Today, the first prototype of the Tu-160 of the new M2 series has been rolled out. The first flight is scheduled for February 2018, from 2021 a serial production of 3-4 aircraft per year is planned. In total, the Defense Ministry plans to purchase 50 aircraft.

The aircraft with the onboard number 804 was built from the reserve of Soviet times - a dany copy was laid on the stocks in 1992. Now the full cycle production is being restored.

According to the NATO specification, the Tu-160 is called Black Jack. But in Russia he has a different name: the White Swan.

The bottom pic in the OP definitely shows the White Swan aspect of the plane. IMO the most beautiful aircraft to come out of the Soviet Union and today's Russia.

Are these M2's going to replace the previous generation 160's?

TWA772LR wrote:

The bottom pic in the OP definitely shows the White Swan aspect of the plane. IMO the most beautiful aircraft to come out of the Soviet Union and today's Russia.

Are these M2's going to replace the previous generation 160's?

Tu-160M2 will be an intermediate link between the Tu-160 and the prospective bomber (PAK DA). Part of the systems for PAK DA will be tested specifically for the Tu-160M2. These are the onboard sighting systems, and EW systems, and the on-board weapons control system.
In addition, Tu-160M2 will receive advanced NK-32-02 engines and new cruise missiles with a range of more than 5000 km. In general, combat effectiveness compared with the Tu-160 should grow by 2.5 times. That is, 50 units of Tu-160M2 will be approximately equivalent to 125 Tu-160 in terms of total power.

Wow, I did not know they planned on restarting TU-160 production. Amazing to see a new "Soviet" bomber in 2017.

Wouldn't it be easier to upgrade current TU-160 to M2 standard though?

JetBuddy wrote:

Wow, I did not know they planned on restarting TU-160 production. Amazing to see a new "Soviet" bomber in 2017.

Wouldn't it be easier to upgrade current TU-160 to M2 standard though?

The modernization of the Tu-160 is constant. In the design itself has great potential - I think that in the world of even twenty years will not appear anything more perfect. The "old" Soviet aircraft from those that are in service, built in 1986, compared with the same B-52 they're just babies. But the M2 version is a deeper upgrade system than the previous one, besides at the moment, according to the Ministry of defense, is to build enough aircraft of this type - there are only 16. In addition, the production of this level is the restoration of many technologies that were previously considered lost.

Don't forget, "Tu-160M2" is supposed to be a fully digitally-designed airplane , tailored to the up to date production technology.
It is obvious the airplane in the top photo was built from spares and an incomplete airframe from the Soviet times. It's a platform for tests, and "Tu-160M2", when built to a completely paperless design and production process (not to mention new engines, weapons, electronics, and all other bells and whistles), will inevitably be somewhat different.

By the way, is there some reliable data on the status of the project "making Tu-160 drawings and blueprints digital"? It must be a monumental task.

TWA772LR wrote:

The bottom pic in the OP definitely shows the White Swan aspect of the plane. IMO the most beautiful aircraft to come out of the Soviet Union and today's Russia.

Beautiful a/c for a terrible cause.

Phosphorus wrote:

Don't forget, "Tu-160M2" is supposed to be a fully digitally-designed airplane , tailored to the up to date production technology.
It is obvious the airplane in the top photo was built from spares and an incomplete airframe from the Soviet times. It's a platform for tests, and "Tu-160M2", when built to a completely paperless design and production process (not to mention new engines, weapons, electronics, and all other bells and whistles), will inevitably be somewhat different.

By the way, is there some reliable data on the status of the project "making Tu-160 drawings and blueprints digital"? It must be a monumental task.

as I recall, about a year ago in the media appeared the news that design work on the Tu-160M2 are carried out fully digitally, in addition to different enterprises in different parts of the country. The design process is not only digital - it is still distributed.

Supposedly the new NK-32-02 engines will add 1000 km range and more significantly, enable cruise at over 60,000 ft as opposed to ~50,000 ft for the current aircraft. That would require a significant increase in thrust (probably to 65,000 lbs or more), but so far there has been no information forthcoming on the performance characteristics of the upgraded engine. That might bump up top speed a bit as well, perhaps up to mach 2.3 or so from the current mach 2.1...

Its not clear if the first prototype is equipped with the new engines or not.

Are these completely new aircraft or existing aircraft being upgraded to a new standard?

Kiwirob wrote:

Are these completely new aircraft or existing aircraft being upgraded to a new standard?

The current fleet is being upgraded to the "Tu-160M" standard, a sort of interim upgrade between the base Tu-160 and the future Tu-160M2 standard. The aircraft that was just rolled out is the prototype for the "Tu-160M2", which will be a deeper upgrade than the Tu-160M. The aircraft is new, however it was built from an unfinished airframe left over from Soviet times. There are a couple more like that to be finished, after which the plan is to build entirely new airframes.

SCAT15F wrote:

Supposedly the new NK-32-02 engines will add 1000 km range and more significantly, enable cruise at over 60,000 ft as opposed to ~50,000 ft for the current aircraft. That would require a significant increase in thrust (probably to 65,000 lbs or more), but so far there has been no information forthcoming on the performance characteristics of the upgraded engine. That might bump up top speed a bit as well, perhaps up to mach 2.3 or so from the current mach 2.1...

Its not clear if the first prototype is equipped with the new engines or not.

No, NK-32-02 is still the initial batch going, the first 6 engines, which will go to final testing. And the first Tu-160 in version M2 with the new engines to be built by 2021.
Interesting: "Something about the events of those years, said the Advisor to the Prime Minister of Tatarstan Nazir Kireyev: "When Boris Yeltsin announced that the government will not buy the Tu-160, your obedient servant, on behalf of Mintimer Shaimiev went to Moscow, because the plant had something to live for. Punched a resolution which, in addition to moments related to the support of the plant, there was a question about how to keep the four hurt were in various stages of readiness. In the end, we have defended them and when not, pushed the completion of two aircraft. We knew the value of these projects, convinced one. In Moscow, all looking at me like an idiot: but why?! There were people who wanted... there are a lot of non-ferrous metals, scrap would be very so... it could be because the snap-in Tu-160, in fact, destroyed.""

Will there be any visual/structural changes to the TU-160M2? Thought I read a while back that there might be some stealthy improvements added?

The Russian name for the TU-160 is Belyy Lebed ( White Swan ). The Norwegian Air force often meet up with them along the Norwegian coast line The Russian bombers often has their bomb doors open to show off ...

TWA772LR wrote:

The bottom pic in the OP definitely shows the White Swan aspect of the plane. IMO the most beautiful aircraft to come out of the Soviet Union and today's Russia.

Are these M2's going to replace the previous generation 160's?

It definitely hints at what a beast the Tu-160 is. Those big wings are for the sake of an MTOW almost 60 tonnes heavier than the B-1B.

I can't imagine it would ever happen, but I'd love to see both do a formation flight together.

Slug71 wrote:

Will there be any visual/structural changes to the TU-160M2? Thought I read a while back that there might be some stealthy improvements added?

the main changes there will affect on-Board systems, significant changes in the aerodynamics is not planned - the level of stealth that is now on the Tu-160, is sufficient to accomplish its task.

Scorpius wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Will there be any visual/structural changes to the TU-160M2? Thought I read a while back that there might be some stealthy improvements added?

the main changes there will affect on-Board systems, significant changes in the aerodynamics is not planned - the level of stealth that is now on the Tu-160, is sufficient to accomplish its task.

What kind of level of stealth does it have? It certainly can't compare to the B2 but Russian scientists have surprised the West before with what they come up with.

Since it's supersonic, I assume it's been denuclearized in accordance to treaties like the B1, correct?

TU-160 and B1:

Mortyman wrote:

TU-160 and B1:

But what do you mean by that? B-1 and Tu-160 are different planes with different purpose and missions. They were built on different technologies, have different parameters. B-1, for example, 60 000 pounds lighter than the Tu-160 flies slower, not so far away and has completely different weapons. It's like comparing a Tu-144 with Concorde or the space Shuttle with Buran. All different products.

Scorpius wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

TU-160 and B1:

But what do you mean by that? B-1 and Tu-160 are different planes with different purpose and missions. They were built on different technologies, have different parameters. B-1, for example, 60 000 pounds lighter than the Tu-160 flies slower, not so far away and has completely different weapons. It's like comparing a Tu-144 with Concorde or the space Shuttle with Buran. All different products.

Just a comparison

Mortyman wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

TU-160 and B1:

But what do you mean by that? B-1 and Tu-160 are different planes with different purpose and missions. They were built on different technologies, have different parameters. B-1, for example, 60 000 pounds lighter than the Tu-160 flies slower, not so far away and has completely different weapons. It's like comparing a Tu-144 with Concorde or the space Shuttle with Buran. All different products.

Just a comparison

But it is incorrect! Aircraft even the size is different, but the illustration is made so that it was not noticeable.
Look, the Tu-160 in the length of 54.1 meters wingspan 55.7 meters, and a height of 13.1 meters. B-1 has a length of 44.8 meters, wingspan of 41.7 m and a height of 10.3 meters. But in the photo they seem to have the same dimensions, and it is not so.

Scorpius wrote:

But in the photo they seem to have the same dimensions, and it is not so.

How else do you underpin "just another cheap Soviet copy"

Scorpius wrote:

Slug71 wrote:

Will there be any visual/structural changes to the TU-160M2? Thought I read a while back that there might be some stealthy improvements added?

the main changes there will affect on-Board systems, significant changes in the aerodynamics is not planned - the level of stealth that is now on the Tu-160, is sufficient to accomplish its task.

Thanks. Would have thought they'd at least profile the nose similar to a 5th gen fighter. Would look pretty good too.

WIederling wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

But in the photo they seem to have the same dimensions, and it is not so.

How else do you underpin "just another cheap Soviet copy"

The Tu-160 ~$260 million, B-1B, ~$280 million. Not so cheap copy of it.

Scorpius wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

But what do you mean by that? B-1 and Tu-160 are different planes with different purpose and missions. They were built on different technologies, have different parameters. B-1, for example, 60 000 pounds lighter than the Tu-160 flies slower, not so far away and has completely different weapons. It's like comparing a Tu-144 with Concorde or the space Shuttle with Buran. All different products.

Just a comparison

But it is incorrect! Aircraft even the size is different, but the illustration is made so that it was not noticeable.
Look, the Tu-160 in the length of 54.1 meters wingspan 55.7 meters, and a height of 13.1 meters. B-1 has a length of 44.8 meters, wingspan of 41.7 m and a height of 10.3 meters. But in the photo they seem to have the same dimensions, and it is not so.

In the diagram you can clearly see that the TU-160 is bigger both in length and in wing width than the B1. I don't know what you are going on about ...

Mortyman wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Just a comparison

But it is incorrect! Aircraft even the size is different, but the illustration is made so that it was not noticeable.
Look, the Tu-160 in the length of 54.1 meters wingspan 55.7 meters, and a height of 13.1 meters. B-1 has a length of 44.8 meters, wingspan of 41.7 m and a height of 10.3 meters. But in the photo they seem to have the same dimensions, and it is not so.

In the diagram you can clearly see that the TU-160 is bigger both in length and in wing width than the B1. I don't know what you are going on about ...

Here about this photo.

On the other, in addition to charts, the aircraft is also almost the same size. The rest of the pictures, excluding diagram, the aircraft is also almost the same size.
Excuse me, I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointed out the inaccuracy in the above information.

Scorpius wrote:

On the other, in addition to charts, the aircraft is also almost the same size. The rest of the pictures, excluding diagram, the aircraft is also almost the same size.
Excuse me, I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointed out the inaccuracy in the above information.

I think the airframes have more in common than different. Same aerodynamic layout, same engine location and number, similar swing wing arrangement, similar location for bomb bays, same number of crew etc. The average layman probably couldn’t tell them apart and from a distance if painted the same colour most of us enthusiasts also wouldn’t be able to.

Ozair wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

On the other, in addition to charts, the aircraft is also almost the same size. The rest of the pictures, excluding diagram, the aircraft is also almost the same size.
Excuse me, I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointed out the inaccuracy in the above information.

I think the airframes have more in common than different. Same aerodynamic layout, same engine location and number, similar swing wing arrangement, similar location for bomb bays, same number of crew etc. The average layman probably couldn’t tell them apart and from a distance if painted the same colour most of us enthusiasts also wouldn’t be able to.

No, there is no doubt that there is a General decision on the layout. However, the aircraft is still different, and were created by different people, without copying. Just as Concord was not copied with the Tu-144.

Scorpius wrote:

No, there is no doubt that there is a General decision on the layout. However, the aircraft is still different, and were created by different people, without copying. Just as Concord was not copied with the Tu-144.

Relax, no one is accusing anyone of copying. Aerospace technology around the world often arrives at a similar solution independently.

Great video of President Putin flying in a TU-160 here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1zOEPajFnM

Slug71 wrote:

Will there be any visual/structural changes to the TU-160M2? Thought I read a while back that there might be some stealthy improvements added?

Small visual difference is that the small window for the optical sight on the underside of the cockpit/nose is covered up on the Tu-160M/M2.

Ozair wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

No, there is no doubt that there is a General decision on the layout. However, the aircraft is still different, and were created by different people, without copying. Just as Concord was not copied with the Tu-144.

Relax, no one is accusing anyone of copying. Aerospace technology around the world often arrives at a similar solution independently.

Indeed, insecurity by our Russian friends.

WIederling wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

But in the photo they seem to have the same dimensions, and it is not so.

How else do you underpin "just another cheap Soviet copy"

Let me remind everyone : This started out as a joke well understood by scorpius on what to potentially expect as usual.

And voila someone did not heed the warning and the "dump copy thing" comes up for real.