Off-Topic Chatter Non-Vehicle Related Chat

Return of the Cold War?

Old Aug 24, 2007 | 04:40 AM
  #1  
Hollywood_North GT's Avatar
Thread Starter
Closet American
 
Joined: July 17, 2005
Posts: 5,851
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Return of the Cold War?

Well, we seem to be well on our way to resurrecting the Crusades, but BONUS: looks like the Cold War is back, too!

In a scene reminiscent of the Cold War, a Russian air force Tupolev Tu-95 bomber is pictured being intercepted by a Royal Air Force fighter before approaching too close to UK airspace on 17 August.

But for the first time, the aircraft providing so-called quick reaction alert (QRA) cover is a Eurofighter Typhoon F2 from the RAF's 11 Sqn - the unit tasked with leading the type's evolution into a multirole fighter also capable of performing ground-attack duties in Afghanistan from July 2008.

Russian bombers have been intercepted by UK fighters on several occasions so far this year, with their presence reflecting President Vladimir Putin's eagerness to underline Moscow's military capabilities as it stakes claim to Polar mineral resources and approaches national elections to take place early next year.

Previous meetings have been between Tu-95s and RAF Panavia Tornado F3 interceptors, with the latter gradually handing over QRA responsibility for the southern UK to Typhoons from RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire. The latest encounter took place over the North Atlantic, according to the RAF.

As pictured, the standard Typhoon QRA fit comprises four MBDA ASRAAM short-range air-to-air missiles, four Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM medium-range air-to-air missiles and external fuel tanks for additional range. The images were taken by the pilot of a 3 Sqn Typhoon, with the unit currently sharing QRA duties with 11 Sqn.




Take that, peaceniks!

Reply
Old Aug 24, 2007 | 06:07 AM
  #2  
pville piper's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: November 10, 2005
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
I saw that the other day. I find it rather disturbing the tone that Russia has taken over the last year or so.
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2007 | 03:34 PM
  #3  
jgsmuzzy's Avatar
GTR Member
 
Joined: May 27, 2004
Posts: 4,749
Likes: 2
From: Manchester, England
The Typhoons had weapons lock when they were 140 miles away, If the russians wanted to do a quick bombing run, they would not have used the Bears. They would have used the russian equivilent of the B1-B. Quick in and out, not at 300mph!
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2007 | 03:43 PM
  #4  
pville piper's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: November 10, 2005
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
The issue isn't that they were going to "bomb" anybody. What I was referring to is the gradual returning to and escalation of the old Cold War ways and dialog that Russia has been doing.
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2007 | 06:37 PM
  #5  
htwag's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: November 4, 2004
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
At least the Russians aren't willin' to blow themselves up because someone tells them to do so..... .
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2007 | 08:37 PM
  #6  
jsaylor's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
Both the U.S. and the Russians really blew a golden opportunity to work together against islamic fascists in a move that woulkd have absolutely helped each side in their respective fight. Instead we criticize everything the Soviets do in Chechnya and they criticize everything we do everywhere....in both cases likely just because we/they can.

And that is they truly unfortunate thing here. We're still having problems with the Russians for a list of reasons which largely don't make sense. Residual fear, suspicion, and chest beating has led to a situation which really didn't have to be. In contrast the escalation of hostilities with Islamic militants has been more or less inevitable for quite some time. Although that really doesn't do much to paint a smiley face over the situation to say the last.
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2007 | 10:47 PM
  #7  
Hollywood_North GT's Avatar
Thread Starter
Closet American
 
Joined: July 17, 2005
Posts: 5,851
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Originally Posted by jsaylor
Both the U.S. and the Russians really blew a golden opportunity to work together against islamic fascists in a move that woulkd have absolutely helped each side in their respective fight. Instead we criticize everything the Soviets do in Chechnya and they criticize everything we do everywhere....in both cases likely just because we/they can.

And that is they truly unfortunate thing here. We're still having problems with the Russians for a list of reasons which largely don't make sense. Residual fear, suspicion, and chest beating has led to a situation which really didn't have to be. In contrast the escalation of hostilities with Islamic militants has been more or less inevitable for quite some time. Although that really doesn't do much to paint a smiley face over the situation to say the last.
Well, in the grand scheme of things, Islamofascists kill less people every year than automobile accidents in the United States. Quantifiably, as a threat, they don't even rank when compared to the possibility of an all-out conflict with a nuclear capable nation state. One might kill a few thousand people, granted, but the other could end life on the planet. Big difference there.

Besides, this whole terrorism thing has been politically co-opted as a tool to distract the ignorant from the real primary issue: corporate hegemony over populations.

It's our foreign policies - or lack thereof - that have added fuel to the whole terrorism problem anyway. If we weren't in the Middle East to begin with, they wouldn't be much bothered with us. In other words, if we're not part of the equation, we're part of the problem. Until the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is solved, and until we get off our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, they will continue to attack us. They may not like what we stand for...but at the end of the day it's what we DO - not who we are - that motivates them to attack us.
Reply
Old Aug 27, 2007 | 08:54 PM
  #8  
jsaylor's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
Rebutal on it's way, although it will take some time since it wont be short (surprise, surprise). I'm sure you wait with great anticipation.
Reply
Old Aug 27, 2007 | 10:32 PM
  #9  
Hollywood_North GT's Avatar
Thread Starter
Closet American
 
Joined: July 17, 2005
Posts: 5,851
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Don't worry about it...there is no rebuttal to what I said. It is gospel.

Reply
Old Aug 28, 2007 | 06:04 AM
  #10  
pville piper's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: November 10, 2005
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
So sayith the man called Hollywood_North GT (formerly known as BC_Shelby)!
Reply
Old Aug 28, 2007 | 08:22 AM
  #11  
n8rfastback's Avatar
Shelby GT350 Member
 
Joined: June 25, 2007
Posts: 2,416
Likes: 1
this is going to get political and ugly fast....
Reply
Old Aug 30, 2007 | 03:45 PM
  #12  
boduke0220's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: March 3, 2007
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 1
From: North carolina
does anyone know if the F-22 is in service yet? it was supposed to start in 05 but i havent seen many, well then again i haven seen any yet
Reply
Old Aug 30, 2007 | 03:51 PM
  #13  
Knight's Avatar
Needs to be more Astony
 
Joined: October 4, 2004
Posts: 8,610
Likes: 5
From: Volo, IL
yes it has been in service for some time now.
Reply
Old Aug 30, 2007 | 03:57 PM
  #14  
pville piper's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: November 10, 2005
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
They have been flying into Maxwell AFB (Montgomery, AL) once in a while.
Reply
Old Aug 31, 2007 | 12:19 AM
  #15  
Treadhead's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: June 28, 2004
Posts: 3,069
Likes: 2
From: Fort Worth,Tx
Originally Posted by boduke0220
does anyone know if the F-22 is in service yet? it was supposed to start in 05 but i havent seen many, well then again i haven seen any yet

I'm pretty sure there is at least one squadron at Langley.
Reply
Old Sep 6, 2007 | 08:19 PM
  #16  
burningman's Avatar
Bow Chica Bow Wow
TMS Staff
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 7,446
Likes: 12
From: Proudly in NJ...bite it FL
on a side note that bomber is a **** cool looking plane
Reply
Old Sep 8, 2007 | 11:24 AM
  #17  
kevinb120's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 6,730
Likes: 3
Nice propeller plane

I think the Russians are just running that one polished plane around so the world thinks they still have an air force. Most of their 'operational' ships look worse then our retired freighters floating in mothballs.

Lets show zem the shiney plane again, comrades...
Reply
Old Sep 11, 2007 | 08:31 PM
  #18  
Hollywood_North GT's Avatar
Thread Starter
Closet American
 
Joined: July 17, 2005
Posts: 5,851
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Originally Posted by kevinb120
I think the Russians are just running that one polished plane around so the world thinks they still have an air force. Most of their 'operational' ships look worse then our retired freighters floating in mothballs.
Maybe so, but Putin is making a multi-billion-dollar push to restore Russia's military might, and weapons like this one recently tested should be of concern to everyone.

Then there's Russia's highly sophisticated SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic cruise missiles which are capable of defeating all US Navy defense systems. The Sunburn is considered "the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world" and capable of easily sinking a US aircraft carrier with no warning. According to the US Navy's own report >> "The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Sunburn, the US Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution - not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750 lb. warhead."

Word is that Iran has several of these missiles stockpiled. If Bush decides to get into a war with Iran, it's very likely that the Iranians could trap the entire 5th Fleet by sinking a few ships and then picking off the rest as they tried to navigate the flotsam in a desperate bid to escape the Gulf.
Reply
Old Sep 15, 2007 | 11:57 AM
  #19  
Q`res's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
From: Kentucky
Yes the Sunburn is virtually impervious to Phalanx. But that's what the AEGIS system and SM-2 missiles on the Arleigh Burke and our remaining Ticonderogas is for. And defeating AEGIS is a much taller order than getting past Phalanx.

And Iran sure as hell doesn't have Sunburns, the Sunburn carries a nuclear warhead, which is a big part of why it is so dangerous. It's not unthinkable, however, that Iran has the Shipwreck which is the non-nuclear version of the Sunburn.
Reply
Old Sep 15, 2007 | 12:11 PM
  #20  
kevinb120's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 6,730
Likes: 3
Yup, we have it covered. I believe all of the newest upfits of the Nimitz class have done away with the Phalanx CIWS system entirely. Russian military technology has always been 'sold-up' as well to keep the bucks flowing. The only (technically) operational aircraft carrier they have as well, the Kuznetsov, carries only a third of the aircraft of one of our 12 nuclear carriers, and has never seen an extended stay at sea, only brief outings, mostly publicity runs-while any of ours can run 20 years on a 'charge'. The 2nd hull was sold to the Chinese to be turned into a floating mall. Half of the claimed fleet of surface ships is not in operational condition. Apparently the new goal of a huge spending increase is focused on just getting the littoral warfare ships up to an average force for any developed nation.

Apparently I was wrong, Kuznetsov is not in operating condition right now. I think it went out to sea once for two weeks about 15 years ago. Interesting article:

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/2-2004/rat/sfd/

The problem is its a huge snowball. The lack of funding and the current state of the surface Navy has an exponential cost to bring long-neglected ships back into service, if ever, to the state it was before the collapse(which wasn't much by our 1980's standards in the first place). Other then submarines, of which a lot of Nuclear submarines are also in disrepair, Russia really does not have a formidable Navy to bring to bear at all. The air and armor divisions aren't faring much better. The most threatening conventional weapons are only available in handfuls at best. Right now, I doubt you could even spin the Russian military as being a reason in any way, shape, or form to sell funding for more spending and development.

This is cute from the article in particular, remember this is for a carrier that can't be deployed:

'Russia’s carrier aviation is relatively well developed by today’s standards, with the 279th Ship borne Fighter Air Regiment at its core.[4] The Su-33 (Su-27K) carrier variant was virtually the only type of fighter produced serially in Russia in the 1990s. Twenty-six have been released up to now, in addition to the nine prototypes of the T-10K series.[5] Though two test and three serial aircraft have been lost, there are still, on the whole, enough planes to equip the 279th Ship borne Fighter Air Regiment. Two Su-27UBs and six of the twelve Su-25UTG trainers that are still in Russia are used for deck flight training. For regular practice, the NITKA ground-based simulator is leased in Ukraine. The complete air wing of the Kuznetsov is made up of 20 to 24 Su-33 fighters supplemented with 18 Ka-27 and Ka-31 helicopters."

Kinda funny when any Nimtz can carry up to 90 modern, and more important, working aircraft. And the next generation of US carrier is in the works now.
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:33 AM.