[Sixstrings]

Cameron says that what the Cornwall incident demonstrates is that the UK does have the "fast jets, pilots, and systems in place" to protect the united kingdom.

Uh.. was that an unknown, before? They don't actually know for sure if they can track and intercept Russian air force? Cameron doesn't sound very informed, about his own military. I find that odd.

RAF jets scrambled after Russian bombers seen off Cornwall
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31530840

British radio hobbyist picks up Russian bomber transmission, in Russian, in code over the Cornwall coast:

This is the terrifying sound of a Russian bomber sending coded messages back to base – as it flies near CORNWALL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo0i8Wr9rz4

Eyewitnesses claim the bomber flew into UK airspace, because they SAW it inland, contrary to Cameron's assertion that the bomber never crossed UK airspace:

Russian bomber flew inland over Cornwall, witness claims

“We were in St Eval when we saw a big black plane that looked like a tank. We thought: where’s that going? It was going along [the route of] the A30,” she said. “As we drove on the big black plane came back again. As Claire [Bamford’s driving instructor] took over to drive back we saw a silver plane, which was the Bear bomber. It’s travelling at the bottom of the St Mawgan valley so we can see it’s not out to sea, it’s in the valley. It’s long and thin, it’s got swept-back wings.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/19/russian-bomber-flew-inland-cornwall-uk-airspace-witness

Let me repeat that:

**** it’s not out to sea, it’s in the valley. It’s long and thin, it’s got swept-back wings. ****

"In the valley" is most certainly within British airspace, whether the prime minister dignifies that with an acknowledgement, or not.

[Withnail]

Cameron says that what the Cornwall incident demonstrates... blah blah

Why are you persisting in posting off topic, you prick?

[Sixstrings]

Why are you persisting in posting off topic, you prick?

If one of those Bear nuclear bombers crashes in Cornwall, you may be needing some of Putin's humanitarian aid in the little blue bags. How nice of him, providing humanitarian aid like that.



How are Russian nuclear bombers inland, over Cornwall (!) off topic to the Russia / Ukraine Crisis?

[Withnail]

Why are you persisting in posting off topic, you prick?

If one of those Bear nuclear bombers crashes in Cornwall, you may be needing some of Putin's humanitarian aid in the little blue bags. How nice of him, providing humanitarian aid like that.

You've been reported now, so hopefully moderators will remove your posts.

The topic is not Cornwall.

[AgentR11]

Russia has remarked before that they don't actually load the nukes onto their bombers for these patrols. We don't know that for sure of course; but mounting and unmounting nuclear armed cruise missiles; exposing them to weather; is a waste of money when all you're trying to do is get your pilots some hours, and try to get the Brits to over react.

Remember the core nature of a hybrid war: CHEAP . Do not spend any more money than you have to in order to get the desired result.

Oh, and speaking of money... a month ago, the ruble was 65; today its 62'ish. Trading values have been remarkably unjittery for over a month now; the price is zero'ing in on what many professional analysts were suggesting it belongs, eg 62/$US. People that paid 65+ to be safe with a dollar, now have to convert those dollars at 62 per to pay taxes. I noticed also that you didn't go ballistic all over Ukraine''s imminent death when their currency spiked when they pulled some of their controls moving towards float. Problem of course is that tethered to the EU and with minimal domestic production remaining; UA citizens will end up paying half their salary for a potato. Maidan and the EU bring such prosperity to the weak.

[Sixstrings]

Russia has remarked before that they don't actually load the nukes onto their bombers for these patrols.

Well that's comforting and sensible, if they don't actually load any nukes on the probing runs.

I was reading up about the Bear bomber. It's from 1952! HIGHLY advanced, for 1952. They went with the turboprop engines because that was lighter weight and longer range than jet engines. 8,000 mile range, longer with in air refueling, can hit any target in the continental US.

They were rendered obsolete by ICBMs, but now with the cruise missiles they carry that's a different kind of strategy. Just fly close enough to get those long range missiles in the air, and swarm them in. I don't even know if we've got any missile defense for that.

An achilles' heal -- the bear bombers are the loudest aircraft in the world, each prop breaking the sound barrier:

Each of the Bear’s eight four-blade propellers break the sound barrier as they turn, making the Tu-95 perhaps the loudest plane on the planet. In fact, Bears are so noisy that they can be detected by U.S. underwater sonar sensors and submarines. Fighter pilots sent up to intercept Bears have reported that the planes’ unmistakeable drone can be heard over the sound of their own jets.
http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/05/14/71/

Some of these Bears have gotten too close to the US and Canada. I poked a bit at Cameron, but our own response time wasn't so great with a couple of these. So I wonder.. why aren't there more underwater sonar systems getting placed, that could hear them longer range out? Then again, I suppose in a real attack they come over the Arctic and through Canada.

If the things are so loud though, would be best to get a bunch of sonar systems out in the water and intercept them before they can get so close.

Problem of course is that tethered to the EU and with minimal domestic production remaining; UA citizens will end up paying half their salary for a potato. Maidan and the EU bring such prosperity to the weak.

They'd be doing better, economically, if not for the war effort. Our own revolutionary army didn't even have shoes in winter. And still beat the British. With some foreign intervention help, finally, merci beaucoup.

Ukraine has been poorest in Europe for decades, tied to Russia. If they can get the war over with, then things will be hard for more years to come, but they'll be better in the long run. They got invaded, Agent, they didn't invade anyone. I don't know what you expect them to do. Surrender?

[Withnail]

Seriously, who gives a toss about a few old planes flying around.

We Brits aren't panty wetters like Six Strings. We've been bombed before.

My own city was heavily bombed by the Nazis. I used to have a fragment of a German magnetic mine given to me by my grandmother.

It was a really strong magnet. I had other magnets as a kid, but that was in a different league. They used to drop them in the hope of hitting ships.

And when I was a kid in the 70s, there were still burned out buildings from German bombing.

One of them being the former sugar warehouse. When that one went up, there were apparently rivers of fire coming out of it.

But on the plus side, the whole city smelled like toffee.

[Sixstrings]

I guess it was a mini battle of britain, over a highway in Cornwall -- Bear bomber and tanker flying so low that eyewitnesses saw it. And the Ministry of Defence denies the Russian craft crossed into UK airspace.

'Putin is watching us': MPs warn Cameron the military cannot cope with more defence cuts after RAF Typhoons are scrambled to intercept Russian bombers (while Moscow rages at 'old' and 'stupid' Tory ministers)

Two Russian Bear bombers seen in skies off south west coast of England
RAF fighter jets scrambled to intercept and escort them away, RAF says
Witness says she saw Russian planes flying inland - the MoD denies this
Comes the day after Defence Secretary warned of Russian aggression
Earlier this week, a Russian warship had to be escorted through Channel
Video emerges filmed from Russian bomber showing escort by Nato planes


Scrambled: A Typhoon jet was seen taking off from RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire at 4.30pm, shortly before the Russian planes were intercepted


Russia attacked Britain's 'too old' Defence Secretary Michael Fallon (pictured) after he claimed Mr Putin posed a threat to EU and NATO states
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2959849/Typhoon-fighter-jets-scrambled-intercept-two-Russian-Bear-bombers.html

Video of the interception, taken from the bear bomber and shown on Russian tv:

The interception of the Bears comes a fortnight after similar aircraft flew into the English Channel, prompting the Government to demand an explanation from the Russian ambassador.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9fNdk45Ung

Random scary video I ran across, while looking up Bear bomber videos:

TSAR BOMB RUSSIAN BIGGEST NUCLEAR WEAPON 57,000,000 TONS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4R8lAjVzj0

So anyhow.. now isn't a good time for the UK to do more defense cuts, I should think.

[Withnail]

I guess it was a mini battle of britain, over a highway in Cornwall -- Bear bomber and tanker flying so low that eyewitnesses saw it. And the Ministry of Defence denies the Russian craft crossed into UK airspace.

You panty wetting little freak.

This hasn't even registered on peoples' radar here in the UK.

This story doesn't even appear on google news for me.

The Ministry of Defence denies it. Do you think they are lying?

[Sixstrings]

You panty wetting little freak.

Stop it with the insults -- you're not the only person in the United Kingdom, some over there are concerned about Russia. I read the comments on the Guardian and all these articles. You're as much out of the mainstream as a lot of the Americans on this forum our out of our mainstream, with all due respect.

And I've been to England. Other than the muslim no-go zones you have lately, and nevile chamberlain liberals that are more lefty than ours are, you guys aren't any different.

The Ministry of Defence denies it. Do you think they are lying?

My hunch says yes. I believe the eye witness accounts. The British government has an interest in downplaying this, otherwise if they admit it was an airspace incursion then they'd have to respond to that.

Anyhow -- Russia never crosses into US airspace. Because they know they can't. They respect us. But the UK is weaker, more vulnerable, and so they test the UK more and push it farther. Same thing with Sweden, and Denmark, and Holland. A couple of those had actual incursions in recent months, into their air space.

These bombers don't have transponders on, and obviously don't report to ATC. They could potentially COLLIDE with civilian passenger traffic.

[Withnail]

And I've been to England. Other than the muslim no-go zones you have, and nevile chamberlain liberals that are more lefty than ours are, you guys aren't any different.

There are no muslim no go zones, you pathetic, pitiful excuse for a human being.

The Ministry of Defence denies it. Do you think they are lying?

My hunch says yes. I believe the eye witness accounts. The British government has an interest in downplaying this, otherwise if they admit it was an airspace incursion then they'd have to respond to that.

Your hunch says your trusted allies the British military are lying about an incursion into British airpsace that could easily be verified by multiple other sources like civilian radar?

[Sixstrings]

Good overall video news report from Channel 4:

Why is Russia flying bombers off the coast of Cornwall?
http://www.channel4.com/news/nato-russia-flying-jets-cornwall-putin-michael-fallon

UK plans to send 4 typhoon jets to patrol the Baltics. Last year, nato had to do 150 interceptions over the baltic states.

Russian gov really does not like defence minister Fallon, apparently. See guys -- this is what bullying looks like. They try to tell you what you can say, what you can do, what your defense minister should or shouldn't say.

Cameron actually has a good tone about this, and when it gets down to it the Brits won't be pushed around. If there's more incursions into UK air space then really, there ought to be some USAF over there too just to show solidarity.

This whole thing is a bit concerning -- it looks like nato Baltics really may be up, next, after Ukraine. They may actually try to hybrid war there. Good grief, the Russians really do want a war with us.

If they were stood up to, if they are stood up to somewhere else first, then it would not get to the Baltics or beyond.

Russia seems to think "hybrid war" is a legal loophole out of nato's article 5. This is pretty dangerous stuff -- somebody should have already made it clear to them that there are no loopholes to article 5. Hybrid wars and little green men included. Unfortunately, there's been indecision and confusion in nato itself as to whether hybrid war counts as article 5 attack.

The whole thing is nonsense, hybrid war is still war and landgrab.

At minimum -- if hybrid war in the Baltics were tolerated, then the West would have to respond by doing hybrid war in Russian bloc nations.

[Withnail]

Russian gov really does not like defence minister Fallon, apparently. See guys -- this is what bullying looks like. They try to tell you what you can say, what you can do, what your defense minister should or shouldn't say.

The last statement I recall from the Russians about the UK was that the UK is a small island nobody listens to.

That would seem to be pretty much on the mark.

But kudos to the Russians for knowing who the defence minister was here. I had no idea who it was. First time I've heard the name.

[Sixstrings]

The last statement I recall from the Russians about the UK was that the UK is a small island nobody listens to.

That would seem to be pretty much on the mark.

But kudos to the Russians for knowing who the defence minister was here. I had no idea who it was.

And you call me a bootlicker. What was your other comment, "well we've been bombed before." Russia is wrong -- UK is a small island that conquered, and remade, and gave the world its language. And if it works things right, then the only one that matters is the one that listens to Britain -- and that's the USA.

You may want to pay some more attention to your own country's politics, your defence minister says Putin is as big of a threat as ISIS:

UK Defense Chief Says Russia Poses Threat to Baltics

Britain's defense minister has said Russia poses a "real and present danger" to European security and could try to destabilize the Baltic states, former Soviet republics that are now part of NATO.

Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said tensions between Moscow and NATO were "warming up," and NATO must be prepared for Russian President Vladimir Putin to threaten Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

Fallon said he was "worried about (Putin's) pressure on the Baltics, the way he is testing NATO," and called the Russian leader "as great a threat to Europe as Islamic State."
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/uk-defense-chief-russia-poses-threat-baltics-29072283

Anyhow, we'll follow you Brits wherever you want to go, tally ho let's go on in and save the day. Churchill is a hero in the Republican Party. There's an Arleigh Burke class destroyer named after him.

[Withnail]

And you call me a bootlicker.

It's called a reality check. The UK is not in a position to exert force on any powerful country. We can just about manage to act as window dressing to American operations at best.

What was your other comment, "well we've been bombed before." Russia is wrong -- UK is a small island that conquered, and remade, and gave the world its language. And if it works things right, then the only one that matters is the one that listens to Britain -- and that's the USA.

Yes, we were bombed before. And at the time that the Nazis bombed my city, the USA was helping the Nazis.

Anyhow, we'll follow you Brits wherever you want to go, tally ho let's go on in and save the day. Churchill is a hero in the Republican Party. There's an Arleigh Burke class destroyer named after him.

Wonderful stuff. The thing is Churchill was thrown out as prime minister in a resounding defeat in 1945.

So who cares what Americans think.

You may want to pay some more attention to your own country's politics, your defence minister says Putin is as big of a threat as ISIS:

Like I said, I didn't even know the guy's name till a few minutes ago.

[Sixstrings]

It's called a reality check. The UK is not in a position to exert force on any powerful country. We can just about manage to act as window dressing to American operations at best.

Well, that's not really true. That old "special relationship" stuff really meant something, that made the UK the #1 ally. It's drifted in recent years.

UK used to have an exceptional leadership role in Europe, thanks to its close alliance with the US, in part. And this isn't all BS, Thatcher did a lot in the cold war, she's right up there with Reagan.

A strong British PM is always respected in the US. It's that accent. We can't help but listen to you, if you're saying things that sound principled and like you know what you're talking about. I wasn't impressed by Miliband though, when he was on morning joe a week ago. He's too posh. We want to see a Churchill. Maybe Cameron might find his way, after all.

As far as military contribution, actually the UK did more than any other ally. They used to be the only ones in nato that met their military expenditure target.

Withnail -- if Britain mothballs its military, then it'll just become a Russian vassal. Russian money is already all over London. They already like your island, quite a bit. And if the UK doesn't start leading more, then that's just ceding leadership all to France and Germany. I don't think most Brits want that, either.

UK needs to get it together, a bit, for goodness sake Scotland darn near seceded. You've got this bad muslim extremist problem. You all really need a strong PM, conservatives ought to pick someone new or Cameron needs to find his sea legs or something.

The thing is Churchill was thrown out as prime minister in a resounding defeat in 1945.

And so was Thatcher. Nobody can stay in there, forever. That doesn't make those two any less great.

By the way, like it or not, your history is our history too. Duh.

[Withnail]

Thatcher did a lot in the cold war, she's right up there with Reagan.

She will certainly be in the same circle in the afterlife, I'm sure.

A strong British PM is always respected in the US. It's that accent. We can't help but listen to you, if you're saying things that sound principled and like you know what you're talking about.

Well maybe you should be less subservient to people with British accents and be Americans. In fact I find it impossible to believe Americans share your views.

Withnail -- if Britain mothballs its military, then it'll just become a Russian vassal.

Already effectively mothballed, no vassal status in sight.

We probably have less tanks than Novorossiya now.

You've got this bad muslim extremist problem.

What do you want us to do, ethnically cleanse them?

[Sixstrings]

She will certainly be in the same circle in the afterlife, I'm sure.

I realize she was bitterly hated by the left, yet, somebody must have been voting conservative all those years for her to be in there so long.

I'm not a total trickle down conservative, but oh man, Thatcher just SOUNDED right:

Margaret Thatcher on Socialism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

Already effectively mothballed, no vassal status in sight.

We probably have less tanks than Novorossiya now.

Has it gotten that bad? According to this source:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-kingdom

UK is ranked the 5th top military in the world, behind US, Russia, China, India.

146,000 active personnel, 182,000 reserve

Tanks: 407
Amored fighting vehicles: 5900
Towed artillery: 138 (towed artillery is old school but really, ought to have more than a hundred laying around )
Multiple rocket launcher systems: 42 (sounds light to me)

Air force:

89 fighters, 65 attack helicopters

Navy: 1 good new aircraft carrier, in sad shape otherwise

Compared to USA:

1.4 million active personnel, 1.1 million reserve

Tanks: 8,848
Armored fighting vehicles: 41,000
Towed artillery: 1299
Rocket launcher systems: 1331

Air force:

2207 fighters
920 attack helicopters (that seems light, we need more attack choppers)

Navy:

20 aircraft carriers
62 destroyers
72 subs

Russia has: almost the same active personnel and more reserves, PLUS the big thing about Russia is that all their force is right there in Europe whereas ours is spread all over the world. So that makes the Russian force more formidable. We've got like 40k troops in South Korea and all over the planet, like that. Russian force is all concentrated.

Tanks: 15,000
AFVs: 31,000
Towed artillery: 4600
Rocket launch systems: 3700

Air force: 769 fighters, 111 attack helicopters

Their navy isn't much, about all they've got is 63 subs. Otherwise they've got 74 "corvettes." Only 12 destroyers.

And let's not forget, US navy has the new laser weapons and rail guns they're rolling out.

Anyhow back to UK -- not a bad military, but needs a lot more rocket launchers. And more AFVs. 400 tanks is enough. Air force seems alright, just don't cancel those typhoons -- they're obviously needed.

Navy is in bad shape -- one more of those carriers is supposed to be built, ought to build another. That's actually a good carrier, 3 would be good.

UK needs aegis destroyers. It's only got 6 destroyers. And only 10 subs. Needs 3 times as many destroyers and twice as many subs.

What do you want us to do, ethnically cleanse them?

Well, NO -- but get rid of sharia law courts for starters. And just a tougher tone, as is being done actually, and is being done in Australia and Canada and in Europe. This one is a difficult problem. UK has had a lot of muslim immigration, same as Europe has, yet UK and Europe don't assimilate immigrants as well as the US does.

Just do the best you can. Can't be too liberal and PC about it. Terror suspects shouldn't be let out on bail, etc.

[Withnail]

Anyhow back to UK -- not a bad military, but needs a lot more rocket launchers. And more AFVs. 400 tanks is enough. Air force seems alright, just don't cancel those typhoons -- they're obviously needed.

There's no enthusiasm for war in this country.

So we don't really need the weapons you talk about.

400 tanks? Last I heard we had about 200 operational.

[Sixstrings]

House of Lords criticizes the government for "sleepwalking" into the crisis, and misjudging the threat from Russia, and not being as active as it should have been:

The EU committee of the House of Lords also argued, in the findings of an inquiry to be published today, that Western Europe failed to detect the real character of the Kremlin. For too long, it said, the relationship had been based on the “optimistic premise” that Russia was on a trajectory to democracy.

The British Government, which is one of the guarantors of the territorial integrity of Ukraine in return for it giving up a nuclear arsenal, was heavily criticised for not being “as active or as visible as it could have been”.

“It [the committee] believes that the EU, and by implication the UK, was guilty of sleep-walking into this crisis,” said the committee chairman, Lord Tugendhat. “The lack of robust analytical capacity, in both the UK and the EU, effectively led to a catastrophic misreading of the mood in the run-up to the crisis.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-house-of-lords-criticises-eu-and-britain-for-sleepwalking-into-crisis-as-moscow-and-nato-remain-on-diplomatic-collision-course-10058141.html