124 Soviet Bombers Today

Soviet Bombers Today

Posted on September 24, 2012 by team


We are back at the Engels air base in the Saratov region. This place has always a lot to show but this time we are going to concentrate on the two airplanes: Tu-95MS (a large, four-engine turboprop-powered strategic bomber and missile platform) and Tu-160 (a supersonic, variable-sweep wing heavy strategic bomber).


Across the network:

loading...

Tu-95MS

The first flight of its prototype 95-1 was performed in 1952. Alas, during the seveteenth flight the prototype crashed and out of eleven people aboard four died. But it didn't stop the tests and soon the aircraft was put into service.

Advertisement


Across the network:

124 Responses to “Soviet Bombers Today”

  1. America says:

    lol flying museum pieces is what they are!

    • Tiger says:

      You mean like the B-52s who are still in the service of the US Air Forces since the 1950s? Or more like the usual fighter jets who are still in services since the 80s, like the Hornets and F-16s?
      Actually the T-160 would easily outperform ay Rockwell B-1b (starting with that it wouldn´t crash every second time it takes off and that it works under almost any weather condition). As for the T-95, they are very reliable systems and usually serving as patrol and reconaissance aircraft over the oceans, like the old Orions in the US service. But maybe with Mitt Romney as president you will trade medical treatment for new weapons (now when Mitt has darked his tan to attract the majority of the US vote). :) take it cum grano salis

      • Scout19K says:

        It is funny that you had to digress into politics to make a point which you have yet to make. The fact that the Tu-160 is outnumbered 6 to 1 to the B1 should tell you something. 15 B1Bs have been operating in Afghanistan for the last 13 months with minimal maintenance. Gone are the issues of the B1A. During testing there are always crashes. A lesson the Soviet Union learned the hard way after several of its Tu-160s crashed.

        • Tiger says:

          Yet You do not see the difference. The B-1b is not capable of reaching mach 2 (unlike the Tu 160). That makes the Tupolev the only reliable supersonic mach 2 long range bomber in the world.
          Here is a direct quotation from wikipedia:
          Unlike the B-1A, the B-1B made no attempt at Mach 2+ speeds. Its maximum speed is Mach 1.25 (about 950 mph or 1,530 km/h at altitude), but its low-level speed increased to Mach 0.92 (700 mph, 1,130 km/h).
          And bringing in Mitt Romney is not really politics. It more like comedy :). Funny, once Mitt was compared to a chameleon and look he can even change his color, now isn´t that just hilarious?

      • ptc says:

        Thats electronic where progress is made. Only modern electronic onboard these russian planes is pocket calculator…

    • vorontsevich says:

      Ironic that you of all people should talk of flying museum pieces.

    • Gerry says:

      The B-52 had her maiden flight in 1952 and it’s still dropping bombs.
      But that doesn’t stop “America” from showing his/her lack of knowledge…

    • regulator says:

      So is the B52 (whose commissioning even was half a year earlier).

    • 1, 2, 3,14...! says:

      Like the B52? Lol.

      TU-160 is a beautiful plane and in another category altogether. Fast, very destructive and awesome design. Probably you didn’t see the pictures.

    • aJIeks says:

      Such as B52 ? =)

    • WuHuFu says:

      …just like the american B-52 (first flight on April 15. 1952). And the B-52 is supposed to be used till 2040. It doesnt need a HighTech plane to do what those beasts are meant to do. ;D

    • vla says:

      old but gold ! not like that f-117,best in the whole world,unbeatable ! invisible ! … but shoot down in Serbian village by 40 years old Neva S-125 AA rocket system .
      oh,yes “lol”

    • Tovarich Volk says:

      Yeah….right up there with the B-52’s that we use. But so what? If it works, it works.

    • Scrot says:

      @’america’
      We were missing your usual fails. Please do not not change your nickname, that’s the most amusing part.

      • America says:

        No fail. I stated what these are, flying museum pieces and that is exactly what they are. I never said it was an east/west superiority comparison you fools. Typical Russian inferiority complex. State something true about Russia and they don’t rebut the facts because they can’t, instead they complain America is just as bad or worse, blah blah blah, as if that makes the Russia situation any better! Well at least it makes them feel better about it. LMAO

        • vorontsevich says:

          And everyone else here is simply pointing out that the B-52 is a lot, LOT older than any of the aircraft shown here. LOL @ you.

        • Scrot says:

          @america:
          Tu 160 is anything but a museum piece (check it, instead of showing again your amusing ignorance). All the flying Tu95M were finished in 1980’s-90’s…

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95

          The only museum piece is your brain. And about funny inferiority complexes and fails, you’re the Master at that, as you have proved -again, and again, and again, and again…

          LOL

    • A.N. says:

      Yes, USA is bankrupt…

  2. The World says:

    @America. Well at least they work unlike the new US bombers. Those money pits is not going to win any war anywhere unless its against third world countries like Iraq or Afghanistan.

    • America says:

      Keep right on believing that. But underestimating your enemies is a age old fatal mistake, one that usually places you on the loosing side of history.

      • vorontsevich says:

        Keep on believing what? Many of the more “radical” Americans love to point out that they have a 700billion dollar defense budget. So? If money wins you wars, then Iraq and Afghanistan should have been tidied up long ago.

        “But underestimating your enemies is a age old fatal mistake”. Good advice that. Pity you cant take it.

  3. Yaroslav Votus says:

    Tu-160 is not bad copy of the American B-1, only it required to be larger of course.

    • Scrot says:

      And much faster, more powerful and much more capable to destroy whatever you like. TU 160 also doesn’t crash so often. …

      “not bad copy” LOL!

  4. zx10R says:

    this old junk can bomb only africa

    • vorontsevich says:

      AND Europe AND America AND anywhere else on the planet.

      • America says:

        LOL Good luck trying…

        • vorontsevich says:

          Lol. You say that like its impossible or something. Lemme answer with some facts. The Kh-55 series of cruise missiles (which are the main armament of the Tu-95MS and the Tu-160) have ranges of 3000km. With the flight range of the bombers (with in-flight refueling, of course) means that it is perfectly possible (and compared to some shorter range or smaller payload aircraft) easy as well.

          • America says:

            LOL you’re right. If you assume that the U.S. will put up no defense to such a strike… then yes theoretically these flying museum pieces could strike NA! I’m not worried about it.

            • vorontsevich says:

              Looks like my comment didn’t go through, so I’ll try again.

              Ignorance is bliss, America.

              Do you know what the target of those cruise missiles will be, in a real war? No. Lemme tell you. They will be used against those “defenses” that the US will put up, and against military bases. Why? Nuclear war. The ICBMs will flatten the world, but since a military would be the ideal ones to survive a salvo, cruise missiles are launched at them, to sort of, double “check” that they are dead. The gist of it is, that the strategic nukes will flatten whole cities and most of the country side, but the cruise missiles will attack military hard targets to “make sure”. And I’m pretty sure the US will have a similar strategy. MAD after all.

        • A.N. says:

          USA only attacks small, poor and weak countries …why ? Pussies ?

    • italics says:

      Would you like to test that theory? On your house?

  5. Scout19K says:

    Funny, The Tu-05 remains virtually unchanged from the day it was first flown till today yet it carries the same menial load it did then. The Buff, it’s counter part flies faster, farther, higher and with a bigger load and has been modified regularly to the point where the only aircraft that can come close is the B-2. The B52 has outlived almost every air force on the planet in planes built in the same era…I would love to see a Tu-95MS in a museum here :)

    • Scout19K says:

      Tu-95 that is…

      • Scrot says:

        That’s why there is a Tu-22M. Another supersonic bomber, not shown here.

        • Tiger says:

          You are right. And the Tu 22 was entering service 1972! Back then the US had nothing comparable. In fact the B-1b was the direct answer to the Tu 22 design. The Tu 22 was also the first heavy supersonic bomber with variable wing geometrics.

    • vorontsevich says:

      Lol, what? The Tu-95MS may be built on the same airframe but its a very different aircraft. The oldest Tu-95MS was built in 1981. None of the older Tu-95’s are in service.

      • Scout19K says:

        The Tu-95M series are built on the Tu-142 airframes. So all practical applications it is a Tu-95 which is what the Tu-142 is based on. The 142 is nothing but the Navy version of the 95…Every piece of documentation I have read verifies this.

        • vorontsevich says:

          So. Thats what I said, the Tu-95MS us built on the same airframe. But in no way is it a Tu-95. The original Tu-95 was, like the B-52 designed with free-fall bombs in mind. The Tu-95MS is a cruise missile carrier. The reason it is built on the Tu-95 airframe (actually its a Tu-142 airframe, but even that was derived from the Tu-95) is because it was incredibly good and proven.

          Maybe you should find some other source for your “pieces of documentation” than wikipedia.

    • America says:

      You are right there is no comparison of the flight readiness and upgraded effectiveness of the current B-52 vs. these Russia antiques that they continue to fly or pull out of mothball status to now saber rattle the west with again. But it makes Russians feel better to make the comparison anyway! lol

      Funny thing is you see the U.S. using B-52s in theaters appropriate to their use, i.e. the 3rd world. We are not so foolish to think the Russians would be intimidated by us flying SAC B-52 missions against them today. To do so would be a comical waste of money and provide no tactical or political advantage at all. We would just look foolish flying antiquated hardware up against a formidable foe. Russia flying cold war style antiquated bombers in outdated cold war era displays of air power is bad joke.

      • vorontsevich says:

        Lol. I guess it makes you feel better to pull stuff out of your a***.

        “upgraded effectiveness” The Tu-95MS is a very, very heavy upgrade of the Tu-95, and is a lot newer too.

        So Russia flying bombers is a “cold war era display of air power”, but America using the B-52 is merely using them appropriately. Lol.

        “We would just look foolish” No worries. You already do a fine job of ridiculing yourself and your country.

      • Scrot says:

        @america (lol)

        The TU-160 is anything but a museum piece and you know it. Check it, instead of showing your amusing ignorance.

        All the flying Tu-95 are the M version, all were built in the 80’s – 90’s.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95

        As your B-52, it has a lot of uses, but not in a museum. The only useless thing is your brain.

        About funny inferiority complexes, unrelated competitions and complete FAILS, you are the Master at that. As you have showed again, and again, and again…. and now.

        LOL.

  6. Zoidberg says:

    Compare the TU-160 to any western bomber like the B1-Lancer or the B2-Spirit and it is both faster, has longer range and can carry more weight.
    But nobody is designing new long range bombers or fighter jets anymore. It will all be drones in the future.

  7. KGB says:

    TU-160 is just a cheap ripoff of the American B-1B!!

    • Scrot says:

      The TU-160 it’s just better.

    • vorontsevich says:

      Yeah right. Thats why the Tu-160 has nearly double the weapons payload, nearly double the capable speed and greater range. Because its a cheap knock-off, lol.

      The Tu-160 program, along with the Me-18 and Tu-4, started way back in the mid-70’s, as a competition. The Tu-160 won. In fact, the Tu-160 has more in common with the Me-18 than with the B-1.

    • Tiger says:

      Sorry but the design is a logical consequnce if you want to have a supersonic plane that can carry heavy loads. That is what phyisic dictates you to do, just like when you do a fast car you have to give it a low profile.
      In fact the Tu 160 was originally derived from the Tu 144 civil air liner. It was launched and rolled out just one year after the B-1b, so both planes were in fact developed during the same time.

      • America says:

        There are “designs of logical consequence” and then their are copies. The world is not too foolish to tell the difference, and time and again Soviet designs really do look like they started life intending to be copies or heavily influenced by industrial espionage of western designs.

        • Tiger says:

          Dear America. I assume that you were not a crack in natural sciences. So let me explain it to you this way: If Mercedes has a round steering wheel and if GM has round steering wheels, then who copied from whom? Nobody is the answer. A round steering wheel (integrating the airbag) is the best and only logical steering system for human driver with two hands.
          And as I said. The B1 and the Tu 160 were developed during the same time. Not like the I phone and the Samsung Galaxy, where the I phone was launched when Samsung hat nothing in place. So I am very sorry to tell you that this innovation price does not go the US this time.

          • America says:

            If the Soviets didn’t have a history of blatantly copying others hardware you might have a point. Tupolev Tu-4 anyone? Why does it say BOEING on it in numerous places? Because Soviet aviation engines took Stalin’s orders to copy it so literally they were afraid that if the didn’t copy the Boeing B-29 to the smallest detail they would pay for it with their lives. They copied it so exactly they even replicated a totally pointless little hole in the wing that a Boeing production worker accidentally drilled in the wrong place. So who copied whom? You know the answer.

            • vorontsevich says:

              So your logic is that, just because the Soviets copied the B-29, they must have copied the B-1? Even though both the B-1 and the Tu-160 were developed at the same time? Lol. You have a sad way of thinking. I supposed its all those food stamps.

            • googler says:

              I’m sorry to point this out to you america but if you actually d a bit of studying, your statement about the exact cloning of the b-29 is a load of horse shit. While MOST of the plane was copied, alot of it was also designed by Russian engineers to make up for the fact the Russia had the metric system ( not the outdated and useless imperial system)and all the armaments, electronics, avionics and engines are all Russian design.

        • vorontsevich says:

          Lol. Here’s how your logic sounds. Soviet Russia was the first to put a satellite in space, so everyone must have obviously have copied or been heavily influenced by their designs, lol.

        • vorontsevich says:

          To put it mildly, all supersonic bombers have a generally similar layout. Sorta like how ALL pre-jet aircraft had propellers.

          To go into details, the Tu-160 is a cruise missile carrier, as in a strategic bomber. The B1 is now mostly used for what, conventional bombing?

          As for your weak-minded jab about the B-2 and its likes, look up the PAK FA and Mig 1.42/44. As for the drones, look up the Mig Skat.

        • Asmodeus says:

          Both were projected at almost the same time. Hard to tell who copied who. (Both teams of spy gamers then were very good).

          The only thing obviously clear is that the Tu-160 is just faster, carries heavier loads, has more range… That’s what matters.

          • Tiger says:

            The S-class and the 7er series have both four wheels, are available with high performance gas, hybrid or diesel engines, are rear wheel driven, have a sat nav, leather seats, park distance control, wooden veneer panels, weigh roughly about the same, have four seats etc. etc. etc. ; then they must be copies too according to this logic :)

  8. Asmodeus says:

    It’s funny; when there is post about an awesome russian weapon or plane, like the Tu-160 or a Sukhoi, some americans jump eagerly to down play it (some do that even with beautiful, peaceful landscapes).

    There should be a name to that amusing illness. It looks just funny.

    • Primum non nocere says:

      The guy is just trolling and trying to give the US a bad name. There is a very high probability that he isn’t even from the US at all.

    • prima nocta says:

      There already are words for that: jingoism, chauvinism (very close to chavism, although that word may not actually exist).

  9. Tovarich Volk says:

    Even though the s*** has been flying over the age of all the bombers in question, I’d like to point out that bombers are a small piece of effective aerial warfare. The intercontinental strike capability of any nation’s armed forces via aeroplane has been an obsolete concept since the late 1950’s.

    The real intercontinental strike capability lies in missle warhead delivery systems such as ICBM’s, MRBM’s, SRBM’s, SLBM’s and cruise missles.

    I’d also like to point out that AFAIK, there are three ‘superpowers’ in the world, and there’s only one that benefits when the USA and Russia are facing off in a revival of the cold war.

    • America says:

      Three? Who’s is the 3rd one again?

      • Tiger says:

        The 3rd Superpower is the little country the US is so heavily indebted…some call it China.

      • ptc says:

        There are only two: USA and China. Russia military power is only rusty junk, not enough money for maintenance……

        • America says:

          Agreed, that’s what i was thinking. Today’s “super powers” are China and the US. Russia is just a regional player like the rest of Europe.

          • Tiger says:

            Yes, that is the reason Romney sees Russia as America´s biggest threat because it has enough missles to destroy the whole planet three to four times including the US. That´s all you need to be a superpower.
            If good roads, decent wages or a working health care system would be the precondition for a superpower, then we would have Germany, Sweden, France and Finland on the top. Certainly not the US, China or Russia (although China is improving here and Russia tries at least).

        • Tiger says:

          Yes, but this heap of 80s junk kicked pro-NATO-Georgia´s a** across the mountain gorges.
          And that is also the reason the NATO bombardment of Serbia destroyed bridges and hospitals, but caused almost no casualties among the Serbian army. Maybe most of the new “high-precision” systems are just marketing gags of the defense industry.
          And while we are at it: You are loosing a war in Afghanistan against an enemy who does not even have any heavy armour, but more like pick-ups and rifles. Think about it. Wars are won by soldiers and their motivation. A soldier who has no motivation looses the war. The Russian know it just too well. You must know it too, since you lost the Vietnam war.

  10. XyuH says:

    Only 20 or less tu160 exists today. Rumors are only 5 flyable.

  11. XyuH says:

    Russians were able to ripp off B29-TU4. Concord-TU144, B1-TU160. Shuttle-Buran. But there are few things they are not capable of ripping of due to lack of technology, B2, Stealth F117, stealth drones, hypersonic drones. This would require to quit drinking vodka and to use brain.

    • Tiger says:

      Yes, that is why the Americans kidnapped all the Nazi engineers to teach them jewish physics, because they were so innovative :).
      What was the name of the head of the Apollo Program? Werner von Braun?
      Yes of course, the Soviets did or rather tried the same thing, but the US was much more successful. So if there is someone the credit for the development in aerospace it is the Germans. Sadly though, neither the Americans nor the Soviets kidnapped automotive engineers :). That would have helped more in the long run I guess.

      • XyuH says:

        please go take another puff of weed

        • Tiger says:

          No, smooking weed is for Americans or for hookers. We refined Europeans have a nice bottle of Cote de Roussillon, naturally. That has something to with education, proper schooling and being just more advanced. That is also why without the German engineers You would still need to send me letter written on Your IBM typewriter. But stop! IBM´s predecessor was founded by Herman Hollerith whoose parents were from Großfischlingen in Germany :).
          You see Buffalo herder?

      • XyuH says:

        German engineers eh? why dont you go back to 1812 british invasion.

        • Tiger says:

          Yes, the US had no advanced jet technology during the 2nd world war (the shootingstar was slower than most contemporary piston engine planes). The same goes for the Soviets. So what they did was kidnapping or hiring as many German engineers as they could and let them work for them. That is why for instance the F-86 Super Sabre and the Mig 15 were lookin so familiar. That was because they were derived from a common German platform technology. The only difference were the enormous resources the US and the Soviets gave them to achieve their goals, check the history.

          • America says:

            You sound jealous or disgruntled that so many brilliant Germans (among other nationalities) have seen fit to bail on Germany (or their homeland of birth) for the United States. A phenomena that has repeated itself throughout the 20th century. That is their loss and our gain. Being open to such immigration has been the secret to our success! Perhaps you should ask yourself why so many intelligent foreigners choose to flee for the U.S. vs. the other 190+ independent nations in the world? why is that the we reap the benefit of their intelligence and not Russia for example?

            As for the “captured” Nazi scientists that were brought back to Russia and the United States after WWII, like Von Braun, to say we captured Van Braun and his rocket scientists isn’t quite right. The reality is Von Braun and his crew went through an elaborate ruse to avoid Russian capture and make it behind enemy lines and voluntarily surrender themselves into the custody of the United States Army. They wanted nothing to do with the Russians. The fled their advance. The Russians would have LOVED to have captured them too, but quite simply they failed. It was a major coup for the United States and your damned right we exploited that for all it was worth. And what we accomplished was something no other nation in the world has ever done. we visited another world, the moon.

            • vorontsevich says:

              Lol. Sour grapes, anyone? We beat you to space, into putting a man into space, into doing the space walk, to the moon, into putting a human-crewed space station, first to Mars, etc.. and somehow Americans try to pass that off as a lesser achievement than “visiting the moon”. Lol. After all the “moon landings” changed the world, while somehow sputnik did not.

              • America says:

                Who said Sputnik didn’t change the world too? Lots of things change the world. Fact is if the Soviets had captured Von Braun and his team (and they would have had to capture them against their will) they may have been the ones to set foot on another world too, instead of failing so hard at it before claiming they never wanted to go or beat the US at it anyway.

                As for Mars, Russia first to arrive yes, also first in #/percentage of failed missions to Mars. A shame really i hate to see any space exploration fail.

                My point wasn’t that those are lesser achievements. they are all great ones. My point was failing to capture Von Braun and his team was quite the intelligence failure. They wanted nothing to do with the Soviets, or post war Germany. So much so they went to elaborate lengths to flee to American held territory and surrendered themselves to us, to continue their research for US. Tiger seems to think that’s something we should be embarrassed about, that we would need their help. No, we have long welcomed intelligent scientists to come here, and they do. In droves. Unlike 20th century Germany or Russia our best and brightest didn’t flee for a better life elsewhere, like America. We didn’t need to kidnap or capture them and force them to do or bidding. They couldn’t get the hell out of the old world fast enough. A story that repeated itself throughout the 20th century. Why would we be embarrassed that so many highly intelligent people of their time chose to come to America of all the countries in the world? I don’t get it. Everyone in North America came here from somewhere else, even the “natives”. It’s just a question of when. Nothing to be embarrassed about. Quite the opposite, if anything it’s something to be proud of. We didn’t have to force them to come here. They came willingly. But i don’t expect Tiger to get it.

                • vorontsevich says:

                  “They wanted nothing to do with the Soviets, or post war Germany.” Ever heard of the holocaust? The Nazi extermination of Jews? Well, not many people are aware of this, but Nazi Germany had another plan, called Lebensraum, and it involved the mass extermination of Russians (and other Slavs). Close to 15 million died because of that. And after all that, Red Amry soldiers weren’t too keen of being all merciful with any Germans at all, no matter what the spooks from SMERSH told them. Not exactly the bunch you’d want to run into if you were German toward the end of the war.

                  And Lol @ you, America (not just you, but your namesake). What do you think when all your debtors pull out of what is becoming an bottomless pit? I wonder then, how many of the world’s “highly intelligent” people will flock to the shores of America to live the “American Dream? Lol.

                  BTW, I did’t know you considered all those Mexicans to be “highly intelligent”? Lol. Most Americans dont seem particularly keen on welcoming them. Lol.

                  PS, maybe you didn’t know, but Russia is now the second most immigrated country. Nice try.

      • America says:

        WW2 was an all out war with unconditional surrender. To the victors went the spoils, and Germany’s best and brightest scientists were certainly part of that deal. We would have been stupid not to bring them back to the U.S. and CCCP to continue their work. It was the smart thing to do. Why waste time reinventing the wheel?

        • Tiger says:

          Not re-inventing the wheel, but rather inventing it. And without the Russians the western allies would have been kicked across France back over the channel. The Wehrmacht was too well drilled and too well equiped to be defeated by the US and UK back then in 44/45.

          • America says:

            What your effin’ point? Without the western allies Russia would have been f_cked with a capital mother f_cking F. Quite simply it took all of the allies to win that war and you know it. No one could have “gone it alone”. You think Russia’s casualties were horrific? They are the tip of the iceberg of what they would have been had they had to go it alone against Germany without any western military, financial or material support. Thank God we all had the sense to put political differences aside and work toward that common goal of destroying Germany and the other axis powers.

            • vorontsevich says:

              Russia fought and won the war in Europe almost by itself. Don’t exaggerate your contributions, and certainly don’t make them out to be anything decisive. The T-34 was the tank that won the war, the Luftwaffe lost most of its warplanes and its best pilots in the East, the majority of German divisions had gone through the “meatgrinder” of the Soviet front.

              “Without the western allies Russia would have been f_cked with a capital mother f_cking F.they had to go it alone against Germany without any western military, financial or material support”. Lol. You forget that for most of 1941 and 1942 Russia soldiered on, without any significant Western help. It only came in 1944, and even then, D-Day wouldn’t have succeeded if four out every five German divisions wasn’t off fighting the Red Army. Educate yourself, especially when you talk about sensitive matters, like “Russia’s horrific casualties”.

            • Tiger says:

              No, but Russian troops would have washed their boots at the French Atlantic coast if there would have been no landing of the allied troops in the Normandie. At that time in Summer 1944 Germany´s a$$ was kicked over the Belorussian and Polish Pripjat swamps back into central Europe. Google “Operation Bagration”. Russia had built up a major military capacity at that time that was three to four times superior to the Wehrmacht.

              • America says:

                Yes, if we hadn’t opened the western front the Soviets would have eventually gotten around to washing their Lend Lease supplied boots at the French Atlantic coast.

                http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html

                That is no small amount of goods we supplied you guys with. The Soviets benefited greatly from having the allies in the war, in lots of ways, and it would have been a much bloodier and longer slog for them had they not. Just accept it. The Soviet Union could have defeated Germany by themselves and “won WWII”, eventually. But that’s not what actually happened.

                • vorontsevich says:

                  Yes. “The Soviet Union could have defeated Germany by themselves and “won WWII”, eventually.” But the western allies couldn’t have. So learn your place.

                • vorontsevich says:

                  “That is no small amount of goods we supplied you guys with.” It is nothing compared to what the Soviet industry provided. Six times greater is the common estimate. Get your facts straight.

                  And the most amazing part is, the Soviet industry was ravaged by war, while the American one was virtually untouched. And yet, somehow the Soviet war machine was able to keep pace. And even then, dipshits like you would claim that somehow, the Western allies won the war, that somehow D-Day was the final nail in Hitlers coffing, that allied bombing raids paralyzed German war industry (those raids actually took more German civilian lives than those caused by the advancing Red Army).

                  Pathetic.

    • ptc says:

      Wooden planes are stealth :-)

    • rickunnis says:

      F-117? Like the one shot down by the Serbs and is no longer in service? Stealth drones? Like the one operated by the CIA and LANDS(not shot down!) in Iran, fully intact? Use Brain? Obviously not yours.

      • America says:

        You do realize that during the F-117’s operational lifetime it was deployed extensively in combat in…

        Panama – Operation Just Cause (USAF, 1989)
        Iraq – Operation Desert Storm (USAF, 1991)
        Kosovo – Operation Allied Force (USAF, 1999)
        Iraq – Operation Iraqi Freedom (USAF, 2003)

        During those 4 air campaigns all of one aircraft was lost to enemy fire. ONE. That’s a remarkable track record for any combat aircraft, stealth or not. So i’m not sure what your point is?

        And that drone was not fully intact, why do you think the Iranians had the underbelly blocked off from view? Because it crash landed that’s why. My guess is they GPS spoofed it into Irainian airspacn and when it attempted to land at what it thought was it’s base it crashed because ground level wasn’t what it expected it to be. Still a pretty nifty trick for the Iranians to pull off and certainly a victory for them. That’s OK we (and Israel) paid them back with stuxnet (and more). They were going nuts trying to figure out why their underground heavily guarded centrifuges all started randomly shaking themselves to pieces! They were pulling their hair out trying to figure out WTF was going on. lol

        • vorontsevich says:

          You are not making the foolproof case you think you are making. After all, its not like either, Iraq, or ex-Yugoslavia had numbers of high-end air defense equipment, let alone make a network with them. Lol.

          • America says:

            Irrelevant, during it’s operational lifetime before obsolescence it saw extensive combat in 4 different theaters and only one plane was ever lost to enemy fire. It happens. That is not a failure by any stretch of the imagination. Rickunis is not making the embarrassing case he thinks he is for this bombing platform. The plane is not invisible, it just has a low radar cross section, no defensive weapons, and it relied on the cover of night for visual stealth, and yes if you actually saw one you could just shoot at the damned thing, like any plane. but for the worlds first operational “stealth” aircraft it was not a failure by any stretch of the imagination. Remember Russia is just now fielding their first operational aircraft with stealth design aspects incorporated into it, the T-50, and it isn’t expected to see mass production until 2014. The F117 was designed in the early/mid ’70s, being extensively tested by 1977 and had entered operational status by the early ’80s. Overall the program was quite successful, from a design and well as secrecy standpoint. The rest of the world had no clue what we had up out sleeve until we revealed it officially. The subterfuge and secrecy surrounding the program was so successful that every leaked configuration this rumored aircraft turned out to be completely inaccurate when it was officially acknowledged and unveiled to the world in 1988, 10+ years after they started flying.

            Fact is the US test demonstrator flights for America’s first combat aircraft to incorporate stealth design principles were already taking place in 1977. The Russians? 2010 as far as we know. The Chinese? 2011. Nice to see you guys finally appreciate what we already knew was a pretty nifty trick back in the ’70s. It is now obsolete first gen tech, but back in it’s day the f117 performed quite effectively and the rest of the world certainly had nothing more effective to field as a stealth aircraft.

            For example…

            “In 1990 the F-117 Nighthawk was used again in the first Gulf War, where F-117s flew approximately 1,300 sorties and scored direct hits on 1,600 high-value targets in Iraq[26] while accumulating over 6,905 flight hours.[27] Only 2.5% of the American aircraft in Iraq were F-117s, yet they struck more than 40% of the strategic targets, dropping over 2,000 tons of precision-guided munitions and striking their targets with over an 80% success rate”.

            And they did it without any losses. Not an embarrassing track record by any means.

            If you want to make an embarrassing point here’s one. Stealth tech is based on Soviet/Russian physicist and mathematician Pyotr Ufimtsev’s theoretical work that the Soviets thought so strategically unimportant they allowed it be published in 1962, never even realizing or appreciating it’s military value. The result?

            In 1971 this book was translated into English with the same title by U.S. Air Force, Foreign Technology Division (National Air Intelligence Center), Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 1971. Technical Report AD 733203, Defense Technical Information Center of USA, Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA, 22304-6145, USA.

            And the rest as they say “is history”. Now that’s embarrassing. Just sayin’

            • vorontsevich says:

              Ignorance is bliss. “only one plane was ever lost to enemy fire. It happens. That is not a failure by any stretch of the imagination.” It actually is a monumental failure, because your vaunted “stealth” fighter was downed by a S-125 (which is simple, cheap and is from the 1960’s, in other words about as contrasting as can be).

              “And they did it without any losses. Not an embarrassing track record by any means.” Dropping bombs on targets without air cover or air defense is really awe-inspiring. Lol.

              “Remember Russia is just now fielding their first operational aircraft with stealth design aspects incorporated into it” “The Russians? 2010 as far as we know. ” Like I said, ignorance is bliss. The Mig-1.42/44 was the first Russian stealth fighter, and it was developed in the 1990’s. But back then, there was no funding. The PAK FA carried on from that, and the Mig LMFS will be its direct successor.

              Funny that you should bring up Ufimtsev. Let me guess as to where you got that information, wikipeda? Lol. Ufimtsevs works weren’t used by the soviet defence industry because they didn’t have the computers necessary to carry out those calculations, not because they “deemed it unimportant”. Lol.

              Your fails only get funnier and funnier, keep up the trend.

              • America says:

                Please, long after Russia had the computer hardware to make use of Ufimtsevs theoretical research they still hadn’t done anything practical with it. Meanwhile the U.S. Air Force did. Quite simply the Soviets didn’t appreciate the value of what they had and it put them at a tactical disadvantage. A disadvantage that they are still playing catch up on today.

                • America says:

                  Please, long after Russia had the computer hardware and software engineers to make practical use of Ufimtsevs theoretical research they still hadn’t done anything with it. It remained theoretical research sitting unused on a bookshelf. Meanwhile the U.S. Air Force did make practical use of it. The used it to begin greatly reducing the radar cross section of their combat aircraft. Quite simply the Soviets didn’t appreciate the value of what they had and it put them at a tactical disadvantage. A disadvantage that they are still playing catch up on today.

                • vorontsevich says:

                  More ignorance. “long after Russia had the computer hardware to make use of Ufimtsevs theoretical research they still hadn’t done anything practical with it.” The Mig-1.44 design started in the 1980’s, about the same time as the Elbrus computers appeared. You failed again (big surprise).

                  “A disadvantage that they are still playing catch up on today.” Lol. I’d say the balance has shifted nicely, in case you haven’t noticed. The F-22 production is stopped at ~180, and it’s full of problems. The F-35 is still in development and even then all sorts of concerns are rising. The PAK FA is actually going ahead of schedule, and can match the F-22, and for a much lower cost.

    • dresser says:

      A stealth engineer at Lockheed, Denys Overholser, had read the publication and realized that Ufimtsev had created the mathematical theory and tools to do finite analysis of radar reflection. This discovery inspired and had a big role in the design of the first true stealth aircraft, the Lockheed F-117
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Ufimtsev

  12. Jane says:

    JFYI, Russia is working on a new strategic supersonic optionally-piloted heavy bomber, maiden flight expected next year

    • America says:

      ” maiden flight expected next year”

      Crash, expected shortly thereafter.

      • Tiger says:

        You mean crash, like the Dollar is going to crash soon thanks to Bazooka-Ben? Or more like crash in failed crash-test of American cars? Or more like 9/11 crash, which was conducted by a terror group initially sponsored by the US and backed another US ally named KSA?
        Really…haters gonna hate…

        • America says:

          America is Great, deal with it. There’s a reason why your women are all trolling for an American husband on these arranged marriage sites. lol

          Funny, i don’t see any American women whoring themselves out in desperation looking for a Russian husband. ;)

          • vorontsevich says:

            Lol. So much wisdom and sense resonates from your comment.

            Have you thought that maybe the reason that they target Americans is that they are 1) gullible (thats putting it mildly) and 2) desperate, because American women are, well to sum it up in one word, FAT? Lol.

            • America says:

              Quite simply they target Americans because they are desperate whores who want to come to America and are willing to offer themselves up sexually to anyone with the $$$ who will foolishly provide them the lifestyle they seek. And yes anyone, American or otherwise who believes he can find a Russian internet wife who won’t stab them in the back once they get what they want is a damned fool. No question about that.

              “2) desperate, because American women are, well to sum it up in one word, FAT? Lol.”

              Yeah, the American women who would settle for a loser who is desperate enough to turn to the internet for a wife are no prize themselves. (even with money, good looking American women can do better) That’s why these men can’t do any better then day dreaming about a Russian wife. lol

              And that dream quickly turns to a nightmare for them. They foolish marry these women thinking they actually give 2 sh*ts about them only to find they are rotten scheming whores who will beat themselves up a few months later, claim domestic abuse, qualify to stay in American and get their greencard, then turn around and divorce the fool and take all his money and go f_ck some black guy they really want to hook up with. lol

              Yeah, Russian internet brides are such a coveted resource of Russia! (to fools who are easily parted from their money and dignity)

          • Tiger says:

            And while we are at it: Where was Obama´s father again from? Somalia? Kenya? But how do they say in America: One the go black…so much for desperate whoring around.

          • Tiger says:

            Is your father also from Kenya?

            • America says:

              And there have never been any regrets about that in either side of the family. It was absolutely the smart thing to do! The “old world”? Screw it! Life there was never very good to them anyway.

          • America says:

            lol Betty Mahmoody didn’t go looking for a “foreign husband to bring to the US”, he came here on his own where she met him. And yeah she was one dumb broad going to Iran with him and thinking that wouldn’t turn into a clusterf_ck for her. Some people are just plain stupid, we have them too like anywhere.

            • America says:

              My bad she met him in Turkey and to hear her tell it only married him 7 years latter after she thought she knew him extremely well. Not exactly your typical mail order bride/husband fiasco of a desperate man/woman looking for love. In short any western woman who marries a middle eastern man (regardless of religion, completely different cultures) is just asking for trouble and you know it. But love is blind and she foolishly paid the consequences for that. Some people just have to learn things the hard way in life. Anyway my bad, i never gave a c**p about her story or paid any attention to it.

          • America says:

            “A girl like Betty Mahmoody was long famous, before any 5 times divorced Russian mail order bride ever set foot on US territory.”

            Not because they didn’t want to, but because with few exceptions they couldn’t get out of the Soviet Union. Once that collapsed oh boy did the floodgates begin to open. Russian and Ukrainian authorities couldn’t deny their women travel visas fast enough for fear they would never return, and their fears were well grounded at that time.

        • America says:

          No, i meant crash like Sukhoi Superjet 100, (allegedly) flown into the side of a mountain on it technology demonstrator flight to the aviation industry, killing all 45 aboard, many of them civilian aviation industry representatives evaluating it for possible purchase by western airlines. doh! Good luck with that now.

          A shame really, the east/west SSJ100 consortium was an important step forward for the Russian avaition industy and it’s actually a remarkably worthy civilian aircraft, decades ahead of any other Russian civilian aircraft that have no hope of being certified and accepted in the west, and all that effort ruined by dopey Russian human error.

          Pull up! Pull up! (BOOM)

          I was a big fan and supporter of the project but the crash is a set back the SSJ100 is not going to recover from. Poor Sukhio they tried so hard, accomplished so much, and they just can’t catch a break. If the air crash report is true it was down to the pilot foolish requesting clearance to descend to an altitude less then that of the mountain in their flight path, and ATC granted it. WTF…

          What’s that they say, “the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray”?

          Tough luck, Sukhoi. Advantage Airbus/Boeing. Better luck next time.

          • vorontsevich says:

            Wow. You really know what you’re talking about don’t you. A plane crashed because of pilot error and obviously that must mean it’s crap. Lol.

            “Tough luck, Sukhoi. Advantage Airbus/Boeing. Better luck next time.” Lol. Fails all around.

            1) The Superjet wasn’t even supposed to compete with Airbus/Boeing in the first place, it’s a regional airliner, which means its compeition is mostly with Bombardier and Embraer, but you egotistical Americans wouldn’t know that). Lol.

            2)Despite your grim assesment, there are over 300 Superjets on order.

            PS;

            WTF does this “If the air crash report is true it was down to the pilot foolish requesting clearance to descend to an altitude less then that of the mountain in their flight path, and ATC granted it. WTF…” have anything to do with Sukhoi? Lol.

            • America says:

              I find it rather odd an experienced Russian ex-test pilot flew a fairly new SSJ100 into the side of a mountain. As you know suggesting “human error” is often an easy way out of explaining something else you’d rather not have to. Just one of those things that makes you go Hmm… Maybe it was just a gung ho ex military pilot getting too aggressive and screwing up. Sometimes they are not the best people to put behind the stick of a civilian aircraft. Better a civilian pilot whose worked his way up to flying the big birds.

              Anyway you have a point about Airbus/Boeing. Boeing is even part of the consortium that designed the SSJ100.

              Anyway what a disaster killing a bunch of airline representatives on a sales junket while they’re evaluating the plane for purchase! Sukhoi needs to be more careful about who they put in the pilots seat. lol

              • America says:

                BTW i’ve read a few interesting comments that suggest their may be more to this crash. as you probably know this plane was flown in as a sub for another that broke down during the tour. It’s complete hearsay but look at these comments…

                “Even before this crash, I
                By Anonymous
                Even before this crash, I would not be aboard this aircraft.
                I participated to systems development and as it is a russian aircraft, some of the activities that we were supposed to do where not done, in order to decrease the internal cost of the program.I am still wondering how it can be possible that this aircraft obtained its EASA type certificate”

                “By Anonymous
                Very nice and very tight seal on investigation results – not a squeak.. just a tiny leak in the Russian media (you need to know Russian and read independent sources to get it)…

                Anyway… they claim Superjet 100 met it’s fate because… it was a demo version (commercial plane had a problem and was send packing – demo came as a substitute). Demo was not equipped with all required systems (they put only tested systems on them).

                There was a single accident avoidance system on board and that one malfunctioned. International standard requires two, but that was an ‘unregulated’ demo plane..”

                I’m not so convinced it all came down to human error. At least not the pilots human error…

          • A.N. says:

            The Raptor flies ? Or is it still forbidden to fly ?

  13. Eric says:

    is the TU-160 still in production status?

  14. Tobias says:

    so who wins the battle? who is on top of the world between the US and the Russian?

Leave a Reply

  • Popular: