Military Review

Interrupted flight "Backfire"

60
Tu-22М3 is rapidly aging, but Tupolev Design Bureau could not adapt it to new tasks


Far aviation The Russian Air Force is waiting for a modernized model of the Tu-90M22 supersonic bomber, which has been developed from the beginning of the 3s by the Tupolev Design Bureau, which is capable of using the latest X-32 missiles. But it is unlikely to receive it this year. In arbitration courts of various instances, proceedings are ongoing with claims of hundreds of millions of rubles between the customer (Ministry of Defense), the developer (Design Bureau Tupolev) and the manufacturer (engineering design bureau "Rainbow"). While the trial and the case, the existing Tu-22M3 bombers (according to NATO classification - Backfire) are becoming obsolete.

Long-range supersonic bomber with variable geometry wing Tu-22M were created at the end of 70-s and armed with cruise missiles X-22. The planes were armed not only with the Air Force, but also with the naval rocket-carrying aircraft (MRA) of the Navy. The main objective of the MPA was to fight against carrier-assault groups (AUG), amphibious units, groups of surface ships. Modification МХNUMX is a further development of the Tu-3М.

"Aircraft carrier killer" in Afghanistan

As a military historian told the Military Industrial Courier newspaper, stories The Navy Maxim Tokarev, sea-launched missile aircraft and Tu-22М3 aircraft were an important component of the anti-aircraft doctrine of the USSR.

Interrupted flight "Backfire"

“According to the doctrine, one detected AUG provided for a combat sortie of one division (MRAD), that is, up to 80 attack aircraft of the Tu-16 and Tu-22M type. In the Pacific and North fleets there were two divisions each, and in case of war they were reinforced by one division from long-range aviation, ”Tokarev said.

According to him, the Tu-22М3 is often called the “aircraft carrier killer”, but this is an incorrect epithet. It is more correct to call the whole division so, and a single “Backfire” is useless against a carrier group.

“X-22 had two advantages. First, the missiles exchanged information with each other during the flight, it was enough to launch them, indicating the minimum set of target parameters. The second is high survivability in front of air defense weapons. According to calculations, one X-22 with constructive protection maintained the 20-mm Vulcan-Falanks anti-aircraft artillery complex, hit one Sparrow missile type AIM-7 or two-three AIM-9 missiles “Sidedinder”, explained the source. editions.

So without having participated in the destruction of aircraft carriers, "Bekfayry" took an active part in the war in Afghanistan. The high-tech sighting system Tu-22М3 based on radar, sharpened to detect large targets such as a ship, could not detect small targets such as a machine and even entire villages. Therefore, the missile carrier hit the squares, filled up with tons of free-falling bombs.

As a result of the war in Afghanistan, the USSR Ministry of Defense realized that the Tu-22М3 was a highly specialized aircraft, capable of relatively efficiently destroying enemy aircraft carriers, but not applicable to other tasks. In addition, at the end of the 80-s, the capabilities of the American Navy's air defense systems, which received Ticonderoga type URO cruisers with the Aegis integrated air defense system, increased many times. Therefore, a modern missile system was required for the breakthrough of the air defense of the warrant and the guaranteed defeat of a large surface ship.

According to the new requirements of the military in 1989, the upgraded Tu-22М3 should hit even small ground targets with the help of free-falling bombs from a height of at least eight thousand meters. It needs to carry modernized air-based cruise missiles, which, unlike their predecessors X-22, are capable of penetrating air defense systems at a distance of up to a thousand kilometers. The onboard aiming and navigation complex, the weapon system were to be replaced, and the installation of a new, more powerful NK-32 engine was also planned.

The modernization work that began in 1990, called “Adaptation,” was prevented by the collapse of the USSR. Before the production brought only a modification of the Tu-22М4 with new navigation equipment and engines NK-32. To arm the bomber was planned supersonic cruise missile X-32. It was created on the basis of the X-22 and was tested at the end of the 80-s in the 929-th State Flight Test Center (GLITS). There is still no reliable information about the serial production of the new model and the number of cars transferred to the Air Force. The project “Adaptation” itself has been delayed by 20 for over 50 years and has not been completed yet.

The lawsuit in one hundred million rubles

On the issue of modernization and re-equipment of the Tu-22М3 air force and naval aviation of the Navy returned to the beginning of the 2000-s, when most X-22 missiles expired storage and operation. To re-equip the Backfire fleet with a new X-32, it was necessary to upgrade the sighting system and weapon system. But the work dragged on. In 2008, in the Transcaucasian war, Tu-22М3 attacked Georgian airfields with ordinary free-fall bombs, not cruise missiles. As a result, the Air Force lost one bomber from the 52 Guards Heavy Bomber Regiment. "Backfire" had to fall from 12 to four thousand meters and he got into the enemy's air defense zone. The commander of the aircraft, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Koventsov, was missing, the second pilot, Major Vyacheslav Malkov, ejected and was captured.

Anton Lavrov, one of the authors of the book "Tanks August ", dedicated to the Russian-Georgian conflict, told the newspaper" VPK "that then the Tu-22M3 was used to deliver massive bombing strikes at stationary objects:" Backfire "carries bombs several times more than the front-line bomber Su-24 or attack aircraft Su-25 10. Bombers are forced to drop from a safe height of 12-25 thousand meters to four thousand, otherwise, due to the dispersion of free-falling bombs, they cannot get into the target area. But even dropping to dangerous heights, the aircraft could not fulfill the tasks assigned to them. For example, at Kopitnari airfield, the runways were damaged in three places, which would not have prevented the Georgian Su-XNUMX from taking off and landing if necessary. ”

As a result of the August 2008 war, work on the modernization of the Tu-22М3 fleet resumed. The Tupolev Design Bureau, which received good funding, planned a phased modernization. At the first stage (by the end of 2011), modify “Backfire” to apply the upgraded X-32 rocket, bring it to state tests. Using the results obtained, at the second stage, create a deeply modernized bomber under the symbol Tu-22М3М and put in the Air Force up to 2020, 30 new machines of this type.

During the first stage of the ICB Raduga, which developed the X-32 missiles, was to conduct flight, flight design and state tests of its product. But only in June, the 2010 of the Tupolev was able to prepare documentation on the upgraded bomber for coordination with the Ministry of Defense, although in the autumn of that year the upgraded aircraft was supposed to fly and launch missiles. The delay in agreeing to derail the timing of the readiness of the X-32 rocket, they were moved to the end of the 2012. Not having the necessary documentation from the Tupolev Design Bureau, Raduga suspended 1 from January 2011 on its product.

The project was resumed only in 2012, and X-32 successfully passed the flight and state tests, was recommended for adoption as a weapon of the modernized Tu-22М3 bomber. That's just the carrier itself has not yet been lifted into the air. A paradoxical situation has arisen: the missile has been adopted for service, but there is no aircraft for it. Although, according to the 2008 contract, the whole test complex as part of the upgraded Tu-22М3 and Х-32 was to be tested.

Angered by this situation, the Ministry of Defense sent claims to the Tupolev Design Bureau. The management of the bureau, in turn, demanded fines against the ICB “Raduga”. Now all three parties are trying to collect from each other multi-million fines for disrupting the terms of the contract. 13 June 2013 of the Year The 9 th Moscow Arbitration Court denied the military department a lawsuit against Raduga for 103 million rubles.

Thus, the fate of the new “Backfire” is lost in the fog. As an informed source in the Air Force told the VK newspaper, by the end of this year the Tupolev Design Bureau must be protected by a pre-sketch project developed during the second stage of the Tu-22М3М program. “We are not yet satisfied with the cost of the proposed work and the timing, especially in connection with the problems at the first stage. So Tu-22М3М is still on paper, ”he said.

There is no answer to the question what kind of on-board radio-electronic equipment the upgraded bomber will receive and what will be armed in addition to the X-32. At the very beginning of "Adaptation" in the 90-ies of the Ministry of Defense demanded a missile carrier under the X-32, which can use free-falling bombs with high accuracy. In 2008, these requirements were corrected, but what has changed remains for now closed information.

Not everything is so bad

After the transfer of naval naval missile regiments to its structure, the Air Force remained the sole owners of the Tu-22M fleet. Faced with the difficulties of modernization, the Air Force Commander-in-Chief turned to the firm Hephaestus and T, known for the successful restyling of the Su-24M.

The company is located in the suburban Zhukovsky. Back in 2008, as an initiative, she developed a specialized computing subsystem SVP-24-22 for her money, providing a single, autonomous aiming of the aircraft at the target with redirection in flight, as well as a group attack of the target with aircraft from different arbitrary directions. SVP-24-22 is compatible with the automated control system of aviation “Metronom”, successfully tested at the Kavkaz-2012 exercises.

In 2012, the Ministry of Defense entered into an agreement with Hephaestus and T for the additional equipment of the front-mounted Tu-22М3 system SVP-24-22. The flight personnel have such cars got the nickname “Aggregated”. Currently, about a dozen cars have been upgraded. “SVP-24-22 allows ground targets to be hit with ordinary free-fall bombs at a distance of 30 – 40 kilometers with high accuracy. Having received the exact coordinates of the target, the complex, taking into account the parameters and coordinates of the aircraft, calculates the optimal trajectory for the dumping, displays the board on the course and drops the bomb, ”told the military-industrial complex officer of the Air Force Commander-in-Chief who is familiar with the situation. According to him, in the media very often confused Tu-22М3, equipped with SVP-24-22, and Tu-22М3М.

“The last model is still only on paper, and the M3 with the Gefest complex is not related to the works of the Tupolev Design Bureau,” the source said.

The backfires already equipped with SVP-24-22 will also be refined using X-32, but due to ongoing legal proceedings, the transfer of documentation is delayed.

Do I need a modernized Tu-22M

According to the independent military expert, the chief editor of the MilitaryRussia information project Dmitry Kornev, two tasks are now being solved - upgrading the aircraft and weapons systems. “With the right approach, this will allow a very budgetary at times to strengthen the potential of a group of several dozen Tu-22М3. If the third task is resolved - setting up a new missile system on the renewed aircraft and returning the in-flight refueling system, then we will receive a multiple increase in the strategic aviation fleet, ”Kornev believes.

Maxim Tokarev, for his part, argues that the upgraded Tu-22М3 will not solve the task of destroying aircraft carrier groups: “A single plane or a squadron will not break through the AUG warrant. The question is in quantity. To accomplish the task, it is worthwhile to strike 60 – 70 simultaneously with supersonic cruise missiles, that is, to revive the regiments and divisions of the MPA. ”

Anton Lavrov noted that the Tu-22М3 with corrected aviation means of destruction such as the American JDAM bombs alone could have destroyed a target such as the Georgian Kopitnari airfield. "American supersonic bomber B-1B, equipped with the sighting container" Sniper ", became"weapons selection of the US Air Force to support ground forces. Able to hit even small targets with bombs with television and laser guidance systems from a height of 10 thousands of meters, the B-1B was actively used in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, ”added Lavrov.

Sniper complexes and the ability to retrofit with strategic means make the B-1В a highly efficient and multifunctional strike weapon in a high degree of combat readiness, although it is also obsolete by formal signs, like our Backfire. It is not by chance that the financing of В-1В park remains at the same high level, despite the numerous proposals by the US Congress to sequester expenses.

So the failure of the Tupolev Design Bureau leaves an alternative - equipping the Tu-22 with the SVP-24-22 complexes. If it is possible to retrofit the X-32 missile bombers and the target indication system for the sighting system, to overhaul the engines and airframe resource, then Backfire will come close to the US B-1B in combat capabilities.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tommygun
    Tommygun 13 November 2013 09: 23
    24
    I believe that we are now not in a condition to scatter such devices. A profound modernization is needed, first of all, of the weapons complex. Since we are not talking about a glider-engine, but about devices, this upgrade does not have to be given to the Tupolevites (since they are not capable).
    1. VAF
      VAF 13 November 2013 15: 07
      +6
      Quote: Tommygun
      A profound modernization is needed, first of all, of the weapons complex.


      Absolutely correct remark +!

      But just started to read and immediately opiavil article minus for .... Quote:."
      “X-22 had two advantages. First, the missiles exchanged information with each other during the flight, it was enough to launch them, indicating the minimum set of target parameters. The second is high survivability in front of air defense weapons. According to calculations, one X-22 with constructive protection maintained the 20-mm Vulcan-Falanks anti-aircraft artillery complex, hit one Sparrow missile type AIM-7 or two-three AIM-9 missiles “Sidedinder”, explained the source. editions.


      COMPLETE NONSENSE!!! am
      1. VAF
        VAF 13 November 2013 15: 11
        +3
        Quote: vaf
        COMPLETE NONSENSE!!!


        Another nonsense !!! am

        Quote: "Bombers are forced to descend from a safe height of 10-12 thousand meters to four thousand, otherwise, due to the dispersion of free-fall bombs, they cannot get into the target area." fool
        1. VAF
          VAF 13 November 2013 15: 59
          +4
          Quote: vaf
          Another nonsense !!!


          Continued delirium !!!! am

          Quote:"" SVP-24-22 allows you to hit ground targets with conventional free-fall bombs at a distance of 30-40 kilometers with high accuracy. Having received the exact coordinates of the target, the complex, taking into account the parameters and coordinates of the aircraft, calculates the optimal trajectory for dropping, brings the board on course and drops the bomb " , - told "VPK" an officer of the Air Force Command, familiar with the situation. "

          This "officer familiar with the situation" lol .. "I heard the bell. I don't know .. where he is" wassat

          For the Su-24M, yes, it is there that PNS-24M is "built" on the principle of dropping the ASP along the longitudinal offset!
          On the Tu-22M3 there is no PNS or PrNK, but there is an NK-45, which is "tied" to the Orbit-10TS on-board computer and through the AS to the PNA locator and the OPB-015T sight (by the way, an ordinary OPB-15 optical sight, but with TV head (Vidikon, developed by UOMZ, then just 76 plant).

          Therefore, "Hephaestus" (SVP-24-22) performs any function of NAVIGATION and FORMATION of the aiming mode, but does not in any way affect the accuracy, because ACCURACY depends on the scope of the SIGHT (including the resolution), otherwise the author himself writes that the PNA does not see nichrome, except for large radar targets, but at the same time he suddenly somehow increases the accuracy of hitting ("the voltage saw on the ND is does it constantly calibrate wassat ).

          Here is a photo ... what was on the top ... the next ... what became ... instead of CRT they put 2 MFI indicators, and on the bottom right ... in the center ... as the OPB was, so the PNA blocks remained and even more to the right ... and all .. Hephaestus, well, on the left) above the navigational column) "Space Navigation" console .. that's it!



      2. Botanologist
        Botanologist 13 November 2013 15: 46
        +1
        Quote: vaf
        COMPLETE NONSENSE!!

        Quote: vaf
        COMPLETE NONSENSE!!


        And I wrote to you - you need to remember the name of the afftor. Comrade is very suspicious, besides a dreamer.
        drinks
        1. VAF
          VAF 13 November 2013 16: 04
          +3
          Quote: Botanologist
          And I wrote to you - you need to remember the name of the afftor.


          Hello dear drinks ! But what's the point .. Yesterday there was an article about the old Tu-22nd.
          The surnames are very well-known and respected, but .. there are so many "lapses" that they just .... either get old that they do not remember or .. "co-authors" correct.

          I read, so the whole mood for the evening went bad recourse
          1. Botanologist
            Botanologist 13 November 2013 19: 19
            +1
            Quote: vaf
            I read, so the whole mood for the evening went bad


            I didn't read yesterday, I went for a drive to Nerezinovaya. But in general, there are a lot of different speculative articles on military topics. Therefore, you educate us more often, otherwise from "respected experts" sometimes such foams float that hair stands on end. All the remaining three hairs fellow
      3. bolonenkov
        bolonenkov 13 November 2013 18: 11
        +2
        Quote: vaf
        Absolutely correct remark +!

        All right! Breaking does not build! I still drank Ukraine our Tu-160x I can not forgive!

        But these eagles must be modernized and developed more advanced weapons! Go Russia! So win!
  2. AlexA
    AlexA 13 November 2013 09: 27
    10
    A clear illustration of the situation, repeatedly replicated throughout the defense industry. The lack of qualified personnel, the destruction of the cooperation system, coupled with the excessive greed of the leadership of any enterprise. Here they are and they are lifting up prices, in principle, understanding that they simply DO NOT have ANYTHING R&D. The result is predictable: price increases and failure to meet deadlines. There are still enough resources for individual samples like some kind of smart shell, armored car, but serious complexes like ships, strategic missiles or airplanes are gone.
    1. tverskoi77
      tverskoi77 13 November 2013 11: 43
      +7
      in this situation, everything is much easier if someone is in Moscow and ends up on the Yauza embankment, to them. Academician Tupolev, then instead of the "Experience" plant (in my memory, the Tupolev Design Bureau was called that), he will see a luxurious residential complex, and from the remaining buildings, the Design Bureau is not the Design Bureau, but the Tupolev Plaza business center. I get the impression that the Tupolev Design Bureau no longer exists and that the stake should be placed on other organizations, such as Hephaestus and T.
      1. VAF
        VAF 13 November 2013 16: 12
        +2
        Quote: tverskoi77
        bet must be placed on other organizations such as Hephaestus and T.


        Aha, and what "Gefesty K" have already learned to attach "wings" and motors to their products? wassat
  3. My address
    My address 13 November 2013 09: 45
    +2
    Create sharashka type created by Beria in the late 30's.
    The military industry has forgotten how to work well in a good way. Make good work bad.
    1. Tommygun
      Tommygun 13 November 2013 10: 05
      +4
      The only question is who to drive into these sharashka.
      The problem is not only that they do not want to work, but also that there is nobody.
      1. My address
        My address 13 November 2013 14: 50
        +9
        Artyom!

        The fish rots from the head. And start with the head in any corporation. Beginning with the president. Having previously determined, incl. with a polygraph, someone in sharashka, someone in ... with confiscation.

        But it won’t be like that. More and more convinced that Putin b ...... He only loves his Petersburgers. Not realizing that buzzing in the ears is not a country. Or rather, understanding ...

        For the thirtieth time I will repeat myself, in recent years I had a seven-hour working day in production. 7 to 7 pm. Plus he took the papers home. Sat and Sun from 7 to 11-12. Isn't it a "sharashka"? So this "galley slave" is a boy for me.

        And there are "plowmen". The main thing is the idea. First, the old, then the young will catch up. Especially if they see that the bosses are "plowing", and not stealing and chatting.
    2. e3tozy
      e3tozy 13 November 2013 19: 02
      +2
      Yes, our powers that be, politicians, officials, this weapon is more terrible than OVS AUGs and other types of weapons.
  4. ed65b
    ed65b 13 November 2013 10: 15
    +1
    Hmm, the fuss with shifting blame is familiar. the rocket is at least happy.
    1. VAF
      VAF 13 November 2013 16: 19
      0
      Quote: ed65b
      the rocket is at least happy.


      In principle, yes, that’s just the medium .. just one, in particular, the story is like with x-101/102 crying

  5. kirgudu
    kirgudu 13 November 2013 10: 16
    +4
    Now, doing nothing, and suing each other is fashionable. This is with the damned "scoop" all worked in one team, for one goal. And now all independent JSC, JSC, LLC, state of emergency work only for their own pocket.
  6. Wedmak
    Wedmak 13 November 2013 10: 17
    +2
    American supersonic bomber B-1B

    But is the comparison of the B-1B and Tu-22M3 correct? The American is an analogue of the Tu-160. And there are no analogues of TU-22M3 in the west. Specialized aircraft. It would be better if it remained under the authority of the Navy aviation.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 13 November 2013 10: 44
      +7
      Quote: Wedmak
      But is the comparison of the B-1B and Tu-22M3 correct? The American is an analogue of the Tu-160. And there are no analogues of TU-22M3 in the west. Specialized aircraft. It would be better if it remained under the authority of the Navy aviation.

      I agree with you, but they are not left in naval aviation. Although if it goes on like that, then there will be no naval aviation left.

      Tu-22M naval aviation at the airport of Vozdvizhenka near Ussuriysk.
      1. karal
        karal 13 November 2013 11: 29
        +3
        It is very sad that the military department does not need such equipment sad
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. VAF
        VAF 13 November 2013 16: 16
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        but they weren’t left in naval aviation.


        To put it more correctly, the MRA itself is not left, but the planes of the 5th MRAD are all in Olenya and are "alive", at least in 11-12 they all flew around.

        The Vozdvizhensky regiment never belonged to sailors, but to Dalniki !!! soldier
      4. Ramses_IV
        Ramses_IV 14 November 2013 10: 31
        +2
        You have an old photo. They are all cut.
    2. Tommygun
      Tommygun 13 November 2013 10: 50
      +2
      Having a highly specialized aircraft is an impermissible luxury for the Russian Federation. Moreover, he is highly specialized only because of the installed equipment. To date, nothing prevents turning it into a multi-purpose weapon carrier with very good characteristics.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 13 November 2013 10: 56
        +2
        To date, nothing prevents turning it into a multi-purpose weapon carrier with very good characteristics.

        It interferes. What you are saying is new R&D, new trials, new ammunition. It will take too much time. And the resource of the sides is not so large.
        It is easier and more promising to make a naval version based on the Su-34. And "tie" the CD to it.
        1. VAF
          VAF 13 November 2013 16: 22
          +4
          Quote: Wedmak
          It is easier and more promising to make a naval version based on the Su-34. And "tie" the CD to it.


          Denis ... I agree with everything, except for one ... "too big" (well, in the sense ... heavy) missile for the Su-34
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 13 November 2013 17: 08
            +1
            . "too big" (well, in the sense ... heavy) missile for the Su-34

            This is too big, we’ll make it easier. Moreover, there was information that a dozen new missiles for various purposes are being developed. And it seems that among them were air-based anti-ship missiles.
            1. VAF
              VAF 13 November 2013 17: 25
              +4
              Quote: Wedmak
              Moreover, there was information that a dozen new missiles for various purposes are being developed. And it seems that among them were air-based anti-ship missiles.


              There is such a thing bully , so I wrote in the previous comment that I agree with you drinks

              But the X-32 ... "so far there are a lot of questions" .. it is not for nothing that they promise to "give birth2" only by 2020, and by this time there will not be even ... aircraft ... with such an approach ... as now .. . that at Kazantsev, that at Kuznetsovtsy, or rather not at them .. but at ours .. at the top!

              By the way dear Dmitry Olegovich the same .. "followed in the footsteps" of his "Fathers" .. the same began .. "to fly", you look soon and "dive" lol

              "Pokatushki" on Irkut on October 23, on the future Domnenskaya Su-30SM. Why the future ... because only 3 for today are in the Domna, the rest are supplemented and "accepted" " drinks

              1. PLO
                PLO 13 November 2013 18: 32
                +1
                Hello Sergey!
                Why the future ... because only 3 for today are in Domna, the rest are supplemented and "accepted" "

                fellow znachitsa first arrived in Domnu, but according to the news, not a rumor or a spirit, strange
                I hope that, by the end of the year, the full squadron will be staffed wink
                1. VAF
                  VAF 13 November 2013 18: 56
                  +2
                  Quote: olp
                  the first ones have already arrived in Domnu,


                  Hi Oleg, yes, already on Friday and Saturday, now they are already finishing 1010,11 and 12 .. well, this is necessary for esteemed Ustin specify drinks

                  And on the news .. lol Now, if about ... gay pride parades or something else ... then right away, but about technology ... or nonsense .. or nothing.

                  Today generally "aviation" articles .. "song" wassat ... continuous super-"bonbanding" and "launchers" .... that Tu-22M3 with gefest, then in Opinions ... Tu-95MS belay ... oh how, probably, the "grass" flooded from there ... as an "advance" wassat
        2. Tommygun
          Tommygun 13 November 2013 19: 00
          0
          It seems to me that much less is spent on testing equipment and weapons than on aircraft testing.
          New R&D for weapons and control systems have significant prospects, as not tied tight to a specific medium. What will PAK YES arm in the future?
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 13 November 2013 19: 10
            +1
            What will PAK YES arm in the future?

            New missiles are already being created, moreover, a whole range of different purposes and ranges.
    3. Corsair
      Corsair 13 November 2013 14: 05
      0
      Quote: Wedmak
      But is the comparison of the B-1B and Tu-22M3 correct? The American is an analogue of the Tu-160. And there are no analogues of TU-22M3 in the west. Specialized aircraft. It would be better if it remained under the authority of the Navy aviation.

      With the refueling system, it is also a "little strategist", a cheap and massive headache for the United States ...
      Having a sufficient number of these aircraft, we will not only "drive away" the AUG from our shores, but we will also threaten the enemies with "crowds of Kuzkin's mothers" ...
  7. Bongo
    Bongo 13 November 2013 11: 10
    +7
    Quote: Wedmak
    It is easier and more promising to make a naval version based on the Su-34. And "tie" the CD to it.

    Su-34 cannot completely replace Backfire. Cars of different weight categories. The Su-34 was created on the basis of the Su-27 airframe and was supposed to start replacing the Su-24 in the troops of the same 15 years ago. In addition, unlike the Tu-22M, the Su-34 does not have an internal arms suspension.
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 13 November 2013 11: 29
      +4
      a little about the plane

      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 13 November 2013 13: 29
        +2
        Beauties! Why open the bombing gate at taxiing?
        1. Corsair
          Corsair 13 November 2013 14: 07
          +5
          Quote: Wedmak
          Beauties! Why open the bombing gate at taxiing?

          To prevent the cow story from happening again laughing
        2. VAF
          VAF 13 November 2013 16: 39
          +5
          Quote: Wedmak
          Why open the bombing gate at taxiing?


          Denis, this is "show-off" for the Ryazan "kin" wassat

          The H / O opens only when taxiing into the "stall", even if the mechanization fails during landing, it is impossible to open for braking, only parachutes and spoilers, and then .. if it does not help .. grab the emergency "brakes. soldier
          And then, you can only approach when the old tech turns off the "dryuchek" "Safe work" wink , otherwise .. "can chew" at a time wink

          And the movie ... I have "more interesting" .. than Apollo drinks

    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 13 November 2013 13: 25
      +3
      The Su-34 will not be able to completely replace Backfire.

      Why completely replace it? That’s real - what tasks are there for the 22nd now? He was imprisoned for attacking large surface targets and was actually sea. Now neither their number, nor their technical condition allow us to talk about attacks by the AUG, landing convoys, etc. But in theory, up to three Yakhonts can be suspended on a Su-34 (in overload, standardly two). Su-34 is cheaper, the potential for modernization is not even affected.
      Redesigning the 34th with an increase in range and integrating anti-ship missiles into its armament (as well as a reconnaissance version) - here's a fairly "cheap" replacement for the aging fleet of naval aviation. There are simply no other alternatives.
      Threat. What is the difference between external or internal suspension? Anyway, over the sea, everything shines quite far.
      1. PLO
        PLO 13 November 2013 15: 47
        +2
        even now they are needed
        IMHO, you need to reduce the remaining to 2 regiments and return to the Pacific Fleet and SF one at a time and upgrade to the maximum
        off their shores where they can be covered by fighter jets and AWACS they will still pose a considerable threat

        and if they still put an OEP container or maybe even a fraction from the Tu-214R winked




        ps and the article of the next vyser alexei cramma
      2. VAF
        VAF 13 November 2013 17: 10
        +2
        Quote: Wedmak
        Threat. What is the difference between external or internal suspension? Anyway, over the sea, everything shines quite far.


        Exclusively because of the drag coefficient, i.e. reduction in specific fuel consumption.
        Only MD-3U9 ("hedgehogs") "devour" 15% of the Range, which is a lot, and if we also take into account the "appetites" of 2 NK-25 wassat , then "you won't go far"

        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 13 November 2013 17: 34
          +2
          And, something did not think about it. But what should be the media for a pair of RCC type Yakhont on the internal suspension? The size of the Tu-160?
    3. VAF
      VAF 13 November 2013 16: 25
      +1
      Quote: Bongo
      In addition, unlike the Tu-22M, the Su-34 does not have an internal arms suspension.


      If the Tu-22M3 has a BD-45K in its "belly", under the missile, which is the same .. "half" weighs in the "air", then all the other weapons of the Tu-22M3 are the same ... "outside" wassat

    4. VAF
      VAF 13 November 2013 16: 52
      +2
      Quote: Bongo
      In addition, unlike the Tu-22M, the Su-34 does not have an internal arms suspension.


      But only for the Tu-22M3 with a full refueling and only one missile it is necessary ... "a lot. A lot of stripes." and the temperature would not hurt in the region of 0 degrees .. then more or less nothing will be, and so ... "may not be enough" recourse

  8. rubin6286
    rubin6286 13 November 2013 12: 05
    13
    I am one of those who happened to pilot the TU-22M3. It is possible that the author of the article has more information regarding the problems associated with the modernization of this aircraft, but it seems to me that the aircraft is still quite modern, but the complex of its airborne weapons, intended for use in the 70-80s, wasn’t even then allowed to carry out tasks with sufficient efficiency. That is why it was decided that the air strike should be massive - by forces of 2-3 air regiments. Roughly speaking, “maybe someone will break through” .... As a bomber, the TU-22M3 was not needed already then, and even more so now. It’s the same as shooting sparrows from a cannon — effectively, but not efficiently. The decision to use the TU-22M3 in Afghanistan and Georgia, to put it mildly, is erroneous, but in reality, stupid and mediocre.
    The plane has not yet been withdrawn from service, but it is no longer in production, spare parts are not manufactured, and more and more are being removed from machines located at the storage bases. That is why the TU-22M3 is rapidly aging, although many of the structural and technical solutions implemented on it are unique and quite modern.
    The X-22 missile and its modifications in the 70-80s did not at all look like a miracle of technology compared to the then-available ballistic missile and ICBMs and talk about its survivability is completely inappropriate. I think that work in the direction of creating air-to-ship missiles in the country is still underway and there are still those who understand this, and as regards the "misuse of the state budget," there is a court for this.
    1. VAF
      VAF 13 November 2013 16: 56
      0
      Quote: rubin6286
      I am one of those who happened to pilot the TU-22M3


      ++++++! drinks
      And if not a secret, then "when" and ... "where" wink You can "encrypt" ... I understand wink
  9. Nayhas
    Nayhas 13 November 2013 12: 17
    -3
    Backfires took an active part in the war in Afghanistan. The high-tech sighting system Tu-22M3 based on the radar, designed to detect large targets such as a ship, could not detect small targets such as a machine and even entire villages. Therefore, the missile carrier hit the squares, filled up with tons of free-falling bombs.

    This is about the killing of peaceful Afghans. There was a village and there is none with old people and children. After all, the locals loved shurawi after that ... they still remember ...
  10. silver_roman
    silver_roman 13 November 2013 13: 33
    10
    the cancellation of such aircraft is nothing but a betrayal!
    today out of 150 Tu-22M - 40 are combat-ready. info from open sources.
    I wish the planes and their crews a speedy return to duty and higher to the sky).
    I watched a terrifying picture in Ukraine, Chernihiv region, Nezhin. About 60 Tu-22Ms were destroyed. I saw the tears of our combat pilots ... can not be described in words. A whole cemetery of airplanes ... and in the evening a crowd of drunken teens take away the duralumin to pass it and make some money!
    God forbid more to see the same!
    One thing is good that the Tu-160 from Priluki, which were part of the 184th Guards, when the knife was already over the "heads of the swans", were overtaken and rescued! That, in principle, happened to "Admiral of the USSR Fleet Kuznetsov"! Terrible times, comrades were!
  11. Tommygun
    Tommygun 13 November 2013 14: 07
    +5
    Before entering the PAK DA troops (I think at least 20 years), it is necessary to maintain the existing fleet Tu-22М3, Tu-160, Tu-95. Moreover, to perform modern tasks, they need to be seriously modernized.
  12. egor 1712
    egor 1712 13 November 2013 17: 16
    -1
    The plane is good, most importantly necessary. 150 pcs for a lot. To have a supersonic plane that can take on board 22 tons of ammunition, at the top, and still with refueling, fly off the coast of a potential enemy.
    1. VAF
      VAF 13 November 2013 17: 41
      +1
      Quote: egor 1712
      Have a supersonic aircraft that can take on board 22 tons of ammunition,


      With such a load .... well, the maximum in the area of ​​the 4th turn ... and it's time to land lol



      Quote: egor 1712
      over the top


      At a rate of 20 tons per hour belay , in what you think. that he is ... "dimensionless" in fuel belay

      The only case in practice was with Borisov and 3 "dry" contacts with Davydov ... on this .. it was all over request



      Quote: egor 1712
      still with refueling to fly off the coast of a potential enemy.


      The total IL-78 fleet will not be enough for this "event" and what else would ... fly off the coast ... here, as in the advertisement ".. her ... it's fantastic" wassat
      1. Onyx
        Onyx 13 November 2013 18: 19
        +2
        What is the most reasonable way to continue using the Tu-22M3?
        1. VAF
          VAF 13 November 2013 19: 04
          +1
          Quote: Onyx
          What is the most reasonable way to continue using the Tu-22M3?


          And now he is the only one ... this way:
          - aiming and navigation system "Novella-45"
          Radar 1NV-1
          -SUV U-001M
          -X-32
          -NK-32
          Everything ... there is no other way. "Hephaestus" for the Tu-22M3 .. it's only .. for the Papuans.

      2. alex86
        alex86 13 November 2013 19: 11
        +1
        Do I understand correctly that the dismantling of the Tu-22M3 refueling rods, carried out (seemingly) within the framework of the Russian-American agreements, is not fatal for the aircraft, since there was no real practice of refueling and was not supposed to be? (Strongly do not swear, I'm an amateur)
        1. VAF
          VAF 13 November 2013 20: 02
          0
          Quote: alex86
          not fatal to an airplane,


          Only in theory, and so ... to complete with "fuel automatic equipment" and pipelines to the "consumable" ... for a month in the conditions of the plant .. quite.

          Practice is a profitable business ... it would be a materiel, but they will refuel to learn! drinks

          And so .. they flew in "ranks" and very tightly, much with smaller intervals and distances than prescribed in the KBP, day and night, since the Tu-22M2 and M3 initially had front lights and refueling headlights.

          By the way .. in the photo in the article .. why not build for refueling wink
          1. alex86
            alex86 14 November 2013 20: 08
            0
            Sorry, that’s not the topic - today I saw a Tu-134 taking off from the airfield of the 22nd plant, it has a radar fairing, like a combat aircraft - i.e. elongated and sharp. I remember that such was the Tu-160 simulator (excuse me if I made a mistake in the terminology), he even acted in film (I don’t remember the name, but about creating a new bomber). What could it be?
            1. Gamdlislyam
              Gamdlislyam 14 November 2013 21: 22
              0
              Dear colleague Aleksey, this is the TU-134UBL - training aircraft. You can read about it briefly at the link - http://www.airwar.ru/enc/other/tu134ubl.html
              1. alex86
                alex86 14 November 2013 22: 09
                0
                Thank you, that's right, I had a doubt that they didn’t make it to the Tu-160, but to the Tu-22, but underestimated its age - and was slightly mistaken. And for the film (Boris Shcherbakov, the commander was playing, perhaps) I remember (it is clear that he might not have a relation to reality) the problem was pitching (right?) And it was fairly reliable.
  13. sivuch
    sivuch 13 November 2013 18: 48
    0
    At one time, they wanted to make a PP aircraft on the basis of the Tu-22M3. Then they could not overcome the problems with EMC. Perhaps this would have been possible now. -using the achievements of the Su-34
    1. VAF
      VAF 13 November 2013 19: 14
      0
      Quote: sivuch
      At one time, they wanted to make a PP aircraft based on the Tu-22M3. Then they could not overcome the problems with EMC


      Write a lie, dear ... there were M4 and M5 (prototypes) and PP and PD and no EMC.
      Think for yourself what is there on the serial Ural, but what if there is a problem on the PP?

      The "problem" was precisely in the "politeness" .. it's good that they managed to create a few MRs.



      And from what side "some experience and developments2 from the Su-34 belay request
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 13 November 2013 20: 24
        0
        You know, actually, I try not to lie, in the sense of not writing lies.
        I wrote (and you don’t seem to mind) that there were no group protection Tu-22Ms with REP stations, namely because of problems with EMC. There were Tu-16P and E, there were Tu-22P with ancient Bouquets, but it was on the basis of the backfire of the PP plane there was no. BKO is precisely the BKO of a separate aircraft, the maximum is pairs
        They wrote about the Su-34 that it was used in Georgia precisely as a PP, since it installed the most powerful SAP of what was available at that time.
        Of course, you can put something more solid on Backfire, but at least it already exists and is mass-produced.
  14. mvg
    mvg 13 November 2013 22: 54
    +1
    Quote: vaf
    Quote: Tommygun
    A profound modernization is needed, first of all, of the weapons complex.


    Absolutely correct remark +!

    But just started to read and immediately opiavil article minus for .... Quote:."
    “X-22 had two advantages. First, the missiles exchanged information with each other during the flight, it was enough to launch them, indicating the minimum set of target parameters. The second is high survivability in front of air defense weapons. According to calculations, one X-22 with constructive protection maintained the 20-mm Vulcan-Falanks anti-aircraft artillery complex, hit one Sparrow missile type AIM-7 or two-three AIM-9 missiles “Sidedinder”, explained the source. editions.


    COMPLETE NONSENSE!!! am

    They had one advantage, they could be equipped with YaBCh
  15. Cormorants
    Cormorants 22 November 2013 08: 14
    0
    Quote: Ramses_IV
    You have an old photo. They are all cut.

    An unpleasant sight, it looks like the whales which washed ashore.
  16. pvv113
    pvv113 2 January 2014 21: 00
    +6
    Quote: vaf
    The surnames are very well-known and respected, but .. there are so many "lapses" that they just .... either get old that they do not remember or .. "co-authors" correct.
    OR PUT YOUR AUTOGRAPHS FOR WEIGHT UNDER OPUSES FAR FROM AVIATION OF AUTHORS