|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 22, 2014 19:13:47 GMT -6
Just a note: the TU-95 Bear H is actually a TU-95MS armed with Kent cruise missiles. My guess is that this is the maritime strike version.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Sept 22, 2014 20:06:25 GMT -6
Just a note: the TU-95 Bear H is actually a TU-95MS armed with Kent cruise missiles. My guess is that this is the maritime strike version. The Kh-55/AS-15 Kent is actually analogous to the AGM-86 in our inventory; it's a land-attack missile armed either with a conventional warhead or more likely a nuke. The Tu-95MS is like to the B-52H; it's too vulnerable to enter defended airspace so its role is to act as a cruise missile truck. The only other variant I know of that the Russians still have in service is the Tu-142 Bear-F, which is a maritime patrol/ASW platform. There aren't many of those left (15-25) and they're with Naval Aviation. Doubtful they'd send those to play games in the ADIZ; with that few of them you'd want them over the boomer bastions keeping enemy subs away. The old Tu-95RT Bear-D models that used to shadow the CVBGs are gone, as are the Bear-G models (which were older aircraft refitted to fire the Kh-22/AS-4 Kitchen). As far as economics, also remember that this return to Soviet-era military glory is built on pumping a LOT of money into all branches of the armed forces. Much of their "new" equipment is designs (and in some cases, actual unfinished items like ships - several of their "new" Dolgorukiy-class SSBNs were built in large part from unfinished Akula-class SSN hull sections that had been sitting in the shipyard for over a decade) that have been languishing since the early 1990s. There's evidence that they haven't procured a lot of the more advanced munitions like the R-77/AA-12 BVR AAM in numbers despite those weapons having been in production for a quarter century or so. They'll also need to correct a lot of the rot in personnel training and quality that was probably an issue before the USSR broke up and went way downhill afterwards. If the money dries up Mr. Putin might have issues keeping the toys he has running as well as buying new ones - that might crimp the rodeos.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 22, 2014 21:03:47 GMT -6
Here is what Putin said some years ago about what we are seeing -Russia’s explanation was not long in coming. President Vladimir Putin, who observed the ‘Peaceful Mission’ – 2007 military exercise on that day, outlined the Kremlin’s official line right at the Chebarkul training range. “In 1992, Russia unilaterally suspended its long-range strategic aviation patrols,” Putin said. “Unfortunately, not everybody followed our example, and other countries have carried on with their own strategic aviation patrols. That poses certain problems for Russia’s security. That is why the decision has been made to resume Russian strategic aviation patrols on a permanent basis.”
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 23, 2014 11:40:04 GMT -6
I believe that I have figured out where the TU-95MS Bear aircraft originated from in the Far East. They came from an airbase north of Seryshevo in the Amur Oblast. It's located 5 miles NNE along M58. There are large swept wing aircraft with Turboprop engines sitting on hardstands. The main runway is 11,447.61 feet on a NNW to SSW orientation. There appear to be 17 TU-95s on the hardstands. Some of the hardstands are empty. I also see at least one or two Bison's. My expected flight path leads to an area south of the Aleutian chain, then SE to the Canadian Coast then South along the Pacific NW. This flight path is about 5167.5 miles one way. This means that even with a direct westerly flight path back to the base, these birds would need tanker support for the return flight. I've provided two pictures, one of the whole installation and one is a zoom on a section of the hardstands for reference. This aircraft can also carry 14 KH-6D anti-ship missile in its large bomb bay. These have a range of about 3100 km. or 1961 miles.
Update: That is Ukrainka Air Base, that is exactly where they came from - here is the base on Google Maps virtualglobetrotting.com/map/ukrainka-air-base/view/google/
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 23, 2014 14:04:00 GMT -6
Just a short note about runway length. This length depends on the altitude of the runway, temperature of air, MTOW of the aircraft etc. For a B-52H @ MTOW that's about 8600 feet and I've seen them use all of that at March AFB during an alert. My estimate for the TU-95MS is a little higher, since it is a turboprop. It will need all of that 11,000 foot runway at Ukrainka AB and my guess is that they don't perform forward deployments to Kamchatka because the runways on that island were built for interceptors, not intercontinental bombers that are sixty years old.
www.airvectors.net/avbear.html
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 24, 2014 8:47:18 GMT -6
Here is another article on Russian Far East bases and aircraft flights - theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/russian-bombers-do-guam/
Here is another article from Wiki about Shemya Alaska. I had a friend in the service who was stationed there at the radar station. If you are wondering how we knew about the flights, this is the reason. We probably saw them launching from the airfields. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eareckson_Air_Station
Just a correction in the first article, this statement is not correct: "They’d be able to tell by looking whether AS-15 Kent (Kh-55) missile bodies were mounted on the hardstands on the wings. But they wouldn’t be able to state with certainty what kind of warhead was present." The wing mounted weapons are attached to stations and each station is numbered. A hardstand is a concrete pad connected to the taxi way at an airfield. It is where we park aircraft, That is a hardstand. You can also use the term "hard points" to designate wing mounted weapons. A real amateur who should research this material before opening his mouth. Missiles are attached to pylons which are attached by dzus fasteners to the wing, bombs are attached to bomb racks. Some are MERS or multiple ejection racks or TERS, triple ejection racks.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Sept 26, 2014 15:30:10 GMT -6
Here is another article on Russian Far East bases and aircraft flights - theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/russian-bombers-do-guam/
Here is another article from Wiki about Shemya Alaska. I had a friend in the service who was stationed there at the radar station. If you are wondering how we knew about the flights, this is the reason. We probably saw them launching from the airfields. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eareckson_Air_Station
Just a correction in the first article, this statement is not correct: "They’d be able to tell by looking whether AS-15 Kent (Kh-55) missile bodies were mounted on the hardstands on the wings. But they wouldn’t be able to state with certainty what kind of warhead was present." The wing mounted weapons are attached to stations and each station is numbered. A hardstand is a concrete pad connected to the taxi way at an airfield. It is where we park aircraft, That is a hardstand. You can also use the term "hard points" to designate wing mounted weapons. A real amateur who should research this material before opening his mouth. Missiles are attached to pylons which are attached by dzus fasteners to the wing, bombs are attached to bomb racks. Some are MERS or multiple ejection racks or TERS, triple ejection racks. Also, the Tu-95MS can carry an internal rotary launcher for up to 6 Kh-55s. No guarantee they weren't packing missiles in the bomb bay and just leaving the wings clean to save gas and airframe wear.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 26, 2014 16:26:23 GMT -6
Here is another article on Russian Far East bases and aircraft flights - theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/russian-bombers-do-guam/
Here is another article from Wiki about Shemya Alaska. I had a friend in the service who was stationed there at the radar station. If you are wondering how we knew about the flights, this is the reason. We probably saw them launching from the airfields. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eareckson_Air_Station
Just a correction in the first article, this statement is not correct: "They’d be able to tell by looking whether AS-15 Kent (Kh-55) missile bodies were mounted on the hardstands on the wings. But they wouldn’t be able to state with certainty what kind of warhead was present." The wing mounted weapons are attached to stations and each station is numbered. A hardstand is a concrete pad connected to the taxi way at an airfield. It is where we park aircraft, That is a hardstand. You can also use the term "hard points" to designate wing mounted weapons. A real amateur who should research this material before opening his mouth. Missiles are attached to pylons which are attached by dzus fasteners to the wing, bombs are attached to bomb racks. Some are MERS or multiple ejection racks or TERS, triple ejection racks. Also, the Tu-95MS can carry an internal rotary launcher for up to 6 Kh-55s. No guarantee they weren't packing missiles in the bomb bay and just leaving the wings clean to save gas and airframe wear. The reports I've read said the fighters saw missiles on the pylons but could not identify which versions they were, they might have been training missiles but I doubt it. The internal rotary launcher was a feature of the B-57 Canberra bomber. It's a standard feature on B-52s and other bombers now.
Here is a link to a page for the Tu-95 with nice video at the bottom, excellent music and video of the internal rotary Bombay. www.military-today.com/aircraft/tupolev_tu95_bear.htm
Note the scenes with F-102 Delta Daggers flying alongside, that's what we did, get them right up against them and take picture.
vimeo.com/64477546 - You will enjoy this one, brings back memories of the test line at NAS North Island.
|
|