Strategic advantage of tapping into your few domestic airliners to continue the cruise missile spam?

Look, it's funny to ponder that somebody in the Russian version of DARPA actually proposed the idea, but it's not going to fucking happen.

>>63796078 (OP)
>a plane is a plane
>it does the job
>we didn't lose it in combat
>AI image
>we didn't need this one anyway
>shooting down a civilian plane is terrorism!

>>63796078 (OP)
>strategic advantage
this is decucking program aimed at buk operators

>>63796078 (OP)
I thought that when that old useless outdated trash was destroyed ( wasn't even used at all btw)))) ) putin would build the newest bombers??? did the shills lie to me??

>>63796078 (OP)
It's now a crime against humanity and an assault on civil society every time they shoot one of them down.

>>63796142
In russian language there is no separate words for "building" and "retrofitting". That's why there is confusion when russia claims to be building hundreds of tanks monthly.
Same applies here.

Unironically a 10/10 idea and one the US has proposed before.

>>63796078 (OP)
>must terror bomb!
Imagine if they used these on the frontline.

>>63796157
If it's such a great idea why didn't they do it earlier?

>>63796078 (OP)
It does make all those types of planes a potentially valid military target, well apart from the Russian AA operator cucks

Is it really that different from making a civilian version of your strategic bomber?

>>63796156
you can copy paste this into any online translator to see that it's false

>army starts running low on tanks
>uses civilian vehicles and scooters
>air force starts running low on strat bombers
>uses civilian passenger jets
Calling it now, to replace losses in the BSF, russia will start sailing their oligarch yachts into the Black Sea through the Bosphorus (since under the Montreaux convention they can't sail any warship that doesn't have an original home port in the Black Sea, but civilian vessels don't have this restriction), to be converted into wacky smelkalka patrol boats.

>use civilian aircraft
>Ukraine hits it
>Russia cries war crime
It's all planned.

>>63796179
Didnt they (EU) confiscate some of them?

>>63796170
In Russian there is no word for false

>fly civilian aircraft
>own AA takes it down

>>63796190
Kek

>>63796078 (OP)
I was told the Ukrainians only hit four strategic bombers and they were all just decommissioned for spare parts anyways and it had no effect on the BBC PUCCI.

>>63796161
Because they weren't looking for replacements? Modern airliners are perfect intercontinental birds to turn into missile carriers via pylons and rotary launchers. In fact, unless you're looking to make a stealth bomber, I'd always choose an airliner for this role.

>>63796194
>Modern airliners are perfect intercontinental birds to turn into missile carriers via pylons and rotary launchers.
Yeah, if you want to turn your civilian airliners into legitimate military targets, I guess they are.

>>63796078 (OP)
could be effective against Ukrainian twin towers

>>63796197
Anon, you paint and mark them in military livery.

What do you think>>63796181
is?

Getting MIC to make a new subsonic non-stealth intercontinental bomber is how you end up with something that costs far more, and likely won't be as reliable.

>>63796078 (OP)
They've done this before and taken it quite a long way, pic related. Even exported them.

>>63796201
>Anon, you paint and mark them in military livery.
Nigger a fucking Patriot can't tell what livery its targets have on them, if Russia starts using airliners to launch missiles then anything that looks like an airliner and doesn't have a non-Russian transponder going is gonna get shot down.

>>63796156
It's not language it's brain. Russians rebuild and repair cars, but it's same thing. Only you get drunk and tell the boys, "I rebuilt it by hand, you cannot get part." so you look hot shit. So while it's in the language, they don't say it differently in meaning. 1984-ism.

>>63796179
You can't transit that strait as a civilian with so much as a pistol. Positing that the patrols come bother you.

>>63796189
>In Russian there is no word for false
No need, they have a whole language for that.

>>63796207
>Nigger a fucking Patriot can't tell what livery its targets have on them
I guess they have to start shooting down every russian airliner, just to make sure

>>63796179
I demand jetski meatwaves

>>63796179
>oil tanker ramming attacks

>>63796236

>>63796220
It's really sad, but it has do be done.

>>63796078 (OP)
This is what winning looks like.

Russia is just a series of failures that are papered up until the lies can't hold up anymore and the entire system collapses. Look at Syria. Up until the actual surrender the government said everything is fine, and that Assad was scheduled to make a public statement on national tv. Everyone below him waited for Assad but there was no Assad as he had already fled to Moscow and the speech was just a cover. The entire army and government supporters said nothing was wrong, despite things getting worse and worse.

That's a microcosm for Russia for 125 years. Twice the lies couldn't paper over the collapse of their government.

>>63796194
Oh, right. Just like Chinese golf cars turned out to be a perfect replacement for apvs.

>>63796234
>>63796239
The last great block buster. It's all CGI and green screen now.

Can somebody explain, did Ukrainian attack actually cause so much damage to their aviation?
Ok, let's say Ukraine did destroy 1/3rd of the bombers. And yes I understand rotation for maintenance. But they still have bombers, they just can't take as many risks anymore(i don't think the could before either if they're that sensitive)?

>>63796194
What the fuck

>>63796319
If you lose 1/3rd you have 2/3rds left. So you can still attack that much.

some aircraft can fly for over a day and the crew swaps during refueling. But that requires good maintenance between these marathons

>>63796078 (OP)
>turn your entire aviation travel industry into a valid target
I can't wait for the the seethe when Moscows airport is burnt to the ground.

>>63796319
1/3 of total number. 1/3 or more was already non-functional and the last third needed maintenance.

>>63796242
The Jew coup of the Ryazan sugar delegitimized Russian government, this is just to defend English speakers in Russia.

>>63796207
>Nigger a fucking Patriot can't tell what livery its targets have on them
so you just add some bit of frame that way the radar signature is different, or you can impletement an IFF transmitter so all stations in a warzone can identify the civilian airliner as a no shoot target

>>63796514
kek that kerch bridge bomber was a russian used in the exact same way ukies used russians to deliver the spiderweb drones. god russians are completely retarded lmao.

>>63796194
Not quite so simple, the center of gravity is often balanced on a knife edge in pursuit of efficiency since their cargo isn't expected to suddenly detach like a on a C-130 or purpose-built bomber. A 737 firefighting conversion maxes out at only 40-50% of MTOW and that's with the advantage of being able to pump said liquid around mid-drop to compensate. For solid stores the P8A is limited to just 5x1000lb internal + 4x2500lb external, 25-30% of the conventional civilian pax+cargo load. Contrast that to a similarly-sized B-47 or Tu-22 at 25k bombload, or a superior B-52/B-1B at 1.4x larger and 6x greater payload. Sure the airframes benefit from economy of scale, but now you need -at least- 3 times as many flight crews and maintainers, with extra training and security clearance over civilian crews.

>>63796207
IFF is a thing, even if the Vincennes crew would like you to believe otherwise

>>63796194
>a plane designed around carrying passengers and luggage is the perfect thing to strap a shitload of missiles to the outside of
>Because heavy bombers and civilian airliners are designed and built exactly the same in terms of structural support
I can't wait to see a fleet of aging passenger planes have the wings rip off randomly over populated areas because they've nigger rigged a bunch of hard points to them.
>>63796201
Lol. Lmao even. Russia not commit perfidy? I've a better chance of fucking a princess than that happening.

>>63796194
>Oxcart

>>63796541
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/63796536/#63796536
Why do you spam off-topic threads? Why do you expect people to take you seriously while doing shit like this?

>>63796163
>It does make all those types of planes a potentially valid military target
Yeah this could get weird

>>63796295
If Russia did end up getting balkanized, how many countries do you think it would turn into? Idk jack shit about Russian ethnic composition or historical borders, but I'd wanna know what it would look like considering the longer this war goes on, the more likely it might be to happen.

LMAO EVEN
At least airliners are better (except for conventional bombing and drag) than 1950s bombers, not the same as ladas.
BTW they need those airliners if they don't want to revert back to 1-week long travels...

>>63796707
i know china has ideological objections to claiming foreign territory but i still think they would claim huge chunks of siberia

>>63796319
1/3 of long range bombers were damaged or destroyed. These are frames from the 60s and cannot be replaced thus once they're gone they're gone. They still have a lot of fighter-bombers which they make new ones at a slow steady rate.

>>63796722
Unlike the B-52 they're building new Tu-95 and 22M3 until the early 90s. Still EOL and irreplaceable.

>>63796514
>Ignore the shills, ukraine always used civilian disguise. They also hid in schools and hospitals and even the foreign volunteers saw no problem with it. Hell they even trained a suicide bomber and sent him to his death on the kerch bridge

I don't know if you're having a lark or not. The silly international organizations started to criticize Ukrainian forces for using civillian sites, but this was in response to an INVASION. The people were removed. An empty school just becomes a place to fight from in pitched battles. To follow their mandates would be to fight mostly in the open, without cover, and to only use a select few buildings as cover. They were roundly criticized for this, and a lot of idiot peaceniks have lost influence for their retardation over the Ukraine invasion.

>Hell they even trained a suicide bomber and sent him to his death on the kerch bridge

SBU+GUR have been using the tactics of recruiting Russians within Russia and having them carry out the attacks. So this was just some poor sap they told to deliver a truck of cargo to Crimea. Boom.

They do this all the time, often telling them to setup bombs they mail to them. The Ukrainians do not care for their dupes, and they allow them to be captured or set off the bombs right then and there killing their Russian assets.

>>63796467
USS Vincennes wants to know your location.

>>63796207
Anon, a radar won't be able to tell the difference between a Tu-95 or a generic airliner. To discern the difference in a military setting, you rely on EW to see what they're emitting. If they aren't emitting, you call them up via radio and check civilian traffic in the area.
>>63796525
There's always trade-offs, but you'd want a bigger bird than a 737 for an intercontinental bomber. You'd want to be able to deploy at least 6 3,000 pound+ munitions in this role.

I doubt they would forgo the passengers either. Just take a slight detour during a flight, lob some missiles, and if/when one of these planes gets shot down then they get to cry about war crimes.

>>63796785
> radar won't be able to tell the difference between a Tu-95 or a generic airliner.
Any decent post-1970 military radar (with computers) should be able to ID the size and type of aircraft, especially if it's a counter-rotating propeller vs turbofan. Micro-doppler and sub-pulse analysis are common and in a similar way to sonars the radar can store common vehicles and their characteristic echo.

>>63796179
it's a funny thought but private boats arent worth shit on proper sea in handling nor bulkheads or other safety measures. especailly shit like fire stations, a proper muster station for proper evacuation procedures and also life boats rebundancy.

>>63796849
as if Ladas and bukhankas would actually work as a proper replacement for a frontline IFV

>>63796721
>China
>objections to claiming foreign territory
Lol, lmao. If russia collapses you can bet all of Manchuria is going back under the PRC, and as much of Siberia as they can gobble up. For "stability" reasons of course.

>>63796179
>Assuming the Oligarchs will allow that to happen
Nope, the peasants will die in rowboats with rusty mosins before any of those yachts get so much as a scratch on them.

>>63796721
China opposes this only because they presently can’t, not because they don’t want to.
It’s a face-culture fig leaf at most, like how they claim their military spending is purely defensive.

>>63796785
Sure, but a 737/A320 is far and away the most typical airliner when such conversions are considered. It's also the only modern case where the cost-benefit ratio actually worked in favor of a dedicated (rather than expedient) conversion (P-8A) since raw payload was of tertiary concern to maritime patrol tasks; Phase 1 of the MMA-improved program that gave us the P-8 also evaluated a commercial 757 or KC767 derivative. That gives hard numbers to compare, to demonstrate how much of a payload hit physics demands you take when carrying munitions in a design for people. The widebody conversion is attractive in concept, but there's roughly 7 times more 737s in service than the most common widebody type, the 777; the margin of scale shrinks faster than the payload grows.
All that said, Russia might go the Tu-154/Tu-204 (727/757 equivalent) route but there's less than 100 airworthy examples of each. Open question whether they decide to smelkalka those or their stolen 737s first.

>>63796216
Which is why anon said they'd be converted AFTER transiting, dummy

I, for one, think this is an incredibly good idea.
This way, when one inevitably crashes because lolRussianairliner, it only takes a handful of military crew with it. Which is a much better result than a couple hundred mostly innocent civilians dying because the Aeroflot pilots decided to masturbate while on final approach or something similarly stupid.

>>63796078 (OP)
Short term military benefit (If you can call wasting your cruise missiles on civilian targets a gain) and long term economic damage.
Just normal Russian things.

>>63796078 (OP)
Giving the Ukrainians carte blanche to paint an airliner in Aeroflot livery, pack it with explosives, and 9/11 it into the Kremlin.

I thought this was all proven that commercial planes designed for a spread load are not capable of holding and firing heavy missiles

>>63796078 (OP)
can pidorstan even produce Tu-214 kek
their last civilian jet was like 70% western parts

>>63796707
Everything East of the Urals was independent tribes and kingdoms before the Tsars then the Reds conquered them.

Knowing Puccia they're going to stuff Ukrainian POWs inside so that even if it gets shot down they can say that Ukraine killed their own people

With dedicated bombers they can't pull that off

>>63796179
>sailing their oligarch yachts
Most of them were confiscated already.
I'm sure there are some that managed to avoid it, but most were apprehended.

>>63796722
last new tu-95 was delivered in 1994 anon

>>63796078 (OP)
>strap missiles to some of your airliners
>fly them on active domestic flightpaths near the front
???
>evil HATO banderite axis shooting down civilian airliners

>>63796157
The US actually does it

>>63796078 (OP)
That's sad. Saddam's Iraq levels of sad.

I swear to God if the Russians deliberately MH17 one of their own passenger airliners to get back at the Ukrainians...

>>63796078 (OP)
Tu-204/214 is built in artisanal numbers. Like 3 per year on average. Total production is less than hundred. Also it is last airliner with 3 man cockpit crew, roster of roosters includes flight engineer. When war interrupted deliveries western jets to Russian airliners, Russian government suggested producing 70 new Tu-214 until 2030... but even Aeroflot said nope as it hopelessly obsolete plane from Soviet era and they wanted MS-21, that is stuck in development hell due lack of sanctioned western components and Russian domestic replacements being delayed.

>>63797651
No, it doesn't. P-8 Poseidon is maritime patrol aircraft, not a strategic bomber. Its armament payload capacity is kinda modest when compared to bombers. US considered converting 747's into cruise missile trucks late 70's and early 80's and abandoned the idea. When it comes to P-8, its predecessor P-3 Orion was also modified airliner.

>>63796078 (OP)
SET RETARD DIAL TO 11 WE ARE GOING FLL SPASTIC HOIST THE POTATO AND WHIP THE DONKEY LAUNCH THE MEATWAVE AND SPLICE THE STALIN

NEXT
FAMINE

>>63796078 (OP)
Well you can spam cruise missiles

>>63797677
>russia combines missile spam and commercial airlining activity
Comrade, is of saving valuable airfuel. Much brilliant, you of be awarded Hero of Labour of the Russian Federation medal for this.

>>63796785
>a radar won't be able to tell the difference between a Tu-95 or a generic airliner
4 supersonic contra-rotating props has to give it an incredibly distinct radar signature, not to mention the radar operators would probably be able to hear it before they even get a return.

>>63797879
>No, it doesn't. P-8 Poseidon is maritime patrol aircraft, not a strategic bomber.
you dont need a strategic bomber to launch stand off munitions, though the range of the KH-22 is cutting it close. The US has Rapid Dragon after all, and its not like that is a high tech capability to toss cruise missiles out the door and launch them.

>>63796078 (OP)
uhh..based?

>>63796194
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-204
Could these theoretically replace the planes the Russians have lost even if they're inefficient at missile carrying?
Does this mean all Russian commercial aviation is now viable targets?

Where would they even fit them? Under the wing inside the engine attachment points maybe? Or is this just some oligarch chasing contracts?
They're pretty basic tube design, so bottom drop through the hull from internal is out, without substantial refit. Or would they cut a hole out of the rear and chuck them out by hand?
Their few radar variants have attachment points under the centerline of the hull? Maybe those?

>>63798111
Forgot image

>>63796861
It wouldn't surprise me if China made a play for all of Russia's Pacific coastline.

>>63798111
generally speaking the point under the wings i.e the center bottom of the plane is terribly load bearing, i.e don't put a hole there.

>>63796849
>private boats arent worth shit on proper sea in handling nor bulkheads or other safety measures. especailly shit like fire stations, a proper muster station for proper evacuation procedures and also life boats rebundancy.
So no different than the average Russian warship then.

>>63797953
see >>63796525. It's not a matter of being high tech, there are significant but important design differences in a civilian vs military aircraft, even if both are in the "transport" role and seem roughly similar from the outside. How they are structured, how they make tradeoffs with regards to efficiency and fuel consumption vs redundancy and load flexibility/dynamic capability isn't "high tech" but it's still critical. No different then ships, a modern naval vessel is quite different in internal design and how well it can take a hit.

With both navy and airforce you can definitely do ghetto civie conversions in a pinch and get some amount of utility out of it. But it's not going to be at all directly comparable capability or cadence, and big planes or big ships don't go on trees on the civilian side either. If you have to press 4x the numbers into service (putting aside them being far more vulnerable) that's another big economic hit, and then as you start to inevitably lose them you're effectively going even deeper into war debt, you're losing direct productive economic capacity for when the war is over.

If you're fighting an existential war of defense and/or a desperate bridge as you bring a lot more direct military capacity online and just need to buy time, then it can still make sense. Or if you're a turdworld minor power that would get roflstomped in any direct conflict with a major power, but you plan to rationally avoid that at all costs and just want something to flex on rebels or other minors, maybe then too. But neither of these (in theory) apply to Russia.

>>63796078 (OP)

The USAF kept looking at militarized 747 for decades. Flying Missile Arsenal ship included.

>>63798581
>The USAF kept looking at militarized 747 for decades.
Sure, the US military LOOKS at all sorts of stuff. That's rational and intelligent, you don't know the actual answer to things without doing a serious evaluation. And it's also the historical job of the DOD to make plans for even insanely unlikely events, just in case. The US has the budget to afford considering even vantablack swan events.

But what did they decide to actually DO as far as militarized 747s after looking anon? That's what should tell you something.

>>63796141
to be fair russian air defense is actually pretty adept at shooting down civilian airliners

>>63798117
Looks surprisingly modern, is the airframe really Russian?

>>63798642
>Russia nigger rigs cruise missiles to their airliners
>get shot down by their own air defense in pure poetic irony
At this point it would not surprise me.

Honestly for strategic bombers where the only purpose is to lob conventional cruise missiles it doesn't matter even if the original design was a civilian airliner. The bigger question is if they can actually procure and integrate all the necessary electronics and tooling in the current sanctions environment.

>>63798979
>it doesn't matter even if the original design was a civilian airliner
It does though anon. You can't just weld on hard points in a day for missiles of that size and have the aircraft deal with all the differences in stress and weight distribution. It's not a matter of "it's impossible to retrofit a civie airliner to fire a few missiles" it's a matter of the economics of it and how high (or low) a cadence they can maintain. You'd probably need like 4-6x, or more, the raw numbers of aircraft to maintain the same sort of capability, because it's not just that they can't carry as much it's that the airframes and maintenance schedules aren't designed for the stress in that kind of role either which will reduce flight hour availability.

So if you're trying to replace 15 strategic bombers and it takes 60-90 airliners to do it, that's no joke. It's a real degradation, and if Ukraine starts hitting them too now what?

>>63796078 (OP)
I wish Girkin and his boys were still around to shoot it down.

>>63798597
The US would probably retrofit a few 747s if they had 90% of their strategic bomber fleet deleted in an afternoon.

>>63796236
Man, I always hated this level.

>>63796157
we've even put an ICBM on a civilian airliner

>>63796721
>i know china has ideological objections to claiming foreign territory
bruh

Absolutely based idea.
Pic related.
Hercules adapted to function as a naval bomber in 1982. Used to sink a tanker that was sneaking around supplying British forces. Ironically also named Hercules.
Biggest post ww2 tonnage loss in history, btw

>>63797651
The modifications that the airframe received (such as an internal munitions bay) are so extensive that it really isn't the same aircraft.

>>63796170
Da tovarish, vranyo is clearly invention of weak degenerate wectoid jewnazis.

This is absolutely doable, any country with a core competency in aircraft building can do this sort of project. The Russian aviation industry may not be very advanced but it’s still a core competency of Russia, this is something easily accomplished for them. We’re just talking about re-balancing a plane to take external pylons, this has been done in past it’s not terribly difficult.

Considering how batshit and old some of the vatnik mobiles have been, I kind of look forward to seeing what they would do to a plane and how many of the modifications would make them all crash horribly

>>63799327
After extensive modifications due US budget, without any real sanction and in peace conditions, good luck trying to do this against a country who just destroyed a third of your strategic bomber fleet.

>>63799847
Nah, it reads more like a people who are at the end of their rope.

>>63799327
Launching a single ICBM from a repurposed civilian airliner functionally gives you another missile silo, which is also a very good idea.

Speaking of Russian aerospace what’s going on with the Superjet? Do sanctions screw them out of civilian industry parts too?

>>63796707

>>63797879
Tbf really all Russian LRA in utero were MPAs to try and stop REFORGER that's the tactical basis behind all their current operational designs, so it's not that different from an origin, and all their MPA roots are still very evident

>>63797677
You mean
>Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752
Except with Aeroflot or something instead right? They already got pretty close to that with
>Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

>>63796157
Yes, but the US has more than enough airliners.
90% of Russias fleet is struggling to get spare parts.

>>63796319
Yeah it decreases your readiness rate substantially and has a far greater effect on the overall function of the fleet than just 1/3rd.

There's an old saying: "why build one bomber when you can build two for twice the price?" It's a satirical saying but it hints at the truth that there is an economy of scale to military procurement. To an extent at least, the effectiveness of a weapons system increases exponentially as you scale up the number of systems. The same thing happens when you scale it down or lose a bunch at once.

>>63797953
you do, because passenger airliners are built with carrying passengers or light cargo in mind. even a modest increase in MTOW in order to transform a passenger craft into a freighter requires substantial reinforcement of a craft. and that's before taking into account where a missile would go in a passenger craft, again, the passenger craft wasn't planned in order to fit a missile between its landing gears, the wings probably aren't strong enough...

>>63799124
most commercial airframes have at least one hard point for ferrying an extra engine, so they can handle pretty large loads in that hardpoint, but only one
>>63799876
the extensive modifications were for command/control
>>63799901
it's a terrible idea because you can only carry one, it's not going to be very useful operationally

>>63796188
At least one was sunk early on because one of the crew was Ukrainian and he told the rest of the crew to gtfo while he opened some valves. It was in a Spanish port so he told the judge why he'd done it and he was released and allowed to leave to fight in Ukraine

>>63796181
Shills are ignoring this post.

>>63800786
No. Passenger airplanes are designed for both passenger and cargo roles mind. Carrying large missiles on the wings like a P-3 would probably need structural re-enforcing but that’s not as dramatic an operation as you seem to believe. Being able to carry a payload in its belly is something they are able to do by design.

>>63796721
Tell that to the tibetans, you numpty

>>63799957
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIxUJEjIOmE

>>63801158
Yes.
Being able to CARRY a internal payload is by design.
Opening the fuselage in flight to drop said payload very much isn’t.

>>63801495
A simple sheet metal retrofit to reinforce the opening area, transfer structural loads around the now-absent skin and stringer continuity, and install hinge points for doors and actuators. The rest is just installing and wiring existing release mechanisms, and adjusting weight-&-balance and trims to compensate for the previously unanticipated aerodynamic impact of an open bay door, and the mass and position of the payload.

A decent engineering team can draft the mod, and a squad of decent mechanics can perform it in a month. Less with a pre-staged parts kit.

I work in aircraft maintenance. I've seen some pretty crazy mods before. It's all possible if the engineers know what they're doing

>>63801541
Oh, and rerouting electrical harnesses and fluid lines. That will actually account for the bulk of the work

>>63801394
So…..Russia, today, is literally ahead of China in domestic passenger jet technology? Damn that’s grim.

>>63801067
>it's a terrible idea because you can only carry one, it's not going to be very useful operationally
One ICBM can give you 3-10+ warheads on target and functionally destroy a city or multiple large military bases and assorted facilities. All from a simple repurposed civilian airliner.

It probably wouldn't be too hard to get a Tu-214 for sling X-101s.

The X-22/32 is another matter. That's a monster of a missile and would probably need to be belly launched, externally.

>>63801067
What if the engines are ICBM, and pilot aims then releases to glide away?

>>63796707
russian civil war as a blueprint, unlikely beyond a few areas, the most important part of russia is the core around moscow and stPidorsburg, that part can steamroll the rest of it easily. The most that could happen is Chechnya and Dagestan splitting

>>63798503
rotate fuselage sections 180 degrees so it's all on the top then add doors to what used to be the roof

tupolev please give me money

>>63796156
>In russian language there is no separate words for "building" and "retrofitting"
There is. They usually use words like пpoизвeдeны (pro-eez-ve-dee-nee, "manufactured") vs мoдepнeзиpoвaны (mo-der-nee-zee-ro-va-nee, "modernized") or oтpeмoнтиpoвaны (ot-re-mon-tee-ro-va-nee, "repaired") in various situations. One of the main reasons they call deep refurbishing of tanks from storage as "produced", outside of their lying and cope, is because they change the model designation after the tanks leaves the factory after being overhauled. It was a T-72B? It's now T-90. It was T-72A? Now it's T-72B3. It was T-72B3 Obr 2013? Now it's T-72B3 Obr 2016. And so on and so forth.

>That's why there is confusion when russia claims to be building hundreds of tanks monthly.
No, that's just because they straight up lie as an institutional things. Because the soviet principle (and russia is in fact still a soviet-type regime) is that things are first and foremost done for reports, quotas and propaganda, and only the last priority is actual results.

>>63796078 (OP)
It's desperation but it's not stupid, their airlines are dead because everyone is broke as shit as reducing the airliner fleet won't have much effect short to medium term.

>>63796319
Yes, it's a giant loss because not only those planes are routinely used in their attacks against ukies, but also because those planes are pretty much lostech. And the less you have of them the more strain falls into the remaining ones.

>>63798846
That's the most modern thing the soviet-turned-russian civilian avia industry has designed. It's not even that bad, just bad timing, since during the 90s they didn't have money for new stuff, and the local airlines wanted western jets, even if old used ones. And once the state had money to burn again, instead of giving resources to this project they've made the corrupt bullshit projects called Sukhoi SuperJet (an interesting plane on paper, fucked up by giant use of foreign components and design/manufacturing issues) and MC-21 (the plane which permanently slips its shipping date year after year for a decade now).

>>63798162
>The US goes to war with China not over Taiwan, but to save Russia

I can see it.

>>63804629
>we didn't need those airliners

>>63805806
Call it cope all you want but a country where no one can afford to fly really doesn't need airliners.

>>63801541
all the engineers that know what they are doing have fled the country

>>63796319
they destroyed around ~10 going by satellite imagery
it wouldn't be noticeable when it comes to strikes on ukraine
it would be noticeable in a ww3 situation, since that's less bombers prosecuting nuke targets

>>63799681
>spot the argie
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_(1970_ship)

We know modified private jets can sink US ships.

>>63805838
There are 12 aircraft burned to the ground. There's at least 8 more that were hit, and two of those have visually confirmed damage. None of the satellite imagery we've seen from the aftermath has the resolution to see damage short of a total loss so the only source of confirmation is footage from later drones. The drone footage we've seen is fairly limited, so it's possible that all 8 were damaged. It's hard to say how much damage was actually done by the two holes we saw in the drone footage, it's possible that it's superficial and just needs a skin panel replaced, it's also possible that the structure of the airframe was compromised or critical avionics were destroyed, in which case those aircraft are nothing but spare parts.

>>63806324
as i said, around 10 destroyed. the others hit will be out of action for some time. considering russia has around 45-50 tu-95s left and a similar number of tu-22m3s, it's not a big hit to them overall when it comes to performing most combat missions. but it seems like they're all getting long in the legs going by this article and there's no replacement for them other than the low production and expensive tu-160.

with saying that, it will affect things with ukraine since russia will need to increase base security, build shelters for their assets, along with more resources put into internal security. this will slow down operations due to more procedures requires to fuel, load and send them off.

>>63804660
In trump America

>>63806070
USS Stark wasn't sunk. It was repaired and returned to service the following year.

>>63806424
They have 40 or so of each in active duty, but that doesn't mean that they're operational. Especially for the Tu-22Ms, around half their active aircraft are non-mission capable, awaiting maintenance or repairs. My guess is that some of those aircraft will start being sent out on missions anyway since the Russian brass just sees numbers on a page like you do, and operational attrition will increase significantly in the next year or two.

Strategic advantage of retreating ever faster, dying in the meat grinder and financing new mansions for Zilinksy?

>>63796078 (OP)
>russian airforce in 2026

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_1sFxAmb7g

>>63805838
My brown friend, the footage shows more than 20 destroyed

>>63796707
I would expect:
>Kaliningrad is returned, naturally
>Moscow becomes chechnyan, naturally
>St. Petersburg is rightful nordic clay
>Manchuria is Chinese
>everywhere from Tomsk to Yakutsk goes neutral, it's mostly tribal or feral ziggers living in what might as well be post-nuclear hellscape
>far east is split into either one or two failed states or some made-up bullshit, all islands are taken by mighty Nippon.

>>63807238
Go easy on him he only has so many fingers to count with

>>63806456
That's because OHP's are neigh unsinkable with an excellent damage control design - go look at sinkex data.

When Russia sinks everything else in the Baltics Polish OHP's will still trucking battle damage and all

>>63796194
>If you're looking to make a stealth plane I'd use this design optimized for hauling fat fucking loads instead of using a proper design
This is why you don't understand stealth

>>63796785
A radar can and will do that, more so the data link network will also indicate

>>63807289
I want to share a land border with Japan please

>>63807330
Idk mearshkike-"anon", but it seems to me that russia is the one sinking, rather than doing the sinking.

>>63796188
yes

>>63798162
They badly want access to the arctic, even going so far as to designate themselves a "near arctic power" and demanding to be included in treaties related to the region
If given the opportunity, I can only assume this means they would want everything north of Shenyang at a minimum

>>63799681
No its not, the houthis sunk a modern supertanker just recently

>>63810222
What's the appeal of super yachts anyway? Being on a boat kind of sucks, and a huge boat would suck even more with all the slaves running around.

>>63811379
>all the slaves running around
status culture is unfathomably huge in the former soviets, people often boast with their all kinds of luxury items, but also relatively mundane western products, which happen(ed) to be rare in their countries.
it began with shit like adidas clothes, western music and movies, jeans, etc. shortly before the sovshit union croaked it, some time later it shifted to cars, electronics, a certain clothing style.
for the new-rich entrepreneurs, and everyone pretending to be one, showing off is something as natural as saying hello.
thus the very rich also end up buying the absolute peak status symbol of them all, a huge yacht, your own little kingdom that you can take everywhere on the ocean and have parties on

>>63796707
this one's kind of a fun what-if

>>63810222
i swear to god someone just needs to get in trumps ear that issuing letters of marque for people seizing russian yachts would make him look strong. i yearn for the days of privateering.

>>63796078 (OP)
Wouldn't it damage its structure?

>>63806424
The problem is that the 12-20 destroyed/permanently put out of action were disproportionately damaging to their strategic capabilities because they were mostly all flight worthy and in combat readiness shape. There was some sort of planned operation, proof being a couple of the aircraft had missiles mounted and many of those that burned down clearly did so because they were fully fueled, which isn't done to aircraft that are sitting around awaiting repairs. If we assume a readiness rate of about 50-60% for their bomber aircraft, which is about what the US achieves, then you're looking at a substantial component of their airworthy aircraft taken out of action. On the order of 33-50% depending on their actual readiness. It is also worse than just the airframes wearing out because it denies a lot of spare parts cannibalization opportunity. It's not going to stop strikes in Ukraine obviously but it's still a very significant blow to the strategic planning considerations for the usage of those platforms

>>63811926
his son already tried that

>>63814693
has a non-retard tried it yet?

>>63814786
there are no non-retards in the US Political system

>>63814788
Both sides literally electing old fucks so aged they are senile is clownshoes.

Does this mean we can spam 747 missile trucks now? Make them unmanned too.

>>63814806
By design, you have to have decades of connections usually to secure the nom

>>63811932
Depends on how they're loaded but yeah civilian planes are less tolerant to uneven weight distribution

>>63796078 (OP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-204
89 built over 25 years of production. NATO produces this many airliners a month.

>>63818605
...shit, I mean 35 years of production. Yikes.

US has rapid dragon
Russia has drunken tiger
all will be made clear

>>63796142
>putin would build the newest bombers
yeah, about that...