Russian Bombers in British Airspace

liah

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fife/article/10080/leuchars-tornado-crews-intercept-soviet-bears.html

The latest interception, which resulted from a 2am alarm just a few nights ago, marks a continuation of an increase in activity by Russian Bears in UK airspace.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/01/26/russian-invaders-are-foiled-by-tornados-from-raf-leuchars-86908-22876533/

TWO Russian bombers have been caught in British airspace - by fighter jets from a Scots RAF base threatened with closure under Con-Dem cuts.

...

Russian jets have been increasingly active in our skies over recent months as the Kremlin probes Britain's air defences.

I'm not normally the type to jump on conspiracy theories, but after seeing those two articles (note: I don't actually know the credibility of these sources, so if they are not credible please inform me!) I have to say I'm a bit unnerved.

Why are the Russians sending bombers to probe British airspace?

If they're sending them in to update boundaries or attempt to verify strength or whatever, why do they need bombers to do that?

Are they trying to make a point? Are they trying to be intimidating? Is there something more sinister behind it?

No matter what way I look at this, I can't make sense of it; why would Russia intentionally arouse suspicion by sending aircraft like that?

Anyone have any theories?

Buddhapadge

This was very common practice during the Cold War, if memory serves.

liah

Buddhapadge wrote: »

This was very common practice during the Cold War, if memory serves.

Yep, more or less. But why this with Britain? And why now?

Holybejaysus

Don't know why you are putting this in CT, OP-The Russians are definitely flexing their muscles militarily, no doubt about it. There was a report a few months ago that their submarines were stalking the British nuclear subs out of Faslane in Scotland. Not to mention their increased activities on the spying front (Anna Chapman cell, that MP's secretary etc).


But since we're in CT, allow me to put forward this theory from one of the highest ranking defectors to reach the UK. Oleg Gordievsky maintained that the Communist Russians staged the collapse of the Soviet Union in order to lull the West into a false sense of security, before launching a surprise attack a few decades later-a long range deception strategy, he called it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ6p4PemITA

As Vladamir Putin one said, referring to himself: 'There's no such thing as a former Cheka'....





Edit: Why the damn hell won't this video show up even though I put the youtube link on it? The Kay Gee Buh must be onto me...

Brown Bomber

liah wrote: »

I'm not normally the type to jump on conspiracy theories, but after seeing those two articles (note: I don't actually know the credibility of these sources, so if they are not credible please inform me!) I have to say I'm a bit unnerved.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it,
unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -Buddha

Alanstrainor

Holybejaysus wrote: »

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ6p4PemITA






Edit: Why the damn hell won't this video show up even though I put the youtube link on it? The Kay Gee Buh must be onto me...

Instead of putting the whole youtube link in, you only put what's after the ...v= bit. So the link should look like this

SugarHigh

There was a thread about this a few months ago and one of the military guys said it's always been common and isn't anything interesting. I'm sure Britain is doing the same to them. Everyone spies on everyone, it's not a bad thing.

They caught a Russian spy in Britain a few months ago and I'm sure there are British spies in Russia.

SugarHigh

I couldn't find the thread from a few months ago but here is one from 2007
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54027095

Samba

Happens on a regular basis.

Elohim

They stopped it soon after the cold war but started it back up again a couple of years ago when I guess they could afford to do it again. They do it very regularly these days.
I wonder if they do it to the Americans/Canadians too?

It's probably beneficial for both sides keeping their fighter pilots trained in real scenarios.

Jeboa Safari

Holybejaysus wrote: »

But since we're in CT, allow me to put forward this theory from one of the highest ranking defectors to reach the UK. Oleg Gordievsky maintained that the Communist Russians staged the collapse of the Soviet Union in order to lull the West into a false sense of security, before launching a surprise attack a few decades later-a long range deception strategy, he called it.

If that was the case though they wouldn't be spending money trying to flex their might by entering British Airspace.
I think its just part of Russias efforts to reassert itself on the world stage again

caseyann

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

If that was the case though they wouldn't be spending money trying to flex their might by entering British Airspace.
I think its just part of Russias efforts to reassert itself on the world stage again

They were also caught in Dutch air,Maybe they were flying over Éire also.
So what is the point of them doing that?

Jeboa Safari

caseyann wrote: »

They were also caught in Dutch air,Maybe they were flying over Éire also.
So what is the point of them doing that?

At a guess, Holland is part of NATO, so the same as over Britain. I don't know if they were flying over Ireland or not. It still wouldn't make sense that they would do it, if they were trying to make themselves appear weak like the post said.

caseyann

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

At a guess, Holland is part of NATO, so the same as over Britain. I don't know if they were flying over Ireland or not. It still wouldn't make sense that they would do it, if they were trying to make themselves appear weak like the post said.

Appear weak?

http://www.firetown.com/blog/2011/01/21/dutch-f-16s-intercept-russian-bombers-over-netherlands/
Two F16’s from the Dutch Royal Air Force have intercepted two Russian bombers over the North Sea on Tuesday, according to a spokesperson for the Air Force.
The two Russian aircraft type TU-95 MS (Bear) were for some time monitored by the Dutch

Steyr

liah wrote: »

Why are the Russians sending bombers to probe British airspace?

If they're sending them in to update boundaries or attempt to verify strength or whatever, why do they need bombers to do that?


No matter what way I look at this, I can't make sense of it; why would Russia intentionally arouse suspicion by sending aircraft like that?

They send bombers because it sends a message far far better then a fighter can, its their version of the USAF's GLOBAL REACH Policy ( Aircraft in the USAF are ALL capable of In flight refuelling so can Globally Reach anywhere without landing due to mid air refuelling ), Basically the UK does not have any bombers since the Nimrod is now axed and the Vulcan is gone etc so the Russians can still send a bomber as a message that they are still strong and also have a global reach with their Bombers.

It also works both ways, The RAF get a good look at their Bombers while the Russians get a good look at their Typhoons and what weapons load outs they can carry etc, you also must realise the UK Airspace extends a fair bit north and out over the Atlantic so papers are to blame too for so called "incursions" but what you will find is that this keeps crews/units on both sides on their toes, and alert.

But it is not also the UK that is being "checked" as essentially the first encounters with any Western Air Arm will be the bombers being Intercepted and shadowed by fighters from Finland ( F18 Hornet Jets ) Sweden ( SAAB Gripen jets ) and Norway ( F-16 Jets ), as soon as any of the above Intercept a Russian Bomber in International Airspace they usually alert each other and then the UK ( Typhoon and Tornado ADV Fighters ) if the bombers are UK/Atlantic Bound, this also happens in America ( Alaska ) where the USAF has state-of-the-art F22 Raptor Fighters Intercepting Russian Bombers on a Daily basis.


Also the USAF has bases in the UK, F-15E's at RAF Lakenheath and Tankers at RAF Mildenhall all part of USAFE ( United Sates Air Forces in Europe )


If I was to look deeper into it I would imagine the flights are preplanned to not enter UK Airspace but to just be around it, the last time they came close in Aeronautical terms was 40miles from Official UK Controlled Airspace.

Funny thing is the US and Russia do co-operate in Military manouvers.

Steyr

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

At a guess, Holland is part of NATO, so the same as over Britain.

Yes Holland is a NATO Member.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I don't know if they were flying over Ireland or not.

They dont. They have flown along Irish Airspace along the Atlantic Coast but on all cases were followed by RAF Typhoons with full co-operation with the Irish Military, we are not alone on this, During the Cold War the Irish Navy/ and possibly our Aircorps were quite adept at monitoring and did chase Soviet Spy Ships out of Irish Waters, The Soviet ships were made to look like Trawlers.

Monty Burnz

The Tupolev Tu-95 (Russian: Туполев Ту–95 NATO reporting name: Bear) is a large, four-engine turboprop-powered strategic bomber and missile platform. First flown in 1952, the Tu-95 was put into service by the former Soviet Union in 1956 and is expected to serve the Russian Air Force until at least 2040.

That's from Wikipedia. Slightly O/T, but if those planes are in service until 'at least 2040' then they will be nearly a century old :eek:

How cool is that? And in a technological field that sees so much innovation. It would be older by then than the Hawker Hurricane is today - imagine that being a current front-line fighting plane!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane

Steyr

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That's from Wikipedia. Slightly O/T, but if those planes are in service until 'at least 2040' then they will be nearly a century old :eek:

How cool is that? And in a technological field that sees so much innovation. It would be older by then than the Hawker Hurricane is today - imagine that being a current front-line fighting plane!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane

You do realise the Boeing B52H is over 50 years old since the turn of the 21st Century, The first B52 flew on 15th April 1952. The USAF intend to keep the B5 going until at least 2040 as well which will be 78 years after production ended and 85 years after it entered service.

kerryman12

This sort of thing is as old as the hills and only ever stopped becase to russians ran out of money for a few years and then only partially. The americans do it to them also and the chinese. The UK so it to the russians and the yanks.

I often things its just a big game both sides play with each other. Take this eample;

The russian leader get to say to the military start up the flights again, this makes them look like hard men to the public, as if they are reasserting russias former gloary. The military guys say great, give them the green light to go play/train their pilots. The pilots love it, I mean who wouldnt this is what they joined up to do. They use the bomber because it is real life scenario for them - if there ever was a war it is the bomber that would have to penetrate the air defence. The intelligence guy like it because they test the UK air defence, responce times etc - in the same way a professional criminal would know the responce time of the cops. They can use up their budget and apply for more next year!!

On the UK side, again the pilots get to go out for a spin/training so they are happy. Their superiors get to go to the MOD and say look the russians are back at it. We need a bigger budget to make sure we can protect out airspace, maybe a few more planes. etc etc

and on it goes,

An example like this gets picked up by the papers, but the real funk stuff goes on between the submarine fleets of the US/UK and Russia. Now some of that stuff is a bit out there.

meathstevie

Given the relatively low speed of those Bear jobs and the fact that they only carry bombs or air to surface missiles they don't really stand a chance against current NATO air defences if they would ever be used in anger.
As a lot of people here say, they're just a long distance recce tool and part of a bit of good ole cold war poker.

Victor

liah wrote: »

Russian Bombers in British Airspace

Its not British airspace. It is airspace over international waters, that happens to be managed by British air traffic control and/or allocated by NATO to the UK for air defence responsibilities.

meathstevie wrote: »

Given the relatively low speed of those Bear jobs and the fact that they only carry bombs or air to surface missiles they don't really stand a chance against current NATO air defences if they would ever be used in anger.

But what happens when one bomber launches 10 decoys - and then 20 missiles? An there are 50 bombers? Things become a bit more complicated? No?

kerryman12

Victor makes a valid point. Ever defence system has holes in it that can be exploited, but its only by rec that you can find them.

One famous example from the cold war involved the RAF V-bombers. They developed specific tactics to attack the USSR as it them was. When they deployed these tactics agains US/Canadian defences they got through! Caused consternation in the US at the time - the ramification were significant.

Another example for you;

In the 80's (I think) the russians started to use WW2 era biplanes to deploy spetnazs. Initially this was laughted at but eventually NATo realised that because these thing travelled so slowed the modern radar system couldnt pick them up. Over night they realised they could have spetnaz teams dropped into europe and never know about it.

One final example slightly off topic;

AS we know the US for years used U-2's for high level rec missions. Standard operating height for these mission would be 80,000ft, a height the US believed to be safe from interception. Until a RAF LT flying a lighting intercepted one over the UK. Again causing a major rethink in the way these planes were used.

Captain Chaos

Victor wrote: »

But what happens when one bomber launches 10 decoys - and then 20 missiles? An there are 50 bombers? Things become a bit more complicated? No?

There are also electronic warfare versions of the Tu-95, they sometimes fly in formations with the bombers and can provide electronic jamming and counter measures for the formation making radar tracking and weapons targeting against them quite difficult.

Seaneh

This stuff is insanely common, the USAF and Canadian AF escort bears out of their air space almost daily.

Jeboa Safari

kerryman12 wrote: »

An example like this gets picked up by the papers, but the real funk stuff goes on between the submarine fleets of the US/UK and Russia. Now some of that stuff is a bit out there.

I know it's a bit off-topic, but could you elaborate? I find this sort of thing interesting I remember reading that a Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of where the US navy was holding war games after getting through undetected, caused a bit of consternation at the time

kerryman12

Four things spring to mind;

1. Kursk. The most widly accepted explanation is a fire. But there are other theorys about collisions and one about a us sub actually firing and sinking the Kursk. The alternative theorys here are a bit out there.

2. Swedish incidents. In the late 80's there was a lot of strange goings on off the coast of Sweden. In one case at least it was believed to be a russian boat but in another it was believed to involve US boats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_submarine_incidents

"The sea floor is examined, and double-track trace is discovered, allegedly from a submarine vehicle, extending 1100 meters. "

This is interesting because as far as I know there is only one under water vehicle capable of producing track like this and that is a US boat.

3. This one I have no links for, it was on a discovery channel program. But it involved a US submarine entering either vladivostock or petropalosk and being involved in a collission there. It was almost sunk.

4. Baton rouge incident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_incident_off_Kildin_island

Anyway interesting stuff

But this one has to be one of the strangest incidents of the cold war,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian

Zillah

kerryman12 wrote: »

In the 80's (I think) the russians started to use WW2 era biplanes to deploy spetnazs. Initially this was laughted at but eventually NATo realised that because these thing travelled so slowed the modern radar system couldnt pick them up. Over night they realised they could have spetnaz teams dropped into europe and never know about it.

Uh...no. That makes no sense whatsoever. Radar can detect a balloon floating along with the wind. Civilians use slow aircraft all the time and radar is still used to track them.

Steyr wrote: »

You do realise the Boeing B52H is over 50 years old since the turn of the 21st Century, The first B52 flew on 15th April 1952. The USAF intend to keep the B5 going until at least 2040 as well which will be 78 years after production ended and 85 years after it entered service.

It doesn't use propellers though

Monty Burnz

Steyr wrote: »

You do realise the Boeing B52H is over 50 years old since the turn of the 21st Century, The first B52 flew on 15th April 1952. The USAF intend to keep the B5 going until at least 2040 as well which will be 78 years after production ended and 85 years after it entered service.

Amazing stuff, no? Interesting how planned obsolescence does not seem to be a problem for the military.

Victor

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I know it's a bit off-topic, but could you elaborate? I find this sort of thing interesting I remember reading that a Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of where the US navy was holding war games after getting through undetected, caused a bit of consternation at the time

If you know the Americans are coming in a certain direction and you spread a line of 20 submarines in their path and do this during every exercise, you will eventually get a sub inside their battlegroup.

Zillah wrote: »

Uh...no. That makes no sense whatsoever. Radar can detect a balloon floating along with the wind. Civilians use slow aircraft all the time and radar is still used to track them.

Certain radar results will be discounted otherwise they would overwhelm the system, e.g. you don't want to track every car moving on the motorway for 500km when your radar is in look-down mode.

kerryman12

Zillah wrote: »

Uh...no. That makes no sense whatsoever. Radar can detect a balloon floating along with the wind. Civilians use slow aircraft all the time and radar is still used to track them.

Uh yes..

"The russian AN-2 biplane minimum speed of 56km is too slow to be detected by doppler radar and its fabric-covered hull provides near invisability to pulse radar. Flying at tree top level and rising to the minimum drop height to deliver 14 spetnaz commandos, this WW2 aircraft is a flying ghost"

This is taken directly from

Fighting techniques of the special forces by Terry White Published Centuary London - I just happen to have a copy lying around, as you do

Also see

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2186&catid=258&lang=

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2

:pac::pac::pac:

Zillah

kerryman12 wrote: »

"The russian AN-2 biplane minimum speed of 56km is too slow to be detected by doppler radar and its fabric-covered hull provides near invisability to pulse radar. Flying at tree top level and rising to the minimum drop height to deliver 14 spetnaz commandos, this WW2 aircraft is a flying ghost"

I'd imagine that a fabric body and tree-top flight level are far more relevant to dodging radar than the low speed.

kerryman12

Zillah wrote: »

I'd imagine that a fabric body and tree-top flight level are far more relevant to dodging radar than the low speed.

Without a doubt it has a lot to do with it, I am not a expert by any means on pulse doppler radar. but have a look at this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-Doppler_radar

The last paragraph reads as follows;


Stationary targets such as earth ground clutter (land, buildings, etc.) will be dominant in the low doppler frequencies, while moving targets will produce much higher doppler shifts. The radar processor can be designed to mask out clutter by the use of doppler filters (digital or analogue) around the main spectral line (called the clutter-notch), which will result in the display of moving targets only (in relation to the radar). If the radar itself is moving, such as on a fighter aircraft, or a surveillance aircraft, then much more processing will be required, as the clutter in the filters will be based on platform speed, terrain under the radar, antenna depression angle, and antenna rotation/steered angle.

I wonder if it is something to do with filters being used to remove the stationary objects. Also I noticed that in one of the wiki links posted in the last post, the minimum speed for controlled flight was 30kph!
Maybe a aircraft travelling this slowly would be seen as a stationay object?