Great post Admin.
![Wink ;)](https://forum.milavia.net/Smileys/akyhne/wink.gif)
It’s pretty much the kind of posts I’ve expected folks to come up with in this thread. Thanks.
I know that I’ve given only three votes, but that’s mostly to make it a little more interesting. I do encourage though everyone to mention other types that are not listed and to make as many comments as possible.
![Cheesy :D](https://forum.milavia.net/Smileys/akyhne/cheesy.gif)
Now, if you allow me to make some comments regarding your post.
The TU-22M is listed as a strategic bomber/maritime strike aircraft almost everywhere I look. Granted its combat radius of 2410 km is one that might attribute the aircraft a medium-range envelope, the Backfire – due to its 24000 kg external/internal payload capacity and nuclear weapons launch and guiding related systems – is a strategic platform.
Concerning the removing of IFR. That can be reinstated within hours.
You really like the original Tu-22 Blinder so much? It does look more Cold Warish then the 22M, doesn't it?
![Wink ;)](https://forum.milavia.net/Smileys/akyhne/wink.gif)
But note that it's listed mostly as a medium and not strategic bomber. Kh-22, its only nuclear weapon was a anti-shipping stand-off missile. But there wasn't a dedicated air to ground mission profile designed for it (as in the case of 22M).
But staying true to what I've always said: the B-1B as number one, because of its speed, payload, capabilities and looks. It wins from the Tu-160 on the latter two imho. I love how it's now finally kicking arse, something the Tu-160 hasn't done (although arguably that's a plus!).
B-1B Lancer. Awesome aircraft.
But I dare oppose your view that sees the Lancer more capable or better-looking then the Blackjack. Perhaps, concerning capabilities, you factored the B-1s ability to flight at high sub-sonic speeds at low altitudes plus the reducing of radar signature. But bear in mind that the original B-1A didn’t have these improvements. Other then considering these two aspects, I fail to see why you think the B-1 more capable then the Tu-160.
The Tu-160 was designed for reduced detectability to both radar and infrared too, although that doesn’t mean stealth right away. The Blackjack – thanks to its Sopka TFR – is a low-flyer too. In every other bomber-department, the Tu-160 outclasses the B-1B (except the service ceiling, where, according to available data, the B-1B gets some 3000m extra).
The M-4 is also on your list, how funny is that one when reading how the Soviet capability was grossly overestimated.
Yeah, the Myasishchev M-4 Molot/Myasishchev 3M Bison-B is a type not so much known by general public outside Russia, having being built in only 93 units and with the production ending in 1963. But I consider it pretty cool design-wise.
When you mention NATO’s overestimation of Soviet capability I take it that you refer to the 60s?
The FW 200 Condor was an airliner which later got converted into a long-range reconaissance and anti shipping bomber. Would that make it a strategic one?
![Undecided :-\](https://forum.milavia.net/Smileys/akyhne/undecided.gif)