Non Squawking Russian Bomber Fly Around UK Airspace.. [Archive]

WillFlyForCheese

29th Jan 2015, 18:49

What's the big deal?

We are back to playing tag like we used to during the Cold War. Day in and day out, we played "tag, you're it" with our Russian counterparts.

Why is such a big deal being made of this? Because it's more than just a game of "tag."

Russian plane has near-miss with passenger aircraft over Sweden | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/13/russia-plane-near-miss-passenger-aircraft-sweden)

Do we wait until there's an actual incident?

How about what happened over Hainan Province - where a PRC J8II collided with an EP-3E Aries, forcing it to land in China?

The Russian downing of KAL 007? MH 17?

What's good for the goose . . . .

Cows getting bigger

29th Jan 2015, 18:53

It isn't just the Russians who do this. The US military is equally good at operating under "Due Regard" - outside 12nm territorial waters.

Not much new here other than the Russians have restarted doing something they did regularly a few years back.

2Planks

29th Jan 2015, 19:17

And about once or twice a year for the last few. Nothing illegal under international law - but could easily develop into a flight safety hazard. In my experience they used to drop to levels where it was not an issue when relatively close, that said 243.0 and 121.5 were never more than a single switch selection away.

And the escorting NATO aircraft are squawking.......

Lonewolf_50

29th Jan 2015, 19:26

Because it's more than just a game of "tag."

Russian plane has near-miss with passenger aircraft over Sweden | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/13/russia-plane-near-miss-passenger-aircraft-sweden)

Do we wait until there's an actual incident?

How about what happened over Hainan Province - where a PRC J8II collided with an EP-3E Aries, forcing it to land in China?.
Point taken, :ok: but that's always been part of the game of tag: if you f$#%!! it up it can kill you. The Chinese, during that event, more or less announced that they now wished to play with the varsity. The Russian downing of KAL 007? Not apples to apples, that was a shoot down. MH 17? Not apples to apples, that was a shoot down, and it wasn't (as far as I can tell) the Russians. What's good for the goose I think that's how Putin would phrase it. :p
Our folks conduct Freedom of Navigation ops all over the world to make the point of the International "Freedom of the Seas" bit. That led to, among other things, some interesting sport in the med with Qadaffi on more than one occasion in which shots were fired.
I was involved in numerous "Freedom of Navigation" ops while in the Navy
Off the Coast of North Africa
In the Black Sea
Along the Coast of Yugoslavia and Albania
A few other places
It is part of the political game, a game which has been deadly serious for a very, very long time. Predates human flight.

The Russians are well within their rights to assert the "international" nature of the sea and the airspace above it. Folks in the US and UK and Sweden are certainly wise to play tag and keep tabs on who is out there.

Airline companies who fly over zones of conflict are likewise aware of the risks of so doing, and make choices accordingly.

WillFlyForCheese

29th Jan 2015, 19:32

Yeah - some examples not "apples to apples" - but KAL 007 falls within the pattern of aircraft cat and mouse - at least that's how Russia saw it.

MH 17 - yeah - agreed - but it does show how mistakes happen and things escalate.

Personally - I think Russia is trying to force an "incident" so Putin can make hay of it. We'll see.

The Scandinavian Airlines flight from Denmark to Sweden can hardly be said to be in a conflict zone - but I do get what you say.

Point(s) taken.

Lonewolf_50

29th Jan 2015, 19:34

My crystal ball is a bit murky these days, and Vlad likes to willy wave. You may be dead right.

So long as people are aware, and remain alert to hazards, the risks can be reduced/mitigated.

mickjoebill

29th Jan 2015, 19:36

LiveryMan Next time (and there will be a next time) force it to land in the UK and strip it to it's stringers for intel.

How does one force it to land?

Mickjoebill

LiveryMan

29th Jan 2015, 19:38

Airline companies who fly over zones of conflict are likewise aware of the risks of so doing, and make choices accordingly.

Except of course, UK airspace is not a zone of conflict.

Mickjoebill: I'm unsure. But flights have been forced to land before. I'm guessing locking onto it with your weapons and vectoring it to where you want it to go might serve a purpose.

Herod

29th Jan 2015, 19:45

Lonewolf What's the big deal?
Playing tag out over the North Sea is one thing. Flying through the airspace over the Channel (which is quite busy as regards, commercial traffic) is another.

Vilters

29th Jan 2015, 19:53

You do no such thing.

Equip the interceptors with a bottle of Wodka on each station.

The bomber will follow you automatically.

After such a long trip they must be low on alcohol level.

LOL.

NigelOnDraft

29th Jan 2015, 21:10

Playing tag out over the North Sea is one thing. Flying through the airspace over the Channel (which is quite busy as regards, commercial traffic) is another.Out of interest, could you clarify why the "North Sea" is fine, yet "the Channel" is not?

In some ways, the North Sea presents a bigger hazard :eek:

NoD

racedo

29th Jan 2015, 21:19

reynoldsno1

29th Jan 2015, 21:33

What's the big deal?
Indeed. Would never dream of flying in one of Her Majesty's secret aeroplanes across the Mediterranean, at night, no lights, cross the airways at intermediate levels, silent ... no sir, it would never happen. :suspect:

Lonewolf_50

29th Jan 2015, 21:43

Except of course, UK airspace is not a zone of conflict.In the future, please pay attention to the conversation before posting. That point about dangerous airspace was related to the non-apples-to-apples line I responded to in re Malaysia (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/555587-non-squakwing-russian-bomber-fly-around-uk-airspace.html#post8845411)airlines being shot down / Ukraine.

As to forcing the Russian plane to land, had it violated the airspace or not? Flying "close to UK airspace" is not a violation, it is at most a provocation. (And it is licit). Having the transponders off ... I'll agree that this is bad form.

Your chair borne ranger "force them to land" ploy will not fit with policy, nor with the general use of international airspace.

When I lived in Virginia while serving in the USN, in the 80's, the Air National Guard, and sometimes our active Air Force and Navy jets, would scramble on the weekends for non squawkers over international waters. Heh, one of our squadron helicopters was once scrambled upon by ANG F-16's off of the California Coast a decade later, while doing regular exercises with the ship, thanks to a FUBAR regarding Mode 4, which day, which way, and the ANG deciding to take a look.

No.
Big.
Deal.

Looks like the Typhoons did something similar, check out a non squawker.

Good job gents! :ok:

Above The Clouds

29th Jan 2015, 21:52

Why is this headline news, during the 70's and 80's it was the norm during the cold war. The big difference now is, the russians are still using the now museum piece the Bear while the western world has moved on slightly to the Typhoon.

WillFlyForCheese

29th Jan 2015, 21:59

Russia indicated that increased NATO aircraft have been flying close to Russian borders. No comment from NATO.............. as I would expect.

As for shooting down Airlines somehow RoboCruisers shooting down of an Iran Air Airbus gets forgotten.

The Aegis Cruiser's (USS Vincennes) shoot down of Iran Air Flight 655 can, I think, rightly be compared to the shoot down of MH17.

I would hope and expect that NATO countries regularly keep an eye on our arms-length neighbors. That said - I don't know that NATO aircraft flying near Russia have jeopardized commercial aviation - do you know of any such claims / reports?

The Bull-in-the-China-Shop approach apparently being employed by Russia, I think, provides more opportunity for the china to get broken.

BARKINGMAD

29th Jan 2015, 22:12

You can all sleep easy in your beds knowing the RAF is now a shadow of it's former Cold War self, apparently there are as many as SIX pilots being trained, ab initio, per annum and RAF stations are being closed and sold off for peanuts to whomsoever has the readies.

And there are plans to sell off the Strategic Supply and Pipeline network which apparently is already being "tapped" by our Eastern European immigrant entrepreneurs for free fuel supplies flogged to anyone with a white van and plastic containers.

And Vlad the Putin is causing a lot of folks to think maybe the Cold War isn't over after all.

But the boy Cameron will make sure we're ok, so don't let any of this rant worry you and cause sleepless moments? :rolleyes:

Una Due Tfc

29th Jan 2015, 22:18

The bear is indeed antiquated, still bloody impressive performance from a prop though. "Hear and Avoid" is probably more useful than "See and Avoid" with them I'm told.

The Blackjacks, when the Russians save up enough money to fly them, are a different proposition altogether.

I've had the Bears pop up in my airspace before. Didn't cause too much hassle, just had to give some traffic information. I believe a couple of Typhoons went up to say hello that time too, off the West Coast of Ireland.

Tankertrashnav

29th Jan 2015, 22:43

First time I was involved in intercepting a Bear (tanking a couple of F4s) was almost 43 years ago according to my logbook. Still that was in the far less crowded skies North of the Shetlands. Nipping through the 20 mile wide Straits of Dover is somewhat different. Did the French join in the game? I cant imagine they wouldn't.

The Russians are certainly getting their moneysworth out of these airframes (as are the US out of the B52s), although no doubt they have been extensively modded.

(Just read they didnt get up as far as Dover, but still, it's a new route for them as far as I know)

GeeRam

29th Jan 2015, 23:00

The Russians are certainly getting their moneysworth out of these airframes (as are the US out of the B52s), although no doubt they have been extensively modded.

Indeed.

The Bear seemed like an antique when they came over to Fairford for RIAT.....and here we are 20 years on, and they are both still in use.

http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/tu-95_files/tu-95_37.jpg

G-CPTN

29th Jan 2015, 23:01

BBC Radio Five Live news have just repeated 'Russian fighter jets' :ugh:

Standard Toaster

30th Jan 2015, 00:05

The double standard amazes me.

So the Russians shot down a commercial airplane that invaded their airspace during an high tension period and did not respond to calls and that's outrageous.

The Americans shot down a commercial Iranian plane while it was over Iranian airspace and that's a non even (no one event mentions it), yeah right...

Although the Kal 007 was a sad event, the shoot down was justified.

Iran Air Flight 655 was completely unjustified.

West Coast

30th Jan 2015, 01:02

LW 50

Does it elevate above no biggie if they hit?

glad rag

30th Jan 2015, 02:12

Although the Kal 007 was a sad event, the shoot down was justified.

"N U T S" :ugh:

Standard Toaster

30th Jan 2015, 03:26

"N U T S" :ugh:

NUTS? Why NUTS?

KAL 007: Airplane invades Soviet airspace during an all time high tension during the cold war without warning, airplane does not answer to radio calls. Airplane does not react to tracers fired, airplane is shot down...
After 9/11 the US would have shot down an airplane for FAR LESS.

Iran Air Flight 655: US warship invades Iranian waters and shots down an airplane that was correctly identified, while it was OVER Iranian airspace... not even an apology... Yeah right (and NO ONE discuss this one, only KAL 007).

Of course KAL007 was a sad event, no one is disputing that, but from a purely military viewpoint, yes, it was justified.

Regards.

londonman

30th Jan 2015, 04:10

@lonewolf

"Not apples to apples, that was a shoot down, and it wasn't (as far as I can tell) the Russians."

Oh, please. There is no difference between Russians and Ukraine "separatists" .

dat581

30th Jan 2015, 04:44

I'll make it simple for you Toaster.

KAL007 shoot down was a deliberate act since the interceptor pilot could see a B747 in civilian markings with running and cabin lights on. How he could fail to see the jet was full of people is not known. Maybe the Russians just didn't care. In a legal sense it was cold blooded murder.

The Iran Air 655 shoot down was an accident and the cruiser crew thought they were shooting at an F-14 not an A300. A lot of stupidity happened during this incident but it can only be considered manslaughter.

RatherBeFlying

30th Jan 2015, 05:22

A book about KAL007 suggested that KAL pilots were getting bonuses for saving gas. So they cut a corner off the route. We don't know how many times that was done.

A 747 can zip across Kamchatka and Sakhalin in next to no time.

The Russians may not have been ready to intercept over Kamchatka, but once alerted they were likely waiting for KAL007 when it got to Sakhalin.

LiveryMan

30th Jan 2015, 07:55

Correct me if I am wrong by my understanding of those two incidents are:

KL007 was squawking and running with her lights on. After the fall of the wall, the FDR and CVR were finally handed over. It was proven that their deviation was a navigation fault. The pilot had forgotten to switch the INS to NAV. Instead, it continued to follow the magnetic heading. This made it cut into Russian space.
That night, the Russians had been hunting for a US Spy plane that was running in the dark somewhere in the same area. It was intermittently picked up on radar. When the KAL007 flight was picked up on radar, a fighter was sent to intercept it.
The pilot has admitted, in front of a camera, he identified it as the Korean 747, he knew it was a civilian plane. He knew he'd be killing civilians. He never once tried to identify himself to the crew. He just fired at it once ordered to. He also said he would do it again tomorrow if tasked to!

As for the Iran Air A300. If I recall correctly, it was following a completely different departure pattern than all other commercial flights that day. It was not squawking either. It was flying directly toward the US Cruiser which had already been harassed by Iranian F14s earlier in the day. It was also in international waters and sent out several warning, including on civilian frequencies.

Both shoot downs should not have happened. However, they are in different categories.

KAL007 was cold blooded murder.
Iran Air 655 was accidental (Albeit a bit of a setup I feel. It was running without transponder and not listening to radio calls in a WELL KNOWN conflict zone).

GERBY

30th Jan 2015, 08:17

No big deal , Putin searching for some U.K. sea side hotels to purchase.

BEagle

30th Jan 2015, 08:25

Iran Air 655 was squawking correctly and following its normal commercial air transport route.

The Vincennes should never have been where it was; it was commanded by a gung-ho 'shoot first' captain eager for combat who didn't actually follow the correct RoE.

One of the most disgraceful acts of US aggression ever. The original inquiry was a total whitewash, but the Navy's attempts to cover up the truth were eventually revealed.....

ShotOne

30th Jan 2015, 08:27

KAL 007 "cold blooded murder..?? The Russian pilot was scrambled to intercept what they believed was a four engined boeing (RC135) on a spying mission near a key Soviet base during a period of high tension. He saw a four engined Boeing. He couldn't possibly have read any markings. A planned level change was interpreted as evasive action and his warning shots were probably not seen. The result was sickening but the way the worlds military's are behaving now towards civil aviation, one wonders how long before the next tragedy

PS +1 to above post. Vincennes had been nicknamed "robocruiser" by other USN units prior to the tragedy and ignored orders to leave the area some hours previously. Didn't stop the skipper making Admiral though!

Stanwell

30th Jan 2015, 08:29

BEags.
Yes, that's my understanding of it, too.

The interesting bit is that the crew of the Vincennes were, at the time, awarded decorations for it and are still entitled to wear them.

BEagle

30th Jan 2015, 08:38

Indeed, Stanwell. The captain should have been court-martialled rather than decorated.

Those who choose to believe otherwise should read SEA OF LIES - USS Vincennes shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988 (http://alt-f4.org/img/seaoflies.html) ......

Just a spotter

30th Jan 2015, 08:46

News reports here in Ireland are suggesting the Bears were intercepted to the west of Ireland by RAF Typhoons and followed from there.

No indication of at what range or whether the RAF jets transited Irish airspace and if so at what speed.

On RTÉ radio this morning an "expert" claimed the VVS aircraft crossed the transatlantic routes without ATC contact and without active transponders while the RAF planes had transponders on at all times.

JAS

Cows getting bigger

30th Jan 2015, 08:51

Clearly the Russians are only doing this because the UK's long range bomber/patrol aircraft are doing the same around the North Cape? :}:}:}

I'll get my coat.....

LiveryMan

30th Jan 2015, 09:32

Beagle: If that article is the actual truth, then yes, Rogers should have been court martialled. No doubt about it.

However, I see no citings for official sources. Therefore, it's believability cannot supersede the official report on what happened.

BEagle

30th Jan 2015, 10:34

LiveryMan, on November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice concluded that the U.S. Navy's actions in the Persian Gulf at the time had been unlawful.

AreOut

30th Jan 2015, 10:36

"Why is this headline news, during the 70's and 80's it was the norm during the cold war. The big difference now is, the russians are still using the now museum piece the Bear while the western world has moved on slightly to the Typhoon."

no the western world still uses B52 for these purposes which is right from the Bear era

Archimedes

30th Jan 2015, 11:22

This may be of interest to those who've read BEagle's link - Vincennes: A Case Study | U.S. Naval Institute (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1993-08/vincennes-case-study)

I must admit that I thought Rogers retired as a Captain. I have no idea how accurate he was in thinking this, but about 10-12 years ago, a USN officer of my acquaintance speculated that the initial 'it must be the Iranians' fault' approach had been rushed out, it became impossible to CM the Captain and he was instead given a decent final tour before being eased out of the door. (Said USN officer was in the 'WTF was he not court-martialled?' camp).

The boss of the USS Sides was rather unimpressed and displayed a certain amount of testicular fortitude in making his views clear...

https://microeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/proceedings.pdf (the formatting is a bit awkward because of the way the original publication laid out its letters, but if you know this you can pick your way through). Needless to say, David Carlson didn't make Admiral either...

overstress

30th Jan 2015, 12:46

http://www.flankers-site.co.uk/tu-95_files/tu-95_37.jpg

I went on board that at Fairford, it was fairly new then, the inside was pristine but old fashioned. Remember those nixie tube displays? They were all over the inside.

http://tubehobby.com/images/in18/1.jpg

Just after I stepped out of it, I looked up to see this:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/9/1/6/0692619.jpg

Martin the Martian

30th Jan 2015, 13:48

I may be flamed for this, but this incident, as well as the MiG collision, the near collision between Russian aircraft and a BA flight over the UK in 1997 and the incident where an Aeroflot crew allowed a child to take the controls which resulted in a crash with 100% fatalities, leads me to suspect that a lot of Russian aircrew tend not to show the same professionalism as those of many other nations.

And with regard to shoot downs, I believe there is a long list of unarmed aircraft, military and civilian, that have fallen to the guns of Soviet fighters while going about their day-to-day business between 1945 and 1991, naughty or otherwise.

Heathrow Harry

30th Jan 2015, 18:29

I've seen them in some fairly hairy third world environments and I think they are pretty professional but not so risk averse

More like the USAFor RAF around 1970 ................

Heathrow Harry

30th Jan 2015, 18:31

Question

When the Ruskis fly down the Channel we see lots of (MoD PR) pics of our brave boys alongside - do the French, Belgians and Netherlands also escort them???

I know the Norwegians and the Swedes are pretty active but what about everyone else???

MPN11

30th Jan 2015, 20:02

Having worked the English Channel sectors as a Military controller, embedded within the LATCC Ops Room, i can imagine the disruption that caused at FL 295 or whatever.

I think the most polite phrase I could use is "Not a very good idea from a safety aspect", especially if there's no Mode C to give anyone a clue (although I assume the escorting aircraft would be so doing). But it used to require substantial effort to thread Mil traffic through that airspace at any level, coordinating with everyone and anyone. An uncontrollable 'unknown' requires EVERYONE to get out of his way, and that in NOT a bit of airspace where you want to do that.

I recall the Lakenheath Wing, doing French Low Level activity, bugging out due to weather and climbing out of France to go home through the Seaford Sector ... no flight plans, no pre-warning, just a dozen or more aircraft popping up on frequency needing to climb and go home through all the airways. Happy days of the great Civ/Mil relationship at LATCC ;)

jEtGuiDeR

30th Jan 2015, 20:53

Heathrow Harry, yes the French were also up on Wednesday afternoon

dat581

30th Jan 2015, 21:27

Robocruiser is right. A USN carrier was not to far away at the time and well within range to send a section of F-14s or F-18s to check out the contact. The problem was the air wing knew of the cruisers reputation and didn't want to go near it in case it shot at them. Another point is the contact was thought to be an F-14 and the crew of a USN air defence ship should well know that a Tomcat ( at the time ) has next to zero capability to hurt a ship. M61 20mm cannon only and the jet would be well within visual range by the time it was close enough to use it.

Cows getting bigger

30th Jan 2015, 21:37

Vincennes - I seem to recollect that one of the most embarrassing elements of this whole tragedy was that The Most Technically Advanced war fighting system (i.e. hardware, software, RoE, human and chain-of-command) couldn't differentiate between an benign airliner and something more aggressive. Whichever way you look at it, a rather uncomfortable state of affairs for a super-power to have to admit.

Dr Strangelove played-out in reality.

West Coast

31st Jan 2015, 00:18

The problem was the air wing knew of the cruisers reputation and didn't want to go near it in case it shot at them

Support the claim please.

Lordflasheart

31st Jan 2015, 07:11

... should well know that a Tomcat ( at the time ) has next to zero capability to hurt a ship. Qué? No KK ? No KKKidding ???

LFH

BEagle

31st Jan 2015, 07:43

At 09:28, 200 miles to the south, the USS Forrestal launched 2 x F-14s and 2 x A-7s. The aircraft headed for Point Alpha, a rendezvous point 50 miles outside the Strait of Hormuz. Once there, they would be less than 80 miles from the Vincennes.

At 09:47, the Iranian A300 took off on its routine commercial flight and was observed to have done so by the Vincennes.

Lt Cmdr Lustig, the Vincennes' tactical commander for air warfare, could see that the Forrestal's F-14s were circling 5 min away and could have been vectored onto the suspected target to confirm its identity before it reached the point where Rogers had said that he would launch against it.

However, since 09:41 Will Rogers was inside Iranian waters busily firing 5 inch shells at Iranian boats, shouting and yelling at his gunners to reload faster.

Then at 09:54 Rogers approved the launch of his 2 missiles.

It was perhaps wise of the Forrestal's Admiral Smith to keep his aircraft clear of a gung-ho idiot such as Rogers, whose trigger-happiness was well known. However, his own crew suspected that the target was a commercial airliner, but it seems that they didn't pass this information to the Vincennes. It probably wouldn't have done any good if they had though, as Rogers was surrounded by confusion of his own creation.

I wonder whether Rogers has ever thought about the 290 innocent civilians he killed by his inept behaviour.

beaufort1

31st Jan 2015, 07:50

I heard a very loud sonic boom Wednesday afternoon (loud enough to make the house shake) at approx. 1400A, I'm guessing it was a French interceptor heading West.

Heathrow Harry

31st Jan 2015, 09:23

Thanks gents - any pictures?

TEEEJ

31st Jan 2015, 12:41

Heathrow Harry wrote,

... do the French, Belgians and Netherlands also escort them??? I know the Norwegians and the Swedes are pretty active but what about everyone else???

Yes. When the Tu-95s use the North Sea route and come down far enough. The Netherlands claimed last year that Tu-95s had encroached inside their airspace and were escorted out.

Maj. Wilko Ter Horst said that the military learned around 3:50 p.m. (9:50 a.m. ET) that two Russian TU-95 bombers, known as Bears, had come a half-mile inside its airspace.A pair of Dutch F-16 military jets were then dispatched to escort the Russian planes and "ensure they (flew) out of our airspace," said Ter Horst, a Dutch military spokesman.

Dutch fighter jets intercept 2 Russian bombers in their airspace - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/23/world/europe/russian-bombers-intercepted/)

On rare ocassions the Luftwaffe QRA also get a chance over the North Sea. On 11th September 2012 Luftwaffe F-4 Phantoms were scrambled for the Tu-95s.

Dutch F-16 footage from 2011 of a Tu-95MS Bear H over the North Sea.

qLYfaHkbe7U&feature=related

Even the Portuguese had a visit from the Bears in late 2014.

http://www.cavok.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/x26_2091.jpg

Haraka

31st Jan 2015, 12:57

Minor pedant point guys; The CVA in the Hormuz tragedy was the Forrestal :8

deptrai

1st Feb 2015, 15:15

Intercepted Russian bomber was carrying a nuclear missile over the Channel | UK | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/555454/Intercepted-Russian-bomber-was-carrying-a-nuclear-missile-over-the-Channel)

one Bear carried a nuclear ASW missile, the other was monitoring the exercise. Comint probably intercepted in Vardo, northern Norway; Nato knew what's going on long before the aircraft were anywhere near UK airspace, and the Russians know Nato knows ;)

Doors to Automatic

1st Feb 2015, 17:08

How do we know it was carrying a nuke? Just because they said they had one on board doesn't mean they did?

ShotOne

1st Feb 2015, 17:27

That Portuguese F16 pilot looks far more interested in his camera ship than he does in the Bear he's supposed to be intercepting

uksatcomuk

1st Feb 2015, 19:20

See also

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/555545-qra-activity-near-bournemouth-2.html

I have put an animation there showing the path of tanker and Typhoon
in the Eastbourne area.
The red line is the UK FIR boundary

tmmorris

1st Feb 2015, 20:40

I may be getting cynical in my old age but:

Defence secretary makes a speech saying he is planning to sell off surplus RAF airfields
Within a couple of days, a relatively routine QRA incident appears in the papers as if WW3 is about to kick off, and only the RAF can keep us safe

Coincidence?

(And if not, three cheers for whoever thought it up)

TEEEJ

1st Feb 2015, 22:01

Some HF voice recordings from the 28th January 2015 mission. Tu-95 Bear or IL-78 Midas at the following link. The aircraft used a combination of Voice and Morse to pass encoded messages.

https://planesandstuff.wordpress.com/

deptrai

1st Feb 2015, 22:36

How do we know it was carrying a nuke? Just because they said they had one on board doesn't mean they did?

Agreed, we can't know, we're just reading the newspaper. And frankly, the amount of spelling mistakes and misunderstandings there is more worrying to me than Russian bombers:

air-dropped “seek and find"d (sic)

alerted after cockpit conservations (sic)

We "downloaded" (my quotation marks) conversations from the crew

and the "nuclear missile" is most likely a reference to some kind kind of air-dropped torpedo (I have yet to see a flying submarine).

Warmtoast

1st Feb 2015, 22:40

All this excitement about QRA’s and intercepts of potentially hostile aircraft had me rummaging around in my album for photos taken in 1980 of what is seen of the interceptor from the intercepted aircraft.

There we were trundling along at 20,000 ft over the middle of the Indian Ocean miles from anywhere, en-route from Sri Lanka to Seeb (Muscat) when an American voice came over the UHF emergency frequency asking us to look out to our left. Sure enough we’d been intercepted by a couple of F-14s and F-4s from the USS “Coral Sea”.

Having identified us as RAF, we had a friendly chat and wondered why the intercept? Seems they were on constant readiness and all unknown aircraft approaching their battle group was deemed to be hostile until proven otherwise, hence the intercept. The hostage crisis of U.S. Embassy staff being held by the militant followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Tehran was in full flow and the USS Coral Sea was on station in the northern Indian Ocean / Gulf of Oman area monitoring the situation.

Anyway a couple of photos taken at the time when being intercepted by US Navy fighters are attached.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Far%20East%20Trip%201979/Herc6Medium.jpg

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Far%20East%20Trip%201979/Herc1Medium.jpg

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Far%20East%20Trip%201979/Herc3Medium.jpg

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Far%20East%20Trip%201979/Herc4Medium.jpg

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Far%20East%20Trip%201979/Herc5Medium.jpg

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Far%20East%20Trip%201979/Herc7Medium.jpg

JAJM

1st Feb 2015, 22:51

I agree, it doesn't really matter what they were carrying on board the aircraft, as long as they don't make any attempt to penetrate UK airspace without clearance. If they did that, then it's a different story, but so far I've seen no evidence of their activity suggesting hostile intent, or conspiring to commit a hostile act at a later date (news articles aren't really evidence).

Weapons get tested all the time, and the RAF are not squeaky clean in that they don't have any weapons (or something that can be construed as a weapon) fitted to the pylons in international airspace, when they aren't going to war or returning from war. Look at the Typhoon pictures from this year when they were en route to the USA. Each aircraft had an inert weapon system on at least one of its pylons, so what's stopping another country from doing the same? It's perfectly legal to do as long as you don't attempt to enter another's airspace without permission, and your actions aren't threatening.

JAJM

1st Feb 2015, 22:54

Warmtoast, brilliant images! Thank you.

West Coast

2nd Feb 2015, 01:18

F-4 is soo much better looking than the F-14.

ShotOne

2nd Feb 2015, 12:37

"...American voice over UHF emergency freq..." The same way they tried calling the Iran Air Airbus, with its "refusal" to respond reinforcing its designation as hostile.

Having been on the receiving end of a challenge by a USN warship in the pre-dawn Indian Ocean (or it could have been one of half a dozen other airliners innocently following their flightplans) I can tell you it concentrates the mind!

Not_a_boffin

2nd Feb 2015, 13:59

Given that CV43 never operated the F14, looks like you had a visit from CVW15 from the USS Kitty Hawk as well. The Marine F4 was from CVW14 on the Coral Sea.

Lonewolf_50

2nd Feb 2015, 14:34

"Not apples to apples, that was a shoot down, and it wasn't (as far as I can tell) the Russians."
Oh, please. There is no difference between Russians and Ukraine "separatists" .On second thought, I am not going to go down this rat hole. I see a (political) distinction you don't, so be it.
@ West Coast: a collision is a risk of the game being played, just as it was during the Cold War when this was a routine deal. The game is political, and the topic is willy waving and "probing" just as before. Same Stuff, different day, no big deal, for professionals. For journos and hand wringers ... what isn't a big deal? We live in the age of drama queens.
The Vincennes should never have been where it was Wrong, Beags. It was in the PG and at that location due to its mission.
The argument on whether or not Vincennes should have done what it did is another matter (to include the wisdom of engaging in that particular surface action) which I note has brought the usual suspects out, and the usual amount of utter tripe. For example, your fellow traveler:
Robocruiser is right. A USN carrier was not to far away at the time and well
within range to send a section of F-14s or F-18s to check out the contact. The
problem was the air wing knew of the cruisers reputation and didn't want to go
near it in case it shot at them. Another point is the contact was thought to be
an F-14 and the crew of a USN air defence ship should well know that a Tomcat (
at the time ) has next to zero capability to hurt a ship. M61 20mm cannon only
and the jet would be well within visual range by the time it was close enough to
use A lot of wrong in one paragraph.
He also forgets that the USN had a certain paranoia in the Persian Gulf at the time due to the previous year's USS Stark attack, a lethal mistake by Saddam's air force ... or so the Iraqi story went.
The criticism of the Captain within the USN was considerable.
USNI Proceedings, which was once a journal where a lot of professional discussion/debate etc went on had numerous articles pro and con, the CO of the USS Sides being not the only one who was very critical of Captain R.
Further criticisms of some of the outright crap posted on this topic is edited in an effort to remind self, and others, that this thread is about Russians flying near to the UK's air space.

Warmtoast

2nd Feb 2015, 15:10

Not a boffin

Given that CV43 never operated the F14, looks like you had a visit from CVW15 from the USS Kitty Hawk as well. The Marine F4 was from CVW14 on the Coral Sea.
Thanks for the clarification - it was a long time ago!

ShotOne

3rd Feb 2015, 07:16

Fair point, lonewolf in as far as dragging us off the case of the USN. But when you say "no big deal for professionals..." the trouble is, it wasn't military professionals who bore the brunt of the sudden reroutes caused by the Channel portion of this willy-waving adventure. There are huge tracts of the world to play Cold War posturing to everyone's hearts content but it's not reasonable to expect the general public, families travelling with children to shoulder needless risk.

TEEEJ

3rd Feb 2015, 16:40

Deptrai,

http://www.pprune.org/8849076-post61.html

The journalist, Marco Giannageli, has a recent history of ludicrous stories. He claimed Russia was about to supply Argentina with Su-24 Fencers. I've just checked and he is still peddling the bogus Su-24 story!

December 28th, 2014

Falkland Islands defence review after military deal between Russia and Argentina | UK | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/549006/Falkland-Islands-defence-review-after-military-deal-between-Russia-and-Argentina)

January 18th, 2015

Falklands latest: UK sends MOST POWERFUL warship to Falklands to strengthen defences | UK | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/552676/UK-Falklands-warship-argentina-navy)

Februaty 1st, 2015

Falklands on HIGH ALERT: Hundreds of UK troops sent to boost security at Argentina threat | World | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/555469/Hundreds-of-British-troops-are-sent-to-the-Falklands-for-a-security-boost)

Lonewolf_50

3rd Feb 2015, 20:03

it's not reasonable to expect the general public, families travelling with children to shoulder needless risk
ShotOne, are you referring to the Airbus FBW, 777 landing features on VFR days, or something else? :}

I don't see how the Russian planes playing willy waving games near UK airspace somehow becomes that Pax taking on added burderns.

I do see the points made earlier on them making ATC's job harder.

ShotOne

7th Feb 2015, 10:03

In that case allow me to explain, lonewolf. The airspace over the channel is very busy. If a large corridor is suddenly rendered off-limits by an uncooperative aircraft, hundreds of aircraft under several different control authorities have to be rerouted or delayed on the ground. ATC did a superb job, but cranking the pressure on certainly increases the risk of calamity.

Lonewolf_50

9th Feb 2015, 18:19