Russia plans long-range bomber flights near U.S. shores

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/world/europe/russia-bombers-plan/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

(CNN) -- Russia plans to send long-range bombers to patrol the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, the nation's defense minister said, in what may be Moscow's latest provocative maneuver.
The patrols would bring the flights close to the United States' territorial waters.
Photos: U.S. and Russian military aircraft Photos: U.S. and Russian military aircraft
Russia plans bomber flights near U.S. Does Putin want war in Ukraine?
Russia has been on a roll with a series of international provocations, ranging from brazen kidnappings to increased aerial operations.
Last month, the Swedish military searched for a mystery underwater vessel after intercepting an emergency radio call in Russian and getting reports about a foreign vessel being spotted in the waters near Stockholm. Though no vessel was found, it was the largest submarine hunt in Swedish waters since the end of the Cold War.
In September, the United States intercepted six Russian planes, including fighter jets and tankers, in airspace near Alaska, officials said.
The same month, an Estonian official was abducted from a border post, taken to Moscow and accused of espionage, sparking dueling claims between the two nations.
Not only have the encounters escalated, so have the risks.
In March, a covert Russian military plane nearly collided with a Swedish passenger aircraft carrying 132 people.
The incidents are outlined in "Dangerous Brinkmanship," an analysis of more than 40 "close military encounters between Russia and the West" that occurred from March to October.
Is it a new Cold War?
Why the long-range bombers?
Russia defense minister Sergey Shoigu said Wednesday that the plan to send the long-range bombers is in response to a growing international resentment over Ukraine.
In addition, he said, Russia will boost its security in Crimea, the region it annexed from Ukraine earlier this year.
"In many respects, this is connected with the situation in Ukraine, with fomentation of anti-Russian moods on the part of NATO and reinforcement of foreign military presence next to our border," Shoigu said.
Putin's fighters, missiles, warships
"Under these conditions, the formation of full-fledged and self-sufficient forces on the Crimean peninsula is a priority task."
Shoigu said Russian long-range bombers will conduct flights along the Russian border and over the Arctic Ocean.
"In the current situation we have to maintain military presence in the western Atlantic and eastern Pacific, as well as the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico," he said. "Due to that, as part of the drills, Russian long-range bombers will conduct flights along Russian borders and over the Arctic Ocean."
Australia's defense ministry said it's monitoring Russian naval vessels on international waters north of Australia.
"The movement of these vessels is entirely consistent with provisions under international law for military vessels to exercise freedom of navigation in international waters," the ministry said in a statement Wednesday.
Russian jet dangerously buzzes US jet Russian fighter jet provokes U.S. ship U.S. spy plane evades Russian jet
Return to Cold War era?
During the Cold War era, Russian aircraft regularly patrolled near the U.S. maritime borders, but those flights were largely cut back after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Russian troops seized the Crimean peninsula in March, emboldening pro-Russia separatists who have clashed with Ukrainian troops in the eastern part of the country. The conflict has left thousands dead and frozen ties between Russia and the West.
'Alarmist anti-Russian allegations'
Meanwhile, the fingerpointing between NATO and Russia continues.
NATO commander Gen. Phillip Breedlove said Wednesday that Russia is sending tanks, artillery, air defense systems and troops into Ukraine.
A day earlier, Breedlove said Russia has moved "forces that are capable of being nuclear" into Crimea. The region borders southeastern Ukraine, into which Russian troops have allegedly moved.
Russian military spokesman Igor Konashenkov blasted Breedlove, accusing him of spreading "alarmist anti-Russian allegations."
Pro-Russia rebels claim control of parts of southeastern Ukraine despite a push by Ukrainian forces to defeat them.
The two sides signed a ceasefire deal in September, raising hopes of an end to the conflict, but it still rages on.

**Frazzled**

If the price for hydrocarbons keeps falling, Putin won't be able to afford for the planes to taxi much less fly anywhere.

**Tannhauser42**

Exactly, I'm of the opinion that if they want to freely waste their money, then let them.

**LordofHats**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Exactly, I'm of the opinion that if they want to freely waste their money, then let them.

It's how we beat them last time. Round 2 LETS DO IT!

**Ahtman**

It is starting to feel a lot like the 80's again.

**LordofHats**

Ahtman wrote:
It is starting to feel a lot like the 80's again.

A TMNT cartoon is airing. Transformers. Voltron is coming up.

The Delorean WORKS!

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
It is starting to feel a lot like the 80's again.

I feel the need.

The need

FOR SPEED!

**Chongara**

**H.B.M.C.**

And they've sent ships to Australia.

Are we sure Russian knows the Cold War ended?

**Peregrine**

So why exactly is this newsworthy? The pilots have to fly training missions anyway, and they've been doing this as long as there have been Russian/Soviet bombers. It's not like there's any chance that this will turn into more than just an opportunity for each side to publish propaganda pictures of the event.

**H.B.M.C.**

Sorry Perry. We'll only discuss things you approve of in the future and we'll make sure Dreadclaw runs anything new by your first before posting.

**Ouze**

Shrug, if they want to waste the gas, it's international waters until 12 miles.

Isn't it a bit of disingenuousness to pretend we should be concerned with their 60 year old propeller-powered bombers instead of their aging, poorly maintained arsenal of 3,000 nuclear warheads?

**H.B.M.C.**

They could be nuclear-powered propellers.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
Shrug, if they want to waste the gas, it's international waters until 12 miles.

Isn't it a bit of disingenuousness to pretend we should be concerned with their 60 year old propeller-powered bombers instead of their aging, poorly maintained arsenal of 3,000 nuclear warheads?

I think that it is less the airframes that are being raised as an issue, but rather the increased belligerence from Russia, including;
- Ukraine
- the submarine in Swedish water
- six aircraft intercepted near Alaska
- abducting an Estonian official

In the past few months there is a definite pattern of behaviour

**Peregrine**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I think that it is less the airframes that are being raised as an issue, but rather the increased belligerence from Russia, including;
- Ukraine
- the submarine in Swedish water
- six aircraft intercepted near Alaska
- abducting an Estonian official

In the past few months there is a definite pattern of behaviour

But you're mixing completely different things in that list. The Ukraine situation and abducting an official are legitimate offenses with real victims. Sending planes and subs into (or near) someone else's territory is the equivalent of posting "LOL AMERICA SUX" on a forum. It's nothing more than harmless trolling.

**Dreadclaw69**

Peregrine wrote:
But you're mixing completely different things in that list. The Ukraine situation and abducting an official are legitimate offenses with real victims. Sending planes and subs into (or near) someone else's territory is the equivalent of posting "LOL AMERICA SUX" on a forum. It's nothing more than harmless trolling.

And the Cuban missile crisis was harmless trolling too because Russian missiles could already hit the US from their own soil.

If you want to complain that I have provided a list, taken from the article, of a series of acts from the Russian military showing acts of provocation then you are within your right to do so. I won't be entertaining you.

**dogma**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
They could be nuclear-powered propellers.

The Soviets (and Americans) experimented with that idea during the Cold War, then they both realized that ICBMs were a thing.

**Peregrine**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And the Cuban missile crisis was harmless trolling too because Russian missiles could already hit the US from their own soil.

Except that:

1) That was a very different time, when there was actually a chance of a major war. We had nukes, but not enough to really destroy the whole world and create a true MAD effect. So there was still the potential for a first-strike attack to work without simply being an act of suicide. And in that context placing those missiles meant that a Soviet first strike would have a higher chance of success. But in a modern context a similar action would be nothing more than propaganda because MAD is still in effect whether the missiles are in Cuba or Russia. Plus you have to consider the US role in escalating the crisis for its own reasons (lies about the "missile gap", etc), something that doesn't exist here.

2) Putting missiles in Cuba was a genuine increase in threat that put more US targets within missile range. At the time the Soviets had very few ICBMs and no chance of winning a war with them. Putting missiles in Cuba allowed their short-range weapons to be a viable threat against the US directly, instead of just threatening to destroy Europe if we got too aggressive. Flying bombers near the US, on the other hand, does absolutely nothing to increase the threat the US faces. The bombers still exist whether they're flying training missions over Russian territory or trolling the US from just outside US territory. And the bombers are hardly even relevant when both sides have more than enough ICBMs to end modern civilization.

If you want to complain that I have provided a list, taken from the article, of a series of acts from the Russian military showing acts of provocation then you are within your right to do so. I won't be entertaining you.

The fact that you took it from an article doesn't make it a good list. It just means that the article is using irrelevant trolling to hype up the threat of OMG THE RUSSIANS!!!!!. Which is especially stupid because there are more than enough legitimate reasons to criticize Russia without having to resort to whining about some bomber pilots doing a little propaganda work.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Shrug, if they want to waste the gas, it's international waters until 12 miles.

Isn't it a bit of disingenuousness to pretend we should be concerned with their 60 year old propeller-powered bombers instead of their aging, poorly maintained arsenal of 3,000 nuclear warheads?

*meh*

Target Practice!

**d-usa**

Maybe I'm just naive and don't understand military oneupmanship, but what is the actual point of stuff like this or the "we should park a carrier group in the Black Sea" like ideas?

We know that the Russians won't bomb us and the Russians know that we won't bomb them. If either one of us wanted to bomb the other we can do that just as well from our established bases without all this posturing.

It seems like it establishes nothing expect giving the domestic populations some propaganda footage and causes people to get bend out of shape over what is essentially an expensive game of "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you".

**Peregrine**

d-usa wrote:
Maybe I'm just naive and don't understand military oneupmanship, but what is the actual point of stuff like this or the "we should park a carrier group in the Black Sea" like ideas?

Propaganda and/or diplomacy. The carrier has to be somewhere, the bomber pilots still have to fly X hours per year on training missions, etc, so why not do it somewhere that has some political value?

**Orlanth**

Its also not like the western powers dont do the same.

The entire scenario can be reversed:

I wonder how many carriers are off the Russian coast, it would be cheaper to keep them in port blah blah......

Besides the actual cost flying a few Bears up to US airspace is negligible, Russia builds them, Russia crews them, Russia mines the oil that flies them.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
Maybe I'm just naive and don't understand military oneupmanship, but what is the actual point of stuff like this or the "we should park a carrier group in the Black Sea" like ideas?

We know that the Russians won't bomb us and the Russians know that we won't bomb them. If either one of us wanted to bomb the other we can do that just as well from our established bases without all this posturing.

It seems like it establishes nothing expect giving the domestic populations some propaganda footage and causes people to get bend out of shape over what is essentially an expensive game of "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you".

Pretty much. Many Russians who lived through the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union feel that they were not treated fairly after Yeltsin, so in some cases it is very much a matter of national pride. Also the Russians seem to prefer having a strong leader on the world stage, and Putin tugging at the tail feathers of the American Eagle ticks that box too.

**Peregrine**

Orlanth wrote:
Besides the actual cost flying a few Bears up to US airspace is negligible, Russia builds them, Russia crews them, Russia mines the oil that flies them.

And, as I mentioned, the pilots have to fly X hours per year anyway to stay current. It's a pretty negligible difference between flying over the middle of nowhere in Russia somewhere and flying over to poke the US a bit. It was the same kind of situation in the US with the flybys the military used to do over sports events. People whined about the "cost" and got them canceled when the economy fell apart, but the truth was that the pilots were already flying training missions and it cost a trivial amount of fuel to divert their route over the stadium. Essentially all that is happening in either case is that someone higher up the chain of command is saying "hey, we're already spending money for these flights, let's get some political value out of it".

(Now I just want some team to decide to have the Russians fly a celebratory bomber over the stadium since the US military won't do it anymore, just to see the anti-Russian paranoia that would inevitably follow it.)

**Frazzled**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
And they've sent ships to Australia.

Are we sure Russian knows the Cold War ended?

It did. They just forgot.
You want to make me nervous. Do what the Chinese did and debut a stealth fighter right in front of the President of the US. Now thats a kick in the teeth, brought to you by the Hermit Kingdom.

Dude they're flying 1970s bombers around in the age of drones and sattellite guided bombs. Someone tell them what century it is.

**lord_blackfang**

Frazzled wrote:

Do what the Chinese did and debut a stealth fighter right in front of the President of the US.

Did it physically decloak in front of the president like a Romulan Warbird?

I don't actually keep up with world news at all anymore, for the sake of my sanity.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
[Dude they're flying ~~1970s~~ 1950's bombers around in the age of drones and sattellite guided bombs. Someone tell them what century it is.

Fixed that for you.

**Mr. Burning**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
[Dude they're flying ~~1970s~~ 1950's bombers around in the age of drones and sattellite guided bombs. Someone tell them what century it is.

Fixed that for you.

Its not like you guys have the B-52 or anything (as the best mission ready strategic bombing platform)

**Frazzled**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
[Dude they're flying ~~1970s~~ 1950's bombers around in the age of drones and sattellite guided bombs. Someone tell them what century it is.

Fixed that for you.

Its not like you guys have the B-52 or anything (as the best mission ready strategic bombing platform)

We're not flying B-52s around the edges of Russian space like its 1962 either.
As noted, we have robot planes for that.

Its all a push while they consolidate Eastern Ukraine.

**Tannhauser42**

d-usa wrote:
Maybe I'm just naive and don't understand military oneupmanship, but what is the actual point of stuff like this or the "we should park a carrier group in the Black Sea" like ideas?

As George Carlin put it, it's the "bigger dick foreign policy in action and it goes something like this: what, they have bigger dicks than we do? Bomb them!"