Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2952
    Points : 3828
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:05 am

    Russia may renounce the development of a new bomber

    RIA Novosti, April 6. The modernized strategic bombers Tu-160 can replace the development of promising new set of long-range aviation, said Tuesday by the deputy defense minister for armament Vladimir Popovkin.

    "The Americans have decided to extend the resource B-52 to 70 years. We are not richer than them," - he said, replying to a question whether there was work to modernize the Tu-160 or the development of a promising new set of long-range aviation.

    RIA Novosti
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24404
    Points : 24946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:02 am

    I have read that the Bear is much cheaper to operate than the Blackjack.

    I wonder if they are worried that the new bomber might turn into a Russian B-2 that is so expensive even the US can only afford 20.

    I would hope that Russian designers could come up with something that is more capable yet does not cost exponentially more than those already in service.

    Going for hypersonic stealthy would certainly break the bank, but I think there is an opportunity to create a new modern but efficient bomber able to meet the various requirements of strategic cruise missile carrier and theatre heavy bomber and maybe even long range Maritime Patrol aircraft, and inflight refuelling tanker and perhaps even AWACS.

    So far the solutions tried have been to go multinational with expensive designs like the F-35.
    Perhaps the ideal solution is to make a design that can be used with minimal modification for a wide range of purposes using largely the same components.

    Or perhaps I am just full of it. Surprised
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 32
    Location : Indonesia

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:13 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Perhaps the ideal solution is to make a design that can be used with minimal modification for a wide range of purposes using largely the same components.

    Or perhaps I am just full of it. Surprised

    I agree with this.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24404
    Points : 24946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:55 am

    You agree that I am full of it? Twisted Evil Twisted Evil pirat
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 32
    Location : Indonesia

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:49 pm

    GarryB wrote:You agree that I am full of it? Twisted Evil Twisted Evil pirat

    I Agree that your concept is very good .. having an aircraft that can be adapted to other roles with minimum modification . and able to "share" parts between each variants.. pretty much like F-111B and F-111A.

    imagine a version of Tu-160 which capable of adapted with minimum modification into a Space ship launcher role (like Burlak Diana)..while retaining capability to carry cruise missiles Very Happy
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24404
    Points : 24946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:38 am

    I thought the proposed interceptor and jammer models of the Tu-160 that never got off the drawing board looked cool.

    Imagine the size of radar that could be fitted in the nose of the Tu-160, with R-37s in the rotary internal bays.

    Just off the top of my head the R-37 should be about the same size as the Kh-15 Kickback so the Tu-160 should be able to carry 24 missiles internally and be capable of supersonic sprints with a flight radius of 12,000km or so.
    Viktor
    Viktor

    Posts : 5798
    Points : 6433
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 39
    Location : Croatia

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  Viktor on Sat Apr 10, 2010 4:47 pm

    GarryB wrote:I thought the proposed interceptor and jammer models of the Tu-160 that never got off the drawing board looked cool.

    Imagine the size of radar that could be fitted in the nose of the Tu-160, with R-37s in the rotary internal bays.

    Just off the top of my head the R-37 should be about the same size as the Kh-15 Kickback so the Tu-160 should be able to carry 24 missiles internally and be capable of supersonic sprints with a flight radius of 12,000km or so.

    I allways liked the idea of Tu-22M3 being fitted with AESA radar an rotary K-100 missiles besides some Kh-22M.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24404
    Points : 24946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:46 am

    Yes.

    Keep the crew of 4 and put a huge AESA radar in the nose, modify the internal rotary weapon rack to carry long missiles plus with 4 external load bearing points for weapons should allow quite a few weapons to be carried.

    Half the number of engines and probably cheaper to operate and the chance of having lots of spare airframes is rather better than with the Blackjack due to the numbers in service.

    If the changes are made permanent and the air to ground capacity is completely removed then the inflight refuelling capability could be reinstated too.

    The belly could be reconfigured to look like the belly of the Mig-31M for semi conformal carriage of large AAMs like R-37 and other proposed weapons.
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 872
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 32
    Location : Indonesia

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  Stealthflanker on Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:59 am

    there were also concept of "B-1R" in US serving pretty much same purpose as Counter air variant of Tu-160's.

    However i wonder why neither of these concept came into materialization
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2952
    Points : 3828
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:58 am

    I think the Tu-160 is good for what we need. Slap on a RAM coating, LO the outlets, and an engine upgrade will do it just fine. Remember its primary role is a standoff nuclear carrier. With a 3000km missile range, it doesn't have to penetrate at all. The Su-34 is going to be the mainstay of tactical bombing, add aerial refuelling and it can be used in a strategic role. We can use PAK FA for preliminary strike missions.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24404
    Points : 24946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:22 am

    However i wonder why neither of these concept came into materialization

    Most likely cost really. The Mig-31 is smaller and shorter ranged, but you actually get better coverage with a lot of smaller interceptors than you do with a couple of big ones.

    The Tu-160 is a very expensive aircraft.


    I think the Tu-160 is good for what we need.

    I agree but lots of parts for it were made in the Ukraine.
    I have been told that major structural components needed for the swing wing were made in the Ukraine and it would not be so easy or cheap to make a lot more.
    The 15-16 you have is a very small force for just one type.

    They are actually making more Ka-50 helicopters even though the Mi-28N won the competition for replacement helo for the Hind because the one and a half dozen or so Ka-50s made in the mid 1990s is not a viable force. They are also making Ka-52s but these seem to be for the heavy recon role so they are really replacing the Mi-2s in service in the recon role.

    Slap on a RAM coating, LO the outlets, and an engine upgrade will do it just fine.

    Actually the Tu-160 was the first Soviet aircraft that took into account of radar cross section. It already has RAM coating and although the engine intakes are not S shaped to hide the front engine fan blades they have actually applied RAM material to the front fan blades to reduce their radar return.
    The Tu-160 is said to have a RCS similar to the much smaller B-1B, which in itself is impressive because the B-1B had lots of RCS measures applied.

    Remember its primary role is a standoff nuclear carrier. With a 3000km missile range, it doesn't have to penetrate at all.

    Quite true and the new missile it is carrying is the Kh-102 with a range of 5,000km.
    Russia and the Soviet Union only have one heavy bomber in the form of the Tu-22M3, with the Tu-95 and the Tu-160s being cruise missile carriers.

    All three aircraft however have been going through upgrades to make them all guided air to ground weapon capable for precision attacks in all weathers day and night.

    The Su-34 is going to be the mainstay of tactical bombing, add aerial refuelling and it can be used in a strategic role.

    When it was being developed it was described as a replacement for the Su-24, the Tu-16, and the Tu-22M3 on its shorter missions.

    There is something to be said however for the Tu-22M3, which can carry an enormous load over shorter theatre mission ranges. 24 tons of guided weapons over a mission radius of over 2,000km would be impressive for any aircraft. The fact that 24 tons of weapons means reduced fuel also means that if you restore inflight refuelling you can actually increase that flight radius by topping up on the fuel you off loaded to get airborne with the extra weight.

    More than that the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 are beautiful looking aircraft.

    But I am biased
    cheers
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2952
    Points : 3828
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:04 am

    GarryB wrote:

    I agree but lots of parts for it were made in the Ukraine.
    I have been told that major structural components needed for the swing wing were made in the Ukraine and it would not be so easy or cheap to make a lot more.
    The 15-16 you have is a very small force for just one type.

    Talk has been made of starting up production again at Kazan to bring the number to 30.

    http://www.kommersant.com/p-11537/r_500/Tu-160_resume/

    They are actually making more Ka-50 helicopters even though the Mi-28N won the competition for replacement helo for the Hind because the one and a half dozen or so Ka-50s made in the mid 1990s is not a viable force. They are also making Ka-52s but these seem to be for the heavy recon role so they are really replacing the Mi-2s in service in the recon role.

    Ka-50 production is ended once the already signed orders are finished. 30 Ka-52 will be produced to fill special operations roles. Mi-28N is the main attack helo of the VVS.

    Actually the Tu-160 was the first Soviet aircraft that took into account of radar cross section. It already has RAM coating and although the engine intakes are not S shaped to hide the front engine fan blades they have actually applied RAM material to the front fan blades to reduce their radar return.
    The Tu-160 is said to have a RCS similar to the much smaller B-1B, which in itself is impressive because the B-1B had lots of RCS measures applied.

    Tu-160 was developed long before the advent of Russian RAM coatings. This is a new thing only going on the Su-35BM currently in production. Tu-160 was not incorporated stealth technology...


    As noted Zhikharev, stealth technology planned for the first time to apply for Tu-160. The design of the aircraft used by new composite materials, as well as the principle was applied to the angles of refraction of reflection of radar beams. According to the commander, for this reason that the effective reflecting surface as a measure of invisibility from the Tu-160 would be much smaller than other aircraft.

    However, as recalled by Anatoly Zhikharev, work to improve the aircraft was brought to the end, because the Tu-160 was designed in the 70-ies. First vehicles entered service in the Russian army only in 1987, when the industry was unable to fully realize stealth technology.

    http://www.newsru.com/russia/22dec2009/stels.html


    The new missile it is carrying is the Kh-102 with a range of 5,000km.

    Kh-101 was tested a decade ago but came to naught. Its seeker technology was incorporated into Kh-555 which is now the mainstay LACM of the VVS. Kh-55 still used for nuclear.


    Russia and the Soviet Union only have one heavy bomber in the form of the Tu-22M3, with the Tu-95 and the Tu-160s being cruise missile carriers.

    Tu-95 and Tu-160 also carry bombs. The modernisation incorporates this into the mission.

    All three aircraft however have been going through upgrades to make them all guided air to ground weapon capable for precision attacks in all weathers day and night.

    Tu-22M3 is getting the bombing computer added to the Su-24SM, but not smart munitions. As the Su-34 comes online they will be withdrawn from service.

    There is something to be said however for the Tu-22M3, which can carry an enormous load over shorter theatre mission ranges. 24 tons of guided weapons over a mission radius of over 2,000km would be impressive for any aircraft. The fact that 24 tons of weapons means reduced fuel also means that if you restore inflight refuelling you can actually increase that flight radius by topping up on the fuel you off loaded to get airborne with the extra weight.

    Tu-22M3 entered service in the early eighties and production ended in 1986. Its production facilities are long gone and no one wants to restart its production. As demonstrated over Georgia, it is highly susceptible to enemy fire so no one in command wants to bring it back as a bomber. Its best role is as a naval strike, it is the fear of all planners trying to keep naval parity. Hopefully it will serve long in this role until 2030.

    More than that the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 are beautiful looking aircraft.

    Nothing is more beautiful to watch than the White Swan floating over Red Square.
    solo.13mmfmj
    solo.13mmfmj

    Posts : 115
    Points : 138
    Join date : 2010-04-16

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  solo.13mmfmj on Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:17 am

    Why didn't the RAF destroy the aircraft?If they violatet UK air space!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24404
    Points : 24946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:06 am

    They didn't violate UK airspace, they flew through international airspace that the UK expects "enemy bombers" to use so it is "watched" airspace.
    If the Russian bombers had flown out of international airspace and into UK airspace the UK interceptors would have demanded the aircraft land or be shot down.
    Just like what happened over Soviet airspace during the cold war.
    Same rules apply.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24404
    Points : 24946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Talk has been made of starting up production again at Kazan to bring the number to 30.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:43 am

    Talk has been made of starting up production again at Kazan to bring the number to 30.

    http://www.kommersant.com/p-11537/r_500/Tu-160_resume/

    Yes, I have seen that. I have been told that a central beam specially made from special al alloy is structurally central to the design and that was made in the Ukraine.

    30 would make a much more viable force, and the improvements applied on its upgrade make it an excellent tool for the job. 45 tons of conventional ordinance if needed after the upgrade is a lot of bombs on targets.

    Ka-50 production is ended once the already signed orders are finished.

    Yes, sorry I wasnt very clear about that. They are finishing incomplete aircraft to make a viable force of Ka-50s in service. Armed with Hermes missiles they should be rather nice attack helos. Their coaxial design means they are more efficient in hot and high conditions so the few units of Ka-50s will probably be based in such places to take advantage of their design.

    Tu-160 was developed long before the advent of Russian RAM coatings. This is a new thing only going on the Su-35BM currently in production. Tu-160 was not incorporated stealth technology...

    I didn't mean stealth, I meant LO. It has reduced RCS. I have seen pictures of Su-25s in the 1980s with a coating of materials on it to reduce radar signature, and a book about the Tu-160 that describes interviews with the makers talking about the RCS reduction techniques they applied. Including RAM coating to the front engine fan blades.
    It wasn't stealth, because stealth is expensive and it was always a cruise missile carrier and was never intended to penetrate air defences and fly over the target area... it was supposed to fly to its launch point and fire its cruise missiles well away from enemy fighters and SAMs. By the time the Tu-160 got to its launch point ICBM warheads and SLBM warheads will have dealt with any defences.

    Kh-101 was tested a decade ago but came to naught. Its seeker technology was incorporated into Kh-555 which is now the mainstay LACM of the VVS. Kh-55 still used for nuclear.

    That doesn't make sense? The guidance was good enough for a LACM but wasn't good enough to replace the existing main weapon?
    The Kh-101 was the conventional CM while the Kh-102 was supposed to replace the Kh-55. Did it actually fail while having a guidance that was good enough for the Kh-555?
    Sounds to me like they just saved money by using the new guidance with old missiles for a conventional capability and just kept the Kh-55 in service rather than producing Kh-102s for the nuclear option just to save money.
    The Kh-101/102 were also rather larger and heavier than the Kh-55 so for example the Tu-95MS16 can carry Kh-55s in its rotary internal bay only and must carry the Kh-101/-102s externaly with 10 under the wings. The Tu-160 can carry 12 of either missile internally.
    Do you know why it was considered a failure and can you say?

    Tu-95 and Tu-160 also carry bombs. The modernisation incorporates this into the mission.

    I thought the modernisation was unified between all three aircraft (Tu-95, Tu-22M3, Tu-160) and was supposed to add all sorts of guided bombs including satellite guided weapons.

    Tu-22M3 is getting the bombing computer added to the Su-24SM, but not smart munitions. As the Su-34 comes online they will be withdrawn from service.

    I thought the Su-34 only took over some of the shorter range roles of the Tu-22M3?
    They will obviously have to rather increase their order of Su-34s and start making more than 2 a year then.

    The withdrawl of the Tu-22M3 seems strange with it getting upgraded along with the Bears and Blackjacks, or has that been cancelled?

    Also are Naval Aviation Backfires being withdrawn for Fullbacks too?

    Tu-22M3 entered service in the early eighties and production ended in 1986. Its production facilities are long gone and no one wants to restart its production. As demonstrated over Georgia, it is highly susceptible to enemy fire so no one in command wants to bring it back as a bomber. Its best role is as a naval strike, it is the fear of all planners trying to keep naval parity. Hopefully it will serve long in this role until 2030.

    It is such a big aircraft with presumably lots of potential. The size and power of electronic jammers you could fit to it and the other bits it could carry. Add to that good range and a four man crew it should have lots of potential.
    Regarding its age, it is just a child compared to the US's B-52s. (an old joke about them is they are very good old aircraft... they have just had 3 new wings and 2 new airframes, and the avionics is all new too... Smile )

    Nothing is more beautiful to watch than the White Swan floating over Red Square.

    I have only recently seen photos of it taking off in AB and always impressed with its sleek shape.
    USAF
    USAF

    Posts : 13
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2010-06-03
    Location : Phoenix Arizona

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Russian strategic bombers carry out record nonstop flight

    Post  USAF on Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:06 am

    Two Russian Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers are carrying out a 23-hour patrol with a planned flight range of 18,000 kilometers (over 11,000 miles), an Air Force spokesman said on Wednesday.

    "We are expecting this mission to set a record because its duration will exceed the previous achievement by two hours for a total of 23 hours, and its range will reach 18,000 kilometers," Lt. Col. Vladimir Drik said.

    The Tu-160s conducted a similar mission last year and stayed in the air for 21 hours.

    The bombers are flying along the Russian borders and over neutral waters of the Arctic and Pacific oceans.

    They will practice instrumental flight and carry out in-flight refueling from Il-78 aerial tankers.

    The Tu-160 Blackjack is a supersonic, variable-geometry heavy bomber, designed to strike strategic targets with nuclear and conventional weapons deep in continental theaters of operation.

    MOSCOW, June 9 (RIA Novosti)

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100609/159363380.html
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7619
    Points : 8016
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Tu-160 and Tu-95 ( Blackjack and Bears )

    Post  Austin on Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:38 am

    Bears and Blackjacks Are Back. What Next?
    Alexander Stukalin, Kommersant Publishing House
    http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/4-2010/

    They are coming

    Three years ago Russian strategic bombers resumed their regular patrols off the coast of the United States, Canada and the UK. On August 17, 2007, as many as 17 long-range aircraft took off from the airfields in Olenegorsk, Vorkuta, Monchegorsk, Tiksi, Anadyr, Engels and Shaykovka. They clocked in a combined 165 flight hours that day. Each pair of the supersonic Tu-160 Blackjacks and the turboprop Tu 95MS Bear-H bombers headed for its own patrol area in the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Naturally, all that activity did not go unnoticed. Norway, for instance, reported that over a period of 14 hours, 11 Russian planes had appeared near its western borders. ‘’We haven’t seen that kind of activity in a very long time. Not since the early 1990s. It was quite impressive to see,” Brig. Gen. Ole Asak, chief of the Norwegian Joint Air Operations Center, said in an interview with the Associated Press news agency. In the United States it was reported that a pair of Tu-95MS bombers had approached the island of Guam, for the first time since the end of the Cold War.

    Russia’s explanation was not long in coming. President Vladimir Putin, who observed the ‘Peaceful Mission’ – 2007 military exercise on that day, outlined the Kremlin’s official line right at the Chebarkul training range. “In 1992, Russia unilaterally suspended its long-range strategic aviation patrols,” Putin said. “Unfortunately, not everybody followed our example, and other countries have carried on with their own strategic aviation patrols. That poses certain problems for Russia’s security. That is why the decision has been made to resume Russian strategic aviation patrols on a permanent basis.”

    It was just a matter of time

    The Russian president did not specify whose strategic aviation was posing a problem for Russia’s security, and how. But the Kremlin’s decision, and the sharp rise in the activity of Russian strategic aviation, was not unexpected. In fact, it was quite predictable, given all the trends in the previous years. The former commander of the Russian Air Force, Gen Anatoliy Kornukov, listed the resumption of patrols “in combat-designated areas” as one of his key achievements back in 2002. And in 2006 his successor, Army General Vladimir Mikhaylov, was musing about “resuming patrols in parts of the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans”.

    Both generals had good reasons to make such predictions. Suffice is to recall that back in the summer of 1999, during the West-99 strategic command staff exercise, two Tu-160 bombers of the 121st Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment (TBAP) took off from the Engels airbase for a 12 hour flight to the GIUK gap in the Atlantic. In the autumn of the same year, a pair of Tu-95MS aircraft of the 182nd TBAP based in Ukrainka conducted a one-off patrol off the Aleut Islands. The Western military should have taken notice: the sharp drop in the activity of Russian strategic aviation, which had started in 1992, had essentially come to an end as early as 1998.

    The traditional explanation for that drop in Russia itself is that the new democratic government and the bogeyman Yeltsin did not care about military aviation and forced it to survive on a bare pittance. But things aren’t that simple.

    As a matter of fact, Russia had almost no modern strategic aviation left after the collapse of the Soviet Union, apart from the twenty Tu-95MS bombers of the 182nd TBAP in Mozdok. In 1992, Moscow had yet to claw back the forty Tu-95MS bombers that had been left in Kazakhstan after the republic’s independence. It then had to retrain the pilots, who had only had experience with the older Tu-95K version. And it was only just beginning to form a new Tu-160 regiment in Engels. However, Russia’s first simultaneous launches of two air-launched cruise missiles by a pair of Tu-160 bombers came as early as October 1992. In 1996 crews of the Tu-95MS bombers of the 79th TBAP (Ukrainka airbase) and the 182nd TBAP also commenced practical missile launches.* The number of launches was rising every year. In 2000-2007, the 37th Air Army of the Supreme Command (which incorporated all Russian long-range aviation in 1998) was making an average of 10 missile launches every year.

    At the same time Russian strategic aviation pilots were resurrecting the largely lost skill of aerial refueling using the Il-78 Midas aerial refueling tankers. In the spring of 1995, aerial refueling was performed by a Russian Tu 95MS bomber flying non-stop along the Ukrainka-Anadyr-Northern Ocean-Engels route. The following year, crews of the 182nd TBAP also resumed aerial refueling. The Tu-160 pilots had to learn that skill from scratch. In the former Soviet Union the maneuver was performed only a few times in 1987 by elite test pilots. The first routine daytime aerial refueling of a pair of Tu-160 bombers of the 121st TBAP was performed in 2002. The first night-time refueling followed in 2003. At about the same time Russian strategic aviation resumed the regular use of the northern staging airfields. In 2000, after a 10-year pause, the 182nd Regiment (which had already been transferred to Ukrainka) resumed the use of the Tiksi airbase for flights to the North Pole. In 2001, crews of the 184th Regiment (which was relocated back to Engels in 2000) began making use of the operational airfield in Vorkuta.

    In 1999-2000 the 37th Air Army received three Tu-95MS aircraft and eight Tu-160 bombers, which had been sitting on the airfields in Ukraine since the fall of the Soviet Union. One new Tu-160 bomber was delivered by the manufacturer, the Kazan Aviation Plant (KAPO). That completed the formation of the Russian strategic aviation fleet – no new aircraft have entered service since then. Also in 2000 the fuel quotas allocated to the strategic aviation fleet for patrol flights began to increase. The frequency of such flights grew accordingly, and the bombers started venturing beyond the Russian and CIS borders** with increasing regularity. In 2001 and 2002, pairs of Tu-160 bombers conducted another two patrol flights off the UK coast. In May 2003, two Tu-160 bombers and four Tu-96MS aircraft of the 184th Regiment tested the limits of their range, flying more than 10,000 km in over 12 hours on a training mission over Indian Ocean. In August of the same year a pair of Tu-160 bombers and several Tu-96MS aircraft took off from several airfields in the Far East and conducted patrol flights over a large area from the Arctic Ocean and the Chukchi Peninsula along the coast of Canada and on to the Aleut Islands in the Sea of Japan.

    Flights to the coasts of the United States, Canada, the UK and Norway continued in the following three years. In 2006 the total number of long-range patrol missions surpassed 100. The vast majority of them stayed close to the Russian territory. But in many cases several planes would take off simultaneously from several airfields and head in several different directions. For example, in the autumn of 2006 a pair of Tu-160 and another pair of Tu-95MS took off from the Engels airfield and conducted a 13-hour patrol over the Atlantic, with one aerial refueling. Almost simultaneously, other planes conducted live firing exercises over the Pemboy training range in the north. Meanwhile, several Tu-95MS bombers took off from the Ukrainka airbase in the east of the country. Some of them headed for the Aleut Islands in the Pacific, while others launched two missiles over the northern training range of Khalmer-Yurt. In March 2007 two Tu-95MS bombers of the 184th Regiment flew to the north on a mission that included two aerial refuelings – one near Kotlas, another near Engels. And in July, Russia essentially conducted a somewhat truncated dress rehearsal of a triumphal return of its bombers to “world politics”. Pairs of Tu-160 and Tu-95MS bombers took off from Vorkuta and flew towards Norway, then on to Denmark, the UK and Iceland. Another two Tu-160 bombers took the Engels-North Pole-Baykal route, and several Tu-95MS planes from the Ukrainka airbase flew along their usual routes over the Pacific Ocean. After that flurry of activity, the appearance in August 2007 of 11 Russian long-range bombers off the coast of Norway hardly came as any surprise.

    Growing threats

    According to official reports by the 37th Air Army command, a total of 70 long-range patrols “to various parts of the globe” were conducted in 2007. Their average duration was 12-14 hours. In 2008, the number of such patrols had reached 40 by April 5 and 50 by August 5. During the rest of the year, only 15 more patrols were conducted, for a total of 65, with 662 flight-hours clocked in and 310 tonnes of fuel transferred during aerial refueling. These long-range flights had substantially boosted the average number of flight hours clocked in by the Russian Air Force pilots: from 30-40 hours in 2005-2006 to around 80 hours in 2007 and 100 hours in 2008.

    According to the data released into the public domain (and for some reason the Air Force continues to be fairly secretive with this information), the typical long-range patrol flight lasts 12 hours without aerial refueling, or 15-20 hours with one refueling. The most common destinations (excluding the exotic flight of a pair of Tu-160 bombers to Venezuela in September 2008) remain unchanged since the Soviet times. Most of the time the Russian heavy bombers fly past Scandinavia towards the UK and Iceland and on to the North Atlantic, or via the Arctic towards Alaska and Canada, then on to the Pacific (including the Aleut Islands) and the Sea of Japan. Russia has two heavy bomber regiments stationed in the west of the country (armed with the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS aircraft) and another two in the east (both armed with the Tu-95MS bombers). The number of eastward and westward bound flights is roughly the same. That is confirmed by reports of Russian aircraft being intercepted by fighter aviation of the respective countries. Given that each patrol is usually conducted by a pair of bombers, the figures for 2007 and 2008 translate into 30-35 patrol missions by pairs of bombers per year. The US NORAD Command reported 18 incidents in which Russian bombers were intercepted in 2007, 12 in 2008 and 17 in 2009.

    In 2009-2010, Russian strategic aviation set several records for the duration and range of patrol flights along the so-called “Big Circle” route. The latest two records were set earlier this year. In June 2010, a pair of Tu-160 bombers spent about 24 hours in the air and covered 18,000 km along the route of the Arctic-Bering Strait-Alaskan coast-Japanese Islands-Russia’s southern borders-Engels. They were refueled in the air twice, over the Laptev Sea and near Komsomolsk-upon-Amur. In July 2010, a pair of Tu-95MS took off from Ukrainka and flew around the entire perimeter of the Russian borders and the adjacent seas. The flight lasted 42 hours and 17 minutes, covering a distance of about 30,000 km.

    Another recent record was set in 2008, during the “Stability-2008” strategic command staff exercise, when a Tu 95MS bomber launched its full payload of six cruise missiles over the Pemboy training range in the north. In the former Soviet Union, such a volley missile launch was conducted in 1984 over the Sary-Shagan range as part of a joint exercise of the Soviet Air Force and Air Defense. Apart from the missiles, the Tu-95MS bombers are armed with 23mm guns. Their crews continue to train for defending against fighter jets using those guns. According to official reports of the 37th Air Army command, 35 tactical air battles were conducted during the exercises in 2008, and another 64 tactical firing practices with air targets.

    The Russian Air Force has been using MiG-31 Foxbat interceptors, Su-27 Flanker fighters and A-50 Mainstay AEW aircraft as escorts for the long-range bombers in 2008-2010. New elements of the long-range patrols that have been introduced over the past three years include coordination with the Russian Navy and naval aviation. In February 2008 a pair of Tu-160 bombers took off for a maximum-range patrol mission over the Atlantic (towards the Hebrides and the Lofoten Islands), during which they coordinated their mission with a Northern Fleet strike group led by the Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov aircraft carrier and were escorted by six Su-33 carrier-based fighters. On several occasions pairs of Tu-160 bombers took off for patrols over the Atlantic simultaneously with the Tu-142M Bear-F long-range anti-submarine aircraft of the Northern Fleet aviation (Kipelovo airbase) as part of a common training scenario.

    False threat

    Several Tu-95MS aircraft were involved in a tactical exercise of the 37th Air Army in the Pacific in February 2008. Two of the bombers flew over the USS Nimitz, forcing the Americans to launch four F/A-18 carrier-based interceptors. Washington later said that one of the Russian planes had conducted a low-altitude fly-by around the American aircraft carrier despite the interceptors. At about the same time, another pair of Tu-95MS bombers was intercepted by Japanese F-15J fighters. Tokyo later said the Russian planes had crossed into Japanese airspace near the Izu archipelago.

    The activity of Russian strategic aviation near the borders of other countries in 2007-2010 triggered an angry diplomatic and political response by the respective parliaments, political parties and several officials - some of them fairly senior. But on the whole, they caused no major scandals. Attempts by some media outlets to portray the bomber patrol missions as an act of aggression were soon dampened by official statements saying that there were no violations of international borders, that the Russians were not showing any obvious signs of aggression, and that all their patrol missions were being kept in check. But the patrols did cause a few unpleasant surprises for the Western military and their governments, the fly-by around the USS Nimitz being one of them. Another recent incident came on August 24-25, when a pair of Tu-95MS bombers unexpectedly showed up about 30 miles off the Canadian border (near Inuvik, Northwest Territories). Interestingly, the Russian MoD had officially announced to the media shortly before the incident that its Tu-95MS aircraft would be heading eastwards for a long-range patrol, but the designated patrol area was the Aleut Islands. It therefore remains unclear whether it was the same pair of bombers. Theoretically this is possible, given that the duration of their mission was later said to have been 16 hours, with one aerial refueling. Alternatively, there could have been two different pairs of bombers, one heading for the Aleut Islands and another for the Canadian border, probably after taking off from the Ukrainka airbase.

    Incidents like these have lent credence to those in the West who say that the Russian threat is growing and needs to be countered. But these claims fail to take into account the actual state of affairs in Russia. A lot can be said about the political expediency – or lack thereof – of sending Russian strategic bombers to the borders of the countries which are no longer considered to be Russia’s enemies. One can also argue about how comfortably these bomber patrols sit with Russia’s own declarations of a “reset” in its relations with the United States. But what is beyond any doubt is that there will be no further growth in the activity of the Russian Tu-160 and Tu-95MS bombers. They should not be seen as a growing threat. Russia’s strategic aviation has already reached the limit of its capabilities. Any further improvement of these capabilities is being held back by a number of very serious problems which are, to all intents and purposes, beyond Russia’s ability to fix.

    No aerial refueling tankers

    The most serious problem that affects the operational capabilities of Russian strategic aviation is the shortage of aerial refueling tankers. That shortage puts a strict limit on the number of patrol missions per year and on the number of bombers that can be involved in each individual mission. The 37th Air Army command has stated on several occasions that in order to be fully effective, the Russian strategic aviation fleet needs to have a 1:1 ratio between the bombers and the tankers. In other words, there should be a regiment of aerial refueling tankers for each regiment of heavy bombers. As of 2009, Russia had 78 operational heavy bombers (15 Tu-160 and 63 Tu-95MS aircraft in four regiments) and only 20 aerial refueling tankers (eight Il-78 and 12 Il-78M aircraft, all made before 1994) of the 203rd Air Tanker Aviation Regiment (APSZ). The technical state of these planes leaves much to be desired. When the 203rd APSZ Regiment was being relocated from Engels to the Dyagilevo airbase near Ryazan, only 13 of its 20 aircraft were airworthy. That proportion has increased lately, but some of the planes are always grounded for repairs, maintenance or refitting to extend their service life.

    The 203rd APSZ is the only tanker regiment in the entire Russian Air Force. For that reason, some of its planes are often diverted for other uses, such as test flights and training missions involving front-line, fighter and naval aviation. At the very peak of the crisis in the Russian Air Force, which came in the mid-1990s, the number of the Tu-95MS missions that involved aerial refueling was in the single digits. But the tankers of the 203rd APSZ were quite busy refueling other types of aircraft. They performed 102 refueling missions in 1995 and more than 200 in 1996. In 2002-2003 an average aerial refueling tanker pilot had clocked in more than three times as many flight hours as an average bomber pilot. In recent years, the 203rd APSZ has been even busier. In 2010, Il-78 tankers were involved in a large number of tactical aviation exercises and training missions. These missions involved refueling Su-34 Fullback, Su-30 Flanker and Su-24M Fencer strike aircraft based at the Lipetsk airbase, Su-24M aircraft from the airbases in Voronezh, Morozovsk and Khurba, and Tu-142M long-range anti-submarine aircraft of the Naval Aviation squadron in Kipelovo. In this long line for aerial refueling services, strategic aviation usually comes last. Figures released to the public domain indicate that only two to four Il-78 tankers are usually involved in long-range strategic aviation missions. Only on one occasion, during the large exercise in February 2008, as many as eight tankers were taking part. Another thing to consider is that such heavy use of all the available Russian aerial refueling tankers brings the end of their service lives so much nearer – and there are no plans at the moment to buy new ones.

    Nothing in the pipeline

    The strategic bomber regiments are facing the same problem, now that their planes spend more time in the air. All the Russian Tu-95MS bombers were made before 1994. The Tu-160 aircraft entered service over the period of 1986-2007. Speaking shortly after his appointment in 2002, the commander of the 37th Air Army, Maj. Gen. Igor Khvorov said that the Tu-95MS, Tu-160 and Il-78 fleets “can stay in the air at least until 2015”. It was also said that the bombers would be upgraded to extend their service life and to arm them with new high-precision non-nuclear weapons. But later on, Gen. Khvorov’s successors, as well as successive commanders of the entire Russian Air Force, changed their tune. They said the existing planes could serve for another 40 or 50 years, and stopped making promises about massive upgrade programs. The number of bombers that have actually been upgraded is in the single digits – these planes are essentially prototypes. For the Tu-160 aircraft, the actual term “upgrade” has been phased out in favor of “restorative maintenance”, which is performed on just one or two planes each year by the manufacturer in Kazan. For the Tu-95MS bombers, the new word is “modernization”. Both of these new terms essentially boil down to routine repairs and replacement of some components in the hope that one day the bombers will receive proper upgrades, including new weapons and avionics, especially targeting and navigation systems.

    Meanwhile, analysis of the bomber fleet maintenance contracts announced by the MoD in 2007-2010 points to several worrying trends. Some of the Tu-160 planes (including one made in 1999) have developed cracks in the integral tank, and there is extensive corrosion damage in the leading-edge wing assembly. Some elements of the control systems require serious repairs to extend their service life, as do the struts of the main landing gear. The Tu-95MS fleet has also developed problems with the integral tanks, which need to be repaired or replaced entirely. The structure of the wing needs to be reinforced across the whole fleet.

    Another serious problem for both fleets is the engines, which are no longer in production. The service life of the Kuznetsov NK-32 turbofan engines (Tu-160) has now been extended to 21 years, and of the Kuznetsov NK-12MP turboprop engines (Tu-95MS) to 24 years. Analysis of the repair contracts announced by the MoD suggests that the engines are a much bigger headache than the rest of the planes. The NK-32 engines has serious issues with the blades, as well as with its numerous pumps, valves and filters. Apart from these ailments, which are typical for this model, the engines show increased vibration and consumption of oil; their rotors are out of balance, and their thrust vector guidance systems are failing or performing outside specification. All of this shows that the NK-32 engines are not going to last forever. In fact, this particular model suffers from numerous inherent weaknesses. The engine was allowed to enter service with the Air Force after the first stage of official trials; the problems identified during that first stage were never fixed. If Russia wants to keep the frequency of its long-range bomber patrol missions at the levels seen in 2007-2009, it will have to spend more and more on repairs and maintenance for the planes and especially their engines. Otherwise it risks losing the planes and their crews. There have already been several wake-up calls. In 2002 one of the engines of a Tu-95MS bomber belonging to the 184th TBAP cathes fire in mid-flight, but the crew managed to land the plane at its home airfield. In 2003, a Tu-160 aircraft made in 1992 crashed after its main integral tank disintegrated. Its entire crew was killed.

    No rescue

    The risk of one of the long-range bombers crashing is another factor that has seriously affected Russia’s plans for the use of its strategic aviation fleet. If a plane goes down somewhere far away from the homeland, there is next to no chance of a successful rescue mission. Commanders of the 37th Air Army have often complained that there are not enough MSK rescue suits or unique Baklan diving suits that every Tu-160 crew member is supposed to have – but even that is not the main problem. The Soviet Union could afford to equip all the bomber crews with all the necessary rescue gear. But when Soviet planes (including Tu-95 and An-22 aircraft) went down somewhere far out in the ocean, their crews were always lost. The latest incident involved a Tu-142MZ long-range anti-submarine aircraft of the Pacific Fleet Aviation, which was lost in the Tatar Strait in November 2009, only 20km away from the shore. None of its 11 crew members survived. The Tu-142MZ model has the same airframe and engines as the Tu-95MS bomber. Even if the crew (four people for Tu-160 and seven for Tu-95MS) survive the actual crash somewhere far in the Arctic, Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, they cannot expect swift rescue by the Russian Air Force or Navy. These services have never had the technical means or the overall capability to pull off such a rescue. The loss of even a single plane would lead to a long pause in long-range patrols until the causes are established – which is next to impossible to do with any degree of certainty when the plane and its crew disappear without a trace. Senior commanders would then be extremely cautious about ordering a resumption of such patrols.

    It is therefore safe to assert that the Russian strategic aviation has restored only a small fraction of the capability once possessed by the Soviet Air Force. In Soviet times, Moscow could afford to send up to a squadron of Tu-95 bombers to the Atlantic or the US shores, and up to a whole regiment to the Soviet sector of the Arctic. It took Russia almost a whole decade to resume the small-scale and infrequent long-range patrol missions – and these patrols are in fact the limit of Moscow’s current capabilities. Any further progress will require a very radical increase in the Air Force funding and procurement programs.

    * The 182nd Regiment went through three relocations (Mozdok to Engels to Mozdok and finally back to Engels) in 1992-1994 due to the instability in the North Caucasus.

    ** On several occasions over the past decade the Russian strategic bombers landed at airbases in Belarus; they also took part in CIS air defense exercises.
    nightcrawler
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 522
    Points : 634
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 30
    Location : Pakistan

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  nightcrawler on Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:23 pm

    Good article Austin
    I always admire your posting valuable articles; hoping you share an ebook about those bomber planes..........
    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7619
    Points : 8016
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  Austin on Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:09 pm

    nightcrawler wrote:Good article Austin
    I always admire your posting valuable articles; hoping you share an ebook about those bomber planes..........

    Thanks , I really do not have the softcopy of bomber ebook but incase i come across i will definitely put it up.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24404
    Points : 24946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:38 am

    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.

    Obviously a few Tu-214s converted to refuelling aircraft for tactical aircraft like the Su-24 and Su-34s and some Il-96s converted to inflight refuelling aircraft too would solve some problems as well.

    And of course developing a new engine based on 5th gen technologies could be very useful... something in the 25-30 ton thrust range if it proves reliable enough could be fitted to the Tu-22M, the Tu-160, and the Bears... (with 2, 4, and 2 engines involved respectively). This could extend the lives of these aircraft without changing their performance too much.

    Used in the PAK-DA a flying wing design able to supercruise would be a rather potent system yet not be too expensive or ambitious.
    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.
    Hoof
    Hoof

    Posts : 74
    Points : 76
    Join date : 2011-01-06
    Age : 29
    Location : HAFB, UT

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    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...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24404
    Points : 24946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    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.
    Hoof
    Hoof

    Posts : 74
    Points : 76
    Join date : 2011-01-06
    Age : 29
    Location : HAFB, UT

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    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 =)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24404
    Points : 24946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    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.
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2732
    Points : 2887
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    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

    Sponsored content

    Tu-160 "White Swan" Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu May 28, 2020 4:40 pm