The external pylons carry 10 cruise missiles and the internal bat carries a rotary 8 cruise missile. Each cruise missile has the Raduga Kh-55 ALCM with a 200 kiloton bomb with the range of 3,000 km.Multiply that by 8 bombers.
Posted on 12/28/2009 1:49:48 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
So? Why should we stop them from wasting their money flying these things around? Fly 100 of them if they like.
Dunno what they hope to accomplish, but good for them!
what they accomplish is to keep nuclear weapons airborne at all times, complicating any defense against their strikes if ordered
It used to be called a TRIAD, back in the days when we used to do it, too
the russians can smell the weakness coming out of the white house, and are making a play to capitalize.
Russia increases the activity of one of their purely offensive weapons platforms and it is “acceptable”, but we try to deploy a purely defensive weapons platform in Eastern Europe and it is an “uncalled for escalation of American aggression and Imperialism”.
I think there’s a lot of idiots in the world who just think whatever it is they’re told to think. That’s the only explanation I can come up with for the lack of outrage over this from the so-called anti-war Left.
So are they planning on a first strike?
I’d say wouldn’t stand a chance against our air defenses, but I don’t think we have any...
Let’s just say we used to keep ours airborne too, as a deterrent - just so someone wouldn’t think they could take us down with a first strike on the land based silos, and a as a backup to the subs, who couldn’t carry the same weapons to within the same range and who may have been a tad less responsive to rapid emergency communications (boomer can weigh in here)
We still have the subs (assuming the Russian haven’t figured out how to neutralize them)
But heck, now we have obama as a deterrent, who would want to attack us anyway
Why the Russians feel they need to do this - interesting question. They apparently do have a network of recovery bases if they needed them- perhaps now Venezuela
The airspace will be less safe with more Russian airborne clunkers fly around shedding fasteners, wing panels, vodka bottles amd chunks from the loo.
AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHH!! I'm going to have nightmares for a week over that remark.
I know we kept some bombers airborne at all times, and that we don’t do so now. I just don’t see why the Russians would bother. We’re completely wussified by our current administration. They could get whatever they want by having a bunch of Young Pioneers yell “Racism” in front of some TV cameras.
If I were as short on cash as the Sov, er, Russkis were, I wouldn’t be inflicting the wear and tear on the bombers and the fuel cost of the patrols. Not unless there were some SERIOUS tensions...
Maybe they’re just trying to draw attention away from the failure of their Bulava SLBM.
What, from 4 to 8? /s =.=
Except that the article goes on to state that these are recon missions designed to pinpoint our carrier groups. Doesn’t sound like strategic triad type mission.
On Mil Channel, program on Bombers they were talking about how noisy the ruski junk bombers, “Bear” I think, were with those counter rotating props. Turns out they could be detected and tracked by our subs because of the very high noise levels.
Everything about russian mil, sort of like the Chevy Chase of militaries!
With cruise missiles, they are both potent weapons.Both of these bombers will still be here well into the 21st century.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.