Russia has recommenced long range bomber training....?

Question

what the fukk is going on? Is the west up to something? Shall we bring back the Vulcan bombers?
If ye likes the cut of my gib, gie us a star anyway, ta.

Answer 1

Not recommended, resumed. These type of flights are not uncommon and during the cold war happened all the time.

We do the same thing which is legal under international law as long as they stay out of a countries territorial waters.

These flights are done in international airspace and while they are often closer to the target country that they would like are perfectly legal, so we usually send out a perfectly legal welcoming party to say hi in a high tech fighter.

When I live on Guam back in the early 80's Russian flights, ships, and subs often stopped by the island and the air force/Navy responded but no one was killed and no shot where ever fired.

Answer 2

Hi mate,

I wouldn't worry to much about it. they could be testing the lines. they have had long range bombers for years like the US and the UK. If you start worrying about things like this, you'll end up not doing anything apart from, sitting in the corner of the room, dribbling,saying to your self "I'm happy" and getting electrode treatment once a day.

So on whole, don't believe everything you read in the papers, hear on the news and read on the web.

It will damage your mental state.

Answer 3

and NATO forces still have nuclear weapons all over Europe so think twice before taking moral high ground. This reminds me of time Reagan say Soviet Union is barbaric for shooting down KAL 007 after its incursion over Soviet airspace in 1987, yet when USS Vincennes shoots down Iranair airbus over Iranian territory in 1988 laughably because 'they thought it was an Iranian fighter about to attack them' this was simply a mistake, for which the crew of the Vincennes received combat action ribbons and no punitive action was taken. The hypocrisy of many Westerners such as yourself is astonishing!!!

Answer 4

Well, any country can conduct their bomber trainings. What is your worry about Russia doing it?. The US, Britain, and Israel had been doing similar bomber trainings for so many decades, but nobody was compaining. So what's the big deal?.

Answer 5

We've had a long range bomber for years, who have we nuked lately?

Developing an expeditionary air force is something that has being go for a while now and is not an indication of another Cold War.

Answer 6

It's just the old east-west sabre-rattling.

Answer 7

The recent long range flights by Russian bombers are an interesting development but are no major threat to U.S. or Western interests. In the 1950’s, the Soviet Union developed a good medium jet bomber that NATO called the Tu-16 Badger, but since they did not have an extensive system of foreign airbases, all they could effectively threaten was their immediate neighbors. By contrast, the U.S. flew its 2000+ medium-range B-47’s from a series of European, African, Asian, and Alaskan bases that surrounded the Soviet Union. Our B-36 and later B-52 bombers had the range to make a round trip flight to anywhere in the USSR from CONUS bases. We had the bear caged up and routinely over flew Soviet airspace for reconnaissance purposes and to show them what we could do. At the same time, we deployed a very extensive air defense system consisting of dozens of Air Force interceptor squadrons controlled by the SAGE system which was fed by multiple belts of radar sites, and during the 1954-74 period, the U.S. Army operated Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules surface-to-air missile belts along our East coast, West coast, Midwest, and selected cities and bases elsewhere. The Soviets also deployed a very extensive air defense system which they did not dismantle as we foolishly did. As a footnote, the 911 attacks of 2001 would have been near impossible in 1961.

The Soviet Union developed the jet Bison and turboprop Tu-95 Bear bombers for their Long Range Aviation units in the mid-1950’s; however, Khrushchev decided not to produce those planes in large numbers. In view of our air defenses and new developments in rocketry, the Soviet leadership put their emphasis on land-based ICBM’s and down played the role of their bombers. That decision was premature since their liquid-fueled ICBM’s were unreliable, inaccurate and would not catch up (and eventually surpass) us in numbers until the early 1970’s. What the Soviets did with their bombers was to use them for long range reconnaissance and to probe our air defenses along our coasts. Their main wartime role would have been to destroy our aircraft carrier task forces and our reinforcement convoys heading to Europe in the event of a ground war against NATO. Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Rising contains a fictional account of a Battle of the North Atlantic featuring Soviet bombers against our fleet. In the real world, Mr. Bear (as the fighter pilots called them) flew from airbases around Murmansk to Cuba quite frequently. The Massachusetts Air National Guard fighters would escort them southward until relieved by the New Jersey ANG, then active Air Force fighters would take them further down and turn them over to various southern ANG units. The SAM belt was once solid from Maine to Virginia with some bases in Georgia and Florida, and the Army would also track the Bears as well.

Much more troublesome in the old days were fighters front Frontal Aviation units that played cat and mouse games with us in Europe and Alaska. When I was stationed in Germany in the early 1970’s, my unit used to get overflight reports of MiG 25’s in our border sector from the local HAWK missile battery that defended our airspace. Single planes were not shot down because they could be recon flights or a Soviet pilot with the intention of defecting. In those days, the Badgers were active in the Mediterranean, but the Bears could appear in mid-ocean almost anywhere. In return for foreign aid to Third World countries, the Soviets could get basing rights for single or small flights of planes. It was and remains expensive, but the long-range flights of the Bears remain a good means of reconnaissance, a good way to maintain excitement and training standards, and a good way to show the flag.

It is in the U.S. and Western best interest to have a secure Russia instead of a paranoid Russia, and we would much prefer a professional Russian military instead of a bunch of political thugs, terrorists, or criminal gangsters as some countries employ. Considering the relative small number of operational bombers and their expense, Russian bomber operations pose little threat to world peace. I would much rather see the Russians fly their own planes instead of their government sell them to other countries or their black market sell them to terrorists. The biggest Russian threat to world peace is the specter of their old nuclear weapons or bomb components being stolen by or sold to terrorists. A competent, well-exercised Russian military is the best means of preventing this.

By the way, the Britsh Vulcan bomber was phased out shortly after the Falklands War. The expense of developing, building, and operating a fleet of heavy bombers forced Britain out of the bomber business and curtailed the size of the bomber fleets even for super powers.

Answer 8

do do do there may be trouble ahead...