RAF jets scrambled to track Russian bombers

Originally posted by WestPoint23
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]

I see your point about the Russian source, but why didnt anyone dispute it?
There should be some news story somewhere that disputes the Russian one. Someone should of made a statement disputing the Russian statement.

The Russians probably dont differentiate what is US airspace and airspace under US responsibility. Its all NORAD responsiblity correct?

Its considered agile for a large bomber thats it. Its not the Lotus Elise of aircraft. Why spend so much time attacking that point?

reply to post by DragonsDomain


Head on my friend. After having studied their country, culture and society in general from the inside, this is what they like the most. Not too much unlike the U.S.
They need to prove themselves all the time, especially now when the country is slowly recovering from a raging corruption and disorder. They have always found a great support in waging war and piss other nations off. They will keep doing it. They miss the good old cold war days when they were something. The military will rebuild themselves rapidly, and with all the natural gas they have they keep Europe in a grip of terror.
At the moment, to escape military service you need a steady job or participate in higher education. This leads to that the majority of young men in service are either too lazy to get a job or too stupid to qualify for school. This leads to a pretty incompetent military force. If it was not a matter of numbers, any European country would kick their ass.
But this is about to change and compulsatory military service will once again be the general order. And since that nation knows few boundaries, political, economical and (foremost) ethical, who knows where it will end up?
As they flex their rusty muscles, it's not a joke. That rabid ol' bear is waking up. Better treat it nice or it's back again to the old ways.

The Berlin wall was a good thing. Not for them to show a clear border to the west but for us keeping them away from us. They didn't even know it (ok, that was pretty rude, but what are you going to do, sue me?).
I am not some crazy commie hunter, the Soviet reality had very little to do with communism, it was a world consuming death machine, just like U.S. hiding behing some vague "greater good".
Bah!

The US should put this on the fast track.
[edit] B-1R
The B-1R is a proposed replacement for the B-1B fleet.[20] Boeing's director of global strike integration, Rich Parke, was first quoted about the "B-1R" bomber in Air Force Magazine.[21] Parke said the B-1R (R stands for "regional") would be a Lancer with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and Pratt & Whitney F119 engines (originally developed for the F-22 Raptor).[21] Its new top speed of Mach 2.2 would be purchased at the price of a 20% reduction of the B-1B's combat range. This proposal would involve modifying existing aircraft.

All this talk of Blackjacks and the like has me getting nostalgic.
There is only one aircraft capable of extinguishing this threat (real or imagined).
That baby is CONCORDE - you see, it made love to a nation, not war!

Imagine if today it was flying regularly London to Moscow, all those new millionaires being created in Russia coming over to shop in Bond Street.
Putin's not going to bomb his people while they're buying jewellery.

I wish my American friends here could have seen that baby fly down the River Thames in SW15 (zip code) at 6.00p.m. on a beautiful summer's evening.
Hairs, neck, back of - I've got to go now, need to find a box of tissues!

THEY KILLED HER - THE BA'stards.

Originally posted by TommyCrown
All this talk of Blackjacks and the like has me getting nostalgic.
There is only one aircraft capable of extinguishing this threat (real or imagined).
That baby is CONCORDE - you see, it made love to a nation, not war!

Imagine if today it was flying regularly London to Moscow, all those new millionaires being created in Russia coming over to shop in Bond Street.
Putin's not going to bomb his people while they're buying jewellery.

I wish my American friends here could have seen that baby fly down the River Thames in SW15 (zip code) at 6.00p.m. on a beautiful summer's evening.
Hairs, neck, back of - I've got to go now, need to find a box of tissues!

THEY KILLED HER - THE BA'stards.

While I appreciate your nostalgic look at the Concorde, you must realize that the Concorde is old and a relic right?

Concorde itself may be a relic but the design is still very contemporary and would still not look out of date today compared to other commercial aircraft if it was still around.

Originally posted by Chorlton
Concorde itself may be a relic but the design is still very contemporary and would still not look out of date today compared to other commercial aircraft if it was still around.

Don't get me wrong, the Concorde is a beautiful plane esthetically speaking for its day. The Concorde can have its sleek shape because it does not have to carry the number of passengers as a normal passenger jet.

4thDoctorWhoFan,

How dare you call my dad a RELIC!

P.S. I thought the SR71 was pretty cute too, so I hope you now feel a little better even though the Americans never designed and built CONCORDE.

And before anyone says it, I know I've taken this thread off course - Sorry!

I listen to the radio almost all day, and I heard at least two different news stories, from two different services (Fox and ?) that said that the NATO planes had FIRED on the Russian bombers.

Then, afer a couple of hours, the story was completely dropped. I haven'e ever heard the story mentioned again, with or without the item about the shots fired.

Curious.

Originally posted by OnTheFlyBridge
I listen to the radio almost all day, and I heard at least two different news stories, from two different services (Fox and ?) that said that the NATO planes had FIRED on the Russian bombers.

Then, afer a couple of hours, the story was completely dropped. I haven'e ever heard the story mentioned again, with or without the item about the shots fired.

Curious.

Those stories were sensationalised crap then. The ROE do not let pilots release munitions unless they witness a hostile act being undertaken. The RNoAF and the RAF are both way too professional not to follow those rules.

Besides - why would they open fire on an aircraft in international airspace thats doing nothing?

i dont know much about the planes but is it possibe the Russian bombers are armed with some sort of anti air missiles or guns that can lock on target, maybe the Russians were trying to get a target lock and the RAF fired warning shots to tell them to back down and dont dare to try that?

Why are people typing so much speculative crap about this?

Its happened nearly every week for the past 60 years. It may have lessened off at the end of the cold war but it never stopped.

And you know what, we've been doing EXACTLY the same to them, and we DIDN'T stop at the end of the cold war.

[edit on 16/0907/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by blobby
i dont know much about the planes but is it possibe the Russian bombers are armed with some sort of anti air missiles or guns that can lock on target, maybe the Russians were trying to get a target lock and the RAF fired warning shots to tell them to back down and dont dare to try that?

Its possible that they had enormous laser beam weapons, Its also possible that they had giant air powered water pistols too. I mean anything is possible isnt it, but whats possible isnt what is reality

The fact is that nothing happened and no shots were fired. The Russians were simply doing what the US does, flying missions.


[edit on 16/9/07 by Chorlton]

We should fly our post Blackbird secret planes right over moscow and shatter some windows, Then maybe they will get the message.

Originally posted by Sky watcher
We should fly our post Blackbird secret planes right over moscow and shatter some windows, Then maybe they will get the message.

I'm sure we have but probably not at such low altitudes.

Originally posted by Chorlton
Then I would suggest you get used to it. It was completely normal for the USSR to do this and I also remember the US doing similar things occasionally in the 60's.

Because something was normal 30 years ago, does not mean we should "get used to it all" over again.

Shooting aborigines for sport and imprisoning gays was "normal" only a few decades ago, should we get used to that again?

having said that, these aircraft didn't violate any airspace, so not alot can be done. We send our boy's up, they flash some porno at each other through the cockpits and then return home.