Tu-160M2
Price - Now, who knows, but Russia knocked back the Ukranian ones at $75 million each in the early nineties.
Thoughts - Is it for real, is it another that's been drawn from storage or is it a parts bin special?
Thoughts - Is it for real, is it another that's been drawn from storage or is it a parts bin special?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't mean "price" but what do we think. The one rolled out is a parts bin job which has new avionics etc., and intended for testing before re-starting the line.
I'm wondering if it's not just propaganda as the Blackjack has been going back into production several times over the last few years? Can't remember where I read it, but one if not more articles were suggesting that the upgraded avionics were yet to come & not featured in the first M2 airframe.
Any way you look at it the Tu-160 is an impressive aircraft, M2 or not - there are suggestions that 50 M2's will be produced at 3>4 per year. Will the Tu-160 although less numerous become Russia's long standing stalwart in the same way as the B-52 is to the US?
Any way you look at it the Tu-160 is an impressive aircraft, M2 or not - there are suggestions that 50 M2's will be produced at 3>4 per year. Will the Tu-160 although less numerous become Russia's long standing stalwart in the same way as the B-52 is to the US?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,809
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
I don't suppose any of this might be 'fake news' generated by the Russians?
No, perish the thought. Obviously it's a new arms race to scare the West.
No, perish the thought. Obviously it's a new arms race to scare the West.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here are suggestions that 50 M2's will be produced at 3>4 per year. Will the Tu-160 although less numerous become Russia's long standing stalwart in the same way as the B-52 is to the US?
At that rate it will take them 215 years to make as many Blackjacks as B52s that have already been made.
"Bomber gap", anyone?
Bomber gap - 50 in around 14 years would give a force of around 65, not far away from operational B-52 numbers.
Should bomber gap still interest you have a look at maybe B1-B vs Tu-22M3 numbers. What the Tu may lack is spec, it makes up for in numbers does it not?
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Sky
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever anyone builds new combat aircraft it’s never good news so even with a slow rate of production it’s not good news. Counting the “gaps” doesn’t help when all it takes is one with a new EW sig no one was looking for to slip through and make the headlines. Anyway, doesn’t Russia already have more combat capable bombers than the US? They knew what they were doing in many ways with their missions to Syria.
1970s (60s?) vintage airframe with a makeover? What they really need to do is start afresh with a brand new design - that's the only way Russia will be taken seriously on the world stage 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah but they can do it (relatively ) quickly whereas a state of the art new build will take them 15 years to in-service
If they aren't going to use them against the USA they still have an awful lot of utility against quite a bit of the rest of the world - including China and W Europe.
Presumably they found them very useful in their Middle East meddling
If they aren't going to use them against the USA they still have an awful lot of utility against quite a bit of the rest of the world - including China and W Europe.
Presumably they found them very useful in their Middle East meddling
