Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Russian strategic bomber aims


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 The_Historian

The_Historian

    Pillboxologist

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,767 posts
  • LocationStirling, Scotland

Posted 15 June 2012 - 12:25 PM

Just a short piece. I'll try to find more later.
"President Vladimir Putin has said Russia needs a new strategic bomber and will develop it despite high costs.
Mr Putin said the project would be expensive and technologically challenging. Russia’s air force has several dozen Soviet-built Tu-95 four-engine turboprop bombers and just over a dozen more modern supersonic Tu-160 bombers."
Putin raises ante on Russian airpower - International - Scotsman.com
Regards,

Gordon

#2 TiredOldSoldier

TiredOldSoldier

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,805 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 03:18 PM

This sounds bad priority, IMO bombers are the weakest of the 3 traditional delivery system for strategic nukes (bombers, ICBM and SLBM, with cruise missiles making up a fourth) and operationally only really make sense for carpet bombing, precision bombing is hadled by tactical bombers just as well, or for very long range missions. I don't see either as a priority for current Russia. IMO Russia has little to fear west, unless the situation changes drastically none of it's neighbours is going to risk being turned into a battlefield, but big problems on the Chinese border where asserting sovereignity may require long range forces with quick reaction times. But a strategic bomber is not the ideal weapon for that, as more modern successor to the the backfire makes more sense. Still they have lots of unused air design potential and military programmes beats digging up ditches and and filling them up again as a Keynes inspired measure to sustain consumption.
Truth is the first victim of conflict

#3 phylo_roadking

phylo_roadking

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 03:25 PM

double post

Edited by phylo_roadking, 15 June 2012 - 03:52 PM.

"Et Dick tracy, il est mort? Et Guy LeClair?"


#4 phylo_roadking

phylo_roadking

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 03:51 PM

It's an aircraft and IIRC thus a capability that is not restricted by any of the SALT/START treaties.... ;)

"Et Dick tracy, il est mort? Et Guy LeClair?"


#5 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:15 PM

Strategic bombers are limited, that is why we (America) are chopping up aging B-52s in plain sight so the the former USSR can verify their destruction rather than upgrading. I believe the number of tons carried, rather than number of bombers is what is controlled. The B-2 carries more, further, and at a higher price tag. But America has to eliminate some B-52s to keep delivery tonnage at a constant.
Happy Trails,
Clint.

#6 belasar

belasar

    Court Jester

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 5,912 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 07:19 PM

Across the US 'Bluesuiters' and the managing directors of aerospace firms raise a glass to salute Vladimir Putin!
Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)

#7 phylo_roadking

phylo_roadking

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 07:24 PM

Strategic bombers are limited


But are multi-role aircraft? ;) Given how the Russians currently use their strategic fleet, to probe UK air defences a few times a week....

I believe the number of tons carried, rather than number of bombers is what is controlled.


Which of course allows a current but aging force to be replaced with an equivalent carrying-capacity fleet of NEW aircraft; a bit like how BBs etc. could be replaced, even under the London and Washington naval treaties of the Interwar period...

"Et Dick tracy, il est mort? Et Guy LeClair?"


#8 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:05 PM

But are multi-role aircraft? ;) Given how the Russians currently use their strategic fleet, to probe UK air defences a few times a week....



Which of course allows a current but aging force to be replaced with an equivalent carrying-capacity fleet of NEW aircraft; a bit like how BBs etc. could be replaced, even under the London and Washington naval treaties of the Interwar period...


The newest set of rules limit carrying capacity, range without re-fueling, and other esoteric oddities. Like right now, a single strategic bomber is counted as a single nuclear weapon no matter how many bombs it may carry itself. It is more than a bit of problem to try to figure out who can have what these days. I haven't yet figured out what is what, like right now we (America) are supposed to have something like 60, but we have 206 capable of nuclear delivery of both bombs and nuclear cruise missiles so go figure. I might have to look up stuff to figure this out, but subsonic bombers are the norm. I wouldn't be surprised if Putin wants to get his arms industry back to work, whether Mother Russia really needs them or not.
Happy Trails,
Clint.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users