Tu-160 "White Swan"

eehnie wrote:

Isos wrote:

franco wrote:

George1 wrote:This unit is a new built one or old Tu-160 modernized to M2 level?

My understanding is it was built using an unfinished frame from the Tu-160 production. Don't believe it has the new engines yet but will be used as a test platform for the new technology.

Is it more stealthy ? Do they us RAM on it or they use the same materials than before ?

Some small external dimmensional change is possible, also it is possible some surface treatment, but change in external materials is more difficult and is unlikely in my opinion.

Why unlikly ? Material science has evolved a lot since its design. I'm pretty sure they have some composite materials stronger, lighter and more stealthy to use today.

If they plan to build new ones, better make them with better technology in every field.

They may not even need so many expensive TU-160M2s (each can carry just "12× Raduga Kh-55SM/101/102/555 cruise missiles (primary armament) or 24× AS-16 Kickback short-range nuclear CMs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160#Specifications_.28Tu-160.29"): a few modified IL-76s/96 or AN-22s/124s each could also carry 3-4 dozen ALCMs & be refueled by IL-78s while escorted by MiG-31s/SU-30s/35s.
OTH, I'm surprised that China didn't buy the 1 TU-160 that is now in a Ukrainian museum for their own strategic bomber program!

Yeah, people talk about using transports or civilian types for the job but it never actually happens...

Who wants to make all their civil aircraft targets for the enemy?



They hadn't completed two of the old aircraft... they did not have their main centre box sections made of titanium that held the mechanism for the swing wings... and who knows what other components they didn't have.

they have described this as being the first of the new Tu-160M2 designs so we can assume it has all new avionics and systems, but it uses an old shell.

For instance under the nose you can clearly see the old optical port... if it is going to be a cruise missile carrier only then it wont need such a feature.

It probably wasn't worth removing from the two old airframes but may not appear on the new build models, and I would suspect there is plenty of scope for rather more changes including materials and shape.... technology has moved on since the 1970s and new things are possible.

"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

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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)

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.

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?

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

It will be high subsonic.

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!

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.

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!"