In the USA: New practice will not allow Russia and China to directly attack our bombing forces


Two US strategic B-1B bombers from the 28th US Air Force bomber wing carried out the longest “patrol” over the South China Sea in recent times.


According to the Indo-Pacific and US Strategic Command, the flight lasted about 32 hours.

Official statement of departments:

This operation demonstrates a dynamic model for using the US Air Force to implement a national defense strategy. We are talking about the constant presence of our strategic bombers where this helps our partners and allies.

Two "strategists" took off from Elssworth air base in South Dakota. At a certain section of the patrol route, they were accompanied by six US Air Force F-16 fighters, as well as several Japanese Air Force F-15 fighters.

The materials of the American media indicate that the new strategic action strategy aviation in the Indo-Pacific region involves the use of aircraft not only and not so much related to the air base on the island of Guam, as it was before. It is stated that in this way "regional opponents, Russia and China, will not be able to directly attack our bombing forces."

From the report:

The new practice of using strategic bombers makes them unattainable at airfields for Russia and China.

It is noted that strategic aviation will most often fly into the air to patrol from airfields that are located in the continental United States - without intermediate use by the Guam airfield. However, it is added that "missions from the air base in Guam are also possible."
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vasyan1971 1 May 2020 08: 14 New
    • 23
    • 0
    +23
    The new practice of using strategic bombers makes them unattainable at airfields for Russia and China.

    The main thing here is that the euphoria from impunity and permissiveness does not hit the brain.
    1. Mitroha 1 May 2020 08: 16 New
      • 63
      • 2
      +61
      Congenial. And ships driven into the sea will become unattainable for attacks in ports. Infantry deployed in the "field" from the deployment sites is invulnerable when striking the barracks. A new milestone in military tactics.
      And men don’t even know laughing
      1. Ros 56 1 May 2020 11: 17 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        I’ll write them off right now. laughing
        1. Boa kaa 1 May 2020 11: 58 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Ros 56
          I’ll write them off right now.

          Yur, just don’t drag out. And then the article on the site will cool! laughing
          1. bouncyhunter 1 May 2020 23: 08 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            My respect, Alexander! soldier
            In the USA: New practice will not allow Russia and China to directly attack our bombing forces

            The question arose: are Russia and China in the know? lol wink
            1. Boa kaa 1 May 2020 23: 25 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Pasha, good to hear! Health to you! drinks
              1. bouncyhunter 1 May 2020 23: 29 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Mutually, my friend! soldier drinks
                Mattress what are you doing? Complacency and self-affirmation? I thought that they are fighting with Kovid-19 ... request
                1. Boa kaa 1 May 2020 23: 37 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  No, PASHA, Donya is looking for blame for the COVID-19 on the hunfuze, as it were, and then threateningly demanding compensation, or writing off debts! He burned out once with a trade deal for a couple of lards, so he seriously thinks that Comrade C will bend under him further ...
                  If blackmail doesn’t work, Donya will get Congress to impose sanctions on the Chinese citizen, similar to ours. So all the fun is yet to come! yes
                  1. bouncyhunter 1 May 2020 23: 50 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    The fact that it will be more fun and more wonderful further I have long understood. For some, it’s a coronavirus, and for naglosaks, it’s an occasion to bend its line further. Nothing new ...
            2. Egor53 2 May 2020 13: 50 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              "In the US: New practice will not allow Russia and China to directly attack our bombing forces."

              The US Congress will decide on this subject, which will confirm the court in Texas. And that’s all! China and Russia will not dare attack the American bombers in violation of the court decision.
        2. Vasyan1971 1 May 2020 12: 43 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Ros 56
          I’ll write them off right now. laughing

          Accurate, and then banned.
    2. ancient 1 May 2020 09: 36 New
      • 11
      • 0
      +11
      Quote: Vasyan1971
      The main thing here is that the euphoria from impunity and permissiveness does not hit the brain.

      Absolutely true ..... but impunity ..... breeds permissiveness.
      the sly Americans are not close to our interception lines.
      And all their ranting will end immediately, when they have real goals on our territory ..... how are they going to get "them" without going into the zone of interception of our fighters?
      And from what direction are they going to carry out attacks on our targets ... over Japanese territory?
      In general, the next empty bragging of the next Amerov .. "strategist"soldier
      1. Vasyan1971 1 May 2020 10: 11 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: ancient
        And all their rants will end at once when they have real goals on our territory

        There are goals for a long time
        Quote: ancient
        how are they going to get "them" without going into the interception zone of our fighters?

        But this is a problem. And besides fighters, there is much more.
        1. ancient 1 May 2020 16: 40 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Quote: Vasyan1971
          There are goals for a long time

          This is understandable .. just not tactfully expressed his idea - specific goals, for a specific strike soldier
          We in "antiquity" played the same "in war" ... but there was no hatred and ... such "stupid statements" -... like "but you won’t get us and you won’t be able to ...."
          Vasily Tsimbal showed ... how ours can and "what" ours can .... soldier
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. 1536 1 May 2020 08: 23 New
    • 10
    • 4
    +6
    In the USA, the unemployment rate has catastrophically increased. How many hungry, greedy for profit and violence Landsknechtov will the Pentagon absorb? It will be hundreds and hundreds of thousands. And all of them will need a war, or rather, a massacre now all over the globe, for profit, food, power over the weak. Washington elders lead the world to disaster without realizing what they are doing. And if the world wants it, they are not concerned. "America Above All!" Once it was said, only instead of the word "America" ​​did the word "Germany" sound.
    1. Navat 1 May 2020 08: 27 New
      • 10
      • 10
      0
      “They will all die. And we will go to heaven ”(V. Putin)
  4. Stalllker 1 May 2020 08: 26 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Fly in on a visit, we will treat you !!!
  5. mikh-korsakov 1 May 2020 08: 33 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    I would not discuss it. No more than the threat of a grumpy neighbor in a communal apartment. Now I’m going to hang my ropes in a common corridor, and what will you do to me? But he really won’t hang the ropes. Knows - cut.
    1. Boa kaa 1 May 2020 12: 11 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: mikh-korsakov
      No more than the threat of a grumpy neighbor in a communal apartment.

      This one, with permission to say "neighbor," lives in his overseas mansion on the ranch. But, radish, all the time strives to teach us with the Chinese how to live in our communal apartments, and Europeans in their short films ...
      This is all from a lack of education. This is because they have never been brought up on their own territory, like Germans or Japanese. Hence all the problems: the Washington gopota never once had a bloody yushka at home.
      Pearl Harbot doesn't count. It was an overseas, and not its own, Texas territory.
      AHA.
    2. Cyrus 2 May 2020 11: 14 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Aren't you a great rope cutter to do this, or as usual someone else should do it for you?)
  6. knn54 1 May 2020 08: 42 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    - without intermediate use by the Guam airfield.
    After calling the aircraft carrier with the coronavirus on Guam, I personally would not have risked landing there ...
  7. Amateur 1 May 2020 08: 45 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    And where did the tanker take off? Or do they want to say that the B1B can fly 32 hours without refueling?
    1. Zhan 1 May 2020 08: 52 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Amateur
      And where did the tanker take off? Or do they want to say that the B1B can fly 32 hours without refueling?

      And 6 more fighters .. smile
      1. Cyrus 2 May 2020 11: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And that they can not be refueled in the air?
  8. grandfather_Kostya 1 May 2020 08: 54 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    All this is old as droppings ... The B-52 was already flying and the nuclear bombs were losing more than once. Therefore, they decided to stop the disgrace ... it turned out, not forever.
  9. K-50 1 May 2020 08: 57 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Another pin dos nonsense !!! fellow lol
    If need makes you, then no tactics will help you to avoid the attack of your opponents, no matter how much you boast !!
    Pray that no one ever needs it !!! yes laughing
  10. Topol M 1 May 2020 09: 13 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Oh well! The farther from the enemy, the more you will be, you can even fly over Antarctica, even better
  11. KVU-NSVD 1 May 2020 09: 18 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    Interestingly, what is all the same with the base in Guam? At first, the rotation did not happen, the bombers flew from it without the arrival of the changers, now they are chasing patrols halfway around the world, wailing about some kind of child prodigy .... Cho is not here ... request
    1. Mountain shooter 1 May 2020 09: 26 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      Interestingly, what is all the same with the base in Guam?

      Also noticed? By the way, where is the crew landed from an aircraft carrier? There was no information that he would be relocated somewhere with Guam.
    2. boris epstein 2 May 2020 14: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      So there was nowhere to store oil, and another 40 Saudi tankers were next in line for unloading. That's where they decided to burn out flights: at least some good practice for the crews.
  12. rocket757 1 May 2020 09: 27 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    This is what they say? About what has been known since time immemorial ???
    Perhaps there’s nothing more to say?
  13. APASUS 1 May 2020 09: 29 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    It is stated that in this way "regional opponents, Russia and China, will not be able to directly attack our bombing forces."

    Again, evil Chinese and aggressive Russians, pushed their borders to patrol routes of peaceful American bombers?
  14. Ravil_Asnafovich 1 May 2020 09: 41 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Harry Powers probably also thought?
  15. akarfoxhound 1 May 2020 10: 11 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Kapets "thought out"! Dogs in the Pentagonlaughing And the fact that this has always been the norm in Soviet strategic aviation and is used now and the minke whales themselves flew like that under Reagan — do they not know the type? And how will this help in the war not to get a bomber?
    1. NN52 1 May 2020 11: 21 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Not everyone had time to cut ... fly)))
  16. Pvi1206 1 May 2020 10: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    afraid - it means respect ...
    1. Cyrus 2 May 2020 11: 17 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      They’re afraid, they’ll hit me when they think they’re ready.
  17. Charik 1 May 2020 10: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, since they can’t attack in a straight line
  18. Fedorovich 1 May 2020 11: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In fact, this “new practice” doesn’t hurt to bring them down ...
  19. Gato 1 May 2020 11: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    We are talking about the constant presence of our strategic bombers where this helps our partners and allies.

    It used to be. Until the atomic bombs began to “get lost” and the bombers themselves fell into disasters.
  20. Boa kaa 1 May 2020 11: 54 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The new practice of using strategic bombers makes them unattainable at airfields for Russia and China.
    Uncle is confusing something.
    1. Strategists will definitely be applied at the Big Bad Boom. This means that restrictions on the use of ICBMs will be lifted.
    2. B-1B without refueling in the air for 32 hours does not sag in any way. But tankers are at the airfields of. Guam and Japan. Who forbade them to attack them?
    3. Our, albeit an old, but still quick MiG-31BM will certainly meet the Yankees with the R-37M until the turn of missile launch. And I am very not sure that the cover fighters accompanying the Lancers will be able to: a) detect the R-37M at the launch distance, and b) hit it with their WB missiles (9X and 120C / D) - the approach speeds at oncoming courses do not fit in the onboard brains of these devices ...
    It remains only to rely on EW funds. But then this Christmas tree will be processed by RVV DB with passive GOS.
    So, "in vain the old woman is waiting for her son home" ...
    Yes, and here's another thing - even if they fly longer and longer from the airfields of Northern OMERIGI - the motorcycle resource will end faster, and the champions of democracy will be cut off on fuel. You look, and the loot will end faster ... You are our exceptional! bully
    1. Vladimir_2U 1 May 2020 12: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And this is not counting the fact that not a word has been said about the load. Maybe it really was a patrol - "blue." laughing
      1. Boa kaa 1 May 2020 12: 37 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        I also don’t think that they hooked on all 20 mallet that they can carry on patrol. Probably 4 pieces, from strength 8. Otherwise, you need to rest with all 4 legs. And from this, the navel can get loose! yes
    2. KOLORADO73 1 May 2020 15: 26 New
      • 0
      • 4
      -4
      Are you a normal person? B-1 inconspicuous with low epr, antediluvian radars of your old MiG will not be able to detect them at a great distance!
      1. Boa kaa 1 May 2020 17: 18 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: KOLORADO73
        antediluvian radars of your old MiG will not be able to detect them at a great distance!
        No need to emit gases so angrily in a puddle! It’s better to read about the Barrier and the targeting satellite system. And it somehow turns out strange: Axes with an EPR of 0,01m sq. - Sees, and Lancer with his 1m square. -- does not see!?
        And secondly, do you know for sure that nothing has changed on board after the upgrade? This is an old glider, and avionics are updated. The open bead architecture allows you to install new software ...
        Therefore, I'm sorry, I have not guessed even once!
      2. Old Man 1 May 2020 22: 16 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        B1 is invisible to about the same extent as the "old" Mig-31 or TU-22, due to the fact that it is partially supersonic.
      3. Arthur 85 2 May 2020 22: 01 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Something does not look like the B-1 is "inconspicuous."
    3. Cyrus 2 May 2020 11: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      2. Tankers can also be refueled in the air in the same way.
      3. MiG 31 is not really that much to drive them over the ocean, I think the range of the R-37M is somewhat less than the range of the KR ...
      A motor resource may end sooner, but the experience of pilots, on the contrary, is not known which is better.
      1. Boa kaa 2 May 2020 12: 35 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        1. Tankers, in general, with the Lancers? - Orrina- ingly !!! Have you tried to milk the cow with milk?
        2. MiG-31BM = 60 units. 4 complexes are capable of closing 1100 km along the front.
        3. By range.
        For the MiG-31 with 4 missiles and 2 PTBs, starting a missile in the middle of the path, dropping the PTB after they were developed and the PMK launched, the subsonic practical range and flight duration are 3000 km and 3 hours 38 minutes, respectively.
        D practical and T (hour) without PTB and removed PMK is:
        - with 4 missiles and their launch at 1/2 D: range - 2400 km, duration - 2 hours 35 minutes;
        Launch R-37M is 300-400 km.
        Guidance from the KDP / SKP, or according to the A-50U, is possible through the satellite ... (They are already able to give TsU even to Altius. Therefore, there are no problems here). Interception line = 1800-1500 km from the water edge.
        - Launch AGM-158C = 930 km. (Although I'm not sure that B-1B carry them)
        (You can count.) Well, and what's the problem?
        PS Yes, and one more clarification: EPR "Ulan" in the directional plane = 10 sq. M., And not 1, as noted earlier.
        A little bit off, however. request
    4. Nikolay Balashov 5 May 2020 21: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I also have a thought. She revolve around the Su-34. The fighter is a bomber. Yes. However, in the fighter variant, it kicks the majority of NATO fighters. Air refueling. Sleeping place and toilet with kitchen. What other fighter will be a rival?
      1. Boa kaa 6 May 2020 00: 30 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Nikolai Balashov
        I also have a thought. She revolve around the Su-34.

        Nikolai, the Su-34 is never an interceptor. He is replacing the Su-24. And they called the fighter-bomber due to the fact that they say this bomb does not need a fighter cover: he can stand up for himself ...
        That's right, however.
  21. Chaldon48 1 May 2020 12: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And why attack directly, in war the direct is far from always the shortest path to victory.
  22. bar
    bar 1 May 2020 14: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The new practice of using strategic bombers makes them unattainable at airfields for Russia and China.

    Cool. Very original tactics. So they will fly without landing until the development of motor resources? Then the bomb compartments will have to be loaded with canned food and water for the needs of the crew.
    1. Cyrus 2 May 2020 11: 23 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Stupid comment, our strategists are flying the same way.
  23. KOLORADO73 1 May 2020 15: 19 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The Americans are not standing still and are now moving on to a new and very interesting tactic!
    From now on, strategic bombers will now appear suddenly at the borders of China and the Russian Federation! The latter will not even know where they came from!
    Equipped with subtle long-range cruise and hypersonic missiles, the B-1 can strike at bases in China and the Russian Federation without entering the air defense zone!
    1. Cyrus 2 May 2020 11: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, they won’t take a chance with Russia, if only ..., but with China they can try it, all the more so since the Navy’s advanced bases and the Fleet itself must be either weakened or destroyed.
    2. Arthur 85 2 May 2020 22: 08 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Shaw, how did this stealth come to you? In a battle with a normal opponent, when your stealth will be copied by ten radars from ten azimuths ... This circus, in short. The damage to LTX is great, and the benefits are in question. A Schaub fight with the Papuans and samovaroparovozotryapryleta enough.
  24. KOLORADO73 1 May 2020 15: 22 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    Now on the B-1 will be installed hypersonic missiles with nuclear warheads! It will be enough two bombers with 12 such missiles to destroy the entire Chinese fleet at its bases! The Chinese can continue to run crying Zakharova at the Americans! Ah ah ah!
    1. Arthur 85 2 May 2020 22: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Wow. And so, two? .. Damn, I seriously answered you.
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. vkd.dvk 1 May 2020 18: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    If necessary, attack them on the runway. Escorting a dozen fighters is not a panacea. let them remember Vietnam.
    1. Cyrus 2 May 2020 11: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You will attack, or by the way how?
  27. vkd.dvk 1 May 2020 18: 46 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: KOLORADO73
    The Americans are not standing still and are now moving on to a new and very interesting tactic!
    From now on, strategic bombers will now appear suddenly at the borders of China and the Russian Federation! The latter will not even know where they came from!
    Equipped with subtle long-range cruise and hypersonic missiles, the B-1 can strike at bases in China and the Russian Federation without entering the air defense zone!

    We (China, too) will suppress this hebr by means of air defense with nuclear filling. In one piece the whole flock. It costs them to approach an unacceptable distance. It was clearly said by Putin: Launching a rocket towards Russia will be regarded as a nuclear attack. What is the difference between a rocket and a bomber?
    Will we tolerate this?
    China will take a similar decision immediately. As soon as .... If these Pshibuzukes crap to put pressure on Kim, then pressure on China will cost not just the destruction of bases in the Pacific ....
    1. Cyrus 2 May 2020 11: 30 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      You order a lip-roll in Ali, or you will soon step on it (lip).
  28. vkd.dvk 1 May 2020 18: 55 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: KOLORADO73
    Are you a normal person? B-1 inconspicuous with low epr, antediluvian radars of your old MiG will not be able to detect them at a great distance!

    And what, we have nothing but an “old twinkle”

    It is a pity, it is impossible to express obscenity here. I would wash you .....
  29. Old26 1 May 2020 20: 35 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: KOLORADO73
    Are you a normal person? B-1 inconspicuous with low epr, antediluvian radars of your old MiG will not be able to detect them at a great distance!

    It is as inconspicuous as our TU-160. Of course, the EPR is less than that of the B-52, but not as small as that of the inconspicuous B-2. so do not confuse B-1B and B-2A

    Quote: KOLORADO73
    The Americans are not standing still and are now moving on to a new and very interesting tactic!
    From now on, strategic bombers will now appear suddenly at the borders of China and the Russian Federation! The latter will not even know where they came from!

    Do not stand. Like other countries. But now how bombers will suddenly appear at the borders of China and the Russian Federation - this is a masterpiece. Have Americans already mastered teleportation? From the nearest base beyond the reach of most of China’s missiles (and this is Guam) - to China 3000 km (to Russia - more than 3500 km).

    Quote: KOLORADO73
    Equipped with subtle long-range cruise and hypersonic missiles, the B-1 can strike at bases in China and the Russian Federation without entering the air defense zone!

    Now they have inconspicuous long-range missiles with only a range of less than 1000 km (more precisely 980). There are no hypersonic ones yet, and the one planned - AGM-183A will have a range of about 800 km (according to open data)

    Quote: KOLORADO73
    Now on the B-1 will be installed hypersonic missiles with nuclear warheads! It will be enough two bombers with 12 such missiles to destroy the entire Chinese fleet at its bases! The Chinese can continue to run crying Zakharova at the Americans! Ah ah ah!

    The performance characteristics of the missile and its MGH are still unknown, but you already know that they will certainly be with nuclear warheads and certainly 12

    Quote: BoA KAA
    I also don’t think that they hooked on all 20 mallet that they can carry on patrol. Probably 4 pieces, from strength 8. Otherwise, you need to rest with all 4 legs. And from this, the navel can get loose! yes

    Alexander! The usual combat load for long-range flights in the B-1B is approximately 10,9 tons.
  30. A ray of light 1 May 2020 21: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Seriously??? Keeping the plane risking ground targets ???
    1. Cyrus 2 May 2020 11: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, for the Air Force there is nothing worse than being caught with your pants down (at airfields).
  31. mikael 1 May 2020 21: 47 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    rare stupid people along the way, not using the jump airfield to declare new tactics
  32. Old26 1 May 2020 22: 05 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: vkd.dvk
    Quote: KOLORADO73
    The Americans are not standing still and are now moving on to a new and very interesting tactic!
    From now on, strategic bombers will now appear suddenly at the borders of China and the Russian Federation! The latter will not even know where they came from!
    Equipped with subtle long-range cruise and hypersonic missiles, the B-1 can strike at bases in China and the Russian Federation without entering the air defense zone!

    We (China, too) will suppress this hebr by means of air defense with nuclear filling. In one piece the whole flock. It costs them to approach an unacceptable distance. It was clearly said by Putin: Launching a rocket towards Russia will be regarded as a nuclear attack. What is the difference between a rocket and a bomber?
    Will we tolerate this?

    You like KOLORADO73 - two sides of the same coin. It carries a blizzard regarding the fact that the Americans will sweep away Chinese and our forces at once, but you are carrying a blizzard that we are using one anti-aircraft missile with a nuclear warhead
    will be jammed by air defense systems with nuclear stuffing. One thousand pack

    Of course, the Americans are so stupid that they will go from a strategist in tight formation, as during raids on Germany during WWII. Only they will launch their missiles from a distance of 700-800 kilometers from our border (depending on the targets that need to be hit), but do we have such missiles to hit a bomber at such a range?
    1. Cyrus 2 May 2020 11: 35 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Amendment, all this will happen only in one case, if the United States comes up with how to deliver a sudden counter-force strike on strategic nuclear forces, SSBN bases and air defense areas.
  33. Old Man 1 May 2020 22: 06 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Well, cool, one can only hope that 30 hour flights will not affect the mental and other health of the pilots. And yes, that these same pilots will be enough, as well as the resource of the aircraft. But if Russia does this, periodically, then the United States can do that too ... occasionally. I do not see any problems. You can keep a couple of planes, and put the rest in order, but in Guam it is really difficult.
  34. Vladimir SHajkin 1 May 2020 22: 27 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    New tactics are as old as the world
    1. Cyrus 2 May 2020 11: 36 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Like everything in principle.
  35. Prisoner 2 May 2020 11: 20 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Or I read inattentively, or I’m thinking badly, but I didn’t understand why these people think that we can’t attack? what Maybe they themselves do not think well?
  36. vkd.dvk 2 May 2020 12: 03 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Cyrus
    You will attack, or by the way how?

    Of course, not you! We always had such beater, as soon as the pin-to-bottom plans appeared.
    You can charge with such a filling any articulate flying racket.
    From S-75 to S-400
  37. chaldon 2 May 2020 12: 05 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Will the airdromes themselves be within reach? It took off - well, but still have to land somewhere?
  38. vkd.dvk 2 May 2020 15: 15 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Cyrus
    You order a lip-roll in Ali, or you will soon step on it (lip).

    Recommendations from an experienced upcoming? Go on.
  39. vkd.dvk 2 May 2020 15: 19 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Old26
    Quote: vkd.dvk
    Quote: KOLORADO73
    The Americans are not standing still and are now moving on to a new and very interesting tactic!
    From now on, strategic bombers will now appear suddenly at the borders of China and the Russian Federation! The latter will not even know where they came from!
    Equipped with subtle long-range cruise and hypersonic missiles, the B-1 can strike at bases in China and the Russian Federation without entering the air defense zone!

    We (China, too) will suppress this hebr by means of air defense with nuclear filling. In one piece the whole flock. It costs them to approach an unacceptable distance. It was clearly said by Putin: Launching a rocket towards Russia will be regarded as a nuclear attack. What is the difference between a rocket and a bomber?
    Will we tolerate this?

    You like KOLORADO73 - two sides of the same coin. It carries a blizzard regarding the fact that the Americans will sweep away Chinese and our forces at once, but you are carrying a blizzard that we are using one anti-aircraft missile with a nuclear warhead
    will be jammed by air defense systems with nuclear stuffing. One thousand pack

    Of course, the Americans are so stupid that they will go from a strategist in tight formation, as during raids on Germany during WWII. Only they will launch their missiles from a distance of 700-800 kilometers from our border (depending on the targets that need to be hit), but do we have such missiles to hit a bomber at such a range?

    We have something that will crash them on the ground, at home.
    We have something that will bang them 200-300 km from the borders. And this is several thousand kilometers further than the sensitive centers of Russia for these "invisibles".
  40. Old26 2 May 2020 15: 44 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: vkd.dvk
    We have something that will crash them on the ground, at home.

    Of course I have. But whether they will be at the airdromes when what we have will crash through their land. We will definitely not have our bases at airfields. Why should we consider our enemy a fool and think that their bomber aircraft will be at airfields ??

    Quote: vkd.dvk
    We have something that will bang them 200-300 km from the borders. And this is several thousand kilometers further than the sensitive centers of Russia for these "invisibles".

    Well, what if their bombers launch missiles at a distance, for example, 400 km from the border? What missiles do you capture at this distance? . And as for the sensitive centers - they are also on the border itself. For example, Leningrad, Kaliningrad, Murmansk, Vladivostok, Sevastopol .... You can name a dozen more, which are within reach
    And will our complexes be able to completely cover all possible “invisible” flight routes that will go at an altitude of 100-30 meters?
  41. kieferandreas 2 May 2020 16: 30 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    it’s kind of like, the crown doesn’t cost us much, and the lack of toilet paper is all the more so, we’ll simply not wipe ourselves out after the evil deed, it’s so simple! Yes?
  42. Arthur 85 2 May 2020 21: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Do they have a shift crew there? 32 hours is overkill. Especially sitting in a chair - you’ll fall asleep for anyone. I wonder how many times this monster refuel in flight?
  43. lvov_aleksey 2 May 2020 22: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Mitroha
    Congenial. And ships driven into the sea will become unattainable for attacks in ports. Infantry deployed in the "field" from the deployment sites is invulnerable when striking the barracks. A new milestone in military tactics.
    And men don’t even know laughing

    I liked their naivety !!!
  44. lvov_aleksey 2 May 2020 22: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Old26
    Quote: vkd.dvk
    Quote: KOLORADO73
    The Americans are not standing still and are now moving on to a new and very interesting tactic!
    From now on, strategic bombers will now appear suddenly at the borders of China and the Russian Federation! The latter will not even know where they came from!
    Equipped with subtle long-range cruise and hypersonic missiles, the B-1 can strike at bases in China and the Russian Federation without entering the air defense zone!

    We (China, too) will suppress this hebr by means of air defense with nuclear filling. In one piece the whole flock. It costs them to approach an unacceptable distance. It was clearly said by Putin: Launching a rocket towards Russia will be regarded as a nuclear attack. What is the difference between a rocket and a bomber?
    Will we tolerate this?

    You like KOLORADO73 - two sides of the same coin. It carries a blizzard regarding the fact that the Americans will sweep away Chinese and our forces at once, but you are carrying a blizzard that we are using one anti-aircraft missile with a nuclear warhead
    will be jammed by air defense systems with nuclear stuffing. One thousand pack

    Of course, the Americans are so stupid that they will go from a strategist in tight formation, as during raids on Germany during WWII. Only they will launch their missiles from a distance of 700-800 kilometers from our border (depending on the targets that need to be hit), but do we have such missiles to hit a bomber at such a range?

    you also don’t tell tales, there are facts - give links to the dock
  45. lvov_aleksey 2 May 2020 22: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Michael
    rare stupid people along the way, not using the jump airfield to declare new tactics

    do you even understand what a jump airfield is? it’s already captured foreign territory, and whether they can take it if there is a hint in the territory near the border, no one will fly from there.
  46. Old26 3 May 2020 20: 15 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Arthur 85
    Do they have a shift crew there? 32 hours is overkill. Especially sitting in a chair - you’ll fall asleep for anyone. I wonder how many times this monster refuel in flight?

    And do we have a shift crew on TU-160 when they fly to Venezuela or where else? And why is 32 hours too much? In 1949, the Americans set two records for the B-50 in terms of duration. One - 41 hours 40 minutes, the second 94 hours 1 minute (around the world). Then on the B-52 in 1957 - 45 hours. So 32 hours is not such a big figure.

    Quote: lvov_aleksey
    you also don’t tell tales, there are facts - give links to the dock

    What are the tales? What, the Americans bombed Germany not in tight formation? Or will B-1 now be in close formation?