Tupolev Tu-22M Backfire

PG_69

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
12 January 2007
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
The Tu-22M2 were originally fitted with a refueling probe. It was later removed to comply with arms controls treaties.

The Tu-22M3 prototype had a refueling probe, but the production run deleted these.

Some rumours mention a black program to re-equip the Backfire with refuelling probe in the advent of war.

Can anyone confirm these rumours?

Anyone have photos of Backfires being refueled?
 
PG_69 said:
Some rumours mention a black program to re-equip the Backfire with refuelling probe in the advent of war.

PG_69 said:
Can anyone confirm these rumours?

I hate to be glib, but if anyone were able to confirm the rumors, chances are it wouldn't be a black program, and vice versa.
 
Fair enough. Poor wording on my part.

This is the reference I'm talking about:
"According to press reports in the late 1980s, a defector stated that the Backfire regularly conducted exercises at intercontinental range, that this intercontinental range was greater than the Bison's, that the Backfire had a screw-in type refueling probe, that this screw-in refueling probe was stockpiled for every Backfire at all bomber bases, and that the Soviets had an active program of camouflage, concealment, and deception to mislead the West about the intercontinental range capability of the Backfire."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/tu-22m-start.htm

Tu-22M3 prototype fitted with: http://www1.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Tupolev-Tu-22M-3/1328470&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=13&prev_id=1330600&next_id=1322233
http://www1.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Tupolev-Tu-22M-3/1070475&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=55&prev_id=1082836&next_id=1069705

The Tu-22M3 retains the refueling lights and they seem to have a patch were the probe was/can be fitted:
http://www1.airliners.net/photo/Ukraine---Air/Tupolev-Tu-22M-3/1149750&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=42&prev_id=1162541&next_id=1145159
 
take a look at these pics from wikipedia.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tupolev_Tu-22M1_refuelling_probe.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tu-22Mprobe.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tu-22M3_Monino.jpg
 
overscan said:
The probe could perhaps be refitted. Tu-22M was never a strategic bomber though.

The "strategic role" concept has changed if not outright obsolete though, considering how tactical aircraft can destroy strategic targets with precision weapons (something proved with great effect during Desert Storm) and can even wipe out entire cities with tac nukes. If anything, the only truly relevant defining characteristic of a "strategic" bomber is its range and bomb load (which would more accurately be termed a "heavy bomber" anyway) and the Tu-22M3 certainly meets these benchmarks.
 
Everything Old is New Again* (Steeljaw Scribe)

There was a point, a decade or so ago (OK, maybe two decades back), when I thought some of my bete noirs, like medium- and intermediate range ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missile-armed supersonic bombers were going to go skulking off into that not-so-gentle night. Alas, it appears not so:

A move by Russia to sell its production line of Tu-22M3 long-range bombers to China for US$1.5 billion to China was confirmed by the US-based US-China Economic and Security Review Commission two years ago and the bomber’s name will be changed to the Hong-10, reports the state-run China News Service … The Hong-10, whose components will all be produced in China with the exception of the engine, is expected to fly in the second half of next year, and the country will produce 36 aircraft in the first batch to be delivered to the air force. One of world’s fastest long-range bombers which can also carry atomic weapons, the plane can cover the South China Sea, East China Sea and even the western Pacific. Sources here and here.


So now, along with pondering MRBMs that may be the Pershing II re-incarnated, alongside bulked up Badgers, we have the prospect of the Backfire being introduced into the increasingly volatile mix that constitutes the Far East Theater. Mah-velous. Previously rebuffed in the late 80′s/early 90′s by the Russians who didn’t want to upset the balance of forces in theater, the Chinese evidently closed the deal in 2010 to domestically produce up to 36 Tu-22M3 Backfires (Domestic designation: H-10) with the engines to be supplied by Russia – an agreement all the more curious because of the very real anger the Russians have (had?) over the Chinese knock-off production of the Su-27SK that formed the basis of the J-11 family and the navalized J-15 without paying the attending license-fees.
 
I'll believe it when I see the photos! If true, I take my hat off to whoever brokered the sale - selling a 30+yr old design is quite an accomplishment, especially to China which doesn't exactly appear devoid of its own capabilities to develop new aircraft these days.
 
A fighter is one thing, a Tu-22 class supersonic bomber is quite another level IMO. Compare with UK and Britain: both had supersonic fighters in service, but the road to Concorde was no picnic.
 
Do you want to do a new development for a small number of aircraft?

The sources seem iffy, and exactly how you sell a long-closed production line, I don't know. But if my adversary's current and planned naval fighters were all puffing and grunting to get to M=1.6, it would sure be fun to have a bomber doing 1.88.
 
J-20s kill Hawkeyes while zooming past Hornets, BACKFIREs kill AEGIS, AShBM kills CVN.
 
LowObservable said:
Do you want to do a new development for a small number of aircraft?

The sources seem iffy, and exactly how you sell a long-closed production line, I don't know. But if my adversary's current and planned naval fighters were all puffing and grunting to get to M=1.6, it would sure be fun to have a bomber doing 1.88.

Missiles have no problem going faster than Mach 1.88. (See SM-6 with CEC cued by E-2Ds)
 
sferrin said:
LowObservable said:
Do you want to do a new development for a small number of aircraft?

The sources seem iffy, and exactly how you sell a long-closed production line, I don't know. But if my adversary's current and planned naval fighters were all puffing and grunting to get to M=1.6, it would sure be fun to have a bomber doing 1.88.

Missiles have no problem going faster than Mach 1.88. (See SM-6 with CEC cued by E-2Ds)

However, a target capable of maneuver that can sustain M1.5 + for a significant amount of time is a very difficult target to intercept, even if we could keep E-2Ds up 24x7. The time and space for the engagement window isn't that large and we aren't going to have that many ships.

Not impossible by any means, just quite difficult.
 
F-14D said:
sferrin said:
LowObservable said:
Do you want to do a new development for a small number of aircraft?

The sources seem iffy, and exactly how you sell a long-closed production line, I don't know. But if my adversary's current and planned naval fighters were all puffing and grunting to get to M=1.6, it would sure be fun to have a bomber doing 1.88.

Missiles have no problem going faster than Mach 1.88. (See SM-6 with CEC cued by E-2Ds)

However, a target capable of maneuver that can sustain M1.5 + for a significant amount of time is a very difficult target to intercept, even if we could keep E-2Ds up 24x7. The time and space for the engagement window isn't that large and we aren't going to have that many ships.

Not impossible by any means, just quite difficult.

We have a whole lot more Aegis ships now than during the Cold War. (Granted, we'd definitely miss the Tomcats.)
 
I'm curious what changes from the Kh-22 to Kh-32's.

It can however use for much better seeker and modern bandpass Radome to reduce RCS.
 
Do you want to do a new development for a small number of aircraft?

The sources seem iffy, and exactly how you sell a long-closed production line, I don't know. But if my adversary's current and planned naval fighters were all puffing and grunting to get to M=1.6, it would sure be fun to have a bomber doing 1.88.
An FB-23 could probably easily do 1.8 in supercruise if not better, max speed would probably be pretty high (m2.0 to 2.5?). Of course, would probably require the new adaptive engine technology?
 
Do you want to do a new development for a small number of aircraft?

The sources seem iffy, and exactly how you sell a long-closed production line, I don't know. But if my adversary's current and planned naval fighters were all puffing and grunting to get to M=1.6, it would sure be fun to have a bomber doing 1.88.
An FB-23 could probably easily do 1.8 in supercruise if not better, max speed would probably be pretty high (m2.0 to 2.5?). Of course, would probably require the new adaptive engine technology?
B-58C was supposed to supercruise at Mach 2.4 (Of course it would have had four non-afterburning J58s so there's that.)
 
B-58C was supposed to supercruise at Mach 2.4 (Of course it would have had four non-afterburning J58s so there's that.)
It was heat limited to 2.4. Increase the temperature tolerance and I suspect 2.8 would have been on the table. Where the supercruise limit would have been I don't know.
 
Please pardon a VERY old reply.

Do you want to do a new development for a small number of aircraft?

The sources seem iffy, and exactly how you sell a long-closed production line, I don't know. But if my adversary's current and planned naval fighters were all puffing and grunting to get to M=1.6, it would sure be fun to have a bomber doing 1.88.
If all the tooling is still there, you just need to get people up to speed on making them. And China has plenty of people to throw at a problem.

Plus it would help China with designing big supersonic aircraft. The ideal road to designing your own is "licensed production, modifications to the licensed design, new design" after all.
 
Please pardon a VERY old reply.


If all the tooling is still there, you just need to get people up to speed on making them. And China has plenty of people to throw at a problem.

Plus it would help China with designing big supersonic aircraft. The ideal road to designing your own is "licensed production, modifications to the licensed design, new design" after all.

Even the Russians are not producing new Tu-22Ms (though I believe there is an update program to a Tu-22M3M standard).

But since that post was made a decade ago, the PRC has moved on to very a very different set of long ranged weapons less reliant on the host platform's top speed (or simply being ballistically launched and not requiring a host platform).

The problem for the PLA-AF's future bombers will likely be designing and producing an engine in the desired performance range of a brand new aircraft. AFAIK even the H-6K/J/N still all use Russian engines. They also have never built a bomber from scratch; indeed the only multiengine aircraft without a Soviet lineage I can think of is Y-20 (though one wonders if the Il-76 purchases didn't play a significant role). The DoD released a report that indicated some work was being done on a supersonic regional bomber, but it seems more likely that H-20 is the main effort.
 
is it due to an unsuccessful missile ejection, or something? The bombers usually stay away from Ukranian AD's reach and launch salvos of CMs, and i can't image their fighters going on a suicide mission inside Russia and not get intercepted instantly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
is it due to an unsuccessful missile ejection, or something? The bombers usually stay away from Ukranian AD's reach and launch salvos of CMs, and i can't image their fighters going on a suicide mission inside Russia and not get intercepted instantly.
According to liveuamap, it was ~400km from the frontline. So it's more likely a crash, unless a drone hit it, or it was friendly fire... again.

1713521975361.png


The Russian Defense Ministry said a “technical malfunction” caused the crash.

Russian officials said the plane had crashed over the southern Stavropol region when it was flying back to base and at least one member of the crew had died.

Two other pilots were taken to the hospital and searches are underway for the fourth pilot, the state-run RIA Novosti news agency reported, citing the Defense Ministry.
 
Last edited:
Seems to be a S-200, that is a SA-5 GAMMON: somewhat like the second A-50 shot down late February.


yeah and Ukrainians wants people to imagine how it can provide constant CW Illumination to the bomber without actually alerting it. One should remember that it's SARH. Even somehow Ukraine can put active radar seeker in it, shooting at such distance, who can provide the mid course as active seeker is not going to be active all the way.
 
400 km is too much even for S200. Which has its own issues, mobility wise. it couldn't really be used near the frontline.

if it was hostile fire, then a diversant group with a manpad, hitting a low flying tu22m (Was it even flying low? we don't know?) might be possible.
 
yeah and Ukrainians wants people to imagine how it can provide constant CW Illumination to the bomber without actually alerting it. One should remember that it's SARH. Even somehow Ukraine can put active radar seeker in it, shooting at such distance, who can provide the mid course as active seeker is not going to be active all the way.
Who says they didn't see it? Who says their onboard detection gear was working? That said, it would seem like a pretty long shot even for S-200.
 
400 km is too much even for S200. Which has its own issues, mobility wise. it couldn't really be used near the frontline.

if it was hostile fire, then a diversant group with a manpad, hitting a low flying tu22m (Was it even flying low? we don't know?) might be possible.
Some are speculating that the missile launch area for TU-22M is in a similar place as the A-50U was downed, basically over the Azov Sea south of Mariupol/Berdyansk, which would put it a lot closer and potentially in range. This TU-22M may have been damaged and have crashed on its attempted return flight....but I can't see that. Any damaged aircraft would surely land at the nearest friendly base, which would be Taganrog. Yeysk or Rostov-on-Don. Can't imagine they'd try to plow on 100's of km to Stavropol in a damaged aircraft...
 
Who says they didn't see it? Who says their onboard detection gear was working? That said, it would seem like a pretty long shot even for S-200.

and nobody really knows that. But the most basic assumption is they will have those gears up.

Some are speculating that the missile launch area for TU-22M is in a similar place as the A-50U was downed, basically over the Azov Sea south of Mariupol/Berdyansk, which would put it a lot closer and potentially in range. This TU-22M may have been damaged and have crashed on its attempted return flight....but I can't see that. Any damaged aircraft would surely land at the nearest friendly base, which would be Taganrog. Yeysk or Rostov-on-Don. Can't imagine they'd try to plow on 100's of km to Stavropol in a damaged aircraft...

Or it's just wear and tear in work. Like accident is still a thing even during war.
 
and nobody really knows that. But the most basic assumption is they will have those gears up.



Or it's just wear and tear in work. Like accident is still a thing even during war.
The engine out could easily be engine failure or FOD ingestion, but the spinning and loss of control and 1 dead and 2 injured doesn't really seem to tie with an engine issue.


Twitter presented another catch-all explanation for a Friday afternoon.

View: https://x.com/BilboBagginsBut/status/1781333835390525734
 
Flight 18... well if the black sea ships are added to all the planes, we are indeed getting closer and closer from 18 lost in the area... the plot thickens.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom