both an economic and a military point of view. As soon as these benefits disappeared, every single F111 was sent to scrap metal and museums, and instead they began to purchase much more modern and efficient flying machines. Occupation, of course, is expensive but necessary if the first place is not showing airplanes in air parades and shows, but real combat work with a completely weak opponent
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 9 June 2013 16: 05
      0
      Quote: gregor6549
      and instead, they began to purchase much more modern and effective flying machines.

      Do not hesitate to tell which ones Are there "modern flying machines" to replace the Tu-22m3?
  18. tupolev22m3
    tupolev22m3 7 June 2013 18: 07
    0
    Quote: Just_Nick
    Quote: Grigorich 1962
    Oh, beautiful, machine !! .... how much love designers, engineers and workers put into it.


    Beautiful, I agree.
    Yes, that's just the attitude to these beauties, frankly not beautiful.

    http://www.yaplakal.com/forum2/st/0/topic332698.html

    And so yes, very beautiful

    his extreme departure before the demobilization flew with the wolf, sprinkling with his salts was impressionable from the board on all these passages to look at extremely small and with such speed, there is a video from the cockpit from this departure
  19. DimYang
    DimYang 7 June 2013 18: 24
    0
    Yes, a great bomber. Such at an alliance near Gomel stood in Zyabrovka. Now there is devastation.
  20. fatty
    fatty 7 June 2013 19: 15
    0
    guys, when I was studying in Poltava and these planes took off with a roar and roar, I was sick with pride! we already knew that the staff called them bagfayers. we went to the department of psychiatry, and these went to land above the Swedish grave, and then it was completely quiet, sitting overhead, the most beautiful, with spread wings appeared that 22m3
    1. LINX
      LINX 8 June 2013 01: 45
      +2
      Here is a photo shot in Poltava, TU-22M3, like the last TU-160, are standing remembering their former glory.

      Clickable



  21. colonel67
    colonel67 7 June 2013 20: 14
    +2
    Crimea. Hilarious. Youth on the Tu22M3. In memory forever!
  22. nnz226
    nnz226 8 June 2013 00: 25
    +2
    It is not for nothing that when preparing the next SALT treaty, the Americans proceeded with liquid droppings, demanding that the air refueling system be removed from the Backfires, because then these aircraft could do what they wanted in the sky of the foe. By the way, since the amers from half of the agreements came out (including on missile defense), maybe, after all, refueling systems can be installed on these horror stories for the West ?!
  23. Marconi41
    Marconi41 8 June 2013 03: 11
    0
    The photos are good. Avionics is a bit old, of course, and visibility also wishes for better probably. I would like to see reviews from pilots flying them.
  24. NickitaDembelnulsa
    NickitaDembelnulsa 8 June 2013 09: 20
    0
    Great car. However, the fate of this aircraft is not easy. More than half of the fleet does not fly. Only 30 units are going to repair and upgrade. To destroy the ACG and targets on earth - this amount is not enough.