Tu-95MS "Bear"

GarryB wrote:Really.... and how many civilian airliners did the USAF manage to shoot down during 11/9?

The point is that the Tu-160 will be carrying 5,000km range Kh-102s and all will be nuclear armed missiles... as I mentioned they used to have small missiles called AS-15, or Kh-15 Kickback missiles used to destroy threats for the aircraft as they fly near enemy territory... it is a 1.5 ton missile with a nuclear warhead that might be used against ground or air based defences... a radar or SAM system or airfield or even a group of enemy aircraft... these mach 5 rocket propelled missiles will be used to clear a path through defences so the bomber can get to its missile launch position.

Problem for the US is that 30 minutes after the Tu-160s took off there are going to be Russian ICBMs and SLBMs detonating all over the US and Canada and also Europe... 5 and a half hours later when the White Swans are lining up to launch their missiles there probably wont be much of anything there to stop them...

It would not take very much work to develop a scramjet powered replacement for Kickback that is relatively small and can be used in decent numbers and could be quite devastating on the way over the north pole against any US Navy vessels in the Arctic ocean...

I am sure that Russian missile designers are not sitting around doing nothing in this regard. The NATO west made an epic mistake when
it wrote Russia off in 1991. Russian military industry engineers worked for nothing during the 1990s thereby preserving and pushing forward
Russian missile tech. There was no 15 year black hole when Russia did nothing. It was already evident by 2005 that Russian missile tech
was not stagnating. The people in the Russian military industry know that what they do is vital for Russia's survival. They are nothing
like the wankers in the NATO west.

mnztr wrote:Wow new TU-95 engines have 2500 HP more!!

https://www.janes.com/article/88389/russia-re-engines-tu-95ms

impressive!!

The reduction of vibration by 50% is more impressive. They must have optimized the hell out of the design with computer
simulations.

Those 5 axis milling machines together with a super computer or two to model the blade shape and design accurately had a significant effect on their submarines in the 1980s, and clearly their aircraft now too...

As KVS mentions, the reduction in vibration will be more important operationally and will make flight more comfortable and quieter, and also go much easier on all the avionics and fittings in and on the aircraft.

The aircraft is subsonic only so there wont be much increase in speed if any, but it will likely be able to carry a heavier higher drag external payload further and faster...

With the Yak-38 and the Yak-38M the latter had a rather more powerful engine but both are subsonic and the more powerful engine allowed a heavier weapon load (or more accurately a weapon load) but reduced flight range because a more powerful engine uses more fuel.

An extra 10,000 hp for the aircraft should improve takeoff performance and climb rate and top speed a little, but the reduction in vibration will be felt by the pilots the most... pun intended.....

JohninMK wrote:Fully loaded Tu-95MS

Wonder if additional fuel bladders could be placed in the internal bomb bay that the Kh101 doesn't fit. Maybe some techie knows?

Wonder if additional fuel bladders could be placed in the internal bomb bay that the Kh101 doesn't fit. Maybe some techie knows?

Could. But never heard of any actual used.

They could also carry kh59mk2 inside the weapon bays.

Kh101 is huge.

Not fully loaded... the Tu-95MS16 should be able to carry 10 missiles externally and six smaller missiles inside... the inner pylons should be able to carry three missiles each rather than two...

GarryB wrote:Not fully loaded... the Tu-95MS16 should be able to carry 10 missiles externally and six smaller missiles inside... the inner pylons should be able to carry three missiles each rather than two...

That was for the old Kh59. The new Kh101 cannot fit into weapons bay so the upgraded Tu-95MS are carrying 8 Kh101 externally as per that photo.

franco wrote:
That was for the old Kh59.

Kh-55

George1 wrote:

franco wrote:
That was for the old Kh59.

Kh-55

Haste makes waste... copied what Isos had posted while my gut said

How do you spell dumb ass

How do you spell dumb ass

T R U M P... I think...

That was for the old Kh55. The new Kh101 cannot fit into weapons bay so the upgraded Tu-95MS are carrying 8 Kh101 externally as per that photo.

That is correct, I never suggested they could fit Kh-101 in the internal weapon bay, but when carrying all Kh-55 or Kh-555s it could carry 6 missiles internally and three on each inner pylon and two on each outer pylon for 16 missiles... which is why it was designated the Tu-95MS16 because it carried 16 missiles.

The increased weight of the Kh-101 might mean the inner pylons can only carry twin missiles instead of triples, but they can still put older Kh-555s in the internal weapon bay, or perhaps a newer replacement for the Kh-15... even just using the same missile with new rocket fuel should dramatically improve its performance as solid rocket fuel technology has improved significantly in Russia since the 1980s, but a hypersonic missile would be more interesting and much longer ranged... built to the same size as the Kh-15 they should get 12 in the internal missile launcher so the weapon load would be 8 missiles externally (Kh-101) and 12 internally to penetrate hostile enemy air defences...

That design really was a masterclass in the strength and durability of a pencil like tube. Oh, and in CoG positioning as well.

Westerners look at it and think it is a WWII design because it has propellers, but it is still the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft and one of the few that actually requires a swept wing because of the speeds it can fly at.

It would actually be interesting to see what sort of performance the B-52 could get with these four engines...

I really wish they would design a modern prop for it and turn the engine into a prop fan. I bet they could make it a LOT quieter and more efficient. The engine itself is a masterpiece. Even today the most powerful turboprop engine in history. Will the reduced vibration levels result in less noise?

I would probably say no.

The propfans like those used for the An-70 are really designed to get a very heavy aircraft airborne and moving, but they really don't allow it to achieve a very high flight speed.

It means the An-70 can take off from shorter air strips and carry heavy loads but its top speed is rather reduced over a jet or more conventional propeller.

The VDV were interested in the An-70 because of its 50 ton capacity (which was 10 tons better than the Il-76 of the time) but mainly because it was able to fly safely at much lower flight speeds. When you are jumping out of a plane a high flight speed means you get thrown around a lot in the air and makes it rather uncomfortable... when you are carrying 40kgs of equipment it can become quite dangerous if it is not secured properly too. When there are several hundred of you on the same plane all jumping out together then higher flight speed means you are spread out over a much wider area than if you jumped from a slower aircraft.

The groups that jump can form up quicker and find and release equipment that has been dropped and get into vehicles and form up as a unit quicker and easier.

For the Bear strategic cruise missile carrier flying slow is not useful, though it would be useful for the Tu-142 MPA in some missions/jobs.

The blade arrangement they use allow a high top speed which makes it the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft... even Mustangs with new super turbo super charged engines can't fly faster to this day...

A propfan might shorten its airfield requirements but it would likely also reduce its top speed, and high top speed is rather more value as they operate from 5km long paved runways...

BTW that comparison pic is interesting... you see pictures of all sorts of planes but not so much together so you often get a wrong impression of size difference.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Sadly all it is missing to be a full weapon load photo is a couple of thousand 23mm cannon shells from the tail turret.

The 8 Kh-102s at the front would be wing mounted and the 6 Kh-555 behind would be mounted on the internal rotary launcher... plus 23mm cannon shells for the two twin barrel 23mm cannon in the tail mounted turret would be the full weapon load...

Regarding the question whether a fuel bladder could be fitted in the internal bay I rather suspect it does not need it... the extra missiles are probably more useful on a combat mission...

They could convert the Turboprop engine in to a Turboprop electric engine, which should make it a lot quieter, and with a much smaller thermal signature. In fact it should increase the range by 3-4x, and the range could be further improved with Graphene batteries, which the Russian Federation is the undisputed world leader in Graphene production.

That would be interesting, though I suspect the new PD-35 based engines for the PAK DA might be the better ultimate solution while at the same time offer a complete replacement for the type anyway... especially if they can get it to supercruise...