Rockwell B-1 Lancer vs Tupolev-160 Blackjack| Which of the two is Better?
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 05. 2024
- The US Rockwell B-1B Lancer strategic bomber and the Russian Tu-160 Blackjack look visually similar. They are both supersonic strategic bombers and missile carriers. So which of these two is more powerful??
The Rockwell B-1 Lancer commonly called the "Bone" is a supersonic variable-sweep wing, heavy bomber used by the United States Air Force. While The Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack is a supersonic, variable-sweep wing heavy strategic bomber designed by the Tupolev Design Bureau in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and is now currently used by the Russian Air force. The Rockwell B-1 Lancer was first introduced on October 1986 while the Tu-160 entered service on April 1987. The Air Force had 62 B-1Bs in service as of 2016. While the Russian Air Force's long Range Aviation branch has at least 16 Tu-160 aircraft in service. Both the aircraft are operated by four crew: pilot, co-pilot, a navigator and an operator.
Credits:
it.3dexport.com/3dmodel-strat...
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
* Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
The Buzz does not own the rights to these videos and pictures. They have, in accordance with fair use, been repurposed with the intent of educating and inspiring others. However, if any content owners would like their images removed, please contact us by email at-thebuzz938@gmail.com. - Zábava
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
The Tu-160 "Blackjack" was the first boss on the Nintendo game, "Top Gun, The Second Mission".
Good to know! As I could never get far into that tough game! Even the landing on the carriers was a very dodgy & rough experience indeed!
There is no comparison , the TU160 is the largest , fastest and biggest ordinance carrying bomber the world has ever seen , the lancer has bounced from job to job while really specialising in none
You are first trump supporter who has ever said something factual. Congratulations
Unless it can outrun a SAM, speed doesn't buy you much except increase your heat signature. Which is why US will be replacing B1 with B-21's starting in 2025.
@@Packer1290 That's also the reason for the development and production of Russian PAK DA Next Gen Stealth Bomber.
@M Don’t let your national pride get in the way of making capability assessments.. easiest way to lose wars.
Not to mention, that the B52 still carries more ordinance than the TU 160. Plus, all the aircraft's speed and size also makes it a much bigger radar target. Which also means it can't outrun a SAM or AAM and there are only 16 of them in the inventory.
The B1 can be refitted to accommodate nuclear payloads. Speed by itself is not currently the main priority. Stealth or low radar cross section avoidance. Total combined payload is the B1 because of everything that it can carry in its non-nuclear configuration. The T-160 does have a heavier basic payload and flies faster. That with it's white Skin makes it easier to track. If an actual nuclear war was to take place with another super power, the US advantage is getting in and out, not by speed, but low observability. Besides the skies being filled, it would be difficult to track a 900mph low observable aircraft designed to hug terrain for long distances. It's much easier to track a larger, more observable aircraft going mach 2. The B1 B's flying is incredible. I've seen the initial flight delivery at Dyess AFB. I've also witnessed a B1A crash. Still this aircraft will be amazing for a long time.
TU-160 more range and speed
SPEEEEEEED!
Yea but it’s not gender neutral like the Americans.
At least b1 lander still flies
@@dbf_91 learn more about t160 then talk she still fly and russia order 16 new ones
the B1-B has a lower RCS
The Tu-160, no question.
The similarities are so striking, there's probably an interesting spy story to tell...
No... Just a physics... this wingshape is the most effective for such kind of planes. They were designed independently, but when USSR saw B1 from USA they started hurrying up the Tupolev DB, so they have difference just a year between their introduction)
@@gelomik8425 yeah just like the b52 riiiight jk
At least, the russkies stole the general shape to help speed up their project
Tu-160 👍
Is better 👍
It's better to buy tu 160 than B1 lancer. Less expensive and also much better quality in most specs
Its russian which means that it is shit quality
The maintanence issue might be there, as for all Russian jets.
@Nikola yep. I may be wrong, but what I feel is, half of the time of the R&D deot goes in figuring out how to fix the plane. Hence they can't focus on their own products.
@@theverminator8048 your comment isnt based on any facts... more like your Bias
@@theverminator8048 Your living in the past if you actually think Russian equipment is not up to spec. Many of there systems are equal too or better than USA developments. The US is no longer the leading producer of military items and is itself importing equipment developed elsewhere in the world to meet its needs.
The B-1B Lancer is comparable to the Tu-22M but not to the Tu-160.
hi A O...
'
how about F-111 is a much better than ussr russia cheap classic tu-22
@@bestamerica cheap but better and now cry
@@sparkly3989 Hello clown, the technological gap between the US and russia is 20 to 30 years. The US got russia out of Afghanistan using only anti-tank missiles and manpads. Cry now.
@@user-rd1dt7di5y haha tell me more such jokes and why would I cry whe people like making me laugh 😂
@@sparkly3989 Better how?
Tu 160 surpasses in all respects, in addition, it does what it was created for, there is no new B1, but it should be noted that these are completely different aircraft and different tasks.
Let's not forget that today the modernized Tu160 aircraft has become even better, outwardly it has changed little, but in terms of its characteristics and equipment, this is a completely new aircraft.
In general, I like both planes, Tu 160 and B1
You can not call it completely new plane, it is rather completely old one with some minor upgrades really.
Both Bombers Are Not Stealth types and can be detected by Air defence Radars and Stealth Fighters such as F22 RAPTOR.
Both Bombers Can carry Non Nuclear weapons such as the Huge Tall boy Earthquake Bomb that sank the Nazi then Feared Powerful Battleship Tripiz and potentially Nuclear Bombs too.
Based on price alone it tells you that the lancer is overpriced and overhyped as is most American military hardware .
Potato it looks like your referring to China , the video was comparing two planes from Russia and America .
But just in case you was referring to Russia let me tell you that Russia is no longer communist , and also Russia has a major and I mean major R and D centers all over Russia .
White Wolf both will do serious damage , yes I agree there is no doubt about that ,
But the Russian one is only a quarter the price of the American one , this is how Russia can keep up with America .
When is the American government going to stop overpaying for its military hardware .
The B1 is still effective at blowing shit up.
@@roddychristodoulou9111 I agree it’s a lot easier to build stuff for cheaper when your weapons manufacturers are all forcibly controlled by the government instead of being privately owned businesses like in the USA who have to pay employees well and have CEO’s making big $. That’s the main reason why everything Russian is so cheap compared to us stuff. It’s like comparing made in china products vrs the USA. The china stuff is going to be cheap because labor is cheap vrs the us stuff. If the US government took control of all its military contractors and paid everyone working there next to nothing it’s stuff would be “cheaper” to produce as well.
Laughs in Ukraine
Ironic how the Tu 160 "blackjack" isn't actually black
@Nikola lol
White Swan
Is nato codename
Whenever it drops it's payload on the enemy,,the enemy is burned to a crisp
It’s a NATO designation it doesn’t need to make sense the point is it can be said easier in a battle and can be easily assigned to an enemy manufactured aircraft, for example they called the MiG-19 “Farmer” because it is distinct, is easy to say and starts with an F for fighter, not because it has anything to do with farming.
Both aircraft are outstanding and the thought that theyre both bigger then the massive B52 and Tu95 is crazy! Theyre are both massive cruise missile trucks the range of both, 👌!
They are not bigger than B52. Really?
@@leftR-tardation really bro! They're massive, fast cruise missile bomb trucks
Michael Montgomery
That’s crazy. I knew they were big. Really nice looking planes. Had no idea they were that big tho. Lol. Cool shit.
TU-160 is better!
@@michaelveis5950 that's debatable
Very very TU-160 Like 👍
well B-1 looks like tacktical bomber when Tu-160 is Stratejic
@@user-zu9bv3zv3h correct 👍
@@assalamuilikum5054 nice joke
@@user-zu9bv3zv3h it's they opinion!
@@user-zu9bv3zv3h and B-1 is strategic bomber to.... Not tactical bomber
The Blackjack looks like the "Bone" had some cheeseburgers and put on some weight. They're both beautiful and badass airplanes.
Of course Tupolev 160.... 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺
Slovak Mapper
Damn you Slovaks, y’all know nothing or anything! Lol
"y'all" is not a word. Eat a fucking dictionary
Lancer easily
@@duanemarshall1889 my grandmom flies faster than Lancer
@@mathias2868 does she crash into the ground and burst into flames too 🤣🤣
Russia: B-1 looks good but mine is *BIGGER*
Faster and better!
@@michaelveis5950 Although 2 generations behind. B-21 for the win!
@@Packer1290 How two Generations Behind ???
Also PAK DA is comparable to B-21.
@@srikrishna2561 TU-160 is not stealth. B-21 would be 2nd gen stealth w/B-2 being 1st gen stealth.
Can you do future of US navy and air force please ❤️👍👍👍
Nice video and very informative and very entertaining and very satisfaction more videos.
If the US B1 Lancer Bomber was introduct October 1987 while the Russia TU160 Blackjack Bomber was introduct April 1987 that the Russia TU160 Blackjack bomber is a reversed engineer copy from the US B1 Lancer Bomber
What a munch! The original B1 flew in 1974 Ffs!
Usa and Russia are building the best aircrafts in the world .They are in equality in my opinion .
TU-160 is Powerful but also Gorgeous while B1 Lancer is also GOOd.
Your illustration of both aircraft is distorted to make both appear the same size. They aren’t. Why the manipulation?
Two air monster
Gorgeous sky dragons, both!
У них разные задачи , их нет смысла сравнивать .
В конце видео так и сказали
Количество В1в, стоящих на вооружении значительно больше
Thank you very much.
Beauty and the beast.
Both beasts and beauties!
Buzz
Totally awesome comparison video. Thanks for going through the differences. Great info and great narration
Aww thanks 😊
TU-160 is better.
Both planes are impressive but I prefer my Suzuki 2007
Don't know where you got your cost but the per unit cost of the TU-160 is a little above 200 million.
This is strange. Usually the American plane costs more and BTW you look amazing 👀
@@user-ju2rj2gb3s The B-1 Lancer costs 423 million so its still more expensive.
$250m
@@MWENDA-vv5im $100m. Rockwell was $2.2B to build 220 aircrafts.
@@planalive9664 😂😂 where did you learn math from
Got a video request: Can you do a video on the type 26 Frigate?
The B-1B has a lower top speed because its role was changed to a low-altitude supersonic penetrator. It's be more fair to compare the Tu-160's top speed at similar altitude.
Nice
Right assumption in the end. Respect.
Love Russia and Tu 160 ❤️ from Sri lanka 🇱🇰❤️🇷🇺
🇺🇸❤🇮🇳💔🇷🇺❤🇨🇳❤🇱🇰
We are not hate indian people but we are hate Ltte terrorism and Ltte aiders 🇱🇰❤️🇮🇳 😘
@@assalamuilikum5054 🇮🇳❤️🇱🇰❤️🇨🇳
@HaRi Kr! ShÑân вода рлажак паыещз иав ивльавф ьопвыу ллщшравк ипа поощряла рвулл тненк авуары лракудл авеь😄😄😄😁
@HaRi Kr! ShÑân опасно жил ыфрнал ргавдр па японский язык олень панк лорен 😠
Tu160 is killing this puny B1 with its insane price tag. The Tu160M is stealthy as well.
B1b is something furtive tu 160 is nothing furtive
Neither of them are stealthy at all but the B1B can be argued to be low observability whereas the TU160 absolutely can not. That said, the B1B is being completely phased out in favor of the very stealthy (and also very much so existing) B21 Raider. Russia is great at making powerful engines and supermanuverable aircraft but their fly by wire, weapons systems, and radar defeating tech is still borderline Soviet Era compared to the US.
@@matrinezkevin11492 we make what is worth. There will be no unchallenged masters when we are on the look out.
Nothing is stealth in Russian radars
The white Swan ❤️ I like how Russian build aircraft, especially in wings design 👍🏻👌🏻
@MrLewisbate B1?😂 Russian create White Swan first lol
The Forgotten History TFH
Yea, but is the Russian plane gender neutral? If not, it needs to be canceled immediately!
The B1 looks much better.
@@butterballin3686 It's not about beauty. It's about how it performed. - Idk who made this
@@butterballin3686 More technological, even surface finishing is level up to compare to tu-160.
Ту160 по всем параметрам лучше
"All parameters are better" Translation
I would have to say the TU160 has the edge here....But do super sonic, variable, swept wing bombers have a role anymore?
yeah they do!
Yes, how are you going to launch 6 heavy missiles or a cruise missile otherwise
B1-b is comparable but slightly inferior to TU-22M.
TU160 is in it's own class.
Well, the Tu-160 is better, the weaponry is almost the same, the Tu had range, speed, & durability
Tu-160 ❤
TU160 really look like a white swan
B1 not Nuclear potential
Seller: what would you like? I have rather good b2.
Buyer: mmm... I don't have much money... maybe you h something more cheap?... ;)
Thanks for an non-propaganda video!
Tupolev 22 m3m vs b1 b Lancer .
I don't know,
they both look cool
The Buzz. Why are you afraid to admit that TU-160 is way better than B-1.
why is B1B still called supersonic strategic bomber, it is now subsonic at .98 mach.
Tu 160 now have the hipersonic missile kinzhal
This entire video essentially totally plagiarized the wikipedia article on the Tu-160. And I know this because I was reading its article while listening to this video
No shit Sherlock , yeha she should have pulled out the top secret files from pentagon for information in this video 🤡
I'll take 62 B-1s over 16 TU-160s any day
Another wise guy compares square with cold.....
TU 160 is a strategic missile-carrying bomber, and B1 Lancer is a front-line bomber....
These are two ships of completely different classes!
Ещё один умник сравнивает квадратное с холодным.....
ТУ 160 это стратегический бомбардировщик-ракетоносец, а В1 Lancer это фронтовой бомбардировщик....
Это две машины совершенно разного класса!
the new TU-160M is the best bomber actuality
Их нельзя сравнивать, у них слишком разные характеристики
🇷🇺♥️🇮🇳
@@redstar8609 🇮🇳♥️🇷🇺😊
Indian air force
need b1 lancer
Indian Air Force needs both.
Which one can get closer to its target before it is seen on radar? Not much comparison there
You are wrong. Tu160 is stealth as well as B1. In any case flying to 20000 meters nothing is useful to hit the TU160. The same for the B1 I guess
@@parapam4717 No, I am not wrong. B-1 radar cross section is a fraction of the TU-160’s. B-1 also employs electronic countermeasures that the TU-160 does not. This information is easy to come by.
That may not matter, though. The TU-160 primarily carries long-range cruise missiles that it can launch without having to penetrate enemy airspace, so stealth is not a priority. One of the B-1’s missions is to be able to penetrate enemy defenses, so it is designed to be more stealthy.
For what it’s worth, there are a number of countries that have missiles capable of shooting down a target going Mach 2 at 20,000 meters.
Um, how many airworthy TU-160M’s are in service now?
TU160 Best Bomber
By the way the B1 can’t carry hypersonic missiles as the US has none , they HAVENT GOT ANY
Yes we do, comrade
Sort of like how Russia doesn't have a competent military.
@@williampremo2197 eh no you don’t
Non dire stronzate, ce li hanno eccome!
So which one of these is in GTA?
B1 much more design for current times and decreased detection
I have few t160 in my backyard. I will use in ww3. Waiting for the right time.
Bomber American and Soviet Union
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress 52'55'62
Tupoljev Tu-95Ms 52'56,62'65
The difference between the maneuvering between the Tu-160 and the B-1 is the B-1 is better on the maneuverability because of the wing span.
At 77.08 rubles to the dollar does this mean Russia pays 5,395,600,000 rubles per TU 160?
What does that big writing on the side of the Russian jet say?
ALEXANDER NOVIKOV
Soviet military commander, commander of the Red Army Air Forces. Air Chief Marshal. Twice Hero of the Soviet Union.
Russia's always had a history of putting engines on aircraft so powerful, they'll destroy the aircraft, Which lead's to shorter life of the aircraft! Like the Foxbat Mig 25, ?
Lol, she said b1b has larger payload. Eh, na
how come the b1 had to give up nukes
Because nuclear capable bombers have been irrelevant for 30 years.
@@HailAzathoth the b52 are still capable of carrying the b1 isn't
If Tu 160 is 7 mil, I want to buy one
almost every meant agm is not yet in service...
Given their destructive power I don't think it matters which is 'more' powerful.
They're both stunningly beautiful killers that shouldn't really exist, but can't take my eyes off them!
The white swan, ...it seems to be more powerful.
if you look carefully US and Russia share knowledge and technology then and now - imagine if the USA and Russin became partners and concentrate on the medical cure that war.
Right that’s be awesome but then there would no point in really building these weapons since they’re both mean to counter each other and there’s no other real competition. I think the best fighter plane would be Russian fighters with us electronics
“Each” of them producing 220,000 lbs “combined”… so which one is it? Each or combined? phrase much?
The one has better smarter pilots
Funny how the average observers in the West often cut the Soviet a slack when assessing their weapon system's ingenuity despite the persistent copying and "borrowing" by the Soviets of ideas, concepts, even the specific designs that originated in the West. The extraordinary extent the Soviet espionage infiltrated Western arms industry has been well documented and the stolen data's substantial contribution to their own designs well confirmed. It's a tenacious and fruitful endeavor spanning 7 decades - far more extensive, comprehensive and penetrative by several orders of magnitude than, say, the Chinese espionage that only perks up in recent two decades. Still, there is often the ready-and-willing granting by Westerners of the benefit-of-doubt when it comes to design similarities, whereby observers tend to enthusiastically propound, without even the prompting from the Soviets themselves, that the similarity based on outward appearance may be artificial, as it belies the underlying functionalities that could potentially be quite different.
In contrast, little such benefit of doubt is given to the Chinese weapon systems, however, where almost every class of plane, tank, ship, etc. is dismissively written off as nothing but a cheap "carbon copies" of a supposed "original ones" that often times don't even remotely look the same (e.g. J-20 being a "copy" of F-22).
Just imagine that Tu-160 were a Chinese bomber. The same degree of the visual similarity between Tu-160 and B-1 would have been sufficient for 99% of the commentators here to instantly pronounce a confident verdict that Tu-160 is obviously a Chinese knock-off of B-1🤭🤭🤭🤗
Not that the Chinese get to complain about "bias", as they deserve little sympathy so long as they keep plagiarizing foreign designs despite some genuinely impressive progresses in their own industry. *The interesting thing is the Soviets had been doing exactly the same (i.e. Stealing/copying and innovating/groundbreaking at the same time), at a scale that way dwarves that of the Chinese, yet they aren't subjected to the same stereotype.* Are the Soviet less Communist, less authoritarian, less oppressive, or less in any attributes that give the Chinese a bad rep? If they are equally "bad" (with the Soviets arguably being far worse in so many aspects), what justifies the double standard? Maybe simply because the Soviets are White & European, thus inherently more worthy of high esteem than the slant-eyed bastards who are nothing but Yellow Peril?
Not comparable
у них почти одинаковая максимальная скорость, чет тут слегка обманывают
НЕТ, внимательно посмотри ТУ 160 на 1000км/ч быстрее
Love TU 160 and Russian women
Tu-160 ☇☇
Tu160 The Russian Beast🇷🇺🇷🇺
B52 the world's fear
@@theidiotskiller6589 fake fact
@@DMUSIC-bs3ru u read about it.
AND TU 160 IS A PAPER TIGER
@@theidiotskiller6589 Tu 160 is better compared slow duck 🦆 B52
Tu 160 Black jack
My guess is 62× B1Bs beat 16 × Tu160s. 🇺🇦
One TU 160 armed with nuclear missiles beat 16 B1Bs armed with conventional missiles
The B1 is for guys who like petit girls the Tu-160 is for guys who like thicc chicks
TU-160❤️
It's interesting that you use graphs to show how the planes compare, but stop when talking about payload - the place the B-1B outperforms the Tu-160. You're certainly right that they're used for very different purposes. The B-1 can fly near the speed of sound at sea level in terrain-following mode to evade enemy radar, whereas the Tu-160 only flies operationally at high altitude. The B-1 can also fuel in flight, so its shorter range is not an issue.
Yeah this was a pretty shit comparison. also the B1b is better compared to the Tu-22 not the Tu160
Apparently cheaper is better
This plane is straight up from a xerox machine the US should've made their own drawing board but the TU160 is effective over the time so just 3d print the old Russian bomber lol 😂
TU-160 Very Very Better than B1 Spesially TU-160M1-2 ( 2020 - 2025 Upgrade )
The B1 have more modern equipment in the plane unlike the soviet planes, which have primitive tech. But you know it all depends on your skills to actually bomb, Not tech
The b1 carries a way bigger payload if you know how math work lmao
Keep in mind that the USA spent 850 Billion for defence. Russia about 80 Billion.
Who copied who?
for Ability is b1b better than. Tu.160
is this channel Chinese owned?
At any time probably 75% are available for use, which gives the Russians 12. Which means the US can direct 50-100 anti aircraft missiles at each TU.
Ту 160 это белый лебедь а значит он лучший
Enough to deter a war that everyone would loose.
I like the design of b-1 Lancer, but it depends on how the piliot drive and make a strategy to counter the enemy...btw greeting from PHILIPPINES🇵🇭.
More videos to upload❤️
yes is like everytnig in USA is made to pretend to be , but never is, the pilot is no the difference , b-1 lancer is just for a hollywood movie, because in real , tu-160 will kick lancer ass even before you say it. but the corruption in US is part of the USAF and GOB honor , liars liars liars liars is all the are.
@@joser2034 the Tu-160 is a copy of the B-1 tho, if it was reversed everyone would be hating on America