It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fate of the Su-34(Su-32FN) ???

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   
India had alredy leased 4 Tu-22' from russia in 2001.

Now an unspecified number will be leased again.

The Russians were literally forcing the Indian AF to lease some of their in use Mig-31, but it was turned down.

The IAF i read in a mag are pressing hard for some TU-160 Blackjack 's to strike deep into china(in the event of war).




Ukraine were interseted in giving away some of their Tu-22 Blinder's but again it was turned down.






posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I didn't know that India only had Tu-22's since 2001, I am shocked as I thought this had been in Indian service for many years.

The new lease, from what I have read, isn't for more Tu-22's but for Tu-22M's which, confusingly, is a totally different aeroplane to the Tu-22.




[edit on 31-1-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Originally posted by Stealth Spy
India had alredy leased 4 Tu-22' from russia in 2001.

India never leased Tu-22s. That there are negotiations for a deal itself has already been confirmed, but haggling over the price has prevented the actual signing.

There has not been any serious talk of leasing Blackjacks at all, and they'd be useless in the Indian context.


intelgurl,
The Backfire deal would be a lease to skirt treaties concerning the sale of strategic weapons. The lease would be for an indefinate time period, and the aircraft would virtually be a part of the IAF fleet.

It should not be a destabilizing factor, because India already has considerable conventional superiority or parity against its potential foes.

-Raj



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Waynos the actual version is Tu-22 M3, the latest, upgraded one.

Raj, i am quiet sure about the Tu-22's in 2002 jan .(not 2001 as i said)

here this site was last updated in 2002 and shows india with 4 Tu-22's.
www.combataircraft.com...

here is a quote :

In December 1999 it was announced that India would lease four Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers, with the aircraft slated arrive in India as early as June 2000. India's Tu-142 and Il-38 aircraft will be upgraded in Russia. An initial batch of five aircraft will be sent to Russia and during this period the Tu-22M3s will undertake a maritime role armed with AS-20 Kayak anti-ship missiles. India is making substantial purchases of the Novator 3M-54 Alfa missile to equip Kilo class submarines and its new frigates. It is believed that an air-launched variant will be purchased to arm the Tu-142s currently in service and the six to eight additional aircraft being sought by the Navy. If an air-launched version of the Alfa is procured, it is anticipated that India's Tu-22M3s will eventually be equipped to fire them.

source : www.fas.org...

FAS is a reliable source.

also read :

www.navlog.org...

www.tribuneindia.com...

Another quote :

"Moscow has agreed to lease four Tu-22 Backfire bombers. The Tu-22, a maritime reconnaissance and strike aircraft, can be fitted with Klub class missiles with a range of around 300 km. A deal to purchase Admiral Gorshkov, the aircraft carrier, was also cl inched. The Indian Navy is on the verge of signing a contract for five more Kamov-31 air-borne early warning helicopters. "

This is dated October 2000
source : www.frontlineonnet.com...


This www.fas.org... source updated in 2003 shows 4 Tu-22's in the IAF's inventory .

The new deal means more T-22M3's .cool


[edit on 1-2-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
It appears I was mistaken and India has no Tu-22's in service at all. I was sure I'd seen a picture of a Tu-22 in Indian markings many years ago but I must have imagined it.

Stealth spy, I must correct you again (after all I am Mr Pedantic
), the lease is not for Tu-22's, the Tu-22M is a different type of plane altogether.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
It appears I was mistaken and India has no Tu-22's in service at all. I was sure I'd seen a picture of a Tu-22 in Indian markings many years ago but I must have imagined it.

Stealth spy, I must correct you again (after all I am Mr Pedantic
), the lease is not for Tu-22's, the Tu-22M is a different type of plane altogether.


How different are they.

How different is the Tu-22M3 from the rest????



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   
look at the two photos I posted above. The only things that the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M have in common is the fact that they were designed by Tupolev and that they are bombers, although the shape of the fin is very similar. One is a swept wing bomber with its engines mounted on its back and a circular section fuselage, the other is a VG bomber with its engines contained in a box section fuselage with lateral air intakes, there is no major part of a Tu-22 that could be used as a 'spare' on a Tu-22M.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
look at the two photos I posted above. The only things that the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M have in common is the fact that they were designed by Tupolev and that they are bombers, although the shape of the fin is very similar. One is a swept wing bomber with its engines mounted on its back and a circular section fuselage, the other is a VG bomber with its engines contained in a box section fuselage with lateral air intakes, there is no major part of a Tu-22 that could be used as a 'spare' on a Tu-22M.


this i know
i was asking about the effectiveness ?? hmm..i should have specified that clearly.

BTW : Iraq had Tu-22's !!

[edit on 1-2-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
did some of my own research ..


Tupolev TU-22 Blinder

Origin: USSR
Type: supersonic stand-off missile carrier
Max Speed: 802 kt / 924 mph
Max Range 3100 km / 1,926 miles
Dimensions: span 23.75 m / 77 ft 11 in
length 40.53 m / 132 ft 11.7 in
height 10.67 m / 35 ft 0 in
Weight: empty 40,000 kg / 88,185 lb
max. take-off 84,000 kg /
185,188 lb
Powerplant: two 16000-kg (35,273-lb) afterburning thrust Koliesov VD-7M turbojets
Armament: one 23-mm NR-23 cannon in radar-controlled tail turret, plus one AS-4 'Kitchen' stand-off missile recessed into the weapons bay
Operators: Iraq, Libya, Ukraine




--------------------------


Tupolev TU-22M Backfire

Origin: USSR
Type: medium strategic bomber and maritime reconnaissance/attack aircraft
Max Speed: 1,147 kt / 1,321 mph
Max Range 4,000 km / 2,485 miles
Dimensions: span 34.30 m / 112 ft 6.5 in
length 39.60 m / 129 ft 11 in
height 10.80 m / 35 ft 5.25 in
Weight: max. take-off 130,000 kg / 286,596 lb
Powerplant: two 20000-kg (44,092-lb) afterburning thrust turbofans of unknown designation
Armament: two 23-mm GSh-23 two-barrel cannon in a radar-controlled tail barbette; provision for 12000 kg (26,455 Ib) of disposable stores, including nuclear weapons and free-fall bombs carried internally, or two AS-4 'Kitchen' missiles carried under the wings, or one AS-4 'Kitchen' missile carried semi-recessed into the lower fuselage, or up to three AS-6
Operators: India, Russia, Ukraine





posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
It's been said that one reason that the Backfire was also termed the Tu-22 was to confuse the West of the plane's capabilities during SALT-II negotations



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
That sounds possible, I always just assumed it was because it began as an attempt to improve the Tu-22 but the designation just stuck even after it had evolved into a new design.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by Stealth Spy
In December 1999 it was announced that India would lease four Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers, with the aircraft slated arrive in India as early as June 2000. India's Tu-142 and Il-38 aircraft will be upgraded in Russia.

Trust me, India has never operated Tu-22s. In 1999, a Memorandum of Understanding was announced that India will eventually lease Backfires when the need comes and the details can be worked out. During his recent visit to India, Putin explicitly said that negotiations will soon be in the works. There have been recent mixed press reports saying that there was some bitter haggling over the cost of the Tu-22s. Its to be expected, both Indians and Russians are hard bargainers


The reason this is not being fast tracked (like the Gorshkov deal in the last year, the T-90MBT, or the MRCA tender) is because there is no imperative need for it right now.


The role of the Tu-22M3s is of a strategic, long-range standoff platform with which, for example, massive E. Asian fleet entering the IOR will be hard-pressed to counter (especially given the geography of the Indonesian, etc. archipelagoes. Today, any extraregional country that attempts to move a force in the IOR can be neutralized with present assets.

The aquisition of the Backifre is a part and parcel with INs future growth. I don't think many people really grasp how far the IN has come in recent years. From being a gorified brown-water navy through the 80s, to the 15-year plan from 2002 that will see in little over a decade -- that is, 2017 -- India having 3 carrier battle-group fleets and a fourth around a cruiser comprising upwards of 150 ships and 40 submarines, 30 MR aircraft and helicopters, 60 ASW helicopters and planes, an coast guard tripled in size, induction if indigenous nuclear submarines, and an double increase in IAF size and potency.

The increase in naval assets will also be complemented with many more modern planes capable of long-distance ASh roles: that is, at least half a squadron to squadron strength of Backfires, as well as by that time 4 sqn MKIs which also have standoff long-range nuclear/missile capabilites.

It has been stated, but often overlooked, that the Backfire aquisition calls for an initial requirement of four aircraft, and will probably see induction by the time INS Vikramaditya/Gorshkov enters service and INS Viraat is decommissioned. Doubtless this requirement will increase when the first of two Air Defense Ships (indigenous carriers) will enter service c. 2010, and the need for forward ASh platforms grows.

-Raj

[edit on 2-2-2005 by rajkhalsa2004]



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
^^^^^^ Yeah, I figured that first bit out three days ago


It appears I was mistaken and India has no Tu-22's in service at all.


But thanks for the rest of the info, that I didn't know


[edit on 3-2-2005 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I just hate it.

Tupalev seem to have taken a leaf out of Sukhoi's aircraft nomenclature book.

Why Tu-22M for another plane, why not something else.

Look at Sukhoi : Su-34=Su-32FN=Su-27IB=Su-27Modified UB trainer.
that is only the tip of the iceberg of confusing aircraft names



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Look at Sukhoi : Su-34=Su-32FN=Su-27IB=Su-27Modified UB trainer.
that is only the tip of the iceberg of confusing aircraft names

Su-34 - used by media
Su-32 - export version
Su-27IB - usually by russian pilots/people

in su-27ib, "I" = fighter and "b" = bomber so name tells you everything.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by titus

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Look at Sukhoi : Su-34=Su-32FN=Su-27IB=Su-27Modified UB trainer.
that is only the tip of the iceberg of confusing aircraft names

Su-34 - used by media
Su-32 - export version
Su-27IB - usually by russian pilots/people

in su-27ib, "I" = fighter and "b" = bomber so name tells you everything.


nice.

what about the Tu-22 and Tu-22M and Tu-22M3 ?



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Tu-22 is the Blinder

Tu-22M is the Backfire

Tu-22M3 upgraded version (engine, avionics, slight body modifications) of the same



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
hmm..i was thinking of the American equivalent of the Su-34, and i guess it'll be the FB-22, although it'll be a lot better











posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   
The operational utility of bombers in the new, riskier battlefield of faster, smarter, and longer-ranged defences is one of the top reasons the Air Force is looking at the F-22 and a larger-winged, longer-ranged variant, the FB-22, as midterm strike possibilities, according to Secretary of the Air Force James G. Roche.

"The F-22 ... has about three times the range of any fighter-attack airplane, when loaded with weapons," Roche said. Too often, he said, ranges are quoted for current aircraft that do not include the weight or drag of weapons carried externally. The F-22, with internal carriage of its full weapons load, can attack a target 600 miles away and return on internal fuel, Roche said.

Enhancing this capability by adding range and weapons load resulted in the idea for the FB-22, he said, describing it as a "regional bomber," with a role comparable to that previously covered by the F-111.

The avionics are identical for the F-22 and an FB-22, said Roche, meaning that "one of the most troublesome things" about developing a new aircraft is done. Likewise, engines, the cockpit, and much of the airframe would be similar, and it would still be stealthy, dramatically reducing the cost to fill this new niche. Optimized for ground attack, though, the FB-22 would not be a dogfighter.

"Much bigger wing, more fuel, you can carry more things--but you can't fight," Roche summed up. The payoff would be "instead of carrying eight Small Diameter Bombs on the F-22, you can carry 30 on the FB-22," with a range of 1,600 miles. Such a capability would, in a smaller aircraft, duplicate the fighting effectiveness of two B-2 bombers armed with 2,000-pound JDAM?s. Like the B-2, the FB-22 would carry two pilots, since missions could last more than 12 hours.

In a series or articles by Bill Sweetman for "Jane's Defense Weekly" and Popular Science, the FB-22 s described as a tailless delta variant of the F-22. Yaw control would be provided by split flaps, or "decelerons" on the wings, while roll would be controlled by movable wingtips.

Rather than using the F-22's Pratt & Whitney F119 engines, the FB-22 is likely to have either the new F135, which was developed from the F119 to power the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or the rival General Electric F136. In either event, the FB-22 would have greater speed than the B-1B, the fastest US bomber.

Because of the work already done on the F-22, developing the FB-22 might cost about $5 billion to $7 billion ? a fraction of the price for starting a bomber from scratch. FB-22 flights could begin by 2013. Starting a second final assembly line for the FB-22 at Boeing is under consideration, since Boeing makes the F-22's wings.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
i just noticed...it'll be tail less.will that makeany difference to its stealth

artist's impression



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join