Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Share
    avatar
    Hoof

    Posts : 77
    Points : 79
    Join date : 2011-01-06
    Age : 27
    Location : HAFB, UT

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Hoof on Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:05 am

    GarryB wrote:I hope those looking at developing the PAK-DA read this article and learn a bit from it.

    For example some sort of escape capsule that can float and keep the crew alive even in a freezing water environment might be useful.

    Having a modular design so that a very large payload can be carried over theatre distances for a conventional mission while at the same time able to replace that large conventional load with a strategic load that could even just be external with the internal capacity for fuel greatly increased to minimise the need for inflight refuelling.
    Even having large external fuel tanks for the initial subsonic flight to the north pole area that are dropped to reduce drag for the rest of the flight instead of external weapon carriage so stealth near enemy territory can be maintained.

    it doesn't even need to actually supercruise... going into a small dive or apply the AB to cross into supersonic speed and then go back to dry power to maintain that speed would be fine.

    Does it look bright for Pak-DA, or is it something that not going to be ordered, instead Russia will have to fly on tu-95s until they all fall to disrepair...

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Austin on Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:31 am

    A nice photo of Tu-95MS

    avatar
    Hoof

    Posts : 77
    Points : 79
    Join date : 2011-01-06
    Age : 27
    Location : HAFB, UT

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Hoof on Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:37 am

    Austin wrote:A nice photo of Tu-95MS


    This is so pretty ! I took a lot of picture of sun-downs but none of them have planes on them.... i might wanna take a picture of F16 during sundown with a mountains on the background... its possible =D
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:13 am

    Does it look bright for Pak-DA, or is it something that not going to be ordered, instead Russia will have to fly on tu-95s until they all fall to disrepair...

    Well you work for an air force that has kept the B-52s operational for half a century and plan to keep them operational for another half century too.

    There is no reason why the Bear couldn't do the same, the Tu-95s in service now are actually Tu-142s with upgraded wings and airframes that were made between 1986 and about 1994 so they are actually younger than most of the B-1Bs the US operate of which the final 100th B-1B was produced in 1988.

    The layman looks at the Tu-95 and thinks WWII bomber because of the propellers, but the engines are not radials or piston engines, they are jet engines... turboprop engines.

    The PAK-DA program exists and is funded but the time scales are not urgent.
    Basically the plan seems to be for a relatively stealthy aircraft with a strategic range with a strategic payload, and over a theatre range a heavy conventional payload and long loiter times, with an airframe that can replace the Tu-95, Tu-160, and Tu-22M3.
    Given the above article perhaps another purpose could be as an inflight refuelling tanker as well perhaps?

    The current negotiated START treaty has reduced strategic weapons to 1,500 per side, which means the strategic bombers need to be able to carry 500 warheads to various targets.
    If the PAK-DA carries 5 warheads per aircraft that means Russia will need 100, which is a lot, but then for conventional and strategic use you don't want to limit yourself too much.
    Perhaps a more manageable number would be 50 aircraft... if they are stealthy and subsonic with a very low drag shape, efficient engines etc giving them long range then a mix of 6 long range cruise missiles and 4 medium range cruise missiles would be a useful load.

    AFAIK they are not even going to be at the mockup stage till 2018 with entry into service 2025 or later.

    Austin

    Posts : 6333
    Points : 6733
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Austin on Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:50 am

    Here is Yefim Gordon book on Tu-95 and Tu-142 , Enjoy !

    Download Link

    avatar
    Hoof

    Posts : 77
    Points : 79
    Join date : 2011-01-06
    Age : 27
    Location : HAFB, UT

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Hoof on Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:08 am

    It would be nice to see Russia go through full re-armament... Just wonder for how long equipment that was made in USSR going to be used for... I mean, sure it gets the job done, but enemy gets more and more technological... I mean everything has a limit... take ammo for example... in my Russian surplus 5.45x39 ammo, that was made in 1985... i found at least 3 duds in about 300 shells... point is that things are not made in big numbers as they used to, and equipment now ages faster than it being replaced...

    but as i found out in 2008... Good soldiers with old equipment can still kick a lot of ass =)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:37 am

    The problem is what to replace first.

    Right now everyone has their hands out for all new stuff, personally I think a proper management system where old stock is used for training and new stuff is kept as an operational reserve for combat, though batches from all periods of storage is used periodically to check it is still OK would be the ideal solution.

    Anything dangerous should be disposed of, anything likely to lead to duds sold to commercial markets as cheap ammo that still makes you some money that can be put to new production ammo.
    For a hunter a few dud rounds is ok for the cheap ammo.
    Obviously more of a problem for a soldier in combat, but not the end of the world either.

    The problem is priorities and the overall priorities in the Russian military seem to be the Strategic nuclear forces, the air force and the navy... largely because they have suffered the most from decades of neglect.

    For the ground forces part of the problem is dealing with material in storage.

    I remember reading a complaint letter from Bazalt at a rumour that the Russian AF will not buy dumb bombs for the next 5 years because they have so many in storage... the point of course being that if you want to keep x level of production capacity then you need to keep production healthy... either through exports or local orders.

    An obvious solution would be a political one where large numbers of in storage munitions are gifted to a friendly nation to encourage military orders. The Russian military then get funding to replace those stocks with new munitions so the Military Industrial Complex not only makes more for the Russian Military, who get newer munitions, but might also snag an order from the state that has the material gifted to it to deliver that ordinance.
    The US has been doing this for decades... and they believe all this aide is for the recipient and not for the US MIC.

    Part of the problem is the cost of buying all new kit that is considered "modern" makes it all very very expensive so earlier plans to have it done sooner need to be adjusted... quite often.

    Another problem is of course with munitions becoming smarter and more expensive that the military will more and more prefer simulations over actual ordinance to reduce the costs of exercises.
    As munitions get more sophisticated they also start to cost more so it gets harder and harder to justify using them in training.

    For instance firing off some RPG rounds is quite normal with training versions without HE warheads (usually black warheads) for safety reasons.
    Replace the infantry standard RPG-7 with something like Javelin and all of a sudden firing one missile becomes very very expensive so training simulators are used more and more so even less and less munitions are actually used in training.

    Perhaps the solution is two types of training... training with the old cheaper stuff and simulator training with the expensive stuff.
    The cost of realistic training will be reduced by the cheaper munitions from stocks, while the simulator training will be cheap because no munitions will actually be expended.
    In the realistic training a few modern weapons can be used to ensure stocks are OK (and are not duds) so the soldiers will get a real feel for the use of the munitions they will be equipped with in real combat if that occurs.
    avatar
    Hoof

    Posts : 77
    Points : 79
    Join date : 2011-01-06
    Age : 27
    Location : HAFB, UT

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Hoof on Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:24 am

    well... I'm sure there are a lot of nations out there, that could use even outdated weapons. I'm sure as soon as afghanistan will stabilize, more or less... their government could use some fighters/bombers... heck they could even use mig-21s and mig-23s... they wont be getting any of the new stuff... even f-16s would be too pricey for them...

    If Russia could sell some of the old weapons and munitions, it would do more good than spontaneously exploding after being in storage for 40 years... and I'm sure there are tanks that are going to turn to rust, because there is no way that they will be used... Russia could make more money selling them, instead of cutting them up and smelting them down...

    I do like that system Garry. If you consider that its a lot cheaper to repair old equipment, rather than new. I would rather have a new soldier to drive t-55 or t-62, before they get their hands on t-90...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:03 am

    I remember myself as a kid learning to drive on an old clunker. The only danger was if I hit something that was worth something so it was a case of third party insurance.

    Learning the basics of driving and operating a car doesn't require the newest most state of the art machine... in fact considering the wear and tear on it it is perhaps better if it isn't expensive.

    The current Russian situation with MBTs from T-55s through to T-90s means tank guns from 100mm rifled through 115mm smooth bore to 125mm smooth bore, and the equivalent towed guns in similar calibres.

    Being able to remove 10,000 tanks from storage and donating them can at one time reduce costs, improve relations, reduce diversity where diversity is not wanted (ie reduce engine types, main gun calibres, transmission types, etc etc). Along with the tanks you can dispense with spares and ammo including spares making factories and tool sets and ammo making factories and equipment and donate it all to a country you want good will from... they my pay for it with products you currently import from a country that charges you too much.
    Or it can simply be a gift to reduce your own operating costs and improve their situation regarding their perhaps hostile neighbours.

    It is obviously important that the recipient can use the material and you are not just dumping your crap on them of course.

    Some material will not be of use to anyone, like many of the aircraft in storage that have been used to their airframe life limits... often it makes more sense to make new aircraft than overhaul to zero hours and continue to use.

    That is OK as air defence forces need one off drone targets that act like real aircraft, Tank firing ranges are always more interesting with realistic armour for targets. New Ammo can be tested against realistic armour with or without upgrades and of course armour upgrades can be best tested with real tank shells.

    New Ammo and new propellents need to be developed and old hulls can be used for cheap testing.

    The final solution will be a mix of cheap gifts, gifts with minor upgrades to make them more suitable, test targets, and scrap. There are probably a few items that will go directly to museums and even private collections too.

    Of course the Mig-21-98 upgrade or the Mig-23-98 would make a potent little fighter for any third world country not able to afford the state of the art.

    I just hope the Russian MIC remembers that while state of the Art weapons are its future with the Russian military that sometimes numbers are important too and that a cost effective modest product that does the job at low cost to buy and operate can sometimes be a much better product... especially for countries that are actually rather unlikely to see real full scale war but have large territories like Russia.
    avatar
    Hoof

    Posts : 77
    Points : 79
    Join date : 2011-01-06
    Age : 27
    Location : HAFB, UT

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Hoof on Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:42 am

    GarryB wrote: especially for countries that are actually rather unlikely to see real full scale war but have large territories like Russia.

    Like Kazakhstan ? Possibly Afghanistan, once its stabilizes... lets not forget Iraq, by the way, Does Iraq has anything other than infantry anymore ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:04 am

    I thought their might be huge potential for rearming the Iraqi and Afghan forces, but then you hear about the new 13 billion dollars worth of gear the Iraqis are "buying" from the US with another purchase in a few years time of similar value and I kinda think that apart from selling both countries a few good helos that the US will likely try to make back some of the money it has spend on these countries in the last decade or three.

    The Russians already wrote off 12 billion in arms debt to Iraq I hardly think they are going to make the same mistake twice.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1165
    Points : 2053
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:07 am


    Russia lifts ban on Tu-95 bomber flights

    RIA Novosti

    15:49 12/01/2011

    MOSCOW, January 12 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Air Force has lifted a ban on the flights of Tu-95 Bear strategic bombers imposed after an An-22 Cock transport plane was destroyed in a crash last December.

    The plane crashed in the Tula Region on December 28, killing all 12 crew members.

    The Air Force decided to ground all Tu-95s and An-22s because both aircraft types share the Kuznetsov NK-12 turboprop, whose failure was suspected as the main cause of the crash.

    The An-22 remains the largest turboprop-powered aircraft in the world. Around 45 remain in service with the Russian Air Force and most are over 40 years old.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2011/russia-110112-rianovosti02.htm
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:44 am

    Good news... means it was not the engines at fault.

    I wonder if there will be an option to reengine the Bear and An-22... of course the An-22 is more in need of a replacement than the Bear I think a better move would be to revisit the Il-106 program and further develop the engines to fit them to the remaining An-22s and Bears.

    Unlike with jet engines the An-22s and Bears are never going to get much faster because of the speed limits of turboprop aircraft... the only improvement would be more thrust for easier takeoffs and heavier loads or better fuel efficiency for longer range.

    The 80 ton payload of the Il-106 would make it capable of transporting in one piece western MBTs which would mean competition with the C-17 for the first time... I could see the French buying such an aircraft, though politics will effect sales to other western countries I think the price difference will make some interesting sales.
    It will also be an aircraft very useful to the Russian AF... the An-22 is a useful aircraft and this aircraft could replace it and it is a Russian design so the hassle of copyright and maintainence from approved shops wont be in a foreign country like it currently is with Antonov.
    From what I have read the engines are ready and world standard and could be fitted to the Bears as a bonus.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:22 am

    According to this page:

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/il-106.htm

    ...the NK-93 engines generate about 18,000 kgf of thrust compared to the NK-12MP turboprops that generate 10,000 kgf.

    Their fuel efficiency and power mean you could improve performance of the Bear by a significant measure with 4 engines or even just two if the engines proved reliable enough (with 4 you can greatly improve acceleration and probably increase weapon and fuel weights, though top speed will not likely be effected too much, with 2 engines you would greatly reduce drag and greatly extend range which could lead to the offloading of extra fuel to carry more weapons further without sacrifices in speed or ceiling etc).

    Of course the page (link) is all speculation, but the engine is developed already so it is hardly vapour ware... it just needs the cash.

    Any suggestion of the Il-106 now would of course have to allow for a complete revision of its design with a lot more composites added to reduce weight and improve performance but the An-22 is clearly still in use so there is clearly a use for such an aircraft.

    The capacity to carry 80 tonnes 5,000km would make it attractive to India I would guess as a way to quickly deploy all their tank types in an emergency to anywhere in India.

    An old saying says if the only tool you have is a hammer then treat every problem like it is a nail. A more complete tool set means options to do a better job.

    The conflict in Afghanistan showed that in hot and high conditions without a helo like the Ka-226 the Soviet Army had to resort to using Mi-8s to deliver post to mountain top bases when a much smaller, lighter, more agile, and most importantly cheaper Ka-226 could have done a better job.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 1971
    Points : 2136
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Cyberspec on Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:46 am

    Omsk plant to revive production of engines for the Tu-160

    ..."The Siberian company will acquire a number of important components and assemblies. OMO-Baranov signed a preliminary agreement with the parent company of the project,"Kuznetsov-Samara aircraft engine plant".

    According to the regional government, the first NK-32 is planned to be built by 2013. A few dozen such engines are planned to be built by 2020...

    http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2011/09/05/221129.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:32 pm

    That is disappointing news actually.

    The fact that they are just going to make the NK-32 engine rather than a newer design based on the progress in materials and engine technology since the early 1980s when the T-160 was designed is disappointing in itself, but the fact that they only plan to make a couple of dozen by 2020 clearly shows there is no intention of re-engining the Tu-22M3s too.

    If you asked me I would say that making a few dozen engines over a period of 7 years is pretty inefficient and that because updating the aircraft is going ahead that it makes sense to update the engines and perhaps unify the two engine types in the Blackjack and the Backfire into one new more modern engine type. There is potential to create a series of new engine types based on either the NK-25 or NK-32 and to develop them in a series of stages just as they are doing with the Al-31 to create an all new 5th gen engine.

    The engine in this case could eventually be fitted to the PAK DA and might allow it to supercruise... which would be enormously more useful than just having an AB sprint capability of mach 2 or whatever.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10515
    Points : 10992
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  George1 on Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:27 am

    Tu-160 production has been restarted?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:14 pm

    A few unfinished airframes were completed, but the complex and expensive main beam structure made of a large solid piece of Aluminium was made in the Ukraine in a factory that no longer exists.

    Otherwise they would likely build another 40-50 Blackjacks and retire a few Bears.

    What they will likely actually do is upgrade the existing Bears and Blackjacks and keep them in operation for the next 10 years or so and by about 2022 they will likely introduce a new strategic bomber to replace the Bear and Blackjack.

    They talk about upgrading the Backfire too.

    The new aircraft will be both a strategic and a theatre range bomber, with a rather heavy theatre range payload, while the strategic range will come from reduced payload plus extra onboard fuel.

    Most fan art shows the Sukhoi T-4S based design, but I think a flying wing configuration optimised for supercruise performance might combine high overall speed with low radar cross section.

    Such a platform could perform the roles of strategic and theatre bomber, and at the same time could be adapted to the long range interceptor role and perhaps maritime patrol and several other roles like recon etc.

    So on paper it could not only replace the Tu-95 and Tu-160 and Tu-22M3, it could also replace the Mig-31, and the Tu-142 and Il-38, and the Tu-22MR and Su-24MR as well.

    The other option might simply be a more modern Tu-160.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10515
    Points : 10992
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  George1 on Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:33 pm

    I think that they could keep Blackjacks in operation for many years after 2022.
    Tu-160 could be assigned the conventional role like the B-1 in USA and the PAK-DA for nuclear bomber role.

    A maritime patrol variant of Tu-160 also could be considered for the replacement of long range Tu-142.

    A view of the russian bombers could be this for the next decade:

    Strategic bomber: PAK-DA
    Conventional bomber: Tu-160
    Fighter Bomber: Su-34
    Strike Fighter: Su-30
    Attack aircraft: Su-25SM
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:01 am

    The economic reality is that the T-95 is cheaper to operate than the Tu-160.
    The military reality is that the Russians haven't had strategic bombers for decades now, as they have had the Tu-22M3, which is a theatre range aircraft, while the Blackjack and Bear are cruise missile carrier aircraft.

    With new upgrades all three aircraft are supposed to get compatibility with guided air to ground weapons and a range of conventional weapons up to an including the father of all bombs.

    Unlike the US B-52s the Tu-95 is actually based on the redesigned Tu-142, which has new wings and other new features designed in the late 1970s, and the aircraft themselves were built in the 1980s and 1990s, as were the Blackjacks, so they are still very young aircraft.

    With efficient, modern 5th gen engines the new PAK DA might be able to supercruise at mach 1.5 or so, which is slower than the current Blackjack and Backfire, but on long flights works out faster because of the higher average speed over a subsonic aircraft that has a supersonic dash over the target area.

    The point is that the new aircraft will still largely be a cruise missile carrier that never needs to get closer than about 4,000km distance from its targets as it will be using 5,000km range cruise missiles on strategic missions. For theatre missions a payload of 30-40 tons of satellite guided munitions would be plenty and with a range of weapon weights would allow a range of targets to be engaged with long loiter times and combat persistence.

    Very simply an aerodynamic flying wing shape, that can supercuise and was relatively stealthy with a theatre range payload of 40-50 tons, with 25-35 tons of weapon capacity replaced with extra fuel on strategic missions leaving 15 tons for a cruise missile payload of 6 missiles or so internally would be fine.

    Remember having super strategic bombers able to carry 30 cruise missiles will just mean you will only be allowed 20 aircraft or so under START.

    Like the Boreys, a reduced number per vessel with more vessels means better coverage of targets and more targets to deal with for the enemy.

    The Tu-160 is optimised for range and speed... the range is useful in maritime patrol aircraft, but a lot of flight time for an MPA is at low level and subsonic speed.

    The Tu-142 already has a problem that when communicating with subs that are submerged it releases a wire antenna that is several kms long and to keep it near vertical it has to fly dangerously near its stalling speed.

    With its swing wings and high lift devices on its wings the Blackjack could probably fly slower more safely than the swept wing Bear, but the purpose of the Blackjack is high speed penetration of enemy airspace.

    If the PAK DA is a flying wing configuration aircraft with very long range and the ability to fly relatively slow or fast then I think it might have potential (with perhaps engines optimised for lower speeds) in the MPA role, but I think a long range interception role like the Tu-128 Fiddler might be an option.

    There wont be a PAK DA flying till at least 2018, and more likely 2020.

    I personally think developing a new 5th gen engine based on the NK-32 that could be fitted to the current Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 would be well worth the money spent. Making them for the Tu-160 alone would make it more expensive as there are rather more Backfires than Blackjacks, so even though the Backfire only uses two engines... currently of a different type (NK-25) but with basically similar performance and specs, that they could do with the bombers what they are doing with the fighters at the moment.

    The Su-35 benefits from the improvements made to the PAK FAs engines, and rather more importantly doing this with the bombers means improved compatibility as the new engine will replace two older engines and its development will not only lead to an optimised new engine for the PAK DA, but the existing in service aircraft will also benefit from its development.

    Perhaps they could even develop a propfan version for the Tu-95 and Tu-142? If it is powerful enough and reliable enough they could fit two to each An-70 instead of the 4 currently planned.

    A view of the russian bombers could be this for the next decade:

    Strategic bomber: PAK-DA
    Conventional bomber: Tu-160
    Fighter Bomber: Su-34
    Strike Fighter: Su-30
    Attack aircraft: Su-25SM

    For the next decade I would think things would stay largely as they are with:

    Strategic bomber: Tu-160, Tu-95
    Theatre bomber: Tu-22M3
    Long range strike: Bomber: Su-34 (and reducing numbers of Su-24)
    Fighter/bomber: Su-35 (and Mig-35 if it enters service)
    Attack aircraft: Su-25SM

    Note my changes to your categories are based on the fact that there are strategic and theatre bomber roles and both might include conventional or nuclear payloads.
    Also the Su-30MKI in Indian service is a swing fighter/bomber, but the Su-30 in Russian service is largely an interceptor/airborne command aircraft... sort of a mini AWACS aircraft that uses its superior radar to direct smaller (Mig-29s) or older models (Su-27) on intercept missions so that it can use its superior radar and electronics, while the smaller or older aircraft operate in electronic silence receiving target data from the Su-30 and operating closer to the enemy so they can fire and then withdraw with the Su-30 managing the engagement.

    It means the Su-30 can stand off, and engage lots of targets without using its own missiles, while the less capable aircraft benefit from its radar while remaining silent their closer proximity to the target means they can fire and their missiles will arrive much quicker than if the Su-30 had fired its own missiles. After firing the fighter can turn away and accelerate and climb... a very difficult target for a BVR missile... and apart from launching a missile it has done nothing to give away its position or even its presence.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10515
    Points : 10992
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  George1 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:52 am

    What about additional Tu-160? Will they resume production?
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  TR1 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:09 am

    Probably not. An expensive and lengthy project it would be. Not sure if any incomplete airframes are left at this point.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:51 am

    It would be very expensive to restart Tu-160 production.

    It would probably make rather more sense to give the existing Blackjacks and Bears upgrades and improvements to add precision conventional attack capabilities and improve commonality between the aircraft (including the Backfire), and invest in a new multirole aircraft to replace them all.

    Some sort of tailed flying wing perhaps would be ideal with no vertical tail surface.

    A flying wing has minimal RCS by design, and maximises internal volume for lots of fuel and a good payload for a strategic mission, while retaining the option of reduced fuel plus inflight refuelling with a much larger payload for a long endurance theatre bombing mission.

    The horizontal tail structure should enable control at supersonic speed with a rear mounted down force allowing stabilisation through the high drag period of transonic flight.

    A flying wing is good but a supercruising flying wing is better in terms of time to target and problems of interception.

    Even if it doesn't actually supercruise and requires afterburner briefly to accelerate through the speed of sound, as long as it can fly super sonic speeds in dry thrust this will greatly extend cruising range and reduce IR signature.

    It also offers the potential for a viable civilian supersonic transport alternative.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10515
    Points : 10992
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  George1 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:08 pm

    PAK-DA must be produced in large numbers to replace all bombers including Tu-22M3.

    What about a complement less expensive project that could replace Tu-22M3 in conventional role?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16526
    Points : 17134
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:59 am

    They talk about the PAK DA as having both theatre and strategic roles, but PAK DA will be START limited, whereas a dedicated theatre bomber like Tu-22M3 would not.

    Remember START not only limits numbers but allows for inspections and limits where the aircraft can be based.

    Some of the shorter range missions of the Tu-22M3 could be performed by the Su-34, but I have a soft spot for the Backfire and would like to see it with new engines and a range of new guided air to ground weapons.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:14 am