Tu-160 "White Swan"

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...

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 )

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.

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.

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.

TheArmenian wrote:Tu-160 Blackjacks getting modernized at Kazan

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.

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.

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...

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...