Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

russian-bombers

Options
1356789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Why would Russia waste a nuke for Shannon Airport when you could destroy it effectively with standard bombing?

    Stand-off cruise missiles are less risky than going over and hitting it with dumb bombs.



    Film of a Bear intercept off Alaska back in the 80's, it was routine stuff back then too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    The last lot did, And you use Reconnaissance planes to re-con not bombers.

    Ugh...bombers can perform reconnaissance missions too you know. And do. No matter how many times you repeat it to yourself, it doesn't change the fact that these missions are nothing to get ones knickers in a twist over.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Explain please why a modern super power would be carrying nuclear weapons around in a 50s bomber when they have 16000 ICBMS

    A modern superpower wouldn't. But Russia is a modern great power.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    A modern superpower wouldn't. But Russia is a modern great power.

    The Bear is a very effective platform and performs the role that the Russians want it to perform. They have more "modern" jet bombers like the Tu-22M and the Tu-160 but the Bear has a longer range and can perform these missions in a much more cost-effective manner.

    The idea from some that just because if has propellers that makes it somehow inferior is....lets just call it ill-informed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,300 ✭✭✭✭razorblunt


    This will sort them out
    birdie.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,906 ✭✭✭Streetwalker


    If Russia really wanted to destroy Ireland they should financially back the FF political party in the hope they get back into power. FF, worse than an atom bomb.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    If Russia really wanted to destroy Ireland they should financially back the FF political party in the hope they get back into power. FF, worse than an atom bomb.

    tl;dr: In Russia's Ireland, soldiers are destiny of we.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,812 ✭✭✭✭josip


    If Russia really wanted to destroy Ireland they should financially back the FF political party in the hope they get back into power. FF, worse than an atom bomb.

    The opposite has actually happened.
    In 2011, we deployed our sleeper, Conor Lenihan to Moscow.
    He installed the FF economic time bomb of focusing on one element of the economy to the exclusion of all others.
    What has happened to Russia in the last 12 months was inevitable since 2011.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,339 ✭✭✭The One Doctor


    Yup International airport used by the USA Shannon has a nuke pointed at it does it not.

    Nuking Shannon won't really damage Ireland. It's in the middle of nowhere.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Nuking Shannon won't really damage Ireland. It's in the middle of nowhere.

    If only the Radiation stayed at the impact site.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,354 ✭✭✭nocoverart


    What military capability does Ireland have to defend the state from monstrous nuclear bombers?

    RTE, it would depress them to death.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    A modern superpower wouldn't.
    What do you think the B-52 is?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    What do you think the B-52 is?

    To be fair I really have no idea why people think Prop/turboprop is antiquated. Look at the American troop transport V-22 they started to roll out. The weapons system that brought down MH was 30 odd years old too. Old does not necessarily mean bad.

    Yes b-52 is jet powered but is subsonic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 854 ✭✭✭dubscottie


    Pick a spot and drop a bomb..

    If there was a nuclear war it would use 100's of smaller yields as the are easier to get on target and can do more damage than a large bomb like the Tsar.


    http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    Look at the Hercules Gunships infamous for their FLIR videos over Iraq and Afganistan.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    dubscottie wrote: »
    Pick a spot and drop a bomb..

    If there was a nuclear war it would use 100's of smaller yields as the are easier to get on target and can do more damage than a large bomb like the Tsar.


    http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    Ye that's why most are MIRV. Tsar was a balls showing exercise. Is the largest nuclear explosion possible without loosing explosive energy outside the atmosphere.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    dubscottie wrote: »
    Pick a spot and drop a bomb..

    If there was a nuclear war it would use 100's of smaller yields as the are easier to get on target and can do more damage than a large bomb like the Tsar.


    http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    That's why all of todays ICBMs have about 5-10 warheads each, each missile can hit as many targets as it has warheads 100s of miles apart. Tactical nukes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    Ye that's why most are MIRV. Tsar was a balls showing exercise. Is the largest nuclear explosion possible without loosing explosive energy outside the atmosphere.

    TSAR was actually scaled down so the launch aircraft could escape the blast area in time. Even at that the aircraft that dropped that bomb suffered significant external heat blast and shockwave damage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Perfect excuse for a proper cold war if a fully loaded passenger jet flies blind into one of these


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 854 ✭✭✭dubscottie




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭Smiles35




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭lakesider


    Vote sinn fein in the next election..at least they had ground to air capability!


  • Registered Users Posts: 26 DavidSullivan


    Just found this happened once again, what's the story?

    03/03/2015 : - breakingnews.ie

    ''Commercial jets carrying hundreds of people had to be diverted in mid-air or else prevented from taking off to avoid potential collisions with two Russian bear bombers which “cloaked” their presence during their latest incursion into Irish-controlled airspace.''

    ''The IAA said its air traffic controllers were notified by British counterparts that they needed to take action to ensure the safety of commercial aircraft, because yet again the Russian bombers had entered our area of airspace control with their transponders turned off. ''

    ''The first Russian incursion into Irish-controlled airspace was 88km off the coast. The second was much nearer, just 19km outside our sovereign airspace and the incursion lasted from 3pm to 7pm. ''


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    Firstly, it's international airspace. Secondly, military aircraft do not have to use transponders.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,489 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Cloaked, lol


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,284 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    srsly78 wrote: »
    Firstly, it's international airspace. Secondly, military aircraft do not have to use transponders.

    Actually, I suspect that within limits (eg Below FL 180) civilian aircraft don't need to use transponders either.

    [ETA: That said, apparently the Bears were a bit higher than that]


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,025 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    Threads Merged - OP in future, have a quick check to see if there's already a thread.

    Cheers


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    The Russians are just testing the western response time and causing a bit of a nuisance for the RAF in response to NATO sabre rattling THE idea that the Russians were going to nuke anyone let alone Ireland with a 1950s bomber is extreme tin foil hat magic mushroom territory Firstly because thats what ICBMS are for and secondly because of mutually assured destruction

    mutally assured destruction would demand both sides have bombs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    The Soviet Union had dozens of nukes targeting ireland. All airports, ports, cities and the occasional village. They had tens of thousands of ordinance to target, everywhere got a look in


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,405 ✭✭✭Lone Stone


    I for one welcome our new Russian over lords


Advertisement