Russian Bombers Resume Ocean Patrols
- Thread starter N9JCQ
- Start date
- Status
karldotcom
Member
Uh, those are bombers. They were designed to drop nuclear warheads on the United States, and later reconfigured to lauch nuclear tipped cruise missiles.
Seems like sort of a passive aggressive move.. Is there any real practical reason to "patrol" the oceans with bombers in 2007?
This is just Russia trying to reclaim themselves as a military power. They're a very proud nation and need to feel like they can hold their won militarily.. They might even be trying to incite a skirmish just to flex their muscle..
Jeez,.. can we fight terrorism, The Taliban, North Korea, AND Russia at the same time if the need should arise? (honorable mention Iran and China)..
This is just Russia trying to reclaim themselves as a military power. They're a very proud nation and need to feel like they can hold their won militarily.. They might even be trying to incite a skirmish just to flex their muscle..
Jeez,.. can we fight terrorism, The Taliban, North Korea, AND Russia at the same time if the need should arise? (honorable mention Iran and China)..
DPD1
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,994
ryangassxx said:
No... Which is exactly why they're doing it. They're never going to change. This is the way they've always been and always will be. But at least they have the b%#ls to wear a uniform.
Putin brought back the Soviet national anthem a while back... So here we go again.
Dave
www.DPDProductions.com
Antennas & Accessories for the RF Professional & Radio Hobbyist
n4voxgill
Silent Key
this is the results of the democrats in congress showing a lack of support to the president and the military. Time for any russia to exert themselves while there is nothing but confusion in washington.
ryangassxx said:
Probably not...but the USA regularly carries out it's Global Reach missions sending bombers around the world to prove their ability to deploy at long range.
Or just re-asserting their right to do what many other countries do? They are a proud people but their leaders aren't stupid. It would serve them no purpose to "incite a skirmish" on a the global stage.ryangassxx said:
ryangassxx said:
Dubya and his UK lapdog (though the current one isn't as bad as the last in that respect) might be good at talking (though Dubya barely uses a recognisable vocabulary) but their actions seem to lag a very long way behind their stated goals and there is a large body of people who regard the "ant-terrorism" actions to be a way of distracting the populace from the serious economic and social problems in their own countries.
Don_Burke
Member
One of the things we learned from Curtis Lemay is that a long range bombing force that is never exercised can be counted on to be unable to perform when needed.
TinEar
Member
There are plenty of reasons to fly long range bomber flights over neutral territory but close to national boundaries. Those reasons are difficult to fathom if you've never been part of "the game" and just read snippets of news articles. Here are a few things to ponder.
The purpose of long range bomber flights isn't to incite anyone to war but to learn something about the preparations and capabilities of potential enemies. When you fly those flights, you create a lot of activity that can be invaluable to your military planners.
Once you leave your own national borders many things begin to happen. Radars light up, command and control units come awake, communications networks suddenly get busy, and finally, defensive fighter units take to the skies. All that activity can be detected and later analyzed. While those bombers are in the sky, there are thousands of people on the ground from many countries that spring into action. Meanwhile, thousands of your own people are listening, watching, recording and reacting to those events as they unfold. When done, you've learned a lot about the defensive posture of other nations. You know their manning capabilities, you know how long it took them to react, you know how long you were tracked and when and where that tracking began and ended. You know the types of equipment used to detect and track you and the types of defensive weapons employed to intercept you. Then you probe another route to determine if/when/how you were detected. You do it again and again at various altitudes and speeds and with different airframes until you learn the most probable routes to fly should the need ever arise to go to war.
Then the analysts back home go to work after the fact. Did the defenses of Country X respond quickly enough to defend against our flights? Did Country Y make it almost impossible to cross near their territory without being detected? Did Country Z put up a defensive force in sufficient numbers skilled enough to ensure we couldn't fly near their country? Which fighters were used and from where? What was their response time? What equipment did the intercepting fighters turn on when near us? What do we need to do to defeat that equipment? What frequencies did the fighters use for command and control and how can we possibly jam those frequencies in time of war? The questions are almost never-ending. Every possible or potential event is envisioned by your war planners and you go to work devising preparations to defeat each and every possible scenario that might be thrown at you.
And then you do it again. No, those Russian bombers were not just posturing. They were not trying to goad us into attacking them. They were not trying to start a war. They were simply getting educated.
The purpose of long range bomber flights isn't to incite anyone to war but to learn something about the preparations and capabilities of potential enemies. When you fly those flights, you create a lot of activity that can be invaluable to your military planners.
Once you leave your own national borders many things begin to happen. Radars light up, command and control units come awake, communications networks suddenly get busy, and finally, defensive fighter units take to the skies. All that activity can be detected and later analyzed. While those bombers are in the sky, there are thousands of people on the ground from many countries that spring into action. Meanwhile, thousands of your own people are listening, watching, recording and reacting to those events as they unfold. When done, you've learned a lot about the defensive posture of other nations. You know their manning capabilities, you know how long it took them to react, you know how long you were tracked and when and where that tracking began and ended. You know the types of equipment used to detect and track you and the types of defensive weapons employed to intercept you. Then you probe another route to determine if/when/how you were detected. You do it again and again at various altitudes and speeds and with different airframes until you learn the most probable routes to fly should the need ever arise to go to war.
Then the analysts back home go to work after the fact. Did the defenses of Country X respond quickly enough to defend against our flights? Did Country Y make it almost impossible to cross near their territory without being detected? Did Country Z put up a defensive force in sufficient numbers skilled enough to ensure we couldn't fly near their country? Which fighters were used and from where? What was their response time? What equipment did the intercepting fighters turn on when near us? What do we need to do to defeat that equipment? What frequencies did the fighters use for command and control and how can we possibly jam those frequencies in time of war? The questions are almost never-ending. Every possible or potential event is envisioned by your war planners and you go to work devising preparations to defeat each and every possible scenario that might be thrown at you.
And then you do it again. No, those Russian bombers were not just posturing. They were not trying to goad us into attacking them. They were not trying to start a war. They were simply getting educated.
Tin Ear, my thoughts, too. We get to do actual, instead of training, exercises, thus exposing our plans and capabilities.
I just hope we don't do what happened in Germany (back in the 1960s, if I recall correctly). The wrong message and code was transmitted to our troops, and our troops went to their pre-war positions instead of the training sites.
I understand that a certain General is still doing his mea culpas for that.
;^>
I just hope we don't do what happened in Germany (back in the 1960s, if I recall correctly). The wrong message and code was transmitted to our troops, and our troops went to their pre-war positions instead of the training sites.
I understand that a certain General is still doing his mea culpas for that.
;^>
spiritwolfpr
Member
Hello Friends:
Come on you guys, this CAN NOT be for real
Come on you guys, this CAN NOT be for real
w0fg
Member
spiritwolfpr said:Hello Friends:
Come on you guys, this CAN NOT be for real
What can not be for real?? Tin Ear was entirely correct. That is indeed the way the game was, and continues to be, played.
fmon
Silent Key Jan. 14, 2012
Sure can, we still patrol all of the seas on this globe...why shouldn't they. In my 22 years of flying with the navy, much of it was just as TinEar described. Turn the sensor equipment on and log the data.spiritwolfpr said:Hello Friends:
Come on you guys, this CAN NOT be for real
Remember the P3 Orion and Chinese MiG incident in the 1990's out of Hanan Island China? We made a few turns on that Island circa 1966/7 and usually got intercepted in the same fashion but certainly less hot dogging by the aggressor. Also, those Bears frequently do a flyover of our task force (called battle group today) deployed around the world. Of course, they are intercepted and escorted out of the area, but both sides have the sensors turned on.
Anyway, as TinEar stated, ya gotta be in the game to really know how (or even if) it's played.
Last edited:
karldotcom
Member
Was he a lapdog when Clinton was ordering our airstrikes on Kosovo?
And the P3 / Chinese incident was in the first months of the Bush administration.
http://www.chinesejetpilot.com/index.php?ID=185
morfis said:
And the P3 / Chinese incident was in the first months of the Bush administration.
http://www.chinesejetpilot.com/index.php?ID=185
fmon
Silent Key Jan. 14, 2012
Thanks for the correction on the P3 time frame, and I too wondered why morfis thought this thread was in the tavern.karldotcom said:
spiritwolfpr
Member
Hello Friends:
Yes i do now remmeber the Chinese Incident, to Freaky!!
We beter start building the bunkers under our houses again!! Dang!!
Yes i do now remmeber the Chinese Incident, to Freaky!!
We beter start building the bunkers under our houses again!! Dang!!
SkipSanders
Silent Key
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,059
While it can be worrisome, consider that these flights are good for OUR forces, too. They get 'live exercises', not preplanned faked up drills, the chance to monitor live, unpredictable targets, etc.
It's good training for both sides.
It's good training for both sides.
- Status
Similar threads
