Hmmm Russia flexing it`s muscles or something more serious afoot ? http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1280809,00.html
Any one else be tempted to say we should have shot it down? as far as I know, we dont fly english bombers over Russia, So why are they to us? Do it the American way, Shoot first, Questions later.
Since when did it become a crime to fly over a country? Regardless of the fact that it was a bomber or a airliner (Airliners can be equally as devastating, remember 9/11)... But in regards of violating airspace... How many countries have their airspace under control of some foreign country (Iraq => US and so on?) and how many spy missions are held, even now? I didn't ask anyone to come and look in my back garden, so shoot them down too... I don't think I want to live on the same globe as the guys who actually do things that way...
Its been a crime for a long time, you may remember that various "round the world" flights have run into trouble when countries refused overflight permission. Moriquendi
You aren't serious are you? Last time I checked bombers were capable of carrying Nuclear Warheads besides their usual large conventional and non conventional payloads. That's why it became a crime. Spy missions I thought ended in the Cold War era. Most countries find it cheaper to launch a satellite and not risk a pilot and expensive fuel for repeated over passes. The SR-71 and U-2 hasn't been used in decades as far as I know, don't know about other countries.
Quite right. According to another more detailed report I read somewhere (can't remember where, sorry), the Russian plane turned away before it reached British waters. I think the only reason for the RAF to release this info was so that they could say "look, we're using the Typhoon"
RTFA was over the north atlantic, as in international waters the russian bomber had as much right to be there as the RAF fighter..
It wasn't an overflight - the intercept happened over the north Atlantic, not over Great Britain. If the bomber actually had penetrated British airspace, the entire situation would have been much less friendly. (Not to mention that it was a reconnaissance version of the plane- no bomb bay, IIRC, just a lot of optical and electronic espionage hardware.) As it is, the situation looks a lot like the saber-rattling games that Russia was playing over the Bering Sea (between Alaska and Russia) during the cold war - send a bomber or two towards the US, wait for it to get intercepted (US fighters within five miles or so), keep going straight for a while, and then turn around and head home - a fairly safe way to give the US defense system a little poke. Now, of course, the entire question turns to the military psychologists: What did Russia mean by this gesture?
That's mostly because they didn't file correct flightplans (which in balooning is quite hard, I know). But let me rephrase... Since when did it become a crime to fly over the UK? I am serious... Every plane is capable of carrying any "payload"... I'd rather have a 500pound bomb crashing down on my house, then a 737... And Nuclear Warheads are mostly delivered by rockets, lot safer for the crew of the bomber you know... Spy missions fueled the weapons build up, I tought diplomacy ended the Cold War... Spy missions were carried out Afghanistan that I know of... I highly doubt the U2s and SR71 of the US are grounded nowadays... EDIT: Probably a routine training flight over international waters
They come up on flying visits to Lossiemouth occasionally, been seeing them for some time now. From what I've heard they're a waste of money, and compare very badly to other planes of their class, for example, the JAS 39 Gripen.
I read more Eurofighter propaganda in that article than any concern surrounding the Russian "bomber".
Given the ammount of Blue on Blue stuff that's happened in Iraq I think what he said is not without at least a grain of truth.
U2 spy planes are still in common use, they fly them over Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly other countries too since they fly so high they don't violate airspace. The SR-71s were all grounded but of course there are conspiracy theories about replacement planes. EDIT: I don't think Russia's bombers are too much of a military concern, those things are pretty old now. The Eurofighter or FA-22 could shoot those things down faster than a green snake up a sugarcane.
Yeah, we can all see every day what a successful conflict-solving approach that has turned out to be...
Since aeroplanes have been able to carry dangerous payloads, its not just the 'bad' countries that dont allow overflights, the basic system is that its illegal unless its been made legal or you have permission. So there are exceptions for certain classes of plane and pilot ( gliders, microlights, etc) but they're limited in altitude (legally) and there are still restriction zones around all sorts of things, powerstations, airbases, airports. The sky is not a free place. This sort of thing has been going on for decades, all through the cold war Soviet "bombers" (even the reconnaissance versions are armed) would fly to the limit of British or US terretorial waters, inteceptors would be scrambled and shadow them till they went home. If I had to guess at the reasoning behind it I would say it was probably the Russians saying "you're not really that far away you know" Moriquendi Edit Ramble, Is there an altitude limit on airspace?
These are nuclear bombers though, designed to carry thousands of kilos of nuclear bombs (according to wiki, i know ropey source but its good enough) a couple of these wouldn't leave much left of the uk. **** i'd rather have half of Singapore airlines crash down than a flight of these things.