Russia restarts Cold War patrols

[Telmar]

Hello all. This is my first post here after having been a regular reader for quite some time.

I hope this is not a repost so I start my career here OK..

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6950986.stm

Extract:


Russia restarts Cold War patrols
Russia is resuming a Soviet-era practice of sending its bomber aircraft on long-range flights, President Vladimir Putin has said.

Mr Putin said the move to resume the flights permanently after a 15-year suspension was in response to security threats posed by other military powers.
He said 14 bombers had taken off from Russian airfields early on Friday.
The move came a week after Russian bombers flew within a few hundred miles of the US Pacific island of Guam.
A few days ago Moscow said its strategic bombers had begun exercises over the North Pole.
Flexing muscles
"We have decided to restore flights by Russian strategic aviation on a permanent basis," Mr Putin told reporters at joint military exercises with China and four Central Asian states in Russia's Ural mountains. "In 1992, Russia unilaterally ended flights by its strategic aircraft to distant military patrol areas. Unfortunately, our example was not followed by everyone," Mr Putin said, in an apparent reference to the US.




Interesting end of career for Vladimir Putin. It is difficult to see what worries the Russian president so much...over Guam?

[Friendofall]

Russia just wants to reassert its self as a power it wants its empire back and is trying to show America how strong it is now.

[koozya]

awsome news

[vryhpyammoadded]

I guess they need to collect some data on the F22 intercepts. This should be fun; good photo ops too.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I for one cannot see what the big deal is, Russia was on the skids for a long time and cut back on these flights and now that she feeling a little more flush the flights are resuming.

[Evolv5]

I hope that this will make the "Interceptions" thread grow in the Photo / Video section of this forum.

[Oggin]

I for one cannot see what the big deal is, Russia was on the skids for a long time and cut back on these flights and now that she feeling a little more flush the flights are resuming.


Think about the chain of events over the past few yrs. Russia is feeling a little bit violated. Ukraine becoming the US bitch state in the region along with Georgia and such. Poland allowing missile shield over them. It all adds up, Russia is not happy with it. Would you be if your nation was being surrounded so to speak?

[TheArmenian]

Unlike what is indicated in the article above, the majority of the Russian BEAR bombers are a lot younger. After a long pause, the Russians resumed production of this bomber (the BEAR H variant), these were made during the 1980's and are relatively fresh airframes.

[nagant_m44]

come on trace, you know that article is rediculous...

and since when is a turboprop not a jet?

[Niels]

Why do they always send Tu-95s on these kind of patrols?

[nagant_m44]

Why do they always send Tu-95s on these kind of patrols?

because its a long range bomber. Same reason we used B-52s to fly close to their airspace.

[oregongrunt]

It was my thinking that they couldn't afford these type of activities anymore, maybe all of that oil money is changing things a bit.

[nagant_m44]

I'm not sticking up for the article.....I didn't write it, but, sending "Bears" new or not is like the US using P-3 "Orion's" against Russia, hardly a threat. I think all of this is aimed for internal Russian consumption.

why? the bear is analogous to the B-52, not the P-3

[nagant_m44]

I was painting with a broad brush. The Bear and the B-52 both might be bombers but thats not what I was getting at. The Bear as a bomber against the US would be as foolish as the P-3 against the Russian's in a war scenario.

wouldn't any non-stealth aircraft be foolish?

[nahimov]

wouldn't any non-stealth aircraft be foolish?

A really fast aircraft that can launch missiles from thousands kilometers away would not be that foolish.

[nagant_m44]

A really fast aircraft that can launch missiles from thousands kilometers away would not be that foolish.

it would be foolish, just think of the retaliation...

[Kap2406]

The cool thing about Tu-95 airframe is that it combines capabilities of B-52 in Tu-95 models and capabilities of a P-3 in a Tu-142 models.

[GazB]

The Tu-95 Bear carrys 3,000km range cruise missiles. By 2015 it will be carrying 5,000km range stealthy Kh-102 cruise missiles. And of course you have to remember their purpose. You don't decide to start WWIII and send your bombers 8 hours early and then when they have attacked their targets launched your ICBMs. Everything goes at once, which means that SLBMs will hit between 5 and 20 minutes after launch depending upon where they are launched from, ICBMs will be hitting targets about 30minutes after launch and then 8 hours after those Bears and B-2s etc takeoff they will be releasing cruise missiles and bombs respectively over the radiated enemy territory.

If it had the range a Tiger Moth could be used to release a nuke of Washington or Moscow safely in such a role... there is unlikely to be an opposing enemy airforce and if their is its command and control will be in tatters.

[Kippari]

It's actually good to see Russian forces rising from the dust of the Yeltsin era. A country that big and a former superpower deserves capable military. I hope to see the day when there's 3-4 superpowers instead of one.

[Dima-RussianArms]

Like one US State Department wag said "if Russia wants to dust off some old aircraft and fly them around so what......."

So if the Russian late 70s and late 80s Tu 95s and 142s are old what shall we call USAF B 52s, the youngest of which is 45 years of age and are intended to remain in service till 2030...?

Speaking of "old", besides 5 F 22s, how many new combat aircraft were delivered to the USAF and marines in the last 15 years?

[vryhpyammoadded]

It's actually good to see Russian forces rising from the dust of the Yeltsin era. A country that big and a former superpower deserves capable military. I hope to see the day when there's 3-4 superpowers instead of one.

Agreed, I had the displeasure of seeing the aftermath of the mid 90’s Russian military during a brief visit. It was sad to see so many great ships, aircraft and personnel laid up. And, you’re right, the world needs Russia and a few other level headed superpowers to keep all this worlds rabble running amok in line. I fear my own country will bust flailing about so extended, ham-handedly trying to maintain some semblance of order.

[netchicken]

Kippari, its a "dead cat bounce".

The term comes from economics when a financial crash occurs the market rises again in a small spike, as people buy up the cheap stocks, but then it continues to drop again afterward. - dead cat bounce.

I think a similar thing is happening here, its not a "resurgence" their military are still going down, its just a chance to fly some old planes around to make Putin look like a strong leader in the eyes of his people.


It's actually good to see Russian forces rising from the dust of the Yeltsin era. A country that big and a former superpower deserves capable military. I hope to see the day when there's 3-4 superpowers instead of one.

[Brute]

its not a "resurgence" their military are still going down

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2008/images/20030425007100510.jpg
(http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2008/images/20030425007100510.jpg)

That's right folks! Russian military is still going down, their economy is in tatters and their ships are rusting at the docks. In other words, business as usual. Nothing to see here, move along!





rofl

[Dima-RussianArms]

You can call the B-52's old as dirt, but, it has been operational for the past 45 years, unlike the TU-95's and TU-142's which have had to stand down until recently.
I didn't call B 52s anything but I have to admit that your official's statement caused lots of jokes and laughter on Russian sites at the expense of the USAF and NASA...


Marines are getting the V-22, they also got upgrades in the Harrier from I to II, and upgrades in the II for night attack, also got upgrades in the Cobra, so many , what are they up to now "Z"? Same applies to the CH-53E.

Navy got the Super Hornet, will be getting the "Growler".
You have missed my point, I wasn't asking about helicopters and upgrades, I would like to know: how many (# and kind) new combat airframes were delivered to the USAF and marines in the last 15 years?
The reason I am asking, is because recently I have heard more than a few complaints about "replenishment rate" (or a lack of it) of combat aircraft in the USAF.



Dint know if it sneaks in under your 15 year age limit but B-2, tons of upgrades on the F-15, F-16, and of course the over 100 not 5 F-22's.

Upgrades to late 70-80s airframes do not replace lost ones.
100 F22 delivered?! When?


And around the corner is the F-35.
And Russia around a corner (on paper) has 6 brand new aircraft carriers, 8 nuclear submarines, 200 SU 34s, and a sh*tload of PAK-FAs, Mi28Ns, etc,etc,etc...so what?


Of course this all off the top of my head I'm sure if I dug a bit I could flesh out this answer.

The point is that calling Tu 95s and Tu 142s "old" is at least not very smart, especially when own's most numerous and widely used bomber average age is significantly higher...
If you can't see it, I don't think I can help.

[Desk Jockey]

Speaking of "old", besides 5 F 22s, how many new combat aircraft were delivered to the USAF and marines in the last 15 years?

If I am not mistaken say in the F-18 E/F they build it with spare room in the airframe knowing there will be signifigant upgrades over the years.

As mentinoned the Growler will replace the EA- 6 B in what 08 or 09.

JSF

I hope they resume (if they ever stopped) signature patrols toward China, they want all the oil in the world, and would love Russia's vast national resources.

China worries me more that our Russian comrades.

[RomanS]

Ya know I really dont care, I look up I dont see bears or blackjacks or anything else for me to worry about, if your so interested in knowing what new airframes have been delivered in the last 15 years look it up yourself. All you guys want to do is have a pissing contest....I dont care, its as simple as that......There is no chance of having a proper exchange with you because of your Huge ego problem....

I think you clearly got handled here sir.
Your responce to Dima makes a lot of sence. You made a silly comment, you got a responce back without any silly comments, and what do you do?


Ya know I really dont care


Ya know I really dont care


All you guys want to do is have a pissing contest


I dont care, its as simple as that


because of your Huge ego problem

Bravo

[Windsurfer]

The point is that calling Tu 95s and Tu 142s "old" is at least not very smart, especially when own's most numerous and widely used bomber average age is significantly higher...
If you can't see it, I don't think I can help.
Now that is a statistic I would like to see. Can you provide a link?

[RomanS]

You know I was going to refute your post but I dont think I will play your game. I gave an answer to his original question...read it....And yes I still dont give a crap about the Russian AF flying some silly missions, its a has been....a flying shadow of what it was, and only a threat to the birds it hits on its assinine missions......and the only thing I got handed was a line of BS.


Trace, Im just trying to figure out why its bothering you so much?

[Kap2406]

Now that is a statistic I would like to see. Can you provide a link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-95
All Tu-95s now in Russian and Ukrainian service are the Tu-95MS variant, built in the 1980s and 1990s. ....

[nahimov]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-95
All Tu-95s now in Russian and Ukrainian service are the Tu-95MS variant, built in the 1980s and 1990s. ....

Don't forget Tu-160 which are still being built.

[GazB]

Like one US State Department wag said "if Russia wants to dust off some old aircraft and fly them around so what......."

First of all lets get a few facts straight. The Bear is still the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft. It is jet powered... ie it uses turboprops, it is nothing like a WWII propeller driven aircraft, it can fly much faster, much further and carry much more.


Navy got the Super Hornet, will be getting the "Growler".


In many ways the Super Hornet is inferior to the A-6 it replaced. Getting the Growlers will restore a capability they have up until now lacked... ie EW aircraft that can keep up with a strike package.


tons of upgrades on the F-15, F-16, and of course the over 100 not 5 F-22's.


An upgraded 30 year old aircraft is still a 30 year old aircraft.


Why would you want to see 4 "Super Powers", Hell it was the pits with only 2, there were proxie wars all over the place, there was the threat of instant death from nuke's, hundreds of ICBM's just waiting to go wrong, why would you wish for that back X's 4? The world is screwed up enough to add 3 more screwballs in to the pot. And wheither you belive it or not someone (read country) will always want to be #1, so you will have all the horror and anger of the last 40 years again....no thanks.

With 4 powers... say Russia, the EU, China or Japan, and the US, then the likelyhood of US interventions greatly decreases. The world is no less of a cesspool that it is, but US soldiers don't have to die half way round the world for something that really means nothing to the US.

[AztecMex]

well i'm not to sure about Japan but India now your talking. Japan really cant be a superpower unless the US allows them to which i doubt.

[Kippari]

First of all:

Netchicken, learn a little about current Russian economy. Also, Russian military isn't really SU military. Now it's smaller, more sophisticated and more professional than during the cold war.

Trace. This is not some chitchat with friends in a bar, this is SPAAARR... uhm.. mp.net forums. Try to behave please. I was going to say: "grow up", but I think you already know how to act like a grown-up. It's true that Russians are trying to build up their national image and I think it's a good thing. You Americans are already pretty much pumped up by your military cpabilities. Remember, we all benefit from stable Russia.



Why would you want to see 4 "Super Powers", Hell it was the pits with only 2, there were proxie wars all over the place, there was the threat of instant death from nuke's, hundreds of ICBM's just waiting to go wrong, why would you wish for that back X's 4? The world is screwed up enough to add 3 more screwballs in to the pot. And wheither you belive it or not someone (read country) will always want to be #1, so you will have all the horror and anger of the last 40 years again....no thanks.I really don't see it like that. There will be proxy wars anyway or even better, not at all. It's not very cost efficient to run proxy wars anymore because of the armament expenses these days. I take that you have also missed the globalization. The world economy is like a house of cards, one impotant card falling means very serious consequences for the others.
Also I don't think that being number one superpower in the future is about the military capabilites, but more like economy and technological achievements. Cold war was more of a battel of ideologies than superpowers. Today we are all happily(not really) capitalistic. Yes, even China.

P.S. Thanks for Vryhpyammoadded for clarifying my point. :-)

[Flamming_Python]

First of all:

Netchicken, learn a little about current Russian economy. Also, Russian military isn't really SU military. Now it's smaller, more sophisticated and more professional than during the cold war.

Trace. This is not some chitchat with friends in a bar, this is SPAAARR... uhm.. mp.net forums. Try to behave please. I was going to say: "grow up", but I think you already know how to act like a grown-up. It's true that Russians are trying to build up their national image and I think it's a good thing. You Americans are already pretty much pumped up by your military cpabilities. Remember, we all benefit from stable Russia.


I really don't see it like that. There will be proxy wars anyway or even better, not at all. It's not very cost efficient to run proxy wars anymore because of the armament expenses these days. I take that you have also missed the globalization. The world economy is like a house of cards, one impotant card falling means very serious consequences for the others.
Also I don't think that being number one superpower in the future is about the military capabilites, but more like economy and technological achievements. Cold war was more of a battel of ideologies than superpowers. Today we are all happily(not really) capitalistic. Yes, even China.

P.S. Thanks for Vryhpyammoadded for clarifying my point. :-)

What's this? A pro-Russian Finn!? How much did Putin pay you? :D

Watch out the KGB doesn't stab you in the back like they do with all agents once their use has expired... p-)

[Kippari]

What's this? A pro-Russian Finn!? How much did Putin pay you? :D

Watch out the KGB doesn't stab you in the back like they do with all agents once their use has expired... p-)

Pfft... Well, not quite, hehe. I still don't agree all the stunts Putin has made, such as the pressure on Baltics, military planes crossing our border without any permits (we'll get them next timep-)) etc. Besides, i'm no pro-anything except decency. Russian KGB can stab me all they want because for what i know they don't exist anymore.:)

[dangerclose]

Time to dust off the Fleet Defender for old times' sake.

http://i10.tinypic.com/4qyb1b7.jpg

http://i19.tinypic.com/4qzvqz6.jpg



That's 1, 2, 3, .. 6 dead russian bears.

[Lokos]

That's 1, 2, 3, .. 6 dead russian bears.

Wow, you can count missiles!

Colour me impressed!

Lokos

[dangerclose]

Wow, you can count missiles!

Colour me impressed!

Lokos


How bout we color you red and call it even?

[Dima-RussianArms]

Time to dust off the Fleet Defender for old times' sake.

http://i10.tinypic.com/4qyb1b7.jpg

http://i19.tinypic.com/4qzvqz6.jpg



That's 1, 2, 3, .. 6 dead russian bears.

I am not sure if your media and MOD knows this, due to some recent comments of theirs I don't give them much credit, but Tu 95 is not a bomber it is a strategic missile c a r r i e r that carries 6-16 Kh 55 and launches them from 2500-3000 km.

In case you don't know 3000km is very very far away...

What you guys are intercepting are Tu 142Fs (Long Range Maritime Patrol)

[dangerclose]

In case you don't know 3000km is very very far away...


They got close enough.

http://i17.tinypic.com/61y52eb.jpg

[Dif]

http://i10.tinypic.com/4qyb1b7.jpg

Jeez, I feel so nostalgic. Time to rewatch TOP GUN :)

[koozya]

I am not sure if your media and MOD knows this, due to some recent comments of theirs I don't give them much credit, but Tu 95 is not a bomber it is a strategic missile c a r r i e r that carries 6-16 Kh 55 and launches them from 2500-3000 km.

In case you don't know 3000km is very very far away...

What you guys are intercepting are Tu 142Fs (Long Range Maritime Patrol)
hahaha good job Dima.

[nagant_m44]

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/7764/3079/240/z/942682/gse_multipart26096.gif the true face of putin

thanks for the post. You have added so much to the discussion!

[nagant_m44]

They got close enough.

http://i17.tinypic.com/61y52eb.jpg

thats not a Tu-95.

[Zerodivider]

A Tu-95 might carry missiles but is still classed as a "strategic bomber" - and as the Tu-142 is based on the Tu-95 frame confusions are understandable.

[Dima-RussianArms]

A Tu-95 might carry missiles but is still classed as a "strategic bomber" - and as the Tu-142 is based on the Tu-95 frame confusions are understandable.

We just don't understand why the West is getting so excited about what essentially is a Russian analogue of a P 3 Orion.
And then you get some other idiots who get excited about being able to intercept a long range maritime patrol aircraft.:roll:
If that is the reason for them to celebrate then....good for Russia.

[dangerclose]

We just don't understand why the West is getting so excited about what essentially is a Russian analogue of a P 3 Orion.
And then you get some other idiots who get excited about being able to intercept a long range maritime patrol aircraft.:roll:
If that is the reason for them to celebrate then....good for Russia.


Hey, one of our P-3 Orions took out a Chinese fighter. So don't give me this "it's just a long range maritime patrol aircraft" stuff.

[dangerclose]

A Tu-95 might carry missiles but is still classed as a "strategic bomber" - and as the Tu-142 is based on the Tu-95 frame confusions are understandable.


I see. Two different versions with different missions but based on the same airframe.


It's kinda like ..

Korean Airliner
http://i19.tinypic.com/525ytz7.jpg


U.S. spy plane
http://i19.tinypic.com/525ytz7.jpg

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Let them fly their planes. Jeez.

[Lokos]

How bout we color you red and call it even?

Colour me anything you want, dipstick. You've already coloured yourself an interesting shade of brown.

Lokos

[=DG=]

An upgraded 30 year old aircraft is still a 30 year old aircraft.


I could bring in the arguement that for sample a MiG-29 airframe service life is only 2500 hours which could represent a 10 year lifespan,but that wouldnt be fair because the Russian airforce has a complete different doctrine.It is also because of this difference in the style of flying and maintaining the aircrafts that your arguement isnt valid.

As we probably all know.In the past Russian airdefense units were restricted to 100 flying days per year and ammunition and fuel was rationed.So when Russia dropped their long-range patrols they did it probably for the purpose to widen the life span of their Tupolevs.So I see no problems with Russian pilots getting more training now in still airworthy planes.

Someone could also argue that Russian jet airframes and engines have lower quality versus their western counterparts, but as I said different doctrine!

Please let me explain this again with the Mig 29 for sample.
Its btw. one of my favourite Russian designs from the cold war. :)

The MiG-29's Isotov RD-33 engines, designed as disposable commodities,were intended to run about 400 hours before they had to be replaced. By comparison,the F-16 engines can run about 4,000 hours between overhauls.We Germans have managed almost to double the RD-33's lifespan by detuning the engines by ten percent.
So please dont use the 30 years lifespan of a F16 or F15 jet as an arguement against western airforces.



Colour me anything you want, dipstick. You've already coloured yourself an interesting shade of brown.

Lokos you shouldnt waste your time and play his games here too.
It makes you look like a fool and I know from most of your postings that you are a way more smarter guy.

[Telmar]

I see. Two different versions with different missions but based on the same airframe.


It's kinda like ..

Korean Airliner
http://i19.tinypic.com/525ytz7.jpg


U.S. spy plane
http://i19.tinypic.com/525ytz7.jpg

That was uncalled for IMHO.

And speaking of confusions, I can think of one.

[Zerodivider]

I see. Two different versions with different missions but based on the same airframe.


More like
http://dropshot94.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/amo72004_1.jpg

and

http://www.suchoj.com/andere/Tu-142/images/Tu-142MK_06.jpg

Totally different.

[timetraveller]

What id like to see is a B52 and the Bear flyin side by side circum-navigate the globe

[franjokluz]

It is too bad Air Combat Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command aren’t releasing the photos shot by F-22 pilots during the stealthy fighter’s first intercept of a Russian Tu-95 Bear H bomber. If anyone out there has the ones they aren't releasing -- the ones the show the Raptor and the Bear in the same frame -- send them in!

We did get the following pics shot by one of the Raptor pilots during the mission that evening. They came from Norad.


http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/0/e149ee75-ca9d-4f67-80c0-bfebb7e8f9ab.Large.jpg




http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/8/12/e89591f6-a8c3-46ac-bcea-7f651f40eb93.Large.jpg

The intercept took place on Thanksgiving, Nov. 22, when the two Raptors were scrambled along with refueling tanker and command and control support to identify and monitor the two Bears flying off the coast of Alaska. The F-22s flew out of Elmendorf AFB there and have assumed the mission as the F-15 fleet remains unready after being grounded last year.

Officials at Elmendorf say that these intercepts are “fairly routine” because the Russians have conducted flights near the Canadian and Alaskan coasts since July.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3af0a311dc-8377-46c8-9c02-17a75f2c1092

[GazB]

And wheither you belive it or not someone (read country) will always want to be #1, so you will have all the horror and anger of the last 40 years again....no thanks.

I think he means that he would prefer it if one country did not feel omnipotent and able to do as it likes, ignoring international law when it suits it etc etc.


Level headed super power .................no such animal.

Not at the moment, beause the only country claiming to be a superpower thinks it can do as it likes. With another superpower or more there is a kind of balance. Less actually gets done but superpowers get less involved in wars when they can help it.


There is no chance of having a proper exchange with you because of your Huge ego problem....

Not an ego problem. He was just pointing out that since the end of the cold war in the 90s very few airforces have continued to build weapons and deploy equipment at the same rate as they did in the 80s.


well i'm not to sure about Japan but India now your talking. Japan really cant be a superpower unless the US allows them to which i doubt.

Yeah, I guess mentioning Japan as a superpower would get a strong reaction from Asia... like mentioning Germany as a superpower would get a response from Europe...

India, or Brazil, or a few other countries.


Time to dust off the Fleet Defender for old times' sake.


Why not just send gold bullion on a space ship to the sun and really pi$$ your money away...


They got close enough.


The bulge under the nose and the bits sticking out the rear of the tail identify this aircraft as a Tu-142 maritime patrol aircraft... think P-3 Orion but with much longer range and endurance.


Hey, one of our P-3 Orions took out a Chinese fighter. So don't give me this "it's just a long range maritime patrol aircraft" stuff.

Actually it was the fighter that took out the P-3.


I see. Two different versions with different missions but based on the same airframe.

The strategic cruise missile carrier has 10 very large cruise missiles under its wings on racks, while the maritime patrol aircraft has a bulge under its nose with a small radar and a large bulge under its belly with a much larger radar and long MAD arrays trailing back from the tail.


It is also because of this difference in the style of flying and maintaining the aircrafts that your arguement isnt valid.


I am not talking about airframe hours. If Bears are old then F-16s that were designed in the early 70s are not actually that much younger... the Tu-142 was about as good as you can get a propeller driven bomber in the 70s when it was redesigned. At high altitude it is about 50km/h slower than a B-52. At medium and low altitudes the Bear is actually faster than a B-52 and of course its range is excellent being propeller driven.


So when Russia dropped their long-range patrols they did it probably for the purpose to widen the life span of their Tupolevs.

No, they did it because there was no fuel to burn in those planes and the little money they were getting had to go on more urgent things like wages, accomodation etc.


The MiG-29's Isotov RD-33 engines, designed as disposable commodities,were intended to run about 400 hours before they had to be replaced. By comparison,the F-16 engines can run about 4,000 hours between overhauls.We Germans have managed almost to double the RD-33's lifespan by detuning the engines by ten percent.
So please dont use the 30 years lifespan of a F16 or F15 jet as an arguement against western airforces.


Actually the situation is much blurier than that. The Mig the Germans bought was a downgraded Mig-29B for WP forces. If they had adopted the SMT upgrade they would have benefitted from the new overhaul and maintainence methods adopted. Under the old scheme the soviets decided on a very conservative lifespan for parts and such parts were replaced without inspection when that time was up. Part lifespans were designed to coincide, but the only engine replaced after 500 hours was the engine in the Mig-25. At 400 hours the RD-33s were overhauled, not replaced. The Soviet aircraft were more expensive during peacetime but during wartime they required only the barest attention... they were designed for war. They were not cossetted like western aircraft needed to be. A tarp cover for a Mig-29 that sits out on the flight line 24/7 in +30 degrees and - 45 degrees C temperatures, while NATO aircraft with their airconditioned hangars were much more expensive to keep.
The SMT upgrade for the Mig-29 reduced maintainence costs by 40% simply by introducing software that monitored the health of the aircraft and during overhauls parts are inspected for wear rather than just thrown out automatically.

...of course the German airforce didn't want an SMT upgrade because they didn't want to jeopardise the Typhoon purchase.


Totally different.

Even from those different angles you can see one has windows in its nose and a large radar under its belly (an early Tu-142 without the chin mounted radar from the Ka-32 and the MAD array at the top of the tail fin instead of on the horzontal tail tips) while the other has a radar nose for ground mapping and no MAD extensions from the tail.

[Holycrusader]

Its always nice to read GazB posts :)

[Rapier55]

Somebody asked so I thought I'd actually post the same link here (other is in Photo Section). The pics of the intercept are out. Not my photos so here are the links...

http://www.airshowbuzz.com/photos/view.php?v=15896

http://www.airshowbuzz.com/photos/view.php?v=15895