Russia Air Force to get new Tu-160 strategic bomber in April

Ria Novosti en.rian.ru...


- Does anybody know in witch altitude this plane fly?
- Does it has stealth development in it?
- Does plane has any defense for air-air capability, or against missiles?

Thanks.

[edit on 4/22/08 by FredT]

Here you can compare the Blackjack to the B-1...

Tu-160 Blackjack

Length: 177 ft 6 in (54.10 m)
Wingspan: 182 ft 9 in (55.70 m)
Height: 43 ft 0 in (13.10 m)

Performance
Speed: 1,243 mph (1,079 kt)
Ceiling: 49,200 ft
Range: 8,699 miles (14,000 km)

Powerplant- four 25,000-kg (55,115 lb) afterburning thrust Kuznetsov NK-321 turbofans


B-1 Lancer

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)

Speed: 900-plus mph (Mach 1.2 at sea level)
Ceiling: Over 30,000 feet (9,000 meters)
Range: Intercontinental, unrefueled

Power Plant: Four General Electric F-101-GE-102 turbofan engine with afterburner, 30,000-plus pounds (13,500-plus kilograms) with afterburner, per engine

Tupolev TU 160 is a strategic bomber, designed based on the B-1B Lancer

the B-1B is special capable for terrain following, with a exelent radar system for this, the TU 160 has a similar system, so it's also capable of low intrution attack.

There is no defencive capabilities on this plane, no steath equipment, but it might have a ECM jammer, and atleast CHAF/FLARES.

even for it's big size, this is a fast plane, Mach 3, achiving this with four Kuznetsov NK-321 afterburning turbofan engines, the most powerful ever fitted to a combat aircraft (at the time of buliding).

According to Wiki, there is few of this plane around, bellow 40 in total, if this is accurate info i'm not sure of.

Wiki-on-Tu-160
en.wikipedia.org...

Here are links for the information posted above.

FAS.org

Airforce Factsheet For B-1

Both aircraft can carry a massive amount of ordinance.

Shattered OUT...

I believe saying it's Mach 3 is a bit of an exageration. I don't think the Tu-160 has ever exceeded Mach 2.

The B-1B had all kinds of mechanical problems if I remember right. Shame it's a beautiful aircraft.

Maybe with this the Russians will quit flying those Tu-95's out in the Pacific all the time. Eh? EH?!

Mach 3 is definitly exageration but the plane has reached speeds off Mach 2+. Either in tests or trainings excersizes.



Dont think so. The TU 95 is just tooo damnd good to retire now.
The Russians will retire the 95 in 2040/2050.

I think the Bear should never be retired. Apart from its capabilities - it's a fantastic physiological weapon. Think about it, one aircraft has CONSTANTLY kept on trying to test our airspace for the past fifty years. Every aircraft since, more or less, the F-86 has intercepted it.

img143.imageshack.us...
img143.imageshack.us...

[edit on 24/4/2008 by C0bzz]

I was unaware of that. Good catch though!



I know...it was one of those "har har" funny time responses.

Weeeell, the TU-95, Bear is a scary plane, not only is it audioable from the ground due to it's noisy turbo props, but it's an exelent plane for long range and if needed, a plane that can stay at a airspace, delivering huge amounts of ordonance for close support (think back to what the B-52 did during Vietnam in the defence of the airfield, can't remember the name right now).

The Mach 3 speed of the TU-160 is theoretichal max, remember the engines it has has some serious power, so it is to no supprise for me that it could actually make this.

VVS Tu-95 has NEVER been intercepted by the F-86.

reply to post by Phoebus

---

Mach 3 is a huge stretch even by the standards of the engines, please point me in the direction of some evidence to backup your claims that the craft is able to accellerate to Mach 3, under any condition, I would love to read it.

SINCE the F-86 - and that's only a guess.

[edit on 24/4/2008 by C0bzz]

You might actually be right, I googled some more on this plane, and most pages support your mach 2+ claimb, so I'm actually convinced that Wiki was wrong on this one.

like this page (mod's feel free to remove link if you don't approve of it):
mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk...

Pardon?

The Tu-160 is a much larger and more powerful version than either B-1 variant.


You don't achieve this by basing off someone else's work.

I was going to rebuff that one myself kilcoo, but in the end thought 'what's the point?'

I had a major discussion on this very subject a few years ago on here and my opponent could'nt get beyond the idea that it must be a copy as it is externally the same sort of shape with the fact that in detail design it is 100% different being somehow irrelevant

Haha. I had a post similar half typed when I'd abandoned it. Russian firms like finding a configuration that works and then scaling it up or down. You can see this in the MiG-29 and Su-27 to some extent. You can see it when they borrowed the F-111's layout for the Su-24 or the A-5 for the MiG-25. You can see it in their missles as well. But it's kind of selling them short to say they based it on the Bone when the final product is in many ways superior to the "copied" work.

Thats exactly right. They try out the configuration, but use it on a design that is entirely their own.

I love the fact that Sukhoi made two prototypes of what became the Su-24 with different wing designs, one aped the swing wing layout of the F-111 while the other aped the layout of the TSR 2 with delta wings and downturned tips, with both being identical in every other way, while these two planes were fierce rivals in the West at that time. Apart from the basic configuration nothing specific of either the F-111 or the TSR 2 was actually copied. Genius!

To me the intricate curves of an aircraft are as interesting and distinctive as the intricate curves of a woman, and I have studied roughly equal numbers of both in great detail, but never at the same time

[edit on 25-4-2008 by waynos]

haha. To me the Tu-160 is like the girl that reminds you of the super model but isn't quite as hot. The B-1 is one of the prettiest planes in the air right now. If you've never seen a well executed B-1 flight demonstration you've missed out. With the White Swan she looks good at one angle and then too lanky and awkward at another. Was it a Seinfeld episode that involved the holographic baseball cards?