Tu-160, LO or Not?

[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]

Re:

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]

Re:

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.

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.