Rockwell International B-1 Lancer

[MrDarkastar]

wow wich state is in the clip?az or tx?

[NorceCodine]

It sucks to be part of a generation which has manufacturing opportunities to build Big Macs or Whoppers.

[BallBuster5150]

Sure The Jets that Russia uses are great, not the ones that they sell to other countries. Difference Between Russia Selling Jets and the US, the US sells jets to allies to make them stronger, Russia Sells to anyone to make money, the only good jets that russia makes are the ones they use. I feel Russia went the lazy route and copied the F-22 to make money. To be honest I love Both Russian and US Jets and im from the US

[MrDarkastar]

wow wich state is in the clip?az or tx?

[NorceCodine]

It sucks to be part of a generation which has manufacturing opportunities to build Big Macs or Whoppers.

[BallBuster5150]

Sure The Jets that Russia uses are great, not the ones that they sell to other countries. Difference Between Russia Selling Jets and the US, the US sells jets to allies to make them stronger, Russia Sells to anyone to make money, the only good jets that russia makes are the ones they use. I feel Russia went the lazy route and copied the F-22 to make money. To be honest I love Both Russian and US Jets and im from the US

[benbruch]

Hi Art,

thx for sharing this great video

ben

[sinjoart]

This Bi-B Airplane put me in retirement.

Thank You .USA.Art

[taekarkung]

Back in 1983, that was when the news on Soviet's B-1 counterpart the Blackjack emerged. Sources saying that the Blackjack was superior in terms of payload, performance, speed and range. At the end, still B-1B turns out better in overall performance. I love the B-1 back then.. the greatest survivor despite several cases of cancellation due to prob.

[vodkasvictim]

@taekarkung

Blackjack IS better, just look at the two of them, compare.

Doesn't matter though; TU95 & B52 are still the best, which is why they've been around forever & will be around forever; the capabilities of lancer and blackjack are simply more than is needed.

[taekarkung]

B-52 is best because it is cheap to maintain, use less fuel, upgraded to current standard with same avionics and ECM used in B-1B, managed to carry high payload 50,000lb and ability to launch all sort of latest weapons. B-1B is better than Blackjack for having more capability and only lost to B-52 in terms of fuel economy and maintenance. Tu-95 is no longer best bomber as it is too slow, too noisy, not fitted with advanced avionics and carry less payload. It is easy target to SAMs

[vodkasvictim]

@taekarkung

B-52 is better than B1 I agree.

Tu160 is WAY better than B1 because if you want something cheaper (price or maintenance) than a supersonic variable geometary bomber then you buy B52 or Tu95, not B1.

If you want a supersonic variable geometary bomber, then Tu160 is the only one, really, which is why the latest re-imagining of B1 looks a bit more like Tu160; the way B1 was originallysupposed to look.

Tu95 is still the best overall (cheap) bomber - just look at all it can do.

[taekarkung]

B-1B has better payload, combat radius, maneuver, avionics, conventional weaponry, low level capability and ECM. Tu-160 is too fuel guzzling that it could finish more fuel than any plane else. It was used in Chechnya once that it could hardly maneuver and it did level 1 whole city. Tu-95 is cheap but could be easily shot down by SAM and its prop blades are way too noisy giving away its position easily. B-1A 1st flight 1974. Tu-160 started building its prototype in 1977.

[vodkasvictim]

@taekarkung

Tu160 doesnt lack agility.

Low level capability isnt that important; if you want a low level penetrator you use Su25, Su24 or Tornado....

So what if its fuel hungry? If you want economy, use Tu95.

I want a source on you saying Tu160 levelled a city; I heard nothing about that.

Tu95 being cheap is an advantage & it could be shot down by SAM as easy as B52.

It doesn't matter if Tu160 was built later.

Tu160 has better internal payload; whic is desirable for these planes.

See part 2

[vodkasvictim]

@vtaekarkung

(Part 2)

Tu160 has superior combat radius to B1.

What makes you think the Avionics in B1 are superior? Even if they are, it doesn't matter, because Tu160 can do the mission they were designed for (high level, high speed penetration) So very much better than B1, 'cos it'll do Mach 2, whereas B1 won't even to mach 1.2.

Of course, our debate is purely academic, because it makes so much more sense to load cruise missiles on a Tu95 or B52.

[taekarkung]

Hi vodkasvictim, original B-1A could reach Mach 2.2 but later reduced in B-1B to make way for avionics, payloads & range with lower end turbofans. Tu-160 has better range due to larger fuel tank and less payload but burns more fuel per 2nd than B-1B. If B-1B burns 36lb of fuel per second, Tu-160 is is burning close to 50lb of fuel per second. B-1B could maneuver better than F-104 and MIG-25 with low level flight an added advantage. Tu-160 is only suitable for launching cruise missile attack.

[taekarkung]

B-1B's low level flight and agility is designed for penetration through secluded area to evade detection. If I wanted economy, I'll go for B-52G/H as it is upgraded with latest avionics including AN/ALQ-167 jammer pod & sophisticated early warning system together with offensive & defensive modes. It could share target information feed and pin-point designated targets for launching guided bombs, standoff attack weapons and cruise missile. That was rumours heard from 3rd party on Tu-160's strike

[vodkasvictim]

I dont know why youre about B1a; unless Im mistaken it never entered production.

Both Tu160 & B1b were designed to be penetrator bombers.

B1b can't match Tu160s high altitude dash capability, it cant carry the same weight of weapons internally & the low level penetration mission could be better handled by Tornado, F111 or A10.

B1b was originally conceived as a high altitude penetrator bomber; its been mangled by the system.

You can argue all the irrelevant points you want, but it doesnt mater.

[taekarkung]

Original B-1A was designed for long range, high speed, high altitude, strategic bomber. Due to increase effectiveness of SAMs and interceptors, the B-1A was rebuilt with defensive/offensive avionics, lower end turbofans and higher payload with capability of low level flight for sneak intrusion. Tu-160 is built for speed, altitude and long range high altitude attack similar to original B-1A. B-1B could still perform high altitude not so fast attack. B-1B could pull more than 4Gs outperform F-104

[vodkasvictim]

I dont know why youre about B1a; unless Im mistaken it never entered production.

Both Tu160 & B1b were designed to be penetrator bombers.

B1b can't match Tu160s high altitude dash capability, it cant carry the same weight of weapons internally & the low level penetration mission could be better handled by Tornado, F111 or A10.

B1b was originally conceived as a high altitude penetrator bomber; its been mangled by the system.

You can argue all the irrelevant points you want, but it doesnt mater.

[taekarkung]

Original B-1A was designed for long range, high speed, high altitude, strategic bomber. Due to increase effectiveness of SAMs and interceptors, the B-1A was rebuilt with defensive/offensive avionics, lower end turbofans and higher payload with capability of low level flight for sneak intrusion. Tu-160 is built for speed, altitude and long range high altitude attack similar to original B-1A. B-1B could still perform high altitude not so fast attack. B-1B could pull more than 4Gs outperform F-104

[vodkasvictim]

B52 uses less fuel than Tu95? I want to see a source for that. B52 is just as vulnerable to SAMs as Tu95.

B1b can only beat Tu160 in payload while carrying stores externally, which makes RCS & drag shoot up and speed (VITAL for a penetration bomber) & fuel efficiency drop.

More capability? Tu95 can be a bomber, maritime patrol aircraft, nuclear powered bomber, AWACS, civil airliner & more things besides.

So what if it's too slow? Speed doesn't make a great bomber.

The noise isn't a problem.

[taekarkung]

B-52 uses more fuel than Tu-95. It could carry more payloads at 55,000lb. Current B-52G/H are upgraded with sophisticated Offensive & Defensive avionics available in B-1B. Its powerful AN/ALQ-167 jammer is good enough to jam within 50Nm radius and with good RWR early warning system to take evasive maneuver. B-1B has 2 internal bays with rotary launchers that could carry more weapons as US made missiles & bombs are lighter & smaller. Tu-95 is just too noisy often intercepted by enemy fighters

[vodkasvictim]

I agree B52 uses more fuel than Tu95. That's not good.

B52 can carry more payload, sorry, I thought we were talking Tu160 Vs B1.

B52 isn't SAM proof, it's just as vulnerable as Tu95, which still does the job.

Aside from the fact that some statements you've previously given are wrong, we're missing the point; both were designed as penetrator bombers and only Tu160 with it's mach 2 capability stays true to the original design plan, which is part of the reason for the emergence of plans for B1r.

[taekarkung]

B-52G/H uses more fuel than Tu-95 because it is using turbofans with reasonable fuel consumption. Not like guzzling fuel like mad just to reach high speed. B-52 is not 100% SAM proof but sitll has better RWR, ECM and countermeasure system than most bombers. Tu-95 could be detected at maximum and there were so many Tu-95 being intercepted by various countries. With Tornado F3, EF2000, F4/14/15/F-16/18. Tu-95 doesn't even have proper RWR & countermeasure that any missile fired at it would hit

[taekarkung]

B-1B has 2 internal stores with adjustable rotary launcher racks. That is why it has smaller internal fuel compared to Tu-160 but could carry internal fuel tanks. B-1 internal bay could hold more US made weapons that are compact. Tu-160 only has 1 internal bay with 1 rotary launcher for 12-16 cruise missiles. Tu-160 is just high speed long range bomber. B-1B could be used as attack aircraft as it could pull 4G anytime. Whatever Tu-95 could do, B-52G/H could do even better.

[taekarkung]

Sorry, not enough space. US made air to ground are smaller and lighter. 1 F-15E could carry maximum 12 AGM-65G Maverick (695lb each) whereas 1 Su-30MK could carry maximum 8 Kh-29T/L Kedge (1495lb each). The F-15E still has 4 small hardpoints for air to air missiles & 4 underbelly pylons for guided/unguided bombs. Su-30MK has 4 more pylons for air to air missiles. Out of topic but just as example. B-1B could carry more smaller & lighter weapons internally than Tu-160 carrying 16 AS-16 Kickbacks

[vodkasvictim]

I do like the points you make, but please address my main point; that both aircraft were designed for high altitude high speed penetration bombing & only Tu160 is properly capable of this, as proven when it penetrated British airspace.

The penalty for smaller, lighter weapons is that they're less effective.

Don't forget that you can't rely 100% on satellites.

Tu160 can carry 6 air launched strategic cruise missiles (nuclear optional) internally. Can B1b equal that?

[taekarkung]

Tu-160 penetrated British airspace? Was it the latest incident last year? I remember that British sent 2 EF2000 to intercept a Russian bomber appeared in news. Smaller, lighter weapon with specialized warhead and accurate doesn't mean less effective. B-1B could carry 16 AGM-69A SRAM in forward bay and 8 SRAMs in rear bay. Other option: 8 AGM-86 ALCM or AGM-129 AALCM in forward bay and 8 SRAMs in rear bay. Fuel tank the size of B-1's rear bay could be carried in rear bay, forward bay 1 to 2.

[vodkasvictim]

I think Tu160 has only penetrated British airspace once.

I know EFs have intercepted Tu95.

Smaller lighter satellite guided weapons are useless when satellites are taken out.

Fact is, B1 doesn't do the job that both planes were designed to do as well as Tu160.

[taekarkung]

Why keep mentioning satellite guided weapons? B-1B itself has Terrain Mapping Ground Tracking Radar that could track ground targets or designate target at long range. Also, it has optronic visual FLIR pod that could track targets up to 20Nm. Didn't you know that satellite guided weapons can be guided with radar & visual as well? Weapons such as JDAM, ALCM, SLAM-ER, AGM-154 are multi guided, not that it's uselsss without satellite. Without satellite just get to back to basic tracking style.

[vodkasvictim]

Sorry. I thought I only mentioned them once.

Tu95 doesn't have to guzzle fuel like mad by going v. fast and without a source there is absolutely NO way that you'll convince me or anybody else that B52 is more fuel efficient than Tu95.

[taekarkung]

I never mentioned that B-52 consumes less fuel than Tu-95. Come on, Tu-95 made in 1949 is already obsolete, it is nothing but post WW2 follow up to beat the US made B-29 Superfortress that B-52 replaced in 1952 onwards. If you fly the B-52G into battlefield, you have higher survival rate compared to Tu-95 though the B-52G uses more fuel. It will give you higher satisfaction with current avionics, ground attack radar and effective air to ground missiles, bombs, etc.

[vodkasvictim]

I thought you did, sorry.

Tu95 isn't obsolete. The day Tu95 becomes obsolete, so does B52; they're analogues of each other.

[taekarkung]

B-52A original powered by 8 turbojets. Later B-52D replaced with 8 turbofans and the frame rebuilt. B-52G/H added with current avionics and ground attack radar extending its lifespan further. Tu-95/142 from 1949 until now, not much changes, still the same turboprop with little avionics added. Go into war, Tu-95 is easy target whereas B-52 has record of downing Mig-21. B-52G's early warning system is good enough to warn the pilots to go evasive maneuver, spoofing chaff/flare while turn on jammer

[vodkasvictim]

I can admit that Buff is faster & more technological than Tu95, with greater range and service cieling.

However I still prefer Tu95 as fewer have been shot down and it's WAY more flexible.

Each to their own I suppose.

[taekarkung]

Fewer Tu-95 were shot down due to less involvement in combat. In several cases where Tu-95s were intercepted by fighters patrol, if they were less lenient, you'll see more Tu-95s being shot down instead. Its RWR early warning system could barely warn pilots incoming missiles. B-52's RWR could indicate from which direction, distance & location radar that is active & tracking it showing incoming missiles. Tu-95 lacks this and will be downed easily. Mig-29s in combat are best example, easily downed

[vodkasvictim]

If WW3 had broken out, it woudn't have mattered as Tu95 would have aunched cruise missies from outside airspace.

Aternately, before ALCMs, both planes woud've had to fly over their target, making both have to choose between aborting mission or going for the bomb drop & maybe getting shot.

Do you have an innate bias against Russian weapons?

The ony times MiG29 has been shot down with ease is when it's been used (low grade export modes) by smal nations against MUCH bigger ones.

[taekarkung]

I'm not bias against Russian weapons. Outdated obsolete weapons are no longer effective against current weapons. If you wanted to keep pace, you'll need new weapon with comparable strength. Sources shown that dozens of Mig-29s in Iraq & Serbia shot down due to poor RWR early warning system. Americans have came up with newer RWR that no longer has the weakness of earlier RWR flaws that fail to provide more details to pilots. US made current RWR could tell you active radar & missiles pointing @ u

[vodkasvictim]

Not ony were those Fucrums downgraded export model, but the Serbian one was a trainer model with no radar or RWR.

Given the massive infrastructure behind the us airforce and the damaged infrastructure behind those of the countries you mentioned, we can hardly say this was a fair contest.

When IAF MiG29s intercepted PAF F16s, PAF ran.

When E. German MiG29s few simuated combat vs F16, MiG29 won.

Those are more realistic analyses.

[taekarkung]

Mig-29 RWR does not specify location & distance of active/tracking radar. Only provide warning of IR or Radar signature from which direction with LED lighting unlike US RWR. F-16's cockpit above left MFD is the rounded RWR. Based on report, MIG-29s that were shotdown didn't perform evasive maneuver at the right time as the pilot has to spot incoming missiles with own eyes. German's MIG-29 vs F-16 only won based on use of helmet cue in dogfight. Not proving effectiveness of missile & RWR

[vodkasvictim]

Dogfighting is traditionally the most effective combat, where most panes are most and most battles end up being fought.

I want to see a source for what you're saying about this. Are you comparing MiG29a to F16Block60? 'Cos if so, that aint fair.

So what if they ony won because of helmet mounted system? You're saying F16 is better (which for the record I think it is - these days) because of RWR system.

[taekarkung]

I'm comparing Mig-29S with F-16C Block 30. Dogfigtht is important and F-16C proven able to out turn and outmaneuver MIG-29S/SN/K/SMT/M. Mig-29 is only comparable to F/A-18. Comparison in MIg-29SN vs F/A-18D in my country shows MIG-29SN is inferior in air to air and air to ground. Today, US fighters have helmet cue & AIM-9X with 140deg off boresight defeating Russian fighters with R-74 at 90deg off boresight. Another weakness is Su-27 & Mig-29 don't have night vision as in F-15, F/A-18 & F-16.

[vodkasvictim]

You still didn't give me a source on the RWR thing.

For the record I LOVE the F16.

But here's a thought for you; when a war begins one of the 1st targets is the enemy airfields, to deny takeoff to enemy aircraft.

Soviet & Russian aircraft can take off from rough/damaged airfields, us jets (excluding A10) cannot.

Assuming that your country is Malaysia, why do you think your country purchased MiG29?

MiG29 can beat F15 & us jets can only go 90 degrees off boresight.

Source for F16 beats MiG29 WVR

[taekarkung]

Russian aircrafts are more durable and rough with less maintenance required. They bought MIG-29s alongside F/A-18 because their rival Singapore already has F-16s. Besides, buying US weapons have more restriction. Mig-29 only excels in dogfight but in BVR it is inferior. F/A-18 is still better with proven avionics & weapons. AIM-9X has 100-140deg off boresight. Mig-29 are obsolete and will require MIG-35 with proper RWR to counter US fighters.

[vodkasvictim]

More modern MiG29 (read Mig29 later variants & MiG35 are good in BVR too.

MiG29A has serious problems BVR.

I'd like a source for what you're sayng about A9X please.

And the RWR thing, please.

[taekarkung]

Mig-35, does it still track target by picking dots from HUD like earlier MIG-29S and Su-27S? There is no source on the RWR, you'll have to buy books or get report from airforce having both Mig-29 & F-15/16/18 that they make comparison on RWR. Aim-9X, everyone knows it has widest off boresight and is now the best short range air to air missile. Tracking a target and get the missile to lock on is more simpler in US fighters.

[vodkasvictim]

MiG29 isn't MiG35.

Yes it has the widest boresight that I know of, but your figures were wrong.

Out of interest, if you were a small country, which fighter jet would you buy, if you could only buy one?

[taekarkung]

If I were to play safe with something proven, I'll go for F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. F-16E/F can be considered but it has shorter combat radius, more suitable for defend rather than attack. Su-30MK2 or Su-35BM, I'll buy if I can get US latest RWR incorporated with radar installed and modifiy them to carry mixed US, Russian & French weapons

[vodkasvictim]

F18? Lets be honest, it lost to F16 but was picked up by te navy 'cos they were overy proud of their freedom from the AF.

I'd take F16s.

But each ot their own :-)

[taekarkung]

F-16 wins in dogfight & maneuverability but when loaded with mixed AA & AG armament, it couldn't maneuver well with max g of 6.5. Hornets/Super Hornets favored by Navy due to twin engine & having better air to ground capability. US cancelled arms sales to Taiwan after China made noise & gave trade bonus to US. Russia was once close friend of Taiwan b4 1945. Will Russia sell Su-35BM, Black Eagle, Ka-50, AT-16 Vikhr to Taiwan if they are willing to pay?

[vodkasvictim]

I think Russia would sell. They need the cash & have a strong history of armament export.

I know the navy chose hornet because of twin engine safety etc, but since then F35 (basicaly a remade F16 is gonna be introduced.

It would've been much smarter & cost effective for the navy to have their own navalised variants of F16 & F15 rather than adopt F18 imho.

[taekarkung]

I would like to see Russia-Taiwan arms sales. It would anger China & US. Su-35BM costs similar to F/A-18E/F with optional French/Israel upgrades and provision to carry western armament. ROCAF could use the Su-35BM to carry existing weapon inventory such as AIM-120C5/7, AIM-9L/M, R-550 Magic 2, AGM-65D, etc. Its front & rear AESA radar incorporated with RWR giving it 360 deg view & defense against incoming missiles. The only bad thing about Su-35bm is fuel thirsty, consumes more fuel than F-15E

[vodkasvictim]

B52 uses less fuel than Tu95? I want to see a source for that. B52 is just as vulnerable to SAMs as Tu95.

B1b can only beat Tu160 in payload while carrying stores externally, which makes RCS & drag shoot up and speed (VITAL for a penetration bomber) & fuel efficiency drop.

More capability? Tu95 can be a bomber, maritime patrol aircraft, nuclear powered bomber, AWACS, civil airliner & more things besides.

So what if it's too slow? Speed doesn't make a great bomber.

The noise isn't a problem.

[taekarkung]

B-52 uses more fuel than Tu-95. It could carry more payloads at 55,000lb. Current B-52G/H are upgraded with sophisticated Offensive & Defensive avionics available in B-1B. Its powerful AN/ALQ-167 jammer is good enough to jam within 50Nm radius and with good RWR early warning system to take evasive maneuver. B-1B has 2 internal bays with rotary launchers that could carry more weapons as US made missiles & bombs are lighter & smaller. Tu-95 is just too noisy often intercepted by enemy fighters

[vodkasvictim]

I agree B52 uses more fuel than Tu95. That's not good.

B52 can carry more payload, sorry, I thought we were talking Tu160 Vs B1.

B52 isn't SAM proof, it's just as vulnerable as Tu95, which still does the job.

Aside from the fact that some statements you've previously given are wrong, we're missing the point; both were designed as penetrator bombers and only Tu160 with it's mach 2 capability stays true to the original design plan, which is part of the reason for the emergence of plans for B1r.

[taekarkung]

B-52G/H uses more fuel than Tu-95 because it is using turbofans with reasonable fuel consumption. Not like guzzling fuel like mad just to reach high speed. B-52 is not 100% SAM proof but sitll has better RWR, ECM and countermeasure system than most bombers. Tu-95 could be detected at maximum and there were so many Tu-95 being intercepted by various countries. With Tornado F3, EF2000, F4/14/15/F-16/18. Tu-95 doesn't even have proper RWR & countermeasure that any missile fired at it would hit

[taekarkung]

B-1B has 2 internal stores with adjustable rotary launcher racks. That is why it has smaller internal fuel compared to Tu-160 but could carry internal fuel tanks. B-1 internal bay could hold more US made weapons that are compact. Tu-160 only has 1 internal bay with 1 rotary launcher for 12-16 cruise missiles. Tu-160 is just high speed long range bomber. B-1B could be used as attack aircraft as it could pull 4G anytime. Whatever Tu-95 could do, B-52G/H could do even better.

[taekarkung]

Sorry, not enough space. US made air to ground are smaller and lighter. 1 F-15E could carry maximum 12 AGM-65G Maverick (695lb each) whereas 1 Su-30MK could carry maximum 8 Kh-29T/L Kedge (1495lb each). The F-15E still has 4 small hardpoints for air to air missiles & 4 underbelly pylons for guided/unguided bombs. Su-30MK has 4 more pylons for air to air missiles. Out of topic but just as example. B-1B could carry more smaller & lighter weapons internally than Tu-160 carrying 16 AS-16 Kickbacks

[vodkasvictim]

I do like the points you make, but please address my main point; that both aircraft were designed for high altitude high speed penetration bombing & only Tu160 is properly capable of this, as proven when it penetrated British airspace.

The penalty for smaller, lighter weapons is that they're less effective.

Don't forget that you can't rely 100% on satellites.

Tu160 can carry 6 air launched strategic cruise missiles (nuclear optional) internally. Can B1b equal that?

[taekarkung]

Tu-160 penetrated British airspace? Was it the latest incident last year? I remember that British sent 2 EF2000 to intercept a Russian bomber appeared in news. Smaller, lighter weapon with specialized warhead and accurate doesn't mean less effective. B-1B could carry 16 AGM-69A SRAM in forward bay and 8 SRAMs in rear bay. Other option: 8 AGM-86 ALCM or AGM-129 AALCM in forward bay and 8 SRAMs in rear bay. Fuel tank the size of B-1's rear bay could be carried in rear bay, forward bay 1 to 2.

[vodkasvictim]

I think Tu160 has only penetrated British airspace once.

I know EFs have intercepted Tu95.

Smaller lighter satellite guided weapons are useless when satellites are taken out.

Fact is, B1 doesn't do the job that both planes were designed to do as well as Tu160.

[taekarkung]

Why keep mentioning satellite guided weapons? B-1B itself has Terrain Mapping Ground Tracking Radar that could track ground targets or designate target at long range. Also, it has optronic visual FLIR pod that could track targets up to 20Nm. Didn't you know that satellite guided weapons can be guided with radar & visual as well? Weapons such as JDAM, ALCM, SLAM-ER, AGM-154 are multi guided, not that it's uselsss without satellite. Without satellite just get to back to basic tracking style.

[vodkasvictim]

Sorry. I thought I only mentioned them once.

Tu95 doesn't have to guzzle fuel like mad by going v. fast and without a source there is absolutely NO way that you'll convince me or anybody else that B52 is more fuel efficient than Tu95.

[taekarkung]

I never mentioned that B-52 consumes less fuel than Tu-95. Come on, Tu-95 made in 1949 is already obsolete, it is nothing but post WW2 follow up to beat the US made B-29 Superfortress that B-52 replaced in 1952 onwards. If you fly the B-52G into battlefield, you have higher survival rate compared to Tu-95 though the B-52G uses more fuel. It will give you higher satisfaction with current avionics, ground attack radar and effective air to ground missiles, bombs, etc.

[vodkasvictim]

I thought you did, sorry.

Tu95 isn't obsolete. The day Tu95 becomes obsolete, so does B52; they're analogues of each other.

[taekarkung]

B-52A original powered by 8 turbojets. Later B-52D replaced with 8 turbofans and the frame rebuilt. B-52G/H added with current avionics and ground attack radar extending its lifespan further. Tu-95/142 from 1949 until now, not much changes, still the same turboprop with little avionics added. Go into war, Tu-95 is easy target whereas B-52 has record of downing Mig-21. B-52G's early warning system is good enough to warn the pilots to go evasive maneuver, spoofing chaff/flare while turn on jammer

[vodkasvictim]

I can admit that Buff is faster & more technological than Tu95, with greater range and service cieling.

However I still prefer Tu95 as fewer have been shot down and it's WAY more flexible.

Each to their own I suppose.

[taekarkung]

Fewer Tu-95 were shot down due to less involvement in combat. In several cases where Tu-95s were intercepted by fighters patrol, if they were less lenient, you'll see more Tu-95s being shot down instead. Its RWR early warning system could barely warn pilots incoming missiles. B-52's RWR could indicate from which direction, distance & location radar that is active & tracking it showing incoming missiles. Tu-95 lacks this and will be downed easily. Mig-29s in combat are best example, easily downed

[vodkasvictim]

If WW3 had broken out, it woudn't have mattered as Tu95 would have aunched cruise missies from outside airspace.

Aternately, before ALCMs, both planes woud've had to fly over their target, making both have to choose between aborting mission or going for the bomb drop & maybe getting shot.

Do you have an innate bias against Russian weapons?

The ony times MiG29 has been shot down with ease is when it's been used (low grade export modes) by smal nations against MUCH bigger ones.

[taekarkung]

I'm not bias against Russian weapons. Outdated obsolete weapons are no longer effective against current weapons. If you wanted to keep pace, you'll need new weapon with comparable strength. Sources shown that dozens of Mig-29s in Iraq & Serbia shot down due to poor RWR early warning system. Americans have came up with newer RWR that no longer has the weakness of earlier RWR flaws that fail to provide more details to pilots. US made current RWR could tell you active radar & missiles pointing @ u

[vodkasvictim]

Not ony were those Fucrums downgraded export model, but the Serbian one was a trainer model with no radar or RWR.

Given the massive infrastructure behind the us airforce and the damaged infrastructure behind those of the countries you mentioned, we can hardly say this was a fair contest.

When IAF MiG29s intercepted PAF F16s, PAF ran.

When E. German MiG29s few simuated combat vs F16, MiG29 won.

Those are more realistic analyses.

[taekarkung]

Mig-29 RWR does not specify location & distance of active/tracking radar. Only provide warning of IR or Radar signature from which direction with LED lighting unlike US RWR. F-16's cockpit above left MFD is the rounded RWR. Based on report, MIG-29s that were shotdown didn't perform evasive maneuver at the right time as the pilot has to spot incoming missiles with own eyes. German's MIG-29 vs F-16 only won based on use of helmet cue in dogfight. Not proving effectiveness of missile & RWR

[vodkasvictim]

Dogfighting is traditionally the most effective combat, where most panes are most and most battles end up being fought.

I want to see a source for what you're saying about this. Are you comparing MiG29a to F16Block60? 'Cos if so, that aint fair.

So what if they ony won because of helmet mounted system? You're saying F16 is better (which for the record I think it is - these days) because of RWR system.

[taekarkung]

I'm comparing Mig-29S with F-16C Block 30. Dogfigtht is important and F-16C proven able to out turn and outmaneuver MIG-29S/SN/K/SMT/M. Mig-29 is only comparable to F/A-18. Comparison in MIg-29SN vs F/A-18D in my country shows MIG-29SN is inferior in air to air and air to ground. Today, US fighters have helmet cue & AIM-9X with 140deg off boresight defeating Russian fighters with R-74 at 90deg off boresight. Another weakness is Su-27 & Mig-29 don't have night vision as in F-15, F/A-18 & F-16.

[vodkasvictim]

You still didn't give me a source on the RWR thing.

For the record I LOVE the F16.

But here's a thought for you; when a war begins one of the 1st targets is the enemy airfields, to deny takeoff to enemy aircraft.

Soviet & Russian aircraft can take off from rough/damaged airfields, us jets (excluding A10) cannot.

Assuming that your country is Malaysia, why do you think your country purchased MiG29?

MiG29 can beat F15 & us jets can only go 90 degrees off boresight.

Source for F16 beats MiG29 WVR

[taekarkung]

Russian aircrafts are more durable and rough with less maintenance required. They bought MIG-29s alongside F/A-18 because their rival Singapore already has F-16s. Besides, buying US weapons have more restriction. Mig-29 only excels in dogfight but in BVR it is inferior. F/A-18 is still better with proven avionics & weapons. AIM-9X has 100-140deg off boresight. Mig-29 are obsolete and will require MIG-35 with proper RWR to counter US fighters.

[vodkasvictim]

More modern MiG29 (read Mig29 later variants & MiG35 are good in BVR too.

MiG29A has serious problems BVR.

I'd like a source for what you're sayng about A9X please.

And the RWR thing, please.

[taekarkung]

Mig-35, does it still track target by picking dots from HUD like earlier MIG-29S and Su-27S? There is no source on the RWR, you'll have to buy books or get report from airforce having both Mig-29 & F-15/16/18 that they make comparison on RWR. Aim-9X, everyone knows it has widest off boresight and is now the best short range air to air missile. Tracking a target and get the missile to lock on is more simpler in US fighters.

[vodkasvictim]

MiG29 isn't MiG35.

Yes it has the widest boresight that I know of, but your figures were wrong.

Out of interest, if you were a small country, which fighter jet would you buy, if you could only buy one?

[taekarkung]

If I were to play safe with something proven, I'll go for F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. F-16E/F can be considered but it has shorter combat radius, more suitable for defend rather than attack. Su-30MK2 or Su-35BM, I'll buy if I can get US latest RWR incorporated with radar installed and modifiy them to carry mixed US, Russian & French weapons

[vodkasvictim]

F18? Lets be honest, it lost to F16 but was picked up by te navy 'cos they were overy proud of their freedom from the AF.

I'd take F16s.

But each ot their own :-)

[taekarkung]

F-16 wins in dogfight & maneuverability but when loaded with mixed AA & AG armament, it couldn't maneuver well with max g of 6.5. Hornets/Super Hornets favored by Navy due to twin engine & having better air to ground capability. US cancelled arms sales to Taiwan after China made noise & gave trade bonus to US. Russia was once close friend of Taiwan b4 1945. Will Russia sell Su-35BM, Black Eagle, Ka-50, AT-16 Vikhr to Taiwan if they are willing to pay?

[vodkasvictim]

I think Russia would sell. They need the cash & have a strong history of armament export.

I know the navy chose hornet because of twin engine safety etc, but since then F35 (basicaly a remade F16 is gonna be introduced.

It would've been much smarter & cost effective for the navy to have their own navalised variants of F16 & F15 rather than adopt F18 imho.

[taekarkung]

I would like to see Russia-Taiwan arms sales. It would anger China & US. Su-35BM costs similar to F/A-18E/F with optional French/Israel upgrades and provision to carry western armament. ROCAF could use the Su-35BM to carry existing weapon inventory such as AIM-120C5/7, AIM-9L/M, R-550 Magic 2, AGM-65D, etc. Its front & rear AESA radar incorporated with RWR giving it 360 deg view & defense against incoming missiles. The only bad thing about Su-35bm is fuel thirsty, consumes more fuel than F-15E

[biukucanoe]

hell will freeze over before the USAF ever replaces the B-52.

[peepeevagi]

It's gotta be the only aircraft to be cancelled entirely three times and still be produced.

It's a good idea damn it.

Get over traditional values and use it! :D