Reply to: Defence of the Realm ?

[AtW]

I thought the TU-160 had been updated

No, it was not updated - they just assembled new plane first time in decades using old parts produced in USSR. Russian avionics are badly behind, the pilots have to buy off the shelf GPS to orient themselves (until USA switches off signal).

Tu-160 was designed well before stealth tech went into play, it is very visible especially given how few of them can actually still fly.

The main concern to USA are not those airplanes but mobile rocket missile (MBRs) units that do not have fixed location - as I said there are people whose job is to keep an eye on them 24/7 and keep up to date location of all those units. Sometimes they make mistakes but these things are tracked pretty well as they should - any unexpected strategic deployment of this kind can be interpreted very negatively with very dire consequences.

Tu-160 is actually a rip off of B-1 bomber, just like Tu-144 was rip off Concorde - that is of course denied by those who ripped them off. Soviet strategic bombing was generally ripped off USA, in some cases more successful than originals, however this stuff that flies now was manufactures in the 80s and designed in 60-70s. It is completely pointless in current world to fly these - Americans stopped such patrols long time ago, very expensive even for them.

One thought for you - did you know that creators of Tu-95 strategic bomber did not plan for a toilet there? Can you believe it - they send out 2 crews on different shifts to fly this thing for a very long time and there is no place to go to toilet so pilots had to use bucket for that - and those people were given nuclear weapons!

That's my last post on this matter.

[Diver]

Bollox, he's gone. It took me a bloody minute and a half to copy all those quote html thingys as well.

Post of the week

[Moscow Mule]

I don't think calling me an idiot exactly helps you look smart or in any way makes your arguement stronger.

It's exasperation.

[Incognito]

Bollox, he's gone. It took me a bloody minute and a half to copy all those quote html thingys as well.

[Incognito]

Have you seen Google Earth? They show my car parked next to my house, does it mean there were no clouds in UK when they made the shots? And that's cheap commercial grade satellite!

So they use the first image they take?

Linky

I would bet money with you that google earth commercial satellites could not penetrate a Scottish October black cloud laden sky for the purpose of taking images.

Do you know the design and creation dates of electronic equipment used in Russian military airplanes? That's 30-40 years ago. It does not take a genius to figure out that a big distinctive airplane is about to take off, it's huge and very poor stealth wise - it's signature is very distinct.

The Germans were routinely encrypting communication traffic in the Second World War, (albeit manually) although I thought the TU-160 had been updated no doubt you'll know better than this amatuer although actually being ex-military and having been paid for it, does that not make me a professional? Maybe ex-professional.

The radio-electronic signature of Tu-160 and something like Boeing 747 are pretty distinct - did not they teach you that in UK GCSEs?

It's claimed the TU-160 has quite a low radar cross section, but I don't know what you're talking about when you say 'radio-electronic signature'? You can't distinguish an aircraft from it's radar signature, or are you suggesting that the USS Vincennes meant to shoot down Iran Air flight 655?

Nuclear capable airplanes are tracked from take off to landing. There are people assigned to do this job 24/7, same goes for submarines or any other strategic assets.

Humans are not infallible.

[Churchill]

Ok, fine - not all satellite photoes.

However this is shifting subject from detecting airplanes and submarines.

Airplane can be detected in more way than one - if there are clouds over base fine, but it takes off and flies - this allows radars to pick it up, radio traffic chatter before it goes up is a big give away too - do you know that those airplanes in Russia take off very rarely? Almost any activity at the base will be indication the take off is imminent.

So no need to deviate from the subject to yellow submarines and other stuff - Tu-160 are now regularly intercepted well before they enter danger zone. Sometimes it does not happen because either Govt (UK) is too tight or (in my view) US Govt does not want to show exact ranges of detection to that aircraft.

What is the range of a "kitchen"?

[AtW]

Also, have a look at Faslane on GEarth!

Nice try but I'd rather not show any interest in such things.

[AtW]

Not all Google Earth images are Satellite photographs.
Also, have a look at Faslane on GEarth!
The Missile Safe at Coulport is a little clouded over...

Ok, fine - not all satellite photoes.

However this is shifting subject from detecting airplanes and submarines.

Airplane can be detected in more way than one - if there are clouds over base fine, but it takes off and flies - this allows radars to pick it up, radio traffic chatter before it goes up is a big give away too - do you know that those airplanes in Russia take off very rarely? Almost any activity at the base will be indication the take off is imminent.

So no need to deviate from the subject to yellow submarines and other stuff - Tu-160 are now regularly intercepted well before they enter danger zone. Sometimes it does not happen because either Govt (UK) is too tight or (in my view) US Govt does not want to show exact ranges of detection to that aircraft.

[Churchill]

What I know is that if Google can make free Google Earth then Pentagon could do 100 times better and faster.

I don't think calling me an idiot exactly helps you look smart or in any way makes your arguement stronger.

Not all Google Earth images are Satellite photographs.

Also, have a look at Faslane on GEarth!

The Missile Safe at Coulport is a little clouded over...

[AtW]

Do you know how many passes the satellite had to make before it could get a shot?

What I know is that if Google can make free Google Earth then Pentagon could do 100 times better and faster.

I don't think calling me an idiot exactly helps you look smart or in any way makes your arguement stronger.

[AtW]

My first visit was in 1992 (work related) then again in 1998 - pity you havent seen St Petersburg it is a fnatastic place to visit.

Yes it should be pretty nice.

1998 was year of default - from August that is, right now Moscow is extremely expensive more so than London: every time you refuel your car or use any gas generated electricity you help pay salaries of Chelsea football players.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Friends of mine visited Poland and say it was great - cheap prices (though growing recently). Have you seen prices in Moscow nowadays? More expensive than London, rude staff, dangerous country - no wonder number of tourists going to Russia is dropping now.

St Peterbourg should be nice indeed - never was there myself but I'd recommend it above Moscow.

My first visit was in 1992 (work related) then again in 1998 - pity you havent seen St Petersburg it is a fnatastic place to visit.

Yes I am aware the Moscow is now very expensive, having been there twice already theres not a lot which woud make me visit again.

Poland I have heard is worthwhile though the best country I have visited in the former Eastern Block was Bulgaria - Sofia being akin to the Paris of the East - certainly worth a visit,

[Moscow Mule]

Have you seen Google Earth? They show my car parked next to my house, does it mean there were no clouds in UK when they made the shots?

Of course it does.

Do you know how many passes the satellite had to make before it could get a shot? Google don't put the ones with clouds on the Google Earth - what would be the point.

Once again, your lack of joined up thinking outs you as the town-class idiot you are.

[AtW]

WTF is a radio-electronic signature?
Do you mean Radar signature?

In English Radar signature is probably a better term, mine was direct translation from Russian military terminology. I was hoping it would be Incognito who'd ask this question as it would prove he knows nothing about Soviet/Russian military hardware.

[Moscow Mule]

The radio-electronic signature of Tu-160 and something like Boeing 747 are pretty distinct - did not they teach you that in UK GCSEs?

WTF is a radio-electronic signature?

Do you mean Radar signature?