Tupolev Tu-22M Backfire

They did eject. Crew was recovered alive.
Not so much, 1 dead, 2 injured, 1 MIA.

 
Seems to be a S-200, that is a SA-5 GAMMON: somewhat like the second A-50 shot down late February.


I would take Ukrainian Ministry of Defense claims with a grain of salt. They also recently claimed responsibility for a fire on a Russian Navy ship in the Baltic, for example, which seems rather improbable (why waste effort in the Baltic on a ship that can not participate in the Russia-Ukraine war?)
 
At a guess, autopilot control (to maximise efficiency) to a pre-determined kill box, followed by active terminal guidance. Not that dissimilar to a NTU era SM2.

Suspect lax Russian operational security meant crews have been flying the same routes night after night, giving the Ukrainians the precise when and where for the missile to be to maximise the probability of a hit.
 
Well the SA-5 was one of the reasons why SR-71 & A-12 never flew over USSR (along political reasons). With a nuclear warhead it also slained early iterations of ISINGLASS. Convair came to the NRO in 1963 looking for their revenge on A-12 and saying " Mach 3.4 and 95 000 feet ? meh. Pussies. We can do 110 000 ft and Mach 4+" - to which the NRO answered "Sorry, not enough margin against SA-5. Try again !"

So yes, the SA-5 is hardly a Stinger... that thing was big, fast, and long ranged.
 
That's one way of doing it I suppose.
I'm led to understand that Ukrainian and Russian are *real* close, and that Ukrainians can easily sound like Russians. There are doubtless *many* Ukrainians in Russia with intimate knowledge of the region, the people, infrastructure and military tech. With everything we've seen, simply *stealing* a complete SAM system inside Russia doesn't exactly seem impossible.

So... *maybe.*
 
I'm led to understand that Ukrainian and Russian are *real* close, and that Ukrainians can easily sound like Russians. There are doubtless *many* Ukrainians in Russia with intimate knowledge of the region, the people, infrastructure and military tech. With everything we've seen, simply *stealing* a complete SAM system inside Russia doesn't exactly seem impossible.

So... *maybe.*
You should really stop reading Tom Clancy's books after dinner. It's as "not impossible" as english-speaking Chinese-Americans stealing the nuclear submarine from Norfolk to launch Tomahawks against Washington.
 
This is interesting if true, though how on earth would they have been able to guide it in?
Sigh. Seriously. Your are willing to swallow all Ukrainian propaganda, no matter how impossible or outright ridiculous it is, hook, line and sinker?

The simplest explanation: Ukraine have nothing to do with the bomber crash. They merely declared that it's their doing for purely propaganda purposes.
 
You should really stop reading Tom Clancy's books after dinner. It's as "not impossible" as english-speaking Chinese-Americans stealing the nuclear submarine from Norfolk to launch Tomahawks against Washington.

We've had people steal tanks in the US. Why would it be so impossible for determined Ukrainians to do something similar in Russia?
 
We've had people steal tanks in the US. Why would it be so impossible for determined Ukrainians to do something similar in Russia?

Because Russia is not America, because SAM's are not tanks, because such things require specifically trained personnel to operate (far too valuable for Ukraine to send into some "commando raid"), and because it's trench warfare with 24/7 drone controlled frontlines, which made any kind of covert infiltration far too risky to sucseed. Seriously, this is not video game or Hollywood movie.

I was merely asking a question as to whether it was possible or not
It's improbable.
 
You should really stop reading Tom Clancy's books after dinner. It's as "not impossible" as english-speaking Chinese-Americans stealing the nuclear submarine from Norfolk to launch Tomahawks against Washington.
The Wall of China was crossed by the Mongols simply by bribing the guardians, on the northeastern border of the Roman Empire something similar happened due to the greed of corrupt officials... Why can't the same be true of an easy-to-carry Russian weapons system?
 
It's possible, but the S-200 is SARH though.

It's definitely not a stock S-200. The missiles are considered good candidates for very complicated modernization programs because they have a fairly decent specific impulse liquid fueled rocket engine, and if you pull out the very obsolete vacuum tube electronics you can free tens of kg of mass and just tons and tons of volume that you can spend on putting some modern guidance package on it. I think the Poles have rebuilt them with both active radar guidance and with radiation-homing seekers.

It's not maneuverable enough to ever hit a fighter jet that's trying to evade (the missile is nearly as big as some small jets), but that's not exactly a problem when shooting at bombers or AWACS planes.
 
At a guess, autopilot control (to maximise efficiency) to a pre-determined kill box, followed by active terminal guidance. Not that dissimilar to a NTU era SM2.
AFAIK no SM-2 has had active guidance.
 
Was referring more to the general principle of autopilot/inertial guidance to a pre-defined point before using some form of guidance for the terminal engagement.

SM2 would have been SARH in the NTU era.
 
Was referring more to the general principle of autopilot/inertial guidance to a pre-defined point before using some form of guidance for the terminal engagement.

and who will provide correction to the INS drift ? It's still a long flight even with 4300 km speed of the 5V28 missile.

Refit the missile with an infrared seeker perhaps then just put it into a killbox?

This invites question on how to correct INS drift more prior to engagement tho.

It's definitely not a stock S-200. The missiles are considered good candidates for very complicated modernization programs because they have a fairly decent specific impulse liquid fueled rocket engine, and if you pull out the very obsolete vacuum tube electronics you can free tens of kg of mass and just tons and tons of volume that you can spend on putting some modern guidance package on it. I think the Poles have rebuilt them with both active radar guidance and with radiation-homing seekers.

Yeah and i guess nobody really think updating them all these decades because it's liquid fueled.. gonna need a long preparation and fixed site to launch.

The problem with modern guidance package etc.. is that you changed the missile's CG and in the end you need to rework the missile's flight logic. Otherwise it may tumble or actually going too fast which put the gust beyond the missile's own structure can support kinda similar problem with ballistic missile. Also if any form of datalink is needed, then you need to plumb the missile airframe and put radome on it for the datalink antenna and then see if it can work in high speed of the missile. Looks like too much work for several months time tbh.

think the Poles have rebuilt them with both active radar guidance and with radiation-homing seekers.

TBH i dont buy into this.. Poland make Radars, yes. But did they make active seeker or even hybrid seeker one ? I wonder why they dont put it in their upgrade package for 2K12.



Overall i enjoyed the theorycrafting so far but.. does it have to be shot down tho ?
 
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.

The Ukrainian's have mentioned that 'partners' helped modify SA-5...could they have added data link functionality that allowed the missile to not rely on illumination until the end game? All the TU-22M (or A-50U) knew was that they had been picked up by a search radar like normal....then they were illuminated at the final moment with little time to react...

I'm not sure we'll know the truth for a long time, both sides have valid reasons to make claims.
 
308km as claimed in the video above.

Regarding terminal guidance, pay attention to the fact that hit point seems localized on the starboard engine nozzle. It doesn't seems also like being the result of a multi-hundreds kilograms warhead detonation or from a Soviet era SAM large fragmention rod.

Last but not least, the bomber is seen going down in a spin, not a nose dive. Hence, pilots might have had a chance to fight to keep it airborne, loosing gradually speed, apparently. It might even have been a voluntary action to enter a safe ejection speed domain.

I think that we might narrow the scenario on two hypothesis:
- Local illumination theory (laser guidance for example or Manpad launcher with a data link),
- Frankenstein missile, with the Sa-5 being used as a booster with a bolted-on terminal guidance build with parts from another one from someone that does not want to be identified.
 
Last edited:
Just thinking about it...

IF the Ukrainian's are telling the truth....this shootdown, or the A-50U must be the longest ranged shootdowns ever by missile?

EDIT: Actually I guess the accidental Siberian Air Flight shootdown also by Ukraine would count...

Depends whether you consider only SAMs, or include ABMs.
 
The Ukrainian's have mentioned that 'partners' helped modify SA-5...could they have added data link functionality that allowed the missile to not rely on illumination until the end game? All the TU-22M (or A-50U) knew was that they had been picked up by a search radar like normal....then they were illuminated at the final moment with little time to react...

I'm not sure we'll know the truth for a long time, both sides have valid reasons to make claims.
If the Russian bomber's route is sufficiently predictable, you could use a modern INS retrofitted to the SA-5 to get you fairly near it. Its also a very fast flying SAM, so flight time is pretty low. The SA-5 is also big enough for a substantial active radar seeker.

Not saying this claim is correct, but I don't think its impossible.
 
308km as claimed in the video above.
That must be a combat record.

Depends whether you consider only SAMs, or include ABMs.
True. Maybe if we say endo-atmospheric record.

If the Russian bomber's route is sufficiently predictable, you could use a modern INS retrofitted to the SA-5 to get you fairly near it. Its also a very fast flying SAM, so flight time is pretty low. The SA-5 is also big enough for a substantial active radar seeker.

Not saying this claim is correct, but I don't think its impossible.
This is a good point, by the end of the Vietnam War, NVA SA-2 radars did not work against jamming at all, but it had a 200kg warhead, so they fired them up and command detonated them at the altitude the bombers flew at.

Of course all this SA-5 talk may just be a cover. I have another theory, but I will keep it quiet just in case it's true.
 
Last edited:
That must be a combat record.


True. Maybe if we say endo-atmospheric record.


This is a good point, by the end of the Vietnam War, NVA SA-2 radars did not work against jamming at all, but it had a 200kg warhead, so they fired them up and command detonated them at the altitude the bombers flew at.

Of course all this SA-5 talk may just be a cover. I have another theory, but I will keep it quiet just in case it's true.
A shame BOMARC wasn't still around. Had the range and the active terminal seeker as well.
 
If the Russian bomber's route is sufficiently predictable, you could use a modern INS retrofitted to the SA-5 to get you fairly near it. Its also a very fast flying SAM, so flight time is pretty low. The SA-5 is also big enough for a substantial active radar seeker.

If the mid-course and terminal guidance has been 'tweaked' then a lofted flight profile would squeeze considerably more range out of the basic airframe, against an non-manoeuvring target.
 
This is a good point, by the end of the Vietnam War, NVA SA-2 radars did not work against jamming at all, but it had a 200kg warhead, so they fired them up and command detonated them at the altitude the bombers flew at.
Incorrect. They used command-to-the-line-of-sight guidance, using radar to track the jamming source. It wasn't exactly the most accurate method, but as you correctly noted - the 200-kg warhead allowed for some error.
 
It looks all the world like a turbine blade disc blew up, caused an engine fire, and the asymmetric thrust put a Backfire into a flat spin.

I guess a 200 kilogram warhead can be very selective in what portion of a plane it decides to not shred though? Tu-22M was lost over Georgia and got turned into pieces in mid-air by ZRK Buk. Tumbling behavior is somewhat expected as radar guided missile will strip control surfaces.

If missiles were involved at all, they would be extremely small like Igla or Stinger, and fired by special reconnaissance team. Yet there is no contrail? Interesting. It is also extremely unusual behavior from an aircraft given the location of flames and apparent damage appears to be internal in nature regardless.

So most likely it ate something it shouldn't have, and the engine blew apart, but perhaps the HUR trained a pigeon?
 
Last edited:
Hand held SAM wouldnt be able to reach a Backfires cruising altitude. The flat spin is indicative of asymmetric thrust so the loss of an engine, however pilots should have been able to compensate if it was a mechanical failure, engine failures were common in the pre-modernisation TU-22 due to poor construction quality of engines and airframes.
 
I'd be surprised if a Tu-22M3 couldn't cope with the loss of one engine and both engines are on the centreline, so asymmetric thrust problems should be minimal and certainly nothing the large rudder couldn't counter. I would also expect the crew to be able to land with one engine down, but as a minimum, I would expect them to be able to eject without dying.

Have they found the fourth crew member yet?
 
Last edited:
So 2 dead based on the Moscow Times statement that 1 was dead while a fourth was missing?

 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom