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
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post25 Nov 2017, 01:58

terrygedran wrote:
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



That's about the most perfect example of Russian strategic backwardness there is, so I'm glad you mention it.
Choose Crews
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1533
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post25 Nov 2017, 08:12

Not to sound like a total A-hole but I knew this would draw out the Russia-stronk crowd *looking at one individual in particular*

There is something of an "elephant in the room" to address however. This updated Blackjack will have to rely more on long range cruise missiles because it simply cannot get close enough or even penetrate defended airspace protected by integrated defense networks/platforms and by 5th gen aircraft. Also I question to how useful these long range cruise missiles are when something like a Patriot Pac-3 or Iron Dome is in the area.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 10:30

charlielima223 wrote:Not to sound like a total A-hole but I knew this would draw out the Russia-stronk crowd *looking at one individual in particular*

There is something of an "elephant in the room" to address however. This updated Blackjack will have to rely more on long range cruise missiles because it simply cannot get close enough or even penetrate defended airspace protected by integrated defense networks/platforms and by 5th gen aircraft. Also I question to how useful these long range cruise missiles are when something like a Patriot Pac-3 or Iron Dome is in the area.



Respectfully, by that logic our B-52s, and B-1Bs have the same problems. A Blackjack can go low, and use ground masking, just like our planes can. They can have accompanying escorts, jammers, decoys, and SEAD aircraft just like we can. It can mix with commercial air traffic, by using a false transponder. Not even the United States has 24/7 AWACs coverage of it's homeland to scan for low level attackers. The Pac-3 is an anti ballistic missile system, and Iron Dome is effective against dumb ballistic rockets, at high altitude. Cruise missiles can come in at tree top level, and are hard to stop.

An intelligent well trained pilot with sophisticated defensive systems is a dangerous opponent. If we thought the B-1B could penetrate Soviet air defenses it would be arrogant to dismiss the TU-160M2. Remember when we intercept Russian Bombers near Alaska their not attempting low level penetrations, or jamming, their just playing games, and saving gas by flying high. Pretty easy to counter. In a war both sides would play a different game.
Offline

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3427
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 16:03

Actually Iron Dome isn't for high altitude threats as its primary purpose. Just saying.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5804
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 17:53

tincansailor wrote:Respectfully, by that logic our B-52s, and B-1Bs have the same problems.


Well, the B-52 DOES rely on cruise missiles, which has been the case since the 80s. This isn't news. The B-1B does as well, and isn't part of the nuclear deterrent so that's a moot point anyway. Were the B-1B to be made nuclear capable again, they could easily make a nuclear version of JASSM-ER, which the B-1B can carry 24 of. Originally, the B-1A (and B-1B) were to carry the nuclear SRAM and later SRAM 2. ASALM was also in the mix but unfortunately cancelled. The B-1B would have carried 14 AGM-129s externally. Theoretically, that could have been 24 SRAMs internally and 14 AGM-129s externally. 38 nuclear missiles. Not too shabby.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3985
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 17:56

madrat wrote:Actually Iron Dome isn't for high altitude threats as its primary purpose. Just saying.

Exactly. Iron Dome is a point defense system, designed to take out short range rockets, mortars....
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

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

Unread post26 Nov 2017, 23:12

wrightwing wrote:
madrat wrote:Actually Iron Dome isn't for high altitude threats as its primary purpose. Just saying.

Exactly. Iron Dome is a point defense system, designed to take out short range rockets, mortars....



Good points. Thanks for correcting me. Let me clarify what I mean by high altitude. Iron Dome is designed to handle ballistic trajectory targets, such as rockets, and shells. They track, and target them at several thousand feet. The manufacturer says Iron Dome is capable of shooting down drones, at medium, and high altitudes, with little or no modifications. At least right now it can't engage low altitude drones, cruise missiles, or aircraft. Iron Dome has no history of engaging maneuvering, or jamming targets. There may be upgrades in the future, to increase it's capabilities.
Offline

pron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 269
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post13 Jan 2022, 21:29

First Completely New Russian Tu-160M Bomber Makes First Flight.
“On January 12, the first newly-built Tu-160M strategic missile-carrying bomber performed its debut flight from the aerodrome of the Kazan Aviation Enterprise, a subsidiary of the Tupolev Company [part of the United Aircraft Corporation within Rostec], on January 12,” the press office said.
https://theaviationist.com/2022/01/12/f ... w-tu-160m/

OAK have posted a video of the first flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf884Ya8hic
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4858
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post14 Jan 2022, 19:18

So they've funded 10 and want 50. I'd be surprised if they sink that much into a cold war design, "new" inside or not. I mean if it's true it'll be primarily a cruise missile carrier, you could build "new" TU-95's for a lot cheaper. Meanwhile, the US/China will be flying true stealth B-21's and H-20's respectively.

To me, this looks like an admission that the PAK-DA stands for "Dead on Arrival".

EDIT: I do like the TU-160 based just on looks. What a monster... They've done some admirable things here in some respects (especially the engines), but c'mon.. This would be like the US procuring B-1C's vs. B-21's. Of course, we're building F-15EX's so I suppose we shouldn't be throwing stones in our glass house, LOL
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1744
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post14 Jan 2022, 19:51

mixelflick wrote:EDIT: I do like the TU-160 based just on looks. What a monster... They've done some admirable things here in some respects (especially the engines), but c'mon.. This would be like the US procuring B-1C's vs. B-21's. Of course, we're building F-15EX's so I suppose we shouldn't be throwing stones in our glass house, LOL


Tu-160M production was only logical thing, they had some unfinished airframes but they lack lot of production line to finish them, for example during 1990s they sold some very important machines (big automated titanium welding machine) so they would need to order titanium wing boxes for US to be able to finish those.

So they invest in production line just to finish couple of airframes?
Offline

tphuang

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 170
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 02:42

Unread post15 Jan 2022, 01:23

Russia has to start from somewhere. Strategic bomber production has languished due to underinvestment. It's unrealistic to think they can develop a whole new strategic bomber, when they are struggling to finish development on even su-57. And Sukhoi had so much additional funding and developing advanced variants of Su-27s.

To build back up Russia's strategic bombing production, it needs to first restore some of its lost production capability and then show it can adequately modernize and improve Tu-160 first. That has already take 2 decades and probably will take another decade.

Remember, the people that developed Tu-160s are no longer around. It takes time and a lot of investment to train a whole new generation of engineers to develop the next generation bomber.
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests