Zephyr Net http://jkpeterson.net/forum/ |
|
Some TU-160 stuff from the newsgroup. http://jkpeterson.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1018 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | KAPTOR [ Mon Jan 26, 2004 18:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Some TU-160 stuff from the newsgroup. |
speed and it's usefullness: Quote: From: "Michael Petukhov" <petukhov@bpc.spbstu.ru>
Subject: Re: Could Blackjack bombers reach USA? Date: Monday, January 19, 2004 4:50 AM Scott Ferrin <sferrin@xmission.com> wrote in message news:<ls6l00hf4qb6k8pck6crfhf7urnvj0oagu@4ax.com>... > >> >Range, loaded on internal fuel - 7,640 miles (B-1B - 3,444 miles) > >> >Equipped for IFR. > >> > >> > >> Those are brochure numbers for the Blackjack. > > > >How about B1 are the cited numbers for B1 are brochure numbers > >as well? > > Pretty much from what I understand. The B-1 is definitely faster than > 789 mph though I'd be surprised if any operational aircraft had done a > takeoff at 477,000lbs. > > > > > > > >> In the real world (at > >> least as far as FAI records go) the B-1 has the Blackjack beat in the > >> paylaod/range department. > > > >In its department where B1 is the only one amybe. Tu160 > >is much bigger?much faster and longer lange. > > > Speed over a closed circuit of 5000 km with 30000 kg payload : 1054.21 > km/h > > Date of flight: 17/09/1987 > Pilot: H. Brent HEDGPETH (USA) > Crew: Robert A. CHAMBERLAIN (copilot) > Course/place: Palmdale, CA (USA) > > Aircraft: > Rockwell B-1B (4 General Electric F 101-GE-102, 14 700 kg each) > Registered 'S/N70' > > > > Speed over a closed circuit of 5000 km with 30000 kg payload : 1017.80 > km/h > > Date of flight: 28/05/1990 > Pilot: Serguei OSSIPOV (USSR) > Crew: D.N. MATVEEV (USSR) > Course/place: Podmoskovnoe Aerodrome (USSR) > > Aircraft: > Tupolev Aircraft "70N-304" (Tupolev TU-160 "Blackjack") (4 Model "P", > 25 000 kg each) > > > > As you can see, with the same 30,000kg payload flown over a distance > of 5000km, the Blackjack was slower than the B-1B. Since the > Blackjack's record attempt was flown at a later date one would assume > they'd try to beat the B-1's. If they did try they failed. The > Blackjack also holds no 10,000km speed records while the B-1 does. > While this in itself doesn't say the Blackjack can't fly that far, it > doesn't exactly help it's case either. > Well nobody claims that neither Tu-160 nor B1 can go supesonic for 5000 km. But why you skipped shorter range records? Unlike B1 Tu160 can go supersonic for distances of 1000-2000 km. The later is very important for the battle applications particualrly to hit and escape from fighters attention: Records: Speed over a closed circuit of 1000 km with 30000 kg payload Podmoskovnoe 1726.90 km/h Lev Vasilyevich KOZLOV Tu-160 15/05/1990 Speed over a closed circuit of 2000 km with 30000 kg payload Podmoskovnoe 1678.00 km/h B.I. VEREMEY Tu-160 03/11/1989 Something which B1-B is not capable at all. Michael > > > As for the Blackjack being faster, the lower speed of the B-1b was > intentional. The original B-1A reached Mach 2.22 which was faster > than the Blackjack. That speed was judged so important that pretty > much nobody cared when they gave it up. As for the Blackjack being > bigger. . .well if you think an aircraft that needs to be 27% heavier > and 83% more powerful to do an inferior job is something to brag > about. . .well, that's your business. > > > > > > > Anyway > >do you have any doubts about the question asked > >"Could Blackjack bombers reach USA?" > > It probably had the range for a one way trip, but any aircraft that > can fly far enough could say the same. |
Author: | KAPTOR [ Mon Jan 26, 2004 18:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Quote: From: "Michael Petukhov" <petukhov@bpc.spbstu.ru>
Subject: Re: Could Blackjack bombers reach USA? Date: Monday, January 19, 2004 5:12 AM Scott Ferrin <sferrin@xmission.com> wrote in message news:<ls6l00hf4qb6k8pck6crfhf7urnvj0oagu@4ax.com>... > > > As for the Blackjack being faster, the lower speed of the B-1b was > intentional. The original B-1A reached Mach 2.22 which was faster > than the Blackjack. That speed was judged so important that pretty > much nobody cared when they gave it up. As for the Blackjack being > bigger. . .well if you think an aircraft that needs to be 27% heavier > and 83% more powerful to do an inferior job is something to brag > about. . .well, that's your business. > Just to add a few words about their inferior job. Who else can do this inferior job in this world, but americans and russians? Nobody http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 3624.shtml "... In the early morning of May 14, six Russian strategic bombers, namely two TU-160Cs and four TU-95MCs belonging to the 37th Strategic Aviation Army, left the Engels airbase near Saratov city and reached the Indian Ocean five hours later. There the TU-95 fired two strategic cruise missiles X-55 (3,000-km range, usually with a nuclear warhead), which "precisely hit ground targets." The Tu-160 bombers flew further and, at a 2,500-km distance, simulated the firing of several X-55 missiles at Diego-Garcia Island. The targets included a U.S. strategic aviation airbase, a naval base, the command and control center of U.S. strategic submarines in the Pacific Ocean, the U.S. electronic reconnaissance center and a nuclear warhead storage facility. Several hours later, the six strategic bombers returned to Engels airbase. According to Russian Air Force Commander-in-Chief Col.-Gen. Vladimir Mikhailov, 1) Russian strategic bombers "visited" the Indian Ocean for the first time since 1990 and 2) the Russian top military command has a definite interest in this region. On May 15, TU-95 and TU-160 strategic bombers and TU-22 long-range bombers accomplished military training over the Polar and Pacific oceans. All the bombers had a full battle load: Each T-95 carried 6 X-55 missiles, each TU-160 12 missiles. The X-55 usually is equipped with a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. All the bombers simulated hitting important U.S and U.K. targets. However, in accordance with direct orders from Putin to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, this time – in contrast with strategic aviation maneuvers in 1999 – Russian bombers didn't approach the borders of Norway, Iceland, Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. This was done to provide a "friendly environment" for the visits of Secretary of State Colin Powell to Moscow on May 16 and President Bush to Petersburg on May 30. During the maneuvers over the Pacific Ocean on May 15, four TU-22 long-range bombers (two from the 37th AF Army, two from the Russian Pacific Ocean Fleet) simulated the simultaneous firing of four X-22 anti-ship missiles at the U.S. aircraft Karl Winson, which was moving at this time from the Yokosoka base in Japan to the coast of North Korea. Maneuvers of Russian bombers in the airspace over the three oceans have been supported by the Russian Northern Fleet, Pacific Fleet, Strategic Missile Troops, Space Troops and two air force and air defense armies. Gen. Mikhailov claimed that a) all goals of the maneuvers were reached and b) in July and August, the 37th Strategic Aviation Army will hold similar large-scale maneuvers (apparently against American and British targets), though the number of participating strategic bombers and long-range bombers will increase two to three times. Remarkably, on May 16, a united group of the Russian Navy, compiled from the vessels from the Pacific Fleet and Black Sea Fleet, held "enemy [U.S. and U.K.] aircraft groups destruction maneuvers" in the Indian Ocean. Concretely, the Moskva missile cruiser launched a P-500 Bazalt anti-ship cruise missile. This missile has a 480-km radius and is usually equipped with a 350-kiloton nuclear warhead. The Moskva missile cruiser has eight cruise missile launchers and a store of 16 Bazalt missiles..." ************ First off, the ability of the X-55 to fly over 1600 nm is highly debateable. Secondly, a round trip from Engels AB to a point 2,500km from Diego Garcia and back to Engels is a distance of over 6824 km (in a straight line). If there was no in flight refueling done, this mission simply did not happen. |
Author: | da big man! [ Tue Jan 27, 2004 00:42 am ] |
Post subject: | |
It's just a B-1 painted white.... |
Author: | Zephyr [ Tue Jan 27, 2004 01:00 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Once again, comparison of aircraft with (slightly) different missions, neglecting the rest of the force, doctrine, tactics, and weapons that enable them to put ordnance on target. The original posts appeared to become a pissing contest involving aircraft range.... however both the B-1B and Tu-160 can easily be refueled inflight. And da big man once again shows his insightful knowledge of aviation.... Zephyr |
Author: | Tank_77th [ Tue Jan 27, 2004 03:26 am ] |
Post subject: | |
lol |
Author: | Centurian57_369th [ Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:40 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I don't doubt the Tu-160 came out of the B-1A. It's so strikingly similar that it's one of those, "The simplest explanation is always the best" deals. |
Author: | Zephyr [ Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:51 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Yeah, I actually think Tupolev has said that they modeled the design after the B-1A. Interestingly the Tu-160 was the most conventional and lowest performance (easiest to build) of the 3 competing Russian designs. Tupolev was ordered to build Sukhoi's (tied up with Flanker development) Mach 3-4 design but built their own design instead. Zephyr |
Author: | da big man! [ Tue Jan 27, 2004 18:55 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Zephyr wrote: Once again, comparison of aircraft with (slightly) different missions, neglecting the rest of the force, doctrine, tactics, and weapons that enable them to put ordnance on target. The original posts appeared to become a pissing contest involving aircraft range.... however both the B-1B and Tu-160 can easily be refueled inflight. And da big man once again shows his insightful knowledge of aviation.... Zephyr ![]() ![]() Yeah, they so obviously don't look alike in the least little way..... |
Author: | Zephyr [ Tue Jan 27, 2004 20:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Uhhh read the post above your latest. It's more than a repainted B-1A but is certainly based on the B-1A "planform." Zephyr |
Author: | da big man! [ Tue Jan 27, 2004 23:58 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Zephyr wrote: Uhhh read the post above your latest. It's more than a repainted B-1A but is certainly based on the B-1A "planform." Zephyr It's a copy & paste with a few decals added to it..... |
Author: | KAPTOR [ Wed Jan 28, 2004 01:35 am ] |
Post subject: | |
T- |
Author: | CAG Hotshot [ Wed Jan 28, 2004 15:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Big, have you considered the fact that the TU-160 is up to 3 times larger then the B-1B? One of its 4 massive engines exceeds the thrust of all the engines on the B-1 combined... Its range(without refuel) is atleast double that of the B1. It's supersonice performance is in the upper Mach 2 level... The only reason this aircraft looks similiar to the B-1 is due to the adoption of the swing wing/blended body concept. The Tupolev bureau actually developed the TU-160 from its previous non swing wing bomber project that already had a blended body. It adapted the design after seeing the effectiveness of the swingwing performance on the B-1A... However, due to the fact the TU-160 was so much larger, it could not use the design of the B-1s wing box or low level penetration system. Thus the U-160 is quite different from the B-1... Also the next follow (proposed TU-260) was a Mach 4 version, based on further development of the TU-160.. |
Author: | KAPTOR [ Wed Jan 28, 2004 17:06 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
ummm.. irreguardless of size, the Blackjack IS a copy in concept of the B-1. If you were giving a description of TU-160 it would be the same (other than size) as the description of B-1. The TU-26 is smaller but still of a completly different design than B-1 even though they both use swing-wing VG technology. Yes details are certainly different between B-1 and TU-160, but the concept is the same, large long range heavy bomber with swing wings, 4 underslung podded engines, multiple bays, heavily blended body and an EXTREMELY similar cruciform tail. Biggs is being his normally usless simplistic self but he isnt TOTALY off base, just annoying. |
Author: | Zephyr [ Wed Jan 28, 2004 20:20 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I think my earlier story of the Tu-160 design was incorrect when compared to this: http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/tu-160/tu-160_his.htm That article mentions the Tu-160 being based upon Myasishchev's M-18 design of the early 1970s: ![]() from http://www.sergib.agava.ru/russia/myasishchev/m/18/m18.htm This was one of the contenders for Russia's answer to the U.S. Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft (AMSA- XB-70 successor), and looks exactly like the B-1A. It was actually smaller in length and roughly the same in wingspan. It certainly looks like the design was a copy of the Rockwell AMSA (or maybe vise-versa) and both designs seem to have emerged in the 1969-70 timeframe. The Tu-160 though is massively larger than the B-1 and M-18 from which it was developed, so in it's current state it can be called a copy only in terms of planform and design philosophy for the reasons CAG mentioned. Zephyr |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |