Tu-160 "White Swan" #2

Tu-160M2 cockpit (red cache for MFD displays)

mnztr wrote:

Rasisuki Nebia wrote:
Didn't know the laws of physics and aerodynamics gets updated and patched every so often to force an extensive need to redesign aircrafts, seemingly this issue only applies to Russia.

Aerodynamic technology is always advancing. Look how different wings on the latest gen of airliners are. Also as materials improve you have more options. Look at how thin the wings on the MC-21 are. That is not possible with aluminum. Even the aerodynamics within a gas turbine have improved significantly due to more advanced blade profiles and of course, better materials and cooling.

Of course things like materials and change. But the basic aerodynamic outlines of aircraft don't change much at all.

Sure the MC-21 wing is thinner. But its basic shape isn't that different.

The newest mid range airliners are the MC-21 and Airbus A220. The basic aerodynamic shape of those aircraft aren't much different than a 1960's 737. And it isn't any different for a SS bomber like the tu 160.

Same with the new Boom SST. It looks like a 1960's Concorde. Very slight refinement of the wing. And the fuslage is area ruled. Concorde engineers wanted to area rule it in the 60's but the cost and expense was way to high. But with a smaller plane and carbon fiber , they can area rule the Boom SST.

Does this Tu-160m airframe carry the upgraded engines?

It was supposed to be one of the upgrades I think...

Backman wrote:

mnztr wrote:

Rasisuki Nebia wrote:
Didn't know the laws of physics and aerodynamics gets updated and patched every so often to force an extensive need to redesign aircrafts, seemingly this issue only applies to Russia.

Aerodynamic technology is always advancing. Look how different wings on the latest gen of airliners are. Also as materials improve you have more options. Look at how thin the wings on the MC-21 are. That is not possible with aluminum. Even the aerodynamics within a gas turbine have improved significantly due to more advanced blade profiles and of course, better materials and cooling.

Of course things like materials and change. But the basic aerodynamic outlines of aircraft don't change much at all.

Sure the MC-21 wing is thinner. But its basic shape isn't that different.

The newest mid range airliners are the MC-21 and Airbus A220. The basic aerodynamic shape of those aircraft aren't much different than a 1960's 737. And it isn't any different for a SS bomber like the tu 160.

Same with the new Boom SST. It looks like a 1960's Concorde. Very slight refinement of the wing. And the fuslage is area ruled. Concorde engineers wanted to area rule it in the 60's but the cost and expense was way to high. But with a smaller plane and carbon fiber , they can area rule the Boom SST.

Subtle changes make a big difference in aerodynamics. Materials allow more optimization. The entire wing on the TU-160 could be different and it would be visibly different.

It seems like the new Tu-160 will have some hard kill capability against enemy fighters and attacking missiles.

https://avia-pro.net/news/rossiyskie-tu-160m-poluchili-na-vooruzhenie-unikalnye-rakety-obratnogo-starta

On the first newly manufactured Tu-160M, a rear-view radar station (RLS) was installed, which will allow the aircraft to use so-called reverse launch missiles for self-defense against air-to-air, surface-to-air missiles and fighters. Such air-to-air missiles, according to the target designation of the tail radar of the bomber, will hit targets in the rear hemisphere, that is, located "behind" the Tu-160M ​​"- A source told RIA Novosti.

Mir wrote:It seems like the new Tu-160 will have some hard kill capability against enemy fighters and attacking missiles.

https://avia-pro.net/news/rossiyskie-tu-160m-poluchili-na-vooruzhenie-unikalnye-rakety-obratnogo-starta

On the first newly manufactured Tu-160M, a rear-view radar station (RLS) was installed, which will allow the aircraft to use so-called reverse launch missiles for self-defense against air-to-air, surface-to-air missiles and fighters. Such air-to-air missiles, according to the target designation of the tail radar of the bomber, will hit targets in the rear hemisphere, that is, located "behind" the Tu-160M ​​"- A source told RIA Novosti.

Please stop quoting those retards from avia.pro...

they pretty bad, eh? what are they Russia's "National Interest" type nonsense?

LMFS wrote:

Mir wrote:It seems like the new Tu-160 will have some hard kill capability against enemy fighters and attacking missiles.

https://avia-pro.net/news/rossiyskie-tu-160m-poluchili-na-vooruzhenie-unikalnye-rakety-obratnogo-starta

On the first newly manufactured Tu-160M, a rear-view radar station (RLS) was installed, which will allow the aircraft to use so-called reverse launch missiles for self-defense against air-to-air, surface-to-air missiles and fighters. Such air-to-air missiles, according to the target designation of the tail radar of the bomber, will hit targets in the rear hemisphere, that is, located "behind" the Tu-160M ​​"- A source told RIA Novosti.

Please stop quoting those retards from avia.pro...

The original source is RIA Novosti

TMA1 wrote:they pretty bad, eh? what are they Russia's "National Interest" type nonsense?

Not really but they have some strong opinions on certain matters. As an example they believe the Mi-38 is the wrong direction for the military helicopter requirements for the Russian Army and I agree with them to a large extend.

They should have rather opted for the Ka-92 high speed co-axle helicopter as it has numerous advantages over the Mi-38. The complete story is actually a very long story that even includes the IMF but the fact is that the co-axle is a much better option than the "traditional" tail rotor designs - esp as a combat helicopter. Even the old Ka-29 has some major advantages over the Mi-24/35. Paddle turns are one of them.

Mir wrote:

TMA1 wrote:they pretty bad, eh? what are they Russia's "National Interest" type nonsense?

Not really but they have some strong opinions on certain matters. As an example they believe the Mi-38 is the wrong direction for the military helicopter requirements for the Russian Army and I agree with them to a large extend.

They should have rather opted for the Ka-92 high speed co-axle helicopter as it has numerous advantages over the Mi-38. The complete story is actually a very long story that even includes the IMF but the fact is that the co-axle is a much better option than the "traditional" tail rotor designs - esp as a combat helicopter. Even the old Ka-29 has some major advantages over the Mi-24/35. Paddle turns are one of them.

Agree too about the mi38. But I always weigh opinions of people on where I get info. LMFS's word goes a long way. I will still read anything I can get, tho. Even goofy old National Interest articles lol.

Mir wrote:

TMA1 wrote:they pretty bad, eh? what are they Russia's "National Interest" type nonsense?

Not really but they have some strong opinions on certain matters. As an example they believe the Mi-38 is the wrong direction for the military helicopter requirements for the Russian Army and I agree with them to a large extend.

They should have rather opted for the Ka-92 high speed co-axle helicopter as it has numerous advantages over the Mi-38. The complete story is actually a very long story that even includes the IMF but the fact is that the co-axle is a much better option than the "traditional" tail rotor designs - esp as a combat helicopter. Even the old Ka-29 has some major advantages over the Mi-24/35. Paddle turns are one of them.

They are a makeshift journo outfit that makes up shit continuously just to generate clicks. They are totally discredited and if we have an original RIA source then it is 1000 times better to use it instead of the avia.pro, because indeed there is a solid quote behind this piece in this case, so why to give the credit and the clicks to those clowns? Any BSer will mix some actual news among their crap to fake credibility, but a serious source will never randomly publish made up sensationalistic news if they value their reputation.

So the original news:

Source: Tu-160M will be the first aircraft with reverse launch missiles

Source RIA Novosti: Tu-160M will be the world's first aircraft with reverse launch missiles

MOSCOW, February 4-RIA Novosti. The upgraded Tu-160M strategic bomber will become the world's first aircraft with reverse launch missiles - they are capable of intercepting targets located "behind its back", a source in the aircraft industry told RIA Novosti.
As reported, the first built from scratch strategic bomber-missile carrier Tu-160M made its debut 30-minute flight on January 12 this year. The new aircraft received upgraded engines, updated avionics and avionics, as well as new weapons control systems.
"The first newly manufactured Tu-160M is equipped with a rear-view radar station, which will allow the aircraft to use so-called reverse launch missiles for self-defense against air-to-air, surface-to-air missiles and fighters. Such air-to-air missiles will target targets in the rear hemisphere, that is, those located "behind" the Tu - 160M, according to the target designation of the bomber's tail radar, "the source said.
The source added that " the use of rear-view radar on heavy bombers is most appropriate, since these are low-maneuverable vehicles that simply may not have time to turn their nose to the enemy."
On the basic version of the Tu-160, there is no tail radar. The source also clarified that reverse launch missiles can hit targets in the front hemisphere. When hitting targets in the rear hemisphere, according to target designation from the tail radar, they turn 180 degrees in flight.

https://ria.ru/20220204/raketa-1770987824.html

Mir wrote:

TMA1 wrote:they pretty bad, eh? what are they Russia's "National Interest" type nonsense?

Not really but they have some strong opinions on certain matters. As an example they believe the Mi-38 is the wrong direction for the military helicopter requirements for the Russian Army and I agree with them to a large extend.

They should have rather opted for the Ka-92 high speed co-axle helicopter as it has numerous advantages over the Mi-38. The complete story is actually a very long story that even includes the IMF but the fact is that the co-axle is a much better option than the "traditional" tail rotor designs - esp as a combat helicopter. Even the old Ka-29 has some major advantages over the Mi-24/35. Paddle turns are one of them.

Understand evolution vs revolution. It's understandable why Ru MOD supports The Mi-38: The Mi-8/17 series is one of the most successful aircraft of all time, and is easily the most successful aircraft Russia has ever produced. A more conventional design has greater export potential than a more radical design, even if the design has been proven trustworthy and has demonstrated great performance. If Kamov creates prototypes of the Ka-92 with their own funds, and if the early performances and capability proves promising than Ru MOD will show interest and start funding the project. An enlarged and elongated Ka-92 could prove to be a serious competitor to the Mi-26.

But this is all of topic.

@LMFS

Thanks for the heads up. I do know that they are highly opinionated but I have found some value there over the years but yes I'll keep an eye out for any fake news.

To their credit on this particular story - they did quote the original RIA Novosti as a credible source.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
Understand evolution vs revolution. It's understandable why Ru MOD supports The Mi-38: The Mi-8/17 series is one of the most successful aircraft of all time, and is easily the most successful aircraft Russia has ever produced. A more conventional design has greater export potential than a more radical design, even if the design has been proven trustworthy and has demonstrated great performance. If Kamov creates prototypes of the Ka-92 with their own funds, and if the early performances and capability proves promising than Ru MOD will show interest and start funding the project. An enlarged and elongated Ka-92 could prove to be a serious competitor to the Mi-26.

But this is all of topic.

The Soviet military has always been on the conservative side - which is not necessarily a bad thing as you've mentioned. However if you look back at the Mi-8/24 history even they encountered a lot of resistance from the military. Both these helicopters became legendary throughout the world, but the Soviets were very reluctant to develop a dedicated attack helicopter (Mi-24) and it took years before the military version of the Mi-8 was accepted to replace the already obsolete Mi-4. This has not been the case with the OKB's though. They came up with some great designs. The V-12 comes to mind

Regarding the Mi-38, it is a good helicopter, a problem with coaxials is their gearboxes and transmissions which are incredibly complicated and heavy.

The reason no one else has coaxial rotor helicopters in the 10-12 ton weight class like the Helix is because no one can make a suitable gearbox and transmission to make it work.

The gearbox and transmission for a helicopter the size of a Mi-38 would be a challenge.

Regarding the missile in question it sounds like Morfei... or 9M100 which might be ARH or IIR or have both... the core feature is its two way datalink with the launch platform so the missile is launched without a lock on the target. On land or at sea that means the missile can be stored vertically and launched and will fly in the direction the target is detected to be... for S-350 or Redut that means 360 degree engagement performance, but for aircraft it means the missile can be carried in an internal weapons bay in full stealthy mode... when a target is detected the location and information about the target is fed to the missile which would then be thrown out the weapon bay... it fires up its rocket motor and turns and accelerates towards the target location and starts looking for the target either with an ARH seeker or an IIR sensor or perhaps both. If it has trouble finding the target it can communicate with the launcher to establish what might have happened to the target and chase it down.

This design means internal carriage on stealth fighters as well as conventional bombers with an internal bomb bay can carry these missiles.

When used on ships in the Redut SAM system they will be used as a CIWS for shooting down incoming anti ship missiles and standoff munitions like bombs and missiles (guided and unguided) which would make it a good anti missile weapon for a bomber.

It is even possible that new bombers could incorporate specialist launchers that would effectively be like the wing mounted weapon bays on the Su-57 designed to carry single missiles all ready to launch when needed.

These missiles have full thrust vectoring nozzles so turning 180 degrees should be possible though for a bomber some missiles might be loaded facing backwards to improve their performance against targets behind the aircraft... not having to pull a hard turn for the first few seconds of flight means it accelerates backwards much faster and more efficiently and the TVC rocket motor will keep the nose of the missile pointed at the target as the weapon crosses that awkward phase of zero flight speed. Note a missile fired backwards from an aircraft flying at 600-800km/h means as it accelerates its speed starts out as flying 600-800km/h backwards and then decelerating through zero and back up to forward flight speed.

Tests with R-27s resulted in failures for the IR and short range radar guided weapons because they are lock on before launch weapons and as the missiles approached zero km/h fight speed their wings stalled and the nose dropped and they lost lock.

The long range R-27s fly on autopilot to approach the target and then get a lock on the marked target so they could recover and continue, but the R-73 with its thrust vectoring paddles kept the targets in sight and worked well... though at massively reduced effective range of course.

These missiles get locks after they launch and should have TVC engine nozzles so there should be no problem, and will likely be mostly used to engage incoming missiles like Meteor and AMRAAM and Patriot and Aster etc... and could be used for fighters and bombers.

In fact these missiles will be slim... the TVC motor will mean only small fins and strakes will be needed so perhaps an Su-35 could carry them in bundles or two or three per pylon.... it could bludgen enemy airforces by shooting down the missiles they launch and close in for a gun kill...

So no one's gonna talk about the rear facing radar on the new Tu-160M? It's rather weird tbh

Krepost wrote:From the photos of the new plane.
I noticed 1 external difference at the rearmost end of the plane.
On the new plane there is streamlined radome covering everything (probably some electronics). on the old planes it is the exhaust of the APU.

I was right about the radome.
It is hosting the rear facing radar.

Lennox wrote:So no one's gonna talk about the rear facing radar on the new Tu-160M? It's rather weird tbh

What's weird about it ? The su 34 has it. The su 57 has it.

Backman wrote:

Lennox wrote:So no one's gonna talk about the rear facing radar on the new Tu-160M? It's rather weird tbh

What's weird about it ? The su 34 has it. The su 57 has it.

The rear facing radar on the TU-160 will enable the backward firing of air-air missiles.
The missiles will actually be shot forward, but they will make a 180 degrees turn and fly towards the incoming enemy missiles and/or aircraft.

We have not heard anything like that about the rear facing radars of the Sukhois.

Where will they store AA missiles?

If true it is pretty badass. Antimissiles are one of future trends of sixth ten. Essentially active protective systems. DIRCM as well as a collection of very maneuverable, very short range missiles that can destroy fighters as well as missiles. It only makes sense that vulnerable missile carriers would be early recipients of this. If it's true I wonder how long it will take for us to see those beauties do simulations irl.

Edit: what would be really cool is if they were small Tor missiles that eject underneath, have their orienting charges point thr missile in the right direction while the missile engages its motor like the tor missiles usually do. Though I think a Tor type missile system might have issues since it not IR or semiactive/active radar homing.