Talk:Tupolev Tu-160/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"A big heavy knock-off"

Quoting the Times, which goes on to say: "The Russians had terrible problems with the Tu-160, too — even when they wanted to show the thing off to a visiting American secretary of defense, they reportedly could get only three of its four engines working for the demo flight — and it appears to be a pig for fuel, just as the B-1 was. (That was one of the main reasons the Russians stopped the long-range flights in 1992: too expensive.)" [1]

Here's another review: "Blackjack operations also suffered due to numerous development problems and parts shortages. Difficulties with flight controls, poor reliability of the engines and various onboard systems, as well as a lack of basic equipment for aircrew and ground crew caused repeated problems early in the career of the Tu-160. Most of the bombers were also delivered before the production configuration had been finalized, so no two aircraft are alike and components differ from plane to plane degrading maintenance and serviceability.

Despite these troubles, the bomber received a new lease on life when President Putin restarted strategic patrol flights and ordered Tu-160 assembly to resume. Deliveries of new-build Blackjacks began in 2007 and Russian officials expect one additional bomber to be completed every 18 months. The Air Force hopes to bring the total Tu-160 fleet up to 30 operational aircraft by 2025. [2] Gaintes (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article reads like nothing short of glowing praise. There is no mention of the long history of operational problems that have plagued this design from conception. A few examples can be found here: http://www.aviation.ru/Tu/160/Tu-160.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.30.127 (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article could hardly have been better phrased by the Russians themselves. The article would benefit from a detailed comparison with the B-1. And that would include costs. There's a difference between an American aircraft which must demonstrate cost-effectiveness, and a Russian aircraft, where there is no public deliberation of costs. Also, the B-1 has been used successfully in combat. Has this plane? 24.130.12.229 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that American-military-industrial complex is renowned for its penny-pinching ways, and absolutely minimises all costs at all times, whereas the profligate Russians, they just spend, spend spend!- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the IP user's key phrase was "no public deliberation of costs". No matter what the so-called "American-military-industrial complex" wants (such as perhaps friviolous tankers, which keep getiing cancelled), the US Congress still has to pay for it, hence the "public deliberation of costs" part. The Soviet government (under which the Tu-160 was copied - er, developed (Yeah, that's the ticket!) - deliberated in private. One further comment on accuracy/NPOV: the original B-1 (the B-1A) was mach 2 capable, and almost as fast as the Tu-160, the the speed comparisons in the article should be clarified to make clear it's the B-1B that is slower (though still supersonic at altitude). Part of the reason the Bone-B is slower is ... cost. - BillCJ (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, cos the American government has no black programs at all; they're all debated in public in congress with detailed cost breakdowns and everything. ;-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
All the Soviet programs were black, while US black programs are just a small persentage, of which the B-1 was not one of them. Even so, some Congressional members have to know about the black programs, so there is Congressional oversight. Not a fair comparsion, as if you were trying to be fair! ;) Being fair defeats the "US is bad, so everyone else must be good" arguement, and not as much fun either! :p - BillCJ (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RCS

I would like confirmation that the B-1B does have a lower RCS than the Blackjack. Altough the Blackjack is not a 'true' stealth aircraft I has stealthy features, such as RAM along the air-intakes. As the B-1 is also not a 'true' stealth plane, it would seem possible for the Blackjack to have lower RCS, as I remember reading somewhere, however I cannot find a reliable source to confirm in either way.

According to article by Piotr Butowski, Polish researcher of Russian aircraft (Nowa Technika Wojskowa 8 and 10/2001), Tu-160 has lower RCS. Pibwl 19:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tu-160 use S-shaped air-intake tunnels & fully turnable tailsurface, air-intakes are covered with radio absorbing material. There are also other features, here, but those are confirmed from a very realable source. Please put it on a page. --Oleg Str 09:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

largest supersonic aircraft

This plane is 20 tonnes heavier (MTOW) than the XB-70. 50% heavier than concorde. I'm alsmost sure it's the largest supersonic aircraft in the world. Anyone to confirm/inform?

I think, yes. At least, serially produced one. --jno 11:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure but there is a heavier airplane - it is called Kaspian Monster.It's actualy ekranoplan but is still a plane.Used only primary for transportation but with the ability to fire missles: http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/Ekranoplans/ekrano1.htm

Yes, it's larger, and actually designed as a weapon, but it isn't supersonic. Out of subsonic, there's also AN-225, with 600 tonnes MTOW. Out of the supersonic, Blackjack is the largest. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian Tu-160s

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Ukrainian airforce never opreated the TU-160s that were left in Ukraine after the USSR broke up. So Ukraine should not be listed as an operator. Edrigu 22:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean the Ukrainian Air force never operated the Tu-160? It's not like the planes were just forgotten after the collapse of the Soviet Union, just because they never bombed anybody doesn't mean they weren't in the air force. If the Ukrainian Air force had blackjacks in their arsenal that technically makes them a former operator. Bogdan 02:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Did Ukrainian pilots actually fly them? I thought they just stood in storage. Edrigu 01:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Largest bomber

The article Convair B-36 states that this US bomber is the largest bomber ever built., not the Tu-160. Now one of the two articles needs to be modified...--Arado 13:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the payload of Convair? It is 38,000 kg, while Tu-160 has pyload of 45,000 kg, so, we have to modify Convair article, and I already modified this one and added that Tu-160 is heaviest bomber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.59.7 (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement "the plane's maximum bombload is a respectable 45,000kg, which makes it the heaviest bomber in the world" seems incorrect when compared to the 61,000kg of ordnance the B1-B can carry. Crx2gen (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

B1B never was able to carry 61,000, I know, you added the two numbers for external and internal, but the thing is... Try loading B-1B with 61,000 kg of payload, and it will not take off. Here is a simple comparison: engines: Tu-160 -
4 x Thrust with afterburner: 245 kN (55,100 lbf) each

B1B: 

4 x Thrust with afterburner: 30,780 lbf (136.92 kN) each

It is EITHER 27,000 OR 34,000 kg for B-1B, NOT both. Or you can do a dumb test ( I do it sometimes), take MAx take off weight of Tu-160 and subtract emoty weight, you get 157,000 kg, do same to B-1B, you get 128,000 kg. Article is fine, Tu-160 is largest and heaviest bomber ever serially produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.63.253 (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Similarity to B-1

Actually it looks a lot like the Concorde.69.3.223.96 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How did it come about that the Tu-160 looks almost just like the B-1, and is there anything else that's similar aside from the airframe? The Soviets seemed to have an incredible penchant for copying American technology, such as in the case of the B-29 and Sidewinder Masterblooregard 08:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tu-160 is much heavier, and much faster than B-1, so, I would not call it a copy. As for copying, every single russian invention in tank industry has been copied by west. Examples??? Reactive armor, sloping armor, composite armor, active protection systems. Before you say something funny like you did, you better think, not to make fun of yourself. Hell, by your logic, west even copied russian idea with ICBMs, Yes, russian idea, not german, read about Tsiolkovsky, he was the very first one to consider space launchers and rockets. It is west that usually copies. And the aircraft that contributed most to Tu-160 design is Tu-22M3.
The resemblance betwenn the Tu-160 and the Tu-22/26 is superficial at best. The Tu-160 is essentialy a scaled up B1. I don't necessary believe the Russian copies all of its airplane designs. The MiG-21 and MiG-23 are certainly fine examples of idigenous design. But Russia has repeatedly shown it is willing to "borrow" design concepts from others. Plans for the Focke-Wulf Ta 183 were captured by the Russians which clearly influenced the design of Russian First Generation Fighters. (I will also note that the swept wing for the F-86 was also derived from German research.) How do you imagine copying a strategic bomber without having it?This is a massive project and it would cost less to produce a bomber at home with a better characteristics.Besides theres never been a shortage of talented engineers in Tupolev))
As for the B-1, if imitation is sincerest form of flattery, then Rockwell Aviation must be quite proud of the high praise from Tupalev. 216.181.47.130 ([[User talk:216.181.47.130|talk(talk) 16:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Many soviet aircraft designs were a reaction to new developments in the US. The heading design bureau was chosen by means of project contest involving several teams, as was the case with Tu-160. It is possible that choosing the same aerodynamic scheme and an exterior similar to the american counterpart was a plus for decision-makers, despite that the design must actually be quite reasonable if two independent design groups have chosen similar schemes. It also looks reasonable that the two sides, given similar technical specifications and close levels of technology, have produced similar designs.

Sidewinder? You mean missile? Why did then americans have to develop upgrade for Sidewinder after Luftwaffe Migs defeated them with russian missiles in training? Looks like russian "copies" are substantially better than american "original" weapons. Weird copies, are they? This goes for Sidewinder vs R-37, same goes for Tu-160 vs B-1. You wish to argue about copies more?99.231.63.253 20:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Pavel, October 14 2007

Pavel, I believe the reference to the Sidewinder is to the original 50s version and the ROC/PRC incident, not the modern incarnations of the Sidewinder and modern Russian missles. Also, the original B-1A was a Mach 2 aircraft, so the speed thing doesn't count, as the B-1A first flew in 1974. - BillCJ (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually the Tu-160 is a copy,but not of the B-1 , but of the Myasishev M-18 project.--Ramirezzz x (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I reread my posts, sorry for rethoric I have to say. And Thank you for the comment about Myasishev. Pavel Golikov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.46.37 (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Range?

I notice that this aircraft has much greater range than any other supersonic aircraft.

Does anyone know whether that's because it mostly cruises at subsonic speeds, and then for the attack run, it swings the wing and turns up the mach to avoid interception?

My best guess is yes, the bypass ratio is all wrong for long distance, efficient supersonic flight, but they could probably do it for short bursts for a few hundred miles or so without being stupidly inefficient.

But does anyone have a cite either way?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maximum range is on subsonic speeds, because fuel consuming on supersonic speed is about 3 times more than on subsonic speed (1,70 kg/kgs*h vs. 0,72 kg/kgs*h). Mm, and engines, IMHO, NK-32, but not NK-321. Sorry for my bad English. With best wishes from Russian Federation, 82.114.228.74 (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
2.36x the fuel. But it's going 2.3x as fast, so fuel/mile is the same. The L/D is probably lower at supersonic speeds though.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, there seems to be a mistake with range and radius. It's AIUI combat range which is 10,000km, not radius. I'm not entirely sure if it isn't some technicality in specs, however. Any clarification? CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Rumor has it that Tu-160 was designed to be able to operate at 2000 km/h in high/low/high profile for up to 2000 km from the base of deployment, but I have no confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.50.118 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

NATO Reference name in bold?

The NATO reference name is included and bolded for all the other Soviet/Russian "B" Bombers. While it is not the official Soviet/Russian/Manufacturers name, it is a common name used for the aircraft type, and as such should surely be bold in this article too? Hohum (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Tu-160 and British air space

Link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1064713/Russian-nuclear-bomber-flies-undetected-20-miles-Hull.html

Date:

30th September 2008

Quote:

"A Russian nuclear stealth bomber was able to fly within 90 seconds of the British coast without being picked up by radar, it was revealed today.

The supersonic ‘Blackjack’ jet flew completely undetected to within just 20 miles from Hull in one of the worst breaches of British security since the end of the Cold War."

Don't you people think the incident should be mentioned? 99.231.50.118 (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

20 miles is not inside British Airspace. Airspace claims are the same as Territorial Waters, so the Jet would've needed to have been within 12 miles.
--86.150.202.0 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I've reworded to clarify. However, since Kingston upon Hull is about 10 miles from the coast, the Tu-160 may have been inside British sovereign airspace. Hohum (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifications (Tu-160)

How sure are the figures? -- they really don't add up. The T/W ratio especially and the thrust seem suspect. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I always wonder how people can take these numbers seriously. By a comfortable margin the biggest payload, by far the biggest unrefueled range and maximal speed among bombers, it's even somewhat stealthy, and all this in one aircraft. And bear in mind, the Tu-144, the other XL size supersonic venture from the same design group, was a decisive failure. Amanitin (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
If you have the numbers to prove otherwise, then by all means, post them. If not, you cannot simply say something like that and have us accept it as fact. It sounds more like an opinion and will be treated as one.Jeremy D. (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying I have facts. I'm saying no one here has. The combination of numbers given here is not possible. Period. (Have you noticed B1B has listed the same thrust/weight and yet only a little above half the maximal speed of Tu-160 despite being smaller?) Amanitin (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The only mystery here is that you think that a bigger aircraft won't have a bigger payload, and that you think that an aircraft with the same thrust/weight ratio as Concorde can't reach Mach 2. There's also the point that bigger aircraft have a slightly easier time flying because they have a bigger ballistic coefficient, and there's a reduction in the drag coefficient from about Mach 1.2; you don't have to find much extra performance to suddenly get a lot of extra speed.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The biggest mystery is how the Americans managed to stuff up the B-1 design so thoroughly, with these specs it ought to be going Mach 2.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No mystery at all - the B-1A WAS a Mach 2 aircraft - however, the producution B-1B had the variable geometry inlets replaced by fixed engine inlets to save money and to reduce RCS (since they didn't think they would use Mach 2 at altitude).Nigel Ish (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The aircraft has the same engines as the version of the TU-144- the TU-144LL- that NASA did research on, so the thrust capacity of these types of engines does not seem to be in any significant doubt. The large takeoff weight is presumably partly because of the swing-wing nature of the aircraft- it would get good lift at low speeds, much better than the TU-144/Concorde deltas (which have ridiculously poor L/D ratios then) and so takes off fairly conventionally and uses its thrust better.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

American Bias

There seems to be a bit of American bias entering into this article. Lets stick to the absolute facts about this bomber and NOT get into supposition or opinions on how fast it is or how much it can carry. Facts are facts and if the B-1 is faster or the TU-160 more stealthy then lets look for the numbers to prove it, and CITE these numbers. If the bias is not removed, then a lock will be placed on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itchy01ca (talk • contribs) 06:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

tu-160 invasion in Canada

in the last paragraph of "Operational Hist.", it says: "Both nations claimed that the timing was coincidental". The Russians accused Canada of thinking the tu-160 and tu-95 was in Canadian soil but it was not. the Canadians said the Russians invaded their aerospace. There was no agreement. the russians did not agree that they invaded canada, so why would they say the timing was a coincidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.52.183 (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons to the B-1

I don't understand why there has to be a comparison against the B-1B Lancer in the opening paragraph. The two planes were made for totally different purposes: B-1B was built as a penetration bomber. The Tu-160 is a beautiful airplane by itself, there's no need to turn the page into a pissing contest. Also, if you really wanted to compare the two, it's necessary to take into account serviceability. There are 70+ B-1Bs in service, with 20 in reserve. Less than 20 Tu-160s are operated now, with flying time severly limited. Bottom line: Americans can get the B-1Bs flying missions, the Russians can't do the same with the Blackjack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.105.158 (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who is starting pissing contest with your last bs sentence. Russians are not involved in multiple wars all over the world, hence much lower flying hours. B-1B is quite comparable to Tu-160, you just hate to see better specs on Tu-160. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.242.133 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-English Sources

If English-speaking readers can't easily verify them, how can they be depended upon to be reliable sources? Here's the exact statement on the matter from WP:NONENG: English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. I was able to find a couple of english language sources without too much difficulty (from en.rian.ru), it shouldn't be that hard for others to help in doing the same. So please stop edit warring and help out in finding sources that are easily verifiable. Thanks. ViperNerd (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You deleted Russian sources and then added tags. That's not allowed by the above policy. You also deleted comments by a Russian general because he was Russian, talking about a Russian aircraft. The wikipedia's way is to include all sides of something. If the Russians say something and somebody else says something else we include both, not neither or just one side; and the fact that only one side is given isn't sufficient reason to remove it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. I deleted the general's comments because they were dated and contradicted by newer information, if you bothered to read the article and the accompanying sources you'd know that. And what happened to WP:AGF? I'm actively trying to improve an article for its intended readership (the vast majority of which do not speak/read Russian), while you seem to be doing nothing but interfering with my attempts to do so. Either help or get out of the way. Oh, and posting edit war templates on the Talk pages of other editors while you are actively engaging in an edit war is poor form. ViperNerd (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
No, posting edit war templates on somebodies talk page tells them that if they don't desist they will be suspended from editing; it's a required step to show that they are aware of it in fact, and must be done at least once prior to getting them suspended. Enjoy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy your suspension should it come to that, because you're just as guilty of edit warring in this case. The hypocrisy is what I was pointing out, but you clearly didn't get it. ViperNerd (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't realised you'd been blocked before, and it turns out you've been blocked rather a lot for edit warring, whereas I've only been blocked for very minor things; pretty much for principled defence of the wikipedia in each case, but hey, rules are rules. If I'm blocked, I might get suspended for a day or so. You're looking at probably week or two or more. And you appear to be trying to use the 3RR rule to enforce a non policy and non neutral position on the article, the admins often take a dim view of that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I see...you've only been blocked three times for edit warring/3RR violation for "good" reasons. Thanks for clearing that up. Strange that someone who earned themselves three timeouts wouldn't have gotten the message that there is no "good" excuse for 3RR violation unless you are reverting obvious vandalism. I would think a WikiLawyer like you would at least understand that part of the rule. And unless you happen to draw an admin who's a buddy of yours, I wouldn't count on a 24hr block for your 4th offense. But if you want to test my theory, that's up to you. It's funny though, that you have the spare time to engage in this back and forth, but can't spare a few minutes to find English language sources for this article as requested by Wikipedia policy. Most of the other Russian aircraft articles manage to be primarily sourced in English, why does this one deserve a pass? I'm sure you'll come up with some excuse. ViperNerd (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to help a sockpuppeteer and serious edit warrior try to look for references that I was previously unable to source in the English language, that he arbitrarily and unilaterally removed, contrary to the relevant policy that permits it. That isn't going to happen under any circumstances.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you just come out and admit it? You're LAZY. It's far easier to sit back and flex your Wiki-muscles than it is to actually work to improve articles. We get it, you've made that abundantly clear by your actions today. Somehow, in just a couple of hours I've already managed to find SIX English language references for statements in this woefully undersourced article. Am I just that much better at using Google than you? So which is it, are you an incompetent editor or merely a slacker? ViperNerd (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand, what do you mean? You just deleted a whole bunch of references and information that I added, that are permitted by the policy above, that you quoted. Which bit of this and other policies don't you understand? How is me reintroducing valid references and material edit warring? How is that supposed to make me lazy or incompetent? If I'm lazy and incompetent why is it that I have done more than ten times more edits than you, and have not been banned for any significant period of time? How are your subject lines, arbitrary reversions, wilful ignorance of the policies here, and insults on the talk page conducive to a collegial atmosphere? Do you have any evidence for consensus or have you tried to achieve neutral point of view for your edits? I'm failing to see any of this.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, all those valuable edits you've made in trying to get suffixes and prefixes deleted from Wikipedia? I honestly don't know how the project would continue without your contributions. Answer this, how can anyone verify that those Russian refs you seem to think are unassailable were actually NOTABLE? You might be aware that it takes more than merely a link to a website to properly source a statement in an article, the source must be RELIABLE. I looked at many of the Russian language pages that were linked and don't remember seeing anything that would lead one to believe they were anything other than Russian blogs or forums, which as you may be aware are not notable here. If you're going to add refs in a language that the majority of users/editors can't read (which is basically just lazy editing, given the power of internet search engines), you better make sure that we can at least see that they come from well-known major foreign sites (ITAR-TASS, RIA Novosti, etc), as a heavier burden of proof is on the person adding this type of source. I also noticed that you've been editing this article for a quite some time (long enough to have located at least one or two of the English language sources that I found in only a couple of hours), might be wise for you to take a look at WP:OWN, as it would appear that you've adopted this article as somehow belonging to you. It might also serve you well to take another peek at WP:BOLD in case you've forgotten one of the key tenants of Wikipedia, the one that initially motivated my edits in this neglected article. ViperNerd (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
tl;dr.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The minor words I skimmed were insulting and derogatory, coupled with your inability to understand the wikipedia's policies it doesn't surprise me that you've been suspended for edit warring so much, and I can only congratulate those that did this.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Took you FIVE DAYS to come up with that? Sad. ViperNerd (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a forum. Take your squabbling somewhere else. Hohum (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a forum to discuss the article. Are you saying it's OK for this guy to invent his very own policies for this article and then edit war to enforce them? Non English references are specifically allowed in the wikipedia, and he's just gone through and taken them all out, and then edit warred to keep them out.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I mean, that's vandalism. I mean, he's quoting the relevant policy and then doing the opposite? I don't have to assume good faith if he's not demonstrating any.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I note that ViperNerd's bad faith edit warring continues unabaited; he ignores administrators, basically invents his own policies even while quoting the policy that contradicts him, arbitrarily reverts edits, removes material contributing towards neutral point of view, insults people on the talk page, has used sock puppets and has been previously been banned for weeks.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, where did we vote that he gets to decide what goes in and what gets deleted again? Apparently ViperNerd thinks he is the new emperor of this article and unilaterally makes all content decisions; can someone link me to the discussion?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The talk page is a place to discuss how to improve the article. Personal insults don't help the article in any way whatever. If you feel someone is being disruptive, initially try to reason, and then report them to administrators according to procedure. Don't feed the trolls.

The non-english sources deleted are:

Perhaps what is needed is a good faith review of these sources to see if they are reliable, involving Russian speakers if possible - certainly several of them seem to meet WP:RS, being established News sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree most of them are reliable sources. Do we have a consensus that according to WP:NONENG the reliable sources must be reinstated until English sources are found?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
No. We do not have a consensus. This is not ru.wikipedia.org. Find english language sources. It is not that difficult a task, and it is what is required by Wikipedia policy. Foreign language sources are only acceptable if no english language source is available. Merely stating that one cannot be found is not good enough, that much should have been proven by the efforts of a lone editor (myself) working in the space of only a couple hours. Editors that care enough to edit this article should also be able to invest the time to search for english language sources that meet the guidelines of WP:RS. Every other article about a significant Russian aircraft is replete with this type of sourcing, there is no good reason that this one should be held to a lesser standard. ViperNerd (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know who the hell one thinks they are that they can dictate to editors that sources in a particular language can only be used. The simple fact of the matter is, is that the sources you have removed are reliable sources, and there is zero obligation on the part of any editor to have to kowtow to your WP:TEDIOUS commands. Stop being a WP:DICK. Simple. --Russavia Dialogue 12:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Prove that they are reliable, or shut up. I'm tired of having to say the same thing over and over to people who can't seem to grasp a simple concept. You seem to enjoy throwing around Wikipedia policies, then I suggest you read WP:NONENG, as it's pretty clear. You might also want to check out WP:V while you're at it. The fact is, the majority of Wikipedia editors cannot verify that sources written in a language other than english are reliable, unless the website is an obvious well-known foreign source. I'm not just going to sit back and blindly accept someone's word that a source is reliable when it looks like some sort of foreign blog, or some other similar site. These types of sources wouldn't be acceptable if they were in english, so they are even less acceptable in a language that can't be easily verified. Anyone who cares to edit this article should search for english language sources, as that is the GOLD STANDARD for ENGLISH Wikipedia, per policy. And "searching" doesn't consist of scanning the first page of hit results after a Google query, before shrugging your shoulders and saying to yourself "I guess there's no english source for the material I want to add...oh well." If foreign language sources continue to be added to this article and look like they don't meet the standards of WP:RS, they will be summarily removed. Also, it's not the job of other editors to translate these foreign sources, although I checked one out previously and found out that the material that was added to this article's specifications section was a synthesis of what was actually contained in the source. Finally, those of you in love with the Russian language are more than welcome to go edit ru.wikipedia, I'm sure they would be happy for the help. ViperNerd (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask what your native language actually is? It doesn't seem to be English. Which bit of However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. do you not understand?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Which part of, where an English equivalent is not available, do YOU not understand? Bear in mind, that doesn't mean simply because YOU didn't feel like searching for one, that means in instances where one legitimately cannot be found. It seems you're having considerable difficulty with that particular concept. Let us know if and when it finally sinks in. Until it does, I'm finished discussing the matter with someone who is being deliberately obtuse. ViperNerd (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not possible to prove the nonexistence of English sources, you can't prove a negative, your logic is as deficient as your understanding of policy. And the policy doesn't forbid non English sources indeed they are acceptable, but you edit warred every single one from the article, and have failed in general to locate anything to replace them with. In short, you're a lying, edit warring sockpuppet wielding toe-rag, and I'm going to do everything in my power to get you permanently excluded from this article. You're a disgrace.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Browsing through some changes made by the User:ViperNerd it appears that ViperNerd did remove a few sources without properly replacing them, perhaps violating the WP:NONENG policy. Foreign language sources could potentially be "translated" using online automatic translation tools, and the removed ones seem to meet WP:RS. --C1010 (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to interrupt the fireworks for a moment, but does anyone have any opinion on the airforce.ru reference (i.e. the first one)? It, unlike some of the others, does not appear to be a news site and it is not clear to me whether it is merely an enthusiast site or something more reliable?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NONENG clearly means that non-english sources are acceptable, but if english sources of as good or better quality are found, they are preferred. WP:NONENG is not license to remove non-english references just because you cant read them. If you want them verified, tag them as such so someone who can read the language can verify them, and assume good faith if they are verified, unless you have a very good reason not to.
For the record, I argued at length for keeping an article maintenance template that highlighted when an article had non-english sources, as I think they can generally be improved by seeking english sources. However, it was never my position that non-english sources should be removed without finding english alternatives of at least equal quality. Hohum (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Image:Tupolew_Tu_160_8001.png

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Tupolew_Tu_160_8001.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:Tupolew Tu 160 8001.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I just noticed this because of the recent edits, but I feel like I should bring it up. Right now the lead has this paragraph in it:

Although several civil and military transport aircraft are bigger, the Tu-160 has the greatest total thrust, and the heaviest takeoff weight of any combat aircraft, and the highest top speed as well as one of the largest payloads of any current heavy bomber. Pilots of the Tu-160 call it the “White Swan”, due to its maneuverability and anti-flash white finish.[1]

I think there are several problems with it. First, the citation only refers to the nickname "White Swan". However, its placement at the end of the paragraph implies that the citation covers the claims in the entire paragraph, which it doesn't. Second, the paragraph makes substantial claims that are not cited, and are not cited later in the article. Claiming the greatest thrust and heaviest takeoff weight of any combat aircraft needs to be cited, and it needs to be separated from the next claim of highest top speed and highest payload because those are qualified by the ambiguous "current heavy bomber". If no one responds in the next day or two, I'll try and fix it myself and/or add cite-needed tags. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur. - BilCat (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparing Tu-160

This constant attempts to compare Tu-160 and B1 are getting rather old. Please understand that these two aircraft are in entirely different leagues - Lancer is a low-alt penetrator and Tu-160 is a high-alt supersonic missile carrier, you just can't compare two of them. Just get over the fact that Tu-160 is bigger, faster, delivers a bigger punch and that US today still doesn't has anything comparable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.225.130.141 (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You say people shouldn't compare the two planes, then you end your post by comparing the two planes. The Tu-160, though a capable aircraft indeed, is a knock-off of the B-1A. YOU need to get over that fact. --203.110.206.180 (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been very well established that the Tu-160 is not a "Knock-off of the B-1A". Stating that it is is WP:OPINION and WP:POV that are not supported by the WP:RSs. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Really? Because all the period literature I've read states the Tu-160 was HEAVILY based off the B-1A design. Not to mention the utter ridiculousness of calling reality POV. (For the love of Pete...one need only LOOK at the planes.) I wholly respect the Tu-160's capabilities and wonder what it could have been capable of if it was fully fielded prior to the U.S.S.R.'s collapse. The Tu-160 and B-1B may serve different functions today, but that doesn't change the Blackjack's history.--203.110.206.180 (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
What 'period' is being spoken of? The most recent literature, or the 'period' of the 1980s/early 1990s? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Surely influenced by the B-1, but not a simple "knock-off". -fnlayson (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I concur that the Tu-160 is not a simple knock-off, but it's obviously "inspired by" the B-1. The Soviets certainly never had a problem using Western designs as "starting points" for their own. That they could design products completely on their own is without dispute, but they did show a tendecny to "outsource" some initial design work from time to time! - BilCat (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
If you are going to say that the Tu-160 was based on the B-1, you might as well say that the tank was based from the Chinese cannon made in the 10th Century AD. Why? Because it uses gunpowder and it has a flash when it fires. Yes, that's the similarity that a Tu-160 and B-1 have; they both just drop bombs and happen to have similar shape. 203.213.43.182 (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Unless you were actually trying to come up with the dumbest comparison you could, you've failed to demonstrate anything but your own bias.--172.129.23.158 (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of grey area in between "they copied the design of the B1" and "its a completely different aircraft, they just look the same".

The B1-A only existed for a handful of years, they only built 4 and it never entered service, and it was re-developed into the B1B. The original design directive for the TU160 clearly mirrors that of the B1A, however the Russians didn't cancel and repurpose their design, so they ended up with something similar to the B1A, but taken much further, matured and naturally, had its design goals changed and/or modified along the way, ending up with a fully-fledged service aircraft.

You cannot say it is fully a copy of the B1A because the B1A was never even finished. You cannot say it is fully a copy of the B1B because they are designed for radically different roles, and those differences account for some of the radical differences between the two aircraft (and yes, there are radical differences, its almost as if not everything is as it meets the eye huh?).

Of course you'd have to be blind not to comment on the similarities, but to affix on it as if the russians just bought a model kit and decided to make one just like it is ridiculous. Its a lot harder to build an aircraft than that. 94.175.244.252 (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What about comparing it to the B-70 Valkyrie ? Although of a different era- The Tu-160 and B-70 are fairly close in size; both are high-altitude and supersonic. The US B-1 Lancer is significantly smaller in size- although supersonic capable, not normal operations. Plue the older era of the B-70 may have helped Russians in gathering information and influence. Wfoj3 (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comparison table

The comparison table was added a couple of weeks ago, but I missed it's addition. Had I seen it then, I would have removed it immediately. It smacks of WP:PEACOCK, and is quite bulky. In additin, we don't usually put theses sort of comparison tables in aircraft articles, while the flags and thumbnail images are also non-standard. Please discuss the table if you believe it should be in the article, and build a consensus to re-add it before doing so. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Tu-134UBL

While I concur that the Tu-144 should be placed under the heading"Related", I believe the Tu-134UBL falls more correctly under the standard heading "Related Development", as the aircraft was developed exclusively for training Tu-160 pilots, using the cockpit and nose section of the tu-160 - Kenkeisel (talk)

Use for training pilots really has nothing to do with development of the Tu-160 aircraft, which is what that label implies. This training use is already mentioned in the article and needs to be referenced. By the way, your signature needs fixing since it does not link to your user page as it should. -fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
'Related development' is for types developed from, or into, the type in question. Also, looking at pictures of the -134UBL, that really looks more like the nose of a Backfire to me... - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 16:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The Tu-134UBL incorporates a nose containing a complete mock-up of the Tu-160 cockpit, from which the pilots in training are able to fly the Tu-134UBL as if it were a Tu-160 (though under the limitations of the Tu-134UBL's configuration). It was built using Tu-160 cockpit components strictly as a trainer aircraft for Tu-160 aircrews. As such, it certainly qualifies for the catagory "Related Development". It saved the Soviet's from the cost of constructing a trainer version of the Blackjack. Ken keisel (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Fnlayson. That looks much better. Wish I had a good photo of the Tu-134UBL to post in the article. Ken keisel (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that is useful, thanks. I wonder if the pictures of the "UBL" I found were actually showing the variant they stuck a Tu-22M's nose onto (I forget the designation at the moment)? Thanks for the input! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

See also

I can't see how this article is related to the "2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash". 89.204.138.129 (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I cant see how either, so I've removed it. The link was added by an IP user without explanation. - BilCat (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the connection either. No mention of Tu-160 anywhere in the crash article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Best / better lead image

Objects possess the greatest amount of detail when an even axonometric view is displayed. The previous image is a side view that obscures the plane. The one I propose is an under view that shows full detail of the largest orthographic view of the plane. Please discuss. Khazar (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The image you selected is a poor choice as Lead photo. 10 dollar words can make an ugly image look any better. Please present some options here, and get other opinions and a consensus before changing the image again. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I accept. I'll remove the photo for now. Khazar (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I expect a legitimate reason against my proposition rather than referencing "10 dollar words". Please present valid points rather than the classical argument structure with no policies to sustain it. Khazar (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Your "argument" referenced no policies. An orthographic view is generally presented in the Specs section as a 3-view, which we have. - BilCat (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
That's still not a legitimate argument. I point out a major flaw in your opposition and you completely ignored it. You've mentioned so-called "policies" but fail to actually accurately point to them. Policies do not play a major role in this argument and you know tis very well. The current image is a side oriented view of the Tu-160 [almost orthographic] and creates a diminutive appearance unlike a more bottom oriented view. The latter exposes more of the plane due to being situated in a position that makes the larger dimensions more noticeable. Khazar (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not here to argue. Two editors have nixed your choice, and it's up to you to persuade others to support your choice, ie. build a consensus. Choosing a Lead image in an aircraft article is usually a matter of aesthetics, not geometry. The Lead photo is the first image a reader sees, and in most cases having an aesthetically pleasing image is better than having one that isn't. There are dozens of photos of the aircraft on Commons, so surely we can find one that we can agree on. I asked if you would present some options, meaning other photos to choose from. So pick another image, and we'll see if a consensus.can be built. - BilCat (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
In case like this, aesthetics is directly related to geometry. The current one had a lower resolution and an inferior orthographic view (side). It's amazing how you still can't back up your argument and claim that you don't have one when you fail to do so. You've already ridiculed my proposition by insults rather than legitimate reasons. Khazar (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

These are the images in question:

Existing infobox image
Proposed new infobox image

The purpose of the Infobox image is show the complete aircraft as best as possible. The proposed image shows mostly the underside of the aircraft. This is not good enough, imo. Discuss the merits of these images, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Russia to start production of TU-160

According to Sputnik news, Russia is planning to restart production of Tu-160 again. The news says that Russian Defense Minister Gen. Sergei Shoigu said that Russia should start production of Tu-160 in addition to upgrading existing ones. Tumsaa (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Phone no. Glitch ?

In where it was produced it has a phone number can someone edit the template, I couldn't figure it out Planer 12346578955 (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about where it is? I can't find it. - BilCat (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Why Anti-Flash color

Why Anti-Flash color if it is mainly designed to carry Missiles, not Nuclear Bombs? 91.155.24.127 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Are cruise missiles not nuclear capable ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, cruise missiles can be nuclear capable.
But the purpose of "anti-flash color" is to protect against close-by nuclear detonations.
Cruise missiles deliver their payload (nuclear or otherwise) at a long distance from the launch point (or aircraft), which would negate the need for "anti-flash color" on an aircraft deploying cruise missiles. 72.73.114.173 (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Is mostly to protect from "enemy" or ICBM class ordnance, not its own carried stuff. Strategic level air-defence is (expected to) employ nuclear-tipped missiles. Plus the plane is expected to be "survivable" in a wide-scale nuclear exchange, e.g. when its base is attacked by an ICBM and the plane just barely managed to lift off etc.83.240.62.87 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tupolev_Tu-160/Archive_1&oldid=1209460393"