Russian nuclear bomber flies undetected to within 20 miles of Hull

Maybe scrapping AM-54 armed Tomcats wasn't such a good idea. Phoenix was kind of a pig but this is the threat it was designed for. A couple of Blackjacks, carrying 2 dozen Kents, is enough to give a carrier group fits.

Methinks this was more of a message to the US than Britain.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by MeanDirtyKiller

Originally posted by Beelzabub
Dude you know your screwed when

1 a bomber gets that close undetected

2 your alert 1 aircraft are off station and you dont have alert 2 to scramble

sounds a lot like the situation that we had in the U.S. about 7 years ago.

difference is, those were stealth 747s.

Ha...star for you sir. Great post.

reply to post by Dock6


You under estimate us Brits ..............as civil as we are ..push come to shove .........we know whats right.

the word on the street is people are pissed off.

Well it's a good thing that Great Britain has all those cameras pointing down watching their own people! They might want to point a few at some real threats for a change.

Originally posted by primamateria

Russian nuclear bomber flies undetected to within 20 miles of Hull

www.dailymail.co.uk

A Russian nuclear stealth bomber was able to fly within 90 seconds of the British coast without being picked up by radar, it was revealed today.
The supersonic ‘Blackjack’ jet flew completely undetected to within just 20 miles from Hull in one of the worst breaches of British security since the end of the Cold War.
RAF radar eventually picked up the plane, but the only two pairs of fighter jets used for air alerts were on other duties.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
russian plasma stealth
Russian TU-160 Blackjack..

The funny thing is these do not carry bombs, and how close they fly to
anything does not really matter.

They carry the new variant of the KH-102.

It's newest projected range is near 5,000 km.

KH-102 Stealth Nuclear Cruise Missile

Russia has these on their planes, ships, and subs.

So if they kick it off, the world is collectively screwed.

I think this is a very carfull picked propaganda tactik as usual. Why would they wait over a year to tell the publick. Why is this information so important now!!! It was more important a year ago.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by tommyc
Reports say it was late last year so it would have been around the time of this:

Website Link

That one had mucho propellers.

I have always liked the Russian bomber designs.

Any one heard the tail of an American bomber designer that
was rejected by America and went to design Russian bombers.

Folks, don't forget that 2 years ago, in 2006 Russia did the same thing over Canada:

Russian Bombers Flew Undetected Across Arctic

Russian military planes flew undetected through the U.S. zone of the Arctic Ocean to Canada during recent military exercises, a senior Air Force commander said Saturday. The commander of the country's long-range strategic bombers, Lieutenant General Igor Khvorov, said the U.S. Air Force is now investigating why its military was unable to detect the Russian bombers. "They were unable to detect the planes either with radars or visually," he said.

reply to post by N.B.A.Y.S.O.H



Yes, I am a Brit, dozens of generations deep, although elsewhere at the moment.

And I'm thinking the average Brit could think of a lot worse scenarios right now than melding with Russia. All it takes is a bit of lateral thinking, and the benefits outweigh the rest.

Anyway, I heard rumours that the Russians were dropping leaflets over the North East, saying, ' We are here to save you. Built a bonfire on Pendle Hill at the next full moon, and we'll lower nets for you '.

Wow, that plane looks an awful lot like our B-1. I wonder if we stole the technology from them or if they stole it from us.

I'm guessing that the pilot flew a very low profile and/or used terrain-following radar in order to fly beneath the Brit radar until it got real close, and then popped up above it just to make a statement.

It would make sense for them to flex their aeronautical muscles in plain view so that the rest of the western world doesn't discount them as a viable threat.

Our American military and administration have pushed other countries around for far too long. I don't blame any of them for getting sick of it and pushing back. We had better change our policies very quickly or we'll find ourselves on the outs with the rest of the world...if we haven't already.

I'm a retired Air Force flyer and combat Veteran, so I do have a little knowledge about the subject.

Originally posted by citizen smith
damn...just 90 seconds short of getting rid of Hull

True, but with some kind of stand-off weapon or cruise missile it could have easily been within range. That's the real dilemma as far as I'm concerned because detecting an aircraft simply means you detected an aircraft. You have no idea what armaments that aircraft is carrying. I worked in munitions for the U.S. Air Force for 6 years. There are a variety of weapons in our arsenal that would have put that aircraft within range (and at a safe stand-off distance from the blast). To think that Russia doesn't have similar capability is dangerous.

It's almost like they're deliberately trying to start another cold war.. Everyone has been so focused on ICBM's and missile defense to counter ICBM capabilities that countries almost just assume that any slow flying aircraft will eventually be detected at such a distance that something can be done about it. I only say that from the standpoint of the West since Russia just doesn't have the stealth capability we currently have (unless you believe Russia has plasma stealth capability).

The overall problem here is that there is an assumption within the Western world that no country would even try dropping a nuclear bomb on a foreign country without stealth aircraft because it is antiquated thinking when compared with ICBM technology AND stealth technology. We thought the days of Russia nuking New York with long-range bombers was over.. It turns out it isn't so implausible after all because everyone's focused on ICBM's.

And isn't it interesting how Hugo Chavez recently allowed the Russians to hold naval military exercises in the waters near Venezuela? How are we supposed to know what those ships are currently carrying? There's not exactly an easy way to tell from satellite photos.. That sort of thing would be kept out of plain sight anyway because of our advanced satellite imaging technology..

I see all of this as Russia basically stirring the pot.. There's no other reason all this would be happening to the U.S. and its allies. It is not a coincidence.. Tensions have been running high between the West and Russia ever since the missile defense sheild issue and then the crisis in South Ossetia. Russia is making allies with as many of our enemies as possible.

And not to take away from the importance of this thread but what in the world is going on with that ship off the coast of Somalia?

FOX NEWS LINK: HERE
ATS THREAD:Pirates die strangely after taking Iranian ship

At first Iran said the cargo on the ship was tanks, weapons, and ammunition. But now the pirates themselves are dying off and their hair is falling out. What the heck is going on here? Radiation poisoning? There seems to be a giant underground network of American enemies which are constantly exchanging military technology and supplies. Russia just sold Venezuela and Iran a bunch of military hardware... Check it out HERE . It might not sound like alot but this is just what we know of (publicly).

To think that WMD's would be exchaning hands is pretty disconcerting.. It will be interesting to see what comes of the debacle off the coast of Somalia. I hope this doesn't end up kicking off another cold war.. But our enemies surely are organising aren't they?

-ChriS

[edit on 1-10-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 1-10-2008 by BlasteR]

This article seems pretty dubious, the Blackjack is not even close to stealth. Really seems like progaganda. Like another poster mentioned they could have been using terrain following radar and skirted under the RAF's radar, but they dont have stealth.

I don't discount the russian military, but until they actually have generation 5 aircraft their airforce is not a threat to the west.

By the time they develop gen 5 the west will be at gen 6. They need to skip a generation to catch up. Something that completely nullifies current western aircraft and defenses.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by drock905]

I just got a question: Dose a stealth bomber have to look just like the B2 to be stealthy. Isent it the skin that make it stealthy.

Even the B1B has a radar signeture of a 1m2 or something like that. And the black jack looks just like it. It might as well have the stealth skinlaiers on it. Russia used stealth skin on their cruse missiles in the 90s so it is not new to them.

Originally posted by Beelzabub
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Yup, however air space outside a countries borders are hotly contested, cause some claim for example 20 miles buffer outside their border which is a problem cause then their air space claims protrude into another countries physical border.

Yeah but Britain is an island - surely then the airspace is pretty definate?

reply to post by spy66


The skin is important also - it must be radar absorbent or have a radar scattering effect.

The 'plasma' type stealth is what America also does but won't admit to. All you are doing it running an electrical charge through the skin of the craft.

Britain already tried a similiar tactic by employing a much greater charge in order to create a 'force field' as it were. Exciting the electrons so much that a projectile was unable to penetrate the prototype armour more than .5mm - astounding really.

For ships it is called hull polarization, and also can reduce the radar signature as well as have an EMP effect on unshielded missiles fired at the vessel or tank rendering them ineffective (in some cases).

People tend to think that we are still living in a world of Vietnam Level technology, most people wouldn't believe you if you told them the USA had laser beams and neutron radiation beams mounted on 727 and 707s and C-130s to shoot down missiles and 'neutralize' enemies.

Basically, the average person can no longer comprehend the technology now being employed on the modern battlefields. Microwave weapons are being used for 'Crowd Control' in America (free speech zones anyone?) , and In Iraq they are turned up to full power and used to cook people alive, and desiccate them whilst still living.

Lasers are being used for 'precision strikes' and neutron radiation beams are being used to kill selected targets within hours after being hit with them for just a couple of seconds- such a beam being invisible the victim doesn't know why they are dying.

It is the morning of October the !st, and the the Posse Commitatus Act has just been violated. The government has set the Army on the People of the United States. Unfortunately most people will not believe this either and many who do will rationalize it away as they have always done. But many won't believe it is happening.

Originally posted by Pyros
Propaganda for sure.

Back in the 1970's the US knew when TU-95 Bear D's and Bear F's were going to sortie, even before they went "wheels up". Intel was usually good enough to even ID specific crews.

And back in the 1970's only certain people believed such nonsense. I suppose those people are now all grown and no better informed? ID specific crews by how they walk to their aircraft? What?

Russian radar emissions from large, fixed wing aircraft can usually be characterized as a) very powerful, and b) very unique. EW assets all over NATO and in orbit can pinpoint Russian bombers as soon as they start radiating.

If they do, yes, but if you may not have noticed aircraft such as these only really use terrain mapping radar if any at all. Such emissions are probably not going to be detected.

The Blackjack is hardly a stealth bomber. It is a very advanced and formidable conventional bomber, but is lacks any true LO characteristics. Those things have the RCS of Rodan and ain't exactly easy to hide from even the most primitive MK I eyeball.

I wouldn't call it stealthy either but as one would logically expect they did what they could to reduce it's RCS without increasing cost too much or sacrificing other operational parameters.

The TU-160 is the first bomber designed in Russia, and was initially designed to evade radar detection using stealth technology. Designers at Tupolev Aircraft Research and Development Company and other research institutions, created the aircraft combining the best features of the TU-22M and TU-95MC bombers, Russia's first supersonic passenger airliner TU-144 and other aircraft of that class.

The TU-160 employs a number of breakthrough ideas and solutions in its design, specifically the fins and stabilizers that can move in all directions. It can carry a payload of 45 tons and is designed to hold 12 cruise missiles. Unlike the B-1, which carries its weapons suspended on brackets, the TU-160 carries its cruise missiles and bombs inside two special modules.

www.russiajournal.com...

Although the Tu-160 was designed for reduced detectability to both radar and infrared, it is not a stealth aircraft. Russian sources claim that it has a smaller radar cross section (RCS) than the B-1B. Nevertheless, on 25 April 2006 Commander Igor Khvorov claimed that Tu-160s had managed to penetrate the US Arctic zone undetected, leading to a NATO investigation.[3] [4][5]

en.wikipedia.org...

I wouldn't say that these 'penetrations' prove that it is in fact all that stealthy but i wouldn't be surprised if it's RCS is much smaller than commonly presumed.

Remember, the difference between accurate reporting and what makes good press is often very great.

Agreed and that's why most people do not know that Russian retains more than two hundred bombers that can be flown at intercontinental ranges.

Stellar

Just more propaganda for the weapons manufacuturers eager to restart to massive military build ups of the cold war. That's my opinion. All these war mongers are working for the same people. So a Russian bomber attacks the U.K.? What in the world do you think would happen next. Anyone think Russia would really do this? I don't think anyone is ready for the next nuclear war. Sorry, it ain't going to happen.

Originally posted by yellowcard
F-117s are slower but hardly uselsss, B-2s are not even in the same class as a BlackJack, a BlackJack is a lot more like the revised American B-1.

If only the B-1's actually flew combat missions ( or could easily be made to do so) i suppose they would have been comparable to the Blackjacks... Either way the B-1's are about midway between the Tu-160's and the Tu-22M's in design and function.

Considering most of the B-2 is top secret, I doubt anyone could say for sure that it would "fail miserably"

The B-2's wont fail miserably by going into combat as they have already failed by not being able to get to combat often enough to make a difference in a strategic war with a major Western power. B-2's are not bad aircraft ( more effective than the B1's) but the emphasis on stealth basically ensured that they would not be operational very often and horrendously vulnerable against a first strike against the two bases ( Diego Garcia?) they can operate from.

Originally posted by NorthWolfe CND
To call the "Blackjack", a poor copy of the B1 Lancer, a stealth bomber, is going a bit too far.

Yes, it's of far more operational use than the stealthy largely grounded lancers.

This just reveals the lac of funding to the RAF, that came with the British White Papers, of the 70's, and has left most of British airspace "free for all"...

There is no lack of funding. This is a question of design choices and operational choices more so than anything else. Britain has 'officially ( presuming you believe the Russian/ Chinese numbers) spent more on defense per year since the early 90's but it doesn't have blackjack bombers or dedicated interceptor aircraft that can easily engage the Tu-160.

Comparing, like some have, this peace of garbage with the B2 bomber is the same as comparing the Wildcat with the FA-18E...

I hope we never have to find out how much damage that piece of garbage can do in the two days it takes to re-apply the B-2's stealth makeup.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Anybody who has been even remotely associated with military intelligence would know that these Tu-160' s are being monitored by every asset available 24/7.

Everyone that knows anything knows that the capability to monitor events in real time are exceedingly limited; reading number plates and like stories are for rather badly misinformed people. Sure it could have been different but for numerous reasons those capabilities do not exist.

Odds are that they were followed from take off to landing by a variety of methods.

Odds are totally against that as Saddam's scuds proved nearly two decades ago. For those that were asleep the first time round you had a second opportunity in 99 and 2003 but as almost always those who 'want to believe' really will believe exactly as they please.

Blackjacks are not stealth, and were probably allowed to approach that closely to help us gain intelligence on their routing, command and control communications, data stream, encryptions ect. Both sides play this game.

Sure, i mean anything is more 'logical' and believable than Russian aircraft that can be flown at very low altitudes to within striking distance of their 2000+ KM ranged cruise missiles. The fact that they don't have to get this close is apparently lost on almost everyone here.

Originally posted by Fang
Back on topic. The Bomber would have been tracked as soon as it left its airfield, perhaps even as it was taxing to the runway.

And perhaps read the name tag's on their flight jackets/helmets? Hell maybe the 'satellite' overheard their conversation and they knew where they were going thus making the point of intercepting them moot? I mean who needs Britain, right?

The Norwegian/Nato radar would have tracked it, we would have tracked it, our QRA's would have intercepted it, as usual, a tanker would have been moved to standby and whilst doing this the fighters would have bee replaced by another two on standby. This is a 'story' from the Daily Mail.

And clearly the failure to intercept renegade 747's in American skies proves that the American government/USAf conspired to destroy the twin towers? Either we deal with the reality that the USAF/NATO isn't omnipotent ( as events in recent wars have largely proven) or we can discuss why Blackjack bombers are allowed to fly to within dumb bomb distance of British cities. To suggest that signal intelligence were still required ( as if the Russians used anything that could give anything away) at this late date just begs the question as to why NATO with it's omnipotent means doesn't already know everything there is to know.

Stellar

reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman


You are forgetting international air/sea space also is plagued by the same issues. US and Russian fighters have jousted over who had rights in these spaces because Russia claims a large over lap into international air space, when in fact even the UN and Nato both deny the claims. This has been going on for over 60 years now, and many think the cold war ended, when in fact its still going on.

It all boils down to who thinks they have the biggest stick and can intimidate the other into bowing out before committing to air to air combat.