Military Review

TU-160. Should I resume production?

151
This article is a reworking of the author’s article from 23 March. Changed the main section stories the creation of the Tu-160 and conclusions. The content part remains unchanged


In January 2018, the President of the Russian Federation, speaking at the Kazan Aviation Plant, announced the start of a program to resume the release of the upgraded Tu-160m2 bomber. He said that by the year 2027 it is planned to release 10 units. However, the President did not mention that the Ministry of Defense plans to continue production up to 2035 and to produce 50 Tu-160m2. Justification of the need for such a program was not cited.



Next, consider whether the costs of this program will be justified.

1. The history of the creation and comparative characteristics of the aircraft Tu-160

In 1961, the United States began research on a program to create a new strategic bomber with a maximum speed of 2200 km / h. A competition was announced at 1969, and Rockwell won it at 1970. The first flight of a B1974-a bomber took place at 1. After manufacturing prototypes in the United States decided that the use of supersonic speed is unprofitable, since it is better to overcome air defense at extremely low altitudes and subsonic speeds. In addition, the rejection of supersonic speeds can increase the combat load through the use of external suspensions. Thus, the value of the efficiency / cost criterion increases for the subsonic variant. As a result, it was decided to save financing and move on to the production of the B-1b variant, the maximum speed of which is 1300 km / h. The result was a plane with a maximum take-off weight of 216 tons and a length of 45 meters. In 1988, the aircraft construction program was completed.

In 1967, the USSR decided to respond, and an order was issued to create its own strategic bomber, and a competition was announced for its creation. The proposals of Myasishchev and Sukhoi were presented, but the competition was won by OKB im. Tupolev. Design began in 1975. The first option was created according to the “tailless” scheme, then switched to the normal scheme with four engines under the fuselage, and only after that switched to the scheme similar to B-1a. The customer did not dare to reduce the maximum speed and save money, so “bargaining is not appropriate here”, and kept the requirements to ensure the maximum speed of the Tu-160 equal to 2200 km / h. As a result, the mass of the Tu-160 increased to 275 tons, and the length increased by 10 meters. The thrust of the engines of such a heavier aircraft had to be increased by a factor of 2–3 compared with the B-1b. At the same time, the maximum combat load of the Tu-160 was slightly less than that of the B-1b. The first flight of the Tu-160 took place in 1981. By the time of the collapse of the USSR in the 184th aviation The regiment was delivered 21 aircraft.

The radar visibility of the aircraft is determined by the size of its effective dispersion surface (EPR).
Data on the values ​​of EPR combat aircraft in the open literature are not given. Therefore, we will continue to focus on the averaged estimates of various experts. The list contains a rough estimate of the EPR values ​​of US strategic aviation aircraft and, for comparison, the ESR of a typical US F-15 fighter: B-52 - 100 sq.m .; B-1b - less than 10 square meters; B-2 - 0.01 square meters; F-15 - 3-4 sq. M.

In the development of B-1b, great importance was attached to measures to reduce its ESR. On most airplanes, the brightest reflective elements are air intakes. In the air intakes of B-1b, special grilles and radio-absorbing coatings were used that prevent the penetration of radio waves inside. The development of the Tu-160 began in the 70-ies for obsolete requirements, that is, the main attention was paid to ensuring long-range flight, and not to reduce its visibility. To ensure supersonic flight speed, the Tu-160 air intakes were increased compared to the B-1b. If we take into account the increased dimensions of the aircraft, we find that the ESR value of the Tu-160 is between the EPR values ​​of B-1b and B-52, that is, several times (denoted by n times) exceeds the ESR of B-1b. During the operation of the aircraft several attempts have been made to reduce the EPR air intakes by applying radio-absorbing coatings, but it is not known what the outcome was.

When flying at subsonic speeds, the increased power of the Tu-160 engines leads to an increase in the visibility of radiation in the infrared (IR) range. However, a sharp increase in IR visibility occurs when switching to supersonic speeds, when increased fuel consumption leads to such an increase in IR radiation that enemy fighters can be induced by the Tu-160, even without including its own on-board radar (BRLS) 160 may not know about the fact of the start of the attack fighter.

Any aircraft of strategic aviation (SA) the vast majority of the route flies at subsonic speeds, at altitudes of the order of 10 km. Flying at maximum speed at the Tu-160 can be used only at a distance of a few percent of the total route length. Consequently, the maximum speed mode can only be used for one-time separation from enemy pursuing fighters.
To suppress the air defense radar, the B-1b is equipped with an ALQ-161 high-power electronic countermeasure complex (EW). Only the power consumption of this complex comes to 120 kW. Since the Tu-160 EPR is n times higher, the power of its EW complex must also be n times greater. The development of such an EW complex will cause great technical difficulties and increase the cost of the aircraft. The increase in the radiated power of interference significantly complicates the work of all other aircraft radio systems, in particular, the radio intelligence system. In addition, the increase in power consumption of the EW complex will increase the load on the power supply and cooling system, which will significantly increase the weight of the equipment.

At present, there has been an improvement in the enemy’s air defense combat capabilities, due to the advent of radars using active phased antenna arrays (AFAR). Such antennas allow the reception of several rays at once in space, which makes it possible to track all targets and jammers separately more effectively than previous generations of radars. Consequently, even in the presence of EW complexes, it will not be possible to hide such a highly visible target as the Tu-160 in the future.

The only CA aircraft made using Stealth technology and capable of penetrating air defense systems is the US B-2 aircraft. In addition to a small EPR, it also has a low IR visibility, since it uses a wide engine nozzle that allows cooling the exhaust gas stream.

It is known that the target detection range of any radar is proportional to the root of the fourth degree of the EPR goal. Therefore, the detection range of B-2 will be, according to the list, ten times less than the detection range of B-52. As a result, B-2 can find "holes" in the enemy's air defense, where the distance to the nearest air defense radar is at least 50-70 km, and penetrate deep into the territory. If there are no such “holes”, then B-2 can penetrate through the air defense zone at extremely low altitudes, hiding behind the terrain. However, the extreme high cost of such an aircraft (around 2bn. $) Makes it problematic to build its analogue aircraft - PAK DA in Russia.

2. The main tasks solved SA

Since SA airplanes are extremely expensive and consume tens to hundreds of tons of fuel per flight, they can only be used to destroy the most important targets, for example, command posts in the territory of the most powerful enemy or carrier-based multi-purpose groups. A single tank or boat in the nomenclature of the main objectives is not included. In Russia, the need to manufacture SA aircraft is justified by the need to preserve the nuclear triad. In this triad, the SA plays the role of delivering a second nuclear retaliatory strike. At the same time, it is believed that after the enemy inflicts a first strike on the territory of the Russian Federation, SA aircraft will be able to survive it due to the fact that they will rise into the air. At the same time, the first retaliatory strike is delivered using intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). After evaluating the results of the first strike, the second strike is delivered by SA aircraft at the moment when they fly up to the enemy’s territory. These aircraft are armed with strategic cruise missiles (TFR), whose range can reach 4000-5000 km. TFR fly at subsonic speeds, and their survival is ensured by flying at extremely low altitudes. TFRs are manufactured using Stealth technology, and their ESR is hundredths of m X NUMX. Since the TFRs are “trying” to fly in the lowlands of the area, they can only be detected by the radar when they are passing close to this radar (2-20 km), or are forced to climb up to overcome the obstacle. Therefore, to detect the TFR, the enemy will use AWACS long-range radar detection (AWACS) airplanes, which can detect typical TFRs from above at ranges up to 40 km.

2.1 Tactics of striking targets in North America

Strikes on the United States can only be carried out during flights over the North Pole, since the route across the Atlantic Ocean is blocked by the means of observing NATO air defense. In addition, the US coastline is protected by aerostatic radar. When flying over the Arctic Ocean, the probability of finding a Tu-160 is small. In the northern part of Canada (along 70 ° N) the Dew radar line is located. As part of this line are powerful radar, providing long-range detection of high-altitude targets. Between these radars there are several pieces of small radars that must detect only low-altitude targets. Therefore, to overcome this line imperceptible - for the Tu-160 is unrealistic either at high or at low altitude.

If an attempt is made to destroy several Dew radars and break through into the resulting gap, this attempt will be stopped in the shortest possible time by raising fighters from internal airfields in Canada. Guidance of these fighters will be carried out using AWACS AWACS aircraft. A similar result will be obtained if an attempt is made to suppress the Dew line radar with the help of EW complexes.

Consequently, the Tu-160 should, for 100-400 km to the Dew line, launch the TFR and return unnoticed.

2.2. Stage flight TFR

We assume that using the terrain, most of the TFR will go through the Dew line unnoticed. However, it is enough for one or two TFRs to be detected, how the AWACS aircraft, which are capable of detecting TFRs at distances up to 100 km, will be lifted into the air. When AWACS detects a group of TFRs, it begins to fly after them and constantly adjusts the guidance of the fighters until the destruction of the entire detected group. Further, over the territory of Canada, the TFR will have to overcome the middle and southern line of the radar warning. Given that the distance from the Dew line to targets in the United States (for example, Washington), the distance is about 4000 km, the flight time of the TFR will be more than 5 hours. During this time, the TFR can be detected by any radar, including civilian radar air traffic control and casual observers. When approaching the territory of the United States, additional AWACS will be raised, and some of the TFRs that break the northern line of defense will be intercepted in front of the northern border of the United States. As a result, only an insignificant part of the launched TFR can reach the goal.

Thus, we conclude that the application of nuclear strikes using the TFR is clearly unprofitable due to the large losses of the TFR on the track and the corresponding loss of nuclear weapons. That is, it is more profitable to use an ICBM. ICBMs reach the targets they are hit with a probability close to one, since the US missile defense system with a massive ICBM raid can hit no more than 3-5 units.

The use of TFR with conventional warheads is also problematic, since the mass of the warhead does not exceed 300-500kg. Therefore, such a TFR will not be able to cause great damage.

2.3. Attack of the carrier multipurpose group (AMG)

Typical AMG consists of an aircraft carrier and escort ships - up to 10 pcs. Ships can be located at distances up to 5-10 km from the aircraft carrier. The protection of an aircraft carrier is usually provided by 2 destroyers of the Orly Burke type, equipped with the Aegis air defense system. The task of these destroyers is to cause "fire on themselves", that is, with the help of interference would hide the position of the remaining ships AMG. Under the conditions of interference, anti-ship missiles (ASM) fired from airplanes of SA will be guided to the sources of this interference, that is, the destroyers themselves. The Aegis air defense system has enough potential to destroy any modern anti-ship missiles.

AMG has a layered defense. Information support for the frontier line of defense is made through the use of deck aircraft DRLO E-2C "Hokkai". The duty zone of these aircraft is taken out from the aircraft carrier at a distance of about 300 km. Thus, the detection range of enemy aircraft in the direction of the danger reaches 800 km from the aircraft carrier.

To attack an aircraft carrier, attacking CA aircraft must detect it with a radar. To do this, the Tu-160 must reach the line of sight, that is, go to the AMG at a distance less than the range of the radio horizon, which, depending on the height of the flight, is 400-450 km. Such a maneuver is extremely dangerous, as the aircraft carrier has a pair of duty fighters delivered at 300-500 km in the period of the threat of war. After the discovery of the “Hakkay” attacks of the Tu-160, these fighters will have time to intercept the Tu-160 until it leaves the horizon. If there are still no fighters and the Tu-160 approaches the range of the radio horizon, the destroyers will turn on the EW complexes, and on the radar indicators instead of target markers will appear the sector illuminated by interference. Launching the anti-ship missiles in such conditions is ineffective, since the radar homing heads of the anti-ship missiles can detect a ship at short distances and bring them to the ship with small errors. When the interference does not work, the radar should not only determine the current coordinates of the aircraft carrier, but also calculate its course. The need for this is due to the fact that the flight of the anti-ship missiles lasts about 20 minutes, and the ships, during this time, can shift to 10-15 km.

Typical anti-ship missiles can be detected by Hokkai aircraft at a distance of more than 100 km from it, and fighters can be aimed at anti-ship missiles by targeting Hokkaya.

As a result, we come to the conclusion that it is extremely difficult to organize an effective aircraft carrier attack in the ocean, since it threatens with great losses both for bombers and anti-ship missiles.

3. Problems solved in non-core theaters of war

The entrance to the central European air defense zone for the Tu-160 is excluded completely. The density of the radar and NATO fighter jets is so high that the Tu-160 can penetrate the air defense zone only under the cover of a large number of its own fighters. At the same time, penetration is possible only in those areas where there is no long-range air defense system.

In this situation, the meaning of the use of SA is unclear, since strikes are much easier to inflict with front-line bombers, whose survival is many times greater. The Tu-160 is unable to undertake intensive maneuvers to avoid enemy attacks and even anti-aircraft guns.

The experience of 08.08.2008 events in Georgia showed that the presence of a small number of even the most ineffective Buk air defense systems at the enemy is extremely dangerous for heavy bombers, namely the Tu-22m2 was shot down on the very first departure. Therefore, the only area of ​​application of the SA remains areas where the enemy has almost no air defense, for example, in Syria. However, even in this situation, the use of Su-27, Su-34 aircraft is much more efficient and safer, since the probability of hitting small-sized aircraft with enemy anti-aircraft installations is much less than that of Tu-160.

Example: in 1986, the United States Air Force delivered a massive attack on Tripoli, but they did not use the SA, but used the X-NUMX F-20 front-line bombers (similar to Su-111), based in Scotland. To ensure a long flight, these bombers several times to refuel in the air. The result was a powerful blow, and, despite the presence of many Soviet-made air defense systems, not a single F-24 was shot down.

4. About the passenger version

In his speech, the President mentioned that it is possible to consider the option of building a supersonic passenger aircraft based on the Tu-160. Such a statement can only testify to the quality of the decisions prepared by various lobbyists for the Presidential Administration. The construction of this option is completely excluded for the following reasons:
• Tu-160 can reach speeds of 2200 km / h only when using an afterburner engine, which leads to multiple fuel consumption and is completely unacceptable for a passenger plane.
• A passenger plane flies most of the distance at a constant height and speed, that is, it does not need to use the variable geometry of the wing.
• The bomber fuselage is always much narrower than that of a passenger aircraft of similar design.
• Commercial aircraft are justified only when they are used extensively. There are hardly any corresponding airlines in Russia, the use on foreign lines is hardly possible.

Thus, the passenger version of the Tu-160 needs a complete redesign of the structure and is likely to coincide with the Tu-144. In this case, it will probably be expected the same fate as the Tu-144.

5. Conclusions

It follows from the above that the Tu-160 is technically outdated after the 2000 year. The need to avoid any contact with the enemy's air defense system leads to the fact that supersonic flight speed is not necessary for the Tu-160. And for subsonic flight it is not necessary to have turning wings, that is, complex, expensive, and a heavy turning mechanism is superfluous.

With an estimated value of Tu-160 equal to 15 billion rubles. The cost of a series of 10 aircraft will exceed 160 billion rubles. Given that it is necessary to fully restore the stocks and resume production of engines, the cost may still increase. It will be very expensive to develop a new radar and a new EW complex. In addition, the training flights of pilots on such a heavy machine are extremely expensive. According to American estimates, the life cycle cost of an aircraft is 3-5 times its initial price. Thus, the total cost of the life cycle of this program may be more than 800 billion rubles. If 50 planes are produced, the costs will increase to 3 trillion. rub. Since SA aircraft cannot be exported to third countries, these costs will fully fall on the state budget of the Russian Federation. Outdated aircraft will not be able to solve serious military tasks, and the cost of the program is unacceptably high. In local conflicts, it can only be used against countries where there is no air defense. In the face of a serious military conflict, he can fly out of the border of Russia only in the Arctic Ocean.

The cost of one copy of the Tu-160 roughly corresponds to the price of one corvette. We are acutely lacking these corvettes, since 2011-2020 provided for the construction of 35 corvettes, and in fact less than half will be built. In peacetime, corvettes carry a real service for the protection of the near-sea zone, and Tu-160 make only training flights.

Modernization of the onboard equipment (for example: indicators of pilots, navigation system, etc.) will increase only the convenience of the crew, but not increase the survival of the aircraft, as it does not change the design of the airframe and engines.

As a result, it turns out that the Tu-160m2 will not be effective either as a component of the nuclear triad or for use in ordinary conflicts. Therefore, Russia can use the experience of China, which currently uses a nuclear dyad, and in the future it intends to develop an aircraft analogue of the B-2. In addition, the presence of mobile launchers of ICBMs of the “Topol” type allows one to perform the function of delivering a second nuclear strike and, thus, to completely abandon the SA. To sometimes show America "fucking mother", the existing 16 aircraft are enough.
Author:
151 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vard
    Vard 23 March 2018 05: 09
    +44
    Unfortunately, the author is based on several incorrect assumptions ... He gives incorrect comparisons ... As a result, the article as a whole is not about anything ...
    1. AntiFREEZ
      AntiFREEZ 23 March 2018 05: 49
      +34
      Quote: Vard
      on a few incorrect assumptions ... Provides incorrect comparisons.

      Correct the author. And then to me, unfamiliar with many nuances, the article seemed very logical.
      1. andr327
        andr327 23 March 2018 06: 04
        +32
        I am also not an aviator, but the author’s attempt to defeat the enemy by air alone is surprising. Neither ICBMs, nor tank hordes, nor Daggers, nor Caliber can win the war on their own. All types of weapons have many vulnerabilities, but these problems are covered by other means of struggle.
        1. svp67
          svp67 23 March 2018 13: 28
          +15
          Quote: andr327
          Daggers

          What prevents the Tu-160M ​​from making it a carrier? Oh, he can take just a few of them. So, to the author’s question:
          TU-160. Should I resume production?
          I will answer - it’s worth it. Since this will make it possible to prepare personnel for work in production and replace those ships that will be decommissioned.
          1. For example
            For example 23 March 2018 17: 56
            +11
            Andrey Gorbachevsky, Aviation Expert wassat

            experience of China, which currently uses nuclear dyad

            For the "experts" on the engine (who finished math in the eighth grade of school), Wikipedia (the god of the "experts") reports:
            Dyad Is a special tensor of the second rank, a tensor product of two vectors.
            I foresee that these "experts" also have four quadrants, five quadrants, six quadrants, seven quadrants, and so on. wassat
            1. GAF
              GAF 24 March 2018 16: 15
              +3
              You, my friend, are too harsh for Ikspert, for whom (SPEED is quite sufficient as the US plane B-160a, the maximum speed of which is 1 km / h, as the PROTOTYPE of the Tu-2200 aircraft)! aircraft.
              1. Fast_mutant
                Fast_mutant 26 March 2018 17: 33
                0
                Quote: GAF
                You my friend are too harsh to ikspёrtu

                Quote: Vard
                Unfortunately, the author is based on several incorrect assumptions ...


                No, everything is much simpler ... The author is just DB.
                I apologize for being rude, but this is not an insult, but an assessment of his mental abilities.
                In almost every paragraph - crazy nonsense. It’s even pointless to discuss!
      2. svp67
        svp67 23 March 2018 06: 48
        +33
        Quote: AntiFREEZ
        And then to me, unfamiliar with many nuances

        Well, at least from the fact that
        As a prototype of the Tu-160 aircraft was used US aircraft B-1a, the maximum speed of which is 2200 km / h.
        Yes, the trouble is, the basis for our Tu-160 was the M-18 KB Myasishchev ...

        Work on the M-20 heavy strategic bomber did not leave the design stage, but served as the basis for the subsequent work of the design bureau. final layout of the M-20 with variable sweep wing,

        which served as the basis for the M-18 and Tu-160 project, was signed by V.M. Myasishchev in 1969, six months before the approval of a similar layout of the American bomber B-1A.
        1. mole
          mole 23 March 2018 18: 42
          +9
          Quote: svp67
          The basis for our Tu-160 was the M-18 KB Myasishchev ...

          That's it!
          Tu-160 is our pride. No one could create such a machine!
          The author of the article, in my opinion, an amateur from aviation and ICBMs, is still confusing soft with fluffy.
          1. sso-xnumx
            sso-xnumx 24 March 2018 19: 47
            +1
            Quote: Mole
            Tu-160 is our pride. No one could create such a machine!

            Compare the performance characteristics of your pride and the T-4 (weaving) P.O. Dry, years of design and first flight. I wonder where is your pride going?
            1. mole
              mole 24 March 2018 20: 03
              +3
              As for the hundredth - a ruined project. He is also proud of him. But the Tu-160 in the series, and the "weaving" -no. We can talk about the causes and factors for a long time.
      3. kit88
        kit88 23 March 2018 11: 57
        +25
        Quote: AntiFREEZ

        Correct the author. And then to me, unfamiliar with many nuances, the article seemed very logical.

        I, too, did not finish the academy of the General Staff. But in my amateurish view, it is obvious that the author himself is confused in the evidence.
        At least that, according to the author, Tu-160 will be applied second nuclear retaliation.
        And I wonder. And what will be the landscape of North America after application first nuclear strike ICBM facilities?
        What will the Dew line look like, what will be the enemy’s air defense?
        Perhaps this will no longer be an insurmountable wall, but a holey sieve, for the breakthrough of which the Tu-160 is just needed, breaking through the air defense, you can calmly circle over their continent to achieve the remaining important goals.
        IMHO of course.
        1. AlexVas44
          AlexVas44 23 March 2018 12: 33
          +5
          Quote: kit88
          And I wonder. And what will be the landscape of North America after the first nuclear strike by means of ICBMs?

          And I ask myself that after the first strike, the TU-160 will no longer represent anything.
          1. sanya_sergant
            sanya_sergant 23 March 2018 15: 27
            +13
            Quote: AlexVas44
            Quote: kit88
            And I wonder. And what will be the landscape of North America after the first nuclear strike by means of ICBMs?

            And I ask myself that after the first strike, the TU-160 will no longer represent anything.

            We have oaks in the General Staff!
            Urgently call Shoigu, say that the TU-160 will not be anything from itself. Let them immediately rewrite all their plans!
      4. 73bor
        73bor 24 March 2018 08: 12
        +7
        The author was mistaken in the main thing that the prototype of the Tu-160 was the B-1B, this is far from the case, the Americans made the carrier but could not make the weapon complex, as a result, the usual bomber, most likely the prototype for the B-1B was Tu-22, both in size and the characteristics are similar! Although the author is logical, he simply does not catch up with many things, and there are no such things in the public domain, with his American logic, the factory in Kazan must be dispersed, Mr. American will not come out, production is already in full swing!
      5. Vladimir 5
        Vladimir 5 27 March 2018 21: 32
        -1
        I agree with the author, so much money and effort will be spent on the reproduction of yesterday’s Tu-160, and most importantly, that by the start of mass production the need for it will already be almost zero, because the air defense capabilities and the strategy of mass cruise missiles of different ambassadors are becoming dominant .. Not in vain the Americans froze the construction of the V-1,2 strategists, and directed all efforts to UAVs and 5th generation fighter-bombers, already having the possibility of mass launches, up to thousands of Tomahawks of the latest generations. Where to cuddle these bulky and expensive flying dinosaurs, it is only expensive to bomb the militants in the nearest regions, and the Su-34 will work on the spot. The main thing is to set up serial production of all the funds announced on March 01 by the president, because the famous Armata has not reached serial production, and what can we say about the fleet, where there are unfinished frigates and so on. But the huge part of these necessary funds will be consumed by the restoration of the Tu-160 ... The first to work out a strategy for the next 20 years, where the Tu-160 is clearly no longer available ...
        1. Vladimir 5
          Vladimir 5 27 March 2018 21: 54
          -1
          addendum: Amerikosy bring their KR to the launch sites on ships, our capabilities, with extensive land borders, as an option to transport to the launch site of the Kyrgyz Republic on railway transport on launch vehicles, create trains with hundreds of launch vehicles. (on cruisers and US frigates of launchers of 140 or more) We have the strategic Barguzin being created, so in addition you can create a Kultuk, - (Baikal’s most powerful low wind) with a hundred CR Caliber and other ...
    2. Artek
      Artek 23 March 2018 07: 12
      +12
      something the author has a completely bleak picture, "it gets lost, it shows up and gets lost."
      A raid on the Saskh will be massive if we launch all our 16 Tu160 missiles, each of them has 12 Ha55 or Ha101 missiles, in total 192 missiles will immediately go into the breakthrough. Plus there are also Tu95 missiles. Rocket strikes will be carried out at airfields of aerodromes, therefore, the possibility of raising air raids and destroyers will be reduced. It will be nuclear missiles to strike, so it is not possible to repair the airfield quickly. Therefore, re-striking the same strategists with the Tu160 can be even very effective.
      1. FID
        FID 23 March 2018 07: 40
        +4
        Quote: Artek
        each has 12 xa55 or xa101 missiles

        I'm sorry, under X-101 only ONE board is finalized ... X-55 ... but for God's sake ...
        1. Artek
          Artek 23 March 2018 07: 54
          0
          Quote: SSI
          Quote: Artek
          each has 12 xa55 or xa101 missiles

          I'm sorry, under X-101 only ONE board is finalized ... X-55 ... but for God's sake ...


          In more detail, is the x55 really bad?
          1. FID
            FID 23 March 2018 09: 25
            +4
            Quote: Artek
            god ...
            In more detail, is the x55 really bad?

            No way ... Just the 101st do not climb a little in size ... And the 55th is quite imaginable ...
            1. glasha3032
              glasha3032 24 March 2018 03: 58
              0
              But the resource has not expired on the X-55? I remember 5A 12 of that ...
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 24 March 2018 01: 31
          +2
          Quote: SSI
          I'm sorry, under X-101 only ONE board is finalized ... X-55 ... but for God's sake ...

          Well, if X-101 was already mentioned .... then in a nuclear war they will be called X-102 ... wink
      2. Iline
        Iline 23 March 2018 08: 02
        +9
        In this, the author contradicts himself. I was taught at one time and the author notes that
        In this triad, the role of a second retaliatory nuclear strike is assigned to the SA.
        .
        After this phrase, all reflections on the enemy’s air defense capabilities are not worth a damn after an attack with an ICBM and submarine fleet. Also very interesting are the arguments about the range of target detection by locators. To begin with, there are no locators with an unlimited detection range. It all depends on the signal strength and sensitivity of the receiver. Well, also from the height of the antenna, because the curvature of the earth strongly averages this indicator for all radars. And the author does not seem to be aware of judging by his thoughts that the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS are very powerful defense systems.
        But basically, I agree with the author - the aircraft as a carrier of strategic weapons is completely out of date, even after all the modifications it is impossible to change the original concept laid down during its design.
        But this does not mean at all that strategic aviation is completely unnecessary (according to the same author).
        1. Artek
          Artek 23 March 2018 08: 06
          +1
          Quote: Iline
          And the author does not seem to be aware of judging by his thoughts that the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS are very powerful defense systems.


          and what kind of "powerful defense systems" on that 160?
          1. Iline
            Iline 23 March 2018 08: 11
            +2
            In my time there was a Baikal, now I don’t know. It seems to be going to change with the improvements.
            1. Artek
              Artek 23 March 2018 08: 34
              +1
              Quote: Iline
              In my time there was a Baikal, now I don’t know. It seems to be going to change with the improvements.

              like you have to pull out every word, like a student, if you are encrypted, then do not tell.
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 23 March 2018 19: 35
          +19
          Quote: Iline
          I agree with the author - the aircraft as a carrier of strategic weapons is completely outdated, even after all the modifications it is impossible to change the original concept laid down during its design.

          Sir, I would be ashamed: you have an aviation nickname!
          Strange somehow it turns out. Komoyedov once instructed Bondarev not to cut, but to upgrade the MIG-31 ... I, the sailor, have to tell you about the positive operational properties and qualities of YES ...
          In order.
          1. YES - reusable system. This is not an ICBM: fired - and there is none more.
          2. YES can quickly change the area of ​​deployment and combat use. The OS always stays in place.
          3. YES can create "pressure" on the enemy for a long time while in the air (refueling).
          4. YES can return from the line of use, having received a "hang up", or re-focus on the newly opened object of impact. ICBMs have practically no such opportunity.
          5. YES can carry a different combat load: CRBD, AvB (freely falling, adjustable, etc.) and aeroballistic products ... That is, the tools are different ... depending on the knowledge base.
          6. New technologies make the 260 engine virtually invisible to the adversary's radar. Previously, such "sleeves" were placed only on ICBMs, today it is possible to put them on YES aircraft. Thus, they acquire a new quality.
          Of course, no one has canceled the dependence of YES on airfields, kerosene and MTO (BAO) reserves. But these are the costs of the "profession."

          To the question of what construct does not allow "to change the original conceptlaid down during its design ".... This is a narrow look at the question! Amy, in 70's, and then we, conducted exercises on launching ICBMs from av. carriers (the so-called" air launch "). At the same time, BTA aircraft were used! Well, which of the transport vehicles is “strategist”? But, in terms of area targets, but the BR, with not quite strategic range, it turned out the very thing! Here you have it and it’s constructive, here’s the purpose ...
          On the modernization and creation of the new TU-160М2.
          The author narrowly projects the avionics and engines of the old apparatus onto a new product, while forgetting that the 117 product for the SU-57 with supersonic afterburner mode has already been created, that cold plasma generators have appeared that make even the “shed” invisible ... And the composites, and the radio absorbers coverage ... and electronic warfare systems for individual and group protection !!! And towed traps ...
          And this "expert" teaches us life, casting doubt on the decisions of the Military Technical Commission under the President of the Russian Federation !!!
          So if you like aviation, love it to the grave. For there is nothing more beautiful than our cars! I tell you this, a naval officer, whose first (unforgettable) love was aviation. And this love was instilled in childhood by my father-pilot. But health was only enough for the fleet, albeit underwater ...
          Yes, "life cannot be turned back, and time cannot be stopped for a moment" ... BUT! our hope for the best (s). yes
          1. Artek
            Artek 23 March 2018 21: 07
            0
            YES is long-range. Long-range Tu22 aviation, the conversation is about strategic aviation.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 24 March 2018 00: 33
              +3
              Quote: Artek
              YES is long-range. Long-range Tu22 aviation, the conversation is about strategic aviation.

              Are you about the American sun, or what? There is a SAK. We have the same Air Force does not contain SAK. Yes, long-range aviation. It happened historically.
              The Air Force includes: aviation, anti-aircraft missile and radioengineering troops, which are the branches of the Air Force ... The structure of the Air Force aviation is divided into long-range (YES), military transport (BTA), operational-tactical and army aviation (AA), which, in in turn, they can include bomber, assault, fighter, reconnaissance, transport and special aviation.
              See on the wiki.
          2. Iline
            Iline 24 March 2018 07: 08
            +3
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Sir, I would be ashamed: you have an aviation nickname!

            God be with him with a nickname. Moreover, he is more specific nickname YES than aviation.
            There was a misunderstanding of the issue, as I understand it.
            I in no way deny the need for YES in our country. We can say that I am a patriot and a veteran of this organization.
            We are talking about the backwardness of the Tu-160 construct in the current conditions. It can be upgraded, it can be modified, but fundamentally it is impossible to change. And all this is very expensive. It’s easier to create a new glider taking into account new realities.
            And here is what a misfortune - how they do not fight with this aircraft, and its serviceability wants to be much better. Agree: to have a plane with high declared characteristics, to be truly proud of it, but to see it constantly chained to the ground is still entertainment.
          3. forty-eighth
            forty-eighth 24 March 2018 12: 16
            +3
            At first, I shared the author’s skepticism, but you convinced me very convincingly. Thank!
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 24 March 2018 14: 26
              +4
              Quote: forty-eighth
              You have extremely convincingly convinced me. Thank!

              I expressed my point of view, that's all. Every forum member is entitled to this. And if you have something to support your views, you get an argument ... I still love aviation, just like the Fleet. First love - it does not rust ... Yeah, here. smile
      3. AUL
        AUL 24 March 2018 14: 19
        +1
        Quote: Artek
        something the author has a completely bleak picture, "it gets lost, it shows up and gets lost."
        A raid on the Saskh will be massive if we launch all our 16 Tu160 missiles, each of them has 12 Ha55 or Ha101 missiles, in total 192 missiles will immediately go into the breakthrough. Plus there are also Tu95 missiles. Rocket strikes will be carried out at airfields of aerodromes, therefore, the possibility of raising air raids and destroyers will be reduced. It will be nuclear missiles to strike, so it is not possible to repair the airfield quickly. Therefore, re-striking the same strategists with the Tu160 can be even very effective.

        Do you think that our runways, where the 160s and 95s are sitting, will not hit the first blow? And where did they take off for the second strike? I agree with the author, SA - atavism in the nuclear triad. Too vulnerable to take-off and after. And it will be a little expensive for such money a disposable carrier, which is not yet a fact that it can take off.
        I once spoke on this topic with the navigator of the SA. He asked - where will you return after completing the KB? The answer is that we are not given such a task ...
    3. lwxx
      lwxx 23 March 2018 07: 42
      +6
      I climbed the network, looked for this expert, yes there is one. And the article on 11.11.2016/30/XNUMX, almost one to one. But! there he generally calls for abandoning strategists. https: //m-khodarenok.livejournal.com/XNUMX
      146.html
    4. The comment was deleted.
  2. demiurg
    demiurg 23 March 2018 05: 55
    +8
    An author who is an aviation expert who will tell you something about EW tools installed in new and modernized strategies? Or about the tasks for which they plan to build? With what fright would the strategic missile carrier bomb the bantustans? Can you talk about work to reduce ESR?
  3. Yura Kharlamov
    Yura Kharlamov 23 March 2018 06: 48
    +3
    Tu-22m3.tu-22m2 shot down in Georgia long ago
    1. FID
      FID 23 March 2018 07: 42
      +3
      Why did you get this? Release, yes, but remove .... Although from the current government ... I agree, they are not exploited ...
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 23 March 2018 07: 48
        0
        Quote: SSI
        Although from the current government ...

        What kind of power are you talking about? The one that is now is over for her, and the one that will be, so she is still in the project.
        About the plane. I think that is needed. We do not have bases around the world and we don’t need them, but we need to protect our interests all over the globe so that the adversary does not flash a thought about his impunity and permissiveness. We will not attract strategists on each occasion.
        1. FID
          FID 23 March 2018 09: 00
          +21
          Who will maintain this aircraft in a state of airworthiness? Where are the specialists in ABSU-145? Where are the specialists in NK-45 (these are not motors, these are PNK) ?? Yes, even on the engines ... Yelling Hurray and repeating WE CAN ALL ... any "patriot" can, but I DO NOT SEE PEOPLE GOING TO WORK FOR VISUAL WAGES ... And, yes, YES HELLO ... FORWARD (for yourself you know what...)
          1. Boris55
            Boris55 23 March 2018 09: 18
            0
            Quote: SSI
            Who will maintain this aircraft in a state of airworthiness? Where are the specialists in ABSU-145? Where are the NK-45 specialists

            And you yourself answered:
            Quote: SSI
            I DO NOT SEE PEOPLE GOING TO WORK FOR PITCHY WAGES ..

            It would be a desire and money there, and specialists will prepare, and even those that are, not entirely armless.
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 23 March 2018 10: 49
              +21
              Quote: Boris55
              It would be a desire and money there, and specialists will prepare, and even those that are, not entirely armless.
              You are not just optimistic, but optimistic! ... For money, you say, there would be a desire ... That way, of course, with a lot of desire, you can buy for clubs foreign players, or a coach for the national team, instead of your assholes He does not know the Russian language, but if we talk about science and technology, here we must have our own school, our own scientific base, which will not appear for a while, for whatever reason. If the author used in his article that "The Ministry of Defense plans to continue production until 2035 and to produce fifty Tu-160М2. No justification for the need for such a program", then the rationale, we must understand that already already the eating out of the Soviet hurt, the new, gentlemen burzhuiny, did not lay. Tu-160 started to design in the end 60-x, now to get a new plane it had to be developed more" yesterday " while preserving their education and science, the current government didn’t care much about public health and education, and science and technology didn’t only strongly develop, but did not even save, bankrupt enterprises and close CBs and scientific research institutes. It remains to refine Soviet ideas and innovations, to modernize , and extend the operation of various equipment, thank you, the Soviet safety margin. And, after 2035, as they say, either the padish will die, or the donkey will die ... Although, I would like to believe in the best that will undoubtedly be, only with the current authorities oligarchs.
              1. Boris55
                Boris55 23 March 2018 10: 56
                0
                Quote: Per se.
                Not much of the current government cared for public health and education, and science and technology did not only develop, but did not even save, bankrupt enterprises and closing design bureaus and research institutes.

                Everything has its time. When a house falls apart, it makes no sense to buy new furniture.
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. 23 March 2018 11: 01
                  +8
                  Quote: Boris55
                  When a house falls apart, it makes no sense to buy new furniture.
                  I would not say so, do not break the old house, not building a new one, so as not to stay with a bare bottom in the cold. And, here, a new furniture for a new house, it is possible to buy in advance, so as not to sit after in the empty walls.
                  1. Boris55
                    Boris55 23 March 2018 11: 25
                    0
                    Quote: Per se.
                    ... do not break the old house without building a new one ...

                    They broke one, but others build. The goal of the enemies is not in their expectation of building something new by us, which would then help us destroy something old, etc. by the list.
              2. Vasyaga
                Vasyaga 25 March 2018 16: 05
                +1
                So we have one justification: “cut and rollback!” Cuts will not work during development and modernization — give a rollback from the tender ... no profit, no car. Big wunderwaffle - expensive wunderwaffle! Which means there is something to warm up on the hairy foot for. and all the x ... th to a penny :)!
            2. glasha3032
              glasha3032 24 March 2018 04: 11
              +5
              Since 1992, when specialists ran away from humiliatingly low salaries, there is talk (and nothing more!) That they say there is money and specialists will come running! But the realities are completely different - and no money was found and the specialists ran out ... Many were already then, in the 90s, aged (40-50 years old) and have already died (alas, alcohol and nerves!), The same ones who were younger - they completely left for free bread and they won’t be able to go back to penny salaries, the fuse has passed ... And those who are now are hard workers for 65 years (from 92 already 26 years have passed!), there’s nothing to bet on them, they live ...
            3. starev
              starev 24 March 2018 06: 40
              +5
              Good afternoon!
              "... there would be a desire, money will be found ...". So this is all the salt, where does the money come from? From increasing personal income tax to 15%? From doubling the recycling fee on cars in 2018? from the introduction of VAT on scrap metal? From the introduction of a tax on fixed assets of enterprises again? We are already OUTSIDERS in terms of tax burden compared to most manufacturing countries in the world. WHERE TO STILL RISE ???
              1. Boris55
                Boris55 24 March 2018 07: 18
                +1
                Quote: starev
                So this is all the salt, where does the money come from?

                Even if it is. It is not possible to win a war without doing anything or sacrificing anything.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. Boris55
                    Boris55 25 March 2018 18: 44
                    0
                    The war never ended, it changed only the forms of conduct. The so-called hybrid war is a war going on at all six priorities of the management of mankind.
          2. NEXUS
            NEXUS 23 March 2018 14: 37
            +6
            Quote: SSI
            Who will maintain this aircraft in a state of airworthiness?

            Sergey Ivanovich, welcome! hi
            Two questions that interest me a lot.
            The first new dvigun for TU-160M2 is the reincarnation of NK-74?
            Second, why is the TU-161 variant with a hydrogen engine not considered?
            1. NordOst16
              NordOst16 24 March 2018 21: 59
              +1
              God be with you, cryogenic fuel, with it fucking above the roof and low density
            2. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 24 March 2018 22: 05
              +1
              because the hydrogen engine has only one advantage over kerosene, ..... it’s ecology, and we smoke the British with fuel oil from our AB, so let them smell kerosene before death
  4. Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 23 March 2018 06: 51
    +16
    A veteran of the automotive complex, and now a couch expert and supporter, has lost everything ... I probably forgot that science does not stand still ... I consider his conclusions to be nonsense
    1. MadCat
      MadCat 23 March 2018 08: 55
      +9
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      that science does not stand still ... I think its conclusions are nonsense

      indeed, now with a modern air defense missile you can get a squirrel in the eye, and not just this bomber. wink
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 23 March 2018 15: 16
        +6
        Quote: MadCat
        Now you can get a squirrel in the eye with a modern air defense missile

        what is this protein? Can’t get into North Korean Hwason, but can squirrel? what
        1. MadCat
          MadCat 23 March 2018 21: 06
          +1
          Quote: SanichSan
          Quote: MadCat
          Now you can get a squirrel in the eye with a modern air defense missile

          what is this protein? what

          how kakya? C400 is quite at the level of the best foreign analogues! wink
          Quote: SanichSan
          Can’t get into North Korean Hwason, but can squirrel?

          and shot at her? When and who wrote about this, a link to the studio!
          1. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 28 March 2018 16: 44
            0
            Quote: MadCat
            and shot at her? When and who wrote about this, a link to the studio!

            no, they didn’t shoot at her laughing official statements "why didn’t shoot" let's you publish wink
            so it’s not just a squirrel in the eye, but expensive missiles and not the fact that we’ll get into it. but it's about the patriots. there are also Saudis who confuse the squirrels with the eye, they can even confuse themselves. wassat
            I know that proud priest-bearers are doing well, but if a rocket "behaves unpredictably" then byad, the system does not work.
            what is known at rumor level with the C400 ... let's hope these rumors are true soldier
    2. Vita vko
      Vita vko 23 March 2018 16: 03
      +8
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      ..I think his conclusions are nonsense

      the author really tried to describe in detail the tactical tactics that were supposed to be applied 30 to 40 years ago. Now not a single aircraft, either at low altitudes like B-1b or at high altitudes, can overcome the air defense system. It will be fired at any heights. And only highly maneuverable fighter-bombers have a chance to leave.
      Naturally, the Tu-160 will not even come close to the air defense zones, it has the task of reaching the launch lines, which is complicated by the actions of enemy fighter aircraft. And if the author had at least once tried to make the calculations necessary to intercept a subsonic and supersonic target, he realized that despite the high ESR of the Tu-160 it was practically impossible to intercept, unless of course he would fly a direct course to the enemy airfield.
      The next significant nuance is modern coatings, which can significantly reduce the EPR. As practice shows, their effectiveness is quite high. In particular, only due to the coating on the F-35 its EPR is reduced tenfold, although the aircraft itself is almost all metal, the EPR on the B-2 is also reduced due to the coating. Of course, the form also plays a role, but it reduces the EPR by only 2-3 times and even then not in all ranges and not in all angles. The main contribution is precisely the coverage of the aircraft. And at the current level of technological development, such a coating is easy to make on the Tu-160.
      The next point that the author did not pay attention to is that all new aircraft will be produced with a new economical engine.
      Well and the most important thing is the practical lack of an alternative. The author intends not to mention the Tu-95 anywhere, obviously, realizing that comparing is simply stupid.
      Therefore, the statement
      Tu-160M2 will not be effective either as a component of the nuclear triad, or for use in ordinary conflicts. Therefore, Russia can use the experience of China, which currently uses a nuclear dyad,
      with a hint of perspective PAK DA look mildly betrayed. Because before the serial production of PAK DA and the staffing of the armed forces, another 25-30 years will pass. The question is, who will be on alert all this time and ensure the security of the state if one of the main components of the nuclear triad falls out for several decades?
  5. Nix1986
    Nix1986 23 March 2018 07: 01
    +1
    If I understand correctly, then now we need to invest heavily in re-creating the assembly line and its allies. On the other hand, in the development of PAK YES. But here you need to have information on the progress of work on the PAK DA, what is the likelihood of a successful exhaust of this development and the timing of at least testing. Somewhere the figure flashed 2030. And before that time, you also need to fly on something. In general, as I see the ideal option, This is a recreation of the production of 160th which then could simply be transferred to PAK DA production by changing equipment.
    1. FID
      FID 23 March 2018 07: 44
      +17
      "Successful exhaust" to wait and wait .... There are many managers, few ENGINEERS ....
    2. Locksmith
      Locksmith 23 March 2018 08: 03
      +3
      Quote: Nix1986

      0
      Nix1986 (Nikita) Today, 08:01 New
      If I understand correctly, then now we need to invest heavily in re-creating the assembly line and its allies.

      The biggest problem was the spinal frame made of titanium, it was not only necessary to make it, it still had to be welded in a special chamber, now everything has been restored and the new aircraft, recently assembled from the groundwork, is vivid evidence of this.
      1. FID
        FID 23 March 2018 08: 52
        +7
        I apologize, there is no such thing as a "spinal frame", well, there’s not everything here ... And "recently assembled from a backlog" ... you see, the main thing here is "FROM A HOOK" ... But there is no backlog and what? What is the "vivid evidence"?
        1. Locksmith
          Locksmith 23 March 2018 09: 45
          +10
          This is a civil expression wink , don’t need to grumble, I don’t know how to call the highly developed center wing frame to which the consoles are attached. To this day, the camera has not worked and there has been no equipment for welding, this is all restored. This is the main thing, and the rest will increase.
          PS: I found it at the airbase "A feature of the design of the airframe is a titanium beam, which is an all-welded caisson with nodes for turning the wing consoles. All the main power elements of the airframe are attached to the beam passing through the entire plane."
          Feel better? laughing
  6. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 23 March 2018 07: 49
    +12
    Well, how can one "speak" here? It is possible “for” ... it is possible and “against” ... but you are still mistaken! This is a very difficult topic! Even for the "specialists" .... and even about the "amateurs" and nothing to say! In some ways, the author is right ... and in some ways his arguments may turn out to be doubtful ... You can analyze numerous publications on this subject: “Tu-160M2: pros and cons.” Unfortunately, this is a very voluminous topic; and I because of the lack of time I will not “disassemble” it ... But, in short, the arguments for “supersonic” are given in publications (situations are described where in a supersonic mode a combat mission can be performed more efficiently and the survivability of an eroplan will be higher than that of a subsonic apparatus ...) and the arguments that "supersonic" is that "sheepskin" that is not worth the "dressing" !. Perhaps, before discussing this article, it is worth “rummaging” in publications so that “at least” some own opinion is present in the comments?
    And so ...... you can notice something "in the details" ... For example: (((When flying at subsonic speeds, the increased power of Tu-160 engines leads to an increase in the noticeability of radiation in the infrared (IR) range. However , a sharp increase in IR visibility, occurs when switching to supersonic speeds, when increased fuel consumption leads to such an increase in IR radiation that enemy fighters can be aimed at the Tu-160, even without including their own airborne radar (radar), that is, the crew of the Tu-160 may not find out about the start of a fighter attack.) ) How does it not know? And why the development of integrated into the glider, distributed radars with several AFAR? And the development of a "radio photon" radar? And an integrated and distributed optoelectronic system? One of the mandatory characteristics of the 5 generation in aviation is “cruising supersonic.” Ideally, all airborne planes (if necessary) at constant supersonic speeds. This is true of Fighters ... but why then “discrimination” bombers? It is unlikely that the Tu-160 will be able to make permanent cruising supersonic ... but what about the future PAK YES there may be a reason to think: “supersonic” or “subsonic”? Yes ... of course, the “kypezh” will begin now: yes, what is the fuel consumption at the “supersonic” ... and this and that .... fifth and tenth. Yes, now the Technological Level (s) does not allow ... and in 20 years? The PAK DA proposed for development is calculated for a period longer than 20 years. Technological development in the "near" future of means, methods of detection, can create a situation where the practical "invisibility" of aircraft will become unrealistic, unattainable .... And it will be "purple "for an air defense detection system ... a subsonic or supersonic bomber (" stealth "is not a" stealth ") will fly into the air ... but whether the bomber will fulfill its combat mission or not will depend on whether the supersonic or subsonic aircraft this combat mission. (as with oro bomber will enter the battle line, will the enemy have such high-speed interceptors. to successfully intercept a high-speed bomber, etc., etc.) If in the future there will be means and methods of effective and early detection of "stealth, then" fullness “a bomb will not be a defect. A MHD generator (or YAG) and a combat laser or a sufficient number of anti-missiles capable of shooting down enemy long-range missiles and rockets will fit into a“ decent ”glider”. Not to mention fighters .
    1. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 23 March 2018 15: 35
      +4
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      . Technological development in the "near" future of means, methods of detection, can create a situation where the practical "invisibility" of aircraft will become unrealistic, unattainable

      But isn’t it now? how far can I detect radar from the AFAR? what's the difference what kind of EPR does an airplane have if its radar glows like a Christmas tree?
      well, let's say the radar is off, and the targets are flown AWACS. but a reasonable question arises, but on the AWACS a red cross is drawn and you can’t shoot at them? or do they have some special radar that does not glow like a Christmas tree? as far as I know no. liquidate him one of the first. but how to carry out a combat mission without a radar? no way. turn on the christmas tree!
      so what's the point in low ESR? even if it is at least 0, all the same, to carry out combat missions, you need a radar that will illuminate the plane. soldier
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 24 March 2018 01: 47
        +3
        Quote: SanichSan
        what's the difference what kind of EPR does an airplane have if its radar glows like a Christmas tree?

        I agree with you ... now "tepericha" is doing a lot (and done) to successfully "lower" the value of stealth technologies ... but will it be after a while? wink
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 24 March 2018 22: 12
        0
        can work in passive mode
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 28 March 2018 16: 52
          +1
          Quote: vladimir1155
          can work in passive mode

          can. Russia has a similar requirement for 5th generation aircraft. there are no such requirements for 5th generation American aircraft.
          so this is still speculation and fortune-telling about the Russian military order ...
  7. Altona
    Altona 23 March 2018 07: 56
    0
    Quote: Nix1986
    On the other hand, in the development of PAK YES.

    -----------------------------------
    As I understand it, this will be a transporter, not a strategist. Completely with other tasks of the plane. As for the article, the author scored a lot of arguments against the Tu-160 and practically no pros, saying that the concept was initially outdated. Maybe in fact it makes sense to develop an analogue of B-2, a sort of flying "ramp" with low ESR?
  8. FID
    FID 23 March 2018 07: 56
    +18
    Tupolev Design Bureau DOES NOT USE Project B-1B ... You can forget about it .... And, some experts, bring at least something (except for the appearance that is obtained from the laws of AERODYNAMICS (for the uninitiated, purging the “models” of airplanes in a wind tunnel )). My personal opinion (maybe not very true, but ALL the control systems of the “Product 70” passed through my hands) ... So, KAPO is not ready for PRODUCTION of Tu-160 (unbelievers can read that the visor of the factory building collapsed directly onto the car CEO ... Gendir will buy a new car, no questions, but where is the money allotted for modernization) ....
  9. Alex_59
    Alex_59 23 March 2018 08: 54
    +11
    It doesn't matter what the mistakes are in the article. It is important that the resumption of production of the Tu-160 is not advisable. More like a cheap PR. Look, we are getting up from our knees, we have resumed the production of non-existent aircraft analogs. With all the love and admiration for this aircraft - you can not go back! We need to make a new plane, from scratch, using new technologies. And our authorities probably would have done so, but the problem is that the industry has brought these authorities to such a state that creating a new aircraft of this class from scratch is impossible, and even with serious efforts it will take many years. And PR is needed now. And now only an imitation of getting up from one’s knees is possible by means of an additional assembly of several Tu-160, which are equipped with new avionics for the look. Trying to make a good face with a bad game is obvious. Swelling a ton of money into the reanimation of the 80's airplane is very much in our opinion. It is strange why the United States does not resume assembling the B-1B or B-52, but has made B-2 and is thinking about a new aircraft.
    1. Astoria
      Astoria 23 March 2018 09: 23
      +1
      It is strange why the United States is not resuming the assembly of the B-1B or B-52, but has made a B-2 and is thinking about a new aircraft.
      - Eccentric man, new projects require more money than old ones. The American military-industrial complex and economy are different poles.
    2. glasha3032
      glasha3032 24 March 2018 04: 19
      0
      Alas. There is no new avionics, all the old. Well-proven "alarms" ...
    3. forty-eighth
      forty-eighth 24 March 2018 12: 33
      +2
      The article is rather not about the fact that the TU-160 is bad, but about the fact that in modern realities strategic aviation has lost its importance as a component of the nuclear triad due to low efficiency on the example of the TU-160. At first, in my amateurish opinion, I agreed with the author, but the more experienced interlocutors above convincingly dissuaded me.
      As for the TU-160 specifically, it would be better to talk about the reanimation of the aircraft of the 80s as a step back after a comprehensive expert assessment of the modernization potential. The new does not mean the best, and the old does not mean the worst. Nevertheless, I hope that the experts know better, and the return to the production of the TU-160 is justified not only by public relations.
    4. xtur
      xtur 26 March 2018 15: 17
      0
      > it is impossible to create a new aircraft of this class from scratch, and even with serious efforts it will take many years.

      this is precisely what they are now doing - so that after many years a strategist would appear. And PR is a related action, where now without it
  10. DimanC
    DimanC 23 March 2018 09: 00
    +4
    It’s interesting, but how many AWACs will survive this same notorious “first” retaliatory strike? But somehow it turns out to be funny that they were rocking at us, we responded by launching them - and we continue to fight as if nothing had happened ... In general, paragraph 2 needs to be considered again
  11. Geonezis
    Geonezis 23 March 2018 09: 56
    +5
    Some regular article from a liberal lobby.
  12. Loess
    Loess 23 March 2018 09: 57
    +4
    If the "strategists" are the means of delivering a "second retaliatory strike," then probably we should analyze what remains of the Dew line, as well as how many AWACS aircraft and how many fighter aircraft will the United States and Canada have after delivering the "first retaliatory strike" by the time the "strategists" approach the Dew line. I am not an expert in aviation and nuclear conflicts, but for some reason it seems to me that the Dew line is unlikely to be able to fully function after nuclear attacks on the territory of North America, which means the use of "strategists" will be fully justified.
    As for the attack by aircraft carriers ... I did not quite understand why for this "strategists" need to enter the coverage area of ​​carrier-based fighters.
  13. Old26
    Old26 23 March 2018 09: 58
    +4
    Quote: Artek
    In more detail, is the x55 really bad?

    Charged. Life has come to an extreme point. In addition, you have the wrong assumption. The launch of these missiles will be outside the enemy’s air defense zone, which means they will have to “saw” a couple of hours before the targets. But the enemy has something to break down subsonic targets ...
  14. Alexander Akul
    Alexander Akul 23 March 2018 10: 06
    +2
    Unfortunately, Russia is not able to create new equipment in large quantities, Russia can only modernize old Soviet equipment but it is not effective in case of war, to fight with weapons of the last century means defeat
    1. Geonezis
      Geonezis 23 March 2018 10: 26
      +6
      Something the same Americans are in no hurry to write off the B-52, which has been more than half a century. Or the same A-10. About land weapons in general I am silent. In everything there is a rational calculation and adequate solutions.
  15. shuravi
    shuravi 23 March 2018 10: 11
    +8
    After these words:
    As a prototype of the Tu-160 aircraft, the US aircraft B-1a was used

    Further, the text of this sheet can not be read.
    ExpertD. laughing
  16. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 23 March 2018 10: 31
    +5
    Some kind of analysis from the author is one-sided. Plus for trying, of course. Or does the author think that the Moscow Region and other “smart” people did not perform a detailed analysis of the capabilities of the Tu-160? I think everything has been calculated for a long time ... and the stripes obviously got nervous after the information about the resumption of production of these wonderful aircraft.
    1. bonakva
      bonakva 23 March 2018 11: 46
      +5
      One-sided?

      The plane is out of date. Production has rotted. Instead of investing in the inconspicuous PAK DA and new generation manufacturing technologies, we invest in junk, even if it’s refined, but morally obsolete for a whole generation.
      Where am I wrong?
      1. Artek
        Artek 23 March 2018 12: 02
        +1
        Quote: bonakva
        One-sided?

        The plane is out of date. Production has rotted. Instead of investing in the inconspicuous PAK DA and new generation manufacturing technologies, we invest in junk, even if it’s refined, but morally obsolete for a whole generation.
        Where am I wrong?


        No, it’s not outdated, effective electronic warfare will be able to hide the plane from air defense, and then there will be, as before, attacks by low-flying missiles. Or maybe they will come up with a hyper-rocket for this aircraft, then it won’t be demolished at all.
      2. shinobi
        shinobi 23 March 2018 12: 13
        +2
        In all. Look at the average age of the SA in our counterparts. B-2 does not count, there are few of them and he practically does not participate in wars.
      3. ism_ek
        ism_ek 24 March 2018 11: 56
        +4
        First, the supersonic Tu-160, like the MIG-31, can become a reusable launch pad for missiles such as the Dagger. You can launch spacecraft from it, in particular, "satellite killers"
        Secondly, our fleet is becoming obsolete, we will not see new missile ships of the far sea zone during the life of the current generation, but we need to project power at distant frontiers. The plane, with all its drawbacks, is much cheaper than the ship both in terms of construction cost and operating cost.
      4. Alexey-74
        Alexey-74 26 March 2018 15: 49
        0
        I was mistaken that this aircraft was ahead of its time by decades. He has great modernization potential, given modern technology. In fact, the fuselage remains, and the filling and weapons are new ... where did you see the old stuff ?! Is the production rotted? So talk to people who are renewing this "rotten production" again .. well, of course, you probably know better what our MoD and MIC should do .... maybe you’ll go to advisers?
  17. turbris
    turbris 23 March 2018 10: 48
    +5
    What is strategic aviation for in modern military conflicts? In order to as soon as possible reach the borders of the use of the Kyrgyz Republic in all strategic areas in a nuclear war and create superiority in the striking power of the armed forces groups in areas of potential conflicts with the use of conventional weapons. As the carrier of the Kyrgyz Republic, strategic bombers will be used without entering the enemy’s air defense system, so the task of overcoming the air defense system is not relevant for them. Reducing radar visibility for such huge aircraft is not a priority, due to the fact that their actions are not provided for alone, but only under the guise of fighter aircraft. The SB is basically a platform for long-range air-to-ground airborne weapons of destruction, which is why the Americans are not removing the B-52 from service. Hence, not everything is so simple with the further production of the TU-160M, given that it is much cheaper to modify an already finished aircraft than to create a new one. We have very few Security Councils, as part of the strategic triad, in comparison with the United States and this must be corrected as soon as possible.
  18. alstr
    alstr 23 March 2018 10: 49
    +10
    The conclusions of the article should be divided into two parts: overcoming air defense systems and the usefulness of SA.

    1. Conclusions about the methods and impossibility of air defense systems are fundamentally wrong. For reasons:
    - overcoming the radar lines in Canada is not even a question. Overcomes easily. The fact is that detecting a radar radar system is not equal to destroying it (note that airplanes are the basis for air defense of Canada and America, since air defense systems are practically absent (more precisely, only the most important objects have it). This time. Secondly, who said that at first these radars simply will not be destroyed (including Avaxa).
    - There is NO continuous radar field on the radar line. More precisely, at the altitude of the flight of the Kyrgyz Republic (up to 100 m) there is none (as we do not). Therefore, the routes for flights of the Kyrgyz Republic unnoticed and / or not knocked down can always be made up (just a too long line is obtained).
    - The author somehow forgot that besides the Atlantic and the Arctic there is also the Pacific Ocean

    2. With regard to the necessity or non-necessity of the TU-160, then everything should be considered as a whole.
    - From the point of view of using the TU-160 and the SA, it is generally needed only as a carrier of the Kyrgyz Republic, which do not fall under the medium-range missile agreement.
    But then it becomes more interesting and you need to consider the following points:
    - The production of Tu-95 does not make sense to renew because of even greater moral aging than TU-160
    - Wait PAK YES - for a long time - another 10 years minimum.
    - the need to maintain flight readiness of a certain number of aircraft onboard SA
    - the need to preserve technology and production capacity (the same mentioned titanium welding)
    - unification with other aircraft (in particular with TU-22 for engines)

    And everything else outweighs.
  19. Vkd dvk
    Vkd dvk 23 March 2018 10: 56
    +3
    Strange affair. The author, given the larger EPR TU-160 several times, offers the same amount of time to increase the power of electronic warfare equipment. However, the reflected signals from the airplane are squares less than the power of the EW signal, if only because the reflected signal travels two paths, and the interference signal is one.
  20. PPD
    PPD 23 March 2018 12: 04
    +2
    Release 10 in 27?
    What's the point? If only try to resume the production cycle and subsequent maintenance.
    And what progress is not expected by the year 27? Is time freezing?
    Drawing historical parallels
    Moscow, Kremlin, some 35 years old, speaker
    Comrade Stalin, we decided to resume the production of TB-3. The last 10 is expected to be released in 1945.
    Stalin, stopping in his tracks, dropping the phone ....- further themselves and so it is clear.
    Saving B52 is not an argument. This maintenance is already available. And what is the point of making the production of practically old technology that is already anew?
  21. shinobi
    shinobi 23 March 2018 12: 07
    +6
    Definitely need to build. Maybe not in that number, but necessary.
    PS: It killed what the author began to prescribe to the strategists the functions of tactical aviation. They shouldn’t even come close to the air defense zones. He was shot down by the Georgians on the 22nd, because intelligence was shot down.
  22. War_Child_83
    War_Child_83 23 March 2018 12: 31
    +6
    The aviation iksperd is probably a member of the fruit batch with the letter "E". Everything is according to the ideas of Pope Grisha: an army is not needed, no weapons are needed, money is handed out to the people, white and star-rainbow flags are hung over the Kremlin.
    Return already minus for an assessment !!!
  23. Metlik
    Metlik 23 March 2018 13: 10
    +2
    As a strategic bomber, the Tu 160 is hardly of great value today. Nevertheless, this aircraft has many strengths, you just need to use it correctly. Mobility and a large amount of weapons on board would allow us to adapt it as a counter to the breakthroughs of our air defense and pro.
  24. Lex.
    Lex. 23 March 2018 13: 21
    +1
    Something a lot of these experts divorced on missiles, on planes on tanks
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 23 March 2018 15: 17
      +7
      Quote: Lex.
      Something a lot of these experts divorced on missiles, on planes on tanks

      So the Country of Soviets is the same!
  25. iouris
    iouris 23 March 2018 13: 25
    +4
    Production and part of the aircraft destroyed at the request of the United States in the 1990s. It is necessary to resume not the production of aircraft, but the aviation industry as a whole. Any aircraft is needed if the volume of the order is large enough for the project to be cost-effective.
    1. Kasym
      Kasym 23 March 2018 21: 49
      +3
      So that's the idea, in my opinion. Industry needs a task, a specific model to release. If the Tu-160 is pulled by industry, then that wide-body IL-96 all the more. So they will now restore the technological chain of enterprises on the Tu-160. And since there are not enough strategists of the Moscow Region, the choice is clear. No wonder the GDP hinted at a civilian supersonic aircraft. hi
  26. alikstalker
    alikstalker 23 March 2018 13: 45
    +6
    Yes, they are fools in the General Staff, they did not consult the author of the article. But there is one caveat. You can shove Vanguard and a power plant for a combat laser into this bandura while developing something new. Supersound in this case is not needed to break through the air defense of the "probable partner". But for the rapid exit to a given line, very much so.
    1. alikstalker
      alikstalker 23 March 2018 13: 51
      +1
      And if on one of the swans there will be DAGGERS erasing the Dew line from at least 1000 km. That picture will look different.
  27. Altona
    Altona 23 March 2018 13: 57
    +1
    Quote: Altona
    As I understand it, this will be a transporter, not a strategist.

    -------------------------------
    Something started talking. I’ve been thinking about logistics all day and then I mixed up the SA bomber with the transporter. laughing laughing
    1. alikstalker
      alikstalker 23 March 2018 14: 06
      0
      Yes, at least as you call it, the essence does not change. The transport carrier does not fly at that speed. And time in with some factors is an important point.
  28. vvvjak
    vvvjak 23 March 2018 14: 07
    +10
    Well, again, "all lost." “Throw away” people's money to “old rubbish” instead of building schools and kindergartens (as I understand the general essence of this article). Only there are a couple of nuances. First: that everyone rested on this EPR so much that it was a panacea for all ills and a sign of invincibility. Useless in the small EPR B-2 if Voronezh marks their start right at the airport. Second: how can you intercept the Tu 160, or rather than? Chasing a strategist on destroyers with the Aegis? For a successful interception, a fighter must have a 30% speed advantage, which NATO fighter can accelerate to a speed of 2800-2900 - only the Raptor (theoretically) and how many minutes can it chase a Tu-160 at that speed? Third: what NATO air defense systems can guaranteedly intercept the Kyrgyz Republic with the Tu-160 are there such? Fourth, why would a strategist enter the enemy’s air defense zone, what did he forget there? NATO has no effective means of counteracting the Tu-160, because they are so afraid of it. In general, “the hippo has poor eyesight, but with its mass it’s not his problem.” And about the downed Tu-22 in Georgia, this is a "clean" blunder of the Russian Air Force command, which "drove" the plane below 7 thousand meters under unpressed air defense.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. vvvjak
        vvvjak 26 March 2018 09: 25
        +2
        Quote: Vasyaga
        If they were afraid of anything there in NATO, they would sit on a ... groin evenly and did not cower.
        Where does the idea come from here that something is spotting someone at the start, someone is afraid of something, and someone is thinking about combat effectiveness, and not about stuffing his pocket ??? like small children!

        "Adult" uncle. You have not mixed up sites for an hour. You would Navalny to comment on the article, earned a lot of likes. But in general, 90% of readers are interested in the combat effectiveness of the Russian weapons and thoughts arise on the basis of the analysis of the technical characteristics of the military products of various countries proposed for discussion.
  29. isker
    isker 23 March 2018 14: 32
    +4
    The article is a vivid indicator of the overall fall of the site and excuses of style - “we have tolerance here” - it won’t work!
    Sad, girls ... (s)
  30. Sonet
    Sonet 23 March 2018 14: 41
    +2
    And ,, the casket just opens ,,. Our military apparently does not want to wait for the appearance of PAK YES, and apparently, fell in love, Tupolevsky supersonic.
  31. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 23 March 2018 15: 10
    +4
    Of course, thanks for the work, but I suspect that the author is an expert in civil aviation, moreover, it is small. And above all, because any more or less military, without aviation education, will be able to appreciate the pros and cons of Cygnus, moreover, there will be more pluses. Definitely! Some authors like to abuse the numbers, names, parameters and names of Dep. products that acts on the inexperienced (yes, sophisticated too), like a drum roll or a rumble of tom-tom! Preventing yourself to think and analyze. Frankly, a bad receiver!
    The role of the SA has constantly changed in the process of its development, from total domination by Marshal Douai to complete disregard for Khrushchev. Nevertheless, each war had its own special page for it, which no one else could fill. From the first strikes of Ilya Muromets, and night flights in 41st to Berlin Il-4, to the controversial “throws at Ploiesti Sabers” and carpet bombing of Flying Fortresses in Dresden, Tokyo and B-52
    in Vietnam. However, no MBRA can replace the SA, especially when conducting highly specialized strikes, as was the case in Libya with the suppression of air defense in the 80s F-111. Swans, like bombers with simple bombs or outdated types of missiles, may seem outdated. Especially against the backdrop of the B-52! But upgraded, with more economical engines, an improved avionics and the latest weapons! Yes, no one has such platforms! And the author questions their construction
    1. Vasyaga
      Vasyaga 25 March 2018 17: 38
      0
      Ahh! There it is, Mikhalych !!! the expediency is that: "no one has such ..."!
      So, maybe no one does, what-nah are not needed ???
  32. nov_tech.vrn
    nov_tech.vrn 23 March 2018 15: 39
    +2
    a strategic bomber SHOULD not break through the air defense system, everything, the pearl about B-1a, against this background, only the question of the sexual orientation of the "expert", by the way is very prolific
    1. The comment was deleted.
  33. Bigbraza
    Bigbraza 23 March 2018 16: 35
    +1
    And what, EW systems provide stealth board? And the more stealth needed, the stronger the signal should be?
    Sorry, but even if the author was right on most points (which is not a fact), his conclusions were true only in the paradigm of the “big war” of the USA. But, as practice shows, the same Americans perfectly use the entire arsenal of their strategists in local conflicts. And there is nothing wrong with “bombing the Papuans with strategists,” in general, no.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  34. dsdelta
    dsdelta 23 March 2018 16: 36
    +3
    There is at least one reason, no, two, for which it is necessary to resume production. Firstly, PAK YES, this is a sea of ​​money, and a very long cycle of R&D, testing and production. And secondly, the Dagger, as a concept, like the use of hypersonic aeroballistic missiles, requires high altitudes and supersonic speeds of the carrier, and the PAK YES, apparently, is subsonic and will never be adapted for such missiles.
  35. blackwerwolf
    blackwerwolf 23 March 2018 16: 37
    +2
    Of course, renew. Not even discussed.
  36. bmv04636
    bmv04636 23 March 2018 16: 53
    +3
    I remember the light elves (s) on their raptors were very surprised when they went to intercept our TU they were met by our MiGG31
    Two strategic missile carriers Tu-160 completed a planned flight over neutral waters of the Barents, Norwegian and North Seas.
    Air support for long-range aircraft was performed by crews of MiG-31 fighters.

    The flight duration was more than 13 hours. During the flight, the crews of strategic missile carriers Tu-160 refuel in the air.

    At certain stages of the route, Russian aircraft were escorted by Typhoon fighters of the British Air Force and F-16 of the Belgian Air Force.

    Long-range aviation pilots regularly fly over the neutral waters of the Arctic, North Atlantic, Black and Caspian Seas, and the Pacific Ocean.

    All flights of the Airspace Forces of Russia are carried out in strict accordance with the International Rules for the Use of Airspace without violating the borders of other states, the Department of Information and Communications of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation reports.

    It’s interesting to me that the strategists again were accompanied by MiG-31 fighter interceptors. Yes, they are long-range, but not so long that they fly to hell for more than half a day. Prior to this, they somehow noted in Alaska, also accompanying the strategist, where the Raptor climbed to intercept.
  37. meandr51
    meandr51 23 March 2018 17: 09
    +2
    For some reason, no one is considering the situation when the airbases of the base of the SA will be destroyed by the first strike of Trident ballistic missiles, the flight time of which is about 15 minutes. On decision 5 min. How many SA aircraft will fly in 10 minutes? That's right, no more than 2. Even if the missiles are suspended and the pilots are in the cockpits. And it is unlikely to be. Because they cannot sit like this forever. And rockets need stationary storage. The threatened period can last a year. So after a sudden blow from the airfield near Engels, only a funnel will remain.
    For a surprise attack on the United States, they themselves are also of little use. As soon as the mass launch of SA aircraft begins, it will be detected from satellites and ground agents within a few minutes and will serve as an occasion
    for retaliation of ICBMs. But for a second strike in a surprise attack on the United States, they may come in handy. If the ICBMs and CAs start to take off simultaneously.
    1. Sergey Enoktaev
      Sergey Enoktaev 23 March 2018 17: 35
      0
      Now more unmanned technology is being implemented. Surely our enemies have them stamped somewhere incredibly many. They’ll fly to our entire Motherland. They’ll fly in some way. They’ll fly in. They flew to the base in Syria, disguised as a chainsaw) But that’s why the alleged enemy has a reconnaissance plane that always sniffs out something, but we haven’t heard. Maybe secretly) Create a jammer based on that 160
    2. nov_tech.vrn
      nov_tech.vrn 23 March 2018 20: 35
      0
      offset deflection, Satan for disposal, with the help of a preventive strike, then overload what you play there, and naval battle to exhaustion!
      1. Vasyaga
        Vasyaga 25 March 2018 17: 53
        0
        A setback for a gang, which will be tearing the military budget into rags for another six years, so that their children living abroad would live beautifully.
        1. nov_tech.vrn
          nov_tech.vrn 25 March 2018 18: 30
          0
          Whose will you be? as a provocateur smallish, amateur format
    3. businessv
      businessv 23 March 2018 20: 42
      +2
      Quote: meandr51
      How many SA aircraft will fly in 10 minutes? That's right, no more than 2. Even if the missiles are suspended and the pilots are in the cockpits. And it is unlikely to be. Because they cannot sit like this forever

      Well, my friend, it’s you who bent a little! Did not take into account the location of the airfield based CA? Or they decided to put all the eggs in one basket and report to the "Western partners" so that they do not strain and immediately aim, where should I go?)))
  38. moreanda
    moreanda 23 March 2018 17: 43
    +2
    And now, suppose, Mr. Gorbachevsky, that a new CATAPULT has been developed for the TU-160, into which, well, not six, but at least THREE "items" with a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT have been developed. Those. he carries SIX of such "products". From an altitude of about 20 km, at a speed of> 2 M, these "products" will go on an INDEPENDENT flight. The flight range of these products DOES NOT WAVE. And what worries? OPTIMUM POINT (!!) START, and the fastest DELIVERY to this point. Each item contains three warheads. THREE "Carcasses" - and there is NO coast! East or West. And then there's the "beast from the depths" with "I la SAKHAROVSKAYA Kuz'kina's mother" will arrive in time - to polish the remaining coastline. Give PARITY between "Carcasses" and B1 !!! There are 66 of them. Total: 66 -16 = 50. And take the money away from CORRUPTIONS! Enough for a dozen "Carcasses". Further - to collect from the PEOPLE. (As under Comrade Stalin!). I will hand over my pitiful PENSION to "Carcasses" "at the moment". If it is NECESSARY - ONCE! And then the business "strains". Here's another TEN for you. And then we will ask the "experts" where to get another 30 cars. That's what they get from US and get their salary!
    A. Morev
  39. Awak
    Awak 23 March 2018 18: 01
    +6
    Who are you? Why did they write "aviation expert" after your last name?
    Who graduated you as an aviation expert?
    Andrei Gorbachevsky, aviation expert ... This person developed aviation radars, for some time, until retirement, worked as head of the sector of the State Research Institute of Aviation Systems. It’s about the same as a nurse on duty, he will diagnose everyone.
    1. AUL
      AUL 24 March 2018 15: 33
      +1
      Quote: Awak
      Who are you? Why did they write "aviation expert" after your last name?
      Who graduated you as an aviation expert?
      Andrei Gorbachevsky, aviation expert ... This person developed aviation radars, for some time, until retirement, worked as head of the sector of the State Research Institute of Aviation Systems. It’s about the same as a nurse on duty, he will diagnose everyone.

      You have a poor idea of ​​what a sector manager is in such research institutes. Comparison with a nurse - stupid!
  40. shuravi
    shuravi 23 March 2018 18: 21
    +1
    Quote: Awak
    Who are you? Why did they write "aviation expert" after your last name?
    Who graduated you as an aviation expert?
    Andrei Gorbachevsky, aviation expert ... This person developed aviation radars, for some time, until retirement, worked as head of the sector of the State Research Institute of Aviation Systems. It’s about the same as a nurse on duty, he will diagnose everyone.


    Have you seen many experts in the authors on this site?
  41. Santor
    Santor 23 March 2018 18: 34
    +7
    I haven’t read so much nonsense at a time, never before ... I began to pick up the Internet and wow !!!!! Admins, how much can I drag articles from white-tape shit resources here? I found the source of this nonsense - and the comments there are flawed ... Why would he enter the sphere of air defense now tell me? And how will the Hokai direct the US fighters at the anti-ship missiles flying on their ships? Read where this mud came out of - https://m2ch.hk/po/res/27157043.html

    And another question - why not next to the author of such nonsense put the name of the one who published it .. so to speak, so that the site would know its heroes.
  42. Navigator Basov
    Navigator Basov 23 March 2018 18: 49
    +1
    The analysis is rather one-sided, but in the military part it is at least some kind of analysis, the civilian part is of the same lobbying (anti-lobbying) level: hardly, hardly, most likely, visible. Almost all probabilistic estimates are involved in the three sentences, it remains only to apply and suddenly the good old Russian maybe.
  43. Dart
    Dart 23 March 2018 19: 00
    +2
    Yeah .... a long time ago such a selective "expert" delirium was not ...
  44. Archikah
    Archikah 23 March 2018 19: 09
    +4
    Article - accountants.
    The army in general is an expensive thing and does not directly bring profit. This is normal.
    The B-2 Lancer - US Air Force aircraft are about to be removed from combat duty in the near future and transferred to storage bases. Look - this news was at the end of last year. So putting it as an example is somewhat premature.
    And of course - the competencies acquired by the revived factory are worth a lot. The old Tu-160 was built throughout the USSR. And this will be built only by Russia. There is a difference?!
    And of course, for future aircraft, future missiles and, possibly, alternative weapons are being developed, and no one is going to use the SA as attack aircraft.
  45. asp373
    asp373 23 March 2018 19: 11
    +3
    I have a question for the administration of the resource: Why put the enemy propaganda here? This is not the first time I've noticed anything like this for you. Who are you for?
  46. tank66
    tank66 23 March 2018 20: 22
    0
    As a tankaviaekperd, I will inform everyone who is interested about my conclusions: 1. requires the formation of a 500 thousand armada of drones with IR blowtorches / false targets / .2. The Chukchi tribe should settle along the Dew line / with a green card / agree to plastic / just in case.
  47. businessv
    businessv 23 March 2018 20: 34
    +6
    Thanks to the author for the article! Personally, I didn’t have any questions for him (I don’t take into account some technical inconsistencies), all of which he wanted to say was stated clearly and clearly: the project would gobble up a lot of money, with its very doubtful effectiveness. How much money will be sawn and stolen, we ourselves can figure out - unmeasured! But SA is an integral part of the nuclear triad, therefore, due to the lack of an alternative .... Plans can be revised if a real alternative PAK DA project appears. The main problem in the implementation of plans, IMHO, will be an acute shortage of professional personnel from the project to implementation. The deep failure of the industry in the 90s, the drain of many specialists over the hill and the aging of the remaining specialists will bring many implementation problems and, of course, delaying the execution time and becoming more expensive.
  48. urman
    urman 23 March 2018 21: 06
    +3
    As a prototype of the Tu-160 aircraft was used US aircraft B-1a, \\\\\\
    What I did not understand, how is it? They presented us the blueprints.
  49. igren
    igren 23 March 2018 21: 39
    +1
    Well, why weave a garden, and even with links to American data and the experience of a clash with Georgia?
  50. Dedmazay
    Dedmazay 23 March 2018 22: 42
    +2
    When comparing EPR in the first part - he laughed hard! Already choked on beer! Well, you can’t be ignorant to such an extent !!!! There are no open EPR data for Tu 160 and cannot be! And to compare with B 1 A - this is completely beyond the reach of the mind! Or F15 ... ...
    1. lance
      lance 24 March 2018 11: 16
      0
      EPR Tu160m-2,2 (5,0inosmi) EPR V-1V 1,2-1,8