This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I read yesterday in the Metro news paper that the RAF had intercepted Russian TU-160 Blackjack Bombers thought to have flown towards our air space again, why do the Russians keep doing this ? I suspect it happens more frequently than reported ....
Turkey Shot down a Russian Plane back in November, if we did that, what would be the consequences ?
L
Post edited at 11:06
In reply to lone:
Probably a similar amount that NATO planes fly towards Russian airspace. It's willy-waving.
Probably a similar amount that NATO planes fly towards Russian airspace. It's willy-waving.
22
1
In reply to lone:
I read that they flew towards our 'area of interest' which means they were in international airspace. They have every right to fly around as long as they don't cross borders, which they did in the Turkey incident. The 2 incidents are so different it's like comparing apples to morloks.
As MonkeyPuzzle said, we surround their western border with 'readiness forces' and perform 'training exercises' within sight of the actual borders. Russia can't really do the same as they have nowhere to deploy their forces to dickwave, but they do have an excellent air forces which they can fly about with.
I read that they flew towards our 'area of interest' which means they were in international airspace. They have every right to fly around as long as they don't cross borders, which they did in the Turkey incident. The 2 incidents are so different it's like comparing apples to morloks.
As MonkeyPuzzle said, we surround their western border with 'readiness forces' and perform 'training exercises' within sight of the actual borders. Russia can't really do the same as they have nowhere to deploy their forces to dickwave, but they do have an excellent air forces which they can fly about with.
2
In reply to lone:
In similar circumstances: similar. Lots of hot air, fist waving and some trade restrictions but it'd settle down eventually.
In international airspace for no good reason: probably much the same but with a well deserved bollocking from NATO as well as the Russians.
Do you imagine we're not doing the same to them over the Baltic?
jk
> Turkey Shot down a Russian Plane back in November, if we did that, what would be the consequences ?
In similar circumstances: similar. Lots of hot air, fist waving and some trade restrictions but it'd settle down eventually.
In international airspace for no good reason: probably much the same but with a well deserved bollocking from NATO as well as the Russians.
Do you imagine we're not doing the same to them over the Baltic?
jk
Post edited at 11:13
2
1
In reply to lone:
similar marine activities are the most plausible explanation for the sperm whale strandings imo..
similar marine activities are the most plausible explanation for the sperm whale strandings imo..
Post edited at 11:20
5
In reply to jkarran:
I htink you will find that the Russians have stepped up their incursion game for the Baltic countrys and it has sent the likes of Sweden/Finland into a spin.
I htink you will find that the Russians have stepped up their incursion game for the Baltic countrys and it has sent the likes of Sweden/Finland into a spin.
In reply to lone:
How else do you train long range bomber crew?
It happened over 200 times in the baltic last year. I'm sure we do the same the other way.
Of us shooting down a plane in international airspace or in Uk airspace? Its not like it hasn't happened before, see Korean airlines shot down by soviets or Libyan fighter jets shot down by the yanks in the Med.
> I read yesterday in the Metro news paper that the RAF had intercepted Russian TU-160 Blackjack Bombers thought to have flown towards our air space again, why do the Russians keep doing this ?
How else do you train long range bomber crew?
> I suspect it happens more frequently than reported ....
It happened over 200 times in the baltic last year. I'm sure we do the same the other way.
> Turkey Shot down a Russian Plane back in November, if we did that, what would be the consequences ?
Of us shooting down a plane in international airspace or in Uk airspace? Its not like it hasn't happened before, see Korean airlines shot down by soviets or Libyan fighter jets shot down by the yanks in the Med.
In reply to malk:
Unlikely in this case, as much as marine sonar and general shipping noise endanger whales in other instances.
The sperm whales that died probably just got trapped in the shallow wadden sea and the Wash, after deciding to go round Britain the wrong way.
CB
> similar marine activities are the most plausible explanation for the sperm whale strandings imo..
Unlikely in this case, as much as marine sonar and general shipping noise endanger whales in other instances.
The sperm whales that died probably just got trapped in the shallow wadden sea and the Wash, after deciding to go round Britain the wrong way.
CB
In reply to cb294:
look what i've found: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/494420/Royal-Navy-System-Russia...
look what i've found: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/494420/Royal-Navy-System-Russia...
2
2
In reply to malk:
The point I tried to make is that the shallow bits of the North Sea are a death trap for any sperm whale pod that, for whatever reason, happens to enter the area, as the animals get disoriented from ground reflections alone, cannot feed, etc.
One does therefore not need to invoke any special events if any whales that happen to enter the shallow areas of the North Sea eventually die. There is a reason that sperm whales are not normally found in these seas.
What went wrong is that the whales went east, either entering the Channel or going round Scotland. In either case, this would be nothing to do with increased military activity in the Baltic and North Sea.
This situation to me seems to be totally different from cases where mass strandings of whales, in areas where they are also normally found, coincide with military exercises, especially sub hunting.
CB
The point I tried to make is that the shallow bits of the North Sea are a death trap for any sperm whale pod that, for whatever reason, happens to enter the area, as the animals get disoriented from ground reflections alone, cannot feed, etc.
One does therefore not need to invoke any special events if any whales that happen to enter the shallow areas of the North Sea eventually die. There is a reason that sperm whales are not normally found in these seas.
What went wrong is that the whales went east, either entering the Channel or going round Scotland. In either case, this would be nothing to do with increased military activity in the Baltic and North Sea.
This situation to me seems to be totally different from cases where mass strandings of whales, in areas where they are also normally found, coincide with military exercises, especially sub hunting.
CB
1
In reply to cb294:
you'll have to convince me further eg why could not the whales have escaped south from the military activity in the north?
> What went wrong is that the whales went east, either entering the Channel or going round Scotland. In either case, this would be nothing to do with increased military activity in the Baltic and North Sea.
> This situation to me seems to be totally different from cases where mass strandings of whales, in areas where they are also normally found, coincide with military exercises, especially sub hunting.
you'll have to convince me further eg why could not the whales have escaped south from the military activity in the north?
Post edited at 13:02
In reply to jkarran:
NATO airforces police the Baltic States airspace as those three states have no, or next to no, airforces but I don't think they go into Russian airspace or the Russians would make a big stink about it. But I do know that Russian military flights regularly go into Finnish airspace - it is one of the biggest diplomatic issues currently and the Finnish airforce moved some of its F18s down to the south because lots of the incursions have been there, along the country's southern coastline.
> Do you imagine we're not doing the same to them over the Baltic?
NATO airforces police the Baltic States airspace as those three states have no, or next to no, airforces but I don't think they go into Russian airspace or the Russians would make a big stink about it. But I do know that Russian military flights regularly go into Finnish airspace - it is one of the biggest diplomatic issues currently and the Finnish airforce moved some of its F18s down to the south because lots of the incursions have been there, along the country's southern coastline.
1
In reply to malk:
Whales have been stranding along the east coast for centuries, long before warships were made of metal let alone carrying sonar. Sonar could be the cause of this year's standings but then so could El Nino or any number of other factors.
jk
Whales have been stranding along the east coast for centuries, long before warships were made of metal let alone carrying sonar. Sonar could be the cause of this year's standings but then so could El Nino or any number of other factors.
jk
10
1
In reply to jkarran:
true enough- you forgot global warming. hopefully we now have the technology to identify the cause without coverups..
true enough- you forgot global warming. hopefully we now have the technology to identify the cause without coverups..
Post edited at 13:11
In reply to TobyA:
I don't imagine NATO aircraft do go into Russian airspace any more than the Russian aircraft coming here enter ours, doesn't mean we're not routinely patrolling up and down their borders peering in and it's not like we were quite so squeamish in the past about direct overflights.
jk
> NATO airforces police the Baltic States airspace as those three states have no, or next to no, airforces but I don't think they go into Russian airspace or the Russians would make a big stink about it. But I do know that Russian military flights regularly go into Finnish airspace - it is one of the biggest diplomatic issues currently and the Finnish airforce moved some of its F18s down to the south because lots of the incursions have been there, along the country's southern coastline.
I don't imagine NATO aircraft do go into Russian airspace any more than the Russian aircraft coming here enter ours, doesn't mean we're not routinely patrolling up and down their borders peering in and it's not like we were quite so squeamish in the past about direct overflights.
jk
2
3
In reply to jkarran:
Thank goodness for us doing that. Otherise I am sure they would be in our airspece more frequently.
Thank goodness for us doing that. Otherise I am sure they would be in our airspece more frequently.
1
In reply to neilh:
There is quite a lot of space up there - does it much matter if the odd Russian plane flies in it?
> they would be in our airspece more frequently.
There is quite a lot of space up there - does it much matter if the odd Russian plane flies in it?
1
In reply to neilh:
I'm not sure I follow the logic, perhaps you could explain.
I'm not passing judgement on our patrols, nor Russia's, it's just what we do and have been doing for decades to test each other's defenses and make a statement.
Perhaps whoever dislikes my post could explain why because I'm puzzled.
jk
> Thank goodness for us doing that. Otherise I am sure they would be in our airspece more frequently.
I'm not sure I follow the logic, perhaps you could explain.
I'm not passing judgement on our patrols, nor Russia's, it's just what we do and have been doing for decades to test each other's defenses and make a statement.
Perhaps whoever dislikes my post could explain why because I'm puzzled.
jk
3
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I'm convinced that Putin is hoping that Donald Trump makes it to the white house. We would then see some serious willy-waving, airspace would become like a (very dangerous) kids playground. The 2 of them would be like pigs in s**t.
> Probably a similar amount that NATO planes fly towards Russian airspace. It's willy-waving.
I'm convinced that Putin is hoping that Donald Trump makes it to the white house. We would then see some serious willy-waving, airspace would become like a (very dangerous) kids playground. The 2 of them would be like pigs in s**t.
1
In reply to lone:
>
>
If Mr Corbyn was PM he would terrify the Russians into backing down by deploying a nuclear war headless
Trident submarine......
>
> Turkey Shot down a Russian Plane back in November, if we did that, what would be the consequences ?
>
If Mr Corbyn was PM he would terrify the Russians into backing down by deploying a nuclear war headless
Trident submarine......
6
6
In reply to lone:
One of the main motives of doing this routinely is to monitor another state's air defence command and communications capabilities, equipment and doctrines. When you trigger a response you have the opportunity to analyse changes on defensive and threat radar signals, the way they are used, ground to air fighter control communications, response times and behaviour. In otherwords electronic intelligence gathering. I know someone who used to fly against the chinese with the RAF ias long ago as the 1950s doing this.
The Germans concluded that UK had no credible radar by sending the Graf Zeppelin through UK airspace before the outbreak of WWII - they were checking for VHF radar and the idea of us using frequencies as low as 27MHz in the CH radar system didn't occur to them, apparently. I believe that the head of Luftwaffe signals was somewhat surprised when he discovered after the war that the Zeppelin had been continually tracked.
some further reading here, if interested.
http://www.ventnorradar.co.uk/CH.htm
One of the main motives of doing this routinely is to monitor another state's air defence command and communications capabilities, equipment and doctrines. When you trigger a response you have the opportunity to analyse changes on defensive and threat radar signals, the way they are used, ground to air fighter control communications, response times and behaviour. In otherwords electronic intelligence gathering. I know someone who used to fly against the chinese with the RAF ias long ago as the 1950s doing this.
The Germans concluded that UK had no credible radar by sending the Graf Zeppelin through UK airspace before the outbreak of WWII - they were checking for VHF radar and the idea of us using frequencies as low as 27MHz in the CH radar system didn't occur to them, apparently. I believe that the head of Luftwaffe signals was somewhat surprised when he discovered after the war that the Zeppelin had been continually tracked.
some further reading here, if interested.
http://www.ventnorradar.co.uk/CH.htm
Post edited at 14:19
4
In reply to malk:
It's a handful of whales mate, get over it. There's no conspiracy to cover up, just stupid animals trapping themselves.
It's a handful of whales mate, get over it. There's no conspiracy to cover up, just stupid animals trapping themselves.
3
1
In reply to malk:
I have no idea what caused the animals to enter the North sea in the first place, but that they fail to escape is nothing new. Most reports of sperm whale sightings in the shallow southern part ended with the death of the animals, even if you go back to the 1900s. Military sonar as used for active sub hunting is a huge problem for whales, and has caused mass beachings elsewhere, e.g. pilot whales in the Scottish islands, but a sperm whale in the North sea is doomed regardless.
CB
I have no idea what caused the animals to enter the North sea in the first place, but that they fail to escape is nothing new. Most reports of sperm whale sightings in the shallow southern part ended with the death of the animals, even if you go back to the 1900s. Military sonar as used for active sub hunting is a huge problem for whales, and has caused mass beachings elsewhere, e.g. pilot whales in the Scottish islands, but a sperm whale in the North sea is doomed regardless.
CB
2
In reply to cb294:
There was that incident where loads of Dolphins beached themselves due to military exercises... I think Sonar was involved
L
There was that incident where loads of Dolphins beached themselves due to military exercises... I think Sonar was involved
L
1
In reply to lone:
Attention-seeking, limp-wristed liberal conchies, obviously - serves 'em right
> There was that incident where loads of Dolphins beached themselves due to military exercises
Attention-seeking, limp-wristed liberal conchies, obviously - serves 'em right
In reply to malk:
Daily star.. Right up there with Nature..
> look what i've found: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/494420/Royal-Navy-System-Russia...
Daily star.. Right up there with Nature..
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
was waiting for someone to discredit the source without addressing the issue..
was waiting for someone to discredit the source without addressing the issue..
1
4
In reply to lone:
As I said above, sonar is a known cause for whale beachings in regions where these whales are normally found. Any sperm whales accidentally entering the shallow southern North Sea will likely become trapped die anyway, and did so before sonar was invented. So why link this incident to increased military activity that is largely concentrated elsewhere?
CB
As I said above, sonar is a known cause for whale beachings in regions where these whales are normally found. Any sperm whales accidentally entering the shallow southern North Sea will likely become trapped die anyway, and did so before sonar was invented. So why link this incident to increased military activity that is largely concentrated elsewhere?
CB
In reply to lone:
As to the question of if we shot down a Russian military aircraft, it all depends where it was shot down and how you can prove where it was when you shot in down. By the virtue of Britain being an Island we have the benefit of having a 12 nautical mile buffer zone of territorial waters.
Unfortunately for Turkey, sharing a land border with Syria means that those margins of error are smaller with respect to proving the boundary of sovereign airspace.
The use of nuclear bombers to deliver a nuclear payload is now largely redundant, if Russia wanted to carry out a first strike nuclear attack on the UK, they would more than likely use a submarine or land based ICBM. So sending nuclear capable bombers towards UK airspace, is like you innocently walking past a neighbours house (who you don't get on with) with a golf club, the threat of violence if there but actually if you wanted to do them harm there are better ways of doing it... like throwing a petrol bomb through their window..... but I digress.
As to the question of if we shot down a Russian military aircraft, it all depends where it was shot down and how you can prove where it was when you shot in down. By the virtue of Britain being an Island we have the benefit of having a 12 nautical mile buffer zone of territorial waters.
Unfortunately for Turkey, sharing a land border with Syria means that those margins of error are smaller with respect to proving the boundary of sovereign airspace.
The use of nuclear bombers to deliver a nuclear payload is now largely redundant, if Russia wanted to carry out a first strike nuclear attack on the UK, they would more than likely use a submarine or land based ICBM. So sending nuclear capable bombers towards UK airspace, is like you innocently walking past a neighbours house (who you don't get on with) with a golf club, the threat of violence if there but actually if you wanted to do them harm there are better ways of doing it... like throwing a petrol bomb through their window..... but I digress.
1
In reply to Luk e:
12nm goes pretty quickly when it's a TU160 at cruising speed (960kph) - it's all over in 1.375 seconds in fact so we don't really have much advantage in real terms over states with adjacent borders.
12nm goes pretty quickly when it's a TU160 at cruising speed (960kph) - it's all over in 1.375 seconds in fact so we don't really have much advantage in real terms over states with adjacent borders.
1
In reply to london_huddy:
I can see your point, 1 and a bit seconds doesn't seem like a very long time but it is a definite advantage over having a land border with a state over which Russia can "legally fly" over and conduct bombing missions; they do say Anti Air Warfare is fast and sexy.
But anyway most modern Russian missiles have a range of well over 100 miles, so they wouldn't even need to fly into UK airspace to launch them!
I can see your point, 1 and a bit seconds doesn't seem like a very long time but it is a definite advantage over having a land border with a state over which Russia can "legally fly" over and conduct bombing missions; they do say Anti Air Warfare is fast and sexy.
But anyway most modern Russian missiles have a range of well over 100 miles, so they wouldn't even need to fly into UK airspace to launch them!
In reply to lone:
Who cares?
Its tit for tat. Once we stop retaliating and ignore them they'll see no point in doing it.
Who cares?
Its tit for tat. Once we stop retaliating and ignore them they'll see no point in doing it.
1
In reply to london_huddy:
Did you mean minutes instead of seconds?
> 12nm goes pretty quickly when it's a TU160 at cruising speed (960kph) - it's all over in 1.375 seconds in fact so we don't really have much advantage in real terms over states with adjacent borders.
Did you mean minutes instead of seconds?
1
In reply to lone:
The Russians know full well they will be intercepted and cost the British taxpayer 1000s every time the RAF responds. And they keep pushing it. Arses.
The Russians know full well they will be intercepted and cost the British taxpayer 1000s every time the RAF responds. And they keep pushing it. Arses.
1
1
In reply to wintertree:
He did but his maths is wrong in minutes as well.
> Did you mean minutes instead of seconds?
He did but his maths is wrong in minutes as well.
In reply to london_huddy:
Even an Apollo re-entry only involved the capsule travelling at 5 miles per second or so, so those bombers must be pretty fast to travel those 12 n/miles in 1.375 sec!
Of course a hostile action towards Britain is deemed a hostile act to the whole of NATO
Even an Apollo re-entry only involved the capsule travelling at 5 miles per second or so, so those bombers must be pretty fast to travel those 12 n/miles in 1.375 sec!
Of course a hostile action towards Britain is deemed a hostile act to the whole of NATO
Post edited at 21:33
2
In reply to Shuttsie:
Does it really cost anything? If they didn't go intercepting Blackjacks they'd have to go on training missions intercepting ghosts.
The tiny cost of an intercept - compared to the national budget - likely doesn't factor in to their thinking at all. It's much more likely they're doing it for crew training, and to observe and categorise the response including aircraft numbers, intercept times, flight paths etc, to feed in to war games, particularly the modelling of how intercepts to cruise missiles launched from 80 miles would play out, and to record all RF energy directed at the plane from the L band to the Ka band for later analysis.
> The Russians know full well they will be intercepted and cost the British taxpayer 1000s every time the RAF responds. And they keep pushing it. Arses.
Does it really cost anything? If they didn't go intercepting Blackjacks they'd have to go on training missions intercepting ghosts.
The tiny cost of an intercept - compared to the national budget - likely doesn't factor in to their thinking at all. It's much more likely they're doing it for crew training, and to observe and categorise the response including aircraft numbers, intercept times, flight paths etc, to feed in to war games, particularly the modelling of how intercepts to cruise missiles launched from 80 miles would play out, and to record all RF energy directed at the plane from the L band to the Ka band for later analysis.
4
In reply to malk:
You don't *really* think that The Daily Star has credibility compared to Nature?
This could be one of the most spectacular posts of all time if you do; if you are only joking then it was excellent work and I fell for it
b
> was waiting for someone to discredit the source without addressing the issue..
You don't *really* think that The Daily Star has credibility compared to Nature?
This could be one of the most spectacular posts of all time if you do; if you are only joking then it was excellent work and I fell for it
b
1
1
1
In reply to TobyA:
...plus it seems the US is now forward-placing armor in caves in Norway. Suspect it may be linked to this: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1253/R...
...plus it seems the US is now forward-placing armor in caves in Norway. Suspect it may be linked to this: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1253/R...
In reply to Orgsm:
Ha, yep, I clearly can't drive a calculator.
Our 12 nautical miles is all over in between 1min23sec (cruising speed) and 36 seconds (max speed).
Ha, yep, I clearly can't drive a calculator.
Our 12 nautical miles is all over in between 1min23sec (cruising speed) and 36 seconds (max speed).
In reply to David Martin:
Only scanned it, but saw no reference to norwegian caves in that report? Did I miss it? I thought that UK and US had long stocked heavy equipment in the Norwegian North though? Up around Bodo I think, there was some agreement that only the Norwegian military would be further east. A Norwegian senior officers once told me their cold war doctrine was "hang on long enough for the UK and US militaries to arrive"!
Only scanned it, but saw no reference to norwegian caves in that report? Did I miss it? I thought that UK and US had long stocked heavy equipment in the Norwegian North though? Up around Bodo I think, there was some agreement that only the Norwegian military would be further east. A Norwegian senior officers once told me their cold war doctrine was "hang on long enough for the UK and US militaries to arrive"!
In reply to TobyA:
OK source on the pre-positioning here:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/modern-day-marine/2015/...
OK source on the pre-positioning here:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/modern-day-marine/2015/...
In reply to malk:
Everyone else has..
But dolphins and whales die all the time.. sometimes submarines or naval vessels are in the area.. a correlation does not mean a causation. I actually think there is normally but in this case I have my doubts. These things happen, whales do beach themselves accidentally.
> was waiting for someone to discredit the source without addressing the issue..
Everyone else has..
But dolphins and whales die all the time.. sometimes submarines or naval vessels are in the area.. a correlation does not mean a causation. I actually think there is normally but in this case I have my doubts. These things happen, whales do beach themselves accidentally.
In reply to TobyA:
As a strategy it would make complete sense. But that's probably geared around a classic full-scale WWIII scenario.
The RAND wargames point to a more awkward scenario of a Ukraine style limited invasion of just the Baltics, which leaves NATO in the unenviable position of being obliged to seize the territory back. How do you do so while managing the necessity of limited warfare and political sensibilities? Especially given the large Russian speaking population of the Baltics and our track record of non-intervention in Ukraine? Essentially we have to ensure just sufficient deterrence exists to make it a non-starter.
I'd normally put such things down to scare-mongering, or perhaps Russia encouraging NATO to invest heavily safeguarding a front Putin has no intention of touching. But the item was originally sent to me by an acquaintance who spends a fair bit of time in a big NATO bunker in Stavanger, and appears to take this kind of thing seriously.
RE the forward placing, Andrew's link covers it actually. None of it surprising, but I just thought the timing was interesting given the wargame's conclusions.
As a strategy it would make complete sense. But that's probably geared around a classic full-scale WWIII scenario.
The RAND wargames point to a more awkward scenario of a Ukraine style limited invasion of just the Baltics, which leaves NATO in the unenviable position of being obliged to seize the territory back. How do you do so while managing the necessity of limited warfare and political sensibilities? Especially given the large Russian speaking population of the Baltics and our track record of non-intervention in Ukraine? Essentially we have to ensure just sufficient deterrence exists to make it a non-starter.
I'd normally put such things down to scare-mongering, or perhaps Russia encouraging NATO to invest heavily safeguarding a front Putin has no intention of touching. But the item was originally sent to me by an acquaintance who spends a fair bit of time in a big NATO bunker in Stavanger, and appears to take this kind of thing seriously.
RE the forward placing, Andrew's link covers it actually. None of it surprising, but I just thought the timing was interesting given the wargame's conclusions.
Post edited at 04:39
In reply to David Martin:
placing assets carefully earlier, I suppose, including the Baltic, means a) that it makes action by the Russians more risky and b) that the assets are already in place without escalating a situation where a possible opponent has already taken the initiative. Looks very like a game of chess with large pieces!
placing assets carefully earlier, I suppose, including the Baltic, means a) that it makes action by the Russians more risky and b) that the assets are already in place without escalating a situation where a possible opponent has already taken the initiative. Looks very like a game of chess with large pieces!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...