Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
American And Soviet (Russian) Bombers  
User currently offlineAislepathLight From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 562 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

I realize that there are many problems with the Russian Air force today, and that the US actually keeps the planes flight worthy, and I understand the pointing of fingers that someone was coping someone else. I am gonna compare the bombers, but would like input on which one you guys think is better

Comparison 1
TU95 has a similar role to the B52-- which one is better, and will last longer?
-I think that the B52 was more successful in its original role, but the TU95 was more adaptable and more effective doing everything. My wager is that the Bear stays longer, doing its ASW work. The bear looks like it will become the mainstay of the Russian air force, because of the really small production numbers and disrepair of the TU160s. This coupled with huge numbers and spares, both from scrapped TU95. The Buffs are getting old, with the newest models being 45 years old. Age, spares, fatigue, and many other factors make them go sooner.

Comparison 2
TU160 has a similar to the B1B-- which one is better, and will last longer (yes, I understand that they had different original missions, but now that Russia is doing an upgrade similar to the CMUP they are really similar roles)?
-I think that the B1B will last longer but theTU160 was a better aircraft, as it retained its mach 2 capabilities, even if it is a lot larger. Here are the specs:
TU160 B1B
Wingspan, fully swept 35.6m 23.85m
Wingspan, fully spread 55.7m 41.66m
Length 54.1m 44.42m
MTOW 275000kg 216367kg
Thrust to weight Ratio 36% 26%
Max speed (at sea level) 1030km/h 963km/h
Max Range 13950km 12040km


"We have slain a large dragon, but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes."
8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3177 times:

I think B-1B should be stealthier than B-1A which was also supersonic.

User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3099 times:

I was hoping one of the two 28 BW B-1s that were at the 2005 Moscow airshow would have done a flyby with a Tu-160. That would have been a "Kodak moment". since it didn't happen, the highlight of the show for me was the Tu-95 leading a Tu-22 and a Tu-160 in a flyby.
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3098 times:

Quoting F4wso (Reply 2):
leading a Tu-22

Backfire? Wasn't aware that any were active. Are they?



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3003 times:

1) define "better".
2) The B-52 will remain in service until 2045 if current plans don't change. I wonder how many Bears will be left in 40 years given the current maintenance regime.
3) speed isn't everything. Sure the Blackjack is faster than the Lancer, but if you're facing Mach 5 SAMs that difference is irrelevant. And remember that both sides expected the other to have laserguns for air defence by now...
4) The Tu-22M (Tu-26) Backfire is in service with Russian Naval Aviation, possibly with the Ukrainian airforce, and maybe still with the Russian Strategic forces. There have also been reports of some being sold to China and Iran. The Tu-22 Blinder is AFAIK no longer in service in Russia, but I could be mistaken.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2901 times:

Quoting AislepathLight (Thread starter):
but the TU95 was more adaptable and more effective doing everything

I cannot think of anything the B-52 has not done except going supersonic and achieving any level of stealth. They test new systems for the B-1 and B-2 on the B-52 and it can deliver conventional dumb bombs, smart bombs, cruise missiles, nuclear warheads and everything else IIRC. What cant it do now or in the future?



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineAislepathLight From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2860 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 5):
What cant it do now or in the future?

Maritime Patrol Stuff-- as the TU95 can do.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 4):
2) The B-52 will remain in service until 2045 if current plans don't change. I wonder how many Bears will be left in 40 years given the current maintenance regime.

Given the current rise in gas prices, I don't know how many B52s or TU95s there will be, and the TU95s are very econmical aircraft. The Buffs are getting old, and the TU95s are falling apart, even though some of them are built within the past 15 years. Why can't the Russians keep their airforce togeather?  Yeah sure



"We have slain a large dragon, but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes."
User currently offlineDLSLC From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2808 times:

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 6):
Why can't the Russians keep their airforce togeather?

No money! As simple as that.  Wink


User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2781 times:

Quoting DLSLC (Reply 7):
No money! As simple as that.

Would have thought that this no longer applies with the Russian economy riding high on oil prices and Russia's assertiveness under Putin.



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic American And Soviet (Russian) Bombers
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fighter Planes Intercept Russian Bombers posted Sun Oct 1 2006 00:16:08 by Clickhappy
Article: "New Dawn For Russian Bombers" posted Mon Jul 3 2006 21:25:52 by Lumberton
ESA And The Russian Clipper posted Wed Sep 28 2005 11:06:05 by RichardPrice
Formation Of Russian And Western Jets posted Fri Mar 24 2006 17:16:06 by Sabena340
Russian And Ukrainian Naval Aviation On Display posted Sun Aug 15 2004 00:34:42 by GDB
Russian Aircraft Vs. American Aircraft posted Thu Apr 17 2003 20:52:16 by Charleslp
22 C-17s And Lots Of Other Goodies! posted Wed Oct 18 2006 18:13:23 by Galaxy5007
New U.S. Air Force Bombers Planned For 2018, 2035 posted Fri Oct 13 2006 06:48:45 by AerospaceFan
Politics And The KC330 posted Sun Oct 1 2006 02:18:41 by EBJ1248650
Photos And Video Of First SA Gripen posted Thu Sep 21 2006 01:13:58 by DEVILFISH

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format