Military Review

The National Interest: Tu-160 and B-1, who wins?

54
Publications of foreign publications are of particular interest because they allow you to create an impression of opinions that are in circulation abroad. For obvious reasons, such publications often cause a lot of questions or even become a reason for justified indignations and condemnations: foreign authors do not always agree with Russian ones, and sometimes do not adhere to an objective point of view and build their thoughts on dubious theses or even propaganda clichés. However, there are often also literate correct articles that give correct answers to common questions of one kind or another.


29 March The National Interest published the next article by Dave Majumdar on American and Russian weapons under The Buzz. Under the loud headline, “Russia's Deadly Tu-160 Bomber vs America's B-1: Who Wins?” (“Russian Deadly Tu-160 vs. American B-1: Who Will Win?”) Hides a very curious attempt to consider the question posed and give the correct answer. Indeed, the comparison of the Tu-160 and B-1 aircraft is often the subject of discussion, but not always such disputes come to the right conclusions.

D. Majumdar begins his new article with a statement of obvious facts. The strategic bombers Rockwell International B-1B Lancer and Tu-160 (unofficial nickname “White Swan”, according to NATO classification - Blackjack) are very similar in appearance. In addition, there are certain coincidences in their tactical role. Nevertheless, despite all the similarities and coincidences, these are two completely different aircraft.

The National Interest: Tu-160 and B-1, who wins?


Finding the answer to the question “who will win?” Begins with consideration stories one of the contenders for victory. The National Interest journalist reminds that the American B-1A aircraft was once created as a supersonic high-altitude bomber designed to break through to targets through the air defense of a potential enemy. However, a similar project was canceled in 1977. The administration of President Jimmy Carter and the leadership of the Pentagon decided, not without reason, that such an aircraft had no real prospects. Experts have concluded that, in the existing form, the B-1A will not be able to pass through the Soviet air defense systems and accomplish the tasks assigned.

After that, the US leadership decided to adjust the development of strategic nuclear forces. It was decided to raise the priority of land-based intercontinental ballistic missile projects, as well as to start developing a promising aircraft capable of overcoming the enemy’s air defenses. Recent work eventually led to the appearance of an unobtrusive strategic bomber Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit, but for a long time this machine and its development remained secret.

The revival of the project B-1 in a new form has already occurred under President Ronald Reagan. A new version of the project received the designation B-1B. Due to the impossibility of an air defense breakthrough at high altitude, it was decided to implement another way to reach the target. The updated B-1B should have a low radar visibility, as well as a breakthrough at a low altitude with a relatively high speed. One of the results of this revision of the project was a noticeable reduction in speed and altitude. So, the basic B-1A should have been able to fly at speeds up to M = 2. In the new project B-1B, the maximum speed was reduced to M = 1,25, which was associated with a number of major design changes aimed at meeting the updated requirements.

After the end of the Cold War, the B-1B Lancer project was again reworked. In connection with the termination of the confrontation of the superpowers and a change in the basic strategies, it was decided to correct the role of these aircraft. In accordance with the decision of the Pentagon, B-1B were to lose the ability to carry nuclear weapons and become carriers of exclusively conventional ammunition. In the 1995 year, as part of the Conventional Mission Upgrade Program project (“Refinement Program for Non-Nuclear Missions”), all the equipment necessary to carry a nuclear weapon was dismantled from combat bombers. At the same time, the aircraft received new radar stations with enhanced characteristics. In addition, it became possible to use modern high-precision weapons.

Later, after September 11 2001, the aircraft B-1B again underwent improvements. The main innovations concerned detection systems, target designation and communications. For example, the Sniper XR hanging container was adopted, which allows to increase the accuracy of the use of weapons. In addition, new means of communication and control. Recent improvements of combat aircraft have, to a certain extent, increased their combat effectiveness in carrying out tasks during local conflicts, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the struggle against irregular formations.

D. Majumdar believes that the B-1B bomber can no longer perform the tasks for which it was originally created. Due to several modernizations and the development of air defense systems, such aircraft can no longer break through the well-organized enemy defenses and strike targets deep in enemy territory. However, the B-1B still retains combat capability as a carrier. aviation missiles. To solve some combat missions, he will be able to use missiles of the JASSM-ER or LRASM type. Thus, in the case of some missions, the B-1B Lancer, with certain reservations, can be considered an analogue of the Russian Tu-160 bomber.

The Russian strategic bomber Tu-160 looks like an American B-1B aircraft, but in fact it is a completely different machine with different goals. Tu-160 was developed in Soviet times as one of the main means of delivering a nuclear strike on enemy targets in the event of the outbreak of World War III. In this case, reminds D. Majumdar, the main task of the Tu-160 was to deliver air-based cruise missiles with nuclear warheads to launch points. Also provided for the possibility of breaking through the enemy's air defense with the help of high-speed flight at low altitude.

Because of this difference in tasks, the Russian plane turned out to be larger than the American one and wins against it in flight characteristics. Thus, the maximum take-off weight of the Tu-160 exceeds 606 thousand pounds (of the order of 275 t), and the maximum speed is M = 2,05. For comparison, the maximum take-off weight of the B-1B is 477 thousand pounds (about 215 t), and the flight speed does not exceed M = 1,25.

Since the introduction of the Tu-160 bomber, its main armament has been the X-55MS long-range cruise missiles. A dozen of such products equipped with nuclear warheads can be housed in the cargo hold of the aircraft. In recent months, when the Tu-160 first took part in real combat operations, the aircraft’s ammunition assembly included the conventional version of the X-55MS rocket called X-555. In addition, during the execution of tasks for the destruction of terrorist facilities in Syria, Russian bombers used the latest low-profile X-101 missiles. There is information about creating a similar weapon carrying a nuclear warhead - X-102.

The author of The National Interest reminds that in the near future Russia plans to resume the construction of Tu-160 strategic bomber-missile carriers. After the resumption of construction in the series should go an improved version of the aircraft, received the designation Tu-160М2. D. Majumdar believes that the new serial Tu-160М2 should be replaced by the existing Tu-22М3 and Tu-95MS aircraft, which currently complement the existing Blackjack fleet. Also, the American journalist suggests that the upgraded Tu-160 will become a kind of temporary measure that will allow Russian strategic aviation to maintain the required potential until the appearance of the new PAK DA bomber.

In the final article D. Majumdar gives an answer to the question in the title. Rather, shy away from the answer and justifies it. In his opinion, the question from the title of the article cannot be considered correct. Bombers Tu-160 and B-1B are too different from each other. Differences lie in the design features, in the characteristics and even in the purpose of technology. Thus, the question “who among them will win?” Cannot have the correct answer.

***

Comparison of various types of weapons and military equipment is a favorite occupation of specialists and the public. Such analyzes allow us to study the situation in a particular area, as well as to draw conclusions about the possibilities of certain samples both by themselves and in the event of their confrontation. For many years, traditional objects of comparison have been the mass of weapons and equipment, including the Tu-160 and B-1B Lancer bombers.

The appearance of such a pair of "rivals", in the first place, contributes to the appearance of the two aircraft. Both the Tu-160 and the B-1B are multi-mode supersonic long-range bombers, which, with certain reservations, makes it possible to assign them to the same class of technology. However, in addition to external similarity, the two samples have a lot of differences in terms of design, characteristics and tactical role. Similarities and differences, as well as their different interpretations, as a result, become fuel, supporting controversy and discussion.

It should be noted, the answer to the question "who is whom?" Has long been known: no one and no one. Firstly, the Tu-160 and B-1B bombers are too different from each other so that they can be compared directly, and secondly, these are not the planes that will be encountered in full-time combat and find out who is stronger. Therefore, it is possible to compare two samples only by their characteristics and combat effectiveness.

As already mentioned, sometimes there are publications in the foreign press that are impossible to argue with. D. Majumdar's article “The Dead Dead Tu-160 Bomber vs America's B-1: Who Wins?” Is a good example of a phenomenon. The American author remembered the story of two projects and reviewed their main features. The result of such consideration was the thesis about the incorrectness of the question “who is who?”, Put into the title. According to the author of The National Interest, the aircraft under consideration are too different to be compared in this way.

As the author rightly notes, the American B-1B bomber was created to carry out a low-altitude supersonic breakthrough to targets in the territory protected by powerful air defense. The task of the Tu-160, in turn, has always been the delivery of cruise missiles to the launch line, and at the expense of their long-range aircraft could not even approach the enemy’s air defense zone. Such a difference in the methods of combat work of the two aircraft was due to the main features of long-range aviation strategies developed in two countries. Experts of the USSR and the USA, having studied all the factors, formed their own requirements for equipment and its application.

An interesting fact is that after the end of the Cold War, the American B-1B aircraft underwent serious modifications. It was decided to deprive them of the possibility of carrying nuclear weapons. In addition, some problems with the nomenclature of weapons led to the fact that these aircraft for a long time could not use missile weapons - their weapons were only bombs. From this point of view, the Russian Tu-160 was much more fortunate. He did not begin to alter with the changing role, however, over time, the nomenclature of available ammunition was replenished with several new products.

The result of all these events that took place in the past decades are the corresponding features of the combat use of technology. American aircraft B-1B Lancer were repeatedly involved in the implementation of air strikes against targets in the territory of Afghanistan and Iraq, which used guided bomb weapons. Tu-160 was able to participate for the first time in a real combat operation only in the autumn of 2015, and immediately used cruise missiles, including new types. Thus, the military operations of recent years are an excellent and clear demonstration of the difference between the two aircraft.

Due to the presence of significant differences of various kinds, direct comparison of Tu-160 and B-1B bombers is not possible or meaningful. The article of D. Majumdar and her fair conclusions once again remind us that not always the external similarity of weapons or equipment models allows us to compare them with each other. In addition, we should not forget that appearance is rarely the most important part of the samples under consideration, and the most interesting part is connected with their internal parts and application methods.


The article "Russia's Dead Dead Tu-160 Bomber vs America's B-1: Who Wins?":
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-deadly-tu-160-bomber-vs-americas-b-1-who-wins-15626
Author:
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Good cat
    Good cat April 1 2016 05: 48
    +1
    Victory will be ours!
    1. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ April 1 2016 08: 03
      +8
      Victory will be ours!

      Inspired by the Tu-160, cut into scrap metal.
      For modern weapons, and even for such aircraft, we still need a nationally patriotic command and leadership of the country.
      Unfortunately, sometimes politics and the 5th column defeats any ultramodern and necessary aircraft, even the TU-160.
      1. Ustinov 055 055
        Ustinov 055 055 April 1 2016 09: 57
        +1
        Column 5 smokes x in Poland at a bunch, and our new leadership Thank God understands that Russia has 2 friends army and navy
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Wheel
        Wheel April 1 2016 10: 58
        +14
        Your new article D. Majumdar begins by stating the obvious facts.
        Honestly and frankly, they shut up on the opus of this scribbler, which is translated, that in retelling.
        Information is zero, meaning zero.
        Do they educate "qualified consumers" from the visitors to hawala everything that is offered?
        1. Zoldat_A
          Zoldat_A April 1 2016 22: 02
          +3
          Quote: Wheel
          Honestly and frankly, they shut up on the opus of this scribbler, which is translated, that in retelling.
          Information is zero, meaning zero.

          This Indian, converted into an Englishman, has already lured his WHO IS STRONGER, A KIT OR AN ELEPHANT.

          I saw (though not a process but consequences) as a kid of 19 years, a field engineer who did not have any special training, with a sliver somehow tried three men with beards in push-ups after seeing what they had done with two prisoners the day before. After that, he walked through the mountains for three days in an unfamiliar area. Guided by the sun. Came out by chance on a column of bulk docks ... So I would have looked how Majumdar compared the combat potential of an unarmed sapper kid against three men of the 35 years, 25 of whom they are fighting ...

          And this Majumdar will always write some nonsense ... It seems that he, like Pushkin, is paid line by line ... laughing
        2. gergi
          gergi April 1 2016 22: 11
          +2
          This cunning majumdar was not sickly attached. He has his own cola sandwich. The amateur and the hollow. But always full. When I see his name, I immediately lose interest. Popularly, this is called comparing an ass with a finger. Briefly and clearly. And here is the shadow, and wattle, and other pseudo-scientific crap.
          1. Zoldat_A
            Zoldat_A April 2 2016 16: 56
            +4
            Quote: gergi
            This cunning majumdar was not sickly attached. He has his own cola sandwich. The amateur and the hollow. But always full. When I see his name, I immediately lose interest. Popularly, this is called comparing an ass with a finger. Briefly and clearly. And here is the shadow, and wattle, and other pseudo-scientific crap.

            Aligned -1 to zero. Sorry, I can’t give it anymore. I wonder who is sitting here and negative for Majumdar minus? Perhaps Majumdar himself was encrypted ....
            1. gergi
              gergi April 2 2016 21: 36
              0
              No, I’m thinking. Where to me before the great majumdar. Among compatriots I have ill-wishers of quiet people. I do not always write nice comments, so the rating was not given. I'm very worried! Today, I’m definitely not going to sleep until five in the morning. My tongue is my enemy. I looked here, some have cosmic ratings. I envy scary! But I read their komenty, no, better let them be minus. I can’t get such glory. By the way, I'm George, also a Russian soldier.
      4. papik09
        papik09 April 1 2016 11: 37
        +7
        Sir, you give a photo about the destruction of aircraft in Priluki (Ukraine). Then, it seems, EIGHT PILOTS (wrote with a capital, because THEY ARE BABIES !!!) stole cars in Russia. Glory to them all !!!
      5. RBLip
        RBLip April 1 2016 11: 44
        +6
        Quote: vladimirZ
        Inspired by the Tu-160, cut into scrap metal.

        Khakhly already then were the State Department lapdogs. bastards, damn it. Especially "24" is a pity ... he only had a flight time - 466 hours ...
        1. Fedyanov
          Fedyanov April 1 2016 17: 20
          -8
          You, K. Atsap, tell me how many submarines in Russia remain in comparison with the USSR?
          1. KSLip
            KSLip April 1 2016 19: 21
            +4
            Quote: Fedyanov
            You, K. Atsap, say

            oooooh. jumped up! I tell you, go to the censor, download. litter nigga.
          2. Sergey777
            Sergey777 April 1 2016 19: 26
            0
            Quote: Fedyanov
            Fedyanov UA Today, 17:20 ↑

            You, K. Atsap, tell me how many submarines in Russia remain in comparison with the USSR?



            Read it yourself, Vasya, if of course you have not forgotten how to answer there. Here is the link -
            http://oko-planet.su/politik/politikarm/316622-reyting-business-insider-korabli-

            i-podvodnye-lodki-ssha-rossii-i-kitaya.html
          3. vnedra
            vnedra April 1 2016 21: 57
            +1
            you probably still live in the hut, with earthen floors and something else there yanking a battered lapdog!
      6. Captain45
        Captain45 April 1 2016 18: 10
        +1
        Quote: vladimirZ
        Inspired by the Tu-160, cut into scrap metal.

        So as far as I remember, these Tu-160s were cut on the outskirts, although not all is good. It seems that 19s were cut off 10s, and 8 Russia was taken as payment for gas, and 1 seems to be in a museum near ukrov. Those that were stationed in Russia did not touch.
      7. wolfhound
        wolfhound April 1 2016 20: 58
        +3
        Ukro dogs not sorry, they did not build, they got it for free, and grandmothers for the destruction of the United shit America raped
      8. sherik
        sherik April 1 2016 22: 36
        0
        Very unpleasant photo. It's a shame.
  2. qwert
    qwert April 1 2016 06: 52
    +12
    And again D. Majumdara.
    As the author rightly notes, American B-1B bomber was created to carry out low-altitude supersonic breakthrough to targets in the territory protected by powerful air defense. The task of the Tu-160, in turn, was always to deliver cruise missiles to the launch line, and due to their long range, the aircraft might not even come close to the enemy’s air defense zone.

    Majumdara never rightly notes. Tu-160 was originally created for a low-altitude breakthrough to the target. That is why all previous programs on M-52, Tu-135 and others were curtailed, since they were not intended for high-speed low-altitude flight. And according to Majumdar, the Tu-160 flew up at a height, launched rockets and flew away, purely single-mode. But one of the proposed flight routes was through the pole and Canada, where it was necessary to overcome air defense. Well, missile launches were not planned at 5000km, but only at 1000-1500, and at the same time, in order to completely cover the states, it was sometimes necessary to cross the US border.
    D. Majumdar believes that the new serial Tu-160М2 will have to replace the existing Tu-22М3 and Tu-95MS aircraft, which currently complement the existing Blackjack air fleet.

    Yeah, replace the Tu-22M3. Then too, Su-34. Or maybe to the heap and Su-24. laughing D. Majumdara is burning.
    1. AUL
      AUL April 1 2016 11: 11
      +3
      What was the point of sculpting an article based on Majumdar's fabrications? His "competence in all matters" has long been known!
    2. clidon
      clidon April 1 2016 23: 17
      0
      And according to Majumdar, the Tu-160 flew up at a height, launched rockets and flew away, purely single-mode.

      And here Mr. Marjumar (although it seems to me that his real name is some kind of Markov or Petrov) is absolutely right. No one ever demanded any low-altitude breakthroughs on the Tu-160.
  3. Mangel olys
    Mangel olys April 1 2016 07: 08
    +3
    Thank you for the article. Very interesting.
    The National Interest journalist recalls that the American aircraft B-1A at ​​one time was created as a supersonic high-altitude bomber designed to break through to the air defense of a potential enemy.

    I will add: B-1A - a heavy strategic bomber with a variable sweep wing. Manufactured by North American Rockwell. It was intended to replace the B-52, the first flight was made at the end of 1974. Then it was armed with 24 Srem missiles. Ceiling - 15240 m Speed ​​2330 km / h at an altitude of 15000 m, at an altitude of 300 m - 1200 km / h. Flight range with a load of 35 tons with nuclear weapons and one refueling in the air - 11000 km.
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 April 1 2016 07: 11
    +7
    the author is either completely off topic (then why the hell is he kept in such a magazine?) or he deliberately misleads the bourgeois reader. Comparing these two airplanes is the same as comparing, for example, the R-5Ш and IL-2: the tasks were performed approximately the same, but the result was completely different, and the field of application is very different.
    1. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 April 1 2016 08: 48
      +4
      Well, it turns out that the venerable EXPERT D. Majumdar himself came to exactly the same conclusion in his article:
      In the final article D. Majumdar gives an answer to the question in the title. Rather, shy away from the answer and justifies it. In his opinion, the question from the title of the article cannot be considered correct. Bombers Tu-160 and B-1B are too different from each other. Differences lie in the design features, in the characteristics and even in the purpose of technology. Thus, the question “who among them will win?” Cannot have the correct answer.

      - And what this expert is, we could already judge from the previous articles of this author, who loves to compare warm with soft. That has already been repeatedly discussed on this site and therefore I will not repeat myself. For myself, I came to the conclusion that D. Majumdar writes such articles, so to speak, "on the head of the day", without really thinking about in general, allow comparisons of such different types of technology, which often have only relative external similarity and nothing more in common: various technical solutions and characteristics, different purposes, etc. Majumdar writes, promoting himself, and "people hawala", not realizing that he is being led by the nose. Well, at the same time, once again scare the Western man in the street with aggression and military threat from Russia.
      I have the honor.
    2. opus
      opus April 1 2016 16: 54
      +2
      Quote: inkass_98
      the author is either not in the subject at all


      see the author (the firstborn so to speak): D. Majumdar-Dave Majumdar




      EDUCATION American University School of International service EPGA






      The article can not be read
      Majumar figachit as a pasta machine, they do not have time to print, and in several editions (now a protégé appeared on the topvar)



      hi
  5. sergeyzzz
    sergeyzzz April 1 2016 07: 18
    +2
    We have already touched on the topic, but for the NATO people it’ll come down, let them study. At the end of the article, it was necessary to give a recommendation on what size diapers would need to be acquired when the TU-160 flies in their direction. laughing
  6. Kenneth
    Kenneth April 1 2016 08: 54
    0
    It’s interesting, but is the problem of breaking through air defense any actual?
  7. staryivoin
    staryivoin April 1 2016 08: 59
    +2
    The "thinkers - writers" in the West have it all in one place with a mean thought - WHO IS WHOM? At a time when the Kremlin says more and more clearly "guys, let's live together!" these stoned ones are all trying to check whose eggs, missiles, tanks are stronger "cooked" ... Summits about nuclear security are about nothing. Missile defense systems in Europe are incapable of protecting against inevitable retaliation in the coming decades ... Isn't it better to just say to yourself once and for all, "Stop comparing who and what with whom" Russia has always found and, if necessary, will find an asymmetric answer again.
  8. Iline
    Iline April 1 2016 09: 11
    +2
    Let's put our hand on our hearts - B1 began to be created in the USA and the then leadership of the USSR began to fuss with parrying this threat. Do not forget - the Cold War was in full swing and the arms race has not been canceled.
    Since at that time Tupolev had indisputable support at the top in the field of heavy bombers, then our Tu-1, surprisingly similar to B160, appeared to the detriment of the same "weaving" of Sukhoi or M-52 Myasishchev. Are the sizes larger? So after all, the dimensions depend on the amount of fuel on board to fulfill the declared TTD in terms of flight range. And we have big problems with aircraft engines and their gluttony. The rest of the layout of the aircraft is practically one-on-one ripped off from the Americans. It should be noted here that we could use our aircraft only from our own territory, unlike the Americans with their bases on the borders of our country and not only. Therefore, they differ slightly in the tactics of combat use.
    Positioning the Tu-160 as a carrier only for cruise missiles is not entirely true - it also has equipment for bombing. Another question is that it is not used because of its uselessness for this type of aircraft and the proposed theater of operations and designated targets for destruction.
    How many I did not serve, I don’t remember that bright moment when this plane flew at low altitudes, and it does not have a flight regime along a low-altitude circuit, unlike the same B1B. And in your arms such a colossus is pulled at low altitude, you will go crazy.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 1 2016 10: 27
      +5
      Quote: Iline
      our Tu-1 surprisingly similar to B160 appeared

      EVEN an American of Indian descent, a parable, and a sample of military-analytical incompetence Dave Majumdar was able to notice that the similarity of the two aircraft is purely external (although in fact there are quite a few fundamental differences)
      Quote: Iline
      The rest of the layout of the aircraft is almost one in one ripped off by the Americans.

      Given the fact that the projects of four-engine aircraft with variable wing geometry were presented by Myasishchev and Sukhoi long before the B-1A flew into the air, then, most likely, do you blame the Rockwell company for industrial espionage in favor of the USSR? In your opinion, the blueprints of the latest US bombers were immediately sent from Suhlman to Sukhoi? Again, go, is Poghosyan to blame? laughing
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer April 1 2016 11: 18
        +4
        A man wrote about a similar layout of the B-1A and Tu-160 (the location of engines, control elements).

        Do not mix concepts correctly concept 4 engine jet bomber and layout specific aircraft.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 1 2016 19: 21
          0
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          A man wrote about a similar layout of the B-1A and Tu-160 (the location of engines, control elements).

          The man wrote that we tore off their plane from the Americans - no more, no less.
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          It is not correct to mix the concepts of the 4's propulsion jet bomber concept and the layout of specific aircraft.

          In this case, we are not talking about the concept, but about the fact that the development of large four-engine aircraft with a variable wing went to the USSR at least in parallel with the United States, but certainly not after it.
    2. FID
      FID April 1 2016 11: 37
      +9
      Quote: Iline
      How many I did not serve, I don’t remember that bright moment when this plane flew at low altitudes, and it does not have a flight regime along a low-altitude circuit, unlike the same B1B. And in your arms such a colossus is pulled at low altitude, you will go crazy.

      That's wrong! Veremey flew on a "low" profile! Later, in order to comply with the military doctrine, computers were dismantled from the 70s, but the programs have been flown around and can be installed!
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm April 1 2016 13: 34
        0
        Quote: Iline
        Since at that time Tupolev had indisputable support at the top in the field of heavy bombers, then our Tu-1, surprisingly similar to B160, appeared to the detriment of the same "weaving" of Sukhoi or M-52 Myasishchev. Are the sizes larger?

        Tupolev then introduced the Tu-144, a wounded one, which Reshetnikov rejected, in fact the Tu-160 is M-18 Myasishchev, not M-52.
  9. abrakadabre
    abrakadabre April 1 2016 09: 23
    +1
    The very formulation of the question in the form of "who will win" does not make sense. Since these are not fighters. And these two planes practically cannot meet in a duel. It is difficult to imagine a situation where these two machines would try to destroy each other in aerial combat. And the weapons complex is not designed for that. Is that airborne air defense and, in extreme cases, an air ram.
    These machines can only be compared by combat effectiveness or by its particular parameter - maximum payload, adjusted for range. At least in the conventional version, at least in the nuclear one (in reduction to the TNT equivalent).
  10. wanderer_
    wanderer_ April 1 2016 12: 23
    +5
    Quote: Iline
    How many I did not serve, I don’t remember that bright moment when this plane flew at low altitudes, and it does not have a flight regime along a low-altitude circuit, unlike the same B1B. And in your arms such a colossus is pulled at low altitude, you will go crazy.


    Maybe not the topic, but can't the Tu-160 like the 22nd?
    1. opus
      opus April 1 2016 17: 48
      0
      Quote: wanderer_

      Maybe not the topic, but can't the Tu-160 like the 22nd?

      200 m minimum, why lower?
      he has max. operational overload = 2,0



      and not supersonic of course
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm April 1 2016 18: 59
        0
        Quote: opus
        200 m minimum, why lower?
        he has max. operational overload = 2,0

        Lancer has an overload of 2,5 (although it is 2 times smaller than the Tu-160), but this does not stop him from flying around the terrain, he wrote everything about the low flight profile of the Tu-160 SSI.
        1. opus
          opus April 1 2016 19: 33
          0
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Lancer

          key
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          although it is 2 times smaller than the Tu-160

          B-1B is a slightly different aircraft, and for another created

          Bomber intended for high speed low altitude penetration missions-The B-1B is commonly called the "Bone" (originally from the "B-One".

          you can’t deceive physics


          + resistance (thrust of our DN at low and high)



          Quote: saturn.mmm
          I wrote everything about the low profile of the Tu-160 SSI flight.



          Quote: SSI
          Veremey flew on a "low" profile! This is later, in order to comply with military doctrine, computers were dismantled from the 70s.

          I hope SSI did not write about the Tu-160 (but about the Tu-22)
          Hi-Lo-Hi mode (including 2000 km at an altitude of 50-200 m) or at a speed> 1M (according to the project) - 12000-13000 km.
          You will not find a single record of the flight to the PMV, nor photos, nor videos

          On November 14, 1981, under the control of the crew of B.I. Veremey, the plane made its first run.

          The first flight of the prototype (product 70-01) - December 18, 1981 (crew of B.I. Veremey, co-pilot S.T. Agapov, navigators - M.M., A.V. Eremenko
          The test began in 1983. The first flight of the pre-production Tu-160 (70-03) was on October 6, 1984 (crew of S.T. Agapov). The first flight of the first production Tu-160 (crew of V.V. Pavlov, aircraft 01-01 from the first experimental series) - 10.10.1984, the second (No. 01-02) - 16.03.1985, the third (No. 02- 01) - 25.12.1985/02/02, the fourth (No. 15.08.1986-160) - 70/01/1985 Tu-01 (No. 02-1987) for the first time reached the speed of sound during tests in February XNUMX. During the tests, one plane was lost ( No. XNUMX-XNUMX, spring XNUMX, the crew ejected).

          200m demonstrated to Putin, and then "so" over the runway, in the field.
          Yes, and why?


          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm April 1 2016 21: 40
            0
            Quote: opus
            B-1B is a slightly different aircraft, and for another created

            I do not argue
            Quote: opus
            Quote: wanderer_
            Maybe not the topic, but can't the Tu-160 like the 22nd?
            200 m minimum, why lower?
            he has max. operational overload = 2,0

            To which I wrote that Lancer does not differ much in overload and does not bother him to fly to PMV.
            Quote: opus
            I hope SSI did not write about the Tu-160 (but about the Tu-22)

            No, SSI wrote specifically about the Tu-160, he took part in its creation
            Quote: opus
            You will not find a single record of the flight to the PMV, nor photos, nor videos

            Calculators dismantled
            Quote: opus
            Yes, and why?

            There are all sorts of cases.
            VVA-14 flew after all,
            [img] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtAKmF3KNK0 [/ img]
            and what kind of resistance he should have.
            1. opus
              opus April 1 2016 22: 19
              0
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              To which I wrote that Lancer does not differ much in overload

              "not much" it is 25%, it's not for nothing that I brought inertia to the difference in mass, which will give the parameters of the maneuver (bend)
              "B-One" (- B) is a concept of a low-altitude air defense breakthrough aircraft: B-1B is designed to fly in an Automatic Terrain Following (ATF) mode at 200 feet above ground level, several modes. With block 4.5 update, everything is implemented


              Flight to the target at a distance of about 800 km took place at an altitude of 90 m in the automatic mode of following the terrain with flying around from above and avoiding ground obstacles in the horizontal plane, the height of which reached 1500 m. The plane launched a tactical bombing strike on the target and carried out an anti-aircraft maneuver, after which the control of the aircraft was transferred to Deinekin.

              Honored Military Pilot Deinekin - extensive experience in piloting the Tu-22M bomber, on which he in 1976 withcompleted flights at altitudes up to 45-50 m (100 m on the device)He also performed several flights on the Tu-160 even before the adoption of this aircraft into service. Therefore, the piloting of the B-1B aircraft was not a problem for him. He tested the aircraft in several modes and in the end dropped to a height of 65 m, and then 50 m... The American pilots were "pleasantly surprised" and emotionally stated that "our generals don't fly like that."
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              No, SSI wrote specifically about the Tu-160, he took part in its creation


              I would love to watch / read the materials. But I doubt it

              For example, when piloting Russian heavy aircraft, stronger restrictions on overloading are imposed; when landing, the aircraft does not go on a box, but turns around like a pancake. American pilots fly boldly in rolls, overloads, altitude range and "they are piloting a strategic B-1B as a front-line bomber", immediately after takeoff, the American pilot laid a U-turn with a large (up to 60 °) roll.



              1. opus
                opus April 1 2016 22: 24
                0
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                Calculators dismantled

                1.Not calculators (there is a figovina similar to a CD player / film / hard drive, everything else is connected with the AP, etc.), size
                At B-1B, the radar has already been rotated so that it performs the function of radar mapping the subsurface. And UTU-160?
                Obzor-K sighting and navigation complex with Poisk bombing and navigation radar?



                2. Why "dismantle"? Wes- ugh, TU-160 will not notice this (and climb into the system ... mmm)
                3. WHEN did he fly with them (with "calculators")? When did the SSI fly? I gave data on LCI.
                4. This was a project, it was abandoned
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                There are all sorts of cases.

                The goals and objectives are different:
                1. The Americans have bases everywhere in the GDP around the USSR (they will not have to fly very far), we don’t have
                2. We had the most powerful air defense, they do not have
                3. The Tu-160 basically drags it over and above the long-range missile launcher and breaks to a discharge point at a height in order to develop the maximum speed and ensure the maximum launch height, in order to ensure the maximum launch range (and faster topple)
                B-1B mainly carries bombs, which must be delivered directly to the target, and this current is at low altitude, therefore it flies in a trance sound around the terrain.


                Quote: saturn.mmm
                VVA-14 flew after all,

                belay
                Looney, Caspian monsters, etc. the same "fly"
                1.There are other speeds
                2. The ranges there are generally different.
                3. Have you ever wondered why ALL GA planes (large ones mean) fly EXCLUSIVELY at the 9000-11000m level?
                No more, no less, despite the HAREST pressure of environmentalists!
                Threat in this interval, the combustion products after turbofan engines are most dangerous for the atmosphere (and ozone layer) of the Earth.
                ?
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm April 2 2016 10: 02
                  0
                  Quote: opus
                  Looney, Caspian monsters, etc. the same "fly"

                  Example with VVA-14 only for air resistance.
                  1. opus
                    opus April 2 2016 12: 02
                    0
                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    Example with VVA-14 only for air resistance.

                    a lot of things flies "low"


                    at 12 minutes
                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    Calculators

                    who were "dismantled" from the Tu-160 (or rather their Soviet counterpart)





                    in Automatic Terrain Following mode or above water.
                    this is unlikely to be related to the Tu-160
              2. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm April 2 2016 10: 48
                0
                Quote: opus
                "not much" is 25%

                In some sources, the overload for the Tu-160 is given as 2,5, which is most likely true.
                Quote: opus
                I didn’t knowingly bring the inertia down to the difference in mass, which will give the maneuver parameters (envelope)

                In your formula, the change in the momentum of the body in time does not look like inertia.
                Quote: opus
                I would love to watch / read the materials. But I doubt it

                Overcome ambition and ask by contacting l / c.
                Quote: opus
                American pilots, on the other hand, fly boldly in rolls, overloads, altitude range and "pilot the strategic B-1B as a front-line bomber"; immediately after takeoff, the American pilot laid a turn with a large (up to 60 °) roll.

                I once uploaded a video as an American pilot, thus ditching the Apache helicopter.
                1. opus
                  opus April 2 2016 12: 36
                  0
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  In some sources, the overload for the Tu-160 is given as 2,5, which is most likely true.

                  Tu-160 flies, ask SSI RLE for Tu-160 to see

                  it will be the best source, the rest ..... negative
                  Threat. And here it is written, whether up to 3,3 or up to 3,5:

                  (but they prohibit it for "general use" -prohibition) / I don't remember the page, but I'm too lazy to stir up 621 pages
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  Overcome ambition and ask by contacting l / c.

                  Yes, I don’t have any CL in this matter. You are welcome:

                  (I thought you yourself would ask)
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  In your formula, the change in the momentum of the body in time does not look like inertia.

                  belay
                  1. The first law of Newton is called the Law of Inertia.
                  2. Change in force under the action of acceleration dV // dT. (or "unwillingness" of the body to change its speed / direction of movement under an applied external force)

                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  I somehow uploaded a video like an American

                  But how beautiful it all is (not only Americans, but ours too), effectively and (most importantly) efficiently: in our country, during the exercises 23, the Russian Orthodox Church, the breakdown of the speakers, and a breakthrough to the battery
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm April 2 2016 17: 30
                    0
                    Quote: opus
                    Yes, I don’t have any CL in this matter. You are welcome:

                    I'll try to ask something.
                    Quote: opus
                    1. The first law of Newton is called the Law of Inertia.

                    That's right, only it looks like the total F = 0, you presented the second law, non-inertial
                    1. opus
                      opus April 2 2016 20: 00
                      -1
                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      I'll try to ask something.

                      I have already asked, not "somehow", but when I wrote. We wait

                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      You submitted the second law, non-inertial

                      1.A I did not say that he is the first!

                      Quote: opus
                      you can’t deceive physics


                      Newton's first law. If forces do not act on the body or their action is compensated, then this body is in a state rest or uniform rectilinear movement

                      Without f =ma to understand the inertia is not possible



                      Quote: saturn.mmm
                      non-inertial

                      belay
                      SECOND LAW OF NEWTON performed only in inertial reference systems.

                      1. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm April 3 2016 09: 07
                        0
                        Quote: opus
                        It is not possible to understand inertia without F = ma

                        Quote: opus
                        "not much" is 25%, I did not bring inertia for nothing

                        Inertia and inertia are different concepts.
                        Inertness is the property of different bodies to change their speed differently under the influence of the same force. (the one who has less change per unit of time is more inert)
                        - this is the property of all bodies to provide "resistance" for any attempts to change its speed both in absolute value and in direction.
                        Mass (m) is a scalar physical quantity, a measure of the inertia of the body; measured in kilograms (kg)


                        Inertia is the property of the body to maintain its speed, in the absence of action on him of other bodies.


                        An inertial frame of reference, for example, can be a steamer moving at a constant speed for a certain period of time, on this steamer a group of children play "tag", change their speed and direction of movement, behave non-inertially.
                      2. opus
                        opus April 3 2016 19: 17
                        0
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        Inertia and inertia are different concepts.

                        Come on.
                        These are 2 sides of the same coin (if you do not consider chemical inertness)
                        "Inertia" is "inactivity" and even ... "laziness." Galileo-Newton's law (Newton's first law) is called the law of inertia.
                        inertness is a property of bodies.

                        Inertia - body property maintain its speed, in the absence of action on it of other bodies.

                        Inertia - property of different bodies change their speed differently under the influence of the same force. (the one who has less change per unit of time is more inert)

                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        , behave non-inertially.

                        regarding what is considered?

                        well and then we smoothly sail to the "Einstein's elevator"

                        wink
                        -------------------------------
                        Threat. Is our SSI silent?


                        Already with my family (part) I drove to the Big Tank Festival "Combat Steel"

                        http://kuda-spb.ru/event/festival-boevaja-stal-2016/

                        http://newinform.com/world/10184-v-starom-petergofe-proydet-interaktivnyy-tankov
                        yy-festival-boevaya-stal.html

                        full house...
                        There are fewer cars and people on Eid al-Adha.
                        All in the throat of mud
                      3. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm April 3 2016 21: 47
                        0
                        Quote: opus
                        Already with my family (part) I drove to the Big Tank Festival "Combat Steel"

                        In Gomel, we also have a military-historical museum, but relatively modest, you can be envied.
                        A armored car where "Suvorov" is written by chance not the one from which Lenin was pushing the speech?
                      4. opus
                        opus April 4 2016 00: 05
                        0
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        A armored car where "Suvorov" is written by chance not the one from which Lenin was pushing the speech?

                        And hell knows.
                        My youngest drove on the T-60 and SU-76 (200r per landing).
                        About the armored car said, sucks.
                        Su-76 said-vesch (sat on the MTO, warmly).

                        the eldest (21 !!!!!) could not stand it, she said, and I want to ride the same ... it's funny when the special forces, airborne troops, rushed to help her "get off" from her (she's a pretty girl, long-legged).I laughed for a long time, there the children on the armor of the SU-76 (3-10) years are waiting, and they help the ladies to get off, all together, ONE- hahaha.MEN good (glory to those lords, LHTB will not work)

                        The single shot from 85mm, from 3 meters impressed everyone.
                        the small one fired blanks with SVD, AK-74, took a picture with "mujahideen", "special forces of the FSB" ...
                        / The wife put down all the swear words: "Well, you have to be such little bastards - go to the field in crocs, suede boots and everything civil, BARBARS are stupid" ™

                        -----------------------
                        in general, I liked it: the people are so full of dirt, but there is no anger, some kind of inspiration (they didn’t beat the waffen SS simulators of course), but they listened to the production about the Afghan operation (ambush) in silence and reverence.
                        My two insurgents were launched on ZIL by the organizers (I suppose not my fault, but my daughter). THAT IS CHANGING IN OUR PEOPLE (in my opinion this cannot be stopped, the mutants lose). I am current +++++++++
                        PS

                        I couldn’t take my own in Kirovsk with KV-1.

                        And the "Nevsky Pyatachek"? They rode in class
                        I have tears in my eyes.
          2. Foofighter
            Foofighter April 5 2016 07: 16
            0
            It is true that where B-1 (at low altitude) falls apart, the Tu-160 flies
            It’s also true that they quietly walked away from the F-16

            Maybe the comrade thinks that instead of a full-fledged system there are some "plates" on the Su-24, and he does not know how to do this, or does he not need to? lol
            1. clidon
              clidon April 5 2016 15: 56
              +1
              It is true that where B-1 (at low altitude) falls apart, the Tu-160 flies

              Can I see a video where the Tu-160 twists double barrels?
              1. Foofighter
                Foofighter April 5 2016 19: 12
                -1
                You can google on the Internet about his "wonderful" bearing doors of the bomb hatch, which after that do not open ...
                1. clidon
                  clidon April 5 2016 19: 45
                  +1
                  I’ll just wait for a similar Tu-160 video. Suppose that even after this the casement does not open.

                  PS Could you give a link about the ill-fated hatches B1?
                2. Foofighter
                  Foofighter April 5 2016 21: 00
                  0
                  Wait - others will google, ask them ... They open up in the Tu-160, not an "English" school. laughing
                3. clidon
                  clidon April 6 2016 15: 56
                  +1
                  So another unproven trepidation ..
                4. Foofighter
                  Foofighter April 7 2016 04: 14
                  0
                  Quote: clidon
                  So another unproven idle talk ...

                  Do not be ashamed ... I will not climb into Google for you.
                5. clidon
                  clidon April 7 2016 17: 41
                  0
                  I see you in your repertoire ...
                6. The comment was deleted.
                7. Foofighter
                  Foofighter April 8 2016 02: 31
                  0
                  learn to think better, and not just "look",
                  and at the same time look in google ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 8 2016 08: 15
      0
      This is your B-1 span video, what was it for?
      Do all planes fly low when they take off and land (or crash like the B-52 below), or do you think the Tu-160 will have its wings fall off during a coup on its back, as was the case with the U-2 high-altitude aircraft?
  • Foofighter
    Foofighter April 5 2016 03: 34
    -1
    For the same, why is it a B-1. Why cut down the refueling bar with the Tu-22?
    In addition to Apaches, B-52 also sometimes do this, you can admire these maneuvers for almost all 10 minutes to 9:46.
  • rubin6286
    rubin6286 April 1 2016 22: 07
    0
    It is possible that the article by Dave Majumdar is of interest to American readers, but it is hardly appropriate to reproduce it in full or to comment on the pages of VO. Russian readers and immigrants from the former USSR know and understand immeasurably more both in general issues relating to the designation of individual aircraft models and in special issues related to the operation and combat use of certain weapons.
    At the same time, a number of fairly detailed and interesting articles, although somewhat “stretched” (about Tu-16, FV-190, etc.) appear on the VO website in the Aviation section. A lot of information can be found on the Internet, but brevity is the sister of talent. The article should be not just a long narrative, but an incentive for reflection.
  • aleks-bylatov
    aleks-bylatov April 2 2016 17: 34
    0
    I think so this time in Russia we will not succeed in the collapse of the defense under the normalization of Russia and the United States, when Gorbachev and Yeltsin were friends with the United States, they put everything under the knife
  • Dekabrev
    Dekabrev April 5 2016 23: 24
    +1
    Before, I somehow did not trust Zadornov when he spoke about the Americans. But, apparently, I was wrong if their articles were successful. However, there are such newspapers as the Komsomol, it could be printed there. And then why? Unclear.