[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/k/ - Weapons

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


What important capabilities does this plane give Russia? Why did they consider it worth the great expense to restart production?
>>
File: 1642092293645.png (221 KB, 1024x576)
221 KB
221 KB PNG
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43852/russias-first-new-production-tu-160-blackjack-in-decades-makes-its-maiden-flight
>>
>>51638900
>great expense
was it more expensive than designing a new aircraft?
my view is that large ac are nice for show, and maybe useful against a small opponent when you have air superiority, but not much use against a peer. So it might be a cheap way to fly the flag, drop a few bombs on a small nation that's causing problems etc.
>>
>2022
>Swing-wing
Sure. If you want to take you "new" bomber and immediately add more maintenance to an already difficult-to-maintain fleet.
>>
>>51638928
> was it more expensive than designing a new aircraft?
It was certainly more expensive than not building any more such aircraft at all.
>>
>>51638928
>So it might be a cheap way to fly the flag, drop a few bombs on a small nation that's causing problems etc.
Why does it need to be over Mach 2 capable for this? That doesn't seem like a cheap way to do it.
>>
>>51638900
Is it because a fast plane is better as a naval bomber, in that it can better act on target data before it becomes obsolete, and can easier get to a firing position before being intercepted by enemy combat air patrol?
>>
>>51638900

Big missile trucks haven't gone out of style and it doesn't seem like they will anytime soon. As to why restart - maybe they want more? kek, or maybe they want to preserve the institutional knowledge of building larger frames.
>>
>>51638900
Is is actually new production or does it just use soviet spares like the ones before did?
>>
>>51638900
... How many are there?
>>
These short production runs to cut costs are really dumb. They claim to be cutting costs but then they have to start an entirely new program from scratch a few years later when they realize they don't have enough units. They should do an initial high rate production batch and then continue low rate production throughout the service life of the aircraft.
>>
I'm not going to counter-signal these new Tu-160s. The fact that they're bringing it back means that they're happy with where they're at with it's design. There's always value in high-performance long range bomb trucks for nations that want to project force.

Also considering that the USAF is going to upgrade the B1 for hypersonic missile duty Russia should at least have similar capability.
>>
>>51639941
>The fact that they're bringing it back means that they're happy
Yeah, like those flankers they are making, right.
>>
>>51639952

>HURR DURR ARMATARD RUSSIAN BAD HAHA AMIRITE

kindly kys
>>
>>51639983
Getting the shill to come out was easier than usual this time.
>>
>>51639838
probably this to be honest
>>
>>51638900
>building a giant non-stealthy strategic bomber that you have no strategic need for

It doesn't even have the hard points to potentially become a missile truck like the B-1. Should've just made an entirely new airframe instead of clinging onto antique soviet junk
>>
>>51639983
You girls can't do your job is that's all it takes to out yourself.
>>
>>51640036
It's an 80s design, not really antique.
>>
>>51640069
it's actually a 70s design, i'm sorry boomer, but that's antique especially when it lacks a mission that the backfire doesn't already do and do better. the tu-160 somehow is an even bigger hangar queen than the b-2 and if pak-da is actually supposed to be a thing then wasting money on this is an even bigger mistake considering that tooling for the 160 was never complete
>>
>>51640106
>if pak-da is actually supposed to be a thing
""""""""if"""""""""""
>>
>>51640106
B2 is 80s design.
>if pak-da is actually supposed to be a thing
I doubt they have money for that. So they use Tu-160. Slap enough electronics on it and it does the trick. It's a missile carrier.
>>
>>51638900
>What important capabilities does this plane give Russia? Why did they consider it worth the great expense to restart production?
PAK DA development has suffered delays. Gotta keep factory doing something to keep them proficient in their jobs. Also some of Tu-22M's and Tu-95's might be nearing end of their useful life and need replacement rather sooner than later when PAK DA is available. Sometimes it makes sense to build something you don't have immediate need for because setting up production for actual replacement might get much more expensive if there isn't skilled workforce. For recent example, US keeping Abrams production rolling despite US Army already having all M1A2's they wanted. The thing I'm talking about is institutional knowledge. Another example. Even if you don't have a immediate need, it might make sense to maintain tiny airforce with handful of fighters and bunch of trainers, even if there isn't budget right now for modernization, because building up all capability from zero after decade or something would be much more expensive.

Tu-160 is such a funny plane, especially the fate of Ukrainian aircraft. US made them scrap 10 those instead of selling 'em Russians for natural gas and kinda ruined economies of scale for maintenance Russians.
>>51639892
Tu-160 production was cut by fall of the Soviet Union and end of Cold War. They practically went bankrupt as nation. Also parts of the production might have been outside of Russia after the breakup, complicating things. Right now their next gen bomber is delayed.
>>
>>51638900
>What important capabilities does this plane give Russia? Why did they consider it worth the great expense to restart production?

Is probably a neat platform to develop new Hypersonic missiles.
>>
>>51638900
kino
>>
>>51639838
>maybe they want to preserve the institutional knowledge of building larger frames.
Probably the most reasonable option
>>
File: faa.jpg (629 KB, 1430x953)
629 KB
629 KB JPG
>>51639856
>>51639892
>>51641401

Super low rate serial production. Pic related can almost see institutional knowledge retention and management in the photograph: look at how old those assemblers are, and the documentation, and the single point of focus, and the dead as in dead for years areas. Japan does this with submarines, but it really isn't very common. Goes against the individual career motivation.
>>
>>51639838
>Big missile trucks haven't gone out of style and it doesn't seem like they will anytime soon
Nobody is using them outside of the US and Russia though
>>
>>51642162
Does russia even count?
>>
>>51639856
There are probably a few older (though probably not Soviet era) parts in it. The main thing is that the titanium wing box is brand new.
>>
>>51639941
The B1 is going to be retired in the next decade though. We didn’t build that many and they’re all nearing the end of their lifespan. They’re going to be replaced with the B-21 because stealthy subsonic>supersonic as far as bombers go.
>>
>>51642180
Why wouldn't they? They have 60+ active and have launched the missiles in combat.
>>
>>51642180

Yes. They have kept parity with American nuclear bombers, at least in numbers. It makes sense given that it is part of their nuclear triad.
>>
>>51638900
I love the Tu-160, but do supersonic bombers even make sense anymore?
It seems the contemporary philosophy is for strategic bombers to be either stealth or just simply missile trucks
>>
File: 30_10.jpg (33 KB, 700x484)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
>>51642162
>Nobody is using them outside of the US and Russia though
China's using em. the main reason they keep their old Tupolev Badgers around is to ferry anti-ship missiles.
>>
>>51642564
They kinda made sense in the 70s, but by a stretch already. They are good at running away from interceptors, but SAMs will fuck them up. US dropped the idea in the XB-70 Valkyrie in the 60s.
>>
>>51643202
to add onto this, i'm surprised India hasn't made any moves towards getting missile truck bombers. their bomber fleet is virtually nonexistent despite the fact that they would have been very useful for the naval battles for the Pakis they had all the way back in the 1970s
>>
File: tl61.png (1.35 MB, 1017x626)
1.35 MB
1.35 MB PNG
>>51642162
They are a good base platform for the hypersonic/scramjet/aeroballistic things. The Tu-160 could be in a league of its own, they proved the general idea with Burlak, 1.1t to LEO to give an idea of size
>>
>>51640153
>Ukrainian aircraft
I don't know why the US didn't try to keep them and refit them with American engines and avionics.
>>
>>51643711
The USAF was scrapping hundreds of aircraft at the time, why would they want to keep a few ex-Soviet aircraft with no spare parts availability?
>>
>>51643784
To test them, to see how you could adapt Russian aircraft to American components to choke the Russian out of the market for their own aircraft. But your point is right: they were back then dumb enough to think Russia would not rise again.
>>
>>51640153
>Tu-160 is such a funny plane, especially the fate of Ukrainian aircraft. US made them scrap 10 those instead of selling 'em Russians for natural gas and kinda ruined economies of scale for maintenance Russians.
Smart move
>>
>>51643909
>to see how you could adapt Russian aircraft to American components to choke the Russian out of the market for their own aircraft
This would be a real power play, however for these planes the only buyer would be russia itself, and they haven't really built any til now.
>>
>>51643999
Trips of truth I must admit. That said, there is one aircraft that a Western conversion can still be done: the second An-225. Put P&W or RR engines on that thing and you have a monster.
>>
>>51643909
>To test them
How would fitting them with US engines and avionics help with that, you'd just be testing an american aircraft.
>to choke the Russian out of the market for their own aircraft
Russia would start buying re-engined Tu-160s?
Russia was mostly choked out of its own market by off the shelf Boeing and Airbus aircraft, not whatever you are saying.
>>
>>51644074
I just realized that yes, that didn't make most sense for a bomber. I just thought what the hell, like putting American engines on a Flanker with the Russian TVC nozzles so you have what is more or less a fixed wing Tomcat with hypermaneuverability.
>>
>>51638900
>What important capabilities does this plane give Russia?
None
>Why did they consider it worth the great expense to restart production?
To keep the factory open. Russia has military industrial lobby too.
>>
>>51644150
>putting American engines on a Flanker
pointless meme, nothing useful will come out of such endeavor
>>
>>51644791
>None
It can carry 12 strategic missiles to a range of 7,000km.
>To keep the factory open.
The same factory builds Tu-214s, it would of been far simpler and cheaper to increase production of them rather than completely restart production of Tu-160s.
>>
>>51640018
fuck nigger, can there not be any sort of discussion about russian shit without schizos like you shitting up the fucking thread? you're fucking cancer and the reason we can't have nice things
>hurr durr, it's a thread about something, i see you shill
honestly boy go the fuck outside.
>>
>>51642195
the b1 is also a motherfucker when it comes to maintainance i understand.
>>
>>51643202
>Badgers badgers badgers, badgers badgers badgers
>>
>>51644863
>it would of been far simpler and cheaper to increase production of them rather than completely restart production of Tu-160s.
They don't want it to be cheaper, they basically subside jobs at this point.

>It can carry 12 strategic missiles to a range of 7,000km.
Tu-95 can carry them too. Russians have that next gen bomber project too, haven't they? Where is it?
>>
>>51638900
>What important capabilities does this plane give Russia?

>Why did they consider it worth the great expense to restart production?
Because Russian government wants to spend money on militarism.
>>
>>51642162
>Nobody is using them outside of the US and Russia though

Nobody has the need to sink ships like the US and Russua.

You fly a bunch of Bears into the North Atlantic and salvo fire a swarm of Granit cruise missiles at a US carrier group.

Simple as.
>>
>>51639838
or the factory is owned by one of Putlers pals and needs orders
>>
>>51638928
>was it more expensive than designing a new aircraft?

i mean they have plans already dubbed pak da
not sure if it will replace the tu 160s or the tu 95s
>>
>>51643247
RIP XB-70
>>
>>51645692
>the TU95s
It will be a sad day when a Bear successor makes its maiden flight
>>
>>51643247
Are you sure they didn't drop idea of supersonic bomber in 70's with cancellation of B-1A?

>>51643985
At that point Russia had 6 or 7 serially produced Tu-160's. Ukraine sold them 8 for gas, disabled one aircraft for display in museum and scrapped 10 aircraft. After that Russians have built 3 more bombers from existing parts and now a brand new aircraft. With 9 more on order.

That scrapping of aircraft has made maintenance of others more expensive per aircraft and turned Tu-160 more of an white elephant it already was.
>>
>>51643247
>good at running away from interceptors
So you're saying that if it carries missiles that outrange SAMs then they are great?
>>
>>51640153
>PAK DA
It's supposed to be subsonic and built for stealth though, while the Tu-160 is built for speed. How would they be useful for the same roles?
>Tu-95
>Tu-22M
The Tu-160 would be an exceedingly expensive replacement though. Why not build something subsonic to replace Tu-95, and restart Tu-22M production if those need to be replaced? The Tu-160 is twice the weight of the Tu-22M and slightly faster.
>>
How likely is it that China will buy the Tu-160? This seems to be one of the few remaining areas where Russia can build something that China can't.
>>
>>51646688
>restart Tu-22M production if those need to be replaced?
They're being replaced by Su-34.
>>
>>51646704
Doesn't the Tu-22M have more than twice the range even with a heavier payload? How is the Su-34 a replacement? Is the idea that the Tu-22M will be replaced by Su-34 for the low end and Tu-160 for high end?
>>
>>51646726
Or is the idea that Su-34 with more in flight refuelling capabilities will replace inherently longer range?
>>
>>51640036
Stealth is cringe.
Can't get any more gay.
>>
>>51640036
The point with the Tu-160 is speed, which seems somewhat incompatible with external hardpoints because of high drag. If they wanted a bomb truck, wouldn't they have built something subsonic. So why do the Russians think speed is important?
>>
>>51638928
>my view is that large ac are nice for show, and maybe useful against a small opponent when you have air superiority, but not much use against a peer.
It's the exact opposite, lol.
>>
>>51643247
>but SAMs will fuck them up.
Good thing they carry missiles that can be launched far outside the SAM engagement radius, almost as if... somebody planned for this??
>>
The Tu-160 is significantly faster than all US carrier fighters (Super Hornet, F-35B/C) and the vast majority of future US land based fighters (F-35A)? What are the practical implications of this?
>>
File: file.png (60 KB, 736x304)
60 KB
60 KB PNG
>>51646726
No fucking idea.

I'm guessing aerial refuelling and stand off cruise missiles with far greater range than what the Tu-22M3 had is the "reason".

Whilst the real reason is that the modern Russian aviation industry simply can't handle production/maintenance of multiple swing-wing bombers, as demonstrated by the many Tu-22M3 that explode in hilarious fashion.

As the Tu-22 and variants pass the use by date they'll be shelved and replaced by Tu-160's and Su-34's.
>>
>>51646688
>It's supposed to be subsonic and built for stealth though, while the Tu-160 is built for speed. How would they be useful for the same roles?
Both are strategic bombers. One penetrates enemy defenses with stealth, other with speed and stand off cruise missiles.
>The Tu-160 would be an exceedingly expensive replacement though. Why not build something subsonic to replace Tu-95, and restart Tu-22M production if those need to be replaced? The Tu-160 is twice the weight of the Tu-22M and slightly faster.
Tu-160 might be replacement for some of Tu-22M's and Su-34 replaces it in other roles. Tu-95 as strategic nuclear bomber is missile truck just like B-52 and Tu-160. I don't think Tu-95 has much of conventional role left, maritime patrol version Tu-142 is bit different matter. Russians have used mostly Tu-22M for conventional bomber missions done with actual bombers instead of fighter bombers Su-24 and Su-34.

>>51646726
>Doesn't the Tu-22M have more than twice the range even with a heavier payload?
Aerial refueling solves the range issue and precision weapons fix most of payload issues. Don't ever underestimate what kind of force multiplier PGM's are. PGM's have mostly replaced tactical nuclear bombs because 500kg TNT and couple hundred kilos of steel shell surrounding it will fuck up bridge just fine. In 60's alternatives would have been half dozen to dozen fighter bombers with conventional bomb or one with tactical nuke to take out point target like that. Now one multirole fighter or strike aircraft can do that reliably with one or two bombs.
>>
>>51647524
It's slower than a missile.
>>
>>51646726
>Why not build something subsonic to replace Tu-95, and restart Tu-22M production if those need to be replaced? The Tu-160 is twice the weight of the Tu-22M and slightly faster.
Because immediate needs. There is no neo-Tu-95 or neo-B-52 for low end strategic bombers. While there might be rationale for something like modified airliner with precision weapons for bombing illiterate goat fuckers with no effective air defense that has ungodly time on orbit over battlefield, trying to justify spending budget on something like that at expense of few strategic bombers might another matter. While conventional wars with peer or near peer opponents are extremely rare, that is still the priority for militaries. Tu-22M is something that fit Soviet doctrine as glove as heavy naval strike aircraft and quasi-strategic bomber. It doesn't have true intercontinental range, but it can deliver heavy hits on targets in Europe and other areas surrounding Russia. It can't penetrate air defenses anymore like it would have in 70's and 80's. Modern and future Russian bomber doctrine has evolved and. Additional Tu-160's, Su-34's and PAK DA will replace both Tu-22M and Tu-95. I wouldn't be surprised if Tu-142 will be replaced by maritime patrol aircraft based on airliner or transport plane in the future.
>>
btw it was made almost entirely of parts from before the collapse of the soviet union
and it took a herculean effort of industry to gather the remaining 10% to complete it

this wont be possible again
>>
File: file.png (2.07 MB, 1280x891)
2.07 MB
2.07 MB PNG
this is sad
why are they making amraam bait in 2021, this is an 80s design...
an 80s soviet design
>>
>>51647856
>There is no neo-Tu-95 or neo-B-52 for low end strategic bombers.
Why not just a converted cargo plane?
>>
>>51648022
No. They built three new aircraft in 2002, 2008 and 2017 mostly from left over parts. They are now building 10 more aircraft from mostly new parts. One that flew now was first of the mostly new ones.
>>
>>51648092
The Americans are trying it.
https://www.defensenews.com/training-sim/2021/12/17/us-air-force-blows-up-a-target-with-a-cruise-missile-from-a-cargo-plane/
>>
File: 1622407801056.jpg (87 KB, 638x826)
87 KB
87 KB JPG
>stealthlet
>>
>>51648074
70s*
>>
File: 747 CMCA.jpg (12 KB, 645x291)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
>>51648092
Money for low end bomber would be away from procuring high end bomber that would be mainstay in fighting peer or near peer opponents with actual air defense. While airliners are cheaper than bombers, especially supersonic bombers or stealth bombers, those are still quite expensive pieces of kit. Same goes with transport planes. Advantages with using airliners would be maintenance synergies with air force AWACS, tankers, other command aircraft and any airline using base aircraft as well. Military transport plane would have maintenance synergies with military transport aircraft, but those have serious flaw built in. Military transport aircraft are built for rough landings on unprepared airstrips. That means extra bulk in fuselage meant take extra abuse. That bulk also raises operating costs. While speed might not be everything, low speed landing capability may come at cost with economic cruising speed.

Not that it is exactly new idea. Just making it above enemy for enemies with no air defense using precision guided bombs might be a new twist. Back in 70's USAF seriously considered using Boeing 747 as cruise missile carrier. It can level a province, oblast, state or whatever target country calls its administrative divisions pretty effectively with cruise missiles equipped with nuclear warheads and maybe a military port or airbase or two with conventional warheads.

>>51650014
Design of Tu-160 has its roots in late 60's as concept, program was started in early 70's. IIRC Soviet air force chose Myasichev (spelling?) proposal over Tupolev and Sukhoi proposals but gave final design contract to Tupolev as Myasichev design bureau was getting more deeply involved in space stuff and they shouldn't be over burdened with something as mundane as supersonic bomber, one they proposed out of all things. IIRC the Tupolevs own proposal was blended wing/body plane with swing wings. One that would have had silly range, but possibly rather marginal supersonic performance.
>>
>>51639983
You're the only one to mention armatard in the entire thread you double nigger.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.