Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-160 "White Swan"

    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7095
    Points : 7168
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Tu-160 "White Swan" - Page 33 Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  JohninMK on Mon Mar 16, 2020 10:36 am

    Another reason for the "White" in the name.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 5716
    Points : 5845
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Tu-160 "White Swan" - Page 33 Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  kvs on Tue Mar 17, 2020 4:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:P5zdHFtsjnA

    Takeoff at night in full AB...

    The colour reflects very efficient combustion. Not that Russia will get any credit for being ahead of western ubermenschen.
    Western military jets have a distinctly more reddish hue reflecting inferior combustion and not fuel type.

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 5716
    Points : 5845
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Tu-160 "White Swan" - Page 33 Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  kvs on Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:55 pm

    So Washington is dismissing the utility of the Tu-160 because it has not "stealth" capability. Meanwhile the B-2 is supposed
    to be super stealthy and will just fly into Russian air space without detection and drop gravity bombs on Russian targets.
    You can't make such retardation up.

    1) The Tu-160 does not need to fly over US territory to wreak its targets. It is a long-distance missile carrier and not a dumb
    bomber like the B-2. So we have apples to potatoes comparison already.

    2) Paint the Tu-160 with some RAM and it will be very close to the B-2. The Tu-160 cross section from the sides and front
    is very small and no worse than the B-2. From the bottom, the B-2 is a huge billboard so it cannot be stealthy by definition.
    The fixation on EM scatter from a few rounded contours is inane. Especially at long distances. Only arrogant yanquis
    think that Russians cannot do EM scatter (antenna type) calculations for their aircraft and come up with ways to minimize
    them without turning the aircraft into a flying coffin. BTW, if the F-117A was so great why has it not been replaced
    and just retired?

    3) Lavrov recently announced that Russian radars were tracking F-35s crossing from Iraq into Syria. Russia clearly has
    long distance "stealth" aircraft detection ability and the B-2 will never fly over Russian soil without being detected and
    blown out of the sky first.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23691
    Points : 24231
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-160 "White Swan" - Page 33 Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 26, 2020 5:08 am

    The US is an empire so its thought processes are different and not rational.

    For a US planner stealth is critical because it is part of the machine keeping countries in line and part of the regime change machine that can be used to turn countries the way the US wants them to turn.... they don't want to bomb Russia or China because the blowback from such an action will obliterate the west completely... what they want is a plane they can use to hit Serbia or Syria or Iran with reduced chances of getting shot down... of course they are shitting themselves because Russian assistance to Syrian air defences and development of Iranian air defences and capabilities seems to have exceeded their expectations so a B-2 being able to fly over either Syria or Iran now seems to be a rather doubtful prospect, which is why the remaining B-2s and indeed B-1Bs seem to be on the verge of being replaced by brand new likely more expensive B-2s in the form of the B-21s, ...and the ancient B-52s made in the 1950s and 1960s... by 2050 they might get the prize of serving their country front line for 100 years, but I am not sure that is actually something to be proud of...

    The Russians on the other hand want an aircraft able to attack targets deep inside the US and with 5,500km range cruise missiles on board their Tu-160s and Tu-95s that should be exactly what they will be able to do.

    The US and Russian bombers are not hypersonic so by the time they get to their launch positions (for cruise missile launch or bomb release positions) the ICBMs and SLBMs and super long range cruise missiles in the case of ship launched missiles, most of the air defence capacity of each country will be severely degraded so their ability to shoot down stealth bombers and stealthy cruise missiles will be severely degraded... in fact one might argue that a B-52 carrying 5,000km range cruise missiles would be much better value for money than any B-21 they could possibly develop... but when an enemy is making a mistake.... don't interrupt them. Razz Razz Razz Laughing

    Sponsored content

    Tu-160 "White Swan" - Page 33 Empty Re: Tu-160 "White Swan"

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Apr 03, 2020 3:53 am