Man, the video is amazing, this is the first independent comparison video of the two Superpowers armed forces I ever seen, without any politician, patriotic or fanatic subtext. Like and subscribe from Russia
As an American I like the B1b better but the blackjack is a great looking airplane. I'd venture to say they're two best looking modern bombers. Imagine if Our governments stopped the bullshit and we suddenly became Allies lol. At that point our world would be a better place and have way less terrorists on it.
@@BigDonKedick There are less budgets for weapon manufacturers then. There should be a serious threat to produce weapons against and keep budgets high.
The B1B has almost the same payload capacity while being significantly smaller, and also is technically a stealth bomber as it has a heavily reduced RCS. This makes it unquestionably superior as a tactical bomber.
@@weasle2904 there is a mistake in the video regarding payload capacity. You can clearly see it when comparing engines' trust and empty weight. It is just not possible to have the same load with almost 2x more power until you have a totally different kind of frame but in this case, frames are very similar as are materials.
Idk watching these bad boys fly past you to someone unfriendly to you is about the best thing in the world, especially once the people being unfriendly with you go boom.
In a race TU-160 is better. But both bomber have been built in different purpose: - One is supersonic strategic heavy bomber. - Other one is supersonic NUCLEAR strategic heavy bomber capable of conventional bombing . Similar in appearance but not in task. We would have to compare the B1-A with the TU-160 in case of similar task and in this case was still smaller but as fast as TU-160 at Mach 2.22 before the first TU-160 flight. B1-A wasn't drop because of performance but change of politics and doctrine. Both are at the top of their task and role B1-B first combat mission (reported in media): 1998 Tu-160 first combat mission (reported in media): 2015
The Tu 160 develops a speed almost 2 times higher, the payload of the Tu 160 is one and a half times more. The Tu -160 is a strategic missile carrier that can perform other tasks. The b-1B is more of a long-range multi-purpose bomber that can be a strategic bomber.
@@rcb361 im talking metric tons you yankee but here i will specify on pounds The b1 one has 3 indoor bomb bays of 75000 lb and 6 exernal hardpoints for 50000 lb of ordinance (the external ones rarely or not at all gets fucking used bc it slows the plane down and gives a huge fucking radar signature) The tu has 2 bomb bays of 99000 lb and Two internal rotary launchers each holding 6× Raduga Kh-55SM/101/102/555 cruise missiles (primary armament) or 12× AS-16 Kickback short-range nuclear missiles. (It doesn't say the payload weight but judging by the weight of 1 missile and multiping the number it has it's around 30000 lb) So basically tu can carry 130000lb while b1 125000lb Tu can carry 5000 lb more B1 unses mostly just 75000lb bc it affects weight, aerodynamics and stealth while tu can use full and dosent affect that much only weight gain
I agree in your observation of the Russian Bomber the TU160 Blackjack NATO called it Backfired his Cockpit is a designed from the Russian Concorde TU144
@@user-leshiy99rus TU 144 crashed how many times? It didn't have the success of the Concorde. Russia stolen plans to make the TU 144 from France and Great Britain. Concorde had a great safety record until a piece of metal from a DC 9 blew a tire on Concorde. Concorde was way ahead of its time when it was designed there's no denying it no matter what country you're from. Get over it.
The swan is amazing regarding speed. The B1 is a more stealty bomber good at sneaking in low altitude. If I had the biggest airforce I would choose the Tupolev. If I was outnumbert in the air, then mabye the B1. But if I had to pick one, not knowing the premis. Then I would prefer the Swan. Bigger and faster with a longer range. The best scenario would be to have a few dusin Tupolev and then a dusin B1s. You would ofcourse have to be a pretty large contry with a huge airforce. It would’t hurt to have some Sukois and/or F15 or F22 escorting you bombers.
@David James what? due to salt limitstions is why its not being produced which at the time limited it to 100 of them now down to 97..also s400 their aren't that many and its still unproven.
While I love my nations Jets but i like the tu-160 more
3 года назад+5
I've always loved these type of Jets, and have always been a big fan of the Lancer. However, since I've seen a bit more about the T-160, I've began to like it even better than the Lancer! It's so badass!
@SAVage GaMinG Lime 311R that is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard, since when does liking the design of something make you a traitor, if so then almost every person who likes planes must be a federal criminal. Dude you can’t even spell traitor right so please stop
@Bradley Scott Russia counts all of their mothballed T-34's when they count their tanks, so whatever. Plus, they store them in the desert because they don't rust out there. In truth, just counting the active duty FA-18 Super Hornets EA-18 Growlers and the 120 or so F-35's the Navy has, they are still numerically comparable to the fighter forces of Russia even if you count the old model MiG and SU's they still have in service. I'd personally say the Russian Air Force gets the edge because they have strategic bombers and attack craft but it's still easy to see how strong the US Naval air power is in comparison.
@Bradley Scott yeah you should hear yourself 🤣🤣 almost seems like your blood pressure is rising lol but no seriously do you have the numbers or links to back your claim?? That's all I asked dude
ТУ 160-это стратегический бомбандировщик. Летает быстрее, дальше и берет больше полезной нагрузки. Он не работает по маленьким целям, а заточен на уничтожение как минимум авианосных групп ппротивника. Это большой, мощный, быстрый самолет. Который теперь вооружен еще и гиперзвуковым оружием. TU160 the best.
This is much closer than the Apache vs Alligator comparison. I think that we (globally) are in an era where "Nukes" have almost completely been deemed "uncouth" as a means of warfare, (with the exception of N.K. which is basically the "Nation" equivalent of the little kid trying desperately to prove to the older kids that it's "cool enough" to hang out, and should be taken seriously). AND, the idea of physically flying Nukes to their targets is the military equivalent of mailing a hand written letter. Therefore The Lancer is a more practical and capable aircraft, right now. It couldn't go head to head in an all out nuclear war with Russia, and/or China (or Japan, Israel, the UK, etc. for that matter), but with its greater payload of "conventional weapons," its avionics with incredible resolution and inter-connectivity, and advanced self protection detection and countermeasures, it will be MUCH more effective at "carpet bombing" lower tech enemy nations while (hopefully) minimizing "collateral damage" to civilians and non-strategic targets, compared to a high, fast flying bomber armed with Nukes. Sometimes less is more. = )
Ive seen so many aircraft at this point, and many really do blow my mind to see what they are truly capable of, but as far as my personal favorite out of all that I've seen up to this point, i love the b1b lancer, it's just a beautiful piece of human ingenuity and it's body is unique and looks incredibly streamlined, i can appreciate it for what it is, but it really does seem like it has far more potential than it gets used for now, but naturally im biased as well, lol, great video!
Ah, yes. Well, you know what they say: War is a process, where young people who do not know eachother and have no reason to hate eachother, kill eatchother because of orders from older people who do know eatchother and hate eatchother, but lack the courage to fight their own fights. Sad.
There is also Тu-22М3 Backfire-C and Tupolev Тu-95МS Bear. 3 from 5 biggest bombers in the world. I am now visiting in Poltava. I must visit Poltava Museum of Long-Range and Strategic Aviation next week again.
The Bone lost the nuclear role to the B2. Besides, this is yet another "fuck physics" russian aircraft. Same old, same old. It's amazing how people still fall for it.
@Indian The porkibuster The BUFF indeed does not break the sound barrier! Congratulations! What did you win? The knowledge I am about to drop on you. The B-1B can because it was designed for low level, high speed penetration. A mission which is almost obsolete now thanks to the advances in SAMs. The B-1B is now more commonly used in much the same manner as the B-52H is but unfortunately it is woefully under powered if it is fully loaded. Thin little wings are great for speed - not so much for endurance or high altitude operations. The "max ceilings" mentioned in the video is laughable because that is only achieved by low gross weight aircraft with little to no weapons on board - just like how all other aircraft achieve their "max ceilings" In reality speed is the only thing the B-1B can do better than the B-52H. They only reason it can do that is because of the afterburners. Afterburners that double to triple the fuel burn of the aircraft. In fact all the great feats are all based around the fact that it has afterburners. That is why without afterburners it is almost comically under powered once you get into the mid 20s. Why not use afterburners all the time? Again because of fuel. The only way the B-1B can come close to competing with the BUFF in un-refueled range is by changing out one of its weapons bays with an extra fuel tank. This cuts its maximum number of weapons by 1/3 (The video does mention external hardpoints but the only time I have ever seen them used was when they B-1B was still capable of carrying ALCMs, which it is not now because of treaties, so I am not counting those because operationally they aren't used anymore) further reducing its combat effectiveness. Even if you argue that mid-air refueling negates this military planners will laugh at you because fuel is not infinite and if it takes half the gas to get somewhere and do something they are going to pick the more efficient option. The Bone is fast and it sure looks sexy. But that all comes at a cost. In order to even compete with the BUFF in weapons capacity it has to restrict itself in range. In order to even remotely compete with the BUFF in range the Bone has to lose 1/3 of its weapons. When transiting too the combat zone and back both aircraft cruise at remarkably similar airspeeds but the BUFF usually does it higher and therefore more fuel efficiently. There is a reason the B-52H is getting engine upgrades (that will make it now twice as fuel efficient as a Bone) and it scheduled to be flying into the 2050s while the B-1B, along with the B-2, are scheduled to be phased out by the B-21 in the 2030s. BUFF wins.
They're not really comparable, the Russian equivalent to the B-1b is the Tu-22m. The USA doesn't have anything equivalent to the Tu-160 (just like Russia doesn't have anything equivalent to the B-2, they went down seperate design paths).
Both beautiful aircraft, I would choose the B1. I think that our radar, countermeasures, maintenance, and air crews are the difference. Just my opinion. Thanks Bernie.
When you have a very long range platform capable 12000km with speed M2 and can carry 12 conventional or nuke payload with 4500km range..you don't need any stealth or bullcrap tech..just fire and return to base.. Job done!
@@sergeymalts3332 Naive fool. The copy machine is used in all countries. The F-35 is copied from the YAK-141. And there are many such examples. Everyone copies successful solutions from each other. So don't be stupid.
@@sergeymalts3332 Yak is a backward technology that was picked up by the United States. They don't have their own ideas. So they made an iron, which the USSR refused 40 years ago)))) t's strange if you didn't know this, but you write comments as if you are an expert)))
B-36 "PeaceMaker" vs Tupolev Tu-95, Tupolev Tu-85, or Tupolev Tu-4 (i think at the time that was the intercontinental bomber; Tu-95 came when the B-36 was being phased out by the B-52 Stratofortress
A nuclear warhead is flying from America to Russia,and a Russian warhead is flying to the United States... The rockets met, and the Russian rocket persuaded a colleague to drink vodka for the meeting, and then for victory, and then for world peace.. So says the American."Chet, I'm completely drunk...I won't make it to my destination.".. the Russian gives her a friendly hug: "Come on , I'll walk you home!"
I’d give the edge to the Blackjack, though not sure how the technology compares. Russian maintenance is always questionable as well. They just don’t have the defense budget that the US has. Though the US could upgrade the B1, it’s really becoming obsolete as the B21 will be replacing the B1 in the near future. That’s a whole different realm of bomber.
There's really no question that the TU-160 is a more capable aircraft all around. Bigger, faster, longer range. Payload capacity is slightly smaller but still comparable.
Absolutely right. Almost everything is in response to the American version, which preceeds it. Their inter-planetary craft were ditto; one size fights all approach. Thus the numerous failures. In tanks and manned space capsules [both now becoming obsolete] they have "originality."
When some country work and focuses on building. its military sistem it will do the best with low budget and powerful machines and the better. Comparing them with other countries..
@@georgekaradov1274 the swan won't see the eagle coming,its insane to even imagine a third word country can play war,all your mother Russia has is evil,nothing good ever comes from this rotten place.
@@mechfly8960 your but hurts a lot, right??? Why would the swan needs to see the thing that can not catch it??? No poin. By the time you slow as turtles filters, especislythe flying brick AKA F 35, get close to the swan, it would have deployed its payload of various cruse nuclear or hypersonic missiles and be on its way back. The slow fighters would only be able to see its tail as it disappear in the sunset. They will have to turn back and try to land on their sunken careers or bombed out airfields, without even firing their air to air missiles....
While Americans spend millions of dollars every flight for stealth paint, the tupolev uses some sort of a interdiction field (not like star wars lol) To confuse heat missiles
The TU-160 came out of the Soviet espionage programme into Concorde. Of course it's better. Way better. The B1B is an entirely different aircraft with a similar designation to make you think they improved it. The fact is, they could never make the B1, which is what the TU160 is, work.
This all beautiful birds are being manufactured to eliminate humanbeens what waist of human,life's it's a pity,it would have been a best gift to any human that once get the chance to travel with this beautiful bird
@@armand9592 try to read to understand don't read to get confused if they turn this jet into commercial one will you still called it a bomber? Or is there any commercial jet called bomber?
It’s not which is better but how they’re used in a strategic or tactical plan. Just like the B 2, a lot it’s stealth and or survivability is when to go, what path to take, etc etc etc
I ordered one of the B1 bomber’s from Amazon so I’m looking forward to seeing what it’s like but I got 30 days if there’s anything wrong just to be safe
It's so fun to read American comments. If American weapons are superior in performance to Russian ones, the comments “we are the best”, “We are super” begin ... If Russian is better - immediately comments "Both are good...", "Both are beautiful..."
Tu-160 has more range than 12400km. It has record to stay in air for more than 1 day. It also crossed the atlantic and reached the Venezuela from central russia without any refuling which is over 13000-14000km.
The B1-B is a stealth bomber and therefore is on a whole different level of capability. Not to mention the avionics and EW systems are likely very outdated in the TU-160.
There was talk about loading the B-1 with numerous air-to-air missiles to support the F-22. Anyways, it appears the United States did the research & development and Russia just copied the B1 oh well.
@korencek you should look more closely at the dates on the engineering drawings. The Original B1 development started in the 50s. The TU beat the B1 to the skies because the USSR didn’t see the huge shift in war fighting that was on the horizon. As a result, the TUs primary reason for being disappeared less than a decade after it took to the skies. On the other hand the original B1 program was stopped before the TU had even made it to the concept stage. The US didn’t restart the program until after a new role could be found. The B1 would not have gotten built if it’s role was to match the TU. Despite their similar appearance, their missions were completely different. As to the new role of the B1 serving as a missile rack for Raptors, it looks like it will lose that to the more capable repurposed F15. Boeing is redesigning the F15 to be low vis with a capability to carry 22 missiles that can be targeted directly from the helmet of the Raptor pilot. Most importantly though is that the F15 is capable of over M 2.4 and therefore can put the missiles on point very quickly.
Sadly, Pres. Carter scratched the super sonic B-1-A just as the B-1 program was getting started. That plane would have dwarfed all players at the time.. Costly re-design followed with the B-1 B
Impossible to know which is better, but what I do know is I would personally take either one if I had twice as many of them, and enough bombs to fill them!
They are both good aircraft designed for different reasons. I give the edge to the Blackjack though with greater speed, range, combat radius and variety of ordinance.
@Ignacio Muñoz Diaz hi I M D... ' thank explain... B-1 is still better top leader airplane than ussr russia... I M D, which one support is america or ussr russia... pick one
@Ignacio Muñoz Diaz hi I M D... ' what country paid ussr russia own tu-160 ???... why use a word - EXPENSIVE -... what is a problem... american B-1 is still top airplane... but SR-71 is more titanium and faster speeding ZOOOM than ussr russia
You stated that the TU 160 was the largest Super Sonic plane ever built. I think maybe the XB70-A Valkyrie was the largest fastest bomber ever built but I may be wrong. But I am not. 😁
Well, I would go with the Lancer because it will be harder to find of it stealth technology where as the tu 160 be destroyed before it reaches its target. Both planes are similiar but that is my opinion of both capabilities.
Stop saying they are so different from each other. The blackjack is basically a copy from the bone, the b-1a did exactly what the blackjack is. The engines design looks exactly like the bone, the swip wings.
Congrats on 101k!
congrats
Tupolev__Tu142MK VS Boeing_P8A
Man, the video is amazing, this is the first independent comparison video of the two Superpowers armed forces I ever seen, without any politician, patriotic or fanatic subtext. Like and subscribe from Russia
Both are great engineering achievement. We probably will never know their real capabilities, especially TU-160.
As an American I like the B1b better but the blackjack is a great looking airplane. I'd venture to say they're two best looking modern bombers. Imagine if Our governments stopped the bullshit and we suddenly became Allies lol. At that point our world would be a better place and have way less terrorists on it.
@@BigDonKedick There are less budgets for weapon manufacturers then. There should be a serious threat to produce weapons against and keep budgets high.
The B1B has almost the same payload capacity while being significantly smaller, and also is technically a stealth bomber as it has a heavily reduced RCS. This makes it unquestionably superior as a tactical bomber.
@@weasle2904 there is a mistake in the video regarding payload capacity. You can clearly see it when comparing engines' trust and empty weight. It is just not possible to have the same load with almost 2x more power until you have a totally different kind of frame but in this case, frames are very similar as are materials.
@@TheDenisMore look it up, B1B with external mounts can carry more than the TU 160
Both are excellent planes and well suited for their specific missions.
TU 130 and B 1 are very good planes and the both are suited for specific missions you can’t compare these to state of the art aircraft
Vladimir Putin of course I understand
B1 is better
Putin is a closet capitalist in bed with xi
Oh yes sorry my apologies
I would be happiest if I never saw any of these fly over my head
Good point of view, when you think about they are meant for. Nice to see on airfields, not nice when they are firing things at you
Idk watching these bad boys fly past you to someone unfriendly to you is about the best thing in the world, especially once the people being unfriendly with you go boom.
@Alesander:And if it does, only for show.
Don't worry abot TU 160 fly over your head it's mean he drops missles which blust something far far away from you
Yeah don’t be afraid man XD
In a race TU-160 is better.
But both bomber have been built in different purpose:
- One is supersonic strategic heavy bomber.
- Other one is supersonic NUCLEAR strategic heavy bomber capable of conventional bombing .
Similar in appearance but not in task. We would have to compare the B1-A with the TU-160 in case of similar task and in this case was still smaller but as fast as TU-160 at Mach 2.22 before the first TU-160 flight. B1-A wasn't drop because of performance but change of politics and doctrine.
Both are at the top of their task and role
B1-B first combat mission (reported in media): 1998
Tu-160 first combat mission (reported in media): 2015
The Tu 160 develops a speed almost 2 times higher, the payload of the Tu 160 is one and a half times more. The Tu -160 is a strategic missile carrier that can perform other tasks. The b-1B is more of a long-range multi-purpose bomber that can be a strategic bomber.
9:41 “Though the B-1B has a bigger payload capacity”
@@letzrock1675 nah the tu has like double the ordinance carrying capability b1 23 tons - tu 45 tons
@@drunks1nner298 Sober up.. The B1 has a greater payload by 50k lbs. You probably thinking the about the aircraft weight.
The B1 has a greater payload by 50k lbs. You're probably thinking the about the aircraft weight.
@@rcb361 im talking metric tons you yankee but here i will specify on pounds
The b1 one has 3 indoor bomb bays of 75000 lb and 6 exernal hardpoints for 50000 lb of ordinance (the external ones rarely or not at all gets fucking used bc it slows the plane down and gives a huge fucking radar signature)
The tu has 2 bomb bays of 99000 lb and Two internal rotary launchers each holding 6× Raduga Kh-55SM/101/102/555 cruise missiles (primary armament) or 12× AS-16 Kickback short-range nuclear missiles.
(It doesn't say the payload weight but judging by the weight of 1 missile and multiping the number it has it's around 30000 lb)
So basically tu can carry 130000lb while b1 125000lb
Tu can carry 5000 lb more
B1 unses mostly just 75000lb bc it affects weight, aerodynamics and stealth while tu can use full and dosent affect that much only weight gain
The Blackjack looks like a bombing Concorde😂
Because Concord is an attempt to make a civilian version of the white Swan abroad.
@@user-leshiy99rus Is that so? Why was the Tupolev TU-144 so shitty then?
@@fhlostonparaphrase
1. - in what place? 2. - where is" your " Concord?
;)
I agree in your observation of the Russian Bomber the TU160 Blackjack NATO called it Backfired his Cockpit is a designed from the Russian Concorde TU144
@@user-leshiy99rus TU 144 crashed how many times? It didn't have the success of the Concorde. Russia stolen plans to make the TU 144 from France and Great Britain. Concorde had a great safety record until a piece of metal from a DC 9 blew a tire on Concorde. Concorde was way ahead of its time when it was designed there's no denying it no matter what country you're from. Get over it.
Don't know which is better, but I have always loved the look of the Tupolev.
I thought it would be the TU-22M Backfire that is more comparable to the B-1B lancer
The b-1b is much closer in weight/size/capability to the tu-160 then the 22m so this comparison makes sense.
You are thinking of the B-58 Hustle which was made when the Tu-22 was both were just manly for experimenting with high speed bombers
Tu-22 and tu-22m are not the same....
Nope
Tu-160 is too different to be compared to anything
The swan is amazing regarding speed. The B1 is a more stealty bomber good at sneaking in low altitude.
If I had the biggest airforce I would choose the Tupolev.
If I was outnumbert in the air, then mabye the B1.
But if I had to pick one, not knowing the premis. Then I would prefer the Swan. Bigger and faster with a longer range.
The best scenario would be to have a few dusin Tupolev and then a dusin B1s.
You would ofcourse have to be a pretty large contry with a huge airforce.
It would’t hurt to have some Sukois and/or F15 or F22 escorting you bombers.
The B1 is still more then capable of high level fighting its active stealth and what not give her a small radar signature.
@David James what? due to salt limitstions is why its not being produced which at the time limited it to 100 of them now down to 97..also s400 their aren't that many and its still unproven.
I just wanna see the B-2 Spirit Bomber, B-1B Lancer, B-52H Stratofortress and B-21 Raider all fly together!
I completely agree with you
That would be a day.
And xb70 valkyrie
I would love to see the B-2, B-1B, B-52, TU-160 and TU-95 all fly together at an international air show some day!
It's amazing the culminatition of engineering in aerodynamics, mechanics, and electronics these 2 planes share just to blow shit up.
While I love my nations Jets but i like the tu-160 more
I've always loved these type of Jets, and have always been a big fan of the Lancer. However, since I've seen a bit more about the T-160, I've began to like it even better than the Lancer! It's so badass!
@SAVage GaMinG Lime 311R bruh
@SAVage GaMinG Lime 311R *traitor
No one cares, Boris
@SAVage GaMinG Lime 311R that is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard, since when does liking the design of something make you a traitor, if so then almost every person who likes planes must be a federal criminal. Dude you can’t even spell traitor right so please stop
The Tu-160, has Air-to-air capability?! Game changer there! Still, The B-1B I suspect has more going on than we know or have been told.
Yup also for TU 160
Нет, просто ТУ160 быстрее, дальше и больше бомб. И гиперзвуковые ракеты. Уничтожает большие силы противника. СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКИЙ бомбандировщик.
The B1B is stealth. Big difference. TU is not on the same level of technology.
It won't matter which one is better, cos the bombs explode the same when you are underneath them....
You're 100 percent right when you are underneath them they all do the same 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 you kill me with this one😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 blessings always
In the uk we are buzzed by the black jacks on a regular basis. They may be old but still very dangerous
the 2 most powerful airforces in the world,
well actually the second most powerful airforce is the US navy...
no jokes
@Bradley Scott Russia counts all of their mothballed T-34's when they count their tanks, so whatever. Plus, they store them in the desert because they don't rust out there.
In truth, just counting the active duty FA-18 Super Hornets EA-18 Growlers and the 120 or so F-35's the Navy has, they are still numerically comparable to the fighter forces of Russia even if you count the old model MiG and SU's they still have in service. I'd personally say the Russian Air Force gets the edge because they have strategic bombers and attack craft but it's still easy to see how strong the US Naval air power is in comparison.
@Bradley Scott nicely said.
@Bradley Scott do you have the numbers? Why get so triggered over this lol
@Bradley Scott yeah you should hear yourself 🤣🤣 almost seems like your blood pressure is rising lol but no seriously do you have the numbers or links to back your claim?? That's all I asked dude
@Bradley Scott brah just tell me!🤣 I'm only interested if you can provide the facts lmao only then I can get why you're getting triggered lmao 🤣
ТУ 160-это стратегический бомбандировщик. Летает быстрее, дальше и берет больше полезной нагрузки. Он не работает по маленьким целям, а заточен на уничтожение как минимум авианосных групп ппротивника. Это большой, мощный, быстрый самолет.
Который теперь вооружен еще и гиперзвуковым оружием.
TU160 the best.
True
Totally not bias
@@dinomoviereviews4044 b1 is better and I'm Swedish
This is much closer than the Apache vs Alligator comparison. I think that we (globally) are in an era where "Nukes" have almost completely been deemed "uncouth" as a means of warfare, (with the exception of N.K. which is basically the "Nation" equivalent of the little kid trying desperately to prove to the older kids that it's "cool enough" to hang out, and should be taken seriously).
AND, the idea of physically flying Nukes to their targets is the military equivalent of mailing a hand written letter. Therefore The Lancer is a more practical and capable aircraft, right now.
It couldn't go head to head in an all out nuclear war with Russia, and/or China (or Japan, Israel, the UK, etc. for that matter), but with its greater payload of "conventional weapons," its avionics with incredible resolution and inter-connectivity, and advanced self protection detection and countermeasures, it will be MUCH more effective at "carpet bombing" lower tech enemy nations while (hopefully) minimizing "collateral damage" to civilians and non-strategic targets, compared to a high, fast flying bomber armed with Nukes. Sometimes less is more. = )
L❤ve Russian Black Jack Tu 160 , looks beautiful sexy but dangerously built to 👑 Conquer.
White Sawn not Black Jack
@@user-yi4xh7ni3z
NATO callsign: blackjack
Russian nickname: white swan
@@georgeantabi6025 screw NATO callsigns
Ive seen so many aircraft at this point, and many really do blow my mind to see what they are truly capable of, but as far as my personal favorite out of all that I've seen up to this point, i love the b1b lancer, it's just a beautiful piece of human ingenuity and it's body is unique and looks incredibly streamlined, i can appreciate it for what it is, but it really does seem like it has far more potential than it gets used for now, but naturally im biased as well, lol, great video!
Agreed, the b1 is the OG and you can see that Russia bases some of their aircraft after US ones
@@tojesake4564 everyone wants what the U.S. has..
Everyone wants to come here and live.. but.. we're the racists!
@@tojesake4564 The Tu-160 project started before the B-1A did...
The 2 are just not comparable to each other. Massive and impressive, each is in its own class.
@BrownEyesToxicDragon You are wrong
TU-160 white swan
@The Big1 ugly kid😂😂😂
@The Big1 no respect
TU-160M2 kicking ass!!!!!
B-1 can fly at way better altitude so it doesn't need speed when you think about it.
Who cares about altitude. In war speed is everything.. Lancer losses. Simple.
The altitude is only slightly more yet the TÚ 160 is a lot faster
Had a b1b fly a low show of force when my checkpoint was under fire in 2010. Still took a moment to marvel at it.
I bet that was impressive.
@@mikester1290 and unexpected.
These are two very cool aircraft. It's too bad war can't be reduced to just a beauty contest,
IMO, if beauty contest, Tupolev wins.
Ah, yes. Well, you know what they say:
War is a process, where young people who do not know eachother and have no reason to hate eachother, kill eatchother because of orders from older people who do know eatchother and hate eatchother, but lack the courage to fight their own fights.
Sad.
So well said!
thank u ......... i got a chance too see b1 in baghdad sky once ............ best regard from iraq and continue
I saw TU-160 Blackjack couple a years ago in Ukraine Poltava air museum. Huge looking plane must say.
Its 177ft in length and is the world's largest bomber and world's largest combat aircraft
There is also Тu-22М3 Backfire-C and Tupolev Тu-95МS Bear. 3 from 5 biggest bombers in the world. I am now visiting in Poltava. I must visit Poltava Museum of Long-Range and Strategic Aviation
next week again.
The tu 160 strategy bombers is the best which can carry both convention and nuclear warheads can fly mark two no rivers for the black jark
B-52. Blackjack loses.
@Narco bruh the b1b is superior to the b52 in every way except cost
The Bone lost the nuclear role to the B2.
Besides, this is yet another "fuck physics" russian aircraft. Same old, same old. It's amazing how people still fall for it.
@Indian The porkibuster The BUFF indeed does not break the sound barrier! Congratulations! What did you win? The knowledge I am about to drop on you.
The B-1B can because it was designed for low level, high speed penetration. A mission which is almost obsolete now thanks to the advances in SAMs. The B-1B is now more commonly used in much the same manner as the B-52H is but unfortunately it is woefully under powered if it is fully loaded. Thin little wings are great for speed - not so much for endurance or high altitude operations. The "max ceilings" mentioned in the video is laughable because that is only achieved by low gross weight aircraft with little to no weapons on board - just like how all other aircraft achieve their "max ceilings"
In reality speed is the only thing the B-1B can do better than the B-52H. They only reason it can do that is because of the afterburners. Afterburners that double to triple the fuel burn of the aircraft. In fact all the great feats are all based around the fact that it has afterburners. That is why without afterburners it is almost comically under powered once you get into the mid 20s.
Why not use afterburners all the time? Again because of fuel. The only way the B-1B can come close to competing with the BUFF in un-refueled range is by changing out one of its weapons bays with an extra fuel tank. This cuts its maximum number of weapons by 1/3 (The video does mention external hardpoints but the only time I have ever seen them used was when they B-1B was still capable of carrying ALCMs, which it is not now because of treaties, so I am not counting those because operationally they aren't used anymore) further reducing its combat effectiveness. Even if you argue that mid-air refueling negates this military planners will laugh at you because fuel is not infinite and if it takes half the gas to get somewhere and do something they are going to pick the more efficient option.
The Bone is fast and it sure looks sexy. But that all comes at a cost. In order to even compete with the BUFF in weapons capacity it has to restrict itself in range. In order to even remotely compete with the BUFF in range the Bone has to lose 1/3 of its weapons. When transiting too the combat zone and back both aircraft cruise at remarkably similar airspeeds but the BUFF usually does it higher and therefore more fuel efficiently.
There is a reason the B-52H is getting engine upgrades (that will make it now twice as fuel efficient as a Bone) and it scheduled to be flying into the 2050s while the B-1B, along with the B-2, are scheduled to be phased out by the B-21 in the 2030s.
BUFF wins.
They're not really comparable, the Russian equivalent to the B-1b is the Tu-22m. The USA doesn't have anything equivalent to the Tu-160 (just like Russia doesn't have anything equivalent to the B-2, they went down seperate design paths).
Both beautiful aircraft, I would choose the B1. I think that our radar, countermeasures, maintenance, and air crews are the difference. Just my opinion. Thanks Bernie.
Another great comparison between two badass bombers!
When you have a very long range platform capable 12000km with speed M2 and can carry 12 conventional or nuke payload with 4500km range..you don't need any stealth or bullcrap tech..just fire and return to base.. Job done!
The "Bone" being designed for penetrating highly contested area make her very dangerous.
Imagine the engineers of these incredible aircrafts from both countries join efforts !!!!!!
stupid idea imho. Russian and Chinese engineers are almost the same. Great copiers.
@@sergeymalts3332 Naive fool. The copy machine is used in all countries. The F-35 is copied from the YAK-141. And there are many such examples. Everyone copies successful solutions from each other. So don't be stupid.
@@drag2734 where is your jak? Still under testing?
@@sergeymalts3332 Yak is a backward technology that was picked up by the United States. They don't have their own ideas. So they made an iron, which the USSR refused 40 years ago)))) t's strange if you didn't know this, but you write comments as if you are an expert)))
Start looking into maintenance expenses, and MC (mission capable) stats
B-36 "PeaceMaker" vs Tupolev Tu-95, Tupolev Tu-85, or Tupolev Tu-4 (i think at the time that was the intercontinental bomber; Tu-95 came when the B-36 was being phased out by the B-52 Stratofortress
Peacemaker is my favorite bomber
@@potatojuice5124 Y E S !
Probably the B1B because speed doesn't matter it's weapons
When he said blackjack that should have been the end.
Yup
Nah
A nuclear warhead is flying from America to Russia,and a Russian warhead is flying to the United States... The rockets met, and the Russian rocket persuaded a colleague to drink vodka for the meeting, and then for victory, and then for world peace.. So says the American."Chet, I'm completely drunk...I won't make it to my destination.".. the Russian gives her a friendly hug: "Come on , I'll walk you home!"
@@user-dt2rx3gl5d 🤣😂🤣😂
@@user-dt2rx3gl5d lol
I don't think im the only one who thinks it's kinda satisfying that thay're look similar
I’d give the edge to the Blackjack, though not sure how the technology compares. Russian maintenance is always questionable as well. They just don’t have the defense budget that the US has. Though the US could upgrade the B1, it’s really becoming obsolete as the B21 will be replacing the B1 in the near future. That’s a whole different realm of bomber.
I want them both
marvels of engineering, hopefully we will never see them in action in our land
Very honest and intelligent comparison thanks bro for such a great work
There's really no question that the TU-160 is a more capable aircraft all around. Bigger, faster, longer range. Payload capacity is slightly smaller but still comparable.
It's unfortunate that Ukraine scrapped or sold theirs :(
Why would bigger be better if it carries a smaller payload and has a bigger RCS? 🤔
It's always interesting to hear that the soviets "designed" something for themselves. It always seems like I've seen them somewhere before.
Absolutely right. Almost everything is in response to the American version, which preceeds it. Their inter-planetary craft were ditto; one size fights all approach. Thus the numerous failures. In tanks and manned space capsules [both now becoming obsolete] they have "originality."
Soviets lead in space and missile designs, America buy rocket engens from them and use Soyus to get astronaughts to and from the ISS
I’m sorry but tu160 wins in every aspect
Except probably ECM, comms, targeting capabilities, and a lot of other incredibly important modern aspects.
Why?
Please balance music and narration volumes. I had to leap for the controls each time the video switched between the two.
When some country work and focuses on building. its military sistem it will do the best with low budget and powerful machines and the better. Comparing them with other countries..
In South Dakota the Ellsworth Air Force, we live under there flight zone and there so big and loud we can see right under them
I know right. Love seeing them. I just stop on the side of the interstate and watch.
One fast not so deadly, the other guarantee deadly, take your side.
uhhhh.... both
The swan is not only faster, but can car way more weapons, much deadlier.. simple. Plus no US fighter can ever catch it.
@@georgekaradov1274 the swan won't see the eagle coming,its insane to even imagine a third word country can play war,all your mother Russia has is evil,nothing good ever comes from this rotten place.
@@mechfly8960 your but hurts a lot, right??? Why would the swan needs to see the thing that can not catch it??? No poin. By the time you slow as turtles filters, especislythe flying brick AKA F 35, get close to the swan, it would have deployed its payload of various cruse nuclear or hypersonic missiles and be on its way back. The slow fighters would only be able to see its tail as it disappear in the sunset. They will have to turn back and try to land on their sunken careers or bombed out airfields, without even firing their air to air missiles....
While Americans spend millions of dollars every flight for stealth paint, the tupolev uses some sort of a interdiction field (not like star wars lol)
To confuse heat missiles
Bone for me😎 Wished they had built the b-1a as well
a classic Hollywood move where some writer sold 2 versions of the same script to different producers
I'll have to fly them both before I can give you my opinion. Does next Wednesday at 08:00 AM work for you?
😝
Forget everything else. The TU-160 looks superb!
The TU-160 came out of the Soviet espionage programme into Concorde. Of course it's better. Way better. The B1B is an entirely different aircraft with a similar designation to make you think they improved it. The fact is, they could never make the B1, which is what the TU160 is, work.
Which one is better...??? What possible snowballs chance in hell is survivability against either one...is the question I'm leaning more towards.
This all beautiful birds are being manufactured to eliminate humanbeens what waist of human,life's it's a pity,it would have been a best gift to any human that once get the chance to travel with this beautiful bird
Traveling in a strategic bomber ? What's the point in that when there is already commercial flight ?
@@armand9592 try to read to understand don't read to get confused if they turn this jet into commercial one will you still called it a bomber? Or is there any commercial jet called bomber?
The best one is the one who is overhead and dropping bombs on me!
Umm dude, are you ok?
Boths are my favorite Bombers!
hi N C...
'
choice ONE which one is better airplane...
not both
It’s not which is better but how they’re used in a strategic or tactical plan. Just like the B 2, a lot it’s stealth and or survivability is when to go, what path to take, etc etc etc
I ordered one of the B1 bomber’s from Amazon so I’m looking forward to seeing what it’s like but I got 30 days if there’s anything wrong just to be safe
The combat proven one is better.
It's so fun to read American comments.
If American weapons are superior in performance to Russian ones, the comments “we are the best”, “We are super” begin ...
If Russian is better - immediately comments "Both are good...", "Both are beautiful..."
B1 bigger payload, higher service ceiling, stealthier. Its American... better built. The targeting system is far superior.
Did you not watch the same video I did ??)
Tu-160 has more range than 12400km. It has record to stay in air for more than 1 day. It also crossed the atlantic and reached the Venezuela from central russia without any refuling which is over 13000-14000km.
TU 160 surely !
The Rockwell B1 Bomber Can be Also modified to carry hypersonic Missiles, just like the Tipolev Tu 160 Blackjack bomber.
What about TU-22M3 vs. 🤷♂️?
The B1-B is a stealth bomber and therefore is on a whole different level of capability. Not to mention the avionics and EW systems are likely very outdated in the TU-160.
There was talk about loading the B-1 with numerous air-to-air missiles to support the F-22. Anyways, it appears the United States did the research & development and Russia just copied the B1 oh well.
How did russia copy B1 when russian plane was made almost 2 decades before?
@korencek you should look more closely at the dates on the engineering drawings. The Original B1 development started in the 50s. The TU beat the B1 to the skies because the USSR didn’t see the huge shift in war fighting that was on the horizon. As a result, the TUs primary reason for being disappeared less than a decade after it took to the skies. On the other hand the original B1 program was stopped before the TU had even made it to the concept stage. The US didn’t restart the program until after a new role could be found. The B1 would not have gotten built if it’s role was to match the TU. Despite their similar appearance, their missions were completely different. As to the new role of the B1 serving as a missile rack for Raptors, it looks like it will lose that to the more capable repurposed F15. Boeing is redesigning the F15 to be low vis with a capability to carry 22 missiles that can be targeted directly from the helmet of the Raptor pilot. Most importantly though is that the F15 is capable of over M 2.4 and therefore can put the missiles on point very quickly.
Sadly, Pres. Carter scratched the super sonic B-1-A just as the B-1 program was getting started. That plane would have dwarfed all players at the time.. Costly re-design followed with the B-1 B
Impossible to know which is better, but what I do know is I would personally take either one if I had twice as many of them, and enough bombs to fill them!
They are both good aircraft designed for different reasons. I give the edge to the Blackjack though with greater speed, range, combat radius and variety of ordinance.
An-160 is also capable of carrying the latest Kh-101 and Kh-102 missiles (improved Kalibr) with a range of up to 4500 kms (if the warhead is nuclear).
When the TU-160 deals, everybody lose.
hi Y...
'
american was first made B-1...
ussr russia did spy - copy - steal to make cheap low classic TU-160...
shame shame to ussr russia
@Danil SINKIN
hi D S...
'
dont use a word - YOU - on me...
let explain about this airplane
@Ignacio Muñoz Diaz
hi I M D...
'
american B-1 is still the best airplane than ussr russia cheap tu-160 with a insane brain
@Ignacio Muñoz Diaz
hi I M D...
'
thank explain...
B-1 is still better top leader airplane than ussr russia...
I M D, which one support is america or ussr russia...
pick one
@Ignacio Muñoz Diaz
hi I M D...
'
what country paid ussr russia own tu-160 ???...
why use a word - EXPENSIVE -...
what is a problem...
american B-1 is still top airplane...
but SR-71 is more titanium and faster speeding ZOOOM than ussr russia
the TU-160 is a very old version technically speaking of the B-1A while the B-1B is the ungraded version of the same plane.
real good comparison
You stated that the TU 160 was the largest Super Sonic plane ever built. I think maybe the XB70-A Valkyrie was the largest fastest bomber ever built but I may be wrong. But I am not. 😁
Tu 160
I love 💕 B1-B Lancer fighter
The B-1 still looks more imposing even though some of its capabilities are inferior to those of the TU-160.👍
It is inferior
@@gaygambler I know but it still looks superior even though it's not.
both are designed for different roles, so both are inferior when it comes to what it's designed to do
@@ChrisZoomER it is suoerior
What a monster “. Just love the White Swan. 👍
each serves the war doctrine of their own nations needs.
Exactly bro you're absolutely right
The BONE!!!!!
I think the russian plane with its electronics could function as long range radar for fighter augmenting
both of these can kill a lot of people😐
That’s the point...
Well, I would go with the Lancer because it will be harder to find of it stealth technology where as the tu 160 be destroyed before it reaches its target. Both planes are similiar but that is my opinion of both capabilities.
What stealth technology? It cannot fly in airspace defended by modern radar/missiles
Stop saying they are so different from each other. The blackjack is basically a copy from the bone, the b-1a did exactly what the blackjack is. The engines design looks exactly like the bone, the swip wings.
B1B Data links, aka “missile platforms for stealth aircraft.”
I prefer TU160
TU 160 Black Jack
You see tu-160 and tu-22m3 and tu -95 that all three blue fire from back engines three all same
Bigger, faster and cheaper must be a bad thing :)
The original B-1A is much closer to the TU-160 than the B-1B is.
B1 is high trust on avionics with confidence penetrating enemy airspace..