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.

 

Russia Will Build Three New Tu-160 inter-continental bombers

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FULCRUM
It fires its missiles 3000km away from target..

Far from the reach of any defences..



Also,

Using your logic, B-52 and B-1/2 are also useless..



[Edited on 6-2-2004 by FULCRUM]


FULCRUM, I agree that B-52 and B-1 are vulnerable in a high threat enviroment but B-2 is a different story




posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
but B-2 is a different story


Just like the F-117?

Right?



Also..

17 Tu-160 is more than USAF has..

In form of B-2s..



And Russia has similar numbers of Tu-22M3s and Tu-95s as US has of B-52s and B-1s..

So..




posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   
B-2 spirit steath bomber and TU-160

M-1 Abrams and T-80 main battle tank

Nimitz class carrier and ???????

US subs and Russian subs.

Hmmm is there a pattern here?

When did you say the TU-160 was designed?

Why would they spend their limited budget on an obsolete bomber design.

Its a nice looking aircraft but it makes no sense to me - you don't see the US making more B-1s do you?
(and yes I do know the difference between the two - supersonic vs sub-sonic and heavy payload)



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FULCRUM

Originally posted by Phoenix
but B-2 is a different story


Just like the F-117?

Right?



Also..

17 Tu-160 is more than USAF has..

In form of B-2s..



And Russia has similar numbers of Tu-22M3s and Tu-95s as US has of B-52s and B-1s..

So..



When you can actually hit the target you don't need that many



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix


When did you say the TU-160 was designed?







tu-160: development began

1975

First Flight

12/19/1981

Series production started

1984

Date deployed

1987



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   
seems to me that Russia's money would be better spennt maintaining and upgrading the aircraft it already has. Some training might do their Air Force some good as well. hehehehehe.

Anyways nice bomber, but it seems like they have more pressing needs.



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfup

Originally posted by SectorGaza
this will bring it to a total number of, 17


How many does U.S. have? And China?

to my current knowledge-a little more than a dozen B-1s
and uhh the us does know how to waste their money.

More than 2 dozen B-2's, like 40 B-52's and 631 Raptors



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
631 Raptors



more like 300-, its too expensive even for the usaf.



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   
so they need some new equipment to deal with those states which are going awol.



posted on Feb, 11 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SectorGaza

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
631 Raptors



more like 300-, its too expensive even for the usaf.

all i have to say www.f-22raptor.com/index_airframe.php

it says it in there. o im sry not 631, i underestimated, 648, 99.1 billion dollars the project will cost. click on airframe and then news, the first date will tell you.
show me if i did not read something or if it changed.



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Russian Stealth technology (plasma based?) is probably being used on this aircraft. Let's see; 24 B-2's vs 17 TU-160's . Larger payload(TU-160); Stealthy cruise missles with a longer range...Yep, sounds like Russia is trying to maintain Strategic parity with the U.S. Makes sense....



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnotI
Russian Stealth technology (plasma based?) is probably being used on this aircraft. Let's see; 24 B-2's vs 17 TU-160's . Larger payload(TU-160); Stealthy cruise missles with a longer range...Yep, sounds like Russia is trying to maintain Strategic parity with the U.S. Makes sense....


if the russians use this stealth plasma shield, the ionization left behind would cause such a distruption that a passive radar system could easily detect it, negating it s potential



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

it says it in there. o im sry not 631, i underestimated, 648, 99.1 billion dollars the project will cost. click on airframe and then news, the first date will tell you.
show me if i did not read something or if it changed.



1981
When development of the F-22 began in 1981, the Air Force intended to purchase 648 aircraft at an estimated total program cost of $99.1 billion



www.aerospaceweb.org...

F/A-22A Production model with slightly shorter fuselage, reduced wing sweep, and cockpit shifted forward to improve visibilty; 276 planned



www.airforce-technology.com...

The USAF has a total requirement of 224 aircraft and the first operational wing of F/A-22 Raptors will be based at Langley AFB in Virginia, eventually replacing F-15 Eagle aircraft.



home.iae.nl...

Total production, originally planned to be 648 aircraft, has now been reduced to 339.



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by SectorGaza

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
631 Raptors



more like 300-, its too expensive even for the usaf.

all i have to say www.f-22raptor.com/index_airframe.php

it says it in there. o im sry not 631, i underestimated, 648, 99.1 billion dollars the project will cost.

Ok so you proved me wrong, did you read that text? i was inviting you to prove me wrong, but thanx for the update


[Edited on 13-2-2004 by ShatteredSkies]



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SectorGaza
They are planning to build three new Tu-160 strategic bombers for Russias air force at the Kazan S.A. Gorbunov Aviation Production Association, the Interfax agency reports on Thursday.

At the present time, the military airplanes are on the assembly line, but the period for their delivery to the troops still has not been determined, the agency adds.

A visit of a delegation of air force representatives to the Kazan Aviation Production Association has been planned for Friday. Military specialists of strategic and transport aviation headed by commander-in-chief, General-Colonel Vladimir Mikhaylov, will consider possible periods for delivery of the missile carriers to the forces.

Source: 06.02.04, Lenta.RU


Cool, but so what.



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   
sayyy, isn't that t-160 the b-1 lancer ripoff?



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeffrey
sayyy, isn't that t-160 the b-1 lancer ripoff?




get out from my thread.



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SectorGaza

Originally posted by Jeffrey
sayyy, isn't that t-160 the b-1 lancer ripoff?




get out from my thread.


LoL! what? I'm I right or not?



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Well, think of the cost... Tu-160's aren't just "rollin-quarters for gas" cost. Plus weaponry, gas, pay for the crew. It's very costly, they probably won't make too much more. Besides, with the increase in U.S. Technology you know something better will come out from Lockheed or Boeing.

Either that, or Russia will just go broke because of waisting money on un-needed bombers.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join