dorlomin Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Putin would make a great Bond villian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I reckon that smiley plane and the Inverness bin lorry would get along well together. Screenshot_2015-01-30-10-53-50.png How do they refuel the refuelling planes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Another non-news story turned into news, which will probably be mentioned the next time Trident is being debated. Always liked the look of those Russian Bears though, they were probably quite impressive in their day. Well, there wasn't really much said a while back when a Russia warship was mooching around waters north east of Scotland and there wasn't a navy ship less than 24 hours away to intercept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 How do they refuel the refuelling planes? Submarines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Is it a coincidence that P&B is currently running an ad for dating mature Russian ladies- Is Div hedging his bets in case Putin launches a strike against Paisley? Interesting. Hopefully there'll be a few more sagging tits down Paisley way in about five hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 They look impressive and are good for a noise-up, but in terms of threat those 1950s vintage Bear and Badger bombers are about one step away from Stukas. Eh, not really. Stuka / Tu-95 Bear Top Speed - 242mph / 575mph Altitude - 26,000 feet / 45,000 feet Weapons - 2 x 7.92mm machine guns, 1 x 250kg bomb / 2 x 23mm cannons, 15,000kg of nuclear capable cruise missiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Eh, not really. Stuka / Tu-95 Bear Top Speed - 242mph / 575mph Altitude - 26,000 feet / 45,000 feet Weapons - 2 x 7.92mm machine guns, 1 x 250kg bomb / 2 x 23mm cannons, 15,000kg of nuclear capable cruise missiles. The Bear didn't have a siren though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 They were a formidable threat to the Atlantic sea lanes back in the day, but in a world of ICBMs their actual nuclear threat is virtually null. Kitted out with a decent anti ship missile they could still cause serious problems in a shooting war. During the Cold War, Soviet doctrine was to send in fleets of these types of planes armed with a couple of huge nuclear cruise missiles to attack the NATO convoys in the Atlantic, the idea being to overwhelm the air defences. In response, we developed nuclear surface to air missiles. If the Cold War had turned hot there was going to be a lot of nuclear weapons going off all over the place, not just the ICBMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 The Bear didn't have a siren though. Nah, but the guy on the back could shout awfy loud - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 During the Cold War, Soviet doctrine was to send in fleets of these types of planes armed with a couple of huge nuclear cruise missiles to attack the NATO convoys in the Atlantic, the idea being to overwhelm the air defences. In response, we developed nuclear surface to air missiles. If the Cold War had turned hot there was going to be a lot of nuclear weapons going off all over the place, not just the ICBMs. A surface to air nuclear missile to knock out a plane? It would be nice if the Russians all flew in close formation, but if they made it difficult it would be like Bush's sending a million dollar missile to go through a tent and up a camel's ass quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 No, it would be one nuke per plane. Consider that the Soviets would be firing 50-60 nuclear missiles at each American carrier, it's worth making sure you take out every plane. The scale of the nuclear exchange in the all-out war each side envisaged was horrifying. If we thought a Soviet sub was in the area, we had nuclear depth charges that we would just saturate square miles of sea with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 According to the link below Russian IL-78 tankers were also in attendance. Re-fuelled the old bombers twice and presumably the Mig31's as well. http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/29/tu-95-uk-disruption/ Here's the British version, a Victor bomber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Patterson Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Would be brilliant if someone managed to get a Victor back in the skies after the success of the Vulcan projects. I know there was that wee incident at Bruntingthorpe a few years back which hinted at things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Mrs Tam says "any more cheek comrade and you're getting it!" shotputter.jpg Aye she Pm'd me. I'll ease off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 No, it would be one nuke per plane. Consider that the Soviets would be firing 50-60 nuclear missiles at each American carrier, it's worth making sure you take out every plane. The scale of the nuclear exchange in the all-out war each side envisaged was horrifying. If we thought a Soviet sub was in the area, we had nuclear depth charges that we would just saturate square miles of sea with.Where do you get this from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Where do you get this from? I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. (I was RN in the 80s) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 According to the link below Russian IL-78 tankers were also in attendance. Re-fuelled the old bombers twice and presumably the Mig31's as well. http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/29/tu-95-uk-disruption/ Going back to that link - the phrase "long range interceptor" is an oxymoron. An interceptor is a very fast short range fighter used for point defence - like the English Electric Lightning, the Mig 25 Foxbat or the F104 Starfighter. They accelerated like crazy and could climb like rockets but they had no range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. (I was RN in the 80s) Why would they fire so many missiles at a single target? I see the point on land to level a city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Because a US carrier has stupidly large air defences that can intercept cruise missiles 20 odd miles out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyerTon Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Standard script again on Wednesday, ancient Russian bombers escorted by the RAF. This is a video shot from one of the Russian planes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERXpTMixsB8 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-31537705 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.