>lose 10% of your strategic strike force without any of them being in the air >Why don't we put them in the air?
With the number of failed ICBM tests puccia has had in the past two years there's good reason to believe that their nuclear triad is more like a nuclear racketeer
>With the number of failed ICBM tests puccia has had in the past two years there's good reason to believe that their nuclear triad is more like a nuclear racketeer
TOPKEK
Nuclear bike thief soon.
B2s were used in Iraq, I doubt they were ever used in Syria or Afghanistan as they didn't have the potential air defense networks to require them, B52s and B1s were probably fine from the get go
Fucking gay. They're supposed to have the second most powerful air force in the world. It's not even a fraction of a fraction of what the US did in the Gulf War.
Based on who got shot down they basically have really really old guys with ussr flight hours but shit bodies and tactics, Gucci test flight bros that exist on paper, and "pilots" that are really guys on their learners permit and no money for fuel.
>You mean guning down unarmed rice farmers with gatling guns mounted on helis?
Soviet SA-2s (SAM with range of 7km) were used extensively by NVA forces throughout Laos and N. Vietnam to down hundreds of aircraft, both fixed wing and rotary. So many in fact, that SEAD forming Wild Weasel Squadrons were developed and used effectively against Vietnamese AA networks. This type of warfare was refined by the US and allies then on because the threat of Soviet AD that would be supporting an advance across Europe and NATO NEEDED to make sure they could provide CAS to ground troops.
These tactics worked remarkably well in Desert Storm and Gulf War 2 where they essentially erased all (very modern and up to date) Soviet designed AA systems. There were still losses of course, but to say SEAD does not work is a fallacy and no nation other than perhaps Syria and Russia have used S-300 in combat, with minimal or mediocre effect.
>It's not even a fraction of a fraction of what the US did in the Gulf War
Iraq doesn't have S-300 tier AA and proper air force. You can't just compare these things. Russia doesn't use its entire fleet for two reasons:
1. Not enough pilots.
2. Generals don't want to use some tactics.
Depends entirely how you're using them
Also the additional hours on the engines and airframe aren't something russia can afford to waste on something like this.
>Depends entirely how you're using them
How? No one uses strategic bombers to drop bombs. If you want to destroy a city, just send 2-3 air force regiments with precision bombs to solve the problem.
Ukraine is swamped with AA and Russia never learned how to SEAD, if they wanna learn they'll have to take heavy losses
>SEAD
Cool name for meatwaves of aircrafts but WW2 ended 80 years ago.
>No one
Russia has repeatedly proven they're happy to do things the most retarded way possible.
And again, i'm not saying they'll be shot down you dumb inbred cuck of a moron. I'm saying russia would lose them from pure mechanical attrition of operating them on a heightened activity basis.
>I'm saying russia would lose them from pure mechanical attrition of operating them on a heightened activity basis.
I don't want to ruin your illusions but Russian strategic bombers have been flying 24/7 since 28.02.22. Google: Special Mode of Combat Duty. You either don't even know what are you talking about or a troll. >you dumb inbred cuck of a moron
I didn't insult you btw.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Special Mode of Combat Duty
1 month ago
Anonymous
Ah yes, so you're full of shit cool story, what a shock.
> In addition to maintenance problems, the LRA is also forced to find ways to cope with reduced fuel allowances, which are generally considered to be inadequate to permit proper training. In 1998, for example, fuel shortages limited flying time to only 12-20 hours per pilot during the year. [38] LRA received only 20% of fuel it needed to fully implement its training plan for that year. [39] In 1999, the reported average flying time for LRA pilots was 20 hours and in 2000 it was only 10-20 hours.
1 month ago
Anonymous
They have like 15 Tu-160's in service, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell they're running them 24/7/365
I doubt they're even running them on a daily basis.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Russia is losing their fighter jets to mechanical failure and friendly fire. You honestly think the Tu-160 is running 24/7/365? Lol. Lmao.
Name one SEAD operation against modern layered AA defense.
Ah yes, so you're full of shit cool story, what a shock.
> In addition to maintenance problems, the LRA is also forced to find ways to cope with reduced fuel allowances, which are generally considered to be inadequate to permit proper training. In 1998, for example, fuel shortages limited flying time to only 12-20 hours per pilot during the year. [38] LRA received only 20% of fuel it needed to fully implement its training plan for that year. [39] In 1999, the reported average flying time for LRA pilots was 20 hours and in 2000 it was only 10-20 hours.
>1998 >1999 >2000 >Wikipedia
So YOU'RE full of shit cool story.
They have like 15 Tu-160's in service, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell they're running them 24/7/365
I doubt they're even running them on a daily basis.
We're not talking about your intuition or personal opinion, anon. >They have like 15 Tu-160's in service
You have a slight mistake about 60 Tu-95.
Russia is losing their fighter jets to mechanical failure and friendly fire. You honestly think the Tu-160 is running 24/7/365? Lol. Lmao.
>there's no perfect weapon and equipment
News at 11. Just don't google percent of combat ready F-22 and F-35.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Yes anon, well done, you're not clever bringing up the combat readiness because that is exactly the point. They're not suitable for duty, so they're not used. Almost like the West doesn't send up things that aren't ready. But you're saying the Tu-160 is up 24/7. Something that is infinitely more complex and maintenance heavy compared to an Su-34 or whatever. With the latter suffering mechanical failures both in firing weapons and in their engines, resulting in multiple losses and fatalities. So, once again, if you think the Tu-160 is up 24/7, you're retarded. We've tried to take the shovel away from you so you stop digging the hole and you've decided instead to use your hands to keep going.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>you're saying the Tu-160 is up 24/7
I said:
>I'm saying russia would lose them from pure mechanical attrition of operating them on a heightened activity basis.
I don't want to ruin your illusions but Russian strategic bombers have been flying 24/7 since 28.02.22. Google: Special Mode of Combat Duty. You either don't even know what are you talking about or a troll. >you dumb inbred cuck of a moron
I didn't insult you btw.
>strategic bombers have been flying 24/7
Go check how many strategic bombers Russia has.
Why does the US not develop long-range air to air missiles the way Russia does? I think the Phoenix was the only one to see real service and they scrapped those years ago.
>Why does the US not develop long-range air to air missiles the way Russia does?
Key word: radar range. There's no point to make 400 km missiles if your radar range is 200km and they can't just replace AESA because of stealth.
1 month ago
Anonymous
It doesn't matter what you said, strategic bombers require a lot more maintenance than regular jets. You're an idiot. They're not flying 24/7.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>modern layered AA defense.
doesn't exist because any example will not count
1 month ago
Anonymous
>You have a slight mistake about 60 Tu-95.
No
They have 15 in active service, they have a bunch on order and getting upgraded from older spec but aren't done being modernized and the new built ones have been slow as fuck to get delivered (if any have been yet).
1 month ago
Anonymous
>They have 15 in active service
You bring me a pic with 47 active Tu-95, anon. Tu-95 (Bear iirc) isn't Tu-160 (White Swan). And we can include Tu-22M because the USA counts it like strategic weapon (SALTI if you're interested) but I don't want to cheat.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Are you retarded? See
They have like 15 Tu-160's in service, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell they're running them 24/7/365
I doubt they're even running them on a daily basis.
>They have like 15 Tu-160's in service
He didn't mention Tu-95's you fucking moron. Fucking Christ, how do you breathe? Like is it God's infinite will that keeps you breathing?
>risk losing them
You can't lose it, my friend. Strategic bombers operate way beyond AA defence range. Do your homework.
[...] >F-16
It doesn't change anything.
Seconding that the planes won’t make a difference. Air defense is too thick. Any meaningful mission that could be assigned to a manned plane could be assigned to a drone and cheaper.
If everything hadn’t bogged down to trenches, things might different. Maybe maneuver warfare would still be in play.
Why does the US not develop long-range air to air missiles the way Russia does? I think the Phoenix was the only one to see real service and they scrapped those years ago.
Same reason the F-14 was retired and the F-22s production was canceled, shortsightedness. The US military shifted so much of its focus and capabilities towards fighting an insurgency that it led quite a few conventional weapons programs and systems to languish. For the longest time they thought Russia no longer posed a threat and China wasn’t anywhere close to competing with us, and so we allowed or focus to shift even farther away.
They recognized these major shortcomings that are finally being remedied with several new fox three missiles being designed like the AIM-260 and NGAD to replace the F-22. With the military hoping like hell they can get both in the service before something kicks off with China.
Because they'd get shot down. Same reason why they aren't using the ShitU-57 - it's a fancy looking frame with F-18 tech. Russians are only capable of making dog shit & they know it. Can you imagine the humiliation of Ukraine shooting something like those down? Ukraine is putting up a good fight, but good lord the Ukranians are just as retarded as the Russians.
Because they have. Strategic bombing isn't done by rolling right over the enemy and dropping thousands of dumb bombs anymore, it's done by sitting 500 miles behind the line and launching cruise missiles. The problem is that cruise missiles are in short supply in Russia these days, and as anons have pointed out, there are cheaper methods of launching them.
1. They're extremely expensive and borderline irreplaceable at this point. It would be huge blow to both their strategic position and public standing if even one of these were taken out.
2. Supersonic bombers with swing wings require massive amounts of upkeep and specialized maintenance, which means it's highly likely the majority of the fleet isn't even airworthy and the few that are are only flown sparingly.
Russia only has 16 operational Tu-160s and there's no indication the new ones they're building are even ready for deployment yet. And even then, they can only build at most 1-2 a year.
They’ve been using them nonstop to launch cruise missiles you retard, but they don’t dare to fly them in contested airspace lest they lose them. So that’s why there’s been no terror bombing of Kyiv using gravity bombs. Russia literally has no conventional means they haven’t used.
Airframe life is an issue for the VKS. they can't just ride their fleets hard because they don't have the manufacturing capability to replace them. its not like their mechanized and armored units where they can just refurb soviet hardware and send it off to the frontline, so they have to conserve flight hours, especially for strategic toys that would be needed in an actual existential war. pic rel is an example of their artisanal assembly lines
They're all fueled & loaded up with Kitchen-equivalent or better hypersonic ASHMs to chuck at every American CG simultaneously just before Chang finally invades Taiwan, just waiting inside their hardened hangars for the order to go, their crews maintaining a mild vodka buzz over endless card games in the smoke-filled ready room nearby. They're trying to bait more American aircraft carriers into range -- Eastern Mediterranean & Black Seas -- and the two year old special military operation in Ukraine has only brought one at any given time, but Israel's summoned not two but THREE of golem America's aircraft carriers into range of the Russian bombers, with more likely on their way.
When the commie B1 Lancer ripoff finally does take off in numbers, then you know it's less than an hour until shit really starts to hit the fan, with WWIII declared in about... two more weeks.
And risk losing them??
Not a chance bub
>risk losing them
You can't lose it, my friend. Strategic bombers operate way beyond AA defence range. Do your homework.
>F-16
It doesn't change anything.
Depends entirely how you're using them
Also the additional hours on the engines and airframe aren't something russia can afford to waste on something like this.
They've used Tu-95s, which are strategic bombers
Why use the more expensive option to do the same thing?
They don't work.
>lose 10% of your strategic strike force without any of them being in the air
>Why don't we put them in the air?
With the number of failed ICBM tests puccia has had in the past two years there's good reason to believe that their nuclear triad is more like a nuclear racketeer
>With the number of failed ICBM tests puccia has had in the past two years there's good reason to believe that their nuclear triad is more like a nuclear racketeer
TOPKEK
Nuclear bike thief soon.
This is probably something like a lancer right? Did US use those in Afghanistan?
yes. they even flow them low over taliban positions in valleys for intimidation
B-1s and B-52s were used heavily for CAS in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. Not too sure about B-2s though.
B2s were used in Iraq, I doubt they were ever used in Syria or Afghanistan as they didn't have the potential air defense networks to require them, B52s and B1s were probably fine from the get go
It dropped the most ordinance in GWOT by a wide margin
what's the state of the air war in ukraine right now? can either side operate at all?
Barely, they can fly at treetop level or in Russia's case lob missiles from well within their borders
Russia just uses Su-35's and Mig-31's to lob missiles within Russia.
Until(and if) F-16's arrive, it's gonna stay like that.
Also SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEX
Fucking gay. They're supposed to have the second most powerful air force in the world. It's not even a fraction of a fraction of what the US did in the Gulf War.
Based on who got shot down they basically have really really old guys with ussr flight hours but shit bodies and tactics, Gucci test flight bros that exist on paper, and "pilots" that are really guys on their learners permit and no money for fuel.
>Fucking gay. They're supposed to have the second most powerful air force in the world.
That's the US Navy.
Ukraine is swamped with AA and Russia never learned how to SEAD, if they wanna learn they'll have to take heavy losses
>learned how to SEAD,
You mean guning down unarmed rice farmers with gatling guns mounted on helis?
Those unarmed rice farmers took down 10,000 aircraft retard
>You mean guning down unarmed rice farmers with gatling guns mounted on helis?
Soviet SA-2s (SAM with range of 7km) were used extensively by NVA forces throughout Laos and N. Vietnam to down hundreds of aircraft, both fixed wing and rotary. So many in fact, that SEAD forming Wild Weasel Squadrons were developed and used effectively against Vietnamese AA networks. This type of warfare was refined by the US and allies then on because the threat of Soviet AD that would be supporting an advance across Europe and NATO NEEDED to make sure they could provide CAS to ground troops.
These tactics worked remarkably well in Desert Storm and Gulf War 2 where they essentially erased all (very modern and up to date) Soviet designed AA systems. There were still losses of course, but to say SEAD does not work is a fallacy and no nation other than perhaps Syria and Russia have used S-300 in combat, with minimal or mediocre effect.
>It's not even a fraction of a fraction of what the US did in the Gulf War
Iraq doesn't have S-300 tier AA and proper air force. You can't just compare these things. Russia doesn't use its entire fleet for two reasons:
1. Not enough pilots.
2. Generals don't want to use some tactics.
>Depends entirely how you're using them
How? No one uses strategic bombers to drop bombs. If you want to destroy a city, just send 2-3 air force regiments with precision bombs to solve the problem.
>SEAD
Cool name for meatwaves of aircrafts but WW2 ended 80 years ago.
>No one
Russia has repeatedly proven they're happy to do things the most retarded way possible.
And again, i'm not saying they'll be shot down you dumb inbred cuck of a moron. I'm saying russia would lose them from pure mechanical attrition of operating them on a heightened activity basis.
>I'm saying russia would lose them from pure mechanical attrition of operating them on a heightened activity basis.
I don't want to ruin your illusions but Russian strategic bombers have been flying 24/7 since 28.02.22. Google: Special Mode of Combat Duty. You either don't even know what are you talking about or a troll.
>you dumb inbred cuck of a moron
I didn't insult you btw.
>Special Mode of Combat Duty
Ah yes, so you're full of shit cool story, what a shock.
> In addition to maintenance problems, the LRA is also forced to find ways to cope with reduced fuel allowances, which are generally considered to be inadequate to permit proper training. In 1998, for example, fuel shortages limited flying time to only 12-20 hours per pilot during the year. [38] LRA received only 20% of fuel it needed to fully implement its training plan for that year. [39] In 1999, the reported average flying time for LRA pilots was 20 hours and in 2000 it was only 10-20 hours.
They have like 15 Tu-160's in service, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell they're running them 24/7/365
I doubt they're even running them on a daily basis.
Russia is losing their fighter jets to mechanical failure and friendly fire. You honestly think the Tu-160 is running 24/7/365? Lol. Lmao.
>Cool name for meatwaves of aircrafts
that's not how it works at all
Name one SEAD operation against modern layered AA defense.
>1998
>1999
>2000
>Wikipedia
So YOU'RE full of shit cool story.
We're not talking about your intuition or personal opinion, anon.
>They have like 15 Tu-160's in service
You have a slight mistake about 60 Tu-95.
>there's no perfect weapon and equipment
News at 11. Just don't google percent of combat ready F-22 and F-35.
Yes anon, well done, you're not clever bringing up the combat readiness because that is exactly the point. They're not suitable for duty, so they're not used. Almost like the West doesn't send up things that aren't ready. But you're saying the Tu-160 is up 24/7. Something that is infinitely more complex and maintenance heavy compared to an Su-34 or whatever. With the latter suffering mechanical failures both in firing weapons and in their engines, resulting in multiple losses and fatalities. So, once again, if you think the Tu-160 is up 24/7, you're retarded. We've tried to take the shovel away from you so you stop digging the hole and you've decided instead to use your hands to keep going.
>you're saying the Tu-160 is up 24/7
I said:
>strategic bombers have been flying 24/7
Go check how many strategic bombers Russia has.
>Why does the US not develop long-range air to air missiles the way Russia does?
Key word: radar range. There's no point to make 400 km missiles if your radar range is 200km and they can't just replace AESA because of stealth.
It doesn't matter what you said, strategic bombers require a lot more maintenance than regular jets. You're an idiot. They're not flying 24/7.
>modern layered AA defense.
doesn't exist because any example will not count
>You have a slight mistake about 60 Tu-95.
No
They have 15 in active service, they have a bunch on order and getting upgraded from older spec but aren't done being modernized and the new built ones have been slow as fuck to get delivered (if any have been yet).
>They have 15 in active service
You bring me a pic with 47 active Tu-95, anon. Tu-95 (Bear iirc) isn't Tu-160 (White Swan). And we can include Tu-22M because the USA counts it like strategic weapon (SALTI if you're interested) but I don't want to cheat.
Are you retarded? See
>They have like 15 Tu-160's in service
He didn't mention Tu-95's you fucking moron. Fucking Christ, how do you breathe? Like is it God's infinite will that keeps you breathing?
>Cool name for meatwaves of aircrafts but WW2 ended 80 years ago.
way to oust yourself
Seconding that the planes won’t make a difference. Air defense is too thick. Any meaningful mission that could be assigned to a manned plane could be assigned to a drone and cheaper.
If everything hadn’t bogged down to trenches, things might different. Maybe maneuver warfare would still be in play.
>What are HARMs?
The US has the second most powerful air force. And the first. And I think the fourth or fifth as well.
Similar situation on the navy side.
>Gulf War
Did they even have manpads?
They had a special AA system custom built by the French. It was considered cutting edge at the time with fiber optic networks for jamming resistance.
>special AA system custom built by the French
the french have no equivalent to patriot or s300. they only have short range sams. so thats bullshit.
well they have now, but in 1990 they didnt.
Why does the US not develop long-range air to air missiles the way Russia does? I think the Phoenix was the only one to see real service and they scrapped those years ago.
Same reason the F-14 was retired and the F-22s production was canceled, shortsightedness. The US military shifted so much of its focus and capabilities towards fighting an insurgency that it led quite a few conventional weapons programs and systems to languish. For the longest time they thought Russia no longer posed a threat and China wasn’t anywhere close to competing with us, and so we allowed or focus to shift even farther away.
They recognized these major shortcomings that are finally being remedied with several new fox three missiles being designed like the AIM-260 and NGAD to replace the F-22. With the military hoping like hell they can get both in the service before something kicks off with China.
>but why
One is down for repairs and the other is being cannibalized for spare parts.
Because they'd get shot down. Same reason why they aren't using the ShitU-57 - it's a fancy looking frame with F-18 tech. Russians are only capable of making dog shit & they know it. Can you imagine the humiliation of Ukraine shooting something like those down? Ukraine is putting up a good fight, but good lord the Ukranians are just as retarded as the Russians.
Because they have. Strategic bombing isn't done by rolling right over the enemy and dropping thousands of dumb bombs anymore, it's done by sitting 500 miles behind the line and launching cruise missiles. The problem is that cruise missiles are in short supply in Russia these days, and as anons have pointed out, there are cheaper methods of launching them.
1. They're extremely expensive and borderline irreplaceable at this point. It would be huge blow to both their strategic position and public standing if even one of these were taken out.
2. Supersonic bombers with swing wings require massive amounts of upkeep and specialized maintenance, which means it's highly likely the majority of the fleet isn't even airworthy and the few that are are only flown sparingly.
Because they don't exist.
Not in numbers worth deploying anyways.
are they even functional?
This entire article reads like a dailymail writeup. Why are retarded vatnaggers and fifth column subhumans so fucking cringe.
>clean up US congress from foreign agents
>guys carrying flags of the US’ defeated european enemy
Rly makes u think
Russia only has 16 operational Tu-160s and there's no indication the new ones they're building are even ready for deployment yet. And even then, they can only build at most 1-2 a year.
They’ve been using them nonstop to launch cruise missiles you retard, but they don’t dare to fly them in contested airspace lest they lose them. So that’s why there’s been no terror bombing of Kyiv using gravity bombs. Russia literally has no conventional means they haven’t used.
Those comments gave me cancer and AIDS. I am Russified.
I shot them all down in Ace Combat.
Because they're not real.
ADDED
>Crests
Peaked
>Forelock
Squared
>Gloves
Off
>Eyebrow
Raised
>Great Leader
Spoken
>Bear
Awoken
>Tuvan
Shrugged
>Ass
Ass
>Missile
Ass
>Button
Observed
>Balls
Scratched
>Red line
Approached
>Things
Known
>Conclusions
Drawn
>Hedgehog
Aggravated
>Hands
Washed
>Potatoes
Peeled
>Eggs
Measured
>Banan
Demanded
>Coconuts
Corroded
>Cauldron
Simmering
>Chef
Complicated
>Axis
Worked
>Cum Bank
Climbed
>Vertical
Stengthened
>Mobiks
Cubed
>Cocks
Disposable
>Brown line
Crossed
>Sun
Fucked
>Rooster
Pecking
>Alligator
Endangered
>Blood and feces
Sweated
>Die
Will be good
>Flight
Eternal
Underrated
Airframe life is an issue for the VKS. they can't just ride their fleets hard because they don't have the manufacturing capability to replace them. its not like their mechanized and armored units where they can just refurb soviet hardware and send it off to the frontline, so they have to conserve flight hours, especially for strategic toys that would be needed in an actual existential war. pic rel is an example of their artisanal assembly lines
>we have a lancer at home sweetie
>the lancer at home:
They don't have them in any way that matters
>they can't produce them(re-assable on new planers doesn't count)
>It wasn't a good bomber
You can jerk on this bigger b1 but scaling it up wasn't a good idea, It's insanely costly and complex in production.
they have been used to launch stand off munitions
They're all fueled & loaded up with Kitchen-equivalent or better hypersonic ASHMs to chuck at every American CG simultaneously just before Chang finally invades Taiwan, just waiting inside their hardened hangars for the order to go, their crews maintaining a mild vodka buzz over endless card games in the smoke-filled ready room nearby. They're trying to bait more American aircraft carriers into range -- Eastern Mediterranean & Black Seas -- and the two year old special military operation in Ukraine has only brought one at any given time, but Israel's summoned not two but THREE of golem America's aircraft carriers into range of the Russian bombers, with more likely on their way.
When the commie B1 Lancer ripoff finally does take off in numbers, then you know it's less than an hour until shit really starts to hit the fan, with WWIII declared in about... two more weeks.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=grim+reapers+tu-160