Russia Air Force to get new Tu-160 strategic bomber in April, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 22-4-2008 @ 12:57 PM by JanusFIN

Ria Novosti en.rian.ru...

MONINO (Moscow Region), April 22 (RIA Novosti) - A new Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bomber will enter service with Russia' Air Force by the end of this month, the Air Force chief said on Tuesday.

"It is a fully upgraded plane, adapted to new weapons systems," he said.

He added that another three to four such bombers will enter service before the end of the year.

The Tu-160 Blackjack is a supersonic, variable-geometry heavy bomber, designed to strike strategic targets with nuclear and conventional weapons deep in continental theatres of operation.

The aircraft has all-weather, day-and-night capability and can operate at all geographical latitudes. Its two internal rotary launchers can each hold 6 Raduga Kh-55 cruise missiles or 12 Raduga Kh-15 short-range nuclear missiles.

- Does anybody know in witch altitude this plane fly?
- Does it has stealth development in it?
- Does plane has any defense for air-air capability, or against missiles?

Thanks.

[edit on 4/22/08 by FredT]

reply posted on 22-4-2008 @ 01:52 PM by Scramjet76

Here you can compare the Blackjack to the B-1...

Tu-160 Blackjack

Length: 177 ft 6 in (54.10 m)
Wingspan: 182 ft 9 in (55.70 m)
Height: 43 ft 0 in (13.10 m)

Performance
Speed: 1,243 mph (1,079 kt)
Ceiling: 49,200 ft
Range: 8,699 miles (14,000 km)

Powerplant- four 25,000-kg (55,115 lb) afterburning thrust Kuznetsov NK-321 turbofans

B-1 Lancer

Length: 146 feet (44.5 meters)
Wingspan: 137 feet (41.8 meters) extended forward, 79 feet (24.1 meters) swept aft
Height: 34 feet (10.4 meters)

Speed: 900-plus mph (Mach 1.2 at sea level)
Ceiling: Over 30,000 feet (9,000 meters)
Range: Intercontinental, unrefueled

Power Plant: Four General Electric F-101-GE-102 turbofan engine with afterburner, 30,000-plus pounds (13,500-plus kilograms) with afterburner, per engine

reply posted on 22-4-2008 @ 01:59 PM by Phoebus

Tupolev TU 160 is a strategic bomber, designed based on the B-1B Lancer

the B-1B is special capable for terrain following, with a exelent radar system for this, the TU 160 has a similar system, so it's also capable of low intrution attack.

There is no defencive capabilities on this plane, no steath equipment, but it might have a ECM jammer, and atleast CHAF/FLARES.

even for it's big size, this is a fast plane, Mach 3, achiving this with four Kuznetsov NK-321 afterburning turbofan engines, the most powerful ever fitted to a combat aircraft (at the time of buliding).

According to Wiki, there is few of this plane around, bellow 40 in total, if this is accurate info i'm not sure of.

Wiki-on-Tu-160
en.wikipedia.org...

reply posted on 22-4-2008 @ 03:19 PM by ShatteredSkies

Here are links for the information posted above.

FAS.org

Airforce Factsheet For B-1

Both aircraft can carry a massive amount of ordinance.

Shattered OUT...

reply posted on 22-4-2008 @ 03:30 PM by Shugo

I believe saying it's Mach 3 is a bit of an exageration. I don't think the Tu-160 has ever exceeded Mach 2.

The B-1B had all kinds of mechanical problems if I remember right. Shame it's a beautiful aircraft.

Maybe with this the Russians will quit flying those Tu-95's out in the Pacific all the time. Eh? EH?!

reply posted on 23-4-2008 @ 01:26 PM by James R. Hawkwood

Originally posted by ShugoI believe saying it's Mach 3 is a bit of an exageration. I don't think the Tu-160 has ever exceeded Mach 2.

Mach 3 is definitly exageration but the plane has reached speeds off Mach 2+. Either in tests or trainings excersizes.

Maybe with this the Russians will quit flying those Tu-95's out in the Pacific all the time. Eh? EH?!

Dont think so. The TU 95 is just tooo damnd good to retire now.
The Russians will retire the 95 in 2040/2050.

reply posted on 24-4-2008 @ 12:47 AM by C0bzz

I think the Bear should never be retired. Apart from its capabilities - it's a fantastic physiological weapon. Think about it, one aircraft has CONSTANTLY kept on trying to test our airspace for the past fifty years. Every aircraft since, more or less, the F-86 has intercepted it.

img143.imageshack.us...
img143.imageshack.us...

[edit on 24/4/2008 by C0bzz]

reply posted on 24-4-2008 @ 12:52 AM by Shugo

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Mach 3 is definitly exageration but the plane has reached speeds off Mach 2+. Either in tests or trainings excersizes.

I was unaware of that. Good catch though!

Dont think so. The TU 95 is just tooo damnd good to retire now.
The Russians will retire the 95 in 2040/2050.

I know...it was one of those "har har" funny time responses.

reply posted on 24-4-2008 @ 09:47 AM by Phoebus

Originally posted by Shugo
I believe saying it's Mach 3 is a bit of an exageration. I don't think the Tu-160 has ever exceeded Mach 2.

The B-1B had all kinds of mechanical problems if I remember right. Shame it's a beautiful aircraft.

Maybe with this the Russians will quit flying those Tu-95's out in the Pacific all the time. Eh? EH?!

Weeeell, the TU-95, Bear is a scary plane, not only is it audioable from the ground due to it's noisy turbo props, but it's an exelent plane for long range and if needed, a plane that can stay at a airspace, delivering huge amounts of ordonance for close support (think back to what the B-52 did during Vietnam in the defence of the airfield, can't remember the name right now).

The Mach 3 speed of the TU-160 is theoretichal max, remember the engines it has has some serious power, so it is to no supprise for me that it could actually make this.

reply posted on 24-4-2008 @ 11:47 AM by Lambo Rider

Originally posted by C0bzz
I think the Bear should never be retired. Apart from its capabilities - it's a fantastic physiological weapon. Think about it, one aircraft has CONSTANTLY kept on trying to test our airspace for the past fifty years. Every aircraft since, more or less, the F-86 has intercepted it.

img143.imageshack.us...
img143.imageshack.us...

[edit on 24/4/2008 by C0bzz]

VVS Tu-95 has NEVER been intercepted by the F-86.

reply posted on 24-4-2008 @ 12:03 PM by Shugo

reply to post by Phoebus

Mach 3 is a huge stretch even by the standards of the engines, please point me in the direction of some evidence to backup your claims that the craft is able to accellerate to Mach 3, under any condition, I would love to read it.

reply posted on 24-4-2008 @ 12:31 PM by C0bzz

VS Tu-95 has NEVER been intercepted by the F-86.

SINCE the F-86 - and that's only a guess.

[edit on 24/4/2008 by C0bzz]

reply posted on 24-4-2008 @ 01:38 PM by Phoebus

Originally posted by Shugo
reply to post by Phoebus

Mach 3 is a huge stretch even by the standards of the engines, please point me in the direction of some evidence to backup your claims that the craft is able to accellerate to Mach 3, under any condition, I would love to read it.

You might actually be right, I googled some more on this plane, and most pages support your mach 2+ claimb, so I'm actually convinced that Wiki was wrong on this one.

like this page (mod's feel free to remove link if you don't approve of it):
mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk...

reply posted on 25-4-2008 @ 04:31 PM by kilcoo316