41 replies to this topic

[markintellect]

The Tu-160 looks much nicer.


The B-1B


And the Tu-160

Edited by markintellect, 21 June 2008 - 15:31.

[Destiny]

I go for Boner.

[mig31]

tu-160 will own you all xD

[Soul]

I never noticed this before, but both look quite similar in appearance.

[Hobbesy]

B-1 Lancer for me.

[General Kirkov]

The Russians have always built good looking aircraft. However perfomance is another thing.

Still the Tupolev is much prettier.

[Cuppa]

Shouldn't we be comparing the most up to date models?

But the Tu-160 due to its armament of powerful standoff weapons.

[Admiral FCS]

I like Tupolev. I like most Tupolev, Mikoyan and Sukhoy aircrafts. But US thingies are good too.

[Eddy01741]

Well, the Tu-160 was phased out of service quite a while ago IIRC, and it was a big waste of money from how I know it (well, stealth seems to be more important than speed for bombers nowadays). So the B-1 for me.

[Waris]

Eddy01741, on 22 Jun 2008, 7:34, said:

Well, the Tu-160 was phased out of service quite a while ago IIRC, and it was a big waste of money from how I know it (well, stealth seems to be more important than speed for bombers nowadays). So the B-1 for me.

Putin wants to have a word with you.

[Cuppa]

FHSSFCS, on 21 Jun 2008, 13:23, said:

I like Tupolev. I like most Tupolev, Mikoyan and Sukhoy aircrafts. But US thingies are good too.

Thats Sukhoi, not Sukhoy.

Edited by Cuppa, 22 June 2008 - 01:16.

[CommanderJB]

While the Tu-160 can fit a much wider variety of ordnance than the B-1B, and better ordnance for stand-off, it's nowhere near as manoeuvrable or stealthy as the B-1B. It's supposed to have a lower RCS, but frankly no-one believes that because it's got four massive wide-open air intakes which have a straight flow through to the primary compressor blade, which scatters radar waves like hell; it's also much bigger and doesn't appear to have radar-absorbent material covering it, unlike the B-1B. The B-1B, meanwhile, is the world's most manoeuvrable bomber, can actually carry a larger payload than the B-52 (though its weapons diversity in such a packed-tight configuration is minimal), and is at least partially stealthy.
And I actually think that the B-1B looks ever so much more awesome than the Tu-160. I mean, a bomber Concorde? Not so cool as a sleek, curvy charcoal-black cool-looking B-1B.
Edit - oh yes, the Tu-160 is still in service and going strong. Russia is the only nation save the US with an active, large strategic bomber force, and these are the primary strike components; Tu-95s are mostly the MS version for maritime patrol, these are the ones you see in the news being 'escorted' over Greenland, but they're not as capable for most strike missions due to their lower speed, manoeuvrability and survivability. Tu-160s are more expensive to fly but are the weapon of choice when it comes to serious power projection.

Edited by CommanderJB, 22 June 2008 - 04:50.

[Centric]

Can't really compare The Tu-160 to the B-1 lance. But I would have to go for the Tu-160 as it is being upgraded more then the B-1 lance.

[Hobbesy]

^ Finally, some one who dosen't fap to Russia and makes a good point!

[Waris]

CommanderJB, on 22 Jun 2008, 13:04, said:

it's nowhere near as manoeuvrable

There is more to the plane which earned the name "White Swan' by its own crews.

[Dr. Strangelove]

B1-B not only looks cooler, but is stealthier too. The Tupolev does get points for better payload and range, though.

However, I'd prefer a modernized version of this, not really because it would be more effective(it wouldn't), it would just be frickin' awesome.

[Eddy01741]

Waris, on 21 Jun 2008, 18:14, said:

Eddy01741, on 22 Jun 2008, 7:34, said:

Well, the Tu-160 was phased out of service quite a while ago IIRC, and it was a big waste of money from how I know it (well, stealth seems to be more important than speed for bombers nowadays). So the B-1 for me.

Putin wants to have a word with you.

Good thing I don't drink tea.


(for htose who don't understand the joke, that last russian former KGB member was killed by having radiotacive materials put in his tea as poisoning).

[Waris]

My point is that the Tu-160 is still in service.

[Eddy01741]

Yeah, I checked up on wiki (inacccurate my ass, it works wonders for me), and htere are still quite a few in service with the Russian Air Force. Shesh, I read in some Jane's combat military pocket book that the Tu-160 was being phased out of service and was to be used as a civilian transport plane, but that seems to certainly not be the case.

[CommanderJB]

They basically stopped operating Tu-160s for a while following the collapse of the Soviet Union because they ran out of money to operate them. As far as I know, though, they were never actually taken out of active service. Instead, they're being modernised wth better electronics and controls and reactivated for use in steady batches; they have 16 at the moment, but there should be around twenty in service by the end of the year, and they'll keep on rolling out new improved models until they run out of old ones, because I don't think they're in production any more. A few were lost for good in 1991 and the years that followed; Ukraine had about fifteen in its air force, of which the majority were transferred straight back to Russia in exchange for debt relief and the rest were destroyed. A shame really.
Tupolev did make a similar-looking civilian supersonic jet, the Tu-144, basically a Russian Concorde analogue, although it actually flew first. These operated for quite some time before being retired in the 80's & 90's - perhaps there was a mix-up with these instead?
Oh, and while Tu-160s may still be 'surprisingly manoeuvrable', that's still has to be put in the perspective of their being the world's heaviest combat aircraft. The B-1B is just plain quicker on its feet when it comes to doing tricks - its original mission was extreme low-level terrain-following flight to penetrate enemy air defences and deliver nuclear SRAMs, then get the hell out of there, where as the Tu-160 is basically a big, fast weapons platform which delivers stand-off ordnance from a considerable distance from the target. It's a very cool aircraft, I just don't think it's quite as good. I wish Australia would get some now the USAF is going to retire them...

[The Wandering Jew]

Waris, on 22 Jun 2008, 6:14, said:

Eddy01741, on 22 Jun 2008, 7:34, said:

Well, the Tu-160 was phased out of service quite a while ago IIRC, and it was a big waste of money from how I know it (well, stealth seems to be more important than speed for bombers nowadays). So the B-1 for me.

Putin wants to have a word with you.

ROFL! :stickattack2:

By the way, it's Medvedev, oh ,wait. It is Putin. He's the Prime Minister. He's technically in charge of all things Russia.

@Topic:

I give my vote to the Blackjack for its surprising maneuverability. It's rare for a 'plane that size to be as nimble as a Swan.

[DerKrieger]

The Tu-160 was recently put back into production, the Russian Air Force isn't going to retire them anytime soon. Same with the B-1B; it's served quite well in Afghanistan & Iraq IIRC.
The Tu-160 is faster and has longer range but the B-1B has twice the payload and is more versatile.

[Eddy01741]

Well, bombers arn't my "forte" in military knowledge (please, small arms, fighters, and tanks ftw), but it doesn't make sense that the B-1B has a larger payload than the Tu-160. I mean, the Tu-160 absolutely trumps the Lancer in size, it's not even funny how much bigger it is.

But then again, the Su-27 and varients have less payload than the F-15 and varients, and the Su-27 is a very large fighter.

[DerKrieger]

Eddy01741, on 3 Jul 2008, 8:20, said:

Well, bombers arn't my "forte" in military knowledge (please, small arms, fighters, and tanks ftw), but it doesn't make sense that the B-1B has a larger payload than the Tu-160. I mean, the Tu-160 absolutely trumps the Lancer in size, it's not even funny how much bigger it is.

But then again, the Su-27 and varients have less payload than the F-15 and varients, and the Su-27 is a very large fighter.

The B-1B has a lower payload- but US missiles are considerably lighter than their Russian counterparts; The Tu-160 can carry 6 cruise missiles while the B-1B can carry 12 to 24 (depending on the type of missile).

[CommanderJB]

Quick stats check - the B-1B has a payload capacity of 61,000 kg (there's a big caveat here though; 27,000 kg of this are its six external hardpoints, the use of which for weapons is forbidden under the START I treaty. The Tu-160, meanwhile, has a total bombload of 45,000 kg including internal and external weaponry. So actually the B-1B can carry more, but it's going to break treaties, be a lot slower and have much shorter range than the Tu-160 (which has an astonishing 150 tons of onboard fuel capacity plus the aerial refuelling capability) if it loads up everything at once. Also there are claims that the Tu-160 penetrated NATO airspace without being detected, but obviously these haven't been verified.