Europe vs US wars. Who would win - Part 2.

It took 5 months, not a year. It was my mistake. Happy?

Will just leave you with your opinion. There is only one way to check it anyway.

Here "strategic bomber" means aimed to damaging mainly infrastructure and important objects.

Now THAT is truly senseless.
First of all your idea of "strike force no one can match" aka bombers-carrying-bombs is pointless. Without air superiority they are just flying trash. Cruise missile platform is the only correct way to use them.

Secondly Mirage 4 in the list with 1250 km combat range, 33 tons of max takeoff weight is "heavy". Tu-16 with 3150 km combat radius and 78 tons max takeoff is heavy too.

But Tu-22 with more than 120 tons max takeoff and 2400 km combat radius and 24 tons payload exact the same to B-52's and B-2 payload is....what? Equal to frontal bomber?Man...it is just stupid.

Tu-95MS is perfectly capable of carrying free-falling bombs, btw.

It is not WW2 outdoors you now. Artillery, MRLS, cruise missiles and airforce will end "aircraft carrier" pretty soon. And of course no way Cyprus and Gibraltar could be hold. Being neutral looks like a better decision.

 

Actually, it is surprisingly easy to check, because I have brought that up in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronised_Armed_Forces_Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Foreign_relations_and_security

Essentially, the EU military force is NATO. And while it is a Mutual Defense Treaty, it also does not obligate any country to actually do anything. And the current Director General is a Royal Netherlands Army Lieutenant General.

So actually, that was not hard to check at all. Mr. Walker and I had that discussion last year, so it was not hard to remember the basics.

Actually, there are large differences between the two aircraft. You are looking at the weight, I am looking at the capacity.

The Tu-22 could carry conventional payloads, but it's design was for a smaller (but heavier) nuclear payload. "Heavy" is not a description of the weight, but the actual payload.

The Tu-22 for example, could carry 25 500lb bombs.

The B-1 on the other hand carries up to 84 500 lb bombs.

The B-2 carries up to 80 500 lb bombs.

The B-52, that can actually carry over 100 500 lb bombs.

So as you can see, it is not all about the weight, but the way that it carries the explosives.

And sorry, the Tu-95Ms can't carry conventional bombs. The bomb bay needed for conventional weapons has essentially been removed (although to be technical these were built this way so nothing was actually removed) and replaced with a 6 missile rotary launcher. It carries another 10 missiles on wing pylons (6 in 2 3 missile launchers, 4 as individual missiles). These were not "modified" Tu-95s, but aircraft built for this one specific purpose, and were the only ones not retired because they do not violate the START treaty.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Bear.html#mozTocId198871

The actual bomb-carrying Tu-95s were all retired in 1991, a casualty of the START treaties. This is the same treaty that saw the destruction of the B-52G in the United States. That was the version that carried our Nuclear bombs, the only models left were conventional bombers and a few cruise missile platforms (because the bomber has been a missile test bed for us for decades, the launching of experimental craft from the X-15 to the HTV hypersonic drone).



http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm

And there were some other variants of the Bear that lasted for quite a while.

A lot of the Tu-95RTS, U, K, and Tu-142M, and MR were converted away from being bombers and allowed to remain in service. Under observation all bomb equipment was ripped out of them, and the bomb bays welded shut and the aircraft given a special paint job to show they were START I/II compliant. These then were (and may still be) operated as recon and ELINT aircraft. But they were no longer "bombers".

So no, I do not just make things up and repeat them in here. I actually research them through several sources.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu95bear/

And not a single source I have ever found states that the MS variant can carry conventional gravity bombs.

 

Service industry and smart phones are of a great importance in war. Sorry, but the last time we discussed exactly that topic in a comparison between the US and Germany you claimed the US shoudl be superior because of facebook and Apple, telling me that qualitatively better machines from Germany are too old fashioned to be taken into account.

There isn't any technological superiority of Boeing over Airbus.

In the other industries you mention the US to be the leading nation, there isnt even one in which they could compete with all of Europe.

 

If Turkey see's Greek troops invading British bases on Cyprus I wonder what they would do. There would have to be a talk with Turkey and not use Greek troops, which means moving thousands of troops and lots of aircraft from other parts of Europe to Greece to attack Cyprus, since no European country has the capability to defeat the UK it would have to be a join operation with all the problems that come with that. I think your right Gibraltar would be taken but the Spanish would lose a lot of aircraft, troops and ships doing so. Meaning the UK and US would have to go through the Suez canal to reinforce and resupply the Cyprus. The US and UK would destroy the European air forces if they tryed to enter British air space, you would see the Typhoon taking on the Rafale, German Eurofighters taking on F-22's and Dutch F-16's taking on American F-16's, but the British Isles wouldn't be destroyed as a base for allied operations. Well thinking about it the British upper class have wanted Ireland back, so it would be better to take Ireland back.

 

You just need to look at the beginning of conversation. Originally i was saying that scenario of US attacking a number of non-allied European countries or visa versa is unrealistic and pointless. So...what are you proving to me exactly?

It seems you somehow managed to miss that part with payload in my previous post. Tu-22M3,which are in service currently, can carry 24 000 kg (53 000 lb) of payload. That looks similar to B-52 payload 70 000 lb and same to B-2 payload 23 000 kg (50,000 lb).

May be you just messed up Tu-22M3 with Tu-22, which are, in fact, two different aircrafts, despite common name.

So yes, Tu-22M3 is both strategic and heavy.
Check your sources before posting.

Sorry, but it can. Sorry again, I won't bother myself for searching in english.
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/tu95ms.html

Вооружение:
две 23-мм пушки ГШ-23 или ГШ-23Л
Боевая нагрузка - нормальная 9000 кг, максимальная - 20000 кг, в перегруз - 25000 кг:
Ту-95МС оснащен барабанной многопозиционной пусковой установкой, рассчитанной на шесть малогабаритных дозвуковых крылатых ракет большой дальности Х-55 (дальность 2500 к&#1084. Под крылом на двух узлах внешней подвески самолета Ту-95МС-6 допускается размещение еще четырех ракет этого типа. На самолете Ту-95МС-16 под крылом на четырех узлах может подвешиваться десять Х-55 (в настоящее время в соответствии с российско-американской договоренностью все самолеты Ту-95МС несут ракетное вооружение только на внутренней подвеск&#1077. Допускается оснащение самолета и обычными свободно-падающими бомбами.

Plane can be equipped with free-falling bombs too.

Honestly it is useless to argue about it with me since my military profession is "mechanic of artillery and bombardment armament".
It perfectly well capable of carrying all free-falling bombs types. Moreover it is the only plane in RuAF, which can carry FAB-9000. However it will require to change the holder.It is not that hard. Situation is same to Tu-22M3, mentioned above. They have taken off refueling boom from them due to START. But it doesn't mean it couldn't be put back in place if needed.


Even as IF everything about tu-95 is like you are talking..what does it change? It is still a plane capable ob bringing destruction on enemies infrastructure and industry. Cruise missiles or free falling bombs. Does it matter?

 

Just to answer the thread title - I don't know and neither does anyone else.

 

Well if the UK is on the side of the US, I know for a fact the US would win.

 

Talk around the edges all you like.

In 2013, the US whips the EU. Conventional or nuclear.

Maybe in a generation the calculus changes. Maybe.

 

Both sides (especially if you include Russia in Europe) have ridiculous amounts of conventional, let alone nuclear weapons.

So I don't think it really matters who "wins", since victory in this case is only slightly less mass famine, destruction and death than the other side. You still lose, just a little less devastatingly.


Sort of demonstrates to me the insanity of the current state monopoly of military force.

 

I would still say in a conventional war the UK and US would defeat European Russia and rest of Europe, even of you include European Turkey. Europe has no way of attacking the US, apart from a few territories in the Caribbean and one French island near Canada. The British Isles maybe hurt, but not killed off by the European, it would then be used as a platform to invade Europe.

 

The Europeans better be worrying about their growing Moslem minorities revolting.