Some thoughts on B-1B deployed to Norway (dvidshub.net/news/389516/hi…)
1) Just in case: those are non-nuclear, and it is complicated to reverse thing.
2) Even w/ conventional weapons those are quite capable to give a hard time...
1/
1) Just in case: those are non-nuclear, and it is complicated to reverse thing.
2) Even w/ conventional weapons those are quite capable to give a hard time...
1/
...because - JASSM family, incl -ER and anti-ship LRASM. So sensitive targets on the territory of Russia and in adjacent waters are under threat.
In the future, the Lancers might get equipped with even more unpleasant things, incl. ARRW and conv. LRSO.
2/
In the future, the Lancers might get equipped with even more unpleasant things, incl. ARRW and conv. LRSO.
2/
3) Such a deployment is not limited by anything. I hope that transparency for such operations to reduce escalation risks will be a part of the work plans for RU/US strategic stability discussions, which were recently mentioned (again) by A.Blinken.
3/
3/
I have no doubts that some proposals and areas are included in the "security equation", the discussion of which was proposed by Russia.
4) In a strictly military sense, there are hardly any new and unexpected measures required on the Russian side.
4/
4) In a strictly military sense, there are hardly any new and unexpected measures required on the Russian side.
4/
Repelling "modern means of aerospace attack" is the basic task of combat training of the RU armed forces, as well as one of the priorities of military development. Moreover, it will allow the domestic aerospace forces, and primarily the radio-technical troops, to update data..
5/
5/
..on practical activities of the USAF, as well as on RU ability to timely detect and suppress these activities.
5) Symmetrical reciprocal measures, i.e. the deployment of Russian long-range aviation, in South America or in the Caribbean, is too resource-intensive...
6/
5) Symmetrical reciprocal measures, i.e. the deployment of Russian long-range aviation, in South America or in the Caribbean, is too resource-intensive...
6/
...with a relatively modest effect. At the same time, the appearance of cruise missile-armed aircraft outside of the Russian territory is not at all excluded - for example, as stated in the past, the Khmeimim airfield in Syria can receive such aircraft.
7/
7/
The key is the issue of goals: in the case of the US the mission is dubious, but very frankly articulated: support of the allies and deterrence of RU. Tasks that can be solved by a pair of Tu-160 in Syria, but cannot be solved from their permanent bases, are not yet obvious.
8/8
8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
