Comments by "VisibilityFoggy" (@VisibilityFoggy) on "Why Doesn't Russia Just Move Their Bombers?" video.

  1. Their Tu-95s aren't particularly older than our B-52s. The reason the Russians use turboprops is for potential austere basing operations given the Russian terrain. It's the same reason we use turboprop C-130s and Europe developed the A-400M. The Tu-95 is also among the fastest turboprops ever built with huge contra-rotating propellers, and its cruising speed is actually faster than a B-52 (though its top speed is about 100mph less). This isn't a "defense" of Russia or their actions, but there isn't anything about a turboprop aircraft that makes it inferior or outdated. It's just a different concept. Ultimately turboprops and turbofans have effectively the same turbine power plants anyway.
    22
  2. The argument could be made for Engels-2, but that isn't why Ukraine is striking the base. They care about cruise missile trucks, not nukes, and Russia knows that. Besides, the days of using 1950s-70s era strategic bombers to deliver a nuclear strike on any peer adversary is pretty much over. You need something on the level of the B-2 or B-21 to accomplish that, and even then, it wouldn't be the first choice. Russia favors ICBMs and SLBMs. Ukraine has no interest in wasting resources dismantling Russia's nuclear deterrent. There's no value or advantage in doing so. This is purely about keeping missile trucks at bay.
    8
  3.  @rearspeaker6364  Yes, the same as having eight jet engines bolted onto an airframe, like the B-52, is an idea that was dumped years ago. Just because the design may not be used today does not take away from its utility or reliability. The Tu-95 has more than proven itself, just like some other platforms from its day that continue in service around the world's militaries. Yes, the "enemy" flies them, but that does not mean we cannot appreciate a great design that has remained relevant to this day.
    5
  4. Defended from whom? Syrian rebels flying 50-year-old museum pieces? Israel has had absolutely ZERO problems getting its F-35s into Syria, but their interest is not in attacking Russian air bases, but Iranian proxies at ports and transport junctions. Russia also (supposedly) did lose an S-400 to a drone attack in Latakia as well.
    3
  5. Their long-range platforms are good, but aren't designed to intercept the Tu-141 on its trajectory. Their short-range systems are generally not so good, as proven in several theaters in recent years (Russian short/medium range SAMs in Libya was an unmitigated disaster). And even when it comes to long-range SAMs, most of the incredible/amazing/game-changing things we've heard about the S-400... has come from Russia itself. Meanwhile, people make fun of Patriot for its performance as a brand new system in 1989, but don't realize it's been constantly upgraded over 30 years, and the new medium-range systems the west has fielded (NASAMS, IRIS-T SLM, SAMP/T) are absolutely excellent and, in some cases, cross into potential long-range territory with medium-range munitions.
    3
  6.  @zaqpak9391  Static AAA guns won't last too long in 2022(3).
    2
  7. Yes, some have been moved, according to some recent imagery. And Ukraine does field cluster munitions, though not in numbers. The U.S. doesn't really use them anymore except in an anti-runway role, so how many are floating around is tough to judge.
    2
  8. They launched an entire war thinking the other country wouldn't fight back, lol. Not the smartest bunch, those Russians.
    1
  9. If you blocked the channel, how are you posting this comment, lol?
    1
  10.  @martinavaslovik3433  To the front with you, dirty vatnik!
    1