Deadly America B-1 vs Tu-160 Bomber Russia - What is Different? 

Track suit and gold chain.

B-1 - heavy metal hard rock music / TU-160 - The Ring of the Nibelungs/ ride of the Valkyries.

Don’t forget the pinky ring

@@faerieSAALE B-1 - death metal and hip hop / TU-160 - hardbass.

"Yeah we're pretty sure the one with tracksuit on is ours" -America (probably.)

The Tu-160 is much faster and can carry more bomb loads. Any Tu-160 is a better bomber

@@djercik9843 yes it is

@@Brian-qj4kk then again, don’t want to work by one

How they look very similar to Lockheed 🤭

Bahahahahahahaha!!?

I love the su-35 an most su designs more! But the white swan is a real beauty❤❤

😂😂😂😂

Not even top 10 bro

Dean Ainsworth maintainers don’t like it because it’s always leaking oil and breaking because of how ancient it is 😂. It had its hay day but it’s in a dire need of retirement. The b-21 is the next replacement but who knows when that will go into effect.

Sure. I am a Vietnam vet and live across the street. Thank you for your service.

@@joshspinks9792 I'm going to wager that- after this recent election- the Air Force will waiting a very, very long time for the B-21 bomber...

I maintained instrumental autopilot systems on the B1 back in the 90s. It broke a lot, but when it flew, nothing could stop it

Buy one and send it to me. Please, pretty please.

They are the same...

@@tonymind308 No, they aren't. You can't compare the Swan and the Lancer. The swan is unique and has literally it's own class while the Lancer is comparable with the Tu-22M3.

@Joe Blow No, it's not.

@@Tengri30 joe deleted his whole comment

@@reptixplaysde1270 Seems like an typical yank move, tho. Some time ago I tried to explain the winged hammer and sickle of Aeroflot because he basically asked about the history and why they still use it although the Russian Federation is not socialist anymore. He somehow got mad, called me "communist piece of shit", deleted his comment and blocked me. I was like: *WTF?*

An military bomber is a military bomber and stays a deadly machine. Do not forget that.

@@Joe__Tech A military bomber,...not AN military bomber!...Do not FORGET THAT!!!

Ok Vlad! :D

looks like a cheap chinese knock-off

@@livonia1807 Right on the button!...unfortunately,...I would like to think the Russians to be more capable than this. They are very clever people.

They are merchants of death they are not art

Yes, Cyrillic stand alone X sounds like HAaa...

Planes are rad wars are bad, it's a belief held by many. Some of man's most beautiful creations have such cruel and ugly purposes.

The b52 has the air of death about it for me. It has dropped a lot of deadly ordinance

That's exactly how I've always felt! These planes have the look of spectacular, mythic creatures. Their aerodynamics and flight are stunning, even while they're designed only for death and destruction.

In what? It looks cool and is fast, but it is pretty bad as a bomber and it's exhaust is poison ton3veryone at the flight line.

Great narration? It's a bloody text-to-speech program. And I can't stand it when people use the word "aircrafts". It's the same as saying "sheeps".

@@SeverityOne , love your opinion. God Bless, I like this channel. Good thing we all live in a place we don't all speak German, and we each can speak our opinions. Hopefully we won't all speak Cantonese moving forward. Peace and love.

@Leonidis78 yes its true,he pushed wrong button 😂😂

It wasn't a problem. Transmission blocked. Oil leak 😁😁😁🇷🇸🇷🇸🇷🇸

Still got shot down.

@Leonidis78 really,in 5 min! That's why bombing campaign take 78 every 25 min bombing days. 19 country against 8 million population country.Find conclusion in pentagon papers how Serbian army look like after 78 days.They couldn't believe that 75 % of air hits was on fake target.Jets, artillery etc. Twice more bombs that Iraqi war Today Serbia have 4-6 %growth ,in the first four EU economy.By the way, go google, mission Halyard, 500 pilots and airman Serbs save from Germans despite dead sentence to all those who have idea helping Americans,English...If you are not lezy just google mission Halyard.If you do,give me your thoughts.

@@jakovnikolic4502 Možeš li mi objasniti kako Nikolić može biti Hrvat.Nemoj da se ljutiš ali najmanje 25% Hrvata su pokatoličeni Srbi.Mislim ti možeš biti šta hoćeš ali se nadam da si svjestan da Nikolić nema šanse ni pod kojim uslovima da bude Hrvat.Svako dobro brate Srbine.

it's all about dat ass

Just the name _Stratofortress_ sounds so damn cozy.

Yesteryear? Is that a valid word.

@@babayagacodswallop1756 Yes the word is valid, I have seen it many times.

Despite that Russia lost its 60 km long convoy. Lol

@@bharatnadhani4532 yeah the same way Ukraine got kicked out of there 5 strongholds in luhansk. So much for NATO weaponry

Bugger all pinpoint accuracy. 50% of the missiles don't work for starters...

@@b11recoillessrifle14 You seem like a dickhead... I am sure you are.

The Russians never aimed for second place.

lmao

lol sneaking in that dab doe

His butt 😍😍😍

*_pukes_* Wtf why as a butt shaking

Apple gay

Lol

Nah

Yeah well i don't think your B-1 is a bomber and chemical weapon

No. US is good enough to work alone. Russia needs help

The US does invade or annex it's neighbors or threaten the world with nuclear war if any nation tries to intervene!!

@@nightlightabcd so russia do too. Hello from ukrainian Donbass region occupied by russia. And I lived 8 month in Sebastopol (Crimea) before russia annexed it.

Andrew M my dude, every country has it’s problems, yes even the all mighty US has it’s problems, look at Los Angeles, there’s literally a homeless COMMUNITY, that’s pretty bad if you ask me, can America fix it’s problems? Sure, they have the money, will they? I don’t know, those problems have been there for a very long time and the American Dream isn’t that magical anymore

No, we're not giving you the plans for the B-1

Unless I'm very much mistaken, that is a text-to-speech program talking.

@@SeverityOne what's your point a******

@@WiliiamNoTell Well, that it is, in fact, a "CPU voice" as you call it.

@eddie money Wow, Eddie, bruh, go do some research you are making an ass hat of yourself.

NO manned aircraft has EVER flown tree top height at that speed. The heat generated by the thick atmosphere prohibits it!

The B-1 can go supersonic at low level (over 800mph)l but not quite that fast. Speeds of that nature can only be achieved at higher altitudes.

LOL!!! The -160 is a direct copy of the B-1 my friend. Only scaled up. Just like the Russians did with the B-29 back in WWII when three of them were forced to land in Russia and they tore them apart screw by screw and then they developed the Tu-4 Bull. Same idea but more modern times.

@@VettemanLT5 who wants to copy the expensive, obsolet Us machinery ? The talibanes ???

@@fergar9264 obsolete my ass LOL

Yes, Doc Brown.

Who is the Vice President? Jerry Lewis?

@Agent 88 he was the worst socialist or Muslim ever. Eating pork, drinking beer, and helping the rich get richer.

No Ronald Reagan the master in Politic Science Economy and sociology .... ignorant

Yup reagan was also a felon who should have rotted in jail for what happened with iran contra fuck

Which aircraft classes?

@@Jdksbyb он тебе правильно написал. наш самолет - стратегический ракетоносец, а ваше - это обычный бомбардировщик. сравнение этих самолетов некорректно. как обычный седан с ралли автомобилем сравнивать. первое жопу просто возить, а второе дакар покорять

0040 2514 понятно спасибо👍

@@Jdksbyb These 2 planes cannot be compared. The B-1 is a low-altitude air defense breakthrough aircraft, and the Tu-160 is a supersonic high-altitude strategic bomber Эти 2 самолёта невозможно сравнивать. B-1 это самолёт низковысотного прорыва ПВО, а Ту-160 это сверхзвуковой высотный стратегический бомбардировщик-ракетоносец

@@_snooper_423 ok thank you 👍

Welcome back.

@@sylkelster Yeah, spoke too soon there.

USA invents Russia steals and copies that is always the case

Try driving on the highway by the end of the runway at Dyess AFB in Abilene, TX when two B-1Bs take off at the same time! The road is below the end of runway so you don't see them coming. Trust me...a change of shorts is necessary! I literally thought the world had exploded as they flew overhead! 😳

and the B1 is made just to get shot down lmfao

Fuel consumption has long been an issue with solviet and Russian aircraft

@@Nick-cb3gp That's completely backwards, in REALITY (not your Russian fantasy dreams) the TU-160 has an RCS about 100 times larger than the stealth B-1B, making it far more vulnerable compared to the B-1B. In a modern conflict Russia's bombers would get shot down like turkeys. Russia can't even get air superiority over Ukraine, and Ukraine has extremely outdated weapons and hardly any AA capabilities. Absolutely pathetic.

​@@weasle2904 """stealth B1""" lmfao what a good joke. It's so stealthy it has to resort to flying near ground level so every radar in the area doesn't instantly pick it up. It was designed for a now obsolete doctrine and is only good at dropping bombs on defenceless civilian targets and carrying long range missiles. The Tu-160 is much bigger, it's one of the largest bombers ever made, its goal is purely to carry a fuckton of missiles and shoot them from far away. You don't need stealth for that, as the B1 has also shown.

@@KekusMagnus B1-B has a redesigned air frame focused on Stealth, made out of and coated with radar absorbing material. The B1-B's rcs is roughly 100x smaller than the TU-160, making it significantly more difficult to detect and track. Also you should calm down, the B1-B is significantly smaller yet can actually hold more maximum ordnance lol, and the internal weapons volume is larger. The TU-160 is a primitive bomber compared to the B1-B

God knows what the USA has that hasn't been introduced to the battlefield as yet. Don't underestimate the USA.. Russia loves to show off its power because of the system of government it has. We Americans don't have to show off. The enemy will see what we have at wartime!

@@harlemsoldier421 And GOD knows what Russia haven't shown to the world yet..and don't underestimate your opponent just because US GDP is bigger.. #don't become warmonger state.

@Brad Viviviyal LoL

@@harlemsoldier421 if usa poses such a high tech weapons why cant they win a war against Afghanistan 16th century weponary for 20 years, it's all a bluff,usa attack 105 cruise missiles against Syria and 100 never reached a target

@@advancedauto7667 every war calls for different technology. I mean either way, war with Russia wouldn't be good for either side because it would be world ending. Russia wouldn't beat the USA in a conventional war.

Probably gonna top out at 120 MPH and get destroyed in 1 homing missle shot

Maybe its just gonna be a another 4 000 000 garbage

Yeah you guys were right

I don't mind but idc which one is best because but b1b lancer and tu160 are both gokd and powerful bombers and i respect Russians military

A very beautiful plane but in 2020 it’s more deadly to it’s crew then it is to the enemy.

@@russcowper9513 It's already proven in recent Syria bombing mission it's capacity... :) Well, of camera even Americans also believe & accept, Russian made bombers aircraft and jets are always superior in built quality, technologically yes, Americans are ted better. But hey, what if technological failure happens, we know Russia jets can discuss belly lending on make shift air strip, but American's counter parts cnt even imagine doing that..

TU-160 is a beautiful plane but could barely make it to Venezuela.

@@norberthofer5830 already land their.. :) just like Erstwhile USSR missiles pop up in Cuba.. :)

True. Tanks yes, but not these aircraft.

yes true - both two nice planes. but I hope they wil never bee in use , no wars, hello from Nato member Denmark

They aren't similar. In much but they'll only have to be used once.

Booooo....

More like 'fat simptard'

Hassp maybe the wanted the said the harraser

Duh bro

Probably super premature ejaculator...didn't reach the target with such a speed.

It's called the ,,White Swan"

@@irinakhan8688 And NATO calls it "Blackjack". Why? I don't know.

Allies wished they had both bombers in WW1 America and Russia are both racist and homophobic so your comment somehow rub me the wrong way

@@christiandauz3742 Moron, 147 nationalities live in Russia, what kind of Russianism can we talk about?

@@aleksandrtelnov909 Chechnyans face discrimination. Still right about Homophobia

@@christiandauz3742 omg, you're so freakishly ignorant! OMFG

@@christiandauz3742 cry more

Maintenance nightmare, is an understatement. More like a maintenance horror story. Even when it does fly.

@@JEDAI501ST hahaha might be even worse yes

@@reggieziet And in your mind you think that what is the readiness of Tu-160 in Russia? Formation of 3x Tu-160 in the air is the max that i was able to find via google image search... "Moscow, Russia. 4th May, 2018. Russian Air Force Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bomber and a Tupolev Tu-22M3 strike bomber aircraft fly in formation during a rehearsal of the upcoming Victory Day air show" Picture of one Tu-160 and four Tu-22M3 and i can bet that they would love to use 3x Tu-160 but were not able because "readiness is low low"...

@@Bialy_1 Oh, I bet they cant get more up than 3 Tu-160s and a An-2 on the same time on a regular basis, im not pro russian, im pro facts, both fleets are low low readiness

It can do more than the tu

also its kinda funny that the f15 has a bigger rcs than the blackjack lol

It's a stealth bomber, which is why it's so much better than the TU-160.

@Jeremy Cate B1-B had a redesigned airframe and RAM applied, it's a true stealth bomber. Said to be at least 0.75m2. Although not nearly as stealthy as the B-2, F-117, F-22, or F-35

@Jeremy Cate That paragraph you just copy pasted didn't change anything in this discussion. The B-1B is a stealth bomber with an RCS much less than a 4th gen fighter. The TU-160 has a 100x bigger RCS with only slightly more payload than the B1-B. This makes it a far less effective bomber in protected air space.

@Jeremy Cate Yes we were, the B-1 hasn't been in service for decades. The B-1B is the only B-1 in service. You just made yourself sound like a fool. "B1-B is obsolete whereas the TU-160 isn't." ??? The TU-160 has a 100x larger RCS. If anything, it's the obsolete one. And it would get shot down at 3x the distance of the B1-B. The B1-B is harder to shoot down than a small fighter, therefore it is much better than the TU-160. Any non-stealth bombers are outdated in controlled air space. The TU-160 is only useful for firing long-range cruise missiles, and there are far cheaper and more practical bombers capable of doing that.

Agree But one operational TU-160 can do more damage than all B1s. That is the main difference.

16 Tu bombers in service, 100 B1-B bombers in service 100 / 16 = 2. My calculator proofed this calculation too

@@dekipet how

@@dekipet people don't understand way more food it carries plus the fact less 160s means more air vs collisions with each other

At the twice speed of sound you don't really want more craft in air at once

I wish I could remember his name

Sounds like a Disney SF film ?

Good dreams ❤

Nope,TU 160 is still a record holder as the biggest and heaviest military aircraft ever built with the biggest load capacity and almost twice the size of B1.Nothing similar here

@@gumelini1 nope....

Out of a box.... The B1 isn't design for both high low like the 160 can deliver with a much heavier payload carried the 160 has flight altitude differences b1 only works best at one doesn't matter if it was high or low it can only work best at one or other 160 by design was both

@@modbox9560 yes the B1 goes high and low ,, Russia copied the B1 but made it bigger ,,

@@keithbell6104 Just recently read some comments on some person started the rumor Russia doesn't have nuclear aircraft because there still using old tanks cause supply is running out to that person indeed they do copied or not.. It isn't outdated can't be used.

ThePrince Karma amen to that

MUCH cooler!

its cooler by most characteristics

Win a war based on looks? Many have tried; all have failed!

@@sarahhaugh7922 US #1 at selling weapons based on looks and words ) Those weapons didnt help even themselves ))

The Republican telling has Carter being a dope-smoking, long-hair hippie freak. In fact he was a Navy officer and nuclear engineer, a protégé of Hyman Rickover no less. Carter's pick of Paul Volcker as Fed chief was responsible for ending the decade of stagflation under Nixon and Ford. While Reagan took the bow for Carter and Volcker's work, his own disastrous policy that veep George H.W. Bush called "voodoo economics" led to the 1990 Great Recession, which was the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. If America had known the truth about Carter, who knows where we'd be now? Letting Russia drift after the collapse of the Soviet Union was the single worst malfeasance of the Reagan / Bush years. We really could have used the leadership of Carter in the '80s. The Bone is just too pretty to let go, but Carter was right, it was an anachronism in the ICBM age. The F-117 and B-2 were a necessary step forward to maintain parity with Russia. And if we chose better politicians, we wouldn't be still fighting proxy wars.

@@StringerNews1 Carter was, in retrospect, obviously the better president. People just didn't see it at the time and most people still can't see it. Voting for politicians has devolved into a junior high popularity contest for captain of the football team and king and queen of the Snowman's Ball. We have turned into a nation of dumb, fat, egotistical morons with maturity levels equivalent to that of the 13 year olds of two generations ago.

@@jackandblaze5956 At the time people were overwhelmed with misinformation from the GOP propaganda machine. Rather than be chastened by the colossal moral failure of Agnew, Nixon and Ford and the criminal activity of the party in conquest of power, they saw the fact that Nixon was able to appoint his pardoner and escape prison time as a win, a reason to be even more brazen in their quest to overthrow our Constitutional government. No, most Americans (including myself) didn't see it because it was mostly _sub rosa_ back then. But the same Republican system that slams good Americans and puts up evil, corrupt people as demagogues was in place way back then, just as it is today. Painting all Americans with the same brush is offensive. It's like saying that we're all suckers who deserve to be conquered. We're _not_ all suckers.

@@StringerNews1 Excellent post!

You are right. B-1 was brought by Reagan to move the Soviet Union into playing catch up with military expending which ultimately payed off; the Soviet Union economy broke because of it and Communism fell crashing like a ton of dishes in crystal store. Reagan and the B-1 by KO in the 11th round.

The B-1 has been taken out of the nuclear role unfortunately. That role is now B-52 and B-2 Stealth

@@pixsilvb9638 In your little mind that's how the Soviet Union ceased to exist? You are a lazy thinker..

@@Zingalamadumi illustrate us in Cold War History you manificent superior genius. Careful, don't toast your brain cells innthe process by giving us a too fast throrough acadamic explanation. Your brain may explode. 🤯

Finally, someone who knows what they are talking about! I think it's quite obvious that most of the Tu160 lovers and worshippers know very little about the early development of these two aircraft. The B1 first flew in 1974. The Tu160 first flew in 1981. To anyone who has even the slightest technical knowledge it's obvious that the basic design of the Tu160 is a blatant copy of the B1. It's just bigger with more powerful engines. Sure it's supersonic but not in the range of fighter jet speeds or even that of the B58. The B1 was built with far more electronic sophistication than other US bombers of the time, both defensive and offensive. Just look at footage of the cockpit of B1 and the Tu160. The B1 is still a generation ahead in displays and setup compared to the Tu160. The is still way ahead of the rest of the world. The most sophisticated (and effective!) modern strategic bomber in the world, the B2, has been in operational service for 24 YEARS! Where is the equivalent in Russia or China. They appear to be still too busy trying to properly get their heads around basic stealth technology (24 years later!).

lol

Lol funny you 🤣🤣🤣

syed ammar 🤫😂

))))))))))))))))

Typical American

Можно и по-русски написать,пусть сами переводят.

The Vulcan was a beautifully engineered airplane but realistically Britian was never in the big boys leaugue of USSR or USA, no where near the budget.

@@mickeybowmeister1944 that's because we've always been shat on by our "special friend" computers Mr C Babbage, jet engines Mr F Whittle, the TSR2 conspiracy/F111 & lets not forget decades paying off the WWII loan/interest . . . . special relationship my arse ! ! !

brits made some dam cool planes..

B1 is way faster and has a much larger bomb load for two.

Here's the difference: I was stationed at Ellsworth, AFB in '88 - '91 and worked on the B-1 Bomber. When I left there, I ended up in Europe, but about 2 - 3 years later, I was back driving across Montana heading from South Dakota out to Washington State. I was absolutely hauling ass and I saw a movement out of the corner of my eye to my right. There was a B-1 that came screaming over my head right at the speed of sound probably 200 ft off the deck just absolutely shittin'-n-gettin' using terrain following (200 ft is supposed to be the minimum height for terrain following). That jet came out of nowhere, screamed over my head and was completely out of sight within about 7 seconds from start to finish. It actually made the hair stand up on the back of my neck. I had worked on that jet for about 3 1/2 years, but you never really understand the capability of something like that until you see it in action.

Exactly this thing is garbage clicky bait

The problem was the cost. The first version was way faster and better but the program was cancelled. Regan brought the program back but the plane had a lot of changes to make it cheaper which made it slower and not as advance. Sorta sad it happened that way

redesigned to fly low and fast with terrain following radar systems. the idea being it comes in under the radar. to achieve this there were necessary design changes that lowered the speed of the aircraft.

Stan Burk that’s also true. There were a lot of changes since it’s role in the AF changed.

@@racerdude7730 changes weren't to make it cheaper. The changes were to accommodate a new mission. Instead of high and fast it was redesigned for low and fast.

Abhishek Emerson look up the Fallout: The Storyteller videos and tell me this isn’t the same narrator

Agreed. One world. One love.

Ah-hhh, yes. If appearances were what it’s all about. But, alas the truth is quite different.

Second only to the TU 95 and well below the TU-160

For real that's what I said to myself!!!

yea, they guy got that wrong.. this plane is from the cold war era...

It was expected in the cold war era. Both US and USSR prepared armament for a full on war, which would be ww3

Vaporizing humans from space is easy. It's harder to vaporize bombers.

They popped a lot of corn that day.

🤣👍

Not me. I want to hug the deck-low and slow

Indeed...better to have: - extended mission endurance - extended mission preparation capability - low-speed, low-altitude operational - full capabilities in Day or night roles - deep reconnaissance capability - sigint guidance for mission termination - precision delivery of multiple "target-softening" devices and methods - multi-modal, all-weather, operation - biological protection equipment integration, if required by mission - sigint-guided mission synchronization to target activities - extended post-mission loitering/surveillance capabilities - rapid turn-around for new / repeat missions Many mission and post-mission requirements, but supersonic operation is very seldom required.

Quickies aren't much popular

No the B1B could not go Supersonic it was refitted without the retractable wings.Only the B1A was designed for this.

@Car&Track7 oh look, another ignorant fool

@Car&Track7 jelouse asshole

The B1 still looks better.

Same

You Tu sensitive.🤔

@@eleventy-seven well jeezzzz I am going Tu Su Yu for that offensive comment 😁

@@Island_Line_Rail_Productions 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Человеку так хорошо знающему носителей английского языка, пора бы уже привыкнуть к их невежеству и наплевательскому отношению к другим традициям и этикету.🤑🤮🤑