Russian Bombers Enter US Airspace Twice

yes, so what. that aircraft still has to get close enough to fire those cruise missles.

now the backfire bomber is a whole nother story, Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
Uhhh, dude, you ARE aware that the B-52's primary tasking these days is as an air-launched cruise missile platform, aren't you?

The TU-95 has about twice the payload capacity of the B-52. That's a lotta missile weight.
Stupid to say Putin is testing Obama,the Russians are testing the USA Airforce the reaction time,and response. Originally Posted by ekim008
Fucktard award of the day goes out to you! <hint> Obama is the Comander in Chief of the military. <another hint> Therefore, Obama makes the decision on how we respond (our responce).

I swear bro, I hope you can give a reasonable explanation of "what you really meant to say", I'm not in the mood for pity today.
i'va biggen's Avatar
Fucktard award of the day goes out to you! <hint> Obama is the Comander in Chief of the military. <another hint> Therefore, Obama makes the decision on how we respond (our responce).

I swear bro, I hope you can give a reasonable explanation of "what you really meant to say", I'm not in the mood for pity today. Originally Posted by nwarounder

No your dumb ass reply trumps my statement x10 learn to spell or get spell check .You win the head up ass award of the day.
CJ7's Avatar
  • CJ7
  • 07-09-2012, 09:57 PM
Uhhh, dude, you ARE aware that the B-52's primary tasking these days is as an air-launched cruise missile platform, aren't you?

The TU-95 has about twice the payload capacity of the B-52. That's a lotta missile weight. Originally Posted by Sidewinder
dont confuse the simpletons with facts while theyre in the hanger playing with their lil drones ..
dont confuse the simpletons with facts while theyre in the hanger playing with their lil drones .. Originally Posted by CJ7
Unfortunately, the only way to shut the simpletons up is to throw the facts in their faces.

Like for instance, there's this one guy, CJ7, who thinks the TU-95 is a total joke because it has propellers instead of jet exhausts. He apparently doesn't know the difference between a piston engine and a turboprop engine, probably doesn't realize the TU-95 wings are swept, and CERTAINLY doesn't realize that it has range comparable to the B-52 with TWICE the useful load. In short, he has no idea what the TU-95 is really capable of, because he is fixated on the idea that "propellers == useless". One wonders what CJ7 would make of a C-130 Hercules, or a Shorts 360, or a Lockheed P3 Orion, or an ATR 72...

I almost included the Britten-Norman Islander in that list, but I remembered at the last minute that it is a piston airplane, and certainly obsolete and totally worthless in CJ7's eyes, despite it being one of the nicest small puddlejumpers ever designed.
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
Uhhh, dude, you ARE aware that the B-52's primary tasking these days is as an air-launched cruise missile platform, aren't you?

The TU-95 has about twice the payload capacity of the B-52. That's a lotta missile weight. Originally Posted by Sidewinder
yes, I'm aware that the B-52 is primarily a cruise missile carrier, so is the TU-95 and the Blackjack bomber. (I made an error previously when I mentioned Backfire, I meant Blackjack)

I had to check your claim about the TU-95's bomb/missile payload, as I'm not familiar with Russian bombers.

ahem, Sidewinder. I don't where you got that information about the TU-95's payload capacity. Its not twice the capacity of the B-52. It is flat out wrong, unless Wikipedia is wrong.

The B-52 has a bomb/missile payload of 70,000#s. The TU-95 has a bomb/missile payload of 33,000#s.

You may have been thinking of the TU-160 Blackjack bomber, it does have a bomb/missile payload comparable to the B-52 and is much larger and faster.

Besides, the TU-95 is a smaller aircraft than the B-52 in terms of wingspan and length.

Interesting, didn't know they did that. TU-95 is a buffed up B-29 Superfortress from a copy of a B-29 Superfortress they stole.

Another factoid, it's the fastest propeller driven aircraft in the world @ 575mph, but its still slow! LOL!

B-52 Stratofortress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_...ns_.28B-52H.29

TU-95 Bear aka White Swan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev..._.28Tu-95MS.29

TU-160 Blackjack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev...s_.28Tu-160.29
A quick comparison chart.

BEAR BUFF
Length: 151 ft 6 in 159 ft 4 in
Wingspan: 164 ft 5 in 185 ft 0 in
Height: 39 ft 9 in 40 ft 8 in
Wing area: 3,330 sq ft 4,000 sq ft
Empty weight: 198,000 lb 185,000 lb
Loaded weight: 376,200 lb 265,000 lb
Max. takeoff weight: 414,500 lb 488,000 lb

8 ft difference in length, 20 ft difference in wingspan. Less than 1 ft difference in height. (You may have been confused by the Wikipedia presentation: the Bear had metric first, then English, the BUFF had English first, then metric.) Wing area comparable, empty weight comparable, loaded weight over 100,000 lbs difference, about 70,000 lbs MGTOW difference.

You may be right about missile payload vs. loaded weight.


You'll have to reformat the chart for readability: eccie stripped the spaces.
CJ7's Avatar
  • CJ7
  • 07-10-2012, 12:56 PM
Unfortunately, the only way to shut the simpletons up is to throw the facts in their faces.

Like for instance, there's this one guy, CJ7, who thinks the TU-95 is a total joke because it has propellers instead of jet exhausts. He apparently doesn't know the difference between a piston engine and a turboprop engine, probably doesn't realize the TU-95 wings are swept, and CERTAINLY doesn't realize that it has range comparable to the B-52 with TWICE the useful load. In short, he has no idea what the TU-95 is really capable of, because he is fixated on the idea that "propellers == useless". One wonders what CJ7 would make of a C-130 Hercules, or a Shorts 360, or a Lockheed P3 Orion, or an ATR 72...

I almost included the Britten-Norman Islander in that list, but I remembered at the last minute that it is a piston airplane, and certainly obsolete and totally worthless in CJ7's eyes, despite it being one of the nicest small puddlejumpers ever designed. Originally Posted by Sidewinder

I didnt say it was a total joke, I said it was an old plane from the 50's .. the swept wing is obvious in the pics of the old bird, that explains alot for the performance of any plane, 130;s are currently used to deliver MOAB's , and during Nam were lovingly called PUFF by the boots on the ground. Something anout the 50 cal chain gun making shit disappear in a puff of smoke ... and its possible Ive spent more time in civie turbo props than you, specifically KA B200 and 350's .. pretty neat listening to the fans spool up and after they start singing see the props kick in ...


go toss you backhander insults at the simpletons sidewinder ... turbo props and piston planes are simply out classed in todays world of air capable warfare ... not a damn thing wrong with either .... unless you happen to ne driving one and some jet jock slips in your 6 and sends a heater up your tail numbers.

GFY.
One quibble.

As I remember it, "Puff the Magic Dragon" was the AC-47 (deployed starting in 1964, and still in use all over the world, by several countries). That nickname was not applied to the AC-130 (deployed starting in 1967, and only ever used by USAF).
CJ7's Avatar
  • CJ7
  • 07-10-2012, 03:29 PM
One quibble.

As I remember it, "Puff the Magic Dragon" was the AC-47 (deployed starting in 1964, and still in use all over the world, by several countries). That nickname was not applied to the AC-130 (deployed starting in 1967, and only ever used by USAF). Originally Posted by Sidewinder

true that , my bad.

47's were prop planes nonetheless ... my point.
I B Hankering's Avatar
yeah yeah yeah ... bla bla bla


tinker toys in the air compared to HDLR bombers ..

theres not a drone flying that can carry the ordinance a B52 or a B-2 can carry.

PERIOD.


here ya go IB hook this motherfucker aka MOAB up to a missile carrying drone and see how far and fast it can fly.. 1100 mies LMAO

http://military.discovery.com/videos...all-bombs.html Originally Posted by CJ7
You are a deflecting dumb-ass, CBJ7! Your original remark dismissed the Russian planes as too old and propeller driven. Face it, your lame ass remark has been substantively repudiated; so now you want to interject a lame-ass, straw man argument about drones not being able to carry a MOAB.
CJ7's Avatar
  • CJ7
  • 07-10-2012, 04:22 PM
You are a deflecting dumb-ass, CBJ7! Your original remark dismissed the Russian planes as too old and propeller driven. Face it, your lame ass remark has been substantively repudiated; so now you want to interject a lame-ass, straw man argument about drones not being able to carry a MOAB. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I didnt dismiss anything other than planes from the 50's are at best second to modern aircraft ... you were the one that brought up the toy drones compared to Long Range Bombers of any age ... aka DEFLECTING away from the topic.

I B Hankering's Avatar
I didnt dismiss anything other than planes from the 50's are at best second to modern aircraft ... you were the one that brought up the toy drones compared to Long Range Bombers of any age ... aka DEFLECTING away from the topic.

Originally Posted by CJ7
No, it was your dismissal of propeller driven war birds as "of no consequence" that prompted the need to "educate" you about propeller driven war birds currently in the U.S. arsenal. Old, propeller driven war birds can create an international incident leading to war, despite you small, dismissive opinion otherwise.
CJ7's Avatar
  • CJ7
  • 07-10-2012, 05:00 PM
No, it was your dismissal of propeller driven war birds as "of no consequence" that prompted the need to "educate" you about propeller driven war birds currently in the U.S. arsenal. Old, propeller driven war birds can create an international incident leading to war, despite you small, dismissive opinion otherwise. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

wrong again ...

I compared the russian plane with our 52

prop and turbo respectively

then you posted a pic of a drone complete with stats which in NO way compare to either ...

as I said both have their places but modern aircraft with modern technology trump the older planes ...

kinda like a new 2013 corvette trumps a 51 chevy
I B Hankering's Avatar
wrong again ...

I compared the russian plane with our 52

prop and turbo respectively

then you posted a pic of a drone complete with stats which in NO way compare to either ...

as I said both have their places but modern aircraft with modern technology trump the older planes ... Originally Posted by CJ7
Oh, but you do lie.

Here you post disparaging the Russian planes' age.



a ragged ass 60 year old russian plane left its airspace ... Originally Posted by CJ7
And here you post disparaging the planes because they are propeller driven.

the suspect Russian bird has propellers ... Originally Posted by CJ7