Air Force confirms Russian jets circled US territory of Guam.

So, what exactly is going on here? I have seen other stories lately about Russian aircraft testing the limit of violation of sovereign air space. Why are acting so provocatively?

Two U.S. Air Force F-15 fighter aircraft, operating out of Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, intercepted the Russian Tu-95 bomber aircrafts, which left in a northbound direction, said military spokeswoman Capt. Kim Bender. Read more: www.foxnews.com...

I'm not completely sure if they do this all the time just to keep on there toes and test the fences but I feel as if it has been ratcheted up in the last month as I just remember this happening to Japan as well. I know that regional tensions are high but what would be the motive to illicit a response from the US?

They regularly do it over here in England, they know what they're doing and won't stray into national airspace and it gives their pilots some flight time and they get a chance to profile reaction times perhaps to find the best routes in and out should they ever need to fly in anger and even an extra 20-30 seconds could allow them to get that little bit closer and perhaps allow any missiles dropped an extra 5-10% chance of hitting their target

reply to post by Helious


Russia is in the process of rebuilding their military, and relearning how to operate at long distances from Russian soil. They lost that ability in the 90s, and they're trying to get it back now. So we're seeing more instances of them operating in places they used to operate in the past again. Nothing new for those of us that followed this sort of thing in the past, and nothing really ominous about it, unless someone gets itchy, which is highly doubtful, considering it didn't happen at the height of tensions between the West and the Soviet Union.

reply to post by Helious

The newspaper also said the Russian bombers were equipped with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

Cold War never ended, "pause" button released.

reply to post by Trueman


I call BS on that part of the story. Ever seen a conventional cruise missile vs a nuclear tipped cruise missile?

This is the AGM-86:


Conventional or nuclear?



Conventional or nuclear?



The only people that would know that they were nuclear are the crew. They might be nuclear CAPABLE, which changes things completely in the story, but you have no way of telling that they are actually nuclear missiles or conventional.

For example, probably the only AGM-86 picture up there with a nuclear warhead is the last one. The -86 was capable of carrying both conventional or nuclear warheads. You only knew which it was if you were on the crew, or you loaded it. Anyone looking at it from the outside couldn't tell 9 times out of 10, and unless you knew exactly what to look for, that 10th time would be tricky to tell.

reply to post by Helious


There is a theory, nothing more, that the Russians are playing these intrusion games in the Asia-Pacific at the behest of China. This keeps US-Sino relations less heated and the money flowing in from US consumers while, at the same time, testing new radar systems against America's aging military hardware.

This was first suggested by Taiwan to president Bush just before he left office and again by Japan to the Obama people about a month ago.

This kind of thing used to happen Daily in the UK, Bears would come down the North sea
all the time (more than once a day) at times, and fighter aircraft scrambled from the like of
RAF Lossiemouth.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I never saw a nuclear bomb, which is good
I don't understand why you mention the AGM-86,when they talk about Tu-95.
If no nuclear missiles in those bombers, russians should deny it in public.

Tu-95s are armed with various types of X-55 cruise missiles with enough range (2,500 kilometers) to fire their 200-kiloton thermonuclear warheads from a safe distance beyond the reach of theGuam base’s radar.

Captain Bender said that the bombers were intercepted north of Guam, and did not provide further details “for operational security reasons.” Because the Russian bombers stayed above international waters and made no attempts to approach the base, “No further actions occurred,” she said.

rt.com...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Helious

 

Russia is in the process of rebuilding their military, and relearning how to operate at long distances from Russian soil. They lost that ability in the 90s, and they're trying to get it back now. So we're seeing more instances of them operating in places they used to operate in the past again. Nothing new for those of us that followed this sort of thing in the past, and nothing really ominous about it, unless someone gets itchy, which is highly doubtful, considering it didn't happen at the height of tensions between the West and the Soviet Union.

Seems like risky business given the state of global hostility focused on the whole of Europe. Russia it would seem is trying to reinsert itself as the chief antagonist to the US. There was that whole missile shield fiasco, the Russian naval base in Syria (although it seems they have backed off of that stance) and the newest strategic alliance with Iran, although I guess that isn't anything really new, just renewed.

Hell, there are those who say that Russia never really dissolved and it was one giant plot by the KGB to trick the United States. While I don't believe a word of that theory, it's hard to argue they are pushing the envelope once again on their side of the globe, they are itching to be a relevant major power I think. That however takes more than nukes, it takes a strong economy.

This will happen more often because American military want's to make sure it gets money from this bust government budget

They have a mutual understanding with Russians about that.

reply to post by Trueman


Because it doesn't matter. Russian or American cruise missiles, both are capable of nuclear or conventional warheads, and you can't tell the difference between the two on either one.

As for Russia saying they weren't carrying them, why? Just about everyone that matters knows they weren't. You don't carry nuclear weapons on a mission like this. There is too much risk involved. On 99 out of 100 missions, you get to where you're going, you get intercepted by the other side, you wave, they wave, you flash them your Playboy, they take pictures, etc. On that 100th mission, you have an EP-3 landing in Hainan, because someone was hot dogging it, and got a little too close. So you don't carry nuclear weapons.

reply to post by Helious


Not really. There has been an informal treaty in place for things like this since the Cold War. This used to happen almost daily, and got so common the media stopped reporting it. They wouldn't even bury it on a back page anymore after awhile. Now it fits an agenda, so it gets hyped big time.

The odds are that they were Tu-95MR, known as the Bear E, or Tu-95RTs, known as the Bear D. The MR was modified for photo recon, and the other for SIGINT. They were out there because the Air Force recently announced that for the first time since the crash in 2008, a pair of B-2 bombers were deploying to Anderson AB, I'm willing to bet.

The claim is that they were Bear-H aircraft, and possibly equipped with 6 Kh-55 or Kh-55SM cruise missiles. The Kh-55 can be carried internally on the Bear, so without seeing pictures, there's no way to know for sure. And like I said, it can have a conventional, or nuclear warhead.

Maybe Russia sees an opportunity to "break the bank" of the US, as was done to them in 1989.

Flybys and such don't mean a whole lot. It's a cheap way to show the flag. It may have the unfortunate side effect of increasing the US defence budget.

In reality, all Russia has to gain from a squabble is their "security", but that doesn't make sense. A risky and aggressive policy by Russia would seemingly make them less secure.

I have no doubt US remained an antagonist to the Russian Federation in terms of intelligence gathering, covert ops, infiltration and the biggie, economic constraint. Too bad US misdirected a lot of their efforts toward non-threatening entities. Perhaps Bush anticipated a cakewalk in Iraq, setting up Iran for some payback.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Trueman

 

Because it doesn't matter. Russian or American cruise missiles, both are capable of nuclear or conventional warheads, and you can't tell the difference between the two on either one.

As for Russia saying they weren't carrying them, why? Just about everyone that matters knows they weren't. You don't carry nuclear weapons on a mission like this. There is too much risk involved. On 99 out of 100 missions, you get to where you're going, you get intercepted by the other side, you wave, they wave, you flash them your Playboy, they take pictures, etc. On that 100th mission, you have an EP-3 landing in Hainan, because someone was hot dogging it, and got a little too close. So you don't carry nuclear weapons.

heh reminds me of the Top Gun scene where Maverick gives the mig pilot the bird while flying inverted

Perhaps a good time to reclaim those closed down ASW bases and put what money is left in the defense budget into more Boeing P-8 Poseidons? The P3's of the last cold war were one of our best deterrents. Imagine what their successor is capable of now.

Yes, the Russians routinely enter US territorial airspace with 'nuclear' armed tu-95's, they have been doing it for decades, they are pretty good at it. they know where most of the holes in our radar coverage are, and they exploit that. The also do it to Japan, Great Britian, Canada. What's the big deal? Nothing. We fly the X-37B over Russia every day! They get the message !

reply to post by Cypress


Or they conduct the tu-95 ops at night, and when you start to pull in behind them, guess what? The have a cable reeled out the back of the tail and it's whiping around in the air-stream, and hey presto! you disappear, and no one ever knows what the hell happened to you! Boy, I sure miss them good old cold war days ! ! ! ! ! !

reply to post by CarbonBase


They fly nuclear CAPABLE bombers near our territorial airspace, there's a difference. Prove they're nuclear armed. They never enter our airspace, and they never did. They fly near the ADIZ zone, which is not the same as our territorial airspace. They make it a point to not enter airspace, just as we never entered theirs with the RC-135 or SR-71 once the U-2 flights ended after Powers got shot down.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Guess again. They have flown THROUGH our airspace with NUKES on board. And they are VERY good at doing it. Especially in the Bering Sea. ANd we've done it to them as well. That's how the cold war went.