This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 7th, 2009 at and is filed under Videos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
TU-22 Backfire vs Aircraft Carrier
Loading...
IMPORTANT :: YOU MUST SAVE THE FILE AS ".FLV"
Change the file name from "get_video" to "video.flv"
Tags: Aircraft, Anti, Ship, Attack, Backfire, Bomber, Carrier, Flugzeugtr, ger, Luftangriff, Missile, Russian, Strike, Tu22, Tupolev,
Comments to “TU-22 Backfire vs Aircraft Carrier”
Leave a Reply
January 7th, 2009 at 16:10:33 The Russians developed the A-135 in the mid 60s and it entered service in the 70s. There is a lot of secrecy around it but the system was upgraded in the 80s. Yes its similar to the earlyer US system. I thinkthe US choose to build a new system instead of upgrading that one. However I doubt this move gives the US ABM a substantial lead compared to Russia's. It cannot realy protect them from mass ICBM attack the same way that A-135 cannot.(maybe a bit more).
January 7th, 2009 at 16:33:32 I'm not sure about your last sentence. From Global Security "Nonetheless, the ABM-3 was the technological equivalent the U.S. Sentinel/Safeguard ABM, and clearly shared the major limitations and vulnerabilities of that system" (Link globalsecurity. org/wmd/world/russia/abm3. htm) The Sentinel/Safeguard ABM is a US 70's system.
January 7th, 2009 at 16:56:31 cont...The missile has a 320 pound warhead. The target acquisition radar has a range of 700 kilometers."
January 7th, 2009 at 17:19:30 Great, now you're mimicking me? What are you 12? I already provided aquote by Strategypage "The S-400 also has an anti-missile capability, which is limited to shorter range (3,500 kilometers) ballistic missiles. That would mean a warhead coming in at about 5,000 meters a second (the longer the range of a ballistic missile, the higher its re-entry speed.) It goes on further to state "The missiles have a range of some 400 kilometers, and can hit targets as high as 100,000 feet.
January 7th, 2009 at 17:42:29 I think u got me wrong. SM-3 and Patriot cannot, but the missiles operated together with the missile defence shield currently under construction can! However as I said...the US system can only handle a dozen missiles or so. This would be an advantage if we consider multiple warheads, but ICBMs of rouge states wouldnt have such. So the Russian A-135 would be just as effective defeating them, as they can handle a dozen warheads.
January 7th, 2009 at 18:05:28 Bulava (Topol-M) and Trident II are very different systems. Especially in terms of war-heads. Bulava has maneuvering WH while Trident has free fall ones. Obviously, FF are much easier targets for any ABMS. This fact was probably the main reason why so much efforts were put into SM3, so they _potentially_ can hit Topol-M at first stage of it's engine burn. However, that stage was also significantly shortened by Russians.
January 7th, 2009 at 18:28:27 In fact there is no way that SM3 or Patriot can hit ICBMs before warheads are separated ANd if you look carefuly you will find out that S400 and even old S300 has far better chsrscteristics
January 7th, 2009 at 18:51:26 I think that no ICBM warheads can be intercepted with suficient probability with eighter s-400 or SM3 or Patriot. MRBMs maybe. Btw Russia does have an anti missile system. The A-135 and it has been upgraded several times in the 80s. It can intercept ICBM warheads! The US new system is better, but its more costly too. It is better because it hits the missile before warheads have separated, but against launches from rouge states this is not real advantage, as their missiles have no multiple heads
January 7th, 2009 at 19:14:25 You misunderstood my comment. I was simply commenting on how harsh the speeds above mach 3 are on any aircraft. Look at footage of the X-15 plane after its record run. All of the leading edges were melted. You mig fans sure are sensitive...
January 7th, 2009 at 19:37:24 Let`s see S300 can spot ballistic missiles 1000 km away and hit them within 200 km radius literaly (360 degree) While S400 can do the same but within 400 km radius Judge for yourself
January 7th, 2009 at 20:00:23 Let's see, the US PAC 3 and SM 3 can hit the ICBM or cruise missile ANYWHERE. For ballistic missiles it's head on, for cruise missiles it's in the middle, both where the warheaed is located. It can't get any better than that. I will send you to global security link tomorrow so that you can get off your cloud of being almighty and superior to the US.
January 7th, 2009 at 20:23:22 That is just rediculous Research on SS-15 (60s), SS-20 (70s) and you will find out that USA NEVER had similar systems and not very soon will
January 7th, 2009 at 20:46:21 I'll google it tomorrow. It's getting late. AT the same time you might want to search under ABM systems in GlobalSecurity to see that the late Russia 80's system was no better than the US 70's system
January 7th, 2009 at 21:09:20 None that I can think of but over half its missiles are sub based and another large percent by bombers. The B52's used to fly shifts continuosly in the air but since the end of the cold war that isn't happening any more.
January 7th, 2009 at 21:32:19 Not to mention how many ground-mobile ICBMs USA has?
January 7th, 2009 at 21:55:18 As about ABM - do a simple research and you will find that Russia has working one from 60s In fact it is only working ABM to date Google: A-135
January 7th, 2009 at 22:18:17 You better look at Saturn-V - how many succesful test launches it had??? ;) And forget about Bulava - look at Proton or good old SS-18
January 7th, 2009 at 22:41:16 Pont is the Trident has now had over 120 straight succesful launches and it was a missile developed~20 yrs ago, and here you claim the US is behind 30 yrs.
January 7th, 2009 at 23:04:15 Yes, I know Russia has some good missiles, but one reason why they have always been so much larger thatn the US ones is bc they have not been as accurate. And liquid fuel is extremely dangerous and has some limitations. I would also like to mention that earlier you claimed that Russia's anti-missile shield wasmore advanced than the US and that the US was 30 yrs behind. That's laugable. The missile shield in the US in the 70's wasn' t equated by Russia until the late 80's.
January 7th, 2009 at 23:27:14 They develop Bulava not for beating Guinness book records is succesful testings but to do 100% reliable weapon so it is better them to blow under tests that in real war
January 8th, 2009 at 23:50:13 Do you know that Bulava is not ordinary ICBM but ICBM that can be launced from beneath polar ice? Of cource it is not so flawless that is why tests continuing - nothing so bad about that - how many US ICBMs did not maked it during development tests?
January 8th, 2009 at 00:13:12 cont...because of too many test failures, and too many design and equipment problems that could not be fixed.
January 8th, 2009 at 00:36:11 You always seem to mention the wonderful missiles of Russia. You cannot deny that the Bulava SLBM isn't working out as planned. The US has had the Trident II missile now for almost 20 yrs and the Bulava has been a huge failure. The last I read only 50% of its launches have been successful. Compare that to the Trident II's failure rate during testing of only 2%. I also read that the Bulava is replacement for an earlier SLBM that had to be cancelled during development
January 8th, 2009 at 00:59:10 Liquid fuel rockets can also be reliable in long term use SS-18 is best example And try this ones ;) watch?v=Ik7SdKLTMN0 watch?v=KoQb8vb4blA watch?v=VEVrd9miuu0
January 8th, 2009 at 01:22:09 True, the 60's era liquid-fuel Titan missiles in the US were very powerful and reliable, but as you know liquid fuel can be very deadly so they were removed from the arsenal. If Titans were still around they would be used. Loading liquid fuel also takes time and its hard to keep secret.