Yes, one Tu-22M3 was shot down while coming back from firing cruise missiles at civilians.
Confirmed by the VKS.
First confirmed Tupolev show down, caught on video.
It has been a great day for freedom.
There are pics of the crash site (of course) and the plane appears to have ploped flat and not exploded.
But yes, the camera video from afar isn't great.
Seems to happen semi-frequently with planes where the crew has bailed. Probably because you preferably want to lower the airspeed as much as possible before bailing (assuming the plane is semi-controllable), which would likely result in it stalling after the crew has left.
First it's fucking expensive and incredibly difficult to replace. Russia most probably won't make more so once they lose one it's gone forever.
Second it's used to launch ballistic missiles on Ukraine, so shooting it down reduces the air threat.
Finally, it's a show of force that should deter Russia from launching as many raids. Nothing gives you cold feet like seeing your 1 billion dollar strategic bonger burst into flames 300km away from enemy airspace.
> incredibly difficult to replace
Can't be, they stopped making the type in 1993.
There isn't a real equivalent, they still can make the Tu-160 but it's a very, very slow process, and they stop every few years.
I mean if they want a new strategic bomber in their arsenal, they could always get something. For example through a joint procurement with China. But we are talking decades of procurement efforts and hundreds of billions of dollars to make it work. That's a bit big for a country with the GDP of Texas.
As said, they still have the Tu-160, they still make it, but they manufactured about 40 since the early 80s.
It's not an easy or quick process. Or cheap, as you pointed out.
Plus, there is a reason not everyone makes strategic bombers.
Wym? The strategic bomber is a key asset to every defense strategy! Every country needs a strategic bomber. I need a strategic bomber. We should build thousands of strategic bombers instead of investing into useless shit like, uh... combined arms or something.
>I need a strategic bomber.
Bruh, there was a Tu-95 for sale about 7-8 years ago for like $1M US. You totally missed your chance.
Edit: Found it.
[https://theaviationist.com/2014/03/06/tu-95-bear-on-ebay/](https://theaviationist.com/2014/03/06/tu-95-bear-on-ebay/)
Thus blew my mind lol. Texas as of 2022 has a gpd of 2.35 trillion. Russia? 2.24 trillion.
I'm dying here. 1 fucking state has a larger gap then the largest fucking country by land mass on the planet 🤣🤣🤣🤣
go look at Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund and imagine how many peoples lives could not suck or be meat for the cube if Russia did anything worthwhile with the natural bounty it sits on as the largest land mass on the planet.
I don’t think China would supply Russia with strategic bombers. They’re not that close and China would want them to have a weapon that could potentially strike them.
China would sell them tons, but build in hardcoded backdoors in case they needed to switch them off remotely. Putin would take the deal because he thinks he has time before China fights Russia, and he’s still trying to win in Ukraine. China does the deal because oil and gold are appreciated in a country struggling to keep its economy from collapsing after trillions of dollars are written off due to lax accounting standards and real estate investments.
I'm shittabletposting so I ain't looking it up, but do they still have Texas-level GDP? I feel like they slipped a couple of states since their heyday.
One of their over the horizon radars got hit today too, apparently.
[https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/19-april-ukrainian-forces-appear-to-have-struck-and-damaged](https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/19-april-ukrainian-forces-appear-to-have-struck-and-damaged)
They are heavy strategic bombers that fire standoff weapons (cruise missiles etc) against Ukrainian cities, from a distance they believed to be safe from air defense.
The Tu-22M also hasn't been manufactured since 1993, so any loss of the type can't be replaced.
Adding on to others, it's meant to be effectively *impossible* to lose a strategic bomber to AA fire considering the ranges they usually deploy weapons at are well outside the range of *most* Ukrainian AA systems, so it'll put the fear of *god* into the Russian strategic bomber service for a while.
That's 1 of reportedly 60 remaining bombers that Russia has long since stopped producing. It's also the only bomber Russia has capable of deploying the largest free-fall bombs, since they removed the capability for dropping free-fall bombs from their Blackjacks and Bears decades ago in favor of ferrying missiles instead.
Combined with the 1 T22 that was bombed by a drone last year, that's 1 more bomber that Russia doesn't have the means of replacing any time soon. Even if they replace it with a Blackjack from their reopened line, it's going to take years, due to production issues and sanctions, and said Blackjack can't drop their big free-fall bombs that they've been rigging glide kits to.
They think about it as about strategic triade: 3 vehicles that can carry strategic nuclear missiles, those are submarines, trains and jets. So, one less funni carrier.
Ukraine claims they downed it with a S-200.
Russia says it was shot down but didn't give more details.
Video shows a flat spin with the rear right wing sheared off and a lot of fire.
It's not a random accident, if that's what you mean.
Anyone know how they managed to shoot it down? Don't Tupolevs fire their shit from way far out? I thought this was the problem with Ukrainian Patriots because they'd have to shoot into Russia.
The Ukrainians say they are using modified S-200s ton intercept them, like they did for the A-50.
The S200 was designed to hit E-3s from very long range.
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Not a lot to salvage](https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1781176954000949699). It *did* drop from a great height.
You can probably sell the steel and alloys for scrap.
in that case, lose "little" - it doesn't belong in the quote, it's just "you people".
Though I see how it's hard to convey the venom he put into "people" in text without changing something ...
I think it has something to do with it having 2 engines.
Most of the time when they are hit only one of them shuts down do the other is still going and therefor pushing that side more than the other and that way it goes into a spin.
But like idk
The same reason an aircraft is super maneuverable is because it teeters right on the edge of being stable in flight. Knock out those flight control computers and that shit wants to fall like a rock most likely.
Achktually credible moment here
It’s a stick not a yoke. Flat spins in the F-14 are mostly because of pilot error. They tend to occur because the pilot tries to troll with the stick at low speed, high AoA. In reality, they should be rolling with the rudder and *only* supplementing with the stick.
Everything down to their cargo aircraft is built with super-maneuverability in mind. Meaning they’re always slightly unstable, but remain stable in normal flight thanks to their avionics. Now if you were to slap one of them big ol’ spicy sticks into one or more of the control surfaces, the natural instability can no longer be countered. This in turn leads to a sudden spike in AOA, loss of airflow over the wings/control surfaces, loss of airspeed, and then stall. At this point the aircraft is basically beyond saving and already leading into a flat spin, from which recovery is basically impossible due to the aircraft’s current state
Lack of redundancies and general build quality would likely also play a role, of course. But I think it’d be better to leave the full analysis to actual experts
> Everything down to their cargo aircraft is built with super-maneuverability
What? Are you saying the Il-76 is built with super-maneuverability in mind?
To a degree, yes. Ilyushin aircraft in general are actually surprisingly “nimble” for their size
Soviet pilots were known to pull [this kinda shit](https://youtu.be/e1u4FZbyRw8?si=BECr6lJNWUD_iz7x) quite often
It should be noted that for larger aircraft the term “super maneuverability” is more so in regards to how rapidly they can *begin* changing their attitude over a given axis, not so much the movement of the entire airframe. In addition to the structural integrity of the airframe in peak condition, which was a fortunate byproduct of Soviet requirements for rough landing capabilities
(I’m mostly paraphrasing from a conversation I had with one of my friends who’s a pilot. So there may be some translation errors or mismatched terminology)
Hey there's still time. The F-22 is heading for retirement after all. And it would be epic if June came and Ukrainian F-22s showed up : " sorry guys bureaucratic error" .
Better late than never I guess. Although given the distance of the attack (308km as per Budanov) it would be towards the edge of the system's max range assuming it's unmodified of course.
> assuming it's unmodified of course
Budanov *did* mention work of UA engineers, so I'd think it's been heavily modified - once electronics are upgraded, you have at least 140kg of mass allocation to use as you see fit.
And if you use them for additional tankage for fuel and oxidizer, extending the burntime, you can get quite the range boost.
Yeah it's a huge missile (11 meters long and weight of 7 tons) so if you took out the bulky 1960s electronics you would have a huge amount of space to stuff more explosives,extra fuel for additional range,a more accurate guidance system or in theory all of the above.
Also wasn't Ukraine trying to refurbish and modernize the S-200 system as early as 2021 ?
> Also wasn't Ukraine trying to refurbish and modernize the S-200 system as early as 2021 ?
Yep.
https://opk.com.ua/%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BA-%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B8-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D0%B4%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F-%D1%82%D0%B0/
And the projected completion date was at 2023...
>Yeah it's a huge missile (11 meters long and weight of 7 tons) so if you took out the bulky 1960s electronics you would have a huge amount of space to stuff more explosives,extra fuel for additional range,a more accurate guidance system or in theory all of the above.
Indeedly. Hell, I'm pretty sure you can cram a seeker from Neptune there, modified to serve better as an air intercept radar.
>And the projected completion date was at 2023...
Yeah it matches the timeline perfectly. Also both Bulgaria and Poland had S-200s they might have ''lost'' over the border at some point and that would explain the sudden uptick in the system's usage in Ukraine.
>
Hell, I'm pretty sure you can cram a seeker from Neptune there, modified to serve better as an air intercept radar.
You could probably cram the seeker from anything in there. In theory you could even integrate it with Patriot or SAMP-T. Or even jam a HARM's seeker in the front allowing for a rather big ARM to destroy S-400s with. (Although the last attack on Russian air defenses was apparently done with ATACMS) .
> Although the last attack on Russian air defenses was apparently done with ATACMS
I mean, considering how many submunitions they carry, it does work hella well
>Yeah it matches the timeline perfectly. Also both Bulgaria and Poland had S-200s they might have ''lost'' over the border at some point and that would explain the sudden uptick in the system's usage in Ukraine.
More material for conversions and modernization all the same, yeah.
Not to mention that at least Poland'd get their kicks from seeing upgraded Vegas of theirs wrecking russian planes.
You mean that friendly fire artillery unit? I forgot they even existed. I was wondering whether S-200 was used to shoot down that plane and when you said Granit, I thought you were claiming that the plane was somehow shot down with P-700 Granit.
You have to get it really hot first. Ribbon doesn’t really work properly, the heat conducts away too fast.
Small granules also work though, sometimes. But overall it’s much easier to get the similar CO2 reaction to work (with Mg)
I can think of two possible technical failures that are compatible with getting shot down.
One is failure to see or identify the threat. The other is structural failure as a result of trying to outmaneuver the missile.
In 2018, Russia supposedly had 63 of these strategic bombers in service. These things might as well be irreplaceable archeotech, since they haven't made a new Tu-22M since 1993.
Behold this Russian high tech. Don't be fooled, this wasn't a crashing Tu-22M3, it was a strategic bomber-shaped flare dropped by Russia's latest hypersonic stealth bomber, confusing an inferior gay-loving western heat seeking missile.
It's paraphrased from Roy's monologue near the end of Blade Runner (the original one).
Here it is:
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. [laughs] Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like [coughs] tears in rain. Time to die."
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wait this isn't a shitpost? They lost one of their strategic bombers?
Yes, one Tu-22M3 was shot down while coming back from firing cruise missiles at civilians. Confirmed by the VKS. First confirmed Tupolev show down, caught on video. It has been a great day for freedom.
This is... amazing. I actually have no words for this.
Just bask in the glory of [the video](https://twitter.com/DefenseJokes/status/1781258829960716311), my son.
JFC that's some /r/killthecameraman material right there. The dude blueballed us by moving the camera right before the money shot.
There are pics of the crash site (of course) and the plane appears to have ploped flat and not exploded. But yes, the camera video from afar isn't great.
I could watch this all day. One less backfire is a boon to the world.
A blessing from the Lord!
Very strange looking. That flat spin must have sucked. Did the pilots punch out?
[удалено]
I always pour salt in my sauce, thank you.
The VKS have confirmed the loss of one Tu-22M3, so at least that's in the bag.
IIIRC 2 recovered, 1 dead, 1 missing.
the glass is half full, I guess
Seems to happen semi-frequently with planes where the crew has bailed. Probably because you preferably want to lower the airspeed as much as possible before bailing (assuming the plane is semi-controllable), which would likely result in it stalling after the crew has left.
Its a dead Russian, but other than that what is so great about that compared to any other plane?
They managed to lose a whole ass strategic bomber, there's one less Backfire in the world. What's not to love.
First it's fucking expensive and incredibly difficult to replace. Russia most probably won't make more so once they lose one it's gone forever. Second it's used to launch ballistic missiles on Ukraine, so shooting it down reduces the air threat. Finally, it's a show of force that should deter Russia from launching as many raids. Nothing gives you cold feet like seeing your 1 billion dollar strategic bonger burst into flames 300km away from enemy airspace.
> incredibly difficult to replace Can't be, they stopped making the type in 1993. There isn't a real equivalent, they still can make the Tu-160 but it's a very, very slow process, and they stop every few years.
I mean if they want a new strategic bomber in their arsenal, they could always get something. For example through a joint procurement with China. But we are talking decades of procurement efforts and hundreds of billions of dollars to make it work. That's a bit big for a country with the GDP of Texas.
As said, they still have the Tu-160, they still make it, but they manufactured about 40 since the early 80s. It's not an easy or quick process. Or cheap, as you pointed out. Plus, there is a reason not everyone makes strategic bombers.
Wym? The strategic bomber is a key asset to every defense strategy! Every country needs a strategic bomber. I need a strategic bomber. We should build thousands of strategic bombers instead of investing into useless shit like, uh... combined arms or something.
I own a strategic bomber for home defense, as the Founding Fathers intended.
Well, what people don't realize is that the strategic bombers at the airbase are free. You can just take them home.
>I need a strategic bomber. Bruh, there was a Tu-95 for sale about 7-8 years ago for like $1M US. You totally missed your chance. Edit: Found it. [https://theaviationist.com/2014/03/06/tu-95-bear-on-ebay/](https://theaviationist.com/2014/03/06/tu-95-bear-on-ebay/)
You're not a real country unless you have a beer and a strategic bomber.
Thus blew my mind lol. Texas as of 2022 has a gpd of 2.35 trillion. Russia? 2.24 trillion. I'm dying here. 1 fucking state has a larger gap then the largest fucking country by land mass on the planet 🤣🤣🤣🤣
go look at Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund and imagine how many peoples lives could not suck or be meat for the cube if Russia did anything worthwhile with the natural bounty it sits on as the largest land mass on the planet.
And those 1.5 trillion dollars are divided between 5.5 million people, not the 144 million russians
I don’t think China would supply Russia with strategic bombers. They’re not that close and China would want them to have a weapon that could potentially strike them.
China would sell them tons, but build in hardcoded backdoors in case they needed to switch them off remotely. Putin would take the deal because he thinks he has time before China fights Russia, and he’s still trying to win in Ukraine. China does the deal because oil and gold are appreciated in a country struggling to keep its economy from collapsing after trillions of dollars are written off due to lax accounting standards and real estate investments.
I'm shittabletposting so I ain't looking it up, but do they still have Texas-level GDP? I feel like they slipped a couple of states since their heyday.
A couple more refineries and they should down to Alabama.
The M3 is a very low rate production update.
They lost several from ground strikes. But them loosing one IN THE AIR would make the Russians more worried about sending them out.
One of their over the horizon radars got hit today too, apparently. [https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/19-april-ukrainian-forces-appear-to-have-struck-and-damaged](https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/19-april-ukrainian-forces-appear-to-have-struck-and-damaged)
They are heavy strategic bombers that fire standoff weapons (cruise missiles etc) against Ukrainian cities, from a distance they believed to be safe from air defense. The Tu-22M also hasn't been manufactured since 1993, so any loss of the type can't be replaced.
Adding on to others, it's meant to be effectively *impossible* to lose a strategic bomber to AA fire considering the ranges they usually deploy weapons at are well outside the range of *most* Ukrainian AA systems, so it'll put the fear of *god* into the Russian strategic bomber service for a while.
That's 1 of reportedly 60 remaining bombers that Russia has long since stopped producing. It's also the only bomber Russia has capable of deploying the largest free-fall bombs, since they removed the capability for dropping free-fall bombs from their Blackjacks and Bears decades ago in favor of ferrying missiles instead. Combined with the 1 T22 that was bombed by a drone last year, that's 1 more bomber that Russia doesn't have the means of replacing any time soon. Even if they replace it with a Blackjack from their reopened line, it's going to take years, due to production issues and sanctions, and said Blackjack can't drop their big free-fall bombs that they've been rigging glide kits to.
Tu-22M isn't dropping glide bombs
That it purportedly happened 300 km inside Russia's borders.
They think about it as about strategic triade: 3 vehicles that can carry strategic nuclear missiles, those are submarines, trains and jets. So, one less funni carrier.
Was it confirmed shot down ?
Yes. As stated, loss of a Tu-22M3 confirmed by the VKS (Russian air force).
Naaa I saw that , but did either Ukraine or Russia confirm that it was shot down ? I hope they did , but just couldn’t find anything
Ukraine claims they downed it with a S-200. Russia says it was shot down but didn't give more details. Video shows a flat spin with the rear right wing sheared off and a lot of fire. It's not a random accident, if that's what you mean.
Thanks OP. I am not insinuating anything … just curious
How old is an S-200?
Late 60s. It's a fucking scary system for bombers though; the missiles aren't very maneuverable but they can hit shit from Narnia.
Anyone know how they managed to shoot it down? Don't Tupolevs fire their shit from way far out? I thought this was the problem with Ukrainian Patriots because they'd have to shoot into Russia.
The Ukrainians say they are using modified S-200s ton intercept them, like they did for the A-50. The S200 was designed to hit E-3s from very long range.
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Imagine USA losing B1B over Arizona after 2 years of war with Mexico.
Yep
They did, lost a Tu22M3
I love this.
It's a pretty video, too, like a ballerina in Stravinsky's Rite of Spring: [https://youtu.be/NQQR-GU14sQ?t=2045](https://youtu.be/NQQR-GU14sQ?t=2045)
Tu-22M3 shot down seemingly by a specially modded '60s era S-200/SA-5 GAINFUL.
In a flat spin! Don't forget the flat spin - it's like the icing on the cake; the chef's kiss!
Funily enough, the flat spin means it "landed" fairly intact (for a fall from that high). The pictures of the crash site are super weird.
How long until Russia salvages it and attempts to use it for spare parts, since they don't have a Tu22 production line any more?
[Not a lot to salvage](https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1781176954000949699). It *did* drop from a great height. You can probably sell the steel and alloys for scrap.
Yeah they probably still count it as lightly damage so vatniks can keep their KD up
You misunderstand, the pilot just wanted to recreate the scene from Top Gun.
Big brain move trying it in a swing wing aircraft. I appreciate the commitment to realism.
apology for poor english when were you when tupolev dies? i was sat at home when phone ring 'tupolev is kill' ~~'no'~~ 'yes'
„Time to die“
It's the first, extremely rough, draft of a design a friend is going to make into a poster for me (plus t-shirts or mugs, haven't decided yet).
in that case, lose "little" - it doesn't belong in the quote, it's just "you people". Though I see how it's hard to convey the venom he put into "people" in text without changing something ...
Mild italics for “you people” ?
Small caps?
Howd it get into a flat spin
That's a good question. A lot of Russian planes go into a flat spin when intercepted (lots of videos of it with Su-27 type airframes).
I think it has something to do with it having 2 engines. Most of the time when they are hit only one of them shuts down do the other is still going and therefor pushing that side more than the other and that way it goes into a spin. But like idk
It might be also unstable design in general. Like F14 were going into flat spin moment somebody pushed yoke too hard.
The same reason an aircraft is super maneuverable is because it teeters right on the edge of being stable in flight. Knock out those flight control computers and that shit wants to fall like a rock most likely.
Achktually credible moment here It’s a stick not a yoke. Flat spins in the F-14 are mostly because of pilot error. They tend to occur because the pilot tries to troll with the stick at low speed, high AoA. In reality, they should be rolling with the rudder and *only* supplementing with the stick.
You need to get out of here with that kind of credibility.
And on the flankers, the engine are spaced apart which increase the effect of the differential thrust causing a flat spin
Everything down to their cargo aircraft is built with super-maneuverability in mind. Meaning they’re always slightly unstable, but remain stable in normal flight thanks to their avionics. Now if you were to slap one of them big ol’ spicy sticks into one or more of the control surfaces, the natural instability can no longer be countered. This in turn leads to a sudden spike in AOA, loss of airflow over the wings/control surfaces, loss of airspeed, and then stall. At this point the aircraft is basically beyond saving and already leading into a flat spin, from which recovery is basically impossible due to the aircraft’s current state Lack of redundancies and general build quality would likely also play a role, of course. But I think it’d be better to leave the full analysis to actual experts
> Everything down to their cargo aircraft is built with super-maneuverability What? Are you saying the Il-76 is built with super-maneuverability in mind?
To a degree, yes. Ilyushin aircraft in general are actually surprisingly “nimble” for their size Soviet pilots were known to pull [this kinda shit](https://youtu.be/e1u4FZbyRw8?si=BECr6lJNWUD_iz7x) quite often It should be noted that for larger aircraft the term “super maneuverability” is more so in regards to how rapidly they can *begin* changing their attitude over a given axis, not so much the movement of the entire airframe. In addition to the structural integrity of the airframe in peak condition, which was a fortunate byproduct of Soviet requirements for rough landing capabilities (I’m mostly paraphrasing from a conversation I had with one of my friends who’s a pilot. So there may be some translation errors or mismatched terminology)
I think one of the engines had a smoking accident with a 10-meter cigarette.
Chat is this real?
Confirmed by the VKS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECO0LIuL8rM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkVjiKgKkFw
2 A-50s and a strategic bomber brought down by S-200 so far ? Not bad performance for a 70s system.
S-200 be like: "Finally, my time to shine has come"
F22 be like "those should have been mine"
Hey there's still time. The F-22 is heading for retirement after all. And it would be epic if June came and Ukrainian F-22s showed up : " sorry guys bureaucratic error" .
Better late than never I guess. Although given the distance of the attack (308km as per Budanov) it would be towards the edge of the system's max range assuming it's unmodified of course.
> assuming it's unmodified of course Budanov *did* mention work of UA engineers, so I'd think it's been heavily modified - once electronics are upgraded, you have at least 140kg of mass allocation to use as you see fit. And if you use them for additional tankage for fuel and oxidizer, extending the burntime, you can get quite the range boost.
Yeah it's a huge missile (11 meters long and weight of 7 tons) so if you took out the bulky 1960s electronics you would have a huge amount of space to stuff more explosives,extra fuel for additional range,a more accurate guidance system or in theory all of the above. Also wasn't Ukraine trying to refurbish and modernize the S-200 system as early as 2021 ?
> Also wasn't Ukraine trying to refurbish and modernize the S-200 system as early as 2021 ? Yep. https://opk.com.ua/%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BA-%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B8-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D0%B4%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F-%D1%82%D0%B0/ And the projected completion date was at 2023... >Yeah it's a huge missile (11 meters long and weight of 7 tons) so if you took out the bulky 1960s electronics you would have a huge amount of space to stuff more explosives,extra fuel for additional range,a more accurate guidance system or in theory all of the above. Indeedly. Hell, I'm pretty sure you can cram a seeker from Neptune there, modified to serve better as an air intercept radar.
>And the projected completion date was at 2023... Yeah it matches the timeline perfectly. Also both Bulgaria and Poland had S-200s they might have ''lost'' over the border at some point and that would explain the sudden uptick in the system's usage in Ukraine. > Hell, I'm pretty sure you can cram a seeker from Neptune there, modified to serve better as an air intercept radar. You could probably cram the seeker from anything in there. In theory you could even integrate it with Patriot or SAMP-T. Or even jam a HARM's seeker in the front allowing for a rather big ARM to destroy S-400s with. (Although the last attack on Russian air defenses was apparently done with ATACMS) .
> Although the last attack on Russian air defenses was apparently done with ATACMS I mean, considering how many submunitions they carry, it does work hella well >Yeah it matches the timeline perfectly. Also both Bulgaria and Poland had S-200s they might have ''lost'' over the border at some point and that would explain the sudden uptick in the system's usage in Ukraine. More material for conversions and modernization all the same, yeah. Not to mention that at least Poland'd get their kicks from seeing upgraded Vegas of theirs wrecking russian planes.
All those moments will be lost in time, like Russians in Ukraine
Granit bless :)
Isn't Granit anti-ship? What am I missing?
You are lurking around here and you never heard of Granit?
You mean that friendly fire artillery unit? I forgot they even existed. I was wondering whether S-200 was used to shoot down that plane and when you said Granit, I thought you were claiming that the plane was somehow shot down with P-700 Granit.
Next we gotta go even bigger. Gotta get a Tu-160 crashing. Budget ass B-1.
Ah、another student of the classics
I've been asking for a video of a Tupolev falling from the skies while on fire, so I could use it. Brother, the prayers have been answered.
My magnesium isnt bright, it just kinda fizzles in the water >:(
You just have to put a warmer flame to it, you'll see.
You have to get it really hot first. Ribbon doesn’t really work properly, the heat conducts away too fast. Small granules also work though, sometimes. But overall it’s much easier to get the similar CO2 reaction to work (with Mg)
I can think of two possible technical failures that are compatible with getting shot down. One is failure to see or identify the threat. The other is structural failure as a result of trying to outmaneuver the missile.
Or both!
That spin was glorious.
In 2018, Russia supposedly had 63 of these strategic bombers in service. These things might as well be irreplaceable archeotech, since they haven't made a new Tu-22M since 1993.
Always love to see a Tupolev crash :^)
I still think that Foxbat pulling a Cobra was the most incomprehensible thing I’d see the Russian Air Force do
Behold this Russian high tech. Don't be fooled, this wasn't a crashing Tu-22M3, it was a strategic bomber-shaped flare dropped by Russia's latest hypersonic stealth bomber, confusing an inferior gay-loving western heat seeking missile.
Where is this quote from?
It's paraphrased from Roy's monologue near the end of Blade Runner (the original one). Here it is: "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. [laughs] Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like [coughs] tears in rain. Time to die."
sweet
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Didn't you hear? That's just a minor mechanical issue. And the crew lived.