Tupolev Tu-160M (modernization & new production)

[sferrin]

Let me know when Russia flies a B2 lookalike prototype rather than an indifferent copy of a nearly 50 year old US design

This is a general question. Is Mach 2 machine with less invisibility or subsonic machine with high invisibility more suitable?

"an indifferent copy of a nearly 50 year old US design" - do you know M-18 and M-20 as predecessor of Tu-160?

Do you have pics of flying hardware?

As for speed, the B-1A was capable of Mach 2.2. When building the B-1B the USAF determined that reducing the RCS, even at the cost of speed, improved the survivability of the aircraft. That said, the B-1B still hauled 30,000kg 5000km faster than the Tu-160 was able to. (They both hold the record in their respective weight categories on the FAI site. The B-1B flew it faster. )

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1481251963434151939

View: https://twitter.com/UAC_Russia_eng/status/1481251963434151939

 

[flateric]

ПАО «ОАК»

Сегодня с аэродрома Казанского авиационного завода совершил первый полет первый вновь изготовленный стратегический ракетоносец Ту-160М. Полёт проходил на высоте 600 метров и длился около 30 минут. Экипаж летчиков-испытателей ПАО «Туполев» выполнил манёвры, позволяющие проверить устойчивость и...

t.me

 

[QuadroFX]

Hi-res photos(but very noisy):

 

[QuadroFX]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf884Ya8hic

 

[Scar]

Not bad but somewhere deep inside i was hoping for 2-men crew.

 

[paralay]

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

 

[RavenOne]

Strategic missile TU160M ‚White Swan‘ flies

https://twitter.com/x/status/1481251963434151939

View: https://twitter.com/uac_russia_eng/status/1481251963434151939?s=21

 

[LMFS]

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

From what I know there is just one technical standard for the newly built and modernized planes which is 160M. Other upgrades done until now are just MLU and overhauls, no deep modernization

 

[kaiserbill]

Yes, I saw in an article earlier today that any difference in designation has been changed to just "M". This includes upgraded and now new builds.
Of course, I can't vouch for that.

Congratulations to the people involved.
This is actually quite an achievement, when you consider what things were like in the 90's. I'm extremely impressed.

 

[uk 75]

I always love Russian aircraft. They have a certain something... Well done to the team and crew involved. Whatever the politics behind it, it's a fine achievement.

 

[helmutkohl]

watch the flight here

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1RxbkYznic

 

[Archibald]

Still a damn huge and impressive aircraft. Shame the Russians never pushed the "Burlak" project to completion: would make one impressive air-launch platform for rockets.

Just kidding: now that the B-1B are all worn out and broken, the russians should sell some Tu-160s to USAF: since its production line has re-opened.

 

[FighterJock]

Still a damn huge and impressive aircraft. Shame the Russians never pushed the "Burlak" project to completion: would make one impressive air-launch platform for rockets.

Just kidding: now that the B-1B are all worn out and broken, the russians should sell some Tu-160s to USAF: since its production line has re-opened.

I do not think that the powers that be would allow Tupolev to sell Tu-160s to the USAF Archibald, as much as I like the idea as well, the Tu-160 is the pride of the Russian Long Range Strategic Aviation and will be for a few more years yet until the PAK-DA gets into full rate production.

 

[sferrin]

Still a damn huge and impressive aircraft. Shame the Russians never pushed the "Burlak" project to completion: would make one impressive air-launch platform for rockets.

Just kidding: now that the B-1B are all worn out and broken, the russians should sell some Tu-160s to USAF: since its production line has re-opened.

I do not think that the powers that be would allow Tupolev to sell Tu-160s to the USAF Archibald, as much as I like the idea as well, the Tu-160 is the pride of the Russian Long Range Strategic Aviation and will be for a few more years yet until the PAK-DA gets into full rate production.

I'd rather have Backfire-Cs than Blackjacks. Swap out those Kh-22s for better missiles. Perfect for the Pacific. Better yet, more B-1Bs.

 

[Archibald]

It was a joke

 

[FighterJock]

It was a joke

I know Archibald.

 

[FighterJock]

What I would like to know about the the Tu-160M2, will they be able to carry and drop GPS and Laser guided bombs from the internal bomb bays like the B-1B? I know that the original Tu-160 could not carry and drop such bombs.

 

[chestpain]

will be for a few more years yet until the PAK-DA gets into full rate production.

Ahaha, few more years, rrriiiiiiight....

 

[haavarla]

What I would like to know about the the Tu-160M2, will they be able to carry and drop GPS and Laser guided bombs from the internal bomb bays like the B-1B? I know that the original Tu-160 could not carry and drop such bombs.

The Tu-160 mission suite has mostly been Stand-off weapon capabilities. Why on earth do you want that big thing to fly so close over any given territory(even Syria) in order to drop freakin Bombs!?

Also the Tu-160 has a NC deterent stamp all over it.
It should continue with it.
I know they did test some Kh-101 on Syria. Well they should Continue with such mission profile.

Every time i see Tu-22M drop bombs, my eyes hurts..

Leave it to the Su-34, etc etc

 

[LMFS]

The Tu-160 mission suite has mostly been Stand-off weapon capabilities. Why on earth do you want that big thing to fly so close over any given territory(even Syria) in order to drop freakin Bombs!?

Also the Tu-160 has a NC deterent stamp all over it.
It should continue with it.
I know they did test some Kh-101 on Syria. Well they should Continue with such mission profile.
Every time i see Tu-22 drop bombs, my eyes hurts..

Exactly, those are mainly missile carriers with a time critical mission that justifies them being supersonic, with all the disadvantages it implies, dropping bombs is something PAK-DA should be much better suited to do

 

[sferrin]

What I would like to know about the the Tu-160M2, will they be able to carry and drop GPS and Laser guided bombs from the internal bomb bays like the B-1B? I know that the original Tu-160 could not carry and drop such bombs.

The Tu-160 mission suite has mostly been Stand-off weapon capabilities. Why on earth do you want that big thing to fly so close over any given territory(even Syria) in order to drop freakin Bombs!?

Also the Tu-160 has a NC deterent stamp all over it.
It should continue with it.
I know they did test some Kh-101 on Syria. Well they should Continue with such mission profile.
Every time i see Tu-22 drop bombs, my eyes hurts..

"NC"?

 

[Scar]

The Tu-160 mission suite has mostly been Stand-off weapon capabilities. Why on earth do you want that big thing to fly so close over any given territory(even Syria) in order to drop freakin Bombs!?

My thoughts, exactly.

 

[stealthflanker]

"NC"?

Nuclear Capable.

---

I guess Russia wouldnt get into much of "Bomber CAS" like what US did in Afghan.

 

[haavarla]

"NC"?

Nuclear Capable.

---

I guess Russia wouldnt get into much of "Bomber CAS" like what US did in Afghan.

quite right. The weapons bays on Tu-160 comes with those big(revolver) magazine, mounting Cruise missiles, mini clubs or big sticks if you want. I don't even think it can be removed for any bomb racks.

 

[Bounce]

Is there an infographic with the new parts/materials? Are the wings composite like the iL-76s now?

 

[PlanesPictures]

Let me know when Russia flies a B2 lookalike prototype rather than an indifferent copy of a nearly 50 year old US design

This is a general question. Is Mach 2 machine with less invisibility or subsonic machine with high invisibility more suitable?

"an indifferent copy of a nearly 50 year old US design" - do you know M-18 and M-20 as predecessor of Tu-160?

Do you have pics of flying hardware?

As for speed, the B-1A was capable of Mach 2.2. When building the B-1B the USAF determined that reducing the RCS, even at the cost of speed, improved the survivability of the aircraft. That said, the B-1B still hauled 30,000kg 5000km faster than the Tu-160 was able to. (They both hold the record in their respective weight categories on the FAI site. The B-1B flew it faster. )

Rockwell B-1 Lancer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Specifications (B-1B)​

• Maximum speed: 721 kn (830 mph, 1,335 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,000 m), 608 kn (1,126 km/h) at 200–500 ft (61–152 m)
• Maximum speed: Mach 1.25

 

[sferrin]

Let me know when Russia flies a B2 lookalike prototype rather than an indifferent copy of a nearly 50 year old US design

This is a general question. Is Mach 2 machine with less invisibility or subsonic machine with high invisibility more suitable?

"an indifferent copy of a nearly 50 year old US design" - do you know M-18 and M-20 as predecessor of Tu-160?

Do you have pics of flying hardware?

As for speed, the B-1A was capable of Mach 2.2. When building the B-1B the USAF determined that reducing the RCS, even at the cost of speed, improved the survivability of the aircraft. That said, the B-1B still hauled 30,000kg 5000km faster than the Tu-160 was able to. (They both hold the record in their respective weight categories on the FAI site. The B-1B flew it faster. )

Rockwell B-1 Lancer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Specifications (B-1B)​

• Maximum speed: 721 kn (830 mph, 1,335 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,000 m), 608 kn (1,126 km/h) at 200–500 ft (61–152 m)
• Maximum speed: Mach 1.25

Uhm yes, that's what I alluded to. The B swaps out the A's variable geometry intakes for stealthy fixed intakes, complete with radar blocker.

 

[Josh_TN]

What I would like to know about the the Tu-160M2, will they be able to carry and drop GPS and Laser guided bombs from the internal bomb bays like the B-1B? I know that the original Tu-160 could not carry and drop such bombs.

The Tu-160 mission suite has mostly been Stand-off weapon capabilities. Why on earth do you want that big thing to fly so close over any given territory(even Syria) in order to drop freakin Bombs!?

Also the Tu-160 has a NC deterent stamp all over it.
It should continue with it.
I know they did test some Kh-101 on Syria. Well they should Continue with such mission profile.
Every time i see Tu-22 drop bombs, my eyes hurts..

Leave it to the Su-34 etc etc

To be fair, the Russians did fly Backfires to Syria with unguided free fall bombs and the US routinely used its bombers to drop short ranged guided ordnance. Obviously both were in completely permissive environments, so it might not be a need the Russians felt any reason to fill.

 

[QuadroFX]

First newly produced Tu-160M:

 

[QuadroFX]

Composited image:

 

[Scar]

Strange news come from the "source in aviation industry", according to RIA Novosti.

Tu-160 got the rear-looking radar and will carry A2A missiles capable to hit enemy missiles and aircraft.

G-translated article on RIA website.

 

[Dr.Snufflebug]

Strange news come from the "source in aviation industry", according to RIA Novosti.

Tu-160 got the rear-looking radar and will carry A2A missiles capable to hit enemy missiles and aircraft.

G-translated article on RIA website.

A smallish missile (which it'd have to be^1) has highly limited propellant, how would it negate the (negative, for the missile) already present forward momentum? Does it have a parachute that slows it down before it jets away in a new direction?

Hah. Rear radar seems perfectly fine, but I'm sure somebody has misinterpreted the nature of some kind of more plausible
countermeasures.

^1 Where'd they install it? A smallish missile (eg MANPADS-like in a tube inside the body is how I interpret this fantasy), or a huge missile installed backwards in the rotary bays . The latter has better eh, kinematics at least, sure. But that at the expense of its offensive payload, and I mean, say what?

 

[Josh_TN]

I read that as two separate statements - it has a rear looking radar and it also will be able to carry AAMs, not that the AAMs would be rear firing.

 

[Scar]

I read that as two separate statements - it has a rear looking radar and it also will be able to carry AAMs, not that the AAMs would be rear firing.

Lost in translation. In original Russian text the source told AAMs with ability to attack targets in the rear hemisphere will get the targeting from the rear-looking radar.

Here is the more correct G-translation:

“Such air-to-air missiles, according to the target designation of the bomber’s tail radar, will hit the target in the rear hemisphere, that is, it was found“ behind the back ”of the Tu-160M,” the source said.

 

[Josh_TN]

I stand corrected. I wonder if the AAM will be forward firing and lock on after launch?

 

[Scar]

I stand corrected. I wonder if the AAM will be forward firing and lock on after launch?

According to the source, yes.

 

[sferrin]

I stand corrected. I wonder if the AAM will be forward firing and lock on after launch?

Probably the best way. Trying to launch one backwards seems unnecessarily complicated.

 

[TMA1]

Antimissiles are along with DIRCM and EW the future for aviation active protection systems. Though I'm hesitant on this as well, it does make sense that a big high value missile carrier like tu160 would be equipped with small missiles capable of defeating enemy missiles or even enemy aircraft in very close range. If true I wonder if it will be a Tor type missile.

 

[Archibald]

...or they could hire back Pougachev to make a cobra manoeuver: except with a Tu-160 rather than a Su-27.