Military Review

Tu-160 bomber can transform into a fighter

170
Tu-160 bomber can transform into a fighterThe Ministry of Defense has decided to resume production of the White Swan bomber Tu-160 in a modernized version. Does this decision reflect Russia's inability to create a modern bomber "from scratch" - or does the machine, which was developed almost 40 years ago, really be capable of solving the combat tasks of the future?


Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov called the Tu-160М2 "a fundamentally new aircraft." Of course, to characterize the car that was developed in 1970-s, and made its first flight 34 a year ago, is possible only with a certain stretch. One of the main qualities of a modern bomber is its radar stealth, which by definition cannot acquire, for it is basically the same platform that has been in service with the Soviet and Russian air forces for almost 30 years. But, as we know from the experience of operating the American B-52 and the Russian Tu-95 (both have been serving 60 for years, and we are not talking about writing off them yet), it’s good, even if the old platform can be the carrier of modern “smart” weapons.

Borisov also said that the Tu-160М2 will be “2,5 times superior in efficiency to its predecessor”. Any details of this “increased efficiency” were not announced, which is quite natural: the features of the updated strategic rocket carrier are a secret sealed off. Therefore, let us try to guess what the novelty of the Tu-160М2 will be based on the tasks that it will have to solve in the foreseeable future.
There is work to do

It is unlikely that the planned innovations are designed to increase the capabilities of the machine as a bomber to break through air defense, that is, one that will have to solve tasks in the airspace of a potential enemy. The absence of radar stealth makes it an easy target for the air defense systems of NATO member countries, and if it comes to bombing targets like ISIS, then this kind of stealth is not needed.

By the way, modern technology "stealth", which is used on American aircraft - the bomber B-2, as well as the fighter F-22 and F-35, can "deceive" the detection systems of air targets that are in their technical excellence only somewhere at the level of 1980 – 1990-s. Therefore, these machines can most effectively use their stealth qualities only in conflicts with countries such as Iran, North Korea and, possibly, China.

Thus, if we talk about enhancing the capabilities of the Tu-160 precisely as a strategic bomber, then it is logical to assume that a more “intelligent” and invulnerable rocket weapon capable of hitting targets from a greater distance, beyond the limits of the air defense of the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, is on board .

However, as evidenced by the experience of local wars over the past half century, strategic bombers can very well cope with the solution of tactical tasks. This was demonstrated during conflicts in Indochina and the Middle East by the American B-52 and the closest senior relative of the Tu-160 - the bomber with the variable geometry of the wing B-1, which, according to the American Internet resource Stars and Stripes, showed in Afghanistan and Iraq its "great qualities as an aircraft directly supporting ground forces."

As you know, the "White Swan" is used during the fighting in Syria. According to the data of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation distributed in the media, strikes were delivered by cruise missiles. However, the use of these weapons against targets such as ISIS can sometimes fall under the well-known formula "from a cannon on a sparrow." The American B-1, for example, is used as a classic “bomber”, throwing free-falling from above (even if equipped with GPS receivers for more accurate hitting) bombs. Therefore, it is possible that the Tu-160М2 will enhance the qualities of a traditional, non-nuclear bomber, which at the same time will allow it, like B-1, to act as an aircraft directly supporting ground forces.
Tu-160 began to be more actively used in the implementation of air patrols along the borders of NATO member countries, including the United States. However, the solution of this problem is associated with certain difficulties. According to Peter Deinekin, the former commander-in-chief of the Air Force, “the flight to the USA is ten hours, but even with two refueling in the air, the car can be just one and a half hours in close proximity to the coast of America.” Therefore, an increase in the duration and range of the flight can be expected from the Tu-160М2.

Probably, the reconnaissance functions of the Tu-160 will be enhanced. This is indicated by the plans to install a new avionics equipment on it. Finally, the White Swan will need to defend itself against stealth fighters, which is impossible without their timely detection. Apparently, this task will also be solved with the help of the new avionics.

Fighter bomber


The size, power, payload, speed and altitude of modern bomber can solve, at first glance, completely uncharacteristic problems. For example, act as a fighter. This function was tried on by bombers as early as the Second World War. In the USSR, there was a heavy Pe-3 fighter - a modification of the famous Pe-2 dive bomber, and in Germany at night fighters made on the basis of the Ju-88 and Do-217 medium bomber flew into the air. After the end of the war the bombers did not have to perform as fighters anymore. And it is difficult to imagine that in modern times, when multi-purpose, long-range and heavy fighters are in service with many countries of the world, bombers will again have to take on the unusual function of destroying air targets.

Meanwhile, according to the Pentagon, the United States lacks hundreds of fighters to solve the military tasks currently facing the army. And the situation is not getting any easier. According to the Internet resource Defensenews.com, a couple of days ago, the Air Force Command decided to postpone the purchase of X-NUMX F-45 fighter jets for five years in order to have funds to purchase other equipment.

The Pentagon has offered an unexpected way out of the situation in the form of an “arsenal plane”. This project, according to the internet resource Thedailybeast.com, was announced on February 2 by US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. It consists in the following. F-35 and F-22 fighter jets are in direct contact with enemy fighters. In order not to violate their “stealth” properties, they are forced to abandon the air-to-air missiles on external hangers, having placed them only inside the fuselage, which seriously limits their ammunition. Thus, the problem of the lack of fighters is aggravated by their insufficient armament. But behind the safe distance go heavy bombers, loaded with hundreds of air-to-air missiles. Fighters find targets, put them in the “memory” of these missiles, and then use their radio signals to launch them from these “arsenal planes”. The only difference is that the missiles are sent to the flight from the sides of not fighters, but bombers.
According to the representative of the Pentagon, he said in an interview with the Aviationweek.com Internet resource, B-52 and B-1 are considered as such "arsenal planes". It is curious that the creators of the White Swan did not exclude the possibility of using it as a heavy escort fighter armed with air-to-air missiles of large and medium range. The modification was called Tu-160P.

As already noted, the Tu-160 platform lacks only one important quality in modern combat conditions - stealth, radar invisibility. However, if we exclude its use as a bomber for an air defense breakthrough of NATO member countries, then this platform, according to indicators such as speed, range and altitude, as well as payload, has the ability to install modified equipment and weapons on it to solve various modern tactical and strategic objectives.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/society/2016/2/11/793742.html
170 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 13 February 2016 19: 01
    27
    Tu-160 bomber can transform into a fighter
    and 95, weak? lolgood to make a fool of God, God of God, Caesar Caesarean! so again close to tanks with wings ...
    1. Michael67
      Michael67 13 February 2016 19: 07
      14
      Here about the fighter probably a typo or some kind of nonsense. Reasonable will not 160 th row in the fighter.
      1. NIKNN
        NIKNN 13 February 2016 19: 08
        31
        Quote: Michael67
        Here about the fighter probably a mistake. Reasonable will not become the 160th in a fighter row.


        Author quit smoking! belay
        I wanted to open the topic, but I see normal guys gathered, only to the author note:
        The STELS technology is based not only on materials and geometry, and to aim missiles at targets much more efficiently, an AWACS aircraft will be able to ... request So, throw it to you with a smoke, mushrooms there ...
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 13 February 2016 19: 26
          +2
          Quote: NIKNN
          Author quit smoking!

          Maybe the author smoked, or maybe someone was going to cut the loot
          1. cniza
            cniza 13 February 2016 19: 36
            +4
            Quote: Vadivak
            Quote: NIKNN
            Author quit smoking!

            Maybe the author smoked, or maybe someone was going to cut the loot



            Closer to the truth, but in today's conditions they won’t give much to drink.
            1. Vadivak
              Vadivak 13 February 2016 19: 46
              +4
              Quote: cniza
              but in today's conditions they won’t give much to drink.

              We will definitely not be given smile
              1. PHANTOM-AS
                PHANTOM-AS 13 February 2016 22: 11
                +1
                Quote: Vadivak
                We will definitely not be given

                It's a pity laughing
                1. Proxima
                  Proxima 13 February 2016 22: 57
                  +1
                  Quote: PHANTOM-AS
                  Quote: Vadivak
                  We will definitely not be given

                  It's a pity laughing

                  You are a plus sign. People do not understand the irony ...
                2. Eugene-Eugene
                  Eugene-Eugene 13 February 2016 23: 07
                  10
                  good to talk nonsense

                  Here about the fighter probably slip of the pen or some nedodumka

                  Author quit smoking


                  You should have read the article for a start: the classic fighters illuminate aerial targets and leave the attack line, the bombers on this tip launch missiles from a safe distance.
                  1. Shadowcat
                    Shadowcat 14 February 2016 01: 43
                    +4
                    Quote: Eugene-Eugene
                    You should have read the article for a start: the classic fighters illuminate aerial targets and leave the attack line, the bombers on this tip launch missiles from a safe distance.

                    brrr ... Based on this statement, you can write the following articles - "S-300 to become a fighter"; "Cruiser Moscow becomes a fighter"
                    So what? someone did a flare they swung in and fired.
                    1. Riv
                      Riv 14 February 2016 07: 51
                      0
                      Bravo! It remains to teach the "Moscow" to fly. :)
                  2. VP
                    VP 14 February 2016 08: 42
                    0
                    Well, why can't the "classic fighters" themselves fire at the target?
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. bulvas
            bulvas 13 February 2016 19: 38
            13

            There is another use case -

            interception of cruise missiles or other low - medium flying targets, especially if

            massive attacks




            1. Inok10
              Inok10 13 February 2016 20: 48
              21
              Quote: bulvas
              There is another use case -

              interception of cruise missiles or other low - medium flying targets, especially if

              massive attacks

              ... You almost guessed ... A 50/100 hangs in the zone ... providing detection / target designation for 600/500 km. ... flying arsenals on the basis of TU 160 with R-37M, KS 172 ... defeat ... that’s a means of repelling a massive non-nuclear strike ... a thought quite entitled to reality ... armament TU 300:
              Armament is located in two cargo compartments: front and rear. The compartments are 11,28 m long and 1,92 m wide.
              The aircraft’s standard armament includes X-55SM air-based strategic cruise missiles (12 pieces), which are suspended with folded wings and plumage on two MKU-6-5U drum-type ejection devices. Each cargo compartment has one drum with six missiles. The Kh-55SM cruise missile has a length of 8,09 m, a launch weight of 1700 kg and a flight range of up to 3000 km.
              Another variant of armament with the use of short-range missiles X-15C is designed to suppress the enemy air defense system (while the aircraft approaches the target at low altitude). In this case, 12 missiles are suspended per drum (and a total of 24 missiles). Source: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/tu160.html
              ... my opinion is purely personal, but there is a common sense in this, a fact ... hi
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 13 February 2016 20: 51
                +1
                Hypothetically, the Tu 160 can carry missiles.
                1. Throw
                  Throw 14 February 2016 00: 53
                  11
                  Monk, the fact that we sometimes abuse on Saturdays, but not as malicious! laughing
                  1. Let's start from the beginning. Where in missile-hazardous "zones" will they take barrage 160? This is not Migi and Drying IA Air Defense at border airfields in a pose of readiness they will take a second to take off. Carcasses in Engels. Their 16 total.
                  2. OK. If they suddenly become 160 how to put them on the strip of border airfields? And how to raise to interception, when every bomber must be uncovered almost an hour?
                  3. There are no long-range missiles for 160x. Like guidance systems.
                  4 And the first one. Why the hell do you want to fly this flying garden when ground-based air defense systems of the C300 / 350 / 400 type can cope with these missions in missile-hazardous directions faster and cheaper? In your village they were stuck one of the first bully
                  1. Inok10
                    Inok10 14 February 2016 01: 35
                    +4
                    Quote: Lance
                    Monk, the fact that we sometimes abuse on Saturdays, but not as malicious!
                    1. Let's start from the beginning. Where will the patrolling 160s come from in the missile-hazardous "zones"? This is not Migi and Sushki air defense aircraft at border airfields in a readiness posture for take off. Carcasses in Engels. There are 16 of them in total.

                    ... I wish you good health ... drinks ... Georgievsky ... well, the real-time database is not provided for here ... this is a special case ... a non-nuclear global mattress strike ... I have a counter question ... how can such a strike be provided covertly and how many ax carriers need to be concentrated and at what distance, of all types of naval forces, submarines, air forces ... what would we not notice this ?! . fellow ... and the ax is subsonic, as long as it uncovers ... wink ... and I’m spreading the zones on the map from where the axes will fly ... we’ll laugh together ... laughing ... and don't say I'm nasty ... drinks
                    1. Throw
                      Throw 14 February 2016 01: 45
                      0
                      And you do not cough on the Baltic winds drinks
                      And you yourself will lay out the zones, where is some snack, otherwise you write here the opposite of the line ... laughing
                      1. Inok10
                        Inok10 14 February 2016 02: 03
                        +2
                        Quote: Lance
                        And you do not cough on the Baltic winds

                        ... well, there are winds, but now judging by my cat, Spring is coming soon ... a bastard is climbing ... laughing ... although the topic is terribly interesting ... if you translate it into at least 5 M ... agree ?! ... drinks
                      2. Throw
                        Throw 14 February 2016 02: 15
                        +2
                        For 5M- ..op will fall off from the current genre ...
                        And here to pull out the KR and UAV in a non-sub-atmospheric flight - tweezers kittens am
                      3. Inok10
                        Inok10 14 February 2016 03: 00
                        +3
                        Quote: Lance
                        For 5M- ..op will fall off from the current genre ...

                        ... I sensed it in my gut ... now, Thomas is not a believer for you:
                        OJSC "Flight Research Institute named after MM Gromov" (Zhukovsky) published a notice and procurement documentation regarding a pleasant decision dated February 9, 2016 on the terms of purchase from OJSC "Il" as the only supplier of work on the re-equipment of the Il-76MD aircraft No. 5209 into the carrier aircraft of the hypersonic flying laboratory within the framework of Federal Target Program 1 for the object “Modernization of the aircraft command and measurement point of JSC LII im. MM Gromov ".
                        Conversion works should be carried out in Zhukovsky. The initial (maximum) contract price is 198,05 million rubles (including VAT). Source: http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1737712.html
                        ... be-be-be-be ... tongue
                      4. Inok10
                        Inok10 14 February 2016 03: 24
                        +2
                        P.S. ... St. George ... pay attention to the polarization of comments ... op-pa-na ... wassat ... Administration, we do not sleep ... hi
                      5. Throw
                        Throw 14 February 2016 03: 25
                        -1
                        Hear Sklikhasofsky) I'm not talking about GZ Laboratory, and about weapon I say. To which so far as to Antarctica a penguin.

                        And in Zhukovsky I didn’t feel the layouts of such hyper-prodigies. Some are even puffed in the pipe. In the form of whole pigs .. laughing

                        So the bmpd from the livejournal is, of course, cool, but you call when the switch goes off and gets hit ...
                      6. Inok10
                        Inok10 14 February 2016 03: 46
                        +3
                        Quote: Lance
                        Hear Sklikhasofsky), I’m not talking about the laboratory tests, but about weapons. To which so far as to Antarctica a penguin.

                        ... Smoke, there is no smoke without fire .. probably heard? ... so we’ll look ... I’m bowing to the sim ... hi
    2. Koshak
      Koshak 14 February 2016 08: 49
      +2
      Quote: bulvas
      There is another use case -

      interception of cruise missiles or other low - medium flying targets, especially if

      massive attacks

      Well, for what, excuse me, horseradish, to use the strategic Tu-160 for this? With the same success, you can hang rockets on balloons.
      1. bulvas
        bulvas 14 February 2016 11: 20
        0
        Quote: Koshak
        Quote: bulvas
        There is another use case -

        interception of cruise missiles or other low - medium flying targets, especially if

        massive attacks


        Well, for what, excuse me, horseradish, to use the strategic Tu-160 for this? With the same success, you can hang rockets on balloons.



        You can .... fantasize a lot, I do not argue

        Discussion of the article, from there inspired, I wanted to hear the opinion of experts.

      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. goblin xnumx
        goblin xnumx 14 February 2016 22: 18
        0
        is it possible and the result will be the same, but it is impossible, is it cheap too? - where is the money, Zin? :)
  2. Nick
    Nick 13 February 2016 23: 11
    +4
    Quote: Vadivak
    Quote: NIKNN
    Author quit smoking!

    Maybe the author smoked, or maybe someone was going to cut the loot

    ... maybe the author is right ... You can’t throw away more than one idea, even seemingly extravagant at first glance. It is necessary to discuss, analyze, then it is possible to reach reasonable decisions. And from know-it-alls there is no sense. Only they can, mockingly ridicule the proposals of thinking, creative people. To the author plus.
  • Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 13 February 2016 19: 54
    +3
    Quote: NIKNN
    Author quit smoking!

    That's for sure!
    F-35 and F-22 fighters enter the zone of direct contact with enemy fighters. In order not to violate their stealth properties, they are forced to refuse to carry air-to-air missiles on external suspensions, placing them only inside the fuselages, which seriously limits their ammunition. Thus, the problem of the shortage of fighters is also aggravated by their insufficient armament. But at a safe distance behind are heavy bombers loaded with hundreds of air-to-air missiles. Fighters find targets, put them in the "memory" of these missiles, and then use radio signals to launch them from these "arsenal aircraft". The only difference is that the missiles are not flying from the sides of the fighters, but bombers.

    Guess what!
    This is from what "safe" distance you need to launch air-to-air missiles,
    so that you are not shot down, and you shot down enemy fighters with them ?!
    Are there any such missiles ?! And how many times can such a method go through ?!
    A couple of times and that's it! And then that bomber-carrier will be shot down by specially designated planes and the fighters will remain "with their nose", without weapons and "almost" "invisible"!
    1. NIKNN
      NIKNN 13 February 2016 21: 02
      +5

      By the way, modern stealth technologies, which are used on American aircraft - the B-2 bomber, as well as F-22 and F-35 fighters, are able to "trick" air target detection systems, which are only somewhere in their technical excellence at the level of the 1980-1990s.


      In the USA, the FA-22 Raptor invisible fighter crashed.
      Unfortunately, no one can find and grope it.

      By the way, the author is also in the special radar ... Remember dear Yugoslavia ...

    2. goblin xnumx
      goblin xnumx 14 February 2016 22: 19
      0
      someone in the tanks on the PT outplayed - shooting by light:) - modern students, modern solutions :)
  • lelikas
    lelikas 13 February 2016 21: 01
    12
    It is a pity that the article came out when I left work, did not have time to laugh.
    But there is another mistake there - PEShka, was originally a heavy fighter, but made a dive out of it.
    1. Mic1969
      Mic1969 13 February 2016 22: 40
      0
      Quote: lelikas
      It’s a pity that the article came out when I left work

      They couldn't work a little more. As soon as I was going to write about the Pe - fighter, and here you have "such a blow from a classic" laughing
      1. lelikas
        lelikas 14 February 2016 00: 41
        +1
        Quote: Mic1969
        They couldn't work a little more. As soon as I was going to write about the Pe - fighter, and here you have "such a blow from a classic"

        Nah and so the whole weekend (those of normal people) to seven at work ...
  • Gregazov
    Gregazov 13 February 2016 22: 24
    +2
    I agree completely
    Author quit smoking! belay
    [/ Quote]
    STELS technology implies a radio silence mode. How, then, to search for targets, their detection, tracking and target designation?
  • Blondy
    Blondy 14 February 2016 00: 01
    +7
    Yes, the author did not smoke. We have a whole cohort of "analysts" who are trying to push us with the projections of the "best warriors of the world" in Hollywood, as the pinnacle of the genius of military thought. Should we copy the military thought of those who in their entire history have never defended their land and consider full-scale war raids on foreign territory. The American military-industrial complex has much more money, and they still can’t keep up with the development of any dope.

    Such dope can be attributed to stealth, suitable against the inhabitants of the jungle or deserts and not having normal radar, and over-the-horizon landing, when sea-landing vehicles adapted only to almost calm conditions must overcome without any cover a 30-mile body of water within a half to two hours (God forbid - fall under the link of combat helicopters). All in order to not endanger the landing fleet (the main task of which, in addition to delivering the landing force, is to ensure air defense and neutralize the coastal defense of the enemy). Or an exotic running four-legged robot, which turned out to be zilch in the end. Or modular, it is unclear why (PR doesn’t count) vessels and much more
  • V. Salama
    V. Salama 14 February 2016 16: 49
    0
    Quote: NIKNN
    I wanted to open the topic, but I see normal guys gathered, only to the author note: ...
    He is a specialist and a specialist in order to always find arguments to substantiate a conservative point of view. It is no coincidence that at one time they used “amateurs” to assess the problems of specialists and their solutions. In the initial sense, “amateur” was understood to mean a specialist who has superficial knowledge in the matter under discussion. But he often cast a glance at the problem from the perspective of his branch of knowledge, highlighted his aspect of the object under consideration, which led to the summation of general knowledge and a breakthrough (revolutionary) solution to the problem. I do not pretend to be this happy case, but only with the aim of reducing the categorization of judgments I will express the following considerations:
    Based on the experience of the Second World War on the massive use of aviation, in the last century the idea (I think that it was realized) came up about the creation of an anti-aircraft missile with a warhead in nuclear equipment. As for such a factor as a shock wave, for the complete destruction of the aircraft on the ground, an excess pressure of only 0,3 kgf / cm2 is required (for q = 30 kt it is observed in a radius of 1,5 km), and in the air it is even less. An interesting factor is also light emission, which leads (depending on a number of conditions) to overexcitation of the retina receptors (temporary blinding for up to 30 minutes) and to an ocular fundus burn (complete loss of vision). Here it is interesting, the next moment - the lower the power of the explosion, the smaller the value of the magnitude of the damaging impulse Siyav. The Americans noted a case of complete loss of vision in tests at an air warhead with a power of 20 kt at a distance of 15 (fifteen) km. An interesting option is the use of neutron munitions for these purposes (the detonation of which at an altitude of 10 km above densely populated territories will not lead to radiation damage to the population in these territories). The Americans designed them for wearable landmines and art. caliber systems 155 and 203,2 mm., power (if memory serves) - 0,08; 2; 5 and 10 ct. I think that ours here are not far behind, because there is data on the assessment of their combat properties. So, for example, with an explosion of an airborne neutron munition with a power of 1 kt, a total dose of gamma-neutron radiation of 200 rad will be observed in a radius of 1,5 km.
    But what if such "anti-aircraft" missiles, and air-based Tu-160?
  • Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 13 February 2016 19: 12
    13
    Quote: Michael67
    There is probably some kind of nonsense about the fighter. Reasonable will not become the 160th in a fighter row.

    So what? If you are talking about maneuverability, then it is higher than that of a surface ship capable of moving only in one plane, but do surface ships have air defense for defense against enemy aircraft and missiles? Why should a bomber have a different way?
    1. Michael67
      Michael67 13 February 2016 19: 14
      12
      But we don’t make a torpedo boat out of a cruiser ...
      1. Baikonur
        Baikonur 13 February 2016 19: 18
        +5
        I also think that this is a heavy strategic BOMBER! And if he needs protection, real fighters can handle it! Why would he?
        Doesn't this sound like the expression "shoot the sparrows with a cannon!"
        1. PKK
          PKK 13 February 2016 19: 39
          +1
          The point is: invisible stealths penetrate close to the enemy as "eyes" send the coordinates of the target, imperceptibly to the aircrafts of V-V missiles. Well, then it's a matter of technology. And let it be. Maybe the topic will be strolling.
          1. dauria
            dauria 13 February 2016 22: 13
            +2
            close to the enemy as "eyes" send the coordinates of the target, unnoticed ...


            There is something in the idea, but it’s impossible to turn on the onboard radar unnoticed, but without it you can’t get the coordinates. (Well. TP doesn’t count) But there are more fancy missiles to hang on a bomber, this will probably come out for these missiles on fighters always not enough energy reserve for a U-turn.
        2. aleks26
          aleks26 13 February 2016 21: 57
          +2
          Quote: Baikonur
          And if he needs protection, real fighters can handle it! Why would he?

          And what, there are those who can fly just as far and stay in the air for so long? The current Tu-160 has nothing at all for self-defense.
      2. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 13 February 2016 19: 23
        +7
        Quote: Michael67
        But we don’t make a torpedo boat out of a cruiser ...

        A cruiser, even without a torpedo boat, can hit an enemy submarine with missile torpedoes, torpedoes from a ship or torpedoes or depth charges from an anti-submarine helicopter. Like aircraft and missiles of the enemy, he can hit anti-aircraft missiles. But the bomber needs protection, air-to-air missiles can increase the survival of the bomber in a combat situation.
      3. Kasym
        Kasym 13 February 2016 20: 00
        +8
        This project makes sense if loaded with long-range air-to-air missiles. Tu-160 is too big and expensive target. The enemy will try to destroy him first of all, as a carrier of nuclear weapons. Therefore, it is necessary to launch missiles from inaccessible distances for the enemy. And so, I agree that you can load as much there as even three Dryers will not pull. And the radar station can be placed there more powerful and long-range. So, if the enemy arranges a massive air attack, then such a project makes sense, and even a missile can be made more lethal (range), but here's the cost (I think it's still cheaper than the F-16) ... But all the same, it should be applied from distant lines (I don't want to lose such an expensive car). I also think that the new modernized car will have composites and the use of stealth coatings. hi
        And one more moment. Long-range air-to-air missiles are made under the carrier. MiG-29, for example, cannot carry them. And under such a colossus as the Tu-160, you can still develop that little thing. The Americans do their stealth to hit from a distance without entering into close combat. And that Tu-95 (converted for a fighter) will wet them where from long distances, and as I wrote, it’s possible to stick some radar there. So you can even experiment with the old people wink
        1. Art
          Art 13 February 2016 20: 32
          +4
          I agree. The article implied the use of the Tu-160M2, in addition to its main task, also as a carrier of long-range air-to-air missiles. For example: an RVV-BD missile with a radius of more than 300 km has a mass of about 600 kg, Tu-160 has a maximum combat load of up to 45 tons, then it can take 75 missiles by weight! really there is not so much space
          1. Kasym
            Kasym 13 February 2016 20: 54
            +3
            And you can figure out a uterine rocket in which several Needles are placed, for example. Such flew up, and then blossomed. A bunch of shaitanschiks chasing enemy fighters. Here they are from such an unexpected belay will be in a stupor. hi
            Or from S-400 (500) to drag there. With an air launch, the range will be just killer. good Loaded in full, at least on the appearance of the suspension. He climbed to the max. height and let go. There is a moment of inertia, diving to the desired height - from several tens of kilometers. will fly by. And then even if the enemy flies towards. So for 600 km. You can let and dump to the limit.
            1. Yura
              Yura 13 February 2016 22: 25
              +2
              Quote: Kasym
              Such flew up, and then blossomed. A bunch of shaitanschiks chasing enemy fighters.

              As a prototype "Voivoda" or any other missile with multiple warheads? And what's interesting. Only the question is, what if while she was flying and there was no one at the place, what would take longer? She will not be able to sit down, will it turn out fireworks from scratch?
            2. samoletil18
              samoletil18 14 February 2016 20: 06
              0
              Cluster munitions are prohibited by all conventions. Though...
          2. VP
            VP 14 February 2016 09: 01
            +3
            And how many hours will it take him to fly from the Volga to the 300 km interception zone?
            Does the adversary cut circles in expectation until the 160th fuel is drowned up before him?
            1. goblin xnumx
              goblin xnumx 14 February 2016 22: 23
              0
              refuel if that :)
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 13 February 2016 22: 40
          +4
          Quote: Kasym
          It makes sense in this project,

          Rather, a return to the idea of ​​a long-range fighter-interceptor / escort fighter. Such at one time was the TU-128.
          I will explain: When carrying an RVV-DB, it is possible to use missiles with SBP over an alien territory, at a great distance, using B-52 armada.
          Accompanying the TU-160 in a single formation, it will be possible to cover them up to the turn of the use of the CRBM from attacks by enemy fighters.
        3. VP
          VP 14 February 2016 08: 58
          +1
          Will it intercept right from Engels?
          1. Raven1972
            Raven1972 14 February 2016 14: 22
            0
            Quote: VP
            Will it intercept right from Engels?

            You probably are not familiar with the concept of a barrage interceptor))) It can hang for days on the patrol route + non-acidic combat load - this is its salt, but in Engels it’s just for changing crews and prevention. Tu-160 can also be a barrage interceptor. hi
            P.S. I am aware that with 22x the equipment was removed for refueling in the air - but no one bothers to return wink
            1. VP
              VP 14 February 2016 17: 18
              +1
              Why is it not familiar, quite familiar. The question remains: what kind of a few across the country such barrage costing many billions of interceptors are good and how will they replace them with the role of missile-strategist migrants 29. Or do you need strategists, let a few available burn the resource on the barrage?
      4. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 13 February 2016 21: 36
        +3
        Quote: Michael67
        But we don’t make a torpedo boat out of a cruiser ...

        Each cruiser has torpedo tubes and anti-ship and anti-submarine missiles. So the cruiser is a large torpedo boat.
        1. goblin xnumx
          goblin xnumx 14 February 2016 22: 26
          0
          I thought that the boat and the cruiser differences in a completely different direction to look for
      5. Nick
        Nick 14 February 2016 13: 47
        0
        Quote: Michael67
        But we don’t make a torpedo boat out of a cruiser ...

        From Tu 160, the author proposes to make one of the elements of the system of combating air targets. A sort of airmobile arsenal of air-to-air missiles, target designation and control of which will be possible from other elements of the system. The author suggests using an advanced detachment of fighters for target designation, but IMHO for this purpose you can use both ground-based systems and AWACS aircraft. Perhaps IMHO the use of such a system and on ground targets. It is necessary to discuss, analyze, interpret, preferably specialists in this field. Perhaps this discussion will lead specialists to new solutions in the field of military operations methodology. The denial of the idea, even if at first glance stupid, utopian, unrealizable, in my opinion is counterproductive. The brainstorming principle is based on that. Each idea, each proposal should be considered, analyzed, discussed. Because during the discussion process, truly rational decisions may appear.
    2. Hagalaz
      Hagalaz 13 February 2016 19: 45
      +5
      Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
      Quote: Michael67
      There is probably some kind of nonsense about the fighter. Reasonable will not become the 160th in a fighter row.

      So what? If you are talking about maneuverability, then it is higher than that of a surface ship capable of moving only in one plane, but do surface ships have air defense for defense against enemy aircraft and missiles? Why should a bomber have a different way?

      Calling the 160th fighter, the author most likely had in mind the American idea of ​​an arsenal aircraft. I can’t really judge, but at first glance it looks reasonable. Traditional fighters have a rather limited ability to be in the air. And here, this arsenal hangs on duty, receives target designations from various sources and is fired from medium and long ranges, until the cavalry has risen into the air.
      laughing the analogy came from "tanks", a game in the sense when a light tank lights up enemy tanks. This is me about the American idea, again. Sorry to be out of topic. wink
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 13 February 2016 20: 28
    +5
    Quote: Michael67
    Here about the fighter probably a typo or some kind of nonsense. Reasonable will not 160 th row in the fighter.

    Not a nonsense, but a change of mind. For sensationalism. T-160, according to the proposed idea, is not a fighter, but an air defense system. Not so much to fight with enemy fighters as with bombers and the Kyrgyz Republic. The strong point is the weight of the ammunition. And for the work on the Kyrgyz Republic in the case of a preventive massive strike from the United States, the platform may also be without an alternative.
    1. xtur
      xtur 13 February 2016 21: 33
      +3
      > And to work on the CD in the event of a preventive massive strike from the United States, the platform can be without an alternative

      The alternative has existed for a long time, and its name is MiG-31. The aircraft is the same dual-mode as the Tu-160. Probably, when the rationale for the dimensions of the MiG-31 was made, different options were calculated, and as a result, they stopped at the current size of the MiG-a.

      If an effective curtain against a mass salvo of the Kyrgyz Republic is needed, it is just necessary to modernize the MiG-31 humanly, putting on it a high-quality AFAR like Irbis, and release it in the required quantity.

      The development and production of the MiG-41 is a very long-lasting task, the existing quantity of the MiG-in is not enough if it is necessary to cover the sky from the Arctic against the salvo of the Kyrgyz Republic.

      PS. They are trying to somehow save their giant investments in the F-35, which looks pale against existing Russian fighters, with the concept of an arsenal aircraft in the United States. And in the Russian Federation there are no conceptual errors in building an aerospace system, there is only a reluctance to spend the right amount of money on an aerospace system, and in particular on MiG-i.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 13 February 2016 22: 51
        +6
        Quote: xtur
        If an effective curtain against a mass salvo of the Kyrgyz Republic is needed, it is just necessary to modernize the MiG-31 humanly, putting on it a high-quality AFAR like Irbis, and release it in the required quantity.
        And you can use A-100 and a pair of TU-160P. This will be a good help for the MiG-31BM, which has only 6 missiles RVV-DB, which is clearly not enough if there will be a massive (more than 100!) Air raid.
        1. xtur
          xtur 14 February 2016 15: 57
          0
          > Or you can use A-100 and a pair of TU-160P

          in terms of carrying capacity, the MiG-31 and Tu-160 differ three times. Given the fact that the Tu-160 does not have to fly to the maximum distance, we take the difference in GP 4 times.

          Let us assume that, in any case, the effectiveness of the defeat of the Kyrgyz Republic will increase due to the fact that thanks to the A-100 they will be further noticed

          And now the main question arises - which is cheaper, 4 MiG-31 Tu-160.

          And the second question, even if the option with the Tu-160P is quite competitive in price - do not you have to keep the balance of income of different design bureaus in order to maintain their effective life?

          The Tupolev Design Bureau began to be brought back to life, and the MiG Design Bureau is clearly overwritten even now - it is obvious that the MiG-31 must have a modern AFAR, and not the ancient Barrier
      2. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 14 February 2016 08: 53
        +1
        Quote: xtur
        > And to work on the CD in the event of a preventive massive strike from the United States, the platform can be without an alternative

        The alternative has existed for a long time, and its name is MiG-31. The aircraft is the same dual-mode as the Tu-160. Probably, when the rationale for the dimensions of the MiG-31 was made, different options were calculated, and as a result, they stopped at the current size of the MiG-a.

        If an effective curtain against a mass salvo of the Kyrgyz Republic is needed, it is just necessary to modernize the MiG-31 humanly, putting on it a high-quality AFAR like Irbis, and release it in the required quantity.

        The development and production of the MiG-41 is a very long-lasting task, the existing quantity of the MiG-in is not enough if it is necessary to cover the sky from the Arctic against the salvo of the Kyrgyz Republic.

        We are talking about different things. The wonderful MIG is only an interceptor with small capabilities of both armament (missiles up to 320 km) and its quantity. The time spent in the air is 3 hours. They are not suitable for barrage. By hanging several platforms in the Far East, you can completely block the direction. I repeat the main advantages of the TU platform: the weight of weapons, heavier missiles, time spent in the air, more powerful radars.
        1. xtur
          xtur 14 February 2016 20: 10
          0
          > A wonderful MIG is just an interceptor with low capabilities both in weapons (missiles up to 320 km) and in quantity. Airborne time - 3 hours

          The MiG was developed precisely as an interceptor, including the Kyrgyz Republic. Accordingly, at least options with different dimensions of the interceptor were compared, and they came to the conclusion that according to the sum of the qualities, one should choose the option that was implemented.

          Barrage time is only one of the conditions for completing tasks.
    2. VP
      VP 14 February 2016 09: 11
      0
      As a means of defense, this is complete crap.
      An air defense system should be able to respond quickly and intercept.
      160th at least an hour for departure and several hours of summer from Engels to the point of detection
      Against a massive strike since the 70s, starting with the S-200, nuclear warheads for air defense systems were developed.
  • Aleksey_K
    Aleksey_K 13 February 2016 21: 31
    +6
    Quote: Michael67
    Here about the fighter probably a typo or some kind of nonsense. Reasonable will not 160 th row in the fighter.

    You did not understand. Imagine that 2 Swans are flying with strategic missiles, and the enemy launches interceptors from the territories of satellite countries, and our escort fighters have long been turned back. Who will protect our swans? So they came up with the idea that some models, the Tu-160P, will carry air-to-air missiles, and of the corresponding missile detection and control system. And so they are defenseless objects.
  • Vadivak
    Vadivak 13 February 2016 19: 17
    +3
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    so again close to tanks with wings ...


    Well, IL-2 has not been canceled
    1. Urals
      Urals 13 February 2016 19: 21
      0
      Let the experts explain ... What and why!
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 13 February 2016 20: 06
        0
        Quote: Ural
        Let the experts explain ... What and why!

        But with the entago of the place in more detail n "please! Give me the horn, you brute!
    2. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 13 February 2016 19: 21
      +1
      Quote: Vadivak
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      so again close to tanks with wings ...


      Well, IL-2 has not been canceled

      who will say that this is a fighter, Ilyushin will turn over in his grave ...
      1. lis-ik
        lis-ik 13 February 2016 19: 30
        +3
        Most likely it was meant that IL-2 is a tank with wings.
      2. Vadivak
        Vadivak 13 February 2016 19: 41
        11
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        who will say that this is a fighter-Ilyushin in the grave will roll over ...


        1. In my opinion, it was about a tank with wings
        2. In skilled hands and horseradish balalaika

        On September 3, 1942, at Stalingrad, the commander of the 694 squadron, Captain Vinogradov, single-handedly fought 4 Me-109Fs and shot down two of them. Il - 2 had 2 times smaller radius and 1,5 times shorter turn time than Me-109. As soon as the attack aircraft slowed down sharply, the "Messer" attacking from behind rushed forward, and a volley of VYa's cannons carried it to pieces (for this reason, the Germans did not dare to attack the silts in the frontal direction). It was in this way that the pilot of the 299th Shad, Lieutenant Kalchik, shot down 2 Me-109 in an air battle near the city of Livny on February 5, 1943. Among the attack pilots there were those who won 5 or more victories (in fighter aviation, a pilot who shot down 5 planes was considered an ace). There were even cases when, due to a shortage of fighters, an Il - 2 was sent to cover the bombers.

        By the way, there was an experimental machine based on IL-2 for the destruction of bombers
        IL-2I - fighter bombers (experienced). It was distinguished by an AM-38F engine, a single cabin, lightweight design. The armament consisted of 2 VY cannons and 2 FAB-250 bombs on external sling. Made at Ilyushin Design Bureau in August 1943, so don't rush into conclusions
      3. Evgeny59
        Evgeny59 13 February 2016 20: 31
        +4
        IL-2 was used as a fighter in Stalingrad to destroy the transport Junkers, which supplied the encircled group of Paulus. Thanks for the IL-2 Ilyushin!
      4. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 14 February 2016 00: 57
        0
        But they turned up right on the course of the German aces from the sky dropped! And very successful.
      5. The comment was deleted.
  • tol100v
    tol100v 13 February 2016 19: 36
    +3
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    so again close to tanks with wings ...

    Certainly, cutlets separately, flies separately! But it’s really not worth crossing a snake and a hedgehog to get barbed wire! Strategists are already short of carriers. And let the MiG-31 perform fighter functions, all the more modified!
    1. Alexander 3
      Alexander 3 13 February 2016 19: 46
      0
      So I think the equipment for detecting, tracking, suppressing detection tools will not damage the image of the ship in a compartment with air-to-air missiles. Because SU34 does not interfere.
      1. family tree
        family tree 13 February 2016 20: 27
        +5
        In the USSR there was a heavy Pe-3 fighter - a modification of the famous Pe-2 dive,
        "Sotka" (in the future Pe-3, Pe-2), initially as a high-altitude fighter was made. This is the Pe-2 modification, which inherited the maneuverability "shamash" for a bomber.
  • papas-57
    papas-57 13 February 2016 21: 31
    0
    Better yet, adapt submarines to this business. Our bombers are flying over the Arctic Ocean, and suddenly from under the water, from the podold, American missiles `` From under the water to Air '' fly out and bring down our bombers. The effect is amazing. I wonder what else these budget saws will come up with.
    1. WSW1WSW
      WSW1WSW 14 February 2016 21: 59
      0
      You misunderstood this article. The author wrote such a nonsense, complete mediocrity! But I like your idea "FORMER_PERSHING_STINGER". Bravo!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Denis Obukhov
    Denis Obukhov 14 February 2016 01: 54
    0
    "In the USSR there was a heavy Pe-3 fighter - a modification of the famous Pe-2 dive-bomber" - it's a pity to correct the author for trifles, but is that nothing that the Pe-2 was originally conceived, designed and built as a high-altitude fighter? And only then it was converted into a dive bomber. Well, the Pe-3 is, one might say, almost the original idea.
  • Denis Obukhov
    Denis Obukhov 14 February 2016 01: 56
    +1
    Once upon a time there was one aviation general who commanded the State Research Institute of the Air Force (who knows, he will understand). Once, before the flights, he, as always lined up the pilots, asked who what task for the day and suddenly said to one who had three platforms to do: “Sonny! Before landing, pass over the runway and make two ascending barrels! "The pilot says: I can't, comrade general." The general blushed, smoke from his nose, sparks from his eyes. “How! A first-class tester cannot do such a simple thing !? I'll fire it! "The pilot says," Comrade General, I'm flying on the Tu-95 today. "A Corresponding Member could. Smoothly would turn the bomb carrier into a hawk and go ahead and sing. And it was in the Volga steppes.
  • kot28.ru
    kot28.ru 14 February 2016 03: 20
    +1
    Fighter island states type Japan and Britain! good good good
  • Oleg14774
    Oleg14774 14 February 2016 05: 14
    +2
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    to make a fool of God, God of God, Caesar Caesarean!

    The inconspicuousness, which is written about at the beginning, is generally a fake, and by definition it is a bomb that can fire missiles at the 5500km through the north pole and is not needed for nothing. Americans bought it and put a bunch of money in the void. Their f22 are visible both in the palm of your hand and in the C400 and even in older models (especially in older ones). There were cases that flocks of birds spotted radars and there were false alarms, and there is not a single iron spare part. Yes, and thunderclouds gave light on the screens. So what about invisibility is ... to amers! I hope that we have no suckers. And about the real invisibility, I read somewhere that experiments were conducted on plasma shielding TU-160 and TU-95 I do not know how true this is, but the engineer hyperboloid Garin was once considered fiction.
    1. VP
      VP 14 February 2016 09: 22
      +1
      And what has changed with the hyperboloid, is no longer science fiction, can you already casually cut ships out of a pistol in half kilometers from twenty?
  • Andkor1962
    Andkor1962 14 February 2016 06: 47
    +1
    So I also think so. A fighter is a fighter, and a bomber is a bomber. And do not make a fuss.
  • Michael67
    Michael67 13 February 2016 19: 05
    0
    In modern conditions of the absence of a new generation of long-range bombers, it is more profitable and rational to modernize the TU-160. An important question is how much the modernization will actually continue. War is on the verge.
    1. User
      User 13 February 2016 19: 41
      +1
      Quote: Michael67
      In modern conditions of the absence of a new generation of long-range bombers, it is more profitable and rational to modernize the TU-160. An important question is how much the modernization will actually continue. War is on the verge.

      The evolutionary approach has its advantages over the revolutionary, the main ones are time and reliability. With F-35 how many are already messing around and no end is visible. The main limitation is the impossibility of creating a fundamentally new one, but the Tu-160 has the development potential, for example, in the field of weapons, radar and electronic warfare. The transition from analog to digital is also a serious argument.
      1. V. Salama
        V. Salama 13 February 2016 20: 46
        +1
        Quote: User
        The evolutionary approach has its advantages over the revolutionary, the main ones are time and reliability.

        Evidence should not be based on a false statement. This popular statement is an example of how "politics" harms science. I have nothing against the essence of the post, but I would like to draw your attention to the fact that:
        evolution- development, the process of gradual continuous quantitative change of someone-n-n., preparing qualitative changes. Evolutionи revolution - two necessary elements of the dialectical development process
        We are convinced that these are two alternatives to progress, and we stop thinking right.
      2. Pete mitchell
        Pete mitchell 14 February 2016 02: 42
        +7
        The possibilities of -160 for modernization are huge, it has everything for this. I agree with you very much - digital, electronic warfare, equipment and weapons, economy. There are no words at all about the capabilities of the aircraft as such, nor its equal. When it was first shown to the bourgeoisie, it seems in 1990, they tensed up. Without even having such a perfect reb like B-1b, -160 would go into North American air defense like a knife in butter. Intercepting a plane at Mach 2,2 is a difficult task for the archie. Not interception as such, but the detection, guidance of interceptors, and where will the line of interception of an aircraft with a range of several thousand km be?
        Good luck in the modernization, I would recommend thinking about the crew facilities.
    2. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 13 February 2016 19: 48
      0
      The new serial Tu-160 Borisov promises no later than 2023.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 13 February 2016 23: 18
      +1
      Quote: Michael67
      War is on the verge.

      Let me ask you:
  • marshes
    marshes 13 February 2016 19: 06
    0
    In the 80s from Moscow, my father brought a set of gluing Tu-95, GDR, so the "secretary" who came to visit was horrified. laughing
    and so if you use 160 as 31, with its armament, yes a fighter.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 13 February 2016 19: 10
      +2
      Quote: marshes
      In the 80s from Moscow, my father brought a set of gluing Tu-95, GDR, so the "secretary" who came to visit was horrified.

      China has been driving the "armata" model for a long time, and no one cares! laughing
      1. marshes
        marshes 13 February 2016 19: 19
        0
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        China has been driving the "armata" model for a long time, and no one cares

        Yes, it’s now, and if it’s 84 in the yard laughing , 87 more in a sanatorium in Odessa was, a goldfinch pancake, my father flies on IL-20, the local "secretary" made a remark to his father. laughing
        Damn, solid secrets. laughing
  • Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 13 February 2016 19: 06
    +7
    Nothing prevents the Tu-160M2 from installing 4 R-77 missiles, and 2 R-73 missiles. For self defense. Missiles can act as weapons for the destruction of an enemy aircraft, as well as missiles for the destruction of an enemy missile (for example, AIM-120C8).
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 13 February 2016 19: 12
      +1
      Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
      Nothing prevents the Tu-160M2 from installing 4 R-77 missiles, and 2 R-73 missiles. For self defense. Missiles can act as weapons for the destruction of an enemy aircraft, as well as missiles for the destruction of an enemy missile (for example, AIM-120C8).

      then the meaning is lost twice, the "strategist" himself ... for the "escort" there is 31e ...
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 13 February 2016 19: 16
        +1
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        then the meaning is lost twice, the "strategist" himself ... for the "escort" there is 31e ...

        31 interceptors, their range is not so great. On the contrary, the Su-34 is capable of escorting, if I am not mistaken in some sort of exercise, the Su-34 was accompanied by a bomber over the North Pole.
        Following this logic, why is the destroyer of the Navy air defense? if it is possible to arm missiles with air defense corvettes for its protection, because their maneuverability is higher than that of a heavy destroyer.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 13 February 2016 19: 28
          0
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve

          31 interceptors, their range is not so great.

          What do you not like about 2400km?
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          At some exercises, the Su-34 was accompanied by a bomber over the North Pole.

          on exercises and TU 134 were used as "bombers" ...
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          Following this logic, why is the destroyer of the Navy air defense?

          because it is a destroyer, it would be a large landing craft, fighters with "needles" and "willows" would sit on it ...
          1. just exp
            just exp 13 February 2016 20: 41
            0
            on two swoops he has a range of 720 km.
            it’s one thing to fly nearby, another thing when you have to speed up, for example, in air battles or during an air defense breakthrough (if swans break through it).
        2. xtur
          xtur 13 February 2016 21: 43
          0
          > 31 interceptors, their range is not so great. The Su-34, on the other hand, is able to accompany

          the Su-34 and MiG-31 have approximately the same dimension, and the MiG-31 can fly for a long time without supersonic
    2. Iline
      Iline 13 February 2016 19: 36
      +2
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      Nothing prevents the Tu-160M2 from installing 4 R-77 missiles, and 2 R-73 missiles. For self defense. Missiles can act as weapons for the destruction of an enemy aircraft, as well as missiles for the destruction of an enemy missile (for example, AIM-120C8).

      Well, yes, yes ...
      Only here, these pieces of iron need a far-off locator, which is inherent in a bomber. And an extra person will be required in the crew to control these weapons.
      In dreams you can fly far, let's get closer to the earth, the principle of necessary sufficiency has not been canceled. Let the effective electronic warfare systems on board fight with enemy fighters.
      1. NIKNN
        NIKNN 13 February 2016 19: 59
        +2
        Quote: Iline
        In dreams you can fly far, let's get closer to the earth, the principle of necessary sufficiency has not been canceled. Let the effective electronic warfare systems on board fight with enemy fighters.

        "+" without reservation! I am not particularly privy to secret developments, but from the analysis of our secret press, on the Tu 160, even the previous modification, a hardware stealth system and an electronic warfare system perfect at that time were used, all this was part of the defense complex ..., I think in extreme modification all this will be more effective (according to the author) at least 2,5 times ... request
        Something like this...
      2. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 13 February 2016 20: 03
        +2
        Quote: Iline
        Only here, these pieces of iron need a far-off locator, which is inherent in a bomber. And an extra person will be required in the crew to control these weapons.

        The United States has long established advanced radar stations on the B-1B and B-2. Maybe we should go?
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 13 February 2016 23: 26
          +1
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          Maybe we should go?

          So, it’s kind of trying somehow ...
  • Alex_Rarog
    Alex_Rarog 13 February 2016 19: 09
    +2
    Trash ... Just trash ...
    Although for all its savagery there is something in this idea ...
  • Baikonur
    Baikonur 13 February 2016 19: 11
    +1
    Comrades pilots! Tell me, what is this airplane at the beginning of the video, soaring vertically low above the ground? And can our Ases and our planes do this? (I know of course that ours are the best, I hope that they don’t do it, because there’s a danger of wrecking the car!)
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 13 February 2016 19: 36
      0
      Quote: Baikonur
      Tell me, what is this airplane at the beginning of the video, soaring vertically low above the ground? And can our Ases and our planes do this?

      "mirage" writes there, not bad by the way, his craving is "hellish" ... and ours can be steeper. But inosmi, they try not to show THIS, and ours, not to allow, so as not to frighten the imported military ..
      1. Gronsky
        Gronsky 13 February 2016 20: 15
        +3
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        "mirage" writes there

        It is rather a model "Gripen".
        1. BIGLESHIY
          BIGLESHIY 14 February 2016 00: 42
          0
          Quote: Gronsky
          Quote: Andrey Yurievich
          "mirage" writes there

          It is rather a model "Gripen".

          These are the Eurofighter Typhoon models
    2. APASUS
      APASUS 13 February 2016 19: 38
      +5
      Quote: Baikonur
      Comrades pilots! Tell me, what is this airplane at the beginning of the video, soaring vertically low above the ground? And can our Ases and our planes do this? (I know of course that ours are the best, I hope that they don’t do that, i.e.

      I’ll type you a hundred of such feints from the Internet!
      Look what is up!
      1. Baikonur
        Baikonur 13 February 2016 19: 43
        0
        Not well here is a radio-controlled model, but there, against the background of people, it seems like a real samzik! Or am I mistaken?
        1. APASUS
          APASUS 13 February 2016 22: 06
          0
          Quote: Baikonur
          Not well here is a radio-controlled model, but there, against the background of people, it seems like a real samzik! Or am I mistaken?

          C 34 s, notice how the person managing the model makes a rebase to hold the model.
          Look at the size of the plane and the smoke trail, with this ratio the plane should drag a piece the size of a 200 liter barrel.
          With 48 s, planes stand against the backdrop of a hangar. The sizes are not comparable. Even our SUs cannot.
          Two-piece video where half of the modeling competition
          1. Baikonur
            Baikonur 14 February 2016 00: 29
            0
            Yes, that's it, got it! Indeed. Saw everything! Thanks to all! hi
      2. AlexSK
        AlexSK 13 February 2016 21: 46
        +1
        There are competitions, even on these models ours won there with the Yak -130 model.

    3. Kasym
      Kasym 13 February 2016 19: 45
      +2
      These are radio-controlled models.
    4. cherkas.oe
      cherkas.oe 13 February 2016 20: 12
      +1
      Quote: Baikonur
      what kind of plane does this first roller fly soaring low above the ground vertically? And can our Ases and our planes do this?

      This is a model from cardboard, and model can so long ago.
    5. OlegYOla
      OlegYOla 13 February 2016 20: 12
      -2
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik9wmIoO4K4
    6. CRASH
      CRASH 13 February 2016 20: 20
      +1
      Oh, I remember this video, it was hellish, how many people had to prove that these are radio-controlled models.
    7. Themi30
      Themi30 13 February 2016 23: 25
      -1
      Oh shame what a military review such a left-wing video to discuss on serious cabbage soup)))
    8. Letnab
      Letnab 14 February 2016 08: 46
      0
      aircraft models in the video fly ...!
  • Tusv
    Tusv 13 February 2016 19: 11
    0
    What is that in our world is not okay. Ha hundredths must be made in three shifts
  • tchoni
    tchoni 13 February 2016 19: 15
    +1
    oh, something has become aggravated in us ... I feel the next Russian-Turkish company smoothly flowing into the second Crimean ...
    1. Ramzaj99
      Ramzaj99 13 February 2016 19: 28
      -1
      Quote: tchoni
      I feel the next Russian-Turkish company will flow smoothly into the second Crimean ...

      And then in the third world ......
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 13 February 2016 19: 17
    +6
    Such an aircraft with the corresponding avionics. and long- and medium-range missiles, moving, if necessary, at supersonic speed to the desired point, may turn out to be a sort of flying air defense area, having closed the whole area of ​​enemy territory for flights. Yes, and he can protect himself.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 14 February 2016 12: 10
      0
      One problem - the large EPR Tu-160. Like a similar B-1 10-20 m2.
      Which is about 10,000 more EPR Raptor F-22.

      Sneaking up undetected and knocked down, adversaries ...
  • kmv.km
    kmv.km 13 February 2016 19: 27
    +1
    The use of the TU-160M2 is worth talking about after 2021 (23).
    Even for "strategic fighter-dreamers." fool
    And it’s better to publish articles relating to this GOOD BATTLE MACHINE, to those who can really tell something
    "within the framework of the censorship check" on the progress of work on reproduction (successes, problems) and the expected characteristics of the AIRCRAFT for its main purpose.
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 13 February 2016 19: 31
    +6
    The idea of ​​"converting" a "bomber" into a fighter is certainly not new! And the Americans even in the years of World War II ... dreamed of doing this. Those who "declared" the idea of ​​a "Tu-2 fighter" to be delusional are not right! forgot to "rustle with a smart". Calm down! Nobody offers to create a "competitor to the super-maneuverable Su-160"! The proposed complex .... something like a "flying air defense system"! As a matter of fact, the well-known MiG-35BM to a large extent "acts" in the "role" of a "flying air defense system". Well, and here it is proposed ..... "MiG-31 squared"!
    1. Siberia 9444
      Siberia 9444 13 February 2016 20: 17
      0
      For these purposes, what the author describes is more suitable for TU22 but not as TU160
    2. vik669
      vik669 14 February 2016 04: 23
      0
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      MiG-31 squared

      If instead of a boy a priest has grown instead of a head and he is an EFFECTIVE manager HE IS NOT ABLE to make a square in a cube!
  • Michael67
    Michael67 13 February 2016 19: 32
    +2
    Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
    Quote: Michael67
    But we don’t make a torpedo boat out of a cruiser ...

    A cruiser, even without a torpedo boat, can hit an enemy submarine with missile torpedoes, torpedoes from a ship or torpedoes or depth charges from an anti-submarine helicopter. Like aircraft and missiles of the enemy, he can hit anti-aircraft missiles. But the bomber needs protection, air-to-air missiles can increase the survival of the bomber in a combat situation.

    Then call him not a fighter, but Istrebomber. Why do they confuse people?
  • Cfif2303
    Cfif2303 13 February 2016 19: 39
    +1
    With its performance characteristics, I somehow do not imagine the Tu-160 as a Fighter ... But how will the navigator fly ... but maneuvering and combat flight ... There are a lot of questions ... And the most important question is why ... And so air-to-air missiles do not catch up ...
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 14 February 2016 00: 01
      +1
      Quote: Cfif2303
      He and so air-to-air missiles do not catch up ...

      And where did you, villain, get such ideas from? (C)
      Flight characteristics.
      * Maximum speed:
      - at altitude: 2200 km / h (M = 1,6)
      - at the ground: 1030 km / h (M = 0,84)
      - cruising speed: 850 km / h (M = 0,69) (WIKI)
      Adversary Missiles:The old Phoenix has 5M, the AIM-120 AMRAAM has 4M ... with a launch range of 120-180 km.
      So, "sometimes it's better to chew than talk" (c) hi
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 14 February 2016 08: 30
      +1
      What, nafik, "maneuvering" if the missiles are launched from a distance of several hundred kilometers ... ?! Now there is a RVV with a "range" of up to 400 km ... but what prevents it from being "upgraded" to 600 km? I repeat ... but the "fighter" Tu-160 is not a "competitor to the super-maneuverable Su-35" (!); But a flying platform for launching "long-range" air-to-air missiles ... For such missiles, the "long-range" radar, demanding "decent space", you will need ... that's the "dimensions" of the Tu-160 and come in handy! In principle, other airplanes can also fit into the "flying air defense systems": for example, the Il-76 ... only with some "models" it will turn out better ... with others it will be worse. In one article I read that the An-124 "Ruslan" is not only a "transport", but also a "secret" ("disguised") missile carrier ("bomber") ... that is, if something happens, "Ruslan" is armed with cruise missiles Kh-55 ...
  • Mainbeam
    Mainbeam 13 February 2016 19: 40
    +2
    With a pitchfork on the water. There are logical proposals for the use of bombers as carriers of long-range air-to-air missiles. But these proposals are logical and, I think, worked out long ago; and instructions for use have been written, warehouses have been completed, trainings have been carried out, and handed over to the archive.

    Tu-160М2 will be "2,5 times superior in performance to its predecessor"

    New avionics, new radar, new missiles and, possibly, a new engine - i.e. nothing extraordinary.

    .
  • OlegYOla
    OlegYOla 13 February 2016 19: 45
    +1
    With the policy of piece and small batch production of good equipment for the economy and other ..... reasons. On the territory of Russia, the enemy as a rare beast, will there be any odd things to look for for a trophy in a personal matter?
    Having an arsenal in the air, long-range support and electronic warfare is a good help!
    What will it do, such as a super-PAK-FA T-50, when the number of targets is a multiple of its BC etc. etc.?
  • Tjeck
    Tjeck 13 February 2016 19: 46
    0
    In theory, even a passenger liner can be made like a fighter, but no one will, because there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Sinbad
    Sinbad 13 February 2016 19: 55
    +1
    And what is the article about? As if, maybe, something .... They will upgrade, test, test (I hope, only through exercises), then we will learn some of the information. And guess ...
  • Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 13 February 2016 19: 57
    0
    Guessing about what the modernized Tu 160 will be representing itself is an ungrateful job. If he combined the qualities of a fighter, it would not be bad. But in general, more electronic warfare systems and ultra-high-speed missiles need to be strengthened.
  • avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 13 February 2016 20: 06
    0
    Why this kind of publication ??? Pure divorce and provocation.
    Who do you work for? (Already worked, I hope), no words - a half-wit.
    And then fighter aircraft in the Russian Aerospace Forces is not enough ??? I looked at the price tags in my supermarket for a long time, sucker.

  • 15 apr
    15 apr 13 February 2016 20: 07
    +2
    The irony of the author can be remembered on a global scale. But in life, everything is more prosaic. Still, don’t take bread from fighter jets to take the 160th. He and his tasks, more than enough.
  • fan5
    fan5 13 February 2016 20: 10
    +3
    as a barrage fighter for the Arctic zone is the thing. There is little air defense and huge distances.
  • Nehist
    Nehist 13 February 2016 20: 29
    +1
    There is no sense in using the carcass as an arsenal aircraft. Practice shows that for guaranteed target destruction, short-range missiles are preferable. All these ideas with long-range V-B missiles mean only replacing quality with quantity. The flight time of such missiles is longer and, accordingly, the chance to detect and counteract them is higher. But the AWACS aircraft with 160 would be good
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 14 February 2016 00: 25
      +2
      Quote: Nehist
      But an Aircraft AWAC with 160 would be good

      So it seems like the A-100 "Premier" is already doing ...
      And where is one more thing, yes, how much it will be necessary to redo, but to master new production ...
      Nope, it won’t work!
  • demandy1
    demandy1 13 February 2016 20: 31
    +1
    And as I understand it, the author wanted to say that the Tu-160 could very well turn into a fighter-fighter of entire continents.
  • Streich
    Streich 13 February 2016 20: 42
    +1
    In my opinion, a completely dumb article. And why do you all so want to be invisible? This is not possible, just physically impossible. An aircraft that is very made up for invisibility can for some time be inconspicuous, at certain frequencies, IF IT FLIES without turning on the RADAR, RADIO and GPS. (And it’s only if the enemy doesn’t use the radars of the new technology.) As soon as he turns on at least one of the components, a dot will flash on the screen, and then auto tracking and all the other joys.
    Now about TO160. This is a brilliant glider into which you can shove the engines and electronics of a new generation, as well as modern missiles. Which is the strength to pose as a whole flock of missiles, and which one to take for escort is a big question. So the future of these machines is just wonderful !!!!!!!!!
  • Just me
    Just me 13 February 2016 20: 44
    0
    Probably possible, maybe blah blah blah. The article is about nothing. I think the Tu-160 is a very good machine and in the second coming it will correspond to what it will be done for. A fortunetelling article on coffee grounds
  • avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 13 February 2016 21: 06
    0
    Quote: Streich
    In my opinion, a completely dumb article. And why do you all so want to be invisible? This is not possible, just physically impossible. An aircraft that is very made up for invisibility can for some time be inconspicuous, at certain frequencies, IF IT FLIES without turning on the RADAR, RADIO and GPS. (And it’s only if the enemy doesn’t use the radars of the new technology.) As soon as he turns on at least one of the components, a dot will flash on the screen, and then auto tracking and all the other joys.
    Now about TO160. This is a brilliant glider into which you can shove the engines and electronics of a new generation, as well as modern missiles. Which is the strength to pose as a whole flock of missiles, and which one to take for escort is a big question. So the future of these machines is just wonderful !!!!!!!!!


    THANKS for saying what I was just thinking. As is- And this is NOT all about him.
  • Michael67
    Michael67 13 February 2016 21: 41
    0
    Quote: Starover_Z
    Quote: NIKNN
    Author quit smoking!

    That's for sure!
    F-35 and F-22 fighters enter the zone of direct contact with enemy fighters. In order not to violate their stealth properties, they are forced to refuse to carry air-to-air missiles on external suspensions, placing them only inside the fuselages, which seriously limits their ammunition. Thus, the problem of the shortage of fighters is also aggravated by their insufficient armament. But at a safe distance behind are heavy bombers loaded with hundreds of air-to-air missiles. Fighters find targets, put them in the "memory" of these missiles, and then use radio signals to launch them from these "arsenal aircraft". The only difference is that the missiles are not flying from the sides of the fighters, but bombers.

    Guess what!
    This is from what "safe" distance you need to launch air-to-air missiles,
    so that you are not shot down, and you shot down enemy fighters with them ?!
    Are there any such missiles ?! And how many times can such a method go through ?!
    A couple of times and that's it! And then that bomber-carrier will be shot down by specially designated planes and the fighters will remain "with their nose", without weapons and "almost" "invisible"!

    In the project of a battle in the air, “arsenal planes” will not even bring down an air wing (this or that). These flying arsenals will get something like a hib. To start. Fall like flies from dichlorvos. From space, you can reach. Something efficient also flies there.
  • Sots
    Sots 13 February 2016 21: 45
    0
    In my opinion, the author contradicts himself in the issue of efficiency about the need to use stealth technologies on a product:

    By the way, modern stealth technologies, which are used on American aircraft - the B-2 bomber, as well as F-22 and F-35 fighters, are able to "trick" air target detection systems, which are only somewhere in their technical excellence at the level of the 1980-1990s.


    The Tu-160 platform, as already noted, lacks only one quality of no small importance in modern combat conditions - “stealth”, radar invisibility.


    It turns out that "modernity" is understood as 1980-1990.
  • Ivan Ivanych
    Ivan Ivanych 13 February 2016 21: 51
    0
    Interesting topic. It seems the Pe-2 as a long-range fighter used
  • Dyagilev
    Dyagilev 13 February 2016 22: 22
    +2
    and 95th, weak? lol is good to make a fool of God, God of God, Caesar Caesarean! so again close to tanks with wings ...
    if the model is good, then why not experiment?
  • rubidiy
    rubidiy 13 February 2016 22: 22
    0
    And it is difficult to imagine that in modern times, when multi-purpose, long-range and heavy fighters are in service with many countries of the world, bombers will again have to take on the unusual function of destroying air targets.

    aaa-aaa-phi and thirty-four crying
  • afrikanez
    afrikanez 13 February 2016 22: 49
    +1
    It seems that the author just vital only created from scratch weapons. But he does not agree to a specific modernization. The author is divorced from Russian realities specifically. And another oddity is the constant mention of stealth technologies, is he obsessed with them or what? Let then at least read about the electronic warfare, can understand what.
    1. Red_Hamer
      Red_Hamer 14 February 2016 06: 09
      0
      I agree, having such groundwork to do "from scratch" is nonsense. And it is possible and necessary to transform this "bird", its "touch" is gorgeous! And they will transform, and it will be a masterpiece! Wangyu!
  • sqzoom
    sqzoom 13 February 2016 23: 02
    -6
    You better transform your country, And the Tu-160 will wait!
  • Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 13 February 2016 23: 41
    +2
    What a garbage, what a garbage ...)))) An arsenal plane, in front of which fighters are flying, unable to shoot down anyone, but seeing everyone, remaining invisible ... Only with the available technologies, the arsenal should fly 600-800 kilometers from "ishtrebiteley" detectors " laughing And it turns out that in a situation where the P-73 is quite small, a cancer is used with a range of xs how many km and dimensions / mass tens of times larger)))) Bullshit ...
  • Diviz
    Diviz 14 February 2016 00: 53
    0
    Let’s discuss the topic about the pack. And then I understand that prototypes are already flying and everyone is cutting loot.
  • CKORPII
    CKORPII 14 February 2016 00: 55
    0
    Author Yuri Karash
    Original source http://www.vz.ru/society/2016/2/11/793742.html dibil
  • hobot
    hobot 14 February 2016 01: 04
    0
    Beak him a little more - let the beak hammer.
  • sohosha
    sohosha 14 February 2016 01: 52
    0
    It is also possible in the special transport variant. For example, delivering a special forces group very quickly where necessary.
  • vik669
    vik669 14 February 2016 04: 07
    0
    Quote: Алексей_К
    But we don’t make a torpedo boat out of a cruiser ..

    Russian fools - the best in the world also dealt with the MIG-31 (though it was called differently and saw the TU-128 which was a PD and where-wise from 70-80 will guess where
  • dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 14 February 2016 05: 20
    +1
    If the TU-160 was previously thought to be a fighter, then the conflict in Syria and the comedy of Turkey have clearly accelerated it. Understandably, our Tushka has no equal in its reach and load capacity. You can make a lot of "pleasant and useful" in one flight!
  • bamoves
    bamoves 14 February 2016 07: 50
    0
    geographic fighter?
  • Bayonet
    Bayonet 14 February 2016 08: 02
    0
    Well, for the fighters!
  • VP
    VP 14 February 2016 09: 25
    -1
    A good throw was made by the author, neighing, thanks, plus
  • Alex ..
    Alex .. 14 February 2016 10: 19
    0
    Not good ...
  • iouris
    iouris 14 February 2016 12: 08
    0
    Get a non-traditional airplane.
  • 31rus
    31rus 14 February 2016 15: 59
    0
    Dear, I don’t think that this project will be considered seriously, let’s take a real look at what we have and can put on the TU-160, upgraded engines, which will increase the range and efficiency, possibly increase the payload mass, and this will be needed for: a new navigation system , a new radar, rap systems, communication systems, new sighting equipment, for a wide range of tasks, well, the aircraft itself will most likely use new materials during construction, the bomb racks will also be universal in connection with new tasks, this is the same bomber, but with advanced capabilities: free bombing, the use of a mass launch of "Caliber", the use of "air-to-surface" missiles of a heavy class, which will significantly increase their range, improvement of conditions for the crew, this is my vision of a new-old bomber
  • Skym
    Skym 14 February 2016 16: 05
    0
    Interesting idea. You can still seriously think about the so-called "gunship" based on turboprop aircraft.
  • mamont5
    mamont5 14 February 2016 16: 39
    0
    Quote: Andrew Y.
    Tu-160 bomber can transform into a fighter
    and 95, weak? lolgood to make a fool of God, God of God, Caesar Caesarean! so again close to tanks with wings ...

    Well why. It happened like that. True, the opposite. For example, the Pe-2 diving bomber glorified during WWII was originally designed as a long-range high-altitude 2 fighter, but due to the lack of demand for this species, it was redesigned as a dive.
    And tanks with wings were (as a glider) and "whatnot" - a bomber-carrier, and on it 5 fighters (2 I-16, 2 I-15, 1 Z-net). (P. Stefanovsky (test pilot, major general of "Three hundred unknown")
  • JD1979
    JD1979 14 February 2016 17: 03
    0
    It’s a direct trolling article, which allows immediately following comments like: that the author smokes, has nowhere to put money, nonsense, etc., to show people who do not turn their brains on completely, take offense do not be offended, but it is. Do you also laugh over American arsenal boats packed with hundreds of CDs? Or something a little bench press at the thought that this heap could fly in your direction? If brains were turned on, and they knew how to think, then maybe someone would have come up with a clever idea: that among the people involved in forecasting the development of military equipment, design engineers, specialists who build and practice tactics for using this or that equipment - fools and there are no seniors. And if such was proposed, then there is a reason for this. For those who are completely in the tank. This is not news, this news has been around for more than 20 years, such a proposal for arsenal aircraft was put forward in Soviet times. True, for this, it was not strategists who were offered, but specially designed aircraft. Further, many will say that such planes are expensive and easy to shoot down, and most of the tanks can be screwed in the ass from 20-30 mm cannons, they cannot be turned backwards. Why didn’t most of them think about the geography of their application? And this, too, was announced during the USSR. Where? The answer is topical in our time, maybe that's why they raised it - ARCTIC. What do our potential allies have there? but practically nothing. And with the appearance of such aircraft, they will have to rush to the British flag, build bases, airfields, organize an air defense system in extremely unusual conditions for them in the far north. Oblomingo bird will come out with aircraft carriers and destroyers of the URO - you can’t drive them into the ice. And such a company is gathering, consisting of several carriers of missiles, an AWACS aircraft and the Tu-160, 95 they cover, accompanied by several, and no longer need Mig-31 fighters on the flanks (those are still quite good AWACS), visiting through the North Pole - how will you provide opposition? The detection range is 300, the defeat is 300. The owners of the ground infrastructure are almost gone, there are no ships, the planes will not reach - they will be shot down earlier. Trying to figure out if missiles or planes will end sooner? so the pilots can pass the nerves, and refuse to fly. The flying S-300 or S-400 air division in the cover will definitely not be superfluous, especially if they do something better than the R-33 of the latest modification. Threat. By past missiles, or into a place, into an aircraft of such a carrying capacity, you can cram so many electronic warfare that they will howl with a wolf trying to get something to work normally.