UK Defence Minister Michael Fallon has made a number of statements following the incident on Wednesday, 18th February, in which Russian Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" bombers were escorted away from UK sovereign airspace by RAF Typhoon and French Mirage fighters. Asked if the world was facing a new Cold War, he said:
"It is warming up, you have tanks and armour rolling across the Ukrainian border and you have an Estonian border guard who has been captured and not yet still returned."
Mr Fallon added Mr Putin had also flown two other bombers "down the English Channel two weeks ago".
"It's the first time since the height of the Cold War, it's the first time that's happened."
Russia's Air Force spokesman said, concerning these incidents:
... [The] air patrol flights were carried out according to an approved plan, and conducted in strict compliance with international regulations of the use of airspace above neutral waters, without violating other countries' borders.
The Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" is classed as a strategic missile and bombing platform, only currently in service with Russian Federation air forces, with a payload capacity of 15,000 kg (33,000 lb). Footage of the incident has emerged, shot from the Russian bombers themselves showing the NATO aircraft closing on the Bears. Interestingly, it appears from the footage that the contra-rotating propellers of the bomber engines are actually shut down at the time the footage was shot, turning very slowly and visually distorted by the curved canopy the footage is shot through using a hand-held camera.
Related Stories
U.S. defense officials say that a Russian fighter jet flew as close as within 3 meters of a US Navy P-8A Poseidon aircraft in international airspace:
The Pentagon says a Russian fighter plane flew within about 10ft (3m) of one of its reconnaissance aircraft operating over the Black Sea. US officials described the intercept by the SU-27 jet on Wednesday as "dangerous and unprofessional". Russia's defence ministry said the US plane had been approaching Russian territory and the SU-27 pilots had adhered to international rules. Russia is currently carrying out military exercises in the Black Sea.
Pentagon spokesman Capt Jeff Davis said the US Navy P-8A Poseidon aircraft had been conducting routine operations in international airspace when the Russian fighter made the unsafe manoeuvre. "These actions have the potential to unnecessarily escalate tensions, and could result in a miscalculation or accident," he said. A US defence official quoted by AFP news agency said the Russian plane had flown within 30ft of the P-8A before closing to just 10ft.
Also at Reuters. You may remember this similar incident.
Related: UK Defence Minister: New Cold War "Warming Up"
US Jets Scramble to Intercept Russian Planes near US Aircraft Carrier
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @05:17AM
Interestingly, it appears from the footage that the contra-rotating propellers of the bomber engines are actually shut down at the time the footage was shot, turning very slowly
Wagon-wheel effect. [wikipedia.org] There is even a video of an airplane propeller doing exactly the same thing on the wikipedia page. It is like a visual beat frequency. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @01:28PM
No, no.
The submitter is correct. The plane is flying without propellers. #rollseyesandshudders #rollsshutters
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Monday February 23 2015, @05:29PM
Of course it doesn't need propellers. It's a demon, as revealed by the scholars on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhibN89WJtI [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Monday February 23 2015, @07:28PM
CHL is a great channel.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Informative) by wantkitteh on Monday February 23 2015, @06:59PM
That's what I initially thought, but it's not - I checked other footage of the plane in flight, the propellers didn't look anything like that. I found another piece of footage showing a mid-air shut-down/restart procedure and that's exactly what you see in the BBC footage. Given that their are contrarotating coaxial propeller assemblies mounted on each engine, potentially moving at greater that Mach 1 on the outside edge by design spec, plus the optical distortion from the cockpit canopy, there's zero chance an optical illusion would look anywhere near that clean from all the angles you look at the propellers in the footage.
(Score: 3, Informative) by wantkitteh on Monday February 23 2015, @07:16PM
What tipped me off - look at around 0:54, you can see not just the blades but the blade mountings on the axle perfectly clearly, as well as the blades to the very tip perfectly clearly. Not only is that an awful lot of overlapping detail that would require a ludicrously short exposure time to capture, but the angular rotation causes linear velocity to increase the further out you go from the blade which would at the very least cause some blurring somewhere along it's length. There isn't any. Also, check this piece of footage [youtube.com] to see both normal operation and, from 1:18 onwards, a shut-down/restart procedure. I assume it's the forward motion of the plane that continues to drive the propellers around at slow speed even during engine shut-down.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Monday February 23 2015, @09:31PM
I think, possibly, it may be normal engine shutdown in long-distance cruise flight.
The RAF Nimrod Maritime Reconnaissance aircraft used 4 turbofan engines, rather than turbprops, but during a mission, as the aircraft became lighter due to fuel use, it reached a point when it was more efficient to shut down two of the four engines and continue on solely two engines.
I suspect the same may be true of the TU-95 "Bear" - after sufficient fuel burn, it may be more efficient to fly on two engines with the other pair set to "feather" the propellors and simply let them windmill in the airstream.
I'll stress I am not an aviation expert, so this could be a laughably incorrect hypothesis.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday February 24 2015, @11:30AM
Sounds plausible, the loaded weight of the aircraft is almost double the empty weight and fuel is likely to be the biggest difference. I do wonder why they'd kill engines on the same wing rather than the inner or outer engines though, I'd have thought that would have negatively affected the plane's handling characteristics and made it rather less efficient, you'd have to kick the rudder across (increasing drag) and crab across the sky to fly in a straight line. I have heard of aircraft evading close approaches by jet fighters by flying as slowly as possible and taking advantage of a lower stall speed caused by differences in the wing area to weight ratio, preventing the faster aircraft keeping station with you.
Similarly, I'm not an aircraft expert either, my brother is the plane buff in the family and I've not had a chance to speak to him about it, so any further hypothesis about what was going on are welcome and we promise we won't laugh.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @05:32AM
There is a very disturbing PBS Frontline episode from last month about Putin's history. [pbs.org]
Two points were very memorable.
(1) There is strong evidence to suggest that he and/or Yeltsin staged a fake chechen terrorist attack in order to boost his popularity and make him publicly acceptable to become president. That attack seems to have been the kick-off for Russia's current war against the Chechens (which, unsurprisingly is about oil).
(2) Yeltsin hand-picked Putin to follow him because Yeltsin had stolen so much money while in office that he feared criminal prosecution if he ever gave up the reins of power. Putsin had previously demonstrated absolute loyalty to his similarly corrupt boss in St Petersberg, so Yeltsin trusted him. But now, Putin is estimated to have stolen as much as $200B [washingtonpost.com] during his reign and now finds himself in an even more precarious position than Yeltsin did because the scale of his theft is so much greater. Because of that, his only choice is to stay in office until he dies.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @06:33AM
> Because of that, his only choice is to stay in office until he dies.
If that's true, that means Putin is essentially cornered. It is a corner of gold and diamonds, but it is still a corner.
When someone is cornered they will do crazy destructive shit because they've got nothing to lose.
Everybody else around them has plenty to lose, but the guy in the corner probably doesn't give a damn about them.
(Score: 1) by bmimatt on Monday February 23 2015, @08:15AM
Why was this dow-modded? This is a sober(ing) comment. WTF?
(Score: 1) by bmimatt on Monday February 23 2015, @08:19AM
I, obviously, meant 'down-modded'. Feathers are useless in this case :)
(Score: 1) by JNCF on Monday February 23 2015, @01:43PM
But useful in a pillow-case!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @05:45PM
Check again, it wasn't down-modded.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @06:35AM
Perhaps someone can assist him with that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @11:32AM
Zhirinovsky assists him with staying in office.
"Who are you going to vote for? Putin or Zhirinovsky?"
"Oh no! Not Nazi Zhirinovsky! Sigh, I guess I'll vote for Putin again"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 23 2015, @11:43AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by redneckmother on Monday February 23 2015, @06:00PM
Bush the First was CIA,and did a lot of underhanded stuff. Given these two examples, it's easy for me to surmise, "Spooks shouldn't be allowed to lead nations."
Please don't misunderstand: I'm not defending Putin, and I don't support either of the (moronic and despotic) major US political parties.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Monday February 23 2015, @01:38PM
(1) There is strong evidence to suggest that he and/or Yeltsin staged a fake chechen terrorist attack in order to boost his popularity and make him publicly acceptable to become president. That attack seems to have been the kick-off for Russia's current war against the Chechens (which, unsurprisingly is about oil).
I don't remember hearing that before, I'll check out the documentary. It wouldn't be surprising, though; when an empire "gets attacked" by a rescource-rich nation that can't reasonably defend itself our first reaction should be to investigate the empire, not the scape-goat.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @03:12PM
On the other hand Putin enjoys 80%+ support rate from his electorate; and before you start "brainwashing argument", basic cable in Russia has CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg and even FOX along with Eronews, French and German TV channels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @08:17PM
> basic cable in Russia has CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg and even FOX along with Eronews, French and German TV channels.
None of which are in the Russian language.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday February 23 2015, @05:00PM
LIE in top - "you have tanks and armour rolling across the Ukrainian border"
Bullshit. Proven over and over again as NATO/Neocon fraud and lies. It is NATO which expands ever towards Russia, then claims Russian "encroachment".
But we live in topsy-turvy land, where if you wish to know the truth, you must suppose the opposite of everything said by an official or spokesman.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @10:57PM
The fuck is wrong with you? Putin got your balls?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday February 24 2015, @12:15AM
How many US Military bases are there in nations across the globe?
Compare: How many Russian?
How many innocent people, going about their normal business are killed around the world by US forces on a daily basis?
Conversely, how many are killed by Russian forces?
When you live inside the false-democracy Trojan-horse of US dominance, it's easy not to see an accurate reflection of reality - where the US is the largest aggressor state in the history of the modern world.
Throw your "Putin" ad-hominem, if you like, from the safety of a propaganda screen that prevents contemplation: is a 3rd bush better or worse than a 2nd Clinton?
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24 2015, @12:57AM
You are just randomly throwing out peripherally related questions. Even if you could be arsed to produce answers to those questions they really aren't relevant to the topic of Ukraine.
That's not particularly convincing, but it does seem to give you warm fuzzies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday February 24 2015, @03:14AM
OK. If Russia had armor in Ukraine, the satelite photos would be on Washington Post Page 1.
Instead we have faked Youtube video of uncertain attribution, and Ukraine PM flogging photos of Georgia/Abkhazia from half-decade ago.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24 2015, @04:46AM
Do dispute that Russia has tanks in Crimea?
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday February 28 2015, @01:04AM
By request of people of Crimea. Crimea was never historical Ukraine. Never. Gerrymandered to Ukraine for cold war politics.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24 2015, @05:31AM
http://abcnews.go.com/International/photos-prove-russian-weapons-deployed-eastern-ukraine-us/story?id=28969733 [go.com]
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday February 25 2015, @01:34AM
Who? Geoff Prat? The well known Ukraine coup-conspirator? The collaborator with Privy-sektor Nazis? [livejournal.com] Isn't he in jail yet?
Pyatt became part of a diplomatic scandal in January 2014, when his conversation with the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State, Victoria Nuland, was apparently intercepted and uploaded to YouTube.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_R._Pyatt [wikipedia.org]
He is a verifiable Neocon propagandist and agitator. His official statements are categorically lies.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24 2015, @12:13AM
NATO isn't a country. They don't annex territory, and they definitely don't expand by killing people. I can see why Russia feels threatened by NATO expansion, but Russia's response to Ukraine flirting with NATO is disproportionate.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by spamdog on Monday February 23 2015, @05:52AM
Like the US and UK fucked up Ukraine. If the Russians really are the Bear, then maybe don't poke them with a stick?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday February 23 2015, @07:06AM
Let's hope this Cold War II project goes away. Instead of wasting resources on both sides think of all the nice things that could come from letting trade and exchange of people just evolve without interrupting it with bullshit like this.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @07:43AM
Maybe you failed to notice that letting trade just evolve results in the 1% hoarding resources for themselves. Better to tax them to pay for bullshit government projects and employ some little people in the process.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Monday February 23 2015, @09:31AM
Maybe you failed to notice that letting trade just evolve results in the 1% hoarding resources for themselves.
That's actually the rational respond: fail to notice what didn't happen.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday February 23 2015, @11:03AM
But does it have to be military? Why not invest on civil science (medicine etc.) instead?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Monday February 23 2015, @12:05PM
We can't use that to retake German Prussia.
Modern medicine has learned from each major war. Modern plastic surgery was originally to rebuild faces of industrial warfare victims.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday February 23 2015, @02:16PM
Beginning another Cold War with Russia, of all places, would be a poor move. Russia has been whittled down substantially since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Its population has shrunk to 143.5 million, less than half of the U.S.'s 318.9 million. (When I was a kid the story was always that we'd have to kill 5 Russians for every American should it come to blows.) Its GDP is $2 trillion, much of that thanks to oil, which is currently taking a thrashing in world markets. The US GDP is $17.7 trillion, or 9 times larger. Life expectancy for Russian men is 64 years, thanks to alcohol and tobacco. In the US, it's 78.7 years. Since 1989 they've seen NATO encroach on territory they consider theirs, and I'm sure they can keenly feel China eyeing Siberia hungrily. So giving them another Cold War would prop them up instead of allowing their dissolution to proceed.
Also, it would be a fatal mistake for the United States to take its eye off China. Their economy is ascendant, their population huge, their ambitions large, and they have one mother of a chip on their shoulder against the rest of the world. Unless that country miraculously morphs into a pleasant, peaceful, prosperous democracy (and unless the United States miraculously morphs into a pleasant, peaceful, prosperous democracy), there will be war.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday February 23 2015, @03:12PM
The population of the Soviet union was 290 million at it's height so there were never more people than in the US. What changed is which countries that will join them in any confrontation. I guess the only reason they are in the game is because they have nukes. And I'll agree that the risk of China going on a resource raid into Russia is something to consider otoh, Russia has nukes to fend them of.
And as you say, China is the country to watch out for in the long term. Russia expansion is restrained by resource fatigue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @03:59PM
A popular Russian joke:
How to recognize an American on Red Square? She is the only one dressed like a bum.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday February 24 2015, @12:09AM
I'll take that as Russian or perhaps also eastern European women dress very nicely?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24 2015, @12:59AM
Or none of the poor ones would dare venture into the red square.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @07:32AM
To Mars before the Reds!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @10:24AM
Too late. It's already the Red Planet.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday February 23 2015, @09:14PM
You notice how well the last "Space Race" worked? Yeah, we got to the moon, but then we not only left, but since we had done what we'd said we were going to do we didn't even properly mothball the technology, but just left it to decay...and now we'd need to develop it all over again.
What kept things going was communication and earth resources satellites.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gawdonblue on Monday February 23 2015, @09:50AM
A single, slow-flying, easily-intercepted Bear on a pre-advertised route causes panic in the UK? FFS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @09:58AM
The only people panicking, if anyone, are the UK government. But that's only because they tend to panic every time a gnat farts near the cabinet office.
(Score: 5, Disagree) by lentilla on Monday February 23 2015, @11:12AM
It's not the aeroplane that has (right-thinking) people worried. It's the diplomatic games.
Sure - the UK could shoot it down... but can you imagine the diplomatic fallout from such an action?
It's standard "salami tactics", straight from the playbook. First you stage a few minor incursions into foreign territory (you can always call them "accidents" if needed). Then you strengthen your military (don't worry about international agreements because that might be an accounting error, right?) Then you station a squadron of troops next door to your rival. For peacekeeping. Or something like that. Then; before your rival's politicians can sufficiently explain the clear and present danger to their voting public; there's an entire army at the doorstep.
Sometimes I wonder about this modern age. Democracies tend to shy away from forthright, confident military action at the appropriate time. I posit that the UK probably should have downed the plane (and been on hand to effect the immediate repatriation of the pilot if he was lucky enough to still be in one piece). As the old saying goes "a stitch in time saves nine". Although the result would have been an almighty international kerfuffle - the message would be crystal clear: stick to international agreements because we are prepared to intercept and prosecute each incursion. Instead the UK has chosen the "softly, softly" approach, and Putin (who; unlike the UK; has a strong stomach for timely mayhem) will be already be taking notes from the next page of the playbook.
Diplomatic sabre-rattling at it's finest.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @12:22PM
Sure - the UK could shoot it down... but can you imagine the diplomatic fallout from such an action?
Yes, I hope the fallout would be enormous. Shooting down a plane in international airspace is not something we should take lightly. Please note that the Russian jets flew in international airspace, never over the UK. And yes international airspace borders national airspaces, and when they fly passed it, you could say that as escorting away from. The UK minister is doing his best to boast and grandstand this to win popular support, I think to keep the trade restrictions on Russia in place.
From a UK MoD statement:
RAF Quick Reaction Alert Typhoon fighter aircraft were launched yesterday after Russian aircraft were identified flying close to UK airspace. The Russian planes were escorted by the RAF until they were out of the UK area of interest. At no time did the Russian military aircraft cross into UK sovereign airspace.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Monday February 23 2015, @08:38PM
This is really just a military person making a point, namely that the UK defence budget has been butchered over the last decade to the point that our armed services are too small and badly-equipped to be fit for purpose. Our Army is under-staffed, under-equipped and over-stretched for what it's currently doing, our Navy doesn't have any aircraft carriers with fixed-wing aircraft any more (the Harriers are all gone) and the ones we have have "fast attack" helicopters as an emergency stop-gap (see the 2012 Olympics). F-35B anyone? The Air Force is having bases closed left, right and centre with squadrons being disbanded. The Tornadoes are on the way out and we have a few Eurofighters, but not nearly enough. We still have Trident.
What makes me wince in all this, despite being Scottish (but living in England) and being a raving lefty by modern standards, I can't understand why the SNP wants to abandon Trident, and give up the nuclear deterrent completely. That's madness in today's world. If Scotland were no longer to have nuclear weapons, the country would have to be defended by England and the USA against the likes of that nice Mr Putin, who'd probably decide to "liberate" us from homosexuals and Neo-Nazis.
And finally, those ever cost-conscious politicians want more of the armed services to be staffed by reservists e.g. the Territorial Army: part-time soldiers?!
The price of everything and the value of nothing.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @05:21PM
Here we go again.
Sigh...