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

[FordGT90Concept]

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

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.


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.

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]

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

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

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]

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

Russia plans to build 50 of those

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

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

But not Britians missles.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

@medi01

From the (nearly year old) OP

 

[Ithanul]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

...
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.
....

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).

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]

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]

Northrop Grumman have just released this B-2 video

 

[Ferrum Master]

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]

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.