Military Review

UAC: the new airline Tu-160M will be in service for about 50 years

48
The Tu-160М bomber, resumed by production, will be in operation about 50 MIC the words of the general designer of the United Aircraft Building Corporation (UAC) Sergey Korotkov.




“On the basis of a good platform, we are creating a completely new complex that will exist for at least 40-50 years. It imposes on us a certain responsibility for the decisions made ",
said Korotkov.

“We need to design this complex in such a way that throughout the entire life cycle, and this is 50 years, it is combat-ready and fulfills all the tasks that are predicted in the future,” he added.

Earlier it was reported that the first flight of the radically updated rocket carrier is scheduled for 2019 g, its serial production should begin in 2023 g. It is assumed that the Ministry of Defense will order at least 50 of such aircraft.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com/
48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avvg
    avvg 22 March 2016 08: 45
    +15
    Our "White Swan" becomes a long-liver!
    1. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 22 March 2016 08: 46
      +11
      I hope the development of PAK YES will not be abandoned ...
      1. Temples
        Temples 22 March 2016 08: 51
        +20
        News about what will happen in 8 years will be similar to news from an astrologer or fortuneteller.
        You can only talk about Wishlist.

        In the USSR, for example, they planned for five years ahead. And during the planning, the previous plan was executed.
        And here is 8 years!
        Moreover FACT !!! that the budget can’t be planned for more than a year.
        Moreover, Kudrin looms all the time with his: - We give too much money to the military-industrial complex.

        And in eight years, you can, after all, design and launch a new aircraft.
        There would be a will.
        1. Pereira
          Pereira 22 March 2016 09: 16
          +7
          Planning the life of the aircraft on 40-50 years may mean that until the middle of the 21 century, new technologies in the manufacture of the airframe itself will not appear. No futuristic developments are planned, not to mention hypersound. Such a statement suggests that the development of a fundamentally new bomber is disrupted.

          Recall how it was recently:
          The promising long-range aviation complex (PAK DA) will enter service with the Russian troops in the 2023-2025 years, Lieutenant General Anatoly Zhikharev, commander of the Long-Range Aviation of the Russian Air Force, said.

          http://www.arms-expo.ru/news/perspektivnye_razrabotki/bombardirovshchik_pak_da_p
          ostupit_v_voyska_v_2023_2025_godakh /

          That is, at the same time, instead of PAK YES, an updated, but still Tu-160, will be built, because at the same time produce two types of long-range bomber unforgivable waste.
          In general, this is not a message that can inspire optimism.
          1. cniza
            cniza 22 March 2016 09: 20
            +3
            Earlier it was reported that the first flight of the radically updated rocket carrier is scheduled for 2019 g, its serial production should begin in 2023 g. It is assumed that the Ministry of Defense will order at least 50 of such aircraft.


            I'd like it to be done.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. The comment was deleted.
            1. Pereira
              Pereira 22 March 2016 09: 44
              +2
              Everything that you write is clear and well known. But:
              1. I also read about a completely new filling, but I only wrote about the glider, hypersound, stealth, if you want.
              2. If PAK YES will be released at the same time, then why upgrade the Tu-160? Out of savings? To test the promising on-board equipment, the old hull is enough.
              3. When Russia has its own printing press for the world's reserve currency, questions of squandering will cease to worry me.
              1. user1212
                user1212 22 March 2016 11: 14
                -1
                Quote: Pereira
                If PAK YES will be released at the same time, then why upgrade the Tu-160?

                PAK DA will replace Tu95
                1. Pereira
                  Pereira 22 March 2016 11: 30
                  +1
                  And what is the point of changing the Tu-95?
                  1. user1212
                    user1212 22 March 2016 11: 36
                    -1
                    Quote: Pereira
                    And what is the point of changing the Tu-95?

                    Does not meet the requirements of the videoconferencing system. The same requirements for PAK YES determine
              2. the polar
                the polar 22 March 2016 14: 24
                +4
                Quote: Pereira

                In general, this is not a message that can inspire optimism.

                Stupidity.
                The normal decision was not taken from the ceiling, but based on modern military concepts.
                A long-range bomber is just a delivery vehicle for weapons of destruction, among which there is a large range of bombs and cruise missiles, including high-precision and hypersonic missiles with a range of up to 1.5-5 and 9 thousand kilometers. A long-range bomber today does not need to overcome the enemy's air defense and missile defense, it does not need hypersound, it does not need stealth, its main combat quality is the ability to stay on alert for a long time in the network-centric VKS control environment. Therefore, "with his pants up and running after the Komsomol," and even more so the American, there is no need. The task of the DBA for the long term is to conduct round-the-clock patrolling along its borders, in neutral waters and, upon receipt of an order from above, deliver a set of cruise missiles to the borders of a potential enemy and shoot at specified targets. The modern concept of warfare relies on the development of modern ammunition for guaranteed overcoming of multi-level means of protection and destruction of the target, and not on a super-duper means of delivering this ammunition to the launch point. This gives huge savings in industrial and financial resources. And the TU-160 glider, stuffed with advanced weapon systems, communication and control systems, will remain modern for many decades to come.
          4. Nitarius
            Nitarius 22 March 2016 09: 38
            +3
            Yes, most likely you are right! Maybe they will modify a little geometry!
            And on the other hand .. what else needs to be built .. Hypersonic bombers are clearly not needed! Because there are missiles .. It goes as a carrier .. and the capabilities of the TU-160 as a carrier are quite abundant!
            Two options .. Or the people will be POWDERED with brains and according to the facts it will be PAK-DA and TU-160 - in one person!
            1. Pereira
              Pereira 22 March 2016 09: 51
              +3
              If subtle hypersonic bombers are not needed, and the task of breaking into the air defense zone is not worth it, then missiles can be placed inside the IL-476.
              It took off, launched on its territory, landed unhindered. The result is the same, operation is cheaper.
              Technically, this is entirely feasible. The main thing is that the missiles are with sufficient characteristics.
              1. Muvka
                Muvka 22 March 2016 10: 27
                0
                And the IL-476 can fly 12000 km without refueling?
                1. Pereira
                  Pereira 22 March 2016 11: 38
                  0
                  What for? I wrote about the application from my own territory. 476 range without 6500 refueling at 40 tons of load. At cruising speeds of 800, this is 7-8 hours of barrage. But you can create a special modification.
                  Of course, specialists should decide. But so far, it seems to me, the final decision has not been made.
                  1. Muvka
                    Muvka 22 March 2016 13: 45
                    0
                    Why do nuclear submarines go camping? If it is possible to shoot from the pier with maces? Maybe because 160 must be constantly in the air and at the same time it is not known where?
              2. Oleg14774
                Oleg14774 22 March 2016 11: 02
                0
                Quote: Pereira
                If subtle hypersonic bombers are not needed, and the task of breaking into the air defense zone is not worth it, then missiles can be placed inside the IL-476.

                Theoretically, you are right, only why IL 476 if there is a Tu 160. Something like that.
          5. Muvka
            Muvka 22 March 2016 10: 25
            0
            Quote: Pereira
            Planning the life of the aircraft on 40-50 years may mean that until the middle of the 21 century, new technologies in the manufacture of the airframe itself will not appear. No futuristic developments are planned, not to mention hypersound. Such a statement suggests that the development of a fundamentally new bomber is disrupted.

            Recall how it was recently:
            The promising long-range aviation complex (PAK DA) will enter service with the Russian troops in the 2023-2025 years, Lieutenant General Anatoly Zhikharev, commander of the Long-Range Aviation of the Russian Air Force, said.

            http://www.arms-expo.ru/news/perspektivnye_razrabotki/bombardirovshchik_pak_da_p

            ostupit_v_voyska_v_2023_2025_godakh /

            That is, at the same time, instead of PAK YES, an updated, but still Tu-160, will be built, because at the same time produce two types of long-range bomber unforgivable waste.
            In general, this is not a message that can inspire optimism.

            But what about object 4202? Isn't it designed for hypersound?
            1. Pereira
              Pereira 22 March 2016 11: 31
              +1
              Everything is not easy there. There is also a subsonic version.
              1. Muvka
                Muvka 22 March 2016 13: 46
                0
                The problem is different, why is the Tu-160 hypersound, if there is about 4202?
          6. Oleg14774
            Oleg14774 22 March 2016 11: 00
            +2
            Quote: Pereira
            The promising long-range aviation complex (PAK DA) will enter service with the Russian troops in the 2023-2025 years, Lieutenant General Anatoly Zhikharev, commander of the Long-Range Aviation of the Russian Air Force, said.

            Hand on heart ask yourself a question. Is it necessary to do PAK YES in a hurry or at this stage it fully satisfies TU 160. Nowadays, the rockets themselves, and not the carrier, have priority. If you put hypersonic missiles on old planes, which will be a bullet for 2-3 thousand kilometers, it will not be easier for amers from this. And the Tu 160, even in modern and promising times, is not an old plane. So the groundwork is and there is time to bring to mind PAK YES. And it will turn out as with F 35 declared as the 5th generation, and does not extend to 4 ++.
            1. Pereira
              Pereira 22 March 2016 11: 32
              +2
              In 20 years, an unmanned missile platform will be on the agenda.
              1. Lieutenant Izhe
                Lieutenant Izhe 22 March 2016 11: 48
                0
                In 20 years, an unmanned missile platform will be on the agenda.

                THIS IS ACTUAL NOW!
                I don’t know which of our "smart guys" took it into his head to announce the PAK YES "subsonic", because ...
                Lockheed announced a project for a military aircraft capable of flying at speed 6 mach. Lockheed Martin's chief executive officer, Marilyn Hewson, said Tuesday that the company has made a breakthrough in supersonic aircraft that can reach speeds of Mach 15 by designing aircraft known as the Hypersonic Test Vehicle 6X or HTV-3X.
                Growing research in the field of supersonic flights is part of the DARPA Falcon Project, attempts to create supersonic aircraft capable of performing airstrikes anywhere in the world within one hour. The project aims to create a Prompt Global Strike (PGS) system - a quick global strike.
                “Another development under the DARPA program, HTV-2, showed reliable and stable flight at speeds above Mach 20”
                1. Pereira
                  Pereira 22 March 2016 11: 57
                  +1
                  It looks beautiful, but it's useless.
                  Let's imagine that there is one now. It flies faster than the missiles that can be placed in it. Then you need to make a hypersonic missile right away. Otherwise, the battleship "Iowa" with muzzle-loading carronades will turn out.
                  That is, you can’t just take and replace existing media with this one. Everything needs to be changed here - weapons, strategy, service, locations. This is a huge complex in complexity and high cost, which does not have a fundamental strategic advantage over a hypersonic missile.
                2. Muvka
                  Muvka 22 March 2016 13: 48
                  +2
                  That's what the Americans can do, so draw pictures and kick, that they have all the best.
              2. Ze Kot
                Ze Kot 22 March 2016 16: 10
                0
                Quote: Pereira
                In 20 years, an unmanned missile platform will be on the agenda.



                About the same thing I wanted to say. Technology is developing rapidly. Who knows what will happen in 10 years.
          7. user1212
            user1212 22 March 2016 11: 05
            0
            Quote: Pereira
            That is, at the same time instead of PAK YES, an updated, but still Tu-160 will be built

            Who told you that there will be only one type of strategist in the Russian Aerospace Forces?
            1. Pereira
              Pereira 22 March 2016 11: 34
              0
              How much? Do you know the plans of the General Staff? Me not. But I see that in parallel they are talking about two systems that are identical in purpose and do not complement each other, but operate in parallel. That is, we will have two application strategies.
              1. user1212
                user1212 22 March 2016 11: 38
                0
                Quote: Pereira
                But I see that in parallel they are talking about two systems that are identical in purpose

                What is the identity? One is supersonic, the second is subsonic. Similarly for amers B1B and B2
                1. Pereira
                  Pereira 22 March 2016 14: 08
                  0
                  And B-52. So what? Is this a role model?
                  Well, we have a Tu-95. Again, is this the perfect solution? Or is it still a necessity?
          8. 33 Watcher
            33 Watcher 22 March 2016 11: 14
            +1
            Quote: Pereira
            not to mention hypersound.

            As far as I remember PAK YES, in general it was planned to be subsonic.
            Maybe it's for the best ..?
          9. The comment was deleted.
          10. vnedra
            vnedra 22 March 2016 16: 14
            -1
            in that 160, the built-in potential is 30-40 years ahead of the time, with new avionics and engines this aircraft will fly in near space)))
    2. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 22 March 2016 10: 11
      +1
      Great news. Here is an example of an ingenious design idea, how many years have passed, and the platform itself is not outdated ..... and even more unique
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Bacha
    Bacha 22 March 2016 08: 50
    +11
    Americans have been exploiting their B52 for 60 years and have not yet seen alternatives, and our Swan will be much more interesting.
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 22 March 2016 09: 47
      +2
      Our analogue of the B-52 is not Tu-160, but Tu-95. So, take note. And he flies with 52 years. The analogue of the Tu-160 is B-1A. Therefore, it is somehow illogical to consider it more interesting or not supersonic, in contrast to subsonic.
      1. Bacha
        Bacha 22 March 2016 12: 13
        0
        Now we will not compare gliders, but look at the application, the B-1 in the nineties was converted to conventional weapons, i.e. he became a tactical bomber, and the TU160 is a strategic missile carrier and now he is opposed by the strategic B52. The conversation was about strategic aviation and the terms of operation.
  4. Symarokov897
    Symarokov897 22 March 2016 08: 57
    +6
    The most formidable and beautiful plane !!!!!
    1. Drmadfisher
      Drmadfisher 22 March 2016 08: 59
      +1
      handsome, I agree
  5. olhon
    olhon 22 March 2016 09: 03
    0
    How many years will there be escorts? What is the resource of the NATO interceptor?
  6. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 22 March 2016 09: 04
    -2
    In 2019, the first flight would be nice, well, somehow very much ........ in general, you say gop, well, then you know!
  7. aszzz888
    aszzz888 22 March 2016 09: 07
    +1
    so that throughout the entire life cycle, and this is 50 years, he is combat-ready and performs all tasks that are predicted in the future, ”

    And what will the Merikatos say now? That they are still "ahead of the rest." We put constructor niches on them! laughing
  8. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 22 March 2016 09: 16
    +3
    Quote: Temples
    And in eight years, you can, after all, design and launch a new aircraft.
    There would be a will.

    Does it make sense to design a new one (I have no doubt that this is already underway, but in the future) if you have a good glider that is ready for re-equipment and further service. This is much more effective, as you note in a budget deficit.
  9. Ros 56
    Ros 56 22 March 2016 09: 20
    +1
    That's right, for this it is necessary to provide for the possibility of deep modernization throughout the entire service life, because no one knows how to change technology with such a crazy pace of development, this is precisely the genius of the designer.
  10. demo
    demo 22 March 2016 09: 20
    +1
    “On the basis of a good platform, we are creating a completely new complex that will exist for at least 40-50 years. This places us with a certain responsibility for the decisions made, ”said Korotkov.

    Not a certain responsibility, Mr. Korotkov, but a huge one.
    Think about it.
  11. atamankko
    atamankko 22 March 2016 09: 34
    0
    A plane can serve Russia for a long time,
    our design bureaus have experience, let them fly.
  12. Spartanez300
    Spartanez300 22 March 2016 09: 40
    +3
    The largest and most powerful supersonic aircraft in the history of military aviation, as well as the fastest bomber, with modernization will become one of the centenarians. (NATO Blackjack-Blackjack).
  13. pts-m
    pts-m 22 March 2016 09: 47
    +1
    Good initiative. Geese-swans for centuries have been flying from north to south and back, and everything is fine. So are the Russian planes of successful flights!
  14. mav1971
    mav1971 22 March 2016 09: 51
    +1
    yes cho there. ...
    Write immediately 100 years.
    All the same, none of the living can check.
    And if it turns out "not so" - so "the dead have no shame"
    These "effective newsmaker managers" were recruited for each enterprise.
    It would be better if technologists, economists with draconian methods of work were scored so that the cost of production would not grow more than the western ...
  15. FID
    FID 22 March 2016 09: 54
    +2
    KAPO debts - half a billion (this is today, and they are growing) ... What is the modernization of production? The plans are huge ... Tu-160М2, they plan to build IL-96-400М at VASO ... And where is the money ???
    1. Falcon
      Falcon 22 March 2016 10: 15
      +1
      Quote: SSI
      at VASO are going to build IL-96-400M ...


      Yes, once a year at best, it hurts nothing to spend. Yes, no one will buy 96-400m, what's the point of building it.
      Only if sanctions develop to the level of Iran - when they stop selling us spare parts for civilian vessels ...
    2. the polar
      the polar 22 March 2016 18: 29
      -1
      Quote: SSI
      KAPO debts - half a billion (this is today, and they are growing) ... What is the modernization of production? The plans are huge ... Tu-160М2, they plan to build IL-96-400М at VASO ... And where is the money ???

      Take by the legs and shake Deripaska with Vekselberg, and even a dozen of the same "piggy banks". You can shake it without tension on 500 new TU-160
  16. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 22 March 2016 10: 22
    +3
    Quote: SSI
    KAPO debts - half a billion (this is today, and they are growing) ... What is the modernization of production? The plans are huge ... Tu-160М2, they plan to build IL-96-400М at VASO ... And where is the money ???

    He wrote that it’s not so simple right there, uropatriots minusanuli yes x *** with him, not about that, according to the representatives of the plant itself, only specialists who will translate paper into 3D, that is, in solid-state design, need about 500 people and work for about two years And about large-sized titanium constructions, it’s generally silent, even with cameras for welding titanium it’s a problem, and even more so with specialists. I’m not a complete fancier, but I’m absolutely sure the task is extremely difficult and if Shoigu and Rogozin do it at all, it will not be just a victory, it will be a Great Victory and therefore such optimistic terms are in doubt.
  17. vv3
    vv3 22 March 2016 13: 32
    0
    Gentlemen, the idea of ​​providing an airframe resource of 50 years with an aircraft with variable wing geometry is very problematic. This is an old scheme and it has many resource and other shortcomings. On the other hand, to maintain the existing TU-160, we need to reproduce them. Otherwise, we will remain without strategists. The question of replacing the type of wing is relevant in my opinion ... The idea of ​​maximizing the combination of civilian aircraft production and military strategist is interesting. It has not yet sounded for the current moment, but there are many such examples in aviation history. The platform for launching missiles may be unified with a civil liner. What a cost savings and perspective! You can go for it.
  18. KKND
    KKND 22 March 2016 13: 42
    +1
    Earlier it was reported that the first flight of the radically updated missile carrier is scheduled for 2019, its serial production should begin in 2023. It is assumed that the Ministry of Defense will order at least 50 such aircraft

    The people, for me it’s utter nonsense to continue to produce Tu-160. It is worth it, he has a lot of money, and there are very few tasks that he is able to perform. All his tasks, this is at the peak of geopolitical tension with the United States fly up to their border, with cruise missiles with special. parts and make Americans more accommodating. Tu-95 is able to do this no worse, albeit at a slightly lower speed, but for a long time it will barrage at their border.
    B-1B was even more successful, even though he received equipment for following the terrain and received low ESR, and in addition to the task of flying along the border, he can open some sort of air defense and bomb it with bombs.
    If our Tu-160 tries to bomb it, then it will most likely not be difficult to shoot it down from a great height with the same S-75 or Patriot.
    So we need either a new bomber with a different concept or let's not spend money.
  19. D. Dan
    D. Dan 22 March 2016 14: 33
    0
    Revive SU - 100 wink