TU-160 Blackjack

Originally posted by Starwars51
I would doubt that. The reason the B1-B is so much slower is because the US designers opted for less efficient engine intakes to get a much lower RCS. The Tu-160 has intakes that look extremely similar to those on the B1-A.

It seems you're right from the link I found below. Perhaps it was the B1-A then, I do clearly remember reading it had a lower RCS than a B1. Not sure whether a version was specified. When I find the issue, I'll post an update.

conk.com...

[edit on 21-7-2005 by Simon666]

Originally posted by Simon666
It doesn't really matter as the US has the B2.

Smart Man!

Folks, the B-1 and the B-2 were intended to work together in the "Penetrator Role"! The B-2 has a smaller payload but it uses more accurate weapons. The Idea is: the B-2 Spirit flies into enemy terratory and attacks radar, air defense sites, and command centers. By breaking up the air defense network, the B-2 clears a path through the defenses that the B-1 can fallow. Then the B-1, with it heavier payload can come in and "change the map". The system uses a 1,2 punch. RCS is irrelivent if you don't have any air defense to shoot at it with!

Tim

The B-1B has a lower RCS than the B-1A

But, why US did't keep the B-1 bomber at Mach2?

Because they couldn't. They had to add so much weight for generators to have enough power, which it STILL doesn't have enough of, and with the other added equipment they had to put on it, the weight got too high for it to hit Mach 2. They were supposed to put four generators on it, but it was too heavy to even go supersonic with the added weight, so they removed one, but not it doesn't have enough power for other things. They actually have to choose between deicing and electrical power on climb out after takeoff.

Actually most of the stealth was aquired by redesigning the engine inlets to shield the fans from the radar. Took a corresponding hit in thrust as well.

Between the loss of thrust, and the added weight from equipment between the A and B they took a huge hit in speed. I've talked to many crews about it, and they all said that it makes them nuts not having enough power in filght. We had five of them parked out here one night. One from Kansas that had been here for exercises and had to have an engine change, three that diverted into here after coming out of Singapore with blade changes, and one from the same group with an engine change. They iced up climbing through a tunderstorm on takeoff, and ran out of power to run everything.

The Tu-160 does have RAM-coated intakes.

And incidentially, there are only two B-1Bs in the entire USAF that can carry external weapons; these are test birds at (I think) Edwards. All the others had their external hardpoints deleted to compy with the START treaty.

Also, the design of the Tu-160 should be credited more to Myasischev than to Tupolev; Tupolev's design in the competition was a variation of the Tu-144D. Sukhoi put forth the T-4MS, Myasischev the M-18. Sukhoi "won", but were ordered to deliver plans, etc to Tupolev as the government didn't want them distracted from the T-10 project. After examining everything Tupolev developed the M-18 design instead, and it became the Tu-160.

So, don't blame Tupolev for copying the B-1B, if you want ot throw that accusation at someone, look at Myasischev!

Originally posted by emile
But, why US did't keep the B-1 bomber at Mach2?

Fear not. The B-1R will return the B-1 to Mach 2 speeds.

I have to admit, the M-18 was one good looking American, er, Russian bomber. Amazing how similar it is to the B-1, even in the transition from wing to fuselage.


Hey, check out this line of Myasishchev bombers. Some very interesting designs there. Some even look very familiar. Look for hints of the B-58 and XB-70.


[edit on 8/1/2005 by CyberianHusky]

LOL! Whoever uses the old "It looks the same because it's built for the same mission type" is just plain living in denial. No offense. It's a known fact the Soviet Union has copied the U.S. designed aircraft in the past. The most well-known example is the copy of the B-29. They couldn't do it themselves, so they had to copy American bomber design.

But no, if this wasn't documented fact, those living in denial would also claim the Russian jet just looks the same because it has the same mission type. lol I hope you guys aren't really that dumb for actually believing that crap.

It's amazing how much pride can nationalistically blind someone, huh?

Why doesn't the YF-23 look almost exactly like the F-22? Both designed and made by American companies even! Both designed and made at the same time! Both had the SAME EXACT MISSION TYPE REQUISITES to meet! Why aren't they almost exactly alike? They're not, thus disproving your theory that if it's built for the same mission, they'll look the same. That's totally BS and you know it.

B-1b


Tu-160


I'll let the ones that don't have nationalistic blindless make the decision on this one.

Speaking of copy catting, have any of you seen THIS? It is North American Rockwell's design for the FX (F-15) competition. Something looks familiar about it. Mig-29 anyone? Keep in mind that this was 1968. The main difference is the single vertical stabilizer.

Originally posted by Northax
It's a known fact the Soviet Union has copied the U.S. designed aircraft in the past.

So? If Rockwell had a design, the B-1A, tailored to a specific mission profile, what's wrong with Myasischev, who wants to have an aircraft with similar performance, using a similar design as a starting point? That's actually a pretty damn smart thing to do, given the political climate of the time. Besides, it's not like they copied the aircraft directly. If you want to find a nation whose current aerospace industry was apparently built on actually xeroxing aircraft, go look at China.

If that's the case, then the US copied the MiG-25 for the F-15. The MiG came out prior to the F-15 as an XB-70 interceptor, and made its first flight 8 years before the F-15. They look so similar then OBVIOUSLY the US copied the MiG-25 to build the F-15. The designs aren't going to look EXACTLY the same for the same mission, but there are only so many ways to design something. Like I said before, if you want something to fly for a long time at slower speeds, you give it a big thick wing for more lift. If you want supersonic, you have to give it a thin swept wing. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

MiG's (former?) General Designer, Rostislav Belyakov, has stated that the FOXBAT was intended to intercept the A-12, not the XB-70.

The development of the MiG-25 began in the 1950s, paralleling U.S. efforts to develop Mach 3 bomber and interceptor aircraft, including the (ultimately abortive) XF-103, XB-70 Valkyrie, and XF-108. As it was in the U.S., with the first Mach 2 aircraft beginning to enter service, Mach 3 seemed the next logical step. A variety of roles were considered, including cruise missile carriers, and even a small five- to seven-passenger supersonic transport, but the main impetus was a new high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft and heavy interceptor. If any of the Mach 3 bombers entered American service, they were likely to prove nearly invulnerable to Soviet air defenses.
en.wikipedia.org...

The MiG-25 ironically owed its origins to American aircraft development programs. In the late 1950s, the US fielded the General Dynamics B-58 Hustler Mach 2 bomber, and began development of the North American B-70 Valkyrie bomber, which was designed to penetrate Soviet airspace at high altitude and Mach 3 speeds. The USSR had nothing that could deal with such threats. Since homeland defense was a top Soviet priority, that meant that little expense was spared to develop an interceptor with long range, high performance performance, and advanced air-to-air missiles (AAMs) to deal with the B-58 and B-70.
www.vectorsite.net...

When the US Air Force began developing the B-70 bomber capable of delivering nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union while traveling at Mach 3 at altitudes over 70,000 ft, the Soviets responded by planning a new high-speed, high-altitude interceptor. Though the B-70 project was eventually abandoned, the MiG-25 program continued, eventually producing the fastest fighter in the world. The MiG-25 is designed only for high-altitude flight and has correspondingly terrible low-level performance and dogfighting characteristics. Although reconnaissance and defense suppression variants of the MiG-25 were developed, the aircraft's range of applications has always been limited. As a result, Mikoyan Gurevich later designed an improved MiG-25, the MiG-31, with significantly better low-level performance for use in more common attack fighter roles. Most Russian MiG-25s have since been retired in favor of the MiG-31, though the earlier aircraft still serves with a number of other air forces. An interesting note is that the first air-to-air kill of the Gulf War is believed to be a US F/A-18C Hornet shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 on 17 January 1991.
www.aerospaceweb.org...

And those sites are more reputable than the guy who ran the company because...?

And for the record, the OXCART program was initiated in 1958.

Is that the russian B1...?

I'm well aware of when the A-12 program started, and I'm also well aware of what the mission of the MiG-25 was no matter what the designer said. It might have STARTED because of the A-12, but the primary mission of the MiG-25 was going to be to shoot down the B-70 and the other supersonic bombers the US was developing at the time.

You do know that the XB-70 was cancelled as a production aircraft in March of 1961, right? It was reduced to the role of a research aircraft before it ever even got off the ground. Mikoyan began initial design work on the MiG-25 in 1961...why would they bother to design an aircraft to shoot down something that was no longer an issue?