Russian planes intercepted near U.S., Canadian airspace

a reply to: Zaphod58

Sure but if their opposition is the Ukraine, Georgia, places like that they could surely win.

I found an article that said 50 flight attempts near the usa in the last 5 years. But nothing ever showing 8 aircraft at once.

What worries me more is nuclear war. It is the ace in the sleeve and with Russia and China working together on some things id hate to see anyone provoked either way. Whether it is the usa or someone else doing the provoking. Luckily im an expat and will watch it all from a safe distance from a country no one cares about haha.

a reply to: rockpaperhammock

It's been multiple aircraft before, but of course the numbers are going to increase, that's the point of training. You make the exercise harder as time goes on, or you don't improve.

The only thing I worry about, is an accident occuring while intercepting. I know Russia and the US train all the time with Long Range bombing simulations. But all its going to take, is one person to accidentelly shoot someone down, and Tensions will boil over. Wonder how High the Bombers are in altitude. If one side could fly above the fighters ceiling, like the spy planes. Not sure how high SAMs can be shot, im thinking around 90,000

a reply to: Glassbender777

The F-22 can fly higher than the Russian bombers can. But there is a treaty, and a friendly agreement between crews during intercept. The Russian crews point their tail guns up and away from the US fighters, and the US fighters don't lock onto them with their radar.

a reply to: Zaphod58
It looks like you answered everything I was going to. The only things I would add is (1) stress again, we, as a military, have been expecting increased Russian activity and behavior the more they revamp their military. It is not a "oh my god" issue, but rather an analysis and interpret one; (2) it is not only common for the U.S./NATO/"West" or even Russia and other militarise to conduct exercises and training close to a point of conflict or a "hot zone" or local point of issue - it is a communication of force, might, and resolve tactic; and (3) I wouldn't fear nuclear war too much, it is a long shot and MAD still exists. Tensions in that regard are significantly lower than they were in the Cold War, countries are pretty professional in those regards, even in the Cold War. Fear an entity that has one or two nukes, not dozens, hundreds, thousands.

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: buddah6
Oh, I am not worried, I watched Russia for 6 years, China too.

I started watching in 1968! There's nothing new here! We do the same thing but it doesn't get in the press.

That is a long time my friend, I wasn't even a thought I agree.
I should note, that is 6 years professionally and clandestinely, so 13 in total.

a reply to: LDragonFire

There is a a difference here...
It used to happen all the time........... IN THE COLD WAR!

Now it is happening all the time .. AGAIN.


It's not nothing.. it is a resumption of hostilities.

Would have rather the lull had been built upon and peace nurtured.

Instead we have Putin...

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

I can remember when not only was this a daily event, but they were buzzing carriers, had trawlers off every CBG we had out there as well as off both coasts.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

I can remember when not only was this a daily event, but they were buzzing carriers, had trawlers off every CBG we had out there as well as off both coasts.

They are doing that again, just not as much as they use to. My ship was flown over twice by Bear's while we were in between Korea and Japan. They still use trawlers to shadow CBG's as well, but again, not as often. My first analyst post (RAF Molesworth a.k.a. Joint Analysis Center (JAC) Molesworth - Cold War Nuke Base now intel base)I was trained by two old Cold War analysts ... I learned a lot from them.

Nothing new here. Russian bears have been flying across our coasts since the 1970's. Standard reaction send up a jet to watch them. Pilots flew close enough to take pictures of each other. Just a standard coastal flyby grabbing electronic info. We fly by their coast in international waters for the same reason. Once they go inside of our boundary waters then all bets are off.

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: buddah6
Oh, I am not worried, I watched Russia for 6 years, China too.

I started watching in 1968! There's nothing new here! We do the same thing but it doesn't get in the press.

That is a long time my friend, I wasn't even a thought

I agree.
I should note, that is 6 years professionally and clandestinely, so 13 in total.

Mine is mostly military with none being clandestine. My secondary MOS was 35D if that means anything to you. I was an XO to an aviation brigade as my last job but that was 25 years ago.

a reply to: LDragonFire

If he doesn't have soldiers in Ukraine, why is he sending fighters to North American airspace? Hmm...oh yeah. Well, we all know the answer. This kinda thing was pretty common during the Cold War. It seems we have a new one...slightly warmer, though.

a reply to: LDragonFire

The encounter comes one day after Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko delivered a speech in Parliament thanking Canada for its ongoing support as his country’s forces battle with pro-Russian separatist rebels.

www.cbc.ca...

This sort of stuff is disturbing behavior. Putin could have sent migs or whatever they use now but instead he decided to send bombers. The thing that is unconventional about it is, we use missiles now. There's no purpose to use a bomber in military exercises other than to make a threat. It's definitely an aggressive move and I too feel the world is becoming a dangerous place. I think Canada should consider spending some moolah on air and navy defenses.

originally posted by: FlySolo
The thing that is unconventional about it is, we use missiles now. There's no purpose to use a bomber in military exercises other than to make a threat.

What? That couldn’t be any further from the truth ...
...

a reply to: FlySolo

Um, they've ALWAYS sent bombers. Bombers have the room to add signals intelligence equipment. You can't add those in a fighter.

The only difference in what Russia and the US do is that Russia modified bombers to do the mission for a long time, where the US purpose built an aircraft to do the same thing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The only difference in what Russia and the US do is that Russia modified bombers to do the mission for a long time, where the US purpose built an aircraft to do the same thing.

Are you talking about NORAD's AWAC? If so, Russia has their own version called the Beriev A-50. No need to use bombers per se other than to send a message and test our response time. Purely nefarious.

a reply to: FlySolo

No, I'm talking about the Bear F which was modified for signals intelligence, and the RC-135, which does electronic intelligence, signals intelligence, and optical intelligence, depending on which one it is. AWACS is very rarely used for that mission due to their high value, and low numbers.

They don't use a dedicated Bear anymore, but they still modify them as needed by adding equipment in the bomb bay.

Again, they've ALWAYS used bombers.

This is *NOTHING* new, or exciting to anyone that's lived in Alaska during the Cold War. This kind of thing used to happen all the time, so much so that it rarely made the news.

What I found odd was that in some of the news reports the article said we launched F-22's from an "undisclosed location". What? The F-22's are stationed at JBER? Unless we have hidden air bases someplace with reserve F-22's...?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

They occasionally disperse to other airfields throughout Alaska for quicker response times, and to keep the Russian crews on their toes.