Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

RAF QRA Launch!

  • 07-03-2020 11:51am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭


    QRA Launch! RAF Voyager tanker & 2 Typhoons using callsigns “F7Y11” & “F7Y12” have launched to intercept a Russian Air Force TU-142 Bear Bombers. The Bear Bombers are currently west of Donegal!


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Psychlops


    RAF Tanker MADRAS707 now west of Plymouth, Russian Bears are heading south along the Irish West Coast, RAF QRA Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth are RTB RAF Lossiemouth & a new QRA from RAF Coningsby is now airborne to intercept the Bears. New. QRA Typhoons are using the callsigns “9WZ41” & “9WZ42”. RAF Voyager is established in air to air refuel area 12.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Psychlops


    Psychlops wrote: »
    RAF Tanker MADRAS707 now west of Plymouth, Russian Bears are heading south along the Irish West Coast, RAF QRA Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth are RTB RAF Lossiemouth & a new QRA from RAF Coningsby is now airborne to intercept the Bears. New. QRA Typhoons are using the callsigns “9WZ41” & “9WZ42”. RAF Voyager is established in air to air refuel area 12.

    Typhoons now headed south Past Cork to intercept.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Psychlops


    RAF Tanker MADRAS707 now nearly south of Cork, Russian Bears are continuing south along the Irish West Coast, new RAF QRA Typhoons are using the callsigns “9WZ41” & “9WZ42” from RAF Coningsby.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Where did you get this from Psychops? Nowt on BBC.
    Looks like them Russian spies up in Dartry have been reading the "Fighter Jets for the AC" thread and decided to test our response !


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Psychlops


    BREAKING:New QRA, RAF QRA Typhoon ZK349 using callsign “F7Y13” & Typhoon ZJ946 using callsign “F7Y14” has launched from RAF Lossiemouth.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Bloody hell! This is getting serious! Hope the boys in Baldonnel are about to launch the Irish Rapid Reaction squadron, and have the auld anti aircraft guns on the NS ships all primed and ready to go!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Psychlops


    MARCOTTE20 French Air Force KC-135 tanker airborne to support French Air Force QRA Rafales.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Thanks for the running commentary Psy...This is gripping and dramatic stuff. Just goes to show that we've let the side down due to the government's penny pinching attitude towards the AC. Depriving us of the spoils of victory!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Psychlops


    Judging the track of the RAF Tanker I’d say the RAF Typhoons never entered Irish Airspace, perhaps Irish Controlled Airspace definately, I wonder if they talked to Shannon?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Cheeky buggers. Looks like the clipped the Giants Causeway.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,477 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    That was an expensive afternoon for the British considering the Russians where just out for a weekend drive


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Psychlops


    RAF have released the images from today.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,234 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Text book example of how QRA escort mission works even down to the handover to Rafael.

    These are the missions that any "fighter" the Air Corps were to get lumbered with by some ;) would need to perform.

    Multiple launches and tanker support are part and parcel of the air intercept and policing role that make it a hugely expensive proposition.

    Nice days flying for all involved and the ground crew will have a busy couple of days all round.

    @Psychlops, thanks for the thread and updates.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Yeah..Thanks Psy. Jolly interesting and educational in to the bargain. I've upgraded my wish list for fighter aircraft and now feel that for the air defence and intercept role that the wee Chech job would not quite cut the mustard. So I reckon 6 of the Fa50 Korean jets would be a reasonable asset and 6 of the chech jobs would do for the air ground role.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,387 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Yeah..Thanks Psy. Jolly interesting and educational in to the bargain. I've upgraded my wish list for fighter aircraft and now feel that for the air defence and intercept role that the wee Chech job would not quite cut the mustard. So I reckon 6 of the Fa50 Korean jets would be a reasonable asset and 6 of the chech jobs would do for the air ground role.

    Ah but would the Korean ones have the range ..

    Does this not reinforce the fact that strategically ,our locations not all that important ,and since we don't have either offence or defensive capability .. no one's really interested in us or our airspace ...
    So by obtaining capability we'd be making ourselves a target ...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,477 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Them bears I would say are thirsty on fuel , we could go down the 80’s route and get them to stop in Shannon that way we would know when they are coming and we wouldn’t need to get jets to intercept them problem solved!


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,603 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Pathetic for a sovereign nation. Utterly embarrassing.

    I could accept it if we were in NATO and had a status like Iceland, but like most things we do in Ireland we are only half involved, half committed, half interested in our own concerns. Usual political double speak to try and keep all interests happy with the result that they end up satisfying nobody.

    Posters mention tankers, we wouldn't need feckin tankers if we had an air station or two in the west of the Country and were deploying interceptors in relays inside our own airspace only.

    If I were Britain and France I'd be sending us a bill for the full whack of that mission today and fair play to them for carrying it out so professionally, but it shouldn't be their job.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,477 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Pathetic for a sovereign nation. Utterly embarrassing.

    I could accept it if we were in NATO and had a status like Iceland, but like most things we do in Ireland we are only half involved, half committed, half interested in our own concerns. Usual political double speak to try and keep all interests happy with the result that they end up satisfying nobody.

    Posters mention tankers, we wouldn't need feckin tankers if we had an air station or two in the west of the Country and were deploying interceptors in relays inside our own airspace only.

    If I were Britain and France I'd be sending us a bill for the full whack of that mission today and fair play to them for carrying it out so professionally, but it shouldn't be their job.

    The British did not intercept for us they intercepted for themselves they could not give a dam about us.

    We do need interceptor capacity of some sort but not for chasing the Russians who aren’t even in our airspace

    Our concern should be civilian aircraft that are out of contact for some reason. We don’t want a jet crashing in to one of our cities when we could have stoped it. Examples such as below

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,603 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Yes of course the Russians were probing NATO air forces reaction as always, but that involves testing the Irish area of responsibility of the RAF as a potential weak point, which does essentially make it our problem. I agree with you about other threats from the air but my point about sovereignty stands.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Psychlops


    roadmaster wrote: »
    Them bears I would say are thirsty on fuel , we could go down the 80’s route and get them to stop in Shannon that way we would know when they are coming and we wouldn’t need to get jets to intercept them problem solved!


    Apparently it can stay airborne for 10.5 hours, I remember a clip in the 80's where they talked to F14 Tomcat crews about intercepting them & they said they used to hate it as the noise from the props if you were flying behind or beside it was terrible, they preferred to fly forward of the props as much as possible.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    Hats Off to the courageous airmen of the RAF and the L'Armee de L'Aire for chasing away Jonny Russian from our sacred soil!
    As other posters have pointed out we could have take part in the exercise quite capably without refuelling tankers by using (say) the defunct airport in Cairnryan and Cork or Kerry to base 3 pairs of fast jets, and the FA 50 does mach 1.5 so well up to engaging and maintaining station with a Bear bomber. Sooner we acquire these the better. With a military potential threat of any type you need to plan several years ahead...not wait until "the enemy is at the gate", as these aircraft are not available off the shelf and one has to allow several years procurement lead time. It's about time we stopped scrounging off our good neighbours and allies and stepped up to the plate. We would win a bit of respect that way. Ya can't be puttin on "An Bheal Bocht" on the one hand and boast about having a booming economy with high rates of GDP growth on t'other.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,067 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Yes of course the Russians were probing NATO air forces reaction as always, but that involves testing the Irish area of responsibility of the RAF as a potential weak point, which does essentially make it our problem. I agree with you about other threats from the air but my point about sovereignty stands.

    Aye hundreds of millions poured into jets for willy waving sovereignty of a neutral island.

    More of this sign me up...


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭Smiles35


    listermint wrote: »
    Aye hundreds of millions poured into jets for willy waving sovereignty of a neutral island.

    More of this sign me up...

    Every 10 years they would have to be replaced on top of all the other expendisure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,051 ✭✭✭jonnybigwallet


    No they would not. Look at how old the RAF Tornados are and they are only being replaced now. Our guys wouldn't be putting massive hours on the airframes either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    These flights pose no threat and to suggest that we need to develop some sort of equivalent QRA for this purpose is silly. There is no "Irish area of responsibility" except to the extent that there is airspace that the state is entitled to organise and "control".


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,477 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Is not a waste of time intercepting these flights as they are in international air space and can freely fly there. The minute they take off Nato can track them anyway between satellites and radar and can probably predict there course


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,603 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    listermint wrote: »
    Aye hundreds of millions poured into jets for willy waving sovereignty of a neutral island.

    More of this sign me up...

    Thats just the point. Sovereignty isn't worth the ink unless it can be asserted.

    Defence spending is a normal part of the budget of any Country. At the moment we spend somewhere less than 0.5% of MGNI (0.3% of GDP). We can do much better at a basic national defence without it even approaching "willy waving"


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Thats just the point. Sovereignty isn't worth the ink unless it can be asserted.

    Defence spending is a normal part of the budget of any Country. At the moment we spend somewhere less than 0.5% of MGNI (0.3% of GDP). We can do much better at a basic national defence without it even approaching "willy waving"

    A QRA will not make this country any more or less sovereign than it already is (i.e. perfectly sovereign).


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,603 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    donvito99 wrote: »
    A QRA will not make this country any more or less sovereign than it already is (i.e. perfectly sovereign).

    Russian warplanes with their transponders switched off, towing anti-submarine arrays through the Irish air traffic sector with impunity is NOT the assertion of a sovereign state.

    Being able to challenge any and all comers on the sea and in the air of our territory is a basic international standard of sovereignty.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Psychlops


    BREAKING: Active & ongoing since 7am another RAF QRA, Aircraft involved are an RAF Voyager tanker using the callsign MADRAS711 “9VM60” & QRA Typhoons from RAF Lossiemouth to shadow 2 Russian aircraft, they have also been tracked & ID’d by a French Air Force E3 AWACS Sentry & the French Air Force QRA is also active.

    Again these Russian aircraft have passed down along the Irish West Coast & over the bay of Biscay & just now 2 more RAF QRA Typhoons using the callsigns T8J03 & T8J04 have been scrambled from RAF Lossiemouth.


Advertisement