RAF Lossiemouth jets scrambled to 'unidentified aircraft'
 

RAF jets have been scrambled to intercept unidentified aircraft off the north of Scotland.

Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth in Moray and a Voyager fuel tanker from RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire are involved in the mission.

More here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...tland-60231014


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5350249d5b.jpg

Sorry, not news. Normal part of the day job.

Sorry, but superb photograph.

Yep, it just looked like more than that initially but turns out to be 4 of our comrades after all.

Agreed. Things have come to a pretty pass, however, when the Aeronautica Militare Italiana is mounting Northern QRA.

Convenient distraction straight after PMQs.

AMI have been doing Northern QRA from KEF for years as have other NATO nations since the USAF pulled out their permanent detachment there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing

Quite, but the news story is about RAF aircraft. From Lossie.

Could a Voyager not be kept at Lossie for Q, how much is the flying time from Brize to the normal intercept area?

About an hour. Usually less.

Completely crackers! So that's 2 hours transit time (out and RTB) to be where they are needed to support 99% of real interceptions.

Maybe the Italians have changed sides again, and that Typhoon shown was the intercept target.
:}

The story I heard is that this is newsworthy as it happened at the same time as BoJo was on the phone to Putin about Ukraine. Not sure if this is true?

Marcettiman # 11

If Voyager deployed to Lossie it requires Groundcrew and Aircrew who stay for the duration ( 14 days ?) of the detachment. They are then not available for other work or
training. This can cause problems with Flying Currency or Simuator requirements. Aircrew can not be easily swapped to cover these or other service requirements. If
the aircraft sit on the ground unused for long periods it causes problems for the Engineers for Fleet Management.
The aircraft will need a suitable Parking Area with special Aircraft Ground Equipment ( De icers,Toilet Truck,Tug, Giraffe etc) not required by resident Fighter Squadrons.
Will also need a stock of spares and tools, as well as accomodation.
This has been considered many times since Victor 1 days in the 60's, and rejected as too expensive and complicated. Unless aircraft swap overs are done during routine
AAR training sorties you could actually fly more transit hours than you save if activity is low. Swap outs and Receiver AAR Training requirements do not neccessarily coincide
Interceptions are not always to the North. The Voyager may be needed over the North or Irish Seas.

Always been so. Not a problem. Assuming a tanker is available:

Q1 scrambles to reach the edge of the UKADR 1 hour (transit time) before penetration time.

Tanker scrambles and passes overhead LM 1 hour later and picks up Q2 as they do so.

Q1, having made original intercept, either passes them RTB as they take over the task or plugs and returns north with Q2 if a pair is required.

If the tanker is delayed then Q2 scrambles 1 hour after Q1 to take over the task and hopefully Q1 can meet the tanker before having to RTB, if not then it should arrive to support Q2 before it has to RTB. Meanwhile Q3 will be being generated, if necessary, to scramble 1 hour after Q2.

There were many years post 1982 (all at ASI) and 1990 GWI) when no tankers were available at all - the task was still covered by generating and scrambling more Q aircraft as required.

ISTR this formed the basis for one of the Individual Problem Solving exercises at OASC about 30-odd years ago.

The problems were normally about a group of scouts in the desert with a broken-down jeep and they needed to get home, but this was cooler.

You were the pilot of an F3, you had your range and endurance and a contact to intercept, you also had to work out when you needed to meet the tanker while remaining above minimum fuel state.

Does anyone have a copy of that...?

A very long time ago, the quality of intel enabled a scheduled tankex around the northern and western islands on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Even with a 10% hit rate, this was a good compromise between having to launch multiple Q waves (Lightnings) until the tanker arrived, or prepositioning a tanker.
In addition, it gave the Russians a few surprises, until they surprised us at low level.

On a daily basis there was good early warning from Norway - time for ‘lunch before launch’, and to generate tanker support … until they surprised us at low level.

There were several ‘Bug…er Factor’ flights; a 12 ship round-trip to the US East coast - 20 Jan every four years; 2-4 aircraft to mid Atlantic, S Spain with the 6th fleet changeover, tracking all Carrier movements in the N Atlantic Iceland Faeroes, and a rare foray to the N Sea.

QRA and tanker up again today on a rerun of yesterday.

I presume the Bears are out exercising with the Northern Fleet task group.

https://tinyurl.com/5e3n5jzp

https://news.sky.com/story/russian-b...-jets-12531866

I’m trying to work out who controls thrust in the AAR vid. Unless it’s not the prodding part

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…