It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
The TU-4 WAS a B-29. Several B-29s made emergency landings in Russia during the war, they took the crew to a POW camp, and reverse engineered the plane. There was no agreement with them at the time to return the planes and crews, so they were landing pertty much without permission. However as I said before, there are only so many ways to design a plane to do the same mission. You're under the same contraints if you're a Russian or a US designer. The designs may look the same, but that's because they're supposed to do the same mission. If you want a transport you build a big wing for efficiency, with a big fuselage to carry cargo/passengers. If you want a supersonic plane, you build a thin fuselage/wing combination.

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Zaphod58]




posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Exactly. On that note, take the YA-9, A-10, and Su-25. All three were designed for close air support for ground forces - Hence why all three have wing pylons for carrying various munitions, and powerful nose-mounted cannons. How many variations can you have that allow close air support, while carrying powerful munitions for ground attack roles?

Also, a toaster. You want to toast a piece of bread. You also want to toast both sides at the same time, so you don't spend more time toasting it. So you would take a compartment which you would slide the pieces of bread in, which toast it.

How many other ways can you toast bread that efficiently? It's the same with many other things; I.e. joysticks, TV's, phones, light, ships, and aircraft. Most will appear superficially similar for the purpose it was designed for.

Mod edit to remove big-quote violation. There is no need to quote the entire post of someone that posted right before you did.

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
umm.. maybe I'm mistaken but all those spec posted about the B-1b by all you aerican enthusiasts don't say a word about PAYLOADS!!

Only total take off weights!! And that too is a max of 275000kg for the Tu-160..over 600000lbs..
I don't see any B-1b stat topping that.. check again..or am I mistaken??



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
umm.. maybe I'm mistaken but all those spec posted about the B-1b by all you aerican enthusiasts don't say a word about PAYLOADS!!

Only total take off weights!! And that too is a max of 275000kg for the Tu-160..over 600000lbs..
I don't see any B-1b stat topping that.. check again..or am I mistaken??


Let me show you in simple terms

Tu-160 maximum weapons load: 88,815 lb
B-1B maxium weapons load: 75,000 lb internally, 59,000 lb externally

The B-1B can carry more internally than any other bomber in the world. that is a fact. I have several books as my resorces. What do you have?



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Up to 84 Mark 82 conventional 500-pound bombs, or 30 CBU-87/89/97, or ZX JDAMS. Also can be reconfigured to carry a wide range of nuclear weapons.

NUCLEAR
CONVENTIONAL
84 Mk 62
84 MK82
30 CBU 87
30 CBU 89
30 CBU 97
12 Mk 65
PRECISION
30 WCMD
24 JDAM
12 GBU-27
12 AGM-154 JSOW
12 TSSAM

The maximum internal weapons payload is 75,000 lb and maximum external weapons payload is 59,000 lbs. The internal weapons bays are capable of carrying the AGM-86B Air Launch Cruise Missile (ALCM), the AGM-69 Short Range Attack Missile and the JDAM Joint Direct Attack Munition. The external hardpoints can carry the AGM-86B ALCM.

TU-160
Payload 40,000 kg 88,183-lb



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Tu-160 is I believe a cruise missile platform. Inside the bomb bay if I remember correctly are many rotary launchers for launching cruise missiles. So i'm sure that the books are correct that the b1-b can carry more because it was designed to be a traditional bomber and to carry lots of iron bombs from the start.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Correct drfunk.
I do believe though that the B-1b and B-2 bombers can likewise be equipped to launch/fire ACLMs [air launched cruise missiles].




seekerof

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Actually the B-1 was originally designed as a nuclear bomber that was converted to a conventional bomber. It does carry rotary launchers in the bomb bay as well.

The Advanced Conventional Bomb Modules [ACBM] were uniquely designed to meet the needs of the B-1B aircraft during the transition between Block D and Block E. All the munitions personnel have to do is switch a circuit card and one cable, and the modules will be ready for Block E. With the upgrade, the B-1B's will be able to employ Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers and will still be able to carry Mk-82, 500-pound bombs and cluster bomb units. The upgrade helps weapons loading capabilities keep up with changes to the aircraft's on-board computer systems. The aircraft are upgrading from 1970's vintage computers to the capability of today's computers," he said. "This upgrade also includes a new avionics flight software package. With this upgrade, operators needed new bomb modules that were compatible with the new computers.
www.globalsecurity.org...


[edit on 16-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Correct drfunk.
I do believe though that the B-1b and B-2 bombers can likewise be equipped to launch/fire ACLMs [air launched cruise missiles].




seekerof

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Seekerof]


That is correct. However, the B-2 has never been operationally tasked to launch a cruise missile.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
The B-2 apparently hasn't launched one operationally yet, but it certainly does have the capability to. It was designed to launch stealthy ALCMs as a first strike capability.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
ok


1. PAYLOAD

Tu-160:

Weight (empty)
110.000kg
Fuel weight
148.000 kg
Maximum take-off weight
275.000 kg

B-1b:

Weight: Empty, approximately 190,000 pounds (86,183 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 477,000 pounds (214,650 kilograms)


2. RANGE:

Tu-160:

Range
14.000 km (with a load of 9.000kg)

10.500 km (with a load of 40.000 kg)

B-1b:
Range: 7,455 miles, unrefueled (13,420 km)
3,444 miles with normal weapons load (6,200 km)


This is all I worked with (courtesy Mr. Beeblebrox
and the the guy who started this thread) until you gave me those new unsourced figures..

Range-wise you can do the math yourself with the above data..
Unless you've got some mre un-sourced stats up your sleeves..


Btw thats a combined weapons payload of 140000lbs then for the B-1b?
All in one flight package or its "either 59000lbs internal or 75000lbs external"?

please confirm..

[edit on 17-7-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
It can carry a combination of both, but they don't like to carry externals whenever possible because it affects the VG wings, and flight characteristics. It's CAPABLE of carrying both however.

sources for previous post:

www.globalaircraft.org...
www.fas.org...
www.deagel.com...



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Okay so then I conclude a total max payload (internal +external) is approx 140000 lbs then? Agreed?



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
yeah something like that. It's 330 am and I've had 4 hours of sleep so my normally bad math skills are totaly non-existant, but that sounds right.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I have read (I believe it was in Flight International, not sure) that the Tupolev, despite being noticeably larger than the B1, has actually a smaller RCS.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   


That'll put a rat in the pants of some people here..



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
It doesn't really matter as the US has the B2.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Greetings:
Now I wondered taht who could give me an evidence to prove that Blackjack was able to load weapon outside fuselage, or not?
I will be grateful for your help me, thank you a lots


This is very important to me because of this would prove Blackjack's weapon loads will be more than LancerII if all of approximate 45ton weapons being loads inside fuselage whereas outside fuselage also could be load weapons,but I know LancerII do able to.

[edit on 21-7-2005 by emile]



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   
From the sound of things, No, the TU-160 can't carry external weapons.

" 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."

" Stations two internal bomb bays
Air-to-Surface Missile up to 12 Kh-55/AS-15 'Kent', up to 24 Kh-15P/AS-16 'Kickback' cruise missiles
reportedly to be upgraded to carry up to 12 Kh-101 or up to 12 Kh-SD cruise missiles
Bomb theoretically compatible with various free-fall nuclear or conventional bombs, but none have yet been integrated
Other unknown "



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
I have read (I believe it was in Flight International, not sure) that the Tupolev, despite being noticeably larger than the B1, has actually a smaller RCS.


I would doubt that. The reason the B1-B is so much slower is because the US designers opted for less efficient engine intakes to get a much lower RCS. The Tu-160 has intakes that look extremely similar to those on the B1-A.







 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join