Tu-160 "White Swan"

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

sepheronx wrote:People didnt believe in pak fa either. And here we are.

Pak Da will end up replacing Tu-22M as that plane is also getting old and will need replacement eventually.

40 Tu-22 and 60 Tu-95 need to be replaced by something new so PAK DA is surely needed.

I thought there is more Tu22Ms in service than 40, Flightglobal says 70 in their "Special report - world airfroces" for 2015.

Tu95s can be replaced with that still unconfirmed production of Tu160M2 since they have same role, Tu22Ms however would require new platform for direct replacement. They tho might end up being indirectly replaced by two platfroms of different class Su34s and Tu160M/M2s might end up being only bombers in RuAF if PAK DA does not happen.

Berkut wrote:

GarryB wrote:Are you sure it has been removed and is not just using a more retractable system?

With the number of new glide bombs and the potential to carry sat guided bombs rather cheaply I wonder why they would take away the ability to carry bombs...

What platform will carry the FOABs and other very heavy bombs like the FAB-9000 and FAB-5000 and FAB-3000?

Seems to me to be a little short sighted.

We will see what they will do with Tu-160M2 but for the current modernized ones they are limited to Kh-55/555 and Kh-101. Which frankly is exactly as it always was.

The way i see it, PAK-DA is dead.

Angara, T-50, Gorshkov frigate, Lada Vesta, Vostochni Spaceport etc, etc, etc..... all dead...

Re-write your message just a tad more dramatic and twist my words some more.

Considering they want 50+ of Tu-160M2's and each are rumored to cost 400+ million USD and PAK-DA is delayed "post 2023" instead of being operational by then (thanks to Tu-160M2) i don't see how it will survive.

We will see what they will do with Tu-160M2 but for the current modernized ones they are limited to Kh-55/555 and Kh-101. Which frankly is exactly as it always was.

The way i see it, PAK-DA is dead.

Well if what you say is correct (an no bomb capability for Tu-160M or Tu-106M2) then that logically means the Su-34 and Tu-22M3M will be the bomb trucks, which means you are likely wrong and that the PAK DA becomes critical to replace the Backfire in the theatre bombing role.

I suspect the PAK DA will actually be designed to carry large payloads internally including the FOAB as well as a large internal load of guided bombs... in addition to cruise missiles.

I suspect the Blackjack will remain the cruise missile carrier and the Bear and Backfire will be replaced by the bomb carrying PAK DA.

What is the point of stealth if you are carrying 5,000km range cruise missiles?

Considering they want 50+ of Tu-160M2's and each are rumored to cost 400+ million USD and PAK-DA is delayed "post 2023" instead of being operational by then (thanks to Tu-160M2) i don't see how it will survive.

It will survive by offering a capability they are clearly removing from the Tu-160.

If the Tu-160 kept its bomb carrying capacity then there would be little reason to make the PAK DA.

Despite its stealth design I suspect the PAK DA will be the cheap subsonic bomber... a bit like the Tu-95 is now but with bombs and cruise missiles rather than just cruise missiles, and with the bombs the ability to perform theatre missions as well as strategic missions.

But Shoigu said test flights by 2019. How does a project get delayed past 2023 if it was supposed to be in pre-production phase by 2019.

OminousSpudd wrote:But Shoigu said test flights by 2019. How does a project get delayed past 2023 if it was supposed to be in pre-production phase by 2019.

new technologies to be yet developed? requirements updated? or maybe Tu-160M2 can be a testbed for new avionics/coatings/engines?

Not to mention about carrying missions where endurance and stealthiness not speed is important factor?

according to TV Zvezda Tu-160s used kh-101 cruise missiles against ISIS targets in Syria

http://tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/content/201512091632-75ll.htm

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:But Shoigu said test flights by 2019. How does a project get delayed past 2023 if it was supposed to be in pre-production phase by 2019.

new technologies to be yet developed? requirements updated? or maybe Tu-160M2 can be a testbed for new avionics/coatings/engines?

Not to mention about carrying missions where endurance and stealthiness not speed is important factor?

I guess it would have to specifically come down to the Tu-160M2s. If the PAK DA's pre-production prototypes were extended past 2023 due to a change in its mission statement, you'd be talking a pretty radical change.

OminousSpudd wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:But Shoigu said test flights by 2019. How does a project get delayed past 2023 if it was supposed to be in pre-production phase by 2019.

new technologies to be yet developed? requirements updated? or maybe Tu-160M2 can be a testbed for new avionics/coatings/engines?

Not to mention about carrying missions where endurance and stealthiness not speed is important factor?

I guess it would have to specifically come down to the Tu-160M2s. If the PAK DA's pre-production prototypes were extended past 2023 due to a change in its mission statement, you'd be talking a pretty radical change.  

Even if PAK DA dies now, it will eventually come around as future unmanned strategic bomber at least some ideas from it.

OminousSpudd wrote: guess it would have to specifically come down to the Tu-160M2s. If the PAK DA's pre-production prototypes were extended past 2023 due to a change in its mission statement, you'd be talking a pretty radical change.

That´s one of probable explantions - say PAK "Armata" , a quantum leap in bomber technology. the other explanation is much simpler: so many new technologies must be developed and "mature" an with constrains of limited means that time must be extended. Then deterrence priorities are now put on Tu-160M2. For other tasks than strategic deterrence Tu-95&Tu-22 life will be extended.

Militarov wrote: Even if PAK DA dies now, it will eventually come around as future unmanned strategic bomber at least some ideas from it.

I guess "pilotless" option can be included in PAK DA for dangerous/one way missions.

Aren't strategic bombers the most expensive platforms generally? Look at the B1 and B2 programmes. I would quite imagine that the Tu-160 was probably the most expensive platform from the Soviet Union.

As stated before, an additional reason, as well as those good ones given above, is that the US is currently also in the early stages of a new bomber design.
It might make sense to also keep an eye out on what the other guy is doing, which might refine the direction you yourself might take, hence a small delay of a few years.
It might or might not be the case, but it is worth considering. They might come up with some good ideas, and others that turn out to be silly.
These new bomber programmes are always eye-wateringly expensive, so getting it right within the context of what the opposition is doing seems a logical thing to do.

OminousSpudd wrote:But Shoigu said test flights by 2019. How does a project get delayed past 2023 if it was supposed to be in pre-production phase by 2019.

2019 was thrown around for PAK-DA before all this Tu-160M2 nonsense. It was never realistic. Tu-160M2 was always 2023.

But Shoigu said test flights by 2019. How does a project get delayed past 2023 if it was supposed to be in pre-production phase by 2019.

Depends on the decision with putting the Tu-160M2 into production... if they do do that then it takes pressure off the PAK DA.

The Tu-95 is able to do the job fine but it is not a new design.

The Tu-160 is also able to do the job fine but is more expensive to operate and maintain and there are simply not enough of them to be a viable force.


The Tu-22M3M is not part of this discussion because it cannot perform strategic missions, but becomes related when you recognise that it also needs replacing too.

The question is... do you replace all three with the PAK DA, or restart production of the Tu-160 and use that and the PAK DA.

The question that has been answered... why bother with PAK DA at all when you are going to be building more Blackjacks why not replace all three aircraft (Tu-22/95/160M) with Tu-160M2?

If Tu-160M and Tu-160M2 don't have bomb capability then a bomber is needed.

Restarting production of Tu-160 will take time and money which will delay everything but will allow for instance the potential for the PAK DA to use some new emerging techologies.... like expanded widebody design for a large volume flying wing shape... even variable cycle jet engine that can operate in scramjet mode for high speed flight, and indeed photonic radar technology.

But Shoigu said test flights by 2019. How does a project get delayed past 2023 if it was supposed to be in pre-production phase by 2019.

Or even a more sophisticated wing shape allowing a fixed wing design with perhaps warping technology to allow variable lift without conventional wing surface controls...

Aren't strategic bombers the most expensive platforms generally? Look at the B1 and B2 programmes. I would quite imagine that the Tu-160 was probably the most expensive platform from the Soviet Union.

Even per weapon delivered I suspect the nuclear subs would be the most expensive... including bases...

Now that they have been given upgrades I rather suspect the strategic bombers will have rather more practical use in conventional wars with conventional weapons... not something you can say for an SSBN or ICBM field.

2019 was thrown around for PAK-DA before all this Tu-160M2 nonsense. It was never realistic. Tu-160M2 was always 2023.

I rather suspect some department in Tupolev has always been working on new technology designs and wing/fuselage designs and propulsion configurations.

I rather suspect they have supercomputers and software that would allow thousands of designs to be prototype tested in a few hours... with the most promising models just a 3D printer and a wind tunnel away from a test...

I suspect their might be issues with the US likely to demand any PAK DA to be counted as a strategic bomber even if it is a joint strategic/theatre bomber which will effect deployable numbers.

GarryB wrote:

Aren't strategic bombers the most expensive platforms generally? Look at the B1 and B2 programmes. I would quite imagine that the Tu-160 was probably the most expensive platform from the Soviet Union.

Even per weapon delivered I suspect the nuclear subs would be the most expensive... including bases...

Now that they have been given upgrades I rather suspect the strategic bombers will have rather more practical use in conventional wars with conventional weapons... not something you can say for an SSBN or ICBM field.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant aviation platforms.

http://eng.itogi2015.mil.ru/quality2015

REPORT ON RESULTS ON THE RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTRY ACTIVITIES FOR 2015

This year, the Strategic Nuclear Air Force has been equipped with 10 modernized aircraft, including 2 Tu-160, 3 Tu-95MS, and 5 Tu-22M3.

Shoigu: resuming production of the Tu-160 is a priority

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20160202/1368663568.html

franco wrote:

George1 wrote:5th modernized Tu-160M.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1707137.html

Read the other day that there are only 30 some Tu-95MS's still active. Had read at one point last year there were 43 left in action. That would explain the reports of only 80 bombers to be modernized by the end of 2020 (~ 15 Tu-160, 35 Tu-95MS and 30 Tu-22M3). Not a lot of info out there on this subject.

They should update all Tu-22M's to newest. These bombers would be ideal. Work with Tu-160 and phase out the Bear altogether.

sepheronx wrote:

franco wrote:

George1 wrote:5th modernized Tu-160M.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1707137.html

Read the other day that there are only 30 some Tu-95MS's still active. Had read at one point last year there were 43 left in action. That would explain the reports of only 80 bombers to be modernized by the end of 2020 (~ 15 Tu-160, 35 Tu-95MS and 30 Tu-22M3). Not a lot of info out there on this subject.

They should update all Tu-22M's to newest.  These bombers would be ideal.  Work with Tu-160 and phase out the Bear altogether.

I disagree strongly. The Tu-95 main drawcard is its stupendous operating range (~15,000km unrefuelled) making it an unrivalled platform for maritime patrol, and has an unparalleled loiter time when used as a strike bomber with long range ALCMs. The Tu-160 has about 12,000-ish km range and is simply too valuable to waste its engine hours on maritime patrol. The Tu-22M is under 7,000 km so its useful as a medium range tactical bomber or a fast-reaction maritime strike bomber but is next to useless for patrolling the open seas.

The PAK-DA of course will likely be an entirely different story....

I have to agree with Big Gazza here... many look at the bear and its propellers and think WWII bomber... in fact those engines are turboprops... jet engines that turn propellers at their fronts to propel the aircraft.

At moderate subsonic speeds and in a wide range of altitudes it is vastly more efficient than a turbojet or turbofan engine, and being a jet engine is much simpler and cheaper to maintain than a piston or radial engine.

It has another enormous advantage over the Tu-22M3M in that it has inflight refuelling, so it can take off with reduced fuel to allow a heavier payload and then in flight on the way to the target area it can be topped up.

It is the cheaper potential bomb truck with greater range than the Backfire or the Blackjack.

Hopefully the PAK DA will be even cheaper to operate though likely more expensive to buy... and they were made in the 1980s and 1990s so they are still very young airframes.

Perhaps the new NK-32 based turbofans for the new PAK DA could be used on upgraded Tu-95s to further improve performance... two engines instead of four could further improve range and fuel economy, with a reduction in weight and having only two engines instead of four.

Would be an indirect poke in the eye to the US who has been trying to reduce the number of engines on the B-52s from 8 down to 4 for decades...

Big_Gazza wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

franco wrote:

George1 wrote:5th modernized Tu-160M.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1707137.html

Read the other day that there are only 30 some Tu-95MS's still active. Had read at one point last year there were 43 left in action. That would explain the reports of only 80 bombers to be modernized by the end of 2020 (~ 15 Tu-160, 35 Tu-95MS and 30 Tu-22M3). Not a lot of info out there on this subject.

They should update all Tu-22M's to newest.  These bombers would be ideal.  Work with Tu-160 and phase out the Bear altogether.

I disagree strongly.  The Tu-95 main drawcard is its stupendous operating range (~15,000km unrefuelled)  making it an unrivalled platform for maritime patrol, and has an unparalleled loiter time when used as a strike bomber with long range ALCMs. The Tu-160 has about 12,000-ish km range and is simply too valuable to waste its engine hours on maritime patrol.  The Tu-22M is under 7,000 km so its useful as a medium range tactical bomber or a fast-reaction maritime strike bomber but is next to useless for patrolling the open seas.

The PAK-DA of course will likely be an entirely different story....

i also back up with what you have said, the Tu-95 has more uses than the Tu-22M's due to range, if anything aircraft was to be removed then i would go for the Tu-22M, if the Tu-22M could be upgraded to provide better range or given in flight refuelling probes. Dontget me wrong the Tu-22M still has its uses, just not as many as the Tu-95. But like all aircraft they will eventually be replaced (sad day when it does).

So from reading that, the first new improved engine, which will be used for qualification, has been built and is entering testing, and 4 others which will be production variants are in the process of manufacture?