Russian Blackjack gets to 20 miles of UK, un-noticed!

vulcan57

This incident happened last year but has now only just come to light. The TU-160 Blackjack got to within 20 miles of Hull NE England without being picked up on radar, and to add insult to injury, the QRA aircraft were off doing something else, flying through the welsh valleys according to one forum.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1064713/Russian-nuclear-bomber-flies-undetected-20-miles-Hull.html

Silenceisbliss

honestly. im not half surprised.

It's a stealth bomber. It's what it's designed to do.

Billions have been spent on the technology, it should work.

Russia are a bit cheeky to do this, but then again the states has been flying over cuba, over russia, over...list goes on... so I dont blame the ruskies too much. what are the Brits gonna do huh? Russia is one country that nobody wants to piss off at the moment.

cyrusdvirus

The Blackjack isn't a stealth bomber. It may have some stealth features, the same as the B-1 Lancer, but they are not a 'true' stealth design

dogmatix

gatecrash wrote: »

The Blackjack isn't a stealth bomber. It may have some stealth features, the same as the B-1 Lancer, but they are not a 'true' stealth design

Agreed - and if it did get within 20 miles then there should be some red faces in the RAF at the moment.

FiSe

I think that the RAF can't be bothered to intercept that big ugly piece of junk anymore.
Surprised, that it can fly so far anyway :rolleyes:

FOGOFUNK

Its more the principal. Russia is acting the bollix, its kinda funny.

View Profile

Obviously the Norwegians have a better air defence cos when the Russians sent a "Blackjack" to Venezuela last month the Norwegian's sent up two F-16's to escort it, then the Americans scrambled jets out of Iceland.

I think its all a bit of fun!

FOGOFUNK

Id say the pilots love it, even in the cold war they used to share friendly waves while intercepting the bombers, and were always taking pictures of each other.

Captain Chaos

FiSe wrote: »

I think that the RAF can't be bothered to intercept that big ugly piece of junk anymore.
Surprised, that it can fly so far anyway :rolleyes:

This is the Tu-160 not the old Tu-95 that have been intercepted by the most fighter types in history.

Only in the past year have Tu-160s flown that far outside Russian airspace.

cyrusdvirus

FiSe wrote: »

I think that the RAF can't be bothered to intercept that big ugly piece of junk anymore.
Surprised, that it can fly so far anyway :rolleyes:

General characteristics

Crew: 4 (pilot, co-pilot, bombardier, defensive systems operator)
Length: 54.1 m (177 ft 6 in)
Wingspan:

Spread (20° sweep): 55.70 m (189 ft 9 in)
Swept (65° sweep): 35.60 m (116 ft 10 in)
Height: 13.10 m (43 ft 0 in)
Wing area:

Spread: 400 m² (4,310 ft²)
Swept: 360 m² (3,875 ft²)
Empty weight: 110 t (242,000 lb)
Loaded weight: 267 t (590,000 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 275 t (606,000 lb)
Powerplant: 4× Kuznetsov NK-321 turbofans
Dry thrust: 137 kN (30,900 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 245 kN (55,100 lbf) each
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.05[21] (2,220 km/h, 1,380 mph, 1,200 knots) at high altitude
Range: 17,400 km (9,400 nm, 10,800 mi) unrefueled
Combat radius: 10,500 km (5,670 NM, 6,500 mi)
Service ceiling 15,000 m (49,200 ft)
Rate of climb: 70 m/s (13,860 ft/min)
Wing loading: 743 kg/m² with wings fully swept (152 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.37
Armament


2 internal bays for 40,000 kg (88,200 lb) of ordnance, options include:
2 internal rotary launchers each holding 6× Raduga Kh-55 cruise missiles (primary armament) or 12× Raduga Kh-15 short-range nuclear missiles
Subsonic L/D is 18.5-19, while supersonic it is above 6.


Doesn't sound or look too shabby to my eyes

Silenceisbliss

dogmatix wrote: »

Agreed - and if it did get within 20 miles then there should be some red faces in the RAF at the moment.

Let tham have red faces, Russia didnt fo anything wrong! international waters are 12 nautical miles from the coast. The Tupolov was flying along the 20mile region along the coast. It was perfectly legit! They do this quite often over iceland near to the US boarder to see how long it takes them to be spotted and scrambled upon. The ruskies are just testing the countries defences and responce times.

FiSe wrote: »

I think that the RAF can't be bothered to intercept that big ugly piece of junk anymore.
Surprised, that it can fly so far anyway :rolleyes:

first, they would NEVER intercept unless vital to national security, risk starting a war with russia? russia is a sleeping giant. Britain is a little prick in comparison.

second, as gatecrash said: theres nothing sh1te about a an aircraft with a 50,000ft ceiling, +mach 2 max velocity, 40 metric tonne ordinance capacity capable of delevering 12 nucleur warheads....one plane could wipe out england....

for comparison, the B2-spirit is mach 0,95 (not supersonic), has a shorter range than the blackjet and has the same ceiling....

FOGOFUNK wrote: »

Its more the principal. Russia is acting the bollix, its kinda funny.

it is funny, leave the russians at it. legends!

getz

remember if 12 warhead hit england -ireland would also be dead by the fallout -the british air force is only one small part of nato[north atlantic treaty organization] ireland dosent pay any thing to it-so in a way it gets a free ride

Silenceisbliss

ah but a air to surface nucleur missle is only roughly 150kg, enough to cause catastrophic damage if deployed in or over a city...it would wipe out a nice chunk, but it isn't like a hiroshima type nuke or anything.

OS119

there was a story yesterday about the Chief of the Defence Staff informing the PM of a a study the RAF had done that indicated that offshore windfarms in the North and Irsh Seas are producing a 'mohican' shaped hole in the coverage of surface based air-search radars - it appears that not only to they 'hide' whatever is behind them, but they also make detection of targets flying above the (up to a significant height) very difficult indeed. interesting to note that there is such a windfarm in the Hull area....

the TU-160 could not possibly have got to the UK undetected had it flown at altitude (because every airsearch radar in NATO would of seen it), therefore its pretty obvious that it went at very low level and may well have used this 'anomoly' to get closer to the coast than a traditional low-level approach would ordinarily have done.

Silenceisbliss is technically corrrect in saying that any aircraft can do what it likes over international waters, but i can asure him that putting a nuclear strike bomber 20 miles off the coast of a state you claim to target with nuclear weapons and doing so in a way that causes the greatest surprise and alarm falls very deeply within the terms of an 'unfriendly act'.

the RAF's, like every other air forces, QRA carry live weapons. this situation got to point 45 seconds (600mph, 8 miles to territorial waters, RAF having a minor panic at discovering said beast on its doorstep) of the RAF trying to shoot it down. and i can assure you that a Russian nuclear strike bomber flying within UK airspace - particularly after working so hard to get there unoticed - falls well within the RAF's RoE.

not funny.

getz

maybe its a big con .let them think? to know the enemy --its called war games

OS119

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

ah but a air to surface nucleur missle is only roughly 150kg, enough to cause catastrophic damage if deployed in or over a city...it would wipe out a nice chunk, but it isn't like a hiroshima type nuke or anything.

shows how much you know.

TU-160 is armed with a nuclear or conventional KH-55/AS-15 'KENT' air launched cruise missile. in nuclear versions its warhead has a 200kt yield, the Hiroshimi/Nagasaki weapons were rated at some 15 - 20 kt.

so only 10 times as powerful...

Captain Chaos

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

first, they would NEVER intercept unless vital to national security, risk starting a war with russia?

The RAF intercept Russian aircraft all the time along with other EU air forces, intercept does not mean shoot them down, it just means join up off their wing, escort and observe.

Only a few months ago the RAF intercepted Russian bombers 20 miles off the coast of Donegal, the RAF fighters had to use mid air refueling to stay with them as they were so far out and they had to fly at high speed to catch up to them, which uses alot of fuel very quickly.

Silenceisbliss

OS119 wrote: »

Silenceisbliss is technically corrrect in saying that any aircraft can do what it likes over international waters, but i can asure him that putting a nuclear strike bomber 20 miles off the coast of a state you claim to target with nuclear weapons and doing so in a way that causes the greatest surprise and alarm falls very deeply within the terms of an 'unfriendly act'.

the RAF's, like every other air forces, QRA carry live weapons. this situation got to point 45 seconds (600mph, 8 miles to territorial waters, RAF having a minor panic at discovering said beast on its doorstep) of the RAF trying to shoot it down. and i can assure you that a Russian nuclear strike bomber flying within UK airspace - particularly after working so hard to get there unoticed - falls well within the RAF's RoE.

not funny.

oh ya, I totally agree, completely unfriendly behaviour! and it should have gotten the UK's knickers in a twist that such a volitile and lethal threat had snook up on them! none the less, Russia didn't breach international law and as we well know, they are more than bravado enough to challenge and push as far as they can go.

Besides, it's not like they are the only ones to do this. Every respectable airforce in the world is probably or has done this at some stage to test the defence of their opponants reactions and responce times. IMO, the UK response was a fail. and an epic one at that. now the Russians know what to expect if they ever carry out an invasion, for whatever reason! it's a tactic the US also employs....

OS119 wrote: »

shows how much you know.

TU-160 is armed with a nuclear or conventional KH-55/AS-15 'KENT' air launched cruise missile. in nuclear versions its warhead has a 200kt yield, the Hiroshimi/Nagasaki weapons were rated at some 15 - 20 kt.

so only 10 times as powerful...

firstly, thanks for the underminding and condecending tone. very good. you must be a genius to know the yields of and names of russian and WW2 nukes off your head!

I didnt exactly google yields, it seemed like a reasonable assumption to me when i read that they were disigned to take down ships, that they were more tactical than immense.

but still, thanks for the info. thats actually very interesting now that they are 10 times the yield! thats scary/cool to think one plane can literally devestate an entire country! :eek:

Captain Chaos wrote: »

The RAF intercept Russian aircraft all the time along with other EU air forces, intercept does not mean shoot them down, it just means join up off their wing, escort and observe.

Only a few months ago the RAF intercepted Russian bombers 20 miles off the coast of Donegal, the RAF fighters had to use mid air refueling to stay with them as they were so far out and they had to fly at high speed to catch up to them, which uses alot of fuel very quickly.

Ah, by "intercept", I had it in my head as "engage"...my mind misread that.

cheeky ruskies going off donegal!

vulcan57

Ok, they were in international waters and airforces all over the place do the same thing all the time. The point is that, (A) it got so close without being detected, and (B) there were no QRA aircraft available to intercept. It was obvious that a few higher ranking RAF personel were hauled over the coals as it was obviuosly meant to be kept quiet. If it had been for real not only would the UK have been in serious trouble, the knock on effect would be much more far reaching. Lets hope the RAF have leant a lesson. As far as the Donegal incident goes, it shows how much this country depends on the RAF, after all where were the IAC?

electric69

International waters are 12 nautical miles from the coast. The Tupolov was flying along the 20mile region along the coast. It was perfectly legit!

Big difference between international waters and airspace! Would be interesting to know what FL they were flying at.Im sure there are quite a few restricted areas off the coast that the RAF use for training.

dogmatix

vulcan57 wrote: »

Ok, they were in international waters and airforces all over the place do the same thing all the time. The point is that, (A) it got so close without being detected, and (B) there were no QRA aircraft available to intercept. It was obvious that a few higher ranking RAF personel were hauled over the coals as it was obviuosly meant to be kept quiet. If it had been for real not only would the UK have been in serious trouble, the knock on effect would be much more far reaching. Lets hope the RAF have leant a lesson. As far as the Donegal incident goes, it shows how much this country depends on the RAF, after all where were the IAC?

I doubt the IAC never even knew there was a TU-160 nearby! I could'nt imagine a PC-9 having much success trying to intercept a Blackjack, but it would be a hoot to see them try.

vulcan57

dogmatix wrote: »

I doubt the IAC never even knew there was a TU-160 nearby! I could'nt imagine a PC-9 having much success trying to intercept a Blackjack, but it would be a hoot to see them try.

My point exactly.

A7X

Its things like this that really make me wish that the air corps was more powerful and had more aircraft and some fighter jets. I know the whole neutrality thing but there are other neutral countries with jet fighters and strike forces. It really is just a matter of proper defence. Taking out the response by Britain and America if we were ever attacked we would'nt stand a chance. And then there is the costs ha Maybe its wishful thinking but I dont think you can put a price on a country's defence.

FOGOFUNK

A7X wrote: »

Its things like this that really make me wish that the air corps was more powerful and had more aircraft and some fighter jets. I know the whole neutrality thing but there are other neutral countries with jet fighters and strike forces. It really is just a matter of proper defence. Taking out the response by Britain and America if we were ever attacked we would'nt stand a chance. And then there is the costs ha Maybe its wishful thinking but I dont think you can put a price on a country's defence.

Defo, I cant get my head around how much money our government has wasted in the last 10 years. 4 F-16's would do us. Cost way too much to run but.

View Profile

Sure even some SAM's can't be that difficult to get. 3rd world nations can afford them FFS!

Would work out far cheaper than an expensive jet fighter squadron (which the average tax payer would say is a waste of money).

Steyr

FOGOFUNK wrote: »

Defo, I cant get my head around how much money our government has wasted in the last 10 years.

500BN to the Banks though.......:rolleyes: Nothing for the roads/health/defence.

Steyr

A7X wrote: »

I know the whole neutrality thing but there are other neutral countries with jet fighters and strike forces.

Thats the problem, were not Neutral we just have a policy of non alignment, in order to be Neutral you need to be able to defend yourself, and thats something we cant do.

vulcan57

Steyr wrote: »

Thats the problem, were not Neutral we just have a policy of non alignment, in order to be Neutral you need to be able to defend yourself, and thats something we cant do.

Dead right Dave, just take a look at Sweden and Switzerland! Maybe we could learn a thing or two from them. If a country with intent on getting a stepping stone to attack Europe were looking for an easy country to invade, who would they invade first out Sweden, Switzerland or Ireland? Ireland being on the edge of Europe would be an ideal place to launch attacks on the UK and main land Europe. Lets hope that will never materialise, but in these times its something to bear in mind.

Silenceisbliss

vulcan57 wrote: »

Ireland being on the edge of Europe would be an ideal place to launch attacks on the UK and main land Europe. .

And the US know this all too well, Shannon is far too valuble to them to allow Ireland to fall into the wrong hands. An occupied Ireland poses a massive threat to the UK as well as the States, so there is no way in hell that either the UK or the US will sit by while we get invaded or bombed.... as much as we love to hate the both of the them, they're our big brothers, and theyve seriously got our back.

cyrusdvirus

Oh come on........... Seriously lads?? This is more suited to the l=military forum the way it's going..

Vulcan, which country is more open to invasion Switzerland or Ireland.....

How do you propose invading Switzerland? It's land locked, so no to a seaborne invasion. Paratroop attack? Do you think France Italy and Germany are really gonna let a sky train through their skies? It's a bit of a no brainer in fairness.

The type of invasion that you and Silence are implying from the way I'm reading it is of a conquering and ruling empire building type. They haven't exactly been too common in the last while.

Who would invade Ireland? Russia? Why would they want to? Need the space? Need access to the open ocean? The logistics involved in invading Ireland make it a no-goer. If the Russians wanted those things then why invade Ireland, just steamroll the rest of Europe.
It reminds me of an old cold war joke. 2 Russian Generals meet up in Paris after the war and one says to the other, "oh, by the way, who won the air war?"

vulcan57

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

And the US know this all too well, Shannon is far too valuble to them to allow Ireland to fall into the wrong hands. An occupied Ireland poses a massive threat to the UK as well as the States, so there is no way in hell that either the UK or the US will sit by while we get invaded or bombed.... as much as we love to hate the both of the them, they're our big brothers, and theyve seriously got our back.

I know, agree with you, and the Irish government know that as well, probably why they will sit back and not bother to put any decent monies into the defence forces. Freeloading, like someone already mentioned.

Gatecrash wrote:

Vulcan, which country is more open to invasion Switzerland or Ireland.....

Ireland, my very point!

Gatecrash wrote:

If the Russians wanted those things then why invade Ireland, just steamroll the rest of Europe.

Because the rest of Europe have far better defence forces than Ireland will ever have. And the majority of them belong to a little club call NATO and all that goes with it.

Like I said, hopefully none of this will ever happen

cyrusdvirus

Originally Posted by Gatecrash
Vulcan, which country is more open to invasion Switzerland or Ireland.....[/QUOTE

Ireland, my very point!

i had actually included that to highlight the ridiculousness or trying to compare Ireland and Switzerland as targets for any potentially Europe threatening invader.
Compare like with like. Compare Iceland and Ireland, the comparison is much more valid. And in most war game scenarios Iceland is regarded as the key to the Atlantic, which will slow the hell out of the major power in that little club in bringing all it's might to bear.

Control Iceland and you can control the North Atlantic, Control the North Atlantic and it is a significantly easier task to control Europe.
Control Ireland and you can control the channel approaches, close the busiest sea way in the world. Close a few ports in the UK and a few in France

Iceland is a juicier target there

Control Ireland and you leave yourself open to high-speed, virtual no warning attacks from the UK, even if you had an Awacs or 2 on constant patrol over the east coast.
Control Iceland and you have a greater possibility for defence in depth, with your Awacs or 2, plus you still have a launch board to take out the UK or the Scandanavian countries

FiSe

gatecrash wrote: »

Originally Posted by Gatecrash
Vulcan, which country is more open to invasion Switzerland or Ireland.....[/QUOTE


i had actually included that to highlight the ridiculousness or trying to compare Ireland and Switzerland as targets for any potentially Europe threatening invader.
Compare like with like. Compare Iceland and Ireland, the comparison is much more valid. And in most war game scenarios Iceland is regarded as the key to the Atlantic, which will slow the hell out of the major power in that little club in bringing all it's might to bear.

Control Iceland and you can control the North Atlantic, Control the North Atlantic and it is a significantly easier task to control Europe.
Control Ireland and you can control the channel approaches, close the busiest sea way in the world. Close a few ports in the UK and a few in France

Iceland is a juicier target there

Control Ireland and you leave yourself open to high-speed, virtual no warning attacks from the UK, even if you had an Awacs or 2 on constant patrol over the east coast.
Control Iceland and you have a greater possibility for defence in depth, with your Awacs or 2, plus you still have a launch board to take out the UK or the Scandanavian countries

Iceland used to be 'the one' during last war. We have a better and more capable a'planes, boats and submarines nowadays than back then. I think...

Next thing, which is completly overlooked here is total depandance of Europe on Russian fuel. There's no need for Russia's militant nacionalists to go and throw bombs around them, just cut the fecking oil pipe.
They know and Europe knows, all this overflying airplane game is only a messing. Nothing more.

Another thing is, that Russia might have a B1 copy over the UK, which is more capable than original, on the paper anyway, but how many of them are actually able to fly? That was my point I made in my first post.
Russia's oligarch could be a multibilionares, but does the army get its shares as well?

cyrusdvirus

FiSe wrote: »

Iceland used to be 'the one' during last war. We have a better and more capable a'planes, boats and submarines nowadays than back then. I think...

Which is why any potential attacker looking at Ireland and Iceland would, in my opinion, think that Iceland gives you a higher defensive ability than Ireland. How long would it take 12 Tornados, bursting out of the Welsh valleys at high subsonic/supersonic speeds, loaded to the gills with exploding stuff to get across the Irish sea?
Close to their bases, virtually no transit time, so they don't need to worry about carrying external fuel or fuel economy. They'd be here, have dropped their munitions and be halfway home before the quickest of qra's would be ready to take them on.

OS119

the argument is a good one, no one is going to choose to use Ireland as a initial jumping off point when Iceland is available, but then once Iceland is taken (and it has no military, the USAF has withdrawn and the US, France, Norway and the UK only send occasional detachments to Keflavik), Ireland begins to look rather attractive.

if you take Iceland you can only hit either western Europe or re-routed trans-Atlantic SLOC with long range strategic kit - TU-160's and the like - and as has been mentioned the number floating around is small - perhaps 30. however, if after taking Iceland you use it as a staging base to send much larger quantities of tactical aircraft to captured bases on the west coast of Ireland your ability to make war on western europe is massively increased over using two dozen BLACKJACKS from Iceland.

and if, instead if going down that path, you think about oil and gas as the weapons of warfare, Ireland has both on its utterly undefended western seaboard. the Russians, who as we know are happy to use 'turning the lights off' as a political and military tool - fly over these instalations with - if i were Irish - alarming regularity and impunity....

you have an asset, one which will become increasingly valuable - and one which may get in the way of the policies of a large and increasingly militarily aggressive Russia. if you fail to put two and two together you may find yourself having to make some very expensive deals at the last minute.

BostonB

These type of intercepts are only to test each others weapons, system. I don't think theres much chance of a major conflict in europe or north atlantic. More likely it will be a conflict in eastern europe, middle east or asia, as a land grab, or a grab for natural resources.

The Russians are slowly getting back on their feet. So these kind of flights are flag waving.

Steyr

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

as much as we love to hate the both of the them, they're our big brothers, and theyve seriously got our back.

Nothing against you but that doesnt speak for me, i quite like the Brits and Yanks alot.

cyrusdvirus

OS119 wrote: »

the argument is a good one, no one is going to choose to use Ireland as a initial jumping off point when Iceland is available, but then once Iceland is taken (and it has no military, the USAF has withdrawn and the US, France, Norway and the UK only send occasional detachments to Keflavik), Ireland begins to look rather attractive.

if you take Iceland you can only hit either western Europe or re-routed trans-Atlantic SLOC with long range strategic kit - TU-160's and the like - and as has been mentioned the number floating around is small - perhaps 30. however, if after taking Iceland you use it as a staging base to send much larger quantities of tactical aircraft to captured bases on the west coast of Ireland your ability to make war on western europe is massively increased over using two dozen BLACKJACKS from Iceland.

and if, instead if going down that path, you think about oil and gas as the weapons of warfare, Ireland has both on its utterly undefended western seaboard. the Russians, who as we know are happy to use 'turning the lights off' as a political and military tool - fly over these instalations with - if i were Irish - alarming regularity and impunity....

you have an asset, one which will become increasingly valuable - and one which may get in the way of the policies of a large and increasingly militarily aggressive Russia. if you fail to put two and two together you may find yourself having to make some very expensive deals at the last minute.

Well that's what i was getting at, use Iceland as a springboard... but essentially,
yeah, wot he said!!!

Silenceisbliss

i'm still in awe of the prospect of a single aircraft carrying 14 100kt thermonucleur warheads capable of the complete and total annihilation of an entire country. It's unbelievable.

I wonder how would the go code be given? it must be an incredibly secure system, and the respionsibility of the pilot, must be heavy on the shoulders!

cyrusdvirus

I'd doubt that they have aircraft in the air fully armed 24/7. Even SAC (or USSTRATCOM to give them their current name) don't do that anymore.

Either way, they are a good looking piece of kit. Say what you want about the russians, they sure do build them pretty.

vulcan57

gatecrash wrote: »

Either way, they are a good looking piece of kit. Say what you want about the russians, they sure do build them pretty.

On that point I totally agree with you. If the Russians really want to showoff their hardware I'm sure they will find a prime position at RAF Fairford over the weekend of 18th / 19th July next year!

FOGOFUNK

gatecrash wrote: »

I'd doubt that they have aircraft in the air fully armed 24/7. Even SAC (or USSTRATCOM to give them their current name) don't do that anymore.

Either way, they are a good looking piece of kit. Say what you want about the russians, they sure do build them pretty.

Defo, I love the look of Su-27's.

Captain Chaos

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

i'm still in awe of the prospect of a single aircraft carrying 14 100kt thermonucleur warheads capable of the complete and total annihilation of an entire country. It's unbelievable.

I wonder how would the go code be given? it must be an incredibly secure system, and the respionsibility of the pilot, must be heavy on the shoulders!

14 100kt warheads would not wipe out an entire country, well maybe Luxemberg. US fighters like the F-16 can carry a 300kt bomb the B61, thats considered a tactical nuke. It's a free fall bomb with a chute to slow it down so the fighter has time to clear the blast area. Its able to level everything within about 15 miles and damage buildings out to 50 miles with the shock wave.

14 100kt warheads would wipe out a large city like London alright. Its a good thing the pilot does not actually have to release the weapons himself as he is just tasked with getting the bomber into launch position. Its the weapons systems officer that targets releases these missiles.

dogmatix

Captain Chaos wrote: »

14 100kt warheads would not wipe out an entire country, well maybe Luxemberg. US fighters like the F-16 can carry a 300kt bomb the B61, thats considered a tactical nuke. It's a free fall bomb with a chute to slow it down so the fighter has time to clear the blast area. Its able to level everything within about 15 miles and damage buildings out to 50 miles with the shock wave.

14 100kt warheads would wipe out a large city like London alright. Its a good thing the pilot does not actually have to release the weapons himself as he is just tasked with getting the bomber into launch position. Its the weapons systems officer that targets releases these missiles.

Maybe not "destroy" a country the size of ireland, but if you dropped those 14 weapons on the 14th largest population centers you could pretty much end any sort of organised government, to be followed by breakdown of civil order, collapse of food distribution network and transport and communications. And thats before you consider the 100's of thousands of injured looking for help in a health system that would have gone belly up with central government and 100's of thousands of the unburied dead spreading disease. Then famine sets in and thats before you even consider effects of the radiation fallout on the local ecosystem. Yep - I think 14 100kt warheads if properly placed would pretty much end Ireland, at least as far as a political entity

dogmatix

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

i'm still in awe of the prospect of a single aircraft carrying 14 100kt thermonucleur warheads capable of the complete and total annihilation of an entire country. It's unbelievable.

I wonder how would the go code be given? it must be an incredibly secure system, and the respionsibility of the pilot, must be heavy on the shoulders!

Can you get a thermonuclear warhead with a yield as low as 100kt? I always imagined the nuclear weapons <500kt where strictly fisson bombs. Scary thought if they can do that nowadays.

Silenceisbliss

Captain Chaos wrote: »

14 100kt warheads would not wipe out an entire country, well maybe Luxemberg. US fighters like the F-16 can carry a 300kt bomb the B61, thats considered a tactical nuke. It's a free fall bomb with a chute to slow it down so the fighter has time to clear the blast area. Its able to level everything within about 15 miles and damage buildings out to 50 miles with the shock wave.

14 100kt warheads would wipe out a large city like London alright. Its a good thing the pilot does not actually have to release the weapons himself as he is just tasked with getting the bomber into launch position. Its the weapons systems officer that targets releases these missiles.

...below

dogmatix wrote: »

Maybe not "destroy" a country the size of ireland, but if you dropped those 14 weapons on the 14th largest population centers you could pretty much end any sort of organised government, to be followed by breakdown of civil order, collapse of food distribution network and transport and communications. And thats before you consider the 100's of thousands of injured looking for help in a health system that would have gone belly up with central government and 100's of thousands of the unburied dead spreading disease. Then famine sets in and thats before you even consider effects of the radiation fallout on the local ecosystem. Yep - I think 14 100kt warheads if properly placed would pretty much end Ireland, at least as far as a political entity

what he said! couldnt have worded it better myself.


also, it's callesd a "retardation parachute" .... *snigger*:D

free fall bomb with a chute

free fall....with a chute...uh huh...

systems officer that targets releases these missiles

thought they were bombs?...

ah im just messin with ya...:D

still though, the responsibility thats on the weapon officers shoulders then....heavy!

heres a nice scale to show hiroshima up to the likes of the soviet tsar bomba (the most impractical weapon EVAR) you can kinda see where 100kt scales up...

Fantom

FiSe wrote: »

I think that the RAF can't be bothered to intercept that big ugly piece of junk anymore.
Surprised, that it can fly so far anyway :rolleyes:

Just for ur information

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u03GNcL4NFA

Fantom

Fantom wrote: »

Just for ur information

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u03GNcL4NFA

Sorry, :pac: education

Fantom

FiSe wrote: »

I think that the RAF can't be bothered to intercept that big ugly piece of junk anymore.
Surprised, that it can fly so far anyway :rolleyes:

I do hate the way some people boasts about something they have no idea.
Just for your education.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BoaJkWiqPU&feature=related
:eek:

cyrusdvirus

Fantom wrote: »

I do hate the way some people boasts about something they have no idea.
Just for your education.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BoaJkWiqPU&feature=related
:eek:

Quit stirring **** looking for an argument.

Captain Chaos

Fantom wrote: »

I do hate the way some people boasts about something they have no idea.
Just for your education.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BoaJkWiqPU&feature=related
:eek:

Only two Su-37s were built, one was returned to the old Su-35 of the 7xx serial test series standard and the other crashed in 2002 from metal fatigue from being over stressed in many high G and departure manouvers over the few years it was around. Russia or any other country for that matter has nothing not even on the planning boards that they could afford to develop and build would compare with the F-22.