Russian bombers

Messages
13,101
Location
North Carolina
I know there have always been cat and mouse games. Perhaps we got rid of the f-14 and Pheonix ( aim 54) missle systems too early? [ [url=http://http://news.yahoo.com/russian-nuclear-bombers-keep-roaming-closer-u-airspace-145055700.html][/url]
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,194
Location
Maricopa Arizona
This is no cause for concern. This is nothing more than Comrade Putin making preparations to rid the world of the fascist industrial military complex controlled by the zionites and make America a true nation not this conglomerate of polyglot.
 
Messages
3,730
Location
SE PA
Originally Posted By: dave1251
This is no cause for concern. This is nothing more than Comrade Putin making preparations to rid the world of the fascist industrial military complex controlled by the zionites and make America a true nation not this conglomerate of polyglot.
crackmeup Really though. Nothing new.
 
Messages
11,844
Location
PA
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Perhaps we got rid of the f-14 and Pheonix ( aim 54) missle systems too early?
Aren't we defending ourselves with F-22s and AAMRAMs now? I thought I remembered hearing that the latest generation of the AAMRAM has a range comparable to that of the Phoenix...
 
Messages
13,194
Location
Maricopa Arizona
I agree the current air to air inventory makes the Phoenix which was developed for an interceptor version of the SR-71 outdated as an Ford Pinto.
 

spasm3

Thread starter
Messages
13,101
Location
North Carolina
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Same thing as the military massing and maneuvers at the ukrainian border. Intimidation is the typical bully tactic. BTW, aren't those bombers very obsolete?
Don't about obsolete, the tu95s are old, but so are our b-52 fleets.
 
Messages
13,194
Location
Maricopa Arizona
The performance of the Bear is gnarly even compared to the B52. That being said it can deliver its payload to just about anywhere the Russian Air Force cares to deliver it thus it is effective.
 
Messages
6,156
Location
Buffalo, NY
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Same thing as the military massing and maneuvers at the ukrainian border. Intimidation is the typical bully tactic. BTW, aren't those bombers very obsolete?
Don't about obsolete, the tu95s are old, but so are our b-52 fleets.
But at least Stratofortresses have jet engines smile
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Messages
13,113
Location
Virginia Beach
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I agree the current air to air inventory makes the Phoenix which was developed for an interceptor version of the SR-71 outdated as an Ford Pinto.
Yeah, after 4 versions and 20 years in service, the AMRAAM AIM-120D finally has the range of the 50 year old AIM-54. It's new 60# blast frag warhead is now almost half the size of the Phoenix 135 # blast frag... The Phoenix was optimized for a heavy ECM environment and large targets and it was derived from the earlier Hughes missiles, with substantial redesign over the version carried by the YF-12. Not the same weapon at all. AIM-54C still has the most powerful radar on an AA missile, with great ECM and discrimination capability. AMRAAM was designed as a Sparrow replacement, designed for speed and maneuverability. Good weapon, but not a Phoenix replacement, it was never intended to be one. Phoenix outdated? No. Retired? Yes. So is the 1968 Ferrari 365 GTB/4...(Tomcat/AIM-54 was from 1969) but "retired" doesn't mean that car is slow...
 
Last edited:

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Messages
13,113
Location
Virginia Beach
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Same thing as the military massing and maneuvers at the ukrainian border. Intimidation is the typical bully tactic. BTW, aren't those bombers very obsolete?
Don't about obsolete, the tu95s are old, but so are our b-52 fleets.
But at least Stratofortresses have jet engines smile
Jet engines? So what? So it can burn more gas? The Bear has the same speed as the B-52 with longer range due to those efficient counter-rotating turboprops....
 
Messages
11,844
Location
PA
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Yeah, after 4 versions and 20 years in service, the AMRAAM AIM-120D finally has the range of the 50 year old AIM-54. Its new 60# blast frag warhead is now almost half the size of the Phoenix 135 # blast frag... The Phoenix was optimized for a heavy ECM environment and large targets and it was derived from the earlier Hughes missiles, with substantial redesign over the version carried by the YF-12. Not the same weapon at all. AIM-54C still has the most powerful radar on an AA missile, with great ECM and discrimination capability. AMRAAM was designed as a Sparrow replacement, designed for speed and maneuverability. Good weapon, but not a Phoenix replacement, it was never intended to be one. Phoenix outdated? No. Retired? Yes. So is the 1968 Ferrari 365 GTB/4...(Tomcat/AIM-54 was from 1969) but "retired" doesn't mean that car is slow...
Thanks for the detail.
 
Messages
6,614
Location
southeast US
Originally Posted By: dave1251
The performance of the Bear is gnarly even compared to the B52. That being said it can deliver its payload to just about anywhere the Russian Air Force cares to deliver it thus it is effective.
Yes, but the whole idea of delivering nukes by bombers seems silly. Easier to defend against slow planes rather than ballistic missiles. Like I said above, that game is just to annoy and provoke and to distract from other places where Russians are waging wars by proxies.
 
Messages
13,194
Location
Maricopa Arizona
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: dave1251
The performance of the Bear is gnarly even compared to the B52. That being said it can deliver its payload to just about anywhere the Russian Air Force cares to deliver it thus it is effective.
Yes, but the whole idea of delivering nukes by bombers seems silly. Easier to defend against slow planes rather than ballistic missiles. Like I said above, that game is just to annoy and provoke and to distract from other places where Russians are waging wars by proxies.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014...siles/?page=all There are defenses to cruise missile's none are 100% effective. I agree with your distraction theory also strategic bombers are not quite obsolete yet and the closer an bomber can deliver its cruise missile to its target the less time there is to react.
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Messages
21,908
Location
Iowegia - USA
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: dave1251
The performance of the Bear is gnarly even compared to the B52. That being said it can deliver its payload to just about anywhere the Russian Air Force cares to deliver it thus it is effective.
Yes, but the whole idea of delivering nukes by bombers seems silly. Easier to defend against slow planes rather than ballistic missiles. Like I said above, that game is just to annoy and provoke and to distract from other places where Russians are waging wars by proxies.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014...siles/?page=all There are defenses to cruise missile's none are 100% effective. I agree with your distraction theory also strategic bombers are not quite obsolete yet and the closer an bomber can deliver its cruise missile to its target the less time there is to react.
With the advanced Tomahawk it would be tough to defend against but alas our CIC is attempting to cut them as well: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014...ogram/?page=all
 
Messages
6,614
Location
southeast US
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
With the advanced Tomahawk it would be tough to defend against but alas our CIC is attempting to cut them as well: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014...ogram/?page=all
I looked it up and it doesn't sound as controversial as your source:
Quote:
The Navy believes its inventory of 4,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles are sufficient for future scenarios, so production is planned to end after 2016 with Tomahawk stocks to hold until the next-generation land-attack weapon is developed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28missile%29 Furthermore, it's not a cutting edge, but subsonic and can be shot down:
Quote:
Remnants of a shot down Tomahawk from Operation Allied Force, showing the turbofan engine at the Museum of Aviation in Belgrade, Serbia.
 
Messages
10,699
Location
Jupiter, Florida
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Jet engines? So what? So it can burn more gas? The Bear has the same speed as the B-52 with longer range due to those efficient counter-rotating turboprops....
It's quite interesting comparing these "old tech" aircraft. Not true on all counts. The Bear, while a remarkable turboprop aircraft, is slower than the B52, or for that matter, a 737. The Bear has a normal cruise speed of 0.67M and the B52 between 0.72M-0.84M depending on range requirements. The B52 does have somewhat more range too, at slightly over 10,000 nautical miles. B52 payload is somewhat more too, at 80,000 pounds. The B52 also has a significantly higher service ceiling. Interestingly, in typical commercial jet flights, reasonably small differences in cruise speed add up on long overseas flights. It's not unusual for a faster aircraft to arrive 1 or 2 hours earlier.
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Messages
13,113
Location
Virginia Beach
The upgraded JT3D improved the BUFF's performance over the original J57s, but your range numbers and payload sound a lot like Wikipedia answers. 10,000 NM is a specious number. Ferry range is interesting, but pointless in operations. Combat radius is what matters. Tactically, .67 and .72 are the same speed. You can often tell the design cruise speed from the sweep of the leading edge...and the a Bear and BUFF have very similar leading edge angle. The BUFF needed in flight refueling to strike the USSR...But the Bear didn't need it in order to strike the US. Ergo, greater range for the Bear. The 80,000# load you quote for the BUFF is off too. It's closer to 70K, and when you put wing mounted stores on the plane, the range decreases considerably, just as loading AS-4s on the Bear dramatically reduces it's range. I'll grant you the higher altitude for the B-52. In a maritime surveillance/interdiction role, the Bear has greater loiter than the B-52. A tactical advantage.
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Messages
13,113
Location
Virginia Beach
UPDATED POST (I was away too long to change my post) The upgraded JT3D improved the BUFF's performance over the original J57s. With the J-57s, the BUFF performance was outclassed in nearly every way by the TU-95...so, as contemporaries, there was a lot of concern. With the engine upgrades in the 60s, that changed...but only a bit. The range numbers and payload that you quote in your post sound a lot like Wikipedia answers. I have different sources, though I am relying on my memory, which could be suspect. 10,000 NM is a specious number. Ferry range is interesting, but pointless in operations. Combat radius is what matters - the combat load changes airplane performance considerably. Ferry is for show. Tactically, .67 and .72 are the same speed. You can often tell the design cruise speed from the sweep of the leading edge...and the a Bear and BUFF have very similar leading edge angle. The BUFF needed in flight refueling to strike the USSR...But the Bear didn't need it in order to strike the US. Ergo, greater range for the Bear. The 80,000# load you quote for the BUFF is off too. It's closer to 70K, and when you put wing mounted stores on the plane, the range decreases considerably, just as loading AS-4s on the Bear dramatically reduces its range. I'll grant you the higher altitude for the B-52. In a maritime surveillance/interdiction role, the Bear has greater loiter than the B-52. A tactical advantage. It's easy to look at the Bear as outdated compared with the B-52, which is itself outdated, but there are things that the Bear does better than the B-52.
 
Top