Is the lack of stealth technology in the Tu-160 its drawback?


The Tu-160 strategic bomber is rightfully the pride of Soviet and Russian aviation. Considering that the White Swans began to appear more and more often in the most unexpected places, for example, in Venezuela, the American media began to pay increased attention to this aircraft, acquainting readers with its characteristics.


Thus, the specialized publication The National Interest conducted its own analysis of the capabilities of the bomber. But is it worth it to trust his findings?

American experts do not skimp on compliments, which is quite unusual:

The fastest bomber ever built. The largest bomber ever built. The heaviest bomber ever built.

The advantages of the aircraft The National Interest attributed its "stunning" carrying capacity of 40 tons and variable sweep of the wing. But there was one drawback: "White Swans" do not have stealthof technologies. One would like to exclaim, like Georges Miloslavsky: “How did you allow ?!”

In fact, everything is quite simple. The aircraft began to be developed back in 1967. Then about stealth technologies still did not hear. The Soviet designers were given a specific task: to create a supersonic bomber capable of delivering 40 tons of bombs to the enemy at supersonic speed, at an altitude of 18 meters over a distance of 000-11000 km. She was successfully executed.

Even today, with the development of radar tracking technology, the “visibility” of the Tu-160 is not a critical problem. Air-based cruise missiles carried by the White Swan are capable of striking from a distance exceeding the range of the most modern anti-aircraft missile systems. For a one-time nuclear strike in the "last war" this will be quite enough. Also, bombers can be used to act against an irregular adversary who does not have developed air defense systems. Stealth technology against the "barmaley" are not needed.

But seriously, the Tu-160 really has one problem, which is not at all in its “visibility”. The thing is their small numbers: our long-range aviation totals only 10 Tu-160 and 7 Tu-160M1. A massive air strike cannot be inflicted by such forces. For comparison, the US Air Force today has about 140 strategic bombers.

Modernization of existing Tu-160 is required. In 2016, it was decided to resume the production of NK-32-02 engines for the White Swans, which will also be used at the promising long-range aviation complex. So far, one Tu-22M3M with such a power plant has entered the air forces and the first Tu-160M ​​is expected next year.
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. Peter Tverdokhlebov 30 March 2020 13: 42
    0
    Can special Tu-160 bombs be used?
    1. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
      Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 30 March 2020 13: 59
      +3
      Maybe, but why, when can he carry cruise missiles built by stealth technology with a range of 5500 km, such as the X-101 ?!
    2. Kristallovich Offline Kristallovich
      Kristallovich (Ruslan) 30 March 2020 17: 42
      -1
      In principle, air bombs (any) only after serious conversion.
  2. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 30 March 2020 13: 53
    +2
    Stealth technology is, in theory, not bad, but, in fact, radar and air defense systems are developing rapidly and today the supposedly invisible plane will be perfectly visible on the enemy's radar tomorrow, and to achieve stealth, you need to sacrifice speed (American B-2 subsonic ), and a vehicle devoid of stealth, with a subsonic maximum speed, is an easy target for both air defense systems and fighter-interceptors ... Supersonic speed allows you to minimize the presence in the enemy air defense zone, jamming its electronic warfare, and allows you to try to get away from enemy fighters supersonic, which in the case of not the fastest F-35 is quite likely ... In general, the creation of cruise missiles, created with stealth technologies and with a range of 5500 km, such as the X-101, makes it possible to empty them from the airspace of their own country , under the cover of their own air defense and can probably transfer the lion's share of bombers to carriers of anti-ship missiles, or PLO systems ... To use today free-falling bombs against the developed in the military area But countries with decent air defense are almost unrealistic today ...
  3. albor.ru Offline albor.ru
    albor.ru (Alexander) 30 March 2020 14: 49
    0
    The invisibility of a bomber is very bad! There is nothing to argue about! They can’t sleep in NATO !!! In addition, he overtakes fighters at the afterburner!
  4. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 30 March 2020 15: 09
    0
    This topic has been sacked for about 5 years, since the start of modernization.
    If you drop pop music, then of course it is. Well, no stealth; most planes don't. So what?
  5. Bad Tracker Offline Bad Tracker
    Bad Tracker (Vladimir) 30 March 2020 16: 24
    +1
    I would like to ask the author of this opus what he smokes and where can I get it?
    If you strain at least a little strength and dig deeper into the “Murzilka” Wikipedia type, then you can easily find some discrepancies in the numbers ...
    Attention, the revelation in the form of a quote:

    In December 2015, 58 vehicles remained in active operation and 18 in reserve.

    And this is the latest version of the B-52N. Where is 140, I do not understand.
    And if it came from strategists, then where in the calculations of the Tu-95MS and Tu-95MSM? And in the light of recent developments on START-3, you can think about the Tu-22M3M ...
    Carefully need to study the materiel! More carefully.
    1. Orange big Offline Orange big
      Orange big (Max) 30 March 2020 16: 38
      +2

      In December 2015, 58 vehicles remained in active operation and 18 in reserve.

      And this is the latest version of the B-52N.
      Where is 140, I do not understand.

      If so, then 58 V-52H + 41 V-1 Lancer + 20 B-2 Spirit = 119 bombers.
      1. Bad Tracker Offline Bad Tracker
        Bad Tracker (Vladimir) 30 March 2020 17: 03
        +5
        Everything is so, but not so. B-1B - only 6 combat ready, the rest at different stages of readiness are waiting for modernization, which will either be, will not be, or will be again. Of the B-2s in recent years, a figure of 11 pieces out of 20 has constantly been featured that can fulfill the task. And this is provided that this slow-moving for an incredible amount of money can only carry free-falling bombs.
        In general, it was folding on paper ...
        1. Orange big Offline Orange big
          Orange big (Max) 30 March 2020 17: 09
          +4
          Quote: Good-for-nothing lineman
          Everything is so, but not so. B-1B - only 6 combat ready, the rest at different stages of readiness are waiting for modernization, which will either be, will not be, or will be again. Of the B-2s in recent years, a figure of 11 pieces out of 20 has constantly been featured that can fulfill the task. And this is provided that this slow-moving for an incredible amount of money can only carry free-falling bombs.
          In general, it was folding on paper ...

          Then 58 + 6 + 11 = 75 combat-ready bombers in the United States. Almost 2 times less than the declared 140 boards. It turns out that they still cheek in these articles, praise themselves.
        2. Guerilla1 Offline Guerilla1
          Guerilla1 (Eremeev) 30 March 2020 18: 42
          +2
          That's right, get ahead.
          B1 Lancer - they are dying and nothing will be done with them.
          B52 - engines on a modern element base are expensive to develop - cannibals from other B52 engines to replace the functioning sides of the B52. The number of combat-ready B52 decreases every year.
          So, Mr. Marzhetsky, again a little bit wrong ...
  6. Orange big Offline Orange big
    Orange big (Max) 30 March 2020 16: 28
    +4
    The thing is their small numbers: our long-range aviation totals only 10 Tu-160 and 7 Tu-160M1. A massive air strike cannot be inflicted by such forces. For comparison, the US Air Force today has about 140 strategic bombers.

    In 2017, the United States had 76 B-52H. 61 B-1 Lancer (of which 20 will be written off until 2021) and 20 B-2 Spirit. Total, not including those written off from the United States, 137 bombers. True, this figure is too high, far from all V-52Ns are in working condition.
    I wonder why we only count the Tu-160? But what about the Tu-95MS, which are our analogues of the B-52N? Then it is possible for the Americans to ignore the B-52H. The Tu-22M3, to which the refueling rods were returned, are not taken into account, which actually equates them with strategists, given the range of the Kh-101 / Kh-102.
  7. 123 Online 123
    123 (123) 30 March 2020 18: 58
    +1
    But seriously, the Tu-160 really has one problem, which is not at all in its “visibility”. The thing is their small numbers: our long-range aviation numbers only 10 Tu-160 and 7 Tu-160M1

    Most were cut in Ukraine. The first modernized Tu-160 is already flying, the release of new ones will begin soon (for some reason, another video is inserted, so just a link)



    Tu-22M3 also did not have much left, I saw how they were cut already with us, it is very pathetic, but the rest are still flying.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  8. Arkharov Offline Arkharov
    Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 30 March 2020 23: 33
    -3
    Only worth. To advance in advance, they started to scatter.
  9. slesarg65 Offline slesarg65
    slesarg65 (Igor Ivanov) 31 March 2020 06: 30
    +2
    Stealth technology is designed for forehead detection. But there is no technology that would give invisibility when illuminated from the side. Shadow theater - so understandable? What prevents using satellites for backlighting? The same GLONASS. They do not even need to be modified, you only need a receiver that will "catch" the shadow. And I think that such already exists. In any case, technically it's easy. Then the whole thing comes down to the interaction of air defense and surveillance systems, not even radar! And I think that something similar already exists, but is not advertised. So only speed!
  10. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 31 March 2020 07: 11
    -3
    Quote: Good-for-nothing lineman
    I would like to ask the author of this opus what he smokes and where can I get it?

    I don’t smoke at all, mister bad.
  11. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 31 March 2020 07: 13
    -3
    Quote: Guerilla1
    So, Mr. Marzhetsky, again a little bit wrong ...

    Again? Oh well...
  12. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 31 March 2020 07: 18
    -3
    Quote: Orange Big
    For comparison, the US Air Force today has about 140 strategic bombers.

    In 2017, the United States had 76 B-52H. 61 B-1 Lancer (of which 20 will be written off until 2021) and 20 B-2 Spirit. Total, not including those written off from the United States, 137 bombers.

    And where did you find the contradiction?
  13. Aleksandr2020 Offline Aleksandr2020
    Aleksandr2020 (Alexander Vk) 31 March 2020 07: 25
    +2
    Is not!
    Especially when you consider that stealth technology the Americans slipped the USSR.
    This is our development, stealth technology was created and tested in the USSR, experiments were carried out, but nothing went into the series, ours recognized it as useless, tk. even Soviet radars saw her. And it was sniffed as a "leak" to the Americans. Here they are now suffering with her)))