# Canadian jets repel Russian bombers



## Ammo (30 Jul 2010)

Nothing new here but...

Last Updated: July 30, 2010 5:03am

OTTAWA - Canadian fighter jets scrambled to repel Russian bombers that made several attempts to probe Canadian airspace on Wednesday. 

QMI Agency has learned that two CF-18s took off from CFB Bagotville to intercept two TU-95 long range bombers about 463 km east of Goose Bay, N.L. 

Attempts by Russia to test Canadian airspace have been going on since 2007; military and intelligence analysts tell QMI Agency the frequency has been increasing since then, but one senior official described Wednesday's event as "not the usual s--t." 

More http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/30/14874221.html


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Jul 2010)

Ammo said:
			
		

> Nothing new here but...
> 
> Last Updated: July 30, 2010 5:03am
> 
> ...



Unless I'm mistaken, this is the first time in a while that Russian bombers have appeared off the East Coast.  The article doesn't mention it, these bombers would have been monitored as soon as they came around Norway's North Cape.

I have my doubts the aircraft would be carrying live nukes; that's a pretty sensitive political/military issue and god help if one of them should go down and the Americans got their hands on them!


----------



## krustyrl (30 Jul 2010)

Sounds like something has stirred interest more than the usual interception by what a Senior Official states..??? Hmmm.....


----------



## VIChris (30 Jul 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> god help if one of them should go down and the Americans got their hands on them!



Or it leaked radioactive filth over foreign territories.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jul 2010)

And we all know that has never happened.   :


----------



## Sig_Des (30 Jul 2010)

VIChris said:
			
		

> Or it leaked radioactive filth over foreign territories.



What, like when the Russians dumped their nuclear powered satellite, cosmos 954 into our North?


----------



## Sapplicant (30 Jul 2010)

I'd just worry that they're trying to figure out what range they'd be in before getting intercepted. Air to surface missiles scare the crap out of me, especially the ones that turn sand into glass...

Let's just hope that they're only  :stirpot: and nothing more...


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jul 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> I'd just worry that they're trying to figure out what range they'd be in before getting intercepted.



They are well aware and have been for years.





> Let's just hope that they're only  :stirpot: and nothing more...



They like reminding everyone they are still around. Been doing it for decades. Nothing to get worked up over.


----------



## Sapplicant (30 Jul 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> They like reminding everyone they are still around. Been doing it for decades. Nothing to get worked up over.




Maybe one of these times we should fire a couple rounds at them.. Not enough to shoot them down, just enough to remind everyone that Canadians still aren't to by ****ed with  >


----------



## bdave (30 Jul 2010)

Good thing we purchased all those F35s.


----------



## Sapplicant (30 Jul 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Maybe one of these times we should fire a couple rounds at them.. Not enough to shoot them down, just enough to remind everyone that Canadians still aren't to by ****ed with  >




Before anyone jumps on it, I'm well aware of just how ridiculous an idea that is. The outcome would definitely not be pleasant. Just saying that if you taunt a pitbull for long enough, you oughtta expect to have your hand bitten.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jul 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Before anyone jumps on it, I'm well aware of just how ridiculous an idea that is. The outcome would definitely not be pleasant. Just saying that if you taunt a pitbull for long enough, you oughtta expect to have your hand bitten.



Stop it.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Jul 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Maybe one of these times we should fire a couple rounds at them.. Not enough to shoot them down, just enough to remind everyone that Canadians still aren't to by ****ed with  >



They are flying in international airspace and have not entered into Canadian airspace. They have the right to fly there just like anyone else. Even flying to close to the Russian aircraft is considered a violation of international law, let alone the idea of firing a couple of rounds in their direction.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jul 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Maybe one of these times we should fire a couple rounds at them.. Not enough to shoot them down, just enough to remind everyone that Canadians still aren't to by ****ed with  >



They do it to us, they do it to the yanks and recently they even sent Tu-160s to pay the brits a visit. International airspace is just that....international. Nothing to start firing warning shots over. Most times the flights are part of pre-announced exercises. The edge of the ADIZ isnt some kind of "line of death".

You want to see actual airspace violations, go visit the Baltic states and talk to the NATO air policing detachement folks.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (30 Jul 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> Good thing we purchased all those F35s.



We have not purchased anything, yet.

It does remind everyone why we need to keep our Air Force (and the rest of our armed forces) up to date.


----------



## Sapplicant (30 Jul 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> They are flying in international airspace and have not entered into Canadian airspace. They have the right to fly there just like anyone else. Even flying to close to the Russian aircraft is considered a violation of international law, let alone the idea of firing a couple of rounds in their direction.



Understood. I misread the article, and thought that an incursion had been made.


----------



## Sapplicant (30 Jul 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Understood. I misread the article, and thought that an incursion had been made.




On that note, what would happen if they DID, in fact, send a bomber into our airspace unannounced, and without permission?


----------



## dangerboy (30 Jul 2010)

All information regarding rules of engagement are classifed and will not be discussed on these means.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Jul 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> On that note, what would happen if they DID, in fact, send a bomber into our airspace unannounced, and without permission?



Use your imagination.........



			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> All information regarding rules of engagement are classified and will not be discussed on these means.



Agreed.....


----------



## Haggis (30 Jul 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> On that note, what would happen if they DID, in fact, send a bomber into our airspace unannounced, and without permission?



[John Wayne voice ]Well, I'll tell ya, Ivan.  You just try it and find out!!![/John Wayne voice]


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (30 Jul 2010)

Haggis said:
			
		

> [John Wayne voice ]Well, I'll tell ya, Ivan.  You just try it and find out!!![/John Wayne voice]



ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Jul 2010)

Post at _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_:

So Labrador is now Arctic? That’s why we need F-35s?
http://unambig.com/so-labrador-is-now-arctic-thats-why-we-need-f-35s/



> ...more silly and stupid government spin...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Jul 2010)

Ironically, the CF-101 Voodoo was entirely ineffective as a _conventional_ interceptor.  Its armament consisted of 2 missiles (GAR 2A Falcon) and 2 rockets (GENIE).  The GAR 2A was a heat-seeker, had technology that was from the 1950's and they stopped making those missiles in the early 1960's.  The GENIE was effective, but as a reminder, it was a nuclear weapon.  You can fill in the blanks on that one.


Nice plane, though.


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Jul 2010)

Different nukes for different fukes, er, times ;D.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Jul 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Different nukes for different fukes, er, times ;D.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


:rofl:

To be honest, I went to youtube and watched a bunch of footage on Voodoos flying about.  I forgot how awesome that jet looked flying around.


----------



## medicineman (31 Jul 2010)

Maybe the tune will change when Blackjacks start doing the overflights instead of the Bears...

MM


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Ironically, the CF-101 Voodoo was entirely ineffective as a _conventional_ interceptor.  Its armament consisted of 2 missiles (GAR 2A Falcon) and 2 rockets (GENIE).  The GAR 2A was a heat-seeker, had technology that was from the 1950's and they stopped making those missiles in the early 1960's.  The GENIE was effective, but as a reminder, it was a nuclear weapon.  You can fill in the blanks on that one.
> 
> 
> Nice plane, though.



Actually, we loaded up 2xAIM-4D (Falcon) infa-red guided missiles and 2x AIR-2A (Genie) rockets, which were unguided. 

We had some AIM-24B missiles later, that were a little faster and harder hitting (bigger warhead) and better infa-red, but other than that looked about the same.

They would be vectored using IR and radar.

The AIM-4D could move at about Mach 4 and the AIR-2A at approx Mach 3, both had a range of about 6 miles.

The whole attack path was rather convoluted and the missiles took time to wake up once armed. 

I can try find something on it if you want.

The weapons door was a rotating affair that held two AIM on one side and two AIR on the other.

Or when we were flying to Tyndall, in Florida, or some such, we would attach the aluminum cargo box for away gear (golf clubs) ;D

The Q birds were always loaded, but we never confirmed or denied, the type of armament. They used to launch for intrusions (on the west coast) a couple of times a week, at least, in the late 70's.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Jul 2010)

RAF Tornado F3 intercepting a Blackjack.  Thankfully, the Russians have fewer than 20.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Jul 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The Q birds were always loaded, but we never confirmed or denied, the type of armament. They used to launch for intrusions (on the west coast) a couple of times a week, at least, in the late 70's.


The one website (not Wiki-anything) mentioned that the GAR2A evolved into the AIM 4D.  I just mean that unless nuke authority were given, it could fire only two missiles.  

Now, the weapons station was internal, no?


----------



## aesop081 (31 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Thankfully, the Russians have fewer than 20.



Not for much longer as the production line is re-opening.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The one website (not Wiki-anything) mentioned that the GAR2A evolved into the AIM 4D.  I just mean that unless nuke authority were given, it could fire only two missiles.
> 
> Now, the weapons station was internal, no?



The VooDoo had a rotating weapons door just aft of the nose gear. Two missles were on one side and two rockets on the other, when fully loaded. So the missles were hanging outside at launch and the rockets internal. Both missles fired in a single launch about two seconds apart. Then you would rotate the door for another go around with the rockets hanging................if needed.


----------



## belka (1 Aug 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Not for much longer as the production line is re-opening.



So they are building new 1980's era bombers?


----------



## aesop081 (1 Aug 2010)

belka said:
			
		

> So they are building new 1980's era bombers?



I cant remember where i read that unfortunately. What i do know is that, in 2006, Russia took delivery of a new-built TU-160 and began modernizing the rest at a rate of 5 per year.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Aug 2010)

belka said:
			
		

> So they are building new 1980's era bombers?


No.  They are building 21st century bombers.  The airframe is from a design that originated in the 1970s, but recent models include the following:
completely digital, multireserved, neutron and other nuclear emissions resistant avionics;
full support of cruising and steering through GLONASS global satellite positioning system;
updated version of NK-32 engines with increased reliability;
ability to operate new nuclear/non-nuclear GLONASS-navigated cruise missiles (Kh-55);
ability to handle missiles that launch military or civil satellites;
ability to bear laser-guided bombs; and
advanced radar emissions absorbing covering.
OK, so GPS isn't exactly "new", but it can handle missles that LAUNCH SATELLITES.   


This plane has reach.  As an example:


> On 10 September 2008 two Russian Tu-160 landed in *Venezuela * as part of military maneuvers, announcing an unprecedented deployment to Russia's ally at a time of increasingly tense relations between Russia and the United States



And if one came by tomorrow, it would be intercepted by a 1980's plane: the CF-18.


----------



## belka (1 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And if one came by tomorrow, it would be intercepted by a 1980's plane: the CF-18.



Meh, a missile is a missile if things get frisky in an interception. Doesn't matter if it gets released from a CF-18 or F-22, the result will be the same.


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Aug 2010)

belka:



> Meh, a missile is a missile if things get frisky in an interception. Doesn't matter if it gets released from a CF-18 or F-22, the result will be the same.



Or a 1980s Tornado, 
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tornado/
or a Voodoo .  As long as the interceptor has the speed, and range, to get to the potential intruder in a, er, timely fashion.

Mark
Ottawa


----------

