Tu-160: B-1 Rip Off

it was coppied. its a B-1 on major steroids!

Guys, your ignorance is laughable. As Meesha said, read serious books, not "techie comics".

Boeing did not give us any plans of B-29. One of the birds that made a forced landing at Soviet Far East was stripped to the last rivet, measured and our own plans were made. This method gave birth to some peculiar features found only in the very B-29 being copied and ALL Soviet TU-4's, because Stalin ordered a new bomber "to be exactly as this one" and nobody dared to make even an extra hole which deviated from this order. That wasn't an easy undertaking at all as one might think. All measuring and machinery equipment had to use English measures as opposed to metric system normally used in USSR. Also personnel had to be trained to use this equipment and measures.

Another attempt of a direct copy was made when a lightly damaged F-86 was captured in Korea. There already was a special design group established for this, but Stalin's death put the end to this crazy project. The personnel of the group became the core of what is now known as Sukhoi Design Bureau.

As for TU-160, there's no wonder that it looks similar to B-1 as these airplanes were made for the same mission, a supersonic low-level air defence penetration. And the laws of aerodynamics are the same for all, be you American or Russian. OTOH TU-160 is considerably bigger and outperforms its American counterpart. You also should remeber the technological margin between US and Russia, so some engineering solutions can't be directly copied and should be approached differently. And if we speak about a modern combat aircraft, it is a very complex weapon system and the overall appearance of the airframe says little about its true properties.

[Edited on 22-7-2003 by Russky]

The weird thing about the Tu-160 is its payload. It can only carry a fraction of what a B-1B can, even though it is bigger than the B-1B. In total the Tu-160 can carry 88,815 pounds of weapons, the B-1B can carry a total of 134,000 pounds of weapons.

Also Russky, are you really from Russia?

Originally posted by jetsetter
The weird thing about the Tu-160 is its payload. It can only carry a fraction of what a B-1B can, even though it is bigger than the B-1B. In total the Tu-160 can carry 88,815 pounds of weapons, the B-1B can carry a total of 134,000 pounds of weapons.

The difference is in the range. Tu-160 range with payload is impressive. A B-1B with *only* 88,815 pounds can't achieve the same combat radius.

[Edited on 2003-7-22 by MakodFilu]

Originally posted by MakodFilu

Originally posted by jetsetter
The weird thing about the Tu-160 is its payload. It can only carry a fraction of what a B-1B can, even though it is bigger than the B-1B. In total the Tu-160 can carry 88,815 pounds of weapons, the B-1B can carry a total of 134,000 pounds of weapons.

The difference is in the range. Tu-160 range with payload is impressive. A B-1B with *only* 88,815 pounds can't achieve the same combat radius.

[Edited on 2003-7-22 by MakodFilu]

I think Krazy addressed this when he said that the Tu-160 was designed as a intercontinental bomber, hence the range variation over the B-1, which was not designed as intercontinental.

regards
seekerof

Both the Tu-160 and the B-1B were both designed as long-range strategic bombers. As for their range, they had a similar range.

Originally posted by jetsetter
Both the Tu-160 and the B-1B were both designed as long-range strategic bombers. As for their range, they had a similar range.

Thank you for the correction jet. Was in the midst of looking the comparison up myself but got tangled in looking for somemore info on my topic "cobra maneuver."

But thanks.

regards
seekerof

I am not totally surprised that both aircraft look similar. Russky has some good points, and I for one have never sold the Russians (Soviets) short on their technical capabilities. They still continue to develop new and innovative technology that wows their western counterparts.

SO what if the Russians were inspired by the B-1. A good design is a good design. Are you not gonna build a plane simply because your rival's looks too much like yours? And doesn't the F-15 resemble the MiG-25?

I know in naval technology the Russians were first in alot of areas (first ballistic missile sub, first gas turbine engine, first CIWS, first anti-ship cruise missile, first sub launched anti-ship cruise missile, etc.)

All I know is the Blackjack is one, big, muther-humpin' load of a bomber...............

just checked out few sources and found that most advance from B1B (let's left alone 2000 km more radius) is a barrel missile launchers(2) for 6 winged missiles X-55 or X-55M or 2 barrel launchers for 12 X-15 missiles with nuc heads...
With best wishes from Russia =)

Originally posted by jetsetter
Both the Tu-160 and the B-1B were both designed as long-range strategic bombers. As for their range, they had a similar range.

B-1B: 3,444 miles with 'normal weapons load', as seen here

Tu-160: 14,000Km = 8,699.6 miles with 'normal combat load' and 10,500Km = 6,524.7 miles with 'maximum weapon load' as seen here

Yeah, pretty similar indeed. :p

[Edited on 2003-7-22 by MakodFilu]

I was talking about unrefueled range.

Originally posted by jetsetter
I was talking about unrefueled range.

Me too

[Edited on 2003-7-23 by MakodFilu]

A "normal combat load" for a B-1B is alot more than an Tu-160. Also the B-1B can carry weapons outside its bomb bay which may shorten its range, but with no weapons outside its range increases.

Tu-160 = similar appearance ... radically different design to B1
why is it that people from the USA think that the USSR rips their ideas off at every turn

Russian ideas that the US military has 'borrowed'
Thrust vectoring - f22
reversed wings - x35
VTOL - AV8
assault rifle - m16
sloped armour - M60 tank
light machine gun - M249
Mig23 (USA licensed the design of this plane from the USSR)
Reactive armour
attack helicopters - Cobra
going to space
going to the moon
sending someone into space
sending an animal into space
going to mars

I could keep on going but I'm not going to. I think I've proved my point. Remember next time you claim that the Russian's ripped off another US design that Sukhoi ... not Boeing currently produce the most advanced fighter planes in service anywhere in the world
and that the F22 rips off the design of these fighter planes in many aspects and somehow still falls below their standard.

Freebie, lets not go into sematics here.
I think it is quite obvious that both have "borrowed" from each other eh?

regards
seekerof

F-35 - poor Yak-141 copy ..
eeeeeh... just kiddin'

Originally posted by Meesha
F-35 - poor Yak-141 copy ..
eeeeeh... just kiddin'

actually yakovlev helped lockheed with the jsf

Russian sources I found give slightly less - 8+K km radius for B-1B (w\o refueling) and 6-10+ K km for Tu-160 ( no refueling, not shure about load )
as well as 40T max load fot Tu 160 (only internal) and 34(int) + 26 (ext) T load for B-1B...
Didn't learned deeper, because bombers not my favourite type of planes (there are really only 2 types of aircraft, if You know what I mean ))

there are few rumours that few Yak-141 original development team got jobs in US , so You even can't imagine how close to that You can be, really
But that's not a good poin't at all... afaik - 141 had a lot of problems with airframe, so maybe it's good that project was cancelled... at least for Russia