This is a discussion on Tu-160 strategic bombers: news & discussion within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Two Russian strategic bombers land in Venezuela
MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- The Interfax news agency is quoting Russia's Defense Ministry ...
Two Russian strategic bombers land in Venezuela
MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- The Interfax news agency is quoting Russia's Defense Ministry as saying that two Russian strategic bombers have landed in Venezuela as part of military maneuvers.
Interfax quoted the ministry as saying in a statement that the two Tu-160 strategic bombers landed in Venezuela on Wednesday.
The ministry said the planes will conduct training flights over neutral waters over the next few days before heading back to Russia. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americ...ela/index.html
In Moscow, Defense Ministry spokesman Alexander Drobyshevsky refused to say how long the Venezuela deployment will last or say whether the planes carried any weapons.
The military said NATO fighters escorted the two Russian bombers on their way to Venezuela. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...-imOAD9340L4O0
The use of forward landing airfields in Latin America would practically erase the time constraints for the Russian bombers and make their presence near the U.S. borders almost permanent, the general said. ..
Both Tu-160 and Tu-95MS bombers have been recently modernized and fitted with new X-555 cruise missiles with a range of over 3,500 km (2,200 miles). Therefore, the bombers do not have to be permanently based near the U.S. borders to hit any target on U.S. territory in case of a potential conflict. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080724/114821813.html
Yes, I know there are no naval versions, but there may be in the future. Since they are going to be land based anyway, a few modifications and some extra training for their crews is all that is needed. If the past history is any indication, all prior Tupolev bombers were operated by both the AF & the Soviet Navy. And they can also build new "naval" TU-160 bombers outright.
Interesting discussion here- http://russianforces.org/blog/2008/0...0_to_its.shtml
Last edited by Firehorse; September 11th, 2008 at 08:52 PM.
Yes, I know there are no naval versions, but there may be in the future. Since they are going to be land based anyway, a few modifications and some extra training for their crews is all that is needed. If the past history is any indication, all prior Tupolev jet bombers were operated by both the AF & the Soviet Navy. And they can also build new "naval" TU-160 bombers outright.
Hey mate, what exactly is a "naval version" of the Tu-160. I liken that to a naval version of a B-1.
Presumably Tu-160 temporarily or permanently assigned to a naval air squadron and equipped with Kh-15S anti-ship missiles.
Tu-160 have been training destruction of naval groups at long ranges (500+ nm from shore) before, usually jointly with Tu-142MK/MZ for overwatch patrol and targeting and Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 executing strikes.
Thanks, you said it! Having them assigned to naval squadrons will ensure that they are always available to the RFN- the AF may/will have other priorities, although they'll be happy to assist if needed. Also, TU-160 could attack and disable/sink SSGNs/BNs with nukes if their approx. locations are known.
Video of Blackjack in Venezuela- http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...26714&src=news
Last edited by Firehorse; September 11th, 2008 at 09:50 PM.
Reason: add link
In training exercises so far (~past 5 years), usually a AVMF unit would be reinforced in maneuvers by a local airforce strategic unit with Tu-95, and occassionally two or three Tu-160 temporarily transferred from SAC.
Assigning strategic aircraft to a tactical units, even to another service is not the right way to go. That would be something like assigning a USAF B-1 Bomber to a USN F/A-18E/F squadron. Highly unlikely.
That is why there are "unified commands" and "joint force structures" in the case of the USA. The US Navy, US Army and US Air Force operationally fall under the unified commander which will have at their disposal a multiservice force. Thus USAF tankers can provide inflight refueling to USN strike aircraft, downed US Army helo pilots are rescued by USAF CSAR, USN EA-6Bs provide EW support to USAF F-15Es, USMC calls in A-10 CAS, etc.
Hey mate, what exactly is a "naval version" of the Tu-160. I liken that to a naval version of a B-1.
What for?? Why??
Perhaps one equipped with AS-4 et al. The addition of an anti shipping capability may be what he means. there would certainly be no need whatsoever to transfer Blackjacks out of SAC though. That would serve no useful purpose IMHO.
If they build enough of them, some may be given to the NAF, at least IMO.
Quote:
The report also cites a Russian Air Force representative as saying that the long-term armament program includes plans for producing a new Tu-160 aircraft every 1-2 years in order to bring the total number of bombers in this class to 30 by 2025-2030. [8] Several variants have been proposed, but not built, including:
Tu-160S: designation used for serial Tu-160s when needed to separate them from all the pre-production and experimental aircraft [18]
Tu-160V: liquid hydrogen fueled version (see also Tu-155) [18]
Tu-160 NK-74: upgraded (extended range) version with NK-74 engines [18]
Tu-160M: a stretched bomber carrying two long-range, hypersonic Kh-90 (3M25 Meteorit-A) missiles
Tu-160P (Tu-161): a very long-range escort fighter/interceptor Tu-160PP: an electronic warfare aircraft carrying stand-off jamming and ECM gear (Russian: ПП - постановщик помех) Tu-160R: a strategic reconnaissance platform
Tu-160SK: commercial version, designed to launch satellites within the "Burlak" (Russian: Бурлак, "hauler") system. [18]
Tu-170: a conventional bomber (conceived in order to avoid SALT-2 limits) http://www.top40-charts.info/?title=Tupolev_Tu-160
Wow never knew there were so many variants of it. And btw Ukraine is really stupid for destroying those 11 mighty and expensive planes.
Also whats the need for a navalised Tu 160? What purpose will it fill? Sink an aircraft carrier?
Also I remeber previous discussion that the newest Tu160 to be built and put in service this year? was itself built from spare parts leftover from Soviet days. IF thats so, how come there are reports now of increasing the fleet to 30 planes?
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,797
Threads:
They're planning on increasing the fleet to 30 planes eventually. Right now it's at 16 with 2 more built every 3 years. At this rate it will take 21 years to get the fleet to 30 planes.
The Soviet Union planned to have about a 100 of them, and if enough $ is allocated, Russia could build more of them.
Quote:
Советская программа производства Ту-160 также предусматривала выпуск порядка сотни машин, однако уменьшение ассигнований на оборону во второй половине 80-х годов, а затем и развал СССР и вступление СССР, затем и новой России в полосу жесточайшего экономического и политического кризиса, привели к свертыванию программ производства и полномасштабного развертывания данной стратегической системы вооружения. http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/tupo...k/page_1_3.htm
Navalised Tu 160 could do the same things (if not better, except searching for submerged subs) the navalized TU-95/142/22/22M3s can.
Quote:
The Tu-160 is a multi-mission strategic bomber designed for operations ranging from subsonic speeds and low altitudes to speeds over Mach 1 at high altitudes. The two weapons bays can accommodate different mission-specific loads, including strategic cruise missiles, short-range guided missiles, nuclear and conventional bombs, and mines. Its basic armament of short-range guided missiles and strategic cruise missiles enables it to deliver nuclear strikes to targets with preassigned coordinates. In the future, after the aircraft is equipped with high-precision conventional weapons it may also be used against mobile or tactical targets. http://science.gallery.youngester.co...07/tu-160.html
IMO, that include ships and subs at sea!
Last edited by Firehorse; September 15th, 2008 at 07:05 PM.
Reason: add quote
Tu-160 strategic bombers: news & discussion 
