Interesting flight route taken by Russia's TU-160's on a mission to Syria, circling entire EU rather than flying directly. Any guesses why? Two missions in one: Test EU's response time and then executive prime mission? Full Article + Source of Map: http://dailym.ai/1Mvyrql

Flight path seems quite cost effective considering Putin's needs

Maybe they have issues getting overflight permission while carrying bombs similar to USAF attacking Libya in the 80'is?

Quoting larshjort (Reply 2): Maybe they have issues getting overflight permission while carrying bombs similar to USAF attacking Libya in the 80'is?

I'd think given recent events the Russians would have been cleared for French airspace?!?

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 3): I'd think given recent events the Russians would have been cleared for French airspace?!?

You think?
Considering Russia is condemning French air strikes in Syria!!
Also France is enjoying(poor word by not sure what else works) a significant level of support from many countries that would not look fondly on such approvals, would have saved minimal flying time in any case

Quoting stealthz (Reply 4): You think?

Guess it depends which papers you read...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ches-wave-bombing-raids-Syria.html

I just wonder why they were repositioned to Olenya/Olenegorsk, when their homebase is at Engels-2? Okay, it gives them a bit of extra range after refueling, but then why return there after the mission was completed?

I think the routing is just a show of force/capability, just as the whole employment of the Tu-160. I mean, there don't seem to be that many targets suitable for cruise missiles in the desert caliphate.

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 7): I think the routing is just a show of force/capability, just as the whole employment of the Tu-160. I mean, there don't seem to be that many targets suitable for cruise missiles in the desert caliphate.

The B-2 was used over Libya and the F-22 has seen action in Syria, so I dont see any particular issue with Russia using the Tu-160  

Quoting larshjort (Reply 2): Maybe they have issues getting overflight permission while carrying bombs similar to USAF attacking Libya in the 80'is?

A few questions about this. 1. Do military aircraft have to inform countries above which they are flying if they are carrying live ammunition? In the case of the TU-160s in the above map, did they obtain overflight permission from Iraq and Iran or is all done informally, or in secrecy, unlike in civil aviation?

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 3): I'd think given recent events the Russians would have been cleared for French airspace?!?

ISIS is not often the Russian's target. Which is why it was perhaps stupid of them to bomb that airliner.

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 3): I'd think given recent events the Russians would have been cleared for French airspace?!?

Why would they need to use French airspace? It's a long way from the almost direct Russia to Syria (with a brief hop over Iran & Iraq) route.

Quoting vkrymko (Reply 9):

A few questions:

1). Where would Russia have positioned their air tankers to support this mission?

2). Do the TU-160s carry an extra pilot or pilots for these type of missions?

3). If the bombers had flown into Britain's airspace what would have happened?

Thanks for your responses.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 11): Why would they need to use French airspace? It's a long way from the almost direct Russia to Syria (with a brief hop over Iran & Iraq) route.

Beats going around Spain & Portugal.

Quoting moo (Reply 8): The B-2 was used over Libya and the F-22 has seen action in Syria, so I dont see any particular issue with Russia using the Tu-160

Did they us the B2 over Libya? This is the first I am hearing of that. I can't imagine they had anything that would have required using it though.

I like the Tu-160 but its a huge plane. Almost too big. I think they took this route to fly by NATO.

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 7): I think the routing is just a show of force/capability.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 14): I think they took this route to fly by NATO.

My vote. Unless you want your ordnance to be coming from a different direction, and don't want to fly over your target before hitting it, I guess.

  

Maybe they wanted to drop the missiles at range over international water. An overflight empty of arms is not the same as overflying while carrying/firing missiles at another country, which would require host country's permission.

Plus, extra bonus of buzz NATO. On a personal note, best of luck to the Tu-160 pilots doing their job safely and effectively.

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 14): Did they us the B2 over Libya? This is the first I am hearing of that. I can't imagine they had anything that would have required using it though.

They did, google Operation Odyssey Dawn and check out the missions flown by B-2s from Whitman AFB.

The B-2 was also used over Serbia and Kosovo in the 1990s and 2000s.

It doesnt always have to be used as a stealth penetrator, it can be used as a simple bomb truck when necessary.

It's too bad the USAF can't get the B-52s in on the fight on ISIS. From what I've read the B-1s flying out of the gulf have a shorter takeoff roll and/or landing? They would have to based out of RAF Fairford in the U.K., which I'm not sure would allow.

Quoting dfwjim1 (Reply 12): 1). Where would Russia have positioned their air tankers to support this mission?

Probably Olenegorsk or Mozdok.

Quoting dfwjim1 (Reply 12): 2). Do the TU-160s carry an extra pilot or pilots for these type of missions?

No

Quoting dfwjim1 (Reply 12): 3). If the bombers had flown into Britain's airspace what would have happened?

Intercepted and forced to land would be my guess.

Quoting dfwjim1 (Reply 12): 3). If the bombers had flown into Britain's airspace what would have happened?

Start of WW3.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 19): Intercepted and forced to land would be my guess.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 20): Start of WW3.

Neither - they would be escorted back to international airspace.

Quoting moo (Reply 21): Neither - they would be escorted back to international airspace.

Probably right. But obviously, the russians so far have proven they are able to navigate (except their soldiers who entered Ukraine by accident).

Very strange route indeed. A very long detour and pure showoff of air power from the Russians.

When the strike group passed Norway, two F-16s from Bodø Air Base scrambled to intercept them and to mark the presence of the RnoAF. The graphic on top doesn't show that. It was the 28th time this year jets were scrambled, a fairly regular thing.

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 23): Very strange route indeed. A very long detour and pure showoff of air power from the Russians.

Not when you consider that its the only route a Russian aircraft could take if there was a goal to not overfly foreign airspace while the aircraft has live ordnance onboard...

Quoting moo (Reply 24): Not when you consider that its the only route a Russian aircraft could take if there was a goal to not overfly foreign airspace while the aircraft has live ordnance onboard...

Are you sure that's the reason? They've flown the southern route to Syria in the past, with live munitions onboard. Most of the flights have been somewhat direct from Engels Air Base, with Iranian fighter escort through Iranian air space.

[Edited 2015-11-23 11:43:11]

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 25): They've flown the southern route to Syria in the past, with live munitions onboard.

Tactically, does make sense to fly over sea on the in-bound to avoid ISIS spies from spotting them coming in? Not that you can pick-out a couple of flights at altitude among the various flights around the world now a day.

bt

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 26): Tactically, does make sense to fly over sea on the in-bound to avoid ISIS spies from spotting them coming in? Not that you can pick-out a couple of flights at altitude among the various flights around the world now a day.

I don't think so, the cruise missiles were fired hundreds of miles away in the Mediterranean, and the regular munitions were dropped from very high altitudes. I just think the whole detour was a show of force.

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 27):

Maybe finding out who snitches to ISIS when bombs are to be expected?

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 23): A very long detour and pure showoff of air power from the Russians.

Not really.

That's actually their usual patrol route. The only difference is that instead of turning back once intercepted near the UK, they continued down south.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ept-Russian-Blackjack-bombers.html

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 22): Probably right. But obviously, the russians so far have proven they are able to navigate (except their soldiers who entered Ukraine by accident).

Quoting WIederling (Reply 28): Maybe finding out who snitches to ISIS when bombs are to be expected?

I think now with the downing of an Su-24, we can see why Russia was cautious with the Tu-160.

Practice and battlefield trials would be my guess.

That would be the reason for using the Tu-160, Tu-95, and cruise missiles in general.
Su-24's, Su-25's, Su-34's and Tu-22's (with conventional bombs) would be the most effective for this mission in my opinion.

Quoting moo (Reply 24): Not when you consider that its the only route a Russian aircraft could take if there was a goal to not overfly foreign airspace while the aircraft has live ordnance onboard...

As others have said, this was definately NOT the reason.
On many previous long range bombing runs, Tu-160's and Tu-95's took off from Engels, overflew the Caspian and fired their cruise missiles while inside Iranian airspace.
Hell, those 20+ Kalibr missiles fired from warships in the Caspian Sea last months actually overflew Iran and Iraq on their way to targets in Syria.

So definately not the reason there.

Quoting tu204 (Reply 31): Practice and battlefield trials would be my guess.

And intelligence gathering about radars, response times, etc, etc.

Quoting tu204 (Reply 31): So definately not the reason there.

No, but there have been a lot of back and forth between Iraq and the US in recent weeks over the allowance of Russia and Iran to overfly Iraq - I personally wouldn't be surprised if Iraq has had to change its stance as a result.

Quoting moo (Reply 33): No, but there have been a lot of back and forth between Iraq and the US in recent weeks over the allowance of Russia and Iran to overfly Iraq - I personally wouldn't be surprised if Iraq has had to change its stance as a result.

Possibly. We have to look at the timeline.

This particular "fly around Europe" flight occured only once and was on November 19th or 20th. If any more Tu-22's, Tu-95's or Tu-160's hit targets in Syria, it would mean that they did so flying the usual route. (Caspian, Iran, Iraq).

Personally I don't know if there were or were not any flights.

I am a bit confused. The Turks stated it was shot down by F-16 and the Russian stated it was ground fire.
Is this the first known instance of F-16 shooting down a Su-24? Just for my presonal record purpose

Quoting celestar (Reply 35): I am a bit confused. The Turks stated it was shot down by F-16 and the Russian stated it was ground fire.

That was the Russian version in the first several hours after the event. Afterwards it was annonced that it was an F16.

Quoting celestar (Reply 35): Is this the first known instance of F-16 shooting down a Su-24? Just for my presonal record purpose

As far as I know, yes.

Quoting moo (Reply 8): The B-2 was used over Libya and the F-22 has seen action in Syria, so I dont see any particular issue with Russia using the Tu-160

Quoting moo (Reply 17): They did, google Operation Odyssey Dawn and check out the missions flown by B-2s from Whitman AFB. The B-2 was also used over Serbia and Kosovo in the 1990s and 2000s.

Libya at the start of Odyssey Dawn, as well as Serbia, was a functioning state with an Air Force and SAM defense system, so there would've been a threat to convention warplanes. The F22 could've been used in Syria for a variety of reasons, including the possibility of threats from Syrian warplanes and Sams. If we wanted to attack ISIS without the Syrians even knowing we were there, the F-22 is the way to do it. Foxrot Alpha covered some of that in their article on the F-22s use in Syria:

"The Raptor's continued development has seen the jet transform from strictly an air superiority fighter, aimed at knocking down anything that dares to oppose its dominion over the sky, to an air supremacy fighter that can not only swat down advanced fighters and bombers but can also deliver a deadly blow to an enemy's integrated air defense system (IADS) and fixed targets of strategic value. In addition, the F-22's unrivaled avionics suite can work as a mini RC-135 ELINT aircraft, AWACS, Electronic Attack aircraft and its radar 'imagery' can provide intelligence gathering and targeting for other vastly disparate weapon systems, such as the US Navy's sea and submarine launched BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles."

"The F-22 may very well have been alone in the fight when it comes to its missions deep inside Syrian territory, seeing as its unique radar evading and speed of action capabilities would not have offered Syrian air defenses ample time to engage, or even see them at all. Other less advanced American fighter and bomber aircraft were said to have been used on the raids as will, including F-16CMs in the precision strike and Wild Weasel role apparently...

...There are some reports that a secret back-channel agreement exists between the US and the rickety Assad government in Damascus that would allow these air strikes to take place without interference. If this is true, than the use of Tomahawks, F-22s, and F-16s packing AGM-88 HARMS is very puzzling. It is quite possible that such an arrangement does exist but confidence in it was not high. Thus precautions were taken should Syria's air defenses have come online during the raids. Additionally, the F-22's targets may have been of extremely high priority, and fears that some in the Syrian armed forces or government would have tipped off the target to an incoming attack would have justified the use of a very stealthy delivery platform, in this case the F-22."

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the...-its-talons-in-attack-o-1637984159

Quoting celestar (Reply 35): I am a bit confused. The Turks stated it was shot down by F-16 and the Russian stated it was ground fire. Is this the first known instance of F-16 shooting down a Su-24? Just for my presonal record purpose

Maybe the F-16 fired while on its take off run and both accounts are correct   

Quoting Spudh (Reply 38): Quoting celestar (Reply 35): I am a bit confused. The Turks stated it was shot down by F-16 and the Russian stated it was ground fire. Is this the first known instance of F-16 shooting down a Su-24? Just for my presonal record purpose Maybe the F-16 fired while on its take off run and both accounts are correct

Just love your humor on this!
Turks are coming back to say if they knew the jets are Russian, they would probably take different action.... Wonder what does that means, are they saying they think ISIS has an airforce. I love Putin's answer, "our Russian planes are easy to tell" This whole situation is so confusing with every entity trying to get their slice of the pie...

Quoting celestar (Reply 39): Turks are coming back to say if they knew the jets are Russian, they would probably take different action.... Wonder what does that means, are they saying they think ISIS has an airforce. I love Putin's answer, "our Russian planes are easy to tell" This whole situation is so confusing with every entity trying to get their slice of the pie...

More precisely, the Syrian Air Force operates Su-24's, and the Syrian Su-24's were recently upgraded between 2009 and 2013. More than likely that the Turks, who probably knew the aircraft they had detected were Su-24's, thought the aircraft were Syrian.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40): More precisely, the Syrian Air Force operates Su-24's, and the Syrian Su-24's were recently upgraded between 2009 and 2013. More than likely that the Turks, who probably knew the aircraft they had detected were Su-24's, thought the aircraft were Syrian.

Knowing that there are also Russian Fencers in theater, they should (going by their own statements) have been more circumspect.

What a bunch of clowns.

Cheers
A

Nothing strange in the route - just additional training.

Russia for years didn't use 'far aviation' so it is important to restore the different skills including presence at the international airspace.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 10): ISIS is not often the Russian's target. Which is why it was perhaps stupid of them to bomb that airliner.

Or opposite - quite often if ISIS did it. Just another view to think about.

Quoting angad84 (Reply 41): Knowing that there are also Russian Fencers in theater, they should (going by their own statements) have been more circumspect.

Knowing that there have been incidents of repeat border violations of Turkey, incidents where Turkish aircraft were locked on by Russian and Syrian fighters, the Russians should have realized the Turks would not take any further provocation and violation of their air space lightly, especially after the Turks had already warned the Russian government that repeated violations of their airspace might result shooting down of their aircraft.

The Russians would have known that Turkey changed it's RoE after the RF-4 shoot down back in 2012. Specifically, Turkish RoE states that if unidentified aircraft repeatedly ignore warnings to change their course, the Turks will open fire. The Syrians already lost a number of helicopters that strayed into Turkish air space as a result of this RoE; the Russians should have known better.