Built aircraft was built 35 Tu-160 in the series, and 17 aircraft of this type in Russia. Strictly speaking, this instance can be described as Tu-160М1+, as it is the prototype of deep modernization of the Tu-160M2, thus constituting a transitional stage between the two versions.
The new aircraft with the serial number 8-04 named "Pyotr Deinekin," in honor of the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, Hero of the Russian Federation, Pyotr Stepanovitch Deinekin, who held the post between 1991 and 1998. Pyotr Deinekin, died 19 August 2017 at the age of 79 years.

Your white swann deserves its name.

No other words except "wahahaha awesome" can be conjured up to describe that shot. I guess a.net freaks would be tortured deciding whether to stare at it doing a supersonic bombing run over the neighborhood or getting into the bunker quick like. Thanks for sharing that.

wingman wrote:

No other words except "wahahaha awesome" can be conjured up to describe that shot. I guess a.net freaks would be tortured deciding whether to stare at it doing a supersonic bombing run over the neighborhood or getting into the bunker quick like. Thanks for sharing that.

I'd be ok with airplane as the last thing I'd ever see. That or Shakira.

Scorpius wrote:

Built aircraft was built 35 Tu-160 in the series, and 17 aircraft of this type in Russia. Strictly speaking, this instance can be described as Tu-160М1+, as it is the prototype of deep modernization of the Tu-160M2, thus constituting a transitional stage between the two versions.

Russia certainly aren't sparing any expense in the upgrade.

"A contract for ten aircraft is to be signed shortly," the president said. "Each jet will cost more than 15 bln rubles [$ 0.27 bln] and the overall contract will total 160 bln rubles. This means the factory will be operating at full capacity through 2027. There will be plenty of things to do."

http://tass.com/defense/986945

US$270 million each is a lot of money and they are upgrading only one airframe each year.

Ozair wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Built aircraft was built 35 Tu-160 in the series, and 17 aircraft of this type in Russia. Strictly speaking, this instance can be described as Tu-160М1+, as it is the prototype of deep modernization of the Tu-160M2, thus constituting a transitional stage between the two versions.

Russia certainly aren't sparing any expense in the upgrade.

"A contract for ten aircraft is to be signed shortly," the president said. "Each jet will cost more than 15 bln rubles [$ 0.27 bln] and the overall contract will total 160 bln rubles. This means the factory will be operating at full capacity through 2027. There will be plenty of things to do."

http://tass.com/defense/986945

US$270 million each is a lot of money and they are upgrading only one airframe each year.

You misunderstood the news. Entered into a contract to supply 10 units of Tu-160M2, that is, to build a new aircraft, not to upgrade an existing one. The cost of the Tu-160 for 1993 amounted to $ 250 million - as you can see, in dollar terms, prices haven't changed that much over the past quarter century. In comparison with the B-1, for example, the price is about the same.

Scorpius wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Built aircraft was built 35 Tu-160 in the series, and 17 aircraft of this type in Russia. Strictly speaking, this instance can be described as Tu-160М1+, as it is the prototype of deep modernization of the Tu-160M2, thus constituting a transitional stage between the two versions.

Russia certainly aren't sparing any expense in the upgrade.

"A contract for ten aircraft is to be signed shortly," the president said. "Each jet will cost more than 15 bln rubles [$ 0.27 bln] and the overall contract will total 160 bln rubles. This means the factory will be operating at full capacity through 2027. There will be plenty of things to do."

http://tass.com/defense/986945

US$270 million each is a lot of money and they are upgrading only one airframe each year.

You misunderstood the news. Entered into a contract to supply 10 units of Tu-160M2, that is, to build a new aircraft, not to upgrade an existing one. The cost of the Tu-160 for 1993 amounted to $ 250 million - as you can see, in dollar terms, prices haven't changed that much over the past quarter century. In comparison with the B-1, for example, the price is about the same.

Then the price in real terms probably halved, lots of inflation in the past 25 years.

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Russia certainly aren't sparing any expense in the upgrade.


http://tass.com/defense/986945

US$270 million each is a lot of money and they are upgrading only one airframe each year.

You misunderstood the news. Entered into a contract to supply 10 units of Tu-160M2, that is, to build a new aircraft, not to upgrade an existing one. The cost of the Tu-160 for 1993 amounted to $ 250 million - as you can see, in dollar terms, prices haven't changed that much over the past quarter century. In comparison with the B-1, for example, the price is about the same.

Then the price in real terms probably halved, lots of inflation in the past 25 years.

I guess I should mention that the Tu-160M2 will be carried out in parallel with the development of the PAK DA is the strategic bomber of new generation, which will be subsonic, the type "flying wing".
It is probably one of options for the design of the PAK DA. The model was spotted at TSAGI during the test a few years ago:

Interesting, we shall see if that one will fly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j32csHMk1s

Will the Tu-95 be retired any time soon?

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting, we shall see if that one will fly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j32csHMk1s

Will the Tu-95 be retired any time soon?

Tu-95 for a long time can be used as a means of psychological suppression (you'll know what I mean if you ever flew the Tu-95 at low altitude, as that is why he was given the NATO code "Bear").

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... 0CPyVy5Cqk

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting, we shall see if that one will fly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j32csHMk1s

Will the Tu-95 be retired any time soon?

Tu-95 for a long time can be used as a means of psychological suppression (you'll know what I mean if you ever flew the Tu-95 at low altitude, as that is why he was given the NATO code "Bear").

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... 0CPyVy5Cqk

More like to give NATO fighter pilots a chance to practice their QRA procedures

Scorpius wrote:

You misunderstood the news. Entered into a contract to supply 10 units of Tu-160M2, that is, to build a new aircraft, not to upgrade an existing one.

While that is what you and some Russian Ministers claim I do not believe that is what will happen. This aircraft was the last remaining airframe that had laid in a semi-manufactured state for a long time. I do not expect to see any more new build Tu-160, just re-manufactured aircraft.

Ozair wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

You misunderstood the news. Entered into a contract to supply 10 units of Tu-160M2, that is, to build a new aircraft, not to upgrade an existing one.

While that is what you and some Russian Ministers claim I do not believe that is what will happen. This aircraft was the last remaining airframe that had laid in a semi-manufactured state for a long time. I do not expect to see any more new build Tu-160, just re-manufactured aircraft.

First, it was the penultimate. There was another frozen in the construction of housing. Secondly, the entire production line is restored, the necessary technology, including vacuum welding of large titanium components - restored. Already started the installation series of upgraded engines NK-32-02. So I see no obstacles for release from scratch a new aircraft. The Russian defense Ministry intends to buy up to 50 units Tu-160M2 in the next 20 years.
If all goes according to these plans, the Tu-160 will fly until 2060 at least.

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting, we shall see if that one will fly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j32csHMk1s

Will the Tu-95 be retired any time soon?

Tu-95 for a long time can be used as a means of psychological suppression (you'll know what I mean if you ever flew the Tu-95 at low altitude, as that is why he was given the NATO code "Bear").

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... 0CPyVy5Cqk

More like to give NATO fighter pilots a chance to practice their QRA procedures

Yo Dutchie, why are your Dutch F-16s doing QRA with bombs? They also seem to have some lighting issues. That's a pretty obvious fake photo.

Nice to see a clean TU-160 with no big gaps / leaks and some new paint!

It's an interesting aircraft - I'm a little surprised they retained the same high supersonic speed capabilities instead of going the way of the B1B, but I suppose size constraints prevented any type of terrain-following ability. Even still, those speeds are an expensive way to accomplish very little tactical advantage.

estorilm wrote:

Nice to see a clean TU-160 with no big gaps / leaks and some new paint!

It's an interesting aircraft - I'm a little surprised they retained the same high supersonic speed capabilities instead of going the way of the B1B, but I suppose size constraints prevented any type of terrain-following ability. Even still, those speeds are an expensive way to accomplish very little tactical advantage.

B1B and Tu-160 have different concepts of combat use. Tu-160 is not part of the air defense zone - it simply launches missiles from a distance of 4-5 thousand kilometers, and returns to the base for reloading. And B1B at the moment does not even carry strategic weapons - only free-falling bombs, as far as I remember.
Well, about the high cost - one Tu-160 is generally not more expensive than F-22. But the advantage is much greater.

Scorpius wrote:

B1B and Tu-160 have different concepts of combat use. Tu-160 is not part of the air defense zone - it simply launches missiles from a distance of 4-5 thousand kilometers, and returns to the base for reloading. And B1B at the moment does not even carry strategic weapons - only free-falling bombs, as far as I remember.

B-1B is a launch platform for both variants of JASSM and the LRASM.

Scorpius wrote:

Well, about the high cost - one Tu-160 is generally not more expensive than F-22. But the advantage is much greater.

There is no relevance comparing the cost of a Tu-160 to an F-22, you might as well compare the cost of a tank to a Frigate...

Ozair wrote:

B-1B is a launch platform for both variants of JASSM and the LRASM.

Сompare this with the range of X-555 (2,000-3,500 km) or X-101 (5,500-7,500 km), which are part of the Tu-160 armament (up to 12 X-555 missiles).

Scorpius wrote:

B1B and Tu-160 have different concepts of combat use. Tu-160 is not part of the air defense zone - it simply launches missiles from a distance of 4-5 thousand kilometers, and returns to the base for reloading. And B1B at the moment does not even carry strategic weapons - only free-falling bombs, as far as I remember.
Well, about the high cost - one Tu-160 is generally not more expensive than F-22. But the advantage is much greater.

Simple google search:



USAF has the B-2A Spirit and the old B-52's to do the nuclear thing.

But why have a complex high-speed bomber when the only thing it has to do is send a missile from 5k away? That is a huge waste of money. Heck, you can put them on an airliner and have the same result at much less cost, or from a ship for that matter. Fire a missile in Moscow and send it on it's way to Beijing.

As for the F-22 or Tu-160 totally different missions, totally different generation, no us to compare them.

That "flying wing" aircraft further up in this thread looks eerily like the German WWII flying wing.

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

B1B and Tu-160 have different concepts of combat use. Tu-160 is not part of the air defense zone - it simply launches missiles from a distance of 4-5 thousand kilometers, and returns to the base for reloading. And B1B at the moment does not even carry strategic weapons - only free-falling bombs, as far as I remember.
Well, about the high cost - one Tu-160 is generally not more expensive than F-22. But the advantage is much greater.

Simple google search:



USAF has the B-2A Spirit and the old B-52's to do the nuclear thing.

But why have a complex high-speed bomber when the only thing it has to do is send a missile from 5k away? That is a huge waste of money. Heck, you can put them on an airliner and have the same result at much less cost, or from a ship for that matter. Fire a missile in Moscow and send it on it's way to Beijing.

As for the F-22 or Tu-160 totally different missions, totally different generation, no us to compare them.

Exactly - that's why I'm scratching my head. Most of us will admit that without its unique and impressive conventional role, as well as at least some ability to get into contested areas and avoid radar, on the deck, the B1B would have been scrapped ages ago. I mean it carries up to 48 precision bombs versus what, 12 stand-off cruise missiles on the TU-160?

...so why does the TU-160 live on?

If you want to nuke someone use a sub or land-based ICBM, if you want to launch a cruise missile, do it from a ship or land as well. I don't see any advantage the aircraft brings.

Sure it's fast, but launching something from land/sea directly and avoiding the delays of getting an aircraft prepped and into the air is still going to be faster.

The only thing I can think of is propaganda, and a display of military "might" because it's big, fast, and looks cool. I suppose 99% of people who look at it will have zero clue how useful it actually is. Even that doesn't explain resuming production though.

estorilm wrote:

...so why does the TU-160 live on? .

National pride aka the delusion of being able to stay on eye level with the US. They got a big bomber, we need one too ....

Russia is picking up speed to repeat the USSRs mistake and probably going to wreck its economy a 2nd time with too much military spending.

It is doubtful that the US can afford its military in the long run, Russia is spending ~50% more on the /GDP level.

best regards
Thomas

estorilm wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

B1B and Tu-160 have different concepts of combat use. Tu-160 is not part of the air defense zone - it simply launches missiles from a distance of 4-5 thousand kilometers, and returns to the base for reloading. And B1B at the moment does not even carry strategic weapons - only free-falling bombs, as far as I remember.
Well, about the high cost - one Tu-160 is generally not more expensive than F-22. But the advantage is much greater.

Simple google search:



USAF has the B-2A Spirit and the old B-52's to do the nuclear thing.

But why have a complex high-speed bomber when the only thing it has to do is send a missile from 5k away? That is a huge waste of money. Heck, you can put them on an airliner and have the same result at much less cost, or from a ship for that matter. Fire a missile in Moscow and send it on it's way to Beijing.

As for the F-22 or Tu-160 totally different missions, totally different generation, no us to compare them.

Exactly - that's why I'm scratching my head. Most of us will admit that without its unique and impressive conventional role, as well as at least some ability to get into contested areas and avoid radar, on the deck, the B1B would have been scrapped ages ago. I mean it carries up to 48 precision bombs versus what, 12 stand-off cruise missiles on the TU-160?

...so why does the TU-160 live on?

If you want to nuke someone use a sub or land-based ICBM, if you want to launch a cruise missile, do it from a ship or land as well. I don't see any advantage the aircraft brings.

Sure it's fast, but launching something from land/sea directly and avoiding the delays of getting an aircraft prepped and into the air is still going to be faster.

The only thing I can think of is propaganda, and a display of military "might" because it's big, fast, and looks cool. I suppose 99% of people who look at it will have zero clue how useful it actually is. Even that doesn't explain resuming production though.

Speed transfer of forces. The aircraft is obviously cheaper than the ship in construction and operation, can move dozens of times faster, and the blow can be dealt with from any convenient direction. It is an ideal tool for hacking into a PRO system. Constant comparisons with the B1B generally ridiculous, as these planes are too different for use and its combat qualities.

Scorpius wrote:

estorilm wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Simple google search:



USAF has the B-2A Spirit and the old B-52's to do the nuclear thing.

But why have a complex high-speed bomber when the only thing it has to do is send a missile from 5k away? That is a huge waste of money. Heck, you can put them on an airliner and have the same result at much less cost, or from a ship for that matter. Fire a missile in Moscow and send it on it's way to Beijing.

As for the F-22 or Tu-160 totally different missions, totally different generation, no us to compare them.

Exactly - that's why I'm scratching my head. Most of us will admit that without its unique and impressive conventional role, as well as at least some ability to get into contested areas and avoid radar, on the deck, the B1B would have been scrapped ages ago. I mean it carries up to 48 precision bombs versus what, 12 stand-off cruise missiles on the TU-160?

...so why does the TU-160 live on?

If you want to nuke someone use a sub or land-based ICBM, if you want to launch a cruise missile, do it from a ship or land as well. I don't see any advantage the aircraft brings.

Sure it's fast, but launching something from land/sea directly and avoiding the delays of getting an aircraft prepped and into the air is still going to be faster.

The only thing I can think of is propaganda, and a display of military "might" because it's big, fast, and looks cool. I suppose 99% of people who look at it will have zero clue how useful it actually is. Even that doesn't explain resuming production though.

Speed transfer of forces. The aircraft is obviously cheaper than the ship in construction and operation, can move dozens of times faster, and the blow can be dealt with from any convenient direction. It is an ideal tool for hacking into a PRO system. Constant comparisons with the B1B generally ridiculous, as these planes are too different for use and its combat qualities.

I think the comparisons continue to be brought up, because they generally highlight the fact that omissions from the B1Bs capabilities hurt the TU-160, and everything the TU-160 can do (except maybe for its range) provides very little advantage in the real world.

The Tu-160 is a nice supplement to the naval strike capabilities of the Russian military. Considering that their ACTIVE surface fleet is still significantly smaller than the US fleet, and that their attack docterine is saturation ASM attacks, having the ability of the TU-160 to get to the firing position quickly makes them more flexible than they currently are with just naval forces. The US counter would be the fact that they have many carriers with extensive attack squadrons. The US has better force projection capabilities at present, however, the Russian focus is still sovereignty first.

LightningZ71 wrote:

The Tu-160 is a nice supplement to the naval strike capabilities of the Russian military. Considering that their ACTIVE surface fleet is still significantly smaller than the US fleet, and that their attack docterine is saturation ASM attacks, having the ability of the TU-160 to get to the firing position quickly makes them more flexible than they currently are with just naval forces. The US counter would be the fact that they have many carriers with extensive attack squadrons. The US has better force projection capabilities at present, however, the Russian focus is still sovereignty first.

That's a good point - such a mission would at least leverage the range of the aircraft. However, wouldn't the stand-off missiles employed on a naval target suffer a poor success rate, against typical ship defense systems - at least those employed by the United States? Everything the Tu-160 carries is sub-sonic, from what I can find..

Dutchy wrote:

But why have a complex high-speed bomber when the only thing it has to do is send a missile from 5k away? That is a huge waste of money. Heck, you can put them on an airliner and have the same result at much less cost, or from a ship for that matter. Fire a missile in Moscow and send it on it's way to Beijing.

This idea does keep popping up from time to time. I have been convinced, years ago, that one of the bedrock nuclear arm control treaties, from the Cold War era and still valid, has had a provision specifically prohibiting that. No airliner derivative can be a launch platform. Specific treaty eludes me.

Logic was, AFAIR, that if a civilian airliner was a potential launch platform, the whole international air traffic was physically hostage to superpower tensions, and would be shot out of the sky, as a precaution, by potential adversaries.

Phosphorus wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But why have a complex high-speed bomber when the only thing it has to do is send a missile from 5k away? That is a huge waste of money. Heck, you can put them on an airliner and have the same result at much less cost, or from a ship for that matter. Fire a missile in Moscow and send it on it's way to Beijing.

This idea does keep popping up from time to time. I have been convinced, years ago, that one of the bedrock nuclear arm control treaties, from the Cold War era and still valid, has had a provision specifically prohibiting that. No airliner derivative can be a launch platform. Specific treaty eludes me..

I would think that goes back further. Combat troops have to have recognisable uniforms, in order to tell combatants and non-combatans apart.
Using civilian airliners would make that impossible. The Nimrod was basically a nuclear armed airliner, so if there was a treaty, it would probably just be about the covert use of airliners.
I would also think that ICAO would have something about not being armed, just like civilian shipping can't have guns. ... even where they may make sense.

Best regards
Thomas

Phosphorus wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But why have a complex high-speed bomber when the only thing it has to do is send a missile from 5k away? That is a huge waste of money. Heck, you can put them on an airliner and have the same result at much less cost, or from a ship for that matter. Fire a missile in Moscow and send it on it's way to Beijing.

This idea does keep popping up from time to time. I have been convinced, years ago, that one of the bedrock nuclear arm control treaties, from the Cold War era and still valid, has had a provision specifically prohibiting that. No airliner derivative can be a launch platform. Specific treaty eludes me.

Logic was, AFAIR, that if a civilian airliner was a potential launch platform, the whole international air traffic was physically hostage to superpower tensions, and would be shot out of the sky, as a precaution, by potential adversaries.

Even if they were prevented from hypothetically doing so (though I think we are all just joking and making point here) - they can simply use the TU-95 as they have a bunch of updated aircraft already, all of which carry the exact same stand-off missiles and have an even greater range at nearly the same cruise speed!

tommy1808 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But why have a complex high-speed bomber when the only thing it has to do is send a missile from 5k away? That is a huge waste of money. Heck, you can put them on an airliner and have the same result at much less cost, or from a ship for that matter. Fire a missile in Moscow and send it on it's way to Beijing.

This idea does keep popping up from time to time. I have been convinced, years ago, that one of the bedrock nuclear arm control treaties, from the Cold War era and still valid, has had a provision specifically prohibiting that. No airliner derivative can be a launch platform. Specific treaty eludes me..

I would think that goes back further. Combat troops have to have recognisable uniforms, in order to tell combatants and non-combatans apart.
Using civilian airliners would make that impossible. The Nimrod was basically a nuclear armed airliner, so if there was a treaty, it would probably just be about the covert use of airliners.
I would also think that ICAO would have something about not being armed, just like civilian shipping can't have guns. ... even where they may make sense.

Best regards
Thomas

Wouldn't the P-8 or more commonly known as the Boeing 737 fall into this category. Or the P-3 / Lockheed Electra.

Dutchy wrote:

Wouldn't the P-8 or more commonly known as the Boeing 737 fall into this category. Or the P-3 / Lockheed Electra.

if they carry or did carry nukes.. yup.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Wouldn't the P-8 or more commonly known as the Boeing 737 fall into this category. Or the P-3 / Lockheed Electra.

if they carry or did carry nukes.. yup.

best regards
Thomas

this is only for bombers then?

Dutchy wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

This idea does keep popping up from time to time. I have been convinced, years ago, that one of the bedrock nuclear arm control treaties, from the Cold War era and still valid, has had a provision specifically prohibiting that. No airliner derivative can be a launch platform. Specific treaty eludes me..

I would think that goes back further. Combat troops have to have recognisable uniforms, in order to tell combatants and non-combatans apart.
Using civilian airliners would make that impossible. The Nimrod was basically a nuclear armed airliner, so if there was a treaty, it would probably just be about the covert use of airliners.
I would also think that ICAO would have something about not being armed, just like civilian shipping can't have guns. ... even where they may make sense.

Best regards
Thomas

Wouldn't the P-8 or more commonly known as the Boeing 737 fall into this category. Or the P-3 / Lockheed Electra.

Excellent question. Even broader, is the reverse true, too? With Tu-114 being co-developed with Tu-95, and Tu-104 being a civil derivative of Tu-16; and Nimrod simply a military version of de Havilland Comet? And let's no't even start with 707/C-135; 747/E-4/VC-25; Il-86/Il-80, A330MRTT, KC-45, KC-10, etc.
There are not many possibilities.
Either
1) it's all hogwash, and weaponizing airliners was never taboo
or
2) there is a clear distinction between strategic nuclear delivery platform vs. all other military uses

Phosphorus wrote:

Either
1) it's all hogwash, and weaponizing airliners was never taboo
or
2) there is a clear distinction between strategic nuclear delivery platform vs. all other military uses

3) there doesn´t have to be a specific regulation/treaty, since it is covered by overarching principle.

The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation doesn´t allow shooting at civilian airliners, logically that would also mean that "civilian" airliners can´t be armed, otherwise no one would have signed that.

best regards
Thomas

Exactly. And let's not forget that during the Cold War days, Aeroflot aircraft were used for reconnaissance and many military a/c used to have the Aeroflot livery, or we see it nowadays: a Qatari C-17 in Qatar Airways livery.

So I think it is number 1.

Dutchy wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Wouldn't the P-8 or more commonly known as the Boeing 737 fall into this category. Or the P-3 / Lockheed Electra.

if they carry or did carry nukes.. yup.

best regards
Thomas

this is only for bombers then?

any nucular ordinance.

afair there was controversy about re purposing slbm boats for (nonnuke) cruise missiles.
too much ambivalence in detection.

WIederling wrote:

any nucular ordinance.

What is nuclear law?
Or do you mean ordnance?

neutrino wrote:

WIederling wrote:

any nucular ordinance.

What is nuclear law?
Or do you mean ordnance?

nah, the law thing obviously