Posted on 07/24/2015 10:52:51 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
The Soviet-era Tu-22M3 bomber entered service in 1989 but has been modernised since then
Russian defence ministry sources say a squadron of Tupolev Tu-22M3 long-range bombers will be based in Crimea - but experts question the strategic value of such a move for Russia.
Russia's Interfax news agency reported the plan, quoting an unnamed ministry source, though it has not been officially confirmed. Other Russian media also reported it.
Russia has previously pledged to beef up its military forces in Crimea, which has been internationally isolated since Russia annexed it from Ukraine in March 2014.
Western nations imposed sanctions on Russia after the annexation and tightened them over Russian support for armed separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Russian commentators see the Tu-22M3 bomber move as a response to US plans to deploy surface-to-air missile interceptors in Romania.
Work at Romania's Deveselu airbase began in October 2013. It is part of a Nato missile shield plan to defend Europe from a possible "rogue state" missile attack.
The US missiles are a ground-based version of Aegis, a system used by the US navy since 2004.
The Russian bombers could be used against large surface ships, including aircraft carriers.
However, military expert Viktor Murakhovsky argues that sending them to Crimea will only make them an obvious target in the event of an armed conflict, and they will do little to improve Russia's combat capability there.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Long-range strategic and maritime strike bomber - Nato codename "Backfire"
Max speed - 2,000km/h (1,200mph; Mach 1.88 - nearly twice speed of sound)
Length - 42.5m (140ft) and variable geometry wings Four-man crew (pilot, co-pilot, navigator, weapon systems operator)
Two Kuznetsov NK-25 turbofan engines
Combat range - 2,200km (1,364 miles)
Max weight - 124 tonnes
Flight ceiling - 14,000m (46,200ft)
Carries missiles and bombs and has a cannon in tail turret
I wonder how Russians in Crimea view the takeover now, considering tourism has probably dried up.
"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
I can’t think of a better way than to show you own the Crimea than to park some very expensive strategic bombers there.
It sends a message,the message is Crimea is mine.
Exactly.
No—its a move to say the Black Sea is Ours—and to attack Turkey, Iran, or anything in the Middle East. Just Russia being Russia. Might be a move before a real invasion of Ukraine.
Yep:
Owned an operated by a misguided thug tyrant.
I don't see much changed with those planes there as opposed to their being down around Sochi or anywhere else nearby.
Two reasons:
1) Ukraine
2) Syria
I’m sure they’re sorry to see the West try to strangle their economy, but I imagine the Russians in Crimea are happier being part of Russia than Ukraine.
From the 2001 Census:
The ethnic makeup of the population comprised the following self-reported groups (2001 census):
Russians:1,450,000 (58.5%),
Ukrainians: 577,000 (24.0%),
Crimean Tatars: 245,000 (10.2%),
Belarusians: 35,000 (1.4%),
Volga Tatars: 13,500 (0.5%),
Armenians: 10,000 (0.4%),
Jews: 5,500 (0.2%).
According to the 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language; 11.4% – Crimean Tatar; and 10.1% – Ukrainian.
Because they can.
"I'm Taking Credit For *This*.
And Death to America!"
The vast majority of those Russian families were moved there by previous USSR regimes in order to swamp the native population and create just the premise used by Putin for annexation. It is part of a long term plan.
Do you not see similarities to what is happening in the southern USA?
Not a good thing.
A vacation in Crimea would be far safer than anywhere else in Ukraine.
Most were born there as Russia had real possession since the time of Catherine the Great.
Same with the Odessa region. Russia built Odessa from the ground up. Previously it was marshland and a fishing village.
They built a great city there.
They can’t complain.
Regardless of the merit of that observation, it certainly wasn't 'Ukranian' before then:
By the 1897 Russian Empire Census, Crimean Tatars continued to form a slight plurality (35%) of Crimea's still largely rural population, but there were large numbers of Russians (33%) and Ukrainians (11%)
and create just the premise used by Putin for annexation. It is part of a long term plan.
Do you not see similarities to what is happening in the southern USA?
I guess. I mean Imperial Russia did take over Crimea (1783) before the U.S. took California from Mexico (1848). Both nations then had citizens emigrate to their new territories to solidify their hold. There's not anything novel about that in the course of history.
In 1954 Khrushchev re-assigned Crimean Oblast from the Russian Republic to Ukrainian Republic.
So are we supposed to uphold the dead Soviet dictator's wishes inspite of what the population of Crimea want today? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
