Tu-160s payload.
Atfnato
about 16330 kg (36,000 lb)" (The Vital Guide To Military Aviation" - published
1996) and a second book states this it is "Max weapons load 40,000 kg (88,185
lb)" (The International Directory of Military Aircraft" - 1998/99). Which is
the right number??? If the Blackjacks payload is 88,185 lbs then it means it
has a bigger payload then the B-1B (at least internal payload), there is a BIG
diference between these two numbers so someone please tell me which one is the
correct one.
alex
Venik
<199809102021...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
The 40,000 kg number is correct. It corresponds to the number published in
most Western and Russian sources. The Tu-160 is the heaviest and most
powerful bomber ever built and its max weapons load exceeds that of B-1B.
Venik
Atfnato
130,000 lbs (or more) using both internal bays and stores - is this true and
can the Tu-180 carry weapons using external stores???
alex
Venik
<199809110429...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Tu-180 is a mysterious Tupolev's design of a stealth bomber. No info is
available on this project.
The Tu-160 cannot carry weapons externally (at least I never saw any
indication that it can). It has two internal bomb bays with max capacity of
40,000 kg (underside of Tu-160:
http://www.aviation.ru/Tu/160/Tu-160bot.jpg.html ). The 36,000 lb number is
for conventional bombs - this restriction is due to the size of bombs and
the internal bays. Tu-160SK («Burlak» aero-space system designed to take
light-weight satellites into orbit, see photo:
http://www.aviation.ru/Tu/160/Tu-160SK.jpg.html) can carry the Burlak space
booster externally.
B-1B has 12 external pylons for additional weapons. I have not seen the
130,000 lb number and it seems a bit unrealistic.
Venik
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Atfnato wrote:
> What is the Tu-160 max payload - I have one book stating its "maximum ordenance
> about 16330 kg (36,000 lb)" (The Vital Guide To Military Aviation" - published
> 1996) and a second book states this it is "Max weapons load 40,000 kg (88,185
> lb)" (The International Directory of Military Aircraft" - 1998/99). Which is
> the right number??? If the Blackjacks payload is 88,185 lbs then it means it
> has a bigger payload then the B-1B (at least internal payload), there is a BIG
> diference between these two numbers so someone please tell me which one is the
> correct one.
I never saw 36,000 lb number. Usually everything I saw indicate that Tu-160 can
carry 88,185 lb internally. B-1B can handle more load only because it can carry
weapons externaly and internally. Tu-160 carries weapons only internally.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Atfnato
alex
Paul Holloway
Venik wrote:
> The 40,000 kg number is correct. It corresponds to the number published in
> most Western and Russian sources. The Tu-160 is the heaviest and most
> powerful bomber ever built and its max weapons load exceeds that of B-1B.
>
> Venik
I'm sorry, just how do you define the "most powerful bomber ever built"? Are
you speaking of max payload? Correct me if I'm wrong, but a B-52 has a larger
payload and longer unrefuelled range. I think that would much better qualify
the BUFF as more powerful than the Blackjack.
PDH
Paul Holloway
Yevgeniy Chizhikov wrote:
> I never saw 36,000 lb number. Usually everything I saw indicate that Tu-160 can
> carry 88,185 lb internally. B-1B can handle more load only because it can carry
> weapons externaly and internally. Tu-160 carries weapons only internally.
>
> Yevgeniy Chizhikov
So, again, how do you claim the Tu-160 is the most powerful bomber ever built? You
clearly state here that the B-1B has a greater payload.
PDH
Marshall
Paul Holloway <pau...@telapex.com> wrote in message
35F9798E...@telapex.com...
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
Paul Holloway wrote:
> So, again, how do you claim the Tu-160 is the most powerful bomber ever built? You
> clearly state here that the B-1B has a greater payload.
>
> PDH
Payload is not everything. For one, Tu-160 is faster, and can sustain much higher speed
with full load than B-1B. Therefor ability of the bomber to penetrate enemy defences is
very impressive. In general Tu-160 does not carry any bombs. The main weapon of Tu-160 is
12 AS-15 missiles, which have similar performance to Tomahawk, or 24 short range tactical
missiles. In general Tu-160 is a missile carrier. Those long range missiles, clearly
distinguish Tu-160 from other bombers. With missile's range of 3,000 km, survivability of
the bomber is greater than of it's opponents. It is the largest bomber in the world, and
it is the fastest one also.Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Susan Bingham
Yevgeniy Chizhikov wrote:
Ok, so you're not speaking in terms of destructive force, but rather in terms of capability
and survivablity. Therefore I would agree with you, except for the minor point that AFAIK
there are not operational Tu-160s, yet many BUFFS and B-1s. A minor point , but a valid
one. Given operational status, then yes, I would probably agree that the Blackjack is the
"most powerful" bomber.
PDH
D. Scott Ferrin
I've read in several places 125,000lbs but what it could do with it is
anybody's guess.
>
>Venik
>
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>
>
>Venik wrote:
>
>> The 40,000 kg number is correct. It corresponds to the number published in
>> most Western and Russian sources. The Tu-160 is the heaviest and most
>> powerful bomber ever built and its max weapons load exceeds that of B-1B.
>>
>> Venik
>
> I'm sorry, just how do you define the "most powerful bomber ever built"? Are
>you speaking of max payload? Correct me if I'm wrong, but a B-52 has a larger
>payload and longer unrefuelled range. I think that would much better qualify
>the BUFF as more powerful than the Blackjack.
>
>PDH
"Most powerful" probably means most powerful ie has the most power.
The Blackjack has 4 X 55,000lb thrust engines. Number two would be
the XB-70 with 6 X 30,000lb and number 3 would be the B-52H with 8 X
17,000lb.
D. Scott Ferrin
wrote:
>
>
>Yevgeniy Chizhikov wrote:
>
>> I never saw 36,000 lb number. Usually everything I saw indicate that Tu-160 can
>> carry 88,185 lb internally. B-1B can handle more load only because it can carry
>> weapons externaly and internally. Tu-160 carries weapons only internally.
>>
>> Yevgeniy Chizhikov
>
> So, again, how do you claim the Tu-160 is the most powerful bomber ever built? You
>clearly state here that the B-1B has a greater payload.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with who has the most power. If
you want to know which has the most *destructive* power say so. In
that case it would be the B-1B.
>
>PDH
Venik
> I'm sorry, just how do you define the "most powerful bomber ever built"?
Are
>you speaking of max payload? Correct me if I'm wrong, but a B-52 has a
larger
>payload and longer unrefuelled range. I think that would much better
qualify
>the BUFF as more powerful than the Blackjack.
As Scott has already mentioned, you should interpret "most powerful" quite
literally - the combined max thrust of its engines. With afterburner this
would add up to 220,460 lb for Tu-160 and 123,120 lb for B-1B. Thus, Tu-160
has about 80% more available thrust.
Venik
Venik
>I've read in several places 125,000lbs but what it could do with it is
>anybody's guess.
The reason why I think this is unrealistic is that the max available thrust
of B-1B is 123,120 lb. This would make a max thrust to max payload ratio of
0.98 (for 125,000 lbs.). Consider the following such ratios for other large
jet bombers:
Tu-160 - 2.50
Tu-22M - 2.08
Tu-22 - 4.13
The number of 0.98 is much closer to ratio common for large cargo planes
(C-5 - 0.69; An-124 - 0.62, etc).
Venik
D. Scott Ferrin
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Paul Holloway wrote:
>
>> So, again, how do you claim the Tu-160 is the most powerful bomber ever built? You
>> clearly state here that the B-1B has a greater payload.
>>
>> PDH
>
>Payload is not everything. For one, Tu-160 is faster, and can sustain much higher speed
>with full load than B-1B.
The XB-70 could sustain Mach 3 with a designed payload of 50,000lbs.
but we still canned it. Speed in not everything. We also designed a
bomber version of the SR-71. It also got the axe.
Therefor ability of the bomber to penetrate enemy defences is
>very impressive. In general Tu-160 does not carry any bombs. The main weapon of Tu-160 is
>12 AS-15 missiles, which have similar performance to Tomahawk, or 24 short range tactical
>missiles. In general Tu-160 is a missile carrier. Those long range missiles, clearly
>distinguish Tu-160 from other bombers.
How so? The B-52, B-1B, and B-2 *all* carry such missiles. In
addition they can carry the AGM-129 stealth cruise missile.
With missile's range of 3,000 km, survivability of
>the bomber is greater than of it's opponents.
Explain how it is more survivable than a B-2 equipped with the
AGM-129.
It is the largest bomber in the world,
If biggest meant best we'd still be flying the B-36.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
> The XB-70 could sustain Mach 3 with a designed payload of 50,000lbs.
> but we still canned it. Speed in not everything. We also designed a
> bomber version of the SR-71. It also got the axe.
Soviet T-4 was also canned.
> How so? The B-52, B-1B, and B-2 *all* carry such missiles. In
> addition they can carry the AGM-129 stealth cruise missile.
M2 capable bomber with 12,300 km range with 22.5 tons of combat load? Relatively low RCS, with
12 cruise missiles of 3,000 km in range or 24 hypersonic short range nuclear missiles PLUS
16,300 kg of free fall or laser guided bombs? All that for a price tag of $100 million? Did
any bomber above qualify on all this categories? NO!
> Explain how it is more survivable than a B-2 equipped with the
> AGM-129.
It is not, but with bigger payload, bigger range(at least most of what I saw), and the price
tag which is about 20 times less, Tu-160 sounds like a bargain. Tu-160 is more survivable than
either B-52 or B-1B. Second, B-2 is not as stealthy as it need to be after all. I would better
like that Pentagon would explain to me why it spends my money on white elephant which cost too
much, and probably would never see the combat. Having stealthy cruise missiles with long
range, defeats whole porpoise of having stealth aircraft.
> If biggest meant best we'd still be flying the B-36.
Again, Tu-160 have more payload and speed than B-52 or B-1B. It's RCS is much lower than B-52.
RCS of B-1B is questionable if it would carry weapons externally in order to match Tu-160.
Tu-160 has longer range, speed, and payload than B-2, at the price tag of 20 times less than
B-2.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Jason Castello
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>
>D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
>> The XB-70 could sustain Mach 3 with a designed payload of 50,000lbs.
>> but we still canned it. Speed in not everything. We also designed a
>> bomber version of the SR-71. It also got the axe.
>
>Soviet T-4 was also canned.
>
>> How so? The B-52, B-1B, and B-2 *all* carry such missiles. In
>> addition they can carry the AGM-129 stealth cruise missile.
>
>M2 capable bomber with 12,300 km range with 22.5 tons of combat load? Relatively low RCS, with
>12 cruise missiles of 3,000 km in range or 24 hypersonic short range nuclear missiles PLUS
>16,300 kg of free fall or laser guided bombs? All that for a price tag of $100 million? Did
>any bomber above qualify on all this categories? NO!
>
>> Explain how it is more survivable than a B-2 equipped with the
>> AGM-129.
>
>It is not, but with bigger payload, bigger range(at least most of what I saw), and the price
>tag which is about 20 times less, Tu-160 sounds like a bargain. Tu-160 is more survivable than
>either B-52 or B-1B. Second, B-2 is not as stealthy as it need to be after all. I would better
>like that Pentagon would explain to me why it spends my money on white elephant which cost too
>much, and probably would never see the combat. Having stealthy cruise missiles with long
>range, defeats whole porpoise of having stealth aircraft.
The B-2 can carry regular free fall bombs, or more advanced guided
munitions including JDAM's, thereby enabling the aircraft to be used
effectively on a tactical level.
-jason
D. Scott Ferrin
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>
>D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
>> The XB-70 could sustain Mach 3 with a designed payload of 50,000lbs.
>> but we still canned it. Speed in not everything. We also designed a
>> bomber version of the SR-71. It also got the axe.
>
>Soviet T-4 was also canned.
T-4 barely made it past Mach 1
>
>> How so? The B-52, B-1B, and B-2 *all* carry such missiles. In
>> addition they can carry the AGM-129 stealth cruise missile.
>
>M2 capable bomber with 12,300 km range with 22.5 tons of combat load?
Maybe with aerial refueling but not unrefueled
Relatively low RCS, with
>12 cruise missiles of 3,000 km in range or 24 hypersonic short range nuclear missiles PLUS
>16,300 kg of free fall or laser guided bombs?
B-1B has a much lower RCS than Blackjack and Blackjack can't carry 24
missiles *and* the bombs. It's either or. Until we retired the SRAM
B-1B could also carry 24 short range nuclear missiles. What will be
interesting is if we equip the B-1B to carry Fasthawk. An
air-launched varient is planned and it would fit on the rotary
launchers of US bombers. Oh and all of our bombers can carry 3000km
range cruise missiles so there's nothing special about the Blackjack
being able to do it.
All that for a price tag of $100 million? Did
>any bomber above qualify on all this categories? NO!
Not in all categories.
>
>> Explain how it is more survivable than a B-2 equipped with the
>> AGM-129.
>
>It is not, but with bigger payload, bigger range(at least most of what I saw), and the price
>tag which is about 20 times less, Tu-160 sounds like a bargain.
For it's capability the Blackjack *is* a bargain.
Tu-160 is more survivable than
>either B-52 or B-1B. Second, B-2 is not as stealthy as it need to be after all.
If they're being used as missile carriers all of that is pretty much
irrelivant.
I would better
>like that Pentagon would explain to me why it spends my money on white elephant which cost too
>much, and probably would never see the combat.
High cost comes partially from the tons of R&D that went into it and
the low numbers purchased. Had we purchased the original planned 132
the unit cost would have been much lower.
Having stealthy cruise missiles with long
>range, defeats whole porpoise of having stealth aircraft.
That's why though the B-2 could carry missiles from what I've read
it's mainly a bomb hauler which is more efficent anyway because you
don't have to haul around a propulsion source and fuel for each
warhead. Better to drop a 1000lb bomb on a target than launch a
3000lb missile at it.
>
>> If biggest meant best we'd still be flying the B-36.
>
>Again, Tu-160 have more payload and speed than B-52 or B-1B. It's RCS is much lower than B-52.
I think the mountain outside my window has a lower RCS than the B-52.
>RCS of B-1B is questionable if it would carry weapons externally in order to match Tu-160.
It would be interesting to know what externally carried AGM-129s would
do to the RCS of a B-1B. Then again if it's carrying them it can sit
out *quite* a ways, launch the missiles, and to hell with a larger
RCS.
Jeff Shultz
:>M2 capable bomber with 12,300 km range with 22.5 tons of combat load? Relatively low RCS, with
:>12 cruise missiles of 3,000 km in range or 24 hypersonic short range nuclear missiles PLUS
:>16,300 kg of free fall or laser guided bombs? All that for a price tag of $100 million? Did
:>any bomber above qualify on all this categories? NO!
We can't help that the Russians don't pay their aircraft people more than
$.35 an hour.... and do they pay market prices for the materials - and are
those materials (engines and all) of as high of quality?
Jeff Shultz
http://www.netcom.com/~jbshultz
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
> T-4 barely made it past Mach 1
According to what I read it went M3.
> Maybe with aerial refueling but not unrefueled
No, "Boevye samolety Rossii" state unrefuel range 12,300 km with 22.5 tons of combat load.
Apperantly I made mistake the first time. Maximum unrefueled range is listed at 14,600 km. With
22.5 tons of weapons unrefueled range is 12,300 km. Some sources claim that Tu-160 does have 12,300
km range with max take off weight. Performance is not surprising. Bear can do 12,500 km with 11.5
tons, and Bear is smaller and much older bomber. "Independant Military Review" state Tu-160 range
of 14,000 km with normal load, what ever it might be, and 10,500 km with max load. Perhaps someone
else have some other sources about range of Tu-160 with payload.
> B-1B has a much lower RCS than Blackjack and Blackjack can't carry 24
> missiles *and* the bombs.
Low RCS with external weapons??? Blackjack carries 45 tonns of weapons internaly. With this load
and max fuel capacity, aircraft have 12,300 km unrefuled range.
> High cost comes partially from the tons of R&D that went into it and
> the low numbers purchased. Had we purchased the original planned 132
> the unit cost would have been much lower.
I still see no reason to spent about 40 billions to build 24 of them. It is stupid. US could add
another 200 F-22, which would had been of much better combat value than 24 white elephants. Don't
you think? What is your opinion, 24 B-2's or couple hundreds F-22?
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
D. Scott Ferrin
<y.chi...@popmail.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>
>D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
>> T-4 barely made it past Mach 1
>
>According to what I read it went M3.
Looks like you read wrong. Sukhoi themselves said it only reached
1.28
>
>> Maybe with aerial refueling but not unrefueled
>
>No, "Boevye samolety Rossii" state unrefuel range 12,300 km with 22.5 tons of combat load.
>Apperantly I made mistake the first time. Maximum unrefueled range is listed at 14,600 km. With
>22.5 tons of weapons unrefueled range is 12,300 km. Some sources claim that Tu-160 does have 12,300
>km range with max take off weight. Performance is not surprising. Bear can do 12,500 km with 11.5
>tons, and Bear is smaller and much older bomber. "Independant Military Review" state Tu-160 range
>of 14,000 km with normal load, what ever it might be, and 10,500 km with max load. Perhaps someone
>else have some other sources about range of Tu-160 with payload.
>
If you go to the FAI's home page and look at the world records the
B-1B outdistances the Blackjack, The Blackjack flew 5000km with a
30,000kg payload at a speed of 920.95 km/hr. The B-1B did the same at
1054.21 km/hr. The Blackjack holds no records over 5000km, those
belong to the B-1B and the B-52.
>> B-1B has a much lower RCS than Blackjack and Blackjack can't carry 24
>> missiles *and* the bombs.
>
>Low RCS with external weapons???
No. Both carrying internal weapons only B-1B has the lower RCS.
Blackjack carries 45 tonns of weapons internaly. With this load
>and max fuel capacity, aircraft have 12,300 km unrefuled range.
Doubt it very much.
>
>> High cost comes partially from the tons of R&D that went into it and
>> the low numbers purchased. Had we purchased the original planned 132
>> the unit cost would have been much lower.
>
>I still see no reason to spent about 40 billions to build 24 of them. It is stupid. US could add
>another 200 F-22, which would had been of much better combat value than 24 white elephants. Don't
>you think? What is your opinion, 24 B-2's or couple hundreds F-22?
That's 21 B-2s not 24. Hard to say what the B-2s value is right now.
People thought the F-117 was too expensive too but it was found to be
worth every penny.
>
>Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
ke...@lehigh.edu
>anybody's guess.
That would probably be max takeoff weight.....to carry 130,000 or 125,000
pounds of ordinance is a bit much.....that would be 260 and 250 five hundred
pound bombs a piece...a bit much don't you think. I think the max load for a
BUFF was 104 five hundreds and 83 seven fifties which would correspond to its
ordinance carrying capacity of about 50,000 both less than the B-1B and
Tu-160. BTW, the Tu-160 is the largest bomber ever built but does not hold
the highest load carrying capacity (B-1B is the winner there because of
external mountings). Just check the dimensions versus the BUFF and Lancer.
>
>
>>
>>Venik
>>
>
>
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Keith Dombrowski
THINK!
Drink Coffee and Destroy-