Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So by saying that they are not a strategic threat, you meant what? That we don't have to alter our geo-political strategy based on their actions? We already are altering our strategy to at least a small extent.
Yes, saber rattling happens. Especially from geo-political adversaries.
I was talking about the AIRCRAFT. The Tupolev Bear. Specifically, as a strategic weapons platform. Compared to the Backfire, or even our B 52, it is not an effective tool. To slow, unstealthy, and cumbersome. Easily detected and intercepted. But great for probing air defense in situations like this and spooking folks. I think I'm more con earned about what we DIDN'T see. Like maybe a Typhoon class sub, or two, in the Bering or in the blue water off the Catalina's. Playing hide n seek with one of our Fast Attacks. As I said, I'm not a moron. The Bears were a nothing. What we don't know and didn't see is what scares me.
I'm thinking militarily. If you don't think they had other assets in place for this little game you really don't understand Russian tactics. The birds were a distraction. Hey, look at us! While some new breed of Akula fires a water slug at one of our subs and beats it with active sonar. THAT you won't hear about.
If you think you see the big picture here, and I'm some kind of idiot, you're missing a BUNCH. The Russians have never done anything military wise, half azzed. They build it big, build it mean, and build a lot of it. And they don't make points halfway either. Matter of fact, if Obama is not on the golf course. I'm sure the Joint Chiefs have some ...interesting...Naval intell they would like him to see. Like maybe how a new Russian Fast Attack can get a track on our Ohio class Boomers, and spooked the Hell out of a sub skipper in the Pacific. You need to think WAY bigger. You're still in small potatoes.Michigan .
Last edited by NVplumber; 06-13-2014 at 10:20 AM..
Not a big deal, but today Putin let us know that he is still a geo-political foe.
At least he made up for it, by calling Bush Senior to wish him a happy birthday and sent him a gift.
Hopefully, he backs down some so we don't pump more money and military into Europe. As we all know, the EU with over 500 Million people and a $17 Trillion economy apparently needs the US to save it from Russia's 140 Million people and $2 and a half Trillion economy.
The worn out old Bear bombers are 1950s relics of the Cold War. This is something of a routine flight, meant to check on our defense systems. When the Russkies fly their Tupolevs close to our air defense zones, we always send up a fighter or two to "escort" them. I'm sure we still do probing flights vs them, too.
We also have added NATO planes to the Baltic states, and Poland just took delivery of the first of a batch of lovingly pre-owned Leopard 2 tanks.
Dog and pony show on Russia's side. Yes, you have mastered the art of extended flights of subsonic propeller planes. Whoop.
Europe has some very good military forces, and the RAF and Royal Navy like other European countries regularly see off Russian Aircraft and Ships.
The US have very few assets left in Europe and are hardly defending Europe single handedly, whilst many European countries have backed the US War on Terror and have devoted a good deal of resources to helping the US. Britain alone spent £30 Billion ($50 Billion USD) the equivalent of £1000 ($1700 USD) for every British taxpayer on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US by contrast is only going to spend £600 million ($1 Billion USD) on increasing forces in Europe in response to Russian actions in Ukraine.
We also have added NATO planes to the Baltic states, and Poland just took delivery of the first of a batch of lovingly pre-owned Leopard 2 tanks.
Dog and pony show on Russia's side. Yes, you have mastered the art of extended flights of subsonic propeller planes. Whoop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
Amazing they could find some planes that would fly that far without breaking down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber
I was talking about the AIRCRAFT. The Tupolev Bear. Specifically, as a strategic weapons platform. Compared to the Backfire, or even our B 52, it is not an effective tool. To slow, unstealthy, and cumbersome. Easily detected and intercepted. But great for probing air defense in situations like this and spooking folks. I think I'm more con earned about what we DIDN'T see. Like maybe a Typhoon class sub, or two, in the Bering or in the blue water off the Catalina's. Playing hide n seek with one of our Fast Attacks. As I said, I'm not a moron. The Bears were a nothing. What we don't know and didn't see is what scares me.
do not underestimate the capabilities of the tu20/95 bear bombers. they are every bit as capable as the b52 is. in fact both aircraft are about the same age. and the reason the bear uses counter rotating propellers is for fuel economy with its four turboprop engines.
The worn out old Bear bombers are 1950s relics of the Cold War. This is something of a routine flight, meant to check on our defense systems. When the Russkies fly their Tupolevs close to our air defense zones, we always send up a fighter or two to "escort" them. I'm sure we still do probing flights vs them, too.
Probing flights happen, because we are geo-political adversaries, despite Obama's naivety in 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber
I was talking about the AIRCRAFT. The Tupolev Bear. Specifically, as a strategic weapons platform. Compared to the Backfire, or even our B 52, it is not an effective tool. To slow, unstealthy, and cumbersome. Easily detected and intercepted. But great for probing air defense in situations like this and spooking folks. I think I'm more con earned about what we DIDN'T see. Like maybe a Typhoon class sub, or two, in the Bering or in the blue water off the Catalina's. Playing hide n seek with one of our Fast Attacks. As I said, I'm not a moron. The Bears were a nothing. What we don't know and didn't see is what scares me.
I'm thinking militarily. If you don't think they had other assets in place for this little game you really don't understand Russian tactics. The birds were a distraction. Hey, look at us! While some new breed of Akula fires a water slug at one of our subs and beats it with active sonar. THAT you won't hear about.
If you think you see the big picture here, and I'm some kind of idiot, you're missing a BUNCH. The Russians have never done anything military wise, half azzed. They build it big, build it mean, and build a lot of it. And they don't make points halfway either. Matter of fact, if Obama is not on the golf course. I'm sure the Joint Chiefs have some ...interesting...Naval intell they would like him to see. Like maybe how a new Russian Fast Attack can get a track on our Ohio class Boomers, and spooked the Hell out of a sub skipper in the Pacific. You need to think WAY bigger. You're still in small potatoes.Michigan .
You are an idiot if you don't think that Russia is a geo-political adversary and could pose a military threat to the US and our allies with the missiles and nukes I mentioned.
do not underestimate the capabilities of the tu20/95 bear bombers. they are every bit as capable as the b52 is. in fact both aircraft are about the same age. and the reason the bear uses counter rotating propellers is for fuel economy with its four turboprop engines.
Yes, you are correct. The Tu-95 performs very similar to the B-52.
However, Obreezey said that Russia was not a geo-political adversary - so rather than just admit that he was wrong, the Obamabots have to downplay anything Russian no matter how foolish or naive they look. Obama must not be proven to ever be wrong.
Speed: Tu-95 575 mph, B-52 650 mph
Ceiling: Tu-95 45,000 feet, B-52 50,000 feet
Range: Tu-95 9,400 miles, B-52 10,145 miles
Max take off weight: Tu-95 415,000 pounds, B-52 488,000 pounds
do not underestimate the capabilities of the tu20/95 bear bombers. they are every bit as capable as the b52 is.
In other words, if you order them flown into airspace defended by anything resembling a modern air force you won't need nearly as many tankers for the return trip.
In other words, if you order them flown into airspace defended by anything resembling a modern air force you won't need nearly as many tankers for the return trip.
you can say that. i never said they were stealthy, but then neither is the B52. if i want to do a deep penetration run against say the US, i would try to use a B2 bomber, or at least a B1. if i were to be forced to use a B52 or a TU95/20, i would want to be loaded with air launched cruise missiles that i can fire from stand off range to avoid the fighters as much as possible.
The worn out old Bear bombers are 1950s relics of the Cold War.
Just like our worn out B-52 bombers are 1950s relics of the Cold War.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
