PDA

View Full Version : Russia to Threaten North America with Brand-New Bombers?



Elbs
08-20-2009, 07:40 PM
Russia to Threaten North America with Brand-New Bombers? Think Again

By David Axe

In 2007, Russia resumed its Cold War practice of sending long-range bomber patrols into international airspace along the North American coast. The patrols sparked a minor panic in certain quarters here. In an interview with The Washington Times, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney called the patrols practice for “coordinated attacks coming into our air defense identification zone.” They are “far more sophisticated than anything we had seen before,” he added. The panic only mounted when Russia put out feelers for bomber staging bases in Cuba and Venezuela.

Depending on whom you ask, Moscow’s bomber threat is about to get a lot more dangerous — or it was never all that dangerous to begin with.
Lately, Russia has had to make do with aircraft left over from the 1980s. The Russian strategic bomber force — 16 Tu-160 Blackjacks and 64 Tu-95 Bears — is roughly half the size of the U.S. bomber force, but more importantly, the Russian birds have not been significantly upgraded in 20 years. Most of them cannot use any kind of precision-guided bomb, making them mostly useless for anything but a full-scale nuclear war.

To remedy that, bomber-maker Tupolev is reportedly developing a new “fifth-generation” bomber for the Russian air force, for service after 2020. “The new plane will use a wide selection of high-precision weapons, and will have a whole range of new combat capabilities, allowing it to apply new methods to carrying out deterrence tasks,” Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin said.
Before you start building a bomb shelter in your backyard, consider this: in the impoverished Russian aerospace industry, talk is cheap.

Moscow has been promising to show the world an F-35-like stealth fighter prototype for years, but so far no one has seen so much as a Testors model kit. An order placed this summer for 64 older Sukhoi fighters by 2015 represents the biggest Russian aircraft buy in 15 years. In the same time-frame, the Pentagon will buy probably 10 times that many fighters, of more modern design.

And according to one Russian general, new bombers aren’t even a wise investment. Maj. Gen. Pavel Androsov, who has commanded many of the North American flights, told Air Forces Monthly just a few weeks ago that no new bombers were needed. Instead, he said, his existing bombers require “deep upgrades” to improve flight safety, navigation and bombing accuracy. He said he wanted his bombers to be able to drop unguided munitions to within 60 feet of their targets. U.S. bombers, you might recall, can reliably put guided bombs through windows and air shafts.

At the end of the day, Moscow has just one over-riding military priority: to maintain and modernize its fleet of nuclear-missile-armed submarines. Everything else, bombers included, is a luxury.

Source: wired.com/dangerroom

The Dane
08-20-2009, 07:44 PM
Nuff said!

Soldat_Américain
08-20-2009, 07:45 PM
How are the new-gen turboprops coming?

Alpheus
08-20-2009, 07:52 PM
Oh man, the Russia StrOng!!! crew are not going to like this article.

LS1 Miata
08-20-2009, 07:53 PM
An order placed this summer for 64 older Sukhoi fighters by 2015 represents the biggest Russian aircraft buy in 15 years. In the same time-frame, the Pentagon will buy probably 10 times that many fighters, of more modern design.

Oh snap!!!!

Elbs
08-20-2009, 07:55 PM
The Russians announced that they'd be getting a new bomber by 2015. Fat chance I think, if not even the USAF can get the Next-gen bomber by 2018. My guess is the Russians have more pressing needs than a new strategic bomber...

LS1 Miata
08-20-2009, 07:55 PM
He said he wanted his bombers to be able to drop unguided munitions to within 60 feet of their targets. U.S. bombers, you might recall, can reliably put guided bombs through windows and air shafts.

They haven't achieved putting a bomb through a window yet?

jetsetter
08-20-2009, 07:57 PM
If this inspires the government of the United States to purchase and develop more bombers and fighters then I am all for it.

GTX-Typhoon
08-20-2009, 08:07 PM
Russia shouldnt abbandon the PAK DA project but it should lower the funding to that project and spend the money on modernising and building new Il-78's A50's and the likes of that.

Every day i get more and more sceptical about Russia being able to defend itself against NATO...

Elbs
08-20-2009, 08:11 PM
Russia has a vast nuclear arsenal to protect its interests in a major war.

hogdriver
08-20-2009, 08:19 PM
Russia has a vast nuclear arsenal to protect its interests in a major war.

NATO also.

Seiran
08-20-2009, 08:23 PM
Russia has a vast nuclear arsenal to protect its interests in a major war.

And no one is going to use those due to the MAD doctrine - So it's a moot point.

Elbs
08-20-2009, 08:25 PM
And no one is going to use those due to the MAD doctrine - So it's a moot point.

Exactly. all this talk about NATO vs. Russia is pointless. MAD worked in the past, it works today.

HellToupee
08-20-2009, 08:54 PM
Why develope a new bomber? For nukes mobile ICBMs are just better. Tu-160 is still proably the best heavy bomber around just build more of those modernised

zg18
08-20-2009, 09:06 PM
Every time Russia decide to spend some cash on military lately after 20 year "drought" you can see articles how spending is always connected to counter US, if Russians don't spend i read how Russian military is screwed , when they spend they are also screwed or some nut pieces OMG!!! Russia will attack US.... wow just wow, for the love of God it's normal to spend some decent money on the military size of Russia's.

hogdriver
08-20-2009, 09:07 PM
nobody has the guts to be the first to use a nuclear weapon, so the one with the best conventional weapon wins.

Rey
08-20-2009, 09:22 PM
I find this article pointless :| ...

Panchito12
08-20-2009, 09:27 PM
This article is just speculation by some fool at Wired.

cbiwv
08-20-2009, 09:30 PM
Russia needs to invest in its conventional forces especially armor.

MichaelF
08-20-2009, 09:34 PM
The Russian Federation and the United States have differing military priorities and goals.

The US requires absolute air dominance in any (and every) Theatre of operations. We need to be able to move large ground forces around the planet and support them (and reinforce them) while engaged. We need to maintain strong naval presences in every major body of water. We want to be both a Continental Power and a Maritime Power at the same time. Hence the massive purchases.

Russia doesn't need to do any of those things.
Their doctrine has always called for air parity. IOW, don't try to win the air war...just don't lose. Meanwhile, their ground forces are the arm of decision (as they are a Continental Power, not a Maritime Power). They only need to seek local superiority in one Theatre.

Russian bases in Cuba and/or Venezuela would be ideal positions for IRBM regiments and/or an "aardvarkski" medium-range/low-altitude bomber (delivering cruise missiles into the US continental interior).

The Tu-95s are just bomb trucks, much like the B-52 (although the Russians are being a bit slothful about producing a JDAMski), and haven't been a strategic threat to US soil (except for Alaska and Hawaii) since the 1950s.

Tu-160s, OTOH.....are basically an improved version of the B-1b. The only poor area is the lack of precision conventional ordnance.

In a way, it's good to have Ivan back on the court. Much more interesting, professionally.

LS1 Miata
08-20-2009, 09:38 PM
Tu-160s, OTOH.....are basically an improved version of the B-1b. The only poor area is the lack of precision conventional ordnance.

The B-1B's avionics suite is far superior to the Tu-160's.

Elbs
08-20-2009, 09:40 PM
Tu-160s, OTOH.....are basically an improved version of the B-1b. The only poor area is the lack of precision conventional ordnance.


They are few in number and their serviceability hasn't been all that great. IIRC Yefim Gordon states in one of his books that it is quite labor intensive to keep them flying. The number of sorties they could generate would be limited. If they kept upgrading the ones in service and built new ones, I'm betting it could improve.

Alpheus
08-20-2009, 09:45 PM
They are few in number and their serviceability hasn't been all that great. The number of sorties they could generate would be limited. If they kept upgrading the ones in service and built new ones, I'm betting it could improve.

There was talk about a modernization program a few years back. New avionics, engines, GLOSNASS GPS, laser system for bombs, radar absorbing covering etc. Do any of our Russian comrades know if it went ahead?

HellToupee
08-20-2009, 09:46 PM
The B-1B's avionics suite is far superior to the Tu-160's.
And you base that off what?

For Heavy bombers Russians don't use JDAMskis they use them to deploy cruise missiles, you wont be using heavy bombers to deploy free fall bombs against a country with airdefence.

zg18
08-20-2009, 09:47 PM
There was talk about a modernization program a few years back. New avionics, engines, GLOSNASS GPS, laser system for bombs, radar absorbing covering etc. Do any of our Russian comrades know if it went ahead?

I'm not tovarisch but some Tu-160 did went to some modernization process as far as i know.

Sashko
08-20-2009, 09:47 PM
Article seems to fail to mention that the current bomber aircraft are being heavily modernized and the process with countinue until 2015. Noone has claimed to have a fielded serial production bomber by 2015, but rather a working prototype (which is very realistic and doable, considering that the new design is to be heavily based on the existing Tu-160).

This "Russia threatens..." bullshyt every time that Russia purchases or develops new kit is getting absolutely mental.

Elbs
08-20-2009, 09:50 PM
There was talk about a modernization program a few years back. New avionics, engines, GLOSNASS GPS, laser system for bombs, radar absorbing covering etc. Do any of our Russian comrades know if it went ahead?

No clue about the other upgrades, but RAM material was applied early on in the program to the air intakes (black coating).

Elbs
08-20-2009, 09:53 PM
And you base that off what?

For Heavy bombers Russians don't use JDAMskis they use them to deploy cruise missiles, you wont be using heavy bombers to deploy free fall bombs against a country with airdefence.

Uh, a JDAM can be employed from up to 28 kilometers away (depends on altitude and speed of aircraft dropping the weapon).

For a long time, the only weapon used on Tu-160s was the Kh-55 cruise missile. Not exactly a lot of mission flexibility...
That's why the Russians are out to upgrade the Blackjacks: newer, more reliable and better weapons and increased survivability.

MichaelF
08-20-2009, 09:58 PM
The B-1B's avionics suite is far superior to the Tu-160's.

Granted, but the -160 is (much, much) faster and carries a heavier bomb load.

Any problems aren't with the aircraft itself (the ordnance and the avionics are the weak links).

HellToupee
08-20-2009, 10:27 PM
Uh, a JDAM can be employed from up to 28 kilometers away (depends on altitude and speed of aircraft dropping the weapon).


28 Kilometers is not far at all considering long range SAMs are in the 100s, nor is it terribly effient to use a heavy bomber for GBUs in a real conflict since you are not going to loiter over the target area like b52s do dropping a few bombs at a time.

Heavy needs to avoid sams and interceptors, you use standoff weapons for that.

Elbs
08-20-2009, 10:32 PM
Right, because the ability to drop 80 guided bombs to hit 80 different targets is not desirable to a modern commander...

28 kilometers is far enough for the kinds of missions Russia will be facing in the future. It won't be fighting NATO nations with Patriot batteries anytime soon. A loitering heavy bomber armed with GLONASS guided bombs would've been effective against the likes of Georgia.

timetraveller
08-20-2009, 10:36 PM
Hasn't this been mentioned on here before 6 times ...


about the Bears back in action doing the long range flights ...

really old news

LS1 Miata
08-20-2009, 10:55 PM
And you base that off what?

For Heavy bombers Russians don't use JDAMskis they use them to deploy cruise missiles, you wont be using heavy bombers to deploy free fall bombs against a country with airdefence.


Uh, a JDAM can be employed from up to 28 kilometers away (depends on altitude and speed of aircraft dropping the weapon).

For a long time, the only weapon used on Tu-160s was the Kh-55 cruise missile. Not exactly a lot of mission flexibility...
That's why the Russians are out to upgrade the Blackjacks: newer, more reliable and better weapons and increased survivability.


Right, because the ability to drop 80 guided bombs to hit 80 different targets is not desirable to a modern commander...

28 kilometers is far enough for the kinds of missions Russia will be facing in the future. It won't be fighting NATO nations with Patriot batteries anytime soon. A loitering heavy bomber armed with GLONASS guided bombs would've been effective against the likes of Georgia.

What Elbs said. ^^^

HellToupee
08-20-2009, 10:57 PM
Right, because the ability to drop 80 guided bombs to hit 80 different targets is not desirable to a modern commander...

Where are you even going to have 80 targets in one area? How are you going to even target and guide that many bombs at once.



28 kilometers is far enough for the kinds of missions Russia will be facing in the future. It won't be fighting NATO nations with Patriot batteries anytime soon. A loitering heavy bomber armed with GLONASS guided bombs would've been effective against the likes of Georgia.

Except it would not have been effective against Georgia, georgia had SAMs, they lost a tu-22mr to a buk-m1 remember.

Elbs
08-20-2009, 11:08 PM
Where are you even going to have 80 targets in one area? How are you going to even target and guide that many bombs at once.
Ever heard of GPS?

During the Iraq war, F/A-18s from CVW-3 attacked Qayyarah West airbase with JDAMs. There's a picture that shows the effects of the attack: about 30 big craters, neatly lined up and spaced spanning the length of the two runways and the taxiways. That's an entire airfield taken out of service by 30 bombs.

Airfields, marshalling depots, barracks, training camps... plenty of places where a lot of targets can be clustered together.



Except it would not have been effective against Georgia, georgia had SAMs, they lost a tu-22mr to a buk-m1 remember.

Georgia had mostly MANPADs. Orbiting high out of their range, a Tu-160 loaded with guided bombs would have decimated pockets of resistance. Imagine that, a bomber with loads of fuel, hours of endurance and a belly full of bombs loitering above... wouldn't that be useful.

Most of the Russian attack aircraft with the exception of the Su-24 and Su-34s can't refuel inflight. A loitering bomber with excellent endurance is a great tool.

Albatross
08-20-2009, 11:11 PM
HIMAAD, SHORAD, and general ass kick EW will keep us fairly safe. As in, I am more worried about my next workout than I am this.

MichaelF
08-20-2009, 11:19 PM
28 Kilometers is not far at all considering long range SAMs are in the 100s, nor is it terribly effient to use a heavy bomber for GBUs in a real conflict since you are not going to loiter over the target area like b52s do dropping a few bombs at a time.

Heavy needs to avoid sams and interceptors, you use standoff weapons for that.

In a high-intensity conventional conflict, bombers (medium and heavy) get inside the enemy territory (whether by stealth, low-altitude infiltration, or approaching through thinly-held airspace*) and lob cruise missiles (ALCM, air-launched T-hawk, etc) at high-value targets (transport hubs, POL hubs, C4I installations, etc).

Conventional conflicts are likely to last long enough for the enemy AD grid to be significantly attrited (by commandos, stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, rotary wing, etc). This opens up options that wouldn't be present on Day One.


*-the B-52 fleet was to infiltrate the USSR by approaching via the arctic frontiers, forcing the Soviet PVO to spread their assets (interceptors and SAM batteries) over a huge area.

Panchito12
08-20-2009, 11:25 PM
Russian bases in Cuba and/or Venezuela would be ideal positions for IRBM regiments and/or an "aardvarkski" medium-range/low-altitude bomber (delivering cruise missiles into the US continental interior).

.

Not allowed. US & Soviet/Russia have an agreement since Cuban Crisis: No invasion of Cuba and Soviet/Russia will not base nuclear forces in the Western Hemisphere (US also not allowed to have nukes in Turkey).

HellToupee
08-20-2009, 11:28 PM
Ever heard of GPS?

During the Iraq war, F/A-18s from CVW-3 attacked Qayyarah West airbase with JDAMs. There's a picture that shows the effects of the attack: about 30 big craters, neatly lined up and spaced spanning the length of the two runways and the taxiways. That's an entire airfield taken out of service by 30 bombs.

Airfields, marshalling depots, barracks, training camps... plenty of places where a lot of targets can be clustered together.

GPS guidance is only of use against a fixed target. Where are lot of fixed targets are clusted together so is airdefence. Multiple fighters are a far more sensible thing to use against these targets, than a single heavy.




Georgia had mostly MANPADs. Orbiting high out of their range, a Tu-160 loaded with guided bombs would have decimated pockets of resistance. Imagine that, a bomber with loads of fuel, hours of endurance and a belly full of bombs loitering above... wouldn't that be useful.

Most of the Russian attack aircraft with the exception of the Su-24 and Su-34s can't refuel inflight. A loitering bomber with excellent endurance is a great tool.

But the point is they had some medium and long range SAMs, they used a tu-22mr over georgia it got shot down, why would they risk a very expensive Tu-160 loitering around? A loitering bomber is a great tool only in the absense of a threat, in which case bears would proably be more cost effective than tu-160s.

Zarak
08-20-2009, 11:30 PM
I wonder if they're going to put their new bombers on their six new aircraft carriers with their new stealth fighters. rofl

Elbs
08-20-2009, 11:35 PM
GPS guidance is only of use against a fixed target. Where are lot of fixed targets are clusted together so is airdefence. Multiple fighters are a far more sensible thing to use against these targets, than a single heavy.

In how many possible scenarios will Russia be facing countries with sophisticated air defense networks? Very few.


But the point is they had some medium and long range SAMs, they used a tu-22mr over georgia it got shot down, why would they risk a very expensive Tu-160 loitering around? A loitering bomber is a great tool only in the absense of a threat, in which case bears would proably be more cost effective than tu-160s.

You make it seem as if in case of a war, the Russians would send out a single bomber to hover around looking for targets. In reality, they'd make every effort to jam defenses, conduct EW operations, etc.

The fact that they sent a Backfire and it got popped shows they either neglected the threat, were unaware of it, or were unable to degrade its performance.

Panchito12
08-20-2009, 11:36 PM
I wonder if they're going to put their new bombers on their six new aircraft carriers with their new stealth fighters. rofl

It's "plasma stealth". Please get the name right.:)

Winger
08-20-2009, 11:39 PM
Exactly. all this talk about NATO vs. Russia is pointless. MAD worked in the past, it works today.

Assuming they would go nuclear if a conventional war with the US started. At least I would hope they moved past that Soviet scorched earth insanity. I don't think they necessarily would go nuclear as long as we just vanquish their forces in air and on sea just enough and not land any ground elements on their soil.

Winger
08-20-2009, 11:43 PM
In a high-intensity conventional conflict, bombers (medium and heavy) get inside the enemy territory (whether by stealth, low-altitude infiltration, or approaching through thinly-held airspace*) and lob cruise missiles (ALCM, air-launched T-hawk, etc) at high-value targets (transport hubs, POL hubs, C4I installations, etc).

Conventional conflicts are likely to last long enough for the enemy AD grid to be significantly attrited (by commandos, stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, rotary wing, etc). This opens up options that wouldn't be present on Day One.


*-the B-52 fleet was to infiltrate the USSR by approaching via the arctic frontiers, forcing the Soviet PVO to spread their assets (interceptors and SAM batteries) over a huge area.

Crazy to think that the old plan called for an acceptable loss of 75% of all B-52 with the remaining 25% still able to delivery hundreds of cruise missiles.

MichaelF
08-20-2009, 11:45 PM
Not allowed. US & Soviet/Russia have an agreement since Cuban Crisis: No invasion of Cuba and Soviet/Russia will not base nuclear forces in the Western Hemisphere (US also not allowed to have nukes in Turkey).

We weren't "allowed" to have a Continental ABM system, either. Until we were.

HellToupee
08-20-2009, 11:52 PM
In how many possible scenarios will Russia be facing countries with sophisticated air defense networks? Very few.


Most of their countries that border them still have airdefence networks, georgia did not lose all its SAM systems.



You make it seem as if in case of a war, the Russians would send out a single bomber to hover around looking for targets. In reality, they'd make every effort to jam defenses, conduct EW operations, etc.

No you are making out that in case of war using heavy bombers in CAS role is good idea.



The fact that they sent a Backfire and it got popped shows they either neglected the threat, were unaware of it, or were unable to degrade its performance.

I beleive they were unaware of it, as Georgia did not get the launchers from Russia. Sending heavies with in range of SAMs is neglecting the threat.

nagant_m44
08-20-2009, 11:54 PM
It's "plasma stealth". Please get the name right.:)

Stop trolling, go away.

Elbs
08-20-2009, 11:55 PM
No you are making out that in case of war using heavy bombers in CAS role is good idea.

Against an enemy with a limited air defense capability, it sure is. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq: B-52s and Bones circling around dropping JDAMs or laser guided bombs with impunity.

No one is suggesting that in a war against NATO, Tu-160s are going to be in the weeds, dropping bombs on Leclerc tanks :roll:

HellToupee
08-21-2009, 12:09 AM
Against an enemy with a limited air defense capability, it sure is. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq: B-52s and Bones circling around dropping JDAMs or laser guided bombs with impunity.

No one is suggesting that in a war against NATO, Tu-160s are going to be in the weeds, dropping bombs on Leclerc tanks :roll:

Yes because theres absoultly zero threat to them which is my point, not really a optimal roll for supersonic strat bombers.

DRA
08-21-2009, 12:19 AM
The irony is that Russian bomber fleet is actually significantly newer than the US's. It's the Russians who should be getting all dramatic about USAF flying rust buckets.
Just looked up average age of the US bomber fleet, it is even worst that I thought: B52s average age is 45 years...B1 approaching 30....

Winger
08-21-2009, 12:24 AM
The irony is that Russian bomber fleet is actually significantly newer than the US's. It's the Russians who should be getting all dramatic about USAF flying rust buckets.
Just looked up average age of the US bomber fleet, it is even worst that I thought: B52s average age is 45 years...B1 approaching 30....

Not all too bad, the almost 100 B-52 really jack up the stats. They were built 20 years before the first B-1A. That stuff was built to last and they've sunk a lot of money into upgrades and American bombers get more flying time and love than their Russian counterparts. p-)

Elbs
08-21-2009, 12:26 AM
The irony is that Russian bomber fleet is actually significantly newer than the US's. It's the Russians who should be getting all dramatic about USAF flying rust buckets.
Just looked up average age of the US bomber fleet, it is even worst that I thought: B52s average age is 45 years...B1 approaching 30....

Unlike more modern aircraft, the B-52 was built like a goddamn locomotive. It is an immensely strong airframe, and Boeing has calculated that at the current service rate, the airframe life should be good enough for at least service past 2030. With long range weapons, it should remain viable for the near future.

It still has better serviceability than the Bone and B-2 IIRC.

DRA
08-21-2009, 12:34 AM
And Tu 95s weren't?[/COLOR]


American bombers get more flying time and love than their Russian counterparts. p-)
Doesn't more flying time = more wear and tear?

What I am trying to understand is why certain people on this board are ecstatic about almost 50 years old American planes while being sarcastic about Russian counterparts half of their age, bias?

LS1 Miata
08-21-2009, 12:36 AM
What I am trying to understand is why certain people on this board are ecstatic about almost 50 years old American planes while being sarcastic about Russian counterparts half of their age, bias?

The B-52 is iconic.p-)

Elbs
08-21-2009, 12:36 AM
What I am trying to understand is why certain people on this board are ecstatic about almost 50 years old American planes while being sarcastic about Russian counterparts half of their age, bias?

Where's this sarcasm you're talking about?

Zarak
08-21-2009, 12:37 AM
What I am trying to understand is why certain people on this board are ecstatic about almost 50 years old American planes while being sarcastic about Russian counterparts half of their age, bias?

Because the avionics of American planes are constantly upgraded, while the avionics in the Russian aircraft are the same as the day they rolled off the assembly line.

HellToupee
08-21-2009, 12:38 AM
^ there it is :P

Alpheus
08-21-2009, 12:57 AM
What I am trying to understand is why certain people on this board are ecstatic about almost 50 years old American planes while being sarcastic about Russian counterparts half of their age, bias?

Perhaps because they have more then 16 of them.

ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð
08-21-2009, 03:21 AM
Assuming they would go nuclear if a conventional war with the US started. At least I would hope they moved past that Soviet scorched earth insanity. I don't think they necessarily would go nuclear as long as we just vanquish their forces in air and on sea just enough and not land any ground elements on their soil.



We have just listened to the reports of our colleagues on NATO planning in Europe and predictions in terms of the Warsaw Pact’s plans, as well as their reaction to our actions in Europe. All these things were a kind of revelation to me, because when we were carrying out our planning, we assessed their plans and intentions from a different standpoint. Of course, by the mid- or late 1970s, and in the beginning of the 1980s, when Marshal Ustinov was our minister of defense, he was in charge of the whole defense complex and supervised the development of weapons and equipment. I should mention that during the Great Patriotic War, when he was only 33 years old, he had served as the People’s Commissar of Armament. From then on for his entire career, he dealt with the development of armaments. After he became the minister of defense, great progress was achieved in this field, as our colleagues from NATO pointed out. This fact gave rise to legitimate concerns that the Warsaw Pact countries had reached a level of superiority that could have enabled them to fulfill their strategic offensive tasks.

Of course, in their reports, we were presented as an aggressor who intended to attack Western Europe. I must say that the Warsaw Pact was not designed for such plans, and did not have aggressive intentions. We were also afraid of NATO. We were afraid that it would act as an aggressor and would cross the frontier, and therefore we created forward defense zones involving substantial forces, solely for the purpose of retaliation. We planned to repel an attack in defense battles, i.e., to fight back after their first strike, and then, to strike back with our reserve groupings.
In reaction to NATO’s doctrine of flexible response, we developed our defensive doctrine of air-land operation. We were in a relatively better position because we did not have to transport huge amounts of reserves by air and sea, since our reserves were located at a closer proximity; we could have transported them by land.

I believe that if a war had been started in Europe, it would not have been limited to the European continent. A general war plan was developed for conflict in Europe, and it would have resulted in a total war. Since our main adversary, the US, was a NATO member, a war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO countries would have meant war between the Soviet Union and the US as well. Hence, strikes on the territory of the US were planned, including all the key targets. It was planned to use all forces and assets of the long-range strategic air force. It was naïve to believe that the war would have taken place in the West solely. More important than the military component was the political component, including economic aspects.


http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/documents/ZB79_000.pdf

I think you're a bit wrong in your assessment.

Lokos
08-21-2009, 04:18 AM
Assuming they would go nuclear if a conventional war with the US started. At least I would hope they moved past that Soviet scorched earth insanity. I don't think they necessarily would go nuclear as long as we just vanquish their forces in air and on sea just enough and not land any ground elements on their soil.

Soviet war planning envisaged the usage of tactical nuclear weapons from Day One, Hour One.

As for the rest of this thread, it amazes me that certain persons see the Russians as direct competitors to the United States. Russia has half the population, one seventh the economic weight and few global pretensions. If I may use a sports analogy, a lot of you are spending your time talking up the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world's chances against a light heavyweight...

Considering the resources they have available to them (notwithstanding PPP considerations, roughly one tenth the military budget of the US), the Russians have performed miracles in maintaining the scope and range of capability they possess. Instead of respecting them for it, most of what I see amounts to barely disguised contempt and denigration. It's really quite pathetic. I won't point out the obvious exceptions to this generalized appraisal.

L.

Kippari
08-21-2009, 04:28 AM
Well, the Blackjack is still pretty much the hardest hitting bastard in the skies. In case of war, i don't think the unguided munition or even JDAMs would be the main weapon of the bomber fleets. Long range missiles in great numbers will fly past the air defences to their targets on both sides. Granted that ICBMs and shorter range comparatives would be the first strike weapons to clean out the air-defences and larger targets.

Maybe Russians want to follow the US lead to develop a stealth bomber that can hit targets far away with lower chances of being brought down. Even if the project will not be completed it still teaches valuable lessons to Tupolev engineers and scientists and keeps the profession going for better times.

GazB
08-21-2009, 05:21 AM
Where to begin....


In 2007, Russia resumed its Cold War practice of sending long-range bomber patrols into international airspace along the North American coast.

First of all lets be clear... Russia did stop sending long range bomber patrols into international airspace for a period ending in 2007. The US continued with their patrols during that period. Russia resumed in 2007 what the US never stopped doing.


The patrols sparked a minor panic in certain quarters here.

Really? Then I wonder how Russia has felt for the previous decade when their own aircraft were no longer flying in international airspace while US aircraft were.


Depending on whom you ask, Moscow’s bomber threat is about to get a lot more dangerous — or it was never all that dangerous to begin with.
Lately, Russia has had to make do with aircraft left over from the 1980s.

Whereas the US has 20 B-2 bombers made in the 80s and 90s... and B-1Bs made in the early 80s and B-52s made in the 1950s. The Russian strategic bombers were made from 1985 till about 1994. They are not old at all.


The Russian strategic bomber force — 16 Tu-160 Blackjacks and 64 Tu-95 Bears — is roughly half the size of the U.S. bomber force, but more importantly, the Russian birds have not been significantly upgraded in 20 years. Most of them cannot use any kind of precision-guided bomb, making them mostly useless for anything but a full-scale nuclear war.

That is why they were called strategic bombers. The only kind of weapon they could carry were precision guided ALCMs. There hasn't been a Russian strategic bomber for 3 decades. The only weapons the Tu-95s in service now and the Tu-160s were designed to carry were 3,000km range cruise missiles. They never had laser guided bomb capability because they were under the control of Strategic aviation which doesn't take part in conventional conflicts.
Of course whoever wrote this article has had their heads in the sand for 10 years because in the late 1990s the Russians decided to upgrade their Bears, Backfires, and Blackjacks to allow them to deliver unguided bombs with the accuracy near that of guided munitions. They also decided to upgrade the range of weapons they can carry to include precision guided bombs and missiles of all types.


To remedy that, bomber-maker Tupolev is reportedly developing a new “fifth-generation” bomber for the Russian air force, for service after 2020.

The fifth generation bomber has nothing to do with introducing precision guided weapons to their bomber fleet. They are already introducing upgrades for that. The purpose of the new bomber is to replace the Bear and eventually the blackjack with a more modern bomber. I doubt it will enter service before 2025. A first prototype will not even fly till 2018.


Moscow has been promising to show the world an F-35-like stealth fighter prototype for years, but so far no one has seen so much as a Testors model kit.

It has been promising nothing of a sort. They said they are building three prototypes and that one might be shown at MAKS09. Now they are saying it will fly later this year. There have been no promises to show it publicly.
The Indians have given a couple of billion dollars towards its development and have entered a deal... I doubt they did that for a paper plane.


An order placed this summer for 64 older Sukhoi fighters by 2015 represents the biggest Russian aircraft buy in 15 years. In the same time-frame, the Pentagon will buy probably 10 times that many fighters, of more modern design.

The Pentagon has an empire to manage. The Russian AF has hundreds of aircraft in storage. It has no need to buy 640 aircraft by 2015.


Instead, he said, his existing bombers require “deep upgrades” to improve flight safety, navigation and bombing accuracy. He said he wanted his bombers to be able to drop unguided munitions to within 60 feet of their targets. U.S. bombers, you might recall, can reliably put guided bombs through windows and air shafts.

First of all the Tu-160 and Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 are getting such upgrades, and suggesting that they want a certain level of accuracy with dumb bombs while comparing that with US bombers dropping GUIDED bombs is fairly pointless isn't it? The Russians have plenty of guided bombs of a wide range of types. TV, Laser, IIR, and even satellite guided bombs. From 250kg through to 3,000kgs in standard weights.


At the end of the day, Moscow has just one over-riding military priority: to maintain and modernize its fleet of nuclear-missile-armed submarines. Everything else, bombers included, is a luxury.

Yet they managed to maintain and modernise their land based ICBMs and they have introduced the Kh-102 cruise missile to replace the old Kh-55 so their strategic bombers can fire their missiles from a much larger standoff range. ( The Kh-102 has a range of 5,000km).


The Russians announced that they'd be getting a new bomber by 2015. Fat chance I think, if not even the USAF can get the Next-gen bomber by 2018. My guess is the Russians have more pressing needs than a new strategic bomber...

They were talking about the first flight of the first prototype of the PAK-DA in 2015. It will not be in service for another 15 years or so.


They haven't achieved putting a bomb through a window yet?

First of all the necessity of putting bombs through windows is overrated. Penetrating into concrete bunkers is much more useful. Second they are talking about accuracy with UNGUIDED weapons that they want to improve. They already have guided weapons every bit as accurate as US weapons.


And no one is going to use those due to the MAD doctrine - So it's a moot point.

Actually Russia benefits more simply because its nuclear weapons mean it does not need a conventional force large enough to deter NATO. Tactical nukes will suffice.


Why develope a new bomber? For nukes mobile ICBMs are just better. Tu-160 is still proably the best heavy bomber around just build more of those modernised.

The PAK-FA is a long term replacement for the Bear. The Blackjack is still in low rate production and they will likely build up to a force of about 30 or so.

A large, efficent, stealthy bomber to replace the Bear makes a lot of sense however for the Russians. Added to 5,000km range stealthy cruise missiles it would be an excellent deterrent.


nobody has the guts to be the first to use a nuclear weapon, so the one with the best conventional weapon wins.

The US did against Japan. Russia has changed its policy and has reserved the right to use nuclear weapons even in the event of a conventional attack on its infrastructure.


The Tu-95s are just bomb trucks, much like the B-52 (although the Russians are being a bit slothful about producing a JDAMski), and haven't been a strategic threat to US soil (except for Alaska and Hawaii) since the 1950s.

Tu-95s haven't carried conventional bombs in three decades. Their armament is the Kh-55. Now it will have the Kh-555 and the Kh-101 and Kh-102. With upgrades it will get guided conventional weapons including bombs and missiles.


Tu-160s, OTOH.....are basically an improved version of the B-1b. The only poor area is the lack of precision conventional ordnance.

Its standard weapon is the same as the Tu-95 with the same upgrade and also a payload increase with the upgrade to 45,000kgs.


The B-1B's avionics suite is far superior to the Tu-160's.

That is a story in itself... early on the only thing the B-1B could jam was itself.


Noone has claimed to have a fielded serial production bomber by 2015, but rather a working prototype (which is very realistic and doable, considering that the new design is to be heavily based on the existing Tu-160).

Actually the reports I have read suggest a new design that focuses on stealth to replace the Bears.


No clue about the other upgrades, but RAM material was applied early on in the program to the air intakes (black coating).

Even the front engine blades are coated with RAM when it was first made. RCS was described as being similar to the B-1B, which is quite impressive as the Tu-160 is rather bigger and has twice the installed thrust.


Uh, a JDAM can be employed from up to 28 kilometers away (depends on altitude and speed of aircraft dropping the weapon).

For a long time, the only weapon used on Tu-160s was the Kh-55 cruise missile. Not exactly a lot of mission flexibility...
That's why the Russians are out to upgrade the Blackjacks: newer, more reliable and better weapons and increased survivability.

The Tu-160s will get the 5,000km range Kh-102s for the strategic role. Getting new air to ground weapons will not change its weapon fit for the strategic role.


Right, because the ability to drop 80 guided bombs to hit 80 different targets is not desirable to a modern commander...

Which would be important agaisnt NATO where there are 80 targets worth a guided weapon, but then if it is NATO then a 100KT tactical nuke would probably get the job done too.
Russian front commanders don't get to call missions for Russian strategic bombers because the politicians might want them for their intended mission and not want them to be busy doing jobs the Tu-22M3 should be doing.
Of course at 24 ton payload they can probably only carry 48 x TV guided 500kg bombs to hit 48 targets but I am sure the Su-34s can make up the difference.


A loitering heavy bomber armed with GLONASS guided bombs would've been effective against the likes of Georgia.

They need to deal with their lack of information about targets before they need to bother getting the capability to deal with large numbers of targets found.


Ever heard of GPS?

During the Iraq war, F/A-18s from CVW-3 attacked Qayyarah West airbase with JDAMs. There's a picture that shows the effects of the attack: about 30 big craters, neatly lined up and spaced spanning the length of the two runways and the taxiways. That's an entire airfield taken out of service by 30 bombs.

Airfields, marshalling depots, barracks, training camps... plenty of places where a lot of targets can be clustered together.

The Russians have GLONASS, and their TV guided bombs can also deal with multiple targets on a single pass.


Georgia had mostly MANPADs. Orbiting high out of their range, a Tu-160 loaded with guided bombs would have decimated pockets of resistance. Imagine that, a bomber with loads of fuel, hours of endurance and a belly full of bombs loitering above... wouldn't that be useful.

Not without the ability to detect and identify targets from high up.


Most of the Russian attack aircraft with the exception of the Su-24 and Su-34s can't refuel inflight. A loitering bomber with excellent endurance is a great tool.

Why would they need to loiter? Turn up, do the job and leave till there is another problem.


In how many possible scenarios will Russia be facing countries with sophisticated air defense networks? Very few.

PAK-DA. Next generation strategic bomber. They will certainly design it to be used in conventional conflicts as they are adapting their current strategic bombers to as well, but its primary purpose is long range nuclear bomber. I doubt on a strategic mission it will carry anything other than nuclear armed cruise missiles.


Assuming they would go nuclear if a conventional war with the US started. At least I would hope they moved past that Soviet scorched earth insanity. I don't think they necessarily would go nuclear as long as we just vanquish their forces in air and on sea just enough and not land any ground elements on their soil.

A war between NATO and Russia will go nuclear straight away from the Russian side. They can't afford to fk around. A conventional war they will not win so they will go nuke straight away while they have them. Whomever attacked them will be nuked straight away and then they will get on the phone to negotiate the remaining nuclear powers to avoid having to use all their nukes. They will not play the stupid game the west expected them to during the cold war of escalation. It will basically be use it or lose it.


Maybe Russians want to follow the US lead to develop a stealth bomber that can hit targets far away with lower chances of being brought down. Even if the project will not be completed it still teaches valuable lessons to Tupolev engineers and scientists and keeps the profession going for better times.

As far as I know the main purpose of the PAK-DA is a long term replacement for the Bear. This means it will be a strategic cruise missile carrier with long range and relatively low operating costs. It might be a large flying wing type aircraft that could be used for both the strategic bomber role and the maritime patrol aircraft role (like the Tu-142).
It will no doubt incorporate stealth in the design but its main strategic weapon will be long range cruise missile. For its conventional role it will have a range of air to ground guided weapons and the ability to precision deliver unguided bombs. I know this because it will be intended to replace the Tu-95 and the Tu-95 along with the Blackjack and the Backfire are all getting upgrades to add conventional attack capability with unguided and guided munitions. They tested GLONASS guided munitions on the Blackjack in 1999.

lightfire
08-21-2009, 05:45 AM
How come bomber replacement is considered as a threat? After 20 more years Tu-95s might be a threat to Russians themselves, rather than anyone else (yea, I know, they are newer than B-52s)

GazB
08-21-2009, 05:49 AM
How come bomber replacement is considered as a threat?Probably the realisation that stealthy strategic bombers make excellent first strike weapons and the US really doesn't want anyone but themselves to have them.


After 20 more years Tu-95s might be a threat to Russians themselves, rather than anyone else (yea, I know, they are newer than B-52s)The Tu-95s will last much longer than the B-52s with regards to structure. The B-52 carrys and uses large conventional loads. It also practises low level high speed penetration filights on airframes that are already 50 years old. In comparison the cruise missile carrying Tu-95 fly at moderate speed at medium height carrying a relatively light load of weapons. The actual design of the Bear was upgraded in the late 1970s with a new laminar flow wing and called the Tu-142. For the purposes of the START treaty they are called Tu-95s but all the in service Tu-95s are actually Tu-142s.

hogdriver
08-21-2009, 05:56 AM
Russia has changed its policy and has reserved the right to use nuclear weapons even in the event of a conventional attack on its infrastructure.



and what do you think the NATO will do...:roll:

KoTeMoRe
08-21-2009, 06:15 AM
and what do you think the NATO will do...:roll:

In that regard, Nuclear NATO is the US. So as said before, either we all go down in a strikeout, either both big boys calm down and have a red line chat to sort things out.

hogdriver
08-21-2009, 06:18 AM
In that regard, Nuclear NATO is the US. So as said before, either we all go down in a strikeout, either both big boys calm down and have a red line chat to sort things out.

Do you think NATO will calm down if Russia attacks
with nuclair weapons...:)

Soldat_Américain
08-21-2009, 06:22 AM
No...we'll all be dead.

KoTeMoRe
08-21-2009, 06:23 AM
Do you think NATO will calm down if Russia attacks
with nuclair weapons...:)

I don't know, do you want to die?

Plus Russia will not strike first while unprovoked by a massive military assault (Conventionnal or Nuclear).

The problem with this issue has risen time and again. The Soviets were never (even when Nuclear parity was achieved) in the mood for a Nuclear gamble.

I can't see why a West-integrated Russia would be in that mood!

Alfacentori
08-21-2009, 06:27 AM
I don't know, do you want to die?

Plus Russia will not strike first while unprovoked by a massive military assault (Conventionnal or Nuclear).

The problem with this issue has risen time and again. The Soviets were never (even when Nuclear parity was achieved) in the mood for a Nuclear gamble.

I can't see why a West-integrated Russia would be in that mood!

Same goes for NATO, I can't see any scenario where NATO or the US would launch a Nuclear attack or a massive conventional attack on Russia, the risk vs reward ratio is just too high, unless of course everyone goes insaine.

Alfa

The Dane
08-21-2009, 06:32 AM
As for the rest of this thread, it amazes me that certain persons see the Russians as direct competitors to the United States.


Russians think that way.. so why shouldn't Americans??

KoTeMoRe
08-21-2009, 06:33 AM
Same goes for NATO, I can't see any scenario where NATO or the US would launch a Nuclear attack or a massive conventional attack on Russia, the risk vs reward ratio is just too high, unless of course everyone goes insaine.

Alfa

We're on the same page. Unfortunately there are people at wired that just can't get that.

The Russians are always expected, to do things that history has shown they never do. This is the point I don't understand.

Oh the fine art of creating ennemies...

Edit: Danskeren, the russians just open their window in the morning to get fresh air...and they get poo slinged from across the street. Guess what?

hogdriver
08-21-2009, 06:35 AM
I can't see why a West-integrated Russia would be in that mood!

Didn't Russia threatened targeting Europa with nukes about the installation of the shield in Poland and Tjechie?

GazB
08-21-2009, 06:42 AM
and what do you think the NATO will do...

It depends. NATO agreements require all members to help defend a member state that is attacked, but it does not require all member states to support aggression.

When Georgia joins NATO if Saakashvili is still in power and attacks Abkhazia and South Ossetia under the assumption that NATO will be obliged to help I really don't think Russia will need to resort to nuclear weapons.

The US as part of NATO could not force Turkey, another member of NATO to help in the attack on Iraq. If Iraq had attacked the US then Turkey would have been obliged to assist.


Same goes for NATO, I can't see any scenario where NATO or the US would launch a Nuclear attack or a massive conventional attack on Russia, the risk vs reward ratio is just too high, unless of course everyone goes insaine.

Yet even after the bush administration has gone the US still greatly values its relationship with Georgia more than having good relations with the Russians it seems. Some might call that insane considering Georgia is even less democratic than Russia.

KoTeMoRe
08-21-2009, 06:44 AM
Didn't Russia threatened targeting Europa with nukes about the installation of the shield in Poland and Tjechie?

Oh...why would you open the Pandora Box of flamewars.

I will refrain from deepening this issue and just recall you a couple of facts.
Some country has been using mobster ways and practices internationally since some wall came down. Trying to maintain one's integrity and influence is perfectly normal, shoving it down someone else's throat (while that someone is weaker) might fly as well, just don't expect it to be a ****ing walk in the park.

So if you can't do the time don't do the crime.

The Dane
08-21-2009, 07:01 AM
Russian bombers are far far behind American ones in terms of modern electronics(targeting, navigation, EW etc etc) and stealth .. and they are going to be that for a looong time.. if the Russians ever will catch up. That's a fact.

TU-160 is a beauty but is far behind B-1B today.. they only look similar but TU-160 needs some serious upgrades if it should competed with B-1B again..

TU-95.. don't know why Russia still keeps those around.. It's so noisy that submarine detectionsystems picks it up!! :o

GazB
08-21-2009, 07:02 AM
Didn't Russia threatened targeting Europa with nukes about the installation of the shield in Poland and Tjechie?

Russia didn't threaten anyone. They merely stated that if the US put a strategic ABM system in Poland and the Czech republic that Russia would set up systems in place to deal with those new systems.

KoTeMoRe
08-21-2009, 07:10 AM
Russian bombers are far far behind American ones in terms of modern electronics(targeting, navigation, EW etc etc) and stealth .. and they are going to be that for a looong time.. if the Russians ever will catch up. That's a fact.

TU-160 is a beauty but is far behind B-1B today.. they only look similar but TU-160 needs some serious upgrades if it should competed with B-1B again..

TU-95.. don't know why Russia still keeps those around.. It's so noisy that submarine detectionsystems picks it up!! :o

Ok this thread is officially entitled to Seppuku.

The Dane
08-21-2009, 07:13 AM
Ok this thread is officially entitled to Seppuku.

Because i'm wrong.. ?? :)
Please..

GazB
08-21-2009, 07:19 AM
Russian bombers are far far behind American ones in terms of modern electronics(targeting, navigation, EW etc etc) and stealth .. and they are going to be that for a looong time.. if the Russians ever will catch up. That's a fact.Spoken like a true expert.

BTW can you answer a few questions for me.
If Tu-160s can deploy to Venezuela could they also fly to their launch points over the arctic circle?

From 3,000km for the Kh-55 and now 5,000km for the Kh-102 what sort of targeting will the Tu-160 actually be doing operationally?

And thirdly after flying for 6 hours to get to their launch positions how many operational enemy fighters will the average Tu-160 have to deal with considering Russian ICBMs and SLBMs had landed a full 5 and a half hours before and pretty much taken out all major radar stations and airbases in the north american continent?

The fact is that even a Tu-95 can do the job of flying to a point 5,000km from its target and releasing 16 cruise missiles and then turning back for base. GPS wont be very useful and nor will GLONASS as both will likely have been taken out 5-6 hours before hand.

The reality is that your ignorance blinds you. The Su-34 has all the navigation and EW and precision guided air to ground capability that is as good as any bomber flying. Tu-160s and Tu-95s didn't have that simply because they don't carry bombs and will not operate anywhere near an active air defence system anyway.
They are not first strike aircraft and they were never intended for conventional warfare.

Their upgrades will make them every bit as capable as the B-1B and B-52 and even B-2 except of course for the aspect of stealth.


TU-160 is a beauty but is far behind B-1B today.. they only look similar but TU-160 needs some serious upgrades if it should competed with B-1B again..The Tu-160 has twice the installed thrust and can fly at twice the speed over a much greater range. The upgraded model carries 45,000 kgs payload, including the worlds most powerful conventional bomb.


TU-95.. don't know why Russia still keeps those around.. It's so noisy that submarine detectionsystems picks it up!! :oThey are no louder than B-52s. At operational heights you can't see them let alone hear them at ground level. SOSUS can hear low flying Tu-142s, just the same as it can hear the low flying Orions.

And the reason they keep them is like the B-52s they do the job relatively cheaply. Unlike the B-52s however the Tu-95s are not older their most of their pilots FATHERs.

XShipRider
08-21-2009, 07:22 AM
Hmm.. Title says "threaten" yet article reads "deterrence." I'll need to ponder this one for a bit.

wilhelm
08-21-2009, 07:23 AM
Because i'm wrong.. ?? :)
Please..

Yes.

GazB gave a nice erudite synopsis of why the TU-160, which is a strategic bomber, is in no way inferior to the B1B, another strategic bomber design.

Assuming you read his post, could you perhaps expand on your statement ..


TU-160 is a beauty but is far behind B-1B today.. they only look similar but TU-160 needs some serious upgrades if it should competed with B-1B again..... with some examples?

The Dane
08-21-2009, 07:26 AM
Yes.

GaryB gave a nice erudite synopsis of why the TU-160, which is a strategic bomber, is in no way inferior to the B1B, another strategic bomber design.

Assuming you read his post, could you perhaps expand on your statement ..



... with some examples?

LOL.. you guys are so delusional.. not worth the time ;)

JCR
08-21-2009, 07:30 AM
Re the Tu 95.
The plane is an old design, yes, but the actual airframes that are still used are quite young, built in the 1980s.
On the other hand, the B-52s still flying today were all built in the early 1960s.

coltfan111
08-21-2009, 07:35 AM
Russia shouldnt abbandon the PAK DA project but it should lower the funding to that project and spend the money on modernising and building new Il-78's A50's and the likes of that.

Every day i get more and more sceptical about Russia being able to defend itself against NATO...

I don't think Russia has to worry about defending itself from NATO anymore. I see western and Russian co-operation getting greater and greater over the next few decades. A Russian-Sino war is more probable then a NATO-Russian war. :P.. the Georgian crisis showed NATO does have its limits as far as fully dictating Russia's policies goes.

wilhelm
08-21-2009, 07:36 AM
LOL.. you guys are so delusional.. not worth the time ;)

That's a poor, unintillegent answer. :roll: Can you point out what is delusional about my post, so that I may defend it or apologise for it?

I'm not Russian, and in fact have been nowhere near the place, so I don't really care about the politics involved, as you obviously do on all matters Russian from what I've seen.p-)

I was just interested to see why you made your statement and to get your further opinion on why you think the Tu-160 is an inferior strategic bomber than the B1B? Could you provide examples of why ...


TU-160 is a beauty but is far behind B-1B today.. they only look similar but TU-160 needs some serious upgrades if it should competed with B-1B again..

I agree that Russia could probably actually do with a few more numbers of the Tu-160 in fact.

KoTeMoRe
08-21-2009, 07:40 AM
LOL.. you guys are so delusional.. not worth the time ;)

Typical...

GazB
08-21-2009, 07:47 AM
I agree that Russia could probably actually do with a few more numbers of the Tu-160 in fact.

As far as I know they aim to make more to build the force up to about 30 aircraft.

The purpose of the PAK-DA is to replace the Bears first so in my opinion the PAK_DA will likely be some sort of flying wing type aircraft of low drag and low RCS designed for heavy weights and long ranges. It wont be totally compromised for stealth because its primary armament will likely start out as stealthy cruise missiles but will likely end up being hypersonic scramjet powered cruise missiles.
With regard to making interception hard there are two viable options... fly really fast, or be stealthy. Making an entire aircraft really fast would be expensive, but making small missiles that fly fast would be a viable option. With the right scramjet propulsion a very high speed but efficient missile would be a viable option. If the missile is stealthy and long range or fast and long range then the requirements for the platform become less strict and can therefore be made cheaper to make in numbers.
They may want a maritime patrol aircraft version to replace the Tu-142 in time, though I have heard that the Beriev A-42 Mermaid had been accepted for production with the Sea Dragon ASW suite to eventually replace the Tu-142.

wilhelm
08-21-2009, 08:27 AM
What is the replacement for the Tu-22M? I know it's more a tactical rather than strategic platform, so is the Su-34 the replacement for this? It is a smaller platform, and I've always thought the T-22M is a vastly under rated platform, particularly if they re-install the nose mounted IFR probe. I've always thought, probably much like the Western delegates at the various arms talks, that the IFR probe would turn it into a platform quite capable of performing strategic missions....even though refuelling tanker numbers might be problematic. But perhaps a dedicated jamming/buddy refuelling Tu-22m accompaniment could transcend this problem.

I do know that some "new" Tu-160's were completed recently, but I think these were from previously unfinished examples from the factory. So is there a definite "new build" programme in the works? How would an increase in numbers, to say 30, be deployed? Additional units, or just deployment away from a dedicated single unit?

Robert.V
08-21-2009, 08:36 AM
LOL.. you guys are so delusional.. not worth the time ;)


Come on man ...Indulge us.

jaybe
08-21-2009, 08:39 AM
LOL.. you guys are so delusional.. not worth the time ;)
real man speaking rofl

GazB
08-21-2009, 08:45 AM
The infamous Carlos Kopp, an Australian known for his love of the F-111 and the F-22 and little else has compared a Tu-22M3 carrying 8 heavy large weapons on its four external hard points (each hard point can carry up to 6 tons so 8 weapons of up to 3 tons each) can operate at a radius of up to 2,000km from its base without inflight refuelling and loiter margins. This makes it comparable to two F-111s with tanker support each with 4 weapons externally.
Now that START II is expiring there is nothing to stop the refitting of the inflight refuelling gear its predecessers had. The new more powerful engines and the weight reduction introduced on the Tu-22M3 upgrade have made a significant difference in performance.

AFAIK the Tu-22M3 is getting the same unified upgrade that the Tu-95 and Tu-160 are getting. Same new radar with smaller antenna of course and same new avionics and self defence suite and same range of precision guided air to ground munitions in addition to the ability to deploy dumb bombs to a 20m CEP in all weathers day or night.

The Su-34 will replace the Tu-22M3 in some short range strike roles but I think it would make rather more sense to replace the EW version of the Su-24MR with a new version of the Tu-22M3 as the larger aircraft will have more available power and the advantage of having 4 crew on board can't be overlooked either.

For the strategic bomber as CAS aircraft I think having three crew looking at CRT displays and controlling internal and pod mounted target marking lasers and optics from say SAPSAN or even Damocles targeting pods fitted to the belly the Tu-22M3 with a full load of laser guided 250kg bombs would be one hell of an aircraft over a place like Afghanistan, especially with inflight refuelling. 24,000kgs of 250kg bombs means 24 x 4 = 96 bombs available for use. Even just using bombs in the internal bomb bay it could carry up to 6 tons or 24 x 250kg bombs in an externally clean configuration.

As far as I know however the S-60 was supposed to replace the Tu-22M3, but as that project seems to have stalled I would expect perhaps the PAK-DA might get a theatre role as well and replace the Tu-95 and Tu-22M3. The latter two would have been upgraded by then so China or Iran might be interested in buying them when the PAK-DA replaces them. Either would be a significant improvement on the Tu-16.

The Dane
08-21-2009, 08:54 AM
Survivability and mission flexibility(especially since Sniper was introduced) is were B-1B have and great advantage over TU-160 today.

There's lots of information on both TU-160 and B-1 on the net.. Look it up.

USAF is constantly upgrading their fighters and bombers.. they spend maybe 10 times the amount of money on their bombers compared to the Russian air force..

So it's not rocket science figuring out that US is also ahead in this game..

2495
08-21-2009, 09:02 AM
The TU-22M3 is the one aviation project I am desperate to see go into full production with full upgraded internals.

I have seen this beast at Mach 1 low level over the sea, and its beyond awesome - and being deadly serious, this airframe intergrated with the Sniper pod would be an ideal airframe for any western nation - fast as any fighter at low level, range like a Buccaneer, load like a B-52, its beyond words.

# As a naval cruise missile anti ship weapon... say good bye to most of your fleet.

hogdriver
08-21-2009, 09:05 AM
USAF is constantly upgrading their fighters and bombers.. they spend maybe 10 times the amount of money on their bombers compared to the Russian air force..

So it's not rocket science figuring out that US is also ahead in this game..

I do believe that....:roll:

http://i26.*******.com/5ebupldotjpg

The Dane
08-21-2009, 09:08 AM
^that's crazy :o

Alfacentori
08-21-2009, 09:10 AM
^that's crazy :o

Crazy but correct, although it should be pointed out that China's budget is an estimation, as offical figures and 'real' spenditure are not the same thing.

Also I think we will see some contraction in the US budget eventually, as it went up a lot after 911 and most of that was for the cost of the wars in Iraq ad A'stan, not new equipment etc

Alfa

2495
08-21-2009, 09:13 AM
^that's crazy :o

If you think thats crazy, you wait till you see the total amount of 'classified expediture' the uSAF has ear marked for 2010.

Its over 40% of their entire budget.

void
08-21-2009, 09:21 AM
Survivability and mission flexibility(especially since Sniper was introduced) is were B-1B have and great advantage over TU-160 today.

There's lots of information on both TU-160 and B-1 on the net.. Look it up.

USAF is constantly upgrading their fighters and bombers.. they spend maybe 10 times the amount of money on their bombers compared to the Russian air force..

So it's not rocket science figuring out that US is also ahead in this game..

What exactly are you arguing about? The Tu-160 is a dedicated strategic bomber, its sole weapons are the Kh-55 and the Kh-15, it was never designed to drop bombs on conventional targets. It was designed to penetrate defenses at Mach2 and fire 3000km nuclear tipped missiles at strategic targets. In this role, it is far superior to the B-1B, which is much slower, has a smaller payload, and a shorter range.

Why is it that in EVERY thread about Russia intending to improve its military in some way, there are idiots who come in and say "narnarnar, the US spends 10x more on defense than Russia, narnarnar, F-22/B2/F-35/Seawolf/CVNs!! America **** YEAH!"
Youd think people would grow out of that phase pretty quickly...

Gammelpreusse
08-21-2009, 09:22 AM
If this inspires the government of the United States to purchase and develop more bombers and fighters then I am all for it.

What kind of logic is that? :-|

That aside, I doubt much will happen in this regard. The Russians currently psort an ecenomy worth not much more then Portugal. There simply are other areas to invest first before even remotely thinking about becoming a superpower again. A typical example where emotional cold war superpower wishful thinking tops rational rebuilding of the country first.

The same is true for the US right now, btw.

The Dane
08-21-2009, 09:27 AM
What exactly are you arguing about? The Tu-160 is a dedicated strategic bomber, its sole weapons are the Kh-55 and the Kh-15, it was never designed to drop bombs on conventional targets. It was designed to penetrate defenses at Mach2 and fire 3000km nuclear tipped missiles at strategic targets. In this role, it is far superior to the B-1B, which is much slower, has a smaller payload, and a shorter range.

Why is it that in EVERY thread about Russia intending to improve its military in some way, there are idiots who come in and say "narnarnar, the US spends 10x more on defense than Russia, narnarnar, F-22/B2/F-35/Seawolf/CVNs!! America **** YEAH!"
Youd think people would grow out of that phase pretty quickly...

Because many of the "Russia plans.. " post are just hot air.. and Russian Strong crew are just funny!! :D idiot

2495
08-21-2009, 09:33 AM
Because many of the "Russia plans.. " post are just hot air.. and Russian Strong crew are just funny!! :D idiot


I LOL'd.

However, the TU-22M3 upgrade is freaking awesome - would love to see them in a NATO scheme with Sniper pod intergration.

void
08-21-2009, 09:33 AM
Because many of the "Russia plans.. " post are just hot air.. and Russian Strong crew are just funny!! :D idiot

Ummm, in this case the "Russia plans..." article was written by Wired, a Western publication. So youre having a nice circlejerk over some clueless article from a technology magazine which is both criticising Russia for wanting to improve its military (oh noes, bomber patrols in international airspace, run for the hills), and at the same time criticising Russia for not improving its military enough (cant drop unguided bombs with the same accuracy as JDAMS).

Oh and your point about
Russian Strong crew are just funny!! you do realise that amounts of trolling right? Youre just trolling to get a reaction from the "Russia Strong" crew, thats something 13 year old teenagers do.

KoTeMoRe
08-21-2009, 09:42 AM
Danskeren: Let me put your posts into this thread's perspective.


T-time: OP posts article stating the Russians are weak and their airforce is crap, so no worries from the east.

T'-time: you post one of your apples/oranges gems to support that assertion.

T"-time: you insist that russian projects and plans are hot air.

T'"-time: Another poster airs an eventual schematic representation of the Military Expenditure worldwide. The US has 48% of the total figure. Although imperfect in it's nature, the evidence shows clearly the US feels threatened by something in order to spend half the world's total...

Draw your own conclusions on how much the US feels secure.

So it's the worlds biggest military-oriented spender that accuses others of being a threat...go the effing figure.

Note: This was in no case an attempt to insult or tease our US audience. It was just meant to point out the childishness of some grown men.

Winger
08-21-2009, 09:48 AM
Soviet war planning envisaged the usage of tactical nuclear weapons from Day One, Hour One.

As for the rest of this thread, it amazes me that certain persons see the Russians as direct competitors to the United States. Russia has half the population, one seventh the economic weight and few global pretensions. If I may use a sports analogy, a lot of you are spending your time talking up the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world's chances against a light heavyweight...

Considering the resources they have available to them (notwithstanding PPP considerations, roughly one tenth the military budget of the US), the Russians have performed miracles in maintaining the scope and range of capability they possess. Instead of respecting them for it, most of what I see amounts to barely disguised contempt and denigration. It's really quite pathetic. I won't point out the obvious exceptions to this generalized appraisal.

L.

Russian is definitely not a main competitor as I see it and I'm all for more cooperation with Russia. We're talking about a remote possibility here, not a likelihood.

Alfacentori
08-21-2009, 09:49 AM
Trying to get back on topic for a moment

What exactly is this new bomber likely to be like and what will be its main mission profile?

Now I know no one can know this for certain, but I'm after an educated guess

-Is it going to be a subsonic replacement for the Tu95?
-A big fast bomber like a Tu22M3 or Tu160?
-Is it likely to be solely a strategic bomber or will it be multirole like the evolved B1B(R) and B-52's, and be able to support ground operations with precision guided weapons and loiter time, or will this be fully tasked to Su34 Finbacks?
-Or is it likely to be a compromise, a smaller aircraft than a Tu22M3, with less payload but cheaper and as capable range thanks to better engine technology?

And lets leave the 'plasma stealth' speculation for a moment

Alfa

Frutzel
08-21-2009, 09:50 AM
Because many of the "Russia plans.. " post are just hot air.. and Russian Strong crew are just funny!! :D idiot

Well Fairbrass is getting insultig again. There is so much info on the net, than give us a good look on your info. Oh sry I forgot that the only intention of you is to flame :roll:

OT

Like already pointed out, their appointment is different so your argument is BS

void
08-21-2009, 09:53 AM
Trying to get back on topic for a moment

What exactly is this new bomber likely to be like and what will be its main mission profile?

Now I know no one can know this for certain, but I'm after an educated guess

-Is it going to be a subsonic replacement for the Tu95?
-A big fast bomber like a Tu22M3 or Tu160?
-Is it likely to be solely a strategic bomber or will it be multirole like the evolved B1B(R) and B-52's, and be able to support ground operations with precision guided weapons and loiter time, or will this be fully tasked to Su34 Finbacks?
-Or is it likely to be a compromise, a smaller aircraft than a Tu22M3, with less payload but cheaper and as capable range thanks to better engine technology?

And lets leave the 'plasma stealth' speculation for a moment

Alfa

Its not going to be smaller than a Tu-22M3, that would make no sense since it would no longer be a "strategic bomber", and it would also be too similar to the Su-34 which should be fine for a while yet.

I personally expect something a little larger than a Tu-22M3, but smaller than a Tu-160. I expect it will be fairly fast, with supersonic capability, since I doubt it will go the full-blown stealth route of a B-2 so speed would be important for survivability.

Winger
08-21-2009, 09:54 AM
Trying to get back on topic for a moment

What exactly is this new bomber likely to be like and what will be its main mission profile?

Now I know no one can know this for certain, but I'm after an educated guess

-Is it going to be a subsonic replacement for the Tu95?
-A big fast bomber like a Tu22M3 or Tu160?
-Is it likely to be solely a strategic bomber or will it be multirole like the evolved B1B(R) and B-52's, and be able to support ground operations with precision guided weapons and loiter time, or will this be fully tasked to Su34 Finbacks?
-Or is it likely to be a compromise, a smaller aircraft than a Tu22M3, with less payload but cheaper and as capable range thanks to better engine technology?

And lets leave the 'plasma stealth' speculation for a moment

Alfa

I think the most useful bomber for a new Russian bomber would be 4.5 in tech with Lancer/Blackjack type range designed for mostly subsonic operation.

They should place on emphasis on packing it with EW, descent payload & improved/easier maintainability like your Tu22M3 idea.

Lokos
08-21-2009, 09:56 AM
Russians think that way.. so why shouldn't Americans??

Does the Russians thinking that way (according to whom, exactly?) make it true? If not, what - exactly - is your point?

L.

GTX-Typhoon
08-21-2009, 10:37 AM
I don't think Russia has to worry about defending itself from NATO anymore.

NATO is an alliance to defeat Russia. It was when it was created, it is now. Nothing realy changed about NATO's nature.


I see western and Russian co-operation getting greater and greater over the next few decades.

Cant happen unless NATO is disbanded and Russia is an Empire again.


A Russian-Sino war is more probable then a NATO-Russian war. :P..

A war with the Chinese in current Russian condition? Russia would barely survive such a war and it would be exposed from NATO agression...


the Georgian crisis showed NATO does have its limits as far as fully dictating Russia's policies goes.

That was because Georgia isnt a part of NATO... If it was then nuclear bombs would already have been dropped.

Aside that, Russia needs loads, loads more Il-78's and A50's to support the bombers.

I mean the number of refueling planes in Russia is rediculously low. Russia only has 18 to 19 refueling planes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is just insane! It needs 240/250 tankers to operate beyond borders and 100+ A50's to handle electronic traffic and all that kinds of stuff...

Russian Empire!! Where are you!? We need you!

somrandom
08-21-2009, 10:44 AM
Russian bombers are far far behind American ones in terms of modern electronics(targeting, navigation, EW etc etc) and stealth .. and they are going to be that for a looong time.. if the Russians ever will catch up. That's a fact.

TU-160 is a beauty but is far behind B-1B today.. they only look similar but TU-160 needs some serious upgrades if it should competed with B-1B again..

TU-95.. don't know why Russia still keeps those around.. It's so noisy that submarine detectionsystems picks it up!! :o

Quite the joke of a post of the latter half of the thread.

Russian bombers, the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS, that is, can deliver precision attacks with cruise missiles. That's "advanced avionics" enough to make them better in a high intensity conflict in my eyes than the B-1B and B-52 considering they can deliver much higher range missiles (The Kh-555 and Kh-101/102).

If you wanted to use precision bombs, easier to send on smaller planes - in any realistic situation.

------------

If the Tu-22M3 got its refueling pods reattached, you'd have over 100 more strategic range bombers. . .

2495
08-21-2009, 10:44 AM
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/733/russiandotjpg

PAK-SA hypothetical design. I like it - VG is kept but with a wide lifting body in a smaller airframe. Nice.

somrandom
08-21-2009, 10:52 AM
They may want a maritime patrol aircraft version to replace the Tu-142 in time, though I have heard that the Beriev A-42 Mermaid had been accepted for production with the Sea Dragon ASW suite to eventually replace the Tu-142.

I don't know how anything could ever replace the Tu-142.

Massive range, great possibility of sensor suite.

Flies as fast as any turbofan equipped MARPAT aircraft.

Unless it's supersonic OR stealthy OR both, it can't really replace the Tu-142.

Satorius
08-21-2009, 11:01 AM
NATO is an alliance to defeat Russia. It was when it was created, it is now. Nothing realy changed about NATO's nature.


It was created to counter the threat from the USSR and Eastern European communist regimes established by the Soviets. There was no Russia during 1918-1991. Today NATO mainly ensures the absence of conflicts between member states that used to be antagonist in past. It is its main purpose.



Cant happen unless NATO is disbanded and Russia is an Empire again.Oh, when the Russian Federation is disintegrated.



I mean the number of refueling planes in Russia is rediculously low. Russia only has 18 to 19 refueling planes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is just insane! It needs 240/250 tankers to operate beyond borders and 100+ A50's to handle electronic traffic and all that kinds of stuff...

Russian Empire!! Where are you!? We need you!Yeah, start a new arms race.

KoTeMoRe
08-21-2009, 11:22 AM
It was created to counter the threat from the USSR and Eastern European communist regimes established by the Soviets. There was no Russia during 1918-1991. Today NATO mainly ensures the absence of conflicts between member states that used to be antagonist in past. It is its main purpose.


Oh, when the Russian Federation is disintegrated.

Yeah, start a new arms race.

You sometimes are dense aren't you?

The Arms race is on...and the Russians and Chinese are getting the blame for something the USA is doeing overtly.

While not peculiarly positive, what these two nations are doeing is mainly catching up (one after a decade of destruction and the other after being humiliated from time to time by foreign powers).

So Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? This is Hypocrisy in its purest form.

GTX-Typhoon
08-21-2009, 11:42 AM
It was created to counter the threat from the USSR and Eastern European communist regimes established by the Soviets.

Those regimes were for protection against any further invasions by Europeans and were hardly a threat.


There was no Russia during 1918-1991.

Oh yes there was. And it was leading the Soviet Union that was the succesor of the Russian Empire.


Today NATO mainly ensures the absence of conflicts between member states that used to be antagonist in past.

I thought that was due to the Europen Union but i guess some want to defend NATO at all costs...


Its main purpose is to destroy Russia.

Fixed.


Oh, when the Russian Federation is disintegrated.

Dont know what you mean but Russian Empire should be reinterstated due to Russian Federation being too weak to handle future confrontations with NATO/China.


Yeah, start a new arms race.

If that secures Russia as an Empire and its safety, then go for it! It might even bring in some new handy tech that can be used for every day life.

Satorius
08-21-2009, 12:11 PM
Those regimes were for protection against any further invasions by Europeans and were hardly a threat.


With the USSR they posed a threat.



Oh yes there was. And it was leading the Soviet Union that was the succesor of the Russian Empire.Nonsense. Bolsheviks refused to recognise any previous government obligations and did not pay the debts of the Russian Empire. The Soviets tried to eradicate everything connected with the old regime by any means. Thus the USSR is not a legal successor of the Russian Empire.





I thought that was due to the Europen Union but i guess some want to defend NATO at all costs...European union does not regulate military and security affairs.



Its main purpose is to destroy Russia. Fixed.Come on. The USSR coped with the task of destroying itself without war with the NATO. Russia has everything it needs to cope with desoying itself as well.



Dont know what you mean but Russian Empire should be reinterstated due to Russian Federation being too weak to handle future confrontations with NATO/China.
And may I ask how you are going to build an empire? Via militrisation, war and occupation of sovereign states?

Mastermind
08-21-2009, 02:28 PM
Okay...I think the General at the end of the Article is right on.

Truth is, the day of the globally effective manned strategic bomber is over with.

Our latest billion dollar a copy examples are already obsolete. To make the next gen of that kind of bomber would be so expensive, even the US could not afford it.

Think about this. 1) Stealth has been broken for all but regional wars against primitive equipped nations. Russia, France, and Asian engineers have alredy begun marketing anti-stealth equipment.
2) We have already demonstrated the ability to take out orbiting warheads with ship born anti- anything-in-the-air. Does it make sense that a bomber can get through when even small, hyper-soinic warheads can be intercepted?

Unmanned aircraft are now the only way to go for strategic missions...they can fly at very low altitudes, fly very fast, fly with man-squashing maneuverability, do everything any interceptor can do and they are cheap enough to build them in swarms so they can completely overwhelm any AA system....and, they can be programmed and "desk-flown" by a high school dropout 'gamer' instead of a pilot with 30 million bucks of training.

And...perhaps most importantly, hit the intended target with pure precision!

If Russia were to build a fleet of new manned strategic bomber, they would very quickly realize they were making a huge and very costly mistake.

RomanS
08-21-2009, 02:37 PM
LOL.. you guys are so delusional.. not worth the time ;)

BRavo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GTX-Typhoon
08-21-2009, 05:00 PM
With the USSR they posed a threat.

To what? To Russophobic NATO enthusiasts? Then awnser is yes but for a normal country in Europe that is neutral, Soviet Union and co. werent a threat at all.


Nonsense. Bolsheviks refused to recognise any previous government obligations and did not pay the debts of the Russian Empire. The Soviets tried to eradicate everything connected with the old regime by any means. Thus the USSR is not a legal successor of the Russian Empire.Ok i concede that the Soviets were not Russians and that NATO was against the Soviet Union but the legal successor of the SU is and will always remain Russia wich is the "new" target off NATO.


European union does not regulate military and security affairs.It did help EU countries to understand each others problems via politics and economic aid. Those were the most important things for the peace in western EU.


Come on. The USSR coped with the task of destroying itself without war with the NATO. Russia has everything it needs to cope with desoying itself as well.See that is why the Russian Empire is needed to prevent another SU styled disaster.


And may I ask how you are going to build an empire? Via militrisation, war and occupation of sovereign states?Awnser is simple: Yes. Of all the former SU states, only Ukraine has the most right of existance and even that "country" needs to be absorbed by Russia.

RUSSIAN EMPIRE! URAH!

Sashko
08-21-2009, 05:03 PM
To what? To Russophobic NATO enthusiasts? Then awnser is yes but for a normal country in Europe that is neutral, Soviet Union and co. werent a threat at all.

Ok i concede that the Soviets were not Russians and that NATO was against the Soviet Union but the legal successor of the SU is and will always remain Russia wich is the "new" target off NATO.

It did help EU countries to understand each others problems via politics and economic aid. Those were the most important things for the peace in western EU.

See that is why the Russian Empire is needed to prevent another SU styled disaster.

Awnser is simple: Yes. Of all the former SU states, only Ukraine has the most right of existance and even that "country" needs to be absorbed by Russia.

RUSSIAN EMPIRE! URAH!

Stop making us look like tools. You're not even Russian, so shoo..go away.

Flamming_Python
08-21-2009, 05:09 PM
Stop making us look like tools. You're not even Russian, so shoo..go away.

Hey man he's entitled to his opinion, I don't agree with it but it's good that he loves Russia p-)

GTX-Typhoon
08-21-2009, 05:11 PM
Stop making us look like tools. You're not even Russian, so shoo..go away.

Have i said I was Russian? NO! And i wont go away since i havent done anything wrong since i got out of the infractions.

Ontopic: What about the TU-160 production? Does Tupolev build new airframes or are they just finishing of existing airframes?

Are there any plans to modernise the TU-142's of the Navy? Will PAK-DA replace the TU-142's when in full production?

How many new tankers are gonna be built to support the modernised/new bombers? And what about the AWACS support that those planes have?

Schmeiser
08-21-2009, 05:48 PM
Russia has a vast nuclear arsenal to protect its interests in a major war.

hehe...NATO have only watter guns right ?? :)p-)

Sashko
08-21-2009, 05:57 PM
hehe...NATO have only watter guns right ?? :)p-)


What's you point?

x_ray
08-21-2009, 06:17 PM
What's you point?

he means that NATO also has nuclear arsenal to defend their interests. Anyway I like it when the guys in the thread start reviving SU memories :) but we should not rely on past rather learn from it.

Of course unmanned aircrafts are the way to go, but isn't there any plans for Russia to start building such unmanned bombers? ok this will be a costly project and some say there is lack of funds, but IMHO this is a need now more than ever and actually they should have started to do this earlier
so guys, Russia Strong fellows specifically, do you have info about such project?

freethinker
08-21-2009, 06:27 PM
While i enjoy the discussion i dont see Russia as a threat to Europe or NATO. Nobody has anything to gain from a war a Russia seems fairly west integrated to me these days.
I dont doubt Russia could rampage trough Europe and cause massive damage even with obsolete forces. They may not be up to USA standards in terms of millitary but they still have a pretty huge millitary and the knowledge on how to use it.
Even if their fighters are a bit older there isnt much we can do when they have thousands of them.
That being said, us EU countries living right next door to Russia aren't arming up for another cold-war so why should the USA?

If anything we should work more with Russia on International missions etc.

Sashko
08-21-2009, 06:29 PM
he means that NATO also has nuclear arsenal to defend their interests.




Well... Duh!

I just don't get people who use nukes for **** measurements (especially with smilies attached), since if those assets were ever used we won't have no ****s to measure.

The Dane
08-21-2009, 06:35 PM
Even if their fighters are a bit older there isnt much we can do when they have thousands of them.

On paper, not that many are operational .. why do you think that Russia send a stategic bomber on a recon mission in Georgia.. and lost it ?
Russian air force isn't a seriuos conventional threat to Nato today.
Lack of funds.

A smart move would be to reduce the size of the air force and focus on cutting edge design/enginering(the brains are there, funds not so much) is what i would do if i were Putin!

zg18
08-21-2009, 06:53 PM
On paper, not that many are operational .. why do you think that Russia send a stategic bomber on a recon mission in Georgia.. and lost it ?
Russian air force isn't a seriuos conventional threat to Nato today.
Lack of funds.

A smart move would be to reduce the size of the air force and focus on cutting edge design/enginering(the brains are there, funds not so much) is what i would do if i were Putin!

Russian air force is still enough strong and joined with AA defense network (by far still the best in the world) still poses serious power , don't get offended ,but you're blinded with size of your country , Russia needs both quality AND quantity enough balanced because of vast territory, 'quality only Russia strong!!!111' is not good solution.

KoTeMoRe
08-21-2009, 06:58 PM
On paper, not that many are operational .. why do you think that Russia send a stategic bomber on a recon mission in Georgia.. and lost it ?
Russian air force isn't a seriuos conventional threat to Nato today.
Lack of funds.

A smart move would be to reduce the size of the air force and focus on cutting edge design/enginering(the brains are there, funds not so much) is what i would do if i were Putin!

So they would have to plan for an incertain result happening in incertain times, while being butt *****. And off course that cutting edge technology would be a nightmare to maintain...there goes that funding logic...

Thank God you're not Putin.

GazB
08-22-2009, 12:09 AM
double post

GazB
08-22-2009, 12:30 AM
Survivability and mission flexibility(especially since Sniper was introduced) is were B-1B have and great advantage over TU-160 today.

Most of its upgrades are for conventional warfare and in a nuclear attack role it will be armed with BOMBs and not cruise missiles. Certain bombs it can carry have a stand off range that is quite significant, but SAM sites are not located right on top of targets and the distance from the target plus the low level range of the SAMs make the job of the B-1B... well there was a reason for the B-2 wasn't there?

The real difference is SAMs. How many SAM sites are there in the US right now compared to how many in Russia. The answer will probably surprise you.


So it's not rocket science figuring out that US is also ahead in this game..

The problem with running a global empire is that managing it is expensive. All those satellites and indeed all those carrier groups are expensive to operate let alone build.


That aside, I doubt much will happen in this regard. The Russians currently psort an ecenomy worth not much more then Portugal. There simply are other areas to invest first before even remotely thinking about becoming a superpower again. A typical example where emotional cold war superpower wishful thinking tops rational rebuilding of the country first.

Along with energy the only thing the Russians export is weapons, so investment in weapons programs makes a lot of sense. Recently the Russians have started a rearmament program where their weapons makers have temporarily halted making arms for export and are making more weapons for Russia. Making weapons is earning money and is something they are clearly good at.


Because many of the "Russia plans.. " post are just hot air..

Based only on your opinion. They have plans for 6 aircraft carriers... that is no big deal as they are medium sized carriers and even they don't expect all 6 to be operational till 2050. Can you explain why you think Tupolev couldn't put together a prototype new bomber in 6 years time? Do you think they started work on a next generation bomber today?


However, the TU-22M3 upgrade is freaking awesome - would love to see them in a NATO scheme with Sniper pod intergration.

Unlikely. A Damocles pod to support onboard electro optics might be possible. For the NATO scheme... you mean grey? Just take a black and white photo... be a shame to miss out on those blue flames coming out the back in AB.


T'"-time: Another poster airs an eventual schematic representation of the Military Expenditure worldwide. The US has 48% of the total figure. Although imperfect in it's nature, the evidence shows clearly the US feels threatened by something in order to spend half the world's total...

Or do they claim there are threats when there are none to justify the expenditure? An old game played during the Cold War was to blame the Soviets for things that the west happily did itself. That way if the wests actions were exposed they could say the Soviets did it first. Even making next generation Soviet weapons look like next generation western weapons to make it look like the West was just doing it to keep up. The number of pictures I saw in the 1980s of M1 Abrams with red stars on it revealing the T-80 for the first time...


Russian is definitely not a main competitor as I see it and I'm all for more cooperation with Russia.

What I don't understand is that the US and Russia have quite a lot in common and really the only countries that destroy either of them are each other. I would think that alone would be reason enough to stop the rivalry BS and sort their sht out.

Of course when Clinton hurt her foot and the US president was talking, he talked about dialog and partnerships and resolving issues. When Clinton got back she talked about the US wants this and the US believes that.
I reckon the first step should be get rid of Clinton.


What exactly is this new bomber likely to be like and what will be its main mission profile?

Now I know no one can know this for certain, but I'm after an educated guess

-Is it going to be a subsonic replacement for the Tu95?
-A big fast bomber like a Tu22M3 or Tu160?


Note this is an educated guess only based on various things I have read.

First of all the existing aircraft will be fine for the next 20 years so there is absolutely no rush.

Second it is likely to be a stealthy aircraft and it will replace the Bears first so I would expect a flying wing airliner design.

Lots of websites suggest the T-4 and T-4M type designs but Tupolev was looking at those before they came up with the Tu-160 so I very much doubt they will be accurate.


-Is it likely to be solely a strategic bomber or will it be multirole like the evolved B1B(R) and B-52's, and be able to support ground operations with precision guided weapons and loiter time, or will this be fully tasked to Su34 Finbacks?

The existing Bears and Blackjacks and Backfires will become conventional and strategic bombers. The new bomber will be too. It may have the design that when used in the conventional bomber role it loses in range but gains in payload, while for the strategic mission some payload is sacrificed for range. Strategic cruise missiles are not super heavy... the Tu-160 can carry 12 cruise missiles at about 2 tons each that means 24 tons so the un upgraded model could carry another 16 tons of fuel.

(BTW the Su-34 is the Fullback... it continues the Rugby theme with the Flanker.)


-Or is it likely to be a compromise, a smaller aircraft than a Tu22M3, with less payload but cheaper and as capable range thanks to better engine technology?

And lets leave the 'plasma stealth' speculation for a moment

I doubt it will be smaller than a Tu-22M3 because it needs strategic range with a significant weapon load. The next generation cruise missiles will either be stealthy or fast. Stealthy ones wont be a problem but fast missiles will need to be quite big.


Aside that, Russia needs loads, loads more Il-78's and A50's to support the bombers.

Russian bombers already have plenty of range. It is their tactical aircraft that could do with more support.


I mean the number of refueling planes in Russia is rediculously low. Russia only has 18 to 19 refueling planes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is just insane! It needs 240/250 tankers to operate beyond borders and 100+ A50's to handle electronic traffic and all that kinds of stuff...

But they don't need to operate beyond their borders. They have A50s to fill gaps in ground radar coverage. They have tankers to support their strategic bombers. Russia is not NATO and doesn't need to be.


PAK-SA hypothetical design.

Never heard of the PAK-SA. Do you mean PAK-DA?


Unless it's supersonic OR stealthy OR both, it can't really replace the Tu-142.

Don't really understand how a MPA needs speed or stealth. What it needs is enormous range and endurance and good ASW detection capability and of course the capacity to carry a lot of effective weapons to take out those subs once found.


Dont know what you mean but Russian Empire should be reinterstated due to Russian Federation being too weak to handle future confrontations with NATO/China.

Weak? Russia has had several confrontations with NATO recently, and with China there don't seem to be many problems they can't sort out.


2) We have already demonstrated the ability to take out orbiting warheads with ship born anti- anything-in-the-air. Does it make sense that a bomber can get through when even small, hyper-soinic warheads can be intercepted?

By the time the bombers arrive I doubt there will be many operational SAMs or airbases anywhere near the intended flight path of those bombers.


Unmanned aircraft are now the only way to go for strategic missions...they can fly at very low altitudes, fly very fast, fly with man-squashing maneuverability, do everything any interceptor can do and they are cheap enough to build them in swarms so they can completely overwhelm any AA system....and, they can be programmed and "desk-flown" by a high school dropout 'gamer' instead of a pilot with 30 million bucks of training.

Except when we look at real examples of UAVs we see that they actually aren't that cheap and how do you deliver these UAVs to your enemy?
The Soviets worked that out in the early 1980s... you build a cheap subsonic bomber like a Tu-95 that can carry up to 16 UAVs each equipped with a nuclear warhead and precision guidance able to fly low and fast day or night in the worst weather. Then they came up with the Tu-160 that could carry 12 of them. Currently they still use both aircraft but now they have new UAVs with a range of 5,000km which means they can be launched from further away.


If Russia were to build a fleet of new manned strategic bomber, they would very quickly realize they were making a huge and very costly mistake.

Considering most UAVs are not even self aware and if you spot one flying low and fast if you flew up behind it in a Mig-21 and fired a burst from your cannon you would have a good chance of bringing down that multi million dollar UAV then you suddenly find a problem. To make a UAV be able to penetrate defended airspace like a real bomber does that UAV needs performance close to that bomber. Getting that performance makes that UAV just as expensive as that bomber.

Even the US can't afford to fight a war completely with cruise missiles.
According to your claims that would be ideal. No pilots exposed to danger. No risk of lost of captured pilots. So why have they bothered with planes in the last two decades when they have had cruise missiles?


And...perhaps most importantly, hit the intended target with pure precision!

Mastermind... you disappoint me. You don't mean precision, you mean accuracy. I could say I was 20.1345234 metres tall. I am being exceptionally precise. I am also totally wrong because I am no where near 20m tall. Precision without accuracy is nothing when it comes to hitting targets.


Ontopic: What about the TU-160 production? Does Tupolev build new airframes or are they just finishing of existing airframes?

As far as I know they are now building new airframes. They plan to either build a new aircraft or upgrade an old aircraft every 18 months.


Are there any plans to modernise the TU-142's of the Navy? Will PAK-DA replace the TU-142's when in full production?

Again AFAIK the Russian Navy has ordered Beriev A-42 Mermaids and will fit them out with Sea Dragon or a replacement ASW avionics suite. Such an aircraft should replace both the Mail and the Bear.


How many new tankers are gonna be built to support the modernised/new bombers? And what about the AWACS support that those planes have?

Have heard of rumours of Il-96 based AWACS and tanker aircraft but I think they are just wishful thinking.
Strategic bombers really don't need much AWACS support and most have plenty of range for their missions anyway.


but IMHO this is a need now more than ever and actually they should have started to do this earlier

Why? There are no export or cooperation plans with this project. The only purpose is to replace strategic bombers... that are still rather young and not in need of replacing for at least 2 decades. They are actually starting this project very early.


On paper, not that many are operational .. why do you think that Russia send a stategic bomber on a recon mission in Georgia.. and lost it ?

Hahahahaha... thanks for sharing your expertise BTW.

The Tu-22M3 is a theatre bomber and has never been a strategic bomber... no matter how much the CIA might claim otherwise. Perhaps because its ground mapping radar would give a good indication of what was there in Georgia, while Russian fighters with their air to air only radars would only be able to spot air activity?


A smart move would be to reduce the size of the air force and focus on cutting edge design/enginering(the brains are there, funds not so much) is what i would do if i were Putin!

WTF has it got to do with Putin?
They have already been reducing force sizes and are planning a few more but for the moment they have started producing new material for service within the armed forces.


Russian air force isn't a seriuos conventional threat to Nato today.
Lack of funds.

Hahahahaha... Serbia was a serious threat to NATO. What Albright claimed would be over in a week took more than 2 months. And at the end of it all those millions of Serbian soldiers and thousands of tanks killed got up from Kosovo and went back to Serbia... :roll:

Mastermind
08-22-2009, 01:19 AM
Woa. Looks like you need a course in modern robotics. 1960 technology is totally nothing like what is on the shelf now.

Cost overruns on some of the more exotic American models are not/should not be considered representative of what can be built by intelligent, well equipped uav avionics companies today. UAV's are being built in peoples back yards and garages now days that would utterly astound a government sponsored UAV developers only four years ago.

A UAV does not have to be "self aware"..we are not talking about fictional "Skynet" here. We are talking about machines sophisticated just enough to accomplish very narrow mission parameters. A WWII torpedo is a very successful self guided, mission dedicated UAV that will absolutely not stop until it has either missed due to poor initial guidance programming or hits the target and destroys it. Some would actually detect the target via sound emissions, lock on to that target and chase it down and destroy it...that was development of 63 year old technology! As distant from us today in technological terms (not time) as WWII was from The American Revolutionary War!

First, you have to understand that to make a successful UAV, about 98% of the needed technology is available right off the shelf..already designed and eprfected. We know how to build flying machines, guidance systems, detection sensors, locations of the device can be pinpointed within two meters or less at all times for course correction and communications. Programming with even 1985 era computer power is more than enough to give such a weapon very advanced autonomous control given the modern advanced sensory equipment now available.

Today, we have computers available to high school students that makes a 1985 computer about as sophisticated as a hand held electronic stop watch by comparison. memory has expanded a thousand fold and speed of processing is basically infinitely more than in 1985. We do not program computers by hand anymore...we use computers to do the programming now a billion times faster and more accurately than humans ever could.

To build a machine that is capable of penetrating enemy airspace, fly as close to the ground as a bumble bee, and just about as maneuverable, shade itself from detection by the enemy using very advanced and high speed counter measures, with a design that is practically not detectable in the first place, flying at speeds that are faster than a rifle bullet, and hit any target within 60 feet of the surface of the ground or 20 miles above it...or to outer space for that matter...is just not that difficult. The technology is now, it is proven, it is tested, it is available and it is not all that expensive anymore (when we are comparing it to manned aircraft that cost as much as 1.5 billion bucks a copy).

The technology does not even have to be that sophisticated using heavily mass produced smaller, a bit more detectable, just as hard hitting, almost as evasive, but cheaper and built by other machines in masses similar to that of WWII cannon shells. Each weapon or squadrons or battallions of weapons could be given individual targets with the pressing of a few minutes of key stroking.

These weapons will not be used like the present "Predators" and "Ripsaws"...they will be built and used like expendable cruise missiles. They can be disguised and dropped into enemy territory to just sit and wait until activated, making their attacks from deep within enemy space. They can be as large as a 747 LASER canon mounted drone or as small as humming birds or some as small as ticks and fleas. They can fly, crawl, float or go submerged.

This is not scifi ..this is right now...all that has to be done is decide on the missions needed to be accomplished and to custom produce the weapons to meet those mission requirements. And that technology is readily available to anyone with the good sense to use it and the money to buy it.

GazB
08-22-2009, 02:15 AM
And how is this army of UAVs managed? Who coordinates it?

Who stops those signals being jammed or interfered with.

In Kosovo the Serbs shot down lots of UAVs because those UAVs just flew straight and level and there were reported cases of the Serbs using Hip helos to fly along side UAVs and fire PKMs out the door to shoot the UAVs down.
Without situational awareness they flew straight and level and were shot down easily.
To get situational awareness they would need the expensive RHAWs systems fitted to modern aircraft. Such things wouldn't work on the other side of the planet without a lot of Satellite bandwidth. Operational satellites are the one thing you cannot guarantee after WWIII has started so I would suggest that would be a bad option to replace the next generation of strategic bombers.

hogdriver
08-22-2009, 08:11 AM
In Kosovo the Serbs shot down lots of UAVs because those UAVs just flew straight and level and there were reported cases of the Serbs using Hip helos to fly along side UAVs and fire PKMs out the door to shoot the UAVs down.


The Kosovo-war is more than 10 years ago....:roll:
(Electronics developes fast.)

GazB
08-22-2009, 09:58 AM
The Kosovo-war is more than 10 years ago....:roll:
(Electronics developes fast.)

Electronics does not develop that fast. What computer chip or program exists that can tell a UAV that it is being attacked or that there is a helo flying next to it and 30 calibre bullets are going through it? A pilot has feel but a computer has input. You want to add extra weight to add situational awareness and you reduce performance and increase cost and you are still not going to see that shoulder fired IR guided missile till it hits you without multi million dollar ESM suites... and then the cheap UAV is not cheap anymore.

GTX-Typhoon
08-22-2009, 11:21 AM
Russian bombers already have plenty of range. It is their tactical aircraft that could do with more support.

Then use those new A50's and Il-78's for the tactical AC's! Russia realy desperately needs those strategic/tactical multipliers.


But they don't need to operate beyond their borders. They have A50s to fill gaps in ground radar coverage. They have tankers to support their strategic bombers. Russia is not NATO and doesn't need to be.

Just come on GazB, 18 Tankers is hardly enough for an airfoce the size of Russia's needs. I would be happy if they just had 50 to 75 tankers. Also A50's and Il-78's can realy change the outcome of an eventual war. Il-78's can refuel escort fighters/interceptors to safeguard the bombers for a stretch of time and A50's can organise electronic traffic and form a radar bubble to aid the escorts and bombers in their offensive. Fighters can target enemy AC at far longer ranges for better BVR kills and long range cruise missles can have more and better feedback to guide them better.


Weak? Russia has had several confrontations with NATO recently,

Elaborate pls.


and with China there don't seem to be many problems they can't sort out.

When resources are getting depleted and China is hungry for them, they will come and take it by force if neccesary and that means that resource nr.1 country in the world (Russia) is on the targetting dot of China.


As far as I know they are now building new airframes. They plan to either build a new aircraft or upgrade an old aircraft every 18 months.

So what MKZT says is wrong afterall and Tupolev DOES produce new airframes instead of using up the old airframes and be done with it? That is fine news IF correct.


Again AFAIK the Russian Navy has ordered Beriev A-42 Mermaids and will fit them out with Sea Dragon or a replacement ASW avionics suite. Such an aircraft should replace both the Mail and the Bear.

That is good news but the A-42 doesnt seem to have the range of the TU-142 which in my book is a bit dangerous but if it is intended to replace the A-12 then that is a good thing.


Have heard of rumours of Il-96 based AWACS and tanker aircraft but I think they are just wishful thinking.

An Il-96 tanker and AWACS? :|. I would have prefferd AWACS and tanker designs based on the Il-476.


Strategic bombers really don't need much AWACS support and most have plenty of range for their missions anyway.

That might be true but it will help fighter escorts and other tactical AC flying from afar to reach the battlefield with updated knowledge and fueled up to battle.

Still thanks for awnsering my questions GazB. You are truely a bottomless pit full of knowledge. p-)

Flamming_Python
08-22-2009, 11:33 AM
What advantage could Il-96 or for that matter Il-476 based tanker and AWACS aircraft offer over Il-76 based tankers and AWACS?

GTX-Typhoon
08-22-2009, 11:47 AM
What advantage could Il-96 or for that matter Il-476 based tanker and AWACS aircraft offer over Il-76 based tankers and AWACS?

Il-96 advantages would be speed and range but further not. It isnt a combat/Rugged transporter plane.

Il-476 is superiour due to being a transporter plane but so does the Il-76 but the 476 trumps due to all upgrades being integrated into an updated platform that has speed and range and being rugged for being used for combat missions. AWACS and tankers are performing combat missions by being near the planes that fight the war.

the_13th_redneck
08-22-2009, 01:24 PM
LOL.. you guys are so delusional.. not worth the time ;)

Spot on.
Never really did understand these folks who just start to have a fit of ****** when someone mentions a certain country that they have some unexplainable ****** for.

Shadowstorm
08-22-2009, 01:33 PM
The Il-96 is a civilian airliner unless you guys are getting confused with a military variant of the Il-86 which is the Il-80. The Il-80 is not a AWAC's or a tanker, it's airborne command post similar to the E-4B NEACP.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/1281567/L/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il-80

Mastermind
08-22-2009, 01:48 PM
Electronics does not develop that fast. What computer chip or program exists that can tell a UAV that it is being attacked or that there is a helo flying next to it and 30 calibre bullets are going through it? A pilot has feel but a computer has input. You want to add extra weight to add situational awareness and you reduce performance and increase cost and you are still not going to see that shoulder fired IR guided missile till it hits you without multi million dollar ESM suites... and then the cheap UAV is not cheap anymore.
You may be thinking these vehicles are to operate alone. They donot, they are not out there alone. They may occasionally be used that way for special missions. But, before they can be attacked, the enemy must come through a massive array of sensors, stand off detecion systems, satellite observations, etc. That being said, there is nothing to say these vehicles donot have on board defensive detection equipment to find the enemy and to remain alert for enemy attacks. They have the same on board systems that any manned vehicle may have, but they can read them without the slightest hesitation or confusion. Programming to tell when it is under attack or is about to be attacked is not that difficult.

nagant_m44
08-22-2009, 02:27 PM
Spot on.
Never really did understand these folks who just start to have a fit of ****** when someone mentions a certain country that they have some unexplainable ****** for.
spot on even though he's completely wrong? that makes alot of sense.

Sashko
08-22-2009, 02:52 PM
Spot on.
Never really did understand these folks who just start to have a fit of ****** when someone mentions a certain country that they have some unexplainable ****** for.




Funny, I could never understand these folks who just start to have a fit of ignorant stereotype-diarrhea when someone is trying to have a discussion about a country that these same folks have some unexplainable hatred for.

cbiwv
08-22-2009, 03:19 PM
Spot on.
Never really did understand these folks who just start to have a fit of ****** when someone mentions a certain country that they have some unexplainable ****** for.


Aren't they Russians?

GazB
08-23-2009, 12:08 AM
Then use those new A50's and Il-78's for the tactical AC's! Russia realy desperately needs those strategic/tactical multipliers.

No they don't. Unless they want to invade Africa. The radar network within Russia could do with more money spent on upgrading it... but then that would be true no matter how much was spent.
Please name a target that is out of reach of Russias tactical aircraft. If Su-25s can reach targets in Georgia then Su-24s and Su-34s can easily reach 5 times futher. Tu-22M3s can reach even further still.
What was frontal aviation doesn't need A50s it needs JSTARs. Something like the new aircraft they are working on that will operate at very high altitudes and loiter for hours providing a picture of the battlefield.


Just come on GazB, 18 Tankers is hardly enough for an airfoce the size of Russia's needs.

Russias Flankers have an operational radius of about 2,000km. The Su-34s can reach further. The Tu-22M3 even further. Why does it need to spend money on inflight refuelling aircraft? To support its missions to Afghanistan? It doesn't deploy any troops there. Lots of tankers are required for the US because the US has to support global deployments of troops and equipment etc etc. Russia needs tankers like Samoa needs strategic bombers.


I would be happy if they just had 50 to 75 tankers.

And the cost will be 50-75 less transport aircraft or 200 less fighters. Why?
Is it because the US has them? Most of NATO doesn't.


Also A50's and Il-78's can realy change the outcome of an eventual war. Il-78's can refuel escort fighters/interceptors to safeguard the bombers for a stretch of time and A50's can organise electronic traffic and form a radar bubble to aid the escorts and bombers in their offensive.

The first 3 hours of flight the bombers will be on their own over Russian territory anyway. Sending tankers with bombers it makes more sense to refuel the bombers in flight so they can fly faster all the way there and all the way back. The Fighters will have nothing to fight.
The A-50s will see nothing because there will be nothing there.
In the case of war the target is either major or small. If it is major then ICBMs will decide and fighters will have no effect. If it is minor those bombers can carry 5,000km range cruise missiles... no minor power can defend itself out to 5,000km radius of its major infrastructure.


Fighters can target enemy AC at far longer ranges for better BVR kills and long range cruise missles can have more and better feedback to guide them better.

Cruise missiles are given targets before launch and do not emit signals that would give away the attack. And what enemy aircraft?

If it is WWIII then there will not be enemy aircraft and if it isn't then the tankers dedicated to the strategic bombers can be used for a strike package to make an attack. 50-70 is too many for both scenarios.


Elaborate pls.

NATO cut ties with Russia over Georgia. Russia didn't bow down to NATO. It was NATO that came back to "restore ties". Not the other way around.


When resources are getting depleted and China is hungry for them, they will come and take it by force if neccesary and that means that resource nr.1 country in the world (Russia) is on the targetting dot of China.

China already buys material from countries around the world. Why would it suddenly stop and start invading countries?


That is good news but the A-42 doesnt seem to have the range of the TU-142 which in my book is a bit dangerous but if it is intended to replace the A-12 then that is a good thing.

Personally I think the role of Maritime Patrol aircraft for most of its peace time use is used for anti smuggling and anti piracy, and of course search and rescue. For that the range of the Tu-142 was probably a bit excessive. Its operating costs were also quite high for an MPA. The A-42 could be fitted with the same PS-90A engines as fitted to the upgraded Il-76s which will reduce the range of engines in service and increase production of that particular engine too.


An Il-96 tanker and AWACS? :-|. I would have prefferd AWACS and tanker designs based on the Il-476.

The Il-76 is an excellent aircraft but it is over powered for the role of tanker. A tanker and AWACS need long range and endurance and low cost operation. A wide bodied long range airliner make more sense than a high power medium transport aircraft. Boeing are even looking at a wide bodied airliner concept as a bomber to replace the B-52. Large capacity for fuel and or electronic, with long range at good speeds and long loiter times make a good arguement.


Still thanks for awnsering my questions GazB. You are truely a bottomless pit full of opinion. p-)

Corrected that for you... :)


Never really did understand these folks who just start to have a fit of ****** when someone mentions a certain country that they have some unexplainable ****** for.

You mean like westerners that collect Nazi daggers? Or supporters of teams that wear the uniforms of those teams even though they don't actually play the sport themselves?


The Il-96 is a civilian airliner unless you guys are getting confused with a military variant of the Il-86 which is the Il-80. The Il-80 is not a AWAC's or a tanker, it's airborne command post similar to the E-4B NEACP.

The AWACs is based on the 747 civilian airliner. The KC-135 is a Boeing 707. The KC-10 is a DC-10 derivitive. The new planes they want to replace the KC-135s with are based on the Boeing 767 and the Airbus A330.


Programming to tell when it is under attack or is about to be attacked is not that difficult.

And how do you tell these swarms of systems to determine whether there is an attack in progress or if that aircraft is a Cessna with tourists in it?

hogdriver
08-23-2009, 06:03 AM
Russia didn't bow down to NATO.


Oow..? and why doest't Russia invaded Georgia if Georgia "started" the war and if it is a pain in the a**?
Ans why did NATO has a military exercise with Georgia while Russia was furious about that?

void
08-23-2009, 06:15 AM
Oow..? and why doest't Russia invaded Georgia if Georgia "started" the war and if it is a pain in the a**?
Ans why did NATO has a military exercise with Georgia while Russia was furious about that?

Invading Georgia would serve what purpose? It would cost more than its worth for Russia. The most they would do is drop a bomb of Saakashvilis house, but that also isnt worth it since the opposition is just as bad as him unfortunately.

The reason why Russia dislikes NATO exercising with Georgia is becuse it may give Georgia enough "confidence" to try something stupid again, thinking that NATO is behind it in some way.

KoTeMoRe
08-23-2009, 06:24 AM
Oow..? and why doest't Russia invaded Georgia if Georgia "started" the war and if it is a pain in the a**?
Ans why did NATO has a military exercise with Georgia while Russia was furious about that?

You're young so I'll be forgiving.

1. Russia had no plans whatsoever concerning Georgia. Its leadership knows what operations in a largely unhospitable territory mean (ie Chechnya)!

2. The very indecisiveness of the Russian manoeuvres once in Georgia self, showed that. The Russians were most probably split between the armed forces in the ground that wanted to hang Saakashvili and the political leadership that wanted just to humiliate him as much as possible and maybe force a change in Georgia. Fortunately the armed option was turned down.

3. What good would Russia gain from occupying Gerogia? It has no similar intention as some other military entity that is around places to enforce "nation builduing". Russians focus themselves on good old plain jane destruction. And given how little damage they did in Georgia self, it looked like they actually used precision munitions...or that the georgian forces are inept cowards.