If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message ... 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." You are rather desperate if you are still depending on that training exercise conducted nearly a year ago, with no "opposing force", to buttress your fragile ego, Michael. Are we supposed to be impressed that you managed to get *six whole bombers* into the air at one time? Brooks snip |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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: I skipped the shorter ranged records because the higher speed of the Blackjack was never in doubt. I was questioning warload and range which is why I quoted that particular record. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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. First off, the ability of the X-55 to fly over 1600 nm is highly debateable. Secondly, a round trip from Engels AB to a point 2,500km from Diego Garcia and back to Engels is a distance of over 6824 km (in a straight line). If there was no in flight refueling done, this mission simply did not happen. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
BUFDRVR wrote:
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" You do know of course that it is fitted with US equipment don't you ?? Have you heard of 'Carlucci's Panel' ??? g ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++ Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++ |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
robert arndt wrote:
Tupolev Tu-160 First Designated: "Aircraft 70" in direct response to B-1A, 1973 First Flight: Dec 19, 1981 Initial Order: 100 aircraft; 30 produced before line closed in 1992 Remaining Aircraft: Russia- 15, Ukraine- 19 original, 8 transferred to Russia in 99/00, 3 ex-Ukrainian aircraft sold to US as satellite launchers in 1999, rest scrapped "Satellite launchers"? Really? Is someone actually doing this, or even working on it? Just curious because it seems to me that piggy-back spacecraft on aircraft is an underexploited concept. I'm sure there are all sorts of good reasons why, but if someone is actually doing this I'd love to see pointers to articles, etc. Bill Ranck Blacksburg, Va. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Those BEAR
H that the US hosted were new build aircraft and only rolled off the production line during the 80's. Hmm, their tail numbers don't state a year like ours do, but those aircraft sure looked older than 1980's, although this may have been due to Russian maintenance than anything else. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... robert arndt wrote: Tupolev Tu-160 First Designated: "Aircraft 70" in direct response to B-1A, 1973 First Flight: Dec 19, 1981 Initial Order: 100 aircraft; 30 produced before line closed in 1992 Remaining Aircraft: Russia- 15, Ukraine- 19 original, 8 transferred to Russia in 99/00, 3 ex-Ukrainian aircraft sold to US as satellite launchers in 1999, rest scrapped "Satellite launchers"? Really? Is someone actually doing this, or even working on it? Just curious because it seems to me that piggy-back spacecraft on aircraft is an underexploited concept. I'm sure there are all sorts of good reasons why, but if someone is actually doing this I'd love to see pointers to articles, etc. I believe the Blackjack-as-launch-vehicle proposal was stillborn. But the concept is not unheard of; Orbital Science Corp had launched some 70 satellites using its Pegasus booster, first from the NASA B-52 and later from its own converted L-1011 TriStar. See: www.orbital.com/LaunchVehicle/ SpaceLaunchVehicles/Pegasus/ Brooks (Hey, how 'bout them Hokies? I see they are still able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory... g; just kidding--I spent about five years in Blacksburg after leaving active duty back in the late eighties) Bill Ranck Blacksburg, Va. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
"Satellite launchers"? Really? Is someone actually doing this, or even working on it? Just curious because it seems to me that piggy-back spacecraft on aircraft is an underexploited concept. I believe the Blackjack-as-launch-vehicle proposal was stillborn. But the concept is not unheard of; Orbital Science Corp had launched some 70 satellites using its Pegasus booster, first from the NASA B-52 and later from its own converted L-1011 TriStar. See: www.orbital.com/LaunchVehicle/ SpaceLaunchVehicles/Pegasus/ Thanks for the pointer. Looks like Orbital does manage to launch satellites on a pretty regular basis using this concept. (Hey, how 'bout them Hokies? I see they are still able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory... g; just kidding--I spent about five years in Blacksburg after leaving active duty back in the late eighties) Fortunately for me I have almost zero interest in football, or spectator sports in general, so they can win a championship or crash and burn and it's all the same to me. Well, except that the stadium is between my office and my house, so every time they decide to expand it I have to dodge construction equipment every day for months. They're adding to it again now. Sigh. Bill Ranck Blacksburg, Va. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why did Britain win the BoB? | Grantland | Military Aviation | 79 | October 15th 03 03:34 PM |
Bombers and Fighters | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 4 | September 18th 03 12:37 AM |
water bombers | Stew Hicks | Home Built | 2 | September 8th 03 11:55 PM |
F-111 bombers flying from carriers ? | Mike | Military Aviation | 38 | August 7th 03 12:19 AM |
Backfire bombers: Reach USA ? | Mike | Military Aviation | 11 | July 28th 03 11:56 AM |