On March 26, 2016, the publication of Kirill Sokolov (Falcon) was published on Voennoye Obozreniye: "Tu-22M3: time for retirement?" I want to say right away - I have great respect for Kirill and the fact that he found it possible to publish, albeit a rather controversial, but very interesting article, about which many copies were broken during the discussion. Unfortunately, not all participants in the discussion turned out to be mature enough to stay within the bounds of decency and not slide in their comments to direct insults to the author and other site visitors. In my opinion, any publication of the author in which a reasoned attempt is made to analyze on a particular issue is worthy of respect, regardless of whether you agree with its content or not. In any case, everyone who is registered on Voennoye Obozreni has the opportunity to write a response article in which he can try to reasonably refute the author's arguments, moreover, such publications are welcomed by the site administration.
So, in the recent past, Kirill wrote a response article: "F-15E versus Su-34. Article-response" to the publication: "F-15E versus Su-34. Who is better?", In which he outlined his vision on this issue. Let me tell you a little secret, I hope Kirill will forgive me for this. Despite the accusations of unprofessionalism voiced against the author by some readers, Kirill is quite savvy in aviation. At one time he graduated from the rather prestigious Samara State Aerospace University named after academician S. P. Korolev (National Research University) ".
And although my basic education lies in a slightly different plane, I will try to argue with Kirill about his vision of the prospects for the Russian long-range Tu-22M3 bomber. Let's start in order …
Kirill writes:
“Now these are fighter-bombers. They can effectively engage both ground targets and stand up for themselves. The decline in the number of classic interceptors or fighters began actively with the departure of the USSR from the scene. Now there are no serious fighters in the sky, so modern machines are trying to be made more versatile. For example, F / A-18SH, F-16, F-35, F-15SE - all fighter-bombers. In essence, if roughly to generalize, then they are similar to the Su-34, MiG-35."
This is a very controversial idea, in my opinion. Universalization is largely a forced measure, caused by the desire to save money on the maintenance of the fleet of combat aircraft and training of pilots. The effectiveness of the actions of a multipurpose fighter when performing strike missions can hardly be compared with the effectiveness of a specialized front-line bomber. So, a fairly modern MiG-35 fighter will never surpass the old Su-24M in terms of strike capabilities. Moreover, when performing shock missions loaded with bombs, missiles and outboard fuel tanks F / A-18SH, F-16, F-35, F-15SE will not be able to withstand the Su-27SM, Su-35S and even MiG-31. Likewise, our Su-34 front-line bombers will be vulnerable to missile attacks from the F-15C and F-22A. It is doubtful that a pair of missiles with TGS, 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 in it is the one who manages to see the enemy earlier and earlier to make an aimed missile launch. In other words, the advantage, all other things being equal, is possessed by the one who has more advanced airborne radars and long-range missiles. These are the advantages of "serious fighters" - air superiority fighters.
And further:
“There is also a separate class of more classic bombers. Such as B-2, B-52, Tu-95, Tu-22M3, Tu-160, etc. Their main disadvantage is that they cannot stand up for themselves in aerial combat, but there are also advantages."
There are, of course, many advantages, the main one, of course, is the possibility of delivering strikes with conventional and nuclear weapons at a distance inaccessible to tactical and carrier-based aviation, which, in fact, is the raison d'être of long-range bomber aviation. Long-range bombers are an extremely flexible means of warfare, with the appropriate range of weapons they are capable of performing the widest range of tasks, from dropping "cast iron" over areas to delivering remote strikes with guided precision-guided munitions against ground and sea targets. The opinion that bombers can be fully replaced by cruise and ballistic missiles is untenable. Unlike a missile, a long-range bomber is capable of carrying out combat duty in the air, loitering close to a potential target. In addition, a bomber sent on a combat mission can always be recalled before the bombs are dropped if the situation changes, but this number will not work with a launched missile.
Do not think that "classic bombers" are easy prey for fighters. Of course, it is best for heavy bombers not to collide with fighters at all, but they are not so defenseless. In addition to cannon defensive armament, which is traditional for domestic bombers, all modern long-range bombers are equipped with REP systems and automatic weapons for firing thermal and passive radar jamming. Guidance of the Tu-22M3 defensive artillery system at the target is carried out using combined radar-optical equipment, which makes it possible to timely detect targets in the rear hemisphere. In addition, the ammunition load of the UKU-9A-502M guided aft cannon with a 23-mm GSh-23M cannon (firing rate up to 4000 rpm) includes special interference infrared and anti-radar projectiles.
Cannon stern defensive mount of Tu-22M3 bomber
Airborne jamming systems are also capable of delivering a lot of trouble to the enemy. So, in the second half of the 80s, Tu-95MS bombers with new REP equipment in our country, after a series of exercises, earned a reputation among air defense crews and fighter-interceptor pilots as an "unbreakable" aircraft.
Of course, a lot has changed over the years, and the fighter aircraft of the “probable partners” received new interceptors with improved radar and missile defense systems, while in our country, due to the collapse of the USSR and the “reforming” of the economy and the armed forces, new versions of the Tu-22M4 and M5 did not take place. But our developers and industry, despite numerous difficulties, have demonstrated the ability to create modern effective jamming systems. The question, as always, rests on finance and political will. Let not all, but at least some of the long-range Tu-22M3 bombers may well be equipped with modern electronic countermeasures equipment, which would most likely be able to fight off single interceptors.
Then Kirill writes:
“So why do we need long-range aviation when the entire west has abandoned it? … in real combat the Tu-22M3 with the Kh-22 missile was not particularly noted. An expensive unique missile carrier mainly served as a simple bomb carrier. The ability to carry the FAB was more of a pleasant advantage than a primary concern. Often the Tu-22M3 was used in Afghanistan, in places where it was difficult for front-line bombers to reach. Especially noteworthy is the moment when the Tu-22M3 "leveled" the Afghan mountains during the withdrawal of Soviet troops, covering our caravans. And all this time, the most complex and intelligent machine was used as a delivery of "chugunin". Mention should also be made of the use of the Tu-22M3 in Chechnya; it is especially interesting that it dropped lighting bombs. And, of course, the apogee is the use of the Tu-22M3 in Georgia, which ended very sadly."
By and large, the West, or rather the United States, has never abandoned long-range (strategic) aviation. Bombers, originally created for the delivery of thermonuclear bombs, were used during their entire service life in local conflicts. It is known that the operation of the B-52H has been extended for at least another 15 years, new types of ammunition are being developed for the "invisible" B-2A, and the B-1B, which has received a very conditional status of a "non-nuclear" bomber, is actively used in hostilities around the world. … It is clear that there is no direct analogue of our Tu-22M3 in the West and, most likely, there never will be. But what do we need the United States and NATO, why should we be guided by their views and military doctrine? "Backfire" was not created from scratch, before that our Air Force operated Tu-16 and Tu-22, and the military had a clear idea of what they wanted to get.
Kirill's emphasis on X-22 missiles is understandable. Of course, at the moment the Kh-22 anti-ship missiles do not correspond to the modern realities of noise immunity, and liquid-propellant rocket engines operating on toxic fuel and an aggressive oxidizer are an anachronism. On the other hand, what prevents the adaptation of existing modern cruise missiles, of which many have been created in our country, for Tu-22M3 bombers? In addition, missiles have never been the only "payload" of a bomber, the armament of the Tu-22M3 also includes free-fall bombs and sea mines of various types.
Of course, the delivery of tens of tons of large-caliber land mines to Afghanistan could be handled by the transport An-12, the transport workers, by the way, were also engaged in this, but it would be an unforgivable mistake. This, of course, does not demonstrate the inferiority of the Tu-22M3 in the role of a banal bomb carrier, but, rather, on the contrary, shows its ability to successfully perform the entire range of tasks.
As for Chechnya, there Tu-22M3, patrolling over the line of contact at night, provided invaluable assistance to our troops, illuminating the battlefield and the surrounding area with lighting bombs. It is clear that hammering "nails with a microscope" is not the most rewarding task. The question is, is the plane or its crew to blame for this, if the higher command sets before them unusual tasks? In any case, the bombers have once again demonstrated their ability to operate successfully in the most difficult conditions.
During the Russian-Georgian conflict in August 2008, Tu-22M3 bombers attacked the bases of the Georgian army, bombed airfields and concentrations of enemy troops. One plane from the 52nd Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment, based at the Shaikovka airfield, on the night of August 8-9, at an altitude of about 6000 m, was shot down by the Buk-M1 air defense missile system delivered from Ukraine. The wreckage of the plane, hit by a direct hit from an anti-aircraft missile, fell near the village of Kareli, in the territory controlled at that time by Georgian troops. Of the four crew members, only one survived - the co-pilot Major Vyacheslav Malkov, he was captured. The commander of the crew, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Koventsov, as well as Majors Viktor Pryadkin and Igor Nesterov were killed. The most reliable information seems to be that the downed Tu-22M3, which closed the group of 9 bombers, in addition to bombing, also carried out photo control of the results of the bombing. The presence of enemy air defense systems in this area was not expected.
Satellite image of Google earth: craters at the Kopitnari airfield, left after the raid of the Tu-22M3 group
In fairness, it should be said that the reason for the loss of a long-range bomber of the Russian Air Force was: illiterate planning of a combat mission, routine actions, poor reconnaissance of targets, lack of electronic suppression of enemy radar and air defense systems. That does not mean that the Tu-22M3 have outlived their usefulness and it is time to send them "to retire", once again the "microscope" was very ineptly used to drive nails.
Kirill sees the main shortcomings of the Backfires as the absence of an in-air refueling system on the aircraft, which was dismantled from all combat bombers of this type in accordance with 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-22M3 turned out to be quite enough to bomb the positions of the militants in Syria, which the front-line aircraft could not do, operating from the territory of Russia, and the breakthrough of the air defense in WWI mainly depends on the level of professional training of the crew. In the past, Tu-22B bombers, which were much less adapted to low-altitude flights, operated by Libyan and Iraqi pilots, repeatedly made throws to the PMA during combat missions, so this is not an insurmountable task for the Tu-22M3.
Of course, the same Tu-160 and, moreover, the modernized Tu-160M have a much higher strike potential. But the trouble is that the "White Swans" are very rare birds in our Air Force and are used to carry out nuclear deterrence tasks. Pouring "cast iron" from them will be even less rational than with the Tu-22M3.
In my opinion, in relation to the existing Tu-22M3, the principle of necessary reasonable sufficiency should be applied. The production of these bombers ceased in 1992. Taking into account the fact that in the 90-2000s, not very much flew, and a significant part of the machines retained a very solid resource. Of course, the largely obsolete avionics require replacement. But the experience of modernizing some of the bombers with the installation of the SVP-24-22 sighting and navigation system has demonstrated the possibility of a significant increase in the aircraft's combat potential at relatively low costs. It is clear that the replacement of the NK-25 engines with more powerful and more efficient ones does not appear in the near future, as well as the installation of an air refueling system. But, as you know: "In the absence of a stamp, we write in simple", 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 bombs from Russian long-range bombers rained down on the heads of Islamic State militants, the tone of the statements changed dramatically. Dave Majumdar, an “authoritative military observer,” even spoke on this subject once again.
He noted:
The Tu-160 and Tu-95MS in their first combat use by themselves "showed power", but most of the destroyed targets are precisely on the Tu-22M3. The United States does not have a direct analogue of the Tu-22M3, which, by the way, is almost three decades old. The closest competitors include the B-1B Lancer, converted after the end of the Cold War into a tactical rather than nuclear weapon, as well as the decommissioned FB-111 strategic bomber.
Several years ago, Chinese representatives probed the soil for the purchase of Tu-22M3 and a package of technical documentation for their production. Fortunately, common sense won out this time, and yet another "profitable deal" with the PRC did not take place. In the past, the Chinese were accused of many 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 expressed a desire to buy full-scale samples and drawings of an obviously outdated and unpromising combat aircraft.
Tu-22M3 bombers are still in many ways unique machines capable of performing both tactical and strategic missions. Equipped with modern cruise missiles, they can become an effective means of neutralizing American missile defense in Romania, the Czech Republic and Poland. Lacking an intercontinental range, Tu-22M3 bombers are actually capable of performing strategic missions in the European theater of operations. The very fact that our Air Force has aircraft of this class is a powerful deterrent. If necessary, no one will figure out how modern this or that aircraft is, and what generation it belongs to. Bomber pilots will certainly fulfill their military duty with honor, even if it is a one-way flight.
Separately, I would like to say about the relatively recent events, which are usually not mentioned in our media. In 2011, the Maritime Missile Aviation (MRA) was eliminated in Russia. As you know, the main task of the MRA regiments, which were 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 the Far East. All conditionally serviceable (prepared for a one-time ferry) aircraft of the Navy in 2011 were transferred to the Long-Range Aviation. Machines that had minor malfunctions, but were unable to take off into the air, were ruthlessly "scrapped", which is undoubtedly a crime.
Killed Tu-22M3 at Vozdvizhenka airfield near Ussuriysk
First of all, this affected the naval Tu-22M3 at the Far Eastern airfields Vozdvizhenka near Ussuriysk and Kamenny Ruchey near Vanino. After that, the 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 the 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 amounts of money 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-22M3 bombers awaiting their turn for repair and modernization at the Olenya airfield.
Now airfields of permanent deployment of Tu-22M3 long-range bombers are Shaikovka and Olenya airfields in the European part of the country. Most of the former naval missile carriers are awaiting their turn for repair and modernization. The talk that "if something happens" these machines will go to the Far East to repel the strikes of the American AUG do not hold water. The armament of the Tu-22M3 currently lacks effective anti-ship missiles and crews trained for this task.
One way or another, we don't have much choice. Recent 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 defending democracy and freedom. The proposal made by Kirill about the need to abandon all Tu-22M3s as soon as possible so that the funds that are spent on their maintenance go to the development of new modern strike aircraft systems, in this case, seems to be 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 the still quite combat-ready winged vehicles. The withdrawal from the Air Force of about 40 long-range bombers will significantly weaken our already not too large strike capabilities. In this situation, the refusal, albeit not of the newest long-range bombers, can cause serious damage to the defense capability of our country.
