Another intercept of Russian aircraft.

[Big Les]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_845246cc5067b6fe8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7872)

This time (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6957589.stm) we sent out the shiny new Typhoons (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/08/22/216243/pictures-raf-typhoon-intercepts-russian-tupolev-tu-95-bomber.html). I can feel my upper lip stiffening already. Can't have Johnny Russian thinking rusty old Tornadoes are all we have operational.

There's been at least one other recent incident involving UK jets, and one (http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnL09810459.html) for the US. There's also Putin's recent confirmation (http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=22706)that they have resumed such flights, though they've been at similar japes (http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/news/story.asp?datetime=08+May+2003+05%3A15&tbrand=EADOnline&tCategory=News&category=News&brand=EADOnline&itemid=IPED07+May+2003+17%3A15%3A41%3A267)for years since the end of the Cold War, as resources have allowed.

I had been under the impression they were maritime patrol variants, but the Bear H (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm) is a cruise missile platform.

It's all very silly.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

Sounds to me like Putin is trying to show Russian strength again. I dont know what to make of it.

[Rob Lister]

Sounds to me like Putin is trying to show Russian strength again. I dont know what to make of it.

You can make of it that Putin is trying to show Russian strength again. It doesn't have to be more complicated.

As an added benefit, you can bet that the intercept Typhoons were photographed seven ways to Sunday, and every emission from it thoroughly recorded for later analysis.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

But why? Does he want another Cold War?

[Rob Lister]

But why? Does he want another Cold War?

It doesn't follow that he does. The 'cold war' was about two opposing political ideals. This seems to be something more mundane: dick swinging

[JonnyFive]

Bagh, what is this? Putin couldn't even develop a shiny new bomber to show off with? He has to go and use some aging 1950's relic? I mean, look at it next to that nice new fighter... makes him look like a putz, it does!

[Hammer_of_Thor]

I think it may be more than d*** swinging. I think he is trying to show the world that Russia is going to be more independent than in previous years. I am going to find out more about Putin. See if I can see what his motives are.

[Bikewer]

The consensus among the pundits I've listened to lately is that these exercises are simply appealing to the Russian voter along the lines of resurgent nationalism.

There wouldn't seem to be any point to it otherwise, other than perhaps navigational training for young pilots. If that's all they want, there's plenty of Russia to fly over....

[Hammer_of_Thor]

Just in the little that I have been reading about Putin. He is former KGB, second term president, and wants to promote national pride within Russia. I dont know why he is flying so close or into the airspace of surrounding countries though. That could get Russia in trouble.

[Rob Lister]

Just in the little that I have been reading about Putin. He is former KGB, second term president, and wants to promote national pride within Russia. I dont know why he is flying so close or into the airspace of surrounding countries though. That could get Russia in trouble.

nah, not really. this is pretty typical crap.

[petra10]

I started a thread a wee while back about a possible new cold war.Putin has been up to a few things and I think its only a matter of time before he shows his hand.He is also very interested in oil thats in the North Pole ,the Russians are gonna claim land there that is kinda no-mans land.
I would not underestimate him and I think the Brits are watching him closely.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

nah, not really. this is pretty typical crap.

What is pretty typical?

[Abdul Alhazred]

No new cold war. Certainly not with the president of the United States trying to be lovey-dovey with Pooty.

I'm thinking maybe the target audience for this demonstration is inside Russia.

[Garrette]

What is pretty typical?Grandstanding.

The US does it frequently, usually with carrier groups.

The (not unique) twist with Putin is that--as others have pointed out--his target audience is internal and not external.

[tracer]

The consensus among the pundits I've listened to lately is that these exercises are simply appealing to the Russian voter along the lines of resurgent nationalism.


Uh oh. That sounds awfully similar to the political climate of Germany in the late 1920s/early 1930s....

[Darth Rotor]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_845246cc5067b6fe8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7872)

This time (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6957589.stm) we sent out the shiny new Typhoons (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/08/22/216243/pictures-raf-typhoon-intercepts-russian-tupolev-tu-95-bomber.html). I can feel my upper lip stiffening already. Can't have Johnny Russian thinking rusty old Tornadoes are all we have operational.

There's been at least one other recent incident involving UK jets, and one (http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnL09810459.html) for the US. There's also Putin's recent confirmation (http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=22706)that they have resumed such flights, though they've been at similar japes (http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/news/story.asp?datetime=08+May+2003+05%3A15&tbrand=EADOnline&tCategory=News&category=News&brand=EADOnline&itemid=IPED07+May+2003+17%3A15%3A41%3A267)for years since the end of the Cold War, as resources have allowed.

I had been under the impression they were maritime patrol variants, but the Bear H (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm) is a cruise missile platform.

It's all very silly.
All good fun. I had the opportunity to play tag with the Russians during the 80's, there was much opportunity for silliness. (And some not so silly stuff). The best stunt I ever pulled was a mooning, but I think my favorite was when we dumped an old sonobuoy container filled with good, American skin mags (Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse, Club, Oui) over the side of our ship, which was dutifully retrieved by the Russian/Soviet AGI who was tailing us. I added a couple of packs of Marlboros for the hell of it.

They dutifully picked it up, as they picked up a lot of stuff we dumped over the side. We always hoped we made someone's day with that. IIRC, that same AGI was the bunch who lined up about three sailors on the stern one afternoon, as we flew by them, and gave us a hearty "up yours" gesture (hand in crook of arm, forearm/fist rapidly raised from down to up) so well known all over Europe.

DR

[Darat]

There is always the possibility that Putin is not going to accept the end of his Presidency or perhaps try to have the rules changed so he can stand again. I mean he's now being photographed bare-chested (http://www.kremlin.ru/dyn_images/img142256.jpg)! (Yes that is on the Kremlin site.)

[Rob Lister]

There is always the possibility that Putin is not going to accept the end of his Presidency or perhaps try to have the rules changed so he can stand again.

I'm not sure whether to hope so or hope not.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

All good fun. I had the opportunity to play tag with the Russians during the 80's, there was much opportunity for silliness. (And some not so silly stuff). The best stunt I ever pulled was a mooning, but I think my favorite was when we dumped an old sonobuoy container filled with good, American skin mags (Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse, Club, Oui) over the side of our ship, which was dutifully retrieved by the Russian/Soviet AGI who was tailing us. I added a couple of packs of Marlboros for the hell of it.

They dutifully picked it up, as they picked up a lot of stuff we dumped over the side. We always hoped we made someone's day with that. IIRC, that same AGI was the bunch who lined up about three sailors on the stern one afternoon, as we flew by them, and gave us a hearty "up yours" gesture (hand in crook of arm, forearm/fist rapidly raised from down to up) so well known all over Europe.

DR

Darth-

You must have some great stories. My father was stationed around the world at some radar sites. He still gets nervous when he talks about some of the things that went on.

As for Putin, lets hope it is only grandstanding.

[Darth Rotor]

Darth-

You must have some great stories. My father was stationed around the world at some radar sites. He still gets nervous when he talks about some of the things that went on.

As for Putin, lets hope it is only grandstanding.
The stuff we couldn't talk about is slowly coming out in books on a whole multitude of subjects. Blind Man's Bluff was a very good book on the Cold War submarine war, or the game of tag that occasionally got people running into each other.

DR

[Rob Lister]

Now that I think more about this, what the UK Typhoon should have done was slightly collide -- mid-air -- with the Bear and cause it to make an emergency landing in the UK. The UK could then take the crew hostage and demand a written apology for the Russia violating their airspace (even though they never really entered it).

It would make for great TV news.

[Ryokan]

Norwegian jets have been intercepting Russian planes more than weekly for some time now. Russia is flexing its muscles and rattling its sabers.

[Big Les]

Norwegian jets have been intercepting Russian planes more than weekly for some time now. Russia is flexing its muscles and rattling its sabers.

Indeed. (http://www.f-16.net/news_article2434.html) It's all front. The Bear may look a little lame next to the Typhoon, but it's probably a younger airframe than a typical B-52H, and about as advanced avionics/weapons wise (basically a cruise-missile carrier). Don't let the 50s styling and propellers fool you - this thing could theoretically level a neighbourhood, or with nuclear weapons... lots more. That's why it's an effective piece of willy-waving, even if no Russian leader in their right mind would order an unprovoked strike.

The Typhoons have only been on Quick Reaction Alert duty for a couple of weeks. Nice (?) to see them doing what they were specced to do back in the 80s (!).

[Ziggurat]

Now that I think more about this, what the UK Typhoon should have done was slightly collide -- mid-air -- with the Bear and cause it to make an emergency landing in the UK. The UK could then take the crew hostage and demand a written apology for the Russia violating their airspace (even though they never really entered it).

It would make for great TV news.

Yeah, well, it didn't work out so well for the Chinese pilot who pulled that stunt on the US plane (he's dead, in case you forgot), so I doubt anyone's eager to try that intentionally.

[Tumblehome]

Could it be in response to the U.S. missile plans in Europe?

The U.S. says it wants to deploy missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic to deflect potential threats from Iran. But Russia has objected to the initiative as a threat to its own security and the balance of forces in Europe.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0816/p99s01-duts.html

[Darth Rotor]

Could it be in response to the U.S. missile plans in Europe?

Can anyone explain to me the problem with putting defensive systems into place in one's country?

I can understand the objections to the Pershing Missiles in the 80's, and the various SS models in the Eastern Europe, as these were offensive weapons.

Surface to air missiles, air DEFENSE missile systems are not a sign of belligerency, but a sign of defense.

Can anyone explain the convoluted logic to me that shows a small nation installing defensive systems, not offensive systems, is a threat to anyone?

DR

[sackett]

The RAF should be grateful to Puddin'head Putin for the realistic training.

Did I say training? "This is no drill!" over the tannoy sends the pucker factor soaring, or so my brother-in-law tells me. I'm perfectly content not to know first-hand.

[geni]

Can anyone explain to me the problem with putting defensive systems into place in one's country?

I can understand the objections to the Pershing Missiles in the 80's, and the various SS models in the Eastern Europe, as these were offensive weapons.

Surface to air missiles, air DEFENSE missile systems are not a sign of belligerency, but a sign of defense.

Can anyone explain the convoluted logic to me that shows a small nation installing defensive systems, not offensive systems, is a threat to anyone?

DR

Upsets the global balance of power. Russia's security from militry force is that it can reduce the country that used it to a radioactive wasteland. Missile defence means that you are at least takeing steps towards removeing this threat from yourself and thus allowing you to threaten russian security with impunity.

[Tumblehome]

Can anyone explain to me the problem with putting defensive systems into place in one's country?

I can understand the objections to the Pershing Missiles in the 80's, and the various SS models in the Eastern Europe, as these were offensive weapons.

Surface to air missiles, air DEFENSE missile systems are not a sign of belligerency, but a sign of defense.

Can anyone explain the convoluted logic to me that shows a small nation installing defensive systems, not offensive systems, is a threat to anyone?

DR


Hey, don't ask me, ask Putin. He's the one objecting to them. I just raised it as a possible reason for the Russian flights. I have no opinion on the missiles. I just see boys being boys.

[Darth Rotor]

Upsets the global balance of power. Russia's security from militry force is that it can reduce the country that used it to a radioactive wasteland. Missile defence means that you are at least takeing steps towards removeing this threat from yourself and thus allowing you to threaten russian security with impunity.
1. Your power model is twenty years old.

2. Poland is not a nuclear power.

Care to try again?

DR

[DanishDynamite]

1. Your power model is twenty years old.

2. Poland is not a nuclear power.

Care to try again?

DR
Not understood. Care to try again?

[geni]

1. Your power model is twenty years old.

Not really. Certianly not for Russia.

Take away the US's nukes and how long before China acquired Taiwan?

It's not so much MAD as AD. You can only push Russia so far before they destory you. This is the political reality. Russia obviously likes that political reality since it allows it to establish red lines in foreign policy.


2. Poland is not a nuclear power.


The US who opperates the system is. Doesn't really matter in any case. Nukes are the fallback option against non nuclear powers as well.

[Ziggurat]

Take away the US's nukes and how long before China acquired Taiwan?

Depends on how badly they want it, and how much we'd put into the fight to keep it from them. Our navy is MUCH more powerful than China's, for example. If we were determined to keep it from them, they couldn't take Taiwan without using nukes themselves (which they'd be quite reluctant to do - among other things, Japan wouldn't likely stay non-nuclear in such an event, they've got the technology to do so VERY quickly should they choose to, and China got spanked last time the Japanese got rowdy). But even without our direct help, Taiwan could SERIOUSLY hurt China if China attempted to invade. And it wouldn't take that much: Taiwan has a submarine fleet, they could easily disrupt shipping lanes between the Persian gulf and China (which China relies upon for energy needs). Even a single sunken tanker in the Straits of Malacca could do major damage to China's economy. So without our help, Taiwan might fall to China, but it's not at all clear under what conditions China would be willing to endure the damage in order to take Taiwan. And of course, under such a scenario Taiwan is likely to be more conciliatory (at least publicly) to China, and China might not feel as much desire to take it by force.

In short, I don't think the answer to your question is at all obvious.

[geni]

Depends on how badly they want it, and how much we'd put into the fight to keep it from them. Our navy is MUCH more powerful than China's, for example. If we were determined to keep it from them, they couldn't take Taiwan without using nukes themselves (which they'd be quite reluctant to do - among other things, Japan wouldn't likely stay non-nuclear in such an event, they've got the technology to do so VERY quickly should they choose to, and China got spanked last time the Japanese got rowdy).

A nuclear japan would be a small price to pay for Taiwan. MAd would be trivial to establish which would probably suit china fine.



But even without our direct help, Taiwan could SERIOUSLY hurt China if China attempted to invade. And it wouldn't take that much: Taiwan has a submarine fleet, they could easily disrupt shipping lanes between the Persian gulf and China (which China relies upon for energy needs). Even a single sunken tanker in the Straits of Malacca could do major damage to China's economy. So without our help, Taiwan might fall to China, but it's not at all clear under what conditions China would be willing to endure the damage in order to take Taiwan. And of course, under such a scenario Taiwan is likely to be more conciliatory (at least publicly) to China, and China might not feel as much desire to take it by force.

In short, I don't think the answer to your question is at all obvious.

Taiwan surrenders to china or dies beneath nuclear fire. I think things would be decided fairly quickly.

You appear to have missed the rest of my post.

[Darth Rotor]

Not understood. Care to try again?
Friend geni got it, why didn't you?

DR

[Bikewer]

Just listened to yet another pundit on NPR yesterday; he says Russia is flexing it's military muscle with the surrounding neighborhood and that it's worrying.

He points out the cutoff of natural gas to one of the ex-sattelites last Winter, the row over the anti-missile system, and other concerns as well. Russia is currently solvent again after pumping up it's petroleum industry, and appears to want back on the world stage.
The fellow I was listening to seemed somewhat confused in that many of "our" aims coincide rather closely with what Russia's would seem to be; wondering why there isn't more of an air of cooperation?

[DanishDynamite]

Friend geni got it, why didn't you?

DR
He's more knowledgable on military history than I am.

[richardm]

The fellow I was listening to seemed somewhat confused in that many of "our" aims coincide rather closely with what Russia's would seem to be; wondering why there isn't more of an air of cooperation?

I think it may be because Russia is actually a bit wobbly, democratically speaking. Putin certainly is of the old hardline totalitarian school, and I think that if he could do away with these silly voting systems then he would. The next best thing is to rally the voters behind him, and one of the things they like best is to be told that Russia is still a superpower with an effective voice on the world stage. Chumming up with Western powers is not so popular because it make Mother Russia look subservient. Even though co-operation might make sense on other fronts, it's more important to be seen as a mover-and-shaker.

And some of those Western governments are getting a bit above themselves too, by demanding that suspected murderers get extradited to face trial, and things like that. So Russia mobilises her bombers and flies them towards Western airspace a bit so that they can show their people that they are still strong and are not to be pushed around (the fact that they are picked up immediately and intercepted hundreds of miles out of UK airspace doesn't appear to matter).

And I feel that the objection to missile defence systems going into former Soviet countries is not so much because of any strategic issue but simply because they don't want their former vassal states getting any friendlier with their traditional enemy, when they should be looking to Russia for guidance and support.

All part and parcel of weak leadership, in my opinion. British intelligence think that it may be more than just rhetoric, but then I suppose it's their job to think that.

[Broes]

It is called the "Open skies" agreement which was made between east and west to relieve cold war tensions.

The west is doing fly-overs in Russia so why the fuss when Russia is doing the same?

[richardm]

The west is doing fly-overs in Russia so why the fuss when Russia is doing the same?

Because Russia hasn't done this since the Cold War ended. They are starting to do it again, and to ramp up military expansion (especially of aircraft development and production). It's all signs of a change of foreign policy to a more assertive if not more aggressive stance. Shifts of foreign policy like this tend to make other countries a bit twitchy.

On a practical note, the Russian military is not currently noted for the quality of its equipment and maintenance practices, and we don't really want wonky bombers flying around the place with nuclear weapons aboard in case they suddenly stop flying and become an environmental problem.

[Broes]

Because Russia hasn't done this since the Cold War ended. They are starting to do it again, and to ramp up military expansion (especially of aircraft development and production). It's all signs of a change of foreign policy to a more assertive if not more aggressive stance. Shifts of foreign policy like this tend to make other countries a bit twitchy.

On a practical note, the Russian military is not currently noted for the quality of its equipment and maintenance practices, and we don't really want wonky bombers flying around the place with nuclear weapons aboard in case they suddenly stop flying and become an environmental problem.

They have flown over Europe at least till the mid 80's.
So your oke with us flying over their land but you dislike them flying over ours? You call their stance aggressive? What makes that of our continous fly over's over Russia in which we never relented?
Do you seriously believe those Russian Bear's have nuclear weapons aboard?

[richardm]

They have flown over Europe at least till the mid 80's.
Yes, I know, that's why I said "since the Cold War ended". They stopped these regular patrols in 1992 after signing a treaty with the US and the UK the year before.

So your oke with us flying over their land but you dislike them flying over ours? You call their stance aggressive? What makes that of our continous fly over's over Russia in which we never relented?

It is the change in policy and the reasons behind it which are important. And do the west actually fly bombers towards Russian territory as a matter of regular policy? I'm pretty sure they don't you know, or the Russians would have been bleating about them breaking the treaty unilaterally (as the Russians have now done).

Do you seriously believe those Russian Bear's have nuclear weapons aboard?

Well, it's hardly a ridiculous proposition is it? There is no reason why they could not, is there? Indeed, there's little point in calling them a strategic defence if they never actually carry any weapons.

[Darth Rotor]

And do the west actually fly bombers towards Russian territory as a matter of regular policy?
No, Broes is wrong about that. Satellites, on the other hand . . .
Well, it's hardly a ridiculous proposition is it? There is no reason why they could not, is there? Indeed, there's little point in calling them a strategic defence if they never actually carry any weapons.
Rich, but I seriously doubt that the patrolling Bears are typically launched on patrol with nukes on board. They typically weren't during the Cold War, even though they were Nuke Capable. The Bears who came out to shadow our battlegroups were doing what American Orions, and British Nimrods, would do: patrol. Pick up intel. Observe. Show presence. They could carry a variety of air launched cruise missiles, to includ the old AS-4 Kitchen that was a very tough AAW problem to consider.

Nuclear capable does not mean armed with nukes on every flight.

B-52's fly frequently these days with naught but conventional munitions on them.

DR

[richardm]

t I seriously doubt that the patrolling Bears are typically launched on patrol with nukes on board. They typically weren't during the Cold War, even though they were Nuke Capable.

I bow to your superior knowledge of these matters, because it sure is superior to mine! But still it hardly seems to be the ridiculous proposition Broes implied. There were some pretty well publicised incidents when B52s crashed with nuclear weapons on board, after all.

[Darth Rotor]

I bow to your superior knowledge of these matters, because it sure is superior to mine! But still it hardly seems to be the ridiculous proposition Broes implied. There were some pretty well publicised incidents when B52s crashed with nuclear weapons on board, after all.

If they were flying on SAC alert, and thus loaded, sure, they'd be armed with nukes.

If the Bears are flying with nukes in the bomb bays, then a similar problem might arise. Problem is, why carry the extra weight when a patrol and presence mission doesnt' require it?

DR

[Ziggurat]

Taiwan surrenders to china or dies beneath nuclear fire. I think things would be decided fairly quickly.

What happens if they threaten to nuke, and Taiwan thinks they're bluffing and tries to call them on it? Is it still worth it to China to go ahead and nuke Taiwan? Maybe, but it's not obvious it would be. All they get out of that is to prove that they weren't bluffing: by every other measure they'd lose (a demolished Taiwan isn't worth having, Taiwan would hurt them badly in their death throes, and it would have major negative impact on their trade with the rest of the world). How can China prove that such a threat isn't a bluff? I don't see that they can without actually using at least one nuke, but even that would hurt their economy seriously. So I still don't think it's obvious what would happen. Thirty years ago it would have been more obvious, but China's increased prosperity has come at the cost of increased dependence on trade with the rest of the world. Threatening that trade (which nuclear war does, regardless of whether anyone's going to stick their neck out for Taiwan) also threatens the ability of the communist party to maintain control. They know exactly what happens when the peasants get too restless.

[Doc Daneeka]

1. Your power model is twenty years old.

2. Poland is not a nuclear power.

Care to try again?

DR

1. The original point still seems valid
2. So what? The USA IS a nuclear power. Poland is merely a host for the site, as it happens to be conveniently located and has a very friendly government.

(Really Unlikely) Hypothetical: North Korea somehow manages to come up with a system that will take out any incoming missiles, and also conveniently vapourise any aircraft that enter their airspace. It's a purely defensive system. Do you think that South Korea, Japan, and the USA might consider this at least a minor threat? I do.

[Darth Rotor]

1. The original point still seems valid
2. So what? The USA IS a nuclear power. Poland is merely a host for the site, as it happens to be conveniently located and has a very friendly government.
Your point 1 is unsupported, and your point 2 is utterly irrelevant. The fact that the US is a nuclear power and is a rival to Russia is irrelevant to the installation of a BMD system for Poland's defense against Ballisitic missiles. BMD systems in Poland can't defend America from a ballistic missile. Missiles based in Poland can't shoot down ballistic missiles fired at the US. They can defend Poland. This is a logical extension of the 20 year old NATO program once called ACCS, which is a theater wide Air Command and Control system, that includes both regular air defense and Ballistic Missile defense. It goes with Poland being offered Article V protection. NATO, Article V. Poland is in NATO. Are you also going to argue that Italy and France should not have BMD sites on their territory? Is Greece ineligible? They are all in NATO. They are all, to varying degrees, concerned with the BMD issue. If you click me back in time ten years ago, roughly today, I was in an office with a bunch of NATO staff officers working on a maddeningly slow process to get (a small part of) a NATO BMD C2 system funded and fielded.

I wish people would get their heads out of the ABM-Bipolar-MAD era. It is history, just as the brontosaurus is history. This alternative to MAD is not without risk. BMD is purely defensive, not offensive in nature, and allows for a counter to other than a bipolar threat (mitigatable by MAD) arising downstream.

Think hypothetical: Turkey goes Islamist. Leaves NATO. (Not likely, but an interesting permutation of current political currents.) What's in your Air Defense System? Scuds are relatively low tech, these days.
(Really Unlikely) Hypothetical: North Korea somehow manages to come up with a system that will take out any incoming missiles, and also conveniently vapourise any aircraft that enter their airspace. It's a purely defensive system. Do you think that South Korea, Japan, and the USA might consider this at least a minor threat? I do.
Depends. What is its range? Can it reach beyond the 12 mile limit? Can it be installed on board ships? That's a lesser threat, or actuall as the military discusses it these days, capability, than nukes on Tae Po Dongs.

DR

[Doc Daneeka]

Your point 1 is unsupported, and your point 2 is utterly irrelevant. The fact that the US is a nuclear power and is a rival to Russia is irrelevant to the installation of a BMD system for Poland's defense against Ballisitic missiles. BMD systems in Poland can't defend America from a ballistic missile. Missiles based in Poland can't shoot down ballistic missiles fired at the US.

How strange. Considering that the declared purpose of this deployment is to defend against missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. Is there anybody on earth who thinks that Iran or N. Korea is likely to fire at Poland? For that matter, is there anybody who thinks that Russia would ever see a point in nuking Poland? The Russians see this as an attempt to site a system where it can deal with missiles aimed at the USA. Sure, that probably won't be possible for a decade (or perhaps never). Not relevant to my point.

As for your response to my hypothetical, you seem to have avoided my point entirely. The range is utterly irrelevant. Should North Korea remain a nuclear power while having the ability to defend against incoming missiles, everybody in the region will become upset. Or perhaps you think otherwise?

[Broes]

Well, it's hardly a ridiculous proposition is it? There is no reason why they could not, is there? Indeed, there's little point in calling them a strategic defence if they never actually carry any weapons.

Those bears are normally nuclear bombers. However, the model which they use to fly 'spy' sorties with are specificly modified for this job. This means that they are chugged full of photo-, radar- and radio equipment. These models are NOT capable to deliver any nuclear weapons.

If they would choose to replace the 'spy' equipment with weapons, they are gimping themself from recon information... which is the exact reason they are flying those birds over our countries.

The bear E's models are used for recon. The picture that was posted by the OP clearly shows a nose-refueling probe which only the Bear A and E versions have. The Bear E is the only modified A version and is specificly used for recon.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-95#Variants)

Bear A (Tu-95/Tu-95M) - Basic variant of the long-range strategic bomber and the only model of the aircraft never fitted with a nose refuelling probe.
Bear E (Tu-95MR) - Bear A modified for photo-reconnaissance and produced for Naval Aviation.

[Abdul Alhazred]

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=16734

NSFW. No porn, but you might catch teh gay. :p

[Darth Rotor]

How strange. Considering that the declared purpose of this deployment is to defend against missiles fired by Iran or North Korea.
Hehehe, yeah, that is rather droll. Our planning documents included some rather curious Middle Eastern launch sites.
Is there anybody on earth who thinks that Iran or N. Korea is likely to fire at Poland?
Not soon, but try not to be so literal. Presume, for a moment, that the Islamic Revolution that Iran has been working for, all these years, begins to take place from within a bunch of nations. In the Middle East. Imagine it spreads to Turkey, whose Islamist faction is at present small, but whose Muslim electorate is finding its voice.

They would not necessarily be hostile to Europe, most of which is in NATO, but can become so depending on a host of political factors. So, let's go worst case.

The current Theater Ballistic Missiles, nuke and otherwise, that are in the hands of various regimes are not bleeding edge tech. They can be made without being a first tier superpower. All you have to add is a GPS guidance package to the end game of a ballistic missile, and its fins do the rest the way a GPS guided bomb is guided into its end game maneuvers. Not trivial, but not impossible. See Moore's Law.

This isn't a silly undertaking.
For that matter, is there anybody who thinks that Russia would ever see a point in nuking Poland?
Any ballistic missile. Nuke or not. And while I sincerely hope not, Poland being in NATO makes Poland subject to the vagaries of US / NATO / Russia relationships. Might even be a bit of a security blanket.
The Russians see this as an attempt to site a system where it can deal with missiles aimed at the USA.
Quit insulting Russian intelligence, would you please? That was obviously political posturing, but the Russian engineers are not foolish.

Anti Ballistic Missile Defense has a finite footprint based on End Game, that is the terminal descent phase, of Ballistic Missile. For Boost Phase anti Ballistic Missile measures, the USAF has been screwing about with 747 based lasers, and stuff on fighters, for some decades, all of which are airborne platforms. Please, the details do matter. You might be interested in the publicly available discussion on Ballistic Missiles. (Like Scuds.) A while back Dr Bryon Greenwald, Col USA(Ret) (http://www.amazon.com/Scud-alert-development-significance-operations/dp/B0006QCNK8) published a book on it called Scud Alert. It's worth a read.

(Product Details // Unknown Binding: 28 pages // Publisher: Institute of Land Warfare, Association of the United States Army (1995) // Language: English // ASIN: B0006QCNK8
According to Amazon, two copies are available at present.)
Sure, that probably won't be possible for a decade (or perhaps never). Not relevant to my point.
It is not even related to your point, due to physics.
As for your response to my hypothetical, you seem to have avoided my point entirely. The range is utterly irrelevant.
You are quite simply wrong.

Physics of ballistic missile flight makes range very relevant. We are discussing ballistic missiles, not cruise missiles. BMD systems do not launch at BMD's in the boost phase, they attack well after the top of the parabola has been reached. The significance of the system is Ballistic Missiles. Most BMD missile systems (Patriot PAC 3 for example) can engage cruise misiles, or aircraft, if linked into a normal air defense network. Most normal air defense missiles CAN'T engage a ballistic missile, like a SCUD or any sort of ICBM.
Should North Korea remain a nuclear power while having the ability to defend against incoming missiles, everybody in the region will become upset. Or perhaps you think otherwise?
I think everyone is already upset with North Korea. Their having the capability of defending against incoming ballistic missiles would be nice for them, sure, but such a system is not invulnerable to degradation. What they don't have is depth, in both the tecnhical and strategic sense. In other words, taking down their BMD network is like taking down a regular Air Defense Network.

Do you think having a BMD network will make them more likely to launch a nuke?

Look at how long it has taken the US, and NATO, to develop their BMD network. For the moment, it's a non worry. Their deterrent nuke stable is sufficient worry for the short to mid term.

DR

[E.J.Armstrong]

Because Russia hasn't done this since the Cold War ended. They are starting to do it again, and to ramp up military expansion (especially of aircraft development and production). It's all signs of a change of foreign policy to a more assertive if not more aggressive stance. Shifts of foreign policy like this tend to make other countries a bit twitchy.

On a practical note, the Russian military is not currently noted for the quality of its equipment and maintenance practices, and we don't really want wonky bombers flying around the place with nuclear weapons aboard in case they suddenly stop flying and become an environmental problem.

On that logic the people of Russia have a right to be twitchy because the neo-lunatic Bush has decided to build a 'missle shield' close to their borders.

The US tried to scare everyone about Russia when I was young. It was BS then and its BS now. The Taliban defeated them in Afghanistan due to the USA arming the likes of Osama Bin Laden.

Time to grow up. The sky is not falling.

[E.J.Armstrong]

No, Broes is wrong about that. Satellites, on the other hand . . .

Rich, but I seriously doubt that the patrolling Bears are typically launched on patrol with nukes on board. They typically weren't during the Cold War, even though they were Nuke Capable. The Bears who came out to shadow our battlegroups were doing what American Orions, and British Nimrods, would do: patrol. Pick up intel. Observe. Show presence. They could carry a variety of air launched cruise missiles, to includ the old AS-4 Kitchen that was a very tough AAW problem to consider.

Nuclear capable does not mean armed with nukes on every flight.

B-52's fly frequently these days with naught but conventional munitions on them.

DR
The USA and Nato continued to fly and continues to fly long range missions after Russia ceased to fly them.

How can anyone believe the US military? It lies about its activities as a matter of policy.

[Darth Rotor]

The USA and Nato continued to fly and continues to fly long range missions after Russia ceased to fly them.
Indeed. US and NATO flew hundreds of long range patrol missions in support of operations in Bosnia, in such craft as Atlantiques, Nimrods, and Orison.

So what?
How can anyone believe the US military? It lies about its activities as a matter of policy.
Tunnel vision noted.

DR

[Travis]

On that logic the people of Russia have a right to be twitchy because the neo-lunatic Bush has decided to build a 'missle shield' close to their borders.

Political bias noted.

The US tried to scare everyone about Russia when I was young. It was BS then and its BS now.

History would beg to differ. The USSR was relentlessly expansionist and quashed democracy and political freedom all over the world. This doesn't excuse everything the USA did to counter this, but that the USSR sought to expand it's communist influence is just a historical fact.

The Taliban defeated them in Afghanistan due to the USA arming the likes of Osama Bin Laden.

The Mujahideen defeated them and the USA did not arm Osama, he armed himself.

Time to grow up. The sky is not falling.

I agree that these Russian flights are pretty much ado about nothing.

[Big Les]

[simpsons teenager]It happened again (http://news.google.co.uk/news/url?sa=t&ct=uk/0-1&fp=46e0697006265382&ei=anXgRtajA6KmoAPgooGSDA&url=http%3A//www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2400345.ece&cid=1120412143)...[/simpsons teenager]

[Big Les]

And again, this time with a good article from The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/14/wrussia214.xml). All perfectly above-board and outside UK airspace. Cold War Lite if you will.

[Beerina]

You can make of it that Putin is trying to show Russian strength again. It doesn't have to be more complicated.

As an added benefit, you can bet that the intercept Typhoons were photographed seven ways to Sunday, and every emission from it thoroughly recorded for later analysis.


Moreover, I'm sure they measured the speed with which the planes approached, in an attempt to get a lower bound to the "shiny new Typhoon's" upper speed limit. With any luck, the English commander flew them in at max speed (always classified) or at least something above max published speed.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Moreover, I'm sure they measured the speed with which the planes approached, in an attempt to get a lower bound to the "shiny new Typhoon's" upper speed limit. With any luck, the English commander flew them in at max speed (always classified) or at least something above max published speed.
How do you know he was english? The entity is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which surprisingly to many USA citizens consists of Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish and English - all of whom serve in the army, airforce and navy.

I worry about the US invading all those foreign countries when they don't even know the names of their allies countries. I mean they'll probably bomb Iraq again thinking was Iran.

You just can't tell those pesky arabs or UK people apart.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Indeed. US and NATO flew hundreds of long range patrol missions in support of operations in Bosnia, in such craft as Atlantiques, Nimrods, and Orison.

So what? Eh?

Tunnel vision noted.

DRNon sequitur noted.

How is the truth tunnel vision?

Are you really claiming that the US military tells the world the truth about all its operations?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Political bias noted. Au contraire. Accurate and justified comment. Bush implemented a neo con agenda in a lunatic fashion by attacking a country that had no track record of helping Al Qaeda or involvement in the 11th of Sept, set up a concentration camp into which he kidnapped people to remain for years without basic human rights, set up a secret gulag into which untried people have been kidnapped for torture by proxy, lied to the world about the presence of WMD, undermined the UN, set up cowardice laws to circumvent international law etc etc. QED.



History would beg to differ. The USSR was relentlessly expansionist and quashed democracy and political freedom all over the world. This doesn't excuse everything the USA did to counter this, but that the USSR sought to expand it's communist influence is just a historical fact. History records the abuses of the non-existent Red Scare perpetrated by McCarthy, the repeated quashing of democracies and freedom of speech by the USA all over the world including South America (still going on with Chavez) and Iran, the relentless expansionism of the US empire with huge numbers of military bases all over the world, the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, the secret gulags and abuses of human rights. All historical facts.


The Mujahideen defeated them and the USA did not arm Osama, he armed himself. The usa provided enormous financial, and military help to the Muhijadin who subsequently supported Al Qaeda, for which they were attacked.

[Beerina]

How do you know he was english? The entity is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which surprisingly to many USA citizens consists of Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish and English - all of whom serve in the army, airforce and navy.

I worry about the US invading all those foreign countries when they don't even know the names of their allies countries. I mean they'll probably bomb Iraq again thinking was Iran.

You just can't tell those pesky arabs or UK people apart.

Someone tried to explain it to me once; it was not a pretty sight.

When they got to the part where, "The entity that's part of the EU is not the same one that's part of the UN, which is not the same one that's part of the Common Market", my eyes glazed over and I wished for a quick and painless, or even painful, death.

And that's just external relations. Internally, in the US, we have national, state, county, and city. Apparently in the UK, Northern Ireland is at a different level from Scottland, which is at a different level from Wales, which is at a different level from Isle of Mann, London is a quasi-independent entity in that there's no state government authorizing city incorporation, with a quasi-independent police force, and the rat catcher is elected by the House of Lords or something... :)

When you guys figure it out, lemme known.

[Big Les]

Don't worry about all that palaver. Just use "British" instead of "English"; you'll increase your chances of a hit quite considerably, since that covers the English, Scottish, the Welsh, and even the Londoners ;). If you can arrange your sentence to get "UK" in there instead, you've also covered Northern Ireland. That just leaves the Manx to get a bit narked at you. But they're a British Crown dependency, so you'll still be nearly right.

Meanwhile, the Rooskies continue to arse about in international airspace, being intercepted by RAF Typhoons and Tornados, Norwegian F-16s, and probaby more besides.

Bear - it's what's for dinner.

[geni]

Someone tried to explain it to me once; it was not a pretty sight.

When they got to the part where, "The entity that's part of the EU is not the same one that's part of the UN, which is not the same one that's part of the Common Market", my eyes glazed over and I wished for a quick and painless, or even painful, death.

And that's just external relations. Internally, in the US, we have national, state, county, and city. Apparently in the UK, Northern Ireland is at a different level from Scottland, which is at a different level from Wales, which is at a different level from Isle of Mann, London is a quasi-independent entity in that there's no state government authorizing city incorporation, with a quasi-independent police force, and the rat catcher is elected by the House of Lords or something... :)

When you guys figure it out, lemme known.


The system only works for as long as people can't figure all of it out. City status is granted by the queen.

[TX50]

The RAF 'plane in that photo looks like it has empty pylons. Do they go
unarmed on these interceptions?

[Simon666]

The fact that the US is a nuclear power and is a rival to Russia is irrelevant to the installation of a BMD system for Poland's defense against Ballisitic missiles. BMD systems in Poland can't defend America from a ballistic missile. Missiles based in Poland can't shoot down ballistic missiles fired at the US. They can defend Poland.
Russia actually has an active BMD system around Moscow. If they put one in cuba, let's see how comfortable the folks in the Pentagon would be with it even if it can't defend Russia from a full scale US ballistic missile attack. Oh, and btw, a BMD system in Poland should be able to defend America against ballistic missiles from some countries (hint Iran), otherwise by it's very definition it wouldn't be a Ballistic Missile Defense system.

[Darth Rotor]

Russia actually has an active BMD system around Moscow. If they put one in cuba, let's see how comfortable the folks in the Pentagon would be with it even if it can't defend Russia from a full scale US ballistic missile attack. Oh, and btw, a BMD system in Poland should be able to defend America against ballistic missiles from some countries (hint Iran), otherwise by it's very definition it wouldn't be a Ballistic Missile Defense system.

Irrelevant, and actually rather humorous. It would be a waste of Russian money, given that the likelihood that Cuba is targeted with ballistic weapons approaches zero asymptotically.

Do you know what a BMD missile system does? Your post suggests that you have no clue.

BMD missile systems defend the area where they are located, not a continent an ocean away. That is the system under discussion. Check out the footprint of Patriot PAC III, or the old THAAD, and you'll see how foolish your statement is. The (USAF driven) boost phase intercept system is airborne, not a ground based missile system, and IMO has significant operational limitations where one does not have air supremacy. Against a robust IAD like Russia, it is at the mercy of being an easy target, and thus neutralized. Against a second or third tier power, it is perhaps tenable, if they ever get the tech problem solved.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Are you really claiming that the US military tells the world the truth about all its operations?
Since I didn't state that, your attempt at a strawman is noted. The Pat Tillman case I raised elsewhere.

Later.

DR

[Simon666]

Irrelevant, and actually rather humorous. It would be a waste of Russian money, given that the likelihood that Cuba is targeted with ballistic weapons approaches zero asymptotically.
Irrelevant, as is the likelihood Poland is targeted.


BMD missile systems defend the area where they are located, not a continent an ocean away.
Do a factcheck. They protect any area in the path of a ballistic missile around an area where they are located, so if the firing solution for Iran to target the United States passes over Polish heads, it would protect the US as well.


Check out the footprint of Patriot PAC III, or the old THAAD, and you'll see how foolish your statement is.
Those are old systems. The footprint of the new systems is much larger and under debate as to what exactly the footprint is.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Since I didn't state that, your attempt at a strawman is noted. The Pat Tillman case I raised elsewhere.

Later.

DRIt wasn't an attempt at a strawman, it was a simple question. That seems to have bothered you for some reason

I asked you a simple question after your intervention, the purpose of which I know not. Then perhaps you can let us all know what was the point of your post? Was it that you simply couldn't bear me stating the truth or the obvious or what exactly? Perhaps there simply was no point to your post?

[E.J.Armstrong]

...

When you guys figure it out, lemme known.

We figured it out in 1707 i.e. some 67 years before the Boston Tea party.

Three hundred years to learn some simple geography doesn't seem to be enough for some people in the USA who don't seem to know against what entity they rebelled.

[Big Les]

The RAF 'plane in that photo looks like it has empty pylons. Do they go
unarmed on these interceptions?

What, the one in the opening post? It's carrying AMRAAMs (you can see one semi-recessed under the fuselage just forward of the left wing) and what I'm pretty sure are ASRAAMs on the outer pylons (the wingtip pods being countermeasure fairings). The gun is probably empty though.

[Ziggurat]

Russia actually has an active BMD system around Moscow. If they put one in cuba, let's see how comfortable the folks in the Pentagon would be with it even if it can't defend Russia from a full scale US ballistic missile attack.

It wouldn't be able to defend Russia at all. First off, I don't believe the Russians have anything like our boost-phase interceptor program, and secondly, even if they developed one and put it in Cuba, why on earth would the launch trajectory of ballistic missiles from the US headed towards Russia get anywhere near Cuba? That's the wrong direction.

And lastly, we wouldn't have much of a problem with it at all even if it could defend Russia. They're never going to get ahead of us on ballistic missile defense technology, and the proliferation of such defense technology increases the relative importance of conventional military power, where we FAR outstrip the Russians. That's why the USSR opposed Star Wars even when we offered to work with them on its development.

[TX50]

What, the one in the opening post? It's carrying AMRAAMs (you can see one semi-recessed under the fuselage just forward of the left wing) and what I'm pretty sure are ASRAAMs on the outer pylons (the wingtip pods being countermeasure fairings). The gun is probably empty though.


Yes, I see them now. Thanks.

[Simon666]

It wouldn't be able to defend Russia at all. (...) And lastly, we wouldn't have much of a problem with it at all even if it could defend Russia.
I never claimed it could defend Russia but I think you underestimate psychology.


They're never going to get ahead of us on ballistic missile defense technology, and the proliferation of such defense technology increases the relative importance of conventional military power, where we FAR outstrip the Russians.
I wouldn't be so sure they're never going to get ahead. The Soviet Union achieved the first nonnuclear intercept of a ballistic missile warhead by a missile at the Saryshagan antiballistic missile defense test range on 4 March 1961. Even in recent tests the US is barely achieving that and only when giving the trajectory and launch time in advance as well as using a homing device on the incoming warhead.