Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Russians claim bomber flights over US territory went undetected

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
hmm..
I've found a new article regarding the incident of the Su a/c buzzing the Kitty Hawk

www.pstripes.com...




posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure that the Tu-160 cannot be made properly radar stealthy in the normal sense although it would probably have quite a small RCS from head on, much like the B-1B. Both of them would have quite a large RCS from side angles due to their large vertical tails with right-angle tailplane/fin interaction, and from below due to their engine naccelles.

Undetected =/= stealth design



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Third, If the Russian really did this, I doubt that they would so openly admit to it. Remember, Entering another nation's soverign airspace with a military aircraft without authorization is an act of provocation. Why do you think the U-2 incident of 1960 was such a huge issue? Something about the fact that the Russians supposedly did this and then openly admitted it, doesn't feel right!


The US had superior means back then and could do as they wanted without suffering serious retribution. I think your assuming that the Russians are at this stage worried about a American response to their clearly agressive actions when they are clearly not.


Why would they do this and then Rush to tell the world that they intentional Ignored International Law about Soverign Airspace!


Because they have the power to do so and get away with it.


If there was even the sightest hint of truth in the clame, the Russian Government just won a hell of a dangerous game if international game of chicken!


Playing chicken when you think you might lose makes you stupid in the extreme and i guess this makes the Russians either stupid or not at all affraid.


Stellar



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   


Sorry, but I have my suspisions! First of all there is Top Rock. Top Rock is the Code Name for the Alaskan NORAD command center. That entire area has it's own Air Defense Network. Second, since 9/11 NORAD has maintain a hightened alert. Third, If the Russian really did this, I doubt that they would so openly admit to it.


First and second, Tim, I don't think that you should make the assumption that NORAD is completely infallible, there appears to be a belief in here that NORAD would detect and track anyhting that dared to transgress US airspace. Well, that is certainly what they aim to do but what is the actual success rate? 70%? 90%? Nothing is infallible and there are many ways of avoiding radar that don't involve having a super duper stealth gadget. I remember reading many years ago about something like an 'atmospheric anomaly detector', a very elusive quest, it was a more sophisticated version of 'flying under the radar' in that a piece of equipment was envisaged that could detect the natural gaps in radar coverage that are caused by atmospheric conditions and the attacking aircraft can then fly down these gaps completely undetected at whatever height they happen to be at, not necessarily low level.

I'm not saying the Russians have developed such a thing (I don't know it it is even possible to) but maybe one of these naturally occurring blind spots might have been present when the bomber passed by, even by chance?

As for your third point, why brag about it, thats something I'm still chewing on.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I just read a Russian source on this and here's what I have learned:

They crossed some kind of "radar zone" off Canadian waters -- at no time they violated any country's airspace.

I surmise they might have done it before, and saw the radar lock. This time they lucked out due to possible stealth measures or maybe a scheduled outage at the radar station, or both. Now they are making this statement because they need good press at home. As simple as that. I wouldn't sweat over it.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
But why would you lean only in the direction of human error and not human ingenuity?


Point taken. And a good point it was. Thank you. This is the kind of attitude needed to "Deny Ignorance."


Originally posted by ghost
It all just doesn't feel right! Propaganda maybe?!

Tim


My gut is still telling me this is the right answer, though, for many of the reasons already listed. I know what my gut feeling is worth to others.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
all i can say is:

let's see those russians try that in airspace over the continental US...

then we will see if they are really undetected...





posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
If they bombers over the states they will get shout out of the sky lets see them do that. besides shooting them down would be considered an act of war.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
The two preceding posts are non-sequitur. Nobody suggested that Russians would want to do that. So I really don't see your point. The report was about a remote location outside the Canada territorial waters. Big deal.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
The two preceding posts are non-sequitur. Nobody suggested that Russians would want to do that. So I really don't see your point. The report was about a remote location outside the Canada territorial waters. Big deal.


my point is huge...

yes, this was part of a "war game"...

but what really matters is the russians can do it over the US (where citizens actually live)...

this is our security at risk...





posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
but what really matters is the russians can do it over the US (where citizens actually live)...


You gotta be kidding. Are you saying that a modern bomber needs to be directly above your head to cause damage? The days of WWI technology are gone. Have you heard of cruise missiles? The TU-160 is a strategic bobmer.

I agree of course that a direct fly over would have been a lot more threatening form any perspective.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
You gotta be kidding. Are you saying that a modern bomber needs to be directly above your head to cause damage? The days of WWI technology are gone. Have you heard of cruise missiles? The TU-160 is a strategic bobmer.

I agree of course that a direct fly over would have been a lot more threatening form any perspective.


nope...

i am not kidding, sorry...

i am aware that a modern bomber does not need to be directly above one's head to cause damage...





posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
it might help to understand what they have to possibly gain from this episode. here is my theory

they could be doing this as was stated earlier in the thread to garner support on the home front

they could be doing this in an attempt to hype up their aircraft possibly in the hopes of selling a fiew of them to foreign countries such as iran or china

they could be doing this to warn the USA against actions directed towards Iran

or they could just be testing upgrades to their aircraft to see if they have the desired effect

i think that any of these or a combonation of these is the most likley cause for them to attempt this and it is also more likley that they skirted the airspace and didnt actually make any kind of deep incursion



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
en.rian.ru...

Well that is the original source material and their apparently quite serious about the claims made.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Its not so surprising that it could happen, I am surprised if it DID happen though.

What I mean is, the Russians have carried out these types of incursions regularly for decades, not only with the USA either. There is a lovely photo of an RAF Lightning in formation with a Tu-95 and one of the Russian crew members is seen grinning out through the transparent blister near the tail with a thermos flask in one hand and flicking 'V's at the Lightning pilot with the other, I love that picture


I had assumed though that this activity ceased when the Soviet Union collapsed, maybe not then.

As to how they would know, historically, each and every flight that was detected was met by a fighter escort (ie the Lightning story above), therefore the absence of any fighters is what would tell them they hadn't been detected.

Maybe they did stop but just restarted again and the US has become complacent with its attention turned towardsa the middle east? Who knows.

Interesting story though, if the USAF has become complacent then America should say 'thank you' to the Russians for waking them up again.



edit; just seen the tag someone added. A plane being missed by the defenders does not make it stealthy you know. It happens all the time


[edit on 24-4-2006 by waynos]


In the RAF, we called those intercepts X-Rays, I wrote the software which tracked their numbers...and believe me it was not that many and I am going back to 1988...we never got that exited by a lone bear and often let them wander quite far before we decided to intercept. They play a game, we play a game, etc. Mind you if they had put a regiment of backfires up...things might have been different


Good thread though folks.

Cheers

CodexK



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
en.rian.ru...

Well that is the original source material and their apparently quite serious about the claims made.

Stellar


True but why talk about it if you did do it. Theres no point in bragging. A similar situation occurred with russian news sources when the iaq war started..they were reporting mass casualties. This happens more than we all think. US drones constantly overfly iran. Incidents like this were common during the cold war. The same could be said about the U2 or SR 71.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   
codexkeeper, thanks for that


If you started in 1988 would that mean you continued in this role into the 1990's?

If so would you say there was an obvious change in the frequency of these incursions after 1990? This is what was puzzling me from my first post, if they stopped after the Soviet Union collapsed wht start again now? Or did they just carry on as before?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

First and second, Tim, I don't think that you should make the assumption that NORAD is completely infallible, there appears to be a belief in here that NORAD would detect and track anyhting that dared to transgress US airspace. Well, that is certainly what they aim to do but what is the actual success rate? 70%? 90%?
I'm not saying the Russians have developed such a thing (I don't know it it is even possible to) but maybe one of these naturally occurring blind spots might have been present when the bomber passed by, even by chance?

As for your third point, why brag about it, thats something I'm still chewing on.


I never said NORAD is perfect. If it was, we shouldn't have had 9/11! Should we?
My point was, why take the chance, when everyone knows NORAD has been at heightened aleart since 9/11? It seems an awefully big risk to take with no real political reward!

Tim



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Its not so surprising that it could happen, I am surprised if it DID happen though.

I had assumed though that this activity ceased when the Soviet Union collapsed, maybe not then.



Well Canada has still been flying intercepts these past years. We still turn away the rogue bomber from time to time. The frequency has changed but they havent stopped yet. Got my information from a CF-18 pilot and sqn commander when he talked about flying one of these intercepts a couple of years ago.

just to add a last bit. after reading the artical it stinks of propagand. maybe if they had emailed pictures back to the states like they did with the kitty hawk this would be more believeable.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Canada_EH]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Point taken tim, although NORAD cannot be blamed for 9-11 as they were airliners on civil routes, not unexpected strategic bombers.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join