Non Squawking Russian Bomber Fly Around UK Airspace..
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intercepted Russian bomber was carrying a nuclear missile over the Channel | UK | News | Daily Express
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NW UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See also
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...nemouth-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
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...nemouth-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
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
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/
https://planesandstuff.wordpress.com/
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do we know it was carrying a nuke? Just because they said they had one on board doesn't mean they did?
air-dropped “seek and find"d (sic)
alerted after cockpit conservations (sic)
We "downloaded" (my quotation marks) conversations from the crew
A View of the Interceptors from the Intercepted
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...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!
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!
@ 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
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
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
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.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 2nd Feb 2015 at 14:45.
Not a boffin
Thanks for the clarification - it was a long time ago!
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.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
January 18th, 2015
Falklands latest: UK sends MOST POWERFUL warship to Falklands to strengthen defences | UK | News | Daily Express
Februaty 1st, 2015
Falklands on HIGH ALERT: Hundreds of UK troops sent to boost security at Argentina threat | World | News | Daily Express
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
January 18th, 2015
Falklands latest: UK sends MOST POWERFUL warship to Falklands to strengthen defences | UK | News | Daily Express
Februaty 1st, 2015
Falklands on HIGH ALERT: Hundreds of UK troops sent to boost security at Argentina threat | World | News | Daily Express
it's not reasonable to expect the general public, families travelling with children to shoulder needless risk
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.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
