Russia's new supersonic bomber can outrun Britain's best fighter jet

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Only thing that Russians don't need to make are more air to air missiles in case of Britain.

Well your HMS Queen Elizabeth is still haunted with no planes... as US still struggles with their most shameful F-35 Taxpayer pardon Lightening 2 program. This thing is just getting more than comic . Why the Pentagon top executives haven't been lynched for such a fact. Even Swedish JAS 39 Gripen is better, at least it flies and doesn't catch fire (not even talking about the price )

the Queen has the Typhoon

http://www.eurofighter.com/

 

[TheFinalFrontEar]

have a look at this news article

http://rt.com/op-edge/234231-nato-russia-uk-planes/

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

have a look at this news article

http://rt.com/op-edge/234231-nato-russia-uk-planes/

That Sir......is a very good find.

 

[TheFinalFrontEar]

@Ferrum Master Possibly so but they don't have the best army in the world!

God Save The Queen

 

[Ferrum Master]

the Queen has the Typhoon

Well I am actually very pleased to see Eurofighter, I like that machine, it could be less French thou.

have a look at this news article

http://rt.com/op-edge/234231-nato-russia-uk-planes/

let him reconsider the facts about what they do actually in Baltic sea not only the air over my head. An official bla bla. The cases interrupting our air territory has increased many times. In year 2014 NATO fighters located in Lithuania had to be scrambled 150!!! times to guide Russian forces out of our airspace. That's 3x times more the amount of 2013. And the official response from our local embassy was exactly the same.

 

[Countryside]

http://laaake.com/index.php?lang=en

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

The Tupolev Tu-160 (NATO designation Blackjack) was developed during the Cold War. This strategic bomber was intended to attack the most important American targets. Dwarfing the similar-looking B-1B Lancer, it is the largest and heaviest combat aircraft ever built.

The Tu-160 carries cruise and land attack missiles, fitted with conventional or nuclear warheads. This bomber can also carry free-fall bombs with a maximum weight of up to 40 t in place of the missiles. It has a range of 14 500 km.

It is believed that production totaled no more than 39 aircraft. This aircraft was extremely expensive to build and to maintain. Some sources claim that Russia currently operates only 16 of these strategic bombers.


Blackjack

http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/tupolev_tu160_blackjack.htm

Concordski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144


B-1B

http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/b_1b_lancer.htm

 

[Tatty_Two]

Starstreak

Unless my eyes are failing, which is quite possible at my age, that looks like Starstreak 1 not 2....... might be wrong...... it's been a while.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

• Russian President Putin is about to unleash a new supersonic bomber

• The Blackjack will be able to outrun the RAF's fastest fighter jets

• Last month Russian Bear aircraft were spotted on sorties near Cornwall

• But Blackjack is three times faster than the Bear and can fly four times further than the fighters that make up UK's Quick Reaction Alert squadrons

• The Russian aircraft has a range of 7,600 miles without refuelling

the full article is here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bomber-outrun-Britain-s-best-fighter-jet.html

A typhoon can already match its pace the actual op says so.
I don't think the point of a fighter is to follow a bomber ie it would be up and on this things tail fine over uk airspace imho missiles travel quicker than it too.
Now why did we swap vulcan for polaris that's right cos of cost and practicality since an icbm launched incognito is harder to intercept than a plane.

 

[ShiBDiB]

the tu-160 has been around since the 80's.... This is far from a new aircraft.. That's like calling an upgraded B-52 a new aircraft.

And like has already been said, any large bombers such as this will get smoked by modern A2A or G2A missiles. That's why stand off weapons are utilized which you don't really need speed to use.

This is just the russian propaganda machine + incompetent misinformed journalism at work.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

the tu-160 has been around since the 80's.... This is far from a new aircraft.. That's like calling an upgraded B-52 a new aircraft.

And like has already been said, any large bombers such as this will get smoked by modern A2A or G2A missiles. That's why stand off weapons are utilized which you don't really need speed to use.

This is just the russian propaganda machine + incompetent misinformed journalism at work.

I think the news in the US is reported differently. This has been quite a story here because the Russian aircraft have been so visible.

The invasion of airspace has long been an issue......correct me if i am wrong but if memory serves, the US started it.

 

[Peter1986C]

Knowing Russia, they probably have about 3 of these. They like to make a lot of high tech prototypes that don't actually get beyond the demonstration phase just for bragging rights... kinda the opposite of the west which keeps such things under wraps.

I mean, have they even actually widely deployed the T-90 series of tanks yet? Didn't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90#Operators Enough said.

 

[R-T-B]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90#Operators

I'll confess, it's more widely deployed than I expected... but that's still not a huge number compared to say the infamous T-72.

I am somewhat surprised they already have 30 of these bombers produced though. I guess when you spend so much on military as Russia does, it doesn't matter if your GDP is lower than it could be, shit happens.

EDIT: Woo, post 1000. Do I get a prize?

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

I'll confess, it's more widely deployed than I expected... but that's still not a huge number compared to say the infamous T-72.

I am somewhat surprised they already have 30 of these bombers produced though. I guess when you spend so much on military as Russia does, it doesn't matter if your GDP is lower than it could be, shit happens.

EDIT: Woo, post 1000. Do I get a prize?

An interesting thing i found
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/07/10/10-countries-spending-the-most-on-the-military/



you may not get a prize but you can certainly have one of these.

Spoiler: Cheers

 

[R-T-B]

That better not be badger piss.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

i have way too much respect for you, it is a rather delicious tipple btw.

 

[Peter1986C]

I'll confess, it's more widely deployed than I expected... but that's still not a huge number compared to say the infamous T-72.

I am somewhat surprised they already have 30 of these bombers produced though. I guess when you spend so much on military as Russia does, it doesn't matter if your GDP is lower than it could be, shit happens.

EDIT: Woo, post 1000. Do I get a prize?

Different era pal.

 

[dorsetknob]

Ah My Local Brewery grew up Drinking (and throwing up thro overdrinking) Badger Beer

Edit
Did you know this brewery is one year younger than the USA been Brewing since 1777

 

[R-T-B]

Different era pal.

Oh I know the T-72 is a completely different timeline, but it's still the main battletank in a surprising number of places. It's running all over the globe to this day... It's like the AK-47 of battletanks.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Oh I know the T-72 is a completely different timeline, but it's still the main battletank in a surprising number of places. It's running all over the globe to this day... It's like the AK-47 of battletanks.

The name ie platform doesn't matter, if ain't broken, don't fix it, depends on the mod it actually has. Like I said, Poland evolved their T-72 pretty nice [PT-91]. Evolving same platform costs much less than creating new one, considering risks, and the damn critter actually won't work. A ploughing tractor must remain a ploughing tractor... Just as Eurofighter program evolves.

meanwhile speaking of tractors...

 

[Steevo]

I am beginning to feel like the 80's is coming back around again.

Its like WHAM,

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EOK91SO/?tag=tec06d-20

and it makes me feel ill.

Now we have the impotent threat of a crumbling dictatorship with unstable assholes at the helm, and thats just the US........

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Starstreak

I was going to say that before I edited it out. Reason: this bomber travels too fast and too high for it to be of any use against it. Starstreak is designed mostly for helicopters and other low-flying aircraft. I think it is also effective against ground targets like armored personnel carriers.

 

[Ferrum Master]

For those critters LR-SAM missles are used... euther ship, ground....

Look an example...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak_8

Engine: Two stage, smokeless pulsed rocket motor.
Wingspan: 0.94 m
Operational range: 0.5–70 km
Flight ceiling: 0–16 km
Speed: Mach 2 (680 m/s)
Guidance system: Two way data link[4], Active RF/IIR seeker[4]

 

[FordGT90Concept]

MIM-104 Patriot is the global, primary defense against all aircraft (ballistic missiles too) especially including all Russian-built bombers. Mach 5 and 70+ km (43.5+ miles) range. It would be destroyed before it can pose a serious threat.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Straight from Wiki so may not be entirely accurate @FordGT90Concept from your link

On 15 February 1991, President George H. W. Bush traveled to Raytheon's Patriot manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts, during the Gulf War, he declared, the "Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!"[32] The President's claimed success rate was thus over 97% to that point in the war. The U.S. Army claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel. Those claims were eventually scaled back to 70% and 40%.

On 7 April 1992 Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University testified before a House Committee stating that, according to their independent analysis of video tapes, the Patriot system had a success rate of below 10%, and perhaps even a zero success rate