ALERT — Russia Announces Deployment of Bombers Over Gulf of Mexico

a reply to: Iwinder

That would be because I actually went out and read more than one source of it. It was all over the net multiple times, if you bothered to keep up with things.

After the incident, the foreign media reported that "Donald Cook" was rushed into a port in Romania. There all the 27 members of the crew filed a letter of resignation. It seems that all 27 people have written that they are not going to risk their lives. This is indirectly confirmed by the Pentagon statement according to which the action demoralized the crew of the American ship.

indian.ruvr.ru...

It's called "multiple sources". Several of them clearly stated "all 27", which while it could be that it's just a bad English translation, it doesn't change the fact that it's a BS article that never happened.

And that's FAR from the part that I questioned first. It was simply the first thing that I listed. The simple fact of the matter is that this whole thing was nothing but propaganda by the Russians, and never happened.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Iwinder

That would be because I actually went out and read more than one source of it. It was all over the net multiple times, if you bothered to keep up with things.

After the incident, the foreign media reported that "Donald Cook" was rushed into a port in Romania. There all the 27 members of the crew filed a letter of resignation. It seems that all 27 people have written that they are not going to risk their lives. This is indirectly confirmed by the Pentagon statement according to which the action demoralized the crew of the American ship.

indian.ruvr.ru...

It's called "multiple sources". Several of them clearly stated "all 27", which while it could be that it's just a bad English translation, it doesn't change the fact that it's a BS article that never happened.

Fair enough but the link I so kindly provided is the one you quoted, not another link so lets be fair here......you screwed up with a post that had nothing to do with the link I provided.
Then you try to nail me after the fact it was obvious that you did not read my link or you were so confident in what it contained you simply posted from rote.....
Good enough and no hard feelings but, one should always read a link before posting.
I never miss a link in one of your personal threads, if I am participating in the said thread.

Regards, Iwinder

a reply to: Iwinder

No, I didn't quote that link, I used multiple sources. But whatever, if that's what you want to believe, you go right ahead.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
This could turn into a modern day Cuban Missile Crisis if true...

I'll believe it when I see it.

But...

War is business... and these days, business is good.

~Namaste

Oh we have plenty of fighters in the area that would love to play with them. The Gulf Coast is highly defended and flying anything close to Florida will be a huge mistake for them. Maybe they like getting buzzzed at high speed over and over till their wings break off lol.

Institute for US and Canadian Studies

Institute for US and Canadian Studies (Russian: Институт США и Канады РАН, Institut SShA i Kanadi RAN) - is a Russian think tank which is part of the Russian Academy of Sciences, specializing on the comprehensive studies of the United States and Canada.

ISKRAN was founded by Dr. Georgy Arbatov in 1967 who led the institute until 1995. Since that time it has been the main Soviet and later Russian center of research of American and Canadian foreign and internal policy.

www.iskran.ru...

Russian Academy of Science - Deputy Director - Zolotarev Paul S

He is the person who wrote the jamming article.

Since 1999, the Institute of USA and Canada. Member of the Advisory Board of the International Affairs Committee of the Federation Council, a member of the section on the military security of the Scientific Council of the Russian Security Council, a member of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy.

Its possible the article could be somewhat biased. He does have the background in that area albeit somewhat out of date. Its also possible this could be a bias as well -

Born in Donetsk region August 10, 1947. After graduating from high school he entered the Kharkov Higher Command Engineering School.

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

^^^ this so much. I can't imagine how amped our pilots are right now for this

a reply to: Aazadan

I am a pessimist and I KNOW we haven't plumbed the DEPTHS of stupidity some of our government employees could achive.
WE can BS up a new war ANYTIME. History has shown us that.

Right now no one has the cash.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: Telos

Let's hope we aren't dumb enough to start a war with Russia. We might possibly be able to take Russia by if it comes to war then China will be forced to enter. America can't possibly win a war with Russia and China.

Typical American assuming it's all about you.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Aazadan

I am a pessimist and I KNOW we haven't plumbed the DEPTHS of stupidity some of our government employees could achive.
WE can BS up a new war ANYTIME. History has shown us that.

Right now no one has the cash.

Sure, and we could launch nuclear missiles at any time too. There are severe deterrents for doing so though, and those deterrents are enough to make it very unlikely to happen, especially not over something as trivial as this. Every nation on earth has cyber weapons pointed at each other, and these weapons can shut down the entire country. In terms of damage they are more devastating and more reliable than nuclear weapons... without the pesky moral issue of killing civilians. This is why you're not seeing developed nations involved in open war with each other. Everything these days is about economic posturing from Russia supplying Europe with oil at a high price to China trying to remove the dollar from reserve status, to the US doing anything and everything to keep the petrodollar going.

a reply to: ziplock9000

Who is it really all about whenever the bullets start flying and the bombs start dropping and soldiers start dying? It's about America, buddy.

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

Good chance for our fighters to test response time and our ground systems to gather all sorts of info.

So how is this any different than the US sending reconnaissance planes near their borders in Poland, Belarus, and other areas?

Seems like Russia has deemed it a priority now to do the same thing. More chest thumping.

a reply to: AreUKiddingMe

And for them to gather information on response times, frequencies, etc in return. It's the whole reason both sides do it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Would it not make more sense to send in surveillance aircraft instead of a bomber? Not to mention satellites as well as the military version of open skies.

This is what I was referring to about technology. I would wager that if war were to break out that turbo prop bombers would be just as effective against the US as our bombers would be against Russia.

We can track, just as the Russians can, ICBM launches.
The only thing that falls into the unknown category would be the submarine forces of each other.

Anyways that's why I think the bomber runs are useless. The only purpose for them right now, imo, is for home consumption for Russia and the attempt to scare the American public, which I think will result in them being pissed and not scared.

originally posted by: majesticgent
So how is this any different than the US sending reconnaissance planes near their borders in Poland, Belarus, and other areas?

Seems like Russia has deemed it a priority now to do the same thing. More chest thumping.

For the most part its not.

For the other part we are not sending strategic long range bombers like Russia is.

Surveillance aircraft denote what Zaphod has been stating.. Sending a bomber sends a different signal.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Russia isn't like the US. Instead of having five different platforms to do five different missions, they modify one airframe to do many different missions. For years the Bear-F carried SIGINT/ELINT gear on board and did the same mission as the RC-135 that the USAF uses. Russia didn't have the money to build different platforms for multiple missions, which is why you will see Il-76s doing four different missions, or Bears doing missions other than flying as bombers. It's a flexible platform that is easy to add sensors onto, so they use it to do many different things.

As for Open Skies platforms, they're only allowed so many flights a year, with nothing more than commercially available sensors mounted on board the aircraft.

Satellites aren't flexible enough, and are far too predictable, in addition to doing absolutely nothing for your actual warfighting ability if you WERE to go to war, other than helping pick targets out.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Except in the case of the Russian military, in many instances the bomber is the surveillance plane. Russian surveillance aircraft such as the Il-20 generally don't have an inflight refueling capability, where the bombers do. So they use the bombers for long range missions, such as flying near the US, that their surveillance planes can't reach without landing to refuel.

a reply to: Zaphod58

All good points.

My only other comment would be is how irresponsible it is to use a long range strategic bomber capable of delivering nuclear payloads as a signit aircraft. Even more so with how Putin has been invoking their nuclear arsenal into his speeches.

I did notice the US today issued a warning by Russia about its flights and what international law allows a country to do if its airspace is violated.

a reply to: Xcathdra

They've done it since the start of the Cold War, except for about 10 years starting around 1989. In fact the US did the same with the RB-58, and RB-29 for years early in the Cold War.

Posturing, nothing but posturing... a few ships off Australia, Occasional proof their Bombers can reach us. A statement "we still have reach"

Except... it's useless in regards to war, if there were "numbers of bombers" we'd notice, so what is the use? Will they Use 2 Bombers on a run to "prove" they can operate "barely" in the Gulf of Mexico and then surprise us by dropping a hydrogen bomb on Huston with one Bomber than have the other get shot down before it reaches Dallas... the answer to that would be Nuclear attack via ICBM and Sub which can reach anywhere. Useless, there is a zero potential for a sneak attack, we'll be watching them like hawks even having a couple fly nearby

Again a couple of ships near Australia same response if they fire at Sydney, and i'm not saying the response would be something that would do anyone any good, but we have so, so, so much in close range of Russia and very elaborate anti missile systems...

Proof they can actually reach us,

The question is WHY do they want to prove they can reach us with conventional bombers?

My guess is, they know our actual missile defenses are way superior to what we claim, i'd guess we have extreme electronic and energy directed weapons systems that make most of their ICBM's obsolete....

The bombers are to "prove" that no matter how far advanced we have become... America can't get away without loosing some cities, maybe it's grid...

I recognize it as any guy with a serious pair of balls would because it's the stance you take in day to day life if your dealing with a guy you now can physically wipe the floor with you, you make sure they know... "i'll take a part of you with me" and it's a powerful deterrent, mostly a bully or tough guy rather not fight at all if they know your the type to go to your grave clutching one of their eyeballs...