Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tu-95MS "Bear"

    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 304
    Points : 283
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  RTN on Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:07 pm

    Isos wrote:Stealth as a technology is very good and reduce very well detection for fighters's and missiles's radars working in X band.

    A few days ago while replying to that Asian guy you said stealth is not of much use (your quote below)

    That's what US fanboys try to make everyone beleive because their gov spend thousands of billions in stealth and BVR.

    Russia, French and European and others don't beleive in that. Jammers + low observability allow you to fool missiles giving you the same advantage as stealth while supermanoeuvrability gives you advantage in dogfight.

    But you haven't explained why Russian aircraft like the PAK-DA will have what you described as "very good stealth".

    Isos wrote:B2 size makes it also a good stealth plane against even low frequency radar but it tends to not be the case anymore.
    Meaning, Russian stealth aircraft will face this same issue.

    Singular_Transform wrote:Other tactics is to have long range missiles launched from fast, heavy and big airplanes, from long range.
    Longer the range of the air to air missile the more easier it will be for the aircraft being attacked to adopt evasive maneuvers
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6199
    Points : 6191
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Isos on Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:36 pm

    US putting all the eggs on the stealth basket is not much of a use. That's costly and even with their 1000 billion dollars spebt every year for their army they can't have more than 20 B2, 200 f-22 and 2 or 3 Zumwalt destroyer.

    Incorporating some stealth features to your stuff without increasing cost is usefull.

    US see stealth as a weapon when it is only a caracteristic of the weapon.

    Since the 90s they spend billions and billions on stealth and now they are totally outclassed on hypersonic weapons. They plan to restart f15. They gave up Zumwalt for more Arleigh Burkes. F35 is a failure.


    Russian pak da will have a very good stealth because it will keep the other caracteristics of a good modern bomber : long range and stand off capability. The stealth will be very good in the sense that it will allow to travel undetected and still be undetected when its launching its weapons 1000km away. There is no need to be invisible to radars 20km away when you use the weapon 1000km away. That won't bring the cost to the level of the b2.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 338
    Points : 344
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  marcellogo on Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:01 pm

    Isos wrote:US putting all the eggs on the stealth basket is not much of a use. That's costly and even with their 1000 billion dollars spebt every year for their army they can't have more than 20 B2, 200 f-22 and 2 or 3 Zumwalt destroyer.

    Incorporating some stealth features to your stuff without increasing cost is usefull.

    US see stealth as a weapon when it is only a caracteristic of the weapon.

    Since the 90s they spend billions and billions on stealth and now they are totally outclassed on hypersonic weapons. They plan to restart f15. They gave up Zumwalt for more Arleigh Burkes. F35 is a failure.


    Russian pak da will have a very good stealth because it will keep the other caracteristics of a good modern bomber : long range and stand off capability. The stealth will be very good in the sense that it will allow to travel undetected and still be undetected when its launching its weapons 1000km away. There is no need to be invisible to radars 20km away when you use the weapon 1000km away. That won't bring the cost to the level of the b2.

    Fundamental difference would be the way one intended to use the bomber: both B-1 than B-2 were designed and modified with the intention of penetrate into enemy air space and so use bombs or short range nuclear missiles.
    So while original B-1A was a mach 2 capable aircraft, the serial built B-1B had fixed wing intake and a max speed of just 1,35M for low altitude penetration.
    B-2 would have performed thank to its stealth features but it was quickly demonstrated that even them was not enough.

    Actual B-52 and Tu-95 but also Tu-160 are instead actually used as cruise missile launchers from afar.
    Pak-Da and B-21 will operate along same pattern BUT would be two engined plane and so be economically convenient to operate (almost in comparidon to huge Tu-160 and B-2) but also able to perform tactical mission mission much more better than Bear and Buffs.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25937
    Points : 26483
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 04, 2020 8:11 am

    A few days ago while replying to that Asian guy you said stealth is not of much use (your quote below)

    For many stealth is everything and is a critical thing, for others it is useless and too expensive.

    Look at the Israeli F-35s. Those planes are expensive because they are stealthy. Their performance is limited to keep them stealthy so only weapons that will fit in their internal weapon bays are carried to maintain stealth levels.

    The thing is that Israel needs aircraft it can use, they are not for show... they use them often, so the F-35 clearly can't operate safely in Syrian airspace because it is not stealthy enough, but if it was a PAK DA delivering long range cruise missiles from 1,000km away then the level of stealth is reduced.

    The F-35 needs to operate in contested airspace to do its job, and while it might cost 120 million an aircraft, a cheaper plane like an 80 million dollar F-16 would need all sorts of support aircraft and enemy defence suppression aircraft and weapons too to operate... so if the F-35 could work on its own in enemy airspace safely it would be worth its high price.

    It clearly can't. They are using the same standoff attack from outside Syrian airspace that they were using with the cheaper simpler F-16s which can carry more and further and at a fraction of the price.

    That is not to say stealth is useless... stealthy munitions are more difficult to deal with and some stealth on an aircraft makes it harder to engage with radar guided weapons.

    But stealth does not make things super invincible...

    But you haven't explained why Russian aircraft like the PAK-DA will have what you described as "very good stealth".

    Stealth is about shaping and materials and design.... when the MiG-29 was developed stealth wasn't an issue.... if you look close at early models there are gaps in the skin you could put your finger in... they were cheap and easy to make and surface airflow means bumps and lumps actually improve airflow over skin surfaces rather than cause aerodynamic problems... golf balls are dimpled to create turbulence over the surface of the ball so the airflow attaches to the surface and sticks to it so it curves around the ball to reduce the area of turbulence from being the full width of the ball (with a smooth ball) to hugging around and detaching further around the surface creating a smaller drag area increasing the distance the ball will fly for a given force hit.

    The level of stealth you make an aircraft depends on where the plane is at in terms of design and production and how much you want to spend to make it stealthy.

    An existing design limits what you can do for a given amount of money. The bare standard MiG-29 for example, you could spend a million dollars in changes and make a serious reduction in RCS. You might reduce the RCS by 10 times simply by finding all the reflectors and covering them in RAM or redesigning them so they don't reflect so well. But nothing you can do will be that effective... you can spend another 100 million and reduce the RCS by 2 times, and a billion more to reduce it by another 20%, but by that stage you are reaching the limit of what you can do with an existing design with external weapons.

    With the PAK DA you are designing from scratch so you can make the RCS small to start with and include internal weapons and stealthy sensor fairings... then when you add composite materials and stealthy antenna and RAM you can make further reductions, but unless you want to spend trillions you are never going to make the plane invisible and the more stealthy you make it the more expensive it is going to be to maintain that level of stealth... a single screw sticking up 2mm could ruin the RCS and change the RCS of the aircraft from 0.00001m to 0.1m which is enormous...

    But the PAK DA is not going to be flying over active enemy air defences... most likely it will be launching a cruise missile attack with missiles that might have enormous ranges... they might be nuclear powered unlimited range 12m long weapons carrying 20 warheads each at hypersonic speeds for all we know a nuclear ramjet would be a scramjet because there would just be heat generation rather than actual combustion...

    Meaning, Russian stealth aircraft will face this same issue.

    Very true, but there are not that many long wave radars in the west for it to worry about, and by the time the PAK DA gets to its launch position most air defences will already be destroyed...

    Longer the range of the air to air missile the more easier it will be for the aircraft being attacked to adopt evasive maneuvers

    The only effective evasive manouver an AWACS platform could perform would be to leave the battlespace, which means the missile achieves its goal one way or the other.

    That won't bring the cost to the level of the b2.

    Stealth is a feature and capability but not a purpose, which means it wont make the design orders of magnitude more expensive like it does in the US.

    Pak-Da and B-21 will operate along same pattern BUT would be two engined plane and so be economically convenient to operate (almost in comparidon to huge Tu-160 and B-2) but also able to perform tactical mission mission much more better than Bear and Buffs.

    The Bear can carry bombs if needed, but it makes rather more sense to use the PAK DA as its internal weapons bays will be optimised for large conventional loads to be carried aerodynamically efficiently as well as stealthily...

    In theatre roles the aircraft will fly at medium to high altitude at an efficient cruise speed, using bombing systems that make them accurate enough so that cheap dumb bombs can be used for most targets... while the odd moving target could be engaged with more sophisticated bombs (KAB-20 maybe... a laser guided 20kg bomb with perhaps 5kgs of explosive to take out any truck sized IED vehicle or similar)...

    The same bomb could be carried by UCAVs to reduce costs of course, but for the initial attacks a stealth bomber can get closer before being noticed...
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3139
    Points : 3139
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Hole on Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:27 pm

    First "real" MSM

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Tu-95m10

    GarryB and George1 like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25937
    Points : 26483
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 24, 2020 7:30 am

    That the new reengined reduced vibration model?

    ... nice.

    8 external weapon pylons for Kh-101/102s and 6 internal weapon positions for shorter 6m long missiles...
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3139
    Points : 3139
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Hole on Mon Aug 24, 2020 12:41 pm

    The external weapons pylons + some minor changes of electronics belonged to the first part of the modernisation program. I would like to see a picture from the cockpit, the "full modernisation" should include a few modern screens.

    External difference from the other planes with pylons under the wings is a small fairing under the belly. Additional IRCM launcher?
    avatar
    jaguar_br

    Posts : 24
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2015-03-07

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  jaguar_br on Mon Aug 24, 2020 3:43 pm

    It looks like they removed the machine gun from the rear of the fuselage, just like the Tu-22M2M...
    It makes sense to assume that there is some community of systems and avionics between the Tu-95MSM, Tu-22M2M and Tu-160M2.
    avatar
    owais.usmani

    Posts : 374
    Points : 374
    Join date : 2019-03-27
    Age : 34

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  owais.usmani on Mon Aug 24, 2020 6:15 pm

    GarryB wrote:6 internal weapon positions for shorter 6m long missiles...

    6 internal???

    Doesn't the Tu 95 has 2 bomb bays for a total of 12 Kh-55 missiles carried internally?

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3139
    Points : 3139
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Hole on Mon Aug 24, 2020 9:11 pm

    One internal weapons bay.
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 3398
    Points : 3430
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  franco on Mon Aug 24, 2020 9:14 pm

    owais.usmani wrote:
    GarryB wrote:6 internal weapon positions for shorter 6m long missiles...

    6 internal???

    Doesn't the Tu 95 has 2 bomb bays for a total of 12 Kh-55 missiles carried internally?


    The -95MS has one bay for 6 ALCM's while the -160 has 2 for a total of 12.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25937
    Points : 26483
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 25, 2020 7:56 am

    Doesn't the Tu 95 has 2 bomb bays for a total of 12 Kh-55 missiles carried internally?

    As mentioned the Tu-95 as one internal rotary cruise missile bay that can carry missiles up to 6m long and it fits 6 missiles on it... the other missiles it carried externally.

    The Blackjack has two much bigger 11+m long missile bays though they can only carry 6 x 6m long missiles too... but they can also carry the 7.4m long Kh-101/102 cruise missiles as well (12 in total in the two weapon bays).

    Both aircraft were also able to carry the Kh-16 missile, with the Bear able to carry 6 on its rotary launcher, but the Blackjack could carry 12 in each of its missile bays because they were shorter than 6m long.
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2889
    Points : 3044
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Cyberspec on Tue Aug 25, 2020 9:29 am

    The MSM is suppose to be able to carry KH-101/102 internally but it's not clear yet if that is the case
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 14945
    Points : 15444
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  George1 on Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:07 pm

    Russia’s upgraded Tu-95MSM strategic bomber to carry 8 missiles instead of four

    https://tass.com/defense/1193147
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3139
    Points : 3139
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Hole on Tue Aug 25, 2020 10:21 pm

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Tu-95m11
    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Tu-95m12

    TheArmenian, flamming_python and LMFS like this post

    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3977
    Points : 4063
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Aug 26, 2020 9:51 am

    Nice, was waiting for a charly analysis Cool
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25937
    Points : 26483
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:14 am

    The MSM is suppose to be able to carry KH-101/102 internally but it's not clear yet if that is the case

    8 missiles externally is probably plenty... I would think the internal launcher could just be filled with extra fuel, or perhaps EW equipment.

    The 8 external missiles are Kh-102 nuclear armed 5,000km range missiles... it would not really make sense to carry 6 more Kh-55SM missiles with a range of 3,000km internally because that means after you launch the 8 external missiles you then have to fly several thousand kms closer to launch the remaining 6.

    The other use for the internal weapon bay would be to carry the Kh-16 replacement short range attack missile... the Kh-16 was a 250km range rocket powered Mach 5 missile with fairly basic guidance and a nice big nuclear warhead... so a group of enemy interceptors detected ahead... or a major SAM site detected ahead you fizz one of those forward and it zips ahead and obliterates anything in your path. The new model is called Gzur and is a 1,500km range mach 6 missile that essentially does the same thing of clearing a path in the air and on the ground or at sea. Note these bombers will be heading over the north pole so any American AEGIS class cruisers sitting their with their ABM systems waiting for Russian ICBMs to come over will need their radars blasing away to detect the warheads... so these Russian bombers will detect them from enormous distances and be able to launch these missiles from enormous standoff distances... they wont be looking for air launched much lower flying threats...

    Of course a few depressed trajectory SLBMs would get there much faster and at least blind them.

    Anyway, from the images above it seems they want to replace guns with electronics and so perhaps they are replacing the short range attack missiles with electronics too?

    ...and possibly just extra fuel as well...
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  mnztr on Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:26 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The 8 external missiles are  Kh-102 nuclear armed 5,000km range missiles... it would not really make sense to carry 6 more Kh-55SM missiles with a range of 3,000km internally because that means after you launch the 8 external missiles you then have to fly several thousand kms closer to launch the remaining 6.


    Maybe some targets are 3000km from launch point, some 5000? #1 adversary is a pretty large country....
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6113
    Points : 6264
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:20 pm

    mnztr wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    The 8 external missiles are  Kh-102 nuclear armed 5,000km range missiles... it would not really make sense to carry 6 more Kh-55SM missiles with a range of 3,000km internally because that means after you launch the 8 external missiles you then have to fly several thousand kms closer to launch the remaining 6.


    Maybe some targets are 3000km from launch point, some 5000? #1 adversary is a pretty large country....

    Things to consider.

    1.) The max range of Kh-101 is 5,500km with a massive 450kg 'conventional' warhead. We don't know the actual range of Kh-102, but we do know that Kh-102's thermonuclear warhead would be a fraction of the conventional warhead size. This would naturally leave much more room and space for propellant, allowing the Kh-102 to push beyond +6,000km, which would be a rather simple and easy task.

    2.) The massive range is designed to allow Tu-95's and Tu-160 to have the flexibility to launch at massive ranges away from OPFOR without the hope of OPFOR of detecting/engaging them. Despite the fact that neither the Tu-160's nor the Tu-95's are stealth bombers, the reality is they would be harder to detect launching at max range than B-2's with it's short ranged free-fall bombs. Surprisingly enough even to this day B-2's lack any principal stand off weapons, and they're only now trying to haphazardly turn JASSM-ER's in to their stand off weapon....only 30 years too late!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25937
    Points : 26483
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:35 am

    Maybe some targets are 3000km from launch point, some 5000? #1 adversary is a pretty large country....

    This is true, and I doubt every single bomber will need 6 nuclear short range missiles to battle their way through to their launch positions... by the time these aircraft are approaching enemy territory the ICBMs and SLBMs will have already destroyed cities and airfields and HQs and communications centres etc...


    1.) The max range of Kh-101 is 5,500km with a massive 450kg 'conventional' warhead. We don't know the actual range of Kh-102, but we do know that Kh-102's thermonuclear warhead would be a fraction of the conventional warhead size. This would naturally leave much more room and space for propellant, allowing the Kh-102 to push beyond +6,000km, which would be a rather simple and easy task.

    I suspect their new nuclear ramjet powered unlimited range cruise missiles will suffice for strategic targets and their current and future strategic bombers will be turned more for super heavy conventional long range attacks...
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6113
    Points : 6264
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Sep 03, 2020 12:04 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    1.) The max range of Kh-101 is 5,500km with a massive 450kg 'conventional' warhead. We don't know the actual range of Kh-102, but we do know that Kh-102's thermonuclear warhead would be a fraction of the conventional warhead size. This would naturally leave much more room and space for propellant, allowing the Kh-102 to push beyond +6,000km, which would be a rather simple and easy task.

    I suspect their new nuclear ramjet powered unlimited range cruise missiles will suffice for strategic targets and their current and future strategic bombers will be turned more for super heavy conventional long range attacks...

    Unless the VKS says they're retiring the Kh-102 there's no reason to believe that.
    avatar
    owais.usmani

    Posts : 374
    Points : 374
    Join date : 2019-03-27
    Age : 34

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  owais.usmani on Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:38 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:

    2.) The massive range is designed to allow Tu-95's and Tu-160 to have the flexibility to launch at massive ranges away from OPFOR without the hope of OPFOR of detecting/engaging them. Despite the fact that neither the Tu-160's nor the Tu-95's are stealth bombers, the reality is they would be harder to detect launching at max range than B-2's with it's short ranged free-fall bombs. Surprisingly enough even to this day B-2's lack any principal stand off weapons, and they're only now trying to haphazardly turn JASSM-ER's in to their stand off weapon....only 30 years too late!

    The B-2 was designed with the concept that it would be completely invisible to any radar, so it can calmly stroll into any airspace, drop its bombs and casually walk away.
    And then out of nowhere, reality bit them in the back.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6199
    Points : 6191
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Isos on Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:43 pm

    US also has OTH radars around their mainland. They will detect those tu-95 pretty far away. They also have hundreds of f-15 and f22 supported by a huge fleet of tankers to intercept them far away and using AIM 120D with around 150km range against such bombers.

    They also have hundreds of awacs. They usually send f-22 + tanker + Awacs to intercept russian bombers during patrol flights in the pacific near their coast.

    The 5000km range for kh-102 isn't official or proved. It comes directly from a random guy on wikipedia. I wouldn't bet on more than 3000km. The kh-102 is as stealth for US OTH radars as new US missile for russian OTH radars. Then they can guide the f-16/15/22 to destroy them in flight or coordinate their patriot batteries. They will probably get more AD systems to counter PGM as they saw the good results of pantsir/tors against their missiles in Syria.

    They can also keep 2 carrier on both coast to watch for the bombers with ground vased AWACS and their AEGIS cruisers.

    The tu-160 has the advantage of supersonic speed before it enters the intercepting zone of US air force leaving them much less time to answer the attack.

    Pak da will also reduce their response time but thanks to stealth.

    Tu-95 is good against other nuclear states but not so much against US.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 817
    Points : 865
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:52 pm

    Isos wrote:US also has OTH radars around their mainland.

    Do they have any mobile OTH radars like Russia? If not then by the time they need them they will not have any.

    They also lack the air defences to protect thier static installations, while Russia has a good chance (and win new ABMs entering service a very good chance) of being able to keep atleast some important facilities safe during a nuclear war.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  mnztr on Fri Sep 04, 2020 12:04 am

    GarryB wrote:
    This is true, and I doubt every single bomber will need 6 nuclear short range missiles to battle their way through to their launch positions... by the time these aircraft are approaching enemy territory the ICBMs and SLBMs will have already destroyed cities and airfields and HQs and communications centres etc...

    In times of tension they tend to send the bombers out first for several reasons. 1) they are recallable  2) it stretches out the decision time while allowing dialogue to continue 3) they risk being destroyed on the ground so get them into the air. 4) it reduces the chance of a first strike by the enemy as they know there is plenty of capacity to retaliate if they strike 5) it gradually increases pressure on the enemy without forcing split second responses.

    Imagine watching the long range radar and seeing the entire Russian strategic bomber fleet take off. That is something that will definitely focus the mind.

    Sponsored content

    Tu-95MS "Bear" - Page 9 Empty Re: Tu-95MS "Bear"

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:50 pm