return to cold war?

[tvashtarkatena]

Don't let the Tupolev's looks fool you, they are fast, capable, and act as a weapons platform as well as our B-52s.

 

My grandpa can beat up your grandpa.

[tvashtarkatena]

Why should we be entitled or able to project power? And why shouldn't China or Russia check our ability to do so?

 

If you have to ask...

 

Last time I checked, an overflight by a friendly country wasn't justification to shoot down the offending aircraft. Come off it. Get real.

 

They aren't a 'friendly country' and overflights under 30k of a carrier group by any military aircraft is an unwise proposition at best. Again, by the very nature of their tiered defenses, breaching them is a risky and unwise provocation.

 

Don't let the Tupolev's looks fool you, they are fast, capable, and act as a weapons platform as well as our B-52s.

 

Russia's not a friendly country? Is this the State Department talking or The World According to JosephH talking?

 

Come on, Joseph. Your position's a joke, militarily and diplomatically. Yeah, a 1950's era turboprop's the first weapon I'd use to attack a carrier task force. Riiiight.

[Hugh Conway]

I'm surprised this thing isn't sporting big ole spoked landing gear all hanging down punk ass an shit.

 

...with curb feelers, so Ivan doesn't scrub the gangsta whitewalls when he drags up to the club. Yo.

 

that'd leave less payload room for nuclear missiles

[JosephH]

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Neither Russia nor China are 'friendly' countries and a single Tupolev can loose a swarm of hell from a distance. They have air-launched supersonic cruise missles, and hypersonic ones on the near horizon. In even small groups, these missiles can easily breach a carrier group's defenses. Defending against them essentially means keeping them at arms length beyond their range - clearly a problem with overflights, even at a distance.

 

And yes, Tupolevs, given their range and capacity, are what you'd attack far-flung carrier groups with. They are not the only weapons systems available, but one that does present unique capabilities. That's why we and they keep these planes around.

[Dechristo]

[Tvash] You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

True in most every topic, but he instills pity.

 

 

[ClimbingPanther]

I'm with Joseph that we're clearly being felt up to see what kind of reaction they will get. Maybe they will get some beta about our defenses? Maybe US commanders know exactly what they're doing and are providing fake responses for counterintelligence? Who knows behind the scenes. None of those three countries are friendly, they just need our economy for the time being. That will change someday.

[rbw1966]

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Neither Russia nor China are 'friendly' countries and a single Tupolev can loose a swarm of hell from a distance. They have air-launched supersonic cruise missles, and hypersonic ones on the near horizon. In even small groups, these missiles can easily breach a carrier group's defenses. Defending against them essentially means keeping them at arms length beyond their range - clearly a problem with overflights, even at a distance.

 

And yes, Tupolevs, given their range and capacity, are what you'd attack far-flung carrier groups with. They are not the only weapons systems available, but one that does present unique capabilities. That's why we and they keep these planes around.

 

Not to mention all the electronic/videographic monitoring equipment on board.

 

Tvash, is there anything you are not an expert on?

[Hugh Conway]

weight loss

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, CP, I guess you and Joseph know more about the situation than the carrier task force commander, who dissagrees with both of you. But then again, I never met a marine that wasn't a bullshitter (and God love 'em for it).

 

Our 3 tiered carrier air net hasn't changed much in 25 years; the Russians know all about it. To suggest that they'd learn anything new from a 2000 ft altitude overflight stunt is ridiculous.

 

It's hard to say what the overflight was about, but one guess would be: stunt. What pilot, especially bomber pilot (long, BORING flights) wouldn't want that to spray about? Another might be a demonstration of perogative; we'll fly here if we want. And maybe the pilots were just lost. It happens.

 

Officially, both Russia and China ARE friendly countries, (again, those who define such things seem to disagree with our resident Spray experts here), so the lack of a 'military response' was appropriate under the circumstances. I seem to recall somewhere that our military works for an elected government, which "calls the shots" on these matters.

 

If you two want to engage in a 12 year old's beat off fantasy wherein Batman fights Spiderman in space in Turpolevs, by all means, have at it, but don't try to offer it up as serious discourse. It's pure spray.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Neither Russia nor China are 'friendly' countries and a single Tupolev can loose a swarm of hell from a distance. They have air-launched supersonic cruise missles, and hypersonic ones on the near horizon. In even small groups, these missiles can easily breach a carrier group's defenses. Defending against them essentially means keeping them at arms length beyond their range - clearly a problem with overflights, even at a distance.

 

And yes, Tupolevs, given their range and capacity, are what you'd attack far-flung carrier groups with. They are not the only weapons systems available, but one that does present unique capabilities. That's why we and they keep these planes around.

 

Not to mention all the electronic/videographic monitoring equipment on board.

 

Tvash, is there anything you are not an expert on?

 

One thing I'm an expert on is Google. There are detailed "electronic/videographics" of carriers all over the web. No Turpolev required. Remember, we use those things to project power. We want them to be seen.

 

Dumbass.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

[Tvash] You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

True in most every topic, but he instills pity.