Tupolev Tu-160M (modernization & new production)

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...
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

main-qimg-f9e7a0cf57e17371dfec381055203a3b-pjlq
 
Mr.T said:
Tu-160 is more of a B-1A equivalent , B1B is much smaller plane and barely supersonic much simpler than B1A
Click to expand...
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.
 
sferrin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Mr.T said:
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
Click to expand...
"Supersonic tech". God help us. Bye.
 
Mr.T said:
Tu-160 is more of a B-1A equivalent , B1B is much smaller plane and barely supersonic much simpler than B1A
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it's way not 'exactly the same'
 
flateric said:
No, it's way not 'exactly the same'
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
Much more than that. Nosecone, cockpit windows, landing gear legs, wing root fairings, turkey feathers. To start with.
 
sferrin said:
And let's not forget the gross weight increased by 80,000lbs+. That doesn't come without making changes.
Click to expand...
Yeah, internal changes. Beefing up some parts while reducing weight of other parts to keep empty weight about the same.
 
Mr.T said:
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 .
Click to expand...
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?
 
LMFS said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 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:
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240321-213055_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20240321-213055_Chrome.jpg
    98.8 KB · Views: 151
  • FB_IMG_1709545015618.jpg
    FB_IMG_1709545015618.jpg
    58.5 KB · Views: 178
Last edited:
PlanesPictures said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
PlanesPictures said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Forest Green said:
Posts describing how corruption has led to an aircraft engine issue.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Trident said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Whatever bomber it is it makes up for all the analogue dials of the old cockpits. I am sure that Tupolev will use the same cockpit displays for both the Tu-22M3M and Tu-160M.
 
The PAK-DA may feature elements of the Tu-160s cockpit to keep costs down, after all you don't want have to spend big money on the development of a new cockpit when there is a good enough one already available.
 
Scar said:
It's a first photo of 160M cockpit ever.
Click to expand...
Not the first one. Neither with covered MFD, nor with blurred ones on live hardware shown almost three years ago.
 
If that is an official simulator, are the trainee really supposed to end blind at the end of the syllabus? The proximity of the screen with the seated position is alarming.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom