7/11/2022»»Monday
Tu 160 Blackjack Take Off
7/11/2022
Since its inception, the Tupolev-produced Tu-160 (NATO codename of 'Blackjack', nicknamed in Russia/Soviet Union as the 'White Swan') has been the largest jet-powered, swing-wing combat aircraft platform ever produced, mounting the most powerful jet engines fitted to any military aircraft. Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation, or UAC, has rolled out the first prototype of its upgraded Tu-160M2 Blackjack at its plant in Kazan.
| Free Republic Browse · Search | News/Activism Topics · Post Article |
Associated Press ^ 09-18-03
Posted on 09/18/2003 6:51:26 AM PDT by Brian S
Four crew members are missing after a supersonic bomber crashed during a test flight in central Russia.
Officials said the 1,250 mph Tu-160 Blackjack, designed to deliver nuclear and conventional weapons deep into enemy territory, crashed in the Saratov region, about 450 miles south-east of Moscow.
No weapons were on board, said officials who blamed the the crash on engine problems. The plane was being tested following the replacement of one of its engines.
'Just before the crash at 0730 BST, the crew informed ground control of an engine fire,' an official said. 'After that, contact with the pilots was cut off and the bomber crashed to the ground at approximately 0800 BST.'
© Associated Press
Tu 160 Blackjack Take Offense
KEYWORDS:blackjack; bomberTu 160 Blackjack Take Offline
; crash; nukesTu 160 Blackjack Take Offset
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.Tu 160 Blackjack Take Offs
firstprevious1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64last
The Tu-160 is not a copy of the B-1. They were both intended to be long range supersonic bombers with a low RCS. When you have similar mission requirements, you are going to end up with a similar result. That's all. The Russians have never stolen anything from the US. That's just crazy conspiracy theories by crazy paranoid Russophobes who think the Cold war is still going on.
61posted on 09/20/2003 6:28:15 AM PDTby Decombobulator
[Post Reply Private Reply To 14 View Replies]
The Russians have never stolen anything from the US. That's just crazy conspiracy theories by crazy paranoid Russophobes who think the Cold war is still going on.Riiiight. That is why The Soviets ended up with aircraft that were part for part interchangeable with the DC-3 and the B-29. Or for that matter cars that were part for part interchangeable with a Packard. Or an early PC that had an Apple copyright notice burned into its ROM, and had to use graphics to display cyrilic characters, because the ROM contained the western alphabet. Not to mention mainframes that were plug compatable with IBM.
The Tu-160 may not be a copy, but that is only because they couldn't get the plans in time. Their economic system may have changed, but not their willingness to steal.
I really hope you simply forgot the </sarcasm at the end of your post
SO9
62posted on 09/20/2003 7:31:36 AM PDTby Servant of the 9(Sharksfin Soup mmmmmmm gooood)
[Post Reply Private Reply To 61 View Replies]
>>>Ah yes, how can we forget the shuttle clone. It was cancelled after one unmanned test flight. Something tells me that it was not so successful as the Russians let on. <<<
Who is smarter?
a) The group that tests a shuttle once, figures out that it is not worth it, and goes back to capsules.
b) The group that uses shuttles for years despite all evidence that they are more expensive, less capable (due to high tare weight) and more dangerous and deadly than capsules, then finally timidly floats the idea that perhaps they should go back to capsules.
Just wondering.
A second bonus question. As of right now, which group more closely embodies the modus operandi of the vast bureaucracy of Soviet Central Planning.
A) NASA
B) Russian Space Program (Hint, this is the program that makes extra cash in the tourist industry)
Who is smarter?
a) The group that tests a shuttle once, figures out that it is not worth it, and goes back to capsules.
b) The group that uses shuttles for years despite all evidence that they are more expensive, less capable (due to high tare weight) and more dangerous and deadly than capsules, then finally timidly floats the idea that perhaps they should go back to capsules.
Just wondering.
A second bonus question. As of right now, which group more closely embodies the modus operandi of the vast bureaucracy of Soviet Central Planning.
A) NASA
B) Russian Space Program (Hint, this is the program that makes extra cash in the tourist industry)
63posted on 09/20/2003 7:45:03 AM PDTby MalcolmS(Welcome to the age of aerospace endarkenment.)
[Post Reply Private Reply To 30 View Replies]
Thanks for the big laugh this morning. Sadly, you actually believe what your saying. More Russian bluster, revisionism and doublethink.
64posted on 09/22/2003 7:17:01 AM PDTby ffusco(Maecilius Fuscus,Governor of Longovicium , Manchester, England. 238-244 AD)
[Post Reply Private Reply To 61 View Replies]
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.firstprevious1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64last
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
| Free Republic Browse · Search | News/Activism Topics · Post Article |
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
Powerplant: four 245.18 kN (55,140 lb st) Trud/Samara NK-32 afterburning turbofans
Dimensions: length 54.1m (177 ft 6 in); height 13.1m (42 ft 11 in);wing span 65° sweep 35.6m (116 ft 9½ in); wing span 35° sweep 50.7m (166 ft 4 in); wing span 20° sweep 55.7m (182 ft 9 in)
Weights: empty 117000 kg (257,937 lb); Max Take-Off Weight 275000 kg (606,261 lb)
Performance: max level speed Mach 2.05 or 2200 km/h (1367 mph); max level speed at sea level 1030 km/h (640 mph);ceiling 15600m (51,181 ft)
Armament: up to 12 KH-55 nuclear or KH-555 conventional long-range cruise missiles or 24 Kh-15 short-range nuclear attack missiles carried in two internal weapon bays; in theory up to 40000 kg (88,183 lb) of freefall nuclear or conventional bombs.
- Sources:
- Donald, D. (ed.), (2003).Tupolev Bombers, p. 151, AIRtime Publishing Inc., USA.