Tu-160, LO or Not?

[Feanor]

I have run into a few claims that the Tu-160 has certainly LO/VLO features built into it, as well as a couple of instances of where it has gone by hostile airspace undetected. The most famous one was a penetration of NATO controlled airspace in the West-99 training, as well as a few more recent one, including a arms-expo.ru article today that briefly described that a Tu-160 came within 30km of British airspace completely undetected, and could have come much closer and still remained undetected. So..... is it plausible to suggest that some LO/VLO technology is built into the aircraft, and that it's penetration (of an IADS) capabilities are higher then that of a classic strategic bomber Tu-95/B-52?

http://arms-expo.ru/site.xp/049057052048124052050055051.html

 

[stigmata]

Definitely, the US B-1 also has a very small RCS, particulary compared to relics like B-52.
But it is'nt a B-2/F-22

 

[Feanor]

Of course not. My question is whether it has enough intrinsic LO features, to take them into account when considering it's likelyhood of carrying out strikes against a modern IADS.

 

[stigmata]

Any plane can carry out that with HARM-like missiles, but the idea of using a strategic bomber to carry out SEAD missions is....[insert word]

 

[Grand Danois]

I haven't had a detailed look on possible LO features on the Blackjack. I'll just comment that B-52 can be used for stand-off SEAD missions.

USAF formally revives B-52 jammer with five-year study

 

[Marc 1]

Why are people talking about SEAD on this thread?

 

[Feanor]

The Blackjack is primarily a nuclear bomber, so SEAD is not likely to be it's mission. I'm thinking more along the lines of it being to delivery it's nuclear payload unnoticed, until it's too late.

 

[stigmata]

The Blackjack is primarily a nuclear bomber, so SEAD is not likely to be it's mission. I'm thinking more along the lines of it being to delivery it's nuclear payload unnoticed, until it's too late.

Thats exactly my view also.
But on a second thought, it could actually be a good idea to carry a couple of HARM's, in case a patriot battery gets in the way.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Feanor]

The didn't lose their LO after 2006. The last incident happened literally a few days ago, when the bomber approached unnoticed and was only noticed when it turned around. Secondly the updates to the design are much slower then that . If we are to believe that state schedules, then 3 per year are being modernized under a program that started in 2007. That gives us 6 updated to this year. Updating all 15 older aircraft would take 5 years total. However when the first modernized aircraft was received it made the news. Since then things have been ominously quiet. Maybe the rest of them just don't warrant any media attention, or maybe no more have been delivered.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Feanor]

I think that we are confusing two different programs. I'm talking about the program for avionics upgrades that was announced in 2007. You're talking about the overhaul modernization that started in iirc 2006.

Modernization

In 2006, the Russian Airforce plans to receive five modernized and another newly produced Tu-160. The Russian Airforce will further receive five modernized Tu-160s each year, which means modernisation of the fleet may be complete within three years if the schedule is kept up.

Changes announced as follows:

* completely digital, multireserved, neutron and other nuclear emissions resistant avionics
* full support of cruising and steering through GLONASS global satellite positioning system
* updated version of NK-32 engines with increased reliability.
* ability to operate new nuclear/non-nuclear GLONASS-navigated cruise missiles (Kh-555).
* ability to handle missiles that launch military or civil satellites
* ability to bear laser-aiming bombs
* advanced radar emissions absorbing covering

Army General Vladimir Mikhailov said in January 2007 that every three years the VVS would receive two new Tu-160s, and would start a new program to upgrade the avionics on its current fleet of 16 bombers.

http://www.aircraftguru.com/aircraft/aircraft-information.php?craftid=132

EDIT: Also you posted a few links but all talk about the program in the future tense. Do you have any articles that actually confirm that the modernization program ever happened? Modern day Russia has very many ambitious programs that never get off the ground.

EDIT2: On an interesting note, the Tu-160 will perform training with a full combat loadout for practically the first time since the collapse of the USSR.

http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=60808&cid=25

 

[stigmata]

I must confess i confused LO and EW, what i have read is that Tu-160 has a very powerful EW suite, and that this, combined with its very high speed makes it a very survivable asset. B-1 has small RCS tho.
sorry folks

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Feanor]

Perhaps I do. Do you have sources for what you posted? I know of the crash with the new engines in 2003, and I know that the first re-engined Tu-160 was received in 2006. However I doubt that 5 aircraft were delivered annually. Do you have any confirmation? The last Tu-160 that was delivered prompted a rian.ru article. Given the number of modernized planes delivered, it would make sense if there was confirmation in the press on their delivery.

 

[nevidimka]

I tried to dig about the Tu 160, but failed to find detailed info on its stealthiness. Altough, there was a report that said the plane is not a stealthy plane due to its exposed engines inlets and the large Wing gloves. However another report said, during developmental stage of the plane, Tupolev designers paid close attention to its engines to make it less visible to the radar and infra red spectrum.

I believe a large extent of its stealthiness can be deduced if we know what is doen with its engine inlets. Are the engine blades truly exposed? Does the new engine upgrade it received had some attention on hiding its blades for example radar absorbent material coatings?

 

[nevidimka]

I found some interesting news on the Blackjacks. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the tupolev's continued coming out of the production line. However when the air force's money ran out, so did the production stop. By then there were 4 tupolev's unfinished airframe sitting in Kazan's factory. And its from these unfinished plane that 1 was built and introduced into the RAF recently.
So there are 3 more left that can be quickly be built and brought into the air force.

These 3 does confirm to the Russian military's plans to introduce 3 planes every year or 2?. But beyond that I'm not sure.
But if the capability to finish these 3 airframes are there, then surely they can build more I believe.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Feanor]

The Su-34 has yet to be delivered in any numbers. 2 are at Lipetsk training pilots right now. That's it. Allegedly 10 more are inassembly. Also iirc 2 Tu-160's have been delivered since production restarted.

 

[nevidimka]

Feanor I think I've found the answer to your question. Based on TsNII data, the Tupolev 160's Radar return is 1/6th of a similarly sized non Low Observable plane.

During the 1980s and '90s, TsNII provided input on a number of programs, which according to information from the institute had a considerable impact on the observability of both aircraft and missile platforms. These included the Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack bomber, the NPO Mashinostroenia 3M-55 Onyx/ Yakhont (SS-NX-26) antiship missile, a strategic cruise missile (Raduga Kh-101) and the Sukhoi S-37. Claimed reductions, presumably compared with an unmodified platform, range from a factor of six in the case of the Tu-160, to 10 for the S-37, and 14 for the Kh-101 design. TsNII also has an outdoor radar range for cross-section measurement.

There is also loads on information on their research on Low observable tech, on each part of a plane.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/081103top.xml