Bombers?

[latinoppimp]

russian black jack vs us b-52

Wich one of these bombers is superior?

[HistoricalDavid]

russian black jack vs us b-52

Wich one of these bombers is superior?

The B52, because its far better maintenance outcompetes virtually every other factor.

A better comparison, however, would be the Tu-95 vs the B-52, and the Rockwell B-1B Lancer vs the Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack.

[Unipidity]

Blackjack is a lot faster at altitude isnt it? Bigger.

[Bill]

“The first few times I experienced a B-52 attack it seemed, as I strained to press myself into the bunker floor, that I had been caught in the Apocalypse. The terror was complete. One lost control of bodily functions as the mind screamed incomprehensible orders to get out.”
~Former Viet Cong Guerilla, Truong Nhu Tang

That about says it all.

[leib10]

The two are not really comparable as they were both designed for different missions.

[hello]

B2 Spirit.

[Bluesman]

Heard a great old saying years ago:
"Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make history."

[leib10]

Heh. That's true to a certain degree. But what about fighter pilots like Erich Hartmann or Chuck Yeager?

[longcat]

I think the b 52 is better than blackjack

[avon1944]

RE: Bombers

> HistoricalDavid
> A better comparison, however, would be the Tu-95 vs the B-52
One thing that has always cause me to respect Soviet engineers is the Tu-95. Originally the B-52 was to have four turbo props, counter-rotating and, slightly swepted wings!! Boeing was in danger of defaulting on the contract when GE developed jet engines powerful enough for the B-52 to be used. The Tu-160 can also carry a heavier weaons load in its bomb bay. Now, the total weight carried is slightly in favor of the B-52 with the many iron bomb racks on the wings.
Discovery Wings did a program "Great Planes -The B-52." The designers talked about how close they came to defaulting on the contract. They approached the USAF about changing the design from turbo-props to turbo-jets, even though the B-47 was already operational with turbo-jet engines.
The Tupolev designers were able to solve the excessive vibration problems and created an enduring aircraft. The fast pace at which aircraft were being developed, the B-52 was planned to operational for only ten years before being replaced by a new bomber. That replacement bomber is still on its way fifty years later.

> the Rockwell B-1B Lancer vs the Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack
The Tu-160 was the disaster in the bomber world the same way Su-27 (T-10) was with fighter programs!! Twenty years from initial development to operational status.
The Blackjack is about twenty percent larger than the B-1B but its performance is very similar to the B-1A!


> leibstandarte10
> The two are not really comparable as they were both designed for different missions
Similar missions different eras. They were both designed to be high altitude penetrating bombers.


> SnakePlisken
> I think the b 52 is better than blackjack
That is like saying the F-8 Crusader is a better plane than the MiG.-29, no way! (Same age difference) As a penetrating bomber, survivability in a B-52 does not have a high percentage against a modern IADS. The cruise missile has greatly extended the life span of the B-52.
The Tu-160 is still the number one threat of the SNA to surface warships. Now that the Tomcat has retired, as a cruise missile carrier/bomber there is little threat. Survivability should be very high.

Adrian