RAF Intercepting Russian "and other nation's" Aircraft. Whose?

[Agaricus bisporus]

The Times reported today 09/07/10 that the RAF is still busy intercepting military aircraft incursions into our airspace from Russian and "other" airforces.

Which "other" airforces?

[vecvechookattack]

French.... Intercepted last Tuesday south of the IOW.

[Trim Stab]

I was going to ask for a link - but then remembered that "The Times" now requires a subscription to view their material on the internet - thereby immediately reducing the credibility of their information.

If I had to make an entirely uninformed guess - maybe it is some surreptitious leak by Murdoch put out by the RAF to justify their spending on Typhoon? And maybe just ahead of Farnborough 2010 opportunity to showcase Typhoon air-defence capability?

[Trim Stab]

French.... Intercepted last Tuesday south of the IOW.


LOL

I don't know who to laugh at louder. Either the MOD (and French equivalent) are wasting public money by launching unplanned (at a mid level) "attacks" at each other to test QRF, or the RAF are "walting" and making false claims to "The Times", or "The Times" is choosing to ignore journalist ethics and is towing the RAF line.

Or does somebody want to claim that the FAF were genuinely planning to attack us?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Or does somebody want to claim that the FAF were genuinely planning to attack us?

Well they are the French!! Do you trust them???;)

[Pontius Navigator]

Shhhhhh, chem trails and all that .........

[ninja-lewis]

Argentina?

[Algy]

Not really the right forum I realise, but I'm trying to understand from Trimstab the logic of the comment "The Times" now requires a subscription to view their material on the internet - thereby immediately reducing the credibility of their information.

Very interesting for us media folk because a key argument is that a paywall, if anything, increases the credibility of the information behind it. Because the reason it's demanding payment is to pay the people who go and get the information. The corollary being that if your info is cheap enough to give away then perhaps it wasn't very expensive to get, and so probably wasn't all that good.

I can't exaggerate how important this is to the future of the news business.

[Trim Stab]

Not really the right forum I realise, but I'm trying to understand from Trimstab the logic of the comment "The Times" now requires a subscription to view their material on the internet - thereby immediately reducing the credibility of their information.



Indeed the Times "paywall" concept is risky - and to me it is the wrong way forward, because if the information cannot be immediately viewed, discussed and probed for veracity in a free forum (such as this) then it is of diminished credibility.

The specific news item here is an example - clearly it is scaremongering to assert that a foreign nation is testing our air defence. If an assertion like that had been made in the "free" press, a link would be posted and would have been discussed, dissected, and dismissed by now. But as we have to pay to see this assertion, there is no debate. All seems very fishy to me, especially given Murdoch's already established tendency to manipulate media.

[Kitbag]

Interesting logic for The Times- pay for it, because it cost us therefore it must be true.



Just like Hitler's Diaries?

[rock34]

Shame about the paywall. I used to enjoy reading the times online. I refuse to pay, so I'll stick to the Telegraph.

[Lima Juliet]

This aircraft isn't Russian...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/costelma/Aircraft/P1020944.jpg

[Razor61]

Doesn't the Falklands come under this? Surely the Typhoons are intercepting various aircraft around the islands.

[BEagle]

I can't exaggerate how important this is to the future of the news business.

The Times' arrogant attitude has alienated many, many people. I certainly won't be contributing to Murdoch's fortune by paying to access his ridiculous paywall.

Those who used to skim through the odd headline and feature in the Sunday Times are not going to pay the same as someone who reads the thing from end to end. Why should they?

So it's the Sunday Telegraph on line for me from now on. Murdoch can stuff his paywall where the sun doesn't shine.

Back to QRA, I don't recall having supported interceptions of other than Russian aircraft. But I've been intercepted by Portuguese A-7s (classified AAR mission in international waters), Italian F-104s (Vulcan MRR in international waters) and Spanish F-18s (practice intercept). Presumably the UK's QRA force also intercepts the odd 'unknown contact' on occasion?

[sitigeltfel]

If I buy a hard copy of the Times here it costs an eye watering 3.20 Euros. For that money I demand free access to their website thrown in. :*

[Impiger]

In my time on QRA I had a slack handful of Russians, a Syrian, 2 Libyans, an Israeli, an Italian and several Americans.

None were bent on attacking UK and/or her interests but all were in airspace for which the UK was responsible (DfT as well as MOD) and 'patrolled' by UK aircraft. They were not complying with the normal standards of reporting and use of airspace including the necessary diplomatic clearances. So we went to have a look; as they could have been anybody - simple really.

Hardest of all was the low level relatively slow thing just under a 1500' cloud base by night in the Iceland Faeroes Gap. Only light on the beast was an anti-col down the back somewhere and the only thing we could see was a MAD boom. Never really sure if it was a P3 or a Nimrod as neither community would admit to be out there at the time (some clandestine op I suspect kept secret even from our own side!).

Happy days.

ps I've black-listed the Times on-line too!!

[BEagle]

Well, there's a thing - I've had the first spam from The Times trying to get me to pay the Murdoch paywall charge....

Has anyone else received a begging e-mail from The Times?

"Dear Rupert. $od off! Rgds, BEagle"

[John Farley]

The Times

I used to just have the Times and Sunday Times delivered from a newsagent.

Then they said if you subscribe 3 months ahead to both you can get 25% off. So I did.

Then they said since you subscribe that includes free electronic access.

All seems good from where I sit.

[J52]

I think Murdoch is on a hiding to nothing over anyone paying to access his news sites. I mean, who would pay when you can get the same news elsewhere for free?

Most of the news I get nowadays is from blogs anyway, written by non jounalists and it is more reliable, reasonably unbiased and has less spelling mistakes.

All career journos should look at what happened to flight engineers as a career choice once technology took hold.

[BEagle]

Well, JF, it seems that only 10% of those who signed up for The Times 'free' month trial have decided to pay the Murdoch paywall fee..... So on current showing, the on-line paywall is an abject failure, although perhaps a convenient perk for those who subscribe to the paper version.

Incidentally, I saw an exellent documentary on the Harrier programme a couple of days ago whilst channel-hopping through the more obscure satellite movie channels. Your usual clarity in explaining technical issues to a layman audience - but were you wearing that tie for a bet :eek: ?

[John Farley]

but were you wearing that tie for a bet

It was the Kingston Brough Division tie current at that time. Not much option really till I went home in the evening

[Impiger]

Seems like this thread has drifted off course and what started as some reasonable thoughts on QRA has turned into a Times on-line to pay or not to pay.

So before someone gets it back on topic can I say I'm involved with a a 'trade' organisation which had hitherto taken an RSS news feed from The Times and e-mailed all of us in the organisation with each article of note. When the Times decided to charge, our secretary asked whether we thought the service worth paying for. To a man our view was that the Times seldom had an original article that wasn't reported elsewhere in the press and nor did it offer particularly insightful comment. Indeed, we all managed to quickly cite examples where they'd got their facts wrong or had reported them with clearly slanted opinions.

Result - we declined their kind offer, and feel none the worse for it.

Now, when I were on QRA we used to have to sit strapped in all night long and have the groundcrew pass up mugs of coffee to keep us awake - eee it were tough in t'cold war!

[Yellow Sun]

Hardest of all was the low level relatively slow thing just under a 1500' cloud base by night in the Iceland Faeroes Gap. Only light on the beast was an anti-col down the back somewhere and the only thing we could see was a MAD boom. Never really sure if it was a P3 or a Nimrod as neither community would admit to be out there at the time (some clandestine op I suspect kept secret even from our own side!).


Nimrod?, not us guv', we wouldn't have had any lights on.

YS

[BEagle]

Hardest of all was the low level relatively slow thing just under a 1500' cloud base by night in the Iceland Faeroes Gap. Only light on the beast was an anti-col down the back somewhere and the only thing we could see was a MAD boom. Never really sure if it was a P3 or a Nimrod as neither community would admit to be out there at the time (some clandestine op I suspect kept secret even from our own side!).

Perhaps it may have been a May? Il-38 certainly had a long pointy boom at the back....

Mind you, some folks' recce skills were....not the best.

One day with a phamous phighter squadron at Akronelli:

"BEagle, we saw a twin prop thing with 4 fins - any idea?"
"A bit like an E-2 without the radar?"
"What's one of them?"
"A Hawkeye? US Navy.... And the transport version is the C-2 Greyhound, which sounds like the thing you saw."

Another day at a phamous phighter aerodrome not far from Stowmarket. Friday afternoon recce session for the shags with 'BK' running it ('wheels' and 'auths' such as chum Impiger were closeted away in some secret squirrel session :\) . We have some 9 consecutive slides of the Sverdlov with 'BK' giving us all the recce features, then up goes the tenth. With 2 hugely obvious triple gun turrets pointing menacingly...

"What's this then, chaps?", jokes the smiling 'BK'.

Immediate answer from 'Gizzard', the RAF's only commissioned football hooligan...

"Sam Kotlin?"

:bored:

Happy times. Talking of 'Times', I'm with you on this, Impiger!