#RUSSIAEditor's choice 03.08.2016 - 1,400 views
5 (4 votes)
Russian Military Get Customized Il-96-400 ‘Doomsday Plane’ 5 out of 5 based on 4 ratings. 4 user reviews.

Russian Military Get Customized Il-96-400 ‘Doomsday Plane’

Donate

The Russian Defense Ministry has received a customized airborne command system Il-96-400, also known as the ‘doomsday plane’, by Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC).

Russian Military Get Customized Il-96-400 ‘Doomsday Plane’

Photo: Sputnik / Alexander Polyakov

The Russian Defense Ministry has received a customized airborne command system Il-96-400, also known as the ‘doomsday plane’, by Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), the Ilyushin aircraft manufacturer announced.

The base of the new third-generation airborne command post is the Russia-made long-haul wide-fuselage passenger airliner Il-96-300, which can carry up to 300 people.

According to the Monday’s statement, “the Il-96-400 plane went into service under the contract with the Russian Defense Ministry. The specially-equipped aircraft was built by the Voronezh Joint Stock Aircraft Company.”

The new plane is equipped with advanced avionics and four powerful engines. Its weight is 270 tones, while a maximum flight range is 7,500 miles.

Late in 2015, a second-generation ‘doomsday plane’, based on an Ilyushin Il-80 aircraft, has already been handed over to the Russian military.

Donate

Tags:, ,

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Boris Kazlov

    When will RUssia really lose its patience with these animals?

    • Sinbad2

      Never, revenge is a dish best served cold.

      Personally I would launch an all out nuclear attack, during some American holiday or the day after the US election.
      I am sure that Russia tracks American nuclear submarines, and when most could targeted would be the ideal time. Destroying US satellites at the same time would mean that the submarine missiles would not function correctly, and the subs would not even know the US had been destroyed.

      But back to the Russia/China plan, which is much more sensible.
      The US economy is imploding, and the US has the most expensive and inefficient military in the world, no money, no war.

  • Veritas Vincit

    “Putin said he was ready for “the most adverse development of events.” As the interview makes clear, this referred to all-out nuclear war with NATO…… “our nuclear forces, they, as always, are in a state of full combat readiness.” (Russian President Putin says Ukraine crisis threatens nuclear war, WSWS, 17 March 2015)

    The active service of this aircraft is timely recognising likely/logical outcomes of unfolding developments.

    For example, the U.S./NATO/allied bloc is pursuing policies of escalation as part of efforts to achieve ‘full spectrum dominance’ with preparations:
    – to forcefully subdue E Ukrainian regions
    – to integrate Crimea into Ukraine (and as with Ukraine that is being integrated into NATO standards eventually into NATO architecture)
    – to achieve regime change in N Korea (gradual development of military force capabilities/missile architecture in preparation for the situation of military conflict /’denuclearisation’ and subsequent ‘stabilisation’ operations such as former Operational Plan 5029 to be initiated in the event of an [engineered] ‘internal crisis’ and/or the event of military conflict)
    – to increasingly arm/partition Taiwan from China
    – to intensify S China Sea military patrols/allied ‘force posture, military projection capabilities’, etc…..

    I would suggest likely outcomes are self evident. Corresponding preparations are evident (military deployments, nature of military exercises, etc.).

    Note: The term and belief of a ‘doomsday’ is likely inaccurate. While a nuclear warfare event would eclipse all previous wars it does not necessarily translate to human extinction. Efforts to overcome ‘mutually assured destruction’ through achieving nuclear primacy (first strike with retaliatory missile interception capabilities) [1][2][3] reflect this situation.

    • Veritas Vincit

      p2. ‘Limited ‘deterrent’ strike vs overwhelming conventional/nuclear first strike option in certain circumstances under discussion’

      There are reports that some Pentagon analysts are discussing and conducting studies into whether a limited strike is a viable option against the RF and the PRC in certain circumstances or whether the resort to an overwhelming first strike would be required in response to an imminent total war event.

      The risks involved in undertaking a limited ‘deterrent strike’ (of a robust retaliation) means that an overwhelming strike would be the likely option. Russian analysts would have come to a similar conclusion. Allowing the opponent the opportunity to retaliate past a point of no return (intelligence assessments of an impending overwhelming conventional/nuclear first strike), invites a far worse outcome. An overwhelming strike would be required. It is self evident that a significant escalation resulting in the situation of an imminent existential threat those who employ a first strike will be in a significantly better position than those adopting a retaliatory response.

      De-escalation initiatives are a priority however the actions of others may require an undesired but necessary response. Peace is a priority however if direct military conflict is imposed, it is transparently necessary to limit/neutralise the retaliatory capabilities of adversaries and to end the conflict to in the shortest possible timeframe.

      The RF and PRC will no doubt endeavour to prevent this outcome however they are correct to prepare for this potential scenario. The best outcome for domestic populations in a worst case scenario will be a priority.

      References:
      1. “the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike…. the era of U.S. nuclear primacy has begun” (The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy, Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, March/April 2006)

      2. “We are starting to build a deterrent construct that will be better than mutual assured destruction” (General James E. Cartwright: Missile Defense Goes Global)

      3. “It would be impossible for the system to stop thousands of incoming Soviet missiles at once, so missile defense made sense only as a way of mopping up after an initial US strike.” (Wired)