Modern Heavy Bomber News, Pictures Thread (Non-Chinese)
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
antiterror13
Brigadier
so, only the USA and Russia have modern heavy bombers ... in 5-10 years China will join the club 
Not new since WWII initialy Russian copy B-29 after others Tupolev etc... the H-6 is a medium bomber but the H-6K is interesting with more long range, KD-20 especialy.so, only the USA and Russia have modern heavy bombers ... in 5-10 years China will join the club
BTW i don't think Russians with oïl price ... etc... can afford for soon a new stealth PAK-DA bomber, Tu-160M2 seems going for production i precise exist also Tu-160M not new actual Tu-160 modernized especialy for to be armed with the new Kh-101 LACM replace Kh-55/AS-15.
Comparing JDAMs with LRACMs?
They're completely different in their designed role, so comparing their electronic suites(or, say, ordnance) is kind of strange. B-1A was something alike, though, but it was considered to be inessential and over budget, thus cancelled.
Striking visual similarities thus shouldn't be taken to heart.
Tu-160 de facto is more Co parable with b-52 in her tasks, being classic "big stick".
I think the Tu-160 is more comparable to the B-1B by far, as to the B-53.
The B-1B was derived from the B-1A, they just decided for a low level, slower, but more stealthy penetration with the "B". And Reagan made that happen...make no mistake. f Carter had one re-election, there never would have been a B-1B either.
Anyhow, people can look at things differently...but in my mind, with the swng wings, the ability of both to carry air launched cruise missiles, bombs, and other ordinance, I compare Tu-160 with B-1B.
The B-52 is still a strong force for the US. It still carries a lot of ordinance...either shorter range ordinance against non-peer, lower tech enemies or the ability to carry a lot of ALCMs itself against higher tech foes and launch from a large standoff range.
There is one crucial difference:
B-1b aren't listed in nuclear balance anymore, their role currently shifted. Last time they were mentioned as ALCM deterrents was more than 15 years ago.
Tu-160, on the other hand, are almost pure stand off ALCM carriers, with long-established role of nuclear deterrence, and newer one of conventional one.
Basically, Tu-160 was developed as new mainline strategic bomber, as was B-1A.
And it performs same tasks as tu-95, just "faster, higher, more payload with more sophisticated EW, yet still far lesser signature".
b-1b was stop-gap solution to avoid capability gap in 1985-1995 period: Mig-31/A-50 combination mattered(as it still does).
B-1b aren't listed in nuclear balance anymore, their role currently shifted. Last time they were mentioned as ALCM deterrents was more than 15 years ago.
Tu-160, on the other hand, are almost pure stand off ALCM carriers, with long-established role of nuclear deterrence, and newer one of conventional one.
Basically, Tu-160 was developed as new mainline strategic bomber, as was B-1A.
And it performs same tasks as tu-95, just "faster, higher, more payload with more sophisticated EW, yet still far lesser signature".
b-1b was stop-gap solution to avoid capability gap in 1985-1995 period: Mig-31/A-50 combination mattered(as it still does).
Agree ofc B-1b and Tu-160 for design with variable-sweep wing are similar except B-1B less big and less fast coz have engines less powerful BTW only Russians have built bombers capable around mach 2 Tu-160 and Tu-22M.
The 100 B-1Bs was build in 3 - 4 years a record for bombers in peace time !
Also now fixed but he have during long time problems with her EW system enough complex.
The 3 USAF bombers have each their specificities obviously B-2 very different but mainly for weapons load and missions , capacities especialy :
B-2 only armed with the enormous bomb GBU-57 MOP of 13,6 t ! and only armed with nuclear bombs
B-1B " " with AGM-158B and next year normaly the new C anti-ships ( 560 km based on B but seems range inferior, reason ?)
B-52H : " " with AGM-86 nuclears (B) or conv (C, D ) , Harpoons, normaly for 2018 AGM-158B.
The three have conv bombs ofc including JDAMs, AGM-154/158As and can to be armed with mines Mk-62 or 65.
Last edited:
B-1A was mach 2 capable with same engines, it isn't about engine power. It's about different(non-adjustable, featuring stealth technology) intakes, as well as optimisation for pure low-low-low flight profile.
At low altitudes she's actually faster than B-1A was, plus she's probably the best low level penetrator out there.
p.s. you're forgetting the very first mach 2 bomber. B-58 Hustler.
p.s.s. B-52s are still nuclear carriers too, with ALCMs.
The US was capable of building the ultimate high altitude high speed bomber, the XB-70...but it was cancelled by a liberal administration. If we had built a couple of hundred of those, we would still be fluying about 100 of them and it would be hard for anyone to touch them to this day. Too bad...that was a beautiful bird...and very, very capable.
Mach 3.1 at 80,000 feet.