U.S.: Russian planes flew near California, Guam, in upped activity

[LuckyTheDog]

Putin is SO full of crap.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of U.S. air forces in the Pacific said on Monday that Russia's intervention in Ukraine had been accompanied by a significant increase in Russian air activity in the Asia-Pacific region in a show of strength and to gather intelligence.

General Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle said the activity had included Russian flights to the coast of California, and around the U.S. Pacific island of Guam.

Carlisle said the number of long-range Russian patrols around the Japanese islands and Korea had increased "drastically." He said there had also been "a lot more ship activity as well."

Speaking at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, Carlisle showed a slide of a U.S. F-15 fighter jet intercepting a Russian "Bear" aircraft over Guam. He used the Cold War NATO name for Russia's Tupolov Tu-95 strategic bomber.

MORE HERE: http://wonkynewsnerd.com/u-s-russian-planes-flew-near-california-guam/

[snappyturtle]

1. Don't you think the U.S. is doing the same? I'd be shocked if we weren't.

Why wouldn't Russia do this?


From the OP's link:

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in 2007 that Russia was resuming Soviet-era sorties by its strategic bomber aircraft near NATO airspace that were suspended in 1992 after the collapse of the Soviet Union

Putin, who made the announcement during a joint military exercise with China, said the move was necessary to guarantee Russia's safety and that other nations had not followed Moscow's example in suspending such flights

[malaise]

3. Spy versus spy

but some folks believe the US owns the planet - it's frightening.

[11 Bravo]

8. Whereas others believe that the US is the root of all evil. Equally disturbing.

[ronnie624]

16. I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in 'evil'.

I like history, though, and the record shows conclusively, that the US causes far more problems in the world than Russia, and it has a MUCH higher body count as a result of its foreign and economic policies.

[The Magistrate]

17. Depends On Your Time Frame, Sir

If you are going to commence slanging on those lines....

[ronnie624]

21. Possibly.

But ancient history has little to no relevance, currently.

[The Magistrate]

22. Well, Sir, It Was Not Last Tuesday, But Was Well Short Of a Hundred Years Ago....

I am accustomed to thinking of ancient history as referring to the B.C.E. period, not times when I was coming back from school with my very own key....

[ronnie624]

25. Our government is far from finished,

and our incursions in Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to affect the populations there for who knows how long. What Russia did a hundred years ago, doesn't concern me in the least.

[The Magistrate]

28. Too Young Even To Catch a 4-Chan Usage, Sir, It Seems

No reason to continue; the point is made.

[ronnie624]

30. Is that an ad hominem attack?

If so, it's very disappointing.

[The Magistrate]

31. Thank You For The Laugh, Sir

[Adrahil]

32. I don't know what you consider ancient.

Putin is an animal of the KGB persuasion. And there are many in Russia who pine for the gory days of the USSR, and those SOB's were responsible for the deaths of MILLIONS and the enslavement of hundreds of millions. Don;t be too quick to gloss over Putin's imperial ambitions.

[NuclearDem]

24. Maybe not with strategic bombers

But I'm almost certain the RC-135 and its variants out of Kadena and Mildenhall are probably doing recon along Russia's borders.

[gordianot]

2. Imagine the cost of cleaning out the moth balls from planes built in the 1950's.

Then actually flying them over water. I would be willing to bet they are not armed from fear of recovering lost nukes. The greatest threat they pose is the cost to rescue the crews if they crash.

[IronGate]

5. Wondering the same thing.

Why aren't they using their BlackJack Bombers? They're more modern, reliable and much faster.



These bombers are almost a carbon copy of the US B-1 Lancer bomber.

[hack89]

6. Range is too short, especially at speed.

the TU-95s can seemingly fly forever.

[IronGate]

7. You would think that a strategic bomber would have the range to

be intercontinental like the B-1.

So, the Russians have to rely on decades old prop driven bombers to reach US shores from Russia?

[hack89]

9. The bombers would fly a polar route to attack the US

much shorter distance. They would also not hang around but would turn back as soon as they fired their missiles. They would also be refueled in the air before and after their attack runs because they would burn fuel at prodigious rates at high speeds.

These recon aircraft would have to first fly a long distance to get on station - to be useful they would then need the range and endurance to remain on station for several hours before returning to base.

Different mission, different requirements, different aircraft.

[IronGate]

11. Makes sense.

Thanks for the information.

[gordianot]

14. You would think satellites are cheaper and more effective for recon.

Large planes off the coast are also a threat for EMP attack very unlikely and suicidal (in more ways than one) but still something to worry about. Thermonuclear war has no winners and those who possess such devices are under no illusions. Still you have to scramble interceptors and look which costs you money.

[hack89]

18. Satellites have several shortcomings

Last edited Thu Jan 29, 2015, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

1. Their coverage is not global - they are in low earth orbits and thus only cover a relatively small portion of the globe.

2. Their orbits are predictable so it is easy to hide activity from them.

3. Because there are so few of them, they are used on the highest priority strategic targets and are scheduled months in advance. They are not flexible nor are they wasted on lower priority targets.

The advantage of manned recon is that it is flexible, can be schedule on very short notice, and can stay on station for long periods of time - with aircraft/drones working in shifts it is possible to get around the clock coverage.

[Adrahil]

33. Despite the recent muscle flexing, the Russian military is pretty much a mess.

Only a few units are really kept in good gear and training. The readiness of the USSR's military was never very high, and the vast majority of Russian forces are worse off today. But Tsar Putin is changing all that.

[oneshooter]

13. The TU-95 is a very noisy aircraft. Our submarines can acually track them from the noise they make.

The 4 blade counter rotating props create so much noise that the crew compartment is almost unbearable, even with ear protection. Our F-14 and F-15 pilots can hear them over the sound of their own engines.

[Blue_Tires]

15. WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU

[Xithras]

27. Platform flexibility. The Russians are launching cruise missiles from them nowadays.

Like the Buff, the Bear stays in service because of its range and the fact that it's a hugely flexible platform that can be put into a number of different roles. During the Cold War it was used as a nuclear bomber and a recon platform, but nowadays Russia is using them to launch cruise missiles. Each of them can carry six conventional or nuclear tipped cruise missiles (more modern and accurate groundhugging versions of the supersonic KH55) with a range of around 1500 miles. In theory, if one of these could reach the Northern California coast, every coastal city from Seattle to San Diego would be in range.

Like the B-1, Russia's newer jet bombers have less capacity and flexibility than their older counterparts. They're great for carrying a small number of weapons to a target very quickly, but aren't ideal when you want to move a large amount of destructive force to an enemy border and keep it there for a while.

The Russian justifications for keeping the TU-95 in service are essentially identical to our justifications for keeping the B-52 in service. They live in the same military niche.

[IronGate]

29. Great information.

Thank you.

[sharp_stick]

4. I can't believe that in 2014

the key Russian bomber is still the Bear.

[SQUEE]

12. It isn't, but the Bear has lOOOOOng legs

The extreme range and loiter times the TU 95 offers make it a perfect SIGLINT/ELINT platform, it has been a shadow to our naval units for decades, and considering we still rely on the B-52 BUFF as a front-line bomber, and it has been in service longer, as well as the airframes being older, no new ones being produced since the 60's, whereas the the Bear ceased production mid 90's

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. We still use B-52s

[NuclearDem]

23. That's what I thought too.

The Bear's actually a year younger than the B52 if we go by year introduced.

[L0oniX]

10. I'm sure Russia feels protected by our missile launchers just off their borders.

[rudolph the red]

19. Back in the '80's we had russian ships 15 miles

off the coast of CA, doing intelligence gathering.

[Submariner]

34. In the 60s Russian ships were just 3 miles off our coast

in "fishing" boats bristling with communication antennas. As we left the Thames River in CT in submarines the so-called fishing boats would race to try and get in front of us where they would drop fishing trawl nets hoping to snag us. Big fail.