Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
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?
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.
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.
Firebird wrote: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The Bear is massively outdated.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
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?
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.
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).
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.
. 
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.
but actually the Mosin Nagant is essentially equal to the current bolt-action sniper rifle nowadays.higurashihougi wrote:
Sorry for an
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.
kvs wrote:
Spending money on the Tu-160 stimulates Russia's GDP and increases Russian technological capacity. It is a no brainer
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.
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?
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.
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.
listen kiddo this is not a parfume shop where you buy2 get 1 free. this are supersonic large military machines.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.
. Rmf wrote:listen kiddo this is not a parfume shop where you buy2 get 1 free. this are supersonic large military machines.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.
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:
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
kvs