Tu-95MS "Bear"

Hole wrote:

The training exercise also involved Tu-95MS long-range aircraft, which fired air-launched cruise missiles.

Not sure why those are tested. Looking at the SMO they seem to work pretty fine.

During wartime, with all the experience gained, enginerrs become much more creative.

Who knows what they really tested.

New hypersonic turboprops.

I know you are joking, but making very fast propeller blade tips is very easy... the longer the blades the faster the tips move.

The problem is that when they reach supersonic speeds they mostly just make noise.

I think someone complaining about the noise a Bear makes obviously hasn't heard a Huey UH-1 or for that matter a Harvard trainer... because of tip speed they really make a loud noise.

I do not understand why they are not using curved tip propellers on the Tu-95. This reduces tip speed and noise. There is no loss of performance that
I am aware of. In fact, the transition supersonic tip regime is a loss of thrust performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar_propeller

It is worse than the article describes. At speeds where supersonic shocks are generate there is also cavitation. Similar to the submarine problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra-rotating_propellers

Contra-rotating propellers make more noise but there is no discussion of a bad mix with curved blades. It is possible curved blades would amplify the
noise associated with the contra-rotating configuration. But I think the trans-sonic shock regime is worse for noise generation, considering cavitation.

It is not like they don't know how to make propeller blades... the blades on the engines on the An-70 are optimised for thrust for takeoff at heavy loads, but they are not optimised to fly at the speeds the Bear flys at... no other propeller driven aircraft flys at the speeds the Bear flys at, which is why other propeller driven aircraft have different looking blades.

I suspect they are optimised to generate sufficient thrust for high speed flight at the altitude the aircraft operates at... and changing them to increased thrust on the ground for takeoff like the D-27 propfans for the An-70 might help with take off but might also reduce top and cruising speed at operational heights.

A turboprop based on the PD-35 that has twelve blades on the front and 8 blades at the rear might generate enormous thrust but reduce top speed flight performance and be slower than the blades and engines currently being used.

So the Tu 95MS fleet may remain in service for a long time. Tu-160 production resumed.
The PAK DA will probably also carry cruise missiles, which the B-2 and B-21 do not.

The Tu-95 and its engines are all Russian made and kept up to date with modern production and design.

It is not in urgent need of replacement but the PAK DA is the theoretical replacement for both the Bear in the strategic role with cruise missiles and the Backfire over theatre ranges with bombs and missiles.

They are going to make 50 plus new Tu-160s for a fleet of perhaps 60-70 maybe, and the PAK DA will enter production and replace Bears and Backfires respectively as they are made.

They might be expensive to make but operational costs should be quite minimal as much of their stealth is shape related as a flying wing is inherently stealthy already.

The engines are up to date and modernised... didn't the recent upgrades reduce vibration by 50% which is staggering...

But once sufficient PAK DAs and Tu-160s enter service they will likely retire their Bears and Backfires and possibly divert them to other roles where they might be suited... remember these aircraft are relatively new for strategic and theatre bombers... the Tu-22M3 is an 80s-90s aircraft and their Bears are too... it is a very young fleet... and there is no urgency to replace them.

The Backfire would be a good platform for delivering glide bombs... the four external mounts for bombs are designed to hold conventional bombs and the glide kits I have seen have been designed to fit to bombs mounted on standard wing pylons... including bombs with the glide kits mounted on the bottom of the bombs so there are no mounting and clearance issues... which should work just fine with the MER on the Backfire.

With 9 positions on each MER and four locations for MERs on the Backfire you could carry 36 bombs externally with the internal bomb bay able to carry some heavier bombs or just more light bombs.

The external MERs can carry up to 9 x 500kg bombs but I understand each weapon pylon can also carry two FAB-3000s... or possibly a single FAB-5000 or maybe three FAB-1500.

I think we will see a mixture of Tu-160, Tu-22M, Tu-95 and Pak Da, and eventually after some years Tu-22M and Tu-95 will be phased out, I have a feeling Tu-22M might be phased out before the Tu-95 despite the age.

Have to say I would agree, but a Tu-22M3 with an internal rotary launcher for big AAMs and work on semi conformal belly weapon locations and a modern AESA radar in the nose could make an interesting interceptor... especially if you convert it to the same engines as the new Tu-160s which they will be making and supporting anyway.

I think the Backfire has real potential and I am rather surprised the Chinese and Indians didn't buy any.

I remember on that Auspower website the experts there seemed to think rather favourably of the aircraft with one guy who loves the F-111 basically compared it favourably with two F-111s with inflight refuelling support. Kopp was his name I think.

I suspect when the PAK DA replaces the Backfire in the theatre strike role they might send them back to the growing navy for the anti ship role... but then they might want a version of the PAK DA for that role eventually anyway.

Being able to carry 11m long cruise missiles internally would mean the PAK DA would be useful for carrying long range anti ship weapons too...

I would say the TU-160 was much more critical as they are building new airframes, and the current fleet is below critical mass. TU-22 is fine as it is for now, and NK-32's need to go to the TU-160 for now. Once its all in full swing the TU-22 upgrade can happen if it still make sense. Perhaps the TU-160 with 12 Tsirkons is such a crushing machine the TU-22 can be sunseted and the SU-34 + TU 160 + TU-95 is sufficent.