"Nale" Russian nuclear bombers lifted into the air American fighters

Russian strategic bombers once again carried out many-hour flights over the Pacific Ocean, including over neutral waters along the border of the shores of the US Aleutian Islands and Alaska. During the flights, they were accompanied by fighter planes raised by the US Air Force. The Americans have not yet expressed any dissatisfaction, but the Russian Defense Ministry nevertheless considered it necessary to comment.


According to the official representative of the department Vladimir Drik, four Tu-95MS of the Russian Air Force, raised from the Ukrainka airfields in the Amur Region and Yelizovo in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, successfully flew over neutral waters in the north-eastern Pacific. According to him, the duration of the flight of pairs of aircraft was 13 and 20 hours, respectively, reports Interfax.

Crews have mastered the skills of flying over an unoriented terrain, as well as performed passing and counter refueling in the air from Il-78 tanker aircraft to reach the western shores of the Aleutian Islands and patrol along the Alaska coast, said Drik. "Over the neutral waters, throughout the flight, the planes were accompanied by two F-15 fighter jets of the USAF," he noted.

In the Russian military department, as always, they emphasize that all flights of the aircraft of the Air Force of the Russian Federation were carried out and are carried out in strict accordance with the international rules for using airspace over neutral waters, and do not violate the borders of other states.

Recently, during the period from June 19 to 21, the Air Force, Russia conducted flight tactical exercises in the Arctic Ocean. They were attended by about 30 aircraft of the Far aviationincluding Tu-160 and Tu-95MS strategic bombers, Su-27 and MiG-31 fighters, Il-78 tankers and A-50 radar patrol and guidance aircraft.

According to the American press, Russian military aircraft during these exercises visited including international airspace off the coast of Alaska, and then they were also accompanied by F-15 fighter jets of the USAF. The American media described it as “another sign of Russia’s tougher stance against the US,” and even almost as a herald of ending the “reset” policy in Russian-American relations, ITAR-TASS reports.

However, the head of Pengaton Leon Panetta, commenting on these publications to journalists, said that the United States did not see anything provocative in these exercises of the Russian Air Force. “As for airplanes (Russian Air Force), sometimes studying the north (USA and Canada), there is nothing unusual in this situation,” Panetta said.

The head of the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, General Martin Dempsey, spoke in a similar vein. According to him, the United States and Canada "from time to time" jointly monitor the exercises of the Russian Air Force in these areas for any "changes or signals of any kind" from Moscow to Washington or Ottawa. “And so far we have not come to the conclusion that this is a signal of a certain kind,” said Dempsey.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

241 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ShturmKGB 5 July 2012 16: 51 New
    • 26
    • 0
    +26
    This is a necessary matter, so that they would know that there is still gunpowder in the powder flasks! (albeit a little already)
    1. Teploteh - nick
      Teploteh - nick 5 July 2012 17: 04 New
      • 42
      • 0
      +42
      Nerves and that **** - not iron - bench press !!! laughing
      Correct - Such flights are very useful. yes
      The heated heads quickly cool down, and the frostbitten ones immediately warm up !!! wassat laughing
      Now wait for the Tu-160M. 2 times more effective than the previous one.
      X-102 missiles - a range of 5.000km. - soon the plane itself - will not be needed! belay
      EW equipment - making the aircraft virtually invulnerable to enemy missiles. And yet - many, many useful and good things - after all, we do not mind anything, for our sworn "best friends" - Amer! belay
      1. Alexander Romanov 5 July 2012 17: 17 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Teploteh - nick
        102 - range 5.000km. - soon the plane itself - will not be needed!

        This is what
      2. edge 9 July 2012 14: 20 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        ......... then by chance a submarine will come up, then by chance the bombers will fly by; so you look at someone and the point will remember how to compress.
      3. Midshipman 12 July 2012 01: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The plane with our length of territory will be needed for a long time. Although it is certainly better to saturate the perimeters with such missiles, then yes, the need for it will disappear.
    2. kapitan_21
      kapitan_21 5 July 2012 17: 04 New
      • 15
      • 0
      +15
      We still have a lot of this gunpowder! Four Tu-95MS are 24 X-55 or X-555 missiles! Flyers work out routes and tactics! Keep it up!
      1. Samosval
        Samosval 5 July 2012 17: 09 New
        • -52
        • 0
        -52
        Do not you think that if something happens these planes will be immediately destroyed, and vryatli they will have a chance to launch missiles ??
        1. Lord of the Sith 5 July 2012 17: 19 New
          • 25
          • 0
          +25
          What are destroyed? They keep their distance 5000km from the target... Launch 6 missiles from each and smoothly turn to the base!
          1. Teploteh - nick
            Teploteh - nick 5 July 2012 17: 32 New
            • 13
            • 0
            +13
            Quote: Lord of the Sith
            Launch 6 rockets from each

            12 - twelve missiles from each! Each Tu-160 has 2 revolver-type drums of 6 missiles each. - total 12. yes
            Tu-95MS - carries up to 8 missiles. Tu-22M - up to 3 missiles.
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            This is what

            I am so - that the range of the missiles is increasing and increasing. It used to be like 3.000km - now 5.000km. You have to think that the next generation of missiles will be with a range of 7.000km. etc. wink - naturally - the missile carrier itself - will no longer be needed. Something simpler can be invented.
            1. Alexander Romanov 5 July 2012 17: 38 New
              • 13
              • 0
              +13
              And that poplars and yars need to be pulled to the borders, we have missiles with a range of more than 11000 kilometers, but this does not mean that airplanes are not needed.
              1. Teploteh - nick
                Teploteh - nick 5 July 2012 17: 49 New
                • 23
                • 0
                +23
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                we have missiles with a range of more than 11000 kilometers, but this does not mean that airplanes are not needed.

                By itself.
                We have already written about this more than once, arguing - are Tu-160 and Tu-95 needed at all? Definitely - we need! Because they can quickly and quickly - solve any problems - anywhere in the world. And they can carry not only the nuclear option - X-102, but also non-nuclear missiles X-101 - depending on the tasks.
                But Poplars and Yarses are more likely stationary missiles. Their tasks are more global - Nuclear parity with the United States.
                BUT and Tu-160 - in the case of Yavoyna again from the USA - they can spoil a lot of blood. To strike at striking, or vice versa - preemptive bleeding of the missile defense system, disable strategically important objects - before Poplars and Yars arrive.
                So - these missile carriers are universal and Necessary - for Russia.
                Here we live to see the new Bomber - we'll see how then the Americans will sing !!!
                This is if they live to see it! laughing
                1. VAF
                  VAF 5 July 2012 22: 16 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Teploteh - nick
                  But Poplars and Yarses are more likely stationary missiles.

                  Teploteh - nick,

                  Actually, Poplars and Yars are GMRKs (for those who are dull), I explain the ground mobile missile systems, or didn’t this concept take place at school STATIONARY ?????

                  If God forbid something happens about which you write with such enthusiasm, then the Tu-160 will be turned into dust in the first place, well, and in the second, people like you .....!
                  1. toguns
                    toguns 5 July 2012 22: 27 New
                    • 15
                    • 0
                    +15
                    Quote: Teploteh - nick
                    But Poplars and Yars are more like stationary missiles

                    Quote: veteran.air force

                    Actually, Poplars and Yars are GMRKs (for those who are dull), I explain ground mobile missile systems, or have such a concept not been passed at school STATIONARY ????

                    wassat both for the materiel are deuces, any schoolchild knows that poplar variety, in particular poplar, are in the mine and mobile versions, and they also plan to make yars in the mine version.
                  2. mihos ve
                    mihos ve 5 July 2012 23: 44 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Look, you, the mobile carrier of nuclear weapons, are the last to die. You are the master or. RUSSIAN military doctrine pisanna not like you. ONE CARCUS - means more than 2-3 installation sites
                  3. Bashkaus
                    Bashkaus 6 July 2012 16: 08 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    I do not agree! In the menacing period, that the nuclear submarines, that the planes are constantly patrolling, and even if they fly above the North Pole, there’s simply nothing to bring down there, the fleet is not there, and the fighters will not fly. Yes, they can destroy an airfield, but a plane already in the air will perform the task anyway, but you can also take the freeway
            2. Lord of the Sith 5 July 2012 17: 39 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              I'm sorry, you spelled it right.
              1. Sergh
                Sergh 5 July 2012 21: 30 New
                • 6
                • 0
                +6
                Quote: Samosval
                so as not to release their propellers even beyond the state borders of the Russian Federation

                The parties warn about flights of such aviation in advance, up to exchange rate and time cards, so that in these cases amers in neutral waters meet them minute-to-minute. In a military-conflict situation, no one will do such handouts. It's time to know that already. The situation was clear in September 11, 2001, where Bush Jr. tearfully asked Putin to cancel the declared air exercises near America, where he received the go-ahead in connection with an alleged terrorist attack with the “twins”.
            3. VAF
              VAF 5 July 2012 22: 12 New
              • -3
              • 0
              -3
              Teploteh - nick,
              Quote: Teploteh - nick
              Tu-22M - up to 3 missiles.


              Where is that ....? lol And what ...... missiles ???? lol


              I'm embarrassed to ask, you really are fool for life or simply "instructed" to do the "thing" and now you work it out ???? bullyд
              1. toguns
                toguns 5 July 2012 22: 36 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: veteran.air force
                Where is that ....? lol And what ...... missiles ???? lol

                x-22 it’s a storm, the main task is the destruction of ships, in particular aircraft carriers, for the destruction of an aircraft carrier a salvo of 40 pieces is sufficient.
            4. FID
              FID 7 July 2012 13: 23 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Tu-22M - up to 3 missiles.
              Tu-22M3 up to 10 missiles. 4 under the wings and 6 in the drum in the bomb bay. True, there are only one regiment of such "three rubles".
          2. Samosval
            Samosval 5 July 2012 17: 45 New
            • -33
            • 0
            -33
            They are all accompanied by NATO fighters, and there are plenty of them in that region, so as not to release their propellers even outside the state border of the Russian Federation
            1. Alexander Romanov 5 July 2012 17: 51 New
              • 21
              • 0
              +21
              Dump truck, surrender is the only way out, I understood you correctly. You yourself are still in Russia or with a white flag at the customs at Kennedy airport.
              1. Tersky 5 July 2012 17: 55 New
                • 17
                • 0
                +17
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                Dump truck, surrender is the only way out, I understood you correctly

                Sasha, what are you, like an opponent’s small nickname, speaks for itself SAMO-TIP, from the word DOWN wink
                1. Alexander Romanov 5 July 2012 18: 00 New
                  • 8
                  • 0
                  +8
                  Vit, his flag is Russian! I’m so trustworthy, senile naivety recourse
                  1. Tersky 5 July 2012 18: 08 New
                    • 7
                    • 0
                    +7
                    Quote: Alexander Romanov
                    Vit, his flag is Russian!

                    The soul is far from Russian ... and the flag can be hung out any way wink
                    1. edge 9 July 2012 14: 28 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      what kind of soul are you talking about, there the one-eyed pyramid is grimacing drinks
                  2. Castor oil 5 July 2012 19: 03 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    Quote: Alexander Romanov
                    Vit, his flag is Russian! This is me so trusting, naivety senile recourse

                    Five points!! good drinks
                2. Samosval
                  Samosval 5 July 2012 18: 58 New
                  • -14
                  • 0
                  -14
                  You dear judge me so because I do not support the “great joy” of the fact that 4 old men are still able to fly and did not recognize the real threat to the United States from this type of aircraft ??
                  1. perpetuum_mobile
                    perpetuum_mobile 5 July 2012 20: 49 New
                    • 6
                    • 0
                    +6
                    Yes, understand that even the Americans will not let their vaunted V-52s at such a distance, for this there are the necessary long-range tactical missiles (including with nuclear warheads) so as not to enter the enemy’s air defense zone .... And now imagine that Russia has about 100 such aircraft ... And stop looking at our aircraft in one plane already ..
                    Tactics are not tactics, but there is a need for such aircraft. even in the state in which we have ...
                    1. VAF
                      VAF 5 July 2012 22: 19 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      Quote: perpetuum_mobile
                      And now imagine that Russia has about 100 such aircraft ..


                      Even if two liters of vodka are gobbled up, then even this will not be dreamed up, it is only in children's dreams and fantasies!
              2. Samosval
                Samosval 5 July 2012 18: 00 New
                • -18
                • 0
                -18
                Dear what have the surrender and low combat efficiency in a modern warfare of these aircraft ??? The Americans have long changed the tactics of using this aircraft. And other military powers are in no hurry to create it. How can you explain this ??
                1. Tersky 5 July 2012 18: 06 New
                  • 8
                  • 0
                  +8
                  Quote: Samosval
                  Americans have long changed the tactics of using this aircraft.

                  Have states abandoned B-52? And about tactics in more detail ..., I can’t find it interesting ...
                2. Alexander Romanov 5 July 2012 18: 15 New
                  • 6
                  • 0
                  +6
                  Quote: Samosval
                  and low combat efficiency in modern warfare of these aircraft

                  The 52 air force of the United States proved to be very effective in the war with Iraq.
                  Quote: Samosval
                  . And other military powers are in no hurry to create it

                  It is NOT such a simple matter to create a strategist and not a small amount of money.
                3. Homo 5 July 2012 19: 37 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  The "other" military powers of the brain are not enough to create long-range bombers. That is the whole answer.
                  1. VAF
                    VAF 5 July 2012 22: 21 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    Homo,
                    Quote: Homo
                    The "other" military powers of the brain do not have enough to create long-range bombers


                    Who is this heresy instilled in you ????
                4. Lord of the Sith 5 July 2012 20: 50 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  USA changed yes? http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ВВС_USA
                  B-52 Stratofortress 71
                  And these are simple bombers, not missile carriers like in Russia ...
                  1. VAF
                    VAF 5 July 2012 22: 23 New
                    • 5
                    • 0
                    +5
                    Lord of the Sith,

                    Dear, read the Wiki less, especially ours !!!
                    1. Lord of the Sith 5 July 2012 23: 25 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Yes it’s clear, for example, I’m too lazy to look for other sources.
            2. Teploteh - nick
              Teploteh - nick 5 July 2012 17: 58 New
              • 9
              • 0
              +9
              Quote: Samosval
              They are all escorted by NATO fighters

              These are still teachings - they are accompanied by Nata.
              When God forbid - the war will begin - no one will know where they are flying now and from which side - their rockets will fly. To do this, there is an EW station - it seems Baikal-M and other equipment that does not allow detecting an aircraft on enemy radars, and even more so - hit it with a rocket.
              In addition, our escort also has a place to be. Let these fighters try to fly up to the Tu-160 - when their MiGi-31 will be led! The task is impossible for the Nata fighters.
              1. Samosval
                Samosval 5 July 2012 18: 05 New
                • -7
                • 0
                -7
                Dear, what can they so classified in the event of war? And where will the block interceptors go ??
                1. Alexander Romanov 5 July 2012 18: 20 New
                  • 8
                  • 0
                  +8
                  Quote: Samosval

                  Dear, what can they so classified in the event of war? And where will the block interceptors go?

                  In the case of warriors, you will never know. Migi and drying, tete-a-tete will talk to NATO interceptors.
                  1. Samosval
                    Samosval 5 July 2012 19: 04 New
                    • -9
                    • 0
                    -9
                    Look at the losses of our aircraft in recent military conflicts (even if we take into account the fact that they were often officially not controlled by our officers) and compare it with the losses in the NATO bloc. And taking into account reforms with the subsequent closure or relocation (and 2 relocations are comparable to a fire) of military universities, alas, there is no better expectation from our young pilots
                2. perpetuum_mobile
                  perpetuum_mobile 5 July 2012 20: 50 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  so what do you suggest in this case ????
              2. Lord of the Sith 5 July 2012 20: 52 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                I flew above him
              3. VAF
                VAF 5 July 2012 22: 24 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Teploteh - nick
                When God forbid - the war will begin - no one will know where they are flying now and from which side - their rockets will fly. To do this, there is an EW station - it seems Baikal-M and other equipment that does not allow detecting an aircraft on enemy radars, and even more so - hit it with a rocket.


                Well, what can I say ........ without comment, because than the little one was not amusing, the licenses were not placolo !!!! lol
            3. 11 black 5 July 2012 18: 11 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              NATO fighters meet them at their borders.
              range f 15 (with weapons, not to be confused with the distillation!) 2000 km, and ours can shoot with 5000, well, with 4000 so that the missiles go deep into the territory, but even then they are out of reach of the fighters so
              Quote: Samosval
              They are all accompanied by NATO fighters, and there are plenty of them in that region, so as not to release their propellers even outside the state border of the Russian Federation
              in this you are at the root of the wrong ...

              PS and that 160 on the afterburner they also catch up to catch up laughing
              1. Samosval
                Samosval 5 July 2012 18: 23 New
                • -16
                • 0
                -16
                Who is messing up ?? Fighters flying at the speed of sound without afterburner? Although yes, they will not catch up with them; a melee rocket and all matters.
                1. 11 black 5 July 2012 18: 39 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  Quote: Samosval
                  melee rocket

                  really with a range of 5000 km laughing fool
                  1. Samosval
                    Samosval 5 July 2012 19: 06 New
                    • -17
                    • 0
                    -17
                    You are blind as a mole. I already wrote about it
                  2. VAF
                    VAF 5 July 2012 22: 31 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    Quote: 11 black
                    really with a range of 5000 km


                    11 black,

                    at least you’ll get it for your armament, get acquainted with the dealers with it, otherwise, as with the Mace, well, we should tell them now .... what now ... here is an analogous case

                    So far, only the X-55 and all !!!
                2. lewerlin53rus 5 July 2012 21: 30 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Samosval
                  Who is messing up ?? Fighters flying at the speed of sound without afterburner

                  And where did you see such planes?
                  1. snek
                    snek 5 July 2012 21: 33 New
                    • -5
                    • 0
                    -5
                    Quote: lewerlin53rus
                    And where did you see such planes?

                    f-22 has an afterburner supersonic
                  2. Samosval
                    Samosval 5 July 2012 21: 40 New
                    • -4
                    • 0
                    -4
                    Dear, what can you talk about after such statements ?? 5th generation implies such performance characteristics
                    1. lewerlin53rus 5 July 2012 23: 33 New
                      • 4
                      • 0
                      +4
                      So what can this flying murderer do? In any case, our strategists still need to be discovered and caught up. Nobody is hiding at training missions, on the contrary. And when used against them, together with fighters and radar cover, it is unrealistic to intercept carcasses before launching missiles. Do you really think that they will go like a flock of rams to kill?
                      1. VAF
                        VAF 6 July 2012 10: 24 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        [quote = lewerlin53rus]. Do you really think that they will go like a herd of rams to slaughter?

                        What do you think that amers will set all your goals strictly along the west coast ????
                    2. 11 black 16 July 2012 15: 04 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      no, not always - the 35 also belongs to the 5 generation, but it didn’t smell like over-the-air supersound ...
              2. Castor oil 5 July 2012 19: 16 New
                • 10
                • 0
                +10
                Quote: 11 black
                NATO fighters meet them at their borders.

                You still forgot to recall the voyage of a pair of TU-160 with a flight over the deck of a US aircraft carrier several years ago, when everyone, and some of us in Russia, thought that our air forces were all sintered. It was our pride, the shock of amers, crew awards, and the official gratitude of President Putin to Air Force Commander Deineco. And there are no type of US fighters there. When we want, no one will accompany us. laughing
                1. VAF
                  VAF 5 July 2012 22: 33 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Castor_ka
                  Deyneko.


                  Is it you who have beguiled House -2 or the Two Stars show ?????

                  Our Air Force Commander was P.S. Deinekin, and the one you are writing about has nothing to do with aviation!
                  1. Castor oil 5 July 2012 22: 44 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: veteran.air force
                    Is it you who have beguiled House -2 or the Two Stars show ?????

                    Our Air Force Commander was P.S. Deinekin, and the one you are writing about has nothing to do with aviation!

                    Do not be rude pzhlst. There is no reason - the one you thought about is Victoria DАoneko - be careful from now on.
                    Forgive me, respected Commander Deinekin, if I incorrectly remember his last name, but does this change the essence of the matter.
                    PySy: And if we talk about aviation, then for information: Deineco Stepan Petrovich - Deputy squadron commander of the 367 Bomber Aviation Regiment of the 132 Bomber Aviation Division of the 4 Air Battalion of the North Caucasus Front, captain (I didn’t make a big mistake - the surname is all the same glorified in aviation smile )
                    http://www.warheroes.ru/hero/hero.asp?Hero_id=6384
              3. VAF
                VAF 5 July 2012 22: 27 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Quote: 11 black
                range f 15 (with weapons, not to be confused with the distillation!) 2000 km, and ours can shoot from 5000, well from 4000 so that missiles


                Take a map or something and outline the goals, lay the starting line from them and see clearly ... who, how and how much our strategists can get !!!

                Illusions fade away instantly!
            4. Homo 5 July 2012 19: 35 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Teach geography. They do not need to go beyond borders.
            5. Lord of the Sith 5 July 2012 20: 48 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              mmmm and to the border of the F-15 on what fly? Open the wiki, enter the US Air Force, find there the base on the west coast. Then, on the wiki, look at the F-15's flight radius and you will know their patrol radius. Our bombers, however, produce rockets for 5000 km (the third time I want to reach your brain), which is twice as much distance as there is enough fuel for the F-15. they accompanied bombers at their borders. In a war, it’s even unnecessary for our bombers to fly close.
              1. VAF
                VAF 5 July 2012 22: 38 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: Lord of the Sith
                Our bombers, however, produce rockets for 5000 km (the third time I want to reach your brain), which is twice as much distance as there is enough fuel for the F-15


                Well, I'll try to reach out ... to your "conceived" articles and statements of "false patriots" approved by slogans and pamphlets.

                1. If you plan to strike on the West Coast of the United States with launching over the Pacific Ocean, then on your way you will meet the "unsinkable" land carrier Pearl Harbor, whose fighters flip our strategists like ..... like 08.08.08 !!!

                Well, about the number of ships armed Aegis with all the consequences I will not tell, I hope you yourself understand, that is. the task is not just not feasible, but utopian, if we act only by aviation.

                2. It remains only through the North, again we take the goals, measure the distance, the launch line and see that it is located just near Alaska, then I hope no longer needs to be explained ???
            6. Vasilenko Vladimir 11 July 2012 11: 26 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              NATO is always notified of flights;
          3. VAF
            VAF 5 July 2012 22: 07 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Lord of the Sith
            They are kept at a distance of 5000 km from the target ...


            If the goal, of course, is on the west coast of the USA, and if in depth, then how ????

            In general, look at what the X-55 missiles are for, you will look at a lot differently!

            Or do you really think that Amer keeps Airbases in Canada and Alaska from doing nothing and don’t know the possible zones and areas of application of our AKP ???

            You are mistaken dear and very much!

            Just let’s go right away, you don’t need to talk about the X-555 and X-101, but what about the nuclear weapons!
            1. alexng 5 July 2012 23: 36 New
              • 11
              • 0
              +11
              And you did not think about the fact that a strategist, in order to destroy any AUG, two launches with nuclear warheads are enough. One for blinding and the second for target. This is me so thinking loudly. In the event of a mess, all the chips will be on the fly and disassembled into sectors from both sides and I think there will be no winners in this "stupid" war. No one has been given everything to foresee, even with the illusion of 100% impunity. One grain of sand can stop the flow of sand in the hourglass, and in such an armada, as modern systems, you can’t talk. More precisely, the winner will be the one who will stand aside and watch. But I think that ultimately the mind will triumph, and not idiocy and profanity, and war will not happen - everyone wants to live. In general, I think that all these things (elements of deterrence) are created so that this idiocy (the desire to unleash a world fire) does not prevail.
              1. Odinplys
                Odinplys 6 July 2012 01: 25 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Quote: alexneg
                More precisely, the winner will be the one who will stand aside and watch. But I think that ultimately the mind will triumph, and not idiocy and profanity and wars will not happen


                +++ So small, but to all ... I put in the strategists ...)))
              2. VAF
                VAF 6 July 2012 10: 19 New
                • 8
                • 0
                +8
                Quote: alexneg
                And you did not think about the fact that a strategist, in order to destroy any AUG, two launches with nuclear warheads are enough.


                Not very correctly formulated the beginning .... did not think about ???

                Actually, I’ve been doing this all my life. and it’s enough that the first product of any one with nuclear warhead, so that one dust remains from the AUG or something else, but didn’t you think about what we get in return ????

                So what's the point then? Therefore, I urge everyone to the voice of reason ... to tie up a nuclear club, ...

                Here you are absolutely correct in writing that reason will prevail, and not idiocy and profanity, which is present here to the fullest, especially from people who are absolutely not competent, but pro-brass!

                1. One is going to shoot their mines with Poplars and hide Yars there.

                2. Then with 3 (!!!!) X-22 mi to try to drown an aircraft carrier?

                3. The third with the X-101, which is only being tested, is already flying to “flatten” America, forgetting that if you hang all 8 x-101 on the MS, then its range, due to external suspensions, decreases exactly in half ... .and where then will this line of reach be for enemy air defense fighters ???

                4. We actually have a missile that flies for 2 km and with an increased warhead for 500 km, all ......

                In all other respects, you are absolutely right, there will be no winners, +! drinks

                It’s just that the discussions will touch upon the issue of tactics and the need for such flights, as well as politeness in the title of the article itself.

                1. Such flights are necessary, but in my time it was a mundane job, and here it is presented, almost as a feat of Alexander Matrosov.

                2. The title of the article is a complete person who does not imagine what nuclear weapons are, has never known or never read about our tests and its impact on humans. so let him talk with Chernoboltsy .....

                3. The majority of tactical questions that pecked opponents are completely absent, and the technique is the same ...

                That's basically, in short, with respect
                1. M. Peter
                  M. Peter 6 July 2012 16: 52 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  veteran.air force Now, if you had immediately carried out explanatory work, for us amateurs, and not scoffed, you would have received more honor and respect.
                  All the same, you need to understand that there are fewer veterans than curious inquisitors. Why did you immediately need to ulce badly, huh?
                  People wholeheartedly want to see the good news, because they have missed such things over the years, and you immediately face them in the dirt.
                  I always read your posts with interest, they were very useful and informative, I always plyed for you.
                  It will continue to be so. Instead of mocking, it’s better to do explanatory work.
                  If something goes wrong, sorry.
                2. Yasen Ping 6 July 2012 18: 57 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Purely philistine opinion of you. I read a lot here, I’m not special in these airplane matters, I know for sure that you are the strongest special, but when analyzing your comments purely in psychology, I see some failures, unfinishedness and deceit, and there is an opinion that you are in which things you don’t understand, and you’re simply lying ..
                3. skiff-xnumx 7 July 2012 16: 10 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  And where and where did you fly.
            2. Bnik
              Bnik 6 July 2012 03: 32 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, if, of course, there is a war, we will capture Alaska in the first place.
            3. skiff-xnumx 7 July 2012 16: 07 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: veteran.air force
              You are mistaken dear and very much!


              Correct if I am mistaken. But for some reason it seems to me that the strategic bomber is not intended to deliver the first strike. This is if you want a second wave. It is clear that the use of a bomber against an enemy with a developed air defense system will lead to its loss.
              If you consider this situation.
              The bobders are at the airfield tucked with curb (which is unlikely). Take-off team. How much do they fly to ohm. 8-10 hours. Duck during this time, strategic missiles (approach time about 20-25 minutes) there everything will be erased (including Pearl Harble). And they can only finish off. And you can not come back because there is no where.
              Let the pilots fly. Train. They are raided, we are calmer
          4. selbrat 5 July 2012 22: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And the F-15s that accompany them for what? I think the future is still with the missiles. The question is, where are we going to launch them from. We need a semblance of Tomahawks. And preferably better.
          5. Hammer 6 July 2012 02: 59 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            And who said they would be allowed to fly at all? How many airfields in the country on which these giants can be based? 5-6 pieces. Guess three times - do the pin-dos know the coordinates of all these airfields? And what will you take off if pin-dos are the first to hit us? I give a hint - in cases of a massive nuclear strike against us (naturally without warning), the time of the beginning of the war will be measured only by the flying time of the ICBMs. Those. it's about minutes. I’m afraid no matter how good our TUSHKUs may be in this war. They won’t give.
            Airplanes are excellent, but modern realities of their use are different. Strategic aviation is very good just as an attack tool, not a retaliatory strike. In the attack, she will certainly reveal herself in all its glory. Our staffers are still hoping for the so-called threatened period preceding all previous wars. That for that period (a month or two) we will be able to deploy our forces, disperse them across different hobbies, and with the outbreak of war we ... will show "Kuzkin’s mother!"
            But the problem is that pin-dos just build their strategy of global coverage from the calculation in order to exclude this very “threatened period”. That would take only a couple of hours from the moment a decision is made on a preemptive strike to the moment of the first explosion on enemy territory.
        2. biglow
          biglow 5 July 2012 17: 40 New
          • -4
          • 0
          -4
          why then do we need airplanes?
          1. Samosval
            Samosval 5 July 2012 17: 54 New
            • -15
            • 0
            -15
            This type of aircraft is needed not for a first strike against countries with a developed air defense system. Look at the example of Georgia and Libya.
            1. Alexander Romanov 5 July 2012 18: 06 New
              • 11
              • 0
              +11
              Not one pro, not even the most advanced one, is capable of repelling a massive missile strike. No Aegis will help, but about the developed system about America, you will tell survivors in America itself laughing
              1. Shohmansur
                Shohmansur 5 July 2012 18: 12 New
                • -15
                • 0
                -15
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                Not one pro, not even the most advanced one, is capable of repelling a massive missile strike. No Aegis will help, but about the developed system about America, you will tell the survivors in America itself laughing

                No, natural imbicil. If it happens to work out missile defense, penguins will survive in Antarctica, they will tell
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                Alexander Romanov
                about the developed system.
                1. Alexander Romanov 5 July 2012 18: 34 New
                  • 7
                  • 0
                  +7
                  Listen to the clown, you are not tired of being rude.
              2. Samosval
                Samosval 5 July 2012 18: 14 New
                • -12
                • 0
                -12
                That area is too saturated with missile defense systems. But our territory in the close patrol zone can not boast of this
                1. Homo 5 July 2012 19: 42 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Dump truck, tired of reading your pearls. Be proud, Godep’s money worked 100%!
                  1. Samosval
                    Samosval 5 July 2012 19: 52 New
                    • -5
                    • 0
                    -5
                    Oh yes, you declassified me. I’m hired to convince people that the old and ineffective technique (for delivering the first blow) is not the pride of the country, declaring itself to be a geopolitical leader, not only in this particular region, but throughout the world.
            2. 11 black 5 July 2012 18: 18 New
              • 9
              • 0
              +9
              This type of aircraft is needed in order to maintain the possibility of retaliatory nuclear weapons if ground launchers are destroyed.
              at the first signal from the SPRN, part of these aircraft with nuclear missiles immediately rises into the air and does not land until everything is quiet, or until the aggressor is ordered to bomb. aircraft at high altitude and even on enemy (tobish our) territory VERY difficult to destroy. the very possibility of deterrence ...
        3. wolk71 5 July 2012 19: 13 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Come on, you yourself gentlemen amers flatter.
        4. Homo 5 July 2012 19: 32 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          You have not mixed up the years? Now is not the 41st. To destroy them you need to really try.
        5. Bashkaus
          Bashkaus 6 July 2012 15: 59 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          You confuse the concept of “bomber” and “missile carrier” If we talk about bombers and their use in the American manner (bombing of Dresdon, Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Hanoi at the end of the Vietnam War) then yes, to destroy the target, the plane goes over the target and drops freely falling, m .b. guided bombs. Here I agree with you, there are no options. Only during one massive raid on Hanoi at the end of the war did the Americans miss three dozen B52s shot down by the Soviet C75 (out of a hundred participating in the raid)
          But if we are talking about a "missile carrier" but this is another topic, in this case the aircraft is a carrier and at the same time a launching position for missiles with a range of 3 km. And what is 3 thousand km? For example, when a Tu95 took off from an airfield in Kamchatka, went to the firing line (above its own airfield), fired all the missiles, and was loaded with a new batch to land, in case some of the missiles would be hit by air defense forces, so that flying along the borders is just demonstration of opportunities. No, of course, if the pilots want to poke fun, enter airspace over Los Angeles to bomb in California, and their comrades enter airspace over Orlando to bomb in Los Angeles ... Of course, you can, after the first waves of strikes by Poplars, and everything is much simpler: In the event of a threat, the missile carrier quietly flies itself over the expanses of the Atlantic, Pacific Ocean, etc. far from the US fleet and especially fighter jets, for not every bird will fly to the middle of the Dnieper and wait for an order to launch missiles ...
      2. Midshipman 12 July 2012 01: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What is 4re TU-95? There is no gunpowder, unfortunately - trash in a bag :(
    3. an-sar 5 July 2012 18: 41 New
      • 12
      • 0
      +12
      You know, I live in Saratov, it’s nice to hear when the carcasses take off, even if it is early in the morning !!!!
      1. snek
        snek 5 July 2012 18: 54 New
        • -6
        • 0
        -6
        Quote: Samosval
        Do not you think that if something happens these planes will be immediately destroyed, and vryatli they will have a chance to launch missiles ??

        Quote: Samosval
        They are all accompanied by NATO fighters, and there are plenty of them in that region, so as not to release their propellers even outside the state border of the Russian Federation

        Quote: Samosval
        Dear, what can they so classified in the event of war? And where will the block interceptors go ??

        Eh, well, what are you doing, here is such an act of mass psychological masturbation about how cool we are and how everyone is afraid of us, but you came and ruined everything with common sense. Now you mercilessly zaminusut, as well as me drinks
        On the topic - a purely psychological action, and rather aimed not at them (to frighten), but at the electorate (look, not all the money for Abramovia’s yacht was gone). In the event of a real military conflict, such vehicles flying in NATO escort will be immediately shot down. As a carrier of nuclear weapons, it is much more efficient than ICBMs (including sea-based ones).
        1. Samosval
          Samosval 5 July 2012 19: 07 New
          • -7
          • 0
          -7
          Totally agree with you
        2. 755962
          755962 5 July 2012 21: 39 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          The US media regarded this as "another sign of Russia’s tightening of its stance on the United States."
          Oh how! And when recently they were different? You can still answer and their language ........."This is not against you!" Well and further in the text ....
        3. VAF
          VAF 5 July 2012 22: 43 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: snek
          here is such an act of mass psychological masturbation about how cool we are and how everyone is afraid of us, but you came and ruined everything with common sense. Now you mercilessly zaminusut, as well as me


          Nikolay, this is all right ..... everyone can as he can and wants, this is not the worst, but where does such stupidity, illiteracy and so on, so on, so on ???

          I am horrified ....... moron in utterances utterly, already scary to read ... honestly ...
          1. snek
            snek 5 July 2012 22: 59 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Quote: veteran.air force
            But where does such stupidity, illiteracy and so on, so on, so on ???

            Sergei, I don’t even know, maybe they spent the Internet in boarding schools for the mentally retarded. But seriously, we have had education for more than 20 years in the pen, so here are the consequences. Judging by the comments, you read more materials about technology (especially aviation) here, and look at comments on political and historical materials - this is quiet horror.
            Quote: veteran.air force
            I am horrified ....... moron in utterances utterly, already scary to read ... honestly ...

            The worst thing is that you gradually get used to it ...
            1. VAF
              VAF 6 July 2012 10: 31 New
              • -2
              • 0
              -2
              Quote: snek
              The worst thing is that you gradually get used to it ...


              I agree, +! drinks Nikolai, what rulers ... such and the people ... but we must try not to give up and try to convey to their silly brains at least something bright and clear ..... otherwise ....... this is really scary.
    4. Belkash
      Belkash 5 July 2012 22: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And the berries in the buttocks !!! In the case of mutual nuclear attacks, I think no one will be good !!! And no missile defense will help anyone am
      1. 755962
        755962 5 July 2012 22: 14 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Belkash
        In the case of mutual nuclear attacks, I think no one will be good !!!

        THAT'S FOR SURE....
  2. Samosval
    Samosval 5 July 2012 16: 51 New
    • -26
    • 0
    -26
    Not yet who is not tired of such "PR" articles? Or does anyone have reason to think that such a “demonstration of the flag" can scare someone? In my opinion, perhaps only “foreign Aborigines”, but alas, they are not found in this sector. Therefore, this is only so - to scare fish ((
    1. askort154 5 July 2012 17: 20 New
      • 16
      • 0
      +16
      This is not a "scare fish", but the necessary training for the flight crew
      long-range strategic aviation. TU-160 is not a "dump truck".
      1. Samosval
        Samosval 5 July 2012 17: 38 New
        • -11
        • 0
        -11
        Dear, what does Tu 160 have to do with it ???
        1. 11Goor11
          11Goor11 5 July 2012 23: 19 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Samosval
          Dear, what does Tu 160 have to do with it ???

          quote:
          About 30 Long-Range Aircraft took part in them, including strategic Tu-160 and Tu-95MS bombers

          I think he meant, "it’s good that not Mr. Dumpster is planning flights, otherwise no one would fly."
          Something like this?
    2. Lord of the Sith 5 July 2012 17: 21 New
      • 11
      • 0
      +11
      Well, of course, not from fear, and so for the sake of airing they raised a pair of F-15? And who else knows how much was still on the opening act?
      1. Drednout 5 July 2012 17: 49 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        "And so far we have not come to the conclusion that this is a signal of some kind," said Dempsey.
        And in vain!
    3. Tersky 5 July 2012 17: 48 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Quote: Samosval
      . Therefore, it is only so - to scare fish

      Well, yes, a piranha by the name of the USA, if we take into account the "fishing rod TU-95" and "worms" -
      there are nothing of them ("worms") - in the Tu-95MS6 in the bomb compartment on the multi-position drum launcher there are six missiles. In the modification of the Tu-95MS16, in addition to the fuselage launcher, the suspension of ten more X-55 missiles on four underwing holders is provided. Well, there are X-555 fresh ones, they will be more solid. So for the fish and the "fishing rod" and "worms" ..
      1. Samosval
        Samosval 5 July 2012 18: 03 New
        • -14
        • 0
        -14
        For America’s intelligence, such a launcher like this aircraft is too cherished and easily hit target.
        1. Tersky 5 July 2012 18: 23 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Quote: Samosval
          For America’s intelligence, such a launcher

          Fine... laughing , she, US intelligence, didn’t relocate to the air? And learned to destroy planes.?. wassat . All intelligence of the world nervously smokes ...., ..
          1. esaul 5 July 2012 18: 46 New
            • 12
            • 0
            +12
            Well, in our opinion it is

            Crews worked out flight skills over reference-free terrain, as well as performed on-the-fly and on-air refueling from Il-78 tanker aircraft to reach the western shores of the Aleutian Islands and patrol along the coast of Alaska

            And according to theirs -

            "another sign of Russia’s tightening of its stance against the United States," and even almost as a herald of an end to the "reset" policy in Russian-American relations, ITAR-TASS noted.

            They themselves are so intimidated that the flippers are wrapped from profuse diarrhea ...
            1. Samosval
              Samosval 5 July 2012 18: 50 New
              • -11
              • 0
              -11
              They respected such a policy are not constant 2-4 times a year, only whether they trumpet about it ???
              1. Samosval
                Samosval 5 July 2012 21: 47 New
                • -1
                • 0
                -1
                Of course we throw minuses to everyone who tells the truth! Hooray comrades
        2. perpetuum_mobile
          perpetuum_mobile 5 July 2012 21: 00 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So what to do then ??? Do you personally have a recipe ??
      2. 755962
        755962 5 July 2012 21: 45 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Quote: Tersky
        suspension of ten more X-55 missiles is provided

        Doomsday Wings
        1. Tersky 5 July 2012 22: 04 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: 755962
          Doomsday Wings

          Eugene, "+" good !
        2. VAF
          VAF 5 July 2012 23: 11 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: 755962
          Doomsday Wings


          Zheka, hello, +!

          Now, if the photo was an expanded system, but a group launch. Although there would be 6 pieces from each KMGU, and at least five planes, then it looks like ... adequate measures, and so ...... although it’s good, what else So.....!

      3. VAF
        VAF 6 July 2012 10: 34 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Tersky
        In the modification of the Tu-95MS16, in addition to the intra-fuselage launcher, the suspension of ten more X-55 missiles on four underwing holders is provided.


        Victor, hello, +! Absolutely, here only the carrier range at the same time "falls" in half !!!

        Quote: Tersky
        Well, there are X-555 fresh ones, those will be more solid


        And here he is right, and more powerful and more precisely, only with a range ..... less than 55, not to mention 55CM.
        1. Foamas 6 July 2012 10: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          How long will it take to get these planes into the air after receiving a real combat alert order?
          How many of them will take off before the destruction of the airfield ??
  3. Tersky 5 July 2012 16: 52 New
    • 17
    • 0
    +17
    Yes .., 13 and 20 hours ...., once the Bears were constantly patrolling. Therefore, the Pentagon reacted so, one might say, dismissively. But it’s better than nothing ..
  4. nokki 5 July 2012 16: 53 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    North! North! North! He has always been a key element in our History!
  5. Alexander Romanov 5 July 2012 16: 54 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    Amer and I had a reboot what It’s two feet to me, I’m going, I missed something wassat Overload was written on the button, but it looks more like the current situation.
    1. Shohmansur
      Shohmansur 5 July 2012 17: 06 New
      • -29
      • 0
      -29
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      Mouth to me two legs
      You earn money from the owners good
      1. Alexander Romanov 5 July 2012 17: 12 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Listen seropogonny fall away from me.
        1. Shohmansur
          Shohmansur 5 July 2012 18: 22 New
          • -13
          • 0
          -13
          Quote: Alexander Romanov
          Listen seropogon

          Like a wretched bottom, wretched and stupid. But by the way, all the good, stupid cannot be corrected and not persuaded.
    2. Kaa
      Kaa 5 July 2012 18: 09 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      During the reboot, the network could not withstand the voltage of the resulting warming, which caused an overload. "Bolivar can not stand two"
  6. with
    with 5 July 2012 16: 55 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Fine, it is a pity that the amers do not sleep like the Turks at the remote control! bully
    Although, I doubt very much that the F-15 could prevent a nuclear strike by bombers. !!)) bully
    1. Samosval
      Samosval 5 July 2012 16: 57 New
      • -4
      • 0
      -4
      And what do you think (f-15) would not prevent it ???
      1. Lord of the Sith 5 July 2012 17: 27 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        I answered you above, it was patrolling and most likely photographing the American floating radar that the Americans sent there a couple of months ago. And as for the combat operation, it is enough for them to stay at 5000 km from the target. At such a distance, the Americans will not even see our radar, but only missiles already reaching the target.
        1. Samosval
          Samosval 5 July 2012 18: 40 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Provided that along the route of the missile the air defense system will not be built development
          1. 11 black 5 July 2012 19: 29 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Samosval
            Provided that along the route of the missile the air defense system will not be built development

            To get belay developed system about the middle of the ocean, mdaaa :)
            PS if you are talking about ships that can stand in the way of a rocket so it can 1 them) stupidly fly around 2) fly in them.
    2. Manager 5 July 2012 17: 08 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: met
      Although, I doubt very much that the F-15 could prevent a nuclear strike by bombers. !!))


      F 15 Would have ripped off our bombers. Bombers have other goals. A F15 created for fighting in the air.
      1. tverskoi77
        tverskoi77 5 July 2012 17: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Of course, completely different tasks and methods for their implementation.
      2. 11 black 5 July 2012 18: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        yes understand, I wrote about it above
        15, in principle, will not be able to destroy our bombers since they shoot from a distance twice that of its flight range, in a real battle, ours would not have flown near the border of America, flew up on 5000 (f 15 flies on 2000) volley and back!
        1. Samosval
          Samosval 5 July 2012 18: 47 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          Do aircraft carriers and retrofit engineers not smscha ?? And the rocket to the sound and even to such a great distance is not very difficult production ((
          1. 11 black 5 July 2012 18: 58 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            but the fact that a couple of missiles can fly into aircraft carriers does not bother you))
            1. Samosval
              Samosval 5 July 2012 19: 11 New
              • -3
              • 0
              -3
              And the fact that he does not reach the AG in a real war, you respected does not make you think. Who doesn’t have such accuracy to get into an aircraft carrier without entering the affected area?
              1. 11 black 5 July 2012 19: 35 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                question:
                WHAT FOR NUCLEAR ROCKET ACCURACY? and even more so I see no reason to get into an aircraft carrier.
              2. Tersky 5 July 2012 20: 28 New
                • 6
                • 0
                +6
                Quote: Samosval
                And the fact that he does not reach the AG in a real war, you respected does not make you think. Who doesn’t have such accuracy to get into an aircraft carrier without entering the affected area?

                Between April 22 and May 3 2007, two Russian Tu-95MS aircraft took part in the incident that occurred during the British Army's “Neptune Warrior” exercises held in the Clyde Bay of the North Sea near the Hebrides. Russian aircraft appeared in the area of ​​exercises (conducted in neutral waters), after which two British fighter jets were lifted from the Luashar airbase in the Scottish district of Fife. Fighters escorted Russian aircraft until they left the training area. According to a representative of the British Air Force, this was the first such incident since the end of the Cold War. In August 2007, the Tu-95MS flew as part of an exercise near the US Navy base on the Pacific island of Guam, in July - in the immediate vicinity of the British air border over the North Sea, and on September 6, British fighters had to immediately meet eight Russian bombers
                The Russian Tu-95 bomber, accompanied by F / A-18, flies over the Nimitz aircraft carrier, February 9 2008 year
                On the night of 9 on 10 on February 2008, four Tu-95 took off from the Ukrainka air base. Two of them flew close to the air border of Japan and one of them, according to the statements of the Japanese side, which put forward a note of protest for three minutes, violated the border. The second pair of aircraft headed towards the aircraft carrier "Nimitz". When Russian planes to the ship aboutwas set about 800 km Four F / A-18 were raised to intercept. 80 KM DISTANCE American planes intercepted the Tu-95 from the aircraft carrier group, but despite this, one of the “bears” passed twice over the “Nimitz” at an altitude of approximately 600 meters. Get smarter finally .....
                1. Lord of the Sith 5 July 2012 20: 59 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Yes, it’s like peas against a wall.
              3. 11 black 5 July 2012 21: 11 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                I just don’t understand: 1) why is a nuclear missile accurate?
                2) and how do you get a missile at an aircraft carrier with "sufficient" accuracy so that the missile does not fall into the affected area - agree nonsense
                3) even if the missile misses several tens of kilometers, a wave will rise so that the whole AUG will be washed away
                1. edge 9 July 2012 15: 02 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  I will add, after Amy the entire combat information system will be covered
              4. alexng 5 July 2012 23: 55 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                And he doesn’t have to get into the AUG - just raise the wave by meters of commercials by ... twenty dozens of kilometers from them and all the bling will be belly up. And do not forget that volleys will go cascading to blind the enemy. There are no winners in such a mess, and cannot be.
              5. luiswoo 6 July 2012 00: 30 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Samosval
                And the fact that he does not reach the AG in a real war, you respected does not make you think. Who doesn’t have such accuracy to get into an aircraft carrier without entering the affected area?

                Anti-ship variants of cruise missiles were not taken into account? They have their own guidance system available, if they do not bother, they do not miss.
              6. edge 9 July 2012 15: 16 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                in addition to tactics (the use of small units in battle), there is also a strategy (warfare from a regiment and higher) and operational art (the use of diverse forces and means). Who told you that the carcasses will be given to the carrier groups for devastation. Amerikosov will be forced to spin like a louse on a scallop ....... For this, the thinking of the command staff in the academies of the armed forces and the general staff is formed.
        2. pistons 5 July 2012 19: 56 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Well, let’s ... do we have a cruise missile with a launch range of 5000 km? This is still a big question.

          So we proceed from the standard armament of the X-55 rake with a range of 2500-3000 km

          With this range, our missile carriers, well, from the same Petropavlovsk can, in principle, work close to Alaska not far from the coast.

          But to get at least to the Pacific coast (Seattle. Los Angeles. San Francisco). The carcasses will have to fly 2500-3000 km over the Pacific Ocean. to the rocket launch site.

          Well, no one has yet canceled carrier-based aviation from the United States
          However, as destroyers missile defense.
          1. alexng 6 July 2012 00: 03 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            And how many carcasses are needed so that these destroyers of missile defense and UAGs do not get in the way of others? Do not forget that cruise missiles with nuclear warheads are loaded on board the carcasses. Plus, the nuclear submarines do not have to be debited. And in general there is nothing to argue about. So worthless verbal bickering.
            1. edge 9 July 2012 15: 17 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              ............ for these destroyers submarines fellow
          2. Bnik
            Bnik 6 July 2012 03: 41 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            No nuclear weapons will work in Alaska, it is very close to us and there is a chance that radiation will reach our country (and it will fly) Yes, and besides, it was our territory and it would be easier to take it by capturing it.
          3. edge 9 July 2012 15: 04 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            just haarp get
        3. luiswoo 6 July 2012 00: 25 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote:
          11 black
          In principle, Ф ХNUMX will not be able to destroy our bombers, since they shoot from a distance twice that of its flight range, in real combat ours would not have flown near the border of America, flew up to 15 (ф 5000 flies to 15) volley and vice versa!

          We say the USA - we mean NATO, we say NATO ...

          From the territory of Norway it’s completely intercepted.
  7. Evgeny B.
    Evgeny B. 5 July 2012 16: 56 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    The news is good, the Russian bear began to go for walks from the den. Amer continue the game of ignoring the actions of Russia, trying to show their superiority. It would be to surprise them how Nikita Sergeyevich had been at one time, so that they could remember in whose hands they were being watched * p * a *.
  8. Lucky man
    Lucky man 5 July 2012 16: 59 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Nothing, I think it’s worth a little patience and in about 10 years our PAK YES with red stars on their wings will patrol
    1. Samosval
      Samosval 5 July 2012 18: 38 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      In 10 years, he will be needed in modern warfare as boots in Africa during the day
      1. edge 9 July 2012 15: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        .... and boots in Africa are already needed, you look at the weather forecasts, nice people and make adequate conclusions.
  9. Volkh
    Volkh 5 July 2012 17: 07 New
    • -7
    • 0
    -7
    Quote: met
    Fine, it is a pity that the amers do not sleep like the Turks at the remote control! Although, I doubt very much that the F-15 could prevent a nuclear strike by bombers. !!))

    in modern combat conditions, bombers have little chance of successfully bombing, not to mention the confrontation with F15, in this case the bomber is more likely a victim if without a little bit of cover.
    1. tverskoi77
      tverskoi77 5 July 2012 17: 33 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      that's for sure, only the belly is not a bomb, but the X-55, and this radically changes the matter.
      1. 11 black 5 July 2012 18: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        here I am about it)) +
    2. Tersky 5 July 2012 18: 01 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: WOLF
      in modern combat conditions, bombers have little chance of successfully bombing,
      And who said that missile carrier (he does not bombard but launches missiles for predetermined goals), in modern conditions of the battle (although he is violet before the battle, he has completely different goals and objectives) will remain unaccompanied by our fighters.
      1. Samosval
        Samosval 5 July 2012 18: 37 New
        • -3
        • 0
        -3
        In recent wars, our aviation (even under the control of foreign officers) showed not the best result. An example is Iraq, Yugoslavia
        1. Tersky 5 July 2012 19: 35 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Samosval
          In recent wars, our aviation (even under the control of foreign officers) showed not the best result. An example is Iraq, Yugoslavia

          Do you understand what you said ....?
          1. Samosval
            Samosval 5 July 2012 19: 46 New
            • -4
            • 0
            -4
            What exactly scares you ?? The fact that the aircraft produced in our country participated in these conflicts ?? Or what is the probability (given the history of all previous conflicts) of the participation of our advisers and pilots ?? I admit I put it not quite correctly. Our aviation equipment with the possible presence of it by our military experts.
            1. Tersky 5 July 2012 20: 04 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Samosval
              What exactly scares you ?? The fact that aircraft produced in our country participated in these conflicts?

              In general, it’s difficult to frighten me than that, the age is not the same. State more clearly what you are trying to convey, firstly, secondly, tell me at least one Russian pilot participating in the database of Iraq and Yugoslavia, thirdly, google the reasons for the loss of aviation equipment of Russian production in a particular VK. Google to the rescue...
              1. Samosval
                Samosval 5 July 2012 20: 09 New
                • -6
                • 0
                -6
                Talk about age and immediately ask stupid questions. Here we can judge from previous military conflicts where our interests were somehow suppressed. I AM
                1. Tersky 5 July 2012 20: 26 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: Samosval
                  immediately ask stupid questions.

                  Stupid questions and comments come from you, minus!
                2. edge 9 July 2012 15: 26 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  it’s not kaakov that’s glavnonadchik, his interests were crossed by those who had fallen asleep in military conflicts — are you not looking at the case of the Koran?
            2. edge 9 July 2012 15: 23 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              plant a monkey in f-15, she is also a fighter laughing American-made and wait for the result of the battle.
          2. edge 9 July 2012 15: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Victor did not waste time in vain, he ............. Such on the church porch always stood waiting for handouts
  10. Stelth
    Stelth 5 July 2012 17: 08 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Good news. The main thing is that the American population always knows that Russians with missiles are nearby. And there you look and their elections will be held correctly. And they will think about and listen to the words of Russia about their missile defense.
    1. Samosval
      Samosval 5 July 2012 17: 17 New
      • -10
      • 0
      -10
      The United States, with its developed air defense system, does not even pay much attention. The tactics of war has long changed. Alas, this is not a region that can be scared of "gray bears"
  11. chistii20
    chistii20 5 July 2012 17: 10 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The news is just lovely
  12. USNik
    USNik 5 July 2012 17: 17 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Almost all the news feature F15, F16, F18, F4, i.e. old men, and where are all sorts of grunts and other Be2? Are they in the hangars and rubbed with rags? In place of the Amerian inhabitant, I would ask a question, but what the hell are the most expensive and effective toys, which are required to punish and bend opponents and PR the Air Force, "freeze"?
  13. Volkh
    Volkh 5 July 2012 17: 18 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    Who is the minus - I ask your arguments to the studio. Or throw caps with it?
  14. Speedy 5 July 2012 17: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "And so far we have not come to the conclusion that this is a signal of some kind," said Dempsey. - But in vain !!!
  15. denkastro 5 July 2012 17: 19 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Amna likes that our strategists and the submarine fleet began to go into the operational space little by little.
  16. Volkh
    Volkh 5 July 2012 17: 21 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    Quote: Manager



    Manager (1) Today, 17:08 PM ↑ ↓


    -1








    Quote: metAlthough, I strongly doubt that the F-15 could interfere with the nuclear strike of the bombers. !!)) F 15 It would break off our bombers. Bombers have other goals. A F15 created for fighting in the air.

    I agree with every word.
    You can be a patriot as much as you like, but in battle, when you are on a bomb and you have a fighter on your tail, even the strongest patriotism will not help.
    1. Hey
      Hey 5 July 2012 17: 48 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      You make the easiest trick - you drop the speed (TU-95 can fly very slowly), but the F-15 will slip fast and while it will turn around, well, do not yawn missiles.
      1. ymNIK1970 5 July 2012 20: 21 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        How can stupid trolls know about such tactics, lol . Information of this level simply does not fit into their heads. Fairy-tale creatures, good luck to you in your hard and thankless job. The more you blow, the clearer and more understandable the position of your masters will become for us. And it becomes pronounced, knee-elbow. It's funny And usually sooo deep.
      2. skiff-xnumx 7 July 2012 16: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There are 2 more GS-23s, so you can make holes in the F-15.
    2. Teploteh - nick
      Teploteh - nick 5 July 2012 18: 03 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: WOLF
      You can be a patriot as much as you like, but in battle, when you are on a bomb and you have a fighter on your tail, even the strongest patriotism will not help.

      Tu-160, Tu-95 - this not a BOMBER !!!
      THIS IS A STRATEGIC Rocket Carrier !!!!
      100th time - for the gifted !!! Missile launch range - 5.000km.
      And on their tail - a machine gun is installed - if that. And always cover them - OUR fighters and interceptors!
      1. Samosval
        Samosval 5 July 2012 18: 19 New
        • -6
        • 0
        -6
        Machine gun against f 22 and f 35 ?? I think it is these aircraft that will intercept them if they go undercover or in a real war. But what we can really defend in this case is the question. It is not patriotic, but aviation which is able to break through and simultaneously block the “strategists” can be counted on the fingers.
      2. Tersky 5 July 2012 19: 45 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Teploteh - nick
        And on their tail - a machine gun is installed - if that. And always cover them - OUR fighters and interceptors!

        I’ll fix it a bit, my colleague is not a machine gun, but the GSh-23 (TKB-613) is a double-barreled aviation gun designed to equip movable and fixed cannon installations of aircraft, in the amount of 2 pieces per TU -95MS, on earlier modifications TU -95, AM-23 Soviet aircraft gun caliber 23-mm. in the amount of 3 × 2 pieces ... And write a name in the profile, not seriously, as if in a dialogue they turn to "not important" ...
  17. Lord of the Sith 5 July 2012 17: 23 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Previously, a couple of fighters were raised for each of our “bears”. Now four only two F-15s. Americans lack a fuel crisis)
  18. User777
    User777 5 July 2012 17: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It’s good that such flights are carried out. Once again, it’s always pleasant for Americans to call their eyes)
  19. Volkh
    Volkh 5 July 2012 17: 35 New
    • -4
    • 0
    -4
    Samosval,
    Quote: Samosval



    Samosval Today, 17:17 ↑ ↓



    1








    The United States, with its developed air defense system, does not even pay much attention. The tactics of war has long changed. Alas, this is not a region that can be scared of "gray bears"


    yes, right at the point said
    1. edge 9 July 2012 15: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      respected tactics do not change, this is the science of the conduct of hostilities, it has many faces. The forces and means are changing, and the methods of their use are changing. In Yugoslavia, the old Soviet point y, banged f-117, let them ignore ................... and we will help.
  20. maestro123 5 July 2012 17: 38 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    That's right, right. Stop the nerves to the Americans. Let Saakashvilli’s galustas chew. wink
    1. Samosval
      Samosval 5 July 2012 17: 51 New
      • -13
      • 0
      -13
      Why are they chewing ties? This is our "servants of the people" in the current situation will soon have to eat "textile products"
      1. Alexander Romanov 5 July 2012 18: 08 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        This is a question for Saakashvilli, why did he eat it
    2. edge 9 July 2012 15: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      nda, the total sin has destroyed many.
  21. Samosval
    Samosval 5 July 2012 17: 41 New
    • -12
    • 0
    -12
    I do not want to seem annoying, but I’ll ask you to comment on your “cons”. Thanks in advance.
    1. 11 black 5 July 2012 18: 29 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      dump truck, and you are a good troll ... laughing
      and the minuses, I think, because in a real battle f 15 and that 160 just will not meet, why they will not meet, I wrote above ... and generally compare the air battle of a fighter and a bomber
      1. Samosval
        Samosval 5 July 2012 18: 33 New
        • -6
        • 0
        -6
        Blind patriotism, it is not necessary not to evaluate the enemy. This usually ends badly.
        1. Teploteh - nick
          Teploteh - nick 5 July 2012 19: 27 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Samosval
          no need to evaluate the enemy.

          You learn to write first without mistakes - wise guy! Learn the Russian language and finish the School anew - otherwise it is not clear what they taught you there. Underestimate - spelled together! tongue - O great strategist and you are our genius! laughing
        2. El13 5 July 2012 19: 47 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          So I do not underestimate you, but I'm already tired of listening to the story about the f15 attack on the missile carrier :))
        3. Tersky 5 July 2012 19: 48 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: Samosval
          no need to evaluate the enemy.

          As well as overestimating ...
  22. Commander 5 July 2012 19: 01 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I believe that ours is doing the right thing by studying the routes and shores of Amers !! It is necessary that the pilots get used to learn the subtleties, being above neutral waters. And if it touches, they will launch rockets from afar, where they can’t reach f 15. After all, ours are not made of fingers either !!
    1. Samosval
      Samosval 5 July 2012 19: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, but do not think that it somehow frightens them))
  23. Yasen Ping 5 July 2012 19: 15 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And how was the news delivered (((, they lead us, they accompany us, they give us a fly, but where are our escort planes so that the amers do not fly accompanied, ???? I don’t understand why, but if the amer is nearby, what's the point work out something?
  24. snek
    snek 5 July 2012 19: 15 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Commentary on the news is funny enough. The site (and not only here) has developed a stable concept of "anti-poop aviation", which, as a rule, is understood by American UAVs, in the sense that their use against a country with a developed air defense system will be extremely difficult. But the Tu-95 (in any modification) itself has no chance to break through any serious air defense, and without escort it is absolutely defenseless against fighters. This does not say that the 95th is a bad machine, it says that it requires special tactics of application. It can be used either to seize control of airspace, or as a means of retaliatory nuclear strike (if you have time before the arrival of enemy missiles will rise into the air and thereby be saved).
    The flight of the four of the 95s is pure window dressing, and window dressing is for you and me. And the fact that the Americans raised their planes to intercept is not an indicator of fear, but an adequate (and, most likely, properly prescribed) reaction. With similar actions by the Americans, we would also raise our fighters.
    1. perpetuum_mobile
      perpetuum_mobile 5 July 2012 21: 11 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Yes, you understand one thing, that in real hostilities no one will send their strategists so far .... They do not need to fly so far. For this, they have the necessary weapons that have a long range ... Or do you think that the Americans will fly so close even on their B-2? Sometimes at least think a little objectively, and not from the point of view of the simple populism of our Air Force’s fault (which is now in fashion)
  25. rinzhak
    rinzhak 5 July 2012 19: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    just like in the good old days!
    1. Samosval
      Samosval 5 July 2012 19: 36 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In the good old they did not shout about this as an achievement, it was a common thing.
      1. Tersky 5 July 2012 19: 51 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Samosval
        In the good old they did not shout about this as an achievement, it was a common thing.

        Here is a plus for this
  26. Simon 5 July 2012 19: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Of course, this does not frighten anyone, but you need to protect your borders and to know that Russia has its own air force capable of carrying nuclear charges.
  27. 5aa1
    5aa1 5 July 2012 19: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    more often it is necessary to make such sorties so that the gentlemen do not relax!
    Dump truck, I dare say that you are trying in vain to undermine the patriotism of a Russian person, you are a trash mountain.
    1. Samosval
      Samosval 5 July 2012 19: 34 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Blind patriotism and ignorance in your opinion is this something to be proud of ??
      1. 5aa1
        5aa1 5 July 2012 19: 40 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Blind patriotism

        I personally think that one should be proud of one’s state no matter what. and, in my opinion, I clearly see, since I am a patriot. and you are blind, dear anti-rus.
        1. Samosval
          Samosval 5 July 2012 20: 03 New
          • -7
          • 0
          -7
          Russophobe in your opinion is a person really looking at the world. And who doesn’t believe in fairy tales that the equipment developed in 56 with the last serial production released in the late 80s can pose a real threat to the modern army of the enemy ??? If so then let's those 20 more years will be proud of it!
          1. Tersky 5 July 2012 20: 15 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Samosval
            . And who doesn’t believe in fairy tales that the equipment developed in 56 with the last serial production at the end of the 80 can be a real threat to the modern army of the enemy ??

            Samosval, you hit me with every comment, for reference; B-52 strategic bomber-bomber, in service with the US Air Force since the 1955 year .. This is also one of two (along with the Tu-95) aircraft that have been in service continuously for more than half a century. With the latest modernization in 1979 and retrofitting in 1979. Well, if everything is so good there, why the hell do they still keep this aircraft in service? Or are they so dumb compared to you? "Realist" you are "our" ...
            1. Samosval
              Samosval 5 July 2012 21: 15 New
              • -4
              • 0
              -4
              They have them under the “podnatoskali” to participate in local wars, and the “machine” itself surpasses the “pensioner bear” in almost all respects
      2. perpetuum_mobile
        perpetuum_mobile 5 July 2012 21: 06 New
        • -2
        • 0
        -2
        Blind patriotism leads to the long-awaited victory no matter what ...
        1. Samosval
          Samosval 5 July 2012 21: 27 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          We always win, on patriotism and the will to win, but our technical strength (based on history) comes to the end of the war and we come to the next wars again on the same patriotism and the will to win. Examples I think are not needed ?! And to remind what such victories cost us. So that would not be like this, you must love your army! Only now they are not blindly admiring junk, but it is right to emphasize and analyze its shortcomings. After all, as they say, "forewarned means armed"
      3. edge 9 July 2012 15: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        samosval patriotism is pride in one’s land, one’s people, one’s parents and relatives, recognition of oneself as an individual creating a great civilization — he cannot be blind. A blind person is reaching for scraps from someone else's table. You can see these concepts are alien, you are probably embittered miscarriage or surviving abortion victim.
  28. Castor oil 5 July 2012 19: 39 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And here, besides everything else, in this aviation context, I’m interested in the comment by the head of Pengaton Leon Panetta, saying "everything is in order, people work, normal practice", and, against the background of his rebuke to HaKlinton (regarding her false hysteria about "helicopters to Syria ", the same Panetta then noted that the pentagon does not have such data, and it sounded like" close the mouth of a fool, you are not a monica "))) - we can conclude that he is not a politician (in the bad sense of the word), but normal , honest, and most importantly adequate warrior? We need to look at him ...
  29. Nursultan
    Nursultan 5 July 2012 19: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Probably during the flight all Pentagon generals were gathered there and the President of the United States was in suspense throughout the flight
  30. Orthodox warrior
    Orthodox warrior 5 July 2012 19: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Good news. Like in the days of the USSR. So it is necessary to continue. But the dumping pedriots got it. Like a mosquito at night.
    1. Samosval
      Samosval 5 July 2012 20: 16 New
      • -4
      • 0
      -4
      Only I, dear, I’m sorry now, not even 1991. The world and, accordingly, technology have gone far ahead. I understand that it’s hard for you to hear, but please laugh
      1. snek
        snek 5 July 2012 20: 33 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Samosval
        Only I, dear, I’m sorry now, not even 1991. The world and, accordingly, technology have gone far ahead. I understand that it’s hard for you to hear, but please laugh

        From your own experience of communication on the site - do not try to prove anything to a person with the nickname "Orthodox warrior". I then once proved to a similar comrade that the Chinese wall was built all the same by the Chinese and not our ancestors, and jokingly said that they might have recognized our pyramids and that ours were an anti-myorrhoidal defense built by our ancient ancestors ... after that I realized that some people are better off either not talking at all or only chatting for fun.
        Quote: Samosval
        I understand that it’s hard for you to hear, but please laugh

        Here I still do not agree. It must be admitted, but it’s not worth it to reconcile. It is necessary to object to education and science, starting from school: to open various circles (air, radio, etc.) to invest more money in science. Work shorter.
        Quote: Orthodox warrior
        dumping pedriots

        Ento, as it were, is a transition to individuals and deserves a warning (well, or how moderators decide)
  31. Volkh
    Volkh 5 July 2012 20: 03 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    Quote: Samosval

    Avatar Negative Rating
    online
    Samosval RU Today, 19:34 ↑ new
    - -1 +
    Blind patriotism and ignorance in your opinion is this something to be proud of ??

    A cap-breaking philosophy is spread on this site. And any statements that are called sober are doomed. The same audience calls anti-Russians and actively minuses them.
    The question is, what tactical and strategic side brought these sorties? Most likely nothing, because it’s not even a demonstration of strength. It’s like the maneuvers of 4x T90 tanks along the Chinese border. It’s not even a muscle game. And to be frank this is an empty article, watery .
    It goes without saying that all countries have some kind of weaponry, but separate demarches of any kind of equipment are not an indicator, a combination in neutral waters - 3x submarines, 2-x aircraft carriers, 5-x small des.catters, ground attack aircraft with cover this is yes, a game of muscles under the pretext of exercises.
    Accordingly, I think that this article was written for trolling.
    1. Castor oil 5 July 2012 20: 08 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: WOLF
      A cap-breaking philosophy is spread on this site. And any statements that are called sober are doomed. The same audience calls anti-Russians and actively minuses them.
      The question is, what tactical and strategic side brought these sorties? Most likely nothing, because it’s not even a demonstration of strength. It’s like the maneuvers of 4x T90 tanks along the Chinese border. It’s not even a muscle game. And to be frank this is an empty article, watery .
      It goes without saying that all countries have some kind of weaponry, but separate demarches of any kind of equipment are not an indicator, a combination in neutral waters - 3x submarines, 2-x aircraft carriers, 5-x small des.catters, ground attack aircraft with cover this is yes, a game of muscles under the pretext of exercises.

      For "especially gifted" dyslexic patients:
      The crews have mastered flight skills over reference-free terrain, as well as performed on-the-fly and on-air refueling from Il-78 tanker aircraft, for reaching the western coast of the Aleutian Islands and patrolling along the coast of Alaska,
    2. Samosval
      Samosval 5 July 2012 20: 11 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      Keep
  32. toguns
    toguns 5 July 2012 20: 08 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    I recalled this song about bears :)

    Passing taxiing on a flight
    On the strip the ship will freeze
    At the executive. "Prayer". All on the map.
    Screws all eight to the stop.
    Runaway. Separation. Turn. Set.
    And we will leave all the problems there - at the start.

    The route is laid by eye
    We believe the navigator at one time
    There is no Internet and Google is not available.
    And like fifty years ago
    Bombers like a parade
    They go north, then to go around the corner.

    And like a letter, our board
    Escort accompanies us
    But there’s no orchestral copper in the sky.
    And somewhere in the NATO headquarters
    Scrambling in a hurry
    Russian "Bears" are flying to the Atlantic!

    The Bears are flying to the Atlantic ...

    Spilled coffee will burn
    Chatterbox does not protect us
    The weather is rubbish and the radar is completely exposed.
    And in the fuselage a revolver
    He produced SSR
    They would say to the Yankees that "Russian roulette".

    And instead of good news
    KOU will report about the guests
    A pair of adversaries will hang on the planes.
    They are also on a break
    And almost into the blister for us with a wing
    Such greyhounds are usually from the States.

    But will not change course
    Though impudent our escort
    We send them home to beloved ladies.
    And somewhere in the NATO headquarters
    The alarm sounds and everyone is on the run
    The Russian "Bears" have come to the Atlantic!

    Came to the Atlantic "Bears" ...

    Sorry there are no roads in the ocean
    And he is like a haystack to us
    We need to find the damn needle in it.
    And we seek risk and fear
    Wave Carrier
    But we will not find - then the whole task is useless.

    And the cry "I see, commander!"
    Suddenly tear the dumb ether
    The iron box is already visible from above.
    The admiral curses there
    Spacing will suit and rush
    And we are so happy - like little children.

    Swings us wings escort
    Will send a report about the Russian board
    And our flying neighbors will be removed
    Their headquarters will hang up
    They will only argue among themselves
    When the Bears come to the Atlantic again.

    The Bears will come to the Atlantic ...

    We're going on a date
    We will find each other with a tanker
    And seven pots will come off, but we will catch the cone.
    Though hard to keep the regime
    We cherish every ton
    And turbulence will increase our very tone.

    Our plane is buzzing charter
    He remembers different places
    Vietnam, Angola, Cuba and Guinea.
    Fathers flew there before us
    But if they had given us an order
    We could certainly use it, because we can!

    And the crew - he just could
    And let fatigue knock down
    But we are so happy for our little victory
    What doesn’t put us to sleep at all
    The garrison is not sleeping today
    Bears returned from the Atlantic
    The Bears came home ...
    The Bears are waddling around ...
    Home favorite "Bears" ... "Bears" ... "Bears" ...
    1. snek
      snek 5 July 2012 20: 21 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: toguns
      I recalled this song about bears :)

      By the way, the Americans also have a song about this bear (I accidentally found out about it when I put the mod on additional radio on New Vegas) called The bear flew over the ocean (the Bear flew across the ocean):
      Bear Flew Over The Ocean, The: Jimmie Driftwood [1959]

      Oh the bear flew over the ocean
      The bear flew over the ocean
      The bear flew over the ocean
      To see what he could see

      He saw a friendly nation
      He saw a friendly nation
      He saw a friendly nation
      And all of our people were free-ee, oh

      Big bear go back and tell them
      Big bear go back and tell them
      Big bear go back and tell them
      That all of our people are free!

      Oh the bear flew over the ocean
      The bear ...
      To see what he could see

      He saw a peaceful nation
      ...
      And all of our people were free-ee, oh

      Big bear go back and tell them
      ...
      That all of our people are free!

      Oh the bear flew over the ocean
      The bear ...
      To see what he could see

      He saw a powerful nation
      ...
      And all of our people were free-ee, oh

      Big bear go back and tell them
      ...
      That all of our people are free-ee, oh

      Big bear go back and tell them
      ...
      That all of our people are free-ee, oh

      All of our people are free, yes
      All of our people are free, yeah
      All of our people ...

      Elsie who is interested to listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGyrRAqB5PM
      1. Manager 6 July 2012 14: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And the bear flew over the ocean
        The bear flew over the ocean
        The bear flew over the ocean
        To understand what he could see

        He saw a friendly state
        He saw a friendly state
        He saw a friendly state
        And all our people were free-eh, oh

        Big bear come back and tell them
        Big bear come back and tell them
        Big bear come back and tell them
        This is all our people are free!

        And the bear flew over the ocean
        Bear ...
        To understand what he could see

        He saw a peaceful state
        .
        And all our people were free-eh, oh

        Big bear come back and tell them
        .
        This is all our people are free!

        And the bear flew over the ocean
        Bear ...
        To understand what he could see

        He saw a powerful state
        .
        And all our people were free-eh, oh

        Big bear come back and tell them
        .
        This is all our people are free-ee, oh

        Big bear come back and tell them
        .
        This is all our people are free-ee, oh

        All our people are free, yes
        All our people are free, yes
        All our people ...
  33. Volkh
    Volkh 5 July 2012 20: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Castor_ka
    Lieutenant
    online
    Kastor_ka (2) RU Today, 20:08 ↑ new
    - 0 +
    Quote: WOLF
    A cap-breaking philosophy is spread on this site. And any statements that are called sober are doomed. The same audience calls anti-Russians and actively minuses them.
    The question is, what tactical and strategic side brought these sorties? Most likely nothing, because it’s not even a demonstration of strength. It’s like the maneuvers of 4x T90 tanks along the Chinese border. It’s not even a muscle game. And to be frank this is an empty article, watery .
    It goes without saying that all countries have some kind of weaponry, but separate demarches of any kind of equipment are not an indicator, a combination in neutral waters - 3x submarines, 2-x aircraft carriers, 5-x small des.catters, ground attack aircraft with cover this is yes, a game of muscles under the pretext of exercises.

    For "especially gifted" dyslexic patients:
    The crews have mastered flight skills over reference-free terrain, as well as performed on-the-fly and on-air refueling from Il-78 tanker aircraft, for reaching the western coast of the Aleutian Islands and patrolling along the coast of Alaska,

    Well, so am I, too, the news is nonsense, why write something that is natural? It's the Air Force and it is natural that they fly and work out something, why present everything in the same way as it was done.
    1. Xikary
      Xikary 5 July 2012 20: 34 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      And so that the “urapatriots” from this site would normalize people and write to each other what powerful state we built under Putin damn .... propaganda .. Goebels nervously smokes))
      1. Castor oil 5 July 2012 21: 54 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Xikary
        And so that the “urapatriots” from this site would normalize people and write to each other what powerful state we built under Putin damn .... propaganda .. Goebels nervously smokes))

        To gobels calmly smoked ... You have beguiled something. Soak up - this is the urapatriotic site "X .. you and not Sharapov", and not "FsёB..ya lost." Andistend? tongue
    2. Castor oil 5 July 2012 21: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: WOLF
      Well, so am I, too, the news is nonsense, why write something that is natural? It's the Air Force and it is natural that they fly and work out something, why present everything in the same way as it was done.

      Then write, they say "fucking work out ...", and not the evil "x..le demonstrated ..." - and then everything will be clear. wink
    3. 11Goor11
      11Goor11 6 July 2012 00: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Volkh
      Well, so am I, too, the news is nonsense, why write something that is natural? It's the Air Force and it is natural that they fly and work out something, why present everything in the same way as it was done.

      This is news, not nonsense, and if we don’t talk about what is happening in the armed forces, then the patriotic population reacts, "AAA, they’re not doing anything, everything’s gone, everyone’s on the soap!"
      And who was upset by this news? You didn’t upset you either.
  34. Pilot200809 5 July 2012 20: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    You must keep the adversary constantly in suspense, and the pilots a good experience yes
  35. Deniska999 5 July 2012 20: 24 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Long live Russian aviation! Hooray!!!
  36. Volkh
    Volkh 5 July 2012 20: 34 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Quote: Tersky
    Tersky (1) RU Today, 18:01 ↑
    - 0 +
    Quote: WOLF
    in modern combat conditions, bombers have little chance of successfully bombing,
    And whoever said that the missile carrier (it does not bombard and launches missiles for predetermined targets), in modern conditions of the battle (although it is violet before the battle, it has completely different goals and objectives) will remain unaccompanied by our fighters.

    who else would let him get together.
  37. Popandopulo
    Popandopulo 5 July 2012 20: 37 New
    • -5
    • 0
    -5
    Again another window dressing !! We found something to frighten the Ancients that 95, which barely fly, and which go astray with an ordinary slingshot! For a complete set, there is not enough pair of IL-2 to accompany., It would be generally class !!! As always, Russia is trying to demonstrate power. It would be better to give the burned kerosene to tractor drivers, otherwise there is not enough fuel to harvest grain ...
    1. perpetuum_mobile
      perpetuum_mobile 5 July 2012 21: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      So it is necessary to propose something modern that does not "go astray" ... Any thoughts on this ??
      1. lewerlin53rus 5 July 2012 21: 47 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Popandopulo
        Ancient Tu 95

        And from what point then do your idols from the country of dreams keep the B-52 in service?
  38. toguns
    toguns 5 July 2012 20: 40 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Popandopulo
    Again another window dressing !! We found something to frighten the Ancients that 95, which barely fly, and which go astray with an ordinary slingshot! For a complete set, there is not enough pair of IL-2 to accompany., It would be generally class !!! As always, Russia is trying to demonstrate power. It would be better to give the burned kerosene to tractor drivers, otherwise there is not enough fuel to harvest grain ..

    wassat mdya very sad, you are so stupid that you don’t even know what power the Tu-95 have.
    1. B_KypTke 5 July 2012 21: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      He's worse ... he's just ... kyu.
      1. edge 9 July 2012 16: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        and iq he probably over 140 naughty ....... drinks
  39. StrateG
    StrateG 5 July 2012 21: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Samosval
    Oh yes, you declassified me. I’m hired to convince people that the old and ineffective technique (for delivering the first blow) is not the pride of the country, declaring itself to be a geopolitical leader, not only in this particular region, but throughout the world.


    Learn to write, and then arise. In addition, you do not have a drop of respect for your country like others negatively related to such news, I do not speak for patriotism. I will not talk about the dispute with other participants, but it raises the idea that your zeal is to put America on the favorable side for you, and I'm sorry for the expression to fuck our equipment, our country, our people in the end who performed these exercises. Yes, I respect the opinions of others, but I think you are fundamentally wrong. Save your sarcasm in advance for others. Minus is also not worth it. By this you only emphasize my innocence. IMHO.
    1. Samosval
      Samosval 5 July 2012 21: 36 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      You are not a bazaar woman, if you declare that I am wrong, then I will ask for the facts ?? And where does the Tu95 MS and Russia sdes ??? Is the plane for you homeland ?? Who are you by education judging by the fact that you write clearly do not belong to the sun
      1. B_KypTke 5 July 2012 21: 54 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Facts? ... Tell me, dear, if about a dozen Tu-95s leaving Engels in a quiet and flying over Russia to the north will pass, say Yamal, they will give all the cargo to the north pole over the Arctic, then they will leave home just as quietly. Without any refueling of the pump and conversations on the air. So what kind of air defense are you saying ?, aircraft carriers ?, will interfere with how they do it, honey?
        1. snek
          snek 5 July 2012 22: 07 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: B_KypTke
          Facts? ... Tell me, dear, if about a dozen Tu-95s leaving Engels in a quiet and flying over Russia to the north will pass, say Yamal, they will give all the cargo to the north pole over the Arctic, then they will leave home just as quietly. Without any refueling of the pump and conversations on the air. So what kind of air defense are you saying ?, aircraft carriers ?, will interfere with how they do it, honey?

          Well, a blow through the North Pole is what is for us, what is a worked out scheme for them. Flying there "quietly" will not work - planes will be lifted from Alaska and that’s all.
          1. B_KypTke 5 July 2012 22: 22 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            C Alaska? ... and which planes will raise if not a secret? After all, there are up to 2500-3000km to Yamal?
            1. snek
              snek 5 July 2012 22: 28 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: B_KypTke
              C Alaska? ... and which planes will raise if not a secret?

              I think f-22, they’re just there at the base of Elmendorf
              Quote: B_KypTke
              After all, there are up to 2500-3000km to Yamal?

              And why intercept even over Yamal? Above the North Pole, more likely, plus you can always send a tanker to meet on the way back.
              1. B_KypTke 5 July 2012 22: 51 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well you F-22 will never fly from Alaska to the north pole of the imposible.
                1. snek
                  snek 5 July 2012 22: 53 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: B_KypTke
                  Well you F-22 will never fly from Alaska to the north pole of the imposible.

                  Why? Is there a force anti-raptor field above the North Pole?
                  1. B_KypTke 5 July 2012 23: 01 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Well, if only because the combat radius of the raptor is 750 km.
                    1. snek
                      snek 5 July 2012 23: 06 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      The combat radius of the raptor is 760–1100 km plus there is such a thing as refueling.

                      that's just in the northern regions refuel.
                      1. B_KypTke 5 July 2012 23: 16 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        That is, refuelers should fly out two hours before the raptors? And in general, what are you with these raptors ... these are just demonstrators of possibilities, scarecrows are kind of like that, if anyone comes out to intercept this F-15SE, say with the PTB, they can still get it. But strategists now have free hands with such CDs as say the X-55, you can not bother and work with them without waiting for interceptors. And that the fighters will chase the KR over the North Pole with unclear prospects for refueling?
                      2. snek
                        snek 5 July 2012 23: 27 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Well, the X-55 has a range of 2500 km. If the plan is to strike at the main part of the states (and not Alaska or Canada), then the 95th will fly far and there will be much to get there.
                        Quote: B_KypTke
                        Anyway, what are you with these raptors ... these are just demonstrators of possibilities scarecrows are kind of

                        what else did you get it from?
                      3. B_KypTke 5 July 2012 23: 45 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Digital polemic .... buffoon with her. The fact is that the states are well aware that only we can smash them into firewood. And therefore they do not give vent to feelings. I have no doubt for a minute that the amers, knowing about the impossibility of a retaliatory strike, will at least one day talk with us. A carcass patrol is so for the tone and training of crews, the shift must be raised. And if armageddon goes, then ALL available means will go. And let's say such planes as the Tu-160 to intercept from Alaska at their speed of 2200km \ h. no raptors can. And why raptors are scarecrows, nobody saw them in business ... so they fly into an air show with empty tanks and make a crown candle with a set speed on the vertical .. they all wobble ... and like everyone
                      4. igorek408
                        igorek408 6 July 2012 10: 39 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        no matter how much we are surprised when the raptors are used, how much he will justify his money. such aircraft are not being built for exhibitions ...
    2. edge 9 July 2012 16: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      yeah and they will catch warheads flying along unpredictable trajectories
  • PARTISAN 5 July 2012 22: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Right now I looked at Google’s Eastern Russian airdrome maps. There are enough fighters to cover missile carriers. Sami TUShek at the airport "Ukrainka" counted as many as 38 pieces !!! With simple multiplication, we get more than 200 missiles. And I think this will be enough for the east coast of Ai, and there are a dozen obliques for the Japs ... So let our carcasses fly and make a rustle where necessary !!!
  • Tersky 5 July 2012 22: 24 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: PARTISAN
    Right now I looked at Google’s Eastern Russian airdrome maps. There are enough fighters to cover missile carriers. Sami TUShek at the airport "Ukrainka" counted as many 38 pieces !!!

    Almir PARTY bully but don’t give out secrets no "+" drinks
    1. PARTISAN 5 July 2012 22: 40 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      I’m listening, Comrade Marshal!
    2. Lord of the Sith 5 July 2012 23: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Only at a great distance is summer, and how is winter approaching))) A strange satellite, apparently photographed at different times) I counted fifty at one airport.
  • perryiht
    perryiht 5 July 2012 22: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    25 years ago, Tu-95 and Tu-160, accompanied by the F-15, flied in Alaska, and now the same thing, but our cruise missiles are not on board ... A quarter of a century has passed, and not much has changed, either in technical or politically ...
  • patsantre 5 July 2012 22: 56 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    Well, it’s ridiculous to read you. Do you really believe that these buckets with nails will reach pi * nd * stop?
    We cannot know how everything will be, but we can assume.
    To begin with, if the war does happen, then 99% of it will be started by pin * dos * tan. And what does this mean? This means that most likely, if our pilots find out that they fly tomahawks, then this could become the last thing they know.
    Suppose that our strategists have achieved a high degree of mobility (which I doubt), and they still have time to take off. Intercept, say, nothing? And what about the NATO airfields in Europe and their allies in the same Europe? Have they started interception. And they will find our strategists with their anti-missile defense radar, which is so cool to monitor the European part of Russia. Imho, for the sake of these radars, amers could begin to muddle this whole mover with Euro missile defense.
    Further, let’s say, in some way, our strategists managed to fight back from flying to them from Europe. Do you say their planes will not reach our strategists? I beg you. By this time, DRLO planes will fly towards our strategists ( to find them from afar, they don’t know where ours will fly, but they will find them with powerful radar), fighters, and refueling planes themselves. So how else will they reach ours before ours shoot back. + The same surprise will fly on our strategists not only from the states themselves, but also from aircraft carriers.
    I would really like to believe about the 5000 km launch range. But the main armament with us is still the X-55 from a range of 2500-3000 km. To get down at something a little in depth they will have to go at least 2500 km to their border. I think , if someone gets to the launch point, then perhaps the pilots. Survivors. On American ships.
    And do not make people laugh with your electronic warfare, it is unlikely to create serious obstacles to detection.
    As for the escort, I doubt that it will change anything. Well, some rusty dryers fly with our plane (by the way, some said that American fighters supposedly wouldn’t intercept ours, such as the range would not be enough. The truth was he did not mention with honor that, following this logic, our escort planes would hardly have escorted strategists beyond our borders). So, the Americans, knowing how many strategists and fighter planes are flying at them, will easily calculate what forces will be needed to intercept them. I think, even if ours had known in advance that their bombers were flying at us, then ours would have been able to intercept them. Although, by no means a fact. Yes, there wasn’t much to find out from there. For the most part, the Navy would have launched a preemptive non-nuclear strike.

    It also amused me how fun they all started to tear down bricks, having learned that our bomber flew over their aircraft carrier. Accompanied by the F18, ololo. What should I be proud of?

    It also amused me how fun they all started to tear down bricks, having learned that our bomber flew over their aircraft carrier. Accompanied by the F18, ololo. What should I be proud of?

    Quote: PARTISAN
    1








    Right now I looked at Google’s Eastern Russian airdrome maps. There are enough fighters to cover missile carriers. Sami TUShek at the airport "Ukrainka" counted as many as 38 pieces !!! With simple multiplication, we get more than 200 missiles. And I think this will be enough for the east coast of Ai, and there are a dozen obliques for the Japs ... So let our carcasses fly and make a rustle where necessary !!!


    It’s all the easier. Enough of a salvo of missiles from one ship, so that as many as 38 pieces !!!! have sunk into oblivion.
    1. Castor oil 5 July 2012 23: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: patsantre
      It also amused me how fun they all started to tear down bricks, having learned that our bomber flew over their aircraft carrier. Accompanied by the F18, ololo. What should I be proud of?

      It also amused me how fun they all started to tear down bricks, having learned that our bomber flew over their aircraft carrier. Accompanied by the F18, ololo. What should I be proud of?

      Doing everything twice two times is not bad, but fun.
      It is necessary to read to read more, otherwise it doesn’t help once. It doesn’t help. fool
    2. toguns
      toguns 5 July 2012 23: 42 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      wassat Dear patsantre, you write nonsense, and I’ll tell you so the children's jumps by strategic aviation were fashionable during the reign of Comrade Stalin, at the moment this is no longer relevant.
      The easiest option to bend all your tactics of intercepting strategists is to shoot x-55 from the depths of your territory, the result of this tactic will be great destruction in Europe.
      if you want to play with your muscles, try to intercept a volley of ground-based launchers with nuclear warheads, and this is a hello of 400 missiles.
      what we have in the end, you are stupid or you are very young.
    3. red 015
      red 015 6 July 2012 00: 25 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      patsantre,
      to give you a no-brainer no-brainer that would be less clever less clever
  • patsantre 5 July 2012 23: 13 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Castor oil,
    nothing to say in the case? I am writing here for the first time, I thought a separate post should appear, but it was added to the previous one. In general, take a walk, school troll.
  • suharev-52 6 July 2012 00: 44 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I read the comments. Yes! All around are marshals from aviation. Strategists however!. And for some reason not a single person on the site was puzzled by the fact that in the event of a conflict between us, the losing side will apply - the last argument is nuclear weapons. And after that everything will be sour, not only to us and Amers, but to the entire population of the Earth. And who does not die immediately, will die a later painful death. And you will not fly here. Sincerely.
  • sxn278619
    sxn278619 6 July 2012 00: 50 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    From the discussion it is clear that we need a plane that launches a ballistic missile with a range of 11 km. Is Russia going to strike the first blow?
    It seems not. At the first strike of the USA, the time is 20 minutes. no strategist will fly into the air. Conclusion - there should always be at sea on duty at least 2 strategists, 10 poplar-m or yars complexes on the highway.
    Why do we need aircraft with a cruise missile, even with a range of 5000 km (if the Internet does not lie). She can shoot only at a stationary target. And this is the task of conventional ballistic missiles. It is clear that they are not intended to defeat aircraft carriers, he moves while it reaches him, there will be no one there, the same missile.
    Even American tomahawks still cannot hit moving targets, although they have already learned to redirect in flight.
    In general, a new strategist = money thrown out, dozens of nuclear powered ships are better.
    1. igorek408
      igorek408 6 July 2012 10: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      missiles have pre-programmed target coordinates, retargeting happens every 3 years (I know I served). no one knows the flight tasks except the head of the Strategic Missile Forces headquarters. all potentially dangerous aggressors, plus their own borders of the Russian Federation, are under the gun of poplars and others, so in the event of an attack on Russia without the use of nuclear weapons, we may well be fired at strategic territories with nuclear bombs - to block the advancing armies. Strategic aviation is perfect for this. I mean that a nuclear attack can be aimed not only at the total destruction of the enemy with the cessation of life in these territories.
      As an example: the US and NATO will declare war on the Russian Federation and cross borders, what do we do - destroy the planet? the spirit is not enough, but a blow to the territory of Finland, the Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, Central Asia, China and Japan will immediately stop any attacks. Fortunately, we have a lot of territory in Siberia - we still have a lot of water and land ...
    2. edge 9 July 2012 16: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      all missiles have homing heads, they adjust the projectile approach
  • Odinplys
    Odinplys 6 July 2012 01: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    To cool the "hot" then ... the moronic heads of the Zionists need .... in this way ... more often to practice ... and it’s useful for the doctors ... to study the routes ...
    So hold on ... +
  • Simon 6 July 2012 07: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And with such an escort, flying is also not bad. So respected. belay And the races are respected, then they are afraid. yes good
  • Sars 6 July 2012 07: 24 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    A group of Tu-95 from 5-8 units will be able to without loss reach any point of the enemy. To do this, one or two aircraft with their missiles clear a corridor of sufficient width from the enemy’s air defense, airborne warning systems, air defense missile systems. There will be a lot of noise, dust and radiation, but if such a "dance" goes - not to sentiment.
    1. igorek408
      igorek408 6 July 2012 10: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      we have never been aggressors of wars, strategic aviation must be used for "reasonable defense"
  • alps
    alps 6 July 2012 09: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, no one will shoot, why, you forgot about cooperation, Bears-Swans fly, the Pentagon at the congress sucks a denyuzhku or something, but everyone is happy laughing