![]()
tu 22 is underrated. Its a sexy beast in those downviews.
@Verbatim
They already have a short take off jet
Wilhelm
I’d say that’s correct.
From a capability standpoint, this is an M2.
We don’t know if these hulks had a serial number or not. If not, then this one is technically an M2 too. If it didn’t have a serial number then its just a hunk of steel that happens to be in an ideal shape to built a tu 160 M2 from.
Somebody wants to dust off the Yak 141. Probably just to show “we can do that” too. IMO its a waste of resources.
Shtorm carriers will become a reality as priorities allow. (2030-40)Long term naval doctrine demands a couple of carriers.
Russia, on the understanding that this loan is a disguised sale for the sake of Russian national pride, and that the Russians will help work on the FCS, since the Russians have extensive experience with TVC. Get the J-20 modified for TVC immediately, instead of waiting on the WS-15, and let the Russians maintain an operational J-20 squadron for experimental purposes and to bridge the gap until the Su-57 is produced en masse. For technological security, finalize the deal about the same time as the second-generation J-20 radar is ready, so the Russians get saddled with obsolete radar. Perhaps import some AL-41s to supplement WS-10Bs while China waits for the WS-15 to hit IOC.
Wait…is this supposed to be serious?
Of course it is. There’s just zero respect for Russia.
I didn’t even mention the length of the Mig 1.44 in the whole length debate of the J-20 , because it would set them off.
Somehow one of these dimwits has convinced himself that Russia is the junior partner in the China/Russia aviation relationship. Not China. Whos been doing shameless copies of Russian fighters and bombers for decades. And after putting the Mig…er I mean J-20 into service, they still had to order some su 35’s just to fill the gaps.
Russian Fighters Test U.S. Boundaries In Skies Over Syria
Al DHAFRA AIR BASE, UAE—As Islamic State militants lose ground in Iraq and Syria, U.S. fighter pilots are seeing increasingly alarming behavior from Russian aircraft flying over the battlespace.
Lt. Col. “Ox,” a U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor pilot and commander of the 95th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron assigned to Al Dhafra air base, UAE, said his pilots see unexpected, potentially threatening movement from Russian fighters flying over Iraq and Syria with growing regularity. The pilots have had numerous close calls in the past few weeks, with Russian aircraft frequently flying within weapons range of coalition ground troops, Ox said.
The Russians fighters—primarily Sukhoi Su-30s, Su-35s, Su-27 Flankers and Su-17 Fitters—have not made moves to attack U.S. or coalition forces, but their proximity to the ground troops is threatening, said Ox, who requested partial anonymity to discuss sensitive operations. Russian fighters regularly fly within range of coalition ground forces for twenty or thirty minutes at a time, he added.
For Ox and his pilots, it’s often tough to tell whether the Russian aircraft are deliberately testing their boundaries, or if such events are just honest mistakes. But as ground forces squeeze ISIS into a smaller and smaller area, these “uncomfortable” incidents are becoming more frequent, he said.
“We have to use our judgment to figure out, is this somebody getting close to attack our guys? Or is this somebody that is just flying a wide pattern?” Ox said. “You don’t know if they are doing this to test us, to see what our response is, or if it’s completely innocent. That’s the call that we have to make every day.”
Responding to these incidents is made even more challenging by the increasingly congested airspace, Ox said. The Raptor pilots must very quickly deconflict coalition forces in the area to make sure they have enough space to monitor the Russians and run interference if need be.
Potentially threatening aircraft are often close enough to see visually, but the busy airspace makes identifying their type and allegiance a challenge, Ox said. This is particularly difficult at night because the Raptors do not have the advanced electro-optical/infrared capability integrated into the F-35 or fourth-generation fighters via external pod.
“It’s so crowded, the typical employment game plans, tactics that we use are happening at much longer ranges than the current fight,” Ox said. “It really accelerates our timelines and puts us into very short decision times, especially as those platforms we are trying to identify get closer and closer to our defending point.”
Once the Raptors have verified that the aircraft are non-coalition, the pilots must relay what they are seeing to tactical control, such as the airborne E-3 Sentry and the ground-based Combined Air Operations Center, coalition aircraft and ground troops. It is their responsibility to move the other aircraft in the area out of harm’s way in case a confrontation occurs, Ox said.
In this defensive counterair (DCA) role, the main advantage the Raptor brings is its advanced sensor suite and fusion capability. But where the F-15 Strike Eagles performing DCA in the region are able to send and receive critical battlefield information over Link 16, the tactical data link used by most Air Force aircraft, the F-22s do not have full Link 16 capability. This means the Raptors can receive data and imagery from other aircraft in the battlespace over Link 16, but cannot send the advanced picture the fifth-generation aircraft generates to the rest of the force.
Instead, the F-22 pilots must rely on traditional voice communication to describe what they are seeing, Ox said.
Once the air pace around the threatening aircraft is deconflicted, it becomes a waiting game. The Raptors are closely monitoring the Russian fighters for any sign of aggressive behavior, and are ready to act at the slightest hint of a confrontation.
The U.S. pilots sometimes ping the Russian aircraft over the emergency Guard frequency, but usually do not get a response.
“I couldn’t tell if they are monitoring Guard like we are, I couldn’t tell you if maybe they are hearing it and not responding,” Ox said.
One factor that limits the Raptors’ ability to effectively monitor the Russian fighters is lack of a helmet-mounted cueing system, which equips many other fighters such as the F-35. Such a capability would make DCA operations more effective, particularly in congested airspace, Ox noted. In current operations, Raptor pilots lose time looking back and forth between the visual airspace and the information on the displays.
“It’s just that extra step, and now I’m having to look back outside and find this guy, and a lot of times I’m just looking where I last saw him instead of looking with the helmet and actually having some symbology that shows me exactly where he is,” Ox said. “It would be great to be able to keep our eye on the guy that you are watching and having all that information that is already known to the jet be presented to you.”
Since Ox’s squadron arrived at Al Dhafra at the end of September, they have not had to run interference, which would likely involve buzzing non-coalition aircraft. But a few recent instances have been “right on the edge,” Ox said.
“We don’t typically do those headbutt-type operations very often… but we’ve been close as of late,” Ox said.

sorry wrong pic
whats the date on that pic ? 1992 ? doesn’t look like it to me. But whatever. Its a shell. No tail, wings.
There was 16 tu 160’s. Now there’s 17.
Surprised that there’s no talk of tu 160 export to india yet
@Lonewalk
There were some titanium sub structures left over. No wings , tail or anything that you’d call a jet.
@Deino
just a new-built
That’s all that im asking. It wouldnt be called a tu 160 if it was a new design. So to even ponder that is illogical.
Military equipment is not like consumer goods. Nothing would change on the tu 160 if there wasn’t a new aerodynamic breakthrough. And if there was, they would call it something else. Because it wouldn;t be a tu 160 if it was different.
But watch all the nay sayers take advantage of this confusion. USA stronks will say, only after confronted with pictures proving that more than 16 tu 160’s exist, that these are mothballed ones that weren’t destroyed when they were supposed to be back in 91. (I dont mean on this forum. But its already being said elsewhere)
The last B1 Lancer was produced in 1988.
Is this tu 160m a new bird or not ? Even if its a prototype. Why would you need a prototype for a reproduction ? It matters. The nay sayers are out in droves and not believing it. They think its a refit.
if its new, we need some proof
![]()
is there a downward shot of Mig 1.44…
@JSR
The US could never deliver an energy shock to the EU. US gas is totally uneconomic and based on politics. Russian gas still gets into these markets that the US is trying to corner, by making stops in 3rd countries. Baltics get gas that they think isn’t Russian when it actually is.
And your whole speal about economics is wrong. The EU is a net creditor with no trade deficit. The EU has a trillion in FX reserves and has 10,000+ tons of gold. The EU is China’s biggest trade partner. Not US. It is the EU that could drop its US treasury debt on the market and plunge the dollar if it wanted to.
The US gets a massive subsidy from the EU every year.