Russia restarts Cold War patrols

[OldDude]

Oh, great. Russia is flying nuclear bombers around. Not sure what their "other countries" reference is as SAC stood down in 1992, and the bomb racks in all B52s, B1s, and B2s are supposedly changed to racks for conventional weapons so we could use them in Iraq (the bomb racks are purposefully non-interchangable to prevent "oopses.")

Do we need to change bomb racks and take nuclear weapons for free plane rides too?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6950986.stm
Russia restarts Cold War patrols
Russia is resuming a Soviet-era practice of sending its bomber aircraft on long-range flights, President Vladimir Putin has said.
Mr Putin said the move to resume the flights permanently after a 15-year suspension was in response to security threats posed by other military powers.

He said 14 bombers had taken off from Russian airfields early on Friday.

The move came a week after Russian bombers flew within a few hundred miles of the US Pacific island of Guam.

A few days ago Moscow said its strategic bombers had begun exercises over the North Pole.

Flexing muscles

"We have decided to restore flights by Russian strategic aviation on a permanent basis," Mr Putin told reporters at joint military exercises with China and four Central Asian states in Russia's Ural mountains.

"In 1992, Russia unilaterally ended flights by its strategic aircraft to distant military patrol areas. Unfortunately, our example was not followed by everyone," Mr Putin said, in an apparent reference to the US.

"Flights by other countries' strategic aircraft continue and this creates certain problems for ensuring the security of the Russian Federation," he said.

In Washington, state department spokesman Sean McCormack played down the significance of Russia's move, saying: "We certainly are not in the kind of posture we were with what used to be the Soviet Union."


"If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again, that's their decision," he told reporters.

One of the reasons Russia halted its flights 15 years ago was that it could no longer afford the fuel.

Today Moscow's coffers are stuffed full of oil money, says the BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Moscow, and the Kremlin is determined to show it is still a military power to reckon with.

'Shadowed by Nato'

Russian media reported earlier on Friday that long-range bombers were airborne, and that Nato jets were shadowing them.

Itar-Tass quoted Russian air force spokesman Alexander Drobyshevsky as saying: "At present, several pairs of Tu-160 and Tu-95MS aircraft are in the air over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which are accompanied by Nato planes."

Nato said it was aware of the flights but had no comment on whether Nato planes were in attendance.

In last week's incident near Guam, the Russian pilots "exchanged smiles" with US fighter pilots who scrambled to track them, a Russian general said.

The US military confirmed the presence of the Russian bombers near Guam, home to a large US base.

Last month two Tupolev 95 aircraft - dubbed "bears" according to their Nato code-name - strayed south from their normal patrol pattern off the Norwegian coast and headed towards Scotland. Two RAF Tornado fighters were sent up to meet them.

Russian bombers have also recently flown close to US airspace over the Arctic Ocean near Alaska.

[Nazgul]

I suppose we've pushed them to do this due to our 'cowboy' policies? :)

Or at least that's how it will go.

[nemein]

I'm not sure but I think this may have as much to do w/ their land grab and expanding territorial rights as anything else http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/08/01/arctic.grab.ap/index.html

[Mopower]

"If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again, that's their decision," he told reporters.


Oh snap!

[AGuyNamedMike]

I suppose we've pushed them to do this due to our 'cowboy' policies? :)

Or at least that's how it will go.

As my model predicts...

[wishbone]

I'm not sure but I think this may have as much to do w/ their land grab and expanding territorial rights as anything else http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/08/01/arctic.grab.ap/index.htmlRevealed: why those Russian submarine heroics might have looked a little familiar (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2146629,00.html)
- Underwater footage was borrowed from Titanic
- 13-year-old boy spotted scenes shot with models

Had the Russians posted this item in the thread "Guess That Movie By Screenshot" this would have been discovered a lot sooner, probably within 1-2 posts! ;)

[dan30oly]

Do we need to change bomb racks and take nuclear weapons for free plane rides too?


I didn't think we'd stoppped that practice. I remember watching on the history channel that we had so many bombers up in the air and rotating out that we could hit any target in the world withen a couple of hours. I believe this was credited as one of the tactics that ended the cold war.

[nemein]

Revealed: why those Russian submarine heroics might have looked a little familiar (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2146629,00.html)
- Underwater footage was borrowed from Titanic
- 13-year-old boy spotted scenes shot with models

Had the Russians posted this item in the thread "Guess That Movie By Screenshot" this would have been discovered a lot sooner, probably within 1-2 posts! ;)
:lol: I missed this tidbit of info before.

[classicman2]

Well with everything else failing, the Bush administration wants to start up the Cold War again. ;)

'Damn, we'll do anything to get the public's mind off of Iraq.'

[General Zod]

Revealed: why those Russian submarine heroics might have looked a little familiar (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2146629,00.html)
- Underwater footage was borrowed from Titanic
- 13-year-old boy spotted scenes shot with models

Had the Russians posted this item in the thread "Guess That Movie By Screenshot" this would have been discovered a lot sooner, probably within 1-2 posts! ;)
:lol:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/general_zod/titanic.jpg

[movielib]

Revealed: why those Russian submarine heroics might have looked a little familiar (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2146629,00.html)
- Underwater footage was borrowed from Titanic
- 13-year-old boy spotted scenes shot with models

At least they picked an obscure movie. Couldn't be more than a few dozen of those DVDs in the world. Wasn't it straight to video?

[VinVega]

Last month two Tupolev 95 aircraft - dubbed "bears" according to their Nato code-name - strayed south from their normal patrol pattern off the Norwegian coast and headed towards Scotland. Two RAF Tornado fighters were sent up to meet them.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/224/491644196_fd2d31ab40.jpg?v=1178744989

Dude, if we can see this thing coming from 1000 miles away and not shoot it down, we need to quit this whole military business. It's a freakin' prop! :lol:

[OldDude]

I didn't think we'd stoppped that practice. I remember watching on the history channel that we had so many bombers up in the air and rotating out that we could hit any target in the world withen a couple of hours. I believe this was credited as one of the tactics that ended the cold war.

Yeah, we stopped it in 1992 when SAC was disbanded. It was VERY expensive and we declared a peace dividend too.
They used to keep 1/3 in air, 1/3 on scramble alert, 1/3 standing down for crew rest and maintenance, 24/7. The theory was that if we were attacked, all forces in the air would carry out their mission and some of the ready force would get successfully launched, the balance destroyed on ground. Of course, all those bombers would arrive hours after our missles arrived, launched at the same time.
(even from the DEW line, Moscow was probably 8 hours away) They were a second, and probably unnecessary strike, but you certainly don't want the other guy to win in global thermonuclear war.

The heavy bombers were converted to conventional bombs (but could be changed back) and turned over to the regular air force. (Actually we converted a lot of nuclear bombers to conventional for the Vietnam War, because we had enough missiles.)


(Laughing at the picture of the Soviet bomber. Our heavy bombers don't have whirly things on the wings. Is this an antique show?)

[dan30oly]

Yeah, we stopped it in 1992 when SAC was disbanded. It was VERY expensive and we declared a peace dividend too.
They used to keep 1/3 in air, 1/3 on scramble alert, 1/3 standing down for crew rest and maintenance, 24/7. The theory was that if we were attacked, all forces in the air would carry out their mission and some of the ready force would get successfully launched, the balance destroyed on ground. Of course, all those bombers would arrive hours after our missles arrived, launched at the same time.
(even from the DEW line, Moscow was probably 8 hours away) They were a second, and probably unnecessary strike, but you certainly don't want the other guy to win in global thermonuclear war.

The heavy bombers were converted to conventional bombs (but could be changed back) and turned over to the regular air force. (Actually we converted a lot of nuclear bombers to conventional for the Vietnam War, because we had enough missiles.)


Well, I guess what Putin was referring to was just regular military patrols when he said this:

"In 1992, Russia unilaterally ended flights by its strategic aircraft to distant military patrol areas. Unfortunately, our example was not followed by everyone," Mr Putin said, in an apparent reference to the US.

[OldDude]

Well, I guess what Putin was referring to was just regular military patrols when he said this:

"In 1992, Russia unilaterally ended flights by its strategic aircraft to distant military patrol areas. Unfortunately, our example was not followed by everyone," Mr Putin said, in an apparent reference to the US.

It is unclear whether the Russian planes are carrying nuclear weapons or just flying around. We have certainly used all our heavy bombers (with conventional weapons) in Iraq. The B2 bombed Iraq from Missouri because we don't want to base them anywhere else. I guess the Russians could consider than a patrol. The others have flown from Guam and Diego Garcia.

[OldDude]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/224/491644196_fd2d31ab40.jpg?v=1178744989

Dude, if we can see this thing coming from 1000 miles away and not shoot it down, we need to quit this whole military business. It's a freakin' prop! :lol:

Wikipedia says it can make 500 knots with those props, nearly as fast as a B52 (560 knots). Each engine turns a pair of contra-rotating props. (But it only has a 39,000 foot service ceiling.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95

[Jason]

I guess Pooty-Poot is trying the tried and true "distract the public from my colossal fuck ups with sabre rattling" technique that the soviets used for decades.

Is he going to be leaving office anytime soon?

[huzefa]

I wonder what would happen if we accidentally shot one of these down.

[Tuan Jim]

I suppose we've pushed them to do this due to our 'cowboy' policies? :)

Or at least that's how it will go.

Yeah, you've seen how they're pushing it with Georgia at the moment (Russian missile drop -- not to mention the little separatist issue). They're regretting letting go of all their little satellites and now they want that control back.

[DVD Polizei]

<s>Iraq</s>, I mean <s>North Korea</s>, oh fuck, what I mean is <s>Iran</s>. Damn it, RUSSIA is the new Axis of Evil.

[VinVega]

Wikipedia says it can make 500 knots with those props, nearly as fast as a B52 (560 knots). Each engine turns a pair of contra-rotating props. (But it only has a 39,000 foot service ceiling.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95
Yeah, it's a turboprop, so it's not like a WWII era aircraft, but comparing it to a B-52 isn't saying much either. If you can't shoot a B-52 down with modern weapons, well you know. ;)

[OldDude]

If you can't shoot a B-52 down with modern weapons, well you know. ;)

Air supremacy, man. We use the other planes to establish air supremacy, then we use B52s to truck bombs.

(Although with a 55000 foot service ceiling, killing a B52 at altitude is no cakewalk. In Vietnam, we lost them mostly when we went to lower altitudes for accuracy. With JDAM, you get 40 mile standoff, and GPS guidance to target.Drop and forget.)

[Jason]

It is unclear whether the Russian planes are carrying nuclear weapons or just flying around. We have certainly used all our heavy bombers (with conventional weapons) in Iraq. The B2 bombed Iraq from Missouri because we don't want to base them anywhere else. I guess the Russians could consider than a patrol. The others have flown from Guam and Diego Garcia.

Maybe this is just their way of advertising them for the foreign market. All this talk about the US being the worlds only superpower must cut into their arms sales. It's kinda like driving around with a "for sale" sign in your car's window. A real creampuff, only one owner, only dropped bombs on a little old lady as she went to church. That kind of thing.

[mikehunt]

but jorge looked into putin's eyes and saw his good soul

[OldDude]

Maybe this is just their way of advertising them for the foreign market.

I'm sorry but a turboprop from the 50's to advertise your arms capability is like a car company sending an Amish guy out to advertise in horse and buggy.

(It's a damn impressive turboprop, but it is still a turboprop, and hardly state of the art.)

[Jason]

I'm sorry but a turboprop from the 50's to advertise your arms capability is like a car company sending an Amish guy out to advertise in horse and buggy.

(It's a damn impressive turboprop, but it is still a turboprop, and hardly state of the art.)

But if you can't do business with the "great satan", you're limited in your options, and the russians know this.

[mikehunt]

they also have their version of the B1
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu160/images/tu160_12.jpg

[Venusian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6957589.stm

[X]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6957589.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6938856.stm

[Tuan Jim]

Oh come on. Now you guys are getting lazy. You could at least post the headline in the thread.

Still, I find this overall development interesting. In my line of work, I much prefer the conventional forces opposition to the irregular system. Of course with our luck we'd end up with both simultaneously.

Cursed to live in "interesting" times.

[Vandelay_Inds]

The Russian people love Putin because he is decisive and firm, and goes fishing bare-chested. They love strong leaders, and don't have much regard for pluralism, human rights, liberty or the rule of law.

This is being done purely for domestic consumption. They figure they have a vast army and almost unlimited resources, putting them in a position to blackmail Europe with energy supplies, so why not resume their great power role, safeguarding domestic support and their grip on power in the process?

The U.S. must be careful not to play into their game. Public relations with Russia should be non-confrontational.

[OldDude]

In response, we will move early detection command and control OUT of Cheyenne Mountain, which is hardened against nuclear attack. Instead, our forces will move to basement in a nearby base, where they will use the "duck and cover" tactic that older members learned in grade school. This provides an NPF (Nuclear Protection Factor) of about 1.00000000001. WTF?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070822/pl_nm/usa_military_cheyenne_dc_1
U.S. to leave Cheyenne even as Russia flexes muscle By Kristin Roberts
Wed Aug 22, 1:17 PM ET



CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN, Colo. (Reuters) - The U.S. military will move its secure command center from deep inside Cheyenne Mountain even as Russia revives military maneuvers that led America to burrow under the rock almost 50 years ago.

ADVERTISEMENT

Construction on a new command center 12 miles away at Peterson Air Force Base is well under way despite security concerns that have driven some lawmakers to consider halting funding for the transition.

The move will shift more than 100 people responsible for detecting attacks on North America from a facility that sits under 2,000 feet of granite to a basement in an office building on the base that officials concede offers lower protection.

Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, the U.S. commander responsible for homeland defense and protecting North American air space, says the switch is worth the risk of leaving a facility built to withstand the indirect effects of a multi-megaton nuclear blast.

It will combine operations now divided between Cheyenne and Peterson, helping the commander to receive information and respond to crises or attacks more quickly, Renuart said. It will not, however, save money as the military promised, congressional investigators have shown.

Renuart said the plan was the best way to make the most of resources currently split between the two Colorado locations.

"We can't accommodate all of that integrated command and control capability in the mountain," he said. "And so it makes sense to have that put in place where we can get the best unity of all of that effort, and that really is down here at Peterson."

He said using communications technologies to link the two centers was no substitute for having everyone in one place.

RUSSIAN MANEUVERS

But those arguments, offered repeatedly by defense officials for more than a year, come against a backdrop of tension between Washington and Moscow and Russia's decision to resume long-range bomber missions common during the Cold War.

Russia, angered by U.S. plans to place missile defense assets in Eastern Europe, said the flights were resumed on a permanent basis due to security threats. In recent weeks, those flights have come near Alaska and Guam, a U.S. territory.

Those actions, coupled with China's increasing military capabilities and concerns about the intentions of North Korea and Iran, have led some officials at Cheyenne to oppose the move out of the mountain.

Speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of harm to their careers, they say the new command center at Peterson cannot be protected from nuclear, chemical or biological attack and its systems will not be sufficiently hardened against an electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear blast overhead.

A former senior defense official who led Pentagon efforts to close unneeded military bases said Cheyenne is one of just three facilities the United States should never close.

"Given the uncertainty of the future threat and the value of protected operation sites, that move seems to be excessively risky," said David Berteau, now a consultant with Washington firm Clark & Weinstock.

Renuart characterized both Russia and China as partners and said Iran and North Korea were not yet capable of a precise strike in the middle of North America.

"You don't necessarily want to live in the mountain just because it's possible that that country may develop (capability)," he said of Pyongyang and Tehran.

But Col. Andre Dupuis, a Canadian officer at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the Cheyenne-based U.S.-Canadian operation commanded by Renuart, bristled at a suggestion that North America does not face the threat Cheyenne was built to defend against. He said Russia may not intend to harm the United States but certainly has the capability.

"Threat is capability and intent," Dupuis said. "They (the Russians) have a very useful, capable, powerful armed forces and they would be silly not to use them in whatever ways that are in their best national interests."

"They have capability. I don't believe they have intent," he said. "But it doesn't mean we ignore them then because there could be a threat."

[JasonF]

I blame the cancellation of Stargate: SG-1.

[Tuan Jim]

In response, we will move early detection command and control OUT of Cheyenne Mountain, which is hardened against nuclear attack. Instead, our forces will move to basement in a nearby base, where they will use the "duck and cover" tactic that older members learned in grade school. This provides an NPF (Nuclear Protection Factor) of about 1.00000000001. WTF?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070822/pl_nm/usa_military_cheyenne_dc_1

To be honest, I doubt they would stay in one place if something actually happened. Many bases have primary operating areas/offices for normal days and whatnot, and then you'd head for the real command post when everything starts going down or for exercises. IIRC they're still maintaining the place with skeleton crew and all that too. It doesn't take that long to get places like that spun up when you need to.

[SmartisSexy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6963081.stm

Things are going to get interesting.

[OldDude]

Maybe it fits with the "Cold War" theme of this thread. Apparently the US has accidently taken six nuclear weapons for a B52 joyride.

It is serious because no one knew where the weapons were for a few hours, and because we have signed a treaty not to fly them (per the article, I don't know the details of that). The base commander has been relieved of his command, the ground crew decertified for handling nuclear weapons, and a general appointed to investigate.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/index.html
Air Force probes mistaken transport of nuclear warheadsStory Highlights
NEW: All stateside Air Force fighter, bomber flights to be halted September 14

Plane was moving missiles whose warheads were supposed to be removed

Nuclear warheads were accidentally left on the missiles, military officials say

Public was never in danger; nukes could not have detonated, spokesman says


From Barbara Starr
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Six nuclear warheads on cruise missiles were mistakenly carried on a flight from North Dakota to Louisiana last week, prompting a major investigation, military officials have confirmed.


The plane took the cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base to Barksdale Air Force Base for decommissioning Thursday, the Air Force said.

"This is a major gaffe, and it's going to cause some heads to roll down the line," said Don Shepperd, a retired Air Force major general and military analyst for CNN.

The warheads should have been removed from the missiles before they were attached to the B-52 bomber, according to military officials.

The crew was unaware that the plane was carrying nuclear weapons, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the extraordinary sensitivity and security surrounding the case.

The mistake was discovered after the plane's flight to Louisiana.

Minot Air Force Base is in north central North Dakota and Barksdale Air Force Base is in northwest Louisiana near the Texas border.

Lt. Col. Ed Thomas said that while the military does not publicly discuss nuclear weapons procedures, in this case the Air Force decided to acknowledge the incident in order to reassure the public.

"The public was never in any danger," Thomas said.

But officials also said the incident was a major breach of security rules surrounding nuclear weapons. One Air Force official said that he could not recall anything similar happening.

The Air Force announced that all flights of fighters and bombers in the United States will be halted on September 14 to allow for a review of procedures.

Because the incident involved nuclear weapons, it was serious enough that President Bush was notified, according to military officials. Once the mistake was discovered, the Air Force immediately began an inventory of all of its nuclear weapons, a military official said.

Maj. Gen. Douglas Raaberg, director of Air and Space Operations at the Air Combat Command in Langley, Virginia, has been ordered to investigate how the nuclear-tipped missiles were flown across the country without anyone knowing, officials said.

One officer already has been relieved of duty, and several others "decertified" from handling nuclear weapons, officials said.

A military official told CNN there was no nuclear risk to public safety because the weapons were not armed. Officials believe that if the plane had crashed or the missiles somehow had fallen off the wings, the warheads would have remained inert and there would have been no nuclear detonation, though conventional explosive material in the warhead could have detonated.

Military officials also say the missiles could not have been launched because of multiple security procedures required to be enacted before any launch would have been authorized.

Shepperd said the U.S. had agreed in a Cold War-era treaty not to fly nuclear weapons. "It appears that what happened was this treaty agreement was violated," he said.

He agreed with military officials that the situation could not have caused a nuclear detonation, but added, "Any time you have nuclear material on board, if the airplane crashes, nuclear material can be spread in the immediate area of the crash, so you get radioactivity in the immediate area of the crash."

"This is serious business but it was not dangerous business," Shepperd said.

[tacos]

I think Putin needs an ass kicking!

[DVD Polizei]

No, he just needs an economy.

[Nazgul]

No, he just needs an economy.

The economy has been improving, perhaps that's why Russia is starting to flex it's muscles again.

[al_bundy]

I think Putin needs an ass kicking!

all fun and games until they spray polonium all over your face

[tacos]

Fuck em!

[aintnosin]

Time to dig him up...

http://www.tke.org/images/news/72/72_1.jpg

[DVD Polizei]

The economy has been improving, perhaps that's why Russia is starting to flex it's muscles again.

Russia normally acts out of desperation. If anything, Putin is fluffing his feathers because the US is infringing on some aspect of a target (probably financial since I think Russia is just giving the impression they are doing better--in some cases they are but overall, nada) he and his country are attempting to acquire.

[tacos]

I just don't like how he comes over to stay at Bush's ranch and then decides he's in control of the world. Bush must have pissed him off somehow.

[Tuan Jim]

Particularly interesting to see their direct hostility to the missile shield. It's not as though we're directly targeting them or anything, but they want to keep pushing our buttons.

"Oh so you want to have a missile shield do you? Well this is our new MIRV we're testing that can defeat it - even though you haven't put it in place yet. -- we dare you to try to defend yourself!"

Putin's little move to step down as president - to become the PM - is so incredibly transparent that it's not even funny -- talk about wanting to maintain total control. Democracy is already dying in Russia.

[DVD Polizei]

Your post makes it sound like "Democracy" is supposed to apply to every country in the world, and everyone's happy once they receive this wonderful thing.

Democracy isn't a formula, where everyone likes it with a few key ingredients and it turns out just peacky on the other side.

If you have a country who's never experienced "Democracy" before, how can you say that it is something which that country should aspire to? It's just like Iraq and all other countries we've tried to "help". Just like Bush, Reagan's thinking was that a country could benefit oh so dearly from America's home-cooked recipe, the Democracy Pie. Well, it failed miserably.

And before the Reagan Lovers chime in, I'm actually a fan of Reagan, but have some severe disagreements with a few issues--this is one of them.

Bottom line, the US just does not understand the world outside The United States. It never will. We are unique. The reason we are unique, is because the rest of the world is different. If we ever succeed in making the world like us, we will fail to be unique, and our country will decline to a status many of us will nash our teeth about.

[Nazgul]

Democracy isn't a formula, where everyone likes it with a few key ingredients and it turns out just peacky on the other side.

If you have a country who's never experienced "Democracy" before, how can you say that it is something which that country should aspire to? It's just like Iraq and all other countries we've tried to "help". Just like Bush, Reagan's thinking was that a country could benefit oh so dearly from America's home-cooked recipe, the Democracy Pie. Well, it failed miserably.

Bottom line, the US just does not understand the world outside The United States. It never will.

Give me a break. I swear, most of the stuff you post indicates that you've got some 'formula' for your posts and it always seems half-baked.

[DVD Polizei]

Prove me wrong.

You can use Iraq's successful democracy if you want...