Is it possible for Ukraine to down one of these? Beautiful birds though. Second most aesthetic thing built by the Soviets, after the Mig-29.
Is it possible for Ukraine to down one of these? Beautiful birds though.
Is it possible for Ukraine to down one of these? Beautiful birds though. Second most aesthetic thing built by the Soviets, after the Mig-29.
If Russia was dumb enough to put them in rage of AA batteries, yes.
I don't think even Russians can be that dumb. What's the range needed to hit a strategic bomber anyway? Is a fighter/interceptor the only way to do it?
They usually launch from over the Caspian, so yeah, no SAMs. Ukraine's attempted solution seems to be spam drones in the vague direction of Engels Airbase, which to be fair, will eventually work since Russia doesn't seem to know what hardened aircraft shelters are anymore.
It would be funny if the dissidents start using drones on one of the big bombers like with the A-50. Which is more strategically important? Tu-95 or Tu-160?
That'd be the Blackjack; much faster, more payload, more expensive, and Russia's actually building new ones, if at their usual glacial pace. I don't think they've actually seen much use over Ukraine so far for that reason, the Tu-95s and Tu-22Ms still work just fine as missile trucks.
>Russia doesn't seem to know what hardened aircraft shelters are anymore.
They had decades to prepare for war next door and barely figured out revetments. Their shitty weather would justify HAS for maintenance benefits alone.
I am now rotating an image of F-16s performing a popup attack over the caspian in my mind
>If Russia is dumb enough
I'll stop you right there and say that this requirement makes it a 100% certainty that they will lose at least two of these to a cheeky scooting Patriot or maybe the F-16 gets to add to its kill ratio.
During refueling a dropped cigarette will ignite spilt fuel, the fire will cause the pilot of a Tu-95 to panic and attempt to take off, which will result in burning fuel being spread over half the base starting catastrophic fires in the barracks and the flight line which results in over 60 dead and the total loss of 4 Su-34s before the Tu-95 crashes into the fuel storage tanks. Thinking the base under attack, Russia AA will begin firing at everything appearing on radar, resulting in the shootdown of two passenger planes, a news helicopter, and two more Tu-95s returning to base after a mission. Faulty missiles will also impact two apartment buildings, a hospital, and a recruiting center. A third Tu-95, narrowly avoiding being shot down, will attempt to land only to impact the now destroyed fuel truck still smoldering on the runway.
>Just another day in BBC
Imagine if F-16 gets to boast a Tu-95 kill. Would be a sick kill mark.
>If Russia was dumb enough
>I don't think even Russians can be that dumb.
This war has taught me is that there is no lower limit to Russian idiocy, and that saying such things is utterly absurd.
Theirs or the enemy’s?
They would need a new kind of very long range AA missile.
>imagine a SRBM/MRBM with multiple missiles AA like MIRVs
I want to see that
>Ukrainian soldier sees ww2 museum piece flying in the air
>Throws rock at it
>It magically turns into a thousand pieces
ngmi
While they're on the ground? Who knows.
Isn't it designed to fire cruise missiles from standoff distances? How far would they actually have to travel to launch at Ukraine?
>early 50s shitter
>designed to fire cruise missiles
huh?
You know they have upgraded them since, right?
The Bear H is almost exclusively built to carry cruise missiles in a internal rotary launcher.
The Bear is just like the B-52, the last of its breed and going to be flying forever because it's good enough at being a massive internal capacity with wings. Easier to just refit the existing fleet than design a new plane.
Neither in current service much resemble the hardware carried when they first flew.
What the frick do think the 1950s B-52's primary role is?
>we know the exact position and time where they fly from
>not allowed/given the ordnance to kill them
Russia is playing this war on easy mode because the West allows it.
I mean you have to send it, several hundred km, just to get into firing range of them. They likely have fighter escorts. It's not as simple as shooting some moronic Su-35 pilot doing a bombing run near Kharkiv or whatever.
> They likely have fighter escorts.
Lmao. Good one. That’s a knee slapper.
Are you fricking moronic? I know you are but jesus christ. The context here is that you're going to be coming at medium to high altitude (and visible on most ship/ground based radars) or low altitude (and at a severe height disadvantage) into a flight of Su-27s or something. That's something you need to account for and it's a reason why Ukraine hasn't been shooting these down regularly. They have the airpower to kill a bomber launching cruise missiles over the Black Sea but not the combined range, numbers and equipment to do so when the bomber has a fighter screen and GCI.
Like seriously fricking have a nice day.
Honestly, at this point in proceedings and given the way the strikes have been going, I think it would genuinely worth Budanov committing people to a serious campaign to identify the residences of four or five or six of the pilots, and plan an operation to murder them in their houses simultaneously. The morale effect for home, and the converse effect on bomber crews who up to this point have faced zero threat, would be worth the effort.
They're typically not escorted because they don't need to be - they launch over the Caspian Sea well behind the front line of AD and outside the demonstrated range of Ukrainian fighter sorties or clever SAM operations
>t. what are stand off ranges
>t. what is flying over friendly territory
Black person, these things aren’t getting anywhere near enough to the border that Ukraine could sortie and interdict even with the best air to air missiles in existence, and that’s assuming they’re suicidal and don’t care about their airframes. These things are flying well within Russian AA cover and those AA platforms are what’s keeping Ukraine at bay. Lmao, I do hope Russia is sortieing jets every time though just so they wear those pieces of shit down more and hopefully crash but I know they aren’t because not even they are stupid enough for that. You are a stupid homosexual.
What good is fighter escort against anti-air missiles?
The missiles Ukraine has for fighters are semi active or infrared guided, so they need to get pretty close to actually use them, and in the case of semi active missiles they need to keep the plane roughly pointed at the bomber to get a hit. A flight of fighters escorting the bomber will be able to pounce on the Ukrainians as they attempt to get into position, fire, and guide their missiles.
This stops being a thing as much if you have stealth jets or active radar missiles but Ukraine has neither, with the AMRAAMs only scheduled to be a thing with the F-16s at this point.
They'll be sortied if a Ukrainian attempt to shoot them down is detected, which is the entire point. This stuff hasn't been tried for a reason, cruise missile attacks and long range drone attacks are easier and safer.
>They'll be sortied if
Absolutely, but that is not a fighter escort in the truest sense, that's an alert fighter force or a CAP at the border.
cruise missiles could hit or threaten to hit their base, preventing them from taking off
>14x Tu-95s * 8x Kh-101s each
Is this all of the cruise missiles in Russia?
it's what they managed to save up the past 6 months
I hope Russian AD panics and downs a returning one
>Russian AD panics and downs a returning one
Hmmmmm.
So, if the Ukies had something that could reach their air base ... even if it didn't carry any serious payload ... they could possibly send several dozen of them to arrive at that air base just about the same time as the Tu-95s are returning. Suddenly air defense lights up with 30 or 50 incoming blips, AD has 16 minutes or less to decide which ones to blast out of the sky ...
= profit.
And, THIS is exactly the sort of thing the West could provide to Ukraine. Cruise missiles without a payload ... just juicy decoys that insert themselves into the flight pattern of returning vatnik planes and force air defense to shoot blindly at all the incoming targets on the possibility that any or all of them MIGHT be a cruise missile attack.
Bonus Round: some of the decoy missiles will land somewhere, without exploding. Fill them with propaganda flyers that say "Just kidding! lol" Worth it for the stress it would put on monke's heart.
They could do another airbase strike in between torching refineries if that counts.
Kh-101s are crazy-long range cruise missiles, over 4500km. Even considering that the missiles are on a circuitous flight path programmed to evade AD there’s no way these Tu-95s are getting even remotely close any denied airspace.
Unless they're flying from deep in Siberia I don't see why they'd have to go anywhere. 4500 km is a long way.
>Kh-101s are crazy-long range cruise missiles, over 4500km
those numbers are fake. Russia adds the range of the missile and the range of the plane carrying it to get those numbers.
I like the green wienerpit aesthetic too. And yes, Ukraine used to own some Tu-95s.
>used to
I'm guessing their disappearance had something to do with the Budapest memorandum?
actually not in this case, they sold them to Russia to pay off debts in the 2000s
What is the tiny curtain for?
Nap time
Little bowl of nuts and a hot towel.
Nuclear blast flash protection? B-52s have it too I think.
Sun visor. Most of the time you don't actually need to see out, and it's uncomfortable to have the sun directly in your eyes for hours at a time.
>Most of the time you don't actually need to see out
And if the sun is right in front of that window it isn't like you'll be seeing anything else out of it anyway.
It is unlikely to be done. BBC does not fly them as close because there is no need to be close. They are using stand-off missiles.
>Is it possible for Ukraine to down one of these?
No. To take them down they either need saboteurs on the ground, which is unrealistic, or loitering stratospheric AA missiles that don't officially exist yet.
If Biden wasn’t such a pussy those bombers would all suffer mid-flight smoker accidents. The USAF could probably penetrate Russian airspace unseen at will.
>within next 2 hours
>2 hour old post
Well what were the results?
7 Boris Johnsons and 96 F-16s destroyed
That's it?
Lame.
They launch twice as much on average day. Guess monke is out of missiles now.
>2m
I thought it was 2 months for a minute there getting confused as hell
Rule of /k/
When anon asks if a russian aircraft like the ka-52 or A-50 is safe from ukrainian ad, one can expect said aircraft to get downed in 2 days.
Se the last thread asking about A-50 AWACS invincibility.
Expect a Tu-95 loss in a few days.
The only way for a Tu-95 to be shot down is if a mobik manning a Russian S-400 is drunk enough to mistake a Russian bomber for the ghost of Kiev.
Oh no, Russia is going to lose all of their bombers.
I prefer the armchair copleord rule where things are always the opposite of what he is saying.dude could regain his entire hairline by simply saying that he is going bald.
maybe if they slap an Igla on one of those high range drones and send it to Kaspiy
Does anyone have pictures of a Tu-95's belly? Asking for a friend. Preferably in high definition and in vulnerable positions.
recent attack started from a base in the arctic, near Finland, just saying
>2 hours ago
>within 2 hours
where is it?
Do Patriots have the range? Imagine if Ukraine already had their F-16s
How hard would it be to replace those coaxial propellers with turbo fans? I get they were originally designed with endurance in mind, but surely the negatives outweigh the positives by now
what advantage i there to having propellers instead of jets?
fuel efficiency I guess?
It's easier and (was) more efficient if you need a large and very long range bomber.
Those engines are an improvement of late-war german Jumo 022, essentially done by the same german engineers because they needed those engines ASAP.
Soviets didn't have good axial turbojets (unreliable and inefficient, even american turbojets were trash up to mid-late 1950s) and the NK-12 was the easiest way to make a not so heavy very long range bomber. You can compare their Tu-16 and civilian Tupolevs against the Tu-95/Tu-114. Range-wise they're unmatched for long time (and for its weight).
At the time the Tu-95 was designed?
Fuel economy, more direct throttle response, variable pitch turboprops can also stay at optimal performance throughout a larger range of flight conditions, reverse pitch to brake after landing.
B-52's at the time used turbojets which are less fuel efficient at lower power outputs, they run most efficiently in terms of output/fuel consumption at closer to max power.
Both are turbine driven, it's just that on a turboprop the exhaust gasses drive the prop instead of being accelerated out the back for static thrust like on a turbojet.
Modern high bypass turbofans combine some features from both, ending up somewhere in the middle.