Here's a good read:
So, to end this post I'm going to paraphrase Kopp: "IRSTs with QWIPs will have extreme levels of effectiveness over BVR distances against VLO airframes."
Well, just because you can track 1 inch class targets in space doesn't mean you can track -30 db targets at 15 km
Do post this in Hilarious threadThere's an American UFO guy named John Lear that says on his website America gave Russia a SR-71 to get them to let America do Gulf War 1. Did Russia really get a SR-71? If so couldn't a high speed bomber be made using that airframe as a pattern with lower speed engines to get munitions/cruise missiles on target faster than the Bear?
If you hit a plastic plane like the B-2 with a high powered laser and
ignited it while in flight, would it keep burning while flying?
Before Russia builds a new bomber wouldn't they first need to get some sort of control over the Space spectrum?
If the adversary has directed energy weapons in space they really
wouldn't need bombers except to mop up after the important things were
There's an American UFO guy named John Lear that says on his website
America gave Russia a SR-71 to get them to let America do Gulf War 1.
Did Russia really get a SR-71? If so couldn't a high speed bomber be
made using that airframe as a pattern with lower speed engines to get
munitions/cruise missiles on target faster than the Bear?
If Russia can't get Space control a new bomber won't do any good. Why hasn't Russia forced a ban on HAARP yet?If the rumors of that technology are true it can alter atmospheric
conditions to make your planes drop from the sky or hit thick air at
high speed/like hitting a brick wall.
Except the twin sun sighting in China recently. Likely caused by
atmosphere being raised above Earth causing drag on their
satellites...resulting in mirage effect so people on the ground see two
sun mirage from bulging atmosphere in space.
Please identify what this is.
Space based lasers if they are really will not target the warheads but a more potent adversary the BUS carrying the warhead. The speed of the warheads at reentry beside will render the targeting laser quiet improbable to take a clear shot. See the limiting factor isn't the speed of laser alone but the calculation-based hardware that will direct the laser to intercept coordinates....ICBM warheads on the other hand are designed to enter the atmosphere and are covered in a heat resistant ablative material that burns off during re-entry which would be very resistant to laser energy.
For pervius I think he has a reader of those Conspiracy Blogs
Strategic Bombers. The technical parameters of the new
strategic bomber (PAK DA) will be determined in the next 2-3 years. At that
point, the military will make a decision about procurement. The requirements for
the aircraft include supersonic speeds, long range, stealth, and ability to use
precision-guided munitions against both air and land targets.
GarryB wrote:I agree they have said things like that but do we have any evidence that these aircraft are actually getting the upgrades that are promised?
I guess it really depends on the performance of these new aircraft... because it really doesn't matter what they say now... if these new strategic bombers are classed as strategic bombers like the Bear and Blackjack are and the Backfire is not, then it will become a numbers game where they are allowed x number of strategic weapons platforms so they might want to retire the Backfires first but to keep with their strategic agreements they will have to get rid of some Bears to allow for the new strategic bomber airframes entering service.
Personally I think if they can get strategic range out of these new supersonic stealthy bombers without needing their own escort tankers flying all the way with them then they might be useful maritime patrol aircraft to replace the Tu-142.
This is speculation of course, but I would think a flying wing design with new 5th gen bomber engines might super cruise at say Mach 1.6-1.8 with 4 engines, now a two engined model with all the bombing stuff removed and MPA stuff fitted able to perform high subsonic cruise flights of 10,000km or more might be very useful.
A similar four engined model could be used as an inflight refuelling aircraft, and a two engined model able to fly around for very long periods might be useful with a radar array embedded in its stucture to give 360 degree radar coverage.
Another 2 engine model could be used for medium range strike and replace the Backfires.
And a 4 engined supercruising model could replace the Foxhound as a long range interceptor.
I just hope they replace the Tu-142 with a Tu-204 aircraft thats the best aircraft to replace Bear and good on money.
The only thing I can speculate with certainty about the new PAK-DA
bomber is it will be Supersonic Bomber ( not subsonic as the US NGB )
,will have a long range and good weapon carrying capability , with new
approach to stealth.
Посмотрите на уровень развития противовоздушной и противоракетной обороны: все эти самолеты никуда не долетят. Ни наши к ним, ни их к нам. Надо думать о совершенно нетривиальных вещах, — заявил Рогозин «Известиям», имея в виду другие средства доставки ядерных боеголовок в стан врага.
the feasibility of a strategic bomber ,in its classical concept, is very questionable.
This is partly why you get platforms like the Tu-95MS and the B-52H relegated to cruise missile duty when employed in their strategic mission.
At this point only the B-2 is anything close to survivable
I've always maintained that the USAF's biggest recent mistake is actually not the F-35 (don't even start me there, that's a whole different debate ), but in designing the "B-3" as an evolutionary and not revolutionary design.