Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: VooWho on July 14, 2007, 04:21:33 PM
-
How Close did the USSR/Russia get with the Tu-95 during the Cold War and after? So close that we had to escort them to be safe.
F-14 escorts Tu-95RT during 1985 NATO exercise Ocean Safari
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/F-14_with_Bear.jpg)
CF-18 intercepts Tu-95
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Tupolev_Tu_95_USAF.jpg)
F-15 escorts a Tu-95MS
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/F-15_%26_Tu-95.jpg)
F-15C escorts a Tu-95MS off the West Coast of Alaska on Sept 29, 2006.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Russian_intercept_a.jpg)
Thought this was neat. Now I wounder about our B-52s?
-
A more interesting question to me would be where did the SR71 get to during that time period. :t
-
I worked on that F-15 with the tail number 74-105. (That is an A model btw)
I also have some high quality pictures of F-15's based at King Salmon and Galena AB's intercepting Soviet bombers during the mid 80's. Soviet bombers flying close to Alaska was a fairly common occurence that required F-15's (and F-4E Phantoms prior to that) to be launched to intercept them.
I think I have related this story before.
One time when one of our alert birds at Galena was down for extended maintenance, we put another bird on alert at Elmendorf until the one at Galena was cleared to fly again. While sitting in the alert shack (which was easy duty, you watched tv, read, slept or whatever) the pilot got a series of phone calls. After the first one he told the crew chief and I to be ready. When we asked....Ready for what? His reply was, just be ready. About 30 minutes or so after the first phone call, the claxon in the alert cell went off. Down the fire poles we went. As I franticly pulled safety gear off the missiles, armed the warheads and armed the gun, the pilot raced up the boarding ladder, reached into the cockpit and started the process to start the #2 engine. By the time he was actually sitting in the seat, the #2 engine was already running and he was starting the #1 engine. As I ran past the starboard main gear I kicked out the front chock. Before I was finished arming the missiles on the port side of the plane, the crew chief was screaming at me to finish and to pull the chocks on the port main gear.
As soon as I finished arming the missiles, I kicked out the front chock on the port gear and the crew chief signaled the pilot to throttle up. I ran out from under the wing and ducked with my back to the plane. The jet blast still darn near blew me off my feet. As soon as the jet blast quit hitting me I turned to watch the F-15 as it taxied to the runway. The pilot lit up his afterburners as he turned onto the runway with his canopy still closing.
We had 5 minutes to get that plane off the ground from a cold start. The crew chief called his superior on the radio as the F-15's gear left the ground and asked for a stop-time. His superior said we got that plane airborne in just over 3 minutes. That was the only time I got to participate in a live scramble. Incidentally, this wasn't just a practice run, that F-15 we launched intercepted a Bear bomber off the coast of Alaska along with his wingman that launched from Galena.
All in all it was a pretty neat experience. The only downside to it was I had to go back to work on the flight line after the launch :D
-
Great story Elfie and btw the bottom F-15 in the real clear picture is the F-15C if you got the pics mixed up (but you might be right). Not the one with tail # 74-105.
-
Originally posted by VooWho
Great story Elfie and btw the bottom F-15 in the real clear picture is the F-15C if you got the pics mixed up (but you might be right). Not the one with tail # 74-105.
Third picture is the one with the tail number 74-105, that one is an A model.
You are correct that the bottom picture is an F-15C. Call me an old fart if you want (:D), but I can't actually read the tail number on that C model. I'm not sure when Elmendorf transitioned from F-15A/B's to the C/D models. When I left Elemendorf in May of 87 they still had the A/B's. In fact, they still had a squadron of T-33 trainers as well that was supposed to get replaced with F-16's.
That bottom picture is a very good example of the quality of pictures that I have of F-15A's flying escort off the coast of Alaska.
-
They pay us visits too: -
(http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/v-da_tu-95_and_raf_phantom_in_1972.jpg)
(http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/bh05.jpg)
This one was this year: -
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_03/foxtrotPA0905_468x312.jpg)
-
They pay us visits too: -
And we do the same to them.....but I never said that. :noid
-
We had close encounters with them all the time during the cold war. On average they scrambled once a day and the record for a year in the 70s was 525. They knew the russians were carrying nukes on their planes too. Now they are down to afew scrables _a week_. Either its bears or fighters. I belive there has been afew crashes too.
Here is a pic i found just now that i had not seen before :)
A norwegian starfighter close to a Backfire.
(http://www.tettpaa.no/sites/t/tettpaa.no/files/739049740.jpg)
-
Now they are down to afew scrables _a week_.
You guys play scrabble with the Russians? :O
:D
-
lol :D
The funny thing is that so many people think the russians are broke and their planes are rusting. Those guys that monitor the airspace does not share that view at all. There is infact alot of military activity and they continue to test our readyness by flying real close and over the border until they get visitors to show them out.
-
From Keflavik airbase in Iceland they were "intercepted" all the time. First by the Phantoms, then by the replacement F15E AFAIK.
Guess the USSR learned a lot about scramble time....
-
The funny thing is that so many people think the russians are broke and their planes are rusting. Those guys that monitor the airspace does not share that view at all. There is infact alot of military activity and they continue to test our readyness by flying real close and over the border until they get visitors to show them out.
What I don't quite understand is.....why is this still necessary since the Cold War is over?
-
Guess the USSR learned a lot about scramble time....
You would think they learned all they were going to learn about scramble times after the first few scrambles. Maybe the communists were all that bright? :D
-
Originally posted by Elfie
What I don't quite understand is.....why is this still necessary since the Cold War is over?
Prolly because they do what we and they have "always" done. Im glad they still do it. If they had stopped then i bet some politicians had gotten the brilliant idea to downsize even more.
-
Interesting......I just noticed that the F-15C is only carrying AIM-120's on the pylon rails and no missiles on the fuselage.
Notice in the 3rd picture the missile radome near the front of the fuselage (it's white) and the tail of another missile at the rear of the fuselage. That is in addition to Sidewinders on the pylon rails.
The F-15C also doesn't appear to be carrying a belly tank either. I guarantee that that F-15A is carrying one. If you look at the rear of that fuel tank hanging on the pylon, you can see part of the belly tank.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Prolly because they do what we and they have "always" done. Im glad they still do it. If they had stopped then i bet some politicians had gotten the brilliant idea to downsize even more.
The last part of your statement is so sad and yet so true at the same time.
Why can't we just go slap politicians every time they do something stupid? Not that it would help, but it sure would be satisfying would it not? :D
-
I got those pics from Wiki when I was just reading about the Tu-95. The reason why I read they still fly real close to other countries boarders is
1) To show that Russia is still a power
2) Russia likes to watch war games played with task groups by other nations
3) To monitor the activites going on.
Yes they have Satilliates (can never spell this word) but with all there bombers flying around they can get 24/7 of live information on other nations. I think its pretty neat though.
-
Yes they have Satilliates (can never spell this word)
Satellite. Hope that helps. :D
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Satellite. Hope that helps. :D
yes it does, thanks :aok
Satellite, Satellite, Satellite, Satellite, Satellite, Satellite, Satellite, Satellite.
-
Elfie,
Great story, thanks for posting!
-
we chased the kiev all over the caribbean in the summer of 1977 right after she was launched and during what I think may have been her first deployment. at one point the battle group steamed up the florida straights and passed within eighty miles of key west.
-
I'll tell one more story before the wife drags me by the ear to the living room to watch a movie. :D
In early April of '87 I had just gotten off work, stopped at the post office to check my mail and then headed back to my barracks. As I came in the door a young airman was standing there and informed me that I, along with everyone else was to report back for duty. I didn't believe him at first because this was a Thursday and exercises NEVER kicked off after 4pm on Thursdays. They ALWAYS kicked off at 0-Dark-Thirty early Monday mornings. He finally halfway convinced me that he wasn't just pulling my leg. So I headed back to work.
When I got there, F-15's were being 3 bagged with full loads of missiles and HEI ammo into the gun systems. Nothing unusual there......until.....the 5th bird. Understand that during an exercise we would load the first 4 birds with 4 Sparrows, 4 Sidewinders and 940 rounds of HEI and then send 2 to Galena and 2 to King Salmon. Then the planes at those two air bases would be sent back to Elemendorf for systems reliability checks.
The 5th bird also got 4 Sparrows, 4 Sidewinders and 940 rounds of HEI, so did the 6th, 7th, 8th and so on. Another thing that wasn't normal was the planes in the hangers for the really hard core phased inspections (1200, 1800 and 2400 hour phased inspections. ) were being put back together and eventually pulled out on the flight line where they also got 4 Sparrows, 4 Sidewinders and 940 rounds of HEI.
Obviously this was not a normal exercise.
Missiles in crates were being pulled from storage and palletized, then sent to the cargo terminal and loaded onto C-130's. 20mm cannon ammunition was also being palletized and sent to the cargo terminal to be loaded onto C-130's. While pulling the munitions from storage and palletizing and sending them to the cargo terminal was normal. Loading them onto the C-130's was NOT.
Maintenance personnel were processing to deploy to King Salmon and Galena and were informed that the C-130's they would be riding in would also be carrying munitions. That is a big no-no during normal peacetime operations. The Deputy Commander for Maintenance signed the waiver that allowed this to happen.
We had already launched 8 F-15's to King Salmon and another 8 to Galena (normal exercise would be a total of 4 to each site) and maintenance personnel were in a C-130 that was in the middle of it's takeoff run when the order to stand down came in.
Due to the huge numbers of rumors that were flying around about what caused this *exercise* we were informed the next day about the incident that sparked our mobilization and the mission that was to be carried out.
Apparently a US electronics surveilance ship got caught in the ice inside the 12 mile zone off the east coast of the USSR. A-10's from Eilson AFB at Fairbanks were going to sink the spy ship and F-15's were going to fly MiG CAP for the mission with support for refueling coming from KC-135 tankers. Fortunately for the crew of that spy ship they were able to break free of the ice and get out of the 12 mile zone before our planes could get there.
Good thing that has been de-classified or I would have to kill all of you just to keep it secret. :noid
:D
-
The Cold War was a no win situation...it was basically kill each other so nobody lives
Nuclear strike Scene from the Cold War movie The Day After (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV6sodlzfcc&NR=1=)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
A more interesting question to me would be where did the SR71 get to during that time period. :t
Where ever they wanted too.:D
Cool story Elfie:aok
-
T'weren't no thing. Both sides did it. They used Bears for recon, we used RC-135's for the same type stuff.
The US recognized a 12 mile limit on coastal airspace. Get close to that, as both sides did, and you got intercepted.
All part of the game.
-
Notice how in all the old photos, the tailguns were all pointed dead-6 and at max up elevation, and in the newer ones the guns are not stowed...
They were a lot more polite back during the cold war. They don't seem to stow the tailgun anymore, which is a much more aggressive posture. I've seen multiple recent photos and none of them have the tailgun stowed.
And now the Russians have pulled out of the conventional forces treaty that limited force concentrations on their borders, citing some unnamed threat to national security. Maybe they think someone is about to invade? What's the name of that drug that makes you paranoid? Maybe it's in the water over there.
-
Originally posted by eagl
What's the name of that drug that makes you paranoid? Maybe it's in the water over there.
The drug is called "Dictatorship" marketed by that old corporation Lenin, Stalin & Putin.
;)
-
I read a book about a Navy pilot (Gilcrist) who intercepted a TU-95 in an A-7, after the jet-starter cart broke down and he couldn't start the engines on his F-4 Phantom. A pretty amazing feat considering the A-7 is about the same speed as a TU-95.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I read a book about a Navy pilot (Gilcrist) who intercepted a TU-95 in an A-7, after the jet-starter cart broke down and he couldn't start the engines on his F-4 Phantom. A pretty amazing feat considering the A-7 is about the same speed as a TU-95.
There are 2 different ways to start the J-79 engines in a Phantom. You can either use an impulse cartridge which when fired produces lots of high pressure gas. Or, you can use an external power unit that supplies air under pressure.
Also since most military pilots aren't qualified to fly more than one aircraft type, I find it difficult to believe that a Phantom pilot would hop into an A-7 instead of using the alternate engine start method.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
The Cold War was a no win situation...it was basically kill each other so nobody lives
Nuclear strike Scene from the Cold War movie The Day After (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV6sodlzfcc&NR=1=)
That statement isn't entirely accurate since by all accounts (except those from the old USSR and Mr. Boroda) the US won the Cold War. :)
-
careful Elfie don't wanna attract Boroda here:D
Russians realized fall out from all the nukes would kill them even if they killed the Americans and other enemies first
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
careful Elfie don't wanna attract Boroda here:D
Russians realized fall out from all the nukes would kill them even if they killed the Americans and other enemies first
I think I see what you are trying to say, that IF the Cold War had gone hot, it would have been a no win situation. That's true if it had gone nuclear. If it had stayed conventional then who knows which side would have won? :)
-
Nuke war = both sides lose.
In a conventional war it would depend on the objectives.
In a classic scenario the russians would overrun europe and the war would last for as many days as it would take for the russians and americans to agree that russia keeps europe.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Nuke war = both sides lose.
In a conventional war it would depend on the objectives.
In a classic scenario the russians would overrun europe and the war would last for as many days as it would take for the russians and americans to agree that russia keeps europe.
Nuclear war = the whole world loses, not just the USA and USSR.
Conventional war would not only depend on what the objectives were, but also on how fast the US and Great Britain could get reinforcements to the battle field.
Three of the four Phantom squadrons at Seymour Johnson AFB were dedicated to reinforcing Europe. They had a commitment to be able to pack up spare parts, tools, technical manuals etc, configure the planes for a cross-atlantic flight, then unpack and reconfigure the planes for combat missions and actually flying combat missions within 72 hours. We practiced this stuff over and over and over until it just about made you want to puke even hearing about it.
The US military had lots of equipment prepositioned in Europe as well (I think they still do) to make the process even faster.
I'm just glad we never had to find out which side would have won a conventional war. Regardless of who would have won, casualties on both sides would have been terrible.
-
here we dont "wing with enemy the go poof"
:rofl
-
It would also depend on how much the russians could prepare before NATO would figure out they were getting ready.
Yes, there has been and there still is ALOT of US equipment prepositioned in Norway and europe. Most of the artillery and trucks were taken from those stockpiles when GW2 was started but it is supposed to be returned. In theory US forces could just fly in troops and their equipment would be ready for them.
All the equipment is in prime condition and is stored in perfect conditions in huge mountain storage facilities and norwegian mechanics and service men are maintaining it.
-edit-
Prolly very dated but here you can read about it http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/nalmeb.htm
-
It would also depend on how much the russians could prepare before NATO would figure out they were getting ready.
Very true. If the USSR had wanted to be sneaky about it, they would have had normal, scheduled maneuvers as part of the deception plan to give themselves more time to build up troops and equipment before NATO caught on.
Interesting link too, thanks :)
-
Originally posted by evenhaim
here we dont "wing with enemy the go poof"
:rofl
It's not actually *winging*, but I think you knew that. ;)
I can also understand why Israel would be less likely to escort an enemy along it's borders.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Very true. If the USSR had wanted to be sneaky about it, they would have had normal, scheduled maneuvers as part of the deception plan to give themselves more time to build up troops and equipment before NATO caught on.
Interesting link too, thanks :)
We have all read Red Storm Rising :D
Its my favorite book. Ive later found out after hearing him on tv that mr Clancy himslef is a tool but he has written some excellent stuff.
-
We have all read Red Storm Rising
I've read that, in fact it was what I was thinking of when I posted that, just couldn't recall the name of the book. Good book too. :)
-
Have you read The Bear And The Dragon? Not as much war action as Red Storm, but its still good.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Have you read The Bear And The Dragon? Not as much war action as Red Storm, but its still good.
How I hated that book. Ive always read and enjoyed Clancy. Up until that one. Suddenly all the americans were supermen, and all the enemies (chinese this time) were mountains of crap.
Maybe Clancy has always written the americans to be supermen, I dont know, but it became too damn obvious in the bear and the dragon. Super-spies infiltrating the highest levels of chinese government, super-scientists creating a working SDI-defence out of an old aegis-cruiser, super predators, super raptors, super super super.
It made me want to vomit. ME...mr USA-friendly...the only European Neocon!
-
Yup i agree. Ive heard enough dumb comments by clancy to last me a lifetime. I still enjoy his books.
-
I agree with Hortlund. The last Clancy book I read and enjoyed was Clear and Present Danger.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Have you read The Bear And The Dragon? Not as much war action as Red Storm, but its still good.
I havent read this one, might have to check it out. :)
-
Elfie, could you put an apperance in the 'I hate russia' thread. Viking thinks the Soviets never intruded into American and NATO airspace.
-
Icelandic waters are NATO airspace and they were here allright, hundreds of times over decades....
-
Another good author that i enjoyed was Dan Brown. He had some really good books. Most involved the EB-52 which I thought was fictional but i guess there was some real ones out there. Just cant find a pic of it.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
There are 2 different ways to start the J-79 engines in a Phantom. You can either use an impulse cartridge which when fired produces lots of high pressure gas. Or, you can use an external power unit that supplies air under pressure.
Also since most military pilots aren't qualified to fly more than one aircraft type, I find it difficult to believe that a Phantom pilot would hop into an A-7 instead of using the alternate engine start method.
You haven't heard of Admiral Gilchrist? He was a Navy test pilot who flew everything from F6Fs to F-14s. I read his biography. The big thing back in the 60s or 70s to prove squadron readiness was intercepting every single Bear that the Soviets would fly over. Gilchrist's squadron had just arrived in the Med, and they didn't have all their equipment. They had been using an improvised jet starter cart to start their F-4s. It just so happened that while waiting on alert, the improvised cart broke down. An A-7 pilot was taxiing to takeoff, Gilcrist commandered it, and went on to intercept the Tu-95.
Gilchrist mentioned something about the starter cartridges. I think he said that while they could be used in emergencies, they also posed a high risk for fires. I think one of his F-4s burned up on the ground because of a starter cartridge.
I recommend this book, Feet Wet (http://www.amazon.com/Feet-Wet-Reflections-Schiffer-Military/dp/0764302841) , its a fascinating read. Gilchrist was an F-8 Crusader pilot in Vietnam, and this book gives alot of insight into this often overlooked plane.
-
You haven't heard of Admiral Gilchrist? He was a Navy test pilot who flew everything from F6Fs to F-14s. I read his biography
Also since most military pilots aren't qualified to fly more than one aircraft type
Read that part again. *most* would be the part that doesn't make that statement all inclusive. Obviously, test pilots are an exception. ;)
The big thing back in the 60s or 70s to prove squadron readiness was intercepting every single Bear that the Soviets would fly over.
It's not so much about proving squadron readiness as it is ensuring the Soviets didn't invade our airspace. Or in the case of an aircraft carrier, ensuring the safety of the carrier and it's battle group. There are major inspections done on all active duty squadrons to evaluate squadron readiness.
Gilchrist mentioned something about the starter cartridges. I think he said that while they could be used in emergencies, they also posed a high risk for fires. I think one of his F-4s burned up on the ground because of a starter cartridge.
I've seen lots of Phantom engines started with starter cartridges. Only one of those Phantoms caught fire and it was due to a cracked cartridge retainer. When the starter cartridge fired it blew the retainer to pieces rupturing a fuel line in the process. The fuel ignited and since the pilots didn't shut down either the battery or the fuel pumps before jumping from the cockpits and running like scared little girls, that plane burned much worse than it would have otherwise.
The F-4D Phantoms that sat on alert at SJ AFB not only had air hoses hooked up to the engines to start them in case of a scramble order, but they also had the starter cartridges installed just in case the external power unit failed in some way.
I'm not saying you didn't read what you posted, but I am going to call horse hockey on the guy that originally said it.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Elfie, could you put an apperance in the 'I hate russia' thread. Viking thinks the Soviets never intruded into American and NATO airspace.
That could be true. All the intercepts that I know of, happened outside of the 12 mile exclusion zone. The Soviet planes were always seen coming on radar and fighters were launched to intercept them outside of American airspace.
Whether or not Soviet planes violated European countries airspace, I don't know if that did or didn't happen. Although it is much more likely that it did happen there since the Soviets wouldn't have had to fly long distances over oceans and there is no 12 mile zone between borders on the European continent.
-
Tu-95s flew out of Cuba, which is only 90 miles from Miami, and just a few from the Florida Keys.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
The Cold War was a no win situation...it was basically kill each other so nobody lives
Nuclear strike Scene from the Cold War movie The Day After (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV6sodlzfcc&NR=1=)
Greate movie. It was shown on soviet TV shortly after it's premiere in USA. AFAIR in march or april 1984. The second time it was shown in few days after Challenger disaster. I remember it because I'v seen Challenger blast in live on TV.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Tu-95s flew out of Cuba, which is only 90 miles from Miami, and just a few from the Florida Keys.
90 miles is the closest point. Still enough time to see the bombers on radar and launch fighters to intercept from Homestead AFB.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Elfie, could you put an apperance in the 'I hate russia' thread. Viking thinks the Soviets never intruded into American and NATO airspace.
I simply wanted to know the number of US airspace violations by Soviet planes. I have a feeling the number is disproportionate to the number of violations of Soviet air space.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I simply wanted to know the number of US airspace violations by Soviet planes. I have a feeling the number is disproportionate to the number of violations of Soviet air space.
I have no doubt that the number of Soviet violations of US airspace is far less than the violations of Soviet airspace simply due to overflights of the USSR by the U2 and later SR-71 spy planes. The USSR mainly used the Tu-95 bomber which is easily intercepted by supersonic fighters.
-
What was the point of the airborne command centers?
(http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/938_e-4b_2050081722-15526.jpg)
or better known by its nickname "The Doomsday plane"
-
Not being easy targets for Soviet missiles?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I have no doubt that the number of Soviet violations of US airspace is far less than the violations of Soviet airspace simply due to overflights of the USSR by the U2 and later SR-71 spy planes. The USSR mainly used the Tu-95 bomber which is easily intercepted by supersonic fighters.
what about the use of the psychic friends network, hmmmm?
-
Originally posted by eagl
And now the Russians have pulled out of the conventional forces treaty that limited force concentrations on their borders, citing some unnamed threat to national security. Maybe they think someone is about to invade? What's the name of that drug that makes you paranoid? Maybe it's in the water over there.
Unnamed threat?!
We are unable to inspect the new NATO members according to that treaty, NATO bases are within 10min flight time to Leningrad, Western side countries didn't ratify the treaty, so now we give a 150 day period to get it fixed. We followed it to the last digit, NATO didn't. Now Russia is outnumbered 5:1 in conventional forces in European theater.
Look, free-fall nuclear bombs, that can be dropped from F-16s, stored in Europe are officially against "terrorists". Pure nonsense. And we can't even count them - NATO bases in Pribaltika are outside the treaty!
We are tired of following our obligations when our vis-a-vis are spitting on all agreements and laugh in our face.
-
While on the topic
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2093759.ece
http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=153005
-
Nilsen, you beat me to it.
"From Times OnlineJuly 18, 2007
RAF scrambles to intercept Russian bombers"
First to intercept and escort were Norwegian F16's. Seems that Boroda has powerful friends indeed. Well, happy times Russia, now the western arms manufacturers and their spokesmen, notably those who deal with anti-missile or anti-aircraft or air-to-air are going to have a field day, while Russia can forget about some business and the much needed economic aid.
So much for that.
-
mother russia trying to flex her rusting withered muscles?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
mother russia trying to flex her rusting withered muscles?
Kind of reminds me of that scene in Monte Python's Search for the Holy Grail. The bring out yer dead scene and the not dead yet old man.
-
We are unable to inspect the new NATO members according to that treaty, NATO bases are within 10min flight time to Leningrad, Western side countries didn't ratify the treaty, so now we give a 150 day period to get it fixed. We followed it to the last digit, NATO didn't. Now Russia is outnumbered 5:1 in conventional forces in European theater.
Lets see.....you expect NATO to abide by a treaty they didn't ratify? If they didn't ratify it, they are NOT bound to abide by it. Pretty simple eh?
Russia outnumbered 5:1 in conventional forces? Who cares? NATO has no intention of invading Russia.
Look, free-fall nuclear bombs, that can be dropped from F-16s, stored in Europe are officially against "terrorists".
Yawn! Those nukes have been stored in Europe for decades. They could have been dropped from F-4 Phantoms decades ago, but they weren't and they won't be dropped from F-16's either.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
mother russia trying to flex her rusting withered muscles?
Yes, but its not as rusty as you may think.
-
A wound from rusted metal can be pretty ugly!
-
Yup, and a mothballed russian conventional military would be a gigantic threat to world piece. Alot bigger threat than any terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Lets see.....you expect NATO to abide by a treaty they didn't ratify? If they didn't ratify it, they are NOT bound to abide by it. Pretty simple eh?
Russia outnumbered 5:1 in conventional forces? Who cares? NATO has no intention of invading Russia.
Then what for do you build up forces in Eastern Europe? Why do you need NATO bases in Baltic states? Just for fishing?
West didn't ratify the treaty for 15 years, so we raise a question of withdrawing now, you know - every agreement means mutual actions.
Remember how the crowd here advocated American withdrawal from 1972 ABM treaty? Looks like Western nations don't care about international agreements, they are too smart.
Originally posted by Elfie
Yawn! Those nukes have been stored in Europe for decades. They could have been dropped from F-4 Phantoms decades ago, but they weren't and they won't be dropped from F-16's either.
USSR/Russia withdrew from Eastern Europe, now we see aggressors taking their place, with full load of weapons including nukes.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Then what for do you build up forces in Eastern Europe? Why do you need NATO bases in Baltic states? Just for fishing?.
Its the Baltic states who wants NATO there...as protection against you guys.
-
I'm reminded of McNamara's warning about failure to empathize.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Its the Baltic states who wants NATO there...as protection against you guys.
Protection from us?!
What do they have there so we'll bother invading them? Toxic smoked fish? Then why did we let them go 15 years ago? Left them to the unemployment and poverty, stopped draining money into supporting their culture and national identity. Do we need to conquer them again? What for? To keep paying them welfare? No, thanks.
-
Boroda. Have you seriously been told that NATO could or would at any point attack the USSR/russia ??
If that is true then sadly your propaganda ministers have done a great job and mislead you.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Protection from us?!
What do they have there so we'll bother invading them? .
Well, I dunno Boroda...why did you invade them the first two times?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, I dunno Boroda...why did you invade them the first two times?
First two times?! When!?
-
Knew a guy who was a border patroller in east Germany in the cold war.
He said there was no particular defence plan. So if NATO had decided to walk in that would have been easy. But they sure wouldn't have had an easy time to get back :D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Boroda. Have you seriously been told that NATO could or would at any point attack the USSR/russia ??
If that is true then sadly your propaganda ministers have done a great job and mislead you.
Nilsen, we just add two and two.
NATO was built as an anti-Soviet block. It's an aggressive alliance, it showed it in 1999 when NATO gangsters bombed poor Yugoslavia to support Moslim terrorists. That was the point when everything became clear.
If you think that it is there to protect someone except American interests in Europe using you guys as disposable cannon fodder - then it's up to you.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
First two times?! When!?
1940 and 1944
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Nilsen, we just add two and two.
NATO was built as an anti-Soviet block. It's an aggressive alliance, it showed it in 1999 when NATO gangsters bombed poor Yugoslavia to support Moslim terrorists. That was the point when everything became clear.
If you think that it is there to protect someone except American interests in Europe using you guys as disposable cannon fodder - then it's up to you.
Thats insane. The U.S. helped stop a genocide. I can show you the pictures of the mass graves if you want. If NATO really was anti-Soviet, well then that was the right thing to do. The Soviet Regime under Stalin was insane and genocidal, it was the duty of NATO to protect what was left of Europe from being starved and worked to death in Siberia.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Then what for do you build up forces in Eastern Europe? Why do you need NATO bases in Baltic states? Just for fishing?
West didn't ratify the treaty for 15 years, so we raise a question of withdrawing now, you know - every agreement means mutual actions.
Remember how the crowd here advocated American withdrawal from 1972 ABM treaty? Looks like Western nations don't care about international agreements, they are too smart.
USSR/Russia withdrew from Eastern Europe, now we see aggressors taking their place, with full load of weapons including nukes.
NATO bases wouldn't be in the Baltic states unless the Baltic states requested it, anything else would be an invasion.
Soooo......it takes Russians 15 years to figure out NATO is NOT going to ratify a treaty? It's NOT an agreement between two sides if one side doesn't ratify the treaty. DUH! No different than if the US Senate doesn't ratify a treaty. The treaty can be negotiated with the US and whoever, but if BOTH houses of Congress don't ratify it, it is null and void.
How is NATO being the aggressors by having bases in Eastern Europe? Aren't those Eastern European nations wanting to join NATO? The definition of aggressor is: attacker, someone who attacks. Who as attacked ANYONE in Europe?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
1940 and 1944
I just don't know what to say. :rolleyes:
1944 invasion my ass. Well, I still remember you saying that USSR had better surrender to nazis in 1941 to avoid "unnecessary losses"...
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Thats insane. The U.S. helped stop a genocide. I can show you the pictures of the mass graves if you want. If NATO really was anti-Soviet, well then that was the right thing to do. The Soviet Regime under Stalin was insane and genocidal, it was the duty of NATO to protect what was left of Europe from being starved and worked to death in Siberia.
Stopping genocide? Don't make me laugh. Before 1999 total number of victims in conflict was less then 400 people. about 200 vs 200.
US Congress declared KLA a terrorist organization in Autumn 1998, and Serbian police forces were fighting them.
Soviet regime insane?! Should I post a list of US invasions into other countries in XX century?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I just don't know what to say. :rolleyes:
1944 invasion my ass. Well, I still remember you saying that USSR had better surrender to nazis in 1941 to avoid "unnecessary losses"...
And 1940?
And if you were so concerned with liberating the Baltic states from the Germans, then why did you occupy them yourself after the war? Dont try to come here with some song-and-dance.
And I've never ever said anything like that.
-
Boroda, on the topic of Yugoslavia. I think you are wrong there, I know somebody who served there (with the United Nations) and there is all kinds of evidence of atrocities. You can talk about whatever you want on these boards and I will give you alot of slack.
You are 100% incorrect with regards to the peacekeeping that took place there. Check your facts, read something besides the party newspaper before making foolish comments.
Also, I did read a book (I PM'd you that link) and in there clearly stated would be two invasions of the baltic states. The whole world, except you know all about it. So I guess we are all wrong there also.
It's from your posts that I realize there will never be peace between Russia and the West. And to be fair there are many in the West who slander the piss out of Russia so its a two sided *****-show that the rest of the world have to live with.
The rest of the world needs to give both sides a bare bellybutton spanking and send you to your rooms.
-
Here is a photo taken thursdag night
(http://cache.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00582/BRITAIN-RUSSIA_BOMB_582067s.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Here is a photo taken thursdag night...
Thursdag? LOL! You talking Norwenglish today Nilsen? :D
-
oops typo :D
-
Didn't Viking serve in Yugoslavia?
-
Aye. What's up?
-
I just saw on the news that its the third night in a row now that norwegian f16s have scrambled to "escort" russian bears. They are going down our coast juuuust outside our border and down to britain. Me thinks the recent russian/british diplomatic crisis is the reason.
-
Interesting piece of info that I remembered the other day but forgot to post.
That F-15A with the tail number 74-105 no longer exists. If my memory is correct, airframe 74-105 was destroyed in Alaska when the pilot managed to put it into a flat spin with only 6000 feet between him and the ground. He successfully ejected with 3000 AGL and parachuted down within 100 yards of the pancaked F-15.
This incident did occur and I'm 99% sure it was 74-105.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I just saw on the news that its the third night in a row now that norwegian f16s have scrambled to "escort" russian bears. They are going down our coast juuuust outside our border and down to britain. Me thinks the recent russian/british diplomatic crisis is the reason.
LOL. British Foreign Minister advising Russian Federation to change it's Constitution to extradite it's citizen to the UK's "justice" that gave asylum to known Chechen terrorists is beyond the margin between good and evil :D
I see this Bears saying "PREVED!!!" to Brits :D There are also some Tu-160s involved, that's a real "preved", someone has to wash his pants :D
Our new defense minister is an interesting guy. Former taxman. Suddenly it turned out that we have enough money for fuel and other stuff to train and say "preved" to our Western friends ;)
-
what does "preved" mean?
-
You probably have to run it through a russian english vodka dictionary. :p
-
LOL! :D
-
Whats the real symbology of Russia sending ancient bombers down international waters? We've seen how even the U.S. is still in a defensive mode against that type of attack (during 9/11 all of our jets were taking up positions out at sea to intercept bombers and cruise missles). These aircraft would have very little chance of causing any damage.
So really, if Russia wanted to make an actual gesture, they would need a semi-modern aircraft to perform these maneuvers with. Even their decrepit Tu-160s would be better for a political statement.
-
God does Russia copy every plane we make. The Tu-160 looks like the B-1.:mad:
Get your own airplane ideas!:furious
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Whats the real symbology of Russia sending ancient bombers down international waters? We've seen how even the U.S. is still in a defensive mode against that type of attack (during 9/11 all of our jets were taking up positions out at sea to intercept bombers and cruise missles). These aircraft would have very little chance of causing any damage.
So really, if Russia wanted to make an actual gesture, they would need a semi-modern aircraft to perform these maneuvers with. Even their decrepit Tu-160s would be better for a political statement.
Well the planes themselves are only platforms. Its their long range cruise missiles that has a sting.
-
They never got close enough to steal our bodily fluids!
-
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/TyphoonLaunchesOperationallyForTheFirstTime.htm
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1280809,00.html
Eurofighter Typhoon has had its first scramble :)
(http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/111D4643-D458-469D-BA33-2C21DF918BF2/0/Typhoon1.jpg)
-
WTF EF :)
Both good looking aircraft, but actually i think the Bear is just a notch better looking :)
Maybe in a few years time the EF will win the competition for our next fighter over the JSF and Gripen, and that sight will be rather common.
-
Can someone give me the price comparison between Ef and Gripen?
Croatia is about to choose between used f-16s and gripens, but i wonder ehy is the ef not an option, is it way more expensive than the gripen?
I know that there are other things than raw price, but i am still interested?
-
Originally posted by croduh
Can someone give me the price comparison between Ef and Gripen?
Croatia is about to choose between used f-16s and gripens, but i wonder ehy is the ef not an option, is it way more expensive than the gripen?
I know that there are other things than raw price, but i am still interested?
EF is alot more expencive than the CURRENT Gripen and F16, and also abit more expencive than the future Gripen N that we have been offered.
-edit- oh and there are no fixed prices for any jets/military hardware on this level. They are all part of package and various buyback deals that are individual to each customer. You need to know _all_ the numbers to find a unit price and that is not supposed to be easy
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Whats the real symbology of Russia sending ancient bombers down international waters? We've seen how even the U.S. is still in a defensive mode against that type of attack (during 9/11 all of our jets were taking up positions out at sea to intercept bombers and cruise missles). These aircraft would have very little chance of causing any damage.
So really, if Russia wanted to make an actual gesture, they would need a semi-modern aircraft to perform these maneuvers with. Even their decrepit Tu-160s would be better for a political statement.
Its the long range cruise missiles that when launched drop to NOE get to target pop up detonate and anybody NOT searing UV 50000 sunblock had a really bad day!
Plus old russian philosophy is to send HUGe numbers and "some" will get to launch range.
IMNSHO western propaganda for years had toted russia's inability to match us tech wise. However with the advent of the internet and the freerer sharing of info out of russia, any fight between Us and them would be damned ugly. Its been said that in any engagement of conventional forces that tactical nukes would be used. Both sides consider this still a viable option as the yeild is less than a strategic thermonuclear party favor.
Unless ofcourse your the grunt on the ground or the poor SOB a few miles downwind
-
Originally posted by Furball
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/TyphoonLaunchesOperationallyForTheFirstTime.htm
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1280809,00.html
Eurofighter Typhoon has had its first scramble :)
(http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/111D4643-D458-469D-BA33-2C21DF918BF2/0/Typhoon1.jpg)
Hey is the Eurofighter escorting an old warbird to an airshow or something? :D
-
A German instructor here at Sheppard AFB told me that a full-up eurofighter costs more than an F-22. It's like $150 mil each, or something silly like that. Crazy. A new-build F-15E with an AESA radar and the big engines will do everything a eurofighter can do at half the cost, except of course the close-in dogfight. Not sure turning up it's own butt is worth $70 mil a copy though. For that price, you could get both an F-15E and an F-16 to fly close-in BFM escort :)
-
That can not be correct Eagl. They cost an arm and a leg, but the offer been given to Norway is for 48 fighters of the next "version" with all the support, parts and whatever is the same as the JSF. As far as i know, the JSF is alot cheaper than the F22. The Gripen is by far the cheapest, and the N version beeing offered to us (next version with better radar, engines, range and whatnot will get us more than 48 fighters for the same cost.
-
Originally posted by WilldCrd
Its been said that in any engagement of conventional forces that tactical nukes would be used. Both sides consider this still a viable option as the yeild is less than a strategic thermonuclear party favor.
Unfortunately, Russian military doctrine doesn't mean using conventional forces in case of massive aggression. Since 1992 it's a full-scale thermonuclear strike against the aggressor. We simply can't maintain our conventional forces at the necessary level, mostly because of the treaties we signed and the West doesn't follow. :(
It's sad. So it goes. It's what the West wanted.