>FRICK YOU CHINA! FRICK YOU PAKISTAN!
INDIA WILL HAVE MOST ADVANCED SUPERSONIC BOMBER EQUALLED TO B-2! NOT TO MENTIONED IAF ALREADY HAVE TU-95!
https://twitter.com/RealBababanaras/status/1556628097314697218?t=McCQLl-1riVKdD6H0T1kdg&s=19
White Swan Supersonic Bomber For India
>inb4 Russia delays the sale so they can lose them to ukies.
Hohol indians thinking they can beat based China, kek
Even if they could they probably wont
>Hohol indians
Goddamn fricking frogposter, shut the frick up. Just stop.
Imagine being so moronic that you’re buying Russian garbage.
And now of all times, when Russia's production capability is limited. Russia must have made a desperately low price offer.
Unless Russia is throwing in licensed production and full thecnological transfer, this is just money that India is never getting back.
Smells like Pakistan cope
I’m an American and have a low opinion of Russian aviation, Russians, and anyone stupid enough to buy Russian aviation equipment in 2022.
Sure thing Paki
hey sometimes there are good deals at rummage sales
Fricking doubt
"almost final"
>equal to the B2 Spirit
yeah ok lol
As a Ukrainian I support any move that facilitates India, Pakistan, China and China nuking each other.
This looks like one of those moves.
> As a Ukrainian
Opinion disregarded
They should have a board for russians and ukies k and pol has been taken over by russians and ukies just posting propaganda about the war. I am tired of it
>india buying 8 russian bombers
>russia using these money to shell more schools, hospitals, theatres, and shopping centers on ukraine
Thanks, Modi.
>Ukrainian soldiers hide inside schools
>Russia bombs the soldiers
>Ukrainians cry that Russia is bombing schools
>rinse and repeat
Shouldn't you be on the front right now vololololodomirenko? Or do you think shitposting on PrepHole will save Ukraine?
And a suka blyat to you too, vatnik
>look what you made me do!
>Its Your fault i bombed those schools and trains stations
India literally doesn't care about ukraine or US foreign politics, a refreshing take honestly
Someone's still buying russian tin cans?
Can Russia even build these anymore after sanctions? Somehow I doubt it.
>build
>implying Russians wouldn't sell them straight out their inventory like with the rest of their equipments
they couldn't build them before the sanctions
>2 in 4 months
>6 in 6 months
Yeah the poo is getting used planes
Dollars to doughnuts says that the planes they get aren’t even flyable
They couldnt even build them after the end of USSR. They are selling their limited stock since they can't even afford to fly them anymore lmao
IIRC only two completed from airframes and spare parts made in the USSR and a handful upgraded to M version from old flying stock.
Before the war there would be occasional posts about how Tu-160s are going to be modernized and some unfinished air frames completed.
Oh no, oh my god sir you wrote 800 tu 160 not 8 oh no sir I will lose my job for this do not redeem
Kek India might get the bombers by the end of 2028 if they're lucky.
>Russia selling its rare as hens teeth strategic bombers
no they're not in trouble at all
this right here will do so many needfuls
GOOD MORNING SIRS HOW ARE YOU
GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING GOOSE
GOOD MORNING SIR
GOOD MORNING SIR
the eternal subhuman streetshitter strikes again
>Seething muttshitter
I am amazed this would cause so much seethe kek
Good purchase, Sirs.
>TU 160
have fun with cancer
Indians shit on streets so they need plane that shits on sky
Eternal India filter
Top Kek.
The Sky-Shitter Tu-160
>my sides
Hypergolic propellant? Why would you buy any plane like that? Why would you take it for free even?
its nitrogen dioxide. Poor combustion on combat runs. Frick living or working anywhere near those things when they take off
The Russians are truly moronic orcs
it gets into car exhaust in non visible quantities and causes a myriad of health problems for people living next to busy roads. In a chemistry lab you would stick anything producing it into a fume hood. Dumping fricking massive clouds of it all over the airbase is not great. It does happen to an extent with other aircraft but the extent of it with the Tu-160 is fricking deranged. I think it's just slavshit engine design. At least it doesn't piss out in flight, but even then most russkie engines are smoky as frick
is it on the designated runway?
>Equal to B-2
Why would they say this lol, if anything it's more like a Bone.
B-1 is a gay joke infront of this. We could have bought Lancers but they are too useless for our requirements. And sharts won't sell them to us.
Bone on steroids on paper.
You won't be laughing when we drop 24 coffins on you,sir.
Why does it seem like china doesn't give a frick about their bomber force? They only use old as frick h-6s whose design is as old as the b-52 and they only have a few hundred of them.
Their military is a more defensive one, it's for invading the countries nearest theirs and then licking everything down. They plan on using ballistic missiles in the place of bombers if they're ever attacked but don't see themselves engaging in offense in a far off land like NATO does.
If I was China, I would be laughing off my microdick after seeing this news. Buying old Russian bombers makes India look like a joke compared to China's airforce.
> makes India look like a joke compared to China's airforce.
The poo sky delivery group - mig21 crash specialists is already a joke compared to the PLAAF
It's due to structural differences between the PLA and the US (which I'm assuming is your frame of reference). The US bomber fleet was largely designed around the long range delivery of weapons as part of a nuclear triad. So, the USAF invested heavily in newer models to ensure that they are able to penetrate enemy AD networks. They also use the bomber fleet in conventional missions far away from friendly airfields. For that reason they need a lot of air frames in order to keep the operational tempo high.
The PLA on the other hand does not operate with such a global scope and are much more interested in regional power. They operate an independent Rocket Force that carries the nuclear mission and use ballistic missiles for long range conventional strike. The H-6's role for the PLAAF does include the delivery of gravity bombs to targets, but the modern fleet is much more focused on acting as a launch platform for missiles and to enable the PLA to strike enemy navies beyond the "first island chain".
You're also assuming that the H-6 is "old". While the base design stretches back to the Tu-16, new versions are new production and have fully modern avionics, communication, and weapons. The H-6K had it's first flight in only 2007
>You're also assuming that the H-6 is "old". While the base design stretches back to the Tu-16, new versions are new production and have fully modern avionics, communication, and weapons. The H-6K had it's first flight in only 2007
it's like saying B-52 is old
it is in principle, but the things have been upkept, updated and even completely rebuilt over time in order to not merely keep the operating but competitive (in it's operational niche).
But the airframe is old technology.
The B-52 has a place only because we replaced it with even more inefficient platforms. The B-1 and B-2 cost way more than the B-52 per flight hour and carry less. They are terrible bomb trucks.
The B-52 isn't a great aircraft, using lol turbojets for a subsonic platform, but throw enough fuel into it and it will get the job done.
But there's no reason for China to not design a new bomb truck/missile platform.
>The B-52 has a place only because we replaced it with even more inefficient platforms. The B-1 and B-2 cost way more than the B-52 per flight hour and carry less
The B-1 and B-2 did not and were not meant to replace the B-52.
They were all meant to do entirely different jobs
The B-2 was made to quietly and stealthily infiltrate Soviet Airspace and make precision hits on critical targets in a preemptive strike, mostly very large guided bunker-busting bombs.
The B-1 was made to quickly infiltrate Soviet Airspace and make precision hits on critical targets in a preemptive strike; mostly guided bunker busting missiles
The B-52 is a strategic bomber that was meant to be ready to quickly deliver nuclear weapons as part of the trifecta, by being a big girl that can orbit near soviet space for hours at a time, but she was also designed as a regular strategic bomber and can carry a frickton for very long distances. She has been upgraded over time in order to increase the variety of ordinance she can carry and deploy.
The B-1 and B-2 are "inefficient" because they were designed for a conflict that neither potential side actually wanted to fight.
The B-52 is old but there isn't really the need to design a new strategic bomber or nuclear bomber; for conventional jobs it's fine. If we need stealth or fast response, the B-2 and B-1 exist. The fact that both Russia and China lack direct competitors to the B-52 (China to my knowledge does not have anything similar, and Tu-95 was designed as a missile sled to begin with rather than a straight bomber) attests to the fact that the B-52 is basically the peak of strategic bomber design in my opinion. Now if you want to say it's not good from the standpoint of "why do you need a strategic bomber at all?" then that's just means that the B-52 is unnecessary, not necessarily a "bad aircraft." It also answers the initial question of "why doesn't china make a new bomber-" they don't feel the need to have a strategic bomber.
>Now if you want to say it's not good from the standpoint of "why do you need a strategic bomber at all?" then that's just means that the B-52 is unnecessary, not necessarily a "bad aircraft."
But it is a terrible aircraft compared to the 777.
terrible by what metric?
Fuel Economy, or Payload to be dropped? These are the result of design considerations based on what they were meant to do, which were two different things. Militaries tend not to care about fuel economy when you're hauling 50,000 lbs of ordinance across the world, while airlines live or die by fuel costs
Speed or range? Because in the speed department the B-52 goes only a bit slower than the 777; both of these are large planes that the enemy will see coming and you would only employ against static targets in an environment where the air threat is low to none, speed is nice but isn't really an issue. It has a longer combat range than most 777 variants, excepting newer LR ones that are specifically meant for long haul flights. B-52's combat range as is can go roughly a third around the earth, and it can refuel in flight to increase the range.
All of this is in addition to comparing a plane from the 90s (with newer variants) made with more modern engines, avionics and composites to a plane in the 50s.
I go back to my point, because I'm genuinely trying to understand what your point is; that even if you think "it is a terrible aircraft compared to <insert more modern plane here>" it does it's job fine, and is still ready to be used whenever we need to send ordinance around the world or drop a shitload of bombs. What is your argument? That we should replace the B-52? Because if so, why? For gains in flight performance that will generally be trivial for the job it's doing? Do you just want new Strategic bombers? It's cool if you do, but we aren't going to because only the US uses heavy strategic bombers anymore, and that's really just so that we have the capability rather than to satisfy a real need, and as far as the USAF is concerned the B-52H is good enough for that purpose. Are you just a performance nerd being a hipster?
777-300ER and B-52 are almost identical. Nearly the same fuel capacity. Nearly the same range. Nearly the same speed.
Except...
Maximum takeoff weight:
777-ER: 775,000 lbs
B-52: 488,000 lbs
The B-52 can carry exactly ZERO ordinance if it is fully loaded with fuel. The 777-ER can still carry 85,000 lbs.. which is more than the Big Belly could carry max.
The B-52 is a TERRIBLE aircraft compared to anything modern, which is why I was questioning China's continued use of the Tu-16, which is even fricking worse. Like mind-boggling worse.
There's no excuse for them to not take a 777 into a hanger somewhere for "maintenance" and copy the damn thing.
>The B-52 can carry exactly ZERO ordinance if it is fully loaded with fuel
then just don't take full fuel and refuel in air after takeoff
The B-52 is a TERRIBLE aircraft compared to anything modern, which is why I was questioning China's continued use of the Tu-16, which is even fricking worse. Like mind-boggling worse.
There's no excuse for them to not take a 777 into a hanger somewhere for "maintenance" and copy the damn thing.
well to answer that, very simply I think you can surmise that the chinese don't feel the need for one.
Again what I said here
>only the US uses heavy strategic bombers anymore, and that's really just so that we have the capability rather than to satisfy a real need
No one really uses strategic heavy bombers anymore except to preserve the capability (US) or for prestige (Russia); if you want to deliver a boom long range, even conventional ones, missiles go faster, are cheaper, and can be made bastards to intercept. Combine this with the fact that for all their posturing, China is concerned with Regional conflict and securing a hegemony over their region, not really international conflict; and in a regional conflict you can just use more shorter range smaller aircraft that you can produce more of and have a higher chance of getting into enemy airspace without being intercepted very quickly.
or again, just launch missiles, which is what they're going all in on. Even as far as missile sleds go I highly doubt they'd use the H-6 much.
oh it didn't greentext the stuff I was quoting wth
H-6k's and the PLARF(rocket force) will be used in tandem to oversaturate defences. The h-6k's are kind of wierd although the yj-21 integration does make it a ICBM capabile plane. The best part is h-6k might be the cheapest out of all present bombers to maintain.
Yes, but you don't understand. The 787 also exists.
There is no reason for China to still be producing Tu-16's. It's like if the UK was still producing the Handley Page Victor in 2022. It's just... a stupid design.
The chinks have already chased Boeing and other western industry out of their country by making it too fricking hard to actually run a business there, as well as the threat of them allowing people to flat out copy products, which counter to people's b***hing the US gov't has been very keen on avoiding, even in the case of civil aviation.
If Boeing makes a sequel to the B-52 or a 787 derived bomber (which I don't think will happen but there probably will be a Maritime patrol and AWACS variant) it'll be for the USAF first and export to the US' allies second.
Now they might be able to get a 737 or 777 (well, they already have them) and use those, but the fact that they (and no one else) have made a largely successful bomber version of a passenger plane should tell you something about how easy it is to actually do that.
I've only ever heard of a bomber made into a passenger jet, not the other way around.
There are only 3 nations which make meaningful bombers. The US, which has the military industrial complex which makes procurement as expensive as possible to line the pockets of the executives; Russia, which has no civilian manufacturing; and China.
You can't use the first two to say you can't design a better bomber based off a modern commercial airliner.
The Tu-16 is so bad that you couldn't possibly do worse. A F-15E carries a larger bomb load.
>You can't use the first two to say you can't design a better bomber based off a modern commercial airliner.
To my knowledge no one has made a bomber out of civil airliners. The closest thing I can think of are Iranian conversions to smaller liners and jump jets to make them into ASM carrying maritime patrol craft.
also
>Russia, which has no civilian manufacturing
it may not be much compared to Boeing or Airbus but all the big Russian air firms do produce civil aircraft. The problem is that Airbus and Boeing were able to spend pretty much the majority of civil aviation's lifespan establishing themselves across the first and second world while russian firms were basically restricted to making what the soviet gov't allowed them to, which is why you rarely see Tupolev Ilyushin or Sukhoi liners outside of Aeroflot (and even Aeroflot mostly used western liners).
also also
>The US, which has the military industrial complex which makes procurement as expensive as possible to line the pockets of the executives
I bet you think the F-35 is a failure or something
>I bet you think the F-35 is a failure or something
I mean it's completely untested in combat, the only things it's successfully done so far is enrich LM executives and stockholders, and build some soft power with our allies. Both good things, but right now it has a K:d of 0:7
That's not to say it *won't* be a successful combat aircraft eventually, but it hasn't been yet.
All weapons are bad before they are used
Yeah, so at the moment the F35 is a bad weapon. That's exactly my point. It hasn't done anything that would qualify it as "not a failure" unless you count feeding MIC corruption.
que? Everything starts out as bad? Are you the same guy saying that jets that aren't even weapons to start with are "good", and now you're saying that actual weapons that have not yet seen combat are "bad"?
Its blown up a bunch of Russian air defences in Syria, but then again so have ukranian quadcopters with AT grenades so I guess it isn't that much of an achievement anymore
??? K/D of 0:7?
P-3 Orion carries torps and is based off the L-188 Electra.
P-8 is based off the 737.
We literally have water bombers.
*that's 12,000 gallons, which is 99 fricking thousand pounds.
Look at that and tell me there's no possible way to put bomb racks in it to outdo the 20,000lb capacity of the Tu-16.
you have posted a photo of a plane that drops water. We are talking about planes that drop bombs. We already have those. Why do we need to take a plane that drops water, rip all its guts out, redesign the thing from the ground up to be a bomber, install all the systems required for this, figure out the issues with the changed centre of mass, structural integrity and the myriad of issues that crop up when you do something like this..?
The UK took their low-level supersonic ground attack plane, the Tornado, and spent the equivalent unit cost of an F-15 forcibly converting it into an interceptor, and eventually acquired a shitty interceptor that was nowhere near as good as the F-15. This is basically where you're at
>it's fine, bro. The bomber you have is better than the bomber you don't! We'll just keep producing these forever!
the hadley page is, hilariously, a better bomber than a 787, because you can put bombs on it
>No complete example of any Type O aircraft remains
it's the same for almost any ww1 aircraft, anything that survived the war either got lost or burned up in some bombing raid in 1942. did the allies and axis purposely target aircraft museums or something?
More like people didn't bother with preserving history of both World Wars until well after WWII.
I know that feel, I’m still seething about the Spinosaurus skeleton getting face fricked by HE
The h6 carries missiles bigger than an F15 can physically carry. This is the point of medium bombers as a class of weapon.
> The Tu-16 is so bad that you couldn't possibly do worse. A F-15E carries a larger bomb load.
Do you know what an H6k carries?
> The chinks have already chased Boeing and other western industry out of their country
What? Boeing is still crying itself to bed after losing the Chinese airline contracts.
the frick is this Black person talking about? The 787 is an
>American
>passenger
>aircraft
.. right? Why the hell would China ... do anything with it? Take an airframe that you most likely cannot buy, that you don't manufacture, that was never designed to be a bomber, then spend a huge sum of money converting the passenger jet INTO a bomber to do .. what? Carry 8 missiles instead of 6?
The point is that there are proven better aircraft.
Take the plans for the 787. Modify them by 10% to add bomb racks, bomb bay doors, and wing hard points. Congratulations, you have a plane that's about 6x better than the Tu-16.
Why put modern avionics in the Tu-16 when you could put those same avionics in a 787 bomber that's an all-around better aircraft that would be cheaper to operate?
It makes no sense to keep manufacturing a large bomber that has less payload than the F-15E.
Note nobody is still building the 707 on the argument that "the commercial airliner you have is better than the one you don't." It's obsolete. We don't build them. And the 707 is a better aircraft than the Tu-16. So why the frick is the Tu-16 still in production?
A passenger jet is not a proven better bomber. It's not a bomber. It doesn't drop bombs. no bombs can be dropped from it. It's a passenger jet. The fact it exists means less than nothing. Byt the time you convert it into a bomber, you will have spent the equivalent time, energy, effort and the billions of dollars you'd spend developing a new bomber, and what you'll end up with will not be the same thing as the plane you started with.
You're advocating replacing adequate platforms with new ones but with a fetish that the new ones need to be converted from passenger jets for no reason at all
>A passenger jet is not a proven better bomber
It literally is.
cool, how many bombs does that plane carry?
More than Big Belly B-52.
> planes with no capacity to carry bombs are bombers
look, I didn't realise you were one of these people that just reply forever but the issue with your weird fetish is that it will cost a huge sum of money and take a lot of R&D to convert a passenger jet into a bomber. It's not a very good idea. It's likely cheaper to just design a new one from scratch. And there's no justification to spend any money at all when you can upgrade what you have. They have reviewed the potential for retiring the B-52 plenty of times but it's just more cost effective to keep them running.
We've already explained why the H6 exists, why the chinese won't be signing deals to buy 787's for the oppertunity to bankrupt themselves trying to convert them into missile carriers to replace their perfectly adequate missile carriers. I mean at some point you have to face the reality that a passenger jet isn't a bomber until you spend time and money trying to make it into one, lol
look, I didn't realise you were one of these people that just reply forever but the issue with your weird fetish is that it will cost a huge sum of money and take a lot of R&D to convert a passenger jet into a bomber.
Sling pod underneath it. Done.
The only excuse China has for not building a better bomber is that they don't have the design expertise. But a commercial airliner would be a far better bomber right out of the gate, and those are already designed.
okay, is this armatard? Is that whats going on?
Is that where the repetiton of "its already designed" is coming from? Is it like "NO, I cannot concede that a lack of missile hardpoints is an obstable for launching missiles"? It's like we've hit some autism brick wall
also I now realise that every strategic bomber with engines in nacelles on the wings is designed with a high wing, to keep those engines out the way. Launching missiles can cause engines to flame out because of the smoke from the motors, hence they all have a high wing. Passenger jets nearly all have low wings. So another big fat problem, you'll probably need to raise the wings. You now have completely shifted the centre of lift, which means you now have to hugely compensate the centre of mass/thrust to compensate. Not to mention all the weight is concentrated into a small area rather than spread nicely throughout the plane, so you also have to massively strengthen the fuselage, etc. etc. etc. A passenger jet is a million miles away from "already designed" for bombing, ya dig
Firefighting tanker is not a bomber.
Are you actually moronic? Most of those are fricking early warning aircraft and some of 'em less armed electronic warfare versions of combat aircraft that sacrifice most of armament for stuff meant for finding and fricking with radars.
EA-6 and EF-111 are literally electronic warfare conversion of bombers that happened to be classified as attack aircraft and F-111 for reasons that are complex and might not be entirely rational and mostly political. P-3 and P-8 carry weaponry both internally and externally. Pic kinda related and bit confusing as I don't know what the frick is anti-submarine application of cluster bombs meant to tear flesh and frick up tanks.
Conversion of turboprop airliner.
What makes you think the difficult part of designing a bomber is the bomb racks, and not the... you know... plane?
These planes are already designed to carry cargo. Guess what bomb racks and bombs are? Cargo.
They have 70 years of aerodynamic and structural engineering improvements over the Tu-16, and it shows. There's no reason to build a copy of the Tu-16 when you can build a copy of a better aircraft.
The plane is not designed to be a bomber, so no, there is no point in copying it, as it can't drop any bombs. You assume they CAN copy it, when China have barely managed to produce smokeless engines recently
You will have to redesign it so much that you'll end up with a very different aircraft, which is going to cost a large sum of money. You can't just like cut a hole in the bottom. Your sexual fantasy passenger jet was designed a certain way, and this design did not include wings that have 6 hardpoints capable of carrying fricking great big missiles.
So you add a bunch of hardpoints. Now the wings are too weak. So you increase the thickness of the wings. Now your sleek efficient passenger jet is a bulky thicc boy with a stack of draggy missiles under it. Now it loses it's efficiency advantage.
The engines prevent the hardpoints from being added, so you relocate them into the main fuselage. You have now spent billions of dollars reverse engineering a passenger jet into a copy of the H6. The fuselage now carries more weight, so you completely redesign the fuselage.
The drag sharply reduces the range.
Meanwhile, right now, you have a whole fleet of decent missile carriers, sat in hangers, ready to fire missiles at ships.
There are a stack of real world examples of militaries trying to force a design to adapt to a different role and it ens up being expensive, slow, and awkward
Adding capability has been done time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time again.
EC-121 - modified Super Constellation
E-3 - modified 707
EA-6B - modified A-6
EA-18 - modified F-18
EF-111 - modified F-111
Air Force One - modified 747
P-3 - modified Electra
P-8 - modified 737
E-8 - modified 707
737 AEW&C - take a guess
AC-130 - modified C-130
A-50 - modified IL-76
KJ-2000 - modified IL-76
how many of those are bombers again?
ayy we got an example, progess. I mean it's not a passenger jet, but sure whatever. It's not really much of a bomber either, and has none of the range and payload benefits you are going on about, but credit where it's due
In fact, why have you not pitched the benefits of military airlifters, which have a huge hole in the ass you can lob bombs out of? Why passenger jets?
> Here is a list of zero passenger jet-to-bomber conversions.
I can give you a real one to help you out, the German Condor maritime bomber from WW2 was converted from a passenger aircraft. The wings could not be strenghtened enough and kept falling off.
To reiterate:
> passenger jets have a low wing, and low engines, and for reasons, bombers with engines in wing nacelles have them higher up to make room for ordinance, clearing missile motor smoke, etc.
> moving this drastically rasies the center of mass and lift, which fricks the plane in the ass (play more kerbal space program)
> passenger jets do not have hardpoints under the wings
> passenger jets are designed to have fairly evenly distributed weight, not all the cargo crammed into an extremely dense, smaller area, and this means the fuselage needs to be significantly strengthened, adding a lot of weight
> the advantages of passenger jets (range, fuel efficeiency) vanish once you add external ordinance (draggy) and reinforcement (added weight)
> you have to solve the problem of taking a plane designed for a low wing and make it into a plane with a high wing
> you can skip all of this and just bomb things with bombers
Somebody shop the white cloud to be brown.
> when China have barely managed to produce smokeless engines recently
You’re moronic
And China has two domestic passenger aircraft programs, who of which is in production.
China literally announced themselves that they finally managed to make smokeless engines in 2017/2018. A chinese press release from march of this year claims they are less than a decade behind the west in engine development.
Do you understand the amount of work required to certify aircrafts for ordinance ejection?
You’re moronic.
it's in production cos you can sling 6 big missiles under the wings and fire them at ships
>Modify them by 10%
Dumbass.
You are talking a serious rebuild. Aircraft have less tolerance for fricking with than a 1935 design.
You’re moronic.
Are you actually moronic?
pretty much
>It's like if the UK was still producing the Handley Page Victor in 2022.
don't look up the nimrod
>No one really uses strategic heavy bombers anymore except to preserve the capability (US) or for prestige (Russia); if you want to deliver a boom long range, even conventional ones, missiles go faster, are cheaper, and can be made bastards to intercept.
All large Russian bombers like Tu-22M and Tu-160 are designed primarily to launch cruise missiles. They aren't prestige projects, they're Russia's best chance at destroying a super carrier.
>All large Russian bombers like Tu-22M and Tu-160 are designed primarily to launch cruise missiles. They aren't prestige projects, they're Russia's best chance at destroying a super carrier.
So is that filling the role of a strategic bomber or being a tactical missile delivery system Anon?
Super carriers are strategic targets, especially if you travel thousands of km to hit them.
Does this person realise the Chinese H6 is literally a missile carrier? It's job is to transport missiles within range of carriers. Not every missile can be an ICBM launched into space to hit carriers, missiles have finite range, carriers can move, so missiles are as much use as breasts on a fish unless you can fly them within range. And why the fetish for converting passenger jets into missile carriers instead? What is happening in this thread lol
> The B-52 is a TERRIBLE aircraft compared to anything modern
What’s modern? Tu95? Lol.
> which is why I was questioning China's continued use of the Tu-16
Maritime strike. You realize H6Ks are new airframes with improved engines and entirely new avionics suites, right? They provide the long reach the B1b provides to the US.
I don't understand this shit. I'm not the other guy. But ... the TU-16 is a modernised take on a crappy old medium bomber. It can carry 6 hypersonic anti shipping missiles under the wings. That's it's job, that's the mission. Take those missiles, fly them to within range of some ships, launch the missile. Why do anything at all? The plane you have is better than the plane you don't. It's sat there, being adequate. You can scramble a whole squadrom of them and fire a huge load of long range anti shipping ordinance.
You can replace any weapon with a bigger weapon, forever. But that costs money, takes time, uses people and resources. They looked at what they had available, upgraded it to take the new missiles, refurbished the airframe, and they now have a weapon capable of doing it's mission. If you're gonna lob a load of extra money at the situation why not plug some other gap?
Why spend money replacing the adequate B-52? Spend it developing some new weapon or upgrading something more pressing
777 is not a bomber and even if one converted modern airliner into bomber, it would be too damn big. Smaller airliner would be more fitting for the role. Small number of lets say 737 based bombers, ones that are cheaper and simpler than P-8's might be ideal bombing illiterate goat frickers into oblivion with PGM's with much lower operating costs than B-52, B-1B or B-2.
>Militaries tend not to care about fuel economy when you're hauling 50,000 lbs of ordinance across the world, while airlines live or die by fuel costs
Militaries absolutely care about fuel economy of their aircraft. Better fuel economy means longer range, more time on station over battlefield or less tanker support needed for the mission. Video very much related, just an weird ad few years ago, it is now becoming reality.
Oh, modernization of B-52's engines have been proposed since 70's. Back then it was about to be completely replaced with B-1, so it was pointless. In 90's end of Cold War screwed up budgets. Some of the earlier proposals had 4 engines, some retained 8 smaller engines. 4 engine solution would be likely better due to less maintenance and fuel efficiency, but that would open a can worms with tail of aircraft. B-52 has tiny rudder for aircraft of its size and engines are kind of part of control system, especially if it has engine problems in one wing.
The thing with B-52 is that back when it was built Boeing didn't know a frick about jets. It is over engineered as hell in almost every way. No one would build a plane that lasts as long as BUFF because replacement business awfully long away.
>Why spend money replacing the adequate B-52?
Airframes will be beyond refurbishing some time after 2050. Also technology improves.
cool, so in 2050, just design a new bomber
Replacement might be already on production. B-21 under current plans will have production run of at least 100 aircraft. Some time in 2030's they will decide does production beyond that initial 100 aircraft and does it also replace B-52 in addition to B-1B and B-2. First six B-21's are already being built and if program manages to stick to its schedule, first aircraft should be delivered in late 2026 or early 2027.
>There's a reason we don't use fighters as intercontinental bombers.
F-111 might have had a word or perhaps even a sentence about that.
>Large planes have an advantage in cargo efficiency over the long haul.
There are other factors involved than pure efficiency. You don't use Boeing 747 on cargo routes where Airbus A330 or Boeing 767 freighter has sufficient capacity. Oversized cargo is another matter, but there are even routes for A320's and B737's in air cargo market.
not gonna lie a part of me just wants the B-52 to make it to 100 years in service for no other reason that it's awesome
>777 is not a bomber and even if one converted modern airliner into bomber, it would be too damn big. Smaller airliner would be more fitting for the role.
There's a reason we don't use fighters as intercontinental bombers. Large planes have an advantage in cargo efficiency over the long haul.
I want to see a 777-300ER drop a ~250,000lb bomb load on some Middle Eastern village.
>The B-1 and B-2 did not and were not meant to replace the B-52
They were until we realized we couldn't afford enough aircraft. Just like we couldn't replace the F-15 with F-22's. It's not that the F-22 wasn't supposed to replace it, we just couldn't get the manufacturing going.
B52 IS old and they’re STILL talking about reengining them.
But Russian "avionics upgrades" are just some corrupt ground crew stealing all of the copper wire they can from the husk.
Because in modern wars, bombers are just glorified cruise missile launchers, and for that role they don't need to be stealthy nor fast. That's why the B-52 will keep serving until the Sun dies out
>buying Russian weapons
Goddamn morons
Listen here
India is sovlful authentic genuine live-laff-love unlike chinsect humanoids and I will brook NO shade on based India
>Poo racist propaganda
Without British bringing modern civilization, Hindus are still living in a caves, trees and doing human sacrifices live a savages they are.
wait were they trying to look like turbo gipsies? i like how that's supposed to make them look more "apetizing" to western women kek
It's not, it's literally just to appeal to the ego of indian men.
Look even white women want you!
dude the film is made to appeal to indian mens' fantasy of bagging a caucasoidal femoid
Jokes aside it's a fricking film, and is not representational of the real problems with india, the largest of which in my opinion is their wanting to preserve indian culture, which is fine, but then embracing probably the worst parts of their culture, like the caste system and systemic acceptance of shit like bribery, while hindi extremists seek to stamp out other parts of indian culture and engage in a race to the bottom ignoring their country's problems in order to "win" a dick waving contest with pakistan.
Pakistan has a few of the same problems too (namely, ignoring problems within their own country in order to save face), and both countries should get the frick over the moronic neocolonial shitshow they are engaged in. They both could legitimately be world powers if they did, and would at minimum rival the chinese in regional politics.
>sovlful authentic genuine live-laff-love
This post has convinced me to hate India.
Bollywood is a mistake. Pakistan should hurry up and M.A.D both of these godforsaken places off the map with cleansing nuclear fire.
how can anyone see this and think "woah, cool moves!" rather than "what is this utterly ridiculous nonsense?"?
This is unironically cope. I would've taken you seriously but you are white. Whites can't dance.
poo in loo.
Shart in mart
Not
I like this. Quite archaic because it's basically a modern Indian take on 50's American musical movies, but it's kinda fun.
Come at me, slugs.
I thought it looked a bit Vaudeville but wrote it off as playing into the apparent time period
WTF is that movie?
*shoots you in slow mo, dance number on your grave*
Whoa.....epic
Its a lousy hangar queen.
India fricked up big time
They would rather use Bears themselves
Honestly frick a swing wing plane, such a pain to maintain.
America is in decline. soon they will have to sell their strategic bombers at cheap price too. this century belongs to the Chinese dragon
IMPRESSIVE
>Chinese elite commando lets out cry of victory after a successful skirmish (2021)
>America is in decline. soon they will have to sell their strategic bombers at cheap price too. this century belongs to the Chinese dragon
CCP Shill Detected.
Go back on the other side of the Great FireWall of China, sir.
Either you calm down or you get another Century of Humiliation, you insectoid homosexual
Will your bank let you withdraw the money you made from this post?
How's evergrande?
Impressive.
With this most recent achievement, fate has in a single stroke, marked the decline of the west and spelled a new era of wondrous prosperity and peaceful global dominance for the Chinese dragon, which promises to firmly stand in sharp contrast to the historically bloody ascent of western powers and the cruel subjugation it brought to the humbler nations of the world. With the blessings of Chinese quantum direct-current electricity, quantum aircraft carriers and quantum enhanced railguns will be the instruments with which China affirms its noble stewardship of 21st century world politics and offers the non-western world a different option; an humanist alternative to the depredations of Western leadership and the opportunity for a more equitable and dignified multilateralism.
>Amelica is in decrine. soon they will have to sell their stlategic bombers at cheap plice too. this centuly berongs to the Chinese dlagon
You morons it's
>America is in decrine. soon they wirr have to serr their strategic bombers at cheap price too. this century berongs to the Chinese dragon!
It's FRIED RICE, you plick!
Why do /k/ikes take every single bait? Are you all ledditors?
>deal almost final
>2022
>Still buying Russian military equipment
After the other horrific results from hardware deals with Russia, why the frickity fricking frick does India keep going back to that poisoned sewer of a well?
>pretending to not need us of a against China.
It's literally the only point in Indias geopolitics
Brand loyalty
hate china, can't make their own decent weapons, and are too poor for widespread use of western weapons leave little options
plus they have a fitting historical relationship with sickly russia because if you are west-hating anticolonialist that is unfriendly with china then you need to be friendly with the soviets
it's incredibly moronic considering russia's economic and military strength compared even to china much less the west but at least they are a small soft brown wedge between close russo-chinese cooperation
India depends on Russia to keep parity with China/Pakistan arming each other. Pakistan gets armed by US/China. China steals stuff from US/Europe and partners with Russia.
>EQUALLED TO B-2
TU-160 entered service in the early 80s.
It's modernisation program has components from the early 2000s.
The numbers Russia plans to produce them in are frankly delusional, unless they plan to license production out to more industrially developed countries - and Russia is in no hurry to share their military secret with any of those.
There is no way they can deliver 8 bombers that fast, especially when Russian air force are getting new ones. Production pace for new Tu-160 bombers for Russian air force has been like two per year.
>TU-160 entered service in the early 80s.
It entered service in 1987, serial production started in 1984. Soviet Union only had 30-ish serial production planes when it collapsed. 19 were inherited by Ukraine. Russia produced few more after collapse of SU, but suspended production in 1992. Since then they have built 3 new ones from left over parts and uncompleted airframes that ended up in storage. Ukrainians started selling their inventory for Russia in exchange for gas, but US did neat thing and paid 'em to scrap like half of the inventory and put couple in museum. That as whole left Tu-160 fleet of Russian air force so small that plane became a white elephant that frankly wasn't worth maintaining for military point of view. It became national prestige money sink of questionable military value for strategic deterrence or any lesser tactical use.
A poor country like Russia doesn't need that many long-range supersonic strategic bombers. Just 10-25 are enough to protect their border or participate in mid-sized wars
>muh superpower
Yeah, the sooner they rid themselves of that illusion, the better.
They could have been the de-facto leader of the EU by now and have Czechia-tier standards of living if they'd just executed all communists in the 90s instead of cheering the KGB dwarf as he killed them and their children.
yup stupid as frick.
why he is right.
>an economy smaller than the state of texas larping as a superpower
gee I wonder why this would be a really fricking stupid idea
>instead of cheering the KGB dwarf as he killed them and their children
That's very culturally insensitive, anon.
Killing russians is part of the russian culture and has been for centuries, we should cherish it instead of judging them for it.
With vatnik mentality that is impossible. Purge all the commie trash and hang the KGB dwarfs on the Red Square, vatniks society will just produce another batch of kleptocratic autocrats.
Only way to bring real chance (not guaraneed!) of change in Russia is breaking it free from the muscovite grip. As long as everything is hardwired through Moscow they will always be a asiatic borderland still obsessing over the fricking mongols. Even the petty changs have gotten over it.
Also is it just me or does the Tu-160 kind of vaguely remind of the B-1
I just assumed it was a straight up rip off of the B1, it just looks like a bigger version of it
Geez just google B1-A that was a giant supersonic bomber but it was rejected, and after that, it transformed into a smaller B1-B but soviet engineers continued to copy the first concept
B-1B is exactly same size as B-1A. B-1B prototype was converted from existing B-1A prototype.
Both B1s are the same basic airframe design/size
>I feel Bad for /k/opers bli-ACK
the one good part I can think of is that if india somehow surprised everyone with a working stealth bomber they could call it a black swan
Gonna be awful hard to make those planes when the factory workers all died in a trench after being conscripted
Why would anyone buy a bomber in 2022? There are all kinds of autonomous missiles now.
good morning, sirs
Good for them, it's a beautiful and very capable supersonic bomber, a very great platform to launch long Ranger Cruise missiles and antiship missiles.
I feel Bad for /k/opers blinded by hate that can't enjoy military stuff anymore.
>it's a beautiful and very capable supersonic bomber
topkek, also take notice how these posts are always riddled with ESL-speak. i feel bad for you /misc/tards that come over here.
what has happened to /k/. You don't have to be from /misc/ to enjoy the aesthetics of the white swan. It's verifiably badass
It is, but you just know that India bought them because either the FSB had kompromat on someone or just brutishly bribed them.
I feel sorry for all indians to get fleeced like that, the cost in the long term will be immense.
It's B1A dude
Ugayrainian shills and plebbit shitters continue to ruin this board.
ITT chinks and Pakis being seething as usual.
>Found the street shitter.
Why is India buying so much from a country that will soon no longer exist
I like the street surface interior designed for pooing
Serious, Clark?
Is Russia's government so desperate for hard currency now that they're willing to sell off their strategic bombers?
And WTF does India want a supersonic bomber for?
Did they even have 8 Tu-160? All the last Tu-160 were made by using soviet era frames and cannibalizing old planes. They didn't have the possibility to make new engines for them
Damn, what a shit thread, too much purity signaling here, reddit really infested this place.
SUPERPOWER BY 2020!!!!!
> Number built
>36 (9 test and 27 serial)
>19 were in Ukraine
>10 were slaughtered
>1 transferred to the museum
>8 transferred to Russia to repay the debt for gas
Well at least they aren't TU-22s
The front fell off. Chance in a million.
It does happen if you think that you are 200m higher than where you actually are when landing and you hit the ground really hard.
Not if you have a well built plane. An F/A-18E would have taken that landing no problem.
So…who should India buy from? The West won’t let them local manufacture or transfer tech. China is politically problematic. Meanwhile they have a existing arms relationship with Russia that’s been a pain in the ass but the devil you know etc. So what are they supposed to do? Just shut up and be good consumers of the Western MIC?
>Just shut up and be good consumers of the Western MIC?
Yes, exactly that
Right now the west is mainly focused on china. India already hates china, and the west will practically GIVE India weapons and training to further surround and neuter the chinks.
All they have to do is stop buying shitty, unreliable, overpriced weapons from the Russians that probably wont even turn up, and in exchange get actually good weapons from the west practically FOR FREE
South Korea might be a good idea.
Europe.
>So…who should India buy from? The West won’t let them local manufacture or transfer tech.
It might help to reasonable with local manufacturing deals and tech transfers. The reason why Rafale deal took so long is because India was demanding Dassault to bear all the risks for eventual HAL frick ups with HAL itself having zero accountability. HAL incompetence is why in the end Dassault ended up having local maintenance contracts for Indian Air Force Rafales with an Indian company with no proven track record of incompetence in aviation. Better to start off with clean slate than trying to fix corporate culture of corruption and constant failure. Dealing with conglomerate that mostly makes bollywood movies, generates electricity and investment banking is preferable to dealing with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and death that comes with it.
1. Isn’t there a program (Air Force?) to look for a civilian plane for conversation to bomber? Like that giant rocket-carrier dual-body whatsitcalled?
2. The secret to the super high efficiency of modern airliners are the engines…right? Advanced materials and super-high bypass ratios make for efficient thrust. The trick to attaining such high bypass ratios is first achieving the materials and tech which makes it feasible to begin with so the tech had to be slowly developed over decades. But now that it’s here why can’t the B-52 be upgraded with them?
3. Rapid Dragon. Fully palletized cruise missiles out if the back of bog standard transport aircraft. ZERO modifications required. If a plane can drop stuff out the back it can use Rapid Dragon. Seems like a game-changer. Could it also be dropped from a chopper sling?
>why can’t the B-52 be upgraded with them?
Insufficient ground clearance under the wings.
Your other questions are stupid.
APU and Ukrainian intelligence accuse each other of killing former "twin brothers"
The command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine purposefully takes revenge on the soldiers who surrendered. This conclusion was reached by an international group of hackers who gained access to correspondence between high-ranking officers of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine (GUR) and the Armed Forces of Nezalezhnaya. As an example, computer hackers cite a rocket attack on a detention center in the village of Elenovka (DPR) on the night of July 29, where 50 Ukrainian prisoners of war were killed and more than 70 wounded.From the correspondence it becomes clear that the GUR has been developing the operation "Mumu" to intimidate prisoners since June. The goal was quite specific – to force the servicemen to stop "confessing" with the investigators about the crimes of Ukrainian neo-Nazis and thereby complicate the holding of the tribunal scheduled for the end of August over war criminals. Hence, by the way, the name of the operation – by analogy with the mute hero of the classic story of Turgenev.
For the time being, everything went according to plan: the Kiev regime insisted that the soldiers taken in Mariupol were not taken to Russia and kept near the front line (allegedly to facilitate visits with relatives), and the AFU gunners slowly shot at the village, claiming that they were hitting some "military warehouses". In July, the second phase of preparation for the act of intimidation began. International "human rights defenders" (now it is clear that they acted according to the instructions of Ukrainian intelligence officers), pointing a finger at the provisions of the Geneva Convention, forced the heads of the penitentiary institution to transfer prisoners from the camp barracks to another room. The fact is that the convention prohibits the detention of prisoners of war in prisons and penal colonies. The law-abiding administration of the insulator accepted the recommendation for execution and equipped a special barrack for prisoners in the industrial zone, in the metalwork workshop. As proof of the scrupulous work of the Ukrainian special service, hackers cite the exact GPS location of both premises, these data also appeared in the correspondence of the GUR and the APU. The blow, according to the developers of the ingenious plan, was supposed to hit the newly liberated barracks.
The failure, as it turns out, happened in the final part of the implementation of operation "Mumu". When pointing the "Haimars" at Elenovka (before that, only barrel artillery hit the village), for some reason, the MLRS operators entered the coordinates of a new barrack into the program, and not an empty camp barracks. Two high-precision American missiles hit the roof of a building around midnight, in which about two hundred captured Ukrainians were sleeping. Few managed to survive.
As follows from the hacker interception, the highest ranks of the GUR and the APU for some time then reproached each other for killing their own colleagues, then blamed some "interference" and "program failures". But the Kiev leadership did not raise a wave. In the end, the participants of the operation achieved their goal: intelligence eliminated and intimidated potential defendants in the tribunal, and army generals took revenge on those who came out of the ruins of the Azovstal metal plant with their hands raised and clearly demonstrated what fate awaits the "traitors".
And as for the life and health of the former "twin brothers"... No one is interested in such trifles in Kiev. These lads for Zelensky and Co. from the very beginning went under the label "consumables".
So they just randomly spam in irrelevant threads now? Also they write in this pained butthurt tone of english, it's not very subtle is it
good morning sirs
>IAF ALREADY HAVE TU-95!
Pretty sure that TU-142 are just an MPA/ASW aircraft with a very very noisy engine instead of bomber.
>F16 shoots it down
Nothin personal kid
Literally a fake story. It's nowhere else then on some random prajeets fricking twitter. God damn I hate these fricking click bait twitter posters.
It's obviously fake considering Russia has only 16 planes without the possibility of building new ones
They have started to build new ones and Russian air force has 50 planes on order. First completely new aircraft first flew in January. They expect to deliver two aircraft in 2022.
While Nimrod MRA4 modernization was frick up of epic proportions, it wasn't based on Victor, but good old de Havilland Comet.
>And China has two domestic passenger aircraft programs, who of which is in production.
Both of those use western engines. ARJ21 uses General Electric CF34 engines. C919 will use CFM Leap or Pratt&Whitney PW1000G. They are developing domestic engine, expect to get it certified by 2027 and hopefully start delivery of serial production engines by 2030.
I know it was based on the comet, I'm saying they (tried to) use an airframe design far older than the victor for longer
>They have started to build new ones
Vatnik, you're drunk. They assembled 1(one) plane with a soviet era frame and parts taken from other planes
Just google it moron. They literally have started to produce that white elephant again due to PAK DA being dead in the water and even more vaporware than PAK FA or Armata. They literally have had 50 new Tu-160 on order since 2015... and at least initially rate of production is going to be earth shattering 2 planes per year. They assembled one new aircraft in early 2000's from Soviet era leftover parts and another in 2017. First actually new built plane flew its first test flight in January. I guess they need a replacement for all Tu-95's and Tu-22M's with strategic roles sooner than PAK DA is going to be ready.
It has a toilet on it.
Will they poo in the loo or just squat on the bomb bay cat walk?
Why waste time with bombers instead of launching cruise missiles from cargo planes?: https://youtu.be/2d-lQ5dUh8c
They're way cheaper to build and maintain and does the cruise missile truck role just as good
>INDIA WILL HAVE MOST ADVANCED SUPERSONIC BOMBER EQUALLED TO B-2!
Even neutral Switzerland newspapers think the Russian army is a joke:
https://www.watson.ch/international/russland/684387780-wie-die-ukrainischen-behoerden-auf-twitter-die-russen-trollen
>another european media thinks russia bad
Wow
>neutral
Frick india dunno why both russia or the west help them. They dont give a shit and wont help out if theres war. When war on terror happened they said no. It's likethe cold war they play both sides they are like Israel only looking out for them selves
Russia just desperately needs to sell shit
The US hates China, and India also hates China
Everyone in the region hates india all they do is cause problems and indians get btfo Pakistan hates then to
Newly built, or hand me downs.
Dunno why everyone is laughing I think it's a smart move by indians. In the region they dont have a bug threat or a country that could do anything to them. I would understand if they were going against usa or some other major powers they would need something more advanced. Having an old weapons system could be good it's cheap and the parts will be cheap to maintain. Imagine if you were surrounded by just people with sticks theres no advantage having some weapons that costs millions to maintain every time its flown
>sticks
>China is a direct neighbor
???
Why does Russia even need them? They need to fix their fricked fighters first.
Uhhhh. The only reason the B2 is at all useful is the stealth capability. This is basically a much more expensive, much less reliable, much harder to upgrade B52. It’s kind of pretty I guess. Congratulations on buying these and not more indoor plumbing. Then again Russia is probably just selling off everything that isn’t nailed down to pay for the Mad Tsar’s special military frickup. So if India gets them on the cheap, it might be a good buy.
>EQUALLED TO B-2!
Even your picture shows it is equal to 150 B-2's.
fatniks got real quiet after this nugget of truth dropped*~~))
Why can't communists just be original for once in their entire lives? They literally stole B29s then copied them for their own planes cause their naturally smooth and undeveloped brains can't create something that actually works right besides like 3 guns and MAYBE 1 tank.