According to wiki the B-1 actually has 16000 more kg of payload, assuming the numbers are referencing the same thing. Also, :hotlinks:Originally Posted by RazoR
Sorry but B1 has lower speed, shorter range and less payload so it's not superior in any way apart from number produced.
Ah, Sovjet-hardware-is-best contests, how I missed thee.
That is funny because according to wiki Tu-160 carries up to 40 tonnes and B-1B can only manage 34.According to wiki the B-1 actually has 16000 more kg of payload, assuming the numbers are referencing the same thing. Also, :hotlinks:
On top of being almost two times slower and having half the range and no missiles, derpity-derp.
It's only good for carpet-bombing towelheads as it is always with american airforce since Su-27 hit the playing field and F-14 got sacked.
Last edited by RazoR; June 15 2012 at 11:28:48 PM.
Razor. You're basically 20 years late.
Well, seriously, that 5th gen fighter thing was supposed to counter hordes of Su-27s, right? It was started and fleshed out before USSR collapsed.
It is 27 years and several dozen billions later and the shit doesn't fly past alaska because there are problems with life support.
I mean, really, what the fuck?
the b1 is prettier
Ah, I see, you are just totally ignoring the B-1's 22.7 tonnes of external payload while including the Tu-160's 20 tonnes external.That is funny because according to wiki Tu-160 carries up to 40 tonnes and B-1B can only manage 34.According to wiki the B-1 actually has 16000 more kg of payload, assuming the numbers are referencing the same thing. Also, :hotlinks:
On top of being almost two times slower and having half the range and no missiles, derpity-derp.
It's only good for carpet-bombing towelheads as it is always with american airforce since Su-27 hit the playing field and F-14 got sacked.
Shut up with your inferior Amerikan teknolojevski.
Unless the thing's been upgraded while I wasn't looking, the B-1 doesn't really have any external payload. It's there, but was designed for use with nuclear missiles banned by START, and never converted for conventional use.Ah, I see, you are just totally ignoring the B-1's 22.7 tonnes of external payload while including the Tu-160's 20 tonnes external.
the b1 is prettier
So easy to get a bite out of you.Sorry but B1 has lower speed, shorter range and less payload so it's not superior in any way apart from number produced.
Yes it's me who got trolledOnly if you like black that more than white tbh.the b1 is prettier
Blackjack is far more elegant.
B-1B looks like a pregnant Kiwi bird.
Last edited by RazoR; June 16 2012 at 09:36:48 AM.
The Reds do make them prettier the the Western nations.
Don't forget Razor, the B-29 is the daddy of all the Soviet heavy bombers
I had to google that. Here's a video about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6ksVcXdh_4
Pretty awesome.
The video your looking for is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs
It was an F-15. The F-14 you linked had no vertical tail wing.
Apparently I had the wrong url in my clipboard. That was the one I meant to link. Still amazing. I wonder how well something like the f22 or f35 could handle losing a whole wing. I bet not as well.The video your looking for is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs
It was an F-15. The F-14 you linked had no vertical tail wing.
I'm pretty sure if an F22 or F35 got close enough to even hit anything like that, the pilot would just eject from the sheer terror of not being able to launch a missile from 200000k miles away
/WW2 nostalgia
world of tanks derp gun world of tanks derp gun world of tanks derp gun
Tanks name = BS87
Every other game = Kegger McManus
Just saying, but no US fighter has not been equipped with a gun since the F-4. And even that quickly got an external gun pod to fix the problem.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks