Breaking News
Home » Hypothesis » PAKDA a Russian Stealth bomber

PAKDA a Russian Stealth bomber

The Russian Air Force PAK DA is a fifth-generation strategic bomber intended as the replacement of aging Tu-95MS, T-22M3 and Tu-160. The PAK DA is being developed by Kazan Aircraft Production Association of Russia. The PAK DA stands for Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Dalney Aviatsyi which means “long-range future aviation complex” for Strategic Air Forces.

The PAK DA is going to be heavily based on Russia’s current supersonic bomber Tupolev Tu-160 and is expected to have it’s maiden flight by 2015. However it was also speculated that the PAK DA would be similar to the stealthy design of the America B-2 Spirit bomber.

Currently, the Russian airforce has Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers, as well as long range Tu-22 bombers. They can carry bombs and cruise missiles. The aircrafts of these type are currently undergoing modernization. There have also been reports stating that this new bomber will have stealth characteristics.

The Russian Air Force has made tactical and technical requirements for new generation strategic bombers, as reported by Interfax. This strategic bomber would be used in both conventional and nuclear conflicts using high-precision weapons. According to Russian Air Force commander Aleksandr Zelin, Work on the new bomber has already begun. “The requirements are formulated, and many firms are now implementing plans” – said Zelin.

Russian Major Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev has stated that the new bomber will replace both the turboprop-powered Tupolev Tu-95 and the supersonic Tupolev Tu-160. The PAK DA concept relies on the ability to fly at stratospheric altitudes (50,000 meters) with stealth features to avoid enemy air defenses.

About Larkins Dsouza

Founded Defence Aviation, clean freak, loves everything aviation, WAR junkie, serendipitous & loves to create something new.
  • http://wingless.aoriginality.com Wingless

    Tell me that picture is not the proposed "Russian" Plane…

    Are these guys Babsolutely shameless?
    That's a B1b bomber. Incidentally, the B1b also had so-called 'stealth characteristics', although not invisible to radar, most do not know that the B1b was a big step towards stealth as it's shape gave it a tiny radar cross-section, at very least it would make enemies think it was a MUCH SMALLER object.

    Similarly the PAK-FA and J-XX are F22 wannabees and the H-8, if it ever exists is the B2 Stealth Bomber…

    Listen, I'm not minimizing the threat. At the end of the day war isn't supposed to be "fair" and those caught in the cross-hairs of a clone are no more SAFE because it is a copy. Still, it says alot about Russian, Pakistan China – superpowers with economic intellectual ability – that they have resorted to these shameless copies.

    MOST IMPORTANTLY I would question the intelligence of such endeavours. They are essentially copying OLD AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY! Even if they ever get these planes flying (as of now, all those planes mentioned are a pipe-dream, they exist on paper only!), by that time the States will have moved on to bigger better things. The B2 isn't exactly new technology, the B1b is approaching what we'd call 'old'…

    • INA

      stop this propaganda…B2 or F-117 is not some great machines…they have been shot down in combat, to Serbian/Yugoslav forces….How are planes supposed to look….there cant be some hugely drastic change in plane design…not yet….Stealth planes incorporate stealth features[ way they look look] and they may differ in shapes cause of improvements in design….not to make it look different than an American one….do you want it to look like a flying saucer to say its different than that of American planes…be realistic.. its confirmed….no one is made to put a plane of some other to represent a particular plane not on a forum this big….go Google it…if u cant find have a nice day….cause u don't know its a copy either/….go compare a pic of the pane you claim it to be to this one on the site to be satisfied………Jai Hind

      • winwin1

        only change i have to add is that there has never been a B-2 shot down. one crashed in Guam a few years back but was not shot down.

    • MTWEmperor

      First, the first picture is the Tu-160 and not the new Stealth Bomber. This should be obvious as to the grainy photograph given. Secondly, it's not surprising that much Russian technology is copied/similar as first "great minds think alike" in that good designs will be similar and secondly the Russians have been stealing our designs (sometimes quite blatantly as with the withholding of a B-29) since BEFORE the end of WWII

    • Sumar

      The small photo is the Tu-160 bomber, which uses different engines, completely different avionics and jet flow control systems, different wind sweep mechanics, higher range and takeoff weight, is of a different size, uses a different tail design, and completes a mission entirely different from that of the B-1.

      In fact, after US central intelligence bureaou paid off a Soviet security guard to bring over some photos of the Tu-22M, the B-1 bomber was conceived as an aircraft comparable to it. A medium jet bomber designed to evade SAM in low intensity conflicts.

      The Tu-22M in turn, was originally designed as an improvement of the Tu-22 after the Soviet bureau over viewed US experience in Vietnam, deciding to learn from it. Thus designing a variable speed, variable altitude bomber with integral jamming and countermeasure suites.

      In comparison to the Tu-22M Backfire and the B-1A/B Lancer, the Tu-160 Blackjack was motivated due to the development American B-70 Valkyrie. You’ll note that every single piece of the Blackjack design was native to the core, not one bit was taken off the Valkyrie, which never went into service. In fact, even though the Blackjack acquisition was motivated by the Valkyrie, they had completely different mission parameters and capabilities. The Tu-160 is primarily meant to be a Mach 3 capable carrier killer, due to the failure of the Valkyrie program however, the Soviets decided to abandon the Mach 3 idea and focus on range and avionics instead.

      As such, the Tu-160 has the computing power and sensors to serve as a capable anti-ship and anti-air missile carrier, capable of downing flotillas or squadrons of US heavy nuclear bombers.

      The PAKDA is a development of the Tupolev Tu-160 makers in collusion with the Sukhoi design bureau to produce a stealth capable aircraft which can carry stealthy anti ground/anti ship cruise missiles (Kh-55 relative) and presumably have the range to circumnavigate the globe.

      USA and USSR/RF aircraft may have at one time been similar in purpose or appearance, but they have long since diverged into roles specialized to each countries method of warfare.

      To presume that these two nations shared technology posits three things:

      1. That their intelligence services are amazing

      2. That their militaries are terrible at keeping secrets

      3. And that they have factories capable of making similar parts

      While the first two axioms may be contestable, the third one is obviously impossible given the lack of compatibility between NATO and CIS arms on all levels from tactical to strategic. Heck, the two nation’s Air Forces even use algorithms and equations in their avionics that are completely alien to each other (barring similarities forced by physics).

    • Guest

      Are you shamless? You, americans, copied MiG-25 and named it F-15…

      Any plane of 5th Gen will have similarity because of "wannabe" purposes and technical solutions.

    • James

      the picture of the plane that you are talking about is not a B-1, but a Tu-160 of the russian air force

    • Roland

      the new PAK-FA looks more like a cross between an old proposal like the Sukhoi T4-MS ( http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bomber/t4/t4-2.gi… ) and the old TU-160 if anything. The Sukhoi design is what they wanted originally back in the 70s.

  • EveryoneIsAnExpert

    That's wrong.

    This is Tu-160: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tu-160.jpg
    (which is not a copy of any American bomber, just compare the specifications of Tu-160 and B1b: Tu-160 scores factor x1.5 better in most of them: Payload, range, speed, …). Not so shameless there ;)

    To the drawn picture: It's some speculative unofficial artist impression. Ignore it!

    To the topic "Oh my God, they copy everything!":
    1) Don't mix up Russia with China.
    2) When Russians copies aircrafts, they make the copy better than the original.
    One example is the Concorde: The Soviet "copy" (Tu-144) was bigger, faster, and flew BEFORE the "original" Concorde ;)

    • MTWEmperor

      Actually not many Russian copies were better. The specs maybe but generally the technology sides and performance wasn't (for example the B-29 copy which wasn't as good)

  • EveryoneIsAnExpert

    That's wrong.

    This is Tu-160: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tu-160.jpg
    (which is not a copy of any American bomber, just compare the specifications of Tu-160 and B1b: Tu-160 scores factor x1.5 better in most of them: Payload, range, speed, …). Not so shameless there ;)

    To the drawn picture: It's some speculative unofficial artist impression. Ignore it!

    To the topic "Oh my God, they copy everything!":
    1) Don't mix up Russia with China.
    2) When Russians copies aircrafts, they make the copy better than the original.
    One example is the Concorde: The Soviet "copy" (Tu-144) was bigger, faster, and flew BEFORE the "original" Concorde ;)

  • Anonymous

    American should remember, who was the conceptor of stealth technology?
    Where he came from?
    His name was Petr Yakovlevich Ufimtsev (born 1931) is a Russian physicist and mathematician……..

    • INA

      they the US make planes using foreign brains working for the USA to get better pay….so they cant say its totally American plane…

    • Sailor69

      Do not forget this German project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

      Horten Ho 229 was the first one.

  • Dimitri

    Tu-160 received a stealth upgrade already, called Tu-160PP

    The leading edges of the wings, engine intakes and the nose have been fitted with re-entrant triangles based on the downed F117 in Serbia. The back parts are not modified

    In the future, the stealth skin on the leading surfaces will be replaced with plasma emitters which will lower the frontal detection to nil. Although it will still be visible from the back, that should not matter because by the time you see its back end that means it has dropped its payload and is speeding home.
    It travels at Mach 2 so it can pretty much escape missiles fired at it if you factor in the SAM operators response time

    • MTWEmperor

      Wrong on the SAM missiles. Stingers and the Russian 9K38 Igla missiles go 2.2 and 2.3 respectively. The Patriot missile system goes Mach 5 and the Russian S-300 goes Mach 4. The SR-72 Blackbird goes Mach 3+ and it is capable of being shot down by SAM's. Mach 2 might have been good decades ago but not anymore.

      • CLASS2INSTRUCTOR

        than what is up with the f35 M1.6 is pathetic. i'm in canada and we are going to dump 16b$ in f35 when we could get TWICE as many F15 silent eagles but we seem to love buying planes that are ment for aircraft carriers when we dont have any. The 35 is useless to us Canada is too big to use f35 as an interceptor and it is too slow, carys less, and cant fly far enough, it makes a poorer interceptor than the f18 its replacing and even then we should have just bought normal f15's and when it comes to fighting over seas its range is stupid compaired to f15 se.

  • des_sniper

    Copying Western designs is a GREAT benefit for the Russians for several reasons:
    1)saves a ton on development costs, this is one reason that the Russians can build an aircraft cheaper than the West in all aspects. 2)they see what fails so no reason to throw money into failed Western projects. Most Russian copies are from successful Western designs, not canceled projects.
    3) Becomes a great advantage in combat. The West is forced to visually identifiy targets before firing upon them.
    4) Simplification.

    The Russians are able to reverse engineer Western technology and rebuild it cheaper and simpler.
    Also, as a side note, the Russians have built a lot of technology demonstrators with in the last 2 decades. What would be deemed to costly to the West, the Russians are willing to take the chance and develop something new.
    Russia is more than capable of building a stealth bomber. Remember the B-2 was designed in the '80's. the F-117 started in the late '70's and the "CUTTING EDGE" F-22 started in 1986. The JSF project started in 1996. So, if you believe that the Russians are 20 years behind in technology, they have the capability to manufacture the F-117 (30 years old), the B-2 (25 years old), the F-22 (20 years old). The only aircraft that they would lag behind would be the F-35 JSF (15 years old).

  • Sumar

    Des… what the hell makes you think the PAKDA is in any way a copy?

    Yes the Russian Federation has the blueprints for and can build pretty much any airplane fielded by any air force in the world, but in order to build even the B2 it would need first to build many manufacturing facilities for each and every PART of the B2 because the current Russian facilities do not build interchangeable parts

    It costs hundreds of billions less to design and build your own fighter than copy someone elses, because if you develop it then you can say "oh wait, we have a plant called XXXXX that manufactures these engines, instead of making entirely new plants to manufacture new engines from USA, lets simply buy these superior engines from XXXXX"

    The PAKDA is a direct descendant of the Tu-160 with supercruise ability (developed by Russia from scratch), low RCS (developed by Russia from scratch) and modern avionics (developed by Russia from scratch)

    I triple dog dare you to find one nut or bolt copied from any USA plane

    • MTWEmperor

      That's not the point. It's not EXACTLY the same it's reverse engineered THAT's the point.

      • Brian B.

        All you guy's are crazy. I worked on the B-2 bomber when it was in development stages. It might be able to be copied in appearance, but the Russians will never be able to keep up with the weapons systems and the stealth characteristics and materials of the B-2, it simply is the best heavy bomber ever made and will be for a long time.

  • Olavi

    Copying is quite a harsh word, for something that all the militaries and companies in the world have done. First, if an competing airplane or tank or why not a cellphone or car, has some new or superior abilities, you either have to also have those abilities, or then develop something even more revolutionary. For example, when Wehrmacht found out that T-34's sloped armour is effective, they put the sloped armour into Panther tank. After that, the Soviets had to equip their tanks with bigger guns etc. etc. The tank developement in WW2 is a good example. The guns went from 20-75mm to 75-122mm during the war. Aromur thickened, design principals changed, sides learned from each other. Or when USAF encountered swept-winged MiG-17s in Korean War, they priorized the introduction of the swept-wing F-86 Sabre. If a design proves successful, why invent the wheel again? Copying is something else. If an future Russian plane PAK FA will have some similar capabilities that F-22 or F-35, that's competing. It's ignorant to say that "Plane X" is a shameless copy of "Plane Z", because that's what developers and manufacturers do. They pick the best abilities from other, proven-to-be-good designs, and maybe enhance them a bit, and perhaps add a new innovative feature. That's the way it works. It would be blind stupidity to study an, for example, enemy tank, and notice that the gun is more powerful than ours, armor is sloped and has ERA etc…. "But we can't use those features! That's copying!". Or if Ford sees that the new Chrysler model XX has a top speed of X, they develop a Ford model ZZ which has a top speed Z>X.

  • Stealth1

    The thing about that plane is Ive seen it in person and its not a fixed wing so it nothing similar to the B-1 variable and movable wings enhighten the supersonic speeds and the modern tech in rusian engine manufacturing is absolutely amazing so in fact that its speed increases its stealth ability along with its shape todays radars and cross signatures can pick up a piece of paper if its flying slow enough which is where the speed plays in efect todays stealth doesnt only focus on reshaping or redistributing radar signature its working on slicing it in the process which makes stealth a whole new meaning and extreme deadly varible

  • Stealth 1

    Another advantage to that desighn is the fact that there are 10 times as many fighter pilots in the air today and todays bombers need the combat ability to out perform where as when the B-52 ect. was first put in service and yes the fact that the new price ranges are between 500 million and a billion a plane they have to have joint manuverability and purpos for justification

    I know from experiance

  • Das Kardinal

    "2) When Russians copies aircrafts, they make the copy better than the original.
    One example is the Concorde: The Soviet "copy" (Tu-144) was bigger, faster, and flew BEFORE the "original" Concorde ;)"

    Yeah, and it crashed before Concorde, too.

  • Das Kardinal

    "2) When Russians copies aircrafts, they make the copy better than the original.
    One example is the Concorde: The Soviet "copy" (Tu-144) was bigger, faster, and flew BEFORE the "original" Concorde ;)"

    Yeah, and it crashed before Concorde, too.

  • KinderSurprise

    Look dudes.. Just read the info and go on.. If a real war goes btw rusia and usa it will be useless to have stealth bombers , fighters , tanks whatever…

    Just a couple of minuteman III and some RS-24 (Tòpol-M) would be enough , yes , it would easily reach nuclear contact.

    You think they build those bombs to let em' rust? haha dod't be foolish , they've done it before.

    Remember 1962 Tsar bomb , ring a bell?

  • Marko

    USA army never had a serious war!!!!!!They are ignorants, with no expiriance!!!! You call Lybia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Vietnam and Irak a real threats???
    Bahahahahah!!!! Iran would damage them, not to mention serious Russian army with 9500 nuk heads and 22 000 tanks…….heheheheeh.
    Retards!!!

    • US'Cyber'Marine

      Your a moron. typical Russian!
      What do you call WW1? WW2?
      Remember WW1? The war that you lost? remember treaty of Brest-Litovsk?
      We are ignorant? Then what are you? With this comment i can see how ignorant you actually are..
      No experience? What do you call the Iraq war? Afghanistan war? Dont they bring enough experience?
      Remember when your army got raped in Afghanistan in the 1980's? 15,000 Dead Soviet troops in 8 years. What a shame!
      Plus, dont forget USA has more nukes than Russia :) Proof:
      1) http://www.defencetalk.com/us-russia-nuclear-arse
      2) http://www.defencetalk.com/us-has-nuclear-superio

      So my friend, it turns out we have more nukes than you do. We can crush you easily :)

      And about the Tanks, did you forget what happened to your tanks in the Gulf War?
      Your tanks couldnt take 1 hit from our Abrams while it took you a minimum of 10 hits to destroy our Abrams.
      Plus did you forget the A-10 Thunderbolt? AKA "The Raper of Russian tanks" ?
      Did you forget the FGM-148 Javelin? It scared your tank battalions :)

      Dont forget there are over 100 active russian spies in USA:) http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles

      Russia currently depends on espionage, cus your too stupid to create ur own things.
      Typical!

      Did you forget Simo Hayha? Haha A Finnish farmer who killed over 505 Russian troops? and badly injured 35 others?

      Look at your Military..
      your falling apart.. you currently only have about 800,000 active troops :).. Read :) http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles

      Russia is dissolving again :(

      Even Vlad Putin approved the fact that your armed forces are way behind ours at military power and technology.
      Go do some serious research :)

      Russia is gona mate :)
      you are after all, a Russian :) so i forgave you already.

      • nicolas

        you are a brainwashed american ..
        1)ww1 allied forces won dissolution of russian empire creation of soviet union
        2)ww2 you wouldn't won that war without russia
        3)in afghanistan war russians killed 115000 afghan rebels you have around 1200 dead and only 40000 rebels (numbers are not exact)
        4)you are a smaller country than russia with bigger population they can kill your dens population more easily than you … furthermore their sam are 5 years in front of technology than yours ..and their nukes can evade your sam's
        5)About the spies you have spies too and you had spies in the development of the s-300 sam …
        6)The tanks you were fighting were 50 years older than yours without era or proper ammunition to fight back ..
        7)A tank can't compete with a plane …
        8) Do you know the very good tank merkava iv ??? it was raped by a kornet missile not 1 tank but 4
        9)No javelin was put against a modern eastern tank .
        10)Ph. J. Rubakho killed 300 nazis in ww2 ,Vasily Grigoryevich Zaytsev killed 225 nazis . hayha was using russian made rifle (heron)
        11)Russia is the biggest country in the world of you believe that there are only 800000 strong army you must be stupid ..
        12)Us debt is enough to buy USA lol You have a debt that is huge .. Russia has almost no debts and the EU depends on it's gas ..
        13)Russian army is not as advanced as yours in some cases and some other russia is more advanced ..But by 2020 ..Russia will be able to hit your ass to the ground ..
        14)You proud too proud about your country that to be so developed needed Nazi scientists from germany ..Furthermore you are a bastard nation . The are is no US nation … There is all country colonize nation ..
        15 And just for the record "Americans" are leaving USA for other countries since wall street destroyed you ..

    • loupgarous

      Yeah. And Russian aircraft have SUCH a good performance record against American aircraft, as evidenced by the almost total losses off Iraqi-owned Soviet-built aircraft in head-to-head encounters with American and NATO fighters. As far as the "serious Russian army with 9500 nuk heads and 22,000 tanks," it's entirely possible we could neutralize that capability without recourse to a single nuclear warhead, instead using kinetic-kill weapons delivered by ICBMs or other platforms. You're living in the past, chief. But keep on living there. We actually prefer it.

  • Truth

    There are certainly aircraft in the Russian inventory that appear to have similar features to Americana aircraft but so what? where do you think the Western design concepts come from, that's right Germany, I'm neither Russian, American, English Chinese or German but you have to face the facts America hasn't got a clean slate either, just because the truth has slipped from people memories over time. Your fabled B-2 spirit bombers originated in a German military project that produced the Horten 229 fighter/bomber, the German V-2 missile that harassed London eventual became intercontinental ballistic missiles and space shuttles. The idea of swing wings in your f-14, your su-24, your f-111, your mig-23 originated in the German P.1101. Get over yourselves, war and conflict drives the advancement of technology and the easiest way to get even or ahead is copy then improve, all countries are guilty of it, its called espionage. How many of you would know that the first country to put a man in space was Russia but was beaten to the moon by America, how did this happened? America watched, observed and improved yet now Russia is now launching Americans with the Soyuz rockets. How did the Russians develop the Tu-160 same thing they watched, observed and improved. Half the things you squabble about are tedious, the b-1 is designed to penetrate defenses at low altitude, the tu-160 at high altitudes. Where did the developers of the JSF(F-35) get heir info? They did it nicely and sought assistance from the Russian company Yakovlev. The Russians are better at thrust vectoring tech, the Americans are in front in stealth, Europe better at delta wings who cares? It's not going to stay the same, in the future china might be the world power and they might be publicly complaining about Indians making copies of their tech. It doesn't matter. Just enjoy the beautiful designs that come from this race, I can appreciate the the finer details of the F-22 as much as the Su PAK FAs, J-20s, F-35s, Su-47s, MiG-1.44s or YF-23s individual features. They are all unique in some way whether its on the surface or underneath the skin. Stop with the stupid fighting, we are not enemies anymore, Russia and China aren't even technically communist anymore, contrary to popular belief the Cold War ended 20 years ago!!!

  • http://twitter.com/highlandermcd @highlandermcd

    We are Family. i pray we will never go to war. RUssia and America should never be up against each other. The world is already dangerous enough. The PADKA stealth bomber is really sleek and beautiful looking. My Dad used to wave at the RUssian Pilots when they passed each other on patrol over The Bering Straight. God protect the planet from arrogance and ignorance…the real enemy.

  • Moscow_Is_a_Milkrun

    This forum is a joke! Look at all this nationalistic pro-Russian fanboy commentary! Why are you guys so defensive? Because your 35 to 40 years behind? Can't even build a UAV or UCAV without help? Can't cover the engine face of your "5th generation fighter"? Fighter engines that only last for 4000 hours? Now that's quality engineering! Can't figure out AESA radars? Relying on IRST and L-Band radars to pick up stealth? Good luck with that. I could go on and on….all I know is that the more thumbs down I get, the better I'll feel!

    • iWarpig

      35-40 years behind yet they design fighters as good as, or even better than you're F-22. Btw, Russia's already got UAV's, their fifth generation fighters are in the prototype stage, the third out of 10 or more. You are already judging by the way it LOOKS, yet it is said to have a less thermal detection rate than the F-22 when it is finished. The IRST and L-band radars are merely bonuses to the AESA, which is also as good, or better than your APG-77. I'm not even from Russia or US btw, I'm, your neighbor in Canada with enough intelligence to do some reading. You should try reading before being a typical retarded American fanboy that thinks everything the US has is better.

  • rk1111

    the original concept and mathematics of stealth came from from a russian physicist.
    for ur information russians have the world`s only supersonic torpedo.

  • winwin1

    I am an extremely patriotic American and even I find this to be a huge exaggeration. Yes, the designs are similar, but that is because that design is the best at what it does. I agree that yes, China (and Russia on occasion) have used American ideas to build aircraft, but only China has ever made very similar copies (with the exception of the Russian Tu-4). The Russians and Indians are working on the Pak Fa (T50) and the Chinese on the Chengdu J-20. These are not copies of the F-22, no matter how awesome it is xD. The J-20 may use some stealth technology leaked from the B2 project but that is it. Had they come up with the design first, it would appear that we were copying from them. Please stop embarrassing yourself and our proud country.

  • http://twitter.com/AbouDjaffar @AbouDjaffar

    And the Tu-144 was such a success than it never worked (in fact, it evan crashed). It was called Concordski and he flew before the Condorde because it was built like a classic jet and not like a supersonic one.

  • Anonymous

    But don't forget, it was the germans in WWII that actually took the first step towards stealth with there flying wings. There is a reason why the F-117 and the B-2 were flying wing designs.

  • Nicolas

    it was a propaganda …From france.

  • Anlushac11

    "I triple dog dare you to find one nut or bolt copied from any USA plane " Does that apply to the Tupelov Tu-4? j/k

    The original B-1A as designed was a Mach 2+ high altitude bomber. It was not built in light of Soviet air defense improvements. The B-1B was redesigned as a low altitude high speed penetration bomber. The B-1A and Tu-160 have similar speeds, B-1B is slower since its optimized for low altitude. Ranges are similar for B-1B and Tu-160. Tu-160 carries about 15% more weight internally, B-1B can carry more with internal and external combined. Tu-160 and B-1B has similar wingspan but Tu-160 is a bit taller and longer and is almost 50,000lbs heavier. Thrust to weight ratio is almost the same for the two aircraft.

    IMHO Russians built a similar aircraft but not the same. Saying the Tu-160 is a copy of the B-1 is like saying the MiG-29 copied the F-18. As the old saying goes "Form follows function". Two companies researching aircraft for the same roles came to similar conclusions.