Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 36

Thread: B1B vs Tu160

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    105

    B1B vs Tu160

    Hee hee.......Alrighty then.I read an article that said that the Blackjack actually has a lower RCS than the B1B...

  2. #2
    phantomforever (mark) Guest

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    Nobody doubts anymore on the technological knowhow of the Soviets.

    It seemed that in the beginning the Blackjack suffered with malfunctions in its ECM-systems (a bit like the bone) and pilots where complaining about the uncomfteble seats and ergonomics (also something typical russians i believe)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    pi::Street racing%2C Hornet bashing
    Posts
    895

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    The TU-160's range and speed advantages over the B-1B are well known, what is not is that if the Blackjack were configured to carry a large load of dumb bombs internally like its American rival it would be able able to haul 88,000 lbs worth versus the 75,000 lbs of the B-1B. However, I think the Russians are content to keep their TU-160s the way they are and would be more inclined to use large thermobaric bombs instead of conventional HE for tasks requiring mass demoralization/destruction.

    The combination of the the long ranged and difficult to intercept TU-160 aircraft and the new Kh-101 long range stealthy cruise missle is a deadly one, it is fortunate for the U.S. that more TU-160s weren't built as they then could influence affairs well beyond Russia's borders.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8,043

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    In my opinion, besides being better looking, the B-1 is a much more advanced aircraft. It maybe a little older, but with a payload of 75,000 lb. which can be increased to 135,000 lb. plus a long range, high speed and a low RCS it is the best bomber in the US inventory and possibly the world although it does have serviceability problems.
    Fox-4!

  5. #5
    biffbutkus Guest

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    The TU160 (from what I have read) has serious maintenance problems and its doubtful it has a lower RCS than the B1. How could it? Its bigger, has a larger vert stab, less complex slab sided design, variable geometry inlets etc.

    As for the B1, it has its own problems like that POS ECM system and some structural issues. However, that bird is damn impressive in the air. It takes off like a fighter and turns like no other large aircraft. And apparently, when the ECM system IS working, its very effective. BTW, the ALQ161 is possibly going to be replaced or supplemented by the ALQ172V2, which should increase its survivability greatly. It can also carry a huge weapon load in 3 internal bays and external hardpoints.

    Which is better is a bit of a toss up. But I'll go with the B1B by a hair.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    3,371

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    obviously B1B since it has much more operational experiences. But, let's not forget that the B1B was not designed to be stealth, hence its extremely capable electronic system both defensive and offensive. Its systems were criticized because the requirements were just simply too much and too tough (defeat all soviet radar networks???? and penetrate??? 100%???)...the B1B DOES NOT have long range on internal fuels...do the calcs yourself...that just can't be...this was verified by many pilots flying it...but, who cares, that's what the tankers are for...here are what i think the BlackJack is good at....


    1)high speed
    2)longer range
    3)relatively unused

    that's pretty much it...
    Country::US of A

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    105

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    The reason I posted the article was that I know the B1B was modified with simpler,more stealthy inlets over the original design cancelled by Carter.It's role was changed to a low level one(even though Kosovo/gulf happened above 15000ft most of the time) I think both types servicability problems are well documented.The Tu160 has it's cockpit area well forward of the front undercarriage.The Bone has it over the undercarriage.This allows the Blackjack to have a smaller/thinner front fuselage , thereby contributing to minimizing it's RCS from the frontal arc.It's obviously a larger plane , so I'm not sure what other measures could possibly have been taken.On the subject of fighter like take-offs , the Tu160 is 27% heavier than the Bone , but has 80% more thrust!!!!

    The Tu160 is capable of 1080 km/h at sea level.It has not yet been configured to take dumb bombs yet.Without absolute knowledge of the ECM suite capabilities and a host of other variables , I reckon it's pretty difficult to choose....Of course many more bones were produced than Blackjacks , although 2 more have recently been delivered.I think this brings the total up to 15-20 aircraft..

  8. #8
    biffbutkus Guest

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    LE, I don't have exact figures, but I'm betting that the TU160 is 27% heavier empty. Fueled and loaded its probably quite a bit heavier than 27% higher than a B1B.

    As for the B1s RCS. When it was redesigned as the B1B, the RCS was reduced by dropping the variable inlets and other methods. It was designed to have a very low RCS. Not stealth, but low nonetheless.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    105

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    Biff...I've just been running around like a blue arsed fly trying to find my stats on the bone....they're here somewhere...The Blackjack is some serious heavy metal..you're right.
    Max Take off...275 000kg
    empty..........117 000kg
    Max Landing....155 000kg

    148 000kg of fuel , with an inflight refuelling probe
    15 hours flight duration without AAR
    Practical unrefuelled range...12 300km(5% reserve,6 cruise missiles)
    Technical unrefuelled range...13 950km

    cruise nach no ...0.77
    max speed at alt 2000km'h
    max speed SL 1030km/h
    All it's ordinance is carried internally..
    I like both planes,in fact I like all planes..
    Now where are my damned Bone stats....


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Burpelson AFB
    Posts
    13,191

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    Here's my take guys...

    One of my duties here at McConnell AFB is a START escort, I escort Russian inspectors when they come through checking out the B-1B's here for treaty compliance. One of the issues is the deletion of the external hardpoints so that the aircraft can no longer carry AGM-86B missiles externally. So on that note, no, the B-1B cannot carry external weapons anymore. In fact, only the 2 aircraft at Edwards AFB ever tested this configuration, and they had extra antennas on their spines to denote them as cruise-missile carriers for satellite verification under the START treaty.

    As to the aerodynamic drag/RCS issue. Having seen the B-1B up close and personal (Bone pilots have no great amount of space in the cockpit either guys), there are a few features which may prove and disprove parts of this argument. The USAF bomber has a much more blended airframe, and the intakes are certainly not optimised for high speed/low drag. That being said, the Tu-160 is optimised for high speed/high altitude flight. Good fuel consumption, good engines, and a low-drag airframe are required for the aircraft to meet its stated range/speed characteristics (I have no background whatsoever in aerodynamics professionally, so if I'm wrong disreguard this). All of this leads me to believe that the Tu-160 could possibly have a lower-drag airframe than the B-1B, which is optimised for low altitude and stealthiness. I do however believe that the Tu-160 has a larger RCS than the B-1B, for the reasons that were named here (engine faces not shielded, larger control surfaces, and even if all things were equal in the realm of RCS control a much larger airframe).

    Which aircraft is better? There really can't be a comparison I think. They perform two entirely different roles. The BLACKJACK is a high-altitude missile carrier, the B-1B is a low level penetrator. At least aesthetically, however, I'm throwing my hat into the Tu-160's ring.

    Comments?
    Sean O'Connor

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

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    3,371

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    Interesting SOC, but, you think the Tu-160 looks better, is there a particular reason why? In terms of avionics, the Tu-160 was said to posses the Russian state of the art, but from what i know, it still relies on two mechanically scanned radars while the B-1B has the active arrays. It's very interesting to note that even the F-16/F-18 doesn't have variable inlets but can go to ~M2.0, so why not the B-1B given enough thrust?
    I know the money is probably not there, but why not use F-22's engines for a beefed up B-1B in the time frame of 2010-2030(retirement) instead of new airframes...that would be very interesting...and take note that ~35,000+lbf(probably ~36,500lbf) each is comparable to NK-144's(or equivalent) ~44,000lbf when factoring that the B-1B is smaller and lighter. As for the drag, the Drag of the Tu-144 should be similar with B-1B (the Russian plane has a higher fineness ratio albeit being bigger), this means the Russian plane probably have a lower "parasitic" Drag coefficient. However, being a heavier plane that the Tu-144, the induced drag components would cancel that, so i still think B-1B has a lower Total Drag coefficient. Now one of the pluses of the Tu was that it uses Turbojets(i think, or at least very low bypass) which means better high end(speed) performance versus range...

    Country::US of A

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Burpelson AFB
    Posts
    13,191

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    The reason for the Bone's low top speed has to do with the redesign of the intakes for RCS reduction. Mach 2+ speed requires variable ramps and the like, which are obviously not in the best interests of stealth. You can reach ~Mach 2 (like the F-16/22) with a carefully shaped intake to reconfigure the airflow I believe, and this is what the B-1B lacks. Hence the low top speed. It can, however, reach very near its vmax at low level, making it a pain to intercept!

    As for the avionics, the Tu-160 didn't need the advanced systems of the B-1B, as it has no desire to conduct a low level bombing run. All it needs to do is launch standoff missiles.

    Why is the Tu-160 better looking? It looks more powerful I think, and I don't really give the B-1B's looks a second thought as I see them nearly every day.
    Sean O'Connor

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

  13. #13
    biffbutkus Guest

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    Well, SOC, after looking at Buffs for 5 years, the B1 looks damn pretty. Its such a sleek, flowing design that looks more graceful compared to the Blackjack.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't there been problems with RCS on the B1 due to fasteners on exterior panels. I believe the B1B is coated in radar absorbing paint, but the camlocks obviously aren't.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    105

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    Vortex,the Tu160 uses Trud/Samara NK-321 TURBOFANS , not turbojets.These each produce 30 865lb dry and 55 115lb afterburning thrust each.That means it produces as much thrust dry as each of the Bones General Electric turbofans produce wet...The russian engine is an excellent one, the most powerful fitted to a production combat type ever...I refer you to B Gunstons excellent Aero Engine series...

    The Bone..
    Empty operating...87 100kg
    Max Take off.....216 363kg
    Max speed alt....Mach 1.2
    Max speed SL....."over 966km/h"
    Max range , withot AAR..11 997km

    NOW , these stats are just that..statistics.Things like ECM effectiveness are difficult to quantify , along with a host of other variables.I think both these assets would only be used in an air superiority environment or as a stand off platform anyway.The last of the cold war warriors!!I personally like both bombers , so will refrain from making controversial statements...i like the Blackjack , however!!

    During the last stage of the cold war , there were several proposed variants..

    Tu160M...stretched variant with longer fuselage.Armed with 2 KH-90 heavy hypersonic 5000km range cruise missiles.
    Tu160P...escort interceptor armed with long and medium air to air missiles to protect other Blackjacks on ultra long range missions!!!(Me 110 anybody?)
    Tu160PP...similar escort , but ECM version
    Tu160R...Strategic recon

    All this is academic , as Ronnie Reagan outspent the USSR via the SDI program!!Most of the above were paper studies only...



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    3,371

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    wow, stretch of an already huge bomber...that'll be something. and wow, 55,000lbf i'll need to check on that but that's one powerful sucker...guess my source was outdated over the rumour before all this came...so, if B1Bs change their engines to ~35-40,000lbf then near parity can be claimed in terms of raw performance due to B1B's smaller size. How does a Tu-160 handle? I'm still amazed that consistently, US a/c of all types carries more than Russian counterparts while at most times being smaller...the aerodynamics and structures seems to be on parity..hummm can anyone answer that?
    Country::US of A

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    pi::Street racing%2C Hornet bashing
    Posts
    895

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    Vector >

    The answer as to why American planes seemingly pack a heavier punch relative to their size has a lot to do with Western manufacterer's and NATO propaganda. The actual operational loads seem to be similar though the U.S. aircraft indeed have an edge.

    However, I believe that the Russians are more concerned about the negative flight performance impact that goes with heavy loads, and are more conservative there in what's considered acceptable. This is completely opposite of the philosophy they had for many years about warships, in which they traded seagoing abilities for disporportionally heavy armament.

    Anyway, I think the B-52 and the TU-95/142 are better than the B-1 and TU-160 ever will be!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    On your nerves
    Posts
    9,060

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    The USSR outspent itself with a highly inefficient economic system. Ronnie's SDI program had nothing to do with it - they didn't consider it a serious threat, and only assumed it would bleed US military budget dry if it would ever become operational.

    As for the comparison between the Tu-160 and the B-1B... apart from all technical differences noted above, i just have to add that the view from the fence at Priluki in the Ukraine is way more impressive than that at Fairford during a B-1B deployment. Not to mention Engels AB, but there it's not the Balckjacks making an impressive sight.

    Regards,

    Arthur
    Regards,

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

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    belgrade, serbia
    Posts
    3,503

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    So what else makes the sight so impressive?
    Regards, Ivan

  19. #19
    biffbutkus Guest

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    Arthur, your statement about the USSR not taking SDI seiously is in error I believe. In fact, did'nt the USSR take it so seriously that they began their own massive "Star Wars" spending campaign. And did they not also go to a heightened state of readiness because of their perception of Reagan's Star Wars speech as "provocative?"

    I have seen reports on a Discovery program that state that SDI actually had two goals-
    1. Force the Soviet Union into a spending competition, which it would inevitably lose
    2. And SECONDLY develop new technologies to defeat ICBMs

    Star Wars was not much more than an elaborate propaganda program- and apparently it worked.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    On your nerves
    Posts
    9,060

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    Sixty-three Tu-22 Blinders beautifully lined up on the vast steppes... and a whole bunch of Bisons and Bears waiting to be scrapped as well, although those are gone by now. I was there in early june 1996 - not on an official visit alas, but on a planespotting trip along the Volga river.

    Regards,

    Arthur
    Regards,

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

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    On your nerves
    Posts
    9,060

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    What i've heard from Russian military people i've spoken, they never believed in SDI as a technical possibility in the first place, especially not in the severe overkill-launches that would take place if Armageddon would break out.

    Neither did the Soviets spend millions and millions of pre-1990 roubles in a similar project. As far as i know, the only project which did emerge as a counter to SDI was the Il-76RLSBO or A60, an Il-76 based combat laser similar to the US's AL-1 program.

    The reason why the Soviets went into a heightened state of readiness was indeed partly because of Reagan's Star Wars speech, but not for the technical/strategical content of it. It was simply one of the many provocative actions from the Reagan administration (there were more speeches like that, Reagan's failed Poland-politics, the overflights of the Kurilles, increased EW missions around the Soviet bloc, etcetera) which the Russians regarded as talk from some trigger-happy commie-hater of the likes of Curtis LeMay.

    However, if another not quite so hawkish president was in office in the 1980s, the Soviet Union would have collapsed just as well. From about 1984, the Soviet burocracy could no longer hide the fact that the planned economy did not work at all. Reagan might have speeded the collapse by one or two years, but it's not because of good old Ronnie that the Cold War was won by the West.

    Regards,

    Arthur
    Regards,

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

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    belgrade, serbia
    Posts
    3,503

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    Aren't the Russians planning to upgrade the Tu-160? What would the upgrade entail?
    Regards, Ivan

  23. #23
    Krasnaya Zvezda Guest

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    The Russkies are going for a fleet of ~20. I assume that they are going to equip them with the most sophisticated systems as there is no point in having such a small force if they are only going to become flying death-traps. Or I could just post this from Stratfor (not quite the same, but still interesting):

    http://www.stratfor.com/SERVICES/giu2000/081100.asp

    KZ

    P.S. I'll see if I can rustle up someother links.


  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    belgrade, serbia
    Posts
    3,503

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 24-Oct-00 AT 11:30 AM (GMT)[/font][p]Yes, thanks, but what does the upgrade entail?
    Regards, Ivan

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    105

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    The GE Engines on the Bi have a bypass ratio of 2.01.weight is 2023kg,wet thrust is 30 780lb , length 4.5 metres and diameter is 55 inches.The samara NK-321 has a bypass ratio of 1.4,weight of 3440kg,dry thrust is 30 843lb and wet thrust 55 115lb.Length is 6 meters and diametre is 57 inches.The GE engine will have a lower fuel consumption as it's less powerful , but as for fuel consumptio as a ratio of thrust , I'm not sure..

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    belgrade, serbia
    Posts
    3,503

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    Is that all? Aren't there weapon systems and avionics upgrades too?
    Regards, Ivan

  27. #27
    biffbutkus Guest

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    Actually yes, ink. The Russians, in order to increase the comfort and effectiveness of the crew are outfitting the TU160's cockpit with Vodka dispensing equipment. A HAPPY crew is an effective crew, right?

    I doubt there will be much money for extensive upgrades. I would think ECM would be one possible upgrade, as long as the vodka tap didn't eat up too much funds.

  28. #28
    phantomforever (mark) Guest

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    I find -of all the proposed Blackjack-versions- the Tu-160P-version the most intriging. A stealthy longrange reconversion and jamming-version are logical steps in the further developpement of the Tu-160, the P-version, not really. The Tu-160P would have been the largest fighter ever build (beating the Tu-28 Fiddler by far).

    I have a bit my doubts about the effectiveness of such a version. An attack by a Blackjack formation would have occured by flying lowdeck missions when entering enemy territory. With its high speed and low RCS the Blackjack should have a good chance of reaching its target. How should the escort-version fitted in ? They could not make actively use of their radar as this would certainly give away their position to the enemy and because of the long distance there probably wasn't any Mainstay AWACS-support.


    Maybe they could have been used to attack the AWACS-aircraft patroling off the coast (for ex. the US west-coast, Alaska). After destroying these with longrange AAMs the attacking bomberformation could have more easily entered the airdefense also because of the targetless F-15 interceptors without their AWACS-support.

    Same goes for an attack on a carrier battle group. After downing the Hawkeyes the ships should have activated their radars giving so the position to the attack-formations.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    4

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    >Hee hee.......Alrighty then.I read an article
    >that said that the Blackjack
    >actually has a lower RCS
    >than the B1B...

    Hello all

    I'm new to this forum, but finally, hopefully found what I'm looking for : lots of knowlegable people.
    My interest is not so much the RCS (radar cross section?)of the Tu160 but rather more visible technical details. They are needed for a model project -RC with EDF's. I have practically everything which has been published in the last year or so, two three views (which don't aggree)and all the same well published photos. I'm looking for more detailed drawings and pictures to be able to design the model accurately. Any help or suggestions?
    Thanks
    Klaus





  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    belgrade, serbia
    Posts
    3,503

    RE: B1B vs Tu160

    Try this site

    http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu160/index.html

    It might be usefull or it might be of no use whatsoever.
    Regards, Ivan

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