View Full Version : B2-spirts vs Tu160-blackjack


Raptorf22
Dec 17, 2001, 06:08 PM
Which one is better? from wut i know...the spirt is consider the best???? with its stealth technology? wut im concern with is....how can the tu-160 go deep into a country without stealth mode and not get hit going so deep into ones country? is the blackjack compared heavily to the b2 spirt?

Alcibiaties of Athenae
Dec 17, 2001, 08:18 PM
Probaly the B-2.

The Russian design goes back some years, doesn't it?

PinkyGen
Dec 17, 2001, 08:21 PM
It would be more apt to compare the T-160 to the B-1B bomber. Both are designed to be fast bombers to go in and launch their nuclear bombs, and then zip out. I assume both are also meant to fly low in order to do it. The problem is both can be spotted by radar.

As long as Stealth technology still works, I would rather take a B-2.

sonorakitch
Dec 17, 2001, 08:23 PM
B-2 is far more effective.

Similar payload, similar speed, and stealth technology, coupled with intensely sophisticated electronics, makes the B-2 Spirit the finest bomber ever built, and is proving its war-worthiness today.

~Chris

I agree, however, that the Tu186 should be compared with the B-1. Keep in mind that the B-1 is already becoming obsolete, and the U.S. Airforce has ordered no new B-1's in the last decade, and has announced it will slowly discontinue the B-1 stock over the next decade. It will be intresting how Russia responds, with their Tupolev manufacturer.

PinkyGen
Dec 17, 2001, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by sonorakitch
B-2 is far more effective.

similar speed

Oh no, the B-2 is quite slow, while I think the Russian is supersonic. Still, I'll take stealth over speed anyday.

Raptorf22
Dec 17, 2001, 09:44 PM
Before making your choice, do u guys know much about the TU-160 cause the tu was made at 2000....so its not that old....and are u talking about b52's that are going to be obsolete.......btw...stealth air planes are not really necesaary for 3rd world countries....since they cant shoot down planes anyway....besdies...using the stealth planes comes at a very high cost compare to the b-52....since its cheaper to maintain

Cylore
Dec 17, 2001, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Raptorf22
Before making your choice, do u guys know much about the TU-160 cause the tu was made at 2000....so its not that old....and are u talking about b52's that are going to be obsolete.......btw...stealth air planes are not really necesaary for 3rd world countries....since they cant shoot down planes anyway....besdies...using the stealth planes comes at a very high cost compare to the b-52....since its cheaper to maintain

The TU-160 was first built in the mid-eightes, it's not a new design.

There are no plans to stop using either the B-52 or the B1-B for at least 10-15 years. They're gonna stop building them and use the (too many) ones they already have.

Most countries have some sort of SAM defenses, even if they don't have (m)any fighters. In such a case, the B-2 is used to destroy the air defenses so the other bombers/strike fighters can proceed with their missions.

Mikoyan
Dec 18, 2001, 01:49 AM
This is not a fair match. The Blackjack was commissioned in 1987.
The B-2 came ten years later.

Apollo
Dec 18, 2001, 01:53 AM
What is the current Russian counterpart to the B-2? I know nothing about this, I just thought that if the TU-160 was too old, maybe there's something else that would be more of an equal.

Mikoyan
Dec 18, 2001, 01:56 AM
B-2 has no russian counterpart at the moment, and blackjack is still is their most modern bomber, but i have read on www.aviation.ru that Tupolev is working on a stealth-bomber project. It might be interesting to wait and see.

Simon Darkshade
Dec 18, 2001, 09:05 AM
B-2 all the way, although the Russians have developed a stealthy prototype aircraft, but have not produced it because of lack of funds.
The Mig-142, methinks, which is meant to be a counterpart to the F-22

Wolfshanze
Dec 18, 2001, 10:55 AM
The Blackjack is far more similar to the B1-B, but still inferior to the B1-B. It's completely differant from the B2, which is subsonic.

The B1-B is supersonic, and contrary to popular conception, the B1-B is also stealth, and has a fraction the radar signature of a B52 bomber (a very small fraction of the B52's radar signature).

Though the B1B is not "as stealthy" as the B2, it is much closer in radar signature to the B2, than it is the B52.

Much the same that the new F22 (a stealth fighter) is not "as stealthy" as the F117 Nighthawk, it is much closer in radar signature to the F117, than the F15 that it will replace.

The Blackjack, is essentially just a fast bomber that looks like a B1, but isn't stealthy in any way.

Gruntboy
Dec 18, 2001, 11:13 AM
The Tu 160 is often compared to the B1 because they look similar. Both have variable geometry wings:

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu160-pic.jpg

- Tu 160

I remember talk a while back about a Russian stealth bomber. I doubt they have the capacity to finish such a project these days.

Now the Caspian Sea Monster. *That's* a groovy idea. :D

pavelsu
Dec 18, 2001, 01:23 PM
They are different concepts. B-2 is subsonic and stealth and this thought to bombard from great, height, by night and without being detected (if it was detected it would have few ones or no way of defending itself). But if the invisibility of B2 works (still it has not been proved in a war of high technology, against a really worthy adversary), would make it almost invulnerable.

Tu-160 it is a supersonic bombardier of penetration to low height, very seemed to B1 (but much bigger and more rapid), to F-111, to the Tornado or to Su24 and Su34.

Nevertheless already there are methods to detect "stealth" planes, Russia and China have special systems of radar (ancient radars that use a minor wave length are capable of detecting them). On the other hand the logistic requirements, the price and the maintenance of one B2 is infinitely major that the one that needs one Tu-160 (and any another plane) what them does a risky bet.

Tu-160, nevertheless, it is a robust plane and of the better of his class, (probably better than B1), this endowed with certain invisibility (like B1) and it is a solid and known concept.

So to establish an opinion on B2 I would expect to using it in a war against a powerful country as Russia or China (if this was happening surely we would be all dead :nuke: ) and not against Afghanistan, where the most advanced thing that they have is the horse and the saber.

G-Man
Dec 18, 2001, 01:29 PM
The B-2 is much better. If I had one I'd sell it, hire someone to bomb the targets for me and use the rest of the money for myself.

I don't think the Russians CAN build a stealth aircraft... The Americans experimented with stealth technology since the 60s. I've never heard on a similar soviet research. Also, how can a country that can't supply it's soldiers with enough food design a stealth bomber, buy it and keep it operational?

animepornstar
Dec 18, 2001, 01:41 PM
the swedish navy have vessels with stealth technology so i donīt think the technology is the problem for the russians.

Lefty Scaevola
Dec 18, 2001, 01:43 PM
Orginally the B1 origianaly had no thought of being stealty. You kniew it comming by the approching line of tactical nuke explosions s it closed in on its strategic target. The forward bombay carry stand off nuke missile to obliterate antiaircraft defenses before it came within their range. It was just supposed to make a little safe nuclear path to it main target which would get the big bombs from the rear bombay.
As now refiited (necessary not only from mission cahnge, but substatial defects in the original design) the B1-B is a all purpose large bomber, with a substantial electronics package. It, as was as the B-2, is likely very supirior to the TU-160, which has had relatively little refit and modernization.

pavelsu
Dec 18, 2001, 01:51 PM
?

pavelsu
Dec 18, 2001, 01:52 PM
"As now refiited (necessary not only from mission cahnge, but substatial defects in the original design) the B1-B is a all purpose large bomber, with a substantial electronics package. It, as was as the B-2, is likely very supirior to the TU-160, which has had relatively little refit and modernization."

It is only what you say, and I do not believe that you are informed by no means on Tu-160 (besides I do not believe that you are very objective).
In the information known Tu-160 overcomes in everything to B1.

Lefty Scaevola
Dec 18, 2001, 02:59 PM
USSR/Russian equipment almost always looks MUCH better on paper than its actual out of the factory performance, which then proceeds to degrade with a typically poor maintainence program and a usually non existant refit program. One notable exception is the MiG29 which unpleasently suprised the USAF when they actually got to evaluate some of its capabilities ten or so years after it was introduced.

Lefty Scaevola
Dec 18, 2001, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by animepornstar
the swedish navy have vessels with stealth technology so i donīt think the technology is the problem for the russians.

The technology is a problem for the russians because, even after theoreticaly desinged, it is expesive as all hell, and very demanding in the production processes. Also it would not do them as much good as it costs, even if they could produce it in volume, the the US also has means of defeating some of the aspects of it, in particular the hull shapes that deflect radar to different directions than their source. This ability may in itself be achievable for the Russian federation, but is still expensive and demanding. Over the next few decades I would expect measures countering stealth to advance at a faster rate the stealth does.

Cylore
Dec 18, 2001, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by pavelsu
"As now refiited (necessary not only from mission cahnge, but substatial defects in the original design) the B1-B is a all purpose large bomber, with a substantial electronics package. It, as was as the B-2, is likely very supirior to the TU-160, which has had relatively little refit and modernization."

It is only what you say, and I do not believe that you are informed by no means on Tu-160 (besides I do not believe that you are very objective).
In the information known Tu-160 overcomes in everything to B1.

Sorry bud, but I don't think you're very objective. Unless the B1-B in question is one that is malfunctioning and crashing in the Indian ocean (200 million down the [big] drain there :lol: ) it is superior to the Blackjack in nearly every way... speed, RoC, payload, ect.

Raptorf22
Dec 18, 2001, 05:05 PM
anybody heard of the auora b4? its still a mystery plane....

Lefty Scaevola
Dec 18, 2001, 09:28 PM
Heard of it, do'nt believe in it, yet.

G-Man
Dec 19, 2001, 09:06 AM
Why would the US need the auora? They don't even use the SR-71s anymore because they're too expensive to operate, so using a jet that can fly 10 times the speed of sound isn't very realistic. Why would the US need these capabilities? So that the plane can escape from the Afghan anti air systems, aka the stinger?

pavelsu
Dec 19, 2001, 12:43 PM
I am totally objective, Cylore. Nevertheless you demonstrate a total ignorance of the topic. Here you have some information in order that you learn a bit (I hope that you do not have problems with the units of measurement):


Tu-160:

Soviet Designation
TU-160

US-Designation
Blackjack

Design Bureau
OKB-156 Tupolev

Manufacturer
Plant Nr. 22 Kazan

Power Plant
4 HK-32 turbojet engines

Thrust
25.000 kg each

Length
54.1

Height
13.1

Wingspan
35.6m (minimum), 55.7m (maximum)

Wing surface
232 sqm

Speed
2200 km/h (maximum), 1030 km/h (ground)

Ceiling
16.000m

Weight (empty)
110.000kg

Fuel weight
148.000 kg

Maximum take-off weight
275.000 kg

Normal weapons load
9.000 kg

Maximum weapons load
40.000 kg

Range
+14.000 km (with a load of 9.000kg)

+10.500 km (with a load of 40.000 kg)

Armament
12 H-55 or 24 H-15 missiles

free falling bombs
?

Systems
?

Crew
4

Accomodation
?

Unit cost
?

Approved
?

Development began
1975

First Flight
12/19/1981

Series production started
1984

Date deployed
1987

Inventory
?


B-1b Lancer:

Primary Function: Long-range, multi-role, heavy bomber.

Builder: Rockwell International, North American Aircraft.

Operations Air Frame and Integration: Offensive avionics, Boeing Military Airplane; defensive avionics, AIL Division.

Power Plant: Four General Electric F-101-GE-102 turbofan engine with afterburner.

Thrust: 30,000-plus pounds (13,500-plus kilograms) with afterburner, per engine.

Length: 147 feet (44.8 meters).

Wingspan: 137 feet (41.8 meters) extended forward, 78 feet (23.8 meters) swept aft.

Height: 34 feet (10.4 meters).

Weight: Empty, approximately 185,000 pounds (83,250 kilograms).

Maximum Takeoff Weight: 477,000 pounds (214,650 kilograms).

Speed: 716 knots (Mach 1,25), 607-plus knots at sea level (Mach 0,92)

Range: Intercontinental, unrefueled.

Endurance: With refueling, crew endurance.

Ceiling: 30,000 feet (9,000 meters).

Crew: Four (aircraft commander, pilot, offensive systems officer, and defensive systems officer).

Armament: Up to 84 Mark 82 conventional 500-pound bombs internally with external hard points for an additional 12 weapons. Also can be reconfigured to carry a wide range of nuclear weapons (maximun 29,030 kilograms).

Date Deployed: June 1985.Unit Cost: $200-plus million per aircraft.

Inventory: Active force, 94; ANG, 0; Reserve , 0.

:lol:

Mikoyan
Dec 19, 2001, 01:11 PM
Ok, this was'nt a fair match-up.
I think i'll start a new thread with a poll, all-righty? ;)