What do Yuropoors think about the fact that this rusty Cold War

>>33316324
>Yuropoors caring about anything other than when the next prayer time is

File: fcuk off.jpg (2MB, 2848x1718px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2848x1718px

Because they wouldn't fucking dare

Tu-95's would be sitting ducks in a modern war. Russia's ICBM/SLBM's could nuke Europe, though they'd get nuked into oblivion in return by UK/France even before US joined in

File: Eurofighter Typhoon RAF TU95 Bear.jpg (255KB, 1814x1218px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1814x1218px

>>33316324
Gotta get past the Eurofighters first.

>>33316347
Isn't it the same sub that tried to launch a Trident last year but it flew the wrong way? Good effort though.

>>33316375
You understand that they carry missiles with 2,500 km range?

>>33316347
A test failed, proving the point of the test and improving the system in the long term. Good logic mang.

>>33316324
Most Europoors would welcome Big Bear Bombers incinerating the capitols because they're filled with the """people""" responsible for Europe not being able to defend itself.

File: 9bZklPBa538.jpg (147KB, 1280x609px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x609px

>>33316365
>Tu-95's would be sitting ducks in a modern war.
>Can nuke London from North Pole
Tu-95 can launch missiles from Russian airspace. Or from middle of fucking nowhere.

>>33316324
1950s
>the russians are coming
>moar bombers!
1960s
>the russians are coming
>more missiles!
1960s, 70s
>longer, better, harder faster
1980s
>did we think this through?
>more safety, less of everything
>maybe disarm?
1980s, 90s
>sell AKs to sandniggers! Who cares about muh bombs!
90s, 00s
>selling AKs to sandniggers was bad, mkay
2010s
OP
>guise, guise, the russians are coming!!!11!1!1

File: 1456857835792.jpg (45KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 554x439px

>>33316324
>daddy Sam can save Yurope from Big Bear

Yuropoors would probably be happy because they'll finally be able to fight back against the only entity that rejected their heritage more than them.

>>33316424
They're going to rig a computer to its avionics so it can fly without pilot, thing's going to stay in service into the 2100s, mark my words.

>>33316522
This

>>33316403
> 2,500 km range
This is not burger missiles we are talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-55
>Range estimates vary from >2,000 km (1,200 mi), to 4,500–5,000–5,500 km (2,800–3,100–3,400 mi), to as much as 10,000 km (6,200 mi) with a flight endurance of 10 hours;
B T F O
T
F
O

>>33316424

The cruise missiles are just as easy to shoot down as the aircraft.

And if the did launch cruise missiles at maximum range SLBM warheads would be landing in Russia before the cruise missiles even got a quarter of the way to the target.

>>33316424
Those long distance LACM's are pretty easy to intercept these days.

And is that range even supposed to be impressive? A UK SSBN off Uruguay can hit any city in Russia with far more firepower.

>>33317440
>The cruise missiles are just as easy to shoot down as stealthy aircraft flying NAP
fixed

File: 1489615923479.gif (2MB, 400x206px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x206px

>>33316424
>Gets intercepted by a 1st-gen Harrier

File: 1476507878638.jpg (223KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1500x1000px

What would be the point of another European war anyways?

What would Russia gain by vaporizing London, Paris, Berlin, Edinburgh,Amsterdam, Brussels, Athens, etc? What would these countries gain by knocking out Moscow and St. Petersberg?

Why not just combine forces and conquer/colonize Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan?

>>33321217
What would be the point of another Colonial war anyways?

Why not just combine forces and conquer/colonize London, Paris, Berlin, Edinburgh,Amsterdam, Brussels, Athens, etc? What would these countries gain by taking over Moscow and St. Petersberg?

What would Russia gain by vaporizing Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan?

>>33316611
someone screen cap this and in 93 years see if it's true

>>33316522
>1980s, 90s
>>sell AKs to sandniggers! Who cares about muh bombs!
>90s, 00s
>>selling AKs to sandniggers was bad, mkay

Most of the AK's in the mid east and africa are chinese made. They are still doing it too.

>>33321896
That's besides the point, it just illustrates that russia and the US spent a decade or two selling small arms (or allowing them to be sold) after focusing 40 years on ICBMs. Which is way oversimplified anyway. And now anon comes up with the same threats almost 70years ago, implying a circle.

>>33316626
>range estimates
>wikipedia
>vatniks tryin to lie about their penis size

>>33316324
Why use obsolete trash when ICBMS does it easier from the comfort of your ovn home?
The threat of bombers are no longer scary when compared to ICBMs.

But to answer your question, probably a far bit more anxious than you russians feel about the fact that ICBMs can fry you too, mainly because living in the western world is actually nice compared to the man made hell that is russia compounded by the fact that you have to live next to russians there.

Come to think of it, being nuked would almost be worth it on account of you'd know russians would be dying by the millions in cleansing nuclear fire.

>>33316324
>What do Yuropoors think about the fact that this rusty Cold War relic could incinerate the capital of any European country and there is absolutely nothing they could do about it

What to fat, mixed race north american christians think about the fact that either the UK or France could destroy every state capital, and all the US could do is retaliate.

Looks like that huge military budget isn't saving you.

>>33321862
83 years, anon.

>>33316324
France and Britain have nukes. The rest of Yurop is cucked by choice.

>>33316324
you dont even need an air raid siren for it..

you can hear it coming the moment he takes off

>>33316324

I think you shohld shut your damn piehole and learn to aesthetic before you breathe a word against glorious swept-wing quad contra-rotor turboprop TU-95, all shiny and chrome.

I

File: 1477932874477.jpg (195KB, 553x936px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 553x936px

>>33316424

>Yfw all these are actually the same tu-95

Fucking Russian b-52 mans.

>>33318592
flying NAP would massively reduce their range
And that makes them STILL easy to shoot down wtih any modern radar set

>>33321217
Same reason the Judeo-Anglo's organized the first 2 world wars.
To destroy western civilization

>>33324161
>flying NAP would massively reduce their range
That's not quite so true with prop planes, provided they reduce their cruise speed and power setting at low altitudes to reduce drag and thrust and fuel consumption. Props take a big enough bite of air that they actually gain TSFC at slower speeds. With high-bypass turbofans this effect is smaller, and with B-52-esque low-bypass jets it's almost nonexistent.

Look up Operation Heavy Tea if you don't believe me. C-130 made it all the way from Thailand clear across China nearly to the Mongolian border and back unrefuelled, all NOE. Good luck doing that in a jet.

>>33324200
>they actually gain TSFC at slower speeds
I meant lose TSFC. Gain efficiency.

Why doesn't Yurop have bombers like the B-52 or the B-2?

You'd think the French or the combined Brits/Germans/Italians/Spics would have one

>>33323689
Bombers with ALCM can actually be used you know. Think about the hundreds of strategic targets that don't really need a nuke warhead like most infrastructure.

>But to answer your question, probably a far bit more anxious than you russians feel about the fact that ICBMs can fry you too, mainly because living in the western world is actually nice compared to the man made hell that is russia compounded by the fact that you have to live next to russians there.
Russians' standard of living has grown leaps and bounds over the last 2 decades actually, though from an admittedly low starting point. At least they are riding the uptick unlike some and with their dignities as a people intact unlike some...

>Come to think of it, being nuked would almost be worth it on account of you'd know russians would be dying by the millions in cleansing nuclear fire.
so you're saying you don't value your life as much as someone who supposedly has much shittier circumstances. wow. are you German?

>>33324161
>flying NAP would massively reduce their range
Hence why they have absurdly long ranges to begin with.

>And that makes them STILL easy to shoot down wtih any modern radar set
Not with terrain getting in the way they aren't.

>>33324145
The immortal Tu-95

>>33324262
>riding the uptick
It went from bad but survivable (commie) to superficial improvement (Yeltsin) to worst (oligarchy).

>>33321217
I used to hate /pol but i am becoming gradually convinced that there is some sort of active effort with all the shit going on in Sweden and all the cucking the government/media are doing now that we get to experience the religion of peace

>>33324262
>with their dignities as a people intact
Russians have dignity? Fucking news to me

>>33324400
>superficial improvement (Yeltsin)
more like the worst, guy presided over a period where something like 3 million Russians died silently in poverty.

>worst (oligarchy).
when pretty much every country on the planet is an oligarchy no matter how you squint that doesn't tell us much.

>>33324460
>Russians have dignity? Fucking news to me
don't you have someone to be prepping Hans?

My country is irrelevant so it doesn't matter, we're not getting bombed except a ground burst on our airfield.
In fact, go right ahead and wipe everyone out except us. We're most likely gonna survive the nuclear winter like absolute roaches.

>>33323789
Yikes, what's with the bitter insecurity?

>>33316626
>he thinks Kh-55 is the only Cruise Missiles the vatniks have

Top chuckles.

>>33325169
Europeans have severe Napoleon complexes towards Russia and the Americans. Its the pain of knowing that no one anywhere takes them seriously after 1945

File: 11834e3aef422e068deb36e21b58e929.jpg (35KB, 600x592px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x592px

>>33324226
The UK did have long range bombers back in the 1960's. The V-Force composed of Avro Vulcans, Vickers Valiants, and Handley Page Victor's. France never really had a dedicated bomb truck but they did have the Mirage IV which was a supersonic nuclear bomber.

>>33316324
MURICA
>it's like you hold a genetic sequence of being a white nigger

Oppenheimer left us, so such shitty threads may thrive. Sic transit gloria mundi.

>>33324226
UK used to have strategic bombers

France had the Mirage IV and it retired it in the early 2000s

Strategic bombers for nuclear strike are outdated.

>>33325192
>reading comprehension
>Kh-101/102

>>33325329
>>33325376
Interesting

Why didn't they retain them though?

They could still drop a massive payload over sand countries like the B-52

That would be cheaper than sending 10 Tornadoes/Mirages to bomb one target or an area

File: aster_1465981936[1].jpg (97KB, 631x376px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 631x376px

>>33316324
Well, countering bombers and missiles is kinda the reason sams exist. Your point?

>>33326266
>That would be cheaper than sending 10 Tornadoes/Mirages to bomb one target or an area
Not really. Unless you want your planes to atomize people an the other end of the world (and you usually got subs for that), fighter frames will do the job just as well. Especially in the current political climate where razing entire towns is deemed to be a bit of an overkill.
Current frames are really powerful. The Rafale can carry 9500kg of bombs.That's roughtly one thrid of what a B-52 can carry, and more than four times the amount of bombs carried by a B-17. Other planes geared toward CAS like the A-10 or the rest of the eurocanards have similar specs.

So you can have multirole planes, meaning that design and production get cheaper, training gets cheaper, spare parts are common for everybody.
Sure, a pure bomber might be more effective, but yuropoors don't have enough money to produce a dozen models at the same time to fit all the roles perfectly.

>>33325169
>>33325213

Oh, the hypocrisy.

>>33316381
Better than a fucking huge submarine, the USS Jacksonville, not noticing or picking up an Iranian fishing boat on their radar and hitting it, damaging the periscope.

Now that i think about it, US Submarines have a history of bumping into things, mainly themselves and fishing boats.

>>33325213
I can understand America, but why would Russia make Europeans feel inadequate?

>>33327125

Its clear than in the absence of US support, Russia could easily walk all over Europe unstopped. Such has been the reality since the 50s.

>>33327203
Russia couldn't even mount an invasion of Georgia properly.

>>33327099
they're freedom fish now

We did have Long range bombers but scrapped them after the cold war ended as their practical use was debatable and we had nuclear subs still.

We had 7 of them armed with conventional bombs during the Falklands War, they blew up some airfields and stuff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck

Thatcher was planning on nukes though. She made the French give us the codes to shut down the Argentinian missiles

"With her four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind."

>>33316406
best part is the americans use the same missile.

>>33316365
They're almost as good as our B-52's, and have better long-range nuke missiles if I'm not mistaken. They're not supposted to compete with our high-speed advanced bombers like the B-1A and B-2, Russia has their Tu-22M and Tu-160 for that. The Tu-95 is for when you need a long-range, high-reliability plane, again like the B-52.

File: 1276629198843.jpg (10KB, 246x247px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 246x247px

>>33328206
>Thatcher was planning on nukes though. She made the French give us the codes to shut down the Argentinian missiles
>"With her four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind."

Shit. That's awe inspiringly bold. But no one in the English high command was planning to go through with it, right?

>>33322869
>flightglobal is vatnik propaganda

>>33324200
I think they're talking about the missiles, not the Tu-95 itself. But you're right about propellers doing better at low altitude, I've heard stories about Tu-95 intercepts, jet pilots have a hard time keeping up with them when they go to low altitude.

>>33316375
Is this a relatively recent picture, does the Russian Air Force still mark aircraft with the red star?

>>33328330
It has a blue line around the inside of the red now, you can faintly see it in that picture

File: 1489509990425.jpg (50KB, 300x385px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 300x385px

>>33328318
Erm,I really dont know, i think under a set of circumstances the missiles would have been launched.

People underestimate how seriously we took the falklands, especially after people started dying.
The 80s was a different time, if we had lost more ships to those missiles i genuinely think she would have launched the nuclear weapons- she probably would have given notice so that people could leave first.though

>Thatcher also warned that she would “use all force necessary” to eject the Argentines.

>Tempers were flying and Thatcher was under intense political pressure in Parliament to act “decisively.”
Full out james bond style sting operations were in play as well with us spying on everyone who could possibly arm argentine


>The secret war against the Exocet went into overdrive following the loss of Sheffield on May 4. Military attaches and MI6 stations around the world were ordered to track suspect shipments and Israel, South Africa and Libya were all suspected of aiding the junta.

>“The risk of re-supply to the Argentinians of further air-to-sea missiles justifies consideration of all options to prevent this – even the most way-out - which may be thought more appropriate to a James Bond movie!” remarked Havers in a handwritten note to Thatcher.

>On June 10 a top secret “UK Eyes Alpha” message was received. Three new Etendards had been spotted at the Dassault factory near Bordeaux carrying Peruvian air force markings, yet Peru had not ordered the type.
“All adding up to a possible circumvention of the French arms ban in the guise of a delivery to Peru,” the report noted.

>>33328206
Bullshit. There is no "code" that will shut down an Exocet.
Seeker parameters, sure. The knowledge that the warhead probably won't explode and you just have to worry about burning fuel, sure.

>>33328439
ah gotcha, thanks

File: 1489588282608.jpg (29KB, 620x670px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 620x670px

>>33316338
Fpbp

>>33327099
Not just US subs. The Vanguard and Triomphant had a nice bump in the water, and let's not forget how many subs the Russians lost.

It's like they don't operate in dangerous environments where seeing shit is hard as fuck at all.

>>33328680
>code that will make the missiles deaf and blind
>not effectively 'shut down'

Dont be so anal anon

>>33317498
>Those long distance LACM's are pretty easy to intercept these days.
Those long distance LACM's are stealth. They are small by itself and their RCS is reduced by sgape and painting. Yuropoors has no money on good IADS and keeping AWACS 24/7 is too expensive for their military budgets.
>>33324145
>Yfw all these are actually the same tu-95
Not really, oldest Tu-95 is newer than newest B-52.

>>33316324
Why would you talk to a European? They are disgusting human filth.

>>33329390
But Brits are if nothing else, relevant to us.

>>33324226
>Why doesn't Yurop have bombers like the B-52 or the B-2?

>You'd think the French or the combined Brits/Germans/Italians/Spics would have one

because there was no need for a long-range bomber, when East Germany was in range of a medium bomber.

If the Evil Communist Canadians were the ones threatening the US with a nuclear arsenal and a million tanks ready to hurtle into the not-fulda gap, then the Europeans would've had to build the B52/B2 range bombers, and the US would've been the one building the medium range bombers.

Hardly rocket science, surely?

>>33316338
/thread

>>33327230
>all objectives accomplished in 6 days

>couldn't mount an invasion properly

It didn't go off without a hitch, sure, but they still succeeded.

>>33329390
Most white Americans are descended from Europeans, why would we ignore them?

>>33332670
They're not exactly politically or culturally relevant anymore. D.C., Moskva and Beijing are the only true global power centers.

>>33316338
Fpwp
You spelled 'soccer match' wrong