It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian bombers flew undetected across Arctic - AF commander

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

he SR-71 never truely flew over Soviet airspace(in regards to deep mainland Russia) because at the time the Soviets did in fact have SAMs that could shoot it down.

The SR-71 DID fly over Soviet provinces that bordered the USSR, but never deeply mainland. Always skimming the border squeezing as many photos as possible.
Yes i am well aware they had the S300 series back then and it wouldve been shot down but its still pretty amazing. I nver said they went deep into the airspace.




posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
i wonder if this has anything to do with us about to strike iran???



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Maybe thier F-22s on them the hole time


We had our SAM on them the hole time



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   
This may just be more sabre rattling by the russians, although in recent weeks they have dramatically stepped up their rattling. Russians might have some sort of a secret alliance with Iran. Im sure they dont want anymore expansion from the US near their borders.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by youngiceman87
Maybe thier F-22s on them the hole time


We had our SAM on them the hole time




what are you trying to say exactly???



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
You're right, the bombers probably were Tu-160 Blackjacks. They considered to be the most powerful jet bombers today and have a smaller cross section then their counterparts-B-1b bombers.

I don't know why Russia did this, but I'll watch Russian news and tell you guys if I hear something about this incident.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
You're right, the bombers probably were Tu-160 Blackjacks. They considered to be the most powerful jet bombers today and have a smaller cross section then their counterparts-B-1b bombers.


Really?


Although the Tu-160 was designed for reduced detectability to both radar and infrared, it is not a stealth aircraft, and has a higher radar cross section (RCS) than the B-1B.
Topolev Tu-160



As for being the most powerful jet bomber today, I have some reservations.


Both utilize some of the most complex radar avoidance technologies ever seen, with the B-2 having a considerably smaller radar cross section than the F-22.
Global Aircraft Questionboard


I have my doubts about the above sources, just as I have doubts about your sources, Russian Soldier. Then again, who knows. Personally, the Tu-160 has an RCS of a flying billboard.






seekerof

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Fat chance anybody's going to listen to you on this thread mate.
They're already saying that shooting down an enemy a/c would lead to NUCLEAR WAR (same reason given for the USN lazing when a cpl of Su's buzzed he Kitty Hawk in 2000) or and this is even better:
"They're just fooling the Russians into complacency!! "
Right on guys!!


But I'm listening so keep the info flowing russian boy



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 03:16 AM
link   
interesting find SEEKEROF, it seems that we have 2 conflicting reports about the "RCS" of an TU-160


my source and statement was based on the editorial piece "Galley of RUSSIAN Aerospace Weapons" By JOHN W.R. TAYLOR

found in an 98 sept. issue of AIR FOROCE magazine VOl. 81 #9 - www.afa.org...

stated quote "its radar cross section is smaller than that of the B-1B and its aerodynamic drag lower." quote

now given the fact that this was published a while back is "noted"
not sure how updated ID's report is or where they got their est.

but i do not dispute its claims. in this case really comes down 2 what report u read.

the AIR FORCE Magazine is published by the AFA so its does hold some consideration



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAWNMOWERMAN
my source and statement was based on the editorial piece "Galley of RUSSIAN Aerospace Weapons" By JOHN W.R. TAYLOR

found in an 98 sept. issue of AIR FOROCE magazine VOl. 81 #9 - www.afa.org...

LAWNMOWERMAN, that article is by Kenneth Munson.

Furthermore, neither aircraft were designed as stealth aircraft, therefore, claims and assertions that one has a better RCS than the other is immaterial being that sources conflict, indicated when I mentioned that 'I had doubts about the sources'.

Accordingly, since you are using an Air Force Magazine to back your view that the Tu-160 "Flying Billboard"---being it is larger than the B-1B, being the Tu-160 is designed as a high-altitude missile carrier versus the B-1B, that was designed as a low-level penetrator---I assume that you also take this particular Air Force Magazine's word when it asserts that the F-22 Raptor is the most dominant aircraft flying in the air today and will be so well into 2025?

Also, the subject of Tu-160 vs B-1B and which has the lower RCS or the greater stealthiness has been long a topic of debate.

Again, my personal opinion is that the Blackjack RCS assertion might be correct when applied to the B-1A, but not to the B-1B, being stealth characteristics have been stressed and implemented, which would be prudent for the bombers purpose---low-level penetrator.





seekerof

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Again, my personal opinion is that the Blackjack RCS assertion might be correct when applied to the B-1A, but not to the B-1B, being stealth characteristics have been stressed and implemented, which would be prudent for the bombers purpose---low-level penetrator.

seekerof

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Seekerof]


Maybe you have a point there. RCS discussions always end in a stalemate. Just like which sub is 'quieter' disscussions.

Hey you knwo what.. maybe the Radar guys just saw them as what they 'really' are and ignored them... I mean ..."Whoa there's a flying billboard out there"..
"What?!!".."Don't report it or you'll lose you're job!!"..



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
This is interesting.

Bu now its got to be ATS specific phrase and its use.

I mean " saber rattling", as soon as there is any military news regarding a country other then US, its always labeled as "saber rattling" by some of our dear members.

Can we all come up with something new? I'm getting tired of keep having to read the same "saber rattling" in every other post.


LAWNMOWERMAN is correct about conflicting reports on TU-160.

Here is where the main confusion seems to be;



Although the Tu-160 was designed for reduced detectability to both radar and infrared, it is not a stealth aircraft. Russian sources claim that it has a smaller radar cross section (RCS) than the B-1B, but this claim is not known to have been independently verified, and seems unlikely given the Blackjack's much more exposed engine inlets and broader wing gloves.


en.wikipedia.org...

The main measure here is the forward RCS, were technically the B-1B should have the definite edge considering its tuned intakes. That by it self would have substantiated the claims of lower B-1Bs RCS, but then we are forced to consider the following;


While the B1b had a major redesign of the air intakes to increase it's stealth the Tu160 relied on the design of the engines. The redesign of the B1's intakes reduces the aircraft's top speed to the point where it is now in reality a transonic aircraft as opposed to a true supersonic aircraft (please correct me if I am wrong). The Tu160 was designed for speed and no concessions were made with the air intakes. To reduce the radar signature the first stage of the compressor was designed in a way and with the particular materials to reduce radar reflection.


aeroweb.lucia.it...


As for being the most powerful jet bomber today, I have some reservations.


Seekeof, technically, considering the total payload, speed and unassisted range, it is the most powerful bomber platform in the world today.

B2 is completely out of the category, it is principally a different weapon platform, leaving the TU-160 the 1st place in its category, yet considering the limited operational number of Blackjacks, strategically they do not make that much of difference.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Hey you knwo what.. maybe the Radar guys just saw them as what they 'really' are and ignored them... I mean ..."Whoa there's a flying billboard out there"..
"What?!!".."Don't report it or you'll lose you're job!!"..


Hmm this is all assuming it actually happened. All we have is some very concise statement from some Russian general without any other corroborating statements, not even from the Russian Military.
So forgive me if I'm skeptical but this assertion hardly holds up to any type of scrutiny. Forgive me, but it sems alot of people are gullible.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
If it happaned, I mean holy #, # happens. If it didnt, haha, they tried to pull a fast one.

On a serious note, Ill tell you why this is improbable. Because the fact is, if they Russian bombers wanted to make it here and back, they would have to fly below the radar ceiling, and that would most likely keep them out of range to make it to the US and back even over the North Pole, which would be the shortest distance, if they were up to altitude they may make it, but they would have been detected. Thats what makes me skeptical.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   
SEEKEROF your right about the author

agree
the TU-160 is no way shape a stealthy bomber and any stealthy features(true or not) it has incorporated in its platform, is just a bonus byproduct of its design and nothing more.

agree even I(a true believer in RUSSIAN fighter design,long story) can't argue one bit about the F-22's dominance and superiority, so you have NO arguement here!


my only stance was that if there was any truth to an RUSSIANs bomber crossing the ARTIC undetected .....what i should of said was in my opinion, more or less one of my theories of an scenario of how this could be possible


is that the only bomber in the RUSSIANs inventory capable in my opinion of doing so was the TU-160 but not because its stealthy(that i agree) but because ever sense the end of the COLD WAR major cut backs thought the DoD affecting high key programs and installation(such as a the ARTIC defense net) have really hurt

what once was viewed as an impregnable radar shield, has now had become very weak in certain places 2 where 5-10 TU-160s(escorted by an very sophisticated ECM platform) flying separately flight plans at transonic low(low enough and taking a page from the B-1B) level speed to 5-10 weak pinpoints in the shield(but not very deep), to where once in range could launch and stage an CM attack on select targets, then use its speed 2 break off. in short, left out other details too.

now this may seem far fetch 2 sum but its just one of my theories on how this could occur




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join