Military Review

Tu-160: a museum piece or a miracle of technology?

75
A few days ago, the Russian strategic bomber bomber Tu-160 flew to Venezuela and back. These events did not go unnoticed and caused a reaction at the highest level. Officials and the press have started talking about the Russian technology and its capabilities. In this situation, the American edition of The National Interest could not stand aside, and also presented its vision of the problem. It attempted to establish what the Tu-160 aircraft actually are and whether they can pose a threat.


23 December The National Interest published a new article in the The Buzz column for Mark Episcopos’s authorship entitled “Introducing Said Tu-160 Bomber: Wonder Weapon or Obsolete?" weapon? "). The author noted in the subtitle: it is possible that we see the swan song “White Swan” in its original form, however, the Tu-160 platform will remain in service in the foreseeable future.



At the beginning of his article, M. Episkopos points to the reasons for its appearance. The Russian Tu-160 bomber, also known as the Belyy Lebed ("White Swan"), again turned out to be a cause for wave News. The reason for this was the Kremlin’s decision to send two such aircraft to Venezuela.

The author recalls that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is one of the largest recipients of Russian weapons and Russian aid. All this is allegedly taking place against the background of the steady deterioration of Russian-Venezuelan relations observed in recent decades. The American White House expressed opposition to the Kremlin’s actions, but US Ambassador to Colombia Kevin Whitaker went even further. He simply dismissed the Tu-160 as a museum piece. The ambassador said that the United States noticed the arrival of Russian bombers built in the eighties. But he added that airplanes of that period do not pose a threat; they seem to be taken from a museum.

As was to be expected, the Russian side reacted sharply to the statements of the American diplomat. Thus, the head of the Department of Information and Mass Communications of the Ministry of Defense, Major General Igor Konashenkov, commented on his statement in a rigid form. He expressed a desire to recall that since the creation of the Tu-160 bomber there have not been equal in NATO countries and in the United States in speed, armament, range, combat readiness and resistance to air defense. However, I. Konashenkov noted that the Tu-160 can be compared with a museum exhibit. However, in the sense that it is a masterpiece of domestic engineering in the field of aviation to the envy of ill-wishers and deserves only admiration.

Also, the commander of the Russian long-distance responded to statements by K. Whitaker aviation Lieutenant General Sergey Kobylash. He called the statements of the American ambassador unprofessional. The commander considers the reason for such statements to be the envy of Russian ill-wishers.

M. Episcopos rightly notes that when studying military equipment, a wide range of assessments can be applied, which lies between the “masterpiece” and the “museum relic”. In the current atmosphere of political differences and the active expression of their positions, it will be useful to remain calm and soberly assess the capabilities of the Tu-160 aircraft.

Initially, the American author proposes to recall that the age of technology has no direct connection with backwardness in operational qualities. As an example, he cites the American fighter F-16 Fighting Falcon. This multipurpose jet fighter appeared a decade earlier than the Tu-160, but it is an impressive or even frightening component of the US air force. These fighters will remain in service until the forties of the XXI century.

However, in the context of strategic bombers, such as the Tu-160, there is an important issue. Is it necessary to use the latest achievements of aviation science when developing such aircraft so that the finished sample can effectively solve its tasks? If we exclude questions of minimal maneuverability and controllability, then the answer to this question is no, it is not necessary.

Tu-160 is a threat for the reason that it is able to carry and deliver cruise missiles with nuclear warheads to the launch line. Its ammunition range includes X-55MS, X-555 and, more recently, X-102 missiles. The planes proved their capabilities as missile carriers throughout their entire service, and also confirmed them during the recent solving of real combat missions within the framework of the Syrian civil war.

However, all this, as the author believes, does not mean that the Tu-160 will continue to serve in the Russian air force over the next decades. At least, these planes will not continue to work in its current form. The Kremlin is actively engaged in the modernization of its combat aircraft built during the Soviet era. This update provides for the maximum preservation of existing elements and functions with the simultaneous integration of modern on-board equipment and weapons. Provides for the installation of new radars, guidance tools, stealth technology, communication systems, etc.

It is expected that the strategic missile carrier Tu-160 will also join this modernization program. In 2019, it is planned to put in the series its new modification Tu-160М2. In the course of a phased update, it is proposed to equip the aircraft with an updated NK-32 engine with increased fuel efficiency. Also, new radio-electronic equipment will be used, to a certain extent similar to the equipment of the existing Tu-160.

Commenting on the expected modernization of aviation technology, Mark Episcopos draws interesting conclusions. He believes that the appearance of a new modification of the Tu-160М2 bomber cannot be considered an admission of the shortcomings of the base Tu-160. On the contrary, it is a confirmation of the success of existing machines. Tu-160 over the past decades has served the Russian military air and aerospace forces well, and therefore the army does not intend to abandon it and look for a replacement. At the same time, it is planned to update the existing aircraft so that it more fully meets the requirements of modern warfare.

The author of The National Interest concludes his article with the thesis in the subtitle. In his opinion, it is likely that we are now witnessing a swan song of a bomber named “White Swan” in its first version. However, the platform Tu-160 will remain in service in the foreseeable future, having undergone certain changes.

***

It should be noted that in recent days, the publication The National Interest several times drew attention to the Russian Tu-160 aircraft. So, a day before M. Episkopos’s article, Michael Peck published the article “Russian Next Bomber Base: Venezuela?” (“The Next Russian Bomber Base: Venezuela?”), Devoted to the latest news and rumors surrounding the flight of Russian aircraft to Latin America. At the same time, the subtitle of the article by M. Peck pointed to the likelihood of placing the Tu-160 at Venezuelan airfields: "this will not happen, and that's why."



The reason for the publication was a new flight of Russian Tu-160 bombers to Venezuela. Two such vehicles recently arrived in Caracas, accompanied by military transport aircraft An-124 and passenger IL-62. The latter delivered to Venezuela the necessary materiel, diplomats and support personnel for working with aviation technology. Similar flights have already been carried out in the past, in 2008 and 2013. However, this time the flight took place against the background of tension associated with disputes around the Black and Japanese seas.

M. Peck noted that the issue of creating a permanent base of long-range aviation in Venezuela is being actively discussed in the Russian mass media. He tried to establish the likelihood of such a development, as well as the advantages and problems of such events. First of all, the author of The National Interest noted that the previous deployment of nuclear weapons carriers "in the backyard of America" ​​led to the famous Caribbean crisis, and the US will react toughly to new such steps.

The recent flight of Russian aircraft to Venezuela was intended to demonstrate support for President Nicolas Maduro. His socialist and pro-Russian (or, at least, anti-American) government is now trying to maintain its power in the difficult conditions of a collapsing economy and a shortage of goods, jobs, etc. However, M. Peck doubts that the arrival of the aircraft makes sense. Venezuela needs food and money more than bombers or other weapons. However, the Venezuelan president claims that Russia has promised to allocate 6 billion to his country.

The American author notes a curious feature of the current situation. He believes that Russia, as in the days of the Cold War, is showing its weakness. It can help the allies militarily, but is not able to provide economic assistance.

However, much more interesting are the arguments of M. Pek about the deployment of Russian aircraft on South American airfields. Caracas and Miami are 1400 miles from each other: more than an 90-mile distance between Cuba and Florida. However, the distance will not affect the possible military response from the United States, followed by the deployment of Russian aircraft.

However, distances matter. The actions of Russian troops in Eastern Europe are to some extent facilitated by the fact that this region is located directly at the borders of Russia. At the same time, Russia does not have bases in two Americas and, accordingly, there are no opportunities for full support of the base in Venezuela. A way out of this situation could be Cuba, but it is far away, and in addition, the United States can block it again. It should also be noted that the current Cuban government is unlikely to want to resume “sparring” with Washington.

Michael Peck points out that the organization of a permanent base is not associated only with the irregular arrivals of the bombers. This requires sending aviation technicians to Venezuela to service the aircraft, as well as soldiers to protect them. You should also organize stocks of fuel, spare parts and, possibly, weapons. In addition, on the basis of the need to organize air defense in the form of fighters or anti-aircraft systems. If Venezuela fails to provide adequate protection to the air base, Russia will have to deal with this issue.

It is noted that the Russian military has become accustomed to the presence of troops of a potential enemy near its borders. US troops are constantly present in the Baltic States and provide support to the Ukrainian army. In this regard, Washington’s tough reaction to recent events in Moscow’s eyes looks like hypocrisy.

And yet, while the deployment of Russian bombers remains only a topic of discussion. Real steps in this direction are not being taken. In this regard, the author expresses the hope that the current situation will not change in the final of the article “Russia's Resource Bomber Base: Venezuela?”. M. Peck rightly notes that the most serious threats "in the backyard of America" ​​can hardly lead to positive consequences.

***

The arrival of Russian strategic bomber-rocket carriers to Venezuela did not go unnoticed and attracted the attention of both the foreign press and officials. Only two aircraft capable of carrying cruise missiles with a nuclear warhead, made a lot of noise and became the reason for many statements, publications, etc. In addition, information appeared about the possibility of organizing the permanent duty of Tu-160 aircraft in the South American region, and this launched a new wave of articles and statements.

According to one estimate, Tu-160 bombers are “museum pieces”, while others point out the high potential of such equipment and its ability to influence the international situation. There is reason to believe that the potential of Russian long-range aviation in influencing the military-political situation is best shown by the consequences of the recent flight. The planes made a visit to a friendly country and immediately returned home, but this was enough for loud words and ratings. Perhaps, such consequences of the entire flight pair demonstrate the potential and capabilities of the Tu-160 better than any tabular data.

The article "Introducing Russia's Tu-160 Bomber: Wonder Weapon or Obsolete?":
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/introducing-russia%E2%80%99s-tu-160-bomber-wonder-weapon-or-obsolete-39642

Article "Russia's Next Bomber Base: Venezuela?":
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-next-bomber-base-venezuela-39402
Author:
75 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 26 December 2018 06: 02
    -6
    Two "White Swans" have arrived, and fear will catch up!
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 26 December 2018 06: 28
      +6
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      and catch up with fear!

      You came up with a fairy tale in which you with pleasure believed. Are you afraid when the B-1B flies over Afghanistan? Obviously not. And why is the US afraid of the Tu-160 pair over Venezuela?
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 26 December 2018 06: 35
        0
        Well do not tell! With good promotion, this episode can be promoted as an act of aggression and a reason for declaring war! Everything is relative !
        1. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher 26 December 2018 07: 15
          -2
          Quote: Uncle Lee
          With good promotion, this episode can be promoted as an act of aggression and a reason for declaring war!

          All the promotion is an article in The National Interest which has nothing to do with American military analytics. If this was written in Defense News, it would make sense to talk about the US fears of the Tu-160, but The National Interest is the same ritual and is designed for the Russian audience, which Russian media will later refer to as an "American view" to publish nonsense.
      2. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 26 December 2018 06: 41
        0
        They cannot bear the thought that control over both Americas is slipping out of their hands. For them, missiles in Cuba, for example, are not so scary as actively developing economies are nearby. You just need to remember that the main task for the US economy is "so that the neighbor's cow dies", only then can you puff your cheeks and talk about "the shining city on the hill", "democracy" and "the most powerful economy in the world."
        And the military component now does not roll, since the nuclear weapon at the object of aggression multiplies any attempts by the aggressor to squeeze other people's resources to zero.
        1. dgonni
          dgonni 26 December 2018 13: 45
          +5
          Is Venezuela a booming economy? Well, unless of course we take inflation of the order of a million per year, then probably yes. Although it is not developing but regres.
          1. g1washntwn
            g1washntwn 26 December 2018 14: 41
            0
            Whatever resource you personally possess, you will greatly increase if you are blocked by sales markets? Therefore, I allegorically, but bluntly say - the United States pursues a policy of restraining the development of the countries of South America (and around the world, their playful little hands reach out).
            Burn around all the neighbors and you will be the richest, most well-fed and safe - that’s the Anglo-Saxon axiom, let's leave fairy tales about democracy to creatures with one straight meander.
            1. dgonni
              dgonni 26 December 2018 14: 53
              +1
              Well, suddenly Venezuela is a doctor to herself. She conducted nationalization, and if it’s easier in our opinion, she squeezed out the entire oil industry without compensation to the owners. And the sales market was exactly in the states, for having a lot of money, it was not enough to pull up at least its processing industry. investors essno said well, work yourself. As a result, a sharp drop in production volumes! note EXTRACTION and marketing precisely for this reason. No one has closed the market for oil from Venezuela. The socialists populists themselves ruined what they had. Well, now they are hunting on the remnants of Maduro and the army has been given over to drug trafficking. Excellent socialism turned out, purely in terms. There is nothing to eat in the country, and this is where you can harvest 2 crops a year!
          2. CTABEP
            CTABEP 26 December 2018 18: 56
            0
            Cocaine production is only developing there, and people are impoverished at an accelerated pace, having huge reserves and a share in oil exports. In Iran, sandwiched for decades, people live better.
            And so, the sending of the Tu-160 is an exceptionally beautiful gesture - nothing that cannot be made of the Russian Federation in these two bombers in those parts, even in the event of war, they could not have done. More likely, and less - they hardly flew there with combat load.
            PS although, in the order of delirium - if you use them as a fast and highly reliable tran Pacific Pacific transport of cocaine, which the Venezuelan government paid for loans - then at least the economic logic in the events slips. With a retail in Europe in the region of 100 bucks per gram, a couple of tens of tons just compensates for the loans :)
            1. Vanguard2090
              Vanguard2090 2 February 2019 14: 27
              -2
              Of course, nothing could be done but to destroy the entire military potential of the United States !!
      3. asar
        asar 26 December 2018 12: 33
        -1
        Well, we are not blown away, like the Americans, about the B-1B in Afghanistan!
        And what kind of Ohr did they raise about our pair of Tu-160s ?! laughing
        1. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher 26 December 2018 17: 43
          +2
          Quote: asar
          And what kind of Ohr did they raise about our pair of Tu-160s ?!

          Ohr raised the Russian press and the Russian press hiding under foreign names. The real US press simply noted the visit of the Tu-160 to Venezuela, saying that this has not happened for a long time. You may not know, but before the strategists in Cuba grazed, it is much closer to the United States than Venezuela and somehow in the USA no one was hysterical. Although the Cold War was worse than the current one.
      4. Errr
        Errr 27 December 2018 05: 23
        0
        Right. Only this tale was invented by the American for the Americans. All these are old American tales.
      5. Vanguard2090
        Vanguard2090 2 February 2019 14: 29
        -1
        Tu-160 have cr missiles with a range of 10 km, there is something to be afraid of!
    2. okko077
      okko077 26 December 2018 06: 42
      +2
      Neither one nor the other!!! From a purely military point of view, the use and combat effectiveness of such an aircraft is very doubtful .... They can be seen very far away and they have been counted for a long time and are tracked .... Very expensive and prohibitively expensive aircraft .... It’s a pity to throw out, but in order to maintain good condition, it was necessary to modernize ... One can only guess how many planes were in combat readiness, I think one finger would be enough ... But now all avionics will be restored and production will be localized and re-restored within Russia, and at the same time they will also restore the Tu-22 M3M, and begin testing and creating equipment for the PAK DA .... So, there are pluses, not only minuses .... They will restore and work out the production while creating several new Tu-160Ms in terms of plan preparations for the production of PAK YES ... They can make 5 new ones, no longer need .... well, if you only use the old backlogs, it’s also not scary, and the engines will be pulled to a relatively acceptable level ....
      1. 1810BM86
        1810BM86 26 December 2018 09: 03
        0
        Quote: okko077
        From a purely military point of view, the use and combat effectiveness of such an aircraft is very doubtful

        Here is more detailed. What specific tasks and in what particular military operations will this aircraft perform, well, what do you think? I have no doubt that you understand strategic planning, and so I am interested in you, as a specialist. lol
        1. okko077
          okko077 26 December 2018 16: 53
          -1
          They must destroy those strategic goals that change their position. Strategic bombers are countermeasures for the attacking enemy, which can reduce its strike capability .... But here the problems begin with target designation and waiting time in the air in an undetected state ... The coordinates of the targets must be entered in the air .... Otherwise, all the functions of these planes can carry out ground-based missiles .... Even taking into account the fact that the planes are in the air under the cover of their country's air defense, the enemy sees them - you need an inconspicuous aircraft like B-2 .... What systems will find such maneuvering
          (changing their position or newly discovered) targets or strike groups and transmit their coordinates in real time? What channels? These two problems (secrecy and network-centricity) do not give such an opportunity to the Tu-160 .... Enough?
          1. 1810BM86
            1810BM86 26 December 2018 17: 08
            +2
            What are the strategic moving goals? Well, what? Aircraft carriers? Nuclear submarine? What else? What are you talking about now? These are carriers of nuclear weapons. And they are needed only so that this weapon is in motion, in order to make it impossible to destroy them as stationary. And the fact that they produce rockets for all kinds of barmale there, well, you can train not only at the training grounds.
            1. okko077
              okko077 26 December 2018 17: 10
              0
              So everyone sees them? !! They have not yet taken off - they already see them, they are being watched, soared in general as in a shop window ..... Grouping of deployed troops, command centers, communication centers, ports, sources of electricity ..... Not aircraft carriers, but aircraft carrier groups, strategic underwater. rocket launchers ...
              1. spec.78
                spec.78 26 December 2018 18: 50
                0
                And they just need to take off. Do not forget about the missile launch range. According to the INF Treaty, we cannot have ground-based missiles with a range of more than 500 km. Air based over 2500 km. Count the start area for the state yourself, not forgetting the curvature of the earth's surface
              2. 1810BM86
                1810BM86 27 December 2018 10: 50
                +1
                Well, they see them, so what? Who will shoot them down? Yes, even over our territory. A ballistic missile with a pair of megatons cannot be pointed at them; they don’t give a damn about the rest with the device.
          2. Errr
            Errr 29 December 2018 04: 33
            0
            I believe that the full Tu-160 ammunition in the form of 12 X-101 missiles is enough to incapacitate an aircraft carrier strike group. At the same time, he himself does not need to be substituted. The strike will be delivered from a distance safe for the missile carrier. This machine is a very successful high-speed platform for our strategic cruise missiles. As for modernization, the Americans still fly including the B-52 ... smile
          3. Vanguard2090
            Vanguard2090 2 February 2019 14: 26
            -2
            V-2 is just a laughing stock in comparison with the TU-160
      2. FID
        FID 26 December 2018 10: 22
        +2
        Quote: okko077
        They can make 5 new ones, no longer need .... well, if you only use the old backlogs, it’s also not scary, and the engines will be pulled to a relatively acceptable level ....

        There is no more groundwork ... But it is too early to write off the "two hundred" (product 70)! What is the launch range of the X-101 (102)? What does air defense and detection range have to do with it? These planes will still serve!
        1. Vanguard2090
          Vanguard2090 2 February 2019 14: 24
          -1
          x102 range of more than 10 km.
      3. asar
        asar 26 December 2018 12: 39
        +3
        Respected! These "sides" do not need to approach the enemy air defense zone!
        Why did you immediately cut off your shoulder ?!
        Well this is not Su-27, after all!
        At least read, at your leisure: about the plane, about the missiles, what's in the "drum"!
      4. Tusv
        Tusv 26 December 2018 15: 25
        -2
        Neither one nor the other!!! From a purely military point of view, the use and combat effectiveness of such an aircraft is very doubtful ..

        And how many missiles are there in the Ha-102 Drum? enough for a couple of states of america. hi
        1. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher 26 December 2018 17: 45
          -1
          Quote: Tusv
          enough for a couple of states of america.

          Not enough kilotons. This is not an ICBM combat unit.
          1. Tusv
            Tusv 26 December 2018 17: 50
            -2
            Quote: Puncher
            Not enough kilotons. This is not an ICBM combat unit
            . So let's offer Gringo to play Russian roulette with Us repeat
        2. spec.78
          spec.78 26 December 2018 18: 51
          0
          Will not be enough. Two drums of 6 rockets. Total 12
          1. Errr
            Errr 29 December 2018 04: 40
            0
            I want to clarify. What is not enough twelve X-102?
            1. spec.78
              spec.78 29 December 2018 04: 41
              0
              For a couple of states fsha. laughing
              1. Errr
                Errr 29 December 2018 05: 04
                +1
                Well, it depends on the specific states. They are so different ...
                1. spec.78
                  spec.78 29 December 2018 07: 06
                  0
                  Well, only if in Alaska. So there even normal goals once or twice and miscalculated
                  1. Errr
                    Errr 29 December 2018 09: 12
                    0
                    In New England, there are 5 nanostates, actually all but Maine.
          2. Vanguard2090
            Vanguard2090 2 February 2019 14: 23
            -1
            12 x-102 or 24 light hypersonic, two TU-160 is enough to destroy all the main military potential in the United States!
          3. Vanguard2090
            Vanguard2090 2 February 2019 20: 02
            -1
        3. The comment was deleted.
      5. rubin6286
        rubin6286 26 December 2018 22: 01
        0
        Valery! But you don't need to write nonsense. You, from a "purely military point of view," what do you know about its combat effectiveness, except for general phrases about visibility, high cost of production, and so on. Did you fly this plane? No. And the Tu-22M3? Also no. Something there "fence" about PAK YES.
        You need to read more serious articles and watch "News" on TV. While there is a TU-160 PAK, YES is not needed at all. He will never become absolutely invisible, and the rest of his performance characteristics are unlikely to be higher, because modern turbojet engines have come to their limit.
        1. VO3A
          VO3A 26 December 2018 23: 51
          0
          It’s too late for me to read, I need to continue to write .... By the way, the TU-22m3 is very difficult to fly, who can I confirm? .. Takeoff and landing speeds are high, long-distance runs .... Probably worse than the Su-24 iron ....., the option with full fueling and with 6X250 and 2 hanging tanks can barely take off ..... For bombers, a lot depends on the level of ground support .... With all due respect to the pilots, they do not determine everything ... .
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 28 December 2018 02: 43
            +1
            And yet, Andrei, read and analyze ... before submitting "to the public." I piloted the Tu-22M3 for about five years and I know this car well. It is easy to control only the bike and then when he is sober. Takeoff and landing speeds are high, but they lie within the technical specifications, otherwise the car would not be accepted into mass production. If you do everything correctly, the runway is quite enough .. The length of the landing run depends on the weight of the car. It takes off with one mass, and lands with another, and the pilot needs to take this into account. You are now writing that the Su-24 is an "iron" and bring its combat load with outboard tanks, and it will arrive at landing without bombs and outboard tanks at all. What do you want from him? It is not adapted for maneuvering air combat like the MiG-21 or MiG-29. Su-24 is a vehicle that combines the speed of a fighter and the bomb armament of a modern front-line bomber.
    3. svp67
      svp67 26 December 2018 12: 38
      +3
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      Two "White Swans" have arrived, and fear will catch up!

      Yes, because from the other side the United States is almost not covered by missile defense systems, and beyond two, the whole "flock" can fly.
      Two such vehicles recently arrived in Caracas, accompanied by the An-124 military transport aircraft and the Il-62 passenger aircraft.
      Of these four, the "museum" is the Il-62
      1. Vanguard2090
        Vanguard2090 2 February 2019 14: 20
        -1
        USA covers only 5% of the territory !! 95% of the United States is a passing yard!
      2. Vanguard2090
        Vanguard2090 2 February 2019 19: 45
        -1
        <img src="https://cloclo14.datacloudmail.ru/view/Screenshot.png?etag=4E8BF5A0DE26065E43541EDFB184B0602E817A71&amp;x-email=petrov969100%40mail.ru" class="b-view__image__image">
    4. Vanguard2090
      Vanguard2090 2 February 2019 14: 19
      -1
      the tramp with the State Department these days lived in bunkers and, not surprisingly, two Tu-160s carry 24 cr of the Kh-102 rocket with fusion charges of 250 kt and a range of over 10 km! or 000 hypersonic with a range of 48 thousand km! With one salvo they could destroy almost the entire military and industrial potential of the United States!
  2. Kuroneko
    Kuroneko 26 December 2018 06: 37
    +1
    Commenting on the expected modernization of aircraft, Mark Episkopos draws interesting conclusions. He believes that the appearance of a new modification of the Tu-160M2 bomber cannot be considered an acknowledgment of the shortcomings of the base Tu-160. On the contrary, this is a confirmation of the success of existing machines.

    I do not quite understand why Ryabov considers this conclusion of Episkopos "interesting".
    It is simply logical. Bad things do not upgrade. Moreover, more often than not, this very modernization potential is simply absent from them.
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 26 December 2018 07: 16
      +2
      Quote: Kuroneko
      why Ryabov considers this conclusion of Episkopos "interesting".

      Why does he even refer to him, who the hell is this Episcopos ...
  3. Fungus
    Fungus 26 December 2018 07: 30
    -2
    Of course, a miracle of technology
  4. Wilderness
    Wilderness 26 December 2018 09: 51
    +4
    The plane is probably good, beautiful and generally unique. But! Very much all this advertising propaganda is similar to the same, pre-war with TB-3. And in general there are so many frightening similarities with those times ...
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 26 December 2018 17: 47
      0
      Quote: Wilderness
      The plane is probably good, beautiful and generally unique.

      So in the world there are only two such models, our Tu-160 and their B-1B. These are truly unique cars with great potential for modernization.
  5. Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
    Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 26 December 2018 10: 00
    +1
    I just can’t understand why the American’s words that TU 160 is a museum exhibit do not pose a threat to the United States caused such a wave ON OUR SIDE ... Why did our military officials even refute this opinion ??? it might be more correct to agree with this opinion! Moreover, to support and replicate it in every possible way! Meanwhile, to place the base of these same museum strategists in Venezuela. But to accompany the placement with the words: so you, esteemed Americans yourself have publicly recognized: museum exhibits, they do not carry threats. Everything is in order, it is from our side only drank the budget, do not worry, THERE IS NO THREAT TO YOU !!! laughing
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 26 December 2018 10: 22
      +1
      Quote: Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
      Why did our military officials even begin to refute this opinion ???


      Do you think all the strategists and diplomats in the Moscow Region?
      As you can see, where it made sense to ignore the illiterate statements of incompetent American diplomats, our warriors immediately come out with a statement: "You are stupid," not realizing that they condescend to a discussion with a US citizen with a low level of intelligence and fall into a situation.
      The offense took them - it would be necessary to understand to whom it is possible to give an answer, and who to ignore in full growth.

      The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has recently also begun to refute every tabloid newspaper - belittling its status.
      Not solid gentlemen, diplomats.
      1. Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
        Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 26 December 2018 11: 11
        +3
        I’m probably overly naive, but I always thought that for the generals, as well as other top officials, speeches / texts of speeches are prepared by specially trained people, including special consultants telling you what to say, what better to keep silent, what to focus on, and what is better not to notice at all ... wink
        probably I was very mistaken in my natural naivety ... recourse
        1. aglet
          aglet 26 December 2018 12: 55
          +1
          Quote: Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
          I’m probably overly naive, but I always thought that for the generals, as well as other senior officials, speeches / texts of speeches are prepared by specially trained people, including special consultants who tell me what to say and what better to keep silent

          these specially trained people are in no way inferior to those for whom they prepare speeches
          1. rubin6286
            rubin6286 26 December 2018 22: 24
            +1
            It seems to me that our military in the media is better not to speak out at all. Even if qualified specialists give them the finished text, there is no guarantee that they will read it without errors and without hesitation. Let it be better to engage specifically in conscientious performance of official duties.

            And in joy and sorrow, whatever the stress, keep your brains, tongue and weight under control!
    2. asar
      asar 26 December 2018 12: 42
      -1
      I repeat:
      And why were there so many Squeals from the USA ?! Why is it suddenly ?! belay
      If there was a crappy plane - no one would pay attention!
      And there was so much noise!
  6. Misak Hananyan
    Misak Hananyan 26 December 2018 13: 31
    0
    Quote: Uncle Lee
    Two "White Swans" have arrived, and fear will catch up!


    [media = https: //www.youtube.com/watch? v = QdW_ywcaDsU

    When it reaches your heads that it’s not a swan]
  7. Misak Hananyan
    Misak Hananyan 26 December 2018 13: 36
    0
    This is not a swan for you
  8. The comment was deleted.
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 26 December 2018 17: 53
      +1
      Quote: T-34
      Tu-160 is a suitcase without a handle.

      Why? As a strategist, he is able to complete all tasks.
      Quote: T-34
      Miserable fragments of the former greatness, which with their "shine" please the eyes of the inhabitants of a poor country.

      Show me a country (other than the United States) that has a tenth of these "fragments".
    2. rubin6286
      rubin6286 26 December 2018 22: 04
      -1
      Michael! You, like Valery, are very poorly versed in aviation. I'm not expecting, somehow uncomfortable even.
  9. san4es
    san4es 26 December 2018 14: 18
    0
    Its range of ammunition includes missiles X-55MS, X-555 ...
    X-555 on the MKU-6-5 suspension is likely under the Tu-160.

    1. Vanguard2090
      Vanguard2090 2 February 2019 20: 00
      -1
      the red one is the x-102 with a range of 10 km.
  10. Alexander not great
    Alexander not great 26 December 2018 19: 09
    +1
    Venezuela is a stunning example of how in such a rich country with natural resources you can drain everything ....
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 26 December 2018 22: 26
      0
      We do not know everything about our "elite" yet!
  11. rubin6286
    rubin6286 26 December 2018 21: 46
    0
    The miracle of technology is something that no one else has in sight. In this sense, the TU-160 is not such. The constructive solutions used in its creation were previously tested both in the USSR and abroad and have proven their effectiveness even today. The combat potential of the vehicle is far from being exhausted. It is possible that the Tu-160 will someday become a museum piece, but where? Museum in Monino ceases to exist and where it will now be unknown and will it be? It is a pity that so much effort and money was "thrown into" it and ends so ingloriously.
  12. Osipov9391
    Osipov9391 26 December 2018 23: 58
    -1
    Regarding the resumption of production of the Tu-160. I consider it unpromising, at least in the glider of the current layout. Indeed, modern technologies in the field of engines, electronics and control systems make it possible to create an airplane without a variable sweep wing with similar characteristics even taking the glider of the ancient Tu-144 as a layout.
    Refusal from the wing of variable sweep and everything connected with it greatly facilitates, simplifies and cheapens the aircraft. But with reference to the Tu-160 it will mean the creation of a new machine, because this cannot be done on an airframe of an old design.
    There are two options: either create a new bomber with subsonic speed in the form of a flying wing (analogue of B-2), or create a supersonic bomber with the layout of the Tu-144, with a triangular wing.
    Only such options. Talk about PACDA has been circulating for over 10 years, and things are still there. Although there was probably a lot to be done with our backlogs and Soviet developments.
    Regarding the armament of the Tu-160, yes. The effectiveness of these subsonic cruise missiles is highly questionable unless of course the enemy is some African country.
    And against the United States, such missiles are completely useless - a large flying time, low charge power and the probability of destruction on the way to the target. Most likely they will not be able to break through the combined air defense of Canada / USA. Well, the maximum will reach the goal in Alaska.
    PS

    But the Tu-22M3 is a much more promising and serious aircraft. He will always have work. This is the destruction of the enemy’s bases near our borders, and the striking of its naval groups.
    With modernization and refueling in the air, such an aircraft will completely reach the territory of the United States with much more serious missiles. Supersonic or hypersonic that can be carried on an external sling.
    But the Tu-160, in contrast to the V-1 and Tu-22M3, cannot carry "long" products outside at all, because it does not have these suspensions. So its effectiveness is really highly questionable.
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 28 December 2018 02: 20
      0
      Konstantin!
      It seems to me that you know little about "modern technology in the field of engines, electronics and control systems."
      Your conclusion that "the rejection of the variable sweep wing and everything connected with it greatly facilitates, simplifies and reduces the cost of the aircraft," nothing more than amateurish "chatter". This could be best explained to you by Sergei Ivanovich or the Taoist. The large-area triangular wing used on the Tu-144 has a tendency to stall into a tailspin at subsonic speeds and has worse takeoff and landing characteristics. With such a wing, it is necessary to fly exclusively at high altitude and supersonic, which leads to increased fuel consumption, an increase in the size and starting weight of the aircraft, without which it is impossible to ensure the specified flight range. This was once again confirmed by tests of the "analogue" of the MiG-21.
      The B-2 subsonic boomber is all the more unnecessary. Even stealth technology does not make it completely invisible. With the same flight range, the Tu-160 is preferable, because allows for a fairly quick exit to the line of use of weapons at supersonic.
      The military conflict of the superpowers will be nuclear missile and the strategic aviation of these countries will be used, at best, only once.
      If air-based cruise missiles had not proved their effectiveness, they would not be the subject of negotiations between the USSR and the USA on their limitation.
      The flight time of the CD primarily depends on the distance from the target at the moment of launch the carrier plane will be. The higher his speed, the closer he can get. Your own "supersonic" CD is not needed. A subsonic cruise missile made using stealth technology, capable of flying around the terrain at ultra-low altitudes, jamming and other "modern means of combat" is difficult to detect for enemy air defense systems. With today's characteristics of target hitting accuracy, the power of a cruise missile's nuclear charge is sufficient to effectively defeat both small-sized and area targets. Science does not stand still and it is pointless to assert that the KR will "break through" the air defense system today or not.
      I piloted the Tu-22M3 for about five years and I know its capabilities well. Today it is exclusively a bomber. He took only one "long product" (X-22) on an external sling in the equipped state, and two "empty" items (without warheads and fuel) under the planes. The same is the case with a hypersonic product. It is not much shorter and also not very light. Already in the Soviet era, it was difficult to hit the carrier strike group (AUG) and only with a large group of aircraft. "Hypersound" may open up new opportunities for this machine, but if, roughly speaking, "everything is there" for the production of Tu-160, then the situation with another "Carcass" is difficult.
      1. VO3A
        VO3A 28 December 2018 20: 08
        0
        the rejection of the variable sweep wing and everything connected with it greatly facilitates, simplifies and cheapens the aircraft, "nothing more than amateurish" chatter ".

        Most importantly: it provides an opportunity to extend the resource, like that of the B-52 and Tu-95 ... No harsh, unreasonable statements about amateurish "chatter" , in 10 -15 years, all those approved for the modernization of the Tu-22m3 will be written off and mainly on the wing !!!
        1. rubin6286
          rubin6286 1 January 2019 03: 23
          -1
          Andrey and Konstantin! You first understand in detail what are the benefits of a variable sweep wing. Why was it used on the Su-24, Tu-22M3 and Tu-160? The decision on the production or modernization of the aircraft is made by the highest military and political leadership of the country. It is foolish to doubt the competence of design bureaus, manufacturers, flight-lifting and engineering staff of the Air Force. Who told you that a modern aircraft is cheaper and simpler than what was manufactured in the mid-70s. Then there was a different scale of prices. Scrap some nonsense about the F-111 and T-10 .. You don't know anything about them, except for fragmentary information from popular magazines. If today the issue of resuming production of the Su-24 is adopted, it will be technologically more advanced than its predecessor, because many nodes and structural elements are made differently. Science does not stand still and in this respect everything is correct. .
      2. Osipov9391
        Osipov9391 28 December 2018 23: 44
        0
        You don’t have to go far for an example. Su-24 and its family had extremely high accident rate and low performance for a car of this class. There the wing of variable sweep is just. It was an attempt to create an analogue of the F-111. But he did not reach the analogue.
        It is clear that comparing tactical and strategic bombers is not entirely correct, but nevertheless the Su-34 made on the basis of the Su-27 fighter has much higher characteristics than the Su-24. In design, it is much simpler, in many ways similar to the basic version of the T-10.
        Here you have the capabilities of new engines, electronics and control systems. There is no wing of variable sweep. And the characteristics are much better.
  13. Usher
    Usher 27 December 2018 16: 34
    0
    "He believes that the appearance of a new modification of the Tu-160M2 bomber cannot be considered an acknowledgment of the shortcomings of the basic Tu-160." WHAT IS RUNNING !!! THEY understand what they write ????
  14. cockroaches
    cockroaches 27 December 2018 18: 39
    0
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: Uncle Lee
    Two "White Swans" have arrived, and fear will catch up!

    Yes, because from the other side the United States is almost not covered by missile defense systems, and beyond two, the whole "flock" can fly.
    Two such vehicles recently arrived in Caracas, accompanied by the An-124 military transport aircraft and the Il-62 passenger aircraft.
    Of these four, the "museum" is the Il-62

    Fake News Edition
  15. izbani
    izbani 28 December 2018 19: 55
    -1
    judging by the photo, they run their mixture of giptil and mustard gas, in Venezuela at least someone was alive after this arrival?
  16. Errr
    Errr 29 December 2018 04: 00
    +1
    Quote: Puncher
    Quote: Uncle Lee
    With good promotion, this episode can be promoted as an act of aggression and a reason for declaring war!

    All the promotion is an article in The National Interest which has nothing to do with American military analytics. If this was written in Defense News, it would make sense to talk about the US fears of the Tu-160, but The National Interest is the same ritual and is designed for the Russian audience, which Russian media will later refer to as an "American view" to publish nonsense.

    I bring to your attention if you are not in the know. The National Interest website currently exists exclusively in the English version, from which it would be logical to conclude that this product, at least now, is not aimed at the Russian-speaking consumer. Therefore, your comparison of The National Interest with Russia Today is not entirely correct.
  17. Vasili09
    Vasili09 2 January 2019 10: 55
    0
    Tu-160: a museum piece or a miracle of technology?
    the answer is obvious, the usual strategic bomber has never been a miracle of technology, but it’s too early to write off it, due to the lack of a worthy replacement, the topic is fully disclosed
    about basing in Venezuela, but what's the point? Tu-160 is able to use its ammunition from the territory of Russia, why would he be in Venezuela for this? rave
  18. Voronezh
    Voronezh 21 February 2019 09: 33
    -1
    Current museum exhibit