PAK DA versus Tu-160M2: which missile carrier is more needed by Russia

February 10 2022 43

One of the most popular trends in modern aviation is the widespread introduction of stealthof technologies. The undisputed leaders in this direction, the Americans already collect the first copies of the strategic stealth bomber B-21 Raider, made according to the "flying wing" scheme. A similar design is used on the promising Chinese Xian H-20. Judging by the scarce information in open sources, Russia is going the same way with its PAK DA. But is this path correct? What long-range bombers and for what purposes do we need them?

Two "strategic" concepts

The Americans were the first to develop the Rockwell B-1 Lancer, a supersonic variable-sweep wing strategic bomber designed to break through the Soviet air defense system and deliver a nuclear strike. Several modifications were created, of which the B-1B version had a reduced radar signature and could carry out a low-altitude breakthrough with enveloping the terrain. Note that in the 90s, Lancers were converted to use conventional weapons and were widely used in conventional conflicts. The USSR responded to the USA with the Tu-160 White Swan supersonic strategist.

However, the Americans went much further in developing the stealth bomber concept and created their famous Northrop B-2 Spirit. It is famous, first of all, for its monstrous cost of 1 billion dollars apiece without equipment and 2 billion 200 million 300 thousand dollars apiece with the attached equipment. Not surprisingly, even the Pentagon was able to pull only 21 of these aircraft, extremely capricious in maintenance. The B-2 Spirit can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons. The B-21 Raider, also created according to the “flying wing” scheme, is positioned as its successor. This bomber jacket will be a little cheaper, only from 500 to 550 million dollars apiece. The US Air Force expects to receive up to one and a half hundred of them.

The same path, as we have already said, is followed by the PRC and the Russian Federation. Almost nothing is known about the Russian PAK DA, only its supposed characteristics. "Product 80" will be built according to the same "flying wing" scheme, which will make it invisible to radars, but the aircraft will only be able to reach subsonic speed. The maximum flight range will be 15 km, payload weight - 000 tons. It is assumed that the PAK DA will be able to carry the widest range of weapons: aerial bombs, strategic cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles and hypersonic missiles. First, the "product 35" should replace the aging Tu-80 and Tu-95M22, and then the Tu-3.

It seems to sound good, reasonable, even trendy, but there are questions.

How much in our difficult realities will each such super-aircraft and its subsequent maintenance cost the military budget? What will be the scope of its real application? The carrier of nuclear weapons, PAK DA is supposed to be part of the Russian "nuclear triad". However, the real value of the air component is still somewhat overestimated. All our "strategists" are based on two airfields, which can be destroyed by a vile preemptive strike. Yes, and in the event of a nuclear war, aviation will go only in the second echelon, when you can’t push the paste back into the tube.

In other words, strategic bombers in nuclear deterrence occupy an important, but far from the first place. If you invest huge amounts in such aircraft, then it is desirable that they do not just stand in hangars in case of a Third World Nuclear War, which, hopefully, will never happen, but could actually be used in conventional conflicts without ruining the country, as it was would be with an analogue of the B-2 Spirit.

"White Swans"

One of the most positive events of recent times can be considered the resumption of production of Tu-160 supersonic bombers in M and M2 versions with an updated engine. Along with the Tu-95MS, they form the basis of the air component of the Russian "nuclear triad". The problem is that there were only 16 White Swans left, and they needed a deep modernization.

News, of course, positive, but in the liberal-minded press there is criticism that we are supposedly going the wrong way, and the right one is American and Chinese with “invisibility”. Say, when the Russian Aerospace Forces receive all the new Tu-160M2s, the US Air Force will just write off their last Rockwell B-1 Lancer. The arguments are as follows.

At first, the uneconomical "White Swan" is criticized, which spends up to 100 tons of fuel per afterburner flight.

Secondly, quite rightly point to the high visibility of the Tu-160 on radar, which allows it to be seen by the first AWACS aircraft and enemy fighters.

Thirdly, due to the lack of defensive weapons on board, the Russian missile carrier will be defenseless against their attacks, not being able to get away from missiles even with afterburner.

For these reasons, the “strategist” will not be able to fly towards the United States through Europe and the Atlantic, but only through the Arctic Ocean, where he will be able to launch X-101 ultra-long-range cruise missiles capable of flying up to 5500 kilometers, which will have to overcome the American missile defense system . Say, that's all the possible real use of the Tu-160M2.

In fact, it's not quite like that.

First of all, it is rather strange to hear complaints about the low efficiency of a “strategic” missile carrier, whose main task is to launch nuclear missiles in the Last War. This is still not a civilian liner to make such demands on it.

Regarding the high visibility on the radar, yes, there's nothing you can do about it. But due to recent changes, the "White Swans" have ceased to be defenseless birds in front of the "NATO Falcons". Just the other day, there was information that the Tu-160M was equipped with radars covering its rear hemisphere, and also armed with short-range air-to-air guided missiles RVV-MD. The crew will see what is happening around 360 degrees and be able to fight off missiles in all directions. The launched missile will be able to quickly turn around in any sector of the hemisphere of the aircraft. Thus, the unrequited execution of the defenseless "White Swan" can be forgotten, and the Russian missile carrier will have a chance to escape pursuit and attack in afterburner.

Well, about the fact that we need to fly to America through the Arctic or the Atlantic ... If you look at the globe, it turns out that Russia actually borders on the United States in the east. From the jump airfield in Anadyr, the Tu-160M2 will process military facilities in Alaska and beyond.

It turns out that everything is not so bad as some people paint it for us. The Syrian campaign has shown that the White Swans can be safely used in conventional conflicts, carrying up to 40 tons of various ammunition.

By the way, the Tu-160M2 is a very promising platform that can be used as a carrier of hypersonic weapons. Dagger missiles can be the first to land on it, 8 pieces for each. In the future, it is possible that an air-based anti-ship "Zircon" will be created, which can also be carried by a "strategist". If it is possible to reliably solve all problems with target designation, then a supersonic missile carrier will be able to hit not only stationary, but also mobile sea targets at great distances.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Sergey Latyshev

-1

10 February 2022 15: 37

That is all nonsense.
Their tactics complement each other. Everyone understands this, no one is in a hurry to finally write off the old planes.
And the liberals, on whom it is fashionable to blame everything, do not really care.
What is a couple of planes compared to, for example, a Yukos lawsuit?
Yes, nothing.

Another question is where to get all the money and power. But this is a completely different topic of "effective managers" and "payments to the remaining pensioners"
Marzhecki

-1

10 February 2022 15: 47

Quote: Sergey Latyshev
What is a couple of planes compared to, for example, a Yukos lawsuit?
Yes, nothing.

Another question is where to get all the money and power. But that's a completely different topic.

It's just the same topic. Yukos lawsuit - $50 billion.
1 Spirit cost from 1 to 2,3 billion dollars (real).
1 Ryder - 0,5 - 0,55 billion dollars. But it must be taken into account that the entire infrastructure for their service has already been created for Spirit. And this is a whole separate hemorrhoids - special hangars with a special microclimate so that fine electronics and a special coating remain intact.
So consider how much it will cost to build an analogue of Spirit or Ryder in Russian realities and then serve it.
An ultra-expensive stealth aircraft that will never really come in handy, since we will not start a global nuclear war, and no one will. Nobody needs it, neither the United States, nor China, nobody at all.
What can really be useful is the Tu-160M2 for DA and the resumption of production of the Tu-22M3 with NK-32-02 engines for Naval missile-carrying aviation. As a means of deterrence and for real use in conventional conflicts.
PS
if you really want people to have a yak, then develop the S-70 Okhotnik UAV according to the "flying wing" scheme.
1. Sergey Latyshev
  
  -1
  
  10 February 2022 16: 38
  
  Surely you understand everything...
  
  Yukos is a Russian company. Spirit, raider - Amer's aircraft, obviously more expensive - 2-3 times, due to production in the USA, than if they were assembled in the USSR / Russia.
  
  We even compare them - 57 billion green against 2,3 +0,55 = 2,8 billion. 20 times difference...
  IMHO, abstract liberals don't care...
  
  The cost of servants - the same nuclear submarine "which is really never useful" for the same reason, costs much more.
  And on VO, they laid out, the number of sorties of strategists is minuscule, almost 0,2 per year.
  The "economy" is there. The main thing is to be.
  As for development, everything is right - to work out technologies, prestige on 1-2 aircraft, and then, you see, it will come in handy for something else ...
  
  Look, all the tankers and all sorts of unmanned "hunters" rushed to develop, right.
  1. Marzhecki
    
    -3
    
    10 February 2022 18: 11
    
    The cost of servants - the same nuclear submarine "which is really never useful" for the same reason, costs much more.
    
    The nuclear submarine just might come in handy. As well as unnecessary aircraft carriers. A real nuclear war will be avoided by everyone like fire. Prepare for it - yes, they will. But do not use nuclear weapons,
    But conventional conflicts will always be more than enough. This is where effective conventional weapons, the navy, aviation, aircraft carriers, helicopters, SSGNs, and so on are needed.
    1. Sergey Latyshev
      
      -2
      
      10 February 2022 23: 37
      
      Almost all of these Apples are vigorous carriers of doomsday.
      
      Diesel submarine - yes, they can sink the Turk on occasion. And the nuclear submarines are mostly one-hit suicide bombers, but a little reconnaissance.
      And they stand and are much wider than any strategist-aircraft.
      
      So planes are much more profitable.
      
      Deterrence weapons, and barmaley in Syria can be smashed like a hobby training. Apple doesn't.
      1. Marzhecki
        
        -4
        
        11 February 2022 08: 18
        
        Deterrence weapons, and barmaley in Syria can be smashed like a hobby training. Apple doesn't.
        
        Come on? Do you distinguish between SSGN and SSBN? Ash and Borea?
        Here the Americans converted several of their Ohio SSBNs into Tomahawk carriers, 154 each. Just one such right now in the Mediterranean Sea.
        
        Sergey Latyshev
        
        -2
        
        11 February 2022 09: 48
        
        Yes, that’s right, I didn’t mention the nuclear submarine with the Kyrgyz Republic.
        So they are usually not used for shooting barmaley, it is painfully inconvenient.
        
        Omerika thrashed Syria with hundreds of CDs from around just for the sake of training. They also need a job.
        And what part carries BR, and part smaller CR - so it’s an everyday matter, a logical
Boris Chernikov

-3

10 February 2022 16: 01

Well, there are a few things to note:
1) Russia needs missile carriers in general, since the Tu-22m3 is not, in fact, a strategic missile carrier
2) The production of PAK DA at best will be in the 30s, and it’s not a fact that at the beginning, but we need about 100 boards at least
3) It is necessary to increase the number of missile carriers now, so it is better to produce the Tu-160m than to wait a few more years without a guarantee of success
4) PAK YES is not a replacement for the Tu-160m, they still have the same ultimate goal, but the approach is different
and 5) For me, it’s better to also develop the MiG-41 theme and make it an operational missile carrier with a pair of long-range cruise missiles, 8 medium-range missiles or 12 short-range missiles / bombs ...
1. Marzhecki
  
  -3
  
  10 February 2022 16: 12
  
  Russia needs missile carriers in general, since the Tu-22m3 is not, in fact, a strategic missile carrier
  
  The barbell works wonders
  
  The production of PAK DA at best will be in the 30s, and it’s not a fact that at the beginning, but we need about 100 boards at least
  
  if at all.
  
  PAK DA is not a replacement for the Tu-160m, they still have the same ultimate goal, but the approach is different
  
  positioned as a replacement.
  The goal is the same, but what? Bomb the US? Adequate people understand that the United States and the Russian Federation will never actually fight in a nuclear war. It's just an arms race, technology and a cut in the defense budget.
  Maybe Russia has something to spend this money on, except for PAK YES, which will be not only gold, but diamond-priced, and will never really come in handy at all?
  The same Tu-160 will carry 5 tons of ammunition more. According to the barmaley, it will be more convenient to use it.
  1. Boris Chernikov
    
    -3
    
    10 February 2022 17: 07
    
    You can hang the bar, but then you need a permanent tanker, not to mention the fact that at the moment the Tu-22m3 is a bomber, since it can only use x-22/32 missiles, but this is tantamount to hammering nails with a microscope, and new missiles only in terms of.
    
    At the beginning, da-PAK DA was positioned as a complete replacement for all missile carriers, but later the Ministry of Defense more restrainedly declared it as a replacement for the Tu-95 and Tu-22m. For the price of PAK YES, I can’t say anything, but I think that it will not be golden, and its service due to the stealth coating will be higher than that of the Tu-160, but not at times. It’s like 5th generation aircraft, their presence does not cancel availability of 4th aircraft
  2. Cyrus
    
    -1
    
    11 February 2022 09: 07
    
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    The goal is the same, but what? Bomb the US? Adequate people understand that the United States and the Russian Federation will never actually fight in a nuclear war. It's just an arms race, technology and a cut in the defense budget.
    
    Adequate people understand that the future is not known, and nothing is worth guessing.
    1. Marzhecki
      
      -3
      
      11 February 2022 11: 13
      
      Adequate people are able to make adequate predictions.
  3. gunnerminer
    
    -6
    
    11 February 2022 10: 24
    
    The acute shortage of tankers in the Diaghilev regiment, and the great visibility of the Tu-160M on the screens of other people's radars, are unlikely to allow the bar to work miracles.
Object.F7

-2

10 February 2022 17: 17

Oh, I don’t envy the pilots who fly the pepelats according to the flying wing scheme, this is such a hemorrhoids, especially if the terrain below is difficult, the mountains, the lack of a stabilizer and horizontal tail are a real challenge so that this expensive miracle does not eat the earth. The most reliable thing is to entrust this to a trained piece of iron, like the same S-70 Okhotnik, and why the RF PAKDA, the rich have their own quirks. And the Tu-160, as it was, remains the top bird, with air-to-air missiles it’s generally a thunderstorm, cut off the afterburner and another question is who will intercept whom, a bomber hawk or vice versa)) how many missiles will fit there, a whole arsenal. For a pair of Swans, if you highlight the cover of a couple of modern fighters, AWACS, the combat potential of the link will be with the squadron))
1. Marzhecki
  
  -2
  
  10 February 2022 18: 08
  
  In and I about the same.
2. Vladimir Vladimirovich
  
  0
  
  10 February 2022 23: 32
  
  Quote: Object.F7
  Oh, I don’t envy the pilots who fly the pepelats according to the flying wing scheme, this is such a hemorrhoids, especially if the terrain below is difficult, the mountains, the lack of a stabilizer and horizontal tail are a real challenge so that this expensive miracle does not eat the earth.
  
  The B-2 flies great. Computers and the electrical system work wonders. Flight in the terrain envelope mode is in automatic mode. It was in the "automatic" mode that the F-111, V-1V, Su-24 went in this mode. It is very difficult for a pilot to manually drive a car at an extremely low speed at transonic speed in a disturbed atmosphere.
  
  Quote: Object.F7
  And the Tu-160, as it was, remains the top bird, with air-to-air missiles it’s generally a thunderstorm, cut off the afterburner and another question is who will intercept whom, a bomber hawk or vice versa
  
  a rocket is faster than the fastest aircraft. Interceptor missiles or anti-aircraft missiles will still catch up with a bomber, supersonic or not, if the bomber is in the enemy's air defense zone.
  
  The Tu-160 cannot go on afterburner for a long time - this mode is only for breaking through air defense. Its profile is subsonic-supersonic on a breakthrough - subsonic. Otherwise, there will be no fuel.
  
  The B-21 Raider and PAK-DA will also be armed with missiles for self-defense. And they will also be equipped with electronic warfare systems.
  
  The stealth aircraft has advantages due to its stealth and the ability to go very low, in the mode of enveloping the terrain - below the radar field of stationary radars and radars of air defense systems. In reality, only AWACS aircraft can track it at a decent distance, in addition, the low radar visibility of such an aircraft will prevent the enemy from taking it for escort even if such an aircraft is detected, i.e. use weapons on him.
  
  Greater efficiency of engines in subsonic mode provides more patrol time (being on high alert) in the sky during a threatened period. It takes several hours to raise an aircraft of the Tu-160 class on alert into the sky.
  Profitability is needed when using an aircraft in a peaceful period (training and exercises of flight personnel) and when used in local wars.
  
  Price. Why should the PAK DA be more expensive than the Tu-160? A subsonic aircraft has simpler and cheaper engines, there are no problems with balancing when passing the sound barrier, it may have a less durable airframe (without the use of expensive titanium alloys), again, if you take the Tu-160, there is no complicated and heavy mechanism for changing the wing sweep. Yes, there is a stealth coating, how expensive and demanding is it to operate? Do you have data on similar coatings for the Su-57?
  
  If a bomber is designed to use long-range cruise missiles, and must use them without entering the enemy's air defense coverage area, then why does it need supersonic speed?
  
  If the aircraft is used in local conflicts, then low visibility is more important to it than speed. As already noted, you cannot run away from a rocket, it is faster, it can only be deceived. Or make it impossible for you to use weapons at all. For this, stealth was invented. Now even third world countries have decent air defense systems and fighters.
  
  It's not all that obvious, is it?
  1. Marzhecki
    
    -3
    
    11 February 2022 08: 26
    
    If a bomber is designed to use long-range cruise missiles, and must use them without entering the enemy's air defense coverage area, then why does it need supersonic speed?
    
    If the aircraft is used in local conflicts, then low visibility is more important to it than speed. As already noted, you cannot run away from a rocket, it is faster, it can only be deceived. Or make it impossible for you to use weapons at all. For this, stealth was invented. Now even third world countries have decent air defense systems and fighters.
    
    It's not all that obvious, is it?
    
    Yes, it's debatable. Nevertheless, we are talking about the creation and maintenance of stealth aircraft in Russian conditions. What will it really cost?
    Another question is, is stealth a panacea? Is the plane really invisible? Are developments underway to detect "invisible", and if they are successful, what then?
    https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/760838-stels-tehnologii-radar-rti
    It seems that we are working in this direction. certainly and abroad are engaged.
    
    Yes, there is a stealth coating, how expensive and demanding is it to operate? Do you have data on similar coatings for the Su-57?
    
    I personally do not have such data. But I read in open sources that the storage of American "invisibles" requires special hangars with an artificially maintained microclimate in order for this coating to be preserved.
    
    a rocket is faster than the fastest aircraft. Interceptor missiles or anti-aircraft missiles will still catch up with a bomber, supersonic or not, if the bomber is in the enemy's air defense zone.
    
    Well, the latest news: the Tu-160M will have missiles for self-defense.
    1. Vladimir Vladimirovich
      
      +2
      
      11 February 2022 09: 53
      
      Quote: Marzhetsky
      we are talking about the creation and maintenance of stealth aircraft in Russian conditions. What will it really cost?
      
      Quote: Marzhetsky
      for the storage of American "invisibles" special hangars with an artificially maintained microclimate are required in order for this coating to be preserved
      
      Have special hangars been created for Russian Su-57s? How is the integrity of the anti-radar coating maintained on these aircraft?
      The stealth coating, in fact, is not some kind of hyperboloid engineer Garin. If it is very primitive, this is a binding base in which metal particles are oriented in a special way, which play the role of the opposite than the lenses in the reflector. If in it the task of the lenses is to return the light beam in the direction of its source, then here the task is the opposite - to reflect the radar beam anywhere, but not in the direction of the probing radiation, but to absorb part of the radiation, scattering it into heat. The durability of the coating will be determined by the binder base. The Americans invented their coating several decades ago (for the B-2 and F-22), but on the F-35 it’s not a fact that they didn’t save money. In the bathroom, tiles can also fall off if you save on glue. This topic is not covered, everyone says "anti-radar coating does not withstand", but why exactly - have you seen at least one competent article?
      Since nothing was said about special hangars for domestic invisibles, and when servicing aircraft, climbing onto a glider, they do not use special shoes, it can be assumed that the domestic coating is different.
      
      Quote: Marzhetsky
      is stealth a panacea?
      
      There is no absolute weapon. Also, stealth should not be raised to the absolute. Here is an example of this - the French during the First World War flaunted their red pants, while the allies had already changed into some khakis, some into a different protective uniform. Which fighter is easier to spot and, accordingly, shoot down - dressed like a parrot and visible for kilometers, or in camouflage that blends into the background? Or there were still times when ships were painted in deforming camouflage.
      
      The target is visible, but accurately determine the distance to it. speed, heading angle - very difficult, shooting at such a target will be very ineffective. Approximately the same will be "blurred" stealth target for the radar. Stealth - the same camouflage, but for radar radiation invisible to the eye. The aircraft can be detected - but the combat work on it of weapons may be difficult or not possible at all. Stealth is nothing more than one of the advantages, these technologies do not allow you to make the aircraft invisible, but they allow you to reduce the distance of its reliable detection and make it difficult to take on escort. Those. increase its survival.
      
      Quote: Marzhetsky
      Are developments underway to detect "invisible", and if they are successful, what then?
      
      there is no weapon for all time. Sword and shield competitions are an endless process, with varying leadership of its participants. Nevertheless, they have been trying to hide the technique from the eyes of the enemy (protective coloring, etc.) since the time they understood the importance of camouflage. Because stealth is not going anywhere, these technologies will develop.
      1. Marzhecki
        
        -4
        
        11 February 2022 11: 13
        
        Have special hangars been created for Russian Su-57s? How is the integrity of the anti-radar coating maintained on these aircraft?
        
        Do not know. Maybe not supported at all? And in vain?
    2. gunnerminer
      
      -6
      
      11 February 2022 10: 35
      
      The latest news for the psychological support of the Tu-160M crew. They can attack it from all angles. If the P-73s start away from the tail, they can get caught in the exhaust blast and tumble without guidance. If they start in the direction of the bow, they will spend their small resource on a turn maneuver. Knowing their range, alien crews will use AIM-120 medium or long-range missiles. Several consecutive volleys. R-73 with a thermal homing head. Easily aimed at magnesium traps.
      The best defense is stealth.
3. gunnerminer
  
  -2
  
  11 February 2022 10: 29
  
  On such unusual aircraft, systems are installed to help the crew cope with the problems discussed. R-73 missiles with a thermal homing head, with a range of up to 20 km, provide more psychological support for the crew. They are trying to be installed in the complex due to the unreliability of the electronic warfare system. Afterburner eats up fuel in 12 minutes. It’s not good with AWACS and A-50U combat-ready systems. There are only five of them combat-ready.
Alexander Klevtsov

-2

10 February 2022 17: 56

They won’t pull it, there’s no one, they’ll finish off the junk, of the engineers only Chemezo Manturov’s managers remained ....
1. gunnerminer
  
  -4
  
  11 February 2022 10: 46
  
  Yes. Things with PAK YES are slow. We started R&D in 2000, but in 22 years we didn't even reach the layout. Chinese composites make the fuselage and planes heavier. Plus, the difficulties with the new engine, with the replacement of imported electronic equipment.
Siberia55

-3

10 February 2022 18: 23

The launched rocket will be able to quickly turn around in any sector of the hemisphere of the aircraft

As far as I heard, they plan to install reverse launch missiles on board, for defense
1. Marzhecki
  
  -3
  
  10 February 2022 18: 30
  
  It is written differently in different sources.
Teaser

+1

11 February 2022 03: 16

Quote: Object.F7
Oh, I don’t envy the pilots who fly the pepelats according to the flying wing scheme, this is such a hemorrhoids, especially if the terrain below is difficult, the mountains, the lack of a stabilizer and horizontal tail are a real challenge so that this expensive miracle does not eat the earth.

There, all piloting is performed by a computer network. Moreover, the control channels are repeatedly duplicated: longitudinal 4 times, along the roll and at the rate of at least 3 times each.

The most reliable thing is to entrust this to a trained piece of iron, like the same S-70 Okhotnik, and why the RF PAKDA, the rich have their own quirks.

The S-70 is a device within the operational range, it cannot be sent over 10 thousand kilometers, it "does not have enough brains." People are needed there.

And the Tu-160, as it was, remains the top bird, with air-to-air missiles it’s generally a thunderstorm, cut off the afterburner and another question is who will intercept whom, a bomber hawk or vice versa)) how many missiles will fit there, a whole arsenal.

In fact, the Tu-160 has long been a place in the museum, next to the Tu-95. The Tu-160 is just an unfinished likeness of the B-1B, incapable of even a low-altitude breakthrough with automatic terrain following and flying to WWI for many hours ..

For a pair of Swans, if you highlight the cover of a couple of modern fighters, AWACS, the combat potential of the link will be with the squadron))

And how can the combat radius be provided for this bundle? Where will the fighters get fuel?
1. Object.F7
  
  -3
  
  11 February 2022 07: 09
  
  It is enough to look at the performance characteristics and it is obvious: v1v is an unfinished likeness of the Tu-160, but not vice versa. Where to get fuel is a rhetorical question? Tankers were created in the 20th century. If everything is so wonderfully controlled by computers with the B-2, then why do their pilots lose 5 kg of mass per flight? There is no hint of super-maneuverability, which means that the overloads are not physical in G, but purely psychological, wild stress and fatigue, the charms of a flying wing
  1. gunnerminer
    
    -2
    
    11 February 2022 10: 43
    
    Even if we accept your statements as true, the puzzle does not add up. Thanks to the painstaking long work of diplomats, journalists, NATO intelligence officers, their aviation command got the opportunity to solve strategic tasks with tactical aviation forces. Using the proximity of their bases to Russian objects. Including mobile bases, aircraft carriers. The small number of Tu-160M also plays a role. About three years ago, the media broadcast about 76 ordered Tu-160M. In recent interviews, Mr. Slyusar called the number 20 - 30 Tu-160M. In reality, they will be able to transfer to the customer, very likely, no more than five Tu-160M. Without an adequate number of refueling tankers Il-78MD-90A. The production of which is creeping extremely slowly at the Ulyanovsk Aviastar.
Teaser

+1

11 February 2022 07: 35

Quote: Object.F7
It is enough to look at the performance characteristics and it is obvious: v1v is an unfinished likeness of the Tu-160, but not vice versa.

Once again, for dummies:
1. B-1B is capable of flying at an extremely low altitude of 60 meters (over flat terrain - a height difference of no more than 200 m) in automatic mode for many hours, penetrating deep into enemy territory. Tu-160 - no.
2. EPR B-1B ~ 0.75 m², EPR Tu-160 - more than 100 m².
3. The B-1B has one of the most advanced and powerful electronic warfare stations in the world, there is nothing like it on the Tu-160.
That is: in terms of its combat capabilities, the B-1B is simply incomparably better than the Tu-160, which is a primitive truck for transporting the CD to the launch point.

Where to get fuel is a rhetorical question? Tankers were created in the 20th century.

The Americans have no problems with tankers, Russia has problems with tankers, and judging by the number of tankers, problems have not been resolved for the past 30 years.

If everything is so wonderfully controlled by computers with the B-2, then why do their pilots lose 5 kg of mass per flight?

So would you take a link to this significant fact? Because if "one woman said" this to you, it doesn't count. The longest flight (and heaviest load) experienced by B-2 pilots was in 1999, when B-2s flew from the US mainland to bomb Belgrade's infrastructure. The flight lasted back and forth, with two refuelings (one - "there", the second - "back") about 32-36 hours, with two crew members, the third was not taken for a "shift". No one has lost much weight, - board. the ration consisted of the best yummy that the imagination of the B-2 pilots was only capable of, massagers were originally built into the seats, one of the crew members, in turn, had the opportunity to sleep with all the comforts in the compartment behind the pilot's cabin. Why lose weight?

There is no hint of super-maneuverability

On a B-2??!

...means overloads are not physical in G

And who told you that an aircraft performing super-maneuverability figures ("cobra", "chakra", "hook") has large overloads? You were deceived again: there are no more overloads 3.5 units!

... but purely psychological, wild stress and fatigue

I assure you: and then they lied to you! There is no wild stress at all! Maximum comfort for the crew. And where does stress come from? 95% of the flight time the aircraft flies outside the zone of even the lowest possible air defense!

...the charms of a flying wing

What blonde told you these nonsense? A computer network is working there, and the pilots are enjoying themselves!
1. Object.F7
  
  -2
  
  11 February 2022 12: 21
  
  B1b at 60 meters penetrating deep into the enemy’s defense is chic. Even the calculations for the memory and MANPADS look at this with round eyes and rejoice at the elite prey. On the hunt, ducks have more chances, the Swan will not get into such batches and this is more of a plus, not a minus.
  Maximum speed 2230 against 1328 mph in favor of 160, wow Lancer drawdown;
  Combat radius 7300 versus 5500 km in favor of 160;
  The Lancer can, like a primitive truck, be loaded with a maximum of 60 tons of weapons, which is cool, but only external suspensions will affect the range even more. Didn't finish it exactly. EPR, both of them partially used visibility reduction technologies, it is strange that Lebed was drawn a figure not in kilometers, but for an American, as it should be by tradition - zero point twenty zeros and at the end a modest one :)
gunnerminer

-3

11 February 2022 10: 58

Well, about the fact that we need to fly to America through the Arctic or the Atlantic... If you look at the globe, it turns out that Russia actually borders on the United States in the east. From the jump airfield in Anadyr, the Tu-160M2 will process military facilities in Alaska and beyond

The mentioned ammunition is subsonic. To the designated targets, by such a route, they fly for several hours. AWACS and U operators, NATO fighter pilots will have enough time to
detection of missiles, their distribution, for destruction or for a significant reduction in their number.
1. Marzhecki
  
  -3
  
  11 February 2022 11: 14
  
  Daggers are hypersonic. Tu-160 is considered as a carrier.
  1. gunnerminer
    
    -4
    
    11 February 2022 12: 20
    
    There are very few missiles - X-47M to be considered in the ammunition load. Moreover, in the ammunition load of the small Tu-160M. They did not even try to apply them to this carrier. It is possible to apply, and then theoretically, only for targets, with coordinates known in advance. In order to hit the target with the greatest probability, the Tu-160M crew should reach the launch line no further than 500 km. The crew, under these conditions, can easily become a target. It is not known how expensive and how long the modernization of the Tu-160M drum launcher will be. Or dismantling it. The X-47M is unlikely to be equal in price to the Iskander missile, or cheaper. If you send a couple of Tu-160M detachments to strike, four aircraft, For each Tu-160M, four X-47Ms, or even two, for a larger supply of fuel. 16 missiles maximum, against a large naval base, or air base. But ships and aircraft will be dispersed in advance. The damage to the combat readiness of the Navy and Air Force will not be unacceptable.
Marzhecki

-2

11 February 2022 16: 04

Quote: gunnerminer
There are very few missiles - X-47M to be considered in the ammunition load. Moreover, in the ammunition load of the small Tu-160M. They did not even try to apply them to this carrier. It is possible to apply, and even then theoretically, only for targets, with coordinates known in advance.

Yes, you can. So far, there are few such missiles, but they will gradually produce them. Add YABCH. High speed will make it harder to intercept the Dagger. And not 4, but 8 everyone can take the Tu-160M2 on board.
A slightly different picture is emerging.
1. gunnerminer
  
  -5
  
  11 February 2022 22: 42
  
  As for the YBP, I doubt it. Performing a flight mission on an aircraft carrier without radar, with minimal navigation equipment, is a step towards an accident or disaster. The slightest complication of weather conditions on the route, and the end of the task. Moreover, the accident will be aggravated by the presence of nuclear warheads. The presence of such a large and heavy ammunition on an aircraft deprives it of maneuverability, forcing the crew to get rid of the ammunition in the event of an enemy attack, from an airborne or launched anti-aircraft missile.
  It is impossible to take a full supply of X-47M on board with a full supply of fuel. More than one refueling will be required, which will greatly complicate the delivery of the Kh-47M to the launch line. An additional unmasking feature is the presence of a refueling tanker.
Michael1950

-3

11 February 2022 21: 47

Quote: Gregory_45
Quote: Sergey Latyshev
Omerika thrashed Syria with hundreds of CDs from around just for the sake of training. They also need a job.

and in Iraq and Yugoslavia - also as a training session? How many KR were shot down and how many reached the target?

- The majority reached the targets and hit the targets. They approached at heights up to 50 meters.
Michael1950

-1

11 February 2022 21: 55

Quote: Object.F7
B1b at 60 meters penetrating deep into the enemy’s defense is chic. Even the calculations for the memory and MANPADS look at it with round eyes and rejoice at the elite prey ...

- At a speed of 900 km / h and an altitude of 60 meters - the calculations of the radar and air defense systems will not even have time to blink an eye. Plus - the most powerful electronic warfare system on the B-1B, crushing any electronic means along the road.
And this is neither a joke nor a publicity stunt, it has been tested TENS of times in TENS of various exercises.
The comment was deleted.
Yatva

0

24 March 2022 20: 12

All the cons and fears are sheer nonsense, our strategists can strike without leaving the Russian Federation, being under the air defense umbrella.