Announcing Tu-22M3 Troika by Black Cat Simulations

[milit]

They're getting info from the Tu-22M3s in Ukraine.

The last Backfire was destroyed in Ukraine 11 years ago. The rest is 1 in museum.

 

Отправлено с моего GT-I9082 через Tapatalk

[Schnelli]

Well, aircraft documentation is one thing. But don't you need an official license from the rights holder to be allowed to sell the module as an official DCS product?

[Harle]

rights holder

 

What kind of rights are those?

[ST0RM]

License from the aircraft manufacturer since they would be earning money from Tupolev's design.

[shagrat]

The last Backfire was destroyed in Ukraine 11 years ago. The rest is 1 in museum.

 

Отправлено с моего GT-I9082 через Tapatalk

That's the one they scanned for the cockpit and landing gear details etc., I guess. :)

 

From the very first post in this thread:

(...)- The State Aviation Museum of Ukraine is providing substantial technical assistance and access to their own Tu-22M3. This effort would have been dead without access to the real thing, so our thanks to them.(...)

[Harle]

License from the aircraft manufacturer since they would be earning money from Tupolev's design.

 

The wouldn't be able to prosecute the sim makers anyway. They wouldn't even care.

[brianacooper11]

Update

 

Here is a small update, mainly just saying work continues.

 

Schnelli posed an interesting question about the licensing from the manufacturer. I work on a second project (and that is all I will say for now) in parallel to the Tu-22M3 where a license from the manufacturer is indeed needed, and we are doing the project in a way to satisfy them.

 

However, I do not think a license of the Tu-22M3, of the era (USSR) we are using, is needed. That opinion comes from some reading, plus a few personal experiences. The USSR didn't 'license' anything, as everything was the property of the state. When the chaos began in 1989, a 'grabfest' began when everybody, the design bureaus, the numbered production factories, even different nations, all claimed rights to the intellectual property of 'their' aircraft, systems, etc. A situation developed where multiple entities 'owned' the same 'IP', and sometimes different developments of the same aircraft or engines, progressed from the early 90's.

 

Personal example: some friends owned Sukhoi Su-29, Yak-52 aircraft, both nominally powered by the "Vedeneyev" M14P engine. Although originally "designed" by the Vedeneyev Machine Plant (doubling as design and manufacturing concerns), the Voronezh Machine plant also manufactured them, and they claimed the engine's IP, ALONG with someone claiming to be the predecessor of Ivchenko, who now manufactures the engine in Romania. For a while you could get M14P-derived engines from two places, Romania and Russia. Then a US company started making heir own improved version just using an original core. So, 3-4 entities, across the countries of Russia, Ukraine, Romania and the States. My head spins, and I'm sure I don't completely understand what happened.

 

Similar events occured with aircraft. Sukhoi and Tuypolev design bureau's were separate from manufacturing plants in Nizhny-Novgorod, Novosibirsk, and Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and the manufacturers were claiming the IP to whatever was on their shop floor. Export recipient countries claimed IP too. The design bureaus, not directly manufacturing aircraft, where left without a nominal source of income, though the manufacturers weren't really doing any better.

 

Fast forward to the 2000's, the various concerns had tried co-existing as separate capitalist entities, and it wasn't working. Putin and company united all the remnants of manufacturing plants, design bureaus, etc into what is now United Aircraft Corporation, and things are starting to function again.

 

My view is that an aircraft, dating from the soviet period, AND NO LATER, doesn't have strong IP protections, if any, at least none with precedence. The chaos of the 90's severely clouds who owns what, and from when. That said, if UAC found out about the project and came knocking, I'd love to make a deal that included helpful data. In short, we aren't going to UAC asking for a license, but if somehow they decide we matter and they come to us saying there is a problem, we're definitely going to try to make things work out. I personally just have two business rules: Don't be evil, and don't be a jerk. I don't think Oleg or Dimitri feel differently.

 

FYI, we don't have РЛЭ, and we're not really going after it. The consensus is that crosses a line. But we have tons of ancillary documentation, identical systems with descriptions from other aircraft with open documentation, crew training aids, plus crewmembers themselves. We are avoiding hot topics, like sensitive comms and anything nuclear, but I don't think those detract from gameplay in DCS. As I have said before, the cockpits are very analog and substantially self explanatory, at least with some engineering and aviation background. What is not self explanatory is explained by crewmembers. You're not going to notice anything missing. This airplane introduces new disciplines of navigation science and systems, radar interpretation, and electronic warfare to DCS. We may not know things like 'true' radar detection ranges vs what is published, if they are different, but we know the "switch-ology" of the systems and radar science, for example. The radar is a surface search radar, not an air-to-air radar that processes information for you. We are doing our best to deliver you a display of correctly processed reflected surface radar energy, noise and all. You are going to have to learn the art of radar scope interpretation, to match what you know of where you are, the radar return vs. what maps show, and sort through the clutter and designate a target. We can deliver that experience without the РЛЭ, but with established science, crewmember input, and what documentation we have. Similar circumstances exist for other new systems to DCS. As time pulls back the curtain around the Backfire-C (and it will), we will keep the simulation updated, but I strongly expect that the core experience will not change, and will be timeless within DCS, and whatever the future may bring.

 

I never really did much of a post about either the trip to Ukraine, nor research about the aircraft, survivors, etc. It is true that Ukraine destroyed most of their Tu-22M and Tu-160 with the USA's help, but they certainly didn't get them all. I think there is one example of the M0 left (Monino), two each of the M1 and M2 (Monino and Kiev have both), and several of the M3 all over the place, thank the Lord. I have a picture somewhere taken from the top of the Tu-22M3 in Kiev, looking across the tops of the M2 and M1 with a setting sun. It was a beautiful shot of the variants, hope I can dig it up someday. I also learned that the Ukrainians love the Tu-22M3 as much as the Russians. You can almost taste the disgust dripping off them when they recall the planes being chopped up. The crews loved them. They want the plane's story told.

 

The Tu-22M3 in Kiev is our primary source of cockpit documentation. Systems were removed in the avionics bay, but the cockpit was very intact, and very beautiful. The nuclear blast shields had been closed, so the sun had not done it's thing to the interior. Just a couple of instruments were removed, but I had pictures of them, and understood their functionality, so no loss. Our goal is a late Soviet era cockpit, and that plane nailed it. There is a lot of variation between Tu-22M3 manufacturing batches, stuff in different places, but that plane in Kiev is probably going to be the representative in DCS, with minor tweaks.

 

This is easily the bomber best suited to DCS: you've got all the gameplay elements that make a bomber and will be unique within DCS, performance unmatched, and it's all done with just 4 seats. We (the DCS community) will have the greatest instrument with which to learn the art of the bombardier-navigator. Nobody can pick another bomber from any country or era to simulate that will be as great overall in DCS as the Backfire. Get your little buddies to establish air superiority, then go pound earth and carrier groups...

 

PS: We do not have a license from ED yet, so stuff that sounds "forward looking" comes with that asterisk. We are gunning for that license hard.

Edited May 29, 2017 by brianacooper11

[sniperwolfpk5]

Thank you for the info. Things are shapping up nicely. Looking forward to see growing this beast

[MikeMikeJuliet]

That is a short update? More words than the Lord of the Rings... I wonder what a long update would be like

 

We are hoping for success on the ED license front!

[Schnelli]

Thanks for this awesome update. I hope a you will get that license soon. (Also the license for the other project, which i would really like to hear more about :thumbup:)

[rogonaut]

thanks for the heads up, very interesting topic and what a great plane for dcs. one of the most exciting/different airframes that come to dcs.

 

best of luck

[TIGER]

I cant wait. Thank you for the update. :thumbup: Yes. I would fly that in DCS. :pilotfly::joystick:

[legitscoper]

Tu-22M3 carries FAB-100, 250, Kh-22 and Kh-15. Anything else?

 

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

[TIGER]

Tu-22M3 carries FAB-100, 250, Kh-22 and Kh-15. Anything else?

 

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

 

Armament

 

Guns: 1 × 23-mm GSh-23 cannon in remotely controlled tail turret

Hardpoints: wing and fuselage pylons and internal weapons bay with a capacity of 24,000 kg (53,000 lb) of

Up to 3 × Kh-22 missiles in weapons bay and on wing pylons or

Up to 6 × Kh-15 missiles on a MKU-6-1 rotary launcher in its bomb bay, plus 4 × Raduga Kh-15 missiles on two underwing pylons for a total of 10 missiles per aircraft.

Various sea mines and freefall bombs – 69 × FAB-250 or 8 × FAB-1500 might be typical.

The Kh-55 (AS-15 Kent) long-range cruise missile was tested on the Tu-22M but apparently not used in service.

[brianacooper11]

Tu-22M3 carries FAB-100, 250, Kh-22 and Kh-15. Anything else?

 

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

 

It's theoretically possible to deploy any of the "dumb" bombs we use on the Su-25 in DCS

-FAB series all the way to FAB-9000.

-RBK series cluster bombs, where the whole canister drops, then releases submunitions. Used for immediate area targets, treated like a dumb bomb.

-KMGU series cluster bombs, where canister remains with aircraft and submunitions are popped out with adjustable spacing. Used for larger/longer area target than RBK, like an airfield or runway. Has a special control panel in the cockpit.

-Kh-15, I would like to do all variants if possible.

-Kh-22M (conventional payload), Kh-22NA (nuclear payload). For a while, the logic was, if you want a high probability of sinking, not just damaging the largest capital ships, it takes a tactical nuke. USA, UK and Russia all had nuclear anti-shipping profiles. We will try it.

-sea mines

 

No Kh-55's, 101's, or anything like that. They are basically post-Soviet.

Edited May 29, 2017 by brianacooper11

[iLOVEwindmills]

What kind of methods does it have for aiming its bombs/missiles? From what I recall Tu22 weren't updated with any kind of on board self-designation in Soviet times.

[Frederf]

Best of luck. It's a common misconception that a more capable vehicle is more fun to fly. Not so! Not-the-latest and not-the-most-wizbang weaponry can be the most fun.

[brianacooper11]

What kind of methods does it have for aiming its bombs/missiles? From what I recall Tu22 weren't updated with any kind of on board self-designation in Soviet times.

 

Bombs can be released using an optical bombsight, or radar target designation. Missiles, either radar target designation, or in practice, a scout relays back lat, long, course and speed for naval targets, and you program the missiles with an intercept course and parameters for its own active search radar. No laser designators, just a radar screen, maps and slide rules, really.

 

As an aside, I posted about my other project here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=163181&page=16

[ESAc_matador]

Thanks for the update

[TaktLwG 73 Steinhoff]

Will we get something like this TGP?

Or is this too modern/classified?

[brianacooper11]

Will we get something like this TGP?

Or is this too modern/classified?

 

No and yes. There won't be a ground stabilized camera, per se. However, the bomb-sight is a "target tracking" type. You drag the cross-hairs onto a target, and try to keep them fixed on that point. The cross hairs will drift off that point due to errors in your computed airspeed, height, etc, but as you continually correct the cross hairs back on target, it turns those corrections into more accurate airspeed, height estimates, and after a while, the bombsight should track your target automatically as it passes under you. The system feeds corrections to the autopilot's commanded heading, and gives a "release" signal at the right angle/time. In a way, you're seeing a ground and target stabilized image up through weapons release, and some time after, though you should probably start maneuvering as soon as you can.

 

There is also a strike/reconnaissance camera. I am still figuring it out, but I think it has a mode where it tries to look at the calculated impact point, and take pictures for bomb damage assessment. The bombsight is gyrostabilized, so it's relatively tolerant of maneuvering right up to weapons release, but I don't know that this camera is. I'm not sure we're going to implement the camera initially, anyway, but it is good to share what the real thing was capable of.

[TaktLwG 73 Steinhoff]

Thanks for the info!

[sirscorpion]

No and yes.

 

Thank you for the update, First off looking forward to this and I hope you guys pull it off.

 

Question, and not going to hold you to it, But its been a while since the announcement and we didn't see any real progress publicly yet. Is there a Time frame you guys are aiming for finishing this product? Just to be clear not bashing or "harassing" just need a bit of a confidence boost about the project since we been burned a few times by projects simply folding for one reason or another.

 

 

The Tu22m3 has some nasty weapons, the KH-15 and KH22 are both very interesting weapons, will those be modeled and if so what fidelity you are aiming for?

[brianacooper11]

Thank you for the update, First off looking forward to this and I hope you guys pull it off.

 

Question, and not going to hold you to it, But its been a while since the announcement and we didn't see any real progress publicly yet. Is there a Time frame you guys are aiming for finishing this product? Just to be clear not bashing or "harassing" just need a bit of a confidence boost about the project since we been burned a few times by projects simply folding for one reason or another.

 

 

The Tu22m3 has some nasty weapons, the KH-15 and KH22 are both very interesting weapons, will those be modeled and if so what fidelity you are aiming for?

 

Not sure I can give much of a confidence boost, in the way of stuff to show. We all know the track record of various DCS projects. We probably won't be any different; it will take us years. The next update, in a month or so, should show some video of our EFM doing some stuff with the default Tu-22M3, mainly a demonstration of wing sweep aerodynamics, engine dynamics, and supersonic flight. I'm building a development environment incorporating Matlab/Simulink for the EFM and avionics for DCS projects as I go along. That adds a lot of work at the beginning (now), but should speed up things later, and overall. Translating Russian slows me down, too. Dimitriy and Oleg can speak for the 3D model.

 

These things, and DCS, just are what they are. Nobody has quit yet, nor do any of us intend to. The team grows, and more wait in the wings to help when the opportunity arrives.

[Catah]

I found out about this project only a couple of weeks ago, and I made a forum account to say this (I know I'm very late): This project is probably one of the most interesting ones I have seen in development and has really grabbed my attention. Not just the aircraft itself but also the effort and ambition of Black Cat simulations. So thank you to all the team members for your hard work thus far and what I hope will be into the future too.

 

I'm really excited to see the future updates for this and I wish you the best of luck in your journey to build the Backfire! We're counting on you :smilewink: