Military Review

Tu-160: superweapon or outdated aircraft?

316
The reason for writing this article was the spread in the information space of the point of view that the Tu-160 was conceptually hopelessly outdated in 1990-2000. Against the background of this opinion, the decision to build a large series of these missile carriers seems really insane: 900 billion rubles for a series of 50 "old" vehicles.


Tu-160: superweapon or outdated aircraft?

Let's cite a number of arguments convincing the opposite: the Tu-160 is indeed capable of raising Russia's defense capability to a qualitatively new level.

The main danger for Russia today


Most articles on military equipment focus on the technical characteristics of weapons. And only a few experts dig deeper and address the issues of threat priority. And also how specific weapon fits into the general concept of the armed forces. We will try.

The fact is that the issues of submarine noise and the degree of aircraft stealth are, of course, important. But at the same time, there are issues that are on a higher level and predetermine the balance of power much more strongly.

Therefore, before moving on to the usual discussions of performance characteristics, we will discuss the key nuances.

The CIA has been developing the concept of proxy war since Soviet times. In particular, Afghanistan was seen as the "soft belly of the Soviet Union."

By fueling conflicts and creating hotbeds of tension along the borders of the USSR, the United States planned to ensure that the country's military potential was dispersed over considerable distances.

During Soviet times, this strategy worked, but not much.

But with the collapse and decline of the economic and military potential of the Russian Federation, this problem has acquired critical importance.

In order not to be unfounded and to assess the scale of the problem, I propose to discuss the Tu-160.

Comparative analysis of potential opportunities


Since everything in the world is relative, in order to understand the degree of effectiveness of a weapon, it is necessary to compare it with specific alternatives.

Out of fleet an alternative (for the price) Tu-160 is the frigate of project 22350.

Let's imagine that we are building a series of 9 ships - it seems to be a lot.

The problem arises when, in order to complete the task, it is required to take into account the geographical features of Russia (its extreme dimensions) and the consequent need to divide ships between 5 fleets - that is how many of them are in the Russian Navy.

During the Soviet era, when the military budget was dozens of times larger than the budget of regional states (states whose influence was significant only in their region), the problem was not so acute, since (even "dividing by 5") the fleet had an advantage in each region over the fleets of "little neighbors".

Now the military budget of the Russian Federation is only 3 times more than the military budget of Turkey.

Extrapolating such ratios, we come to the disappointing conclusion that with three times the total cost of the fleet, we will hardly be able to achieve parity with a regional country in a single region and run the risk of being “equally weak everywhere”.

All of the above is true for all types of troops: infantry, Tanks, artillery, air defense, assault and fighter aviation... All this functions only in a specific region, and in case of a change in the situation, it needs to be transferred and transported.

In this situation, it is critical for Russia to have a weapon system that could project its strike capabilities at the same time on all theaters of military operations.

Such a weapon is the Tu-160.

Let's continue with the example of a frigate.

The frigate's strike capabilities are 16 cruise missiles (and 8 PCs).

Dividing 9 ships by 3 (we will not divide by 5, although this is a convention), we get that in a particular region there are 3 ships ready to strike within XNUMX hours.

And what happens in the case of the Tu-160 - they can all fly in a group and deliver a focused strike in one place.

Thus, the ratio of impact capabilities is 46 - 108.

In reality, there is a rotation that is 1/3. That is, only a part of combat units are in combat readiness at a time in peacetime. But since this is equally true for both ships and aviation, this does not change the proportions, as does the principle of counting.

But the difference does not end there.

What does a ship do when it fires all its missiles? Strictly speaking, it can continue to be in the battle formations of its formation, performing other functions, but its strike potential becomes zero. Tu-160 returns to base, where carts with new missiles are already waiting for it. The service personnel hit the drums with a new batch of missiles, and the blow is repeated. Again and again.

Due to the combination of points 1 and 2, the advantage of the "strategist" in practical strike potential becomes simply indecent.

The following three aspects are also added to the listed differences.

Security. Having struck a blow, the "strategist" returns to his base. The range of use of the weapon (thousands of kilometers) allows it not to enter dangerous areas to strike. But in case of danger, he can turn around and afterburner, reaching a speed of 2M, leave the dangerous area. At the same time, the basing site, although it is a stationary airfield, is located at a distance from the theater of operations, in the depths of the territory, under the cover of all air defense echelons. The ship, in the event of an unfavorable development of events, will not be able to break the distance and leave.

The direction of the strike. The effectiveness of air defense increases significantly if the direction of the strike is known. As you can imagine, a ship group can only attack from the sea. If reconnaissance manages to understand where the most vulnerable places are (taking into account the terrain, the location of air defense systems and the assessment of the results of previous strikes), then it is most expedient to deliver the next strike taking into account these new inputs. The Tu-160 has a significantly greater degree of freedom in choosing a position, which will have a positive effect on the effectiveness of the use of cruise missiles.

Response time. The ships sail slowly, and it may take a considerable time for them to reach the launch area. For example, in the case of a French aircraft carrier in Syria, a week passed between receiving the order and the start of the strikes. This demonstrates the sheer scale of responsiveness. How long will it take for a strike group of ships from the Northern Fleet to sail to the shores of Syria? (The problems in the Middle East will be relevant for a long time). All the same week. In the case of the Tu-160, less than 12 hours will pass from the moment the order is received until its execution. And by the time the KUG got into position, the Tu-160 would have been striking for a week.

Nuclear triad


In addition, this aircraft may be a component of the nuclear triad.

At the same time, the Tu-160 is the only one of the triad that is capable of war without the use of nuclear weapons.

He can react flexibly to changes in the world situation. "With a slight movement of the hand" instead of some rockets they bring up exactly the same ones, but "with mother-of-pearl buttons". Outwardly, it will not be possible to find out from the satellite: how many missile carriers, standing on combat duty, are equipped with specials. bch.

The same is true of attempts to assess overall combat readiness: all planes that are parked look the same from above.

Force projection tool


Power projection is a geopolitical term that refers to the ability of a state to exert influence over regions remote from its territories.

The use of weapons is just one of the tools, along with the concept of soft power and economic leverage.

Of course, Russia will not be able to compete with the United States on this issue. For the projection of force, the Americans use a network of military bases around the world, aircraft carrier strike groups, as well as systemic interaction with their "allies" (integration of combat systems, common military standards, joint exercises).

But nevertheless, the Tu-160 remains one of the few instruments for projecting military power into regions remote from Russia.

Prospects


The prospects for increasing the combat capabilities of the Tu-160 directly depend on the development capabilities of missile weapons, and they are enormous. The US is already equipping its B1 PCs with missiles. Therefore, the question of the potential for modernizing the Tu-160 armament complex for the next 30 years is not raised.

conclusions


In our opinion, the arguments given above are quite enough to draw a conclusion that the Tu-160 is not just outdated, but surprisingly relevant, especially given the size of our country. Thus, the decision to resume the construction of these aircraft was made reasonably.

In conclusion, we note that the list of advantages of operating the Tu-160 is not limited to those aspects that have been listed. I had to choose only the main points, which can be explained without going into more complex concepts, such as the effective use of the potential of the existing airfield network, the separation of airfields for strikes in a particular region, the prospects for engine unification with Tu-22M3 aircraft, etc.

Typical arguments against the Tu-160 (high cost, maintenance complexity, etc.), most of which, from our point of view, are delusions, will be considered in the next article.
Author:
316 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Livonetc
    Livonetc 13 November 2020 10: 05
    24
    "Tu-160: Superweapon or Outdated Aircraft?"

    It is a reliable, working platform, weapons carrier.
    1. Hypertension
      Hypertension 13 November 2020 12: 33
      +7
      Quote: Livonetc
      "Tu-160: Superweapon or Outdated Aircraft?"

      It is a reliable, working platform, weapons carrier.

      More of them ...
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        14 November 2020 22: 58
        +2
        I fully support))
    2. Alexey Lantukh
      Alexey Lantukh 13 November 2020 23: 20
      +2
      I am not competent to judge the actual usefulness of TU 160. However, if TU is not included in the air defense zone, then why not use a cheaper aircraft as a platform. For example IL 76. Instead of one TR in the air there will be 3-5 ILs on which there will be more missiles.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 23: 31
        +2
        Quote: Alexey Lantukh
        I am not competent to judge the actual usefulness of TU 160. However, if TU is not included in the air defense zone, then why not use a cheaper aircraft as a platform. For example IL 76. Instead of one TR in the air there will be 3-5 ILs on which there will be more missiles.
        and if you use carts (carts), then there will be 2000 of them ... the answer is constant and obvious, il76 (800 km / h) and il96 are very expensive 900 km / h, reliably catch up and are destroyed by enemy fighters 1500-1800 km / h, and Tu160 from fighters it takes 2200 km / h .... this is obvious and this is the main difference between the Tu160
        1. Rudkovsky
          Rudkovsky 14 November 2020 12: 19
          -6
          How do you get away from a fighter at any speed if you are flying towards it while attacking? Lost logic somewhere or never possessed? laughing
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 14 November 2020 12: 36
            -6
            Quote: Rudkovsky
            How do you get away from a fighter at any speed if you are flying towards it while attacking? Lost logic somewhere or never possessed? laughing

            Tu 160 is a bomber, a missile carrier, he does not engage in attacks on fighters, this is not his task ... but just the fighters attack him, and he dodges them ... suppose the probable enemy sent 11 aircraft carriers to our shores, the 160 came up to the warrant AB at 9000 km, and fired rakkty, to destroy AB, with a probability of 100 percent, however, the enemy sent his fighters and tried to catch up with that 160 in order to avoid repeated attacks .. however, that 160 left them in the zone of his air defense and his fighters, loaded with new missiles and re-attacked the remnants of aircraft carriers and sank all of them, finally, hurray, hurray, hurray victory!
            1. Bez 310
              Bez 310 14 November 2020 12: 42
              -4
              Quote: vladimir1155
              Tu 160 approached the AB order

              Stop raving already! Well that's why
              did he go there?
              How many times do you have to say that according to AVM
              only Tu-22m3 can operate, and Tu-95 and
              Tu-160 operate only on stationary
              goals.
            2. Rudkovsky
              Rudkovsky 14 November 2020 12: 44
              -4
              Remind me, what kind of anti-ship missiles the Tu-160 carries?
            3. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 18: 56
              +1
              "Tu 160 approached the AB order for 9000 km, and released rakkts, to destroy AB, with a probability 100 percent, .... hurray, hurray, hurray victory! "- the" expert ", however, can be seen at once
          2. bk0010
            bk0010 14 November 2020 13: 19
            +3
            Quote: Rudkovsky
            if attacking you fly towards him
            Not necessary at all. Tu-160 goes to the launch point along an arbitrary trajectory and it does not have to go to fighters. It is the enemy, having noticed the Tu-160, should lift his fighters from the airfield (and they are not at every step) and bring them to the Tu-160, and the Tu-160 should not allow the fighters to reach the missile launch range at it.
            1. Rudkovsky
              Rudkovsky 14 November 2020 13: 25
              -8
              Both sides can play this game. The owner of the Tu-160 can use tricks to strike, but the owners of fighters have not done the same with a finger and have a huge range of means for observing and intercepting missile carriers, and their speed does not matter at all.

              The Americans abandoned the concept of a high-speed breakthrough back in the 70s. The Soviet Union was catching up and overtaking for a very long time in this area, so our high-speed breakthrough aircraft appeared 20 years later and it did not become more relevant because of this.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 14: 01
                -2
                Quote: Rudkovsky
                The Soviet Union was catching up and overtaking for a very long time in this area, so our high-speed breakthrough aircraft appeared 20 years later and it did not become more relevant because of this.

                )))
                Fans of the Tu-160, as a rule, are not interested in why and why the B-1A turned into B-1B. And it would be worth it.
                1. Rudkovsky
                  Rudkovsky 14 November 2020 15: 27
                  -8
                  Fans of weapons just love all the best. The questions why the Tsar Cannon did not fire a single shot, the mouse tank did not join the battle, and the battleship Yamato died ingloriously thrown over by penny air bombs - they are not very pleasant. And even if they have a little sanity and admit that the combat value of these samples did not correspond to their cost, then applying this idea to the modern realities of their native country is already beyond the bounds of possibilities.
                  Therefore, they have no doubt that all sorts of sharks, cruisers 1144 and other Tu-160s are certainly an invincible wunderwaffe and one should not spare money for them.
                2. bk0010
                  bk0010 14 November 2020 18: 01
                  +5
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Fans of the Tu-160, as a rule, are not interested in why and why the B-1A turned into B-1B. And it would be worth it.
                  Because they could not bring to mind. Then the concept of high-speed high-altitude breakthrough was declared obsolete and switched to the concept of subsonic low-altitude breakthrough. Although one thing did not interfere with the other: somewhere at speed you miss the fighters, flying around the air defense zones, and somewhere you sneak on an ultra-small one under the radars. And the result is a transonic bomber. Was it worth building a garden with such engines, a variable sweep wing, adjustable air intakes, a small bomb bay because of 1.2M (new missiles did not fit there, only recently Lancer received normal missiles), and most importantly - at the cost of an hour of flight? And they had no normal electronic warfare for a long time, because of this, they agreed to make the B-1B non-nuclear. I do not know how now, whether they finished it or spat.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 18: 19
                    -3
                    Quote: bk0010
                    Because they could not bring to mind

                    Really? Are you still wanting to fly faster than the C-125?
                    Quote: bk0010
                    somewhere at speed you miss the fighters, flying around the air defense zones, and somewhere you sneak on a midget under the radars

                    Yes Yes. Here Tu-22M or Tu-160 can do that.
                    Quote: bk0010
                    Was it worth it because of 1.2M to fence

                    The Americans and Lancer fenced, and the B-52 was taught to fly in ultra-small ones. It turned out that and that.
                    Quote: bk0010
                    small bomb bay

                    There are almost plastic partitions there so that this compartment is formally considered "small". And so 3x8 CD. They also cut the wing pylons so that people would not envy.
                    Quote: bk0010
                    they because of this B-1B agreed to make non-nuclear

                    They didn’t "agree", but, on the contrary, squeezed out the withdrawal of their strongest bomber from the START restrictions.
                    1. bk0010
                      bk0010 14 November 2020 18: 25
                      +2
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Really? Are you still wanting to fly faster than the C-125?
                      S-125 and you can fly around. We must get away from the fighters.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Yes Yes. Here Tu-22M or Tu-160 can do that.
                      They can't, so what? We do the new Tu-160, we need to be able to.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      There are almost plastic partitions there so that this compartment is formally considered "small". And so 3x8 CD. They also cut the wing pylons so that people would not envy.
                      How many years has Lancer had a CD? Because of the plastic partitions, yes.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      They did not "agree", but on the contrary, squeezed out the withdrawal of their strongest bomber from the START restrictions
                      We have the same story with the Tu-22M_ - the boom was removed - no longer strategic.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 18: 39
                        -3
                        Quote: bk0010
                        We must get away from the fighters.

                        The easiest way to get away from Soviet radar-controlled fighters is not to show up on the radar.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        you need to be able to.

                        Well, it must be so.
                        Quote: bk0010
                        How many years has Lancer had a CD?

                        Formally 6 years old. The plane was of the 85th, and the START was signed in the 91st. But the Americans began to move towards START immediately upon the arrival of Reagan, so the decision not to hang AMG-86 on the Lancer was originally. The newest and strongest American bomber suddenly became "tactical". Su-24, which always finished its porridge.
                3. Alexander Vorontsov
                  16 November 2020 01: 53
                  +2
                  We are quite interested. The Americans made an airplane whose main weapon was a bomb. To hit the target, the plane had to independently fly to it and drop bombs. In view of this, they spent a lot of resources building aircraft in different configurations with different engines with one single goal - to understand how best to break through to the goal. And in the end, we settled on the subsonic version. And having brought him to his mind, they realized that bombs no longer solve and it would be necessary to make rockets for him.

                  With the Tu-160, everything was more boring. It was originally conceived as a ROCKET PLANER and made a ROCKET PLANER. Given that the missile launch distance (currently 5 km) implies that there is no need for the carrier to break through the defenses with his chest ... at least at low altitude, at least at high, even through hyper-space, all these dances with tambourines were initially devoid of practical meaning ... At the same time, I will say right away that I am not a jingoistic patriot, but just black should be called black. And white is white. And not because Zadornov bequeathed it.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 16 November 2020 02: 03
                    -1
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    With the Tu-160, everything was more boring. It was originally conceived as a ROCKET PLANER and made a ROCKET PLANER.

                    And, well, that is another expert from the world without AGM-86.
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    Given that the missile launch distance (currently 5 km) implies that there is no need for the carrier to break through the defenses with his chest

                    So you will come to the idea, popular in the thread, that missiles can be suspended on the Il-76. For some reason, they haven't come yet.
                    1. Alexander Vorontsov
                      16 November 2020 02: 14
                      +1
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      And, well, that is another expert from the world without AGM-86.

                      Hear me. I'm telling you that the whole development of B1 is a complete leapfrog. With wings, engines, flight profiles, and weapons. We took one thing, did not finish it, closed the project, opened the project, reworked, thought, solved, etc.

                      It was planned to equip the Rockwell B-86B Lancer supersonic strategic bombers with AGM-1B missiles, which began to be supplied to the US Air Force SAC combat units in July 1985. All 100 bombers produced were equipped with suspension units and could carry up to 20 AGM-86Bs (12 on the external and 8 on the internal suspension). However, the test program, which began in November 1987, for various reasons, was never completed.

                      And such "planned" there for each component of the aircraft.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 16 November 2020 03: 36
                        -1
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        Hear me. I'm telling you that the whole development of B1 is a complete leapfrog.

                        When you do something obviously unnecessary, it is more a rule than an exception.
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        for various reasons, it was never completed.

                        The rockets have appeared, great. Now there is one desperate intellectual effort left before knowing these "various causes"
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I
              2. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 14 November 2020 20: 19
                0
                Quote: Rudkovsky
                the speed does not matter in this case.

                why? it is probably easier for fighters to overtake a slow-moving target than a high-speed
                1. Rudkovsky
                  Rudkovsky 14 November 2020 20: 39
                  -7
                  Why should they overtake? Missiles will overtake, but in general they do not care about the speed of the target. The fighters' task is to deliver these missiles to the point of interception.

                  In the 60s, the Americans played enough with the theme of fast airplanes and realized that the rocket is faster anyway. It is strange that in 2020 there are those who doubt this simple fact.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 14 November 2020 20: 57
                    +1
                    the fact is that the fighter needs to reach the point from where the rocket will lock the target, and from where it can hit the plane, and this is not so easy if the speed of the fighter is less than the speed of the target .. for example, the 160 crosses the ocean .... fighters take off from okinawa and from california, from Alaska, .... there are long distances, the fighter will have to go afterburner and its shoulder will go down, and the slow-moving Tu 95 fighter will slowly overtake, launch a rocket and return to base
                    1. Rudkovsky
                      Rudkovsky 15 November 2020 13: 28
                      -3
                      What makes you think that the speed of the Tu-160 is higher than that of fighters? Cruising speed there generally does not differ much from the old Tu-95, over the ocean they will fly almost level.

                      The Tu-160, like a high-speed breakthrough aircraft, has the ability to accelerate over enemy territory, only you won't fly like that for a long time, and in the second, the rocket is still faster. And fighters are at least not slower, Mach 2 is not a question even for old people from the 4th generation.
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 15 November 2020 17: 13
                        -1
                        Quote: Rudkovsky
                        The Tu-160, like a high-speed breakthrough plane, has the ability to accelerate over enemy territory

                        understandable, probably this is the point ..., rather not over the enemy's territory, but near it, to release missiles and escape from the enemy fighters that came out to meet, .. it turns out that all the Tu95 and the old Tu 160 will have to be replaced with the modernized Tu 160 .. .... And here's another question, what goes to replace the Tu22?
            2. Alexander Vorontsov
              16 November 2020 02: 31
              0
              Yes, everything will be even easier here. The range of Tu-160 missiles is 5 km.
              The combat radius of the F35 is 1000 km, and the launch distance of air defense missiles is measured in tens and hundreds of kilometers.
              Although before that it is not clear who and how will detect the Tu 160 at such a distance. I am also silent about missile guidance.
              With such a ratio, it is more difficult to meet with fighters than not. This is possible only in the event of an error at the command level, but anything can be sent for slaughter. You can also "drop a shell in a tank" =))
              1. SovAr238A
                SovAr238A 16 November 2020 20: 26
                0
                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                Yes, everything will be even easier here. The range of Tu-160 missiles is 5 km.
                The combat radius of the F35 is 1000 km, and the launch distance of air defense missiles is measured in tens and hundreds of kilometers.
                Although before that it is not clear who and how will detect the Tu 160 at such a distance. I am also silent about missile guidance.
                With such a ratio, it is more difficult to meet with fighters than not. This is possible only in the event of an error at the command level, but anything can be sent for slaughter. You can also "drop a shell in a tank" =))

                Consider a simple example.
                When they talk about ZGRLS in our news, everyone sings defirambs.
                About. that our ZGRLS - see the takeoff of aircraft from a distance of 3-5 thousand km.

                Now think about this question.

                Why do you think. that no one will detect the mass flight of the Tu-160 if our enemies are armed with the same ZGRLS?

                Are you just stupid and unable to think?
                Is it really only the Russians who can do this?
                Considering that the level of the western element base is about 4 orders of magnitude, and the level of processing of signal processors is 6 orders of magnitude higher than our designs?

                Just by the level of the technological processes used ...
                And this. if you are not in the subject of microelectronics. fundamental factor
                1. Alexander Vorontsov
                  16 November 2020 21: 36
                  -2
                  Quote: SovAr238A
                  Considering that the level of the western element base

                  How will the level of the western element base make it possible to hit the plane from a distance of 5 km?
                  1. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A 16 November 2020 23: 02
                    -1
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    Considering that the level of the western element base

                    How will the level of the western element base make it possible to hit the plane from a distance of 5 km?


                    The level of superior element base will allow:
                    1. To create ZGRLS with lower costs for losses of consumed power of ZGRLS
                    2. By virtue of a more advanced control system for algorithms and signal processors - to have a much more accurate selectivity in noise immunity.
                    3. Determine a truly massive take-off and advance hundreds of NATO interceptor aircraft and AWACS aircraft half asleep in the most dangerous areas in advance ...
                    And all of this is outside of our home areas.
                    And also in the presence of hundreds of tanker aircraft, which will provide all this ...

                    Have you ever wondered what topic you are writing about?

                    Well, you are zero without a wand ...
                    You do not know anything about airplane servicing during the flight interval.
                    I wrote to you. but you ignored it as inconvenient for the author. due to its complete lack of gamot. I'll duplicate it here.
                    Tu-160 returns to base, where carts with new missiles are already waiting for it. The service personnel hit the drums with a new batch of missiles, and the blow is repeated. Again and again.

                    Those. inter-flight service and the labor intensity of this very inter-flight service, aircraft of this class, measured somewhere at the level of 14-25 hours per 1 hour of flight - you did not take into account?
                    Or maybe you just didn't know about it?


                    You don't know anything at all, wartander lover ...
                    You don't understand anything at all ...

                    Write on toilet paper there too. where it will immediately go away for its intended purpose - this is your destiny!

                    For, if you want otherwise - learn materiel. from all sides. with all the documents for 15-30 years.


                    In the meantime, I see a complete worthless ... Complete!
          3. EMMM
            EMMM 14 November 2020 23: 44
            -2
            How did the Norwegian F-35s intercept a pair of White Swans? ..
        2. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 17: 16
          -4
          The Tu-160 has a supersonic range like a fighter jet, so when flying on a strategic mission it goes subsonic. Ianche simply will not reach .. And in order to escape from the fighter - this very fighter must first find out that the Tu-160 is unlikely to be able to do in time. When the fighter turns on its radar, it will be too late, AMRAAM flies faster, and most fighters have a maximum speed no lower than the Tu-160.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 14 November 2020 20: 27
            0
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            the fighter will first discover that the Tu-160 is unlikely to be able to do in time

            Why?
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 16 November 2020 18: 59
              0
              How can Tu-160 detect an enemy interceptor? Mainly by the radiation of its radar. If a fighter is guided by an external radar, then the bomber will not detect it until the moment missiles are fired at it. Considering that most fighters and AWACS aircraft now have radars with AFAR, electronic warfare against them is very difficult. In general, the tactics of a bomber in our time is not to let yourself be discovered. If the enemy spotted the bomber, it will be difficult to escape.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 16 November 2020 22: 48
                -1
                and the fact of the presence of an external radar in the middle of the ocean is not evidence of the possible presence of interceptors? can radar be classified in order to identify military
                1. Sergey Sfiedu
                  Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 15: 28
                  +1
                  I read that during the exercises Tu-160 broke away from the MiG-23 accompanying them. But - accompanying, not intercepting. In a real battle, the MiGs would probably have time to release missiles. And modern AMRAAMs are far from being like the old P-24. The strategic bomber is not a spherical horse in a vacuum. With the density of military bases around us that exists, even if it turns out to get away from one fighter (which is not a fact - a missile from a fighter still flies faster), you will surely be targeted at another. Or under the fire of air defense systems, land or sea. So to your question - having discovered the fact of radiation of the aircraft by the radar (modern onboard systems will approximately determine the type of radar and try to suppress it), of course we can turn on supersonic, but whether this will help is a big question. This is not to mention the fact that the F-22, for example, fly faster, and have a cruising supersonic regime, and the radiation from the AFAR radar is not a fact that you will detect. Considering that the Tu-160s have a long arm with a range of several thousand kilometers, it is advisable not to get on the rampage, but to build a route and flight profile so that the probability of meeting with interceptors and air defense systems is minimal.
      2. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 14 November 2020 17: 48
        +1
        Quote: Alexey Lantukh
        I am not competent to judge the actual usefulness of TU 160. However, if TU is not included in the air defense zone, then why not use a cheaper aircraft as a platform. For example IL 76. Instead of one TR in the air there will be 3-5 ILs on which there will be more missiles.


        Il-76 can be used as a tactical one.

        As a carrier of strategic nuclear - prohibited by treaties.

        Only specially designed heavy strategic bombers can carry strategic nuclear weapons.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 18: 59
          -3
          These agreements are no longer valid.
          1. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 14 November 2020 19: 31
            +2
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            These agreements are no longer valid.


            Why lie then?
            Everything works.
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 19: 33
              -2
              "And why lie. Everything works" - OK, I'm not a know-it-all, I could be wrong. Give the name of the agreement and the text (or number) of the article of the agreement. Then we'll talk.
              1. SovAr238A
                SovAr238A 14 November 2020 19: 38
                +3
                Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                "And why lie. Everything works" - OK, I'm not a know-it-all, I could be wrong. Give the name of the agreement and the text (or number) of the article of the agreement. Then we'll talk.


                Those. you already lied once.
                I just "ruined the air like a hedgehog, but you won't admit it" ...
                And now you also demand from me the name of the contract with articles - like "then we'll talk" ...

                Who are you, silly?
                Another Uryakalka completely without knowledge?
                But with a lot of pathos?
                1. Sergey Sfiedu
                  Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 20: 01
                  -1
                  Oh, how much ambition. I will repeat myself specifically for such a troll - the text of the START-3 treaty prohibits the conversion of already built aircraft into nuclear bombers. There are no restrictions on the creation of a newly built nuclear weapons carrier bomber based on an existing aircraft. Wash yourself.
                  1. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A 14 November 2020 21: 27
                    0
                    Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                    Oh, how much ambition. I will repeat myself specifically for such a troll - the text of the START-3 treaty prohibits the conversion of already built aircraft into nuclear bombers. There are no restrictions on the creation of a newly built nuclear weapons carrier bomber based on an existing aircraft. Wash yourself.


                    Well, how much is the wing area of ​​the Il-76, and the entire projection area from above?
                    This is on the same topic, you are a reader only in fits and starts. you can't master the whole text.

                    How much design will it take, how will you place weapons, where will the launchers be?
                    can you provide the strength of the fuselage with a wide-bodied layout?

                    As far as I understand, you have never asked such questions ...
                    1. Sergey Sfiedu
                      Sergey Sfiedu 16 November 2020 19: 28
                      0
                      "Well, how much is the wing area of ​​the Il-76, and the entire projection area from above?" - Well, what does it have to do with it? We read the text of the agreement
                      "b) not carry out flight tests of an aircraft that was not originally built as a bomber, but which has a range of 8000 kilometers or more, or an integral area in terms of over 310 square meters, with nuclear weapons, not equip such an aircraft for nuclear weapons, and not deploy such an aircraft with nuclear weapons; "
                      - as can be seen from the text of the treaty, it is impossible to arm already built aircraft with an integral area of ​​more than 310 square meters with nuclear weapons. Nobody forbids you to build a new bomber on the basis of an existing aircraft with such or larger area. On this site they wrote that the Yankees are again seriously considering the possibility of equipping the B-747 with cruise missiles - it already has a larger area.
                      "How long will the design take?" Do you think that modernizing the fuselage for a bomber based on the Il-76 is an unusually difficult task, and mastering the Tu-160, which is unique in its design, and its even more unique engines in a series, is such a simple and trifling matter? How many Tu-160s can we build in 10 years? How much will it cost us? Is it worth the candle?
                      I do not mean that we absolutely need to build a bomber based on the Il-76, but that the creation of such a bomber is not prohibited, and the START-3 itself, most likely, will not live long.
              2. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 19: 53
                0
                OK, I saw why it was not in my text. There we are talking about the re-equipment of already built machines. There is nothing about the fact that it is impossible to create a new bomber based on the design of existing machines, at least in the Russian text. And this agreement is already at its end.
    3. Vladimir Mashkov
      Vladimir Mashkov 14 November 2020 20: 30
      0
      Quote: Livonetc
      "Tu-160: Superweapon or Outdated Aircraft?"

      It is a reliable, working platform, weapons carrier.

      And, besides, the author did not say that there are some successful designs - and the Tu-160 belongs to them - that have great modification possibilities. What's good modified aircraft? It - modern aircraft!

      And the article is good: simple, accessible and convincing.
    4. max702
      max702 14 November 2020 23: 06
      +3
      In the USA there are two most implacable opponents, and these are not Democrats and Republicans, but aviation and the navy .. They are fighting for the most important and sacred BUDGET! We have, in principle, the same thing, and when the naval forces finished off the naval aviation, they finally beat it on the sane concept of the fleet because the only competitor was destroyed .. In the USA, due to the geographical location, this struggle is relevant because the fleet can quite possibly be, but here we have with the division of the fleet into 5 but let's be honest in 3 parts this is not a struggle, but idiocy! And the author proved it perfectly on his fingers .. Unlike the United States, we have several other threats and, accordingly, problems, the fleet cannot solve them in any way, but the aviation is quite! And the TU-160 are becoming a truly universal tool that is much more mobile, more intensive and even safer for use, the author has disassembled everything in the article .. Regarding missile weapons, we cannot reliably know anything, it is very likely that the new version also includes the possibility of launching anti-ship missiles, and Given the progress in the Zircon project, this is a very important component of leveling the superiority of a potential enemy in the surface fleet at sea, or maybe work on nuclear submarines, who knows that? Judging by the rage of the local flotophilols, they do not even want to think about such a possibility, because after that all sea battles will have to be transferred to notebooks in a box ..
      1. EMMM
        EMMM 15 November 2020 00: 13
        0
        Apparently, I belong to the class of flotophiles. But each type of troops must carry out their tasks, in their place and time. So, it is foolish to demand from the DKBF a missile strike on the territory of a potential enemy, although several diesel submarines with ballistic missiles are (or were at the end of the 80s) in service. The KSF is designed to guard the SevMorPuti and contain a potential enemy. The Pacific Fleet is considered the backbone of the strategic submarine forces. Each of the fleets and flotillas solve a number of tactical tasks for the protection of territorial waters and coasts, etc.
        Let's return to the topic that the Tu-20 and all its descendants, that the Tu-160 in all modifications, that the Tu-22 solve their problems along the entire perimeter of a HUGE country. The ability to modernize laid back in the mid-1950s has led to the fact that the Tu-95 "Bear" is still annoying our "partners". I believe that each flight of the White Swan is a headache not only for the airfield intendant, but also much higher for our partners.
        And, most importantly, all three platforms are capable of carrying new weapons under development, and re-equipment with avionics seems to be already becoming a routine.
        1. Sergej1972
          Sergej1972 15 November 2020 21: 05
          0
          Not the Pacific, but the Northern Fleet is the backbone of the strategic submarine forces. So it was during the Soviet era. SF has long been the main fleet of the Soviet and Russian Navy.
  2. Esaul
    Esaul 13 November 2020 10: 16
    10
    Again these are provocative headlines that do not reflect the content of the article.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      13 November 2020 10: 56
      19
      As in that video - "Well, this is business" =)))
      This is a provocative headline if I wrote "new photos of Panin in the cockpit of the Tu-160" that's what I understand as a provocation ... and so.
      Seriously, in my understanding, based on the problems that I identified in the article, this is really a super-weapon with no alternative for Russia.
      And I did not come up with anything here - the opinions about the Tu-160 are diametrically opposite. There are people who consider it obsolete junk. But there are also facts - only 2 countries have such aircraft and the military budget of one of them is the largest in the world. The fact also includes record flights and record load. For this heading in the topic.
      1. Sling cutter
        Sling cutter 13 November 2020 11: 05
        +8
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        I have not come up with anything here - the opinions about the Tu-160 are diametrically opposite.

        In general, everything is in order, we continue to be proud of our grandfathers, without creating anything.
        We have been living under the motto for 30 years: If there are no real cases, call the PR department!
        1. Lipchanin
          Lipchanin 13 November 2020 11: 27
          -10 qualifying.
          Quote: Stroporez
          and without creating anything.

          And what did he create besides mnus? How "nicely" I set the minus and disappeared
          Hypersound fairy tale? Or not now?
          1. Sling cutter
            Sling cutter 13 November 2020 12: 47
            +1
            Quote: Lipchanin
            what did he create besides mnus? How "nice" I put the minus and disappeared
            Hypersound fairy tale? Or not now?

            And on the fig you gave me up, so you put down cons? All your enthusiasm is grandfather on a stick and what he did 50 years ago.
            And the fact that your Samsung monitor does not bother you?
        2. Alexander Vorontsov
          13 November 2020 12: 30
          16
          In the article, I gave a simple justification of the effectiveness of investments in the Tu-160 in comparison with the Frigate, taking into account the geography of Russia.
          What does “pride for grandfathers” have to do with this?
          1. Shopping Mall
            Shopping Mall 13 November 2020 13: 25
            +4
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            In the article, I gave a simple justification of the effectiveness of investments in the Tu-160 in comparison with the Frigate, taking into account the geography of Russia.
            What does “pride for grandfathers” have to do with this?


            Considered the Tu-160 as the carrier of the "Dagger" - the Hypersonic "Dagger" on the Tu-160. Reality or Fiction?

            https://topwar.ru/153987-giperzvukovoj-kinzhal-na-tu-160-realnost-ili-vymysel.html

            If you are interested, then there are roughly indicated the reach zones of the Tu-160 in different flight modes and the reaction time. By the way, it is precisely the short reaction time that is one of the advantages of the Tu-160 -
            With the fastest possible exit to the target with a cruising speed of 1,5М, the total damage radius of the Dagger complex will be 3000-3500 km. This mode will provide the minimum response time to the threat and allow you to act in the interests of the three fleets. The maximum time from the moment of take-off (without taking into account the time the aircraft was prepared for departure), until the target is hit at a distance of 3000-3500 km, in this mode will be approximately 2-2,5 hours.
            1. ancient
              ancient 13 November 2020 13: 59
              +3
              Quote: AVM
              https://topwar.ru/153987-giperzvukovoj-kinzhal-na-tu-160-realnost-ili-vymysel.html

              If you solve the issue with the Central Command (for actions on naval targets), then you can try 9 on the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet)? But who will give you corridors to fly to the Indian and Atlantic)? repeat
              H practical ceiling for Tu-95ms and Tu-22M3 is practically the same for Gpol.mah.
              1. Shopping Mall
                Shopping Mall 13 November 2020 14: 13
                +1
                Quote: ancient
                Quote: AVM
                https://topwar.ru/153987-giperzvukovoj-kinzhal-na-tu-160-realnost-ili-vymysel.html

                If you solve the issue with the Central Command (for actions on naval targets), then you can try 9 on the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet)? But who will give you corridors to fly to the Indian and Atlantic)? repeat
                H practical ceiling for Tu-95ms and Tu-22M3 is practically the same for Gpol.mah.


                Iran can pass to the Indian, they are no stranger to it. With the Atlantic it is more difficult, partly it will be possible to hook from the north, with refueling you can make a hook.
                1. ancient
                  ancient 13 November 2020 16: 56
                  +4
                  Quote: AVM
                  partly it will be possible to hook on from the north, with refueling you can make a hook.

                  A Keflavik kood wink what to do?
                  1. Shopping Mall
                    Shopping Mall 15 November 2020 11: 00
                    0
                    Quote: ancient
                    Quote: AVM
                    partly it will be possible to hook on from the north, with refueling you can make a hook.

                    A Keflavik kood wink what to do?


                    BOOM fellow
                    1. ancient
                      ancient 15 November 2020 18: 36
                      +1
                      Quote: AVM
                      BOOM

                      It won't work, because:
                      1.Combined base, and we do not fight against civilians wink )
                      2.Nato member country
                      3 Along the Faroe-Icelandic border, there will be so many air defense forces and means from the United States Navy that ... "a rare bird will be able to fly to the middle ... of the Dnieper ..." wassat
                      1. Shopping Mall
                        Shopping Mall 15 November 2020 21: 42
                        0
                        Quote: ancient
                        Quote: AVM
                        BOOM

                        It won't work, because:
                        1.Combined base, and we do not fight against civilians wink )
                        2.Nato member country
                        3 Along the Faroe-Icelandic border, there will be so many air defense forces and means from the United States Navy that ... "a rare bird will be able to fly to the middle ... of the Dnieper ..." wassat


                        1. It depends on what the situation will be - there are not hospitals with kindergartens, but civilians in the event of a conflict from jointly based facilities will be driven out.
                        2. If we need to hit the AUG in the Atlantic, then we are already fighting against NATO.
                        3. It depends on what to beat and in what outfit. If something like Zircons or Daggers, then it is not a fact that their air defense will reflect a massive blow. And so that such a strike could be made and missile-carrying bombers and SSGNs are needed, which I actually consider necessary:
                        Again - the Hypersonic Dagger on the Tu-160. Reality or Fiction?
                        https://topwar.ru/153987-giperzvukovoj-kinzhal-na-tu-160-realnost-ili-vymysel.html
                        и
                        Nuclear submarines - carriers of cruise missiles: reality and prospects
                        https://topwar.ru/153714-atomnye-podvodnye-lodki-nositeli-krylatyh-raket-realnost-i-perspektivy.html

                        The simplest thing we can do is to orient the Tu-160 to perform, as the main task, delivering WTO strikes (nuclear deterrence is secondary for them) and continue the Borei series as Borei-K (8 units), like this has already been discussed, on addition and replacement of 949A.
                2. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 14 November 2020 09: 53
                  +2
                  in general, the Atlantic area is intended for nuclear submarines, and what kind of refueling in the Atlantic, how do you imagine? and we do not need the Indian Ocean either, to cover our shores
                3. Sergey Sfiedu
                  Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 19: 02
                  +1
                  "Iran can let it go to India" - or maybe not. Capricious comrades. Iranian-American relations are expected to dramatically improve under Biden's presidency. And yes, what should we fish in the Indian Ocean.
                4. max702
                  max702 14 November 2020 23: 11
                  +1
                  Quote: AVM
                  It's harder with the Atlantic

                  And why should we go to the Atlantic then? If we are at war in full growth and want to drown the enemy in the Atlantic, this means that the gate has no ports, just like we do ... And therefore, we don't need to worry too much about the Atlantic and there is no need for other problems ...
            2. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 17: 18
              -1
              For Tu-160, the speed of 1,5M is never cruising.
          2. Ded_Mazay
            Ded_Mazay 13 November 2020 18: 54
            +1
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            What does “pride for grandfathers” have to do with this?

            Never mind, this is just another variation on the theme "everything is gone ..." ...
          3. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 14 November 2020 00: 48
            0
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            In the article, I gave a simple justification of the effectiveness of investments in the Tu-160 in comparison with the Frigate, taking into account the geography of Russia.

            Why not in comparison with the Tu-95 for example? Which is cheaper and flies further and carries more ..
            1. max702
              max702 14 November 2020 23: 14
              0
              Quote: Saxahorse
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              In the article, I gave a simple justification of the effectiveness of investments in the Tu-160 in comparison with the Frigate, taking into account the geography of Russia.

              Why not in comparison with the Tu-95 for example? Which is cheaper and flies further and carries more ..

              This is also an option, but it is slow, although I think it will be used if it burns out with the TU-160 ..
        3. Hagen
          Hagen 13 November 2020 13: 17
          +8
          Quote: Stroporez
          If there are no real cases, call the PR department!

          Of course, you can say something sharp about vision and hearing, but I will refrain, I will be extremely brief:
          1. Antipinsky oil refinery (Tyumen region)
          2. Casting and rolling complex of the United Metallurgical Company (Nizhny Novgorod region)
          3. Abinsk Electrometallurgical Plant (Krasnodar Territory)
          4. Pipe electric welding shop "Vysota 239" of the Chelyabinsk pipe rolling plant (Chelyabinsk)
          5. Plant for the production of engines YMZ-530 (Yaroslavl)
          6. Metallurgical complex Stan-5000 (MKS-5000) Vyksa metallurgical plant (Nizhny Novgorod region)
          7. Tikhvin Freight Car Building Plant (Leningrad Region)
          8. Electric steel-smelting complex "Iron Ozone 32" at the Pervouralsk Novotrubny Plant (Sverdlovsk Region)
          9. Polypropylene plant "Poliom" (Omsk)
          10. Tobolsk-Polymer (Tobolsk) (which turns us from an importer to an exporter of propylene)
          And so you can fill the entire page with the industries that were launched in Russia in the 2000s. Nobody says that all problems have been resolved, but the statements that we are only eating up "Soviet reserves" are false. They, these statements about our failure, are aimed solely at sowing shame in our people for their existence. Our enemies have always pursued this goal, some of them moved to our territory today. Or they had an ally in our midst. I cannot call it otherwise. You already make a decision, for whom you are?
          1. Nikza
            Nikza 13 November 2020 13: 39
            +1
            Minus Stancolith.
            - Wrestler
            - Hammer and sickle
            - Moskvich
            - ZIL
            - Ruby
            - Caliber
            - Bearing plant (I don't remember the number)
            And that's just Moscow.
            "And so you can fill the entire page with those industries that чтоз̶а̶п̶у̶щ̶е̶ны̶ Destroyed in Russia."
            1. Hagen
              Hagen 14 November 2020 13: 22
              +1
              Quote: Nikza
              Minus Stancolith.
              - Wrestler
              - Hammer and sickle
              - Moskvich
              - ZIL

              The question of closed production did not come from the word "in general". But if you want, then I will say this: the level of wages in production in Moscow is two or three times higher than outside the Moscow Ring Road, and even more so beyond the Urals. Therefore, production in Moscow is much more expensive in terms of cost. So it dies. And such as AZLK and ZiL, even in the Chinese version, are not viable. Their products, which are fifty years behind the requirements of the modern operator, are simply not needed.
            2. Titus_2
              Titus_2 14 November 2020 15: 41
              +2
              There was a special machine near the stalkolith ... my unit was across the railway from these enterprises and I saw how everything collapsed and how the territories of these industries were turned into warehouses.
          2. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 13 November 2020 15: 15
            -3
            Quote: Hagen
            And so you can fill the entire page with the industries that were launched in Russia in the 2000s.

            Nearby you can fill out a thick notebook with a list of closed ones. During the Yeltsin era, AvtoVAZ employed 120.000 people, now a little over 30.000. This is not counting the subcontractors, which for the most part went bankrupt due to the plant's transition to imported components. But you are on a salary, you cannot be persuaded. For free of charge in the current situation, no one will. Video in the topic.
            1. Hagen
              Hagen 14 November 2020 13: 12
              0
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              Nearby you can fill out a thick notebook with a list of closed ones.

              When you read and understand the thought to which my answer followed, you can return to the discussion ...
            2. Reader 2013
              Reader 2013 15 November 2020 11: 59
              0
              And Mazda had 5000 people and produced 10 times more cars
          3. WIKI
            WIKI 13 November 2020 15: 26
            -2
            Quote: Hagen
            Of course, you can say something sharp about vision and hearing, but I will refrain, I will be extremely brief:

            1. Antipinsky oil refinery, foreign design (Foster Wheeler, Haldor Topsoe). The equipment at the plant is mainly imported. Foster Wheeler Italiana supplied a furnace with flue gas heat recovery, coke ovens, internals in columns and vessels, heat exchangers, one of the compressors and part of the air coolers - also from Italy. Air coolers were supplied from the Czech Republic, centrifugal pumps were manufactured by Gould Pumps (South Korea) and KSB (Germany), and electric valves for coke ovens were produced by the German company Zimmermann & Jansen. Ruhr Pumpen waterjet cutting equipment was also brought from Germany, coke unloading mechanisms were supplied by the Spanish company Taim Weser, contact devices - by the Italian Koch-Glitsch.
            Columns and tank equipment were supplied from Russian equipment. 2. Tobolsk-Polymer "Tobolsk-Polymer" signed a contract with the Italian company Tecnimont SpA for the design, supply of equipment and construction management for 600 million euros. 3 Polypropylene plant "Poliom" production was built according to the technology of the Basell company, the supplier of technological equipment is the Italian Tecnimont. 4. Casting and rolling complex of the United Metallurgical Company. The main supplier of technological equipment was the Italian company Danieli & C
            I didn't look at all. We will be launching advanced smartphones so soon. It's a pity that oil prices have dropped. Not enough money.
            1. Hagen
              Hagen 14 November 2020 13: 11
              +2
              Quote: WIKI
              The equipment at the plant is mainly imported. Foster Wheeler Italiana delivered the stove

              And what has changed? The Italians supplied us with the entire AVTOVAZ, after which the Lada did not become Italian. Can I remind you where GAZ's legs come from? At the same time, remember what the Foker brought to the USSR. The USSR bought a lot on the side, and this does not deny its greatness. You just want to get rid of your own country. (Or not your own?) .... Is it profitable?
              1. WIKI
                WIKI 14 November 2020 14: 27
                -3
                Quote: Hagen
                And what has changed?

                And it changed what the USSR was building on money from its diversified economy (dependence on oil and gas of budget revenues is 8%), and modern Russia depends on 40,8%. It's like football. For pride in the country (national team), the players who are grown at home are more important, and not brought from overseas, for the big money of Gazprom. For which the people do not like "Zenith".
                1. Hagen
                  Hagen 14 November 2020 15: 26
                  +2
                  Quote: WIKI
                  And it changed what the USSR was building on money from its diversified economy (dependence on oil and gas budget revenues 8%), and modern Russia depends on 40,8%

                  First, you have a weak historical knowledge base on the sources of money in the USSR. Secondly, this stupid mantra about the "oil and gas igloo" was invented for the foolish in the United States at a time when they were net importers of oil and gas. And when they began to develop oil shale, they themselves began to put pressure on everyone so that they could sit down more comfortably on the same needle and did not see anything wrong with that. I want to surprise you, oil and gas production is a fairly high-tech industry, and we should talk about it so dismissively. You don't have to mention football to me, I'm not interested in it ... Stupid hype that creates millionaires from "spectacles", I consider no less harmful, all this "sport of the highest achievements" (a waste of money in the competition of pharmaceutical campaigns).
                  1. WIKI
                    WIKI 14 November 2020 17: 07
                    -3
                    Your comment is not informative at all. Your base is weak because it is very easy to level it. Read and educate yourself. : https://topwar.ru/36212-a-byla-PRVBli-zavisimost-sssr-ot-eksporta-nefti.html
                    The average level of US oil exports has grown fivefold over the past three years, to 3 million barrels per day in 2019. Oil imports in 2019 decreased by a third, to 6,8 million barrels per day. Thus, they are a net net importer of oil.
                    https://tass.ru/ekonomika/7836185
                    And enough already to feed people with low-standard propaganda.
                    1. Hagen
                      Hagen 14 November 2020 20: 29
                      +2
                      Quote: WIKI
                      Your comment is not informative at all.

                      And I'm not your political informer. And when did this VO become a historical source?
                      Quote: WIKI
                      Thus, they are a net net importer of oil.

                      And what about gas? Trump has defended all the rapids in Europe, snatching all his LNG. Or do you not know? Look at the numbers, there are a lot of them on the net. By the way, what you have recommended to me here, you seem to have not read it yourself, otherwise you would not have talked about the purchase and construction in the 1st and 2nd five-year periods "at the expense of your diversified economy." Everything was trivially simple - products and raw materials from agricultural production, textile raw materials and semi-finished products and fuel and energy efficiency. Everything else was minuscule. And in the 20s, even paintings from the Hermitage and other museums, jewelry from tsarist times and church utensils were exported. The West was not interested in the products of our mechanical engineering of those times laughing
                      Quote: WIKI
                      And enough already to feed people with low-standard propaganda.

                      From what I have brought you can deny anything? And then your stamps from "Radio Liberty" do not impress me.
                      1. WIKI
                        WIKI 14 November 2020 22: 36
                        -3
                        Quote: Hagen
                        And when did this VO become a historical source?

                        Have you even read the article from VO. It clearly says: "The National Economy of the USSR", the statistical yearbook of the Central Statistical Administration of the USSR. Is something on this issue still not clear to you? Along the way, you've watched TV. Your arguments are only worthy of this media outlet.
                      2. Hagen
                        Hagen 15 November 2020 07: 47
                        -2
                        Quote: WIKI
                        Have you even read the article from VO.

                        How would you put it mildly ... You would analyze the export groups of goods from the proposed article, if you are capable of it, and your questions about the diversification of the USSR economy in the 20-40s disappeared. You, apparently, do not quite understand what you are campaigning for.
                      3. WIKI
                        WIKI 15 November 2020 13: 10
                        -1
                        You are not capable of anything at all along the way. You do not agree, so analyze and prove your case.
                      4. Hagen
                        Hagen 15 November 2020 17: 54
                        0
                        Quote: WIKI
                        prove your case.

                        Dear Victor! I am not obliged to prove anything to you, if only because I suggested earlier which positions in the tables you should pay attention to. As you can see, not in the horse feed. You do not agree with me, so live with this disagreement. Reasoning about other people's abilities is beyond your power, it is not yours. hi
      2. page
        page 14 November 2020 20: 41
        -2
        I didn't look at all. We will be launching advanced smartphones so soon. It's a pity that oil prices have dropped. Not enough money.
        Don't pi * di! No need to la-la !!!
  3. Hagen
    Hagen 13 November 2020 13: 28
    +2
    Quote: Stroporez
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    I have not come up with anything here - the opinions about the Tu-160 are diametrically opposite.

    In general, everything is in order, we continue to be proud of our grandfathers, without creating anything.
    We have been living under the motto for 30 years: If there are no real cases, call the PR department!

    Quote: Stroporez
    If there are no real cases, call the PR department!

    Of course, you can say something sharp about vision and hearing, but I will refrain, I will be extremely brief:
    1. Antipinsky oil refinery (Tyumen region)
    2. Casting and rolling complex of the United Metallurgical Company (Nizhny Novgorod region)
    3. Abinsk Electrometallurgical Plant (Krasnodar Territory)
    4. Pipe electric welding shop "Vysota 239" of the Chelyabinsk pipe rolling plant (Chelyabinsk)
    5. Plant for the production of engines YMZ-530 (Yaroslavl)
    6. Metallurgical complex Stan-5000 (MKS-5000) Vyksa metallurgical plant (Nizhny Novgorod region)
    7. Tikhvin Freight Car Building Plant (Leningrad Region)
    8. Electric steel-smelting complex "Iron Ozone 32" at the Pervouralsk Novotrubny Plant (Sverdlovsk Region)
    9. Polypropylene plant "Poliom" (Omsk)
    10. Tobolsk-Polymer (Tobolsk) (which turns us from an importer to an exporter of propylene)
    And so you can fill the entire page with the industries that were launched in Russia in the 2000s. Nobody says that all problems have been resolved, but the statements that we are only eating up "Soviet reserves" are false. They, these statements about our failure, are aimed solely at sowing shame in our people for their existence. Our enemies have always pursued this goal, some of them moved to our territory today. Or they had an ally in our midst. I cannot call it otherwise. You already make a decision, for whom you are?
    In case you run into aviation, let me remind you that Soviet aviation has roots not only in the Soviet Union, the beginning was under the tsarist regime, but a lot was bought, but something and "acquired" is not entirely correct. But no one has the urge to throw a stone in Soviet design and production history on this occasion. ... "... We are like dwarfs perched on the shoulders of giants; we see more and further than they do, not because we have better eyesight, and not because they are taller than them, but because they have lifted us up and increased our height own greatness ... "Said in the 11th century, topical and now.
  • Lipchanin
    Lipchanin 13 November 2020 11: 23
    +5
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    Tu-160 is not only not outdated, but surprisingly relevant,

    Gold words. This machine can still live and serve
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 13 November 2020 15: 19
      0
      Quote: Lipchanin
      Gold words. This machine can still live and serve

      Is there an alternative?
      1. boris epstein
        boris epstein 13 November 2020 17: 40
        +1
        Work on PAK DA (a promising long-range aviation complex) is underway.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 13 November 2020 19: 56
          -3
          Quote: boris epstein
          Work on PAK YES is underway.
          How many years have you been working on Armata? And there are no supplies to the troops yet. By PAK FA? Do you have reason to believe that the work on the project, in the absence of a flying prototype, will be completed faster?
          1. boris epstein
            boris epstein 14 November 2020 15: 44
            +3
            Any modern technology in any country is being developed for a long time and is far from always successful. Examples are Zumvolts and F-35s. The aircraft carrier Gerald Ford has not yet entered the fleet. How many years have sea trials been going on and more and more flaws are revealed? Before the T-10 was put into service, there were more than 10 machines in metal. And this is not only with us. The Panther went into service with a raw tank and was completely brought to mind only by February 1945. Exactly the same for the T-34. Guderian considered both the Tiger and the Tiger-2 unsuccessful machines. He believed that it was better to produce the T-4 of the 1942 model. Since then, progress has moved much faster. In particular, the Syrian and Karabakh conflicts have shown that not only the design is changing, but also the tactics of using weapons, fundamentally new types of weapons, such as strike UAVs, are emerging. And in the current conditions it is necessary to change, first of all, the SOFTWARE. In recent years, new electronic warfare systems have been put into service, but in connection with the improvement of the means of attack and the tactics of their use, they are quickly becoming obsolete. And it is the testing of new models in these conflicts that sets new requirements for the designers, who are not magicians.
  • A1845
    A1845 13 November 2020 11: 41
    +1
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    As in that video - "Well, this is business" =)))

    no questions about business
    In our opinion, the arguments presented above are quite enough to draw a conclusion that the Tu-160 is not just not outdated, but surprisingly relevant

    "White Swan" is of course our pride, but the logic of reasoning is surprising, that's for sure
    1. Cosm22
      Cosm22 13 November 2020 12: 37
      +5
      The essence of this logic can be reduced to a simple postulate - it's just that today's Russia is not able to create a more modern analogue.
      That's all. The casket just opens.
      Hence all the slogans about relevance, irreplaceability, etc.
      1. Nikon OConor
        Nikon OConor 13 November 2020 13: 21
        +6
        Then continue the thought: "Today NOBODY is able to create a more modern analogue", since they are nowhere to be found.
        Sincerely.
        1. Cosm22
          Cosm22 13 November 2020 19: 29
          -2
          I can not only continue it, but also deepen it, in the words of the unforgettable Mikhail Sergeevich.
          There is no doubt that the Tu-160 is a good car.
          But if we stand still, then with the Russian bomber aircraft it will be the same as with the Russian cosmonautics. One cannot rely only on the Tu-22-3M and Tu-160.
          For some reason, the United States is making a smooth transition from B-1B and B-2A to B-21. And there is no doubt that such a transition will take place.
          With more respect.
          I hope you won't consider paper drawings PAK YES?
          1. Nikon OConor
            Nikon OConor 13 November 2020 20: 19
            +2
            No, I will not)) I assess the real prospects of the war with the available serial samples.
            Well, you will not now extol the B-1B and B-2A in front of the TU-160. These are aircraft of a different class. And at the expense of B-21 - I did not see it, I don’t know ... if it doesn’t make it difficult, do LikBez))
          2. Nikon OConor
            Nikon OConor 13 November 2020 20: 30
            +3
            By the way, B-21, sorry, is also "paper" ...
            And in all other respects I agree with you, we must not stop. But the Russian Federation has many problems, as do the states. But we do not print dollars to pour them into the defense industry ...
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 14: 14
              0
              Quote: Nikon OConor
              В-1В and В-2А in front of TU-160 These are aircraft of different classes

              Yeah. Conceptually, the last American Tu-160 was the B-47 of the grandfather's time. Then the Americans approached similar planes several times, but they were smart enough to stop (Valkyrie, B-1A). The Lancer is the next generation, the B-2 is one step further. Not about the right step or not, but these are aircraft of a fundamentally different concept.
      2. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 17: 26
        -3
        Well, let's admit to ourselves frankly - modern Russia and the construction of new Tu-160 are barely too tough. How many machines can we produce per year? One or one and a half, or just half? Does it make sense to fence a garden at such a rate?
  • 9PA
    9PA 13 November 2020 11: 45
    +3
    This is not a superweapon, but probably the optimal solution due to unfavorable circumstances. But these are weapons of the current technological order, and a limited number of them will be introduced per year. Will this significantly change the balance of power globally?
  • ancient
    ancient 13 November 2020 12: 08
    0
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    Seriously, in my understanding, based on the problems that I identified in the article, this is really a super-weapon with no alternative for Russia.

    I carefully read your article .... I wanted to put the "+" directly .. but when I reached the phrase ... ".... unification of the engine with Tu-22M3 aircraft "...... I will leave you without .." evaluation " wink
    But ........ at the very beginning of the article you
    squeak -.. "....Most articles on military equipment focus on the technical characteristics of weapons."
    So these experts are absolutely right, since only new types of weapons are capable of extending the "military life" of this aircraft.
    After all " fellow 2 at all throats shouting that "Axes" are ugh and .. to grind .... there we "pounded" them in Syria wassat ) ... but our X-101 ... yes ... although how they "differ" from the "Axes" ... are modestly silent. lol ]
    Plus, you forget that the X-101 is striking stationary targets, the time to prepare for a second flight, "flashing" new targets into the "drives" of the on-board computer takes the same .. "not a little time", do not forget that the strategic aviation base is located at a great distance from the "line of combat contact of troops" .. so ... not everything is so .. "sweet".
    But as soon as they "hang" on the Tu-160 "Zircons" (two BKUs of 6 missiles each, then it really ... will be a super-weapon. wink
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      13 November 2020 15: 44
      +5
      Well, what can I say, the argument with the Tu-22M3 is frankly so-so. There are many more questions that I wanted to cover, but there are too many of them for format 1. This concerned the prospects ... of the development of the aircraft complex, taking into account the separation of the airfield network. Those. a separate topic, about the prospects. And in the version for publication this item got in, which without another piece of information looks like something out of place. Well ... the first article will be an experience)
      Quote: ancient
      Plus, you forget that the X-101 is striking stationary targets, the time to prepare for a second flight, "flashing" new targets into the "drives" of the on-board computer takes the same .. "not a little time", do not forget that the strategic aviation base is located at a great distance from the "line of combat contact of troops" .. so ... not everything is so .. "sweet".

      Thanks for the comment - yes, I plan to touch on these issues in the next articles. They are important.
      1. ancient
        ancient 13 November 2020 16: 51
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        Thanks for the comment - yes, I plan to touch on these issues in the next articles. They are important.

        good drinks "+"
      2. ancient
        ancient 13 November 2020 18: 59
        -3
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        argument with the Tu-22M3, let's just say so-so

        And why? ..... "Quote" pipe dreams, which are neither TTZ nor in the ROC request
        Big "storytellers" in "sweet promises2 blurted out ... without thinking and ... rushed ... she over the bumps wassat
      3. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 13 November 2020 21: 14
        +4
        Author, why are you comparing this plane with a frigate? Or maybe it is better to compare it with a Borei-class missile submarine, I read somewhere that Borey costs 23 billion rubles, and from your figures the price for one Tu-160 will be 18 billion rubles. In my opinion, the striking abilities of Borey are dozens of times greater than the capabilities of this aircraft.
    2. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 17: 35
      +1
      Until the Zircon, or rather the GZUR, appears on the Tu-160, it is unlikely that it will still be a superweapon. Anyway, I suspect that the adversary is tracking all the flights of the Swans and will try to destroy them even before reaching the line of attack.
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 13 November 2020 21: 08
    -3
    Equip with cruise missiles and modern BKO IL-76 - the effect will be about the same. But much cheaper. Tu-160 is really not bad as a carrier of guided missile weapons. But its price ... if you build a large series of such machines, pensions will have to be canceled altogether. However, we also build the Il-76 piece by piece, what to dream about the Tu-160.
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 13 November 2020 21: 20
      0
      I support you, it is necessary to redesign the Il-76 for a missile carrier, it will be cheaper. Moreover, IL can land on an unpaved airfield, but there are few airfields for the Tu-160 and the enemy will destroy them (these airfields) at the very beginning of the war.
      1. max702
        max702 14 November 2020 23: 25
        +2
        Quote: Fan-Fan
        (these airfields) the enemy will destroy at the very beginning of the war.

        If this happens, then the war will end in the next hour and a half as civilization on planet Earth .. Now is not 41 ..
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 13 November 2020 21: 55
      +1
      Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
      Equip with cruise missiles and modern BKO IL-76 - the effect will be about the same. But much cheaper.
      No. Operation will be cheaper, and manufacturing will not be much. I'm not talking about the range.
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 18: 47
        -2
        "Manufacturing is not strong." Where such confidence? Well, yes, there is a radar station, BKO, target equipment will be about the same. But the glider itself and the engine are much cheaper. And easier. Can be crafted much faster. The MO buys a new Il-76 for 5 billion rubles. And this despite the fact that the release of the Il-76, to put it mildly, is a small-scale production. The price for the Tu-160m has already been announced here. By the way - is this really new or is the glider still from the Soviet reserve? The IL-76's engines are antediluvian, so the range is small. However, given the range of cruise missiles, it is quite good.
  • Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 14: 03
    -1
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    only 2 countries have such aircraft

    And what is the second one? Do you have a Lancer, perhaps, an analogue of the Tu-160? Well, the experts are gone.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 19: 09
      +1
      "Doesn't have an analogue in the world" or what? By and large, strategic aviation has ceased to be relevant. The good old B-52 and Tu-95 work for themselves and work. And the B-1B and Tu-160 are big expensive toys that are not worth the money that is invested in them. Both B-2 and B-21 (and, accordingly, PAK DA) are most likely the same.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 19: 14
        0
        Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
        There is no analogue in the world "or what?

        Tu-160? Yes, no one does that. The debate is about whether this is a feature, or is it a bug.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 19: 20
          +1
          Not a bug or a feature. Strategic high-speed bomber-missile carrier without stealth elements. There are no fundamental advantages over "Lancer". Weapons are never superfluous, but the Tu-160 has never been a wunderfawl. As well as "Lancer". And given the fact that by the time the Swan was launched into the series, there was already infa on B-1B - the return of a bomber without stealth elements is a direct mistake. However, my opinion is that spending money on super-expensive strategists is generally a mistake, both in our country and in the States.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 19: 27
            +1
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            generally a mistake that we have, that in the States.

            Well, in the States, let's say, your calico. There is a very long list of respected people who want to eat. But the rest of the owners of nuclear weapons on aviation leverage the least, more for show.
          2. max702
            max702 14 November 2020 23: 28
            +1
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            - return of a bomber without stealth elements - a direct mistake

            Okay, stealth .. fine .. And then the rofar was finished, so what? Everything? All stealth equipment turns out to be outdated scrap metal? Onizh, except for not particularly shining on radars, does not shine with anything, but here, as it were, you will need flying qualities ..
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 16 November 2020 19: 44
              0
              Well, when massive ground and airborne radars appear, capable of seeing stealths from afar and pointing weapons at them, then yes, B-2 and others will become scrap metal. So far, there are none, and they are unlikely to appear in the near future. Why do all the experts write that the PAK DA will be similar to the B-2.
              "flight qualities will be needed" - all the same, the Tu-160's main mode is subsonic. For a bomber, supersonic is not particularly needed. It is much more important for him not to be seen than to break through with a fight.
              1. max702
                max702 17 November 2020 10: 28
                +1
                Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                Why do all the experts write that the PAK DA will be similar to the B-2.

                Yes, because the generals are always preparing for the past wars .. And the PAK YES will surrender to me will be the most grandiose drink and nothing more, there really is no sense in it, the growth of the rocket armament characteristics will banally allow all this machinery to be launched from our territory without leaving the air defense umbrella , and if the Tu-160 is at least fast and mobile, then the future PAK YES is purely for money .. In principle, a missile carrier based on the IL-96.400 looks more logical, the only real point in releasing the Tu-160 is not a loss of competence ..
                1. Sergey Sfiedu
                  Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 15: 38
                  0
                  For a nuclear war, that the Tu-160, that the subsonic bomber, that "stealth", that "non-stealth" - are generally not relevant. The ICBM will arrive faster and it is almost impossible to shoot it down. The Yankees use the B-52 and B-1 as tactical carriers of missile weapons, and the B-1B is already used as anti-ship weapons. We don't have that yet. How relevant the V-2 and V-21 (and PAK DA) are in a conventional war, in the light of improving air defense systems, is a big question.
    2. Alexander Vorontsov
      14 November 2020 20: 35
      -1
      Ukraine))) It is in their museum. lol
  • RealPilot
    RealPilot 13 November 2020 10: 20
    +8
    Excellent article!
    I agree with the author, I hold a similar opinion.

    I would like to add that the resumption of the production of good aircraft is a chance for the development and "reanimation" of our aircraft industry as a whole. Both new avionics and the introduction of composites ... All the same, the project will have to be reworked, taking into account the new requirements.
    Good luck to our aircraft builders! We count on them hi
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 13 November 2020 21: 25
      -1
      You shouldn't be happy, the price of one Tu-160 is declared at 18 billion rubles, but there is no money, this time. Two - specialists who know how to do this are lost. Three - it is much cheaper to make a new aircraft based on the Il-76.
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 14 November 2020 18: 02
        +1
        Quote: Fan-Fan
        You shouldn't be happy, the price of one Tu-160 is declared at 18 billion rubles, but there is no money, this time. Two - specialists who know how to do this are lost. Three - it is much cheaper to make a new aircraft based on the Il-76.


        For what tasks do you need an aircraft based on the Il-76?
        Please list.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 19: 11
          -1
          For the same - the carrier of nuclear and non-nuclear cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, optionally - the carrier of guided and unguided aerial bombs for local conflicts.
          1. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 14 November 2020 19: 36
            +1
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            For the same - the carrier of nuclear and non-nuclear cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, optionally - the carrier of guided and unguided aerial bombs for local conflicts.


            I will also propose to re-read the text of the START-3 Treaty again.
            19. Each of the Parties undertakes:

            a) not to conduct flight tests of an aircraft that is not an aircraft, but which has a range of 8000 kilometers or more, with nuclear weapons, not to equip such aircraft for nuclear weapons, and not to deploy such aircraft with nuclear weapons;

            b) not carry out flight tests of an aircraft that was not originally built as a bomber, but which has a range of 8000 kilometers or more, or an integral area in terms of over 310 square meters, with nuclear weapons, not equip such an aircraft for nuclear weapons and not deploy such an aircraft with nuclear weapons;

            from) not to flight test an aircraft that is not an aircraft, or an aircraft that was not originally built as a bomberlong-range nuclear ALCMs, do not equip such an aircraft or such aircraft for long-range nuclear ALCMs and do not deploy such an aircraft or such aircraft with long-range nuclear ALCMs.
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 14 November 2020 19: 48
              -2
              "or an airplane that was not from the start built as a bomber "- that is, we cannot convert the Il-76 into a bomber for another six months. But the text of the treaty does not forbid us to build a new bomber based on the Il-76 design. Well, not to mention the non-nuclear missile defense and bombs (as now on B-1B) - their use is not limited in any way.
  • wow
    wow 13 November 2020 10: 22
    +5
    I repeat - in any fight, first of all, you have to hit on the head! Then the arms and legs are already NOTHING ...
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 13 November 2020 10: 27
      +1
      And sho, our "head" is not protected in any way! Everyone else doesn't care about their "heads"?
  • prior
    prior 13 November 2020 10: 29
    -6
    What's the point of TU-160, if Azerbaijan (or Turkey) shot down a Russian helicopter and rub their sneaky little hands on the sly. Even the ambassador "bul-bul" in Moscow, agreed to "in war, as in war."
    Let the TU-160 show the Azerbaijanis how it is in war, as in war.
    Then the questions about the need for this aircraft will disappear by themselves.
    1. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 13 November 2020 10: 44
      +6
      but why are you all waiting for blood and even rivers? you need to answer smartly and where it hurts most. The Aerospace Forces will gouge another camp in Syria and all the Turkish instructors will be put there, that's all. the day before yesterday it was. On November 11, in Idlib, the VKS again laid out another. 9 shoot down a helicopter 11 Aerospace Forces strike another blow there. the logic of events is quite specific.
      1. prior
        prior 13 November 2020 10: 54
        0
        Neither Baku nor Ankara has a headache for Idlib.
        But leaving Baku without oil and gas revenues will be very painful.
        1. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 13 November 2020 10: 55
          +3
          of course))) Turkey doesn't care what happens at its borders at all) Yeah)
          1. prior
            prior 13 November 2020 11: 13
            -4
            Presumably, Turkey is mourning and includes mourning for every Barmaley killed in Idlib ?!
            1. carstorm 11
              carstorm 11 13 November 2020 11: 15
              +2
              you're kind of an adult ... someone trains them there on the ground. supervises. goals are not chosen just like that)
              1. prior
                prior 13 November 2020 11: 20
                -4
                Adult. And therefore, I believe that the answer in Idlib is not a commensurate answer, which does not correspond to the meanness of the crime. Therefore, no one noticed or appreciated it.
                The real answer for the downed helicopter must be tougher. This is what I wanted to say.
                1. carstorm 11
                  carstorm 11 13 November 2020 11: 30
                  +2
                  he is tougher. on the border of Turkey in its zone against its militants and military personnel. At the same time, losses have to be hidden and teeth gnashed. and it will never end as long as states exist. not specific, but any. for us the Idlib zone is not as important as for the Turks.
                  1. prior
                    prior 13 November 2020 11: 39
                    +3
                    I would like it not only for Turkey to gnash its teeth, but that it would be discouraging for others to shit on Russia and kill Russian citizens.
                    And I think you agree with me on this.
    2. Alexander Kopychev
      Alexander Kopychev 13 November 2020 10: 55
      +3
      Do you propose to shoot from a cannon at sparrows? How do we know the details? Maybe VVP with Shoigu and Lavrov are on the razor's edge. laughing
      1. prior
        prior 13 November 2020 11: 10
        -9
        How would they not stumble and .... do not sit on this blade with personal belongings.

        The Americans did not even apologize to the Japanese for the nuclear bombing. And there was no reason for it. And MI-24 was shot down, people died. And they did not threaten anyone, they carried the world ...
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 14: 20
      +1
      Quote: prior
      Let the TU-160 show the Azerbaijanis

      How was the Tu-22M shown to the Georgians on 10.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX? Why do you dislike Russians so much?
  • Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 13 November 2020 10: 36
    0
    That is, a new airplane, which surpassed the Tu-160 in its characteristics, is it not needed or is it not possible to develop and launch a series?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 November 2020 10: 58
    14
    The question was raised whether the Tu-160 is outdated or not. Instead of an answer, a discussion began on the topic of which is better - a frigate, or a strategic missile carrier. Let's replace the T-160 in the article with the Tu-95 - practically nothing will change. Tu-95 has become the newest aircraft, or what?
    About the price of the issue The author writes
    900 billion rubles for a series of 50 "old" cars.

    And then he offers an alternative
    Let's imagine that we are building a series of 9 ships - it seems to be a lot.

    Do we have a frigate suddenly costing 100 billion rubles? If anything, then the construction of the serial "Leader" - a nuclear destroyer (in reality - a cruiser) was estimated at such a sum.
    In general ... um ...
    1. A1845
      A1845 13 November 2020 11: 20
      +6
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      In general ... um ...

      Yes Yes..
      It has become not fashionable to publish articles, for the preparation of which you need to raise a lot of sources, comprehend the sea of ​​information, form your own understanding, even learn something new yourself.
      by the way, we are all waiting for the continuation of the "not fashionable" cycle on tank topics hi
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 November 2020 12: 28
        +7
        Quote: A1845
        by the way, we are all waiting for the continuation of the "not fashionable" cycle on tank topics

        And I am writing it, only slowly :))) I suppose that in December I will start a mass publication of articles, incl. and on tank topics hi
    2. Alexander Vorontsov
      13 November 2020 11: 55
      -4
      Dear Andrey from Chelyabinsk.

      As the author of this article, I offer you my deepest apologies for my gross methodological error.

      Unreasonably and treacherously, I proceeded from the stupid assumption that all readers have mastered the program of 9-grade education.
      In my defense, I can only say this - I tried to take into account the interests of the smallest readers and for this, for convenience, I had the stupidity to use the number 9.

      And my intelligence was not enough to predict that after seeing 9 and 900 ... you decide to divide one into another.

      Similar to how a bad shooter in extreme conditions shoots at what is larger, apparently seeing the complexity of dividing 900 by 50 ... you preferred to divide by what is easier. 900 by 9 ...

      My mistake is that I did not describe the complex mathematical transformations 900 by 50 is 18 billion.
      And the price of the frigate is about 18 billion rubles.
      This was the whole point - to compare the striking capabilities of combat units in the same weight category (in terms of cost).

      In order to exclude such misunderstandings in the future, please write to me where you left off with the mathematics teacher Marya Ivanovna, and I will try to take this into account.
      Once again I bring my deepest changes.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 November 2020 12: 27
        +9
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        In order to exclude such misunderstandings in the future, please write to me where you left off with the mathematics teacher Marya Ivanovna, and I will try to take this into account.

        Alexander, I, of course, appreciate the sense of humor in the authors, but only when it is combined with at least minimal knowledge of these authors in the subject they undertake to discuss. Alas, your comment is more than eloquent evidence that you do not have one. So that...
        Receive and sign.
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        My mistake is that I did not describe the complex mathematical transformations 900 by 50 is 18 billion.

        Sit down, Alexander, deuce. And parents to school tomorrow.
        A person who is AT LEAST ONE MUCH in the subject of the cost of modern weapons, in principle, could not have imagined that you would estimate the frigate of Project 22350 at 18 billion rubles. For reference - the cost of building the CORVETA project 20380 (not even 20385) in the bearded 2016 exceeded 17 billion rubles.
        Here is an extract from the annual report of PJSC "Shipbuilding Plant" Severnaya Verf "(St. Petersburg) for 2016. Order 1007 is a corvette of project 20380" Zealous ", order 1008 is a corvette of the same project" Strogiy ", but" Daring ", under construction under the project 20386 passes in the document as "Order 1009".

        By the way, the indicated cost does not include VAT here (add another 18%, on top, later increased to 20%) Only since then inflation has jumped significantly, so today even a corvette, even without VAT, is much more expensive than your recommended 18 billion.
        And 18 billion rubles is the estimated (according to media reports) cost of a frigate (more precisely, SKR) of project 11356 at the very beginning of the execution of the GPV 2011-2020, and even you should, in theory, be clear that the frigate of project 22350 should be significant expensive. And that inflation since the time when the dollar was worth less than 30 rubles, has increased the mentioned values ​​by a multiple
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          13 November 2020 13: 14
          -6
          Alexander, of course, I appreciate the sense of humor in the authors, but only then,

          When the objects of humor are not your mathematical abilities, or rather the inability to divide 900 by 50?

          You know, there is a video on the network where a small child of 12 years old cries while solving a problem, and his mother asks him: read the question!
          - how many mushrooms are in the first keg?
          - read your answer
          - in the third barrel 24 cucumbers
          - nothing confuses?
          - no! what can be confusing here)))

          in principle, it could not have occurred to you that you would estimate a Project 22350 frigate at 18 billion rubles. For reference - the cost of building the CORVETA project 20380 (not even 20385) in the bearded 2016 exceeded 17 billion rubles.

          For your information:
          the price of one corvette of project 20386 is almost twice the price of corvettes of project 20380 (20385), as well as frigates of project 11356R and is very close to the price of a frigate of project 22350, to which the corvette is significantly inferior in its combat capabilities


          I did not consider the smaller ship for the reason that then the results would be even more sad, because it has 8 missiles instead of 16.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 November 2020 13: 21
            +7
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            When the objects of humor are not your mathematical abilities, or rather the inability to divide 900 by 50?

            Are we all trying to be funny? Alas, now it looks quite tortured.
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            For your information:

            Try reading your own "help". Attentively. Tighten up. I will help.
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            цena of one corvette of project 20386 almost double the price of project 20380 corvettes (20385), as well as project 11356R frigates and is close to the price of a project 22350 frigate

            The price of the corvette 20386 according to the document I have given is 29 rubles And now it really, as of 2016, may be approaching 22350 (although there is a feeling that 22350 is much more expensive).
            So where did you find 18 billion, are you our witty? Or do you not understand the difference between projects 20380 and 20386?
            1. Alexander Vorontsov
              13 November 2020 13: 27
              -5
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The price of the corvette 20386 according to the document I have given is 29 rubles And now it really, as of 080, may be approaching 759 (although there is a feeling that 2016 is much more expensive).
              So where did you find 18 billion, are you our witty? Or do you not understand the difference between projects 20380 and 20386?

              You are a walking anecdote.
              Look at the dimension in the "document you quoted".
              It costs "thousand rubles". The price of the corvette is 29 million 80 thousand 959 THOUSAND rubles or 29 billion.
              Just a circus)
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 November 2020 13: 31
                +6
                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                Look at the dimension in the "document you quoted".
                It costs "thousand rubles".

                Right.
                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                The price of the corvette is 29 million 80 thousand 959 THOUSAND rubles or 29 billion.

                The price of the corvette is 29 BILLION rubles. And I missed the "thousand" in the comments and wrote "rub". Horror, what a terrible mistake :))) And this, of course, serves as a justification for your correctness in the cost of the frigate of Project 22350 in 18 billion rubles.
                How did you say there?
                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                You are a walking anecdote.
              2. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 16: 02
                0
                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                The price of the corvette is 29 million 80 thousand 959 THOUSAND rubles or 29 billion.
                Just a circus)

                well, for 29 million rubles, even a pimple nowadays does not fit, ... clearly billions
                1. Alexander Vorontsov
                  13 November 2020 16: 23
                  +1
                  This thread is actually completely detached from the article itself. Comparing the potentials, I took the maximum alternatives at the minimum prices that I found. Those. 16 missiles for 18 billion. Man, he says, is more expensive there. Is it possible to build more expensively - no question. Sure. Yes, at least 50 billion. If I took the price of 30 billion for the calculation, they could fairly say to me - and there is a cheaper version, you specially took the expensive one for calculations to "tighten" the ratio, there was a lot of cutting, etc. And that would be a problem. A rise in price - yes, please. The price is 2 times higher, which means that the main arguments are 2 times more correct.
        2. Alexander Vorontsov
          13 November 2020 13: 15
          -1
          I forgot to write - just open and see the price of the frigate, and do not try to "deduce" it.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 November 2020 13: 23
            +4
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            I forgot to write - just open and see the price of the frigate, and do not try to "deduce" it.

            I'm sorry, but it was you who announced the price of frigate 22350 at $ 18 billion - you have to confirm it. I have not found the exact data.
            1. Alexander Vorontsov
              13 November 2020 13: 34
              -4
              On the first link in Google
              the minimum price of frigate 22350 is 18 billion rubles. The frigates are to be transferred to the Russian Navy by 2018 [7].
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 November 2020 13: 43
                +5
                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                On the first link in Google

                wassat fool
                Uh-huh. Is it okay that the "first link" first appeared in 2011? https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1602666
                Is it okay that according to this link the price of the corvette 20380 was determined at 10 billion?
                According to CAST, the minimum price for corvette 20380 is 10 billion rubles, frigate 20385 is 18 billion rubles.

                Is it okay that we are not talking about the exact cost but about the assessment of CAST? And what about the MINIMUM estimate?
                Is it okay that the corvette 20380 already in 2016 cost 17,2-17,2 billion without VAT and 20 billion with VAT?
                Alexander, maybe it's enough to make people laugh?
                1. Alexander Vorontsov
                  13 November 2020 13: 56
                  -1
                  Would you like to comment on how you confused the order of the numbers in the document that was given as an argument, being unable to simply "read" the numbers you refer to in the given document?
                  Making a mistake is just 1000 times. And your eye didn’t even “catch” such a difference. 28 million, 28 billion what's the difference? 28 same ...
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 November 2020 14: 10
                    +4
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    You don't want to comment on how you confused the order of the numbers in the document

                    But cheating is not at all good. I commented on my slip
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The price of the corvette is 29 BILLION rubles. And I missed the "thousand" in the comments and wrote "rub". Horror, what a terrible mistake :)))

                    I, unlike you, generally easily admit my mistakes, and even more so - slips. And when will I wait for your comment at the price of 18 billion frigate 22350? :))) I understand that you do not want to admit your own bloopers, I understand that you in a hurry confused the corvettes of the 20380 and 20386 projects, and the first figure that came across was put into the article, but nonetheless.
                    "Do not go into yourself the mechanic, there you will be found in no time."
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    And your eye did not even "catch" such a difference. 28 million, 28 billion what's the difference? 28 same ...

                    29 billion, you are our architect
                    1. Alexander Vorontsov
                      13 November 2020 14: 25
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      But cheating is not at all good. I commented on my slip

                      How did you comment on dividing 900 by 9 instead of 50? Was that a typo too?
                      Or a complete lack of understanding of the logic?
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 November 2020 16: 05
                        +2
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        How did you comment on dividing 900 by 9 instead of 50? Was that a typo too?

                        Apparently, apart from wagging, I can't wait for anything from you. You cannot admit your mistakes, you obviously lack the spirit for this.
                        No, it wasn't a typo. It was simply impossible for me to believe that a person who undertakes to write about the fleet and compare something there in rubles is SO ignorant that he considers the cost of frigate 22350 IN THE FUTURE (because he compares the future 900 billion for Tu-160) at 18 billion a piece.
                        And since, in addition to your inability to work with numbers, you also demonstrated an inability to communicate clearly, I assumed that we are still talking about 9 frigates for $ 100 billion.
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        Or a complete lack of understanding of the logic?

                        You flatter yourself very much, believing that there is logic in your article
                    2. Alexander Vorontsov
                      14 November 2020 11: 41
                      -3
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      I, unlike you, generally easily admit my mistakes, and even more so - slips. And when will I wait for your comment on the price of 18 billion frigate 22350? :)))

                      Dear Andrew.

                      You obviously did not understand the logic of the article.
                      I will explain.
                      I compared the strike potentials of the Tu-160 and the frigate when using cruise missiles.

                      In order for the calculations to be justified, I specially introduced a number of assumptions. And especially in the direction of the "strength" of the justifications.

                      Like here
                      Dividing 9 ships by 3 (we will not divide by 5, although this is a convention)

                      Although this convention is more applicable for large ships, and not for small ones.

                      In the case of the cost of the frigate, according to the logic of the article, it is necessary, if possible, to choose the minimum price for the "maximum calibers on board".

                      The result of my article was the resulting ratio of cruise missiles for 1 salvo - approximately 2 to 1 in favor of the strategist.
                      With the mention of the fact that the strategist can deliver repeated strikes regularly. And thus, on the third day of the conflict, the ratio will become 6 to 1, and on the 5th day 10 to 1.

                      Taking into account such a "defeat" in the ratio, and besides, against the background of the division of ships into 3 and not 5 (in the Caspian and Baltic, something must also float and in fact floats), I consider your arguments insignificant, since you are talking about figures of 29 billion instead of 18 billion

                      What even more STRENGTHENS the conclusions made in the article.


                      The question arises - are you generally able to understand that pointing out my "mistake" to me (appealing to the price of 28 billion), you thereby further confirm the correctness of the main conclusion of my article?

                      But against this background, expect me to comment with the acknowledgment of my alleged mistake (for which you accepted assumptions in the direction of the strength of the justifications).
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 November 2020 14: 03
                        +1
                        Alexander, I had 2 complaints about your article.
                        Claim No. 1. You asked one question and answered another. You put the question "TU-160 superweapon or obsolete aircraft" in the headline. And they began to answer the question "which is better as a striking force of the fleet - naval missile-carrying aviation, built on strategic missile carriers, or frigates"
                        These are two DIFFERENT questions. At the same time, the question you undertook to answer is absurd by definition.
                        1) The fleet, so you know, NEVER counted frigates as the main striking force of the fleet, their tasks are completely different. That is, comparing the Tu-160 and the frigate in terms of striking capabilities is almost the same as comparing the Tu-160 and, say, a landing boat (PLO helicopter, minesweeper) - it is clear that the Tu-160 will win, simply due to the fact that neither a frigate, neither the minesweeper nor the landing craft is a weapon system designed to deal with strike missions. The frigate can, under certain conditions, participate in the defeat of the enemy's KUG, but this is very situational and, for the most part, not a profile for him.
                        2) The answer in favor of the Tu-160 in comparison with the frigate does not indicate the modernity or relevance of the Tu-160 as the basis of the MRA, simply because ANY strategic bomber wins the frigate in this parameter, including the B-52, and even smaller ones aircraft of the Tu-22M3 type, for example.
                        And to put it simply: if we would compare the Tu-160 with a coffee maker, the effect would be even more obvious.
                        That is why I said before, and I repeat now that when you write
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        You obviously did not understand the logic of the article.

                        I answer you - you cannot understand what is not. The article is initially illogical, since you:
                        1) You are not answering the question posed by you
                        2) Comparing what cannot be compared, because it has different purposes
                        Perhaps you will understand this someday. Then all the absurdity of your maxim will reach you.
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        The question arises - are you generally able to understand that pointing out my "mistake" to me (appealing to the price of 28 billion), you thereby further confirm the correctness of the main conclusion of my article?

                        Yes, there is a completely fair opinion that today the basis of the striking force of the fleets should be precisely naval missile-carrying aviation (MRA). But your article does not confirm or refute this, the conclusion drawn in your article is not substantiated or proved by it.
                        In order to substantiate the advantage of the Tu-160 as the basis for the MRA, it was necessary:
                        1) Compare its effectiveness with the main striking force of the multipurpose forces of the Russian Navy - submarines
                        2) Justify that out of all the variety of relatively modern multipurpose or attack aircraft (Su-30SM, Su-34, Tu-22M3M, Tu-160M ​​or others), it is the Tu-160 that optimally solves the functions of the MRA
                        THIS would be a logical article justifying the usefulness of the Tu-160. Your attempts ... alas, about nothing.
                        My second claim concerned an incorrect assessment of the cost of frigates.
                        It's all.
                        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                        But against this background, expect me to comment with the acknowledgment of my alleged mistake (for which you accepted assumptions in the direction of the strength of the justifications).

                        Alexander, you are now lying without blushing, because if it was your assumption, you would have written to me about it right away, and not rushed to look for justification materials confirming the cost of 22350 at 18 billion rubles.
                      2. Alexander Vorontsov
                        15 November 2020 00: 01
                        -4
                        Dear Andrey, I have read with pleasure everything that you have written.
                        In my article there are specific numbers that give an idea of ​​the scale of this difference ..

                        This is not the last article, I prefer to go step by step, and I plan to refer to these numbers in theses in the future.

                        If something is obvious to you, great. If I meet a person for whom this is not obvious, I can give him a link to these calculations.

                        I don't see anything wrong with that. Or wrong.
                        I also did not see here the requirements for the level of the material in the form of "not lower than a student of the General Staff Academy courses."

                        As for your amendments, they are appropriate.
                        But in the article I will nevertheless leave the value of 18 billion, because in this form, the ratio is still indicative, and the calculations have an additional margin of "strength".

                        Alexander, you are now lying without blushing, because if it was your assumption, you would write to me about it right away

                        I could not write to you about this right away, because the first question you had was based on the fact that for some reason you divided 900 by 9
                        Do we have a frigate suddenly costing 100 billion rubles?

                        This is to the question of who is lying - rewind and see what your first post was. There was not a word about 18. And if there was, show me where.
                        Therefore, in principle, I could not comment on what was out of the question. And the first thing I answered was that you shouldn't have divided by 9.
                        Or am I wrong here too?
                        Please answer this question with 1 word. Did you divide correctly or not?
          2. cmax
            cmax 14 November 2020 00: 55
            -3
            Dreamers. Look at reality. Lack of our own machine tool industry, microelectronics and many other things necessary for a developed country. IL-76 will be produced by 2 aircraft per year. The MS-21 finally has a second copy in many years of development, when it may go into production. New tanks ......... ope, drones in .... ope, space in ..... ope. One or two dozen means nothing for the country. FGUPs are bloated, personnel are selected most often on the basis of loyalty, and not on the basis of intelligence. Wildly small salaries in the defense industry, unless the huge salaries of the Ragozins can be cited as an example. The system of fake tenders, where everyone knows it's crap, but firmly believes in a just cause. If in the next 2-15 years nothing changes in the heads of the leadership and the leadership itself does not change, then Russia, as a country, does not shine from the word at all. Indeed, it will be like a country 20 of the world, only with outdated nuclear weapons. It won't help, though.
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 16: 20
      0
      dear sirs saw your heated argument, I support Alexander Vorontsov ...
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      This was the whole point - to compare the striking capabilities of combat units in the same weight category (in terms of cost).

      the frigate has such tasks 1 peacetime patrol ship (chase pirates and poachers, follow the corvette of a potential enemy, 2 plots of the coastal zone in wartime 3 missile weapons and self-defense air defense ... replace ..... we need 1 patrol corvette ( now Andrey and Timokhin will attack me) costing about a couple of billion 2 one BE200 PLO it replaces about 5 PLO frigates and costs 1.4 billion 3 Tu 160 M2 for 16 billion rubles replaces about 5-10 missile frigates for tactical and strategic strike missions ... it is clear that investments in that 160 are almost an order of magnitude more profitable than in a frigate, they are five six or more times more profitable in terms of the range of speed of mobility of invulnerability
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 13 November 2020 11: 06
    -2
    Everything that is installed on the Tu160 can be installed on a pre-sonic aircraft with a civil turbojet engine and a plan with less weight on the airframe. Which is definitely cheaper and more durable than Tu160.

    Therefore, there is only one question: do you need a supersonic mode or not ...?!
    1. A1845
      A1845 13 November 2020 11: 47
      +3
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Therefore, there is only one question: do you need a supersonic mode or not ...?!

      supersonic air defense breakthrough has long been asked, this is history
      the range of cruise missiles is such that you can launch them from your own territory
      the need for 2M is unsupported
      1. Genry
        Genry 13 November 2020 13: 25
        +1
        Quote: A1845
        the need for 2M is unsupported

        The maximum speed of the Tu-160 allows it to slip into safe time windows and maintain a distance from enemy fighters.
        For example, Hochma (3D animation) from the Norwegians.
        https://topcor.ru/17279-3d-animaciju-provalnogo-perehvata-tu-160-norvezhskimi-f-35-obsuzhdajut-v-seti.html?utm_source=warfiles.ru

        Quote: A1845
        the range of cruise missiles is such that you can launch them from your own territory

        Planes are not needed?
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 13 November 2020 14: 02
          +4
          Quote: Genry
          The maximum speed of the Tu-160 allows it to slip into safe time windows and maintain a distance from enemy fighters.

          Stop cracking down on all sorts of nonsense.
          Tu-160 operates outside enemy air defense zones.
          1. Genry
            Genry 13 November 2020 14: 15
            +3
            Quote: Bez 310
            Stop cracking down on all sorts of nonsense.
            Tu-160 operates outside enemy air defense zones.

            Show these "out of zones" now (I'm not talking about the case of a hot war).
            1. Bez 310
              Bez 310 13 November 2020 14: 33
              -4
              Quote: Genry
              Show these "out of zones"

              "Pal Andreevich, are you a spy?"
              Well, think for yourself - who will show you?
              And the same "patrol" about which
              like to talk on TV, so it's common
              "PR", and nothing to do with combat work
              does not have.
              1. Genry
                Genry 13 November 2020 14: 39
                +1
                Quote: Bez 310
                "Pal Andreevich, are you a spy?"
                Well, think for yourself - who will show you?

                I do not mean it.
                Is it not clear that the Tu-160 should not work on its territory. Then there would have been enough militarized Il-86 or even MS-21 (with a carrying capacity of 20 tons).
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 18: 28
                  0
                  Quote: Genry
                  Then there would have been enough militarized Il-86 or even MS-21 (with a carrying capacity of 20 tons).

                  then there will be enough ground yars, nevertheless, the planes are made to get closer to the enemy .... and will we replace the tanks with KAMAZ trucks with a carrying capacity of 20 tons? .. they will eat less fuel? in general, it seems to me surprising that an organized criminal group was formed as if on command attacking nuclear weapons, TU160, nuclear submarines accusing them of being unnecessary, but zealously pushing the concepts of the times of the crusaders, contradicting common sense, and cutting budgets and allowances for useless aircraft carriers, Tu 95 (useful but outdated) and UDK ... all according to the Yurgens 2020 plan, up to the dissolution of the General Staff, the transfer of all oil and gas to the United States and the voluntary unilateral abandonment of nuclear weapons, and the Kuriles to the Japanese ...
                  1. Fan-fan
                    Fan-fan 13 November 2020 21: 46
                    0
                    Vladimir, do not juggle, people here do not attack nuclear weapons, TU160, nuclear submarines, on the contrary, people want more similar weapons. But the price of one Tu-160 in 18 billion is unaffordable for Russia. The plan of 50 planes is fantastic, how many will be made, one per year? Can it be more profitable for Ilu to instruct him to design a new aircraft based on the IL-96 or IL-76?
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 22: 32
                      -2
                      Quote: Fan-Fan
                      Can it be more profitable for Ilu to instruct him to design a new aircraft based on the IL-96 or IL-76?

                      I didn’t understand your arguments, but I’m resigned to the fact that I’m not a pilot, and therefore I’m not going to state anything definite, if I understand something, I’ll say it, and if I’m not an expert, I’ll keep quiet, although I’ve learned a lot from you and think about it at my leisure
      2. bk0010
        bk0010 13 November 2020 22: 02
        +2
        Quote: A1845
        the need for 2M is unsupported
        The rationale was as follows: 4th generation fighters (of which the majority) can go supersonic for 10 minutes, and the Tu-160 - up to 40 minutes (at supersonic fuel consumption increases several times), due to which he could get away from them.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 16 November 2020 19: 48
          0
          Now is not 1943, when the Mosquito were running away from the Messers. While the Tu-160 is accelerating, it will be shot down ten times by missiles.
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 16 November 2020 20: 07
            0
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            Now is not 1943, when the Mosquito were running away from the Messers. While the Tu-160 is accelerating, it will be shot down ten times by missiles.
            This is not a sport where everyone starts from the same line. The task of the Tu-160 is to prevent them from reaching the missile launch range. Previously, he could.
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 16 November 2020 20: 11
              0
              H'm. To prevent the enemy from reaching the missile launch range is to build a route and flight profile so that enemy radar stations would not see you. And if you overcome the supposed line of interception at supersonic, then the range of the Tu-160 will be like that of the Su-24, if not less. And without a guarantee that the bomber will not be caught.
              1. bk0010
                bk0010 16 November 2020 20: 42
                0
                Not to overcome the line of interception at supersonic, but to have a chance to complete the task if something went wrong. It will take a lot of fuel, but on the way back the Il-78 will be able to help.
                1. Sergey Sfiedu
                  Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 16: 19
                  0
                  If something went wrong, supersonic will not save you from launching a rocket at the PPS.
    2. bober1982
      bober1982 13 November 2020 11: 48
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Therefore, there is only one question: do you need a supersonic mode or not ...?!

      You have a very unfortunate comment, very confusing.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 13 November 2020 12: 22
        0
        My answer is clear. If a conventional aircraft with flight characteristics Il96-300 or B747 can lift the same amount and use a wide range of ammunition, then why do we need a Tu160?
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 13 November 2020 12: 36
          0
          Quote: Zaurbek
          then why do we need Tu160?

          Yes, the question is very interesting.
          In the same "Ruslan" you can cut a compartment
          for rockets, and let it fly.
          By the way, about supersonic. No, supersonic at all
          not needed, it was a tribute to fashion at the time
          designing Tu-160. Hence the extra
          wing turning unit.
          For those who disagree - PAK DA will be subsonic.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 13 November 2020 12: 45
            0
            It's not so simple, but the wing, turbojet engine, cockpit, avionics may well be common ... and the pilots, which is important ...
          2. Genry
            Genry 13 November 2020 14: 23
            +3
            Quote: Bez 310
            For those who disagree - PAK DA will be subsonic.

            PAK DA is designed for a different concept. Its task will be to create conditions for the safety of nuclear weapons on board for a subsequent retaliation strike. Therefore, the aircraft must have the longest time in the air, which is ensured by the optimal height and speed - and of course this not supersonic.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 17: 04
              -1
              I didn't understand you, some kind of nonsense, ...... if you are going to save nuclear weapons for this there are bunkers and warehouses
          3. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 17: 02
            -2
            Quote: Bez 310
            By the way, about supersonic.

            I'm not an aviator, but it seems to me that supersonic increases the combat effectiveness of an aircraft ... and by the way, I didn't understand the message ... why would a strategist be in the air for a long time? why is it such a big problem to take off? why will he hang in the air until the end of the war? explain to me please, argue
            1. Bez 310
              Bez 310 13 November 2020 17: 14
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              I'm not an aviator, but it seems to me that supersonic increases the combat effectiveness of an aircraft ...

              If you are not an aviator, then listen to the opinion
              aviator that supersonic is not needed.
              Even in peacetime, Tu-160 and Tu-22m3 aircraft
              they practically do not fly on supersonic.
              No, I'm lying ... Each crew flies once a year, they will come
              slightly for supersonic, and immediately back.

              Here's one for you:

              Supersonic

              They tell me that the Tu-22m3 backfire is a supersonic missile-carrying aircraft for Long-Range Aviation, and that this supersonic speed makes life much easier for him. I don't know how they got there in Long-Range Aviation, but we used to have Naval Missile Aviation in the Navy, and we also flew backfires in it, but supersonic didn't help us in any way, and sometimes even hurt us.
              When people, slightly connected with aviation, begin to tell me that supersonic speed was given to the "backfire" to break through the enemy's air defense, and to break away from enemy fighters, I just nod my head in silence. What is there to do? It is useless to argue with a person who has such deep knowledge in the tactics of using supersonic missile carriers, and even harmful to health.
              Yes, the pilots of the Tu-22m3 (backfire) supersonic missile carriers do fly at supersonic speed. Once a year, during the annual control of the piloting technique at maximum modes, with a supervising instructor pilot on board. And that's all. Supersonic speed is not used anywhere else. That's it…
              So why is the ability to fly at supersonic speed not being used? My answer is straightforward - when operating at "maximum afterburner", which is needed to reach supersonic speed, the backfire engines consume so much fuel that the plane will not fly anywhere, or will not return from anywhere.
              Well, and about a curious incident in the next regiment. The regiment was "spinning" flights, the weather was unstable, and the regiment commander could not decide on a flight option - with routes, or only in the airfield area. To fulfill the combat training plan, cross-country flights were very necessary, so the regiment commander decided to wait a bit with a decision, suddenly the weather would improve, and the fuel from the planes would not be drained yet.
              We waited ... The weather improved slightly, but was so unstable that it was scary to fly on long routes, but they decided to carry out weather reconnaissance along the route to the training ground, to see what was going on in this airy sky.
              A lieutenant colonel, squadron commander, an experienced air fighter, "weathered like rocks" was planned for weather reconnaissance along the route to the training ground. After receiving pre-flight instructions, and turning off the tape recorder, on which these instructions were recorded, this experienced fighter approached the regiment commander:
              - I didn’t drain the fuel from the plane, there is a refueling for a long route, if you drain it now, I will not have time to take off as planned.
              - Yes, I know everything, I said not to drain it yet. Take off according to plan, but also sit down with the necessary residue, you yourself know where to put the fuel.
              - Of course I know!
              Takeoff, flight en route to the range, tactical launch of a cruise missile and bombing went according to plan. About 400 kilometers remained to the house, and a huge amount of fuel, landing with which it was impossible. But the ship's commander had flown for a long time, and he knew what to do with unnecessary fuel. He alternately turned on the engines "maximum afterburner" to burn out the fuel. Alternately, so as not to go to supersonic, flights on which are allowed only at high altitudes. Well, I also drained the fuel a little more through the emergency drain system.
              In general, during the landing, the plane had the required amount of fuel, the landing was carried out normally, but while taxiing the crew noticed that everyone they were taxiing past was showing something on the plane. They started working, turned off the engines, the plane did not roll into the parking lot, but immediately rolled up the stepladder. The squadron engineer climbed the ladder and asked the commander:
              - What happened?
              The commander was very surprised at this question, and answered:
              - What could have happened? Everything is as usual, the plane is intact, the crew is alive - the flight was a success.
              - Yes, you go and look at the stern of this "whole" plane!
              The crew got off the plane, examined the stern, and learned that our planes are the strongest planes in the world. A cannon mount burned out in the stern, the whole rear was torn apart by explosions from cannon shells. But these trifles had no effect on the flight performance of the aircraft, and the crew did not feel anything in flight.
              Then there was a showdown with the commander, and it was possible to find out that he was draining fuel simultaneously with the operation of the engines "afterburner". And the emergency drain pipe is located between the engines.

              From the torch for which the Backfire is so famous, the drained fuel ignited, and the rear of the plane caught fire. In general, it's okay, so, breakdown ...
              The plane's back was temporarily riveted, and the plane was driven back to the factory. The squadron commander was removed from his post, and transferred to the post of deputy squadron commander to our regiment, and soon, out of sight altogether, to the Long-Range Aviation.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 18: 17
                0
                Thank you, I understand that at sea there is also an economical cruising speed, and sometimes there is an afterburner, for which very heavy and expensive engines are installed on the koal, turn the ship's gluttony in comparison with the plane so great that you never dreamed of, there you need hundreds of tons of your aviation kerosene or diesel fuel , stupidly for fr1155 follows a whole tanker of fuel when driving at cruising speed, and at afterburner ..... I will shut up .......... but still these engines are installed, and not made from warships of merchants from a speed of 12 knots ..... it is clear that in peacetime fuel is expensive, and you do not need to spend it, and you don’t need to wear out the mate part either. but better UDC., he and BU 200 are like a thorn in the eye, a lot of fuss is not enough for profit, it is better for IL76 ..... As a specialist, a question for you ... but in combat conditions you may need supersonic for a short time if a tomahawk is chasing you probably it will not be a pity for fuel to save you and the plane?
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 13 November 2020 18: 43
                  -1
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  And in combat conditions, you may need supersonic for a short time, if a tomahawk is chasing you, it will probably not be a pity to save yourself and the plane?

                  Tomahawks don't chase planes.
                  I do not see cases when I might need
                  supersonic, because the Tu-95 is without supersonic, they decide
                  all tasks as the Tu-160.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 19: 11
                    -1
                    and if you need to enter the zone of destruction of enemy AUG, shoot back and flee from carrier-based aircraft fighters that took off in response to your approach?
                    1. ancient
                      ancient 13 November 2020 20: 16
                      +2
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      and if you need to enter the zone of destruction of enemy AUG,

                      Then you need to take care in advance that your loved ones would already know ... that you have ... a "one-way ticket" soldier
                2. ancient
                  ancient 13 November 2020 19: 42
                  +3
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  cruising economy speed

                  Cruise mode is the maximum range mode, but the most advantageous is already ...... economical for the duration wink
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  and in combat conditions, supersonic may be needed for a short time if a tomahawk is chasing you

                  Well, "Ax" can't chase an airplane in any way belay
                  And in terms of .. "leaving" on supersonic ..... there are many factors and accidents that you may not have time to foresee.
                  And it all depends on the situation - if the fighter is already in the ZPS and in the chase mode ... then there are chances ... since it also has a lot of restrictions on tanks.armament ... in short, only the F-15 can "create" problems, but this an ideal case for the Tu-22M3 ... in reality everything will be in the PPS and the crew will find out that .. "he will be hi soon", will learn from the STR ... and here it is already .... too late to rush about ... that called .. "sailed."
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 21: 01
                    0
                    Quote: ancient
                    And in terms of .. "leaving" in supersonic ... there are many factors and accidents

                    understandably, I respect pilots
              2. ancient
                ancient 13 November 2020 19: 24
                0
                Quote: Bez 310
                No, I'm lying ... Each crew flies once a year, they will come
                slightly for supersonic, and immediately back.

                Maybe this was so in the MPA ... I don't know, but in YES on the Tu-22M (according to the KBP, the maximum interruption in flights to the M> 1 mode at least 4 times a month) is for the ordinary crew.
                Crews allowed for overflights when replacing the engine fly regularly, after 600 hours of scheduled maintenance ... so there were enough flights.
                The period when we went beyond the river ... we do not take into account, we flew there ... for the whole life laughing
              3. ancient
                ancient 13 November 2020 19: 33
                +2
                Quote: Bez 310
                From the torch for which the Backfire is so famous, the drained fuel ignited, and the rear of the plane caught fire.

                "Bike" from MRA .... laughing we also have a lot of such "tales" about the "barbell" (76-mm anti-tank gun) and about the cinema in the cockpit of the navigators (when the navigator turns on the test grid on the Vidicon) ... and so on ... wink
                Enjoy watching wink
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 13 November 2020 20: 52
                  0
                  Quote: ancient
                  "Bike" from MRA ....

                  For you - a bike, but for me - a reality.
                  Aerodrome Kamenny Ruchey, 568 mrap,
                  August 18, 1982 - Tu-22M2 plane crash,
                  KK p / p-k Mityaev A.N.
                  Like this...
                  1. ancient
                    ancient 14 November 2020 10: 38
                    0
                    Quote: Bez 310
                    KK p / p-k Mityaev A.N.

                    The List contains Mityaev's accident on August 18, 1982 ... the plane was decommissioned, but the reasons ... are not specified wink
                    This was the first accident at the Pacific Fleet on a Tu-22m2.
                    1. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 14 November 2020 11: 53
                      0
                      Quote: ancient
                      but the reasons ... not specified

                      I gave you the reason, but nothing
                      I'm not going to prove, just
                      I see no reason to strain.
                      1. ancient
                        ancient 14 November 2020 13: 05
                        0
                        Quote: Bez 310
                        just
                        I see no reason to strain.

                        And who is asking you? belay Do I have the right to "doubt" or not? ...
                        If you say that it was so .. then it is so .. You know better, because maybe you were at that time and were present at the scene.
                      2. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 14 November 2020 13: 49
                        0
                        Quote: ancient
                        maybe you were present at the scene at that time.

                        I was not present on the plane, but I was in the garrison.
                      3. ancient
                        ancient 14 November 2020 14: 25
                        +1
                        Quote: Bez 310
                        but was in the garrison.

                        Well ... for which I speak ... the name of the commander is heard ... but in the old man's way I forgot ... for what "occasion" ... about the explosion in the cartridge box in the brain was deposited but the reason and for whom and where ... I don't even remember ... how much time has passed ... recourse
        2. ancient
          ancient 13 November 2020 19: 08
          +2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          that supersonic increases the combat effectiveness of the aircraft

          So "scanty" that ... criteria "negligible" and "effective" ... wounds are practically 0. wink
          Specific fuel consumption ...... is several times higher, which is "fraught" with a decrease in the tactical range, which is the MAIN criterion of combat effectiveness for "long" aircraft soldier
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 14 November 2020 10: 12
            -1
            Quote: ancient
            tactical radius of action, which is the BASIC criterion of combat effectiveness for "long" aircraft

            here it was proposed to replace that 160 with silt 76, ... the fact is that I like silt 76, but this is an aircraft that, in combat conditions, does not fly out of the zone of front-line aviation and ground air defense of the country, the reason is slow speed and therefore vulnerability to enemy fighters. if we are talking about the range, this is not only a physical ability to fly somewhere so that there is enough fuel, but also to complete a combat mission for which to get away from enemy fighters. ... Tu95 is an outdated aircraft, its speed is slightly higher or 76, 96, 925 km / h, my opinion is that they need to be converted into PLO aircraft, and they should be replaced by Tu160 ...
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 16 November 2020 19: 57
              0
              Tu-160 is vulnerable in much the same way. Here they already write half a page that supersonic does little for combat effectiveness. The main thing for a bomber covertly reach the line of launching the CD.
        3. bk0010
          bk0010 13 November 2020 22: 07
          +2
          Quote: vladimir1155
          By the way, I didn't understand the message ... why would a strategist be in the air for a long time? why take off is such a big problem?
          Yes it's big. The plane at the airfield will be destroyed with the airfield 20 minutes after the start of the war, and the plane in the air will be able to take revenge. US strategic aviation responded to the launch of Sputnik with constant airborne watch. The strategic aviation of the USSR began permanent air duty after the Pershig was stationed in Europe.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 22: 29
            -1
            Quote: bk0010
            The plane at the airfield will be destroyed with the airfield 20 minutes after the start of the war

            and why C400 then?
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 13 November 2020 22: 33
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              and why C400 then?
              And how will she help against Trident?
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 22: 37
                -2
                Well, against an already exploded trident, the flying plane will not resist, but on the approach, the C400 trident can destroy and thereby save cities and airfields ... "The S-400 is designed to destroy all modern and promising aerospace attack weapons (incl. .. h. hypersonic). "
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 22: 40
                  -1
                  Upon completion of the tests of the new extended-range missile, the complex will be able to hit aerodynamic targets at ranges of up to 400 km and tactical ballistic targets at ranges of up to 60 km [7], flying at speeds up to 4,8 km / s [8]: cruise missiles, tactical aircraft and strategic aviation maneuvering ballistic missile warheads. The early detection radar provides a detection range of up to 600 km. Missiles can hit low-flying targets at a height of 5 m [9] (for comparison: the American Patriot complex is capable of hitting targets only at a height of at least 60 m) [10]. It is possible to use several types of missiles with different launch weights and launch ranges, which makes it possible to create an echeloned defense.
                  1. bk0010
                    bk0010 13 November 2020 23: 29
                    +1
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    and tactical ballistic targets
                    The Trident is an SLBM (strategic), the Minuteman is an ICBM, the S-400 will not take them, except that the A-135 can try.
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    well, against the already exploded trident and the flying plane will not resist
                    Getting Trident on a flying plane is very problematic.
                  2. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 14 November 2020 09: 44
                    -2
                    Quote: bk0010
                    Trident on a flying plane is very problematic.

                    you claim that the country's air defense is a dummy? that 400 does not ensure the destruction of MBR BMP? but in TTX s400 the destruction of warheads of strategic nuclear missiles is also indicated, should I believe you or is it objective data? The idea of ​​everyone taking off and flying until the end of the century so that you do not get hit by a rocket ... seems absurd to me. about constant flights after the appearance of Pershing ... this is just an official move, like a mask mode "did you take a retaliatory step to the appearance of Pershing? Oh yes, my boss, now we are not afraid of pershing, we have planes constantly in the air" ... and with what did you get that the trident should get on the plane? its affected area is tens of kilometers, an explosion with a capacity of 20 kt gives a zone of complete destruction with a radius of about 1 km, 20 megatons - already 10 km. According to calculations, with an explosion with a power of 100 Mt, the zone of complete destruction will have a radius of about 35 km, severe destruction - about 50 km, at a distance of about 80 km unprotected people will receive third-degree burns. Well, an electromagnetic pulse will make the plane just a barrel with wings. so if it comes to tridents, then we can assume that hundreds of missiles will fall on the country, where it is interesting to find a place for airplanes in the air? so shakes that the wings will fall off.
                  3. bk0010
                    bk0010 14 November 2020 09: 56
                    +1
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    but in TTX s400 the destruction of warheads of strategic nuclear missiles is also indicated
                    Not specified, read carefully. S-500 will be possible.
                    and where did you get the idea that the trident should get on the plane? its affected area is tens of kilometers
                    Are you seriously? Strategists all over the country fly, reach the states, and then a circle of 10 km (this is a big overkill (1MT), warheads of such power have not been made for a long time, but let's accept it). What is the chance that the plane will end up in this circle? Yes, and all ICBMs are aimed at stationary targets, it is even difficult to retarget them to another stationary target, and you want to shoot them at planes. I'm not talking about target designation. No, there are anti-aircraft missiles with nuclear warheads, but that's a completely different story.
                  4. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 14 November 2020 10: 00
                    -1
                    Quote: bk0010
                    and you want to shoot them at planes.

                    I don’t want to, but the density of stationary targets is very high and the number of missiles is also measured in hundreds .... well, of course, if you fly to Siberia, then you are not afraid of a nuclear strike. . but no there are positional areas ... where are you going to sit out the whole third world? ..... and where will you sit? and the main thing is to take off on time, or are you going to plant potatoes on an airplane and will fly on it forever and dig potatoes for food?
                  5. bk0010
                    bk0010 14 November 2020 10: 04
                    +1
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    but the density of stationary targets is very high
                    We and the states each have 1500 warheads. Only. Plus, the plane has a flight altitude of 10 km, and the explosion is produced at 300 meters, there is already a margin for range.
                  6. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 14 November 2020 10: 15
                    -2
                    With a high-altitude nuclear explosion, EMP fields can appear in the explosion zone and at altitudes of 20-40 km from the earth's surface. The damaging effect of EMP is manifested, first of all, in relation to radio-electronic and electrical equipment in service with military equipment and other objects.
            2. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 14: 52
              0
              Quote: vladimir1155
              you claim that the country's air defense is a dummy?

              She is?
              Quote: vladimir1155
              Should I believe you or is it objective data?

              Objective data, of course. Which say that this complex has never been tested against such targets. And in general, in the light of recent events, questions have accumulated about Russian air defense systems.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 14: 33
        +1
        Quote: vladimir1155
        here on approach, the trident C400 can destroy

        No news for myself.
        Quote: vladimir1155
        designed to destroy all modern and advanced aerospace attack weapons

        Do not roll bags.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 13 November 2020 22: 03
    +4
    Quote: Bez 310
    In the same "Ruslan" you can cut a compartment
    for rockets, and let it fly.
    Avionics will make missile Ruslan more expensive than Tu-160.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 13 November 2020 22: 09
      0
      Quote: bk0010
      rocket Ruslan

      This is a joke.
  • bober1982
    bober1982 13 November 2020 12: 40
    0
    Quote: Zaurbek
    If a conventional aircraft with flight characteristics Il96-300 or B747 can lift the same amount and use a wide range of ammunition, then why do we need a Tu160?

    If an ordinary plane ... can lift the same amount and use a wide range, then these will be very unusual planes, very, very. The exhibits are ground-based.
    There is little left to do.
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 13 November 2020 12: 44
      +1
      Quote: bober1982
      and, use a wide range of

      And what is the "wide spectrum" of the Tu-160?
      As far as I know, this "spectrum" is very limited ...
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 13 November 2020 12: 48
        0
        Quote: Bez 310
        And what is the "wide spectrum" of the Tu-160?

        You, ask Zaurbek, the addressee was mistaken.
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 13 November 2020 12: 50
          +2
          Quote: bober1982
          addressee wrong

          Yes, I was wrong, sorry.
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 13 November 2020 12: 52
            0
            It happens that you are a well-mannered person.
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 13 November 2020 15: 02
          0
          I take the American B52 as an example. The strategist with the widest range of weapons
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 13 November 2020 12: 46
      +3
      A subsonic aircraft with the same payload as the Tu160 will weigh 100 tons less.
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 13 November 2020 14: 02
      +2
      Look at the latest cargo versions B747 or Il96-300
  • shahor
    shahor 13 November 2020 14: 33
    +3
    Quote: Zaurbek
    Everything that is installed on the Tu160 can be installed on a pre-sonic aircraft with a civil turbojet engine and a plan with less weight on the airframe. Which is definitely cheaper and more durable than Tu160.

    Therefore, there is only one question: do you need a supersonic mode or not ...?!

    Quite a correct observation. After all, how was the Tu-60 created in the 70-160s? The concept is a high-altitude flight and a supersonic breakthrough into the air defense zone. Hence the variable wing geometry. The Americans, whose analogue, B1A, took off 5 years earlier, realized that the concept was not viable and their project was destroyed. Today we have an expensive aircraft with absolutely redundant qualities. Well, he doesn't need a variable geometry wing. Well, he does not need supersonic. You can't fly away from an anti-aircraft missile. Tu carries a long-range weapon - and he does not need to break through somewhere. And in general, this is not a first strike weapon. Therefore, both in our country and in the United States, they create unobtrusive subsonic bombers. I would not spend money on the resumption of production of the outgoing machine of the 20th century, but would focus all my resources on accelerating the development of PAK DA.
    1. Genry
      Genry 13 November 2020 15: 39
      -4
      Quote: shahor
      Well, he doesn't need a variable geometry wing. Well, he does not need supersonic. You can't fly away from an anti-aircraft missile.

      Speed ​​matters a lot. This creates a surprise strike and the ability to quickly escape to a safe area. Israel in Syria is using the time windows for the arrival of air defense missiles to strike and escape ...
      1. shahor
        shahor 13 November 2020 17: 08
        +2
        Quote: Genry
        Speed ​​matters

        Speed, in principle, never hurts, but not at the expense of other qualities. Your example is true for tactical aviation. But we are talking about a strategic aircraft. This is not a first strike weapon. Its time comes after the missile first strike, when the air defense is largely disabled. Here, for him, not speed is more important, but stealth. Hence the subsonic flying wing for us and for the Americans (by the way, for the Chinese).
        1. Genry
          Genry 13 November 2020 18: 21
          -3
          Quote: shahor
          This is not a first strike weapon.

          These are only weapons! The first or third is determined by planning according to the situation and possibilities.
          If you fly to finish off, you still have to break through or go around. Speed ​​is very important.
          1. shahor
            shahor 13 November 2020 22: 53
            +1
            Quote: Genry
            Speed ​​is very important.

            Most of all it is needed when catching fleas. For strike aviation, the most necessary thing is the ability to reliably hit designated targets. Both in the USA and in Russia, they used the most complex methods of mathematical and full-scale modeling, and came to the same conclusion - a SUBSONIC flying wing. Which, in general, is expected. Let me remind you that Academician Boris Fedosov (google if you do not know who it is) in his memoirs - 50 years in aviation, I highly recommend to you - he wrote about a scientific and practical conference that took place in the USSR Ministry of Aviation in the mid-80s. There it was a question of the strategic choice of aircraft weapons, many pounds ahead. It was about supersonic aeroballistic missiles and subsonic cruise missiles. The opinion was unanimous - a cruise missile is more effective.
            1. Genry
              Genry 14 November 2020 00: 18
              -1
              Quote: shahor
              it was a question of the strategic choice of aircraft armament - a lot ahead. It was about supersonic aeroballistic missiles and subsonic cruise missiles. The opinion was unanimous - a cruise missile is more effective.

              Do you like subsonic KR!?!
              In Syria, when the US staged demonstration strikes, how many missiles made it to the target? And this despite the fact that the air defense-missile defense was there in places. And if every 5 km there will be some kind of "Derivation-air defense" and occasionally simple air defense systems for high-altitude 15 km targets ??? The subsonic CR will not pass these boundaries, and the hypersonic one does not have the corresponding range.
              Here is a combination of a high-speed aircraft with self-defense systems and hypersonic cruise missiles will give a real probability of hitting a target.
              1. shahor
                shahor 14 November 2020 01: 56
                0
                Quote: Genry
                Do you like subsonic KR!?!
                In Syria, when the US staged demonstration strikes, how many missiles made it to the target? And this despite the fact that the air defense-missile defense was there in places. And if every 5 km there will be some kind of "Derivation-air defense" and occasionally simple air defense systems for high-altitude 15 km targets ??? The subsonic CR will not pass these boundaries, and the hypersonic one does not have the corresponding range.
                Here is a combination of a high-speed aircraft with self-defense systems and hypersonic cruise missiles will give a real probability of hitting a target.

                How everything is running! I will not even dissuade! Calibers - to the dustbin of history!
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 21: 08
          -1
          Quote: shahor
          Here, for him, not speed is more important, but stealth.

          please explain what is so good about stealth and how it differs from stealth
          1. shahor
            shahor 13 November 2020 22: 36
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            please explain what is so good about stealth and how it differs from stealth

            There are no stealthy planes. Sooner or later, detection means - radars, optoelectronic or infrared devices - will detect the aircraft. If the aircraft, due to its technical and design features, is discovered later, it will most likely end very sadly for the object of its attack. Am I making it clear?
  • bayard
    bayard 13 November 2020 11: 10
    +5
    The main problem of this aircraft is not even the high cost and complexity of maintenance, but the fact that our industry cannot produce it at any acceptable pace. In Soviet times, the industry of the USSR built 5 aircraft per year.
    Total !
    And nowadays they expect to build 2 planes a year !!!
    How many years will the expected series of 50 boards be built?
    25 (TWENTY FIVE) years !!!
    That is why nobody is serious about 50 pieces. and does not think, but only 10 pieces have been ordered so far. And even this will take not 5, but at least 7 years.
    If it all works out .
    And it will hardly be possible to increase the pace.
    In this case, one board costs 250 million dollars.
    Therefore, despite all the advantages of the Tu-160 in terms of efficiency, range and carrying capacity, it is necessary to build all other types of carriers. First of all, land and coastal ones, since the INF Treaty has sunk into oblivion. And also, following the example of the United States, to test the use / launch of the CD from the board of military transport aircraft. With the aid of pilot parachutes.
    It just so happens that we cannot have much of either the Tu-160 or Tu-22M3 \ M3M, so it is worth thinking about their more affordable alternative, to replenish / supplement the missing striking power. Such an aircraft can be the Su-34 in an updated version - with an increased range and payload. To do this, on the new version of the Su-34, it is possible to use the promising "Product-30" engines and an enlarged (length, wingspan and wing area) glider. The avionics can be unified with the Su-57 avionics. The combat radius of such an aircraft with a standard load can be up to 2000 - 2500 km. , which will be enough to use such an aircraft both in the MPA and in the DA (to replace the Tu-22M3). And its combat value will be no less, if not greater than that of the Tu-22M3.
    And the Tu-160, if they build the ordered series of 10 new aircraft + 15 existing ones, with such a composition (25 units) will serve, because in 10 years it will hardly be advisable to order another batch. By that time, most likely, PAK DA will already mature.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 13 November 2020 12: 23
      +3
      Therefore, the new bomber must be made on available and mastered civilian units ...
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 13 November 2020 11: 10
    +1
    Well ..., of course, "strategists" are needed as an integral mobile part
    our SNF. We have nothing better than the Tu-160, and there will not be anything yet.
    So the Tu-160 will have to fly for a very long time, as a simple
    platforms for the delivery and launch of the CD. In principle, the plane is very
    primitive, and the tasks of the crew are elementary, it is easier only for
    transport aircraft crews.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 13 November 2020 13: 31
      0
      I'm wondering, but how is YES going to use the bombs assigned to it? There are more of them than missiles.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 13 November 2020 14: 06
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        and how is YES going to use the bombs assigned to it?

        Something Tu-22m3 will be thrown away at landfills,
        as the bombs become obsolete, the rest
        destroyed by "burning grass on
        storage objects ", since destroy
        the established order is too expensive.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 13 November 2020 14: 46
          -1
          And nuclear? There are also nuclear ones. If, for example, it comes to this one, then the Americans are training to use bombs, and the equipment is being prepared for this, in terms of the presence of the same electronic warfare equipment on board, special equipment for pilots, programs to extend the life of aircraft gliders, etc.

          and we have a number of bombs. And training on their use? EW means adequate breakthrough tasks to the target with a bomb, no matter how it is carried out? I have never seen something like this in open sources.

          And we don't have so many missiles with special warheads, if after their use there are still planes, then they can only be sent to the target with bombs. There are many other situations when there will be planes and bombs, but there will be no CD.

          Are we ready for this?
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 13 November 2020 16: 48
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Are we ready for this?

            I can't say anything ...
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 13 November 2020 17: 45
              0
              I understand you.
              And I don’t insist. It's just that according to open data, it turns out that no. Given our security holes, something would have surfaced if there had been.
              But the topic is slippery, so let's finish.
              1. Vale-90
                Vale-90 18 November 2020 21: 46
                0
                M.V is not allowed, I can. Twice a year on one of the regiment's aircraft (by order for a year), training is carried out in the SBP suspension. Both the technical staff and the deaf and dumb train. Sometimes with taxiing, sometimes with takeoff along the APPROVED route.
                I don't remember how it goes at the KBP, not a pilot, it was pink. The details were once told by a colleague of M.V. on Mongohto, on the forum, Viktor Fedorovich ... He graduated from the Ministry of Defense, in the management dealing with special ammunition. If interested, registered. on the forum and in a personal ask.
          2. ancient
            ancient 13 November 2020 19: 50
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And training on their use?

            Previously, there was everything ..... and watch with special products and flights and training and support.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And we don't have so many missiles with special warheads,

            More than enough ...... any X-22 can become ... "special" in a matter of hours, and the X-32 ... in general .. "special from birth" wink
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 13 November 2020 23: 47
              +2
              Previously there were Tu-16, 22, 22M, M2, M3

              Now there are only a handful of flying Tu-22M3s with an incomprehensible residual resource.
              That is, all tasks on the enemy's territory will be solved by the Tu-95 and Tu-160. No one will be on the sea.
              According to START, a certain number of missiles and bombs from special warheads are assigned to bombers.
              However, bombs may be for Tu-22M3, I'm not sure here.

              So it is not clear to me how the same Tu-95s will operate with nuclear bombs, if it comes to that.

              The Americans - exercises to withdraw from a sudden air strike with the receipt of a combat mission already in the air (at this stage, the CDs fall off in principle), modernization of aircraft for air defense breakthroughs, as in the part of electronic warfare, avionics as a whole, control system, airframe, etc. .d.
              The pilots undergo special training, including flights at low altitudes (up to 2018, even on B-52), there is special individual equipment for working with nuclear bombs, the same protective masks, that is, they are really trained both in technical terms and in terms of training.
              Because they know that when withdrawing from a strike, for example, it may turn out that the planes survived, but the CD did not, it may turn out that the targets that should hit the CD are no longer there, that the target is mobile (PGRK), that its coordinates are known inaccurately, and it is also necessary to investigate it further, etc., etc.

              I know that in Soviet times SOMETHING in this part was done here, even though we were far from the Amers on these matters, but now, in my opinion, these things are not dealt with at all.

              And then they will set the tasks ...

              Please do not consider this an attempt to extract information, this is not a question, but thoughts out loud and nothing more. You don't even have to answer.
              1. ancient
                ancient 14 November 2020 10: 18
                +2
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Previously there were Tu-16, 22, 22M, M2, M3

                I agree ... only M-ki can be ignored as a type, since there were only 15 of them (0 and 1), although after us they got to the sailors and then they were all "brought" under the M2 series.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Now there are only a handful of flying Tu-22M3s with an incomprehensible residual resource.

                Here I agree.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                However, bombs may be for the Tu-22M3, I'm not sure here

                In vain wink bully
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                how the same Tu-95s will work as nuclear bombs, if it comes to that.

                No way ... no MS, no MSM ... only AKP.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The Americans have exercises to withdraw from a sudden airstrike with the receipt of a combat mission already in the air

                We also had it all in terms of power supply (I don't know now), only the way out of the blow is divided into "types":
                1. Immediate (with quick refueling).
                2. Planned (fully combat-ready aircraft with suspended ASPs ... but there are a lot of nuances here bully).
                3. From the state of increased BG with obtaining BG on the ground, or quickly (in the air)
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                (at this stage, CDs fall off in principle)

                Why? belay for X-22 and 32 to retarget to the Operational target .... almost .. "instantly" wink
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                that when withdrawing from the attack, for example, it may turn out that the aircraft survived, but the CD did not, it may turn out that the targets that should hit the CD are no longer there, that the target is mobile (PGRK)

                The situation is quite probable, but ... all airfields to which they are dispersed in case of "something" ... are already planned in advance and they have the necessary reserve of ASP (now I do not know) (in our time, 1 AB on a trolley was kept constantly in a caponier ... "behind the tail").
                For missiles with ARGSN, a moving target is not a problem at all.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I know that in Soviet times, SOMETHING in this part was done with us, even though we were far from the Amers on these matters,

                Here I agree.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                but now, in my opinion, these things are not engaged at all.

                No comment here.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                this is not a question, but thinking out loud and nothing more. You don't even have to answer.

                I never allow myself this ... even if it's not a question wink drinks
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 14 November 2020 12: 58
                  +1
                  Why? belay for X-22 and 32 to retarget to the Operational target .... almost .. "instantly"


                  There will soon be no carriers for them.
              2. Alexander Vorontsov
                14 November 2020 16: 35
                -1
                Alexander, I understand correctly that the essence of your question can be expressed differently: how to fight with bombs in the era of rocket weapons?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 14 November 2020 18: 50
                  0
                  It was a rhetorical question: "Is our long-range aviation preparing to use the weapons it has?"
                  I don't really need an answer.
      2. ancient
        ancient 13 November 2020 19: 47
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        and how is YES going to use the bombs assigned to it?

        According to the Order of the Supreme Command and the subsequent Decision on military operations according to .. one of the "options" wink
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 16 November 2020 00: 36
          +2
          It turns out that Colonel General Reshetnikov wrote his memoirs, and even in the post-Soviet era, uncensored.

          And there the answer to my questions like "is it possible or not":

          Andrei Nikolaevich also hurt us in terms of low-altitude flights. We would not be pressed to the ground, but our onboard radio countermeasures were, to put it mildly, somewhat weak to effectively resist enemy air defense detection and aiming stations. The low altitude could protect us much more reliably from premature spotting in dangerous areas of flight, since the radio emissions of the radars almost did not touch the earth and sea surfaces. In training with Russian air defense, if the flight plan was kept secret, our ships at low altitude passed unnoticed and untouched through vast spaces. With their own - so what? But the fact is that the potential enemy's radar fields, the general picture of which was well known to us, differed little from the Soviet ones. And this gave us a good chance. [427]

          We started flights at an altitude of 100, 200, 300 meters, as usual, also "without asking", not seeing any sedition in that, but, as it turned out, the aircraft design, especially in the summer, in turbulent air from terrestrial vapors, undergoes increased stress. And Tupolev awarded: one hour at low altitude - two hours of aircraft life. It’s unprofitable, of course, and it’s not a matter of scattering resources, but at that time we could not refuse this, perhaps the only reliable opportunity to penetrate the targets more or less unnoticed. And later, when new, stronger, but still weak means of radio countermeasures and even long-range anti-radar missiles appeared, we did not deny low altitudes.


          And when I wrote that I had to learn to work with bombs again, people pointed fingers at me, called me names, and that's how it was - 100 meters on the Tu-95 ...

          If interested - memoirs - http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/reshetnikov_vv/index.html

          Found it by chance.
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 18 November 2020 16: 25
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And Tupolev awarded: one hour at low altitude - two hours of aircraft life.


            Tupolev died in 1972. Since then, the low-altitude breakthrough has gone out of fashion with the development of radar.
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 19 November 2020 12: 00
              0
              That's not why. And, in truth, it did not come out. The fact is that the West turned from the path of development of military air defense to ensure air supremacy by IA forces, and against it such breakthroughs by, 1982 very brightly highlighted this problem.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 19 November 2020 12: 38
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                And, in truth, it didn’t come out. The fact is that the West has turned from the path of development of military air defense to ensure air supremacy by the IA forces, and against it such breakthroughs by


                A. Didn't come out, but became useless. Okay.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 19 November 2020 15: 36
                  0
                  Only when the air defense breakthrough zone is covered by fighters. Then useless. And only in this case.
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 19 November 2020 15: 37
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Only when the air defense breakthrough zone is covered by fighters.


                    Or AWACS. Although most likely in some other cases.
          2. Alexander Vorontsov
            19 November 2020 20: 48
            -2
            Thank you, we respect, when it comes ... (
  • Gust
    Gust 13 November 2020 11: 14
    +2
    Tu-160 has the only advantage over all of the above means - efficiency. A forced exit to the launch line and launch is possible in the shortest possible time, with a concentrated strike, at a great distance from the bases. Only ICBMs are more efficient. So in peacetime this is a very effective tool for projection of forces, much more effective than a frigate. A military frigate is preferable.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 15: 56
      0
      Quote: Rafale
      it is a very effective force projection tool, much more effective than a frigate.

      why do you think a frigate is preferable in wartime? the frigate in wartime and from the base will not be able to leave
      1. Gust
        Gust 13 November 2020 18: 52
        0
        Because in the case of a conflict with NATO, the DA and SA bases will be destroyed first of all, with the help of ICBMs, CDs and everything that is, along with the positional areas of mine launchers and SSBN bases (during the first hours of escalation) for obvious reasons. You may not have time to disperse them even on other airfields.
        Frigates are targets of the second or third stage, some of them can be on the campaign besides. As a target, they are much more resistant to the damaging factors of nuclear weapons, and the frigate can actively fight off conventional means of attack. Therefore, survivors of the first attack will strengthen the defense of the remaining troops.
        In peacetime or in a limited conflict with local powers, strategists, on the contrary, are more useful, since they allow you to quickly deliver a massive strike of the CD to any targets, not just sea or coastal ones.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 19: 08
          0
          Quote: Rafale
          Frigates are targets of the second or third stage

          strange logic, if not more than strange ..., firstly, the air force base is buried deep into the territory and is equipped with air defense, and the naval base is just on the edge, and the approaches to it are very difficult to control, the submarine will come very close and hit it from under water., and even admirals are different there are our navy twice managed to lose super battleships right in the port in peacetime .. according to your logic, let's give up missiles, they are the same goals of the first stage? and we will arm ourselves with Finns.
          1. Gust
            Gust 14 November 2020 12: 45
            0
            BB ICBMs generally do not care how deep the target is and how approaches to it are controlled. The positional areas can intercept the load of several ICBMs; with a massive strike, there is no chance. CDs go into the load here, for redundancy for purposes of primary importance. And countries without an arsenal of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles will not attack the Russian Federation in their right mind.
            1. max702
              max702 14 November 2020 23: 52
              0
              If there is such a booze about which you are talking, then the presence of strategists, frigates and other things will not matter! If ports, bases, mines of ICBMs are destroyed, this means 35-40 minutes of life left for ALL!
    2. ancient
      ancient 13 November 2020 19: 56
      +2
      Quote: Rafale
      Forced exit to the launch line

      Any forced mode of reaching the launch line entails an increase in the likelihood of meeting with enemy fighters ... ... since the procedures for preparing the AKP at the launch are strictly consistent, whether in cruise mode, or at M> 1, but the approach to the enemy aircraft will occur much faster ...
      Therefore, at present, the supersonic regime for the Tu-160 is an opportunity as quickly as possible to leave the line of meeting with the enemy aircraft.
      You are confusing it with interception lines for air defense IA wink or the use of TA (IBA and FBA) wink
      1. Gust
        Gust 14 November 2020 12: 40
        +1
        Again, we are talking about a strike on an object that the "calibers" of sea carriers do not reach and which must be hit within a few hours after a decision is made. KR launch lines are not required to be on the shortest path to the target. Strategists, thanks to a large radius (6-7 tons. Km), can go a little "from the side", and the IA "does not know" from which azimuth the attack will be. Not to mention the fact that the enemy's AI may not reach / fail to pull up tankers, etc. when launching over the ocean, for example. In general, ideally, an ALCM is launched from its own territory or at a short distance with the cover of its own aircraft. After all, the strategist is not obliged to arrange a duel without cover, is it?
        1. ancient
          ancient 14 November 2020 13: 01
          +3
          Quote: Rafale
          we are talking about a strike on an object that the "calibers" of sea carriers do not reach and which must be hit within a few hours after a decision is made

          This is understandable, but ..... ICBMs are much easier wassat more reliable wink and ... much faster laughing
          Another thing is the destruction of targets promptly, when an immediate threat from them is identified .. then yes ... AKP is faster, but ..... if the carrier is in the DB zone in connection with the transfer of troops to the highest levels of BG.
          Quote: Rafale
          The launch lines of the KR are not required to be on the shortest path to the target.

          And who spoke about this? belay some types of AKP can generally be started up .. "from around the corner" wink
          Quote: Rafale
          and the IA "does not know" from which azimuth the attack will be

          Do not underestimate the enemy ... always and at all times, the air defense (air defense or deck) constantly (with increasing tension) conduct in the air in the DB zones on threatened directions and sectors. soldier
          Or do you consider "adversaries" absolutely according to .. "Zadornov"? wink You are greatly mistaken.
          Quote: Rafale
          Not to mention the fact that the opponent's AI may not reach / have time to pull up

          There is a possibility of such a development, but then for correctness it is necessary to indicate for correctness what types of AKR you are going to use for what purposes (at what depth they are located in the enemy's territory)
          "Everything" that flies with them .. "under the nose" at a distance of 1000-1200 is provided by interception and destruction by the AI ​​forces.
          Quote: Rafale
          In general, ideally, an ALCM is launched from its own territory or at a short distance with the cover of its own aircraft. After all, the strategist is not obliged to arrange a duel without cover, is it?

          I agree here ... in the "ideal" it is, but ....... in ideal conditions, there is practically no war soldier
  • Runway
    Runway 13 November 2020 11: 50
    +4
    A strange article, to put it mildly. The author attracts the "strategist" to the solution of problems of front-line aviation and detachment of the district level.
    Comparison of steamships with airplanes from the same "opera".
    Tu - 160/95 are strategists, and demonstration performances in SAR are demonstration performances (+ crew training).
    Aircraft are needed for the task of strategic nuclear forces.
    Strategists at the Union for training ironed Panjshir (efficiency is not so hot, but not the point).
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      13 November 2020 12: 17
      -5
      What is hiding under the phrase "strange"?
      Tu - 160/95 - strategists, and demonstration performances in the SAR

      Call horseradish the radish won't become sweeter.
      In Syria, it was not a demonstration performance, but a combat use.
      Those. the concepts that are voiced in the article are not theoretical, but already applied in practice.
      This means that the tactics of such an application have been discussed, worked out and trained.

      Unlike everything that people write, they are stuck at the level of Cold War concepts.
      Grandpa was quiet and sweet, he still bombed Berlin ...
      1. Runway
        Runway 13 November 2020 15: 04
        +3
        Demonstration flight and training of crews / ground with the use of standard weapons in the form of anti-ballistic missiles for targets that do not have air defense cover from the word at all (the spirits were somehow sad with the air defense / ia air defense). Dalniks practiced by winding up "almost combat radius" in the air.
        Why is the article "strange" I indicated in the first two sentences of my post. You do not read carefully and climb into a bubble. What for?
        160/95 - strategists. They are needed. Nobody argues with this. Modernization of the boards is needed. New boards are needed (naturally).
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 15: 54
          -1
          Quote: WFP
          160/95 - strategists. They are needed. Nobody argues with this. Modernization of the boards is needed. New boards are needed (naturally).

          surely how can you argue with this? so argue
          1. Fan-fan
            Fan-fan 13 November 2020 22: 16
            -1
            You do not understand the essence, the planes are needed, but not as expensive as the Tu-160. It's unrealistic to build 50 pieces. Yes, and chewed here for a long time that supersonic is not needed at all, but stealth and efficiency are needed. And on my own I will add - we need the ability to land and take off from a dirt runway, and the Tu-160 does not have these capabilities.
  • iouris
    iouris 13 November 2020 12: 01
    -4
    Any superweapon will always (!) Have a superuperweapon. Read the classics of Marxism about the competition between shell and armor.
  • Old26
    Old26 13 November 2020 12: 23
    10
    Quote: Esaul
    Again these are provocative headlines that do not reflect the content of the article.

    Moreover, comparing frigates and bombers - all this resembles a child's argument in the sandbox, who is stronger: an elephant or a whale.
    Outdated plane? From a temporal point of view, yes. Work on it began in the early 70s, that is, the project itself is at least 45 years old. It corresponds to modern realities - yes, it does. A strategic bomber is not a fighter that, after 20-25 years of operation, does not always fulfill its assigned tasks. An example is the US B-52. The last cars of this type were produced in 1963 and the youngest of them is already under 60 years old. And nothing. They continue to fulfill their tasks, are regularly upgraded and as a result can use not only nuclear weapons, but also conventional or high-precision weapons. Now the line of launching cruise missiles has moved back about 2000-2500 km compared to the beginning of the 80s. And it is enough to regularly upgrade the machines. Do you need to build 50 more TU-160? I do not know. For me, it would be better to have some kind of subsonic platform, but this is the personal opinion of a person far enough from aviation
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 13 November 2020 12: 52
      0
      They need to be built for two reasons ...:
      1. obsolescence of the fleet of Tu-22, Tu95 (decommissioning of vehicles), and parts of Tu160 too. You need to change something. Tu160 is the freshest and newest.
      2. If you do not start production of Tu160 (its all components, turbojet engine, etc.), then there will be no one to make PAK DA. An engineer and a technologist cannot be put on a shelf for 30 years and then taken out.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 15: 51
        -2
        Quote: Zaurbek
        1. obsolescence of the fleet of Tu-22, Tu95 (decommissioning of vehicles), and parts of Tu160 too. You need to change something. Tu160 is the freshest and newest.

        this is the most important thing, old planes do not last forever ...
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 13: 33
    0
    I fully support the respected Alexander Vorontsov, TU 160 is a powerful and almost universal means of war ... an interesting comparison with a frigate ....., surface ships are generally outdated weapons, low-speed and weakly armed, destroyed by mines and missiles, their role is coastal submarine defense under protection ... the very same aviation and coastal missile systems ... you don't need a lot of frigates and new surface ships are more than a frigate, it's generally complete nonsense and sabotage ... for example, some advocate for a new aircraft carrier ... so it costs as much as 200 pieces of TU 160 and produces link SU in good weather by the sea ... comments are unnecessary
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      13 November 2020 20: 07
      +3
      Yes, I plan to prepare an article about the future of aircraft carriers. Before that, you will need to paint a number of aspects, which you then refer to.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 20: 59
        0
        we look forward to your new article
  • Old26
    Old26 13 November 2020 13: 51
    +6
    Quote: Zaurbek
    They need to be built for two reasons ...:
    1. obsolescence of the fleet of Tu-22, Tu95 (decommissioning of vehicles), and parts of Tu160 too. You need to change something. Tu160 is the freshest and newest.
    2. If you do not start production of Tu160 (its all components, turbojet engine, etc.), then there will be no one to make PAK DA. An engineer and a technologist cannot be put on a shelf for 30 years and then taken out.

    I agree that we need to build strategic aircraft. The question is whether it is exactly supersonic or subsonic enough. After all, a supersonic plane is not so much about speed (at maximum it hardly goes for a long time), but also complexity. What the PAK YES will be - I don't know. They say that it is like LK. Wait and see.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 13 November 2020 14: 14
    -1
    The text is really strange.
    Here the author writes that he was guided by the 9th grade of secondary school. I got the feeling that for 9 years old. I read similar texts in books at about this age.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 13 November 2020 14: 23
    0
    And if in essence, the author gives only one argument, why a supersonic plane is needed
    in case of danger, he can turn around and afterburner, reaching a speed of 2M, leave the dangerous area.

    Although the rest of the time, he also tells why it is not useful to him.
    IMHO the reincarnation of the conditional Tu-95 would be more useful. The Tu-160 cannot do anything that the "bear" could not do, but on the basis of the "bear" something has already been done that the "swan" could never have done.
    To bring where necessary and dump a bunch of "cast iron" or a dozen cruise missiles can not only be a "bear", but even a conditional An-12.
    Although, as I mean, our industry is now unable to do either a "bear" or a "barn".
  • DWG1905
    DWG1905 13 November 2020 14: 30
    +1
    Tu-160 is an extremely difficult aircraft to manufacture and operate. This is not a pipe with a wing and engines in the form of a civilian transport. Unique technologies are used in its production. The restoration of the Tu-160 series is a gigantic task, in addition to KAZ, hundreds of component suppliers are involved in it. In many ways, it is being re-created. Perhaps this is one of the few projects to boost our industry. One engine is worth something. This is the main reason why you don't need it. The second reason is the preservation of the technical culture of operating such aircraft. All the same, we will get to the aerospace plane, there will be progress in the engines, where will we go. This is where all this backlog will come in handy. Of course, there are questions about combat effectiveness. If there is more or less air defense, it is better not to go there. Then it is cheaper to launch the missile launcher from a flying platform of the Il-96 type. If there is no air defense, then it is cheaper to put bombs again from a platform of the Il-96 type or the old Tu-95MS (he still has the brackets for the bomb racks). In general, with the advent of echeloned air defense, YES had many problems. The price does not matter, the money still remains in the country. Everything is better than feeding the Boeing and the airbus.
    1. shahor
      shahor 13 November 2020 17: 22
      -1
      Quote: DWG1905
      Perhaps this is one of the few projects to boost our industry.

      Reproducing 50-year-old technology is not about industrial development. This is, at best, about its stagnation at the level of the 70s. It is about keeping the remnants of personnel and leaving competences somehow.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    13 November 2020 15: 05
    +1
    Quote: Jacket in stock
    his "swan" never

    Why do you think that Tu-160 will not be able to drop bombs?
    1. shahor
      shahor 13 November 2020 17: 26
      +2
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      Why do you think that Tu-160 will not be able to drop bombs?

      Because if you try to do this (if we are not talking about the war with the Bedouins), he will be destroyed long before reaching the target. Like the B-52, by the way.
  • ximkim
    ximkim 13 November 2020 16: 00
    +2
    TU 160 is an obsolete superweapon.
  • NF68
    NF68 13 November 2020 17: 05
    0
    From the old TU-160 there was only one name and appearance. The creation of a new aircraft of this type would be much more expensive and it remains to be seen how long it would take. They always tried to modernize combat and, not only, equipment, and very often such modernizations were a reasonable decision ..
  • Old26
    Old26 13 November 2020 19: 14
    +3
    Quote: carstorm 11
    but why are you all waiting for blood and even rivers? you need to answer smartly and where it hurts most. The Aerospace Forces will gouge another camp in Syria and all the Turkish instructors will be put there, that's all. the day before yesterday it was. On November 11, in Idlib, the VKS again laid out another. 9 shoot down a helicopter 11 Aerospace Forces strike another blow there. the logic of events is quite specific.

    No, Dmitry, they want to show the coolness, here's the TU-160 to roll Azerbaijan for a tragic accident - it's easy off the couch. To arrange a dance on bones is easy. But when we shot down the same South Korean Boeing, no one suggested bombarding the Soviet Union with atomic bombs. It is impossible to predict such cases, tragic incidents of "friendly fire", especially in the conflict zone. And let the blood flow - we have a lot of people willing. They will not let
    Putting yourself in the shoes of the other side is so difficult. It's easier to show your hurray-patriotism by knocking on the keyboard ...

    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    Why do you think that Tu-160 will not be able to drop bombs?

    In theory, it can. But only in theory. The existing "swans" in the bomb bay have multi-position launchers designed exclusively for Winged Missiles. Bombs are not suspended from them. This is the difference between our strategic aviation and enemy aviation. In addition to strategic weapons, they can use both high-precision and conventional weapons ...
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 13 November 2020 20: 06
    +1
    It is a pity that 11 Tu-160s were ineptly "sawed" uk..r. the authorities for a petty handout to the Yankees crying Now would be helpful ...
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      14 November 2020 12: 39
      0
      Yes. Moreover, it is very indicative with what speed and how persistently the American partners undermined to bring "overseas gifts" to Ukrainian politicians in order to quickly destroy the "old stuff".
  • WayKheThuo
    WayKheThuo 13 November 2020 21: 07
    0
    I am not a very big specialist in military equipment, the specifics of its application and it is very difficult for me to judge the area of ​​use of this device, but people, how beautiful it is!
    That's really - the white swan!
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 13 November 2020 21: 17
    -1
    Mdaaa .... something resembles a beauty contest, where the beautiful must go to the left, and the smart must go to the right ... but what should a blonde do if she is both smart and beautiful ?! Or maybe not to steam? Do not fold your brains on one side? And invest in ekranoplanes ... beautiful and hefty! Here you can get rid of the advantages of both ships and bombers ... and of the disadvantages inherent in both, you can get rid of ... well, at least some!
  • bk0010
    bk0010 13 November 2020 22: 32
    +3
    I think the Tu-160 is useful. At the same time, I think that the Tu-160 is outdated. That, IMHO, it is necessary to redo (since all the same the production to do again).
    1) Housing. Redesign the old overweight, unstable to overload and supersonic case with a new one. The new body should be lighter (due to the abandonment of old rivets and the use of new materials), withstand overloads of 3-5G (to ensure a low-altitude breakthrough (although this technique is considered outdated, but there are chances that it will work)), withstand maximum supersonic warping, reduce radar signature and perform a center section like the Su-27, so that you can abandon the swept wing.
    2) avionics - all for replacement. Electronic warfare from Sushki (at least, but better than its own, taking into account the powerful energy), radar - AFAR and long-wave from the Su-57 (it would be great to put a surveyor), satellite communications, etc. Ensure the effective use of long-range air-to-air missiles so that the strategist can stand up for himself (I know that he doesn't seem to need it, but what if he needs it?).
    3) The engines would be good according to the technologies of the Su-57 engine of the second stage (not to change the mighty NK-32 to the Al-41F1, but to make a new engine using new technologies to ensure cruising supersonic sound).
    1. UAZ 452
      UAZ 452 14 November 2020 10: 09
      +1
      Providing cruising supersonic is not even a new aircraft, but a transition to a new generation. Here, at least, the corresponding engines for the Su-57 should be brought to mind, and then we should try to scale them to the dimensions of a strategic bomber required for machines.
      And supersound due to the afterburner is a waste of money. There are no realistically conceivable situations in which such a flight mode can be required. Run away from fighters? There is no point in even discussing such nonsense.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 14 November 2020 10: 26
        0
        Quote: UAZ 452
        Run away from fighters? There is no point in even discussing such nonsense.
        Why? You spot with onboard means or you are informed about the rise of a pair on duty from an airfield 300 km from you (the airfield is not in front of you, but, for example, on the left), you switch to supersonic for 10 minutes and they will not fire at you, they simply will not catch up.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 18 November 2020 16: 14
          0
          Quote: bk0010
          you spot with onboard means or you are informed about the rise of a pair on duty from an airfield 300 km from you


          You are constantly trying to use the Tu-160 as a front-line bomber.
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 18 November 2020 17: 59
      0
      It's like a completely different plane. A new wing is a new plane.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 13 November 2020 22: 46
    -1
    Quote: shahor
    Am I clearly explaining?

    thanks, but I did not understand how it differs ... the allegories look beautiful ... but ... does the radar see an unobtrusive air target (plane) or does not see it, and if it does, then why stealth?
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 14 November 2020 05: 19
      0
      Quote: vladimir1155
      but ... does the radar see an unobtrusive air target (aircraft) or does not see it, and if it does, then why stealth?

      Sees
      But ...
      Radars are different and they see differently.
      An inconspicuous target is therefore called inconspicuous, because not everyone sees it and not always.
      More precisely, everything, but not everywhere, but only when she comes very close.
      Hence the answer to "why" in order to be seen as late as possible. After all, the closer the plane flew to its target, the more likely it will have time to complete its task - to destroy this target, before they see it and try to destroy it.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 14 November 2020 09: 30
        -1
        Quote: Jacket in stock
        More precisely, everything, but not everywhere, but only when she comes very close.

        thanks, now everything is clear
      2. UAZ 452
        UAZ 452 14 November 2020 09: 58
        0
        And to see in the sense that "there is a gopher" does not mean to be able to aim missiles at this flying gopher. When they say that the old, still Soviet radars see the vaunted American stealth, they try not to clarify that, unfortunately, they mean by no means a real possibility of determining the coordinates of a target with an accuracy of meters, aiming a missile defense system at it and then capturing it with a homing head.
  • UAZ 452
    UAZ 452 14 November 2020 09: 53
    +3
    The author has convincingly substantiated the advantage of aviation over the navy for solving tactical problems in the current Russian realities. But it is completely unclear: what is the advantage of the Tu-160 strategists over tactical aviation? If we consider the criterion of cost-effectiveness, it is really better to adapt not even front-line bombers for launching cruise missiles, but transport aircraft, the same Il-76. Then someone objected that they are more vulnerable to enemy fighter aircraft, but if our aircraft do not feel relatively safe even on the launch lines of the CD, being over their territory, then most likely the war has already been lost.
    And to continue to spend gigantic money to ensure a short-term afterburner flight at supersonic, knowing that he will not be able to either escape or evade the rocket - either the height of stupidity, or a banal cut of the budget.
  • SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 14 November 2020 17: 46
    0
    Oh, and I just read the training manual ...

    Tu-160 returns to base, where carts with new missiles are already waiting for it. The service personnel hit the drums with a new batch of missiles, and the blow is repeated. Again and again.


    Those. inter-flight service and the labor intensity of this very inter-flight service, aircraft of this class, measured somewhere at the level of 14-25 hours per 1 hour of flight - you did not take into account?
    Or maybe you just didn't know about it?


    "With a slight movement of the hand" instead of some rockets, they bring up exactly the same ones, but "with mother-of-pearl buttons." Outwardly, it will not be possible to find out from the satellite: how many specific missile carriers standing on alert are equipped with specials. bch.


    Authors trying to write about nuclear weapons. Well, you at least pull up the documentary materiel, eh?

    Well, after all, there are documents that clearly state:
    Paragraph 9
    9. For the purposes of this Agreement:
    c) if a cruise missile is flight tested or deployed to deliver weapons, then all cruise missiles of that type are considered weapons delivery vehicles;
    f) any long-range ALCM of one type or another, any of the missiles of which was originally flight tested from a heavy bomber on or before 31 December 1988, shall be considered a long-range nuclear ALCM. Any long-range ALCM of one type or another, any of the missiles of which was originally flight tested from a heavy bomber after December 31, 1988, is not considered a long-range nuclear ALCM if it is a non-nuclear long-range ALCM and is distinguishable from a long-range nuclear ALCM. ... Long-range non-nuclear ALCMs so indistinguishable are considered long-range nuclear ALCMs;

    Article IV
    11. With regard to restrictions on the location of objects:
    (e) Each Party shall locate nuclear weapons storage sites for heavy bombers no less than 100 kilometers from any heavy bombers air base equipped for non-nuclear weapons and from any heavy bombers training site. Each Party shall locate storage sites for long-range nuclear ALCMs no less than 100 kilometers from any air base for heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons other than long-range nuclear ALCMs, any air base for heavy bombers equipped for non-nuclear weapons, and from any location training in the operation of heavy bombers.

    Article V
    22. Each Party undertakes not to deploy long-range nuclear ALCMs at air bases of heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons other than long-range nuclear ALCMs, air bases of heavy bombers equipped for non-nuclear weapons, air bases of former heavy bombers and at training sites. heavy bombers.
    24. Each of the Parties undertakes not to convert

    Article IX
    1. In order to ensure control over compliance with the provisions of this Treaty, each of the Parties shall use the national technical means of control at its disposal in such a way as to comply with the generally recognized principles of international law.

    2. Each of the Parties undertakes not to interfere with the national technical means of control of the other Party, performing their functions in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article.

    3. Each of the Parties undertakes not to apply camouflage measures that make it difficult to monitor compliance with the provisions of this Agreement by national technical means of control. At atom, the obligation not to apply camouflage measures includes the obligation not to apply them at test sites.

    Article XI
    1. In order to ensure control over compliance with the provisions of this Treaty, each of the Parties has the right to conduct inspections and carry out continuous monitoring activities, and also conducts displays in accordance with this article and the Inspection Protocol. Inspections, continuous monitoring activities and displays are conducted in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Inspection Protocol and the Conversion or Elimination Protocol.

    2. Each Party shall have the right to conduct baseline data inspections at facilities to confirm the accuracy of the quantities and types of items specified for such facilities in the initial exchange of data provided in accordance with Section I, paragraph 1, of the Notification Protocol.

    12. Each Party shall conduct distinctness displays for heavy bombers, former heavy bombers and long-range nuclear ALCMs and shall have the right to conduct inspections during such displays by the other Party:

    a) heavy bombers equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs. The purpose of such displays is to enable the inspecting Party to confirm that the specifications of each type and version of such heavy bombers comply with the specifications set out in Appendix G to the Memorandum of Understanding applicable to those facilities; demonstrate the maximum number of long-range nuclear ALCMs for which a heavy bomber of each type and each variant is actually equipped; and also demonstrate that this amount does not exceed the amount provided for in paragraph 20 or 21 of Article V of this Treaty, whichever is applicable;


    The author, everyone. what I indicated above - you must know before you dare to write something about nuclear weapons.

    This document
    https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/russia_usa.shtml
    should be your reference book.
  • maykl8
    maykl8 14 November 2020 21: 17
    0
    Tu-160: superweapon or outdated aircraft?

    Of course outdated !!!! Here B-52 USA is the newest aircraft !!!! (Sarcasm, if someone is not on airplanes ...)
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 16: 23
      0
      The B-52 as a bomber became obsolete just a few years after it entered the army. And as a missile carrier, it is little inferior to the Tu-160.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 18 November 2020 17: 57
    0
    The Tu-160 is now a means of transporting a number of missiles from the place where they are not, to the place where they will now be. Considering the size of our country, this is not out of place. But not a wunderwaffe.
    Correctly written - force projection.
    Although I myself am both skeptical of him. It is better to keep a flock of multipurpose fighters with normal support - avaks and tankers, normal airfields, etc. And there will be more pilots and such planes are easier to make. But now the Tu-160 is just a monument to a country that does not exist.
  • Vale-90
    Vale-90 18 November 2020 21: 48
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    surprise airstrike recovery exercise

    Just out of the blow. So in terms of.
    And everyone doesn't care. At least for the majority.
  • rubin6286
    rubin6286 19 November 2020 10: 33
    0
    The article is meaningless and the author is "not in the subject". The reasoning is superficial, there is no deep knowledge. Score "two" ...