# Russia's new supersonic bomber can outrun Britain's best fighter jet



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

Russian President Putin is about to unleash a new supersonic bomber

The Blackjack will be able to outrun the RAF's fastest fighter jets

Last month Russian Bear aircraft were spotted on sorties near Cornwall

But Blackjack is three times faster than the Bear and can fly four times further than the fighters that make up UK's Quick Reaction Alert squadrons

The Russian aircraft has a range of 7,600 miles without refuelling








the full article is here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bomber-outrun-Britain-s-best-fighter-jet.html


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 22, 2015)

Knowing Russia, they probably have about 3 of these.  They like to make a lot of high tech prototypes that don't actually get beyond the demonstration phase just for bragging rights...  kinda the opposite of the west which keeps such things under wraps.

I mean, have they even actually widely deployed the T-90 series of tanks yet?  Didn't think so.


----------



## xorbe (Mar 22, 2015)

Only in a straight line, probably.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

According to Wiki ( so not necessarily accurate) they have 35 of these.

Does anyone know what the US or NATO equivalent is?

I found this brilliant list
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/top_7_bombers.htm


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 22, 2015)

the various 3 letter agency's (they know who they are) have provably hacked the Russians years ago for the blueprints.

It wont be able to Out run that laser based weapon the USA will soon deploy
It only makes sense in such as its bomb Payload would be a nuke (could not carry a heavy payload of conventional Iron bombs to make its use viable)
and at the end of the Run/Day Don't forget the

""" M A D """ option

edit
many years ago The British thought about Militarizing Concorde  modifying it as a Nuke capable bomber 
Top speed would have been well over Mark 2.5 under military thrust
they even went as far as testing this idea by fitting 2 of Concord's engines into a Vulcan bomber.
Again Cost ruled out this idea and of course the MAD option


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 22, 2015)

Uh, Mach 2.0 isn't very fast.  Surely the RAF has mach 5+ rockets designed for taking out aircraft such as this.  If they don't, I'm sure the USA has more than a few we can sell. XD


Edit: The Rapier missile should be able to intercept it but only if the aircraft is coming towards the launch site.  But yeah, most of the SAMs I'm seeing were designed in the 1960s.  UK should consider upgrading.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Uh, Mach 2.0 isn't very fast.  Surely the RAF has mach 5+ rockets designed for taking out aircraft such as this.  If they don't, I'm sure the USA has more than a few we can sell. XD
> 
> 
> Edit: The Rapier missile should be able to intercept it but only if the aircraft is coming towards the launch site.




It begs the question though.........how safe is it to take down a nuclear carrying weapons platform ?

I dont know the answer by the way.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 22, 2015)

Who cares? What's this Russian propaganda panic? As long Air to Air missile catches that darn thing, it is useless at what speed it catches a fireball. It the thing is not stealthy at all and will be visible approaching on even ancient radar tech.

This is only a tool to inflict fear to weak ones.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> It begs the question though.........how safe is it to take down a nuclear carrying weapons platform ?
> 
> I dont know the answer by the way.



Not 100% but those thing are created to not to explode in such a way otherwise they could explode in a accident on their own territory... Knowing that all russian tech is an utter crap, they made at least a proper ejection seat again.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 22, 2015)

Irrelevant unless it can outpace a Starstreak II missile system which deploys at mach 4+, no need to risk losing a fighter when you can just deploy a portable guided missile system that will do the job for you.  Nice plane all the same!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 22, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Does anyone know what the US or NATO equivalent is?


Valkyrie but that ended in a fireball.  Deployed and in use, probably the B1-B Lancer.  Similar range but 0.75 Mach slower.  The Lancer carries substantially more bombs though and is designed to fly under the RADAR.

The F-22 Raptor is 0.25 Mach faster than this bomber and it carries AIM-120 air-to-air missiles capable of mach 4 as well as Sidewinders capable of 2.7 mach.  The F-22 and virtually any aircraft that has a decent speed and carries AIM-120 should be able to engage it without problems.




CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> It begs the question though.........how safe is it to take down a nuclear carrying weapons platform ?
> 
> I dont know the answer by the way.


Safe, so long as they aren't armed.  Nuclear weapons are designed to not arm until after they have exited the aircraft for the safety of the crew and recovery teams should the bombs have to be scuttled or the aircraft went down (this happened several times in the Cold War).


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 22, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> (this happened several times in the Cold War).



Yeah Palomares B-52 crash lol  What a slap in the face actually for safety standards.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

Starstreak


----------



## st2000 (Mar 22, 2015)

Ferrum Master said:


> This is only a tool to inflict fear to weak ones.


true that
i cant get only 1 thing - we got these planes from `87, why it's news?
and ukraine in beginning of 90s had about 15-20 planes, they sold us about 10(rest were liquidated by disarmament agreement)


----------



## Countryside (Mar 22, 2015)

That is one bad ass bomber !
What you guys think of this?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

st2000 said:


> true that
> i cant get only 1 thing - we got these planes from `87, why it's news?
> and ukraine in beginning of 90s had about 15-20 planes, they sold us about 10(rest were liquidated by disarmament agreement)




It is news in the UK because recently Russian bombers have been regularly and routinely using our airspace.
We dont fear the Russian Bear, though i think we are wary.

Putin likes to see himself as a bare chested muscleman.....i think this is just him taking his T shirt off.
We lived through these kind of capers and a lot worse during the cold war and Cuban missile crisis.


----------



## st2000 (Mar 22, 2015)

Countryside said:


> What you guys think of this?


too tall, side pannels look like good designed and less combat use/too bad
in Russia we know about rpg-7 and what happens when it meets ANY tank


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 22, 2015)

st2000 said:


> i cant get only 1 thing - we got these planes from `87, why it's news?



Are you reading your local news . Well Jet fighter development program had been always like that. Planes undergo upgrades, that make them truly different spec wise... Just as F-15 to F-15E did, just as MIG-31 upgraded to MIG-31BM, those are not plain numbers, but completely different specs. Including engine, radar, missile capability etc...

They are upgrading Tupoljevs too.


----------



## TheFinalFrontEar (Mar 22, 2015)

What a cool thread, from first hand experience rapier is the shit!! used them on a training ex with the Royal Artillery on salisbury plain, I believe the eurofighter typhoon see link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon  is the used craft at the moment for qrf to escort out of u.k airspace


----------



## Countryside (Mar 22, 2015)

st2000 said:


> too tall, side pannels look like good designed and less combat use/too bad
> in Russia we know about rpg-7 and what happens when it meets ANY tank



Well said. Here in Estonia we know about Carl Gustav and Javelin bad news for any tank.


----------



## st2000 (Mar 22, 2015)

difference between tu-160 and tu-160m is just the possibility of carryng Х-90
for news: our aircrafts(as USA aircrafts too) very often invades in foreign airspace


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 22, 2015)

Countryside said:


> That is one bad ass bomber !
> What you guys think of this?



Poland has the greatest Tank army in our side, just because on the fall of USSR there was located high tech Tank plant constructing including T-72BM(same T-90), I lol, Russians sell export low end tanks, then buyer send them to Poland for upgrading, money rolls on .


----------



## TheFinalFrontEar (Mar 22, 2015)

Have a look at its working capabilities

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSa5oeLO5OE


----------



## TheFinalFrontEar (Mar 22, 2015)

Slightly off topic but have a look at this phoenix system used by R.A






May I add controlled by an xbox 360 controller


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

October  2014
http://www.aco.nato.int/nato-tracks-largescale-russian-air-activity-in-europe.aspx

Being a child of the 60's none of this worries me.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 22, 2015)

Only thing that Russians don't need to make are more air to air missiles in case of Britain.

Well your HMS Queen Elizabeth is still haunted with no planes... as US still struggles with their most shameful F-35 Taxpayer pardon Lightening 2 program.  This thing is just getting more than comic . Why the Pentagon top executives haven't been lynched for such a fact. Even Swedish JAS 39 Gripen is better, at least it flies and doesn't catch fire  (not even talking about the price )



TheFinalFrontEar said:


> Slightly off topic but have a look at this phoenix system used by R.A
> May I add controlled by an xbox 360 controller



I bet the Japanese have a better receiver box not rendering at 900p, but full 1080p@60FPS and using Dualshock 4 controller .


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

Ferrum Master said:


> Only thing that Russians don't need to make are more air to air missiles in case of Britain.
> 
> Well your HMS Queen Elizabeth is still haunted with no planes... as US still struggles with their most shameful F-35 Taxpayer pardon Lightening 2 program.  This thing is just getting more than comic . Why the Pentagon top executives haven't been lynched for such a fact. Even Swedish JAS 39 Gripen is better, at least it flies and doesn't catch fire  (not even talking about the price )




the Queen has the Typhoon





http://www.eurofighter.com/


----------



## TheFinalFrontEar (Mar 22, 2015)

have a look at this news article

http://rt.com/op-edge/234231-nato-russia-uk-planes/


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

TheFinalFrontEar said:


> have a look at this news article
> 
> http://rt.com/op-edge/234231-nato-russia-uk-planes/



That Sir......is a very good find.


----------



## TheFinalFrontEar (Mar 22, 2015)

@Ferrum Master Possibly so but they don't have the best army in the world!

God Save The Queen


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 22, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> the Queen has the Typhoon



Well I am actually very pleased to see Eurofighter, I like that machine, it could be less French thou.



TheFinalFrontEar said:


> have a look at this news article
> 
> http://rt.com/op-edge/234231-nato-russia-uk-planes/



let him reconsider the facts about what they do actually in Baltic sea not only the air over my head. An official bla bla. The cases interrupting our air territory has increased many times. In year 2014 NATO fighters located in Lithuania had to be scrambled 150!!! times to guide Russian forces out of our airspace. That's 3x times more the amount of 2013. And the official response from our local embassy was exactly the same.


----------



## Countryside (Mar 22, 2015)

http://laaake.com/index.php?lang=en


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

The Tupolev Tu-160 (NATO designation Blackjack) was developed during the Cold War. This strategic bomber was intended to attack the most important American targets. Dwarfing the similar-looking B-1B Lancer, it is the largest and heaviest combat aircraft ever built.

  The Tu-160 carries cruise and land attack missiles, fitted with conventional or nuclear warheads. This bomber can also carry free-fall bombs with a maximum weight of up to 40 t in place of the missiles. It has a range of 14 500 km.

  It is believed that production totaled no more than 39 aircraft. This aircraft was extremely expensive to build and to maintain. Some sources claim that Russia currently operates only 16 of these strategic bombers.


Blackjack




http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/tupolev_tu160_blackjack.htm

Concordski




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144


B-1B




http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/b_1b_lancer.htm


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 22, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Starstreak


Unless my eyes are failing, which is quite possible at my age, that looks like Starstreak 1 not 2....... might be wrong...... it's been a while.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 22, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Russian President Putin is about to unleash a new supersonic bomber
> 
> The Blackjack will be able to outrun the RAF's fastest fighter jets
> 
> ...


A typhoon can already match its pace the actual op says so.
I don't think the point of a fighter is to follow a bomber ie it would be up and on this things tail fine over uk airspace imho missiles travel quicker than it too.
Now why did we swap vulcan for polaris that's right cos of cost and practicality since an icbm launched incognito is harder to intercept than a plane.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Mar 22, 2015)

the  tu-160 has been around since the 80's.... This is far from a new aircraft.. That's like calling an upgraded B-52 a new aircraft.

And like has already been said, any large bombers such as this will get smoked by modern A2A or G2A missiles. That's why stand off weapons are utilized which you don't really need speed to use.

This is just the russian propaganda machine + incompetent misinformed journalism at work.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

ShiBDiB said:


> the  tu-160 has been around since the 80's.... This is far from a new aircraft.. That's like calling an upgraded B-52 a new aircraft.
> 
> And like has already been said, any large bombers such as this will get smoked by modern A2A or G2A missiles. That's why stand off weapons are utilized which you don't really need speed to use.
> 
> This is just the russian propaganda machine + incompetent misinformed journalism at work.




I think the news in the US is reported differently. This has been quite a story here because the Russian aircraft have been so visible.

The invasion of airspace has long been an issue......correct me if i am wrong but if memory serves, the US started it.


----------



## Peter1986C (Mar 22, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> Knowing Russia, they probably have about 3 of these.  They like to make a lot of high tech prototypes that don't actually get beyond the demonstration phase just for bragging rights...  kinda the opposite of the west which keeps such things under wraps.
> 
> I mean, have they even actually widely deployed the T-90 series of tanks yet?  Didn't think so.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90#Operators  Enough said.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 22, 2015)

Chevalr1c said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90#Operators



I'll confess, it's more widely deployed than I expected...  but that's still not a huge number compared to say the infamous T-72.

I am somewhat surprised they already have 30 of these bombers produced though.  I guess when you spend so much on military as Russia does, it doesn't matter if your GDP is lower than it could be, shit happens.

EDIT:  Woo, post 1000.  Do I get a prize?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> I'll confess, it's more widely deployed than I expected...  but that's still not a huge number compared to say the infamous T-72.
> 
> I am somewhat surprised they already have 30 of these bombers produced though.  I guess when you spend so much on military as Russia does, it doesn't matter if your GDP is lower than it could be, shit happens.
> 
> EDIT:  Woo, post 1000.  Do I get a prize?




An interesting thing i found
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/07/10/10-countries-spending-the-most-on-the-military/



you may not get a prize but you can certainly have one of these.


Spoiler: Cheers


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 22, 2015)

That better not be badger piss.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

i have way too much respect for you,  it is a rather delicious tipple btw.


----------



## Peter1986C (Mar 22, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> I'll confess, it's more widely deployed than I expected...  but that's still not a huge number compared to say the infamous T-72.
> 
> I am somewhat surprised they already have 30 of these bombers produced though.  I guess when you spend so much on military as Russia does, it doesn't matter if your GDP is lower than it could be, shit happens.
> 
> EDIT:  Woo, post 1000.  Do I get a prize?


Different era pal.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 22, 2015)

Ah My Local Brewery   grew up Drinking (and throwing up thro overdrinking)  Badger Beer

Edit
Did you know this brewery is one year younger than the USA been Brewing since 1777


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 22, 2015)

Chevalr1c said:


> Different era pal.



Oh I know the T-72 is a completely different timeline, but it's still the main battletank in a surprising number of places.  It's running all over the globe to this day...  It's like the AK-47 of battletanks.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 22, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> Oh I know the T-72 is a completely different timeline, but it's still the main battletank in a surprising number of places.  It's running all over the globe to this day...  It's like the AK-47 of battletanks.



The name ie platform doesn't matter, if ain't broken, don't fix it, depends on the mod it actually has. Like I said, Poland evolved their T-72 pretty nice [PT-91]. Evolving same platform costs much less than creating new one, considering risks, and the damn critter actually won't work. A ploughing tractor must remain a ploughing tractor... Just as Eurofighter program evolves.

meanwhile speaking of tractors...


----------



## Steevo (Mar 22, 2015)

I am beginning to feel like the 80's is coming back around again.



















Its like WHAM, 








http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EOK91SO/?tag=tec06d-20

and it makes me feel ill.

Now we have the impotent threat of a crumbling dictatorship with unstable assholes at the helm, and thats just the US........


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 22, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Starstreak


I was going to say that before I edited it out.  Reason: this bomber travels too fast and too high for it to be of any use against it.  Starstreak is designed mostly for helicopters and other low-flying aircraft.  I think it is also effective against ground targets like armored personnel carriers.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 22, 2015)

For those critters LR-SAM missles are used... euther ship, ground....

Look an example...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_8

Engine:    Two stage, smokeless pulsed rocket motor.
Wingspan:    0.94 m
Operational range: 0.5–70 km
Flight ceiling:    0–16 km
Speed:    Mach 2 (680 m/s)
Guidance system: Two way data link[4], Active RF/IIR seeker[4]


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 22, 2015)

MIM-104 Patriot is the global, primary defense against all aircraft (ballistic missiles too) especially including all Russian-built bombers.  Mach 5 and 70+ km (43.5+ miles) range.  It would be destroyed before it can pose a serious threat.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

Straight from Wiki so may not be entirely accurate  @FordGT90Concept  from your link

On 15 February 1991, President George H. W. Bush traveled to Raytheon's Patriot manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts, during the Gulf War, he declared, the "Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!"[32] The President's claimed success rate was thus over 97% to that point in the war. The U.S. Army claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel. Those claims were eventually scaled back to 70% and 40%.

On 7 April 1992 Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University testified before a House Committee stating that, according to their independent analysis of video tapes, the Patriot system had a success rate of below 10%, and perhaps even a zero success rate


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 22, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> MIM-104 Patriot is the global, primary defense against all aircraft (ballistic missiles too) especially including all Russian-built bombers.  Mach 5 and 70+ km (43.5+ miles) range.  It would be destroyed before it can pose a serious threat.



There are plenty of those. A helium balloon tied to Vodka bottle also should suffice...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 22, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Straight from Wiki so may not be entirely accurate  @FordGT90Concept  from your link
> 
> On 15 February 1991, President George H. W. Bush traveled to Raytheon's Patriot manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts, during the Gulf War, he declared, the "Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!"[32] The President's claimed success rate was thus over 97% to that point in the war. The U.S. Army claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel. Those claims were eventually scaled back to 70% and 40%.
> 
> On 7 April 1992 Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University testified before a House Committee stating that, according to their independent analysis of video tapes, the Patriot system had a success rate of below 10%, and perhaps even a zero success rate


Note the dates.  Remember what computers looked like in the early 90s?  The system is drastically improved today which is why there are over a thousand deployed.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 22, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I was going to say that before I edited it out.  Reason: this bomber travels too fast and too high for it to be of any use against it.  Starstreak is designed mostly for helicopters and other low-flying aircraft.  I think it is also effective against ground targets like armored personnel carriers.


Starstreak 2 improved range, velocity and the guidance system was upgraded, specifically to have a fast jet kill capability, although it heavily depends on early warning, with a range of 7 kilometres it needs to catchup fast and therefore at a guess needs to launch with the enemy inside of 2 km range but that's just guesswork on my part.


----------



## eddman (Mar 22, 2015)

Dailymail? RT?!

It's better not to take your technological and military information from spinners (former) and propaganda broadcasters (latter) like these two.

Tu-160 is not a new plane by any stretch, and as ShiBDiB mentioned, upgrading it wouldn't magically make it a "new plane". There is northing revolutionary or unexpected about the M blackjack.

Comparing the range of a fighter and a bomber would be to compare the taste of an apple to an orange. It just doesn't make sense.

A bomber requires a long range to reach its ground target, but all that a fighter requires, is enough range to take-off from its base and intercept the bomber, which typhoon does.

It doesn't require to fly all the way to russia to do so.

Also, having a higher max speed doesn't really say much. Speeds above the speed of sound are quite unsustainable and are quite inefficient, because of the use of after-burners. (*EDIT:* except for a few newer fighter models, but no bombers).

*EDIT:* just to add; tu-160 looks oddly similar, almost identical in shape to a certain US bomber that flew 7 years earlier. I wonder where the russians got the idea from.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> According to Wiki ( so not necessarily accurate) they have 35 of these.
> Does anyone know what the US or NATO equivalent is?
> I found this brilliant list
> http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/top_7_bombers.htm



It seems that only 11 are combat ready.

The near equivalent is B-1, not in speed though.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 22, 2015)

eddman said:


> Speeds above the speed of sound are quite unsustainable and are quite inefficient, because of the use of after-burners.


*cough* F-22 super cruise *cough*


----------



## eddman (Mar 22, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> *cough* F-22 super cruise *cough*



I was speaking in general, and for situations where afterburners are used.

You are correct. There are a few fighters that could sustain a supersonic speed without the use of afterburners (super-cruising). Last time I checked no bomber could do so.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 22, 2015)

"" Cough   Cough Splutter ""

Cut and paste from that Site

While commercial jets took eight hours to fly from New York to Paris, the average supersonic flight time on the transatlantic routes was just under 3.5 hours. Concorde had a maximum cruise altitude of 18,300 metres (60,039 ft) and an average cruise speed of Mach 2.02, about 1155 knots (2140 km/h or 1334 mph), more than twice the speed of conventional aircraft

perhaps you could review your statment

"" Speeds above the speed of sound are quite unsustainable and are quite inefficient, because of the use of after-burners.""


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 22, 2015)

If I were Russia, I'd be more concerned about this:
Shrouded in Mystery, New Bomber Makes Waves


> The *Long Range Strike-Bomber* (LRS-B) program is stealthy, literally and figuratively. Few details are actually known about the bomber's capabilities or design. But the program's impact is already being widely felt throughout the Pentagon and its industry partners.
> 
> The program is targeting a production line of 80-100 planes. It will replace the fleet of B-52 and B-1 bombers.
> 
> A source with knowledge of the program said the Air Force is likely looking at something smaller than a B-2, perhaps as small as half the size, with two engines similar in size to the F135 engines that power the F-35, so enhancement programs can also be applied to the bomber.





			
				Richard Aboulafia said:
			
		

> It's the biggest single outstanding DoD competition by a very wide margin. That makes it important in and of itself.


If they're sourcing parts from the F-35, it's very possible the Pentagon intends to mass produce it like the F-35 and sell it to customers abroad.  The article repeatedly states a $500-550 million per unit price which does not sound like it is subject to negotiation. The B2 is $1 billion each.  I suspect what is going to come forward is a down-sized, supersonic B2-like aircraft.  Think what a B-2 would look like if it were twice or three times faster (more arrow head shaped instead of bat wing).  It also wouldn't have all of the fancy RADAR evading features other than its shape and skin.


----------



## eddman (Mar 22, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> "" Cough   Cough Splutter ""
> 
> Cut and paste from that Site
> 
> ...


Concorde was quite a different plane. It was specifically designed to fly at supersonic speeds. I'm talking about current military bombers in service.

This is the information I get for the tu-160:

*Cruise speed:* *Mach* *0.9* (960 km/h, 518 knots, 596 mph)
*Range:* 12,300 km (7,643 mi) practical range without in-flight refuelling, *Mach 0.77* and carrying 6 × Kh-55SM dropped at mid range and 5% fuel reserves

These are the specs for the non-M model, but I'd be surprised if the M model can do supercruise. I'd have to read further.


----------



## jagjitnatt (Mar 22, 2015)

Well, bombers aren't really effective in this day and age. They are more for projecting power.

Every country has SAM coverage nowadays, which is capable of shooting a fighter sized target. A bomber would shine like a star on the radar screen. A modern OTH radar should be able to spot a bomber from a distance of 500+ kms. That is more than enough time to scramble fighter jets and ready SAMs. And these bombers can not evade those missiles.

Only the western countries have the avionics that have the capability to jam radars, russian technologies are crude but simple. Good in quantity, but not in quality.

Bombers are being replaced by Ballistic and Cruise missiles.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 22, 2015)

jagjitnatt said:


> Well, bombers aren't really effective in this day and age. They are more for projecting power.


I bet Hussein would disagree if he were still alive.  He lost both wars the day it started and he was powerless to fight back.


----------



## jagjitnatt (Mar 22, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> "" Cough   Cough Splutter ""
> 
> Cut and paste from that Site
> 
> ...



Afterburners and speed in excess of sound are two different things. Most aircraft can not reach Mach 1+ without the use of afterburners(which consume a LOT of fuel, and very few engines are rated to run on afterburners for longer durations of time).

Although some new aircraft can supercruise(faster than speed of sound without afterburners), these include F22, PakFa, Saab Gripen NG, and Dassault Rafale. Conconrde also required afterburners to gain altitude, but later ran on regular thrust and sustained Mach 2.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 22, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Remember what computers looked like in the early 90s?



Currently there is still nothing new in that department since 90ties same phlilosophy as NASA uses... i386 compatible in parallel due to radiation and durability reasons.


----------



## jagjitnatt (Mar 22, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I bet Hussein would disagree if he were still alive.  He lost both wars the day it started and he was powerless to fight back.



The US Army has 10 aircraft carrier, and they can take the war to their enemies. It weren't the bombers that won the war for US, but the military on ground and the close air support available due to fighters from carriers.

Bombers are only for loading tons of bombs onto a target. Today's war depends more on striking deep into the enemy country to take out high value targets accurately. The newer laser guided bombs are ultra accurate. 

Whereas in the 70s and 80s taking our a single runway required 80-90 bombs(because only a couple would drop on the runway), today this can be done with 1 specialized bunker buster bomb. Dead accuracy has replaced the power of quantity.


----------



## eddman (Mar 22, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I bet Hussein would disagree if he were still alive.  He lost both wars the day it started and he was powerless to fight back.


As jagjitnatt put it, it wasn't the bombers that ultimately defeated saddam.

Besides, it wasn't exactly a balanced fight either; US with its arguably number one military force in the world against a developing country with an old, badly maintained military that vastly lacked both in quality and quantity.

If say US and western European countries were to go against russia and china, using bombers in any large scale scenario would most probably result in a bloodbath, for the aggressor.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 22, 2015)

Ferrum Master said:


> Currently there is still nothing new in that department since 90ties same phlilosophy as NASA uses... i386 compatible in parallel due to radiation and durability reasons.



What radiation is a patriot anti missile battery going to be exposed to?  Unless we got nuked anyways...


----------



## ISI300 (Mar 22, 2015)

At least it's good looking... Vaguely resembling Concorde.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 22, 2015)

eddman said:


> As jagjitnatt put it, it wasn't the bombers that ultimately defeated saddam.
> 
> Besides, it wasn't exactly a balanced fight either; US with its arguably number one military force in the world against a developing country with an old, badly maintained military that vastly lacked both in quality and quantity.
> 
> If say US and western European countries were to go against russia and china, using bombers in any large scale scenario would most probably result in a bloodbath, for the aggressor.


You two really need to do some reading on Operation Desert Storm (1991).  The air campaign lasted a month (17 January 1991 - 28 February 1991); the ground campaign lasted a few days (24-28 February 1991).  The air campaign was kicked off by F-117s taking out virtually every RADAR in the country as well as major communication and military  infrastructure.  By the time the land forces moved in, Hussein's military was blind, deaf, and air support non-existant.  The F-117s launched from a secret base in Saudi Arabia, not aircraft carriers.

This should refresh your memory:








See all those black and white videos?  All of them were sourced from the F-117s.  From the Iraqi perspective:








All of those shots?  None hit.  Not a one.  F-117 though?  They hit everything they pointed at.


Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003) had a similar start using B-2 bombers.





Ferrum Master said:


> Currently there is still nothing new in that department since 90ties same phlilosophy as NASA uses... i386 compatible in parallel due to radiation and durability reasons.


i386 is a generalized processor.  Missiles are far more likely to use a RISC processor based on IBM, Texas Instruments, or ARM chips.  F-22 Raptor has over 20 computers and I doubt any of them are Intel/AMD.



jagjitnatt said:


> The US Army has 10 aircraft carrier


*cough*Navy*cough*

The rest of your post is just as inaccurate as it started.  It's off topic so I won't elaborate.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 22, 2015)

Putin's a right wing, false patriot who whilst manipulating the emotions of his less globally aware citizens is robbing them blind.
His current military rhetoric is painfully empty and obviously a full on PR stunt. I feel sorry for the Russians that believe him.


----------



## eddman (Mar 22, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You two really need to do some reading on Operation Desert Storm (1991).



Don't assume others don't know about the two iraq wars. I've read a lot of military material on both and I'm sure jagjitnatt has too.

You mention f-117, yet it's not a heavy, large, fast bomber but a slow, small, stealthy one with a rather small payload, used against an arguably weak opponent.

Yes, there was a long bombing campaign in the first gulf war before the land troops went in, but what makes you think all that bombing was done with bombers only? Many planes participated in those operations and also a lot of cruise missiles were used.

Again, what ultimately defeated saddam, were the ground forced. Air power alone cannot depose a government, even if it is bombed to stone age.

Did saddam leave power in the first war? Well, no, because no one went to baghdad to do so.

Again, all that, was done against a relatively weak opponent. Using heavy bombers in a large scale in a war between two alsmot equal opponents would result in a large number of casualties on the bombers.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 22, 2015)

eddman said:


> You mention f-117, yet it's not a heavy, large, fast bomber but a slow, small, stealthy one with a rather small payload, used against an arguably weak opponent.


And?  It had a singular role and that role was dropping laser-guided bombs.  It was a bomber.  It had no anti-air capabilities.  In terms of speed, it is about the same as the B-2 which is subsonic (<650 MPH).

Virtually any airframe that carries a missile can carry a bomb.  The F-22 has functionally replaced the F-117 and even though the F-22 is officially an air superiority fighter, it is more capable than the F-117 at serving in a bomber role.

Hussein was defeated by not even being aware the ground campaign begun and the F-117 allowed that to happen.


And forgetting Iraq, B-52s served over Afghanistan to deliver surprises to the Taliban on a constant basis.  The B-1B also served well in all three of these conflicts--it is often an unsung hero overshadowed by aircraft like the F-117.


Hussein's military was in the top 10 when Operation Desert Storm began.  Bombers aren't used unless air superiority is first achieved.  Desert Storm was the exception to the rule because Iraq had no idea what was attacking them.  They didn't scramble fighters because their RADARs showed clear skies.


----------



## eddman (Mar 22, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> And?  It had a singular role and that role was dropping laser-guided bombs.  It was a bomber.  It had no anti-air capabilities.  In terms of speed, it is about the same as the B-2 which is subsonic (<650 MPH).
> 
> Virtually any airframe that carries a missile can carry a bomb.  The F-22 has functionally replaced the F-117 and even though the F-22 is officially an air superiority fighter, it is more capable than the F-117 at serving in a bomber role.
> 
> Hussein was defeated by not even being aware the ground campaign begun and that was thanks to the F-117.



I thought we were talking about bombers.

F-117 is categorized as a ground-attack aircraft. It's certainly not a full fledged large bomber, which I presumed was the subject of this discussion.

Just to go back a bit, "bombers aren't really effective in this day and age" against a powerful opponent. Smallers foes, yes, they can be quite useful, but not the be it all and do it all instrument.

Again, it wasn't just the f-117.

Maybe you're mixing "bombing" with "bomber" here.



> B-52s served over Afghanistan to deliver surprises to the Taliban on a constant basis. The B-1B also served well in all three of these conflicts



Against an opponent that had no way to track them, let alone shoot them down.

Perhaps iraq was in top ten, but still the difference in capabilities of the opposing forces was awfully huge.


----------



## Peter1986C (Mar 22, 2015)

Ferrum Master said:


> The name ie platform doesn't matter, if ain't broken, don't fix it, depends on the mod it actually has. Like I said, Poland evolved their T-72 pretty nice [PT-91].



This video is explaining that the "upgrading" way of doing things is not viable for a tank like the T-72.


----------



## twilyth (Mar 22, 2015)

What about this puppy - http://www.businessinsider.com/russias-next-generation-transport-plane-2015-3

Think they'll actually build it?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 22, 2015)

twilyth said:


> What about this puppy - http://www.businessinsider.com/russias-next-generation-transport-plane-2015-3
> 
> Think they'll actually build it?



TBH concept vehicles whether they be cars, aircraft ships or whatever dont really interest me, i like to see them in futuristic films but so few actually make it to production.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Mar 22, 2015)

ISI300 said:


> At least it's good looking... Vaguely resembling Concorde.


Less graceful (esp Concorde's ogival wing) - except for when Concorde's nose was hinged down - but even that looked better than the Soviet implementation on the Tu-144 and T-4 Sotka


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 22, 2015)

eddman said:


> Don't assume others don't know about the two iraq wars. I've read a lot of military material on both and I'm sure jagjitnatt has too.
> 
> You mention f-117, yet it's not a heavy, large, fast bomber but a slow, small, stealthy one with a rather small payload, used against an arguably weak opponent.
> 
> ...



Firstly, with reference to your "Heavy" bombers, it was felt in the 80's and 90's (and with many nations still is) that "multi role" aircraft were the way to go, flexible and adaptable, smaller faster aircraft that were much less likely to get shot down, could match the enemy's fighter interceptors pretty much for speed and manouverability, and of course cheaper than single role heavy bombers.  You are correct that air power will not win the war on it's own but no ground force goes anywhere without air superiority and things get a lot easier for the ground offensive when most of the enemies logistics and spirit have been completely broken.

To be fair, recent history is leaning towards air power supremacy and there is evidence that it alone could break the resolve of a opposing government, for example, take a look at Kosovo, in particular the bombing of Belgrade in the Former Yugoslav Republic, here is an extract from Wiki which is relevant to your point..........

_"According to __John Keegan__, the capitulation of Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War marked a turning point in the history of warfare. It "proved that a war can be won by air power alone". By comparison, diplomacy had failed before the war, and the deployment of a large NATO ground force was still weeks away when __Slobodan Milošević__ agreed to a peace deal"_

I should add that eventually Milosevic did roll.  It is unfortunate that I had the pleasure in visiting Iraq for both wars and spent a few months in Kosovo, neither were pretty, bombing even with the most advanced aircraft deploying them is very very ugly and is still indiscriminate to a certain extent, one day the world just might get to a place where we won't need to do it anymore......... even I will pray for that!


----------



## eddman (Mar 22, 2015)

Tatty_One said:


> Firstly, with reference to your "Heavy" bombers, it was felt in the 80's and 90's (and with many nations still is) that "multi role" aircraft were the way to go, flexible and adaptable, smaller faster aircraft that were much less likely to get shot down, could match the enemy's fighter interceptors pretty much for speed and manouverability, and of course cheaper than single role heavy bombers.  You are correct that air power will not win the war on it's own but no ground force goes anywhere without air superiority and things get a lot easier for the ground offensive when most of the enemies logistics and spirit have been completely broken.



Well, yes, that was sort of my point, although I didn't directly point to it. Heavy bombers are becoming less and less viable for major wars.



Tatty_One said:


> To be fair, recent history is leaning towards air power supremacy and there is evidence that it alone could break the resolve of a opposing government, for example, take a look at Kosovo, in particular the bombing of Belgrade in the Former Yugoslav Republic, here is an extract from Wiki which is relevant to your point..........
> 
> _"According to __John Keegan__, the capitulation of Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War marked a turning point in the history of warfare. It "proved that a war can be won by air power alone". By comparison, diplomacy had failed before the war, and the deployment of a large NATO ground force was still weeks away when __Slobodan Milošević__ agreed to a peace deal"_
> 
> I should add that eventually Milosevic did roll.  It is unfortunate that I had the pleasure in visiting Iraq for both wars and spent a few months in Kosovo, neither were pretty, bombing even with the most advanced aircraft deploying them is very very ugly and is still indiscriminate to a certain extent, one day the world just might get to a place where we won't need to do it anymore......... even I will pray for that!



Yes, and I never said otherwise. The discussion was about "bombers", not "bombing", which is very effective, but we should not forget that in the end, you'd have to use ground forces if the enemy refuses to surrender after bombings.

Also, it'd be much, much harder to effectively and broadly bomb an equal or near equal enemy who can properly defend themselves.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 22, 2015)

Tatty_One said:


> It is unfortunate that I had the pleasure in visiting Iraq for both wars and spent a few months in Kosovo, neither were pretty, bombing even with the most advanced aircraft deploying them is very very ugly and is still indiscriminate to a certain extent, one day the world just might get to a place where we won't need to do it anymore......... even I will pray for that!


I don't because that invokes biological warfare using engineered viruses--the mass murder of people without a single "shot" fired.  Picture the hysteria of people being shelled/bombed then picture the hysteria from viral assassination.


----------



## Easo (Mar 23, 2015)

WTF is this, some attempt by "journalists" to do some scaremongering?
This "new" bomber was made in USSR, and being modernised wont give it chance to run away from air-to-air missiles. It never ever had the option to do so, even when it was just introduced. 
Does somebody realy think that they are going to launch cruise missiles with few thousand km range by flying right near to UK? xD


----------



## MrGenius (Mar 23, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> the Queen has the Typhoon
> 
> View attachment 63586
> http://www.eurofighter.com/


But one never really wants to bring a knife to a gun fight, does one?





Perhaps Her Majesty needs an upgrade?


----------



## jagjitnatt (Mar 23, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You two really need to do some reading on Operation Desert Storm (1991).  The air campaign lasted a month (17 January 1991 - 28 February 1991); the ground campaign lasted a few days (24-28 February 1991).  The air campaign was kicked off by F-117s taking out virtually every RADAR in the country as well as major communication and military  infrastructure.  By the time the land forces moved in, Hussein's military was blind, deaf, and air support non-existant.  The F-117s launched from a secret base in Saudi Arabia, not aircraft carriers.
> 
> This should refresh your memory:
> 
> ...



Well, you are talking about Iraq here, that's a country with a military budget of less than 1% of US's military budget and 10 years back it was even lower. F117 was effective there for 2 reasons:
1. It isn't a bomber but a strike aircraft, difference being the payload, a conventional bomber carries up to 100 bombs (80,000 lbs) but F117 could only carry 2 bombs (4,000 lbs) in a sortie. Just look at the difference there. B52, B2 are bombers.
2. Iraq relied on Soviet era SAMs (60s and early 70s technology) and radars which could not detect stealthy aircraft like F117 which was much smaller than a conventional bomber.

Countries like China, Russia, India today have AESA radars in L-band and S-band which can detect stealth aircraft at large distances(100+ kms), although they still need to rely on the X-band radars to get a lock-on.

The only advantage stealth aircraft have is against another aircraft which do not have anything other than a X-band radar to guide their missiles. Although some Russian aircraft like Su-35 have huge radars like the Irbis-E which can pump huge amounts of power to have long detection ranges.

You can still use bombers against adversaries like Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and 3rd world countries which don't have any modern weapons, but take your bombers(including B2) to say China, and then you'll find out how effective they actually are.

No wonder the whole world is moving away from bombers and towards multi-role aircraft capable of air superiority and strike roles. F-35, Rafale, EF Typhoon, Gripen, Su-30, J-10, PakFa are just some of the examples.



MrGenius said:


> But one never really wants to bring a knife to a gun fight, does one?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This graphic image looks a little incorrect.

F111 in high capability? That is not even in service. The EF Typhoon and Rafale are very potent, better than F16/18/15.
Their delta canard config allows them to be highly manoeuvrable and agile. Rafale can be operated from a carrier and both of these are compatible with a huge range of armament.

The MICA and Meteor(upcoming, compatible with Rafale and Typhoon) missiles are the best in the world in their respective roles and US is still developing the AIM-120D which would be an incremental upgrade to 120C

The radar cross section(RCS) of both fighters is reduced to below 3m2, and both have AESA upgrades on their way which allows them to see the enemy first, still hidden, fire first from longer distances and turn back.

US is betting HIGHLY on F-35, but it wouldn't be able to take on any of the above aircraft in WVR engagements.


----------



## metalslaw (Mar 23, 2015)

That russian plane is so transformers 'skyfire'


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 23, 2015)

jagjitnatt said:


> You can still use bombers against adversaries like Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and 3rd world countries which don't have any modern weapons, but take your bombers(including B2) to say China, and then you'll find out how effective they actually are.


Extremely.  The only difference between the two scenarios is F-22s would have to escort them in and out of hostile territory in case fighters are scrambled to counter.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 23, 2015)

And of course the US would Tomahawk the crap out of their Early warning systems along with their airfields, SAM sites etc etc to lessen the risks beforehand, you would probably get about 3 months of long range bombardment before any piece of manned metal passed through their sky's, probably before that happened it would have already escalated to un-thinkable proportions.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 23, 2015)

Tatty_One said:


> And of course the US would Tomahawk the crap out of their Early warning systems along with their airfields, SAM sites etc etc to lessen the risks beforehand, you would probably get about 3 months of long range bombardment before any piece of manned metal passed through their sky's, probably before that happened it would have already escalated to un-thinkable proportions.



I agree and by the time any state that has Nuclear bombs in Planes in the sky it probably also has launched its Nuclear Missiles from its land silo's and its Sea based assets.
Nuclear bombers were intended as a ""Fail safe retaliation""   Not as a 1st line of Offence

General Dickass says

""Damm them they launched their Missiles   Scramble the LRNB (Long range Nuclear Bombers) we will blow the shit out of whats left of their god forsakin country after our missiles have Landed""

Part of the "M AD " stratagy

Or Comrade Fuckofski говорит "Damm их они начали их Ракетную Схватку LRNB (Долго диапазон Ядерные Бомбардировщики), мы унесем дерьмо из whats, оставленного их бога forsakin страна после того, как наши ракеты Посадили" Часть 'М. нашей эры' stratagy


----------



## vega22 (Mar 23, 2015)

Tatty_One said:


> And of course the US would Tomahawk the crap out of their Early warning systems along with their airfields, SAM sites etc etc to lessen the risks beforehand, you would probably get about 3 months of long range bombardment before any piece of manned metal passed through their sky's, probably before that happened it would have already escalated to un-thinkable proportions.



in the days of drones like we are now do you think it would be so soon?

at the point now where they could claim the skies without the need to send any manned craft into the line of fire.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 23, 2015)

The Tomahawk is a subsonic cruise missile and it's equivalent would be the Nirbhay. 






The BrahMos is the world's first and only maneuverable supersonic cruise missile (Also the FASTEST) - it also has a great range of upto 290kms (supersonic missiles are generally in the 90-150km range). This combined with it's high accuracy make it the best supersonic cruise missile available - many countries are bidding to buy it - it's especially good for short range coast/naval engagements. 

It can bypass even the current NATO ship protection systems like AEGIS.
The threat is so serious - the US Navy has commissioned multiple projects to get equivalent missile systems either ingeniously or buying it along with a better ship protection system.

BrahMos





Tomahawk


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 23, 2015)

marsey99 said:


> in the days of drones like we are now do you think it would be so soon?
> 
> at the point now where they could claim the skies without the need to send any manned craft into the line of fire.


Good point although we now move into the realms of EMP defence systems, I would imagine them drones would just fall out of the sky.


----------



## ne6togadno (Mar 23, 2015)

next time you guys see something about "new modern russian bombers/fighters/rockets etc." (designed 30-40 years ago) consider info in this article before you belive in any word of the info
sry for bad translation but i used bing and i dont have time to check whole text for mistakes
ps. bold on text is mine

*Will meet Europe of Russian (des)informational attack? *

Ralitsa Kovacheva

Russia waged an aggressive dezinformacionna campaign against the European Union. Some call it openly hybrid or a propaganda war. Huge masses of russian speaking population in Ukraine, former Soviet republics outside the EU, as well as those within the Union, are directly exposed to the Russian propaganda. Moreover, it comes to people, most of whom do not speak any other language, and Russian media are their only source of information. In other Member States, where you can't rely on the direct influence of Russian or Russian language literary media, holds successful propaganda through "third countries", disguised as rusofilstvo, anti-European (anti-Western) or nationalistic pathos. Such is the case, but not only.
The journalist Georgi Gotev recalls how Moscow had failed to mobilize public opinion against the shale gas (in Romania and Bulgarian) in support of the South stream gas pipeline (in Hungary, Serbia, Bulgarian, Italy, Austria), against European sanctions imposed on Russia (in Italy, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Cyprus, Greece) or against the Ukrainian Government determined by Moscow as a "fascist" (in Bulgarian, and Serbia). The sentiments are known to the Kremlin of prominent (and not-so-prominent) European politicians-nationalists – the leader of the French "national front" marine Le Pen even took a Russian loan to finance his party. Moscow holds the warm relationships with these parties, which works against the EU "from the inside". In Bulgarian is a well-known effect – we watched it most clearly in the face of Volen Siderov and his party, "attack", but also in the overall deployment of the strategy for cultural, spiritual and religious closeness with Russia as a counterpoint to the foreign kolonialistki, demoraliziraŝi, and antib″lgarski influences of the West.
The problem is serious, but the possibilities for a response are limited and contradictory. The EU is aware that it must oppose the Russian dezinformacionna campaign. Particularly active in this regard are the Baltic countries, where the influence of the Russian propaganda is most strongly. Russia invests huge resources in maintaining the influential media, for example, the international television network RT with the audience (in her own statements) from 700 million viewers in over 100 countries and the creation of new ones, like the Sputnik-online platform and radio services in various languages, predendiraŝa to provide "alternative" information and saying "from what they did not" established at the end of the lasta year in response to the "Western propaganda". According to time magazine, *by 2010 the annual budget of the RT is $ 300 million* – for comparison, the budget of the *BBC World Service Group, that inclueds tv, radio and online channels is 376 million for 2014-15*. In addition, Russia has built a lean and costly infrastructure (including a set of strategies, supporting points machine, an army of trolls and troll softwareas well as undercover structures in civil society) for the keeping of information warfare extensively described by Yolanta Darčevska by the Polish Institute of Eastern Studies (see the article on Vladimir Shopov in the subject).
Russian State television broadcast propaganda in Goebbles' style and lie around the clock told time magazine cover m Edgars Rinkevič, Adviser to the Latvian Foreign Minister in January. At the same time, the four Foreign Ministers of Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania and the uk came up with a letter to High Representative for foreign and security policy Mogerini, in which Federica urge EU to respond to the Russian dezinformacionna campaign. Describe her as the dissemination of false and misleading information through a range of funding (State controlled televisions, Internet trolls, suspicious third parties). The goal is to discredit the EU to undermine support for the legitimate Governments in the region, to demoralize the local population, to disorientate the Western politicians and to undermine the concept of a free, independent, pluralistic media. In the letter the Russian informational campaign is defined as "a real threat to the security of the eastern borders of the EU."
In response, the EU must reinforce the presence of their positions and deconstructs the propaganda proactively, urge the four States. It offers a whole range of measures, including training of journalists, creating an online platform with available resources for media, enhanced exchanges of European shows and movies, the effective cooperation of the European media regulators in respect of infringements of the principle of impartiality, etc..
In fact, that the Baltic States dreaming is a European russian language tv which openly contradicts the Russian propaganda. The idea, however, is the least controversial – what's up with freedom of speech, with which Europe so be proud if the EU create its kontrapropagandna machine? Thesis, which Russia immediately put into circulation as part of the antievropejskiâ propaganda tools. Titles in this sense emerged these days and in the Bulgarian press ("the EU makes the Ministry of truth" in the "work"). But beyond the propaganda, the issues are present and are tough – we asked them after the attack against the "Charly Ebdo." I have, is it possible to question its values in order to respond to a reciprocal of the threat? Is it possible the truth instead of our making available, to make us weak? Where does freedom (of speech) and starts the security – the very acceptance that such a limit exists, also is not unique and is samopodrazbiraŝo.
This is the problem – that our own values, such as freedom of expression, pluralism, democracy is used against us, believes the Bulgarian mp Boris Stanimirov (Reformist block), Member of the Parliamentary Commission on foreign policy. Bulgarian and the other countries of the former Eastern bloc are more susceptible to Russian propaganda, as well as the Baltic States, which have Russian language literary communities – this is officially recognised in the EU, explained Darlington to the _Reduta. BG_. Russian propaganda holds in any argument, on any of our disagreement, so as to turn it to their advantage, says mp and gives an example of media campaign to "mobilisation" of the army and allegations of "occupation" of the United States and NATO are Bulgarian for the deployment of a NATO battalion in the country (both claims were disproved, but conspiracy theories continue to flood the public space). According to Boris Darlington is good discussion at the EU level communication has passed at the level of foreign relations. It's not about freedom of speech, and for security and measures must be thinking in that order, he thinks. This is the first of this kind and scale challenge for United Europe since its creation and so finding the answer is so difficult. We have to look at the Russian propaganda as a time bomb – this is a psychological weapon, brainwashing the public consciousness, so we have to defend ourselves by having armed enemy – with proportionate measures, believes MEP. For example, to stop the broadcast of all Russian channels on EU territory or in the framework of sanctions against Russia to be penalized not only political parties and companies, and media.
In the EU, however, not ready for such extreme measures. That's why the decision of the European Council of 19 March was to instruct the HR Federica Mogerini to present an action plan for strategic communication, with the first step, establishment of a communications team.
Bulgarian participates in all working groups involved with the topic of the European level. However this happens far away from public attention, and in the current political agenda topic did not attend. Not observed and active attempts by the Government and Parliament to seek a solution. Naturally, no one wants to be accused of snatches of pluralism and freedom of speech. On top of everything, in the face of the party "attack" Russian propaganda has its official spokesman in Parliament and in public space, by Alpha tv. In the complete absence of self-regulation in the media sector, pristrastnoto, not one-sided, manipulative and downright false (des) information to be sanctioned or at least publicly condemned. The slipping of propaganda on the line antievropejsko and nationalist discourse, without display directly misses position makes her recognition more difficult, and its action even more effective. As a result, 33% of Bulgarians want the country to join the Eurasian rather than in the European Union (by Alpha research), which is disturbingly high rate, regardless of the pro-European majority.
Against this background, inevitably comes the question of the role of the media – even the EU is looking for a solution with a knee-jerk reaction in the provision of (more) media resources or creating pan-European media, despite abundant evidence that similar measures have not given desired results in the past. Because, in the end, the media decide what, how and in what way (with what sources) to reflect. Repeatedly was the habit of the Bulgarian media to use Russian information sources to reflect European themes, without having professional considerations (for example, to see a different perspective, to give the word to the other party in the dispute, etc.) and more without having to cull through the facts of the allegations, the guest and, ultimately, propaganda-moreis the topic you are reading in "Of the vacuum". For comparison, in Estonia the opposite is the case. There the Government has finally, after years of debate, decided to set up a Russian channel of Estonian public television to start broadcasting in September this year. Arco Olesk, journalist and Director of the Communications Center on Science and inovaci University in Tallinn, told about the _Reduta. BG_the topic for the Russian propaganda and its influence in society is a hot topic in Estonia. Much discussed, although there is no decision yet to be banned Russian television channels. Recently, pravitelstvot has appointed a special officer responsible for psychological defense, whose role is to monitor public sentiment and to propose ways of counteracting that reduce the vulnerability of society from the Russian propaganda.
More importantly, however, is that the Estonian media are generally very aware of the threat from Russian propaganda and successfully neutralize action, thinks her Arco Olesk. The latest example is the experience of the Russian Sputnik media to establish Estonian service. When it becomes clear that the media is looking for collaborators in Estonia, many russian speaking journalists publicly declare that they will not accept the proposals, told Arco Olesk. Against this background, the Bulgarian media reality seem not to have who knows what forces – because of unclear ownership and financing of media and related (again in a vague way) political and economic infrastructure, with an equally obscure ownership and financing, but also because of the rapidly falling standards of quality, completely neglected ethical norms, the ineffective regulation and self-regulation of the absentee media. As wrote Vladimir shopov, live in "TROLandiâ", in which the public environment is so "pinched" that can generate fabrications and isterizira society. "and makes it more successfully. While waiting for "Brussels" to come up with something that won't help.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 23, 2015)

Tatty_One said:


> And of course the US would Tomahawk the crap out of their Early warning systems along with their airfields, SAM sites etc etc to lessen the risks beforehand, you would probably get about 3 months of long range bombardment before any piece of manned metal passed through their sky's, probably before that happened it would have already escalated to un-thinkable proportions.


LRS-B could support manned and unmanned flight.  This might be the beginning of the end of manned bombers.




CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> It can bypass even the current NATO ship protection systems like AEGIS.
> The threat is so serious - the US Navy has commissioned multiple projects to get equivalent missile systems either ingeniously or buying it along with a better ship protection system.


AEGIS is just the tracking system.  THAAD counters ICBMs, Patriot counters long-medium range, Sea Sparrow covers medium-short range, and Goalkeeper covers short range.  Several of these systems are being replaced over the next few decades by laser systems that simply don't miss.


Why hasn't the USA invested in upgrading Tomahawk?  a) because every missile is expensive and b) they're pretty easy for enemies to detect.  Guided gravity bombs out of a bomber, not so much.  They're also really cheap and pack a lot more bang for the buck.


----------



## eddman (Mar 23, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The Tomahawk is a subsonic cruise missile and it's equivalent would be the Nirbhay.


There are a few similar missiles out there already. The best known I suppose is kh-555, a conventional variant of kh-55, although not much is known about it.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The BrahMos is the world's first and only maneuverable supersonic cruise missile (Also the FASTEST) - it also has a great range of upto 290kms (supersonic missiles are generally in the 90-150km range). This combined with it's high accuracy make it the best supersonic cruise missile available - many countries are bidding to buy it - it's especially good for short range coast/naval engagements.


First in what, exactly; maneuverability? There were already many supersonic cruise missiles before it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile#Supersonic

To claim it's the best is a bit bold. It might as well be, but this reads more like a sales pitch.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> It can bypass even the current NATO ship protection systems like AEGIS.
> The threat is so serious - the US Navy has commissioned multiple projects to get equivalent missile systems either ingeniously or buying it along with a better ship protection system.


It's not impossible to intercept such a missile, but it'd be very hard to do so. New tactics and a layered defense system would be required, although a large number of missiles launched at once could overwhelm the defenses.

It's seems that, for now, US navy is mostly focusing on finding efficient ways to shoot down such missiles, or to simply stay out of their range and destroy their launch platforms with air attacks before they can become a threat. Developing a similar missile would help, if it had a considerably longer range, but it'd be useless if enemy's launch platforms remained undetected until it was too late, for example concealed coastal positions.

Saying all that, what does brahmos have to do with tomahawk anyway? They are two entirely different missiles for different purposes.

What do they have to do with this thread?


----------



## MrGenius (Mar 23, 2015)

jagjitnatt said:


> This graphic image looks a little incorrect.
> 
> F111 in high capability? That is not even in service.


It's outdated material that was taken from a website with a rather weighted opinion on the matter. On this page here.


What I was trying to say is, if they're all you've got, and they're not meeting your expectations, then buy some better fighters.


jagjitnatt said:


> The EF Typhoon and Rafale are very potent, better than F16/18/15.


I beg to differ. There's still nothing that can compete with an F-15 except an F-22. And the F-18 Super Hornet is better than either of those as well. Better than an F-16...maybe.


----------



## qubit (Mar 23, 2015)

Is it me, or does that thing look like Concorde?

Typical of the Russians to make a knock-off isn't it?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 23, 2015)

The USSR had Concordski but even that cant be called a copy of Concorde.


----------



## eddman (Mar 23, 2015)

qubit said:


> Is it me, or does that thing look like Concorde?
> 
> Typical of the Russians to make a knock-off isn't it?


No, it's very similar in shape to B-1.

http://tecnologiamilitareaeronautica.blogspot.com/2011/07/tu-160-vs-b-1b.html


----------



## sneekypeet (Mar 23, 2015)

Points already given. Pro Tip: do not post pr0n at TPU, thanks!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 23, 2015)

Eurofighter Typhoon



Sukhoi Su-35
*Top speed*
2,495 km/h   EUROFIGHTER
2,500 km/h   SUKHOI
*Engine type*
Eurojet EJ200
Saturn AL-31
*Range*
3,790 km
3,600 km
*Manufacturer*
Eurofighter
Sukhoi
*Wingspan*
11 m
15 m
*Cruise speed*
1,838 km/h
1,400 km/h
*Length*
16 m
22 m
*Weight*
11,000 kg
18,400 kg


----------



## MilkyWay (Mar 23, 2015)

I think Cyber Warfare will become very important in the near future. If you can know exactly the details of your enemy you have already won.

EDIT: Being able to disrupt your enemy without even using military force is compelling.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 24, 2015)

Yeah, as more and more aircraft go unmanned, the digital security systems in these aircraft as well as the infrastructure that connects them to their commanders becomes more important than the aircraft itself.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 24, 2015)

As I mentioned earlier, apparently there is some research in the EMP field for defence systems, I don't know much about the technology involved in harnessing a device with enough power to send waves of pulses into the skies with high area coverage but if it does happen then anything electro mechanical could be compromised, could be a real game changer, although my limited knowledge cannot for the life of me imagine how you could harness similar EMP output to a nuclear explosion.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 24, 2015)

MilkyWay said:


> I think Cyber Warfare will become very important in the near future. If you can know exactly the details of your enemy you have already won.
> 
> EDIT: Being able to disrupt your enemy without even using military force is compelling.





Once i take out the comms in space my war will be won.    



Spoiler












http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_weapon


light entertainment















Salyut 3    (1974)   carried a space gun

*On-board gun*
The Salyut 3, although called a "civilian" station, was equipped with a "self-defence" gun which had been designed for use aboard the station, and whose design is attributed to Nudelman.[1] Some accounts claim the station was equipped with a Nudelman-Rikhter "Vulkan" gun, which was a variant of the 23 mm Nudelmann aircraft cannon, or possibly aNudelmann NR-30 30 mm gun.[11] Later Russian sources indicate that the gun was the virtually unknown (in the West) Rikhter R-23.[12] These claims have reportedly been verified by Pavel Popovich, who had visited the station in orbit, as commander of Soyuz 14.[11] Due to potential shaking of the station, in-orbit tests of the weapon with cosmonauts in the station were ruled out.[1] The gun was fixed to the station in such a way that the only way to aim would have been to change the orientation of the entire station.[1][11] Following the last manned mission to the station, the gun was commanded by the ground to be fired; some sources say it was fired to depletion,[11] while other sources say three test firings took place during the Salyut 3 mission.[1]


----------



## vega22 (Mar 24, 2015)

Tatty_One said:


> Good point although we now move into the realms of EMP defence systems, I would imagine them drones would just fall out of the sky.




hmmmn


and then people question why they are bringing back old planes out of moth balls?


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 24, 2015)

marsey99 said:


> hmmmn
> 
> 
> and then people question why they are bringing back old planes out of moth balls?


Sadly even they have electronics, maybe a glider would work though!


----------



## vega22 (Mar 24, 2015)

idk but i do think it must be easier to shield some of the older birds that do not use all the fly by wire tech that all the new ones have.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 24, 2015)

marsey99 said:


> idk but i do think it must be easier to shield some of the older birds that do not use all the fly by wire tech that all the new ones have.


I agree, not much electronics needed to fly an old Spitfire, mostly cabling and mechanical.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 24, 2015)

The only aircraft I know of in service today that can survive an EMP is the A-10 Thunderbolt II.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 24, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> I agree, not much electronics needed to fly an old Spitfire, mostly cabling and mechanical.


Would be extremely difficult though to target drop munitions without guidance, radar etc these days whilst trying to dodge defences.


----------



## D007 (Mar 24, 2015)

and they wonder why their economy is broke..


----------



## RCoon (Mar 24, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Eurofighter Typhoon
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was always dubious about the Typhoon. It needed/needs 70+ computers to stop it from simply falling out of the sky because it's be built to be woefully aerodynamic. All for the sake of being better at dogfighting purposes, which I doubt they'll ever see much off. Highly agile concept.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 24, 2015)

RCoon said:


> I was always dubious about the Typhoon. It needed/needs 70+ computers to stop it from simply falling out of the sky because it's be built to be woefully aerodynamic. All for the sake of being better at dogfighting purposes, which I doubt they'll ever see much off. Highly agile concept.



Every Delta wing based plane has this issue. But I don't think it is something very unstable or scary... The agility still is limited... to gforce that the pilot can withstand without passing out. So the device isn't really stressed that much out to it real theoretical max.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Mar 24, 2015)

Considering how broke the entire nation of Russia is, I doubt the citizens there enjoy their tax dollars going to these expensive projects. But then again, they can't actually speak out against their government.


----------



## Countryside (Mar 24, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Considering how broke the entire nation of Russia is, I doubt the citizens there enjoy their tax dollars going to these expensive projects. But then again, they can't actually speak out against their government.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 24, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Considering how broke the entire nation of Russia is, I doubt the citizens there enjoy their tax dollars going to these expensive projects. But then again, they can't actually speak out against their government.



Of Course they Can
Here is a small list
1. Anna Politkovskaya.
2,* Alexander Litvinenko.*
*3.** Natalya Estemirova**.*
*4. Anastasiya Baburova*
*5. Stanislav Markelov*
*6. Boris Berezovsky
*


----------



## jagjitnatt (Mar 24, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Considering how broke the entire nation of Russia is, I doubt the citizens there enjoy their tax dollars going to these expensive projects. But then again, they can't actually speak out against their government.


There's another way to look at it. The only 2 exports Russia can be competitive in is Natural resources and military hardware.

Russia's defence industry earns a lot of foreign exchange for the country. It is selling billions of dollars worth of equipment every year.

India's last few deals with Russia:

- 6 Talwar class frigates ($*3* billion)
- Brahmos Supersonic Cruise Missiles (order book expected to reach $*13 *billion)
- 180 PakFa 5th gen fighter aircraft ($*25 *billion)
- 272 Su-30 MKI ($*16* billion)
- 2000 T-90 Tanks ($*9* billion)
- 2 Nuclear submarines on lease ($*4* billion)
- 1 Aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya ($*2.5* billion)
- 45 Mig 29 K ($*1.5* billion)
- Upgrading 69 Mig 29 B ($*1* billion)

That's almost $*75* billion spent in last few years, and there are numerous deals like the AWACS, IL-76, IL-78 etc etc that I did not take into account.

And when you think about the exports to China, and all the middle east countries, it sure sums up to a huge number.

USSR spent a lot of money on military R&D, Russia is now using that knowledge to manufacture equipment where it has a lead over most of the countries in the world.

They are doing a good job in my opinion.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 24, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Of Course they Can
> Here is a small list
> 1. Anna Politkovskaya.
> 2,* Alexander Litvinenko.*
> ...


You forgot Boris Nemtsov.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 24, 2015)

Didn't forget him it was a very small list (full list is to long) and he is Dead

Oh wait  "Their all Dead"


----------



## Countryside (Mar 24, 2015)

http://rt.com/news/242097-pak-ta-russian-army/


----------



## ne6togadno (Mar 24, 2015)

RCoon said:


> I was always dubious about the Typhoon. It needed/needs 70+ computers to stop it from simply falling out of the sky because it's be built to be woefully aerodynamic. All for the sake of being better at dogfighting purposes, which I doubt they'll ever see much off. Highly agile concept.


you have been misinformed.
it need 2 computers to fly. the rest to 70+ count are for weapons operation, radio, radar etc.



Countryside said:


> http://rt.com/news/242097-pak-ta-russian-army/


respect for 3dmax designers and animators. in russia there are a lot good guys on that field. sadly those skills are useless in aircraft design


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 24, 2015)

Countryside said:


> http://rt.com/news/242097-pak-ta-russian-army/
> [MEDIA=youtube]_Q9IF6A7ZK0[/MEDIA]


Only 8 years late.  The RQ-170 also appears to be significantly more stealthy with its continuous curvature design.  Compare the exhaust design: I suspect IR seeking devices would have no problem finding the PAK TK but a very difficult time finding the RQ-170.


----------



## Countryside (Mar 24, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Only 8 years late.



Its like when Americans had blueray, Russians had VHS.


----------



## INSTG8R (Mar 24, 2015)

D007 said:


> and they wonder why their economy is broke..



Yeah because the US economy is in so much better shape.... Back to your hole...


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 24, 2015)

Countryside said:


> Its like when Americans had blueray, Russians had VHS.



More like phillips 2000 than VHS


----------



## Countryside (Mar 24, 2015)

It dosent matter how hi tech russian fighters are P51 is still better


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 25, 2015)

Boeing delivers pilotless F-16 fighter jet set to be used as flying target in war games

The first production Boeing QF-16 optionally manned target drone has been delivered to the US Air Force (USAF), Air bosses have revealed. 
Aircraft QF-007 arrived at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Florida on 11 March, ahead of being pressed into service by the 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron (ATS).
Boeing has delivered six pre-production QF-16s, and in all, the USAF expects to receive 126 QF-16s.
The unmanned McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II currently used is no longer truly representative of the air-to-air threats USAF pilots are likely to encounter on future operations.













Here is an interesting read, pics and video.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ed-flying-target-war-games.html#ixzz3VOMU2Hq2


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 25, 2015)

I wonder if, because of not having a pilot, if it is capable of pulling even harder Gs in turns making it a more difficult target than it would be otherwise.  Yeah, they're old, but being pilotless could be a huge advantage when dogfighting.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 25, 2015)

Pilotless weapons platforms from the comfort of your armchair.


----------



## ne6togadno (Mar 25, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I wonder if, because of not having a pilot, if it is capable of pulling even harder Gs in turns making it a more difficult target than it would be otherwise.  Yeah, they're old, but being pilotless could be a huge advantage when dogfighting.


no it's not capable.
palaners are designed with 20% (~25% for russian's) safety margine so 9g limit from human capabilities result about 11g max limit of plane itself. motheren air to air can do 13-15g


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 25, 2015)

I know the F-22 is capable of doing much more.  I wonder if the USAF will be able to convince the Pentagon, vis-à-vis Congress, to order a dozen F-22 trainers (no weapons systems making it lighter, faster, more maneuverable, and most importantly, cheaper).  If NATO pilots were training against F-22s that can even outperform their own F-22s, the pilots would likely be unmatched in dogfights.

But no, Congress won't do that because when was the last time there was an aircraft dogfight that wasn't training?  The threat needs to be real for Congress to justify the money.  Then again...this could be a pilot program to see if the remote systems are capable of real-time dogfighting...


----------



## eddman (Mar 25, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Boeing delivers pilotless F-16 fighter jet set to be used as flying target in war games
> 
> The first production Boeing QF-16 optionally manned target drone has been delivered to the US Air Force (USAF), Air bosses have revealed.
> Aircraft QF-007 arrived at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Florida on 11 March, ahead of being pressed into service by the 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron (ATS).
> ...



Honestly, it's not that interesting. They've been doing this for decades and the basics haven't changed.

This video might be even more interesting:










P.S. We're going quite off-topic here, no?



FordGT90Concept said:


> I know the F-22 is capable of doing much more.



How much more? A big, heavy fighter can never match a missile in g tolerance. Beyond 11g, even an F-22 will start to lose its structural integrity.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 25, 2015)

@eddman  shame you dont find it interesting....I do.

Epic video, good find, equally as interesting.  


Straight from Wiki...as you can tell

The earliest examples of electronically guided model aircraft were hydrogen-filled model airships of the late 19th century. They were flown as a music hall act around theater auditoriums using a basic form of spark-emitted radio signal.[2] In the 1920s, the Royal Aircraft Establishment of Britain built and tested the pilotless Larynx, a monoplane with a 100-mile (160 km) range. It was not until the 1930s that the British came up with the Queen Bee, a gunnery target version of the de Havilland Tiger Moth, and similar target aircraft. Radio control systems for model aircraft were developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s by English enthusiasts such as Howard Boys, who patented his 'Galloping Ghost' system of proportional control and became a regular contributor to _Aeromodeller_ on the topic.[3]

In the United States, two pioneers in the field of controlling model planes by radio were Ross Hull and Clinton B. DeSoto,[4] officers of theAmerican Radio Relay League. During 1937, these two men successfully built and flew several large R/C gliders in the first public demonstration of controlled flights, in the course of which their sailplanes made more than 100 flights. A scheduled R/C event at the 1937National Aeromodeling Championships attracted six entrants: Patrick Sweeney, twin brothers William and Walter Good, Elmer Wasman, Chester Lanzo, Leo Weiss and B. Shiffman, Lanzo winning with the lightest (6 pounds) and simplest model plane, although his flight was rather erratic and lasted only several minutes. Sweeney and Wasman both had extremely short (5-second) flights when their aircraft took off, climbed steeply, stalled and crashed. Sweeney, however, had the distinction of being the first person to attempt a R/C flight in a national contest. The other three entrants were not even able to take off, although both William and Walter Good persisted with developing R/C systems, culminating in first placings in the 1940 US Nationals and again after the end of World War II, in 1947. Their historic R/C model airplane, which they named the “Guff,” was presented to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., in May, 1960, where it can be seen today.[5]


----------



## eddman (Mar 25, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> @eddman  shame you dont find it interesting....I do.
> Epic video, good find, equally as interesting.
> 
> Straight from Wiki...as you can tell
> ...



I didn't mean it in any disrespectful way. It's just that a new Q target drone plane is not interesting at all.

They are simple remote controlled planes that have only one purpose; to be shot down. They have no attack capabilities at all. I don't find it interesting, because I don't see anything new here.

Planes like the X-47B and the UCLASS project as a whole are far more interesting in comparison.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 25, 2015)

eddman said:


> How much more? A big, heavy fighter can never match a missile in g tolerance. Beyond 11g, even an F-22 will start to lose its structural integrity.


It's more about using the autocannon.

What I remember it from, I'm sure, was the YF-22, not the production F-22A.  Lockheed knows what the airframe is capable of without a pilot but those numbers aren't published.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 28, 2015)

LRS-B was discussed in this thread so it fits...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/27/politics/long-range-strike-bomber-northrop-grumman/index.html

The contract was awarded to Northrop Grumman (maker for the B-2 Spirit) and the first aircraft are expected to be delivered in 2020.  There's speculation that it will be able to operate manned or unmanned.  It is also a stealth aircraft that is capable of delivering nuclear and conventional payloads.  The US order for LRS-B is at 100 aircraft compared to the B-2's order of 21.  LRS-B will cost about half ($511 million) per aircraft compared to the B-2's heavy price tag of approximately $1 billion per aircraft.

Not much more than that is known at this time.  The Pentagon is holding the cards really close to its chest on this one.  There must be a super secret component to the project (AI? LASERs? Rail guns?) because "stealth bomber" doesn't necessitate this degree of secrecy.


----------



## rooivalk (Oct 28, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> LRS-B will cost about half ($511 million) per aircraft compared to the B-2's heavy price tag of approximately $1 billion per aircraft.


sidenote: $511 millions per 2010 dollar, translated to $564 millions as of today.

I don't think it'll be ultra-top-secret platform. It exists as interim solution between current mix of B52/B1 to future 2037 bomber (replacement for B2). It's also focused as affordable long range bomb truck, ultra exotic systems don't fit well with LRS-B. Think of it as GeForce 970.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 28, 2015)

B-52 is getting replaced in 2037.  B-52's replacement will likely be all about efficiency: cutting fuel consumption, increasing range, decreasing crew, and increasing payload.

B1-B will have to be replaced in the 2030s but there are no plans to do so yet.  I suspect B-52's replacement, with thrust vectoring, could potentially fulfill both rolls.

The LRS-B is intended to supplement and replace the B-2 Spirit.  B-2 are extremely expensive and it is a first generation stealth flying wing.  I'm sure many lessons were learned from it which is going into the next generation.  Additionally, B-2 is really only limited by crew endurance (they literally have to sleep in the cockpit on long missions).  LRS-B presumably won't suffer from that problem because it can be either remote or AI controlled.  It's hard to say what all they did but, the B-2 is a 25 year old aircraft, the mission, and technology has changed.  B-2 has enormous maintenance costs too so I think, once the LRS-B proves itself, most of the B-2 fleet will be sent to the boneyard.

LRS-B won't debut until 2020 and they typically have at least a 25 year life.  That puts the LRS-B to at least 2045.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 26, 2016)

LRS-B gets the B-21 designation and, unsurprisingly, looks a lot like the B-2 Spirit:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/polit...mage-long-range-strike-bomber-b-21/index.html





It will primarily replace the aging fleet of B-52s and potentially replace the B-1B Lancers as well.


----------



## bbmarley (Feb 27, 2016)

Lol i just brain farted for a second. had a thought "that looks like a nice protractor triangle".


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Feb 27, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> Knowing Russia, they probably have about 3 of these.  They like to make a lot of high tech prototypes that don't actually get beyond the demonstration phase just for bragging rights...  kinda the opposite of the west which keeps such things under wraps.
> 
> I mean, have they even actually widely deployed the T-90 series of tanks yet?  Didn't think so.



Technically they built 3200 T90 tanks vs 10k M1 Abrams
However Russia has the new T14 Armata and have placed orders for about 2300 or so by 2020.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 27, 2016)

M1 Abrams is getting long in the tooth.   Congress insisted on M1A3 instead of a replacement for the M1.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Feb 27, 2016)

Meh to be honest lets face it the chance for a 2 first world nations going to war is tiny. We spend a shit ton of money on high tech weaponry. To fight terrorism and 3rd world dick-Tators. Aka Iraq invasion. one M1 Abrams had a track knocked off that was it no tanks were destroyed.

I just find it funny that fundamentally Humanity has not changed we still basically try to one up each other. And for what? Imagine what the world could be if all the nations on the planet didnt invest in massive weapons of war aka. Say we focus on space travel / colonization vs 10k tanks and new destroyers / subs/ aircraft carriers etc.

Example

Ukraine Russia does their thing we provide cash support to the opposition. Economic sanctions etc.

Think about it Apple is worth more than all of Russia. War is essentially kinda pointless. But so much economic policy relies on inflated military budgets.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 27, 2016)

Well...if no one policed the oceans, piracy would make a come back and all of these products imported from China would be stolen and resold at hefty discounts.  The US Navy is an unfortunate nessessity.  I generally agree though.  A new Manhattan Project needs to be started with the end goal of getting humans to another star.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Feb 27, 2016)

well with AI and robots in my life time they are expecting 50% unemployement in that senario world falls apart because theirs no one to buy the products the rich CEOs and their corporations make. Humanity has flaws and greed is basically going to be our undoing.

To many mouths not enough food. Future water shortages in various parts of the world to do climate changes and shifts. So wars will break out but nothing will come of it but destruction. But then again thats the way it goes. Government ask the brightest and best among us for answers if those answers aren't what they wanted they ignore it and push on anyway lol.  Does Russia need 2300+ new tanks? Does the US need more tanks? or susper sonic jets ?

I mean for christs in the last 70 years the wars we have fought have been in places where our enemies are god damn peasants / militia / terrorists with make shift weapons old tech and gurriella style fighting. Last time nations went toe to toe with equal tech  was WWII. I will gladly admit that Naval aspect is required.

But do we really need.
2,500,000 Soldiers
8,800 Tanks
41,062 Armored Fighting Vehicles
1,934 Self Propelled Guns
1,299 Towed Artillery
1,331 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems
13,444 Air craft
2,308 Fighers / Interceptors
2,785 Fixed Wing Attack Craft
5700 Transport craft
2700 Training craft
6000 Helicopters
957 Attack helicopters
415 Total Naval Strength
19 Aircraft Carriers
6 Frigates
62 Destoryers
75 Submarines
13 Coastal Defense Craft
11 Mine Warfare

Thats just what we KNOW about.

While many nations are spending and growing their military the US outspends everyone for the time being.

USA 610 Billion not counting black budgets
China 216 Billion
Russia 84.5 Billion
Saudi Arabia 80.8 Billion
France 62 Billion
United Kingom 60 Billion
India 50 Billion
Germany 46.5 Billion
Japan 45.8 Billion
South Korea 36.7 Billion


Now some say China / Russia our the biggest threats to us. That may be true. But when you compared Russia China to US allies. 610 + 62 + 60 +46.5 + 45.8 for staunch support aka France / UK / Germany ./ Japan. thats a total of 820 Billion roughly not counting black budgets etc

820 billion. Its amazing that for all our advances we still as a sentient species cant get our shit together.

Point is for the current foresable future we spend a shit ton of money on high end weaponry to deal with dudes hiding behind rocks with RPGs in the middle of nowhere. We have tanks we have planes and drones but so far it doesn't seem to have done us much good.


----------



## johnspack (Feb 27, 2016)

Dam,  maybe my people should of stayed in Estonia,  and be owned by Russia.....


----------



## Divide Overflow (Feb 27, 2016)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> While many nations are spending and growing their military the US outspends everyone for the time being.


Hey now, SOMEBODY has to keep Canada in line!


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 27, 2016)

An excellent installment from the series "Wings of Russia" It gives an insight into the 60 year history of this aircraft.

"The White Swan"















Nr.2 Tupolev Tu-160


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 27, 2016)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> well with AI and robots in my life time they are expecting 50% unemployement in that senario world falls apart because theirs no one to buy the products the rich CEOs and their corporations make. Humanity has flaws and greed is basically going to be our undoing.
> 
> To many mouths not enough food. Future water shortages in various parts of the world to do climate changes and shifts. So wars will break out but nothing will come of it but destruction. But then again thats the way it goes. Government ask the brightest and best among us for answers if those answers aren't what they wanted they ignore it and push on anyway lol.  Does Russia need 2300+ new tanks? Does the US need more tanks? or susper sonic jets ?
> 
> ...


That figure for the UK includes my pension  in fact pensions are by far the biggest single spend within the budget not equipment.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 27, 2016)

The same for pretty much every other 1st world nation.  Pretty sure DoD is behind Medicare now too thanks to Obamacare.  Both of those line items are mandatory spending where DoD is discretionary.




crazyeyesreaper said:


> But do we really need.
> 2,500,000 Soldiers
> 8,800 Tanks
> 41,062 Armored Fighting Vehicles
> ...


They all represent well paying US jobs.  You can't build 8800 tanks without skilled labors back at home to assemble and repair them.  Soldiers need food (farmers), clothing (upholsterers), and shelter (carpenters).  Militaries also require energy which comes from power companies, nuclear engineers, and the oil industry.  Doesn't matter where you go in the world, the military--no matter how small--is a staple of the economy.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Feb 27, 2016)

True enough Ford, but i wonder while we do have that massive military as part of the economy it didnt HAVE To be that big a part. Instead of going into space, or pushing forward with new advancements we basically just build more and more expensive death machines to fight against dudes in turbans in th middle east hiding behind sand dunes. Don't get me wrong having the tech is nice and its no longer possible to scale back as you pointed out. BUt that doesn't mean we didn't waste alot of money and resources we could have used to fund something bigger and better for society as a whole. I mean fuck look at NASAs contributions. I just find it funny we can land a rover on Mars send data back, Can see distant galaxies, We have the ability to create cleaner energy and with new farming techniques we could solve global hunger problems but we never evolved past the i need to be in charge i need to be #1 i need to make a profit. We havent managed to get past the "ME ME ME ME ME" aspect of ourselves granted I am no different. Although it is interesting to wonder where we would be if religion never entered the equation and we managed to work past warlike tendencies and desire to be better than our neighbors.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 27, 2016)

Railguns and lasers work really well in space...


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Feb 27, 2016)

yeah but M1 Abrams / T14 / T90 / Challanger 1 those IFVs etc not so much lol.

And lets face it if a war DOES break out between two first world nations aka Nuclear powers. Eventually someone has to lose = Nukes are deployed


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 27, 2016)

True, but excepting the Abram, their numbers are dwindling.  With each generation, fewer are ordered than the previous.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Feb 27, 2016)

yeah cause we really dont need anymore I think the US alone accounts for 8800 or so out of 10k Abrams


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 27, 2016)

And most of those were built in the 1980s and early 1990s.  They're just maintaining and upgrading them now.  Those that are getting destroyed beyond recovery aren't being replaced.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 27, 2016)

Isn't all of this useless? No one is going to attack anyone in the modern era, cause if things got bad enough and America was about to be overtaken we would all just launch nukes, thats why its trade and cyber wars only now...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 28, 2016)

Tell that to Ukraine.  Proxy wars are the norm today.  Hell, Turkey downed a Russian aircraft not that long ago.  There also was major bouts of piracy off the coast of Somalia not even a decade ago.

Nuclear arsenals are a deterrant (see "Mutually Assured Destruction").  If you have them, no one wants to attack you.  If you don't have them, you become the potential target for a proxy war.


----------



## stinger608 (Feb 28, 2016)

lynx29 said:


> Isn't all of this useless? No one is going to attack anyone in the modern era, cause if things got bad enough and America was about to be overtaken we would all just launch nukes, thats why its trade and cyber wars only now...




Ummmm, I don't think that is how it would go. I think that billions would stand up with their own weapons and fight along side the US military! 

I sure as f@#k know I would!!!!!!!! I fairly well armed! Also with a lot of "tactical" items as well. 

Say what you will, but I'd be one of the frigging first out the door after anyone that hits my home land!!!!!!


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 28, 2016)

stinger608 said:


> Ummmm, I don't think that is how it would go. I think that billions would stand up with their own weapons and fight along side the US military!
> 
> I sure as f@#k know I would!!!!!!!! I fairly well armed! Also with a lot of "tactical" items as well.
> 
> Say what you will, but I'd be one of the frigging first out the door after anyone that hits my home land!!!!!!



There are 350 million population in USA, not sure where you are getting billions from.  There already is war, China steals are RnD info all the time from private companies and the government, but we can never go to war over it cause of nukes.


----------



## medi01 (Feb 28, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Russian President Putin is about to unleash a new supersonic bomber



Tu - 160 is a soviet designed aircraft that was in service since 1987. (first flight in 1981)

The bumped up version, 160M (from 2005, btw) is merely weaponry upgrade, *but max speed/range are the same.
*
The only news here is that Russia plans to build 50 of those. Good luck spending money on that (and on their maintainance) with current oil prices, Mr Putler.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> According to Wiki ( so not necessarily accurate) they have 35 of these.


No.

They never had that many under Putlers rule.
They even managed to lose one (Tu 22) in war vs Georgia in 2008.

According to Wiki 35 of these WERE EVER PRODUCED.

But 19 of them were stationed in Ukraine. (which, besides strategic bombers, had over 1200 STRATEGIC missiles with heavy nuclear warheads, which it has given up, for promises from USA, Russia and UK that they'll guard its souverenity... a said story, really).

Max total of Tu-160's under Putlers rule was 16 (as of April 2008). Plan was to increase the number up to 30, building 1 aircraft per year. Now they say 50 instead of 30, but not that they have production capacity to have that any time soon.



Ferrum Master said:


> Poland has the greatest Tank army in our side, just because on the fall of USSR there was located high tech Tank plant constructing including T-72BM(same T-90), I lol, Russians sell export low end tanks, then buyer send them to Poland for upgrading, money rolls on


You might want to check why Russians switched from T-72 to T-64 when fighting Chechens.
Your best answer to mass armor on Russian side would be US Javelins/Israeli Spikes (look superior on paper, not sure if Israel sells them though). 
Which, to my knowledge, you already have...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 28, 2016)

lynx29 said:


> There are 350 million population in USA, not sure where you are getting billions from.  There already is war, China steals are RnD info all the time from private companies and the government, but we can never go to war over it cause of nukes.




The total population of NATO countries is approaching 1 billion.

According to latest data the US has 4500 nuclear warheads...........China 260.

The discrete delivery system is the key to it, for example we know N Korea has nuclear capability but at the moment has no long range rocket or supersonic, radar evading aircraft to dump it with.

History tells us why we have these things............ common sense tells us why we dont use them.





medi01 said:


> Tu - 160 is a soviet designed aircraft that was in service since 1987. (first flight in 1981)
> 
> The bumped up version, 160M (from 2005, btw) is merely weaponry upgrade, *but max speed/range are the same.
> *
> ...




A full system upgrade including electronics, reconnaisance, radar and weapons and as the thread title says  " can outrun Britains best fighter jet"


About the numbers?
CAPSLOCKSTUCK said: ↑
According to Wiki ( so not necessarily accurate) they have 35 of these.



​


----------



## medi01 (Feb 28, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> According to Wiki ( so not necessarily accurate) they have 35 of these.


No, according to wiki, 35 of these *were ever built.*



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> A full system upgrade including electronic


Yeah, back from 2005. And no speed/range bump.
It is no better at "outrunning" british fighters than 1987 model was.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 28, 2016)

medi01 said:


> No, according to wiki, 35 of these *were ever built.*





medi01 said:


> Russia plans to build 50 of those









medi01 said:


> It is no better at "outrunning" british fighters than 1987 model was.





CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> and as the thread title says " can outrun Britains best fighter jet"


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 28, 2016)

But not Britians missles.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 29, 2016)

Speaking of nuclear weapons.  USA test launched two unarmed Minuteman III missiles a few days back:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/0...ewis.cnn/video/playlists/military-technology/

And yeah...they still work...


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Feb 29, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Speaking of nuclear weapons.  USA test launched two unarmed Minuteman III missiles a few days back:
> http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/0...ewis.cnn/video/playlists/military-technology/
> 
> And yeah...they still work...



Help me understand the point here.

MAD exists as a deterrent to war.  It's been described as two mortal enemies standing in pools of gasoline with a book of matches as their only weapon.
Proxy war exist so that the enemies described in MAD can continue to fight, without fearing nuclear destruction.  They always turn out badly; see Afghanistan as a prime example.
MAD only works with overwhelmingly strong weapons.  This is why is first appeared when the atomic weapon did.
ICBMs and stealth bombers allow for countries to effectively threaten one another at greater range, with the mitigating factor being defensive technologies evolving over time.


I think we can agree to the above, because it's relatively well documented and basic truths about reality.

What I'm having a hard time seeing is why an ICBM test matters.  The test is basically to demonstrate a large metal tube, filled with explosives, venting in one direction continues to work.  A device built upon ancient technologies (read: original floppy disks and telephone modems) and basic physics.  A device where several of the facilities housing them have had their operators ranked as barely proficient.  They want to demonstrate that a delivery system still works, without any other component in the system being tested.

You'll excuse me, but why do I care?  If ICBMs didn't work we could literally build and launch suicide drones with tactical devices.  What is in question is whether the nukes still work.  Given that the last (non-censored) information I've seen on our weaponry calls for them to use radioactive gasses as initial particle source, and these gasses have a half-life somewhere south of 15 years.  This means that the devices produced during the 80's are at less than 25% of their original radioactive isotope density.  There's likely a substantial safety factor for how much gas is required, but a safety factor of 4 is highly unlikely.  I'm happy that nuclear deterrence is dying off, but testing an ICBM is theater.  How is theater a demonstration of force, especially when a missile without a warhead is basically just a giant lawn dart?


----------



## medi01 (Feb 29, 2016)

Regarding Minuteman and actually entire missile arsenal of USA vs what Soviet Union had. The soviet SS18 "Satan" ICBM was never matched by anything on american side. It was actually even better, than estimated, giving USSR serious advantage in CERTAIN scenarios.

On the other hand, before mid-short range missiles of that kind were banned, USSR was scared to death with Pershings located in western Europe. It would take them only about 4 minutes to reach Volga river. Many soviet analysts concluded that the only way to counter it was to strike first. That's what turned Reagan's 1983 drills, "Able Archer", into such a gamble, USSR was seriously considering preemptive strike.

Ignoring sensationalist misleading title (you don't have to lie to mislead), *really serious* shit (with its roots again, back in Cold War times, the idea was first voiced by Leo Szilard, then, allegedly, Sakharov (father of Soviet TNB) told Khruschov USSR has to build one) that Putler is POSSIBLY building, is Cobalt-60 based "Статус-6" project, "leaked" by Russian TV:







Youtube: 








It would be strong enough to cause 500m tsunami and spread radioactive shit all over the place.

This is "kinda" Russian counter to US' strategic missile defense program.




lilhasselhoffer said:


> What is in question is whether the nukes still work. Given that the last (non-censored) information I've seen on our weaponry calls for them to use radioactive gasses as initial particle source, and these gasses have a half-life somewhere south of 15 years. This means that the devices produced during the 80's are at less than 25% of their original radioactive isotope density.


Well, interesting, but likely not a problem.

Typical material used in such bombs is Plutonium 239, which has a half life of 24 THOUSAND years.

However, strategic nukes are not "nuclear", they are "thermo-nuclear". Conventional nuke is used inside thermonuclear bomb to start fusion process, "detonating" tritium (3H). Tritium has half life of 12 years.

So as of 1995 USA was consuming 2kg of Tritium annually. (For comparison, ITER fusion reactor would need about 3kg to start working, DEMO would need 4 to 10.)
So, TN arsenals are routinely refreshed.





CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> From the (nearly year old) OP


I missed the point.
Tu-160 (one from 1987) has the same range and max speed.
And anyway, I was referring to dailymail not OP.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 29, 2016)

@medi01 

From the (nearly year old) OP


----------



## Ithanul (Feb 29, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> LRS-B gets the B-21 designation and, unsurprisingly, looks a lot like the B-2 Spirit:
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/polit...mage-long-range-strike-bomber-b-21/index.html
> 
> 
> ...


I hope they fix the issue with the paint.  Those B-2s are a health hazard to work on.  

Never worked on one, but I did six years working on C-17s and KC-10s.  If there one jet that really needs replacing its the KC-10.  That thing is older than C-5.  Plus, our military leases them since they are commercial DC-10s that where out fitted with a extra engine, fuel tank, and boom.

Also, a interesting note for some peeps.  Our cargo jets are not always used for troops, war vehicles, etc.  They transport food within the States or areas in need, emergency vehicles, people, etc.

Though, I am curious where a good hunk of that budget goes since when I was in as a jet troop.  We where slashed down to a small crew that had to switch over to 12 hour shifts and still push a jet out in 3-4 days for its home check (actually did mostly 13-14 hour shifts, once awhile 16 hours).  Then of course there where some weeks we had to hunt parts or cannibalize parts off our barn engines.  It a pain in the arse finding ignition plugs when there are none in stock.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 29, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Help me understand the point here.
> 
> MAD exists as a deterrent to war.  It's been described as two mortal enemies standing in pools of gasoline with a book of matches as their only weapon.
> Proxy war exist so that the enemies described in MAD can continue to fight, without fearing nuclear destruction.  They always turn out badly; see Afghanistan as a prime example.
> ...


1) Because the delievery system is as important as the warhead.
2) Because it is illegal to detonate a nuclear device.  ORNL has among the fastest supercomputers in the world to simulate the viability of the nuclear arsenal.  Do the simulations work?  I'm a skeptic.


@media1 All of USA's nuclear weapons used smaller warheads but with multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRVs).  Peacekeeper was the largest the USA ever deployed carrying a payload of 10 MIRVs.  Each missiles could literally carpet bomb a huge swath of a country without going too far (collateral damage).  It represents the difference in tactics between the USA and USSR during that era: USA generally used a knife where USSR used a hammer.  This is the same reason why USA never detonated a 50MT nuclear warhead.  What purpose would it serve?  Once you know how to make a fusion bomb, it's not difficult to massively increase the yield.


----------



## 64K (Feb 29, 2016)

Only Russia set off a hydrogen bomb that massive. They called it the Tsar Bomba and it yielded somewhere between 50 and 58 megatons. Massive overkill and I don't think they ever built a second one. It yielded somewhere between 1,300 and 1,600 times the combined energy of the nukes that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## Ithanul (Feb 29, 2016)

Scary thing is, they original wanted the Tsar Bomba to be 100 megatons.  That would of been nuts.  They cut down the size since the plane would of been unable to get away and the fallout would been nuts if they had made it 100 megatons.

Even at its 50-58 megatons that bomb was a monster.  It still caused damage several hundreds of kilometers away.  Heck, it broke windows in Finland and Norway.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 2, 2016)

medi01 said:


> ...
> Well, interesting, but likely not a problem.
> 
> Typical material used in such bombs is Plutonium 239, which has a half life of 24 THOUSAND years.
> ...




I'm scratching my head, as to your response here.

On the one hand, you say the Tritium (the radioactive gas I was referring to) has a half life of 12 years.  This agrees with what I said, and you've even done the research and figured out how much the US consumes and uses in a year.  That's arguably more effort than I wanted to put in, but it's a fair point.


On the other hand, you've missed the point entirely.  Plutonium has a huge half life, but like iron oxide-aluminum thermite you've got to prime it to react.  That's where the Tritium comes in, it takes almost nothing for it to start decaying, thereby priming the plutonium to undergo fission in the explosion.  In commonly available media, you can see parts of how a nuke (cold war era) is dismantled, and getting into the highly radioactive parts (where the tritium is stored) takes a massive effort.  This is why the question of actual efficacy is made.  You could theoretically replace the gas, but doing it in an semblance of a short time is...unlikely.  Detonating a nuclear device without first priming the plutonium would yield either an incomplete reaction, or even prevent the plutonium from reacting at all.  It takes a massive amount of kinetic energy to initiate fission without priming the plutonium (the testers used accelerate the test material to a higher velocity than is possible inside of a nuclear device). 




FordGT90Concept said:


> 1) Because the delievery system is as important as the warhead.
> 2) Because it is illegal to detonate a nuclear device.  ORNL has among the fastest supercomputers in the world to simulate the viability of the nuclear arsenal.  Do the simulations work?  I'm a skeptic.
> ...




1) The delivery system is a joke.  What we've proven is that our rockets still work.  Russia is still using rockets from the cold war to propel astronauts to the ISS, so you'll excuse me if it's taken for granted that the same technology would still be working on an ICBM.  If the technology didn't work, outside of poor maintenance, I'd be genuinely surprised.
2) If the point of the exercise was to show nuclear readiness, and all you test is a rocket, then you've demonstrated nothing about your nuclear readiness.  The procedure for testing the efficacy of a nuclear device, at least the one I'm aware of, is taking a chunk of plutonium out and initiating fusion to demonstrate that the material is still fissile.  The procedure for testing the tritium is mass spectroscopy (to determine fraction of fissile gas).  Neither of these things is demonstrated here.  I'd infinitely prefer seeing those numbers, to spending a few million dollars to send a metal tube into the air.  Anyone with a brain and time can build a rocket, the frightening bit is what it carries.

As such, my point stands.  This wasn't a display of nuclear readiness.  It was a show for the ignorant, to make them feel safer because they're "protected."  I'm far more frightened by the bar graphs that you don't see.  The ones that show a tiny spec of Plutonium breaking down and releasing more energy than a gallon of gasoline.  It's hard to show a person that number, and have them understand how frightening it is.  It's far easier to show them a rocket flying through the sky, and having them equate that to danger.  Most people are frighteningly ignorant of science.




Edit:
Removed double quote.  My error on the copy-pasting.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 2, 2016)

It amuses me that this thread popped up. I have seen one of these in person. They are shit, the company that manufactured the engines went out of business because russia couldn't purchase enough motors.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 3, 2016)

Northrop Grumman have just released this B-2  video


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 3, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Northrop Grumman have just released this B-2  video



If the video would be 4K and still using VISTA, I would put this as a daydream


----------



## medi01 (Mar 4, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> In commonly available media, you can see parts of how a nuke (cold war era) is dismantled, and getting into the highly radioactive parts (where the tritium is stored) takes a massive effort.


Tritium is a hazard only if taken inside body (say, by drinking it for some hard to imagine reason) and I frankly don't see why it is much of an effort to re-fresh it.

Anyhow, number of strategic warheads have also been reduced a lot by START I and START II treaties (from 10k to about 3-4k total, most of them are placed on ICBMs, about 800 are for strategic bombers) and Russia, by no means a rich country but not poor either could certainly afford to continue to routinely re-fresh its strategic thermonuclear arsenal.

ICBMs, however, are really expensive to produce (most need their fuel refreshed from time to time, by the way, but that's nothing compared to replacing entire missile). Russia could not afford to keep them up in good shape, as far as I know. "Bulava" program that was supposed to produce universal "can be launched from anywhere" missile (NATO calls it  SS-NX-30), seeking to re-fresh outdated submarine arsenal; But there was a streakof problems, 49 were produced so far, 24 used for tests, out of 24 test launches only 15 were successful. and that despite rather modest specs, at least on paper, Chinese JL-2 looks much more impressive.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 4, 2016)

medi01 said:


> I frankly don't see why it is much of an effort to re-fresh it.



NASA needs it for space equipment. It is a big shortage of nuclear elements used for atomic batteries and nuclear space equipment heaters.


----------



## KLiKzg (Mar 4, 2016)

Only way to make a response to Tu-160M is:
1. recommission SR-71 with a D-21 converted to nuclear missile (you really can't beat that!)
2. decide to make SR-72


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 4, 2016)

ok i didn't followed the thread but thanks @Ferrum Master

so i could find a post that say "new supersonic bomber" in 2015, while it's a plane design from 19 december 1981 (ohhhhh only 7 days younger than me ) produced in 1984-1992, 2000, 2008, officially introduced in 2008, altho initial operation capability was 1987...
hardly a new bomber and not really hard to outrun Britain's best jet fitghter, tho ...

the Tu-160M "Beliy Lebed" (white Swan official denomination, and not idiotic NATO code-name like they did with the "Akula" naming it "Typhoon" and giving the real "Akula" class name to the "Shchuka" class) will not "outrun" a Typhoon, same speed ok ... sustained speed? probably not, action range? not really an issue, technically speaking.

altho i am more worried about the playload of the world's largest supersonic variable swept wing  combat aircraft (all the 3 title it holds )

actually the T-160 was an answer  to the Rockwell B1 (around 1972)

one T-160 has been intercepted by a British Panavia Tornado in 2005 (ofc not a combat situation, just a ... "oh hello ... you shouldn't be there" )

ps: NATO really have an issue on Russian denomination ... namming the 9M119 Svir and 9M119M Refleks by the AT-11 Sniper ... just as they did with the AT-14 Spriggan which was the 9M133 Kornet, there must be some logic behind all these but still i find that ridiculous and it has already led to quite a bunch of confusion, like with the Kh 90 Gela/ 3M25A Meteorite A/Kh 80 Grom  denominated AS-X-21 by NATO and also AS-X-19 Koala, altho both Gela and Meteorit A are shown as "canceled" by Russia and are from 1981 also



KLiKzg said:


> Only way to make a response to Tu-160M is:
> 1. recommission SR-71 with a D-21 converted to nuclear missile (you really can't beat that!)
> 2. decide to make SR-72


nope ... as much as i love the SR-71 (who does Mach 3), mach 2 is mach 2 and a lot of interceptor and missile can reach that speed (even the obsolete Bloodhound could shot down a T-160M ) no need for a mach 3 interceptor or missile to reach a T-160m (altho russia has also some Mach 3 interceptor ... i.e: the MiG-25P NATO codename : Foxbat for once it's almost logical ... and the MiG-31 NATO codename: Foxhound altho that one is "only" Mach 2.83 capable )

and for 1... albeit funny ... it would totally be impractical and yep you can beat that
assuming you were joking obviously



bottom line, the title or the 1st line of the initial post under the picture should be: 2015 Puttin finally unleashed a bomber that was waiting since 1987


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 4, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> NATO really have an issue on Russian denomination ...



yes it has... best example with SU-27 clones with different modifications... there is a mess in the naming for them...


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 4, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> But not Britians missles.


And consider, we even have Mach 4 plus hand held systems with a range of 7km+ so as long as the enemy is in sight we are in with a chance!


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 4, 2016)

Please do not forget we also have the ultimate point defense system
Politicians with megaphones


----------



## cdawall (Mar 4, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> bottom line, the title or the 1st line of the initial post under the picture should be: 2015 Puttin finally unleashed a bomber that was waiting since 1987



What do you mean finally they have been in existence since the 1980s. Flying


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 4, 2016)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> True enough Ford, but i wonder while we do have that massive military as part of the economy it didnt HAVE To be that big a part.



However, it must be pointed out that military spending when it was at it's highest during the Cold War, was a much, much smaller percentage of the budget than what the USSR spent.  It's even smaller now.

As to the OP: The point was made earlier in here about SAM's being fast enough to fly faster than the Russian bomber, but I missed it if someone brought AAM's up.  The Fighter jet does not need to be faster than the bomber.  It merely needs to fly on an intercept course, acquire it on radar, and launch radar-guided AAM (Air to Air Missile) at it.  AAM's fly much faster than Mach 2.  So the whole point of speed being matched is really moot.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 4, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> However, it must be pointed out that military spending when it was at it's highest during the Cold War, was a much, much smaller percentage of the budget than what the USSR spent.  It's even smaller now.



You cannot compare soviet economy numbers with US... money during soviet times was kind of artificial also the cost of resources...


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Mar 4, 2016)

medi01 said:


> Tritium is a hazard only if taken inside body (say, by drinking it for some hard to imagine reason) and I frankly don't see why it is much of an effort to re-fresh it.
> 
> Anyhow, number of strategic warheads have also been reduced a lot by START I and START II treaties (from 10k to about 3-4k total, most of them are placed on ICBMs, about 800 are for strategic bombers) and Russia, by no means a rich country but not poor either could certainly afford to continue to routinely re-fresh its strategic thermonuclear arsenal.
> 
> ICBMs, however, are really expensive to produce (most need their fuel refreshed from time to time, by the way, but that's nothing compared to replacing entire missile). Russia could not afford to keep them up in good shape, as far as I know. "Bulava" program that was supposed to produce universal "can be launched from anywhere" missile (NATO calls it  SS-NX-30), seeking to re-fresh outdated submarine arsenal; But there was a streakof problems, 49 were produced so far, 24 used for tests, out of 24 test launches only 15 were successful. and that despite rather modest specs, at least on paper, Chinese JL-2 looks much more impressive.



I can't tell if you just don't get it, or you're trolling.

Tritium is a Proton with two Neutrons.  It's an isotope of hydrogen.  The dangerous part, inside a nuclear device, isn't the tritium.  The dangerous part is the Plutonium which is constantly undergoing gamma decay.  To suggest that it's safe or easy to replace the tritium, because you could drink it, it just stupid.  Getting to the Tritium requires cutting through the protective casing, then the shielding, and all the while worrying about radiation exposure and insanely delicate equipment.  Tritium can happily be stored as a gas, and is much easier to deal with when those big pesky oxygen atoms can't act as a damper to decay.

You are obviously trying to equate this to heavy water, one or two tritium or deuterium atoms bonded to an oxygen atom.  Yes, you're more than safe to drink that.  The results aren't exactly scientific, but estimates place the average human being able to consume multiple kilograms of heavy water without issues, because our body doesn't store water.  This is why other nuclear materials are devastating in small quantities (if memory serves, strontium replaces calcium in bones).  Likewise, some decay can be blocked relatively easily.  For instance, the alpha decay of depleted uranium can effectively be blocked by a layer of paper.  This is why your average tank operator isn't in a hazmat suit, despite being surrounded by a radioactive material.



As far as fission, you need to be aware of the idea of critical mass.  Basically, you've got to capture the energy from a decaying particle, and use it to decay another particle.  With extremely heavy particles you'll either need to artificially induce this by kinetic compression, or have a material that decays rapidly and has a lot of daughter particles after decay.  In the case of a nuke, you want your radioactive elements as far away from a critical mass as possible (for storage), so they don't go off unexpectedly.  Hence, you need some initial source of energy and particles to allow you to reach a critical mass.  Tritium is this primer.  The hydrogen atom has a very small half-life, and given its small mass it's easy to get going.  I used the thermite example earlier because it's the same idea.  Getting an energy source to start the process is difficult, so people use phosphorous or magnesium to start it.  Both of those materials are relatively easy to start oxidizing (read: fire), which releases enough energy to start the thermolytic reaction.

Replacing the tritium is necessary to have an active nuke.  If you don't, and the reaction doesn't reach critical mass, instead of a nuclear explosion you've got a dirty bomb.  Sadly enough, the powderized and ejected nuclear material might be just as deadly, long term, as the nuclear blast.  The problem is that dying from cancers and radiation poisoning is...there are no words.  The best I can offer is inhumanly monsterous.  



I will broach the subject of ICBM maintenance.  It's costly, but it's money that we are obliged to spend because our military budget, in the US, is largely controlled by politicians.  Politicians take tax money, and divide it up so as to best benefit their constituents.  How does all of that relate to ICBMs?  It's simple; maintaining them, without ever firing one off, is a source of cash.

Rocket fuel is neither cheap, nor readily accessible.  Both of these factors make it a gold mine in the private sector.  Businesses, like heat treaters, can use the fuel near end of life. Machine shops are paid to provide replacement components, which creates jobs.  Facilities staffing, as well as logistics for the ICBM site, mean even more jobs.  In all honesty, if every ICBM disintegrated tomorrow it'd devastate local economies.  


You've talked about a mobile missile platform, but that's largely a joke without a punchline.  When it comes to a mobile platform you don't want a nuclear device.  You've got to find a way to store it safely, which means shielding.  Shielding means immense weight.  Immense weight means that your mobile nuclear weapon is a giant target.  This doesn't even begin to touch on the political ramifications of having a mobile war crime.  If you'd searched anything but wikipedia (I say that because you use their exact wording about the testing), you'd understand that these mobile weapons platforms aren't frightening because of their relatively low yield nukes.  The reason these mobile platforms are frightening is their ability to launch an attack with functionally zero warning.  If an ICBM was launched the intended target would know about it well in advance of arrival.  They might now be able to do anything about it, but you can always respond to an ICBM with your own.  A missile, launched without any acknowledgement, from a platform that could not be found afterwards, is a political nightmare.  You have to find whom to blame, you have to formulate a response, and you have to keep your people calm despite having no information.  A nuke is frightening, but a sneak attack from an unknown assailant only using conventional weapons is infinitely worse.

There is also the other problem.  There are relatively few people who have the technology to make fissile material, and fewer who have developed weapons with it.  If you were to use a nuclear weapon the ramifications would be dire.  Let's play devil's advocate here, and say England was peeved with the US because of our foreign policy...issues.  They attacked the Virgin Islands, to send us a message.  Within hours we'd be able to trace the technology back to its source.  Suddenly, it's not England versus the US.  Everybody else on the planet has seen a nuclear attack, and despite the US largely being a-holes (politically), we're the victims to the international community.  You've suddenly got sympathy for the devil, because an even bigger devil gave them a black eye.  I've used the US and England because the idea is preposterous, but change the players.  The US and China are in the same boat.  Russia and China have a falling out over resources.  The possibility is always there, which is basically why the concept of MAD still propagates today.  This is why mobile platforms don't harbor nukes as a primary weapon, and going back to the OP why this bomber is a joke.  Nobody in their right mind uses nuclear devices, because even winning the conflict would cost you the war.  Hence, the bombers and ICBMs are devices that should never be proven effective.  That's the joke without a punchline; the best weapon is the one you never use.


----------



## PP Mguire (Mar 4, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> ok i didn't followed the thread but thanks @Ferrum Master
> 
> so i could find a post that say "new supersonic bomber" in 2015, while it's a plane design from 19 december 1981 (ohhhhh only 7 days younger than me ) produced in 1984-1992, 2000, 2008, officially introduced in 2008, altho initial operation capability was 1987...
> hardly a new bomber and not really hard to outrun Britain's best jet fitghter, tho ...
> ...


Mate, SR-71 can do Mach 3 at 80,000ft.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 4, 2016)

From Wilkishitpedia

*English Electric Lightning*

In 1984, during a NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted a U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe (thought to be 66,000 feet (20,000 m)). Records show that Hale also climbed to 88,000 ft (27,000 m) in his Lightning F.3 _XR749_.
and
Lightning pilot and Chief Examiner Brian Carroll reported taking a Lightning F.53 up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m) over Saudi Arabia at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark",


During British Airways trials in April 1985, Concorde was offered as a target to NATO fighters including F-15 Eagles, F-16 Fighting Falcons, F-14 Tomcats, Mirages, and F-104 Starfighters - but only Lightning _XR749_, flown by Mike Hale and described by him as "a very hot ship, even for a Lightning", managed to overtake Concorde on a stern conversion intercept
equipped with latest Air to Air missiles That bitch was a match for Anything the Bear with the sickle HAD that strayed outside its own airspace !!!!!!


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 4, 2016)

cdawall said:


> What do you mean finally they have been in existence since the 1980s. Flying


the initial production is 19 december 1981, initial operational capability (IOC) was 1987 so i exactly mean what i wrote 



PP Mguire said:


> Mate, SR-71 can do Mach 3 at 80,000ft.


yes and? (aka re read)... my "mach 2 is mach2" was related to the Tu-160M who can fly at that speed ... not the the SR-71 i am a war machine maniac (tracked, fix winged, rotational winged whatever that has a military use ) and the SR-71 is my favorite plane since i was little (i had fun when the movie D.A.R.Y.L featured one ) also i had planes identification and spec card since 1988 and i remember also that one of my fav card was the one from the Tu-160 "Beliy Lebed"


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 4, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> You cannot compare soviet economy numbers with US... money during soviet times was kind of artificial also the cost of resources...



Of course you can
In Simple Economics's EVEN YOU CAN UNDERSTAND
The Nato Alliance Spent Real Money ( ring fenced and Available ) on  both Research and deployment of Military Hardware
while the Opposition (Soviet Russia and its Allies ) the Communists had to divert Money much needed in their General Economy to try and match Allied Spending 
Economics destroyed the soviet union and will ruin Russia
Russia cannot outspent the economic might of NATO


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 4, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Of course you can
> In Simple Economics's EVEN YOU CAN UNDERSTAND



Have you lived a bit in the USSR? Knew how it really was? Unfortunately I remember it still.


----------



## PP Mguire (Mar 5, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> the initial production is 19 december 1981, initial operational capability (IOC) was 1987 so i exactly mean what i wrote
> 
> 
> yes and? (aka re read)... my "mach 2 is mach2" was related to the Tu-160M who fly at that speed ... not the the SR-71 i am a war machine maniac (tracked, fix winged, rotational winged whatever that has a military use ) and the SR-71 is my favorite plane since i was little (i had fun when the movie D.A.R.Y.L featured one ) also i had planes identification and spec card since 1988 and i remember also that one of my fav card was the one from the Tu-160 "Beliy Lebed"





> nope ... as much as i love the SR-71 mach 2 is mach 2 and a lot of interceptor and missile can reach that speed



This reads like you're saying as much as I love the SR-71 mach 2 is mach 2 and an interceptor will still get it. To me that translates to the SR-71 does mach 2 and a missile will get it. Just worded oddly is all.

I should note the SR-71 is one of my favorite planes too. We talk about it and the F-22 all the time at work.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 5, 2016)

People here seem to be misinformed about the Tu whateveritis
IT DOES NOT FLY AT Mach 2
That's the Quoted max Speed on AFTERBURNER which Really Sucks the go go Juice and Reduces RANGE

here are the Specs as quoted by crapapidea
*Performance*

*Maximum speed:* Mach 2.05 (2,220 km/h, 1,200 knots, 1,380 mph) at 12,200 m (40,000 ft)
*Cruise speed:* Mach 0.9 (960 km/h, 518 knots, 596 mph)
*Range:* 12,300 km (7,643 mi) practical range without in-flight refuelling, Mach 0.77 and carrying 6 × Kh-55SM dropped at mid range and 5% fuel reserves[68]
*Combat radius:* 7,300 km[69] (3,994 nmi, 4,536 mi,) 2,000 km (1,080 nmi, 1,240 mi) at Mach 1.5[29]
*Service ceiling:* 15,006 m (49,235 ft)
*Rate of climb:* 70 m/s (13,860 ft/min)


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 5, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> This reads like you're saying as much as I love the SR-71 mach 2 is mach 2 and an interceptor will still get it. To me that translates to the SR-71 does mach 2 and a missile will get it. Just worded oddly is all.
> 
> I should note the SR-71 is one of my favorite planes too. We talk about it and the F-22 all the time at work.


corrected... added a "," and a parenthesis, well, in my defense, i am not a native English speaker/writer and most of my English is self learned 



dorsetknob said:


> People here seem to be misinformed about the Tu whateveritis
> IT DOES NOT FLY AT Mach 2
> That's the Quoted max Speed on AFTERBURNER which Really Sucks the go go Juice and Reduces RANGE
> 
> ...


aye totally correct, altho it can still reach Mach 2.05 if needed.


----------



## PP Mguire (Mar 5, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> corrected... added a "," and a parenthesis, well, in my defense, i am not a native English speaker/writer and most of my English is self learned
> 
> 
> aye totally correct, altho it can still reach Mach 2.05 if needed.


You're good, no harm done. I was just like whaaaa  

Of course where I work we make the fail plane, so we have to talk about the good planes to wash off the bad.


----------

