B1b Lancer Vs Tu-160 Blackjack - Which Is Better

[@WorshipinIdols]

Meanwhile in reality…the Tu-160 has vastly superior range then the b-1 (without mid-air refueling). The max range of the Tu-160 is above 14,000 kilometers while carrying 6 Kh-55 long range heavy anti-ship missiles. B-1 has a max empty range of 12,000 kilometers without payload, and that includes at least 1 maybe 2 of its bomb bays having fuel bladders installed in them instead of bomb bays.

[@classonbread5757]

Of course, It is built for the US who have the capability to aerially refuel anywhere in the world. Also the Tu-160 has less payload.

[@joefish4466]

Meanwhile in reality, there are maybe a dozen or so "operational" Tu-160M. But much like the famed Su-57, Russia does not have pilots brave enough or stupid enough to fly these antiques. When Russia does find a few sober pilots, they can only send of 1 or 2 Tu-160Ms on mission, because they have no missiles or fuel. Because Russia is short on cash, the few operational Tu-160Ms are worth more if sold (maybe to India), so they are limiting flight hours and using the really old Tu-95. Russia is truly a laughing stock. Russia is your drunk meth addicted uncle, living in a van down by the river.

[@Ieo9017]

Easy to do when your design philosophy is “Steal what the Americans are doing and make it 25% bigger and faster with about 1/2 the fuel efficiency”.

[@boddaboom77]

Of course, but all longe range bombing mission doctrine of the US include in-air refueling. That's just the way it is because the Air Force have gotten really, really good at it and it is just second nature now. I'd really be interested in how long they could keep an aircraft Airborne with a couple, or several, shifts of crews on a single long range bomber. Theoretically, they could keep them up until the crews gave out, right?

[@noname-nd8ec]

Also both have sweep wings not just the B1, the TU 160 carries 100,000 not 88,000 and biggest fact TU 160 is mostly titanium which is why it is lighter, faster and has a longer range.

[@udontknowme7798]

It all depends on who you ask. But I am nautral, and would say Tu-160M2 is a much better bomber

[@randybobandy9828]

No

[@xitrou]

Yes

[@ironmantooltime]

Maybe

[@ПетрПетрович777]

@@randybobandy9828 ТУ 160 быстрее, грузоподъёмность больше, он может летать на более дальние расстояния, ТУ 160 не смогут догнать большинство сверхсовременных западных "перехватчиков". Так в чём же американский аналог лучше? Тем что он дороже? Вся дорогая техника НАТО продемонстрировала на украине - что она хлам, когда дело доходит до реальных боевых действий.

[@wreckincrew2714]

I don't know where you get your info but the B1 was never designed nor built as a "subsonic" bomber. The coke bottle shape of the aircraft's fuselage is designed specifically for supersonic flight. It in its B1-B model they actually increased it's very low altitude speed to 0.96 mach due to it being used in conjunction with "map of the earth" tech used to fly below radars hugging the ground while hauling ass. But at high altitudes it is still capable of mach 2+. With 60,000+ lbs of payload.

[@rael5469]

WC, I think the top speed of the B-1 is now Mach 1 point something, due to the shape of the inlets. The inlets are different than the B-1a. And it is called "nap of the Earth" flying at low level. Like the nap of a carpet. You are correct though that it was never meant to be subsonic.

[@ExUSSailor]

I think they may be confusing it's mission, with it's actual capability. After the S.T.A.R.T. treaties, it's nuclear armament capability was removed, and, it's primary mission was changed from a supersonic, nuclear armed penetrator, to a subsonic conventional bomber.

[@WorshipinIdols]

@@rael5469 you are correct, for some reason KZbin won’t let me edit my original post. What I meant to say was The B1 was designed to be a Mach 2 high altitude bomber. In the B1-B version it’s high altitude performance (and speed) was sacrificed for low-altitude performance and “nap-of-the-earth”(thanks for the correction) flight capability. New top speed dropped to Mach 1.2.

[@rael5469]

@@WorshipinIdols It was always meant to have high speed in the low level environment. The XB-70 was meant to be high altitude. But the B-1 was always meant to be a low level penetrator in both the A and B models. Reading about the differences, I see that the fixed intakes of the B-1b help reduce it's radar cross section while allowing the B-1b to go faster than the B-1a at low level, but slower at high level. Plus they reduced weight by redesigning the structure for slower speed. The structure of the B-1a needed to be stronger to fly faster. It's all very interesting.

[@ironmantooltime]

The B1B cannot fly at mach 2. The B1A could but never made it into production. The B1B materials and engines will not support mach 2 flight.

[@standtallvets5386]

I worked on the first B1A flight test program at Edwards Air Force Base. Both aircraft were Mach 2 plus with terrain following radar at that ground level speed back in those days. Which also meant that no one could hear it, see it, or even know it was coming. We all found that out on a crystal clear day on a fly by. The problem with going into production on those, was you can't just get pilots like those flight test pilots were. Not even close. Long story on the dedication of those guys. So the production B1Bs, which we all went to Palmdale to help them build the first one, came with much slower engines, and relied on a new stealth paint and higher altitude. A good bomber for what it was made to do. I think the Russians did a good job on the TU-160 too which is similar.

[@borntoclimb7116]

Both planes have they goals. Nice work.

[@Mrminecraft7687]

tu160 is faster longer range more load while the b1 is better in avionics

[@OZ88]

crap

[@Chris1982416]

The B1 was not used in Desert Storm. It was placed on nuclear alert while the B52 participated in Desert Storm.

[@erichammond9308]

Incorrect. Both the B-52 and B-1B Lancer flew combat missions during Desert Storm.

[@Chris1982416]

@@erichammond9308 no the B1 was on nuclear standby look it up

[@Peizxcv]

One is a slicker B-52. The other is a supersonic strategic bomber

[@Roboticpycotic]

Uhhh ok 😅. Exacpt it looks completely different from b52

[@classonbread5757]

​@@Roboticpycoticit's not about looks, it's about capabilities.

[@ironmantooltime]

Both are supersonic strategic bombers. The blackjack is bigger and has a higher top speed.

[@Hyposonic]

And this year's dumbest comment award goes to...@Peichen01. Congratulations!

[@Peizxcv]

@@Hyposonic You must have not followed the White House

[@prolordjozbal_jb3431]

Literally different planes with different roles

[@陳彥伯-y6t]

02:36 Is the TU-95 or the Tu-160?

[@jazz.560]

The one on the bottom is the TU 95

[@Ieo9017]

Soviet military design philosophy was basically “Copy what the Americans did, but make it 25% bigger and 15% faster at the cost of anything at all resembling fuel “efficiency”.

[@bijayamohanta1000]

no

[@onesmuskisonde141]

You can't ascertain your allegations

[@jimmcnair5843]

The 160 was years before the lancer, get your facts straight you Jamoke

[@alexanderleach3365]

THe BONE is completely awesome.

[@IDrone-zk2lt]

A competition specifically designed by the military industrial complex, worldwide.

[@theowootton6143]

Plus it has 3 bomb bays 2 with rotary dispensers and the last one with a towed decoy for electronic warfare

[@drawingdead9025]

In no way are these 2 aircraft similar in electronics. We have videos of Russian pilots using Garmin off the shelf GPS receivers in the cockpit.

[@KlodianHysi]

Is that why cnn breaking news “ every time black jack lands in south america ! It always makes news . Haters will say anything msnbc tells em.🎉😂

that was Wagners not russian air force

[@theowootton6143]

Don’t know really what is better but the b1 kicks ass and takes names just ask any republican guard veteran from the gulf war they surrendered to it after it just flew over them it’s really load and 700 miles an hour at 200 ft are less you don’t get a very good look at it either both are different aircraft engineered differently low altitude interdiction at high speed b1 high altitude high speed would be the other aircraft sitting duck for a2a weapons I would take my chances in the Rockwell aircraft

[@Artem-go4ub]

США никогда не воевала с равным соперником.

[@ronykhan8126]

Cool planes!

[@cherrypoptart2001]

I believe the Tu-160 is the superior platform but the technology of the US and shared allies will keep the B1B relevant much longer than what Russia can do

[@everrybody]

the B1 is built to not get shot down. the Tu-160 wont even enter Ukraine for a reason. (Supersonic flight is still slower then hypersonic AA missles)

[@Artem-go4ub]

@@everrybody ТУ-160 не обязательно входить в воздушное пространство противника, стратегический бомбардировщик, на то и стратегический, что бы наносить удары за тысячи км) B -1 ни в каких серьезных войнах не участвовал, а ТУ-160 хорошо уничтожает американские зенитные установки в Киеве🤣 Теперь я понимаю какие у вас специалисты в обл стратегической авиации , бездари. B-1 никогда не войдет в воздушное пространство России, его собьют над океаном, как и всю разрекламированную авиацию США🤣

[@Iloveyourmom8888]

@@everrybodycrap the problem is those things are very far away from the frontlines.

[@davidstower8754]

In my view in order to compare these two machines logically, you need to set a common denominator namely a common a war theater. I don’t in this discussion one can comprehensively do an informed comparison period 😊

[@jeromeshirima2053]

Why didn’t u tell us about the total speed of TU 160 you have to balance your comparison

[@hasithakumarasiri8343]

Ironi is names operations B1B used

[@odinbiflindi]

TU160 whiteswan.

[@MrPathanoo]

It is absolutely INCORECT to call TU 160 the most advanced Bomber technically. It's a good plane but it is a generation behind in controls. Look at it's cockpit. It does'nt even have a Glas Cocpit. It's a generation behind.

[@waheex]

well one benefits from 850 billion and rising budget and one from a 69 and falling budget. I think the former is the one I would want to fly in

[@arthas640]

yeah it's a pretty simple choice as to which is better. 1 belongs to a country that feeds its soldiers expired rations and has to scavenge electronics from stolen appliances, the other belongs to the worlds top military, one belongs to the worlds leading pioneer in aeronautics for the last century, the other belongs to a country that hasnt innovated much in the last 40+ years and is resorting to using tanks built in the 60s. Ukraine has a rather anemic air force and doesnt have great air defenses but Russia cant even establish air superiority over the front lines and has to pick safe air missions and that doesnt speak well to their air force in general, the US meanwhile has been known to carry out air missions from the US to Iraq non-stop and it's widely believed that they can reach just about anywhere in the globe at a moments notice with Russian and Chinese air space being the only major possible exceptions (although they DID used to fly constant spy plane missions across both for decades until spy satelites took over that role).

[@MrKasugano]

@@arthas640 If you would just read OSINT about the conflict in UA zone you would know what type and how many AA Ukraine actually has on the ground for hunting RAF assets. Even KA-52 has been damaged from surprise attacks out of nowhere in its missions. And you writing about 20+ sponsor nations behind UA vs 1 RU that demilitarized all the donated assets by adapting to it. The equation is simple - one is making stuff to accomplish missions in conflicts by superpowers and the other is to sell its beautiful goods to playtest them in proxies.

[@cliff311976]

​@@arthas640Taliban says Hi to the pioneers in aviation and technology .. No 1 air force in the world? 😅😅😅 Wasting trillions in Planes which are used only as a prop in Hollyweird. As for the UKRAINE war. Russia could obliterate Ukraine in days.. But Russians are not the Warmongers like Americans , nuking civilians just to prove a point Nuk

[@mauricep6924]

Wait?? The BONE isn't supersonic??

[@simonworthington-eyre3525]

It can only travel supersonic for short bursts, generally it cruises at subsonic speeds. The TU160 can however supercruise at supersonic speeds!!

[@TriPham-yo7we]

No one use regular bomb any more because of AA capability by LSRAM now make bomer very good option because with 150 miles range no AA can have in real battle bomber with LSRAM and tomahawk can challenge all mitary sea , air , land

[@noelbeckford677]

The tu 160 is a swept Wing aircraft

[@ftboomer1]

Both are awesome but the Russian weapons are vastly superior to US ones.

[@jebediahgentry7029]

😂😂

[@AB-ez4rm]

As they are clearly showing in Ukraine

[@thomasgonzales.5304]

As clearly shown in Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom (main invasion) and currently in Ukraine.😂

[@ftboomer1]

@@thomasgonzales.5304Air launched weapons from these aircraft vastly favors the Russians and, yes, you can see this in Ukraine today.

[@thomasgonzales.5304]

So... If this is so, I'm struggling to understand why air superiority hasn't been obtained yet. Seems like the USA always obtains air superiority on day 1 and Air Supremacy in the following weeks. That's what I've seen in my lifetime anyway. Seems like the Russians would've used the same strategy and then imposed their will on all the Ukrainian armored formations, supply lines, artillery positions, and whatever/whoever they could find to shoot at. Seems like the sky's over Ukraine should be buzzing with attack helicopters and Ukrainian Gorillaz should be hiding in holes dressing like civilians in fear of this 'superior' weaponry. It almost seems like western weaponry has stopped them dead in their tracks. In fact, the tide really started to turn when the US weaponry show up. Who knows though. Maybe I'm just being lied to 🤷🏻

[@АлександрКилочек-г5ш]

Их нельзя сравнивать ТУ160 это иной уровень. Он превосходит б1 пот всем параметрам. Типичный ролик от америанца, там где они проигрывают сразу попытки сказать что типо одинаковые.

[@rickycarloesguerra3656]

B1B are upgrade software

[@Jay_Force_One]

They’re both heaping piles of crap. But to be fair, they’re old supersonic heavy payload bombers. In my opinion, the B-1 is better. Not because it’s American, but because the Americans have taken the time to upgrade it and keep it modern, which is not true for the TU-160. Being faster and longer range does nothing for you if you’re using off the Shelf Garmin GPS systems. The Russians have always been terrible at keeping their aircraft modern. You ever seen the cockpit of a TU-95 Bear? Looks like it did in 1956. Even the similar American B-52’s are glass cockpits at this point.

[@peterthompson8014]

What the hell did I just watch? A 6th grade Russian boy's book report?

[@lawrencerichards4073]

India can produce these bombers within India.

[@myominkhine4343]

Tu-160 is better. He is bomb 12 ton B1B is 8 ton. Tu-160 is more speed 1.4mach and B1B is 0.9mach. So Tu-160 is better than B1 B.

[@Staryanuke]

B-1B flies at Mach 1.25, and it's made for completely different tasks than TU-160. Things like low level penetration, are the things that TU-160 was never made for... so yeah not really better.

[@jebediahgentry7029]

😂

[@everrybody]

the B1 can enter drop its payload and return before its detected. The Tu-160 cant fly as low and will be detected by hypersonic AA missles. There is a reason zero have flown into Ukraine

[@MohammedJobori]

​@@everrybody Tu160 have long range cruise missile it does not even have to enter Ukrainian air space , basically it is neighbouring country Just try to ignite your brain before you start commenting.

[@everrybody]

@@MohammedJobori that's fine. They still managed to lose them sitting at airbases 😂 how embarrassing. hHow many b1s got blown up sitting still? Zero

[@theowootton6143]

B1 is the fastest plane in the world on the deck nothing can catch it flying it’s mission low under the radar net at over 700 miles an hour for long periods of time making very hard to intercept

[@punishersplays572]

The B-1 can carry 24 nukes but the tu-160 can only carry 4

[@zeluki93]

Tupolev is the fastest bomber currently

[@richardcastillo5278]

Russian old tech weaker truth

[@SOMEOMEFROMNOWHERE]

Why are you using hitech bomber to fight poor Taliban,

[@renumihai5263]

both are so copy of Concorde ... "development" ahaaaaaaaaaa

[@ThatCarGuy]

B1B is better. The TU160 is basically a rip off of the B1A(which was faster then the TU160) but the B1B has a lower RCS, higher payload, can have a better range(unless the TU160 is going subsonic speeds and not carrying a full payload, which then losses one of it's only advantages, it's speed), higher service ceiling. The TU160 has a better top speed and better rate of climb and as stated above depending on payload and speed it's traveling can have a higher range, but that one can go to either aircraft depending on the situation.

[@NoManaNoSex]

Американцы всем говорят, что американское говно вкуснее.

[@amirthavallymahendran4753]

Well I accept all but it’s not a rip off.

[@jazz.560]

Bro is stupid

[@jazz.560]

It is not faster and it has less payload. What are you talking about?

[@ThatCarGuy]

@Jazz so the tu160 isn't faster at it mach 2 speed then the b1b... the b1b has a 125,000 pound payload compared to the tu160 99 thousand pound payload...

[@sophalmey3547]

Ilov TU,160,M,for,russia,

[@adityakurniawan4615]

I laught when he speak Iraqian Freedom amd Syrian sipil war. Why everithing about America did and other did said different. LOL 😂

[@hanabangirawan3291]

talking all about bomber ,. everybody knows that since long long ago till now ....soviet russian is the best and will be the mostpowerfull bomber whatever you called what kind of this bomber , black jack , white swan etc....its fact.

[@user-zf5fg2jl3v12]

This story is very obvious: we, russians, tried make a copy (as usual) but have not same level of technology. Especyally engines (incl. cruise misiiles engines). So we makes same plane out of our material we has and our tech level wich lead to bigger size of plane to carry necessary payload.

[@WorshipinIdols]

Nonsense, the Tu-160 was a completely original and fantastic design (when new) that was the next generation of bomber after the Tu-22m3. Has nothing in common with the B-1 what’s so ever. Completely different size, purpose, mission profile etc… Also this video made a giant ever by understanding the Tupolov’s range and inflating the B-1s range.

[@markusdecimus4732]

Tu 160 clear

[@jimmcnair5843]

The bones sightly slower? Buhaha what a gross understatement!!

[@joem1970]

The russians can't even put a decent paint job on the tu-160.

[@fulcrum78]

OBVIOUSLY THE RUSSIAN TUPOLEV TU-160 IS MUCH BETTER

[@Thesilentwolf7610]

B1b " I have pointy nose " Tu160 " have you seen mine ? " 🤣🤣

[@shandananjaya1096]

Russian old tech weaker truth

[@Artem-go4ub]

Да да мы видели технологии США подбитых абрамсах и бредли🤣🤣🤣🤫

[@tkskagen]

What is the "bracket" around the trailing edge of the tires on the front landing gear of the TU-160 there for?

[@shadovanish7435]

The bracket is probably a fender to prevent runway debris from being slung off the front wheel (during takeoff & landing) & onto the fuselage underside, which might cause some damage to the aircraft. I've noticed these fenders on the nose wheels of Russian fighter aircraft, as well.

[@quik478]

Can you give the time stamp?

[@simonworthington-eyre3525]

It acts like a mudflap that prevents debris, stones and other stuff from flinging up into the inlet vents of the engines or hitting the fuselage during takeoff and landing!!

[@DavidSherman-m5l]

Since when does the ARMY fly B-1's??? Since the beginning of this video??

[@DavidSherman-m5l]

The B-1B LANCER is vastly better than the TU-160 BLACKJACK.

[@DavidSherman-m5l]

The Lancer hasn't been able to carry nukes since the 90's.

[@Artem-go4ub]

Два совершенно разных класса самолета. B1b Lancer vs TU22m3m

[@aljazair71]

sir, please talk about ASROC missiles belonging to the USA Navy.... what are the advantages and how are they applied... thank you, sir

[@Axeiaa]

So basically The Russian TU-160: + Substantially cheaper (compensated for inflation it's less than half the price*) + Substantially faster (0.8mach faster!) + Tiny bit more range (margin of error almost) + Slightly higher payload - I assume it's based on Russian numbers, so they might be complete fabrications. * Compensating for inflation puts the 1989's B1 price tag of $283.1m at a 2020 value of $590.88m (vs $270m of the TU-160). To make this worse, I assume they did the typical thing of including the R&D costs and splitting it between the number of planes build. With 100 B1s build and only 35 TU-160's this means that if equal numbers were build the Russians would likely end up at a much much much lower price still. Assuming the numbers are somewhat realistic, I'd say this is one of few comparisons where the Russians did better, a lot better.

[@cliff311976]

Amurican toys are best used in Tom cruise movies . Mission Impossible 😅😅😅

[@Juko78]

​@@cliff311976I'd dare you to say that when taking the Fooltin airforce side

[@cliff311976]

@@Juko78 Americunts can't even handle goat herders.. 😂

[@jalildragneel2674]

​@@Juko78 actually he is right, American weapons are the best against farmers and 3 world country armies and of course Hollywood... They even fight aliens... In a real war... They're just junk and war trophies for Moscow museum of trash weapons from all countries.😂

[@stevecallagher9973]

Tu160, straight wings.....

[@Winberdm88]

Russia all the way

[@pi.actual]

What is with those two giant unguarded fans hanging from the overhead?

[@inquizative44]

They both have swept wings!

[@johnnydoe3603]

3:13 That Bomb bay looks Rusted. 😅

[@rael5469]

Aircraft are not allowed to have ANY corrosion. Corrosion leads to cracks or other structural failure. What looks like corrosion is probably corrosion inhibiting compound (CIC) that is sprayed on the structure as a moisture barrier.

[@СтаниславСорокин-ъ3б]

The first flight of the B-1 - December 23, 1974, the first flight of the Tu-160 - December 18, 1981 russians very often steal someone's developments and call them their own, so in the USSR almost every car was a copy of a Ford or Fiat, the USSR was built on copying Western technologies.

[@nesseihtgnay9419]

Russia basically copied the B-1. Ans stop saying oh they look alike but they "totally" from one another, the B-1a is what the white swan is today.

[@bread4532]

Russia plane so much better . jimmy was right

[@PrimeRibb69]

So basically the only advantage of the TU 160 is it's speed

[@Artem-go4ub]

Один ту-160 способен уничтожить государство под названием США ,не входя в его воздушное пространство)

[@johnlefucker9323]

B1B afterburners gave me hearing loss. Lol.