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

jakobs

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2015, 11:38

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 13:58

It's probably a good move to resume production of this bird, since Russia can't afford to develop a new generation bomber. Obviously they want to have a bomber in the future as well, so building more Blackjack's is the best option IMO.

They are only gonna use them to bomb in the third world and to fly close to US borders. How well they work in a real high conflict scenario isn't that important if you ask me, since they are more a political tool.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 16:42

sferrin wrote:I'm fairly certain the B-2 could carry two CSRLs, one in each bay


The B-2's rotary launchers are limited to JASSM-sized weapons and not a tomahawk CM.

Image

The B-1B can carry 3 x rotary (JASSM-sized) launchers. IIRC the B-52 is the only one that can carry a 1 x CSRL for the Tomahawk.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 19:27

Hmmm. Thought the bays were longer than that, which is how they can stuff GBU-37/28s and MOPs in there (MOP is only 3" shorter than AGM-86B). At one point the B-1B was supposed to be able to carry a CSRL as well by removing the removable bulkhead between the forward two bays. Don't know how far that went or if they actually had the capability but got it neutered by Treaty.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

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

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 21:46

sferrin wrote:
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. .

LoL

2 internal bays for ordnance and payload with an official limit of 40,000 lb (18,000 kg); maximum estimated limit is 50,000 lb (23,000 kg)



----------
Two internal bays for 40,000 kg (88,185 lb) of ordnance :wink:
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 22:10

terrygedran wrote:
sferrin wrote:
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. .

LoL

2 internal bays for ordnance and payload with an official limit of 40,000 lb (18,000 kg); maximum estimated limit is 50,000 lb (23,000 kg)



----------
Two internal bays for 40,000 kg (88,185 lb) of ordnance :wink:


Yet it can only launch 12,000lbs of explosive ordinace (KH-101 has a 1,000lbs warhead) with all the payload capacity. Tu-160 only carries cruise missiles atm. Look at Syria it launched KH-101's that's it, if they needed to carpet bomb they used Tu-22M3's. Where as the B-2 can drop 32,000lbs of explosives (16 x 2,000lbs) or can deploy 16,000lbs of of explosive ordinance with JASSM-ER for standoff weaponry. If the Russians decide to turn it into a bomber then they have the capacity there to make it interesting, but might run into similar space contraints. Also the B-2 is a light weight compared to the B-1 on Boom Boom power
6 external hardpoints for 50,000 pounds (23,000 kg) of ordnance (use for weapons restricted by arms treaties) and 3 internal bomb bays for 75,000 pounds (34,000 kg) of ordnance.


But it makes sense the Tu-160 and B-1 are a lot larger than the B-2 with a lot more power pushing them around.
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

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

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 22:54

geforcerfx wrote:

Yet it can only launch 12,000lbs of explosive ordinace (KH-101 has a 1,000lbs warhead) .


Of course dude but I want to remind you that these missiles are not bombs.

And by coincidence KH-101 can be = 1Mlbs warhead not only 1klbs warhead.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post22 Nov 2017, 23:06

terrygedran wrote:
sferrin wrote:
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. .

LoL

2 internal bays for ordnance and payload with an official limit of 40,000 lb (18,000 kg); maximum estimated limit is 50,000 lb (23,000 kg)



----------
Two internal bays for 40,000 kg (88,185 lb) of ordnance :wink:



Hate to burst your bubble but you need to read what I wrote. "Boom on target". Think about it for a few.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

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

Unread post23 Nov 2017, 00:05

sferrin wrote:Hate to burst your bubble but you need to read what I wrote. "Boom on target". Think about it for a few.




RDS-220
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post23 Nov 2017, 00:19

terrygedran wrote: RDS-220

This is worse than arguing with flat-earthers.
Let's play "spot the problem"
Image
Also, B83 x16.
Russia stronk
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post23 Nov 2017, 02:07

I'd love to see a Blackjack get anywhere near the US lugging one of those like the Elephant Man. :lmao:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4664
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post23 Nov 2017, 12:31

Here's how I see it: Russia is building a B-1A for the 2020's...

They can't get any meaningful signature reduction. So they go for a high and fast launch platform, then depend on small RCS missiles to complete the mission. That much is clear. Now, whether or not the B-1A was envisioned to carry cruise missile's, I'm not sure.

If you think about it, there isn't much difference between B-1A and TU-160M2. Both were/are mach 2 capable machines. Both are/would have been capable of firing long range cruise missiles. The only difference is technology used given their design and projected use periods. It's interesting that after all this time, a stealth bomber eludes them. Hell a truly stealth aircraft eludes them.

Plenty of time, not enough rubles..
Offline

lamashtu

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2017, 11:15

Unread post23 Nov 2017, 21:57

If you wanted my outlook, seeing as there seems to be no plans by Russia to cancel the PAK-DA program the Tu-160 production restart appears to be another sign that nobody in the Russian MoD is able to count money. We're talking about the least important leg of Russia's Triad by _miles_. If one wanted to know what happens when a military restarts an old program whilst in the middle of developing something totally new one can look no further than the B-1B/B-2A budgetary fight.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1584
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post24 Nov 2017, 09:08

lamashtu wrote:If you wanted my outlook, seeing as there seems to be no plans by Russia to cancel the PAK-DA program the Tu-160 production restart appears to be another sign that nobody in the Russian MoD is able to count money. We're talking about the least important leg of Russia's Triad by _miles_. If one wanted to know what happens when a military restarts an old program whilst in the middle of developing something totally new one can look no further than the B-1B/B-2A budgetary fight.


Size wise B-1B and B-2A are similar (B-2A is 10tons lighter but it is composite flying wing). PAK-DA probable will be lot smaller then Tu-160, it is okey replacement for Tu-95 but not for Tu-160.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3867
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post24 Nov 2017, 10:36

jakobs wrote:It's probably a good move to resume production of this bird, since Russia can't afford to develop a new generation bomber. Obviously they want to have a bomber in the future as well, so building more Blackjack's is the best option IMO.

They are only gonna use them to bomb in the third world and to fly close to US borders. How well they work in a real high conflict scenario isn't that important if you ask me, since they are more a political tool.


I totally agree with you. To develop clearly a better bomber than upgraded Tu-160, they'd have to develop something similar to B-2 or B-21 or try to create a hypersonic bomber. All of these would be extremely expensive and far too much for Russia in the near future. I think they first need to acquire a lot of new weapons analogous to JDAM, JSOW, Spear and SDB for example. Basically fairly cheap guided weapons with decent stand-off capabilities.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post24 Nov 2017, 23:59

mixelflick wrote:Here's how I see it: Russia is building a B-1A for the 2020's...

They can't get any meaningful signature reduction. So they go for a high and fast launch platform, then depend on small RCS missiles to complete the mission. That much is clear. Now, whether or not the B-1A was envisioned to carry cruise missile's, I'm not sure.


Yes. The AGM-86A. SRAM as well, and SRAM 2 when it came available. ASALM would have been carried if they hadn't cancelled.
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests