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 nuclear bomber flies undetected to within 20 miles of Hull

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Theres nothing remarkable about being able to detect Russian bombers shortly after take off or indeed, if Satelite systems are deployed, to observe their status on the ground and It's nothing to do with US/Nato 'Omnipitance' to say they would have been tracked when in the air. It's due to that sector of Northern Europe being lousy with Radar and sensor systems. It has been decades. No one is making special claims for NATO or UK Air defences. These are the facts. I doubt whether this incident ever took place.

As for your comments about 9/11, US Air Defences are focused on incoming external threats. Internal tracking is (outside military Areas) is the responsibility of the FAA. That's the 'reality'.




posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MeanDirtyKiller
 


HERE, HERE .....Cheers Mate good one. LOL



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H
reply to post by Dock6
 


You under estimate us Brits ..............as civil as we are ..push come to shove .........we know whats right.

the word on the street is people are pissed off.





Well Mate, here's the trouble the people may be pissed but the people who decide don't think of the average person in the street. They are only concerned with International opinion. I think in a post USSR you guys would give them hell if you wanted to.

I have great respect for the Brits fighting spirit they are some tuff little #s when someone tries to step on them I mean look how they handled the blitz creed they took the lumps and kept fighting even with equipt. that would have just been tossed out by other countries.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 


Didn't you know carring bombs or not 9/11 gots everyone thiking planes are smart bombs so a violation of this type still seems to be a great threat to the people. Take Nothing for granted.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Sounds like the Russians thought it was cheaper and more destructive to let us keep Hull..

Damn them....



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fang
Theres nothing remarkable about being able to detect Russian bombers shortly after take off or indeed, if Satelite systems are deployed, to observe their status on the ground and


Please name these satellites or at least the classes and how many of each are currently deployed.


It's nothing to do with US/Nato 'Omnipitance' to say they would have been tracked when in the air. It's due to that sector of Northern Europe being lousy with Radar and sensor systems. It has been decades.


In my opinion and reading it does as it's simply and insensibly presumed that the US actually operates these types of satellites in strategically significant numbers or at all. Sure there might be black project spying but as always it doesn't seem to be well used considering how the terrorist keep blowing up US personal in Iraq.


No one is making special claims for NATO or UK Air defences. These are the facts. I doubt whether this incident ever took place.


You have every right to doubt it as you are clearly biased in favor of the believe that NATO has sufficient capabilities to effectively interdict and prevent these types of flights. Why you have such a view i am not altogether sure but then knowledge/beliefs isn't always reasonable.


As for your comments about 9/11, US Air Defences are focused on incoming external threats. Internal tracking is (outside military Areas) is the responsibility of the FAA. That's the 'reality'.


No it isn't. You might not have heard about NORAD but some of us have and while they have their own tracking systems for the continental US i am fairly confident that they also have access to whatever information the FFA generates.

If you believe differently you are free to tell me why.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Russian engineering is some of the best in the world we just don't get to see it that often there is still an "iron curtain" of sorts




posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by wellsybelieves
 


Well at least their "Hind", "Havoc", and "Super Stallion" are they are sturdy and loaded to the nines with every possible ounce of firepower possible for the platforms.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by citizen smith
damn...just 90 seconds short of getting rid of Hull



Must be an Arsenal fan then.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


Beelzabub covers mouth to fight back chuckle but is unsuccessful.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 

No I can't tell you the type and number of satellites deployed. They tend to keep this sort of thing quiet. BUT I do know that the Kola peninsula is still one of the most heavily satellite monitored areas in the world and has been from the mid 60's, back in the Keyhole-9 days. Satellites do not have to be deployed in 'Strategically Significant' numbers to do this. I thought this might be your area of expertise but then I read your comments about spy satellites not preventing the US soldiers being blown up in Iraq. I found this a bit odd

Yes,I do find it very unlikely that a lone Cold War era bomber could fly from it's base past some of the most sophisticated Radar and sensor systems in the world, then across the North Sea to the English coast, undetected. It would be a first.

As for 9/11 yes thanks, I have heard of Norad and yes I'm sure they do have access to the same real time information as the FAA. Do they routinely monitor it? No they don't. This was confirmed when the taped conversations between FAA flight Controllers and The NORAD Duty Officer were released during the 9/11 inquiry. Why should NORAD monitor the movements of aircraft taking off and landing within the USA?

You seem to be taking all this a little personally. Are you by any chance Russian?



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Wait a sec, is it not a violation of sovereign airspace and a major international incident? Something does not smell right here.


Exactly,

Wouldn't there be a lot more going on from this 'incident'? Instead of a report to the media? It almost sounds like, yet again, some kind of propoganda to get the people up in arms against the nasty Commy bastard RUSSIANS!

Can we say cold war 2?

Sure, the McCain's and Obama's are saying the right things now about how they don't want another cold war but these little, hard to believe, stories keep popping up. Especially the spin on the Goergian invasion (oops, sorry, S. Ossetian invasion).

Joke.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fang
reply to post by StellarX
 


As for 9/11 yes thanks, I have heard of Norad and yes I'm sure they do have access to the same real time information as the FAA. Do they routinely monitor it? No they don't. This was confirmed when the taped conversations between FAA flight Controllers and The NORAD Duty Officer were released during the 9/11 inquiry. Why should NORAD monitor the movements of aircraft taking off and landing within the USA?

You seem to be taking all this a little personally. Are you by any chance Russian?



I love the back and forth insults about whether one is Russian or American or simply ignorant. However, to touch on the NORAD issue. No, they do not monitor the commercial flights but do have access to the same data. However, ONCE a plane is listed as hijacked this changes and fast. NORAD DOES start to monitor everything then. Don't try to go with the 'well, they were running hijack simulations that morning' excuse. They had well over 1 1/2 hours to get it clear. Of course by then it was too late.

I doubt that our defense system is truly this inept but alas, that day it appeared that everyone just happened to have a major brain fart.

Kind of like this bomber just happened to bypass all of the monitoring systems in place. Yup. And such a clamor about it too. It's propoganda galore. By all sides. Both sides benefitted from the cold war. Well, the arms dealers and their buddies did that is.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
i think we should bomb them now, there geting to close to our emenies there provoking us and are retalting aganist us because we belittled them.
We need to get out of iraq and afganistan, build our defense, pretend were ok with them, then make the biggiest nuclar war head ever and blast that country apart. I hate russia.

Could it be any fact that they was after this place in the north east, hartlepool which is not far from hull..
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
We can monitor every single craft if we wish too

and No we do not do that regularly

Any wide scale attack would be noticed, large numbers of planes, missiles prepping while aircraft were launched in large numbers

No attack will go unnoticed

ASIDE from... a few individual craft

and don't get me wrong, the russians could take out a couple of US Carriers a city or two or three...

With a tactic of even 40-50 singular Bombers catching us unaware in varying strategic points around the globe.. in a highly sychronized and far dispersed series of attacks

But Why?

No One area would be crippled, no single nation devestated no inability to respond created

The they will be Nuked...

So what does a single plane being ignored mean?

It means a rouge nation that doesn't fear death can still take out a NY or London... particulalry if the Russians give them good toys

But is it some trump card for Russia to beat the West... no, it's meaningless


and frankly our side... doesn't monitor "every plane" in Hopes that a singular "event" happens and the excuse for war is given to us




But Why?



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 

Assuming that this reported incident took place. The Daily Mail is not the most reliable of of sources on this sort of thing (they described it as a 'Stealth Bomber').



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
why do the russians have problems with america and britian exactly?



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.




Originally posted by deathpoet69
i think we should bomb them now, there geting to close to our emenies there provoking us and are retalting aganist us because we belittled them.
We need to get out of iraq and afganistan, build our defense, pretend were ok with them, then make the biggiest nuclar war head ever and blast that country


Why? Because they flew a plane near to England?

Really?

Maybe they should have done that to the West when we were flying U2's over Moscow, and Canberras over the Kola Peninsula and Vladivostok?

Maybe they should have done it to use when Reagan sent SR-71's on rat runs towards Soviet Ports, making it look for all the world like they intended to overfly and then pulling out at the last minute, or when he sent SR-71's to directly overfly Warsaw pact countries during the Polish crisis in the 80's?

Maybe they should have done it when B-36's and RB47's were doing Chrome Dome flights into Russian Territory huh?

And tell me, which pile of dust will you be calling home once your grand "plan" takes effect, and you're slowly dying of radiation poisoning in a country that can't support itself anymore, with millions dead, no industrial base and its agricultural heartland ripped out?

Do tell me. I'm interested to know.




As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
The cold war?
The spread of NATO?
The business with Litvinyenko (Spelling?)

There are plenty of reasons for Russia not to like us, the thing is this...if it even happened. It almost certainly did not happen like it has been reported.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by StevenDye]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by deathpoet69
why do the russians have problems with america and britian exactly?



UUUHHHH cause we think them weak since the fall of the old USSR and the breaking away of some of their territories was supported by us in a UN resolution which they where told not to invade those break away countries, and oooohhhh when our politicians steal they dont get hung in the public square by the masses our leaders steal and they get reelected.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join