BF2S Forums U.S. Navy Intercepts Russian Bombers

Brizzzer wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

Ruskies are gertting more and more bold... very concerning.

wikipedia wrote:

Post-2000 confrontations

    * 29 January 2004 — a Tu-95 flew over the USS Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan.

    * 29 September 2006 — NORAD scrambled Canadian CF-18s from CFB Cold Lake in Central Alberta and American F-15s out of an airbase in Alaska to intercept "a number of the Russian Tu-95 Bear heavy bombers participating in an annual Russian air force exercise near the coast of Alaska and Canada." This launch was a result of the bombers penetrating the North American Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).[4]

    * May 2007 — the Royal Air Force scrambled two Tornado fighters from RAF Leuchars in Scotland to intercept a Tu-95 observing the Royal Navy exercise Neptune Warrior.[5]

    * 17 July 2007 — two Royal Norwegian Air Force F-16s (from Bodø, Norway) and subsequently two RAF Tornados (from RAF Leeming, England) intercepted two Tu-95s as they allegedly made their way down the Norwegian coast towards Scotland.[6][7]

    * August 2007 — two Tu-95s flew towards the U.S. base on Guam, where they were intercepted by U.S. fighter planes. Maj Gen Pavel Androsov of the Russian Air Force told a news conference, "We renewed the tradition when our young pilots flew by Guam in two planes. We exchanged smiles with our counterparts who flew up from a U.S. carrier and returned home."[8][9] However, the Pentagon denied that any aircraft were sent up, saying that the proximity of the bombers was not close enough to prompt a response from the carriers.[10]

    * 17 August 2007 — two RAF Typhoons were launched to intercept and shadow a Tu-95 that had veered towards British airspace over the North Sea. The Tu-95 later turned away from UK airspace.[11]

    * 6 September 2007 — Two Norwegian F-16s tracked eight Tu-95s over the Barents Sea[12] as they neared Norwegian airspace. The bombers flew past Norway and continued towards British airspace where four RAF Tornados were scrambled from RAF Leeming (in two waves of two), before the Russian planes turned away.[13] It was the same day that Canadian Forces' CF-18s and Russian Tu-95s met outside Canadian airspace near Inuvik, Northwest Territories. The CF-18s were scrambled when Tu-95s were seen flying outside Canadian airspace.[14]

    * 22 November 2007 — F-22A Raptors of the 90th fighter squadron performed their first intercept of two Russian Tu-95MS 'Bear-H' bombers in Alaska. This was the first time that F-22s had been called to support a NORAD mission.[15][16]

    * 9 February 2008 — 24 aircraft including F-15 Eagles and an E-767 AWAC from the Japanese air force scrambled and gave "a notice, then a warning and another a notice and a warning," as a Russian Tu-95MS 'Bear-H' violated the country's airspace during a three-minute flyover of Sofugan in the Izu Islands. Japan formally issued a strong protest, demanded prevention of future incidents and presented a protest note to the Russian Embassy in Tokyo. Russian officials conversely stated that four Tupolev Tu-95 bombers completed a 10-hour mission over the Pacific on Saturday, but "our strategic aviation planes did not violate Japanese airspace." [17][18][19]

    * 9 February 2008 —Four American FA-18 fighters from the USS Nimitz were scrambled and tracked the bombers after two TU-95 Bear bombers flew over a US aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific.[20]

I usually don't quote stuff this big. I thought it was interesting to see all of the incendents were with Tu-95's.  I mean is Russia testing are defensives for a possible future war with American if it were to happen?

cowami wrote:

Brizzzer wrote:

I love the Russians way of thinking for making weapons.  Make this simple and reliable.  If you notice all their planes have on major thing in common.  Their landing gear was designed to be use on dirt fields and such so they can land any where if needed.  But how ever a lot of their weapons were stolen form American designs.(Sidewinder missile as an example.)

Like they say, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".

Luckily, they don't have anything to match the F-22 (yet).

FEOS wrote:

Not enough range. Just Blackjacks and Bears.

Mek-Izzle wrote:

Stop using gay NATO names for Russian shit, I swear the people that come up with these names are morons.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-02-13 08:15:13)

Penetrator wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

if you look at the US official response, it was more of a "meh".

LuLz!

Sgt: Sir, The Russians are approaching!
Colonel: Do they look pissed at us?
Sgt: Not overly.
Colonel: Roger that, go to DEFCON "Meh"
Sgt: HUA.  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

HudsonFalcon wrote:

It is basically "meh" at this point with meaningless muscle flexing by both sides but high tensions can breed accidents and incidents.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Iran manufactors weapons for the insurgents (Iranian weapons kill our soldiers.) Iran has many complaints about everyone, and threatens alot of people. They kidnapped british marines and navy personell in the same area where the speedboat incident took place. Those ships aren't just there for Iran, they're there for close support to troops on the mainland and probably for gaurding oil shipment.

The ships in that gulf have a very important purpose. And Iran isn't exactly innocent. The russians are in the wrong, So is Iran if you want them in the conversation aswell. What they're doing is unacceptable at the least.

Iran has a legitimate reason to be involved in the development of Iraq - national and regional security/economic issues.  That does not excuse the political gamesmanship on both sides, but this relationship (between Iran/allies and US/allies) is much deeper than a lot of people realize.

The US goal in regards to Iran is more of a containment ideal than an actual physical war with Iran.  We want to limit Iranian influence in the region - because we (US) see that the balance of power shifted a little in Iran's favor after we invaded Iraq.  Iraq was the one big Armed Forces in the region that could hold off Iranian agression, and dismantling those forces was a mistake (in hindsight).  Now we (US) must look to shore up military support in the region (effectively build up the defense capabilities of Arab States).  That is why we (Congress) just approved tens of billions of dollars in military aid to the region, and a big reason Bush was recently there.  That is why the U.S. is pushing for formal and informal economic sanctions of Iran - to squeeze their economy to limit excessive support for various regional factions.  That is why the U.S. (through diplomacy) attempts to break up Iran-Syria relations, and Iranian factional support in Palestine and Lebanon.  That is why the US Government recently designated the Al-Quds force of the IRG as "supporters of terrorism" - to attack their financial assets and give reason to apprehend their operatives in Iraq.  That is why we fund a $75 million "democracy" program against the Ahmadinejad Administration.

The Bush Administration is trying to play Sunni Arab states against Shia Iran - effectively fomenting more factional fighting.  Limiting Iranian influence in the region through this plan would hypothetically  force Israel and Arab states work together to reduce the influence of Iran - and perhaps that might carry over into bi-partisan cooperation on the Palestine issue.  It is a complex reasoning, and actually not a good idea, but I will save that for another post.

Last edited by dayarath (2008-02-13 11:02:19)

PluggedValve wrote:

dayarath wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Don't you think having carrier groups stationed off the coast of Iran is "annoying" to Iranians and their allies?  It is what it is - the news media felt the need to comment on this particular instance as if we should be worried of a Soviet attack.  It won't happen.

Iran manufactors weapons for the insurgents (Iranian weapons kill our soldiers.) Iran has many complaints about everyone, and threatens alot of people. They kidnapped british marines and navy personell in the same area where the speedboat incident took place. Those ships aren't just there for Iran, they're there for close support to troops on the mainland and probably for gaurding oil shipment.

The ships in that gulf have a very important purpose. And Iran isn't exactly innocent. The russians are in the wrong, So is Iran if you want them in the conversation aswell. What they're doing is unacceptable at the least.

Hmmm.  Dont US made weopons kill also??  Why is it okay for the US to make and sell weopons and not okay for Iran??  The US looks more like an aggressor than Iran, what with all the iranian Military being stationed in Iran, and more  than half the US Military stationed next door to Iran but over 5000 miles from home.  Yah yah, they are there for Iraq, riiiiiigghhhtt....  I thought they captured Iraq in like a month or so, meh, whatever they say must be correct....

GuliblGuy wrote:

They're damn lucky we didn't blow their stupid asses out of the sky. You can BET if we did the same to them they'd shoot us down.

Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air … Flight_007

Mek-Izzle wrote:

Stop using gay NATO names for Russian shit, I swear the people that come up with these names are morons.