2skicomrade

Wow, this really is cool. Thanks for sharing! It reminds me of a smaller project from a few years ago about Yuri Gagarin's flight:

Better video (most of the footage originally released was from past exercises): Tu-160 and Kh-101: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1679185272324222&set=vb.1492252324350852&type=2&theater Tu-95MS and Kh-555: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1679182688991147 Tu-22M3 and OFAB-250-270: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1679182275657855

Yes, this marks the first time that the Tu-95 and Tu-160 have seen combat. Judging from footage from the ministry of defense, it looks like the Tu-160s were using new Kh-101s, while the Tu-95MS seem to have fired Kh-555 cruise missiles (their bomb bay being too small for the new missile and only test aircraft having been updated with under-wing pylons). I would guess that the Tu-22M3s have been dropping lots of conventional bombs... Additionally, there have been reports of Kalibr cruise missiles being launch from one of the new Kilo class SSKs in the Mediterranean, while Putin has ordered that Russian ships in the area operate with the French carrier "as allies." It is also planned that an aditional 8 Su-34s and 4 Su-27SM fighters join the airstrikes, based out of Russia. Detailed summary from the Russian Ministry of Defense: http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12066124@egNews

Here's a pretty good run-down by RT on some of the weapons being used: https://www.rt.com/news/317662-russian-smart-bombs-syria/

Yes, there are more photos of those bombs at Gepard's link. The Russian MoD in their latest press releases reference BETAB-500 concrete piercing bombs, too.

There is a KAB-500S satellite guided bomb on one of those Su-34s in the RT vid... The Russian defense ministry has all sorts of interesting videos showing the strikes here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQGqX5Ndpm4snE0NTjyOJnA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipD7oM8ZVFI I believe these are Su-27/Su-27SM3 and Su-30M2 fighters base out of Krymsk airbase, near Novorossiysk

Cool. Exceptional low speed control and pretty much stall proof engines.... but looks like it needs a bit more HP. Hopefully those new engines don't get delayed anymore...

That's one of the problems with the MiG-29... its forced to land with a small angle of attack because of the low clearance of the jet pipes. Also why the new carrier versions have those massive flaps (to lower the landing speed).

Tirak, that is a very intelligent, thoughtful, and mature comment. The only thing I can add, is that the Japanese twice asked the Soviet Union to negotiate a conditional surrender with the Western Allies while it was still neutral. Of course, Stalin threw this straight into the trash basket, as he had already agreed with Churchill and FDR to invade Manchuria, and that unconditional surrender was the only option. Of course, at the end of it all, the Pacific peace treaties ended up making several concessions to the Japanese (such as not bringing the Emperor to war-crimes trials and allowing him to retain his position in Japanese society).... we needed a friend in the region considering the gathering clouds of conflict with the Soviets.

Sorry for this thought train (I'm pretty conflicted in my view of Nuclear arms). On one hand, I'm very thankful that the Soviets developed the bomb as quickly as they did (to being to create a situation where MAD was applicable). Even if they could not develop true parity in the number of warheads and their delivery vehicles until the mid-70s, the fact that the USSR possessed the bomb gave pause to the more hawkish among us. I can think of at least three instances from the Cold War when the use of atomic weapons was considered: MacArthur in Korea, to stave off the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu, and Cuba. Hell, Churchill pressed quite hard to nuke Moscow when he became PM again after the war. Now, from a more balanced perspective, I can say the same thing about the Soviets considering the use of Nuclear weapons against Israel in 1967/73, and against China to prevent it from testing its first A-bomb in 1964. I believe that MAD, considering the likely-hood of conflict between east and west, prevented a global war. I can also see the Cold War from the perspective of 3rd world countries like India and Yugoslavia, whose leaders saw the world falsely divided between East and West and did not want to be dragged into a manufactured conflict with the threat of nuclear weapons. For these counties, before they were inevitably made to choose sides (for economic, political, and other reasons), nuclear weapons were a curse, and something that they, initially, fought very hard to ban through international institutions like the UN.

Little missile, Big bang! Here's a video from the Vostok 2014 exercises off Kamchatka. Two Moskit missiles (Sunburns) striking their target:

This is some of the ways how the Soviets planed to use their tactical nukes from planes like the Su-7b. I believe that our fighters from the same time would use similar methods when at low altitude, and a parachute delayed bomb when attacking from higher up: http://www.16va.be/page_labs_110.html http://www.16va.be/page_toss_bombing.html

Just because its a very pretty pic: http://russianplanes.net/id167733

You're right; Operation Chrome Dome lasted only through the 1960s and the planes only flew over North American airspace. Sorry, I thought it was for longer. Here's an interesting story: http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/16-03/ff_nuclearwar?currentPage=1

Now, I'm one of these intellectuals who have studied Russia for his entire life and briefly lived there. While I am not of the variety that you mention above (links please) and am perfectly capable of criticizing Russia in many ways, I completely disagree with your premise that Russia wants to rebuild its sphere of influence. Before we get too far into politics, maybe we should move this discussion into a pm? I would be glad to offer some of my experiences and insights about Russia and the position of Americas intellectuals there.

Please correct me if I am wrong (and I very well might be), but I was under the impression that SAC continuously had nuclear armed bombers in the air, ready to strike targets within the Soviet Union, for a long period of the Cold War. If that is correct, did our planes patrol around North America, or other areas further from the Soviet Union? As far as the Soviets/Russian not conducting intercepts as far from their shores as we escort theirs away from ours, I can see it breaking down into three options. 1. They were technically incapable of doing so (probably true until the 1970s). 2. They were confident that if war started, they would be able to intercept our bombers before they could reach their targets (most Soviet cities are deep inland). 3. They didn't want to antagonize us too much (The Soviet leadership was certainly terrified of NATOs nuclear, naval, and air superiority. This began to change during the 1970s as they gained parity in ICBMs). Generally, its my opinion that NATO and the United States in particular holds massive military and economic advantage over today's Russia, and that is why I am always so amazed at our media's alarmist rhetoric and tone. For these reasons and our history of animosity towards the former Soviet Union, its also pretty understandable why modern Russia would be very sensitive to our military and political posture in Europe.

This is a question out of curiosity, but during the Cold War, when we had B-52s constantly patrolling outside of the USSR's borders, did the Soviets ever send fighters out "as 'far out as 200 miles'" to escort them?