Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Shaken RE:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers? 5/6/2004 1:49:03 PM

Good post Boris. Blackjack is a fine airframe and well-suited to the job at hand. And whoever tried to describe Blackjack as a more economical choice is out of their head. Sure, it was cheaper than the "buy twenty" cost of the B-2 (remember, US cost are loaded, not flyaway); but Blackjack was massively expensive. In fact, Blackjack is often sited in discussions of the downfall of the Soviet economy. In many ways, the Blackjack is a regrettable dinosaur from a past age. (On the other hand, it has ended up reassuring to the Russians when they are having serious problems maintaining their strategic missiles. Russia can't get critical missile guidance componants, which were made in what is now Ukrania). One factor that I think is significant in favor of the American bombers is the integration of GPS and laser guided weapons. Precision guided weapons tremendously improve the effectiveness of the bombs being dropped and have opened up entirely new uses for the bomber platforms. Also, improved communications gear allows the bomber to become a dynamic player in the tactical battlespace. (Using a B-52 as a CAS platform sounds ludicrous, but it is working really well). The expansion of heavy bombers into tactical roles is a dramatic change that makes these expensive platforms viable again. (The post cold-war demand for strategic (nuclear) deep penetration bombers is basically zero). This discovery is what is fueling development of the FB-22 and discussions of B-3. Of course, these sort of systems COULD be integrated into the Blackjack, but for the moment it is a clear US advantage in both technology and direct experience. -- Shaken - out --

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers? 5/6/2004 3:39:04 PM

Would i be right in saying that at 40000Kg, the blackjack has a bigger internal bomb-load.

Quote Reply

Shaken RE:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers? 5/7/2004 1:55:07 AM

Yes, the Blackjack has a greater internal load carrying ability (40,000 kg versus 34,000 kg). The B-1B's total load carrying ability is considerably larger (65,750 kg versus 40,000 kg) and has greater versatility through external hardpoints. Of course, the B-2 has a much more modest 22,700 kg internal (therefore total) weapons load. -- Shaken - out --

Quote Reply

boris the romanian RE:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers? 5/7/2004 2:01:25 AM

I'm just a little curious, how can the Blackjack with only two bays carry a greater INTERNAL payload than the Lancer, which has three. I know the Blackjack's bays are bigger, but not by much.....

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers? 5/7/2004 2:24:44 PM

It's a good bit bigger as far as i know. the blackjack's bays have to be bigger to hold theur huge cruise missiles. the b-1 uses a removable bulkhead [2 bays become one] to carry its smaller cruise missiles.

Quote Reply

Darth Vader RE:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers? 5/20/2004 1:56:02 PM

Comparing the Blackjack and the B-2 Spirit is difficult, considering they're two different approachs to building a bomber. The B-2 is subsonic, and carries a smaller bomb load than the Tu 160, but is stealthy and can avoid almost any attempt at detecting it. The Tu 160 is the biggest, heaviest, and fastest bomber in the world and can rip along at something like mach 2.5, but has a radar return the size of a planet. It also more durable than the B-2 in terms of the capability to have parts shot off and keep flying.

Quote Reply

Shaken Tu-160 durability? was:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers? 5/20/2004 2:31:37 PM

I don't see how you can make a comparison of relative durabilities of the B-2 and Tu-160. Neither have had any experience having components knocked off. Swing-wing aircraft have not had a track record of durability. Very few combat damaged swing-wings make it back to base, based on the Tornado and Aardvark experience. While the number of incidents is probably too small to be statistically significant, we might infer that the technical complexity of their flight systems makes the swing-wing more vulnerable. As for the B-2's fragility, I have my doubts. The coatings and such are certainly high-maintenance primadonnas, but this doesn't say anything about the core airframe and flight controls. Being a giant wing has some real structural advantages. -- Shaken - out --

Quote Reply

interrested 2 RE:Tu-160 durability? was:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers? 5/20/2004 2:47:29 PM

Yes, the basic layout being a wing makes it very difficult to "shoot the wing off". Also , normal wings tend to be very thin and "fragile". Just as a Delta wing is structually stronger than a traditional wing so is the "flying wing" concept stronger than de delta. All other requirements being equal. Height and 3d structures do wonders for structural strenght.

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:Tu-160 durability? was:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers? 5/20/2004 3:06:24 PM

I thought the blackjack had a reduced signiture (not to say its stealth or anything). Does anyone have authoritive info on this?

Quote Reply

Shaken RE:Tu-160 durability? was:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers? 5/20/2004 5:51:08 PM

The only note I see in Janes describes the blended fuselage reduces the RCS (in the way an F-16A is better than a slab-sided aircraft of equivilant size). There is no mention of RAM use or any other signal reduction (pit screening, intake or exhaust blockers, specialized shaping). Either way, RCS reduction is about avoidance rather than durability. (Which I would contend is more useful. But the topic line was about durability, so I thought I'd be clear). -- Shaken - out --

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 NEXT