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: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fang
Well I think it's best to call it a day; You say there are no Western Satellites over Northern Russia, I say there are.


Oh there are probably are one or two but i highly doubt that they would be working....


I say no russian Aircraft has arrived at UK airspace over the last 30 years without being detected and tracked first, you say different.


And at least for your claim there is no proof. Common sense suggests that not everything is tracked and tagged even if the capability exists.


As for NORAD and the 9/11 inquiry, you are just plain wrong. Perhaps you need to widen your sources, Fox News and What Happened Next?. Hmmm.


I understand that you may not want to read Fox news but as always you could have gone to the trouble of finding alternative sources for the same sources. As to the the 'Whathappened' it's merely a 'summary' with some speculation and claims based on a number of sources (Cited in the article) from the main stream media.

I am sorry that your are not able to do research independently without seals of approval from this or that official agency and this fact alone is probably sufficient evidence that you are on the wrong internet site. When you are ready to consider what isn't always the most commonly accepted wisdom/facts i would be most happy to try to point you in more logical alternative directions.

Stellar




posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Skelkie3
No one got shot down ? Cat and mouse ?
Can't tell you why I know... but- lot's of people got shot down.

I think you are right about the purpose of this mission... if it happened at all.


Actually, yes, you are right. Quite a few people got shot down during the Soviet overflights, probably totals in a couple of hundred over the whole cold war period.

Of course, you don't have to be all "Secret Squirrel" to find that out - William E. Burroughs Book "By any means Necessary" fills in alot of blanks quite nicely.

I'm fairly sure the RAF never shot any "bombers" down approaching the UKAIR Defence Region though. That would have been silly.



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



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
>UUUHHHH cause we think them weak since the fall of the old USSR

No, that's not it.

> 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

You need to read up on your history. The USSR was dissolved and replaced by the CIS, and Russia did not intend or express any interest in invading any other USSR memberstates. This is one of the reasons Georgia asked Russia to maintain peace in south Ossetia.

The fact that you don't understand what the USSR was, and how it functioned is bad, but then you go and try to revise history to match your anti russian bias, even inventing things that never happened.

> and oooohhhh when our politicians steal they dont get hung in the public
>square by the masses our leaders steal and they get reelected.

Can you name russian politicians who have been hung in the public square?


As for the silly idea that the Blackjack is a poor copy of the Lancer, it falls in the same territory as the Buran being a poor copy of the US shuttles and propably hundreds of other stories like it, it shows that some people have no idea how aircraft are designed.

Having a blueprint is worth exactly nothing. A blueprint doesn't give you the metalurgical composition of the parts, it doesn't tell you how it is fited together, it doesn't tell you the math behind every part, or how the parts are supposed to work together in the final aircraft. The smallest change in size, weight or shape can cause very large aerodynamic changes.

The simple truth is. Aircraft that are designed to similar specs, to fill similar roles, to use certain enginesizes and a certain design philosophy end up looking very similar.

If you look at the Buran, it's actually slightly larger than the shuttle, more modular and built to incorporate many systems than the shuttle. The similarity in shape is due to the systems sharing similar design philosophies, similar reentry procedures, similar military profiles(most likely the single largest contributor to the design) and similar technology, and both designs were based on 30 years of similar research by both the USA and the USSR.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by aaa2500]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaa2500


As for the silly idea that the Blackjack is a poor copy of the Lancer, it falls in the same territory as the Buran being a poor copy of the US shuttles and propably hundreds of other stories like it, it shows that some people have no idea how aircraft are designed.


I never said it was a poor copy, just that they are similar, you can't really dispute that.

And as for the Buran.....well it never even flew as a manned spacecraft. And it did borrow heavily from ideas of the U.S. Space Shuttle.

Just for the Record the West borrows from Russian Tech too. If memory serves me correct the U.K. developed Chobham explosive reactive armor in response to a similar Soviet development. The Tech copying goes both ways. There was a reason the Russians were scrambling to get at the F-117 wreckage... they wanted the tech of it.

I don't see anything wrong with copying an existing weapon and modifying / improving on it. The Blackjack and Buran were not revolutionary departures from the the B1 and Space Shuttle.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by pavil]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 

What! No public executions?



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   



I never said it was a poor copy, just that they are similar, you can't really dispute that.


No, but similarity does not mean it's a copy. Both the USA and the USSR were researching the same subjects and develoing the same technologies. Some concepts were developed by both at roughly the same time, and when it comes to technology, you build on what you have.

Sure, there were differences. The Soviets focused more on aerodynamics, whereas the americans focused more on electronics, but this is natural.



And as for the Buran.....well it never even flew as a manned spacecraft. And it did borrow heavily from ideas of the U.S. Space Shuttle.


Actually, that may not be as clear cut as you think. Except for the physical resemblance, Buran and columbia were two very different beasts.



Just for the Record the West borrows from Russian Tech too.


Absolutely, but the idea that such complicated systems as the Blackjack or the Buran are mere copies of another system, is really laughable, and shows that some people have absolutely no idea about these things.



I don't see anything wrong with copying an existing weapon and modifying / improving on it.


Of course not, but you can copy an M-16, but the complexity of an aircraft makes it easier to simply develop your own, because you have to do the entire work anyway.



The Blackjack and Buran were not revolutionary departures from the the B1 and Space Shuttle.


Actually using liquid rocket fuel throughout, designing the Buran to use jetengines, enabling Buran to be fully remote controlled and even building Buran to use modular systems throughout could be said to be revolutionary.

However, they were both designed for the same job and to the same specs, to the same concept and based on roughly the same tech as the US systems and so look very much like the US systems.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by primamateria
 


Yeah, the Radar guys were Watching Porn on the internet at the time "cause it gets boaring in those little towers at night" & not looking at the Radar screens like they should have been & it just slipped through


[edit on 10/3/2008 by Ironclad]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Phatcat
 
it is a direct show of power aganist wot russia thinks is hostile and gb get hit first and then america and its allies



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by homo_borg
 


They have retired the nighthawks. So sitting in a boneyard would make them quite useless. As for the B-2 we know they have flown to within 5miles of moscow before with out detection. And the blackjack is an enlarged copy of the original B-1 that Carter scrapped. So how can it be the most advanced bomber in the world when it was copied on 30 year old tech.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
They have retired the nighthawks. So sitting in a boneyard would make them quite useless.


Yes, all forty of em....


As for the B-2 we know they have flown to within 5miles of moscow before with out detection.


Just like the US navy managed to orchestrate the coup of being able to track all Soviet ballistic missile submarines at once? Right.... They wont let the B-2 fly over Yugoslavian airspace without large numbers of support aircraft ( to suppress radars etc) but they send them on lone missions to test the best air defense network in the world? Sure....


And the blackjack is an enlarged copy of the original B-1 that Carter scrapped. So how can it be the most advanced bomber in the world when it was copied on 30 year old tech.


Well this is certainly interesting so just give me some of the sources you used to arrive at this conclusion.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Just for the Record the West borrows from Russian Tech too. If memory serves me correct the U.K. developed Chobham explosive reactive armor in response to a similar Soviet development.


What? Chobham isn't explosive reactive, it's a ceramic composite. The Chally's have extra ERA plates fitted over the actual Chobham armour for extra protection.

Also, it isn't a copy of the Soviet "Composite K", in case that is what your implying. It was devloped independantly during the early 60's. It's not even similar in make up to the early composites employed on the first T-64's.

Ironically and as a side note, the development of the Challenger and subsequent composite armour was a direct result of the Iranian revolution. Prior to that, we were about to send 1,200 upgraded Chieftains with new guns and armour to the Iranian Army.

With the revolution, we were left holding a huge surplus in production capacity and tanks. Some, funnily enough, went to Saddam's Iraq (and were still in service in 2003) and the rest of the capacity was handed over for the deveopment and introduction of the Challenger 1.

Anyway, on topic:

Firstly, this is a Daily Wail story, so take it with a large pinch of salt.

Secondly, as others have stated, it was probably allowed to penetrate for a variety of reasons, although I am not completely ruling out it sneaked up on us, as that is entirely possible.

Thirdly, I find it very hard to believe that there were no Typhoons available for intercept. There are ALWAYS fighters on standby.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by primamateria
 


Possibly, before arriving within radar detection range, the aircraft descended to an altitude beneath the radar horizon of UK air defense aerial surveillance radar.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Comrade Gordon probably invited his fellow Communists to put the frightners on the English!
Be afraid of the Scottish Communist movement aka New Labour..Be VERY afraid!



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by homo_borg

Well, it IS still currently the most advanced bomber in the world. We all know how useless F-117s are. We could only surmise how the B2 would fail miserably against Russian defences.

The B2 may be the most formidable stealth bomber on the planet. Do not underestimate it's true capabilities. The F-117 is a fighter, not a bomber. And if true to form, there are other even more advanced aircraft will in deep black that has yet to see the light of Jane's Defence Weekly.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
This is a scare tactic by the RAF to get more advanced interceptor aircraft. Israel uses this type of propoganda all the time like "Iran is a serious threat" because it can develop nuclear weapons although Israel has over 200 nukes itself. Some people are so stupid to believe anything that is written not taken into account the reason it was written.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   


And the blackjack is an enlarged copy of the original B-1 that Carter scrapped. So how can it be the most advanced bomber in the world when it was copied on 30 year old tech.


...Sigh!



The F-117 is a fighter, not a bomber.


Are you sure about that?



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhilltFred
The F-117 is a fighter, not a bomber. And if true to form, there are other even more advanced aircraft will in deep black that has yet to see the light of Jane's Defence Weekly.


The F-117 for various reasons was designated a fighter, when in actuality it was a tactical bomber. It had NO air to air capability at all, and only carried two bombs.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



My memory isn't that good. I knew one of you UK guys would get the right story.

I stand corrected. I confused the reactive and ceramic armors.....not my area of focus.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
reply to post by primamateria
 


Somewhere between RAF inefficiency, budget cuts for the RAF, a LO design for the Blackjack it's very high speed and the basic limitations of radar will you find a answer to that question. If you care to do so, and thus reject the notion that the Russians are entirely backwards, you can even throw in 'Plasma Stealth' to help explain why these sort of things are now so often happening to NATO partners....

Stellar


Blame the "Peace Dividend"!



new topics




 
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join