Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-95MS "Bear"

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23326
    Points : 23866
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:17 am

    Really.... and how many civilian airliners did the USAF manage to shoot down during 11/9?

    The point is that the Tu-160 will be carrying 5,000km range Kh-102s and all will be nuclear armed missiles... as I mentioned they used to have small missiles called AS-15, or Kh-15 Kickback missiles used to destroy threats for the aircraft as they fly near enemy territory... it is a 1.5 ton missile with a nuclear warhead that might be used against ground or air based defences... a radar or SAM system or airfield or even a group of enemy aircraft... these mach 5 rocket propelled missiles will be used to clear a path through defences so the bomber can get to its missile launch position.

    Problem for the US is that 30 minutes after the Tu-160s took off there are going to be Russian ICBMs and SLBMs detonating all over the US and Canada and also Europe... 5 and a half hours later when the White Swans are lining up to launch their missiles there probably wont be much of anything there to stop them...

    It would not take very much work to develop a scramjet powered replacement for Kickback that is relatively small and can be used in decent numbers and could be quite devastating on the way over the north pole against any US Navy vessels in the Arctic ocean...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23326
    Points : 23866
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:18 am

    We could potentially see Bears modified to launch air-droppable equivalents of Poseidon.

    Well the potential for 16 nuclear powered unlimited range cruise missiles from each Bear could be launched in any direction and still reach any point on the planet...
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5520
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  kvs on Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:58 am

    GarryB wrote:Really.... and how many civilian airliners did the USAF manage to shoot down during 11/9?

    The point is that the Tu-160 will be carrying 5,000km range Kh-102s and all will be nuclear armed missiles... as I mentioned they used to have small missiles called AS-15, or Kh-15 Kickback missiles used to destroy threats for the aircraft as they fly near enemy territory... it is a 1.5 ton missile with a nuclear warhead that might be used against ground or air based defences... a radar or SAM system or airfield or even a group of enemy aircraft... these mach 5 rocket propelled missiles will be used to clear a path through defences so the bomber can get to its missile launch position.

    Problem for the US is that 30 minutes after the Tu-160s took off there are going to be Russian ICBMs and SLBMs detonating all over the US and Canada and also Europe... 5 and a half hours later when the White Swans are lining up to launch their missiles there probably wont be much of anything there to stop them...

    It would not take very much work to develop a scramjet powered replacement for Kickback that is relatively small and can be used in decent numbers and could be quite devastating on the way over the north pole against any US Navy vessels in the Arctic ocean...

    I am sure that Russian missile designers are not sitting around doing nothing in this regard. The NATO west made an epic mistake when
    it wrote Russia off in 1991. Russian military industry engineers worked for nothing during the 1990s thereby preserving and pushing forward
    Russian missile tech. There was no 15 year black hole when Russia did nothing. It was already evident by 2005 that Russian missile tech
    was not stagnating. The people in the Russian military industry know that what they do is vital for Russia's survival. They are nothing
    like the wankers in the NATO west.

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 207
    Points : 223
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  mnztr on Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:53 am

    Wow new TU-95 engines have 2500 HP more!!

    https://www.janes.com/article/88389/russia-re-engines-tu-95ms

    impressive!!
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5520
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  kvs on Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:40 am

    mnztr wrote:Wow new TU-95 engines have 2500 HP more!!

    https://www.janes.com/article/88389/russia-re-engines-tu-95ms

    impressive!!

    The reduction of vibration by 50% is more impressive. They must have optimized the hell out of the design with computer
    simulations.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23326
    Points : 23866
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:41 am

    Those 5 axis milling machines together with a super computer or two to model the blade shape and design accurately had a significant effect on their submarines in the 1980s, and clearly their aircraft now too...

    As KVS mentions, the reduction in vibration will be more important operationally and will make flight more comfortable and quieter, and also go much easier on all the avionics and fittings in and on the aircraft.

    The aircraft is subsonic only so there wont be much increase in speed if any, but it will likely be able to carry a heavier higher drag external payload further and faster...

    With the Yak-38 and the Yak-38M the latter had a rather more powerful engine but both are subsonic and the more powerful engine allowed a heavier weapon load (or more accurately a weapon load) but reduced flight range because a more powerful engine uses more fuel.

    An extra 10,000 hp for the aircraft should improve takeoff performance and climb rate and top speed a little, but the reduction in vibration will be felt by the pilots the most... pun intended..... clown
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1774
    Points : 1776
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:25 pm

    mnztr wrote:Wow new TU-95 engines have 2500 HP more!!

    https://www.janes.com/article/88389/russia-re-engines-tu-95ms

    impressive!!

    Wow... that's a 22% increase, from 11,100HP to 13,600HP. That kind of improvement is virtually unheard of... Good job! Very Happy
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4703
    Points : 4695
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Isos on Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:59 am


    Rob Lee
    @RALee85
    ·
    1h
    Shoigu said Tupolev had conducted significant work to modernize Tu-95MS and “Today we can say with confidence that the renewal of the existing fleet of long-range aviation and the creation of new aircraft significantly strengthened the air component of the nuclear triad” 5/
    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 530
    Points : 530
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Arrow on Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:48 am

    What new planes? There are no new aircraft in strategic aviation. Only modernization of old Tu-95MS and Tu-160. The Tu-160M2 will only be new in a few years.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4703
    Points : 4695
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Isos on Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:54 am

    He says creation not production. So he must be thinking about pak da and su57 which will participate to the nuclear triad.
    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 530
    Points : 530
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Arrow on Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:01 am

    Su-57 is a tactical plane not strategic. He means Tu-160M2. At this time, the US, which is reportedly backward compared to Russia, will introduce B-21...The US in tactical and strategic aviation, in nuclear submarines, the surface fleet is ahead of Russia both in numbers and technologically.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4703
    Points : 4695
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Isos on Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:39 am

    US uses old missiles for its strategic forces. Borei is newer than ohio.

    B21 is meant to use bombs while tu-160 uses 2000+km range kh-101 missiles. Bulava, topol-M, Yars ... are newer than any other missile in the world. They are also introducing hypersonic missiles and gliders. The b-21 need to fly above s-400 before launching its bombs.

    Su-57 is a multi role stealth jet. With a nuclear armed stealth kh-59mk2 and inflight refueling it can target most of european cities and even US west coast making it a strategic bomber.
    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 530
    Points : 530
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Arrow on Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:49 am

    uses old missiles for its strategic forces. Borei is newer than ohio. B21 is meant to use bombs while tu-160 uses 2000+km range kh-101 missiles. Bulava, topol-M, Yars ... are newer than any other missile in the world. They are also introducing hypersonic missiles and gliders. The b-21 need to fly above s-400 before launching its bombs. wrote:

    This old strategic missile enough to destroy Russia. What is the advantage of Yars over Minuteman III? What is the advantage of Bulava over Trident II. Trident II has much more firepower than small Bullava. There are only 4submarine in Borey. The rest are old Delta IV. The US is working on a brand new SSBN that will be better than Borey. Where is the mythical advantage of Russian nuclear forces over the US? Russia is not able to defend itself against American missiles. They are still effective and very deadly.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4703
    Points : 4695
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Isos on Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:01 am

    If s-500 is able to destroy ICBM warhead, those trident and minutman will be useless.

    Russian arsenal is more mobile because they have better launchers and many kind of launchers making them more safe from a 1st strike. Their missiles are bigger and include more defences and decoys. There are more types of missiles which means harder for US defences to try to intercept them.

    They ordered in total 10 borei.
    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 530
    Points : 530
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Arrow on Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:09 am

    Throw weight MM III  is 1.3 tons, throw weight Yars is 1.3 tons. Throw weight Trident is 2.8 tons, throw weight Bulava is 1.2 ton Laughing . American missiles carry the same amount of decoys and Tridents much more than Bulava. In addition, Trident also flattens a trajectory. Trident is better than Bulava, although older.

    The S-500 will not stop a massive nuclear attack. In addition, his options against ICBM and SLBM are highly debatable. Even much better SM III have limited options against ICBM. Only GBI and here against a fairly limited nuclear attack.  Russia is defenseless against Trident with many decoys and MM III...

    The Russian arsenal is newer but it does not mean technologically better. Yars is level MMIII and Bulava is weaker compared to Trident II. There is no mythical technological advantage over the US.
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1093
    Points : 1134
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  dino00 on Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:24 pm

    GBI is successful clown  Trident is better than Bulava clown SM3 better than S-500, I'm done with this garbage, finally I understood that to not see arrow trolling is putting him as a foe.Done. Good luck "debating" him. 7 years of trolling
    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 530
    Points : 530
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Arrow on Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:39 pm

    Of course, no arguments only insults at my address. Congratulations on personal culture...
    Trident II has a better range and better throw weight than Bulava. It can carry more powerful MIRV as well as missile defense systems penetrator.Yars weighs 50 tons and has a thor weight like MM III from the 70s. MM III weighs 36tons. It means it has more efficient fuel etc.Where is the mythical advantage of Russian strategic missiles?
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3793
    Points : 3879
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  flamming_python on Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:08 pm

    Arrow wrote:Throw weight MM III  is 1.3 tons, throw weight Yars is 1.3 tons. Throw weight Trident is 2.8 tons, throw weight Bulava is 1.2 ton Laughing . American missiles carry the same amount of decoys and Tridents much more than Bulava. In addition, Trident also flattens a trajectory. Trident is better than Bulava, although older.

    The S-500 will not stop a massive nuclear attack. In addition, his options against ICBM and SLBM are highly debatable. Even much better SM III have limited options against ICBM. Only GBI and here against a fairly limited nuclear attack.  Russia is defenseless against Trident with many decoys and MM III...

    The Russian arsenal is newer but it does not mean technologically better. Yars is level MMIII and Bulava is weaker compared to Trident II. There is no mythical technological advantage over the US.

    Yars is the level of Minuteman III. Okay.

    What is the Satan then? This rocket alone is far more advanced and powerful than anything the US has its arsenal.
    Yet for Russia it's already obsolete.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2556
    Points : 2554
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Hole on Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:07 pm

    Trident II weighs 59 tons. Bulava 37 tons.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5520
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  kvs on Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:43 pm

    Hole wrote:Trident II weighs 59 tons. Bulava 37 tons.

    US solid rocket fuel tech used in the Trident II has not improved since it was first deployed (1990). Russian solid rocket fuel has
    advanced at least a factor of two in energy density for the same mass of fuel. That easily explains the difference since
    the US solid rocket fuel was better than what as available to the USSR during the 1980s.




    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 329
    Points : 325
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Azi on Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:25 pm

    Arrow wrote:Throw weight MM III  is 1.3 tons, throw weight Yars is 1.3 tons. Throw weight Trident is 2.8 tons, throw weight Bulava is 1.2 ton Laughing . American missiles carry the same amount of decoys and Tridents much more than Bulava. In addition, Trident also flattens a trajectory. Trident is better than Bulava, although older.

    The S-500 will not stop a massive nuclear attack. In addition, his options against ICBM and SLBM are highly debatable. Even much better SM III have limited options against ICBM. Only GBI and here against a fairly limited nuclear attack.  Russia is defenseless against Trident with many decoys and MM III...

    The Russian arsenal is newer but it does not mean technologically better. Yars is level MMIII and Bulava is weaker compared to Trident II. There is no mythical technological advantage over the US.
    Before you write something like this...please get better information.

    The CEP of Bulawa and Trident II reentry vehicle are nearly same. Trident II in it's heavy form weighs 22 tons more for only 2000 km more range. The latest Trident missile is 2 m longer. Better weight to distance ratio is clear for Bulawa. The number of MIRV is fixed with START treaty, Bulawa and Trident could both carry more, but are not allowed to.

    Yars is a MOBILE system, the Minuteman 3 is stationary in silos. Yars has a longer range, better accuracy, more MIRV, but weighs more that's true.

    Why you compare S-500 with SM-3????? The ABM System is not primary S-500 it is A-135 and A-235. Older A-35 and actual A-135 use a 5 kt nuclear warhead to destroy incoming reentry vehicle. USA trust a kinetic kill vehicle to destroy the reentry vehicle. If I would bet my money...I would put everything on the 5 kt nuclear warhead. The A-235 is developing right now. The S-500 has the ability to destroy reentry vehicle in the middle to terminal phase, but only with the biggest missile! By the way...EVERY AD system has the ability to destroy incoming reentry vehicle, the S-400 can and the S-300 too, but the perfomance would not be overwhelming. The S-500 has no analouge in the world at moment...it has the ability to shoot everything out of the sky, from drone to ICBM, that's true and maybe that hurts.
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 329
    Points : 325
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Azi on Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:34 pm

    kvs wrote:
    Hole wrote:Trident II weighs 59 tons. Bulava 37 tons.

    US solid rocket fuel tech used in the Trident II has not improved since it was first deployed (1990).  Russian solid rocket fuel has
    advanced at least a factor of two in energy density for the same mass of fuel.  That easily explains the difference since
    the US solid rocket fuel was better than what as available to the USSR during the 1980s.
    That's true! Trident II is a good piece of technology, but it was not really improved since the 90'ies.

    The USA lacks in hypersonic and missile technology, because since 9/11 USA focused at "war on terror". Focus was SOF, very high mobile units, good SIGINT and HUMINT.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23326
    Points : 23866
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:59 am

    What new planes? There are no new aircraft in strategic aviation. Only modernization of old Tu-95MS and Tu-160. The Tu-160M2 will only be new in a few years.

    The new build Tu-160M2s they will be building now, and the PAK DAs that will be produced too.

    BTW Their oldest bombers are the Backfires... which are not strategic bombers, the Tu-95s and Tu-160s were all made in the 1980s and 1990s.

    At this time, the US, which is reportedly backward compared to Russia, will introduce B-21...The US in tactical and strategic aviation, in nuclear submarines, the surface fleet is ahead of Russia both in numbers and technologically.

    Hahahaha... they have a factory to produce new Tu-160s and PAK DAs... the B-21 is vapourware... so those B-52s made in the 1950s and 1960s will soldier on for some time yet... they have bet all their money on stealth and it has not paid off...

    The B-21 is just a B-2... ...how pathetic... so their brand new 21st C bomber is going to be a 1980s bomber just like Russia... wow... how ground breaking and advanced of them...

    They have developed a brand new tank too... they are calling it Abrams-1... and it will be amazing... it will have a 120mm smoothbore gun and armour that will stop any tank mounted weapon from the first years of WWII...

    This old strategic missile enough to destroy Russia. What is the advantage of Yars over Minuteman III? What is the advantage of Bulava over Trident II. Trident II has much more firepower than small Bullava. There are only 4submarine in Borey. The rest are old Delta IV. The US is working on a brand new SSBN that will be better than Borey. Where is the mythical advantage of Russian nuclear forces over the US? Russia is not able to defend itself against American missiles. They are still effective and very deadly.

    Funny... you said the US as ahead of Russia in everything but now you say what they have is enough... the US tax payer pays the best part of a trillion dollars every year for good enough... when the Pentagon listens to lawyers most of all you know there is something wrong fundamentally with the system...

    Throw weight MM III is 1.3 tons, throw weight Yars is 1.3 tons. Throw weight Trident is 2.8 tons, throw weight Bulava is 1.2 ton

    Yeah, lets make up some numbers shall we....

    American missiles carry the same amount of decoys and Tridents much more than Bulava. In addition, Trident also flattens a trajectory. Trident is better than Bulava, although older.

    You keep trying to suggest the Americans have more missiles than the Russians ignoring the fact that the new START treaty limits the number of warheads they are allowed... and you do understand decoys weigh a fraction of what a real warhead weighs so you can carry them in enormous numbers... if a decoy took up the same space and weight as a real warhead... well you might as well just carry real warheads...

    The S-500 will not stop a massive nuclear attack.

    It is not currently deployed so you are correct... but when it enters service it is part of the Russian integrated air defence network... a system of radars and platforms and aircraft and ground units all connected together to defend Russian air space... it is supposed to defend Russia from external attack... ie planes and drones and missiles.... so yes... the S-500 is an ABM system that is fully mobile and will get advanced warning of a missile attack and will be gathering target data in real time to shoot down threats... effectively if they make enough of them and they are in the correct place then they should be able to shoot down a shit ton of incoming missiles... THAT IS WHY THE ABM TREATY BANNED ABM SYSTEMS BECAUSE THEY ARE DESTABILISING... ONE SIDE COULD SPEND MONEY ON AN AIR DEFENCE NETWORK TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO ATTACK THEIR ENEMY IN THE BELIEF THEY MIGHT SURVIVE WHAT THE ENEMY HAS LEFT TO ATTACK THEM WITH.... 1500 WARHEADS IS A LOT TO DEFEND YOURSELF FROM, BUT AN AIRBURST NUKE IN A SATELLITE ABOVE THE US THAT BLANKS OUT ALL YOUR RADAR AND ELECTRONICS FOR HALF AN HOUR ALLOWING A DECAPITATION ATTACK TAKING OUT YOUR ABM SITES AND THE PENTAGON AND THE WHITEHOUSE AND YOUR ICBM FIELDS AND PORTS WITH SSBNS SHOULD SERIOUSLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF WEAPONS YOU WILL BE SENDING FROM 1,500 DOWN TO A MORE MANAGEABLE NUMBER...

    Russia is defenseless against Trident with many decoys and MM III...

    Rubbish.... Trident is slow... being an SLBM, the 400km range S-400 missiles can intercept them... 4.8km/s intercept speed is not an accident...

    The Russian arsenal is newer but it does not mean technologically better.

    Actually it does. How many hypersonic glide vehicles are entering service in the US right now?

    Yars is level MMIII and Bulava is weaker compared to Trident II.

    You compare throw weights and thinks that means anything?

    An Apple Mac Book Air is small and light... my Amiga 500 is probably heavier than it is... does that make my old Amiga 500 computer better than an Apple?

    Please tell me you are having a giggle...

    There is no mythical technological advantage over the US.

    No, there is a factual... these are brand new and they are now in service advantage over the US which still has the same crap it had in the 1980s in service...

    GBI is successful clown Trident is better than Bulava clown SM3 better than S-500, I'm done with this garbage, finally I understood that to not see arrow trolling is putting him as a foe.Done. Good luck "debating" him. 7 years of trolling

    GBI is making some companies very very rich, and in US terms that is success, Trident is very ordinary these days, and SM3 is based on ships which makes them all dead in WWIII...

    Patience is a virtue.

    Trident II has a better range and better throw weight than Bulava. It can carry more powerful MIRV as well as missile defense systems penetrator.

    Says who? The US is not known for its missile defence penetrator systems, while the Russians have made several of theirs public...

    Yars weighs 50 tons and has a thor weight like MM III from the 70s. MM III weighs 36tons. It means it has more efficient fuel etc.Where is the mythical advantage of Russian strategic missiles?

    Well funny thing... START II limited missiles to a single nuclear warhead, and the Minuteman III was modified to meet that requirement, so the 9,000km range is because it has one warhead... compared with Yars having 6 warheads and 11,000km range... yeah Americans are so much better than the Russians at rocket technology... boy does it show... except the only thing the Americans are better at is bullshit... sorry sales and marketing...

    The USA lacks in hypersonic and missile technology, because since 9/11 USA focused at "war on terror".

    They are also behind on anti stealth technology and also penetrating air defence systems... from aircraft through to ballistic missiles...
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1093
    Points : 1134
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  dino00 on Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:07 am

    GarryB " patience is a virtue"

    Very Happy At least in the internet you are by far the most patient person I ever saw.
    It's funny that the troll don't compare air defense systems, or what those bombers will launch.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23326
    Points : 23866
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:36 pm

    The West relies on repeating bullshit till everyone gives in and accepts it as being true.... and I don't agree with being that stupid.

    The west does not have to become perfect for me to change my mind about it... but it does need to stop telling lies about countries that are not its enemies and stop supporting countries that are its enemies like Saudi Arabia and Israel... who are perfect examples of the opposite of western politics and morality...

    Sponsored content

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 7 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Feb 28, 2020 10:22 pm