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.

 

Canada intercepts Russian bomber

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
The Tupolev Tu-95MS or as known in the West as the Bear-H would actually go now where neat the coast if it was actually attacking anything - it carries the Raduga Kh-55 (NATO code is AS-15 KENT) which has a range of way over 3000km`s.

august 18th 2007 the then president putin restarted the old TU-95 patrols

www.nytimes.com...

and voila - heres one such patrol , just because throughout the ninetes there were hardly as many doesn`t mean much - as here they are all over again.




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
The Russians have been provoking the west since the close of WWII, and often dangerously so. Routine or not they're really pissing me, and every other Canadian off!

If it comes to it, let em try and take a beer store or a Timmy's - then there will be hell to pay!

Jerk-offs....... I mean, Jerkov's.

Muskoka boy.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
They are just trying to get a glimpse of our Anti-Grav spheres and Partical-Beam technology.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
When I first heard about this story from someone at work I thought the damn thing flew near Ottawa or something. When I got home and watched the news and checked out the story online I got a feel of the real reason this is such a big deal.

Previous posters are correct this old game has been going on for 50 years with a little break in the 90's when Russia had no money. On some Patrols they get a little closer to the border others they stay back. They're collecting ELINT data on our radars, comm frequencies checking response times, they know when they got detected then they push on to see how long it takes to have two of the best fighter pilots in the world to show up and tell them to F-OFF. It is sadly more or less routine.

However, it is my opinion that the Harper Gov't is pulling a good ole' Conservative oldie but a goodie of distracting the population with a threat to hide the fact that they are tanking our country into a massive deficit that isn't going accomplish much long-term except the bonus of appearing to do something so that they look good for the upcoming election which will probably be in the fall if things don't start going better(a lot better).

Their trying to distract us from the miserable job they are doing of handling this crisis. He can't appear to be siding with Obama too much or he'll risk losing the Conservative base for being too Liberal. We do not need to stir the pot at a time when our country is weak.

I fully believe a concerted effort should be made to modernize our miliatry over a 10 year period starting with the airforce. I believe the smartest purchases for us would be 2 squadrons of F-35(great for small bases in the arctic and still supersonic)

2 squadrons of Eurofighters for air superiority.


A couple of these show up to escort them out the Russians will start to backdown. Their mistake is that although our equipment is old our pilots training and abilities close a lot of technology gaps. Canada is a frequent winner of Red Flag and Maple Flag. Them boys and girls are the best.
We need to upgrade our communications capabilities and launch our own sattelites. Upgrade our Navy and Army with more modern equipement and when we ask men and women to go on missions on our behalf we give them the best equipment money can buy(within reason
)

It's another Harper "Smoke and Mirrors" game to distract us. He's going to have to do better.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by DEEZNUTZ]

[edit on 28-2-2009 by DEEZNUTZ]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Not so sure about the F-35's you proposed, their components weren't exactly intended for our hostile climate. It's likely we'd have to spend additional cash and time upgrading them before use in Canada.
As an analogy, never break the snow bank with a Ferrari, it's too expensive, and it won't survive it.

The EF2000 however can easily be fitted to work in hostile climates like Canada's north for extended periods.
That decision I'd back 100%.


As a rule of thumb, lets not attempt to use any of that plastic equipment the US has been coming out with lately. It's not battle ready.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
The aircraft never did enter North American airspace.

So leave it alone.
It was in international airspace.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Sorry Baseball, I made a post on this after you. I looked and didn't see anything.

DN



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
The good thing is that Americans NEVER do this to Russians...it is just those evil Russians, like always, attacking the only true democracy in the world...they never stop, do they



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Not so sure about the F-35's you proposed, their components weren't exactly intended for our hostile climate. It's likely we'd have to spend additional cash and time upgrading them before use in Canada.
As an analogy, never break the snow bank with a Ferrari, it's too expensive, and it won't survive it.

The EF2000 however can easily be fitted to work in hostile climates like Canada's north for extended periods.
That decision I'd back 100%.


As a rule of thumb, lets not attempt to use any of that plastic equipment the US has been coming out with lately. It's not battle ready.


F-35 has no problems in hostile climates - why would it? Why would the EF have no problems in them then? Plastic equipment, how? Also, getting the F-35 is much more than a 'proposal', Canada is a level 3 partner.

[edit on 28/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   
yep guys nothing to see here.

In scotland here, the RAF regurarly chase away the big bears. Its that frequent in the news here we just glance and move on.

Its the old case of cat and mouse.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
Not so sure about the F-35's you proposed, their components weren't exactly intended for our hostile climate. It's likely we'd have to spend additional cash and time upgrading them before use in Canada.


Nope, no extra time needed. The F-35, just like the F-22, has been designed (and tested) for a wide array of climates, desert heat to arctic cold. Neither aircraft requires climate controlled hangars, and the F-22 has been serving with distinction in Alaska for over a year and a half now with no problems.




posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

Originally posted by johnsky
Not so sure about the F-35's you proposed, their components weren't exactly intended for our hostile climate. It's likely we'd have to spend additional cash and time upgrading them before use in Canada.
As an analogy, never break the snow bank with a Ferrari, it's too expensive, and it won't survive it.

The EF2000 however can easily be fitted to work in hostile climates like Canada's north for extended periods.
That decision I'd back 100%.


As a rule of thumb, lets not attempt to use any of that plastic equipment the US has been coming out with lately. It's not battle ready.


F-35 has no problems in hostile climates - why would it? Why would the EF have no problems in them then? Plastic equipment, how? Also, getting the F-35 is much more than a 'proposal', Canada is a level 3 partner.

[edit on 28/2/2009 by C0bzz]

If im not mistaken there were some trial's held in the Northern Upper Hemisphere and apparently there some issues resulting from climate. I will try to find the link, but just as soon as it was made public about 7 months ago it was suddenly no were to be found. Once again..sorry but i will try to find that data, but i fear its lost in the never ending world of the internet again.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
If im not mistaken there were some trial's held in the Northern Upper Hemisphere and apparently there some issues resulting from climate.


Perhaps, but there are only 4 flying F-35 pre production aircraft, currently, and they have never left the Southern US States of Texas and California where limited flight testing is currently taking place. The only such trial I can think of is when the Raptor visited Eielson a couple of years ago for cold weather trials, which it passed with flying colors.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by tristar
If im not mistaken there were some trial's held in the Northern Upper Hemisphere and apparently there some issues resulting from climate.


Perhaps, but there are only 4 flying F-35 pre production aircraft, currently, and they have never left the Southern US States of Texas and California where limited flight testing is currently taking place. The only such trial I can think of is when the Raptor visited Eielson a couple of years ago for cold weather trials, which it passed with flying colors.


Sir, you maybe right, ill tip my hat off to you, but i will try and find those links or should i say attempt. But if my memory serves me correct, im sure it was a straight flight to and from with mid air refueling. The EF had launched from Italy, but im kinda busting my head as to the location of the documents. I will try to find some info, but i wont be holding my breath about it.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


I do hope that was sarcasm


The US has been doing exactly the same to Russia since WW2, only the US didn't stop at the end of the Cold War.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   

MOSCOW, February 27 (RIA Novosti) - A Russian government source expressed astonishment on Friday over a statement made by Canada's defense minister over a flight by a Russian strategic bomber near the Canadian border.

Peter Mackay said two Canadian fighters forced the Russian Tu-160 Blackjack to make a U-turn on February 18 as it neared Canadian airspace less then 24 hours before U.S. President Barack Obama was due to visit Ottawa. The Canadian minister said the move was "a strong coincidence."

"The Canadian defense minister's statements concerning the flights of our long-haul aircraft are totally unclear... This was a routine flight. The countries adjacent to the flight path had been notified and the planes did not violate the airspace of other countries. In this light the statements by the Canadian Defense Ministry provoke astonishment and can only be called a farce," the source said.

The Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Col. Alexander Drobyshevsky, confirmed that all the neighboring states had received prior notification of the flights by Russian strategic aircraft.

Lt. Col. Vladimir Drik, a Russian Air Force spokesman, said earlier the Tu-160 flights were in compliance with international agreements and rules and did not violate Canadian airspace.

en.rian.ru...


This cannot be true because Carlo Kopp's mobile phone derived expertise has proven how TU-160's kinematically outperform "tier 2" fighters...

(sarcasm)



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Here you go...this whole thing is just getting silly.


Russia hits back at Canada about bomber flights

At a press conference Friday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the incident happened on Feb. 18.
"At no time did Russian airplanes enter Canadian airspace but within 24 hours of the president's visit here to Canada last week we did scramble two CF-18 fighter planes from Norad (North American Aerospace Defense Command) and Canada command," MacKay said.
The jets took off from Cold Lake, Alta., to intercept the aircraft, which has been reported as either a Tupolev Tu-95 bomber or its newer sister, the Tu-160.
"They met a Russian aircraft that was approaching Canadian airspace and, as they have done on previous occasions, they sent very clear signals that are understood that that aircraft was to turn around, turn tail, and head back to its own airspace -- which it did," MacKay said.
CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife said the plane was intercepted about 190 km northeast of Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T.


With an intercept 190km NE of Tuktoyaktuk and the fighters scrambled from Cold Lake

(2300 km from the Intercept and in total 4400Km from Ottawa...)

That would place the CF-18's at about 2/3'rds its ferry range so though I don't know what Canada's protocol is but I'll bet they weren't in a rush to get there and even then they would need refueled...

Here is a handy pic...


(Yeah, OK.. Just gives me an excuse to see how the media portal works..
)

Cheers.
Absence.


[edit on 28-2-2009 by Absence of Self]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Yeah, that's a little strange. Eielson AFB, is much closer to the intercept point, even Elmendorf is.

Still, most Russian bombers partaking in such activity are usually tracked as soon as they are airborne, from a variety of sensors and methods. The largely predictable flight path, limited bases hosting such operations, limited aircraft performing such operations, and the variety of joint Western surveillance systems and means surrounding Russia helps. Even without an international standard notice of intent, which the Russians did file in advance, we would "see" them well in advance and have time to react, especially in this recent case.

During the Cold War we would (in some cases) even know the serial of the aircraft and the specific crews flying it before such aircraft even went wheels up.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
An important point to be made here. You just look at that map and take note of the fact that Cold Lake is the only location basing any fighters in western Canada (small numbers are on rotation or temporary assignment to other bases). Geographically it is in southern Canada - perhaps well positioned for intercepting bombers on their way to various targets from over the pole to western and central Canada but clearly NOT well positioned to intercept bombers from Russia as they cross into Canadian airspace. In effect, Canada is ceding its northern airspace to the Russians and Americans as it obviously must be relying on americans to cover any real threats at the limits of so-called "Canadian Airspace".

The Conservatives talk a lot about protecting Canada's arctic interests but where are the bases to protect its arctic airspace? We might as well have "Taliban Jack" Layton running things. He would be negotiating with his Russian friends for them to "protect" Canada from the big bad USA.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
CObzz's article sais it was a Blackjack, not a Bear. Hmmm. bluestreak53 makes a good point that the round trip to and from this interception from Cold Lake is well beyond the range of the fighters. (3336km with drop tanks) Picture at the top of the linked page is believed to be the exact model of the two interceptors flown.

So either; there is a more northern base in Canada that the Canadian government doesn't talk about, or the USAF from Alaska refueled the interceptors in air or on a quick after-interception stop off, or the Canadian fighters were in Alaska 'holding ready' as guests of the USAF which would hint that we expected them to do this.

The Russians saying everyone was told their bomber would be running excersizes in that area is strange. If only because it could be true. The only thing we can be clear of is that someone isn't being completely honest. And I can't really think of a realistic motive for anyone to be anything less than honest in this. Again, hmmmmmm.

I just feel that there are too many inconsistancies coming out in the wash here. I'm forced to see this as political posturing, but to what end? And by who?

But at the same time, this is anything but a 'major' incident. Did the Canadian and/or American governments just feel the need to remind us that this goes on? So again, why?

I think we need to find out for sure if it was a Backjack or a Bear that the Russians were flying. When the picture remains foggy, more facts are needed. When the picture is clear, the facts can be sorted out better.

And great post Absence of Self .


Thanks for giving us a better idea of the distances and locations of how this all played out. The intercept point looks very close to the Alaska (USAF turf) boarder. I think the Americans could have reasonably sent a response of there own in this case.


[edit on 2/28/2009 by Static Sky]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join