Tupolev Tu-160M (modernization & new production)

Scott Kenny said:
It makes sense to me to have two different aircraft in service as your strategic bombers. Even the US is doing that with B-52s and B-21s. One type is the stand off cruise missile carrier (and permissive environment bomber), the other is one that can penetrate an A2AD bubble.

Stealthy aircraft are expensive, so you will struggle to afford enough to carry that leg of your deterrent. The US would need over 400 B-21s to replace all the bombers in service, for example. Based on capacity.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I'd personally be rather surprised if PAK-DA will be more(or even as) expensive than Tu-160M.

It isn't too much of a problem - since the way long-range munitions merge with drones ensures that tu-160 with it's huge bays is basically a highly capable/survivable mothership for penetrative stealth aircraft, suicidal or not.
 
Let's see what happens to PAK-DA when it finally gets revealed as to how expensive it gets, I would think that it would be just slightly more expensive than the TU-160 but you can never know for sure. Especially with the new avionics that would need to be developed for the new bomber unless they use some of the the existing technology from the Tu-160M and put that in the PAK-DA that would help keep costs down.
 
Avionics-wise the Tu-160M can be a risk reduction measure for the PAK-DA, very much in the same way Su-35 was for the PAK-FA. In terms of airframe, propulsion and operation I do indeed expect PAK-DA to be way cheaper and much more flexible, a more sustainable platform to deal conventionally with non peer rivals and other missions not linked to the classical role of Russian strategic aviation. I assume it will coexist for two or more decades with the 160M, with the later remaining the most specialised of the two as part of the nuclear triad.
 
LMFS said:
Avionics-wise the Tu-160M can be a risk reduction measure for the PAK-DA, very much in the same way Su-35 was for the PAK-FA. In terms of airframe, propulsion and operation I do indeed expect PAK-DA to be way cheaper and much more flexible, a more sustainable platform to deal conventionally with non peer rivals and other missions not linked to the classical role of Russian strategic aviation. I assume it will coexist for two or more decades with the 160M, with the later remaining the most specialised of the two as part of the nuclear triad.
Click to expand...
Cheaper? No way. Stealth coatings ain't cheap!
 
US MIC will certainly love that we think so, but look at the high end, high cost solutions inside the Tu-160 compared to PAK-DA´s two engine subsonic flying wing design with probably way smaller size compared to the White Swan. PAK-DA should be no analogue to B-2 in terms of costs
 
LMFS said:
US MIC will certainly love that we think so, but look at the high end, high cost solutions inside the Tu-160 compared to PAK-DA´s two engine subsonic flying wing design with probably way smaller size compared to the White Swan. PAK-DA should be no analogue to B-2 in terms of costs
Click to expand...
PAK-DA is a B-21 class long range medium bomber, not a B-2 class heavy?
 
I doubt of it. If intercontinental strike is what the bomber is for, the lack of an as efficient engine will make the PAK-DA inherently bigger.
 
TomcatViP said:
I doubt of it. If intercontinental strike is what the bomber is for, the lack of an as efficient engine will make the PAK-DA inherently bigger.
Click to expand...
Russians have several options in the "medium bypass turbofan" class to work with. 3:1 bypass ratio or so, maybe 5:1 on the outside end.

I don't think you'd want to go for a whole lot higher, you'd use up too much interior volume due to duct size.
 
The post says: "as efficient".
Hence any less efficient engine will result in a noticeable bigger airframe.
Add the extra length Russian bombers have to cover to strike back Continental US and the Raider size is probably not realistic.
 
TomcatViP said:
The post says: "as efficient".
Hence any less efficient engine will result in a noticeable bigger airframe.
Add the extra length Russian bombers have to cover to strike back Continental US and the Raider size is probably not realistic.
Click to expand...
Well, upgraded NK-32-02 is quite reasonable, with an excellent bypass ratio and all that.
It's heavy for what it is, but we aren't talking about fighter installation, it just doesn't matter that much.

It was always questionable if developing a hugely expensive dedicated bomber engine was worth it back then, but since it's already here anyways...
 
@Foo Fighter : Bingo. That´s the point.
If PAK-DA is Raider size, that would signal a shift in Russia strategy: War with Europe or Border deterrence (hence Russia admitting it has become a regional power)...
 
So Russia are going the Raider route with the PAK-DA instead of a long ranger so that is why they are keeping the Tu-160 in service longer, it will be interesting to see the final figures for range and war load capacity regarding weapons. I wonder how many internal weapons bays the PAK-DA will have? Looks like it may just have one just like the Raider.
 
The engine is based on the NK-32-02, without AB that would be (not confirmed from what I know) ca. 2x 130 kN vs 2x 120 kN for the B-21 and 4x 77kN for the B-2. Say Russians want good take-off characteristics for survivability despite big geography and extra long persistence, so maybe Raider size is ok

Regarding long range... Okhotnik is already 6000km, and we know the PAK-DA engine should be capable of 30 h sustained operation, so make your guesses. Plus new versions of nuclear ALCMs from Russia have more than 6500 km range and apparently work is ongoing for 8000 km range weapons. No big issue reaching US I guess...

TomcatViP said:
@Foo Fighter : Bingo. That´s the point.
If PAK-DA is Raider size, that would signal a shift in Russia strategy: War with Europe or Border deterrence (hence Russia admitting it has become a regional power)...
Click to expand...
If Russia does what US does (having a platform which is useful for other things apart from lobbing nukes), then it means it turned into regional power?
 
LMFS said:
If Russia does what US does (having a platform which is useful for other things apart from lobbing nukes), then it means it turned into regional power?
Click to expand...
Russia doesn't have the massive air refueling support that the US does, so if the PAK-DA is much shorter range than Bears or Tu160s that does limit their reach.

Not sure how much it matters if the PAK-DA is the anti-carrier plane, however.


TomcatViP said:
@Foo Fighter : Bingo. That´s the point.
If PAK-DA is Raider size, that would signal a shift in Russia strategy: War with Europe or Border deterrence (hence Russia admitting it has become a regional power)...
Click to expand...
I'm understanding that Raider is B52/B2 range with less bombload (since with precision guided weapons we need fewer weapons to get the same damage).
 
Yes. Raider has the same range or greater than a B-2. This all comes down from efficiency in engine and aero (plus the lesser bomb load). A same size PAK-DA will, with only few doubts, not offer a reciprocal parity in strike.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Russia doesn't have the massive air refueling support that the US does, so if the PAK-DA is much shorter range than Bears or Tu160s that does limit their reach.
Click to expand...
From the Arctic Sea any point in the continental US is ca. 5000-6000km away. Depending on the target, there is no need to even leave Russian air space when using long range ALCM

TomcatViP said:
A same size PAK-DA will, with only few doubts, not offer a reciprocal parity in strike.
Click to expand...
Because...
 
Scott Kenny said:
PAK-DA is a B-21 class long range medium bomber, not a B-2 class heavy?
Click to expand...
Only one person in this forum know it for sure and he will never open his mouth.

In my opinion which is based on my personal preferences PAK DA will be: supersonic, integral plane, Tu-22M3 sized, with two deeply modernized NK-32 engines(NK-32M), one weapon bay for 6 Kh-BD missiles or 12 medium-range missiles(Kh-50) on rotary launcher. Combat radius will be half of Tu-160M which is quite enough considering the range of Kh-BD. Stealth features will allow use of Kh-50 missiles while inside coverage area of long-range air defense systems.
 
Last edited:
QuadroFX said:
About manufacturing including electron-beam welding machine:

View: https://youtu.be/RICXrVGMhRQ

t.me

СОЛОВЬЁВ

ТОТ САМЫЙ САМОЛЁТ | ЭКСКЛЮЗИВ Специальный репортаж о создании того самого Ту-160М, на котором сегодня летел верховный главнокомандующий России Владимир Путин. Уникальные кадры о том как появляется на свет легендарный «Белый лебедь: от сварки титановых деталей до лётных испытаний. Смотрите на...
t.me t.me
Click to expand...
That's interesting. That's how they welded the titanium wing box on the F-14 Tomcat.
 
I don't understand what's wrong with NK-32 in the first place. It's a more efficient engine than the F135, simply through a higher bypass ratio.
Much heavier&larger, sure.
 
Ainen said:
I don't understand what's wrong with NK-32 in the first place. It's a more efficient engine than the F135, simply through a higher bypass ratio.
Much heavier&larger, sure.
Click to expand...
How would you know? Do you have access to actual F135 data?
 
sferrin said:
Bypass ratio isn't everything.
Click to expand...
But when there is this much of it - it's a lot.

Google numbers(calculated) of specific consumption are better even for the basic NK-32, and, as people reasonably pointed out, we don't really know the true ones for either.

In this situation, at the very least, assuming that F135 is massively more efficient is wrong.
 
Ainen said:
But when there is this much of it - it's a lot.

Google numbers(calculated) of specific consumption are better even for the basic NK-32, and, as people reasonably pointed out, we don't really know the true ones for either.

In this situation, at the very least, assuming that F135 is massively more efficient is wrong.
Click to expand...
So by that rational you'd rate the F101-GE-102, which powers the B-1B, as more efficient than the NK-32? (1.4 to 1 for the NK-32 vs 2.0 for the F101.)
 
QuadroFX said:
Only one person in this forum know it for sure and he will never open his mouth.

In my opinion which is based on my personal preferences PAK DA will be: supersonic, integral plane, Tu-22M3 sized, with two deeply modernized NK-32 engines(NK-32M), one weapon bay for 6 Kh-BD missiles or 12 medium-range missiles(Kh-50) on rotary launcher. Combat radius will be half of Tu-160M which is quite enough considering the range of Kh-BD. Stealth features will allow use of Kh-50 missiles while inside coverage area of long-range air defense systems.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt PAK-DA will be supersonic.
 
Anduriel said:
Obvioously I meant F135.
Click to expand...
That wasn't at all obvious. You've been pushing the NK-32. Why would anybody think you meant anything else?

"In this situation, at the very least, assuming that F135 is massively more efficient is wrong."
 
I doubt that the PAK-DA will be supersonic (I would like the PAK-DA to be supersonic) unless QuadroFX knows something that we do not.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Like the B-1 it is quite an amazing looking aircraft. I'll miss seeing the B-1 when it is retired and will be kind of jealous of the Russians still getting to fly their equivalent.

I know the Tu-160 can do a bit over M2.0 at altitude but is it known what can it manage down on the deck (sea level) with engines at full afterburner?
Click to expand...
Tu-160 is more of a B-1A equivalent , B1B is much smaller plane and barely supersonic much simpler than B1A
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom