Tu-160 Blackjack
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
So, these planes are pretty sweet, am I right? I just love the look of the exterior of them, although no doubt, being Soviet Tech, the inside of them probably looks like the engine control panel of a 1960's era container ship, painted blue.
Anyway, I'm told that currently the Russians are flying their TU-160 Blackjack bombers out on a long range missions from Olenegorsk airbase. They're routed along the coast of Norway, UK, Atlantic Ocean, Gibraltar then down into the Med to launch cruise missiles against targets in Syria.
Hell of a flight. Those crews are getting a fair bit of training in that's for sure.
>>28017777
They're pretty modern as far as Soviet aviation and avionics went.
And Russian training already simulated such missions before, except now it's live.
What is the benefit of this as opposed to just launching cruise missiles from the Caspian or the med? Dick waving?
>>28017777
>no doubt, being Soviet Tech, the inside of them probably looks like the engine control panel of a 1960's era container ship, painted blue.
Pretty accurate.
>>28017802
CAS capabilities.
>>28017802
>just launching cruise missiles from the Caspian or the med?
Med: They cant gain access any other route, its not like any EU country is going to allow them to fly nuclear capable supersonic bombers across their airspace.
Caspain: Anything launched from there would viotlate either Turkeys or Iraq's airspace, neither of which would be a good idea right now. While Iran might allow them to make overflights via their airspace, they still cant get access to Syria as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or any North African nations would not allow it.
>>28017802
Exactly, the commies got penis envy of the B-1
>>28017819
>Caspain: Anything launched from there would viotlate either Turkeys or Iraq's airspace,
The CSF has already launched dozens of missiles at Syria through Iran and Iraq airspace.
>>28017819
>its not like any EU country is going to allow them to fly nuclear capable supersonic bombers across their airspace.
What about Iran and Iraq, though? IIRC Iraq has already expressed favor towards Russian overflight.
>>28017844
>IIRC Iraq has already expressed favor towards Russian overflight.
Where do you think the Tu-22Ms, Tu-95s and most of the Tu-160 have been flying through?
Only homos like these, they're too gritty and rough.
Real men like suave, sleek looking planes that are aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Curvy and sophisticated, makes you feel like a long haired blonde man in a tuxedo sipping wine in a buffet.
>>28017777
>being Soviet Tech, the inside of them probably looks like the engine control panel of a 1960's era container ship, painted blue.
kek
>>28017777
Why the fuck do they paint it so it looks like enamelware?
>>28018334
To deflect light from nuclear explosions.
>>28017819
They don't need to. On Nov 20 blackjack flew all around europe and delivered its payload going west to east over syria.
for what purpose - I have no idea. I guess they're being careful. Or some terrain features around target prohibited cruise missile from attacking it from east.
>>28017805
>that RWR panel
>>28018340
To demonstrate their capabilities to the Euro-states maybe?
My only wish is to see once again a Tu-160 in supercruise mode. With all those high-altitude long-hauls It's kinda easy to forget that it's a swept-wing design
>>28018374
Could be. But it's not like the range of tu-160 is secret or something.
>>28018363
wait
THATs the main cockpit's rw panel?!
>>28017805
you're saying it as if simple and reliable analog tech is a bad thing. as opposed to sporadically responding touch-screens, overheating panoramic displays and stuttering helmet interface in f-35.
>>28018426
>implying glass cockpits havent been commonplace for like 20 years
>>28017844
Yeah, but you don't get to wave your dick in Norway, UK, Spain, and Italy's collective faces by going the Caspian route.
They're just going the long way round to say ”hey guys, hope you didn't think we only field Tu-95 Bears for long range bombing"
>>28018340
They just wanted to fuck with the Euros for shots and giggles, see what they would send up to intercept.
>>28018314
And yet you fail to mention what planes you like so we can laugh at your shitty opinion.
Blackjacks are sweet, though the interior is trash.
>>28017777
It's funny that each one was essentially hand made as they never got to the point in production where they standardized tooling and got things ready for a full production run.
>>28018334
Blue is apparently a calmimg colour. Most Russian aircraft interior is some shade of blue, so that when in combat Vasily can remain peaceful and serene as his Cold War era tech inevitably fails on him and he is sent spiraling towards the earth.
>>28018340
Training, obviously.
Oh sup guise.
>>28018401
Yeah? whats wrong with that? Perfectly functional.
>>28017805
Not much of a view is there?
>>28019154
Not much between them, they're like brothers.
>>28019631
Tu-160 is faster, prettier, bigger payload and longer range.
>>28019645
B-1 actually has a larger payload using external hardpoints.
>>28019645
>>28019671
They're both cool.
The B-1R upgrade looks tasty as fuck though, Mach 2.2, carries A2A missiles, and strike weapons, was well as an upgrade from PESA to AESA array. Something comes up to intercept it and it can just cruise away. Doubt it'll ever get made though, US procurement is fucked, also B-1B's clock in at about 46 hours maintenance for every flight hour, thats kinda steep.
>>28019680
The B-OneR is a boeing concept, not anything that the military has ever concidered
>>28017805
>dat cockpit
>>28019154
>>28019645
>>28019671
>B-1B
>Bigger
Please.
>>28020302
Size isn't everything anon
But I do notice the B1 is a jet and the Su-160 is a turbofan...yet it can hit mach 2.0+ and the B1 only mach 1.25. Why is this?
>>28019680
>no stealth
How about no upgrades? If you need a bomb truck to bomb jihadists then make one that is cheap and subsonic.
>>28020683
Notice the huge intake ramps on the Tu-160? It helps it get that fast but shoots the RCS to shit.
Also they both use turbofans, turbofans are a kind of jet engine.
>>28020735
>turbofans are a kind of jet engine.
ohhh
>>28019671
>B-1 actually has a larger payload using external hardpoints.
Interesting story there about Tu-160
It was originally designed to launch a massive supersonic 6.3 ton missile that was about 13 meters long (pic related).
But R&D of the missile stalled and it was eventually cancelled because of the 90's, so Tu-160 ended up using Kh-55SM which is 5 times smaller.
It has only 2 revolver-type maganizes for 12 Kh-55SM missiles, but the bomb bays themselves are FUCK HUEG and could potentially house a lot more payload.
ooo Cocaine line o_O
Dat Anti-Flash white
Apparently the design specs were changing during production because the program was rushed.
All tu-160 planes are different. Some have stall fences. Some have different sized intakes. None two are alike.
If you ever find yourself in Moscow, make sure you do so in early to mid May, Tu-160s are often flown along the city's main street during each year's Victory day parade and its rehearsals as well.
>>28018426
>analog is better because it's reliable
No one thinks this.
>>28021049
I sure love those sturdy vacuum tube electronics and computers!
>>28017805
Love the small office fans.
Say what you want about the russians, they build them pretty
Someone posted this in one of the previous Tu-160 threads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcQeZ_w8ro0
>>28021285
Air in your face keeps you more alert during long trips.
In a car you can just open the window, in a strategic bomber... well.
>>28019594
Requires too much pilot focus and astraction to understand the threat, its range and what's the most important threat at the moment.
Western (or well, US) RWRs show clearly the most recent threat, the most important threat, their direction and distance - at a glance.
>>28021470
>RWRs show clearly the most recent threat, the most important threat, their direction and distance
>distance
Nope. RWR won't give you distance specifically - just signal strength. signal strength is affected by range, but also by emitter power, antenna direction (i.e. much stronger when it's locked onto you), and other factors. Fortunately all of these follow the trend that stronger signal = bigger threat in the moment.
>>28019052
They went with blue panels for the same reason the west went with light grey: so that there isn't a stark contrast from looking out at the bright blue sky and then down at the instrument panel.
>>28020852
>No B-2 Spirit in anti-flash white
I know it's a stealth aircraft and all, but god damn that would be sexy as fuck.
>>28021972
US strategic bombers stopped being about nukes a long time ago. The LRS-B won't even have nuke capability starting out, it'll be added on later.
>>28021071
Funnily enough, during cold war the Soviets preferred vacuum tube electronics because they were less susceptible to EMPs from nuclear blasts.
And because they had higher temperature tolerances, you didn't need to cool the avionics bay. But that was then, today there's no excuse.
>>28021979
>2030+
>Strategic Bomber
>Won't have nuclear capability until after it's introduced
>>28017805
Literally came to post this
>>28019154
muh dick
They keep talking about making a Tu-160M1 instead of PAK-DA (which is to be a B2 ripoff), and giving it a dumb bomb capacity as well as cruise missile.
It would be pretty cool to see a newly-made Tu-160, but it seems they would have to redesign most of it, since its too big of a hassle to reinvent the production lines using archives (not even russians use paper blueprints/documentation anymore, and this is the only form the knowledge on Tu-160 is available in).
>>28020894
Thats why each plane named after heroic personalities in Russian History. Notice those slavic words on the side? This is the name of the plane.
>>28022103
Here are some of the names (all active Tu-160, and some of the test airframes are names), I'll try to find the others
01- Mikhail Gromov (Famous test pilot)
02- Vasiliy Reshetnikov (Former Long- range Aviation commander)
03- Pavel Taran (WW2 Bomber pilot)
04- Ivan Yarygin (Famous wrestler, won gold at 1972 Olympics)
05- Originally Il'ya Muromets, now Aleksandr Golovanov (Long- range Aviation commander, 1942-44 and 1946-48)
06- Il'ya Muromets
07- Aleksadr Molodchiy (famous WW2 bomber pilot)
11- Vasiliy Sen'ko (only Long- range Aviation navigator to become Hero of the Soviet Union twice)
12- Aleksandr Novikov (1940s Air Chief Marshal)
16- Aleksey Plokhov (WW2 Bomber pilot)
Outdated SAM magnet?
>>28022089
Didn't they recently say it's supposed to be a Tu-160 with some new tech from the PAK FA mixed in?
http://sputniknews.com/military/20150713/1024566675.html
>>28022119
>every bomber since 1955
>>28022112
- 01 Mikhail Gromov (crashed an written off)
- 02 Vasily Reshetnikov
- 03 Pavel Taran
- 04 Ivan Yarygin
- 05 Aleksandr Golovanov
- 06 Ilya Muromets
- 07 Aleksandr Molodchy
- 08 Vitaly Kopylov
- 10 Nikolai Kuznetsov
- 11 Vasily Senko
- 12 Aleksandr Novikov
- 14 Igor Sikorsky
- 15 Vladimir Sudets
- 16 Aleksey Plokhov
- 17 Valery Chkalov
- 18 Andrei Tupolev
- 19 Valentin Bliznyuk (test bomber)
- 342 Boris Veremey (test bomber)
>>28019610
If it's anything like the Vulcan, the cockpit windows are small because when they're dropping nukes they place blackout shutters inside the cockpit windows and fly IFR so they don't get blinded to fuck.
>>28022000
I'm sorta happy about it. A design made to first and foremost drop conventional munitions will almost certainly be much more useful.
>>28022089
I wonder what would the Russian version of Flying Wing look like?
I think it will be able to fly in space too.
>>28022179
>I wonder what would the Russian version of Flying Wing look like?
The hideous PAK-DA probably.
I'm almost hoping it gets cancelled if it has a chance to look like this.
>>28022212
That thing craves death.
>>28022212
That looks like early NASA designs for the "Space Plane". Do you think they'll use it as a man-guided ICBM? Fly it up into low orbit, drop payload, re-enter the atmosphere?
>>28022179
>>28022089
>which is to be a B2 ripoff
hurr durrr it looks like the thing and is a flying wing must be ripoff
>>28022393
Isnt that silver mock up in the wind tunnel a boeing long range bomber that won some sort of contract?
>>28022405
it's a ripoff as far as idea goes. If they go ahead with it - it's trying to get some of the B-2 glory for themselves and call it a contemporary/future bomber.
Making a smaller, more versatile bomber would be a much better idea in my opinion. Something like a fatter, stealthier version of Tu-22M3, which is a sexy beast in its own class - but you still can compare it to lancer if you want. At least its closer to B-1 than to F-111. Not as fast, with smaller range, and with smaller payload - but its so much cheaper too, even russians could afford to build almost 500 of them. And it flies to Syria and back alright, and has external hardpoints and cruise missiles and antiship stuff and even a fucking turret.
>>28022437
I have no idea, I just googled really quick. If it is then my mistake.
>>28022467
Its will only either be a missile carrier or a bomb truck for insurgents and small neighbours.
The Tu-22M3 with modern avionics, maybe new engines and the refuelling probe re-attached is all they need (or really, probably wan't). Far more useful than the huge lumbering behemoths like the Tu-95 and Tu-160.
>>28022212
That's not a PAK-DA, it's a T-4MS
>>28018426
Bitch, I like analog shit too but calm you fucking tits.
>>28022467
It's easier to make larger aircraft stealthy bruv
>>28022668
I wouldn't place my bet on radar stealth anyway, not for future platform at least. In 30-50 years - I expect radars, if not phased out, to be largely complemented with optronics - and so far it seems that stealth in visible light and infrared will be extremely hard to achieve.
Versatility seems to be the best factor to consider for aircraft.
>>28021979
I think you're underestimating how regressive the Air Force is.
>>28022212
Much like the T-14 Armata, expect the PAK-DA to look completely different from any CGI model.
>>28022803
jesus fuck, why would you make a stealthy cas plane. this makes no sense at all.
>>28022735
A stealth coating for aircraft that makes them invisible has actually shown a fair amount of promise. Infrared less so though.
>>28022855
>implying
it makes a lot of sense
>>28022909
invisible in what band, m8?
>>28022973
My guess would be the X-band as most radars today are using that band mainly (because of the good ratio of range/resolution that the X-band range has).
>>28022999
I guess I wasn't clear enough - I think that optronics will be supporting radars more and more, and at some point it will become the other way around - radars supporting optronics, in range-finding, verification etc - while optics will do the main job of looking for aircraft. And you cant really hide from optics, not from infrared at least. Not while flying in atmosphere using a jet engine, so to say.
>>28018401
>>28019594
Myself thought they should at least have an "above ~ flat ~ below" trajectory indicator, along with the directional lamps.
>>28023367
I was under the impression that is why there are 2 bulbs?
>>28023447
Hmmm.. maybe, Triangle above, Square below?
