Could Blackjack bombers reach USA?

Ah, ok.
For some reason I'd thought it only a bit larger than a B1.

I beleive about 25% bigger


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Yep, the B-1 is a real piece of ****...

Aww, did I hurt your feelings? I'm sorry, circa 1995 the B-1B was relatively
useless suffering from problems in its conventional munitions upgrade program
and a horrible MC rate. They have, fortunately, fixed many of the problems.

Responsible for over 10% of the DMPIs struck in OIF with less than 1% of the
sorties...

Whatever....who gave you those numbers anyway?

9.4 DMPIs struck per sortie...

So?

Went downtown Baghdad and Tikrit everyday, even in broad daylight, sometimes
with no SEAD support...

Wow!!! Really??? Uhh, you do realize nearly everyone did that right?

MC rate better than many aircraft during OIF...

Great job, first legitimate achievment you've quoted so far.

"The weapon of choice"--CAOC Director

LOL.....yeah, we've got several quotes in the BUFF world as well that we use to
pat ourselves on the back, they don't really mean much more than your MWS some
how impressive one of the *numerous* CAOC directors working the floor at PSAB.

Hope you had a good laugh back then...


Gimme a break. You take yourself (and your jet) far too seriously. In 1995
there were serious concerns about the future of the B-1B. At the time all they
could deliver were Mk-82s and CBU-87s, the latter suffering from several
problems. At the same time the Bone was capable of delivering just Mk-82s, it
was touted by someone in the Pentagon as the; "back bone of the bomber force".
Needless to say this didn't go over well in the BUFF world and having a Bone
show case an aborted takeoff right in front of visiting Russian aircrew, would
have been funny even if the anaolgy with the Blackjack hadn't been drawn.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

So I guess the Piece-of-**** scale is proportional and sliding
based on rank and seriousness of the job of the observer.


Absolutely. You've got to remember, it was Bear crews who were laughing. I
think the thing that made it a true "bonding" was that everyone realized the
similarities between BUFF crews and Bear crews. Both were flying 30+ year old
aircraft. Both were more capable than their replacements, yet took a back seat
to them, at least publically. And both crews seemed to get a feeling of lack of
respect from their own Air Force.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

but it was AF xx 027 on the fin and 1027 on the forward
fuselage.

That would have been 61027 on the tail.

It also had a red fin flash with yellow lettering that looks something
like 'Badoms' ??

Barrons. The 23rd BS is known as the "Barrons"

What I wondered was whether you had heard any feedback from these visiting
crews??

Just a 1 minute conversation. They said it was a great experience, the
Russians treated them very well, both civilian and military and that they hoped
to get back there in the future.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Ah, ok.
For some reason I'd thought it only a bit larger than a B1.

I beleive about 25% bigger

That's the number I've heard as well, 25%.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"TJ" wrote in message ...
robert arndt wrote:

3 ex-Ukrainian aircraft sold to US as satellite
launchers in 1999..

Some dodgy info there in IDMA 2002/3. It was projected but in the end this
did not take place. It should have been plainly obvious to IDMA researchers
that the sale/project did not go ahead.

TJ

My bad. IDMA does note that the status of that sale is still unclear.
I should have included that in the info provided but I was typing
fast.
Apparently, in 1999 3 ex-Ukrainian AF Tu-160s were to be sold to US
company Platforms International Corp of Mojave. In March 1999 the
Ukrainian Govt. authorised the sale of the aircraft for $20 mil to
include spares and support for use in satellite launching. The
aircraft are to remain at Priluki and be maintained and flown from
there by local crews, transitioning to customer countries for
satellite launches.
The IDMA 2002/2003 was being compiled in 2001 so at that time the
status must have been unclear.
Thanks for clearing that up. So, when was the status officially
changed to no sale?
The above information comes from "Directory of Military Aircraft of
the World" which was published in 2001. No word from that book if the
sale went through or not so I'm assuming that the order was cancelled
after IDMA 2002/2003 was published in early 2002?

Rob

Thanks for all the info and replies, guys.

I also didn't realize that there are still Blackjacks in service.

I hope they don't end up getting sold to China.



(Mike) wrote in message . com...
Remember the Soviet "Blackjack" bomber that the U.S.S.R. started to
deploy in the late 1980s?

Wasn't this plane a virtual copy of the American B-1 in many ways?

What about it's range? Could the BlackJack bomber have taken off in
the Soviet Union and bombed the United States?

Or was it closer to a medium-range bomber like the "Backfire"?

Great stories BUFDRVR and Jim Baker,
Thats what make coming back to these NG's worthwhile, the real stories
as told and remembered by the real people. Wish there were more like
that, learned a lot on this one, thanks.

On 17 Jan 2004 11:44:54 -0800, (Mike) wrote:

Remember the Soviet "Blackjack" bomber that the U.S.S.R. started to
deploy in the late 1980s?

Wasn't this plane a virtual copy of the American B-1 in many ways?

What about it's range? Could the BlackJack bomber have taken off in
the Soviet Union and bombed the United States?

Or was it closer to a medium-range bomber like the "Backfire"?

Scott Ferrin wrote in message . ..
Range, loaded on internal fuel - 7,640 miles (B-1B - 3,444 miles)
Equipped for IFR.


Those are brochure numbers for the Blackjack.

How about B1 are the cited numbers for B1 are brochure numbers
as well?

Pretty much from what I understand. The B-1 is definitely faster than
789 mph though I'd be surprised if any operational aircraft had done a
takeoff at 477,000lbs.





In the real world (at
least as far as FAI records go) the B-1 has the Blackjack beat in the
paylaod/range department.

In its department where B1 is the only one amybe. Tu160
is much bigger?much faster and longer lange.


Speed over a closed circuit of 5000 km with 30000 kg payload : 1054.21
km/h

Date of flight: 17/09/1987
Pilot: H. Brent HEDGPETH (USA)
Crew: Robert A. CHAMBERLAIN (copilot)
Course/place: Palmdale, CA (USA)

Aircraft:
Rockwell B-1B (4 General Electric F 101-GE-102, 14 700 kg each)
Registered 'S/N70'



Speed over a closed circuit of 5000 km with 30000 kg payload : 1017.80
km/h

Date of flight: 28/05/1990
Pilot: Serguei OSSIPOV (USSR)
Crew: D.N. MATVEEV (USSR)
Course/place: Podmoskovnoe Aerodrome (USSR)

Aircraft:
Tupolev Aircraft "70N-304" (Tupolev TU-160 "Blackjack") (4 Model "P",
25 000 kg each)



As you can see, with the same 30,000kg payload flown over a distance
of 5000km, the Blackjack was slower than the B-1B. Since the
Blackjack's record attempt was flown at a later date one would assume
they'd try to beat the B-1's. If they did try they failed. The
Blackjack also holds no 10,000km speed records while the B-1 does.
While this in itself doesn't say the Blackjack can't fly that far, it
doesn't exactly help it's case either.


Well nobody claims that neither Tu-160 nor B1 can go supesonic for
5000 km. But why you skipped shorter range records? Unlike B1
Tu160 can go supersonic for distances of 1000-2000 km. The later
is very important for the battle applications particualrly
to hit and escape from fighters attention:

Records:

Speed over a closed circuit of 1000 km with 30000 kg payload
Podmoskovnoe 1726.90 km/h Lev Vasilyevich KOZLOV Tu-160 15/05/1990

Speed over a closed circuit of 2000 km with 30000 kg payload
Podmoskovnoe 1678.00 km/h B.I. VEREMEY Tu-160 03/11/1989

Something which B1-B is not capable at all.

Michael



As for the Blackjack being faster, the lower speed of the B-1b was
intentional. The original B-1A reached Mach 2.22 which was faster
than the Blackjack. That speed was judged so important that pretty
much nobody cared when they gave it up. As for the Blackjack being
bigger. . .well if you think an aircraft that needs to be 27% heavier
and 83% more powerful to do an inferior job is something to brag
about. . .well, that's your business.





Anyway
do you have any doubts about the question asked
"Could Blackjack bombers reach USA?"

It probably had the range for a one way trip, but any aircraft that
can fly far enough could say the same.

Scott Ferrin wrote in message . ..


As for the Blackjack being faster, the lower speed of the B-1b was
intentional. The original B-1A reached Mach 2.22 which was faster
than the Blackjack. That speed was judged so important that pretty
much nobody cared when they gave it up. As for the Blackjack being
bigger. . .well if you think an aircraft that needs to be 27% heavier
and 83% more powerful to do an inferior job is something to brag
about. . .well, that's your business.


Just to add a few words about their inferior job. Who else can do
this inferior job in this world, but americans and russians? Nobody

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...0/123624.shtml

"... In the early morning of May 14, six Russian strategic bombers,
namely two TU-160Cs and four TU-95MCs belonging to the 37th Strategic
Aviation Army, left the Engels airbase near Saratov city and reached
the Indian Ocean five hours later. There the TU-95 fired two strategic
cruise missiles X-55 (3,000-km range, usually with a nuclear warhead),
which "precisely hit ground targets."

The Tu-160 bombers flew further and, at a 2,500-km distance, simulated
the firing of several X-55 missiles at Diego-Garcia Island. The
targets included a U.S. strategic aviation airbase, a naval base, the
command and control center of U.S. strategic submarines in the Pacific
Ocean, the U.S. electronic reconnaissance center and a nuclear warhead
storage facility.

Several hours later, the six strategic bombers returned to Engels
airbase. According to Russian Air Force Commander-in-Chief Col.-Gen.
Vladimir Mikhailov, 1) Russian strategic bombers "visited" the Indian
Ocean for the first time since 1990 and 2) the Russian top military
command has a definite interest in this region.

On May 15, TU-95 and TU-160 strategic bombers and TU-22 long-range
bombers accomplished military training over the Polar and Pacific
oceans. All the bombers had a full battle load: Each T-95 carried 6
X-55 missiles, each TU-160 12 missiles. The X-55 usually is equipped
with a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. All the bombers simulated hitting
important U.S and U.K. targets.

However, in accordance with direct orders from Putin to Russian
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, this time – in contrast with strategic
aviation maneuvers in 1999 – Russian bombers didn't approach the
borders of Norway, Iceland, Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. This was
done to provide a "friendly environment" for the visits of Secretary
of State Colin Powell to Moscow on May 16 and President Bush to
Petersburg on May 30.

During the maneuvers over the Pacific Ocean on May 15, four TU-22
long-range bombers (two from the 37th AF Army, two from the Russian
Pacific Ocean Fleet) simulated the simultaneous firing of four X-22
anti-ship missiles at the U.S. aircraft Karl Winson, which was moving
at this time from the Yokosoka base in Japan to the coast of North
Korea.

Maneuvers of Russian bombers in the airspace over the three oceans
have been supported by the Russian Northern Fleet, Pacific Fleet,
Strategic Missile Troops, Space Troops and two air force and air
defense armies.

Gen. Mikhailov claimed that a) all goals of the maneuvers were reached
and b) in July and August, the 37th Strategic Aviation Army will hold
similar large-scale maneuvers (apparently against American and British
targets), though the number of participating strategic bombers and
long-range bombers will increase two to three times.

Remarkably, on May 16, a united group of the Russian Navy, compiled
from the vessels from the Pacific Fleet and Black Sea Fleet, held
"enemy [U.S. and U.K.] aircraft groups destruction maneuvers" in the
Indian Ocean.

Concretely, the Moskva missile cruiser launched a P-500 Bazalt
anti-ship cruise missile. This missile has a 480-km radius and is
usually equipped with a 350-kiloton nuclear warhead. The Moskva
missile cruiser has eight cruise missile launchers and a store of 16
Bazalt missiles..."