How hard could it be for that Typhoon to shoot that 1950’s prop-job down?

Almost amazing as our still-in-service B-52s is the fact that the Russkies are still using the turbo-prop Backfire Bombers..

..aptly named, by the way.

Yeah, but this isn’t an attack, it’s a statement. And that’s not just a prop-job, it’s a nuclear-armed prop job.

Backfires (TU-22Ms)are supersonic bombers with variable swept wings, Bears (TU-95s) are the sub-sonic prop jobs.

Of course, you’ve fallen into one of the classic media faults - those aren’t tanks, they’re IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles). BMPs of some sort, if I remember my recognition lessons correctly.

Mech Infantry, natch, has a substantial anti-terror role (as much as any full-up military unit). Which tends to detract from the snark. :)

Of course, you’ve fallen into one of the classic media faults - those aren’t tanks, they’re IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles).

Hey, I’m an ex-Air Force guy. It’s got treads, don’t it? [Thanks for the correction]

Here are my thoughts on the exercises - please contest them if you find fault:

Basically there are 3 scenarios where an assault on a fixed terrorist location might be required:

1) terrorists occupy a structure with hostages = urban environment, with little need for open field exercises like those shown in the linked pictures.

2) terrorists occupy a small town = rural/village environment, where open field exercises are useful, but is this a likely scenario for Russia or China?

3) invasion of terrorist-supporting state = rural/village environment, where open field exercises are absolutely critical, but Russia and China have strongly criticized the doctrine of suppressing terrorist-supporting states (at least when the US has done it).

It seems to me that the exercises are for one purpose only - to convince the West that SCO is not to be trifled with.