Russia runs away from American planes, terrified

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap


"implied"? When reading comprehension fails, make **** up: got it.

You made a comment in reply to a comment about high-speed bombers, saying "is that why they cancelled XB-70", when they then did spend many billions of dollars building supersonic bombers after XB-70. Your point was invalid and a waste of bandwidth.

A B1-B can't even outrun a MIG-21

It's not about outrunning, it's about moving into position rapidly.

[Ming]

A better picture of the Tupolev Tu-160 "BlackJack"

[Asher]

To MOBIUS:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Asher,

Expressed in miles, kilometres or percentage terms, how much faster is a B-52 than a Tupolev-95?

Thank you.

Given that the Tu-95 is a Russian-built craft, it spends most of its time on the ground being fixed.

On the off chance it can get airborne -- without killing its passengers -- it is 92.5% the speed of the B-52.

It is pretty underpowered, still.

Rate of climb of the Tu-95 is 10m/s (vs 31.85m/s of the B-52)

MTOW of the Tu-95 is 414,500 lbs (vs 488,000 lbs of the B-52)

And most importantly, armaments:
Tu-95: 15,000 lbs of armanets
B-52: 60,000 lbs

The Tu-95 also has a Crew of 7 vs 5 on the B-52.

Clearly, B-52 > Tu-95, categorically.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

You made a comment in reply to a comment about high-speed bombers, saying "is that why they cancelled XB-70", when they then did spend many billions of dollars building supersonic bombers after XB-70. Your point was invalid and a waste of bandwidth.

Yeah, Mach 1.25 is the be all and end all of speed!

It's not about outrunning, it's about moving into position rapidly.

What characteristic is best is mission specific.

To return to your original troll, the Tu-95 does not need speed to carry out the missions assigned to it, anymore than the B-52 needs to be.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
What characteristic is best is mission specific.

You are very astute.

This is why the B1-B is called a "strategic bomber". As in, it's used in specific missions strategically.

to GePap.

[MOBIUS]

Ask MOBIUS

Feel free to ask me about anything, after all I am nearly always right…

For example:

Asher: Did you know that the Tupolev-95 was obsolete?

MOBIUS: Actually the difference in top speeds between the Tupolev-95 and the B-52 is only 47mph, therefore by your definition the B-52 is also obsolete – just like your argument…

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
It's not about outrunning, it's about moving into position rapidly.

These bombers are not meant to be used against each other. Both sides fighters would shoot down pretty much every bomber. These bombers are for beating the crap out of smaller countries which can't defend against them.

Both sides routinely send waves of bombers at the other just to **** with the other side but also to measure their responses. This is basically a story where Asher woke up and discovered the sky is blue.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

You are very astute.

This is why the B1-B is called a "strategic bomber". As in, it's used in specific missions strategically.

to GePap.

Man, you are obnoxious.

Hey, here is another "strategic bomber" the Russikies made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

Maximum speed: Mach 2.3 (2,327 km/h,)

Wow, so clearly the Russians are certainly better equiped than the US to get their strategic assets in position come a war. After all, they have faster strategic bombers!

[Asher]

Re: Ask MOBIUS

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Feel free to ask me about anything, after all I am nearly always right…

For example:

Asher: Did you know that the Tupolev-95 was obsolete?

MOBIUS: Actually the difference in top speeds between the Tupolev-95 and the B-52 is only 47mph, therefore by your definition the B-52 is also obsolete – just like your argument…

It's not all about the speed, the Tupolev has far less capacity for armaments because it has less thrust due to the props.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Do you have the concept that while the US' domestic fossil fuel reserves are gradually dwindling, Russia is sitting on a massive bonanza of untapped wealth...

That would be why the Airforce is starting to build coal liquefaction plants.

[MOBIUS]

Re: Re: Ask MOBIUS

Originally posted by Asher

It's not all about the speed, the Tupolev has far less capacity for armaments because it has less thrust due to the props.

That wasn't your initial argument.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Man, you are obnoxious.

Hey, here is another "strategic bomber" the Russikies made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

Maximum speed: Mach 2.3 (2,327 km/h,)

Wow, so clearly the Russians are certainly better equiped than the US to get their strategic assets in position come a war. After all, they have faster strategic bombers!

1500 mile range in combat, that's pathetic for a bomber. Useless, even.

Go figure the Wiki article also describes this plane as "not particularly successful".

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Ask MOBIUS

Originally posted by MOBIUS


That wasn't your initial argument.

Actually, it was.

Same age, but they are much better aircraft.

Faster (jets!) and (much) larger payload.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

1500 mile range in combat, that's pathetic for a bomber. Useless, even.

Go figure the Wiki article also describes this plane as "not particularly successful".

Your reading comprehension skills are clearly lacking. To quote:

The Tu-22M saw its first combat use in Afghanistan from 1987 to 1989. Its usage was similar to the USAF deployment of B-52 Stratofortress bombers in Vietnam, dropping large tonnages of conventional ordnance. Despite the considerable power of these attacks, their strategic usefulness was marginal.

You see, that sentence says that the strategic usefulness of dropping huge amounts of bombs on the Mujahadeen was marginal. I guess you weren't smart enough to understand what seems a simple sentence.

as for the range, that is the reason for the discussion about midair refueling and the limitation of said refueling at the SALT talks.

[GePap]

Whoops. read sucessful as useful.

Nevermind.