MW: What will the Russians get the Tu-95MSM, armed with eight stealth missiles at once

19

As part of the operational and high-quality modernization of its strategic forces, the Russian Air Force adopted a new Tu-95MSM bomber. The strategic aircraft will be able to be equipped with eight Kh-101 stealth missiles at once. Military Watch Magazine experts have found out what advantages this will give to Russians.

The new bomber is significantly improved compared to the old versions of the Tu-95 - its glider was modernized by the Russian United Aircraft Corporation, new flight control, navigation and communication systems were integrated. The aircraft has been improved to serve primarily as a cruise missile carrier, allowing it to hit enemy targets outside the reach of the bomber using long-range missiles.



Perhaps the most notable improvement in the design of the Tu-95MSM as part of the latest modernization was the doubling of its combat load from four to eight large cruise missiles.

Now it is possible to carry eight missiles instead of four - that is, double the combat load and significantly extend the life of the aircraft

- said Director General of the United Aircraft Corporation Yuri Slyusar.

The Tu-95MS in the 1980s could be armed with Kh-55 cruise missiles, but later they were replaced by the Kh-101/102, combining a number of improvements, including technology radar "invisibility" with an effective scattering area of ​​0,01 sq. meters.

The X-101 carries a conventional warhead, which can be high-explosive, penetrating, or cluster-type, while the X-102 has a 250 kiloton tactical nuclear warhead. The estimated range of the missiles is from 3500 to 5500 km.

With the modernized Tu-95MSM bombers, the Russian Aerospace Forces will be able to effectively engage targets not only in Europe and Asia, but also in North America.
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover
    -4
    27 August 2020 16: 10
    The Russian Air Force has adopted a new Tu-95MSM bomber

    What's new? This is the modernization of Soviet aircraft (built in the USSR), and the first flight of the Tu-95 was made under Stalin, 70 years ago.
    1. Balin
      Balin
      +5
      27 August 2020 19: 06
      All current Tu-95s were built in the 90s. That is, they are all contemporaries of the F-22.
      1. Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover
        -1
        27 August 2020 20: 20
        https://aif.ru

        It is written that the last one was released in 1991.
        1. Rum rum
          Rum rum
          +3
          27 August 2020 22: 15
          Does it bother you that the last B-52 was produced in the 50s? And they are all being modernized and modernized. And they say they will stand up to a hundred years, with the Americans.
          How would you comment on this?
          1. Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover
            -1
            27 August 2020 23: 27
            Quote: Rum Rum
            Does it bother you that the last B-52 was produced in the 50s?
            And they are all being modernized and modernized.

            Why should this bother me? Someone wrote that the Americans adopted the new B-52, how did the author of the article write about the Russian Federation and the Tu-95? The B-52 is not new and the Tu-95 is also not a new aircraft.

            Quote: Rum Rum
            How would you comment on this?

            Well, probably, the Americans do not believe in the possibility of a nuclear war, since they do not invest in strategic forces.
            1. Rum rum
              Rum rum
              0
              28 August 2020 11: 33
              Quote: Oleg Rambover
              Someone wrote that the Americans adopted the new B-52, how did the author of the article write about the Russian Federation and the Tu-95? The B-52 is not new and the Tu-95 is also not a new aircraft.

              This requires translation into Russian.

              Well, probably, the Americans do not believe in the possibility of a nuclear war, since they do not invest in strategic forces.

              No.
              It's just that such platforms have a crazy resource.
              And the tasks of these machines do not change, only the weapons and electronics change.
              There is no point in building new ones. And in a nuclear war, not strategists, but missiles will work.
              About "do not believe", that's right. They believe their dollar is protecting. And this is partly true, anyone who starts a big war with them will bring down the world economy (this is a variant of Switzerland), and in this case, you can shout about your power and invincibility without winning a single war (not a major one, but none at all).
              1. Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover
                0
                29 August 2020 00: 01
                Quote: Rum Rum
                This requires translation into Russian.

                If in the article the author replaced the words RF with the USA, and the Tu-95 with the B-52 and called it a new aircraft, it would have also hurt my eyes.

                Quote: Rum Rum
                Not. It's just that such platforms have a crazy resource. And the tasks of these machines do not change, only the weapons and electronics change.
                There is no point in building new ones. And in a nuclear war, not strategists, but missiles will work.
                As for "do not believe", that's right.

                Is this true or not?
                740 of these aircraft were produced, 10 times less remained (comparable to the Tu-95).

                Quote: Rum Rum
                without winning a single war (not a major one, but not a single one)

                The American-Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, in WWII they are among the winners, in WWII they are among the winners, and they bore the brunt of the war in Asia, the Cold War, the invasion of Panama, the Iraqi war.
                1. Rum rum
                  Rum rum
                  +1
                  29 August 2020 23: 48
                  Plugged out of context, BIG war.
                  You still remember Grenada. Iraq on the second try, and then thanks to the exhausted economy and bribery.

                  In the imperialist war (according to your PMA), they joined at the very end and were considered the most worthless troops.

                  Not in Asia, but in the Pacific Ocean, this is a very big difference.
                  In WWII (in your opinion), all they were worthy of was butting with the Yapas for the islands (I would like to see how they knock out the Japanese Kwantung Army from the continent), and in Europe, as always, they entered at the end and did not shine too much, if take into account that the main forces of the Nazis were in the east.
                  Great warriors. Yeah.
                  1. Oleg Rambover
                    Oleg Rambover
                    0
                    30 August 2020 00: 52
                    Quote: Rum Rum
                    Iraq on the second try, and then thanks to the exhausted economy and bribery.

                    What was the goal in the first attempt? And it was not reached?

                    Quote: Rum Rum
                    In the imperialist war (in your opinion - WWI), they joined at the very end and were considered the most worthless troops.

                    And what, what in the end, they participated in the post-war division of the world. Do you consider them the most worthless troops? Worthless of the Russian army, which fled?

                    Quote: Rum Rum
                    In WWII (in your opinion), all they were able to do was to butt the Yapas for the islands (I would like to see how they knock out the Japanese Kwantung Army from the continent)

                    In the battles for the islands, Japan lost about 500 thousand soldiers, the Kwantung army from 21 to 84 thousand people (evil tongues say that out of 84 thousand, 52 died in captivity). The Kwantung Army was supplied on a leftover basis and practically did not resist at 45.

                    Quote: Rum Rum
                    and in Europe, as always, they entered at the end and did not shine too much, if the fate was that the main forces of the fascists were in the east.

                    But at the same time, they lost an order of magnitude fewer soldiers than the USSR, and were among the winners on a par with the USSR and, on a par (and even more) with the USSR, determined the post-war world order (if only Stalin could do the same)

                    Quote: Rum Rum
                    Great warriors. Yeah.

                    Yes, no worse than others. Underestimation, disdain for the enemy is a direct path to defeat.
                2. Rum rum
                  Rum rum
                  0
                  30 August 2020 00: 04
                  For the Tu-95, here is a link why it has been in service for so long, the same applies to the B-52.
                  Too lazy to write for a long time:

                  https://zen.yandex.ru/media/mugska9i_territori9i/zachem-na-voorujenii-rossii-do-sih-por-derjat-70ti-letnii-tu95-5ce12b396a5bb500b3d5a598?utm_source=serp
                  1. Oleg Rambover
                    Oleg Rambover
                    0
                    30 August 2020 00: 56
                    So I do not argue, but the author wrote.

                    Quote: Rum Rum
                    As part of the operational and high-quality modernization of its strategic forces, the Russian Air Force adopted a new Tu-95MSM bomber

                    But the Tu-95MSM is not a new aircraft, but a modernized one.
                    1. Rum rum
                      Rum rum
                      0
                      30 August 2020 01: 51
                      This is already nit-picking.
                      From the Tu-95 there was only a glider.

                      Tu-160M2 will also have an old airframe, maybe with new materials, but the geometry of the airframe will be old, and everything else is either new or heavily modernized (NK-32M engines, for example).
                      So - Tu-160M2 will be considered a new aircraft.
            2. shinobi
              shinobi
              0
              30 August 2020 08: 55
              Not invested? Not true. B-2, this, in your opinion, is not a strategist. Lancers, taken out of conservation and modernized, apparently also an attack aircraft. They are finishing B-21, right, for show?
              1. Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover
                0
                30 August 2020 15: 42
                https://www.vpk-news.ru/news/55618

                And then they say that they want to write them off, and leave the B-52.
  2. Boragl
    Boragl
    -1
    27 August 2020 22: 35
    Quote: Rum Rum
    Does it bother you that the last B-52 was produced in the 50s? And they are all being modernized and modernized. And they say they will stand up to a hundred years, with the Americans.
    How would you comment on this?

    You don't understand, this is different :)))))
  3. Dear sofa expert.
    Dear sofa expert.
    +2
    28 August 2020 03: 42
    Actually, I have always believed that the Tu-95 MSM can carry from 14 to 16 X-101 missiles.
    And this modernized version (MSM) has been in service since 2005.
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn
      0
      28 August 2020 07: 34
      This is about small-sized KR series X-55 for multi-position PU Tu-95MS.
      X-101/102 is larger and heavier, therefore only external units.
      1. Dear sofa expert.
        Dear sofa expert.
        +1
        28 August 2020 10: 38
        X-101/102 is larger and heavier, therefore only external units.

        Wikipedia says that 8 missiles are attached to each of the 2 beams:

        Currently, the Tu-95MS is being modernized on a planned basis. Especially for the new missiles on the Tu-95MS, the bomb compartment has been increased, and eight external beams have been installed on which 16 Kh-101 cruise missiles can be attached.

        https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ту-95

        Maybe they were wrong.
        1. g1washntwn
          g1washntwn
          0
          31 August 2020 07: 06
          Vicky simply repeats what they write in other sources, and journalists sometimes write with their left foot. The dimensions of the CD were at least looked at in comparison before writing. The Kh-101 is estimated to be a meter longer and a ton heavier.
          Tu-95MS:

          Quote: AIF
          Their main weapons are cruise missiles. X-55 with a range of up to 3500 kilometers and the ability to carry a nuclear warhead. The plane carries six such missiles in a drum launcher in the fuselage, and 10 more can be placed on pylons under the wings.

          Total 16 small-sized КР Х-55/555. The underwing ones were dismantled under an agreement with the Americans, but now everything is coming back.
          Tu-95MSM

          Quote: AIF
          Tu-95MSM bombers have been modified to use the Kh-101 and Kh-102 stealth missiles. The X-101 missiles have a range of 5 km. To adapt the aircraft for them, the armament compartment was expanded, and under the wings appeared four universal pylons, each of which is designed for suspension any two missiles from the arsenal of Tu-95 and Tu-160.

          Outer underwing earlier could carry 3 * X-55 (~ 3,6-3,8 tons), now 2 * X-101 (~ 4,4-4,8 tons)
          Yandex pictures will clearly show you where, how much and how much.