User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:25:32 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die....  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:26:28 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Just a hunch but I bet the Russians already know all about it... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:27:22 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
World's fastest turboprop. Several were converted for cruise missile carry. If you can launch from 500 miles away you could be flying a Winnebago and be okay. Wow... just checked and that damn thing flies as fast as our turbofan airliners. Dayummm... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:27:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just a hunch but I bet the Russians already know all about it...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Just a hunch but I bet the Russians already know all about it...
Well now they do  .....Shoeh8er will be along shortly to tell us why it wont work though or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:30:12 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well now they do .....Shoeh8er will be along shortly to tell us why it wont work though or something like that.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Just a hunch but I bet the Russians already know all about it...
Well now they do .....Shoeh8er will be along shortly to tell us why it wont work though or something like that.You mean dport? That's who Shoeh8er was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:31:00 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Why do you hate freedom Bro?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:31:18 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just a hunch but I bet the Russians already know all about it...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Just a hunch but I bet the Russians already know all about it...
It's not like he described that this is of particular interest to OTH radars at certain geographic positions Oooops 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:33:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do you hate freedom Bro? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Why do you hate freedom Bro? Why do you hate patriotism bro? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 3:49:34 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Yeah, because publicly available info on enemy airframes is fucking OPSEC. Fuck's sakes I can look up Laircm, Link32, and Suter and not only learn how it works off the internet, I can download the latest flight simulator and get hands on training on how the fucking thing works, operating parameters, and the screens aren't just kind of the same, it is IDENTICAL. Jesus Fucktits. Hey, today I troubleshot a FD109 flight director system and found out that, *GASP!!!* The Air Data Sensor makes the fly to bars operate! I replaced that bitch and used 34jg-20-1 to ops check that motherfucker after I put it in! ERMAGERD OPSEC!!!!! Every time someone on this fucking website squeals about OPSEC, I want to headslap them. And not the nice headslap like you get from the barber on deployment after the haircut, more of the, "You're fucking stupid" headslap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:07:51 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You realize that, these days in strategic affairs, other than the B-2, bombers are pretty much just missile launch platforms, right? The Tu-95 can do that job acceptably And unlike the rest of the world, Russia still builds new bombers. Tu-160s. Nothing to scoff at, that is a big, fast bitch. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How is that thing still considered to be an effective platform? It must show up on radar like a Christmas tree, correct? All these reports of, "Oh no! Bear bomber on patrol!" Wouldn't they all be shot down within minutes? Do they even still operate the Tu-22? You realize that, these days in strategic affairs, other than the B-2, bombers are pretty much just missile launch platforms, right? The Tu-95 can do that job acceptably And unlike the rest of the world, Russia still builds new bombers. Tu-160s. Nothing to scoff at, that is a big, fast bitch. Soviet junk, a B-1'ski. Last one was made in 2008. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:10:13 PM EDT
[#11]
An interesting airplane. It's not as big in person, as I'd imagined it would be, the props are huge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:12:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would that not effect the Bears crew as well granted they are going to be sloshed which might dampen the effects Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: We have been intercepting them quite frequently. I am doing a job near the departure path from Elmendorf and frequency of fighter sorties seems unusually high, day and night. intercepting Russian bombers is nothing new of course but they have had fighter escorts lately which is odd. F22 would easily take out anything they send over but how can you tell when it is Fo time except for when they start launching cruise missiles. I have talked with pilots that have intercepted Bears, they say that the props are so loud and create such a vibration/resonance that the make you nauseous while flying alongside them. Would that not effect the Bears crew as well granted they are going to be sloshed which might dampen the effects Crew comfort and safety have never been a priority for Russian/Soviet aircraft or tank designers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:13:21 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: swept wing B29. Really? Got pictures? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:15:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Soviet junk, a B-1'ski. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How is that thing still considered to be an effective platform? It must show up on radar like a Christmas tree, correct? All these reports of, "Oh no! Bear bomber on patrol!" Wouldn't they all be shot down within minutes? Do they even still operate the Tu-22? You realize that, these days in strategic affairs, other than the B-2, bombers are pretty much just missile launch platforms, right? The Tu-95 can do that job acceptably And unlike the rest of the world, Russia still builds new bombers. Tu-160s. Nothing to scoff at, that is a big, fast bitch. Soviet junk, a B-1'ski. Soviet made junk still kills the living shit out of people from time to time. The Tu-160 is actually a rather impressive bomber. Last one was made in 2008. Which is 20 years newer than the youngest B-1B Also, didn't they finish a partial airframe in 2010? It's a safe bet that Russia will build new service airframes before we build a prototype B-3. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:15:33 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, because publicly available info on enemy airframes is fucking OPSEC. Fuck's sakes I can look up Laircm, Link32, and Suter and not only learn how it works off the internet, I can download the latest flight simulator and get hands on training on how the fucking thing works, operating parameters, and the screens aren't just kind of the same, it is IDENTICAL. Jesus Fucktits. Hey, today I troubleshot a FD109 flight director system and found out that, *GASP!!!* The Air Data Sensor makes the fly to bars operate! I replaced that bitch and used 34jg-20-1 to ops check that motherfucker after I put it in! ERMAGERD OPSEC!!!!! Every time someone on this fucking website squeals about OPSEC, I want to headslap them. And not the nice headslap like you get from the barber on deployment after the haircut, more of the, "You're fucking stupid" headslap. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Yeah, because publicly available info on enemy airframes is fucking OPSEC. Fuck's sakes I can look up Laircm, Link32, and Suter and not only learn how it works off the internet, I can download the latest flight simulator and get hands on training on how the fucking thing works, operating parameters, and the screens aren't just kind of the same, it is IDENTICAL. Jesus Fucktits. Hey, today I troubleshot a FD109 flight director system and found out that, *GASP!!!* The Air Data Sensor makes the fly to bars operate! I replaced that bitch and used 34jg-20-1 to ops check that motherfucker after I put it in! ERMAGERD OPSEC!!!!! Every time someone on this fucking website squeals about OPSEC, I want to headslap them. And not the nice headslap like you get from the barber on deployment after the haircut, more of the, "You're fucking stupid" headslap. The guy whose office is an F-15 wouldn't speak about it...... Just keep that in mind bubba |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:19:28 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Crew comfort and safety have never been a priority for Russian/Soviet aircraft or tank designers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We have been intercepting them quite frequently. I am doing a job near the departure path from Elmendorf and frequency of fighter sorties seems unusually high, day and night. intercepting Russian bombers is nothing new of course but they have had fighter escorts lately which is odd. F22 would easily take out anything they send over but how can you tell when it is Fo time except for when they start launching cruise missiles. I have talked with pilots that have intercepted Bears, they say that the props are so loud and create such a vibration/resonance that the make you nauseous while flying alongside them. Would that not effect the Bears crew as well granted they are going to be sloshed which might dampen the effects Crew comfort and safety have never been a priority for Russian/Soviet aircraft or tank designers. I bet every Bear is equipped with a well stocked vodka bar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:20:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only Russia could make the world's loudest production aircraft an airliner http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/VanTilborg/3025.jpg We made a prop plane that was louder than the Tu-95 Bear. It was so loud that when it was on the ground idling it would make the ground crew sick and they would often times puke.  X-84 "Thunderscreech" flyby recording https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItexQxJS9U Read the Wiki on "Noise" factor from this plane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H This plane made 900 sonic booms per minute. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFhSzReWTgs |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:21:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well now they do .....Shoeh8er will be along shortly to tell us why it wont work though or something like that.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Just a hunch but I bet the Russians already know all about it...
Well now they do .....Shoeh8er will be along shortly to tell us why it wont work though or something like that.No, dport wont be along shortly to tell us why it wont work. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:30:04 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An interesting airplane. It's not as big in person, as I'd imagined it would be, the props are huge. http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/nimslow/DSC_0239_zps2048b283.jpg http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/nimslow/DSC_0241_zps8949d3ef.jpg http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/nimslow/DSC_0243_zps2225a6e6.jpg There was one for sale on E-bay not to long ago, I think it was sitting in Ukraine. Beautiful plane wish someone would buy one and bring it to the U.S to fly in airshows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:39:24 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only Russia could make the world's loudest production aircraft an airliner http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/VanTilborg/3025.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:49:01 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We made a prop plane that was louder than the Tu-95 Bear. It was so loud that when it was on the ground idling it would make the ground crew sick and they would often times puke.
X-84 "Thunderscreech" flyby recording https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItexQxJS9U Read the Wiki on "Noise" factor from this plane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H This plane made 900 sonic booms per minute. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFhSzReWTgs Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Only Russia could make the world's loudest production aircraft an airliner http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/VanTilborg/3025.jpg We made a prop plane that was louder than the Tu-95 Bear. It was so loud that when it was on the ground idling it would make the ground crew sick and they would often times puke.
X-84 "Thunderscreech" flyby recording https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItexQxJS9U Read the Wiki on "Noise" factor from this plane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H This plane made 900 sonic booms per minute. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFhSzReWTgs The exact reason I used "production". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:49:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was one for sale on E-bay not to long ago, I think it was sitting in Ukraine. Beautiful plane wish someone would buy one and bring it to the U.S to fly in airshows. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
An interesting airplane. It's not as big in person, as I'd imagined it would be, the props are huge. http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/nimslow/DSC_0239_zps2048b283.jpg http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/nimslow/DSC_0241_zps8949d3ef.jpg http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b299/nimslow/DSC_0243_zps2225a6e6.jpg There was one for sale on E-bay not to long ago, I think it was sitting in Ukraine. Beautiful plane wish someone would buy one and bring it to the U.S to fly in airshows. The one that was on E-bay was in Mykolaiv Ukraine, about five minutes from my in-laws house. Last year we drove right out onto the ramp next to it. There was also about a dozen SU-24's some L-39's, and AN-2's. Right down the road from it's older cousin here. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:57:47 PM EDT
[#23]
The TU-95 Bear was designed as a secondary mop up nuke delivery system to strike targets that were missed. It was never intended as a first strike delivery system. Pilots will often shut down two of its engines to increase its range and loiter time near its targets. Its design is extremely fuel efficient and can stay up in the air a long time without having to refuel.
B-52 (range 8,800 miles) TU-95 Bear (range 9,321 miles) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 7:28:41 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well now they do .....Shoeh8er will be along shortly to tell us why it wont work though or something like that.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Just a hunch but I bet the Russians already know all about it...
Well now they do .....Shoeh8er will be along shortly to tell us why it wont work though or something like that.No. No he won't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 7:44:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are so loud that any inbound Sidewinders or Amraams are scared off, so you pretty much have to go in with guns, cause the bullets are so fast they don't have time to get wishy-washy about their purpose in life, brief though it is, due to a little prop noise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Can you shed any light on this? I really have no idea but very interested They are so loud that any inbound Sidewinders or Amraams are scared off, so you pretty much have to go in with guns, cause the bullets are so fast they don't have time to get wishy-washy about their purpose in life, brief though it is, due to a little prop noise. Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 7:49:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Great old platform. 500 Knot bomber. Needed to be killed the minute it passed the Dew-Line
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 8:25:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wouldn't get too cocky about that. We only have 19 (18?) potentially combat-worthy B-2s, and they probably have lower mission availability than the Tu-160s. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip I wouldn't get too cocky about that. We only have 19 (18?) potentially combat-worthy B-2s, and they probably have lower mission availability than the Tu-160s. The TU-160's lost a lot of personnel after the breakup of the USSR, and didn't even have that many available airframes until they bought them back from Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 8:37:34 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... I'm a goddamn 3D videogame artist. If I can look at counter-rotating inline props and figure it out, you know the fuckers that built it already have, and I damn well hope our eggheads have a solution. Because otherwise it means our enemies are drooling retards, our best and brightest are functional retards, we could defend this nation with slingshots, and I want some of my tax dollars back that were spent on all the pricey shit they said we needed to keep the apparent drooling retards at bay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 8:41:52 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The guy whose office is an F-15 wouldn't speak about it...... Just keep that in mind bubba Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Yeah, because publicly available info on enemy airframes is fucking OPSEC. Fuck's sakes I can look up Laircm, Link32, and Suter and not only learn how it works off the internet, I can download the latest flight simulator and get hands on training on how the fucking thing works, operating parameters, and the screens aren't just kind of the same, it is IDENTICAL. Jesus Fucktits. Hey, today I troubleshot a FD109 flight director system and found out that, *GASP!!!* The Air Data Sensor makes the fly to bars operate! I replaced that bitch and used 34jg-20-1 to ops check that motherfucker after I put it in! ERMAGERD OPSEC!!!!! Every time someone on this fucking website squeals about OPSEC, I want to headslap them. And not the nice headslap like you get from the barber on deployment after the haircut, more of the, "You're fucking stupid" headslap. The guy whose office is an F-15 wouldn't speak about it...... Just keep that in mind bubba With all due respect to Mach, it's not his office anymore. That said he if he doesn't want to talk about it, that is his prerogative, but being a bitch and squealing OPSEC every time something comes up is fucking stupid and is literally the same shit as black people screaming racism every time an inconvenient truth like their abysmal family situation comes up. Secondly, talking about the prop on the enemy aircraft which was made in the fifties and the discovery of the Doppler effects were discovered about two days afterwards, and it is talked about AT LENGTH on any number of several hundred websites isn't letting all the big secrets out. Now were someone throwing out specifics of wavelength for ALE activation, I'd be onboard telling someone to think about OPSEC. When everyone starts labeling everything OpSEC, and oh noes we can't talk about that because OPSEC it starts to sound like a bunch of fucking wannabes talking about tactical operators. It's not OPSEC if it is and has been in the public sector for no less than the last forty years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 8:43:07 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm a goddamn 3D videogame artist. If I can look at counter-rotating inline props and figure it out, you know the fuckers that built it already have, and I damn well hope our eggheads have a solution. Because otherwise it means our enemies are drooling retards, our best and brightest are functional retards, we could defend this nation with slingshots, and I want some of my tax dollars back that were spent on all the pricey shit they said we needed to keep the apparent drooling retards at bay. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... I'm a goddamn 3D videogame artist. If I can look at counter-rotating inline props and figure it out, you know the fuckers that built it already have, and I damn well hope our eggheads have a solution. Because otherwise it means our enemies are drooling retards, our best and brightest are functional retards, we could defend this nation with slingshots, and I want some of my tax dollars back that were spent on all the pricey shit they said we needed to keep the apparent drooling retards at bay. He's trying to sound tacticool. It didn't work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 8:44:06 PM EDT
[#31]
Luv that sound.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-2dfEc70gU Tour of inside. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSVtYib8StY |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 9:15:36 PM EDT
[#32]
OK, so if we've determined that it's not OPSEC, how do giant counter rotating props act against Doppler radar?
Even the Portugese can track and intercept Bears with doppler radar equipped A/C. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2014 10:32:53 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
and before people start ridiculing a prop bomber, there are certain challenges associated with killing those due to the props. Built in natural doppler jammers is a bitch. Arfcom......where OPSEC goes to die.... Kinda what I'm thinking. As though the Russians haven't already known all that shit for, oh, the past 40 years. The Bear is big, fast, and flies forever on a tank of fuel. I would consider it entirely relevant in this day and age. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 12:56:55 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, so if we've determined that it's not OPSEC, how do giant counter rotating props act against Doppler radar? Even the Portugese can track and intercept Bears with doppler radar equipped A/C. It's not so much that you can't *FIND* them, its that if you try to get a radar lock the eight goofy fucking props will show multiple radar contacts. YOu could probably find a TU95 using echolocation with your ears from ninety miles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:18:26 AM EDT
[#35]
      |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:49:41 AM EDT
[#36]
So the props pose problems with radar acquisition? How about the 100 tons of metal attached to those props? Can that not be acquired by missiles?
I understand that the Bear is a stand-off platform. How effective are the stand-off weapons it can launch? As good as our ALCM? The recent news of flights "probing NATO", which sound very alarmist, just got me to wondering how effective they can be in a modern environment. Big scary Bear, yes, of course. But would they ever achieve their missions against us or NATO? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:52:16 AM EDT
[#37]
The TU95/142 aircrafts are the loudest fucken flying aircraft around.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:52:55 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The TU95/142 aircrafts are the loudest fucken flying aircraft around. OPSEC!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 1:53:44 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OPSEC!!!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The TU95/142 aircrafts are the loudest fucken flying aircraft around. OPSEC!!!!! HHHHHNNNNNNNNGHHHHH!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 2:23:30 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The TU95/142 aircrafts are the loudest fucken flying aircraft around. Faaaack, it's awful! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-2dfEc70gU |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 2:46:05 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the props pose problems with radar acquisition? How about the 100 tons of metal attached to those props? Can that not be acquired by missiles? I understand that the Bear is a stand-off platform. How effective are the stand-off weapons it can launch? As good as our ALCM? The recent news of flights "probing NATO", which sound very alarmist, just got me to wondering how effective they can be in a modern environment. Big scary Bear, yes, of course. But would they ever achieve their missions against us or NATO? I'm not going to go into specifics - but suffice to say, while I was at Elmendorf we never questioned their effectiveness. One of the biggest problems is how far out those AS-15s can be launched from and the time/distance problem for reaction forces. As far as the Tu-95 platform, it's really quite effective for the role it fills - a long-range cruise missile launcher. The Tu-160s may be the Russians' show-bird, but the Tu-95 is still the real backbone of Russian long range aviation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 2:49:58 AM EDT
[#42]
I have to say that when I saw some of the footage from Ukraine earlier this summer of groups of Tu-95s coming in at low altitude, there was a bit of a shiver. That's probably all they were meant to do, and I'm sure they achieved it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 2:52:44 AM EDT
[#43]
Interesting... I sound some old ass PDF's about Doppler radar and the effects of propellers... dated 1961.
I found a rollicking fuck ton of more modern data talking about how doppler radar is so advanced now you could use it to Identify a bear based on the "sound" generated by the return of the propellers. I think we may have come a ways with digital processing since the 60's... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 3:02:20 AM EDT
[#44]
ERMAGERD OPSEC!!!!!
Every time someone on this fucking website squeals about OPSEC, I want to headslap them. And not the nice headslap like you get from the barber on deployment after the haircut, more of the, "You're fucking stupid" headslap. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. No, dport wont be along shortly to tell us why it wont work. I'm so far out of the loop....what happened to Dport??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 3:48:40 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: snip I'm so far out of the loop....what happened to Dport??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 3:49:20 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Turns out that Finkle is Einhorn. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip I'm so far out of the loop....what happened to Dport??? Now that's one hell of a 90's reference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:36:37 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting... I sound some old ass PDF's about Doppler radar and the effects of propellers... dated 1961. I found a rollicking fuck ton of more modern data talking about how doppler radar is so advanced now you could use it to Identify a bear based on the "sound" generated by the return of the propellers. I think we may have come a ways with digital processing since the 60's... That kind of stuff is fairly old tech these days as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:49:54 AM EDT
[#48]
You people
are funny.
No I don't fly the Eagle anymore. Doesn't mean I am going to talk about specifics. I said it presents some 'challenges' I did not say we could not kill them. The air battle situation is much more complex than most people realize. There are many multiple challenges in the game. It is a multi-layered environment of high tech wizardry, it isn't WW2 anymore. Everything in the game can have an effect. It is about multiple layers trying to degrade the enemy systems just long enough to affect the outcome. If that Bear survives to ALCM launch, now there are 16 targets to deal with instead of one, all capable of destroying a US city. Of course we have devoted the time,money, weapons, tactics and training to kill the Bear before that point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:51:52 AM EDT
[#49]
We still use the B-52, and there is no plans at all to retire it or replace it. Not saying the B-52 is good survivability in Russian airspace, but you can't really make fun of them for using the Tu-95 when the B-52 is going to have just as big of a radar signature.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2014 8:54:07 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You people are funny.No I don't fly the Eagle anymore. Doesn't mean I am going to talk about specifics. I said it presents some 'challenges' I did not say we could not kill them. The air battle situation is much more complex than most people realize. There are many multiple challenges in the game. It is a multi-layered environment of high tech wizardry, it isn't WW2 anymore. Everything in the game can have an effect. It is about multiple layers trying to degrade the enemy systems just long enough to affect the outcome. If that Bear survives to ALCM launch, now there are 16 targets to deal with instead of one, all capable of destroying a US city. Of course we have devoted the time,money, weapons, tactics and training to kill the Bear before that point. I have to think that with lasers coming into the picture for knocking out missiles, it's going to make warfare of a ground game again.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
