russian-bombers

expectationlost

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Well the UK developed Radar able to Track those American Stealth planes, So I'm guessing using that. And these bombers don't have stealth technology They have ECM and Radar jammers. Think people are mistaking Military radar system's and what Civilian system can do. UK has AWAC's and all that too. Where as we do not.

this is what you said 'Cloaked from radar' im sure I read somewhere saying the IAA trcked the february flight, itself and not via the uk but i can't find it again.

darkpagandeath

expectationlost wrote: »

this is what you said 'Cloaked from radar'

You brought up "Romulans" not me, Was trying to define what it could mean. Look up Electronic Counter Measure, Look up what military aircraft can Jam. Th last lot were carrying Nuclear weapons and wanted to be seen. This lot ran with no transponder and Possibly jamming. Probably testing out detection times or our neighbours.

expectationlost

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You brought up "Romulans" not me, Was trying to define what it could mean. Look up Electronic Counter Measure, Look up what military aircraft can Jam. Th last lot were carrying Nuclear weapons and wanted to be seen. This lot ran with no transponder and Possibly jamming. Probably testing out detection times or our neighbours.

I was joking, we don't know what the Irish Examiner was referring to because it didn't provide any more details, and its far from definite the previous lot were carrying nuclear weapons.

darkpagandeath

expectationlost wrote: »

I was joking, we don't know what the Irish examiner was referring to because it didn't provide any more details, and its far from deinite the previous lot were carrying nuclear weapons.

One of them was carrying an air dropped nuclear torpedo designed to take out subs, And before anyone says Ireland is not a submarine. If that plane was shot down or got into difficulty and had to crash land. Nuclear material could have been spread over an area. As crashing on land would be better than ditching at sea.

BlaasForRafa

darkpagandeath wrote: »

One of them was carrying an air dropped nuclear torpedo designed to take out subs, And before anyone says Ireland is not a submarine. If that plane was shot down or got into difficulty and had to crash land. Nuclear material could have been spread over an area. As crashing on land would be better than ditching at sea.

Have you got a link for that?

The planes reported to be flying in international airspace off the coast of Ireland were Tu-95MS operated by the Russian Air Force. These do not carry air-launched torpedoes.

The maritime aviation variant, the Tu-142M carries air-launched torpedoes either conventional or nuclear when on patrol, this variant is operated by Russian Naval Aviation.

darkpagandeath

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Have you got a link for that?

The planes reported to be flying in international airspace off the coast of Ireland were Tu-95MS operated by the Russian Air Force. These do not carry air-launched torpedoes.

The maritime aviation variant, the Tu-142M carries air-launched torpedoes either conventional or nuclear when on patrol, this variant is operated by Russian Naval Aviation.

Was in The English News papers. MOD commented on it I think aswell.

expectationlost

darkpagandeath wrote: »

One of them was carrying an air dropped nuclear torpedo designed to take out subs, And before anyone says Ireland is not a submarine. If that plane was shot down or got into difficulty and had to crash land. Nuclear material could have been spread over an area. As crashing on land would be better than ditching at sea.

and its far from definite the previous lot were carrying nuclear weapons, so where are the submarines it was going to bomb?

darkpagandeath

expectationlost wrote: »

and its far from definite the previous lot were carrying nuclear weapons, so where are the submarines it was going to bomb?

Ask NATO for that Info.

expectationlost

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ask NATO for that Info.

why would i believe them?

ABC101

If the Russian 'Bear' TU 95 or whatever it is called did overfly Irish airspace... and dropped a few bombs on Dail Eireann.... all the political parties / media would relish in accusing Gerry Adams of doing the dirty deed. Why waste the opportunity to blame SF? The fact that the Russians could be/ might be responsible is a inconvenient truth. Lets not let the facts get in the way of giving SF a kicking.

The fact that Irish Radar is unable to see 'anything coming' unless the plane has it's transponder switched on is irrelevant. There is a good video on youtube... and its about Gander / Shanwick Oceanic Ocean control area.... and you guessed it... .it is all under control from the UK in Prestwick control centre (now moved to somewhere else). Only Radio communications is the responsibility of the IAA.

As far as I know ( open to correction etc) but I believe Irish Radar installations are owned by Eurocontrol.

I remember reading something about Mt Gabriel which suffered a bomb attack by the INLA... and the Irish Govt were taken to court by Eurocontrol for the damage to the installation.

The policy of the State can be summed up in a simple sentence

The Irish senior Civil servants ( those who advise the ministers) view is one of "who can we get to take over this responsibility for us" attitude.

A bit like the housing rental sector... all provided by the private / investor sector.... county councils / city councils don't provide social and affordable housing anymore.... they outsource it to the private sector... and then Revenue tax the private sector.

Health is going the same way... force people to buy their own health insurance, because we don't want the hassle of providing these public services any more.

Education will go the same way.

Air Defence.... ah sure get the Brits to look out for us, why should the Irish Govt / State pay up for that when we can outsource it to some body else?

And if the Russians do come over and drop a few bombs... sur we'll just use the opportunity to blame SF or Joe Higgins!

darkpagandeath

expectationlost wrote: »

why would i believe them?

Then why ask about the Subs ? I'm more worried about nuclear material spreading around if a plane carrying it crashes here.

BlaasForRafa

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Was in The English News papers. MOD commented on it I think aswell.

You're posts are pretty light on facts, you should link a source instead of expecting others to do the work for you.

There's the Sunday Express report on it, a newspaper even more sketchy than the Daily Mail http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/555454/Intercepted-Russian-bomber-was-carrying-a-nuclear-missile-over-the-Channel

There's an RAF report about it http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/fighters-scrambled-29012015, showing pictures of the Tu-95MS, an aircraft which cannot carry torpedoes. You might not expect those dummies at the Sunday Express to know the difference but you would expect the RAF to get it right. It's quite easy to tell the Tu-95MS from the Tu-142M as the following video shows (the Tu-95 is first, then the Tu-142).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb6ltDCi1B4

The only "evidence" that they have that there was a nuclear tipped torpedo onboard was cockpit chatter between the pilots which a norwegian listening station picked up. The listening station may have mis-translated or misinterpreted what the pilots said or the pilots may simply have been putting out fake info so as to ensure a response from Nato. Why the Norwegians and British are claiming that a plane not able to employ torpedoes is employing them is another question.

circadian

Noblong wrote: »

Philidelphia Experiment

They jumped 100 years into the future? We're doomed.

expectationlost

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Then why ask about the Subs ? I'm more worried about nuclear material spreading around if a plane carrying it crashes here.

whats on the subs?

BlaasForRafa

expectationlost wrote: »

whats on the subs?

The russians heard about "party subs" and sent the bears out looking for them.

expectationlost

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You're posts are pretty light on facts, you should link a source instead of expecting others to do the work for you.

There's the Sunday Express report on it, a newspaper even more sketchy than the Daily Mail http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/555454/Intercepted-Russian-bomber-was-carrying-a-nuclear-missile-over-the-Channel

There's an RAF report about it http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/fighters-scrambled-29012015, showing pictures of the Tu-95MS, an aircraft which cannot carry torpedoes. You might not expect those dummies at the Sunday Express to know the difference but you would expect the RAF to get it right. It's quite easy to tell the Tu-95MS from the Tu-142M as the following video shows (the Tu-95 is first, then the Tu-142).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb6ltDCi1B4

The only "evidence" that they have that there was a nuclear tipped torpedo onboard was cockpit chatter between the pilots which a norwegian listening station picked up. The listening station may have mis-translated or misinterpreted what the pilots said or the pilots may simply have been putting out fake info so as to ensure a response from Nato. Why the Norwegians and British are claiming that a plane not able to employ torpedoes is employing them is another question.

interesting post have to find out exactly what planes were flying in Feb and Jan I can find no reference to a TU-95MS flying so where did they get these anti-submarine bomb carriers from? just speculation?

i found mention of the tu-142m flying near america in august http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/russian-bombers-spotted-u-s-fighter-jets-alaska-article-1.1896572

darkpagandeath

darkpagandeath wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/passenger-planes-dodged-russian-bombers-315623.html


Sabre rattling again, Putting civilians in possible danger. What's the reason, they don't have stealth the British can track them intercept and if needed take down. Was this one carrying Nuclear weapons again ?

Thanks to The Office (US), this is the only thing I can think of when I see Sabre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzYjf1eONfo

BoatMad

couple of minutes and a few Eurofigthers and those " bears" would be no more. I saw the Eurofigther ad. Im impressed:D

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

BoJack Horseman

BoatMad wrote: »

couple of minutes and a few Eurofigthers and those " bears" would be no more. I saw the Eurofigther ad. Im impressed:D

I'd imagine in an actual war, they would fly with an escort of fighters.

BoatMad

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'd imagine in an actual war, they would fly with an escort of fighters.

ahem, i wasn't really being serious :P

knucklehead6

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'd imagine in an actual war, they would fly with an escort of fighters.

No fighters would have the range to keep up with bears on a long range mission, not without tying up significant tanker assets.

W1ll1s

Excellent article on this at: http://irishecho.com/2015/06/irish-sovereignty-extends-only-so-high/?ref=yfp

BoJack Horseman

W1ll1s wrote: »

Excellent article on this at: http://irishecho.com/2015/06/irish-sovereignty-extends-only-so-high/?ref=yfp

Comprehensive insight & worth a read.

Neutrality advocates will be understandably displeased by decades of wanton & deliberate neglect.

A government has one core job.... Ours have never even considered doing it.

Son Of A Vidic

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Comprehensive insight & worth a read.

Neutrality advocates will be understandably displeased by decades of wanton & deliberate neglect.

A government has one core job.... Ours have never even considered doing it.

I think most of us are aware of Ireland's neutrality tokenism. Of course if Ireland genuinely wanted to enforce its neutrality, it would have to apply such enforcement across the board. And we all know that's never going to happen. As an island nation, I believe we really should have a significantly more robust capability to protect our neutrality. But unfortunately, we'll probably see pigs flying before that ever happens.

BoatMad

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I think most of us are aware of Ireland's neutrality tokenism. Of course if Ireland genuinely wanted to enforce its neutrality, it would have apply have to apply such enforcement across the board. And we all know that's never going to happen. As an island nation, I believe we really should have a significantly more robsut capability to protect our neutrality. But unfortunately, we'll probably see pigs flying before that ever happens.

I can never understand in an era of cheap money, why we cannot field a squadron of fighter aircraft

Son Of A Vidic

BoatMad wrote: »

I can never understand in an era of cheap money, why we cannot field a squadron of fighter aircraft

This country for reasons known only to the inner sanctum of power, appears to never have had any political will for such logic. Nobody expects us to challenge the American or Russian air forces in aerial combat, but at the very least, it would be nice to have some level of capability to enforce neutrality.

The same could be said for our undersized Navy. When foreign submarines were snagging nets and dragging Irish fishermen down to a watery grave. It would have been nice, to have a naval force capable of hunting and exposing the Subs responsible.

josip

BoatMad wrote: »

I can never understand in an era of cheap money, why we cannot field a squadron of fighter aircraft

Let's see.
A squadron of Eurofighters.
12 * €100m = €1.2 billion.
Nuff said.

Samaris

It seems rather unsporting to have them bugging Irish airspace. We have to call in the neighbours to chase them out

Mind you, apparently when they did it to Sweden the first time, it was summer holidays and the Swedes had no-one around who could actually fly military jets. They had to call in Estonia to shoo them away.

Go annoy France or someone, Russia. At least they get the mild entertainment of chucking you out personally!

bpmurray

josip wrote: »

Let's see.
A squadron of Eurofighters.
12 * €100m = €1.2 billion.
Nuff said.

I believe they're around $150M, which is a bit more than €100M.

Just as effective would be to have a targeting system that illuminates the planes once they cross into Irish territory - it would make them think that they're locked on by missiles. That would be a lot cheaper.

BoatMad

Go annoy France or someone, Russia. At least they get the mild entertainment of chucking you out personal

They wont do that , the french fire first and dont even ask questions later