Jump to content

Russia to Restart Tu-160 Production


Recommended Posts

http://rt.com/news/254313-russia-blackjack-bomber-tu160/

Russia is to renew production of the Tu-160 “Blackjack” supersonic strategic bomber and missile carrier, according to defense minister, Sergey Shoigu.

“Today it is already necessary to solve the task of not only maintaining and modernizing long-range aviation, we must also produce the Tu-160 missile carrier,” Shoigu said during a visit to the Kazan Aviation Plant, as cited by Sputnik news agency.

According to Shoigu’s evaluation, Tu-160 is “a unique aircraft that was several decades ahead of its time and its constructive potential was still to be fully unlocked.”

Read more

Guns'n'gadgets: Cutting-edge military & space tech at upcoming Army-2015 expo

“For now, this is the best existing supersonic bomber,” the minister emphasized.

The Tu-160 (NATO reporting name: Blackjack) was in the past nicknamed the ‘White Swan’ by Soviet and Russian pilots.

The aircraft is the world's largest supersonic bomber jet, as well as the heaviest combat aircraft in the world, according to its manufacturer, Tupolev JSC.

The Russian Air Force currently operates about 15 Tu-160 strategic bombers, according to TASS.

In 2013, the Russian Defense Ministry signed a $66 million contract with the Tupolev design bureau and Kazan Aircraft Plant to upgrade three of the Tu-160 bombers.

Notice this article doesn't say how many will be produced to operate alongside the 15 existing platforms. I often compare Tu-160 capability to our B-2 choice, but obviously not with regard to equality. It's no secret that Russia is increasing military spending, but I don't see this as a means for anything but intimidating the neighbors and smaller NATO countries. Maybe NATO membership should stop for a while in order to bring the newest members up to speed and prevent forming faults that could break the alliance apart.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What an original and interesting design. Too bad we won't start making more B-1s.

What an original and ignorant statement. Here we go again...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks man. I emailed my East European Government professor to see what she makes of renewing Blackjack production in terms of propaganda value versus regional influence. My guess is Russia is betting on intimidating newer NATO members in order to exploit chinks in NATO's armor. There's that and bullying its neighbors since I seriously doubt air-launched nuclear weapons have advantages over sub-launched nukes.

What are your opinions in air launched vs sub launched weapons against the United States?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying in your infinite wisdom that it has now similarities to the B-1? Just like several of their other designs have no relationship to other U.S. designs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying in your infinite wisdom that it has now similarities to the B-1? Just like several of their other designs have no relationship to other U.S. designs.

Yes, they obviously have a very similar configuration. I am also sure that was no accident. Other than that, the Tu-160 is larger, faster, heavier and has much more powerful engines. Configuration selection is a very important part in the design of an aircraft, but it only makes up a tiny, tiny fraction in the development of any aircraft type. In the case of the Tu-160, the designers probably saw various advantages in the B-1 configuration and variable sweep wings were also very much in fashion on both sides of the iron curtain at the time. Beyond that, they clearly did their own thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying in your infinite wisdom that it has now similarities to the B-1? Just like several of their other designs have no relationship to other U.S. designs.

Ahhh.... No.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes gents, they look alike. We stole quite a bit from each other during the Cold War, and computer hacking makes design theft an easier endeavor for the future. Now let's talk about why: we obviously had the same problems when the Cold War was still young, so the designers impressed the Germans into service and we ended up with much in common. That's right, we all stole from the Germans even though it looked as if we were stealing from each other.

Nowadays, with the US leading warfare tech development without question, outside countries are trying to learn more from our technology than ever.

If anything, I think the Tu-160 has more in common with our B-2. Not it's capabilities, but as far as the place it holds in each nation's mind. They both, for example, are the most expensive pieces of military aviation hardware in the arsenal. Secondly, each nation has only a large handful of them with the US at a 30%-ish advantage here. Thirdly, they're both regarded as smart weapon platforms only meant to get those weapons within launch range. Fourth, they both depend on the likelihood that a low number of raids will break the moral of their victims. Last, they're both the biggest and shiniest hammers in their respective country's tool box, outside the world of ICBMs.

Now let's get back on track. This isn't a B-1 vs Tu-160 thread, though I think such a thread, if opened apart from mine, would be worthwhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Configuration selection is a very important part in the design of an aircraft, but it only makes up a tiny, tiny fraction in the development of any aircraft type.

How can it be both a very important part yet only a tiny, tiny fraction (of what exactly) in the development of any aircraft type?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can it be both a very important part yet only a tiny, tiny fraction (of what exactly) in the development of any aircraft type?

Because if you get it wrong, it has repercussions throughout the development program. For example, no amount of development is going to turn a straight winged biplane into an efficient, supersonic bomber. As a fraction of development effort: Configuration selection is only one aspect of the preliminary design process. Preliminary design in turn is only a small fraction of the total design and development effort. If you were to calculate the number of man hours (or cost) going into configuration selection and divide it by the total number of man hours (or cost) going into the entire development process, you end up with a very small number - much less than 1%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends what is meant by 'Production'.....

With the bulk of the airframes having been destroyed (using American money) in the Ukraine, the Russians managed to 'retrieve' a few remaining airframes and currently operate some 15 examples.

There are 2 test airframes that were operated by Tupolev - and I suspect it is these two that are being 'produced' - they have been talking about it for years.

I don't think they will make any new-build airframes at Kazan.

There were a number of semi-derelict airframes on the ramp at Zhukovsky in 2007.....

day06_023.jpg

This one is 'live' - named after test pilot Boris Veremei is used by Tupolev for systems testing.......

day06_028.jpg

I suspect it will be these two that will go back into 'production'

Just for completeness, here's my Tu-160 - next to a B-1 for size comparison......

Photo_128.jpg

... and the finished Trumpeter 1/72 scale model.....

Photo_112.jpg

Ken

PS - The Tu-160 was originally a Myasischev design - the M-18

Edited by Flankerman
Link to post
Share on other sites

What Ken says makes sense regarding taking older airframes that have been languishing and rebuilding them/restoring them back to full capability. At any rate its a cool looking aircraft from an enthusiasts and modelers point of view. I have always liked the looks of it and the B-1 (although I am biased towards the B-1 being cooler :coolio:). Both are very sleek and futuristic for their time. I may need to get that Trumpeter kit to go with my Revell BONE.

:cheers: all!

Don.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it was a media deception (counterintelligence), it was dropped by an Il-76.

Pity, would have made a nice load-out for the Trumpy Tu-160 model.

So both MOAB and FOAB can only be delivered out of the cargo ramp of transport aircraft?

Cheers, Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flightglobal;

"The Russian defense ministry has confirmed that it will restart the production line for the Soviet-era Tupolev Tu-160 “Blackjack” supersonic strategic bomber."

Janes;

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu has authorised a study to asses restarting production of the Tupolev Tu-160 'Blackjack' supersonic strategic bomber aircraft.

Reading between the lines they have struggled to get funding for the recent Tu-160 upgrade which only flew for the first time late last year - sounds more like the existing, unused airframes may be brought up to standard as part of that job?

15, 16, 17 or more or not, it's still one highly impressive aircraft

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pity, would have made a nice load-out for the Trumpy Tu-160 model.

So both MOAB and FOAB can only be delivered out of the cargo ramp of transport aircraft?

Cheers, Ian

I haven't heard a pip about it since 2007 so it very unlikely it ever got beyond testing. Dont know if it was ever designed to be carried inside of Tu-160, it would certainly need to have the rotary laucnher completely removed.

Either way, dropping big or many small bombs is not Tu-160's task. It never was, and doesn't appear to be in plans either in light of Kh-55/555 and now Kh-101/102.

Flightglobal;

"The Russian defense ministry has confirmed that it will restart the production line for the Soviet-era Tupolev Tu-160 “Blackjack” supersonic strategic bomber."

Janes;

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu has authorised a study to asses restarting production of the Tupolev Tu-160 'Blackjack' supersonic strategic bomber aircraft.

Reading between the lines they have struggled to get funding for the recent Tu-160 upgrade which only flew for the first time late last year - sounds more like the existing, unused airframes may be brought up to standard as part of that job?

15, 16, 17 or more or not, it's still one highly impressive aircraft

There is some uncertainty what they want to do exactly, maybe they don't know themselves. Apparently there are two unfinished frames (which i was surprised to learn about, as i thought the last unfinished one was finished in 2008), so finishing those would make sense.

Take this with a lot of salt; but it is rumored that certain fractions of RuAF wants 36 operational Tu-160's + 2 for test purposes + 2 spare. There is no way of verifying that and i have no idea whether the source is considered to be trustworthy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that they may refurbish the remaining airframes.

I guess they could start building new aircraft but the question is at what expense?

Not only is the question if they still have all tools necessary (and if yes in which condition they are) but they would need to restart things like engine production too. And don't forget that they may need to locally produce all kind of components which were originally procured in former parts of the Soviet Union (see what it took to bring the Il-76 production line back to Russia).

Also, if the start to build new aircraft it would be sensible to build them with the latest avionics available which would mean additional development work/testing would also be necessary.

Regardless what they do, this undertake would require lots of resources (read: funding) for how many machines, 5, 6, ...?

I’m asking myself if it wouldn't be way more sensible to channel the available funds into the PAK-DA, especially now as the military budget is under pressure due to the falling oil price.

Cheers

Markus

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. Doesn't make sense to me either beyond finishing the two half-built frames and modernizing the existing ones. (which they are doing) There are a lot of technologies that are probably simply lost, like the massive machine to weld the massive titanium main wing spar.

But as a Russian proverb says; "One can't understand Russia with the mind".

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of years ago there was talk about re-starting production because the then current fleet size didn't justify keeping engine manufacturing / remanufacturing facilities open for a requirement of approx. 5 engines per year, doubling the fleet to around 30 would apparently allow facilities for the NK-32 to remain open.

I can't really see it happening, but the Tu-160 is undoubtedly a big stick & possibly one that some aren't prepared to be without - doubling the current fleet would take the numbers close to where they originally were & may have some effect on on-going serviceability & support that makes sense?

But then again was the information going around about NK-32 facilities even accurate.......

Edited by Air-Craft
Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of years ago there was talk about re-starting production because the then current fleet size didn't justify keeping engine manufacturing / remanufacturing facilities open for a requirement of approx. 5 engines per year, doubling the fleet to around 30 would apparently allow facilities for the NK-32 to remain open.

There were no NK-32 facilities to remain open. The engines hasn't been made since 90's, capability to repair/refurbish them was brought back only recently and restart of NK-32 production for first time since early 90's is scheduled for next year. NK-32 production is a separate and more pressing issue than new Tu-160 production.

NK-32 production would have been restarted regardless whether new Tu-160's were planned or not, and that is what happened. They are restarting production of them next year but preparations for that has been around 2012 or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...