The Instigator
TheRussian
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Dynasty2468
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Soviet Tu-160 bomber is superior to any bomber up to 1990

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 631 times Debate No: 54543
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

TheRussian

Pro

I will be arguing that the Tu-160 bomber was superior to any bomber built before 1991. Please begin your argument.
Dynasty2468

Con

My basic argument will be that the B2 and the American Valkyrie bomber is more superior than the Soviet Tu-160. I accept btw.
Debate Round No. 1
TheRussian

Pro

Then let's begin!
First, I will simply compare basic statistics of the three planes.

Max speed:
Tu-160: 1,243 mph
B2: 569 mph
XB-70 (Valkyrie): 2,065 mph

Max operational range:
Tu-160: 8,699 miles
B2: 7,248 miles
XB-70: 4,287 miles

Carrying capacity:
Tu-160: 363,760 lbs
B2: 182,800 lbs
XB-70: 234,800 lbs

Looking at the above statistics, I do not see why the B2 is competition for the Tu-160. The XB-70, however, is faster (because of afterburner engine) but has a much smaller operational range and carrying capacity. The Tu-160 can simply inflict much more damage than either of its competitors.

Engine type:
Tu-160: Turbofan
B2: Turbofan
XB-70: Afterburner

Although afterburner engines generate more thrust, they are very inefficient with fuel consumption and are also much easier targets for heat-seeking missiles because they produce a lot of heat.

The Tu-160 actually has 2 hard-points, while the B2 and XB-70 have none, giving the Tu-160 more protection.

http://www.militaryfactory.com...
http://www.militaryfactory.com...
http://www.militaryfactory.com...

I await my opponent's argument.
Dynasty2468

Con

Dynasty2468 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheRussian

Pro

I have nothing to refute.
Dynasty2468

Con

First of all. B2 is a stealth aircraft, meaning that it can't be detected by any means of system.......so I guess the enemies have to eat a lot of carrot...B2s had been many actions, and suffer no loss. (Except for the crash of a B2) B2 can carry the guided bomb, while the TU-160 carries the free fall bomb

XB-70 is indeed much faster. But has a few problem, as you had mentioned a few....

B2 can carry the guided bomb, while the TU-160 carries the free fall bomb
"easier targets for Heat seeking missile" You can counter that with flares.
"TU-160: 1243 mph" According to my source, it's 1379 mph.
While Tu-160 needs 4 men, B2 requires 2-3 men.
One of Tu-160's missile, Kh-55, is heavier than B2's missile, JASSM.
http://www.military-today.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(missile_family)
http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 3
TheRussian

Pro

TheRussian forfeited this round.
Dynasty2468

Con

Dynasty2468 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
hahaha, alright :)
Posted by Dynasty2468 3 years ago
Dynasty2468
btw, "I guess they have to eat a lot of carrot" is just a joke....just in case so we don't have to debate about carrot.
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
hahaha, don't be! nothin to be sorry for! :) it's just a question :)
Posted by Dynasty2468 3 years ago
Dynasty2468
sry...I forgot
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
I made a stupid mistake. A hardpoint is when you have explosives/missiles "hanging" on the OUTSIDE of the plane. Usually under the wings.
Posted by Dynasty2468 3 years ago
Dynasty2468
pardon me for being stupid, but what's the hard point?
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
TheRussian
Please pardon me, when describing hard points, I meant to say that "Tu-160 has 2 hard-points, allowing more weapons to be stowed and used."
No votes have been placed for this debate.