Talk:Tupolev Tu-160

National origin
Since this originated in the Soviet Union, should we strike Russia from it? No question that Russia is the successor the the USSR, but it does't seem to be the origin.Garuda28 (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't take origin so literally. In this sense, it means the nations it comes from or are responsible for it, not the first-ever nation. - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Gotcha, wasn't sure if there was a precedence for this on other aircraft articles, since the Soviet Union/Russia is our only case of this happening in recent history. Thanks!Garuda28 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the original intent of the parameter anyway, and how I continue to interpret it. Russia is doing major upgrades of their T-160s, and might resume production if needed, so it's clearly their aircraft too. And there's certainly a strong argument that Russia is the successor to the Soviet Union, as the former made up the bulk of the latter's land area and population. - BilCat (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Antonov was an Ukrainian, Tupolev Russian. The continunity exists. 62.78.205.143 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Tu-170?
It links here from a list of Tu planes, but there's no mention of it. I demand this be done. GMRE (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Size/ Role / Comparison
I quote: "While similar in appearance to the American B-1 Lancer, the Tu-160 is a different class of combat aircraft; its primary role being a standoff missile platform (strategic missile carrier).[32] The Tu-160 is also larger and faster than the B-1B and has a slightly greater combat range, though the B-1B has a larger combined payload with external payload." When comparing Size -it is closer to the US North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie. Althought the XB-70 is some decades earlier and only 2 test aircraft were built. Others thoughts on changing the comparision to the XB-70? Wfoj3 (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yep. Also the "in response to" B-1 is completely false and comes from military fan fiction literature.
 * It could be compared to (but was not made in-response-to) the _original_ RFP for the B1 which called for a strategic bomber. Once the B-1"A" project got canned, the Tu-160 was left in a class of its own. No other mid-supersonic trans-continental "bomber" was ever put into service.
 * This is similar in how the Mig-31 (and Mig-25) have no analogues. Or how the F-117 or the F-14 had no analogues either. Each of these came to be solving a specific need for a specific country. A need that just did not exist for anyone else. Or the Draken for the Swedes, etc. 83.240.62.87 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

=Register and port=

There is a common knowledge, that the Russian federation had 16 Tupolev Tu-160's, Tu-160M1's and Tu-160M2's. How ever since the Ukrainians strome to the Engels AFB, 30 Tupolevs can be seen in the Google Earth satellite photograph in Vernnyi AFB in the Murmans oblast. It would be interesting to know, what are the remaising 13 and what types they represent. 2001:14BA:6408:AB00:CD45:302A:4BDB:A8F5 (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)