Military Review

Tu-160 and B-1B. At the concept level

82

Experienced B-1A. Then it was a high-altitude supersonic bomber. Photo by US Air Force


The American strategic bomber Rockwell B-1B Lancer and the Russian Tu-160 aircraft are quite similar in appearance. However, they seriously differ in tactical and technical characteristics and combat capabilities. These differences are primarily due to the use of two completely different concepts, as well as the specifics of the development of technology and changes in customer requirements.

First try


Research on a promising multi-mode strategic bomber was launched in the United States in the early sixties. Towards the end of the decade, a design competition began, which was won in 1970 by North American Rockwell. The promising aircraft received the official designation B-1A.


Tu-160 in flight. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

The Air Force planned to get a bomber capable of breaking through enemy air defenses and striking targets at great depths. The breakthrough was proposed to be carried out at high altitude due to supersonic speed. It was assumed that the enemy's defense would not be able to detect the bomber in time and shoot it down before the combat load was dropped. The latter was considered bombs and missiles with a special warhead.

In 1971, the development company built a full-size model of the future B-1A, and in 1974 rolled out the first prototype. The first flight took place in December of the same year. Flight tests have shown that the aircraft as a whole meets the customer's requirements, but still needs fine-tuning. At high flight altitudes, a speed of up to 2,2 M was provided - with a maximum sweep. With a minimum sweep, the bomber showed good takeoff and landing characteristics.


One of the experienced B-1A in the museum. Photo Wikimedia Commons

According to the plans of that time, in the second half of the seventies, mass production could begin, and the achievement of the initial operational readiness was ensured by 1979-80. During the eighties, it was planned to carry out rearmament.

Soviet response


Also in the late sixties, the Soviet program for the development of a new bomber began. In 1969, the Air Force issued requirements according to which it was necessary to develop a multi-mode aircraft with supersonic speed and high range. It was planned that such a machine at high altitude and high speed would go to the line and launch long-range missiles. Due to this, it was proposed to ensure a breakthrough of the enemy's air defense - or to exclude the need to enter its engagement zone.

It is believed that by the time the task for the future Tu-160 was developed, the Soviet military knew about the American project. This influenced the development of their own technology and ultimately led to a certain external similarity between the two finished machines. However, the differences between the two aircraft appeared already at the design stage.


Tu-160 taking off. Photo of UAC

In 1972, the customer compared several preliminary projects from different organizations, and the further design was entrusted to A.N. Tupolev. Subsequently, the project was revised and revised several times; the final draft design was approved only in 1977, which made it possible to start preparing documentation for the construction of a prototype.

The first flight of the prototype Tu-160 took place in December 1981. Later, several experimental series machines were built for all stages of testing. State tests were completed in 1989 with a recommendation for admission into service. By that time, several aircraft entered the Air Force for trial operation, and soon serial production began.

Cancellation and replacement


In 1976, American specialists were able to familiarize themselves with the equipment of the hijacked MiG-25 interceptor and assess the potential of the Soviet air defense. It was found that the high-altitude supersonic B-1A has minimal chances of breaking through to targets on the territory of the USSR and in this respect is almost indistinguishable from the subsonic B-52. The future of the Rockwell project was in question.


An upgraded B-1B drops an AGM-158 missile. Photo by US Air Force

In mid-1977, the US military and political leadership decided to abandon the B-1A. Instead of the production of such machines, it was proposed to re-equip the existing B-52, as well as to strengthen the ground component of the nuclear forces. In addition, a program for the development of a promising stealth bomber was soon launched, which later resulted in the B-2A.

A few years later, the B-1A was remembered, and in early 1982, Rockwell was awarded a new contract to develop a strategic bomber. The existing B-1A should have been reworked according to updated requirements, since now the Air Force wanted to get a long-range bomber with a different method of breaking through air defense. The future B-1B was supposed to fly to the target at a transonic speed at low altitude with a rounding of the terrain.

The original aircraft was significantly redesigned. He got heavier, got new controls, new security systems, etc. To increase survivability, the electronic warfare complex was improved. All this work did not take much time, and already in 1983, the first experienced B-1B Lancer was rolled out. The first serial was delivered to the Air Force in the fall of 1984. Production continued until 1988; built exactly 100 aircraft.


Russian bomber under repair and modernization. Photo of PJSC "Tupolev"

New era


Thus, by the end of the Cold War, the two superpowers had new strategic bombers - similar in appearance, but different in design and capabilities. In addition, the differences in the potential of the aircraft were determined by their number. During the eighties, the United States managed to build its B-1B in a fairly large series, several times exceeding the production of Soviet and Russian Tu-160s.

Due to the difficult economic situation, Russia could not continue the massive construction of new bombers. In addition, any measures to modernize the Tu-160 were in question. It was possible to return to this only at the beginning of the XXI century.

In the same period, work began in the United States to update and improve the B-1B. The aircraft were able to carry and use a wider range of ammunition, and the combat performance was increased due to new sighting and navigation systems. At the same time, nuclear weapons were excluded from the ammunition, and the corresponding on-board devices were removed.


Experiments with the suspension of a model of a hypersonic missile on the B-1B. Photo by US Air Force

Ways of modernization


In recent decades, the Russian industry has modernized Tu-160 aircraft and expanded their capabilities. In particular, ammunition has been seriously added. Previously the main weapons bombers was the Kh-55 strategic cruise missile. On its basis, a non-nuclear product X-555 was created. A new generation of Kh-101/102 missiles has also been introduced. It is possible to use free-fall and guided bombs of various types. Projects of deep modernization of Tu-160M ​​/ M2 have been developed, and they do not provide for a change in application concepts.

After the upgrades of the nineties, the main weapon of the B-1B Lancer was unguided and “smart” bombs of various types. Later, it became possible to use AGM-158 JASSM missiles. Recently, the possibility of equipping the B-1B with promising weapons, up to hypersonic missiles, has been repeatedly mentioned. How quickly such products will enter service is unclear.

After all the upgrades, the Russian Tu-160 remains a supersonic high-altitude bomber, whose main task is to deliver cruise missiles to the launch line. Aircraft carried out it both during numerous exercises and as part of the Syrian operation. Thus, the basic concept of the project, developed half a century ago, has practically not changed and still makes a significant contribution to the country's defense capability.


Dropping the Kh-55 missile from the Tu-160 cargo bay. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

American projects B-1A / B cannot boast of such "stability". The original project was closed and reworked, changing its key provisions. The supersonic missile carrier turned into a transonic bomb carrier and lost its nuclear weapons, but then again acquired missiles. In addition, modern techniques provide for high-altitude flight as the main method of combat use, which brings to mind the experienced B-1A.

Stability against change


The Russian Tu-160 bomber, undergoing new upgrades, retains its place in the Air Force and Strategic Nuclear Forces. He performs the originally conceived tasks, although he receives new weapons and functions - and at the same time he is respected. Its American counterpart, the B-1B, was less fortunate. He is considered perhaps the most unfortunate representative of the strategic aviation USA.

It is highly likely that these results from the two projects are directly related to the use and development of basic concepts. The plane, brought to service in its original form, turned out to be more successful and has great prospects. The other sample, after all the alterations and modifications, is planned to be replaced at the earliest opportunity. And the external resemblance to the Russian Tu-160, it seems, will not save him.
Author:
82 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 3 September 2020 18: 34
    0
    In the monograph about V - 1, there is a mention of our pilot, who drew attention to the build quality of the "American" when they flew to Mirgorod (if memory serves). It was an order of magnitude higher than that of the Tu - 160, on which he flew.
    1. tovarich-andrey.62goncharov
      tovarich-andrey.62goncharov 3 September 2020 18: 46
      +3
      Yeah, the build quality is 10 times higher. They have welding, we have rivets for a sledgehammer, what is there ...
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 3 September 2020 18: 58
        20
        In fairness, our welds there are also enough, like their rivets. More interesting is how the pilot can notice the build quality?
        1. Alf
          Alf 3 September 2020 20: 08
          +4
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          More interesting is how the pilot can notice the build quality?


        2. Trapp1st
          Trapp1st 4 September 2020 09: 29
          10
          How can a pilot notice build quality?
          Gaps between panels, soft plastic, leather upholstery, interior wood trim, hatch handles in body color, multimedia, chrome wheels ...
          1. zenion
            zenion 9 September 2020 21: 05
            +3
            You forgot about auto-inflation of tires on supersonic and space flight. After the tires are fully inflated, the air purified in the tires is supplied to the command. The tires allow not only flying at high altitudes, but even diving to a depth of 8 km. If they are filled with helium from Space.
      2. stalki
        stalki 3 September 2020 23: 30
        13
        Yeah, the build quality is 10 times higher. They have welding, we have rivets for a sledgehammer, what is there ...
        And rivets, by the way, are a very reliable and rigid connection. Where is the quality lower, and where is higher? You have beguiled something, or deliberately omitted the advantages of this technology. Welding, even modern, has a big minus, the metal is heated, and therefore there is a rapid consumption of its strength along the seam, or rather, the material "fatigue" sets in. Even modern aircraft designs have an incredible amount of rivets. So before you make a note of the duty phrase, you need to have some idea of ​​the essence of the issue.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 4 September 2020 01: 51
          -5
          Yeah. Are you saying that the more rivets, the more progressive the aircraft design? Forward to TB-3? They wrote, by the way, not about the build quality, but about the quality of the exterior finish. On the B-1B, all the seams are carefully putty - mainly to reduce the radar visibility, well, it is also useful for aerodynamics, On the Tu-160, the seams between the skin panels are not sealed, which is not buzzing.
          1. stalki
            stalki 4 September 2020 07: 59
            +1
            Whether it is more progressive or not is definitely not for me to decide. I didn't even think about it. And where did you find about the finishing? This is 1
            mention of our pilot, who drew attention to the build quality of the "American",

            This is 2
            Yeah, the build quality is 10 times higher. They have welding, we have rivets for a sledgehammer, what is there ...

            This is 3
            In fairness, our welds there are also enough, like their rivets. More interesting is how the pilot can notice the build quality?

            And you:
            They wrote, by the way, not about the build quality, but about the quality of the exterior finish. On В-1В, all seams are carefully putty


            I actually gave a comment on the comments. I apologize for the tautology.
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 4 September 2020 23: 20
              0
              It was not you or your opponent who wrote it, but in an article comparing the Tu-160 and B-1V in some kind of aviation magazine, I think your opponent had it in mind.
          2. Alf
            Alf 4 September 2020 21: 14
            +3
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            On B-1B, all the seams are carefully putty - mainly to reduce the radar visibility, well, it is also useful for aerodynamics,


            Especially thoroughness of the putty can be seen in the red square.
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 4 September 2020 23: 22
              0
              The same photo shows that the other seams are practically invisible.
            2. Simargl
              Simargl 7 September 2020 19: 06
              0
              Quote: Alf
              Especially thoroughness of the putty can be seen in the red square.
              It's foam, it looks like ...
              1. Alf
                Alf 7 September 2020 21: 30
                +2
                Quote: Simargl
                Quote: Alf
                Especially thoroughness of the putty can be seen in the red square.
                It's foam, it looks like ...

                Construction. laughing As they say, what was at hand ..
          3. zenion
            zenion 9 September 2020 21: 10
            +1
            You reminded Churchill when he took command of the fleet. Came to the ship under construction. Then he left there in anger. What the hell is mahogany and other tweets. The ship is not to be used for a sea tour. It must protect seafarers and be free of flammable materials. I had to rip off everything that could burn from other ships. But you are right. You will notice that not all bolts have the same heads. And if on screws, then it would be possible to tighten everything to the same tightening.
          4. Siberian54
            Siberian54 25 October 2020 11: 14
            0
            Or maybe it's just like a banal rail thermal gap?
        2. bar
          bar 4 September 2020 18: 37
          +5
          And rivets, by the way, are a very reliable and rigid connection.

          You missed the hardness. It is the rivet that allows the structure to deform slightly under load. This has a positive side, the load in the joint is distributed more evenly, with lower stress concentrations. Such designs withstand vibration better and work better for fatigue. This is used not only in aviation, but also in the automotive industry, for example. Riveted frames are more durable than welded frames.
          1. zenion
            zenion 9 September 2020 21: 12
            0
            Welding kills metal.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 11 September 2020 08: 59
      0
      Well done, 500 r. worked.
    3. sgrabik
      sgrabik 20 October 2020 10: 25
      0
      What stupid nonsense, did you just come up with it ???
    4. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 19 November 2020 08: 43
      -1
      Did they come up with or suggested? So I see that there are inconsistencies in Tu160, holes, file processing, the pilot flies in a blown cockpit, bolts and screws are everywhere, everything falls off and twists while flying. Do you judge the build quality by the Zvezda models?
  2. Sergey Valov
    Sergey Valov 3 September 2020 18: 34
    28 th
    As for the design of these aircraft, they are very similar, at least ours tried to imitate the Americans, but in some ways it did not work out, the production base is weaker. As for the dimensions, they are, of course, impressive for the Tu-160, but this is rather a disadvantage than an advantage, it is more profitable for you to have the most performance characteristics with the smallest possible dimensions.
    1. Alf
      Alf 3 September 2020 18: 53
      14
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      ours tried to imitate the Americans,

      What exactly ? Using variable sweep?
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 3 September 2020 18: 55
        28 th
        In unique structural elements. I wanted the best, it turned out as always.
        1. Alf
          Alf 3 September 2020 18: 56
          12
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          In unique structural elements.

          More specifically.
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 3 September 2020 19: 01
            21 th
            Why are you interested in? stop
            1. Alf
              Alf 3 September 2020 19: 04
              19
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              Why are you interested in? stop

              I'm trying to check the level of your technical knowledge. Now I see that it is useless to check what is not there. In the designs of both strategists, there is little in common, both are four-engined and both with variable sweep of the wing. Perhaps that's all. If you know anything else, write.
              1. Sergey Valov
                Sergey Valov 3 September 2020 19: 15
                28 th
                Don't even try to check, it's useless. The car is, and will remain for a long time, in service, so there will be no specifics from me.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 3 September 2020 19: 16
                  25
                  Quote: Sergey Valov
                  no specifics from me will be.

                  I already understood that. To answer with specifics, you need to know something.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 4 September 2020 09: 19
                  +1
                  Quote: Sergey Valov
                  Don't even try to check, it's useless. The car is, and will remain for a long time, in service, so there will be no specifics from me.

                  Are you serious now? Here is your "secret car" in the context:

                  And this is not some kind of prototype, but a serial machine, completely analogous to the non-armament.
                  And the cherry on the cake:
                  As part of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, also known as the Nunn-Lugar program, Contract No. DSWA01-98-C-0117 dated June 12, 1998 "Elimination of strategic aviation complexes (SAK) Tu-95MS, Tu-160 and air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM) in Ukraine" with an initial amount of 1,5 million. dollars was signed with the American company "Raytheon Technical Services Co."... A total of four bids were submitted for the tender announced on April 23, 1998. By the end of the work, the total amount of contracts concluded by the Representative Office of "Raytheon Technical Services Co." with Ukrainian contractors under the SAC Elimination Program (as of January 21, 2002) amounted to $ 7,174 million, and from the customer - the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, about $ 15 million was received.
                  Already on November 16, 1998, Ukraine began to fulfill the contract, cut in the presence of the Americans using their equipment, two Tu-160s (tail numbers 24 and 14).
                  1. sgrabik
                    sgrabik 20 October 2020 10: 31
                    0
                    And what this proves, this is a photo from the 90s, when the corrupt liberals led by Yeltsin and Gaidar sold the whole country to the Americans, just at the behest from Washington and then cut our planes and missiles, now the situation is completely different, so it’s not at all to the place of your this opus !!!
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 20 October 2020 10: 46
                      0
                      Quote: sgrabik
                      And what this proves, this is a photo from the 90s, when the corrupt liberals led by Yeltsin and Gaidar sold the whole country to the Americans, just at the behest from Washington and then cut our planes and missiles, now the situation is completely different, so it's not at all to the place of your this opus !!!

                      This photo proves one thing: no secret unique structural elements there is no Tu-160. The design of the Tu-160, which is in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces, is identical to the design of the Tu-160, cut by the Americans in Ukraine. Because these machines were produced a long time ago, according to the same documentation.
                      Therefore, maxims like
                      Quote: Sergey Valov
                      Don't even try to check, it's useless. The car is, and will remain for a long time, in service, so there will be no specifics from me.

                      it's just puffing out the cheeks. The design of the Tu-160 is known to the enemy in detail. The only thing that could change is the avionics.
                      1. sgrabik
                        sgrabik 20 October 2020 10: 58
                        0
                        The deeply modernized Tu-160M2 from the Soviet version of the Tu-160 has only one airframe, since it is quite successful, significant changes have affected almost everything, even the modernized, more modern, more powerful and economical engines than they were before, but the most important thing is just the same absolutely new modern avionics, if you understand anything about military aviation, you should know that the most important thing in any aviation complex is just avionics.
                    2. Jager
                      Jager 18 November 2020 17: 51
                      0
                      And, of course, Serdyukov, too, ruled as minister of defense from the 90s so that the army was almost turned into commercial ruins?
    2. Timon2155
      Timon2155 3 September 2020 21: 46
      18
      The characteristics of the Tu-160 are far from the same: the load and range are 1,5 times greater than that of the B-1A. Accordingly, the difference in weight is 100t. In general, the design of the Tu-160 is more perfect, the Americans themselves spoke about this when disposing of Ukrainian aircraft. This is no longer a secret - all our yesterday's brothers gave them. Tell the children about the wonders and unique designs of Americans, about copying too. The legs of the Tu-160 still grow from Myasishchev, and not from the B-1A.
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 3 September 2020 23: 23
        12 th
        The range of B 1 V and Tu-160 without refueling is approximately the same - 13 and 000 km, our maximum payload, of course, is more, 12 versus 000. But these figures are about nothing. Load the plane instead of most of the fuel with pig iron, leave fuel only for takeoff and landing, and that's it - the record is secured. No one flies with maximum load; for strategists, the range is determined more by the fleet of refuelers than by the volume of internal tanks, although it is desirable to have more of them. Hence, by the way, and the calm attitude of the Americans to the flight range of strategists. And yet - theoretically, a bomber jacket can lift a huge weight, but is there any weapon of such total weight in life that you can shove into this bomber jacket? How many missile launchers can be suspended on the Tu-45 and what is their total weight? I’m already silent about the fact that the real performance characteristics of aircraft are ALWAYS lower than those stated, and continue to decline as they operate.
        1. bayard
          bayard 4 September 2020 03: 16
          19
          Sergey, you are new to the site, and obviously quite young, so I advise you to rummage through the site's archives for 2010-1015. , there were enough serious publications on this topic ... unlike the current ones. And look even more closely the comments to those publications, because the designer of this very aircraft also participated in them.
          No offense, it will be useful for you.
          From this you will learn that the decision to develop the Tu-160 in the USSR was made almost a year BEFORE than in the United States, according to the presented pre-sketch (concept and general layout scheme) project. You will learn that the range of the B-1B without an additional fuel tank in one of the two weapon bays was about 7500 km (I can + - be a couple of hundred wrong), and with such a tank (10-12 tons of kerosene) and a bomb load of about 11 kg. (!!!), its range barely reached 000 km ... The maximum bomb load of the B-10B (record, with underfilled fuel) is 000 tons.
          And take a closer look at the characteristics of the Tu-160:
          - maximum payload - 52 tons (record) and 45 (standard)
          - maximum range 13950 km, practical (with 12 KR X-101 \ 102) - 12300 km.
          And to make sure that it could not be otherwise, compare the total compare the thrust of their engines:
          - 100 kgf for the Tu-000
          - 55 400 kgf at V-1V.
          The Americans have always published OVERVIEWED characteristics of their aircraft (sometimes greatly overestimated), while the USSR often underestimated ... This was a tradition - for the sake of a surprise to a potential enemy.
          I remember reference books from the Cold War times, where for their F-111 they declared a speed of 2650 km / h (!!! belay ) ... and this with such engines ... and irrational air intakes ... But then the Cold War ended, the F-111 was written off and ... ABOUT MIRACLE (!), its true speed appeared in the reference books - 2000 km / h ...
          Did you feel the difference?
          And the Americans themselves, at least in private conversations (I'm talking about their generals and representatives of the military-industrial complex), have always admitted that the Tu-160 turned out MUCH better than their B-1V.
          And to "lick" the body by grinding the rivets - this is their tradition, and they were always surprised that we pay much less attention to this. request
          In reality, in terms of the totality of characteristics, the B-1V occupies an intermediate position between the Tu-22M3 and the Tu-160. And the gap is BIG.
          Quote: Sergey Valov
          How many missile launchers can be suspended on the Tu-160 and what is their total weight?

          - X-55SM - 12 pcs. on two reels;
          - X-555 - the same;
          - X-15S (removed from service) - 24, 12 pcs. on 2 reels;
          - X-101 \ 102 - 12 pcs.
          - as well as free-fall bombs up to 40 - 45 tons.
          He will not fit into the compartments anymore, but he would have pulled more on the suspensions.
          But they are few and it is not yet clear whether they will be able to resume production in a new guise.

          Quote: Sergey Valov
          The performance characteristics of the aircraft are ALWAYS lower than those stated, and continue to decline as they operate.

          Here you are right, the current state of the B-1B park is simply depressing and they have already tried to write them off several times. Yes, and the "Swans" have enough problems ... but still not so much.
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 4 September 2020 07: 28
            -7
            My main mistake is that I write from memory. To believe the Internet, especially on domestic military equipment in service, is the last thing. If you are really interested, then it is better to take open ones (closed ones are also interesting, but dangerous sad ) departmental publications, but alas, there is no access to them now. As for the Tu-160 specifically, I, of course, am not the designer of this aircraft, but I had to deal with it in the 80s at work.
            1. bayard
              bayard 4 September 2020 08: 21
              +5
              Believe me, the national tradition has remained the same. yes
              For example, take any modern reference book and look at the characteristics of the carrying capacity of the An-124 Ruslan, and you will read that the standard is 100 tons, and the maximum is 120 tons.
              But!
              Back in the distant 80s (middle), when this aircraft had just appeared and was first presented at the Le Bourget air show, its carrying capacity was declared at 150 tons.And to confirm this application, they loaded cast iron ingots into the cargo compartment in the same 150 tons. and flew with them to France ... The Americans presented their C-5A Galaxy there, whose declared carrying capacity was 111 tons.
              So, the Americans walked around the Ruslan for a long time and argued that "it cannot have such a carrying capacity, a maximum of 100 tons."
              Then our representatives invited the international commission, they unloaded the reference cargo, carried out a check weighing, loaded it again, then invited the entire commission to their board and took off. We climbed to an altitude of 11 m (the optimal echelon for the An-000), set a record and went to land.
              The distrustful Americans were put to shame.
              But when they returned home, representatives of the Antonov Design Bureau remembered that with a load of 111 tons, the Galaxy was only ascending to an altitude of about 4 - 5 km (now I cannot remember the exact height). Therefore, we already assembled our own - the Soviet commission, loaded 124 tons of pig iron into the An-171, climbed to an altitude of about 4500 m, flew at this altitude of about 2000 km. and recorded an absolute record for carrying capacity.
              And a few years later Mriya - An-225 took off and set a new world record - 250 tons.
              So, if the record of "Mriya" is still remembered and the true figures are written, then for "Ruslan" they put the figure of 100 tons in the reference books.
              And after all, the An-22 "Antey", having a nominal (reference) carrying capacity of 80 tons, at a certain point in his life set a personal record - 112 tons. And not for the sake of the commission, but during the evacuation of our group and military advisers from Egypt. yes
              But this figure, of course, did not go into reference books. request , although this personal record was set even before the Americans had the Galaxy C-5A.
              Tradition. lol
              There is another example.
              When I was finishing my military university, just before graduation we were given the characteristics of our combat fighters (and bombers too) under the record in personal notebooks. So, the speed for the Su-27, which was just beginning to enter service, was indicated as 2700 km / h. And what is the speed in modern reference books?
              That's right - 2500 km / h.
              So, domestic sources can be trusted even with some margin of "tradition". wink
              Quote: Sergey Valov
              If you are really interested, it is better to take open (closed are also interesting, but dangerous) departmental publications, but alas, there is no access to them now.

              Look through the VO archive for 2010 - 2015. , there were many very interesting publications not lower than the academic level.
              It's all faded now.

              And further .
              Do not forget that Russia has not yet restored its sovereignty, and therefore cannot lie with impunity, as the United States does - our shame, if anything, their media will spread like magpies around the world ... This is a very serious deterrent.
              1. Sergey Valov
                Sergey Valov 4 September 2020 09: 04
                +1
                With regard to setting records, you are absolutely right. Worse when it comes to serial technology. I served on the P-15 radar station, the station was new, recently (2 - 3 years) from the factory. But she did not give the characteristics well. One thing was written down in the instructions, I saw another on the screen, and closer than 30 km, she did not see anything at all, and it was low-altitude. I have not exploited aviation equipment, so I write based on communication with people whom I absolutely believe. But I tested it, on the ground, on stands, and personally saw a lot of discrepancy between the written and the actual. And my cousin flew and also told something.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 4 September 2020 09: 58
                  +7
                  Quote: Sergey Valov
                  I served on the P-15 radar

                  Well-ooh, RTV, this is a specific branch of the military ... but nevertheless my own. And I’ll tell you simply, you had a wicked one, since I could not set up and calibrate such a reliable and fairly simple technique. The P-15 is an old radar, but reliable and proven. But any technique requires maintenance, tuning, calibration, adjustment ... You probably had a very bad time with this ... You had to put your hands and head and it would give out all the characteristics. P-15 and P-18 are long-lived stations, and they are still being successfully operated.
                  1. Sergey Valov
                    Sergey Valov 4 September 2020 15: 03
                    +1
                    We did not have a deputy tech at all. By the way, she really was very reliable, another thing "saw" less stated. And I served not in the RTV, but in the ZRV, in the C-125 division.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 5 September 2020 01: 22
                      +2
                      Well, did your P-15 have a boss? If an officer with a specialized education, even if he did not study for this technique, would figure out the technical documentation and do everything himself.
                      In our years, P-15s worked like bees in the border zone, thanks to one of these workers, we at one time timely discovered two helicopters with saboteurs and thwarted a terrorist attack and a man-made disaster.
                      hi bully
                      1. Sergey Valov
                        Sergey Valov 5 September 2020 10: 11
                        0
                        The station manager was a sergeant with a technical school. The commander of the reconnaissance and communications platoon, which included the P-15, P-12 and divisional signalmen, was a start-up lieutenant. If something broke occasionally, officers came from the guidance station and corrected it. The Defense Ministry, however, is constantly on alert.
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 5 September 2020 11: 10
                        0
                        This is the technical service level of your unit / connection. The deputy chief of our brigade - a whole colonel did not hesitate to personally travel to all points, helped in repairs, adjustments, calibration. With your own hands.
                        And all the equipment worked.
                        So in your case, the technician was definitely not to blame.
                        In what years was it?
                      3. Sergey Valov
                        Sergey Valov 5 September 2020 14: 34
                        0
                        1975 - 1977 We had a nuance, the basis of the regiment was the S-25 complex, our division stood separately, a few kilometers from the regiment, it appeared much later than the formation of the regiment itself. The zampotech regiment was, lieutenant colonel, in our division in my two years he appeared 2 - 3 times, but mostly for show. The division lived its own life (by the way, it managed to fight in Egypt).
                      4. bayard
                        bayard 5 September 2020 14: 39
                        0
                        Quote: Sergey Valov
                        S-25,

                        Is it in the suburbs or what?
                        At the time of your service it was as ancient as a mammoth turd ... The first Soviet air defense system was the brainchild of Sergo Beria and Kutenkov. A zampotech from such a rarity really could do little to help in setting up a low-altitude station.
                      5. Sergey Valov
                        Sergey Valov 5 September 2020 16: 24
                        0
                        And the S-25 stood nowhere else, under it was created, as the 1st cavalry joked. As for antiquity, yes, the very first complex, but it was constantly modernized, and in the 70s it could still do something. His days passed when it became clear that the armada of bombers would not go to Moscow, and cruise missiles were not his specialty.
                      6. bayard
                        bayard 5 September 2020 19: 13
                        +1
                        Quote: Sergey Valov
                        And the S-25 stood nowhere else

                        In China, there was another complex, like near Beijing - it was set up from the bounty of Soviet-Chinese friendship. The Chinese were very proud of him.
                        And they dismantled it somewhere in 1990 - 1992. , cadets of anti-aircraft missile schools were driven there for training - to help dismantle. One of them left a bolt from the C-25 for himself bully ... maybe he keeps it now.
                        And at parades on Red Square, these rockets were rolled until the mid-80s.
                        They are fellow ... big.
                      7. Sergey Valov
                        Sergey Valov 5 September 2020 19: 29
                        +1
                        Thank you, I didn’t.
          2. Black_hawk
            Black_hawk 14 September 2020 23: 44
            0
            What kind of helicopters, what kind of disaster?
          3. bayard
            bayard 15 September 2020 00: 32
            +1
            In 1990, the month of February in Azerbaijan at the base of the western face of the Imishli ledge. Discovered the rlr of Yukhari Imishlinsky rlb.
            Two Mi-8 helicopters with a group of saboteurs tried to blow up the Baku-Yerevan oil and gas pipeline, most likely flew from Armenia, retreated to an NGO in Stepanokert, when they saw two Mi-24s sent by us to intercept ... In case of refusal to obey, the attackers sat down in the square in Stepanakert and fled.
            Explosives were found at the scene of the crime, with which they had time to tie the pipelines, but they did not have time to connect the detonators, and they were lying nearby in a backpack ... to intercept.
            It was during my duty at the command post of our air defense division, shortly after the suppression of the January mutiny in Baku. This incident was not covered, moreover, it was immediately classified by the KGB and was advised to forget about everything ... A muddy story ... But they said that if our reaction had been delayed for a minute, the detonators would have had time to connect.
            The Yuhari then switched on according to the schedule and immediately gave this goal. It was just P-15.
            In fact, I then announced the readiness.
  • Sergey Valov
    Sergey Valov 4 September 2020 07: 43
    -2
    “While the USSR often underestimated” - my father, a lieutenant colonel, an armament engineer, talked a lot about the glaring discrepancy between the declared (overestimated) and real characteristics of domestic aviation weapons systems. And I personally had the good fortune to be convinced of something in this matter.
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 4 September 2020 09: 28
    +2
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    But is there any weapon of such total weight in life that you can shove into this bomber

    This is such a secret feature.
    When the NATO invasion begins, they can be loaded to capacity with uranium crowbars and sent to bomb the enemy's armored hordes. When dropped from 10 km, such a crowbar accelerates to hypersonic speeds (and hypersound today is everything).
    Just "Hephaestus" is being finished so that not a single crowbar goes into the ground past the target.
    Uberwaffe will turn out to be cooler than IL-2 with PTABs on the Kursk Bulge laughing
    1. Alf
      Alf 4 September 2020 21: 25
      +1
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      When the NATO invasion begins, they can be loaded to capacity with uranium crowbars and sent to bomb the enemy's armored hordes. When falling from 10 km, such a crowbar accelerates to hypersonic speeds (

      Everything new is well forgotten old.



  • Jager
    Jager 18 November 2020 17: 53
    0
    A typical humanist in the comments ...
  • Siberian54
    Siberian54 25 October 2020 11: 23
    0
    You are right Myasishchev's supersonic bomber flew back in the days of Brezhnev, I don’t know what it didn’t fit the military, but they stabbed him to death under the first strategic arms treaty, although there’s not a word about him in the text
  • zenion
    zenion 9 September 2020 21: 15
    0
    The Americans stole the structure from the Germans. And the Germans were given the design of the plate, by pull. And the USSR simultaneously stole from the Germans, Americans and aliens. It turned out that I had to finish it with files, and put the motors from mopeds and it flies.
    1. Jager
      Jager 18 November 2020 18: 03
      0
      Pour me too))
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 11 September 2020 09: 00
    0
    And the Tu-160's performance characteristics are higher.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 19 November 2020 10: 30
    0
    Better keep quiet, you will pass for a smart one. The dimensions for a Tu160 bomber are a gain in load. And I made fun of the production base, that's what, but in the USSR it was no worse than the American one. The Tu160 is more perfect than the B-1B and is certainly not a copy or even an attempt to copy. Although for people like you, the AK is a copy of the SHG, and the Su27 is a copy of the F15.
  • Alf
    Alf 3 September 2020 18: 51
    +9
    The first serial was delivered to the Air Force in the fall of 1984. Production continued until 1988; built exactly 100 aircraft

    For 4 years 100 aircraft, 2 aircraft per month. Excellent pace.
  • Avior
    Avior 3 September 2020 21: 06
    +1
    What can I say. It is not clear why the Americans considered an air defense breakthrough important, but not in the Union, it turns out.
    And the new US bombers also clearly take into account this possibility - they make them invisible.
    Once there was an article about the possibility of a Tu160 strike at the Americans through the North Pole. This possibility, I remember, was not highly appreciated due to the elements of air defense in Canada.
    Probably every aircraft needs to be assessed based on the concept of application.
    1. D16
      D16 3 September 2020 22: 27
      +3
      Amers had half of Europe at their disposal. You can also launch cruise missiles from the ground. But they will not allow the demolition of vital centers in the interior of the country. Therefore, it was necessary to break through the air defense. Amers have a lot of things concentrated along the coast and are vulnerable to long-range cruise missiles flying along a variable profile. Therefore, the Tu-160, like the Tu-95MS, does not need to hack the air defense. It was enough for us to inflict unacceptable damage. Nobody was going to land and seize the USA.
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 4 September 2020 02: 50
        +2
        ICBMs / SLBMs will calmly hit any target at any range and air defenses on its drum. Strategic aviation in a nuclear war is purely auxiliary weapons, to finish off what was left after an ICBM strike, nowadays strategists are more for local wars.
        1. Sahalinets
          Sahalinets 4 September 2020 08: 07
          +1
          But the strategic bomber is much more flexible. If an ICBM is a doomsday weapon and is inapplicable in all other cases, then a bomber can safely bomb and launch quite ordinary missiles in local and not only wars.
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 4 September 2020 23: 33
            0
            Local war is a too generalized concept - if we admit a war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, then even the B-52 and Tu-95ms are redundant, just converted into C-130 or Il-76 bombers. And if there is a serious turmoil between serious powers, just without nuclear bombs - the strategists are unlikely to survive the breakthrough of the air defense, it is more convenient for them to launch the missile defense and planning bombs from afar - again, supersonic is kind of redundant.
            1. LastPS
              LastPS 5 September 2020 08: 38
              0
              Progress killed supersonic bombers, so the 95s and 52s are still relevant today. On the other hand, the mobility of 160 and b1 is much higher than that of "dinosaurs", this gives a certain tactical plus. Now all strategists are just a platform for the CD.
      2. Avior
        Avior 4 September 2020 07: 49
        0
        The Americans have a significant part of the arsenal of free-fall bombs.
        In contrast to cruise missiles, they allowed and allow strikes against mobile targets.
        Actually, the stationary ones are easiest to use with ballistic missiles, not bombers.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 September 2020 09: 23
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      What can I say. It is not clear why the Americans considered an air defense breakthrough important, but not in the Union, it turns out.

      The concepts are different. Ours assigned the task of breaking through the air defense to the ALCM, and not to their carrier. The carrier only needed to reach the launch line, and not break through directly to the target.
    3. Simargl
      Simargl 7 September 2020 19: 13
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      why did the Americans consider an air defense breakthrough important, but not in the Union, it turns out.
      Rather, NATO was counting on a weak air defense that could and should be broken through, while ours counted on a strong air defense that could hardly be penetrated.
  • RealPilot
    RealPilot 3 September 2020 21: 25
    0
    They have a different plaque. Our Tu-160s are less worn out in this sense. At the same time, their production is being revived, and there is a reason! good So a great car for many years and successful flights!
    It is a pity that in the independent Ukraine they, newcomers, were so rudely sawed ...

    But the "transonic bomb carriers" B1-B are already at the limit of flight hours, many have undergone cannibalization to maintain the airworthiness of the rest of the fleet. They want to write them off, but they cannot yet, there is nothing to replace them with.
    The same story with the B-52, they are still suitable, but an alcoholic cocktail with their name will definitely outlive them in operation, remaining will take on their military glory ... wink
    Well, great, the drink is delicious, but the bombers themselves would be time to write off tongue
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 4 September 2020 03: 05
      +1
      "And there is a reason!" By the way, why? What factors does possession of the Tu-160 give our defense? Besides the prestige of having the world's largest ultrasonic bomber? What can he do that he cannot, for example Tu-95ms? Or "Sarmat"? It is clear that armament is never superfluous, but in conditions when our Armed Forces are saving on many types of weapons, is the revival of production of an obsolete design justified?
      1. LastPS
        LastPS 5 September 2020 08: 43
        0
        Not much choice. The 160th is still much more modern than the 95th, and the PAK YES is still very far away, so we have what we have. I didn't understand what Sarmat had to do with it.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 9 September 2020 03: 11
          0
          So the purpose of both the Sarmat and the Tu-160 is the same - to inflict a nuclear strike on the foe. No, of course, the Tu-160 can use both conventional missiles and bombs, but it makes no sense to build a car for a non-nuclear strike at the cost of a city. Given the number and the rate of production, one machine and two years, it is completely meaningless. Do you think the Yankees are such fools that they actually abandoned strategic aviation? All these B-52, B-1, B-2, B-21 are intended for local wars, and not for a major nuclear war. But the Yankees are rich, they have nowhere to go for money, but we have trouble with SSBNs and nuclear submarines. The Tu-160 is primarily a means of transporting nuclear missiles Kh-55 and Kh-102, and the fact that it can also bomb barmaley in the desert does not play a fundamental role.
          1. LastPS
            LastPS 21 September 2020 22: 39
            0
            Yes, strategic aviation has long lost its position as a carrier of nuclear weapons, but nevertheless it has unique tactical capabilities (huge flight range, the ability to carry heavy weapons inaccessible to other types of aircraft, bomb load, high response speed relative to other types of equipment with a similar strike potential). For Russia, the presence of such an instrument is even more relevant than for the United States. We do not have AUGs with a comparable potential with the American ones, and long-range bomber can to some extent replace them, and as a missile carrier with conventional "Zircon" their existence is justified.
  • AML
    AML 4 September 2020 01: 28
    +1
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    Hence, by the way, and the calm attitude of the Americans to the flight range of strategists.


    16 Megatons of heat are too little for Americans, so they don't pay attention.
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 4 September 2020 02: 34
    +2
    Bullshit, not an article. The Americans abandoned the concept of a high-altitude supersonic bomber along with the B-58 and B-70 back in the early 60s, there is no need to attribute to the B-1A any nonsense such as a high-altitude high-speed air defense breakthrough - the plane could well make a low-altitude flight with a bend in the terrain (unlike, for example, created in the same years "Backfire"). He could, of course, at high altitude, but then the main protection of the aircraft would not be speed, but electronic defensive weapons, for which a separate crew member was assigned. The main weapon was to serve as a SRAM rocket, with a flight range of 120 km when launched from a low altitude and 360 km - from a high one. The gravedigger of the B-1A was not the MiG-25P, which, due to the short range on the sound and the inability to detect low-altitude targets, could not intercept the American bomber before the launch line, but the ACLM rocket on the B-52, which solved the same problems much cheaper and more efficiently ... Nothing is said about the STELS elements on the V-1V, but this is its main difference from the V-1A. The fact that the Yankees refused to use ACLM cruise missiles on the B-1 looks quite reasonable, for hitting targets on the territory of the USSR / Russia B-52 with ACLM is quite enough. The use of the Tu-160 as a carrier of cruise missiles raises some questions - what is its advantage over the ancient and cheap Tu-95, if its whole task is to launch missiles 3000 km away from enemy shores, especially since supersonic has long ceased to be protection from enemy fighters, and the range on supersonic falls just catastrophically .. To say that the B-1B is unsuccessful is probably only in terms of the cost of creation and operation (especially compared to the B-52), but a strategist, by definition, cannot be cheap ... The Americans used the "unsuccessful plane" very actively in all recent local conflicts, so the rumors about its failure are somewhat exaggerated. The B-1B and B-52 were used as tactical bombers, since after the victory in the Cold War, the Yankees dispersed their Strategic Air Command as unnecessary, and the strategists handed over to tactical aviation. Now it is planned to equip the plane with hypersonic missiles - and here the Lancer turned out to be in demand, so it’s ridiculous to pull it by the ears because of a change in concepts. There is a place for a good design in any concept, there would be money for operation and modernization.
  • Old Skeptic
    Old Skeptic 4 September 2020 15: 15
    +3
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    Don't even try to check, it's useless.

    Hollowbrook.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 11 September 2020 09: 08
    0
    In order to understand the capabilities of Soviet air defense, you do not need to study the MiG-25. It is quite obvious that if you can build a 2M bomber, then the enemy will be able to build a 2M fighter, and, most likely, even faster, since the load of the fighter is less. The only question is about time, but in the 60s this time was measured in a few years. That is, the grandmother could not have been shaggy initially. Tu-160 in this regard is much more logical, because it does not need to go to the very goal.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 11 September 2020 12: 54
      0
      Absolutely the same thing. The B-1V was created as a carrier of aeroballistic and cruise missiles, and if it is not currently used for this purpose, it is only because the Yankees of these carriers do not bite even without the B-1. Now the B-1B is used as a tactical bomber in local wars, more precisely, it was used, and now it is more idle. But in the event of an exacerbation, nothing prevents the aircraft from being repaired and missiles suspended under it, and such plans have already been announced.
  • Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 16 September 2020 20: 40
    0
    And the Ukrainians destroyed 19 planes. why did not our leadership find the opportunity to give them gas for them? Anyway, they stole it .... And why did the planes not transfer before the collapse of the Union?