In the United States called the only drawback of the Russian strategist Tu-160

In the United States called the only drawback of the Russian strategist Tu-160

The Russian strategic bomber Tu-160 has almost no serious design flaws, with the exception of one - it does not use stealth technology. This statement was made by the author of a material published in the American journal The National Interest.


According to the author of the article, the Russian strategist Tu-160 is the fastest, largest and heaviest aircraft of all built to date, but has one drawback - it does not use stealth technology.

The fastest bomber ever built. The largest bomber ever built. The heaviest bomber ever built

- the author claims, emphasizing that the strategic bomber is currently undergoing modernization.

As the author is convinced, the bomber has an enormous carrying capacity and is capable of carrying a "staggering" amount of conventional or nuclear weapons, and the design with a variable sweep wing gives the aircraft certain advantages over other bombers of this class.

Tu-160 - a supersonic strategic missile carrier with variable wing geometry. Designed to hit nuclear and conventional weapons the most important targets in the remote military geographical areas and the deep rear of the continental theaters of war. Adopted in 1987. Able to carry 40 tons of bomb load at a distance of up to 14 thousand kilometers. Tu-160 is capable of speeds of over 2200 km / h.

This aircraft has set a world record 44. One of them is a flight to 18 thousands of kilometers with two refueling in the air. This flight lasted as much as 23 hours.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Thrifty 22 March 2020 08: 13 New
    • 12
    • 15
    -3
    Well, at least in something but you need to show the world your pseudo-superiority over the rest fool .As always, either a fly in the ointment on a spoon of honey, or sorry a bucket of shit on a spoon of honey !!! fool fool
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 22 March 2020 08: 25 New
      • 22
      • 0
      +22
      To the Pentagon - envy silently !!!
      1. Elephant 23 March 2020 11: 56 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        To the Pentagon - envy silently !!!

        And to modern Russian aircraft designers - envy silently !!!
    2. Insurgent 22 March 2020 08: 26 New
      • 76
      • 5
      +71
      In the United States called the only drawback of the Russian strategist Tu-160

      The lack of "stealth"? Nah ... no Do not guess!

      Main disadvantage(according to the USA) Tu-160 that Russia has it yes
      1. Thrifty 22 March 2020 08: 27 New
        • 41
        • 0
        +41
        The main disadvantage of Tu160 is its small quantity in stock! !!
        1. Insurgent 22 March 2020 08: 29 New
          • 11
          • 2
          +9
          Quote: Thrifty
          The main disadvantage of Tu160 is its small quantity in stock! !!

          It disadvantage in our opinion. Americans believe this is good.
        2. Olgovich 22 March 2020 08: 41 New
          • 35
          • 4
          +31
          Quote: Thrifty
          The main disadvantage of Tu160 is its small quantity in stock! !!

          As I recall shots of cutting and shredding of these aircraft in Ukraine, already my heart bleeds, so far ...
          1. Alex Nevs 22 March 2020 10: 26 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Sold-drank. Like the regions below.
          2. IS-80_RVGK2 22 March 2020 15: 16 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            It’s strange. The fight against the bloody komunyak legacy.
        3. NordUral 22 March 2020 12: 53 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          That's for sure! Like a lot more. It is necessary to correct.
      2. Bacha 22 March 2020 08: 29 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        The main drawback (according to the United States) of the Tu-160 is that Russia has it

        I took it right from the tongue)))
      3. Host Tavern 22 March 2020 12: 03 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Sometimes it seems, if you take a wooden bucket and it will be with "stealth", then for the Americans it will be the apogee of an airplane structure.
        1. NordUral 22 March 2020 12: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The ideal in this case is the dress of the naked king for amers.
        2. ankir13 22 March 2020 13: 01 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          You are definitely right, the wooden bucket is really stealth, you can’t see it with your radar .....
      4. NEXUS 22 March 2020 14: 22 New
        • 15
        • 0
        +15
        Quote: Insurgent
        The lack of "stealth"? Nah ... Don't guess!

        Why is Swan stealth if his arsenal allows him NOT to enter the zone of action of the enemy's air defense?
        1. The comment was deleted.
      5. The comment was deleted.
      6. The comment was deleted.
  2. aszzz888 22 March 2020 08: 13 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3

    According to the author of the article, the Russian strategist Tu-160 is the fastest, largest and heaviest aircraft of all built to date, but has one drawback - he does not use stealth technology.
    А enthat ahTor knows when the White Swan began to be produced?
    1. Boa kaa 22 March 2020 15: 33 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: aszzz888
      But does entot know when the White Swan began to be produced?

      Kazan again began to produce the modernized Tu-160M2.
      And, secondly, stupid amas are all trying to “paint”, change shape, put camouflage on their aircraft. And we have everything in a simple way: the sleeve turned it on, and ... the plane disappears from the radar screens. Moreover, from the "meter" range ... But the Amans will not calm down and slander our Kulibins ... de they are not able to provide an invisibility aircraft ...
      I searched for a long time in the open press "blabbering", recently dismissed by a soldier. And it is necessary - found! In an interview with one edition of the regiment. Sergey HATYLEV (the former head of the air defense forces of the Special Forces of the Airborne Forces of the Moscow District of the Air Force and Air Defense) very frankly told how bombers become invisible to radars after turning on this equipment. ("disappear from radar screens").
      yes
  3. Ravil_Asnafovich 22 March 2020 08: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Oh, and then they forgot to ask anyone.
  4. Tusv 22 March 2020 08: 17 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    The main thing is not form, but content. 8 stealth nuclear missiles
    1. 1976AG 22 March 2020 08: 31 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Tusv
      The main thing is not form, but content. 8 stealth nuclear missiles

      12 missiles
      1. Sky strike fighter 22 March 2020 08: 55 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Well, 12 missiles will work if the X-50.
        1. 1976AG 22 March 2020 08: 58 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Sky Strike fighter
          Well, 12 missiles will work if the X-50.

          In two compartments on two drums, 6 missiles are placed on each X-55 or X-555 or X-101 (X-102). A total of 12 missiles
          1. Sky strike fighter 22 March 2020 09: 17 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            The X-101 is longer than the X-55 / X-555 and therefore only 12 modernized versions of the Tu-101M ​​can carry 160 X-160 missiles. It does not fit in the unmodified Tu-12 101 X.
            The upgraded Tu-160M ​​bomber launched 12 X-101 cruise missiles in November of this year.

            “In November, after the modernization of the strategic missile carrier Tu-160, 12 air-launched missiles were successfully launched at the Pemba proving ground, located beyond the Arctic Circle,” Shoigu said at an enlarged meeting of the board of the Russian Ministry of Defense.

            https://m.tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201812181442-1xar.htm
            1. bessmertniy 22 March 2020 10: 06 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              If aircraft made using stealth technologies still do not have complete invisibility, the disadvantage is that they are wasting money on them today. lol
            2. 1976AG 22 March 2020 10: 11 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Where does it say that the x-101 does not fit in the Tu-160 compartment?
            3. Grits 22 March 2020 10: 19 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              Quote: Sky Strike fighter
              The X-101 is longer than the X-55 / X-555 and therefore only 12 modernized versions of the Tu-101M ​​can carry 160 X-160 missiles. It does not fit in the unmodified Tu-12 101 X.

              Yes, this is not important. It is important that these missiles, without any stupid stealth cover, can very easily reach their goals. And they don’t care if the potential dead see them or not ...
              1. 1976AG 22 March 2020 10: 23 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Gritsa
                Quote: Sky Strike fighter
                The X-101 is longer than the X-55 / X-555 and therefore only 12 modernized versions of the Tu-101M ​​can carry 160 X-160 missiles. It does not fit in the unmodified Tu-12 101 X.

                Yes, this is not important. It is important that these missiles, without any stupid stealth cover, can very easily reach their goals. And they don’t care if the potential dead see them or not ...

                In general, the X-101 is made using stealth technology.
              2. 1976AG 22 March 2020 11: 04 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Gritsa
                Quote: Sky Strike fighter
                The X-101 is longer than the X-55 / X-555 and therefore only 12 modernized versions of the Tu-101M ​​can carry 160 X-160 missiles. It does not fit in the unmodified Tu-12 101 X.

                Yes, this is not important. It is important that these missiles, without any stupid stealth cover, can very easily reach their goals. And they don’t care if the potential dead see them or not ...

                And that is "unimportant" and the other is "unimportant", and as a result, nothing remains of the truth.
  5. Bacha 22 March 2020 08: 22 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    So if you make it using stealth technology, everything else is the same thing, ceases to be so.
    1. Cowbra 22 March 2020 08: 31 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      In addition, the elephant can be painted in camouflage, but it will still be visible. Big hedge swan. He is not a fighter ... And this applies to all strategists.
    2. knn54 22 March 2020 09: 30 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      But B-2 already scared the whole world with its Dora Govizna
  6. KCA
    KCA 22 March 2020 08: 30 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Why stealth missile carrier with a missile range of 5000 km? Yes, even with a range of X-55 2500km?
    1. Insurgent 22 March 2020 08: 35 New
      • 17
      • 2
      +15
      Quote: KCA
      Why stealth missile carrier with a missile range of 5000 km? Yes, even with a range of X-55 2500km?

      No reason. Just "stealth", like "nano", "3D", and now the "coronavirus", these are fashionable shnyazy designed to stimulate interest in the product.
    2. Romario_Argo 22 March 2020 12: 06 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      The Americans had in mind that the lack of stealth technology on the Tu-160 could somehow affect stealth when attacking with conventional FAB bombs, whose OD-B Tu-160 takes up to 45 tons, with a combat radius of 7500 km without refueling.
      Only the Americans did not take into account that we are attracting Tu-22M3 to such tasks, respectively, with refueling and jumping airfields with a bomb load of 24 tons (69 FAB-250 bombs)
      a link of 3 Tu-22M3 bombers carry ~ 70 tons of bombs
      1. NordUral 22 March 2020 12: 57 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        For him, this is not the application scenario.
        1. Romario_Argo 22 March 2020 14: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          For him, this is not the application scenario.

          it's not up to you.
          - in Syria, both Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 worked fine
          1. NordUral 22 March 2020 16: 23 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            I agree, for me, it’s better not to decide anyone. But a strategist is a strategist, anyway. And in Syria it is forced.
  7. Mountain shooter 22 March 2020 08: 31 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Well, so he "pounding" because of the horizon, subtle rockets. Which may be - "stealth" ... But in general I want to say - envy silently ...
  8. Alex 2020 22 March 2020 08: 37 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    But the B-1 and the Wright brothers' aircraft do not have it either (stealth technology)! tongue
    1. Oyo Sarkazmi 22 March 2020 12: 22 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Therefore, all rust is visible. Visible B-1 crumble even without flying.
      But if he was invisible ... fellow
  9. Andrey Mikhaylov 22 March 2020 08: 40 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    And we, and I.a. with us, yes you are already sitting there across the oceans, well, you don’t have such beauties as Russia.
  10. shinobi 22 March 2020 08: 51 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Sorry, why should a strategist stealth? His task is not to overcome the enemy’s air defense and fight with fighters. Without escorting a fighter link, he should not even go to a combat mission in theory.
    1. Sky strike fighter 22 March 2020 09: 03 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      To be inconspicuous. The same PAK DA and V-21 are created using stealth technology. Although at the present time, given the use of the Tu-95SM, B-52, Tu-160 and V-1, stealth is not required for strategists, the main thing is to have a CD using stealth technology. But for the future, stealth technology will be widely used on CD carriers.
      1. Cowbra 22 March 2020 11: 16 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Well here it is. B-2 - he is stealth ... And KR cannot carry with the YBCH ... So what? There are no strategic stealth missile carriers. Well, no - and that's it!
      2. shinobi 23 March 2020 01: 12 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Stealths are such only on paper and in the imagination of couch strategists. In the decimeter range, all early detection stations operate on the cathode, the stealth lights are bright. For air defense systems, starting with the S-200, getting into the "invisibility" is not a problem.
        PS: Initially, the stealth technology was developed and implemented as protection against air-to-air missiles in which the homing radar works in the millimeter range. But, with the advent of compact and inexpensive video cameras, the optical channel in modern IR modules in the missile guidance heads makes invisibility is highly questionable.
  11. Pacifist 22 March 2020 08: 53 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    The author is wrong. It does not use stealth technologies based on the geometric features of the airframe surface. In the field of stealth coatings and electronic warfare, he is fully equipped with everything necessary.
    Stealth technology is not only what Americans constantly imagine and advertise for themselves.
  12. Prisoner 22 March 2020 09: 13 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    They are completely obsessed with these stealth technologies. If there was a need, they would apply. Not applied means no need.
  13. Victor March 47 22 March 2020 09: 16 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    One advantage of any penguin stealth plane is crossed out by dozens of their merits. They do not know how to fly, they are weakly armed, they are still noticeable when working with their own radio facilities and locators, they are fabulously expensive.
  14. Victor March 47 22 March 2020 09: 24 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Tusv
    The main thing is not form, but content. 8 stealth nuclear missiles

    With a range of 5 thousand km, you need to add.
  15. KVU-NSVD 22 March 2020 09: 48 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    A large ESR is not critical for an airplane that can hit a target from a distance of more than 5000 km with a nuclear charge ... it all depends on the route and flight time to the launch point .. Well, there’ll be more refueling for us to have more alternatives in choosing these same routes ..
  16. Ura Orlov 22 March 2020 09: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    At the airport, he is vulnerable.
  17. Ratmir_Ryazan 22 March 2020 10: 12 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Thanks for the advice from our American partners, the next generation of long-range bombers (PAK-DA) in Russia will be built taking into account stealth technology. Something like this is waiting -

    1. sleeve 22 March 2020 10: 29 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Oh, I don’t think so. It is rather a working fake. But the resumption of production in Kazan is the pack for the next 40 years. By that time, mega-drones for strategic tasks will have already left infancy
  18. Alex Nevs 22 March 2020 10: 28 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Why sniff out every zilch of some kind of "rainbow".
  19. Lord of the Sith 22 March 2020 10: 39 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    In my opinion, the Yankees wanted to say that the Tu-160 has one drawback, it is not American))
  20. Jarserge 22 March 2020 10: 50 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Only two answers to American balcony.
    1. But it flies normally and not because their "stealth" is not up to airplanes.
    2. And what does stealth technology save from detection with a 100% guarantee? Or at least 50%?
  21. Strashila 22 March 2020 11: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    “In the USA, they called the only flaw of the Russian strategist Tu-160,” in practice, it’s really one, there are few of them.
  22. Berg berg 22 March 2020 13: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The Russian strategist has one drawback, he easily breaks away from NATO fighters when he needs it, but the rest he just puts on them!
  23. K-50 22 March 2020 13: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In the United States called the only drawback of the Russian strategist Tu-160

    The only drawback of the Tu-160 is its small number. sad
  24. Well, yes ... "The rhino has poor eyesight ..." You know the sequel.
  25. Igoresha 22 March 2020 14: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    they said that the seats are uncomfortable

  26. Prisoner 22 March 2020 15: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The only drawback of the Tu-160 for Americans is that it is not American. laughing
  27. Dzafdet 22 March 2020 15: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And he is violet! He will bring you a lot of warmth and light!
  28. pafegosoff 22 March 2020 17: 21 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The only drawback: we managed to cut a few pieces in Ukraine ... Pobole would be such beauties.
    And the stealth ... Missiles fly far to the entrance to the air defense zone ...
  29. Al_lexx 22 March 2020 18: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The T-160 has the only flaw in the eyes of the Americans - it is a Russian, not an American strategic bomber. In all other respects - he is the best in the world.
    And leave stealth technologies to those who are bombing in the air defense coverage area with freely falling blanks.
    (ripped off the tongue)))
  30. Victor March 47 22 March 2020 21: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Ura Orlov
    At the airport, he is vulnerable.

    You still need to get to the airfield. Consciousness, including the small area (EPR) of any aircraft, is available only if you look in its face. If the side, top, bottom? And then, any of their "invisible" airplanes do not yet include radio equipment. Only while it works with a passive radar, and with external illumination from AWACS. What if AWACSA does not become? A hundred of these golden spools will be blinded in an instant, and will be forced to light up, turning on the active mode of the locators.
    All their nonsense with network management of the wolf pack scatters invisibility into zero. The radio signal is stronger than the direct one, from the airplane itself, and not the reflected, locator.
    The signal strength decreases proportionally to the SQUARE of the distance. The direct signal makes ONE path, and the reflected one DOES.
  31. the same doctor 22 March 2020 21: 41 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    The main disadvantage of the Tu-160 is its variable wing geometry. Because of this, it is heavier and more expensive: less fuel and bombs than it could be. It would be more reasonable to take off with a large dropping wing, and to fly on a small triangular wing. Perhaps on this wing it will be possible to place additional engines, fuel reserves and chassis. As a result, you can also lighten the chassis of the main aircraft, as well as optimize the engines by eliminating the takeoff mode. A returning plane without bombs and fuel weighs 200 tons less: a small wing and a lightweight landing gear are enough for landing.
    1. 5-9
      5-9 23 March 2020 07: 55 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Og, and when landing again grow a large wing ... or fixators will be dropped when approaching the airfield ...
  32. aiden 22 March 2020 23: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Why does he need stealth coverage?
  33. 5-9
    5-9 23 March 2020 07: 56 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Given the missiles with a range of 3500-5000 km, this drawback is not significant ....
  34. Aviationism 23 March 2020 09: 14 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Also the most powerful combat aircraft ever built (100 kg of thrust).
  35. Mikhail3 23 March 2020 09: 16 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    To achieve absolutely everything that "stealth technologies" have achieved today, you just need to repaint the aircraft. A coverage that partially absorbs radio waves is all that can (and should) be done.
  36. Peter Tverdokhlebov 23 March 2020 11: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Tu-160 can use special bombs - SpAb?
  37. lvov_aleksey 23 March 2020 21: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and he doesn’t need it, then there will be other PAK YES
  38. lvov_aleksey 23 March 2020 21: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Mikhail3
    To achieve absolutely everything that "stealth technologies" have achieved today, you just need to repaint the aircraft. A coverage that partially absorbs radio waves is all that can (and should) be done.

    no need, the main thing is the cover, they - AN, TU did not fly just like that
  39. RoTTor 23 March 2020 23: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I know TWO:
    1. small number of aircraft.
    2. Lack of full-fledged serial production.

    Ukraine destroyed by order of amers the very new ones that it inherited from the USSR Air Force and were in Poltava in the 13th guards long-range bomber air division