You are aware that Russia fly along international routes every week of the year. And we send up fully armed response craft, every single week of the year.
Why the need for this thread and all the fuss then?
Just by the by we saw those typhoon aircraft flying over North Cornwall the day this happened. They seemed to be making a hell of lot of noise and there seemed to be far more than the couple of aircraft we normally see on training sorties from time to time.
You seem to be ok with Russia flying their aircraft in and out of UK airspace without challenge
They are NOT flying into UK airspace. They are doing nothing wrong in flying in international airspace.
NATO probably have aircraft flying more often close to Russia's borders, which the Russsian Ambassador also said on BBC News today. So why all this concern about Russian planes? As usual everything is so one-sided. It's all right for NATO to do it but Russia shouldn't.
They are NOT flying into UK airspace. They are doing nothing wrong in flying in international airspace.
NATO probably have aircraft flying more often close to Russia's borders, which the Russsian Ambassador also said on BBC News today. So why all this concern about Russian planes? As usual everything is so one-sided.
You have video of NATO flying close to russian borders?
Wonder at what point a multiple approach is made by the Russian bombers close to our airspace that the US Airforce has to make an interception to cover a shortfall of RAF assets.
Its not standard practice. The number of probing flights has increased massively whether you look at the figures from Japan, Canada , the US, Sweden, Finland , Norway, Turkey, or the Baltic states. The probes are being conducted outside the Baltic and Black sea by nuclear bombers of the Russian strategic airforce. Nearer to Russian airspace, they have been with fighter escorts, and some,near the US and Canada, have been flying to their nuclear war cruise missile launch boxes.There's been multiple probes by coordinated groups and flying in wartime sized groups . US warships in the Black Sea have been buzzed aggressively. Sweden has had a submarine incursion, strike fighters flying into its airspce and Backfire bombers simulating attack profiles towards its borders. Japan has had overflights. The level of effort is up massively on post cold war levels, and the aircraft are no longer mainly intlligence gatherers, or transports, but strategic bombers. The flights have also been going to places they don't usually go to - like Portugal - to threaten anyone participating in NATO'S Baltic opertions, and deliberately flying to distant places to Cornwall - because that taxes NATO airdefences. There is no western equivalent - the US is not flying B52s to their missile aunch positions, or flying strike fighters up to the territorial limit off St Petersburg.
They are NOT flying into UK airspace. They are doing nothing wrong in flying in international airspace.
NATO probably have aircraft flying more often close to Russia's borders, which the Russsian Ambassador also said on BBC News today. So why all this concern about Russian planes? As usual everything is so one-sided. It's all right for NATO to do it but Russia shouldn't.
We don't fly nuclear bombers there - we have none, nor does anyone else in NATO, and the US doesn't do it. The number of western intelligence gathering aircraft is also down . We only currently have one - and its watching ISIS. a U2 OR A rc135 isn't a nuclear bomber either - the message is totally different. Nor are Japan, Finland and Sweden busy flying fighter attack profiles towards Russian airspace. Its very much one way traffic.
It's all right for NATO to do it but Russia shouldn't.
And that's the core belief that many hold. It's ok for NATO to arm and finance a Ukranian revolution, topple the government and install their own puppet dictator via a fraudulent election. But it's not ok for Russia to do exactly the same. And if you point out these double standards, you are a "Kremlin shill". I guess some people just prefer to bury their head in the sand than entertain the idea that their government aren't as good as they say they are. West good, East bad
And that's the core belief that many hold. It's ok for NATO to arm and finance a Ukranian revolution, topple the government and install their own puppet dictator via a fraudulent election. But it's not ok for Russia to do exactly the same. And if you point out these double standards, you are a "Kremlin shill". I guess some people just prefer to bury their head in the sand than entertain the idea that their government aren't as good as they say they are. West good, East bad
That's all most people can get their heads round tbh. Otherwise everyone would be a millionaire :cool: Black and white...good and bad...blah blah blah
Wonder at what point a multiple approach is made by the Russian bombers close to our airspace that the US Airforce has to make an interception to cover a shortfall of RAF assets.
Not that difficult to do as only a percentage of the fighter force can be on quick reaction alert 24/7, or back up for it, without wearing out the planes, stopping training, failing to maintain the foce, or covering any other missions, or running out of pilots. You now have two bases to cover the whole country - not 4, and no forward deployment bases to shorten flight times, ,And ,since the Northolt based aircraft went home after the Olympics , a mad rush to fly anywhere thats south or west from Coningsby, if anything turns up there. There's now 4 fighter squadrons and one working up - not the 7 available to cover similar probes in the Cold War. And the eventual, 75 strong, planned operational Typhoon force is supposed to cover NATO operations, national missions like defending the Falklands, and provide the strike aircraft replacement for the Tornado force when thats withdrawn, and provide a replacement reconnaisance capability as well. There's also less than a third as many tankers available now , and a reduced airborne early warning force. Fly enough aircraft and split the groups up and its not going to be that hard to exhaust UK air defences.
Indeed, as Cameron has just made the massively complacent statement that we can cover any threat. the Russians might well be tempted to make him look like an idiot - a regimental size sortie dispersing all over the place should do it - leaving the US and French to chase down anyone we can't.
Comments
Why the need for this thread and all the fuss then?
Why the need for Russia to have wind issues and be 'blown' into UK airspace
....and you just said in your post 76 that the Russians do it every week.
So why are you worried about this every week occurrence as you put it?
I'm not, it is standard practice.
And you said in your previous post
"You seem to be ok with Russia flying their aircraft in and out of UK airspace without challenge"
You seem to worry about this a little perhaps?
it is international airspace, why would I worry about it
Good I'm pleased you have changed your mind about being worried about Russian aircraft flying near the UK:)
why would i change?
They are NOT flying into UK airspace. They are doing nothing wrong in flying in international airspace.
NATO probably have aircraft flying more often close to Russia's borders, which the Russsian Ambassador also said on BBC News today. So why all this concern about Russian planes? As usual everything is so one-sided. It's all right for NATO to do it but Russia shouldn't.
You have video of NATO flying close to russian borders?
Have you a video of Russian aircraft flying close to the UK's land border?
They haven't now, or ever, flown into UK Airspace.
They have flown in to areas which are of interest to the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6981541.stm
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/07/russia.military
With that you can now go wash your truck or something, no more hauling needed here.
Its not standard practice. The number of probing flights has increased massively whether you look at the figures from Japan, Canada , the US, Sweden, Finland , Norway, Turkey, or the Baltic states. The probes are being conducted outside the Baltic and Black sea by nuclear bombers of the Russian strategic airforce. Nearer to Russian airspace, they have been with fighter escorts, and some,near the US and Canada, have been flying to their nuclear war cruise missile launch boxes.There's been multiple probes by coordinated groups and flying in wartime sized groups . US warships in the Black Sea have been buzzed aggressively. Sweden has had a submarine incursion, strike fighters flying into its airspce and Backfire bombers simulating attack profiles towards its borders. Japan has had overflights. The level of effort is up massively on post cold war levels, and the aircraft are no longer mainly intlligence gatherers, or transports, but strategic bombers. The flights have also been going to places they don't usually go to - like Portugal - to threaten anyone participating in NATO'S Baltic opertions, and deliberately flying to distant places to Cornwall - because that taxes NATO airdefences. There is no western equivalent - the US is not flying B52s to their missile aunch positions, or flying strike fighters up to the territorial limit off St Petersburg.
We don't fly nuclear bombers there - we have none, nor does anyone else in NATO, and the US doesn't do it. The number of western intelligence gathering aircraft is also down . We only currently have one - and its watching ISIS. a U2 OR A rc135 isn't a nuclear bomber either - the message is totally different. Nor are Japan, Finland and Sweden busy flying fighter attack profiles towards Russian airspace. Its very much one way traffic.
And that's the core belief that many hold. It's ok for NATO to arm and finance a Ukranian revolution, topple the government and install their own puppet dictator via a fraudulent election. But it's not ok for Russia to do exactly the same. And if you point out these double standards, you are a "Kremlin shill". I guess some people just prefer to bury their head in the sand than entertain the idea that their government aren't as good as they say they are. West good, East bad
Za Rodinu.
That's all most people can get their heads round tbh. Otherwise everyone would be a millionaire :cool: Black and white...good and bad...blah blah blah
Not that difficult to do as only a percentage of the fighter force can be on quick reaction alert 24/7, or back up for it, without wearing out the planes, stopping training, failing to maintain the foce, or covering any other missions, or running out of pilots. You now have two bases to cover the whole country - not 4, and no forward deployment bases to shorten flight times, ,And ,since the Northolt based aircraft went home after the Olympics , a mad rush to fly anywhere thats south or west from Coningsby, if anything turns up there. There's now 4 fighter squadrons and one working up - not the 7 available to cover similar probes in the Cold War. And the eventual, 75 strong, planned operational Typhoon force is supposed to cover NATO operations, national missions like defending the Falklands, and provide the strike aircraft replacement for the Tornado force when thats withdrawn, and provide a replacement reconnaisance capability as well. There's also less than a third as many tankers available now , and a reduced airborne early warning force. Fly enough aircraft and split the groups up and its not going to be that hard to exhaust UK air defences.
Indeed, as Cameron has just made the massively complacent statement that we can cover any threat. the Russians might well be tempted to make him look like an idiot - a regimental size sortie dispersing all over the place should do it - leaving the US and French to chase down anyone we can't.