Only 35 of these magnificent airplanes were built, including 3 test aircraft. One was lost in a training accident. For all the talk of “new” aircraft being build, I won’t believe that until the 35th production bomber is accepted into the Russian Air Force. I honestly don’t think new airframes are being build; only existing aircraft are being refurbished. Given that, the 37th Air Army equipped with 34 Tu-160 bombers is a formable force. It will also be very interesting to follow any new bomber designs that will come.

Frank Shuler
USA

Promised videos:

- April 29, 2008. TV announce of 'Tu-160 transfer to the Russian Air Forces' (unmodernised plane Tu-160 'Reshetnikov' was shown at this announce, not the freshly-modernised Tu-160 'Kopylov'):

http://rapidshare.com/files/111743903/Avia.Ru_-_Tu-160_Reshetnikov_Announce_-_Q208.asf.html

- April 29, 2008. Live report, - modernised Tu-160 'Kopylov' arrives to the base at Engels:

http://rapidshare.com/files/111743444/Avia.Ru_-_Tu-160_Kopylov_Engels_-_Q208.asf.html

To 'journalamers': Tu-160 has a 'White Swan' name not only because it 'looks exactly like a white swan', but mainly because it is covered with an 'anti-atomic' white paint with the high albedo. ;-)

I was always interested in the anti-flash white color used on the Tupolev Tu-160 bomber. Such a technique had not been used on American bombers since the early 1950’s. The stated purpose of such paint was to reflect some of the thermal radiation from a nuclear explosion, protecting the aircraft and its occupants. The British used the same concept for their V-Class bombers of the 1950- early 60’s and some of their tactical aircraft designed to carry nuclear weapons, the Blackburn Buccaneer comes to mind. The only change the USAF made was to remove the underside insignia on the B-47, 58, and 52 bombers. No one has suggested such a coating would have any practical anti-radar capability. Reduced infrared? Doubt it.

Why have such on a cruise missile carrier?

Just curious...

Frank Shuler
USA

> Only 35 of these magnificent airplanes were built, including 3 test aircraft. One was lost in a training accident. For all the talk of “new” aircraft being build, I won’t believe that until the 35th production bomber is accepted into the Russian Air Force.

- Greetings from Kazan, Frank. Here the exact list of our present Tu-160 fleet:

00. Tu-160 N01 'Mikhail Gromov' (lost September 18, 2003)
01. Tu-160 N02 'Vasily Reshetnikov'
02. Tu-160 N03 'Pavel Taran'
03. Tu-160 N04 'Ivan Jarygin'
04. Tu-160 N05 'Alexander Golovanov'
05. Tu-160 N06 'Ilya Muromets'
06. Tu-160 N07 'Alexander Molodchy'
07. Tu-160 N08 'Vitaly Kopylov' (modernised April 29, 2008)
08. Tu-160 N10 Noname
09. Tu-160 N11 'Vasily Senko'
10. Tu-160 N12 'Alexander Novikov'
11. Tu-160 N14 Noname
12. Tu-160 N15 'Vladimir Sudets'
13. Tu-160 N16 'Alexey Plohov'
14. Tu-160 N17 'Valery Chkalov'
15. Tu-160 N18 Noname
16. Tu-160 N19 'Valentin Bliznyuk' (modernised July 6, 2006)

> I honestly don’t think new airframes are being build; only existing aircraft are being refurbished.

- Both options, Frank. Another one modernised Tu-160 till the end of 2008, for example.

But, if you still can't believe in production of new Tu-160s, - just wait for Tu-160 board No. 20; it surely will be a new aircraft, as you can see from the list above.

By the way, we have at the plant some amount ;-) of titanium centre-section basements for Tu-160 airframes, left from the 1980 - 1990s production; these airframes are in good conditions and was stored thoroughly, so we intend to use all of them.

> It will also be very interesting to follow any new bomber designs that will come.

- In Russian military bureaucrats language, this project's name sounds like 'PAK-DA' (Prospective Aviational Complex of Long-range Aviation, - PAC-LA english abbreviation), and this plane's techical specs are under consideration now.

- Both actual (2-engine and 4-engine) concepts of PAK-DA, close to each other in 'construction ideology':

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/3677/54svv4.png

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/1497/t4msdf3.png

> No one has suggested such a coating would have any practical anti-radar capability. Reduced infrared? Doubt it.
> Why have such on a cruise missile carrier?

- Hint: S-300P may use nuclear anti-aircraft warheads ... ;-)

So, it wasn't a new aircraft? I should correct the entry then.

By the way, there is a discussion of Tu-160 produciton in an old post (in Russian): http://russianforces.org/rus/blog/2006/10/dannye_snv1_prodolzhayetsya_snyatie.shtml

Russian:

S-300 or 400?

Frank Shuler
USA

So, haw many Tu-160 are now in Engels? 15 or 16?

Didn't the US have a nuclear SAM system?

Feanor

The American Safeguard ABM system of the 1970’s used nuclear warheads and the old Nike-Hercules SAM from the 1960’s was also nuclear capable with the W-31 warhead and discontinued in 1979.

Frank Shuler
USA

> So, it wasn't a new aircraft? I should correct the entry then.

- 'New' or 'Old' - it's a rhetoric question. As I know, 'Kopylov' is the first newly-created plane that use some individual details of airframe left at KAPO from the USSR times. As to 'modernisation', - this term designates that absolutely new avionics was used, so plane is not the same as 'Tu-160 Orj' from 1980s.

So, when Russian media reports that 'Russian Air Forces received a new bomber', - they absolutely correct: there was no such a bomber / a plane in the fleet before April 29, 2008.

And, in fact, - it's NOT 'Tu-160' but rather 'Tu-160 mod.2'.

> S-300 or 400?

- Both. Originally, 600+ nuclear AA warheads were produced for S-300P (SA-10 Grumble). As S-400 (SA-21 Growler) has a legacy to S-300 missiles, then S-400s are able to use these warheads, too.

> So, how many Tu-160 are now in Engels? 15 or 16?

- 16, according to the table above. And 3 Tu-160s are under the deep modernisation at KAPO 'right now'.

- In other words, there are 2 planes now, modernised with 'up-to-date' avionics, refurbished or brand new engines etc. And there are 14 planes that able to perform their primary tasks with rather old (came from 1980s) avionics, and rather old engines; all of these 14 planes will be modernised to the 'up-to-date' state in the following 5 years (2008 - 2013), with steady modernisation rate 3 - 4 planes per year.

- (2008 - 2013) timeframe is VERY important, because it correlates with emergence, in 2011 - 2013 timeframe, first NMD facilities near the Russian borders; finish of other programs of modernisation (Delta IVs overhaul, for example) will surely be timed to 2011 - 2015 period, too.

As to the purpose of Tu-160 modernisation, - it seems Kremlin decided that, in the conditions when NMD installations comes to the Russian borders, Russia surely needs an alternative tools of strategic delivery, such as Kh-102 ALCMs on the strategic bombers. Indeed, - this new 'wonderwaffe' really looks now as a 'weapon of choice' to keep the strategic balance, due to it's excellent specs:

- Extremely long-range: 5000+ km
- 'Stealth' tech implemented: radar cross-section less than 0.01 sq.m.
- Minimal flight altitude: 30 m (Patriot PAC-3s are able to intercept from more than 60 m)
- Maximal flight altitude: 6000 m
- Target hit accuracy: less than 20 m CPE
- Nuclear warhead yield: 250 kT
- Cruise speed: 720 kmph (subsonic)
- Maximal speed: 970 kmph (high subsonic)
- Missile launch weight: 2400 kg (allow 12 missiles to be carried by one Tu-160)
- TerCom navigation + optoelectronic correction + optoelectronic target recognition at final stage of flight

Due to the excellent combination of low-altitude flight at 30 m echelon and very low radar-cross section (0.01 sq.m.), Kh-102 seems to be virtually invisible to the NORAD; also, due to it's 5000+ km range, Kh-102s will surely help to survive to the Tu-160s, which will have a need to go only a half of intercontinental distance (5000 km of 10000 km).

Russian please provide a source for your information.

Russian, it would be nice to see Kh-102 carried by the Tu-22M3. What do you think?

> Russian please provide a source for your information.

- Primarily, it's my head; more exactly, - some knowledge inside it. ;-)

> Russian, it would be nice to see Kh-102 carried by the Tu-22M3. What do you think?

- I doubt about Tu-22M3 but PAK-DA will surely able to carry it.

- It seems that PAK-DA will be 'an universal' plane coming to replace both 124-tonn Tu-22M3s and 275-tonn Tu-160s; a compact 100-tonn, stealth-enabled plane with supersound cruise speed, 2M maximal speed, able to carry 6 Kh-102s inside it's weapon bay.

If this concept will win the race, it'll be possible to Russia to build a compact fleet of 150 - 180 such a planes ($100 mln. each), suitable for both strategic deterrence and for use in possible local conflicts.

Is the Tu-160 a 3rd or 4th generation bomber?
Do you people have pictures from the cockpit of the new bird?

>fleet of 150 - 180 such a planes ($100 mln. each)

Russian, do You really think such plane can cost $100 mln???

> Russian, do You really think such plane can cost $100 mln???

- $1000 per kilogramm of the take-off weight. Previous generation's cost was $800/kg.

So, we can built 10 planes armed with sixty (10 * 6) 250-Kt warheads, 15 Mt summary yield, at price of single 'Borey' (16 * 6 = 96 warheads, probably of 100-Kt class), ~ 10 Mt summary yield.

I think Russia should not hurry to start those projects like PAK-DA. There are many priorities now, Tu-160 and Tu-22 airframes are relatively young and the USA is slowly sinking itself in the Iraqi sands. Better to modernize the current bomber force (for now).

I hear that this Tu-160 was produced using Soviet-made parts that Russia is no longer able to manufacture (certain large titanium parts or something.) Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Primarily weapon of Tu-160 bomber is nuclear-tipped ALCMs; below is a small 'comparision chart' of Kh-55 vs Kh-55SM vs Kh-102:

- Range, km: 2500 / 3500 / 5000+
- Radar cross-section, sq.m.: *** / *** / 0.01
- Minimal flight altitude, m: 40 / 40 / 30
- Maximal flight altitude, m: 5500 / 5500 / 6000
- Target hit accuracy, m: 20 - 100 / 20 - 100 / 15 - 20
- Nuclear warhead yield, kT: 200 / 200 / 250
- Cruise speed, kmph: 720 / 720 / 720
- Maximal speed, kmph: 940 / 940 / 970
- Missile launch weight, kg: 1200 / 1500 / 2400
- Navigation: TERCOM / TERCOM / TERCOM + optoelectronic

*** - These data were never officially revealed.