Mithridates
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,897
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
be sure it comes of a credible sourceThis must of not gone over well with US high command lol (if true of course).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
be sure it comes of a credible sourceThis must of not gone over well with US high command lol (if true of course).
747 CMCA:
isn't it a reliable short term solution to our badly need for an strategic bomber??
this baby has the capacity to carry 50-100 CMs as far as 5000 KMs.
i am sure we have several of them abandoned in aircraft graveyard.View attachment 541329
boeing b-52 and tu-95 are both subsonic. a bomber always moves with escort planes not alone and also the idea of turning a 747 to a bomber does not include that it's gonna inter enemy air space it's mission is to get close to target and release the missiles.A plane? That is your idea? Better yet a slow big as hell plane that has zero defenses?
Even if by some miracle that plane were able to make it close to enemy airspace and release its payload, a interceptor fighter would blow it right out of the sky before it could turn around.
A strategic bomber must be at the very least supersonic, especially if it is not going to have reduced RCS. Ideally it would in the future be a Hypersonic unmanned flying wing design skipping off the upper stages of the atmosphere releasing Hypersonic payloads and other smaller attack drones.
boeing b-52 and tu-95 are both subsonic. a bomber always moves with escort planes not alone and also the idea of turning a 747 to a bomber does not include that it's gonna inter enemy air space it's mission is to get close to target and release the missiles.
boeing b-52 and tu-95 are both subsonic. a bomber always moves with escort planes not alone and also the idea of turning a 747 to a bomber does not include that it's gonna inter enemy air space it's mission is to get close to target and release the missiles.
dude super tucano is anti insurgent not a bomber with MTOW equal to 200 tons. you have misunderstood the concept of heavy bombers and air superiority. in the H3 raid our tanker was in iraqi air space and in tens of other missions they were near of iraqi borders yet i never heard of them getting hit. one of these cruise missile carriers loaded with 100 howeizeh CMs could completely destroy emiratis air bases and air defence sites without entering their interceptors range. also for an interceptor plane there is no difference if the target is 747, tu-160 or b-1 they all are vulnerable against long range missiles.B-52 is an anti-insurgent bomber. It has been used in airspace where air superiority has been established.
The US would never use the B-52 against Russia or China because it wouldn’t survive one second.
And the blackjack bombers main mission is to be nuclear payload carriers.
dude super tucano is anti insurgent not a bomber with MTOW equal to 200 tons. you have misunderstood the concept of heavy bombers and air superiority. in the H3 raid our tanker was in iraqi air space and in tens of other missions they were near of iraqi borders yet i never heard of them getting hit. one of these cruise missile carriers loaded with 100 howeizeh CMs could completely destroy emiratis air bases and air defence sites without entering their interceptors range. also for an interceptor plane there is no difference if the target is 747, tu-160 or b-1 they all are vulnerable against long range missiles.
[QUOTE = "TheImmortal, post: 11171002, member: 183490"] Non sarei sorpreso se l'Iran al momento non è successo costruire un intero F-5.
L'OWJ non è stato presentato in serie e non è una linea di produzione. [/ CITAZIONE]
why do they have to show them?
maybe the other countries show every supply line to make their fighter planes!
there are always, in every nation, the limits in showing places, workshops or research centers, as they are considered places where only a few eyes must enter.
We can only make suppositions viewing the leaked images, from what they showed us, in that assembly workshop there were 7 "Kowsar" fuselages in different stages of preparation and in the vicinity the structural elements ready for assembly, and I think that are not a low number, indeed.
Only time will show us if it will be only those 7, or the number will increase exponentially.
A plane? That is your idea? Better yet a slow big as hell plane that has zero defenses?
Even if by some miracle that plane were able to make it close to enemy airspace and release its payload, a interceptor fighter would blow it right out of the sky before it could turn around.
A strategic bomber must be at the very least supersonic, especially if it is not going to have reduced RCS. Ideally it would in the future be a Hypersonic unmanned flying wing design skipping off the upper stages of the atmosphere releasing Hypersonic payloads and other smaller attack drones.
B-52 is an anti-insurgent bomber. It has been used in airspace where air superiority has been established.
The US would never use the B-52 against Russia or China because it wouldn’t survive one second.
And the blackjack bombers main mission is to be nuclear payload carriers.
Wrong the bomber doesn't have to be supersonic. A B-52 can do just fine launching cruise missiles from very far range and turn back around.
No the B-52 is not an anti insurgent bomber. It has been used against conventional and unconventional forces. Against the Taliban and ISIS as well as against Vietnam and Iraq. If the enemy country has sophisticated defenses, course the B-52 would launch cruise missiles from distance. If the enemy has no air defense then it would fly over and even circle around.
Home-grown MiG-29 gearbox successfully completes operational testing