Yes surely are when you see the ukrainian countryside littered with super tanks that could smash any enemy one easily.That s what they said and imagined. Well at least when they are dreaming. Hahahah......
But have so little budget to work with. Russia GDP is smaller than China, Japan, Germany, India, UK, France, Italy, Canada, and Brazil. And too much bureaucracy and corruption.
For a country whose defense budget is 70 billion, this is very good. It is even repugnant to the United States, whose defense budget is 850 billion dollars!!
And Yet Russians can't build anything other than weapons.. meanwhile, haters call the USA a "military war machine" on US social media their everyday life composed entirely of US technology and culture.
@@ryano.8768 Are you serious? Or just brainwashed? Show me faster rocket/bomb then Khinzal(the dagger)and i will show you my wife' p.Or my d.I dont want to hurt your feelings ;).
@@karengebers7689 only because we’re giving them weapons and jets to fight the Russians off with. If it weren’t for UN and specifically US intervention Russia could have been doing better. Not saying I want my least favorite country to win just saying they’re only losing because Ukraine has the father of all military suppliers on it’s side
@@nottheroyalnavy this guy showed you! He said it's a commercial aircraft... Nobody knew that except him cus he is the smortest person on RU-vid bar none.. Hope you learned
@@AC-Ninja I knew that cuz it's the most obvious fact about the Concorde the fact that it's the second fastest commercial aircraft with a top speed of Mach 2.02 and anyway I never said it wasn't a commercial plane I just said that it is almost the same speed as it soo stop making a fool of urself
I heard the Concordsky Tu-144 topped out at around mach 2.3... How do all of these larger supersonic aircraft compare to the fighters currently in use in terms of speed and range?
@@tirsofelipeduranmendoza5432I have an offical russian military "card" collection. And for the Tu160 it says max payload 40 tons and take of msx 275 tons
In service. The XB70 Valkyrie had a top speed over Mach 3 in the 1960s, much faster than the TU160. It suffered the same problem all non stealth bombers have, they are not survivable over well defended enemy territory.
The TU has been upgraded to be a missile carrier especially the hypersonic ones it's no longer required to get into range of ground airdefence. It's main job would be to attack high priority targets. Let's hope we all don't have to find out if it's any good and ask for peace from or warmongering Elites.
@EEE-1409 The two prototypes cost a billion dollars, a lot of money in those days. They learned something interesting. With the the flaps at the ends of the wing tips down at high speed they created vertices which I think added to its lift.
@@kgaogelomoloto1454 The Boeing B1 first appeared in 1974. The Russian copy came out shortly after. Stolen tech. The US has all but retired them. There are something like 30-40 still flying. Stealth has pretty much replaced the speed factor. Although the B1B is still a force to be reckoned with.
It also spews nitric oxide that turns into nitric acid in air when it takes off because the engines are running fuel rich. That's why the jet wash is usually orange at takeoff.
The Bone would have been faster except for when Carter neutered the program and fucked the engines and intakes …. Plus the Russian plane has to stop for repairs and gas a lot , when it isn’t killing its crew with toxic exhaust
You need to learn history, and a little aerospace engineering - The B-1A as a high fast nuclear bomber was obsolete before it flew ( just like the Tu-190 was and is) and was cancelled. Repurposing it to low level penetration nuclear bomber required altering the air intakes for greater efficiency and better low altitude performance.
The aircraft shown to be under construction certainly wasn't a TU-160, the Yanks may bring out a newer version of the Valkyrie, Mach 3 Bomber, from the late 50's, or give back what the peanut farmer took away, the B1A's speed!
@@shadowreaper4884 Yes us American like nice things. What does your country try to make stuff or what?? Really if u have the ability to be the best DO IT!! NO SHAME IN BEING #1😀💯🇺🇸🇺🇦👍
Supersonic bomber for tuday, does not more competitive than simple B- 52 for example. Because of this also US canceled B1A (that was same mach 2) and approved B1B, that slower, but partially stealth. Because for air defence missile that can fly mach 6 or even more, it doesn't matter at all which speed have bomber: 0.5M, 1M, or 2M. In modern war T160, or B1B, or B52 - they all can just deliver cruise missiles closer to target and fire them from safe distance. They all can't fly close to target, because any non stealth and non hyperaonic bomber is very tasty target for even not very advanced air defence missile.
Speed doesn't need for bomber only when you have airbase near. For example Ramstein airbase when bombing Serbia, or Engels when bomb Ukraine. But bombers are made for battle against powerful enemy, which one placed on the over side of the ocean. You fly 2 times faster - you bomb better
No but when you dive in this bomber and then release missiles, those missiles become faster. Add to that the “juke” or zig-zag quality of some recent Russian missiles, and oops, we may have a problem!
@@kkjoe1911why the laughings ?? Modern Russia is a pretty young country in the 90s they struggled a lot but yet 20 years later they managed to get back to the military and political scenes, impressive I'd say
Sure enough, the Tupolev Tu-160 (NATO reporting name: Blackjack) and the Rockwell International B-1 look quite similar at first glance,” Leone said in an op-ed. “Much has been said about the apparent Soviet custom of copying Western designs; this postulate is rooted in a firm conviction that Russia cannot produce anything worthwhile.”
@@statk22 yes and that’s quite unfortunate because of some very shortsighted people at NASA. The reason given was to keep Russian scientist employed as we thought they would go to rogue nations and use their technology for nuclear weapons.
The Tu-160 is just the B-1, but worse. To elaborate, the Tu-160 releases toxic gasses when it takes off, it still runs on old outdated equipment, and is basically just a carbon copy of the B-1.
Ah yes. A carbon copy. That only shares the swing wing feature, and the role of strategic bomber. The B-1B is smaller and harder do detect, but is slower. While the Blackjack is larger and goes almost twice as fast, but has far worse avionics, is easier to detext and has inneficient engines. But they can't be called carbon copies.
Russia is not a super power. They have no effective navy, and their air force is a joke. They can't even defeat their next door neighbor. The only thing Russia has is man power, but the army leadership is also a joke, as evidenced by all the men that are sent to go die for nothing.
@@christophernichols114 much lower radar cross section., unlike white swan. They’ve been through hostile airspace often, unlike Tu 160 that launches from inside Russia.
