Military Review

TU-160. Should I resume production? Summary of the discussion

191
Original article "Tu-160 Is it worth it to resume production?" was published on the 23.03.18 Military Review. It was followed by more 150 comments, to which the author decided to give a generalized answer in the article “Tu-160. Should I resume production? The answer to the critics. Despite the fact that the second article provided a detailed explanation of controversial issues, the number of comments to it exceeded 200. It follows that it is necessary to summarize the discussion on both articles together.




1. Scope of Tu-160

It is necessary to clearly distinguish between strategic aviation (SA) in nuclear and conventional wars.

1.1. The use of SA in nuclear conflicts

In 70-ies, during the start of the design of the Tu-160, the concept prevailed according to which the SA was to perform the role of a second retaliatory strike, since the first strike of the enemy could destroy our ICBMs in the mines. It was believed that the SA aircraft would have time to take off and be out of the zone of defeat of the first strike of the enemy. The SA as a component of the nuclear triad was used only in the USSR and the USA. Since then, mobile ICBM technologies have been developed that are covertly transported long distances. Today, mobile top-class ICBMs such as Topol-M and Yars, as well as the Barguzin railway complex (if it is adopted) are fully capable of solving the problem of a second nuclear retaliatory strike, even in the absence of an AS. In the US, it has long been calculated that it is ICBMs that pose the greatest threat to them, that is, the SA threat has faded into the background. As a result, the number of radars in the United States, intended to detect attacking bomber, began to decline.

The main argument against using SA as a component of the nuclear triad is that the amount of ICBM we have with a large margin is enough to cause unacceptable damage to the United States. The missile defense system of the American continent in the event of a massive raid will be able to hit no more than 1% of our 650 ICBMs. If 10% of our ICBMs are launched, the US will be completely crushed, as life will turn into complete chaos. Under these conditions, the addition of several dozen more strategic cruise missiles (TFR) cannot fundamentally change the overall picture. Naturally, we must not forget that the retaliatory strike by the United States will be no less powerful. The number of ICBMs is equal to ours, and the B-2 bombers can penetrate the air defense systems much better.

Nuclear strikes with the help of the TFR is also unprofitable because during a long flight (4-5 h) over enemy territory a significant part of them will be shot down. Our TFR type Ha-101 are similar in type to the American TFR Tomahawk. Both are easy targets for the air defense system, as they fly at subsonic speed and do not perform anti-missile maneuvers. The experience of the last Tomahawk raid on Syria clearly confirms this, that is, even outdated air defense systems easily knock down Tomahawk, if only it falls into their detection zone.

All TFR are designed to fly over land territory, where they can hide from detection by ground-based radar in the folds of the terrain. Attempts to launch them from airplanes flying over the ocean are especially inefficient. The coastline of the United States is so full of detection radar that the TFR is difficult to hide from them. Currently, to protect the coastline from the TFR, balloon radars are delivered with a detection range of low-altitude SKRs over 200 km. In peacetime, the early detection of aircraft is provided by over-the-horizon radar systems, which cannot work in wartime if the enemy suppresses them with interference. In the period of threat, the advanced detection line provided by AWACS AWACS is added to the coastal radar. The AWACS detection range of heavy bombers is 700-800 km, and TFR 100 km. It follows that the attack of North America using the TFR is possible only from the Arctic Ocean. Passage through the North Atlantic is excluded due to the presence of numerous NATO radars, and across the Pacific Ocean - due to interception of the TFR on the coastal defense lines. Consequently, in the nuclear triad, the TFR will play the most insignificant role, since the probability of bringing a nuclear charge to a target in the United States is much less than that of an ICBM. Moreover, 5-7 heavy ICBMs like Sarmat or Voyevoda will be able to deliver more warheads to targets than all of our 16 Tu-160, which carry 12 TFR. At the same time, the cost of the strike inflicted by the ICBM will be several times cheaper than the impact of the SA.

1.2. Using SA in conventional conflicts

It is known that CA should be used only to defeat the most significant goals. On land, these include command posts, communications centers, the most important energy facilities, and so on. In the ocean, carrier strike groups (AUG) and shipboard strike groups (TCG) are considered as targets. The original article showed that striking the United States is ineffective due to the presence of several air defense lines in Canada and target air defense within the United States. The percentage of conventional TFRs that have reached the target will be even lower than the TFR with nuclear warheads. This is explained by the fact that nuclear TFRs must overcome regional air defense and strike at dispersed targets. Conventional TFR should strike at particularly important objects, which in most cases are also protected by short-range air defense systems. The number of TFR affected at this stage will be particularly large, since when approaching the goal of the TFR, in most cases it falls into the detection zone of the air defense missile system. The damage will be insufficiently strong due to the fact that when the launch weight of the missile missile X-101 2300 kg its combat part is small - about 400 kg, which corresponds to a typical aerial bomb. To hit the AUG and the CUG with the help of TFR is not supposed, because the TFR is not designed to defeat mobile targets. For the destruction of ships used anti-ship missiles (RCC). To launch the anti-ship missiles, the SA aircraft must detect enemy ships using their own radar. When an AUG attack is done, in most cases it will not be possible due to the presence of a layered AUG air defense. Thus, the CBG remains the only serious goal, but it will also be difficult to attack them, since they are unlikely to be present in the area of ​​the Arctic Ocean or the northern part of the Pacific Ocean accessible to our CA. For our SA, it is also undesirable to fly into the Bering Sea because of the large number of radar stations on the Aleutian Islands. Front-line aviation (FA) is much better suited for actions against enemy ships near Russian territory, since the survival rate of FA aircraft in the fight against enemy air defense is several times higher than that of the SA.

The Tu-160 aircraft are based at the Engels airfield and cannot operate in the Pacific. To provide them with such an opportunity, it is necessary to retrofit the Ukrainka airbase in the Amur Region, where Tu-95 aircraft are located, for the Tu-160 bases. However, from this base they can reach the US coast only if they use air refueling.

2. The benefits of stealth technology to increase aircraft survival

Typical long-range air defense systems work in the same way. The radar air defense system accompanies the target and determines its route, then the missile defense starts at the pre-empt point where, according to calculations, a missile attack will occur with the target. When approaching missiles with a view to a certain small distance, missiles are switched to using their own homing head (GOS). At the same time, the radar power should be sufficient for outputting missiles with the required accuracy even at the far edge of the zone of attack. The smaller the ESR of the target, the smaller the far boundary turns out to be, and when using the stealth technology, the launching range of the missile launcher can fall 2-3 times. The characteristics of the missile defense system itself are especially worsened, since its homing plane can no longer go on to homing at previous ranges. To bring the missile defense to the target at a smaller distance than before, it is required to increase the angular accuracy of the target tracking, that is, to increase the power of the signal reflected from the target. This will further reduce the launch range.

The US Air Force compared the performance of the conventional F-15 fighter and the F-22 stealth fighter. It turned out that in a duel battle, the probability of winning the F-22 from the F-15 is 15 times higher than vice versa. Considering that the characteristics of the F-15 and the Su-27-type aircraft lines are quite similar, it becomes clear how much the reduction of the EPR plays an important role.

3. On the possibilities of upgrading the aircraft Tu-160

The comments often formulated various proposals to improve the combat capabilities of the Tu-160. Of these, two main directions can be distinguished: hiding the Tu-160 from the enemy's radar by increasing the power of the electronic countermeasure complex (REB) and reducing the visibility (EPR) of the Tu-160 by applying different radio absorbing coatings. A detailed answer should be given to these two questions so that illusions are not preserved in the future.

3.1 Reduced ESR Tu-160

During the design process of B-1b, it was decided that it would be “almost subsonic.” In this connection, a lot of attention was paid to the reduction of its ESR compared to B-52. Especially carefully decreased the EPR of the main reflecting elements - air intakes. For the Tu-160, the maximum speed of 2200km / h was chosen, and it was thought that this would give him some opportunity to move away from the attacking fighters. To increase engine power, air intakes were expanded compared to the B-1b. At supersonic speeds, there were technological difficulties in coating and coatings were not applied. As a result, the EPR of the Tu-160 was several times higher than that of the B-1b. Unsuccessful attempts to apply coating during operation were undertaken several times. Whether I managed to hold these events now - I do not know. In terms of ESR, the Tu-160 is closer to the old B-52 and Tu-95 bomber than to the B-1b. As a result, enemy ground radars can detect it at all ranges, up to the radio horizon (400-500 km, depending on the height of the flight). The AWACS AWACS aircraft detects heavy bombers at distances 700-800 km.

In the comments, many authors have pointed out that this problem can be solved, since effective radio-absorbing coatings have now appeared. Unfortunately, in order for such coatings to work in a wide range of wavelengths, they must be “thick” with a gradual increase in the amount of absorption from the outer layer to the inner layer. The weight of such coatings is significant, and to ensure their integrity during operation is a difficult technological task. Such coatings are more widely used on ships where the coating weight is not so critical. Other authors report that electronically controlled coatings have already been developed, the property of which can be changed during the flight. It can be answered that such works began in the USSR and good results were obtained on experimental samples, but due to technological difficulties and high prices, these coatings have not been implemented.

Thus, we conclude that the plane's EPR should be reduced only in the process of design and pilot testing. Tu-160 and in its current state was the most expensive aviation development of the USSR. To work it out, new large buildings were built at the OKB Design Bureau. Tupolev and Aviation Systems Research Institute. At the present time, it is not necessary to expect that a huge amount of funding will be allocated to eliminate the shortcomings of the old glider and to carry out a full range of new flight tests.

The way out of this situation would be to build a new aircraft under the PAK DA program, albeit with reduced requirements for reducing visibility. If it is not possible to achieve in the near future the same results as the B-2 bomber, then reduce the EPR to the 0.1-0.3 square meters, realistically for traditional aircraft. The main thing is to ensure low visibility in the lower hemisphere, for which air intakes must be placed upstairs.

3.2. On the possibilities of increasing the energy potential (ES) of the REB complex

On strike aircraft, as a rule, it is not possible to place REB complexes with high EP. As a result, two types of REB complexes are used - individual protection (IZ) located on each plane of the group, and group protection (GP) placed on the jammers. For GZ in the US, specialized subsonic aircraft are used. In Russia, they gradually switched to specialized helicopters. This is explained by the fact that the enemy first of all seeks to hit just the jammers. Therefore, they act, as a rule, outside the zones of defeat of the air defense system and, possessing a high PI, should prevent the detection of strike aircraft. High EF values ​​can be obtained only through the use of highly directional antennas based on HEADLIGHTS. To concentrate the radiated noise exactly on the enemy’s radar, the antenna size must be many times greater than the wavelength at which the radar operates. Therefore, to place such antennas on impact aircraft is not possible. In particular, on the Tu-160 free space is present only in the toes of the wing. Create complexes GZ to accompany the TU-160 tried in 90-s, but for this there was no suitable carrier. As a result, Tu-160 should cover each other only with IZ complexes. It is extremely difficult to create such complexes with small antennas placed in the toes of the wing. For example, the B-1b –ALQ-161 IZ aircraft complex, which masks the ESR several times smaller than that of the Tu-160, turned out to be the most expensive subsystem of this aircraft (about 10% of the total price). It will be even more difficult to create new FM systems for TU-160, since their power must be several times higher than the power of ALQ-161. The use of GZ complexes developed for other tasks on the Tu-160 is impossible due to the lack of space for their placement.

The current state of the air defense radar system has further complicated the task of REB complexes. Radar AFAR can form several receiving beams at once, each of which will accompany each interferer separately. As a result, the missile defense can be induced even in the case when the signal reflected from the target is still small, that is, the interference signal will serve as a beacon, according to which the range for determining the target bearing increases the more, the stronger the interference signal. If there are two radars, they can determine the gross range to the target by the triangulation method. Consequently, the decrease in the EPR of the aircraft is much more important than the increase in the EF of its REP complex.

3.3. Modernization of onboard equipment

Minoborny said that the modernization of the TU-160 to the model Tu-160М2 will increase its combat effectiveness by 60%. However, it was not explained at the expense of what funds it is supposed to provide this efficiency. A real improvement can be achieved only through the development of a new radar and a REB complex. Both of these developments are extremely expensive and will require more than 5 years. The rest of the announced modernization methods do not play a significant role. For example, the modernization of the navigation system is not so important, because with a working GLONASS system, the necessary accuracy is ensured without an expensive inertial navigation system. When GLONASS is suppressed by enemy interference, orientation is carried out according to the terrain map using radar. Above the ocean, they are guided by the astronavigation complex already used on Tu-160 or islands. The substitution of indicators for the cockpit of pilots also plays an auxiliary role, since it only reduces the intensity of the crew’s work. Whether the communication complex will be improved is also not reported.

4. On the tactics of using the Tu-160 in secondary theaters of war (theater)

The original article stated that the use of the Tu-160 in the Central European theater is impossible because of the high saturation of its air defense system. Some authors have stated that this is not a problem, since for the Tu-160 it is possible to cut through the corridors with the help of FA. It can be argued that no air defense commander will put all the means into action at the same time. If the strike group is able to hit several operating air defense missile systems, the others, who are in ambush, will wait for the most important targets to appear, and given the low maneuverability of the Tu-160, the SAM can be launched at a markedly longer range than by the FA aircraft.

The use of CA in Asian and African theaters is even more difficult, since in each case it will be necessary to obtain permission from transit countries for passage.

The use of SA in local wars is also of little justification, since the main use of heavy bombers is carpet bombing on areal targets with the help of unguided bombs. If you want to hit turned objects, the accuracy of the use of unguided bombs is determined by the height of their discharge. It is not safe to launch a Tu-160 at altitudes of equal units of kilometers, since enemy anti-aircraft installations can hit such a large-size and low-maneuver target. That is, in this case, the aircraft FA have an advantage.

5. findings

It follows from the above that the Tu-160 aircraft belongs to the class of aviation of the last century. In modern conditions, it can not enter into combat contact with any means of enemy air defense. Modernization of the Tu-160 in order to reduce its ESR is impossible, since it is easier to build an airplane of subtle forms than to engage in the application of radio-absorbing coatings on the Tu-160. This aircraft is not able to perform the main tasks that are traditionally set before the SA, namely: to strike at the territory of the most powerful opponents and at the aircraft carrier groups. Front-line aviation is much better suited for use in local conflicts.

The cost of the Tu-160 aircraft is equivalent to the cost of the corvette for the Navy. The situation in our surface shipbuilding is deplorable. Those interested can familiarize themselves with author's article “Missile defense is breached, and what remains of ours the fleet? ”, Published on April 25.04.18, XNUMX. on the site of "Military Review".

As a result, we come to the conclusion that the distribution of finance in our defense-industrial complex is clearly distorted. A large part of the military budget is spent on maintaining a nuclear shield, which works so well. On conventional weapons ships, drones, etc. means are clearly not enough.
Author:
Articles from this series:
TU-160. Should I resume production??
TU-160. Should I resume production? Answer to critics
191 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vard
    Vard 7 May 2018 05: 56
    +17
    The main message of the article ... If my grandmother had ... That would be grandfather ... Pure sophistry ... It is the triad that guarantees the answer ...
    1. dSK
      dSK 7 May 2018 06: 10
      +8
      Quote: Vard
      It is the triad that guarantees the answer ...

      Throws are constantly being made about the start of the construction of the Storm aircraft carrier, someone really wants to draw Russia into the megazate project now. Only a threat directly to the territory of the main "peacemaker" of the planet can stop the escalation of TMV.
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 7 May 2018 08: 41
      +3
      Afftars like this are a dime a dozen. What do the experts say? winked
      1. Yrec
        Yrec 7 May 2018 13: 27
        +11
        I agree, the conclusions are strange. In general, SA aircraft should not come into "contact with enemy air defense." Their task is to drag the missile launcher to the launch point, which is outside the range of air defense. The task, for example, of a destroyer with missiles on board is exactly the same. Only the TU-160 will enter the launch zone 20 times faster. And he has as many rockets.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 7 May 2018 14: 24
          +1
          Quote: Yrec
          And he has as many rockets.


          Do you think that in the case of BP - the number of missiles on the destroyer will be only 12?

          And if you then take goals, for example, those beloved by the Americans to place their strategic objects, Nebrasku, Kansas, Colorado, Dakota ...
          Are you sure. that you don’t have to enter the air defense zone?
    3. ZVO
      ZVO 7 May 2018 09: 59
      +7
      Quote: Vard
      The main message of the article ... If my grandmother had ... That would be grandfather ... Pure sophistry ... It is the triad that guarantees the answer ...


      No sophistry.
      The man made it clear that in modern conditions, the aviation component has turned into a pumpkin.
      So. how it was interpreted in 50, 60 years. (namely, the term "nuclear triad" appeared).
      So you continue to perceive - as the slogans and slogans of the Nuclear Triad.

      Now - a strategic aviation aircraft, as a component of a nuclear strike at intercontinental distances - it's just zilch and fiction.


      What guarantees a trident with one lost tooth?
      Only that there are two holes.
      ICBMs and SLBMs.
      That's all.
      1. ufpb
        ufpb 7 May 2018 10: 52
        +5
        Tell the Bormaleans from Syria about the pumpkin. And what climbers say about the fulcrum - there should be at least three of them. Hoping for soil complexes is an euthanasia euthanasia.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 7 May 2018 11: 26
          +7
          Quote: ufpb
          Tell the Bormaleans from Syria about the pumpkin. And what climbers say about the fulcrum - there should be at least three of them. Hoping for soil complexes is an euthanasia euthanasia.


          Barmalei in Syria?
          Well stop being funny. giving such examples ...
          Tu-160 in Syria - just a missile test.
          Compared to the Su-24 / Su-34 - located in Khmeimim - the Tu-160 with its missiles is simply nonsense ...
          Kindergarten.
          Drying would make everything 2-3 times faster, more precisely, and 100 times cheaper.
      2. krops777
        krops777 7 May 2018 11: 31
        +7
        So you continue to perceive - as the slogans and slogans of the Nuclear Triad.
        Now - a strategic aviation aircraft, as a component of a nuclear strike at intercontinental distances - it's just zilch and fiction.


        I’ll give one example, yesterday I literally watched a documentary about mountain brigades, so they were rebuilt almost three times from scratch, in peacetime it seemed like let's disband, and when it came to military operations in the mountains, they began to urgently create heavy casualties , and with TU-160 it may turn out that when they take it (God forbid) and there are no planes for delivery of nuclear weapons. Military experts do not live for 50-60 years, believe me, if you think that you need TU-160 M, then you need it.
        1. dSK
          dSK 7 May 2018 12: 11
          0
          Quote: krops777
          TU-160 M is needed is needed.

          Of course you need it, the more diverse the types of weapons, the more opportunities the Defense Ministry has. Just in the face of a reduction in the military budget of the Russian Federation, the acute question is the optimal, efficient, expenditure of it, with a maximum coefficient of performance (COP). hi
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. aagor
          7 May 2018 17: 05
          +1
          What area of ​​application do you offer for the "mountain" Tu-160? Author.
      3. Conserp
        Conserp 7 May 2018 21: 50
        +1
        Quote: ZVO
        The man made it clear that in modern conditions, the aviation component has turned into a pumpkin.

        Well, who else would run to like the third series of this illiterate nonsense, if not a full-time State Department officer ZVO.
      4. Yarhann
        Yarhann 9 May 2018 17: 55
        0
        the task of an airplane strategist is the same as a submarine, a land mobile complex, or the railway version of an ICBM — namely, to be constantly on the move. In the event of a conflict, the planes will already be in the air - they will be able to reach the launch area and launch their missiles with a flight range of 5-6k. But the main thing is that the missiles will be reliably protected, that is, they will be in the air and not in the mine or at the airport, etc.
        Naturally, under normal conditions, the aircraft can be used as a conventional bomb carrier - but economically it is probably better to use the tu95 (b52 for amers).
        It’s absolutely pointless to put strike weapons in the form of CDs on surface carriers - in the world’s oceans, the fleet of a probable enemy dominates the water and even if our sea groupings are successful, the number of sea-based KRs not destroyed by the enemy will be several times larger and considering that our ships will not be able to go anywhere to approach the strike of the Kyrgyz Republic speaks of the complete futility in the global conflict of deploying the Kyrgyz Republic on surface ships.
        The Russian Federation has the largest controlled territory and it is necessary to build on this - our strike weapons should be based in the depths of our territory - just like American strike weapons are always in the oceans.
        Therefore, in our case, carriers of strike weapons should be long-range aviation (because it’s fast) and submarines (because it’s secretive).
        The fact that to replace that 95 that 160 and that 22m3 tuXNUMXmXNUMX you need a new bomber YES this by itself. But here we come to the next problem - why create a new DA bomber if there are no new weapons for it and the tactics and strategy for its use are unknown and for existing machines there are tactics and strategy and weapon systems.
        That is, when we talk about a new bomber, we must first of all talk about new weapons and the tactics of its use.
        Now we are on the verge of the appearance of hypersonic weapon systems, and non-transitional variations like the aeroballistic complex Dagger, whose characteristics are highly dependent on the carrier aircraft for a moment 31. A hypersonic missiles with ramjets or detonation engines and what will be the conditions for the carrier of these weapons is not yet clear. But the fact that aviation should be the carrier of hypersonic weapons for us is also obvious given that this weapon is tactical and its mobility is very important.
    4. NEXUS
      NEXUS 7 May 2018 13: 42
      +8
      From the above it follows that the Tu-160 belongs to the aviation class of the last century

      The author’s conclusion is incorrect. Firstly, our TU-160s fleet is not young and needs updating. A series, as they say of 50 cars, I consider redundant and unnecessary. The maximum series TU-160M2 is 10-20 cars. Why? When the USSR was built in the best years, 4 sides per year. It’s stupid to count on such a result ... therefore, we take it at the rate of 2 sides per year, due to the complexity of construction and the price of one aircraft. To produce 20 sides, it will take about 10 years.
      And now we recall the PAK DA program, which was not announced yesterday. So for 10 years, we need to bring the PAK DA project to a production car.
      At the same time, we preserve the technologies and developments that we have according to TU-160M2 and do not bury strategic aviation for ten years.
      Now for ..
      Our TFR type X-101 is similar in type to the American TFR Tamagavk.

      Not close to the word at all. The ax was not created in the 70s, taking into account the stealth technology. And secondly, the ranges of these CRs are completely different from the word. At the same time, the author modestly kept silent that a missile launcher with an increased range was already being developed.
      The article has a lot of letters, but the conclusions are absolutely wrong. In order not to bury our aircraft industry in the topic of strategic bombers, we need TU-160M2. And a new weapon is being created under it. The swan far from exhausted its potential as a shock platform. And all these developments, afterwards, will be used in the PAK DA project.
      1. aagor
        7 May 2018 17: 09
        +2
        Tamagawk was immediately made using stealth technology. Technologies Tu-160 are absolutely not required for PAK YES. The greater the range of the TFR, the greater the likelihood that it will attack the air defense system or fighter. Author.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 7 May 2018 17: 31
          +7
          Quote: aagor
          The Tamahawk was immediately made using stealth technology.

          It's a lie. The ax was not created using stealth technology. Its stealth was provided by flying at low and very low altitudes and using the folds of the terrain at these very heights. Look at the ax ... where is the technology stealth? Put the X-101 and the ax next to it, as well as the new KR mattresses AGM-158C LRASM.
          Quote: aagor
          Tu-160 technologies are not required at all for PAK DA.

          You think so? That is, avionics is no longer new for new strategists? And what about the new arsenal for PAK YES? Do not tell me what to test and test? On the SU-34? Are you serious?
          Quote: aagor
          The greater the range of the TFR, the greater the likelihood that it will run into an air defense system or fighter.

          First, the TFR must be detected, this time ... A missile can fly at extremely low altitudes - from 30 meters - with the envelope of the landscape. And do not tell me, what is the lower limit for determining the purpose of a Patriot air defense radar?
          The maximum target detection range when viewing in elevation from 0 to 90o and in azimuth in the 90o sector is 35-50 km (at a target altitude of 50-100 m) and up to 170 km (1000-10000 m).
          And what will this radar see if the X-101 flies below the border of the radar of this air defense system?
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 7 May 2018 19: 25
            +1
            Quote: NEXUS

            First, the TFR must be detected, this time ... A missile can fly at extremely low altitudes - from 30 meters - with the envelope of the landscape. And do not tell me, what is the lower limit for determining the purpose of a Patriot air defense radar?
            The maximum target detection range when viewing in elevation from 0 to 90o and in azimuth in the 90o sector is 35-50 km (at a target altitude of 50-100 m) and up to 170 km (1000-10000 m).
            And what will this radar see if the X-101 flies below the border of the radar of this air defense system?


            Again, everyone forgets that over-the-horizon radars exist not only in Russia.
            But the United States and NATO.
            The long-range flight of the TFR is a high-altitude launch and a sufficiently long high-altitude section of the flight of the TFR - which is also detected by ZGRLS.
            Over 30 NATO AWACS aircraft and their allies in stock, of which 4-5 pieces are always in the air even in peacetime, give an excellent picture of what is happening in the air and even at very low altitudes.

            Conclusion Abstract TFRs by their own characteristics are not bad.
            In real life - insignificance ...
            Unless, of course, you take the Papuans, who are at war with us - the barmaleis and those who are at war with them.
            Since barmalei and Papuans are the same thing, we get. that in the systems Russia vs. NATO - air-based TFR, created on the basis of 3-generation aircraft - is a worthless undertaking.
            Only new generation bombers can change the system. let's call them, by analogy, the 5th generation.
            When its takeoff is not detected ZGRLS for 3000 km.
            When the launch of missiles - they do not detect ZGRLS for 500km and OLS for 300km,
            And when they discover over 100 km, it is possible that not all air defense systems will have time to react.
            On the other hand, most NATO air defense systems are integrated into a single target designation network via Link-16, and everything goes to the point that after 5-7 years, bilateral data exchange and external target designation and management will be absolutely on all NATO air defense systems.
            And there it doesn’t matter who discovered who shot ...
            The Swedes found on their AWACS, and the Romanians launched rockets ...
            And the result will be.
          2. aagor
            8 May 2018 10: 10
            0
            I wrote that the Patriot will find the TFR to 50 km. Detection range Tu-160 Patrits ZRK at an altitude of 10 km to 400 km. And in order to determine the range of detection of the TFR by the Patriot, one must know its ESR. But the TFR will not be detected by the Patriots, but by AWACS. Author.
          3. KVIRTU
            KVIRTU 12 May 2018 19: 06
            0
            Stealth by the ax somewhere here yes "The case is made of durable aluminum alloys, epoxy plastic and radiolucent materials. To reduce radar signature on the body, wing and stabilizer applied special coating."
        2. Yarhann
          Yarhann 9 May 2018 18: 05
          0
          the stealth of the ax is the same as that of the x55 - that is, none - the basic invisibility of subsonic missiles is ensured by the low flight altitude and the impossibility of their long-range detection by ground systems of the 300-s400 type - but the early warning aircraft or air defense missile systems of the mig31 type with a powerful aircraft successfully solve the problem of detection Radar Well, the destruction of such simple targets is a matter of technology.
          strategic missiles have a number of bells and whistles that do not have conventional ones, and these are means of detecting radar exposure for flying around radar operating areas and, as a result, have increased range and fuel supply. It is also possible to use on-board electronic warfare systems and so on. That is, strategic CR is not just CR made of their composites and having special body shapes to reduce the EPR, the filling there is much more expensive and the task of such CR is to get to the goal unnoticed
          1. KVIRTU
            KVIRTU 12 May 2018 19: 19
            0
            To make it clear to readers, X55: “its compartments were placed in a building stock of the general assembly, which determined the units to be unambiguous, fitted and joined on frames, grabbed in place by welding, after which the entire cigar assembly was removed from the stock and cooked completely.” Here, really, what a stealth. And he wrote the ax above.
    5. kit88
      kit88 8 May 2018 22: 33
      +1
      But I'm generally an amateur, akamedy did not finish. I listened to the author and slightly continuing his line, I come to the conclusion that we not only do not need a SA, but the fleet so beloved by this author is also not needed! Why all these underwater nuclear missile carriers the height of a nine-story house? They will be drowned anyway at the beginning of TMV. It’s easier to be. For the first strike - heavy ground-based missiles. Well, for the second - mobile missile systems - ground and rail. Cheap and cheerful!
      All. I will send my resume to the Ministry of Defense, to the post of Chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces. I'm so smart. wassat
  2. Per se.
    Per se. 7 May 2018 06: 15
    +15
    It follows from the above that the Tu-160 aircraft belongs to the class of aviation of the last century.
    So to argue, so we have a lot of things now belong to the past century. In the era of capitalism selected by Russia, education and science have not been developed too much, in many ways we live by the Soviet margin of safety, and not from a good life we ​​have to resume production of the MiG-31 and Tu-160, draw computer pictures, create one really new, this is for " now "it was necessary to start working out twenty years ago ... They gave birth to economists and lawyers," optimized "the industry, ruining communications, bankrupt many experimental factories, dismantling the design bureau, closing-reducing research institutes, stands, laboratories, so why be surprised ... e g, and on the remaining cross put, generally we lose that yet know how. Therefore, it is necessary to resume production of the Tu-160, renewing the old park, and carrying out modernization of the current one. Otherwise, in general it will be bad, such technologies are easy to lose, it is very difficult to get. Yes, and would rather be capitalism. In Russia, in such a wild and “subscaped” form, in a foreign world system, the end has come, it is necessary to revive your power pole, but it cannot be in a foreign world system, under other people's rules.
    1. aagor
      7 May 2018 09: 01
      +5
      If you resume the production of old, never enough money for a new one. Author.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 7 May 2018 13: 46
        +4
        Quote: aagor
        never enough money for new
        Of course, the keyword "money" ... For money, you can instantly make silicone boobs, but you can’t buy brains for money, we lose technology, and we lose the ability to create something new. The production of Tu-160 is not only jobs, it is the preservation and development of technology, the preservation and development of the industry itself. One can argue about priorities, but it is hardly reasonable to argue about the need for aviation, whose role in modern wars is enormous. In general, I repeat, when they are lining the country from all sides, and full mobilization of forces is needed, being under the dollar, sitting in the world system, already sharpened by the USA, capitalism will not be able to ensure Russia's independence and development so that there is enough money. As long as hundreds of billions flow out of the country, and "effective managers" rule according to foreign economic templates, we will measure, "in parrots" or drones, how many boats or machine guns can be made instead of one plane.
        1. aagor
          7 May 2018 17: 12
          +2
          Technology Tu-160 is the last century, and the allocations for NIIR over the past 5 years have decreased by several times. Author.
          1. alstr
            alstr 7 May 2018 21: 46
            +2
            Are you talking about titanium welding, which a very limited number of people could do in the union?
            Then tell Boeing about it, who only does that he uses titanium in his liners.

            PS Somehow I was traveling with business travelers on the train. So one of them said that we have more than 5 people left who can cook titanium with the right quality and the right amount. And in the world they are also not hurt a lot.
            1. aagor
              8 May 2018 10: 15
              +1
              So we have to pay 15 billion rubles. apiece, so that the men, precisely on CAPO, were trained to cook titanium? Author.
              1. alstr
                alstr 8 May 2018 10: 59
                +2
                So this is only one of the technologies that are widely known.
                There are also engines that will be not only on the TU-160, but also on the TU-22
                And how many such technologies we do not know, but they are necessary for something else?
                Just remember, about turbines for corvettes and how much did they spend time, money and effort to get a satisfactory result?
                1. aagor
                  8 May 2018 21: 54
                  +2
                  Tu-22M come down much earlier than Tu-160. Author.
      2. Yarhann
        Yarhann 9 May 2018 18: 17
        +1
        it’s not about money, but about the loss of technology and skilled personnel — without it, no money will solve anything — you’ll have to buy all weapons stupidly like Papuans from Saudi Arabia.
        The technological chains of production of materials will be restored, REA and TP can talk about the creation of a new aircraft. Do not forget that on the new Tu160 most of the equipment will be new simply because it is impossible and pointless to restore many of the latest technologies used in past years.
        That's when our industry will be able to establish serial production of the updated Tu 160, we can talk about the fact that it will also be able to release a new designed aircraft. In the meantime, we have a hole in terms of qualified personnel and technological chains - it is impossible to design any modern aircraft, when it is not known what our industry can really create and what they cannot do. And if in a civilian certain components and assemblies can easily be replaced by imported ones, then in military matters this is unacceptable especially with regard to strategic types of weapons.
        DO NOT forget that this will not be the same that 160 it will be a completely different board - only outwardly similar. This is how to compare IL76 and IL 476 - outwardly similar but completely different cars.
  3. sevtrash
    sevtrash 7 May 2018 06: 33
    +2
    Everything is logical. The development of 50 years ago is of little use in modern conditions. The game is not worth the candle. If another problem is not solved - maintaining the aircraft industry and cutting.
    1. avt
      avt 7 May 2018 06: 58
      +13
      Quote: sevtrash
      The development of 50 years ago is of little use in modern conditions.

      bully Tell this USfm, at the same time about ,, steal "V-2, sing something, well, how he replaced everything and everything, all these," super-strengths "with" ulans "in addition.
      As a result, we conclude that the distribution of finances in our defense industry is clearly skewed.
      bully The author should give the dangs, he knows exactly where to tame them, but .... the god of horns didn’t give the peppy cow. In general, all this is graphomania like
      This aircraft is not able to perform the main tasks that are traditionally set before the SA, namely: to strike at the territory of the most powerful opponents and aircraft carrier groups. For use in local conflicts, front-line aviation is much better suited.
      proves only one thing (well, taking into account the author’s pathos in the site profile, which we naturally take for granted wassat ) ,, A narrow specialist is like a flux "Even if he mastered the pseudo-scientific expression of his thoughts with arranging them by points. No, well, it’s better to read Oleg than this - a la Kostya Sivkov. Considering
      The cost of the Tu-160 is equivalent to the cost of a corvette for the Navy. The situation prevailing in our surface shipbuilding is deplorable. Those who wish can familiarize themselves with the author’s article “Missile defense is broken, and what remains of our fleet?” Published on 25.04.18. on the site of "Military Review".
      they found each other, here the author still odds ,, Sivkova "will master and there will be complete happinessnegative
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 7 May 2018 07: 17
      +10
      Quote: sevtrash
      The development of 50 years ago is of little use in modern conditions.

      The B-52 made its first flight in 1952 and will be in service with the United States until 2040, the EPR has a huge 100 meters, subsonic speed, etc. .. According to the author’s logic, the Americans are fools.
      1. aagor
        7 May 2018 09: 06
        +4
        And the Americans and do not resume production of B-52. Author.
        1. Every
          Every 7 May 2018 11: 21
          +6
          Quote: aagor
          And the Americans and do not resume production of B-52. Author.

          Yeah, they built them enough already. Now they just upgrade.
          1. aagor
            7 May 2018 17: 16
            +1
            From 744 B-52 to our time has lived about fifty. Author.
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 7 May 2018 11: 35
          +8
          Quote: aagor
          And the Americans and do not resume production of B-52. Author.

          And sho? Is this your most "concrete" argument? And you did not try to think: how much B-52 was produced and how many Tu-160? So they do not "resume production" of B-52 for the primitive reason that they were produced "before the cue and more!"
        3. avt
          avt 7 May 2018 12: 07
          +7
          Quote: aagor
          And the Americans do not resume production of the B-52. Author

          bully Thinly noticed! Straight away did all the little believers. bully I’m left to add -
          Quote: aagor
          and do not resume production

          ,, ulans ", and also do not bother at all ,, spirit." Like already drunk in Yugoslavia, about how the author wants - strategists invisibly break through air defense. In general, well, before you scoop up the endless theses on the clave, you can first familiarize yourself with the set of weapons of their strategists, then the doctrines of this application. Then, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ...
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          In-52

          It is still in service and will be indispensable for a long time to come.
          1. aagor
            7 May 2018 17: 21
            +1
            And we do not need to cut, let them stand. Why make new old ones? Author.
        4. alstr
          alstr 7 May 2018 13: 57
          +2
          So they have them like dirt in conservation. Instead of production, they simply gradually re-preserve and replace those written off by resource.
          And with us TU-260 nothing was produced.
          1. aagor
            7 May 2018 17: 22
            0
            Produce to put on conservation? Author.
            1. alstr
              alstr 8 May 2018 11: 00
              +1
              Produce to use, as existing ones produce their resources.
        5. Yarhann
          Yarhann 9 May 2018 18: 19
          +1
          so we are also not going to build that95)
      2. sevtrash
        sevtrash 7 May 2018 14: 25
        +1
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        The B-52 made its first flight in 1952 and will be in service with the United States until 2040, the EPR has a huge 100 meters, subsonic speed, etc. .. According to the author’s logic, the Americans are fools.

        Different things. B52 - the plane is there, it is supported “afloat”, no one is going to produce it again, that's all. Approximately like tu95, probably. And here again, to reproduce obsolete technologies, to re-deploy production. In general, we have already talked about all this.
        1. Golovan Jack
          Golovan Jack 7 May 2018 14: 34
          +5
          Quote: sevtrash
          reproduce obsolete technology

          Call a couple of outdated technologies. Pure for a change yes
          Quote: sevtrash
          redeploy production

          Why is this bad, do not explain? What, for example, is bad that the ELU-24 and UVN-45 installations in Kazan have been restored? Or do you think that they will not be useful for the next generations of aircraft?
          Quote: sevtrash
          In general, we have already talked about all this

          You are not about that, an hour?
          Quote: sevtrash
          Everything is logical. The development of 50 years ago is of little use in modern conditions. The game is not worth the candle. If another problem is not solved - maintaining the aircraft industry and cutting

          Subject Conversation wink
          1. sevtrash
            sevtrash 7 May 2018 16: 56
            0
            Quote: Golovan Jack
            Call a couple of outdated technologies.

            Never a stealth. Will it go? Or is this technology irrelevant?
            In general, the author seems to understand everything on the shelves.
            1. Golovan Jack
              Golovan Jack 7 May 2018 17: 04
              +4
              Quote: sevtrash
              Never a stealth. Will it go?

              Ugh ... come on in ...
              Quote: sevtrash
              the author seems to understand everything on the shelves

              He did not decompose, he disordered.
              Everything, you are not interesting to me stop
              1. sevtrash
                sevtrash 7 May 2018 22: 37
                0
                Quote: Golovan Jack
                Quote: sevtrash
                Never a stealth. Will it go?

                Ugh ... come on in ...

                What, about this have not heard? what But in vain ... Wait, everyone does it to her.
                But you will not say - ELU-24 and UVN-45 - they are developed in the 70s from Paton, and the imperialists, how do they make titanium beams?
                1. Golovan Jack
                  Golovan Jack 7 May 2018 22: 46
                  0
                  Quote: sevtrash
                  Wait do everything with her

                  Yah? belay
                  You have already been told:
                  Quote: Golovan Jack
                  You are not interesting for me

                  Do not force ... I, in fact, not very kind wink
                  1. sevtrash
                    sevtrash 8 May 2018 06: 48
                    0
                    Quote: Golovan Jack
                    Do not force ... I, in fact, not very kind

                    So what about ELU-24 and UVN-45? How do they and the project of the 70s relate to one of the immediate requirements today - invisibility? AND?
                    1. Golovan Jack
                      Golovan Jack 8 May 2018 07: 33
                      0
                      You are obsessive laughing
                      Quote: sevtrash
                      So what about ELU-24 and UVN-45?

                      They work. Do you have other information? Share, feel free ...
                      Quote: sevtrash
                      one of the priority requirements today is invisibility

                      IMHO "invisibility" is still more likely an option, and certainly not the "main requirement". Not to mention that there are no "invisible caps", and there are no "invisible" planes either.
                      Quote: sevtrash
                      Huh?

                      On the! fellow
                      1. sevtrash
                        sevtrash 8 May 2018 16: 22
                        0
                        Quote: Golovan Jack
                        Quote: sevtrash
                        So what about ELU-24 and UVN-45?

                        They work. Do you have other information? Share, feel free ...

                        Oh what a meaningful answer what
                        Quote: Golovan Jack
                        On the! fellow

                        Wow! How old are you? 12 turned?
          2. aagor
            7 May 2018 17: 25
            0
            Equipment you save, and what kind of aircraft it will be made? Author.
            1. Golovan Jack
              Golovan Jack 7 May 2018 17: 41
              +2
              Quote: aagor
              Equipment you save

              Not me. But the equipment and technological processes will be restored and their application will be debugged.
              Quote: aagor
              What planes will be produced on it?

              So far, the Tu-160 and modifications.
          3. ZVO
            ZVO 7 May 2018 20: 20
            +2
            Quote: Golovan Jack
            Quote: sevtrash
            reproduce obsolete technology

            Call a couple of outdated technologies. Pure for a change yes

            The first one. NK-33 incorporated the ideas of the mid-60s into development,
            Accordingly, the process technology for creating technological maps is the same years. On the new equipment they will "repeat"! ... it is to repeat the technical process of those years ..
            Avionics - the same thing. All the same ... We can not create a modern avionics for the Su-57 ... A vital program. Extremely funded. But alas .. So far they can’t do it in time. The shift is already 7-8 years old. AFAR is still not. And here - for a couple of dozen aircraft to do from scratch? so it will be more expensive than Spirit at current prices ...

            Here are 2 units ..
            1. Golovan Jack
              Golovan Jack 7 May 2018 21: 57
              +1
              Quote: ZVO
              NK-33 ideas are laid mid 60s in development

              What does this phrase mean, sorry?
              Quote: ZVO
              On the new equipment they will "repeat"! ... it is to repeat the technical process of those years ..

              As far as I understand, they have already "repeated".
              And in general, I somehow lost the desire to communicate with you, excuse me request
              1. nov_tech.vrn
                nov_tech.vrn 7 May 2018 23: 31
                +1
                I have a feeling that you started arguing with a victim of the Unified State Exam, for example, I still don’t understand why every three years to rewrite a textbook on mathematics, if nothing has been invented in school mathematics over the past 30 years and what Mr. Pupkin has surpassed Comrade Kolmogorov on field
              2. sevtrash
                sevtrash 8 May 2018 06: 50
                0
                Quote: Golovan Jack
                And in general, I somehow lost the desire to communicate with you, excuse me

                With one more. It turns out - there is nothing to answer, and the desire to communicate disappears?
            2. Filxnumx
              Filxnumx 8 May 2018 21: 07
              +3
              In fact, NK-33 rocket engines were made for the N-1. And if you had in mind the NK-32, then the Tu-160M ​​will use the 02 series engines, which did not go into the series in the 90s, you know why. So this, although the development of the end of the period of the USSR, but taking into account modern knowledge and materials
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 7 May 2018 07: 01
    +15
    If you are so smart, then why don't you build? ©
    There is a nuclear triad, and there are (already) only ours and the States, the rest do not count. For its air component, special means of destruction are being developed that allow not entering the zone of destruction of enemy air defense. For example, does X-55 say anything to the author? The range is about 2500 km., When flying through a pole or the "Atlantic angle", no one needs to ask permission. Moreover, the X-55, as I understand it, has already passed the stage, there is the X-555 with increased guidance accuracy, there are fairly closed X-101 / 102 with an even greater flight range.
    So no songs needed. Offer people a more perfect plane, and then talk about the unnecessary old.
    1. aagor
      7 May 2018 09: 32
      +4
      I write the third article on the same topic, but no result. The disadvantage of the TFR is not in the fact that they do not fly over long distances, but in the fact that they are easy to shoot down if the enemy is ready. The attack of the American TFR Tomahawk on Syria is proof of this. But the Americans are not our C-125, but the Patriot air defense missile system, that is, C-300 counterparts, which will crash TFR within a radius of 50 km. Author.
      1. inkass_98
        inkass_98 7 May 2018 09: 45
        +4
        And if you don’t get shot, then what? The triad was created for a guaranteed retaliatory strike, where the keyword is "guaranteed." The more missiles launched at the enemy, the less likely they are to shoot them down.
        1. aagor
          7 May 2018 17: 27
          +2
          It is much cheaper to launch an ICBM, they will fly by guaranteed. Author.
          1. avt
            avt 7 May 2018 18: 14
            +3
            Quote: aagor
            It is much cheaper to launch an ICBM, they will fly by guaranteed. Author.

            That sho - oh !? And the percentage of “marriage” laid down was “poor to know, well, when working in a“ responsible post ”? Maybe then there would be an understanding in understanding - why those who technically can afford to design, produce and maintain, never part with this is by no means a cheap "toy" - strategic aviation. bully
            1. aagor
              8 May 2018 10: 21
              +1
              And what about SA breakdowns less? Author.
          2. 9lvariag
            9lvariag 12 May 2018 01: 04
            +2
            Isho, one mega ikperd!
            It is much cheaper to launch an ICBM, they will fly by guaranteed. Author.
            Is it cheaper? Can you give calculations, product prices, maintenance prices and division maintenance? Or so clank.
            No, although you can put in service the land of the Kyrgyz Republic, long range, at least hypersonic. Although with a range of more than 6 thousand. km (to bypass the INF), it will itself cost as a destroyer and will be the size of a B-1V or Sarmat and will itself require the creation of intelligence infrastructure. Current even such missiles even the United States is not in service with the SAC. Well, Trump and Bill Gates can only fuse such CDs with conventional warheads.
            Tu-160 is morally obsolete
            Are you not a relative of the tank designer Morozov? That Auger loved to saw the loot! If now let go under the press Tu-95MSM, Tu-142, Tu-22M3 (and so is not a super plane), Tu-160 / 160M2. then what will we deliver to the target the entire park: ZM-14A, X-32, X-55MS, X-22, X-555 and X-101, Dagger . With our remaining Mig-31BN and we will wait for the mythical PAK-DP!?; (Where's the day of the SVDP?
            How will we test the heirs of the Soviet X-96? Probably still the mythical heir to the Tu-202, which is PAK YES and will spit on to the sound from Engels, to the Arctic, eight hours and + a couple of hours to launch missiles! Or we will again make a fuss from the junk you don’t like Tu-135 "Star."
            PS: does the author know and are served on the fact that there are specials in the X-15 and X-55. Pribludy and sensors in case of defeat of the Kyrgyz Republic, SAM missiles. When this circuit is triggered by fragments, the command system of the Kyrgyz Republic detonates the SBCH! I IMHO, I think that in the event of an explosion, in the air at an altitude below 100 s., Even if 115kT of thermonuclear SBP, there will be little to either the calculation of the air defense systems or the civilian infrastructure of the United States!
            PP.S: by the way, a breakthrough by missiles and missile carriers, goes at the junctions of the fields and zones of responsibility of air defense aviation. A continuous coverage of the radar and air defense zones are not even in Europe. And your much-praised missile defense system, who loaded it when in combat with the help of the Kyrgyz Republic? Maybe Syria is the first such case in the world where the attack of the Kyrgyz Republic was well reflected.
      2. gaudin
        gaudin 7 May 2018 11: 45
        +5
        Back in the early 80s, a breakthrough system for cruise missiles with nuclear warheads of layered air defense was developed. The first attacking rocket is blown up at the interception lines, spotlighting radars and simultaneously emitting all unprotected electronics using EMP. With a salvo of 16 missiles, 6 go to suppress anti-aircraft defense, the rest freely hit targets.
        1. aagor
          7 May 2018 17: 28
          +2
          Air defense dispersed throughout Canada. What kind of explosion are you going to eliminate it? Author.
          1. gaudin
            gaudin 7 May 2018 18: 56
            +1
            Counter question, why eliminate all air defense? If it is possible to destroy particularly important objects, the more the number of aircraft and missiles is limited. You can do the cannibalistic and strike only at the cities and it will not be important to whole: bases, radars, airfields, there will be no one to repair and service.
            1. aagor
              8 May 2018 10: 23
              0
              We have to repeat Einstein for the hundredth time: “I don’t know what kind of weapon the Third World War will be waged, while in the Fourth, stones and sticks will be used”. Author.
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 8 May 2018 11: 42
          +2
          Quote: gaudin
          With a salvo of 16 missiles, 6 go to suppress anti-aircraft defense, the rest freely hit targets.

          Absolutely the right decision, and most importantly, the carrier is not included in the air defense zone.
      3. avt
        avt 7 May 2018 12: 25
        +8
        Quote: aagor
        I am writing the third article on the same topic, but no result.

        Putin is busy and does not read immortal creations. bully Or maybe it is for the better? wassat And then read it
        This aircraft is not able to perform the main tasks that are traditionally set before the SA, namely: to strike at the territory of the most powerful opponents and aircraft carrier groups.
        and good if only laughs. And then after all, the one who will drive the 160th into the air defense zone of ground-based complexes should not only be shot before the formation, but hang. For starters, it would be nice to publicly punish the one who drove the Tu-22M in the war on 08.08.08 under the Buk. But the front
        on carrier groups.
        extravaganza! bully And then the naval in the USSR did not know and used from Tu-16 to Tu-22M, well, the poor fellow did not read the author. bully
      4. Conserp
        Conserp 7 May 2018 21: 54
        +3
        Quote: aagor
        I’m writing the third article on the same topic, but no result

        In fact, there is a result - more or less savvy visitors have firmly learned that you are just a layman and a graphomaniac who does not understand anything in the subject.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 8 May 2018 09: 32
          0
          Quote: Conserp
          Quote: aagor
          I’m writing the third article on the same topic, but no result

          In fact, there is a result - more or less savvy visitors have firmly learned that you are just a layman and a graphomaniac who does not understand anything in the subject.


          I see a completely different result.

          All the idiots do not look at anything at all, except "should be" ...

          They are unable to even a little bit to analyze the state of modern means of the potential enemy in the form of it:
          All kinds of Long-Range Detection Aids (GPS / satellites);
          Unified Air Defense System;
          Fighter aircraft and their numbers;
          Location of airbases;
          Air Defense Forces by the Navy in the vast expanses of water
          Unified data transmission system for all military branches.

          Etc.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 8 May 2018 11: 45
            +1
            Quote: ZVO
            All kinds of Long-Range Detection Aids (GPS / satellites);

            Actually ZGRLS work on the ionization trail from the launch of ballistic missiles, and do not detect the operation of small aircraft at all. And it’s unlikely that anyone would spend the ZGRLS resource on this, because the threat from ballistic missiles is much more global.
          2. 9lvariag
            9lvariag 7 October 2018 23: 23
            0
            Mr. ZVO, there is an authoritative opinion that you don’t know with your ear or snout what will happen to all this economy in the USA, after the first thermonuclear strike, even from the side of your employers! You calculate that after the first retaliation strike, megatons of electrically conductive soot and dust will rise into the air. And in the fires, the air is so cool, it conducts electromagnetic radiation and suppress ZGRLS radio waves, and also helps the B-2 bomb's IR cameras to work (those pilots will fly through sextants, without GPS - if they can), and also into UV scanners of reconnaissance satellites nothing will be visible at all. So the radar - keldyk, reconnaissance - in off-down, according to what data will the anti-aircraft defense work and fly the SAK and shoot the Navy?
            Yes, only by approximate old data!
            PS: for the NAC of the Russian Federation, only one vulnerability is airfield based on the bands of the 1st class. With an increase in departure time. And the United States also has the fact that its much-praised B-2 hangar storage aircraft.
      5. nov_tech.vrn
        nov_tech.vrn 7 May 2018 23: 33
        0
        let me assume that you are not familiar with the term graphomaniac
      6. Yarhann
        Yarhann 9 May 2018 18: 41
        +3
        Yes, you are a terrible expert on advanced air defense systems and means and methods for detecting missile defense.
        NU, for the first time, strategic RCs are not at all ordinary RCs, from the use of composites and a special form of a glider to electronic warfare equipment and means of detecting air defense systems and with appropriate software to overcome these areas - electronic warfare can be used on the final flight section at the entrance of the air defense to the operating area Short-range air defense.
        And yes, patriots like with 300 and with 125 Cp you will not find an ordinary caliber with an ax, much less a strategist - due to the low altitude of the flight. The means for detecting Raman radiation in all of these are AWACS aircraft and fighter aircraft with a powerful onboard radar of the type mig31 f15 destruction is a matter of technology.
        And given the modern approach to organizing air defense-missile defense - namely, object-oriented, rather than organizing a continuous air defense-missile defense coverage area - which is ineffective when using invisible means of attack and is infinitely expensive, because strategic missiles have the right to life, especially if they have means on board overcoming air defense. Well, it’s not worth forgetting the following: that they will be used after the ICBM strike — that is, the anti-aircraft missile defense system will be incomplete — part will be destroyed by the electromagnetic radiation part.
        Well, and most importantly, do not forget that the TFR will have no primary goals, but secondary infrastructure and defense industries, and there may not be any protection there. The meaning of Kr is precisely that it is the most cheap long-range strategic weapon in the world, unlike ICBMs, and at the same time the carrier of this weapon is usually mobile - that is, it is perfectly protected from an ICBM strike or tactical attack means.
        At the same time, do not forget that the same TFRs can also be used as tactical non-nuclear weapons - by reducing the fuel supply and loading a powerful high-explosive warhead, we also get an excellent means of attack
    2. ZVO
      ZVO 7 May 2018 10: 26
      +5
      Quote: inkass_98
      If you are so smart, then why don't you build? ©
      There is a nuclear triad, and there are (already) only ours and the States, the rest do not count.


      Nuclear triad - remained only in the Russian Federation, the USA and China.
      England and France - stopped the content of the air component of the nuclear triad in the 80s of the 20th century.
      For they realized that "passing" the modern air defense, "strategists" - is unrealistic!

      The "strategists" remaining in the US Air Force are just an echo of the "island" location, and, accordingly, intercontinental use.
      The world gendarme simply needs means of delivering intercontinental strikes ....

      In view of that. that both the Russian Federation and China - one "geopolitical adversary" - such aircraft still remains with us. Well, just mirroring.
      Although we are in no way "gendarmes."

      The author simply voiced what is "understandable" to the majority since the mid-80s.
      Namely, the complete futility of strategic aviation in a nuclear confrontation.
      Including and in view of the fact that in case of a sudden nuclear strike in 20 minutes it is necessary to suspend all nuclear missiles, refuel, put the pilots at the helm, and have time to take off. And do it all in 20 minutes (flight time Trident-2)
      It is impossible to raise all your bombers into the air - under our “defensive doctrine” ...
      Remember this by hacking your nose.
      There is simply no chance.
      Even if you pick them up, can you provide them with escort of reconnaissance aircraft along the route? Can you provide them with air refueling?
      Indeed, in the case of the first nuclear strike, the same Americans will deploy their destroyers on almost all flight routes, except for the Arctic Ocean. and without cover from the AWACS - all of our bombers with huge EPR - are knocked down like a partridge. And they will not perform a single task.
      1. ufpb
        ufpb 7 May 2018 11: 05
        +5
        For this, there is a patrol of SA in the air. Have you heard about the 24 hour overflights of Russia Tu-160 as part of air patrol? And you think that the conflict with the use of nuclear weapons will be for the military suddenly? I think you are a layman.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 7 May 2018 11: 37
          +3
          Quote: ufpb
          For this, there is a patrol of SA in the air. Have you heard about the 24 hour overflights of Russia Tu-160 as part of air patrol? And you think that the conflict with the use of nuclear weapons will be for the military suddenly? I think you are a layman.


          When was the last time there was constant patrolling?
          Eh?
          Americans stopped their constant round-the-clock patrols back in the 60s ..
          And we have not had them since the Caribbean crisis.
          not a wound. not later.

          So the layman here is you. heard the ring, but don’t know. what is it and where from ...

          Or are you so "advanced" that you think. that "flying around the Russian Federation" - a single aircraft - is some kind of factor? Yes, he has warheads on board less error ...

          And yes, a nuclear strike, if it certainly does, will be sudden.
          For he is obliged to be disarming at the adversary in its conception.
          Required.
          Accordingly, only ICBMs and SLBMs will be able to adequately respond to such a strike.
          20 minutes from the launch of Trident-2 to the destruction of our nuclear confrontation facilities.
          20 minutes.
          25 minutes at our Mace.
          No strategic aircraft even move their nose.
          Neither ours nor American.
          1. sentaniel
            sentaniel 9 May 2018 15: 17
            +1
            After trying to use a nuclear strike in May 2015 against us. In a 2016 report, American analysts eventually said that a preventive strike was suddenly not possible. Because enemy intelligence does not sleep. Air defense and missile defense will be waiting for him, and sabotage reconnaissance groups capture command posts and mines. In addition, in any case, a return gift will arrive from SLBMs. And after the deployment of the orbital grouping of the system for early detection of ballistic missile launches in the fall of 2015, this idea became even more dubious for American analysts. That is why they are now rushing around the idea of ​​a non-nuclear Global Impact.
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 8 October 2018 12: 46
            0
            Quote: ZVO
            No strategic aircraft even move their nose.
            Neither ours nor American.

            This is absolutely true only when strategic intelligence spills out everything in the world, though this is unlikely.
            But there is one important factor - with these aircraft in the threatened period, for several hours or days, you can organize patrols, and by this very instantly indicate that a retaliatory nuclear strike, although not very powerful, will follow in any case. Well, do not forget that for local conflicts, if we consider it important for us, such non-nuclear weapons are just a godsend - as it was in Syria.
      2. wlkw
        wlkw 7 May 2018 11: 42
        +1
        England and France - stopped the content of the air component of the nuclear triad in the 80s of the 20th century.
        For they realized that "passing" modern air defense, "strategists" - is unrealistic
        !
        They have no dough for this, no real enemy, where they could have been used.
        Because they curtailed these programs
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 7 May 2018 16: 54
          -1
          Quote: wlkw
          England and France - stopped the content of the air component of the nuclear triad in the 80s of the 20th century.
          For they realized that "passing" modern air defense, "strategists" - is unrealistic
          !
          They have no dough for this, no real enemy, where they could have been used.
          Because they curtailed these programs


          In the mid-80s, England and France had loot.
          Then many had a lot.

          And they took off their aircraft with 10-15-20 years of operation.
          For the British had seen enough of the Falklands and Volcanoes, the French realized the worthlessness of an attempt to break through the air defense of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty countries ...
      3. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 7 May 2018 12: 41
        +7
        Quote: ZVO
        The "strategists" remaining in the US Air Force are just an echo of the "island" location, and, accordingly, intercontinental use.
        The world gendarme simply needs means of delivering intercontinental strikes.

        Reasonably! But! In the situation with Syria, Russia was "parallel" to the United States .......! TFRs were born nuclear, but the time came when the brains of the military turned out to be dusty with the idea of ​​transferring priority to “conventional” but “precision” weapons. That's how TFRs appeared in a non-nuclear version ... Strategic bombers with Nuclear weapons ... Similarly, TFRs with non-nuclear warheads began to be used by "strategists" with non-nuclear weapons (free-falling / adjusted bombs, "non-nuclear" KR ...) there were many different Barmaleevs of different stripes, and they say that there is a tendency to increase their number ... Wouldn’t it be “simpler and cheaper” to send one on a combat mission ( !) strategist than a squadron of front-line bombers with the provision of "tedious logistics" for their refueling? How do the “damned” Israelis act? A “hallucination” appeared in their head that somewhere near their side there was a “nuclear center” - then they would bomb it ... And why shouldn’t we send Tu-160М2 to Krajina, in order to “molecularly spray” some bad vigorous crest center? From here the question becomes primary: do we need “strategists” in Shikoko? Do we need 50 eroplanes, or less? Do we need to upgrade the Tu-160 to the M2 level, or can everything be left so? I believe that the warriors should justify the feasibility of upgrading the Tu-160 m of its production. It is possible that it turns out: the Air Force needs 10-12 Tu-160 bombers ... then it is clear ....: "the game is not worth the candle!" And if the Tu-160 (and Tu-95, and Tu-22M ...) showed their greatest effectiveness against the "barmaley", "Papuans", then maybe specially equipped IL-76, IL-476 will be sufficient for this An-124 ...? But, in any case, ... the "corner-stone" consideration: one huge bomber with 30 tons of bombs will be better than 5 tactical fighters with 6 tons each? ...
    3. andj61
      andj61 7 May 2018 11: 29
      0
      Quote: inkass_98
      Offer people a more perfect plane, and then talk about the unnecessary old.

      The question is not whether to abandon the old strategists, but whether it is worth producing their modernized version. Maybe it’s cheaper to produce modern “Varshavyanok” and “Caliber” incarnations, or even underwater drones with the same missiles. Such a device lies and even with VNEU on the shelf a hundred miles from the US coast and is waiting for a signal to attack. There was no signal - after some time it takes itself or a special vessel to be serviced or the ship picks it up. More reliable for a guaranteed retaliatory strike than with strategists, and perhaps cheaper. hi
  5. cedar
    cedar 7 May 2018 07: 42
    +5
    "... This aircraft is not able to perform the main tasks that are traditionally set before the SA, namely: to strike at the territory of the most powerful opponents and carrier groups. For use in local conflicts, front-line aviation is much better suited.
    The cost of the Tu-160 is equivalent to the cost of a corvette for the Navy. The situation prevailing in our surface shipbuilding is deplorable. Those who wish can familiarize themselves with the author’s article “Missile defense is broken, and what remains of our fleet?” Published on 25.04.18. on the site of "Military Review".
    As a result, we conclude that the distribution of finances in our defense industry is clearly skewed. A large part of the military budget is spent on maintaining a nuclear shield that already works well. For conventional weapons ships, drones, etc. funds are clearly not enough."



    We conclude that the author clearly has traditional thinking ... He believes that our missiles on combat duty have flight missions, and if not? The period of the reign of Gorbachev-Yeltsin is the period of the surrender of everything and everyone to the enemy who defeated the USSR. And yes, I forgot, the author probably refers to those who believe in a fairy tale that the Soviet Union "collapsed" ...
    And if you didn’t break up? And if there are no flight missions? And if you enter them do not give different "sleeping" and awake ..?
    Is it because of this Putin and his ilk that, in fact, new strategic nuclear forces were created, somehow; "Poseidon", "Vanguard", "Sarmat", "Dagger" and ..? And the whole trap began to form hysteria with kooky on the verge of a foul ..?
    Tu -160 M, may well become a means of delivering hypersonic weapons, which, following the example of the MiG-31 “Dagger” system, needs a very high initial speed to launch, which neither corvettes nor front-line aviation can give ...
    We see at the root of the notorious "collapse" of the USSR, dear and draw conclusions,
    "Whoever prepares for the last war will lose the future."
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 7 May 2018 10: 29
      +2
      Quote: cedar

      We conclude that the author clearly has traditional thinking ... He believes that our missiles on combat duty have flight missions, and if not? The period of the reign of Gorbachev-Yeltsin is the period of the surrender of everything and everyone to the enemy who defeated the USSR. And yes, I forgot, the author probably refers to those who believe in a fairy tale that the Soviet Union "collapsed" ...


      Let's not all "blame" them.
      And then we will come to what will be like in Abkhazia.
      The war has already passed almost 30 years ago, and not a single object, even a private house or sanatorium, at least somehow damaged, has not been restored.
      Everyone nods to the war.
  6. maxxavto
    maxxavto 7 May 2018 07: 58
    +5
    Article sucks !!!
  7. Salomet
    Salomet 7 May 2018 08: 31
    +7
    The author decided not to wash it so much. Everyone understood that he considered the Tu-160 the last century. Only some things are not clear.
    The first one. Why did the Americans try to lime such a "ruinous" and worthless thing?
    The second one. It is possible to cut through the corridors not with front-line aviation but with a missile strike. This is a large proportion of mobile air defense systems in Russia. In Europe, mobile phones include short-range, medium-range air defense systems. They do not expect to fight on their territory. In the Russian Federation, the doctrine is defensive, and it suggests options for action during the capture or defeat of part of the territory.
    The third. Again article and Again !!! It does not have the main advantage of SA, it is "long arms" (as in boxing). Just as part of the triad was the idea of ​​the Tu-160? Or the SA fell into the triad due to this property.
    Fourth. Dear author. When attacking the Russian Federation, no FA in the place of the future bridgehead will be from the word at all. Tea not Imbicilles will attack. And then all of a sudden, it turns out that the CA will respond faster to the threat. Trite on the fact that the range exceeds all means of destruction of the enemy with the exception of ICBMs. And that is not a fact that they will not have time to raise strategists before the strike.
    Fifth. I do not argue about electronic warfare systems at all. Just for general education, advise literature. Just with good physics knowledge
    I don’t understand the decision about the power of electronic warfare. In fact, it should simply be larger than the reflected signal, and this is not MW. I repeat I’m not special, if you wish, you can ignore this item.
    hi
    1. aagor
      7 May 2018 08: 59
      +2
      Power EW is not determined by the transmitter power, and the energy potential, that is, the product of the transmitter power to the antenna gain. To cover heavy bombers, an ES is required up to 100 kW. In this case, two bomber must cover each other. Author.
  8. Alecsandr
    Alecsandr 7 May 2018 08: 47
    0
    But what is there to argue? If there were technical capabilities, this aircraft would now be launched again. And it is not outdated and flies beautifully. An excellent platform for long-range missiles
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 7 May 2018 17: 03
      -1
      Quote: Alecsandr
      But what is there to argue? If there were technical capabilities, this aircraft would now be launched again. And it is not outdated and flies beautifully. An excellent platform for long-range missiles


      You see, look at the map ...
      In the event of a serious confrontation between Russia and the United States and its allies - they give only one strategic flight zone - to the North Pole.
      Across the Atlantic - they will bring down.
      Through Europe - they will bring down.
      Black Sea - will be brought down.
      Caucasus - they will bring down.
      Pamir-knocked down.
      Far East - they will bring down.


      One can only rely on Kamchatka, on Mongolia and China, and on the North Pole.
      And if China does not allow the use of its airspace?
      Kamchatka also overlaps with Japan.
      It remains only to spin over the Arctic Circle ..

      Take a look. where the United States and its allies have military bases and air defense zones.
      WE are looped to near borders ...
      Whether we want it or not.
      And all our flights are 100% controlled.

      Do not believe? Well, look how they accompanied the Tu-160 flight to Venezuela.

      He was not released for a minute ... From Murmansk to Caracas ...
  9. Cellulitis
    Cellulitis 7 May 2018 09: 57
    +1
    Beeeeeeee ...... and the whole message, starting with the header ..
  10. 257950
    257950 7 May 2018 10: 04
    0
    Ie Syria, according to the author, did not show the need for SA
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 7 May 2018 10: 38
      -1
      Quote: 257950
      Ie Syria, according to the author, did not show the need for SA


      What did she show?
      What gave the opportunity - just stupidly test the rockets?
      That's all.

      What strategic goals were achieved with the help of strategic aviation?
      Given the timing of the preparation of aircraft for departure, a huge amount of fuel, flight time of aircraft and missiles.
      All targets "struck" by the Kyrgyz Republic with the TU-160, could be twice as fast and more accurately destroyed by a pair of Su-24, from the base in Khmeimim.
      1. Every
        Every 7 May 2018 11: 31
        +1
        All targets "struck" by the Kyrgyz Republic with the TU-160, could be twice as fast and more accurately destroyed by a pair of Su-24, from the base in Khmeimim.

        And if there is no base, then what to do? SU-24 will not reach.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 7 May 2018 11: 47
          +1
          Quote: Every
          All targets "struck" by the Kyrgyz Republic with the TU-160, could be twice as fast and more accurately destroyed by a pair of Su-24, from the base in Khmeimim.

          And if there is no base, then what to do? SU-24 will not reach.


          And if there were no bases, then a strategist would not have helped ...
          For the author wrote everything, but you are not even readers ... You are not able to read carefully.
          The author wrote in Russian - countries - may not give the right to fly over his territory.

          Well, here you have the option to bomb Mexico.
          And you have no option to bomb Afghanistan, having at least a thousand Strategic Aviation planes.
          Simply no.
          For no one will give you the right to fly ...
          That's all.
          And all your strategists are on the joke ...
          And nothing can help.
          Do you perceive this option?
          1. Every
            Every 7 May 2018 11: 52
            0
            Quote: ZVO
            Quote: Every
            All targets "struck" by the Kyrgyz Republic with the TU-160, could be twice as fast and more accurately destroyed by a pair of Su-24, from the base in Khmeimim.

            And if there is no base, then what to do? SU-24 will not reach.



            The author wrote in Russian - countries - may not give the right to fly over his territory.

            Is it always necessary to fly through the territory of other countries? And through Quiet? And to the Atlantic around Kola?
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 7 May 2018 17: 05
              0
              Quote: Every
              Quote: ZVO
              Quote: Every
              All targets "struck" by the Kyrgyz Republic with the TU-160, could be twice as fast and more accurately destroyed by a pair of Su-24, from the base in Khmeimim.

              And if there is no base, then what to do? SU-24 will not reach.



              The author wrote in Russian - countries - may not give the right to fly over his territory.

              Is it always necessary to fly through the territory of other countries? And through Quiet? And to the Atlantic around Kola?


              Once again - read all.
              Russian language - bomb Afghanistan if no one gives a flight ...
              You’ll even fly around in the quiet, Atlantic oceans - but this will not give you the opportunity to hit Afghanistan ...
          2. Golovan Jack
            Golovan Jack 7 May 2018 11: 56
            +3
            Quote: ZVO
            For no one will give you the right to fly ...

            IMHO in peacetime, "strategists" - the same element of "containment" as the Strategic Missile Forces.
            And in the event of a global conflict - neither missiles, nor strategists of the right to fly anywhere to ask ... will not request
    2. aagor
      7 May 2018 17: 34
      -1
      Syria did not show a high survival rate of the TFR, and the SA there really did not do anything. FA much more efficient. Author.
      1. Conserp
        Conserp 7 May 2018 21: 56
        0
        American.

        Distorting is not good.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 7 May 2018 22: 25
        +2
        Quote: aagor
        Syria did not show a high survival rate of the TFR, and the SA there really did not do anything. FA much more efficient. Author.

        You confuse God's gift with fried eggs. For example, his country, God forbid, one Tu-160 destroys all regional centers and the capital and remains at nuclear power plants and refineries, and this is only one plane.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 8 May 2018 07: 34
          0
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Quote: aagor
          Syria did not show a high survival rate of the TFR, and the SA there really did not do anything. FA much more efficient. Author.

          You confuse God's gift with fried eggs. For example, his country, God forbid, one Tu-160 destroys all regional centers and the capital and remains at nuclear power plants and refineries, and this is only one plane.


          And who will admit that some sort of plane - yogi destroy the capital. regional centers, and nuclear power plants with refineries?
          Do you think at least a little ...
          Why do you think Russia contains air defense and the air force?
          Are other countries dumber than chtoli?
          Do not be so arrogant.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 8 May 2018 16: 46
            +2
            Quote: ZVO
            Do not be so arrogant.

            God forbid with arrogance, the Tu-160 attacks the territory of the United States at a distance of 2000 km from the coast, do you think the Americans control the territory of the ocean along their borders to a depth of 2000 km?
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 9 May 2018 21: 25
              0
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Do you think Americans control the territory of the ocean along their borders to a depth of 2000 km?

              I do not suppose, I know.
              For I read a lot of things that you apparently do not even think about. before you write.
              Although this is very simple information.
              Over-the-horizon radars are not only in Russia - I already wrote about this.
              Look at Greenland, the UK and Alaska.
              There are those that look at 3-4 thousand kilometers in the direction of Russia.
              They believe that they are able to fully control the departures of our strategists already on our territory.
              Plus, 3 more stations are located on the territory of the United States. Just look towards the oceans.
              And they have a detection range such as the Tu-160 is estimated at 3500-3700 kilometers.

              Learn to think with your head.
              We read the victorious "Urya article" about our ZGRLS. Type 29B6, a la "Container".
              Do not throw the bonnet into the air immediately.
              Look for information about: "how is it with the adversary" with such things ...
  11. Eustace
    Eustace 7 May 2018 10: 10
    +1
    It is definitely worth resuming the production of the Tu-160, if only to update and load the production facilities of aircraft factories, train personnel, create new jobs and prepare the base for the production of new aircraft.
    1. wlkw
      wlkw 7 May 2018 11: 36
      +3
      So it is possible to establish the production of sailboats ....
      No sense, but definitely beautiful !!!!!
  12. Gust
    Gust 7 May 2018 10: 21
    +3
    The production of the Tu-160 is necessary if only because of the need to restore and maintain the competencies that will be needed for that same PAK DA. This is undeniable.
    As for futility, this is generally nonsense. The United States and China are using mighty antique cars according to the author’s concepts and are not going to refuse. "Well, stupid ...." Probably did not read the article.
    The most optimal use case is to get to the start line of the CD DB at the start-up sound. Nobody is going to break through air defense on them. In general, in the light of the progress made in the production of CD databases, a bomber is an extra link.
    1. alstr
      alstr 7 May 2018 14: 27
      +2
      I will add. Last time I wrote that many things are not taken into account.
      1. restoration and maintenance of compensations, which will be used not only in TU-160, but also TU-22M (new engine, for example).
      2. New types of weapons - this is hello to the runway and NQR.
      3. The Americans themselves admit that the control over small-sized aircraft is not total and that air defense is now provided EXCLUSIVELY by airplanes (ground-based air defense systems are practically not on combat duty, including patriots), i.e. it is possible to use "holes" and let NQR there.
      4. NQR - a new KR, which has a significant flight range and the ability to fly around air defense zones. The appearance of the Kyrgyz Republic from the Atlantic side will be a surprise for Europe (well, for some reason everything is turned in our direction)

      It can be concluded that the TU-160 is being renewed, not only for updating the fleet, but also as one of the carriers of new types of weapons that are not available for other aircraft, simply stupid in mass. By the way, the modernization of the MIG-31 and the resumption of production / repair of engines for it from the same series.
      And I completely agree that leaving the TU-160 airspace is unlikely or will be at the fighter escort range.
      1. aagor
        7 May 2018 17: 40
        0
        The article says that the air defense system is provided by AWACS and fighter jets, and the Patriots are pulled out only during the threatened period. Author.
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 7 May 2018 21: 57
          +2
          And it is written illiterate, because only fighters with air defense avaxes simply cannot provide.
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 7 May 2018 20: 31
      0
      Quote: Rafale
      in the light of the progress made in the production of the CD database, the bomber is an extra link.

      This is not a correct conclusion, because patrolling 1,5-3 thousand km from the coast of a potential enemy sharply reduces the flight time of our missiles of any class from the side of the aircraft, which is why it will always be necessary to use the Tu-160 as a platform for a dozen KR global threats that will only grow. A pair of such aircraft can completely solve any problem on any continent - and we need this.
    3. ZVO
      ZVO 7 May 2018 21: 13
      0
      Quote: Rafale
      The production of the Tu-160 is necessary if only because of the need to restore and maintain the competencies that will be needed for that same PAK DA. This is undeniable.


      This is very controversial.
      With the PAK-DA project, the Tupolevs screwed up very much.
      They completely failed the project.
      They could not even provide a normal airplane concept.
      With release in 2030 and a life span of 50 years.
      They simply do not understand what they want in the end and what industry can give ...
      Lost "forward planning."
      As a result, the project from Tupolev was recalled.

      With a probability of 99% - it will slowly be transferred to Sukhoi.
      The new PAK-Da aircraft will receive practically no competencies from the restoration of the Tu-160M.
      For there is an abyss between them ...
      How between B-1 and B-2 ...
      They are completely different technologically.
  13. ufpb
    ufpb 7 May 2018 11: 11
    +3
    I am sure that the author of the article will not be allowed to come close to the question: "To be or not to be." So this is paperwork. And the Tu-160 as it flew and will continue to fly, and it is not up to you, the Author, to decide.
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 7 May 2018 14: 35
      +1
      Quote: ufpb
      I am sure that the author of the article will not be allowed to come close to the question: "To be or not to be."

      Like everyone else. Here you can shake the air, who decides - those upstairs. The plane itself is outdated, the author quite logically substantiated. To resume its production as a training for the aviation industry personnel is somehow strange, supporting the aviation industry afloat is a little expensive. Did you cut it.
  14. wlkw
    wlkw 7 May 2018 12: 01
    0
    It is doubtful that with a global boom, these aircraft will generally have time to rise, to be honest. Although, if the tension develops gradually, then it may be time to rise, if everything is suspended and tucked in.
    As for the air defense of the adversary, I am inclined to agree with the author. On the other hand, after the first exchange of ICBMs, it is not clear what remains of this air defense and how it will function. It is likely that with restrictions, so its breakthrough is possible. Now hypersound has become fashionable, so if new bombers develop promising weapons, it is quite possible that they will not have to put up enemy air defense. Just a launch platform for rockets, I think so. Otherwise, it makes sense.
    In general, strategists seem to fade into the background. On the other hand, judging by the same am, they are actively using them in local wars, and we are also in Syria, the same "semi-strategic" Tu-22s were also actively used in Afghanistan.
    In addition, there is a nomenclature of ammunition that no fighter can use, although their engines are powerful.
    I do not think that their production will be massive, not in those days, they will make a dozen - another, and that’s all.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 7 May 2018 20: 26
      0
      Quote: wlkw
      It is doubtful that with a global boom, these aircraft will generally have time to rise, to be honest.

      For use in a local conflict - they will be in time.
      But in general, as already reported here, combat alert during the threatened period is an excellent means of prevention to prevent a nuclear missile threat.
  15. onix757
    onix757 7 May 2018 13: 47
    0
    Continuous disputes on the topic of whether we need aircraft carriers, BZHRK, Tu160, etc. Behind these discussions lies the main problem, namely the inability of the science and industry of the Russian Federation to recreate what has already been done, not to mention something better. This is where all the weakness of the pipe economy is manifested.
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 7 May 2018 13: 51
      +1
      Quote: onix757
      Continuous debates on whether we need ... tu160

      Where, sorry? In the Internet? laughing
      Quote: onix757
      inability of science and industry of the Russian Federation to recreate what has already been produced

      The production of the TU-160 has been restored, as I understand it. Am I mistaken? What exactly, if I am mistaken?
      Quote: onix757
      This is where all the weakness of the pipe economy

      Your comments clearly show all the weaknesses of the current Internet troll. Previously, there were much more prepared, ahem ... frames yes
      1. onix757
        onix757 7 May 2018 13: 57
        +1
        The production of the TU-160 has been restored, as I understand it. Am I mistaken? What exactly, if I am mistaken?

        You are mistaken, the Soviet backlog is being completed.
        1. Golovan Jack
          Golovan Jack 7 May 2018 14: 12
          0
          Quote: onix757
          Soviet groundwork is being completed

          Just like all ingenious good
          But, unfortunately, not everything simple is ingenious. Watch your hands:
          The picture, on it a red arrow indicates a detail.

          A couple of leading questions, before we continue:
          1. What is this item?
          2. What is it made of and what?
          1. onix757
            onix757 7 May 2018 14: 36
            0
            Would you like to tell me about mastering the technology of welding a titanium beam?)
            1. Golovan Jack
              Golovan Jack 7 May 2018 14: 38
              0
              Quote: onix757
              on mastering the technology of welding a titanium beam

              Not "mastering." Recovery. And not only technology, but also industrial plants for using this technology.
              It is too -
              Quote: onix757
              Soviet groundwork is being completed

              ? wink
              1. onix757
                onix757 7 May 2018 14: 43
                +1
                Does this somehow cancel the fact of completing the aircraft from the Soviet backlog?
                1. Golovan Jack
                  Golovan Jack 7 May 2018 14: 51
                  0
                  Quote: onix757
                  Does this somehow cancel the fact of completing the aircraft from the Soviet backlog?

                  This somehow cancels your message that nothing is done except for “eating up the accumulated during the Union” production program TU-160 request
                  Quote: Golovan Jack
                  Production of TU-160 restored

                  Production is processes and equipment, first of all. Preparations are already secondary.
                  1. onix757
                    onix757 7 May 2018 15: 11
                    0
                    This somehow cancels your message that nothing is done except for “eating up the accumulated during the Union” production program TU-160

                    I don’t see any contradictions, because I haven’t built a plane with 0. I don’t argue that they will ever master technologies of 50 years ago, but it will not be soon, at least when the workshop is built and if there are no problems with dressing. But this is in the future. We have everything in the future.
                    Production is processes and equipment, first of all. Workpieces are already secondary

                    First of all, these are people of science and production, who are not in the best position right now.
                    1. Golovan Jack
                      Golovan Jack 7 May 2018 15: 28
                      0
                      Quote: onix757
                      I see no contradictions

                      Well, still ... his own, it does not smell laughing
                      Quote: onix757
                      not yet built a plane with 0

                      Build, he’s not going anywhere. I repeat - the settings were restored just "from 0".
                      Quote: onix757
                      We have everything in the future.

                      You have no future No.
                      Quote: onix757
                      first of all, people of science and production

                      This is a separate song. In the actual production - primary technological processes and equipment, procurement and other - are secondary. If you want to go around in a circle again - wallow request
                      1. ZVO
                        ZVO 7 May 2018 16: 41
                        +1
                        Quote: Golovan Jack

                        This is a separate song. In the actual production - primary technological processes and equipment, procurement and other - are secondary. If you want to go around in a circle again - wallow request


                        Well, yes, yes ...
                        Tell it to Deripaska. who really wanted to restore the Kuibyshevsky (Samara) Aviation Plant ...
                        That he would have the most complete cycle.
                        from alumina to airplanes and airlines.
                        But it didn’t work out.
                        People who refused to go to the factory at the end of the 90s, the lack of qualified labor reserves - turned out to be much more important than the preserved workshops, equipment, tooling, technical processes ....
  16. ser56
    ser56 7 May 2018 15: 19
    +2
    It should be noted that the author makes reasonable arguments, both tactical and military-technical in nature ... opponents are more emotional ... in my opinion, the preservation and development of these aircraft is reasonable if they are equipped with hypersonic weapons, maybe this is behind the program and development, but not voiced for obvious reasons .. but it is possible that the author is right and just drank the budget for obviously unnecessary weapons ...
    1. Conserp
      Conserp 7 May 2018 22: 01
      +2
      Quote: ser56
      It should be noted that the author makes reasonable arguments.

      Translated from trollin into Russian - "the author carries nonsense, which has already been dissected twice in the comments on the first two articles."
      1. ser56
        ser56 8 May 2018 11: 40
        0
        this is what I wrote about earlier - about emotions that you brilliantly confirmed ... bully
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 9 May 2018 16: 00
          0
          Do you see emotions in letters?
  17. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 7 May 2018 16: 16
    +1
    Tu-160 begin to produce only:
    1. Restoration of production and industrial cooperation of suppliers.
    2. There are simply no other procts (circled and tested), but there are not enough strategists.
    3. Testing new weapons and individual systems.

    Heavy machines are needed anyway, at least because of their range and are applicable in limited conflicts away from the homeland. I wouldn’t bother with stealth, but would make a normal “new” B-52, and in the same lineup, I’m both a strategist and a strategic scout and AWAC and tanker.
  18. nov_tech.vrn
    nov_tech.vrn 7 May 2018 16: 17
    +2
    startling Sabbath of the "superprofessionals", I propose to write a fourth series - in the wake of the "Outcome of the discussion."
  19. Golovan Jack
    Golovan Jack 7 May 2018 16: 47
    0
    Quote: ZVO
    Quote: Golovan Jack

    This is a separate song. In the actual production - primary technological processes and equipment, procurement and other - are secondary. If you want to go around in a circle again - wallow request

    Well, yes, yes ...
    Tell it to Deripaska. who really wanted to restore the Kuibyshevsky (Samara) Aviation Plant ...

    And someone here interferes in the conversation is not the case wink
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 7 May 2018 20: 30
      0
      Quote: Golovan Jack
      Quote: ZVO
      Quote: Golovan Jack

      This is a separate song. In the actual production - primary technological processes and equipment, procurement and other - are secondary. If you want to go around in a circle again - wallow request

      Well, yes, yes ...
      Tell it to Deripaska. who really wanted to restore the Kuibyshevsky (Samara) Aviation Plant ...

      And someone here interferes in the conversation is not the case wink


      Well, if you are so businesslike, write at home in the diary ...
      Here is a public forum - and a similar one "interferes with the case" - "goes overboard" ...
      Everything about the case.
      Just the direct answer to you that your technology costs nothing without people. who can use them ...
      1. Golovan Jack
        Golovan Jack 7 May 2018 21: 50
        0
        Quote: ZVO
        Just the direct answer to you that your technology costs nothing without people. who can use them ...

        As I understand it, there are people on the Tu-160 production restoration project.
        Speech in the branch in which you ... still climbed in without readingwas originally about what has been done and what has not been done on this particular project. Accordingly, everything written there should be perceived exactly in this context.
        And then Deripaska and stuff?
        That's right ... absolutely nothing to do with it.
        And yes ... I didn’t be rude to you yes
  20. newbod
    newbod 7 May 2018 16: 59
    0
    Why not consider SA as a carrier of hypersonic weapons ?. Five of the same daggers can be hung up. One tu160 and no AUG or KUG. Both cheap and cheerful
    1. aagor
      7 May 2018 17: 45
      +1
      Hypersound is not a panacea. Even Iskander is a hypersound too. Against them, and used Ajis. Author.
      1. Conserp
        Conserp 7 May 2018 22: 02
        +2
        Quote: aagor
        Hypersound is not a panacea. Even Iskander is a hypersound too. Against them, and used Ajis. Author.

        An author or a layman who is not familiar with the modes and performance characteristics of the Aegis SAM system, or the author is a liar.
        1. aagor
          8 May 2018 10: 29
          +1
          State the Truth. Author.
    2. ZVO
      ZVO 7 May 2018 21: 27
      0
      Quote: newbod
      Why not consider SA as a carrier of hypersonic weapons ?. Five of the same daggers can be hung up. One tu160 and no AUG or KUG. Both cheap and cheerful


      Look at the dimensions of the bombs / missile compartments on the Tu-160 and compare with the dimensions of the Dagger.
      I think so. that much will become clear to you.
      The diameter of the dagger, excluding non-folding rudders, is 0.8 m. Given - 1.2-1,4m (not exactly yet ...)
      Dimensions of the bomb compartment - 1.9m
      Revolver with daggers does not fit. Alas...
      And it will work out. that it will be possible to place only 160 missiles on the Tu-2. Maximum.
      1. ser56
        ser56 8 May 2018 11: 44
        +2
        maybe the dagger can be modified for the Tu-160, folding rudders have been used for a long time ... although 2 missiles are enough, even without nuclear weapons, to make the AV unsuitable for maintaining a database, without entering its air defense zone ... laughing
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 8 May 2018 12: 03
          +1
          Quote: ser56
          maybe the dagger can be modified for the Tu-160, folding rudders have been used for a long time ... although 2 missiles are enough, even without nuclear weapons, to make the AV unsuitable for maintaining a database, without entering its air defense zone ... laughing


          Did you really believe in hypersound?
          Do you really think that with hypersound, the operation of the GOS is possible?
          1. ser56
            ser56 8 May 2018 14: 22
            +1
            What's the problem? wink or do you want to talk about plasma radiolucency? bully no problem - I have a physical and technical education ... tongue I give a tip - the Mig-31 radar works without problems at a speed of 3M ... bully
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 9 May 2018 19: 51
              +1
              Quote: ser56
              Mig-31 radar works without problems at a speed of 3M ... bully


              3M - hypersound? And the split is not 4,5-5M - should it be called hypersound?
              And we are told on TV about 6M and 10M ...

              Sealing surges and plasma already won?
              Throw literature. which clearly indicates on which product and with what equipment the system of bilateral radio permeability of ionized gas has been achieved. what is formed around the product ..
              Show me this Nobel laureate ...
              1. ser56
                ser56 10 May 2018 11: 01
                0
                1) Did I write that the MiG-31 goes to hypersound? Or are you reading what you yourself see, not I wrote?
                2) if it’s not a secret - what kind of shock waves and plasma parameters are you talking about? Or have you heard such tricky terms on TV? bully By the way, at a speed of 3M there is a jump in compaction?
                3) Learn for yourself! By the way, is it a secret for you that plasma can be an antenna? hi
            2. sabotage
              sabotage 9 May 2018 20: 29
              0
              Quote: ser56
              I have a physical and technical education ...

              The interview did not pass. Following!
              1. ser56
                ser56 10 May 2018 11: 03
                0
                Do you have the right to interview? bully Or an illiterate impostor - a bachelor in tourism? fool
  21. Tektor
    Tektor 7 May 2018 17: 42
    0
    What is the main advantage of CA? The fact is that she can show the adversary the degree of our "concern" in the threatened period. The launch of a rocket is already a war, and the take-off of a CA is not a war, but it already makes it clear that you need to pick up the phone ... That is this is a psychological impact on the "partners".
    The air defense / missile defense must be overcome by the KR due to the systems installed on board. These systems can be of different categories. For example, like in KR Meteorite, when a plasma cloud was generated around the rocket, and the target mark disappeared from the radar screen. On the other hand, there is an electronic warfare system, which can create multiple target marks on the radar screen, and go and guess which one corresponds to the real object. Thirdly, a laser can be installed on board the KR to blind the approaching SAM with the IR and the body of the GOS.
    In addition, the tactics of opening passages in a continuous radio field due to the coordinated attack of radar stations with missiles with Tu-22M3M can be applied.
    Due to the high speed, both the Tu-160 and Tu-22 can get away from interceptors, because they will not be able to maintain speed longer than carcasses.
    1. aagor
      8 May 2018 10: 36
      0
      1. For psychological impact and 16 Tu-160 + Tu-95 enough.
      2. If you put a plasma generator, then what remains for the warhead?
      3. The radar operator can easily guess when tuning the frequency from pulse to pulse, the first mark is always true. Shoot her down, shoot down the next one.
      4. Long-range missiles will only be with the RGOS.
      5. To where will fly Tu-22М3М?
      6. Can they meet you too?
      Author.
  22. ccsr
    ccsr 7 May 2018 19: 53
    0
    Author: Andrey Gorbachevsky writes:
    In the 70s, during the beginning of the design of the Tu-160, the concept prevailed, according to which the SA was to play the role of a second retaliatory strike, since the first strike of the enemy could destroy our ICBMs located in mines. It was believed that CA planes will have time to take off and be out of the zones of destruction of the enemy’s first strike.

    The author misleads the public, there wasn’t such a thing. the enemy’s first strike could not destroy our ICBMs, since even then our reconnaissance assets could have revealed in advance preparations for such a strike. And this means that as soon as a mass launch of missiles or a mass take-off of strategic enemy aircraft is recorded, we were immediately given an order to strike by all strategic nuclear forces. That is why the Americans did not plan to launch a nuclear strike on empty mines - these are the author’s fantasies.
    In general, the author seems to have a vague idea of ​​how the modernized Tu-160s will be used in the future, not realizing that there will still be plenty of conflicts like the Georgian or Ukrainian ones at our borders, and they hardly use the Strategic Missile Forces there. But quickly (within a few hours) to fit strategic missile carriers to those who decided to test us for strength and to use tactical nuclear weapons in the future may very well be needed.
    I think that of course it is necessary to modernize the TU-160 - the issue is quantity, and is it worth to abandon the Tu-95 in order to unify the carrier in order to reduce maintenance and maintenance costs of the aircraft fleet.
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 7 May 2018 20: 46
      +1
      Quote: ccsr
      But quickly (within a few hours) to fit strategic missile carriers to those who decided to test us for strength and to use tactical nuclear weapons in the future may very well be needed.


      To understand. how wrong you need to know a little third-party topics.
      Although superficial.
      The ideas of supersonic breakthroughs against NATO or the United States "nullified" in the mid-90s, after updating the elemental base on satellites warning about missile launches.
      The sensitivity of infrared matrices has reached the point that it perfectly recognizes launches of not only intercontinental ballistic missiles, but also missiles of much smaller sizes. including and anti-ship, large anti-aircraft, as well as (bingo !!!) afterburner torch of a jet plane.
      And now, in view of the reaction time of 20 seconds, from detecting a source of thermal radiation to its complete selection and determination of all parameters — all attempts to “break through” unnoticed have turned (as I repeat) into a pumpkin.
      There are enough satellites. to control the whole ball.
      What do they have, what do we have.

      So, some extraneous area in the form of IR matrices completely “nullified” the idea of ​​a supersonic breakthrough that lasted almost 40 years ...

      But on a tricky bolt, and the nut is "with a twist" ...
      Afterburning supersonic. Small but panacea.
      It’s not just that he appeared in these years.
      not only fuel economy - but the same “stealth” aka “stealth” - because stealth it is not only for radar, but also for OLS.
      It is a pity that the author did not immediately hint at such things.
      At least half of his critics. which are still somehow reasonable, would fall off from rampant criticism.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 7 May 2018 21: 23
        0
        Quote: ZVO
        To understand. how wrong you need to know a little third-party topics.
        Although superficial.

        Well, let's superficially evaluate your statements.
        The ideas of supersonic breakthroughs against NATO or the United States "nullified" in the mid-90s, after updating the elemental base on satellites warning about missile launches.

        Firstly, we didn’t have such an idea, if only because the massive take-off of a large number of strategic bombers was revealed without satellites. This is proved by the large number of electronic intelligence tools on our borders, starting from Norway and ending with Japan.
        Secondly, the enemy’s orbital constellation is also vulnerable to electronic warfare equipment, and the Americans know this better than us, so the hope of satellites alone is too naive to track the entire flight route of at least several hundred aircraft, taking into account refueling and other aircraft.
        There are enough satellites. to control the whole ball.

        The Americans had a little more than 400 recently, and more than half of them were civilians. So if you consider that in addition to reconnaissance satellites in the United States there are a huge number of navigation, communications, etc. satellites, it is easy to understand that your hat-making approach is somewhat naive.
        So, some extraneous area in the form of IR matrices completely “nullified” the idea of ​​a supersonic breakthrough that lasted almost 40 years ...

        As a matter of fact, as far as I know, there was another concept in which strategic aviation did not break through, but carried combat duty outside the NATO and US air defense strike zone, and the entire BC was issued on command. To sacrifice a carrier for the sake of a dubious breakthrough, even during the collapse of the USSR, would hardly have crossed my mind not only to the Air Force Commander-in-Chief, but also to the GOU General Staff.
        Afterburning supersonic. Small but panacea.

        There is no panacea because every strategic aviation aircraft was registered and any, even training flight, was tracked even during the Soviet era, and even more so now. There are other intelligence signs that determine the massive take-off without the participation of satellites - it’s not in vain that Lourdes was kept, and they built the Urals, but they unfortunately destroyed it ...
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 8 May 2018 07: 59
          0
          Quote: ccsr

          As a matter of fact, as far as I know, there was another concept in which strategic aviation did not break through, but carried combat duty outside the NATO and US air defense strike zone, and the entire BC was issued on command. To sacrifice a carrier for the sake of a dubious breakthrough, even during the collapse of the USSR, would hardly have crossed my mind not only to the Air Force Commander-in-Chief, but also to the GOU General Staff.


          You apparently do not know that the idea of ​​a low-altitude high-speed breakthrough has been since the beginning of the 60s.
          And automated systems for following the terrain and speed at the ground of 1000 km / h - this is just the potential for a “breakthrough” of the air defense zone ...
          And several bomber aircraft were created in accordance with this doctrine.
          These are F-111 and B-1 and Su-24M and Tu-160
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 8 May 2018 11: 57
            0
            Quote: ZVO
            You apparently do not know that the idea of ​​a low-altitude high-speed breakthrough has been since the beginning of the 60s.

            You do not know that in the sixties we did not have airfields in the Western Hemisphere to seriously consider the concept of an air breakthrough by strategic bombers, and even at low altitudes without fighter cover. That is why Khrushchev launched OTR in Cuba, after which the Caribbean crisis occurred and the Americans had to walk in diapers for a long time. The Tu-160 was created later, and the concept was not the one you are fantasizing about here.
            1. sabotage
              sabotage 9 May 2018 20: 34
              0
              What year did the SU-24 begin to design?
  23. ccsr
    ccsr 7 May 2018 20: 22
    +1
    Author: Andrei Gorbachevsky writes
    From the above it follows that the Tu-160 belongs to the aviation class of the last century. In modern conditions, he cannot enter into combat contact with any enemy air defense equipment.

    It follows from the foregoing that the author operates with representations of the mid-twentieth century, because strategic bombers, by definition, should not be included in the zone of destruction of enemy air defense assets, and if they are hit, then only by enemy fighter aircraft, and if they succeed by organizing refueling in the air.
  24. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 7 May 2018 20: 29
    +1
    Nowhere do you need to move the air intakes. It is necessary to put special profiles to reduce visibility at the entrance. The author at least google the term "stealth aircraft" or something ... laughing tongue wassat
    1. aagor
      8 May 2018 10: 44
      0
      Look at the B-2. Author.
  25. lance
    lance 7 May 2018 21: 28
    +1
    stupidity, stupidity and nonsense. functions of a strategist to strike at KNOWN REMOTE GOALS, or to create a dominant role in the desired area. I’m talking about 8000 km of the aircraft itself and 5,5 thousand strike weapons. create an advantage in the long east or attack the north, east, asia, europe. what are you talking about? exactly 200 and no less they are needed and not in one area
  26. lance
    lance 7 May 2018 21: 33
    0
    or someone will convince me that some kind of "storm" in 4 hours will change the situation in any specified area of ​​the world?
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 8 May 2018 09: 58
      +1
      Quote: Lance
      or someone will convince me that some kind of "storm" in 4 hours will change the situation in any specified area of ​​the world?


      Well, if I give you an abstract assignment.
      According to the Tu-160.
      In any area of ​​the world.
      Strike ...... Singapore.
      Singapore has "numbed" and now needs to be "forced into peace."

      No other country gives the right to fly through its territory.

      Given that even such a scanty island has 4 AWACS aircraft, 100 fighter jets, 8 tanker aircraft.
      There is interaction with other countries and they get the whole atmosphere from Japan, Formosa, the Philippines, Indonesia and 100% from the American side.

      What and how will you do? How do you think will be hit? From where and by what route will the planes fly?
      I am sure that you will not say, you will nod - let the military think.


      Or will you again talk about barmaley and Papuans who do not have air defense at all?
      1. lance
        lance 8 May 2018 12: 17
        0
        Evo once again convinced that your statements just to confuse it is not clear to anyone. 5500km rocket, combat radius 8000km. using the allies of the russian federation with china and vietnam to agree, you in the failure of tu160 in the zone of operation of the drill and air defense does not enter. The second option without allies, the United States get involved because of Singapore? take a ruler from both Vladivostok and neutral waters patrolled by Chinese aircraft carriers. South Africa is much more interesting. but even in the current situation it is possible.
        1. sabotage
          sabotage 9 May 2018 20: 39
          0
          Quote: Lance
          using allies of rf with china and vietnam to agree

          Go negotiate. So for the sake of Russia, China and Vietnam will spoil relations with Singapore.
          1. lance
            lance 10 May 2018 04: 54
            0
            can tell what kind of relationship they have, you are clearly not Asian in this matter.
            1. sabotage
              sabotage 10 May 2018 07: 14
              0
              They have normal relations. Cargo goes through Singapore, and neither Vietnam nor China needs to fail in this process. What the hell do the Chinese need this for? Only if they themselves want to capture and control Singapore, and no one will give them that, so no one will let anyone go anywhere and have to be content with sending a couple of cruisers and submarines with Caliber to strike.
              1. lance
                lance 10 May 2018 09: 26
                0
                You answered your question and the USA can’t stop it already. are you bad with geography? how much will the cruiser crawl? and who then has more chances? read carefully what I am writing and take the ruler, Singapore, its most extreme point is susceptible to the x-555 attack without flying over the territory of China and Vietnam. but you are new to the SCO documents and the CSTO would otherwise understand something.
      2. lance
        lance 8 May 2018 12: 23
        0
        but the most interesting thing is that Russia doesn’t need it, for centuries it has supported the weak, and you want to become a hegemon directly. to strike at Hawaii bypassing Japan, this is our option, Alaska, the revived 2 fleet is our goal.
  27. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 7 May 2018 22: 31
    0
    Quote: saturn.mmm
    Quote: aagor
    Syria did not show a high survival rate of the TFR, and the SA there really did not do anything. FA much more efficient. Author.

    You confuse God's gift with fried eggs. For example, his country, God forbid, one Tu-160 destroys all regional centers and the capital and remains at nuclear power plants and refineries, and this is only one plane. And he does this even without entering the airspace of my country.
  28. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 7 May 2018 23: 04
    0
    Sorry, just Papuan, but I also have an opinion.
    The plane is handsome, and no one will ever have it, definitely.
    Characteristics - rolls over, enemies - what to take from the poor, they are waiting for the next delivery of diapers, otherwise ..... categorically!
    And yet his time was gone (I didn’t read the article, and so it’s clear)
    Waves and radiations are today.
  29. Old26
    Old26 7 May 2018 23: 43
    +1
    At first I didn’t want to write anything in the subject, but after reading the skirmish I realized that I had to pay my 5 cents.
    The most characteristic, kmk in all this skirmish is that everyone in the posts has their own specific grain, but alas, they try not to hear their interlocutor. everyone bends his line.
    Therefore, I "begin to bend my line" laughing

    Quote: sevtrash
    Everything is logical. The development of 50 years ago is of little use in modern conditions. The game is not worth the candle. If another problem is not solved - maintaining the aircraft industry and cutting.

    For some reason, we believe (not all, but most) that strategic aviation can only be used to launch a nuclear strike against the enemy. The second (stripping), but by no means the first, most important one, which will destroy the enemy as a country. Where it comes from is understandable. Yes, there was a time when airplanes were the only means of delivering strategic nuclear weapons. But time passed, priorities changed and now strategists are not the basis of the strategic nuclear forces of countries. In the 70s, speaking about who and what types of strategic nuclear forces were the main ones, they always said that here we have first-class ICBMs, and our adversary has SLBMs and strategic aviation. But the means of struggle were changing, a new generation of air defense systems appeared and the specific gravity of the SA became less. But this does not mean at all that it is unsuitable in modern conditions. Look at the same Americans. They do not just modernize their bomber aircraft, they modernize it so that in addition to nuclear munitions it can also use high-precision non-nuclear weapons. Sometimes you need to be able to "convey" 2-3 tens of tons of bombs at a sufficiently large distance at a time. And moreover, this distance may be such that it will simply be impossible to use the same Su-24M or Su-34.
    Therefore, the question of whether an SA is needed - kmk has only one answer - is NEEDED, despite the fact that now its scope of tasks has narrowed (or maybe it has expanded on the contrary)
    It is not necessary to go to extremes when SA is a panacea. Where necessary - it is necessary to apply TA, where necessary - strategic. The same Americans used tactical aircraft in Vietnam, and when it was necessary to "dump" tens of tons of bombs on the enemy at a time - and strategists
    The question is different - in quantity ..

    Quote: aagor
    Produce to put on conservation? Author.

    Not at all. if you write on air topics, you should know that the Americans in the desert are not placing “novices,” but cars that have served a certain term. They destroyed something under the agreement (surplus), stored something. In particular, they usually write that in case of conflict, the Americans can restore in the short term and put into operation something about 20-25 B-52 and B-1B bombers

    Quote: aagor
    I write the third article on the same topic, but no result. The disadvantage of the TFR is not in the fact that they do not fly over long distances, but in the fact that they are easy to shoot down if the enemy is ready. The attack of the American TFR Tomahawk on Syria is proof of this. But the Americans are not our C-125, but the Patriot air defense missile system, that is, C-300 counterparts, which will crash TFR within a radius of 50 km. Author.

    Syria raid EVIDENCE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And in this story there are so many dark places and spaces that you should not refer to this example at all.
    In addition, low-flying targets have always been not the easiest. Yes, if you have time before the arrival of the Kyrgyz Republic in an hour or two, you can rebuild the defense and regroup forces and means. And if this temporary stock is not? What then? And if these CDs will still go under the cover of interference and using other weapons from the arsenals of means to overcome air defense. I would not draw such hasty conclusions

    Quote: ZVO
    Nuclear triad - remained only in the Russian Federation, the USA and China.

    And in Israel. Somewhat different from the triads of China, Russia and America, but still
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 8 May 2018 07: 48
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Look at the same Americans. They do not just modernize their bomber aircraft, they modernize it so that in addition to nuclear munitions it can also use high-precision non-nuclear weapons. Sometimes you need to be able to "convey" 2-3 tens of tons of bombs at a sufficiently large distance at a time.


      Dear Old 26.

      I repeat, I believe that the presence of strategic aviation in the United States is a consequence of their geographical location (a separate continent) and their geopolitical location (world gendarme) on our planet.
      But only.
      They need long-range aviation (as you yourself wrote) to drop 2-3 dozens of tons of bombs. to those places. where either there is no air defense yet, or where there is no air defense anymore.
      All these examples of bombing by strategists: Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - fully confirm exactly that. that there was no air defense at the time of the arrival of the bombers.
      And all the work of cleaning the air defense was done by other forces.
      Accordingly, a strategic bomber is absolutely useless where there is air defense.
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 8 May 2018 12: 04
      0
      Quote: Old26
      The question is different - in quantity ..

      The fundamental question is not in quantity, but in the PRICE of development and the cost of a serial sample. If this goes off scale, in comparison with other carriers of strategic nuclear forces, then the development will be poached at the stage of research. If they prove the commensurability of the price / kiloton with other carriers, then they will conduct OCD, and only then they will decide how much the serial copy will cost and what the series will be. Such an algorithm was in Soviet times, and it is unlikely that it has changed now.
  30. Old26
    Old26 8 May 2018 09: 31
    0
    Quote: ZVO
    Dear Old 26.

    I repeat, I believe that the presence of strategic aviation in the United States is a consequence of their geographical location (a separate continent) and their geopolitical location (world gendarme) on our planet.
    But only.
    They need long-range aviation (as you yourself wrote) to drop 2-3 dozens of tons of bombs. to those places. where either there is no air defense yet, or where there is no air defense anymore.
    All these examples of bombing by strategists: Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - fully confirm exactly that. that there was no air defense at the time of the arrival of the bombers.
    And all the work of cleaning the air defense was done by other forces.
    Accordingly, a strategic bomber is absolutely useless where there is air defense.

    Dear Alex!
    Perhaps the presence of CA in the United States, or rather its once massive and really a consequence of its geographical location. But do not forget that our country, oh how great, and no one can ever say where our adversary might be. It is possible that beyond the limits of the radius of action of our SU-34 or even TU-22M3.

    I think that in the development of SA, in particular, we need the principle of reasonable sufficiency. Do not chase the numbers, 10 new planes, or 50, but just as much as you need. And so that not only atomic bombs can be thrown at the heads of the enemy, but also ordinary weapons. And the defense of air defense - here as the suit lies. For this, there are long-range missiles. Besides air defense - air defense is different. It is impossible, for example, to compare the air defense of Russia and the same Burma. Both of them have air defense, but which one. It is impossible, for example, to compare North Korean air defense with Russian air defense. The question is rather complicated, kmk, nothing can be solved with a simple vote

  31. Gust
    Gust 8 May 2018 11: 04
    0
    So much criticism, constructive not visible. If the Tu-160 is hopelessly outdated, offer your option. I suggested mine, I can justify it.
  32. Gogia
    Gogia 8 May 2018 11: 54
    0
    Yeah ... Well said about the wavelength. The length of one detail of the wing edge at 95th was such that they were taken to the An12 in Voronezh for processing in cataphoretic baths. so that it can be from 30 MHz and modulate ad infinitum. At the expense of radar - for the strategist you do not need a particularly large radar, and the transition to a new element base will save tons !!! weight. In the USSR, a variant of an air defense aircraft from TU160 with dozens was considered !!! ballistic missiles - this is also an option against attack. If you saw the plane live, you would have noticed that the designers paid great attention to the EPR from the front hemisphere. the lines are smooth, the contours are smooth, not a single flat part. Only the air intakes and dviguny reflect cool, but it is fixable! And further. The potential of this machine is not yet fully understood. Because this is such a colossus !!!
    Quote: aagor

    Tomogawk was immediately made using stealth technology. Tu-160 technologies are not required at all for PAK DA. The greater the range of the TFR, the greater the likelihood that it will run into an air defense system or fighter. Author.

    At the expense of axes. Their cylindrical body made of duralumin pipe is a vivid example of stealth .... Jassm is an inconspicuous machine. And those are the AGM-129s that the Americans removed from service (but they seem to have stacked them in a corner) - this is a stealth missile. Tomics are alive because they fit in mk41 conveniently.
    1. aagor
      8 May 2018 22: 16
      0
      Rounded shapes just reflect. There will be no upgrades to the fuselage, otherwise it would have required a full range of flight tests. The radar station is extremely necessary for him to detect the fighter in advance. Old radar worked only on the ground. The escort plane was considered, but the idea of ​​abandonment was too expensive, and it would still not be possible to fight the F-22. Author.
  33. Conserp
    Conserp 8 May 2018 20: 35
    +1
    Quote: Andrey Gorbachevsky
    1.1. The use of SA in nuclear conflicts

    In short: in this section, the author shows that he is not familiar with the theory of escalation.

    Quote: Andrey Gorbachevsky
    striking across the US is ineffective

    Let us suppose. It turns out, as in the joke about the “globe of Ukraine”: from the point of view of author, there is nothing but the Blessed Light of Democracy and the Shining City on the Hill (aka USA). And only the continental part.

    Quote: Andrey Gorbachevsky
    Our SCR type Ha-101 in type are close to the American TFR Tomahawk. Both are easy targets for an air defense system.

    ... like a Russian one, the author forgot to say?

    Quote: Andrey Gorbachevsky
    when approaching the target, TFR in most cases falls into the zone of detection of SAM
    It remains only to understand what kind of air defense systems the author is broadcasting to us. Chaparali?

    Quote: Andrey Gorbachevsky
    To launch anti-ship missiles, SA planes must detect enemy ships using their own radar.
    We have reached the bottom! (c)

    Quote: Andrey Gorbachevsky
    The US Air Force compared the performance of the conventional F-15 fighter and the F-22 stealth fighter. It turned out that in a duel battle, the probability of winning the F-22 from the F-15 is 15 times higher than vice versa. Considering that the characteristics of the F-15 and the Su-27-type aircraft lines are quite similar, it becomes clear how much the reduction of the EPR plays an important role.

    It remains only to brush away the tears of tenderness.
    And then they knocked from below! (c)

    I honestly wanted to pack up and disassemble this opus in detail, but I don’t even have the strength to read to the end this illiterate nonsense.
  34. Gnefredov
    Gnefredov 8 May 2018 21: 15
    0
    Is it worth it to resume production?

    Of course, it’s worth it if you don’t want to watch your wife in a “manly” pose from the side of the observer (they have your wife, but you are observing ... a defender ..).

    Evil is not enough ..

    Is it worth it to resume production?

    I almost choked. Of course, it’s worth it, because if you don’t renew it, they will bury us in clay.
    Resuming production is a great sign. Our “four hundred” and “two hundred” (160/124) are still flying.
  35. chingachguc
    chingachguc 9 May 2018 10: 49
    0
    somehow, the author misses that strategic aviation can be used in the fight against ACG on the high seas. And given that we do not have an offshore fleet, the Tu-160 plus nuclear submarines are becoming almost the only means of destruction ... so there are a lot of tasks for strategic aviation. Impact on remote enemy bases and airfields, participation in local conflicts, etc.
  36. macgyver
    macgyver 9 May 2018 16: 34
    +1
    The US Air Force compared the performance of a conventional F-15 fighter with a stealth F-22 fighter. It turned out that in a duel battle, the probability of winning the F-22 of the F-15 is 15 times more than the other way around.


    It is necessary to tell something to suckers to convince them to buy more expensive aircraft. GSN missiles in general do not care for the EPR of the aircraft, it is mainly induced by heat. And the S-400, as practice has shown, perfectly sees all the "stealth" from any EPR and even the small "smart" Trump missiles with an even lower EPR, unattainable for fighters or bombers, even theoretically.
    1. lance
      lance 10 May 2018 05: 00
      +1
      I repeat, the Pentagon refused to support the purchase of new Fu-22s as technologically inconsistent with the assignment, and someone questioned the beginning of the United States, together with Japan, the hybrid f22 and f15. Amer does not have anything that can seriously be called invisible.
    2. aagor
      10 May 2018 23: 00
      +1
      Do you happen to claim for discoveries in radar? Author.
  37. Vladimir Pupkin
    Vladimir Pupkin 10 May 2018 04: 06
    +2
    What kind of nonsense? Compare Tomahawk and X-101? The tomahawk has a range of 2600 km (in the nuclear version), the X-101 has 5500 km. What is the saturation of the US coastline radar? What balloons? There are no radars, and an experienced balloon last year detached (literally) and flew wherever it looked. The author does not know that most of the Arctic is not water, but ice? Those. if not reaching even the pole, the SA will drop the X-101, then they will fly most of the route over land (ice and the territory of Canada, whose coast is definitely not saturated with radar). The author is not aware that the more SA units we have, the more they will be simultaneously in the air on combat duty? And what if the first blow to us is, then it will be at the missile silos and the locations of mobile ICBMs, which are still tied to a specific positional area? The author does not know that for projection of force (in the absence of carrier strike groups) Russia has ONLY SA? Does the author know that the current concept does not provide for any breakthroughs by the "strategists" of the enemy’s air defense? They do not fly with bombs, but with missiles, if the author has forgotten. The bombs are going to fly with bombs, which the Americans are training right now as suicide bombers to deliver nuclear “gravity” bombs to Russian territory by tactical aircraft with an air defense breakthrough. And so on and so forth. Summary - build modernized strategists and build. And do not let out loot on PAK YES, do not go to the next "SOI", which was intended solely to undermine the economy of the USSR and not try to create "invisibles", which in nature do not exist. Americans are going to use the B-52 for at least another 20 years, and some of our leaders want to burn the loot of defense on PAK YES.
  38. icant007
    icant007 10 May 2018 11: 45
    +1
    I agree with the comment. In my opinion the most reasonable.
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    And why shouldn’t we even send Tu-160M2 to Krajina in order to “molecularly disperse” some kind of bad khokhlo center?

    Given our lack of ship carrier groups, a Tu-160 class aircraft may be the only quick way to strike at barmales, including at remote overseas military theaters.
  39. 9lvariag
    9lvariag 12 May 2018 01: 20
    0
    Quote: aagor
    Equipment you save, and what kind of aircraft it will be made? Author.

    So we will answer, how many X-55/101, will the Su-30SM or MiG-31BN raise? Already cut so Su-27 and Tu-16, then they were looking for a replacement. By the way, in Syria, modernization with the DDRT Tu-16K = 17x would have been enough, flying to the bogeys.
  40. Smiling pilot
    Smiling pilot 19 January 2020 15: 01
    0
    I was lucky to fly to Tu 95capitan when there was not even a pot there. The basin was. My comrades flew to Tu 160. Cool!
    I read the article with the prejudice that I would not see anything interesting.
    But I liked the article.
    At least a good grade and comparison.
    Tu 160 is a very beautiful plane.
    And that's all.
    The question is - why do I need it, why is it 140 million Russian?
    To deceive ourselves ????)
    Increased power ???
    Maybe enough to deceive ourselves ???
    All these years we are at war with ourselves.
    We need another weapon.
    Great education for our children and grandchildren. Housing and a decent life for all citizens of Russia.
    I know imaginary patriots will attack me. And good)
    I find it funny.