Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Russian Nuke Jet Buzzes Hull" - The Sun  
User currently offlineAnt72LBA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 414 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5070 times:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1749464.ece

hmmmmm............not sure about the accuracy of this, after all it is The Sun, but thought it may be of interest.

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4897 times:

Well, wouldn't it be wiser to keep at least some fighters/interceptors in the air at all times in positions where bombers would likely approach major cities, and have the tankers constantly flying orbits to keep refuelling these fighters as they go? If there's any F-22 squadrons on the south/east coast (like around the pan-handle) I think those should be especially used as they are incredibly fast, have great radars and can attack enemy planes largely without them even being aware (It's stealthy, it's got supercruise, it's radar is highly effective even passively, and it's radar's ability to rapidly spike in power level and then drop back can essentially get a track on the target before the adversary's sensors can "realize" it's been tracked, and the ability to perform silent AMRAAM launches in which the plane can guide the AMRAAM to the target silently allowing it to go active right on top of the target, giving them virtually no chance of escape) they've been attacked.*

I also think we need to have bombers like the B-1 and B-2 (Both, they have individual advantages -- one's very fast over the deck and highly agile, the other is barely visible at all on radar) at the ready as well... I know some will compare me to General Curtis Lemay, but the Russians need to know they'll pay if they do anything dangerous -- they're getting too bold lately, and it has me uncomfortable. Keep in mind Hugo Chavez has some of these babies (Tu-160's) based in Venezuela...


Blackbird
I'm staying online all the way through the night. Should my connection be lost, or should I stop posting (I'm going to be responding to various posts throughout the night), as this is the morning of October 1st, this could be a very bad sign...

Footnote
* This particular data is not classified and is common knowledge.


User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4842 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 1):
I also think we need to have bombers like the B-1 and B-2 (Both, they have individual advantages -- one's very fast over the deck and highly agile, the other is barely visible at all on radar) at the ready as well... I know some will compare me to General Curtis Lemay, but the Russians need to know they'll pay if they do anything dangerous -- they're getting too bold lately, and it has me uncomfortable. Keep in mind Hugo Chavez has some of these babies (Tu-160's) based in Venezuela...

Very doubtfull it will happen, the russians even know that have TU-160's so close to US airpower when they have the range to do it from Russian soil would be a waste of a good aircraft. The US would be able to take the TU-160's out and to easy in the event of a war if they had a base in Venezuela. Why do you think we dont bother to perminant base B-1's or B-2's in Europe or even Japan. I do agree with you keeping some on the ready, but they are ready do. The Russians are doing it because they know they can get away with it start lighting them up on radar and if they fly over you airspace take a shot at one, if they start getting contested the fly overs will decline or decease all together.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 1):
Well, wouldn't it be wiser to keep at least some fighters/interceptors in the air at all times in positions where bombers would likely approach major cities, and have the tankers constantly flying orbits to keep refuelling these fighters as they go? If there's any F-22 squadrons on the south/east coast (like around the pan-handle) I think those should be especially used as they are incredibly fast, have great radars and can attack enemy planes largely without them even being aware (It's stealthy, it's got supercruise, it's radar is highly effective even passively, and it's radar's ability to rapidly spike in power level and then drop back can essentially get a track on the target before the adversary's sensors can "realize" it's been tracked, and the ability to perform silent AMRAAM launches in which the plane can guide the AMRAAM to the target silently allowing it to go active right on top of the target, giving them virtually no chance of escape) they've been attacked.*

Only 1 problem with this theory Great Britan doesnt have any F-22's.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4812 times:

Well what I was talking about largely pertained to the United States...

I'm pretty sure if Russia would try something like this with England, they'd be willing to try it with the US.


Blackbird


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4642 times:

I'm just waiting for Russia to try to do this in the US and see how we react, i have a feeling that they would be intercepted fairly quickly by some F-22s or something, but who knows. What if we fail like the British!? That's unacceptable and i'm sure the US government is paying attention. Russia is getting too bold but at the same time being extremely stupid! Why would they try and provoke the UK when they know that brings in their allies such as the US Germany and many more. We may be busy in Iraq but the second Russia gets too bold it would give an easy out of Iraq for the next president and allow us to consolidate our troops to offset the Russians. What worries me is that if we "protect" ourselves against the Russians does that mean the chinese join in? That seems like a massive problem! Chinese have a freaking huge number to join their army but at the same time they depend on the US sending manufacturing jobs over to China to keep their economy going. So it's hard to say what would happen but we absolutely need to keep some F-22s around our borders, having a supersonic stealth fighter to intercept a large nuclear bomber gives the US a large advantage, and a few B-2s wouldn't be a bad idea to take out the Venezuela blackjacks incase of emergency.

But would we really use the B-2 as a nuclear bomber now that we have ICBMs?


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4593 times:

If, and it's a big if , this is true, that's the need for the RAF to get the full 232 complement of Typhoons answered!
(Then tell them, if you want that number, you'll have to form more squadrons than currently planned. Notwithstanding the need to maintain enough reserve airframes to both keep the operational fleet at full strength, now and well into the future).

So how should it look in this case?
232 A/C.
In 10 Squadrons. 14 A/C per Sqn, (12 Single seaters, 2 twin seaters in 7 squadrons. 3 Sqns with tranche 3 twin seaters/fuselage conformal tanks, to replace part of the Tornado GR.4 fleet).
That's 140 A/C. Then the conversion unit with 14 A/C 10 single and 4 Twin seaters. 6 A/C with the Operational Evaluation unit. Allow for 8 more, four allocated to the Falklands, the rest with test units, including 41 Sqn, the Strike Operational Evaluation Unit.

That's 168 aircraft. Leaving 64 airframes for attrition/reserve.
Which should be plenty, even over many years.

The 10 front line units, having 4 Sqns in the dedicated AD role, 3 in the offensive support/swing role, then the 3 strike units mentioned before.
The swing role units could undertake AD of the UK if required.

In a time of tension, if such a thing happened, however unlikely, with Russia, the Conversion unit would become an AD unit too.
So too could the Strike units. All the aircraft will have full air to air capabilities after all.


User currently offlineHapppyLandings From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4575 times:



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 4):
I'm just waiting for Russia to try to do this in the US and see how we react

That is why they did it to the UK not the US, to spare themselves the embarassment. Although if NORAD is as lightning quick as they were on 9/11 then maybe we would have a problem. But I am assuming that they are more ready now then they have been since the Cold War.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7380 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4540 times:

Good to know that the venerable strike Jaguar was also used in the intercept role, I may be reading the article incorrectly.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
So how should it look in this case?
232 A/C.

I will add what I think is another part of the story, radar coverage and a/c bases. Another poster mentioned fighter patrols, I think in this day and age, the funds will not be there for that during peace time. What may be allowed are increased AWACS patrols without escort, the need will then exist for forward interceptor bases closer to the coast with a/c on quick alert for rapid reaction. In any case, land based radar have to be supplimented by airborne coverage, blimps could offer a cheaper solution.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10109 posts, RR: 97
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4531 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ant72LBA (Thread starter):
"Russian Nuke Jet Buzzes Hull"

You just can't tell these Arsenal fans "It's just a game", can you?  duck 


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2616 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4369 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Tu-160 turned away 20 miles out, what's the problem? The Russians aren't stupid. They just know how to push limits. As long as they are in international airspace I don't see a problem. This is actually good for the UK or US or whoever they do it too, as it gives the fighter pilots real practice and experience in intercepting enemy aircraft.

User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4307 times:

It is a bit disconcerting that Russia is again using tactics largely not seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. First it was Tu-95s, but now it is TU-160s, and they are going farther from home than they have in a long time. Most people like to think the cold war is behind them, but with Russia's new aggressiveness, it is starting to heat up again, and that scares people. Every time a Russian bomber tests another countries airspace, it makes people nervous.

User currently offlineSASD209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4258 times:



Quoting Oroka (Reply 10):
Every time a Russian bomber tests another countries airspace, it makes people nervous.

Not me, just the opposite. Every time they test it allows us to evaluate their tactics, exercise our warning/intercept procedures, make changes/improvements to the same, and allow a photo opportunity.  Wink

SASD209


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4072 times:

DL767Captain,

It's my opinion that our government is so preoccupied with this financial crisis that they probably aren't paying the most attention to what's going on with the outside world.

I hope I'm wrong here...

As for the Chinese joining in, I'm not sure if their troops are a serious problem. They would have to get them over here... which luckily is separated by a major distance. Transports are fairly easy to shoot down luckily as they are big on radar and can be spotted from a long way away, and are rather slow and unmaneuverable.

Their nuclear arsenal however is much greater of a threat...


Blackbird


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4033 times:



Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 2):
Very doubtfull it will happen, the russians even know that have TU-160's so close to US airpower when they have the range to do it from Russian soil would be a waste of a good aircraft.

Playing around like this has been practised for decades, from both sides. No one has the right to blame the other. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15625


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3962 times:

Has the rest of the media missed this story.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3715 times:



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 14):
Has the rest of the media missed this story.

Seems so, makes you wonder, doesn't it?

The Sun , of 'Gotcha!' fame (this headline about the sinking of the Belgrano caused a wave of revulsion, even amongst those in the forces fighting in that conflict).

Never actually noticed those BA 747's sending the troops off to fight in the Falklands either, as they reported.

And according to them over the years, the SAS has been deployed so often, the actual regiment must be several times the size it actually is!


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3701 times:



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 14):
Has the rest of the media missed this story.

I think its because there is no story - this is The Sun we are talking about...


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3623 times:

I think that GDB and Moo have it covered.

Story what story.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic "Russian Nuke Jet Buzzes Hull" - The Sun
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Nimrod "has Never Been Airworthy" posted Fri May 23 2008 04:23:24 by Moo
Russia "shoots Down Georgian Drone" (video) posted Mon Apr 21 2008 12:57:12 by Kukkudrill
Russian Military Jet Crashed Last Week posted Tue Sep 20 2005 22:06:34 by Dogfighter2111
V-22, "More Phoenix Than Osprey" posted Tue May 27 2003 22:54:47 by STT757
"You're On Guard" posted Fri May 31 2002 02:49:25 by Zobatc
"Alternate" To The Ares Rocket System? posted Mon Jul 14 2008 23:27:29 by Tugger
"Liberty Belle" B-17G Has Just Flown The Atlantic. posted Wed Jul 2 2008 16:25:11 by Ferrypilot
Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber posted Sun Apr 27 2008 16:38:23 by CO787EWR
Debunking Myths Of The Infamous "Fighter Mafia" posted Sun Feb 3 2008 08:09:18 by USAF336TFS
Why Did The Sikorsky S-72 "X-Wing" Fail? posted Tue Jul 3 2007 18:14:17 by N231YE

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format