UK Typhoons shadow Russian bomber
Two new RAF Typhoon jets shadowed a Russian bomber heading for Britain, the Ministry of Defence has said.
The jets were scrambled on Friday 17 August to identify the Russian aircraft, which turned back before it reached UK skies.
The MoD said: "RAF Typhoons from Numbers 3(F) and XI Squadrons launched to shadow a Russian Bear-H aircraft over the North Atlantic Ocean."
The BBC's Gordon Corera said the incident was not a security threat.
Active standby
He said a similar incident occurred in July, but that this represented a new, more provocative Russian foreign policy.
Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, has recently resumed the Soviet-era practice of sending bomber aircraft on long-range flights.
Britain's £67m Typhoons were only put on active standby in July.
Typhoons, the RAF's newest fast jet aircraft - which are based at RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire - cover the UK Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) commitment together with Tornado F3 aircraft based at RAF Leeming and RAF Leuchars.
Over the next nine months, the Typhoons will progressively replace Tornado F3s, the aircraft which have performed this duty for many years.
The Typhoon was designed during the Cold War, when European leaders looked to the Soviet Union as their main threat from the air.
The RAF has ordered 144 Typhoons, which can accelerate from standing to take-off in under seven seconds.
They were developed by companies in the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy.
I'm confused. In one article I saw the Bear was a recon plane, in anouther its a bomber....
Last edited by Dartzap on 2007-08-22 04:31am, edited 1 time in total.
EBC: Northeners, Huh! What are they good for?! Absolutely nothing!
Cybertron, Justice league...MM, HAB SDN City Watch: Sergeant Detritus
Days Unstabbed, Unabused, Unassualted and Unwavedatwithabutchersknife: 0
Moved. I got my latest issue of Tornado's- erm I mean Air Forces Monthly the other day - it seems that in one instance it was a Tu-142. I wonder if they're sending Tu-142s and the press are just dumb and are calling them BEAR-Hs instead.
The Norweigans took some pictures of Russia's big exercises the other week as well - they snapped an Il-78 refuelling a pair of MiG-31s, an A-50 AWACS, and a Tu-22M.
Is it just me or does the Eurofighter look very similar to JAS Gripen?
"Ha ha! Yes, Mark Evans is back, suckers, and he's the key to everything! He's the Half Blood Prince, he's Harry's Great-Aunt, he's the Heir of Gryffindor, he lives up the Pillar of Storgé and he owns the Mystic Kettle of Nackledirk!" - J.K. Rowling
***
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on
the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your
hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
Gustav32Vasa wrote:Is it just me or does the Eurofighter look very similar to JAS Gripen?
Not that similar.
Two engines vs one.
Air intakes below rather than on the sides.
Canard and Deltawing though.
I thought Roman candles meant they were imported. - Kelly Bundy
12 yards long, two lanes wide it's 65 tons of American pride, Canyonero! - Simpsons
Support the KKK environmental program - keep the Arctic white!
Last I heard ver few of the Backfire or Blackjack bombers from the old Soviet Airforce were airworthy.
To be honest both planes when they could be looked at closely turned out to be near turds. They were overall less effective than the B-1 Lancer our Airforce paid quite a bit for and was never entirely happy with.
Baal wrote:Last I heard ver few of the Backfire or Blackjack bombers from the old Soviet Airforce were airworthy.
I think you heard wrong.
To be honest both planes when they could be looked at closely turned out to be near turds. They were overall less effective than the B-1 Lancer our Airforce paid quite a bit for and was never entirely happy with.
What? Both the Backfire and Blackjack are fine aircraft and the Blackjack with rather better performance than the B-1.
Anyone who claims that the Tu-160 is a "turd" or "less effective than B-1" is a USAF wanker or just ignorant.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
In connection with Russia’s resumption of regular flights in Tu-160 and Tu-95 bombers, it is not unlikely a decision will be adopted on the continuation of their production.
“If airplanes break down in connection with accelerated service life exhaustion which is linked with the resumption of their combat duty, of course a decision will be adopted regarding their production. No one here has any doubts,” the president’s aide for military and technical and defense industrial policy, Aleksandr Burutin, declared at the MAKS-2007 air salon which opened in the Moscow suburb of Zhukovskiy.
He thinks that the decision to resume regular flights of strategic bombers is completely correct not only in a military regard, but also political.
“Air force airmen are prepared for it. It will elevate their combat skill, and it is high without that,” Burutin said. He reported that it will be permanent duty. The composition of the duty forces will be determined by the general staff and ministry of defense.
Burutin also noted that there are plans for the development of strategic long-range aircraft. “Of course, owing to the constant duty, the exhaustion of the airplanes’ service will be accelerated. Therefore, a decision will be adopted on the resumption of their production,” he emphasized.
Source: 21.08.07, Avia.RU
I think he's referring to the PAK DA program, rather than resuming production of the Tu-95MS (though the Tu-160 is a possibility).
Actually, an upgraded new-production Tu-95 would be pretty cool too.
Stas Bush wrote:
Anyone who claims that the Tu-160 is a "turd" or "less effective than B-1" is a USAF wanker or just ignorant.
Have either of those aircraft been battle tested?
The B-1 has flown missions in OIF-- I believe the USAF lost one in an accident during one of these missions. Also--
Wikipedia wrote:Operationally, the B-1 was first used in combat in support of operations against Iraq during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, employing unguided GP weapons. B-1s have been subsequently used in Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) and most notably in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In both conflicts, the B-1 employed its full array of conventional weapons, most notably the GBU-31, 2000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). During OEF, the B-1 improved its mission capable rate to 79%.[18] The B-1 continues to be used in combat to the present day.
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
Tu-160 looks like B-1 after it went soft for a bit, then retrained to make money. Its fatter, but still can kick ass, but I don't think it has outside of chentsa, am I correct?
Dan's Art
Bounty on SDN's most annoying
"A spambot, a spambot who can't spell, a spambot who can't spell or spam properly and a spambot with tenure. Tough"choice."
That Russian bomber looks bulky, brutal and arcane - not really a pile of shit if it can drop a nuke and must have more modern features than meets the eye.
Baal wrote:Last I heard ver few of the Backfire or Blackjack bombers from the old Soviet Airforce were airworthy.
I think you heard wrong.
To be honest both planes when they could be looked at closely turned out to be near turds. They were overall less effective than the B-1 Lancer our Airforce paid quite a bit for and was never entirely happy with.
What? Both the Backfire and Blackjack are fine aircraft and the Blackjack with rather better performance than the B-1.
\
No I am not wrong. Out of the 497 Backfire Bombers produced only 162 are operational and that is a paper number and doesnt represent how many can be put in the air.
As for the Blackjack bomber there are only 16 of them in existance assuming that the last two were actually completed and not all of them have been continually operational so actual operational numbers on the Blackjack are hard to determine.
