Tu-160 "White Swan"

The fact that they wont sign a piece of paper to say it wont be used against Russia makes it pretty clear that it will be used against Russia.

The threat of Iranian missiles is imaginary. They don't have nuclear weapons and they don't have ICBMs.

The threat of Russian nuclear weapons is real... they have ICBMs and SLBMs and they also have mature nuclear weapons technology.

Both the old Bush system and the Obama systems start out talking about hitting the odd Iranian missile but in both cases the final stages talks about shooting down any and all ICBM payloads... WTF are the Russians supposed to think about that?

MAD is all we have... because NATO and the US have a hard track record of lying. NATO wont expand, NATO wont expand into former Soviet republics, the CFE agreement is all about balance between Russia and the west, NATO will expand eastwards but there wont be US forces based anywhere in former eastern europe or former Soviet republics...

What happens in 2025 when Chelsea Clinton is elected into office in the US and her military experts tell her not to worry because Vladimir Putins nuclear weapons are all now Impotent because of the improved and upgraded ABM systems... one in Europe, one in Japan, and one in the US and that she can get away with anything because there is nothing the Russians can do about it.

Will it feel better in the nuclear winter of 2026 knowing that Chelseas advisors were wrong and that Vladimir had a few tricks up his sleeve that rendered all three ABM systems useless despite costing over 20 trillion for each?

Thanks. But what a beautiful picture ...... Russia is Europe, also physically. I hope that this thing will become more than a simple word ...

If possible may I ask you about this  relationship between the Tu-160s and the stealth?

From that I understood:

1) Stealth on some Tu-160 components (like fans) was already present from the first built Tu-160?

2) The stealth on a Russian strategic bomber is considered important, but not essential. Correct?

3) When on display at the air shows, the ground crews put on the covers on the engine intakes on the Tu-160s also because of the stealth measures in the turbofans?

4) Some Tu-160s (10, maybe more) were sent to an upgrade program that also includes stealth.

Correct?

Again, is the Tu-95MS a Tu-142?

Could the Bear-H receive RAM materials?

Could the Tu-22M receive RAM?

Thanks.

Giulio wrote:Thanks. But what a beautiful picture ...... Russia is Europe, also physically. I hope that this thing will become more than a simple word ...

If possible may I ask you about this  relationship between the Tu-160s and the stealth?

From that I understood:

1) Stealth on some Tu-160 components (like fans) was already present from the first built Tu-160?

2) The stealth on a Russian strategic bomber is considered important, but not essential. Correct?

3) When on display at the air shows, the ground crews put on the covers on the engine intakes on the Tu-160s also because of the stealth measures in the turbofans?

4) Some Tu-160s (10, maybe more) were sent to an upgrade program that also includes stealth.

Correct?

Again, is the Tu-95MS a Tu-142?

Could the Bear-H receive RAM materials?

Could the Tu-22M receive RAM?

Thanks.

1. Yes.
2. I think the PAK-DA is supposed to be at least partly LO.
3. Yes, if it was an operational aircraft on display.
4. Yes, 10 airframes are getting the Tu-160 upgrade.
5. Yes, BEAR-H is basically a newer Tu-142 airframe.
6. Pointless due to the massive signature from the props.
7. Pointless due to the large number of corner reflectors, slab sides, etc.

Many thanks, but sorry if I insist, it isn't that I don't believe you, but if possible do you have some source to show me about the Tu-160 stealthy? (Also in Russian language).
(Where I am, there is a lot [but a lot ...] of ignorance and misinformation about Russian aircrafts, above all about the Tu-160. From the beginning I imagined that the Tu-160 had some stealth features, above all by its extra streamlined shape, clearly due not only to the its high supersonic speed. So, now, if here I go to tell someone that, from the first build Tu-160 (that is from the 80s ...), there were on board some stealth features, they say that I'm drunk).

my point was if you need a cruise missile carrier then tu-95 is good enough ,no point in wasting billions on white elephant like tu-160 which only advantage is -its faster. its in such a low numbers that using its airframes for conventional operations could endanger the nuclear capability. and so far it hasnt been used at all. the tu-95 remains the backbone ,with many versions for maritime and other purposes -unlike tu-160 !
t-4 would have replaced tu-22 in every single one, and tu-160 in many roles.what a shame.

From that I understood:

1) Stealth on some Tu-160 components (like fans) was already present from the first built Tu-160?

From the first model Tu-160 aerodynamics was top priority because it needed to be a mach 2 bomber... RCS reduction was also important and a lot of work was done to reduce it but it wasn't the primary focus.

The result is reduced detection ranges, not actual stealth as such.

2) The stealth on a Russian strategic bomber is considered important, but not essential. Correct?

As an example the sharp Mig-25 air intakes on the Tu-22M3 increased RCS from the front by something like 25%, but they accepted that because of the increase in flight performance they got with that change and the new engines.

Also keep in mind... these are all mainly cruise missile carriers that will deliver weapons from significant standoff distances.

A minor reduction in RCS that reduces detection range from 5,000km to 4,200km can be rather more significant due to flight speed and therefore the amount of time it will be visible to enemy radar... if the aircraft can get in... launch its missiles and leave before enemy fighters are scrambled in time to intercept it will remain safe even if it is seen.

3) When on display at the air shows, the ground crews put on the covers on the engine intakes on the Tu-160s also because of the stealth measures in the turbofans?

Yes, though it also prevents FOD issues as well.

4) Some Tu-160s (10, maybe more) were sent to an upgrade program that also includes stealth.

Correct?

You cant add stealth to an existing design... actual stealth has to be a design priority from the start and can be ruined if the focus wanders.

They have said that by 2020 they should have about 10 more operational Tu-160Ms unless one or more are lost in accidents.

You can take that to mean a few different things... either the fleet will be reduced to 10 aircraft, all of which will be Tu-160Ms, or of the 16 operational Tu-160s 6 have already been given upgrades so from now till 2020 just 10 remaining aircraft need the upgrade to have 16 Tu-160Ms in operational service (assuming no losses... touch wood).

With the upgrade they will improve (reduce) the RCS further, but it will never be stealthy as such.

Again, is the Tu-95MS a Tu-142?

In the 1970s they upgraded the design of the Tu-95 to improve its wing design and aerodynamic efficiency and improve performance. The new design was called Tu-142 and the new planes built in the 1980s and 1990s were of the new improved design.

The Tu-95MS bombers in service now are of this new design.

Could the Bear-H receive RAM materials?

Could the Tu-22M receive RAM?

Yes, and they probably will take the time to replace some parts and update some materials and add RAM here and there where the RCS levels are particularly high because it wouldn't cost much but the result would be rather worth it.

Think about it in terms of the laws of diminished returns... in a modern airliner it is the engines and avionics that have made the greatest progress in terms of flight efficiency since the late 1930s, so if you wanted to upgrade a plane from that period replacing the engines would be a good place to start to get the most bang for your money.

The next area will be improved wing shape and then new materials and with a few more dollars spent you would end up with about the best design you could manage without a complete redesign.

The problem of course is that aircraft of that period had straight wings which is not ideal at high subsonic speed.

You could make the propeller blades composite and radar transparent, and lots of other changes, but the cost might not make the bomber that much more effective in its role as bomb truck or cruise missile carrier yet it might increase purchase and operational costs to make it too expensive to use.

With a plane like a Mig-29A you would examine the design in terms of radar returns and look for all the corner reflectors that give off strong signals... many areas you can reshape and add RAM... if you take away 4 or 5 strong reflecting areas you can dramatically reduce the RCS of the aircraft, but after you have dealt with the obvious problem areas then further reductions become much much harder and also orders of magnitude more expensive too.

Changing a design will never result in a signature as low as a plane custom designed from scratch can achieve but it is cheaper unless stealth is the goal.

The Tu-22M3s intakes greatly increase the RCS and a few changes in shape and materials and the application of RAM could greatly reduce the RCS, but the Tu-22M3M is never going to be a stealthy aircraft, so you don't want to spend all the upgrade money on that when new engines and new weapons and new radar can have a much more significant effect on its performance... stealth can be a money pit that will suck up all the money you have if you let it.

Many thanks, but sorry if I insist, it isn't that I don't believe you, but if possible do you have some source to show me about the Tu-160 stealthy? (Also in Russian language).

Stealthy is too strong a word.

Stealth implies they can't see you, the Tu-160 is designed to use lower RCS with speed so they can't see it till it is too late to do anything about it.

Even the wiki entry says that...

Although the Tu-160 was designed for reduced detectability to both radar and infrared, it is not a stealth aircraft.

The purpose is not to allow it to fly over US soil with impunity, it is to delay the moment of detection x thousand kms off the US coast... it is not to reduce detection range to single or double digits but to reduce them to 3 digits from 4...

my point was if you need a cruise missile carrier then tu-95 is good enough ,no point in wasting billions on white elephant like tu-160 which only advantage is -its faster. its in such a low numbers that using its airframes for conventional operations could endanger the nuclear capability. and so far it hasnt been used at all. the tu-95 remains the backbone ,with many versions for maritime and other purposes -unlike tu-160 !

They all need replacing... the Tu-160 is more than just faster... it can carry much heavier payloads further than the Tu-95, and its weapon bays are huge too allowing it all to be carried internally which does not effect flight speed or range.

The point is that they would love another 50 tu-160s and if they had them they would probably retire the other aircraft, but they haven't.

They are going to keep all three aircraft in service with upgrades to make them more useful and in 2025 the replacement for all three will be entering service.

Where is the problem?

"Those two birds, mentioned in this thread, were detected as soon as Norway. Perhaps even before, and they were escorted by NATO fighters along Scandinavia. You do know tu-160s didn't carry any weapons, don't you? This should give you a pretty good image of how far they would get in case of war. Or you think the USN CBGs, the French Navy's CBG, the Canadian Navy, the UK Navy, the Scandinavian Navies and all their airborne ISRs would simply chill out while a strategic bomber fully armed flies westward to the US. And every SPY-1 ship covering the Atlantic approach routes would mysteriously shut their sensors down. Aha."  

You clearly do not understand the difference between peacetime and war time,  In a war time russia could have taken a different  routes,( have you ever seen how big is Russia?)  other than flying *withing few miles of NORWAy coast *  and do flight in a different way. You clearly do not understand the difference detecting something and stoping it. You can detect a robber pointing a gun to you ,but that doesnt means that police will arrive on time to stop the assault.. NONE of this detections or interceptions you talk happens BEFORE the plane is at Range to launch its missiles. and this is your major failure .In case of a Major nuclear War ,in the worst case for russia ,none of this "invincible" countries you talk about will be able to shot down the Tu-160 BEFORE they launch all its nuclear missiles.

"The Kh-22M Burya which travels @4.6M @80000ft altitude. Its sole platform so far is the TU-22M. Even if carried by TU-160M, its range is up to 550km, and only when launched in a HA fashion. That's easily detectable and 550km away from the coast is also within the reach of the interceptors which puts bombers into jeopardy. The kh-55/555/101/102 are all subsonic and travel up to 3000km. Even if their range is greater it makes no difference. They would still need to go for a HA launch which makes the missiles detectable and cued for intercept when they close on the coast."

Again You clearly do not understand the difference detecting something and defeating it. You could detect a Tu-160 from many hundreds km miles away but can you stop the missiles before they are launched ? Remember the Tu-160 carry nuclear missiles with 300km to 3,000 km range. And planes will not be able to stop a massive attack of missiles ,those have to stopped by Land defenses
means the NUCLEAR missiles will get VERY CLOSE to US coast even if they intercepted. the Kh-15 missiles that carry the Tu-160 for example fly at mach 5.0 and a massive attack of them will be very painful for any country or nation.. they can cover 100km in ~60 seconds.  and 300km is about 3minutes.   THere is many aways to defeat any radars that you have no idea about.. why included the
nuclear deterrence link. Even a fishing boat with a nuclear cruise missile can be used for a surprise attack of US coast. or a nuclear early detonation also can be used to blind radars and later launch missiles after it..

"They would have to launch over the sea from afar. There's no mountains to speak of. Curvature of the earth? In order to achieve the missile's long range and avoid being intercepted themselves, the tu-160s would need to launch at HA. The curvature is irrelevant in that case."  

The curvature of earth is VERY RELEVANT
because. the plane can hide beyond it.. None of your radars Land radars will detect any plane or missile that hides beyond the curvature of earth .  So clearly your wrong. Earth is not flat ,in case you didn't knew ,and it is possible to hide for radars by flying low ,but very curved ,THis curvature begins to show every 50km of distance.  and the more farther the object the bigger is the curvature .. if your far enough withing many thousands km away you could end in the opposite side of earth of the place you want to bomb..not. Radars cannot detect ANYTHING that hides under this curvature. P E R I O D. Because the same planet surface hides things over long distance close to the surface.  This is a  disadvantages of ALL Sam defenses ,that the terrain they operate is never flat ,neither the earth is flat.. .This is how 2 lonely rusty ARgentinan old Airforce planes defeated a war ship convoy of the Royal Navy in the Falklands war ,Obsolete planes defeated the best technology defenses at that time.. A Tu-160 will have no problems to Hide from NATO and US defenses in a time of war flying close to the artic or some special zones ,no radar will detect it  at  more than 300-400km km ranges. ,The earth curvature is just one way to avoid detection , As other have told you they also have radar neutralizing materials ,that lower the planes signature at distance too . If they have been detected by Norway and Colombia is simply because they were not hiding at all ..just flying normally , notice how Colmbia complains that a TU-160 -flew OVER-its territory.- means they were unable to stop them before they got inside of it. So Colombia/US defenses failed since the Russian bombers penetrated its airspace. .As a matter of FAct the TU-160's have been before withing just a dozen of miles withing  US territory , or totally invaded it..  there is lots High irregular terrain over Alaska and over the artic.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/russians-claim-bomber-flights-over-us-territory-went-undetected-206145/

The Russian air force proved the capabilities of its upgraded Tupolev Tu-160 bombers earlier this year, when they flew undetected through US airspace during military excercises, the Russian news agency RIA Novosti is claiming. The aircraft flew through the US-controlled sector of the Arctic unchallenged, the country's commander of long-range strategic bombers, Lt Gen Igor Khvorov says. Khorov said that during the military exercises in April, the bombers and Tu-95s had successfully carried out four launches of Tu-95MS cruise missile. RIA Novosti says the US Air Force is now investigating why its military was unable to detect the Russian bombers. "They were unable to detect the aircraft either with radars or visually," says Khvorov.

The success of the missions has convinced Moscow to aquire two additional Tu-160s for the long-range bomber fleet by the end of the year, Khorov said.  The air force has delayed investing in full stealth capability on cost grounds, preferring better camouflage on the Tu-160s.  The first of the new-build Tu-160s was delivered just prior to the incident, from the Kazan aircraft plant.

"They would have to launch over the sea from afar. There's no mountains to speak of. Curvature of the earth? In order to achieve the missile's long range and avoid being intercepted themselves, the tu-160s would need to launch at HA. The curvature is irrelevant in that case."

Are you sure there are no mountains over alaska and the artic? LOL   The planes can fly low enough to evade radars ,then when they are at their perfect place and launch their subsonic nuclear missiles or if they need to ascend to launch a high altitude missile they can do it too ,by the time the pilot is called for the mission and take off from a military airport to intercept a plane that suddenly pops on radar (ready to launch its missiles) 100km-300km away it will be too late if we remember that hypersonic missiles can travel 300km distance in ~5minutes. The only thing irrelevant here are your opinions.

Maybe, in the comic books. They cannot fly low right from the Engels. Just as those two that went to Venezuela, they are always detected early on and tracked most of their flight. In case of war, the solution for intercept would be ready depending on their approach path. I hope you realize how little these machines would accomplish in trying to destroy the US coasts. You reasoning is not only fundamentally flawed, but you have also stacked the odds heavily in Russia's favor which is unrealistic.

Clearly your just a Fanboy ,that believe NATO cannot be touched. Just like it was believed the F-117 could not be defeated until it was.  The fact of the matter is that US will not be able to detect or intercept any TU-160 in a time of war before a big formation of them launch FIRST  The possibilities are Endless for Russian strategic bombers ,could carry secretly Electronic counter measures to defeat missiles too.. or launch decoys with identical signature of the plane to fool any incoming missile.  And The Curvature of earth DO MATTERS  and US will not be able to defend of a massive attack of a many hundreds of them , with so short time.  With Just one who manage to enter will be catastrophic . Clearly Russia is not looking to intentionally bomb anyone , they only do this as Deterrence to US or NATO ,to show Russia do have the capabilities to launch a massive nuclear strike with very little time to counter it.

Tu-160  with Kh-55SM cruise missiles

Nice   

"Kuznetsov" restores the production of engines NK-32 for the Tu-160

Russian air forces to take delivery of 10 upgraded Tu-160 bombers

In accordance with the State Arms Program Russian Ministry of Defense will take delivery of 10 upgraded Tu-160 strategic bombers by 2020. The implementation of this program is possible thanks to resuming the production of NK-32 engines, Lenta.ru reports with reference to the Deputy Minister of Defense, Yuri Borisov.

In February 2013 the Commander-in-Chief of Russian long-range aviation, Major General, Anatoly Zhikharev, said that the armed forces will take delivery of 10 upgraded Tu-160Ms by 2020. It was reported that the bombers will be fitted with new equipment and weapons (in particular, advanced long-range cruise missile). According to some experts, the jet’s combat effectiveness will increase at least two times. Similar work has already been completed earlier by a Kazan-based plant during overhaul of Tu-160 bombers.

In autumn 2013 it was reported that the upgrade of Tu-160 bombers may take several years. In particular, the final configuration of the upgraded vehicle has not been approved. In addition, manufacturers of NK-32 engines have not come to terms with United Engine Corporation (UEC) in terms of financing of the project.

In April 2014 the press-service of Samara Region reported that the Samara-based Kuznetsov Company plans to increase its production capacities and resume work on NK-93 and NK-32 projects.

Under the State Arms Program for the period from 2011 to 2020 about 20 trillion rubles should be allocated to Russian Ministry of Defense. About 5 trillion rubles will be spent on purchasing new and upgrading existing aircraft operated by Russian air forces, along with developing, producing and purchasing new aircraft, including advanced T-50 (PAK FA) fighters. Over 1500 new and upgraded aircraft should be delivered to the Russian air forces by 2020.

Nice   

Tu-160 will be equipped with new engines

Upgraded bomber Tu-160 made its maiden flight

Upgraded Tu-160 to Be Called “Andrei Tupolev”

Putin wants Eastern Europe back like he wants a hernia.

Russia and eastern europe have a long history together and not a lot of it was sunshine and roses, but right now eastern europe seems to be blaming Russia for all their problems... Russia does not need that... let the EU deal with them.

Good to hear the Blackjacks are getting their upgrades...

GarryB wrote:Good to hear the Blackjacks are getting their upgrades...

Do we know more about the upgrade? New LCD displays? Radar improvement? New ECM equipment?

Thanks

AFAIK this is basically a fairly comprehensive upgrade with new radar and electronics and cockpit displays and new unified weapons system including precision air to ground weapons plus an increase in bomb load to 45 tons for the Blackjack.

the new weapons and radar are standardised amongst the Tupolev bombers... ie Backfire, Bear, Blackjack.

Russian Defense Ministry will receive the initial batch production of upgraded engines NK-32 to re-engine strategic bomber Tu-160 at the end of 2016.

The first modernized Tu-160

Tu-160 b/n 18 has finally acquired a personal name, "Andrei Tupolev", after completing modernization at KAPO.

It means that all operational Tu-160 now have a name.

- 02 Vasily Reshetnikov
- 03 Pavel Taran
- 04 Ivan Yarygin
- 05 Aleksandr Golovanov
- 06 Ilya Muromets
- 07 Aleksandr Molodchy
- 08 Vitaly Kopylov
- 10 Nikolai Kuznetsov
- 11 Vasily Senko
- 12 Aleksandr Novikov
- 14 Igor Sikorsky
- 15 Vladimir Sudets
- 16 Aleksey Plokhov
- 17 Valery Chkalov
- 18 Andrei Tupolev
- 19 Valentin Bliznyuk (test bomber)
- 342 Boris Veremey (test bomber)

George1 wrote:Tu-160 b/n 18 has finally acquired a personal name, "Andrei Tupolev", after completing modernization at KAPO.

It means that all operational Tu-160 now have a name.

- 02 Vasily Reshetnikov
- 03 Pavel Taran
- 04 Ivan Yarygin
- 05 Aleksandr Golovanov
- 06 Ilya Muromets
- 07 Aleksandr Molodchy
- 08 Vitaly Kopylov
- 10 Nikolai Kuznetsov
- 11 Vasily Senko
- 12 Aleksandr Novikov
- 14 Igor Sikorsky
- 15 Vladimir Sudets
- 16 Aleksey Plokhov
- 17 Valery Chkalov
- 18 Andrei Tupolev
- 19 Valentin Bliznyuk (test bomber)
- 342 Boris Veremey (test bomber)

Does anyone know how many could reasonably be put into service or even built, without major hassles like a new production line being needed?

PS I also wonder what the TU-22 range would be if it had modifications (eg breaching any old treaty regulations). Could it be suitable for strikes, say on the US interior eg over the Atlantic/N Pole or Pacific?

Does anyone know how many could reasonably be put into service or even built, without major hassles like a new production line being needed?

I think all the half finished aircraft were completed a while ago... it would take years to set up production line again.

to build a Tu-160 from scratch now would be very very expensive... that is why they are developing the PAK DA. If they could produce more Tu-160s then the PAK DA wouldn't be so urgent.

there is a central forging of aluminium that is huge and is necessary for the swing wing configuration of the Blackjack... it was made in the Ukraine but even if the factory that made it was still operational that would not be an option.

Regarding the inflight refuelling capability of the Backfire.... that is interesting... armed with 8 Kh-101s externally it could certainly threaten all of Europe and most of north america from Russian bases.

With inflight refuelling they could reach even further.

The introduction of upgrades for the Bear, backfire, and blackjack that include a wide range of smart weapons I am looking forward to seeing them used in the tactical role of persistent ground support with potentially super heavy weapons.

The PAK DA when it arrives should cost the same as the Bear to operate, but be better able to penetrate enemy airspace than the Blackjack and carry a heavier load than all three aircraft.

Obviously he means modernized Tu-160s

"In 2015, the long-range aviation will receive six Tu-160. In addition, we will bring the number of Tu-95 to 43 units, "- said Bondarev.

They have said before that they had upgraded the Tu-160s, so I wonder if this new upgrade is just new engines and a few minor tweeks to the systems... that would explain how they could upgrade 6 planes in one year... perhaps limited by the number of new upgraded engines they have produced so far.

Will be interesting to see what sort of improvements these new engines can offer the aircraft... increased range/speed/reliability/lower fuel consumption/lower operating costs...







{note blue engine AB flame = no water injection for extra take off power, but also less smoke)