Russia is Making the World's Largest Bomber Even More Powerful - Tu-160 Blackjack
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2024
- The Tupolev Tu160 White Swan, or Blackjack, was entirely a product of Cold War paranoia. First flown in 1981, the aircraft quickly became one of Russia's most effective aircraft ever produced.
Because of its impressive and state-of-the-art configuration, the colossal variable-sweep wing heavy strategic bomber and missile platform remains the fastest, largest, and heaviest Mach 2 aircraft ever produced alongside the American XB70 Valkyrie. In addition, it has such a massive airframe that it can store over 45,000 kilograms worth of ordnance.
Over 30 Tu160s have been produced throughout the decades, with some of them receiving significant modifications to specialize in different roles.
Still, Russia recently embarked on a new project to modernize the program and revamp the aircraft, hoping to take the Blackjacks into the future by making them even more powerful and lethal…
---
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas.
00:14 That is not a Blackjack, it is a Concorde.
00:44 That is not a Blackjack. It's a Backfire.
06:17 Also a Backfire.
Good eye.
It's it a Concorde or the tu-144?
@@tonymorris4335 I believe the TU144 had its engine nacelles closer together under the fuselage and some models had canards just behind the cockpit.
@@codymr1974 you are right.
Also his wording on the yields of little boy and fat man
We know what he meant, but it didn't make sense.
The problem with equipment like this is that you actually have to maintain it. Which, as we've seen, is not Russia's strong suit.
Is that so? How many deaths were there from launching into space and the ISS from Baykonur ? None. Where as the US Space shuttle was a desaster
Lol
Yea and Ukraine must be winning when it is constantly asking for equipment and ammo mmhmm.
Lmao russian planes are built to last. It's the us/nato that would be screwed in a sustained air battle
Is this not simply another obvious Soviet Product of Theft of American Design through Espionage? B1B?
I would classify the Russian Tu-160 Blackjack as the best heavy bomber ever produced by Russia. It's better than any long-range heavy bomber ever built by any country except the USA.
I must admit it is a very beautiful aircraft... Although I'm sure if it were flying overhead I might change my opinion lol 😂
Dont worry, if u actly see it fly overhead, ur not the target😅😅 its either flying to its target or just got back hahah.
Bet Ukraine is regretting selling them to russia
Russia is returning them in flaming pieces
Not like they would do anything with it, tbh
They’re sitting ducks to good air defenses.
They’d be useless.
Realistically they're glorified cruise missile launchers with a stupidly high price tag to operate. It was a good deal to dump them for the price paid.
@@Justanotherconsumer nah…. The White swan is basically a supersonic B52. Standoff flying missile truck. It should be about 1000miles away from anything its targetting, though it should be wary of airdefences within that 1000mile range.
If everything onboard works (and thats a major DOUBT considering what weve seen so far), it would jam incoming missiles. It does carry its own EW suite afterall.
Great video, many thanks. I think this aircraft is essentially what the B1 was intended to be i.e supersonic to Mach 2. It's not intended as a platform to enter enemy airspace, rather a means to deliver missile systems. I'd imagine that in conjunction with the Backfire it would be a serious threat to naval operations in the North Atlantic and Pacific and given its supersonic capabilities it would be quite a challenge for an interceptor. Hopefully we won't get to find out what sort of mayhem it can cause......
Very high mach Speed is becoming somewhat irrelevant in an era where missile performance is now fulfilling performance and reliability specifications. Thats why newer aircraft designs are more focused on range and stealth.
Traveling at mach 075 or mach 2 is irrelevant with missiles that fly at multiples of the aircraft emergency power speed while they gobble enormous amounts of fuel.
This aircraft got into Canadian air space from it could nuke every city in North America. Putin did much bragging. Oh dear!
Wrong Son.... This Plane is Joke.
@@72waverly Speed isn't just about escaping missiles, that's a very limited view. Speed is mainly used to get to a specific area quite fast. That's very relevant with a bomber.
The supersonic Mach 2, B-1A was cancelled because at that time it was considered obsolete by the USAF (F-117 was created, B-2 was in design). The later B-1B (1.25Mach) was reconfigured to attack below the radar at subsonic speeds.
This beast sticks out on radar so badly that it can be seen at a thousand miles away with modern equipment.👍🇺🇸
doesn't matter, as its main weapons are cruise missiles
Russian junk
it can stay thousands of miles away: Load it up with maximum capacity of cruise missles, fly into effective cruise missle range and drop them. The Bomber would be long gone before the cruise missles get detected
US are the only country to retire a model over embarrassment over their sheath failures.
@@User-dc6sm russia doesnt have cruise missiles with a range that big
“Hey Ivan?”
“Yes, Dimitri?”
“You know the Concorde?”
“Yes?”
“What if we put nuclear bombs on it… just think about it.”
That's the Su-100/t-4
I read somewhere that there were plans on the drawing board to use Concorde as a supersonic standoff missile carrier. They even nicknamed it the "Bombcorde"
Maybe you hit the nail in the head.
Good content. Note that, however, as stated, the atomic bombs didn't carry TNT, they carried the equivalent nuclear explosive power of that much TNT (the blast yield in TNT).
yes, at 1:50 .
and at 2:01 .
I'm pretty sure that 0 people were confused by that statement 🤦
Actually they use tnt to trigger the nuclear explosive.
@@scottmoore6131 correct but the yield of nuclear explosion is measured in equvilant to how much tnt for the same yeild.
Bocks Car and the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber are on display at the National Air Force Museum, I was there two days ago. Definitely recommend going. Lots of cool aircraft there and it’s free to enter.
Please work on your script. Videos are always great but every single one is riddled with errors. For example at 2:05 You say Fatman carried 21 kt of TNT. The explosive power was equivalent to that. They are not the same thing.
I think they do it on purpose to troll their audience. Easter eggs, so to say.
He also needs to say “still” at the beginning of a sentence at least 4 times every video regardless of whether it’s appropriate to use or not.
B1 was one of the first Videos on this channel, now you have the russian counterpart
XB-70 hardly counts as only two were made and one lost. And it went Mach 3! Think B-1 as a comparison
Agreed, the B-1B Lancer is a much closer comparison than the Valkyrie in both appearance and performance. The Russians also have a history of reverse engineering American aircraft whose designs they stole. Eg, B-29/Tu-4.
@@GhostRyderID the B-1A (cancelled) was a closer Tu-160 equivalent.
The B-1B was designed to operate at lower altitudes. Visually similar, but very different design.
B-1A was Mach 2+. B-1B was still supersonic but was our first foray into stealth. As big as it is the radar cross section is on par with most civilian aircraft. Throw in other technologies it was hard to detect.
Interesting how the US cancelled the super bomber and went B-1, B-2. Got a lot more use out of them than we would have a B-70. How useful has the whole White Swan program really been overall (just posturing)?
Extremely useful. Coming over the poles into Canadian airspace it could nuke every important city in North USA. Putin has bragged it's already been into Canadian airspace undetected.
I believe so. Russia is faaaaaaar behind the west with anything technology related.
They do try tho...Gahbless em' 🤣
How are those hypersonic missiles working out for the us, oh😬 that right, we dont have them
@@ericwieboldt7042 Hyping up hypersonic missiles. AKA How to tell people you don't really know shit about military technology and gobble up Russian propaganda like candy without actually saying it.
I'm going with just posturing. The Tu160 is obsolete. One SAM and bye bye. The B1 was obsolete before it went into service, which is why it was originally cancelled in favor of the then top secret B2.
0:14 That's a Concord.
Welcome to Dark Skies, half the fun are the Easter eggs.
@@cowboybob7093 bullshit
Beautiful aircraft! The looks shouldn’t really make a difference, but somehow they do!
Yeah it is.
1 - Its radar signature is as large as a commercial plane. Missiles will home onto it like a beacon. (which is why stealth has found its way into every modern fighter, bomber and drone)
2 - Its top speed of Mach 2 is perfectly useless because missiles have a speed of mach 6 to 8 (it can never outrun a missile).
3 - Also, flying at Mach 2 will drastically reduce its range (for most of its flight it will be as fast as a commercial plane... and as visible as one)
No body does it better than ruasia
Even the U.S. gave sadam sone fighter jets with no way fo them to maintain they eventually just sat on an airfield
@@_AndromedaGalaxy_ bro said it was a beautiful aircraft not “wow this is the most effective combat vehicle of all time”
1 - Its radar signature is as large as a commercial plane. Missiles will home onto it like a beacon. _(which is why stealth has found its way into every modern fighter, bomber and drone)_
2 - Its top speed of Mach 2 is perfectly useless because missiles have a speed of mach 6 to 8 _(it can never outrun a missile)._
3 - Also, flying at Mach 2 will drastically reduce its range _(for most of its flight it will be as fast as a commercial plane... and as visible as one)_
4 - this guy is the life of the party.
which missles travel at mach 6-8? Sidewinder
@@michaelbwbrenner still too fast to outrun
point of the speed is to run away from enemy fighter plane not missile , as for signature it not as relevant as you think
Russian electronic & ballistic counter measures on this beast are 2nd to none. Today everyone of them have been slightly modified to carry the zircon hypersonic missile with a range of 5,000 km meaning they can strike from not far from their own airspace & deliver a devastating blow with the amount of those nuclear capable hypersonic missiles. They've got a fleet of them. They can hit anywhere in the world from any direction. Can you imagine the fleet of them fully armed with nuclear hypersonic missiles circling the US. They would be able to have the mobile delivery system free to hit any targets located like foreign bases, Ships Submarines. Bearing in mind. No one in the world has the air defences the Russians have. They'd know fine well a sub is going to get missiles away. But theyd be on or around or set out themselves sweeping large areas. Obviously not stop everything but the US would be toast. 5 min reaction time before the barbecue begins. Means there's no ICBM's leaving US shores for Moscow.
Being a lover of aviation and engineering.....but also knowing that these advancements are contributing to unimaginable human suffering are two things that are getting harder and harder to reconcile.
Amen! I totally feel that! Some of the most stunningly beautiful airplanes were created for death and destruction.
america has been causing human suffering for cenutries
@@SlavicUnionGamingsounds like russia
I was one of the last Americans, if not the very last, to see a Tu-160 at the MAKS airshow in Moscow just before the pandemic started. One of the crews autographed a Tu-160 print for me. They were quite guarded about allowing a westerner around their beautifully maintained and updated aircraft. It was remarkable to see in person.
Yes, of course you are an American, comrade,,,,,,er I mean buddy.
I can assure you. The the atomic bombs detonated over Japan, Little Boy or Fat Man, did not "carry 15 or 21 kilo tonnes of tnt". :D The explosive yield and effect was likely equivalent to those values however
I believe all of us understood that the atomic bombs were not physically carrying kilo tonnes of tnt
@@nem1 Somebody didn't.
The bombs dropped on Japan did not contain kilotons of TNT. The explosive power of the nuclear material used was EQUIVALENT to thousands of tons of TNT. Significant distinction.
What a Truly Awesome Bird . The Ablative covering is an Excellent idea . Lends it that slightly Organic look .
The Valkerie is still the most " Science-Fiction " thing ever to fly . Straight out of the Thunderbirds Show .
It's true. The Valkyrie was extreme with that sci-fi look, while the Tu-160 (and the B-1) have the aerodynamic and biomorphic shape of a beautiful, healthy creature.
@@girlfriday1299 an aardvark, you might say...
@@MrTaxiRob Yes, true. The Aardvark perhaps resembled even more the Tu-22.
This aircraft is much bigger and heavier that B1 in payload too, unlike B1 it was meant not to penetrate deep in enemy airspace but as long range missile bearer, and it can carry a lot of them.
Except the B1 can't penetrate anything.
@Galileo7of9 B-1B - Internal Payload max: 75k lbs - External Payload max: 50k lbs
Tu-160 - Total Payload: 88k lbs
That's a good lookin plane.
The Russians successfully created a bomber that fully loaded is too heavy to be towed away by a farmer on a tractor
well, the Ukrainians will just get a bigger tractor.
😂
This thing looks oddly familiar. Can't figure out where I've seen this airframe shape and layout before. 🧐
*coughs in b1*
@@suntzu5562 the Bone!
The best form of flattery is imitation
@@suntzu5562 They LOOK the same and you'd think they stole the design but aside from the airframe they're both incredibly different aircraft. 👍
This is an example of Russia actually designing and building something on their own that was actually effective.
coughs in fat american big mac
Let's be serious, it's made of Chinesium and runs on spare parts from washing machines.
So does a 3 cylinder engine, but that works forever.
Lmao
Let’s be honest for a minute.??
Russia always tells you how “awesome” their military weapons are but you Never see how awesome they really are.??
Like Ukraine for instance, Russia was supposed to walk right thru and take the entire country in 3 days. Turns out it’s all Lies. Russia is built on propaganda and lies. Now we (Russia) are going to nuke Ukraine when we remember where we put the launch 🚀 keys 🔐????😮
@@graemepennella 3 cylinder engine is not going Mach 2 with a variable geometry wing
@@Grebogoborp that's where you're wrong. It's already in the aircraft.
This and the B-1, or Bone (B-one) are both gorgeous, amazing planes. They look similar but underneath the skins they're incredibly different aircraft. Both are badass, though.
Sure look very similar to us of us not in the know.
The TU-160 pops up on radar easier than almost any plane on the planet other than the B-52 and passenger airliners.. The B-1B on the other hand has stealth technology and is harder to detect than an F-16
Shame they keep wanting to end the B1's service, with tensions ramping up it'd probably be a good idea to keep them for now.
Soviets loved copying US designs.
@@weasle2904 but b 1 have bigger rcs than the f16
wow kind of all over the place the First strategic mach 2 bomber was the B-58 Hustler. One other is concurrent design to the B-1 smells of industrial espionage of Rockwell by the KGB, and in typical Soviet fashion they just made it bigger and heavier. I would consider the B-1 more survivable the TU-160, due to it's low level abilities. The B-70 was a mach 3 bomber out pacing any other bomber in the speed department, if the TU-160 was to compete with that it failed.
Yes, this video gets it wrong. The TU-160 beat the B1 into production, but only because the B2 was in the pipeline so Carter cancelled the B1. However, I don't think the TU-160 would be necessarily bad at low altitude, that's where the variable wing helps.
True, but the B-58 had a number of problems, not the least of which is it was originally designed to only carry one big bomb (later upgraded to 5 smaller ones) and the fact that its 4 turbojets were extremely thirsty, requiring too many in-flight refuelings per mission. It was difficult to fly, difficult to land, and difficult to take off. Aside from its speed and altitude performance, it probably should never have been approved in the first place.
If speed is all that was needed we would still be using the Convair Hustler !!!! But we have the B2 Spirit which is practically invisible. With Mach 5 missiles fired at it the White Swan would make an easy target !!!!
To have a fast bomber you need huge engines which means no stealth. That`s why the USA discontinued the Valkerie, Convair Hustler and Lockheed Starfighter !!!! But people are saying Wow what a fantastic plane the Tupolev White Swan is, and they don`t realise it`s years out of date !!!!
As far as I know, the B-1 was designed for a similar mission profile as the Tu-160 still has; come in very fast and very high to deliver a devastating payload. However during the development of the B-1 the capabilities of SAM's grew incrementally - as shown by the shooting down of an U-2 spy plane - making mission surviveability with the intended mission profile a precarious affair. It spelled the doom of the XB-70.
But Rockwell decided to radically alter the B-1's mission profile; it would still come in fast, but this time at extremely low altitudes, hugging the terrain. This would make radar detection very difficult, both for airborne, as well as for ground-based radar due to the radar clutter from the terrain.
Although the Tu-160 is an impressive aircraft, it may only be effective against countries without a modern SAM screen. I don't think it has the same terrain-hugging capability as the B-1 due to it's large size and weight which makes it less nimble than the B-1. I somehow don't see a Tu-160 weaving through valleys below mountain-top level.
I've had the pleasure of speaking to a couple of retired RAAF F-111C aircrew about the challenges of "TF'ing" (especially at night or in bad weather).
The Pig was a heavy beast but obviously nowhere near as big as a Tu-160, and terrain-following was a capability that required the utmost concentration and crew coordination at pretty much any airspeed if one wished to avoid drawing too much attention by digging a big flaming hole in the landscape.
Even with modern digital avionics/flight controls/engine management/AESA radar etc., I strongly doubt the Tu-160 could safely handle terrain-following unless it was flying so slowly as to make itself a sitting duck for literally any man-portable or emplaced AA weapon along its ingress corridor.
I imagine the Tu-160's mission profile is primarily to fling a dozen or more long range cruise missiles from standoff distance.
@@sixstringedthing Terrain following does not require the utmost concentration in the f-111, it is mostly done hands off lol, the radar+autopilot does most of the work
@@antimedic4441 [Citation Needed]
Hug the terrain and get shredded by a SPAAG.
one of russia's most famous mottos has always been:
. *IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT BETTER, MAKE IT BIGGER*
Which just makes it worse in many ways
Absolutely, Adriana!
Tersbyte, you should know size isn't always better, ask your,...... mate!🤣
@@Southwest_923WR I’m sure I would know size is better but only in some ways from him
I am baffled by this video. Is it your assertion the XB-70 prompted the Blackjack and NOT the B-1? I mean if you look at the B-1 and then at the Blackjack you see the "acquired" technology. How is it possible you did not mention the near identical B-1? Why would anyone think the XB-70(a Mach3 bomber) spawned a Mach2 Russian copy of a B-1?
I am afraid on this one I do not follow you.
Form follows function. That's why all modern fighters basically look alike.
Unfortunately, even though this channel apparently does a lot of research, including a lot of esoteric detail, the videos are often still chock-full of basic inaccuracies and oversights.
Exactly my thoughts, especially considering Russia's history of stealing American designs. E.g the B-29 and the TU-4, and even the atomic bomb.
@@atomicskull6405 No that is not quite accurate. The current form shows an all sacrificing drive towards stealth ONLY. we have tossed aerodynamics and agility completely in blind pursuit. Go ask anyone who has flown the F-35 what a pig it is.
That's because, like all Dark Skies videos, it's a poorly researched piece of crap.
The B-1 bombers ground hugging technology gave it a much more survivable situation than any heavy supersonic flying bombers , this would of been easy pray for interceptors with advanced air to air missiles and surface to air missiles
Exactly
Putins Blackjack is ground hugging !!!! Well sort of, it can fly in a straight line at 5000 ft just like all Russian Jets !!!!!
It's scary to think we used to need massive armies for large scale destruction. Nowadays a small group is needed to operate vehicles that can level whole cities in a matter of no time at all.
You should see what The Party has done to Detroit
@@waterheaterservices Fair enough.
Love the series. Keep up the great work.
I have researched many of Rusha's aircraft. This one was the FIRST to scare me. One... NO... THE most impressive bommers ever built. Making our B53 look very vulnerable.
I love how everyone is just saying that it is so easy to see on radar due to its size. As if it will be in radar range when it fires its payload,even if they detect it, it would be impossible to intercept it 3000 miles away, it could just fire its payload and run back home at mach 2.05. If those planes (aka the Tu-160 and the B-1) weren't able to do that, they would've been dumped a long time ago.
Why would it be impossible to intercept? Imagine if the US was fielding “upgraded” B-70s! Lmfao!!!
@@jjones6606 can you scramble fighter jets fast enough to intercept a mach 2.05 target 3000 miles away?
@@georgeantabi6025 why would i do that when I have Patriot batteries?
@@jjones6606 I didn't know that a Patriot had a range of 3000 miles...... smh.
@@georgeantabi6025 if we start talking about all the things you don’t know, we’re gonna be here a while
Da Comrade! During the Cold War we never met a US military aircraft we didn't want to copy. Not to mention it's radar signature is as large as Texas. LOL
Saying this is a copy of an American aircraft is like saying the Buran is a copy of the U.S. Space Shuttle. Similar form factor but COMPLETELY different in every other regard.
0:14 - small mistake, that is Concorde
Strategic Missile-carrying Goose my beloved
'Stay tuned...' Now that's tension raised to 11. Nice touch, Dark Skies.
TU 160 is not a copycat product of the valkirie, it has nothing in common with that.
The TU-144 looks like our SST and Concorde, Buran looks like our Space Shuttle and TU-160 looks like our B-1b. Their TU-100 looks like our B-70.
What a beautiful jet!
Even though overall it would probably be impractical and too expensive, I wish more countries would operate strategic bombers nowdays . These large military planes always fascinated me.
As for the role of a modern strategic bomber, the cruise-missile carrier role does seem like the last proper way such a large plane could be used effectively, at least in a conflict where air superiority is challenged.
@Chris yeah, bombing cities is really gentlemanly
@Chris Speaking of gentlemanly warfare, how about when leaders have a dispute they meet up with swords and have a duel, winner takes all.
The F22 could catch up to it and pull alongside it before the Russian pilots even knew they were there.
But the US only fight their wars by proxy, so unlikely to ever find out!..
f22 kills its own pilots before they know know what happened.
Exactly this is the reason why it will never be used when and where F-22 is around. The same reason why The Bone will never ever fly into the combat patrol of MiG-31s...
@@I_Cunt_Spell lol. Keep telling yourself that
Well... Seems like 160-s pilots don't know that in Baltics, Far East, Syria :-| Maybe cause they are guided by interceptors/airdefence/satillites/so on so on. Google Tu-160 Syria. They are the most combat-used heavy supersonic bombers in modern world. Good morning.
Error... Fat man and Little boy, did NOT carry kilotons of TNT. The nuclear detonation yield is measured by its equivalent explosive power, in comparison to x number of kilotons of TNT.
Cool video as always. I notice the concorde is briefly shown at the very beginning, but what about the aircraft shown briefly at 06:13? It's intakes are the typical box design alongside the fuselage, not underwing.
Note: the nuclear bombs did not "carry" ANY TNT (except for a small amount in the primary stage - to compress the core for detonation). Their explosive power is measured in terms of tonnes of TNT - TNT equivalency.
The other aircraft was a Tu-22 Backfire
My favorite bomber hands down
1 - Its radar signature is as large as a commercial plane. Missiles will home onto it like a beacon. (which is why stealth has found its way into every modern fighter, bomber and drone)
2 - Its top speed of Mach 2 is perfectly useless because missiles have a speed of mach 6 to 8 (it can never outrun a missile).
3 - Also, flying at Mach 2 will drastically reduce its range (for most of its flight it will be as fast as a commercial plane... and as visible as one)
@@_AndromedaGalaxy_ ????
Did I ask?
All I said was that this is my favorite bomber
Jfc
@@_AndromedaGalaxy_ stop copying and pasting
Thank you! That is one cool ass airframe. I did not know all this about it, just incept the f'r and take it out. Get high and dive.
Absolutely stunning airplane, you got to give them that.
Almost all Russian military fighters and bombers are sexy as hell and very nice to look at But apparently that's all they're good for.
Love all of the "Dark" channels. The Soviet and Modern Russia have since around the end of the Korean war kind of over hyped their Military superiority over the West. With events in Ukraine hard to believe the western experts or Russian claims about anything are believable or accurate.
Lol, you keep right on believing that myth. Only the foolish and naive would think Russia would show it's hand in such a small conflict as retaking the land now known as Ukraine using the best troops, equipment etc. They have plenty of older tanks/personal carriers (often referred to as tanks by western media) to use up taking the missiles the USA and UK are supplying the zelensky followers, missiles which they are running out of fast.
The fact is Russia will retake the land it wants and no one is going to stop them, just as the USA took Iraq when it wanted to and no one stopped them, only difference is the Russians wont pull out after 10-20 years having got what they wanted like the USA did in Iraq.
The way western (mainly US/UK/AUS people who are reasonably well educated take everything that is fed to them via their own media as fact is the reason their governments get away with the war crimes, illegal takeovers etc that they do and lead the rest of the world to resent them.
Change needs to come from the ground level in the USA with it's people demanding the government machine stop the warmongering ways it has had regardless of democrat or republican president being in "power" since before the 2nd world war when the real strings are being pulled behind the scenes by corrupt officials and corporates.
@@whakatu4life285 hmmm. I think everyone would question the statement, "small conflict" to everyone this has shown Russia is a paper tiger
@@scottfuller7059 I know you'd like to think that but the reality is, everyone who actually listens to both sides of the story knows that Russia has already achieved it's goals, the side skirmishes around kiev etc are distractions that are clearly working for Putin and the fact the west is now facing ever increasing fuel and food costs proves how these sanctions our moronic leaders have imposed are only hurting western consumers and add in the fact now that the USA is looking to step in and feed Europe has me laughing at how the USA has once again duped Europe and others into doing the hard yards for it whilst it looks to exploit the situation it has carefully crafted over the last 25 or more years.
Russia continues to have the upper hand and will come out on top.
Nice video! If we've learned anything recently its that 1) few, if any, are combat ready and available, 2) the pilots are not trained well enough to use it to its potential, and 3) there are likely significant limitations (e.g. little/no inventory of guided munitions. Honestly, this is not that worrying.
But if Putin escalates to nuclear war, all of that likely doesn't matter much, ICBMs and SLBMs will fly, no matter how trained their operators are....
add recent estimates that 40% to 60% of missiles used in Ukraine failed to detonate.
we could probably cut the estimates of the russian nuclear arsenal down to 1/3 of their claimed levels, if we only count ones deployable in say less than 24 hours. still a hell of a lot of nukes, but not even the russian probably know which ones will actually work as intended. There is a terrifying possibility they may launch way more than needed, simply because they don't trust their own bombs to work.
Truth.
Learned from who?
Dark Skies must be working with my local hobby shop because I always find a model of an airplane they covered then buy it.
Just the fact that they made it is reason to respect it. I’m no commie, nor do I support that ideology. You gotta give them credit for their science. Building that is an awesome achievement.
If you squint a little, it looks like a B1 bomber, and yet, no mention of it.
The Valkyrie was dreamed up in the 1950’s but wasn’t built until the early 1960’s
Then there was a horrific accident where a Val caused a Another plane to crash into it… there was loss of life… so the program was canceled and the surviving Valkyrie was used for research then stuck in a museum.
Now it looks like Ukraine USED to own a fleet of Tu-144’s which were sold back to Russia in return for gasoline?
What a mess
Valkyrie didn't cause the crash, but the other pilot not keeping watch of all the aircraft flying in formation.
Just a poor man's version of a larger B-1 (Bone) with a giant radar return.
@@JoeyBaby47 guess I got it backwards, sorry, but the accident still caused the project to be canceled
As stated the Valkyrie did not cause the accident and the development of better missiles made high altitude attacks obsolete. The airframe stress from low altitude high speed flying rendered many of these aircraft outdated. B58 Hustlers were a perfect example of this as airframes did not hold up.
This or one of the dark channels also did a video on that incident.
The meteor missile is still faster. That’s all that matters
*It was not a "copycat" project, though.*
The USSR was developing huge supersonic planes since the 1950s. This is how e.g. Tu-144 flew before Concorde.
Helped that they outright stole (admitted in fact) a huge amount of information related to the concord program. Also why the tu144 failed
@@aidan11162 Who has "admitted" that? And why there is no structural similarity between Tu-144 and Concorde, then? Everything except for general outlook similarity about these planes in different. If Tu-144 was based on Concorde, it would fly after, not prior.
@@StrangerHappened TU-144 flew barely before Concord because they skipped a lot of that R&D stuff. They also skipped a lot of that testing stuff. Didnt help much it was an abject failure.
@@navyreviewer How did they "skip" R&D? The plane flew, and further improvements were made, as usual. It was too pricey to operate since the USSR did not have a millionaire class, so it was retired before Concorde. But the project has helped to create Tu-160, the best thing ever created by humanity in this field of aviation.
1:53 What you meant to say was the bomb was *equivalent* to 15,000 tons, *NOT* that it contained 15,000 tons of TNT.
Does anyone check these scripts, not even the narrator?🙄
I saw a video of the Russians flying one of these within the border of Ukraine which is insanely reckless given the entire point of the bomber is to be a standoff weapon system. If the Ukrainians knocked one of these down it would be a morale coup.
probably was not in Ukraine , also Ukraine don't have the capability anymore to hit one flying at highs altitude
@@johnsmith-yj2cn It will be up to Ukrainian special operatives to take them out while on the ground. There are conveniences to looking like the enemy, Speaking Russian like a native and understanding their cultural nuances. Just look at the weapons factory in perm Russia over 950 miles from Ukraine that went up in smoke this week.
@@johnsmith-yj2cn It was at very low altitude actually.
@@scotts.2624 Five Russian Senior Board members of Gas companies have been suicided in the last 3 months, one in England, one in Spain. I doubt Ukrainian special forces are operating alone.
Good stuff. Maybe a slight chance the TU-160's designers had seen schematics of the B-1A.
scale and capability says you are both right and utterly wrong. B1B is a piece of useless dogsh!t suited only to staged asymmetric war, like most american conventional assets...
TU-160 is able to operate against equals, flies further, can detect a lot further, carry more, and does all of the adformentioned with a lot more speed.
Fat Man and Little Boy didn’t “carry” 21 & 15 kilotons of TNT. You realize how impossible it is for a 4000kg bomb to carry more than 4000kg of anything, right? FFS.
Thanks
It must be hard reading the Wiki while editing the video, a bit of proof reading or listening wouldn't hurt, the TU-144 wasn't a bomber.
Spot on. Too many fanboys with no critical faculty are commenting here.
It's going to be awhile before I'm afraid of the big bad Russian in light of recent events. Only 30 of these bombers. I doubt they could fly more than six of them at anytime due to age, maintenance issues, and the oligarchs robbing the military blind. While we should be mindful of hubris, I don't think these beautiful aircraft are much of a threat in a hostile environment.
1 - Its radar signature is as large as a commercial plane. Missiles will home onto it like a beacon. (which is why stealth has found its way into every modern fighter, bomber and drone)
2 - Its top speed of Mach 2 is perfectly useless because missiles have a speed of mach 6 to 8 (it can never outrun a missile).
3 - Also, flying at Mach 2 will drastically reduce its range (for most of its flight it will be as fast as a commercial plane... and as visible as one)
"recent events" from the perspective of western media which you obviously follow and believe.
@@patb5266 considering the Russian media tried to say that Moskva sank because of a “fire” and not due to an attack…..yeah I’ll go with western media
"And the way back"
Yeah, everybody knew there was nothing to go back to.
I wanna see something like a supersonic b36
Hmmm no mention of the B1? Curious
all of these great machines, and yet, they can’t beat ukraine.
Defense minister Sergei Shoigu suffered a massive heart attack due to Putin’s disastrous war on Ukraine. Shoigu is hooked up to hospital machines almost in life support.
The Russians seem to know how to build beautiful aeroplanes!!!
This was used to extremely good effect in the Clancy novel 'Red Storm Rising'.
Oh, great. Another opportunity for the Ukrainian defense forces to practice their anti-aircraft fire and forget mechanisms.
Another month there won't be a Ukraine
@@shawnkennedy855 you said that two months ago
@@MrGhjkl63 It' a slow roll ,Ukraine is losing territory every week and will probably lose ground to Poland in the West.Maybe it will take another year but Ukraine has lost.
@@shawnkennedy855 my brother in christ, Ukraine just took back most of the territory russia claimed to have taken.
@@MrGhjkl63 No,they didn't.
Do any of them still actually work? *Terrific* aircraft, I will not denigrate Russian design, but do any of them still actually work?
Russian design ? More like a larger copy of the B-1 , way to similar to be coincidence.
You make a good point, because the last time I looked (which was a few years ago) I think there were only about four or five of flight capability which were brought out for high days and holidays. It depends on who you ask. The Russians will probably declare that all of them are flight-worthy. But as we all know now, half of the lies they tell may not actually be true.
If they've been updated there aren't any pictures because everything we see is a cockpit with steam gauges and a pair of giant soviet era open bladed fans bolted to the windscreen frame like an AN-2.
I think you missed the Sukhoi T-4. This was most definitely a try at a copy of the XB-70. It held a couple of records in a closed circuit . It was almost fully made of titanium. With one of the first fully electronic flight controls. Ultimately only one was ever made. It is a static display at the Monio Museum
The T4 concept bomber was not used as a military plane and was renamed TU 144 as a commercial airplane to. Combat the Concord for speed. They had a lot fo TU 144s crash.
@@markbishop6540 it was not used as a 144 platform. It was built 5 years latter
1:50 Ah yes, the 4.4tonne bomb that carried 15000tonnes of TNT. Makes sense 🤪
thats how nukes work
What it means is, that 4.4 tonne nuke can blow up as much stuff as 15,000 tonnes of TNT.
@@gnaruto7769 Er, no mate they don't. Look up how atomic fission works. These bombs had the equivalent yield of 15KT of TNT - they did not contain 15K of TNT as it says in the video. You'd need a plane the size of several super-tankers just to get a bomb weighing 15K off the ground let alone deliver it half-way across the world.
@@RB-bd5tz But that's not what they said. Sloppy proof-reading, as usual, on Dark Skies behalf.
@@MikeBracewell The decimal point is in the wrong place; the yield of the bombs dropped on Japan were 1.5kt and 2.1kt.
I used like this series but y'all have been playing pretty fast and loose with the facts for a good while now. Obviously this design was stolen/emulated from the B-1B Lancer, not the XB Valkyrie, and the atomic bombs dropped on Japan contained fissile nuclear material equivalent to X amount of TNT not actual TNT. The last three consecutive videos of yours I've watched have all contained factual errors and incorrect footage. I enjoyed your initial content so I hope you can do better research so I can keep watching it.
@Galileo7of9 Well yeah, it's been going on for a while but in the beginning they were doing a good job.
Dark Skies videos have ALWAYS been full of crap.
The "fundamentally new digital environment, for working on the project" is probably a consumer grade desktop PC, since no one knows how to use a slide ruler anymore.
0:15 wrong plane. I didn't know that Russians resumed its production. Thank you.
"It entered service with the Soviet and Ukrainian Air Forces in 1987" --- There was NO ukrainian air force at that time. There was a Soviet Union Air Force. The way you put this mislead people to assume that Ukraine was a separate country from USSR, and that is misinformation.
The Ukrainian SSR was a republic within the USSR. While they were united under the Soviet banner, the republics did maintain their own militaries to a certain degree. Different republics had different requirements and could also serve in different roles for the USSR, as countries do for NATO. The military equipment generally stayed in its "home" country after that country gained independence.
I agree 100%. Well 95%, the USSR actually had 5 airforces. Sigh, making the simple complex.
You forgot to mention that Ukraine also destroyed some 160-s with demolition tractors for a new western boss' smile. Anyway, great content in terms of truth. Which is "not too popular" on the internet nowadays.
Full of hypersonic missiles, it would be frightening
Looks like they probably “found” inspiration in the BONE and the B-70 Valkyrie.
Great looking plane 😊
4:33-4:35 Tu-144 I thought that was a passenger plane like the concorde not a bomber
It was. This video is crap.
This Plane is a Second Rate Knock Off of the Bone........
The B-1 is slower and carries less ordinance though.
@@atomicskull6405 Ok Sure bud thank you for enlighten me LoL. My Grandfather was the Cheif Flight Mechanic For the B1 I am very confident in what I said bud.
For whatever reason a Concorde was shown at 0:13😂
Saying the Russians are making their planes more powerful is like saying Russian tanks are safe and nonflammable.
A once great plane....
Current statistics say that 6 out of 10 are either not air worthy or will more than likely fail in either mechanical or operator aspects
hmmm yet current facts show they can bomb with great effect, US backed rebels in Syria and Ukraine.... funny that innit? Keep on believing the propaganda your media is dishing you up each night, you'll sleep well until the big one kicks off..... then ask why your government let things get to that point through pushing another nuke power to react.
DT might have been a bit of a clown but biden is proving to be unstable and a total idiot risking what he is, perhaps there is something to the rumours of his son in Ukraine a few years back....
It was never great. It came into service loong after ballistic missiles made nuclear bombers obsolete. I dont doubt that readiness percentage. The Russians are infamous for their low availability of any given system.
Looks a lot like the B-1 Bomber.
Reminds me of the lancer bomber
Magnificent airplane. Such beauty to deal such destruction.
likely Russia will just mothball this aircraft and any associated projects after the next predictable economic collapse just like in early 90's. Other combat vehicles will suffer the same fate.
So, when is Russia's next economic collapse? Enlighten us.
I love this channel but a consistent problem is that they use the wrong historical footage
tu-160m supersonic strategic bomber.. Russian improved this 1970's 'plane'. They installed toilets, so people onboard don't have to pee on the floor. Other major improvements include wider wheels, triple in size of regular wheelbarrow.
Very cool aircraft, but ultimately useless...
meh, nothing a tractor can't handle :/
1/17 Ultra rare Collectable. I would go fast if i had an tractor.
0:13 Concorde. Why? You also show Tu-22…
Second pilot to drop an atomic bomb was named Bock. Hence, Bockscar.
Heard the pilots name was Dixie Norma.
Bigger than the BUFF or Peacemaker? Bullshit
It only hold 4000 more pounds than B-2/B-52
It’s just a fat target. Only good for firing long range missiles a longgg way from the front or danger.
Mach 2. Pay attention
@@John_Redcorn_ that’s a speed… so what. There are plenty of missiles today that can do a circle around that thing and hit it.
It is only good if there are NO AIR DEFENSES ANYWHERE CLOSE.
It has no stealth. A missile would find that thing like a rat to cheese.
Russia can’t keep precision guided bombs, so it can only drop dumb bombs, so it’ll have to slow down just like every other bomber, because dropping bombs at 1300 mph isn’t going to hit anything you want it too. Not to mention it’ll scatter them over 100 miles.
Russia has a past of building the biggest, like submarines.
Now look at them.
Over 200 reactors are floating in your ocean because all those trash subs are being decommissioned. 200 reactors floating in the ocean. Think about the damage to the ocean should just one crack.
Your tanks and equipment are in giant scrapyards, we can now see thanks to google earth declassifying the whole country.
That place is a wasteland with a gas station underneath it and that’s about it.
Bunch of alcoholics at that