Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


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

    Share
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 254
    Points : 256
    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 1:32 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 : 1629
    Points : 1654
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:22 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 : 1050
    Points : 1216
    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 8:34 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 8:40 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10752
    Points : 11231
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:37 am

    Τhis subject has been discussed to death so many times in PAK-DA thread...


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 254
    Points : 256
    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 8:36 pm

    The PAK-DA, in its current form, has a lifting body & VGW, so aerodynamically it will outperform all previous bombers while having more internal volume & stealthy coating, even w/o being supersonic.
    Russian deputy minister of defense Yuri Borisov suggested that the PAK-DA would also be able to carry long-range hypersonic cruise missiles. As such, the new aircraft would be optimized to have the longest possible reach. The PAK-DA would fly “as long as possible and unobtrusively in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, they can launch their weapons on to their targets,” Borisov told Gazeta in December. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-new-pak-da-stealth-bomber-just-took-big-step-forward-19656
    But, to be a long range bomber + able to loiter while loaded with fuel & armaments would make it nearly impossible & very expensive to be also supersonic with our current technology. The Tu-95 is a case in point: its max speed is below that of any jet bomber, but even w/o the latest CMs it was the backbone of Soviet strategic bomber force for decades. So, all things considered, the PAK-DA, if/when it materialises, won't be supersonic. However, it's possible that other variants optimised for other mission profiles will have different design features allowing it to be supersonic. Time will tell!

    Azi

    Posts : 168
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2016-04-05

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

    Post  Azi on Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:46 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The PAK-DA, in its current form, has a lifting body & VGW, so aerodynamically it will outperform all previous bombers while having more internal volume & stealthy coating, even w/o being supersonic.
    Russian deputy minister of defense Yuri Borisov suggested that the PAK-DA would also be able to carry long-range hypersonic cruise missiles. As such, the new aircraft would be optimized to have the longest possible reach. The PAK-DA would fly “as long as possible and unobtrusively in the air, so that, without going into the affected area, they can launch their weapons on to their targets,” Borisov told Gazeta in December. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-new-pak-da-stealth-bomber-just-took-big-step-forward-19656
    But, to be a long range bomber + able to loiter while loaded with fuel & armaments would make it nearly impossible & very expensive to be also supersonic with our current technology. The Tu-95 is a case in point: its max speed is below that of any jet bomber, but even w/o the latest CMs it was the backbone of Soviet strategic bomber force for decades. So, all things considered, the PAK-DA, if/when it materialises, won't be supersonic. However, it's possible that other variants optimised for other mission profiles will have different design features allowing it to be supersonic. Time will tell!
    A few days ago I found a german sputniknews article...

    The final shape of PAK-DA is not firmly. They have a flying wing design, but they are experimenting with small changes, due to aerodynamic and stealth. The specifications are fix...flying wing, subsonic, payload of 30 - 40 tons, massive loiter time, far greater range than Tu-160M2.

    They wrote that Tu-160M2 and PAK-DA will complement each other. The PAK-DA will make the first strike against enemy AD systems with cruise missiles and after that the Tu-160M2 can attack strategic targets behind the weakened AD line with cruise missiles.
    avatar
    Dorfmeister

    Posts : 21
    Points : 21
    Join date : 2013-11-10
    Age : 35
    Location : Belgium

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

    Post  Dorfmeister on Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:31 am

    Azi wrote:The final shape of PAK-DA is not firmly. They have a flying wing design, but they are experimenting with small changes, due to aerodynamic and stealth. The specifications are fix...flying wing, subsonic, payload of 30 - 40 tons, massive loiter time, far greater range than Tu-160M2.

    They wrote that Tu-160M2 and PAK-DA will complement each other. The PAK-DA will make the first strike against enemy AD systems with cruise missiles and after that the Tu-160M2 can attack strategic targets behind the weakened AD line with cruise missiles.

    Everybody here is well aware of the fact that Izd.80 PAK DA will be a subsonic flying wing sharing some similarities with the Tu-160M2, it has been stated numerous times by differents high ranking russian officials. The only one here who can't accept that fact because "it hasn't been stated officially" (despite being acknowledged by the usual high ranking russian suspects like Bondarev or Shoigu) is eehnie.

    If you simply ignore him (and that's definitely well desserved IMHO); you'll see that the Tu-160M2 will perform the "high speed bomber" role while the Izd.80 PAK DA will be the "stealth and first strike" bomber able to loiter on station and to penetrate heavily defended airspace role.

    Moreover, it might be used as a MPA and Tanker aircraft too. But that's another long-term story. With a well thought mix of Tu-160M2 and PAK DA; Russians will be able to use one of the mot efficient strategic bombers force from the end of the 2020's.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1629
    Points : 1654
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:26 am

    ^^ You have always the chance of including the links. But you can not because there are not. Like George said this has been discused multiple times. Your coment is not right.

    Also. When everyone talking about land and sea armament knows about the importance of shot and run tactics, we are discovering here the loitering. On air. With the most expensive aircrafts. Brilliant.

    Plus. The Tu-160 will be able of firing the hypersonic missiles too.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 254
    Points : 256
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:44 pm

    Do ur homework before posting anything else here! Not so cheap USAF B-1Bs & B-52s have been loitering over the CENTCOM AOR since 9/11/01, & the "very expensive" B-21 will also have that capability!  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiy1-K1x-TXAhVH32MKHYZmDbEQFghBMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffoxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com%2Fwhich-is-coincidentally-the-length-of-time-we-have-been-1750039142&usg=AOvVaw3YzYpa_4-392SQafQL9Fxn

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiy1-K1x-TXAhVH32MKHYZmDbEQFghEMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalinterest.org%2Fblog%2Fthe-buzz%2Fthe-b-1b-bomber-the-us-militarys-flying-missile-truck-22344&usg=AOvVaw0VOMDu1lAeqZmK3ADDxz1S

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiDrOqPyOTXAhVWzWMKHRehBqYQFghIMAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffoxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com%2Fonce-again-the-usaf-is-looking-to-re-engine-its-b-52-fl-1685747978&usg=AOvVaw3QomtwH3blLFnjkWot7w-h

    http://www.northropgrumman.com/MediaResources/MediaKits/B21/FAQs.aspx
    The improvements that the new TU-160M2 will feature include many designs that were intended for the PAK DA, and the modernized aircraft is "also expected to have a service life of around 40 years." http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-pak-da-bomber-facing-major-problems-2015-7
    The PAK-DA is a break from previous Russian and Soviet bombers, which have generally focused on using a combination of speed and long-range cruise missiles to deliver their payloads. ..The PAK-DA is the first Russian bomber optimized for stealth. However, previous comments from Russian defense officials suggest that the PAK-DA will serve as a launch platform for long-range nuclear and conventional cruise missiles and a host of precision-guided munitions. It might also eventually be armed with hypersonic missiles if previous statements from Russian officials hold true. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-soon-can-russia-finish-its-new-stealth-bomber-15010
    An official representative of the Ministry of Defense then announced that the PAK DA would be equipped with all the precision weapons currently being developed, including hypersonic weapons. Boris Obnosov, the General Director of Tekhnicheskoe Raketnoe Vooruzhenie, announced that a hypersonic missile for the new bomber “has already been produced, but flies for only a few seconds.” Series production of the missile itself is to begin in 2020.
    Nevertheless the military wanted to make this a subsonic aircraft. Why was this decision made? Taking everything into consideration, all this relates to the aircraft’s future role in combat. It could either be a fairly compact, stealthy missile carrying aircraft, or a hypersonic aircraft with the potential to penetrate existing air defense systems by virtue of its speed. However the appropriate technical solutions, which permit development of a relatively large stealth bomber able to fly at hypersonic speeds do not yet exist. A small, subsonic stealth aircraft, which can operate from medium sized airfields with the potential to carry hypersonic missiles, is able to patrol the launch area over long periods and strike the target with high-speed weaponry at very short notice. This was the reason the Americans chose not to use the B-1 supersonic bomber for this role in favor of the B-2.  https://www.rbth.com/science_and_tech/2013/11/19/will_the_pak_da_outstrip_the_american_b-2_31847.html
    "It is impossible to build a missile-carrying bomber invisible to radars and supersonic at the same time. This is why focus is placed on stealth capabilities. The PAK DA will carry AI-guided missiles with a range of up to 7,000 km. Such a missile can analyze the aerial and radio-radar situation and determine its direction, altitude and speed. We’re already working on such missiles," Bondarev was quoted as saying by the Russian newspaper Rossiskaya Gazeta 24 February 2017. ..Its airframe will be made of radar-absorbent material. All weapons will be placed inside the fuselage. ..Another source in the Russian defense industry said the .. plane will have a subsonic speed. https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/pak-da.htm
    Finally, using ur logic, if we wait for & use only official statements (that r subject to change at any time), there will be no reason to discuss much on this forum!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1744
    Points : 1784
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:02 pm

    George1 wrote:Τhis subject has been discussed to death so many times in PAK-DA thread...

    "Death is the beginning of immortality” Maximilien Robespierre

    Razz Razz Razz


    "Death is only the beginning" Imothep

    What a Face What a Face What a Face

    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5604
    Points : 5645
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:05 am

    d_taddei2 wrote: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.

    Yes, its supposed to replace Tu-95MS and partially replace Tu-22M, remaining roles fullfilled by Tu-22M today will be in future on Su-34s shoulders and Tu-160M2 in some small niche.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1744
    Points : 1784
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:21 am

    Militarov wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote: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.

    Yes, its supposed to replace Tu-95MS and partially replace Tu-22M, remaining roles fullfilled by Tu-22M today will be in future on Su-34s shoulders and Tu-160M2 in some small niche.


    Tu-22M3M will have same avionics and engines as Tu-160M2. Certainly good bird but its service life is not forever. Thus is definitely cheaper to run one model of bomber replacing Tu-95 and Tu-22.

    But Su-34 with Kh-32? are you sure?
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5604
    Points : 5645
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:52 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote: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.

    Yes, its supposed to replace Tu-95MS and partially replace Tu-22M, remaining roles fullfilled by Tu-22M today will be in future on Su-34s shoulders and Tu-160M2 in some small niche.


    Tu-22M3M will have same avionics and engines as  Tu-160M2. Certainly good bird but its service life is not forever.  Thus is definitely cheaper to run one model of bomber replacing Tu-95 and Tu-22.

    But Su-34 with Kh-32? are you sure?

    They wont fly forever, borts are oldish.

    No, Su-34 wont fill strategic roles of Tu-22M but rather roles where Tu-22M perfroms as tactical platform. Anti ship roles for an example too fit alot better with Su-34 rather than Tu-22M.

    As you see there wont be anymore "mid sized bomber" in future. Roles have to be split between 3 platforms they have.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 533
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2016-11-13

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

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:46 am

    eehnie wrote:

    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.

    The story of B-1A / B and B-2 was exactly the same.


    The B-1 was too expensive, but they needed a bomber that was better then the B-52 ,so they ended up reordering dumbed down B-1 bombers.

    I think the story of the tu-160 is similar.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:57 am


    The B-1 was too expensive, but they needed a bomber that was better then the B-52 ,so they ended up reordering dumbed down B-1 bombers.

    I think the story of the tu-160 is similar.

    Not quite... the B-1A was expensive, but was still rather cheaper than the Valkarie which was supposed to be a mach 3 bomber but was eye wateringly expensive and yet still not actually fast enough to evade enemy air defences.

    So they scaled it down further to the B-1B, which was still expensive to operate and a bit short legged and rather underwhelming in terms of performance.

    The final solution was to be invisible instead of being fast, so they designed the eye wateringly expensive B-2, but only made 20 of them because of the cost... so the replacements for the B-52 were underwhelming and expensive and so today in 2017 they still have nothing that could replace their bomber from the 1950s.

    Put an inflight refuelling probe on a Tu-22M3 and you have a very similar aircraft to the B-1B, so it is hard to count it as a strategic aircraft.

    With that in mind it is the Tu-95 and B-52 to be replaced by the PAK DA and B-2 respectively, with the Tu-160 being built because they have just over a dozen and building some more would make it a much more viable force that offers some capabilities the PAK DA cannot.

    The PAK DA should offer low operating costs and good long range performance.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1744
    Points : 1784
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:20 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Put an inflight refuelling probe on a Tu-22M3 and you have a very similar aircraft to the B-1B, so it is hard to count it as a strategic aircraft.

    Especially tht main task of Tu-22M3M is Aircraft Carriers groups destruction Smile



    With that in mind it is the Tu-95 and B-52 to be replaced by the PAK DA and B-2 respectively, with the Tu-160 being built because they have just over a dozen and building some more would make it a much more viable force that offers some capabilities the PAK DA cannot.

    The PAK DA should offer low operating costs and good long range performance.

    If you look on assumptions Next Gen Bobmber you can see interesting requirements. I guess PAK DA can have similarities here. 4 days missions' duration!!!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Bomber



    • you got interesting requirements:


    • Subsonic maximum speed


    • Range: 5,000+ nautical miles (9,260+ km)


    • "Optionally manned" (for non-nuclear missions)


    • Total mission durations of 50 to 100 hours (when unmanned)


    • Ability to "survive daylight raids in heavily defended enemy territory"



    I am wondering how do they will solve anti missile defenses. EW is one but perhaps also laser/microwave guns to blind optics/destroy electronics of missiles too?
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1744
    Points : 1784
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:28 am

    Militarov wrote:
    They wont fly forever, borts are oldish.

    No, Su-34 wont fill strategic roles of Tu-22M but rather roles where Tu-22M perfroms as tactical platform.

    .

    Here I can agree but still 8tons vs 24 tons of payload.
    Besides Tu-22 in new edition is going to have same avionics/EW/engines as Tu-160M2. As well as scaled down Kh-102 cruise missiles.  So maybe not that fast going down? .




    Anti ship roles for an example too fit alot better with Su-34 rather than  Tu-22M..

    Kh-32 is not strategic but hypersound anitship heavy missile.  Deep upgrade of  Kh-22. Tu-22 can carry 3 of them. Somehow I cannot imagine what Su-34 can have against AC groupings?
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1629
    Points : 1654
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:46 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    GarryB wrote:With that in mind it is the Tu-95 and B-52 to be replaced by the PAK DA and B-2 respectively, with the Tu-160 being built because they have just over a dozen and building some more would make it a much more viable force that offers some capabilities the PAK DA cannot.

    The PAK DA should offer low operating costs and good long range performance.

    If you look on assumptions Next Gen Bobmber you can see interesting requirements. I guess PAK DA can have similarities here. 4 days missions'  duration!!!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Bomber



    • you got interesting requirements:


    • Subsonic maximum speed


    • Range: 5,000+ nautical miles (9,260+ km)


    • "Optionally manned" (for non-nuclear missions)


    • Total mission durations of 50 to 100 hours (when unmanned)


    • Ability to "survive daylight raids in heavily defended enemy territory"



    I am wondering how do they will solve anti missile defenses. EW is one but perhaps also laser/microwave guns to blind optics/destroy electronics of missiles too?

    The reason given by GarryB for the new order of Tu-160 is not serious. It has not been done this way even with far cheaper armament like the BMD-3 or BMD-4. This never can be the reason for an order of expensive (but affordable) armament like the Tu-160.

    Also I do not understand the reason to include the requirements of the "Next-Generation Bomber" project. This is a US project cancelled. It was defeated in the last US contest of 2015. Is this what the people wants for Russia?
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1744
    Points : 1784
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:02 am

    eehnie wrote:


    The reason given by GarryB for the new order of Tu-160 is not serious. It has not been done this way even with far cheaper armament like the BMD-3 or BMD-4. This never can be the reason for an order of expensive (but affordable) armament like the Tu-160.

    Also I do not understand the reason to include the requirements of the "Next-Generation Bomber" project. This is a US project cancelled. It was defeated in the last US contest of 2015.

    It was not Garry but me Smile Second Proejct was cancelled but not idea of stealth flying wing bomber. B-21 raider is super sound right?


    Tu-160 is here and proven air frame. And strategic long range bombers component is giving Russian military ability to fight wars / or deter also non nuclear conflicts. Tu-160 i slogical step to stopgap before PAK DA will be created/testes/approved and mass produced.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1629
    Points : 1654
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:21 am

    No, no, in my last message, the quote inside your qoute was of GarryB. I wast thinking about to answer this before, and later when I saw your comment I tried to answer to both in the same comment.

    Well, in the US

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Strike_Bomber_program

    this seems to be the winner of the last contest. The word subsonic is not mentioned in the entire article. Instead, we can read this:

    At the 2016 Air Warfare Symposium, the LRS-B aircraft was formally designated B-21.[73] The head of the US Air Force Global Strike Command expects that 100 B-21 bombers is the minimum ordered and envisions some 175–200 bombers in service.[74] A media report states that the bomber could also be used as an intelligence gatherer, battle manager, and interceptor aircraft.[75]

    Operational Info[edit]
    On November 16, 2017 Congressman Jodey Arrington (R- Lubbock, Texas) stated in an interview with Chad Hasty on KFYO Radio in Lubbock that the B-21 Raider is expected to be housed at Dyess AFB in Abilene, Texas. Dyess AFB currently serves as the home of the B-1 Lancer and is in Arrington's congressional district.

    Subsonic interceptor aircraft? dunno dunno dunno

    To be fair I do not expect the US to commit the same mistake twice. They did with the B-2 because they were thinking the strategy of sacrifizing other key features of the aircraft in order to be the most stealth possible would succeed and remain. Now, as I do not expect a new subsonic Russian strategic bomber, I do not expect a new subsonic US strategic bomber. The future US strategic bomber will improve all the current strategic bombers in service.

    Otherwise it would be to understime seriously the US.

    In fact if we have now new orders of the Tu-160 in Russia and we have not new orders of the B-2 in the US, is because in the long term the combat strategy of the Tu-160 proved to be successful, while the combat strategy of the B-2 proved to be not-successful.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 254
    Points : 256
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:42 pm

    What r the chances of the B-1B re-modified to be nuclear capable & thus closer to the Tu-160M in performance, like the original B-1 that President Carter cancelled? This bomber could also be used as interceptor, EW; +, just like the B-52, it's capable of naval strikes!
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5604
    Points : 5645
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

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

    Post  Militarov on Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:15 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    They wont fly forever, borts are oldish.

    No, Su-34 wont fill strategic roles of Tu-22M but rather roles where Tu-22M perfroms as tactical platform.

    .

    Here I can agree but still 8tons vs 24 tons of payload.
    Besides Tu-22 in new edition is going to have same avionics/EW/engines as Tu-160M2. As well as scaled down Kh-102 cruise missiles.  So maybe not that fast going down? .




    Anti ship roles for an example too fit alot better with Su-34 rather than  Tu-22M..

    Kh-32 is not strategic but hypersound anitship heavy missile.  Deep upgrade of  Kh-22. Tu-22 can carry 3 of them.  Somehow I cannot imagine what Su-34 can have against AC groupings?

    Brahmos variants for an example.

    Its not about payload, its more about roles. Its weird to use Tu-22M in tactical roles, when you can for the same money basically fly 6 Su-34s.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:36 am

    [What r the chances of the B-1B re-modified to be nuclear capable & thus closer to the Tu-160M in performance, like the original B-1 that President Carter cancelled?

    It is too small and too under powered to be a Tu-160 performance class aircraft.

    You are comparing an aircraft with 60-65tons thrust with an aircraft that currently has about 100tons thrust and may get 30% more with improved engine versions.

    The whole purpose of restarting production of the Tu-160 is that it is a good aircraft, if a little expensive to operate because of fuel costs, but to build more you need a very large forge to work very very large pieces of titanium, like the centre box structure where the swing wing elements sit.

    For a new stealth aircraft such a forge could be used to build very large pieces of titanium structure without seams or joins that is very strong but also very light.

    It would also allow working with new alloys that require welding without oxygen content, so new structures will be possible.

    The swing wing design adds weight and complexity but is of course critical for high speed flight and low speed landings on airfields that are not dozens of kms long.

    They might use the large forge to build the PAK DA in three pieces... one piece twice for the wings and one piece for the centre section...

    The Tu-22M3 is a theatre strike aircraft its role would include strikes against naval forces but also attacks on HQs and comms centres and major SAM sites... With its 6 round rotary launcher fitted with 6 new precision guided cruise missiles it could return to the land based long range theatre strike role and the naval strike roles... still a potent weapon.

    I remember a chart made by Carlos Kopp that showed a comparison with the F-111 and it pretty much showed one Tu-22M3 being equivalent to two F-111s plus two Inflight refuelling aircraft...

    It is quite a capable bird.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 711
    Points : 715
    Join date : 2016-04-08

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

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:24 am

    GarryB wrote:
    [What r the chances of the B-1B re-modified to be nuclear capable & thus closer to the Tu-160M in performance, like the original B-1 that President Carter cancelled?

    It is too small and too under powered to be a Tu-160 performance class aircraft.

    You are comparing an aircraft with 60-65tons thrust with an aircraft that currently has about 100tons thrust and may get 30% more with improved engine versions.

    The whole purpose of restarting production of the Tu-160 is that it is a good aircraft, if a little expensive to operate because of fuel costs, but to build more you need a very large forge to work very very large pieces of titanium, like the centre box structure where the swing wing elements sit.

    For a new stealth aircraft such a forge could be used to build very large pieces of titanium structure without seams or joins that is very strong but also very light.

    It would also allow working with new alloys that require welding without oxygen content, so new structures will be possible.

    The swing wing design adds weight and complexity but is of course critical for high speed flight and low speed landings on airfields that are not dozens of kms long.

    They might use the large forge to build the PAK DA in three pieces... one piece twice for the wings and one piece for the centre section...

    The Tu-22M3 is a theatre strike aircraft its role would include strikes against naval forces but also attacks on HQs and comms centres and major SAM sites... With its 6 round rotary launcher fitted with 6 new precision guided cruise missiles it could return to the land based long range theatre strike role and the naval strike roles... still a potent weapon.

    I remember a chart made by Carlos Kopp that showed a comparison with the F-111 and it pretty much showed one Tu-22M3 being equivalent to two F-111s plus two Inflight refuelling aircraft...

    It is quite a capable bird.

    Here is some specifics for you in regards to the Tu-22M3

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Backfire.html
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1744
    Points : 1784
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:01 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    They wont fly forever, borts are oldish.

    No, Su-34 wont fill strategic roles of Tu-22M but rather roles where Tu-22M perfroms as tactical platform.

    .

    Here I can agree but still 8tons vs 24 tons of payload.
    Besides Tu-22 in new edition is going to have same avionics/EW/engines as Tu-160M2. As well as scaled down Kh-102 cruise missiles.  So maybe not that fast going down? .




    Anti ship roles for an example too fit alot better with Su-34 rather than  Tu-22M..

    Kh-32 is not strategic but hypersound anitship heavy missile.  Deep upgrade of  Kh-22. Tu-22 can carry 3 of them.  Somehow I cannot imagine what Su-34 can have against AC groupings?

    Brahmos variants for an example.

    Its not about payload, its more about roles. Its weird to use Tu-22M in tactical roles, when you can for the same money basically fly 6 Su-34s.



    RussianAF does not use Brahmos Smile

    So you want to trade you want instead of 3xKh32 - hyper-sound speed, 1,000kg warhead, 40,000 m ceiling and 1000km range on 1 Tu-22M3M (radius 2,400km)

    to

    to 2 z 220kg warhead on 2,5Ma missile with range of 300km (brahmos derivative) on Su-34 (1100km mradius) ?

    In this role unlikely.


    As for tactical bombing - guess depending on range I guess otherwise nobody would fly Tu-22 to bomb terrorist scum in Syria.




    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:51 pm