Russian Stealth Bomber

[CAPFlyer]

Actually, they weren't built for the same role. The Tu-160 was specifically built as a cruise missile carrier with a secondary conventional role. The B-1A was built as a multipurpose supersonic strategic bomber with a primary freefall role and a secondary cruise missile role. However, it has been generally accepted that the B-1A was designed with the idea that the Cruise Missile capability was secondary and (honestly) unnecessary as the B-52 could fill that requirement and the B-1A would be the aircraft to penetrate the Soviet defenses for more "precision" strikes of targets where there was doubt as to whether a cruise missile could make it.

The B-1B fills much the same role as the B-1A except without cruise missiles and without some of the complex systems that proved unnecessary with further study like the complex inlet vane system that was to control the termination shock to allow for sustained high-transonic (~Mach 1.8) flight at low level. As such, the B-1B is only capable of sustaining mid-transonic (~Mach 1.1) flight at low level. Even so, the aircraft is most likely the fastest low-level aircraft in the world. The Tu-160's performance gain comes at high altitude where the more extreme fuselage blending results in a lower total drag on the aircraft.

[gale_dono]

Universally?

Based on what I've read. That was a little too broad.

[Randy Haskin]

Even so, the aircraft is most likely the fastest low-level aircraft in the world.

The Vark is faster.

[CAPFlyer]

Yeah, but for how long?

That's the other thing the B-1B has over other "supersonic" aircraft. It can keep its speed for a LOT longer.

[Mick Grinter]

I think it would be a bad idea to shoot at them.It's easier to let em go no harm done.
If they are nuked up and you peel one open you might have a bugger of a time cleaning that stuff up.
Why crap where you eat.

[StyrenePilot1970]

The similarity is pretty much universally agreed to be a coincedence, as a result of both aircraft being designed for the same role.

I'm going to have to call BS on that. Without the United States, seems to me that Russia would not have half the aircraft they do. That might be making too broad a statement, but think about it. We can start with the Tu-4 a direct copy (grandaddy of the the Tu-95, by the way)of the B-29. Look at the Su-25 it looks a lot like the rejected A-9, The Buran space shuttle is a clone of our shuttle and the Blackjack is a B-1 clone. Even the Tu-144 is a doppleganger of the Concorde. I'm sure there are more examples.

The B-24 and the B-17 were designed for pretty much the same role, and their appearance for the most part stops at the number of engines.

Sure, there are plenty of original Soviet designs, but coincidence? I ain't buying.

[JDK]

Sure, there are plenty of original Soviet designs, but coincidence? I ain't buying.

It does look suspicious, doesn't it? But let's go a bit further... (I treasure my ignorance of 'modern' aviation.) But changing the size of a modern fast, high performance aircraft isn't just a 'make it bigger' exercise. A significantly different sized aircraft is going to have a very different performance envelope, due to (IIRC) the inverse square law.

The Russian operational methodology and objectives are essentially very different to that of the US or, indeed, the west (Randy might comment here) which is also an important factor for design suitability.

Also much as designers consistently deny it, there's period fashions through aviation. Remember all those 'paper-plane 'boxy' warplanes? The XB-70, Avro Arrow, TSR-2? Did they all need to be such square deltas, or was that the international vogue of the time?

(Remind me how the US was involved with the Anglo-French Concorde design, btw? )

The B-24 and the B-17 were designed for pretty much the same role, and their appearance for the most part stops at the number of engines.

That was more the factor of different approaches (predicated on a early '30s wing concept, and the later, Davis wing) to similar tasks.

The best W.W.II fighters and bombers of the Russian were unarguably the equal of anything anyone else produced in W.W.II (Yak 9, La 7, Pe-2, Stormovik) except the strategic bomber niche, which they didn't need until after 45 when the enemy changed. Too much is made of the B-29 copying exercise, IMHO, BTW. It was an effective quick and dirty jump into that bomber bracket, which was a sudden capability gap - and was good enough for the task, I believe. Then they moved on.

Incidentally, the attitude that 'their stuff must be copies of our stuff' resulted in the 'Martins' and 'Curtiss' of the Spanish Civil War (SB-2s and I-16s) the 'Curtiss Hawks' of the Luftwaffe (Fw-190) and those funny Japanese pilots with bottle glasses flying inferior copies of western aircraft that we found all over the Pacific in 1942...

Looks IMHO, are over rated. It's what things do that counts.

Just some thoughts,

Regards,

The similarity is pretty much universally agreed to be a coincedence, as a result of both aircraft being designed for the same role.

I don't think that it is universally agreed to be just a coincidence.....

[michaelharadon]

When I was at Oshkosh in the late '80's, I had a chance to ask shuttle pilot Hoot Gibson what American astronauts thought about how much Buran resembled the shuttle. His reply was along the lines that that they didn't think anything about it because when similar mission requirements operating in the same environment are brought into 3D, the results will look about the same, too.

[gale_dono]

When I was at Oshkosh in the late '80's, I had a chance to ask shuttle pilot Hoot Gibson what American astronauts thought about how much Buran resembled the shuttle. His reply was along the lines that that they didn't think anything about it because when similar mission requirements operating in the same environment are brought into 3D, the results will look about the same, too.

This is what I meant to say. Poor wording the first time around, sorry X_X

[dred]

...except as CAPFlyer pointed out above, the two planes were not intended for the same mission.

[famvburg]

Kind of picking nits here, but the Tu-4 is not quite a 'direct copy' of the B-29. There are numerous detail differences which keep it from being a 'direct copy'. The prototype Tu-144 is very similar to the Concorde, but the production Tu-144 is as different from its proptotype as it is from the Concorde. The Tu-144 got into the air before the Concorde, as well. Compare the A-9 & Su-25 side by side. They're similar in size & layout, but far fom anything else. Kinda like a Jaguar & Mitsubishi F-1. A common current 'copy claim' is the Chinese J-10 is a copy of the IAI Lavi, when it has more in common with the Typhoon, but no one claims that. The Beriev Be-6 looks like a Mariner, but I've never hear it claimed to be a copy. How come no one ever says that North American copied the Bf 109Z in the P-82?

The similarity is pretty much universally agreed to be a coincedence, as a result of both aircraft being designed for the same role.

I'm going to have to call BS on that. Without the United States, seems to me that Russia would not have half the aircraft they do. That might be making too broad a statement, but think about it. We can start with the Tu-4 a direct copy (grandaddy of the the Tu-95, by the way)of the B-29. Look at the Su-25 it looks a lot like the rejected A-9, The Buran space shuttle is a clone of our shuttle and the Blackjack is a B-1 clone. Even the Tu-144 is a doppleganger of the Concorde. I'm sure there are more examples.

The B-24 and the B-17 were designed for pretty much the same role, and their appearance for the most part stops at the number of engines.

Sure, there are plenty of original Soviet designs, but coincidence? I ain't buying.

[StyrenePilot1970]

"How come no one ever says that North American copied the Bf 109Z in the P-82?"

North American copied the Bf-109Z when they made the P-82...<winks>

I'm not saying anything's wrong with them copying us or us copying them.

I'm just saying it's folly to say it doesn't happen. Similiar missions or not.

"Hey, if that works for them, it ought to work for us."

[StyrenePilot1970]

"(Remind me how the US was involved with the Anglo-French Concorde design, btw? ) "

I type too fast - wasn't trying to imply the US had anything to do with the design, but I believe a few Americans did ride on the COncorde a few times.

I miss that plane - what a beauty!

[dred]

Reminds me of a discussion I once had with a marketing person as to whether turquoise and teal were the same color.