Skip to comments.New image of a Russian Tu-22M Backfire with cruise missile emerges
Posted on 12/17/2013 12:26:05 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Not many images showing the KH-22, a large, long-range cruise missile developed by the Soviet Union to target U.S. Navy aircraft carriers with a conventional or nuclear warhead, can be found on the Internet.
Those that you can find if you Google KH-22″ are mainly old ones, hence a recent clear air-to-air image showing a Tu-22M Backfire flying with a couple of missiles that are dubbed AS-4 Kitchen by NATO, deserve a mention.
The photograph in this post was uploaded on the Russianplanes.net portal by a user using the nickname White and shows the Tu-22 flying with two KH-22s (most probably upgraded to the KH-32 version, which features new seeker head and rocket motor), capable to reach a top speed of about Mach 5 and a range around 700 km.
One missile is clearly visible under the port wing, the other one is probably carried on the starboard underwing pylon.
I’m doubting the speed and range numbers.
Also, they make an AWAC’s killer version that I also doubt on.
“Im doubting the speed and range numbers.”
If they just said Mach 1 and 300 miles, I’d be impressed. But Mach 5 and 700 klicks are Star Trek numbers.
I’m with you on that. I don’t think the wing-mounted weapons could handle the load from Mach 5. Also, the shape is not optimal for low hypersonic speeds (as compared to the SR-71).
your forgetting the no power glide...
Once it runs out of fuel, it will coast at 500Km/h for a minute or two
When you are traveling Mach 5, there’s not a lot of room for error. A hit with anything would be fatal to the mission because that piece of shrapnel from the AA is also traveling into you at Mach 5.
Then there is the whole friction, heat and metal decay thing.
If mach 5 then that is less then a 10 minute burn time. sounds reasonable to me.
I don’t know anything about the “Backfire” but it looks nice. Also looks pretty big.
Ugly looking missiles,, like a buzz bomb with no fins.. Oh wait, the fins probably pop out after they get dropped loose.. huh? Probably made in China.
Thanks for all your posts on the technological achievements and attempts from ‘over there’ and here too!
Dang eyes, it does have fins,, never mind.
Where is the air intake for the jet engines?
Ah, BUT you are fogetting several iportant things: A simple guided-at-low-power-flight + terminal-very-high-speed-boost + very-high-”spray” of even a destroyed-missile (shrapnel” WILL mission-kill ANY destroyer ship it can target.
That the missile IS very-high speed contoured reduces heat loads, but if the very-high speed were only for the terminal boost phase (when the precision control and guidance” is NOT as crucial as in the long-range low-powered guidance phase) then the 2 or 4 minutes that it is at very high temperature can be withstood even by common aerospace materials. Also, a high-altitude (near space IRBM mode) cycle also reduces the heat created by very high-speed friction. Little atmosphere? Little friction. Not much guidance either from wings, but that means little if the missile is only in terminal phase. The last-little-bit of flight is short time, so the target can’t go very far.
Alternate: Low or medium power controlled flight plus a “IRBM ballistic terminal boost phase. Very high speed, very low range, plus an in-near-space glide phase that “coasts” while using little fuel.
A not-even-close” nuke explosion would take out the “topside” aircraft and crew servicing those aircraft, plus radars and controls for what survive.
Topside damage would knock out UNREP and supply ships - which is a mission kill in days.
I'm sure glad we got that straightened out.
TU-22 Blinder which is what this says it is has a passing resemblance to the aircraft in the pic. The TU-22 was a medium bomber introduced in the early ‘60s. Even if this is a derivative of the old plane no way is it Mach 5 platform. The mission may be but not the aircraft.
Mildly related, but I trained on simulations of nukes in missles going off horizontally at mach 2,3,4, etc.
Made one heck of a concentrated “tube” of energy, even when a small weapon was fired at relatively slow speed (e.g., Davey Crocket artillery).
I have zero doubt these are already in place to destroy US carriers.
Our tomahawk has a “pop-down” air scoop for its cruise mode.
If this is similar, why drag along a permanent “air scoop” when you’re just flying attached to another aircraft. A pop-down air inlet also prevents air from cycling through the engine continuously, which also add drag. If it were a “rocket” configuration (self-contained” oxidizer and fuel, then no scoop is needed at all. But it is unlikely a long-range missile that size would carry its own oxidizer, UNLESS it were IRBIM-configured (above atmosphere) powered flight after a “boost phase” from the airplane launching it upwards.
The X-15 after all, could be a interceptor missile (once) but it has a very short range.
Never mind. Mach 5 missile, duh.
Nah, I was thinking about the plane, not the missiles which I assume have rocket engines.
Unless they have a matter antimatter engine on that missile I have trouble with believing the range based on its size. Maybe 75-100 miles based on speed of mach 2 or 3 at best!
AS-4 is rocket powered.
Maybe you should compare it to the AIM-54 before you reject the claims. A much smaller missile that had a range of 190 km at Mach 5.
Not familiar with the upgrade to KH-32...sure look pretty much the same on the outside as an AS-4 Kitchen (KH-22).
Just checked what it used for fuel.
Hydrazine & IRFNA (inhibited red fuming nitric acid).
Some nasty stuff.
That little make believe Iranian Stealth Fighter has some competition from a make believe missile.
Those are indeed “Star Trek” numbers but that’s within the performance scope of the AS-4. What’s new and different about this one here is the seeker and motor.
The AS-4 itself is nothing new. It’s been around since the early 1960s and it’s primary job has largely been believed as a carrier-killer although it could be used against land targets. Imagine that sucker, all 12500lbs, slamming into you at Mach 5. Oh, yeah, and then its 2k warhead would explode too.
Thanks Robert A. Cook, PE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.