RAF Intercepting Russian "and other nation's" Aircraft. Whose?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Intercepting Russian "and other nation's" Aircraft. Whose?
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?
Which "other" airforces?
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?
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?
Last edited by Trim Stab; 9th Jul 2010 at 20:26.
French.... Intercepted last Tuesday south of the IOW.
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?
Last edited by Trim Stab; 9th Jul 2010 at 18:21.
"The INTRODUCER"
Times paywall
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.
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.
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.
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.
I can't exaggerate how important this is to the future of the news business.
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?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other Nations
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!!
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!!
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"
Has anyone else received a begging e-mail from The Times?
"Dear Rupert. $od off! Rgds, BEagle"
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by J52; 20th Jul 2010 at 10:17. Reason: correct spelling
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
?
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
?