China considers the Russian Tu-160 and the American B-1B "suspiciously similar"


The debate does not cease, who copied the strategic bomber from whom - the United States has Russia or vice versa. After all, the B-1B and Tu-160, which are the flagships of the air forces of the United States and the Russian Federation, are so "suspiciously similar" to each other.


The Chinese Internet portal China.com tried to figure this out.

The portal calls these two aircraft the most important supersonic strategic bombers in the world, making up the main striking force aviation USA and Russia. At the same time, they have many common design features, and they look similar in many ways:

Seen from above, both planes are extremely similar: the Tu-160 is similar to the large V-1B model, or the V-1B can be called a little version of the Tu-160.



In the PRC, it is noted that both aircraft have a wing with variable sweep, a cruciform tail shape and a number of other similar elements.

It is impossible to determine by whose date of creation who the bomber copied from, because both of them began to be developed at the same time, since 1969.

The Chinese portal argues against the version that the USSR was the “plagiarist”. They draw attention to the fact that the predecessor of the Soviet Tu-160 was the Tu-22, which also had a variable sweep wing. And after the Tu-22 KB Tupolev created a supersonic passenger aircraft Tu-144. According to the author from China, the Tu-160 was created on the basis of the Tu-22 and Tu-144, having absorbed the characteristics of these two aircraft.

He does not make any conclusions, believing that it is no longer possible to figure out who the bomber copied from, and indeed whether he copied it at all.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

124 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. A1845 April 24 2020 12: 32 New
    • 18
    • 0
    +18
    and both are flying!
    well, exactly similar ..
    1. Malyuta April 24 2020 12: 33 New
      • 42
      • 8
      +34
      For me, in general, all Chinese are on the same face! belay
      1. Lipchanin April 24 2020 13: 00 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        Quote: Malyuta
        For me, in general, all Chinese are on the same face!

        lol
      2. NIKN April 24 2020 20: 44 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        China considers the Russian Tu-160 and the American B-1B "suspiciously similar"

        No wonder, this is hereditary. Both great-great-great-great-great-grandfather "Ilya Muromets" also had four engines. wink
      3. Oberon_13 April 26 2020 01: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Malyuta
        For me, in general, all Chinese are on the same face! belay

        Exactly, the Chinese are copying each other))
      4. Paul Siebert April 26 2020 07: 41 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        The main plagiarists of the planet argue who stole the idea from whom ...
        Caught up for us. What an honor!
        If you look - China has 80% military equipment and aircraft, including copied from Soviet models ...
        Judges ...
    2. Nasrat April 24 2020 12: 34 New
      • 22
      • 1
      +21
      What kind of analytics from the Chinese !!!!! Why is it reprinted in VO? Here is the question !!!!
      1. Lipchanin April 24 2020 13: 01 New
        • 10
        • 2
        +8
        Quote: Nasr
        ! Why is it reprinted in VO?

        Relax and laugh laughing
        1. Per se. April 24 2020 14: 08 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: Lipchanin
          Relax and laugh
          Yes, it’s from the Chinese that it’s heard that all that is possible and impossible has already been copied, cloned! ...
          1. Lipchanin April 24 2020 15: 05 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            Kapipast country laughing
          2. Nosgoth April 24 2020 19: 22 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Sohu is complete yellowishness and fantasies :-) When I hear the "Chinese edition of Soho ..." I immediately recall the "British scientists", and basically do not read further. :-)
            1. Sirocco April 25 2020 15: 23 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: Nosgoth
              When I hear the "Chinese edition of Soho ..." I immediately recall the "British scientists", and basically do not read further. :-)

              In vain you are, this company is quite a serious publication of the PRC and is supported by the state, and I suspect that sometimes it throws jaundice on purpose and looks at how the plebs react to it. What is worth only publications about Kazakhstan. All this is not casual. Although it came to a funny point, the one who lives on everything stolen is trying to blame the other.
              Sohu.com
              Sohu ("Sohu") is a Chinese Internet company that combines a media portal, a search engine, and the largest information brand in the Chinese Internet space. Zhang Chaoyang, one of the founders of Sohu.com, launched the first search engine in China in 1998 and opened the world of Internet to Chinese users. In 1999, the first news channel Sohu.com was launched. On July 12, 2000, Sohu was officially registered with Nasdaq in the USA (NASDAQ: SOHU).

              Over time, Sohu has grown into the largest online brand with four platforms: media, video (Sohu Video, Sohu video client, Sohu entertainment), search (Sogou search, Sogou input method, Sogou high-speed browser, Sogou maps), games ( Changyou).

              In November 2005, Sohu became the official sponsor for the provision of Internet services at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Sohu has provided exclusive services for the creation, use and hosting of the official website of the Beijing Olympics.

              On August 3, 2017, the list of “100 Best Chinese Internet Companies in 2017” was published, and Sohu portal ranked seventh in it. On the portal, Chinese Internet users publish materials on various topics: from politics to events from everyday life. Most of the authors are non-professional journalists, however, such publications as Xinhua and Huanqiu Shibao also publish their materials on the portal.

              The headquarters is in Beijing.
      2. Serg koma April 25 2020 04: 34 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Nasr
        analytics from the Chinese !!!!!

        Wings, legs and tails
        Cartoon, 1986
        Feet, wings ... The main thing is the tail!

    3. NEXUS April 24 2020 12: 34 New
      • 4
      • 8
      -4
      Quote: A1845
      and both are flying!
      well, exactly similar ..

      A UAV Hunter is suspiciously similar to the B-2 Spirit ... fellow Have the Chinese people become infected with Kiselyov? laughing
      1. Tusv April 24 2020 12: 56 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        A UAV Hunter is suspiciously similar to the B-2 Spirit.

        Rather, at RQ -170 He was even put on an aircraft carrier. In 2010, they boasted in full poppee. But for some reason, the Yankees believed in predators more
    4. Starover_Z April 24 2020 12: 46 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      The debate does not cease, who copied the strategic bomber from whom - the United States has Russia or vice versa. After all, the B-1B and Tu-160, which are the flagships of the air forces of the United States and the Russian Federation, are so "suspiciously similar" to each other.

      And whose modern Chinese fighters and transporters are more like?
      1. The comment was deleted.
    5. Finches April 24 2020 13: 00 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The Chinese are surprisingly similar to the Japanese ... but they can not stand each other!
      1. Sergej1972 April 24 2020 21: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        But somehow they are not very similar in appearance.
    6. Lipchanin April 24 2020 13: 00 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: A1845
      well, exactly similar.

      And both have wings? belay
    7. SHURUM -BURUM April 24 2020 13: 18 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      ... China considers the Russian Tu-160 and the American B-1B to be suspiciously similar ...
      To what sometimes strabismus leads.
    8. Timon2155 April 24 2020 14: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      https://arsenal-info.ru/b/book/861093852/98 Мы первее. К 70 году уже был аванпроект со схемами. Значит, задумка была года на 2-3 раньше. Наберите в той же вики Т-4МС -там вообще начало 60-ых годов.
      1. Avior April 24 2020 16: 03 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The idea of ​​the Americans appeared in 1955
        It looped for a long time, but in 1974 the B-1 flew.
        The Tupolevs created their conceptual design by 1977, without using the earlier drawings of Myasishchev and Sukhoi, it was another plane
        External resemblance to the B-1 in the Tu-160 is preserved, as in the Myasishchev project.
        The first flight on the Tu-160 in December 1981 was made voluntarily by test pilot B. I. Veremey; in the flight mission there was only a run on the airfield, and not flight.
        Soon he was awarded the star of the Hero.
        1. Liam April 24 2020 16: 22 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Avior
          willfully

          The chief designer of the Tu-160, Valentin Bliznyuk, carefully listened to the opinions of test pilots and considered the role that Boris Veremey and the crew played in creating the Tu-160 to be exceptional. It is not surprising that on December 18, 1981, it was the crew under the command of Boris Ivanovich (co-pilot S. Agapov, navigators M. and A. Eremenko) who first flew the experimental Tu-160 from the airfield at the LII MAP in Zhukovsky. Take-off, climb 2.000 m, departure for removal of 150-220 km into the zone, return and landing. 27 minutes of flight: the baptism of the "Hundred and seventy" took place.
          Not particularly attracted to AWOL. And the Hero was received not so soon, but in 1984 for records on the Tu-144. Wikipedia is often superficial)
          1. Avior April 24 2020 16: 29 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            there is such a version
            The first aircraft were built in Moscow at the machine-building plant "Experience". The aircraft "70-01" board number 18 was intended for the first phase of flight tests. From the second half of November 1981, jogging on the airfield began on it. The first flight took place on December 18, 1981, and on the personal initiative of test pilot Boris Ivanovich Veremey: the task was just a speed run.

            The flight in a circle was successful, and Veremey was soon awarded the star of the Hero of the Soviet Union. In the future, this machine was used for several years for flight tests of a different nature, and it was on it in 1985 that they first reached supersonic.

            I won’t argue, I didn’t stand near, maybe two flights a day, maybe something else
            once awarded, then normally passed
            1. Liam April 24 2020 16: 37 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              I just decided to check this passage from Wiki. It’s too much like folklore. Unauthorized take-offs, and even the first one, on a test machine unprepared for this, is a tribunal at least. Test pilots are still serious people, and test flights of strategic bombers aren’t amateur performances)
              1. Avior April 24 2020 16: 42 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                as an option, there was a run, the pilot took the initiative, it was immediately approved.
                perhaps this option was agreed in advance
                that stolen is unreal
    9. TermNachTer April 25 2020 15: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      They spoke of their similarity from the moment they appeared. Do the Chinese have a late ignition? And they also have many differences, even visually.
  2. Last centurion April 24 2020 12: 33 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    and a 5th generation fighter in China looks suspiciously like 1.44. Probably because it (as in everything) was copied by the Chinese. I’m silent about the spaceships plowing ... yes ... yes the same Liaoning :). Let them learn to do their own and not only reverse engineering, and only then to criticize at least someone.
  3. Lord of the Sith April 24 2020 12: 33 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    The same tasks give rise to the same solutions, so it is not surprising that they are similar.
    But the white swan is better in a number of ways))
    1. Malyuta April 24 2020 13: 04 New
      • 13
      • 10
      +3
      Quote: Lord of the Sith
      But the white swan is better in a number of ways))

      Of course, because BMW is better than Hawala. good laughing
  4. Potter April 24 2020 12: 34 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    External similarity is determined by aerodynamics and the level of technological development. Aerodynamics are the same for everyone. The level of technology development at that time was similar. Well, everyone spied one after another. And in the USSR by that time, indeed, TU-144, Tu-22 and T-4 Sukhoi had already flown.
    1. Vladimir_2U April 24 2020 14: 42 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The USA had both F-111 and Valkyrie.
  5. Pvi1206 April 24 2020 12: 37 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    It’s funny to read China’s opinion on copying military equipment in other countries ...
  6. Rusik.S April 24 2020 12: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Well yes. Do you have wings? There is. Is there a tail? There is. So similar
    1. Lipchanin April 24 2020 13: 03 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: Rusik.S
      Well yes. Do you have wings? There is. Is there a tail? There is.

      And there’s a crew inside request
      1. Crimean partisan 1974 April 25 2020 10: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And the crew inside is ..... a good criterion. I, too, claim that Buran is not a copy of the Shuttle, and the crew has never been controlled
  7. aszzz888 April 24 2020 12: 39 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3

    The Chinese Internet portal China.com tried to figure this out.
    It would be better if this portal "figured out" how much and what the Chinese copied. laughing
    1. dzvero April 24 2020 12: 47 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      The server will not pull ...
      1. aszzz888 April 24 2020 12: 48 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        dzvero (Ivo) Today, 12:47
        0
        The server will not pull ...
        This is how to give a drink! wink
  8. anjey April 24 2020 12: 40 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    And if the Japanese are suspiciously like the Chinese, who then copied whom laughing ??? Also the Chinese copyists tried ??? laughing
    1. Lipchanin April 24 2020 13: 06 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: anjey
      Chinese copiers tried

      Well yes. It seems that even then the Chinese had a printer laughing
    2. Crimean partisan 1974 April 25 2020 10: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And if the Japanese are suspiciously similar to the Chinese, who then copied whom ..... along the way are our Chukchi and Alaskan Eskimos
    3. Bad_gr April 25 2020 20: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: anjey
      And if the Japanese are suspiciously like the Chinese

      There is a legend. Once, one of the Chinese emperors organized an expedition for a cure for old age. Since the expedition was designed for a long time, they recruited it from young people (boys and girls). The expedition (I don’t remember, for whatever reason) settled on the island and no one returned. So, the Japanese are their descendants.
  9. 4ekist April 24 2020 12: 40 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Soviet Tu-16 and Chinese N-6K are also very surprisingly similar.
    1. Grigory_45 April 24 2020 18: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: 4ekist
      Soviet Tu-16 and Chinese N-6K are also very surprisingly similar.

      which is not surprising since Xi'an H-6 is a licensed copy Soviet Tu-16. The Chinese received a license in 1957.
      Well, the N-6K is already a creative refinement of the missile carrier.
  10. Andrey NM April 24 2020 12: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Seen from above, both planes are extremely similar: the Tu-160 is similar to the large V-1B model, or the V-1B can be called a little version of the Tu-160.

    Here is the trouble. Because of this, they can’t decide which plane to copy ... And the Russians don’t give an engine ...
  11. Butchcassidy April 24 2020 12: 42 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    When solving the same problems, they often come to similar technical solutions. I do not think that airplanes have anything in common, except for the similarity of airframe design.
    1. novel66 April 24 2020 12: 59 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      and f-111 and su-24
      1. Butchcassidy April 24 2020 16: 44 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        And what is the matter with them? What are you talking about? The Chinese think in their paradigm when it comes to technology - they think that this is an exact copy. Because they themselves do so.

        This does not mean that one of these aircraft is a copy of the other. Of course, VTR works and successful solutions can be borrowed, but talking about copying is simply stupid. To copy equipment you need to copy the element base, production technology, etc. Which is pointless given the various technology schools.
    2. shahor April 24 2020 13: 23 New
      • 1
      • 7
      -6
      Quote: ButchCassidy
      When solving the same problems, they often come to similar technical solutions.

      In fairness, it should be said that the Tu-160 and B-1B were created to solve different problems. Analog Tu-160-B-1A. It is the same in size as Tu. The United States tested it, but was not allowed into the series, considering the very concept of using such aircraft already obsolete at the time of creation. Life has shown that they were right.
      1. Butchcassidy April 24 2020 16: 56 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Do not fantasize. Tu-160 are part of the air component of the Russian nuclear triad. And they perfectly fulfill their role.

        The Americans, on the other hand, use B-1b as bombers with conventional weapons — to bomb Papuans. Therefore, a Tu-160 aircraft may be redundant for such purposes.

        PS "... considering the very concept of using such aircraft already obsolete by the time of creation." And they washed down the B-2 for the horseradish of American money. Arming him with free-falling bombs. Then, in the late 90s and early 2000s, they were equipped with missile weapons. This is on the topic of who was right))
        1. shahor April 24 2020 17: 22 New
          • 0
          • 4
          -4
          Quote: ButchCassidy
          for horseradish

          It is difficult to argue with a person whose level of knowledge is for horseradish. Write yourself that the Tu-160 and V-1B are different cars. What are you trying to argue then? As for the details, read the memoirs of Academician Boris Fedosov- 50 years in aviation. Maybe you’ll understand why the Americans made the B-1B. But the Tu-160 flies because how can it not fly? And then who will fly? And why does he need a variable sweep and supersonic for 5 minutes today? How will this help him solve the problem? No way. Therefore, the B-52s fly, which may very well solve the same problems. But- cheaper. As for B-2, this is a completely different concept, where free-falling and gliding bombs are in demand. At VO there was good material explaining the essence of the concept. Search the archive. Both the American V-21 and the Russian PAK DA will essentially be the development of the V-2, not the Tu-160 and V-1A
          1. Butchcassidy April 24 2020 17: 56 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            I write what I write. And I do it for a reason. Whether you like it or not, my level of knowledge is your own business. But with the logic I have everything in order, that's for sure. And therefore I inform you that the Americans have a different nuclear strategy and concept of the use of nuclear weapons. That's why they did not begin to use B-1A, but sawed down the smaller B-1B on its basis. To bombard the Papuans.

            And not because the concept of using Tu-160 and B-1A aircraft is outdated. Especially in the 1970s, when the Tu-160 was being developed.

            PAK YES cannot be a development of the B-2 because it has nothing to do with this aircraft.

            As for the decision to resume production of the Tu-160, this is a completely correct decision. Both in order to restore and test competencies, and in order to replenish the fleet of strategic bombers.

            As for the civilian version of the Tu-160: it doesn’t matter on the basis of this aircraft or on the basis of something else, but the one who can make the segment of civilian supersonic civil aviation “quiet” will stand for this promising market. And our engineers, I am sure, can solve not such ambitious tasks. But when they are put at the highest level, it works much easier.
            1. shahor April 24 2020 18: 13 New
              • 0
              • 4
              -4
              Quote: ButchCassidy
              To bombard the Papuans.

              Offend, my dear, my patriotic feelings. The V-1B was created by a narrowly specialized aircraft for solving certain problems on the territory of the USSR. Tasks are a thing of the past; a good plane is no longer needed. And you Papuans ... I’m ashamed to think so about my country. Therefore, read the literature. I called you a book. He wrote it not only an excellent specialist, but also a smart person. Read it and find out about the tasks for B-1B, if interested ... And why is it the way it is. And PAK YES is created according to the scheme of a flying wing, like B-2 and B-21. This means that the concepts for using these aircraft are largely similar. This is the future of strategic aviation. And TU-160, like your logic, is a dead end.
            2. Grigory_45 April 24 2020 19: 07 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              Quote: ButchCassidy
              Americans have a different nuclear strategy and concept of using nuclear weapons. That's why they did not begin to use B-1A, but sawed down the smaller B-1B on its basis. To bombard the Papuans.

              Americans abandoned the B-1A for one simple reason. They considered that albeit a supersonic, but high-altitude aircraft has virtually no chance (without heavy losses) to break through the air defense of the USSR and ATS countries. And they taught the plane to fly around the terrain, getting a B-1B - which barely exceeds the speed of sound.

              Quote: ButchCassidy
              PAK YES CANNOT BE DEVELOPMENT B-2

              PK YES is created according to the same principles as Spirit. Or the American new stealth bomber Raider.

              Quote: ButchCassidy
              As for the decision to resume production of the Tu-160, this is a completely correct decision.

              This is a forced decision. Moreover, it is controversial - either the release of Swans intended for the first strike to be re-mastered, or to maintain the Tu-95 fleet in the airworthy state until PAK DA

              Quote: ButchCassidy
              those who can make the segment of civilian supersonic aviation “silent” will be staking out this promising market.

              Concords and Tu-144 left the stage not because of their loudness. They were trite unprofitable - passengers were transported less, and fuel consumed much more than subsonic wide-body. And the current supersonic airliner will suffer the same fate.
              Only a business jet can be a savershound civilian
              1. Crimean partisan 1974 April 25 2020 10: 33 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And if the Japanese are suspiciously like the Chinese, who then copied whom ......... this is debatable. only a stratoplane can be economically and quickly made, and for safety reasons, stratoplanes use planning without engines. that is, the question of “stone down” disappears by itself
              2. ccsr April 25 2020 11: 56 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Gregory_45
                Concords and Tu-144 left the stage not because of their loudness. They were trite unprofitable - passengers were transported less, and fuel consumed much more than subsonic wide-body. And the current supersonic airliner will suffer the same fate.

                But Forbes magazine believes that this was for a completely different reason:
                In the years of increased demand for first-class flights, each British Concorde earned an average of £ 30-50 million in operating profit per year. British Airways reported revenue of £ 1,75 billion at operating costs of £ 1 billion. Air France’s revenue was an order of magnitude lower.
                In both airlines, supersonic airliners were “advertising locomotives”: they were flown by politicians, major businessmen and stars of show business; Flights have always been of interest to the press, and the Concorde circuit has become an expensive and recognizable brand. For 27 years, the plane traveled to 150 airports around the world, including Sheremetyevo, Pulkovo and even Baikonur. After the crash of the French Concorde on July 25, 2000 and the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, there was a sharp decline in air traffic. Airbus said it would stop producing parts, while British Airways and Air France said they would shut down Concorde in 2003.

                https://www.forbes.ru/sobytiya-photogallery/biznes/247896-10-let-bez-concorde-vzlet-i-zakat-sverkhzvukovogo-lainera
                So do not be a plane crash and attempts by Americans to stop Concord’s access to US airports, as if he was an eyesore to them, then these aircraft might have been used for much longer.
                1. Liam April 25 2020 12: 08 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Concords were unprofitable in the 80s and 90s when the price of oil was at a minimum. When in early 2000, the price took off, became unprofitable and closed the project.
                  1. ccsr April 25 2020 12: 31 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Liam
                    Concords were unprofitable in the 80s and 90s when the price of oil was at a minimum. When in early 2000, the price took off, became unprofitable and closed the project.

                    The concorde was designed for wealthy passengers, tickets were bought up in advance and therefore the price of fuel does not play a role for moneybags - they would have flown after the price increase, as it was considered a prestigious flight. The Concord story reminds me of the story of the ozone hole, when one of the corporations decided to destroy competitors in the production of refrigeration equipment. That is why, in the story of Concordes, suddenly suddenly decisive became the requirements for noise at airports, although military airbases often exist nearby where there is no less noise from aircraft.
                    1. Grigory_45 April 25 2020 12: 55 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: ccsr
                      That is why, in the history of Concordes, suddenly the decisive requirements were noise requirements at airports

                      and such requirements exist in many countries. Which were presented not only to Concord. The aircraft must be certified for operation at these airports.
                      Abroad, especially in the United States, civil workflow is widely developed, and any citizen (or group) can bring an action against the airport for inconvenience. And with a high degree of probability to win it. To suffer losses due to a noisy animal, few people want.

                      As for Concord, he was really noisy. Its design was optimized for supersonic flight, and by takeoff and landing characteristics it was quiet horror. It was equipped with single-circuit turbojet engines - the noisiest of the possible ones (even on our strategist Tu-160 there are double-circuit ones with a several times lower noise level), and when taking off, Concord had to turn on the afterburner (which only added noise). It should also be remembered that on take-off and landing modes, not only Concord engines were not efficient enough, but also its wings (also optimized for supersonic), therefore its take-off speed was noticeably higher than that of subsonic aircraft, and climb was more hollow . And the noise intensity decreases in proportion to the square of the distance to the source. That's why Concord was noisy longer and louder.

                      In addition, there is a place to be and a sound wave that goes behind the plane flying at supersonic speed. And you can’t get rid of this effect by installing even the most quiet engines.

                      By the way, not only aviators are afraid of possible claims from the population. In Germany, there are no military training grounds far from settlements, therefore, in order not to disturb the peace of peaceful burghers, the Bundeswehr uses these devices. This is a silencer when firing from howitzers.
                      1. Malibu April 25 2020 12: 58 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        By the way, not only aviators are afraid of possible claims from the population. In Germany, there are no military training grounds far from settlements, therefore, in order not to disturb the peace of peaceful burghers, the Bundeswehr uses these devices. This is a silencer when firing from howitzers.

                        What attentive are the burghers .. And in Russia they shot, something did not care negative
                      2. Grigory_45 April 25 2020 13: 02 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Malibu
                        And they shot at Russia, they didn’t care

                        may I ask, in Germany Hitler still rules and Nazism flourishes?
                      3. Malibu April 25 2020 13: 20 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Quote: Malibu
                        And they shot at Russia, they didn’t care

                        may I ask, in Germany Hitler still rules and Nazism flourishes?

                        No, most likely Zionism, which spawned it all .. hi
                    2. ccsr April 25 2020 13: 54 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: Malibu
                      What attentive are the burghers.

                      No, it’s just that they are still those freeloaders who wanted to cut money from the military for inconvenience or to take the land from the landfill into the community. But the military there are also mean-spirited, counted and decided that it’s cheaper to create such garbage than to transfer the landfill, so they got out and created an unnecessary thing in the army. You understand that for us this is generally nonsense, but for the gynecologist and defense minister of Germany this is an entirely acceptable solution.
                  2. ccsr April 25 2020 13: 05 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    As for Concord, he was really noisy.

                    The last aircraft landed in Moscow at the airport in Tushino in the seventies, and then all this was moved far beyond the borders of the city. So, such planes do no harm to the residents of the metropolis and other cities, so there is no need to fantasize.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    In addition, there is a place to be and a sound wave that goes behind the plane flying at supersonic speed. And you can’t get rid of this effect by installing even the most quiet engines.

                    It all depends on the moment of transition to supersonic and if it is at a decent height, then this will not bother anyone.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    This is a silencer when firing from howitzers.

                    And what does this have to do with aviation?
                  3. Grigory_45 April 25 2020 13: 25 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: ccsr
                    So, such planes do no harm to the residents of the metropolis and other cities, so there is no need to fantasize.

                    you should not fantasize out of ignorance)
                    Not every airport is far from the city. In most cases - no further than 15-20 km, or even closer. Secondly, the suburbanites are no longer people?
                    I once lived near the airport, and I know what the carcasses and Ana coming in for landing are, from the roar of the engines of which the glass rattles and the dishes ring. And with what rustle the Boeing 737 comes in to land. The noise problem arose with the advent of jet aircraft, not Concord specifically. He just made a lot more noise. than other liners.

                    Quote: ccsr
                    It all depends on the moment of transition to supersonic and if it will be at a decent height

                    yeah, somewhere above the ocean)) Before that, Kandybaya on the sound. By the way, Concordes did not fly over urban areas at supersonic. And the problem of the shock wave has not yet been solved.

                    Quote: ccsr
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    This is a silencer when firing from howitzers.

                    And what does this have to do with aviation?

                    and this is related to noise, if someone does not understand)
                  4. ccsr April 25 2020 13: 47 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    Not every airport is far from the city.

                    Very rarely, large airports are located within the city - even for safety reasons, it is better to carry them away. Do you know the new Platov airfield in Rostov where you built it?
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    Secondly, the suburbanites are no longer people?

                    And what prevents people from moving away from airfields?
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    I once lived near the airport, and I know what the carcasses and Ana coming in for landing are, from the roar of the engines of which the glass rattles and the dishes ring. And with what rustle the Boeing 737 comes in to land.

                    I burst into tears of emotion - you would have lived next to the railway so that there was nothing to compare.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    By the way, Concordes did not fly over urban areas at supersonic.

                    Those. did you come up with a problem?
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    and this has to do with noise, if someone doesn’t understand

                    Recently, the Crimean bridge was built, so all the inhabitants of the city of Kerch heard how the piles are driven, and survived nothing. And polygons simply do not carry because of greed - I know this well in Germany.
            3. Liam April 25 2020 13: 35 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              With the development of Internet communications (video conferencing, etc.), moneybags lost 90% of the reasons to fly somewhere quickly. Most of the issues that then required a personal presence in the 2000s with the development of the Internet became possible to solve without leaving your office and not flying across the ocean. Last period before closing Concordas flew half empty
        2. Grigory_45 April 25 2020 12: 32 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          you are disingenuous again. In your link:
          The economic crisis of the 1980s forced the British government to think about the future Concorde: aircraft caused losses and flew almost empty. In the end, British Airways bought out planes and parts from the state. The airline incurred all the costs of maintaining the program - about £ 50 million per year at the first stage and hundreds of millions in the next 20 years of operation.


          At first, the planes were successful - but only the first, very short time, because of their novelty. Those who wanted it bought tickets for the sake of curiosity and status. And then there were continuous losses.

          Yes. Accidents also said their word (but after them the planes still flew, like airships flew after the Hindenburg disaster). Yes. it was a challenge to American technology and monopoly - but if the plane was cost-effective, he would survive it. The main reason the Concordes left the stage was purely economic, the plane was commercially unprofitable, due to the high cost of fuel and maintenance. Few were willing to pay £ 6800 for a London-New York flight. For comparison, a Boeing ticket was almost 10 times cheaper. Concord has been causing losses to its owners for almost 40 years.
          Such situations are even called the "Concord effect," or the effect of sunk costs.

          A similar fate will befall the modern supersonic airliner, if it is created. Until the car is profitable, it has no future in the field of commercial transportation
          1. ccsr April 25 2020 12: 52 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Gregory_45
            you are disingenuous again. In your link:

            It’s shitty you know the story of the Concordes, and here you are speculating in the last unprofitable flights, not understanding what happened because of this:
            Mario Corti: It was a European challenge to American technology. The plane is delta-shaped, the needle-shaped nose, a form that provides minimal resistance. The first supersonic passenger aircraft. Cruising speed - 2 "Mach", or 2200 kilometers per hour. The maximum number of passengers is 144, the name is Concord. In 1976, British Airways and Air France began regular passenger flights from Paris and London to Rio de Janeiro, Dakar, Bahrain, Washington, a few years later - to New York. The problems started right away. A number of countries have banned Concord flights over their territory. All 16 airlines that ordered Concord canceled their orders.
            .... But the fate of this aircraft, we can say, was a foregone conclusion even before its first commercial flight, because in 1973, 16 airlines intending to buy the Concord, a total of 74 units were discussed, canceled all orders. This step was the result of the oil crisis that erupted in the named year, as well as pressure from environmental organizations, not without reason arguing that Concord turbines produce too much noise, and unusually high fuel consumption is a factor in environmental pollution. After all 74 orders were canceled, Concord production was curtailed, and the copies issued by that time were operated only by the producing countries - the French Air France and British Airways. And so the “Concord” flew towards its sunset. And the end of the era could have been pushed back a little more, had it not been for the catastrophe that happened with the French Concord on July 25, 2000, which collapsed a minute after take-off from the Paris Charles de Gaulle airfield and caused the death of 113 people.

            https://www.svoboda.org/a/24193846.html
            If you had even studied the history of this aircraft a little, then you would have known that American aircraft building companies were behind all this, invested in wide-body aircraft and could not create an aircraft similar to Concord, that's why they decided to eliminate it as a competitor in transatlantic flights. By the way, the Americans tried to create something like this in the form of a Boeing 2707, but they did not succeed and they turned off the work. It was after this that Concord began to "accidentally" have problems.
            1. Grigory_45 April 25 2020 12: 58 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: ccsr
              That you sucks know the story of Concorde

              this applies to you)
              The history of this aircraft, unlike you, I know, but I'm not fond of cosyrology. Well, you pass off your hobbies (faith) as knowledge. So what about speculation - it’s you a stone in your garden)
  • 501Legion April 24 2020 12: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    they would open their mouths, what is it like
  • knn54 April 24 2020 12: 43 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Soho aware that there is TK with the original TTD?
    The Yankees have a limit of Mach 1, 3.
    When avoiding escorting the Japanese F-15, the Tu-160 developed a speed of more than 2 Machs.
  • rich April 24 2020 12: 44 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    Although the Chinese publication calls these aircraft very similar, they really have only two things in common. Firstly, the variable geometry of the wing. Secondly, both of them belong to the class of strategic machines. That is, they have a large range, and are also able to carry a multi-ton payload in the form of bombs and missiles.
    History B1 developed in zigzags. Initially, four prototypes were made, which were called B-1A. This aircraft features a high speed of 2300 km / h. It was intended to break through Soviet air defense at high altitude and at maximum speed.
    However, as the Soviet Union significantly increased the combat capabilities of its air defense systems, it became clear to the American that the B-1A was not able to oppose anything to Russian anti-aircraft missiles. And, therefore, the chances of a breakthrough are extremely low.
    And then they started to do B-1B, which was supposed to break through the air defense at low altitudes with the envelope of the terrain. In this case, a special coating was used, which reduces radar visibility. He did not need high speed at altitude, so she was cut to 1300 km / h. The earth has a subsonic speed near the plane. The aircraft was equipped with nuclear weapons. That is, they made him truly strategic. By the end of the 80s, 100 aircraft were built (66 remained).
    After the end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons were removed from the bomber in connection with agreements with the Soviet Union. After which he began to be widely used against a knowingly weaker opponent. First of all, in Afghanistan and Iraq (twice).
    Tu-160 for some time is also used not only as a carrier of nuclear weapons. What was brilliantly demonstrated in Syria. And in this capacity, you can try to compare it with an American plane. In this case, there is not even a special need to look into the characteristics of the "American",
    The fact is that the Tu-160 in all respects except stealth, surpasses all the bombers in the world. It has the highest speed, the largest payload, the highest engine thrust; it has no equal in flight altitude, in combat radius, in power supply, and in flight duration.
    Not a single airplane in the world, except for two Russian ones - Tu-22M3 and Tu-95, can be compared with the White Swan, as the Tu-160 is called, in terms of missile weapons. There is an "old" X-55 rocket, used since the mid-80s. Its range is 2500 km. Modification of the X-55SM flies 1000 km further. In the new, already Russian development, X-555, the maximum deviation from the target was reduced to 20 m, and the warhead mass was increased to 410 kg. At the same time, the range decreased to 2000 km, but with conformal fuel tanks it is equal to 2500 km. \
    At the same time, Russia even more detached from the United States on missile weapons. The Kh-101 rocket, repeatedly used in Syria by the White Swan, has a range of 5500 km. The X-102 with a thermonuclear warhead has the same range. It’s absolutely pointless to talk about the need for a missile defense breakthrough.
    The American bomber in the armament is dominated by bombs. Among them there are those planning, but they are not close to Russian missiles in range. And the only American aircraft missile AGM-158B JASSM-ER is able to fly 980 km.
    1. Usher April 24 2020 19: 25 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      X-555 maximum deviation from the target is reduced to 20 m, and the warhead mass is increased to 410 kg. At the same time, the range decreased to 2000 km, but with conformal fuel tanks it is equal to 2500 km
      Does the rocket have conformal tanks? Seriously?
  • Tusv April 24 2020 12: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Chinese letter again. Just like, then someone has stolen from someone. Adnaka concepts are different. One is larger and faster with long-range weapons. The other was designed to break through air defense at very low altitudes. With the development of air defense, Be alone goes into the furnace, and a Swan with hahatushki type Ha 102 is more relevant than the expensive Spirit. When still "cheap" riders stamped. In general, it’s important that no one has stolen anyone, and who has a higher thrust-weight ratio and potential for modernization. And yes, Be is one rather a classmate with Tu-22 than with Tu -160
  • rich April 24 2020 12: 46 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Characteristics of Tu-160 / V-1V:

    Maximum take-off weight, kg: 275000 / 216365
    Maximum engine thrust, kgf: 4 × 25000/4 × 14000
    Fuel mass, kg: 148000 / n / d
    Maximum speed, km / h: 2230/1328
    Practical range without refueling, km: 14000/12000
    Flight duration without refueling, h: 15 / n / d
    Practical ceiling, m: 21000 / 18200
    Maximum combat load, t: 45/34
    1. G. Georgiev April 24 2020 19: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Unfortunately, the B1B can carry more missiles (ex: 20 AGM-158-JASSM ER-) and a larger bomb load. up to max. 60 tons (34 tons inside + 26 tons outside) .. due to the range of course.
  • Barmaleyka April 24 2020 12: 50 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    whoever copied a strategic bomber from anyone - the United States has Russia or vice versa. After all, the V-1V and Tu-160
    it’s in person not for the Chinese
  • prior April 24 2020 12: 50 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    But doesn’t it seem strange to the Chinese that twice two gives four in Russia and the USA, and even, which is especially surprising, in China ?!
  • Mavrikiy April 24 2020 12: 56 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    China considers the Russian Tu-160 and the American B-1B "suspiciously similar"
    It would be better to attend to where the PRC copied all its planes from. request
    He does not make any conclusions, believing that it is no longer possible to figure out who the bomber copied from, and indeed whether he copied it at all.
    There will be no doubt with the PRC, for sure. repeat
  • Yaro Polk April 24 2020 12: 59 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Well, a cart with 4 wheels also looks like a car laughing
  • mojohed2012 April 24 2020 13: 05 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    But I wonder what models of foreign military equipment look like 95 percent of China’s military?
  • Avior April 24 2020 13: 07 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    China considers the Russian Tu-160 and the American B-1B "suspiciously similar"

    incorrectly consider
    "suspiciously similar" smile Tu-160 (first flight in 1981) and V-1A (first flight in 1974).
    But B-1B is an airplane of a completely different concept, although it looks similar and B-1A is taken as the basis.
  • smaug78 April 24 2020 13: 09 New
    • 0
    • 5
    -5
    Yes, and correctly consider.
  • alone April 24 2020 13: 15 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well, at least the Chinese were silent about copying
  • Azazelo April 24 2020 13: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This is in the PRC something .... the main thieves of technology in the world and crafts like a carbon copy .... they definitely lost something, but, yes, conscience.
  • iouris April 24 2020 13: 33 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    This topic has long been irrelevant.
  • Klingon April 24 2020 13: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    convergent evolution - similar tasks, similar solutions, a dolphin and a shark are also at first glance outwardly similar, although in general there are two different classes of animals.
    and then .. how much suspiciously similar to Soviet) do the Chinese themselves have Russian military equipment? would be silent wassat
  • Ratmir_Ryazan April 24 2020 13: 39 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    And China does not consider its military aircraft suspiciously similar to what they are creating in Russia and the USA ?! laughing
  • Sancho_SP April 24 2020 13: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Each article with the beginning "someone there in the PRC considers" not enough ending "but everyone else doesn’t care" :)
  • slipped April 24 2020 14: 25 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    And in the meantime:

  • K-50 April 24 2020 15: 06 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The debate does not cease, who copied the strategic bomber from whom - the United States has Russia or vice versa. After all, the B-1B and Tu-160, which are the flagships of the air forces of the United States and the Russian Federation, are so "suspiciously similar" to each other.

    Well, actually, the range of tasks, performance characteristics and laws of aerodynamics leave little room for "creativity". fellow repeat
    1. Grigory_45 April 24 2020 17: 39 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: K-50
      the range of tasks, performance characteristics and laws of aerodynamics leave little room for "creativity".

      The Su-24 is not very similar to the Tornado, but that one is like the Dassault Mirage G. Like the MiG-23 is like the Tomcat
      1. Usher April 24 2020 19: 21 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Gregory_45
        The Su-24 is not very similar to the Tornado, but that one is like the Dassault Mirage G. Like the MiG-23 is like the Tomcat

        And why should the Su-24 look like a tornado? And the MiG-23 on the Tomcat? These are different planes for different tasks.
        1. Grigory_45 April 24 2020 21: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Usher
          Quote: Gregory_45
          The Su-24 is not very similar to the Tornado, but that one is like the Dassault Mirage G. Like the MiG-23 is like the Tomcat

          And why should the Su-24 look like a tornado? And the MiG-23 on the Tomcat? These are different planes for different tasks.

          did you read the comment you answered?

          Quote: K-50
          the range of tasks, performance characteristics and laws of aerodynamics leave little room for "creativity"

          Both the Su-24 and the Tornado - aircraft with variable wing geometry and machines of the same class (F-111 can also be attributed here) - tactical attack vehicles, carriers of tactical nuclear weapons.

          Dassault Mirage G - the French equivalent of the MiG-23
  • Anders April 24 2020 15: 17 New
    • 0
    • 9
    -9
    B-1b was created before! Russia has been copying for a long time 90 percent of all aviation, and this is a fact; only this is kept very carefully silent!
    1. ccsr April 24 2020 17: 24 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: Anders
      B-1b was created before! Russia has been copying for a long time 90 percent of all aviation, and this is a fact; only this is kept very carefully silent!

      Smuggle a dreamer, because only a country that has reached the same technological level as the manufacturer of a new product can copy. But even in this case it is impossible to do this, because we need equipment and technologies that Russia does not receive from the West, because no one has canceled the restrictions of KOCOM. Everything that was done in the USSR (Russia) in the military field was practically unique developments, with the exception of some developments of the Great Patriotic War, when we received samples of the Allied military equipment and could use some solutions at home.
  • gvozdan April 24 2020 15: 35 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    And f15 is suspiciously similar to the instant-25 and?

    Even if ours were copied, we did more, better, and since no one else could
    1. Usher April 24 2020 19: 20 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      On the contrary, the f-15 was made on the basis of the MiG-25
      1. Sniper Amateur April 24 2020 20: 22 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        tactical "superior in the air" - based on the hawk of strategic air defense?
        Yeah ...
  • bar
    bar April 24 2020 16: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And two weeks later, the Vigilant Eye suddenly discovered that the prison did not have one wall ...
    Another Chinese portal with Chinese iksperdy?
  • ccsr April 24 2020 17: 18 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    In the PRC, it is noted that both aircraft have a wing with variable sweep, a cruciform tail shape and a number of other similar elements.

    It is impossible to determine by whose date of creation who the bomber copied from, because both of them began to be developed at the same time, since 1969.

    Enchanting nonsense - in appearance it is up to you to decide who has copied from whom, especially since the development began almost simultaneously, and even more so the development went in top-secret mode.
    Apparently, Chinese vodka became stronger than Ukrainian moonshine, since such fantasies began to arise not only among Svidomo, but also among advanced Chinese magazines.
    1. Sniper Amateur April 24 2020 20: 18 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Chinese vodka is by definition stronger than smag. wink In addition - they also drink it hot, which additionally inserts.
  • Grigory_45 April 24 2020 17: 29 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    According to the author from China, the Tu-160 was created on the basis of
    let the author read the monograph on the creation of the aircraft, and does not come up with)

    At the same time, they have many common design features, and they look similar in many respects. In the PRC, it is noted that both aircraft have a wing with variable sweep, a cruciform tail shape and a number of other similar elements.
    like that: cockpit and even landing gear. And the Russians have round wheels, like the Americans! Brilliant Chinese analytics

    Chinese portal argues
    why should the authors of articles on VO, since they are engaged in retelling Chinese articles, not give a link to the retellable resource? So that if they discussed it, then the original, and not a free retelling.
    And then you can retell it so that ... "The gray wolf was a harmless pensioner, and he was nightmare by three collector pigs, trying to take the house"
    1. Usher April 24 2020 19: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Sorry minus is impossible or report on the article. We got cheap articles.
      1. Sniper Amateur April 24 2020 20: 15 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Get from me + love
  • Alf
    Alf April 24 2020 18: 32 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    And then what does the Chinese military aircraft industry look like?
  • Awaz April 24 2020 19: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and why did the Chinese never copy 1 in either 160 or Tupolev?
  • Usher April 24 2020 19: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Not tired, these planes are a hundred years old at lunch. Everything is sucked up already, 2020 is in the yard, and they seemed to wake up.
  • s9883300 April 24 2020 19: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Actually, Mesishchev began to design it.
  • G. Georgiev April 24 2020 19: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    ..B1B, not like the Tu-160, because it can carry up to 54 tons of bombs, and Tu-160 - up to 45 tons.
  • Sniper Amateur April 24 2020 20: 13 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Damn!
    And such a “material” publishes a resource that positions itself as one of the leading Russian speakers in its field!
    The B-1 program began in 1966. He took off in December 1974.
    The Tu-160 program - began in 1967. He first took off in December 1981.
    Tu-22M - flies since August 1969, and the program for its creation started in 1965.
    And who-who-who-has communized - they won’t tell us.
    Well, neither B-1B nor Tu-160 - I do not constitute the "main striking force of strategic aviation" in their countries.
    In short - DOWN and Fftopku!
  • Old26 April 24 2020 20: 31 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Lipchanin
    Quote: A1845
    well, exactly similar.

    And both have wings? belay

    Moreover, both the TU-160 and the V-1V have .... engines .... laughing

    Quote: ButchCassidy
    To copy equipment you need to copy the element base, production technology, etc. Which is pointless given the various technology schools.

    It’s enough to recall the epic of copying the B-29 and the difficulties that arose

    Quote: shahor
    Analog Tu-160-B-1A. It is the same in size as Tu.

    By no means.
    TU-160 - length 54 meters, wingspan - 36/56 m, maximum take-off - about 275 tons
    B-1A - length 46 meters, wingspan - 24/42 m, maximum take-off - about 176,8 tons
    V-1V - length 44,8 meters, wingspan - 24/42 m, maximum take-off - about 216,4 tons

    Quote: ButchCassidy
    Do not fantasize. Tu-160 are part of the air component of the Russian nuclear triad. And they perfectly fulfill their role.

    The Americans, on the other hand, use B-1b as bombers with conventional weapons — to bomb Papuans. Therefore, a Tu-160 aircraft may be redundant for such purposes.

    B-1B, too, until a certain time, was also part of the US strategic nuclear forces. After the Americans got B-2, they pulled B-1B out of START levels. Leaving him the opportunity to carry only tactical nuclear weapons
    As for the Papuans, it is also difficult to say something. Both Iraq and Libya, and even now Syria's air defense is still quite serious, compared with the Papuans. However, in spite of this, it strikes and strikes

    Quote: ButchCassidy
    And they washed down the B-2 for the horseradish of American money. Arming him with free-falling bombs. Then, in the late 90s and early 2000s, they were equipped with missile weapons. This is on the topic of who was right))

    Again. And the B-2 could carry strategic AGM-129 cruise missiles. However, their removal from service led to the fact that the V-2 had no strategic missiles. They have tactical missiles of type AGM-158.

    Quote: ButchCassidy
    That's why they did not begin to use B-1A, but sawed down the smaller B-1B on its basis.

    It is very, very difficult to name the smaller, in comparison with V-1A, bomber V-1B. The difference in length - V-1V is shorter than just 1,2 m. The take-off weight of the V-1V is 36-37 tons more than that of the V-1A ...

    Quote: knn54
    Soho aware that there is TK with the original TTD?
    The Yankees have a limit of Mach 1, 3.
    When avoiding escorting the Japanese F-15, the Tu-160 developed a speed of more than 2 Machs.

    At B-1B, yes. B-1A was planned at a speed of M = 2 at high altitude and 1,2-1,3 M at low altitude. In V-1V, these speeds are respectively 1,2 M and 0,82 M

    Quote: Rich
    History B1 developed in zigzags. At first, four prototypes were made, which were called B-1A

    Initially, two machines were planned for static testing and 5 flight. Then the number was reduced to 1 and 4. Flight No. 5, which began to be built, became the prototype No. 1 of the B-1B bomber. And the fourth B-1A was upgraded to the second flying B-1B

    Quote: Rich
    The fact is that the Tu-160 in all respects except stealth, surpasses all the bombers in the world. It has the highest speed, the largest payload, the highest engine thrust, it has no equal in flight altitude, in combat radius, in power ratio, in flight duration ..

    I agree with all parameters except the payload. In TU-160, it is 45 tons, and in V-1B, thanks to external suspension nodes, it can be raised to 57 tons (34 inside and 23 on the external suspension)

    Quote: Rich
    Tu-160 for some time is also used not only as a carrier of nuclear weapons.

    Yes, but the nomenclature of non-nuclear weapons used is mainly limited to cruise missiles. B-1B has a lot more stock ...

    Quote: bar
    And two weeks later, the Vigilant Eye suddenly discovered that the prison did not have one wall ...
    Another Chinese portal with Chinese iksperdy?

    This "keen eye" took 2 weeks. Chinese, 33 years old
  • lvov_aleksey April 24 2020 22: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I take 2 links from a wiki or others:
    first flight b1b 1984
    http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/b1b.html
    The first flight of the Tu-160 1981
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%83-160
  • pafegosoff April 24 2020 22: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Why didn’t he remember that the Tu-144 is suspiciously similar to the Concorde? And the most interesting thing, since 1965, ours have been offering to do the aircraft together, but counterintelligence of England and France intervened in the affairs, in general - the Soviet sent everyone to. And they launched their Tu-144 into the sky three months earlier. And then there was the company of Sukhoi titanium T-4 sculpted. Which Dementyev covered, because it was necessary to throw all the forces on the Tu-160 ...
  • Revolver April 24 2020 23: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Aircraft solve similar problems, here are the designers and applied similar solutions. Just like the Su-2 was similar to the Japanese Nakajima B5N. And if you delve deeper in history, then the dolphins licked the contours of the sharks.
  • tolmachiev51 April 25 2020 04: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The "copy" apparatus of the Chinese is already in the brain, therefore they are judged by "themselves." !!!
  • Ax Matt April 25 2020 15: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Has it collapsed from oak? fool Well, let's take another “Jaguar” and MiG-23, F-14 and MiG-25, “Tornado” and Su-24 are compared to the subject of who ripped off anyone. And so on ad infinitum. There are successful design decisions for a certain period of time that create trends. And the Chinese ... Whose cow would have mooed, but they would have been silent. In general, everything has been stripped of everything from them. They began to grow in the last 50 years because they switched to a meat diet, in other words, they don’t eat their own food ... Soon they will cease to be Chinese.
    1. Alf
      Alf April 25 2020 20: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Ax Matt
      Whose cow would moo, but they would be silent. In general, everything has been stripped of everything from them.

      There is such a term- "seamless construction", so it's about the sons of the Middle Kingdom. laughing
  • Old26 April 25 2020 22: 09 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: lvov_aleksey
    I take 2 links from a wiki or others:
    first flight b1b 1984
    http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/b1b.html
    The first flight of the Tu-160 1981
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%83-160

    In fact, the very last thing to talk about the similarities or differences between machines, about priorities. Let Chinese experts do this.
    A machine released for similar tasks and will be similar to each other. For aerodynamics can not escape. So we can talk about the similarity and difference between the TU-160 and the V-1, of course, to support the conversation, but that’s all. You can, of course, take the dates of the first departure of the TU-160 and B-1B and conclude that the United States "copied" its "Lancer" from our TU-160. And you can recall that the B-1A took off on December 23, 1974, 7 years earlier than Tupolev and concluded that we "communized" him with the United States. Both answers will be inherently not right. Scientific and technical intelligence certainly worked, and something "in its beak" brought us and the Americans, but this is not enough to talk about copying.
    In the same way, one can talk for a long time about the similarity and difference between the Concord and the TU-144, although the engines on the first TU-144 machines were located differently from the Concord (in the package). You can also talk about priorities and copying. The list goes on. You can compare our SU-24 with the Tornado. Moreover, our SU in the Western press was called nothing more than “Soviet“ Tornado. ”Even in the year 1973 in the magazine“ Interavia ”(Switzerland) there was an article called "SU-24 - Soviet Tornado". The article was safely censored laughing
    What else to remember? SU-27 and F-15? And talk about the similarities, differences and who copied from whom ??? Not worth it. In the context of this article, both TU-160 and V-1V "Lancer" are quite worthy bombers for their time and goals. It’s just that the situation was such that we made three times less “Swans” than the Americans of our “Lancers”. Accordingly, their hands were untied and when these bombers ceased to be machines subject to set-off under strategic agreements, the Americans converted them into carriers of precision non-nuclear weapons. And they quite cope with this function ...
  • Old26 April 26 2020 13: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Old26
    Even in the year 1973, there was an article in the journal Interavia (Switzerland) called "SU-24 - Soviet Tornado."

    I beg your pardon. Just now discovered a blooper. Of course, the article was not in 1973, but in 1983