Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

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

gfromls

O/t Two Raf Typhoons Sent To "intercept" Russian

Recommended Posts

Probably testing other nations responses.

Unless some crazy dictator gets into power we have nothing to fear from another nation because of mutually assured destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS! "Intercepted" in aviation means that they would have forced the bombers to follow their instructions and comply with their orders. http://amd.nbc.gov/dts/tsdocs/InterceptionProcedures.pdf

Russians, obviously, were too busy to notice that they are being "intercepted" by a few jockeys. Look, they have even "shadowed" the bears :D

Must be a slow news day and boredom in RAF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is - which of the two aircraft is the most obsolete - the typhoon or the bear?

Ahh reminds me of the hayday's of the eighties when our sceptered isles were protected by the RAF's finest F2 Tornado equipped with state of the art "Blue Circle" radar..... ;)

"Blue Circle

Spoof code name for concrete ballast in Tornado F.2. First installed in the Buccaneer while awaiting Blue Parrot.

Highly unofficial usage. Delays on GEC Marconi Foxhunter required use of ballast to maintain CoG"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless some crazy dictator gets into power we have nothing to fear from another nation because of mutually assured destruction.

The theory of 'mutually assured destruction' is fine until one side thinks that it has found a way of protecting itself against a massive missile attack. For example, when the US were talking about setting up the 'nuclear umbrella' which would shoot incoming missiles out of the sky, the idea of m.a.d. went out of the window. It meant that the US felt they needn't be too nervous about making the first strike because they had the umbrella to fall back on, while the Soviets must have thought "If the Yanks aren't afraid of throwing a few hundred missiles at us, then we'll obviously need to get in early and first and destroy anything and everything in the first strike. We won't get a second chance."

How long can a delicate balance like that last? Every country's leaders will be doing their best to provide themselves with the equivalent of an umbrella but they won't be able to let on about it. Hence the need for inspections.

p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable
I remember this from the '80s. Used to happen weekly; and wagon wheels were larger.

Isn't it lucky we have those new planes. I feel much safer.....

"So, comrade Gordy, you haf problem with economy population do not believing you? Ok I send plane, you intercept and everythink is good for you. People forget hyperinflationary economy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question is - which of the two aircraft is the most obsolete - the typhoon or the bear?

By all accounts the typhoon is not a lemon as suggested by the self professed expert Carlo Kopf. At some point we'll here the results of the joint exercises with the Indian Airforce who bought over their SU-27s for an evaluation exercise. I would be interested if someone has the skinny on the outcome.

As for the endless and pointless comparison between the Typhoon and F-22, it's like comparing a $2000 Dell with a $3000 iMac - they are meant for differenct things. Both are fab, but Typhoon deserves a larger market share since few national defense budgets could, or should, cough up for the cost of the stealth 'concept of operations' which is based on overwhelming air power, AWACs surveillance and blanket countermeasures. If you are Turkey, Greece, or Australia then you should be shopping for Typhoon soon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story seems to be promoting these new super jets rather than reporting what actually happened. I suppose it is Sky News. Amazing they didnt put a paragraph in about the pilots families to capture the 'human interest' angle.

As twatmangle said, it was a common thing in the 80s to see russian fighters in the sky. I hope the media dont blow it out of all proportion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The theory of 'mutually assured destruction' is fine until one side thinks that it has found a way of protecting itself against a massive missile attack...

How long can a delicate balance like that last? Every country's leaders will be doing their best to provide themselves with the equivalent of an umbrella but they won't be able to let on about it. Hence the need for inspections.

p

It feels like I have woken up in the 1980s.

Perhaps I am the banker equivalent of Sam Tyler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading the Russian News for a few Months now.

Hard to tell the ******** from the Lies from any countries propaganda (including our own

sometimes), but this does look as if it's escalating fairly quickly & could get quite serious.

Is this Russia making their first move against America's quest for global dominance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question is - which of the two aircraft is the most obsolete - the typhoon or the bear?

Ahh reminds me of the hayday's of the eighties when our sceptered isles were protected by the RAF's finest F2 Tornado equipped with state of the art "Blue Circle" radar..... ;)

"Blue Circle

Spoof code name for concrete ballast in Tornado F.2. First installed in the Buccaneer while awaiting Blue Parrot.

Highly unofficial usage. Delays on GEC Marconi Foxhunter required use of ballast to maintain CoG"

A hilarious anecdote made only slightly less insightful by the fact that it is completely untrue. The Tornado F.2s had a steel not concrete ballast, were only used by 229OCU for Instructor training and never had an operational air defence tasking. The first operational Tornado ADV Squadron was 29(F) at Coningsby with the Tornado F.3 and Foxhunter B radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As twatmangle said, it was a common thing in the 80s to see russian fighters in the sky.

You mean 'bombers'.

If it had been 'fighters' we'd have been at [conventional] war.

Oh, and you'd probably have to work in North sea oil/gas to get many sightings in ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one thought it was great that these aging propeller driven bombers were met by state of the art fighters!

Makes a change from seeing our lads getting blown up in thin skinned vehicles or sharing body armour.

Jackalope you seemed pretty clued up on these things what's the opertaing radius of the Typhoons and do the Russians have any escort fighters that they could send with the bombers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I for one thought it was great that these aging propeller driven bombers were met by state of the art fighters!

Those 'ageing' propeller driven bombers are the fastest propeller driven aircraft in operational use. Each Kuznetzov NK-12 turboprop producing nearly 15,000shp delivered through contra-rotating propellers.

The chances are the one pictured was built in the Ukraine in the 90's and could be younger than the majority of our Tornado F3s. :P

The use of turboprops gives the Bear about twice the combat endurance of a B-52 meaning it can hang around and even make repeat runs to test defences while itercept fighters have to either run for home or meet a tanker to refuel.

What would be really interesting to see tho is the Typhoon making an intercept of a TU-160 Blackjack while both aircraft are supersonic. That'd be a great photocall for the RAF ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackalope you seemed pretty clued up on these things what's the opertaing radius of the Typhoons and do the Russians have any escort fighters that they could send with the bombers?

I have no operational experience of the Typhoon and the truth is a well guarded secret but the F.2 Tiffie carries 3 x 1,000L drops in Q fit for a total fuel load of about 9,000L. Compare this with the Mighty Fin which carried 13,000L with twin Hindenburgers and I'd say the Tornado had slightly longer legs. The Typhoon is getting 2 x 2,000L conformals soon which will bring it back it to Tornado levels.

If were to go back to chasing Bears around the GIUK gap in a sleet storm at 3am in February I'd still rather be in a Tornado F.3. Two man crew makes all the difference IMO.

The prospects of a Tu-160 interception is an intellectually interesting but pointless. The Russians only have 19 and you can assume about 50% of them work so they are militarily irrelevant. If they came in Lo-Lo-Lo I'd fancy my chances in the F.3 as nothing is faster than a Tornado ADV at low altitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those 'ageing' propeller driven bombers are the fastest propeller driven aircraft in operational use. Each Kuznetzov NK-12 turboprop producing nearly 15,000shp delivered through contra-rotating propellers.

The chances are the one pictured was built in the Ukraine in the 90's and could be younger than the majority of our Tornado F3s. :P

The use of turboprops gives the Bear about twice the combat endurance of a B-52 meaning it can hang around and even make repeat runs to test defences while itercept fighters have to either run for home or meet a tanker to refuel.

What would be really interesting to see tho is the Typhoon making an intercept of a TU-160 Blackjack while both aircraft are supersonic. That'd be a great photocall for the RAF ;)

I'm not dismissing the turbo prop. I can see it has advantages - particulalrly for maritime surveilance. But the canard Typhoon looked the Dogs ****** in comparison.

Of course function obviously trumps looks but it's nice just for once for our armed forces to have an A1 piece of kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no operational experience of the Typhoon and the truth is a well guarded secret but the F.2 Tiffie carries 3 x 1,000L drops in Q fit for a total fuel load of about 9,000L. Compare this with the Mighty Fin which carried 13,000L with twin Hindenburgers and I'd say the Tornado had slightly longer legs. The Typhoon is getting 2 x 2,000L conformals soon which will bring it back it to Tornado levels.

If were to go back to chasing Bears around the GIUK gap in a sleet storm at 3am in February I'd still rather be in a Tornado F.3. Two man crew makes all the difference IMO.

The prospects of a Tu-160 interception is an intellectually interesting but pointless. The Russians only have 19 and you can assume about 50% of them work so they are militarily irrelevant. If they came in Lo-Lo-Lo I'd fancy my chances in the F.3 as nothing is faster than a Tornado ADV at low altitudes.

Should we be hanging on to the ADV in the interceptor role?

What are your thoughts on a dedicated ground attack air craft? Seems to me that we could do with one in Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not dismissing the turbo prop. I can see it has advantages - particulalrly for maritime surveilance.

I know it's not directly what you're getting at but the TU-95 in the intercept picture published by the MOD is a TU-95MS (NATO: Bear H) cruise missile carrier rather than the closely related TU-142 maritime reconnaissance.

They obviously wanted to be seen to be wearing the sabre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 355 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

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


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



×
×
  • Create New...

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.