Russia sends out 14 long-haul bombers

Herald Sun ^ | 18 August 2007

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Since we had to give them economic aid to pay for their transition from communism, aid for them keep track of their nukes, additional aid to borrow money to buy grain from us, more aid to build their section of the ISS and still more aid to support the resupply missions, its a good question.

Are WE paying them to fly these missions?

[GOP_1900AD]

It’s those counterrotating props. They are making mini sonic booms.

[GOP_1900AD]

Certainly there are parts in any turbine engine (the ones used for these planes are turboprops) that have a shelf life. One overhaul cycle, and assuming there are no corrosion issues, and good to go. Worst case, replace the engines with newer whiz bang versions, made with newer materials and having higher reliability.

[GOP_1900AD]

While it is amusing to imagine the Bear as a slow, piston driven craft, it actually is the world’s fastest turboprop, with a top speed of 575 MPH. That is faster than certain straight up jet commercial craft, especially some of these newer “fuel efficient” types.

[GOP_1900AD]

The B-52 was launched one year earlier. Our 52s will be 70 or 80 years old when we muster them out. Some of the Bears were built as recently as the 90s. The world’s most advanced turboprop planes. Some may wonder, why turboprops instead of straight up jets? Range.

[GOP_1900AD]

But at least some of them are new than ours. With proper maintenance, they will last until at least 2040.

[GOP_1900AD]

In fact, a Tu-95 approach was happening on 9/11! That was a definite factor.

[GOP_1900AD]

I’m also wondering about Nicaragua, vis a vis the West Coast. I need to go and do the math, but with a tanker top off near the Aleutians, I believe it would be in range from Kamchatka.

[GOP_1900AD]

How do you know they didn’t use new parts?

[GOP_1900AD]

Indeed, the real deal here would be stand off .... Kh-55s (or other cruise missiles).

[GOP_1900AD]

The parts plants may still be cranking.

[GOP_1900AD]

First strike wins.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


JohnA,


The Soviet Union won about 70% of WWII. Get over it.


You're certainly correct about massive Russian and civilian casulaties ... due to Stalin's inept military strategy and genocidal purges.


But don't mistake "carnage by the millions" for the better organized and more efficient victories by the U.S. and Great Britian ... across North Africa, Italy and France.


In comparison, all the Soviets had to do was watch Hitler made incredibly stupid decisions ... while a few murderous Russian Winters helped destroy the German Army campaigning in Russia.


A great Russian victory ... compared to the Allies ... or even the defeated Germans ?


What a myth !


The Russians faced "zero" logistical and supply hurdles, except the American and British convoys that sacrificed scores of merchant ships to bail-out Stalin.


Face it ... the Americas and the Germans were the "overall" best serious ass-kickers of WWII ... followed by the (otherwise) barbaric Japanese ...




Patton-at-Bastogne

"May God and His Angels Guard Your Sacred Throne, and May You Long Become It."

Shakespeare, Henry V, Act I, Scene II


.

[Ax]

I hadn’t considered Nicaragua. Not even sure if there are any airfields in Nicaragua capable of handling those Russian bombers. Did these guys land at Managua during the 80s? I got stuck at Managua in 1987 when San Jose was socked in. I didn’t see anything bigger than an Mi-8, I think. That would be one hell of a long flight from Kamchatka, even with air-to-air refueling. Somehow, I don’t think they’d be too welcome if they put down at Elmendorf or Eilson and asked for a top-off.

[GOP_1900AD]

Top off would be via Russian or Chinese tanker. Range wise, tankers of that ilk could probably get to Adak or further, prior to reaching the turn around point. From there, it would be down to the 95’s range. I need to look it up.

[GOP_1900AD]

Range is 8100 NM. That would allow reaching Cuba from the North Pacific, let alone Nicaragua. May even be able to reach Venezuela.

[Ax]

That crew would be worn out by the time they got to CONUS. Longest flight I ever did was non-stop Cairo-JFK. It took 12 hours and I was just sitting there. But occasionally I could get up and stretch my legs, or sit back down and watch a movie. I’ll bet those Tu-95s are not built for crew comfort. I’ve never been on a B-52, but I’ve got some time in C-141s and C-130s, and they sure aren’t built for PAX comfort.

[PsyOp]

How do you know they didn’t use new parts?

I don't. But the bear bomber is very long in the tooth, and I don't think any new ones have rolled off a Tupolev production line in quite a few years. If they are new parts, they are left over from previous production runs.

Besides, canning old birds to keep others flying is a time honored military aviation practice (there as well as here). It is the most cost effective way to keep older aircraft flying.

[GOP_1900AD]

There was active production as recently as 10 years ago. You can’t say that about B-52s.

[PsyOp]

That sounds about right. I figured sometime in the 90’s. The one flying are probably the newest. And even so there may well have been canned parts on them depending on what maintenance was like.

They may have rolled out ten years ago, but hey may also have spent most of that time sitting on the tarmac in the weather, receiving little or no maintenance.

One the big problems the Russian Airforce had after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, was that it had no money to pay pilots or buy fuel to fly. The bulk of their airforce was all but grounded for a long time.

As for the Buff, the havn’t made new ones for many years, but they have completely remanufactured the old ones from the ground up to the point they might as well be new planes.