Military Review

Work is already underway: Putin knowingly announced the “passenger” Tu-160

132
Three years have passed since Vladimir Putin’s proposal to restore the production of Tu-160 strategic missile carriers. And so, the new supersonic bomber Tu-160M soars into the sky. Despite the external similarities with the base version, the internal filling of the aircraft has been updated to 90%.


In the process of reconstructing the White Swan, the entire production line was modernized, and a number of technologies were worked out. All this will be used in the implementation of promising projects. And not only for military purposes.

After a loud statement by the Russian president on the need to develop a “passenger version” of the Tu-160, information appeared in the media about work already being done in this direction.

Soviet design engineers have repeatedly managed to create civilian aircraft based on military aircraft. The first domestic jet passenger plane Tu-104, about which we told earlier, was built on the basis of the Tu-16 bomber, and when designing the long-range Tu-114, the strategic Tu-95 served as a base.

132 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. BLOND
    BLOND 27 January 2018 09: 52
    14
    After a loud statement by the President of Russia on the need to develop a “passenger version” of the Tu-160, information appeared in the media about work already underway in this direction

    Complete nonsense
    Addressing the head of state, the head of the United Aircraft Corporation, Yuri Slyusar, said that the enterprise, it turns out, already has a draft of a supersonic civilian airliner, similar to what the president wants to see. Slyusar emphasized that to create such a civilian aircraft to apply the developments and technologies used in the Tu-160 is quite realistic.

    This must be so "distorted"
    I understand the developments to use, and the zhurnalyugi already set up stools for passengers in the aisle of the Tu-160
    1. Vard
      Vard 27 January 2018 10: 01
      +7
      There is also a TU-144 project ... modify it ... redo it and it flies empty ... and redo the bomber ... it’s like stools in the aisle ...
      1. figwam
        figwam 27 January 2018 12: 05
        +5
        Quote: Vard
        There is also a TU-144 project ... modify it ... redo it and it flies empty ... and redo the bomber ... it’s like stools in the aisle ...

        I think here first of all they thought about financial costs and reliability of the design, both factors are on the side of the TU-160.
        1. UAZ 452
          UAZ 452 27 January 2018 13: 23
          +2
          And how many raids does the TU-160 have? Are you sure that the design will continue to be considered reliable after the many-hour raid characteristic of passenger and freight traffic? They are now taking off several times a year, and then one crashed.
          1. figwam
            figwam 27 January 2018 14: 28
            +4
            Quote: UAZ 452
            And how many raids does the TU-160 have?

            Comparing the TU-160 and TU-144, the first one obviously has more flying.
            1. UAZ 452
              UAZ 452 27 January 2018 14: 36
              +2
              And does someone declare the TU-144 a reliable (and in a broader sense - successful) design? The point is that the “civilian” of the 160th has every chance to share the fate of the 144th.
            2. viacheslav poukhovitski
              viacheslav poukhovitski 29 January 2018 02: 44
              +5
              The military does not consider the cost of maintenance and generally the cost of transporting a passenger. The quality of engines here comes first. They destroyed TU -144. You can remake the bomber for the show-offs, but I doubt the economical passenger from it. The engine is not visible suitable for civil.
              1. seti
                seti 29 January 2018 12: 24
                +6
                Quote: viacheslav poukhovitski
                The military does not consider the cost of maintenance and generally the cost of transporting a passenger. The quality of engines here comes first. They destroyed TU -144. You can remake the bomber for the show-offs, but I doubt the economical passenger from it. The engine is not visible suitable for civil.

                That's right - the most important thing in an airplane engine. A glider can be created or improved much faster. The idea is good, but does it make sense and how much will be in time? 10 -15 years? Or is it all 20? And how many lyamov you need to invest in it .. Maybe it is better to invest this money in education and housing and communal services?
                Better bring to mind and increase funding programs MS 21 and IL -112
        2. svp67
          svp67 27 January 2018 13: 35
          +5
          Quote: figvam
          I think here first of all they thought about financial costs and reliability of the design, both factors are on the side of the TU-160.

          Only one is design reliability. Do not forget that a civilian aircraft must be profitable. Not for nothing, the same Tupolev has the best passenger aircraft, not converted from T-104, Tu = 114 and Tu-124 bombers, but made purely passenger Tu-154
          1. figwam
            figwam 27 January 2018 14: 31
            +4
            Quote: svp67

            Only one is design reliability.

            The unification of units and parts, as well as one production base of TU-160 and a new passenger aircraft will reduce financial costs.
            1. UAZ 452
              UAZ 452 27 January 2018 14: 37
              +2
              With the initial difference at times, cost reduction by percent, even by tens of percent, will not do the weather.
              1. Uralean
                Uralean 1 February 2018 21: 05
                +1
                [B] [/ b]
                Quote: UAZ 452
                With the initial difference at times, cost reduction by percent, even by tens of percent, will not do the weather.
                He calculated interest and costs? A bold statement, without even starting to calculate .. But, by sight, it’s more visible, the main thing is to seem like a major specialist .. Or maybe give time to scientists, specialists and operation economists, do a study of the voiced project, make calculations and conclusions, and then voice your opinion based on these calculations?
            2. cost 75
              cost 75 27 January 2018 17: 12
              +1
              Quote: figvam
              Quote: svp67

              Only one is design reliability.

              The unification of units and parts, as well as one production base of TU-160 and a new passenger aircraft will reduce financial costs.

              you saw the price for that 160?
              1. antivirus
                antivirus 27 January 2018 21: 26
                +1
                everything can be done well or laundered loot
                I wrote many times, "flood for the banker"
                see mine about ms21 and others - bring the whole cycle of R&D and life for 30-40 years. before the next modification - do not throw after "I have enough dough"
                GDP can control, give acceleration (and invest a lot of money, so it was too late to drop the project)
        3. Angler
          Angler 29 January 2018 16: 37
          +1
          Yeah, and passengers with luggage unload easier and faster. laughing
          1. demo
            demo 5 February 2018 21: 45
            +2
            You don’t even have to land. So, passed over the port and beyond.
            There will be problems with loading. How to jump into the bomb bay on the go?
        4. yehat
          yehat 2 February 2018 17: 17
          0
          civilian aircraft generally have different requirements.
          I don’t understand the stupid approach to save on development, because it still comes out during operation. No miracles!
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 27 January 2018 12: 27
        +7
        Quote: Vard
        and remodel the bomber ... it's like stools in the aisle ...

        However, the TU-104 completely normal passenger left the TU-16 bomber!
        1. UAZ 452
          UAZ 452 27 January 2018 13: 29
          +7
          As of January 1, 2008, a total of 37 accidents occurred with Tu-104 aircraft, that is, 18% of the number of airliners produced. This is the worst indicator among all Soviet serial passenger aircraft. In total, 104 people died in disasters associated with the Tu-1140. (Wikipedia)

          Nice plane. And there are many people in the country.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 27 January 2018 14: 06
            12
            Quote: UAZ 452
            Nice plane. And there are many people in the country.

            104 suffered from a hereditary disease called "clear sky turbulence" acquired from TU-16, after technical measures were taken, it was possible to significantly reduce the accident rate. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the TU-104 is the world's first jet passenger plane! From the 56 to the 60, the aircraft industry launched 204 of these aircraft and only in the 79 "well, very Vick-crashing" liner was removed from the airline and only because it was replaced by the more advanced TU-154!
            What else do you want to get around the idea with the TU-160?
            1. UAZ 452
              UAZ 452 27 January 2018 14: 21
              +9
              "Foul"? You have not disproved the numbers. Every fifth "good aircraft" TU-104 crashed. But this is not a reason for you, as they say ...
              By the way, you are wrong - the first jet was the English "Comets", which in percentage terms crashed more than the TU-104 (if you count the first series). But only after the first catastrophes, the aircraft of these series were decommissioned. And our "carcasses" continued to fly and beat. Because for people like you with more than a thousand dead, dozens of lost planes are not a reason to take action. After all, a good plane! And all the arrivals - the machinations of enemies, which just to cheat.
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 27 January 2018 14: 35
                +9
                Quote: UAZ 452
                Every fifth "good aircraft" TU-104 crashed

                what Nifigas yourself !!!!!
                If every fifth, then there should be 40 crashed cars, name at least 10 with reference to the place of the fall and I will believe you !!!!
                Quote: UAZ 452
                By the way, you are wrong

                what As I understand it, Comet was the first mass-produced passenger jet aircraft? Or how?
                Here you have a nickname from a loaf, and in your opinion it is a good car, because its ancestor is also a military man?
                1. UAZ 452
                  UAZ 452 27 January 2018 17: 02
                  +8
                  If every fifth, then there should be 40 crashed cars, name at least 10 with reference to the place of the fall and I will believe you !!!!

                  Have you been banned in Google? There were "only" 37, 18% of all issued. As far as I understand, all flight accidents are considered to be the loss (decommissioning) of an aircraft, statistics on other types of aircraft are considered in the same way.
                  If you think the difference between 18% and every fifth is significant, then I’m ready to sprinkle ash on my head - I lied, then.
                  1. Foxmara
                    Foxmara 28 January 2018 20: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: UAZ 452
                    Every fifth "good aircraft" TU-104 crashed.

                    Quote: UAZ 452
                    As far as I understand, all flight accidents are considered

                    You really decide. hi If you get excited, then write and why stand your ground, it hurts.
                    1. UAZ 452
                      UAZ 452 28 January 2018 23: 00
                      +2
                      As far as I understand, all flight accidents are considered to be the loss (decommissioning) of an aircraft, statistics on other types of aircraft are considered in the same way.

                      If you are quoting, at least do not break the sentence. Otherwise ugly somehow it turns out.
                      An accident is an event related to the flight operation of an aircraft's aircraft, which resulted in the death or serious injury of a person (s), significant damage to or loss of the aircraft. (Wikipedia)

                      According to this definition, various aircraft models and their reliability are compared. Exactly the same criteria apply to Boeings and Airbuses. If you have any objections, write to the IAC, or immediately to Sportloto.
                      1. UAZ 452
                        UAZ 452 28 January 2018 23: 44
                        +2
                        This is from here: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ту-104.
                        I could not transfer in the form of the table. But if there are people here who do not even have the simplest data mining at all, then you have to at least help the miserable. Well, those who possess inaccessible simple mortal sacred knowledge can refute the facts set forth here - maybe Wikipedia is spreading fakes, but TU-104 is the best plane?

                        Date Board number Disaster site Victims Short description
                        February 19, 1958 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics L5414 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Savasleyka 0/3 Exhausted fuel supply, landing to runway
                        August 15, 1958 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics L5442 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics near Khabarovsk 64/64 Stall in a corkscrew at an altitude of 12 km
                        October 17, 1958 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42362 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics near Kanash 80/80 Fell into ascending streams, fell into a tailspin at an altitude of 13 km
                        October 20, 1960 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42452 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics near Ust-Orda 3/68 When leaving for the second round, crashed into power lines
                        February 1, 1961 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42357 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Vladivostok 0 / no data Rough landing, rolling out of runway
                        March 16, 1961 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42438 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Sverdlovsk 2 + 5/51 Engine failure after take-off. During an emergency landing crashed into a holiday home
                        July 10, 1961 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42447 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Odessa 1/94 Rough landing in a thunderstorm
                        September 17, 1961 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42388 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Tashkent 0 / no data Rough landing
                        November 2, 1961 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42504 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Vladivostok 0 / no data At reduction, touched the antenna, made an emergency landing
                        June 4, 1962 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42491 People's Republic of Bulgaria near Sofia 5/5 Crashed into a mountain after an engine failure
                        June 30, 1962 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42370 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics near Krasnoyarsk 84/84 Erroneously shot down by an anti-aircraft missile during exercises
                        September 3, 1962 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42366 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics near Khabarovsk 86/86 Lost control during climb
                        October 25, 1962 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42495 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Sheremetyevo 11/11 Flyby after maintenance. The installation of connecting the cables of the aileron control system was broken
                        March 16, 1963 Czechoslovakia OK-LDB India Bombay 0/0 Aircraft of the Czechoslovak CSA. Burned when refueling
                        May 18, 1963 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42483 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics near Leningrad 0 / no data Landing to runway
                        July 13, 1963 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42492 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics near Irkutsk 33/35 Disaster 2 km from the runway due to premature decline
                        June 9, 1964 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42476 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Novosibirsk no data Rolling out the runway during landing during a rainstorm
                        April 28, 1969 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42436 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Irkutsk no data Rough landing 600 m to runway
                        June 1, 1970 Czechoslovakia OK-NDD Libyan flag (1969-1972) Tripoli 13/13 When landing, crashed into the ground 5,5 km from the runway
                        July 25, 1971 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42405 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Irkutsk 97/126 Hard landing after which the plane caught fire
                        October 10, 1971 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42490 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Vnukovo 25/25 Explosion in the cabin shortly after take-off
                        March 19, 1972 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42408 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Omsk 0 / no data Faced a snow parapet during the fifth attempt to land
                        April 23, 1973 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42505 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Leningrad 2/58 Attempted capture. The terrorist and the flight engineer who joined him in the fight died in a bomb explosion. Despite the depressurization, the plane made an emergency landing.
                        May 18, 1973 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42379 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 90 km from Chita 82/82 Flight Irkutsk - Chita was captured by a terrorist who demanded to fly to China. The plane exploded after a detonation bomb
                        August 29, 1973 Czechoslovakia OK-MDE Republic of Cyprus Nicosia 0/70 Rough landing due to pilot error
                        September 30, 1973 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42506 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Sverdlovsk 108/108 Power failure and loss of control.
                        October 13, 1973 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42486 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at Domodedovo 122/122 Power failure and loss of control. The largest disaster Tu-104
                        December 7, 1973 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42503 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics near Moscow 16/75 Rough landing in adverse weather conditions
                        November 5, 1974 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42501 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Chita 0 / no data Flew out of the runway
                        August 30, 1975 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42472 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Novosibirsk 0 / no data Right landing gear broke, rough landing
                        February 9, 1976 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42327 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Irkutsk 24/115 Crash on takeoff
                        July 17, 1976 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42335 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Chita 0/117 Could not take off due to overload
                        November 28, 1976 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42471 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at Sheremetyevo 73/73 Failure of horizon at night, loss of control
                        1976 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42371 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Kiev no data Rough landing with idle engines
                        January 13, 1977 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42369 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Alma-Ata 96/96 Left engine fire
                        March 17, 1979 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42444 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at Vnukovo 58/119 False operation of the engine fire sensor, its shutdown, return to the airport. The plane hooked the power line support and crashed into the field. After the disaster, all Tu-104s were withdrawn from Aeroflot
                        February 7, 1981 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 42332 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Pushkin 50/50 Aircraft of the Navy, crash during takeoff due to misalignment [12]
                        In total, 104 people died in disasters associated with the Tu-1140.
                        PS I was ordered 10 places to drop 10 "carcasses". Here, out of 37 flight accidents, 23 were with casualties (the rest are “only” with severely injured and / or loss of aircraft). Of the 23 cases, one was a terrorist attack, 1 was the work of valiant air defense warriors (which is surprisingly not even Hohland), the remaining 21 were the merit of an airplane.
            2. omit
              omit 28 January 2018 16: 05
              +2
              Serg65
              "TU-104 is the world's first jet passenger plane!"
              Ignoramus! At least look at Wikipedia.
              July 17, 1949 the first flight was made by the British aircraft Comet. He became the world's first passenger airliner equipped with turbojet engines
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 28 January 2018 20: 24
                +9
                Quote: omit
                Ignoramus! At least look at Wikipedia.

                My dear Israeli friend, if you think Wikipedia is an indisputable source of truth, I feel sorry for you recourse
                The conversation is about the first SERIAL jet passenger plane wink . And before bending your fingers read more reputable sources yes
                1. UAZ 452
                  UAZ 452 28 January 2018 23: 05
                  +4
                  So could you provide links to more solid sources of information, according to which the TU-104 is the world's first passenger jet aircraft (serial, or some other)? I would gladly arm myself with this sacred knowledge in order to be able to put to shame the "foreign" comrades, who were stiff in their beliefs that such is "Comet".
                2. tezey
                  tezey 29 January 2018 20: 44
                  +4
                  Of course, I would like Tu-104 to be the first serial jet airliner in the world. However, this is not so. In September 1951, the VOAS company accepted the first production Comet 1 aircraft, which were tested to obtain a certificate of airworthiness dated January 22, 1952. The second production aircraft departed on May 2, 1952 for the first commercial flight. on the route London - Johannesburg with intermediate landings in Rome, Beirut, Khartoum, Entebbe and Marambe. The WOAS crew covered a path of 10 km in 821 hours 23 minutes. Tu-34 was the first jet serial airliner in the USSR.
            3. yehat
              yehat 2 February 2018 17: 19
              0
              104 and 160 are generally different stories

              By the way, the location of the engines of the Tu-16 is not very good, as well as their performance characteristics.
      3. VIT101
        VIT101 27 January 2018 22: 04
        12
        Quote: Vard
        There is also a TU-144 project ... modify it ... redo it and it flies empty ... and redo the bomber ... it’s like stools in the aisle ...


        There will be no stools in the aisle, nor the plane itself. This is a clear pre-election promotion stuffing, in order to attract the patriotically inclined part of the population, which began to glance towards Grudinin more and more reasonably. But a mistake came out, an incompetent person at the level of Rogozin gave advice to Putin. Everyone who has even a little contact with aviation understands that in our life today, the proposal is unrealistic and unnecessary.
        1. Vik ganz
          Vik ganz 28 January 2018 21: 51
          +1
          VIT101
          Are you completely ignorant? Rogozin is not competent?
          And then who is the professional? Bulk?
          1. HDZ
            HDZ 31 January 2018 15: 38
            +2
            The competence of a human catastrophe is indisputable!
            Rogozin, like King Midas. Everything that touches turns into "night gold".
          2. demo
            demo 5 February 2018 21: 54
            +1
            Rogozin.
            Remember the purchase, or rather the payment of "Mistral"?
            Thank God they didn’t buy it.
            Dmitry Olegovich blurted out hotly - unfortunately in the Russian Federation they do not produce SMT (marine low-viscosity) fuel with the corresponding sulfur content. For the operation of these troughs, the French also had to purchase fuel.
            Well? Specialist? Great?

            Yes. And further.
            France came out on top in the number of kickbacks to foreign customers.
            This item is not taxable.
            And not only in France. But also in Germany.

            So Rogozin is the right guy.
            But not very technically competent.
            It’s good that the Americans banned the French from selling.
            Imagine what the French experienced?
            And the prepayment must be returned and the rollback lost!
      4. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 29 January 2018 15: 30
        +3
        Quote: Vard
        There is also a TU-144 project ... modify it ... redo it and it flies empty ... and redo the bomber ... it’s like stools in the aisle ...


        Do you know why you stopped flying Tu-144 flights?
        Because he didn’t even pay for his operation with new engines - air tickets covered hardly 10% of the operating costs for the Moscow-Almaat route.

        And the new supersonic will not cover the cost of air tickets - like the same Concord.
    2. Igar
      27 January 2018 10: 17
      +1
      Yury Slyusar told that the enterprise, it turns out, already has a project of a supersonic civil liner


      But what is this, if not "work in this direction"?
      1. figwam
        figwam 27 January 2018 11: 57
        +4
        So the project is already there and the model in the pipe is purged, only the resolution from above remains, which was obtained.
    3. the most important
      the most important 27 January 2018 15: 49
      +4
      Quote: BLOND
      BLOND Today, 09:52 New
      After a loud statement by the President of Russia on the need to develop a “passenger version” of the Tu-160, information appeared in the media about work already underway in this direction
      Complete nonsense

      Well, don’t tell .... Everyone, of course, will not be able to fly on it because of the enormous cost of the ticket, but it will be quite comfortable for one passenger to come to different summits on such a swan! And if they take it badly, then you can fly away and drop something for memory!
      1. Vik ganz
        Vik ganz 28 January 2018 21: 55
        0
        You are the most stupid, not the most important!
        And if Putin asks to show the project of the passenger aircraft TU-160? The speaker hanged himself from a lie?
        1. kasatky
          kasatky 31 January 2018 12: 52
          +1
          What's the problem? Draw a picture half a day. Yes, even the passenger "death star." And you can even politely ask the Supreme APPROVED sign in the upper right corner.
    4. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 27 January 2018 19: 23
      +7
      Complete nonsense - Blond

      I agree with you! Unfortunately, in our country, civilian aircraft construction, even of subsonic aircraft, is actually not conducted at the level that is proper for Russia.
      The SuperJet-100 is not an airplane for Russian airlines, the MS-21 is still only in the testing phase, there is not even its own engine for it, prepared for launch in the series - also in the testing phase.
      The Irkutsk plant with its production facilities, which are going to produce MS-21, designed for the production of small military aircraft, simply can not cope with the large order of the MS-21, without a corresponding reconstruction.
      And here is a supersonic passenger passenger aircraft based on the TU-160 for the aircraft industry ?!
      Are they even up there representing the complexity of building such a machine? Okay, finance, which Russia does not have in the long-term crisis, according to Prime Minister Medvedev, but billions of dollars are needed.
      But the design, scientific study of the design, people of engineering specialties who should design it, make a fundamentally new machine, and which aren't there? Most of the specialists were dispersed from the aviation industry, either retired old people or young people who did not completely master the matter remained. Who will solve such a big software problem?
      And yet, why such a supersonic passenger car? It will be economically disadvantageous !!! Supersound jet engines “eat” so much kerosene that plane tickets will be too heavy for passengers.
      And if you count only on VIP passengers who are ready to fly such a car for any money, is it not too great a pleasure for the not too rich budget of Russia to build such machines for a narrow circle of people - the so-called rich "elite"?
      1. BLOND
        BLOND 28 January 2018 07: 35
        +5
        No, a little bit wrong. I do not agree with you, Vladimir!
        I wrote about something else.
        I have not heard anywhere that the GDP would instruct us to create a passage. supersonic. aircraft based on the Tu-160!
        Create supersonic passenger heard!
        And this is a common practice. The design bureau working on a military project and the factory implementing this project have a huge number of developments and technologies for implementing a civilian project.
        To build a line for the production of aircraft is a penny, compared with how much we spend on the purchase (rental, leasing) of aircraft. And how many collateral "advantages" to your state?
        - technological breakthrough;
        - salaries and employment of its population;
        - immediately with a "steam locomotive" industries related to aircraft construction rise (metallurgy, machine tool industry, chemical industry, and much much more.)
        Are they even up there representing the complexity of building such a machine?

        They represent at the top. Not everyone wants it. To clean there and start with sports and education
        But the design, scientific study of the design, people of engineering specialties who should design it, make a fundamentally new machine, and which aren't there?

        We have everything
        Remember 1941 ... A factory was built on a bare spot and military equipment began to be produced in unfinished workshops.
        Now the motivation is a bit wrong wink
        Yes, and in our time you can buy whole KB! Antonov, "Yuzhny", there are quite good offices in Kharkov ... Transport with families to the Urals ...
        People know how and want to work
        A supersonic pass. the plane is not just needed but necessary !!!
        1. vladimirZ
          vladimirZ 28 January 2018 08: 49
          +5
          I have not heard anywhere that the GDP would instruct us to create a passage. supersonic. aircraft based on the Tu-160!
          Create supersonic passenger heard! ...
          To build a line for the production of aircraft is a penny, compared with how much we spend on the purchase (rental, leasing) of aircraft ...
          We have everything
          Remember 1941 ... A factory was built on a bare spot and military equipment began to be produced in unfinished workshops.
          - BLONDIN

          No, I do not agree with you. I wrote more about supersonic passenger aircraft, not even based on the TU-160. About its uselessness for mass air transportation. The reasons are described in a previous comment.
          Now about the lease, leasing of foreign aircraft, because there are none.
          In this situation, no construction of passenger aircraft lines at aircraft factories, the problem of civil aviation (GA) will solve. Why? Because in Russia a unified GA system has been destroyed, including a complex of its components, from pilot training, ordering and purchasing a GA fleet by a single customer, to the construction of the smallest airfields and airports with all their elements.
          In Russia, with its large expanses, and a small population of the population, a single air passenger and air transport campaign is needed - one, similar to the USSR Aeroflot.
          Why has the Russian civil aircraft industry collapsed? The main reason disappeared under the "reforms" of Yeltsin-Chubais, a single customer of civil aviation, accumulated all the financial resources of the civil aviation, and purchased them from civilian aircraft manufacturers. On the site of a single Aeroflot, hundreds, if not thousands, of small business entities of GA have been formed, including hundreds of small air carriers that have been eating through the main resources of the former single Aeroflot. This small fry didn’t have money for new planes, they didn’t have enough money for kerosene. They flew the flying resource of the planes they got and closed. There were dozens left, barely making ends meet, and renting / leasing in the West, mostly used ones, flying their planes. The whole era of mass civil aircraft manufacturing in Russia ended, as did the mass access to air travel at the regional level.
          About 1941, when a factory was opened “from scratch” and the aircraft production began.
          You probably don’t know, or you forgot that aircraft factories from the Western European part with all their equipment, aircraft stocks, with all the teams of specialists who had formed in the same place, with all their families and households, had been evacuated to these "empty places" .
          Now, where do you get the experts from? For 25 years of the downtime of the civilian aircraft industry, an era has passed when the old ones left or were on the approach to retirement, but the youth didn’t come - there was nowhere to come, production lay on its side. A specialist needs to be trained in aircraft construction for 10-15 years, you won’t take them from the street.
          What about the purchase of design bureaus and factories in Ukraine? And the situation is the same there, and if there are specialists left, they won’t go anywhere, since they still have 10 years of working age, a maximum of 15 years. Who will go?
          You are probably not an aviation specialist, and have little idea of ​​the problems of Russian civil aviation.
          1. BLOND
            BLOND 28 January 2018 09: 15
            +1
            I agree with many of you
            But there are differences in understanding:
            - I think that the country has enormous resources (including human)
            For me, 10 years is a long time (if you "steal a specialist", and during this time a new generation will learn from them)
            - and material, financial, but ...
            Chubais

            it’s not for nothing that they ate their breads, worked (and even now they work) to fame
            Therefore, no one promises EASY
          2. Foxmara
            Foxmara 28 January 2018 20: 48
            +2
            Quote: vladimirZ
            Now about the lease, leasing of foreign aircraft, because there are none.

            They were gone after lobbying for foreign leases.
            1. vladimirZ
              vladimirZ 29 January 2018 05: 49
              0
              They were gone after lobbying for foreign leases. - Foxmara

              You're not right. Lease of foreign aircraft is a necessary measure aimed at at least some replenishment of the aircraft fleet.
              Civil aircraft industry at that time had already stopped its work due to the termination of orders, and at least some kind of financing.
              “The market will ruin everything” - the slogan of the liberals of the 90s, and the current ones in power, so he ruined, destroyed Civil Aviation on Russian planes, and the very mass civil aircraft construction in Russia.
          3. Valery Saitov
            Valery Saitov 29 January 2018 09: 37
            +1
            .... you need to educate in aircraft building 10-15 years, from the street you will not take them.)))
            After school (1976), I went with my classmates to Tashkent and got a job at TAPOiCh (an aircraft factory). It took us only a month to work with mentors, and then we independently did all the work receiving tasks from the master. And so to the army. The work was piecework, they received 220-230 rubles. So fairy tales are not necessary about guys from the street. Although we were all from the village.
            1. vladimirZ
              vladimirZ 29 January 2018 16: 41
              0
              After school (1976), I went with my classmates to Tashkent and got a job at TAPOiCh (aircraft factory). It took us only a month to work with mentors, and then we independently did all the work getting tasks from the master - Valery Saitov

              The question is not about workers. The question of engineering and technical personnel, designers, technologists, designers, specialists in electronics, hydraulics, etc. They are the main in creating a new aircraft.
              You have been taught one or two simple operations, for example, a riveter of one not very important part, and you think everything else in the design, production is the same? No. To become an experienced designer, designer, it is not enough to finish a university - 5 years having spent on training, you need another 5-10 to gain industrial experience in creating a new aircraft.
              And you "we only needed a month" ?! smile Cats are born quickly, and an experienced structural engineer, designer becomes precisely after 10-15 years. By the way, a good engineer studies all his life, discovering something new for himself, scientific and technological revolution does not stand still, technology and science are developing, and therefore you always have to learn something new.
  2. Alexander Pugachev
    Alexander Pugachev 27 January 2018 10: 19
    +1
    My God, you are again on the rake ... but it is said: to Caesar - to Caesar, to the locksmith - to fitter ...
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. interprice
    interprice 27 January 2018 10: 34
    +2
    Yes, it’s good for you, the idea is really great, a supersonic jet, a passenger plane that has no analogues, this will well affect the country's budget, but it’s not necessary to make it from a bomber, but on the basis of this bomber)
  5. UAZ 452
    UAZ 452 27 January 2018 10: 52
    +5
    And how much will a ticket for such an ashtray cost? Where can you find so many people whose few hours of time (savings from supersonic) cost so much to justify the substantially (and inevitably) high cost of a ticket in this Concord 2.0 (or TU-1144)? I’m silent that the White Swan does not possess supersonic cruising speed, otherwise it would be considered a fifth-generation aircraft. Then you really need to develop a passenger (in the version of a business jet) version of the SU-57, even this will be easier than creating a supersonic aircraft from a subsonic (in cruising mode) TU-160.
    1. Alex 2016
      Alex 2016 27 January 2018 11: 27
      +1
      I agree with you. If I sell tickets for ordinary mainline airplanes at "oh ... m" prices. What will be on this airliner, and I don’t mention the “compelled” margins of airlines? Who can fly it from ordinary people? Concord is a prime example.
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 27 January 2018 11: 32
      +6
      Quote: UAZ 452
      And how much will a ticket for such an ashtray cost?

      And to think that the NK-32 can stand on the passenger version at all, but something more economical and not so powerful is not fate at all? Passenger 160th Mach 2 speed does not need nafig, one mach is enough.
      And about the cost of the ticket ... they buy train tickets for Sapsan, which are not cheap at all. If a businessman needs to get from Moscow to Vladik for, say, 4 hours, and not for 10 (figuratively), he will pay for speed, say $ 1000 for a ticket, and for delay he will lose $ 20 ... so he would prefer?
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 27 January 2018 12: 30
        +7
        Quote: NEXUS
        To think

        laughing A cry?
      2. NN52
        NN52 27 January 2018 12: 59
        13
        And what kind of beautiful will be ......
        1. UAZ 452
          UAZ 452 27 January 2018 13: 18
          +1
          Due to the lack of portholes (I’ll take your photoshopped image as a basis), I wouldn’t fundamentally fly on this one, even with equal cost and flight safety.
          1. NN52
            NN52 27 January 2018 14: 01
            14
            UAZ 452

            Come on ... The submariners also have no windows)))))) Nothing, they don’t complain)))) wink
            1. UAZ 452
              UAZ 452 27 January 2018 14: 10
              +3
              And how many passenger submarines plow the expanses of the Bolshoi Theater? wink
              And the sightseeing boats (there are such) have some more portholes! For the sake of exploring the underwater world through them, they are intended.
      3. UAZ 452
        UAZ 452 27 January 2018 13: 15
        +4
        And to think that the NK-32 can stand on the passenger version at all, but something more economical and not so powerful is not fate at all? Passenger 160th Mach 2 speed does not need nafig, one mach is enough.

        If my grandmother had ... she would be called grandfather. If we had an economical, reliable, with a sane resource engine for one fly, it would be easier to attach a glider to it than to develop such an engine for an existing airplanes.
        Is Mach One Enough? And why then to fence the garden - for the sake of saving 1-2 hours during a transcontinental flight? And the requirements for the design of the airframe and the engine when approaching the mentioned one fly are completely different than, say, when cruising at 0,8 swing. I’m not going to give lectures for free, you can google literature yourself, with a description of the design problems of the times of mastering supersonic in military aviation. They basically decided a long time ago, of course, but the cost of designing an aircraft designed for one stroke is completely different than for the same 0,8. It turns out that the exhaust is a little, and the money needed is crazy. Or is that the point?
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 27 January 2018 13: 20
          +3
          Quote: UAZ 452
          . Or is that the point?

          It makes sense ... for example, an increase in the TU-160 series in general. At the same time, I talked about one swing in approximate quantities. The same modernized NK-32 is not yet known what efficiency will show. And about whether we have such a dvigun, for Mach 1-1,5 ... so if the conversation began and work is ongoing, then probably the designer is no dumber than you, and they understand that no one will buy the same ticket for 100 thousand dollars, in order to cover the gluttony dvigunov.
          I can assume, as an option, that in parallel with the modernization of the NK-32, work was carried out on the analogue of this engine in the civilian version.
          1. UAZ 452
            UAZ 452 27 January 2018 13: 40
            +4
            And about whether we have such a dvigun, for Mach 1-1,5 ... so if the conversation began and work is ongoing, then probably the designer is not dumber than you, and they understand that no one will buy the same ticket for 100 thousand dollars, in order to cover the gluttony dvigunov.

            The designers are hardly dumbing us, but you are somehow overly broad, I would say, idealistically represent their tasks. They will be assigned a task, they will carry it out, mastering the allocated budget. And given the cycle of creating a modern aircraft, they are well aware that they are unlikely to have to present the finished product, unless in the newspaper they read about the first flight, being a deep pensioner. This is about the chief designers, and those who are now young are responsible for a specific narrow section, so they can always ask, "Are there any complaints with buttons?" So it turns out that now no one is specifically responsible for the development of the product - responsibility is spread out between generations of chief designers. And you are here about the concern of the designers about the ticket price ... Naive. Here the paradigm is different - they are giving money now, but there or the paddies will rest, or donkey.
        2. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 27 January 2018 19: 44
          +1
          Quote: UAZ 452
          Passenger 160th maha 2 mach speed does not need nafig, one mach is enough

          And what's the catch barely crawling over the speed of sound, have a gain of 100 km / h compared with already flying airliners, but having gotten all the "charms" of flying at supersonic?
        3. Horse meat
          Horse meat 27 January 2018 22: 20
          0
          And it depends on the configuration of the seats.
          3-3 will fit?
          If so then super.
          Comfort is not very important, if the flight time can be reduced by 50%, you can seat and tessno put.
          And if you add speed, you can even think about how you can transport people standing.
          Like in the subway, for example, let the old people and the children sit.
          A ticket in such a cost can drop by 70-80%.
          1. Golovan Jack
            Golovan Jack 27 January 2018 22: 38
            +3
            Quote: Konin
            And if you add speed, you can even think about how you can transport people standing.
            Like in the subway, for example, let the elderly and children sit

            But this is why they (fasteners) fasten their belts on take-off and landing ... what
            Quote: Konin
            so much

            It is with such a "turnaround" - a rotten idea, with a supersonic passenger one.
            IMHO, yes yes
      4. Axon
        Axon 27 January 2018 18: 19
        0
        for the last flight of the Concorde, tickets there and back cost $ 20000, which is now not a cake)))
        1. Horse meat
          Horse meat 27 January 2018 22: 23
          0
          In the concord, the price also depends on the luxury seats and the number of passengers.

          ......
      5. Horse meat
        Horse meat 27 January 2018 22: 13
        0
        Tu 160 for any easier air cuts than a Boeing 737.
    3. Iline
      Iline 27 January 2018 13: 55
      +5
      It was in the 90s - I visited Concord I must say right away - I was not impressed. The salon is very narrow and the armchair in it is for very slender people. To fly in such an inconvenience for the sake of saving several hours is still a pleasure. And for very good money. Although ... Then you can bend your fingers and tell everyone that you flew on Concord. There are always those who want to "show off."
      But this is originally a passenger plane, unlike our bomber. But statements about the creation of a passenger aircraft based on Tu-160 technologies are some kind of children's talk. How much this airplane eats fuel, even in cruising subsonic mode, is incomprehensible to the mind. The variable wing geometry is again no longer used on supersonic aircraft. Welding titanium parts? So now there are more interesting materials. And in the Tu-160 cockpit, two people in the aisle will not part, the fuselage is not much wider.
      Of course, you can do it. Only then will the unenviable fate of the Tu-144 wait for him. However, as monuments, they look so wow.
      1. cast iron
        cast iron 29 January 2018 00: 59
        +1
        In fairness, it is worth noting that carbon fiber is not able to withstand a flight of 2200 km / h - here duralumin is already at the limit of its capabilities. And the resin will generally flow from heating.
      2. Vadim.A
        Vadim.A 30 January 2018 23: 40
        0
        Russian aviation expert Vadim Lukashevich sharply criticized the proposal of Vladimir Putin to create a civilian version of the Tu-160 bombers.

        “Having two higher aviation educations, a Ph.D. degree in technical sciences and experience working in the Sukhoi Design Bureau, I summarize: the civilian version of the Tu-160 while maintaining its appearance (structural-power scheme with a variable sweep wing) is the height of technical idiocy, the standard of illiteracy and the Everest of stupidity "Vladimir Vladimirovich, congratulations - this is a jackpot!" He wrote on his Facebook page.

        The expert noted that in addition to "worthless economic efficiency", the Tu-160 has a large number of technical characteristics that are not suitable for commercial use of the aircraft.

        "The Tu-160 is not a supersonic, but a dual-mode aircraft that can fly on supersonic only small sections of the route (for a short time, burning a lot of fuel on the afterburner), its main cruising mode is subsonic," Lukashevich said.

        According to him, the power structure of the Tu-160 aircraft is based on the most powerful center-beam beam at its center, which must withstand 3000-ton loads.

        “In principle, it is impossible to make a normal passenger cabin on the Tu-160, because the center section divides the internal space into two parts. Unless you place cargo and people in two large bomb-bombs isolated from each other before and after the center section. I’m silent about the resource and security,” He summed up.
    4. BLOND
      BLOND 28 January 2018 07: 49
      0
      You already wrote about your nickname. I agree
      that the White Swan does not have supersonic cruising speed

      What do you mean by that?
      And which aircraft has this?
      1. Iline
        Iline 29 January 2018 08: 18
        +1
        By this I mean, like all aviators, the minimum fuel consumption at supersonic speed. Do not confuse fifth-generation fighters, which some wise men call cruising, with the maximum speed of the jetski. Cruising in the classic concept of this term is also subsonic.
        And since no aircraft have such characteristics so far, the supersonic fuel consumption will be simply disastrous. The same Tu-160 can afford to enable this mode only for a very short time. But that's another story.
    5. nickname7
      nickname7 28 January 2018 13: 03
      +3
      Regarding the price of a ticket, for a mass poor citizen, Russia, with its large open spaces. These are turboprop aircraft, the ticket price will be less, although the speed is less. A turboprop airplane is an exit, for the Russian Federation in development, of a mass regional airplane, faster than a train, but cheaper than a jet airplane. It is better to start the revival of Aeroflot with them, and not with the TU-160.
      1. cast iron
        cast iron 29 January 2018 00: 56
        +2
        To fly more than 2 hours on a turboprop airplane is still a pleasure)))) After 4 hours of flight I want to jump overboard myself - everything is so noisy, vibro-loaded and uncomfortable.
    6. alekc75
      alekc75 29 January 2018 19: 55
      0
      do you think 2250 km is not supersonic ????
  6. shura7782
    shura7782 27 January 2018 10: 54
    +2
    Presidential TU-160 - Air Peregrine Falcon. Get where you need to quickly ..
    Here kerosene - the river flows. Without an account. I would like to buy a salary without an account.
  7. arnold72
    arnold72 27 January 2018 11: 39
    +1
    I think we need to evaluate both projects: on the basis of tu160 and on the basis of tu144 and choose the optimal one. And to build such aircraft in small series is worth it, I think. There are no such aircraft on the market right now. And other countries will buy
    1. UAZ 452
      UAZ 452 27 January 2018 13: 20
      +2
      The fact that there are no such airplanes on the market (but they were before!) As it were should lead to certain thoughts.
      1. NF68
        NF68 27 January 2018 16: 54
        +3
        Quote: UAZ 452
        The fact that there are no such airplanes on the market (but they were before!) As it were should lead to certain thoughts.


        The cost of operating such aircraft will be sky-high. And the ticket prices are appropriate. It is for this reason that no one in the world has been seriously engaged in such civil aircraft for a long time.
        1. UAZ 452
          UAZ 452 27 January 2018 17: 11
          +2
          These are the thoughts I had in mind. Well, not to find so many people who so valued the few hours of their time to fill such a plane. Unless supersonic business jets, there will be a market for top management of the largest companies (and only if it will be possible to combine speed with reliability, comfort and at least the lowest possible operating costs), and then it is doubtful that it will beat off costs for the development, production, maintenance of the model - the series will be too limited. And it would be more logical to develop such business jets for several VIPs based on some F-22 and SU-57, rather than a giant missile carrier.
        2. SergF123
          SergF123 28 January 2018 11: 28
          +1
          That's why it will be easier on the basis of the Tu-160, since there will be no problems with various spare parts, and spare parts for carcasses will also be needed! The project is feasible for at least three reasons!
      2. Horse meat
        Horse meat 27 January 2018 22: 28
        0
        45 tons and it was not close.
        Concord took 15 tons.
  8. NF68
    NF68 27 January 2018 16: 52
    +1
    Ticket prices will be sky-high. For everything you have to pay in full.
    1. Horse meat
      Horse meat 27 January 2018 22: 09
      0
      Normally.
  9. Sergey Cojocari
    Sergey Cojocari 27 January 2018 19: 33
    +4
    With the price of the ticket Moscow-Vladivostok = 20 thousand rubles, the passenger Tu-160 will have the same fate as the Tu-144. Ie money down the drain ...
    1. Horse meat
      Horse meat 27 January 2018 22: 08
      0
      Moscow-Brazil.
      Moscow-Australia.
      Moscow-South Africa.
      Moscow-Los Angeles.
      Moscow is the north pole.

      Flew on Friday, Sunday evening back to Moscow to work.
      1. cast iron
        cast iron 29 January 2018 00: 53
        +3
        How old are you, naive dreamer?
    2. realist
      realist 29 January 2018 09: 28
      0
      a ticket for a Moscow Vladivostok plane as of January 31 costs from 13 to almost 000 rubles, many will fly at 182, including me!
      link to that tu: ttps: //avia.tutu.ru/offers/? passengers = 100 & c
      lass = Y & changes = all & route [0] = 491-31012018-
      21
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 29 January 2018 15: 45
        +1
        Quote: realist
        a ticket for a Moscow Vladivostok plane as of January 31 costs from 13 to almost 000 rubles, many will fly at 182, including me!


        Supersound fuel consumption will be 3-4 times higher.
        The operation of supersonic vessels is 5-6 times more expensive.
        The cost of transportation will be 5-6 times higher. The project will pay off for decades.
        Occupancy will be very low - there are very few in the country who can afford to travel with supersonic traffic.

        Flights to Tu-144 covered only 10% of all operating costs.
        1. UAZ 452
          UAZ 452 29 January 2018 19: 06
          +1
          I completely agree, except for this:
          The project will pay off for decades.

          For the project to pay off, it must generate at least some profit. And here there will be only losses that will first be compensated by subsidies from the budget, and then, sooner or later, they will say “there is no money, but you hold on” and very interesting exhibits will appear in aviation museums that will stand next to the TU-144.
        2. realist
          realist 30 January 2018 11: 04
          0
          I don’t argue, I’m just saying that you don’t need to voice the numbers if they are not confirmed, if you wrote that a ticket to Vladivostok would cost 200 rubles, I wouldn’t react, but I was going to fly there and I know that the ticket costs about 000 kilo rubles, I may be tedious, but I prefer not to name exact values ​​or to count them first :)
  10. Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 27 January 2018 19: 37
    +2
    Soviet design engineers have repeatedly managed to create civilian airliners based on military aircraft. The first domestic Tu-104 passenger jet aircraft, which we talked about earlier, was built on the basis of the Tu-16 bomber, and the strategic Tu-114 served as the base for the design of the long-range Tu-95

    yeah, that's just a supersonic plane has not been created. On the contrary, it was Tu-160 that Tupolev first tried to saw based on the civilian Tu-144.
    Supersonic and subsonic cars are a lot different. Further projects (projects, for example, were based on the MiG-25) in the USSR did not go
  11. alisher001
    alisher001 27 January 2018 21: 46
    0
    Interestingly, what is heard about the Tu-144?
    1. Horse meat
      Horse meat 27 January 2018 22: 00
      0
      Tu 144 15 tons.
      Tu 160 45 tons.

      Tu 144 is not needed.
    2. SergF123
      SergF123 28 January 2018 11: 26
      +2
      But what for he is needed ?!
  12. Horse meat
    Horse meat 27 January 2018 21: 58
    0
    45 tons 12000 km, 2200 km / h.
    Not bad, the idea is good.
    Putin well done.
    1. realist
      realist 29 January 2018 09: 29
      0
      there are no unsolvable problems, the price of solving the issue is important ....
    2. Scalpel
      Scalpel 2 February 2018 10: 47
      0
      With 45 tons, it will not fly 12000 km at maximum speed. Even half will not fly.
  13. Vadim237
    Vadim237 27 January 2018 22: 50
    +2
    If they will make a supersonic passenger plane, then precisely on this topic
  14. Graz
    Graz 28 January 2018 03: 28
    +2
    there is absolutely no need for such a passenger plane for our country at present, for the presidential air squad, pieces 3 can assemble manual assemblies, but in large quantities they are not needed
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 28 January 2018 17: 49
      0
      Well, 50 aircraft - from Russia to the whole world is enough.
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 28 January 2018 17: 58
        +1
        There is nonsense left. First, gash up 50 gizmos and then persuade the world to buy these virtual unnecessary pepelats
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 30 January 2018 00: 11
          0
          Global companies will acquire - the price of 120 million per aircraft.
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 30 January 2018 00: 22
            +3
            Undoubtedly. Those are the most global companies that have barely gotten rid of Concord, they will gain. But to disappear is good)


            And how did you determine the price of a defunct aircraft by the way?
  15. SergF123
    SergF123 28 January 2018 11: 26
    +1
    I have only one question! Why did you think so long on a seemingly obvious solution ?!
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 29 January 2018 00: 51
      +5
      We were waiting for the elections, so that the naive fools could tell a fairy tale about the super-passenger passenger)))))
      1. SergF123
        SergF123 30 January 2018 07: 00
        +1
        I think you're right!))
      2. vik669
        vik669 2 February 2018 12: 58
        0
        So they waited only if the TU-160 had time to remake it before the election, if they didn’t have time it would be like with a Mobile!
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 8 February 2018 17: 05
          0
          The difference between Prokhorov’s fairy tales and Putin’s fairy tales is that the Mobile could really be designed and started to produce))))) But who needs this in greedy and ghastly Russia?
    2. vik669
      vik669 2 February 2018 12: 49
      0
      Who for a long time and some without thinking at once - it’s bad to be stupid.
    3. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 6 February 2018 22: 35
      +1
      The answer is simple: "We need to show the whole world that we have an aircraft industry and that it can create a super-sonic and can compete with Boeing and other companies." (Well, it's all fairy tales for such children from kindergarten.)
  16. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 28 January 2018 12: 42
    0
    This is wonderful, because engineering competencies not only need to be maintained, but also developed, and this, in turn, is only possible by implementing the latest projects.
  17. dvvv
    dvvv 28 January 2018 18: 44
    +2
    This crown is completely insanity or wild cut, which is even disgusting to discuss or read komenty
    1. Skifotavr
      Skifotavr 28 January 2018 19: 37
      +2
      Before the election happens ...
  18. Oleg Petrov
    Oleg Petrov 28 January 2018 20: 58
    +1
    It’s not clear .... we are building a passenger jet, and we are building limestone roads .... some sort of dissonance
  19. Bosch
    Bosch 29 January 2018 06: 13
    0
    Wikipedia is a dubious source.
  20. raw174
    raw174 29 January 2018 07: 08
    +1
    My question is different, if we build civilian aircraft on its basis, can it be possible to repaint a couple of military civilians, put a recognition system, etc., to be able to send the Trojan Horse? ..
  21. flight attendant
    flight attendant 29 January 2018 09: 22
    0
    Dear and TU 116, too, experience and even a shooter, I honestly went bad when I taxied somewhere in the Far East but not Artyom and put me next to this miracle in 1978, and it still flies. So it's not so simple
  22. Romey
    Romey 29 January 2018 09: 47
    +2
    It would be better to revive the project of the short-range Tu 334, rather than engage in pre-election demagogy.
  23. graf1980
    graf1980 29 January 2018 10: 23
    +2
    author don't smoke any rubbish
  24. voffchik7691
    voffchik7691 29 January 2018 11: 22
    0
    UAZ 452,
    And what about the rough landing and design of the aircraft? Why should pilots and technicians make mistakes on the plane ?! I noticed only TWO cases - a failure of electrical equipment. And two corkscrews.
  25. Tolik Local
    Tolik Local 29 January 2018 17: 14
    0
    for myself ??? to speed off, so as not to tear apart ??????
  26. Vadim.A
    Vadim.A 30 January 2018 23: 38
    +1
    Russian aviation expert Vadim Lukashevich sharply criticized the proposal of Vladimir Putin to create a civilian version of the Tu-160 bombers.
    “Having two higher aviation educations, a PhD degree in technical sciences and work experience in the Sukhoi Design Bureau, I summarize: the civilian version of the Tu-160 while maintaining its appearance (structural-power scheme with a variable sweep wing) is the height of technical ignorance and Everest stupidity. Vladimir Vladimirovich "Congratulations, this is a jackpot!" He wrote on his Facebook page.
    The expert noted that in addition to "worthless economic efficiency", the Tu-160 has a large number of technical characteristics that are not suitable for commercial use of the aircraft.

    "The Tu-160 is not a supersonic, but a dual-mode aircraft that can fly on supersonic only small sections of the route (for a short time, burning a lot of fuel with afterburner), its main cruising mode is subsonic."
    According to him, the power structure of the Tu-160 aircraft is based on the most powerful center-beam beam at its center, which must withstand 3000-ton loads.

    “In principle, it is impossible to make a normal passenger cabin on the Tu-160, because the center section divides the internal space into two parts. Unless you place cargo and people in two large bomb-bombs isolated from each other before and after the center section. I’m silent about the resource and security,” He summed up.
  27. kig
    kig 1 February 2018 02: 33
    0
    TU144 ceased flights, including because it was unstoppable, and the state was eventually tired of sponsoring it. And how much should TU160 tickets cost so that it is at least not in the red? And who, then, will fly on it? If only Miller, alone.
  28. Vedzmin
    Vedzmin 1 February 2018 09: 54
    +1
    Our industry should not be distracted by the stupid projects of a supersonic passenger aircraft, but rather master the production of economical engines for long-range and short-range aircraft. This is the basis for the competitiveness of our future passenger aircraft.
    The backlog of Tu-160 is needed in turn to create a new bomber.
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 5 February 2018 17: 35
      +1
      Something tells me that we don’t need a new bomber either. Space must be dealt with. No wonder mattresses bring our development to mind. It's time to "spiral" to return to a new round. And not only her.
      1. Vedzmin
        Vedzmin April 7 2018 14: 04
        0
        So one does not interfere with the other.
  29. Apollo
    Apollo 1 February 2018 10: 54
    +1
    For the civilian version, there is no engine capable of working in supersonic mode not for some period of time, like the Tu-160, but for the entire flight time (4-5 hours) from point A to point B. Concord this problem was solved in due time The Tu-144 doesn’t. He flew on the “dial-up” until he was finally removed from flights.

    So what we are seeing is not a breakthrough, but the next "session" of Putin's populism. What you just can’t do, feeling the unsteadiness of the soil under your feet.
  30. VOENOBOZ
    VOENOBOZ 1 February 2018 22: 12
    0
    Each person has his own reasoning. For military purposes, let's say you need 50 cars, they did it in five years, and then what is stupid to close production as unnecessary, and who will keep the state without production? Continuing the thought, it’s necessary to connect the money of the moneybags, since the Americans will help (take the money from Western accounts). That's what a civilian project is, because the next generation of planes needs to be designed and built, and production should be set up, and in case of conflict such planes will come in handy .
  31. NordUral
    NordUral 5 February 2018 17: 32
    +1
    Blah blah blah ... Shame on the country.
  32. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 6 February 2018 22: 30
    +2
    We already had a TU-144, but the engine was underdeveloped, Tupolev died, then Perestroika-Garmosha-Ura and the project was closed. Europe had a Concord, but they also closed the project, and the operation was expensive. and this project is not a tenant.