It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


TU-160 Blackjack

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 04:57 PM

The Tu-160 can carry nuclear and conventional weapons including long-range nuclear missiles. The missiles are accommodated on multi-station launchers in each of the two weapons bays.

The Tu-16 is capable of carrying the strategic cruise missile Kh-55MS, which is known in the West by the NATO designation and codename AS-15 Kent. Up to twelve Kh-55MS missiles can be carried, six in each bay. The Kh-55MS is propelled by a turbofan engine. The maximum range is 3,000km, and it is armed with a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead.

The weapons bays are also fitted with launchers for the Kh-15P, which has the NATO designation and codename AS-16 Kickback. The Kh-15P Kickback has solid rocket fuel propulsion, which gives a range up to 200km. The Kickback can be fitted with a conventional 250kg warhead or a nuclear warhead. The aircraft is also capable of carrying a range of aerial bombs with a total weight up to 40 tons.

Soviet Designation


Design Bureau
OKB-156 Tupolev

Plant Nr. 22 Kazan

Power Plant
4 HK-32 turbojet engines

25.000 kg each



35.6m (minimum), 55.7m (maximum)

Wing surface
232 sqm

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


Weight (empty)

Fuel weight
148.000 kg

Maximum take-off weight
275.000 kg

Normal load
9.000 kg

Maximum load

14.000 km (with a load of 9.000kg)

10.500 km (with a load of 40.000 kg)

12 H-55 or 24 H-15 missiles

pretty cool bomber, lucky we never had to face it. of course similar in appearance to the B-1, i expect the Russians to be able to make a bomber in their own design instead of copying ours. but they made the Blackjack better in performance than the B-1 however i think the B-1 is steathier than the Blackjack.

[edit on 16-7-2005 by John bull 1]

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:08 PM
That the Blackjack is a copy of the B-1 is a common misconception. In fact Tupolev produced many completely different designs for their new heavy bomber before they committed to produce the Tu-160, some of which were based on the Tu-144, another looked like the XB-70 and many more were like nothing that has ever flown anywhere. It just so happened that, all things considered (payload, range, performance, ease of manufacture, maintainance etc) the proposal that resembled the B-1 was the best. There was no question of Russia merely wanting a bomber like the B-1 and if any of the other designs had been superior they would have produced that instead.

I think the Tu-160 is an amazing aircraft, looks like the B-1, as big as a B-52!

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:09 PM
I like the way it looks
Its a big fast scary looking monster of a jet.

Does anyone know how stealthy the TU160 is compared to a B1?

[edit on 15-7-2005 by warpboost]

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:21 PM
The B-1B can actually carry a heavier combat load.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:39 PM
Awesome bomber, Yet another marvel of Russian Engineering.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 08:14 PM
The B-1A first flight was in December of 1974, the Tu-160’s first flight was in December of 1981, so make up your own mid about where they got the design.
Now the B-1 is said to be stealthy but I could not find any RCS data for it but then again I didn't look very hard, too lazy.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 08:35 PM
As I said in another thread, it's very common to have multiple designs that LOOK the same, but are NOT copies of each other. There are only so many ways to perform the things you want the design to do. If you want supersonic, you're going to have to have a thin fuselage, with swept back wings, but the more they're swept back, the less lift you get, so therefore you're going to want to have VG wings. You can't put the engines on the wings, since they're VG, so you put them in pods under the fuselage, etc. So you end up with two planes that LOOK the same but had nothing to do with them being copied.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 10:51 PM
I found, in a book I recently bought, statistics for the B-1b, Tu-160 and the B-2. As far as the payloads go, the B-2 can carry about 39,950 lb. of weapons, while the Tu-160 carries about 36,300 lb. and the B-1b tops them both with a payload weight of 74,800 lb.

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:33 PM
Looks to me like they put a weapons system on the Concorde. Way to go Soviets!

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:41 PM

as big as a B-52

It's actually bigger than the B-52, but only by a little bit.

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:55 AM
Whats the B-1B range with that 70000lbs+ payload?

The stats in the pilot post give loads of 40000kg at 10,500km.. which tops 80000lbs..

So who's got the biggest payload for the longest distance w/o air-refueling??
I'm assuming the distances given in the pilot post are w/o taking air-refueling in consideration..
And the blackjack can refuel as shown in one of the abv. pics..

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 02:59 AM
The Tu-160 was designed somewhat differently than the B-1B. The Soviets planned to use the Tu-160 like a traditional bomber, just faster and stealthier. The B-1B still had considerations of a non nuclear role and was designed for low level pentration. The B-1B can carry a larger load farther because it was designed for that task. It was designed to fly close to the ground where fuel is used quick so they added very efficient engines and a large fuel capacity.

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:44 PM
I was looking for...umm.. stats w.r.t. payload and range..

The B-1B can carry a larger load farther because it was designed for that task.

How could you know that w/o hainv g the necessary data on both planes??

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by jetsetter
The B-1B can actually carry a heavier combat load.

I doubt that; i think i read that the Tu can carry 5000kg more than the B-1 somewhere;

and its not a copy; there is little one can do by looking at an aircraft and trying to make your own; i would call it a copy only if the Russians got a B-1 and then reverse engineered it; or if the USA gave the designs of the B-1 to USSR and they slightly modified it ;otherwise there is no way one can call it a copy.

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 01:53 PM
Crew 4
wing span, wings forward 55.7 metres
wing span with wings swept 35.6 metres
Length 54.1 metres
Height 13.1 metres
maximum take off weight 275 tons
normal combat load weight 9,000 tons
maximum combat load weight 40,000 tons
fuel weight 148,000 kg
operational flight range with normal combat load 14,000 km
operational flight range with maximum combat load 10,500 km
maximum flight speed at high altitude 2,000 km/h
maximum flight speed near ground 1,030 km/h
service ceiling 16,000 metres
concrete runway length 3,050 metres

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: 146 feet (44.5 meters)
Wingspan: 137 feet (41.8 meters) extended forward,
79 feet (24.1 meters) swept aft
Height: 34 feet (10.4 meters)
Weight: Empty, approximately 190,000 pounds (86,183 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 477,000 pounds (214,650 kilograms)
Speed: 600+ mph (Mach .92) @ 500 feet
825 mph (Mach 1.25) @ 50,000 feet
Rotate and Takeoff Speeds: 210 Gross - 119 Rotate kts / 134 kts Takeoff
390 Gross - 168 kts Rotate / 183 kts Takeoff
Landing Speeds: 210 Gross - 145 kts
380 Gross - 195 kts
Range: 7,455 miles, unrefueled
3,444 miles with normal weapons load
Ceiling: 60,000 feet (18,000 meters)
Crew: Four (aircraft commander, pilot, offensive systems officer and defensive systems officer)
84 Mk 62
84 MK82
30 CBU 87
30 CBU 89
30 CBU 97
12 Mk 65
12 GBU-27
12 AGM-154 JSOW
Date Deployed: June 1985
Unit Cost: $200-plus million per aircraft
Inventory: 100 total production
92 total current inventory
Active force, 51 PMAI (68 actual)
ANG, 18 PMAI (22 actual)
Reserve, 0
AFMC, 2 (Test)

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 03:12 PM
Global security is proven to be a anti-Russia- ProUSA source, read "JANES AIR Craft BOOK AT Barnes&Noble, you'll see the Tu-160 Carries more ordinance than the B-1B.

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 03:13 PM
Crew four: pilot, copilot and two system operators, offensive and defensive
wingspan with wings swept 78 feet
wingspan with wings forward 137 feet
Length 147 feet
Height 34 feet
Powerplant four general electric F101-GE-102 turbofan engines, 30,000 pound thrust class
Weapons conventional
Performance 59 world records for speed, payload, distance, and time-to-climb
maximum speed supersonic and high subsonic for low altitude penetration
range unrefuelled intercontinental
maximum operating weight 477,000 pounds
tanker support compatible with KC-135 and KC-10
Time-to-climb records for the C-1q weight category, over 330,000lb to altitude 10,000 feet 1 min 59 seconds
to altitude 20,000 feet 2 min 39 seconds
to altitude 30,000 feet 3 min 47 seconds
to altitude 40,000 feet 9 min 42 seconds
Time-to-climb records for the C-1q weight category, 170,000 - 220,000 lb to altitude 10,000 feet 1 min 13 seconds
to altitude 20,000 feet 1 min 42 seconds
to altitude 30,000 feet 2 min 11 seconds
to altitude 40,000 feet 5 min 01 seconds
Time-to-climb records for the C-1q weight category, 220,000 - 330,000 lb to altitude 10,000 feet 1 min 19 seconds
to altitude 20,000 feet 1 min 55 seconds
to altitude 30,000 feet 2 min 23 seconds
to altitude 40,000 feet 6 min 09 seconds
The B-1B can carry more longer. The Tu-160 was designed to launch missiles. That is why they have a very limited capacity to carry weapons outside the internal bomb bay.

[edit on 7/16/05 by jetsetter]

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Global security is proven to be a anti-Russia- ProUSA source, read "JANES AIR Craft BOOK AT Barnes&Noble, you'll see the Tu-160 Carries more ordinance than the B-1B.

So I guess both sites, are anti-Russia pro USA? The TU-160 is a good plane, but it was a missile platform, not a bomber. The B-1 was a BOMBER, so it was designed for a bigger payload. A lot of the Russian "bombers" are acutally designed to carry mostly missiles of different sorts. Therefore they're smaller than US bombers, which are designed to carry just bombs. I'm not saying the Russian planes CAN'T carry bombs, but the weapon of choice is the missile.

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 05:06 PM
Just for you Siberian. Here's ANOTHER list of specs on the TU-160 from a DIFFERENT site.

Tupolev Tu-160

Counfty of origin. Russia

Type. Strategic bomber

Powerplants. Four 137.3kN (30,865lb) dry and 245.2kN (55,115lb) with afterburning Samara/Trud NK-231 turbofans.

Performance: Max speed at 40,000ft Mach 2.05 or 2220km/h (1200kt), cruising speed at 45,000ft 960km/h (518kt). Max initial rate of climb 13,780ft/min. Service ceiling 49,200ft. Radius of action at Mach 1.3 2000km (1080nm). Max unrefuelled range 12,300km (6640nm).

Weights: Empty 110,000kg (242,505lb), max takeoff 275,000kg (606,260lb).

Dimensions. Wing span wings extended 55.70m (182ft 9in), wing span wings swept 35.60m (116ft 9in), length 54.10m (177ft 6in), height 13.1 0m (43ft 0in). Wing area wings extended 360.0m (3875sq ft).

Accommodation. Grew of four, with two pilots side by side and with navigator/bombardier and electronic systems operator behind them.

Armament Max weapon load 40,000kg (88,185lb), comprising freefall bombs or ASMs in two internal bomb bays. One rotary launcher can be carried in each bay to carry six Kh-55MS (AS-1 5 'Kent') ALCMs or 12 Kh-15P (AS-16 'Kickback') SRAMs. No defensive armament.

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 07:46 PM
It is not the first time the Russians produce an aircraft similar to an already existing American bomber;the same happened with the Tupolev 4,which was an exact copy of the B 29.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in