Military Review

Tu-160: say a word about poor supersonic

257
Tu-160: say a word about poor supersonic

Ultra Long Range Sniper Shot



Enzo Ferrari (and / or Ferdinand Porsche) used to say:

"The ideal race car should finish first and fall apart right away."

Optimal results can be achieved only by sharpening the product for the most specific tasks (in the case of Enzo Ferrari, it was a question of the previously known number of circles that the car must drive).

For example, an "ideal aircraft" (if such a term is appropriate at all) can be created only if it is known for certain that the main combat use of this aircraft will be a specific conflict. In this case, the aircraft will take off from a base located at a known distance from the target, and it will make 90% of flights with a load of 10 kg. The flight time will not matter, or vice versa. And many more parameters.

Obviously, such a situation is a utopia, even if we consider short-term prospects (such as the likelihood of war in a particular region with a specific adversary, existing weapons, etc.).

The task is further complicated by the extremely long lifetimes of aircraft of this class (not necessarily supersonic).

So, for example, the American B-52 bomber made its first flight on April 15, 1952 and will soon celebrate its next anniversary - 70 years. And work on its creation began even earlier (however, on the scale of the service life, this is not so important). In addition, the United States plans to use the B-52 until 2050. Thus, by the end of this period, the aircraft will be 100 years old.

As a result, trying to define the concept of a "modern" aircraft, it is necessary to take into account not only all the variety of scenarios that may (or may not) take place "today", taking into account their likelihood and the importance of the role of the aircraft in them. But also try to predict the same set of scenarios in 20, 30, 70 and 100 years.

Such a task is tantamount to a sniper shot at ultra-long distances.

It is important to understand this in order not to be guided by the initially utopian criteria of the modernity / non-modernity of the aircraft in the future.

Variable sweep wing


One of the popular arguments in favor of the dead end of the concept of supersonic aircraft DA (and in particular the Tu-160) is that supersonic is not needed. And since it is not needed, then a wing with a variable sweep is not needed either. And getting rid of it, you can simplify production, maintenance and use the usable volume to increase the fuel supply.

Let's figure it out step by step.

The first assumption is that variable sweep is necessary only for supersonic sound. This is not true. Wing parameters are important at all stages, modes and flight profiles.

In order to break away from the strip with fuel and missiles, the aircraft needs maximum lift at minimum speed, and such parameters are provided only by wings with a high coefficient. lengthening. Simply put, a glider layout is ideal for takeoff.

But as the speed increases, the situation changes.

The faster, the more sweep is optimal. That is, there is an effect in the entire speed range.

The Americans considered putting a fixed wing on the B1, limiting the flight speed. And such planes were even built. But later this was abandoned in favor of a solution with a variable angle.

“The final design of the B-1B bomber was somewhat different from the preliminary plans. They decided to leave the variable sweep wing. The maximum speed at high altitude was reduced to 1,25M. "

Note: Speeds up to 1,2M are considered transonic. The value of 1,25M looks somewhat "mocking" at all: much closer to 1,2 than to 2. But, formally, this is supersonic.

And in general, the situation with the deterioration of characteristics looks strange - the wing was left, aerodynamically the glider has not changed much, in the bottom line: what will prevent it from unexpectedly flying at a higher speed? Engines? There is no guarantee that the parameters of these motors are true and they will not pull 2M. In addition, there are engines on which the plane actually flew on the 2M, since 4 such aircraft were built.
But these are "thoughts out loud" and conspiracy theories (perhaps someone will be interested in speculating in this direction).

Let's get back to the topic of our aircraft.

What is the supersonic combat radius?


Oddly enough, there are a number of misconceptions even regarding the very speeds of the aircraft. One of them: the plane will fly only 2 km at supersonic speed.

Moreover, the grounds for such a statement are posted on the website of no less than the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation (apparently, the table was filled in incorrectly).

However, turning to the origins of the aircraft, we can see the following.

With the specified options for the combat load from the complex it was supposed to get: range with 24 X-15 missiles - 6–100 km; with two X-7 missiles - 100-45 km; with 7 Kh-300 missiles - 8-000 km. With 12 promising missiles, analogs of the American ALCM (future Kh-55SM) -8-500 km. In this case, the supersonic flight section the aircraft was supposed to reach 2-300 km.

And all further discussion took place around the numbers, in scale corresponding to those mentioned.

That is, we are talking about the fact that the plane will fly to the target 7 km, and of them 000 - 2 km in supersonic mode.


The saga of 1,5M or what is the cruising speed of the Tu-160?


In review articles, a speed of 1,5 M is often found (as in the table below on the website of the Ministry of Defense). Why exactly she?

Why not 1,3 or 1,7?

Also, sometimes there are disputes about what is the cruising speed for the Tu-160, and what is not? Say, well, there is a value of 1,5. But you know what an afterburner is? If he turns it on, he will burn all the fuel in minutes.

I propose to do some calculations. I understand that these calculations are extremely arbitrary, at the same time they allow us to approximately understand the scale of the phenomena.

Non-afterburning engine thrust - 14.

Afterburner thrust 25.

Relative resistance at different speeds (assuming that the resistance increases quadratically with the speed):
1 M = Fs
1,5 M = 2,25 Fs
2 M = 4 Fs

We compare the maximum thrust and the maximum operating speed 2M:
25 = 4Fs
Fs = 6,25
2,25Fs =14

That "quite by accident" corresponds to the overcome resistance force at a speed of 1,5M, which also "absolutely unexpectedly" corresponds to the limit of the non-afterburning operation of the engines.

The combination of all factors gives, in my opinion, good reason to believe that the specified parameters (7-11 thousand km with a section of 2 thousand km at supersonic) imply a non-afterburner operation of the engines with all the consequences. Moreover, in this case, supersonic is likely to mean the very same 1,5 M.

It follows from this that, if necessary, the "extra range" can be easily "converted" into speed by changing the flight mode to a less economical one.

Do not forget that the speed can also be obtained at the expense of the fuel supply.
It may sound counterintuitive, but it's not the same in the air as in a car. An overloaded aircraft increases the angle of attack, which leads to a sharp increase in drag and excessive fuel consumption. And an aircraft with a fuel reserve of 4 thousand km will fly faster in any case than a fueled one by 7 thousand km. in the same mode.

This means that if 4 km are flown to the missile launch line, the plane is quite capable of flying 000 m all this distance.

Is speed useless?


One of the strategists' advantages is based on airfields in the depths of the territory, which significantly increases combat stability (compared to advanced operational airfields, which will be destroyed first in the event of a conflict with the use of missile weapons).

But this safety comes at a price - you have to cover the same distance that serves as "protection" for the home airfield.

By simple mathematical transformations, one can understand that, all other things being equal, with a flight range of 4 km, an aircraft flying at a speed of 000 km per hour will overcome it in 1 hours.

An airplane flying at a speed of 1,5 M will do the same in 2 hours (with a short afterburner).

Taking into account the nature of the potential targets, these 2 abstract hours turn into 2 hours of the life of the airfield on which the enemy aircraft are based. Who knows how many flights will be provided from this airfield in these 2 hours? How many missiles will fly in our direction from the planes taking off?

In the case of repeated flights, this figure will increase even more.

With this in mind, speed cannot be regarded as a useless characteristic.

When may you need to "submerge"?


In addition to the obvious things (to be in time for the "holiday" and quickly leave the area) there are also less obvious ones: the use of missile weapons and a promising hypersonic one, in particular.

What is the difference between ground and air launch?
From the point of view of physics, a rocket launched from the ground must independently rise to flight altitude, in parallel with this accelerating itself to the desired speed.

Starting from an aircraft, the vertical section of acceleration is completely excluded, and the rocket is already in the rarefied layers of the atmosphere, where the resistance to movement is much less, moreover, it already has potential energy and initial velocity.

The combination of these factors has the potential to provide a significant advantage in range (although in practice this is not always realizable; after all, in order to hide from radars, the rocket must be pressed to the ground).

However, this advantage becomes more critical when it comes to the use of promising hypersonic weapons.

The fact is that for hypersonic missiles, the initial flight parameters are even more important, since their engines, aerodynamics and flight profile (especially) are highly optimized for supersonic. It is no coincidence that the supersonic MiG-31 (maximum speed of 2,35M) were chosen as the carriers of the Daggers.

As a result, the concept of a promising DA aircraft will depend, among other things, on the success of countries in the development of hypersonic weapons. Will they consider it expedient to equip strategists with such missiles - they will have to do supersonic and increase the ceiling. On the other hand, it may be preferable to keep hypersound in the armament of smaller aircraft.

Or they will act differently: by the time the PAK YES series is launched, the Tu-160 will remain in service (just like the Tu-95 now) and will be carriers of hypersonic missiles. And PAK DA is optimized for other tasks.

It is worth mentioning the Burlak project, which implied the use of the Tu-160 as a reusable first stage for launching military satellites into orbit. Now Russia is not up to such prospects. But who knows how the world will change in 20-50 years?

conclusions


Taking into account all the information presented above, we can conclude that the question regarding the speed of the "ideal" modern "strategist" is a multifactorial question and it is unlikely that an unambiguous answer can be given to it (although each of us gravitates to one point of view more, than the other).

You can build a supersonic aircraft and never face a real situation that will critically require this regime (as, for example, the Americans in the case of the B-2, which alone costs as much as a third of an aircraft carrier).

And you can build a "subsonic" one and even have a mathematical justification (in the form of a probability of 80% calculated by a supercomputer (which is not required. But in fact, "draw a short match" and find yourself in a situation where the planes will be 10 minutes late at the most decisive moment confrontation.
Author:
257 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 16: 10
    -17 qualifying.
    One of the popular arguments in favor of the dead end of the concept of supersonic aircraft DA (and in particular the Tu-160) is that supersonic is not needed.


    Supersonic, of course, is needed. And you have to pay for it. And from the experience of B-52, B-1, B-2, B-21, the answer to the question "are we ready to pay for supersonic" is quite unambiguous - "no."
    1. Mooh
      Mooh 17 November 2020 16: 27
      26
      But for some reason, most of our bombers are supersonic. Do you think we cry but eat a cactus?
      I believe the author is right. The reserve of speed has not hurt anyone yet, but the low speed has damaged very many.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 16: 30
        -2
        Quote: MooH
        But for some reason, most of our bombers are supersonic.


        Do you think that Russia has more Tu-160s than Tu-95s?
        1. Mooh
          Mooh 17 November 2020 16: 32
          11
          Do you think that Russia has more Tu-95 than Tu-22m?
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 16: 33
            -12 qualifying.
            Tu-22 is not a strategic bomber, EMNIP. Refueling devices removed under some kind of contract.
            1. kot423
              kot423 17 November 2020 16: 38
              +5
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              Tu-22 is not a strategic bomber

              Teach materiel.
              Tu 22 M3 is a strategic multi-mode supersonic missile carrier - bomber designed to engage a target on enemy territory, which is a deeply modernized version of the Tu 22M2 with significantly expanded combat and defensive capabilities.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 16: 39
                -4
                You are confusing materiel with propaganda.
                1. The comment was deleted.
            2. NEXUS
              NEXUS 17 November 2020 16: 49
              12
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              Tu-22 is not a strategic bomber, EMNIP. Refueling devices removed under some kind of contract.

              TU-22M3M has an in-air refueling system. And it is quite possible to call it not a tactical bomber, but a strategic one.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 17: 17
                +1
                If it does, you can. And how many of them does Russia have in service?
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 17 November 2020 17: 25
                  +5
                  Quote: Eye of the Crying
                  If it does, you can. And how many of them does Russia have in service?

                  There are NO Tu-22m3m aircraft in service with the RF Armed Forces!
                2. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 17 November 2020 17: 49
                  +5
                  Quote: Eye of the Crying
                  If it does, you can. And how many of them does Russia have in service?

                  This is a planned modernization of the 22s, which will affect the entire fleet of these bombers. Now they are undergoing state tests.
                  In November 2019, several Tu-22M3s were delivered to the Kazan Aviation Plant for upgrading to the Tu-22M3M version from storage at the Kamenny Ruchey airfield (Khabarovsk Territory). In the future, these missile carriers will enter service with the Russian Aerospace Forces.

                  Presumably in the amount of 30 cars.
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 17: 53
                    +8
                    It is written above that there are none yet. When will be, then we will count.
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 17 November 2020 17: 55
                      -2
                      Quote: Eye of the Crying
                      It is written above that there are none yet. When will be, then we will count.

                      Dear, where is the hurry? What is war tomorrow? They are modernizing and there will be a large fleet of strategists.
                      1. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 18: 06
                        +4
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Dear, where is the hurry? What is war tomorrow?


                        You should see where this thread started.
                    2. bayard
                      bayard 18 November 2020 01: 52
                      +5
                      Quote: Eye of the Crying
                      It is written above that there are none yet. When will be, then we will count.

                      The Tu-22M3M is not yet in service (!)
                      And Tu-22M3 - 61 pcs. , of which 30 pcs. plan to upgrade to Tu-22M3M.
                  2. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A 17 November 2020 21: 41
                    +7
                    Quote: NEXUS

                    Presumably in the amount of 30 cars.


                    Quote:
                    For the first time, plans for a deep modernization of Tu-22M3 long-range missile-carrying bombers became known in 2012. Then the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation said that they plan to receive about 2020 aircraft in the Tu-30M22M modification by 3

                    2020 will end in a month ....
                    None have been received yet.
                    1. Volder
                      Volder 18 November 2020 12: 11
                      -3
                      Quote: SovAr238A
                      In a month, 2020 will end ... None have yet been received.
                      Nothing wrong. The Americans are planning a lot too, but they don't get it ...
                3. sabakina
                  sabakina 17 November 2020 18: 34
                  -11 qualifying.
                  Quote: Eye of the Crying
                  If it does, you can. And how many of them does Russia have in service?

                  Are you satisfied with comma or whole numbers?
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 18: 34
                    +9
                    Round up to the nearest integer.
                    1. sabakina
                      sabakina 17 November 2020 18: 42
                      -9
                      Quote: Eye of the Crying
                      Round up to the nearest integer.

                      I cannot round off, the moon is growing, phase I. so wait for an answer, wait for an answer, wait for an answer ...
            3. Mooh
              Mooh 17 November 2020 16: 54
              18
              Refueling devices removed under some kind of contract

              But our armored train is in a spare warehouse. wink
              It seems to me that strategy is not the main thing here. The dispute is, in principle, about the need for supersonic bomber.
              Americans believe that they do not need it, and in general, they are right. They can take the number of units and the geography of the bases.
              And we have to fly far and long, and then also flee far and long. And permanent fighter cover is also unlikely. There is no way without supersonic.
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 17: 20
                +2
                Quote: MooH
                The dispute is, in principle, about the need for supersonic bomber.
                Americans believe that they do not need it, and in general, they are right


                That's what I'm talking about. According to rumors, the PAK DA is also subsonic, so not only the Americans believe that supersonic does not justify itself.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 17 November 2020 17: 27
                  +3
                  That's what I'm talking about. According to rumors, the PAK DA is also subsonic, so not only the Americans believe that supersonic does not justify itself.

                  In general, PAK DA has a different concept - he is a chihar, his task is secrecy, but what kind of secrecy in supersonic?
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 17: 28
                    -6
                    If you wanted to say that the Tu-160 concept is outdated, I agree with you.
                    1. lucul
                      lucul 17 November 2020 17: 32
                      +2
                      If you wanted to say that the Tu-160 concept is outdated, I agree with you.

                      You will see its carrying capacity and range - how the platform for launching hypersonic missiles is much better than the MiG-31.
                      1. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 17: 38
                        +2
                        I also agree that the Tu-160 bomber is a better missile carrier than the MiG-31 interceptor. But these are aircraft of different classes.
                      2. lucul
                        lucul 17 November 2020 17: 47
                        -2
                        I also agree that the Tu-160 bomber is a better missile carrier than the MiG-31 interceptor. But these are aircraft of different classes.

                        If you lighten it by twenty percent, and think over the installation of more missiles inside the fuselage, then there is definitely nothing better than the Tu-160 for hypersonic missiles. And they are needed, first of all, as the suppression of air defense.
                      3. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 17: 56
                        -2
                        Quote: lucul
                        If you lighten it by twenty percent, but think about installing more missiles inside the fuselage


                        ... you get a different plane. And, according to rumors, the Tu-160 is no longer produced in Russia.

                        Quote: lucul
                        there is nothing for hypersonic missiles. And they are needed, first of all, as the suppression of air defense.


                        Have you decided to use the Tu-160 as a front-line bomber? Okay. Hypersonic missiles are launched outside the air defense. So why do we need supersonic?
                      4. lucul
                        lucul 17 November 2020 18: 22
                        -1
                        Hypersonic missiles are launched outside the air defense. So why do we need supersonic?

                        Range of hypersonic missiles))))
                      5. The eye of the crying
                        The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 18: 23
                        +3
                        Great answer.
                    2. bk0010
                      bk0010 17 November 2020 21: 31
                      +2
                      Quote: Eye of the Crying
                      Hypersonic missiles are launched outside the air defense. So why do we need supersonic?
                      To get to the launch point.
                    3. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 21: 35
                      -1
                      It can also be reached by subsonic.
                    4. bk0010
                      bk0010 17 November 2020 21: 51
                      +4
                      Quote: Eye of the Crying
                      It can also be reached by subsonic.
                      Not always, on the way they may try to meet. Let me remind you: we are not states, we do not have air superiority by default.
                    5. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 21: 55
                      -2
                      And a supersonic plane can also be met. Missiles, in general, do not matter, the target speed is 0.9M or 1.8M.
                    6. bk0010
                      bk0010 18 November 2020 00: 26
                      +6
                      Rockets that are on the ground can be flown around. But from the missiles that are on the fighter, you will have to leave. A fighter can go on supersonic for a very short time, if the Tu-160 goes on supersonic longer than a fighter, then the fighter simply will not reach the range of weapon use.
                    7. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 18 November 2020 00: 32
                      -2
                      Quote: bk0010
                      if the Tu-160 will go on supersonic longer than the fighter, then the fighter simply will not reach the range of weapons


                      If the fighter tries to catch up with the Tu-160 (i.e. the Tu-160 has already passed the fighter on its way to the target). And if the fighter meets him, then the supersonic Tu-160 will simply enter the affected area more quickly.

                      However, all this is a scenario of using the Tu-160 as a front-line bomber
                    8. bk0010
                      bk0010 18 November 2020 00: 57
                      +5
                      Quote: Eye of the Crying

                      However, all this is a scenario of using the Tu-160 as a front-line bomber
                      That's it. A more realistic option looks like a message for the Tu-160 from radio and radio intelligence units about the rise of a pair of carrier-based aircraft on duty from an aircraft carrier in the Bering Strait region, 300 kilometers south of the proposed flight route. To avoid meeting the Hornets, you need to change the course by 10 degrees to the north and walk for 10 minutes in supersonic. As a result, the Hornets will not have enough time or range (refueling will also take time) to intercept. A rendezvous with an air tanker will be organized to replenish fuel consumption on the way back. This is how I see it.
                    9. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 18 November 2020 01: 18
                      -1
                      If the Tu-160 is warned in advance, they can bypass the dangerous area without supersonic sound. And if the aircraft carrier is drawn SUDDENLY, then the fighters will _meet_ the Tu-160, and ... see above.
      2. bayard
        bayard 18 November 2020 02: 32
        +6
        Quote: Eye of the Crying
        And, according to rumors, the Tu-160 is no longer produced in Russia.

        Produce. Contract for 10 pcs. signed, release rate 2 pcs. per year (under the Union there were 5 pieces per year). Why would the production of NK-32 be resumed differently? So, regardless of the wishes of the members of the forum, the Tu-160 will serve in our VKS for a long time.
        Another thing is that no one is in a hurry to write off the Tu-95 either; on the contrary, they are modernizing it.
        And the Tu-22M3 is being upgraded to M3M.

        And the PAK DA is being developed subsonic.
        This is all a video conferencing tool, and the tools for each case need different. And for us, the presence of a supersonic bomber is much more useful than for the United States, with its bases all over the world and an aircraft carrier fleet (there is always a fighter cover and alternate airfields). And we will fly further, and will break away from enemy fighters, and most likely they will not have their own cover.
      3. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 18 November 2020 02: 41
        -3
        Quote: bayard
        Contract for 10 pcs. signed


        When they do at least 3 ...

        Quote: bayard
        break away from enemy fighters


        Strategic bombers?
      4. bayard
        bayard 18 November 2020 05: 41
        +5
        Quote: Eye of the Crying
        Quote: bayard
        break away from enemy fighters


        Strategic bombers?

        Exactly .
        Turned on the electronic warfare and - "gas to failure". The maximum speed of the Tu-160 is 2200 km / h, and it can hold it much longer than any fighter (a fighter only 5-7 minutes for a supersonic dash ... well, 10-15 minutes, if the plane is not a pity and if the fighter good) ... though the MiG-25 \ 31 went to supersonic (2500 km \ h) for 20 - 25 minutes, but these are still deeply specialized fighters for this. The enemy does not have such.
        And the Tu-160 is already being assembled. Two hulls (center section) were raised from the reserve, they are already being tested. And those that will be entirely from scratch are already being assembled. How will they collect - we'll see.
      5. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 16: 34
        +1
        "The enemy does not have such" - the F-22 has a cruising supersonic mode.
      6. bayard
        bayard 18 November 2020 16: 53
        +1
        Well yes it does. But the maximum speed of the Tu-160 is 2200 km / h and it can hold it for at least 40 minutes, so it is possible to break away (the speed of cruising supersonic in the F-22 is somewhat lower, but it will not be able to run for a long time on afterburner).
        If you're lucky .
        Luck in war is one of the success factors. yes
      7. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 17: 17
        +1
        If a strategist is found - 99,9% he is a dead body. Whether he has supersonic or not. You need to do so that would not be found.
      8. bayard
        bayard 18 November 2020 17: 33
        -1
        Or arm to fight back.
        Explosive missiles can be easily integrated into the armament and equipped with an all-aspect radar (such as "Belka").
      9. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 21 November 2020 17: 50
        0
        No matter how you make a "flying fortress" out of a bomber, it will still be a prey. A radar only unmasks.
      10. bayard
        bayard 21 November 2020 19: 20
        0
        Even a fighter never flies with the included radar in a constant mode, but prefers guidance (output to the target) by external target designation (from an external source) and only at the time of the attack, being at a distance sufficient to defeat, the radar is turned on to capture the target and guide missiles ...
        Modern AFAR has a passive observation mode, across the entire spectrum of signatures (not only the fighter's radar, but also the fighter's radio signal signature, radio altimeter, etc.). Upon detecting such a signal or radiation alert, the bomber could itself launch a missile strike at attacking fighters, or try to fight off enemy missiles with its own missiles. Such work is underway and there are even protected patents.
        And for the use of such explosive missiles for self-defense, an airborne radar is just needed and should be all-aspect, because an attack can occur from any angle, but a bomber will not be able to maneuver energetically.
        Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
        You need to do so that would not be found.

        PAK YES is designed this way, but for the Tu-160 it is already too late.
        As with all others in service.
        But an aircraft of this size will never become invisible, so self-defense weapons will not interfere with it.
      11. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 21 November 2020 19: 33
        0
        Not prevent. Or will it interfere? Any weapon is weight, size and radar signature. Passive sensors for detecting operating radar + OLS are good. Rockets "air to air" - the same seems to be good. But, I'm afraid this is not enough for a full-fledged defense. A fighter of the same generation with a bomber will always have the advantage when intercepting. Now all the same it is not the second world, so that armada of "flying fortresses" with heavy losses fought off the advancing fighters. In our time, it is much more necessary to secretly go into the launch area, shoot with cruise missiles and quietly dump. Well, as a last resort - electronic warfare systems.
      12. bayard
        bayard 22 November 2020 05: 54
        0
        Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
        In our time, it is much more necessary to secretly go to the launch area, shoot with cruise missiles and quietly dump. Well, as a last resort - electronic warfare systems.

        Electronic warfare and electronic warfare systems on bombers have been prescribed since the 50s - 60s and since then have been their integral part.
        But after arming the fighters with long-range missiles (over 5-10 km), the bombers' guns became completely useless, although they continued to be installed on them for some time.
        The idea of ​​equipping a bomber with missiles is not new. So in the USSR, an escort fighter was developed on the basis of the Tu-22M3 and very, very long-range explosive missiles. And these missiles were with a special warhead. He / they were supposed to fly out as part of the Tu-22M3 regiment and, approaching the AUG, launch their missiles at enemy carrier-based fighters that flew to intercept them. The range of his missiles was 400 km. And pave the path to the AUG, simultaneously jamming the enemy's radars and other electronics with the electromagnetic pulses of nuclear explosions of their missiles.
        There was an idea to make a similar "fighter" from the Tu-160 ... but they did not have time.
        Now explosive missiles have become more compact, developed for the F-22, F-35 and Su-57 missiles have a folding tail for compact placement in the internal compartments of fighter weapons. And these compartments (for fighters are small).
        Therefore, nothing prevents the bombers being designed now to provide, in addition to the main bomb compartments, compartments for missile warfare of explosives? In the Su-57, these compartments are quite narrow (there are 4 of them - two parallel rows) and (importantly) they are capable of opening and launching missiles at supersonic speed. Which the US and Chinese fighters cannot in principle.
        That is, at a breakaway, with a set of supersonic speed, our bomber will be able to hit the pursuing fighters, launching missiles into the rear hemisphere.
        In case of interception in the front hemisphere, or from any other angle, the bomber will also be able to launch missiles at interceptor fighters and missiles launched by them. Equipping such a bomber with an all-aspect radar will provide him with such an opportunity.
        And places for placing weapons bays for explosives missiles can be found even on the Tu-160 currently under construction. , not to mention the projected promising long-range bomber of the Tupolev Design Bureau.
        Now you don't have to come up with anything new for this - just place the arms bays with the Su-57 in the center section of the PAK DA on the sides of the main ones.
        I consider the idea of ​​vertical / perpendicular launch silos for explosive missiles from the bomber body to be erroneous and harmful, because the missiles will simply break when they exit by the pressure of the incoming flow. ... There are such ideas ... And even a patent.
        In addition, it is not at all necessary to equip all bombers of the series with such radars. You can only part - 1 \ 2, 1 \ 3, which will be responsible for covering from enemy fighters, while carrying a slightly smaller ammunition.
  2. Fan-fan
    Fan-fan 19 November 2020 16: 55
    +2
    In order not to be detected, one must fly low, almost like cruise missiles.
  3. Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 21 November 2020 17: 51
    0
    Not necessary. There are stealth technologies and electronic warfare equipment. Well, where the danger is great - yes, you need to fly low.
  4. mmaxx
    mmaxx 18 November 2020 16: 30
    0
    When KAZ builds something there, then we'll talk. There is nothing to talk about yet.
  5. mmaxx
    mmaxx 18 November 2020 16: 28
    0
    How-to make it easier ???? The aircraft is designed with the least weight in mind. The posters are hanging in the OKB. They promise a bonus to everyone for weight loss.
    DILITY.
  6. sabakina
    sabakina 17 November 2020 19: 40
    -4
    Quote: Eye of the Crying
    I also agree that the Tu-160 bomber is a better missile carrier than the MiG-31 interceptor. But these are aircraft of different classes.

    A raven with a raven is weak to compare?
  • Volder
    Volder 18 November 2020 12: 20
    -3
    Quote: Eye of the Crying
    According to rumors, the PAK DA is also subsonic, so not only the Americans believe that supersonic does not justify itself.
    First, if the Russian leadership considered that supersonic was not needed for aircraft, it would not have resumed the construction of new Tu-160M2s. Secondly, the Americans have Rockwell B-1 Lancer variable-wing supersonic bombers, so they don't think supersonic is unnecessary.
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 18 November 2020 16: 32
      +1
      The resumption of production of an obsolete aircraft means only one thing - there is absolutely nothing to replace it with. We cannot do anything like this. And the PAK YES, apparently, is a conceptually different aircraft.
      1. Volder
        Volder 19 November 2020 09: 03
        -2
        Quote: mmaxx
        Resumption of production of an obsolete aircraft ...
        Outdated in relation to what? There are no analogues with similar characteristics in other countries. Consequently, the aircraft was ahead of its time and at the moment remains a relevant and effective weapon.
        there is absolutely nothing to replace it with. We cannot do anything like that.
        Why change? What's the point of this? The United States has B-1B bombers as old as our Tu-160s - and nothing, they fly. Today the Russian industry is able to manufacture the modernized Tu-160M2, on a new element base, with new equipment and new missiles. What doesn't suit you? What more do you want? The aircraft performs the entire range of strategic tasks.
        1. mmaxx
          mmaxx 19 November 2020 16: 32
          +1
          I do not argue that it is something to bomb the barmaley. But here the Tu-95 is even better. For another war, it is not clear why.
          But the good frightened.
          The only thing that he can really do is to finish shooting the unfinished after ballistic missiles. For something more serious, they are simply not enough. And to build such planes again ... He is already 40 years old.
          It's like restarting the Su-27. If it had not been done 30 years before. With all due respect.
        2. Volder
          Volder 20 November 2020 16: 03
          -2
          Quote: mmaxx
          But here the Tu-95 is even better.
          This is an older aircraft than the Tu-160. You need to understand that the Tu-95 century will soon end.
          For something more serious, they are simply not enough.
          That is why we have resumed production so that there are more of them.
          And to build such planes again ...
          Not quite like that. Can't you see the difference between Tu-160 and Tu-160M2 at all? In addition to modern internal filling and an expanded range of missiles, new engines have been created for the aircraft. For supersonic, the existing glider is perfect.
          The only thing he can really do is to finish shooting the unfinished after ballistic missiles.
          Bombers alone can inflict unacceptable damage to stop enemy aggression. And then ballistic missiles will not have to be used. You must understand that the goal in any war is NOT to kill as many people as possible.
          He is already 40 years old. It's like restarting the Su-27
          Chinese aircraft of the 5th generation are equipped with Russian engines from the Su-27. This is by the way. I asked you a specific question: what exactly does not suit you in the Tu-160M2? Why do you think this plane is bad? Give an example of a good aircraft of a similar class and purpose. In the meantime, I'll go get some popcorn.
        3. mmaxx
          mmaxx 20 November 2020 19: 08
          0
          The concept itself is everything. And for local wars it is too much. A supersonic plane against slippers is too much. Subsonic is cheaper and will take away more.
          Aerodynamics and design are outdated - variable geometry is the last century. Monstrous complexity, price and weight.
          It was launched only because we have nothing else and is not expected. But we must understand that the Tu-160 was launched by the whole country + cooperation with other plants. And now Kazan will do it in one and all initial conditions much worse than the Soviet ones.
          One thing I can say - the new assembly tooling will be head and shoulders above the old one.
          The benefit will be. No questions. When such a scarecrow flies around Europe, everyone will fly out of fright to intercept, spend the resource of their aircraft.
          Well, I have my own attitude to this kind of work. The plant will work. The plane will do. The loss of competence is a terrible thing. Better to spend money on your own production than on the purchase of "securities".
        4. Volder
          Volder 20 November 2020 20: 26
          -3
          Quote: mmaxx
          The concept itself is everything.
          The concept of a nuclear triad is not at all outdated, there is no need to invent.
          And for local wars it is too much.
          Western countries are part of the NATO bloc, so a local war with some Western country will turn into a confrontation with all of NATO. If nuclear countries join the conflict, it is fraught with world war. You need to be prepared for any scenario.
          Supersonic aircraft against slippers is too much. Subsonic is cheaper and will take away more.
          Right. But the Tu-95 will not last forever. PAK DA is being developed to replace it.
          Aerodynamics and design are outdated - variable geometry is the last century. Monstrous complexity, price and weight.
          The efficiency of supersonic flight depends not only on the engine, but also on the variable wing. The aerodynamic design is the most optimal for supersonic sound. It is not only not outdated, but also ahead of its time, and will remain relevant for a long time. Why invent a replacement by reinventing the wheel? Complexity is utter nonsense. Technologically, it is much more difficult to produce a composite wing for the MC-21. In general, your arguments do not go through, sorry.
        5. mmaxx
          mmaxx 21 November 2020 13: 31
          0
          I will not argue about the triad. Figs with her. More slogan, less slogan.
          To fight NATO is now possible only with nuclear weapons. Russia is not the USSR. The economy was not even close. It is unlikely that the Tu-160 will help here.
          On the third remark ... Did you happen to notice when everyone abandoned the variable sweep? We played and tied it up. Everything. Somewhere else there is a Tornado and our Tu-160. And they started immediately after the first generation of such aircraft. Any thoughts on this? And the thoughts are simple. The development of aerodynamics has deprived the variable geometry of all its advantages. Nobody needs to carry tons of titanium and steel. And suffer with this in production. Do you know what is the labor input for titanium and good steel on CNC? How difficult is it to achieve quality? What is the resource of the wing folding unit. If it is large on the Tu-160, then this unit is very heavy. At one time our plant was filled with consoles MiG-23 and MiG-27. They were constantly being repaired. Until these aircraft were removed from service.
          I will keep quiet about the complexity of the MS-21 wing. No series. Nothing to talk about. The established technology for Japanese fiber had to be thrown out. By the way, the wing is good. Tough. Unlike metal. Only I know one thing, as some kind of specialist, - the bourgeois refuse metal in many respects from the fact that now it is difficult to find good riveting locksmiths. The work is harmful, no one wants to go. Employers then have to pay a lot of compensation for the lost health. This is not ours. Although, according to our standards, a riveter should not work more than 6 hours a day on a riveter. we have hammered into it, including the workers themselves. The bourgeoisie does not have such a number. They said it themselves. The production of composites in this sense is now more technologically advanced. Well, and the operational advantages, at least in civilian life, have not been canceled. Yes, and making wing panels of this size out of metal is very difficult. They are, by the way, milled from a plate.
        6. Volder
          Volder 22 November 2020 22: 33
          -2
          Quote: mmaxx
          Did you happen to notice when everyone gave up on variable sweep? We played and tied it up. And they tied up immediately after the first generation of such aircraft.
          This is because they did not pull the production technology and did not come up with a normal design. The USSR coped with this task, thanks to which the Tu-160 became the most reliable and best aircraft. It is foolish to focus on unsuccessful foreign experience.
          The development of aerodynamics has deprived the variable geometry of all its advantages.
          Oh, they made fun. Wings folded at an angle high in the air is just more preferable than spreading out across the fuselage. Supersonic is needed to evade the pursuit of enemy aircraft and missiles, and to quickly carry out flight missions. In a war, every minute can be decisive, who won.
          Do you know what is the labor input for titanium and good steel on CNC? How difficult is it to achieve quality?
          I already know that, as I worked for several years at a titanium factory, where titanium sheets and aircraft parts are made. I can say that the technology has been worked out long ago and is not problematic.
          What is the resource of the wing fold unit? If it is large on the Tu-160, then this unit is very heavy.
          Heavy or not heavy - what's the difference? The wing resource is such that the Tu-160 has been flying for 35 years and will fly the same amount.
          I never heard from you, what kind of replacement for the Tu-160M2 and with what characteristics would you like to see? I also did not hear what tasks the Tu-160M2 does not cope with, so that it becomes necessary to invent a new "bicycle" for these tasks?
        7. mmaxx
          mmaxx 23 November 2020 04: 07
          -1
          Yes ush .. We had more airplanes with variable sweep than all the others combined. I have enough experience. Once again, if the Tu-160 has a large wing folding unit resource, then it is heavy. Since the plane flies in the sky and is heavier than air, then the issues of aircraft mass are critical. Over the past 30 years, I have not heard anywhere about at least drawings of promising aircraft with variable sweep. This means that this is not even considered among specialists. The adaptive wing defeated the folding wing with a crushing score.
          About titanium. It's nice to hear that a person knows about titanium processing. But! At the titanium factory, only titanium is processed. And everything else is on aviation. The processing capacity of titanium is several times less than that of steels, not to mention aluminum alloys. And this is the price of the plane. Not all machine tools that can handle steel and aluminum will pull titanium. You need a lot of rigidity of the machine initially. That is, it is some kind of separate equipment. I will not talk about the instrument, etc. At the present level, the problem has been solved, but at the expense of the price. It is more difficult to achieve precision machining on titanium than on other metals. In fairness, now aluminum alloys have become capricious in this regard.
          In general, variable sweep is an increased cost and degradation in performance.
          And what is the replacement for the Tu-160? Yes, none. An aircraft of the Tu-22M3 type is much more needed. And that's another niche. The rest is unobtrusive PAK YES. But this is a different philosophy of application.
          In general, I have the opinion that there is simply nothing else now, but at least something is needed. Putting on production of the Tu-95 is even worse. Although he is just more needed. The workhorse of the Cold War.
        8. Volder
          Volder 29 November 2020 22: 28
          0
          Quote: mmaxx
          Once again, if the Tu-160 has a large wing folding unit, it means that it is heavy.
          Once again - the weight does not prevent the plane from flying, carrying missiles and performing all combat missions.
          Since the plane flies in the sky and is heavier than air, the issues of aircraft mass are critical.
          You might be surprised if I tell you that ALL planes in the world are heavier than air. The issue of mass specifically for the Tu-160 is important in terms of how many missiles it can take on board, and how much fuel it will consume to move its mass from point A to point B.
          Over the past 30 years, I have not heard anywhere about at least drawings of promising aircraft with variable sweep. This means that this is not even considered among specialists.
          I explained to you in Russian above that only Russia has achieved success in this technology. The rest did not achieve, because they could not, they gave up. As for Russian specialists, why should they reinvent the wheel if it already exists? The Tu-160 suits the military, so there is no point in inventing a new aircraft for the same tasks.
          At the titanium factory, only titanium is processed. And everything else is on aviation.
          Noted correctly. The aircraft factory is engaged in welding titanium. Such welding is still a unique technology and can be considered the country's heritage.
          In general, variable sweep is an increased cost and degradation in performance.
          We will not stand behind the price. Strategic weapons are a priority for the country. And about the deterioration of performance - you quit it! Deterioration compared to which aircraft do you mean? Which bomber has the best performance? Any comparison should be made for similar combat missions.
          And what is the replacement for the Tu-160? Yes, none. In general, I have the opinion that there is simply nothing else now, but at least something is needed.
          An opinion must be able to justify. But you stubbornly ignore this rationale. Why do you need something else if you already have a Tu-160M2 project? It is unlikely that the new supersonic aircraft will be cheaper and lighter than the current one. If you think that a replacement is needed, it means that the Tu-160M2 cannot cope with the combat missions it faces. What tasks is the Tu-160M2 unable to cope with?
        9. mmaxx
          mmaxx 30 November 2020 17: 51
          0
          The topic is no longer interesting to anyone, but let's continue wink :
          1. The severity of the aircraft interferes. Any. And the point. Only an amateur can argue with this.
          2. Yes, aircraft are ALL heavier than air. Only what you are setting out there, I do not understand.
          3. There are no successes in variable sweep and never have been. We didn’t come up with it and we were the last ones to refuse. There are no secrets there. For nobody. It's just that no one has built such an aircraft anywhere. Because everyone was counting money. And we wanted to show the fuck to the Americans. There was a certain meaning in those conditions. Tu-160 against B-1. About arranging the tasks of the military, one can speak only in the sense that our cat cried a lot for strategic aviation. Let there be at least something. To be fair, in the current conditions no one has money for its development, practically no one has. They use what they have.
          4. Welding titanium is not that difficult. There is nothing special there. This is a long-standing problem.
          5. We will not stand for the price ?? Oh well. It was. Already. Once upon a time. Hundreds of submarines, tens of thousands of tanks and aircraft. At the same time, a driven country.
          6. What should I justify? What was the Tu-160 created for? To strike at the enemy without entering the air defense zone. Who is it against now? NATO with the United States? We have a short conversation with them - a nuclear strike with all that is. Under no other options, nothing shines for us. An air defense breakthrough in Europe makes no sense under such conditions. We will get them directly, and they will intercept them bypassing them. Now stealths are better suited for breaking through air defense. And the missiles will reach the US territory faster. For local wars the Tu-160 is redundant. So, just practice. Aircraft carriers to drive? Yes, you can and well. It's good in our conditions. But here the Tu-22M3 is almost the same. More aircraft could have been made for this money. With more, it would be much more effective. But it is also outdated. Now imagine that you shot down a couple of Tu-160s? Read the characteristics of modern air defense missiles. In general, all the tasks for the Tu-160 are far-fetched. There is only one point - if there is no Tu-160, then strategic aviation will end altogether. And this cannot be allowed. That's all. We are FORCED to make this plane. Such and such, but it is needed. Even a little. But it is outdated. And his tasks too. And the Mosin rifle copes with modern tasks on the battlefield.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 21 November 2020 13: 32
    0
    minus not I set
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 16: 37
    0
    "secondly, the Americans have Rockwell B-1 Lancer supersonic bombers" - and how much does it go to supersonic? After modernization in the B-1B, it is actually a subsonic aircraft, it needed a variable sweep to break through the air defense at high altitudes, which was abandoned long ago.
    1. Volder
      Volder 19 November 2020 09: 10
      -1
      Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
      The B-1V is actually a subsonic aircraft, it needed a variable sweep to break through air defense at low altitudes, which was abandoned long ago.
      Refusing to break through air defense is a private matter for the American state. Apparently, they do not plan to fight with Russia. The Russian Tu-160 needs variable sweep and supersonic for a different purpose.
      1. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 21 November 2020 17: 56
        -1
        For what purpose? Are you going to bomb your foe with free-fall bombs?
      2. Volder
        Volder 22 November 2020 14: 37
        -1
        Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
        For what purpose? Are you going to bomb your foe with free-fall bombs?
        God, what a dark forest ... A bomber needs supersonic sound to evade pursuit of enemy planes and missiles. Russian strategists do not have the task of breaking through enemy air defenses, since missile launches are carried out long before the air defense zone. Free-fall bombs are applicable when the enemy air defense is either suppressed or does not pose a threat due to technological backwardness (in third world countries).
  • Stas157
    Stas157 18 November 2020 07: 00
    +4
    Quote: MooH
    And we fly far and long

    Quote: MooH
    There is no way without supersonic.

    The "far and long" mode and supersonic are contradictory concepts.
    If you want long and far, then it will be subsonic.
    1. Eug
      Eug 18 November 2020 08: 49
      +2
      So it is possible in subsonic mode - the wing at the minimum sweep and the engines at the economy mode.
    2. Alexander Vorontsov
      20 November 2020 12: 54
      -2
      Quote: Stas157
      The "far and long" mode and supersonic are contradictory concepts.
      If you want long and far, then it will be subsonic.

      They contradict at the level of bare theory.
      In reality, we are talking about the fact that the aircraft is designed for a 7000 km radius with a supersonic section of 2000 km. In cases where the radius is less than this difference, the plane can "convert" into speed. I gave an example. But people apparently do not believe that 2 hours of the life of an enemy airfield is something significant. Well, just think 20 planes will take off from there, another 80 missiles will fly at us ... nonsense.
  • KCA
    KCA 17 November 2020 16: 54
    +3
    So on 22M3M they returned the barbell, added the ability to use the "Dagger" and X-101/102, why not a strategist?
    1. Genry
      Genry 17 November 2020 17: 52
      -2
      Quote: KCA
      So on 22M3M they returned the barbell, added the ability to use the "Dagger" and X-101/102, why not a strategist?

      Then the MiG-31 is also a strategist? Su-34 soon ... ???
      Do not mix "long-range" and "tactics" with "strategists".
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        17 November 2020 18: 13
        +6
        The question with the Tu-22 is like "how many grains of sand does a heap of sand begin with."
        In the case of this aircraft, the boundaries are blurred, this is an intermediate option.
        Quote: Genry
        Then the MiG-31 is also a strategist? Su-34 soon ... ???

        The Tu-22M3 has a radius of 2400. With an extension of 3000. The flight range of the promising X-50 missiles is another 1000. What kind of aircraft is this, given that France is, for example, 800 km wide?

        PS I think the introduction of the term "intercontinental" would make it clearer.
        1. Genry
          Genry 17 November 2020 18: 50
          +1
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          What kind of plane is this, given that France is, for example, 800 km wide?

          Why, for example, did you not take Monaco? Then all the planes in a row ...
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          I think the introduction of the term "intercontinental" would help clarify.

          Well, why be shy, just call it "galactic", because between galaxies ("intergalactic") it can no longer.
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            18 November 2020 12: 31
            +1
            People in Russia have a somewhat unique perception of distance. Since childhood, we see on the blackboard a map of the country with a length of 8 km.
            We have a scale - Moscow - St. Petersburg is two neighboring cities. 800 km
            They are neighbors.

            When foreigners came to us to dive in the Urals, there was a funny moment when they started asking if it was possible to go to see Baikal. I don't remember the questions literally, but their meaning suggested that they did not quite understand where they were (Ekatrinburg). They knew that there was a border, and at some distance from it Moscow. And they fly even further east. and fly long by their standards.
            Therefore, when they were shown a map of where is Moscow, where is Yekaterinburg, where is Baikal and where is Kamchatka ... there was a pause and one could hear how the picture of the world was turning over in their heads. Go from their scale to ours.

            That's why we have yes, 2300 radius is "pf ...". On a Russian scale, yes, tactical aviation.
        2. bk0010
          bk0010 17 November 2020 21: 32
          +7
          Previously, the term "Euro-strategic" was used for the Tu-22.
          1. Volder
            Volder 18 November 2020 12: 35
            -2
            Quote: bk0010
            Previously, the term "Euro-strategic" was used for the Tu-22.
            Bad term. Ignorant people may be confused with European-quality repair (such as the plane was repaired using Euro-technologies). The term "intercontinental" for the Tu-160 is just that!
          2. Alexander Vorontsov
            18 November 2020 18: 40
            -3
            Did not know. But the term to the point =)) With a joke))
        3. bayard
          bayard 18 November 2020 02: 36
          +2
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          I think the introduction of the term "intercontinental" would help clarify.

          Better to leave it as it is:
          - tactical,
          - distant,
          - strategic.
        4. ancient
          ancient 18 November 2020 12: 13
          +6
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          Tu-22M3 has a radius of 2400

          Do not read in the morning ... "no" newspapers ......... will not appear wassat
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          With a dosage of 3000

          The only refueling on the Tu-22M (Tu-22M2) was carried out by Vasily Petrovich Borisov, already in 1976 ... after that, no one else and not when, although in KBP-Tu-22M-76g. These exercises took place and the methods of performing dry contact flights were worked out.
          In the future, Borisov completed all the LIZ for working out the techniques for refueling on the Tu-22M3 aircraft, but .... in the subsequent KBP, these exercises were no longer.
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          The range of the promising Kh-50 missiles is another 1000.

          They still need to be "received" into the regular composition of weapons wink
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          What kind of plane is this, given that France is, for example, 800 km wide?

          EXCLUSIVELY FAR soldier
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          PS I think the introduction of the term "intercontinental" would make it clearer.

          All my life it was that "strategists" are aircraft with an intercontinental range ... but now, when even "helicopters" are ... "space forces" ... everything is possible ... wassat
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            20 November 2020 11: 30
            -2
            Quote: ancient
            Do not read in the morning ... "no" newspapers ......... will not appear

            Well, why not. The range in the case of such an aircraft depends very much on the profile, mode and load. If you fly on such tasks. who were in Syria, i.e. throw 12 FAB-500, that's 6 tons. Despite the fact that it has a maximum overload of 24 tons.
            Quote: ancient
            EXCLUSIVELY FAR

            You are right, you will need to be more disciplined with the terms.
            1. ancient
              ancient 20 November 2020 18: 00
              +1
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              Well why

              Because.. wink ... fully tested on .. "own skin" soldier
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              The range in the case of such an aircraft very much depends on the profile, mode and load.

              You have no idea how much right you are wink..so only Lo-Lo-Lo, and no Hi then .. practically on the "ceilings" and at the "most advantageous" speed modes wink
              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              If you fly on such tasks. who were in Syria, i.e. throw 12 FAB-500, that's 6 tons.

              This is only if in the Raqqa region and 6 FAB-500M-62 wink .. if further, to the Palmyra region, then only 250 or 250-270 wink (these are 10-12 pieces) soldier
              If there were 6 tons ... then it was possible to sit down only outright (from the line) and then ... purely .. on "parole" soldier
              Look carefully at the suspension ... well, and ... count with your finger ... after reset wink


              Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
              Despite the fact that he has a maximum overload of 24 tons.

              "Overload" of such a term or definition does not exist ... there is ... the maximum weight of the BC ... you can attach anything for "show" ... that's where you can fly with them ... this is the second question ... well, with 24 tons ... it's ... somewhere ... very, very close wink
    2. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 17 November 2020 19: 13
      +3
      Quote: KCA
      So on 22M3M they returned the barbell, added the ability to use the "Dagger" and X-101/102, why not a strategist?


      And the Daggers were taught to fit into the bomb bays of the Tu-22M3M?
      1. bayard
        bayard 18 November 2020 02: 37
        -1
        Quote: SovAr238A
        And the Daggers were taught to fit into the bomb bays of the Tu-22M3M?

        But why?
        They will look good on pylons too.
        1. ancient
          ancient 18 November 2020 12: 20
          +6
          Quote: bayard
          But why?

          And what ...... will you start up the "Daggers" at speeds M <1? belay ... then .. "what about a goat button accordion"?
          Quote: bayard
          They will look good on pylons too.

          What are these ..... "pylons"? belay
          1. bayard
            bayard 18 November 2020 12: 33
            +1
            Quote: ancient
            And what ...... will you start up the "Daggers" at speeds M <1?

            Never ! I doubt that they will be integrated with the Tu-22M3 \ M3M at all, let the MiG-31 indulge in this.
            This accordion from journalists is about "Dagger" on Tu-22M3. Well, and the fact that it was in the bomb bay ... so he said that it would be better on the external sling.
            1. ancient
              ancient 18 November 2020 13: 49
              +5
              Quote: bayard
              I doubt that they will be integrated with the Tu-22M3 \ M3M at all

              good drinks
              Quote: bayard
              Well, and the fact that it was in the bomb bay ... so he said that it would be better on the external sling.

              So I said that then only on M <1 bully ..if only not from the "belly" wink
            2. bayard
              bayard 18 November 2020 15: 24
              0
              The fact that the bomb bay doors will not open on supersonic - we know, even the work on solving the issue of using weapons from the internal compartment of a fighter (5th generation) on supersonic, read, figured out, realized - gracefully.

              ... But the Tu-22M3 NK-32 was fitted ... So they still fly.
            3. ancient
              ancient 18 November 2020 16: 23
              +5
              Quote: bayard
              But the Tu-22M3 NK-32 was fitted

              belay ..Where .. wassat
            4. bayard
              bayard 18 November 2020 16: 44
              +1
              The report was showing the first equipped board, the first flight.
              Or did the journalists lie again?
              The reportage was about the first Tu-22M3 (or head M3M) with the new NK-32M engine.
              He (the engine) did not get up because of the location of the unit box (or whatever it is) ... Perhaps they made a separate modification of the NK-32 with the correct placement of this box - a decent batch is expected.
            5. ancient
              ancient 18 November 2020 17: 07
              +3
              Quote: bayard
              The report was showing the first equipped board, the first flight

              wink
              Quote: bayard
              Or did the journalists lie again?

              How "gray merens" do not even blush at the same time .... wassat
              Quote: bayard
              The reportage was about the first Tu-22M3 (or head M3M) with the new NK-32M engine.
              He (the engine) did not get up because of the location of the unit box (or whatever it is) ... Perhaps they made a separate modification of the NK-32 with the correct placement of this box - a decent batch is expected.

              These were only plans ... which remained plans, unfortunately ... nothing, except for additional recharge flaps, was not implemented, and the aircraft itself was later converted into an LL, instead of the Tu-9MLL LII them. Gromov.
            6. ancient
              ancient 18 November 2020 17: 15
              +3
              Quote: ancient
              , instead of the Tu-9MLL of the Gromov Flight Research Institute, which crashed on September 1994, 22.

              this "laboratory"
            7. Pete mitchell
              Pete mitchell 20 November 2020 17: 44
              +3
              Apparatus ....
              hi mail box?
          2. bayard
            bayard 18 November 2020 17: 22
            +3
            Quote: ancient
            Quote: bayard
            Or did the journalists lie again?

            How "gray merens" don't even blush at the same time ..

            That's why I then thought - how did they manage so quickly ... to depict another modification of the NK-32? ...
            This cheap PR on lies has simply surpassed all the limits ... but they cannot surpass Rogozin.
  • sabakina
    sabakina 17 November 2020 18: 32
    -2
    Quote: Eye of the Crying
    Tu-22 is not a strategic bomber, EMNIP. Refueling devices removed under some kind of contract.

    If you are aware not only of what is happening in your kitchen, but also in the world, you cannot fail to know that the Yankees have withdrawn from some kind of agreement, according to which Russia is prohibited from having refueling devices on the TU-22. Returning them to their place is a matter of technology and a few sleepless nights of techies.
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 18: 39
      +2
      Quote: sabakina
      Returning them to their place is a matter of technology and a few sleepless nights of techies.


      And how, they returned? If not, what are we talking about in general - about potentially strategic bombers?
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 17 November 2020 18: 44
        -11 qualifying.
        Quote: Eye of the Crying
        Quote: sabakina
        Returning them to their place is a matter of technology and a few sleepless nights of techies.


        And how, they returned? If not, what are we talking about in general - about potentially strategic bombers?

        Listen, why are you interested in? Call the MO, they'll tell you chiba!
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 18: 49
          +5
          If you don’t know, don’t clog the air.
          1. sabakina
            sabakina 17 November 2020 19: 42
            -7
            Quote: Eye of the Crying
            If you don’t know, don’t clog the air.

            And what I don’t know, what do you know? laughing
            1. The comment was deleted.
      2. KCA
        KCA 17 November 2020 19: 18
        0
        They returned to the M3M, the first is being tested, according to their result, all M3s will be modified to M3M, and will be with a refueling system
      3. bayard
        bayard 18 November 2020 02: 39
        +2
        Quote: Eye of the Crying
        And how, they returned?

        They returned to the already modernized ones. It is not in combat units to carry out such measures.
    2. KCA
      KCA 17 November 2020 18: 42
      +4
      The TU-22M3 did not fall either under START-3 or under the INF Treaty, as well as the Barguzin and Oka missile defense missile systems, refueling devices were removed from the M3, and the Oka and Barguzin were destroyed simply at the request of the Americans, well, the tagged licked, so to speak
  • zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 18 November 2020 11: 22
    +3
    Quote: MooH
    Do you think that Russia has more Tu-95 than Tu-22m?

    More. There are about three dozen capable Tu-22M3.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 17 November 2020 16: 37
    +3
    [/ Quote]
    Quote: Eye of the Crying
    [quote = MooH] For some reason, most of our bombers are supersonic.


    Do you think that Russia has more Tu-160s than Tu-95s?

    If not for Yeltsin, there would be more ...
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 18 November 2020 11: 27
      +4
      Quote: Doccor18
      If not for Yeltsin, there would be more ...

      Do you know who ruled the country in 2011, when the MRA was liquidated and massively "disposed of" Tu-22M?
  • Antifreeze
    Antifreeze 17 November 2020 17: 57
    +3
    Quote: MooH
    I believe the author is right. The reserve of speed has not hurt anyone yet

    I also think that it is useful to have not only "heavenly slugs" And if it works, then why not?
  • Eug
    Eug 18 November 2020 08: 47
    +2
    I am far from bombers and missile carriers, but fighter-interceptors have the most important characteristic - the time to reach the interception line. I suspect that missile bombers have a similar one.
    1. ancient
      ancient 18 November 2020 13: 52
      +4
      Quote: Eug
      but fighter-interceptors have the most important characteristic - the time of reaching the interception line.

      It is absolutely true, and for all branches of aviation there are such "times" - reaching the launch line and the time of striking, but .... in "long aviation" this has nothing to do with reaching the M> 1 modes. wink
  • RealPilot
    RealPilot 18 November 2020 09: 17
    +2
    This aircraft, like all equipment in general, must be considered in a broad context.

    First, geography. We have a huge country, distances do not allow us to fly slowly. Procrastination = defeat ...
    The Americans have many bases around the world. They surround us and China (and against other strategists they are not needed) in a dense ring, here it is more important to get close quietly and imperceptibly, to strike.
    Both options are trade-offs.

    Second, the structure of the industry.
    We can restore production, technologies with some processing have been preserved. There is a chain of EXACTLY SUCH factories and design bureaus ...
    And the Americans have a different situation. The concept of "stealth" reigns there, which has evolved over the years. It has already been "sold" to the Pentagon and public opinion for years to come. Lockheed Martin will not make supersonic heavy bombers, he has different production specifics now. Boeing is not ready either ...

    That is, everything comes from what is available. Plus military doctrine ...
    The development of something fundamentally new and revolutionary is not considered at the moment, everyone is relatively conservative doing what they can and have worked out.
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 16: 29
    +1
    "For some reason, most of our bombers are supersonic." Oddly enough, but in the USSR Air Force, high speeds at high altitudes were also abandoned on such strike aircraft as the Su-24, Su-17m4, MiG-27. This was done for other reasons than the Yankees on the B-1B, but nevertheless they did - the design of the air intakes was simplified, which made it impossible to fly at high altitudes at high speeds.
  • VO3A
    VO3A 19 November 2020 03: 54
    0
    The author is thinking about anything pointlessly !!! Conjectures that do not rely on anything ... You need to start with the specifics of military operations in modern warfare! The author slept through the information revolution, the author is plagiarizing. US satellites hang over Russia and shoot information with an accuracy of centimeters ... They see everything and count everything ... Why this ship, which cannot be hidden and which takes off from several airfields ... Yes, this is a political symbol, a propaganda tool, a demonstration flag and that's it !!! Is this worthless billion worth of expenditures? .. I don't know ... I doubt it !!!
    1. Strelets1
      Strelets1 19 November 2020 18: 47
      0
      Quote: VO3A
      The author is thinking about nothing pointlessly !!! Conjectures that do not rely on anything ... We must start with the specifics of combat in modern warfare! The author slept through the information revolution, the author is plagiarizing.


      Well, so tell the author and the rest of the "foolish", discussing the capabilities of the TU-160 (and its modernized versions), as well as -Tu-22 - (up to the M3M version) - "features of actions in modern war" - about which "the author does not suspect articles and the rest are foolish "... take and scribble an article on the VO - and call it" Features of database maintenance in modern wars "...

      Quote: VO3A
      US satellites hang over Russia and shoot information with an accuracy of centimeters ... They see everything and count everything ... Why this ship, which cannot be hidden and which takes off from several airfields ...

      hehe ... well, let's say not everyone sees (and not always), but even if they see - what?
      Tu-160s take off, take off for a long flight at supersonic speed and move to the combat destination at a speed exceeding the speed of advancing air defense systems in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland (well, the Balts are covered
      1. VO3A
        VO3A 19 November 2020 21: 57
        0
        Tu-160s take off, take off for a long flight at supersonic and move to the combat destination at a speed exceeding the speed of advancing air defense systems in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland

        If the batch has begun, they have already been destroyed ... They cannot be hidden and all the airfields from which they can take off are known ... And they can simply be tracked ..
        The Tu-160 is not on duty in the air ... And, in general, this is a purely offensive weapon of the second echelon, and in a retaliatory strike they will no longer be physically ... If they lose a couple, then this dinosaur will be immediately calculated after takeoff ...
        Don't dream of Tu-22M3M, 30 of them won't make, they won't find suitable ones! And why, after 10 years, almost everyone will fall apart on the wing, that M3, that M3M ... This is a purely populist project ... It's just that a new complex with Tu-160M ​​is suitable for it and it seems like you can get promoted ...
        That's alarming with PAK YES ... Again they plan to give birth to another monster ... Why? Information about a project slowdown slipped through. And what to fly on in 10 years? ... We need a lighter and cheaper car ... It seems to me that the plane should be a development of the Su-34, only a little heavier, with an upgrade to invisibility ...
        Features of database maintenance in modern wars

        This is a closed topic. But the network-centric approach is rejected in our army, or is interpreted in an erroneous way ... You can write about this ...
        1. Strelets1
          Strelets1 21 November 2020 20: 42
          0
          Quote: VO3A
          That's alarming with PAK YES ... Again they plan to give birth to another monster ... Why? Information about a project slowdown slipped through. And what to fly on in 10 years? ... We need a lighter and cheaper car ... It seems to me that the plane should be a development of the Su-34, only a little heavier, with an upgrade to invisibility ...


          Well, why is this all? Here someone VO3A claimed that (quote):

          Quote: VO3A
          If the batch has begun, they have already been destroyed ... They cannot be hidden and all the airfields from which they can take off are known ... And they can simply be tracked ..
          The Tu-160 is not on duty in the air ... And, in general, this is a purely offensive weapon of the second echelon, and in a retaliatory strike they will no longer be physically ... If they lose a couple, then this dinosaur will be immediately calculated after takeoff ...

          You will decide then whether you need aviation at all or not, if ... hehe ... "all airfields are known" "everything is controlled from space - with an accuracy ... hehe ... to the centimeter" ... and in which case everything will be destroyed - by super-super-super-American ICBMs and SLBMs, as well as Tamogavks - developments - at the best of the 70s of the last century ...

          You remind me of a well-known maize grower, by the name of Khrushchev - who knew little about military affairs, but believed (like you) that in modern war, aviation and the fleet were not needed - only the Strategic Missile Forces and SLBMs, and therefore an army could be worth 1 million. 200 thousand people to cut ...
          It took a long time to disentangle it ...
          1. VO3A
            VO3A 21 November 2020 21: 57
            -1
            One water! I did not even hear the question ... Tu-160 is a dozen and a half, EPR is huge, take off from special airfields - the requirements for the runway are high ... Where I decide, there are only teapots around!
            1. Strelets1
              Strelets1 23 November 2020 19: 14
              0
              For woodpeckers who do not understand the first time written:
              Quote: VO3A
              One water! I did not even hear the question ... Tu-160 is a dozen and a half, EPR is huge, take off from special airfields - the requirements for the runway are high ... Where I decide, there are only teapots around!


              Take two:
              You will decide then whether you need aviation at all or not, if ... hehe ... "all airfields are known" "everything is controlled from space
  • vvvjak
    vvvjak 17 November 2020 16: 42
    +5
    Quote: Eye of the Crying
    the answer to the question "are we ready to pay for supersonic" is quite unambiguous - "no".

    And who are "we"?
    Quote: Eye of the Crying
    And from experience B-52, B-1, B-2, B-21,

    Generating thoughts on behalf of the entire American people?
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 17: 21
      -2
      Quote: vvvjak
      Generating thoughts on behalf of the entire American people?


      I guess the thoughts of the USAF command on aircraft performance characteristics. What?
      1. vvvjak
        vvvjak 17 November 2020 17: 41
        +1
        Never mind. It is not clear what has to do with the thoughts of the USAF command before the Tu 160 and articles about it.
      2. sabakina
        sabakina 17 November 2020 18: 55
        -6
        Quote: Eye of the Crying
        Quote: vvvjak
        Generating thoughts on behalf of the entire American people?


        I guess the thoughts of the USAF command on aircraft performance characteristics. What?

        I would have shown you what it means to guess thoughts at a distance, but I couldn't find the video. But I sense that this is enough for you, mattress ignoramus!

        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 18: 58
          +4
          Quote: sabakina
          I would show you


          You cannot show, you cannot round off. You are helpless.
          1. sabakina
            sabakina 17 November 2020 19: 44
            -8
            Quote: Eye of the Crying
            Quote: sabakina
            I would show you


            You cannot show, you cannot round off. You are helpless.

            Aha, just like you! There are many pontov, little sense! We drove these from the next street with a face oblong table!
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 19: 49
              +7
              Quote: sabakina
              We drove these from the next street with a face oblong table!


              And you still live with these heroic memories.
  • Hypertension
    Hypertension 17 November 2020 17: 33
    -5
    Tu-160 is a handsome airplane. At one time - a masterpiece of aircraft construction. But what's the cost? Wouldn't several hypersonic missiles be more effective for the price of one Tu-160? Minus EPR. Less training and life of pilots.
  • Antifreeze
    Antifreeze 17 November 2020 18: 05
    +1
    Quote: Eye of the Crying
    from experience B-52, B-1, B-2, B-21, the answer to the question "are we ready to pay for supersonic" is quite unambiguous - "no"

    At V -1V, supersonic is not at all stupid - 1,25M. No efficiency, only excessive fuel consumption.
    1. ancient
      ancient 18 November 2020 14: 48
      +2
      Quote: Antifreeze
      At V -1V, supersonic is not at all stupid - 1,25M

      On Tu-22M3 you can go on 2 circuits (without scoreboard wink ). M> 1,3 wink handling .. amazing ...... when compared with the "torment" at M> 0,85 at H 9m. wink
      Quote: Antifreeze
      No efficiency, only excessive fuel consumption.

      Fuel consumption is slightly higher than for MBFR. tongue
  • bk0010
    bk0010 17 November 2020 21: 29
    +4
    Quote: Eye of the Crying
    Supersonic, of course, is needed. And you have to pay for it. And from the experience of B-52, B-1, B-2, B-21, the answer to the question "are we ready to pay for supersonic" is quite unambiguous - "no."
    Interesting "we" you have ... Just keep in mind that the states do not have the task of acting in conditions of enemy air domination, but we do.
  • Constanty
    Constanty 17 November 2020 16: 24
    +6
    Eavesdropping equipment is still used in the event of detection of, for example, submarines.
    In the case of aviation, before the war, similar devices were used as in the photo.


    With the current state of electronics (and the noise of modern aircraft - whoever hears the F-16 flying knows what he's talking about) modern listening devices could compensate for the low radar detectability of stealth aircraft.
    However, this is only possible at subsonic speeds. This, in my opinion, is a small advantage of supersonic aircraft: they will be faster than the noise they generate.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 17 November 2020 16: 35
      0
      Quote: Constanty
      small advantage of supersonic aircraft: they will be faster than the noise they generate

      by the way it is logical! one more argument in favor of tu160
      1. Imobile
        Imobile 17 November 2020 22: 29
        -2
        There, in the optical range, noise is huge, turbulence, etc.
    2. Avior
      Avior 17 November 2020 16: 58
      +3
      At supersonic, the noise is much higher, the sonic boom is quite noticeable even without this device.
      Strongly unmasks
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 17 November 2020 17: 19
        +4
        If the entry to supersonic speed occurs far enough - still over its own territory, an airplane flying, say, at Mach 2, will be much earlier over the target than this thunder
        1. Avior
          Avior 17 November 2020 18: 10
          +6
          Sorry, you are slightly mistaken about the nature of sonic boom. This is a common misconception.
          In fact, you hear a sonic boom not only at the moment of transition to supersonic, as is commonly believed, but also during a supersonic flight, when the Mach cone reaches your ears.
          That is, a flying supersonic plane will certainly create this clap and unmask itself.

          https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80
          1. Jacket in stock
            Jacket in stock 17 November 2020 19: 08
            +2
            Quote: Avior
            That is, a flying supersonic plane will certainly create this clap and unmask itself.

            Not flying, but flying.
            So this unmasking is not scary.
            1. Avior
              Avior 17 November 2020 20: 08
              +2
              Flew over, you're right
              But it still unmasks
    3. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 18 November 2020 00: 05
      0
      This, in my opinion, is a small advantage of supersonic aircraft: they will be faster than the noise they generate.


      Fiber light, radio wave or em. the field in the conductor is still faster, enough to warn you in a couple of tens of kilometers. Most likely, the "ears" themselves should also be flying - periodically gliding robots with the engines turned off, since this is the only way to cover a sufficiently large area, for example, the sea, with a small number of devices.
    4. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 16: 44
      +1
      "modern listening devices could compensate for the low detectability of stealth aircraft radars." - To you honestly say about your thoughts or you yourself guess that this is nonsense?
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 18 November 2020 20: 39
        -1
        Each aircraft has its own radar, thermal and acoustic signature. Stealth aircraft have lowered radar signatures and partly thermal rather than acoustic - and it is possible that new detection measures will focus on this aspect.
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 21 November 2020 18: 41
          0
          Do you know the speed of sound propagation in the air? Do you know the flight speed of modern aircraft? Then what is the conversation about?
    5. Alexander Vorontsov
      18 November 2020 20: 29
      -2
      So I can imagine how a grandson asks his grandfather - grandfather, but you still have pictures from the war?
      - Ooh yes!
      - show me!
      - here look!
      - hmm ...
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 17 November 2020 16: 34
    0
    dear Alexander Vorontsov, he explained everything quite logically, it is clear that supersonic is useful for a combat aircraft, that 160 is promising and they need to be released
    1. max702
      max702 17 November 2020 17: 06
      +9
      I have a feeling that everything revolves around hypersound .. It is precisely the opportunity to be the first stage for hypersonic missiles that is the main reason for interest in the TU-160 .. All the same, the tool will turn out to be a universal bang for anything and not only a vigorous loaf, the same zircon from the ship flies according to the "official" data for 1000 km, and how long will he fly with the TU-160 at supersonic? 2-3? Of course, it will be a slightly different version of zircon, but still .. We get a flying arsenal with a large number of missiles capable of very quickly reacting to this or that situation .. Even in the confrontation with AUG, checkmate turns out, right now, of course, screams like find them first ! But again, the interest in the TU-160 is not out of nowhere, but most likely this is a complex solution, and in this direction there is also progress, especially in the grave silence about how things are with Rofar .. So the sleigh is being prepared in the summer in advance ..
      1. lucul
        lucul 17 November 2020 17: 29
        -1
        But again, interest in the TU-160 is not out of the blue.

        This is an excellent base for launching missiles, especially if you make it easier - change all the avionics to modern ones and more composites.
    2. Avior
      Avior 17 November 2020 18: 20
      +3
      Not very logical.
      He did not explain in any way why tasks for the bomber were included in his range of tasks for the bomber.
      The bombers have their own range of tasks and their own tactics.

      In general, of course, I agree with him that it is better to be healthy and rich than to be poor and sick, but from his text it is impossible to understand why he considers these 2 hours of the handicap to be important. Maybe he should have substantiated this reasonably, but it’s not clear why 2 hours, and not an hour or an hour and a half or three.
      And yes, the sports approach "faster, higher, stronger" is understandable.
      As it is clear that the resource in the design of aircraft is limited and achieving an advantage in one parameter, we degrade others.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 November 2020 15: 26
        -1
        Well, actually, on D-Day, these 2 hours of handicap can be decisive. The plane lives for them. Again, you can fly more flights at the cost of higher fuel consumption.
    3. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 17 November 2020 19: 27
      +4
      Quote: vladimir1155
      dear Alexander Vorontsov, he explained everything quite logically, it is clear that supersonic is useful for a combat aircraft, that 160 is promising and they need to be released


      Absolutely illogical ...

      First of all.

      Does the Tu-160 have a mode of launching missiles from its in-body revolving system at supersonic speeds?
      I think not.
      For this is an extremely difficult task that requires enormous research and technological solutions.
      Such aircraft, capable of supersonic speeds, opening the bomb bay doors and using suspended weapons - in the whole world history there have been fewer fingers than fingers.

      Secondly.
      The creation, production and operation of an aircraft that will rise almost into the stratosphere and accelerate to M2 speed only in order to give the rocket additional advantages in flight range and acceleration speed - can be solved with one relatively simple, reliable and one hundred thousandfold or (probably even) a million times cheap way - by installing a more powerful starting booster booster on the rocket.
      Make a more powerful booster and your hypersonic rocket will go there in 2 minutes and at such a speed where the plane will fly, let the supersonic one, for almost an hour ...
      And supersonic aircraft will not be needed.
      So look at the world more broadly, it is multifaceted.
      And in understandings too.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 17 November 2020 21: 39
        +3
        Quote: SovAr238A
        For this is an extremely difficult task that requires enormous research and technological solutions.
        Before World War II, they learned how to throw bombs from dive bombers, but here ... They even figured out how to shoot missiles on hypersound (throw them back).
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 18 November 2020 15: 28
          -1
          At supersonic, the blow will be very powerful, the airplane can break, on the F-22 it seems to be solved by the fact that in a certain speed range the flow remains transonic. But that he will be able to throw a rocket from his belly with a 2M, I hardly believe.
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            18 November 2020 20: 53
            0
            Why straight from the belly?

            The aircraft is not designed in 1 day, many variants are created in the process. The bottom line is just the tip of the iceberg. Many types of weapons were originally planned for the Tu-160. Including the giant 9 meter X-45 missile. A compartment was made under it.
            And the bomb armament was planned.
            And even air-to-air.

            On the example of the Tu-22 (M), solutions were tested with the placement of another X-22 hypersonic missile.
            It was placed like this




            According to some of the thread participants, 70 years ago it was
            an extremely difficult task that requires enormous research and technological solutions.

            I decided.
            And today, when on the CUDA cores of the home station, what was then calculated for a month is calculated in an hour ... we cannot change the drum in the compartment for a device for launching hypersonic missiles.

            Well, we have publicity))) Every opinion has the right to life.
        2. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 16: 50
          +1
          "They even figured out how to shoot missiles on hypersound (throw them back)" - who came up with when, what kind of plane and how to apply this to the Tu-160? If you want hypersound - look at the Chinese DF-21D - no bombers are needed. On its basis, a reduced aircraft missile was also developed, but on a completely subsonic Tu-16.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 November 2020 15: 30
        -2
        to give the rocket additional advantages in flight range and acceleration speed - it can be solved in one relatively simple, reliable and one hundred thousandfold or (probably even) millionfold cheap way - by installing a more powerful launch booster accelerator on the rocket.


        First, there are restrictions on overloads, the rocket is not a projectile, especially an all-metal one. Secondly, the bomber will not only lift the rocket into the stratosphere, but it can transport it 1 km economically and only then start acceleration. No booster will allow this, or the rocket turns into a space one.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 17 November 2020 16: 36
    +5
    Do you need supersound - rather yes than no. Especially for Russia. How long will a subsonic missile carrier fly from Karelia to Primorye? Eternity...
    Of course, a supersonic bomber is more complicated and more expensive than its subsonic counterpart, but here the end justifies the means.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      17 November 2020 16: 43
      +1
      Quote: Doccor18
      Especially for Russia. How long will a subsonic missile carrier fly from Karelia to Primorye? Eternity...

      What are we talking about ...
      1. Pavel57
        Pavel57 17 November 2020 17: 02
        +1
        War scenario question. Pak-Da is kind of subsonic.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 17 November 2020 20: 02
          -3
          Quote: Pavel57
          Pak-Da kind of like subsonic

          according to several respected current specialists of candidates of military sciences .... what is still serving now, PAK YES is a failed idea .. (apparently about something like a super-battleship destroyer) money down the drain, in short, we'll see what happens there .. and there is a TU 160 good
          1. Pavel57
            Pavel57 18 November 2020 11: 20
            0
            Concept B-1 is bad. Concept B-2 is bad.
            The cost of the operation with the Pak-DB will be lower than with the Tu-160.
    2. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 16: 52
      +1
      "How long will a subsonic missile carrier fly from Karelia to Primorye?" - On supersonic Tu-160 and a quarter of this way will not fly. An ICBM will fly by in a couple of tens of minutes.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 18 November 2020 17: 01
        -1
        Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
        "How long will a subsonic missile carrier fly from Karelia to Primorye?" - On supersonic Tu-160 and a quarter of this way will not fly. An ICBM will fly by in a couple of tens of minutes.

        If all tasks could be solved by ICBMs ...
        Khrushchev thought so.
        The truth, as always, is somewhere in between ...
        1. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 17: 20
          +2
          Alas and ah. The Tu-160 cannot bear a conventional war with America either. And against the barmaley Tu-160 is redundant.
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 19 November 2020 07: 12
            0
            Fortunately, the world is not only the United States and Russia. There are two hundred more states ...
            The same Turkey to pacify, if completely carried away by imperialism ..
            1. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 21 November 2020 18: 49
              0
              How are you going to use the Tu-160 against Turkey?
  • svp67
    svp67 17 November 2020 16: 37
    +5
    The speed of the carrier is of course good, but now the speed and range of application of what it carries are in the first place ... and it turns out that the first place, in the characteristics of the carrier, is the carrying capacity and the time that it can be in the air without landing
  • Vale-90
    Vale-90 17 November 2020 16: 38
    0
    Date of setting the record 03.11.1989. Flight speed along a closed route 2000 km with a load of 30000 kg -1678,00 km / h. The crew commander B.I. Veremey.

    The very concept of an air defense breakthrough in the northwest. outdated. And then they could not break through and now. We went to PMV with bending, then stealth cover.
    For me, the very idea of ​​a CIS is already outdated. Other engines. That which was "picked up" at the expense of KIS, now at the expense of composites (lifting force of the fuselage, fairings) and the engine.
  • Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 17 November 2020 16: 45
    +2
    You can build a supersonic aircraft ... Or you can build a "subsonic"

    Interesting conclusions, in which the very conclusions "for" and "against", no!
  • Simargl
    Simargl 17 November 2020 17: 14
    +2
    In addition to the obvious things (to be in time for the "holiday" and quickly leave the area) there are also less obvious ones: the use of missile weapons and a promising hypersonic one, in particular.
    Here !!! In the future, I think, almost all strategic missiles will be hypersonic. Therefore, a strategic missile carrier, in my opinion, will be reduced to the most simplified launcher for hypersonic missiles.
    Application tactics - reaching the launch line with acceleration up to the maximum (starting) speed.
    Start from your own territory and / or minimally dangerous for yourself.

    the Burlak project, which implied the use of the Tu-160 as a reusable first stage for launching military satellites into orbit.
    The plane is 4 times more needed.
    But for a start, the Tu-160 will go.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 17 November 2020 17: 15
    12
    The whole article is a phenomenal nonsense of an amateur.
    The appearance of the supersonic Tu-22m and Tu-160 - a consequence
    outdated misconceptions in the tactics of applying these
    aircraft, and Tupolev's "opportunistic victory".
    Remember, Tu-160 is not an air fighter, but a platform for
    delivery and launch of cruise missiles from a safe area.
    Timely missile launch is not achieved by a quick arrival
    to this area, and constant duty of the platform in the area.
    1. mark2
      mark2 17 November 2020 17: 37
      +4
      Timely missile launch is not achieved by a quick arrival
      to this area, and constant duty of the platform in the area.

      Said it suddenly and bluntly. I propose to hang up balloons with rockets on board. And what. They fly slowly, a solid g / p crew can be provided with normal living conditions, while they are circling in the area waiting for the launch command. Again, there is a minimum of fuel. And if necessary, you can anchor so that the wind does not blow away
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 17 November 2020 23: 12
        -1
        Quote: mark2
        Said it suddenly and bluntly

        super!
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 17 November 2020 23: 44
        -2
        I will continue ... and cancel the tanks, they are expensive and gluttonous, we take out howitzers with a Belarus tractor and "they are constantly present in the area," ... yes, the speed of the tank is small, "the missiles are faster" .... why are the designers moving platforms are placed ... after all, they "can constantly bother in the area?" ... tongue am lol
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 17 November 2020 20: 12
      -3
      Quote: Bez 310
      and constant watch of the platform in the area

      How do you imagine this?
      So that the ends of their possessions
      Guard against attacks
      He should have contained
      Numerous troops.
      The governors did not doze off,
      But did not have time:
      Waiting, it happened, from the south, looking, -
      An from the east climbs the army.
      They will help here, dashing guests
      They're coming from the sea ....
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ue8f-kaIM
      from the fifth minute
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 17 November 2020 20: 20
        +2
        Quote: vladimir1155
        How do you imagine this?

        I have no idea, I know.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 17 November 2020 22: 20
          -2
          know and do different things
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 17 November 2020 22: 36
            +2
            Sorry, the conversation doesn't make sense.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 17 November 2020 23: 10
              -2
              completely insane tactics, from officials in uniform who know how to come up with only a useless idea but liked by the bosses .. what kind of projection of power, everyone says, but no one can explain what it is ... how it is during a threatened situation, that is, before the exchange of rocket = Are you going to ensure the constant presence of long-range aviation in the air with nuclear strikes? Although I'm not a pilot, it is obvious that this is sheer stupidity ... even ships capable of drifting and standing on a barrel are not able to constantly be present anywhere for a long time, this is a whole operation with supplies and support, and the message of the Russian Navy can provide such a presence is only a couple of three ships, there will not be enough fuel and provisions, ... and the plane in general is in the air for several hours, the pilot in the cabin cannot sleep off, which means that all long-range aircraft alternately fly out in single file in a wake column and return to Engels in the flow ... a couple of months? by the end of such a merry-go-round, half of the pilots will become unable to understand the instruments, and a third of the planes will get up for repairs, since they are old .... and after refueling in the air, tell us ... you have invented nonsense and are running around with it like a written sack. .... watch the cartoon .. "... well, as a neighbor, our impudent habits of godless will not let us know in advance that he is going to fight?"
              1. Avior
                Avior 18 November 2020 07: 19
                +2
                ... Although I'm not a pilot, it is obvious that this is sheer stupidity

                Sorry to interfere with other people's communication, but are you aware that your interlocutor, as far as I know, is a pilot?
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 18 November 2020 16: 54
                  -2
                  Quote: Avior
                  your interlocutor, as far as I know

                  Wise people are so smart and practical that they know absolutely exactly why this or that is unreal; for some reason they tend to be limited. This is why I prefer not to deal with graduates. If I had a desire to deal with competitors in unfair ways, I would definitely advise them a couple of specialists. They usually give so much good advice that they don't have time to work.

                  Henry Ford
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 18 November 2020 19: 14
                    +2
                    Ford was a man of original and specific views, but I do not really imagine that he flew on an airplane, at the helm of which an amateur was sitting, and not an expert smile
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 18 November 2020 19: 17
                      -1
                      and we do not discuss the process of takeoff and landing
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 November 2020 15: 32
      0
      Only ships can be constantly on duty.
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 19 November 2020 17: 40
        0
        You need to read a lot to know a lot, for example, the Americans during the Cold War were able to organize a constant "watch" at the borders of the USSR of several B-52s with nuclear weapons. This was achieved by regular replacement of aircraft, since they had a lot of aircraft and many air bases. Then they gave it up, for many reasons.
        And we also cannot do without "watch" in the air, we only need to raise the planes during the threatened period, otherwise we will sleep through the strike on air bases and then certainly not one plane will take off.
      2. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 21 November 2020 18: 52
        0
        "Only ships can be on duty at all times." - This is also why the Americans actually put a bolt on the aviation component of the nuclear triad, and even on ground-based ICBMs. Their main hope is Tridents.
  • bar
    bar 17 November 2020 17: 20
    +6
    Relative resistance at different speeds (assuming that resistance increases quadratically with speed)

    I will disappoint. The higher the speed, the more the law of resistance change differs from the quadratic one. And even more so at speeds near supersonic. Thus, all your calculations are incorrect. I didn't even read further, because it is pointless recourse
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 17 November 2020 23: 20
      -2
      Quote: bar
      resistance change law

      the law does not change, because it is a physical law .... This component of resistance does not depend on the magnitude of the lift generated and consists of the wing profile resistance, the resistance of the aircraft structural elements that do not contribute to the lift, and wave resistance. The latter is significant when moving with near- and supersonic speeds, and is caused by the formation of a shock wave that carries away a significant fraction of the energy of motion. Wave drag arises when the aircraft reaches a speed corresponding to the critical Mach number, when a part of the flow around the aircraft wing acquires supersonic speed. The critical number M is the greater, the greater the sweep angle of the wing, the more sharpened the leading edge of the wing and the thinner it is.

      The resistance force is directed against the speed of movement, its value is proportional to the characteristic area S, the density of the medium ρ and the square of the velocity V:

      {\ displaystyle F = C_ {F} {\ frac {\ rho v ^ {2}} {2}} S} {\ displaystyle F = C_ {F} {\ frac {\ rho v ^ {2}} {2 }} S}
      {\ displaystyle C_ {F}} {\ displaystyle C_ {F}} - dimensionless aerodynamic drag coefficient, obtained from similarity criteria, for example, the Reynolds and Froude numbers in aerodynamics.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 17 November 2020 23: 50
        -2
        that there will be no subsonic sound, that supersonic will not be laminar, only turbulence
      2. bar
        bar 18 November 2020 11: 44
        +3
        the law does not change, for it is a physical law ...

        Thanks, Cap. But you were in a hurry and did not read carefully. Namely:
        The higher the speed, the more the law of resistance change differs from the quadratic.

        In other words, the law itself does not change, in which I completely agree with you, but it is not at all quadratic, as the author of the article wrote.
    2. Alexander Vorontsov
      18 November 2020 17: 52
      0
      Quote: bar
      I will disappoint. The higher the speed, the more the law of resistance change differs from the quadratic one. And even more so at speeds near supersonic. Thus, all your calculations are incorrect. I didn't even read further, because it is pointless

      The fact is that the 2M value is correlated with afterburner thrust, not through the primitive principle of quadratic magnification. This is not something that I calculated on this principle.

      This is the ratio on a physically flying plane. When designing which, all calculations were already made and thrust, resistance and sweep angle were correlated (it was he who neutralized the deviation from the quadratic increase).
      Thus, it is quite correct to relate this for the tasks mentioned - an approximate understanding of the scale.

      So you didn't manage to upset. The fakir was drunk, the trick did not work.
      1. bar
        bar 18 November 2020 18: 21
        +1
        This is the ratio on a physically flying plane. During the construction of which all calculations have already been made

        If all this was obtained on a physically flying plane, then what were your formulas for? For pseudoscience?

        So you didn't manage to upset. The fakir was drunk, the trick did not work.

        It’s a pity that my remark didn’t do you any good. Well, what can you do, live like this ... hi
  • lucul
    lucul 17 November 2020 17: 24
    -2
    Taking into account the nature of the potential targets, these 2 abstract hours turn into 2 hours of the life of the airfield on which the enemy aircraft are based.

    The main argument in favor of supersonic - and especially if we attack first.
    1. Avior
      Avior 17 November 2020 18: 38
      +3
      If you are the first to fly, you need to fly 2 hours earlier, that's all.
    2. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 16: 59
      +1
      "and especially if we attack first" - and especially if we attack first, we will attack ICBMs, not the Tu-160 at all ..
  • Rudkovsky
    Rudkovsky 17 November 2020 17: 26
    0
    The Americans abandoned such aircraft half a century ago, think about it. The Stars and Stripes never do anything for nothing, and in the end they are right.

    Tu-160 is a worthless plane. He will not be able to break through the defense, and patrolling the launch area in anticipation of the command is not very optimal both in terms of performance and price. The pure fruit of the Soviet "catching up and overtaking", when common sense was sacrificed to show-off prestige.
    1. lucul
      lucul 17 November 2020 18: 45
      -4
      Tu-160 is a worthless plane. He will not be able to break through the defense, and patrolling the launch area in anticipation of the command is not very optimal both in terms of performance and price.

      Tu-160 from afar, will carry out very, very important targets with hypersonic missiles.
      This is not an F-35, which cannot even catch up with it.
      1. Rudkovsky
        Rudkovsky 17 November 2020 18: 54
        +3
        I beg you, this is pure theory. Aren't you tired of believing in fairy tales and a bright future? Rely on what you have - there are no hypersonic missiles in service, especially for the Tu-160. The Tu-160 itself is certainly fast, but what's the point of that? The Valkyrie flew even faster 50 years ago, but even then she could not do anything against missiles.

        Purely an airplane for propaganda, "very, very, no analogues." The fact that analogues were written off 50 years ago, and that the self-self is not in demand is tactfully silent.
        1. lucul
          lucul 17 November 2020 18: 56
          -5
          The Valkyrie flew even faster 50 years ago, but even then she could not do anything against missiles.

          Does the USA have a lot of air defense missiles with a range of 5 km? )))
          1. Rudkovsky
            Rudkovsky 17 November 2020 18: 58
            0
            The United States has many bases around the world, 10 aircraft carriers and a powerful satellite constellation. So it will not be difficult for them to set a rendezvous point for flying Tu-160s.
            1. lucul
              lucul 17 November 2020 19: 01
              -4
              The US has many bases around the world

              How many US bases are there in the Arctic (main target)? )))
              1. Avior
                Avior 18 November 2020 19: 18
                +2
                Canada is there. AND NORAD.
                ... The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a joint aerospace defense system of the United States and Canada, the main tasks of which are to provide control of the air and near-earth space of North America, early warning of an aerospace attack, anti-aircraft and missile defense of the two countries [1].

                hi
            2. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 17 November 2020 19: 19
              +1
              Quote: Rudkovsky
              10 aircraft carriers

              By the way, there are not 10 air groups there.
            3. bk0010
              bk0010 17 November 2020 21: 41
              +3
              What if the Tu-160 insidiously changes its mind to fly to the indicated point? He's so windy ...
          2. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 17: 04
            +1
            "Does the US have a lot of air defense missiles with a range of 5 km?" - Having missiles with a range of 000 km, supersonic is not needed.
        2. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 17 November 2020 19: 15
          +3
          I personally got tired of believing in fairy tales about a good life in the USA and the F-35 mega-superhyperplane.
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 21 November 2020 18: 58
            0
            "I personally got tired of believing in fairy tales about a good life in the USA" - what did they want? Compare how many Russians are in America and how many Americans live in Russia. Obviously Russians are not running to America for a bad life. Good or bad F-35 - time will tell. It seems like the Jews use it for real and do not complain.
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 21 November 2020 19: 01
              0
              Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
              Obviously Russians are not running to America for a bad life.


              Who argues with this - only now they get, as a rule, a mouthful of cucumbers.
              1. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 21 November 2020 19: 02
                0
                If you got it, you wouldn't run. But no. They run all the same.
      2. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 17: 03
        +1
        "Tu-160 from afar, will carry out very, very many important targets with hypersonic missiles" -. B-52 or Tu95 will also carry out a lot of targets with hypersonic missiles (when such missiles appear, of course).
        If the range of hypersonic missiles allows. If not, the Tu-160 is vulnerable in almost the same way as the B-52 and Tu-95.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 17 November 2020 20: 14
      -2
      Quote: Rudkovsky
      The Stars and Stripes Devils never just do anything, and in the end they are right.

      the pernicious influence of the decaying west and servile admiration for it?
  • certero
    certero 17 November 2020 17: 45
    +6
    Quote: Rudkovsky
    He will not be able to break through the defense, and patrolling the launch area in anticipation of the command is not very optimal both in terms of performance and price. The pure fruit of the Soviet "catching up and overtaking", when common sense was sacrificed to show-off prestige.

    This is probably why the Americans were willing to pay several million so that the Ukrainians would cut them. To beat the Soviet show-off?
    1. Avior
      Avior 17 November 2020 18: 51
      +3
      The Americans originally made just such an aircraft as the Tu-160. Even a little better.
      B-1a. Released 4 copies.
      And then they abandoned him.
      Converted into B-1v. - in fact, another plane, despite the external similarity.
      And they never returned to the old scheme.
      As for the ukoains cut, under the Lugar program to eliminate nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles, almost 10 thousand nuclear warheads were destroyed in Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine.
      ... 902 intercontinental ballistic missiles,
      498 silo launchers,
      191 mobile launcher,
      33 nuclear submarines,
      684 ballistic missile submarines,
      906 air-to-ground missiles with nuclear warheads,
      155 bombers,
      194 nuclear test tunnels.

      And a few planes are just a small part of the destroyed
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        17 November 2020 20: 16
        +2
        On the same list with 684 SLBMs, 902 intercontinental missiles, 33 nuclear submarines ... a dozen Tu-160s ...
        1. Avior
          Avior 17 November 2020 21: 03
          +2
          Someone wrote there in the sense that the very fact of the destruction of this dozen should prove something.
          But in reality, 155 bombers were destroyed under this program, and the Tu-160 constituted only an insignificant part of them, just part of a large list, so the very fact of destruction does not prove anything.
          1. Alexander Vorontsov
            18 November 2020 15: 32
            -2
            Quote: Avior
            Someone wrote there in the sense that the very fact of the destruction of this dozen should prove something.

            He proves 2 things:
            1) The fact that there are 902 intercontinental missiles and a dozen Tu-160s in one list.
            2) The Americans had many nuclear submarines with ICBMs. They did not cut them, but simply modernized the mines by placing a drum on several tamahawks instead of 1 rocket. And they got an excellent strike weapon - a submarine with a hundred tamahawks. And in Ukraine, mines were filled with concrete =)))
            And for some, just a reason or an excuse to find why it was necessary to cut.

            1. Avior
              Avior 18 November 2020 16: 02
              +2
              Certainly on the same list as related to nuclear weapons. But getting into this list in itself does not mean what particularly high characteristics of the product.
              What does it mean to understand the mines from your post is difficult.
    2. Rudkovsky
      Rudkovsky 17 November 2020 18: 56
      0
      Wouldn't you have paid a couple of million rubles for the Americans to cut their F-22s? If post-Soviet Indians are ready to exchange furs for glass - well, ok. And this applies not only to Ukraine, but in general to the entire post-scoop who happily poured out everything he had acquired by back-breaking labor for a penny.
      1. Avior
        Avior 17 November 2020 21: 05
        +1
        Most of the list was destroyed in Russia, if anything.
    3. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 18 November 2020 17: 08
      0
      Would you like Ukraine to have Tu-160 now?
  • certero
    certero 17 November 2020 17: 50
    +5
    Tu-160 is an excellent aircraft. When it appeared, long-range aviation pilots were happy, since the working conditions on it became incomparably more comfortable than on the 95.
    As for the concept, which one is correct will show (I hope not) only combat use.
    But even assuming that it can take significantly more weapons than any other aircraft and deliver this "light and heat" faster than anyone - this aircraft is what you need. We have a large country, so fast planes are needed.
    And Russia is simply not able to build a lot in order to be equal to the Americans.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      17 November 2020 18: 19
      0
      All correctly written.
    2. Captain Nemo
      Captain Nemo 17 November 2020 21: 51
      +2
      Comfortable Tu-160 at a few airfields - easy targets for MRBM. "Swans" mostly sleep in parking lots, it is very likely that they will not have time to take off. Invulnerability is being in the air far from the base. We need an air platform for the KR 5000-kov, which for a long time will be at the launch lines, cheap, unobtrusive and with economical motors. Supersonic and variable sweep of the wing greatly interfere here - it is no longer necessary to overcome the air defense. At the moment, the most suitable for these tasks is the Tu-95MS, so it needs to be modernized.
      It was hard for the mighty USSR to produce the Tu-160 (expensive and complex birds), and only for the Russian Federation, where everything is for the oligarchs and pensions for workers (which were produced under the old regime by engines for strategists) as much as 9000r, riveting new 160s like pour kerosene over two fingers.)))
      By the way, combat aircraft should not look like civilian airliners - such a treaty seems to exist.
  • Sergey Valov
    Sergey Valov 17 November 2020 18: 22
    +6
    A little about the payment for supersonic on the Tu-160:
    1. the center section with the wing turning unit added quite a few tons, maybe more than ten, only the aircraft designer can say for sure. It was the complexity of the center section that was one of the bottlenecks when the aircraft was resumed.
    2. The impossibility of external suspensions for two reasons - because there is nowhere and you will have to forget about the supersonic one.
    3. Heavy engines.
    4. Reduced range both at subsonic and supersonic because the wing profile was most likely chosen as a compromise.
    5. Supersonic is possible only at high altitudes with all the minuses of these heights.
    6. Only the lazy did not write about the increased fuel consumption, however, the apologists of running away on supersonic for some reason do not take into account that due to the increased fuel consumption it is possible not to reach the house.
    7. Increase in the weight of the fuel system, because it will be necessary to provide for sharply increasing volumes of pumped fuel.
    8. I am not an armed man, but something tells me that dropping missiles from the bomb bay at supersonic is still a headache.
  • fa2998
    fa2998 17 November 2020 18: 36
    0
    Quote: NEXUS
    And it is quite possible to call it not a tactical bomber, but a strategic one.

    American F-15 flies without landing, for example, from the United States and Saudi Arabia, is it also a strategist? hi
    1. lucul
      lucul 17 November 2020 18: 51
      +1
      American F-15 flies without landing, for example, from the United States and Saudi Arabia, is it also a strategist?

      The F-15 will fly 10 km on its tanks (this is the distance from the US to the Saudis)? )))
  • Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 17 November 2020 18: 59
    0
    Interesting thoughts.
    Thanks to the author.
  • SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 17 November 2020 19: 08
    +3
    The fact is that for hypersonic missiles, the initial flight parameters are even more important, since their engines, aerodynamics and flight profile (especially) are highly optimized for supersonic. It is no coincidence that the supersonic MiG-31 (maximum speed of 2,35M) were chosen as the carriers of the Daggers. (c) Author

    How everything is running then ...

    Choose the MiG-31 only because it is the only one whose size allows you to hang huge missiles on it ...
    They tried to hang a 40M79 "Contact" on it 6 years ago


    And 20 years ago they tried to hang Onyx ...

    Long before the Daggers and Brahmos ...
    And now they are hanging the Petrel, the twin brother (still Soviet, 40 years old) of Contact.
    [/ Center]

    And only because of the size of the aircraft, but not because of the "supersonic"

    As a result, the concept of a promising DA aircraft will depend, among other things, on the success of countries in the development of hypersonic weapons. Will they consider it expedient to equip strategists with such missiles - they will have to do supersonic and increase the ceiling. On the other hand, it may be preferable to keep hypersound in the armament of smaller aircraft.(c) Author
    It is easier and much cheaper to make more powerful boosters for rockets than to make higher-altitude and faster launch vehicles ...
    so they won't.

    In both your theses - you are mistaken from ignorance and corresponding to your ignorance - the substitution of concepts.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      17 November 2020 20: 30
      0
      And only because of the size of the aircraft, but not because of the "supersonic"

      Su-34 is bigger.
      And how many decades younger?
      Could you tell me why you chose the old plane and not the new one as the carrier of the "weapon of the future"?


      Quote: SovAr238A
      It is easier and much cheaper to make more powerful boosters for rockets than to make higher-altitude and faster launch vehicles ...

      Easier and cheaper.
      And will accelerators take these places? And weigh? And then they themselves said the rocket is already gigantic.
      What size and mass should the accelerator be?
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 20: 50
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov

        Su-34 is bigger.


        Quite a bit more. But Vicki says the MiG-31 has a higher maximum takeoff weight.

        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        Could you tell me why you chose the old plane and not the new one as the carrier of the "weapon of the future"?


        Precisely because it is old. Do not throw it away.
      2. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 17 November 2020 21: 14
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov


        Su-34 is bigger.
        And how many decades younger?
        Could you tell me why you chose the old plane and not the new one as the carrier of the "weapon of the future"?


        Have you ever looked at planes?
        For example from below?
        Have you compared the "belly" of the MiG-31 and the Su-34?
        Arms suspension scheme?
        Didn't it give you any information?


        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov

        Easier and cheaper.
        And will accelerators take these places? And weigh? And then they themselves said the rocket is already gigantic.
        What size and mass should the accelerator be?

        half a meter in length and corresponding to the diameter of the rocket will be enough for an air launch from a subsonic aircraft.
        1. Alexander Vorontsov
          17 November 2020 21: 40
          -3
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Have you ever looked at planes?
          For example from below?

          Cab-1500 is attached to one of the hangers



          Didn't it give you any information?

          In addition to the fact that there is a lot of space between the pylons and one of the mounts can be used to hang the KAB 1500 in the basic configuration of the aircraft? No.
          If necessary, I think it's not a problem to build a crossbar-holder for 2 slots. Like the suspension on the wings of US bombers. Only they go to 3 missiles, but here, on the contrary, 2 slots for 1 1 rocket.

          Quote: SovAr238A
          half a meter in length and corresponding to the diameter of the rocket will be enough for an air launch from a subsonic aircraft.

          For a rocket weighing 4 tons and a length of 8 meters, do you propose an accelerator of half a meter?))) Are you not afraid that it will fly to the moon?
          Where have you seen such accelerators in the proportion of 500 * 900?


          PS
          Did you not answer why you chose the old plane instead of the larger new one?
          Which will still be built.
          What would it be like to build the old Mig 31 then?
          1. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A 17 November 2020 22: 59
            +2
            Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Have you ever looked at planes?
            For example from below?

            Cab-1500 is attached to one of the hangers



            Didn't it give you any information?

            In addition to the fact that there is a lot of space between the pylons and one of the mounts can be used to hang the KAB 1500 in the basic configuration of the aircraft? No.
            If necessary, I think it's not a problem to build a crossbar-holder for 2 slots. Like the suspension on the wings of US bombers. Only they go to 3 missiles, but here, on the contrary, 2 slots for 1 1 rocket.

            Quote: SovAr238A
            half a meter in length and corresponding to the diameter of the rocket will be enough for an air launch from a subsonic aircraft.

            For a rocket weighing 4 tons and a length of 8 meters, do you propose an accelerator of half a meter?))) Are you not afraid that it will fly to the moon?
            Where have you seen such accelerators in the proportion of 500 * 900?


            PS
            Did you not answer why you chose the old plane instead of the larger new one?
            Which will still be built.
            What would it be like to build the old Mig 31 then?


            First of all.
            You are comparing a 1500kg bomb with 4-6 ton rockets - are you sure that the Su-34's center section is designed for such loads?
            I'm sure not.
            I think that the two suspension assemblies located between the nacelles in total are designed for a load of no more than 2500 kg.
            And the distance between the same engine nacelles is about 750-850 mm.
            so no Dagger will physically fit there.
            And none of yours build a crossbar-holder for 2 slots the bearing capacity of the center section set will not allow.
            And the MiG-31 has all of the above in excess - and a much higher structural strength and a "flat belly" ... And 4 similar suspension nodes, on the basis of which a fastening unit designed for 4.5 tons was created. namely, so much weighed "Contact" ...

            And Migas do not need to be produced - they were not produced, but restored and modernized, although such modernization. when the radar station is completely dismantled from the aircraft, all suspension nodes ... got a castrated carrier of one rocket.

            The length of the accelerator can be any .... The main thing is that the burning rate, the impulse given is the same as needed by the characteristics The same accelerator from Onyx is very small, but it manages to drive a 3-ton rocket to 2M and 5-6 kilometers in height ...
            1. Alexander Vorontsov
              17 November 2020 23: 48
              -2
              Quote: SovAr238A
              I think that the two suspension assemblies located between the nacelles in total are designed for a load of no more than 2500 kg.

              Based on what do you think so?
              At least PTB for 3


              Quote: SovAr238A
              And the distance between the same engine nacelles is about 750-850 mm.

              Yeah. And these are the Lilliputians who serve him on a Lilliputian fuel truck
              http://oruzhie.info/images/stories/su-34-frontovoj/su-34-50.jpg

              The length of the accelerator can be any ...

              How old are you? What education do you have? Honestly.
            2. Alexander Vorontsov
              18 November 2020 00: 07
              -1
              The opinion of the Deputy Minister of Defense for you, I believe, is also based on ignorance.
              As you wrote there .... "In both of your theses - you are mistaken from ignorance and corresponding to your ignorance - the substitution of concepts."
              "The MiG-31 is its carrier, this aircraft is best suited to accelerate this missile to the required speeds at the required altitudes. In confirmation that this is not some exotic thing: today ten aircraft are on experimental combat duty and are ready for application depending on the situation, "said Borisov
            3. Alexander Vorontsov
              18 November 2020 00: 14
              -1
              Quote: SovAr238A
              I think that the two suspension assemblies located between the nacelles in total are designed for a load of no more than 2500 kg.

              In general, you think great. It is known for certain that at least 1500 bombs are attached there.
              They calculated 1 node for 1500 ... and the second one means 1000 =))))
              The left wing is 7 meters to the right 8 =)))
  • fa2998
    fa2998 17 November 2020 19: 14
    +2
    We've got an airplane lying around there, which the carriers don't need, but they spent a lot of money on it. IL-86 (96). Throw out the seats, there is a lot of space and make a bomber. Now the CD is flying 5000 km, of course it is not afraid of air defense. Let's make a series 50 -70, we will justify the grandmother for the development. wink hi
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    17 November 2020 19: 18
    0
    Quote: SovAr238A
    It is easier and much cheaper to make more powerful boosters for rockets than to make higher-altitude and faster launch vehicles ...
    so they won't.

    Simpler.
    Cheaper.
    And where to launch them from?
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 17 November 2020 21: 15
      +1
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      Quote: SovAr238A
      It is easier and much cheaper to make more powerful boosters for rockets than to make higher-altitude and faster launch vehicles ...
      so they won't.

      Simpler.
      Cheaper.
      And where to launch them from?


      From the same subsonic medium-altitude bombers ...
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 17 November 2020 19: 25
    +8
    Suvehsound is not supersonic.
    It is clear that when the "swan" was made, supersonic was supposed to be completely different from what the author writes about here.
    That concept is dead, but it's clear that a fast plane is inherently more useful than a slow one, all other things being equal. The question, however, is whether they are equal, these very other factors.
    Although I actually have a completely different question, but what for (goat button accordion) variable sweep of the wing.
    The same Su-27 or F-15 perfectly fly on a 2M ultrasound without such haemorrhoids, not to mention the "champion" MiG-31.
    Install a delta wing, lighten it by several tons, simplify the structure in production and maintenance.
    Even if it flies at 100 km / h slower, it's worth it, IMHO.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      17 November 2020 19: 38
      -2
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      Although I actually have a completely different question, but what for (goat button accordion) variable sweep of the wing.
      The same Su-27 or F-15 perfectly fly on a 2M ultrasound without such haemorrhoids, not to mention the "champion" MiG-31.
      Put on a delta wing,

      In the article I wrote a little why.
      The problem is in flight modes. Deltoid for high speeds.
      But the problem is that we cannot bypass the take-off phase.

      In the case of small planes, a large swath and engine power is enough for takeoff.
      In the case of a bomber, which is capable of taking up to 40 tons of load and 150 tons of fuel in tanks, the situation is completely different. It can be done but the load and fuel supply will decrease.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 18 November 2020 05: 51
        +5
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        In the article I wrote a little why.
        The problem is in flight modes.

        This problem was in the 60s-70s of the last century. But it was decided long ago, that's why I gave the example of the Su27 and F15. And the decrease in take-off aerodynamic characteristics is compensated by the decrease in the weight of the aircraft. In addition, the simplification of the design will significantly expand the range of permissible loads, its reliability and survivability.
        But apparently the teereshnym designers are not able to make a new wing.
        Or managers cannot understand that the restoration of production "as it was" in the conditions of the loss of old technologies will cost no less. On the contrary, making a simpler airframe could be mastered much easier, faster and cheaper.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 17 November 2020 21: 49
      +3
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      The same Su-27 or F-15 perfectly fly on a 2M ultrasound without such haemorrhoids, not to mention the "champion" MiG-31.
      These are different things: the MiG-31 is rigidly sharpened for supersonic, and the Su-27 and F-15 became multi-mode without a variable sweep wing thanks to computers: they were able to calculate the center section so that it was good both at subsonic and supersonic. The Tu-160 with the hull is generally sad: it is overweight, the resistance to overload is low, deteriorates at a speed of> 1.6M. It would be nice to redo it, since everyone started anew.
  • Vale-90
    Vale-90 17 November 2020 20: 03
    +2
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    It can be done but the load and fuel supply will decrease.

    This is how to do it and where the hands grow from ... wink
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 17 November 2020 20: 19
    0
    It is easier for Amers because the bases of dofiga around the world we only have our own territory this time. Two is their love for everything more, it is not strange, that is, B-52 in the proper amount in a specific area make the moon in miniature in your yard, Tested on Germans, Japanese, Vietnamese amers apparently like it. Therefore, 52 is their Kalashmat for sure. For us, well, if the USSR would have been something like that, I’m sure, but at this stage, we are completing the construction, and that’s good, there’s no other way.
  • Undecim
    Undecim 17 November 2020 21: 23
    +2
    Quote: Bez 310
    The whole article is a phenomenal nonsense of an amateur.

    A very capacious and correct review of this "scripture".
  • Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 17 November 2020 21: 42
    +1
    In fact, there have already been articles here, why we have more in the proportion of supersonic missiles and aircraft.
    To be in time before the enemy responds. Stob did not manage to intercept at least a part in the conditions of the Amer's domination in the air at sea. The prehistoric, cheaper and more economical ones have less chances of this.

    So it is here. I don’t care that the engine will withstand only 40 minutes of afterburner and gobble up 6 times more fuel. But there is a chance that they simply will not have time to intercept ...
    1. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 17 November 2020 21: 54
      +3
      Quote: Alex2000
      In fact, there have already been articles here, why we have more in the proportion of supersonic missiles and aircraft.
      To be in time before the enemy responds. Stob did not manage to intercept at least a part in the conditions of the Amer's domination in the air at sea. The prehistoric, cheaper and more economical ones have less chances of this.

      So it is here. I don’t care that the engine will withstand only 40 minutes of afterburner and gobble up 6 times more fuel. But there is a chance that they simply will not have time to intercept ...


      The response time to a nuclear missile strike is such that not a single plane from Engels will have time to take off before an enemy nuclear charge strikes this airfield.
      The same goes for American strategists in Missouri.

      Not a single aircraft is suspended or even at any airfield are strategic combat missiles with special warheads stored.
      All nuclear missiles are stored 100 km from the airfield.
      Always!
      According to contracts.

      Therefore, if now. suddenly there will be a blow, and some of the planes may have time to take off, even if 1 or even 2 - then they will take off in vain - they will not have nuclear weapons.

      This must be understood.
      1. Aleks2000
        Aleks2000 17 November 2020 22: 03
        0
        This is understandable. But this is a little about something else.
      2. Gust
        Gust 18 November 2020 08: 56
        0
        This is all understandable. In a full-scale nuclear conflict, bombers are useless. This later (if they survive), we can talk about something.
        And supersonic is needed for an accelerated exit to the launch point of the CD for attacking remote targets with conventional warheads.
  • certero
    certero 18 November 2020 08: 05
    +1
    Quote: SovAr238A
    Not a single aircraft is suspended or even at any airfield are strategic combat missiles with special warheads stored.

    theoretically, it is assumed that before a nuclear strike there will still be at least some period of increased tension
  • certero
    certero 18 November 2020 08: 06
    0
    Quote: Avior
    Most of the list was destroyed in Russia, if anything.

    Not a single Tu160 in Russia was destroyed
    1. Avior
      Avior 18 November 2020 16: 44
      +2
      Tu160 occupies an insignificant part in the list.
      Big list ...
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 18 November 2020 10: 02
    +4
    It seems to me...
    That the decision to resume production of the Tu-160 was made not because it is so wonderful all of itself (there are just enough stocks), but because it was discontinued quite recently.
    It seemed to our effective manager that it would be possible to restore production quickly and cheaply, especially since the plant even left some groundwork in the form of semi-finished gliders and the overhaul of these aircraft is underway, which means that the machine is familiar and they know how to work with it. They thought that the plant would take the old tooling, equipment, people in a minute ... and once or twice, the conveyor went off.
    And then, when they counted, it turned out that there was no equipment, and the equipment was destroyed, and people were far from all available. But the decision was made, a huge number of plans were announced, YOURSELF appeared on TV ... you don't want to, but you have to do it.
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 18 November 2020 14: 09
      +1
      “Because it was discontinued quite recently” - production of Tu-160, Tu-22M3 and Tu-95 was stopped almost simultaneously.
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 18 November 2020 16: 53
      +1
      + Of course. The usual opinion of modern half-educated people. Like, we will give money and tomorrow everything will be. They did the same. And now we will do it. They even had to clean the floor at the factory. All equipment - anew. So this is half the battle. After all, the plane must still be handed over to the customer (((.
  • iouris
    iouris 18 November 2020 12: 48
    +2
    I am certainly not an expert, however. The Tu-160 was not designed for cross-country flights at supersonic speeds. According to the project, it should be capable of performing a "supersonic throw" to break through the air defense system over North America. By the way, on the B-1xx, such an option was incorporated, but the air defense system of the country, which the USSR possessed, did not allow this possibility to be realized, so the B-1xx "breaks through" "sneaking up" to the target at low altitudes.
  • Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 26 November 2020 11: 44
    0
    The problem is that in the Russian Federation, in fact, the Tu-160 is needed only to confirm the status of an aviation power with a strategist. In all other cases, it is not needed. Launch a long-range missile system from its airspace? so cheaper with ground PU. Bomb some terrorists? this is how the Su-25/34 will handle it cheaper and easier