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.

 

RAF jets scrambled to track Russian bombers

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Personally, I think its great. Not to sound like a downer...but seriously, what a better way to change things than by having Russia regain some importance on the world stage, and if its by showing off what they have - ie the Daddy of all bombs...go for it

[edit on 14-9-2007 by 3_Libras]




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Chiiru - trust all the Brits here please.

You see we never grew up with all this anti-commy indoctrination that still pervades the U.S.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't your Government test nukes in New Mexico in the past - if so you should be more worried what's in your soil.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chiiru


All I'm saying is that it shouldnt be something people 'get used to'. Either by them or by us. Either side should have taken it as a hostile act IMO. But, its just my opinon


It cant be a hostile act if the planes are in International airspace.

How do you think the Russians felt when the US was sending fully loaded bombers out of the UK to Bomb Iraq?.

They have every right to fly whatever they like in International airspace



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I know some are saying this is a great counterbalance against the US GOV,but it seems slightly unfair to me when my entire island would be at risk of total destruction by the russians if they decided to retaliate against the UK for whatever reason.
One well placed medium to large nuke detonated in one of the UKs nuclear fuel reprocessing plants would spell the end for us as an island,and much of europe if the wind was headed there at the time.The Russians have known this for decades.
Don't get me wrong-we do need some kind of counterbalance,i'm just not convinced by this one,which is basically the same threat as M.A.D from all those years ago in the cold war,IMO.
Scary



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
We'd probably be doing the same into their airspace if we actually had enough aircraft to do it with!


Oh we still do, even during the Cold War the US conducted more global patrols, over fights and or spy mission than the Russian, and our efforts were global. We (NATO/West/US) never stopped such operations after the Cold War "ended". We still routinely perform such mission near Russian forces and those of other nations. Thing is ours don't get as much attention, by the way this is not limited to the air via aircraft or space via satellites. I'd wager the quiet service is also having quite a go at it below the waves, however you will almost never hear anything about that…

Anyway, for those who are alarmed at this, can you image if we and the Russians reinstituted constant air patrols by bombers carrying nuclear weapons, Chrome Dome II anyone? Image if that become routine again.



Originally posted by Chiiru
Either side should have taken it as a hostile act IMO.


This is in no way a hostile act, they are in international airspace, there is an informal set of rules that both sides follow to ensure escalation does not occur. It’s actually a highly choreographed routine and both sides usually respect their counterparts.


Originally posted by Chiiru
Russia had my attention when the bombers specifically tried to fly over our naval base at Guam. …flying nukes over another's base just as a ha ha is not cool…


Despite what the Russians or the over dramatic media may claim they never overflew Guam, they only got within 300 miles of it, not even within EEZ let alone national airspace. And they never got within 200 of a US naval ship. Fighters were prepared for an intercept but since the Russian headed back before leaving international airspace none ever happened.

Source

Also, I am not aware of any country that currently runs global patrol missions with nuclear loaded bombers. The Russian bombers are not loaded with nuclear weapons.

Source

[edit on 14-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Chernobyl is an excellent modern example of what to expect with fallout from a Nuke. We were actually able to track its progress. I'm sure data exists for Nagasaki and Hiroshima, too, but our monitoring abilities are (were) miles better today than then.

3 or 4 mega-ton class nukes strategically dropped would wipe out this country. Its not rocket science, and demonstrates how vulnerable we are.

I'm guessing our guys are prepared to down them if they stray into UK airspace? Is that an official declaration of war or what?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
This information is key,and I gave WestPoint a star for it as he is usually pretty spot on with his information as far as I can asses from past posts:


OP by WestPoint
"Also, I am not aware of any country that currently runs global patrol missions with nuclear loaded bombers. The Russian bombers are not loaded with nuclear weapons."


SS out.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chiiru
All I'm saying is that it shouldnt be something people 'get used to'. Either by them or by us. Either side should have taken it as a hostile act IMO. But, its just my opinon


OK. So what you are saying is that two nuclear armed powers should be considering flights in international airspace as hostile actions.....

So we shoot down one of their and then they shoot down one of ours, and then all hell breaks loose and hey - what was that bright fl.........

Please don't ever run for President



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
It is a link to a old news story (not the current one being talked about), about a month old, But I thought it may be good to bring it up again because it quotes Putin and is from back when the Russians started these flights again. Maybe it will help people to understand the situation better and some more material to read for those who havent seen this article

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 14/9/07 by Pfeil]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I suppose if nothing else it keeps the RAF on its toes and gives them a chance to get their shiny new Typhoons up in the air now and again. With luck, it might also prevent the government from considering any defence cuts too.

Are the flights risky? Potentially, if there's a misunderstanding (and that's quite possible). But as a general rule, the RAF have more than enough resources to defend Britain's skies. I won't be losing any sleep over it fearing the Russian bogey man, anyway



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
its a shame we dont have a nuke bomber force to fly towards Russia for some training nowdays, ah well maybe we should surface a nuke sub some where and test fire some nukes into space, you think that russia would stop flying towards us then or fly more bombers??



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I swore I saw in one article that they did violate N.A.T.O airspace with two TU-160s this time. The Norwegians had them out in International airspace then the Brits intercepted them when they violated their airspace. This could get out of hand if one pilot makes a bad move.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I suspect that this sort of thing still happens way more often than we hear about. It's just not normally sensationalized.

I used to live very near CFB Comox, where C-130s are based for Sub-hunting operations. The air crews aren't supposed to talk about what they're doing on-mission, but... Comox isn't a big place and you tend to run into them in the bars.

Lots of stories about all sorts of amusing Russian/Canadian encounters. Not only was it routine, it was rather friendly. Opposing air crews would actually get to know each other through encounters and do things like hold up rude messages or pornography against their windows while laughing as the other crew made certain hand gestures. I heard tell (verified by several sets of loose lips) of a Russian sub that had to make an emergency surface in a location they really shouldn't have been. The C-130 that spotted 'em made several passes... while the Russian crew waved at 'em.

None of this was ever news because it was no big deal. The Russians weren't actually threatening us, they were just doing their thing.

Now, it's in the media's interests to evoke fear at every turn, so they report what is actually not even news as being something the dread.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChorltonDont forget the US does it all the time, flying bombers around in International airspace, so if its OK for the US, why shouldnt it be OK for Russia?


Simple. Because they are commie bastards!



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I cant believe no one is noticing the significance of this?

These were TU-160 Blackjacks. Not some old clunker like the Bears they have been flying. The Bears are not a real threat. The Tu -160s on the other hand are.

en.wikipedia.org...

aeroweb.lucia.it...

www.milavia.net...

www.fas.org...

www.airforce-technology.com...

www.globalsecurity.org...

Here's some video links:


www.youtube.com...



www.youtube.com...



www.youtube.com...

The bomber that dropped the huge Vaccuum Bomb in Russia on Sep 11, 2007 was a TU-160 Blackjack.

They are very fast and very agile. Two penetrated US airspace near the Arctic in 2006 without detection by NORAD.

The fact they carried this out with them is surprising. They are trying make huge statement with this and then the vacuum bomb on Sep 11.

This has nothing to do with Iran.

If anything this is about Serbia. Russia will not save Iran, but Russia is not going to let NATO force Serbia to give up Kosovo.
Serbia and Russia have close ties unlike Iran. If Putin was President when the Yugoslav Civil War happened in the 90s it would of turned out very different than what we see today.

If WW3 starts anywhere its not going to be Iran.

NATO and Russia need to work together. We have common enemies and common interests. There is no need for Polish missile shields, Kosovo's independence, or criticizing operations in Chechnya. If we would lay off I bet Russia might be more supportive American operations in the middle east including the inevitable air campaign over Iran.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
These were TU-160 Blackjacks. Not some old clunker like the Bears they have been flying. The Bears are not a real threat. The Tu -160s on the other hand are.


The Tu-95 can still be very effective platform given that they are utilized properly. In any conflict I would be more concerned about the large "Bear" force than the Tu-160. Age does not always equate to less effective. Also I don't see any real significance in terms of which bomber is used, both types have been routinely utilized for such missions.


Originally posted by MikeboydUS
They are very fast and very agile. Two penetrated US airspace near the Arctic in 2006 without detection by NORAD.


No offense but it's not agile (irrelevant) an you might want to research your second statement a bit more because it is not entirely true.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


Russian commander: Tu-160s penetrate US airspace undetected

en.wikinews.org...:_Tu-160s_penetrate_US_airspace_undetected

Russians claim bomber flights over US territory went undetected

www.flightglobal.com...

Russian bombers flew undetected across Arctic - AF commander

en.rian.ru...

Russian Bombers Flew Undetected Across Arctic

www.spacewar.com...

Russian bombers flew undetected across Arctic - AF commander

www.globalsecurity.org...

I'm having a problem finding anything to disprove it. I even went over the thread on ATS about it and only found speculation and argument from members but no news or links to disprove the event.



On agility, thats where it gets part of its nickname White Swan due to its maneuverability and of course the white paint.







[edit on 15/9/07 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Notice anything common between those sources, such as the fact that they are all Russian with no supporting evidence? They have a history of false claims, see the recent
Guam incident
mentioned above, and global propaganda is quite useful, take it with a grain of salt. Also, the Russian's never penetrated US national airspace, what they did do was fly in the Artic sector under US responsibly. Furthermore just because they were not intercepted does not mean they were not observed by radar, either way the Russians have no way of knowing.

As for maneuverability, that is about as useless and irrelevant as it can get, in terms of bombers. Still, compared to other systems it is not very maneuverable at all.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


Hmmm. Guam...

GUAM is also short for Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova...


edit to add link:
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 2007/9/15 by Hellmutt]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
As for maneuverability, that is about as useless and irrelevant as it can get, in terms of bombers.

This isn't necessarily true. Greater maneuverability means you can line up targets better, especially (but not exclusively) when using conventional bombs. It also means that the bomber can execute course changes more efficiently, making them harder to intercept.


Still, compared to other systems it is not very maneuverable at all.

When compared to other bombers of similar size, capacity, and weight, it's generally accepted as fact that the Blackjack is the most maneuverable of it's kind.

It's a damned good plane and produced at a fraction of the cost of a B-1, yet has more payload capacity and better range on the enhanced versions.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join