The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers?
Military Strength    4/15/2004 10:17:27 AM
I read an article that the Tu 160 can match the b2 spirit? in my view russia's bombers are lacking far behind us bomber capabilities. what are ur thoughts guys?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
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

boris the romanian    RE:Tu-160 durability? was:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers?   5/20/2004 11:49:57 PM
According to "World Aircraft Information Files" the Tu-160 has a smaller RCS than the B-1B. The aircraft was designed with stealth considerations in mind. The jagged intakes are also effective. It doesn't have anywhere near the LO properties of the B-2, but it is better than the Lancer. Couple this with better flight performance and longer range and you've got a violent work of art.
 
Quote    Reply

Darth Vader    RE:Tu-160 durability? was:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers?   5/21/2004 4:10:52 PM
When I say the Tu 160 is more durable than the B-2, I mean it can be more damaged without losing key capabilities. The B-2 relies on primarily on stealth in a combat zone to survive. Chew up part of the exterior, and stealth cability goes down. The Tu-160 relies more on speed to survive. Having holes shot into it doesn't compromise it as much in terms of decreasing primary abilities. I've also heard that because of the Russian's less advanced computer systems and heavier construction in their aircraft, they tend to be more difficult to put out of action or damaged to the point of crashing.
 
Quote    Reply

Shaken    RE:Tu-160 durability? was:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers?   5/21/2004 4:46:49 PM
Thank you for the expanation, Darth. Your logic is that the hit to the B-2 will degrade its stealth and allow it to be hit again. While I agree that a stealth damaging hit will increase the likelihood of multiple hits, I was more concerned about chance of loosing the airplane to a single missile hit (which is the dominant case for losing aircraft in this class). The Tu-160's sheer speed dramatically INCREASES the chance of damage being fatal. The dynamic stresses on the airframe are so much greater at multi-mach speed and having a hole in your aircraft screws up the shape that allows the plane to travel this speed. If metal is pushed into the airstream by the damage (not unlikely), it is going to be ripped into a much larger hole by multi-mach airstream. If the damage is to a wing or tail surface, it can act like a deflected control surface and cause the plane to lose control or wrenching the entire surface (wing/tail) off. Trust me, performing an uncommanded Cobra maneuver at twice the speed of sound will ruin your day. As to simplicity == durability, I'm not convinced. I think this varies a lot from plane to plane. The F-15 is a hugely complex, techno-beast; but it has proven remarkably resiliant to damage. F-4s, the complexity beast of the previous generation was also able to sustain pretty dramatic damage. Interestingly, newer version of US flight control software has been incorporating tricks to compensate for battle damage / lost comtrol surfaces. -- Shaken - out --
 
Quote    Reply

Darth Vader    RE:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers?   5/21/2004 11:45:33 PM
Okay, I'll concede that the Tu 160 and the B-2 both have their faults. No airplane is perfect. I did read somewhere that the B-2 is naturally unstable, and can't roll more than sixty degrees either way, otherwise it starts to slide sideways because of the lack of vertical stabilizers. Verification anyone?
 
Quote    Reply

ChdNorm    RE:Can Russa's Tu 160 match US b2 Spirit bombers?   5/22/2004 1:49:06 AM
I didnt know much about the Tu 160 when I got to reading this thread ... so I did a search to see a little more on it. I saw where Russia only has like five of them (unless they bought those 19 from Ukraine ... I saw where they were going to, not going to, and didnt want to cause theyre all in poor condition). So I'm wondering ... so what if they compare? Numbers don't lie. No matter how good they are ... 20 B-2s beat 5 Tu 160s hands down.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy