Tu-160 "White Swan"

I agree with serephonx, the Tu-160M thing is another honeypot for corrupt military-industrial officials, including the higher-ups close to Putin.
The Vostochny Cosmodrome episode was a travesty with hundreds of millions of dollars siphoned off.
Now for a repeat with the Tu-160Ms?

flamming_python wrote:I agree with serephonx, the Tu-160M thing is another honeypot for corrupt military-industrial officials, including the higher-ups close to Putin.
The Vostochny Cosmodrome episode was a travesty with hundreds of millions of dollars siphoned off.
Now for a repeat with the Tu-160Ms?

Well, the Vostochny issue has WAY to much to do with the contractor. This on the other hand wouldnt have to do with corruption but to obtain a contract. Lobbying maybe. Which is considered corruption in Russia (funny enough). $400M per unit is a lot but like GarryB pointed out, still cheaper than those C-17's India purchased. So it would leave little room for pocketing money other than company Profits.

But the aircraft is still expensive and I dont think it is needed.

sepheronx wrote:

flamming_python wrote:I agree with serephonx, the Tu-160M thing is another honeypot for corrupt military-industrial officials, including the higher-ups close to Putin.
The Vostochny Cosmodrome episode was a travesty with hundreds of millions of dollars siphoned off.
Now for a repeat with the Tu-160Ms?

Well, the Vostochny issue has WAY to much to do with the contractor. This on the other hand wouldnt have to do with corruption but to obtain a contract. Lobbying maybe. Which is considered corruption in Russia (funny enough). $400M per unit is a lot but like GarryB pointed out, still cheaper than those C-17's India purchased. So it would leave little room for pocketing money other than company Profits.

But the aircraft is still expensive and I dont think it is needed.

And who do you think chooses the contractor?

It's a common trick in Russia; the beauracrats and officials choose a private company whose management they're buddies with and they all get rich together at the expense of the rest of Russia.

You're mistaken in thinking such a divide between the public and private sector exists, it doesn't - more often than not they're both in cohorts with each other.

And about lobbying - lobbying is just another form of corruption really.

Workers get paid, paid workers buy stuff, people who make/sell stuff makes money and buys other stuff. Rinse and repeat. How an economy works. Also, business gets paid for contract. Money buys tools and tooling plant gets paid, money invested to make other tools.

If the government didnt spend a dime, nothing would be made and your country wouldnt have any industry besides extraction. As well, better to buy some goods to keep a plant rolling rather than just handing out cash to bail them out in future.

I just think there needs to be a fine line in terms of costs. The money for 50 of these Tu-160's can buy 300 Su-34's, and that is a lot of money and work for emploees guaranteeing them work.

Well, i think the decision to buy 50 t160m is a wise choice. The pak da Will not apear soon. Also the different specs, comparring pak da and t160m, means more options. So why buy these 50 birds? I think the reason is: to have a up to date operational flexibel force of long range cruisemissile carriers for a deep strikingrole. Conventional and tactical nuclear. The USA have their ships in this role. Russia hasn't. So an aircarrier force would bring this aditional cruisemissile option for russia in the near future. Note, ofcourse russia has iTS abilities. But this choice would give a aditional 550+cruisemissile strike option on the tabel. Enough for a balance on the western but also eastern theatre.

flamming_python wrote:

And who do you think chooses the contractor?

It's a common trick in Russia; the beauracrats and officials choose a private company whose management they're buddies with and they all get rich together at the expense of the rest of Russia.

You're mistaken in thinking such a divide between the public and private sector exists, it doesn't - more often than not they're both in cohorts with each other.

And about lobbying - lobbying is just another form of corruption really.

In Russia? I appreciate if you can elaborate what country you would propose as a role model?
If you think that lobbying or/and kickbacks do not exist in Germany, Switzerland, China or Finland you are wrong I am afraid.

Tu-160 is very important for Russia. both for economy and as a deterrent. Imagine tens of subcontracting companies, all those R&D highly paid jobs, new technologies. Such investment is wroth every Kopeck invested.


PS I have too late read your post on infamous 39´ discussion. I do appreciate your post and opinion.

I think people are jumping to the wrong conclusions. And jumping far too rashly.

1)Re the cosmodrome.
Russia needed/needs an alternative to Baikonur.
Otherwise Kazakstan can take the piss.
Also, |Russia wants to grow its space industry. Why give all that superskilled work to Kazaks?
Yes its a huge investment. And the budgets for these projects always escalate. Inflation anyone?
Change of specification as the project develops etc Russia needs its own spacesport AND to develop the mass of businesses/tech centres attached.

2)Tu160.

The Bear is massively outdated. Its slow, it has limited capacity. And it stands out like a sore thumb on radar charts.

The Tu-22 well even in the Soviet era, there was a replacement under development. Its got range issues, radar observability and lots of other issues. Basically, its a very old plane that does a job... ok. But nothing more.

Think of the vast sums spent on ICBMs. Russia needs to hedge its bets. Thats what the nuclear triad is. THe ICBMs are pretty well upgraded. The subs are ok too. So now its time for aviation based delivery. We arent talking mega money in relation to the Boreis, and the ICBMs etc.

Tu160 still appears an extremely good plane. It would be interesting to see how its radar observability is, and how it would compare to a brand new plane. Either way, it is a platform worth developing.

The old bears, backfires and Tu-160s will need replacing and supplementing.
Tu160 also offers flexibility. It could be used for strategical nuclear and non nuclear duties. It could be used for satellite deployment. It might even be convertible for passenger and (with a little work!) ultra express military cargo (which ofcourse was mentioned a few weeks back).

Speed isnt a gimmick for RUssia. With its own geography and potential global obligations, it needs to get to places quickly. And that can mean economy is helped rather than hindered. (Forces can be kept centrally then moved around, as needs dictate in a short time).

It is a huge plane, its fast, its modern, its capable.

Pak Da is quite a way off. To let the current Tu160s fade away and have nothing newish til 2025/27 would be ridiculous. The current planes will not be usable for ever, and were build assuming they would be replaced with planes coming of the production line later.

Restarting the 160 line means that Russia is reinvigorating all that knowhow, ability and possibilities.
In the 90s, Russia had a Tu160 mk2 and mk3 planned. That later (I forget its name) was essentially a space plane, as I recall. By restarting, all of this tech can be developed.

kvs wrote:Spending money on the Tu-160 stimulates Russia's GDP and increases Russian technological capacity.  

It is a no brainer

Couldn't agree more...a few points to consider.


1. Restarting production of the Tu-160 is a stepping stone towards PAK-DA. Since they haven't produced large bombers since the Soviet period, this would enable organising the necessary human and technological resources without starting from scratch on a completely new platform. The modernisation program of existing Tu-160 is the first step.

2. The military wants to expand the scope of bomber patrols in all traditional "strategic directions" as well as adding the Carribean and the Gulf of Mexico as an area of regular patrols...they're talking about having 3-4 bombers on a semi-permanent deployment in each direction. This isn't just strictly a military requirement but a political one as well.

3. There is speculation that the Kazan plant has at least 2 more Tu-160 kits/components (possibly more) available, which they wanted to assemble back in 2009 but did not receive an order. These aren't the ones that were assembled prior to 2008.

I agree with serephonx, the Tu-160M thing is another honeypot for corrupt military-industrial officials, including the higher-ups close to Putin.
The Vostochny Cosmodrome episode was a travesty with hundreds of millions of dollars siphoned off.
Now for a repeat with the Tu-160Ms?

Yeah... it couldn't possibly be true that they have decided that the current gap before the PAK DA will be fully ready and operational means it is worth spending money now to make the Blackjack fleet a really viable force instead of the token force they currently are... 15 planes is OK for a short term stopgap, but if this is going to be a decade or more then making a few more in a brand new factory with all new modern tooling and the added bonus of a design upgrade... what is not to like?

After the end of the cold war all arms of the nuclear triad have been dramatically reduced in numbers and the Strategic bomber force is no exception... there is certainly no point in building 200 new Blackjacks... but building 50 should be affordable and make for a decent fleet size that will allow the early retirement of the Bear as a bomber/cruise missile carrier.
It means they can withdraw the Bear and its engines and systems from the inventory, which should save money and hopefully the new production Tu-160s will be redesigned to allow easier and simpler maintainence to reduce operational costs and improve performance.

New engine upgrades can be applied because the PAK DA will share a derivative engine so that money is not wasted on just 65 planes... right now it would be a waste of time and money for 15 planes.

I just think there needs to be a fine line in terms of costs. The money for 50 of these Tu-160's can buy 300 Su-34's, and that is a lot of money and work for emploees guaranteeing them work.

You are talking like an accountant... you might get 500 Yak-130 trainers for the cost of one new Blackjack... but who cares? there is no way a Yak-130 or Su-34 could perform the strategic attack mission the Blackjack is designed for... and very good at BTW.

2)Tu160.

The Bear is massively outdated. Its slow, it has limited capacity. And it stands out like a sore thumb on radar charts.

The Bear is like the B-52... they are ancient, but with updates and modern weapons they are very much like sniper rifles... an old Mosin Nagant rifle can be as accurate or more accurate than a much more modern equivalent and if you are realistic... ie up to 400m shots at targets only it is a far more practical weapon than many other modern options for a fraction of the price.

the Bear is a cruise missile carrier... and unfortunately many in the west dismiss it as being a propeller driven aircraft like a WWII bomber... it is actually a jet powered turboprop aircraft that currently holds the world record for flight speed for a propeller driven aircraft... the fact that it needs swept wings is a hint that it is a fast plane... at low altitude it is actually faster than a B-52.

3,000km from its target when it launches its cruise missiles RCS has very little meaning... especially when it arrives about 6 hours after the ICBMs and SLBMs of Russia have likely already obliterated the airfields and major radar sites of the target country...

The Tu-22 well even in the Soviet era, there was a replacement under development. Its got range issues, radar observability and lots of other issues. Basically, its a very old plane that does a job... ok. But nothing more.

The Tu-22M3M is perfectly able to do its job and can perform tasks the US would require two F-15E and two inflight refuelling aircraft to perform... it is not a strategic aircraft however so is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Think of the vast sums spent on ICBMs. Russia needs to hedge its bets. Thats what the nuclear triad is. THe ICBMs are pretty well upgraded. The subs are ok too. So now its time for aviation based delivery. We arent talking mega money in relation to the Boreis, and the ICBMs etc.

Good point, plus this money spent is also spent towards the PAK DA as they will have to build them somewhere too.

Tu160 still appears an extremely good plane. It would be interesting to see how its radar observability is, and how it would compare to a brand new plane. Either way, it is a platform worth developing.

Its launch distance will be over 5,000km so RCS is even less important for it than for the Bear.

The old bears, backfires and Tu-160s will need replacing and supplementing.
Tu160 also offers flexibility. It could be used for strategical nuclear and non nuclear duties. It could be used for satellite deployment. It might even be convertible for passenger and (with a little work!) ultra express military cargo (which ofcourse was mentioned a few weeks back).

Even just high speed inflight refuelling aircraft... with the old Bears being low speed inflight refuelling aircraft...

Pak Da is quite a way off. To let the current Tu160s fade away and have nothing newish til 2025/27 would be ridiculous. The current planes will not be usable for ever, and were build assuming they would be replaced with planes coming of the production line later.

Small numbers of the Blackjack makes them expensive to maintain and operate... having more would reduce costs and greatly improve performance.

Restarting the 160 line means that Russia is reinvigorating all that knowhow, ability and possibilities.
In the 90s, Russia had a Tu160 mk2 and mk3 planned. That later (I forget its name) was essentially a space plane, as I recall. By restarting, all of this tech can be developed.

And they need somewhere to build PAK DA prototypes anyway... having a brand new state of the art factory will make this easier and cheaper.

Note in naval terms when they realised the Lada class conventional subs were going to be delayed they just ordered some improved Kilos... I don't remember any objections then... it was just sensible.

The only real difference is that in this case they are building a new factory to make these new planes in, but if they built a brand new state of the art shipyard to make new improved Kilos with the intent to build the Ladas in that shipyard when the design had been finalised I don't think anyone would have questioned it either....

And if they shouldn't build new Blackjacks then lets be consistent people and just have PAK FAs replacing the MiG-31s and Su-25s.

Personally I think having one plane made to replace everything is a really smart idea... look at the F-35 if you need evidence... .

GarryB wrote:The Bear is like the B-52... they are ancient, but with updates and modern weapons they are very much like sniper rifles... an old Mosin Nagant rifle can be as accurate or more accurate than a much more modern equivalent and if you are realistic... ie up to 400m shots at targets only it is a far more practical weapon than many other modern options for a fraction of the price.

Sorry for an but actually the Mosin Nagant is essentially equal to the current bolt-action sniper rifle nowadays.

Correct me if I am wrong but for strategic bomber, Russia began to abandon carpet bombing and adapt guided missiles and accuracy weapons much sooner than the West, because the only thing carpet bombing can do is killing civillians and destroy unfortified civillian houses.

higurashihougi wrote:
Sorry for an but actually the Mosin Nagant is essentially equal to the current bolt-action sniper rifle nowadays.

proven, rugged rifle with no specific regime in barrel production though maybe is not better than designed rifles. It was destined for mass production and soldier job. Maybe if you have special quality regime for every part then maybe differnet

higurashihougi wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but for strategic bomber, Russia began to abandon carpet bombing and adapt guided missiles and accuracy weapons much sooner than the West, because the only thing carpet bombing can do is killing civillians and destroy unfortified civillian houses.

Because Soviets were had no idea about democratic values! Democracy always starts with bombs, genocide of civilian population then comes pillage of natural resources , puppet regimes et voila you are democratic and HRs are well protected! from local population by Academia

kvs wrote:

Spending money on the Tu-160 stimulates Russia's GDP and increases Russian technological capacity.  It is a no brainer

On contrary - it requires not only brain to foresee what is going to come but also  balls to counter us agents of influence and other HSE saboteurs.


Supersonic Tu-160 Strategic Bomber to Increase Russia's Military Capability

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150529/1022727375.html

Russia will considerably increase its arsenal of Tupolev Tu-160 ("White Swan") heavy strategic bombers, unique machines, able to attack its targets at high speeds, US journalist Zachary Keck pointed out. Citing Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev, the commander-in-chief of Russia's Air Force, American journalist Zachary Keck pointed out that Moscow is planning to dramatically boost its arsenal of Tupolev Tu-160 ("White Swan") heavy strategic bombers.

According to Bondarev, "no less than 50 aircraft over time will be purchased in order to cover the costs that will go into production." Currently only 15 Tu-160 strategic bombers remain in service, while about 35 Tu-160s were originally build, Keck noted, adding that by purchasing additional 50 aircraft the Russian Air Force will increase its bomber capabilities by almost 333 percent.


The supersonic strategic bomber with variable-sweep wings was designed in 1980s by Tupolev Design Bureau aircraft research and engineering company, currently known as Joint Stock Company Tupolev. The company claims that the Tu-160 is both the largest and the heaviest supersonic combat aircraft in the world, Keck underscored.  "[The Tu-160] is a perfectly capable nuclear bomber that, in time of war, would fold back its swan-like wings and dart toward its targets at top speed. Once in range, it would launch cruise missiles that would make the last part of their journey low and slow under enemy radar," highlighted Tom Nichols, Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College, as quoted by Keck.

Remarkably, both strategic bombers – the Tu-160 and the PAK DA – would be manufactured simultaneously, Keck emphasized, referring to Bondarev. In addition, Russia plans to further modernize the fifteen Tu-160s which are currently in service.

GarryB wrote:

I agree with serephonx, the Tu-160M thing is another honeypot for corrupt military-industrial officials, including the higher-ups close to Putin.
The Vostochny Cosmodrome episode was a travesty with hundreds of millions of dollars siphoned off.
Now for a repeat with the Tu-160Ms?

Yeah... it couldn't possibly be true that they have decided that the current gap before the PAK DA will be fully ready and operational means it is worth spending money now to make the Blackjack fleet a really viable force instead of the token force they currently are... 15 planes is OK for a short term stopgap, but if this is going to be a decade or more then making a few more in a brand new factory with all new modern tooling and the added bonus of a design upgrade... what is not to like?

After the end of the cold war all arms of the nuclear triad have been dramatically reduced in numbers and the Strategic bomber force is no exception... there is certainly no point in building 200 new Blackjacks... but building 50 should be affordable and make for a decent fleet size that will allow the early retirement of the Bear as a bomber/cruise missile carrier.
It means they can withdraw the Bear and its engines and systems from the inventory, which should save money and hopefully the new production Tu-160s will be redesigned to allow easier and simpler maintainence to reduce operational costs and improve performance.

New engine upgrades can be applied because the PAK DA will share a derivative engine so that money is not wasted on just 65 planes... right now it would be a waste of time and money for 15 planes.

That does make sense

But on the other hand, if they're going to really build 50 new Tu-160Ms - then what would be the point of the PAK-DA program?

The PAK-DA is the one that is designed to replace those Tu-95s after all, perhaps the Tu-22M3s too in some roles.
The Tu-95 design is old, but the current planes themselves were made in the 80s, and the aircraft is perfectly capable of fulfilling its role as you mentioned - so why can't they hang on until the PAK-DA is ready; even if they have to wait over another decade?

flamming_python wrote: But on the other hand, if they're going to really build 50 new Tu-160Ms - then what would be the point of the PAK-DA program?

The PAK-DA is the one that is designed to replace those Tu-95s after all, perhaps the Tu-22M3s too in some roles.
The Tu-95 design is old, but the current planes themselves were made in the 80s, and the aircraft is perfectly capable of fulfilling its role as you mentioned - so why can't they hang on until the PAK-DA is ready; even if they have to wait over another decade?

So they cannot coexist? Russia needs both nuclear triad and factories going and workers/engineers to be trained now not in distant future.

BTW after wiki

TU-22M
Russia

Russian Air Force – 93 in service as of December 2010.[26]
Russian Naval Aviation – 58 in use as of December 2010.[26]

Tu-95
Russian Air Force: 63 Tu-95MS strategic bombers. As of 2012, 55 of them are combat-ready.[24]

Tu-142
The Russian Naval Aviation had fifteen Tu-142s in service as of December 2010.[40]


summing up: 229, so 50 extra Tu-160M looks like nowhere near this number. Also take into consideration that strategic aviation objective is going be more and more to intercontinental force projection. My educated guess is min 100 PAK DA complete Tu 160Ms

they can if they wish to blow the budget and destroy country on military spending like ussr.

however a 2 engine tu-160 , bit smaller and fixed wing , a mix of tu-22 and tu-160 if you will , with lighter materials and larger fuel fraction so it can have about tu-160 range ,can be feasible in 50+ units.

Rmf wrote:they can if they wish to blow the budget and destroy country on military spending like ussr.

however a 2 engine tu-160 , bit smaller and fixed wing , a mix of tu-22 and tu-160 if you will , with lighter materials and larger fuel fraction so it can have about tu-160 range ,can be feasible in 50+ units.

So in Russia economy as always and different laws as anywhere else. In US spending and investment in R&D is good, has multipliers. In Russia no. Only export of raw materials allowing office plankton to feel as they were Europe. And of course all money give away to buy US T-bonds. As US agent of influence Kudrin says.

BTW USSR was blown mostly by policy of Gorbi and other US agents. Chinese example shown that ¨democratic opposition¨you need to address correct way otherwise you end up as slave on your own land polishing boots of US Marines.

Rmf wrote:they can if they wish to blow the budget and destroy country on military spending like ussr.

however a 2 engine tu-160 , bit smaller and fixed wing , a mix of tu-22 and tu-160 if you will , with lighter materials and larger fuel fraction so it can have about tu-160 range ,can be feasible in 50+ units.

This I like.

A smaller Tu-160 with dual engines could be Ideal. With modern metallurgy they managed to make aluminum as strong or close to strong like steel. They managed to do a lot with lightweight materials. They managed to make steel significantly lighter too. With such modern metalurgy technology in Russia, they could effectively make a bomber the size of Tu-22M with much greater ranges.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Rmf wrote:they can if they wish to blow the budget and destroy country on military spending like ussr.

however a 2 engine tu-160 , bit smaller and fixed wing , a mix of tu-22 and tu-160 if you will , with lighter materials and larger fuel fraction so it can have about tu-160 range ,can be feasible in 50+ units.

So  in Russia economy as always and different laws as anywhere else. In US spending and investment in R&D is good, has multipliers. In Russia no. Only export of raw materials allowing office plankton to feel as they were Europe. And of course all money give away to buy US T-bonds. As US agent of influence  Kudrin says.

BTW USSR was blown mostly by policy of  Gorbi and other US agents. Chinese example shown that ¨democratic opposition¨you need to address correct way otherwise you end up as slave on your own land polishing boots of US Marines.

listen kiddo this is not a parfume shop where you buy2 get 1 free. this are supersonic large military machines.

the more units the more maintenance and operational expences ,surprise surprise .
and more units reduces costs per unit a bit 10% ,but after some point very litttle.
and maintenance costs increase proportionaly .
save some in short time ,pay much more long term .
i already destroyed you in poland topic ,dont make this a habbit.

Rmf wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Rmf wrote:they can if they wish to blow the budget and destroy country on military spending like ussr.

however a 2 engine tu-160 , bit smaller and fixed wing , a mix of tu-22 and tu-160 if you will , with lighter materials and larger fuel fraction so it can have about tu-160 range ,can be feasible in 50+ units.

So  in Russia economy as always and different laws as anywhere else. In US spending and investment in R&D is good, has multipliers. In Russia no. Only export of raw materials allowing office plankton to feel as they were Europe. And of course all money give away to buy US T-bonds. As US agent of influence  Kudrin says.

BTW USSR was blown mostly by policy of  Gorbi and other US agents. Chinese example shown that ¨democratic opposition¨you need to address correct way otherwise you end up as slave on your own land polishing boots of US Marines.

listen kiddo this is not a parfume shop where you buy2 get 1 free. this are supersonic large military machines.

the more units the more maintenance and operational expences ,surprise surprise .
and more units reduces costs per unit a bit 10% ,but after some point very litttle.
and maintenance costs increase proportionaly .
save some in short time ,pay much more long term .
i already destroyed you in poland topic ,dont make this a habbit.

But soviet system is a lot different than modern day Russian system. In Soviet, people were paid similar and what was taxation? How would they get money back from investments? These days, there are private manufacturers as well as repair plants. Some of the money goes back to the system through taxations. So technically, there is an economical side of things, even when there are costs to repairs.

Rmf wrote:
the more units the more maintenance and operational expences ,surprise surprise .
and more units reduces costs per unit a bit 10% ,but after some point very litttle.
and maintenance costs increase proportionaly .
save some in short time ,pay much more long term .
i already destroyed you in poland topic ,dont make this a habbit.

If your knowledge of economy is matching your knowledge of history you´d better listen not talk.
If your PMS driven insults instead of historical facts you call discussion then you right i am not going to get to your level.

BTW Poland as Russia or Germany is spelled with - capital P. Education pays also in language skills. Boy

Lots of guesswork going on in this thread... and bound to continue as long as strictly nothing is known about the actual design of PAK-DA.
 
So let's keep on guessing. Mach 2 is a luxury from the 1980ies and will not be the goal. Stealth has been seriously compromised by the advent of passive radar technology and will not be the goal. New engines with fuel economy will be a priority because Tu-22 and Tu-160, while fabulously performant, are a bit on the thirsty side. The other priority will be a spacious internal bay that can accommodate far-reaching nuclear cigars or fat reconnaissance technology.

All in all, makes for a not-too-racy, not-too-spectacular looking plane. Tu-160 was the last of the superbombers. After the era of sexy Armageddon machines, it may be the age of the moderate workhorse concept.

And I just realize I have landed this post in the wrong thread.

I wouldn't treat this mention of 50 new Tu-160 as an absolute "word of god" fact.

There's an oppinion that the 50 number is connected to the engine makers statement that they would need an order for at least 200 new NK-32 engines to make production economically feasible.

Most analyst's are saying that the VVS needs about 30-40 Tu-160's to carry out expanded patrols. That's about 3 squadrons which includes existing aircraft....so another 15-20 new ones....they can then transition to the Pak-Da

proven, rugged rifle with no specific regime in barrel production though maybe is not better than designed rifles. It was destined for mass production and soldier job. Maybe if you have special quality regime for every part then maybe differnet

Out to 400m then 1 MOA is good enough and 0.2 MOA is just thousands of dollars going to waste.

With good ammo and someone who knows what they are doing and a $250 rifle can do the job a $10,000 rifle of the same calibre can do... and you can afford to deploy rather more $250 rifles.

Or in this case they already have Bears that are able to carry large numbers of cruise missiles... up to ten missiles of any size (ie Kh-55 and Kh-102/101) on their wings and 6 of the smaller missiles (Kh-55/-555) on an internal rotary bay.

That is four missiles more than a Blackjack, though it means subsonic flight all the way.... I don't think the target will notice...

But on the other hand, if they're going to really build 50 new Tu-160Ms - then what would be the point of the PAK-DA program?

The point of the PAK DA programme was the aging Bears needed replacing with something more modern and there weren't enough Blackjacks to replace the Bears.

With More Blackjacks then the need for PAK DA is reduced and can be delayed without problems so perhaps a more ambitious design could be aimed for... perhaps a supercruising flying wing with thrust vector control engines that will allow tailless supersonic flight... the ideal high speed aircraft with no tail surfaces for less drag and RCS...

The PAK-DA is the one that is designed to replace those Tu-95s after all, perhaps the Tu-22M3s too in some roles.
The Tu-95 design is old, but the current planes themselves were made in the 80s, and the aircraft is perfectly capable of fulfilling its role as you mentioned - so why can't they hang on until the PAK-DA is ready; even if they have to wait over another decade?

I don't have all the answers, but I suspect the new Blackjacks may have some redesigned features... heck they might even do away with the swing wing design like they did moving from the MiG-23 to the MiG-29 and the Su-17 to the Su-27...

With 50 more Tu-160s then the Bear can be relegated to other duties or even sold to foreign customers... they are not bad planes and they are not old planes... Perhaps a refit into EW and INT aircraft to supplement the Tu-142s...

New engines with fuel economy will be a priority because Tu-22 and Tu-160, while fabulously performant, are a bit on the thirsty side.

The PAK DA will use a related engine so production of 50 more blackjacks means further development of the engine is worthwhile as a further 200 engines will be needed... if they can be adapted to be used by the Tu-22M3 then all the better as costs will be reduced and better performance for both aircraft will be achieved.

Most analyst's are saying that the VVS needs about 30-40 Tu-160's to carry out expanded patrols. That's about 3 squadrons which includes existing aircraft....so another 15-20 new ones....they can then transition to the Pak-Da

the first number given.. . in this case 50 aircraft is often how many they would like to buy... what they can afford and what they actually need will be something different.

I suspect it all depends on how long they want to delay the PAK DA... if it is 10-15 years then it might be worth making major changes to the design... it large fixed wing transonic design with likely less emphasis on top speed (mach 2+) and more emphasis on supercruise increasing average speed... ie instead of a long subsonic cruise to the target area with a mach 2 ingress to launch position and then low level high subsonic retreat from the area back to a medium to high altitude subsonic cruise back to base, they might go for a supersonic nonAB cruise at say mach 1.6 all the way to the launch area and back... which would greatly reduce flight time without increasing fuel consumption enormously... but making the aircraft a much more difficult interception problem.

There's an oppinion that the 50 number is connected to the engine makers statement that they would need an order for at least 200 new NK-32 engines to make production economically feasible.

Adapting the NK-32 so it can be used in the  Tu-22M3 would expand the number of aircraft using it and reduce the number of different engine types in service and increase the numbers required.

with PAK DA using a variation of the engine I suspect the factory making them will have plenty of work for the near future.

Perhaps a variable cycle turbojet/ramjet version could be used in the MiG-41?

Perhaps an upgraded turboject/ramjet model could be used to allow operation with 2 or three engines in the new Blackjacks...

No Tu-160 anymore! Tu-160M2 is born. Production starts in 2023.



pls note: Bondarev had earlier said that both planes would be built in parallel. My educated guess is different objectives and or theaters.

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20150604/1068217405.html

ПАРИЖ, 4 июн — РИА Новости. Воспроизводство стратегических бомбардировщиков Ту-160 ожидается после 2023 года, заявил замглавы Министерства обороны РФ Юрий Борисов.
"По планам, скорее всего, после 2023 года. По сути дела, это новый самолет — не Ту-160, а Ту-160М2. С новыми летно-техническими характеристиками, с новыми возможностями. Это только планер будет старый, да и то — оцифрованный, а возможности у него будут совершенно новые", — сказал Борисов, отвечая на вопрос РИА Новости.
Ранее главнокомандующий Военно-воздушными силами РФ генерал-полковник Виктор Бондарев сообщил, что Минобороны России закупит не менее 50 новых стратегических бомбардировщиков-ракетоносцев Ту-160 "Белый лебедь", когда их производство будет возобновлено.

GarryB wrote: I suspect it all depends on how long they want to delay the PAK DA... if it is 10-15 years then it might be worth making major changes to the design... it large fixed wing transonic design with likely less emphasis on top speed (mach 2+) and more emphasis on supercruise increasing average speed... ie instead of a long subsonic cruise to the target area with a mach 2 ingress to launch position and then low level high subsonic retreat from the area back to a medium to high altitude subsonic cruise back to base, they might go for a supersonic non AB cruise at say mach 1.6 all the way to the launch area and back... which would greatly reduce flight time without increasing fuel consumption enormously... but making the aircraft a much more difficult interception problem.

IMHO Tu-160M2 number of Mach and ceiling will be increased. Otherwise what is the reason to build 2 similar bombers (wrt characteristics) . Something like MiG-41 vs MiG31. And difference between Swans will be to my guess similar to Su-27 and Su-35... If you check what deputy MoD Borisov said my guess might be actually close to reality.