Who was in the wrong here?

>>32937627
Russia, for never actually making any real tooling for the Tu-160 and thus being unable to mass produce them. Each one is essentially a hand crafted work.

File: interception-d-un-tu-160-blackjack-russe-par-un-mirage-2000-5-francais-2.jpg (367KB, 1024x652px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1024x652px

Another pic.
Apparently Russia sending bombers to Spain is somehow newsworthy.

"Intercepted" by Typhoons, Mirages, Rafales, and spanish F-18. The french even brought a C-135 refueler.

File: The French.jpg (23KB, 432x420px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 432x420px

>>32937669
Of course the French would bring the non combative support plane.

Tu-160 aren't even bombers in the conventional sense. They are for the stand-off launch of cruise missiles. Basically the airborne equivalent of a strategic missile sub.

For training flight hours are flight hours I guess, but it seems silly to run drills that aren't in anyway representative of how the plane would actually be used.

File: aaaaa.png (116KB, 916x475px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 916x475px

>>32937627

File: french F16.png (206KB, 1044x341px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1044x341px

>>32938305

File: french F16 2.png (151KB, 1830x112px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1830x112px

>>32938346

File: french F16 3.png (108KB, 734x144px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 734x144px

>>32938361

>>32938385
WE FIGHTING FALCON NOW

>>32937627
>Russian Air Force – 16 were in service (12 combat and four in training) as of April 2008, with the 121st Guards Heavy Bomber Regiment at Engels/Saratov. As of 2015, 11 Tu-160s are combat-ready.
>As of 2015, 11 Tu-160s are combat-ready.
>11 Tu-160s

A he he he he he he he he he he