British Fighters 'Escort' Russian Bombers Near U.K. Airspace

[bananas]

Source: NPR

The British government has summoned Russia's ambassador to the United Kingdom, asking him to explain why a pair of nuclear-capable Russian long-range "Bear" bombers had flown alarmingly close to U.K. airspace.

In a situation reminiscent of the Cold War, British Typhoon fighters were scrambled to intercept the TU-95s on Wednesday. Ultimately, the bombers did not enter U.K. airspace, but a spokesman for the Foreign Office in London said the incident was part of "an increasing pattern of out-of-area operations by Russian aircraft," Sky News says.

According to the BBC:

"The planes were 'escorted' by RAF jets 'throughout the time they were in the UK area of interest', officials added.

"Russia's ambassador has been summoned to 'account for the incident.' "

Reuters quotes an unnamed British government source as saying that:

&quot The) incident ... was viewed as 'a significant escalation' and marked a change in strategy since Russian aircraft had previously largely confined themselves to flying close to Scotland.

" 'It was very dangerous. Civil aircraft flying to the UK had to be rerouted,' the source was quoted by Reuters as saying. 'The Russians were flying with their transponders turned off so could only be seen on military radar. They haven't flown this far south before.' "

Read more: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/29/382440318/british-fighters-escort-russian-bombers-near-u-k-airspace

[DeSwiss]

1. ''...had flown alarmingly close to U.K. airspace.''

- FUGB, this ain't horseshoes. Assholes.

[ColesCountyDem]

3. Any time foreign military aircraft change their operational pattern, or approach...

Any time foreign military aircraft change their operational pattern, or approach your airspace, it becomes your concern. I don't blame the British in the least.

[lovuian]

2. Testing reaction times in country's air space

get used to seeing it more and more....

[hunter]

4. These games played with aircraft are nothing compared to the games played with submarines.

Usually neither side wants to talk about those so as not to expose their capabilities.

Scarier, among nations who are members of the "nuclear club," these are nuclear submarines carrying nuclear weapons.

[Lobo27]

5. Russians are playing with fire.

[bananas]

8. So are we.

Important article - read it in full:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016112404

How a nuclear near-miss in ’95 would be a disaster today - by Ted Postol

<snip>

One positive development that will make us all safer is that Russia will shortly no longer have holes in its network of early warning radars. Yet efforts to modernize the large and expensive network of ground-based radars has been accompanied by a decision to abandon the current space-based satellite early warning system. So even with this vital new radar early warning system, without the benefit of space-based assistance, Moscow could still have no more than six to seven minutes warning of a Trident submarine attack. That small window of time is inadequate for reflection, assessment, and decision-making. This dangerous shortfall could greatly increase the chances of unrecoverable accidents involving the central strategic nuclear forces of Russia and the United States.

<snip>

[Fred Sanders]

7. Because there was no other option.

[former9thward]

9. They were in international airspace.

Do you favor the Russians shooting down British aircraft in international airspace?

[forsaken mortal]

13. re

You may be surprised to learn that the USA and other countries do they same types of flights near Russian airspace. Guess we should be understanding if the Russians shoot them down.

[EX500rider]

10. Dangerous and stupid..

The bombers did not file a flight plan, did not have their transponders switched on and weren't talking to air traffic control.


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31049952

And about the most antique looking bomber still flying. Basically a upgraded version of the B-29 they copied from the US.

[Baclava]

11. I wouldn't dismiss them because of their age - what they lack in speed, they make up in range

Range: 15,000 km (8,100 nmi, 9,400 mi) unrefueled


The Tu-95s can carry up to six KH-55 (NATO designation AS-15 Kent) or KH-555 Air Launched Cruise Missiles internally (or eight Kh-101/Kh-102 externally), with nuclear or conventional warhead and a range of around 1,500 miles. Even if they can be detected by U.S. Air Force radars they could attack ground targets on the west coast remaining well outside the range of any land-based interceptors.

That’s why, in spite of its age, it still represents a significant strategic weapon

http://theaviationist.com/2014/05/15/tu-95-launches-6-aclms/

[happyslug]

12. The Bear bomber has the longest range of any plane flying today

Now I have to exclude planes that can be refueled in the Air (The B-52 can be refueled in flight and that extends their range, but so can the BEAR be refueled in flight extending its range. Some one time experimental planes out does the Bear, but nothing in general use), The purpose of the Bear is as a cruise missile launcher, which is also the primary function of the B-52 today (Through both retain the ability to drop conventional bombs if desired).

As to being an "Upgraded version of the B-29", people forget that the B-29 program was the most expensive military program of WWII (outspending even the development of the A-bomb). For that reason the B-29 was a HUGE increase in capacity over the B-17 and B-24 heavy bombers that proceeded it. Except for Fly by wire technology the B-29 is as good as any plane flying today, as is the BEAR. Those HUGE Turboprop engines (Developed by the Russians for maximum range) were a sole Soviet Development, the US, Britain and Germany technology was NOT available to the Soviet in their development, so it was a Soviet only achievement (Unlike the MIG-15, which was built around the Jet Engine Britain gave to the Russians in the late 1940s. It was given to secure the material needed to built a jet engine, materials hard to obtain OUTSIDE of Russia even today).

The Bear had a range twice that of the B-29, speed 190 mph faster then the B-29 and could operate at 9000 feet higher than the B-29. Thus the Bear is more then an "upgraded B-29". To call the Bear an "Upgraded B-29", is to call the B-52 an "upgraded B-29" for many of the differences between the B-29 and the Bear, also separate the B-52 from the B-29 (and that includes engine development, the Bear and the B-52 both use and were designed around power plants completely different than what was put in a B=29).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress


Performance
Maximum speed: 394 mph (634 km/h; 342 kn) at 30,000 ft (9,150 m)
Cruise speed: 244 mph (212 kn; 393 km/h)
Combat range: 2,394 mi (2,080 nmi; 3,853 km)
Ferry range: 7,750 mi (6,735 nmi; 12,472 km)
Service ceiling: 36,900 ft (11,247 m)
Rate of climb: 2,200 ft/min (11 m/s)
Wing loading: 70.19 lb/sq ft (342.7 kg/m2)
Power/mass: 0.115hp/lb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95

Compared to the TU-95:

Performance
Maximum speed: 920 km/h (510 knots, 575 mph)
Range: 15,000 km (8,100 nmi, 9,400 mi) unrefueled
Service ceiling: 13,716 m (45,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 10 m/s (2,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 606 kg/m² (124 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 235 W/kg (0.143 hp/lb)

[davidpdx]

14. Interesting to see the side by side comparison

The limitations of the B-29 are the reason why the US needed to be on a closer island (Tinian) and had to strip the inside of the airplane including the armor to reduce the weight to allow it to carry a nuclear bomb.