| Zephyr Net http://jkpeterson.net/forum/ |
|
| Cent are you sure that the Russians dont stress inair fuelin http://jkpeterson.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=56 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | da big man! [ Thu Apr 10, 2003 20:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Cent are you sure that the Russians dont stress inair fuelin |
|
|
|
| Author: | Centurian [ Thu Apr 10, 2003 20:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Doesn't come standard on their planes like ours does. I know the TU-160 has it. Probably the Tu-22M also, Su-24. Some mods of the MiG-29(?) and Flanker add it but it definitely isn't standard. It's like leaving out seatbelts in a car ya know. Just a dumb idea. I also don't know of any air toa ir inflight refuleing tankers other than some buddy packs for the Su-24. |
|
| Author: | da big man! [ Fri Apr 11, 2003 15:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, it's a dumb move to not have in air refueling as standard. Considering the fact that Russian jets are big time gas guzzelers. I don't understand how they thought they'd be able to "bury us" as Kruschev said when only a handful of their planes can reach the U.S., lol. And even if they managed to do so, they'd have to deal with F-15s  On the other hand we had the ability to escort our bombers into Russian airspace with figher escort.......... |
|
| Author: | Leo [ Fri Apr 11, 2003 16:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Passing throug the artic is difficult? How is the weather up there(30.000 ft)? did that radar line really existed in the artic? sorry, I just dont know anything about it.... |
|
| Author: | Zephyr [ Fri Apr 11, 2003 17:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Russian In Flight Refueling |
Well, you have too look at what the Russians used their aircraft for and if they really needed in-flight refueling. The Flanker, Fulcrum, and Foxhound all have probes as upgrades. They initially didn't have them because both the Flanker and Foxhound were designed for air defence, which generally means they aren't too far from their base, and have large internal fuel capability. The Fulcrum was designed for air defence and IIRC frontal aviation air support. Generally this would be short range work. The Su-24 has the buddy refueling capability to extend strike range. The standard Russian tanker is the Il-78 Midas, with three hose and drogue systems. Also, M-4 Bisons were converted into tankers. The Tu-22M Backfire cannot reach the US, and I don't think it has inflight refueling capability. The Tu-95 and Tu-160 both have inflight refueling capability and IIRC can reach the US without refueling. Flying over the pole poses no difficulty. The air at high alititude is cold everywhere in the world. There is a US NORAD radar warning line, called the DEW Line IIRC, through Canada and Alaska. Zephyr |
|
| Author: | Guest [ Fri Apr 11, 2003 21:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russian In Flight Refueling |
Zephyr wrote: Well, you have too look at what the Russians used their aircraft for and if they really needed in-flight refueling. The Flanker, Fulcrum, and Foxhound all have probes as upgrades. They initially didn't have them because both the Flanker and Foxhound were designed for air defence, which generally means they aren't too far from their base, and have large internal fuel capability. The Fulcrum was designed for air defence and IIRC frontal aviation air support. Generally this would be short range work. The Su-24 has the buddy refueling capability to extend strike range. The standard Russian tanker is the Il-78 Midas, with three hose and drogue systems. Also, M-4 Bisons were converted into tankers. The Tu-22M Backfire cannot reach the US, and I don't think it has inflight refueling capability. The Tu-95 and Tu-160 both have inflight refueling capability and IIRC can reach the US without refueling. Flying over the pole poses no difficulty. The air at high alititude is cold everywhere in the world. There is a US NORAD radar warning line, called the DEW Line IIRC, through Canada and Alaska. Zephyr DEW line runs from Alaska through Canada to Britian and Greenland. multiple stations with radars ranging in age fro mthe 1950s to the 1980s... TU-22Ms initially had air to air refueling capacity but had to remove this to fall within the scope of the SALT/START talks. However it was never clear as whether the Russsians simply removed the probes and kept them with the aircraft or destroyed the probes... The Russians have very few Midas aircraft and these are dedicated to supporting the TU-160 fleet and occassionally support fighters during training. |
|
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Sat Apr 12, 2003 18:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
off topic but i thought I'd throw this in cause of the DEW line referances. We (the USA) also had a DEW line of sorts consisting of RADAR stations inside China along the Chinese Russian border ( nope not a missprint I said inside CHINA !! LOL) |
|
| Author: | Guest [ Sun Apr 13, 2003 12:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Really? At what era? I would love to read about this! |
|
| Author: | Centurian [ Sun Apr 13, 2003 20:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ruskies woulda never got to us. NORAD would have seen them coming and all those missiles we had in Canada would have annihilatd them. If anything a few of their cruise missiles would have gotten through. I doubt they could have successfully bombed the continental US. |
|
| Author: | Guest [ Sun Apr 13, 2003 20:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just so you know Cent... We had nothing in Canada to shoot anything down with.. no SAMs past 1977. And the ones we had, all of the Zeus, Nike family could not engage anything at low altitude... Scrambled fighters could have gotten some, but the majority would have hit their targets. Our defense was a good offense.. The real reason for the DEW was not to intercept inbounds as much as to give our bombers time to scramble to go kill Russia... Our defense was a good offense! |
|
| Author: | Centurian [ Mon Apr 14, 2003 00:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Doubtful. Bomarc's, Nike's, and after 77 we had newer stuff such as the Hawk and what not defending our targets. Our SAMs were always superior to theirs. I doubt they would have done 1/10th the damage we'd have done. |
|
| Author: | CAG Hotshot [ Wed Apr 16, 2003 13:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry Cent but again you are completely wrong. We had no cities or major installations protected with SAMs in the CONUS after 1977(last Nike Site was deactivated). Canada had very few sites, and I am not certain they had any after 1977). The DEW sites themselves were undefended. IHawk is a very short ranged weapons systems. The Russians abondoned laydown nuclear delievery long ago. Everthing they had for the 'varsity' was cruise missles and standoff direct attack missiles like our SRAM. NORAD itself does not even have any SAM defenses. Bomber attack was considered such a remote possibility that the CONUS was totally undefended compared to the USSRs SAM chain network. ADC relied on F-106s and SAGE backed up by supplemental F-4s and later ADC F-16As plus help from TACs F-15s and F-16s to do the air defense job. I know its surprising, but the Continential United States had no functional SAM defense sstems for the last quarter century... |
|
| Author: | Centurian [ Wed Apr 16, 2003 16:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I seriously doubt they left DC unprotected as well as LA, NY, etc. Just doesn't seem fesible. |
|
| Author: | Tank_77th [ Wed Apr 16, 2003 17:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DC is defended, the Secret Service has got Stingers 
|
|
| Author: | da big man! [ Wed Apr 16, 2003 17:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hell, they got HUMRAAMs outside of the Capitol building right now........ |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|