Russia gets Venezuela base. Tu-160 puts American mainland under threat.

[Hamartia Antidote]

La Orchila is the tiny red dot

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

View attachment 527809
La Orchila is the tiny red dot

Looks like they can put 2 Tu-160 bombers (really ALCM carriers), 2 A-100 AWACs, 4 Su-57 there for a strike team on Texas oil refinery if Trump declares emperor and threatens Putin.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Looks like they can put 2 Tu-160 bombers (really ALCM carriers), 2 A-100 AWACs, 4 Su-57 there for a strike team on Texas oil refinery if Trump declares emperor and threatens Putin.

Putin and Xi already are emperors for life. Why is Trump your fixation?

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Putin and Xi already are emperors for life. Why is Trump your fixation?

Putin not for life. Xi is. Xi changed China constitution. Trump is no politician. That makes him reckless and dangerous.

 

[cloud4000]

Venezuelans may be fools, but the Russians are not. This is just sabre-rattling by the Russians.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Putin not for life. Xi is. Xi changed China constitution. Trump is no politician. That makes him reckless and dangerous.

LOL! We'd already have a wall up if Trump was only 1/10th as much an "Emperor"

 

[Oldman1]

It will force US to deploy or dilute forces to another front. Not a bad move after all..


LOL. I really hope it will happen and I will see who back down this time.

It won't force the U.S. to dilute forces at all since the intent/warning was to attack the U.S. homeland. Already have forces to protect the U.S. states. Couple of years ago Russia did the same thing and was intercepted by F-15s. In reality Russia has only a dozen of these precious bombers. Just a U.S. submarine nearby would blow them up easily. So Russia would have to send a larger force to protect them. So who is being force to dilute their forces?

First of all, you already have to dilute the force if you are the defence, because you do not just defend one side of your country, you need to defend all side. So In effect, that does nothing, because US would already have to deploy Fighter Squadron regardless whether or not Russia deploy their bomber in Venezuela, also, US have more (A LOT MORE) fighter than Russian have Tu-160 bomber, which mean US can take the dilution, Russia cannot

Second of all, the route taken from Venezuela would have to pass thru Columbia, Mexico before entering US air space via Texas, and Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico (US territories) if they want to go to Florida, which would increase chances of these bomber being seen (especially from Puerto Rico side of the region, as they are US territories and have US based system on it) on the other hand, Russian bomber flew from Kamchatka would have flew DIRECTLY to US, which mean less chances they are spotted, because between Kamchatka and Alaska or Washington, there are nothing but water.

.

https://theaviationist.com/2013/11/06/kfir-tu-160/

[Targeting Pod Footage] Colombian Kfir fighter jets intercept Russian Tu-160 strategic bombers

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

I guess Tu-160 and Su-34 bombers armed with Brahmos II 600 km range hypersonic anti ship missiles could be a big threat to US navy in the Caribbean. S-400 and Pantsir S2 for air defense. A-100 for aerial warning. This base is a headache for Texas military command.

 

[Han Patriot]

The difference between the two is Russia have only 2 squadrons of Tu-160 (about 14 Tu-160) On the other hand, US have about 110 B-1 and 22 B-2 plus some 70-100 B-52.

The role for Strategic Bomber such as Tu-160 is to saturate target, which mean you need concentration of your bomber to do your job, and if you split up 2 squadron of Tu-160, you have diluted 50% of strength, and even if you put Bear which have no where near the range and stealth Tu-160 offer, you are still looking at 4 to 5 squadron, not enough for another front.

You only split your strategic asset when you have enough to pass around, if not, they will become your strategic liability, but with some 14 bombers, you probably better off basing them in one location, and in this case, Kamchatka is a more suitable location to base them. Because you don't fly into other country and you can strike US directly.

It's actually not wrong to split the assets, these are not your fighters doing dogfights. In the 80s, the US were bragging having nuclear weapons to destroy the world 3x over. The Russians answered you only need to destroy the world once. You get what I mean? Having 2 squadron of nuclear bombers is more than enough to deter America, and splitting them makes no difference. One in the south and one in the north, both with nukes enough to destroy a few cities. Splitting them actually make more strategic sense, you don't lose all assets at once if shit happens. Still got some left to blow up Texas.

The bulk of Russian deterrence is land based and some sub based. In a real war, having 10 squadrons of nuke bombers and 2 makes no difference, we are all gonna be dead.

 

[jhungary]

It's actually not wrong to split the assets, these are not your fighters doing dogfights. In the 80s, the US were bragging having nuclear weapons to destroy the world 3x over. The Russians answered you only need to destroy the world once. You get what I mean? Having 2 squadron of nuclear bombers is more than enough to deter America, and splitting them makes no difference. One in the south and one in the north, both with nukes enough to destroy a few cities. Splitting them actually make more strategic sense, you don't lose all assets at once if shit happens. Still got some left to blow up Texas.

The bulk of Russian deterrence is land based and some sub based. In a real war, having 10 squadrons of nuke bombers and 2 makes no difference, we are all gonna be dead.

As I said, in a strategic sense, I would not classified 2 squadrons of Tu-160 bomber itself is enough to deter the US, because if you go nuclear, the bulk of the Nuke are coming from static Missile silo inside Russia, which is enough to destroy US 10 times over, so 2 more squadron of Tactical Nuclear Missile on top of that is not going to work because you are just firing on ruin.

On the other hand, if Russia wanted to use the Tu-160 bomber as tactical first strike weapon, then you would still be stretching out thin, bear in mind Tu-160 is not exactly stealth like B-2, they are LO but not totally stealth like B-1, they can still be detected and intercepted. Which mean Russia would still need to escort those bomber to their target, which divert their aerial asset to do so, on the other hand, 2 squad of 6 bombers would not be as effective, which at most you can attack a dozen of target with nuke) and would be prone to be able to intercept.

To use them in a conventional sense, it will be like using it as tactical nuclear option.

And finally, the proximate of the base toward US would mean they are going to be targeted by US Air Strike or even a full blown US invasion, and Russia cannot defend these base as deeply as you can in Kamchatka, because the base is 5000 mile away from Russia and to supply these base, Russia can only do it around the world but not across the pacific, because that is US territories. And a Base is only good if you can defend them in any mean. That close to US would mean they will be targeted first in case of a war, if this is the case (Which is highly probable) Russia will lose half of their strategic asset in the first couple of days of the war.

 

[Trango Towers]

Why?

There are no strategic point to do so, when Russian bomber flew from Russian mainland can reach US faster than Russian bomber in Venezuela. What Russia do is only diluting the force, which is not something you want to see in Strategic bombing campaign, which by definition, depending on the concentration of the bombing group.

You do know one tip of Russia is facing one tip of US, right? That is why US have been intercepting Russian bomber since 1950 because US and Russia is actually facing each other.

And you know better than the Russian high command. Sometime I read total bullshit on the net

 

[jhungary]

And you know better than the rusdian high command. Sometime is read total bullshit on the net

I cannot read your comment. Please reformat your sentence or go back to school and learn how to communicate in English.

 

[Trango Towers]

I cannot read your comment. Please reformat your sentence or go back to school and learn how to communicate in English.

Hahaha..

I think u need a brain. Stop talking bullshit and smoking the good stuff. Maybe just maybe the single cell brain may just function

 

[jhungary]

Hahaha..

I think u need a brain. Stop talking bullshit and smoking the good stuff. Maybe just maybe the single cell brain may just function

So, how an why what I said is BS? Care to explain what I said is BS? In fact, do you even know what I said in term of strategic value?

It's easy to call someone on something, but not at all easy to back up your point, and I yet to see you back up your point and saying my words are BS, that's what dog do, they just bark , so in the end, who's the "single brain cell function"?

LOL

People are so dumb nowadays didn't actually realise they are dumb.

 

[Trango Towers]

So, how an why what I said is BS? Care to explain what I said is BS? In fact, do you even know what I said in term of strategic value?

It's easy to call someone on something, but not at all easy to back up your point, and I yet to see you back up your point and saying my words are BS, that's what dog do, they just bark , so in the end, who's the "single brain cell function"?

LOL

People are so dumb nowadays didn't actually realise they are dumb.

For someone whk doesnt understand my english you really have got butt hurt.

Strategic value....mate you think you know more than the russian military?

As i said stop smoking weed