Russian bombers probing our air defences

[Ayahuasca]

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-and-french-jets-scra...

This has been going on for decades - the Russians (and before, the Soviets) send a bomber over, the RAF scrambles its QRA (lightnings, Phantom, F3, now Typhoon), we wave at them, the bomber flies away. Job done.

But why do we bother? We are certain that it is not WW3, and we know that the Russians are testing our defences, measuring response times, etc. Why do we give our hand away?

Why not ignore them, unless we are pretty sure it is for real (let's face it, a solitary bomber is probably not a harbinger of doom), and then give them a nasty shock?

[DoubleD]

Its good practice for the crews

[NordicCrankShaft]

More importantly why don't we do it back? :confused?:

[Ayahuasca]

DoubleD said:

Its good practice for the crews

Sure, but the RAF or NATO partners could supply a practice enemy.

Why tell the enemy exactly how and when we would intercept them? Does this not allow them to simply design another attack profile that we are not familiar with and have never practiced?

Are the Russians not training our QRA in exactly the way they want?

[Teddy Lop]

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't really aren't you.

Presenting as weaker than you are is far from the optimal preventative to war.

[Sheetmaself]

The smart way would be a bluff. Intercept them in the same manner everytime the same way. But make this a completely different way than the way we would intercept if the threat was deened real.

[SuperApeInGoodShape]

NordicCrankShaft said:

More importantly why don't we do it back? :confused?:

What with, our fleet of Avro Lincolns?

[TTmonkey]

I agree, and I’m former RAF. Go every now and then. But not every time. It’s stupid. Same when we scramble ships when the soviets transit the channel. It’s international waters, they have every right to be there, that’s why they never ask.

[Teddy Lop]

SuperApeInGoodShape said:

NordicCrankShaft said:

More importantly why don't we do it back? :confused?:

What with, our fleet of Avro Lincolns?

I wonder how the radio convo goes - "c'mon grandad you're lost, lets steer you back to home"

Does Russia ever use something like the Tu-160 cracking mach 2 to "probe" us, and how would our reaction differ?

[aeropilot]

Ayahuasca said:

DoubleD said:

Its good practice for the crews

Sure, but the RAF or NATO partners could supply a practice enemy.

But then its just a training exercise......as opposed to the real thing.

And it's cheaper this way, as we're not paying the fuel for the incoming component

[Ayahuasca]

Teddy Lop said:

I wonder how the radio convo goes - "c'mon grandad you're lost, lets steer you back to home"

Does Russia ever use something like the Tu-160 cracking mach 2 to "probe" us, and how would our reaction differ?

Er, click the link in the OP.

[Teddy Lop]

Ayahuasca said:

Er, click the link in the OP.

oh, I just assumed it was a bear, because it all ways was, but I guess now the blackjacks are operational there's no reason why you wouldn't use them.

Why are the French less bothered about them overflying their country? Surely the whole point of interception is that its potentially coming to bomb you?

Although if they wanted to start something with the UK I doubt they'd start with obvious bombers

[V41LEY]

Are these blackjacks being supported by refuelling ?
Either shoot these down a la Malaysian Airlines - oops we thought you were hostile ! Or position the Typhoons so it can’t refuel !

[DrDeAtH]

V41LEY said:

Are these blackjacks being supported by refuelling ?
Either shoot these down a la Malaysian Airlines - oops we thought you were hostile ! Or position the Typhoons so it can’t refuel !

Long range bomber with 12000km range....

[davebem]

Bombers seem a bit outdated and perhaps playing on tradition, they should fire a missile and see if we can intercept it, send a spy drone and see if radar picks it up, or launch a cyber attack and see if it gets through our firewalls.

[aeropilot]

davebem said:

Bombers seem a bit outdated

Yeah, so outdated that the USAF are about to start spending a couple of billion dollars on re-engine their B-52 fleet (along with new radars) to keep them flying beyond 2050, by which time they will be over 90 years old.....

[Teddy Lop]

aeropilot said:

davebem said:

Bombers seem a bit outdated

Yeah, so outdated that the USAF are about to start spending a couple of billion dollars on re-engine their B-52 fleet (along with new radars) to keep them flying beyond 2050, by which time they will be over 90 years old.....

bombers have uses, but I don't think that includes first wave attack against a country with cutting edge military capability like Britain.

[Condi]

davebem said:

Bombers seem a bit outdated and perhaps playing on tradition,

It depends what you're fighting. There is an acceptance that for all the money spent on next generation fighters, for times when there is little or no enemy air cover all you really need is a cheap, reliable, airborne bomb platform. Islamic State have no air cover, and why spend £100m on a fighter costing £10,000 per flying hour, if something much much cheaper will do the same job?

[ninja-lewis]

Not talking to Air Traffic Control with transponder off while flying through civil airways is the main issue. The fighter jets escort them with their transponders on so ATC and other aircraft in the vicinity can see them.

[williamp]

NordicCrankShaft said:

More importantly why don't we do it back? :confused?:

Because we're not aggressors??