NATO nomenclature requires that the reporting name of a bomber aircraft starts with a B. So Bear, Bison, Backfire etc.. Also they tend to avoid names that are particularly flattering.
Because Nato fanboys are just silly little boys and pro russian people doesn't really understand English or jokes.. A sad world where everyone thinks they know everything about things they only seen one sided propaganda of.
Because since the beginning of the war every second person thinks he's strategic and geopolitical genius with the ability to predict the future, and if you disagree with them than you're automatically stand against them.
Butthurt westerners who, until the sanctions rebounded, believed the propaganda that Russia was just an insignificant petrol station masquerading as a country. They believed their MSM propaganda and thought the west would crush Russia through sanctions and that western supplied weapons would push Russia back to its original borders. This has come to naught so their are finding any videos about Russia to seethe while they try cope with reality.
Best Comment because F-14 are pretty. But unfortunalley only F-14s around today are in Museuns and under Iran service, tho would be good if they did their own F-14 just to keep the Aesthetics alive.
>>> Russian military equipment can be broadly classified in three tiers: Something new: It's cool. It's badass. It might even be a contender internationally for a cutting edge platform. This will cost a lot of money so Russia will buy like 10 of them and make sure they are front and center of every RT reporting segment and feature in every parade. Something newish: The previous from 10-15 years ago. This was going to be the thing to defeat the west, be the best, replace all the Soviet hardware completely. If the "new" has ten, there's like 6 of these because parades still inflict wear and tear/there was that incident with that bear. Glorious Proletariat Comrade Worker's Gear of Soviet Worker. The Soviet Union built like a million of whatever this kind of equipment is. Some of it is still in the original cosmoline and wrapped in newspapers from 1968. Occasionally upgraded in small batches to a more relevant platform, or given an upgrade between "coat of paint" and "now less likely to give cancer." These are the most common, most relevant equipment in Russian service. (From /u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer)
I think the purpose of having a supersonic bomber is to help faciliate their supersonic cruise missile program, probably easier to launch a cruise missile at supersonic speeds rather than having a propellant help reach that speed and then activating a ramjet or scramjet.
Oddly, no mention of the fact that only 3 of 4 engines worked during the demonstration....for BOTH the demo plane AND the backup. That said, gotta tip the hat to the pilot to take off without an engine...for a DEMO flight.
Then the b52's are gonna fare even worse. B Even if they are easy targets for peer competitors like china or near peer like Russia, they are still usefui and potent at their singular role/job
Russia build the biggest bomb in the world 60 years ago called Tsar bomb. They created the first hypersonic missiles. They already used there hypersonic missiles in battle and the yankees in the west cant still figure out there border problems LOL. Lets go Brandon.
@@9w9id no one has built a bigger bomb ever since. Its a show off weapon. Bomb of that scale is just wayyy too impractical for any use. The "lesser" bombs that can still devastate cities are way more useful. And using hypersonic missiles is not any achievement. Thats just to boost/break morale. If my country managed border problems like that it wouldn't be my country anymore.
@@Rius9106 Russia build Satan 2 missile. One missile can wipe out any state in United states. They have the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle. They have Poseidon underwater drone nuke that can create tsunamis that the world has never seen before. Hypersonic missiles is an achievement since united states cant defend against them. This types of weapons are way more scarier then the Tsar bomb 60 years ago because they are unstoppable. Russia is the only country that posses the doomsday weapons.
@@9w9id Russia had to develop satan 2 missile because they were afraid the US air defense systems would be able to counter conventional ICMBs. A feat that russia does not possess. People tend to forget that. The fact that russia had to develop these weapons is just as much an achievement for the US and for russia. Same goes for avangard and poseidon being alternatives that can bypass current defense systems. Poseidon will not be able to create tsunamis that the world has never seen before. That's just delusional. Even more delusional is that 1 missile can wipe out an entire state. Even 10 tsar bombas could not achieve that goal. Russia might be the only one to possess these kind of '''doomsday weapons''. But there are a total estimate of almost 13000 nuclear warheads still in service worldwide that would have the same effect as these wonder weapons. Show- off weapons that are given way more credit than they deserve.
The plane is TU-160M2, not TU-160. You can find details about what exactly was improved elsewhere. The plans to fly it in 2022 were announced in 2021 or so.
Although somewhat useful and a deterrent to some, it *IS* still odd to see large bombers for large area destruction or nuclear carrying capability in this day and age... should the UK bring back their V-Bomber force and/or modernize their museum-piece Lancasters in response? Politics and sceptisim aside, this Tu-160 is still a fascinating aircraft.
Hard to admit but the Tu-160 would be well suited for its intended role, if it works. Not direct bombing, too dangerous. No, these would be the U-boats of WWIII. Considerably faster than either the F/A-18E/F or the F-35, 7000+ mile range and capable of trucking around 50tons of boom. Guided in by satellite recon, zip down between Iceland and Greenland (hoping the US isn't taking it's turn deploying fighters in Iceland, the F-15s and retiring F-22s are the only allied planes that can catch a Tu-160), poke around the Atlantic, looking and listening for AWACS signatures, dash in, drop a swarm of missiles, turn tail and get out. Fighters would need to get within 50 miles even with the latest AMRAAMs to score a hit on a fleeing bomber, when the bomber can outrun most fighters by 3 miles per minute that is a hard sell. Troops can be flown in, so can most equipment, but the supply of ammo, food, parts and 12+ million gallons of fuel per day of operations can't be. Ships would be crucial, and would be hunted from above and below. For the 3rd time the fate of Europe would be decided in the Atlantic.
NATO forces would probably deal with these similar to how the Soviets dealt with the SR-71. Though now NATO's jets have better avionics and don't have to climb to altitude to intercept the Tu-160. Keep in mind AMRAAMs also have a MAR (minimum abort range, i.e. range that the missile has a very high probability of hitting you unless it is decoyed) of around 30 kilometers against a fighter sized target
@@HMSNeptun Also keep in mind that amraams still need to be launched from high altitude to reach speeds required to chase a supersonic target. Better avionics can't help against a monster that can launch ballistic and cruise missiles from standoff range and rain hell anywhere on europe.
The cost of it and smart weapons for it must be immense. The production rate is probably going to be horrendous. Maybe a half dozen or so before they move on
That energy revenue will be put to good use on modernizing their military, I imagine this will be funded more than you give them credit. Ethics and national allegiances aside, Russia's invasion of Ukraine will ultimately have been amazing for them in terms of profits. And before anyone replies with the typical accepted narrative, yes, I've heard it before. Unfortunately, reality is telling a different story, regardless of how much we like or dislike Russia and Ukraine.
@@fowlerfreak7420 they can barely make that many modern fighter jets it will take them forever to make more bombers. Especially during sanctions. Trade is far more valuable than a few more miles of worthless land of which Russia has a near infinite amount. Germany never has dominated Europe more than when it sat down and just traded with everyone letting their economic superiority do the talking. If Russia had joined the EU instead they would have been an investor’s paradise assuming they dealt with corruption at least to eu standards. Cheep labor and resources would have made them Rich enough to modernize their economy and make Europe fully dependent on them. If they then wanted to go around larping like it’s the 1800s France and Germany would have backed them up. Instead their Allies are losers who are on the opposite side of the planet don’t really care about them or are actively eyeing up their territory. It’s just an all around poor decision not counting the fact on the ground that if they can some how win this it’s been costly and they will be dealing with partisans for years. Status quo would have been better but Putin just had to try to bring the Soviet Union back before the 100th anniversary.
Binkov: Tu-160 will not be used on conventional bombing runs. (Me looking at an armored Russian train rolling along the Ukrainian countryside) Yeah...I wouldn't be so sure about that Binkov these guys are literally living in a WW2 mindset.
@@HATCH5T It's when you have a dictator running the show, oh let's call him Adolf or Vlad or whatever, and he piece by piece starts gobbling up territory, oh like maybe Sudetenland or Georgia or Czechoslovakia or Chechnya and then one day bossman dickhead dictator (Adolf or Vlad, whatever) starts saying he is gonna help his ethnic brethren in the country next door (Poland? Ukraine? All the same) by invading it and the rest of the world wakes up.
US forces are evolved from world war 2 mindset... they follow an advanced mindset for major recruitment of highly skilled LG HDTV+ combatants in war. Emma and her lesbo moms for the win ! 👏
Meh. They flew a bomber. All 0.14 of them? For more than 17 km? Longer than 11 minutes? With all systems functioning? Do they have any weapons for it? Can they still afford a weapons load? Do they still have a crew under 76 years of age for it? Just asking, just asking...
It certainly justifies the prestige by wiping out all that precious NATO aid in dozens of burning warehouses all over Ukraine. Air launched cruise missiles, baby. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Eight of Russia's Tu-160s came from Ukraine in exchange for gas debt relief in 1999. Ukraine had 19 of them. The other 11 where scraped under the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction agreement.
It's a gorgeous aircraft for sure, but seems like serious overkill for the missle truck role. Wouldn't something more efficient like the bear be a more cost effective option? Who are we kidding? Half the budget already goes to soldiers self sponsored state contribution reclamation operations. (In other words to fraud/ corruption/ petty theft).
Bear is more cost effective and fuel efficient but Tu-160 is far more capable overall. Bear are slow and obvious at any range. Tu-160 are fast, carry more load, and while not fully stealthy are nevertheless much less observable. This makes Tu-160 more likely to survive and complete a mission. Even standoff missile launches far from the targets can put aircraft at risk along the way.
This plane is a thing of beauty. However I would say that this type of plane is obsolete. It has no stealth and the utility of supersonic speed is questionable when you are using the bomber as a stand off platform. So much of what the Russian military does these days makes very little sense.
@@MatsLM Well they didn't take out the enemy's air defence or air force in ukraine and with the recent shootdown of an su-34. I would certainly say that the Russians do need stealth.
@@itsthatsebguy93 the fact X tactics say something doesn't means they will work For the non stealth nature, I disagree, if you have a modern rifle fighting some Medieval Knight while on top of a tower you don't need to have camouflage, as being out of reach of his weapons is better than "not being detected", as the stealth can fail (example being the F-117 being shotdown during the Yugoslavian wars) This is why they are just allowing the usage of stand-off weapons for this plane
We have done the same, even including fuels that were developed from the old zip fuel studies. No more cringy, sanctimonious natosphere bootlicking pls. Tired of seeing Americans betray their country by supporting globalist thugs.
We'll see how the systems work and how many hours until these new engines have to be completed torn down and rebuilt...an impressive looking aircraft, the T-90 is an impressive looking tank(its a dressed up T-72...cheers
@@martinilopez1 Mach 2 isn't special that's nothing to a missile, and at best rivals 1980's era fighters. Almost every nation on the planet supports a fighter which is faster.
It's not a "bomber" it's a cruise missile carrier, it's not gonna be in range of air defenses, for example in Ukraine, they've been great. It's not like they're gonna be fighting nato directly anyway, so no need to worry about modern air defenses
Do not worry, they simply slapped an old airplane with a new code, and showed it on TV as some sorta weapon that has NO ANALOGUES IN THE WORLD. While Binkov uploads videos and simply making off money on ads
If only in your fantasies. Russia uses Glonas, its own system. In addition, in case of unforeseen malfunctions, there is still a system for determining coordinates by stars, and laser gyroscopes.. Common practice.
@@garfield2406 You're talking about an electromechanical tablet. WELL, this system is powered by gyroscopes, and radio navigation signals on long waves. This is for a situation when there was an atomic war and the satellites were destroyed. Yes, this system is not available on new aircraft. Only those that were created in the late seventies. Still, the electronic screen is more convenient.
@@Redfvvg No, the ones they are finding on the shot down Russian planes in Ukraine with GPS rcvrs' taped to the control panels.. THOSE ones. What's most curious is that Putin and his band of thieves are Russia's enemies much more than NATO. What will they do about that instead of throwing money at another growingly obsolete piece of the Soviet death machine? The want to see the enemy? They don't need radar and advanced avionics for that.
@@richardreynolds6398 Well, since we just moved on to the topic of cheap, homemade drones, instead of strategic bombers, then tell me, they say that sunflower oil has risen in price in your stores, so how much does it cost per liter of oil?
well these bombers are not used against eurofighters, and it shoots missiles, which means its attack range can surpass the anti-air area created by fighters.
When a nation is unretiring defunct large strategic bombers in 2022... you know their nuclear and bombing capability is not as good as they initially made out...
@@antimatter4733 I totally understood the video... US uses B52's on underdeveloped soviet states... not super modern states... of which... most are in NATO... Missiles replaced bombs in modern warfare. Russia is un-mothballing soviet era strategic bombers... of which have been completely redundant to the last 20 years of NATO anti aircraft missiles... they have not suddenly become "good" lol... it's called desperation. You un mothball defunct equipment when you are struggling for equipment. Russia has recently experienced the OLDEST of NATO missiles... Starstreak + NLAW... which use predictive pathing at hypersonic speeds (StarStreak)... MEANING they cannot be decoyed with flares, chaff, lasers, jamming or APS... and that stuff is the multiple decades old short range export goods... Wait till the more expensive newer stuff gets used... predictive pathing is 3 decades old... the new stuff uses AI lol I mean... it kind of says everything when Putin was going on about it's new T14 tanks and Hypersonic Nuclear missiles... and then pushes out old slow nuclear aircraft and tanks... lol. The world has learned a lot about Russia this year... and that was Russia failed to take a smaller and less armed country right next to it... even with surprise. Not only is Putin now a laughing stock to the world... he is dragging the good people of Russia with him.
@@antimatter4733 Scary thing is it's not opinion... Ask the Russian Army that was repelled from Ukraine's capitol all the way back to the Russian Border... Since March 2022... Russia was no longer scary... and this single paragraph is my opinion.
It is still good posture, to take your rivals weapons and statistics serious, even if current performance, and corruption exposure tells a different story.
How can they, their solders are stealing chicken and their tanks are being taken away by tractors. What a corrupt joke of an army. Would be wiped out in a week by the US
What is the benefit of such a bomber? Looks like an expensive missle truck. What can it provide a B-52/Tu-95 can't provide? It will not operate over enemy air defense and would launch its weapons from stand off distance, so its speed will only come in handy when running away from a threat.
Airframe is less worn out. Less noise. It's engines are more efficient. Also, you mentioned Tu-95, Tu-160 it's not there to replace it, rather to serve alongside it, it would not be that practical to build Tu-95 from scratch in 2020s.
@@Dembilaja how are it’s engine’s more efficient exactly? It burns more fuel per kg to go a certain distance = less efficient. Less noisy engines? Really? 4 giant jet engines vs turboprops. By your logic a Ferrari super car is more fuel efficient and quieter than a diesel ecoboost hatchback.
Starstreak doesn't have the range to hurt it, unless it somehow finds itself close to the airfield where they takeoff and land. But seeing how Starstreak users struggle to even hold the line, that doesn't seem likely.
Well... While there are plans to build more Tu-160s from scratch, this one's not completely made from the ground up actually. This one too is built upon unfinished frame from the Soviet era. Check Russian articles.
electronics breaks down from gamma radiation after a nuclear explosion, so all the main systems on such russian military equipment are at least duplicated with analogue ones, especially such bombers.They still use lamp electronics for some needs, because lamps can work in strong gamma radiation correct. Of course, it's not possible for small missles or cameras, but for a plane analogue control systems can be really helpful
That's because it is footage of old bombers. No defense firm are going to let you inside the cockpit of a warplane variant still in development or early production.
2 года назад
@@VictorDolgov Ok, so ruZZian gear is crap. Thanks.
Cant we just appreciate what beautiful bird the Swan is? I mean, i hate the IDF with a passion, but i think their Merkava MBT looks cool af, and their Tavor bullpup assault rifles r pretty innovative.
Dont be obtuse. These deploy long range cruise missiles. They can be stealthy ground huggers or very high altitude hypersonics. The big old bird is just a missile slinger. Doesnt need to be stealthy.
Because this bomber isn't supposed to fly over its target or even into enemy territory it reaches max speed launches a supersonic missile turns back to base stealth would be useless if it isn't even going to fly to enemy territory.
More like twitches in a pile of burning metal on the ground, if said F-15 went where it had to be to even meet a Tu-160, which normally operate from friendly territory, heavily defended by interceptors and SAMs.
@@shaftoe195 In order for the Tu-160 to hit what it needs to hit, it has to leave friendly airspace. otherwise you don't need the range that it has, and that combat range (2,000km) is well outside the max range of the longest ranged (1,600km) Russian built fighter. Oh and A2A missiles are easier to evade the further out you have to shoot, if you have 10 missiles, a good pilot, (and most American Lt's have more flying time than an entire squadron of Russian pilots put together), and 70% is pure air to air combat with the rest being navigation and tanking.
@@shaftoe195 that’s not at all what TU-160s are doctrinally meant for but sure. they are meant for either anti ship work or strategic bombing. they certainly aren’t meant to operate over friendly territory and launch munitions from there, that would be utterly pointless.
@@AKolesya Oh no, someone offended our beloved SS collaborator, who has more than 50 statues in Ukraine, and in whose honor there are torchlight processions every year, oh no. The funniest thing is that during the Nuremberg trials, even the SS officers who worked with him spoke of him as a disgusting person who would have sold his own mother, but hey, he's the greatest hero of ukraine.
Although I oppose the actions of the russian gov But I dont hate russians and I ask people to be respectful towards russians in the current time Its not their fault they didint cause the war Love and peace to all P.S amazing bideo as always binkov ❤❤❤❤❤❤
so True! Yeah, its sad that the Media made this propaganda campaing that led people to hate the Russian and everything related to Russia. Like, I saw some news of people throwing away vodka, probably US made btw, they bought because "its russian" I don't drink, but that made me sad, what did the vodka done wrong lol.
So the Sarmat ICBM (and other like Yars, Topol-M) do not exist anymore? Both USA and Russia use nuclear triad which include sea-launched missiles, silo-launched missiles and strategic bombers with cruise missiles
The cold war was close for the United States. And many times it appeared we might lose it. Most US positions abroad lacked sufficient manpower to be of actual military significance. Therefor millions of us served as US tripwires. The Korean DMZ deployment and the Cuban deployment are ideal examples. Like everywhere, the US was expected to prevail in any greater conflict. But unfortunately that's usually after the US tripwire force is lost.
tu-160s are extremely expensive and strategic (nuclear related) assets so they really don’t want to risk them if they don’t have to. it would also be a huge propoganda loss if one was shot down, which could happen since Ukraine still had a decent amount of S-300s
Given their electronics industry and their closed economy, I doubt there will be many flying and this is mostly chest thumping on their part. Given the state of their military I can't help think they are going to have this out and about in any official capacity, beyond maybe some parades or whatever.
@@irvinmcb that might be because russias airfields and infrastructure is at maximum capacity on the region. There is no reason not to use all of the air power if possible. They are just unable to do so.
Like the BUFF and the Bone are brand spanking new either. Dont be this delusional, even for a Yankee. They are just as old airframes being modernized too.
You seriously? Militaries don't need the newest one, they need the best one, they have. For example USA airforces uses B-52 as main missle carrier. The last one of these was built in 60's
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
I always thought the Tu-160 and the B1-B were both very attractive aircraft.
The same here! They are stunning.
20 planes by 2030?
There will be some nice SuperYachts that will be built with part of the budget allocated for the program.
imagine being shot down by a bomber, even in the afterlife i would be salty as hell
🤣
I read that NATO refers to the Tu-160 as the Blackjack, but I like the name White Swan better.
NATO have blind in color, White they see a black
NATO nomenclature requires that the reporting name of a bomber aircraft starts with a B. So Bear, Bison, Backfire etc.. Also they tend to avoid names that are particularly flattering.
Indeed White swan is better
Fun fact: In the Tu series of bombers, each aircraft receives a name, just like boats and ships do.
Could name them after the generals killed in Ukraine.
Makes sense consideing how few of them will ever be, and being strategic weapons
@@gerfand my point exactly
Like Balalaika, Vodka, and Suka Blyat
It's not "each", but "some".
Some TU-95 were named after cities, and I'm not sure if any TU-22M3 were named.
Beautiful aircraft.
That is a beautiful aircraft.
To who? It's a POS, I think.
Why are the comment sections under Binkov's videos always an absolute mess lmao
it's a part of the binkov package
It's like a war.
Because irrational Russophobia
Russians struggling with reality.
Because Nato fanboys are just silly little boys and pro russian people doesn't really understand English or jokes..
A sad world where everyone thinks they know everything about things they only seen one sided propaganda of.
I honestly just come here at this point to laugh at the comments.
Lots of cope and armchair generals here. It's embarrassing honestly.
Funny how a completely neutral and informative video can cause such a massive wave of outrage in the comments...
Because since the beginning of the war every second person thinks he's strategic and geopolitical genius with the ability to predict the future, and if you disagree with them than you're automatically stand against them.
Butthurt westerners who, until the sanctions rebounded, believed the propaganda that Russia was just an insignificant petrol station masquerading as a country. They believed their MSM propaganda and thought the west would crush Russia through sanctions and that western supplied weapons would push Russia back to its original borders. This has come to naught so their are finding any videos about Russia to seethe while they try cope with reality.
Time to bring back the f14 to intercept these things
A simple modern missile will do.
There is a reason Large Strategic bombers were made redundant 20-30 years ago...
I know right. Better buy them back off Iran or we are screwed. Damn you 1980s tech its so good!
Best Comment because F-14 are pretty.
But unfortunalley only F-14s around today are in Museuns and under Iran service, tho would be good if they did their own F-14 just to keep the Aesthetics alive.
@@babalonkie You know the B1 is still in service right
@@madnow1 So is the bolt action infantry rifle...
Yes Putin, we have upgraded the bombers navigation (Garmin 6" GPS with suctioncup).
That a big improverment over the TomTom they had clipped on the dash before.
Putrid the dwarf
@@angelarch5352 I still remember the folded map
Binkov you are the absolute best at what you do, and there’s no one on the platform who does this better, not even close.
It's a beautiful plane no matter what!
Very beautifull plane,one of my favourite,i liked his nickname "white swan"
I always thought b52 was the biggest bomber out there. I guess i just "look bigger".. im certainly nor an expert. Very interesting vid 👌
>>> Russian military equipment can be broadly classified in three tiers:
Something new: It's cool. It's badass. It might even be a contender internationally for a cutting edge platform. This will cost a lot of money so Russia will buy like 10 of them and make sure they are front and center of every RT reporting segment and feature in every parade.
Something newish: The previous from 10-15 years ago. This was going to be the thing to defeat the west, be the best, replace all the Soviet hardware completely. If the "new" has ten, there's like 6 of these because parades still inflict wear and tear/there was that incident with that bear.
Glorious Proletariat Comrade Worker's Gear of Soviet Worker. The Soviet Union built like a million of whatever this kind of equipment is. Some of it is still in the original cosmoline and wrapped in newspapers from 1968. Occasionally upgraded in small batches to a more relevant platform, or given an upgrade between "coat of paint" and "now less likely to give cancer." These are the most common, most relevant equipment in Russian service.
(From /u/pnzsaurkrautwerfer)
Whay equipment is something newish
I think the purpose of having a supersonic bomber is to help faciliate their supersonic cruise missile program, probably easier to launch a cruise missile at supersonic speeds rather than having a propellant help reach that speed and then activating a ramjet or scramjet.
Oddly, no mention of the fact that only 3 of 4 engines worked during the demonstration....for BOTH the demo plane AND the backup.
That said, gotta tip the hat to the pilot to take off without an engine...for a DEMO flight.
You dont know
Russia: We made a new bomber!
World: key word "A"
The orange exhaust from Soviet planes always makes me uneasy. But their badassness overcomes the twinge of unease
Cool looking BIRD!!
Previously had a great standoff capability… using cruise missiles (16 max I think) it’s quite a potent force. The design is still beautiful
I know they had better than tactical bombs..they are tactical,termic and vacume bombs..
@ hahahaha.yes yes.. hahahahahahaa how yes no..
They are a beautiful plane, combine that with the Mach 2 speed, just amazing 🥰
Too slow, too large and any image acquisition capable missle will trash it.
Then the b52's are gonna fare even worse.
B
Even if they are easy targets for peer competitors like china or near peer like Russia, they are still usefui and potent at their singular role/job
@@bittripper3530 it literally flies above mach 2. What are you waffling about it being slow??
@@playoffmodesp2536 USA had a bomber that did Mach 3 in 1964, the Russian one is slow at Mach 2. And the new hypersonic missiles will trash it
@@bittripper3530 and they weren't produced for a reason. The tupolev is an actual viable aircraft. The B70 is and will forever stay a prototype.
Could you please make a video about the new Rheinmetall tank, the "panther"
The Cope in the comments..... delicious
These are for show. Russia can't afford to build the stuff they show off. Their procurement is poor, at best, because...they are broke.
If it only where true🥲
Russia build the biggest bomb in the world 60 years ago called Tsar bomb. They created the first hypersonic missiles. They already used there hypersonic missiles in battle and the yankees in the west cant still figure out there border problems LOL. Lets go Brandon.
@@9w9id no one has built a bigger bomb ever since. Its a show off weapon. Bomb of that scale is just wayyy too impractical for any use. The "lesser" bombs that can still devastate cities are way more useful. And using hypersonic missiles is not any achievement. Thats just to boost/break morale. If my country managed border problems like that it wouldn't be my country anymore.
@@Rius9106 Russia build Satan 2 missile. One missile can wipe out any state in United states. They have the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle. They have Poseidon underwater drone nuke that can create tsunamis that the world has never seen before. Hypersonic missiles is an achievement since united states cant defend against them. This types of weapons are way more scarier then the Tsar bomb 60 years ago because they are unstoppable. Russia is the only country that posses the doomsday weapons.
@@9w9id Russia had to develop satan 2 missile because they were afraid the US air defense systems would be able to counter conventional ICMBs. A feat that russia does not possess. People tend to forget that. The fact that russia had to develop these weapons is just as much an achievement for the US and for russia. Same goes for avangard and poseidon being alternatives that can bypass current defense systems. Poseidon will not be able to create tsunamis that the world has never seen before. That's just delusional. Even more delusional is that 1 missile can wipe out an entire state. Even 10 tsar bombas could not achieve that goal. Russia might be the only one to possess these kind of '''doomsday weapons''. But there are a total estimate of almost 13000 nuclear warheads still in service worldwide that would have the same effect as these wonder weapons. Show- off weapons that are given way more credit than they deserve.
The plane is TU-160M2, not TU-160. You can find details about what exactly was improved elsewhere. The plans to fly it in 2022 were announced in 2021 or so.
Love your videos keep up with the great work!
I actually got to go inside one of these things in a tour of old Soviet planes on a base in Poltava, Ukraine 6 years ago. Pretty cool.
If it's anything like Russain UAV's. It will have a laser pointer and some fireworks for defense. And be powered by 4 angry babushkas.
I'm willing to bet money that in 10 years they'll still only have one.
You mean 30 years
depends on how good it s defense is and how crazy the kremlin gets. perhaps they ll have less than one.
All your comments on this channel have between 21 and 24 likes precisely, are you a bot or a very dedicated self-liker ?
Idk, not one or two
16 and more are operational (or less)
Although somewhat useful and a deterrent to some, it *IS* still odd to see large bombers for large area destruction or nuclear carrying capability in this day and age... should the UK bring back their V-Bomber force and/or modernize their museum-piece Lancasters in response?
Politics and sceptisim aside, this Tu-160 is still a fascinating aircraft.
The B-70 Valkyrie also should never have been canceled.
In response? lol you make it sound like UK would be some kind of competition for Russia.
@@MrThecrayzboss ANY competition to Russia is welcome
love how the wingtips flex upwards, just a bit. amazing aircraft
Beautiful plane
Didn’t one of these crash a few years ago?
I couldn't find any info, but a tu-154 carrying russian military officials crashed and killed everyone on board in 2016.
If your're talking about the one that was landing in very foggy weather that was a Tu-22M3
Yes. That must be it. Thanks
Hard to admit but the Tu-160 would be well suited for its intended role, if it works. Not direct bombing, too dangerous. No, these would be the U-boats of WWIII. Considerably faster than either the F/A-18E/F or the F-35, 7000+ mile range and capable of trucking around 50tons of boom. Guided in by satellite recon, zip down between Iceland and Greenland (hoping the US isn't taking it's turn deploying fighters in Iceland, the F-15s and retiring F-22s are the only allied planes that can catch a Tu-160), poke around the Atlantic, looking and listening for AWACS signatures, dash in, drop a swarm of missiles, turn tail and get out. Fighters would need to get within 50 miles even with the latest AMRAAMs to score a hit on a fleeing bomber, when the bomber can outrun most fighters by 3 miles per minute that is a hard sell. Troops can be flown in, so can most equipment, but the supply of ammo, food, parts and 12+ million gallons of fuel per day of operations can't be. Ships would be crucial, and would be hunted from above and below. For the 3rd time the fate of Europe would be decided in the Atlantic.
tu 160 at 2 mach in High altitudes...
Air defenses : I'm about to ground hog day this b!tch
NATO forces would probably deal with these similar to how the Soviets dealt with the SR-71. Though now NATO's jets have better avionics and don't have to climb to altitude to intercept the Tu-160. Keep in mind AMRAAMs also have a MAR (minimum abort range, i.e. range that the missile has a very high probability of hitting you unless it is decoyed) of around 30 kilometers against a fighter sized target
@@HMSNeptun Also keep in mind that amraams still need to be launched from high altitude to reach speeds required to chase a supersonic target.
Better avionics can't help against a monster that can launch ballistic and cruise missiles from standoff range and rain hell anywhere on europe.
Nice piece of fiction.
The cost of it and smart weapons for it must be immense. The production rate is probably going to be horrendous. Maybe a half dozen or so before they move on
That energy revenue will be put to good use on modernizing their military, I imagine this will be funded more than you give them credit. Ethics and national allegiances aside, Russia's invasion of Ukraine will ultimately have been amazing for them in terms of profits. And before anyone replies with the typical accepted narrative, yes, I've heard it before. Unfortunately, reality is telling a different story, regardless of how much we like or dislike Russia and Ukraine.
@@fowlerfreak7420 they can barely make that many modern fighter jets it will take them forever to make more bombers. Especially during sanctions.
Trade is far more valuable than a few more miles of worthless land of which Russia has a near infinite amount. Germany never has dominated Europe more than when it sat down and just traded with everyone letting their economic superiority do the talking.
If Russia had joined the EU instead they would have been an investor’s paradise assuming they dealt with corruption at least to eu standards. Cheep labor and resources would have made them Rich enough to modernize their economy and make Europe fully dependent on them. If they then wanted to go around larping like it’s the 1800s France and Germany would have backed them up. Instead their Allies are losers who are on the opposite side of the planet don’t really care about them or are actively eyeing up their territory.
It’s just an all around poor decision not counting the fact on the ground that if they can some how win this it’s been costly and they will be dealing with partisans for years.
Status quo would have been better but Putin just had to try to bring the Soviet Union back before the 100th anniversary.
@@fowlerfreak7420 their energy income is falling, and will fall further over the next year or two.
Binkov: Tu-160 will not be used on conventional bombing runs.
(Me looking at an armored Russian train rolling along the Ukrainian countryside)
Yeah...I wouldn't be so sure about that Binkov these guys are literally living in a WW2 mindset.
What exactly is WW 2 mindset lol
@@HATCH5T It's when you have a dictator running the show, oh let's call him Adolf or Vlad or whatever, and he piece by piece starts gobbling up territory, oh like maybe Sudetenland or Georgia or Czechoslovakia or Chechnya and then one day bossman dickhead dictator (Adolf or Vlad, whatever) starts saying he is gonna help his ethnic brethren in the country next door (Poland? Ukraine? All the same) by invading it and the rest of the world wakes up.
@@HATCH5T if I had to guess, unrefined maneuver warfare
@@Sandycheeks6699 well if it works even now then why not follow it?
US forces are evolved from world war 2 mindset... they follow an advanced mindset for major recruitment of highly skilled LG HDTV+ combatants in war.
Emma and her lesbo moms for the win ! 👏
what a big beautiful bird
Meh. They flew a bomber. All 0.14 of them? For more than 17 km? Longer than 11 minutes? With all systems functioning? Do they have any weapons for it? Can they still afford a weapons load? Do they still have a crew under 76 years of age for it? Just asking, just asking...
Yes
@@shiwanisrivastava6716 yes to what? Yes they flew a bomber? M'kay , I'll give them that. But that's it.
Please keep spending your military budget on prestige projects like this, Russia.
It certainly justifies the prestige by wiping out all that precious NATO aid in dozens of burning warehouses all over Ukraine. Air launched cruise missiles, baby. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Eight of Russia's Tu-160s came from Ukraine in exchange for gas debt relief in 1999.
Ukraine had 19 of them. The other 11 where scraped under the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction agreement.
This comment section is incredible
It's a gorgeous aircraft for sure, but seems like serious overkill for the missle truck role. Wouldn't something more efficient like the bear be a more cost effective option?
Who are we kidding? Half the budget already goes to soldiers self sponsored state contribution reclamation operations. (In other words to fraud/ corruption/ petty theft).
Hypersonic cruise missle are giant and the US has thought about having B-1 fill that role as well for AA missles to help out F-35s and F-22s.
Bear is more cost effective and fuel efficient but Tu-160 is far more capable overall. Bear are slow and obvious at any range. Tu-160 are fast, carry more load, and while not fully stealthy are nevertheless much less observable. This makes Tu-160 more likely to survive and complete a mission. Even standoff missile launches far from the targets can put aircraft at risk along the way.
This plane is a thing of beauty.
However I would say that this type of plane is obsolete. It has no stealth and the utility of supersonic speed is questionable when you are using the bomber as a stand off platform. So much of what the Russian military does these days makes very little sense.
Russian Air Force tactics rely on taking out enemy air defense and Air Force, and then bombers don’t need stealth.
@@MatsLM Well they didn't take out the enemy's air defence or air force in ukraine and with the recent shootdown of an su-34. I would certainly say that the Russians do need stealth.
@@itsthatsebguy93 indeed
@@itsthatsebguy93 the fact X tactics say something doesn't means they will work
For the non stealth nature, I disagree, if you have a modern rifle fighting some Medieval Knight while on top of a tower you don't need to have camouflage, as being out of reach of his weapons is better than "not being detected", as the stealth can fail (example being the F-117 being shotdown during the Yugoslavian wars)
This is why they are just allowing the usage of stand-off weapons for this plane
@@itsthatsebguy93 one su-34 has been shot down during the entire conflict 🤨
Ah yes. The "Totally not a B-1" bomber.
@JZ's BFF Why the fuck are you quoting something that apparently nobody said?
Does this version still produce toxic exhaust fumes or is it to early to know yet
Well it is a much more modern engine so i would say no or lesser extent.
We have done the same, even including fuels that were developed from the old zip fuel studies. No more cringy, sanctimonious natosphere bootlicking pls. Tired of seeing Americans betray their country by supporting globalist thugs.
This is what i dia been waiting for a new TU bomber!!!
We'll see how the systems work and how many hours until these new engines have to be completed torn down and rebuilt...an impressive looking aircraft, the T-90 is an impressive looking tank(its a dressed up T-72...cheers
Wait… so no… acid rain? NOOOOOOOOO
No worries about them. They just seem to explode randomly when they land. Two have done that recently. Cheers m8
lol what?
@@iyhan1987 their is a video on youtube i believe showing one crashing and exploding on landing and if you google it couple of articles about it
@@saladtx6928 it was tu22
@@iyhan1987 im not arguing with you I think the original poster of this has them confused.
Source?
So another large slow bomber in the era of anti-air missiles?
Noted
slow? hahahaha
@@martinilopez1 Mach 2 isn't special that's nothing to a missile, and at best rivals 1980's era fighters.
Almost every nation on the planet supports a fighter which is faster.
It's not a "bomber" it's a cruise missile carrier, it's not gonna be in range of air defenses, for example in Ukraine, they've been great. It's not like they're gonna be fighting nato directly anyway, so no need to worry about modern air defenses
@@antimatter4733 Yeah, I'll say fair enough to that.
@@GainingDespair a tu160 will ALWAYS be escorted by at least 2 su35 o su57 in the near future.
While undeniably a beautiful aircraft, pouring money into expensive prestige projects is really not what the Russian Air Force needs right now.
Do not worry, they simply slapped an old airplane with a new code, and showed it on TV as some sorta weapon that has NO ANALOGUES IN THE WORLD. While Binkov uploads videos and simply making off money on ads
@@tomasgogashvily5350 "I'm talking from my ass"
They are stunning 🔥
Real Shit storm down at the comment section 👇
russian bots, ukrainians simps, wannabe military experts. love it!
ong
Will this Bomber be equipted with the latest Tom Tom navigation system ripped out of a car and sticked into the cockpit with ducttape?
If only in your fantasies. Russia uses Glonas, its own system. In addition, in case of unforeseen malfunctions, there is still a system for determining coordinates by stars, and laser gyroscopes.. Common practice.
@@Redfvvg sweet, if this works so great, why do they use taped in GPS devices all the time in the cockpits actually?
@@garfield2406 You're talking about an electromechanical tablet. WELL, this system is powered by gyroscopes, and radio navigation signals on long waves. This is for a situation when there was an atomic war and the satellites were destroyed. Yes, this system is not available on new aircraft. Only those that were created in the late seventies. Still, the electronic screen is more convenient.
@@Redfvvg No, the ones they are finding on the shot down Russian planes in Ukraine with GPS rcvrs' taped to the control panels.. THOSE ones.
What's most curious is that Putin and his band of thieves are Russia's enemies much more than NATO. What will they do about that instead of throwing money at another growingly obsolete piece of the Soviet death machine? The want to see the enemy? They don't need radar and advanced avionics for that.
@@richardreynolds6398 Well, since we just moved on to the topic of cheap, homemade drones, instead of strategic bombers, then tell me, they say that sunflower oil has risen in price in your stores, so how much does it cost per liter of oil?
Nice big Target for the F-22 Raptor
Yeahh... Why it isn't doing that before then.. lots of them bombing elensky now, go "help" then..
Yeah so bitter Ukraine 🇺🇦 is a train wreck and losing huh,have a cry 😭 there there 😩
Oh yes, a big target for a plane that can't even fly in storms or bad weather.... Yup...
Not officially our war especially with Biden
Yeah, Ukrainian F-22 will not have problems with these
Good video.
Binkov used to serve as a commissar, a political officer of the communist party. He wants to sweep this under the rug, but some of us remember.
Fun fact: for the aircraft commissioned in the 2000s, the airframes were largely bought in Ukraine where they basically rot in hangars.
Can you imagine if this thing is loaded with SDB? It could take out a small country's infrastructure in a single flight.
Well that is perfect for Russia then. They love to threaten small countries.
45,000 kg max load, 130 kg each SDB, so, more than 300 of them🤓
Depends if the country had proper airdefence or not
Tu 160 its too big not to be spotted by Airdefence
Nice big target for Eurofighter with Meteor missiles
Hahahahahahahahaha yeah ok bubba I guess wishful thinking is always good
XD
well these bombers are not used against eurofighters, and it shoots missiles, which means its attack range can surpass the anti-air area created by fighters.
@@ghostpatriot2370 RIGHT!👍 You know there's always that one in every bunch😂😂😂👍
Enjoy walking everywhere, very healthy lifestyle though a bit slow.
👩🔧🇺🇲⚒️🇷🇺🧸
Depends on foreign parts?
gotta spend those oil profits somewhere
When a nation is unretiring defunct large strategic bombers in 2022... you know their nuclear and bombing capability is not as good as they initially made out...
Tell me you haven't understood the video without telling me you haven't understood the video
Also the US still uses B52s and those are way older 🤣🤡
@@antimatter4733 I totally understood the video... US uses B52's on underdeveloped soviet states... not super modern states... of which... most are in NATO...
Missiles replaced bombs in modern warfare.
Russia is un-mothballing soviet era strategic bombers... of which have been completely redundant to the last 20 years of NATO anti aircraft missiles... they have not suddenly become "good" lol... it's called desperation. You un mothball defunct equipment when you are struggling for equipment.
Russia has recently experienced the OLDEST of NATO missiles... Starstreak + NLAW... which use predictive pathing at hypersonic speeds (StarStreak)... MEANING they cannot be decoyed with flares, chaff, lasers, jamming or APS... and that stuff is the multiple decades old short range export goods... Wait till the more expensive newer stuff gets used... predictive pathing is 3 decades old... the new stuff uses AI lol
I mean... it kind of says everything when Putin was going on about it's new T14 tanks and Hypersonic Nuclear missiles... and then pushes out old slow nuclear aircraft and tanks... lol.
The world has learned a lot about Russia this year... and that was Russia failed to take a smaller and less armed country right next to it... even with surprise.
Not only is Putin now a laughing stock to the world... he is dragging the good people of Russia with him.
@@babalonkie nice essay, don't care enough about your opinion to read it tho
@@antimatter4733 Scary thing is it's not opinion...
Ask the Russian Army that was repelled from Ukraine's capitol all the way back to the Russian Border...
Since March 2022... Russia was no longer scary... and this single paragraph is my opinion.
Say that when you see one dropping at your town.
Nice big target for aster 32 eh ?
Yeah and Starlink to track as well.
It is still good posture, to take your rivals weapons and statistics serious, even if current performance, and corruption exposure tells a different story.
A brand new 35 year old strategic bomber seems a wasteful use of resources considering Russia is currently bleeding men & material in Ukraine.
They love their prestige weapons
Its already years into research and development, you can't just stop it and continue it 10 years later like nothing happens...
If Russia’s the motherland,and germanys the fatherland who’s the kidland?
@@TheCommissarIsDead Poland 😂. They always fought each other for custody of Poland
Yes here we have a lot of sad and bitter Russia phobic old ladies moaning because Ukraine is kaput, oh dear 😤😫😫😩😩😩🥺🥺🥺😢😢😭😭😭😭
Psshh, Russia should stop with these stupid 'wunderwaffe' and focus on the basics first. Like getting decent infantry units.
How can they, their solders are stealing chicken and their tanks are being taken away by tractors. What a corrupt joke of an army. Would be wiped out in a week by the US
well sho ever comes out of this war alive will have more exp than anything they can get through training
Can easily be applied to America’s military that can’t seem to win wars.
And maybe night vision equipment for its infantry.
Beautiful aircraft!
What is the benefit of such a bomber? Looks like an expensive missle truck. What can it provide a B-52/Tu-95 can't provide? It will not operate over enemy air defense and would launch its weapons from stand off distance, so its speed will only come in handy when running away from a threat.
You need good engines for high altitudes and to carry a big payload
Airframe is less worn out. Less noise. It's engines are more efficient. Also, you mentioned Tu-95, Tu-160 it's not there to replace it, rather to serve alongside it, it would not be that practical to build Tu-95 from scratch in 2020s.
Russia still got a lot of absurd heavy 70 y/o bombs so maybe they want newest bomber to drop oldest bombs...
@@Dembilaja how are it’s engine’s more efficient exactly? It burns more fuel per kg to go a certain distance = less efficient. Less noisy engines? Really? 4 giant jet engines vs turboprops.
By your logic a Ferrari super car is more fuel efficient and quieter than a diesel ecoboost hatchback.
@@artnull13 турбовинтовые двигатели Ту-95 шумнее, чем большие реактивные, это факт
Starstreak will love to meet these
Nuke would like starstrek
Starstreak can't hit it at its normal operating altitude or speed.
@@tommiatkins3443 yeah, bur an F-15 can
Starstreak doesn't have the range to hurt it, unless it somehow finds itself close to the airfield where they takeoff and land. But seeing how Starstreak users struggle to even hold the line, that doesn't seem likely.
Can’t even touch it 💀😭
Long time no see on videos of Country vs Country war. Maybe make a video about Poland vs Ukraine
The mighty swan has taken flight again.
Well... While there are plans to build more Tu-160s from scratch, this one's not completely made from the ground up actually. This one too is built upon unfinished frame from the Soviet era. Check Russian articles.
The cockpit still looks analogue as hell
electronics breaks down from gamma radiation after a nuclear explosion, so all the main systems on such russian military equipment are at least duplicated with analogue ones, especially such bombers.They still use lamp electronics for some needs, because lamps can work in strong gamma radiation correct. Of course, it's not possible for small missles or cameras, but for a plane analogue control systems can be really helpful
That's because it is footage of old bombers. No defense firm are going to let you inside the cockpit of a warplane variant still in development or early production.
@@VictorDolgov Ok, so ruZZian gear is crap. Thanks.
nice video
Does this new bomber come with a tow bar. Just in case it runs out of fuel and the Ukrainian Special Operational 🚜 Force finds one.
Yes here we have a lot of sad and bitter Russia phobic old ladies moaning because Ukraine is kaput, oh dear 😤😫😫😩😩😩🥺🥺🥺😢😢😭😭😭😭
Cant we just appreciate what beautiful bird the Swan is?
I mean, i hate the IDF with a passion, but i think their Merkava MBT looks cool af, and their Tavor bullpup assault rifles r pretty innovative.
So many mama's analysts in the comment section
This is the new improved version with 1968 avionics.
You'd think they'd be forced on stealth over speed....why bring back soviet junk 🙄 ...
Stealth isn't everything m8
Dont be obtuse. These deploy long range cruise missiles. They can be stealthy ground huggers or very high altitude hypersonics. The big old bird is just a missile slinger. Doesnt need to be stealthy.
Because this bomber isn't supposed to fly over its target or even into enemy territory it reaches max speed launches a supersonic missile turns back to base stealth would be useless if it isn't even going to fly to enemy territory.
If you can beat any fighter, why you need to hide?
what a big aircraft!
My thoughts, F-15 driver, sees a massive RCS and his finger twitches over the launch authorization button in anticipation.
More like twitches in a pile of burning metal on the ground, if said F-15 went where it had to be to even meet a Tu-160, which normally operate from friendly territory, heavily defended by interceptors and SAMs.
@@shaftoe195 In order for the Tu-160 to hit what it needs to hit, it has to leave friendly airspace. otherwise you don't need the range that it has, and that combat range (2,000km) is well outside the max range of the longest ranged (1,600km) Russian built fighter. Oh and A2A missiles are easier to evade the further out you have to shoot, if you have 10 missiles, a good pilot, (and most American Lt's have more flying time than an entire squadron of Russian pilots put together), and 70% is pure air to air combat with the rest being navigation and tanking.
@@pogo1140 you failed to look at the Stand-off missiles that it can fire. which is why he said that.
@@gerfand I didn't overlook the stand-off missile. I know the missile itself can can be defeated
@@shaftoe195 that’s not at all what TU-160s are doctrinally meant for but sure. they are meant for either anti ship work or strategic bombing. they certainly aren’t meant to operate over friendly territory and launch munitions from there, that would be utterly pointless.
How many operational? 1? 1.5?
More than 16) why more? Because Russia already have had 16 operational TU 160s and now manufacturing continues
Should use this USSR tech on the Bandera statue. Drop Tsar Bomba on it.
Russian bot
@@AKolesya Oh no, someone offended our beloved SS collaborator, who has more than 50 statues in Ukraine, and in whose honor there are torchlight processions every year, oh no.
The funniest thing is that during the Nuremberg trials, even the SS officers who worked with him spoke of him as a disgusting person who would have sold his own mother, but hey, he's the greatest hero of ukraine.
@@MrSkoresh send me link, where you got this info
"you belong in a museum" literally
It's an upgraded bomber. New engines. New flight controls also I guess.
do a video on the DF-27, the world's first conventional ICBM that will not use nukes
It's an IRBM not an ICBM
dual use IRBMs and SRBMs aren’t new
Thank you.
Its like the Amerika bomber of nazi germany in 1945, the Me 264. Too little too late. A waste for an empire in rapid decline.
But, it's soooo big😲
@@Immadedbody its huge! Hahaha
Decline? What?
Its a flying missile truck ma dude. It has the capacity to carry 12 cruise missiles.
Although I oppose the actions of the russian gov
But I dont hate russians and I ask people to be respectful towards russians in the current time
Its not their fault they didint cause the war
Love and peace to all
P.S amazing bideo as always binkov
❤❤❤❤❤❤
so True!
Yeah, its sad that the Media made this propaganda campaing that led people to hate the Russian and everything related to Russia.
Like, I saw some news of people throwing away vodka, probably US made btw, they bought because "its russian"
I don't drink, but that made me sad, what did the vodka done wrong lol.
Focusing on building these makes me wonder of they don't really have confidence in their ICBM's anymore.
Tu-160 can destroy one jumping-off ground, reload and destroy another puppet-state. ICBMs are for a global nuclear war with USA.
So the Sarmat ICBM (and other like Yars, Topol-M) do not exist anymore?
Both USA and Russia use nuclear triad which include sea-launched missiles, silo-launched missiles and strategic bombers with cruise missiles
The cold war was close for the United States. And many times it appeared we might lose it. Most US positions abroad lacked sufficient manpower to be of actual military significance. Therefor millions of us served as US tripwires. The Korean DMZ deployment and the Cuban deployment are ideal examples. Like everywhere, the US was expected to prevail in any greater conflict. But unfortunately that's usually after the US tripwire force is lost.
Nice!👍👍👍
WAHHHHHH ! TU160 !!! its like big and heavy but mach 2 !!! WTF !!
I wonder why it hasn’t been used in Ukraine.
putin want to save human life... MUHAHAHAHAHA! JOKE!
Ukraine has a habit of punching way above it's weight.
And this thing is expensive...
tu-160s are extremely expensive and strategic (nuclear related) assets so they really don’t want to risk them if they don’t have to. it would also be a huge propoganda loss if one was shot down, which could happen since Ukraine still had a decent amount of S-300s
@@jonathanpfeffer3716 lol. we dont care about ur bbc-cnn propaganda.
Ukr doesn’t deserve it….Putin saves it for a special occasion
Given their electronics industry and their closed economy, I doubt there will be many flying and this is mostly chest thumping on their part.
Given the state of their military I can't help think they are going to have this out and about in any official capacity, beyond maybe some parades or whatever.
The previous variant did a nice job blowing up wahabi militants in Syria. Nonetheless, your Red Scare 2.0 zombie copium is weak sauce.
@@irvinmcb that might be because russias airfields and infrastructure is at maximum capacity on the region. There is no reason not to use all of the air power if possible. They are just unable to do so.
It reminds me of the X-1 from The Venture Bros
Time for the U.S. to develop a modern B-70 as a response to this TU-160
I thought that was the B-2 Spirt
Beautiful for the museum. People are already 2 generations ahead.
Hahha till thay to the buf that us is still using
Like the BUFF and the Bone are brand spanking new either. Dont be this delusional, even for a Yankee. They are just as old airframes being modernized too.
still newer than your master's version of it
You seriously? Militaries don't need the newest one, they need the best one, they have. For example USA airforces uses B-52 as main missle carrier. The last one of these was built in 60's