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 (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/26/224920/usaf-formally-revives-b-52-jammer-with-five-year-study.html)

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Feanor]

Ah. Thank you. So would it be accurate to class the Tu-160 as LO but not VLO?

[nevidimka]

I believe it is in the LO category, but how good LO i'm not sure.
But from TsNII work, it can be seen they paid attention to RAM, Industrial construction, Engine inlet radar return, treated fan blades, coated cockpit canopy, and the design itself to a lesser extent plus passive stealth. I believe passive stealth employed on the Tu 160 is its electronics. But I dont think those data will be available anywhere as those should be military secret.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Ah. Thank you. So would it be accurate to class the Tu-160 as LO but not VLO?

Boys the F-35 is classed as LO rather than VLO, and AFAIK its RCS is in the .1m2 ballpark. You think the blackjack is anywhere near that number? You have to be frigging kidding me. The F-18E/F has significant RCS reduction, and AFAIK no one classes it as LO. Lets call the blackjack a "reduced RCS" platform.

[stigmata]

Boys the F-35 is classed as LO rather than VLO, and AFAIK its RCS is in the .1m2 ballpark. You think the blackjack is anywhere near that number? You have to be frigging kidding me. The F-18E/F has significant RCS reduction, and AFAIK no one classes it as LO. Lets call the blackjack a "reduced RCS" platform.Quite right on spot there

[Feanor]

So now we have 3 categories of aircraft that essentially pay attention to radar return: Reduced RCS, LO, and VLO. Would it be correct to assume that with proper ECM support a reduced RCS plane can achieve similar results to an LO platform without ECM support?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

So now we have 3 categories of aircraft that essentially pay attention to radar return: Reduced RCS, LO, and VLO. Would it be correct to assume that with proper ECM support a reduced RCS plane can achieve similar results to an LO platform without ECM support?

Sure, there's plenty of ways to skin a cat. But anyone who has an LO platform will probably have significant EW support, and you always have to take into account the whole system including the platform. Of course a non Lo platform can still be effective in the contemporary battlespace if its supported effectively with ISTAR & EW and is equipped with a decent stand off weapon. But an LO platform (with comparable range/payload performance) enjoying similar EW & ISTAR support will usually enjoy better results for obvious reasons.

[Feanor]

Sure, there's plenty of ways to skin a cat. But anyone who has an LO platform will probably have significant EW support, and you always have to take into account the whole system including the platform. Of course a non Lo platform can still be effective in the contemporary battlespace if its supported effectively with ISTAR & EW and is equipped with a decent stand off weapon. But an LO platform (with comparable range/payload performance) enjoying similar EW & ISTAR support will usually enjoy better results for obvious reasons.

Of course. I'm simply trying to sort out in my head, the usefullness of the Tu-160 for strikes against targets protected by a fairly extensive IADS. Considering that there was recently a discussion of the likelyhood of a Tu-160 threatening the continental USA, I was interested in how likely it is to be able to get shots off.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Of course. I'm simply trying to sort out in my head, the usefullness of the Tu-160 for strikes against targets protected by a fairly extensive IADS. Considering that there was recently a discussion of the likelyhood of a Tu-160 threatening the continental USA, I was interested in how likely it is to be able to get shots off.

The major assets the Tu-160 enjoys are great stand off weapons, long range and the ability to compress time through supersonic sprint. The combination of extreme launch range and high speed means it would be very difficult for the IADS to complete its detection to engagement cycle before the Blackjack shoots and scoots. However the big unknown in the Tu-160 vs CONUS scenario is the US's IADS' sensor footprint. If its big enough then that buys more time for the detection to engagement cycle, and we don't know what their space based ISR or OHR is capable of. Pretty soon SBIRS will be able to track a fighter from orbit which changes the game significantly.

[Grand Danois]

LO & VLO. My understanding of the terms.

The term LO applied to an aircraft means that it is "stealth", which in case of RF/RCS reduction means -30dB or less. VLO is an old term supplanted by the more accurate LO (which was the reason why some thought the F-35 LO was downgraded when it changed from VLO to LO).

LO technology is all those little technologies like RAM and shaping, burial of engines, IR suppresion. These are both used for LO aircraft and are often retrofitted to "legacy" aircraft for reduction of RCS/etc...

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[Feanor]

But the fact that it employs RCS-reducing techniques, does make it harder to intercept; does it not? I mean ultimately it decreases detection ranges.

[ASFC]

Yes but it is not all about RCS is it? Look at F-22, F-35, they are more than 'stealthy' designs. How does the Tu-160 compare with its emissions controls, several posters have mentioned its engine surfaces etc.

Just to point something out, I am seriously doubting that the Tu-160 got so close to British Airspace in the incident the Russian Article mentioned. Not necessarily because it can't, but because if it did, the British Press would have been all over it like a rash, and I haven't seen this beyond the normal Bear interceptions that they cover.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Nah, that's technical jargon. Just like how the word "stealth" is misused nowadays. One can even label the Tu-160 VVVLO and it doesn't change its capability.

Reality is that its being intercepted where it flies and with sufficient warning time for interception. To those people that do the interception, that's all that matters.

Still, with 3,000k ranged missiles, the question of interception is a moot point. It can be VVVHO and they're still going to be difficult to get intercepted before missile launching range.

That's pretty subjective. Whether it will be hard to intercept before launch point all depends on where the target is (on CONUS) and NATO's sensor footprint. Again even with 3000km ranged missiles if the Blackjacks are intercepted north of Norway they will be thousands of miles from launch point.

And then you have to wonder how many of those missiles are going to actually hit their target. Kh-55's are gonna be easy pickings for a decent IADS.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

But the fact that it employs RCS-reducing techniques, does make it harder to intercept; does it not? I mean ultimately it decreases detection ranges.

Sure but the question is is the range reduction tactically significant? i.e. Does it allow you to exploit the detection range reduction to significantly alter the tactical situation. IF the RCS reduction on the blackjack shortens the detection and track radii by 10 miles its not going to change much is it? However 100 miles is going to be a real pain in the but for the IADS.

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[Feanor]

You're thinking of North America, I'm thinking of Europe. They won't need to be over Norway to hit anywhere in Europe with 3,000km ranged missiles. Like I mentioned, its 2500 km from Moscow to London.

You don't need to fly anywhere to hit Europe. You just stay above Russian airspace, in friendly skies, and can fire from there. :D

Sure but the question is is the range reduction tactically significant? i.e. Does it allow you to exploit the detection range reduction to significantly alter the tactical situation. IF the RCS reduction on the blackjack shortens the detection and track radii by 10 miles its not going to change much is it? However 100 miles is going to be a real pain in the but for the IADS.

I see. An important clarification. Thank you. Do you think the RCS reduction used on it is of any significance?

[nevidimka]

The thing about Tu 160 is, they are Russia's most lethal air force nuclear bomber and these are peace time. Do you believe those training flights were done with all silent features on? Its like advertising, " here it is, all full stealth mode we got" to the west to gauge its full potential. Even an idiot wont do it.

And regarding interception of modern IADS is moot, based on above.
Also the Airforce is already testing the next gen ALCM the KH 101/102 for the tupolev's. These missiles are designed from beginning to be stealthy and ranged at 5000km. Which makes interception more moot.

[Feanor]

Until I see deliveries to bomber units, I'm goign to (and I suggest you do too) ignore the Kh-101 when analyzing these situation.

[Haavarla]

Until I see deliveries to bomber units, I'm goign to (and I suggest you do too) ignore the Kh-101 when analyzing these situation.


A side track here, what is the western(NATO) cruise missile spec's today?
I was thinking if the table was turned!
How close too Russian soil do we have to be at max launch range?

[Feanor]

You're already in launch range from Poland. ;)

[Grand Danois]

From memory: the longest ranged CALCM in NATO inventory would be the AGM-129A ACM with a range of 3,200+ km. 460 in inventory. There is also the AGM-86B/C/D with a range of 2,400+ km. >1,700 were produced. The Tomahawk has a range of 1,250-2,500 km. Numbers built or to be built: 4170.

W European CMs are usually shorter ranged, e.g. the Storm Shadow/Scalp EG and Taurus KEPD have ranges of 300-600 km. I haven't kept tabs on those, but I guess there should be about 800-1,000 of those around. Scalp Navale, of which 200 are on order should have a range similar to that of the Tomahawk.

Various links used for fact checking.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=74
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bgm-109-specs.htm

[stigmata]

Finally found it:
By careful attention to design, the radar signature of the B-1 is only about 5 percent of that of the B-52
http://www.defencetalk.com/world_military_aircraft/bombers/b-1a_20070924.php
It is safe to assume SovietUnion did a similar effort with Tu-160 vs Tu-95

[Feanor]

Well if we take the Tu-95 to be a conventional bomber design with no RCS reduction, then according to what Nevidimka found it would have 1/6th, or roughly 16% of the Tu-95 RCS.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Well if we take the Tu-95 to be a conventional bomber design with no RCS reduction, then according to what Nevidimka found it would have 1/6th, or roughly 16% of the Tu-95 RCS.

Considering the TU-95 is a prop driven aircraft and is HUGE that wouldn't be too hard to achieve, burring the engine faces alone (which are much smaller anyway) would reduce the RCS significantly. Still 16% is a big reduction.

[nevidimka]

I dont think the comparision with a huge Prop plane like the Tu 95 is correct. The report said a similar sized plane, not a prop driven plane.
A similar sized jet engines plane would be better comparision.

[Feanor]

Actually yes. I think nevidimka is correct. They said that RCS is 1/6 of a conventional bomber. It probably meant a conventional jet bomber.

EDIT: Now that we know how much it's RCS is reduced by, can anyone give an educated opinion (guess?) as to how much that would matter for nuclear cruise missile strikes against the US mainland?

And as an afterthought, how much could penetration performance be enhanced by with ECM support?

[nevidimka]

Wouldnt the the Blackjack has its own ECM onboard? Coz, its mission profile and flight characteristics means its impossible for any plane to support it in any way.

[Haavarla]

Wouldnt the the Blackjack has its own ECM onboard? Coz, its mission profile and flight characteristics means its impossible for any plane to support it in any way.



The Blackjack look something like a white spear considering it's large size.
Wouldn't there be an transmitter showing somewhere if that was the case?

The upgrades recently, suggest that the engines and later the avionics was upgraded!

But i suppose it's possible..

[Firehorse]

I'm sure there will be other ECM platforms positioned ahead of time to help Blackjacks, even if they have their own ECM or the dedicated version of Tu-160PP: an electronic warfare aircraft carrying stand-off jamming and ECM gear
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=154062&postcount=12 is built.

[nevidimka]

Wouldnt that be ridiculous? A plane as huge as the Tu 160 cant be its own ECM, and needs another Tu 160 dedicated for ECM?

AFAIK, ECM doent need gigantic airframes to make it usefull. ANd I think thats probably why the Soviets dropped the dedicated ECM variant.

[stigmata]

Wouldnt that be ridiculous? A plane as huge as the Tu 160 cant be its own ECM, and needs another Tu 160 dedicated for ECM? Yes it would be ridicilous, i've read Tu-160 has a VERY strong EW suit, probably the most advanced outside US

[Haavarla]

Yes it would be ridicilous, i've read Tu-160 has a VERY strong EW suit, probably the most advanced outside US

Ok, source plz?
I havent seen any material about "Very strong EW suit".

[nevidimka]

Ok, source plz?
I havent seen any material about "Very strong EW suit".

What should be a common logic is that a blackjack should be carrying an integrated EW for its own protection.

And surely its capable of having a strong ECM, but beyond that, how stronger or how modern it is a question that many would like to know. But those information are most probably state secrets. So I doubt u can find sources on those.

[Firehorse]

In a high threat environment, I would send ECM planes regardless of what TU-160 has. What if its ECM gear is damaged and/or mulfunctions?

[Feanor]

Guys does anyone have a source on it's ECM? Otherwise we're treading water here.

[stigmata]

http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Tupolev_Tu-160
also some words on reduced Radar and IR signature

http://www.russianlessons.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=394&view=next
Good summary and history read

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160
ditto

http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?AMO-72007
this site looks promising, but i couldnt open it