An attempted attack on the relatively limited (due to some rather curious priorities as well as industrial bottlenecks) number of Tu-160 Blackjacks currently available I would have thought fit here?
You can create/return in a new topic dedicated to KAZ or Engels attacks in The Bar with aftermath sat photos showing that something did actually happen to aircrafts, not 'ifs', not flooding each aircraft/chopper type thread with the war chronicles.
considering the weapon bays are over 11,30 meters long and the russian jassm equivalent (kh-50/sd) is under 6m, how useful it would be to make 2 rotary launchers per bay (and perhaps go from 6 to 8 slots each, but not necessarily) reaching 24-32 ~2000km range big warhead cruise missiles per aircraft? if able to reach especially the 32 mark a "simple" 9-10 aircraft mission could saturate or at the very least deplete a whole USN CSG to combat ineffectiveness (insufficient ordnance to continue any mission)
considering the weapon bays are over 11,30 meters long and the russian jassm equivalent (kh-50/sd) is under 6m, how useful it would be to make 2 rotary launchers per bay (and perhaps go from 6 to 8 slots each, but not necessarily) reaching 24-32 ~2000km range big warhead cruise missiles per aircraft? if able to reach especially the 32 mark a "simple" 9-10 aircraft mission could saturate or at the very least deplete a whole USN CSG to combat ineffectiveness (insufficient ordnance to continue any mission)
If I'm reading the wiki entry correctly, the rotary launchers are already configured to be able to hold 12x weapons each. 12x Kh-15 length weapons per bay, 24x Kh-50s total is absolutely possible.
And a Bomber Regiment (~18x birds?) unloading that in the direction of a US carrier group would absolutely suck to defend against.
That's not really the usual mission profile of the Tu-160. More so to strike NATO infrastructure in continental Europe and US assets elsewhere with nuclear tipped missiles. The Tu-22M was far more concerned with anti ship missions and also carried potent AShMs throughout it's life, if my memory doesn't fool me, there were once Tu-22Ms belonging to Russian Naval Aviation.
And while I'm a staunch proponent of the usage of aircraft in anti-shipping missions, the Tu-160 isn't well suited for it. It's large and not particularly nimble. And while payload and stand-off range could make it work, they would also make it work with others. While Tu-22Ms dashing at high speed in low level flight, firing supersonic AShMs at USN ships was and still is a not to be underestimated combination.
If you want to attack ships you either go fast and low, go high and stealthy, or you go home. And you definitely wouldn't want to fly a Tu-160 low over the water. That's why something like a Tu-22M3 or more recently something like a B-21 has and could have serious anti-ship applications. Although the US, unlike the Russians, have historically been more reluctant to use bombers in such a role, instead relying on smaller, shorter range, carrier based aircraft.
If I'm reading the wiki entry correctly, the rotary launchers are already configured to be able to hold 12x weapons each. 12x Kh-15 length weapons per bay, 24x Kh-50s total is absolutely possible.
And a Bomber Regiment (~18x birds?) unloading that in the direction of a US carrier group would absolutely suck to defend against.
in my reading it's one 6 slot rotary launcher per bay totalling 12 max of anything (there's a interview with a tupolev engineer saying the double 6 slot per bay was already designed but never ordered by the client) which seems low for the mission we are contemplating but they were thinking about kh-55sm's (8m long) and x-101's (7,5m long) both 3000km+ range strategic strike missiles with that capacity, for this new mission the upgrade would be crucial, and the design of 8 slots launcher would be welcome (the b1 got it's 8 slots launchers in 2010, but at that time the tu-160 production was halted and Russia didn't have neither the kh-69 nor the kh-50/sd while the americans were experimenting with the jassm since 2002 and had it in plain service in 2009)
That's not really the usual mission profile of the Tu-160. More so to strike NATO infrastructure in continental Europe and US assets elsewhere with nuclear tipped missiles. The Tu-22M was far more concerned with anti ship missions and also carried potent AShMs throughout it's life, if my memory doesn't fool me, there were once Tu-22Ms belonging to Russian Naval Aviation.
If I'm reading the wiki entry correctly, the rotary launchers are already configured to be able to hold 12x weapons each. 12x Kh-15 length weapons per bay, 24x Kh-50s total is absolutely possible.
The rotary launcher carries six Kh-55 or Kh-101/102 ALCMs. One launcher per bay. The "12 weapons each" would've been for the Kh-15, but that capability was never actually fielded - only the long-range ALCMs have ever been carried operationally. As the Kh-15 hasn't been fielded, it's possible that the rotary launcher doesn't have the capability to mount more than six weapons at present, making any sort of payload a maximum of 12 x whatever, six per bay.
It can be assumed that:
Tu-160 - serial Tu-160M - upgraded serial Tu-160M1 - several aircraft built from the "Soviet reserve" Tu-160M2 - completely new newly built bombers
First ,we must know that those designations are different from the KAPO and VKS. KAPO has designations like Tu-160M ,M1 and M2 but VKS ( RuA&SF) has only Tu-160 and Tu-160M ( for the newer Tu-160M2).
Now about those Tu-160M-VKS or M2-KAPO. Ten aircraft are in fact from 9th and 10th serie with 5 aircraft in each which production was stopped in 1992. Aircraft from 9th serie were finnished 25%-45% and aircraft from 10th serie only 12%.
Бо рд Име Сер. № Първи полет Преда ден Предх. ремонт Последен ремонт Заб 1 01 Михаил Громов 701 1991 1992 Катастрофа 18/09/03 2 02 Василий Решетников 702 RF-94102 1991 1992 28/12/09 КВО 2016/7 КР М1(6 ...
Tu-160 production hardly seems like a very successful effort, at least in terms of scale.
In any case, I think we have crossed a boundary where degital design and automation of manufacture are going to make creating a new aircraft as or more cost effective than resurrecting an out of production one.
I mean, the few bombers they did produce from scratch recently are 100% more than they did for almost 30 years. So to me it seems like a success, especially considering spares can now be produced fresh from the factory as well. It's a big advantage for the operation of the most crucial bomber they have
I mean, the few bombers they did produce from scratch recently are 100% more than they did for almost 30 years. So to me it seems like a success, especially considering spares can now be produced fresh from the factory as well. It's a big advantage for the operation of the most crucial bomber they have
Two seems like a meaningless metric of success. It merely confirms the possibility of doing so, not that the use of resources was well thought out or the cost benefit of the capability justified. It’s more of a Guinness world record than anything else.
“The bomber put back into production after the longest time of being out of production is the Tu-160. Honorable mention to the H-6.”
Two seems like a meaningless metric of success. It merely confirms the possibility of doing so, not that the use of resources was well thought out or the cost benefit of the capability justified. It’s more of a Guinness world record than anything else.
“The bomber put back into production after the longest time of being out of production is the Tu-160. Honorable mention to the H-6.”
It's two new units of the largest strategic bombers ever put into service after decades of lacking the means to produce them. When was the last time two comparable aircraft rolled off the assembly line anywhere, not to mention in a modernized standard after such a long break in manufacturing?
Seeing this as anything other but a pretty big success for the industry for obvious reasons, and the VKS long range aviation for getting two brand new units of their most capable asset is kinda...questionable, to put it mildly.
Can someone move this (and related messages) to the Tu-160 thread?
That never happened of course. Someone's imagination ...
Now some details about max true air speed which Tu-160 could reach. During its service in the UkrAF from 1992 ,in several occasions 'white swans' flew in the Russian air space ,often above Kola peninsula ( via Olenogorsk air base) or over Ural region.In some of missions ,pilots got command to accelerate to max possible speed. During acceleration on Full AB mode ,they reach max true air speed of Mach 2.35 or 2500 km/h instrumental at height 18000m.
Tu-160 as the heaviest strategic missile-carrier in the world can reach the same max true air speed like fighters MiG-29 or Su-27 which are toys in comparison with the 'white swan'.
So called 'Baklan' suite for the high-alt flights.
PAK DA is getting the resources it needs regardless. But first, the first prototypes will be assembled basically by hand anyway. And even after that, the production facilities will have to be expanded anyway, something that is currently underway if I remember correctly.
But also consider this, many people who work at UAC/Tupolev nowadays have never built a large strategic bomber. For them working with the known Tu-160 first gives them valuable experience and knowledge that will be beneficial for the construction of the Tupolev PAK DA. Design should be frozen by now, and knowing Russian aviation it is probably a refined and modernized alteration of a very, very late soviet concept that never came to fruition. The idea of a stealth bomber for the Russian Military is obviously predating the PAK DA program.
It's two brand new, factory fresh, modernized additions to an existing fleet. I don't understand the complaint, really?
Furthermore construction of such aircraft takes plenty of time, certainly longer than a fighter jet, certainly longer when you want to ensure it's properly put together and certainly longer when you have to work with boat loads of titanium in large sealed chambers to weld critical components. I'm certain they would like to produce like one per month, I dunno, but it's not in the cards. But producing them at all is already a huge win for them, and knowing that there will be additional units and that the aging of the Russian bomber fleet is being fought even before PAK DA comes around says a lot about their commitment.
And let's not kid ourselves here, many air forces around the world would already be very envious over two such strategic bombers, let alone fresh ones, modernized and with the production line to make more up their sleeves.
It doesn't. But it was meant to fit two rows of Tu-22M3 bay-sized Kh-15s.
And suggestion that a missile of same size(tu-22m3 bay on rotary launcher), designed for the same two aircraft, will likely fit (and is 90% required to) isn't unreasonable.
PAK DA adds logical weight to this hypothesis- as "normally" it is understood to carry just one tu-160 bay, it's normal payload count is consequently halved. That is, unless it can leverage its stealth and come closer than consider safe for tu-160m in strategic role (same 12 weapons, or even using flying wings’ potential efficiency advantage, shall tu-160 carry flexible tank in one of its bays, though it's a less relevant profile with kh-101/102). It certainly is very attractive when compared to tu-95msm and tu-22 it's apparently meant to replace.
Tu-160 production hardly seems like a very successful effort, at least in terms of scale.
In any case, I think we have crossed a boundary where degital design and automation of manufacture are going to make creating a new aircraft as or more cost effective than resurrecting an out of production one.
The fleet isn't that big in the first place, and their destructive potential is immense. Each addition adds significant salvo weight.
Normal tu-95 weapon load in strategic profile is 4 big missiles(8 is overload configuration, 8+6 - theater one), normal tu-160 profile (assuming refuel) is 12. Bays matter.
This is a pretty silly statement.
Ask the Manhattan Project...the US navy in the Pacific, the Brits in the Falklands...etc
The Russians wanted to increase their Tu-160 fleet, the largest and fastest strategic bomber ever fielded in squadron service anywhere, and re-establish competencies in manufacturing and upgrades.
They are doing so.
Any additional strategic bombers carrying multiple nuclear warheads or missiles is relevant.
The rotary launcher carries six Kh-55 or Kh-101/102 ALCMs. One launcher per bay. The "12 weapons each" would've been for the Kh-15, but that capability was never actually fielded - only the long-range ALCMs have ever been carried operationally. As the Kh-15 hasn't been fielded, it's possible that the rotary launcher doesn't have the capability to mount more than six weapons at present, making any sort of payload a maximum of 12 x whatever, six per bay.
X-55 is a subsonic small-size strategic cruise missile, flying with a low altitude terrain envelope, designed for use against important strategic objects of the enemy with pre-determined coordinates.
en.missilery.info
Kh-55SM were more usual.How much bigger are newer Kh-101,we can see on these pics.
Kh-101/102 is not so stealthy as e.g. AGM-129A ACM was especially when we know that engine TRDD-50A is positioned under the fuselage. If the engine was positioned inside and e.g. has forward-swept wing that would be different story of course.
With Kh-101 ( launch weight almost 2500kg) they increased max launch distance ( range) as first .From 3500km with CFT's equipped Kh-55SM ( launch weight about 1500kg) , max range is increased to 5000-6000km. Kh-102 with nucl. warhead has even bigger range because that warhead is much smaller and lighter than conventional one ( 400-500kg).
they went for a big redesign with the stealth oriented kh-50/sd, so I imagine the size isn't much of a factor here (although the redesign is significantly smaller), the whole design has it as a secondary thought
The chief of Russia’s Long-Range Aviation says that the Tu-160 Blackjack is now carrying the advanced new long-range weapon.
www.twz.com
My opinion is that it is not some new subsonic cruise missile because they already have very long range Kh-101/102.There is also newer Kh-555 ( has that canards/foreplanes on the nose).Maybe it is some kind of 'reincarnation' of the Kh-90 GELA as hypersonic missile from 1980's or even maybe also hypersonic Kh-45 from 1970's?
That's not really the usual mission profile of the Tu-160. More so to strike NATO infrastructure in continental Europe and US assets elsewhere with nuclear tipped missiles. The Tu-22M was far more concerned with anti ship missions and also carried potent AShMs throughout it's life, if my memory doesn't fool me, there were once Tu-22Ms belonging to Russian Naval Aviation.
And while I'm a staunch proponent of the usage of aircraft in anti-shipping missions, the Tu-160 isn't well suited for it. It's large and not particularly nimble. And while payload and stand-off range could make it work, they would also make it work with others. While Tu-22Ms dashing at high speed in low level flight, firing supersonic AShMs at USN ships was and still is a not to be underestimated combination.
If you want to attack ships you either go fast and low, go high and stealthy, or you go home. And you definitely wouldn't want to fly a Tu-160 low over the water. That's why something like a Tu-22M3 or more recently something like a B-21 has and could have serious anti-ship applications. Although the US, unlike the Russians, have historically been more reluctant to use bombers in such a role, instead relying on smaller, shorter range, carrier based aircraft.
From the beginning of its operational use ,only real task for the Tu-160 was to attack high priority strategic targets on Continental US flying over North pole zone. Same task was also determined for the Tu-95MS-6/16.
On the other side ,Tu-22M2/M3 had task to attack USN carrier battle groups and NATO infrastructure in Europe.
It seems that new Izdeliye 506 for the Tu-160M (M2) is in the serial production.
''Минобороны России впервые закупило новейшие крылатые ракеты воздушного базирования «Изделие 506» для бомбардировщика Ту-160М.
Основные носители новых ракет — модернизированные бомбардировщики-ракетоносцы Ту-160М, которые получат необходимые конструктивные изменения в механизме бомбового отсека.''
Transl :
"The Russian Ministry of Defense has purchased the latest Izdeliye 506 air-launched cruise missiles for the Tu-160M bomber for the first time.The primary carriers for the new missiles are the upgraded Tu-160M bomber-missile carriers, which will receive the necessary design modifications to the bomb bay mechanism."
There is no place any more for the old IRST known as 'Ogonyek'.
Now there is completely redesigned tailboom with the new ESM/ECM equipment as part of the Redut 70M/BKR-70M system.
''An entirely new Redut-70M self-defence suite is being designed for Tu-160M and Tu- 160M2 versions, and the NII Kulon company is developing the BKR-70M reconnaissance system.''
Tu-160's list ,with the red Bort numbers and its serial ,plant/construction and registration numbers (with both old and the new livery) .There is some mysteries about Bort numbers from 20 red and above...
01 'Mikhail Gromov' ,ser. number 7-01,constr. number 82007617 ,w/o reg number. It was lost with its crew on 18. Sept. 2003.
02 'Vasiliy Reshetnikov' ,ser. number 7-02, constr. number 83007526, reg.number RF-94102
03 'Pavel Taran' ,ser,number 7-03, constr.number 83007335, reg. number RF-94101
Бо рд Име Сер. № Първи полет Преда ден Предх. ремонт Последен ремонт Заб 1 01 Михаил Громов 701 1991 1992 Катастрофа 18/09/03 2 02 Василий Решетников 702 RF-94102 1991 1992 28/12/09 КВО 2016/7 КР М1(6 ...
21 февраля 2024 года Президент Российской Федерации Владимир Путин посетил Казанский авиационный завод (КАЗ) имени С.П. Горбунова - филиале ПАО Туполев ПАО Объединенная авиастроительная корпорация (ПАО ОАК) в Казани, где ему были продемонстрированы четыре…
bmpd.livejournal.com
One question ,what happened with the Tu-160 with the serial number 8-05 ( fifth aircraft of the 8th serie)?
''Name ? ser.number 8-05,constr. number 8хх08х5х,reg.number RF-94???''
He was in fact the first prototype of the Tu-160M (M2) .First test flight was done on 12 Jan. 2022.
Как сообщило ПАО Объединенная авиастроительная корпорация (ПАО ОАК), 12 января 2022 года с аэродрома Казанского авиационного завода филиала ПАО Туполев (в составе ПАО ОАК Госкорпорации Ростех) совершил первый полет первый вновь…
ПАО «Объединенная авиастроительная корпорация» (ПАО «ОАК») 30 декабря 2022 года сообщило, что на лётные испытания переданы два очередных стратегических ракетоносца Ту-160М, разработанных ПАО «Туполев» (входит в ПАО «Объединенная авиастроительная корпорация» ...
www.testpilots.ru
Note: will repeat in order to not be confused. Tu-160M,M1 and M2 are designations from OAK/KAZ (KAPO). Tu-160 and Tu-160M are designations from VKS. Tu-160M are only newer aircraft from 9th and 10th serie.
One of the new Tu-160M got the name 'Mintimer Shaymiyev' and it happened on October last year. We can see him from 1:12 on the video in this article but I couldn't see its Bort number ( blured or it didn't exist at all?).
Video from Oct. 2024 shows us that maybe there was no Bort number on the front landing gear/crew ladder door (from 0:52 ) ? It seems that Bort number 22 red is not 'Mintimer Shaymiyev'. Maybe that aircraft is in fact one with the serial number 8-05 ???
Back to 2 Aug. 1988, Kubinka air base near Moscow.
Story about “the Carlucci panel”
Two Tu-160s staged a flying display for US observers having the first close look at the Blackjack. But they had to fly with 3 engines because 1 engine failed on both aircraft.
''Another embarrassing situation arose when Frank Carlucci climbed into the Tu-160’s flight deck. As he moved about in the confined space he bumped his head painfully on a carelessly positioned circuit breaker panel (which the witty airmen promptly dubbed “the Carlucci panel”). Indeed, almost every person making his first visit inside the Blackjack bumps his head on it!''
Two Tu-160s staged a flying display for US observers having the first close look at the Blackjack. But they had to fly with 3 engines because 1 engine failed on both aircraft.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
en.missilery.info
www.twz.com
bmpd.livejournal.com
116.ru
theaviationgeekclub.com
www.latimes.com
