Tu-160M2

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1392
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 19:03

Wanted to get your guys opinion on something...

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-n ... er-2017-11

https://scout.com/military/warrior/Arti ... -110456073

here is an interesting quote in that article...

. Moscow can make do with the upgraded Tu-160M2 [10] for its strategic bomber force because unlike the United States Air Force, the Russian Air Force does not expect the massive aircraft to penetrate into enemy airspace to deliver its payload. Instead, the Tu-160—which is capable of speeds of over Mach 2.0—would dash into position to launch long-range standoff cruise missiles. As such, stealth is not considered to be particularly important. Indeed, one of the advantages of a highly visible strategic bomber is that it enables nuclear signaling.


same thing said here...

https://theaviationist.com/2017/11/16/r ... er-update/

A statement today during the Tu-160M2 rollout downplayed low-observable technology, saying that the Mach 2+ speed of the Tu-160M2 and the use of stand-off weapons negated the need for stealth.


It seems to be this is the Russian version of the B-1R concept purposed by the USAF a few years earlier. It would also seem to me that the Tu-160M2 is playing on the strategy of "shoot and scoot". I would think this mach 2+ capability would only be viable if it could sustain it over a long period of time rather than use it as a dash in hopes current SAMs and AAMs do not over take the aircraft.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 899
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 19:16

While it might play the role of nuclear deterrent to a certain extend, I doubt it's very cost effective to use cruise missiles for delivering conventional weapons.

So a conventional war with contested airspace is probably not it's game.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4663
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 22:57

You have to say stuff like that, when you don't have stealth bombers... :)
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 449
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 23:38

mixelflick wrote:You have to say stuff like that, when you don't have stealth bombers... :)

And even better, when those stealth bombers can also carry lots of really sneaky missiles.
Russia stronk
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7472
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Nov 2017, 23:43

charlielima223 wrote:Wanted to get your guys opinion on something...

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-n ... er-2017-11

https://scout.com/military/warrior/Arti ... -110456073

here is an interesting quote in that article...

. Moscow can make do with the upgraded Tu-160M2 [10] for its strategic bomber force because unlike the United States Air Force, the Russian Air Force does not expect the massive aircraft to penetrate into enemy airspace to deliver its payload. Instead, the Tu-160—which is capable of speeds of over Mach 2.0—would dash into position to launch long-range standoff cruise missiles. As such, stealth is not considered to be particularly important. Indeed, one of the advantages of a highly visible strategic bomber is that it enables nuclear signaling.


same thing said here...

https://theaviationist.com/2017/11/16/r ... er-update/

A statement today during the Tu-160M2 rollout downplayed low-observable technology, saying that the Mach 2+ speed of the Tu-160M2 and the use of stand-off weapons negated the need for stealth.


It seems to be this is the Russian version of the B-1R concept purposed by the USAF a few years earlier. It would also seem to me that the Tu-160M2 is playing on the strategy of "shoot and scoot". I would think this mach 2+ capability would only be viable if it could sustain it over a long period of time rather than use it as a dash in hopes current SAMs and AAMs do not over take the aircraft.


It's not B-1R, pretty sure that was the strategy for the B-1A back in the late 1970s
Choose Crews
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 00:49

juretrn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:You have to say stuff like that, when you don't have stealth bombers... :)

And even better, when those stealth bombers can also carry lots of really sneaky missiles.

I bet all that sneaky missiles are nuclear?
В61-11 or B83? nope it free fall ,and no B-2 in Europe
AGM-131 or AGM-129 ? not any more.

So tell me how being without nuclear missiles in general the B-2 turned out to be better than Tu-160?
Offline

skyward

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:33

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 03:40

The B-2 can get closer to highly defended targets. In some cases, B-2 can use gps bomb where the Tu-160 will need to use cruise missile. It also carry more cruise missile then the tu-160. It is a lot better to not being spotted then try to run faster hoping to not get shot at.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 884
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 05:57

Not really that big of a deal, the triad still has our back. They send the Tu-160 (btw this has been the Tu-160 tactic since development, not unique to the M2, M2 just gets nicer missiles, on board toilet, & coffee machine :D ) it launches the supersonic missiles, we may intercept some of them, others might make it to the target. We launched our SSBM's from the Ohio's, whatever is sitting at Anderson prob get's launched for a mission. If it keeps rolling form there we are all dead so who cares. If not Russia and a good junk of America are destroyed, neither side wants that so her we sit in the same ole standoff, just less nukes pointed both ways. But it's only allows them to target around 1,000nmi into a country at max, and the larger the cushion you give your bomber the longer the missile will be in the air for interception. If it became a big threat we could handle it. A concept i thought of (or someone did as well,prob) build a unmanned rocket drone, flys out at mach 3-4 finds target launch's some amramms and flys back under turbofan power, basically a complex reusable SAM.
Last edited by geforcerfx on 22 Nov 2017, 05:59, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 05:59

If you have long-range missiles, why do you need to "dash" anywhere? Mach 2 isn't it's cruising speed (and probably not even its max speed with a full load). So basically why not just go with an airliner carrying long-range missiles?

Russians love to make up silly reasons why they don't need this or that capability. But this one is one of the best ones yet. We all know why this thing has a Mach 2 capability and why it was designed that way. Maybe the readers of "The Aviationist" probably don't know.

Stealth and cruise missiles made airplanes like Tu-160 obsolete. Not the other way around.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 06:07

geforcerfx wrote:it launches the supersonic missiles


Supersonic? No no comrade. It carries hyperultrasonic missiles, which is one more ultra better than hypersonic. And they are stealth missiles too. And they also have an onboard toilet in the missile. And they are not guided by weak satellite guidance which is easily jammable and the satellites will be destroyed instantly in a war anyway. No no. It uses unbreakable INS which even when tested in 1982 had >5m accuracy out to 3,0000 nautical miles. This 1982 INS design has now been updated with GaN AESA OTH INS, which coupled with the GaN AESA onboard toilet of the missile, makes it the most precise missile in the world.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 06:19

It will get the job done. A long range cruise missile attack launched from a TU-160M2 would be tough to stop. A bomber that keeps it's distance, and has a dash speed of Mach 2 would be hard to intercept, in almost all circumstances. Our stealth aircraft have far greater abilities to penetrate IADS, but it would be arrogant to dismiss the TU-160M2 as some kind of obsolescent aircraft, posing a limited threat. You can no more dismiss the TU-160M2 then you can the B-1B.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 07:40

arian wrote:
tincansailor wrote:It will get the job done. A long range cruise missile attack launched from a TU-160M2 would be tough to stop. A bomber that keeps it's distance, and has a dash speed of Mach 2 would be hard to intercept, in almost all circumstances. Our stealth aircraft have far greater abilities to penetrate IADS, but it would be arrogant to dismiss the TU-160M2 as some kind of obsolescent aircraft, posing a limited threat. You can no more dismiss the TU-160M2 then you can the B-1B.


Not to reiterate because at this point it is quite self-evident, but this is why I keep saying you're an idiot.

Besides, the solution to this very salient problem which you so astutely have figured out, is not a technological one. It's really to replace the dumb bigot Trump-loving pilots flying our planes with Somali-Puerto Rican-Muslim-LGBTQ-Immigrant pilots. The StronK from that level of diversity would make any Tu-160M2 instantly obsolete. AND...our planes wouldn't even need a onboard toilet in that case. Somali pilots don't use toilets.

Mind...blown...



You comments are so stupid they speak for themselves. Your not a well human being, you need psychiatric help.
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 11:32

terrygedran wrote:
juretrn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:You have to say stuff like that, when you don't have stealth bombers... :)

And even better, when those stealth bombers can also carry lots of really sneaky missiles.

I bet all that sneaky missiles are nuclear?
В61-11 or B83? nope it free fall ,and no B-2 in Europe
AGM-131 or AGM-129 ? not any more.

So tell me how being without nuclear missiles in general the B-2 turned out to be better than Tu-160?


Repeating other posters.....the ability to deliver conventional ordnance more cost effectively in a highly contested environment! Sure, you can use cruise missiles all the time in a conventional conflict......but good luck to you when you run out of cruise missiles (limited stocks) in a prolonged conflict. Oh, please don’t cry over that huge hole in your Defence budget! :mrgreen:
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 13:20

So tell me how being without nuclear missiles in general the B-2 turned out to be better than Tu-160?


Repeating other posters.....the ability to deliver conventional ordnance more cost effectively in a highly contested environment! Sure, you can use cruise missiles all the time in a conventional conflict......but good luck to you when you run out of cruise missiles (limited stocks) in a prolonged conflict. Oh, please don’t cry over that huge hole in your Defence budget! :mrgreen:

[/quote]
[/quote]
That's a good point your raising mk82. Your right not even the United States can maintain really huge stockpiles of ALCMs. Stealth aircraft can effectively use cheaper, and easier to mass produce bombs, and short range missiles. But how long and intense a conflict is will determine how much ordnance is used.

[/quote]If the U.S. had a war with NK I would imagine we would use several hundred ALCMs, and several hundred sea launched Tomahawks. At the same time we would use maybe a hundred times as many bombs, proving your point. But respectfully give me a scenario where Russia would have to expend that many ALCMs?

It's more likely Russia will attack Ukraine, or continue to blast Syria. facing weak, or none existent air defenses Russia can use there TU-160M2s to drop thousands of tons of dirt cheap dumb bombs, or even the Father of all Bombs, on vulnerable targets. The TU-160M2 is perfect for peacetime harassment missions against NATO, or America territory, as well as naval reconnaissance. The only situation where they would run out of ALCMs would be an all out war with China, or NATO, which is highly unlikely.

IMHO if they can't have an advanced stealth bomber, a supersonic heavy bombers not a bad fallback option for Russia. You use what you have. We keep a force of 62 B-1Bs. It makes sense for Russia to build up a force of TU-160M2s of about half that number. Until Russia can produce a strategic stealth bomber this is the best they can do.
Last edited by tincansailor on 22 Nov 2017, 22:38, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5759
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 13:54

terrygedran wrote:So tell me how being without nuclear missiles in general the B-2 turned out to be better than Tu-160?


The B-2 can put more boom on the target. Also, I'm fairly certain the B-2 could carry two CSRLs, one in each bay, if they wanted to. (16 cruise missiles.) But I'll have to confirm that.
"There I was. . ."
Next

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests