Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Sign in to follow this  
malpaso

People in Glass Houses...

Recommended Posts

I think the head of the RAF should stop criticising others for flying cold war relics.

 

BBC News - RAF chief condemns Russia over intercepted planes near Scotland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-52483027

 

Plenty of his own force's aircraft are cold war relics too, including their flagship, the Red Arrows' Hawks, as well as Pumas, Chinooks, Hercules and others...

 

At least the Bears have potentially provided a continuous maritime patrol service, unlike a famous air force we could mention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think you miss the point, he was referring to the overall attitude and conduct as being cold war rather than just the aircraft, I really don't think at that level military chiefs operate in a "my d*** is bigger than yours" manner! or even have time for such trivia.

 

He is rightfully referring to the tactics in operating without SSR/transponder equipment, entering flight lanes and routes, no route advisement etc etc, that means the need to launch a QRA and shadow the aircraft to ensure no conflict with civilian traffic.

Edited by Agent K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree about the tactics and mentality, but as reported he in part criticises the planes themselves as old, which is hardly fair given some of the RAF inventory - up to 80 years old in some cases! 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, he's really not criticising the age of the airplanes as such, that couldn't be more trivial and insignificant to him, he of anybody will know it's capability, not age that counts. Again, he's stating, and I quote:

 

"These Russian bombers are relics of the Cold War, do not comply with international air traffic regulations and are a hazard to civilian and military aircraft,"

 

Which is commenting that these are cold war tactics and well past their sell by date, that the aircraft are cold war era and do not carry and secondary surveillance radar (SSR) transponder equipment hence they don't comply with any air traffic regulations, can't be seen on SSR hence no altitude and flight data is available hence they're a hazard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Agent K is correct. It's probably important to read more than the short blurb on BBC (not criticizing the BBC).

 

Quote

Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Mike Wigston, said the flights of the “Cold War era” Russian bombers contravened air traffic regulations.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/04/30/raf-chief-scorns-russia-after-two-planes-intercepted-near-scotland/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What , are the Russians still tweaking the Lion`s tail ? . I was an RT/DF Op on Caladonian Sector in `55  , back then it was a regular thing to scramble

Meteors ,a little later Hunters  from Leuchars  to escort them out of our airspace ! . In bad weather it would be NF 11s but I can`t remember where

they were stationed . ( We didn`t say " based "back then ) . But no one ever said what those very fast "thingies " were that crossed the northern edges

of our airspace after dark , travelling from east to west , by the time our kites had reached their altitude , they were gone , somewhere over the north

Atlantic and off the Radar . I was told by the plotter on the end of my line , at sector ops ( now one of Scotlands " secret bunkers ") that they were

given an X number on the main plotting table because they didn`t know what they were . Hmmm . The answers out there somewhere ! .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Don .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RAF should be pleased to get some action. It's this sort of thing that keep's them in business, Typhoons and their shiney new Posiedon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2020 at 12:38 PM, Agent K said:

Again, he's really not criticising the age of the airplanes as such, that couldn't be more trivial and insignificant to him, he of anybody will know it's capability, not age that counts. Again, he's stating, and I quote:

 

"These Russian bombers are relics of the Cold War, do not comply with international air traffic regulations and are a hazard to civilian and military aircraft,"

 

Which is commenting that these are cold war tactics and well past their sell by date, that the aircraft are cold war era and do not carry and secondary surveillance radar (SSR) transponder equipment hence they don't comply with any air traffic regulations, can't be seen on SSR hence no altitude and flight data is available hence they're a hazard.

I bet they do carry SSR ...clearly not mode 4 or 5 but certainly for civilian air traffic purposes but they probably choose not to switch it on but then thats the game.

 

 

Im bloody sure the crabs when they get a bit tight for money call up their mates in Russia and ask them to pop over ....opens the UK govt coffers ...gen twelve clips safeguard 🤣🤣🍷

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2020 at 11:48 AM, malpaso said:

I don't disagree about the tactics and mentality, but as reported he in part criticises the planes themselves as old, which is hardly fair given some of the RAF inventory - up to 80 years old in some cases! 😉

Humor me, what 80 year old operational aircraft does the RAF Fly?

 

Selwyn

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm old enough to remember when these thing's were actually dangerous,there was a famous photo I think taken from a Phantom of a smiling

crewman in the Bear's window holding a can of bourgeois western Coca Cola.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/05/2020 at 20:39, Don149 said:

given an X number on the main plotting table because they didn`t know what they were . Hmmm . The answers out there somewhere ! .

As an ex cold war scopie, as I recall Eastern Bloc passenger aircraft were coded Zombies and given a tracking number, Eastern Bloc military aircraft were coded X-ray and also given a tracking number.  Nothing sinister, it was just a system to give a priority to track aircraft in our airspace, if things had "got hot" then the highest priority would have been coded Hostile.

 

46 minutes ago, Selwyn said:

Humor me, what 80 year old operational aircraft does the RAF Fly?

When things get really bad and Coningsby scrambles the BBMF fighters. :winkgrin:

 

32 minutes ago, stevej60 said:

I'm old enough to remember when these thing's were actually dangerous,there was a famous photo I think taken from a Phantom of a smiling

crewman in the Bear's window holding a can of bourgeois western Coca Cola.

Correct Steve, a 43 Sqn Phantom, there was also a photo of Russian Bear rear gunner holding up a Playboy centre fold. :hypnotised:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the US is still flying probably older B-52s......  the Bears were in production much longer!

Also the U-2 is an old design and still giving great service

 

And the UK SHOULD probably still fly its Nimrods.... but defense cuts and else prevented this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking of 'dirty tricks'.........

 

I can remember reading in 'Air Clues' (IIRC) about the RAF painting up two Phantoms with the same codes and serials - they were sent up to intercept an Tu-95 Bear over the north western approaches.

 

One Phantom stayed out of sight whilst the other formated on the Bear for a few dozen miles - then broke away - only to return minutes later and take up station again......

 

As one flew in formation, the 'other' was being refueled from a Victor tanker out of sight - so they kept replacing each other.

 

The Tu-95 crew must have thought that this was a new ultra-long range version of the Phantom!!

 

I can't vouch for the authenticity of the story - but I defintely read it...

 

Ken

 

PS - A few quotes from :- https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu-95ms-strategic-bomber/

 

A Tu-95MS prototype made first flight in September 1979

 

In December 2014, Tupolev handed over two upgraded Tu-95MS strategic bombers with improved avionics and flying efficiency to the

Russian Air Force, as part of the state defence order. A further delivery of upgraded Tu-95MS was made in January 2015.

 

For comparison :- The last production aircraft, B-52H AF Serial No. 61-0040, left the factory on 26 October 1962.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, exdraken said:

At least the US is still flying probably older B-52s......  the Bears were in production much longer!

Also the U-2 is an old design and still giving great service

 

And the UK SHOULD probably still fly its Nimrods.... but defense cuts and else prevented this...

I think the U2's currently flying are a much newer build and significantly developed and re-engined and started life as TR1's? certainly not the originals, happy to be corrected on this one however.

 

Thankfully, at last, there is no need to fly the Nimrod's, in the maritime reconnaissance role the RAF now has the P8, and in the ELINT/ISTAR role it has the RC-135.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Agent K said:

I think the U2's currently flying are a much newer build and significantly developed and re-engined and started life as TR1's? certainly not the originals, happy to be corrected on this one howeverr

 

Thankfully, at last, there is no need to fly the Nimrod's, in the maritime reconnaissance role the RAF now has the P8, and in the ELINT/ISTAR role it has the RC-135.

Yeah, of course the specific airframes are younger and heavily upgraded, do would be the new/re built Nimrods though...

And say the RAF has the P8 is also a bit far fetched...  it has one? partly operational, but yes it has some on order :) so in seversl years from niw thus capability will be restored...

I think it uses the A400 currently for some overwater tasks.... 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really about Russian pride showing they can project power of sorts way beyond their border's,lets face it they,ve been testing our response since the

days of the Lightning as an interceptor if they haven't got the message now they never will,as a strategic bomber operator they can't and will never be

able to compete with the US hence the development of other methods of warfare,we as modellers and aircraft enthusiast's know the score but the 

media still love to scare the public into believing there are hoards of these thing's ready to darken our skies at a minutes notice,they are more a danger

to civil air traffic than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, stevej60 said:

It's really about Russian pride showing they can project power of sorts way beyond their border's,lets face it they,ve been testing our response since the

days of the Lightning as an interceptor if they haven't got the message now they never will,as a strategic bomber operator they can't and will never be

able to compete with the US hence the development of other methods of warfare,we as modellers and aircraft enthusiast's know the score but the 

media still love to scare the public into believing there are hoards of these thing's ready to darken our skies at a minutes notice,they are more a danger

to civil air traffic than anything else.

That all for sure, but wouldn't they be the same danger to civis 50 miles further out the ocean?

I assume this is not only about safety , but also about it.

Just imagine one of those planes flying unescorted/announced above lets say, RAF Lossimouth due to a "navigational" error.. so that is why the RAF intercepts them as far out as technically feasable... not only because of civilian traffic safety...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, exdraken said:

Yeah, of course the specific airframes are younger and heavily upgraded, do would be the new/re built Nimrods though...

And say the RAF has the P8 is also a bit far fetched...  it has one? partly operational, but yes it has some on order :) so in seversl years from niw thus capability will be restored...

I think it uses the A400 currently for some overwater tasks.... 

 

 

 

The RAF has two P-8As, and declared Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for them in April. Hence, they are available for operations if required. The Atlas does have a maritime tasking, and will continue to do so until enough P-8s have been delivered. We are due to take delivery of our last Poseidon next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Agent K said:

 

 in the ELINT/ISTAR role it has the RC-135.

IIRC these were refurbished KC-135s that were actually older than our Nimrod R1s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jabba said:

IIRC these were refurbished KC-135s that were actually older than our Nimrod R1s.

Yes they are indeed and aware of that, sorry, for clarity my comment was made at there no longer being a need for Nimrod as the R1's role is carried out by the RC135, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stevej60 said:

It's really about Russian pride showing they can project power of sorts way beyond their border's,lets face it they,ve been testing our response since the

days of the Lightning as an interceptor if they haven't got the message now they never will,as a strategic bomber operator they can't and will never be

able to compete with the US hence the development of other methods of warfare,we as modellers and aircraft enthusiast's know the score but the 

media still love to scare the public into believing there are hoards of these thing's ready to darken our skies at a minutes notice,they are more a danger

to civil air traffic than anything else.

Agreed Steve, it's an aerial chess game, they project their power we intercept to show we can.  I remember one alert when two Bears were coming south, the phantoms at Leuchers were ordered to scramble but one had a problem (we later learned the the air intake blank had been forgotten and the engine had tried to digest it) The remaining Phantom and the Victor tanker arrived at the intercept, seeing only one Phantom the Bears split up, so the Victor was told to shadow the 2nd Bear.  With a shout from the Victor Pilot of "Tally O" this was probably the only time a Russian Bear was intercepted by a Victor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we could always play with their mind's,dig a lightning out of storage paint it in sixties colours and send it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, stevej60 said:

Of course we could always play with their mind's,dig a lightning out of storage paint it in sixties colours and send it up!

if there are any of course! probably in South Africa there are still ~ 3 more or less airworthy ones!  would be interesting to see it next to a Typhoon! :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...