Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


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

    Share
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 865
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:25 pm

    "Who wants to make all their civil aircraft targets for the enemy?"
    Only the AF transports marked as such could be modified for CMs to avoid civilian 1s being targeted. In any case, there r 100s marked as AEROFLOT or VOLGA -DNEPR,etc. worldwide at any given time- nobody'll risk shooting them down unless it's an all out war that may quickly turn nuclear. A Russian BM ship, train or truck disguised as freight is a case in point: will the other side bomb every freight ship/train/truck?
    If it wasn't completely finished & never flew, it's still a new airframe, with some old holes in it! The basic geometry of the M2 = the Tu-160M, with minimal changes, if any.
    Just in time to eventually replace the 2 crashed Tu-95 & 1 Tu-160! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95#Incidents
    https://web.archive.org/web/20030920062314/http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_820476.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18153
    Points : 18713
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:03 am

    Only the AF transports marked as such could be modified for CMs to avoid civilian 1s being targeted.

    A cruise missile carrier will not get within 1000km of its target... what makes you think an enemy interceptor will take the time to fly up to it and check its markings if it detects cruise missiles in the air.

    In times of war most of your transports are actually going to be very busy anyway.

    I remember in the 1990s suggesting they make more Blackjacks because the number they had was insufficient and being told by experts that it was not possible to make more because the forge that allows enormous sections of titanium to be welded only exists in the Ukraine and it would be too expensive to rebuild in Russia.

    Well they now have one in Russia that can be used for new Blackjacks.... 16 or even 20 is not a viable force... they need 50 or 60 to be meaningful.

    They also have the capacity to make a range of other large titanium structures that will be useful for building PAKDA and perhaps even MiG-41 primarily out of titanium too...

    One off high speed aircraft like hypersonic cruise missiles would be better made with ceramics, but aircraft flying at very high speed over and over again like the MiG-41 would benefit from Titanium structure... that high temperature aluminium would also be useful too...
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 865
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:20 pm

    Why also not restart production of the Tu-95MSM & Tu-142-the last 1 came out in 1994? It's cheaper to make, maintain & operate as CM/bomb/torpedo truck + can be adopted for many other roles as before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95#Variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-142#Variants
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7087
    Points : 7181
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:30 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Why also not restart production of the Tu-95MSM & Tu-142-the last 1 came out in 1994? It's cheaper to make, maintain & operate as CM/bomb/torpedo truck + can be adopted for many other roles as before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95#Variants  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-142#Variants

    PAK-DA will be replacing those.

    People forget that PAK-DA will be sharing same titanium ''spine'' with Tu-160 so development of that plane will start in earnest once production of that part gets underway in full.

    No need to go back to Tu-95.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 865
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:03 pm

    Time will tell, but I'll believe it when I see it!
    OTH, China has more $ to spare but is doing the same with the H-6K. A low rate production of the Tu-95MSM/142s & their spares would be a good way to boost the #s & capability of older bombers & augmenting Tu-160Ms/M2s while saving $ & time, IMHO.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3192
    Points : 3232
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:41 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Time will tell, but I'll believe it when I see it!
    OTH, China has more $ to spare but is doing the same with the H-6K. A low rate production of the Tu-95MSM/142s & their spares would be a good way to boost the #s & capability of older bombers & augmenting Tu-160Ms/M2s while saving $ & time, IMHO.


    T-95 is slow and long range what makes it a good antisub platform. US spends mucho money on military then China but somehow builds ASW platforms on passenger planes not B 1B right?

    Why to use very expensive long range supersonic platform for lots of simple patrolling? PA DA has long range, better avionics EW/Laser/Maser self defenses why to return to 50s technology?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18153
    Points : 18713
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:53 am

    The reason the PAK DA is subsonic is so it can have a big spine for lots of internal weapons.

    The Tu-95 carries most of its cruise missiles on its wings with only a small rotary launcher for internal carriage of 6 small missiles.

    In terms of drag internal carriage is not so critical for a subsonic bomber though it would greatly reduce range.

    In terms of RCS external weapons would make the aircraft not stealthy at all.

    The Bears were made in the 1980s and 90s and so if you wanted them to keep operating there would be no need to build more... just keep using them.

    They were talking about an interceptor version of the Tu-160M2 because it was going back into production.... no doubt maritime patrol aircraft will be looked at when the PAK DA goes into production but I suspect a variant of the Russian Chinese wide bodied airliners might be more interesting in that regard because MPAs don't need to be stealthy.

    I rather suspect UAVs will also fill many roles there too.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2251
    Points : 2270
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:49 am


    There is not official statement saying the Tu-PAK-DA is subsonic.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 865
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:28 pm

    Nor there's 1 saying it'll be supersonic. The drawings circulated so far don't look like it's anything but a subsonic. Otherwise, it'll be an expensive & tactical/strategic overkill to carry super/hypersonic missiles on a supersonic bomber that can wait another decade or 2!
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2251
    Points : 2270
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:06 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Nor there's 1 saying it'll be supersonic. The drawings circulated so far don't look like it's anything but a subsonic. Otherwise, it'll be an expensive & tactical/strategic overkill to carry super/hypersonic missiles on a supersonic bomber that can wait another decade or 2!

    Can you find a link with some official statement saying the Tu-PAK-DA will be subsonic?

    (Is not the first time this has been discussed here)

    Russia is ordering the Tu-160. Wrong? Why?

    (This is something to take into account at the time of critizizing supersonic strategic bombers)
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3192
    Points : 3232
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:51 am

    Media: The upgraded Tu-160 will become a perfect weapon

    https://rg.ru/2017/11/21/smi-modernizirovannyj-tu-160-stanet-sovershennym-oruzhiem.html

    []The aircraft also has a new satellite navigation system, and the new engine NK-32-02 will allow the bomber to develop speed over two Machs and remain invulnerable to enemy air defenses. Thanks to the new engine, the practical ceiling of the Tu-160M2 will be 18 kilometers[]

    True or journo imagination?
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 865
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:36 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:Nor there's 1 saying it'll be supersonic. The drawings circulated so far don't look like it's anything but a subsonic. Otherwise, it'll be an expensive & tactical/strategic overkill to carry super/hypersonic missiles on a supersonic bomber that can wait another decade or 2!

    Can you find a link with some official statement saying the Tu-PAK-DA will be subsonic?

    (Is not the first time this has been discussed here)

    Russia is ordering the Tu-160. Wrong? Why?

    (This is something to take into account at the time of critizizing supersonic strategic bombers)
    Well, some experts stated that most likely it'll be subsonic, the Tu-160M2 order notwithstanding, as it already exists & can be (& was already used in Syria) as a tactical bomber like the USAF B-1B. As a more direct counterpart of the subsonic B-2/3, it doesn't need to be supersonic. Besides, the supersonic Tu-22M3s could also be re equipped for inflight refueling & made capable to carry more/the same types of newer CMs, if need be.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2251
    Points : 2270
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:58 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:Nor there's 1 saying it'll be supersonic. The drawings circulated so far don't look like it's anything but a subsonic. Otherwise, it'll be an expensive & tactical/strategic overkill to carry super/hypersonic missiles on a supersonic bomber that can wait another decade or 2!

    Can you find a link with some official statement saying the Tu-PAK-DA will be subsonic?

    (Is not the first time this has been discussed here)

    Russia is ordering the Tu-160. Wrong? Why?

    (This is something to take into account at the time of critizizing supersonic strategic bombers)
    Well, some experts stated that most likely it'll be subsonic, the Tu-160M2 order notwithstanding, as it already exists & can be (& was already used in Syria) as a tactical bomber like the USAF B-1B. As a more direct counterpart of the subsonic B-2/3, it doesn't need to be supersonic. Besides, the supersonic Tu-22M3s could also be re equipped for inflight refueling & made capable to carry more/the same types of newer CMs, if need be.

    Then we can agree that there is not official statement saying the Tu-PAK-DA will be subsonic.

    Hypothetically, using the Tu-160 as a counterpart of the B-2/3 who would have advantage? the US or Russia?
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 865
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:40 pm

    If used against 3rd countries which don't have anti-stealth radars, it's clear that the B-2/3s will be "left in the dust' by the Tu-160M/2s (it's bigger than the B-52!), comparing their armaments, ALCMs ranges & speeds to targets. If the B-2/3 is used against the RF, stealth won't save it from detection & possible destruction, depending on its stand off range &/ time over target.
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201711081001-dbue.htm?utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=2152&utm_content=1356320&utm_campaign=10994

    The USA can also detect stealth, so when used against them, the Tu-160M/2 not being stealthy isn't relevant as there's no need to penetrate hostile airspace- long range CMs can do it instead!
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2251
    Points : 2270
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:20 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:If used against 3rd countries which don't have anti-stealth radars, it's clear that the B-2/3s will be "left in the dust' by the Tu-160M/2s (it's bigger than the B-52!), comparing their armaments, ALCMs ranges & speeds to targets. If the B-2/3 is used against the RF, stealth won't save it from detection & possible destruction, depending on its stand off range &/ time over target.
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201711081001-dbue.htm?utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=2152&utm_content=1356320&utm_campaign=10994

    The USA can also detect stealth, so when used against them, the Tu-160M/2 not being stealthy isn't relevant as there's no need to penetrate hostile airspace- long range CMs can do it instead!

    Then, I assume you consider the Tu-160 stronger than the B-2/3. I assume you consider Russia would have advantage.

    Why would Russia need a new aircraft to counter the B-2/3 if the have today a superior alternative? Why would Russia to spend high amounts of money in the development of an aircraft that would also underperform the Tu-160, having the option of ordering and making return to production the Tu-160, the Tu-22 or the Tu-95/142 instead?
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 683
    Points : 677
    Join date : 2016-11-13

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

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:57 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:If used against 3rd countries which don't have anti-stealth radars, it's clear that the B-2/3s will be "left in the dust' by the Tu-160M/2s (it's bigger than the B-52!), comparing their armaments, ALCMs ranges & speeds to targets. If the B-2/3 is used against the RF, stealth won't save it from detection & possible destruction, depending on its stand off range &/ time over target.
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201711081001-dbue.htm?utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=2152&utm_content=1356320&utm_campaign=10994

    The USA can also detect stealth, so when used against them, the Tu-160M/2 not being stealthy isn't relevant as there's no need to penetrate hostile airspace- long range CMs can do it instead!

    Then, I assume you consider the Tu-160 stronger than the B-2/3. I assume you consider Russia would have advantage.

    Why would Russia need a new aircraft to counter the B-2/3 if the have today a superior alternative? Why would Russia to spend high amounts of money in the development of an aircraft that would also underperform the Tu-160, having the option of ordering and making return to production the Tu-160, the Tu-22 or the Tu-95/142 instead?


    Because the Tu-160 is too expensive.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2251
    Points : 2270
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:38 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:If used against 3rd countries which don't have anti-stealth radars, it's clear that the B-2/3s will be "left in the dust' by the Tu-160M/2s (it's bigger than the B-52!), comparing their armaments, ALCMs ranges & speeds to targets. If the B-2/3 is used against the RF, stealth won't save it from detection & possible destruction, depending on its stand off range &/ time over target.
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201711081001-dbue.htm?utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=2152&utm_content=1356320&utm_campaign=10994

    The USA can also detect stealth, so when used against them, the Tu-160M/2 not being stealthy isn't relevant as there's no need to penetrate hostile airspace- long range CMs can do it instead!

    Then, I assume you consider the Tu-160 stronger than the B-2/3. I assume you consider Russia would have advantage.

    Why would Russia need a new aircraft to counter the B-2/3 if the have today a superior alternative? Why would Russia to spend high amounts of money in the development of an aircraft that would also underperform the Tu-160, having the option of ordering and making return to production the Tu-160, the Tu-22 or the Tu-95/142 instead?


    Because the Tu-160 is too expensive.

    If it would too expensive, until a negative point, the Tu-160 would not be ordered. This argument fails. Russia is not forced to order the Tu-160, Russia had a cheaper alternative. Russia had the option of making the Tu-95/142 return to production instead of the Tu-160. And then would be replacing in active serce old Tu-95 by modernized Tu-95 (even in this case an upgrade).

    But Russia did not it. Russia selected to make return to production the more advanced and supersonic Tu-160. If we can agree about the Tu-160 being more expensive than the Tu-95:

    - First we can say that Russia has not troubles to afford both options, Tu-160 is affordable for Russia too. Then the Tu-160 is not too expensive. The new order of Tu-160 makes to fail the "too expensive" argument against the Tu-160.

    - And second, there is only one reason that justifies the order of the Tu-160. Despite higher cost, Russia wants the features of the Tu-160 available in a good number of units more. The features of the Tu-95 (even modernized) fall short for what Russia wants for their new strategic bombers.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 865
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:30 pm

    The PAK-DA was supposed to outperform the Tu-160M in payload/range or both, not in speed. But the Tu-160M2, "capable of striking land & sea targets from up to 4,000km away", will outperform the Tu-160M & for a lot le$$ than the PAK-DA.
    Those $ & time can be better used on other things. The Tu-160M/M2s can be used for both strategic & tactical missions, just like the B-52/-2/-3s, but with better performance. http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/186973/?utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=2152&utm_content=1370355&utm_campaign=573

    I expect the Tu-95/142s, as direct B-52 counterparts, will continue to be modernized & serve for at least 15-20 more years.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5957
    Points : 5984
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:56 pm

    For the 4556418th time... flying wing... cant be supersonic. Stop being retarded.

    It will be high subsonic.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 865
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:45 pm

    If u r talking to me, watch ur language! I never implied that B-2/3 can be supersonic! Perhaps u need to learn English better!
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5957
    Points : 5984
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:55 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:If u r talking to me, watch ur language! I never implied that B-2/3 can be supersonic! Perhaps u need to learn English better!

    Did i quote you by any chance? No.

    It was general statement, as its getting very repetitive, same 2-3 persons bringing up every few weeks how it wont be subsonic. If they make supersonic flying wing i will jump off my building and live stream it.

    My english is just fine.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 865
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:32 am

    To be fair, I heard online that PAK-DA won't be exactly a flying wing like the B-2, but will have VGW:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgk-MdDnoFE
    On 30 August 2013, a Russian Defense Ministry source revealed that the PAK DA will be equipped with advanced types of precision-guided weapons, including hypersonic weapons. The bomber itself will fly at subsonic speeds. ..63 Tu-95 bombers will be upgraded and the Tu-95MS is to remain in service until 2040. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_PAK_DA
    Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies researcher Mikhail Barabanov, editor of the Moscow Defense Brief, told The National Interest that the Russian Air Force would like the PAK-DA to function as a penetrating strike aircraft similar to the future Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider. “I think that the Russian Air Force wants a penetrator that will complement the Tu-160M2 which is an ALCM [air launched cruise missile] carrier,” Barabanov said. ..The PAK-DA is expected to be subsonic aircraft—as its flying wing configuration suggests. ..But there are those who are skeptical of the PAK-DA project. CNA Corporation research scientist Michael Kofman, who specializes in Russian military affairs, dismissed the latest developments. “It's a wooden mockup,” Kofman told The National Interest. “How's that progress?” Barabanov, however, said that he believes that the PAK-DA project is a genuine effort by Russia to field a new next generation strategic bomber. It is simply a matter of political will for Russia to find the money to pay for such an expensive program. “It is a real project,” Barabanov said. “But it is a rather philosophical question about the level of political support for such projects.”
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-new-pak-da-stealth-bomber-just-took-big-step-forward-19656

    Here u have it. The political will directly relates to the financial bottom line, & that's why the Tu-160M goes the same "deep modernization" way as Il-76, Il-38, AN-124, Su-27 (i.e Su-35) & MiG-29 (i.e MiG-35). As Mark Twain wrote, "It was against my principles, but I find that high principles have no real force unless one is well fed!"


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:37 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 865
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:32 am

    Also, pl. quote or refer to other's posts so it's clear who & to what u r responding to. Thx in advance!
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2251
    Points : 2270
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:22 am

    eehnie wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:If used against 3rd countries which don't have anti-stealth radars, it's clear that the B-2/3s will be "left in the dust' by the Tu-160M/2s (it's bigger than the B-52!), comparing their armaments, ALCMs ranges & speeds to targets. If the B-2/3 is used against the RF, stealth won't save it from detection & possible destruction, depending on its stand off range &/ time over target.
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201711081001-dbue.htm?utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=2152&utm_content=1356320&utm_campaign=10994

    The USA can also detect stealth, so when used against them, the Tu-160M/2 not being stealthy isn't relevant as there's no need to penetrate hostile airspace- long range CMs can do it instead!

    Then, I assume you consider the Tu-160 stronger than the B-2/3. I assume you consider Russia would have advantage.

    Why would Russia need a new aircraft to counter the B-2/3 if the have today a superior alternative? Why would Russia to spend high amounts of money in the development of an aircraft that would also underperform the Tu-160, having the option of ordering and making return to production the Tu-160, the Tu-22 or the Tu-95/142 instead?


    Because the Tu-160 is too expensive.

    If it would too expensive, until a negative point, the Tu-160 would not be ordered. This argument fails. Russia is not forced to order the Tu-160, Russia had a cheaper alternative. Russia had the option of making the Tu-95/142 return to production instead of the Tu-160. And then would be replacing in active serce old Tu-95 by modernized Tu-95 (even in this case an upgrade).

    But Russia did not it. Russia selected to make return to production the more advanced and supersonic Tu-160. If we can agree about the Tu-160 being more expensive than the Tu-95:

    - First we can say that Russia has not troubles to afford both options, Tu-160 is affordable for Russia too. Then the Tu-160 is not too expensive. The new order of Tu-160 makes to fail the "too expensive" argument against the Tu-160.

    - And second, there is only one reason that justifies the order of the Tu-160. Despite higher cost, Russia wants the features of the Tu-160 available in a good number of units more. The features of the Tu-95 (even modernized) fall short for what Russia wants for their new strategic bombers.

    In adition to this, there is also an analysis cost to be made about the Tu-PAK-DA in relation with the costs of a return to production of the Tu-160 or of other aircrafts like the Tu-95 and the Tu-22.

    Form today, there finnancial situation with the Tu-PAK-DA. The development of the aircraft has not been payed,, and must be payed in order to have the aircraft. It means that to have 100 new strategic bombers after the order of the Tu-160, the financial balance would be the following:

    - To have 100 new Tu-160, the cost is the cost of the 100 aircrafts.
    - To have 100 new Tu-95/142, the cost is the cost of the 100 aircrafts plus the cost of some improvement and of returning to production.
    - To have 100 new Tu-PAK-DA, the cost is the cost of the 100 aircrafts plus the cost of the research and development of the project.

    It makes the Tu-PAK-DA the most expensive option. This is not like land armament where the cost of research and development can be "hidden" between the production of thousands of units.

    And as consequence, the alone situation where the Tu-PAK-DA is viable, is to have a new aircraft that outperforms the Tu-95/142 and the Tu-160. There is 0 chance of seeing the Tu-PAK-DA underperforming the features of the Tu-160.

    If in a situation where the T-160 is used as counterpart of the US B-2/3, the advantage is for the Tu-160 because the US also has the radars, it is clear that the Tu-160 would have advantage, would outperform a new Russian subsonic aircraft.

    Russia will not do a "cheaper" aircraft to counterpart the US B-2/3, because this not economically possible, taking into account that the development of the new aircraft is to be payed still. If Russia would want a "cheaper" aircraft than the Tu-160 to counter the US B-2/3, the alone viable option would be a modernization and a return to production of the Tu-95/142. As Russia is not making the Tu-95/142 to return to production, we can conclude that Russia does not want a "cheaper" than the Tu-160 option to counter the B-2/3.

    If it was before some temptation of following the failed US strategy of the B-2/3 that makes a newer aircraft to be still underperforming the Tu-160, this option was defeated when the decission of making return to production the Tu-160 was made. Now (and also before) the Tu-PAK-DA only is possible as a technological successor of the Tu-160. It means the Tu-PAK-DA will be more advanced than the Tu-160, it means the Tu-PAK-DA will outperform the Tu-160, because this is the only way to justify the development of the projet and this is the only way to justify orders of the Tu-PAK-DA over orders of the Tu-160.

    And here is also the explanation of why the decission of the return to production of the Tu-160 was made. The economic and the technological analysis was favourable for the Tu-160.

    Militarov can continue dreaming, but this is the reality. Russia will not invest in a subsonic aircraft to present a Tu-PAK-DA that underperforms the Tu-160, but is still more expensive (including the costs of research and development) in cost per unit. It would be an assured failure because the Tu-160 would continue being ordered instead of a subsonic Tu-PAK-DA.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1364
    Points : 1542
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

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

    Post  d_taddei2 on Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:34 am

    Isn't the Tu PAK DA  partly replacing tu-95 and tu-22m (to begin with) and working alongside the Tu-160 so it needs to be better than what it's replacing I. E Tu -95 and Tu-22m and not the Tu-160????

    Also some may have to eat there words in the future as people are making statements saying it will/will not be subsonic I think it's a bit early to be stating such things I for one would not make such statements because nobody knows for sure so those stating its not going to be subsonic might feel a little stupid if it's turns out to be subsonic and likewise if it isn't subsonic let's just put that debate to bed in till we know for sure. We don't even know what it will even look like nevermind specifications.


    Last edited by d_taddei2 on Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:40 am; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:50 am