TU-160 White Swan
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
Is there any material on the tu-160 from before the collapse of the soviet union? Books, documentaries etc?
Failing that are there any good resources online I may have missed?
>>29365638
well if you're fine with reading broken english, there's quite a few Russian language sites that have a bunch of info on the Tu-160.
Unfortunately, the service history of the Blackjack is pretty boring. Very few were actually built before the collapse of the Soviet Union, and at least to me the more interesting part of the story is the procurement process that led to the Tu-160.
>>29366591
Specifically I'm interested in what the west knew about the tu-160 and what they thought of it. It's a pretty impressive airplane for the time.
>>29365638
its called blackjack not white swan
just read the wiki page.
>first flight: 1981
>intro into service: 2005
wut? why even building them at that point? why not do a stealth?
>>29370574
the Russian economy
>>29370533
Cool story, bro. And pic related is totally called "Slava-class" and not "1164 Atlant".
>>29370533
>its called blackjack
no, Blackjack is the code name NATO gave it. All Soviet bombers were given a codname that started with "B", fighters with "F", etc. I guess White Swan is a Russian name?
>>29370622
tmyk
>>29370574
Do yourself and everyone else a favour and go follow your own advice, dumbass. It because operational in 1987, 2005 is the year of de jure introduction.
>>29370670
what is my own advice? i not give? any? why hostile?
>>29370574
>intro into service
It is the soviet bureaucratic thing. For example Su-27 got enter the service tag in 1991 after hundred planes were build and widely used.
And most fascinating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-28
Never officially went into service. It never fully passed acceptance trials and was used without enter the service tag. Ba dum tss.
>>29370574
>why even building them at that point?
Only a few where assembled after the fall of the USSR, IIRC the first two Tu-160M2s under construction are incomplete airframes from the early 1990s.
>intro into service: 2005
Not really sure what that means, they were flying with the Soviet Airforce in the 1980s.
>It because operational
*became
>>29370683
Because you send people to wiki while making silly assumptions showing that you yourself obviously didn't read it.
>>29369800
Thats a awesome clip. Refuelling look a but messy though.
>>29369800
>strategic bomber with a drogue
do the russians not have boom style refueling systems?
>>29370738
Only tanker in service is the Il-78, its drogue.
The Il-96TZs currently being converted are drogue as well.
>>29370574
Because it's a Mach 2 bomber with a 12,000 km ramge and a 40 ton payload. Given Russia's emphasis on long-range standoff missiles, stealth isn't as important as finally getting a replacement for the aging Bears.
Their next generation bomber (PAK DA) will probably be stealth, though.
>>29370906
>aging Bears.
They are the same age as the Tu-160. The Tu-95MS were produced in the 80s and 90s.
>>29370906
>finally
Tu-160 was around for 30 years by now.
>getting a replacement for the aging Bears
Tu-95MS, the one armed with long range cruise missiles, is the only variant in service today. It has preformed its maiden flight in 1979 and was produced between 1981 and 1992. It's aging not more than Tu-160 itself.
>>29371033
>bear blackjack/white swan and backfire
the ruskies have such cool nicknames
>>29371075
These are NATO names, except for "White Swan". Russians don't call them like that. Even the "Bear" nickname, though generally known and appreciated, in not used commonly.
>>29370622
>I guess White Swan is a Russian name?
Unofficial, same as Balalaika for MiG-21, Spirtovoz (ethanol transporter) for MiG-25 and Chemodan (suitcase) for Su-24.
>>29371155
i know but only the ruskys get such cool names
>>29370574
Why does the B-1 exist if there's a B-2?
Apples and Oranges.
>>29371290
hi-lo??
>>29371224
Because only Russian hardware gets NATO names
>>29371321
Nope.
>B-1 developed as replacement for B-52
>program cut because of B-2
>revived because lolpolitics but production limited because it was supposed to be an interim solution
>B-2 supposed to be ultimate replacement for B-52
>Cold War ends, budgets slash
>suddenly Congress doesn't want to pay for >150 of the most expensive bomber ever
>orders slashed to 20
>not enough B-1s or B-2s ordered to replace the B-52
>3 bombers now serving concurrently
>>29371338
i said they get the cool names
>>29371350
b1 costs less to service i guess
Oh, and pic related. It had a variety of nicknames, such as awl, man-eater, strategic defect carrier and supersonic ethanol transporter.
>>29371387
Yup. As of right now, the B-1 is actually the cheapest per-flight-hour bomber the USAF operates.
>>29371404
>strategic defect carrier
>>29371407
>Yup
i feel good about my self now
>>29371404
The An-22 was given the nickname Black Tulip from it role in Afghanistan of transporting coffins back to the USSR.
>>29371338
Isn't chinese stuff also have NATO reporting names?
>>29371634
Sure do - the most recent Chinese stealth fighter has the reporting name "Nummah 46 - Beef and black bean"
>>29371634
Yup. Most of it's just off-brand slavshit, though, so they just keep the Slavshit names. The only NATO reporting name I know of for an indigenous design is "Fantan" (Q-5)
>>29371589
why is one engine feathered?
>>29370738
the US Navy/Marine Corps doesn't have boom-compatible refueling. USAF tankers servicing USN/USMC aircraft have to use drogue attachments.
>>29371653
J-8 is Finback. It's basically a shameless Su-15 rip-off, but calling it Flagon would probably be stretching it too much, since it's not a direct copy.
>>29371686
possible engine out?
>>29371686
Russian reliability and redundancy.
>But Sergei, is fine. We have three more. Now go fill fire extinguisher back up with water from coffee urn.
>>29371750
>Russian aircraft built like tank.webm
>>29371726
most likely
>>29371726
Or just off.
>>29371725
Nah it's derived from the MiG-21. If anything, it's close to what the MiG-23 could have been.
>>29372436
No, it is as much Su-15 rip-off as it could possibly get. Just like T-5 prototype turned into T-58D prototype (Su-15), J-8I with time turned into J-8II.
>>29373161
the ruskies use to love there delta wings
>>29373161
Convergent evolution - many of the MiG-23 proposals and the failed contending prototype were of a similar configuration. Just about all slavshit and slavshit-derived designs closely follow accepted research, so of course they're all going to be the same. Unless you've got some actual proof beyond superficial similarity and a similar role, it's far more likely that it had absolutely nothing to do with the Su-15.
Hell, the intakes and radar were developed from MiG-23s even.
>>29373290
>Convergent evolution
I used to be skeptical about this term, rather, when applied to the b-1 vs tu-160, they look so damn similar the idea just had to be stolen right?, but there really aren't that many ways to build a big supersonic plane that has shortish take off/landing runs and good low altitude performance.
>>29373161
the ruskies use to love there delta wings
>>29373379
yeah turns out similar requirements with similar technology result in planes that look almost exactly alike.
It's really obvious with slavshit (between different OKBs) in particular. Take the MiG-21 and Su-9/11, for example - the only obvious difference at a glance is the Fishpot's radar-guided missiles. Hell, during the PFI program, MiG and Sukhoi created designs so similar that MiG asked if they could just build to a slightly different specification because there wasn't much point in having a flyoff against two identical aircraft. Just look at the T-10 (Su-27 prototype) - it's pretty much a scaled-up MiG-29.
>>29373290
Like I said, it is not a direct copy of Su-15, just a gook rip-off. J-8 has absolutely nothing to do with MiG-23, these are two entirely different planes.
>>29373379
>>29373489
Adding to that, the Tu-160's procurement process was a massive clusterfuck. The Tu-160 we know today is the end result of literally decades of design studies from Myasishchev that started out as simple slender fuselages with a delta wing slapped on the bottom (very similar to the Sukhoi T-4). This all morphed over time to incorporate swing-wings, and gradually the fuselage was blended into the wings. The final Myasishchev design study (M-18) looked even more like the B-1 than the Tu-160 does, and Tupolev just scaled it up to create the Tu-160.
Had Tupolev had their way, pic related would have been the Tu-160 instead.
>>29373517
The J-8-I did indeed have nothing to do with the MiG-23. But the J-8-II that's flying today most likely has elements derived from the MiG-23. Chinese aerospace development at the time heavily relied on foreign technologies, and China received several MiG-23s around the time the J-8-II took shape. It's very likely that the intakes (and possibly even the entire new nose) were heavily derived from the MiG-23.
lets play spot the mig-17
>>29373586
didn't the chinks take all the new tec out of the mig-31s and replaced them with there own.
>>29373379
>but there really aren't that many ways to build a big supersonic plane that has shortish take off/landing runs and good low altitude performance
There's really quite a few, varying from an F-111 upscaled to 150 tonnes to what is basically a Sukhoi T-4 with swing wing. But they chose Myasishchev M-20-IV in 1969, actually before B-1 design was selected.
>>29373641
>didn't the chinks take all the new tec out of the mig-31s and replaced them with there own.
Nope. China's never got their hands on a MiG-31, and they likely never will.
>>29373653
>Sukhoi T-4 with swing wing
That was actually designed to different requirements (intermediate-ranged bomber and high-speed ASW strike platform).
The winning Sukhoi proposal, while called the T-4MS, had nothing to do with the T-4/T-4M.
>>29373586
J-8II doesn't have anything to do with MiG-23 either. What they did is they used MiG-23 to make a Su-15 rip-off.
>>29373641
They never had neither MiG-25, nor MiG-31.
>>29373697
I'm talking about Myasishchev M-20-III designs (pic related), not T-4M. Though similarities between these two are graphic.
>>29373697
Oh, and I really with they used T-4MS. It was based as fuck.
>>29373802
Ah yeah the M-20 proposals. I really wish Myasishchev had the resources to follow through with all their designs. They had so many more interesting designs than Tupolev.
>>29371653
>>29371725
J-10 is FIREBIRD
JH-7 is FLOUNDER
>>29373859
I love Myasishchev for his somewhat junky approach to aircraft design.
>>29373405
That's not a Russkie plane...
>>29373915
oh yeah I loved those M-20 proposals with the drooping wingtips. It'd have been amazing to finally see a waverider design enter production.
>>29373922
do you think i am retarded?
>>29373935
Yeah. I mean look at this shit. It's a straight away spaceship of an intergalactic mushroom empire. Probably the only person I know to design even more surreal stuff was Bartini.
>>29373964
doesn't the xb-50 do the save thing with its wings, if so what is achieved by doing this
>>29373935
>>29373964
A wing that renders the plane un-landable in the event of a malfunction? For what purpose?
>>29373964
>Bartini
Aww yiss
>>29373989
>>29374009
Waveriding. Effectively it's trapping the supersonic compression wave under the wing by preventing spanwise flow, improving the lift-to-drag ratio.
It also has the benefit of counteracting the center of pressure shift you get from supersonic flight.
>>29374025
>Waveriding. Effectively it's trapping the supersonic compression wave under the wing by preventing spanwise flow, improving the lift-to-drag ratio.
>
>It also has the benefit of counteracting the center of pressure shift you get from supersonic flight.
i bet it is one of those simple to explain hard to put to work things
>>29370574
Stealth is meme technology.
The Russians have the best air defense systems in the world, and they don't bother with stealth. What does that tell you?
>>29373989
XB-70. Yeah, but not as much and it's a more conventional design. Dropped wing-tips improve supersonic performance, IIRC.
Speaking of supersonic flight, there is going to be a new condor, supposedly also has a top speed of mach 3(+). Its called "boom"(i think)
>>29374025
>Aww yiss
The questing is not who will let me, but who will stop me.
>>29374058
>i bet it is one of those simple to explain hard to put to work things
Yes. Compressible flow is literally magic governed by absurdly complex equations that end up fitting into ridiculous simple explanations.
Here's a NACA PDF with most compressible flow related equations just to give you an idea of how complicated compressible flow is. It's complete with tables calculating nearly every value from Mach 0 to Mach 6+
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~devenpor/aoe3114/NACA1135.pdf
>>29374099
You referencing NASA's Quiet Supersonic Transport proposals? Don't get your hopes up. It's still in the preliminary design stages, and, while they may have alleviated the noise issues with recent research, there's not much of a market for an SST until the FAA lifts the supersonic flight restrictions.
>>29374126
I loved his pre-WW2 projects the most.
>We can't build a 400km/hr fighter with our technology - all the OKBs
>the fuck we can't - Bartini
>>29374063
>The Russians have the best air defense systems in the world, and they don't bother with stealth. What does that tell you?
It tells me they cannot into stealth, for one thing.
Also, what happens when they turn on those fancy, allegedly stealth-defeating radars?
>>29374063
>and they don't bother with stealth.
They're trying their best.
>>29374220
If they can into the best air defenses in the word, then surely they can into stealth.
> Also, what happens when they turn on those fancy, allegedly stealth-defeating radars?
The Russians also have world class informational warfare capabilities. Trust me, they know all about anti-radiation missiles. They're not idiots.
>>29374154
Thanks for helping me with all this
I'm tired going to sleep
>>29374220
The real question is what happens when those fancy allegedly stealth aircraft turn on their radars.
>>29374176
I'm really in love with his A-57 design. And they almost began the fighter production. Hope some day it will be embodied.
>>29374246
That's a damn sexy airplane.
I'm thankful that the Russian's haven't adopted the American idea of making an airplane so ugly that it scares missiles away.
>>29374271
>If they can into the best air defenses in the word, then surely they can into stealth.
This is what vatniks really believe.
Also, there's a huge difference between "best in the world" and "good enough".
Also, there's a huge difference between "best the Russians can do", and "best air defenses in the world". Pic related.
> The Soviets had world class information warfare capabilities, when they were on par with NATO, before the world moved on and left them behind.
FTFY. HTH. HAND!
Thanks for all the great material guys, is that a negative re: western info from the 80's on the tu-160 program? Apparently a photo got leaked by a magazine fairly early in the planes life.
>>29374471
>arleigh burke
Remember what I said about Russian info-warfare?
>>29374515
>Remember what I said about Russian info-warfare?
Let me guess:
> one Su-24 actually shut down all equipment on the new USS Donald Cook American destroyer with anti-missile system elements
Is that about the size of your claim, anon?
>>29374486
At the very least they knew the ussr had a new swing wing plane that was almost as big as tu-144
>>29374568
Can you actually refute it?
Or are you just going to cite American denials? If it actually happened, you can bet your ass that the Americans would deny it. That's how info warfare works. You sure as shit don't advertise your own deficiencies.
>>29373489
Impressive
It clearly shows that China did not copy the F35 but is due to evolution. It is because the Chinese plane is more better than the American plane.
>>29374686
Holy shit is that actually your claim?
And your evidence is "well you can't say it DIDN'T happen". Logical fallacy from the start, asking for proof of a negative whilst providing no evidence yourself.
>>29374760
>I was going to cite American denials, but you predicted that, so instead I'll get mad.
>>29374686
> 49,165 lb aircraft has enough EW capacity to overwhelm an 18,600,000 lb warship
Sure, anon. Ball's in your court.
>>29374686
I'm Russian and you are a fucking retard.
>Khibiny is being installed on Su-30, Su-34 and Su-35, so the famous April attack in the Black sea on USS Donald Cook by Su-24 bomber jet allegedly using Khibiny complex is nothing but a newspaper hoax
http://kret.com/en/news/3669/
>>29374778
No need to cite American denials. The vatnik claim is bullshit on its face.
>>29374999
Software isn't measured in lbs.
Info warfare no longer means drowning out the enemies signals by putting out more power. That hasn't been true for decades.
When asked how a U.S. carrier battle group would defend itself against a Soviet stealth aircraft, Nyquist told Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.), "...The Aegis radar can do the job ... That's why we're fielding the Aegis in our cruisers and in the Arleigh Burke class destroyers."
Bumpers, who said he formerly backed the B-2 bomber, questioned the need for building stealth planes. He said, "If it is true that the Aegis is capable of picking up stealth technology, then isn't it also true that they (the Soviets) can establish such a technology?"
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (R&D and Acquisition) Gerald Cann said that was a complicated question. However, he said that the issue in such a case is at what cost can the Soviets overcome that technology. Bumpers stated that cost was also an issue in the U.S.
Cann defended the development of stealth technologies saying, "We have to make sure our forces are survivable and stealth is something I'd like to have."
>>29375043
It's the classic "beat the Russians by spending so much money, they go bankrupt trying to keep up" strategy.
The real casualties of this tactic are American and Russian taxpayers.
>>29374471
>Pic related.
AEGIS would be the best if the USN has a Tombstone/Gravestone equivalent and not the shitty AN/SPG-62 bottleneck.
>>29370574
>why not do a stealth?
It has some stealth measures. In general, it one of the most controverial planes build by Soviets. There was House of Cards tier intrigues between Tupolev and Suchoi.
>>29374686
>Can you actually refute it?
Can you actually proof it? I found the original source in day 1 of that shit and I tell you - it's fake, мaльчик.
>>29374450
I'm pretty skeptical of how well it would've worked, considering that intake placement. Even if we really restrict maneuvers in flight, you're still going to have major issues with the high angles of attack necessary for takeoff and landing.
