Russian Blackjack gets to 20 miles of UK, un-noticed!

cyrusdvirus

Originally Posted by Gatecrash
Vulcan, which country is more open to invasion Switzerland or Ireland.....[/QUOTE

Ireland, my very point!

i had actually included that to highlight the ridiculousness or trying to compare Ireland and Switzerland as targets for any potentially Europe threatening invader.
Compare like with like. Compare Iceland and Ireland, the comparison is much more valid. And in most war game scenarios Iceland is regarded as the key to the Atlantic, which will slow the hell out of the major power in that little club in bringing all it's might to bear.

Control Iceland and you can control the North Atlantic, Control the North Atlantic and it is a significantly easier task to control Europe.
Control Ireland and you can control the channel approaches, close the busiest sea way in the world. Close a few ports in the UK and a few in France

Iceland is a juicier target there

Control Ireland and you leave yourself open to high-speed, virtual no warning attacks from the UK, even if you had an Awacs or 2 on constant patrol over the east coast.
Control Iceland and you have a greater possibility for defence in depth, with your Awacs or 2, plus you still have a launch board to take out the UK or the Scandanavian countries

FiSe

gatecrash wrote: »

Originally Posted by Gatecrash
Vulcan, which country is more open to invasion Switzerland or Ireland.....[/QUOTE


i had actually included that to highlight the ridiculousness or trying to compare Ireland and Switzerland as targets for any potentially Europe threatening invader.
Compare like with like. Compare Iceland and Ireland, the comparison is much more valid. And in most war game scenarios Iceland is regarded as the key to the Atlantic, which will slow the hell out of the major power in that little club in bringing all it's might to bear.

Control Iceland and you can control the North Atlantic, Control the North Atlantic and it is a significantly easier task to control Europe.
Control Ireland and you can control the channel approaches, close the busiest sea way in the world. Close a few ports in the UK and a few in France

Iceland is a juicier target there

Control Ireland and you leave yourself open to high-speed, virtual no warning attacks from the UK, even if you had an Awacs or 2 on constant patrol over the east coast.
Control Iceland and you have a greater possibility for defence in depth, with your Awacs or 2, plus you still have a launch board to take out the UK or the Scandanavian countries

Iceland used to be 'the one' during last war. We have a better and more capable a'planes, boats and submarines nowadays than back then. I think...

Next thing, which is completly overlooked here is total depandance of Europe on Russian fuel. There's no need for Russia's militant nacionalists to go and throw bombs around them, just cut the fecking oil pipe.
They know and Europe knows, all this overflying airplane game is only a messing. Nothing more.

Another thing is, that Russia might have a B1 copy over the UK, which is more capable than original, on the paper anyway, but how many of them are actually able to fly? That was my point I made in my first post.
Russia's oligarch could be a multibilionares, but does the army get its shares as well?

cyrusdvirus

FiSe wrote: »

Iceland used to be 'the one' during last war. We have a better and more capable a'planes, boats and submarines nowadays than back then. I think...

Which is why any potential attacker looking at Ireland and Iceland would, in my opinion, think that Iceland gives you a higher defensive ability than Ireland. How long would it take 12 Tornados, bursting out of the Welsh valleys at high subsonic/supersonic speeds, loaded to the gills with exploding stuff to get across the Irish sea?
Close to their bases, virtually no transit time, so they don't need to worry about carrying external fuel or fuel economy. They'd be here, have dropped their munitions and be halfway home before the quickest of qra's would be ready to take them on.

OS119

the argument is a good one, no one is going to choose to use Ireland as a initial jumping off point when Iceland is available, but then once Iceland is taken (and it has no military, the USAF has withdrawn and the US, France, Norway and the UK only send occasional detachments to Keflavik), Ireland begins to look rather attractive.

if you take Iceland you can only hit either western Europe or re-routed trans-Atlantic SLOC with long range strategic kit - TU-160's and the like - and as has been mentioned the number floating around is small - perhaps 30. however, if after taking Iceland you use it as a staging base to send much larger quantities of tactical aircraft to captured bases on the west coast of Ireland your ability to make war on western europe is massively increased over using two dozen BLACKJACKS from Iceland.

and if, instead if going down that path, you think about oil and gas as the weapons of warfare, Ireland has both on its utterly undefended western seaboard. the Russians, who as we know are happy to use 'turning the lights off' as a political and military tool - fly over these instalations with - if i were Irish - alarming regularity and impunity....

you have an asset, one which will become increasingly valuable - and one which may get in the way of the policies of a large and increasingly militarily aggressive Russia. if you fail to put two and two together you may find yourself having to make some very expensive deals at the last minute.

BostonB

These type of intercepts are only to test each others weapons, system. I don't think theres much chance of a major conflict in europe or north atlantic. More likely it will be a conflict in eastern europe, middle east or asia, as a land grab, or a grab for natural resources.

The Russians are slowly getting back on their feet. So these kind of flights are flag waving.

Steyr

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

as much as we love to hate the both of the them, they're our big brothers, and theyve seriously got our back.

Nothing against you but that doesnt speak for me, i quite like the Brits and Yanks alot.

cyrusdvirus

OS119 wrote: »

the argument is a good one, no one is going to choose to use Ireland as a initial jumping off point when Iceland is available, but then once Iceland is taken (and it has no military, the USAF has withdrawn and the US, France, Norway and the UK only send occasional detachments to Keflavik), Ireland begins to look rather attractive.

if you take Iceland you can only hit either western Europe or re-routed trans-Atlantic SLOC with long range strategic kit - TU-160's and the like - and as has been mentioned the number floating around is small - perhaps 30. however, if after taking Iceland you use it as a staging base to send much larger quantities of tactical aircraft to captured bases on the west coast of Ireland your ability to make war on western europe is massively increased over using two dozen BLACKJACKS from Iceland.

and if, instead if going down that path, you think about oil and gas as the weapons of warfare, Ireland has both on its utterly undefended western seaboard. the Russians, who as we know are happy to use 'turning the lights off' as a political and military tool - fly over these instalations with - if i were Irish - alarming regularity and impunity....

you have an asset, one which will become increasingly valuable - and one which may get in the way of the policies of a large and increasingly militarily aggressive Russia. if you fail to put two and two together you may find yourself having to make some very expensive deals at the last minute.

Well that's what i was getting at, use Iceland as a springboard... but essentially,
yeah, wot he said!!!

Silenceisbliss

i'm still in awe of the prospect of a single aircraft carrying 14 100kt thermonucleur warheads capable of the complete and total annihilation of an entire country. It's unbelievable.

I wonder how would the go code be given? it must be an incredibly secure system, and the respionsibility of the pilot, must be heavy on the shoulders!

cyrusdvirus

I'd doubt that they have aircraft in the air fully armed 24/7. Even SAC (or USSTRATCOM to give them their current name) don't do that anymore.

Either way, they are a good looking piece of kit. Say what you want about the russians, they sure do build them pretty.

vulcan57

gatecrash wrote: »

Either way, they are a good looking piece of kit. Say what you want about the russians, they sure do build them pretty.

On that point I totally agree with you. If the Russians really want to showoff their hardware I'm sure they will find a prime position at RAF Fairford over the weekend of 18th / 19th July next year!

FOGOFUNK

gatecrash wrote: »

I'd doubt that they have aircraft in the air fully armed 24/7. Even SAC (or USSTRATCOM to give them their current name) don't do that anymore.

Either way, they are a good looking piece of kit. Say what you want about the russians, they sure do build them pretty.

Defo, I love the look of Su-27's.

Captain Chaos

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

i'm still in awe of the prospect of a single aircraft carrying 14 100kt thermonucleur warheads capable of the complete and total annihilation of an entire country. It's unbelievable.

I wonder how would the go code be given? it must be an incredibly secure system, and the respionsibility of the pilot, must be heavy on the shoulders!

14 100kt warheads would not wipe out an entire country, well maybe Luxemberg. US fighters like the F-16 can carry a 300kt bomb the B61, thats considered a tactical nuke. It's a free fall bomb with a chute to slow it down so the fighter has time to clear the blast area. Its able to level everything within about 15 miles and damage buildings out to 50 miles with the shock wave.

14 100kt warheads would wipe out a large city like London alright. Its a good thing the pilot does not actually have to release the weapons himself as he is just tasked with getting the bomber into launch position. Its the weapons systems officer that targets releases these missiles.

dogmatix

Captain Chaos wrote: »

14 100kt warheads would not wipe out an entire country, well maybe Luxemberg. US fighters like the F-16 can carry a 300kt bomb the B61, thats considered a tactical nuke. It's a free fall bomb with a chute to slow it down so the fighter has time to clear the blast area. Its able to level everything within about 15 miles and damage buildings out to 50 miles with the shock wave.

14 100kt warheads would wipe out a large city like London alright. Its a good thing the pilot does not actually have to release the weapons himself as he is just tasked with getting the bomber into launch position. Its the weapons systems officer that targets releases these missiles.

Maybe not "destroy" a country the size of ireland, but if you dropped those 14 weapons on the 14th largest population centers you could pretty much end any sort of organised government, to be followed by breakdown of civil order, collapse of food distribution network and transport and communications. And thats before you consider the 100's of thousands of injured looking for help in a health system that would have gone belly up with central government and 100's of thousands of the unburied dead spreading disease. Then famine sets in and thats before you even consider effects of the radiation fallout on the local ecosystem. Yep - I think 14 100kt warheads if properly placed would pretty much end Ireland, at least as far as a political entity

dogmatix

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

i'm still in awe of the prospect of a single aircraft carrying 14 100kt thermonucleur warheads capable of the complete and total annihilation of an entire country. It's unbelievable.

I wonder how would the go code be given? it must be an incredibly secure system, and the respionsibility of the pilot, must be heavy on the shoulders!

Can you get a thermonuclear warhead with a yield as low as 100kt? I always imagined the nuclear weapons <500kt where strictly fisson bombs. Scary thought if they can do that nowadays.

Silenceisbliss

Captain Chaos wrote: »

14 100kt warheads would not wipe out an entire country, well maybe Luxemberg. US fighters like the F-16 can carry a 300kt bomb the B61, thats considered a tactical nuke. It's a free fall bomb with a chute to slow it down so the fighter has time to clear the blast area. Its able to level everything within about 15 miles and damage buildings out to 50 miles with the shock wave.

14 100kt warheads would wipe out a large city like London alright. Its a good thing the pilot does not actually have to release the weapons himself as he is just tasked with getting the bomber into launch position. Its the weapons systems officer that targets releases these missiles.

...below

dogmatix wrote: »

Maybe not "destroy" a country the size of ireland, but if you dropped those 14 weapons on the 14th largest population centers you could pretty much end any sort of organised government, to be followed by breakdown of civil order, collapse of food distribution network and transport and communications. And thats before you consider the 100's of thousands of injured looking for help in a health system that would have gone belly up with central government and 100's of thousands of the unburied dead spreading disease. Then famine sets in and thats before you even consider effects of the radiation fallout on the local ecosystem. Yep - I think 14 100kt warheads if properly placed would pretty much end Ireland, at least as far as a political entity

what he said! couldnt have worded it better myself.


also, it's callesd a "retardation parachute" .... *snigger*:D

free fall bomb with a chute

free fall....with a chute...uh huh...

systems officer that targets releases these missiles

thought they were bombs?...

ah im just messin with ya...:D

still though, the responsibility thats on the weapon officers shoulders then....heavy!

heres a nice scale to show hiroshima up to the likes of the soviet tsar bomba (the most impractical weapon EVAR) you can kinda see where 100kt scales up...

Fantom

FiSe wrote: »

I think that the RAF can't be bothered to intercept that big ugly piece of junk anymore.
Surprised, that it can fly so far anyway :rolleyes:

Just for ur information

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u03GNcL4NFA

Fantom

Fantom wrote: »

Just for ur information

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u03GNcL4NFA

Sorry, :pac: education

Fantom

FiSe wrote: »

I think that the RAF can't be bothered to intercept that big ugly piece of junk anymore.
Surprised, that it can fly so far anyway :rolleyes:

I do hate the way some people boasts about something they have no idea.
Just for your education.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BoaJkWiqPU&feature=related
:eek:

cyrusdvirus

Fantom wrote: »

I do hate the way some people boasts about something they have no idea.
Just for your education.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BoaJkWiqPU&feature=related
:eek:

Quit stirring **** looking for an argument.

Captain Chaos

Fantom wrote: »

I do hate the way some people boasts about something they have no idea.
Just for your education.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BoaJkWiqPU&feature=related
:eek:

Only two Su-37s were built, one was returned to the old Su-35 of the 7xx serial test series standard and the other crashed in 2002 from metal fatigue from being over stressed in many high G and departure manouvers over the few years it was around. Russia or any other country for that matter has nothing not even on the planning boards that they could afford to develop and build would compare with the F-22.

FiSe

Fantom wrote: »

Just for ur information

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u03GNcL4NFA

Fantom wrote: »

I do hate the way some people boasts about something they have no idea.
Just for your education.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BoaJkWiqPU&feature=related
:eek:

Am I missing something here

cyrusdvirus

FiSe wrote: »

Am I missing something here

going by his comments here and in the other intercept thread methinks Fantom is our rezident russkie redneck!!

GBX

Just read on Sky News the Russians back at it:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/RAF-Jets-See-Off-Russian-Bombers-Mid-Air-Drama-Off-North-East-UK/Article/200812215179309?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15179309_RAF_Jets_See_Off_Russian_Bombers:_Mid-Air_Drama_Off_North_East_UK

Rocketeer

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Only two Su-37s were built, one was returned to the old Su-35 of the 7xx serial test series standard and the other crashed in 2002 from metal fatigue from being over stressed in many high G and departure manouvers over the few years it was around. Russia or any other country for that matter has nothing not even on the planning boards that they could afford to develop and build would compare with the F-22.

Su -35 is much cheaper then F-22, if tet a tet Su -35 can't compete then 10 of them will shoot Raptor down:)