"Strategist" for all time
As of 2017, the Aerospace Forces have already received five Tu-160Ms. This, one might say, is an economical modernization designed to expand the combat potential of the aircraft. It is difficult to assess the benefits of intermediate upgrades: it is enough to recall the dismantled (probably) optical-television sight: this is despite the fact that the role of bombers in local conflicts is now increasing. And without the use of relatively cheap "smart" bombs, which need to be directed not only with the help of GPS / GLONASS, it is difficult to make a truly useful aircraft.
In turn, the serial Tu-160M2 will not just be a new-built aircraft: it will become a completely new aircraft in an old "wrapper". The bomber will receive new computing and on-board systems and controls, a modern strapdown inertial navigation system, an improved electronic warfare system and fuel and flow metering systems, as well as advanced weapons control systems. There will probably be a "glass cockpit": by the way, something that the legendary B-52 cannot boast of. The new NK-32 engine of the 02 series will be more economical than the basic version, which means that the combat radius of the winged vehicle will increase. Now it is 7300 kilometers. In general, the Tu-160M2 should get everything that its predecessor lacked so much. In total, ten new aircraft are to be built at the first stage.
Replacement will be delayed
Earlier, the Tu-160M2 project faced harsh criticism. For example, some experts tried to suggest that Russia does not need a modernized "White Swan", but a Perspective Aviation Complex for Long-Range Aviation. Purely conceptually, it really looks more advantageous: with comparable cruising speed, range and (possibly) combat load, the PAK DA will be inconspicuous, that is, made with widespread use of stealth technology.
However, advice is advice, and building an unobtrusive strategic bomber from scratch is a daunting task, even for the United States. Recall that the Americans produced only 21 B-2 "strategists". At the same time, the price of one machine for such a small series has reached an unimaginable two billion dollars. The project can be called almost a failure, especially given the fact that the Americans, as previously reported by some Western media, are already preparing to decommission these aircraft. There is little doubt that the "old man" B-52 will survive the invisibility that was created to replace him. A funny circumstance.
By analogy with the B-2, the PAK DA bomber should become the most complex combat aviation complex in all of Russian history. This means that the timing of its adoption into service can be shifted many more times: if the aircraft begins to operate in 2030, this can be considered a huge success. But in general, for a start it would be nice to create it, and for this you need to make several technological breakthroughs at once, in particular, in the issue of reducing radar signature. As we know, the Su-57 has a number of questions in this regard. With PAK YES, things can get even more complicated.
With all this, Soviet aircraft are aging. It should also be noted that for Russia a strategic bomber is not a luxury, but one of the important means of protecting regional and geopolitical interests. Therefore, the production of deeply modernized Tu-160 looks like a good option.
What to do with the existing bomber fleet is another matter. The problem is that the Tu-160 aircraft built back in the Soviet years have already exhausted part of their resource, and besides, their total number is only sixteen units. Numerous Tu-95MS are very outdated morally. Most likely, they will choose the option of a very economical modernization, which will not allow them to put the machines on a par with the B-52H. And of course, we should immediately put aside the absurd thesis that the Su-34 can replace strategic and long-range bombers. By all characteristics, these attack aircraft are much closer to the Su-27 than to the "strategists". In view of the foregoing, it seems that the creation of the Tu-160M2 can, at least, insure against all sorts of unforeseen situations.
Targets and goals
Another aspect of criticism related directly to the combat capabilities of the Tu-160M2 aircraft. It should be said right away that criticism of the use of strategic aviation in a hypothetical nuclear conflict is largely justified. The strategic capabilities of air-launched cruise missiles are incomparably more modest than the capabilities of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine ballistic missiles (SLBMs). This applies to both the flight speed of missiles and their range, and the mass of the warhead. Therefore, bombers are now seen not so much as a means of nuclear deterrence, but as a weapon for local wars. Such weapons can be very effective, even though the cost of operating "strategists" is high compared to fighter-bombers. One example: From October 2014 to January 2016, US Air Force B-1B bombers participated in air strikes against ISIS fighters in Syria in the city of Kobani. Then the share of their sorties amounted to 3% of the total number of sorties of aircraft opposing ISIS. At the same time, the share of dropped bombs and other ammunition was 40%.
Of course, in order to successfully defeat ground targets, a strategic bomber must have modern advanced sighting systems, such as the American Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod, and the military-industrial complex must provide the military with not only accurate, but also cheap bombs, such as GBU-31, made using JDAM kits. It is also important that in the fight against motley groups of poorly trained militants, the stealth factor is nullified. So the lack of stealth technology will not be a serious disadvantage for the Tu-160M2, just as it did not become a disadvantage for the B-52H and B-1B.
To confront an enemy that is better equipped than the militants in Syria, the Tu-160M2 can use cruise missiles, such as the one already tested in the X-101 case. An airplane that is large and visible on radar may seem like an ideal target. However, in reality, this is not entirely true, because a bomber can operate without entering the zone of action of any anti-aircraft defense systems. Even promising. It is important to note that in the fight against air defense, almost everything will be decided by the characteristics of cruise missiles, such as range, speed and stealth, and not the characteristics of the carrier itself. The same Americans, for example, are not very "complex" from the fact that the B-52 can be seen beyond the "distant lands", although in the event of a major war they threaten to rely on unobtrusive "Spirits".
Let us examine this issue in more detail. The maximum launch range of the already mentioned X-101, according to available data, is 5500 kilometers. For a promising X-BD, this indicator should be even higher. Simply put, if the enemy has at least a hint of air defense, the Tu-160M2 will be able to perform the assigned tasks, being very far from the danger zone. And the relatively high radar signature, as already noted, will not be a serious drawback. Of course, we do not mean a hypothetical conflict between Russia and NATO: if it happens, it is unlikely to be local, and the nuclear arsenals available to the United States and Russia will be sufficient for mutual destruction. There will be no time for the air defense to break through on some conditional section of the front line. War with China is also unlikely due to the large arsenals of nuclear weapons in both countries.
Simply put, the Tu-160M2 can be a useful and necessary aircraft for Russia, which can play the role of both a "bomb carrier" (if the enemy does not have air defense) and the role of a missile carrier (if there is one). The Americans showed a good example of modernizing their bombers. And now in the United States there are hardly many critics of the B-52H or even the once unloved B-1B Lancer.
