Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by Damien, Jan 9, 2012.
nice plane ... i like the black one ...
B-1 is a pure legend, if there'a nuclear war, expect this beast coming your way.
My vote is always for Tu 160, Russia is modifying it with latest technology , more over B-2 may be stealth but can not used in lower altitude .If it is deployed in higher altitude it would be danger for civilian too, which we already witnessed in afghan war
B-2 is a legend and an ideal plane for a bomber, but considering the cost. that in buying 5 B-2s we might get abt 100 MMRCAs
So we have to ask is the cost worth it? But yes, without a doubt its an excellent plane.
Between B-1 Lancer and Tu-160 I might go for B-1 as its proven plane, On other hand Tu-160 does not have the operational experience of B-1
I shall go for B-2 B-1 and then Tu-160
well i wil put my money on the black jack tu-160 , it will domore carnage than the lancer ..
Technologically, B-1 is superior to Tu-160. But knowing the Americans. they would not give the entire hi tech to foreign user, always give a watered down system which is good.
But then considering the cost vs usefulness and technology, Tu-160 has a better value for us,
But if USA gives B-1 in its original form, that might be better than Tu-160, but do we really need a bomber, and that to that expensive?
Bombers are not what we want, but if we are able to make it into super heavy AWACS + Long range A2A missile carrier, maybe its different ball game
While similar in appearance to the American B-1 Lancer,
the Tu-160 is an entirely different class of combat aircraft,
its primary role being a standoff missile platform (strategic missile carrier).
The Tu-160 is also larger and faster than the B-1B and has a slightly greater combat range,
though the B-1B has a larger combined payload and more modern avionics.
Another significant difference is that the colour scheme on the B-1B Lancer is usually radar-absorbent Black,
the Tu-160 is painted with anti-flash white, giving it the nick-name among Russian airmen "White Swan".
I would go for Tu-160, cheaper than US models, as long as it gets the work done.
I would prefer a strategic missile carrier than a Bomber.
We always make a mistake in this point only EXPERIENCE
So that only we always go for old,older and oldest Product
More over Tu 160 is much advanced then B -1,
In 2006, the Russian Air Force was expected to receive five modernised and one new-built Tu-160. The Russian Air Force will receive a further five modernized Tu-160s each year, which means that modernization of the fleet could be achieved within three years if the schedule is kept up.
Changes announced include completely digital, multireserved, neutron and other nuclear emissions resistant avionics; full support of cruising and steering through GLONASS global satellite positioning system; and updated version of NK-32 engines with increased reliability. Weapon upgrades will allow the use of new nuclear/non-nuclear GLONASS-navigated cruise missiles (Kh-55),and drop laser-guided bombs. Planned upgrades are also to add the ability to handle missiles that launch military or civil satellites;and addition of advanced radar emissions absorbing coatings.
SOURCE Tupolev Tu-160 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Separate names with a comma.