[sStevenRitziI]

Here we have a Canadian jet intercepting and causing the obsolete Russian craft to wet its pants:

[NaMbessemab]

They flew away like Russian cowards.

[BloofPailafum]

Cowards? I would think it would take very brave pilots indeed to violate airspace unescorted in those aircraft.

[AlissBart]

Russia is a road apple, it is weak, it is feeble!

[rfceicizgm]

[otheloComRole]

Bashing Russia, when it has accomplished more in 20 years, than Canada has in its entire existence.

[AntonayPina]

Eh, long after F-22's have been scrapped as obsolete, those things will still be flying.

Is that a finnish Hornet? Looks to have a blue and white roundrel, or what you call those. Awfully small, though.

[Kayacterype]

bingo !

[DYjLN8rF]

The air frames are around 50 years old but EVERYTHING on them are fairly new. Big air planes are like big ships they cost a lot so you keep upgrading them. Most air craft carriers have a life span of around 50 years too but everything is constantly being upgraded.

Given that the Tupolevs aren't even jet powered it doesn't seem like they're all that useful in a modern military context.

[Erunsenef]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Eh, long after F-22's have been scrapped as obsolete, those things will still be flying.

Is that a finnish Hornet? Looks to have a blue and white roundrel, or what you call those. Awfully small, though. Are you referring to the plane that says "Canada" on the side of it?

[raspirator]

I find it amusing that Russia gets its panties in a twist when we propose building an inconsequential defensive missile base nowhere near them, while at the same time flying actual offensive bombers over our assets/airspace and saying "what?".

[Peretool]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I find it amusing that Russia gets its panties in a twist when we propose building an inconsequential defensive missile base nowhere near them, while at the same time flying actual offensive bombers over our assets/airspace and saying "what?". Because the best defence is to do an offensive, so planning for defensive stuff means that you're actually going to attack /logic

[Kingerix]

Originally posted by Wezil


They miss being a superpower. The US will experience this angst someday. what's to miss about it? the absurdly expensive foreign adventures? Being hated by all foreigners?

I can't imagine why the people of any country actually want their country to be a superpower. There is almost no upside.

[yWleIJm4]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Given that the Tupolevs aren't even jet powered it doesn't seem like they're all that useful in a modern military context. What, like the Hercules?



or it's Spectre variant:



Or the Hawkeye:



or the Orion:



All of which are also Turboprop aircraft in current active US military duty?

[saumemeva]

Transports and radar planes don't need to go fast. Bombers do.

[economex]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Do you have the concept that while the US' domestic fossil fuel reserves are gradually dwindling, Russia is sitting on a massive bonanza of untapped wealth... Canada's is bigger.

[fuesquemill]

Yes, which is why I put in the Sprectre AC-130 GUNSHIP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130

which sees combact on a daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But you seem unable to understand that a Bomber is not out there to win a speed contest. That is not its point:

Here are the performance specs of a Jet, the B-52:

Performance
Maximum speed: 560 kt (650 mph, 1,000 km/h)
Combat radius: 4,480 mi (3,890 NM, 7,210 km)
Ferry range: 11,000 mi (9,560 nm, 15,000 km)
Service ceiling 50,000 ft (17,000 m)
Rate of climb: 6,270 ft/min.[74] (31.85 m/s)
Wing loading: 30 lb/ft² (150 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.51
Lift-to-drag ratio: 21.5 (estimated)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52

versus this horriblr non-Jet:

Performance
Maximum speed: 925 km/h (500 kt, 575 mph)
Range: 15,000 km (8,100 nm, 9,400 mi)
Service ceiling 12,000 m (39,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 10 m/s (2,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 606 kg/m² (124 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 235 W/kg (0.143 hp/lb)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-95

That 75mph difference doesn't mean **** really if either of those aircraft were to be intercepted by ANY modern fighter carrying missiles.

What is more significant is the service ceiling, range, and payload differences.

[Cxcvvfbgtr]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Transports and radar planes don't need to go fast. Bombers do. So is that why the US continued with the XB-70 program?

Oh, wait, that got cancelled.

No bomber with a payload worth carrying will ever go faster than a modern interceptor or the missiles they carry, which is why the US went the stealth route.

The B-2 barely goes Mach 1, while even a MIG-21 can go Mach 2.

[Pasy]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, which is why I put in the Sprectre AC-130 GUNSHIP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130

which sees combact on a daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But you seem unable to understand that a Bomber is not out there to win a speed contest. That is not its point: Actually, GePap, high speed bombers are absolutely important. Isn't that kind of the point behind mutually assured destruction?

Why do you think the US spends billions on these kinds of planes:

[xLQLRcXh]

Originally posted by Asher

Actually, GePap, high speed bombers are absolutely important. Isn't that kind of the point behind mutually assured destruction? Maybe you forget that nothing is faster than an ICBM in delivering a nuclear bomb to a city, and the nice thing about an ICBM is no chance to intercept as of today. Same can't be said about any plane.

And as for fast bombers, the Russians did spend billion on this puppy, the Tu-160



Oh, and by the way, the specs for the B-1:

Performance
Maximum speed:

At sea level: Mach 0.92 (700 mph, 1,130 km/h)
At altitude: Mach 1.25 (950 mph, 1,529 km/h)
Combat radius: 2,993 nm (3,445 mi, 5,543 km)
Maximum range: 6,478 nm (7,456 mi, 11,998 km)
Service ceiling 60,000 ft (18,000 m)
Wing loading: 167 lb/ft² (816 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.37
Fuel capacity, optional: 10,000 U.S. gal (38,000 L) fuel tank for 1-3 internal weapons bays each

and the TU-160

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05[15] (2,220 km/h, 1,380 mph, 1,200 knots) at high altitude
Range: 17,400 km (9,400 nm, 10,800 mi) unrefueled
Combat radius: 10,500 km (5,670 NM, 6,500 mi)
Service ceiling 15,000 m (49,200 ft)
Rate of climb: 70 m/s (13,860 ft/min)
Wing loading: 743 kg/m² with wings fully swept (152 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.37

So, wow, the Russians won the Bomber speed race!

Except that in the end the US saw the wisdom of not wasting money on fast bombers.