PAK-DA: News

Big_Gazza wrote:

eehnie wrote:Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

Unfortunately for your argument, neither the Tu-16 or Tu-22 were strategic bombers with intercontinental range.  Tu-16 ~ 7,200 kms,  Tu-22 ~4,900 kms compared to Tu-160 ~12,300.  Tu-160 had supersonic performance and the range to truly attack continental US.  It didn't replace either Tu-16/Tu-22 - it was a whole new capability.

BTW the Tu-22 was hopelessly short-ranged due to its fuel-guzzling engines and was only fit for theater use.

Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with PAK DA being subsonic or supersonic or some mystical Vannian mega-turbo-hypersonic.  My point is that until the Tu-160 entered service, the USSR did not have a supersonic strategic bomber (ie one able to attack continental US and return to own airfield).  Neither Tu-16 or Tu-22/22M fulfilled that role.  The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.

Obviously the Tu-160 added new capabilities to the units it was deployed in, but your denial has not a real basis. There is a clear material succession in the concrete units the Tu-160 served, and is exposed in the links.

Again, as habitual here, the word of some people vs the facts exposed in the links.

GarryB wrote:

Being developed from the Tu-22, the Tu-22M is only a variant of the Tu-22. It is right to use the generic name to include all the variants.

NATO and the ASCC does not. The Tu-22 is the Blinder and the Tu-22M series are all called Backfire.

Now the NATO designations are the gold standard? Maybe for you, not for me.

As example the NATO divide the different variants of the S-300 in four designations: SA-10, SA-12, SA-20 and SA-23. And there are more examples like this.

SA-11 and SA-17 are variants of the same technological basis.

SS-20 and SS-28 are variants of the same technological basis.

...

GarryB wrote:

But even in this case, for desperation of GarryB, that is wrong again, some units of the oldest variants remain present in the Russian Armed Forces (in the reserve):

https://russianplanes.net/planelist/Tupolev/Tu-22

Did you even read what that link actually said?

Tu-22 supersonic long range heavy aircraft. Built in the bomber, missile, scout, and the jammer.
The first flight of the prototype Tu-22 (ed. 105) took place on 21 June 1958 .
Engines - two TURBOJET RD-7M2/VD-7M.

On the basis of the Tu-22, a large number of modifications:
Tu-22 and Tu-22B - production versions of the bomber.
Tu-22P(RD/RM/RDM/RDK) - reconnaissance modification.
The Tu-22P(AP) - the supplier of the interference.
Tu-22K(KD/KP) - missile (Kh-22).
The Tu-22U - training.

Tu-22M - deep modernization of the aircraft, in fact, another type.

This is the real part of the comment, nothing "in fact".

And do not get too excited because you see in the source the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M in separated references, because russianplanes does it some times with obvious variants, like in the case of the Mi-8, An-10/12, An-24/26/30/32, Ka-50/52....

https://russianplanes.net/registr

eehnie wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

eehnie wrote:Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

Unfortunately for your argument, neither the Tu-16 or Tu-22 were strategic bombers with intercontinental range.  Tu-16 ~ 7,200 kms,  Tu-22 ~4,900 kms compared to Tu-160 ~12,300.  Tu-160 had supersonic performance and the range to truly attack continental US.  It didn't replace either Tu-16/Tu-22 - it was a whole new capability.

BTW the Tu-22 was hopelessly short-ranged due to its fuel-guzzling engines and was only fit for theater use.

Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with PAK DA being subsonic or supersonic or some mystical Vannian mega-turbo-hypersonic.  My point is that until the Tu-160 entered service, the USSR did not have a supersonic strategic bomber (ie one able to attack continental US and return to own airfield).  Neither Tu-16 or Tu-22/22M fulfilled that role.  The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.

Obviously the Tu-160 added new capabilities to the units it was deployed in, but your denial has not a real basis. There is a clear material succession in the concrete units the Tu-160 served, and is exposed in the links.

Again, as habitual here, the word of some people vs the facts exposed in the links.

Because, naturally links are words spoken by God himself and are always ultimate proof for everything.

I can give you link that claims that Earth is flat too.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

eehnie wrote:Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

Unfortunately for your argument, neither the Tu-16 or Tu-22 were strategic bombers with intercontinental range.  Tu-16 ~ 7,200 kms,  Tu-22 ~4,900 kms compared to Tu-160 ~12,300.  Tu-160 had supersonic performance and the range to truly attack continental US.  It didn't replace either Tu-16/Tu-22 - it was a whole new capability.

BTW the Tu-22 was hopelessly short-ranged due to its fuel-guzzling engines and was only fit for theater use.

Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with PAK DA being subsonic or supersonic or some mystical Vannian mega-turbo-hypersonic.  My point is that until the Tu-160 entered service, the USSR did not have a supersonic strategic bomber (ie one able to attack continental US and return to own airfield).  Neither Tu-16 or Tu-22/22M fulfilled that role.  The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.

Obviously the Tu-160 added new capabilities to the units it was deployed in, but your denial has not a real basis. There is a clear material succession in the concrete units the Tu-160 served, and is exposed in the links.

Again, as habitual here, the word of some people vs the facts exposed in the links.

Because, naturally links are words spoken by God himself and are always ultimate proof for everything.

I can give you link that claims that Earth is flat too.

Facts exposed in the links are far better than your word. Again. Facts exposed in the links.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

eehnie wrote:Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

Unfortunately for your argument, neither the Tu-16 or Tu-22 were strategic bombers with intercontinental range.  Tu-16 ~ 7,200 kms,  Tu-22 ~4,900 kms compared to Tu-160 ~12,300.  Tu-160 had supersonic performance and the range to truly attack continental US.  It didn't replace either Tu-16/Tu-22 - it was a whole new capability.

BTW the Tu-22 was hopelessly short-ranged due to its fuel-guzzling engines and was only fit for theater use.

Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with PAK DA being subsonic or supersonic or some mystical Vannian mega-turbo-hypersonic.  My point is that until the Tu-160 entered service, the USSR did not have a supersonic strategic bomber (ie one able to attack continental US and return to own airfield).  Neither Tu-16 or Tu-22/22M fulfilled that role.  The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.

Obviously the Tu-160 added new capabilities to the units it was deployed in, but your denial has not a real basis. There is a clear material succession in the concrete units the Tu-160 served, and is exposed in the links.

Again, as habitual here, the word of some people vs the facts exposed in the links.

Because, naturally links are words spoken by God himself and are always ultimate proof for everything.

I can give you link that claims that Earth is flat too.

Facts exposed in the links are far better than your word. Again. Facts exposed in the links.

Nothing in the links you provided claims that Tu-160 replaced Tu-16 or Tu-22 in their inteded role, just that certain units were rearmed with it, which we all knew... you know.. before you placed mighty links.

Some units though time even completely changed their roles from frontline strike to strategic, pilots got retrained from transport to gunship helicopters...its called reform, from stop being moron, our eyes are bleeding.

If US suddenly started fielding B-21 next year, what bombers would they replace? B-52s and B-1s ofc, and what they would do? Fire the pilots that flew B-1s and wait a decade till new ones are ready ? You are seriously...

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

eehnie wrote:Taking into account that it is known in which units served the Tu-160, is not as difficult to see which aircraft were replaced by the Tu-160.

184th Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic)

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/184gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/13gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/201tbad.htm

121st Guards Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment: Tu-160 (supersonic) replaced Tu-22 (supersonic). Previously the Tu-22 (supersonic) replaced Tu-16 (subsonic).

http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/bap/121gvtbap.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/15gvtbad.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/division/bad/22gvtbad.htm

Unfortunately for your argument, the relation of succession is very clear inside the units the aircrafts served in. And not there is not basis to say that today the Tu-95/142 (subsonic) must be replaced by subsonic aircrafts. In the past subsonic aircrafts were replaced by supersonic aircrafts.

Unfortunately for your argument, neither the Tu-16 or Tu-22 were strategic bombers with intercontinental range.  Tu-16 ~ 7,200 kms,  Tu-22 ~4,900 kms compared to Tu-160 ~12,300.  Tu-160 had supersonic performance and the range to truly attack continental US.  It didn't replace either Tu-16/Tu-22 - it was a whole new capability.

BTW the Tu-22 was hopelessly short-ranged due to its fuel-guzzling engines and was only fit for theater use.

Anyhow, none of this has anything to do with PAK DA being subsonic or supersonic or some mystical Vannian mega-turbo-hypersonic.  My point is that until the Tu-160 entered service, the USSR did not have a supersonic strategic bomber (ie one able to attack continental US and return to own airfield).  Neither Tu-16 or Tu-22/22M fulfilled that role.  The Tu-95 did the job, but at a much more sedate pace and lacked penetration ability.

Obviously the Tu-160 added new capabilities to the units it was deployed in, but your denial has not a real basis. There is a clear material succession in the concrete units the Tu-160 served, and is exposed in the links.

Again, as habitual here, the word of some people vs the facts exposed in the links.

Because, naturally links are words spoken by God himself and are always ultimate proof for everything.

I can give you link that claims that Earth is flat too.

Facts exposed in the links are far better than your word. Again. Facts exposed in the links.

Nothing in the links you provided claims that Tu-160 replaced Tu-16 or Tu-22 in their inteded role, just that certain units were rearmed with it, which we all knew... you know.. before you placed mighty links.

Some units though time even completely changed their roles from frontline strike to strategic, pilots got retrained from transport to gunship helicopters...its called reform, from stop being moron, our eyes are bleeding.

If US suddenly started fielding B-21 next year, what bombers would they replace? B-52s and B-1s ofc, and what they would do? Fire the pilots that flew B-1s and wait a decade till new ones are ready ? You are seriously...

Most of the times changing armament means a change in the fighting way of every unit. New armament tend to increase the military capabilities of the units. In the links included we have a relation of the armament used by the units with the time, and also we have a view of the role of the units with the time, that had few changes in these cases, like we can see in the links.

These are the facts. Your words, have not value... you know... you made a joke of yourself too much times...

As example the NATO divide the different variants of the S-300 in four designations: SA-10, SA-12, SA-20 and SA-23. And there are more examples like this.

Actually the S-300 system is not one system but three systems, only two of which are actually related.

The S-300P Air force system and S-300F Naval systems are related, the S-300V ground forces system is totally different with totally different vehicles sensors and missiles.

And do not get too excited because you see in the source the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M in separated references,

They have separate references because they are different aircraft with different engines and systems and totally different performances.

And do not get too excited because you see in the source the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M in separated references, because russianplanes does it some times with obvious variants, like in the case of the Mi-8, An-10/12, An-24/26/30/32, Ka-50/52....

https://russianplanes.net/registr

Congratulations that link shows the opposite of what you are trying to say again....

In the drop down box for the aircraft type the family aircraft are grouped together... so the Hip and Hip related family of aircraft have one link... ie Mi-8, Mi-9, Mi-17, Mi-18, Mi-171, Mi-172 are all related aircraft.

The Mi-24/-25/35 aircraft are separate but together as well for the same reasons.

The Mi-14 has a separate link on its own despite being originally a Hip design with a new boat shaped structure for amphibious use.

The Tu-22 and Tu-22M have different links here too.

This makes sense because they are totally different aircraft.

OK... how about this.

Lets look at what the manufacturer describes as the purpose of the Tu-22M3:

The Tu-22M3 long-range supersonic missile-launching bomber is designed for the destruction of sea-surface and ground targets at a 2,200 km distance from base airfields using guided missiles and aerial bombs.

So its operational radius of action is 2,200km.

Read it yourself... the page is here:

http://www.uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/military/tu-22m3/

Now lets look at every Russian air base where the Tu-22M3 could be based and compare the radius of action of 2,200km with the distance to the US...

The Tu-22M3 is not a strategic bomber, never has been and never will be.

Even with inflight refuelling it would never have the range to get anywhere near the US even with a small ineffectual load of weapons.

GarryB wrote:

As example the NATO divide the different variants of the S-300 in four designations: SA-10, SA-12, SA-20 and SA-23. And there are more examples like this.

Actually the S-300 system is not one system but three systems, only two of which are actually related.

The S-300P Air force system and S-300F Naval systems are related, the S-300V ground forces system is totally different with totally different vehicles sensors and missiles.

And do not get too excited because you see in the source the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M in separated references,

They have separate references because they are different aircraft with different engines and systems and totally different performances.

And do not get too excited because you see in the source the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M in separated references, because russianplanes does it some times with obvious variants, like in the case of the Mi-8, An-10/12, An-24/26/30/32, Ka-50/52....

https://russianplanes.net/registr

Congratulations that link shows the opposite of what you are trying to say again....

Lol, what a lie    

Then you consider different helicopters the:

Миль Ми-8 КВЗ (*) https://russianplanes.net/plist_kvz/Mil/Mi-8/9/17/18/19/171/172/177
Миль Ми-8 УУАПО (*) https://russianplanes.net/plist_uuapo/Mil/Mi-8/9/17/18/19/171/172/177

Perfect, all said, good luck with it.

Also good luck explaining what is the Russian Long Range Aviation Command armed with Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-22 and Il-78. The current commander: Lieutenant-General Sergei Kobylash

Then you consider different helicopters the:

Are you trying to be funny?

Separate lists of Mi-8s manufactured by different factories does not make them different aircraft, but listing the Tu-22 and Tu-22M would still make them on separate lists and still not prove any of your points.

Also good luck explaining what is the Russian Long Range Aviation Command armed with Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-22 and Il-78. The current commander: Lieutenant-General Sergei Kobylash

Long range aviation is a branch of the Russian Air Force and includes many types of aircraft that are not strategic bombers.

Frontal Aviation, the PVO (national air defence/interception) and long range aviation together with naval aviation and transport aviation form the 5 main core branches of the Soviet Air Force.

The frontal aviation had fighters and bombers and interceptors but generally operated in and around the enemy front line.

The PVO operated all over Soviet territory and intercepted threats.

Transport aviation is pretty obvious, as is naval aviation.

Long range aviation had both strategic and theatre components that were intended for strike and attack missions at theatre and strategic level.

In WWIII the Tu-22M would be used against targets in Japan or Europe or China to strike major radar or SAM sites in Long range aviation... you can't use Tu-160s or Tu-95s because they would need to be ready to launch a nuclear strike on the US if necessary.

The Tu-22M would also be used by Naval Aviation to strike US carrier groups and large ships in times of war... again the Tu-95 and Tu-160 could not be used because at any time they might need to deliver nuclear armed cruise missiles to the continental US.

Then you admit that russianplanes can use different pages for aircrafts of the same model. The you recognize your previous lie. Good, good.

And also do you admit the Long Range Aviation Command includes all the Long Range Russian aircrafts plus refuel aircrafts? Or not still...

There is some reason why Russia considered necessary to unify all the long range bombers under a single command? or is only a random selection that mix different things and the Tu-22 was lucky of being placed with the Tu-160 and the Tu-95/142, while the Su-34 was not lucky enough...

And then, the Long Range term has some sense in the designation of the Long Range Aviation Command? or is some random fancy of some Russian politician or general unrelated with the mission of the Command?

Look at the reality man. Look at the reality.

Then you admit that russianplanes can use different pages for aircrafts of the same model. The you recognize your previous lie. Good, good.

OK you are going to be dumb about it.

When you use the search engine within the russianplanes website and search based on manufacturers then you will get separate pages for each factory even for the same aircraft.

You also get separate pages for the Tu-22 and the Tu-22M because they are different aircraft made of completely different parts as they are not related in design or manufacture.

The only thing they actually share is the "22" system, but even then they use Kh-22 and Kh-22M missiles and other systems that are related but different too.

And also do you admit the Long Range Aviation Command includes all the Long Range Russian aircrafts plus refuel aircrafts? Or not still...

No. Long range Aviation does not include all Russian long range aircraft, it only includes long range, and medium range bombers and cruise missile carriers and inflight refuelling aircraft. It does not include any An-124 transport aircraft which can also fly 12,000km in ferry mode or Il-76 aircraft that can ferry to 5,000km plus. Or for that matter the few An-22s still operational which are also very long range aircraft too.

There is some reason why Russia considered necessary to unify all the long range bombers under a single command? or is only a random selection that mix different things and the Tu-22 was lucky of being placed with the Tu-160 and the Tu-95/142, while the Su-34 was not lucky enough...

For the same reason the US had strategic air command... targets for theatre and strategic bombers require strategic and long range recon assets... and thinking that front line aviation simply does not have the scope to deal with. Frontal aviation cares about what is happening on or near the front line. The PVO is interested in the integrity of the entire country. The long range aviation is interested in hitting strategic targets in the west, but it is also interested in deep strike missions behind enemy lines that can have effects out of all proportion of the actual damage they do.

Frontal aviation is interested in supporting an attack or defending from an enemy attack.

I am clearly wasting my time however... the fact that the makers of the plane admit it has a flight radius of 2,000km says it is not a strategic bomber. That is all the reality there is.

Dumb is to cut the quotes like you does and answer to this saying that the An-124 is not included.

eehnie wrote:And also do you admit the Long Range Aviation Command includes all the Long Range Russian aircrafts plus refuel aircrafts? Or not still...

There is some reason why Russia considered necessary to unify all the long range bombers under a single command? or is only a random selection that mix different things and the Tu-22 was lucky of being placed with the Tu-160 and the Tu-95/142, while the Su-34 was not lucky enough...

And then, the Long Range term has some sense in the designation of the Long Range Aviation Command? or is some random fancy of some Russian politician or general unrelated with the mission of the Command?

Bumb is to say that the Long Range Aviation Command includes medium range aircrafts, when there are dozens of official links to news that call long range bomber to the Tu-22.

All said. Reality denial...

eehnie wrote:Then you admit that russianplanes can use different pages for aircrafts of the same model. The you recognize your previous lie. Good, good.

And also do you admit the Long Range Aviation Command includes all the Long Range Russian aircrafts plus refuel aircrafts? Or not still...

There is some reason why Russia considered necessary to unify all the long range bombers under a single command? or is only a random selection that mix different things and the Tu-22 was lucky of being placed with the Tu-160 and the Tu-95/142, while the Su-34 was not lucky enough...

And then, the Long Range term has some sense in the designation of the Long Range Aviation Command? or is some random fancy of some Russian politician or general unrelated with the mission of the Command?

Look at the reality man. Look at the reality.

Tu-22 was replaced by Tu-22M, stop giving random nomenclature to bombers as you are pleased.

Tu-22M is too heavy to be part of frontline aviation so its logical to place it in LRA even tho its range is basically on pair with new frontline strikers.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:Then you admit that russianplanes can use different pages for aircrafts of the same model. The you recognize your previous lie. Good, good.

And also do you admit the Long Range Aviation Command includes all the Long Range Russian aircrafts plus refuel aircrafts? Or not still...

There is some reason why Russia considered necessary to unify all the long range bombers under a single command? or is only a random selection that mix different things and the Tu-22 was lucky of being placed with the Tu-160 and the Tu-95/142, while the Su-34 was not lucky enough...

And then, the Long Range term has some sense in the designation of the Long Range Aviation Command? or is some random fancy of some Russian politician or general unrelated with the mission of the Command?

Look at the reality man. Look at the reality.

Tu-22 was replaced by Tu-22M, stop giving random nomenclature to bombers as you are pleased.

Tu-22M is too heavy to be part of frontline aviation so its logical to place it in LRA even tho its range is basically on pair with new frontline strikers.

lol, now the Tu-22 is in the Long Rang Command because of being big, instead of being Long Range, you know...

http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12123314@egNews

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12123314%40egNews

Russian Ministery of Defense wrote:05/15/2017 (17:51)
More than 60 air crews of VKS began preparations for the all-army stage of the Aviadart-2017 competition

The Lipetsk State Training Center for Aviation Personnel and Military Tests of the Russian Defense Ministry began preparations for the all-army stage of the air training competition for flight crews "Aviadarts-2017".

The crews of long-range aviation Tu-22, military transport Il-76, An-12, Su-27 fighters, Su-30SM, Su-35, MiG-29, Su-34, Su-24, Su attack planes -25 and the army aircraft Mi-8, Ka-52, Mi-28N, Mi-35, Mi-24.

As part of the competition, the pilots of the Air and Space Forces will pass tests on theoretical and physical training, will compete in compliance with the standards of air reconnaissance, in the technique of piloting.

The all-army stage will end with flights for combat use,
During which the flight crew will work out the overcoming of air defense assets and the use of airborne weapons for ground targets at the range.

The evaluation for these elements of the competition will be exhibited according to the means of objective control, as well as through visual observation of the members of the judging panel. The greatest number of points participants will receive for combat use and piloting technique.

The All-Russian stage of the Aviadart-2017 contest will be held from June 14 to June 24 at the Pogonovo training ground in the Voronezh Region. Now the final work is being done to prepare the infrastructure and the target environment for the competition.

In total, more than 60 crews of operational-tactical, long-range, military-transport aircraft will take part in the all-army stage of the "Aviadart-2017" competition
And army aviation units and military units and military districts, will be involved in more than 100 units of aircraft.

There are dozens of news like this, but our local "experts" allow not us to call Tu-22 to the Tu-22M variants and allow not us say the Tu-22 is a long range aircraft.

GarryB and Militarov have lots of things to teach to the Russian Ministery of Defense about the Tu-22 (and also about the Tu-PAK-DA).

eehnie wrote:http://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/vks/news/more.htm?id=12123314@egNews

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstructure.mil.ru%2Fstructure%2Fforces%2Fvks%2Fnews%2Fmore.htm%3Fid%3D12123314%40egNews

Russian Ministery of Defense wrote:05/15/2017 (17:51)
More than 60 air crews of VKS began preparations for the all-army stage of the Aviadart-2017 competition

The Lipetsk State Training Center for Aviation Personnel and Military Tests of the Russian Defense Ministry began preparations for the all-army stage of the air training competition for flight crews "Aviadarts-2017".

The crews of long-range aviation Tu-22, military transport Il-76, An-12, Su-27 fighters, Su-30SM, Su-35, MiG-29, Su-34, Su-24, Su attack planes -25 and the army aircraft Mi-8, Ka-52, Mi-28N, Mi-35, Mi-24.

As part of the competition, the pilots of the Air and Space Forces will pass tests on theoretical and physical training, will compete in compliance with the standards of air reconnaissance, in the technique of piloting.

The all-army stage will end with flights for combat use,
During which the flight crew will work out the overcoming of air defense assets and the use of airborne weapons for ground targets at the range.

The evaluation for these elements of the competition will be exhibited according to the means of objective control, as well as through visual observation of the members of the judging panel. The greatest number of points participants will receive for combat use and piloting technique.

The All-Russian stage of the Aviadart-2017 contest will be held from June 14 to June 24 at the Pogonovo training ground in the Voronezh Region. Now the final work is being done to prepare the infrastructure and the target environment for the competition.

In total, more than 60 crews of operational-tactical, long-range, military-transport aircraft will take part in the all-army stage of the "Aviadart-2017" competition
And army aviation units and military units and military districts, will be involved in more than 100 units of aircraft.

There are dozens of news like this, but our local "experts" allow not us to call Tu-22 to the Tu-22M variants and allow not us say the Tu-22 is a long range aircraft.

GarryB and Militarov have lots of things to teach to the Russian Ministery of Defense about the Tu-22 (and also about the Tu-PAK-DA).

Right, because PRs surely are well versed in military terminology and nomenclature... oh wait, they are not.

Tu-22 and Tu-22M are two very, very different machines and should never be placed under same nomenclature by anyone half serious.

For all i care you can proceed doing so, shows alot anyways about your...knowledge

Unfortunately for Militarov, he proved before which his real level of knowledge is. Being generous with him, Militarov is a person that in my country would not be allowed to teach mathematics to children over 12 years old, and would not be allowed to teach physics.

GarryB likely even less.

True "experts" in the Tu-22 and the Tu-PAK-DA.

Dumb is to cut the quotes like you does and answer to this saying that the An-124 is not included.

You claimed all long range Russian aircraft were part of long range aviation. The DA.

I countered that claim by mentioning that the An-124 is also a long range aircraft in the VTA... transport aviation.

Bumb is to say that the Long Range Aviation Command includes medium range aircrafts, when there are dozens of official links to news that call long range bomber to the Tu-22.

They call the Tu-22M a long range bomber... they don't call it a strategic bomber.

lol, now the Tu-22 is in the Long Rang Command because of being big, instead of being Long Range, you know...

The Tu-22 is not in long range command because there is no such thing as long range command... you seem to be confusing Long Range Aviation (DA) with Strategic Air Command... SAC the US equivalent.

The Tu-22 is obsolete and has been withdrawn from operational units for decades now.

There are dozens of news like this, but our local "experts" allow not us to call Tu-22 to the Tu-22M variants and allow not us say the Tu-22 is a long range aircraft.

the Tu-22 is not a variant of the Tu-22M and vice versa... they are different unrelated aircraft of different design and even use totally different components.

Being generous with him, Militarov is a person that in my country would not be allowed to teach mathematics to children over 12 years old, and would not be allowed to teach physics.

GarryB likely even less.

If we had training in teaching 12 year olds perhaps we would better understand your logic and behaviour.

If the Tu-22M is a strategic bomber then why was it NOT included in the START treaty that limited strategic weapons like strategic aircraft and ICBMs and SLBMs?

Do you think taking the inflight refuelling probes off Bears or Blackjacks or B-52s would make them not strategic?

What do you think is a strategic bomber?

Sorry Lieutenant-General Kobylash, GarryB says now, Long Range Aviation Command, "there is not such thing". What a lot of things are we "learning" with him  

Reality denial continues.

eehnie wrote:Unfortunately for Militarov, he proved before which his real level of knowledge is. Being generous with him, Militarov is a person that in my country would not be allowed to teach mathematics to children over 12 years old, and would not be allowed to teach physics.

GarryB likely even less.

True "experts" in the Tu-22 and the Tu-PAK-DA.

Quite sad for your country as i did teach OOP as assistant on technical college

First of all the Tu-22 ist not the same plane as Tu-22M. They are complete different only sharing the designation Tu-22.

The concept of "sratetig bomber" shifted over the years. Normally it means a bomber who is able to act far behind enemy lines and bomb strategic targets (fabric, airfields, political centre etc.). The Su-34 is more capable in a strategic role, than any old stragic bomber from WW2, but it's not named a strategic bomber because of defintion today! The modern concept means a range of 6000 km or more, or simply said intercontinental range of interaction (armament included). So the Tu-22M is listed as strategic bomber, but based on old defintion. Complete empty the Tu-22M has a range of 6800 km, but with typical weapon payload the combat radius is only 2410 km. The big difference for Tu-22M is the evolution of modern AD systems, so the Tu-22M can't act that easy far behind enemy lines, because typical carried cruise missile have only range of up to 600 km. So the Tu-22M is today displaced from the role of strategic bomber to long range bomber only, this could easy switch again, when the Tu-22M is equipped with long range cruise missile (Kh-55 and all it's "children"). But why pimping up the Tu-22M extreme if it is intended to replace the Tu-22M with PAK-Da from 2025 on?

JohninMK wrote:

Azi wrote: But why pimping up the Tu-22M extreme if it is intended to replace the Tu-22M with PAK-Da from 2025 on?

Its not, PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95.

I heard PAK-DA will replace both. The role of Tu-22M would be splitted between Su-34 und PAK-DA. From 2030 a replacement is more or less needed (~40-50 years of service). But maybe I'm wrong We will see, when first rollouts occur

Azi wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

Azi wrote: But why pimping up the Tu-22M extreme if it is intended to replace the Tu-22M with PAK-Da from 2025 on?

Its not, PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95.

I heard PAK-DA will replace both. The role of Tu-22M would be splitted between Su-34 und PAK-DA. From 2030 a replacement is more or less needed (~40-50 years of service). But maybe I'm wrong We will see, when first rollouts occur

Tu-22M have a much greater payload and combat radius (~24T/2400km) than Su-34 (8-12T/1000km) (*).  Tu-22M also has a significant internals weapon bay, suitable for carrying heavy AShMs, and this makes them excel in the "long" range anti-shipping strike role.  The Su-34, as good as it is, is not a replacement for the Tu-22M.

(*) based on admittedly suspect wiki performance data

Big_Gazza wrote:

Azi wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

Azi wrote: But why pimping up the Tu-22M extreme if it is intended to replace the Tu-22M with PAK-Da from 2025 on?

Its not, PAK-DA will replace the Tu-95.

I heard PAK-DA will replace both. The role of Tu-22M would be splitted between Su-34 und PAK-DA. From 2030 a replacement is more or less needed (~40-50 years of service). But maybe I'm wrong We will see, when first rollouts occur

Tu-22M have a much greater payload and combat radius (~24T/2400km) than Su-34 (8-12T/1000km) (*).  Tu-22M also has a significant internals weapon bay, suitable for carrying heavy AShMs, and this makes them excel in the "long" range  anti-shipping strike role.  The Su-34, as good as it is, is not a replacement for the Tu-22M.

(*) based on admittedly suspect wiki performance data

I know, I know! But in this link they wrote...

sputniknews int. wrote:"The new aircraft is being designed to replace all three bombers currently in service with the Russian long-range aviation, including the Tu-22M3 long-range bomber and the Tu-95 and Tu-160 (aka the White Swan) strategic bombers."

"Russias next gen. bomber "- sputniknews int.

But I don't trust the news, because why should PAK-DA replace the Tu-160M2? The difference of production is only a few years, so a new bomber should be replaced by a 5 years younger bomber? That's bullshit! PAK-DA and Tu-160M2 will coexist for a long long time. I think it's much advertising trick in this article...we need PAK-DA because...

The Tu-22M3 is a formidable bomber, I love the design, I love the parameters, I love the role. The USA have now simply no bomber in the role of the Tu-22M3. But let's be realistic, the Tu-22M variants will be in 2030 40-50 years old. A successor is not urgent needed, but there is no project in pipeline and all we can read is that Tu-22M should be replaced by PAK-DA.

Realistic I think for future that Tu-22M3 will shrink in numbers, a part of the portfolio will be stolen by Su-34 another part by PAK-DA. The remaining Tu-22M3 will be in service till 2050 or so. But that's only my personal opinion.

I would love to see a successor of Tu-22M3 with similar characteristics. The role of Tu-22M is very useful, for example in Syria. Overall I love the current mix of RuAF, I'm not a fan of reducing all types of aircraft to a generalist. The F-35 project is the biggest military desaster of UsAF, the F-35 should be everything but is never better than a specialist. I love the versatility of RuAf with different kind of aircrafts. And I would love to see some more specialist, like a handful of gunship for smashing terrorist in asymmetric conflicts (but again that's my personal opinion).