Russia Flexes its Muscles
- Thread starter radiosilence
- Start date
Also sounds very much like Mr. X-KGB Putin is sending US a message. Can you say no ABM's near Russian borders. They even threatened to re-target W. European cities. He might do well to remember that his navy with the exception of some Boomers are largely rotting in Murmansk and others and he's not working with an economy that will support what the Soviet Union was once capable of achieving.
They seem to be doing a lot of the that lately. The Russian's sent Tu-142's to monitor RN exercises earlier this year. It was the first time in years that the RAF needed to scramble F.3's to meet approaching bombers.
Also reported today in the AP, a Russian AF Su-24 entered then launched some type of missile inside Georgian airspace. The Georgian government said its a clear violation of their borders and sovereignty. The Russian called the idea absurd, but the Georgian had the Russian missile since it crashed landed out side a field. Apparently it was a dud.
Also reported today in the AP, a Russian AF Su-24 entered then launched some type of missile inside Georgian airspace. The Georgian government said its a clear violation of their borders and sovereignty. The Russian called the idea absurd, but the Georgian had the Russian missile since it crashed landed out side a field. Apparently it was a dud.
Russia is indeed showcasing its rising power. High oil prices have helped make them wealthy. At the rate things are going, Russia will become a major economic power. Currently Russia's economy is smaller than Italy's or France's but that is bound to change. Its population of 140 million people and vast natural resources mean Russia has great potential.
Mr. Putin has done many great things for Russia. He has stood up to the West. (That's not easy) And he has made use of Russia's oil and natural gas.
The bomber that came near Guam was a Tu-95 Bear. An old, and not so effective bomber. Surprised those are still in service. Their TU-160s are a real threat. I personally admire those aircraft. They can carry something like 80,000 pounds of bombs and travel at Mach 2+.
I don't like the fact that Russia has control of vast energy resources. They aren't the most predicable people around.
Mr. Putin has done many great things for Russia. He has stood up to the West. (That's not easy) And he has made use of Russia's oil and natural gas.
The bomber that came near Guam was a Tu-95 Bear. An old, and not so effective bomber. Surprised those are still in service. Their TU-160s are a real threat. I personally admire those aircraft. They can carry something like 80,000 pounds of bombs and travel at Mach 2+.
I don't like the fact that Russia has control of vast energy resources. They aren't the most predicable people around.
I agree with you. Russia will lose alot of its military power because alot of Russia's current equipment was funded by the Soviets. They can't afford that anymore.
radiosilence
jints
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
Granted they are old and reminds me of the Boeing B-29 but the modernized TU-95 bombers is still useful for the Russians. They are used for long range maritime surveillance, ASW, and launch platform for cruise missiles etc. Used effectively they can also cause a lot havok for ships.
Yes, no doubt. We are still flying B-52's. As long as there's a need to have a flying dump truck we'll always be able to put them to work. Hutch
contedicavour
New Member
I'm surprised Russia has TU160 squadrons in the Pacific. I thought that they kept the few (20 or so) existing Blackjacks with the Northern Fleet near Murmansk.
Those jets can fly at Mach 2 and carry 20 or so long range ASMs but I imagine the US tracks them easily by satellite and with the AWACS if they come close to big US bases such as Guam.
I'd rather be more concerned with SSNs and the SSGNs such as Oscar-II. Russia has put almost all its post USSR money into submarines and they are still impressive assets.
cheers
Those jets can fly at Mach 2 and carry 20 or so long range ASMs but I imagine the US tracks them easily by satellite and with the AWACS if they come close to big US bases such as Guam.
I'd rather be more concerned with SSNs and the SSGNs such as Oscar-II. Russia has put almost all its post USSR money into submarines and they are still impressive assets.
cheers
Last edited:
No surprise here. With increased funds russian strategic aviation started training. These kind of training missions are normal and usuall thing for all countries what do posses strategic aviation.
This only catched attention becouse in the last 15 years Russian strategic aviation stopped flying training missions. I'm sure in 1-2 years only military experts will know about new exersises - as these missions rarery catched public attention during Cold War. There is simply nothing interesting here, just routine military training.
This only catched attention becouse in the last 15 years Russian strategic aviation stopped flying training missions. I'm sure in 1-2 years only military experts will know about new exersises - as these missions rarery catched public attention during Cold War. There is simply nothing interesting here, just routine military training.
No, they're at Engels air base, near Saratov. Central Russia, east of Moscow. A long way from any border or coast.
contedicavour
New Member
Ok thanks I wasn't aware of that. You confirm that total number is still around 20 planes ? With no new construction plans if I were Russian I would keep these precious few bombers for strategic nuclear forces only without risking planes on reconnaissance missions over the ocean ?!
cheers
The Tu-95 has great loiter. That means they can spend a lot of time and distance autonomously patrolling an area, compared to much faster bombers that rely mostly on preset routes. This is the kind of planes that you want to use to spot distant sea born targets.
Yes, no doubt they liked our B1 enough to make one that looks like a B1 on steroids, but look at the size difference. It's awesome when you think that a B1 is an enormous bomber but look at this: Hutch
B1B TU-160
Length 146 feet (44.5 meters) 54.1 meters
Wingspan 137 feet (41.8 meters) extended 55.7m (maximum)
TakeoffWeight 477,000 pounds 214,650 kilograms 275.000 kg
speed 825 mph (Mach 1.25) @ 50,000 feet 2200 km/h maximum
Range 7,455 miles, unrefueled 14.000 km
Ceiling 60,000 feet (18,000 meters) 16.000m
Didn't some guy from the Russian government announced they were going to build at least 2 planes per year? It wouldn't make sense if Russia didn't increase the number of its most potent strategic weapon given their recent cash flow.Ok thanks I wasn't aware of that. You confirm that total number is still around 20 planes ? With no new construction plans if I were Russian I would keep these precious few bombers for strategic nuclear forces only without risking planes on reconnaissance missions over the ocean ?!
cheers
contedicavour
New Member
Ah may be, I must have missed that information.
The other hurdle I see is that a good part of the production and maintenance facilities of the Blackjack were in the Ukraine. Tupolev's Russian facilities certainly can make up for this, but it will take time.
cheers
Actually you underestimate the russians a lot! Their armed forces are much better-off than you think. Yes, they are not as numerous as they used to be but some advanced types ot hardware is being put into service, and I mean some that is generations before anything the West has to offer. Starting with the S-400 "Triumf" and the development of S-500 "Samoderzhec", they just received into operational status a huge radar antenna, capable of receivind air targets from Canada to RSA, the navy is receiving multirole nuclear subs and two carriers are planned for construction. Also the Sukhoi family is something you don't wanna mess with as the Rafale and Typhoon still aren't in their top shape and F-35 with it's many subcontractors is on the way of becoming a huge dissappointment. Even more so the russian ground forces are being reformed and the new structure of the sections and platoons puts emphasis on a rapid mobilisation and operations with weaponry and equipment that is easy to work with and is easy to get familiar with. So NATO has professional forces that are small but capable, right. You train the soldiers for years and years and when a conflict starts th erussians put into service mobilised men that could be trained for 25 to 30 hours. Battles start NATO loses most of its capable troops and the russians loose most of their troops. Both sides start training conscripts. Could the West bring to service soldies as fast the russians can? Things really aren't looking bright for Western Europe and Co. It's really hard to see for say an american or a westeuropean who is constantly told how russian hardware is crap and how professional armies are way better than conscript ones but the military personnel of the countries that were in the Warsaw Pact and now are being retrained in lines with NATO procedures see the difference and say it's not in NATO's favour. I have personally spoken to a former special forces operator of my country's army, who has trained according soviet procedures and later in cooperation with soviet spetznaz troops so as I said thing look like trouble.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
NATOs standing forces comprise 4.7 million men. More than Russia could ever hope to mobilise with the most extreme and desperate full scale mobilisation of conscripts...
As I understand, modern versions of the Flankers are only exported?
As I understand, modern versions of the Flankers are only exported?
NATO used to have a lot of people, but now more than 60% aren't in combat formations and from your words I guess you put a lot of hope of the US armed forces, which isn't very wise with their overstretched efforts:
Iraq, Afghanistan, defence of Japan, Iran and Venezuela put a lot of pressure on Washington, China is becoming the major player in the Western Pacific, Russia is rebuilding its forces and is almost the monopolistic supplier of oil and gas for Western Europe. Not to mention the ever mounting problem fo getting enough men for the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. As said by most analysts the US armed forces are becoming more and more a foreign legion. You would be amazed to see the mobilization efforts in desperate situations the russians make. You are also forgetting that Moscow and Beijing are major allies. And your info about the Flankers is wrong as a pilot series of between 15 and 25 Su-34 are already being produces, a type that is way beyond ste Strike Eagle.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The US armed forces are busy, yes. However if WW3 broke out, being overstretched suddenly is not an issue anymore. Also, having bases all aorund the world is a huge advantage, not a liability.
What percentage of Russia armed forces are combat formations? And is it important when so overwhelmingly outgunned?
Not really.
You call 30% of gas and less than 25% of oil monopolistic - and an issue at all in case of a war?! (iirc numbers)
But they still have 2.2 million plus, right?
There is a broad misconception wrt the SCO. But that is for antoher day.
At the end of the day, NATO can field more pros than Russia can conscipts.
Su-34 are not Flankers.