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

[Ferrum Master]

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]

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_Two]

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]

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.

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]

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]

*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]

"" 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]

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.

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]

"" 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.""

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]

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]

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]

"" 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.""

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Think they'll actually build it?

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

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.