The very meaning of military aviation lay in the creation of bombers. It was the air attack of objects and groupings of troops that was the main goal. Later, the designers began to think about creating fighters to gain air supremacy. Before the advent of bombers, this dominance was of no use to anyone.
Even now, bombers can be attributed to the main combat unit of the Air Force. True, now they have become more complex and smarter. More precisely, this is no longer "Ilya Muromets".
Bomber Ilya Muromets
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.
There was 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 advantages as well.
However, it is nevertheless necessary to single out the Tu-22M3 from the general series. It is a long-range bomber, not a strategic one. Long-range aviation is generally a special thing for our history. While the West with the passage of time and the development of technology went to strategists, we continued to improve long-range bombers in parallel with strategic ones. Now only two countries have long-range aviation - this is China with a copy of our Tu-16 and, of course, the Russian Aerospace Forces with Tu-22M3.
Chinese copy of Tu-16 (Xian H-6)
So why do we need long-range aviation when the entire west has abandoned it? In Soviet times, it was certainly a formidable force. And with the advent of the Tu-22, it only increased. The first Tu-22 and modern Tu-22M3 are completely different machines (albeit with similar indexes). Let's omit the stages of development of the Tu-22 and go directly to the Tu-22M3.
The first flight of the Tu-22M3 took place in 1977. Serial production began in 1978 and continued until 1993. According to its tasks, it was not even a bomber, it was, rather, a missile carrier. Its main task was to "deliver" X-22 missiles. In a standard load, the Tu-22M3 was supposed to carry two missiles under the wing on each side, but it could also take another one under the fuselage.
Mounting of X-22 missiles under the Tu-22M3 fuselage
The Kh-22s were of various modifications: with an active homing head (anti-ship), with a passive head (anti-radar modification) and with INS guidance (the progenitor of modern Calibers and Tomahawks). A feature of these missiles was a huge range for that time - 400 km, and according to some sources, up to 600 km! Naturally, for their guidance, serious reconnaissance and an external control center were required, with which there were no problems in the Union either (for example, the Tu-95RTs)! Another huge advantage of the X-22 was its supersonic flight speed. For the air defense of that time, it remained a very tough nut to crack.
The first disadvantages of the X-22 began to appear already in the 80s. For all the uniqueness of this rocket, its development started in 1958, and the creation of an anti-ship missile with an ARLGSN for that time was a very nontrivial task. Even now, in many missiles (in fairness - not an anti-ship missile, but rather an anti-aircraft missile), the use of an ARLGSN does not always take place due to the complexity of implementation and an increase in mass. Therefore, in the 80s, there were already questions about the noise immunity of the X-22. But, this by no means should have put an end to its application. The Focklands War can be recalled as an example. Argentina pelted Her Majesty's vaunted navy with unexploded cast iron. If they had a pair of Tu-22M3 squadrons with the X-22, the Focklands would have had a different owner, and London became an area of Argentina.
However, 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. It should be especially noted 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.
Now let's talk: do we need Tu-22M3 now? Was he needed in the nineties and now, in the twenty-first century? Definitely, modernization is needed to continue its life cycle. It was supposed to consist in the appearance of a new X-32 rocket. But is it really so unique and new? The X-32 is nothing more than the development of the X-22, while maintaining all its archaism and shortcomings for modern times. The lesser of evils is noise immunity. Perhaps the Kh-32 was planned to use a fairly modern ARLGSN, for example, from the Kh-35 missile. But there is still a liquid-propellant engine. And this is perhaps the stupidest decision for a modern rocket. The complexity of the operation of liquid-propellant rocket engines lies in the high toxicity of components, the danger of fire in contact with an oxidizer, the need for constant and qualified maintenance. In terms of costs, this does not go into any comparison, not only with a solid-fuel engine, but also with a small-sized turbojet engine. LRE on anti-ship missiles can only be found in China (but they also fly on Tu-16s), which they gradually take off duty (more about China's anti-ship missiles here: Part 1, Part 2), and maybe in North Korea. The entire modern world has long abandoned such engines.
Rocket Kh-35
Another problem with the X-32 is its flight profile. To achieve the declared characteristics in terms of range, it needs to go at a great height in the rarefied layers of the atmosphere. Even the pseudo-combined flight profile is still excessively high, as the missiles dive into the ship. A high-altitude flight is a gift for modern air defense systems on a silver platter. In addition, this almost six-ton carcass, rushing against the background of space, will be less dangerous than an RPG-7 boat for a modern destroyer or frigate.
Flight profile of Kh-22/32 missiles
As a development of the Tu-22M3, a variant was carried out with the placement of X-15 aeroballistic missiles on it, which already have a modern solid-propellant engine. In addition, they can be placed in the internal compartments of the Tu-22M3. It would seem that it is a fairly modern solution, but let us turn to world experience. Its counterpart is the AGM-69A SRAM, developed in the 60s in the United States. And to replace it, the AGM-131 SRAM II was developed in the late 80s. However, this rocket did not go into production. One of the reasons is the end of the Cold War. But there is one more reason - the development of air defense systems. Both the AGM-131 and the X-15 have a ballistic flight path, which is a good gift for modern radars.
Placing X-15 missiles in the Tu-22M3 bomb bay
AGM-131a SRAM II rocket prototype
It is worth considering the option of equipping the Tu-22M3 with modern Kh-101/102 cruise missiles, which are fully suited to the "Tushka" in terms of weight and dimensions. However, there is one caveat - the flight range of the Tu-22M3 is significantly less than that of the strategic Tu-160. The missiles, unlike the White Swan, will be on external sling, and therefore will also contribute to reducing the range. And there is no refueling rod on the Tu-22M3. However, even equipping it with a refueling bar will not fundamentally save the situation. The reason is that it is a twin engine, and this greatly affects the safety of flight over the ocean. By analogy, in civil aviation there is the concept of ETOPS, which defines the maximum distance an aircraft can move from the nearest airfield (the parameter is given in minutes of flight). Only modern aircraft with modern engines were able to reach more or less significant ETOPS values (among other things, this also requires high qualifications of service personnel). There is no such concept in military aviation, but it is quite clear that an old aircraft with not the most modern engines will not be able to provide the required safety. Of course, completing a combat mission may be more important than life, but the theory of Japanese kamikaze is very far from ideal! As for the Kh-101/102, one cannot fail to note a more scrupulous moment. When placed on the Tu-22M3, it automatically falls under the START treaty. And with the transition of "Carcasses" to the category of carriers of nuclear missiles, the number of real warheads will need to be reduced (follows from the START Treaty).
Rocket Kh-101/102
So what can be done to extend the life cycle of the Tu-22M3? It had to be adapted for modern types of missiles, of which we have plenty. For example, he could become the carrier of the P-700. Taking into account its weight, which is about half that of the Kh-22. It is possible to assume the possibility of placing two missiles on each side of the underwing suspension, and at least one under the fuselage. But the P-700 is also not ideal. Better to install the "Caliber" ZM-54 with a low-altitude flight profile and a supersonic warhead. By analogy with the 3M-14, the non-export version has a range potential at least no worse than the X-22 (naturally, with an external control center).
Rocket 3M-54 "Caliber"
But all this for the Tu-22M3 would be a waste of budgetary funds due to the inefficiency of the aircraft itself in modern conditions. Such modernization could be justified if the Tu-22M3 was still produced, but for modern Russia this is not only impossible, but also completely unnecessary. The modernization of the remaining fleet is also a very controversial issue. To begin with, according to data from open sources, about 40 "Carcasses" are in flight condition. All others are written off due to the release of the resource. During their production, no one has yet thought about the magnitude of the RCS. The huge car is perfectly visible on radar. Low-altitude flight blocks were removed from all Tu-22M3s. The electronic warfare system Tu-22M3 had many problems during fine-tuning, so group flights were supposed to cover the electronic warfare Tu-16P aircraft, which have not been in service for a long time. A version of a full-fledged electronic warfare aircraft based on the Tu-22M3 was not made.
In addition, each Tu-22M3 flight must be accompanied by cover aircraft, since the "Carcass" cannot stand up for itself. An example would be a company in Syria, where Tupole was covered by the Su-30SM. In this regard, the question arises about the only advantage of the Tu-22M3 - its flight range. If, in any case, it should be covered by escort aircraft, which have a shorter flight range. Those. either the escort aircraft must be met by the refueling agent, or they must be based closer to the target than the Tushka departure airfield (which was the case in Syria). Then what is the advantage of range?
In addition, not only the Tu-22M3 can now carry heavy anti-ship missiles. Front-line aviation does not stand still, and has gone far ahead since the days of Afgan. For example, the Su-30SM does an excellent job of delivering the P-700. In theory, the Su-34, or the Su-35S, will be able to carry two or three 3M-54 missiles. The question remains about the range. Ferry range "Tushka" is about 7000 km, the range of the Su-34 with one PTB is about 4500 km. Of course there is a difference, but the most important thing is that the Su-34 can stand up for itself. Or in its place may be, for example, a Su-35S with a range of 4000 km with one PTB, which will certainly stand up for itself. At the same time, in addition to two Caliber anti-ship missiles, you can hang on the Su-35 a couple of RVV-SD and two RVV-MD, in addition to the Khabina electronic warfare containers. It is impossible to calculate the range with all body kits, and no one will give such data. But do not forget that the range of the Tu-22M3 will also drop significantly, since the missiles will also be on external sling, and the NK-25, due to its venerable age, does not have a hefty appetite!
Where did the modernization of the Tu-22M3 go in the end? Installation of the "Gefest" complex (SVP-24-22) for navigation and formation of aiming modes. Helped to more accurately throw FABs in Syria. And again, an expensive and complex missile carrier acted in the role of delivering "cast-iron" blanks to the heads of terrorists. Not such a fate was prepared for him by the creators. The flying hour of a car of this class costs a lot of money, it is much more expensive to operate than the Su-34. The working hours of the engineering staff are much longer, per hour of flight, than that of front-line bombers. At least two more crew members.
Monitors SVP-24-22 in the Tu-22M3 cockpit
In addition, it has engines that are very controversial for modern times. NK-25 was created on the basis of the old NK-144. But the NK-25 is also a three-shaft engine. On such a complication of the design, they went due to the absence, at that time, of more optimal technologies for increasing power. Diagnostics of three-shaft engines is not a trivial task, due to the difficulty of accessing many nodes, and especially the supports. At the same time, from open sources, the NK-25 has a very modest resource - about 1500 hours. For comparison, the F-135 engine, with a weight per ton less, produces almost comparable thrust in the non-afterburner mode (it is much easier to increase the afterburner than the non-afterburner mode, so we do not take it into account), has a much simpler turbine design and is a twin-shaft one.
All this directly affects the cost of the carcass service.
Turbine section of the NK-25 engine
So where could the money flowing to service the Tu-22M3 fleet be redirected? For example, for the purchase of Su-34, bringing their avionics to the possibility of using the Kalibr anti-ship missile system. This option, with a bunch of advantages, has only a disadvantage in the quality of the range, which was already mentioned above. And who can drop FABs much "cheaper" than the Tu-22M3 missile carrier? Well, for example, Il-112, or MTS (work on it has been suspended, but that's another story), at least it will be much cheaper with comparable efficiency (more about the use of transport aircraft as bombers Antonov Bombers). It is enough to put the NKPB-6, well, or the CU container (what the devil is not kidding!) At the same time, our military transport aviation also needs them like air.
Military transport aircraft Il-112
NKPB-6 sight from the An-26 military transport aircraft
Does Russia need modern long-range aviation at all? The key here is precisely the "modern" one, not the Tu-22M3. Of course you do, but with a completely different plane. Let it not be a serious shock for readers, but the American experimental YF-23 should serve as a prototype. It is he, but on a scale. The design of the keels allows you to go on a supersonic flight, while maintaining low visibility for radars. A kind of compromise between a flying wing and supersonic. It is necessary to increase the distance between the engines, for a long weapons compartment, in which two Caliber or P-700 missiles could be placed. Additionally, a couple of side compartments for RVV-SD and RVV-MD, AFAR "Belka" radar, built-in TSU container ("ala" EOTS JSF). And there are almost even engines - Р79В-300, the afterburner thrust of which was planned to be increased to 20 tons. But these are all dreams, this is all another time and in another country.
The author is grateful to Sergey Ivanovich (SSI) and Sergey Linnik (Bongo) for consultations.
