Tu-160 "White Swan"

Maibe in the future whit the new energy making a relatively big plane could use railguns.

Tu 160 wow hot buy

The Tu-160 is a very under rated aircraft... and vastly more capable than the Tu-22M3... and I like the Tu-22M3 a lot myself.

Even flying at mach 2 all the way by the time the Tu-160 gets to Canada to launch its missiles at targets all over north america the ICBMs and SLBMs will already have obliterated all the air defence systems... I mean the structure and communications and sensors... the stuff the US destroys first when it attacks a country and once taken out any individual enemy aircraft wont be much of a threat even if they can find you... and they probably wont.

Having a much larger force of Blackjacks will make them cheaper to operate across the board... engines, systems, weapons etc etc.

They would already be a very potent attack system... the upgraded Tu-160Ms are supposed to have a 45 ton conventional payload capacity for theatre missions... which is plenty.

If they have some spare airframes they could make some Tu-160P interceptor aircraft with excellent range... a huge AESA radar and internal capacity of dozens of heavy AAMs.

Upgraded engines using new technology developed for 5th gen fighters might even allow supercruising to greatly extend range and reduce transit times to launch areas...

GarryB wrote:The Tu-160 is a very under rated aircraft... and vastly more capable than the Tu-22M3... and I like the Tu-22M3 a lot myself.

Even flying at mach 2 all the way by the time the Tu-160 gets to Canada to launch its missiles at targets all over north america the ICBMs and SLBMs will already have obliterated all the air defence systems... I mean the structure and communications and sensors... the stuff the US destroys first when it attacks a country and once taken out any individual enemy aircraft wont be much of a threat even if they can find you... and they probably wont.

Having a much larger force of Blackjacks will make them cheaper to operate across the board... engines, systems, weapons etc etc.

They would already be a very potent attack system... the upgraded Tu-160Ms are supposed to have a 45 ton conventional payload capacity for theatre missions... which is plenty.

If they have some spare airframes they could make some Tu-160P interceptor aircraft with excellent range... a huge AESA radar and internal capacity of dozens of heavy AAMs.

Upgraded engines using new technology developed for 5th gen fighters might even allow supercruising to greatly extend range and reduce transit times to launch areas...

If 160P variant would be created I presume that would be used as heavy launch platform with tens of AA missiles to repel massive volleys of cruise missiles incoming from Arctic or Pacific.

As for numbers - every Tu-160 now can carry 6 revolvers wit Kh-101 if same refers to hypersonic missiles fleet of 24-30 TUs volley can start hell.


Tu-22m? Me too likes sum of all fears AC scene (although not realistic )

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

If 160P variant would be created I presume that would be used as heavy launch platform with tens of AA missiles to repel massive volleys of cruise missiles incoming from Arctic or Pacific.

As for numbers - every Tu-160 now can carry 6 revolvers wit Kh-101 if same refers to hypersonic missiles fleet of 24-30 TUs volley can start hell.


Tu-22m? Me too likes  sum of all fears AC scene  (although not realistic )

its two revolver launchers actually, each carrying six subsonic Kh-101/102. the former is conventional warhead, and latter a nuke. so that makes 12 missiles. the hypersonic missile is prolly kh-90's updated derivative - one per bomb bay with the revolver removed so two missiles per bird. not too shabby since these are hypersonic and could go 3000km and pack a megaton punch or two 200kt ones at their destination/s.

collegeboy16 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

If 160P variant would be created I presume that would be used as heavy launch platform with tens of AA missiles to repel massive volleys of cruise missiles incoming from Arctic or Pacific.

As for numbers - every Tu-160 now can carry 6 revolvers wit Kh-101 if same refers to hypersonic missiles fleet of 24-30 TUs volley can start hell.


Tu-22m? Me too likes  sum of all fears AC scene  (although not realistic )

its two revolver launchers actually, each carrying six subsonic Kh-101/102. the former is conventional warhead, and latter a nuke. so that makes 12 missiles. the hypersonic missile is prolly kh-90's updated derivative - one per bomb bay with the revolver removed so two missiles per bird. not too shabby since these are hypersonic and could go 3000km and pack a megaton punch or two 200kt ones at their destination/s.

P-90 was not supersonic and for strategic missile IMHO 3000km is not thta impressive -attacking continental US besides shoreline cities would be too risky. 5-10,000 would sound much better.

Pls note then Waverider size is similar Kh-101

If 160P variant would be created I presume that would be used as heavy launch platform with tens of AA missiles to repel massive volleys of cruise missiles incoming from Arctic or Pacific.

In terms of pure weight a Tu-160P could carry enormous numbers of AAMs... a 45 ton payload... even at a ton each you could carry 24 missiles easily on a strategic mission... perhaps with another 30 light short range missiles like Morfei as anti missile self defence missiles...

You could have a few Tu-160P long range interceptors to escort Bears and protect them from any individual survivor fighters that might threaten them... or to operate with white swans in a first strike role...

As for numbers - every Tu-160 now can carry 6 revolvers wit Kh-101 if same refers to hypersonic missiles fleet of 24-30 TUs volley can start hell.

As mentioned above the Tu-160 has two very large 6 round revolver launchers that are much bigger than the launchers in the Bear, so the swan can carry 12 of the much bigger Kh-101/102s, while the Bears can only carry them externally.

The rather large size of the Kh-101/102 actually matches the size of the Onyx/yakhont/brahmos and will likely therefore be rather compatible with the next gen missiles which will also be used in the UKSK vertical launch systems used by the navy.

No point in developing a brand new powerful missile if none of your existing platforms can carry it...

The hypersonic missiles will get their speed from their scramjet engines which don't need to be any bigger than the ramjet engines already fitted to Onyx et al... so the new hypersonic missiles wont be much different in size compared to current missiles... they will just fly much faster.

BTW most subsonic missiles fly most of the way at medium to high altitude where their jet engines are most efficient but the ambient air is cold and relatively thin.

A hypersonic missile will fly very high all the way which should mean excellent range performance anyway.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?133324-RuAF-News-and-development-Thread-part-14/page19

So after reading, TR1 and Metberkut are saying that it what Bondarev is saying that it only makes sense economically to restart production is if it is 50+ aircraft, not that they plan to make 50 of them. And Metberkut says (no links of course so it makes it hard to verify) that it would be roughly $400M per aircraft and stated (which is VERY true) that is roughly 300 or so Su-34's.

I think that having an even number of 20 or getting 25 may not be so bad, but more Tu-22M's may be a far better option. I imagine they are significantly cheaper, and that they could probably churn them out faster as well. Modernized, they could very well be also reduced cross section (RAM tech for its shells), heavy and advanced EW capabilities and possibly refuel pod (would be breaking a treaty apparently but not surprising) to make it also obtain same distance.

But, with Kh-101/102 and 555, would give Tu-22M's the ability to strike FAR outside of enemy territory, and since are both cruise missile carriers (Tu-22M and Tu-160), they both fill the same nich of the market with Tu-160 being far bigger and with far better range and stealthier.

If someone can figure how much Tu-22M costs are now, then it gives a better indication. As well, I still stand by that it is a far better option as there are plenty of Tu-22M's in service, and being able to build new ones will give Russia the ability to easily modify the engines to be far more efficient and can apply it to the other aircrafts, spare parts being more cheaper and commonly found as well, being able to build enough in numbers too.

well my immediate thought was: sell some to China?

mutantsushi wrote:well my immediate thought was: sell some to China?

The Tu-160's? China may be a friend for sure, but something strategic like that shouldn't be sold to anyone imo.

Sepheronx, I was under the impression that the Su-34 would eventually replace the Tu-22Ms. the Tu-22Ms are mostly meant for tac. bombing nowadays with all the upgrades to better fit that role and now that they have a new tac. bombing platform that looks very promising it looks to me like they would replace them. sure, the range is a bit on the short side but tanker support(which the Tu-22Ms lack due to lack of aerial refueling probes) and buddy refueling should close that gap, as will a new engine. the payload is halved, yes, but a pair of Su-34s could suffice to make up. and the weapons the two birds could employ are comparable, the only advantage Tu-22Ms have is the Kh-22 which the air launched zircon would compare well to, when it comes online. not to mention EW variants that make strike missions a lot safer. So what do you think?.

sepheronx wrote:http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?133324-RuAF-News-and-development-Thread-part-14/page19

So after reading, TR1 and Metberkut are saying that it what Bondarev is saying that it only makes sense economically to restart production is if it is 50+ aircraft, not that they plan to make 50 of them.  And Metberkut says (no links of course so it makes it hard to verify) that it would be roughly $400M per aircraft and stated (which is VERY true) that is roughly 300 or so Su-34's.

I think that having an even number of 20 or getting 25 may not be so bad, but more Tu-22M's may be a far better option.  I imagine they are significantly cheaper, and that they could probably churn them out faster as well.  Modernized, they could very well be also reduced cross section (RAM tech for its shells), heavy and advanced EW capabilities and possibly refuel pod (would be breaking a treaty apparently but not surprising) to make it also obtain same distance.

But, with Kh-101/102 and 555, would give Tu-22M's the ability to strike FAR outside of enemy territory, and since are both cruise missile carriers (Tu-22M and Tu-160), they both fill the same nich of the market with Tu-160 being far bigger and with far better range and stealthier.

If someone can figure how much Tu-22M costs are now, then it gives a better indication.  As well, I still stand by that it is a far better option as there are plenty of Tu-22M's in service, and being able to build new ones will give Russia the ability to easily modify the engines to be far more efficient and can apply it to the other aircrafts, spare parts being more cheaper and commonly found as well, being able to build enough in numbers too.

I think not, Tu-160 gives mucho more force projection capabilities, just different class of bomber. Below just range and payload capacity:


Tu-22M
Range: 6000 km
Combat radius with a load of 12,000 kg:
at supersonic speed: 1500-1850 km
at subsonic speeds and extremely low altitude: 1500-1650 km
subsonic Mixed profile: 2410 km
Hardpoints: wing and fuselage pylons and internal weapons bay with a capacity of 24,000 kg (53,000 lb)


Tu-160M
Range: 12,300 km (7,643 mi) practical range without in-flight refuelling, Mach 0.77 and carrying 6 × Kh-55SM dropped at mid range and 5% fuel reserves[61]
Combat radius: 7,300 km (3,994 nmi, 4,536 mi,)
2,000 km (1,080 nmi, 1,240 mi) at Mach 1.5[26]

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


Russia apparently needs intercontinental force projection (Diego Garcia, Nicaragua Canal, Africa, , South China Sea - you name it). Besides probably Tu-160 as more sophisticated plane will prepare better factories for PAK DA coming soon in theaters around world.

BTW I hope speed will be increased so Rogozin´s dream about supersonic bomber is a step closer

recently there was press release: in total 200 Su-34s is to be ordered.

sepheronx wrote:

mutantsushi wrote:well my immediate thought was: sell some to China?

The Tu-160's?  China may be a friend for sure, but something strategic like that shouldn't be sold to anyone imo.

More capabilities for Chinese army might be strategic imperative when containing common enemy: western aggressive totalitarian states. Vide Su-35 or S-400

Tu-160 Blackjacks getting modernized at Kazan

TheArmenian wrote:Tu-160 Blackjacks getting modernized at Kazan

Now that is a magnificent sight I've always loved the Tu-160.. what a superlative aircraft. The US-financed destruction of so many air-frames in Ukraine was a criminal act (especially as the US continued building its B-2 force) so re-opening production would be a great way to tweak the nose of Senators Nunn and Lugar who were the prime architects of US efforts to pull the Bears teeth in the tumultuous 90s.

collegeboy16 wrote:Sepheronx, I was under the impression that the Su-34 would eventually replace the Tu-22Ms. the Tu-22Ms are mostly meant for tac. bombing nowadays with all the upgrades to better fit that role and now that they have a new tac. bombing platform that looks very promising it looks to me like they would replace them. sure, the range is a bit on the short side but tanker support(which the Tu-22Ms lack due to lack of aerial refueling probes) and buddy refueling should close that gap, as will a new engine. the payload is halved, yes, but a pair of Su-34s could suffice to make up. and the weapons the two birds could employ are comparable, the only advantage Tu-22Ms have is the Kh-22 which the air launched zircon would compare well to, when it comes online. not to mention EW variants that make strike missions a lot safer. So what do you think?.

I think that Tu-22M's are still ideal. They can still be fitted with a refuling pod, and with modernization of engines, could potentially travel further than before. Su-34's may have longer range than Su-24's but that is what they are replacing while Tu-22Ms fill a roll much like Tu-160 but at shorter ranges as well as dealing with striking ships/carriers.

Let us see what happens.

sepheronx wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:Sepheronx, I was under the impression that the Su-34 would eventually replace the Tu-22Ms. the Tu-22Ms are mostly meant for tac. bombing nowadays with all the upgrades to better fit that role and now that they have a new tac. bombing platform that looks very promising it looks to me like they would replace them. sure, the range is a bit on the short side but tanker support(which the Tu-22Ms lack due to lack of aerial refueling probes) and buddy refueling should close that gap, as will a new engine. the payload is halved, yes, but a pair of Su-34s could suffice to make up. and the weapons the two birds could employ are comparable, the only advantage Tu-22Ms have is the Kh-22 which the air launched zircon would compare well to, when it comes online. not to mention EW variants that make strike missions a lot safer. So what do you think?.

I think that Tu-22M's are still ideal. They can still be fitted with a refuling pod, and with modernization of engines, could potentially travel further than before. Su-34's may have longer range than Su-24's but that is what they are replacing while Tu-22Ms fill a roll much like Tu-160 but at shorter ranges as well as dealing with striking ships/carriers.

Let us see what happens.

The Su-34 would replace the Su-24, but the Tu-22Ms are in a class of their own, and provide that intermediate capability between a tactical/theatre strike plane and a strategic/intercontinental bomber.  They should be retained and used for maritime strike duties ie fast carriers of long-range stand-off missiles which can be be used to take out HATO CBGs and mercantile supply convoys with massed AShM attacks. Given the importance of naval power to HATOs power projection capabilities, there will always be a need for this kind of aircraft, and using expensive Tu-160s (and PAK DA) for this role is a bit of an overkill and places valuable strategic assets at risk unnecessarily.

Edited: I mean PAK-DA of course...

Tu-22Ms aren't going anywhere now, so this replacement of them by Tu-160(S?) would be when PAKDA would begin to replace Tu-160 (+Tu-95 etc) strategic role, right? Even keeping some Tu-160 in that role (for speed vs. PAKDA) there should be some left to cover some of Tu-22M roles not covered by other platforms, right?

For theatre bombers I think it would make more sense to go with a bomber variant of that MiG-41 they're working on.

It will be able to achieve faster speeds, a higher altitude and carry more payload than the Su-27/Su-34 airframe - which are the qualities you want in a theatre bomber; you don't need turn rate, climb rate, an internal autocannon, A2A missile compatibility, front and rear facing radars capable of targeting air targets, or any of that.

The Su-34 is an excellent tactical bomber but it's just not built for the same tasks.

Not convinced by the Tu-160 production restart myself. Especially if its uneconomical to provide the quantities Russia needs - for sure it doesn't need another 50 of them. Another 12 would be nice, to complement the PAK-DAs in the future as a supersonic spearhead (the old Tu-160s may well get retired by then) and for conventional missions, but if it costs an arm and a leg to build them in such low quantities, then forget it.
One also has to figure in not only the economies of scale of production restart, but their running costs which for the Tu-160 class are the highest for an aircraft that there is.

With all these projects Russia is going to ratchet up enormous expenses. It makes more sense to have the current strategic air fleet soldier it on until the PAK-DA is ready and/or the old aircraft have reached their max. lifespans; with the ultimate result that the fleet will end up as a mix of subsonic, stealthy high-payload strategic bombers, and high-supersonic speed theatre-bombers.
After all, the SSBN and SSN fleet is getting updated, and there are no less than 3 ICBM classes under development, with possible rail-deployment too. Russia is more than protected.

Making the Tu-160 into an interceptor is also a bad idea. Not that it won't work, it will I'm sure - it's just that it'll be enourmously expensive to run; interceptors should be economical.

Tu-22M3 is a theatre bomber/missile carrier... when White Swans are thrashing the US the Tu-22M3 will be thrashing Europe and any US carrier groups that are too close...

Suggesting the Backfire can replace the Blackjack is like suggesting the Fullback can replace the Backfire... on shorter range missions... yes... in the primary mission... not so much.

The definitive replacement for the Blackjack and Backfire and Bear will be the PAK DA in the heavy strike in theatre and strategic roles.

For medium range strike there are Su-34s and Backfires... the former being more sophisticated but carrying half the payload...

With another 50 aircraft you could retire the Bear and have a one plane Strategic bombing fleet... 65 cruise missile carriers would be a fairly potent force... 65 x 12 = 780 cruise missiles... plenty.

That is why I think that they should wait and just modernize what they have. PAK DA will eventually replace all three aircrafts and so they will be able to build them in numbers and hopefully, cheaper than Tu-160M. Doing so will reduce overall costs especially on maintenance.

I think this is more to do with someone wanting a major contract, but I cannot blame them. Technically, giving work to anyone in your own country by spending money is the right thing to do, as long as it is reasonable in terms of price. Roughly $400M per aircraft isn't reasonable to me. I highly doubt PAK DA will cost even that much per aircraft.

GarryB wrote:Tu-22M3 is a theatre bomber/missile carrier... when White Swans are thrashing the US the Tu-22M3 will be thrashing Europe and any US carrier groups that are too close...

Suggesting the Backfire can replace the Blackjack is like suggesting the Fullback can replace the Backfire... on shorter range missions... yes... in the primary mission... not so much.

The definitive replacement for the Blackjack and Backfire and Bear will be the PAK DA in the heavy strike in theatre and strategic roles.

For medium range strike there are Su-34s and Backfires... the former being more sophisticated but carrying half the payload...

With another 50 aircraft you could retire the Bear and have a one plane Strategic bombing fleet... 65 cruise missile carriers would be a fairly potent force... 65 x 12 = 780 cruise missiles... plenty.

In strategic perspective being able to make so called Stalin Strait between Canada and Mexico is enough to ensue no war is coming from EU woosies. And 780 is a nice volley,should been fine to keep all ¨leftovers after Vietcong prisons¨ at bay.

But I still believe that restarting Tu-160 production was not purely about force projection. Probably new technologies (like Su-35 is using avionics form PAK-FA), building industrial base,plants machines, processes for large airframes - maybe transport or passenger after?

Roughly $400M per aircraft isn't reasonable to me. I highly doubt PAK DA will cost even that much per aircraft.

That would be $100 million less than India paid for each of its C-17 transport aircraft...

About the cost of 2.5 F-35s...

About twice the cost the Indians would have been paying for Rafale...

But I still believe that restarting Tu-160 production was not purely about force projection. Probably new technologies (like Su-35 is using avionics form PAK-FA), building industrial base,plants machines, processes for large airframes - maybe transport or passenger after?

Lots of new technology since the first Blackjacks were built... conformal radar antenna arrays, improved ECM and ECCM equipment... I would rather suspect they will design the new factory in such a way so that it can also build the PAK DA prototypes and serial aircraft too.

With 50 more Blackjacks that means 200 more engines needed, so development on engine upgrades make rather more financial sense than for just 60 engines on 15 aircraft...

There are currently two strategic bomber aircraft in Russia right now... production of 50 more 160s would mean the 95s will not be needed for their primary duties... so other roles... perhaps including inflight refuelling could be considered...

GarryB wrote:

Roughly $400M per aircraft isn't reasonable to me. I highly doubt PAK DA will cost even that much per aircraft.

That would be $100 million less than India paid for each of its C-17 transport aircraft...

About the cost of 2.5 F-35s...

About twice the cost the Indians would have been paying for Rafale...

French exquisite taste has its price

GarryB wrote:

But I still believe that restarting Tu-160 production was not purely about force projection. Probably new technologies (like Su-35 is using avionics form PAK-FA), building industrial base,plants machines, processes for large airframes - maybe transport or passenger after?

Lots of new technology since the first Blackjacks were built... conformal radar antenna arrays, improved ECM and ECCM equipment... I would rather suspect they will design the new factory in such a way so that it can also build the PAK DA prototypes and serial aircraft too.

With 50 more Blackjacks that means 200 more engines needed, so development on engine upgrades make rather more financial sense than for just 60 engines on 15 aircraft...

There are currently two strategic bomber aircraft in Russia right now... production of 50 more 160s would mean the 95s will not be needed for their primary duties... so other roles... perhaps including inflight refuelling could be considered...

As for factory we are on the same page. I still hope more

BTW I hope Russians will not waste PAK DA in anti sub roles. MS-21 or even better Tu-204 shall do the job just fine