IN FOCUS: Russian's next-generation bomber takes shape

Flight International ^ | 15 Oct 2012 | Vladimir Karnozov

[mo]

BINGO!!Right from the mouth of Hugo Chavez himself...

“We are creating a new world, a balanced world. A new world order, a multipolar world,” Chavez told reporters during a visit to Communist China, one of many. His “new world order” includes [RUSSIA], China, Iran,... and a significantly weakened United States, he explained.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/south-america/item/10497-resurgent-communism-in-latin-america

[mo]

oops!!already posted above!!

[mo]

The problem at hand is that State Dept, significant portions of the Pentagon, and the intelligence agencies are already infested by these wannabe plutocrats...each of whom holds a ‘promise” or a Swiss Bank Account from this pack of Socio-Communists.

[Captain Rhino]

Yes, like nearly every other piece of Russian military equipment (air, land, or sea), human comfort was not high on the list of design features.

Despite that, it still is a very beautiful airplane in flight.

[Captain Rhino]

Don’t know who “bert” is but the TU-95 and it’s variants have been in service since 1956 and it definitely started out as a strategic nuclear bomber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95

[rmlew]

By large, the Russian and US air forces' strategic bomber inventories are similar. Both services have three major types. The B-52H and Tu-95MS play the role of heavy lifters, able to take a huge load of cruise missiles - the Tomahawk and its Russian equivalents the Kh-55 and Kh-101 - and deploy them before getting within firing range of enemy anti-aircraft systems. Albeit very different technically, the B-2A and Tu-160 are both intended to penetrate strong air defences. Finally, there are the B-1B and Tu-22M3 swing-wing supersonic bombers. Views on their employment in wartime have changed dramatically since introduction into service. Today, they have more "tactical" duties than "strategic" functions.
The Tu-22m3, NATO code "Backfire C", was supposed to be a maritime strike aircraft. There is nothing else like it in the world. Accorting to the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, it is not supposed to have air refuling capabilities (the Soviets and Russkies fudged big time) and is not to be used as a nuclear strike bomber.
The equivalent of our B-1B Lancer is the Tu-160, which basically looks like a larger Lancer.