AF plane almost hit by a Russian Bomber..?

[JanetFlight]

Sounds interesting...
Russischer Jagdbomber kommt extrem nah: Air-France-Maschine entgeht knapp Kollision - n-tv.de (http://www.n-tv.de/panorama/Air-France-Maschine-entgeht-knapp-Kollision-article12647146.html)
Any other info??

[archae86]

The details seem similar enough to likely be the same incident, but this Moscow Times (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/air-france-flight-and-russian-bomber-nearly-collided-over-moscow/497931.html) description specifies the bomber as Tu-95, not Tu-22M3.

[wiggy]

French TV carried the same report yesterday, have not seen anything more official.

[Sunamer]

Official position is on the RosAviatsia website (FAA analogue in Russia).

They said that there was enough separation between those two planes -- 300 m was the vertical separation, whereas horizontal was 1km.

http://www.favt.ru/favt_new/?q=novosti/novosti/novost/3859

[Ian W]

The TU-22 is a very big aircraft, wingspan 77 ft, but to the non-cognoscenti similar in shape to something like a F-111 with a 32 ft wingspan. So it would appear as if it was a LOT closer. In the early days of the B747 there were similar repeated claims of NMAC by pilots of other aircraft who did not realize how big 747s were.

[DevX]

It was only 100m separation according to the German report (300 being the required minimum) and the Air France crew reported hearing the engines of the Tup.

[Ian W]

It was only 100m separation according to the German report (300 being the required minimum) and the Air France crew reported hearing the engines of the Tup.


I think the separation was probably 300m with the crew thinking they were looking at a smaller quieter aircraft much closer.


Many years ago, in North Wales low flying area (go to youtube and search on Mach Loop) which was even more well used than it is now, Valley used to operate Gnats and Hunters. The locals were used to seeing these aircraft in the Snowdonia valleys and largely ignored them. A detachment of F-5s did a couple of weeks of low flying from Valley and there was a storm of low flying complaints with people misidenting the F-5s at correct height as very low Gnats. They were not that good at aircraft recognition but thought they could judge height.

[PURPLE PITOT]

You can hear the engines of a TU-22 from 3km away, 300 meters is no problem!:}

[ImbracableCrunk]

Tu-22 and Tu-22M3 are completely very aircraft, FYI.

[nonsense]

The TU22 and TU22M are only loosely related but are of very similar size.

This photo from wikipedia of a Phantom and two TU22s reinforces the point that they might easily be mistaken for a much closer, smaller aircraft of similar shape:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/F-4N_VF-111_intercepts_Libyan_Tu-22s_1977.jpeg/800px-F-4N_VF-111_intercepts_Libyan_Tu-22s_1977.jpeg

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

This one is big.... those are far away..

[Heathrow Harry]

and you can hear a TU-95 50 knms away.................

[Ian W]

Many years ago - an aircraft under radar control with one of our sectors reported an 'air miss' with an Argosy. The controller said "I thought you said you were IMC?" to which the response was "I didn't see it, I recognized the engine noise"

[Nieuport28]

The Counter Rotating Props on the TU-95 do make a very unique, loud, low frequency rumble. Can easily be heard, and felt at even 300m.

Given todays world I'd wager the old Badger was sending France a message at 100m. Jusy MO. ;)

[DaveReidUK]

Given todays world I'd wager the old Badger was sending France a message at 100m.Badger = two-syllable Nato reporting name starting with B = jet bomber

Bear = one-syllable Nato reporting name starting with B = (turbo-)prop bomber

Good luck spotting a Badger flying anywhere outside of China.

[DevX]

There seems to be a lot of confusion about because the original report cites it as a TU-22M3 (Backfire). :confused:
Isn't anything straight forward these days? :ugh:

[500N]

Not when it comes to journalists who don't check facts and work on the principle of "any photo will do as long as it looks good" :O

[500N]

Except when this thread was first posted, since I can't read Russian I googled the title and came up with more than a few articles in English, most dated before the Russian one at the top of the page.

All of which clearly said TU-95 Bomber and a couple said they could hear the engines.


Even this link posted in the 3rd post on this thread is dated 11th April,
3 days before the link in the OP post.

?????????? (http://www.favt.ru/favt_new/?q=novosti/novosti/novost/3859)

[Charles.]

French media said that the AF pilots reported they had heard "the noise of the propellers" of the russian aircraft. For what it's worth...

[500N]

Yes, I read that when I first googled the English versions but can't find it now.

[MrSnuggles]

Someone more fluent in Russian might be able to confirm the make and model of that bomber from a Russian source.

One post linked to English Moscow Times, where it was mentioned a Tu-95 bomber. To be honest, that machine looks like it's going to scare people to death and ruin a city by the massive amount of noise it makes. I bet they really thought out the resonance frequency of concrete when they designed that devil.... ;-D

Here's a picture for some kind of size comparison...

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/1/5/1109516.jpg

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

FWIW, AF has denied that a collision was narrowly avoided above Moscow.

According to preliminary information gathered, the 1000 feet separation was observed at any time and there was no risk of collision and passenger safety was not engaged

AF1465 Moscou Paris du 14 mars 2014 : Air France - Corporate (http://corporate.airfrance.com/fr/presse/af1465-moscou-paris-du-14-mars-2014/)

Air France dément une collision évitée dans le ciel de Moscou (http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2014/04/11/moscou-collision-evitee-de-peu-entre-un-airbus-d-air-france-et-un-bombardier-russe_4399755_3214.html)

Non story, methink.

[edit] and from French sources, there never was a doubt: the russian aircraft involved was a Tu-95.

[5 APUs captain]

TOW 187700 kg, Mach 0.84 at FL 400 with 4 prop engines....
It is really HUGE and NOISY!!!

[MrSnuggles]

AZR

If the French denies this, I then wonder why someone would put a crazy story like this in a newspaper in the first place. I mean, wouldn't they (=the Russians) have better things to do, like NOT invading other countries.

[DevX]

Quote: FWIW, AF has denied that a collision was narrowly avoided above Moscow.

That might just be a political 'saving face' denial, for whatever reason.

[Landroger]

I seem to remember reading that when our QRA fighters formated on the Tu-95 back in the day - I think they were talking Lightnings at the time - our pilots could actually hear/feel the Tu-95's engines/props. Could that be true? They must certainly be moving an awful of air. They are, after all, 'naked' high bypass fan jets. :eek:

[BEagle]

Having formated on a few Tu-95s 'back in the day', I can assure you that one can most certainly hear the sound of the propellers:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/BearD_1_zps8433e09a.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/BearD_1_zps8433e09a.jpg.html)

Not the curious Ivan in his little leather helmet in the astrodome! They were usually quite friendly and known to wave - particularly when shown pages from The Sun calendar!

The chap in the back probably had the best view though:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/BearD_2_zpsd3934bcb.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/BearD_2_zpsd3934bcb.jpg.html)

Happy times!

[5 APUs captain]

F15 pilots say they could hear TU95 even from 500 meters!

[BEagle]

F15 pilots say they could hear TU95 even from 500 meters!

That's because they wouldn't formate any closer....:rolleyes:

[Lonewolf_50]

http://img.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3018/thumbs/Eagle_Bear_01.jpg (http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/f-15-usa/p36419-f-15-eagletu-95-bear.html)
Really, Beagle? :hmm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-rOH64Umns

You might want to retract that ...

[BEagle]

Granted that the Bear and the (very poor) photographic platform (presumably some Spam fighter) were just about in the same FIR, that film would have been useless for intelligence purposes.

Nothing to retract - and similar to the efforts of the SloeGins I recall from 25 years ago. Who didn't know a VC10 from a Nimrod - and who thought that the TriStar tanker was 'some airliner' next to the Bear....:rolleyes: Perhaps the same idiots who couldn't tell the difference between a Mil-24 Hind and an S-67 Blackhawk?

[West Coast]

Beag's

About time you trot out the "a mate of mine" stories about US mil.

Maybe you can we-write the CVN and lighthouse story. You ran with that as gospel for quite some time. Maybe it still has legs.


Perhaps the same idiots who couldn't tell the difference between a Mil-24 Hind and an S-67 Blackhawk?

BTW, looks like your acft recognition isn't up to snuff either. Look up the S-67

[Haraka]

couldn't tell the difference between a Mil-24 Hind and an S-67 Blackhawk

To be strictly correct that should be Mi-24 as well :).

However, I would suggest that Beags is hinting, tongue in cheek, about a matter that has been of more serious concern over many years.

P.S.
Years ago in RAFG , when talking to a then still serving member of the former opposition , he confided that he had survived being shot down three times during the second great misunderstanding:

"Including once by the enemy".

[BEagle]

S-60, sorry.

And I've never claimed that the lighthouse story is true....

watch?v=ajq8eag4Mvc

:bored:

[Heathrow Harry]

that's an old old story - apparently there are versions going back to 1910...............

[Haraka]

......AAAAAh yes;

.
.
,
,
,
,
,
and probably started by Beags's grandfather.

[West Coast]

And Beags heard it while bouncing onn his grandfathers knee and has passed it along to younger generations of the gullible.

[Haraka]

Back to Bears.
One day, many years ago ( so I am told ) a Bear F ( Tu-142) was allegedly being escorted by a couple of RAF F-4s when it was noticed that the rear weapons bay doors were open.
Now there were very strict instructions regarding separation, which were of course always scrupulously obeyed by our AD crews.
Somehow, and obviously inadvertently, ( the story goes) one F-4 drifted under and up towards the Bear's belly. Indeed, the crew could not possibly have realised how close they were as the Nav. was accidentally taking Hand-Held photos that showed right up into the weapons bay.

Which was when the Bear dropped a sonobouy.

Never believed the story myself, it probably never happened.....

[500N]

Beags

Wasn't it CourtneyMil who nearly did CFIT when under one of them, trying to read the number or something and the Russians gradually descended,
very slowly and Courtney realized something wasn't right and suddenly realized how close to the ground they were ?

I think it's on his blog but can't find it.

[Haraka]

Nope, didn't happen. Nobody on either side gradually tightened up in turns, slowly descended or showed Playboy centerfold pictures to Russkie crews.( one of whom waved back the issue)
Got in really close and then closer putting gloves on the coaming ( that looked like hands- one two eek!)
Never happened ( or so I am told)...

[AtomKraft]

Whatever folk have to say about the BEAR, it's one heck of a good looking, and sounding aeroplane.
One flew over my train in the dark this evening and it not only rattled the windows, but it made the most amazing racket. Must have just lifted off for a spot of night flying.
Once heard, never forgotten!

[BEagle]

1. Gloves on the coaming was a Lightning thing, followed by a slow roll... Another trick was to formate alongside the tail gunner, wait until he'd managed to bring his ancient plate camera to bear, then hop over to the other side, wait again and repeat a few times....

2. The Bear F sonobuoy drop was a 43 Sqn event and they probably still have the paint scuff to prove it.

3. The dim-witted spams who thought a VC10K was a Nimrod was during one of my Bear intercepts - they then had to disappear about a hundred miles to visit their tanker....

4. Playboy was too small. Samantha Fox against a black background in The Sun calendar certainly wasn't and the appreciative gestures from the Ivans when my nav held the picture up against the window only went to show what part Sam's not insignificant parts played in the ending of the Cold War.

Keep polishing your six guns, Westie...oorah. The lighthouse nonsense has always been bolleaux and absolutely nothing to do with me.

[West Coast]

With over 21000 posts, I don't need a six shooter to take aim against your dislike of Americans. A pea shooter works fine.

And, yes, you have jumped on the lighthouse theme, I imagine because you want it to be true.

[BEagle]

Poor old chap - I actually think the lighthouse fable is silly and only posted the YoofTube link for people who didn't understand the background.

Dislike of Americans? Not really. Only when they insist on behaving in a bovine 'Team America World Police' manner....:rolleyes:

And what you do with that little pea shooter of yours is assuredly your own business....

[Fareastdriver]

The rear gunners position is from the Boeing B29 Superfortress via the Tu4 (a complete copy of the B29) and passed on to every other Russian bomber.

[Haraka]

The B-29 to Tu-4 "Chinese" copy saga is well documented( there were very many detail differences in practice of course).
Apart from the tail position on most "Bears" which is evocative of the B-29, I believe another hangover from the Superfortress is of reportedly sharing the same fuselage diameter.

P.S. Atomcraft is 100% technically correct in his putting the nickname in Caps.

Lovely story of some Badgers flying over at a May Day Parade in Moscow in 1954. At that stage the West did not know for sure what the Russians called it.

Attaché "innocently" enquires of his escorting Russian aviation officer as to what these impressive aircraft were.
" Ah , those are what you guys call "BADGERS".