A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Could Blackjack bombers reach USA?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old January 19th 04, 03:25 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 19th 04, 03:51 PM
Scott Ferrin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old January 19th 04, 04:01 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 19th 04, 05:55 PM
Ken Duffey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 19th 04, 10:24 PM
TJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Anyway
do you have any doubts about the question asked
"Could Blackjack bombers reach USA?"


Perhaps, but only a very few. Their mission capable rates were as low as 25%,
and that was in 1995.

I've told this story before, but its a good one and still makes me chuckle. In
1995 Barksdale AFB was host to two Russian Bear Bombers (Tu-95), their crews
and leadership. On the second day of their visit, several BUFF and Bear crews
were out on the flightline exchanging tours of their respective aircraft. A
B-1B from Dyess had weather diverted into Barksdale the previous night and as
the BUFF and Bear crews were doing their exterior tour of the Bear, the B-1B
attempted to leave and head back to Dyess. Due to the tremendous noise the B-1
created as it took off, all conversation, both Russian and translated English
stopped and everyone diverted their attention to the B-1 taking off. As the
B-1 got halfway down the runway, and almost directly in front of the Bears, a
puff of white smoke appeared and the throttles were brought back to idle.
Everyone continued to watch as the B-1 taxied to the end of the runway where it
was joined by emergency response vehicles. As the B-1 made the turn off the
runway, hydraulic fluid could be seen, literally, pouring out from underneath
the aircraft. The B-1 stopped, the entry hatch opened and the crew performed an
emergency egress. With the noise now gone, both BUFF and Bear crews returned
their attention to the exterior of the Bear. Before the tour could resume, one
of the Bear crewmembers looked at the others and uttered something in Russian
which made the rest of the Bear crewmembers burst out in laughter. When a BUFF
squadron commander asked what the joke was, the translator looked afraid to
answer. Just then in pretty good English, one of the Bear crewmembers pointed
to the B-1B, now in the hammerhead and surrounded by emergency vehicles and
said; "Just like Tu-160....piece of ****". At that, all the BUFF crews began to
roar with laughter, which made the Bear crews, and their concerned translator,
more relaxed and they began to laugh out loud again. It was truely a moment of
international bonding, crews of bombers built in the 1960s having a laugh at
the expense of their newer "replacement aircraft". Any way, when asked about
the Tu-160's mission capable rate, a rather gruff Russian Colonel said less
than 1 in 4 is flyable at any given time.


BUFDRVR

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


Nice story BUFDRVR, thanks for posting it again. Just one point. Those BEAR
H that the US hosted were new build aircraft and only rolled off the
production line during the 80's. They could even have been only a few years
old as the last BEAR H rolled off the production line in the early
90's! (1991/92 IIRC)

TJ
  #36  
Old January 20th 04, 12:12 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 20th 04, 01:53 AM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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"
  #39  
Old January 20th 04, 02:46 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old January 20th 04, 05:49 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.