The Blackjack is cool, but impractical.
>>64451428Did one blow up?
>>64451432No, I've just been doing a bit of light reading about them.
B-52 is still in service.
>>64451428It's like a bigger, dumber BOne
>>64451444Also unrelated, I like Kailua.
>>64451428
>>64451444And it doesn't have huge afterburning engines or swing wings. There's a reason B-1s will be retired before B-52s.
>>64451463I knew the Ukies scrapped a bunch of Tu-22M's, but they scrapped a Tu-160?
>>64451428You’re probably right. It’s supposed to spam nukes, hence the white paint, but ICBMs are better-suited as a nuclear deterrent
>>64451487Yeah because the ukranny quickly discovered it couldn’t afford to maintain anything without soviet / russian gibs. Maybe if NATO or the EU launched its own gibs program then the ukies would still have their advanced soviet stuff.
>>64451439I love it for Russia the Tu-160 is this like mega prestige project and is literally a lost technology. And then for us the B-1 is just like a cool thing we have but it forever lives under the shadow of the B-52 and the B-21
The Kuznetsov three-spool engines that Kuznetsov can't remake are the cherry on the cake
>>64451498>literally a lost technologyReading between the lines of publicly available information, it seems to me that Russia hasn't been able to meaningfully restart production of the NK-32 engines for the Tu-160.
>>64451505(me)Shit, didn't notice >>64451499
>>64451483>a Tu-160not just 'a', but many. The Russians bargained with Ukraine to save a few, but otherwise the rest were destroyed in accordance with demilitarization agreements.>wiki relhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn%E2%80%93Lugar_Cooperative_Threat_Reduction
>>64451487>It’s supposed to spam nukes, hence the white paintYou mean the paint that's almost totally worn off? That paint?
>>64451599>You mean the paint that's almost totally worn off? That paint?Welcome to the Russian Federation.
>>64451446Weighs way more the B-1Likely can carry less lmao
>>64451629The Tu-160 has nearly 2 times larger wings and nearly twice the thrust (dry and wet), they belong to different weight classes. It's like comparing the Lancer with the Hustler, the Tu-22M is closer in size.
I read that the Tu-160 was used operationally against Ukraine for the first time in September, is that right? And that 2 aircraft failed to launch — one because of a launcher malfunction and the other because of a lightning strike in-flight forcing it to abort?
>>64451428They're currently used as launching platform for Kinzhal missile
>>64451463This is pretty much the moment when Ukraine lost the possibility of complete sovereignty for the foreseeable future
>>64451635not him but I looked it up, even being twice as big it carries less weight, more internally however. The b1's advantage comes from external hardpoints, which the tu-160 lacks.
>>64451428It's otherwise fine but too smol.
>>64451498>I love it for Russia the Tu-160 is this like mega prestige project and is literally a lost technologyLost technology? They are making new ones as we speak.
>This is pretty much the moment when Ukraine lost the possibility of complete sovereignty for the foreseeable futureDecommissioning slavshit is a service to humanity, and something Ukraine is uniquely talented in.
>>64451940>They are making new ones as we speakTrying to assemble few airframes from parts salvaged from graveyards and storage hardly count as 'making new ones'. Plus, planes usually needs engine to fly, and not a single fully operational NK-32 was produced, tested and certified up to August 2025
>>64451463>snibeti snab :DDDDD
>>64451428As is every fast bomber design going back to WWII. Either it quickly becomes a slow bomber with a shit capacity or it quickly wears itself down because going fast makes you age in dog years. Seriously name 1 supersonic bomber design that's been unquestionably successful and didn't just hobble through its service life
>>64451846because they destroyed planes they wouldnt be able to afford to keep airworthy anyways?
>>64451428It’s so pretty..
>>64451499Lewd
>>64451428>coolit's a retarded soviet attempt to make a B-1 Lancer
>>64451846Yeah, believing the western countries would honor their obligations was a mistake on their part
>>64451635The Tu-160 is also larger and faster than the B-1B and has a slightly greater combat range, though the B-1B has a larger combined payload with external payload.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160
>>64451428Is very practical to bomb hylys
>>64452326>Yeah, believing the western countries would honor their obligations was a mistake on their partthere were absolutely ZERO "obligations" on the west to do fucking ANYTHING for anyoneand dont forget it you whining baby
>>64451428big dreams, no budget
>meanwhile, IRL
>>64455032May we see the production line?
>>64451483USSR based most of the Blackjack fleet in Ukrainian SSR; they inherited the core of the fleet upon independence but cucked them back to poccnr
>>64451498>it forever lives under the shadow of the B-52 and the B-2Not to me she doesn't. What's not to love about going fast and dropping shitloads of bombs on people?
>>64451428i guess you could say the plane is impracticool
>>64451940>>64452014AFAIK it's not from graveyards, but from parts made during USSR times which never were got used and got left in storage. Some new shit was fabricated though. But yeah, most of the "newly built" planes were old parts. They were supposed to also restart production of everything and build "fully new" ones, but I'm not sure if they actually succeeded: russians like to plan and announce a ton and then a decade later if's founds out that nothing was actually done.
>>64455725>russians like to plan and announce a ton and then a decade later if's founds out that nothing was actually done.
>>64455725>>64455733
>>64455725In theory they could build new, even the engines, but not Kuznetsov by their own (shell company that tries to be relevant) and and maybe with a different and simpler core (from Soloviev, Soyuz, Salyut)...In the past they reported a lot their activities but after Crimea 2014 the details and quality of publications in russian magazines started to be spotty and then plummeted. Trying to follow their activities and results is kinda a waste of time.
>>64455283>May we see the production line?ofcoursenow show me yours?
>>64459173You can even see where the old paint job was removed. This isn't a production line.
>>64459173>One plane>Three people >Ton of useless ladders and scaffolding I've seen boomers restore shit at a faster rate.
>>64459173>now show me yours?
>>64459173This is a refurbished plane. Jesus fucking christ you really think they are building new planes in Russia?
>>64452326Your betters are not obligated to wipe your ass and give you everything for free. Everything given to you WILL be repaid, likely with permanent NATO units stationed there and exclusive access to resources. You can have the economic benefit of our McDonald's and Burger Kings, we’ll put our new resources to use for us, and Russia will eternally cope and piss and shit and seethe as they slide forever into irrelevance. The House always wins.
>>64459231GET TO WORKISRAEL NEEDS THESE TO BOMB CHILDREN
>>64459173>BBC POCCY
>>64459173>BBC POC CNN>Obviously old parts visible
>>64459532>likely with permanent NATO units stationed thereMy brown friend, this is what they've wanted since late 90s.
