B-1 vs Tu-160 Bomber

b1 bomber vs tu 160 Bomber - The b-1b is no longer able to fight inside heavily defended airspace, but the aircraft will still have a role in the high-end fight as a standoff cruise missile carrier--using weapons like the JASSM-ER and LRASM. Ironically, that means that during a high-end fight it will have a role similar to the Russian Tu-160.
The Tupolev Tu-160 is a supersonic, variable-sweep wing heavy strategic bomber designed by the Tupolev Design Bureau in the Soviet Union. It is the largest and heaviest Mach 2+ supersonic military aircraft ever built and second only to the XB-70 Valkyrie in overall length. It is the largest and heaviest combat aircraft, the fastest bomber now in use and the largest and heaviest variable-sweep wing airplane ever flown.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv
Facebook: / usmilitarynewsvideos
Instagram: / militaryvideos_
Twitter:

[@user-kl3wy2tz1g]

tu-160 is so beautiful！

[@damienamory5857]

And best

[@erectro3593]

Tu-160 is beautiful.

[@ThatCarGuy]

The B1 carries a larger payload... By quite a lot more. The TU160 payload is 40,000 kg/88,000 lb. The B1b payload is 125,000lb/57,000kg. The TU160 flight ceiling is 52,000 feet/15800 meters, the B1B is 60,000 feet/18,300 meters. The Tu160 combat range is 1200 miles/1900km the B1B has a range of about 3000 miles/4800km. The B1B has some stealth features, the TU160 has none. The only things the TU160 does better is, it's faster, quicker, and has a better rate of climb. This was the same design as the B1A which could go mach 2.3. But being under the radar horizon, radars can not physically see you at all from any nation do to physics. When you are above the radar horizon, aka flying up high, you can be seen and tracked easier since their in no curvature of the Earth. Both planes have their pros and cons.

[@sarthakasthana2464]

Honestly speaking i see this video as an attempt at undermining the tu-160, and the narrator has intentionally omitted a lot of facts and presented this in a way with an open ended answer at the end to make it seem like b1b and tu-160 are at par but then they have different roles, Tu-160m is actually far better than any other heavy bomber.

[@tnix80]

Tu160 is a masterpiece. Can't wait for pak-da

[@mcintyrec1981]

It’s like comparing a Chevy and a GMC, of course they are different 😏

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

The TU-160 compares more with the B-1A then the B model.

[@tranjavanadbia123]

So it was designed in 1975. I saw one in the sky once.

[@solargoomba]

Lies. It is still redballing

[@brianmurphy8790]

The plural of aircraft is just 'aircraft' - there is no 's'.. The plural 'crafts' is meant for 'crafts' such as carpentry, sewing, pottery etc..

[@mikestanmore2614]

Good on you, mate. It drives me wild as well.

[@Brotha00]

My bitches is plural 😁

[@sahir313]

White swan is much more appealing.

[@Ronaldo882.]

No plane in the world can match with Tu-160 . Amazing plane ✈️

[@kings3411]

Lol

[@Ronaldo882.]

@@kings3411 💩

[@DerDop]

Lol :)))))

[@jamesricker3997]

It looks like the TU-160 was designed for high altitude penetration. Not really viable in today's defense environment

[@jrod1019kw]

F-22 Pilot.....HOLD MY BEER.

[@chuckkiephan6880]

They both look the same with some minor differences

[@jamesricker3997]

Directions are good engineers but they are excellent thieves

[@seemslegit6203]

"Can i copy your homework?"

[@novemberalpha6023]

Yes.. but modify a little...

[@aaronrockefeller5077]

Yes.. but change my name...

[@josemansilha184]

Like usa copy russian tek tal 141 into the f35b vertical take off?

[@maxinfly]

Only forgot to convert feets to meters. or centimetres to inches

[@christianvelazquez3214]

Nada de Black Jack, se llama Tu 160 y su apodo es cisne blanco. Apuesto por él!

[@JG-oc9gc]

The b-1 is so beautiful!

[@tommyhunter1817]

Them Russians sure are an original bunch.

[@zafaradil3548]

Can I order few of them???????on amazon ! ! !

[@grigorykudryaschov6641]

Ту 160 появился как продолжение Ту 22, который принят на вооружение ещё в1962 году.

[@user-ox3bp4rz3n]

Don't be silly. Do you understand that Turkish drones are not a threat to Russia? We have the best air defense systems in the world and electronic warfare and suppression systems. They will burn all the electronics in your drones and command centers, block communication channels, and so on. These drones can be strong against Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Greece, Africa, Syria, and so on.. but not against Russia.

[@Armoredarthur]

03:40 I've seen this in many other Russian planes and helicopters, why do they have mini fans? Do the planes don't have air conditioning?

[@vasopel]

you answered your own question ;-)

[@user-td9pk7bz6k]

飛行機としては、到達点に近いと思うが、カッコいい👍

[@wandrinyew]

Do you know how to break up a Syrian bingo game? Call "B-52".

[@Ronaldo882.]

tu-160 is stronger faster then b52 ,

[@marcosburgos8415]

@@Ronaldo882. Its a joke about a game called bingo where you call a lettered and numbered spot.

[@rhubarbpie2027]

@@Ronaldo882. The B52 will soon have a service life of nearly 75 years, and will likely see 100 years due to improvements and modularity.

[@Ronaldo882.]

@@rhubarbpie2027 maybe yes , but tu-160 has entered the service 1987, so is pretty new compere to b-52!

[@Ronaldo882.]

@@markeikenberry2585 i can see u don’t know much about those plane’s , Number built 36 (9 test and 27 serial) , but when USSR broke, some were left in Ukraine 🇺🇦 and the west told Ukraine to destroy them , so what Russia did they bought some and some were destroyed. So this is it, but those plane are great but they were built for nuks which is sad but i can understand Russian people they had to protect there country .

[@keithwhisman]

A lot of that cockpit is 1970s and 1980s technology. The Soviets were a lot like the US in using older electronics to keep prices down hence the modernization program.

[@julianonascimento1225]

B1 ✈️😍

[@anonimusanonimus5691]

RUSSIA - 💪😎👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@ChrisIm6191]

no matter how the spec is and just looking at how it looks Tu-160 seem better due to sharper look and like how the air in-take look like.

[@markeikenberry2585]

So you rate something based on looks? Ok.

[@ChrisIm6191]

@@markeikenberry2585 not alway based on look. just this time since they look amlost identical

[@markeikenberry2585]

@@ChrisIm6191 and the B1 flew 7 years earlier. Bomber efficiency is not a beauty contest.

[@ChrisIm6191]

@@markeikenberry2585 Ik so outside of the specs I just rate how it look. Did u even read my commnets???

[@markeikenberry2585]

@@ChrisIm6191 yes...you basically said you like it better. No way to rate the efficiency of a bomber.

[@the.colonel2287]

Basing on what your saying the time-160 has an upper hand against the the B-1 in the combat

[@tyronewalker5764]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,

[@Hirn_und_Herz]

Who copied who? There're two aircrafts COMPLETELY DIFFERENT EACH OTHER.

[@thatguynk8044]

@@Hirn_und_Herz AND UTTERLY

[@Aarielle111]

It isn't just imitation or flattery...the idea and other info on the B-1 was stolen by Soviet spies.

[@markeikenberry2585]

@@Hirn_und_Herz Why they look nothing alike. Just like the Tu-4 does not look like the B-29.

[@lancelotkillz]

Tu 144 vs the concord

[@corey8420]

So..a repeat of the most basic concept and performance of each jet. But little about the specifics of what is different between each jet..poor video

[@defencebangladesh4068]

yeah

[@stanislavkogan]

Well... Not quite: you just have to listen carefully. the video clearly shows that Tu-160 has roughly the same role as the original, CANCELLED B-1. A very typical manifestation of the late USSR cargo cult of "catching up to the bloody Yanks".

[@josemansilha184]

In fact they have only a similar Shape. The tu is larger, can carry Nukes, carry more bombs, is Faster, reach a larger distancie, climb at a Higher altitude. B1 is a smal bomber

[@ThatCarGuy]

The B1B is not a small bomber... Is it smaller then the TU160? Yes. The B1 carries a larger payload... By quite a lot more. The TU160 payload is 40,000 kg/88,000 lb. The B1b payload is 125,000lb/57,000kg. The TU160 flight ceiling is 52,000 feet/15800 meters, the B1B is 60,000 feet/18,300 meters. The Tu160 combat range is 1200 miles/1900km the B1B has a range of about 3000 miles/4800km. The B1B has some stealth features, the TU160 has none. The only things the TU160 does better is, it's faster, quicker, and has a better rate of climb. This was the same design as the B1A which could go mach 2.3. But being under the radar horizon, radars can not physically see you at all from any nation do to physics. When you are above the radar horizon, aka flying up high, you can be seen and tracked easier since their in no curvature of the Earth. Both planes have their pros and cons, but you statement was just wrong.

[@pookatim]

The TU-160 is a very large, heavy, fast aircraft. The question is, what is the range? It takes a lot of fuel to fly a plane that heavy at high speeds. It takes a lot of fuel to climb to high altitude. That is the real issue. How heavily does it rely on mid-air refueling?

[@josemansilha184]

12.000 km the same as b1

[@jamesricker3997]

Those are the official figures So the TU-160 is probably slightly less while the B-1 is probably more

[@josemansilha184]

@@jamesricker3997 actualy B1 is 11999km and tu160 is 12300km

[@josemansilha184]

@@jamesricker3997 in fact tu-160 is larger, Faster, reach Higher altitude, reach a slitly long distância, carry more wepons( including nuclear) than b-1. This planes are wrongly compared because of its chape. But tu-160 is the largest tactical bomber in the world even biger than b51. B1 is more a very large Fighter with bombing rolle

[@firma_quia_verum]

5:03 during WW3??

[@vukashin88]

Yup, you think all this weaponry was just made for shirts and giggles?

[@d12jja]

💪

[@adilsonalves3909]

Era muito bom o CONCORD ... Pena que fizeram tudo aquilo com ele e quem tava nele ,mas tá aí as cópias

[@TheDenssdd]

"White Swan" - so called in Russia Tu-160

[@thomasfx3190]

The plural of “aircraft” is aircraft, not aircrafts.

[@divo_n1437]

I noticed that rucians are doing the same thing that Japan did back in the days construct big and a few units with a big fire power and U.S the same thing since it was funded construct big and thousands of units.

[@Bebasaktif7099]

More batter with peace 😁😁

[@tylerleavitt7383]

One thing the eastern hemisphere does well it’s copying western designs.

[@goodday381]

Facts

[@josemansilha184]

Like usa copy russian tek yak 141 into the f35b vertical take off?

[@hunguyen1402]

However they strong and faster they can't get away from missile systems

[@BaljinderSingh-xy4ik]

It's like a big eagle

[@yaseengabbany827]

The tu-160 is the largest than and faster than b-1b

[@chrome505]

That's what happens when you steal blueprints, just as with the Space Shuttle.

[@CarlJones14]

They don't need to steel them, they are leaked or even given away. This how the US defence companies demand more money... oh, look what the Russians have built.😂

[@magburner]

The Russian Space shuttle, Buran was more advanced that the American Space shuttle. It also shared very little in common, other than the colour and the shape. For a start Buran had no engines other than thrusters, and the system for delivering it in to space was completely different too. Buran was designed to be completely autonomous, capable of unmanned takeoff, flight in space and then return back to earth. Buran's one and only flight into space and back again, was unmanned.

[@chrome505]

@@magburner And how many missions did it accomplish.....zero. Russian propaganda at its finest. Here, a better product that you must believe us when we say it's superior. Bullshit.

[@markeikenberry2585]

@@CarlJones14 Leaking? You are thinking of Congress.

[@markeikenberry2585]

@@magburner More advanced based on its successful missions or just the propaganda?

[@nowheelspin]

You keep saying that it was designed by tupolev, it's more like they copied!

[@eyeofterra]

It's better than the original & they didn't gave blueprints or the place itself so they designed it. They did steal some of the fundamental design I knowledge that. But saying it was copied isn't right.

[@goodday381]

Im shocked did you say its better than yhe original

[@eyeofterra]

B1 design was partially copied, but Americans stole a lot of technology from Germans.

[@josemansilha184]

Like usa copy russian tech into the f35b vertical take off?

[@goodday381]

No Russia copy Harrier from Britain

[@akborealisdevstringerdesig3845]

Easy. One is the original, made first and the other is a copy. The original can bomb with ultra precision, carries advanced sensors and powerful radar. The other carries none of these systems.

[@Schaneification]

Tu - 160 looks like a B-1 built 10 years later

[@jimmysavile69]

Tu-160 is a Concorde with nukes

[@jamesricker3997]

Always take it with a grain of salt Traditionally the Russians exaggerate the performance of their aircraft while the Americans official listed figures are usually less than their aircraft's actual performance

[@jimmysavile69]

@@jamesricker3997 yeah

[@markeikenberry2585]

@Ajay Singh Except its Russian. Like the Russians have done so many times....copy what others do so they do not need to learn on their own. Just a modified B-1.

[@ilmol3829]

@@markeikenberry2585 В1 ≠ Ту160 В1 = Ту22м

[@gopu.liverpool]

It will.. it will use for peaceful purposes 🏃

[@kerryberger985]

I bet the TU-160 doesn’t cost $1.0 Billion per plane like the over-priced B1 Bomber. Time for the US to form an independent Auditing Body to force sanity and reality on the Defense Department spending on war materiel and equipment including all new air defense and naval systems.

[@user-mj2vq1zi1x]

$250 000 000 to $600 000 000 (Ту-160М2)

[@swampheights]

Знать бы о чём он речь ведёт?)

[@KatiePhongh]

Both are incredibly expensive compromises that can never and have never been able to fill the roles they were originally designed for.

[@useryggfdcc]

You are wrong. They will be used at least the Russian T160. "The Great Whore Babylon will be destroyed in one hour. " Revelation 18:1-10 That Whore is the USA.

[@hunguyen1402]

The blue fire come out in the back tu 160 more stronger than the red fire come out in the back airline

[@indrasoebagjo]

The tu160 ia beautiful but it seems they produce more air pollution.

[@steffennilsen2132]

I dont think reduced emissions was the primary design goal of either of these machines

[@blogface100]

We the people already paid for this weapons system so why the ads because of greed ?

[@juanjosestanleymorgan.8621]

Son similares Pero no iguales.

[@user-py2ik5ho9n]

White swan and Black swan are the best

[@shintot970]

the tu has a electricfan

[@novemberalpha6023]

Turbofans

[@kimeli]

so who copy who?

[@markeikenberry2585]

B-1 first flown in 74. Tu-160 first flown in 81. You do the math.

[@markeikenberry2585]

@Somarik Green If you think the Russians needed 7 more years of development… you kind of proved the point . It was a mess. Clearly you do not understand product development. For Rockwell to have copied a plane that flew 7 years after their prototype… that's Einstein magic

[@goodday381]

Russia copy obviously

[@warthogdicker4438]

5:05 “during ww3” 😂😂😂 if it were to happen you wouldn’t be able to upload this video

[@mdnormatnor5226]

B 1 vs Tu 160 vs humans

[@vk_o2540]

"So in fact, it's not a question if the B1B or TU-160 is better ... " .... :D nah mate, it is a QUESTIONI!!! TU-160 IS BETTER. Period.

[@Whiskey4myHoz]

Period? Ya you must be on yours. Combat record fool. That's what determines the better of the two.

[@markeikenberry2585]

Why only 17 built if so great?

[@EpicMind500]

Avengers soundtrack

[@richardalvarado3759]

El que entendió, ENTENDIÓ.

[@panhuys1893]

If these planes look alike, then a Chevy looks alike a rolls roys

[@Caderic]

Compared to an 18-wheeler or SUV, a Chevy does look like a Rolls.

[@TPWW3CAP]

@ G map tag's

[@Nishtawa]

Big time click bait

[@anonimusanonimus5691]

TU - 160 💪😎👍👍👍👍😉. B-1 - 👎👎👎👎👎👎👎

[@mohsen3415]

The jok, B1 is nothing för TU160....bygest,fastes, havys mm....

[@markeikenberry2585]

What?

[@ilmol3829]

@@markeikenberry2585 B1≠Ту160 B1=Ту22м3

[@grzegorzr4185]

Tu 160 lepszy.

[@gudmorning2871]

For the planes is it very necessary to have a wing, without the wing cannot it fly or what ?, coz I saw many ufo it doesn't need those wings...

[@AnilKumar-rj4gj]

ANIL KUMAR MILITARY AIRCRAFT MISSILES 26 BOMS BOMBER WHITE SINGL SIT BOY FALLING 1 MISSSILE AAY

[@user-dellshp]

ロシア絶対にコピーしたやろ。

[@TPWW3CAP]

Aum yamakanta khatuneers I naka bum dorji boi drap l Aum mane padme hum l Aum hiri shirthi vikrantans hum phat l HURRAH★/_\∆

[@exray99x19]

I believe it's "swept wing" not "sweept wing". And also "B-52 Stratofortresses" not "B-52 Stradlefortess", which made laugh a bit. I cringe everytime they "sweept wing". And because the nature of the video, which comparing two swept wing supersonic bombers, I cringe alot. Not even a minute in and now there will he alot of cringe.

[@charlesmugambi2932]

Even a 3 year old can tell the Americans that their so called b1 doesn't compare to the Tu 160 . Did I hear over mach 2.05 for Tu 160 and a b1 that cannot manage mach 1.5! The west must admit to the superiority of Russian bombers, fighter jets and overall weaponry.

[@jojopadamattumel826]

Tu 160 is a an angel, B1 is, it's shit.

[@jericho7320]

B1 :))

[@arslanansari1915]

Tu 160 win this comparison

[@Mrs.Kevinruiz]

Lmao B1 is the best plane in the world dont you know???

[@Mrs.Kevinruiz]

BI can carry the Nuclear weapons

[@Daniel-jg8ff]

@@Mrs.Kevinruiz And the Tu160 cant? lol..

[@YolooHuu]

Tu-160 is far superior...

[@markeikenberry2585]

So they only needed 17 of them?

[@jrod1019kw]

F-22 pilot....HOLD MY BEER.

[@sarthakasthana2464]

@@markeikenberry2585 where Soviets lacked were funds. They just didn't had the money to build more technologically speaking Tu-160m is better than b1b,

[@theylied1776]

Russia and China have a policy of not doing any R&D, stealing American technology, and back engineering our military equipment. Their only roadblock to back engineering our equipment now are the advanced processors, motherboards, and chips that are exclusively made for U.S. and British military contractors. We could give Russia and China the schematics to the F-22 and F-35 and they couldn't build one in 20-years, not without the advanced computer components needed.

[@xsoireg]

Why would Russia copy the 22 or 35? useless planes compared to the Sukhois

[@theylied1776]

@@xsoireg Because Russia does not believe in research and development. Like China, they prefer to steal designs and Tech from Western countries. Why do you think both China and Russia are still having engine problems with the SU-57 and the J-20? They're both having a problem matching the F-35 when it comes to achieving supercruise speeds without afterburners. Both China and Russia are still using the engines from an SU-35 for their so-called fifth generation Fighters.

[@tnix80]

@@theylied1776 lmao how did they copy our non existent hypersonic missiles? The i30 is superior to the f22 Pratt and Whitney in every way. Because they took the time to develop it right. What a fool, trying to have it both ways.

[@theylied1776]

@@tnix80 WTF? When did I claim all of their technology was copied from our Weapons systems? Is English a second language? There are two things that Russia does very well, Rockets and Launch Platforms. Other than that, their technology is pretty much shit.

[@user-no9eg5ho5c]

@@theylied1776 Well, Russia is also very good at making planes, medicines, vaccines, and in General any weapons that the US is not even able to produce, let alone invent. In the 90 years of the last century, American experts openly exported drawings and ready-made weapons from Russia. But they have not yet been able to produce more than one active combat laser, and the Russians have it ( Peresvet) they say they never could create hypersonic missiles, but the Russians have them. The only thing that the Americans were able to repeat and even then they did it badly was the Soviet concept of a multi-target stealth aircraft with a vertical take-off of the YAK 141, but it turned out to be a clumsy fake of the f-35B. And another interesting fact is that the Tu 160 fuselage is made of forged titanium, but this fuselage is not riveted like all aircraft, it is welded. In the US, there is not even a technology for industrial welding of titanium. I can give you thousands of examples of Americans stealing and appropriating inventions, discoveries, and technologies. But I think you can read and use the Internet, so I think it will not be difficult for you to search for articles on this topic yourself, especially since these are open sources. But for some reason the Anglo-Saxons do not pay attention to them and continue to repeat as a mantra that everything that the Russians have they stole from the Americans.

[@jinenjoyer]

B-1sky

[@existentialvoid]

You keep saying they are different... but the similarities are hard to ignore.

[@YMTYMY]

The differences is . one is black and the other white and one carry Russians the other Americans.

[@user-yu6gr2dv4d]

Один к одному, американцы расслабились и российские шпионы скупали чертежи и документацию на всё что толь ко можно было купить. А сейчас уже гораздо труднее, потому и с,, новыми,, разработками стало труднее, красть некак. Вот и все дела. Если РФ окружить железным занавесом и не дать им шуровать по миру через двадцать лет они останутся в каменном веке, как мир этого не понимает. Я бы это сделал ещё в двадцать лет назад. Аминь.

[@ilmol3829]

Бред сивой кобылы. В1 не одноклассник Ту160, его надо сравнивать с Ту22м. А тут уже совершенно другой расклад.

[@RibachokRibachok]

Мечты глупого морекопателя! Он бы сделал. Делалка ещё не выросла. Глупышенок.

[@gumby442]

Wow. That was boring.

[@alexmorfi8321]

Rush’s just copy ,

[@jamesaddison81]

The soviets did come up with some interesting designs, I really don’t know where they got the ideas from!

[@hypehype6632]

I can't believe no one saying America stole or copied the plane from Russia

[@RK-ow2dn]

America copy Russian YAK-141 and modified into F-35

[@steffennilsen2132]

@@RK-ow2dn Lockheed bought test data from the YAK-141, they had a testbed aircraft of their own during the cold war that operated similarly

[@richpocamoco5994]

B-1 👍👍👍

[@buellboy007]

B1b all day far superior in every way

[@christopherbentley5446]

Still didn't help...in defeating...the goat herders... the Taliban...

[@mikem4259]

Lol! It’s funny reading these posts. The tu “is beautiful”, the “tu is superior”. Haha, no it’s not. It’s a pos. The design is a copy, and a hideous looking one at that. Sorry guys, you aren’t “telling it like it is”, or “taking us down a notch”, or putting us in our place. But you get points for trying.

[@josemansilha184]

In fact they have only a similar Suape. The tu ia larger, can carry Nunes, carry more bombs, is Faster, reach a larger distancie, climb até a Higher altitude. B1 is a smal bomber

[@josemansilha184]

Like usa copy russian tek tal 141 into the f35b vertical take off?

[@doubleaught7540]

What a great copy...

[@MeanLaQueefa]

B1 and Valkyrie are better

[@chrisalan1187]

Russia easily copied the Rockwell design

[@Schlipperschlopper]

B1 outdated and slow junk!

[@Daniel-jg8ff]

@Hammerschlägen M They have 17 flying from the 6950th Guards Air Base Engels-2 airbase and from 121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment. Another 10 Tu160M2 is on order and will be delivered by 2027

[@Daniel-jg8ff]

@Hammerschlägen M The Contact were Signed in 2018

[@jamesricker3997]

The B-1 was made for high-speed low-level penetration and it's avionics have been upgraded over the years

[@fakshen1973]

Compared to what?

[@markeikenberry2585]

Defend please.

[@jackcarver8234]

Concorde

[@cadengrace5466]

The only problem with the Tu-160 is the wings have a tendency to rip off at mach+ speeds.

[@Ronaldo882.]

No cos they folding when he goes fast 💨

[@cadengrace5466]

@@Ronaldo882. Yes, you moron. I understand they are swing wings. That system is extremely complex to maintain and only the US ever pulled it off and they had years of teething problems before they got it right in the FB-111, F-14 and B-1. The Soviets were never able to get it to work and soon after a plane left the factory and went through its first maintenance cycle the wings would have a malfunction. Most of the time they just jammed, but sometimes they came off.

[@bestamerica]

' in american Rockwell B-1 Lancer is a leader much better than pooor ussr russia cheat low classic tupolev-160 Blackjack swan / white swan... ' american was first made Rockwell B-1 Lancer in 1970... pooor ussr russia did cheap cheat copy steal to made Tupolev-160 Blackjack / white swan made in 1986 from american B-1... ' Rockwell B-1 Lancer vs Tupolev-160 Blackjack| Which of the two are Better ?... ' number one american B-1 lancer is a much best leader airplane bomber than last pooor ussr russia cheap cheat copy steal to made tu-160 from american first made B-1 lancer

[@nesseihtgnay9419]

the soviet copied the lancers look

[@tomkjr1]

Soviets copy EVERYTHING.

[@MH-df6zx]

I don't think it goes like that. If you want a plane to fly in a certain way you're gonna end up with the same shape, be it in Russia or US,physics and aerodynamics are the same.

[@RR-ty6zz]

Russia please stop using car paint on your planes

[@kingofthekings7819]

No, in fact, they are smart enough to know that strategic bombers do not need camouflage because their targets are hundreds of miles away, so they are far from interceptor fighters and air defense systems.

[@eitaferrou1453]

Ctrl C Ctrl V ha ha