yes, so what. that aircraft still has to get close enough to fire those cruise missles.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?
now the backfire bomber is a whole nother story, Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
Stupid to say Putin is testing Obama,the Russians are testing the USA Airforce the reaction time,and response. Originally Posted by ekim008Fucktard 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).
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
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?dont confuse the simpletons with facts while theyre in the hanger playing with their lil drones ..
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 .. Originally Posted by CJ7Unfortunately, the only way to shut the simpletons up is to throw the facts in their faces.
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?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)
The TU-95 has about twice the payload capacity of the B-52. That's a lotta missile weight. Originally Posted by Sidewinder
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
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
yeah yeah yeah ... bla bla blaYou 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.
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. 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.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.
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 ...Oh, but you do lie.
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
a ragged ass 60 year old russian plane left its airspace ... Originally Posted by CJ7And here you post disparaging the planes because they are propeller driven.
the suspect Russian bird has propellers ... Originally Posted by CJ7