B2 bombers deployed in UK

I dunt get it ? If they are so stealthy why can i see them so easy ??? They certainly very noisey too... Not liek airwolf, That was stealthy. THey look like they would be very hard to loose a lock on.
 
What do you mean how alert they are?? Even if we manage to take out their command post, their system will automatically launch all ICMBS with SLMBS right into our bums....

Just one of these rockets would be enough to turn UK into a wasteland.

how alert the bombers are.....

depending on thier readyness they'd be off the ground in only a few miniutes
 
how alert the bombers are.....

depending on thier readyness they'd be off the ground in only a few miniutes

How long do you think it takes for a ICBM launched from Moscow lets say to hit London??

Its speed is about 7km per second....

How about a SLMB launched for a sub??

Pilots wouldnt even get time to put their panties on.
 
everything down to a eurofighter is a nuclear capable bomber these days.

including all our bombers

A Volkswagen Beetle is "nuclear capable", I really don't know why this term is used.

They've been able to make nuclear weapons small enough to be fired out of artillery since the 1950s and man portable since the early 60s.
 
How long do you think it takes for a ICBM launched from Moscow lets say to hit London??

Its speed is about 7km per second....

How about a SLMB launched for a sub??

Pilots wouldnt even get time to put their panties on.

yeah its not like we developed entire protocols for getting bombers off the ground before icbm hits during the cold war....
 
yeah its not like we developed entire protocols for getting bombers off the ground before icbm hits during the cold war....

I dont think its even possible for such protocol... Its more about keeping a nuclear capable aircraft in the air close to Russia at all times...

Even in best scenario that the plane actually takes off, by the time it reaches Russia world would be over....
 
How long do you think it takes for a ICBM launched from Moscow lets say to hit London??

Its speed is about 7km per second....

How about a SLMB launched for a sub??

Pilots wouldnt even get time to put their panties on.

It's only mach 21 at impact - the rest of the flight phase is considerably less than that.

You actually have a reasonable amount of time to react to an ICBM launch - it takes 4 mins just to get into low orbit for positioning - certainly enough to get not only strike bombers and interdict fighters off the ground but also refueling wings as well. You're talking in the region of 25mins (launch/climb/orbit/re-entry) for an ICBM to be launched from Russia and hit London.

SLBM's are the same - they don't lunch then fly direct to the target, they climb, orientate, orbit to target and re-enter. An ICBM/SLBM flight path is not a smooth arc like a standard missile.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dont think its even possible for such protocol... Its more about keeping a nuclear capable aircraft in the air close to Russia at all times...

Even in best scenario that the plane actually takes off, by the time it reaches Russia world would be over....
of course its possible :/ we did it for decades. An ICBM does take time to get to altitude and cover the range, even the ISS takes 90 minutes to circle the earth and that doesnt have to climb!

the later point is kinda completely missing the principle of MAD
 
I dont think its even possible for such protocol... Its more about keeping a nuclear capable aircraft in the air close to Russia at all times...

Even in best scenario that the plane actually takes off, by the time it reaches Russia world would be over....

The US do not need a 'nuclear capable' aircraft in the air close to Russia, what do you think submarines with SLBMs are for?

yeah its not like we developed entire protocols for getting bombers off the ground before icbm hits during the cold war....

We'd just use SLBMs.
 
On the contrary - the more ability adversaries display in terms of second strike, the less likely your enemy is going to carry out a first strike. That's one of the reasons why the US are throwing stuff within arms reach of Russia.
Read up on TRIAD - which includes bombers, missiles and subs and why they're all necessary. Particularly the bit about strategic bombers. They're hard to take out in a first strike, subsequently either side would be extremely lucky to pull of a first strike without invoking a retaliation - and subsequent MAD as described earlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad
 
akuOwzR.jpg

It's hard to believe the Nighthawk is now obsolete and retired. If I remember correctly, the USAF is engaged with a replacement programme for the B2 as well.
 
It's a chess game!
Just think we have the Internet now, to both assure us and scare us depending on your understanding.
Back in the 80s it must have been pretty terrifying during the height of the cold war.
 
It's a chess game!
Just think we have the Internet now, to both assure us and scare us depending on your understanding.
Back in the 80s it must have been pretty terrifying during the height of the cold war.

I have a feeling most people just carried on with their lives as per normal. The news agencies however, well they were just constantly having heart attacks and strokes.
 
There is no maybe. Also not just stealth. Avionics and weaponry too.

Lol, it's funny I hear this from people all the time, have you ever looked at their aircraft compared to other nations though, when you do a comparison it paints a very different picture, one far more balanced:

F-16: Starting with their build em cheap and stack em high go to bird, well yeah that's a perfect description, over in Europe the Typhoon, Rafael and Gripen are all better planes, over in commie land the MiG-35 and Su-35 are both superior too.

F/A-18: Better plane than the F-16, but very much the same story, it wasn't quite as good as the MiG-29 back in the day (the USAF flew them head to head against the Luftwaffe in an exercise after West Germany reunified) and it isn't quite as good as the MiG-35 today, again the Typhoon/Rafael are better, the Gripen would be evenly matched this time, and the Su-35 would dominate.

F-15: Great plane and they have done a lot to modernize it, would take the Rafael, Gripen and Mig-35 on paper. However the Typhoon is still the better plane as is the Su-35 (The Su-27 was designed specifically to be better than the F-15 and was, however after the USSR went bankrupt and Russia spent the 90's in austerity the F-15 pulled ahead but in recent times big spending has seem the Su rise from the ashes and the Gen4.5 Su-35BM can literally dance rings around the Eagle).

F-22: Currently the best in the world, nothing can match it, but it isn't invincible as shown in training exercises. However it is now out of production due to the programs ludicrous costs and the Su T-50 will soon be here to take over as the worlds top jet fighter (the first time Russia has held that position since the original Su-27 entered service).

F-35: Completely ignoring the fact it's based on British and Russian tech (its basically the offspring of the Harrier, the Yak-141 and the aesthetics of the F-22), Then this plane has no global equal (in it's intended role anyway, as a jet fighter it would be on par with the F/A-18), the closest comparison would be helicopter gunships.
 
350xwb is considerably better than the dream liner, and doesn't catch fire.

but the carbon fiber is ****ing terrible to work with doing my 350 awareness course atm, the stuff makes you itch like hell and hen you blow your nose it comes out black unless you keep our gas mask on al lthe time (so much for tool tip dust elimination)

Materials for the XWB is my companys biggest contract :eek:.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom