Are they trying to start a war
- Thread starter ukjason
- Start date
Putin is trying to tell the world that Russia is being built into a super power again. Kinda reminds me of Kim Jong launching missiles over Japan to scare them. Did anyone notice that bomber looked like a prop plane, not jet? A WWII style bomber just doesn't really scare me.
It's not the bomber, it's what you can hang under them. And you can hang some pretty lethal stuff under the wings of a Bear, IIRC...
not to mention a f*ckin' lot of it....
So...is it a prop plane? Really, we wouldn't fight a nuclear war with bombers, it will be fought with ICBMs.....we might use some bombers to finish off the last couple.
I don't agree (I guess it depends on what you're saying), if they strike first, or try to, we keep tabs on everything they do. And with that token, if we strike first we would knock out these sites/weapons first. Thats why our first priority in war is to destroy the infrastructure, and more specifically, the air fields.
The B-52 is a good plane and they have revamped the fleet with current technology. If it ain't broke, why fix it? That is the best carpet bomber in the world. If we needed to launch a first strike, nuclear attack, we would use the B-2. Each plans serves its purpose.
Nukular winter is the Bush Administrations solution to global warming.
Whats your point? The B-52 can carry just about anything. My point has been we shouldn't fear their shotty technology. We spend way too much money on our military. When we went after Iraq in Kuwait they had the most sophisticated Soviet tech at the time (along with the 3rd largest military in the world) and we stomped them. A lot of Soviet weapons are good, don't me wrong, but they are line of sight weapons and this hinders them. An Apache can lob missles over a hill without exposing themselves....the beauty of GPS.
Yeah, it's not like the cargo plane the US Army is most dependent on isn't a turboprop or anything... 
A Tu95 Bear and B52 Stratofortress are fairly evenly matched (and from the same era - zomg!...in fact, the Bear is a year newer. If 1956 is newer). They're both horrendously outdated planes that are falling apart and kept around simply because they're cheap to operate and good to blow up brown people with.
And the Apache doesn't use GPS for beyond-LOS combat, it uses the massive FCR Longbow pod on top of its rotors. Or it uses a Kiowa.
Quit pretending like you know what you're talking about.
On the actual topic of the thread, the Russians are currently involved in some ceremonial cock-waving to make the rusty KGB-types feel better about a military that has been mothballing for the past 15 years. And perhaps to scare off the Chinese.
A Tu95 Bear and B52 Stratofortress are fairly evenly matched (and from the same era - zomg!...in fact, the Bear is a year newer. If 1956 is newer). They're both horrendously outdated planes that are falling apart and kept around simply because they're cheap to operate and good to blow up brown people with.
And the Apache doesn't use GPS for beyond-LOS combat, it uses the massive FCR Longbow pod on top of its rotors. Or it uses a Kiowa.
Quit pretending like you know what you're talking about.
On the actual topic of the thread, the Russians are currently involved in some ceremonial cock-waving to make the rusty KGB-types feel better about a military that has been mothballing for the past 15 years. And perhaps to scare off the Chinese.
UKJ! Glad you're still alive. I ran across this website recently and it reminded me you'd been laying low for awhile on the Monkey: http://www.cimwch.com/
Fixed.
Certainly not the Russians flying bombers containing cruise missiles that an ICBM missile defense system is not designed to handle.
the real question is, why are you bringing two-months old story back to life?
on topic, it may have something to do with this:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1590967,00.html
now with both Ivanov and Medvedov want to be the president of Mother Russia. What better way to please you ex-KGB buddy who also happens to pick the next president than send a few bombers to the UK and say, "hey Limeys, we are still here with nukes"
Oh did I mention Ivanov is the, drum rolls, Minister of Defense? hmm, now who has the power to call out a few bears from hibernation? there is the president, then there is...
Russian politics, transition between leaders in particular may be dirty, but it's an entertaining show. We see tanks shooting at Parliament, Walls collapsing, guys getting drunk(er). It would all be funny if they weren't a member of the Security Council.
the real question is, why are you bringing two-months old story back to life?
on topic, it may have something to do with this:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1590967,00.html
now with both Ivanov and Medvedov want to be the president of Mother Russia. What better way to please you ex-KGB buddy who also happens to pick the next president than send a few bombers to the UK and say, "hey Limeys, we are still here with nukes"
Oh did I mention Ivanov is the, drum rolls, Minister of Defense? hmm, now who has the power to call out a few bears from hibernation? there is the president, then there is...
Russian politics, transition between leaders in particular may be dirty, but it's an entertaining show. We see tanks shooting at Parliament, Walls collapsing, guys getting drunk(er). It would all be funny if they weren't a member of the Security Council.
Not quite mate, please note the storys date.
Also previously the Russian had only used one or two aircraft.... This time they sent 8 directly at the UK mainland, previous ones were not coming straight in.
Bit of a different story this time, I'd say it was a bit more of serious provocation.
Also, keep in mind that America’s defense budget is hitting $450 billion, NOT INCLUDING what we are spending on the war through supplemental funding.
Russia, I think is somewhere around $40 billion. Sure, they have nukes, but as a conventional force, they are still lacking. Their most dangerous weapon is that they control massive amounts of natural resources and the EU is dependent on them for it. Russia has already used it as a political weapon.
Sure the Bear is as old as a B-52, and the B-1 is similar to the Blackjack, but they have nothing similar to the B-2. But our real strength comes in our integrated and digital military. Having trained with a bunch of different armies, man-for-man they are just as good (The Brits and Aussies come to mind as probably better). As a peer of mine from Estonia told me “When you fight the U.S. Army, you have to fight the Marines, Air Force and Navy as well.”
The Air Force and Navy will use this as a reason to justify aircraft carriers, Virgina-class Subs, Littoral Combat ships, F-35's and F-22’s. I could make a case either way for each one. They are having a hard time justifying their budgets since a counter-insurgency is a ground based type of warfare. The bet there are A LOT of generals who are loving this “come-back”.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
I can tell you this, why would anyone want to fight us conventionally, when everyone sees that a couple of artillery rounds with a wire detonator is enough to foil us?
-=R0b=-
Russia, I think is somewhere around $40 billion. Sure, they have nukes, but as a conventional force, they are still lacking. Their most dangerous weapon is that they control massive amounts of natural resources and the EU is dependent on them for it. Russia has already used it as a political weapon.
Sure the Bear is as old as a B-52, and the B-1 is similar to the Blackjack, but they have nothing similar to the B-2. But our real strength comes in our integrated and digital military. Having trained with a bunch of different armies, man-for-man they are just as good (The Brits and Aussies come to mind as probably better). As a peer of mine from Estonia told me “When you fight the U.S. Army, you have to fight the Marines, Air Force and Navy as well.”
The Air Force and Navy will use this as a reason to justify aircraft carriers, Virgina-class Subs, Littoral Combat ships, F-35's and F-22’s. I could make a case either way for each one. They are having a hard time justifying their budgets since a counter-insurgency is a ground based type of warfare. The bet there are A LOT of generals who are loving this “come-back”.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
I can tell you this, why would anyone want to fight us conventionally, when everyone sees that a couple of artillery rounds with a wire detonator is enough to foil us?
-=R0b=-
Surely stuff is going on and being planed on a level that is beyond our collective intelligence gathering together. What came to my mind was that maybe they're not "trying to start a war", or maybe they're not the agressive part at all.
Maybe these Bear flights are answers to something; they could be scared and trying to avoid a war by showing that a victory over them will cost too much to be a victory worth having. We have to remember that the Soviet/Russian/Warsaw Pact defence has always been about defending Voina Rodina (Mother Russia, not sure about spelling).
One thing we know, because your president told us, is that the war on terror is going to go on for indefinate time. The war being about controling natural resources and Russia having plenty, and even more together with its former union countries (which it might feel some possesiveness over), it will probably feel pretty threatened by now.
With the US is fighting in two countries (currently..) pretty close by and controling more and more ex friendly nerghbouring countries (Balticum and Eastern Europe), I would say that they for sure feel threatened.
How hasn't the US reacted as soon as a government in Latin America that was a hint of socialist, or even simply just tried to have a normal diplomatic and trade relationship with the Soviet Union, been classified as hostile and a "threat to the nation"?
Totally out of proportion. Each and one of those governments, many of which were democraticly elected, were overthrown with the help of the US (only places were they've failed is in Cuba and Venezuela).
Looking how the US has reacted when feeling "threatened" a few flights with military planes to mark once precence and readiness is actually pretty normal procedure.
Maybe they're trying to avoid a war?
Maybe these Bear flights are answers to something; they could be scared and trying to avoid a war by showing that a victory over them will cost too much to be a victory worth having. We have to remember that the Soviet/Russian/Warsaw Pact defence has always been about defending Voina Rodina (Mother Russia, not sure about spelling).
One thing we know, because your president told us, is that the war on terror is going to go on for indefinate time. The war being about controling natural resources and Russia having plenty, and even more together with its former union countries (which it might feel some possesiveness over), it will probably feel pretty threatened by now.
With the US is fighting in two countries (currently..) pretty close by and controling more and more ex friendly nerghbouring countries (Balticum and Eastern Europe), I would say that they for sure feel threatened.
How hasn't the US reacted as soon as a government in Latin America that was a hint of socialist, or even simply just tried to have a normal diplomatic and trade relationship with the Soviet Union, been classified as hostile and a "threat to the nation"?
Totally out of proportion. Each and one of those governments, many of which were democraticly elected, were overthrown with the help of the US (only places were they've failed is in Cuba and Venezuela).
Looking how the US has reacted when feeling "threatened" a few flights with military planes to mark once precence and readiness is actually pretty normal procedure.
Maybe they're trying to avoid a war?
I don't think the U.S. is feeling threatened at all. They haven't invaded U.S. airspace, but they have with Norway and Britain. The U.S. doesn’t scramble fighters to shadow these flights, NATO does. We know that the status of the once proud Russia military is a joke. While they do have some very capable systems (RPG-29s, Su-35, MIG-29SMT and the soon-coming SU-50) they do not have the money for training and maintenance. This may change over the next few years, but right now… not so much.
Most countries, with even modest military, conduct regular surveillance flights, to include Russia, China, Japan, Germany, Britain and of course, the U.S.
Europe should be very nervous about a resurgent Russia (I live in Germany), because Europe is at Russia’s mercy in terms of energy. Russia can use that leverage to try and limit or eliminate the EUs interference with its foreign policy.
Most countries, with even modest military, conduct regular surveillance flights, to include Russia, China, Japan, Germany, Britain and of course, the U.S.
Europe should be very nervous about a resurgent Russia (I live in Germany), because Europe is at Russia’s mercy in terms of energy. Russia can use that leverage to try and limit or eliminate the EUs interference with its foreign policy.
Good post.
Your prez hardly shuts up about all those various foreign threats that the US has. There can hardly excist a people that is more scared of "things" than the US-Americans. Well maybe the Jews in Israel. If Russia has invaded US air space? Dunno, I wasn't talking about Russia.
I was talking about how the US has percieved threats from Latin American countries that have had governments that weren't directly socialist hatful. Those governments have been seen as a major threat, and that view wasn't limited to LA alone.
Ever heard of the "domino effect" that would sweep over the globe?
About feeling unease because of the Russians invading territorial space, I live in Sweden and the issues have been so few during all years that they're practicly non excistant (with exception for a sub insident in -82).
In Greece on the other hand (I'm of Greek origin) I haven't been there one single summer where there hasn't been an incident with Turkish fighters invading air space, or when actual dog fights really have happened.
Now both countries are NATO, but the Greeks are scared as this has for decades been a continuous threat from an agressive nation (external and internal policy wise) that out guns the Greeks with upto 4 to 1, and has always had the advantage of being favoured by the US.
In reality this favoritism has meant that they have been "allowed'' to continue with their violations, but also in the way of AMRAAMs for Turkish F16's but not Greek as it would "imbalace the area". That's how big the US influence is in that part of the world.
As I said, Russia/Soviet never consisted a threat to Scandinavia as they were only interested in not living through another catastrophy like an invasion from Nazi Germany, Napoleon or like during the years after the revolution where there was a civil war going on for years in wich the White side was helped from several divisions from western countries.
So the Russians have several reasons to be scared that some western countries again are on the move close to their soil. Millions upon millions of human lives and being bombed several decades of infrastructure back in time for at least a fifth time in 200 years.
You living in Germany I see why you conseder Russias natural gas to be of such importance. The issue is not as big here, and Russia using their non military recourses as a leverage isn't anything unique to their foreign policies.
Seems like "stuff" are ok when we do them but bad and totally different when others immitate them..
Didn't claim I knew all of the tech with plane, I was illustrating a point that using prop planes as a long range bomber is outdated...on average prop planes are slower than jets. And regardless, its an attempted show of strength....they are flexing what muscle they have (which isn't much). And if the B52 is so outdated why does the Air Force intends to keep the B-52 in service until at least 2040?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress
<edit> I would fear China more, article is a bit old http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1019rumsfeld19.html
but if the $50 billion number for Russia is correct China is spending almost double that.
Your point was....? This still goes towards my point...prop planes are slower than jets. I fail to see how you even have an argument.
and so what will the UK do about it?Not quite mate, please note the storys date.
Also previously the Russian had only used one or two aircraft.... This time they sent 8 directly at the UK mainland, previous ones were not coming straight in.
Bit of a different story this time, I'd say it was a bit more of serious provocation.
I maintain that these tactics are all a part of the transition between presidents(notice I didn't say election), nothing more. The last thing the Russians need is to lose income from the gas fields due to a war with NATO.
There is a fine line walked....The Russians need the gas money, but countries like the Ukraine will die without the gas. So Russia tries to pressure these former USSR countries by withholding gas, but they can't hold out too long becuase they lose money and cause serious problems within Russia.and so what will the UK do about it?
I maintain that these tactics are all a part of the transition between presidents(notice I didn't say election), nothing more. The last thing the Russians need is to lose income from the gas fields due to a war with NATO.
The fact that it's only 60 knots slower than the american equivalent makes his point relevant
The fact that it uses's props is the not really an issue, it works just as well as a jet for getting the plane from A to B.
As a ultra long range maritime recon and stand off weapons platform (ie it sits 200 miles away and fires 20 missiles at you) the bear is still highly effective. And one of the very few things that put's the sh*ts up an aircraft carrier group
For maritime recon it's as good or better than the western equivalent the orion due to superior range, speed and payload.
I wrote this before but it is normal tactics for countries, and especially powerful countries to do so. The UK and the US continued doing it to IRAQ until it was ridiculous. Just as an example.
About the Bear vs B-52. The difference isn't that big that it seemed to mind the Soviets when they planed to build it. The B-52 being 1 year older must have given them sufficient time to decide wether to counter that with similar engines or turbo prop.
Dunno for sure but I bet turbo prop gives better milage, and that may have to do with their decission. In the end it's enough if they get 3000km from their target to let their load go (if it's those missiles Silver linked to).
I think we need to get away from prop vs. jet! They are both fine platforms for they are used for! 
What the heck was the original topic of debate? Because I cant open the link that started this thread, all Ive gotten is that there is some guy from Sweden pissed off at the US about Latin America, some dude pissed off that someone got Bears and -52s mixed up, and this guy (Me 
just kinda confused. Though that might be the sun! :huh:
Though Im always up for debate next topic
What the heck was the original topic of debate? Because I cant open the link that started this thread, all Ive gotten is that there is some guy from Sweden pissed off at the US about Latin America, some dude pissed off that someone got Bears and -52s mixed up, and this guy (Me 
just kinda confused. Though that might be the sun! :huh: Though Im always up for debate next topic
Summary:
Everybody thinks it is an agressive move from Russia to be sending bombers with Nuclear armed missiles towards UK, guy from Sweden said it might be a reaction to something that they found agressive and made them scared as there is a lot of fighting aswell as overtaking of previous friendly countries in their near or emediate neighbourhood.
Guy from Sweden also pointed out that those are the things that we know of and that there probably is a lot of stuff that hasn't come up to surface yet (or might not ever).
Everybody thinks it is an agressive move from Russia to be sending bombers with Nuclear armed missiles towards UK, guy from Sweden said it might be a reaction to something that they found agressive and made them scared as there is a lot of fighting aswell as overtaking of previous friendly countries in their near or emediate neighbourhood.
Guy from Sweden also pointed out that those are the things that we know of and that there probably is a lot of stuff that hasn't come up to surface yet (or might not ever).
Cut from your article:
$90 billion is a **** load to spend on weapons for sure.
From the same atricle:
Maybe those $470 billion dollars are the reason the Chinese are increasing their defence budget? It's still 5 times as much as the Chinese are spending, how can Rumsfeld even think that the increased US defence spending since 911 wouldn't lead to reactions?
Fear China? I fear the US five times more. Chinas 300.000 more soldiers aren't going to do them any good looking at the massive numbers IRAQ had in the 1st Gulf war agaist the coalition.
Take into perspective that 1.7 million soldiers out of a population of 1.32 billion. The US has 1.4 million soldiers out of a population of 0.3 billion. Looking at the US on that thing alone one comes to the conclusion that it's not peace they're after, but that is just one thing out of a lot of things that indicate the theoretical/actual hostility of the US.
so ire. are you saying that the orion, the spectre, the hercules, and the hawkeye are all out of date simply because they are prop driven? in a long range strategic bomber speed is not the issue. so whats the point in using a jet engine if you can get the same payload capacity as a jet. and since jet engines are the end all be all then why does the b-52 need 8 jets when the tu-95 uses 4 turboprops?
the you should look into the fixed exchange ratio and the concept of "purchasing power"
you can buy a lot more stuff in china with 90 billion than 410 billion in the western world. it's just a simple fact.
the standard to measure how much the country is spending on military is the military spending to GDP ratio, not just the amount in terms of dollar alone.
Ooooohhhh... pretty colors...