The Kazan Aviation Plant had completed production of a new Tu-160 aircraft. The new bomber was reported to begin test flights on December 28, 2007. The report also quotes a representative of the Air Forces as saying that the long-term armament program includes plans for producing one new Tu-160 aircraft every 1-2 years in order to bring the total number of bombers of this class to 30 by 2025-2030.
The book
Comments
An article recently in Aviation Week & Space Technology gave an overview of the new Kh-101-102 missile. This missile is larger than its predecessor the Kh-55s and can not fit in the internal weapons bay of a Tu-95 bomber. It is also unclear how many of these missiles could be carried externally on the “Bear” aircraft. However, the Tu-160 “Blackjack” bomber could carry twelve of the Kh-101 (or 102) missiles internally and appears to be the delivery system of choice for this new cruise missile. This announced low-level building program to add to the “Blackjack” inventory seems to support this conclusion.
Frank Shuler
USA
> The Kazan Aviation Plant had completed production of a new Tu-160 aircraft. The new bomber was reported to begin test flights on December 28, 2007.
- Yes, we already see it, and hail it's maiden flight!
> It is also unclear how many of these missiles could be carried externally on the 'Bear' aircraft.
- It's absolutely clear. Tu-95MS "Bear" will carry EIGHT Kh-101s externally - see the image:
img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tu95mskh101wu9.jpg
Russian:
My compliments to the Kazan Aviation Plant in the building of this new Tu-160 aircraft. I can’t begin to imagine the issues associated with trying to fabricate new parts made only in Russia and integrate updated electronics and avionics in an aircraft design last built in 1994. I sincerely don’t think there is any way possible for Boeing to begin building new B-1Bs today no matter how much money might be involved.
How many Kh-55 Kent ALCM can the Tu-95 now carry internally?
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank, may be a B-1B not but perhaps a B-2? I think it certainly can. In the other hand, Tu-160 is something like a B-1Asky.
Regards, friend.
Kolokol:
My friend, the Tu-160 is the cruise missile carrier the B-1B never became. The “White Swan”, the heaviest bomber in the world, must be amazing to watch in flight! Speculation here (the USA) is the “new” bombers being delivered to the Russian Air Force are actually refurbished aircraft from the original production of thirty-five and the three prototypes (of which one prototype was lost in testing). Rebuilding these aircraft with modernized, new digital flight control systems and modern avionics with the added ability to carry new weapon types, such as the non-nuclear Kh-101 long-range cruise missile, will create quite a powerful weapon system. I think the “Blackjack Bomber” (NATO designation) will be a fixture of Russian airpower for years to come.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank, your explanation is the most likely one: the Kazan Plant is now completing the un-finished bombers left in the inventory but now with modern electronics. Nevertheless, Tu-160 design guidelines are quite similar to those of the original B-1A project. That's my point.
The "new" Tu-160 will be a powerful multi-task system more than enough for the current Russian needs. Two or two and half dozens will be OK even whitout the venerable Tu-95. Shorter range missions will be fulfilled be planes like Tu-22 and/or Su-34.
Dear Pavel:
- Where are my comments, addressed to Frank (answer to his question)?
'Lost in Cyberspace' again? ;-)
I cannot find your comments. I would encourage you to register at the site (or get a TypeKey, LJ or other account), so your comment won't get lost.
- Павел, Вы не могли бы создать на сайте какую-либо форму для ПРЯМОЙ СВЯЗИ с администрацией (что-то вроде 'SEND TO ADMIN')?
[...]
E-mail here should work just fine - http://russianforces.org/project/contact.shtml. As for the news stories, I try to follow the news and if I don't post something it normally means I don't think it is worth posting.
> E-mail here should work just fine.
- But, e-mail is rather outdated and time-consuming service... 'Direct send' form would be preferable...
> As for the news stories, I try to follow the news.
- It looks like you monitor the ArmsTASS mainly...
Of course, I may be wrong... but I do believe - the biggest Russian Navy exercises at Atlantic ocean, including intensive interaction of Navy with Tu-160 and Tu-95MS strategic bombers, do deserve a few lines at your blog!
Of course, - you're blog owner, so you decide.
Any form will be quickly overwhelmed with spam, so it's not as simple as it may seem.
As for the naval exercise, it does seem big, but I'm not sure it qualifies as related to "strategic forces" (fairly loosely defined). Yes, bombers take part, but I'm not sure what they are doing there, other than showing the flag, of course.
> ...but I'm not sure it qualifies as related to "strategic forces" (fairly loosely defined).
- Really, today, due to the rapid changes in technologies, the term 'strategic', is rather hard to define.
- Let's imagine the hypothetic situatuion when all (or almost all) Russian strategic carriers was destroyed by the enemy's first strike... What if, - in the last attempt to deliver it's retaliate strike, - Russia will be needed to use intercontinental civil planes, like Il-96-300, in a 'kamikaze run' with a 25-megatonn warhead of SS-18 onboard?
- In this hypothetical example, should we consider Ilyushin Il-96-300 civil plane, as a strategic carrier? Before you answer, - please note that Il-96-300, is able to deliver 15 tonns payload at 11000 km range with 860 kmph cruise speed.
> Any form will be quickly overwhelmed with spam, so it's not as simple as it may seem.
- As to SPAM - most of SPAM over the Internet is generated by the SPAM bots; so, for making the above form not overwhelmed with spam, you may use so called 'CAPTCHA' (Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart - полностью автоматизированный общедоступный тест Тьюринга для различения людей и роботизированных алгоритмов).
Самой эффективной, кстати, является капча, требующая от пользователя ввода в окно подтверждения, результата какого-либо простого арифметического действия (например, - ответа на вопрос: "Сколько будет 24 + 47?"; двузначные цифры в таком выражении генерируются по случайному алгоритму, индивидуально для каждой пользовательской сессии / пользовательского агента / IP-адреса).
- Also, I honestly must said, that you've chosen rather strange software engine for your blog... Modern international software, (like, for example, the most used on the Russian forums Invision Power Board rev. 4.6.x), looks more sofisticated and admin-friendly...
> My compliments to the Kazan Aviation Plant in the building of this new Tu-160 aircraft.
- Thanks for the compliments, Frank. I am sorry for being late with my answer, but 'better late, than never' (a good Russian proverb). :-)
> How many Kh-55 Kent ALCM can the Tu-95 now carry internally?
- Tu-95MS6 Bear-H6, intended to carry SIX AS-15A Kent / Kh-55 ALCMs, in it's internal weapon bay.
- Tu-95MS16 Bear-H16, intended to carry SIXTEEN AS-15A Kent / Kh-55, both in it's internal weapon bay and on external brackets.
- Tu-160 Blackjack can carry TWELVE AS-15B Kent / Kh-55SM, or TWELVE AS-16 Kickback / Kh-15 short-range attack missiles (hypersound aeroballistic missiles with 5 Mach speed and 300 km range), in it's two internal weapon bays.
- For Tu-160 Blackjack, there's a technical possibility to carry UP TO TWENTY FOUR AS-16 Kickbacks in it's FOUR internal weapon bays, - but such a system was never deployed.
Finally, - some pictures:
(a) Tu-160 launch a Kh-55SM:
http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aviarutu160andas15kentrf5.jpg
(b) Tu-160 weapon bay with a Kh-55SM rotary launcher:
http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aviarutu160bayforas15kedb1.jpg
(c) Tu-160 weapon bay with a Kh-15 SRAM rotary launcher:
http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aviarutu160bayforas16kivc9.jpg
(d) Kh-15S anti-ship SRAM:
http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aviaruas16kickbackkh15srt3.gif
Russian:
Great pictures!
The article I read suggested because of the size/weight of the Kh101-102 and the particular release configuration (not really sure what that means) would restrict the Tu-95 Bear H bomber to two double wing external launchers for a total payload of four missiles per aircraft. It appears the exact design parameters of the Kh101-102 were build for the internal carriages of the Tu-160 airplane back when it was expected over 100 of these airplanes would be in service and it would replace the Bear in the fleet. Today, the Bear lives on.
Frank Shuler
USA
> The article I read suggested because of the size/weight of the Kh101-102 and the particular release configuration (not really sure what that means) would restrict the Tu-95 Bear H bomber to two double wing external launchers for a total payload of four missiles per aircraft.
- But you've seen the shot - how many ALCMs there?
;-)
Russian:
Given the Bear Tu-95MS can only carry the Kh-101-102 externally, and your photograph clearly illustrated the eight missiles in four-dual external launchers, is there any reason you can think of that would restrict the bomber to only four missiles? I can't see any. It would seem to me, weapon release from the inner or outer wing pylons would function the same way. Just curious to your opinion.
Frank Shuler
USA
> It would seem to me, weapon release from the inner or outer wing pylons would function the same way.
- Frank, there are no 'inner pylons'... It seems you've mean the inner weapon bay?
- If so, inner weapon bay is preferable, of course, because of better aerodynamics of entire plane...
And (better aerodynamics) = (greater range) = (greater aircraft speed) = (lesser radar signature).
It's standard considerations.
Russian:
I was referring to the wing mounted weapon station, the “external brackets”; or, in the parlance of the US Air Force, the wing pylons. The Bear Tu95MS has four of these external brackets that hold two cruise missiles each. I think the article I read inferred these external weapon stations would only be able to hold one Kh-101-102. I was just curious if this was correct. Will the Bear be able to carry four or eight Kh-101-102s?
Frank Shuler
USA
> Will the Bear be able to carry four or eight Kh-101-102s?
- I think this question is meaningless, cause you've seen clearly 'four external brackets that hold two cruise missiles each'.
- Of course if Bear can carry up to eight Kh-101s at external pylons, it is also able to carry less amounts of these ALCMs... ;-)