Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    PAK-DA: News

    Share
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:09 am

    JohninMK wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Also these are your own words GarryB. It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will not be supersonic? It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will underperform the features of the Tu-160 in something, and more concretely in a key feature like the speed?

    Yes, it is very difficult. In fact there is not link that say it. There is not link official link form the ministery of defense that confirms the opinion of those who deny supersonic speed for the Tu-PAK-DA.

    A recent example of official link:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews

    According to Y Borisov, the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95. Also from the new. This aircraft [Tu-PAK-DA] is planned in the State Armament Program 2018-2025. This is official.

    The comments about the Tu-PAK-DA being not supersonic instead are your opinions and/or your wishes.
    I am not sure if it is way that you have explained it but in your quote it says

    "the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95"

    since the Tu-95 is subsonic that surely is an official indication that the PAK-DA will be the same as if it was going to be supersonic then he would have quoted the Tu-160?

    Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft. The alone previous supersonic strategic bomber is the Tu-22 that remains active.

    There is not basis for the rule you suggest.


    Last edited by eehnie on Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:31 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:04 am

    T-47 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Also these are your own words GarryB. It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will not be supersonic? It is as difficult to find a link where the Russian Ministery of Defense says the Tu-PAK-DA will underperform the features of the Tu-160 in something, and more concretely in a key feature like the speed?

    Yes, it is very difficult. In fact there is not link that say it. There is not link official link form the ministery of defense that confirms the opinion of those who deny supersonic speed for the Tu-PAK-DA.

    A recent example of official link:

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews

    According to Y Borisov, the Tu-PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95. Also from the new. This aircraft [Tu-PAK-DA] is planned in the State Armament Program 2018-2025. This is official.

    The comments about the Tu-PAK-DA being not supersonic instead are your opinions and/or your wishes.

    PAK DA is supersonic which also not official either. Rogozin once said about hypersonic but I've never heard about being just "supersonic". Also I don't think its just GarryBs own words/opinion/wishes. Its been in  media since 2013 that PAK DA is going to be flying wing, stealth and subsonic.

    For example:
    https://lenta.ru/news/2013/03/04/fifth/

    The supersonic job is for Tu-160M2.

    The reality is that there is not a link that show official sources denying supersonic speed for the Tu-PAK-DA. Even in the link you posted, the most solid reference to official statements are in the references to the words of D Rogozin. The references to the hidden sources are far less solid.

    GarryB and others have the chance to include links with references to official words about the issue, but they do not. Until they do they are writing the own opinions. The reference of Militarov to words of Bondarev will be credible when he put the link to the exact words of Bondarev.

    PS: it was a pressure over the words of Vann, and a bid to ridiculize him, well, now we see in your link some agreement between the words of Rogozin of some years ago and the words of Vann. If someone wants it is the right moment to try to ridiculize also the words of Rogozin. But I doubt someone will be courageous enough.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:09 am

    Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft. The alone previous supersonic strategic bomber is the Tu-22 that remains active.

    For fucks sake Eehnie.... the Tu-22 is not operational with any Russian military units.

    The Tu-22M is operational with some Russian military units in the role of theatre bomber.

    It is not a strategic bomber.

    Never has been.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201704271053072773-russia-pak-da-strategic-bomber-maiden-flight/

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201702241051011355-russia-stealth-bomber/

    https://sputniknews.com/russia/201703021051190978-russia-next-generation-bomber/



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 838
    Points : 856
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:22 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft.

    Actually, the Tu-160 didn't replace ANY aircraft. It represented an entirely NEW capability for the Soviet DA, ie intercontinental bomber with supersonic capabilities.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:52 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft. The alone previous supersonic strategic bomber is the Tu-22 that remains active.

    For fucks sake Eehnie.... the Tu-22 is not operational with any Russian military units.

    The Tu-22M is operational with some Russian military units in the role of theatre bomber.

    It is not a strategic bomber.

    Never has been.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201704271053072773-russia-pak-da-strategic-bomber-maiden-flight/

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201702241051011355-russia-stealth-bomber/

    https://sputniknews.com/russia/201703021051190978-russia-next-generation-bomber/


    Being developed from the Tu-22, the Tu-22M is only a variant of the Tu-22. It is right to use the generic name to include all the variants.

    https://www.bing.com/search?q=Tu-22M+developped+from+Tu-22&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN

    But even in this case, for desperation of GarryB, that is wrong again, some units of the oldest variants remain present in the Russian Armed Forces (in the reserve):

    https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Tupolev/Tu-22

    In the refered to the links about the Tu-PAK-DA, nothing official deniying supersonic speed in the links. Interesting to note that while one of the links that GarryB posted is of the exact same date of the official report I linked previously they have obvious contradictions (as example about which aircrafts will replace the Tu-PAK-DA. Obviously I take more seriously the new from the Russian Ministery of defense (first link link):

    http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12120918@egNews

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201704271053072773-russia-pak-da-strategic-bomber-maiden-flight/

    But still between the collection of unofficial coments of the second new, there is something interesting to quote about the real state of the question:

    Sputnik 27-4-2017 wrote:In early March, some media outlets reported the creation of the first full-size model of the PAK DA, made of wood, as well as several mock-ups made of composite materials in line with the "flying wing" design. The information was never officially confirmed.

    Note that the other two links GarryB posted are from earlier.


    Last edited by eehnie on Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:45 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:04 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft.

    Actually, the Tu-160 didn't replace ANY aircraft.  It represented an entirely NEW capability for the Soviet DA, ie intercontinental bomber with supersonic capabilities.

    Strategic bombing was present in the Soviet Union decades before the design of the Tu-160. The role was there before even in the refered to the more modern missile carriying capability. This is like to say the T-14 is not replacing any of the previous tanks because it has bigger military capabilities.

    There is nothing that supports this argument that subsonic aircrafts must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts.

    Azi

    Posts : 162
    Points : 164
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Azi on Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:19 pm

    eehnie wrote:bla, bla, bla...

    The reality is that there is not a link that show official sources denying supersonic speed for the Tu-PAK-DA. Even in the link you posted, the most solid reference to official statements are in the references to the words of D Rogozin. The references to the hidden sources are far less solid.

    bla, bla, bla...
    Here is a link, unfortunately in german, but maybe google translate helps you! Parameter für Russlands Bomber der Zukunft - sputniknews german

    In an interview with Juri Borisov he stated that the bomber of the future (PAK-DA) doesn't need supersonic speed as main parameter, because most modern AD are too good to evade. He said that the Tu-160 was a concept of the 80ies, trying to evade AD systems with supersonic speed, after the attack and this concept lacks today, because most AD missiles are too fast and have long reach.

    Main characteristics for PAK-DA are high payload, extreme loiter time, stealth and the use of every kind of airfield!

    There are thousands of links, in Russian, in English etc.! What is official for you? Maybe the chief designer of UAC, Sergej Korotkov?!
    Modernized Tu-160M2 Bomber, 'Stepping Stone' to PAK DA 5th Gen Stealth Bomber - sputniknews int.
    "The plane’s combat characteristics and armament remain a secret. All that is known is that it will be built according to the "flying wing" design, just like the US B2 Spirit strategic bomber, with an extensive use of composite and radar wave-absorbing materials to reduce weight and make it less visible to enemy radar."
    A flying wing design CAN'T be supersonic!!! Physics make a flying wing nearly unpossible to fly with supersonic speed It's because of general aerodynamic and the lack of a tail. It's not complete unpossible, but there are too much problems with a flying wing at supersonic speeds, too much to handle. With subsonic speed a flying wing have great characteristics!

    T-47

    Posts : 211
    Points : 215
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  T-47 on Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:59 pm

    What I understand that eehnie is rooting for a 100% confirmation. Because it is true that most of the sources so far kept telling the word "possible". Even the last link Azi gave includes the line that you can guess if its supersonic or not but thats upto you. Official infos are secret.

    And for Viktor Bondarev statements, yes he did tell that it'll be a subsonic flying-wing stealth aircraft. But that was long aog (~2012) can't find the link yet. It was not sputnik link, it was from any russian aviation sites I can remember.

    Anyways statements about PAK DA changed several times since 2010, to me the flying wing subsonic stealth is the most likely specs so far. But eehnie is also not wrong that there are no "confirmed" official statements.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 838
    Points : 856
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:20 am

    eehnie wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft.

    Actually, the Tu-160 didn't replace ANY aircraft.  It represented an entirely NEW capability for the Soviet DA, ie intercontinental bomber with supersonic capabilities.

    Strategic bombing was present in the Soviet Union decades before the design of the Tu-160. The role was there before even in the refered to the more modern missile carriying capability. This is like to say the T-14 is not replacing any of the previous tanks because it has bigger military capabilities.

    There is nothing that supports this argument that subsonic aircrafts must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts.

    Really????

    No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft.

    Ok, pls name the aircraft that was replaced.....

    Tu-160 was a NEW CAPABILITY.  It did NOT replace any existing aircraft.  Don't attempt to deny this simple reality with some waffle that strategic bombing predated the Tu-160s IOC.  Of course it did, but that's not the point.

    Back to the central issue.  The PAK DA is not going to be "supersonic".  Its known to be a stealthy, long-range, high-loiter, flying wing bomb/missile truck, and flying wings don't do supersonic as the resulting shift in CG causes flight instabilities.  It is however possible that it could prove to be low-supercruising with the use of fancy new tech (adaptive airframe, TVC etc) but it won't be more than M1.1-1.2 at best.  

    Its clearly not going to be a high supersonic vehicle, let alone an Uber-Vannish hypersonic.  Why defer a supersonic PAK DA to restart modernised Tu-160 production?????  It makes no sense.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:28 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Do you think the Tu-160 replaced a previous supersonic aircraft? No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft.

    Actually, the Tu-160 didn't replace ANY aircraft.  It represented an entirely NEW capability for the Soviet DA, ie intercontinental bomber with supersonic capabilities.

    Strategic bombing was present in the Soviet Union decades before the design of the Tu-160. The role was there before even in the refered to the more modern missile carriying capability. This is like to say the T-14 is not replacing any of the previous tanks because it has bigger military capabilities.

    There is nothing that supports this argument that subsonic aircrafts must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts.

    Really????

    No. Obviously replaced a previous subsonic aircraft.

    Ok, pls name the aircraft that was replaced.....

    Tu-160 was a NEW CAPABILITY.  It did NOT replace any existing aircraft.  Don't attempt to deny this simple reality with some waffle that strategic bombing predated the Tu-160s IOC.  Of course it did, but that's not the point.

    Back to the central issue.  The PAK DA is not going to be "supersonic".  Its known to be a stealthy, long-range, high-loiter, flying wing bomb/missile truck, and flying wings don't do supersonic as the resulting shift in CG causes flight instabilities.  It is however possible that it could prove to be low-supercruising with the use of fancy new tech (adaptive airframe, TVC etc) but it won't be more than M1.1-1.2 at best.  

    Its clearly not going to be a high supersonic vehicle, let alone an Uber-Vannish hypersonic.  Why defer a supersonic PAK DA to restart modernised Tu-160 production?????  It makes no sense.

    Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

    184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

    121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

    Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 838
    Points : 856
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:38 am

    eehnie wrote:Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

    184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

    121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

    Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

    Unfortunately for your argument, neither the Tu-16 or Tu-22 were strategic bombers with intercontinental range. Tu-16 ~ 7,200 kms, Tu-22 ~4,900 kms compared to Tu-160 ~12,300. Tu-160 had supersonic performance and the range to truly attack continental US. It didn't replace either Tu-16/Tu-22 - it was a whole new capability.

    BTW the Tu-22 was hopelessly short-ranged due to its fuel-guzzling engines and was only fit for theater use.

    Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with PAK DA being subsonic or supersonic or some mystical Vannian mega-turbo-hypersonic. My point is that until the Tu-160 entered service, the USSR did not have a supersonic strategic bomber (ie one able to attack continental US and return to own airfield). Neither Tu-16 or Tu-22/22M fulfilled that role. The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:30 pm

    Being developed from the Tu-22, the Tu-22M is only a variant of the Tu-22. It is right to use the generic name to include all the variants.

    NATO and the ASCC does not. The Tu-22 is the Blinder and the Tu-22M series are all called Backfire.

    The Tu-22 looks like this:



    And the Tu-22M looks like this:



    One has fixed wings and external engines and the other has swing wings and internal engines with full length air intakes... they are not the same.

    Their performance is even more starkly different the Tu-22M is a much better aircraft than any version of the Tu-22.

    But even in this case, for desperation of GarryB, that is wrong again, some units of the oldest variants remain present in the Russian Armed Forces (in the reserve):

    https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Tupolev/Tu-22

    Did you even read what that link actually said?

    Tu-22 supersonic long range heavy aircraft. Built in the bomber, missile, scout, and the jammer.
    The first flight of the prototype Tu-22 (ed. 105) took place on 21 June 1958 .
    Engines - two TURBOJET RD-7M2/VD-7M.

    On the basis of the Tu-22, a large number of modifications:
    Tu-22 and Tu-22B - production versions of the bomber.
    Tu-22P(RD/RM/RDM/RDK) - reconnaissance modification.
    The Tu-22P(AP) - the supplier of the interference.
    Tu-22K(KD/KP) - missile (Kh-22).
    The Tu-22U - training.

    Tu-22M - deep modernization of the aircraft, in fact, another type.

    Strategic bombing was present in the Soviet Union decades before the design of the Tu-160. The role was there before even in the refered to the more modern missile carriying capability. This is like to say the T-14 is not replacing any of the previous tanks because it has bigger military capabilities.

    Only old model Tu-95s had the capacity to carry a large bomb load... the Tu-95s and Tu-160s of today are cruise missile carriers. In fact when they needed a heavy bomber they used Tu-16s in Afghanistan to drop FAB-9000 bombs.

    There is nothing that supports this argument that subsonic aircrafts must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts.

    And there is nothing to say supersonic planes can't be replaced with subsonic ones either.

    A flying wing design CAN'T be supersonic!!!


    When increasing speed from subsonic to supersonic... the so called transonic speed range... the centre of gravity of an aircraft shifts dramatically. On a fighter plane like a MiG-21 it can counter the shift with its all moving horizontal tail surface to keep its nose at the right angle.... once the aircraft has moved through this speed area it can continue to higher speeds, but an aircraft like a flying wing would not be able to fly through such a speed range with any stability.

    Hense I have mentioned in the past that I hoped they would go with a tailed flying wing design to allow for super cruising at some stage when engine power and performance range improves.

    Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

    Which clearly proves your line of logic to be crap.


    121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

    So what you are saying is that the 121st guards heavy bomber aviation regiment went from a medium bomber of modest range... it was used in Afghanistan because it was the only plane at the time able to drop FAB-9000 bombs... to a missile carrier when it started carrying anti ship missiles... weapons that at the time had no strategic value whatsoever... to Tu-22M, which also either carries conventional bombs or anti ship missiles.. then got Tu-160s which does not carry anti ship missiles and it seems no longer carries dumb bombs either and just carries land attack cruise missiles.

    Are you sure that is what you want to stick to?

    A subsonic missile carrying aircraft designed to attack US carriers is replaced by a supersonic missile carrying aircraft designed to attack US carriers which is then replaced by a supersonic missile carrying aircraft with no ability to attack ships at all and can only attack fixed targets on land?

    You do know regiments get renamed and reassigned all the time so a so called replacement might not actually mean anything...

    The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.

    Indeed, which is why both of Russias strategic nuclear bombers are not bombers... they are cruise missile carriers.

    Using older models for bombing missions is not new for Russia... the Soviets used the Tu-16 and the Tu-22M2 in Afghanistan to drop FAB-9000 bombs because no other bomber they had could take such large bombs internally.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:01 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

    184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

    121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

    Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

    Unfortunately for your argument, neither the Tu-16 or Tu-22 were strategic bombers with intercontinental range.  Tu-16 ~ 7,200 kms,  Tu-22 ~4,900 kms compared to Tu-160 ~12,300.  Tu-160 had supersonic performance and the range to truly attack continental US.  It didn't replace either Tu-16/Tu-22 - it was a whole new capability.

    BTW the Tu-22 was hopelessly short-ranged due to its fuel-guzzling engines and was only fit for theater use.

    Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with PAK DA being subsonic or supersonic or some mystical Vannian mega-turbo-hypersonic.  My point is that until the Tu-160 entered service, the USSR did not have a supersonic strategic bomber (ie one able to attack continental US and return to own airfield).  Neither Tu-16 or Tu-22/22M fulfilled that role.  The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.

    Obviously the Tu-160 added new capabilities to the units it was deployed in, but your denial has not a real basis. There is a clear material succession in the concrete units the Tu-160 served, and is exposed in the links.

    Again, as habitual here, the word of some people vs the facts exposed in the links.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Being developed from the Tu-22, the Tu-22M is only a variant of the Tu-22. It is right to use the generic name to include all the variants.

    NATO and the ASCC does not. The Tu-22 is the Blinder and the Tu-22M series are all called Backfire.

    Now the NATO designations are the gold standard? Maybe for you, not for me.

    As example the NATO divide the different variants of the S-300 in four designations: SA-10, SA-12, SA-20 and SA-23. And there are more examples like this.

    SA-11 and SA-17 are variants of the same technological basis.

    SS-20 and SS-28 are variants of the same technological basis.

    ...

    GarryB wrote:
    But even in this case, for desperation of GarryB, that is wrong again, some units of the oldest variants remain present in the Russian Armed Forces (in the reserve):

    https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Tupolev/Tu-22

    Did you even read what that link actually said?

    Tu-22 supersonic long range heavy aircraft. Built in the bomber, missile, scout, and the jammer.
    The first flight of the prototype Tu-22 (ed. 105) took place on 21 June 1958 .
    Engines - two TURBOJET RD-7M2/VD-7M.

    On the basis of the Tu-22, a large number of modifications:
    Tu-22 and Tu-22B - production versions of the bomber.
    Tu-22P(RD/RM/RDM/RDK) - reconnaissance modification.
    The Tu-22P(AP) - the supplier of the interference.
    Tu-22K(KD/KP) - missile (Kh-22).
    The Tu-22U - training.

    Tu-22M - deep modernization of the aircraft, in fact, another type.

    This is the real part of the comment, nothing "in fact".

    And do not get too excited because you see in the source the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M in separated references, because russianplanes does it some times with obvious variants, like in the case of the Mi-8, An-10/12, An-24/26/30/32, Ka-50/52....

    https://russianplanes.net/registr
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:22 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

    184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

    121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

    Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

    Unfortunately for your argument, neither the Tu-16 or Tu-22 were strategic bombers with intercontinental range.  Tu-16 ~ 7,200 kms,  Tu-22 ~4,900 kms compared to Tu-160 ~12,300.  Tu-160 had supersonic performance and the range to truly attack continental US.  It didn't replace either Tu-16/Tu-22 - it was a whole new capability.

    BTW the Tu-22 was hopelessly short-ranged due to its fuel-guzzling engines and was only fit for theater use.

    Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with PAK DA being subsonic or supersonic or some mystical Vannian mega-turbo-hypersonic.  My point is that until the Tu-160 entered service, the USSR did not have a supersonic strategic bomber (ie one able to attack continental US and return to own airfield).  Neither Tu-16 or Tu-22/22M fulfilled that role.  The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.

    Obviously the Tu-160 added new capabilities to the units it was deployed in, but your denial has not a real basis. There is a clear material succession in the concrete units the Tu-160 served, and is exposed in the links.

    Again, as habitual here, the word of some people vs the facts exposed in the links.

    Because, naturally links are words spoken by God himself and are always ultimate proof for everything.

    I can give you link that claims that Earth is flat too.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:58 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

    184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

    121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

    Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

    Unfortunately for your argument, neither the Tu-16 or Tu-22 were strategic bombers with intercontinental range.  Tu-16 ~ 7,200 kms,  Tu-22 ~4,900 kms compared to Tu-160 ~12,300.  Tu-160 had supersonic performance and the range to truly attack continental US.  It didn't replace either Tu-16/Tu-22 - it was a whole new capability.

    BTW the Tu-22 was hopelessly short-ranged due to its fuel-guzzling engines and was only fit for theater use.

    Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with PAK DA being subsonic or supersonic or some mystical Vannian mega-turbo-hypersonic.  My point is that until the Tu-160 entered service, the USSR did not have a supersonic strategic bomber (ie one able to attack continental US and return to own airfield).  Neither Tu-16 or Tu-22/22M fulfilled that role.  The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.

    Obviously the Tu-160 added new capabilities to the units it was deployed in, but your denial has not a real basis. There is a clear material succession in the concrete units the Tu-160 served, and is exposed in the links.

    Again, as habitual here, the word of some people vs the facts exposed in the links.

    Because, naturally links are words spoken by God himself and are always ultimate proof for everything.

    I can give you link that claims that Earth is flat too.

    Facts exposed in the links are far better than your word. Again. Facts exposed in the links.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:30 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

    184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

    121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

    Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

    Unfortunately for your argument, neither the Tu-16 or Tu-22 were strategic bombers with intercontinental range.  Tu-16 ~ 7,200 kms,  Tu-22 ~4,900 kms compared to Tu-160 ~12,300.  Tu-160 had supersonic performance and the range to truly attack continental US.  It didn't replace either Tu-16/Tu-22 - it was a whole new capability.

    BTW the Tu-22 was hopelessly short-ranged due to its fuel-guzzling engines and was only fit for theater use.

    Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with PAK DA being subsonic or supersonic or some mystical Vannian mega-turbo-hypersonic.  My point is that until the Tu-160 entered service, the USSR did not have a supersonic strategic bomber (ie one able to attack continental US and return to own airfield).  Neither Tu-16 or Tu-22/22M fulfilled that role.  The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.

    Obviously the Tu-160 added new capabilities to the units it was deployed in, but your denial has not a real basis. There is a clear material succession in the concrete units the Tu-160 served, and is exposed in the links.

    Again, as habitual here, the word of some people vs the facts exposed in the links.

    Because, naturally links are words spoken by God himself and are always ultimate proof for everything.

    I can give you link that claims that Earth is flat too.

    Facts exposed in the links are far better than your word. Again. Facts exposed in the links.

    Nothing in the links you provided claims that Tu-160 replaced Tu-16 or Tu-22 in their inteded role, just that certain units were rearmed with it, which we all knew... you know.. before you placed mighty links.

    Some units though time even completely changed their roles from frontline strike to strategic, pilots got retrained from transport to gunship helicopters...its called reform, from stop being moron, our eyes are bleeding.

    If US suddenly started fielding B-21 next year, what bombers would they replace? B-52s and B-1s ofc, and what they would do? Fire the pilots that flew B-1s and wait a decade till new ones are ready Very Happy? You are seriously... lol1
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:54 am

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

    184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

    121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
    http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

    Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

    Unfortunately for your argument, neither the Tu-16 or Tu-22 were strategic bombers with intercontinental range.  Tu-16 ~ 7,200 kms,  Tu-22 ~4,900 kms compared to Tu-160 ~12,300.  Tu-160 had supersonic performance and the range to truly attack continental US.  It didn't replace either Tu-16/Tu-22 - it was a whole new capability.

    BTW the Tu-22 was hopelessly short-ranged due to its fuel-guzzling engines and was only fit for theater use.

    Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with PAK DA being subsonic or supersonic or some mystical Vannian mega-turbo-hypersonic.  My point is that until the Tu-160 entered service, the USSR did not have a supersonic strategic bomber (ie one able to attack continental US and return to own airfield).  Neither Tu-16 or Tu-22/22M fulfilled that role.  The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.

    Obviously the Tu-160 added new capabilities to the units it was deployed in, but your denial has not a real basis. There is a clear material succession in the concrete units the Tu-160 served, and is exposed in the links.

    Again, as habitual here, the word of some people vs the facts exposed in the links.

    Because, naturally links are words spoken by God himself and are always ultimate proof for everything.

    I can give you link that claims that Earth is flat too.

    Facts exposed in the links are far better than your word. Again. Facts exposed in the links.

    Nothing in the links you provided claims that Tu-160 replaced Tu-16 or Tu-22 in their inteded role, just that certain units were rearmed with it, which we all knew... you know.. before you placed mighty links.

    Some units though time even completely changed their roles from frontline strike to strategic, pilots got retrained from transport to gunship helicopters...its called reform, from stop being moron, our eyes are bleeding.

    If US suddenly started fielding B-21 next year, what bombers would they replace? B-52s and B-1s ofc, and what they would do? Fire the pilots that flew B-1s and wait a decade till new ones are ready Very Happy? You are seriously... lol1

    Most of the times changing armament means a change in the fighting way of every unit. New armament tend to increase the military capabilities of the units. In the links included we have a relation of the armament used by the units with the time, and also we have a view of the role of the units with the time, that had few changes in these cases, like we can see in the links.

    These are the facts. Your words, have not value... you know... you made a joke of yourself too much times...

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:09 am

    As example the NATO divide the different variants of the S-300 in four designations: SA-10, SA-12, SA-20 and SA-23. And there are more examples like this.

    Actually the S-300 system is not one system but three systems, only two of which are actually related.

    The S-300P Air force system and S-300F Naval systems are related, the S-300V ground forces system is totally different with totally different vehicles sensors and missiles.

    And do not get too excited because you see in the source the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M in separated references,

    They have separate references because they are different aircraft with different engines and systems and totally different performances.


    And do not get too excited because you see in the source the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M in separated references, because russianplanes does it some times with obvious variants, like in the case of the Mi-8, An-10/12, An-24/26/30/32, Ka-50/52....

    https://russianplanes.net/registr

    Congratulations that link shows the opposite of what you are trying to say again....

    In the drop down box for the aircraft type the family aircraft are grouped together... so the Hip and Hip related family of aircraft have one link... ie Mi-8, Mi-9, Mi-17, Mi-18, Mi-171, Mi-172 are all related aircraft.

    The Mi-24/-25/35 aircraft are separate but together as well for the same reasons.

    The Mi-14 has a separate link on its own despite being originally a Hip design with a new boat shaped structure for amphibious use.

    The Tu-22 and Tu-22M have different links here too.

    This makes sense because they are totally different aircraft.

    OK... how about this.

    Lets look at what the manufacturer describes as the purpose of the Tu-22M3:

    The Tu-22M3 long-range supersonic missile-launching bomber is designed for the destruction of sea-surface and ground targets at a 2,200 km distance from base airfields using guided missiles and aerial bombs.

    So its operational radius of action is 2,200km.

    Read it yourself... the page is here:

    http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/military/tu-22m3/

    Now lets look at every Russian air base where the Tu-22M3 could be based and compare the radius of action of 2,200km with the distance to the US...

    The Tu-22M3 is not a strategic bomber, never has been and never will be.

    Even with inflight refuelling it would never have the range to get anywhere near the US even with a small ineffectual load of weapons.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:24 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    As example the NATO divide the different variants of the S-300 in four designations: SA-10, SA-12, SA-20 and SA-23. And there are more examples like this.

    Actually the S-300 system is not one system but three systems, only two of which are actually related.

    The S-300P Air force system and S-300F Naval systems are related, the S-300V ground forces system is totally different with totally different vehicles sensors and missiles.

    And do not get too excited because you see in the source the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M in separated references,

    They have separate references because they are different aircraft with different engines and systems and totally different performances.


    And do not get too excited because you see in the source the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M in separated references, because russianplanes does it some times with obvious variants, like in the case of the Mi-8, An-10/12, An-24/26/30/32, Ka-50/52....

    https://russianplanes.net/registr

    Congratulations that link shows the opposite of what you are trying to say again....

    Lol, what a lie  lol1  lol1

    Then you consider different helicopters the:


    Perfect, all said, good luck with it.

    Also good luck explaining what is the Russian Long Range Aviation Command armed with Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-22 and Il-78. The current commander: Lieutenant-General Sergei Kobylash
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:23 am

    Then you consider different helicopters the:

    Are you trying to be funny?

    Separate lists of Mi-8s manufactured by different factories does not make them different aircraft, but listing the Tu-22 and Tu-22M would still make them on separate lists and still not prove any of your points.

    Also good luck explaining what is the Russian Long Range Aviation Command armed with Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-22 and Il-78. The current commander: Lieutenant-General Sergei Kobylash

    Long range aviation is a branch of the Russian Air Force and includes many types of aircraft that are not strategic bombers.

    Frontal Aviation, the PVO (national air defence/interception) and long range aviation together with naval aviation and transport aviation form the 5 main core branches of the Soviet Air Force.

    The frontal aviation had fighters and bombers and interceptors but generally operated in and around the enemy front line.

    The PVO operated all over Soviet territory and intercepted threats.

    Transport aviation is pretty obvious, as is naval aviation.

    Long range aviation had both strategic and theatre components that were intended for strike and attack missions at theatre and strategic level.

    In WWIII the Tu-22M would be used against targets in Japan or Europe or China to strike major radar or SAM sites in Long range aviation... you can't use Tu-160s or Tu-95s because they would need to be ready to launch a nuclear strike on the US if necessary.

    The Tu-22M would also be used by Naval Aviation to strike US carrier groups and large ships in times of war... again the Tu-95 and Tu-160 could not be used because at any time they might need to deliver nuclear armed cruise missiles to the continental US.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:20 pm

    Then you admit that russianplanes can use different pages for aircrafts of the same model. The you recognize your previous lie. Good, good.

    And also do you admit the Long Range Aviation Command includes all the Long Range Russian aircrafts plus refuel aircrafts? Or not still...

    There is some reason why Russia considered necessary to unify all the long range bombers under a single command? or is only a random selection that mix different things and the Tu-22 was lucky of being placed with the Tu-160 and the Tu-95/142, while the Su-34 was not lucky enough...

    And then, the Long Range term has some sense in the designation of the Long Range Aviation Command? or is some random fancy of some Russian politician or general unrelated with the mission of the Command?

    Look at the reality man. Look at the reality.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 16, 2017 12:05 pm

    Then you admit that russianplanes can use different pages for aircrafts of the same model. The you recognize your previous lie. Good, good.

    OK you are going to be dumb about it.

    When you use the search engine within the russianplanes website and search based on manufacturers then you will get separate pages for each factory even for the same aircraft.

    You also get separate pages for the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M because they are different aircraft made of completely different parts as they are not related in design or manufacture.

    The only thing they actually share is the "22" system, but even then they use Kh-22 and Kh-22M missiles and other systems that are related but different too.

    And also do you admit the Long Range Aviation Command includes all the Long Range Russian aircrafts plus refuel aircrafts? Or not still...

    No. Long range Aviation does not include all Russian long range aircraft, it only includes long range, and medium range bombers and cruise missile carriers and inflight refuelling aircraft. It does not include any An-124 transport aircraft which can also fly 12,000km in ferry mode or Il-76 aircraft that can ferry to 5,000km plus. Or for that matter the few An-22s still operational which are also very long range aircraft too. Razz

    There is some reason why Russia considered necessary to unify all the long range bombers under a single command? or is only a random selection that mix different things and the Tu-22 was lucky of being placed with the Tu-160 and the Tu-95/142, while the Su-34 was not lucky enough...

    For the same reason the US had strategic air command... targets for theatre and strategic bombers require strategic and long range recon assets... and thinking that front line aviation simply does not have the scope to deal with. Frontal aviation cares about what is happening on or near the front line. The PVO is interested in the integrity of the entire country. The long range aviation is interested in hitting strategic targets in the west, but it is also interested in deep strike missions behind enemy lines that can have effects out of all proportion of the actual damage they do.

    Frontal aviation is interested in supporting an attack or defending from an enemy attack.

    I am clearly wasting my time however... the fact that the makers of the plane admit it has a flight radius of 2,000km says it is not a strategic bomber. That is all the reality there is.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  eehnie on Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:55 pm

    Dumb is to cut the quotes like you does and answer to this saying that the An-124 is not included.

    eehnie wrote:And also do you admit the Long Range Aviation Command includes all the Long Range Russian aircrafts plus refuel aircrafts? Or not still...

    There is some reason why Russia considered necessary to unify all the long range bombers under a single command? or is only a random selection that mix different things and the Tu-22 was lucky of being placed with the Tu-160 and the Tu-95/142, while the Su-34 was not lucky enough...

    And then, the Long Range term has some sense in the designation of the Long Range Aviation Command? or is some random fancy of some Russian politician or general unrelated with the mission of the Command?

    Bumb is to say that the Long Range Aviation Command includes medium range aircrafts, when there are dozens of official links to news that call long range bomber to the Tu-22.

    All said. Reality denial...
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Militarov on Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:08 pm

    eehnie wrote:Then you admit that russianplanes can use different pages for aircrafts of the same model. The you recognize your previous lie. Good, good.

    And also do you admit the Long Range Aviation Command includes all the Long Range Russian aircrafts plus refuel aircrafts? Or not still...

    There is some reason why Russia considered necessary to unify all the long range bombers under a single command? or is only a random selection that mix different things and the Tu-22 was lucky of being placed with the Tu-160 and the Tu-95/142, while the Su-34 was not lucky enough...

    And then, the Long Range term has some sense in the designation of the Long Range Aviation Command? or is some random fancy of some Russian politician or general unrelated with the mission of the Command?

    Look at the reality man. Look at the reality.

    Tu-22 was replaced by Tu-22M, stop giving random nomenclature to bombers as you are pleased.

    Tu-22M is too heavy to be part of frontline aviation so its logical to place it in LRA even tho its range is basically on pair with new frontline strikers.

    Sponsored content

    Re: PAK-DA: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am