US Raptors Intercept Russian Bombers off Alaska's coast
- Thread starter CowboyJD
- Start date
Our B-52s are just as old, but, they both serve a purpose and serve it well............Interceptions like this happen all the time, in fact we probably do this more against them than they do to us..........
Not that unusual in Cold War days; becoming less and less unusual these days.
If it wasn't for the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" Left and the "MOAR F35s!" Right, would we even hear about these sort of things?
Operation Chrome Dome was our regular daily version of this at one time.
If it wasn't for the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" Left and the "MOAR F35s!" Right, would we even hear about these sort of things?
Operation Chrome Dome was our regular daily version of this at one time.
There isn't 1 single original part on a B52. Most of them have been completely rebuilt, 4 times.
I've always found that fascinating. As well as the wing drop difference between flying and on the ground B52s.
Most of the parts on the B-52s are original B-52 parts, they don't make parts anymore, but plenty of decommissioned BUFFs in the Bone yard which we cannibalize off of...........of course we never have enough parts for any aircraft in the inventory and always move parts from plane to plane, that has always been going on
Dude! Citing the Japan Times is worthy of some sort of recognition. You deserve a pat on the back for this one. But I'm not willing to drive 1200 miles to do it. Nothing personal.
it's a good old aircraft. Carries a lot and goes a long ways. It can't get above 35,000 feet and it's cruise speed is about 440 knots. The b52 goes to 50,000 feet and cruises at .84 mach. Both are outdated but the b52 is still the better of the 2. Swept wings on a turboprop....not good. Comparing turboprops and jets is always an easy win for the jets. That clankity old russian aircraft is an easy target. It may go a long ways and carry a big load but it will take a week to get there and would probably end up spiraling down to the ground long before it had a chance to launch anything.
The sole purpose is to probe. How close will they get before the US responds? Which aircraft will the US send to intercept? From which base? Can't speak about today but in the late 60's, early 70's this was a never ending game of chess. We did the same thing.
I'm comparing aircraft, not strategic planning. The B52 would be easier to strategize with, however. You can't probe when your being trailed, watched, hovered over, surrounded, and diminished. They will be used for whatever, just not very effective.
They are used the same way we use the B-52s as a stand off weapons platform. They can also reconfigure for saturation bombing as we do with the BUFFs, but that is not effective against high threat targets, they are to easily targeted and ECM systems only do so much
so you're saying they are limited in their effectiveness...? They would be the low hanging fruit in any type theater.
They can launch stand off weapons from up to several hundred miles, they have a long range supersonic airdrop weapon that is very advanced and extremely hard to counter
You dudes are speaking Russian.
Have we considered another logical reason? Maybe they are looking to collect the money Trump owes the Russians. Kind of like driving slowly by the house all visible like.
Most of the Alaska incursions are about control of the arctic circle. We have pretty much ceded control of that region of the world to Russia. Most people discount it but it is highly strategic area of the world. Three of the five English speaking countries are within range of Russia's strategic bomber force if Russia controls that airspace. There are a lot of natural resources to control as well. The two countries that lay the most claim to this region are Canada and Russia. Alaska is important because it shares a border with Russia.
This has been going on for years now. The Russians rebuilt during the early Bush years thanks to oil sales. After the fall of the USSR the military there fell into hibernation. Flight hours were slashed and they so very rarely encroached on US airspace that the US closed bases in Alaska started to neglect the Alaska region. However in the second term of Bush Alaska began a revitalization in military force. One of the main reasons was increased Russian incursions into US territory. While there is some back and forth in this game for the longest time the US fogot there was a game let alone how to play it. We are still playing catch up. Canada did not seem to forget the cold war and Japan is a growing ally in the N Pacific.
Lots of interesting things going on behind that curtain. Most choose to ignore it as it is out of sight and out of mind but it does have significant consequences to foreign policy and diplomatic relations.
This has been going on for years now. The Russians rebuilt during the early Bush years thanks to oil sales. After the fall of the USSR the military there fell into hibernation. Flight hours were slashed and they so very rarely encroached on US airspace that the US closed bases in Alaska started to neglect the Alaska region. However in the second term of Bush Alaska began a revitalization in military force. One of the main reasons was increased Russian incursions into US territory. While there is some back and forth in this game for the longest time the US fogot there was a game let alone how to play it. We are still playing catch up. Canada did not seem to forget the cold war and Japan is a growing ally in the N Pacific.
Lots of interesting things going on behind that curtain. Most choose to ignore it as it is out of sight and out of mind but it does have significant consequences to foreign policy and diplomatic relations.
Yes, and they can do the same with our B-52s, both aircraft are old, and both the US and Russia have much more advanced bombers
We have increased our presence and capabilities in the Artic significantly over the last few years
This is the type of stuff I wish the Kardashian and inauguration crowdsize obsessed MSM would actually report on. Seems a tad more pertinent to our well-being.
