"Bears off Cornwall" Topic

With the report that two more Tu-95 Bears were 'escorted away' off the coast of Cornwall

link

and an eye witness claim that it came inland

link

The BBC have released this handy recognition guide

link

What's new? This sort of thing happens all the time. It's only because of the Ukraine situation that it has suddenly become "newsworthy".

It doesn't mean anything though…… Cameron said so!

What a tit!

Ah, so that's what they were.

I heard the part of Typhoons scrambling to intercept Russian aircraft flying close off the eastern Coastline, but they didn't specify the types of Russian models.

I guess inland would fit the definition of "close".

Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between the lines of the official report, since we've apparently got Russian jets flying over our airspace too, under the "Open Skies" treaty.

I did note the commentator said "…no Russian planes that were intercepted flew over UK airspace….".

Perhaps they don't bother intercepting those.

This sort of thing happens all the time.

The frequency has increased notably, along with the degree of proximity to the coastline (whole still in international waters). The danger is the lack of notification, lack of flight plans and lack of transponder which places them in direct threat to a very busy area of civilian airspace.

It may not be illegal, but it is at best reckless and negligent.

Sending bears near UK airspace has been a longstanding way of Ivan telling you he is not very happy!

I think Mr Putin has a definite imperial eye, and is slowly trying to rebuild the Russian empire, bit by bit. The West would IMHO be wise to let him take what we cannot defend.

Cat amongst pigeons much?

Does anyone think the UK would shoot at the Bears if they actually came into UK airspace or, more extreme, flew over the UK itself (the land)? Bears over London?

Well, according to the eyewitness account above it was over land, so in UK airspace. But I don't think Cameron has the balls to authorise shooting one down.

In the last century, the Bears would have been picked up well to the North.

We need to remember the "open skies" piece Mako mentioned. So long as they file the appropriate paperwork they are allowed a certain number of flights. These probably don't get intercepted, though I imagine someone is keeping a close eye to make sure they stick to their flight path.

In the last century, the Bears would have been picked up well to the North.

But then we had Leuchars as the Northern sector airfield.
Seems like these days if the air defence of London is OK then everything is fine!

As far as I know we have three of our 7 air defence squadrons based at Lossiemouth which is further north than Leuchars.

Should have sent up Hawker Hunters or Lightenings from the same era.

Or some Spitfires…

The 'eyewitness report' is absolute rubbish – they never came within sovereign airspace (though well within the air defence reporting zone) and most certainly did not make landfall. She sees two planes (probably approaching or departing St Mawgan) then afterwards hears about the Bears and puts 2 & 2 together, making 17.

Mako,

'Open Skies' has been ongoing since the 1990s and it's a mutual agreement – their planes overfly our territory and our planes overfly their territory. They also frequently have observers on board from the nation being overflown and other treaty states. Any data collected is also to be shared between treaty states.

You've only just realised??!!

Lossiemouth has indeed taken over from Leuchars as the base for QRA North (it now has Typhoons for air defence as well as its customary Tornado GR4 bombers).

"Does anyone think the UK would shoot at the Bears if they actually came into UK airspace or, more extreme, flew over the UK itself (the land)? Bears over London?"

There are rules of engagement in place to deal with such eventualities and command authority for any shoot-down is devolved to the RAF (trying to get hold of the PM for authority when seconds matter is a recipe for disaster).

"In the last century, the Bears would have been picked up well to the North."

Unless they came in from the west, as this pair did… ffs

"Should have sent up Hawker Hunters or Lightnings from the same era."

Strangely enough, I saw a Hunter at Swansea airfield yesterday, but Mum's the word… Don't want Ivan to find out…

This sort of thing happens all the time.

The frequency has increased notably,

"RAF planes have been scrambled about once a month recently to escort Russian warplanes away from UK airspace, although the number of times it happened last year – eight – is not particularly high in a historical context. "
link

That doesn't sound like that much of an increase.

It's considerably higher than during most of the 1990s and 2000s, when they didn't come at all. There have been 43 scrambles against Russian intrusions into the ADZ since 2010 (not including scrambles for other reasons) and the most dramatic increase was in 2007 (in the wake of Putin's murder of Litvinenko), when there were 19 scrambles in one year, compared to 1 scramble in 2006.

The January scramble was particularly serious however, in that a formation of aircraft ed about inside some of the busiest (arguable THE busiest) controlled civil airspace in the world, causing a major hazard to air navigation, without either switching transponders on or responding to calls from either civil air traffic controllers or military air defence controllers. I don't even remember them doing that during the Cold War.

in 2007 (in the wake of Putin's murder of Litvinenko), when there were 19 scrambles in one year,

Which just proves my point – it's been a lot worse in the recent past than at present. So what's the problem?

After that one spurt (most of which were individual Bears), the sorties dropped back again, though have steadily increased over the last four years, with more capable aircraft and larger formations coming over, as well as an increase in aggression and belligerence (i.e. approaching the UK from unusual and relatively undefended directions, switching transponders off and obstructing civil air traffic – patterns not seen since the 1980s).

as well as an increase in aggression and belligerence

So how do you measure aggression and belligerence?

approaching the UK from unusual and relatively undefended directions,

The air defence of the UK is surely based on the fact that we need to defend our air space against attack from ANY direction. Since we operate a mobile defence there are hardly any undefended directions.

switching transponders off

That's normal practice by any Russian air incursion – why would they advertise their presence when they are "testing" our defences?

obstructing civil air traffic – patterns not seen since the 1980s).

Have any civilian aircraft actually been forced to divert due to one of these incidents?

So long as they file the appropriate paperwork they are allowed a certain number of flights. These probably don't get intercepted, though I imagine someone is keeping a close eye to make sure they stick to their flight path.

That's the problem – they don't file any paperwork so there is no known flight plan.

Have any civilian aircraft actually been forced to divert due to one of these incidents?

Do we have to wait until after there is a near miss? In that area its only a matter of time. Both trans Atlantic and UK airpsace is pretty busy.

"The air defence of the UK is surely based on the fact that we need to defend our air space against attack from ANY direction. Since we operate a mobile defence there are hardly any undefended directions."

Indeed and it was a successful defence.

However, approaching from directions that are furthest from RAF air defence stations or other NATO allies, more sparsely covered by air defence radar and then ACTUALLY attempting to penetrate sovereign airspace, represents a sea-change in Russian tactics is is a deeply unfriendly act by a supposedly 'friendly' nation, not to mention being illegal under international aviation law and contrary to any number of treaties signed by Russia (which routinely defecates upon treaties, so no surprises there).

"That's normal practice by any Russian air incursion – why would they advertise their presence when they are "testing" our defences?"

Actually they do often squawk as an air safety measure – particularly when operating near civil air corridors.

It is absolutely NOT normal for them to deliberately (and there is absolutely no way that it could not be deliberate) penetrate civil air corridors. During the January episode, they deliberately changed course and altitude in order to maximise interference with civil air traffic.

"Have any civilian aircraft actually been forced to divert due to one of these incidents?"

During the January episode – Yes, dozens of them.

Geoff,

The Russian overflights under Open Skies are a completely different matter and have nothing to do with Putin's Willy-Waving Flights. In the case of Open Skies, the Russians file perfectly legal flight plans with the RAF unit responsible for Open Skies requests, talk to UK civ & mil air traffic controllers and obey all their instructions.

Similarly, Russian military aircraft make reasonably regular routine flights through UK airspace while transiting from place to place and again, all is handled perfectly legally.

However, approaching from directions that are furthest from RAF air defence stations

So are you saying that the UK air defence is incomplete and that there are some directions from which an attack could not be detected?

and then ACTUALLY attempting to penetrate sovereign airspace,

Isn't that what "testing" our air defences means?

The Russians have been active in this area for years. Of course they will test our air defences, particularly if they discover there are weaknesses. We would do the same.

It is absolutely NOT normal for them to deliberately penetrate civil air corridors.

Please define "normal".

No.

No.

No, they haven't in this manner.

No we don't and wouldn't.

If you can't work that out, I can't be bothered to answer.

No.

Ok, so you are saying that the UK air defence IS complete and that there is NO direction from which an attack could not be detected.

In that case why did you say "relatively undefended directions"?

Isn't that what "testing" our air defences means?

No

OK, so what does it mean then?

No we don't and wouldn't.

Really?

If you can't work that out, I can't be bothered to answer.

Your definition of "normal" seems to be "what they used to do". Why is that, by any stretch of the imagination, "normal"?

"and then ACTUALLY attempting to penetrate sovereign airspace,"

"The 'eyewitness report' is absolute rubbish – they never came within sovereign airspace"

Bit of a contradiction there, I think?

Relatively undefended = areas of little radar overlap, where they can get closer in before appearing on radar – I'm not going to discuss details of what that entails (in any case, it's undoubtedly changed massively in the 20+ years since my knowledge was current). When radars were down, we used to be able to send a Type 42 or a Shack (or later an E-3D on rotation) to plug the gap, though with only six Type 45s, seven E-3Ds (not including the NATO E-3 pool) and considerably increased operational commitments, I can only assume that it's getting harder and harder to plug the gaps as they appear.

Yes, really. To start with, RAF aircraft do not conduct 'test the air defences' operations against 'friendly' nations with whom we are at peace. It's also worth noting that the Russians have past form for shooting down aircraft that enter their ADZ uninvited, let alone approach their sovereign airspace. Second, RAF surveillance aircraft, such as E-3D, do not switch off their transponders unless on wartime ops. Third, RAF aircraft do not enter civilian controlled airspace without permission from civ air traffic controllers and do not deliberately disobey their orders.

Those who do are, quite literally, criminally negligent and/or hostile.

'Normal' is not doing those things. The January incident is the first instance I can think of (even in the Cold War) of Russian aircraft ing about in civ controlled airspace. To explain: civ controlled airspace is essentially a series of corridors through the sky – you can see them on the map posted by Geoff above. These always have a maximum altitude and often a minimum altitude. Thus a military aircraft wanting to cross them, can climb over them or descend beneath them or simply contact the civ controller to fly through them. The Russians did none of these things and in fact adjusted their altitude in order to deliberately fly through them, breaking a truly bewildering array of international aviation laws and regulations.

No, it's not a contradiction at all. The edge of Sovereign airspace is 15 miles offshore. Even penetrating it would not necessarily place them overland. They never penetrated it, but were nevertheless attempting to do so (as opposed to just ing about in the 200 mile ADZ or flying along the edge of it, which is the usual MO).

I should add that until these last two incidents, my response was also "So what? Same old same old." However, these latest two incidents represent something new and something very worrying – particularly the first incident (the Cornwall one not so much). However, the lurid press headlines make it extremely difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

This also has to be viewed in concert with the 50% increase in NATO interceptions of Russian aircraft as a whole over the last 12 months (including a massive increase in RAF interceptions during NATO Air Policing operations in the Baltic States), plus the Russian violations of Swedish and Finnish airspace.

Again, the issue is that they are penetrating civilian air corridors with no flight plan and no transponder. Radar can see them as an unidentified blip, but has no idea where they are going and they are not responding to radio calls, so it is highly likely that civilian air traffic is being diverted to stay well clear of them.

Transponders will also tell a radar (actually the 'secondary radar' – the tranceiver that sits on top of the radar) where the aircraft is long before the radar can actually detect it using the traditional radar method.

Thankfully, Bears, with eight contra-rotating props, have the radar cross-section of a small moon. Backfires and Blackjacks have a considerably smaller cross-section and being considerably faster, are more of a worry.

Civilian radar also often depends on transponders to provide height information if the radar is of an older type that only provides a 2D picture (range and bearing only). The transponder is essentially saying "This is who I am, this is where I'm going and this is how high I am."

aircraft do not enter civilian controlled airspace without permission from civ air traffic controllers and do not deliberately disobey their orders.

Those who do are, quite literally, criminally negligent and/or hostile.

Exactly.

Let me translate this into civilian: Those Russian birds were actively trying to crash into civilian flights.

That's how serious going into civilian-controlled airspace without talking to controllers is.

IMO, attempted mass murder is grounds for shooting those [expletives deleted] down. No, we will NOT pay compensation to their next of kin.

Those Russian birds were actively trying to crash into civilian flights

Not sure you can say they were actively trying to crash in to them – the Bear is 46m long with a 50m wingspan. A Boeing 777 is roughly 64m long with a 64m wingspan. Crashing into it would likely take them both out.

As stated above, the Bear has a radar signature of a small country and radar would have picked them up. What they wouldn't have is accurate height data or route intention, so would be forced to route anything civilian around them, at all altitudes, just in case.

It's intended to disrupt. Unfortunately whatever the intended purpose of doing so may be, all it actually does is show them up to be negligent idiots who could end up causing an accident.

No doubt a Ukrainian fighter would get the blame. ;-)

As Geoff says, they're not deliberately trying to crash into airliners, as they're not suicidal. They're like kids playing chicken on the railway – they don't intend to die, but they know it's wrong and dangerous and yet do it anyway, messing everyone about and causing massive disruption. And very occasionally, tragedies will happen due to their own negligent actions.

And yes, if the worst did happen, it would once again be everyone else's fault except the Russians; They would blame NATO for a shoot-down, the press would blame the RAF for failing to shoot them down before hitting an airliner and cretins on the internet would blame the USA and/or aliens for a 'false flag operation'.

Willy – Waving. I've got to remember that one.

@Geoff and @Jemima: OK, fine. This is the equivalent of the Russians driving the opposite way to traffic and ignoring all the honking and police sirens around them.

I was trying to explain to those who don't deal with violations of controlled airspace just how big a deal someone blundering around in there actually is.

Indeed.

Don't forget that UK airspace is much more controlled than US airspace. General aviation traffic is NOT permitted to fly in airways. You need a full instrument rating and it is IFR only, ie flight plans.

There's an interesting article in the Guardian (yes, really!) regarding the Norwegian response to Russian sorties. Also some interesting stats showing a significant increase in air activity:

link

[Norway defense minister] said that Russia had recently re-opened military bases in its far north that had been shut down after the cold war…

Well you don't do that on a whim. ;-)

In answer to the question of disruption to civilian traffic…

On 28 January, two Tu-95 ‘Bears' which had flown down the Norwegian coast made an unusual turn up the English Channel with their identifying radio transponders turned off, disrupting civilian air traffic.

So Norway confirms their civilian traffic was disrupted.

Last month, the Swedish government complained that a Russian military aircraft had been flying near its airspace with its transponders turned off to avoid being spotted by civilian radar, and nearly collided with a passenger jet.

As does Sweden.

A FCO spokeswoman said: "While the Russian planes did not enter sovereign UK airspace and were escorted by RAF Typhoons throughout the time they were in the UK area of interest, the Russian planes caused disruption to civil aviation. That is why we summoned the Russian ambassador to account for the incident."

And the UK.

"Disrupting civil aviation is one thing. Having a strategic bomber close to your airspace is another," a Nato official said. "If they have their transponders turned on, then civilian aviation can see where they are and what they are. If they are off, that's when we have to get up there to find out… It doesn't help when they turn off the transponders. All Nato planes on all missions have their transponders turned on"

This may just be testing reaction times and responses. Whether it is as a show of power or for probing defences for other purposes may be subjective.

Or more likely its justs sheer arrogance and negligence, which eventually is likely to result in a fatal collision.

Perhaps we ought to insist that all Russian aircraft are fitted with this technology: dji.com/fly-safe/category-mc

Last year, a drunk government employee stirred up a security frenzy at the White House after accidentally steering his DJI Phantom drone onto the president's lawn.

In January, SZ DJI Technology, the Chinese manufacturer of the hugely popular Phantom, introduced a firmware update to the drone that aimed to prevent it happening again. Now GPS will detect whether the drone is within a 15.5 mile radius of central Washington DC and cut the motor

@Jemima for the win!

From another thread here:

No NATO recce flight knowingly enters civil controlled airspace without permission. They also do not switch off transponders. to do so is wilfully negligent, hostile and dangerous to civil aviation, as well as being illegal under international aviation law, regardless of the 'international' status of the airspace in question.

Not to forget hazardous to the recce aircraft, as the crew of the P3 the Chinese forced down a few years back can attest.

As mentioned on the other thread though, that EP-3 was transmitting a squawk, so couldn't be described as a hazard to navigation.

Granted.

But I was referring to the joys of idiots performing hazardous maneuvers like closing with other aircraft.

Indeed… And then blaming it on the other guy…