Tu-160 "White Swan"

well it makes sense.... they found with the BMP-1 that the HE power of its main gun was useful in some situations, while the 30mm high velocity cannon of the BMP-2 was also useful for other purposes.

The result was that the BMP-3 had both a large calibre gun (100mm rifled) and a small calibre high rate of fire cannon (30mm).

In this case they have two strategic bombers... one old but reliable and dependable and being a long range cruise missile carrier perfectly able to do its job, and the other a much newer much faster aircraft able to do the same job and other jobs as well.

Clearly they want a new subsonic bomber with some stealth to get to places quietly and deliver a blow to anywhere in the world. They also want a faster bomber that likely can deliver a similar blow rather quicker... I suspect the higher speed bomber is not intended to penetrate enemy airspace as even ICBM warheads are not fast enough to do that, but it will likely be stealthy too and just able to get there faster...

People talk about 50x Tu-160 being expensive ,and that Russia could not afford them..
but thats because they ignore how much Russia waste in soviet military hardware ,that is
Not going to make Russia safer in case of a nuclear war .  

Russia mayor threat is not conventional weapons ,but US nuclear missiles deployed at their borders..with range that can reach Moscow.. and do a first strike nuclear attack. In other words ,
Russia mayor threat is a preventive first nuclear strike of AMericans.

So how much cost a Tu-160? 400millions? 4 crew ?

COmpare that with the cost an Slava cruiser ,maintainance cost with 500 crew?

One of them can be a deterrent to prevent a nuclear war.. the other can do shit.. it will do nothing.. is just a waste of money ,a conventional warship ,with conventional weapons ,that will
not Defend Russia and can only be used for Show and "protect" sea trade routes. That Russia don't need to protect at all since most of their trade can be done by land with Euro Asia.

A soviet slave destroyer is far more expensive than a Tu-160.. and Russia have near 12 of them.. with near 500 crew members each..  that is Floating coffins ,that stand NOT a chance
to survive in a nuclear attack. and Just one warship that you lose.. and you will have major
unrest in all Russia cities..for the 500 sailors killed.   Now compare that with the Tu-160?
Just 4 crew passenger.. and if hit by an enemy missile.. they have the opportunity to eject in
many cases and no loss of life at all of just very small loss of life..  

So people needs to compare what kind of benefits you get vs Risk vs price. By far a supersonic
Bomber is a million time better than any floating coffin that can be sent to the button of the sea with just a mine.  Russia could have a very strong long range tactical bomber squadron.. if knew how to better invest their money in things that are more practical for their needs.  

Just decommission all 12 destroyers/cruisers.. that will free from the payroll of 500x12 = 6,000 sailors and 12 generals/captains.. and alot of money in maintaince too.. and replace the destroyer with small coverttes  with just 20 sailors.. armed with antiship missiles and manpads launchers or Buks like launchers. Russia does not fight outside its borders and don't need such large warships in near future..

All surface warships are time bombs , and very vulnerable to mines ,torpedos ,submarines and antiships missiles. . Airplanes are far more mobile , and with electronic jamming they can evade
missiles. For the price/cost maintainance of 1 Destroyer ,Russia could maintain 5x-10x Tu-160.
And the bombers carry nukes and can fly in a couple of hours to any part of the world.. something destroyers cannot do.

So i really think Russia needs to seriously change their strategy.. get rid of those black holes
money suckers soviet warships . and get much more smaller ,cheaper and modern ones . A buyan class corvette can sink any NATO destroyer.  and a Tu-160 with just 1 missile can destroy hundreds of warships.

So i really think Russia should focus much more in streghtening their nuclear capable airforce
and not in their surface fleet.  Submarines are fine..there is no problem with them ..except that in baltic sea they are vulnerable to so many NATO spying ,cables and sensors underground and so many other warships..  In the pacific and artic is much better..

Ideally Russia should build as i said before Mesosphere bombers.. that can fly very hight altitude..50km to 60km altitude.  (SR-71 max altitude was 30k) To avoid planes interceptions.. If for example Russia had to fight Ukraine now.. they will have a big risk of their planes being shut down by S-300s and BUks and manpads.. With A mesosphere bomber Russia can stay away of range of most system of defenses in the world.. and not even US patriots defenses could shut it down.. and the only way to intercept them.. will be with very expensive Thaad missiles or something similar .. But ONLY if they are at war with Russia . this means that you cannot fire a Thaad missile against a Russian mesosphere bomber if they are traveling on international airspace..     and the bonus.. neither NATO combat planes ,neither F-22 will have a chance to chance to intercept them..    

Mesosphere Bombers is the holy grail in nation defense ,that Russia needs. not even needs to be hypersonic.. Subsonic or supersonic will be fine. Russia could for example send 10 mesosphere bombers towards New York coast.. just 10km distance of territorial space..armed with nukes.. and do patrols every day..  This will allow Russia to be totally in control of US airspace ,since will have a huge advantage in case of any preventive attack.. The psicological impact also will be huge..

It will be comparable to having a sniper rifle ..climbing a mountain and pointing at your enemy house. and be withing reach of an easy direct hit of your enemy windows and doors. This means
RUssia can hit first and with strategic deadly accuracy at any place they want..in US territory
and withing few minutes.  and the mesosphere bombers could be used to shut down satellites .
you can spray with paint the solar panels of any sattelite and it will collapse to the ground in days when battery discharge.   And the owners of the satellite will never know what happened. In short Russia needs to dominate near space orbit if it wants to take a whole new level its nuclear deterrence capabilities.. This could also be used in conventional wars..
for example Russia can use Mesosphere bombers over Ukraine ,to supply 24 hours real time imaging of the artillery positions of Ukraine army to the rebels and as evidence of they being the ones violating the cease of fire..  The uses of high altitude bombers are as big as the invention of combat jets. When there was nothing in the ground to counter them.

Unfortunately for the Russian Government , US_NASA is already testing a similar thing.. is called X-37B ..  make no mistake that is not for tourism or traveling to the ISS as they claim ,but a space ship with weapons.. that could be used to shut down satelites of Russia and CHina and can be configure to carry nuclear weapons and strike any part of Russia withing a couple of minutes.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121123-secrets-of-us-military-spaceplane

Oh yeah i can hear people saying but.. but.. but Russia is developing S-500..  so ?
Can Russia shut down the X-37b in time of peace ?  this is the problem here.. you cannot
intercept anything in space unless you are at war with that nation already.. You cannot know
if the bomber is just testing near space flight or if is preparing to do a nuclear strike on Russia until is too late.. and this is what will be the greatest threat to Russia security .. the first strike nuclear capability ..  With a nuclear first strike capability for example you could decapitate a nation leadership ,and significantly decrease its capability of that nation to organize and retaliate in a way that will defeat the nation. That is because the Russian enemies will have a positional advantage , and Russia will be caught by surprise.

is so sad that Russia is thinking in primitive ways.. always 3 step behind americans. when it comes to first nuclear strike attack. and Russia will be at least a decade behind in nuclear first strike capabilities of americans. Until they start building High altitude Mesosphere bombers..  and if that wasn't bad enough , those high altitude bombers could be used as Mid course interceptors of ICBMs.. or for sabotage missions of Russia space program or shut down satelites that could be used to guide nuclear missiles...   I think is time for Russia to start thinking in High Altitude Bombers..  Just 10 of them will shut down NATo military bases in Europe in just 2-3 minutes before they know what hit them.. Because the trajectory of the missiles launched by the bombers will not be ballistic.. instead from top to down..it will be far more difficult to defend against them.

IF they stop wasting money is conventional destroyers they will have more than enough money
for at least a dozen of mesosphere bombers with multipurpose capabilities and near unlimited uses.

a much cheaper alternative.. could be.. if Americans deploys bombers in near space armed with nukes.. or break the treaty of medium range cruise missiles with nuclear weapons in Europe..
Russia can counter it.. by moving 20% of their nukes to space... that is mini Mir modules armed with nukes in space.. So if they feel a nuclear war will happen and they cannot avoid it .. they launch their nukes from space towards its targets.. because of the trajectory ,they cannot be intercepted mid course ,since will not travel parallel to earth but near vertical and the launching of the missile will not be detected since can be launched slowly accelerating by gravity .

Vann7 wrote:People talk about 50x Tu-160 being expensive ,and that Russia could not afford them..
but thats because they ignore how much Russia waste in soviet military hardware ,that is


http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121123-secrets-of-us-military-spaceplane

Oh yeah i can hear people saying but.. but.. but Russia is developing S-500..  so ?
Can Russia shut down the X-37b in time of peace ?  this is the problem here.. you cannot
intercept anything in space unless you are at war with that nation already.. You cannot know
if the bomber is just testing near space flight or if is preparing to do a nuclear strike on Russia until is too late.. and this is what will be the greatest threat to Russia security .. the first strike nuclear capability ..  With a nuclear first strike capability for example you could decapitate a nation leadership ,and significantly decrease its capability of that nation to organize and retaliate in a way that will defeat the nation. That is because the Russian enemies will have a positional advantage , and Russia will be caught by surprise.

So Ayax back? IMHO not yet but Tu can fly regularly on patrols over Pacific and escape any time any of US fighter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaks


IMHO Tu-160M2 will be faster, flying higher just to deliver hypersonic missiles with warheads bringing lotsa of warmth. Kinda Gazprom like but not tubes needed

[quote="GunshipDemocracy"]

Vann7 wrote:
So Ayax back? IMHO not yet but Tu can fly regularly on patrols over Pacific and escape any time any of US fighter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaks


IMHO Tu-160M2 will be faster, flying higher just to deliver hypersonic missiles with warheads bringing lotsa of warmth. Kinda Gazprom like but not tubes needed

Hypersonic planes will be really nice.. but the are more expensive..and people here will lecture you how impossible and not practical they will be for Russia  So i pick something much more realistic for them , that is high altitude bombers.. and navigate in near zero gravity. Where
speed is not important but to maintain altitude and carry nukes is..They will be bombers that will be able to stay a year on space if the cosmonaut resist that much.. and be the eyes of Russia from space..of any nuclear attack and retaliate.

Russia definitively needs to find a way to move many of its nuclear arsenal and store it in space. and with the capability to launch them from there with precision at any target on earth. thats the only thing that will force americans to back down its mini shuttle bomber project and to not deploy nuclear cruise missiles near Russian territory..

Anyway do they have said the altitude of the Tu-160m2 and its speed? will it be stealthy?
i don't think it will be , otherwise will have a different number. it looks more like upgraded
avionics ,new engine and new weapons.. which is not bad.. but not as game changing
as a near space orbit bomber. that could fly at twice the altitude of SR-71.. ie from 30km..
to 60km. Space orbit start at 100km.. and the space station is at 300km..

The 60km mark is nice ,because keeps it away of Patriots missiles range..
and away of US Aegis that only operates at higher altitudes with gravity zero... and could only be intercepted with nukes and or US failed intermediate ground space defenses. that they only have deployed in main land in limited numbers. it means it will fly supreme in most of NATO . probably only France have missiles that can intercept maneuverable planes at that altitude but not sure...

Vann7 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Vann7 wrote:
So Ayax back? IMHO not yet but Tu can fly regularly on patrols over Pacific and escape any time any of US fighter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaks


IMHO Tu-160M2 will be faster, flying higher just to deliver hypersonic missiles with warheads bringing lotsa of warmth. Kinda Gazprom like but not tubes needed

Hypersonic planes will be really nice.. but the are more expensive..and people here will lecture you how impossible and not practical they will be for Russia  So i pick something much more realistic for them , that is high altitude bombers.. and navigate in near zero gravity. Where
speed is not important but to maintain altitude and carry nukes is..They will be bombers that will be able to stay a year on space if the cosmonaut resist that much.. and be the eyes of Russia from space..of any nuclear attack and retaliate.

Russia definitively needs to find a way to move many of its nuclear arsenal and store it in space. and with the capability to launch them from there with precision at any target on earth. thats the only thing that will force americans to back down its mini shuttle bomber project and to not deploy nuclear cruise missiles near Russian territory..

Answer might be simpler - Sarmat + FOBS
BTW without upgrade max ceiling for Tu-160 is (after wiki)
The operating ceiling, m 21 765m
add couple more till 30 and 3Ma speed and you got almost what you asked for

But I am sure Tu will sever as powerful deterrence - being able to reach HQ where all Soroses, Nulands and Zbigs hide. Then no war is considered by US. Fr elites US folk are almost same expandable as EU ones

30km altitude is not enough.. Migs-25 (who fly at 25km altitude ) armed with medium range missiles can shut down planes there. You need no less than 40km altitude and to play safe 50km..at least, but i will be happy with 40km. The SR-71 was flying for example at 25k to 30km.

it will be funny if NATO countries, resort to use Mig-25 planes to intercept Russia Bombers.. lol
Because is the only plane that exist in some NATo countries ,that could be used to try interception at beyond 30k altitudes in combinations with long range missiles.

Vann7 wrote:

30km altitude is not enough.. Migs-25 (who fly at 25km altitude ) armed with medium range missiles can shut down planes there. You need no less than 40km altitude and to play safe 50km..at least, but i will be happy with 40km.  The SR-71 was flying for example at 25k to 30km.

it will be funny if NATO countries, resort to use Mig-25 planes to intercept Russia Bombers.. lol
Because is the only plane that exist in some NATo countries ,that could be used to try interception at beyond 30k altitudes in combinations with long range missiles.

add 3Ma strong EW and most of NATO fighters and AA systems is not enough capable... I believe in Tu-160M2

The world record altitude for a fixed wing jet powered aircraft is 30km... operational ceilings are much much lower... 20km for MiG-25 and MiG-31.. and the SR-71 was not ideal for high altitude operations because of its shape... it generates a lot of body lift, but at high altitude the chines on the sides of the fuselage don't generate as much lift and it becomes rather nose heavy and unstable... the U-2 was the high altitude aircraft... the Sr-71 was the speed queen.

As far as I know, the material science and engineering for creating a plane which can sustain level flight at 50km still does not exist.

The air pressure at that altitude is microscopic, a thirtieth of what it is at 20km (about a thousandth of what it is at sea level). So you either need a something like an SR-71 with 30 times the lift surface, or give it engines which can propel it at something in the region of 15,000+ km/h.

Even if we had the ability to produce a huge airframe tough enough to resist the turbulence stresses at 3,500 kph, it would take too much fuel just to get it up to its service ceiling let alone cruise there. Neither is it currently possible to manufacture a leading edge material capable of long-term endurance against the plasma created by even low order hypersonic speeds. Remember we are talking about sustained flight, not ballistic re-entry, which is why the accumulated heating effects of the plasma sheath are so destructive.

GarryB wrote:The world record altitude for a fixed wing jet powered aircraft is 30km... operational ceilings are much much lower... 20km for MiG-25 and MiG-31.. and the SR-71 was not ideal for high altitude operations because of its shape... it generates a lot of body lift, but at high altitude the chines on the sides of the fuselage don't generate as much lift and it becomes rather nose heavy and unstable... the U-2 was the high altitude aircraft... the Sr-71 was the speed queen.

Not really..

U-2
Service ceiling: 70,000+ ft (21,300+ m)

SR-71
Service ceiling: 85,000 ft (25,900 m)

So speed and altitude leader was the SR-71..
The last one could flight up to 30km for small periods..

NATO planes for comparison used to harass Russian Airforce on international airspace are
F-16s ,F-22s and EuroFighters and Gripens.. with a flying max altitude of 20k. and perhaps could go to 22k for small seconds after plane stalling.

If Russia had a Modern Bomber capable to carry tactical nukes and that could fly
at 40km altitude atleast. NATO will be unable to ...

-Unable to keep in check the planes.. so called friendly interception/chase of the planes
-It will be away of Any american or NATO air defense.
-it will be away of Aegis defense.
-and it will be required special very expensive High Altitude Missiles like ,that very few nations have.. and only have them in the limited numbers.. in the few dozens. Like Thaad or Arrow3.
and that you cannot use in time of peace ,if a plane is flying on international airspace.

A couple dozen of such bombers ,,,~20 or 25..
Could truly threaten the balance of Power ,and give Russia the nuclear deterrence they need ,and allow Russia to target withing 2 minutes in case of a first preventive strike either nuclear or conventional any military base or Capital of any nation around the world.
If the plane comes armed with counter defenses ,somelike like active protection EMP projectiles ,decoys and electronic Jamming to block the guidance of any interceptor ,it will be even more embarrassing for the nation trying to intercept them in case of war.   It will truly allow Russia to rule the skies and have the edge in any war.. and priceless for real time monitoring of enemy movements inside its territory and from safe distance.

Teshub wrote:As far as I know, the material science and engineering for creating a plane which can sustain level flight at 50km still does not exist.

The air pressure at that altitude is microscopic, a thirtieth of what it is at 20km (about a thousandth of what it is at sea level). So you either need a something like an SR-71 with 30 times the lift surface, or give it engines which can propel it at something in the region of 15,000+ km/h.

Even if we had the ability to produce a huge airframe tough enough to resist the turbulence stresses at 3,500 kph, it would take too much fuel just to get it up to its service ceiling let alone cruise there. Neither is it currently possible to manufacture a leading edge material capable of long-term endurance against the plasma created by even low order hypersonic speeds. Remember we are talking about sustained flight, not ballistic re-entry, which is why the accumulated heating effects of the plasma sheath are so destructive.

If the technology don't exist.. they could try even higher altitudes.. where there is zero gravity.
however at that altitude it will be on the domain of Aegies SM-3 defenses. Still it will be good Bomber, you could have it for months orbiting space armed with conventional weapons or tactical nukes.. The later will break nuclear treaties.. but already US is moving in that direction..
so Russia have nothing to lose and a lot to win.

On a side note is interesting your information.... i used to believe Iskanders could sustain
flight at 50km... basically if that was the case.. All Russia needs is to work from there..
attach wings to an iskander missile and try to get a plane from there.. perhaps using nuclear
propulsion.   Soviets developed nuclear propulsion normal altitude bombers  a decade or two earlier than americans.. but the radiation was a problem.. maybe today there can deal better
with the problem.

Vann7 wrote:

Not really..

U-2
Service ceiling: 70,000+ ft (21,300+ m)

SR-71
Service ceiling: 85,000 ft (25,900 m)

So speed and altitude leader was the SR-71..
The last one could flight up to 30km for small periods..

NATO planes for comparison used to harass Russian Airforce on international airspace are
F-16s ,F-22s and EuroFighters and Gripens.. with a flying max altitude of 20k. and perhaps could go to 25k for small seconds after plane stalling.

If Russia had a Modern Bomber capable to carry tactical nukes and that could fly
at 40km altitude atleast. NATO will be unable to ...

-Unable to keep in check the planes.. so called friendly interception/chase of the planes
-It will be away of Any american or NATO air defense.
-it will be away of Aegis defense.
-and it will be required special very expensive High Altitude Missiles like ,that very few nations have.. and only have them in the limited numbers.. in the few dozens. Like Thaad or Arrow3.
and that you cannot use in time of peace ,if a plane is flying on international airspace.

A couple dozen of such bombers ,,,~20 or 25..
Could truly threaten the balance of Power ,and give Russia the nuclear deterrence they need ,and allow Russia to target withing 2 minutes in case of a first preventive strike either nuclear or conventional any military base or Capital of any nation around the world.
If the plane comes armed with counter defenses ,somelike like active protection EMP projectiles ,decoys and electronic Jamming to block the guidance of any interceptor ,it will be even more embarrassing for the nation trying to intercept them in case of war.   It will truly allow Russia to rule the skies and have the edge in any war.. and priceless for real time monitoring of enemy movements inside its territory and from safe distance.

Earlier I provided with wiki info about service ceiling of Tu-160 on 21,500m. If this is true then Patriots have 20km...if you add a bit more ceiling and speed envelopes for US AAD will shrink drastically. Besides Raptor Tu-160 is way to to fast for any of NATO/US fighters. So 12 constantly patrolling Arctic and mid of Pacific can be good deterred, especially having 12 hypersonic nuked missiles in bomb bays. 12x12 144 warheads in Arctic and 144 in pacific- Not bad for rime of tensions.

Time of flight 7-8 Ma is 30 min you have US and Canadian coastal in reach.

Vann7 wrote: If the technology don't exist.. they could try even higher altitudes.. where there is zero gravity.
however at that altitude it will be on the domain of Aegies SM-3 defenses. Still it will be good Bomber, you could have it for months orbiting space armed with conventional weapons or tactical nukes.. The later will break nuclear treaties.. but already US is moving in that direction..
so Russia have nothing to lose and a lot to win.

On a side note is interesting your information.... i used to believe Iskanders could sustain
flight at 50km... basically if that was the case.. All Russia needs is to work from there..
attach wings to an iskander missile and try to get a plane from there.. perhaps using nuclear
propulsion.   Soviets developed nuclear propulsion normal altitude bombers  a decade or two earlier than americans.. but the radiation was a problem.. maybe today there can deal better
with the problem.

and FOBS is not better option ? nuclear bomber of Ajaks revival (with Shoigu I cannot exclude this option is long way. Just fast 160M2 with ceiling and speed can shrink time or reaction and just escape from most potential dangers. AAD envelopes smaller and ighter s slower.

Vann7 wrote:On a side note is interesting your information.... i used to believe Iskanders could sustain
flight at 50km... basically if that was the case.. All Russia needs is to work from there..
attach wings to an iskander missile and try to get a plane from there.. perhaps using nuclear
propulsion.

It can survive the cruise at hypersonic speed because it has such a short flight time - something in the region of about 200 seconds at max range for an Iskander-M, just over 3 minutes. The missile likely has an ablative graphite nose and enough insulation to survive long enough to reach its target. Plus I also believe the Iskander has to slow to supersonic speed for final stage targeting, since a hypersonic plasma sheath blocks a lot of EM frequencies and the intense heat will saturate the optical sensor.

You can't build a plane to do the same thing, unless of course its only designed to make one flight in its life.

Not really..

U-2
Service ceiling: 70,000+ ft (21,300+ m)

The U-2s operational parameters are secret in the US... the only real figures we can go by are the figures released by the Soviets they actually recorded as the U-2s flew over... and they report 80,000ft.

SR-71
Service ceiling: 85,000 ft (25,900 m)

Its operational characteristics were also secret, but were known to be lower in sustained altitude than the U-2.

So speed and altitude leader was the SR-71..
The last one could flight up to 30km for small periods..

Bullshit.

The world altitude record for a jet propelled aircraft (as opposed to a rocket propelled one) was held by the MiG-25 and was 100,000 ft or so... that was about 30km... and it was zoom climb... not sustained and without AAMs.

Just fast 160M2 with ceiling and speed can shrink time or reaction and just escape from most potential dangers. AAD envelopes smaller and ighter s slower.

No amount of altitude will protect you from SAMs or interceptor fighters, and speed is just useful in performing your mission better... if an ICBM warhead can't evade SAM air defence systems then there is no point in trying to make a bomber that is fast enough or high enough... it is just a waste of money.

On the other hand if the extra speed to to deliver the weapons faster/earlier, then why not.

If supercuising can be added the average flight time can be greatly reduced even if peak speed is no higher.

GarryB wrote:

Just fast 160M2 with ceiling and speed can shrink time or reaction and just escape from most potential dangers. AAD envelopes smaller and ighter s slower.

No amount of altitude will protect you from SAMs or interceptor fighters, and speed is just useful in performing your mission better... if an ICBM warhead can't evade SAM air defence systems then there is no point in trying to make a bomber that is fast enough or high enough... it is just a waste of money.

On the other hand if the extra speed to to deliver the weapons faster/earlier, then why not.

If supercuising can be added the average flight time can be greatly reduced even if peak speed is no higher.

I meant that Tu will not to escape but surely envelope of AAD missiles will be smaller comparing for relatively slow and plane on low altitude. Would you agree?

Below just one of first Tu designs for Tu-160, not accepted though.



and here a bit of Russian bomber history.

http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/tupolev/tu-160/book/page_1_1.htm

Well I'd assume they would use a similar model to PAKFA, potentially using a more basic engine in early testing while the best engine they can get will be used for final production models. Since PAKDAtP is supposed to use a derivative/upgrade of the the NK-321 used in revamped Tu-160, it will be that much simpler a transition, more akin to Su-35 engines being a development of Su-27 engines... And the improvements for PAKDA can likely be applied to Tu-160 when the relevant part would wear our/be replaced normally per schedule...

This is a bit confusing as the NK-32 engines of the Tu-160 are 25 ton thrust turbojets designed for mach 2 flight, while the PAK DA is supposed to be a subsonic flying wing.

I suspect adapting the NK-32 so that it becomes simpler and lighter and more powerful but also much more fuel efficient can be applied directly to new model Tu-160s and that non afterburning models could be fitted to a subsonic flying wing in reduced numbers.

So a flying wing of similar weight to the Tu-160 or slightly heavier will likely have lower drag and therefore only perhaps need two engines based on the NK-32 to get to transonic speeds... perhaps the addition of thrust vector control could allow supersonic flight for a flying wing without a tail structure and that it could be the worlds first supercruising heavy bomber...

Certainly upgraded NK-32s would be valuable to the new build Tu-160s and old model Tu-160s as well as the remaining Tu-22M3Ms.

If it can allow supercruising it might even have potential as a power plant for the MiG-41...

GarryB wrote:This is a bit confusing as the NK-32 engines of the Tu-160 are 25 ton thrust turbojets designed for mach 2 flight, while the PAK DA is supposed to be a subsonic flying wing.

I suspect adapting the NK-32 so that it becomes simpler and lighter and more powerful but also much more fuel efficient can be applied directly to new model Tu-160s and that non afterburning models could be fitted to a subsonic flying wing in reduced numbers.

So a flying wing of similar weight to the Tu-160 or slightly heavier will likely have lower drag and therefore only perhaps need two engines based on the NK-32 to get to transonic speeds... perhaps the addition of thrust vector control could allow supersonic flight for a flying wing without a tail structure and that it could be the worlds first supercruising heavy bomber...

Certainly upgraded NK-32s would be valuable to the new build Tu-160s and old model Tu-160s as well as the remaining Tu-22M3Ms.

If it can allow supercruising it might even have potential as a power plant for the MiG-41...

If one looks at the other flying wing bomber, the B-2, we can see that it uses 4 engines of around 8000kg thrust.

2 NK-32 engines, currently unmodified, push out a dry thrust without afterburning in roughly the same class as the 4 engines of the B-2.
I'd imagine that a development of the NK-32 core in non-afterburning would end up pushing the same, or more, as 2 of the F-118's used on the B-2, so you may be right on that.

And of course, a developed core NK-32 could also then hopefully be fitted with afterburners and replace existing NK-32 engines on the Tu-160, as they wear out.

I guess all will be revealed in good time...

Can the burned fuel smoke to be use as a kind of propulsion?

And of course, a developed core NK-32 could also then hopefully be fitted with afterburners and replace existing NK-32 engines on the Tu-160, as they wear out.

If they make more Blackjacks and also keep the Backfire in service I would love to see both aircraft benefit from engine technology improvements... even if it is just a 30% increase in thrust and a 20% reduction in fuel consumption and a 25% reduction in dry weight... 

They could convert the Tu-23M3 into a long range interceptor, with reinstalled inflight refuelling, huge AESA, and conformal positions for R-37Ms all over its belly.... 

Can the burned fuel smoke to be use as a kind of propulsion?

No.