Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 61

Thread: White Swans on the Island of Freedom

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    US/EU/RU
    Posts
    4,724

    White Swans on the Island of Freedom

    There are some - officially denied - rumors here in Russia about plans to put Tu-160 and Tu-95 onto Cuba. As a response to the Czech/Polish NMD components.

    Wouldn't make terribly much sense. Tu-22M3 would be the better choice, I think.

    But it's an interesting scenario, because the U.S. air defense all along the south-eastern seaboard and the Gulf coast would have to be strengthened. The Eglin Raptors with a real mission?

    In any case it would be a major escalation, putting nuclear capable assets into the Americas.

    Opinions?
    "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Land of the voting dead
    Posts
    502

    Exclamation

    I though the cold war was, like, you know, OVER!?

    I know Russia wants to regain it's tough-kid-on-the-block image, but this is cutting it a little too close, dontcha think?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    632
    Good for them. If USA wants to play tough, then they must accept the consequences.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,847
    Yes yes but cue on the fanboys talking about how one F-22 can take out 57 regiments of Backfires and their cousins. . . or what not. . .

    They might as well put up a Gorgon/Gazelle ABM site up on Cuba, and a few Topol-M launchers . . .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Land of the voting dead
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by dionis View Post
    Yes yes but cue on the fanboys talking about how one F-22 can take out 57 regiments of Backfires and their cousins. . . or what not. . .
    Speaking of which, wouldn't that be interesting if they would end up stationing some Su-35BMs or even some PAK FAs in cuba to support the bombers?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by LoofahBoy View Post
    Speaking of which, wouldn't that be interesting if they would end up stationing some Su-35BMs or even some PAK FAs in cuba to support the bombers?
    They might as well annex Mexico while they are at it . . .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    10,421
    Here is a Russian newspaper Izvestia said on Monday , a new coldwar ?

    Russian Bombers Could Be Deployed to Cuba

    Move Would Be Response to U.S. Missile Defense System, Newspaper Izvestia Says

    MOSCOW, July 21 -- Russian bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons could be deployed to Cuba in response to U.S. plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, a Russian newspaper reported Monday, citing an unnamed senior Russian air force official.

    The report in Izvestia, which could not be confirmed, prompted memories of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when the United States and the Soviet Union came to the brink of nuclear war after Nikita Khrushchev put nuclear missiles on the Caribbean island. The weapons were eventually withdrawn in an apparent Soviet climb-down, but President John F. Kennedy also secretly agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey.

    A spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry declined to comment on the report Monday, but did not deny it. Izvestia is often a forum for strategic leaks by Kremlin and other officials.

    "While they are deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba," Izvestia quoted the source as saying.

    It was unclear if the source was suggesting that Russia would reopen a base in Cuba or merely use an airfield there for stopovers by the bombers, Tu-160s and Tu-95s, which are already capable of reaching the United States from bases in Russia.

    Russian strategic bombers, long mothballed, resumed worldwide patrols last year under orders from then-President Vladimir Putin. The flights have continued under his successor, Dmitry Medvedev.

    Aircraft from the NATO alliance have repeatedly scrambled as the bombers approached but did not enter the airspace of alliance countries. The Russian bombers also buzzed low over the USS Nimitz, an American aircraft carrier, in the Pacific Ocean this year.

    Some Russian experts dismissed the possibility of a new Cuban crisis. "It's very silly psychological warfare," said Alexander Golts, an independent military analyst, in a telephone interview. "Putin and Medvedev are very militant in words but very cautious in practical issues. They have not taken any step that can be seen as a real threat to the West, and I cannot see any reason to raise this threat against the U.S."

    But "if it's true, it looks like a repetition of the Caribbean crisis" he said, using the common Russian term for the Cuban missile crisis.

    Cuba was a client state of Moscow's for decades during the Soviet era. However, those ties have largely ended since the early 1990s. Russia closed its last base on the island, a radar facility, in 2002, and it is unclear whether the Cuban government would grant landing rights to Russian bombers.

    The United States says it wants to deploy tracking radar in the Czech Republic and 10 missile interceptors in Poland as a defensive measure against missiles that might be fired from countries such as Iran. U.S. officials insist that the system presents no threat to Russia, which, they say, could easily overwhelm it by launching multiple missiles at the same time.

    But Russia views it as a means to peer into Russian airspace. Officials here argue it could be easily expanded to undermine their country's strategic defenses and that Iran is many years away from developing missiles that could reach the United States or its allies in Western Europe.

    Putin has in the past invoked the Cuban missile crisis to register opposition to the missile defense project, saying it could touch off brinksmanship as dangerous as in 1962.

    Putin also said last year that Russia could target the sites in Poland and the Czech Republic with missiles and deploy missiles in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave that borders Poland, if the United States pushes ahead with its plans.

    Medvedev has also registered opposition. And this month, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that "we will be forced to react not with diplomatic but with military-technical methods."

    The United States has reached agreement with the Czech Republic, but negotiations with Poland have proved difficult, continuing in Warsaw on Monday. The Polish government wants the United States to upgrade its air defenses in return for the use of its soil for the missile defense system.

    "The two sides have said they are drawing closer," said Piotr Paszkowski, a spokesman for the Polish Foreign Ministry, after Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski held talks with U.S. Assistant Undersecretary of State Dan Fried on Monday.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072102478.html

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    107
    I seriously doubt that the Medvedev Governement would be short sighted enough to place nuclear assets on Cuba. Even if they managed to get clearance from the Cubans to open another base there (which they likely couldnt), and managed to get the bombers and requisite supplies to cuba without the US or anyone else noticing (unlikely considering the diparity in the opposing atlantic navies), and managed to initiate a successful combat mission, there is still no way the Sov.. i mean Russians could sustain combat operations in a base seperated by a few thousand miles of NATO controlled ocean. So all this really is a bit of psycological warfare aimed at putting increased pressure on NATO, and in fact the US to quit it's advance further east, which by the way it promised not to do at the end of the Cold War.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    98
    These are nuclear bombers, they only get to do a single mission in case of a global war. Most probably one-way (one way ticket, one way ticket...). No one talks about a second or third mission against the US.

    As I look at the map, wouldn't it be more efficient to get a regiment of Su-27's and one of Su-34/24 out there?
    It's not worth doing something unless you were doing something that someone, somewere, would much rather you weren't doing.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    US/EU/RU
    Posts
    4,724
    The link below is to a Reuters article from back in 1999 about flying Tu-160s to Cuba.
    Vladimir Putin also was (brand new) Prime Minister back then. Déjà vu ...

    http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y99/nov99/12e4.htm
    "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Posts
    4,502
    You know, if you listen carefully, I think that you could still hear them partying in the Pentagon at this news.

    Lets face it any airfield in Cuba operating nuclear capable Russian bombers is going to be saturation TLAM'd and CALCM'd to death very early in any strategic escalation so the actual threat presented by a couple of squadrons of Russian bombers exposed on Cuba is minimal. The shock value of letting the populace know that winged death is sat just across the water waiting to be unleashed is going to authorise many, many more Raptors!.

    You sure this is a genuine Russian news piece?
    Last edited by Jonesy; 22nd July 2008 at 11:17.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    3,694

    Question

    officially denied

    in Distiller's 1st post...
    Important Hyper Note: I am NOT an Aeronautical Engineer NOR an Aerospace Expert, etc, etc nor do I claim to be one.
    Regards,
    Hyper McStupid

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesy View Post
    You know, if you listen carefully, I think that you could still hear them partying in the Pentagon at this news.

    Lets face it any airfield in Cuba operating nuclear capable Russian bombers is going to be saturation TLAM'd and CALCM'd to death very early in any strategic escalation so the actual threat presented by a couple of squadrons of Russian bombers exposed on Cuba is minimal. The shock value of letting the populace know that winged death is sat just across the water waiting to be unleashed is going to authorise many, many more Raptors!.

    You sure this is a genuine Russian news piece?
    Right, and TLAMs and CALCMs are invisible, and can't be shot down right?

    Also, these bombers can't fly patrols right?

    It could prove quite effective, though this is almost certainly not going to happen.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    6,123
    Depends on how mant TLAMS you fire ...

    And, if the rissians wanteded to get cute, they'd just need to base some good, long ranged sams there. Now that would be a threat.
    Regards,

    Frank

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,364
    This is more than a little unwise - all Russia is doing is making it's neighbours more and more worried about its intentions. The fact that NATO has expanded Eastwards is due to the fact that those nations actually chose to join NATO. Why on Earth should countries like Poland, Czech Rep, Romania (etc...) be stopped from joining NATO, just because Russia doesn't want them to. Nobody with even the slightest degree of sanity honestly believes that NATO wants to attack Russia, or represents any real threat to Russia militarily.

    The more Russia tries to escalate things, the worse things will get - the US will have more reason to improve its ABM and air defences. Heck, the USAF would absolutely love for a squadron of Tupolevs to be based in Cuba; it would be a great reason for them to get a few hundred more Raptors, and more JSFs, and even a renewed AWACS fleet! All in all, the idea of putting Tupolevs on Cuba to scare the US is just about the worst idea possible.

    Are we sure that this isn't just a USAF planted story? :diablo:

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Nr Leeds
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyperwarp View Post
    officially denied

    in Distiller's 1st post...
    Of course they're going to try and deny it for now.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,847
    The USAF isn't going to get anything while their fleet of F-15s and F-16s is still around. . .

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,089
    I guess those guys have a consulting contract with LM

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Burpelson AFB
    Posts
    13,191
    Quote Originally Posted by dionis
    Yes yes but cue on the fanboys talking about how one F-22 can take out 57 regiments of Backfires and their cousins. . . or what not. . .
    It's not like BACKFIREs aren't large radar targets or anything...

    Quote Originally Posted by dionis
    They might as well put up a Gorgon/Gazelle ABM site up on Cuba, and a few Topol-M launchers . . .
    Both of those are absurdly stupid ideas. No ICBM is going to be anywhere near close enough to Cuba to be shot down by a GAZELLE site (GORGON is no longer operational). Topol-M? To do what, fire at Hawaii? Topol-M TELs are large, identifiable vehicles that won't be that hard to locate. A better idea would be low-altitude, high-speed cruise missiles (Meteorit derivative, maybe), or an IRBM. Smaller package, more survivable, harder to locate.

    Quote Originally Posted by dionis
    Right, and TLAMs and CALCMs are invisible, and can't be shot down right?
    If they really did want to make a statement they'd just put two S-400 batteries in Cuba, one at each end of the island. The portion of the airspace they'd effectively be able to close down would be huge.

    Quote Originally Posted by dionis
    The USAF isn't going to get anything while their fleet of F-15s and F-16s is still around. . .
    Except for the F-22s being currently procured...and the F-35...and a new bomber around 2018...and more C-17s...
    Sean O'Connor

    Sean's Blog, now with forum
    ACIG.org Team
    Airliners.net

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderbolt_II View Post
    I seriously doubt that the Medvedev Governement would be short sighted enough to place nuclear assets on Cuba. Even if they managed to get clearance from the Cubans to open another base there (which they likely couldnt), and managed to get the bombers and requisite supplies to cuba without the US or anyone else noticing (unlikely considering the diparity in the opposing atlantic navies), and managed to initiate a successful combat mission, there is still no way the Sov.. i mean Russians could sustain combat operations in a base seperated by a few thousand miles of NATO controlled ocean. So all this really is a bit of psycological warfare aimed at putting increased pressure on NATO, and in fact the US to quit it's advance further east, which by the way it promised not to do at the end of the Cold War.
    I wont be surprizedd that a bomber base with S-400/MIG-31 protection with under ground bases is opened some where in latin America. they have just huge amount of money and interests. with alot of food to sell to third world in coming years.
    And thise will go to North Africa, Vietnam and with new deals with House of Saud. i expect even Saudi arabia proteciton from its own people and outside. But when all these bases are open i dont expect natural resources price to go down.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080722/.../russia_chavez
    Chavez says Venezuela needs Russia for protection
    Lukoil is already helping Venezuela quantify heavy crude oil deposits in its Orinoco River basin — one of the world's largest petroleum deposits. Russia's Gazprom has two natural gas exploration and production licenses in Venezuela.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by SOC View Post
    It's not like BACKFIREs aren't large radar targets or anything...



    Both of those are absurdly stupid ideas. No ICBM is going to be anywhere near close enough to Cuba to be shot down by a GAZELLE site (GORGON is no longer operational). Topol-M? To do what, fire at Hawaii? Topol-M TELs are large, identifiable vehicles that won't be that hard to locate. A better idea would be low-altitude, high-speed cruise missiles (Meteorit derivative, maybe), or an IRBM. Smaller package, more survivable, harder to locate.



    If they really did want to make a statement they'd just put two S-400 batteries in Cuba, one at each end of the island. The portion of the airspace they'd effectively be able to close down would be huge.



    Except for the F-22s being currently procured...and the F-35...and a new bomber around 2018...and more C-17s...
    Yeah, and 10 Bombers means a hundred more F-22s. Are you thinking about this?

    Considering the SS-20 is out of service, the SS-27 makes the most sense. . . Since it's designed to avoid ABM defenses. . . which is kind of what this whole debacle is about . . .

    Unless they want to shoot Florida with the Iskander . . . if it even reaches those last few kilometers. . . You are taking this stupid thread too seriously :P
    Last edited by dionis; 22nd July 2008 at 13:34.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Burpelson AFB
    Posts
    13,191
    Quote Originally Posted by dionis
    Yeah, and 10 Bombers means a hundred more F-22s. Are you unreal or what?
    Where did I say they were getting any more than those already planned?
    Sean O'Connor

    Sean's Blog, now with forum
    ACIG.org Team
    Airliners.net

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by SOC View Post
    Where did I say they were getting any more than those already planned?
    Your response was to a response by me regarding people fantasizing about getting hundreds more Raptors, so I responded with the original idea / response in mind. If you catch my flow

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    There are some - officially denied - rumors here in Russia about plans to put Tu-160 and Tu-95 onto Cuba. As a response to the Czech/Polish NMD components.

    Wouldn't make terribly much sense. Tu-22M3 would be the better choice, I think.

    But it's an interesting scenario, because the U.S. air defense all along the south-eastern seaboard and the Gulf coast would have to be strengthened. The Eglin Raptors with a real mission?

    In any case it would be a major escalation, putting nuclear capable assets into the Americas.

    Opinions?
    That is a conspiracy by neocons that want to have more F-22's ordered.
    Any other explanation wouldn't make sense at all.

    To form a real threat to the USA the Russians have to come up with more than terribly outdated Tu-22M and the few Tu-160. The Cuban airspace is a door wide open for the USAF anyways. They can go there any time and anywhere without having to fear too much trouble.
    Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,843
    In hope for an educated discussion about Russian military hardwares and the complete unemotional assessment of their capabilities in face of newest American defense assets, I placed a "star49" tag to this thread. Let's see if the thread justifies it.
    Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    6,006
    Quote Originally Posted by dionis View Post
    Yeah, and 10 Bombers means a hundred more F-22s. Are you thinking about this?

    Considering the SS-20 is out of service, the SS-27 makes the most sense. . . Since it's designed to avoid ABM defenses. . . which is kind of what this whole debacle is about . . .

    Unless they want to shoot Florida with the Iskander . . . if it even reaches those last few kilometers. . . You are taking this stupid thread too seriously :P
    If you followed developments in the politics, procurement and strategy of Russian military affairs (which you clearly do not) you would be well aware that there have been several threats to withdraw from the INF treaty and accompanying statements about howeasy it would be for Russia to make new IRBM's and GLCM's all of which would be far more appropriate for deployment to Cuba. While I would be amazed if the idea has not been muted in Russian Government and defence circles I would be equally amazed if they were dumb enough to try it. Look what happened last time and the issue is now such an ego fuelling historical precident that there is almost no way that a US president could back down and let it happen. If the Russians really want to be annoying they should just plant some conventional forces in Venezuela or Cuba, a few SAM systems or fighters (we are defending are allie blah blah) but I would be surprised if even that happens. Cuba is potentially to fragile and why let Chavez have stuff for free when he has the oil dollars and ego to pay for it?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by sealordlawrence View Post
    If you followed developments in the politics, procurement and strategy of Russian military affairs (which you clearly do not) you would be well aware that there have been several threats to withdraw from the INF treaty and accompanying statements about howeasy it would be for Russia to make new IRBM's and GLCM's all of which would be far more appropriate for deployment to Cuba. While I would be amazed if the idea has not been muted in Russian Government and defence circles I would be equally amazed if they were dumb enough to try it. Look what happened last time and the issue is now such an ego fuelling historical precident that there is almost no way that a US president could back down and let it happen. If the Russians really want to be annoying they should just plant some conventional forces in Venezuela or Cuba, a few SAM systems or fighters (we are defending are allie blah blah) but I would be surprised if even that happens. Cuba is potentially to fragile and why let Chavez have stuff for free when he has the oil dollars and ego to pay for it?
    Here lets get this straight in about 1/4 the text.

    Is it easier to make more of what you are producing now (SS-27) or develop and produce something you can't even use at the moment (SS-X-IRBM-whatever) ?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Schorsch View Post
    That is a conspiracy by neocons that want to have more F-22's ordered.
    Any other explanation wouldn't make sense at all.

    To form a real threat to the USA the Russians have to come up with more than terribly outdated Tu-22M and the few Tu-160. The Cuban airspace is a door wide open for the USAF anyways. They can go there any time and anywhere without having to fear too much trouble.
    Is the Tu-22M3 required to turn into a flying saucer to impress here?

    Because to me, a supersonic bomber that can fly very fast or very low, armed with 500KM range nuclear weapons is pretty damn deadly, especially if it can remain on station for a long time till it's replaced by another, etc.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    6,006
    Quote Originally Posted by dionis View Post
    Here lets get this straight in about 1/4 the text.

    Is it easier to make more of what you are producing now (SS-27) or develop and produce something you can't even use at the moment (SS-X-IRBM-whatever) ?
    If you have the production and design capacity for both there is not much in it and a unilateral withdrawal from the INF would hardly be challenging and could take effect instantaneously. Furthermore both the Bulava and RS-24 programs show that Russia is not affraid to embark upon fresh development. I am sure that a ground launched Kh-101/102/555 would not be a difficult exercise for Russian industry.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by sealordlawrence View Post
    If you have the production and design capacity for both there is not much in it and a unilateral withdrawal from the INF would hardly be challenging and could take effect instantaneously. Furthermore both the Bulava and RS-24 programs show that Russia is not affraid to embark upon fresh development. I am sure that a ground launched Kh-101/102/555 would not be a difficult exercise for Russian industry.
    Yes, however, the SS-27 packs a much bigger punch, and is much harder to intercept.

    The SS-27 is also fairly portable, which means a lot.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES