Another ridiculous DM article

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
#1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bomber-outrun-Britain-s-best-fighter-jet.html

TU-160M, mmmm that'll be the 'new' variant that was proposed back in 2005 and has just (late) appeared into service, with no independent verification of the success of the new avionics/engine systems.

Given that only around 10 were expected to be modified, that perhaps tells us something about the RU crewing, training, manufacturing, support or acquisition constraints.

But as for the thrust of the DM article, "it can outrun Britain's best fighter jet" - at Mach2, I doubt it and at the end of an extended flight, having been opposed all the way from Engels or Saratov, even as stand-off platforms (their primary role) I'd have hoped Norwegian and Baltic a/c had intercepted well before the RAF had to disturb their afternoon naps.

I wonder how many of the actual 16 in existence are even flightworthy?

But, what's the DM point of the article - it's not news, the RU posturing is well noted; Election related?
 

Ageing_Gracefully

War Hero
Moderator
Review Editor
Book Reviewer
#2
Might have something to do with an election just round the corner and both major parties looking at reducing defence spending below 2% GDP; something not on the DM agenda.
 

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
#4
I guess the fact the aircraft is three times longer than the Typhoon makes for an easier target. Going back thirty-odd years there was similar concern regarding the speed of Argentine aircraft in relation to the Sea Harrier. Turns out agility & weapons that fly faster than your target seems to be the trick.
 
#5
I guess the fact the aircraft is three times longer than the Typhoon makes for an easier target. Going back thirty-odd years there was similar concern regarding the speed of Argentine aircraft in relation to the Sea Harrier. Turns out agility & weapons that fly faster than your target seems to be the trick.
Also due to design the Harrier (Sea or its Bastard brother) could turn on a sixpence, why it was so good in the Stan. Not the 20-30 miles a tornado takes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#6
Actually, theTu-160 is a very effective aircraft that remains more than credible against NATO air defences.

The Blackjack's maximum dash speed is similar to that of a Typhoon but exceeds many other types such as the F-16, FA-18, Rafale and for that matter, F-35. Moreover, it can sustain high subsonic speeds for a significant distance and rapidly accelerate to supersonic speeds when threatened. This potentially makes interception extremely difficult as fighters can be run out of gas before they can achieve an intercept or even close to within weapons parameters. Similarly, I once saw a SHAR embarrassed somewhat by a Bear F which outran it; weapons are not much use when the mission is a QRA VID.

Therefore it is entirely credible for a Tu-160 to avoid interception by the Norwegians, particularly as the RNorAF lacks tankers. Typhoon has the edvantage of exceptional high altitude performance, super-cruise and AAR support. However, the interception of a Tu-160 able to kick the burners in for a hundred miles or so of supersonic dash remains a significant challenge for controllers and aircrew alike. When the Blackjack's stand-off range is considered, that adds to its credibility.

Finally, examination of photos of Russian Long Range Aviation in recent years indicates they're being maintained to a far higher standard than 10-15 years ago. Putin knows these are assets which provide him influence and he's investing accordingly. Intercept stats from European NATO, US, Canadian and Japanese airspace reinforce that.

Ultimatly, both Blackjack and Bear H remain worthy of of our respect.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:

Similar threads