Norway, Royal AF intercept Russian bombers

[bodhi]

How old is the B52 (take a guess).
And the P3 Orion (?)
... the Bell Cobra (?)
... The Nimrod (?)

Age isn't that important when they still work.

Speaking of Dakotas, I saw one yesterday over Ysterplaat (CPT)

The UH-1 is still in service with the USMC IIRC.

 

[antowan]

I'm sure they're quaking in their boots.

Well, I think they are pushing where I would have pushed if I were them. I am not them and consider myself 100% Western. The fact that I live in Africa cannot change that. My way of living is 100% due to the way Western minded folks think and do things. If Russia want's to push, the West can push harder if need be.

I am pretty sure.

 

[Alan]

The Russians have a huge nuclear arsenal. They are also commissioning new subs. Now these are very capable. They can sit off the Florida coast and wipe out 1/4 of the country in one go. As was said - Don't mess. I've met many in Moscow and St Petes. These are very professional, dedicated military folk, not Zimbabwe.

The Russians are more of a threat to themselves with run down infrastructure, corruption, poor maintenance....

Looks like pure political posturing.

Those Tu95s are closer to Dakotas then any thing else. Completely useless in an age of modern stealth fighters such as a F22 Raptor.

If they were no threat there would be no reason to send out fighters to intercept them.

They aren't actually meant to be "strike bombers". More likely reconnaissance and "testing" of other countries defense systems. Although they can be used for Stand off Air-to-Surface missile attacks.

The TU95 can carry nuclear weapons and surface to air missiles. The B52 can definitely carry nuclear weapons.

Wow so they can engage hostile aircraft even before they even get airborne

I cant believe this statement, the B52 would be a very poor lumbering low-level bomber and even 60s era SAMs would take them out in no time at all. Do you have a more credible source than Wikipedia which states B52s were used for first strike low level bombing of AA assets (e.g. Radar, SAM & AA sites). To my knowledge this was performed almost exclusively by the F117s

It's harder to shoot down with a SAM a big "lumbering" bomber flying at low level than one “lumbering” at high altitude.

 

[Roman4604]

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=83

This sounds a bit more accurate.

The only first strike missions the B52 would be used for is as a stand off platform to launch cruise missiles from a couple of 100km away. Its primary role would be as a cheap way to lob lots of ordance at defenceless (to air attack) ground targets.

It would be suicidal to use it as a low level precision stike system in an environment where enemies air defences are still operational (even if maginal). Same would apply to the Tu95.

 

[Roman4604]

They aren't actually meant to be "strike bombers". More likely reconnaissance and "testing" of other countries defense systems.

Agreed, that why I started this off by saying its pure political posturing and has no military (strike) significance.

It's harder to shoot down with a SAM a big "lumbering" bomber flying at low level than one “lumbering” at high altitude.

True, but your odds are still pretty good in comparison to taking down a B2 or F117.

 

[lsuacner]

Someone posted about Siener this morning and it reminded me while I was reading this article about his book. It said that the 3rd world war would start unexpectedly and that huge parts of Europe will be left desolate. I think that includes Britain (he REALLY hated anything British or non-Christian). He also said RSA will emerge a new super-power but that the Boere will control RSA.

Take it with a pinch of salt, but I think it makes for interesting material to discuss. Would there be a 3rd world war?

 

[icyrus]

Someone posted about Siener this morning and it reminded me while I was reading this article about his book. It said that the 3rd world war would start unexpectedly and that huge parts of Europe will be left desolate. I think that includes Britain (he REALLY hated anything British or non-Christian). He also said RSA will emerge a new super-power but that the Boere will control RSA.

Take it with a pinch of salt, but I think it makes for interesting material to discuss. Would there be a 3rd world war?

In any war there needs to be potential for gain. Currently, what gain is there to be had in a conflict that size?

 

[lsuacner]

In any war there needs to be potential for gain. Currently, what gain is there to be had in a conflict that size?

Very good point.

 

[Leitmotif]

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

"Turn their world to glass."

 

[Alan]

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

Disturbingly something some of our fellow forumites have grown fond off

 

[kilo39]

"Thanks George for making the world a more unsafe place." (That the russkies have to go back to 'token flights.')

IDIOT

Bunch of cruise missiles from altitude make no preference to launch platform.

 

[Alan]

"Thanks George for making the world a more unsafe place." (That the russkies have to go back to 'token flights.')

IDIOT

Bunch of cruise missiles from altitude make no preference to launch platform.

WOW never saw that coming

 

[marine1]

WOW never saw that coming

ROFLMAO. The big bad USA> Bad Bad George. Nice one

 

[kilo39]

WOW never saw that coming

It is George's constant sabre rattling; his constant threats of war. His renunciation and denial of treaties and policies that have taken years to put in place: that leads to this.

George is a warmonger. It is clear. You are one of the few people in the world that support him. What happened to capitalism? Nah, George prefers war and the enrichment of his 'military-industrial' buddies: never mind the thousands of troops dying or the plethora of lies and scandals.

Nah your support is unwavering. Shame.

 

[Darth Garth]

Those Tu95s are closer to Dakotas then any thing else. Completely useless in an age of modern stealth fighters such as a F22 Raptor.

It is a cold war strategic bomber just like the B52 ... still can be rather usefull .

Incidently the Tu-95 with it's 4 turbo prop engines has the SAME cruise speed as a B52 with it's nearly 8 jet engines ... maybe those Russians ain't so stupid after all .

 

[Darth Garth]

Reading up I see the mad Russians built a NUCLEAR version of the bomber ... onboard was a nuclear powerplant to power two of the prop engines and it could stay aloft for two whole days except that the radiation exposure would have killed the crew after that point.

Sanity prevailed and only one was build before it was scrapped.

 

[bodhi]

Reading up I see the mad Russians built a NUCLEAR version of the bomber ... onboard was a nuclear powerplant to power two of the prop engines and it could stay aloft for two whole days except that the radiation exposure would have killed the crew after that point.

Sanity prevailed and only one was build before it was scrapped.

Yanks also built a nuke-powered version of the Convair B-36 Peacemaker.

 

[bodhi]

Do you have a more credible source than Wikipedia which states B52s were used for first strike low level bombing of AA assets (e.g. Radar, SAM & AA sites). To my knowledge this was performed almost exclusively by the F117s

SEAD missions (if memory serves) were flown by USAF F-4G 'Wild Weasel' Phantoms , US Navy Prowlers (based on the venerable A-6 Intruder) and Vought Corsair A-7 Corsair II.

From what I know BUFF's were never configured to launch the standard Harm and Shrike Anti-Radiation missiles during Gulf War I.

F-117 and F-111 all used laser guided munitions.

Edit : Don't recall if the F-16 , F/A-18 Hornet and F-15E Strike Eagles were used for SEAD missions.

 

[Alan]

SEAD missions (if memory serves) were flown by USAF F-4G 'Wild Weasel' Phantoms , US Navy Prowlers (based on the venerable A-6 Intruder) and Vought Corsair A-7 Corsair II.

From what I know BUFF's were never configured to launch the standard Harm and Shrike Anti-Radiation missiles during Gulf War I.

F-117 and F-111 all used laser guided munitions.

Edit : Don't recall if the F-16 , F/A-18 Hornet and F-15E Strike Eagles were used for SEAD missions.

I think F16's did in GW 1. They definitely do now.

 

[Alan]

Reading up I see the mad Russians built a NUCLEAR version of the bomber ... onboard was a nuclear powerplant to power two of the prop engines and it could stay aloft for two whole days except that the radiation exposure would have killed the crew after that point.

Sanity prevailed and only one was build before it was scrapped.

Yanks also built a nuke-powered version of the Convair B-36 Peacemaker.

Getting all that lead in the air was quite a problem. While in theory the planes could stay airborne for days things like pilot fatigue, food and stresses on the aircraft meant it wasn’t feasible at all