maurobaggioLooks like proving Voldermort Putin supplied the ‘Buk’ is going to be very difficult indeed. I’m surprised Western intelligence agencies are remaining so quiet on the subject.
Professor Elmar Giemulla:
One possible reason for this:
In 2008 the war between Georgia and Russia was extremely controversial, and among other facts which had caused a great controversy was the use by SAM( Surface Air Missile) SA 11 Gadfly (BUK M1)by Georgia with which were responsible to shutdown several aircraft from Russia.
The main controversy was that the SA 11 systems had been used by Georgia were provided by Ukraine before the war in 2008. There was indeed an official sale of one battery of SA 11 from Ukraine to Georgia in 2007. However Russia had claimed that the Ukraine provided ‘unofficially’ seven battery that arrived in Georgia one months before the war beginning.
For many analysts in the West the Russia had tried to justify their losses put the guilt due to a large number of BUK M1 systems in the war zone, and these were unknown by Russia before the war with Georgia because the secret sale of the BUK M1 from Ukraine to Georgia.
This event had a great relevance since among aircraft’s shutdown by Georgia with the BUK M1 were the Tu 22M3R which is the reconnaissance version of the Tu 22M3 Backfire, and only 04 were built, and maybe two or more Su 24MR that also are reconnaissance version of the Su 24M Fencer.
I guess that could be such reason for this Western Intelligence agencies would have been keeping distance from this BUK M1 subject, after all this subject could be almost equivalent to a singularity (black hole) in terms of the Intelligence Agencies, since this approach there is no escape, so the farther it is better.
I even make a wild guess that those Intelligence agencies could have been advising their respective governments that nobody should makes a request for an audit of the SAM BUK M1 under the supervision from NATO, in order to confirm that none unit of the BUK M1 from Ukraine Army would be missing.
Despite everything those Western agencies could not have this information in precise order about how many units from SAM BUK M1 had remained in Ukraine after the dissolution from Soviet Union.
However Russia must know the number and would be eager to see the result of such audit in reason of the War in 2008 against Georgia.
maurobaggioOblivion Planned
Image edited from Flash Earth: http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=32.919966&lon=39.734061&z=15.8&r=0&src=msa.
.The H 3 Main Air Base withstood three wars, the first being the Iran / Iraq War that lasted eight years, the second was the Gulf War of 1991 which H 3 AB were one of the high priority targets from Coalition and the third War was the Invasion of Iraq in 2003.
If wars were so difficult to H 3 Main AB nothing compares with the supposed peace hovering over the base. Although had been extensively attacked during those wars most of its structures survived until recently, especially its HAS( Hardened Aircraft Shelters).
However in recent times H 3 is waging his last battle and this is against the oblivion. All surface HAS and even hangars had been demolished, still leaving some concrete structures and runways for now…
.
.
.
.After Three Wars
Image edited from Google Maps::http://goo.gl/maps/DFc3C
.
.Oblivion Planned
Image edited from Flash Earth: http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=32.919966&lon=39.734061&z=15.8&r=0&src=msa.
.
.
.
After Three Wars
Image edited from Google Maps::http://goo.gl/maps/DFc3C
.
.Oblivion Planned
Image edited from Flash Earth: http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=32.919966&lon=39.734061&z=15.8&r=0&src=msa.
.
.
.
After Three Wars
Image edited from Google Maps::http://goo.gl/maps/DFc3C
.
.Oblivion Planned
Image edited from Flash Earth: http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=32.919966&lon=39.734061&z=15.8&r=0&src=msa.
.
.
.
After Three Wars
Image edited from Google Maps::http://goo.gl/maps/DFc3C
.
.Oblivion Planned
Image edited from Flash Earth: http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=32.919966&lon=39.734061&z=15.8&r=0&src=msa.
.
.
.Oblivion Planned
Image edited from Flash Earth: http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=32.919966&lon=39.734061&z=15.8&r=0&src=msa
After had been surviving for several war since 1967 the Air Bases H 3 in Iraq were demolished during the occupation of the Iraq by the U.S.
So now in the war against ISIS has been carry on by the coalition would not be necessary to attack thoses former Air Bases of H3, since if it had not been demolished by the U.S its Air Bases of H 3 could now being used by ISIS, since those Air Bases are located on a region of the Iraq has been controlled by ISIS.
maurobaggiofaced with the risk of humiliation in international court, USA eventually agreed to pay Iran families of the victims
of the Iranian airliner shoot-down
I guess about this in an international court the situation of the Ukraine would be much more vulnerable than Russia, once that the Ukraine Air Force had been carrying on attack missions in conflict zone before of the B777 was shoot down.
In reason of the fact that territory belongs at the Ukraine even while has been occupied by insurgents, and it were already known by the Ukraine government that those rebels were using long range SAM as the BUK M1, since the BUK M1 had been shoot down aircraft’s from Ukraine Air Force before the civilian B 777.
So it should be the obligation from Ukraine had been created such Air Exclusion zone around the conflict region in order to avoid such tragedy like this could even happen.
However in my insignificant opinion so far both Russia as well the Western nations lead by U.S. has been impaired in reason of the economic and political sanction against Russia by the crisis created about the B 777 shoot down in the Ukraine.
Even the Ukraine government has been damaged by this once that Russia has been supporting more ostensibly the insurgents due at the economic and political sanctions imposed against Russia after the shoot down of the B 777.
It were not by accident that the SAM BUK M1 were in the conflict region as well as the B 777 had been flying over the conflict region by accident too, yet both were in this conflict region for different reasons , it were known by all sides has been involved in this conflict so as public knowledge around the World.
maurobaggioThere is one troubling thing in that interview. I tried to discuss the matter here long ago but with no effect so far.
The witnesses claimed that they eared TWO loud bang.
My cursus in sciences tells me that a missile explosion at 33kft won’t produce such a noise. Even a single loud “Boom”.
More over, a “double Bang”, what one of the witness is purported as saying, is characteristic of a certain type of aero config.
If we proceed cautiously, a new hyp might be set and crossed checked with other info. it will certainly leads to nothing. But who knows.
This type of sound as possibility could have been produced by a fighter that would be in the shadow of the B777.
Once the BUK M1 had been entered in active mode CW ( Continuous Wave) in its fire control radar, in this condition would be possible that any fighter as soon as had detected the threat in its RWR ( Radar Warning Receiver) would taken evasive actions.
If such fighter had been presumed that it were discovered by the SAM BUK M1, maybe the best evasive action to avoid being hit, as well as to protect that own B777 could be hit too, would dive fastest as possible once the same were flying at high altitude, and in this process would have broken the barrier of sound and generated the sonic boom, to a low altitude and disappear from radar BUK M1.
This action from the suppose fighter could have prevented the BUK M1 fired against the B777, however I would assume as hypothesis that when the BUK M1 entered the CW mode, the missile had already been launched without command in a ballistic trajectory against the target.
In this tactic the missile from BUK M1 only will receive the radar return from the target in the CW mode when the missile would be relatively close to the target, with propose to prevent the target or the escort fighter could active some ECM device, dispensing chaffs cloud or even fire anti-radiation missiles against BUK M1. Thus when the fighter had been tried to escape would already too late, however the missile hit the B777 and not the fighter.
All this text is very hypothetical, however it is highly possible that something that was not mentioned by both parties had happened in this tragedy with the B777, since if the only reason for the fall of the B777 would be that the Russians are evil, then something is out the place.
Why the Ukrainians that also know much about the Evil Russians had not closed the airspace of the conflict region after their discovered through the losses from its Air Force about the BUK M1 being in the hands of the Evil Russians?
Before someone would try to answer that question should consider this first:if the Russians are such evil the Ukrainians should also note be considered at least as ie from good guys, after all both Russians and Ukrainians share much in common, even the fact that there were two major republics from the Evil Empire that were the former Soviet Union.
I think it a saying that goes something like this: If a sheep lives among wolves, this sheep become behaving like a wolf.
maurobaggioThe article is not speaking off only a solid fueled ramjet (which had also been experimented with the CROW in the 50’s) but a solid fuel variable flow ducted ramjet. “A Throttleable Ducted Rocket (TDR) is a ramjet-type engine using a solid propellant for which the fuel mass flow rate can be controlled”. The Coyote, Meteor and most likely one or both of the T-3 missiles are Solid fueled variable ducted (hence throttleable) ramjet missiles.
From the Aerojet Release:
Now it’s much better after this elucidation above.
Maybe someone could inform Aerojet Company to rectify its statement to prevent that some other fool besides myself also misinterpret the meaning of the article because misjudged a single word like: throttleable.
I could mention that it was misled because the beginning of the article as:
Ramjet engines have historically used liquid fuel which mixes with atmospheric air in order to provide thrust at high speed. However, for tactical missiles, the military services have expressed interest in a storable solid fuel. In order to meet this need, Aerojet developed the world’s first throttleable solid-fueled ramjet for the U.S. Navy GQM-163A Coyote missile target starting in the year 2000.Additional information about Aerojet and GenCorp can be obtained by visiting the companies’ Web sites at http://www.aerojet.com/ and http://www.gencorp.com/.
After I have been reading two lines such idiot like me could be tired and regardless. I also understand that the article was not meant for someone like me, but as far I known many good projects have been canceled in all fields in reason of conflicts generated by erroneous interpretation, once the fact of someone has been in charge to approval or not some project could not be assurance of …
I believe the intention was to make a comparison with anti radiation missile Kh 31P which were also used in different setup as missile target by the U.S. Navy.
In fact the Kh 31P( AS 17 Krypton) has been equipped with ramjet propulsion of liquid fuel, and it could be throttleable in order to obtain a better range at different altitudes in which it could be released by aircrafts.
However a disadvantage of the liquid fuel from Kh 31 could be that it can not be stored for long, as in the case of solid fuel, so it is only fueled prior to a mission.
maurobaggioThe Coyote was delivered before the Meteor and the company is talking about it when it says the first throttle able solid fueled ramjet. The fuel developed for the JDRADM is nothing but an evolution of what went into the Coyote and since it does not have an application at the moment besides the test missiles for a DARPA project it cannot claim to be anything.
The Meteor was absolutely the first BVR missile to be operational with a throttleable solid fueled ramjet and neither aerojet or this press release is claiming otherwise.
http://www.orbital.com/LaunchSystems/Publications/Coyote_factsheet.pdf
Anyway what seems weird for me is the statement that the Coyote program had been opened up the field of the ramjet propulsion with solid fuel as that could see above in the article:
Ramjet engines have historically used liquid fuel which mixes with atmospheric air in order to provide thrust at high speed. However, for tactical missiles, the military services have expressed interest in a storable solid fuel. In order to meet this need, Aerojet developed the world’s first throttleable solid-fueled ramjet for the U.S. Navy GQM-163A Coyote missile target starting in the year 2000. Since that time, Aerojet has been developing a family of advanced formulations called AerGen� fuels with properties suitable for a tactical missile ramjet engine. The fuel burns very efficiently, resulting in more delivered energy and reduced visible exhaust.
Additional information about Aerojet and GenCorp can be obtained by visiting the companies’ Web sites at http://www.aerojet.com/ and http://www.gencorp.com/.
In fact the missiles 3M9ME from SA 6 has had a boost stage with solid propellant charge (172 kg VIK-2 propellant)and a ramjet engine 9D16K with solid fuel charge (67 kg LK-6TM reducing propellant).
The source from SA 6 Gainful: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2K12-Kvadrat.html
Perhaps the reason why the Soviet Union had been chosen in 1958 this propulsion by ramjet with solid fuel were not to be the pioneer in the field, but by necessity due to its application.
The main reason that I am able to guess about the SA 6 Gainful should be that any missile with liquid fuel could be a huge problem with high accelerations G, while the missile would be chasing the maneuvers target as fighters, once after the missile had been consuming part of its liquid fuel , the same that remains inside its compartment could flow into compartment one side to another, even that compartment had splitting walls, this last one would not be effective.
The missiles with fuel liquid in maneuvers with high G acceleration it would be struck for something like a ‘sledgehammer’ by the liquid fuel remaining in its compartment , and it would make the control by the missile autopilot highly problematic such if it had to tame a ‘crazy horse’.
The modern fighters also has the same problem but it has been restricted to 9G accelerations, and those fighters has several fuel compartments that are always equalized. While even the old missiles from SA 6 could achieve 40G and the others like the Meteor the values would be higher like something 100G.
So it would be almost mandatory that any air-to-air missile capable to engage fighters should have a ramjet propulsion with solid fuel instead liquid fuel, although a gel solution as fuel for the ramjet could decrease this problem, but the same would not disappear, and maybe that was the reason of this solution after would be tested it has been not implemented in the Meteor program.
maurobaggioI don’t think the program specifically asked for one form of propulsion while excluding all others.
Aerojet, a GenCorp (NYSE: GY) company, announced today that it has successfully tested an advanced solid ramjet fuel in an engine ground test. The fuel is being developed to provide long-range, high-speed capability for the U.S. military and potentially for the future USAF/Navy Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM).
http://investor.gencorp.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=673225
The concept seems very interesting, however I guess this solution had been implemented since 1958 when the Soviet Union began the development of SAM ( Surface Air Missile) SA 6 Gainful.
The SA 6 Gainful(2K12 Kub)
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2K12-Kvadrat.html
Those 3M9M missiles from the SA 6 Gainful also has been employed a ramjet rocket with solid fuel with the same purpose due for its advantages that has been mentioned in this article, however the ramjet propulsion were rejected by the successor from SA 6 Gainful that were the SA 11 Gadfly as the SA 17 Grizzly for several reasons.
This does not mean that someone could not improve such old technology, however the content of this article in this post above mention that ramjet propulsion with solid fuel has been developed as an innovation, and this actually would not be the case.
maurobaggioI don’t know but that isn’t always true
Ex: ESSM obviously more maneuver than RIM-7
AIM-9, IRIS-T are more agile than Starstreak
BTW do you know why modern SAM stop using ramjet engine? there used to be so many kind of Ramjet SAM Ex: SA-5 gammon, Talo, Sea Dart
The question is interesting but it may have several different answers.
In fact the SAM with ramjet propulsion as SA 4 Ganef and SA 6 Gainful were replaced by SA 12 Gladiator / Giant and SA 11 Gadfly that has been boosted by solid fuel rockets .
Perhaps the most interesting example to consider should be the anti radiation Kh 31P with ramjet propulsion and the Kh 58 with solid fuel rocket, since both missiles had been developed at almost the same time in the 70’s with the task to replace the complex and costly Kh 28 with liquid fuel rocket.
Although there were not such official division about the missions from each missile would carry on, it seems the Kh 58 could be more suitable for the MiG 25BM Foxbat F, while the Kh 31P were intended to Su 24M and former MiG 27K.
The reason might be that the MiG 25BM had a mission to destroy surveillance radars and AWACS even in this case the Kh 58 missiles would be launched by MiG 25BM at a speed of Mach 2.8 and an altitude of 22,000 m( 66.000 ft), which would allow the missile Kh 58 could reach at least 250km ( 140 NMI).
While Kh 31P would be launched at lower altitudes and speeds by Su 24M and the fomer MiG 27K against fire control radars and jamming aircraft’s ( EF 111A and EA 6 ) , which in this case would be more indicated the ramjet propulsion, however the estimated maximum range would be less than 120km ( 65 NMI).
In this case I do not have any information about such testing with Kh 31P had been launched by MiG 25BM in the same conditions of the Kh 58.
However it could be possible to assume that a missile with ramjet propulsion has been obeying the same parameters that an aircraft with supersonic capability, ie, that the ratio between the engine and the air intakes has been optimized in ratio with the altitude at which it will operate, and thus are the reason for the complex air intakes with variable geometry in the same way that the engines with control thrust.
Because the legacy ramjet missile has been known so far has lacks these two features, those ramjet missiles has been restricted to be launched for max altitudes, since it ramjet propulsion need of the Oxygen from the air atmospheric to the combustion of the ramjet propellants.
In this case the higher altitude is lower the concentration of Oxygen in the Atmosphere, which will decrease the thrust from the ramjet propulsion, what will leave at the reduction of the final speed obtained by the missile with ramjet propulsion, in the same way consequently will decrease the range of the missile and maneuverability of the same in the final approach of the target.
The low density of the thin air from high altitude could be an advantage for missiles with solid or liquid fuel rocket in reason of the great reduction of the aerodynamic drag, however for missile with legacy ramjet propulsion this advantage has disappeared due to drastically reduction in the concentration of Oxygen from High Atmosphere.
maurobaggioHas anyone heard anything about the investigations continuing at the site?
I do not know, but I think we are in the wrong place to obtain this information.
However if you know someone that has been concerned about philosophical discussions with conspiracies and politics, here is the right place to fulfill his desire.
Also I would like to know about the crash site as well as if there is some inquiry about the reason for the airspace over the region in conflict had not been closed long before the fall of the B 777.
Once that even volcanic eruptions around the world has been resulted in closure of the airspace, however in this tragedy even after the confirmation that the separatists had been using the SAM SA 11 Gadfly (BUK M1) in the region it was not enough.
maurobaggioThis is a purely and simplistic speculation, but how I didn’t see any side of this conflict looking hard for the true, it appear so far that both side has something to hide.
In 2008 the war between Georgia and Russia was extremely controversial, and among other facts which had caused a great controversy was the use by SAM( Surface Air Missile) SA 11 Gadfly (BUK M1)by Georgia with which were responsible to shutdown several aircraft from Russia.
The main controversy was that the SA 11 systems had been used by Georgia were provided by Ukraine before the war in 2008. There was indeed an official sale of one battery of SA 11 from Ukraine to Georgia in 2007. However Russia had claimed that the Ukraine provided ‘unofficially’ seven battery that arrived in Georgia one months before the war beginning.
For many analysts in the West the Russia had tried to justify their losses put the guilt due to a large number of BUK M1 systems in the war zone, and these were unknown by Russia before the war with Georgia because the secret sale of the BUK M1 from Ukraine to Georgia.
This event had a great relevance since among aircraft’s shutdown by Georgia with the BUK M1 were the Tu 22M3R which is the reconnaissance version of the Tu 22M3 Backfire, and only 04 were built, and maybe two or more Su 24MR that also are reconnaissance version of the Su 24M Fencer.
Anyway Russia has been producing the BUK M1 or the more improved BUK M2( SA 17 Grizzily) since the end of the Soviet Union , as well use its should have full knowledge of the BUK M1 system, so in that case could be capable to use the most appropriate techniques for ECM( Eletronic Counter Measure) to avoid its most advanced aircraft’s (Tu 22M3R and Su 24MR ) were shoot down by this BUK M1, or else be would be capable to eliminate these threat of BUK M1 with SEAD( Suppression Enemy Air Defenses) missions.
However in both cases was not what apparently happened, once even after had been confirmed the threat of BUK M1 it were not eliminated in SEAD missions by the Russian Air Force. Despite the use of the of anti radiation missiles Kh 31 and Kh 58 that were launched by Su 24M, since the threat of BUK M1 remained and only was neutralized after the invasion of the Georgy territory by the Russian Army that supposedly captured several systems intact of the BUK M1.
It had appeared that Russia were more interested in the crews of the BUK M1 from Georgia than in its own vehicles, perhaps to hire them, because they were considered better than the Russians experts about the Russian BUK M1.
the Russians not gotta luck to find them, once the Russia Army had reached the BUK M1 units those were already abandoned, and unfortunately for Russians the highly effective crews had not left none business card for future contact.
Meanwhile the Russian Air Force was far away from his best form in 2008 to face an effective SAM defense network, since only a few years earlier in 2005 the Russia had dismantled its most advanced aircraft for SEAD missions which were the MiG-25BM Foxbat-F also equipped with Kh 58 missiles and Kh 31, and for it there was not even a replacement available in 2008.
If the Russian Air Force had encountered a huge problem when facing the BUK M1 in Georgia, indeed the situation of the Ukrainian Air Force after long years in the dismantling process that it would not be in a great shape also to face the BUK M1 from separatists , and after the same has been suffering losses for the BUK M1 ,the Ukraine Air Force could have implemented some heterodoxy tactic to face on this threat.
One speculation about such heterodoxy tactic would be that fighters like the MiG-29 or Su 27 could keep on the radar shadow from commercial jetliner over the region in conflict, which would allow these fighters has been used as ELINT ( Electronic Intelligence) platform in order to detect the radar emissions from BUK M1.
For this would not be necessary to make any changes in the MiG 29 or Su 27. Those fighters has own RWR( Radar Warning Receptor) devices that could indicate the direction of the radar emissions from BUK M1, and with this information at least the Ground Command could estimate the position of the BUK M1 systems, which would be enough to warn any aircraft from Ukraine to not enter the range of the BUK M1, or so in preparation for an attack on these threats.
The Su 24M would be better indicated than MiG 29 or the Su 27 , but in reason from approaching the border with Russia, the MiG 29 or Su 27 has more capabilities to depart from the border with Russia as soon as would leave the coverage from commercial jetliners, once the fighters would be exposed to radars from Russia those MiG 29 or Su 27 could running fast through a free route from BUK M1 systems previously recognized during the mission.
This most simplistic tactic should be not arouse pride to anyone, even in using civilian transport aircraft as cover, however it would be fast to implement what in reason from adverse circumstances faced by Ukraine could be justified.
However there could be major risks in this supposed mission, among them the main would be that some fighter on the shadow from commercial aircraft still with its IFF turn on. The crew from BUK M1 could use his IFF interrogator to confirm that the radar contact was a commercial aircraft, which certainly would not respond as it commercial aircraft had not been equipped with an IFF device.
The trick about using the signal from IFF is already old, but still working. The point should be that crews from attack aircraft as the Su 24M has been trained to turn off its IFF device before to enter into hostile airspace, but pilots from interceptor fighters as the MiG 29 or Su 27 this proceeding should be not usual. So if some fighter was into the shadow from commercial aircraft and the fighters IFF device automatically respond to IFF from BUK M1, the radar contact would be interpreted as military aircraft by the crew from BUK M1 and would treated as threat …
All this speculation has been based on recordings of conversations between separatists as they at first believed they had downed a military aircraft from Ukraine, which was first reported as an AN 26, however were surprised by the revelation that the wreckage were a commercial jetliner B 777.
Anyway a contact on the radar from B 777 should not look anything like the AN 26, maybe something like the IL 76, plus the addition of the B 777 was at a much higher speed than the AN 26 could hypothetically achieve.
The operator from BUK M1 probably his was not an amateur , once the Ukraine Air Force had previously eliminated the same along with this unit BUK M1, so would be possible after to receive the response of the IFF from contact radar he not considered any other target information’s, despite he shouldn’t have the identify codes of the IFF from Ukraine but he could had the signal from it, what indeed make some sense, once this operators has been trained to react quickly to threats.
maurobaggioThis issue had been extensively debated a long time ago in the 70s when the Royal Navy phasing out the aircraft’s carrier from Ark Royal Class (HMS Ark Royal, HMS Eagle, HMS Hermes, HMS Victorious) all those were equipped with F 4K/M Phantom II and Buccaneers.
The Phantom II( long range, BVR missiles, supersonic) and Buccaneers( long range, Air Surface Missiles) were replaced by the STOVL Sea Harriers( short range, subsonic, only air-air Sidewinders missiles) along with then new class of aircraft carrier HMS Invincible.
But now should be a quite different story, since the STOVL Harrier GR 9 will be replaced by the STOVL F 35B Lightning II that has been capable to match and even surpass any fighter in service or under development phase around the world, while the Harrier had not possessed those attributes when it were placed in service with Royal Navy during the Cold War.
The STOVL aircraft’s by definition as the Harrier or F 35B has not been demanding such aircraft carrier to operate in the seas, once the STOVL aircraft has required only a deck with enough space for its vertical takeoffs and landings just as the helicopters with similar seize .
Thus any military or even civilian ships with a deck with enough space to operate helicopters could have been used as aircraft carriers to operate the F 35B.
The most important aspect should be that all military vessels have been passing almost a quarter of its servicing time in shipyards, once that highly complex military vessel has demanded long time in maintenance or modernization process.
In this case the F 35B could operate if necessary, despite some restrains in reason of the absence from sky jump ramp, even aboard with civilian vessels quickly converted into aircraft carriers.
According with some studies the minimal fleet of aircraft carriers equipped with naval versions from conventional fighters ( F/A 18, Rafale M, Su 33 , MiG 29K) should be at least with three vessels, once with this could be assured even in the worst moments at least one vessel would be ready for combat.
Therefore any fleet with have less than three aircraft carriers could be such high advantage if this navy would be equipped with STOVL figthers. These STOVL figthers could be distributed if necessary among other ships from the fleet.
maurobaggioeeh.. The Tu-22M3 is only a meadiocre upgrade at best. Its very cheap and simple upgrade if you look at it.
They did concider the IRBIS–E radar to include in the M3 upgrade package, but again it deemed too expensive and time consuming.
The Russian MoD does not want to allocate more funding to further extensive upgrade the Tu-22M3 linage.Shortage of funding or prioritized.. eighter way, They are instead waiting for the Pak-Da.
Perhaps you have been trying to say about the Tu 22M3M, since this would be a proposal for the modernization of the Tu 22M3.
Anyway Tu 22M2 and Tu 22M3 were distinct aircraft’s, since Tu 22M3 were built as new and not upgraded from the previous Tu 22M2, as the same with Tu 22M2 that were not upgraded from the previous Tu 22 Blinder.
Tu 22 Blinder> Tu 22M2 Backfire> Tu 22M3 Backfire
Have you been confusing after this explanation?
Do not worry about that, since you have not been the first, and even after so many years will not be the last to get confused about this, since it was exactly the intention from the Soviet Union in the late 60’s.
And they liked it so much about that had continued during the 80s…
Tu 22M3 >T 22M4 ( Project)> Tu 22M5
( Project)
And even after the end of the Soviet Union during the 90s …
T-60(Project)
And now in 2014 …
PAK DA( Project)
There is an old saying that goes: Old habits die hard.
maurobaggioIn fact at the end of the Soviet Union it had been equipped with others maritime strike aircraft’s beyond the Tu 22M2/3 Backfire, those were: long range Tu-95K-22, the medium range Tu 16K and the tactical range Su 24M/MR.
The Tu-95K-22 were equipped with three supersonic cruise missile Kh 22 ( AS 4 Kitchen), the Tu 16K Badger were equipped with supersonic cruise missile AS 6 Kingfish ( KSR 5), and Su 24M/MR Fencer could be equipped with tactical missiles such as: Kh 29, Kh 31 and Kh 59.
At the time from the former Soviet Union it had been developing the new Su 34 Fullback, this strike aircraft should taken several duties as the maritime strike mission of the Tu 16K Badger and Su 24M/MR from the Navy Aviation from Soviet Union (AV-MF).
The fleet of the Tu 22M3 Backfire from Soviet Union had been assembling since the 1978 and still running the production line at the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, so the Tu 22M3 should not be a priority to be replaced by the Su 34 Fullback.
However a new version called as Tu 22M4 at the end of the 80 it had been already build for trials at the same time of the Su 34 Fullback prototype , while in this time too there were rumors that the Tu 22M5 version was in project phase .
There were some doubts about how aircraft would be replacement of the Tu- 95K-22 Bear, although it had been less known as maritime strike than Tu 22M2/3 Backfire for the West , the Tu-95K-22 were responsible for the strategic maritime strike missions and as strategic bombers.
This meaning that Tu-95K-22 could strike from Soviet Union any ship anywhere on the planet with the long range missiles Kh 22, while the Tu 22M2/3 could not accomplish this mission since it didn’t had the long range capability from the Tu 95K-22, along as the main restriction should be that Tu 22M2/3 had been banned by the START II treaty to receive the refueling probes.
In reason of that could be such possibility that the new Tu 22M4 would be the replacement from Tu-95K-22. The Tu 22M4 would be equipped with Nk 32 engines from Tu 160. If with this feature had been combined with a redesign of the fuselage could allow the Tu 22M4 carry more fuel internally and thereby to achieve greater autonomy than the Tu 22M3.
As the Tu- 95K-22 had bee equipped with refueling probe and with this feature it were not included in the START II treaty, so in this case the Tu 22M4 could also be equipped with refueling probes.
In that case as well it were speculated that the crew could be reduced to two members instead four from Tu 22M3, and thought this feature it would be adopted the same crew concept from Su 34 Fullback to allow the crew from Tu 22M4 to hold endurance missions as the Tu 95K-22 should be capable .
Indeed another possibility could be that the Tu 22M4 would be only test aircraft for the Tu 22M5 program, and this last one would be really a new aircraft in every aspects, since that designation Tu 22M5 had been created with the purpose of concealing this secret project, the same mode that were used with Tu 22M Backfire program that should be only a new version from Tu 22 Blinder.
Thus the Tu 22M5 could be the replacement for the Tu 95K-22, however the high command from Soviet Union were faced with the high cost about the fact that it had been producing three types of aircrafts for the Long Range Aviation (Tu 22M3, Tu 95MS and Tu 160) and the AV-MF ( Tu-22M3 and Tu 142 ASW/LRMP) since the end of the 70’s.
In reason of this fact the high command from Soviet Union could be established that future replacement for this long range aircraft’s should be the Tu 22M5 project. This Tu 22M5 could assume several versions and it would be capable to perform missions such as: Long Range maritime Strike, Strategic Bomber, Long Range Reconnaissance and Long Range ASW( Anti Submarine Warfare).
In resume the Tu 22M5 could have the same concept of the Su 34 Fullback, otherwise the Tu 22M5 shouldn’t be capable to achieve the same long range of the types as: Tu 95MS, Tu 95K-22, Tu 142 and Tu 160.
However this should not be an overwhelming obstacle for the strategic missions, once Soviet Union could have the option to increase its fleet from fuel tanker aircraft’s, or use a method often it had been employed by the Soviet Union that the same type of aircraft has been used to refuel another.
Anyway the Tu 22M5 program had been stopped after 1991 with the end of the Soviet Union, although during the 90s several rumors that Russia would be building a prototype of what would be the successor for the Tu 22M3.
Because of this could be possible that the PAK DA has been developed from what would have been the Tu 22M5. Thus the PAK DA could be an aircraft that could match with the basic dimensions from Tu 22M3 instead than something like the strategic bomber as Tu 160 or B 2A Spirit.
maurobaggioIf Russia could accept the financial risk from long-term financing to Argentina because of the Ukraine crisis, indeed would not be a biggest surprise to see in the future the Argentina getting something like: Su 30MK, Su 35 and MiG 35.
Faced with this possibility also should not be another biggest surprise if the UK would agree to authorize the sale from Gripen E to Argentina.
After all if in the future such crisis could have been happened with the Falkland / Malvinas Islands, from the point of view of the United Kingdom, certainly would be better the Argentina should be equipped with the Gripen E than any other type of fighters, once in this case the UK would have full access to all the operational details from Gripen E.
Anyway the Brazil also has not used its defense budget to pay for Gripen E either, since this purchase has been funded and the first payments only will be made after 2025.
maurobaggioThe biggest obstacle to Gripen E sales to some S. American countries is the British content, which gives the UK an effective veto – & which is why Argentina can’t buy Gripen E, although Brazil would be willing to sell it.
Apparently the most important obstacle today for Argentina to acquire the Gripen E should be the financial support of this purchase than the veto power from UK.
However due to the still tense relations with the UK in reason of the Falkland / Malvinas Islands its not likely that Argentina could make easily the option for Gripen E , but with Colombia the possibily of the Gripen E could be highly auspicious.
In this time of crisis or almost war in Ukraine could not be such surprise if Russia will become more aggressive in their offers to Argentina, and through that could make appetizing the financial support of: Su 30MK, Su 35 and MiG 35.
Sign In
