Russia runs away from American planes, terrified

[Asher]

Too awesome, GePap, too awesome.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
Go figure the Wiki article also describes this plane as "not particularly successful".

Oh, but to return to that quote:

The Tu-22 'Blinder' had not proved particularly successful, in some respects being inferior to the earlier Tu-16 'Badger'. Its range and take-off performance, in particular, were definite weak points. Even as the 'Blinder' was entering service, OKB Tupolev began work on an improved successor.

Notice it mentions the Tu-22



Not the Tu-22M, which is the aircraft being discussed.

So I guess my point about reading comprehension does stand, in the end.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap

Oh, but to return to that quote:

The Tu-22 'Blinder' had not proved particularly successful, in some respects being inferior to the earlier Tu-16 'Badger'. Its range and take-off performance, in particular, were definite weak points. Even as the 'Blinder' was entering service, OKB Tupolev began work on an improved successor.

Notice it mentions the Tu-22



Not the Tu-22M, which is the aircraft being discussed.

So I guess my point about reading comprehension does stand, in the end.

Not really, I actually read exactly what the sentence said correctly. You did not. So that means you failed at reading comprehension, and I passed.



In terms of logic, I can see why the US didn't have a similar aircraft. Because the only two countries within the range of such a **** airplane are not threats. Thus their emphasis was on long-range.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher


Not really, I actually read exactly what the sentence said correctly. You did not. So that means you failed at reading comprehension, and I passed.

The Wiki article I linked to was about the Tu-22M. You said that the wiki article describedthis plane as "not particularly successful". The only sentence in the entire article about the Tu-22M that has the word 'succesful' in it talks about the Tu-22, a different aircraft.

Be man enough to admit when you are wrong like I did.

In terms of logic, I can see why the US didn't have a similar aircraft. Because the only two countries within the range of such a **** airplane are not threats. Thus their emphasis was on long-range.

The Tu-22M could be refueled from the air, as the article noted, which is why this capability was supposedly removed from it by the SALT talks.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
The Wiki article I linked to was about the Tu-22M. You said that the wiki article describedthis plane as "not particularly successful". The only sentence in the entire article about the Tu-22M that has the word 'succesful' in it talks about the Tu-22, a different aircraft.

Be man enough to admit when you are wrong like I did.

I read the sentence correctly. You did not. That makes you wrong, not me.

The Tu-22M could be refueled from the air, as the article noted, which is why this capability was supposedly removed from it by the SALT talks.

Even with mid-air refueling, it doesn't make a lot of sense. What good is all that speed if you need to have a huge network of slow refueling planes spread out every 1400-1500 miles on the way to its target?

Really...

Speaking of reading comprehension, if the mid-air refueling capability was removed, how could it be refueled from the air?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
Even with mid-air refueling, it doesn't make a lot of sense. What good is all that speed if you need to have a huge network of slow refueling planes spread out every 1400-1500 miles on the way to its target?

Really...

Combat radius is not the same as range.

Combat radius refers to the distance from an airbase that a warplane can reach, patrol there for a set amount of time and return to base with minimal fuel left. For a given aircraft, this distance varies according to whether or not it carries external drop tanks, the level (altitude) of the combat mission, and the amount and weight of ordnance it is carrying.

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

The range of the Tu-22M
Range: 7000 km (4971 mi)

So, equipped for mid-air refueling, the plane could travel 4500 miles, refuel completely, reach target say 2000 miles more, then move on to another base, or refuel yet again.

Speaking of reading comprehension, if the mid-air refueling capability was removed, how could it be refueled from the air?

One area of controversy surrounding the Tu-22M is its capacity for aerial refueling. As built, the Tu-22M has provision for a retractable in-flight refueling probe in the upper part of the nose. This was allegedly removed as a result of the SALT negotiations, although it can be easily reinstated if needed, and in fact a Tu-22M with refuelling probe can be seen at Riga Airport today.

[Heraclitus]

I hate to say it but it seems Asher is loosing this one...

[BeBMan]

Refueling

Turboprops

Avro Arrow

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Combat radius is not the same as range.

Range from the base.

The range of the Tu-22M
Range: 7000 km (4971 mi)

So, equipped for mid-air refueling, the plane could travel 4500 miles, refuel completely, reach target say 2000 miles more, then move on to another base, or refuel yet again.

Still not very impressive or useful to countries without nearby neighbors that they are oppressing.

My original point about it not being very successful still stands:

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.

At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union some 370 remained in CIS service. Due to their complexity and a deteriorating economy, considerable serviceability problems plagued the fleet.

[chequita guevara]

what a stupid argument

[Asher]

Funny, I was about to say the same thing about you.

[Patroklos]

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.

No, we do not routinely do that. In fact we do not do that at all, for over a decade. In fact, we didn't do that at all in the decades previous to that either.

And Russia is not doing that now btw. Sending Bears in onesies and twosies is actually proof of how pathetic they are, not a show of strength, because the is literally the max they can muster for the effort.

[Q Classic]

Ken we just chant USA nao?

[Asher]

onesies and twosies

Sweet God, the military is gay.

[Patroklos]

Is there any other way to descibe Russian military operations?