Supersonic Nuclear Precision Bomber for PLAAF ??

Its no stealth bomber. Trust me on that its another derivative of the B1-B lancer. The USAF trains at intercepting them and shooting them down in a nuclear defense role. Its as much stealth as the B1-B. I know everyone wants to say they have stealth tech but this one isnt friend. The Tu-160 is the blackjack. The backfire bomber is an old version of the same concept of a long range supersonic bomber. Ill repeat this again the TU160 is the black jack and has the same stealth as the B1-B. Look at the B1-B and the tu-160 they are nearly identicle and the backfire TU22 looks completly differant. I know the USAF knows what they are training us airmen for and its not a long range nuclear capable stealth vehicle, its just a fast bomber that has a huge range and can fly low under radar like the b1-b. It has the same RCS of a B1-B as well.

Sorry Eternal Vigil,

My mistake. I always seem to make an error everytime I first jump into a thread. The stealth bomber I was talking about was the T-60s, not the Tu-160. The Tu-160 is the Blackjack I was talking about. The Blackjack is the equivalent of the B-1B, as you've said. It is an older bomber.

Forgive me, T-60s/Tu-160, all codes begin to blur in my little gray cells over time. I prefer verbal descriptions. Thank god I'm not a postal worker!

Not a big deal. It does get confusing with the russian designation and the nato designation.

if china could get the russians to sell them a few SU 34 radars then thats half the battle of building an indigenous version. im not sure china could right now produce a radar as powerful as the SU 34 even the us dosnt half terrain follwoing as advanced

what's up with Americans and calling everything of copy of so and so.

Has it ever occured to you that these two have outwardly similar appearances because they were designed to fullfil similar roles?

Even the americans use the easy way of copying things from time to time. Its nothing to be ashamed of as there is no meaning in inventing the wheel more then one time.

Tu 160



B1-B

Okay, now I'm starting to feel stupid... Have I missed the retirement of the Tu-22M3? That was something... Anyone could give me an article with more details on that?

Well, if the Russians retire them, I think China should try to purchase them, they're exactly what the PLAAF needs, a supersonic aircraft for carrying out maritime strike missions at low altitueds with anti-ship missiles.

The B-1B and the Tu-160 similar? Not really, a bit similar looking, but they are definitly not copies of each other, that I can see without being an aeronautical engineer.

vincelee said:

what's up with Americans and calling everything of copy of so and so.

Has it ever occured to you that these two have outwardly similar appearances because they were designed to fullfil similar roles?

Click to expand...

I believe the B1-A was designed to be a high flying high speed penetrator bomber. This is the same flight profile that the Tu160 uses. President Carter cancelled this project.

The B1-B was ressurected by President Reagans build up in the 1980's. Its mission profile was changed to a low level high speed penetrator.

The B-1B is a modified B-1A with major revisions in offensive avionics, defensive avionics, weapon payload, range, and speed. These modifications were made to incorporate certain technological advances that had occurred between the original B-lA contract award in 1970 and the LRCA competition in 1980. Improvements consist primarily of off-the-shelf technology such as a new radar, new generation computers, expanded ECM capabilities, reduced RCS, and avionics compatibility with the ALCM. The wing sweep is restricted to 60 which limits the maximum speed to just above supersonic. Rockwell also estimated range increases for the modified B-1.


Differences between the B-1B and its predecessor, the B-1A of the 1970s, are subtle, yet significant. Externally, only a simplified engine inlet, modified over-wing fairing and relocated pilot tubes are noticeable. Other less-evident changes include a window for the offensive and defensive systems officers' station and engine housing modifications that reduces radar exposure. The B-1B was structurally redesigned to increase its gross takeoff weight from 395,000 to 477,000 pounds (177,750 to 214,650 kilograms). Still, the empty weight of the B-1B is but 3 percent greater than that of the B-1A. This added takeoff weight capacity, in addition to a movable bulkhead between the forward and intermediate weapons bay, allows the B-1B to carry a wide variety of nuclear and conventional munitions. The most significant changes, however, are in the avionics, with low-radar cross-section, automatic terrain-following high-speed penetration, and precise weapons delivery.

Lavi said:

Okay, now I'm starting to feel stupid... Have I missed the retirement of the Tu-22M3? That was something... Anyone could give me an article with more details on that?

Well, if the Russians retire them, I think China should try to purchase them, they're exactly what the PLAAF needs, a supersonic aircraft for carrying out maritime strike missions at low altitueds with anti-ship missiles.

The B-1B and the Tu-160 similar? Not really, a bit similar looking, but they are definitly not copies of each other, that I can see without being an aeronautical engineer.

Click to expand...

the backfires retirement was in 04. the russians wanted to save the operation money for the future russian af. not much to know. but the russians dont want to waste the planes, so they completely changed their policy and began promoting the planes to china.

the americans copy/steal more than you think. the govenement actually launched a program in the sixties specificly designed to aquire and copy british, french, and soviet technology.