Military Review

Tu-22М3 - it's too early to retire

121



26 March 2016 on Cyrill Sokolov’s (Falcon) publication on Military Review: "Tu-22M3: it's time to retireI want to say right away - I have great respect for Cyril and to the fact that he found it possible to publish, albeit a rather controversial, but very interesting article, about which quite a few copies were broken during the discussion. Unfortunately, not all participants the discussions turned out to be mature enough to stay within the limits of decency and not to slip into their comments until the direct insults of the author and other visitors to the site. In my opinion, any publication of the author in which a reasoned attempt is made to analyze on a particular issue worthy of respect, regardless of whether you agree with its content or not. In any case, everyone who is registered on the Military Review has the opportunity to write an article-answer in which he can try to argue the arguments of the author, moreover Such publications are welcomed by the site administration.

So, in the recent past, Cyril wrote a response article: "F-15E vs. SU-34. Response article"for publication:"F-15E vs. SU-34. Who is better? ", in which he outlined his vision on this issue. I’ll tell you a little secret, I hope Kirill will forgive me for this. Despite the accusations of unprofessionalism made to the author by some readers, Cyril is quite savvy in aviation subject. At one time, he graduated from the rather prestigious "Samara State Aerospace University named after Academician S.P. Koroleva (National Research University). ”

And although my basic education lies in a somewhat different plane, I will try to argue with Kirill regarding his vision of the prospects for the Russian long-range bomber Tu-22М3. Let's start in order ...

Cyril writes:
“Now they are fighter-bombers. They can effectively hit both ground targets and stand up for themselves. The reduction in the number of classic interceptors or fighters began actively with the departure from the scene of the USSR. Now there are no serious fighters in the sky, so modern cars are trying to make more versatile. For example, F / A-18SH, F-16, F-35, F-15SE - all fighter-bombers. At its core, to summarize roughly, they are similar to Su-34, Mig-35. ”


A very controversial, in my opinion, thought. Universalization is largely a necessary measure, caused by the desire to save money on the maintenance of a fleet of combat aircraft and the training of pilots. The effectiveness of a multipurpose fighter's actions when performing shock missions can hardly be compared with the effectiveness of a specialized front-line bomber. Thus, a fairly modern MiG-35 fighter will never surpass the old-fashioned Su-24M in percussion capabilities. Moreover, when performing percussion tasks, loaded to the surface with bombs, missiles and fuel outboard tanks F / A-18SH, F-16, F-35, F-15SE will not be able to withstand Su-27M, Su-35С and even MiG-31. Similarly, our Su-34 front-line bombers will be vulnerable to the F-15C and F-22A rocket attacks. It is doubtful that a pair of TGS missiles suspended under a fighter-bomber for self-defense in close combat can change anything. It should be remembered that modern air combat is becoming more and more distant, and the one who succeeds in seeing the enemy before and before making an aimed launch of missiles wins in it. In other words, with other things being equal, the one who has more advanced radar and long-range missiles has the advantage. These advantages are just possessed by “serious fighters” - fighters of air superiority.

And more:
“There was also a separate class of more classic bombers. Such as B-2, B-52, Tu-95, Tu-22М3, Tu-160, etc. Their main disadvantage is that they cannot stand up for themselves in air combat, but there are some advantages as well. ”


There are, of course, a lot of advantages, the main one, of course, is the possibility of striking conventional and nuclear munitions at a range inaccessible to tactical and carrier-based aircraft, which, in fact, is the raison d'être of long-range bomber aircraft. Long-range bombers are extremely flexible means of warfare, provided they have an appropriate range of weapons, they are able to perform the widest range of tasks, from dropping cast-iron over areas to delivering remote strikes with guided high-precision ammunition at land and sea targets. The opinion that bombers can be fully replaced by cruise and ballistic missiles is untenable. Unlike a rocket, a long-range bomber is capable of carrying combat duty in the air, barraging near the potential target. In addition, a bomber sent to a combat mission can always be withdrawn before dropping bombs in the event of a change in the situation, but this number will not pass with a launched missile.

Do not think that the "classic bomber" are easy prey for fighters. Of course, heavy bombers are best not to encounter fighters at all, but they are not so defenseless. In addition to the traditional cannon defensive armament for domestic bombers, all modern long-range bombers are equipped with REB complexes and automatic weapons for shooting thermal and passive radar jammers. Targeting of a defensive artillery system Tu-22М3 at a target is carried out using a combination of radar and optical equipment, which allows timely detection of targets in the rear hemisphere. In addition, the UKU-9А-502М guided stern gun ammunition with the 23-mm GSH-23М gun (firing rate to 4000 beats per minute) includes special jamming infrared and anti-radar projectiles.

Tu-22М3 - it's too early to retire

Gun fodder defensive installation of a Tu-22М3 bomber


Airborne complexes of radio-electronic jamming are also capable of delivering a lot of trouble to the enemy. Thus, in the second half of 80, Tu-95MS bombers with new REP equipment in our country, after a series of exercises, earned the reputation of being an "non-attacking" aircraft among air defense crews and pilots of interceptors.

Of course, over the years, much has changed, and the fighter aircraft of “likely partners” received new interceptors with improved radar and radar, and we, due to the collapse of the USSR and the “reform” of the economy and armed forces, began new versions of the Tu-22М4 and М5 and did not take place. But our developers and the industry, despite numerous difficulties, have demonstrated the ability to create modern effective jamming systems. The question, as always, rests on finances and political will. Let not all, but at least part of the long-range Tu-22М3 bombers can be fully equipped with modern electronic countermeasures, which would allow with a high degree of probability to fight off single interceptors.

Next Cyril writes:
“So why do we need long-range aviation when the whole west refused it?” ... in actual combat, the Tu-22М3 with the X-22 missile was not specifically noted. Dear unique bomber basically served as a simple bomber. The ability to carry FAB was rather a pleasant advantage than the main task. Often Tu-22М3 was used in Afghanistan, in places where front bombers had a hard time reaching out. Especially noteworthy is the moment when the Tu-22М3 "leveled off" the mountains of Afghanistan during the withdrawal of Soviet troops, covering our caravans. And all this time the most complicated and intelligent machine was used as a “pig-iron” distribution. It should also be mentioned about the use of Tu-22М3 in Chechnya, it is particularly interesting that he dropped light bombs. And, of course, the apogee is the use of Tu-22М3 in Georgia, which ended very sadly. "


By and large, the West, and, more precisely, the United States, never abandoned long-range (strategic) aviation. Bombers, originally created for the delivery of thermonuclear bombs, were used in local conflicts throughout their life cycle. It is known that the exploitation of the B-52H is extended by at least another 15 years, for the “stealth” of the B-2, new types of ammunition are being developed, and the B-1В, which received a highly conventional status of a “non-nuclear” bomber, is actively used in combat operations around the world . It is clear that there is no direct analogue to our Tu-22М3 in the West and, most likely, it will never be. But what are we to the USA and NATO, why should we be guided by their views and military doctrine? "Backfire" was not created from scratch, before our air force exploited the Tu-16 and Tu-22, and the military clearly imagined what they wanted to get.



Cyril’s emphasis on the X-22 missiles is understandable. Of course, at this time, the X-22 RCC does not correspond to modern realities in terms of immunity, and the LREs operating on toxic fuel and an aggressive oxidizer are anachronism. On the other hand, what prevents to adapt existing modern cruise missiles to the Tu-22М3 bombers, of which a lot has been created in our country? In addition, missiles have never been the only "payload" of a bomber; the Tu-22М3 armament also includes free-fall bombs and sea mines of various types.

Of course, transporting An-12 transport vehicles to tens of tons of large-caliber mines in Afghanistan, transport workers, by the way, also did this, but it wouldn’t involve trained crews of bomber regiments to take part in the fighting, even if it was to dump “cast iron” unforgivable mistake. This of course does not demonstrate the inferiority of the Tu-22M3 as a banal bomber, but rather, on the contrary, shows its ability to successfully perform the entire range of tasks.

As for Chechnya, there Tu-22М3, patrolling over the line of combat contact at night, provided invaluable assistance to our troops, illuminating the battlefield and the neighborhood with lighting bombs. It is clear that hammering nails with a microscope is not the most rewarding task. The question is whether the plane or its crew is to blame for this if the higher command sets inappropriate tasks for them? In any case, the bombers once again demonstrated the ability to successfully operate in the most difficult conditions.

During the Russian-Georgian conflict in August 2008, Tu-22М3 bombers attacked the bases of the Georgian army, bombed airfields and enemy troop concentrations. One aircraft from the 52 13th Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment, based at Shaykovka airfield, at night from 8 on August 9, at an altitude of about 6000 m was shot down by the Buk-М1 air defense system from Ukraine. The wreckage of the plane, hit by a direct hit by an anti-aircraft missile, fell near the village of Kareli, in the territory controlled by the Georgian troops at that moment. Of the four crew members, only one survived - the co-pilot Major Vyacheslav Malkov, he was captured. The crew commander, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Koventsov, as well as Majors Viktor Pryadkin and Igor Nesterov, were killed. The most reliable information is that the shot down Tu-22М3, which closed the group of 9 bombers, in addition to launching a bomb strike, also carried out photo control of the bombing results. The presence of enemy air defense systems in the area was not expected.


Satellite image of Google earth: the funnels at the airport Kopitnari, remaining after the raid of the group Tu-22М3


In fairness it should be said that the reason for the loss of the long-range bomber of the Russian Air Force was: illiterate planning of a combat departure, standard actions, poor target reconnaissance, lack of radio-electronic suppression of the enemy's radar and air defense missile systems. What doesn’t mean that Tu-22М3 has become obsolete and it’s time to send them “to retire”, was once again used by a “microscope” for nailing nails.

The main drawbacks of the “Backfires” to Kirill are the lack of an in-flight refueling system on the plane, which was dismantled from all combat bombers of this type according to the provisions of the START treaty. And the impossibility of flying at extremely low altitude in automatic mode. However, the flight range of the Tu-22М3 was quite enough to bomb the militant positions in Syria, which frontline aircraft could not do, operating from Russian territory, and the air defense breakthrough for WWI mainly depends on the level of crew professional training. In the past, Tu-22B bombers, which were controlled by Libyan and Iraqi pilots, much less adapted to low-altitude flights, made throws to the WWI many times during the performance of combat missions, so that this was not an overwhelming task for the Tu-22М3.

Of course, the same Tu-160 and, moreover, the upgraded Tu-160M have a much higher impact potential. But the trouble is that the White Swans are very rare birds in our Air Force and are used to accomplish the tasks of nuclear deterrence. Pouring "cast iron" from them will be even less rational than with Tu-22М3.

In my opinion, the principle of necessary reasonable sufficiency should be applied to existing Tu-22М3. Production of these bombers ceased in 1992. Given the fact that the 90-2000-e years did not fly very much, and a significant part of the machines remained a very solid resource. Of course, in many ways obsolete avionics requires replacement. But the experience of upgrading part of the bombers with the installation of the aim-navigation complex SVP-24-22 demonstrated the possibility of a significant increase in the combat potential of the aircraft at relatively low costs. It is clear that the replacement of the NK-25 engines with more powerful and economical ones in the near future does not shine, as well as the installation of an in-flight refueling system. But, as is well known: “In the absence of a stamp, we write in idle time,” in any case, it is quite possible to supplement the range of weapons of modernized vehicles with modern high-precision weapons.



Before combat use in Syria, many Western experts were quite critical of the “Backfires”. However, after the bombs from Russian long-range bombers fell on the heads of the militants of the Islamic state, the tone of the statements changed dramatically. On this occasion, once again made a "respected military commentator" Dave Majumdar.

He noted:
The Tu-160 and Tu-95MS in the first combat use by themselves "showed power", but most of the destroyed targets fall on the Tu-22М3. The United States does not have a direct analogue to the Tu-22М3, which, by the way, is almost three decades old. The closest competitors include the B-1B Lancer, transformed into a carrier of tactical, rather than nuclear, after the end of the Cold War weapons, as well as the decommissioned strategic bomber FB-111.


A few years ago, Chinese representatives probed the ground for the purchase of a Tu-22М3 and a package of technical documentation for their production. Fortunately, common sense won this time, and the next “lucrative deal” with China did not take place. In the past, the Chinese accused a lot of things, including industrial espionage and numerous cases of unlicensed copying of equipment and weapons. But in the absence of pragmatism and the desire to throw money down the drain - never. It is difficult to imagine that the Chinese comrades express a desire to buy full-scale samples and drawings of a deliberately outdated and unpromising combat aircraft.



The Tu-22М3 bombers are still in many ways unique vehicles capable of performing both tactical and strategic tasks. Being equipped with modern cruise missiles, they can be an effective means of neutralizing the US missile defense system in Romania, the Czech Republic and Poland. Not possessing an intercontinental range, Tu-22М3 bombers are actually capable of carrying out strategic tasks in a European theater of operations. The very fact of the presence of machines of this class in our Air Force is a powerful deterrent. If necessary, no one will understand how modern this or that aircraft, and to what generation it belongs. The pilots of the bombers will certainly fulfill their military duty with honor, even if it is a one-way flight.



Separately, I want to say about the recent events, which are usually not mentioned in our media. In 2011, Naval Rocket-carrying Aviation (MRA) was liquidated in Russia. As is known, the main task of the MRA regiments, which were armed with missile carriers Tu-22М3, was the fight against American aircraft carrier groups. Until 2011, sea-launched missile carriers were based in the European North and the Far East. All conditionally serviceable (prepared for one-time distillation) aircraft of the Navy in 2011 were transferred to Long-Range Aviation. Machines that had minor malfunctions, but were unable to rise into the air, were mercilessly "recycled", which, of course, is a crime.


Killed by Tu-22М3 at Vozdvizhenka airfield near Ussuriisk


First of all, it affected naval Tu-22M3 at the Far Eastern airfields Vozdvizhenka near Ussuriysk and Kamenny Ruchey near Vanino. After that, American admirals, who traditionally feared our naval missile carriers, breathed a sigh of relief. It is clear that such a decision could not have been made without the knowledge of our top political leadership. Sometimes you can hear, they say, it was a forced measure due to a deficit of finance. However, just at this time, in the years of "rise from its knees" and "revival of its former power", our country spent huge funds on the implementation of "image projects" and opportunities for the maintenance, repair and modernization of naval aviation aircraft in the "well-fed" 2000s we had.


Satellite image of Google earth: Tu-22М3 bombers awaiting their turn for repairs and upgrades at Olenya airfield.

Now the permanently based airfields of the Tu-22М3 long-range bombers are the Shaykovka and Olenya airfields in the European part of the country. Most of the former naval rocket carriers are waiting for their turn for repairs and upgrades. Talk that “in case of anything” these cars will go to the Far East to repel the blows of the American AUG, do not stand up to scrutiny. As part of the weapons Tu-22М3 currently there are no effective anti-ship missiles and trained crews to solve this problem.

Anyway, we don’t have much choice. The latest events in the world demonstrate that those who do not have the ability to defend themselves can be torn apart at any moment under the pretext of protecting democracy and freedom. The proposal made by Cyril about the need for the early refusal of all Tu-22М3, so that the funds that are spent on their maintenance, went to the development of new modern attack aviation systems, in this case seems erroneous. Our country will inevitably have to spend resources, both on the maintenance of the existing fleet, and on the development of new bombers. Gone are the days when we easily sent for decommissioning still fully combat-ready cruise cars. Withdrawal of approximately 40 long-range bombers from the Air Force will significantly weaken our already not-too-great shock capabilities. In this situation, the refusal, albeit from not the newest long-range bombers, is capable of causing serious damage to the defense capability of our country.

Based on:
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/tu22m3.html
http://rg.ru/2015/11/20/tuubiyza-site.html
Author:
121 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mityasha
    Mityasha April 12 2016 06: 58
    +8
    The current conditions require urgent modernization and restoration. You cannot start building without having a stock in technology. There are developments of excellent weapons, some of which have already been used, now we need carriers for these weapons. It is not possible to disable the AMG only by the forces of the fleet, this is a complex task. And it is the WTO that comes out on top in the modern problem. Pouring in cast iron is too wasteful. And in the Sukhoi family, we are witnessing the revival of fighter-bomber aviation as a kind of aviation.
    1. yehat
      yehat April 12 2016 12: 32
      +4
      I am nevertheless inclined to be somewhat wary of "necessity."
      Tu-22, when it was created, was capable of a breakthrough against air defense:
      and speed (most mass F16 are difficult to intercept)
      and missile range
      and reconnaissance was conducted before such that the plane didn’t really need its review
      but times have changed.
      as before, the speed of the Tu-22 is impressive, but there are already more interceptors, new air defense missiles and long-range AA missiles
      the aircraft location actually doubled in the review and now the Tu-22 group can be noticed on the way
      the capabilities of an air defense volley with the introduction of cellular launchers, the massive use of the AEGIS system, the massive use of air defense ships make salvo missiles from afar far less effective than before.
      The concept of the Tu-22 needs a serious revision
      I am not saying that the aircraft is out of date; you can always carry out modernization. Just time has changed. It is necessary to think again what strike aircraft is needed. And what new roles, tactics do you need to perform.
      Maybe the Tu-22 will suddenly become useful as a high-speed tanker for the t50 (just kidding)
      or will become something else.
  2. qwert
    qwert April 12 2016 07: 19
    +12
    "In 2011, Russia eliminated the Naval Missile Aviation (MRA). As you know, the main task of the MRA regiments armed with Tu-22M3 missile carriers was the fight against American aircraft carrier groups. Until 2011, naval missile carriers were based in the European North and in the Far All conditionally serviceable (prepared for a one-time ferry) aircraft of the Navy were transferred to the Long-Range Aviation in 2011. The machines that had minor malfunctions, but were unable to take off, were mercilessly "scrapped", which is undoubtedly a crime. "
    It would seem that Putin is here ... I think he should have created a commission and sorted out this issue. Cars are expensive, Russia does not need it, take money from the Indians and repair for them. And send the proceeds from the sale of the machines to the development of the PAKD or the release of new aircraft.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga April 13 2016 03: 08
      +5
      Quote: qwert
      It would seem, moreover, Putin is here ... I think he should have created a commission and dealt with this issue.

      Do you sincerely believe that Putin was “not in the know” when the MPA was liquidated?
    2. g1v2
      g1v2 April 13 2016 15: 52
      +9
      Are being repaired. A few pieces a year. At the enterprise KAZ them. SP Gorbunov, a branch of PJSC Tupolev, is currently carrying out major repairs of three Tu-160 aircraft, and several Tu22m3 that are being repaired also appeared in the photo.
      In my opinion, Tu22m3 in modern conditions is primarily an air platform for launching missiles. What rockets? Those that will be necessary for a specific task. For example anti-ship. How many offshore platforms do we have for launching a microcircuit-type PKR? Is it possible to quickly transfer them to where they are needed? In the Far East or in the Crimea. I doubt it. And a couple of dozens of tu22m3 can easily be transferred to the necessary TVD. For example against the Turks or the Japanese. Well, in the end, to counter the aug, too. The tasks of breaking through layered air defense are no longer set for them - all the work goes to the rocket. A sufficient number of TU22M3s should simply go to a given area and shoot 2-3 missiles - even if they are old x22 pkr or on x15 ground.
      The enemy will not be able to cover everything, and the only question is the number of fired missiles - anyway it will somehow break through. And I don’t think that Turkish frigates or land-based industrial facilities will be able to effectively hide from them. Plus, missiles will obviously be upgraded or even get a replacement. Well, throwing cast iron is an additional option. In my opinion so. hi
  3. Nitarius
    Nitarius April 12 2016 07: 20
    -5
    In the USSR there were no fools in the highest composition .. and half of the journalists do not know the tasks for which they were created!
    So when I read that article .... I realized that Another "Sofa GENERAL" and no more!
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm April 12 2016 10: 08
      +6
      Quote: Nitarius
      In the USSR there were no fools in the highest composition ..

      A highly controversial statement.
    2. Bongo
      April 12 2016 10: 48
      +5
      Quote: Nitarius
      So when I read that article .... I realized that Another "Sofa GENERAL" and no more!

      Well so tell us what we don’t know, but you don’t need to throw a lot of poop in others negative
      1. Malkor
        Malkor April 19 2016 16: 17
        -1
        50 pcs Tu-160 and PAK YES is only a prospect
        Tu-22m3 is our reality, the supply of modernization is far from exhausted, we need to use the reserve of our ancestors. Squandering time should stop.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 12 2016 22: 20
      +1
      Fools in the highest composition were, are and will continue to be.
  4. FID
    FID April 12 2016 08: 22
    +6
    Now the airfields of permanent basing of long-range Tu-22M3 bombers are Shaykovka and Olenya airfields in the European part of the country.

    Excuse me generously, but did you intentionally miss Soltsy?
    1. Iline
      Iline April 12 2016 09: 13
      +18
      But Soltsy surpassed their serviceable aircraft to Shaikovka and became essentially a storage base, as it does not sound sad.
      On the topic of the article.
      Sobs are heard about the worthlessness of the X-22 missiles, and because of this, the lack of their combat use. Let's put the dots all the same over I. These missiles were created primarily to combat the US air strike groups (aircraft carriers, escort ships, etc.). Some of those present here would like to check their effectiveness by purpose at present? Not sure. Another question is that time passes and everything changes, but there is no worthy replacement for the old woman.
      Regarding the Georgian conflict.
      Since I am a little more than the others in the know about the shot down plane, I can only say one thing - on this plane from the whole group there were no electronic warfare equipment at all. The rocket launch was recorded, but they could not oppose this fact, and it was after this incident that picking in the head and nose began - how could this happen? An interesting picture emerged - the electronic warfare systems on these aircraft are so very different from each other, so very outdated that a long time ago - it would have been necessary to do something with this for a long time. I don’t know how it all ended, because retired in December 2008.
      And the plane you need is good in and of itself, but you just need to change the entrails urgently. On today's reality, equipment is very outdated both in its use and in physical principles. In the 70s of last year there were some types of weapons and military equipment, now they are completely different and it was necessary to prepare for this on time.
      1. FID
        FID April 12 2016 09: 49
        +7
        Quote: Iline
        And the plane you need is good in itself, but the tripe needs to be urgently changed

        The plane is needed, no doubt, but about the tripe ... The control system, in exchange for ABSU and NK, was developed, but ... There is no money for production and KAPO will not be able to refine it (in fact, the feeder needs to be changed, but it is very laborious and expensive. ..).
        1. yehat
          yehat April 12 2016 12: 16
          +1
          and what is a feeder?
          1. Tibidokh
            Tibidokh April 12 2016 13: 18
            +4
            Quote: yehat
            and what is a feeder?

            Sergei Ivanovich seems to mean "wiring", i.e. cables stretched throughout the aircraft.
            From myself I will add that, in my opinion, to change the "tripe", ugh ... what a word ... so, to change the filling of such a dimensional aircraft, it is actually to build a new aircraft with all the consequences. The balancing will change. It will be necessary to check the compatibility of the "filling", etc. New tests and a new letter in the title will be required.
          2. FID
            FID April 12 2016 13: 18
            +10
            Quote: yehat
            and what is a feeder?

            The feeder is the entire cable-harness part of the aircraft (wires in one word). The feeder passes through the entire aircraft, linking (electrically natural) all sensors, calculators, governing bodies, etc. Compared to humans, the feeder is the central nervous system ...
    2. Bongo
      April 12 2016 11: 01
      +6
      Quote: SSI
      Excuse me generously, but did you intentionally miss Soltsy?

      Sergey Ivanovich, I treat you with great respect and really appreciate your comments. But as far as I know, there is no Tu-22М3 permanently based at this airfield. Previously, there were planes of the 840 heavy bomber regiment, but now the parking area is almost empty.
      1. FID
        FID April 12 2016 11: 49
        +5
        I did not know, I departed from Dalny how many years ago. I remember back in the beginning of the 2000-x, the Soletsky regiment was one of the most combat-ready ... pity, I had a lot to do with the Soltsy ...
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga April 13 2016 03: 14
          +5
          Quote: SSI
          I did not know, I departed from Dalny how many years ago. I remember back in the beginning of the 2000-x, the Soletsky regiment was one of the most combat-ready ... pity, I had a lot to do with the Soltsy ...

          Sergei Ivanovich, you are probably the most competent person on the site regarding the Tu-22М3. Cyril and Sergey are still amateurs, they do not have your experience and knowledge. Can you write an article about your vision of the future of this aircraft and possible options for modernization?
    3. SashOK
      SashOK April 12 2016 22: 30
      0
      brother, they haven’t been in the salt for a long time
  5. Sally
    Sally April 12 2016 08: 22
    +3
    The problem is not in the aircraft itself as a carrier platform (its development is constrained in most international treaties), but in the absence of it modern and promising electronic warfare systems and weapons (missiles, bombs, radio electronic (reconnaissance, "suppression", guidance and launching to the target)).
    And so the plane is needed as a reserve of tactical, strategic and naval aviation, which does not fall under the "inconvenient agreement" (to run out of carcasses during a mess, everything a little bit adapted will go into action).
    1. DmitryM
      DmitryM 7 November 2018 23: 07
      0
      https://iz.ru/news/545925 - Бомбардировщик пятого поколения будет дозвуковым....
      Maybe it was all about the "platform"?
      The "stupid" Chinese still use the more reliable and cheaper H-6 (Tu-16). And they "missed" supersonic bombers as a phenomenon.
      What can oppose them to the Russian Federation? No matter what, it matters how much! If we are about war.
  6. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek April 12 2016 08: 36
    -18%
    With the development of the Su-34 and something newer, the need for the T-22M3 will disappear. It falls under international treaties, it is expensive to upgrade, the range cannot be significantly increased (engines are no longer produced). With the advent of the Kyrgyz Republic for the armament of Su-30/34 class aircraft with a range of about 1000 km, the Tu-22M3 destruction range will be achieved. A more or less serious enemy will not allow bombing with Tu-22M3 bombs (the 08.08.08 war clearly showed this).
    1. Verdun
      Verdun April 12 2016 09: 15
      +10
      Quote: Zaurbek
      With the development of the Su-34 and something newer, the need for the T-22M3 will disappear. It falls under international treaties, it is expensive to upgrade, the range cannot be significantly increased (engines are no longer produced)

      Su-34 and Tu-22M3 are very different cars. And, as far as I know, it is precisely because of their range that the Tupolev brainchild did not fall under serious reductions under international treaties. Although the Americans really wanted to. As for bombs or missiles ... To fight a serious enemy you need both one and the other. And the Tu-22M3 is a very necessary car.
    2. yehat
      yehat April 12 2016 12: 40
      +7
      1. Su-34 and Tu-22 radically different planes. they hardly overlap at all
      2. the refueling system is not forgotten
      3. in the war 8.8.8, as someone already wrote, the plane was without electronic warfare, the operation was clumsy without cover and was therefore lost. If you act normally, with an air warrant, as in the United States Iraq, with intelligence, the Tu-22 is not at all threatened.
      4. The carrying capacity and range are now nothing to replace.
      finally, Japan was so quiet for many years and the whole perestroika because in the Far East stood ONE regiment Tu-22 (m3).
      1. Verdun
        Verdun April 12 2016 12: 54
        +5
        That's right. The flight range of this aircraft (7000 maximum) has long been a stumbling block in disarmament negotiations. The Americans all tried to imagine him as a strategic bomber. And most importantly - there were a lot of them released! More than 1000. With a powerful aviation group in the south, a break through the Bosphorus into the Mediterranean was a technical matter.
        1. FID
          FID April 12 2016 14: 46
          +5
          Quote: Verdun
          More than 1000.

          If you are talking about Tu-22M2 / M3, then the figure is exaggerated, if Shilo is counted, then .... I don't know, these are different planes ...
          1. Verdun
            Verdun April 12 2016 16: 12
            +3
            Here you are probably right. But even after deducting the "strategic alcohol carriers" 497 vehicles is a solid figure.
          2. yehat
            yehat April 12 2016 17: 19
            -1
            I was at the Aviation Museum in Moscow time and there they somehow crumpled talked about the problems of the first version of the Tu-22, that these planes were harming the pilots
            can you paint this question in detail?
            1. Verdun
              Verdun April 12 2016 18: 58
              +2
              As far as I am aware, the Tu-22 of the first issues turned out to be difficult to manage. There were a lot of problems there. There are unsuccessful engines, an error with the choice of their placement, and a high landing speed, and ejection seats being fired down ... You can paint for a long time. Tupolevites realized this even during the testing process. That is why, without waiting for a hint from above, we carried out work on "deep modernization". In fact, it turned out to be a new plane. Not for nothing, according to NATO classification, the Tu-22M is called the Tu-26.
      2. Amurets
        Amurets April 12 2016 13: 06
        0
        Quote: yehat
        Japan was so quiet for many years and the whole perestroika because in the Far East stood ONE regiment Tu-22 (m3).

        And a few Tu-16 regiments. I no longer remember the Tu-95 and M-4 and 3M
        1. Bongo
          April 12 2016 13: 12
          +4
          Quote: Amurets
          And a few Tu-16 regiments. I no longer remember the Tu-95 and M-4 and 3M

          One reconnaissance regiment on Tu-16Р in Spassk, Vozdvizhenka began to rearm from Tu-16 to Tu-22М3 at the beginning of the 90-x, there was also a Stone stream near Vanino. Tu-95 is a strategist at the Ukrainian airport in Amurka. M-4 and No. M are from the category of exotic, they have never been based in the Far East
          1. Amurets
            Amurets April 12 2016 15: 10
            +3
            Quote: yehat
            finally, Japan was so quiet for many years and the whole perestroika because in the Far East stood ONE regiment Tu-22 (m3).

            Sergei, you take the last time, and I take at least the 60s, when the Japanese were really quiet. Then, at two airfields near Seryshev, there were 3M and M-4 bombers and tankers and a jump airfield for the Tu-95 on a permanent basis. " Bastion. Stratospheric fortresses B-52, M-4 and Tu-95 ". 40 and 79 TBAP at two airfields (Belonogovo and Ukrainka, near Seryshevo and 303 TBAP at Tu-16 in Zavitinsk.
            http://engine.aviaport.ru/issues/69/page29.html
            This is a link to locations.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek April 12 2016 16: 14
        +5
        Colleagues. Before minus one must first think.
        1. When the Tu22M was created, there were no attack aircraft with a Su34 range.
        2. The armament for which the Tu22M3 is designed is mainly anti-ship with a range of up to 300 km. For ground targets (you can’t shoot with contrast)
        3. Since we use it in Syria with bombs, we will not be allowed to use it due to the presence of air defense.
        4. Blocks for flight with envelope relief at the carcass are absent. Those. he will not be able to break through the defense of the object.
        4. Cruising supersonic carcass no.

        Now the pros of Su34:
        1. Air refueling
        2. high combat readiness
        3. There were lighter CR with a greater range.
        4. The ability to defend
        5. The ability to exchange information with other participants in the operation.
        6. The prospect of upgrading engines to increase the range and capabilities of cruising supersonic.
        6. the possibility of a breakthrough air defense at low altitudes.

        etc.
        No one says that they can be replaced 1: 1, the question is why do we need the Tu-22M123? To strike at sea? For long-range bombing? And is it worth it to revive the production of engines and other spare parts?
        1. Fast_mutant
          Fast_mutant April 12 2016 17: 46
          +4
          Quote: Zaurbek
          1. When the Tu22M was created, there were no attack aircraft with a Su34 range.
          2. The armament for which the Tu22M3 is designed is mainly anti-ship with a range of up to 300 km. For ground targets (you can’t shoot with contrast)
          3. Since we use it in Syria with bombs, we will not be allowed to use it due to the presence of air defense.
          4. Blocks for flight with envelope relief at the carcass are absent. Those. he will not be able to break through the defense of the object.
          4. Cruising supersonic carcass no.


          On points (IMHO):
          1. With additional tanks were. Su-24, for example (well, plus or minus) ...
          2. Rocket "Caliber" and anti-ship missiles and "overland" ...
          3. The bombs have not yet become obsolete. Firstly, there have been a lot of wars lately against the "barmaley" without significant air defense, and secondly, what prevents the main air defense from suppressing (from part of the same 22, for example, converted by a specialist to suppress air defense), and then "bomb" enemy "in the stone age"? The carrying capacity of the 22nd quite allows you to cram a bunch of electronic warfare, electronic warfare, other electronics there, and the carrying capacity will still remain on all sorts of X-25,27,31,58 ... but you never know what ...
          4. No problem to put the equipment. Expensive, yes! Difficult - yes! Impossible - no! And at the same time, it is more profitable to build a NEW aircraft for these tasks. The glider itself, it seems, is very successful.
          5. A cruising supersound-mode nafig and not needed. ETOGES is not a 5-6-7 generation. Look, B2 doesn’t have over-sound in principle and nothing, do not cry!

          PS And so as not to minus, argue more clearly! )) And then many people have sarcasm, humor, and innuendo that cause a thirst for "red minus"! ))
          1. Jagermeister
            Jagermeister April 12 2016 23: 24
            0
            If expensive and complicated, then why?
            Better to build new cars.
            1. yehat
              yehat April 13 2016 09: 50
              +1
              Is it cheap?
              firstly, engines.
              if there are such problems for the t50, for the bomber the new engines will be even more intense.
              secondly, there is a PAK DA project. It is necessary to at least somehow wait for its results in order to build other plans.
              thirdly, the new aircraft is by no means cheaper than modernization and not the fact that it will be better.
        2. Sally
          Sally April 12 2016 17: 59
          +1
          Quote: Zaurbek
          3. There were lighter CR with a greater range.

          Lately you people have narrowly looked at the problems that exist when creating and adapting ammunition for various carriers.
          But what about the warhead, guidance systems, jammers (electronic warfare or electronic warfare that they put on missiles, I'm bad at this question), diagnostic control systems for the product, "flight controls, both external and internal, suspension systems for various carriers so so that it would not interfere with the flight of the carrier (perhaps it did not "unmask" it unnecessarily) and ensured the unhindered descent from the carrier and the launch of the product's systems.
          It is probably cheaper and easier not to have such strict restrictions for ammunition of this kind (if they are not assigned tasks based on some kind of their "specifics" (combat, economic))
          How many Hindus under Drying Bramos customize.
        3. Sally
          Sally April 12 2016 18: 01
          0
          Do not forget about drugs and their abilities to master all weapons and skillfully apply them (can be exaggerated)
          Quote: Taoist
          Well, when I served with us there was a saying that "a fighter-bomber is a shitty fighter and the same bomber" - and it's not even about the capabilities of the machine, it's about the specialization and training of crews - you either sharpen yourself to attack ground targets or to conduct air combat. Of course, you can combine it, but most likely it will turn out badly both here and there ...
          1. Sally
            Sally April 12 2016 18: 15
            +1
            And yes, how many one carrier (tu22m3 (its price and maintenance)) can lift such products into the air and how many pilots (training, maintenance) and fuel will be needed. (and compare with those su 34, Su 30 how much of this (additional guidance containers, "refuellers and refueling" ...) is needed in the quantitative, financial and "time" ranges ???
            PS (well, in "quality" can)
            "All planes are needed, all planes are important."
        4. Alex_59
          Alex_59 April 12 2016 19: 55
          +8
          Quote: Zaurbek
          Colleagues. Before minus one must first think.
          1. When the Tu22M was created, there were no attack aircraft with a Su34 range.

          Yah? And what about the Su-34 with such a unique range? You probably consider those advertising figures that are shining everywhere for the range - 4500 km. It is obvious with a clean wing. In reality, the range is calculated using the Practical Aerodynamics booklet. There is no such book in the public domain for the Su-34, but there is one for the Su-24M. If you substitute the approximate performance characteristics of the Su-34 into the navigator's crew, it turns out that with 3 tons of bombs and their dropping in the middle of the route when flying at low altitude, the Su-34 has a combat radius of about 800 km. For comparison, the Su-24M under the same conditions (the entire flight at low altitude, 3 tons of bombs, a drop in the middle of the route) has a combat radius 635 kmbut with 2xPTB-3000 discharged for fuel generation. Total - increase in range compared to Su-24 by 25%. At high altitude, of course, the gap will be more, percent 30-35. But the Tu-22M3 Su-34 does not reach. The external suspension of the bombs - it’s like that, here you need to plus Cx and S of all beam holders and the bombs themselves. Tu-22М3 is easier with this - there is a bomb bay, it does not affect aerodynamics.
          Cons, if anything, not mine.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek April 13 2016 09: 08
            0
            You need to compare, having a typical combat mission.
            If the task is to fly from Mozdok to Syria with 8 bombs, then you are right. If the task is to destroy the KP or the Air Defense Radar, then it is not a fact that the Tu-22M3 will fly. And new weapons can compensate for the shorter drying range. And you forgot about the refueling in the air and the complexity of the service too. With the help of Su-34-30СМ, we can quickly create a grouping in any direction and from 20 aircraft you will have 18 pieces ready for battle. With Tu, the situation is much more complicated.
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 April 13 2016 10: 03
              +4
              Quote: Zaurbek
              You need to compare, having a typical combat mission.
              If the task is to fly from Mozdok to Syria with 8 bombs, then you are right. If the task is to destroy the KP or the Air Defense Radar, then it is not a fact that the Tu-22M3 will fly. And new weapons can compensate for the shorter drying range. And you forgot about the refueling in the air and the complexity of the service too. With the help of Su-34-30СМ, we can quickly create a grouping in any direction and from 20 aircraft you will have 18 pieces ready for battle. With Tu, the situation is much more complicated.

              The question is very voluminous and polysyllabic. Very difficult in a nutshell. Air defense radar and Su-34 will not be easy to kill with its EPR. New weapons can also compensate the carcass of his vulnerability, and the length will be even greater than that of drying. Refueling in the air is good, but it’s logistics and more - you’re talking about laboriousness and combat readiness, then plus the Il-34, which also eats fuel, also wants to eat fuel, it needs a crowd of technicians to service it etc.
              The bottom line is that it is not individual types of aircraft that are fighting, armies, systems that are fighting. Tu-22 - an element of this system with its pros and cons. The success of its application is the result of the competent work of the staffs. Do not throw your Tu-22 into air defense, clear the sky, clean the ground, and then you can pour such piles of iron at a time on the enemy’s heads in one flight, so that a regiment of sushks will sweat to do the same job in a week. From each according to his capabilities, to each according to his needs. The fact that the Tu-22 is somewhat inferior to the Su-34 is not a reason to send them for scrap.
        5. yehat
          yehat April 13 2016 09: 39
          +1
          Tu-22M3 at one time was a very dangerous tool against groups of ships in the Atlantic
          and stays. Su-34 does not replace him in this role.
          The Russian Federation does not have any other aircraft for fast and powerful missile attacks from afar on land / water. Tu16, as it were, it makes no sense to consider. too out of date. Su-24, 34 do not reach.
          The dimensions of the Tu-22 allow it to be loaded with full-fledged bomber equipment - powerful electronic warfare equipment, radars, etc.
          The ability of the su-34 to self-defense is, but rather, the nominal. In fact, it is LIMITED able to defend itself only against cheap fighters with melee missiles such as F16 or Chinese J7 or flu. Specialized interceptors such as F15 or j10, j11, even the old phantom will leave him little chance.

          with the decommissioning of the tu-22m3,4,5
          our air forces will no longer be able to launch a rapidly massed missile strike from afar.
          Tu-160- does not count. he has his own tasks.
          Another thing is that the Tu-22 closes the niche of an ordinary bomber, because there is almost nothing more to bomb. There is no specialized bomber with a similar payload.

          As for the modernization of the aircraft, I already mentioned that cruising overhead is not necessary. Enough to increase the efficiency of the engine,
          perhaps raise the bar cruising speed by 100-150 km / h
          I am sure that the engines can be somehow modernized.
          at least, electronic control of the mixture in the engine will already have an effect. This is essentially a refinement of not even the engine, but the software.
          By the way, about bombs: with the advent of vacuum bombs and other special ammunition, the size of the largest pig is again of increased importance, so large bombers are needed.
      5. Drummer
        Drummer 6 July 2016 18: 28
        0
        Now calm why? Dreamers ...
  7. Lopatov
    Lopatov April 12 2016 08: 48
    +12
    Many people should finally understand that universalism is bad. Ask any joiner, and he will cheerfully explain to you with the material with an example of planers. And why is it without a zenzubel, as without hands.

    Universalism is required not by users, but by economists. But at the same time, attempts to introduce one universal tool that can replace a group of specialized ones should always be treated with great caution. Because it is always a conscious decrease in efficiency for the sake of economy.
    Moreover, not general, but only savings in the procurement of the tools themselves. If we start to consider the cost of the entire production cycle using a universal tool, then in most cases momentary savings on tools turn out to be expensive expenses due to an increase in production time and quality deterioration.

    The situation is similar in the military sphere. Financiers demand versatility. Users need a specialized tool.
    In the forefront of this fashion for universalism are the Americans. But do not forget about one tiny feature of their Armed Forces: the least likely theater of operations for their use is the territory of the United States. This means that universalism is demanded not only by financiers, but also by specialists in military transportation. And often he even justifies himself when moving troops to overseas theaters. "Over the sea, the heifer is half, yes the ruble is transported"(c). But it is not particularly clear why the military of other countries should be equal to them. And especially Russia, because our situation is fundamentally different. Fashion is evil.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets April 12 2016 09: 39
      +4
      Quote: Spade
      Universalism is required not by users, but by economists. But at the same time, attempts to introduce one universal tool that can replace a group of specialized ones should always be treated with great caution. Because it is always a conscious decrease in efficiency for the sake of economy.

      I agree with you. Because today we save a penny due to universalism, tomorrow we will lose hundreds of rubles, because universal technologies do not provide mass production tomorrow.
    2. Taoist
      Taoist April 12 2016 10: 09
      +8
      Well, when I served with us there was a saying that "a fighter-bomber is a shitty fighter and the same bomber" - and it's not even about the capabilities of the machine, it's about the specialization and training of crews - you either sharpen yourself to attack ground targets or to conduct air combat. Of course, you can combine it, but most likely it will turn out badly both here and there ...
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 April 12 2016 12: 06
        +9
        Quote: Taoist
        You either sharpen to attack ground targets or to conduct air combat.

        Exactly. I can’t understand this in any way how they prepare pilots there for tactical aviation in the west. Both by air and by land at the same time. It is impossible to be able to do the same with equal quality. Either you are an air ace or a ground attack aircraft. Or if you are a wagon then you are both a fighter and an attack aircraft so-so. Or if you are a station wagon, then anyway you can do something better than anything else. Somewhere here some link is missing, something in the west, our likely friends are not saying. Maybe they have two crews on board - one fighter, the second - shock?
        1. Falcon
          Falcon April 12 2016 12: 16
          +3
          Quote: Alex_59
          Exactly. I can’t understand this in any way how they prepare pilots there for tactical aviation in the west. Both by air and by land at the same time. It is impossible to be able to do the same with equal quality.


          They still have the F-15c and F-22 for airborne purposes. Yes, and in the air there is no one to fight.
          Our T-50 is not positioned as the killer of the F-22, but rather as a multifunctional machine.
        2. Amurets
          Amurets April 12 2016 12: 42
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          Somewhere here some link is missing, something in the west, our likely friends are not saying. Maybe they have two crews on board - one fighter, the second - shock?

          Cool! Two crews on board, Maybe put the other two too. But this stone is not your garden. I don’t understand how? Because even on ground targets they work differently.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 April 12 2016 12: 55
            +2
            Quote: Falcon
            They still have F-15c and F-22 for air targets.

            F-22 seems to have shock capabilities, and even in Iraq, something flies there on this part. The question is who is flying inside the F-22. The same pilot who will fly for an air interception? If the same, then how do they cook it with one booty on two chairs to sit without loss of quality training? Or all the same with a loss of quality?
            Quote: Amurets
            Two crew on board
            I meant two crews on one side, not on board. The fact that two crews is normal practice, on the MiG-31 for one plane in a regiment, ideally, there are two pilots and two navigators. I just assumed that the Americans on one F-16 have one fighter pilot and one bomber pilot. And depending on the specialization, one trains in the air, and a second on the ground.
            1. Falcon
              Falcon April 12 2016 13: 13
              +4
              Quote: Alex_59
              F-22 seems to have shock capabilities, and even in Iraq, something flies there on this part. The question is who is flying inside the F-22. The same pilot who will fly for an air interception? If the same, then how do they cook it with one booty on two chairs to sit without loss of quality training? Or all the same with a loss of quality?


              Not certainly in that way. Impact capabilities have any fighter. At least he can carry the FAB. The same Su-27 that was created as an interceptor in general could carry the FAB.

              The F-22 was originally created to fight Soviet 4th regiment fighters. If you read the history, on the English-language sites, they indicated the principle of creating the F-22 "Not a gram on the ground" (I can greatly misrepresent the translation from memory, but the essence is clear).
              The fact that they worked on the land is rather from nothing to do, his tasks are completely different. We have Su-35s in Syria, too, the FABs dragged.

              To work on the ground, they had to create FB-22 on the base of F-22. With a double cabin, an increased fuel supply and an increased weapons compartment.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 April 12 2016 14: 19
                +5
                Quote: Falcon
                Not certainly in that way. Impact capabilities have any fighter. At least he can carry the FAB. The same Su-27 that was created as an interceptor in general could carry the FAB.

                This is the key question. And how often do Su-27s fly for "use on the ground"? smile They rarely fly, as far as I know. By the residual principle. And there is nothing to say about the MiG-31 - I don’t know what striking capabilities it has in theory, but it does not fly “on the ground” at all. Those. the flight personnel of the Su-27, MiG-29 and MiG-31 are trained exclusively to intercept and throw a couple of bombs once a year just for show. But American F-16s bomb someone regularly and kind of successfully. This means that shock missions are of greater importance in their preparation. But the human brain is not rubber - does it mean to the detriment of training "by air"? And the trend, however, is that the process of universalization of tactical aviation is going on in the world more and more. Something other than the Su-34 is not visible in anyone's projects of a highly specialized front-line bomber. Everyone saves, except us (but we just need the Su-34 to have at least something, not because it is so promising - the plane, frankly speaking, was 20 years late). But how, then, should we prepare universal pilots?
                1. Falcon
                  Falcon April 12 2016 14: 43
                  +4
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  This is the key question. And how often do Su-27s fly for "use on the ground"? They rarely fly, as far as I know. By the residual principle. And there is nothing to say about the MiG-31 - I don’t know what striking capabilities it has in theory, but it does not fly “on the ground” at all. Those. the flight personnel of the Su-27, MiG-29 and MiG-31 are trained exclusively to intercept and throw a couple of bombs once a year just for show.


                  And this also applies to F-22 and F-15C, they also do not work on the ground, but only for show.
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  But American F-16s bomb someone regularly and kind of successfully. This means that shock missions are of great importance in their preparation. But the human brain is not rubber - does it mean to the detriment of training "by air"?


                  For any to the detriment. If there is a serious threat in the air to overtake F-15c or F-22
                  But we also had this Mig-23 Su-17, too, fighter bombers.
                  According to F-16 it’s not at all clear how one pilot deals with modern sighting systems
              2. yehat
                yehat April 13 2016 16: 12
                0
                Quote: Falcon

                To work on the ground, had to create an FB-22

                I remember the project of the FB-22 or A-22 sea attack aircraft was and was closed
                Is it the same car?
                1. Falcon
                  Falcon April 13 2016 18: 36
                  +4
                  Quote: yehat
                  I remember the project of the FB-22 or A-22 sea attack aircraft was and was closed
                  Is it the same car?


                  A-22 I do not know. F-22 was called F / A-22. And there was a carrier-based attack aircraft A-12
            2. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm April 12 2016 14: 30
              0
              Quote: Alex_59
              F-22 seems to have shock capabilities, and even in Iraq, something flies there on this part. The question is who is flying inside the F-22.

              On all F-22 will be installed similar avionics as on the F-35, those that are now in the Middle East have already been modernized.
            3. yehat
              yehat April 13 2016 16: 10
              0
              Quote: Alex_59

              F-22 seems to have shock capabilities

              Not much more than the MiG-3 with a hanging bomb.
              Yes, there are formally opportunities, but for the sake of the expected effect, no one will risk such an expensive aircraft.
        3. Odysseus
          Odysseus April 12 2016 20: 54
          +5
          Quote: Alex_59
          I can’t understand this in any way how they prepare pilots there for tactical aviation in the west. Both by air and by land simultaneously.

          They train them as weapons operators, that is, his task is to be able to pilot and at the same time to understand the chaos of sensors and displays for using the right weapon. All this, of course, is based on the thesis of the use of weapons from a safe distance.
          In short, I got the data about the target, pressed the button, dumped.
          In practice, of course, this happens only in the case of the struggle against opponents, such as Afghanistan. Therefore, they also have a squadron specialization and a modification specialization. Some units and modifications of the F-16 operate on the ground, others through the air, and others to break through the air defense.
        4. yehat
          yehat April 13 2016 16: 08
          0
          Yes, everything is simple. take F15. there is F15E and there is F15C, like one aircraft, but the specialization is literally the opposite - one is a clean interceptor, the other is a light bomber
          and in total F15 fighter - bomber laughing
    3. dyksi
      dyksi April 12 2016 15: 09
      +3
      There is nothing to add to your comment, in the United States the generals are already beginning to understand that they have gone too far with the supercomplexes, only that the financiers are running the show there, like ours (big business). The shtatovskie generals recall the blessed times when F-16, F-15, A-10 frolicked in the sky. The Tu-22M park was of course crumbled in vain, a couple of years ago there was a similar article on our resource, like: - "Why Tu-22M3, Su-34 will be able to perform this task", Dmitry Rogozin, also talked about this (I wonder if they themselves believed in what they said?). As the events in Syria showed, this is far from being the case, and the planes have already been almost all destroyed. All that is left needs to be modernized, it is clear that it is difficult, but what can you do, it was easy to break everything, now you will have to pay for everything.
    4. PHANTOM-AS
      PHANTOM-AS April 12 2016 18: 26
      +2
      Quote: Spade
      Universalism is required not by users, but by economists.

      Well, economists, damn it.
      Quote: Spade
      Users need a specialized tool.

      I think that it’s completely stupid to write about economic feasibility during hostilities, there already the end justifies the means, and in this sense,
      a flying group, even in the sense of designating opportunities, is an awesome argument.
      When you sit down to play with a sharpie, a revolver in your pocket becomes a good enough argument good
  8. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 April 12 2016 09: 06
    +5
    The topic is far-fetched. These aircraft can be upgraded. And they will serve Russia for a long time.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets April 12 2016 10: 40
      +2
      Quote: Pvi1206
      The topic is far-fetched. These aircraft can be upgraded. And they will serve Russia for a long time.

      I agree! The Americans upgraded the B-20 25-52 years ago. To reduce the cost of work, they took navigation equipment from passenger planes and refueling vehicles of the 767 series. Why shouldn’t we take such a path. I mean, take suitable equipment from other cars. by appointment.
  9. Performance
    Performance April 12 2016 09: 13
    +4
    Thanks to the author. Disposal under the knife, which has a resource and, moreover, the potential for modernizing an aircraft, for the reason "because it is outdated" is a hidden sabotage. Arguments that there is no reason to maintain such an aircraft, due to the obsolescence of weapons or avionics - voluntarily or involuntarily - raised dust, which allows "saboteurs" to escape, including from responsibility.

    Arguments that it is not fashionable to "pour cast iron" when "time requires" to hit the window with high precision "is akin to the proposal to train fighters with only one pumped-up finger, professionally blinding the enemy. Only this reasoning is the reverse side of the coin, when the same people, with the same true faith, they convince in one dispute that the army must have modern and high-precision weapons, and then in another they cry that a flock of sheep and a couple of barns were destroyed with a rocket worth an achrenilion.
  10. Taoist
    Taoist April 12 2016 10: 06
    +6
    Well, in the previous discussion, I actually presented similar arguments. And I am absolutely sure that the modernization of the avionics and the "Emok" weapon complex for modern air defense missile systems and UABs is an opportunity to receive "with little blood" a powerful and flexible "euro-strategic" tool ...
  11. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets April 12 2016 10: 39
    +2
    I confess, I’m sinful, for the last article I got banned for a rhyme by the way pension.
  12. Falcon
    Falcon April 12 2016 11: 11
    +2
    Hello, Sergey! I did not expect an article from you on this topic. Silent like a partisan.
    Naturally only a plus! +
    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    I have great respect for Cyril


    Exceptionally mutually! drinks

    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    A very controversial, in my opinion, thought.


    It is rather an observation

    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    It is doubtful that a pair of TGS missiles suspended under a fighter-bomber for self-defense in close combat will be able to change anything. It should be remembered that modern air combat is becoming more and more distant, and the winner is the one who manages to see the enemy earlier and earlier to carry out targeted missile launch. In other words, the advantage is, ceteris paribus, one who has more advanced radar and long-range missiles. These advantages are just possessed by "serious fighters" - fighters of gaining superiority in the air.


    A pair of missiles with TGSN and Su-24 can be hung. Here is more likely the ability to use medium-range missiles. F / A-18SH, F-16, F-35, F-15SE, Su-30cm radars are not inferior to the F-22, Su-27cm, Su-35 radars (roughly summarized). And if necessary, entry into the BVB can be discarded.
    Only we have long-range missiles (although 120D is very close to them), but with them the EPR is decent (in the instant 31, it is decent even without missiles).

    Quote: Sergey Linnik
    before delivering remote strikes with guided high-precision munitions against land and sea targets.


    But the Tu-22m3 just does not yet have high-precision ammunition. He carries only HEPHEST, which of course is no longer bad.
    1. Falcon
      Falcon April 12 2016 11: 12
      +1
      Quote: Sergey Linnik
      In addition, in the ammunition of the controlled feed cannon system UKU-9A-502M with the 23-mm gun GSh-23M


      Well, rather, it is a tribute to tradition. Its effective range is very modest. This is if only the interceptor wants to bring down the carcass to his cannon weapons, and not a missile.
      Although of course you can take off from the bushes at take-off from it, hiding from places of the alleged deployment of the spirit with MANPADS, but this somehow does not fit with the concept of the use of long-range missiles, rather transporters.

      Quote: Sergey Linnik
      By and large, the West, or rather the United States, has never abandoned long-range (strategic) aviation.


      No, I didn’t say this, you do not need to combine these concepts. They abandoned the distant, but not strategic. Just dalniki grew into strategists.

      Quote: Sergey Linnik
      However, the Tu-22М3 flight range turned out to be quite enough to bomb militant positions in Syria, which front-line aircraft could not do, operating from the territory of Russia


      Yes, but there is one point. Tu-22m3 carried on 12 fab-250 each, i.e. they carried only 3 effective combat load in order to ensure range. There are no comments here.
      Maybe I'm wrong, and missed some other information on them during the Syrian sorties.

      Quote: Sergey Linnik
      A few years ago, Chinese representatives sounded the ground for the acquisition of the Tu-22M3


      They need to change the Tu-16, no doubt here. Better to make new Tu-22m3 than new Tu-16. And technology will not interfere with them, in the long run.
      1. Bongo
        April 12 2016 11: 27
        +4
        Hi, Kirill!
        Quote: Falcon
        Well, rather, it is a tribute to tradition. Its effective range is very modest. This is if only the interceptor wants to bring down the carcass to his cannon weapons, and not a missile.

        Cyril, the cannon’s ammunition includes jamming infrared and anti-radar shells, which not only can be shot at aircraft, but also at airborne missiles. To consider this weapon useless, I personally would not dare. With a certain amount of luck, they are able to disrupt the guidance of the SD or cause premature undermining.

        Quote: Falcon
        No, I didn’t say this, you do not need to combine these concepts. They abandoned the distant, but not strategic. Just dalniki grew into strategists.

        Of course I didn’t say that, but in the states there are no analogues of the Tu-22М3 request Why should we refuse it? Any tool should be used correctly.
        Quote: Falcon
        Yes, but there is one point. Tu-22m3 carried on 12 fab-250 each, i.e. they carried only 3 effective combat load in order to ensure range. There are no comments here.
        Maybe I'm wrong, and missed some other information on them during the Syrian sorties.

        You missed what they acted from Russian airfields. What frontline aircraft are not capable of. We simply do not have other aircraft capable of delivering iron at such a radius.
        Quote: Falcon
        They need to change the Tu-16, no doubt here. Better to make new Tu-22m3 than new Tu-16. And technology will not interfere with them, in the long run.

        That is how yes But the Chinese are clearly not stupid? Why do they need an outdated aircraft?
        1. Falcon
          Falcon April 12 2016 11: 50
          +2
          Quote: Bongo
          You missed that they acted from Russian airfields. What frontline aircraft are not capable of. We simply do not have other aircraft capable of delivering iron at such a radius.


          For me, it was more like a show. Burn 50 tons of fuel, for the sake of three tons bn, when Latakia is at hand request

          Quote: Bongo
          That's right. But the Chinese are clearly not stupid? Why do they need an outdated aircraft?


          Well, I’m saying, because they have even more outdated Tu-16 in the park now. Rather, they need Tu-22 technology for their development into a more modern model. By analogy, they also want Su-35s, although they seem to have j-20 and J-31.
          1. Bongo
            April 12 2016 11: 57
            +5
            Quote: Falcon
            For me, it was more like a show. Burn 50 tons of fuel, for the sake of three tons bn, when Latakia is at hand

            You are partly right, but even more ostentatious were the launches of the CD on targets that could easily be hit with cast iron. But on the other hand, we demonstrated our increased abilities to the "partners". This is also important.
            Quote: Falcon
            Well, I’m saying, because they have even more outdated Tu-16 in the park now. Rather, they need Tu-22 technology for their development into a more modern model. By analogy, they also want Su-35s, although they seem to have j-20 and J-31.

            They kind of even asked for a license for Tu-22М3 ...
            1. Falcon
              Falcon April 12 2016 12: 09
              +2
              Quote: Bongo
              They kind of even asked for a license for Tu-22М3 ...


              They try to survive as much as possible from their trusting partner, and from Soviet technology. This scares the most. At such a pace, the moment may come when they will not really need us. And the main enemy for us will move from west to east ... Moreover, it will also be real, and not Kiselevsky.
      2. Amurets
        Amurets April 12 2016 13: 46
        +2
        Quote: Falcon
        Although of course you can take off from the bushes at take-off from it, hiding from places of the alleged deployment of the spirit with MANPADS, but this somehow does not fit with the concept of the use of long-range missiles, rather transporters.

        Kirill! Hi. I didn’t interfere with your discourse so as not to interfere. Well, but on your offer to hit the bushes with a cannon, it seems to me that "Topgan" is more suitable here on the basis of a transporter, there you can put a more powerful cannon.
        1. Falcon
          Falcon April 12 2016 14: 10
          +3
          Quote: Amurets
          Kirill! Hi. I didn’t interfere with your discourse so as not to interfere. Well, but on your offer to hit the bushes with a cannon, it seems to me that "Topgan" is more suitable here on the basis of a transporter, there you can put a more powerful cannon.


          Hello Nikolai! You never get in the way!

          "Topgan" is certainly interesting, but here I meant a slightly different application.
          This so-called version of the Afghan Takeoff was mainly used on the Il-76. Takeoff at an angle of 45 degrees with a sharp climb. Simultaneously shooting heat traps. They could also use stern guns - shooting places on the ground where spirits with MANPADS could sit.
    2. Bongo
      April 12 2016 11: 34
      +4
      Quote: Falcon
      I did not expect an article from you on this topic. Silent like a partisan.

      Hi again! I did not expect request On duty thought visited, well, and wrote in a couple of hours. Do not be offended please ...
      Quote: Falcon
      Exceptionally mutually!

      drinks
      Quote: Falcon
      It is rather an observation

      From your bell tower ... wink
      Quote: Falcon
      A pair of missiles with TGSN and Su-24 can be hung. Here is more likely the ability to use medium-range missiles. F / A-18SH, F-16, F-35, F-15SE, Su-30cm radars are not inferior to the F-22, Su-27cm, Su-35 radars (roughly summarized). And if necessary, entry into the BVB can be discarded.

      I do not think that when performing missile missions at maximum range, long-range missiles are suspended.
      Quote: Falcon
      But the Tu-22m3 just does not yet have high-precision ammunition.

      This is completely solvable if desired.
      Quote: Falcon
      He carries only HEPHEST, which of course is no longer bad.

      Unfortunately, not many cars.
      1. Falcon
        Falcon April 12 2016 12: 01
        +3
        Quote: Bongo
        Do not be offended please ...


        On the contrary, pleasantly surprised good Honestly, I didn’t go to VO for a week, today I also accidentally looked in, I look at a familiar topic, I successfully hit laughing


        Quote: Bongo
        From your bell tower ...


        We are all subjective yes

        Quote: Bongo
        I do not think that when performing missile missions at maximum range, long-range missiles are suspended.


        If necessary, easily, which interferes. F-15s sa on the layout is generally amazing





        I especially like rockets with the PTB!
        1. Bongo
          April 12 2016 12: 10
          +4
          Quote: Falcon
          On the contrary, pleasantly surprised

          Well and good ... After all, besides the discussion with you, I touched on several other interesting points in my opinion. At least we don’t remember about MRA, as if it had never happened before. And the aircraft carriers in their posts are still drowning aircraft carriers with it.
          Quote: Falcon
          We are all subjective

          Certainly yes
          Quote: Falcon
          If necessary, easily, which interferes. F-15s sa on the layout is generally amazing

          I don’t think that this is a real suspension option, we also have a lot of things to see in the photographs, but you understand ...
          1. Falcon
            Falcon April 12 2016 12: 29
            +4
            Quote: Bongo
            Well and good ... After all, besides the discussion with you, I touched on several other interesting points in my opinion. At least we don’t remember about MRA, as if it had never happened before. And the aircraft carriers in their posts are still drowning aircraft carriers with it.


            There is such a thing. Some time ago on VO there was an article where the Tu-160 could carry HUNDREDS of x-55 ANTI-SHIPPING wassat. So, that Tu-22m3 is still flowers.

            Quote: Bongo
            I don’t think that this is a real suspension option, we also have a lot of things to see in the photographs, but you understand ...

            Maybe we won’t find the truth here, but by weight it all goes away. And on the radar too.

      2. FID
        FID April 12 2016 12: 29
        +4
        Quote: Bongo
        Quote: Falcon
        He carries only HEPHEST, which of course is no longer bad.
        Unfortunately, not many cars.

        I can add - only one!
        1. FID
          FID April 12 2016 13: 04
          +5
          Here, I found his photo ... A picture from Diaghilev. This is the only aircraft modified for Hephaestus (SVP-24-22).
          1. Filxnumx
            Filxnumx April 13 2016 19: 35
            +2
            Fortunately, it is not the only one. Yes, while there are less than a dozen of them (I do not want to give the exact number), but there is a state contract for re-equipment according to Hephaestus, I hope Panin and Co. with KAZ and 360 ARZ will successfully complete this task. And the airborne "37" is the FIRST aircraft on which the SVP-24-22 was installed and successfully tested, and the great merit of the Ryazan techies and flyers, my former colleagues, unfortunately, is already great.
  13. Jagermeister
    Jagermeister April 12 2016 11: 52
    -2
    The plane is of course already old.
    The fact that the Chinese expressed a desire to acquire technical documentation and production rights so they simply have nowhere to put money. Now progress is taking leaps and bounds and using ancient technology means exposing the lives of pilots to unjustified risk. Unless you use the plane as a mobile barrage platform for launching missiles.
    1. FID
      FID April 12 2016 12: 09
      +6
      Quote: Jägermeister
      Unless you use the plane as a mobile rocket launching platform

      I like your thought about the barrage and the platform ... The supersonic barrage platform ... Very fresh, very!
      1. Amurets
        Amurets April 12 2016 12: 53
        +3
        Quote: SSI

        I like your thought about the barrage and the platform ... The supersonic barrage platform ... Very fresh, very!

        And tie this platform to a super tanker with kerosene
    2. venik
      venik April 12 2016 16: 21
      +2
      Quote: Jägermeister

      The fact that the Chinese expressed a desire to acquire technical documentation and production rights so they simply have nowhere to put money. .


      Very superficial point of view !! Incidentally, the article clearly states that it is difficult to suspect the Chinese squandering (which simply cannot be disagreed). They will always find where to put money !!

      Quote: Jägermeister
      Unless you use the plane as a mobile barrage platform for launching missiles.


      My friend, that's how they are used !!! At least in peacetime, during periods of aggravation of relations. What do you think Tu-95 and B-52 are? Exactly! Precisely "loitering mobile platforms"!

      What are "carcasses" doing in the North Atlantic? They are precisely loitering! And whether they have a nuclear-powered missile on board or not, until you fly up with a radiometer, you won't know!
    3. yehat
      yehat April 12 2016 17: 16
      -2
      You don’t understand what you’re talking about!
      The Chinese are certainly well done, but in aviation they are still lagging behind and are buying even outdated technologies, because they don’t have that either.
      Our country has experience in creating aircraft for more than a century, the Chinese have had the strength of 20 years, and even that is mainly the refinement and modification of foreign samples according to foreign documentation.
      take new planes - it's all plagiarism.
  14. Tektor
    Tektor April 12 2016 13: 25
    +3
    The opinion of the author of the article willingly share. You need to upgrade the M4 or M5 under the widest range of TSA, but not forgetting the X-22 / 32.
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga April 13 2016 03: 29
      +4
      Quote: Tektor
      The opinion of the author of the article willingly share. You need to upgrade the M4 or M5 under the widest range of TSA, but not forgetting the X-22 / 32.

      As previously mentioned, X-22 / 32 has become obsolete. In addition to extremely low noise immunity, X-22 requires refueling with liquid fuel and oxidizer. The same feature inherited X-32 - by today's standards - this is the stone age. Sure, our designers are quite capable of creating effective missiles with other types of engines.
  15. demiurg
    demiurg April 12 2016 13: 45
    +4
    The military always needs a long arm. It’s very nice to bomb it in 2-3 thousand km. And you can run away at 2 speeds of sound. Modernization of avionics is needed, but it is a matter of money and time. If you throw out analog computers, not only will the place appear, so there will also increase the bomb load.
    F-15 is beautiful with suspensions, straight really beautiful. Just this speed do not say offhand maximum with all this beauty 1.2-1.3 sound? And the range of 200-300km? And the overload limit is up to 2-3 g. What the not-so-honest data says in the catalogs: Maximum speed, reloading and ferry range for empty planes, range with 1-1.5 tons and hanging tanks, range with maximum and even multi-load will not write, so as not to disgrace.
    See the real combat sorties of the American coalition or ours with Khmeinima. Two or four bombs, sometimes fuel tanks and all. And all the numerous beauty hanging on the pylons is masturbation for exhibitions and beautiful photos.
    1. yehat
      yehat April 12 2016 17: 10
      0
      Quote: demiurg
      The military always needs a long arm. It’s very nice to bomb it in 2-3 thousand km. And you can run away at 2 speeds of sound.

      Do not run far - fuel is consumed very much, and cruising speed is much less.
      if the flight is more or less distant, this mode (afterburner) can be used from the force of 15-20 minutes. It used to be enough to break away from many, but now ... when planes appear at a cruising speed above Mach,
      getting away is harder.
  16. Filxnumx
    Filxnumx April 12 2016 13: 50
    +1
    new versions of the Tu-22M4 and M5 did not take place
    Perhaps the M4 did not make it to the main series, but a certain number of "fours" were built anyway and passed, if not operated by the troops, then tests for sure. In the early 2000s, Tu-22M4 was handed over to our Long-Range Aviation Museum in Dyagilevo for display. And at one time I personally climbed almost all of it (where the hatches could be opened), since the museum exposition is just opposite our TEC. I confess, I climbed not just for the sake of curiosity, but for the sake of self-interest - to plunder for various small things of fasteners, because clamps and other special fasteners in those years were already a headache for all heads of groups of regulations, at least in our Ryazan Center. Outwardly, the same "troika", but instead of the APU TA-6A already installed TA-12. As for the AO-shnom and radio equipment, I will not say, because almost everything valuable had already been removed by that time.
    Many thanks to the author for a comprehensive article, reminded me of my army years.
  17. venik
    venik April 12 2016 17: 04
    +4
    The article, in my opinion, is, on the whole, correct! For which the author has "respect" (+).
    We should not forget that under START - the USSR (and now the Russian Federation) do not have the right to develop, produce and deploy strategic ground-based strategic missiles - only sea and air! As for the aviation KR, their carriers can only be Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22M! The latter, by the way, in the composition of the videoconferencing system are more than all the others combined (well, or about the same amount).
    And how did the NATO people get pissed off when the press went "leaking" about the plans to deploy 1 or 2 squadrons of 22 in the Crimea? It is understandable - within a radius of 3 thousand km from Belbek, what can we get? You don't even need to fly anywhere - "took off, fired and forgot .." And then, "fuck it, with this Holland - we'll figure it out tomorrow!"

    Ultimately, for some reason, the "staffers" extended the service life of their B-1 and B-52 (the latter, and in general is already a long-liver - maybe fifty rubles!)?

    The decision to "cut" the Tu-22 requiring repair is considered insanity! Although I am not "in the subject" and I do not know what it is: a catastrophic shortage of spare parts or just Serdyukov's stupidity? Rather, of course the latter !!! "Furniture maker" he is a "furniture maker"!
  18. Odysseus
    Odysseus April 12 2016 17: 22
    +6
    In general, the discussion is rather scholastic. It would make sense if we lived in the USSR and we would have giant air forces with many types of attack aircraft. Then we could slowly discuss a cup of tea (or something stronger) if we needed Tu -22?
    In our case, I wouldn’t live for fat. Our Air Force is quantitatively several times inferior to the Air Force of the PRC, not to mention the Air Force of NATO countries. With strike aircraft, in general, it’s a matter of seams. Formally, we have a lot of "multipurpose" fighters, But in fact, even from a Su-30SM without a suspended container, the striker is very dubious. So there are Su-24, Su-25 and Su-34 (not counting the strategists).
    Tu-22M3- obsolete? Undoubtedly, who is not outdated in our country? Su-25 is that the latest masterpiece of technology? And the Tu-95? Even the Su-34, in the form in which it is now, cannot boast of a special "advanced" side.
    The goals and objectives of many-airplanes and pilots are few, now the main problem. In such conditions, everything that can fly and have a resource left must be pulled to the last opportunity. Moreover, Tu-22M3, where many aircraft have left a reserve which, in the case of modernization, can be used for a variety of purposes.
  19. Fast_mutant
    Fast_mutant April 12 2016 17: 53
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    Of course you can combine it, but most likely it will turn out shitty both here and there ...


    I always teach this sons ... On the example of all-weather tires! Shitty in the winter, shitty in the summer! )))
  20. Ros 56
    Ros 56 April 12 2016 18: 07
    +1
    There would be a desire, but you can solve any problem, both with a feeder, and with electronics, and with equipment, and God knows what, the main thing is to shove less in your pockets and SMERSH, forgive "Rosgvardia" periodically to be sent for checks. Our carcasses will drive more than one hundred adversaries into the ground.
  21. demiurg
    demiurg April 12 2016 18: 26
    +1
    Quote: yehat
    Quote: demiurg
    The military always needs a long arm. It’s very nice to bomb it in 2-3 thousand km. And you can run away at 2 speeds of sound.

    Do not run far - fuel is consumed very much, and cruising speed is much less.
    if the flight is more or less distant, this mode (afterburner) can be used from the force of 15-20 minutes. It used to be enough to break away from many, but now ... when planes appear at a cruising speed above Mach,
    getting away is harder.


    I do not argue. But even in 15-20 minutes you can run away. If you manage to gain a distance of 70-80 kilometers with catching-up fighters, you can’t be afraid of rockets. But it’s not necessary :)) And there’s a car seat on the plane, you can push such an electronic warfare station that will not fit into any growler.
    By the way, in spite of cruising supersonic sound, the flight range of even modern fighters is even less in afterburner.
    1. yehat
      yehat April 12 2016 19: 27
      0
      fighters do not race, but advance to the oncoming square with an interception course
      distillations begin after direct contact (now this is for a NORMAL fighter 60-80 km)
      do not forget about guidance from the side.
      but the car’s radar doesn’t see well and the fighter is smaller, so the carcass can react
      at a distance of probably 60 kilometers, no more. The rocket is even closer, 40 kilometers.
      when they launch a missile on it and it is forced to go afterburner, the plane breaks off by 40-50 kilometers,
      no more and can no longer turn on the afterburner again, and the fighter just lets the second one go.

      If before the afterburner was enough to break away from one group of fighters,
      now the radius of AA missiles, the radius of radars allows the carcass to attack twice with the same group of fighters with a small radius of action. And this is a completely different scenario.
      Therefore, the efficiency of engines is now becoming an important factor for improving not only performance characteristics, but also survival against air defense. In general, the potential is at the limit and something needs to be done. There are several obvious ways: to install new electronic warfare and radar, passive sensors, improve engines, put a refueling system and hang up suspension tanks, improve weapons, its suspension and aerodynamics of the aircraft. But there are few real ways in which to go. Now nothing is better than updating electronic warfare and sensors; it’s impossible to offer new weapons. You can cheat with tactical tricks, but these are one-time solutions.
      Another way is to adapt the car to a breakthrough at a low altitude. I don’t know how good it is. NATO, in theory, has a lot of sad things in this area and you can try.
      However, all these solutions can extend the relevance of the machine for a maximum of 10-15 years.
      It’s time to prepare a replacement, right now it’s time to completely. Perhaps the solution would be the outcome of the PAK YES program.
  22. marder4
    marder4 April 12 2016 18: 49
    0
    apparently it's too early - even in Syria he managed to fight
  23. CRASH
    CRASH April 12 2016 18: 54
    +4
    Tu-22М3 - it's too early to retire

    It's too early, because PAKFA50 is being built with money from India, and they have not ordered a strategist yet, and we will not pull, with this hole, which some call the "Russian economy"
  24. demiurg
    demiurg April 12 2016 19: 16
    0
    Quote: CRASH.
    Tu-22М3 - it's too early to retire

    It's too early, because PAKFA50 is being built with money from India, and they have not ordered a strategist yet, and we will not pull, with this hole, which some call the "Russian economy"

    Why is it in Indian? There, their money is about 20 percent.
    And we don’t need a new strategist right now. Cruise missiles above the pole and the bears will release. But front-line aviation needs to be replenished and modernized urgently.
  25. Garris199
    Garris199 April 12 2016 19: 50
    +3
    In all the videos of their work in Syria, they dragged 12 FAB-250 (or five hundred?) Each from Mozdok. Such a fool is "lucky" through two countries for 12 FAB. Somehow not impressive.
  26. arslan23
    arslan23 April 12 2016 19: 50
    0
    If you change all the insides of the aircraft, then it will cost as much as a new one. Glider is not the most expensive part of the plane. Isn’t it easier then to rivet new bombers taking into account experience and new tasks
    1. alexmach
      alexmach April 14 2016 22: 34
      +1
      So there are no new ones. There is only the Tu-160 and then their production is just being reanimated ... but rather re-mastered ...
  27. iouris
    iouris April 12 2016 20: 32
    +2
    The results of the strike on the airfield indicate that some of the bombs hit the airfield. Aircraft parking is not affected, the runway is practically not affected. The best results could be obtained using a pair of Su-25 or Su-24.
    If the direction of approach were to change, the line of gaps could go along the GDP, but not necessarily along the runway.
    The conclusion, it seems, should be this: in 2008, the command had no idea how to use the Tu-22M3 in the war with Georgia.
    1. skeptic
      skeptic April 12 2016 21: 38
      0
      War 888 - Mini "Winter War" with Finland.
      Mediocre, very bitter losses.
      Confusion.
      Communication failure.
      Bad Command.
      I'd like to believe that
      recent events in Syria really show
      significant changes in the Army and Air Force.
  28. ibirus
    ibirus April 12 2016 21: 04
    +3
    I agree with the author. Before you disarm the aircraft, you need to create a replacement for it, and not look back to the West. What they have there is their business.
  29. skeptic
    skeptic April 12 2016 21: 25
    +4
    We are not relatives of the damned corncob.
    You can cut anything after you have done something to replace it.
    Is there a replacement for the Tu-22 M3?
    No.
    So you need to remotorize the aircraft on PD-14 gas generators (only
    do not whine, work)
    Replace all electronics.
    Thoroughly work out your weapons,
    who need a complete replacement.
    And the iron of the fuselages will still serve.
    Tu -95 and IV-52 fly perfectly with a modified filling,
    What can prevent you from going this way, except for confusion in the brain?
    Oh, because we have all this manager ...
    Ruin ....
  30. bars1
    bars1 April 12 2016 21: 57
    0
    CRASH., With Indian money being developed by the FGFA and even partially, the T-50 is developed exclusively at the expense of the Russian Federation.

    As for the Tu-22M3, at the moment, 4 aircraft are being repaired and modernized into the Tu-22M3M variant. In particular, it is planned to replace the PNA-D radar with the NV-45 radar, which is a modification of the radar included in the Novella-P38 search and sighting system of the Il-38N aircraft. The commissioning of the bombers is planned in 2017. And for good, it would be necessary to replace the OPB-15T sight with the T220 / E or 101 KS-N sighting and navigation container
  31. sivuch
    sivuch April 12 2016 23: 52
    +2
    Sergey, at the expense of X-32, it seems to me that you are wrong.
    And, if we look back at American strategists. They were used in all recent local conflicts, including Libya and Afghanistan. Sometimes it caused jokes about the strategic bombings of donkeys. But, nevertheless, when it took a very long time to patrol or unload a lot of WTOs or hit a very secure target - it was the strategists who used it
    PS
    Actually, I live in Israel
    some crap with flags
    1. Bongo
      April 13 2016 08: 05
      +3
      Quote: sivuch
      Sergey, at the expense of X-32, it seems to me that you are wrong.

      Igor, the creation and operation of rockets with LRE was justified in the 50-70 years. The LRE has certainly undeniable advantages such as low cost, relative simplicity of design and the ability to adjust traction. But all these advantages are depreciated by the need to refuel with toxic fuel and an extremely dangerous oxidizing agent. I have not dealt with aircraft missiles, but I can well imagine the procedure for refueling missiles with the same components. wassat Even though the X-22 of the latest versions were amputated, but having such happiness on board ... X-22 never enjoyed popularity among the flight, and especially among the technical staff and completely agree with Olga:
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      As previously mentioned, X-22 / 32 has become obsolete. In addition to extremely low noise immunity, X-22 requires refueling with liquid fuel and oxidizer. The same feature inherited X-32 - by today's standards - this is the stone age. Sure, our designers are quite capable of creating effective missiles with other types of engines.
      There is nothing to add here. request
      Quote: sivuch
      Actually, I live in Israel
      some crap with flags

      By and large, it absolutely doesn’t matter to me whether a person lives in the states or in Israel. It is much more important what thoughts he sets out ...
      1. sivuch
        sivuch April 13 2016 22: 12
        0
        Sergei
        the conversation wasn’t for X-22. Yes, and then, I don’t know, maybe it can be upgraded. Well, if the ancient S-125s and S-75s finish, including rockets themselves. In any case, who knows, they will not report on the forum.
        It was about X-32. Firstly, we don’t know how toxic components are used there. Maybe they aren’t so disgusting. Secondly, for strategic missile defense and anti-ship missile defense this does not seem so critical to me. You wrote yourself, that now the Tu-22M are based entirely on 2 a / e, i.e., conditions can be created if desired.
        In general, to consider that a rocket engine is a stone age only because it is a rocket engine - in my opinion it is some kind of fetishism. Something like Orwellian 2 legs is bad, 4 legs is good.
        By the way, the Circle known to you is also liquid-fuel (although not nasty), there were no complaints. Yes, and sorry for the indiscreet question. Have you read my monograph on the Circle? Maybe there will be amendments. Supplements?
        1. Bongo
          April 14 2016 00: 49
          +2
          Quote: sivuch
          Sergei
          the conversation wasn’t for X-22. Yes, and then, I don’t know, maybe it can be upgraded. Well, if the ancient C-125 and C-75 were finished, including rockets themselves.

          Igor, no one is upgrading C-75 missiles, at least in Russia. SAM for C-125 - solid fuel and you can not know about it (come on you already).
          Quote: sivuch
          It was about X-32. Firstly, we don’t know how toxic components are used there. Maybe they aren’t so disgusting. Secondly, for strategic missile defense and anti-ship missile defense this does not seem so critical to me. You wrote yourself, that now the Tu-22M are based entirely on 2 a / e, i.e., conditions can be created if desired.

          The optimal version of the components for the liquid propellant rocket engine was found in 50. In addition to melange, you can also use liquid oxygen, and instead of fuel TM-185 - heptyl or liquid hydrogen - but I think you understandwassat
          Quote: sivuch
          In general, consider that a rocket engine is a stone age only because it is a rocket engine - in my opinion this is some kind of fetishism

          The use of rocket engines is justified in space vehicles or ICBMs, in other areas there is a more effective replacement.
          Quote: sivuch
          By the way, the Circle known to you is also liquid fuel (although not nasty), there were no complaints.

          It is not entirely correct to call the Circle liquid. As you know, there is not a liquid propellant rocket engine, but a ramjet engine operating not with kerosene.
          Quote: sivuch
          Yes, and I'm sorry for the indiscreet question. Have you read my monograph on the Circle? Maybe there will be amendments. Supplements?

          Unfortunately, I have not read it. Please drop the link. I’ll look, but honestly, I’m not strong in military complexes. request
          1. sivuch
            sivuch April 14 2016 01: 05
            +2
            As far as I remember, one of the options for the modernization of the C-125 provides for the modernization of the SAM itself.
            And the article is here at the end.
            http://forums.airbase.ru/2015/06/t32120,14--pochemu-zrk-krug-ne-postavlyalsya-na
            -eksport.html
            1. Bongo
              April 14 2016 01: 09
              +1
              Quote: sivuch
              As far as I remember, one of the options for the modernization of the C-125 provides for the modernization of the SAM itself.
              And the article is here at the end.

              Thanks, only the link for some reason does not work. request Igor, if you want, you can go to my profile. A couple of months ago I had a cycle on the current state of C-75 / 125 / 200 / 300П.
            2. Bongo
              April 14 2016 01: 19
              +1
              Quote: sivuch
              And the article is here at the end.
              http://forums.airbase.ru/2015/06/t32120,14--pochemu-zrk-krug-ne-postavlyalsya-na


              -eksport.html

              Opened "Why was the Krug SAM system not exported?" Apparently there was some glitch what As far as I know, the Krug air defense system was supplied to the countries of the Warsaw Pact.
              1. Bongo
                April 14 2016 01: 37
                +1
                Quote: sivuch
                And the article is here at the end.

                I downloaded and started reading. The volume inspires respect and is presented very not bad. good I’ll probably throw it on my tablet and read it at work.
  32. lexx2038
    lexx2038 April 12 2016 23: 52
    +2
    In my amateurish opinion, the plane needs to be modernized, moreover, it is even possible to build something similar. Its "barrel" is huge, and it is possible to stuff modern equipment into it at the highest level and even in excess, even with some damage to the payload. This plane was created for a big war, and not to wet a mujahid in a yurt. If we are going to fight for our land when, it is natural against practically the entire "civilized" world - the bearer of democracy and other sadomasochistic, alone no one will dare. We have already gone through this more than once. Why should he break through the enemy defenses alone? To develop ammunition for him for various purposes, to stuff a huge ship with equipment, if it is impossible to make it invisible, then you need to make it so that everyone else would hide from it. P! Ndosy out there are still afraid of him, in the old guise, and they whisper to anyone - they say a bad plane, an old one, for metal it ...
    In a local war, it may not be necessary, but in a big war, and if there are many more, they are able to create hell for any aggressor, anywhere. The same applies to the TU-160.
    This is a storehouse of technology, and if we break, we will lose not only airplanes, we will lose a lot, maybe even irrevocably.
  33. glasha3032
    glasha3032 April 13 2016 02: 01
    0
    The nomenclature of the Tu22m3 armament included the same Kh-15. Aeroballistic missiles, for delivering strikes on areas (cities. Objects) in Europe, and even with nuclear warheads. And why does he need modernization of avionics - flies so far without complaints, it is unlikely to enter the air defense zone, if the task of breaking through the enemy’s air defense is set, you can reintroduce the low-altitude flight control system, because it already seemed to be originally on airplanes. And to restore 40 cars is a gain, spare parts are most likely still being produced (after all, the manufacturers carry out the overhaul of the equipment on airplanes standing in Kazan for overhaul.
  34. rubin6286
    rubin6286 April 14 2016 00: 29
    -2
    The article is uninteresting and is written to once again create a polemic regarding the modernization of the Tu-22M3. On the VO website in the aviation section, it is a kind of “red rag for the bull”, similar to the arguments about the need to build Russian aircraft carriers that appear periodically in the fleet section.

    In my opinion, an airplane “lives” when it is fit for its intended purpose. Conceived initially as a missile carrier, the Tu-22M3, although it had a bomb bay, was intended to destroy missiles of the corresponding class of sea and ground targets from medium and high altitudes. The rapid development of air defense systems made it impossible to solve this problem in a modern war and became one of the reasons for the temporary abandonment of naval missile-carrying aircraft. It is a pity, but today, in general, a good machine "deserves" exclusively in the narrowly defined quality of a long-range bomber.

    Deep modernization of the machine is possible provided that the machine and its components are in production. It can be comprehensive in nature and affect all structural elements - a glider, engines, an on-board cable network, a control system, an aiming and navigation complex, an on-board weapon system, a fuel supply system, landing gear exhaust and cleaning, radio and electrical equipment, etc. etc., which need to be designed, tested and manufactured in the required quantity at free capacities, having for this scientific, design, engineering and technical personnel, highly qualified workers and employees. From an economic point of view, deep modernization should be much cheaper than manufacturing a new and more promising machine of a similar class. Tu-22M3 is not suitable for deep modernization. A similar situation is with the Tu-95, whose fleet is rapidly aging. In order not to completely lose strategic aviation, a decision was made to resume the production of Tu-160 in Kazan, of which only 10-12 aircraft remained in flight condition. In today's conditions, this is the most “vital” project and more needs to be written about its implementation.
    1. exo
      exo April 14 2016 17: 28
      +2
      Any article that causes controversy is rather a plus. Sometimes, comments are much more interesting than the article.
      But in essence, do not forget about one of the main areas of application of the Tu-22M: its work on large surface targets. To this day, it can work out quite well for them. It is interesting how long it takes for the air system to refuel in the air ?
      1. Bongo
        April 15 2016 05: 34
        +3
        Quote: exo
        But in essence, do not forget about one of the main areas of application of the Tu-22M: its work on large surface targets.

        This is in the past, today when the MPA has been eliminated, this is not included in the priority tasks of the existing Tu-22M3. Airplanes are located at airfields in the European part of the country, in addition, the X-22 anti-ship missiles are now hopelessly outdated. All reconnaissance aircraft that were engaged in the issuance of target designation by AUG have long been decommissioned.
        Quote: exo
        .It is interesting how long, in time, takes the return of the refueling system in the air?

        On existing machines in the system this is no longer possible. After all, the matter was not limited only to the dismantling of refueling rods.
  35. iouris
    iouris April 17 2016 02: 20
    +1
    I think that the Tu-22M3 is not used for its intended purpose. To bomb with non-nuclear bombs is not his. His main goal was - aircraft carriers, and from the calculation: an aviation regiment (or maybe not one) for one aircraft carrier.
  36. mik6403
    mik6403 4 July 2016 08: 10
    +1
    Tu-22M3 still have to serve their own ... at least until the moment they build a replacement. But you just need to probably determine where and why they are needed. I do not consider myself a strategist, nevertheless I would deploy these planes to contain China. And of course, modernization of the aircraft is necessary (AO, REO - Stone Age).