Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: B1-B vs Tu-160
Roman    2/14/2004 2:31:20 PM
Which is the better strategic bomber? I think I would have to vote for Tu-160 on account of its speed - in other areas they seem to be comparable.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Red_Star_Pilot    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   3/2/2004 11:32:04 PM
"In this thread you are comparing two different planes the B-1B doesn't have the same role as the TU-160. If you wanted to compare strategic bombers of the US and Russia you should compare the TU-160 with the B-2 where the Blackjack doesn’t remotely stand up against the B-2." Actually the B-2 is a much newer design then the Tu 160. The only real comparison is B-1A vs. Tu 160.
 
Quote    Reply

fox    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   3/2/2004 11:52:55 PM
The B-1A is faster by about 100mph not enough to make a huge differnce. The B-1B could carry a total of 110,00lb of bombs or 36 SRAMs while the Tu-160 can carry only 36,300lb or 12kents or 24 kickbacks. THe range of the B-1A is 6,100 miles and the Tu-160 is 8,700 miles. The B-1A could refuel in mid air but that advantage is still the Tu-160. I would say I would rather be able to strick more targets than go further and with refueling range doesn't matter as much. So I would go with the B-1A.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   3/3/2004 12:29:52 AM
"The B-1B could carry a total of 110,00lb of bombs or 36 SRAMs while the Tu-160 can carry only 36,300lb or 12kents or 24 kickbacks." Am I correct in assuming you mean B1A? You listed B1A rather than B1B in all the rest of the statistics you give. BTW: What is the difference between the two aircraft anyway?
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   3/3/2004 12:30:43 AM
"I would say I would rather be able to strick more targets than go further and with refueling range doesn't matter as much. So I would go with the B-1A" Fair enough, but you also forget the speed advantage of the Tu-160.
 
Quote    Reply

fox    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   3/3/2004 12:42:36 AM
yes I did mean B-1A and the site I looked at gave a slight edge to the B-1A actually. In terms of B-1B it was much slower but also had a reduced radar cross section and a heavier payload.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   3/3/2004 1:01:12 AM
Fair enough...
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   3/5/2004 12:01:05 AM
Both the B1A and the B1B have a larger RCS than the Blackjack
 
Quote    Reply

ace    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   3/5/2004 5:20:29 AM
Isn't 'sticking more targets' the B-52's job? or does the stealth factor play an important role in this?
 
Quote    Reply

fox    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   3/6/2004 1:35:04 AM
The B-1B actually has a bigger bomg load that the B-52. And where di you get the info on the blackjakc being stealth. I know that the B-1B isn't true stealth but some fetures were put into it's design
 
Quote    Reply

ace    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   3/6/2004 3:50:24 AM
when i mentioned stealth, i was reffering to the b1b, not the tu 160, although now that i think about it, the smilarity in shape between the black jack and the lancer does suggest that the tu 160 can be upgraded to stealth.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics