Russian strategic bombers could use Cuba airfields

2009-03-14 11:42:18

#1

blademaster: I'm moving to Brazil; +2,075|6948

Russia expressed interest in using Cuban airfields during patrol missions of its strategic bombers, Russia's Interfax news agency reported

"There are four or five airfields in Cuba with 4,000-meter-long runways, which absolutely suit us," Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev told Interfax.

Zhikharev, who is the chief of staff of the Russian Air Force's long-range aviation, said, "If the two chiefs of state display such a political will, we are ready to fly there."

Zhikharev also told Interfax that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has offered a military airfield on La Orchila island as a temporary base for Russian strategic bombers.

"If a relevant political decision is made, this is possible," he said, according to Interfax. Zhikharev said he visited La Orchila in 2008 and can confirm that with minor reconstruction, the airfield owned by a local naval base can accept fully-loaded Russian strategic bombers.

source

2009-03-14 11:45:16

#2

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7010|67.222.138.85

moved to DAST

2009-03-14 11:45:18

#3

_Dominiko_PL: TITS or gtfo.; +97|6824|Polish state of EU

Whoa, reminds the times when Cuba had russian nukes...

2009-03-14 11:54:52

#4

david363: Crotch fires and you: the untold story; +314|7042|Comber, Northern Ireland

duck and cover bitches

2009-03-14 11:57:29

#5

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6924|London, England

Who the hell uses Strategic bombers to deliver nukes these days anyway

2009-03-14 12:19:47

#6

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6832|Global Command

Gad damned commies need to have a big glass of die.

Seriously, can't we just have peace for a few years?

2009-03-14 12:39:57

#7

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6690

Mekstizzle wrote:
Who the hell uses Strategic bombers to deliver nukes these days anyway

Strategic bombers are a more viable option for a first strike. They can launch cruise missiles which can not be detected by the early warning systems that monitor the world for ICBM and SLBM launches.

2009-03-14 12:46:39

#8

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6894

Bring it. Florida can join in the 'fun' that Alaska has been having for the last 60 years.

During the Cold War, the sign at the front of Elmendorf Airforce Base, Alaska read "Number of Soviet Intercepts this year: ##"

We're still turning around "lost" Soviet Russian bombers today.

https://www.airforce-magazine.com/SiteCollectionImages/Magazine%20Article%20Images/2008/november%202008/alaska04.jpg

F-22 Raptor escorting a Russian Tu-95 bomber back to neutral airspace.

from Strategic Alaska - Marc V. Schanz , airforce-magazine.com

2009-03-14 13:42:10

#9

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|6974|UK

i wish that F22 blew that Tu-95 outta the fucking sky.

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2009-03-14 13:42:12

#10

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6924|London, England

Commie Killer wrote:
Mekstizzle wrote:
Who the hell uses Strategic bombers to deliver nukes these days anyway
Strategic bombers are a more viable option for a first strike. They can launch cruise missiles which can not be detected by the early warning systems that monitor the world for ICBM and SLBM launches.

Maybe the Cruise Missiles can't be detected, but the big giant bomber can be more than easily detected, moreso than a ballistic missile surely. And when you have shit like ^^^ f-22's, theys ain't getting nowheres

2009-03-14 13:51:46

#11

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6851|San Diego, CA, USA

Wait, those Russian bombers are still using propellers?

History has a way of repeating itself...Bay of Bigs Part Deux.

2009-03-14 13:53:07

#12

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6903|132 and Bush

Ok, besides getting it wrong, is anyone else disturbed by watching these two press a red button together? /Shelter

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-03-14 13:58:03

#13

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5846|Toronto

Kmarion, I won't sleep tonight. Somewhere in the world that red button was secretly attached to a bomb and now the US has dirty they need to say that the Russians are terrorists.

Nice gesture, but it speaks volumes about the ignorance of the American politicians when it comes to the culture (and language) of their sworn enemy. A little appreciation goes a long way, and in this instance it is seen that America is simply not going to the distance in this field.

What a bullshit stunt. Worked against them well though.

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2009-03-14 14:08:31

#14

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6690

Mekstizzle wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
Mekstizzle wrote:
Who the hell uses Strategic bombers to deliver nukes these days anyway
Strategic bombers are a more viable option for a first strike. They can launch cruise missiles which can not be detected by the early warning systems that monitor the world for ICBM and SLBM launches.
Maybe the Cruise Missiles can't be detected, but the big giant bomber can be more than easily detected, moreso than a ballistic missile surely. And when you have shit like ^^^ f-22's, theys ain't getting nowheres

Regular air traffic control radar only pics up the transponders on planes, and I'm not sure if we even have any radar operating on our south coast. Even if we do though, they can launch from outside radar range and fly in under the assumed radar which might not be there.

2009-03-14 14:16:01

#15

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6717|Finland

well Finland is right next to the sleeping bear you call Russia and they have more metal on the border than is needed to blow us all to the hell so....

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-03-14 14:21:16

#16

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6894

Harmor wrote:
Wait, those Russian bombers are still using propellers?
.

Below about mach 0.85, a turboprop is still more efficient than a 'jet' for lifting cargo'.
Same reason we still use the C-130

And, given the general state of Russian manufacturing, their turboprops are a couple orders of magnitude more reliable and durable than their true jet-engine systems. Has much to do with their high-temperature metallurgy capabilities.

2009-03-14 15:31:18

#17

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6894

m3thod wrote:
i wish that F22 blew that Tu-95 outta the fucking sky.

More likely we'd join up and tag-team some middle eastern country. Afghanistan comes to mind.
(which is to say both are improbable)

Russia and USA have no reason to start a war with each other, and plenty of reasons to keep up the dick measuring and posturing.

I'd estimate that the world will end up with a handful of major power blocs: USA, Russia, China, EU, Middle East.
Fortunately for the first four, the Middle East won't stand up as a unified power bloc before their oil runs out.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-03-14 15:31:54)

2009-03-14 18:07:39

#18

Karbin: Member; +42|6597

rdx-fx wrote:
Harmor wrote:
Wait, those Russian bombers are still using propellers?
.
Below about mach 0.85, a turboprop is still more efficient than a 'jet' for lifting cargo'.
Same reason we still use the C-130

And, given the general state of Russian manufacturing, their turboprops are a couple orders of magnitude more reliable and durable than their true jet-engine systems. Has much to do with their high-temperature metallurgy capabilities.

For the Russians, the Tu-95 "Bear" is most reliable and economical long range bomber they have.
Problem with the Bear is the counter rotating twin turbo prop engines. They are LOUD.
So loud they can be tracked on SOSUS. Ya know, the under water system used to track subs?
No shit... they can be heard.

2009-03-14 18:16:06

#19

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|6974|UK

rdx-fx wrote:
m3thod wrote:
i wish that F22 blew that Tu-95 outta the fucking sky.
More likely we'd join up and tag-team some middle eastern country. Afghanistan comes to mind.
(which is to say both are improbable)

Russia and USA have no reason to start a war with each other, and plenty of reasons to keep up the dick measuring and posturing.

I'd estimate that the world will end up with a handful of major power blocs: USA, Russia, China, EU, Middle East.
Fortunately for the first four, the Middle East won't stand up as a unified power bloc before their oil runs out.

I don't care for the US, but when the fucking commies start sending their bombers into other nations airspace (or dangerously close) for the lulz...then i am not going to batter an eyelid if it's blasted out of the sky and the pieces mailed back with a big fuck you note.

Last edited by m3thod (2009-03-14 18:19:23)

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2009-03-14 18:17:13

#20

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6968|NT, like Mick Dundee

ATG wrote:
Gad damned commies need to have a big glass of die.

Seriously, can't we just have peace for a few years?

USA has had combat troops deployed since the start of WW2.

Constantly. I believe Noam Chomsky has also dredged up records that show the USA has been in a permanent state of war since WW2 against one or more nations.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-03-14 18:29:23

#21

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6690

Flecco wrote:
ATG wrote:
Gad damned commies need to have a big glass of die.

Seriously, can't we just have peace for a few years?
USA has had combat troops deployed since the start of WW2.

Constantly. I believe Noam Chomsky has also dredged up records that show the USA has been in a permanent state of war since WW2 against one or more nations.

US was at war against Germany until the 90's, a full peace treaty couldnt be signed until after it was united. It also gave us a convenient excuse for stationing troops there during the Cold War.

2009-03-14 20:41:34

#22

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6894

Commie Killer wrote:
Flecco wrote:
ATG wrote:
Gad damned commies need to have a big glass of die.

Seriously, can't we just have peace for a few years?
USA has had combat troops deployed since the start of WW2.

Constantly. I believe Noam Chomsky has also dredged up records that show the USA has been in a permanent state of war since WW2 against one or more nations.
US was at war against Germany until the 90's, a full peace treaty couldnt be signed until after it was united. It also gave us a convenient excuse for stationing troops there during the Cold War.

Technically, the Korean War has never ended...

2009-03-15 00:12:45

#23

BVC: Member; +325|6998

Aren't they talking disarmament at the moment?

2009-03-15 00:13:31

#24

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6851|San Diego, CA, USA

Pubic wrote:
Aren't they talking disarmament at the moment?

The point of the original author is that this is a ruse.

BF2S Forums Russian strategic bombers could use Cuba airfields

Mekstizzle wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Harmor wrote:

m3thod wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Harmor wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

m3thod wrote:

ATG wrote:

Flecco wrote:

ATG wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Flecco wrote:

ATG wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Board footer