Indeed, DD. I emailed the Beeb's online troops pointing out their error, and suggesting a better picture, courtesy of Forces.net. They didn't respond (no surprise there), but I note they changed the picture
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...tland-60231014
I'm not sure this is a Lossie aircraft, but at least it's RAF

airsound

Honest question from a reasonably well-informed civvy.

If [and I think it is a given] Putin could launch similar flights every day, every night for yonks, why not detach a tanker to Lossie on a rotation basis?

I can see arguments against, such as maintenance, flight sim, infrastructure, but tanker response time and loiter time would be so much improved, and cheaper on fuel and crew time.

I assume [greatly daring] that the tankers fly tow-lines over the North Sea on frequent exercises. What's not to like?

He can’t - they haven’t got that many left. We could - if it was required, but it isn’t.

Can the new P-8 fire up as well as down?

Recent events show four Russian aircraft at a time, what is to stop one at a time over four days?

Is it far-fetched to link tensions over Ukraine with sustained incursions? Who would wear out first? It would put a lot of hours on the tankers, traipsing from and to Brize.

Black Buck

Sorry, I cannot join the dots ....... Black Buck was a long time ago [I ran Met. support for the Vulcans and Victors from HQ 1 Gp for a short while until the action moved to Ascension].

Sorry, I was just thinking Black Buck was a very long way for the tankers as well as the V's. But the Reds have already flown an awfully long way to incur UKADR in the first place so isn't the question "Who's going to wear out first" a moot point?

Yes, a moot point. Which is why a det. to Lossie might become a good idea, and perhaps distract from long conferences about yet another new uniform.

Yep. I think it's a good idea and I think it'll happen sooner rather than later.

Those 'conferences' need to stop happening because it seems to have precipitated nothing more than a bunch of extras from Thunderbirds wandering around the station calling themselves "Aviators".

And that sort of thing doesn't go down well.

Other aircraft are available no doubt. How many operational TU-160s do they have?

I note that there was an E-3 perfrorming circuits over the Cairngorms this morning, I don't know if it was connected with the Russians or a 100sqn Hawk off the East coast.

They have a fleet of 20, getting a bit long in the tooth - which is why they have restarted production. Assuming 50% availability and other tasking and training a pair is a realistic daily sortie to the UKADR.

Aircraft yesterday were 2 Bear-H from Engels out of a wing of 22, plus 2 Bear-F from Kipelovo with a similar wing strength. They might manage another formation a day, but with 15hr missions and crew duty times etc I’m not sure how long they could sustain it.

I’m presuming their primary mission was working with the deployed Northern Fleet task force so as to maximise training.

They lost a lot of assets when they lost Ukraine, and as with NATO their assets are a shadow of their Cold War capability….

To reach the UKADR they had already been intercepted by fighters from Norway and Iceland.

The Bear-H is a flag waving exercise - they are cruise missile carriers which in a real war could launch their missiles while still over Russia without getting anywhere near any NATO fighters.

So to get back on thread - has the inbound aircraft been identified yet?

Cheap option
 

Thought we (the RAF) were using drones?Would they npt be cheaper to put on station?

it's a long way from "he can't" to a pair or two pairs a day.

To do QRA? If so, absolutely not for so many reasons. Or are you meaning using Reaper for Russia facing ops elsewhere?

Speed is everything
 

Maybe these sorts of intercepts could be carried out by a drone aircraft in years to come. Currently though our best drone cruises at less than half the speed of a Bear. So even if it could get the intercept absolutely perfect the best you could hope for is a fleeting pass and a lot of seriously underwhelmed Russians.

BV

It has been RAF policy for many years to station all the tankers down South. That made lots of sense when there was so much exercise activity over the North Sea. Maybe mot so much now.

Certainly detaching a flight of tankers to base on a rotating basis at Lossie would appear a good idea - but no doubt all the add-ons that the RAF seems to require would make this difficult. Their personnel requirements seem astonishing.

Plus no doubt a fair of mumping from service folk who'd rather be based in England.

I would imagine AirTanker, and their staff, would also have a substantial input into any such discussion…