Instead of the White Swan and PAK DA: Tu-95MSM as the near future of strategic aviation

174

Symbols and Reality



When they talk about strategic Aviation USA, the first association is the Distinguished Veteran of the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. This is logical, since this aircraft is still its backbone and is the only one of the three American "strategists" who will serve along with the B-21 (they want to write off the B-1B and B-2 in the foreseeable future).

In the case of the Russian Air Force, the power of strategic aviation personifies the Tu-160, which recently finalized to the new option. But is this true? The 160s are armed with only seventeen, and plans to get 50 modernized vehicles of this type are just a journalistic myth.



However, it is worth making a clarification. The War Department really wants to have with it a new-built car of the Tu-160M2 level, but not fifty at all, but only ten units with the first flight of the first such machine in 2021. And then if we assume that ambitious plans to resume the production of Tu-160 from scratch will be able to be implemented at all. Recall that all machines of this type that took off before this were: a) either modernized Tu-160 combatant units, or b) machines built from the Soviet reserve. There are no new ones in the full sense of the word Tu-160.

As for the promising stealth bomber PAK DA, this issue is extremely complex and uncertain. Due to the technical complexity and high cost of the complex, as well as Russia's complete lack of experience in creating such machines, it can be considered a great success if the prototype PAK DA takes off before the end of 2020. Or if ever it takes off.

Instead of the White Swan and PAK DA: Tu-95MSM as the near future of strategic aviation

Thus, one important fact can be confidently stated: the Tu-95 was, is and will in the foreseeable future be the main strategic bomber of the Russian Air Force. Recall, according to various sources, there are 50 such machines in the Air Force. Now it is the world's fastest turboprop production aircraft - a missile carrier and one of the elements of the nuclear triad, although not the most important against the background of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine ballistic missiles.

Let's do it, but not right away


The importance of the Tu-95 and the fact that it cannot be replaced in the foreseeable future is well recognized in the Kremlin. Corresponding steps to improve the fleet of these aircraft are now being taken. Recall, on March 30, 2020, the Tupolev company announced the completion of small-scale modernization of the first batch of Tu-95MS. Then it became known that in parallel with this, work was completed on the creation of the first deeply modernized Tu-95MSM and testing of updated combat vehicle systems began. Earlier it became known that the upgraded aircraft should receive engines and propellers with improved characteristics, a new complex of avionics and weapons control system "with an expanded range of weapons used."

What exactly is meant? In 2016, experts at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies bmpd noted that, as part of a complete modernization of the Tu-95MСM, the Obzor-MS radar station should be replaced with a new Novella-HB1.021 radar. It is also planned to install a new SOI-021 information display system, the upgraded Meteor-NM2 airborne defense complex, and in addition, the machine should receive modernized Kuznetsov NK-12MPM turboprop engines with the installation of new AV-60T propellers.


It is worth saying that as part of the early stage of modernization, the Tu-95MS combatant has already received quite good opportunities for the use of modern high-precision weapons. At least in terms of nomenclature: here the aircraft is not inferior to the Tu-160M. Recall that up to eight modern X-95 cruise missiles with a maximum flight range of about 101 kilometers and a warhead weighing up to 5000 kilograms can be hung on the external holders of the modernized Tu-400MS. The nuclear version of the rocket has the designation X-102, the product, according to various sources, carries a warhead with a capacity of 250 kilotons to one megaton.


As for the Tu-95MSM, its armament will be similar to the arsenal of the Tu-95MS, however, it is likely to be expanded. Earlier, Pyotr Butovsky in the article "Russian bombers to be armed with new Kh-50 theater-level cruise missile" in Jane's Missiles & Rockets magazine drew attention to the X-50 medium-range missile. According to the expert, the Tu-95MSM strategic bomber will be able to carry up to fourteen such missiles, including six on the internal sling - that is, even more than the Tu-160, which, as follows from the text of the article, will be able to carry up to twelve of these missiles in the internal compartments.

According to the data, the X-50 cruise missile will be able to hit targets at ranges of up to 1,5 thousand kilometers. It has a length of about 6 meters and a mass of more than 1500 kilograms. Cruising flight speed - 700 kilometers per hour, maximum - more than 950.

The economy must be ...


Returning to the first thesis, it is worth noting that the Tu-1979MS, which made its first flight back in 95, is rarely criticized, despite the conceptual obsolescence. This is not surprising, because before my eyes there is an example of the aforementioned American B-52. “The bet on the modernization of the Tu-95MS looks like a justifiable step both from the military and from the economic point of view. This is especially noticeable with the ultra-expensive “invisible” B-2 Spirit. The American plane was unable to use nuclear warhead missiles. Our “Bear” will remain a universal aircraft and will receive a more formidable missile weapon", - said military observer Dmitry Drozdenko earlier.


Despite the overly sharp assessment of B-2, we can generally agree with the expert opinion. Today, a strategic bomber is primarily a platform for launching missiles or dropping precision bombs, which the Americans demonstrate to us by their example. Moreover, the range of missiles can exceed several thousand kilometers, which allows the aircraft to operate without entering the range of enemy air defense. Consequently, the requirements of stealth with respect to the “strategist” are not as ultimatum as in the case of fighters risking to feel enemy air-to-air or ground-to-air missiles in their own skin.

A more serious problem for the Tu-95MСM may be the lack of funds for the modernization itself, which may limit the aircraft’s ability to search for and destroy ground targets. We can see the “economical” modernization on the example of the Tu-160, which, in all likelihood, dismantled the optical-television sighting system. At least, such a conclusion can be made when analyzing new photographs.


It doesn’t specifically threaten the Tu-95MSM, however, apparently, it’s also not worth waiting for expanding capabilities to the level of the same B-52H, which is now equipped with a hanging sighting container of the Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod type. The economic situation does not favor bold undertakings. At least for now.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

174 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -8
    April 7 2020 05: 28
    Isn’t it worth it to gradually withdraw from the anti-submarine aircraft Tu-142, with their outdated stuffing, replacing them with the same Be-200 and Il-114, in anti-submarine performance, and to subject these Tu to alterations into strategic bombers
    1. +8
      April 7 2020 06: 02
      Quote: svp67
      to withdraw from the anti-submarine aircraft Tu-142 ...
      ... replacing them with the same Be-200 and Il-114

      Not an equivalent replacement in terms of range.
      1. -1
        April 7 2020 06: 03
        Quote: mark1
        Not an equivalent replacement in terms of range.

        But this is fixable by installing refueling equipment ...
        1. +4
          April 7 2020 06: 59
          There are few tankers.
        2. +3
          April 7 2020 10: 40
          Quote: svp67
          it is fixable by installing refueling equipment

          tankers, but the cat wept
    2. +12
      April 7 2020 06: 29
      Quote: svp67
      and these Tu to alter into strategic bombers

      The sides are 30 years old, they are very worn out and are in a much worse condition than the native Tu-95. It is easier and more reasonable to upgrade or at worst maintain the flight readiness of the existing Tu-95. And then in the anti-submarine aviation the situation is worse than that of the strategists.
      The strategists 2 Tu-160M ​​from the old backlog can definitely do. Will do 10 already will be good
    3. kpd
      +3
      April 7 2020 06: 43
      There is such a funny document: START-3. And there is a limit on the number of carriers of nuclear weapons.
      Want more planes? Either it is necessary to withdraw from this agreement, or to reduce the number of land or sea-based missiles. Alas...
      1. +4
        April 7 2020 07: 03
        Quote: kpd
        Either it is necessary to withdraw from this agreement, or to reduce the number of land or sea-based missiles. Alas...

        But their quantity is just being reduced here, for objective reasons ... the old ones will be debited, there are no new ones yet. This time. Secondly, not just missiles are being recorded, but those deployed on SLBMs and heavy bombers.
        1550 units for warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers;
        Have we, from the moment of signing, all SLBMs in service?
        1. kpd
          +1
          April 7 2020 07: 15
          The ratio of the strength of the ground, air and sea component of the strategic forces is also calculated by the resistance to attack indicator, so replacing the ground or sea component with an air component is not very advisable.
          Regarding SLBMs: most likely the contract states that all boats in good condition are taken into account, there, for deregistration, the boat most likely needs to be cut into metal, and not just removed from the fleet.
          1. +1
            April 7 2020 11: 24
            Quote: kpd
            there, for deregistration, the boat most likely needs to be cut into metal

            It is enough to render their launch mines unusable ...
      2. +1
        April 7 2020 11: 14
        Everything in our headstock rests.
        1. +1
          April 7 2020 12: 37
          like all over the world
        2. +4
          April 7 2020 16: 36
          Everything rests much more strongly on personnel - on production workers and managers.
        3. +1
          April 7 2020 18: 05
          Quote: Alexander1971
          Everything in our headstock rests.

          And when they built the 95th and laid the 160s - didn’t rest? But they built it! And as they became capitalists, grandmas suddenly disappeared laughing
          1. +3
            April 7 2020 18: 28
            Grandmas went to private jets
            1. +2
              April 7 2020 18: 58
              Quote: Alexander1971
              Grandmas went to private jets

              So, everything depends on the Jets laughing drinks
              1. +3
                April 8 2020 13: 07
                So, everything depends on the Jets

                Not only in jets, but also in yachts, villas, rollsrocks, penthouses and bells,
                But not only in them, look out the window and see how many cars are parked there, not Rolls, but a million tourists that we will not return because of the hillock, but thousands and thousands of "investment" apartments only in Moscow ...
                1. 0
                  10 June 2020 09: 10
                  Do you propose to close the exit to people?
                  Next: machines are bought like vacuum cleaners, by characteristics and price, design. Do you propose to put everyone on Lada and UAZ, and put it on the products of the Bolshevik factory?
                  Biased judgments, it’s worth trying on yourself (and loved ones) first negative
          2. -1
            10 June 2020 09: 06
            There was not enough money then. In the second half of the 40s, the leaders urgently needed a bomb, there was a famine, a couple of millions were buried - the price is low ...
            Later, they raised prices for a number of goods (they could increase, and then lower a bit, for the headlines of the most honest newspapers). And they could shoot at the dissatisfied, as it was in Novocherkassk.
      3. +2
        April 9 2020 06: 20
        We do not noticeably choose the limits for sn-3. All the stories that the contract is bothering us - from the evil one, we cannot reach its volumes in terms of carriers / charges.
    4. +7
      April 7 2020 07: 14
      A decision has already been made to remake the Tu-204, which are on the joke, in anti-submarines and scouts.
    5. +2
      April 7 2020 08: 07
      And why the Be-200, when there is an A-40, was made specifically for the army.
    6. +4
      April 7 2020 11: 27
      Quote: svp67
      and these Tu to alter into strategic bombers

      with all the external similarities, it’s impossible to turn the Tu-142 into the Tu-95MSM
    7. +4
      April 7 2020 14: 17
      No need to write nonsense to write it. It's like putting a tower from a tank on an infantry fighting vehicle. 142 the only car in the Navy flying around the corner. The price of remaking into a strategist will be cosmic. Though you can think before writing?
      But this is MY OPINION ....... just PPC
      1. -1
        April 7 2020 18: 34
        Quote: lopuhan2006
        The price of remaking into a strategist will be cosmic. Though you can think before writing?

        Absolutely accurate remark. Apparently, people's fantasies have played out, so they carry all heresy, not understanding what such work costs.
        1. +4
          April 7 2020 18: 52
          The man asked a question. I didn’t offer but asked a question.
          1. -2
            April 7 2020 19: 05
            Before asking questions, can elementary logic be turned on? His question implies knowledge of 142. So, what is there without discounts. And the site is not a bakery, stale or not. These are obvious things.
            1. +3
              April 7 2020 19: 12
              Every question implies a question. And not often more.
    8. 0
      April 10 2020 23: 49
      what other be-200 and il-114)) what are you talking about
    9. 0
      April 17 2020 11: 14
      I thought about it too. And I came to the conclusion that 95 should be gradually translated into 142 ... There will be more benefits, and then in peacetime. Even in peacetime, where they will not fly, they are met and accompanied. Well, the radius of their use of the ALCM is not at all great, maybe for Syria it is STILL a weapon, then NATO is already NO. And in a period of weakness of our Navy, they would qualitatively enhance it as a means of reconnaissance, etc. And it would be nice to equip them with light anti-ship missiles, just in case. You will not always have to fight in NATO, and regional conflicts continue. After all, the Americans planned to arm their B-52s with the Harpoon anti-ship missile system to increase the number of missiles in a salvo. And if a "revolver" for six shots is installed in the womb of 95, this should be used. "A fleet without wings is a relic of the past!" 1930 A. Yamamato
    10. 0
      April 28 2020 15: 29
      you were not asked))
  2. -7
    April 7 2020 05: 47
    That is, in the shops they collect to see the good old "Ilya Murams" of the era of the king's father? To the author, for information, if you started writing about Tu160, try to understand the essence of the issue, and do not panic on the site!
    1. +6
      April 7 2020 10: 51
      Quote: Thrifty
      To the author, note, if you started to write about Tu160, try to understand the essence of the issue,

      I'm not an author, but let's try to figure it out. And what is now being collected in Tupolev's workshops?
      They collected one plane from the old (Soviet) groundwork (Petr Deinekin), and also handed over one modernized Tu-160M ​​board (Igor Sikorsky)
      No Tu-160 "new build" exists yet
      1. 0
        April 7 2020 11: 11
        Quote: Gregory_45
        No Tu-160 "new build" exists yet

        And nobody should be there yet.
        The first deeply modernized Tu-160M ​​strategic missile carrier-bomber built from scratch will be handed over to the Russian Ministry of Defense in 2021, Tupolev CEO Alexander Konyukhov told Interfax.

        https://www.interfax.ru/russia/685426
        1. 0
          April 8 2020 00: 06
          "...." At the Kazan Aviation Plant, work is underway to restore production of new Tu-160 aircraft and making their installation batch", - TASS reports the words of Shoigu ....."
          April 07, 2020 http://in24.org/technology/39135?utm_source=warfiles.ru
  3. +3
    April 7 2020 06: 01
    Instead of the White Swan and PAK DA: Tu-95MSM as the near future of strategic aviation ...
    Our “Bear” will remain a universal aircraft and will receive more formidable missile weapons, ”military observer Dmitry Drozdenko noted earlier ...

    You read this ... (substitute the name for yourself: delirium, absurdity, mura, stupidity, game, rubbish, clumsy, abracadabra, gibberish, nonsense, zaum, nonsense) opus and before your eyes:

    And it’s already becoming clear why the comparison is with V-2, V-52 ... (well, that’s not with An-2 wassat) Still very simple:
    The economic situation does not favor bold undertakings. At least for now.

    Then questions arise such as:
    And when will she (the situation) be favorable? When will budget funds be enough specifically for the army and navy, and not for increasing the body fat of the deputy corps, countless examples of politicking and cultivating the apparatus of various officials? Maybe the fact is that with the guaranteed existence of zero in any business and the fulfillment of Russia there will always be (in addition to the main two troubles) sanctions, the appropriateness of costs, the stock of modernization, etc., etc.
    The old ZIL did not suit the president. You see, “Aurus” wanted to him ... But what is strategic aviation, it’s not a bar - they fly on a propeller: it is more convenient to intercept the enemy and the “knuckle” is thrown to the people.
    1. +2
      April 7 2020 12: 40
      Quote: ROSS 42
      And what is strategic aviation, so not a bar - they fly on a propeller: it is more convenient to intercept the enemy and the “knuckle” is thrown to the people.

      Well fly probable opponents on the missile-carrying strategists of the early 60s - and do not buzz. Moreover, they regularly arrange regular service life extensions - for the last time, EMNIP, until 2045. At such a rate, the "fifteen hundred" can fly up to a hundred years from the date of release of the boards. smile
      1. 0
        April 7 2020 14: 02
        Project B-21.
        1. 0
          April 7 2020 14: 25
          Quote: 3danimal
          Project B-21.

          As a strategic missile carrier "Polstavtora" has already outlived two of its "gravediggers". Maybe survive the third. smile
          1. 0
            April 7 2020 14: 27
            We will observe hi
            On the other hand, time is running out and the aircraft’s obsolescence is in favor of replacing it.
            1. 0
              April 7 2020 15: 09
              Quote: 3danimal
              On the other hand, time is running out and the aircraft’s obsolescence is in favor of replacing it.

              PMSM, the US Air Force will attend to the replacement of the "one and a half" only when Davis-Monten runs out of spare parts for them. laughing
              1. 0
                April 8 2020 10: 48
                PMSM, the US Air Force will attend to the replacement of the "one and a half" only when Davis-Monten runs out of spare parts for them.

                What about the stock of engines?
                1. 0
                  April 12 2020 20: 16
                  It is planned to replace with new ones.
          2. 0
            April 7 2020 16: 46
            It looks like he will survive the 4th with the 5th. A beautiful aircraft with fuel-efficient engines will hang in the launch area of ​​its 5000 nicknames during the period of increased threat of attack. And the Tu-160-e is gouged in the parking lot of the BRDS-Mami. In addition, the 95s have much colder exhaust motors - it is difficult to detect from a satellite.
            1. +2
              April 7 2020 20: 22
              Quote: Captain Nemo
              In addition, the 95s have much colder exhaust motors - it is difficult to detect from a satellite.
              smile But they even hear it in submarines.
              1. 0
                April 8 2020 22: 22
                Yes, even let them hear in hell, the Tu-95 performs its task. Do you need checkers or drive?
        2. 0
          April 12 2020 23: 00
          Most likely this project (B-21) will not even take off.
    2. +3
      April 8 2020 13: 00
      to increase the body fat in the deputy corps,

      If everything were so simple about it ...
      All State Duma deputies receive about 1,5 billion rubles a year; one Tu-160 costs 16 billion ......
  4. +4
    April 7 2020 06: 03
    Interestingly, is it MO that consults with Legat, or is Legate with MO? fellow
  5. +5
    April 7 2020 06: 06
    What I absolutely do not like about the Tu-95 is the terrible hum and roar. When such a naval reconnaissance passed over us, it seemed that the glass would fly out of the frames. With antediluvian sound catchers, you can detect them for 250 kilometers. Maybe replacing the screws will somehow improve the situation.
    1. 0
      April 8 2020 22: 36
      For example, the Tu-95MSM launches KR over Kamchatka. And how will the noise of his screws help the enemy? But its low-power kerosene engines allow the 95th to stay away from their airfield for a long time. At the time of the attack by airborne ballistic missile forces.
  6. +2
    April 7 2020 06: 24
    Another bomber article.
    This topic has been surprising me for a long time. US bombers are needed to bring democracy to rebellious countries. Who are we going to democratize? 12-15-17 aircraft, well, can this amount affect any company? Either the strategy should be several regiments, or I see no reason to cling to a dozen cars. I do not mind the strategist. aviation, but it should be, if they have decided that it should, adequate to the status of a great power. At least 100 cars, at 5-6 airfields, and not 17 on one. And it should, aviation, be ultramodern, pack so then.
    1. +6
      April 7 2020 07: 18
      Quote: Doccor18
      12-15-17 aircraft, well, can this amount affect any company? Either the strategy should be several regiments, or I see no reason to cling to a dozen cars.

      Useful as carriers of nuclear weapons against NATO bases in Europe and against the PRC. With normal maintenance and storage media on the bases, of course. On the whole, the campaign will not be affected, but it will make the enemy strain and spend money on opposition.
      Quote: Doccor18
      At least 100 cars, at 5-6 airfields, and not 17 on one

      On two) And more than 17 boards.
      But in general, of course, you are right. In general, it is better to be healthy and rich than poor and sick.
      But for 100 PAK YES you just need nothing - money, personnel, technologies and plants ......
    2. 0
      April 7 2020 09: 30
      At least 100 aircraft, is it all intercontinental range aircraft, or are Tu-22M3 analogues included here?
      1. 0
        April 7 2020 09: 37
        We talk about strategic aviation. Not less than 100 PAK YES. , even with the loss of 2/3 of them after a sudden strike by the enemy, the rest will be able to adequately fulfill the task - to deliver a strategist. KR to the cities of the adversary.
        Medium-range bombers are a separate song that can be "chanted" for a long time.
        1. 0
          April 7 2020 09: 48
          And why exactly cruise missiles can also be used special bombs against the enemy?
          1. +1
            April 7 2020 09: 51
            Well, this is if you fly to the line, the air defense will not sleep.
            1. 0
              April 7 2020 09: 59
              At PAK YES, is it possible to install some kind of electronic warfare system that would disable the electronics of interceptor fighters or air defense radars?
              1. +1
                April 7 2020 10: 08
                Of course, there should be an electronic warfare system, because Russia has very well mastered the production of these products.
                Moreover, stationary, and not in hanging containers.
                1. 0
                  April 7 2020 10: 27
                  In 2005, VNIITF developed a special aerial bomb for strategic and long-range aviation in Russia. I assume its physical scheme looks like this:

                  I estimate its power at 5 ... 8 Mt, the mass is no more than 1560 kg.
                  It would be great if PAK YES were on duty with such SpAb.
                  1. +4
                    April 7 2020 16: 10
                    Atomic bomb? Not a single strategist, neither Tu-95 ..., nor Tu-160, nor PAK DA will physically be able to deliver a bomb to a strategic object on the territory of a likely enemy, it will be shot down long before it can be dropped. Now only a rocket, and only thousands of kilometers from the target, can our strategists operate.
                    1. 0
                      April 8 2020 07: 31
                      Why then on the Tu-160 mounted sighting and navigation system that is designed for the use of bombs?
                      Why have repositories been repaired recently at the PRTB, 30 km from Engels?
        2. 0
          April 12 2020 23: 12
          There is START-3, which limits the number of deployed (700 units) and non-deployed (100 units) land, sea, and air carriers. With a maximum number of deployed warheads of 1550 units. in every country.
          The composition of the nuclear triad (that is, how many ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic bombers) was calculated based on the calculation of combat stability and the provision of a retaliatory strike.
    3. +2
      April 7 2020 13: 06
      Quote: Doccor18
      12-15-17 aircraft, well, can this amount affect any company? Either the strategy should be several regiments, or I see no reason to cling to a dozen cars.

      Even if in peacetime we ensure round-the-clock duty of two or better three or four Tu-95MSM aircraft outside the US and NATO air defense zone, but with cruise missiles capable of hitting the continental part of America, this will be a huge deterrent for our main enemy. It is precisely this operational capability, as well as the relatively cheap carrier of nuclear weapons in comparison with the submarine fleet, that guarantees us the prospect of modernization and the release of new aircraft of this class. So this unique aircraft will still do us good service - no need to shy away from its propellers, it is precisely the economy of this carrier that lies in them.
      Quote: Doccor18
      At least 100 cars, at 5-6 airfields, and not 17 on one.

      This is overkill, and not only that, you forget that nuclear storage bases cannot be scattered throughout the country. With regard to dispersal, one should not forget that the take-off of such aircraft by the enemy’s reconnaissance will reveal quickly, wherever it is — this is piece goods and each copy is registered with the enemy’s intelligence.
      Quote: Doccor18
      And it should, aviation, be ultramodern, pack so then.

      Why spend so much money on PAK if the main nuclear strike is delivered by us from mines and submarines?
      1. 0
        April 7 2020 14: 15
        No matter how good the Tu-95 is, no matter how modernized it is, someday it will have to be written off. And then what?
        And develop a strategist. a new generation in order to build 15-20 pieces. So how much will 1 car, including R&D, cost?
        1. 0
          April 7 2020 18: 32
          Quote: Doccor18
          No matter how good the Tu-95 is, no matter how modernized it is, someday it will have to be written off. And then what?

          We will solve problems as they become available - perhaps by the time they are decommissioned we will have more powerful weapons that will save us from developing strategic aircraft. Coronavirus showed that for a penny you can bend the whole world and bring enormous economic damage.

          Quote: Doccor18
          So how much will 1 car, including R&D, cost?

          Nobody will tell you this, because even allocating money for research, no one can guess how much OCD will cost, even when making several prototypes. And there’s a separate conversation with the series, so don’t bother with this now - let our military science first decide on what we will bet on in about ten years to begin now to prepare for the development of a new generation of technology.
        2. 0
          April 12 2020 23: 22
          The basis of the aviation component of the US nuclear triad is V-52 aircraft, manufactured at least 1963 (that is, the newest V-52 for at least 57 calendar years). And they were extended until 2050. As you can see, the Americans do not bother much with the question that they will fly on airplanes 80 years old.
          The rest of the American strategic planes are the V-1B Lanzer, which are already disarmed as carriers of nuclear weapons and converted to conventional, conventional weapons. And the V-2 Spirit, which is kind of stealth, but not stealth, is furiously expensive (in operation), produced in a minimum quantity (21 aircraft) and due to the high cost of operation in flight condition, the USA has only 7 or 8 Spirit.
          That is, the United States will also have nothing to fly on.
    4. +2
      April 7 2020 14: 16
      It should be adequate not to the “status of a great power” (where is the gradation of greatness?), But to the budget. In order not to be likened to a moto, the last iPhone and Armani rushing, and at home the children are in rags
  7. -2
    April 7 2020 06: 48
    And how do you know that plans for the construction of 50 Tu-160 is a myth?
    1. +3
      April 7 2020 11: 07
      Quote: Dart2027
      And how do you know that plans for the construction of 50 Tu-160 is a myth?

      It was clear from the very beginning that Senka was not wearing a hat. You figure it yourself. Even if the plant reaches a capacity of 1 aircraft per year (which is just fine in our conditions), how long will it take to make them? Half a century? But the plans are still upgrading the existing boards. And the hype subsided, not a single word about 50 sides is now heard.

      The story with Armata is repeated, one in one. There will be few new equipment; forces have been thrown into modernizing the existing one.
      1. 0
        April 7 2020 11: 56
        Quote: Gregory_45
        Even if the plant reaches a capacity of 1 aircraft per year (which is just fine in our conditions), how long will it take to make them?

        Do you know what the maximum capacity of the plant and contractors is? I doubt something.
        Quote: Gregory_45
        not a single word about 50 boards is now heard

        Well, this is just understandable. All aviation is supplied in separate batches, each of which has a separate contract, that is, if a contract for the supply of 10 new TU-160s is concluded, this means only that there should be 10 of them under a specific contract and that’s all.
        Quote: Gregory_45
        forces threw to modernize the existing

        And the construction of the Tu-160 is the rejection of the new PAK-DA and the modernization of existing technologies. By analogy with tanks, this is like the release of the T-90, which, in essence, is a deep modernization of the T-72.
        1. 0
          April 7 2020 12: 24
          Quote: Dart2027
          Do you know what the maximum capacity of the plant and contractors is? I doubt something

          And you do not hesitate. In the best Soviet times (with well-functioning cooperation, etc.), two missile carriers were fired per year.

          Quote: Dart2027
          And the construction of the Tu-160 is the rejection of the new PAK-DA

          Do you have an official rejection of the new strategy, the decision to close the program?
          1. -1
            April 7 2020 13: 16
            Quote: Gregory_45
            In the best Soviet times (with well-functioning cooperation, etc.), two missile carriers were fired per year.

            Then there was another concept and the stake was placed on the Strategic Missile Forces and Typhoons, which is why they did not expand the production of strategic delivery vehicles. I don’t know how the situation will develop now, but even if one new Tu-160 is produced per year, then within a decade of ONE weapons program we will completely close the planned number of their production. What surprises you here, if in the USSR some types of equipment were included in the plans of two weapons programs?
            Quote: Gregory_45
            Do you have an official rejection of the new strategy, the decision to close the program?

            Do not smack nonsense - secret documents of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation are not distributed to VO, so watch silently, maybe something in the media will slip through.
            1. +1
              April 7 2020 13: 20
              Quote: ccsr
              Then there was another concept and they made a bet on the Strategic Missile Forces

              but has something changed now? No, Russia still relies on ICBMs, and strategic aviation is in third place.
              And to compare the capabilities of Russia and the USSR in terms of aircraft production is the height of stupidity

              Quote: ccsr
              Do not smack nonsense

              nonsense breaks the one who unfoundedly claims that the PAK DA program is closed

              Quote: ccsr
              so watch silently

              use your own advice)
              1. -3
                April 7 2020 13: 34
                Quote: Gregory_45
                but has something changed now? No, Russia still relies on ICBMs, and strategic aviation is in third place.

                That is why you do not need to speculate on what was produced in the USSR - Russia has already reached the possibility of producing aircraft in the quantity it needs. And we do not need "acceleration" and unnecessary things.

                Quote: Gregory_45
                nonsense breaks the one who unfoundedly claims that the PAK DA program is closed

                Based on indirect signs related to the deep modernization of the Tu-95 and Tu-160 aircraft, we can conclude that the author did not affirm to you, but proceeded from assessments of the capabilities of our budget, and I agree with his opinion. Do you have other data?
                1. -2
                  April 7 2020 13: 42
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Russia now has already reached the opportunity to produce aircraft in the quantity it needs.

                  complete nonsense. Give wishful thinking. However, nothing was expected from the amateur propagandist. By the way, tell me where are the air tankers? Or are they enough too? Or 15 strategists - is this also the norm?

                  Quote: ccsr
                  Do you have other data?

                  Do you have an official application to terminate the program? no? So use your advice to be silent and not to flog allegations
                  1. +2
                    April 7 2020 18: 24
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    By the way, tell me where are the air tankers?

                    Air tankers are the most vulnerable link in aviation, which is why the choice was made in favor of the Tu-95, because which can be in the air without refueling much more than any other combat aircraft.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    Or 15 strategists - is this also the norm?

                    For the Tu-160, this figure is quite suitable. But the Tu-95 will need more, I think that within 30-40 units.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    Do you have an official application to terminate the program? no?

                    So it’s you who drove the wave against the author - I just assumed why he made such a conclusion. Maybe you are dedicated to the intentions of the leadership of Moscow oblast regarding PAK - then portray a clever idea.
                    1. -2
                      April 7 2020 18: 33
                      Quote: ccsr
                      By the way, tell me where are the air tankers?

                      Air tankers are the most vulnerable link in aviation

                      Expectedly, you left the answer, because the answer will be too inconvenient for you - we have catastrophically few air tankers, which fundamentally breaks your theory, as if VKS have as many cars as they need

                      Quote: ccsr
                      For the Tu-160, this figure is quite suitable.

                      argue.
                      Quote: ccsr
                      But the Tu-95 will need more

                      Tu-95 for good has long been to be replaced by a more modern machine. Tu-160 was created for that, and not in addition to the flying dinosaur

                      Quote: ccsr
                      Maybe you are dedicated to the intentions of the leadership of Moscow oblast regarding PAK

                      have you been banned on the Internet? Seek, read, enlighten. Who wants to - he will find who is not - he builds guesses and conjectures, and then stupidly argues
                      1. +2
                        April 7 2020 19: 47
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        As expected from the answer, you left, because the answer will be too inconvenient for you - we have catastrophically few air tankers,

                        You, like all verbiage, having no data how many tankers are in service, how many are planned for release in the current armament program, are trying to prove that they are few. Can you name the figures or at least give the competent opinion of a professional from the videoconferencing team who knows this problem in detail?
                        By the way, do you even know how many hours of flight a Tu-95 can be without refueling?
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        argue.

                        The GOU GSH argues to you - they predict there, but I proceed from what is currently available.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Tu-95 for good has long been to be replaced by a more modern machine.

                        Blah blah blah. I, too, for all good versus all bad. But the country's resources are not unlimited - it is only in your imagination that they are enough for everything.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Tu-160 was created for that, and not in addition to the flying dinosaur

                        Another illiterate conclusion is that the Tu-95 was created for patrol, and the Tu-160 for a quick reaction to changes in the operational situation. If you were going to your sandbox, build sandcastles there ...
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Seek, read, enlighten.

                        It looks like you are strongly "enlightened" on the network - you are carrying such nonsense that it is expensive to listen to ...
                      2. +2
                        April 7 2020 20: 08
                        Quote: ccsr
                        having no data how many tankers are in service

                        I have, our boorish foe) But now you are rude from anger that again sat in a puddle)
                        For all this splendor, there is one regiment of tankers, 10 Il-78M and 5 Il-78 - a total of 15 vehicles. Although the command of the Aerospace Forces expressed a desire to purchase at least 40 of these machines, since there is a strong shortage of them, which "undermines the readiness of the Russian Air Force"
                        And the growth prospects of this number are also not encouraging - given the extremely difficult promotion of the updated IL-76MD-90A series, which is considered as a platform for the tanker, and the needs of the Air Force both in transport vehicles and in the flying radars that are built on this platform , the number of tankers is clearly not large. It is optimistic that the UAC will be able to transfer more than a dozen Il-10M-78A to the Air Force in the next 90 years, which in the best case will increase the number of flying tankers in the Air Force to 30 aircraft, including existing ones.

                        And this is only for tankers. If you go through the other types of aircraft, including BTA aircraft, the situation will be similar - the shortage of aircraft

                        Quote: ccsr
                        At GOU GSH you are being argued

                        those. you are expected to merge, again leaving the answer)

                        Quote: ccsr
                        But the country's resources are not unlimited

                        then, you are our demagogue, do not substitute concepts. And it is worth saying that Russia "has as many aircraft as it can afford," and not "as many as necessary." Fundamentally different concepts.

                        Quote: ccsr
                        Would you go to your sandbox there and build sand castles

                        castles are just what you are building. Which crumble from not the strongest arguments.
                        And do not advise where I should go, otherwise I’ll write down an address for you
                      3. 0
                        April 7 2020 20: 24
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        All this splendor accounts for one regiment of tankers, 10 Il-78M and 5 Il-78 - a total of 15 vehicles.

                        What makes you think that this number is not enough? Do you know the plans for using our long-range aviation to say in advance that this is not enough?
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Although the VKS command expressed a desire to acquire at least 40 of these machines,

                        You never know what they wish - this is not a criterion for the Defense Ministry and the General Staff.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        And this is only for tankers. If you go through the other types of aircraft, including BTA aircraft, the situation will be similar - the shortage of aircraft

                        If you discard your verbiage and take into account that you do not know how to use long-range aircraft in peacetime and wartime, all your conclusions and broken pennies are not worth it.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        those. you are expected to merge, again leaving the answer)

                        I didn’t merge, and you, as an ordinary amateur, do not even understand where future war scenarios and the use of the components of our strategic nuclear forces are conceptually determined. And it is there that it will be determined how much and what kind of weapons we have, and not what the VKS will ask. However, for you this is still a Chinese letter, you will not understand this.
                      4. 0
                        April 7 2020 20: 40
                        Quote: ccsr
                        What makes you think that this number is not enough?

                        you still don’t know how to read, just knock on the head? I didn’t take it, this is the opinion of the command of the Russian Air Force.

                        Quote: ccsr
                        You never mind what they wish - this is not a criterion for the Moscow Region and the General Staff

                        for sure, they forgot to consult with you, The Light of All Russia) We have every gopher agronomist ...)
                        It is better for flyers to know how many and what kind of aircraft they need in order to fulfill their tasks.

                        Quote: ccsr
                        all your conclusions and a penny are not worth it.

                        that's for sure, although you are somewhat self-critical in your address)
                      5. +1
                        April 8 2020 13: 23
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        I didn’t take it, this is the opinion of the command of the Russian Air Force.

                        Lying as always - "the command of the Russian Aerospace Forces" is about nothing at all, because an official with such an opinion is not indicated.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        We have every gopher agronomist ...)

                        And you are in charge of them.

                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        It is better for flyers to know how many and what kind of aircraft they need in order to fulfill their tasks.

                        In general, there are authorities above them that determine the needs for equipment and weapons of the armed forces. You decided to solve all the questions over their heads, "theorist"?
                  2. 0
                    April 7 2020 20: 37
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    Give wishful thinking. However, nothing was expected from the amateur propagandist. By the way, tell me where are the air tankers? Or are they enough too? Or 15 strategists - is this also the norm?

                    Shoigu planted a big pig for you when he announced the immediate plans for the Tu-160M, where he indicated that 25 of them would be created during the current weapons program:
                    In total, 160 Tu-15 combat aircraft rocket carriers of the Russian Federation Air Force should be upgraded to the Tu-160M ​​level in the future and ten new strategists Tu-2027M160 were built before 2 with the start of deliveries in 2023. The modernized missile carriers will go to the troops in 2021.

                    https://topwar.ru/169913-v-kazani-nachalas-sborka-ustanovochnoj-partii-novyh-tu-160m2.html
          2. 0
            April 7 2020 14: 31
            Quote: Gregory_45
            In the best Soviet times (with well-functioning cooperation, etc.), two missile carriers were fired per year.

            Are you so sure that this is now impossible? And the technique has changed a lot since then, so that's not a fact.
            Quote: Gregory_45
            official rejection of new stragetes, decision to close the program
            I don’t know if PAK-YES work is underway, but
            Quote: Dart2027
            And the construction of the Tu-160 is the rejection of the new PAK-DA and the modernization of existing technologies.
            Maybe in years through ё0 they will announce that instead of the 160s there will be something new, but at the moment we have a program for their construction.
            1. +2
              April 7 2020 14: 46
              Quote: Dart2027
              Quote: Gregory_45
              In the best Soviet times (with well-functioning cooperation, etc.), two missile carriers were fired per year.

              Are you so sure that this is now impossible?

              more than. There are two main reasons: a) the economic situation of the country, b) the restoration (in the literal sense) of many industries is required in order to start production of the aircraft from scratch.
              I repeat: if they build (put in) even one aircraft per year, this will already be a phenomenal success.

              Quote: Dart2027
              I don’t know if PAK-YA work is underway

              if the program is not closed or frozen (and that was not reported), then it is underway. In August 2019, the technical requirements were approved and the preparatory design stages began. In June 2018, a contract was signed with PJSC Kuznetsov for the creation of motors for PAK DA.
              Further reasoning is meaningless.
              1. -1
                April 7 2020 15: 51
                Quote: Gregory_45
                a) the economic situation of the country
                Well this is a question with nuances.
                Quote: Gregory_45
                b) the restoration (in the literal sense) of many industries is required
                So in any case it will have to be done, otherwise there will be no aircraft at all.
                Quote: Gregory_45
                In August 2019, technical requirements were approved and preparatory design stages began.
                The Tu-160 first flew in 1981, it began to operate in 1987, and the task was issued in 1967. Designing a new aircraft is a breakthrough of time, even under the most favorable conditions.
                1. +1
                  April 7 2020 16: 19
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  So it will have to be done anyway, otherwise there will be no aircraft at all

                  indisputably. However, this will greatly affect the pace of production, and not for the better. Therefore, talk of 50 sides at least by 2023, at least by 2033 - no more than fiction

                  Quote: Dart2027
                  Designing a new aircraft is a breakthrough of time, even under the most favorable conditions

                  it is clear to everyone that the process of creating a modern aircraft of this class is clearly not a quick process. Only it was not about that. And that the program PAK YES is not closed. Are you losing the thread of discussion?
                  1. 0
                    April 7 2020 20: 26
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    Therefore, talk of 50 sides at least by 2023, at least by 2033 - no more than fiction

                    By 2027, they plan to get only 10 boards - these are specific plans. 50 is already further work, I think somewhere in the 2040s.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    And that the program PAK YES is not closed. Are you losing the thread of discussion?
                    And I claimed that it is closed?
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    By analogy with tanks, this is like the release of the T-90, which, in essence, is a deep modernization of the T-72.
                    That is, now we refuse to wait until the new generation is fully ready and we are building what we can build (by analogy with the T-90 and T-72M3 tanks), and the new one (by analogy with the Armata tanks) while waiting, let everyone develop and prepare and in 20 years it will be possible to start.
                    1. 0
                      April 7 2020 20: 34
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      By 2027, plan to get only 10 sides - these are specific plans

                      who began to voice only now, realizing the absolute failure of the originally voiced. And a year ago they talked about 50 sides by 2023. You can raise media articles, marvel)

                      Quote: Dart2027
                      And I claimed that it is closed?

                      Quote: Dart2027
                      And the construction of the Tu-160 is the rejection of the new PAK-DA

                      nobody refuses from PAK YES, the program is not closed. Dates, of course, will be torn off by it, but this thing is already familiar
                      1. 0
                        April 8 2020 06: 43
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        And a year ago they talked about 50 sides by 2023

                        Maybe, or maybe someone misunderstood something, as with the construction of RTOs, which decided to build because the construction of frigates failed, but someone "smart" wrote that they were replacing frigates.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        nobody refuses from PAK YES, the program is not closed.

                        Once again, I am not saying that they have refused new developments at all, they will now do what they can and the rest will be done in the future.
                      2. -1
                        April 8 2020 07: 52
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        or maybe someone misunderstood something

                        but how can you not understand when they broadcast in plain text, incl. the main "mouthpiece of the MO" - TV channel "Zvezda"
                        Perhaps you somehow understand the words differently ?:
                        By the end of 2021, the Russian Ministry of Defense will receive the first Tu-160M ​​series strategic missile carrier built from scratch. This was announced by the General Director of PJSC Tupolev Alexander Konyukhov.
                        The decision to resume production of the Tu-160 aircraft was made by the Ministry of Defense in 2015. According to the plans of the department, by 2023, the Russian Air Force should receive 50 new Tu-160s.

                        then the timeline began to shift
                        Over the past few years, senior officials from the Ministry of Defense have repeatedly raised the issue of the volume of new production of long-range bombers. According to these statements, by 2035 the aerospace forces will have to receive 50 new Tu-160M2

                        If you are not aware of conversations about "50 new boards" - then these are not my problems)
                      3. -1
                        April 8 2020 09: 33
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        when they broadcast in plain text

                        Do you understand the difference between "we have cut off the supply of engines from Ukraine and therefore we cannot complete the planned series of frigates, so we will have to build what we can build right now" and "we have decided to replace frigates with MRK"?
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        According to the plans of the department, by 2023, the Russian Air Force should receive 50 new Tu-160s.

                        I came across not new, but modernized
                        According to the plans of the department, by 2023, the Russian Air Force should receive 50 modernized Tu-160s.
                        https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/690213-tu-160m-postavki-armiya
                        That is, taking into account those that have already been built and will be precisely modernized, and this is 35 boards.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        According to these statements, by 2035 the aerospace forces will have to receive 50 new Tu-160M2

                        Well, 2035 is not 2027, even if they take 2-3 times a year (in the USSR they built 8 for 35 years, that is 4-5 a year), then 16-24 units will be built during this time, which is good in any case.
                      4. 0
                        April 8 2020 09: 47
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        I came across not new, but modernized

                        And where to get them, another three and a half dozen sides? Does logic work?

                        If we consider that two sides have been modernized to this day, then over three years it is necessary to carry out work (to modernize and build) on more than four dozen vehicles. Unrealistic from the word at all. Therefore, the article correctly says: myth
                        I don’t understand what I can argue about here. Even a fifth grader understands that plans are unrealistic
                      5. 0
                        April 8 2020 12: 23
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        And where to get them, another three and a half dozen sides?

                        Yes, I made a mistake, we have 16 of them, 35 were all built.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Even a fifth grader understands that plans are unrealistic

                        Let's see how much they will hand over under the contract in 2027 and how much they will build in the end.
                      6. 0
                        April 8 2020 13: 29
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        If you are not aware of conversations about "50 new boards" - then these are not my problems)

                        So this is just talk, and never on the Zvezda TV channel will they show you the corresponding section of the weapons program, where the Defense Ministry's plans for the Aerospace Forces are spelled out. This channel exists for different amateurs, like you, so that you have something to scratch your tongue about.
          3. 0
            April 7 2020 15: 57
            Quote: Gregory_45
            And you do not hesitate. In the best Soviet times (with well-functioning cooperation, etc.), two missile carriers were fired per year.

            In Soviet times, released up to five.
      2. 0
        April 12 2020 23: 27
        While START-3 is in effect, no one will order so many strategists. Or then it is necessary to immediately design and build a Tu-160 that is not for conventional weapons (and why is it needed at such a price), and even with the fundamental impossibility of using it as a carrier of nuclear weapons.
  8. +2
    April 7 2020 06: 54
    Did you manage to reduce the number of crew during modernization? There were 11 people, seem?
  9. +2
    April 7 2020 07: 06
    This February I tested the engines, the new Tu-160M ​​with a new welded titanium beam, not out of touch. For PAK DA, the problem was the necessary aviation composites, but now in the light of solving this problem for the MS-21, they appeared, while PAK DA is noticeably cheaper in production than the Tu-160M2.
    1. +1
      April 7 2020 09: 46
      How is it known that PAK DA will be cheaper than the Tu-160M2?
      1. +1
        April 7 2020 16: 38
        Quote: Pyotr Tverdokhlebov
        How is it known that PAK DA will be cheaper than Tu-160M2

        this is what our media said (including the "main mouthpiece" - "Zvezda") with reference to an unnamed "source in the Russian military-industrial complex."

        The Americans also promise to make the "Raider" B-21 cheaper than "Spirit" (which they may well do, because:
        a) make the plane more expensive than V-2 - you need to try hard;
        b) they have experience in creating "Spirit", they know where and what they made a mistake, and what they did not.

        We have no experience creating a stealth bomber. Therefore, whether they will meet $ 250 million (preliminary cost of the Tu-160M) is an open question. I think no. In the same way as they fly by with deadlines (however, everyone is used to it already)
    2. 0
      April 7 2020 11: 12
      Quote: 2Albert
      This February, tested the engines, the new Tu-160M ​​with a new welded titanium beam, not offended

      in February the Tu-160M ​​flew, a modernized car from the existing ones, Igor Sikorsky (ser. number 4-05,)
  10. +5
    April 7 2020 07: 20
    50 Tu 160 will be the same as 2300 armatures. The guarantor needs to be trusted !!
    1. 0
      April 7 2020 09: 08
      Unlike Armata, Tu160 can also be riveted 1pcs / year ..... And capitalize what is. There, the main thing is the Kyrgyz Republic and their range.
  11. 0
    April 7 2020 07: 30
    What is good YES? it can be used effectively in local wars where there is no sense in the Strategic Rocket Forces and SSBNs, unfortunately neither a 95ms nor 160 machine is capable of bombing and this needs to be urgently corrected.
    1. +3
      April 7 2020 08: 12
      On this subject, the Syrian barmaley take an interest in whether they are capable of bombing or not. fellow
      1. +2
        April 7 2020 09: 11
        Only Tu22 .... and to the B-52 we are very far away.
        1. -3
          April 7 2020 12: 02
          And we have no doubt that you are far away. And for us it is an ancient cuttlefish, and with the capabilities of the current air defense it generally sucks.
          1. +1
            April 7 2020 18: 25
            Quote: Ros 56
            this is ancient cuttlefish

            B-52 - almost the same age as the Tu-95, if that

            Quote: Ros 56
            And with the capabilities of the current air defense

            for this, these aircraft are also equipped with long-range missiles (ALCM, JASSM, X-555, X-101) so as not to get into the enemy’s air defense coverage area. Or used where there is no air defense as such
      2. +1
        April 7 2020 11: 14
        Quote: Ros 56
        On this subject, the Syrian barmaley take an interest in whether they can bomb or not

        But what, with the Tu-160 or Tu-95 bombed? (if anything, they are missile carriers, with drum launchers for the Kyrgyz Republic in the bomb bay) Or did they bomb the Tu-22M3?
        1. +1
          April 7 2020 11: 57
          Quote: Gregory_45
          and what, with the Tu-160

          Exactly a year ago, on November 17, 2015, the Tu-160M ​​strategic bomber and missile carrier of the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS RF) first participated in the hostilities.
          https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3789530
          1. +1
            April 7 2020 12: 17
            Quote: Dart2027
            Exactly one year ago, on November 17, 2015, the Tu-160M ​​strategic bomber-rocket carrier of the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS RF) first participated in the hostilities

            they only worked rockets. X-555 and X-101
            1. -1
              April 7 2020 14: 27
              Quote: Gregory_45
              they only worked rockets

              AND? Nowadays, the main weapon of strategic b-c is rockets, they are bombed with them. Or did you mean it was bombing?
              1. +1
                April 7 2020 14: 37
                Quote: Dart2027
                Or did you mean it was bombing?

                it is written that way. Missile bombing - not in Russian

                Quote: Dart2027
                Nowadays, the main weapon of strategic b-c is rockets

                American strategists retained the ability to drop bombs - i.e. conduct classic bombing. As well as our long-range Tu-22M3 (which can work out with missiles and bombs).
                Express yourself more precisely - and there will be no misunderstanding)
                1. -1
                  April 7 2020 15: 53
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  Missile bombing - not in Russian

                  Actually, as applied to aviation, they say so.
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  American strategists retained the ability to drop bombs - i.e. conduct classic bombing.

                  What's the point? To send an expensive and non-airborne aircraft to the front line, risking losing it? In this sense, they are wrong.
                  1. -1
                    April 7 2020 16: 48
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    What's the point? To send an expensive and non-airborne aircraft to the front line, risking losing it? In this sense, they are wrong.

                    they have their own cockroaches in their heads. In the case of B-2, they rely on stealth, and B-1B is now withdrawn from the nuclear forces and demoted to a long-range bomber.
                    1. 0
                      April 7 2020 20: 17
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      they have their own cockroaches in their heads.

                      It is truth too. But I wouldn’t let strategists be closer than 500 km to the front line.
                2. The comment was deleted.
        2. -1
          April 7 2020 12: 00
          Bombed and how. I wrote above, take an interest in barmaley.
          1. 0
            April 7 2020 12: 18
            Quote: Ros 56
            Bombed and how. I wrote above, take an interest in barmaley

            I'm interested in you. A reference to a competent source will be that Swans and Bears worked precisely with bombs?
            1. -1
              April 7 2020 12: 27
              I personally saw in the news on the box about the Tu-160. Here you are specially thrown off https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3789530. so it's all by myself.
              1. +1
                April 7 2020 12: 43
                Quote: Ros 56
                https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3789530

                Have you read it yourself? Your link says that
                November 17, 2015, the strategic bomber-bomber Tu-160M ​​of the Aerospace Forces of the Russian Federation (VKS RF) first participated in the hostilities. Attacks on terrorists in Syria inflicted aircraft of the most advanced version, equipped with the latest strategic X-101 cruise missiles.

                Where about the bombs?

                And about bombs anywhere, you dreamed about it))
                1. -1
                  April 7 2020 13: 07
                  I didn’t write specifically about bombs, I wrote bombing, implying the participation of the Tu-160 in hostilities. What is the difference to barmaley than they bang, a bomb or a rocket
                  1. 0
                    April 7 2020 13: 13
                    Quote: Ros 56
                    I specifically did not write about bombs

                    yah? Read your own comments. And why the argument then? Quickly you change your shoes

                    Quote: Ros 56
                    wrote bombing, implying the participation of the Tu-160 in hostilities

                    but this is known to all and not disputed. Be careful
                    1. +1
                      April 7 2020 13: 14
                      Gregory, whoever you want to take out the brain.
                2. 0
                  April 7 2020 17: 18
                  It was about bombs, a long time ago, but it was: http://nvo.ng.ru/forces/2003-03-07/1_tu160.html
                  1. +1
                    April 7 2020 23: 37
                    Quote: bk0010
                    It was about bombs, for a long time ......

                    And what prevents neta from requesting information about this? Starting with Wiki (other sources do not contradict her in this matter):
                    ".... After the appropriate conversion, the aircraft can also be equipped with free-fall bombs (up to 40 kg) of various calibers, including nuclear, single-shot cluster bombs, naval mines and other weapons. ...." Vika
                    ".... Armament:
                    In the two inside fuselage compartments, different target loads with a total mass of standard are placed - 22500 kg, maximum - up to 40000 kg:
                    including 2 drum launchers with six strategic and tactical missiles X-55 and X-55M, 2 drum launchers with 12 short-range aeroballistic missiles X-15 (M = 5,0) with nuclear and non-nuclear warheads, KAB of various types up to KAB-1500, thermonuclear and conventional bombs, mines. ..." http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/tu160.html

                    Another question, here in the topic it was said that after modernization on the plane, optical sights are not visible. Does this mean that the strategist completely abandoned ordinary bombs, preserving only missile weapons?
                    1. 0
                      April 8 2020 13: 33
                      Quote: Bad_gr
                      Does this mean that the strategist completely abandoned ordinary bombs, preserving only missile weapons?

                      Of course they refused, and precisely because it is too dangerous for the strategic bomber itself. Now the cost of guided missiles is not so significant compared to the cost of a bomber to risk it - that's why they are switching to the Kyrgyz Republic.
        3. +1
          April 7 2020 14: 28
          Quote: Gregory_45
          But what, with the Tu-160 or Tu-95 bombed? (if anything, they are missile carriers, with drum launchers for missiles in the bomb bay)

          Tu-160 missile carrier bomber. MKU can be dismantled from the cargo compartment, in its place equipped bombs are suspended. For bombing, the OPB-015T sight is used.
          1. 0
            April 7 2020 15: 15
            Quote: Lozovik
            MKU can be dismantled from the cargo compartment, in its place equipped bombs are suspended.

            theoretically, yes. But now all Tu-160s are equipped with drums. With such a small number of strategists, it makes no sense to send them to the bombing. The possibility of using the Tu-160M ​​as a bomber was not reported - new types of missiles for the aircraft were announced
            1. 0
              April 7 2020 15: 56
              Quote: Gregory_45
              theoretically, yes. But now all Tu-160s are equipped with drums.

              Where does the information come from? Do you keep a register of cars in the regiment?

              Quote: Gregory_45
              With such a small number of strategists, it makes no sense to send them to the bombing.

              And at what has? laughing Get away from the topic.
              1. 0
                April 7 2020 16: 50
                Quote: Lozovik
                And at what has

                what's the point of making an expensive and small strategist (any loss of which is critical) climb with free-falling bombs into the enemy’s air defense zone if there are long-range missiles?
                1. +1
                  April 7 2020 22: 03
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  what's the point of making an expensive and small strategist (any loss of which is critical) climb with free-falling bombs into the enemy’s air defense zone if there are long-range missiles?

                  There is a combat mission, for the solution of which combat exercises are determined. A cruise missile is capable of hitting only fixed point targets with known coordinates.
                  1. +1
                    April 7 2020 22: 23
                    Quote: Lozovik
                    A cruise missile is capable of hitting only fixed point targets with known coordinates.

                    based on the appointment of a strategist, he should work on goals with previously known coordinates.
                    Even applying it in a local conflict is the same. First, the KP and air defense are carried out with high-precision weapons, then, after suppressing the air defense, you can work with ordinary iron

                    What are you trying to prove?
                    1. 0
                      April 8 2020 09: 46
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      based on the appointment of a strategist, he should work on goals with previously known coordinates.
                      Even applying it in a local conflict is the same.

                      Before issuing such pearls, ask what tasks long-range aviation performs, the characteristics of the targets and which TSA they are struck by.
                      1. 0
                        April 8 2020 10: 11
                        Quote: Lozovik
                        take an interest in what tasks long-range aviation performs, the characteristics of targets and what TSA they are struck by

                        maybe you should do it?
                      2. 0
                        April 8 2020 10: 27
                        I knew all my goals and the goals of each crew of my squadron.
                    2. 0
                      April 8 2020 13: 41
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      based on the appointment of a strategist, he should work on goals with previously known coordinates.

                      Complete nonsense - an aircraft carrier naval group, or maneuvering troops with nuclear missile weapons do not stand still, that's why during the flight or on-flight the planes can quickly change the coordinates of targets, and for this, channels of both satellite and HF radio communications are provided. Moreover, a change in the flight mission is already planned in the Kyrgyz Republic, and for this they use satellite constellation - at least they worked on it in Soviet times, so I am sure that it is now implemented.
  12. +4
    April 7 2020 07: 50
    "Tyuh, tyuh, tyuh ... our iron is on fire!" ... All the same, it was not for nothing that I somehow argued that in Russia, since Soviet times, modernization, development, adoption into service often goes with an "eye" to the United States ... So "here and now" ... if the United States did not "cherish" the B-52, then the Tu-95 would have had a hard time! And so ... a clear example before your eyes ... B-52! But what is this 50 Tu-95? Should it be 50 Tu-95MSM or just Tu-95 "on the move"? The point is that I had to read that the Tu-95 MSM can be "turned" aircraft of only a certain series (series), but not all available ...! There are "series" with which "this" cannot be done ...
    1. +2
      April 7 2020 09: 12
      For long-range aviation, you just need to look back at the United States. It is a leader in both innovation and concept. And on the ammunition. And on application.
      1. 0
        April 7 2020 13: 24
        Quote: Zaurbek
        For long-range aviation, you just need to look back at the United States. It is a leader in both innovation and concept. And on the ammunition. And on application.

        It’s an absolutely wrong conclusion, if only because we don’t have as many basic airfields in the world as the US Air Force, which means that we need to orient our nuclear potential differently in order to destroy a glanced enemy in any situation. Moreover, our military budget does not allow the development of strategic aviation to the detriment of rocket technology - this is obvious to any specialist. Therefore, I consider it right that the concept of deep modernization that we have chosen is right now, and there, later, we will see how things are going for our economy and whether we can pull the development of a new PAK.
        1. 0
          April 7 2020 18: 47
          When the Tu95 was created, yes, it was necessary to make narrowly specialized missile carriers. Moreover, some are anti-ship, others with KRSD ....
          Now what are the fundamental limitations in universality? And given the local conflicts, bombing the corr with ammunition or TKR is simply necessary. But here the limitation is purely in the number of strategists and it is better to build only KR with various fillings so far.
  13. UVB
    +3
    April 7 2020 07: 54
    The military department really wants to have with it a new-built car of the Tu-160M2 level, but not fifty at all, but only ten units with the first flight of the first such machine in 2021.
    For the sake of ten sides to brew such a mess with the resumption of complex production? Absurd stupidity!
    1. +2
      April 7 2020 08: 20
      Well, if what is eating soon stops flying, then you’ll be bothered, as it were.
    2. 0
      April 12 2020 23: 41
      The Americans started the production of super-expensive V-2 Spirit in the amount of 21 pcs (the entire series). Moreover - deployed from scratch. We are just restoring production.
  14. -12
    April 7 2020 08: 17
    The Tu-95 and Tu-160 are representatives of an outdated type of strategic weapons and will be disposed of after the Burevestnik supersonic missile launcher with an unlimited flight range is adopted. PAK YES is a classic cover operation.

    B-52 is covered with transverse corrugations from old age, B-1, B-2 and B-21 were ordered to live long.
    1. +3
      April 7 2020 09: 39
      Even the media forgot about the petrel and you are already fighting them)
    2. +1
      April 7 2020 16: 58
      Quote: Operator
      B-21 ordered to live long

      yeah, especially the B-21, which hasn't even taken off yet
      1. 0
        April 7 2020 17: 05
        V-21 thought and decided not to take off - like in figs it surrendered to me in the presence of S-350/400/500 laughing
  15. +3
    April 7 2020 08: 18
    But I am interested in such an aspect in the defense of the country. The population of our country today is concentrated in the majority of 10-15 megalopolises (approx. 70% in these cities). In Europe and the states, the ratio is 40% in cities and 60% in the periphery. From this, the conclusion is that in the case of a first strike against us, it is enough to overload the air defense of 15-20 cities with 1-2 waves and in the country minus 70% of the population - further hostilities are reduced to counterguerrilla activities. And even without mass use, it’s enough to throw 1-2 warheads at the end of a wave. In order to inflict the same damage, it is necessary for us to glaze over areas of almost their entire territory.
    1. +1
      April 7 2020 08: 40
      The Yankees have such a concept as unacceptable losses. If a retaliatory strike can be swept away completely, even, for example, only three cities, New York, Washington and Los Angeles, for example, then they will never start a hot war with such a country. By sanctions, bribery of the top leadership, rocking the "color" revolution and so on, they will achieve that this country will not have time for a war with the United States. That is, their population density is not important, in general. Either they will beat a country that cannot reach them, or they will use non-military means.
      1. +4
        April 7 2020 09: 35
        Well, then it’s clear that it’s much cheaper at the beginning of the sowing season to put 15mln into the country and there is no cheap gas in the country with cheap oil, but there is still a strategic stability issue. Spend 15 warheads and minus 70% of the population, receiving in response from the force minus 20% of the population, and for the most part not of their own. And in terms of epidemics, it’s practical to spray muck in several anthills than around the country they are motivated as in the states, for example.
  16. +1
    April 7 2020 09: 55
    The plane is good. There is no supersonic, but it draws a lot.

    It’s a pity that we will not master new aircraft, neither the Tu-160 nor the PAK YES soon,
    Well, at least these patched up and updated.
  17. 0
    April 7 2020 11: 13
    Well, there is no "strategic aviation". There is "long-range aviation" and not so much.
  18. 0
    April 7 2020 13: 22
    As for the Tu-95 as for the B-52: they can be stuffed with modern weapons and equipment. But how will the glider of airplanes withstand the excess of multiple flight hours? Will there be a frequent "plane crash"?
  19. +3
    April 7 2020 16: 06
    Quote: kpd
    There is such a funny document: START-3. And there is a limit on the number of carriers of nuclear weapons.
    Want more planes? Either it is necessary to withdraw from this agreement, or to reduce the number of land or sea-based missiles. Alas...

    This does not threaten us. We have a reserve in carriers of approximately 200 units. Therefore, nothing will have to be removed from service

    Quote: svp67
    Quote: kpd
    Either it is necessary to withdraw from this agreement, or to reduce the number of land or sea-based missiles. Alas...

    But their quantity is just being reduced here, for objective reasons ... the old ones will be debited, there are no new ones yet. This time.

    Over the past two years, the number of deployed carriers has remained at approximately the same level. Of course, there are fluctuations in the number of strategic carriers, but if they are mainly associated, they are not only related to write-offs.

    Quote: svp67
    Secondly, not just missiles are being recorded, but those deployed on SLBMs and heavy bombers.

    This is not entirely true, Sergey. Both ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers are counted (missiles on them are not counted). It is believed that 1 aircraft is one warhead

    Quote: svp67
    1550 units for warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers;

    Absolutely.

    Quote: svp67
    Have we, from the moment of signing, all SLBMs in service?

    Of course no. Old boats with old missiles are decommissioned, new ones are put into service. In addition, at the time of repair (and commissioning of new ones) they are listed as not deployed.

    Quote: kpd
    Regarding SLBMs: most likely the contract states that all boats in good condition are taken into account, there, for deregistration, the boat most likely needs to be cut into metal, and not just removed from the fleet.

    Boats on alert are counted. If the boat goes for repair, then the missiles on it do not go into the overall standings. The boats withdrawn from the fleet for some time are listed as not deployed, and when they begin to be cut into metal they are also removed from the category not deployed

    Quote: Dart2027
    And how do you know that plans for the construction of 50 Tu-160 is a myth?

    Well, if the terms of order execution stretch for 13-25 years, is it a "myth" or not ??

    Quote: Dart2027
    Quote: Gregory_45
    Even if the plant reaches a capacity of 1 aircraft per year (which is just fine in our conditions), how long will it take to make them?

    Do you know what the maximum capacity of the plant and contractors is? I doubt something.

    The maximum that the plant produced in Soviet times, taking into account the discipline of suppliers, is 4 sides per year. It is unlikely that this figure is achievable now. Rather, a couple of cars a year. In addition, at that plant should not only plan the release of new, but also the modernization of the old TU-160, plus the construction of PAK DA

    Quote: evgen1221
    But I am interested in such an aspect in the defense of the country. The population of our country today is concentrated in the majority of 10-15 megalopolises (approx. 70% in these cities). In Europe and the states, the ratio is 40% in cities and 60% in the periphery. From this, the conclusion is that in the case of a first strike against us, it is enough to overload the air defense of 15-20 cities with 1-2 waves and in the country minus 70% of the population - further hostilities are reduced to counterguerrilla activities. And even without mass use, it’s enough to throw 1-2 warheads at the end of a wave. In order to inflict the same damage, it is necessary for us to glaze over areas of almost their entire territory.

    You should, Eugene, adjust your numbers. In 15 cities with a population of over one million people, at best, about 35-40 million people live. With a population of Russia of 147 million, this is 27%, not 70, as you write
  20. -1
    April 7 2020 17: 31
    Quote: 3danimal
    It should be adequate not to the “status of a great power” (where is the gradation of greatness?), But to the budget. In order not to be likened to a moto, the last iPhone and Armani rushing, and at home the children are in rags

    It must be adequate to defense, and the current armed forces are not able to provide it. Do you still want to cut back?
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. +3
    April 7 2020 21: 59
    Quote: Red Alert
    it and the current armed forces are not able to provide. Do you still want to cut back?

    Definitely not able to provide ??? Strange ... For some reason, everyone says that enough weapons to turn into dust not only the territory of the United States, but also their allies in Europe and Asia. And you say you can’t? Can you argue?
  23. +4
    April 7 2020 22: 04
    This situation is directly related to the deliberate destruction of civilian aircraft industry in the 90s, and a conscious policy of not allowing independent civilian aircraft industry for the past 20 years - only projects critically dependent on foreign components are allowed - Pogosyanovsky SuperJet and similar crafts.
    Impossibly successful, without extra costs, military aircraft without civilian.
    This and a greater number of specialists, healthy competition, unification, mass production with a corresponding reduction in cost, increased reliability and reduced development time.


    In addition, many military aircraft can be based on civilian ones or be unified with them at many nodes.

    All the same, they came from a hopelessness to the right decision - they are going to upgrade the ownerless Tu-204 into anti-submarines and scouts.
    But it was necessary to attend to this much earlier.

    And the replacement of the Tu-95 could long ago be done on the basis of (or using nodes) a civilian aircraft
    It would be especially inexpensive and fast with a full-fledged civil aviation industry in Russia.
    But the owners of the Russian Federation forbid its compradors to develop it.
    1. 0
      April 12 2020 12: 25
      Plus, I myself have repeatedly noted the need for a "mobilization" missile carrier based on the Il 96.
  24. +2
    April 8 2020 13: 10
    Under our vulgar capitalism, with the liquidation of state research institutions and factories and the rate on income in any way, a generation has left who are able to work with pleasure practically for an "idea", only for the money and, if appropriate, sell the developments to viral customers. Moreover, the example is set by the "top" flooded with thieves and talkers.
    1. 0
      April 8 2020 19: 32
      Where did you get this? What kind of liquidation of state factories and research institutes are you talking about? The military-industrial complex is quite seriously preserved and is developing quite successfully. Money has been and is being invested in the re-equipment of military-industrial complex plants. And just "for the idea" no one has ever worked. Highly qualified work from the designer to the installer has always been highly paid and paid. No need to spread nonsense like "AH. Everything is lost." Yes. There is a shortage of workers. So you yourself are to blame for this. Who was raised and raised? Menagers of various types, unnecessary and useless for anything. Thank God that not all parents have dumb children. Even if it is not yet massively, but young guys and girls come to enterprises quite well. Moreover, both engineering and technical personnel and representatives of blue-collar professions. This youth is the future, not the managers.
  25. 0
    April 8 2020 19: 22
    How tired of various "afftors". Well, everything and about everything they know and present to us, sirim, their expert "judgments". And how has the author not yet been invited for the much-needed mentoring consultations at the Ministry of Defense? Or maybe simply because balabol is not needed there? At present, everything possible is being done to ensure the proper level of weapons capable of conducting combat operations in modern war, be it not okay. It would be the other way around, everything would have flared up. So far, the reasoning is on top of it, but what really is there, such afftors do not know, and should not know. Don't sing "Hallelujah" ahead of time.
  26. +1
    April 8 2020 19: 23
    Quote: aristok
    And the replacement of the Tu-95 could long ago be done on the basis of (or using nodes) a civilian aircraft

    Tupolev made civilians on the basis of military aircraft, and now they offer to make military, in particular bombers, on the basis of civilians. And can you name on the basis of which of the civilian aircraft since the 60s you can make a bomber ...?
  27. +2
    April 9 2020 11: 42
    Quote: CTABEP
    We do not noticeably choose the limits for sn-3. All the stories that the contract is bothering us - from the evil one, we cannot reach its volumes in terms of carriers / charges.

    In terms of charges, we are more or less going out, but in terms of carriers as of March 1.03.2020, 215 - XNUMX units of "shortage"
    1. 0
      3 May 2020 07: 49
      Therefore, they took up the thorough modernization of the Tu22, with refueling, new NK-32, new KR (short). And the new KR for tactical aviation.
  28. +1
    3 May 2020 14: 00
    Quote: Zaurbek
    Therefore, they took up the thorough modernization of the Tu22, with refueling, new NK-32, new KR (short). And the new KR for tactical aviation.

    I don’t think that it was this “shortage” in strategic weapons that caused the modernization of the TU-22M3. As a strategist, he is naturally no good. For only HEAVY bombers, and TU-22M3 heavy can only be attributed to a large hangover.
  29. 0
    6 May 2020 09: 01
    Quote: svp67
    Isn’t it worth it to gradually withdraw from the anti-submarine aircraft Tu-142, with their outdated stuffing, replacing them with the same Be-200 and Il-114, in anti-submarine performance, and to subject these Tu to alterations into strategic bombers

    Be200 finally for fires and emergency situations. And 114 did not fly so far from 142

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"