Talk:Tupolev Tu-160

"A big heavy knock-off

Quoting the Times, which goes on to say: "The Russians had terrible problems with the Tu-160, too — even when they wanted to show the thing off to a visiting American secretary of defense, they reportedly could get only three of its four engines working for the demo flight — and it appears to be a pig for fuel, just as the B-1 was. (That was one of the main reasons the Russians stopped the long-range flights in 1992: too expensive.)" [1]

Here's another review: "Blackjack operations also suffered due to numerous development problems and parts shortages. Difficulties with flight controls, poor reliability of the engines and various onboard systems, as well as a lack of basic equipment for aircrew and ground crew caused repeated problems early in the career of the Tu-160. Most of the bombers were also delivered before the production configuration had been finalized, so no two aircraft are alike and components differ from plane to plane degrading maintenance and serviceability.

Despite these troubles, the bomber received a new lease on life when President Putin restarted strategic patrol flights and ordered Tu-160 assembly to resume. Deliveries of new-build Blackjacks began in 2007 and Russian officials expect one additional bomber to be completed every 18 months. The Air Force hopes to bring the total Tu-160 fleet up to 30 operational aircraft by 2025. [2] Gaintes (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article reads like nothing short of glowing praise. There is no mention of the long history of operational problems that have plagued this design from conception. A few examples can be found here: http://www.aviation.ru/Tu/160/Tu-160.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.30.127 (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article could hardly have been better phrased by the Russians themselves. The article would benefit from a detailed comparison with the B-1. And that would include costs. There's a difference between an American aircraft which must demonstrate cost-effectiveness, and a Russian aircraft, where there is no public deliberation of costs. Also, the B-1 has been used successfully in combat. Has this plane? 24.130.12.229 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that American-military-industrial complex is renowned for its penny-pinching ways, and absolutely minimises all costs at all times, whereas the profligate Russians, they just spend, spend spend!- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the IP user's key phrase was "no public deliberation of costs". No matter what the so-called "American-military-industrial complex" wants (such as perhaps friviolous tankers, which keep getiing cancelled), the US Congress still has to pay for it, hence the "public deliberation of costs" part. The Soviet government (under which the Tu-160 was copied - er, developed (Yeah, that's the ticket!) - deliberated in private. One further comment on accuracy/NPOV: the original B-1 (the B-1A) was mach 2 capable, and almost as fast as the Tu-160, the the speed comparisons in the article should be clarified to make clear it's the B-1B that is slower (though still supersonic at altitude). Part of the reason the Bone-B is slower is ... cost. - BillCJ (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, cos the American government has no black programs at all; they're all debated in public in congress with detailed cost breakdowns and everything. ;-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All the Soviet programs were black, while US black programs are just a small persentage, of which the B-1 was not one of them. Even so, some Congressional members have to know about the black programs, so there is Congressional oversight. Not a fair comparsion, as if you were trying to be fair! ;) Being fair defeats the "US is bad, so everyone else must be good" arguement, and not as much fun either! :p - BillCJ (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RCS

I would like confirmation that the B-1B does have a lower RCS than the Blackjack. Altough the Blackjack is not a 'true' stealth aircraft I has stealthy features, such as RAM along the air-intakes. As the B-1 is also not a 'true' stealth plane, it would seem possible for the Blackjack to have lower RCS, as I remember reading somewhere, however I cannot find a reliable source to confirm in either way.

According to article by Piotr Butowski, Polish researcher of Russian aircraft (Nowa Technika Wojskowa 8 and 10/2001), Tu-160 has lower RCS. Pibwl 19:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tu-160 use S-shaped air-intake tunnels & fully turnable tailsurface, air-intakes are covered with radio absorbing material. There are also other features, here, but those are confirmed from a very realable source. Please put it on a page. --Oleg Str 09:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

largest supersonic aircraft

This plane is 20 tonnes heavier (MTOW) than the XB-70. 50% heavier than concorde. I'm alsmost sure it's the largest supersonic aircraft in the world. Anyone to confirm/inform?

I think, yes. At least, serially produced one. --jno 11:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure but there is a heavier airplane - it is called Kaspian Monster.It's actualy ekranoplan but is still a plane.Used only primary for transportation but with the ability to fire missles: http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/Ekranoplans/ekrano1.htm

Yes, it's larger, and actually designed as a weapon, but it isn't supersonic. Out of subsonic, there's also AN-225, with 600 tonnes MTOW. Out of the supersonic, Blackjack is the largest. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian Tu-160s

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Ukrainian airforce never opreated the TU-160s that were left in Ukraine after the USSR broke up. So Ukraine should not be listed as an operator. Edrigu 22:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean the Ukrainian Air force never operated the Tu-160? It's not like the planes were just forgotten after the collapse of the Soviet Union, just because they never bombed anybody doesn't mean they weren't in the air force. If the Ukrainian Air force had blackjacks in their arsenal that technically makes them a former operator. Bogdan 02:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Did Ukrainian pilots actually fly them? I thought they just stood in storage. Edrigu 01:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Largest bomber

The article Convair B-36 states that this US bomber is the largest bomber ever built., not the Tu-160. Now one of the two articles needs to be modified...--Arado 13:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the payload of Convair? It is 38,000 kg, while Tu-160 has pyload of 45,000 kg, so, we have to modify Convair article, and I already modified this one and added that Tu-160 is heaviest bomber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.59.7 (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement "the plane's maximum bombload is a respectable 45,000kg, which makes it the heaviest bomber in the world" seems incorrect when compared to the 61,000kg of ordnance the B1-B can carry. Crx2gen (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

B1B never was able to carry 61,000, I know, you added the two numbers for external and internal, but the thing is... Try loading B-1B with 61,000 kg of payload, and it will not take off. Here is a simple comparison: engines: Tu-160 -

4 x Thrust with afterburner: 245 kN (55,100 lbf) each

B1B:

4 x Thrust with afterburner: 30,780 lbf (136.92 kN) each

It is EITHER 27,000 OR 34,000 kg for B-1B, NOT both. Or you can do a dumb test ( I do it sometimes), take MAx take off weight of Tu-160 and subtract emoty weight, you get 157,000 kg, do same to B-1B, you get 128,000 kg. Article is fine, Tu-160 is largest and heaviest bomber ever serially produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.63.253 (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Similarity to B-1

How did it come about that the Tu-160 looks almost just like the B-1, and is there anything else that's similar aside from the airframe? The Soviets seemed to have an incredible penchant for copying American technology, such as in the case of the B-29 and Sidewinder Masterblooregard 08:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tu-160 is much heavier, and much faster than B-1, so, I would not call it a copy. As for copying, every single russian invention in tank industry has been copied by west. Examples??? Reactive armor, sloping armor, composite armor, active protection systems. Before you say something funny like you did, you better think, not to make fun of yourself. Hell, by your logic, west even copied russian idea with ICBMs, Yes, russian idea, not german, read about Tsiolkovsky, he was the very first one to consider space launchers and rockets. It is west that usually copies. And the aircraft that contributed most to Tu-160 design is Tu-22M3.

The resemblance betwenn the Tu-160 and the Tu-22/26 is superficial at best. The Tu-160 is essentialy a scaled up B1. I don't necessary believe the Russian copies all of its airplane designs. The MiG-21 and MiG-23 are certainly fine examples of idigenous design. But Russia has repeatedly shown it is willing to "borrow" design concepts from others. Plans for the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 were captured by the Russians which clearly influenced the design of Russian First Generation Fighters. (I will also note that the swept wing for the F-86 was also derived from German research.) As for the B1, if imitation is sincerest form of flattery, then Rockwell Aviation must be quite proud of the high praise from Tupalev. 216.181.47.130 ([[User talk:216.181.47.130|talk(talk) 16:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Many soviet aircraft designs were a reaction to new developments in the US. The heading design bureau was chosen by means of project contest involving several teams, as was the case with Tu-160. It is possible that choosing the same aerodynamic scheme and an exterior similar to the american counterpart was a plus for decision-makers, despite that the design must actually be quite reasonable if two independent design groups have chosen similar schemes. It also looks reasonable that the two sides, given similar technical specifications and close levels of technology, have produced similar designs.

Sidewinder? You mean missile? Why did then americans have to develop upgrade for Sidewinder after Luftwaffe Migs defeated them with russian missiles in training? Looks like russian "copies" are substantially better than american "original" weapons. Weird copies, are they? This goes for Sidewinder vs R-37, same goes for Tu-160 vs B-1. You wish to argue about copies more?99.231.63.253 20:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Pavel, October 14 2007

Pavel, I believe the reference to the Sidewinder is to the original 50s version and the ROC/PRC incident, not the modern incarnations of the Sidewinder and modern Russian missles. Also, the original B-1A was a Mach 2 aircraft, so the speed thing doesn't count, as the B-1A first flew in 1974. - BillCJ (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Tu-160 is a copy,but not of the B-1 , but of the Myasishev M-18 project.--Ramirezzz x (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I reread my posts, sorry for rethoric I have to say. And Thank you for the comment about Myasishev. Pavel Golikov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.46.37 (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Range?

I notice that this aircraft has much greater range than any other supersonic aircraft.

Does anyone know whether that's because it mostly cruises at subsonic speeds, and then for the attack run, it swings the wing and turns up the mach to avoid interception?

My best guess is yes, the bypass ratio is all wrong for long distance, efficient supersonic flight, but they could probably do it for short bursts for a few hundred miles or so without being stupidly inefficient.

But does anyone have a cite either way?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maximum range is on subsonic speeds, because fuel consuming on supersonic speed is about 3 times more than on subsonic speed (1,70 kg/kgs*h vs. 0,72 kg/kgs*h). Mm, and engines, IMHO, NK-32, but not NK-321. Sorry for my bad English. With best wishes from Russian Federation, 82.114.228.74 (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

2.36x the fuel. But it's going 2.3x as fast, so fuel/mile is the same. The L/D is probably lower at supersonic speeds though.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, there seems to be a mistake with range and radius. It's AIUI combat range which is 10,000km, not radius. I'm not entirely sure if it isn't some technicality in specs, however. Any clarification? CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Rumor has it that Tu-160 was designed to be able to operate at 2000 km/h in high/low/high profile for up to 2000 km from the base of deployment, but I have no confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.50.118 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

NATO Reference name in bold?

The NATO reference name is included and bolded for all the other Soviet/Russian "B" Bombers. While it is not the official Soviet/Russian/Manufacturers name, it is a common name used for the aircraft type, and as such should surely be bold in this article too? Hohum (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Tu-160 and British air space.

Link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1064713/Russian-nuclear-bomber-flies-undetected-20-miles-Hull.html

Date:

30th September 2008

Quote:

"A Russian nuclear stealth bomber was able to fly within 90 seconds of the British coast without being picked up by radar, it was revealed today.

The supersonic ‘Blackjack’ jet flew completely undetected to within just 20 miles from Hull in one of the worst breaches of British security since the end of the Cold War."

Don't you people think the incident should be mentioned?

99.231.50.118 (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

20 miles is not inside British Airspace. Airspace claims are the same as Territorial Waters, so the Jet would've needed to have been within 12 miles.

--86.150.202.0 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded to clarify. However, since Kingston upon Hull is about 10 miles from the coast, the Tu-160 may have been inside British sovereign airspace. Hohum (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifications (Tu-160)

How sure are the figures? -- they really don't add up. The T/W ratio especially and the thrust seem suspect. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I always wonder how people can take these numbers seriously. By a comfortable margin the biggest payload, by far the biggest unrefueled range and maximal speed among bombers, it's even somewhat stealthy, and all this in one aircraft. And bear in mind, the Tu-144, the other XL size supersonic venture from the same design group, was a decisive failure. Amanitin (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have the numbers to prove otherwise, then by all means, post them. If not, you cannot simply say something like that and have us accept it as fact. It sounds more like an opinion and will be treated as one.Jeremy D. (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

American Bias

There seems to be a bit of American bias entering into this article. Lets stick to the absolute facts about this bomber and NOT get into supposition or opinions on how fast it is or how much it can carry. Facts are facts and if the B-1 is faster or the TU-160 more stealthy then lets look for the numbers to prove it, and CITE these numbers. If the bias is not removed, then a lock will be placed on this article.