Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

spyguy

Russian Bombers Fly Up The English Channel

Recommended Posts

1) Its a new worldwar! We're all going to die!!!!!

2) Those planes are really cool. I want one.

_80661814_preview.jpg

The BBC link still says 'Russian jets'. Christ, how many people working in their news dept??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Its a new worldwar! We're all going to die!!!!!

2) Those planes are really cool. I want one.

_80661814_preview.jpg

The BBC link still says 'Russian jets'. Christ, how many people working in their news dept??

That's an old pic, taken in 2014 according to Wiki. They've been doing this for 40-odd years, don't panic..... DON'T PANIC!

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

Actually, looking at the tail markings, that could be a Beeb Bear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Its a new worldwar! We're all going to die!!!!!

2) Those planes are really cool. I want one.

_80661814_preview.jpg

The BBC link still says 'Russian jets'. Christ, how many people working in their news dept??

That picture reminds me of a TV program about Canadian fighter pilots and the way they intercept the Russian bombers. A young F18 pilot explained that she has to wear a nappy on long missions as she can't pee into the tube provided. "When I'm a matter of metres away and can see the Russian crew looking at me, I always wonder what they would think if they knew they had just been intercepted by a girl wearing a nappy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Bomber Club.

Russian navy no doubt sails up and down the channel all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because it's fine for us to fly into other peoples airspace and kill a few, that's just peacekeeping, but if someone else comes and stays out of our airspace, that's unjustified agression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The BBC link still says 'Russian jets'. Christ, how many people working in their news dept??

It is a jet - those engines do not have pistons. Technically it is a turbo prop, so propellors powered by jet engines.

They're doing it because they can. These are no longer realistic strategic bombers, they would get shot down almost as soon as they took off if it all got nasty. And if it did get nasty, the first we would know about it would be a bunch of MIRVs de-orbiting at about mach elevnty billion, not some bomber lumbering along at 500 mph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those Bears now carry nuclear tipped cruise missiles with a range of about 2,000 miles with a speed of MACH 4 - we currently have nothing to stop those missiles. Nothing.

The Russians developed them despite a treaty that neither them or us would develop a supersonic cruise missile.

Starting this year the RAF is going to have its first Mach 4 air to air missile - the Meteor - and the US Navy is earmarked to begin carrying the AIM-120D sometime in 2016/17 with the aim of having them on all carrier battle groups sometime around 2020. The Meteor is going to be used by several NATO air forces - the UK, Swedes, Germans, Italians and a few others. Of course, it then takes them to train crews in the use of both missiles and to make them a standard.

In other words, we don't, as yet, have anything that can shoot down the Russian cruise missiles. Nothing. It is a HUGE hole in Western defences. The best hope we have is that one of our fighters detects the Bear preparing to launch and they take it out - can you imagine that responsibility? Then imagine having to make that decision in a matter of seconds whilst the MIG-31s escorting the Bears do a roll and lock their weapons on you.

Thankfully - really thankfully - the UK forced through the Meteor development over the AIM-120D and contnued to fund it when other Nato countries - mainly the Germans - pulled out of it briefly.

As one of these Bear bombers can sit somewhere in the Atlantic and fire missiles simultaneously on both Western Euopean cities and on North American cities they are, despite the age of the bombers, a real and serious threat. Several such armed bombers flying around the Atlantic and Pacific can seriously tie up NATO and Japanese fighters in monitoring them.

Finally, a Bear launching such a missile over the English Channel could take out London and Paris within a matter of minutes.

I hope our flyboys and flybirls don't have to ring up Downing Street for orders if they detect one of these Bears powering up the nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a jet - those engines do not have pistons. Technically it is a turbo prop, so propellors powered by jet engines.

They're doing it because they can. These are no longer realistic strategic bombers, they would get shot down almost as soon as they took off if it all got nasty. And if it did get nasty, the first we would know about it would be a bunch of MIRVs de-orbiting at about mach elevnty billion, not some bomber lumbering along at 500 mph.

methinks you are too impressed with the theoretical military capability.

The same military that is under the authority of Politicians that cant organise anything themselves, supply armour for our troops, beat an army of peasants armed with grenades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a jet - those engines do not have pistons. Technically it is a turbo prop, so propellors powered by jet engines.

Apologies for going all pedant on you, but...

The definition of a jet engine is, according to the dictionary:

noun

: an engine in which a very strong stream of heated air and gases shoots out from the rear of the engine and pushes the engine forward

A jet aircraft is an aircraft powered by jet engines.

A turboprop engine is not a 'jet engine' as most of the propulsive power comes from the propellers, ergo the Tu95 is not a jet aircraft.

(If we get down to the gory details, the exhaust from the turbine engine in a turboprop does contribute to propulsion. But only minimally. And if we claim that this makes it a 'jet engine', then surely many of the WW2 warbirds also qualify as 'jets' - because the exhaust from their piston engines was pointed backwards and played a minor part in propulsion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
methinks you are too impressed with the theoretical military capability.

The evidence suggests that they fly these things out of Russia, we know exactly where they are, we know what route they have taken and we send a jet up to meet them when they get nearby. If we were on a war footing we'd meet them a lot further away that 12 miles off the coast.

The Raduga, which they can fire, goes well under Mach 1 - it is very similar to the US Tomahawk. Hard to spot because it can fly very low and is small, but certainly can be tracked and shot down. As far as i can find, the only supersonic cruise missiles don't have a range of more than a few hundred K. So to fire one of these, you've got to fly your Bear over 1500 miles in full view of your opponents without being shot down. Tough gig.

If they want to clobber us, they'll just pop a few missiles from a sub somewhere north of Scotland which would be undetectable and unstoppable.

Apologies for going all pedant on you, but...

Amongst most non-pedants a turboprop is considered a jet derivative. If you look at a picture of the back end of one of those Bear engines, it has bloody great rear facing exhaust ports which suggest a fair lick of thrust is produced by the exhaust in addition to the propeller. Certainly not a turboshaft. So I'll stick with "jet" :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a jet - those engines do not have pistons. Technically it is a turbo prop, so propellors powered by jet engines.

They're doing it because they can. These are no longer realistic strategic bombers, they would get shot down almost as soon as they took off if it all got nasty. And if it did get nasty, the first we would know about it would be a bunch of MIRVs de-orbiting at about mach elevnty billion, not some bomber lumbering along at 500 mph.

Like Peter The Great?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard from an undercover British agent in France that, "The rations are going to drip their bums on the Chanel."

3888683712a7172857861ml.jpg

i am officer crabtree. i wark for British Ontelligence bot I have disgeezed maseelf as a poloceman so I am oble to move aboot with complate frodom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence suggests that they fly these things out of Russia, we know exactly where they are, we know what route they have taken and we send a jet up to meet them when they get nearby. If we were on a war footing we'd meet them a lot further away that 12 miles off the coast.

The Raduga, which they can fire, goes well under Mach 1 - it is very similar to the US Tomahawk. Hard to spot because it can fly very low and is small, but certainly can be tracked and shot down. As far as i can find, the only supersonic cruise missiles don't have a range of more than a few hundred K. So to fire one of these, you've got to fly your Bear over 1500 miles in full view of your opponents without being shot down. Tough gig.

If they want to clobber us, they'll just pop a few missiles from a sub somewhere north of Scotland which would be undetectable and unstoppable.

Amongst most non-pedants a turboprop is considered a jet derivative. If you look at a picture of the back end of one of those Bear engines, it has bloody great rear facing exhaust ports which suggest a fair lick of thrust is produced by the exhaust in addition to the propeller. Certainly not a turboshaft. So I'll stick with "jet" :P

weve only got a squadron or two.

They have hundreds of these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These aircraft were in international airspace and fully entitled to fly where they like. It's laughable of the UK to expect military aircraft to file flight plans, respond to UK queries or have transponders switched on.

Add to that, this happens (literally) all the time - with hundreds of similar incidents in the last few years. Perfectly normal, routine test patrols.

Worth noting that the RAF has no right to 'escort' other aircraft in international airspace - and hence the Russians can ignore them or fly at them if they want. It's international airspace. The UK has no jurisdiction. I'm not quite sure what part of that the Uk government fails to grasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are no longer realistic strategic bombers.

Not true. When used in the right circumstances they can be devastating - particularly when linked to the Russia missile technology which is widely held to be upwards of 10yrs more advanced than anything the West can field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have sent for Top Gun ...

article-2338549-1A3DC191000005DC-805_306

Biggles Dictates a Letter

Biggles: (into the intercam) Ginger.

Ginger: (Terry Gilliam) Hello, sweetie.

Biggles: I have to see you.

(The door opens, Ginger enters as a terrible poof in camp flying gear, sequins, eye make-up, silver stars on his cheeks.)

Ginger: Yes, Biggles?

Biggles: Are you a poof

Ginger: (camp outrage) I should say not.

Biggles: Thank God for that. Good lad. (Ginger exits) Stout fellow, salt of the earth, backbone of England. Funny, he looks like a poof. (takes off the antlers) Dear Princess Margaret.

(Pantomime Princess Margaret enters from cupboard.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about, I would guess someone in the RAF paid someone in RUssia a lot of money to fly this way. Planning for budgets and all that.

Could one of Gordon Brown's Aircraft carriers, that are sucking up all our budget, not fly out and shoo the place down?

For the money that's being spent, I would expect something along the lines of Optimus Prime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mate in the Army says the Russians have been flying planes over the UK for the past 2 years. He says they come in at different speeds and altitudes at different parts of the country most likely to test our response time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.