Russian bombers flew undected over Arctic

[lozina]

article

MOSCOW, April 22 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military planes flew undetected through the U.S. zone of the Arctic Ocean to Canada during recent military exercises, a senior Air Force commander said Saturday.

The commander of the country's long-range strategic bombers, Lieutenant General Igor Khvorov, said the U.S. Air Force is now investigating why its military was unable to detect the Russian bombers.

"They were unable to detect the planes either with radars or visually," he said.

Khorov said that during the military exercises in April, Tu-160 Blackjack bombers and Tu-95 Bears had successfully carried out four missile launches. Bombing exercises were held using Tu-22 Blinders.

never heard about this before, if it's true- how could they evade radar? The Tu-160 is a pretty modern bomber but the Tu-95 Bear is an old propeller based bomber, from the early Cold War era?

Anyway, the timing of this exercise is interesting, around the Iran crisis and came before the announcement of a "new Cold War"

update: Ok, after finding another article on this, it seems there were 2 different missions, one which involved those older Tu-95's to launch cruise missiles somewhere I guess in Russian territory but the second mission which this thread title references seemed to be only Tu-160's.

another article

The Tu-160 can carry long range nuclear missiles and up to 12 strategic cruise missiles.

 

[rudder]

RIA Novosti says the US Air Force is now investigating why its military was unable to detect the Russian bombers. "They were unable to detect the aircraft either with radars or visually," says Khvorov.

Maybe if the bombers were never there. This article completely omits any U.S. military side of the story. Not to say that it couldn't have happened, but still suspect.

 

[K1052]

That's ok, even if true (which is suspect since there is no source besides the Russian military).

I don't think Russia's under-funded decrepit ass warning system could tell if we launched our entire Minuteman III inventory at them. Even then I'd lay good odds that most of their ICBM fleet hasn't been maintained properly and would never get out of their silos.

 

[dmcowen674]

Nothing new here. All of the U.S. borders are as pourous as coral.

 

[fitzov]

Think about it. Neither the Russian or American military would have anything to gain from such a story besides hype. If the Russians had some cloaking technology unknown to us, they would want to keep it that way. They wouldn't announce its success. This is either a cooked-up story or some much needed morale-building for the Russian military.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Nothing new here. All of the U.S. borders are as pourous as coral.

This is the Arctic Ocean not the crossing at Tijuana.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: K1052
That's ok, even if true (which is suspect since there is no source besides the Russian military).

I don't think Russia's under-funded decrepit ass warning system could tell if we launched our entire Minuteman III inventory at them. Even then I'd lay good odds that most of their ICBM fleet hasn't been maintained properly and would never get out of their silos.

Russia is not exactly poor anymore, they have been reinvigorated with great oil revenues.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: K1052
That's ok, even if true (which is suspect since there is no source besides the Russian military).

I don't think Russia's under-funded decrepit ass warning system could tell if we launched our entire Minuteman III inventory at them. Even then I'd lay good odds that most of their ICBM fleet hasn't been maintained properly and would never get out of their silos.

Russia is not exactly poor anymore, they have been reinvigorated with great oil revenues.

The neglect of the past 15 years can't be put right in a year or two of increased income where strategic defense is concerned. Most of their weapons development is now centered on things they can export like electronics, aircraft, and smaller missiles (cruise, air to air, etc...) anyway.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: fitzov
Think about it. Neither the Russian or American military would have anything to gain from such a story besides hype. If the Russians had some cloaking technology unknown to us, they would want to keep it that way. They wouldn't announce its success. This is either a cooked-up story or some much needed morale-building for the Russian military.

Exactly. It's hype. Otherwise the US military needs to get the same kind of radar system the newspaper that printed this story has since they were obviously able to detect the Russian planes.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: fitzov
Think about it. Neither the Russian or American military would have anything to gain from such a story besides hype. If the Russians had some cloaking technology unknown to us, they would want to keep it that way. They wouldn't announce its success. This is either a cooked-up story or some much needed morale-building for the Russian military.

Actually, the Russian military might have the motive. From the link in the OP

The success of the missions has convinced Moscow to aquire two additional Tu-160s for the long-range bomber fleet by the end of the year

Imagine a defense contractor and the military collaborating with some phony results in order to procure some funding. Not that it could ever happen here, of course...

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Gibsons


Actually, the Russian military might have the motive. From the link in the OP

The success of the missions has convinced Moscow to aquire two additional Tu-160s for the long-range bomber fleet by the end of the year

Imagine a defense contractor and the military collaborating with some phony results in order to procure some funding. Not that it could ever happen here, of course...

Yeah, that's a good point to consider

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: K1052
That's ok, even if true (which is suspect since there is no source besides the Russian military).

I don't think Russia's under-funded decrepit ass warning system could tell if we launched our entire Minuteman III inventory at them. Even then I'd lay good odds that most of their ICBM fleet hasn't been maintained properly and would never get out of their silos.

I really don't understand how after so much historical evidence to the contrary, people still underestimate Russian military capability. You've bought into the hype. There is a reason why the top military experts have rated Russian aircraft at being far superior to their American counterparts... and why american soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan if they ever encounter a Russian-made AK, will usually keep it as a primary weapon, if their superiors allow them.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: K1052
That's ok, even if true (which is suspect since there is no source besides the Russian military).

I don't think Russia's under-funded decrepit ass warning system could tell if we launched our entire Minuteman III inventory at them. Even then I'd lay good odds that most of their ICBM fleet hasn't been maintained properly and would never get out of their silos.

I really don't understand how after so much historical evidence to the contrary, people still underestimate Russian military capability. You've bought into the hype. There is a reason why the top military experts have rated Russian aircraft at being far superior to their American counterparts... and why american soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan if they ever encounter a Russian-made AK, will usually keep it as a primary weapon, if their superiors allow them.

Strategic nuclear weapon systems are extremely expensive to develop and maintain and provide no practical gain. It has been common knowledge that Russia has under funded their programs for many years in order to develop lucrative export weaponry.

The Russians have some neat aircraft, but no money to produce them for their own forces so they sell export derivatives to other countries. Also, the F22 certainly tips the balance back to the US in terms of fighter performance.

As for small arms, the M-16 should never have been adopted. Ironically the US will likely adopt the XM8 next which is based off a Stoner design that was up for consideration about the same time as the M-16 was originally.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: K1052
That's ok, even if true (which is suspect since there is no source besides the Russian military).

I don't think Russia's under-funded decrepit ass warning system could tell if we launched our entire Minuteman III inventory at them. Even then I'd lay good odds that most of their ICBM fleet hasn't been maintained properly and would never get out of their silos.

I really don't understand how after so much historical evidence to the contrary, people still underestimate Russian military capability. You've bought into the hype. There is a reason why the top military experts have rated Russian aircraft at being far superior to their American counterparts... and why american soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan if they ever encounter a Russian-made AK, will usually keep it as a primary weapon, if their superiors allow them.

Strategic nuclear weapon systems are extremely expensive to develop and maintain and provide no practical gain. It has been common knowledge that Russia has under funded their programs for many years in order to develop lucrative export weaponry.

The Russians have some neat aircraft, but no money to produce them for their own forces so they sell export derivatives to other countries. Also, the F22 certainly tips the balance back to the US in terms of fighter performance.

It doesn't. The flight characteristics of the F22 are inferior to the SU-37, as, strangely enough, are the avionics. The only weapon it has is stealth. But stealth on an attack aircraft presumes that air superiority has ALREADY been established, since a stealth fighter would have to rely on another aircraft to provide active radar coverage. The moment an F22 turns on its radar (which is also inferior to the Russian one), it ceases to be stealth.

As for our older aircraft, even our less than wealthy ally Israel, guts the planes to the frame and refits them with their own avionics, radar, and missiles. Short of the airframe and the powerplant, the Israeli F15s and F16s are totally different planes.

Originally posted by: K1052
As for small arms, the M-16 should never have been adopted. Ironically the US will likely adopt the XM8 next which is based off a Stoner design that was up for consideration about the same time as the M-16 was originally.

I was pretty sure the XM-8 project was put on an indefinite hold.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: K1052
That's ok, even if true (which is suspect since there is no source besides the Russian military).

I don't think Russia's under-funded decrepit ass warning system could tell if we launched our entire Minuteman III inventory at them. Even then I'd lay good odds that most of their ICBM fleet hasn't been maintained properly and would never get out of their silos.

I really don't understand how after so much historical evidence to the contrary, people still underestimate Russian military capability. You've bought into the hype. There is a reason why the top military experts have rated Russian aircraft at being far superior to their American counterparts... and why american soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan if they ever encounter a Russian-made AK, will usually keep it as a primary weapon, if their superiors allow them.

Strategic nuclear weapon systems are extremely expensive to develop and maintain and provide no practical gain. It has been common knowledge that Russia has under funded their programs for many years in order to develop lucrative export weaponry.

The Russians have some neat aircraft, but no money to produce them for their own forces so they sell export derivatives to other countries. Also, the F22 certainly tips the balance back to the US in terms of fighter performance.

It doesn't. The flight characteristics of the F22 are inferior to the SU-37, as, strangely enough, are the avionics. The only weapon it has is stealth. But stealth on an attack aircraft presumes that air superiority has ALREADY been established, since a stealth fighter would have to rely on another aircraft to provide active radar coverage. The moment an F22 turns on its radar (which is also inferior to the Russian one), it ceases to be stealth.

As for our older aircraft, even our less than wealthy ally Israel, guts the planes to the frame and refits them with their own avionics, radar, and missiles. Short of the airframe and the powerplant, the Israeli F15s and F16s are totally different planes.

Originally posted by: K1052
As for small arms, the M-16 should never have been adopted. Ironically the US will likely adopt the XM8 next which is based off a Stoner design that was up for consideration about the same time as the M-16 was originally.

I was pretty sure the XM-8 project was put on an indefinite hold.

You mean the Su-37 that has not seen any service in any airforce or even been produced in a quantity beyond a few prototypes and was recently cancelled?

The quality of the F22's radar vs. the Su-37s and their tactical applications have been debated endlessly in other threads without consensus. I'd say the advantage goes to the one that is actually in service rather than a paper tiger.

Replacement of most of our small arms was shelved for the time being as the military has other comitments right now.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I grew up with stuff like this. When I was a kid it seemed that every week planes were scrambled from Elmendorf or Galena to escort a Bear back to its own airspace. The Russians regularly probed into our airspace to judge our reaction times.

The story sounds a little fishy. If its true we certainly saw them coming over but opted to observe rather than intercept. In any case, it doesn't make sense for the Russians to try anything like this.

 

[slatr]

The flight characteristics of the F22 are inferior to the SU-37,
**************
What is your source for this information?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Nothing new here. All of the U.S. borders are as pourous as coral.

lmao for once I have to kind of agree with Dave and got a laugh from his response.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: K1052
That's ok, even if true (which is suspect since there is no source besides the Russian military).

I don't think Russia's under-funded decrepit ass warning system could tell if we launched our entire Minuteman III inventory at them. Even then I'd lay good odds that most of their ICBM fleet hasn't been maintained properly and would never get out of their silos.

I really don't understand how after so much historical evidence to the contrary, people still underestimate Russian military capability. You've bought into the hype. There is a reason why the top military experts have rated Russian aircraft at being far superior to their American counterparts... and why american soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan if they ever encounter a Russian-made AK, will usually keep it as a primary weapon, if their superiors allow them.

Both are wrong. Russian hardware is sh1t compared to ours, and our GI's dont swap AR's for Ak's.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: K1052
That's ok, even if true (which is suspect since there is no source besides the Russian military).

I don't think Russia's under-funded decrepit ass warning system could tell if we launched our entire Minuteman III inventory at them. Even then I'd lay good odds that most of their ICBM fleet hasn't been maintained properly and would never get out of their silos.

I really don't understand how after so much historical evidence to the contrary, people still underestimate Russian military capability. You've bought into the hype. There is a reason why the top military experts have rated Russian aircraft at being far superior to their American counterparts... and why american soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan if they ever encounter a Russian-made AK, will usually keep it as a primary weapon, if their superiors allow them.

Strategic nuclear weapon systems are extremely expensive to develop and maintain and provide no practical gain. It has been common knowledge that Russia has under funded their programs for many years in order to develop lucrative export weaponry.

The Russians have some neat aircraft, but no money to produce them for their own forces so they sell export derivatives to other countries. Also, the F22 certainly tips the balance back to the US in terms of fighter performance.

It doesn't. The flight characteristics of the F22 are inferior to the SU-37, as, strangely enough, are the avionics. The only weapon it has is stealth. But stealth on an attack aircraft presumes that air superiority has ALREADY been established, since a stealth fighter would have to rely on another aircraft to provide active radar coverage. The moment an F22 turns on its radar (which is also inferior to the Russian one), it ceases to be stealth.

As for our older aircraft, even our less than wealthy ally Israel, guts the planes to the frame and refits them with their own avionics, radar, and missiles. Short of the airframe and the powerplant, the Israeli F15s and F16s are totally different planes.

Originally posted by: K1052


As for small arms, the M-16 should never have been adopted. Ironically the US will likely adopt the XM8 next which is based off a Stoner design that was up for consideration about the same time as the M-16 was originally.

I was pretty sure the XM-8 project was put on an indefinite hold.

Can you support any of those claims? Who are these "top military experts," and did they have access to classified F-22 info? It's certainly contrary to what I've read.

As for the particulars...

The F-22 has thrust vectoring which should allow for some very serious dogfighting potential, maybe as good as an Su-37, but a good F-22 pilot won't play that game. More importantly, the F-22 has a choice of whether he wants to play or not, unless their are some extenuating ROE.

Also, note that the F-22's radar is "Low Probability of Intercept" AESA radar, pretty advanced. You'd probably need classified access to guess as to how well it would really work, both in terms of raw performance and how likely our theortetical opponent is to detect it. But, reading a few anecdotes about mock engagements, it seems that F-15s and F-18s are usually shot out of the sky (in great numbers) before they have any idea that an F-22 is even in the area. In other words, the F-22s are able to target, track, lock and launch before the other guy even knows they're there. Granted, other countries might have more sophisticated radar warning devices or better radar than the F-18s and F-15s. But it would need to be a LOT better for them to even have a hope.

So, both planes are highly agile, but one is stealthy, supercruises and is in service right now. The other isn't stealty, doesn't supercruise and isn't in service at all and may not ever be built. Has an Su-37 ever even fired a weapon? How does its performance change when you start hanging gas tanks and missiles underneath it? Is there a production model?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: K1052
That's ok, even if true (which is suspect since there is no source besides the Russian military).

I don't think Russia's under-funded decrepit ass warning system could tell if we launched our entire Minuteman III inventory at them. Even then I'd lay good odds that most of their ICBM fleet hasn't been maintained properly and would never get out of their silos.

I really don't understand how after so much historical evidence to the contrary, people still underestimate Russian military capability. You've bought into the hype. There is a reason why the top military experts have rated Russian aircraft at being far superior to their American counterparts... and why american soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan if they ever encounter a Russian-made AK, will usually keep it as a primary weapon, if their superiors allow them.

Strategic nuclear weapon systems are extremely expensive to develop and maintain and provide no practical gain. It has been common knowledge that Russia has under funded their programs for many years in order to develop lucrative export weaponry.

The Russians have some neat aircraft, but no money to produce them for their own forces so they sell export derivatives to other countries. Also, the F22 certainly tips the balance back to the US in terms of fighter performance.

It doesn't. The flight characteristics of the F22 are inferior to the SU-37, as, strangely enough, are the avionics. The only weapon it has is stealth. But stealth on an attack aircraft presumes that air superiority has ALREADY been established, since a stealth fighter would have to rely on another aircraft to provide active radar coverage. The moment an F22 turns on its radar (which is also inferior to the Russian one), it ceases to be stealth.

As for our older aircraft, even our less than wealthy ally Israel, guts the planes to the frame and refits them with their own avionics, radar, and missiles. Short of the airframe and the powerplant, the Israeli F15s and F16s are totally different planes.

Originally posted by: K1052


As for small arms, the M-16 should never have been adopted. Ironically the US will likely adopt the XM8 next which is based off a Stoner design that was up for consideration about the same time as the M-16 was originally.

I was pretty sure the XM-8 project was put on an indefinite hold.

Can you support any of those claims? Who are these "top military experts," and did they have access to classified F-22 info? It's certainly contrary to what I've read.

As for the particulars...

The F-22 has thrust vectoring which should allow for some very serious dogfighting potential, maybe as good as an Su-37, but a good F-22 pilot won't play that game. More importantly, the F-22 has a choice of whether he wants to play or not, unless their are some extenuating ROE.

Also, note that the F-22's radar is "Low Probability of Intercept" AESA radar, pretty advanced. You'd probably need classified access to guess as to how well it would really work, both in terms of raw performance and how likely our theortetical opponent is to detect it. But, reading a few anecdotes about mock engagements, it seems that F-15s and F-18s are usually shot out of the sky (in great numbers) before they have any idea that an F-22 is even in the area. In other words, the F-22s are able to target, track, lock and launch before the other guy even knows they're there.

A forward-looking point-type emitter radar is a lighthouse. You turn it on - you've painted yourself. These engagements were again conducted in the presence of external radar, without a doubt.

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Granted, other countries might have more sophisticated radar warning devices or better radar than the F-18s and F-15s. But it would need to be a LOT better for them to even have a hope.

So, both planes are highly agile, but one is stealthy, supercruises and is in service right now. The other isn't stealty, doesn't supercruise and isn't in service at all and may not ever be built. Has an Su-37 ever even fired a weapon? How does its performance change when you start hanging gas tanks and missiles underneath it? Is there a production model?

I am not aware of more than several SU-37s, but the SU-30K, which also packs thrust vectoring and advanced avionics, and which has been produced in numbers, has been recognized as the best fighter at the moment.

 

[slatr]

I am not aware of more than several SU-37s, but the SU-30K, which also packs thrust vectoring and advanced avionics, and which has been produced in numbers, has been recognized as the best fighter at the moment
*********
Recognized by what authority? Sources please...


EDIT: Hmm, best fighter.. the F22 may have changed the definition. Maybe in a close one on one or actual knife fight things would be interesting.

 

[sandorski]

Can't verify Meuges points, but agree with him about people underestimating their capability. Whether they have totally upgraded their Military to the latest Technology is quite moot on the whole. In the R&D department they certainly have many technologies on par with the US and the only thing holding them back from having an equivalent Military capability is the ability to Produce.

If the OP's story is fact, it's likely that Russia has developed Stealth Technologies and have some Prototypes using it. Or there's a giant hole in the US's detection system that the Russians found.

 

[Gibsons]

A forward-looking point-type emitter radar is a lighthouse. You turn it on - you've painted yourself. These engagements were again conducted in the presence of external radar, without a doubt.

Accounts I've read don't indicate that.

Anyway, as I understand it, LPI uses a spread spectrum emission, so its signal at any given wavelength is quite low, perhaps even near all the EM background that's floating around these days. And from what I've read, your standard radar detectors (ie those found on every current airframe) don't pick it up (maybe at close range). I couldn't say if that's really true, but your classified sources probably would know.

I am not aware of more than several SU-37s, but the SU-30K, which also packs thrust vectoring and advanced avionics, and which has been produced in numbers, has been recognized as the best fighter at the moment.

Well, you're the one who brought up the Su-37. I thought the Su-30 was regarded as a rough equivalent of Eurofighter and Rafale (if that, the Typhoon is at least somewhat stealthy).

In any case, I'd happily wager a lot of money on an F-22 vs. Su-30 fight.

 

[Cruise51]

From what I can gather... In a typical scenario I'd put my money on the F-22 since it could launch on the Su-30 without being detected. In a one on one encounter without supporting ground radar (unlikely situation, but possible), the Su-30 would have the advantage. Despite the F-22s thrust vectoring, I highly doubt it could out-manuver a Su-30.
I'm not exactly an expert. So if I'm wrong, say how.