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: 1 2 3   NEXT
hybrid    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   2/14/2004 6:53:03 PM
From what I've read the Tu-160 was plagued with a lot of problems, but then the B-1 also had a lot of problems too. As far as payload goes, the Tu-160 carries less payload than the B-1, it was rated at a normal load of 9,000 kg and a max payload of 40,000 kg (I am not sure if its capable of external payloads). However the B-1B variant can carry 75,000lbs internal, plus an additional 59,000lbs on external hard points. On the other hand, the Tu-160 outranges the B-1B, an max payload range of 10,000+ km and could get to its target faster.
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   2/14/2004 7:24:31 PM
Yes, I believe that the Ty-160 had major engine reliability problems, but these engines have recently been replaced with supposedly more reliable ones, so I do not know whether the problems are continuing.
Quote    Reply

ace    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   2/19/2004 4:47:56 AM
does anyone know the b1b max speed, cause the tu-160 max speed is 2,200km p/h which is faster than alot of foghters, but i guess that speed isn't going to help much when it comes to escaping from new aged missiles. the tu-160 is also capable of mid air refuling which is always a big plus, it's un-refulling flight range is 12,300km without refulling, not too bad. if the engine problem can be fixed, it would make a pretty sweet plane. i think that the russians should use the consept of the tu-160 to build a new and improved version instead continuing to produce it. thet've done it with the su 27+ series 4 times.
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   2/19/2004 5:26:54 AM
The 160 has half the payload as well, no point getting to target twice as quickly if you can only throw half as much at the target(s) Absolute speed is not the largest determinant of capability. (it may be for the petrol heads, but not for the realists)
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   2/19/2004 9:43:38 AM
Actually I think the Blackjack and the Lancer are build to different purposes. During the cold war under arms reduction talks there was much talk about the USSR-USA range of the Backfire, which panned out to be that the Backfire had the range, if you were VERY inventive. As the Backfire wasn't the most succesfull design ever (moving wing pivot points on bombers is a general indication of trouble) probably gave rise to the Blackjack for a plane to survive the lethal air defence of Western Europe - problem: Before the plane was operative - the war was lost.
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   2/19/2004 11:01:52 AM
One thing I didn't understand with the article on its specs said that its nominal payload was 9000kg and its max payload was 40,000kg. Now heres my question...are they saying that due to stressing the mainframe and maintenance they don't usually carry anywhere near max payload?
Quote    Reply

Perfection Incarnate    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   2/20/2004 3:28:22 PM
The B-1b is far superior for the tasks at hand... The Tu-160 is designed for a mission of the past (nuke delivery)....granted the B-1b was as well, but it has been upgraded into a strictly conventional role that more often than not has it slinging JDAMS across the battlefield. The Tu-160 has a nice range and speed however there is no way it can retain its long range at anywhere near its impressive max. speed. The abundance of tanker aircraft have made range a non-issue for American planes, more bombs are definetly worth the decrease in speed.
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   2/23/2004 8:19:51 PM
the Tu-160 has only two weapons bays whereas the Lancer has three. However, only very rarely is it called upon to deliver conventional ordnance, and when it does, it is usually in the form of the Kh-15 SRAM (also available with a nuclear payload, much like the retired AGM-69) to surpress defences while delivering its nuclear cargo. It isn't as useful as the Lancer when it comes to conventional bombing, but for deep penetration strikes with nukes it has numerous advantages, namely much better flight performance (useful when approaching the target area), greater range (which translates to either a number of approach routes to target, or more time spent on afterburner) and a smaller RCS. The lack of a HUD is a disadvantage, but, all in all, the Blackjack it more likey to reach the target than the Lancer.
Quote    Reply

Red_Star_Pilot    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   3/1/2004 2:41:26 PM
The Tu 160 was designed as a larger copy of the B-1A Lancer, which never saw service. The B-1B was redesigned for a new mission, the Tu 160 never was. If I was in charge I would have the Tu 160 retrofitted for low altitude penetration missions and heavy tactical bombing with a heavier payload, as the B-1B was. Then the Tu 160 would yet again pwn the B-1.
Quote    Reply

fox    RE:B1-B vs Tu-160   3/2/2004 1:23:45 AM
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.
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT