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-capable bombers intercepted near U.S. West Coast

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   
story from Washington Free Beacon
July 6, 2012

Russian nuclear-capable bombers intercepted near West Coast
 

This apparently is the second time in 2 weeks.

What message does this send ?

Or are both sides simply "scrimmaging" as part of a secret war game ?


Two Russian strategic nuclear bombers entered the U.S. air defense zone near the Pacific coast on Wednesday and were met by U.S. interceptor jets, defense officials told the Free Beacon.

It was the second time Moscow dispatched nuclear-capable bombers into the 200-mile zone surrounding U.S. territory in the past two weeks.

An earlier intrusion by two Tu-95 Bear H bombers took place near Alaska as part of arctic war games that a Russian military spokesman said included simulated attacks on “enemy” air defenses and strategic facilities.

A defense official said the Pacific coast intrusion came close to the U.S. coast but did not enter the 12-mile area that the U.S. military considers sovereign airspace.



I thought the U.S. and Russia are the best of friends.




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Happens every now and then...

Thread from 2009:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Just be glad that it didn't snowball into something actually worth reporting on here.

Old news.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
probably just a war game the one a couple of weeks ago was



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Happens all of the time. Nowt new here, its been happening since the 50s.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   
You would think they would have a better launch platform than a large turboprop bomber from 1952? And please dont compare to the EB-52s the US have in service because there is no comparison. Do there cruise missiles have turboprops also? LoL LoL



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Nothing like Détente....

The Russians have been doing this for the last 2-3 years. In 2010 a US General from northcom was asked about the Russian bombers resuming the old cold war patrols and airspace probe. He stated they occasionally intercept but it was not a priority. He stated it was being done by the russians for their own internal self image and the US would not assist them by giving credence that the Russians are a threat.

Based on that attitude I get the impression the US and Russia are talking with each other on the bomber issue behind the scenes so nothing is confused as an aggressive action.

Your fun Cold War fact of the day -
The Soviet (Russian) TU-95 - A long range strategic turbo prop (4 engines, each engine has 2 props that spin in opposite directions of each other). The dual props created such a loud noice that fighter aircraft that intercepted those bombers could here the engine sound through their cockpits.

The engines on the bomber put out so much noice / vibrations that the US SOSUS nets in the Atlantic and Pacific (SOSUS - Sonar stations used to detect submarines) could detect and track those types of Russian bombers.

Putin recently announced they would be reactivating some of their old cold war air bases near the arctic. A move to bolster their claims to parts of the Arctic.

To be honest I prefer the Russians to be doing this and trying to reclaim the status they seek for the military than allowing their military to continue to decay, watching scientists / weapons / etc walk out the backdoor to countries more willing to act stupidly.

A strong and stable Russia is in the best interest of US security.
edit on 7-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I always get a giggle out of these stories, and the sensationalist use of the phrase "nuclear capable".

Heck, my car, with it's very accurate GPS system could also be considered a highly effective "nuclear capable" delivery system.
It's stealthy too as it'll just blend in with all the other traffic.


So, approaching this with a measure of sanity... were the aircraft carrying nuclear weapons? No! Were they in US airspace? No!
Do we fly OUR "nuclear capable" aircraft close to their airspace? Hell yeah, as much as they do ours!


Nothing beats a good scarey story though!



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
EB-52? What's that? You mean the B-52?

As for the Tu-95 it's one of the most effective long range bombers built anywhere in the world. It's a turboprop, but it has ridiculous numbers for one. It has a max take off weight of over 400,000lbs, a top speed of 500+mph, and a range of 8,000nm.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The B-52E went into service in 1958 and we are currently using the B-52H variant.

The EB-52 started out as a fictional aircraft in a Dale Brown novel. Eventually that aircraft became reality -

ATS - Dale Brown's EB-52 Megafortress Becomes Reality
edit on 7-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Actually no it didn't. I know all about the EB-52 used in the book. The Stand Off Jammer was eliminated from the budget, then brought back, then eliminated again. It never flew, and it's never going to.


The US Air Force's decision to terminate the EB-52 stand-off jammer concept for a second time deals a new blow to the US electronic warfare community.

Maj Scott Fisher, an electronic warfare modernisation requirements officer for Air Combat Command, confirms that funding for the revived EB-52 core component jammer (CCJ) effort has been removed this year from long-term spending plans.

The idea of equipping a subset of the Boeing B-52 bomber fleet with high-power, wing-tip jamming pods has been pursued for almost a decade. A 2002 study by the USAF identified the need for a "systems of systems" airborne electronic attack architecture, with the EB-52 as the centrepiece.

www.flightglobal.com...

That thread was in 2004, it was cancelled in 2005, because costs had ballooned to over $7B according to one source, although some said it was at $3-4B. Congress pushed for it to be brought back in 2007, and it was cancelled again in 2009. The plan at that point was to use the EC-130ECH Compass Call as jamming platforms.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually no it didn't. I know all about the EB-52 used in the book. The Stand Off Jammer was eliminated from the budget, then brought back, then eliminated again. It never flew, and it's never going to.

They are 2 different aircraft, which is why I brought both up on the off chance he meant B-52E instead of the EB-52.

The B-52E went into service in 1958.


The US Air Force's decision to terminate the EB-52 stand-off jammer concept for a second time deals a new blow to the US electronic warfare community.

Maj Scott Fisher, an electronic warfare modernisation requirements officer for Air Combat Command, confirms that funding for the revived EB-52 core component jammer (CCJ) effort has been removed this year from long-term spending plans.

The idea of equipping a subset of the Boeing B-52 bomber fleet with high-power, wing-tip jamming pods has been pursued for almost a decade. A 2002 study by the USAF identified the need for a "systems of systems" airborne electronic attack architecture, with the EB-52 as the centrepiece.

www.flightglobal.com...

That thread was in 2004, it was cancelled in 2005, because costs had ballooned to over $7B according to one source, although some said it was at $3-4B. Congress pushed for it to be brought back in 2007, and it was cancelled again in 2009. The plan at that point was to use the EC-130ECH Compass Call as jamming platforms.

I thought the program was revived with a 5 year study on it?

Do they have plans to convert any of the ones in servce over to an electronic warfare version?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Congress pushed for it to be brought back against the Air Force's wishes, so they revived it in 2007, but costs kept going up, so they killed it again after two years. There are currently no plans to build either a new platform, or convert any B-52s. The only jamming platform that may be in use is the EC-130, and I believe the program that has USAF pilots flying EA-6Bs is still in effect.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Congress pushed for it to be brought back against the Air Force's wishes, so they revived it in 2007, but costs kept going up, so they killed it again after two years. There are currently no plans to build either a new platform, or convert any B-52s. The only jamming platform that may be in use is the EC-130, and I believe the program that has USAF pilots flying EA-6Bs is still in effect.


Thank you for educating me.

I find it funny Congress is concerned over military spending when they dole it out like M&M's.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Due to modernization and miniturization there really is not much need for EC aircraft any longer. Most of our modern forces have built in EC capabilities withen each airframe and even cruise missles.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
This actually happens far more often then you think, they're not doing it because of war games or sabre rattling, they're just testing the U.S. (and the U.K. & Norway) defence zones, it's good practise for the crew on the bombers and for the air defence zones. And well... if Russia find a weekness, then its all good for them, too.

It's amazing that they're still using the TU-95's



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by nostromo85
This actually happens far more often then you think, they're not doing it because of war games or sabre rattling, they're just testing the U.S. (and the U.K. & Norway) defence zones, it's good practise for the crew on the bombers and for the air defence zones. And well... if Russia find a weekness, then its all good for them, too.

It's amazing that they're still using the TU-95's


It is amazing. Even if you could some how hide it from Radar and heat seaking devices you could shoot it down with a sound seeking missle lol.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


Every fighter, or bomber has a limited jamming capability. The advantage of the EW platform is the amount of power it can put out to jam. It's a much more agile system than what's carried on another platform, because it can put more power, and jam more types of systems. The Growler is becoming a decent platform, but they're finding new and interesting challenges with it, such as the AESA radar. Reports are that they are jamming their own radar when operating.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Sorry my bad, i mean B52-E model not EB-52. Those things look cool though, i remember an old Amiga sim that let you fly one.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Russia and America are friends, but you know.

Russia is part of the SCO. The SCO is an organization whose mandate is to stop other countries from Iraqifying them.

So they are flying regular patrols, in case someone decides to attack Iran, in which case they will probably nuke your sorry little asses and you will all be back as savages no matter what else happens.

Its kind of like where you decide that if you don't stand up for yourself, someone will invade and murder you like they have done to others.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join