This shows how weak Europe has become. Only three countries have strategic bombers: USA, China and Russia. All of them are superpowers. Europe has zero anymore.It shows how weak and stagnant we have become.
But Russia is Europe
>>532301031Eh, all three of these planes are ancient.Of course they have been modernized, but still, the designs are so old it's not very impressive.Tu-160 and B-1 are more interesting. Valkyrie would have been cool too. Does anyone besides USA and Russia have these things?
>>532301236Most of their land is in Asia. And culturally they haven't been European since 1917.
>>532301031All of those countries cannot win a single war by themselves too.What a funny pattern.
>>532301626Not that you should want to be "European" past this date. Europe spiritually declined drastically during the 19th century.There was a last hurrah in the 1930/40s, but then it culturally died with a whimper, comitting suicide.>then it was all about America for a few decades, until they too decided to commit suicide
>>532301620I mean yeah that pic shows the worst bombers from each nation. Expect with Chinese they only have H-6 as of now. Though they are developing the H-20 which is their answer to B2.Russia has the more advanced TU-22M and TU-160. And USA B1 and B2. Ukraine would have had half of worlds TU-160s (19 out of 41) but they were forced to sell 8 of them to Russia and scrap rest of them along with giving up their nukes.
That's our strategic bomber from 1955. It's still being used because brown people's air defences can't reach high enough to hit it, but it's 100% non-stealth. In a serious war, its only use would be tossing ICBMs from hundreds of miles away.This is this century's strategic bomber, in good old anti-flash white.
>>532302181I mean yeah you are the most advanced when it comes to this shit. Only one with Stealth bombers. While Russia's most advanced TU-160 is meant to be their version of the B1. China is worst with the H-6. It's the oldest bomber currently used by any country (H-6/TU-16 1954, B52 1955 and TU-95 1956)Kind of wild how old every bomber currently is. Who knows maybe one of the TU-95s Russia still uses may have been the one that dropped the Tsar bomba.
>>532301031WHITE POWERRRRRRRR
>>532301031Russia clearly beats us on aircraft aesthetic. That Tupolev looking pretty based.
>>532302941BIG BOOMBA
>>532301031Only the Tupolev has aura
>>532302941Tu-95s Russia uses today were built in 80’s or later, it’s various MSM versions. Old versions were decomissioned long ago. They are basically missile carriers. Same for Tu-160 and Tu-22Ms. They can bomb but that’s not their main role. Chinese H-6 is a very upgraded Tu-16, but it’s not a strategic bomber (it doesn’t have the intercontinental range).
>>532301626>culturally they haven't been EuropeanThat's butthurt belt talk bullshit and you know it. Culturally you're asian and closer to us than russians will ever be.
>>532301031>b52>literally made in 1952>one generation away from the WW2 bombers
>>532303205>>532303285I mean there's a reason why whenever USA makes a new fighter jet you try to get a photo-op with a TU-95 with it.
>>532303285The first one in principle also is a Tupolev, since it's a copy of the Tu-16.
>>532303452These are H versions, first flew in 1960’s but modern ones have series of upgrades of course.It’s a missile carrier, same as for Russians. They fly far and carry a lot of ordinance. It’s a time-tested machine.
Tu-95 is pretty fucking coolis crazy how Europe has no strategic bombers to lob missiles and simultaneously all their procurement programs for shit like FCAS are failing
>>532303473lul, that Sukhoi right behind him>honk honk hoooonk
By the way, B-52 is indeed airframe-wise same as B-52H from 60’s.Tu-95 is not. MS versions were based on Tu-142 airframe which entered service in 1970’s.
>>532303473But seriously is it official policy that American fighter jets need photo ops with a TU-95?
>>532304211I mean.. it's not like they have anything better to do? In fact they're probably happy to get these exercise opportunities.>bomber/recon plane comes flying>zomg intercept it>fly around next to it for a while>go homeIt's very chud-pilled.>nuclear bombers come flying towards your border>nothing ever happens
>>532301031strategic bombers are the albatross of the weapon arsenal .. all you need are ICMS and submarine launch systemshttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2U_4UEP2ZfQ
>>532301031or perhaps three countries are still left fighting the last war which is why none of them have won a single conflict since 1945
>>532301031Yeah, yeah. Okay, Pekka.
>>532305005I mean USA, China and Soviets all took part in the Korean War and that war still hasn't officially ended....
>>532304746It's not quite that simple. The planes keeping watch for these submarines tend to be similar models, like there's marine reconnaisance variants of the H6 and Tu-95; they're also the first ones who'll come to fuck your submarine if it launches anything, meaning there's a defensive component to his sort of large high endurance plane.Additionally: low altitude systems are important as well, and all three of these bombers can fly low altitude missions and then launch low altitude cruise or anti-ship missiles, meaning they're actually quite important.
>>532301031Cold war-era military tech and tactics doesn't make you a superpower, as evidenced by those countries you listed losing to gorilla tactics and temu drones.
>>532301031Read the 2+4 treaty
>>532301031Europe's super bombers are 747s filled with brown Muslims, to drop in their own cities and destroy them.
>>532305108so there's a chance one might winwho do you put your money on?
>>532305439soft power ftw
>>532305439Nah you got it wrong man. It's A380s not 747s. Even bigger payload.
>>532305439Real talk, why were British strategic bombers so fucking ugly? OP graciously didn't include them to spare our eyes. How convenient, we even have one showing up now>>532305514Why were they so ugly? Is that what British aesthetics are like?In fact you guys made a whole bunch of weird looking planes; a few of which looked cool, but man, your Air Force sure went down the drain in the 1960s when the shekels ran out, from having a dozen of advanced designs in the 1950s to fielding only a few unimpressive models later on. Shouldn't have pumped all that cash into Harriers desu.
>>532301031I am sure the British could get a Vulcan to take of after rummaging around in the scrap heaps. You do realize that these bombers are just cruise missile trucks when faced with an enemy comprised of more than civilians in flip-flops attending a wedding?
>>532305852The most destructive weapon ever devised, so terrible that nobody has dared to use it outside of botched test-runs on their own territory leaving it permanently contaminated and uninhabitable.
>>532306071Here's one of those weapons being filled with payload. Destination Munich to LA.
>>532306030Air-launched ballistic missiles, too, and those are pretty heavy, extremely heavy in some cases, so most fighters or small bombers can't carry them, or only 1-2.
>>532302181Bingo
>>532305943the country was almost bankrupt and couldnt capitalise on the innovations that we had made during ww2that and a government full of incompetent foolswe wasted most of the marshall plan money on stupid shit
>>532305943the Vulcan bomber was quite a handsome beast in its day, sad to see that gohttps://youtu.be/gAoLJkiRuGY
>>532301031I really like turboprops, so the Bear is my favourite out of these three. Stratofortress looks cool too but I preferred the look of earlier models. Chinese Badger looks weird.
>>532301031Nah, we just use theirs. Fuck em.
>>532306753Vulcans were pretty great. Funnily enough, recently I noticed that Iranian drones reminded me of them because of the shape. I also like Victor although it looks a bit goofy. Still, very nice bomber
>>532306742It's legit kinda absurd. In many areas Britain was peer to or more advanced than the USA until the late 1950s, but I have no difficulty to imagine US pressure in itself played a part in your downfall, as clearly they were trying to take over the British Empire's role for good, or neutralise you as an imperialist force, and clearly had no scruples of screwing over their supposed "allies", if we look at the Avro Arrow story for instance, or the missile thing with the UK. Could even see it in a Cold War context, where eventually they outjewed the USSR as well.>but first they outjewed EuropeFrance just barely managed to nope out of the scheme, but not without taking some damage as well.And without doubt politics also played a role. I can only marvel at British post-WW2 politics. One could say Britain innovated democratic self-sabotage, before it became the norm for western countries.>>532306753Legit had some absurdly good designs that didn't make it to completion.
>>532301031I've often wondered how that russian plane has counter-rotating shafts in its jet engines. Imagine building an autonomous VTOL drone around one of those... I bet it could lift a 1000lb payload
>>532301031>All of them are superpowers*none of them are superpowersThe age of superpowers is over.
>>532307811>the Avro Arrow story for instancethis is one of the main ones i was thinking of, yessupposedly the government chose not to pursue the project, but if that was under duress or not is left to conjectureit's a long story with the USA, they have been doing their best to undermine the 'special relationship' foreverthere's a great book and tv series about it called 'an ocean apart' that explains it better than i could
>>532301031And the u.s. is the ONLY one to deploy and use with nigh impunity. Suck my dick basically everyone else who isn't American.
>>532308316do you have a foreskin?
>>532307858I think you're working on that. Prop-fans are an old idea that's again gaining currency, and I believe your Osprey successor employs that sort of design.>essentially a combination of the Osprey's precursor and Osprey itself
>>532301031>Superpowers>Russia gets raped by Ukraine>US gets raped by Iran>China will get raped by Taiwan
>>532308316>with nigh impunity>never flew within range of a working AA systemBeyond Vietnam at least, where your Air Force was very nearly massacred by some third rate commies, so you had to resort to aimless area bombing and using chemical weapons.>and still lost
>>532301236True, they're very European, among the best Europe has to offer if I'm to be honest.
>>532301031I would like to remind you the largest commercial airliner manufacturer is located in France.If Europe wanted bombers, they could have more bombers than you could produce.They are limited by US Russia treaties created by the US to make Europe dependant during the cold war.
