US Intercepts Russian Jets - Page 6

omon · 03-29-2008, 19:36 PM

just realized it, those bombers we talking about (bears) are NOT jets. unlike the name of the thread

HistoricalDavid · 03-29-2008, 20:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by omon

just realized it, those bombers we talking about (bears) are NOT jets. unlike the name of the thread

They use turboprops. Close enough.

glyn · 03-30-2008, 05:33 AM

A turboprop is also a gas turbine engine ( a 'jet' ), but one designed to utilise the propeller ( for a variety of reasons but especially economy ).

HistoricalDavid · 03-30-2008, 07:47 AM

Looking at the diagram I would describe it as a jet engine with a propeller stuck on the front and the exhaust diverted.

Zemco · 03-30-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella

I'm not a military professional, but I'm going to have to assume that even a shoulder fired rocket could hit the T-95.

It certainly could, provided you were standing outside on the wing of another aircraft and you managed to reach the Tu-95's launch point before it did, assuming you knew the location of the launch point in advance.

The Tu-95s primarily supported the navy. They had two variants for recon, one for electronic warfare (think EP-3), anti-sub warfare (like a P-3), and the attack versions carried 16 Kh-65s or 6 Kh-15s or 2 Kh-22s (cruise missiles).

Silent Hunter · 03-30-2008, 10:40 AM

I think we ought to take the Tu-95 v. B-52 discussion to Aviation and will start a thread now.

glyn · 03-30-2008, 15:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Looking at the diagram I would describe it as a jet engine with a propeller stuck on the front and the exhaust diverted.

That's it, in a nutshell.

Bella · 04-01-2008, 19:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinister

-As you already posted yourself where exactly does the B-52 have a huge advantage? They are pretty much the same , plus the Tu-142 is a very useful platform for naval activity.
-Whats with faster and bigger range weapons??? Try Kh-22 or Kh-55 variants of Bears and you got a bomber with supersonic or 3000km range cruise missiles where exactly do yours compare to? , now tell me if that doesn't sound useful to you? Even without them , even without anything but simple bombs you got yourself a strategic bomber that nobody but Russia or the USA has , and strategic bombers have proven themselves to be everything but useless.
-Old bomber? the bombers have been upgraded several times and they are far from being old , same goes for B-52 , you got a bomber that was created several decades ago but all the versions are upgraded to very modern standards and are not the 50's bombers anymore
-What are you talking about?? no man portable anti air systems can reach 39,000 feet

To other ppl im not comparing B-52 and Tu-95 because B-52 is better overall in my opinion but the Tu-95 does not fall that much behind too call it useless , and I suggest you go read more articles on the Bear because you don't seem to know much about it calling it useless and bad.

Sinister,

Look!, I KNOW THAT BOTH BOMBERS ARE ABOUT THE SAME AGE!! The only thing I was saying, AGAIN, is that the Tu-95, "LOOKS", like something from WWII. That's all!! That's all!! AGAIN!!! That's all!!!

For my statement about being hit by a portable anti-aircraft system, "I WAS ONLY JOKING!" I guess you were the only person that took it seriously.

Lastly, WHEN DID "I" EVER CALL THE TU-95 USELESS??? Please tell me??? Review, and look back at my statements!! I Never! Ever! stated that!!

I tell you what, "Maybe you should "Read" past statements before accusing other formers of saying things they "NEVER" said!!!!!!!!!!"

HistoricalDavid · 04-01-2008, 21:27 PM

FFS, the Tu-95 may old and crusty but properly employed it is still a very long-ranged nuclear delivery platform. Leave it at that.

Sinister · 04-02-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella

Sinister,

Look!, I KNOW THAT BOTH BOMBERS ARE ABOUT THE SAME AGE!! The only thing I was saying, AGAIN, is that the Tu-95, "LOOKS", like something from WWII. That's all!! That's all!! AGAIN!!! That's all!!!

For my statement about being hit by a portable anti-aircraft system, "I WAS ONLY JOKING!" I guess you were the only person that took it seriously.

Lastly, WHEN DID "I" EVER CALL THE TU-95 USELESS??? Please tell me??? Review, and look back at my statements!! I Never! Ever! stated that!!

I tell you what, "Maybe you should "Read" past statements before accusing other formers of saying things they "NEVER" said!!!!!!!!!!"

Why are you getting all upset , I read what you wrote and reply'd thats what forum is all about isn't it? I don't understand why your getting all upset , I don't see in your head how am I supposed to know when your serius and when your joking?

Zemco · 04-04-2008, 14:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

FFS, the Tu-95 may old and crusty but properly employed it is still a very long-ranged nuclear delivery platform. Leave it at that.

No doubt about that, but I think this is a classic case of misinformation, perhaps even disinformation. The Russians wouldn't send bombers, instead they would send the EW variants to look at electromagnetic signatures, radar frequencies and voice/data communications, just like the US would do (and does).

Indirect Fire · 04-04-2008, 18:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adux

Where these the Blackjacks or the Badgers.

Probably EW Badgers. The Blackjacks fell apart years ago. What a waste of such a good plane....

Silent Hunter · 04-05-2008, 14:33 PM

The Tu-160s are still around. More are being built.

Bella · 04-05-2008, 23:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinister

Why are you getting all upset , I read what you wrote and reply'd thats what forum is all about isn't it? I don't understand why your getting all upset , I don't see in your head how am I supposed to know when your serius and when your joking?

Sinister,

I give you that about how I was joking. I guess the only thing I was trying to say is that the plane "LOOKS" old. That's all. I know it is a very good bomber. The Russians have been producing great bombers and fighters for a long time! I apologize if I came off upset, but I never called the bomber useless!

Cheers!!

Bella · 04-11-2008, 02:23 AM

By the way!!......For all of you military experts, I've know that the Tu-95 has overflown carrier battle groups, and I've also heard that the Tu-95 has penetrated U.S. airspace in Alaska.....
I have a few quick questions.

#1. Has America ever flown nuclear bombers over Russia within the past 5 years?

#2. Has the U.S. ever flown fighters, or bombers over a Russian naval force?

#3. Did Russia do this fly over because the U.S. wants to set up a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe?

In regards to my last question, the U.S. has been "TALKING" about a missile shield in Eastern Europe, but hasn't installed it.
If Russia is mad about this, then why did they fly over a U.S. carrier group?
In my opinion, "Actions speak louder than words".
Russia is talking, "That the U.S. is reviving the Cold War", but the U.S. is stating that, "It's for Rouge nations like Iran and North Korea."

#4. If Russia is upset about this, "Is it because of the loss of weapon sales to these countries ,that Russia depends on for money, that will become obsolete?"

#5. If the U.S. flew over "Siberia", or a "Russian naval group", would the U.S. plane be shot down?

To those military experts, "I'm sorry for my questions that you might think as dumb, but I'm just curious!"

To me, I read, "Chinese Sub surfaces among U.S. fleet!", and, "Russian bombers buzz Carrier battle group!"
Then I think, are China, and Russia taking advantage of the U.S. forces that are stretched thin, to operate training exercises against the U.S.?
Or!, Just showing their might to the rest of the world to get noticed?

The only thing I know, is that if the U.S. did what Russia, or China did, the U.S. would be labeled as a over increasingly hostile nation.

Please, no smart*ss remarks!! I'm being very humble here!!

03-29-2008, 19:36 PM	#76 (permalink)
omon Field mechanik *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-01-06 Location: bk Posts: 1,793 Country:	just realized it, those bombers we talking about (bears) are NOT jets. unlike the name of the thread __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

03-30-2008, 05:33 AM	#78 (permalink)
glyn *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 5,875	A turboprop is also a gas turbine engine ( a 'jet' ), but one designed to utilise the propeller ( for a variety of reasons but especially economy ). __________________ Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Top Ten Chinese Military Modernization Developments	oneman28	International Defense Topics	95	05-07-2008 20:39 PM
Russian facism	Alamgir	Current Affairs	7	04-23-2008 16:16 PM
Russia on the march - again	Ray	The Western Alliance	312	02-14-2008 19:18 PM
Greatest Turkish Empires	AlpErTunga	Ancient & Medieval	177	01-12-2008 07:49 AM
Analysis: Chechnya	Ironduke	The Western Alliance	1	05-07-2004 10:36 AM

03-30-2008, 07:47 AM	#79 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid Distant Deeps or Skies *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-19-05 Location: North London, UK Posts: 1,916 Country:	Looking at the diagram I would describe it as a jet engine with a propeller stuck on the front and the exhaust diverted.

03-30-2008, 10:40 AM	#81 (permalink)
Silent Hunter Contributor Join Date: 08-09-07 Location: London, UK Posts: 471 Country:	I think we ought to take the Tu-95 v. B-52 discussion to Aviation and will start a thread now.

04-01-2008, 21:27 PM	#84 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid Distant Deeps or Skies *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-19-05 Location: North London, UK Posts: 1,916 Country:	FFS, the Tu-95 may old and crusty but properly employed it is still a very long-ranged nuclear delivery platform. Leave it at that.

04-05-2008, 14:33 PM	#88 (permalink)
Silent Hunter Contributor Join Date: 08-09-07 Location: London, UK Posts: 471 Country:	The Tu-160s are still around. More are being built.

04-11-2008, 02:23 AM	#90 (permalink)
Bella Patron Join Date: 09-03-07 Location: Chicago Posts: 260 Country:	By the way!!......For all of you military experts, I've know that the Tu-95 has overflown carrier battle groups, and I've also heard that the Tu-95 has penetrated U.S. airspace in Alaska..... I have a few quick questions. #1. Has America ever flown nuclear bombers over Russia within the past 5 years? #2. Has the U.S. ever flown fighters, or bombers over a Russian naval force? #3. Did Russia do this fly over because the U.S. wants to set up a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe? In regards to my last question, the U.S. has been "TALKING" about a missile shield in Eastern Europe, but hasn't installed it. If Russia is mad about this, then why did they fly over a U.S. carrier group? In my opinion, "Actions speak louder than words". Russia is talking, "That the U.S. is reviving the Cold War", but the U.S. is stating that, "It's for Rouge nations like Iran and North Korea." #4. If Russia is upset about this, "Is it because of the loss of weapon sales to these countries ,that Russia depends on for money, that will become obsolete?" #5. If the U.S. flew over "Siberia", or a "Russian naval group", would the U.S. plane be shot down? To those military experts, "I'm sorry for my questions that you might think as dumb, but I'm just curious!" To me, I read, "Chinese Sub surfaces among U.S. fleet!", and, "Russian bombers buzz Carrier battle group!" Then I think, are China, and Russia taking advantage of the U.S. forces that are stretched thin, to operate training exercises against the U.S.? Or!, Just showing their might to the rest of the world to get noticed? The only thing I know, is that if the U.S. did what Russia, or China did, the U.S. would be labeled as a over increasingly hostile nation. Please, no smart*ss remarks!! I'm being very humble here!!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)