РЕДАКЦИЯ
Copyright © 2011 English
Russia All the materials on this
site are submitted by the read-
ers trough feedback form or
acqulred thru the open sources
like, but not limited to
blogs.2leep.com, flickr.com etc.
Powered by WordPress
 
  • 2006-2012
  • English Russia
    Главная контора
    Copyright © 2011 English
    Russia All the materials on this
    site are submitted by the read-
    ers trough feedback form or
    acqulred thru the open sources
    like, but not limited to
    blogs.2leep.com, flickr.com etc.
    Powered by WordPress
    RSS Subscribers
    24553
    Twitter Followers
    1551
    Facebook Likes
    17448

    Subscribe via Twitter Subscribe via Facebook Subscribe via Email Subscribe via RSS

    ВЫХОДИТ ЕЖЕДНЕВНО

    Tuesday, 22 May, 2012
    • Home
    • About
    • Privacy Policy
    • Forum
    • Submit!
    • Subscribe
     

    TU-160 – BlackJack or White Swan?

    57
    Posted on May 13, 2010 by CJ

    11

    Tu – 160 (Blackjack according to NATO codification) – a Russian supersonic strategical missile bomber variable-sweep wing provided. The heaviest and the most powerful war-plane in the world. Pilots call it “White Swan”.


    Advertisement:




    21

    31

    41

    51

    61

    71

    81

    91

    10

    111

    12

    131

    This entry was posted in Photos, russian army and tagged aircraft, blackjack, plane, war-plane, white swan. Bookmark the permalink.
    ← Abandoned Locomotives
    Overturned Tank At The Kremlin Walls →
    Place your link here, join 2leep.com exchange.

    See more of English Russia:

    2leep.com

    57 Responses to “TU-160 – BlackJack or White Swan?”

    1. beetox says:
      May 13, 2010 at 3:39 am

      Aee…Russia!!!

      Reply
    2. Andre says:
      May 13, 2010 at 3:41 am

      “most powerful war-plane” – really??!!

      Reply
      • eger_666 says:
        May 13, 2010 at 3:56 am

        Surprise!

        Reply
        • JCR says:
          May 13, 2010 at 4:11 am

          “Powerful” in terms of engine power is correct.
          No other military aircraft currently in service has such powerful engines as the Tu-160

          Reply
          • MarkLenders says:
            May 13, 2010 at 5:40 am

            Maybe but it’s like a skoda with a Ferrari engine

            Reply
            • Chris says:
              May 13, 2010 at 2:07 pm

              How’s so?

              Or are you talking out of your @ss?

              Reply
              • MarkLenders says:
                May 13, 2010 at 11:28 pm

                It’s not my fault if you had your period in advance

                Reply
              • MarkLenders says:
                May 13, 2010 at 11:29 pm

                It’s not my fault if you had your Menstrual cycle in advance

                Reply
              • MarkLenders says:
                May 14, 2010 at 2:13 am

                Double post!!
                CCCCOMBO BREAKERRRRRR

                Reply
    3. PKS says:
      May 13, 2010 at 5:51 am

      It is most powerful in all terms – payload, speed, range, armament.

      Reply
    4. DavidDerKlabauter says:
      May 13, 2010 at 6:06 am

      the cockpit looks like a passenger plane’s.
      i bet it could be used to deliver mail instead of bombs – lightning fast.

      does it have stealth capabilities? the airframe doesn’t look like it…

      Reply
    5. Jesper says:
      May 13, 2010 at 7:22 am

      B1b copy…

      Reply
      • Gashak says:
        May 13, 2010 at 8:13 am

        Butthurted, aee, yankee?

        Reply
        • Jesper says:
          May 13, 2010 at 10:05 am

          No i am from Europe, damn communist

          Reply
      • Yegorij says:
        May 13, 2010 at 12:38 pm

        Compare them before talking

        Reply
        • Boris Badenov says:
          May 13, 2010 at 9:45 pm

          When you spend billions and the result is 16 planes built in 23 years, this is not success.

          Reply
      • Fred says:
        May 15, 2010 at 8:41 am

        Tu-160 is a totally different aeroplane to the B1, developed from scratch without copying any parts.

        This much should be obvious to anyone who compares the basic specs – the Tu-160 is a very much larger (110 tonnes vs. 87 tonnes empty), faster (Mach 2.05 vs. Mach 1.25), and longer range (combat radius: 7,300 km vs. 5,543 km) bomber. The Tu-160′s engines each provide about twice the thrust of those fitted to the B1B.

        There is a general similarity of line between the two, but that is the only thing that the Soviets /might/ have copied. They did a lot by way of using “inspiration” of that sort – engineering their own variant of a Western gadget rather than just copying it. If that’s what’s behind the Tu-160, I have to say that the Tu-160 is a good deal more than just the Soviet (now Russian) version of the B1 – but the lines worked out were good for the job, so they used ‘em.

        Since the form of an aeroplane is dictated by engineering concerns, and since the intended job of each aeroplane is similar, the fact that they have similar lines is not surprising. The general lines – yes, they might have been copied, but little more.

        Reply
    6. CastleBravo says:
      May 13, 2010 at 8:55 am

      B1-B, anyone?

      Reply
      • YJ says:
        May 13, 2010 at 10:57 pm

        No one.

        Reply
    7. Bau-Bau says:
      May 13, 2010 at 9:19 am

      The propaganda works

      Reply
    8. Testicules says:
      May 13, 2010 at 2:04 pm

      Cheap Russian knock off of the American B-1 built in the 1970′s. Of course the Americans upgraded their fleet to the modern standard. This one….. Not so much.

      Reply
      • Chris says:
        May 13, 2010 at 2:10 pm

        >Cheap Russian knock off of the American
        >B-1 built in the 1970’s

        How’s so?

        Or are you talking out of your @ss?

        Reply
        • Annoy says:
          May 14, 2010 at 1:58 pm

          http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2010/02/14/russian-or-not-russian/

          Reply
    9. Chris says:
      May 13, 2010 at 2:16 pm

      Does anyone here have any decent knowledge on this plane?

      Reply
    10. mukmika says:
      May 13, 2010 at 2:47 pm

      Very impressive aircraft. Let us hope these beautiful planes never have to be used for their intended purpose!

      Reply
    11. Raisuli says:
      May 13, 2010 at 7:56 pm

      Like most Russian women this is very pretty, but you wouldn’t want to see it angry.

      Reply
      • MrLocktree says:
        May 18, 2010 at 2:51 am

        Briljant comparison, could not have said it better myself! (married to one?)

        Reply
    12. Scarecrow says:
      May 13, 2010 at 8:58 pm

      Its a big expensive target for a cheap little missile. There are only about 16 in service and they are very expensive to fly and maintain.

      Reply
      • PKS says:
        May 14, 2010 at 12:58 am

        Way cheaper than F-22, which cannot intercept it.

        Reply
        • Kent says:
          May 14, 2010 at 4:16 am

          The F22 is an air superiority fighter, it can be used in the interceptor role. The TU-160 cannot intercept, it’s a bomber. It does not carry air-to-air weapons, and it has a huge radar cross section. It would get shot down from 80 miles away by an F22 before it even knew Americans were in the sky.

          :)

          Reply
        • Scarecrow says:
          May 15, 2010 at 4:03 pm

          The F22 can easily bring it down and the 160 crew would never know what hit it. It’s not a White Swan but a white elephant and an easy target for modern weapons. The 160 cannot maintain supersonic speeds for very long because it is a huge gas guzzler and Russia does not maintain enough of the necessary aerial refueling systems needed for such a bomber. It is not capable of doing the job it was intended to do.

          Reply
    13. Josie says:
      May 13, 2010 at 9:38 pm

      The first few shots really make this a scary looking airplane. Very impressive, though.

      Reply
    14. Boris Badenov says:
      May 13, 2010 at 9:44 pm

      When you only build 16 of them guess what? Failure.

      Reply
    15. SSSR says:
      May 13, 2010 at 9:46 pm

      I think I could fly it.

      Reply
    16. den says:
      May 14, 2010 at 4:07 am

      tu-95 (symbol of the Cold War) range is 11 000 km. first flue in 1950s as another symbol B-52 also did. 11000 km is not enough to strike targets’ in North America? Payload, range, speed of B-52 and Tu-95 are comparable.

      Reply
      • Scarecrow says:
        May 15, 2010 at 4:07 pm

        The TU 95′s propellers make it stand out in a radar profile. They represent beautiful targets for even a cheap AA system.

        Reply
    17. brbrbr says:
      May 14, 2010 at 5:56 am

      BJ beat both B1 and Spirits in any aspects[including Stealth] – Fire Power, Range, Survivability, Speed, Runway req, ECCM and ECM caps and etc and etc.
      even conventional strike caps about ~6x times better[before Sniper pod programm started]. BJ can hit house with four 250kg bombs , while B1/B2/B52 can only hope[sic!!]that carpet bombing hurt anything inside bomb cloud.
      guided cluster bomb[of high-payoad]change rules a bit.
      but not for most strategic bombers runs, payloads[dumb free-fall bombs], whose remain main workhorses of nowdays war.

      Reply
      • Kent says:
        May 14, 2010 at 6:42 pm

        That’s just ridiculous.

        The TU-160 lacks stealth entirely, it would be tracked and shot down by any American fighter. The TU-160 fire control and aviation systems are decades old.

        It’s funny when Russians lie about stuff in order to create pride in their old, inferior military equipment.

        Reply
        • Yurka says:
          May 14, 2010 at 8:53 pm

          yeah shot down :) TU _160 missiles have a range of 5000km its not a carpet bomber

          Reply
          • FLOOD says:
            November 12, 2011 at 4:36 am

            NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT SENSES WOULD WANT TO INTERCEPT THIS PLANE IT CARRIED Kh 55 ICBM each with 500 Kiloton nuclear war head 20 independently targeted with 7500 km range.

            Reply
    18. Testicules says:
      May 14, 2010 at 6:20 am

      I think the accuracy of the BJ is being overplayed. The B-1, B-2, B-52, group have a proven track record in mordern times of delivering massive amounts of precision munitions without significant losses to their aircraft. Aside from Chechnia and Georgia, what major modern conflict has Russia had to fight. With the collapse of the Soviet military budget. Russia is 10years behind the west. They have not fought a major war since afghanastan. They have not produced mass quantities of quality aircraft, nor have they demostrated a supeior doctrine. That may change in the near future, but right now the Russian Airforce is a shadow of what it once was. Russia Exports it’s best equipment rather than keeping it.

      Reply
    19. Orange_you_tang says:
      May 14, 2010 at 1:12 pm

      Can’t believe people are comparing the overpriced, underpowered and pretty much useless B1 to this. Some people!

      Reply
    20. skipjack says:
      May 14, 2010 at 1:32 pm

      well if B1 is useless so do T160 ;] it`s a very simmilar design, I doubt if it`s more “stealth” than B2 spirit and I have very hard time bielieving you that simple free fal bomb dropt from non dive run on high altitude can have such precision precision

      Reply
      • SSSR says:
        May 15, 2010 at 1:26 am

        You know about jets.It seems like you were in the air force :)

        Reply
      • vladis says:
        May 15, 2010 at 8:14 am

        you dont have to be in airforce to know stuff.

        Reply
        • SSSR says:
          May 15, 2010 at 1:54 pm

          But she was in the air force.

          Reply
    21. Jim-bob says:
      May 14, 2010 at 2:24 pm

      It looks like a relative of the TU-144 (Concordski)SST of the 1960′s and 70′s. I wonder how closely related they are…

      Reply
    22. Yurka says:
      May 14, 2010 at 8:26 pm

      35 aircraft had been built unfortunately most of those planes were based in Ukraine and Americans paid money to Ukraine to destroy those plains

      Reply
    23. Yurka says:
      May 14, 2010 at 8:51 pm

      so 35 in 4 years wasn’t too bad

      Reply
    24. ? says:
      May 15, 2010 at 1:05 am

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh3pU9JL9ag

      Reply
    25. Razor says:
      May 15, 2010 at 10:48 am

      Ignorant westerners? On my englishrussia? Implying that we are being brainwashed, unlike themselves?
      It’s more likely than you think!

      Beautiful and indeed the most powerful plane. Sure it’s a pity we’ve lost most of them to the cold war aftermath, but it’s more of a symbol — noone would care much about the holywar that’s going in here if we ever have to use it.

      Reply
    26. Scarecrow says:
      May 15, 2010 at 4:13 pm

      “Kornukov said Russia has fallen 25 to 30 years behind the U.S. in air defense technologies and would find it difficult to narrow the gap because of a meltdown of its defense industries which have been plagued by the loss of qualified personnel and key technologies.”

      http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iq4vS_l_M-pMcjnFHmevbbbH0YKgD9FLUQSO1

      Reply
    27. Musa says:
      May 17, 2010 at 5:40 pm

      Beautiful!

      Reply
    28. ivo says:
      May 25, 2010 at 3:52 pm

      yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

      Reply
    29. Stason666 says:
      May 29, 2010 at 11:20 am

      Beauties! The truth?!

      Reply
    30. Tsuhna says:
      June 10, 2010 at 6:29 am

      Tu-95 used to fly from Russia to Cuba along eastern coast of USA, refuel and return, and they have started doing it regularly again.

      Reply
    31. alex says:
      January 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm

      very beauty like a swam

      Reply

    Leave a Reply

    Click here to cancel reply.

    • Automotive (525)
    • Business (226)
    • Culture (1082)
    • Economics (209)
    • Exclusive (1187)
    • Fiction (62)
    • Funny (2351)
    • History (1364)
    • Law (85)
    • Other (798)
    • Photos (5165)
    • russian army (573)
    • Russian Art (764)
    • Russian Nature (588)
    • Russian People (1704)
    • Science (429)
    • Society (2021)
    • Sports (208)
    • Technology (1526)
    • Video (485)

    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
    • October 2007
    • September 2007
    • August 2007
    • July 2007
    • June 2007
    • May 2007
    • April 2007
    • March 2007
    • February 2007
    • January 2007
    • December 2006
    • November 2006
    • October 2006
    • September 2006
    • August 2006
    Place your link here, join 2leep.com exchange.
    Copyright © 2011 English Russia |
    All the materials on this site are submitted by the readers
    trough feedback form or acqulred thru the open sources like, but not limited to blogs.2leep.com, flickr.com etc.
    Powered by WordPress