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?
B2-spirts vs Tu160-blackjack
- Thread starter Raptorf22
- Start date
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
Probaly the B-2.
The Russian design goes back some years, doesn't it?
The Russian design goes back some years, doesn't it?
PinkyGen
Paper copying intern
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.
As long as Stealth technology still works, I would rather take a B-2.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
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.
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
Paper copying intern
Oh no, the B-2 is quite slow, while I think the Russian is supersonic. Still, I'll take stealth over speed anyday.
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.
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
Mysterious City of Gold
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
The Mig-142, methinks, which is meant to be a counterpart to the F-22
Wolfshanze
CFC Historian
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.
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.
The Tu 160 is often compared to the B1 because they look similar. Both have variable geometry wings:
- 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.
- 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.
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
) and not against Afghanistan, where the most advanced thing that they have is the horse and the saber.
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
) and not against Afghanistan, where the most advanced thing that they have is the horse and the saber.
G-Man
A One Man's War
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?
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
Deity
the swedish navy have vessels with stealth technology so i don´t think the technology is the problem for the russians.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
