Tupolev Tu-160M (modernization & new production)

[Mr.T]

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.

Intercontinental lobbing off missiles would be same as it was always planned over the Arctic Circle.

I don't know what size PAK-Da would be but it would make sense if it were a smaller plane than B2 , since iron bomb payload is not the primary weapon. Not much need for supersonic bombers

 

[sferrin]

Tu-160 is more of a B-1A equivalent , B1B is much smaller plane and barely supersonic much simpler than B1A

The B-1B is more sophisticated than the B-1A. The only thing it lost is they traded the VG air intakes in for stealthy ones. That dropped the speed of course but they determined the lower RCS gave superior survivabilty than the extra speed. As for capability, the Tu-160 and B-1B both hold FAI records for hauling 30,000kg 5000km. Guess who did it quicker. Go ahead, guess.

 

[Mr.T]

The B-1B is more sophisticated than the B-1A. The only thing it lost is they traded the VG air intakes in for stealthy ones. That dropped the speed of course but they determined the lower RCS gave superior survivabilty than the extra speed. As for capability, the Tu-160 and B-1B both hold FAI records for hauling 30,000kg 5000km. Guess who did it quicker. Go ahead, guess.

B1B was a literaly budget cut version of B1A , 'stealth' intakes were a cheap tradeoff for supersonic tech ,to enable sustained supersonic flight .Sure it had more advanced electronics being a follow up design built to different requirements

Low-level penetration turned out an absolute dud in practice as planes go shot down at considerable numbers in every conflict it was tried in.B1B like Tu160 were both built around it like the plethora of other strike aircraft at the time .
Touted stealth of B1B is oversold BS , low-level penetration is in essence stealth in the absence of stealth technology, planes avoid radar detection by flying below the radar or in terrain shadow avoiding SAMs only to then get shot down by MANPADS, AAA and short range IR SAMs that do not threaten other tactical aviation.

Funny enough like B1Bwas funded as stop gap til B2 got ready so it seems Tu160 redoux is stop gap till Pak-Da
In any case i consider both planes as dead ends , which rarely ever used their performance envelope in practice.Expensive arsenal trucks

I don't see much point in Tu160 relaunch except to keep factory and expertise alive and it looks like they only needed to take Vlad on couple of joyrides to secure the funding.

 

[sferrin]

B1B was a literaly budget cut version of B1A , 'stealth' intakes were a cheap tradeoff for supersonic tech .Sure it had more advanced electronics being a follow up design built to different requirements

"Supersonic tech". God help us. Bye.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Tu-160 is more of a B-1A equivalent , B1B is much smaller plane and barely supersonic much simpler than B1A

The B-1B is exactly the same airframe as the B-1A. The only external difference is the fixed position inlets instead of variable inlets.

Now, the avionics inside the B-1B are quite a bit more sophisticated than what the -A was planned to have.

 

[flateric]

The B-1B is exactly the same airframe as the B-1A. The only external difference is the fixed position inlets instead of variable inlets.

No, it's way not 'exactly the same'

 

[Scott Kenny]

No, it's way not 'exactly the same'

Oh, right, I did forget a different shaped tailcone, blunter on the -B. That and the fixed inlets are the only visible differences between B-1A and B-1B.

Not sure if we can count the escape capsule, those were deprecated by 1978 or so which makes it unlikely that a production B-1A would have an escape capsule. The 4th pre-production B-1A had ejection seats instead of a capsule, after all.

Internal structure was changed a bit, lightening some areas and beefing up others. Not sure if that would have been limited to B-1B or if production -As would have had the same modification done to allow takeoffs at max fuel and max bombload.

 

[flateric]

Oh, right, I did forget a different shaped tailcone, blunter on the -B. That and the fixed inlets are the only visible differences between B-1A and B-1B.

Much more than that. Nosecone, cockpit windows, landing gear legs, wing root fairings, turkey feathers. To start with.

 

[sferrin]

Much more than that. Nosecone, cockpit windows, landing gear legs, wing root fairings, turkey feathers. To start with.

And let's not forget the gross weight increased by 80,000lbs+. That doesn't come without making changes.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And let's not forget the gross weight increased by 80,000lbs+. That doesn't come without making changes.

Yeah, internal changes. Beefing up some parts while reducing weight of other parts to keep empty weight about the same.

 

[LMFS]

Low-level penetration turned out an absolute dud in practice as planes go shot down at considerable numbers in every conflict it was tried in.B1B like Tu160 were both built around it like the plethora of other strike aircraft at the time .

I have never seen the Tu-160 in original sources being considered as a low level penetration bomber, but a cruise missile carrier, do you have sources that prove the contrary?

 

[Hafidz Rahman]

I have never seen the Tu-160 in original sources being considered as a low level penetration bomber, but a cruise missile carrier, do you have sources that prove the contrary?

Well, that was true, it was "designated" as missile carrier for B-1A and XB-70A analogue. But, some sources are "implicitly" said that it can used too as low level bombing, with the help of laser and TV guided systems.

Translated from here with G-Translate:

Ту-160 ("160") Туполева

ÐежконÑиненÑалÑнÑй ÑÑÑаÑегиÑеÑкий многоÑежимнÑй ÑакеÑоноÑÐµÑ Ð¢Ñ-160 («160», «Ð», «70») Black Jack

testpilot.ru

And funnily, the old Tu-160M versions have it (the targetting optic), before it was replaced with MAWS on M2 variants. I put a comparison photo here too, the second one:

 

[Forest Green]

Posts describing how corruption has led to an aircraft engine issue.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1816895248175350017

View: https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1816895248175350017

https://twitter.com/x/status/1816895253674156524

View: https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1816895253674156524

 

[Josh_TN]

I still did not understand the advantage of the PAK-DA (or B-21) over the Tu-160. It is clear that none of them will be sent directly over enemy territory with conventional bombs. Their task is to deliver rockets with a sufficiently long range to the required distance and launch them. And the Tu-160 can do it twice as fast. Or I'm missing something

B-21 at least is very much intended to penetrate opponents airspace. After the NGB program was canceled, the LRSB looked at two configurations: stand off cruise missile carrier and penetrating bomber. The latter was chosen specifically because it could carry more ordnance that was less expensive, it could carry super heavy penetrating bombs, and it could use it’s own sensors to confirm targets.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I still did not understand the advantage of the PAK-DA (or B-21) over the Tu-160. It is clear that none of them will be sent directly over enemy territory with conventional bombs. Their task is to deliver rockets with a sufficiently long range to the required distance and launch them. And the Tu-160 can do it twice as fast. Or I'm missing something

B-21 (and PAK-DA's intent) is designed to penetrate enemy territory. You don't need stealth if you don't enter the A2AD bubble. You do need stealth if you are entering the A2AD bubble.

It really works out that you want two different types of bombers.

1. One bomber does not have to be stealthy at this time, because it is primarily a cruise missile carrier. In US service that's the B-52, while in Russian service that's the Tu160.
2. The other bomber does need stealth because it is intended to fly over defended airspace. That's the B-21 and PAK-DA.

 

[Trident]

Posts describing how corruption has led to an aircraft engine issue.

Not that I'd be surprised by corruption in the Russian military industry, but that doesn't pass the sniff test. How does a failure in one engine on a Tu-160, even uncontained, take out more than one other engine? The two nacelles are getting on for 8m apart.

 

[Kiltonge]

Airframe size comparison.

Nose and chines remarkably consistent in plan view.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How does a failure in one engine on a Tu-160, even uncontained, take out more than one other engine? The two nacelles are getting on for 8m apart.

I swear I replied to this.

Fan blades or major chunks of engine departing one nacelle in a direct line to the other one. Remember the ... CFM56? engine test where the nacelle had a major failure when the fan blade was released at 6 oclock instead of 12 oclock?