Russia Has Big Plans for Its 'New' Tu-160 Bomber
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 02. 2022
- The Tupolev Tu-160 with NATO’s reporting name of Blackjack, is a supersonic, variable-sweep wing heavy strategic bomber. It was disclosed in 2015 that Russia’s defence industry plans to modernize Tu-160 with the coming Tu-160M revision. The new variant was trialled in the late 2010s and undertook its maiden flight in 2020, suggesting that the Tu-160M is nearing service readiness. The new fighter jet largely retains its predecessor’s design. Rather, it concentrates on a raft of improvements and new features under the hood. The Tu-160M modification follows an established pattern for Russian aircraft modernization initiatives in recent years, replicating the avionics and radar upgrades given to the Tu-22 bomber. This strategy makes sense in the near future, to say on a tried-and-true frame that saves time and money over investing in a new airframe design.
All content on Military TV is presented for educational purposes.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
/ militarytv.channel
defense-tv.com/ - Věda a technologie
This plane is absolutely beautiful. It has grace. It has power. I don’t care who built it, they were awesome people. I’d sooooo much like to see one in person some day.
Saw them at MAKS and they are indeed beautiful aircraft. Was very disappointed that they didn't fly the day I was there 😢! Can only speak from my own experience but Moscow is an amazing city and the Russian people are lovely! Would go back in a heartbeat if I could afford it!
it`s useless. Why is it so big and heavy?
@@siniyden In order to deliver a huge payload over a vast distance. It's a strategic bomber.
i was just thinking about same things just before scrolling to comments. beautiful piece of engineering and would also love to see live one taking off/flying by
@@nathansikner2560 so much huge comparing to b1? I don`t think so
The great Soviet aviation design and engineering.
What's so great ? It's an easy target and built in the 70s. With technology now a days it would be shot down before it gets off the runway .
@@HahaHaha-gq8ft 2x the size of b1, designed well before the b1
@@HahaHaha-gq8ft what exactly will be shooting it down when it is several hundred kilometres inside Russia's borders taking off?
It's missiles can be launched from a couple of thousand km away from the target (hence why they are referred to as missile carriers).
Oi durachook ..are you OK ?? Nothing Russia builds will last more than 6 months Just give them to Ukraine like tanks and other planes we promise not to blow up the Kremlin 😂😂😂😂 🇺🇦
@@stephen4121 hahaha yes 😂
The revival of the production of the Tu-160 in the M2 version has a double purpose. Ever since 2015 the Kazan aviation plant was heavily upgraded and modernize, the modernization even included the construction of a production facility that specializes in advance titanium vacuum welding (originally a Ukrainian company used to make the Titanium spine of the Tu-160, but is now bankrupt), which was revived by the Russians, the modernization was also to prepare the plant for the production of the PAK DA bomber.
Ukraine never did titanium vacuum welding for Tu-160. Titanium spine is so big that it cannot be relocated from Ukraine to Kazan during production process.
All equipment for titanium welding was located in Kazan Aviation Plant since production start. Any equipment left in Ukraine during USSR break up in 1991 is still in Ukraine. In 2017 this Kazan Aviation Plant equipment was repaired to continue production.
@Ruslan Masinjila GROW UP! RUSSIAN PEOPLE DON'T WANT WAR!
@@stormytempest6521 those dumb nato civilians won’t listen
@@alexanderbelov6892 top
It will be used by India against China and NATO
Dieser Bomber scheint rundum gelungen zu sein.Ein super schönes Design, technisch top und kampfstark.
Russia sure use this for Ukraine...
You sold me. I am ordering one right now.
hi A S...
'
better use a R/C model airplane with 2.4ghz
The fact that this is a product of soviet era engineering is a testimonial of their superiority at 70s and 80s and why world feared them. Their precision guided missiles, S 35, S400 air defense. What they would have produced if it weren't collapsed. Russia still using majority of the soviet arsenal who is still enough to with hold Nato...
Soviet engineering that copied the west's B-1...
@@doresearchstopwhining R u kidding. West entirely depends on Russian rockets till date. And US still cant produce a functioning Hypersonic missile which Russia had from 80s....
@@MasterNeoRNCP Uh, what you said has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my comment which stands uncorrected.
@@MasterNeoRNCP have you been living under a rock? The USAF literally tested Hypersonic missiles on there test sled through the 1970’s and 1980’s. If you’re ignorant enough to assume the US doesn’t have hypersonic missiles then you need to take a reality check.
The yanks have been using Rail gun tech since the mid 00’s
If anyone honestly believes the USA will buckle under the Russians then they too need a reality check.
If the USA goes “full tonto” then we are all dead.
Russia is powerful but the USA is in a different league all together.
"Вторжение в Сирию.....", нас вроде официально позвали.....зачем врать??.Этот самолет гордость страны, технологии что были получены от более развитой "цивилизации'', что с невероятным трудом были сохранены. Абсолютно ничего не сказано про "магию" двигателя НК-32. Не сказано что данный самолет берет на борт 120 разного вида ракет. Еще раз, 120 тонн со скоростью 2.2Маха, и на такую дальность, и это было сделано в 80-х годах, когда компьютерные мощности были меньше, чем у ваших apple watch что бы носите как атрибут. Я отдаю дань уважения Советским и Американским инженерам того времени , они творили настоящею "магию" на коленке.
Это канал украинца, что ли. Он и АНы называет украинскими самолетами
откуда 120 ракет? ракет Х-101/55/555 он несет 12 штук, Х-15 - 24 штуки. переоборудованный он может нести бомбы, но это другой разговор, ракеты таким же образом не напихать. откуда информация?
Он подразумевал что он может нести на себе широкую номенклатуру вооружений. Понятно дело что столько в него не влезет.
Newly produced Tu-160M suppose to receive rear view radar, so it might become world's first aircraft with a reverse launch missile capable of turning 180 degrees and hitting targets in the rear hemisphere.
Yes.
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE WAY THE RUSSIANS THINK INGENIOUS
it`s useless. Why is it still so big and heavy?
A really nice plane, it also has a nice sharpened aerodynamic look. The Rockwell B-1 Lancer is really also aerodynamically similar to me only with more rounded edges. I don't go into combat skills because when they fly, you know what's next, I just comment on the look of it. Masterwork
Impressive aircraft, with equally impressive functions.
Exactly like my wife. Beautiful and deadly
8:23 is the bit where the “big plan” about the Swan is mentioned. Everything before it is basically the Swan’s biography.
Not to mention that the "big plan" that took 30 seconds to explain is basically avionics modernization ...
Hero
Beautiful aircraft.
Absolutely superb
I couldn’t stop laughing, in a good natured way, seeing VP in the cockpit looking happy as a Clam
The problem with nuclear armed bombers is ( by the time they reach their targets the war would be over and there will not be a safe place left to land.)
The difference is: the strategical bombers go to the air Not at the beginning of war, but many hours before, barraging and waiting for the order! This is why the endurance and ability to 'stay in the air' for hours is a such important thing!
Unless they are doing a first strike.
The same could be said of ICBMs and SLBMs. If you are doing a retaliatory strike what is the point, the enemy's missiles are already on the way and you are already screwed so why bother? Except for the reason that hopefully your enemy won't launch because you have the ability to screw them in revenge.
Bombers also have the huge advantage over the other elements of the triad in that you can set them off if you think the enemy may have launched, but you can then recall them if it turns out they haven't.
I Love This aircrafts , I Wish Biafran Air Force Will Have Some Of Them On Our Fleets. Thanks.
Bruh, you have gotten to get an editor for your scripts. Thank you for the video, but that was rough.
They are the best 👌 producers of asla barud
Beautiful
Love the plane
Looks like the XB-70 & B-1 had a baby!
Россия никого не пугает, но в обиду себя не дадим!😊
08.02.2022 rok Świętowita szefa Układu Słonecznego !!!!
Good document...
Une ligne splendide
I saw this plane flying low outside my window a couple of times. The sound is scary, the view is beautiful.
Great beautiful
Does it work ?
And yet some people believe that Russia can’t destroy Europe
They can't. Not with less than a DOZEN "operational" Tu-160s.
Be awesome if it were a commercial plane. Wonder if they ever considered it and how fast it could fly to various locations?
Да, несколько лет назад, Путин предлагал на его основе сделать пассажирский сверхзвуковой самолёт, но пока никто не заинтересовался
nice vid
Great Russian bomber best design
BOMBOWIEC jest tylko jeden! 😏
lol
Halina włącza pranie
@@papaversomniferum2365 wszystko dźwięczy, to mnie męczy!
✨ super infarmetoin sir Asom 👌🏻✨❤️🇮🇳❤️
The new versions of Tu 160 will shoot missiles from the back as well..
That’s not so impressive- I’ve been doing that for years! ; )
Da freuen sich die Raptoren aber schon.
What a beautiful and unfortunately a deadly plane!
This is a technological marvel. Russia is huge superpower and will always be.
I like this powerful bombardiers
I don't care if the TU-160 aka Blackjack is bigger an faster than the B-1 lancer I still prefer the B-1.
"T U-160 Blackjack"...You know 'Tu' is short for Tupolev, right? It's just two randomly picked letters, no.
'Tu' is short for Tupolev (the company that designed the bomber). The same goes for Mig, Su, Yak etc.
Reminds me more of a shark than a swan.
I confirm
I wonder if this plane can be transformed into passengers for transport
B1 lancer doppelganger
Today's news of an engineer on this showing up in the US got me here.
To me it looks like an oversized General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark
Su-24 was competitor to F-111
Интересно
Imagine if Putin had to activate the ejection seat.
Mana shu butun dunyo bo'yicha katta reaktiv samalyotlar ichida eng zo'r qiruvchi bombordimonchi samalyotmi?
What to do it's their understanding language
Why is all the information told in the metric system?
I am not a fan of russia, but they for sure know how to design and build the most iconic planes
I’d appreciate it if someone could give me information regarding where I can get a poster of it
0:00 Vasily Senko, Pavel Taran, Vladimir Sudets
Красивая птичка)
INDIA NEEDS SOME OF THESE 🇮🇳
The grammar in this voice over gave me a heart attack
It's like listening to music full of out of key notes.
Russia's "we can B-1 Lancer too"
a crappier copy.
@@sirethanthegreat4069 , B-1B? Yes!
US made F-15EX after SU-35 was accepted as successful.
@@maksimluzin1121 its not a cpoy lol.
Salty muricans upset !
I love ❤ garud
Nothing a couple of F-16 cant handle.
Salty jingo detected
Idiot, F-16s couldn't get within 200 MILES of this plane. It flys at Mach 2 plus. It delivers it's payload and hightails it out of the area before you would even know it.
@@marlandtownsend4715 It’s RCS is so large it shines like the sun on radar, and at altitude it’s heat signature can be tracked by satellite… it may look impressive, but it’s by no means a “low observable” aircraft…
🤣🤣🤣how about laying off the top gun movies! By the time them jets locate that plane the missiles are already gone! And the rest is dust!
@@T.M.N.N Yeah, but Russia only has a dozen (12) or so operational Tu-160Ms. So one tactical nuke to the airbase is all that's needed. Also, the number of sober pilots are less than 12, so good luck with that.
retro, už jim polovička vyrobených spadla :D
Čechům a slovákům nemá co spadnout, že?
My kind of things, love it from Kolkata,INDIA.
Weapons that go the speed of light works well for defense
Perfect for red square show.
This is a technological marvel. Russia is huge superpower and will always be.
In Europe the pace of narration used in this video is only for children up to about 6 years old lol.
what is the use of a large bomber? when you only need to deliver 1 bomb per city, a throwaway rocket is much cheaper.
It's a copy of the b1b Lancer
No it's not
@@hunterpaintings8476 You’re right- it’s not a copy of the B-1B, but it does owe a lot to the B-1A…
exist something against this ???
didn't this just get blown up by a kamikazee drone?
your not gonna like to see this plane flying over your airspace.
It wouldn't get anywhere near American airspace.
It has no stealth characteristics, it wouldn't even get in missile effective range.
@@antwnhs213 its missiles have an effective range of up to 3000km. WTF are you on?
@@stephen4121 And the enemy would have 10 whole minutes to lock on and shoot down the cruise missiles. At this point you could just launch ICBM from submarines, no need for a bomber. The point of a strategic bomber is not just to launch a missile from 2000 km away, but to penetrate deep in the enemy air space and destroy multiple targets while remaining undetected. By your logic noone should build stealth bombers, just fly 2000 km away from the target and launch missiles. And yes, any plane of this size with an RCS of 100m2 is a sitting duck even at Mach 2.
The original B-1 could do Mach 2.22, it's faster than the TU-160 even though it has smaller engines. The B-1B doesn't go as fast because it doesn't have variable intakes. It is optimized for low level penetration
nobody cares about overpriced american junk
I’m pretty sure it can’t, as per I’ve heard, if it would go any faster it would rip apart mid air
@@tupolev.designs Mach 1.25 is the maximum.
@@stevem2323 yes
@@tupolev.designs There is this thing called the internet now, you can just look stuff up, the original B-1 could do Mach 2.22, the project was cancelled, then started again this time without the variable intakes
Appunto grandi progetti: poi fare un altro decente senza copiarlo, visto che gli ingegneri che contano stanno scappando dalla Russia, credo passerà molto tempo. E non si aspettino tecnologia cinese.
This bomber is an exact replica of the US B1B bomber and it's nothing new the US has had this bomber for years.
It would have to be used as a stand off cruise missile launch platform. It just wouldn't be able to penetrate NATO defenses.
1600 Pennsylvania ave.
I call it the white jack
Crashing is the best part of the things
Bit like the best thing about US airliners is they can take you straight into the office?
The Tu 160 was designed in the 1970s .
It’s a 50 year old design.
Enough said.
It doesn't seem TOO scary!
Not scary but deadly
@@Military-TV I meant, compared to what the US has. It IS a badass plane for its time!
@Alex it’s for asphyxiation of the enemies below if no payload is left. Very smart weapon XD
Hhhh not to scary but with 12 nuclear missiles is more cute and peaceful
@@AyOuB.God-soldier , Actually, 24 short range nuclear missiles...
Jai hind
Looking forward to seeing it deployed against NATO and I'm British
No, bro, you're already half Russian
@@Olegio04 If I was allowed too...would be fighting alongside the Russians now..but who knows we British ex pat living in South Africa..will find a way...viva BRICS viva Putin see you in Cape Town in August.. Vlad..
Hey what's up any trolls bots or agents here?
world famous modern technology weapons and war tactic russian army but why losses on ukrain war ?
The Soviet version of the B1 it seems
The B 1 is no match to the Tu 160. It is too slow.
Очччень сильно ошибаешься! Это гораздо более мощная и смертоносная машина они разных концепций применения.
@@snifferking4330 The B-1 was designed to have a reduced RCS, and these two aircraft aren't fighters. The speed difference doesn't hinder its capability, especially considering we will most likely see B-1s using glide bombs or cruise missiles if they were to ever see combat. TU-160 has a massive RCS signature in comparison, meaning the detection range is much farther and makes the blackjack much more vulnerable to ground defenses.
Compare the weapon system they can carry... This is just a platform, carrier, of the weapons, nothing more!
@@mkx6974 , The Tu-160 do not operate in areas of the 'ground forces'. By the way, its speed and the fuel reserve allows to 'overcome' any fighter, what has been proved many times.
Big plans like how to be short down in one easy lesson ☠️💀☠️
Yeah I bet they do. How are they gonna pay for its maintenance though?
In Rubles silly man.
Borrow money from China like the USA does.
It's not a bomber, it's a missle carrier. A bit different class of jets. Tu 22 and Tu 95 are bombers but not this one.
I will let you know what Russia's plans are for this aircraft they will keep it in a hanger for it to remain safe.
Who's here after hearing that they are going to get used on Ukraine
They got used once. And only 2 went up to launch missiles against a hospital.
Hit kyev republic's and NATO's ammunition depot with that bomber
There's a kitchen, proper toilet and I think a bed.
Compare that to B1 and B52.
I've sat in cockpit of B52 in Darwin. Cramped as fvck.
AHH IF THE U.S. COULD BUILD PLANES THIS CHEAPLY BUT EFFECTIVE! The Military industrial complex is so corrupt! Even in Poland ! To fix leopard its starts at $100,000 just to diagnose it and in Germany its only $25,000!!...BTW THE WHITE SWAN has to be the top 5 most beautiful planes ever built! THE XB-70 VALKYRIE SHOULD BE NUMBER1! ....It looks like a 60s THUNDERBIRDS MODEL FOR REAL!
The US could build planes this cheaply, but the high cost of maintenance and insane cost per hour of operation makes it cheaper in the long run to build a decent effective aircraft, and not a money pit with a radar cross section similar to a 5 story apartment building.
I don't think they can ever finish upgrading this old fossil. they should start working on new designs
They already did and restart production of the new airframes.
For what? The Tu-160 is still unbeatable by many parameters and records! This is not a 'smartphone', you use... By the way, Tu-160M/M2 will be even much better...
@@maksimluzin1121 this plane has never been tested in a serious battle, looks great on paper but in reality, Russia had to negotiate with Ukraine to get a few remaining planes back. it's an old plane, looks great but unlike many Russian equipments it was almost never battle tested, too expensive to lose, plus they can't even keep up with production
@@hesamusa just like 90% of USA current weapons 🤷♂️
@@thickboi4304 where did you get your statistics? do you also have a communist teacher at school?
На мовременный трактор нет планов?
What BIG plans ?? Have they found one that actually flies ? Looks just like the Rockwell Lancer, what a coincidence !!
Sure, too bad it's way faster, flies higher and had 30% bigger payload.
Oh and it was issued before the B-1 Lancer so guess what, the copying went the opposite way around.
@@ClaudeMagicbox No boris.
@@admiralbenbow5083 looks like someone doesn't have a proper counterargument.
Ah there it is, another ignorant person trash talking an aircraft they don't know anything about just because it isn't from the US!
There are several planes that look like the B1 and that entered service before the B1 and they were designed in the USSR.
Tupolev had several designs going back to the late 1950s that look just like this. Sorry Mr Needy
"SYRIAN CIVIL WAR"(TM)?.. ... ... come on..
Imaa bee pilot and go to russia
It is a beautiful machine but in todays battlefield it is purely a morale weapon as opposed to an actual usable bomber, and that’s the case with all bomber/missile carriers.
Drone warfare and stealth aircraft are the real dangers in todays wars.
This old machine wouldn’t have any impact, it’d be a great distraction to avert eyes from the ICBM’s (icbms are the real war machines)
I mean they did pretty good in Syria tbh