Tu-160 "White Swan"

A B-1B?

I haven't heard the Russian AF say one of their bombers was missing...

Actually that would be interesting... the INF treaty bans intermediate range missiles that are land based, whether they are ballistic or cruise missiles.

The thing is that an intermediate range weapon is defined in the treaty as having a flight range of 500km to 5,500km.

If they did develop a cruise missile with a flight range of 10,000km then it could be ground based and not limited by the INF treaty...

Is there a small possibility that a single Tu-160 could have defected with plane and crew and we might not be aware of it as it was not made public ?

I remember the famous incident of Mig-25 defecting to Japan during cold war

Is there a small possibility that a single Tu-160 could have defected with plane and crew and we might not be aware of it as it was not made public ?

Why would you ask such a silly question... whose obvious answer is no.

Is it possible that the west might have access to detailed information about the Blackjack... yes, in fact I would say it is actually likely... when the Ukraine was cosying with the west it might have handed over all sorts of stuff, including old bits of their Tu-160s.

Whether the US has any info on the new upgrades is questionable, but they are all very sneaky...

Austin wrote:Is there a small possibility that a single Tu-160 could have defected with plane and crew and we might not be aware of it as it was not made public ?

I remember the famous incident of Mig-25 defecting to Japan during cold war

Austin you have a few extra drinks tonight ?

Given how few Tu-160s there are, and what a big deal that would have been, I would say the possibility is somewhere the region zero.

GarryB wrote:Why would you ask such a silly question... whose obvious answer is no.

Just like that it came in my mind for a second

TR1 no not really , would you buy one for me

Well like Garry said, one thing we can almost be certain of, is Americans got good look @ the Blackjacks in the Ukraine.

What happened to those birds is a disgrace btw, showed attitude Ukraine has towards its armed forces.
US was playing its cards well, under name of "peaceful safety initiatives".

Getting a look doesnt mean much what matters would be if they can get access to its radar , EW , Command & Control for Nuclear launch , types and combination of payload and secure communication systems etc .....the Russian would have changed that long ago.

Its like Russians getting a look at B-2 wont mean much unless they manage to get key information inside it and in these age of software driven electronics you can change most of it on the fly

Austin wrote:Is there a small possibility that a single Tu-160 could have defected with plane and crew and we might not be aware of it as it was not made public ?

I remember the famous incident of Mig-25 defecting to Japan during cold war

I wouldnt wonder much about my post above. The only reason I asked is that I thought "cultural exchange visits" between Britain and Russia might be more common. As I recall, the plane was white, not grey, so I was wondering about Tu 160. However, the engines were maybe quite close to the fuselage, and I'm by NO means a trained observer.

As for America sucking up Russian technology, seems like they've done a pretty lousy job. Sure a few West Ukrainians would dearly love to scupper things, but they werent exactly successful, IMO.

Its sad that some Tu 160s and the Ulyanovsk carrier were scrapped by childish Ukrainians. The one I wonder about is the Yak 144. How much DID they sell to America? But I actually wonder if they sold a poisoned chalice? America seems to have been cursed in its stealth work. And the Yak certainly had difficulties. Was Russia cunning and fed false information? Perhaps...

Tu-160 intakes.


If only the plant was not located outside of Russia

TR1 wrote:

Tu-160 intakes.

If only the plant was not located outside of Russia

Very nice picture TR1.

MOSCOW, October 29 (RIA Novosti) – Two Russian Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers on Monday flew from an airbase in southwestern Russia and landed in Venezuela, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

The nuclear-capable bombers, which took off from the Engels airbase in the Volga region, “flew over the Caribbean, the eastern Pacific and along the southwestern coast of the North American continent, and landed at Maiquetia airfield in Venezuela,” the ministry said in a statement.

According to the Russian ministry, the bombers covered a distance of more than 10,000 kilometers (over 6,200 miles) during a 13-hour non-stop flight. Two NATO F-16 fighter jets were scrambled from Bodo airbase to monitor their flight near the Norwegian airspace.
The ministry said the current mission was carried out “in line with the program of combat training.”

Russian strategic bombers conducted a similar mission in 2008. It was followed by a visit to Venezuela by a Russian naval task force, which took part in joint exercises with the Venezuelan navy.

The Tu-160 Blackjack is a supersonic, variable-geometry heavy bomber, designed to strike strategic targets with nuclear and conventional weapons deep in continental theatres of operation.

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131029/184402932/Russian-Tu-160-Strategic-Bombers-Land-in-Venezuela.html


It coincides with construction of new US military ABM base in Romania.

zg18 wrote:

MOSCOW, October 29 (RIA Novosti) – Two Russian Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers on Monday flew from an airbase in southwestern Russia and landed in Venezuela, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

The nuclear-capable bombers, which took off from the Engels airbase in the Volga region, “flew over the Caribbean, the eastern Pacific and along the southwestern coast of the North American continent, and landed at Maiquetia airfield in Venezuela,” the ministry said in a statement.

According to the Russian ministry, the bombers covered a distance of more than 10,000 kilometers (over 6,200 miles) during a 13-hour non-stop flight. Two NATO F-16 fighter jets were scrambled from Bodo airbase to monitor their flight near the Norwegian airspace.
The ministry said the current mission was carried out “in line with the program of combat training.”

Russian strategic bombers conducted a similar mission in 2008. It was followed by a visit to Venezuela by a Russian naval task force, which took part in joint exercises with the Venezuelan navy.

The Tu-160 Blackjack is a supersonic, variable-geometry heavy bomber, designed to strike strategic targets with nuclear and conventional weapons deep in continental theatres of operation.

http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131029/184402932/Russian-Tu-160-Strategic-Bombers-Land-in-Venezuela.html


It coincides with construction of new US military ABM base in Romania.

God, I hope for Russia to have a permanent presence in South America.
Build a few bases, and perhaps even start working on a "Anti Ballistic Missile Shield" for the safety of friendly nations Like Venezuela...only to counter rogue states like North Korea, mind you, nothing to do with America...

macedonian wrote:God, I hope for Russia to have a permanent presence in South America.
Build a few bases, and perhaps even start working on a "Anti Ballistic Missile Shield" for the safety of friendly nations Like Venezuela...only to counter rogue states like North Korea, mind you, nothing to do with America...

Strategic air fleet was training intense last few days Baltic (1x A50 , 2x Su-27 , 2x Tu22M3 reported by Latvia yesterday) , and over Pacific and Atlantic oceans (Tu-160 , Tu-95MS) , perhaps Indian also.

It`s demonstration of power on a large scale. Permamant military presence in South America is certainly food for thought in Pentagon , and the beauty is you don`t need massive military presence , 2 Tu-160 would do the trick...

Via mp.net









http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?231773-Russian-Tu-160-Strategic-Bombers-Land-in-Venezuela

Beautiful birds, those Blackjacks...though of questionable value by today's standards, save for the muscle-showing games.

spotter wrote:......though of questionable value by today's standards, save for the muscle-showing games.

Care to elaborate ?

spotter wrote:Beautiful birds, those Blackjacks...though of questionable value by today's standards, save for the muscle-showing games.

How is an aircraft with such a payload, range and speed of questionable value?

@ mindstorm & tr1:
for sure, i will gladly agree about it's excellent range, speed and payload. and then what?
i tend to regard any military machine as part of a whole political/economic/warfighting system which can only function if all subsystems are synced.
i'll try to present my arguments as short as possible:

-you have an enormously expensive to oper. and maint. aircraft that is even more expensive to overhaul/upgrade, for which you can't even find spare engines cause the production ceased. and those engines and their reliability are a special story but i wont bother you with it.
-your mega expensive aircraft can launch Kent ALCM and provides a part of the nuclear triad....fine, except the cheaper to operate 95MS can do the same. can Russia's budget really sustain two platforms for the same job?
-your expensive aircraft cannot do the job it's originally designed to do. it costs Russia a lot, yet it doesnt provide them with a penetrating ability in the manner of the B2s. The Blackjacks are not the "first night" platforms, however, they cost if they are. Or you wanna argue its speed will magically make it dissapear on the radar? You'll be hard pressed to prove that. Its EWS was updated last time when? 1990s?
-how many PGMs are they certified to employ? kh-35? kh-59? mini-moskit? 3m54-14e? only KABs?

I may be wrong about something and i will gladly hear what others have to say. In the meantime, i beg to differ.
I think this aircraft, as beautiful as it is, costs too much in comparison for the capability it brings on the table. Its nuclear capacity aside, for the pure conventional war its speed and range will count little when faced with an ISR equiped foe that poses a modern IADS.
Speed, no matter how big, cant hide you. And you cant outrun modern SAMs.

If your foe is, say, Chad or Burkina Faso well, that's the other thing altogether lol

Regards

spotter wrote:-you have an enormously expensive to oper. and maint. aircraft that is even more expensive to overhaul/upgrade, for which you can't even find spare engines cause the production ceased. and those engines and their reliability are a special story but i wont bother you with it.

Operating expenses are due in part to the small fleet. If I have to order 10 spares for this unit, and the factory only produces those spares for this one airframe, they will cost a lot.

10 aircraft are being upgraded to Tu-160M standard at a cost of about $35 million per airframe. That might look expensive but it's exponentially cheaper than a new airframe would cost. The engines? Production hasn't stopped, they're making new ones for the M upgrade. What did stop was the plan to make new Tu-160s, 10 airframes will get upgrades instead.

spotter wrote:-your mega expensive aircraft can launch Kent ALCM and provides a part of the nuclear triad....fine, except the cheaper to operate 95MS can do the same. can Russia's budget really sustain two platforms for the same job?

Apparently it can. The plan is for the Tu-160M to hang around until 2020-2025 when the new bomber starts flying.

spotter wrote:-your expensive aircraft cannot do the job it's originally designed to do.

Since when was it no longer able to fire cruise missiles? That's what it was originally designed to do. I've even heard that they never bothered integrating the Kh-15 or a conventional bombing capability.

spotter wrote:-it costs Russia a lot, yet it doesnt provide them with a penetrating ability in the manner of the B2s.

...which isn't what it was designed to do in the first place. It can't carry tanks like an An-124 either, but nobody is complaining.

spotter wrote:-The Blackjacks are not the "first night" platforms, however, they cost if they are. Or you wanna argue its speed will magically make it dissapear on the radar? You'll be hard pressed to prove that. Its EWS was updated last time when? 1990s?

Again, they cost so much per airframe because of the short production run (like the B-2), the fact that a crapload of spares and support materiel got stuck in the Ukraine, etc. They're also perfectly suitable for their actual first-night mission of shooting cruise missiles. A 3,000 km range cruise missile can keep you pretty far away from things trying to shoot at you, and yes, when you can open the throttles and run at Mach 2, you actually are survivable. We consistently managed to not intercept MiG-25s in Iraq because they'd turn around and haul ass before we were in weapons employment range. They were visible on radar and yet somehow managed to survive, imagine that. As for the EWS, the entire offensive/defensive avionics system is being upgraded, and additional RAM treatments are also being applied. The intakes are the largest source of front-quarter returns and they've already been significantly treated. Nobody in their right mind is ever going to confuse the Tu-160 with being an LO aircraft but these things do actually help.

spotter wrote:-how many PGMs are they certified to employ? kh-35? kh-59? mini-moskit? 3m54-14e? only KABs?

Right now: Kh-555 conventional ALCM. After the M upgrade: the term "nearly every missile in Russia's arsenal" is often tossed around, but is probably a massive exaggeration. The Tu-160M will get LGB/GPS capability, and will add the Kh-101/102.

-you have an enormously expensive to oper. and maint. aircraft that is even more expensive to overhaul/upgrade, for which you can't even find spare engines cause the production ceased. and those engines and their reliability are a special story but i wont bother you with it.

They are a fraction of the cost of a B-2 yet much more usable.

-your mega expensive aircraft can launch Kent ALCM and provides a part of the nuclear triad....fine, except the cheaper to operate 95MS can do the same. can Russia's budget really sustain two platforms for the same job?

They are not that expensive, so yes... Russias budget has actually managed to keep them operational all this time and now they are even getting overhauls.

-your expensive aircraft cannot do the job it's originally designed to do. it costs Russia a lot, yet it doesnt provide them with a penetrating ability in the manner of the B2s. The Blackjacks are not the "first night" platforms, however, they cost if they are. Or you wanna argue its speed will magically make it dissapear on the radar? You'll be hard pressed to prove that. Its EWS was updated last time when? 1990s?

You are confusing Russia with the US, and the Tu-160 with the B-1B.

The Tu-160 is a long range supersonic cruise missile carrier... it doesn't need to penetrate enemy air defences to launch 3,000km range cruise missiles, and now it will be launching 5,000km range cruise missiles.

-how many PGMs are they certified to employ? kh-35? kh-59? mini-moskit? 3m54-14e? only KABs?

They are strategic nuclear cruise missiles carriers how many PGMs do they need to carry (hint 12).

when faced with an ISR equiped foe that poses a modern IADS.

Can we apply this same criteria to US bombers?

Because none of the US bombers would survive a Russian IADS either and they cost more!

Even the B-2 would be vulnerable to any model supersonic fighter because of its low speed.

The Tu-160M will get LGB/GPS capability, and will add the Kh-101/102.

And don't forget the father of all bombs my friend...

spotter wrote:your mega expensive aircraft can launch Kent ALCM and provides a part of the nuclear triad....fine, except the cheaper to operate 95MS can do the same.

Obviously not; the difference is simply immense.

As the third leg of nuclear triad (because THAT is what has almost exclusively ever represented long range bomber fleet in domestic Doctrine) Strategic Aviation's assets have only some capabilities truly mattering for operational efficiency :


1) Capability to very quickly take-off in high-readiness times to avoid obliteration by part of enemy ICBMs (and in that TU-160 and even more TU-160M is the first at world by a very wide edge)

2) Capability to create the shorter cycle possible of nuclear tipped cruise missile delivery. In that very high average speed and cruise altitude offer enormous advantages :
- It increase the effective engagement range of delivered strategic cruise missiles.
- Significantly reduce the time necessary to reach an useful delivery point for the carried CMs (already modified by the delivery speed of the supersonic bomber).
- Enormously reduce the time necessary to return to a still operative AB for re-fuelling and recharging of the nuclear CMs.

3) Very high flight's autonomy and range , an element that ,together with the average speed, increase :
- Unpredictability of the CM cruise vector and trajectory of attack
- Remain in flight for more time ,so to modify flight's route toward alternative ABs in response to enemy ICBMs destruction of those initially foreseen, or to reach an alternative delivery point for the nuclear CMs for a change in target selection.
- Capability to disperse toward ABs placed over a much greater land mass, so to put an huge range penalty on the enemy strategic cruise missile delivery systems potentially attempting to destroy the re-supply ABs .
- Enormously dilute effective chances of interceptions by part of enemy Air Force's element potentially reaching national air space (or even to lure them toward ambush points by part of the Federation IAD)



Now take into account the features just exposed in a 72 hour nuclear cruise missile delivery time frame and, after, add to the equation the huge range advantage that domestic nuclear cruise missiles enjoy against its foreign counterparts.
You will get promptly an idea of why domestic military analysts consider TU-160 the best strategic bomber at world , by a wide margin, conceived for efficiency in a full nuclear conflict scenario.

spotter wrote:your expensive aircraft cannot do the job it's originally designed to do. it costs Russia a lot, yet it doesnt provide them with a penetrating ability in the manner of the B2s.

Penetrate ?

This kind of Air Force concept of operation (......against an advanced opponent ), in particular in a strategic context , is considered a true anachronism in domestic military environment at least since end of '80 years and the situation ,since then, is even dramatically worsened for Air Force survivability against a modern IAD in spite of any solution or aiding asset taken in consideration ........for remain silent of the enormous amount and multiplicity of weapons capable to easily obliterate airfields not covered by IAD on the domestic level .

Low observability is surely an appreciable feature when you expect to employ your strategic bombers also in regional conflict against inferior opponents (this is a growing trend also in late domestic military thinking) so to amortize its costs increasing its exploitability in conventional "low risk" scenarios.
Low observability mean literally ZERO in a nuclear conflict scenarios with nuclear cruise missiles shot at thousands of km of distance ,in the shortest cycle of delivery possible ,and against enemy key IAD sites shifting quickly to nuclear tipped SAMs .

Criticism concerning tu-160 shouldn't be really directed against the plane itself but possibly against non stealthy bombers in general.

What usual roles can a bomber have?

A. cruise missile truck.

a1. Against an enemy nearby (mix of tactical and strategic targets possible)
a2. against an enemy a few thousand km away (probably strategic targets only)
a3. against an enemy across an ocean (10.000 km and more away, strategic targets only)

B. non-stand off strikes with cheaper weapons.

b1 against an enemy nearby, striking targets close to the border (probably tactical strikes)
b2 against a neary enemy, striking targets a few hundred km into enemy's territory (mix of tactical and strategic targets)
b3 against a nearby enemy, striking targets a few thousand km deep into enemy territory. (strategic targets)

b4 against an enemy far away (a few thousand km and more?)

Analysis: is there a way to do the same mission with a cheaper and less vulnerable platform?
a1 - most definitely. land launched cruise missiles, tactical fighter launched cruise missiles, even ships/subs IF otherwise already required by scenario.

a2 - probably. Tactical fighters with JASSM class cruise missiles could pull it off up to targets some 2000 km away from base, perhaps doubling that with IFR. IFR making economic sense only if required to be/exist there for other needs as well. Large land based cruise missiles, like Chinese cj10 model, could also cover this segment. Ships/subs could do it, but again, it'd be economic only if their existance otherwise already required for other roles as well.

a3 - air and land launched tactical options non existant. Bombers only option. Ship launched option possible, but perhaps too expensive to secure, to get actual fleet close enough over an ocean, depending on enemy's strength. Still, submarine launched option is a definite alternative to bomber launches. While even SSK could theoretically be used, due to their speed and endurance it's a bad option. Nation with SSNs, however, could very well depend on their sub launched cruise missiles. Downside would be more time required to deploy forces close enough to launch, meaning the fleet would be tied up for the mission. Overall, a decent alternative if one already has to have SSNs close by, but otherwise could be more expensive.

b1 - bad option. less survivable than tactical fighter delivery, even if cheaper per bomb dropped. Loitering not advisable anyway, due to enemy forces. Continuously being over one area is a death wish. Of course, all this assumes a capable enemy and no air superiority. If there is complete air superiority then the whole issue is moot as one could argue anything could drop bombs, even drones. Altnernatives such as land based strikes also possible and proliferating more and more each year with various gps/tv guided munitions. Due to little to no penetration into enemy lands, there'd be little warning to the enemy, so aircraft strikes could be performed with little support aircraft.

b2 - land based strikes not an option, but tactical fighter delivery still prefferred for same reasons. But due to actual penetration over contested skies and over lands littered with radars and SAMs, ample support aircraft would be needed. Those would also limit the range of overall strike package. Even if bombers could reach further, short legs of the support package and fighter escort would render such a mission suicidal.

b3 - this is really a continuation of above scenario, going farther. But, like it was mentioned above, without escorting assets such mission is really not smart. While unburdoned by support package the bomber could theoretically go very high altitude mach 2 all the way, it really isn't nearly enough to provide safety over literally a thousand or more km there and back. Plus the bomber may not have the fuel to actually go at mach 2 over 3-4 or more thousand km.

b4 - if the enemy is far away, but there is not necesarrily a need to go deep into its protected airspace, then long range bomber is virtually the only way to perform this mission. Though, I can't really think of many reasons why one'd want to strike at far away enemy with cheap, tactical weapons. Cruise missiles are a safer bet there.

Low level flight is an option but if we're talking about a equipped enemy which has its airspace well covered with radars, it's applicable only for little to no penetration into enemy space. The further one goes into enemy airspace, chances of detection increase, even if initially one creates a temporary initial ingress point free of enemy radars.

Also, all this applies to low RCS bombers as well. A b2 would also have a hard time performing a deep penetration mission on its own against a modern equipped enemy. while low rcs is better protection than speed, it only goes so far. for best results one would still need support packages, just like the US had over Serbia in 1999.

In my opinion, all this really means is that bombers are better left off as stand off weapon carriers in a high intensity war against modern enemy. it makes little sense using them for tactical weapon drops against tactical targets. Today they are used for such roles but against much weaker enemies and because bombers are already there and paid for. Countries that don't have the need for strategic strikes are not developing bombers. Only ones that do have them already are trying to find additional tactical strike roles for them so they can utilize them more and make the mission cheaper.

So, tu160 does have its merits, but the unfortunate thing is its low numbers, probably making its usage/maintennance pretty expensive due to fixed overhead costs. Magically changing every 2 or even 3 tu22m for 1 tu160 would be a much better deal for russia, in my opinion. But the medium-term future is going to be subsonic and stealthy, as both pak-da and new US bomber programme show.

10 aircraft are being upgraded to Tu-160M standard at a cost of about $35 million per airframe. That might look expensive but it's exponentially cheaper than a new airframe would cost. The engines? Production hasn't stopped, they're making new ones for the M upgrade. What did stop was the plan to make new Tu-160s, 10 airframes will get upgrades instead.

IIRC production of the engines did stop, but is going to be restablished.

@mindstorm:
you talked about the all out nuclear exchange scenario, which is exactly what i refuse to talk about. sorry, but i dont believe there is a chance for the nuclear egagement, thus i only consider the tu160's conventional punch. other than that, as i said, tu160 is great for muscle-showing.

@SOC:
thanks for your detailed repy. Are you absolutely positive they started making NK12 engines again? last i heard was they ceased production...
if it's true they're rolling the lines again, then i stand corrected. furthermore, i didnt know the M upgade includes the RAM treatement, not so sure about it. btw, you missed the point with mig25 comparison. tu160 is supposed to get real close for LGB/Glonass bomb delivery. if it's detected with airborne IRS on time, well, it's on a one way trip.

@garry:
certainly, we will apply the same criteria for any other bomber. while the B1B suffers much the same issues, the US is able to excersise the control of the air and they conduct the most comprehensive SEAD available anywhere. what's the end result? even the sluggish b52 can operate at will under such protection. is RuAF able to provide such an environment for their bombers?

using it as a standoff ALCM platform is great, as i said, i just think this machine is too expensive if that's its only role.

spotter wrote:@mindstorm:
you talked about the all out nuclear exchange scenario, which is exactly what i refuse to talk about. sorry, but i dont believe there is a chance for the nuclear egagement, thus i only consider the tu160's conventional punch.

You refuse to talk of efficiency ,as nuclear delivering system, of class of aircraft mainly conceived for..........nuclear weapon's delivery and representing one of the legs of the respective nation's nuclear triad ?

Interesting position and intellectual stance for sure   


Employment of Air Forces in conventional conflict "scenario" are ,as usual, horribly influenced by typical NATO operations against its usual third world opponents ; the first time a conflict against even only a moderately strong opponent equipped with advanced weaponry will ever erupt the images of totally devastated airbases with dozen if not hundreds of aircraft reduced to small smoking scraps and high flames rising from fuel storages (very likely even before the first mission would be conducted in the theatre of operation !) will very abruptly reset the common opinion on the real possibility to conduct air campaigns as done in the latest conflicts against an advanced opponent and vividly remind to anyone why long range missiles are strictly limited and/or controlled by International treaties and agreement and not aircraft.