Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 71

Thread: B-1 Vs Tu-160

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    1,196

    B-1 Vs Tu-160

    If these two types had a "fly-off" which would win? I know the Tu-160 is in a bad state at the moment because of a lack of funding but at it's peak, I reckon the Tu-160 would win.

  2. #2
    rusnik Guest

    RE: B-1 Vs Tu-160

    GZYL.If you read some news.IN the last year alone over 15 new Tu160 wher put into servise and allmost all Tu 160 are bieng upgraided!!!
    Afcours Tu 160 win over B 1.
    Anyone tell me in whot way B1 is better than Tu 160 except electronics!!!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    6,150

    RE: B-1 Vs Tu-160

    B1 would have been equal or better if the Reagan govt hadn't cut the B1-A programme. The b version is a pity, compared to the A
    Regards,

    Frank

  4. #4
    elpalmer Guest

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    I sort of like the blackjack, don't you?

    http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/tu-160-4.jpg



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    On your nerves
    Posts
    9,060

    Some people deserve a lot of punishment...

    The Ukrainians finished scrapping their remaining Blackjacks at Priluki airbase, after a number (i believe 8, not 16 Rusnik) were resold to Russia.

    The horror, the horror x(x(x(
    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/photos/huge/2001_02/2001_02_05/05tu1604.jpg

    Now i know that i've seen all existing Blackjacks by 1997 (the almost-finished airframes at the Kazan factory are now appearantly finished and delivered to the Russian AF at Engels AB) and two Ukrainian examples will stay preserved, but this is no way for an aircraft to end!

    When will i be happy again? What scrapping-pic will i post tomorrow? What's the meaning of life?

    Regards,

    Arthur
    Regards,

    Arthur
    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
    Bertrand Russell

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8,048

    RE: B-1B would win....bar none

    The B-1B is superior to the Tu-160 in many ways. First of all, it has over twice the warload. The B-1B can carry up to 75,000 lb. in three weapons bays. The Tu-160 is designated a heavy bomber and it has a max warload of 36,000 lb. That is quite pathetic if you ask me. The B-1B also has much better electronics and it is being continually upgraded. If you want a list of its weapons I will give it to you, and you will see what power the B-1 can carry in its bays. Another winning factor for the B-1 is its low RCS, which is about 1/10th or maybe 1/100th that of the B-52. It also has great range and good handling. I have heard it handles almost like a fighter. Don't get me wrong, I like the Tu-160, but it is in reality an inferior aircraft. The B-1 also looks a little better in my opinion.
    Fox-4!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    577

    RE: B-1B would win....bar none

    I really wonder which would win. The B1B handles well and is pretty fast down low. It has 3 bomb bays and can carry quite a bit of ordinance. As far as electronics, the ALQ161 has shortcomings, but is going to be assisted by the ALE50 towed decoy, which saved the skin of B1 crews over Kosovo. I doubt the TU160 has better ECM and a comparable RCS.

    Both of these planes are good missile platforms, but neither is really state of the art anymore, and the TU160 is of dubious quality. can we include the B2 in the competition?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    261

    RE: warload

    The warload you mentioned of 75000lb is pure thearaticly.
    I have a little book about the B-1 and they mention the warlad of 75000lb to BUT this is as I said before pure theoraticly.
    Normally the max warload would be in the 35000lb class like the Tu-160.

    But the TU-160 has a smaller RCS than the B-1b It has more speed more range (but this is not so important cause they hav IFR capability) the B-1b has better avionics and lets be honoust much better pilots to. The Tu-160 has problems cause they lack funding, but you forget the b-1b is not accident free it has also a few problems(read that somwhere).

    In my opinion the TU-160 is a little better( if they can be maintained properly.)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    1,446

    RE: warload

    On paper, the Tu-160 is the better aircraft.
    In practice, the B-1B is far better.

    MinMiester

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    261

    RE: warload

    That's cause the russians have no money to upgrade or maintain them.

  11. #11
    rusnik Guest

    RE: warload

    [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-Feb-01 AT 04:27 PM (GMT)[/font][p]HI!!!
    So you don t read any News!!!
    Well if you have read the latest news on russian airforce.
    Russia upgraded olmost all Tu160.And ther is over 20 standing on producyton line.And 11 new wher build last year!!
    P.S. nice pick of the fotose!!!
    But if you know Ukrain gave all it s tu160 back to russia plus 10000 sam s missals FOR GAS!!!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    261

    RE: warload

    These pics are not nice men.

    If you like those pics you don't like airplanes, They are destroyng a plane and you think thats nice. x(

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    577

    RE: RCS

    Scorpion, I really have a hard time believing the TU160 has a lower RCS compared to the B1B. It makes no sense. Of course, I have no hard data to support my claim, but the TU160 has a few things going against it: size, slab surfaces, lack of blending of different surfaces, huge tail etc.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    329

    RE: RCS

    [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-Feb-01 AT 06:52 PM (GMT)[/font][p]I've read somewhere that the Tu 160 engines blades were designed to be stealthy but whith regard to the low russian maintenance / building capabilities I don't think the stealthiness is that great.
    Just remember this Blackjack that lost part of its dorsal spin during some airshow. It continued to fly but it illustrates the poor quality of the Blackjack airframes.

    B1B was designed to be more stealthy than B1A and what it lose in flight capacity (speed , thrust) is gained in efficacity against air defense networks.

  15. #15
    rusnik Guest

    RE: RCS

    Yes the pichurs are terreble i know.


  16. #16
    TJ is offline Rank 5 Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::
    Posts
    783

    RE: RCS

    Rusnik,

    You have been reading some dodgy news articles!

    There are not “20 on production line” or “11 new build aircraft”



    Source: MNA, May 5, 2000

    "The new TU-160 Blackjack built at the Kazan aviation factory has landed at the Engles airfield, the Military News Agency learned on Friday. (Incorrect spelling of the airbase)

    This is the first strategic bomber received by the Air Force from the defence industry in the past 15 years. Six of the bombers currently stationed at Engles were received after the collapse of the USSR. Another eight were transferred from Ukraine as repayment for gas-debts in November 1999 - January 2000.

    Lieutenant-General Mikhail Oparin, commander of the long-range aviation, who attended the ceremony, said that the TU-160 Blackjacks had the lowest malfunctioning level in the Air Force, that is 7 percent /the average is 15 percent/. All of the strategic bombers were manned with highly professional
    crews, he added.

    According to Oparin, the Blackjacks will form a strategic long-range aviation regiment which will become part of the 37th Air Force army.

    The new TU-160 has received the honorary name of Alexander Molodchy, a well-known WWII pilot who was one of the first to bomb Berlin. Hero of the USSR Alexander Molodchy now resides in the town of Chernigov, Ukraine."


    TJ

  17. #17
    elpalmer Guest

    RE: RCS

    Well said Min.


    elp
    usa

  18. #18
    cpm Guest

    RE: B-1B would win....bar none

    [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-Feb-01 AT 02:59 AM (GMT)[/font][p]I don't know where you get your info on the Tu 160, phantom, but it ain't accurate. The "max warload" of the Tu 160 is closer to 86,000lbs, not 36,000. Hardly pathetic.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    8,692

    RE: B-1B would win....bar none

    [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-Feb-01 AT 03:36 AM (GMT)[/font][p]A few facts:
    "While being 27% heavier than the B-1B, the Tu-160 has 80% more thrust."
    "The Tu-160 has relatively low aerodynamic drag, as well as radar cross section, both believed to be much smaller than those of the B-1B."
    (This is mostly due to the external carriage of weapons on the B-1B... all weapons are internal on Tu-160).
    Tu-160 is limited to about 30,000kgs (about 66,000lbs), though its theoretical limit is given as 40,000kg (about 88,000lbs)(with conventional freefall weapons which they are not currently fitted for). This is a size constraint with the weapon bays. As noted above with 80% more thrust it could certainly carry more weapons but not without modification. (Carpet bombing is a job B-1Bs might be capable of (say to replace elderly B-52s) but the Russians use the cheaper but still effective Tu-22M3 for that.ie in Afghanistan)

    I personally would choose the Tu-160 (But I'm biased) especially when the Kh-101 comes into service.
    (My source for this info is Air International May 2000, "Blackjack Profile" by Piotr Butowski.)

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    577

    RE: Get your FACTS straight Garry...

    The B1B carries most of its ordinance externally?? According to whom, Mr. Butowski? Thats ludicrous. The B1B has three good sized internal rotary launchers. I've seen them in person. It is possible that some weapons are not cleared for the bays of the B1 or are not compatible with the rotary launchers, but its unlikely that the Air Force simply hangs weapons externally on a bomber with more than adequate internal storage.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    3,371

    RE: Get your FACTS straight Garry...

    Yes, let's get this straight, the B-1B's theoretical is 110,000 lbf+...however, let's be reasonable and i agree a typical mission will probably see ~30-50,000 lbf of payload (can include more fuel). No B-1Bs in operation ever uses external stores, in fact i believe most of them are not even fitted with hardpoints, except the prototype modified from B-1A. Tu-160's vertical fin is all moving...RCS? (unless it's composite fin). The range of the B-1B however is very questionable....about this payload thing, I believe the Tu-160 can "hang" way more than 36,000lbf, but it doesn't mean if you can hang it, you can drop it. Let's put this into perspective, the theoretical load of the F-111A is 40,000lbf+!...i don't think it'll fly very far with that, although it was demonstrated....so, extrapolate this to both the B-1B and the Tu-160...you get the point. The most important thing to me is how capable is the avionics of the Tu-160? Also, drag is a function of size, not how "aerodynamic" it is...drag coefficient IS a function of how "aerodynamic" it is. I would agree with the Tu-160 being lower in Cd, but don't factor in the more thurst the Tu-160 has...b/c it has more drag and also b/c it needs to go mach2+. I don't think the Tu-160 can hang low like the B-1B...the crew will get really really sick.
    Country::US of A

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    ug::
    Posts
    916

    RE: Get your FACTS straight Garry...

    I agree with your point about internal carriage on the B-1B. I even believe that the B-1B cannot carry any weapons externally anymore, the hardpoints were welded over because of START.

    Ference.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    1,446

    RE: Get your FACTS straight Garry...

    Garry, you seem to be mighty confused here. As far as I know, the B-1B CANNOT carry weapons externally.

    MinMiester

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    6,150

    RE: Get your FACTS straight Garry...

    Originally, it was able to. If I remember what I saw on a schema, it could take either a multple bomb ejector, or some 3 or 4 cruise missiles under each wing stub.
    Regards,

    Frank

  25. #25
    elpalmer Guest

    nope

    Confirmed. The B-1 carrys no external stores.

    elp
    usa

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    6,150

    RE: nope

    I agree, but it was DESIGNED to. Due to a nuclear treaty, the hardpoints were unmounted, I think I have the drawings at home. If you are a good boy (and if I find them) :-) , I'll scan it this week-end, and send them to you newt week. (Sorry, but a firewall forbids me to upload somthing to this forum)

    Best regards,

    Frank
    Regards,

    Frank

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    8,692

    RE: Remedial Reading 101

    If you read my post all the way to the end you will see that I credit the information to an author other than myself.
    Drag has as much to do with shape as size. Or is a 275 ton square block of concrete just as low drag as a Tu-160?
    I'll take your word on the hardpoints being removed (Which held 14 missiles externally according to the article).
    The article also made the point that despite being capable of Mach 1.2 at optimum conditions, the B-1B was a subsonic bird. The Tu-160 however can be used up to 2000km from base in a high low high flight profile at 2000km/h (at high level) and just supersonic at low level. The difference in practical warload is marginal and the higher structure weight of the Tu-160 will probably mean a longer airframe life. I think any defence capable of shooting down a Tu-160 would also be capable of doing the same to a B-1B, so as I said the choice between them is really just a personal one. (And I'm sticking with the Tu-160)

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Burpelson AFB
    Posts
    13,191

    START

    The B-1B's external hardpoints were removed under the START treaty. One of my fun extra jobs here at McConnell AFB is to escort the Russian inspection team when they decide to grace us with their presence. The bulkheads of the B-1B's forward weapon bay is locked in the middle position (i.e., it could fit 2 rotary AGM-69-type launchers, but not the single longer AGM-86B launcher). And the external hardpoints have been welded over. There were only two aircraft ever to even have the hardpoints fitted during tests, and they were at Edwards and had extra blade antennas on their spines for satellite verification of being cruise-missile carriers.

    As for the Tu-160 vs B-1B debate, you can no longer really compare them. The B-1B is a low level penetrator; the BLACKJACK is a standoff cruise-missile platform. The BLACKJACK is more equivalent to the B-1A (I think someone pointed that out). If I had to choose, I'd rather have the Tu-160. People will complain about the inferiority of Russian equipment and so forth, but the aircraft is extremely capable in its own right. As the B-1B is being adapted to carry JDAM's and other PGM's, the Tu-160 is being adapted to actually employ free-fall bombs. Contrary to popular belief, Russian Tu-160's have only ever operated as strategic missile platforms. The BLACKJACK has much larger internal capacity in its weapon bays than the B-1, so it should be an effective bomber as well.

    As far as the whole "Tu-160 has smaller RCS" issue, the B-1B has its fair share of slab surfaces as well (horiz/vert tails), and neither aircraft will be confused with a stealth platform with its weapon bay doors open. The Russian claim was that the Tu-160 is a much more aerodynamically refined and 'cleaner' design, and I tend to agree with them due to the fact that the design wasn't hindered by low observables. The Russians learned a lot as far as large supersonic aircraft go with the Tu-144 project (has anyone seen a picture of Tupolev's original Tu-160 design? Think CHARGER with a red star instead of Aeroflot markings). However, I am neither an aeronautical engineer nor a fluid mechanics physicist, so I'm sure the Russian claims will be gunned down by the Western Mafia as soon as I post them }>

    Incidentially, the Tu-160's that everyone keeps talking about being in "disrepair" (see picture further up on this thread)? Those are the original flight test articles at Zhukovskiy, which have undergone substantial modifications during their careers. The operational aircraft at Engels are in much, much better shape. And they're painted.
    Sean O'Connor

    Sean's Blog, now with forum
    ACIG.org Team
    Airliners.net

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    On your nerves
    Posts
    9,060

    Tu-160s at Engels...

    Forgive them, oh SOC, for they do not know the road to Engels AB. The Tu-160s there look terribly kitsch, by the way: overall white with a Russian flag finflash. Still, and all have gotten nicknames now (Ilya Murometz was the first one, coded 05r - i don't know the other ones). I completely agree on the general appearance of them though: they look as good as any Russian aircraft i've ever seen. Well, in 1996 that is.

    Oh, and SOC: do you have anything on the status of the 63 Tu-22 in storage at Engels? From what i know, they should be regarded as mothballed but i have my doubts if this is still true.

    Regards,

    Arthur
    Regards,

    Arthur
    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
    Bertrand Russell

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    261

    RE: B-1B would win....bar none

    Thanks garryb thats where i read that the rcs of the tu-160 is smaller then that of the b-1b.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES