Read the forum code of contact
By: - 28th November 2008 at 12:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why do NATO aircraft intercept Russian aircraft? If they are no threat, and you know what they are, why intercept them?Is it purely to help them navigate through civilian airspace where airtraffic is heavy? And if so, why can't that be done via radio? Does the interception make any difference to the flightpath of the Russian aircraft?
Is it all built up tension because of the Ukraine and others wanting to join Nato?
Jay
UK
Possibly also as drill run of some sort against a real attack?
By: - 28th November 2008 at 12:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To be honest I doubt it's as much a drill run - though they would be useful training exercises - as a simple prestige thing. It's as much about image as the Russian bomber flights. Sure they're effectively a waste of money, but for one you can never really be too careful with nuclear bombers, and for two the tabloids would have a field day screaming the airforce was letting Russian nuclear bombers fly unchallenged and eventually start making noises about it being because they didn't have the capability. Not to mention Russia would almost undoubtedly be emboldened by a refusal to intercept their planes and I have no doubt you'd start seeing serious airspace violations before long. They're getting rowdy enough as it is now. Just look at that recent stunt with the Blackjacks.
In the minds of some I don't think the Cold War ever ended. But the simple fact of the matter is that as long as Russia shows its strength to NATO, NATO will show its strength back to Russia. It's just the way power politics work.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 12:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why do NATO aircraft intercept Russian aircraft? If they are no threat, and you know what they are, why intercept them?Is it purely to help them navigate through civilian airspace where airtraffic is heavy? And if so, why can't that be done via radio? Does the interception make any difference to the flightpath of the Russian aircraft?
Is it all built up tension because of the Ukraine and others wanting to join Nato?
Jay
UK
It is very simple. The UN do demand, that every country is responsible to secure the own air-space (= air-policing). To fly in the European airspace a flight-plan has to be filled in advance. At a given size air-corridors have to be used to avoid "near-misses" and aircraft transponders to work for the same purpose. Austria, Sweden a.s.o. did intercept NATO and other aircraft too every year. When paper work was not done, delayed, transponder did not operate or pilots are "asleep", when missing the communication demands.
Flying over a foreign airspace is not for free. Their to pay a fee for the ATC always. Russia does earn a lot of money from that, when the shortest way to Asia is over Sibiria f.e..
Cutting some corridors can save expensive fuel sometimes and so such incidents "do happen" frequently.
You can set a "speed-limit" on a "highway" for several reasons, when you do not control that none will care about that after some time. :diablo:
By: - 28th November 2008 at 12:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do Nato aircraft ever get intercepted by Russian planes?
Jay
UK
By: - 28th November 2008 at 12:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why do NATO aircraft intercept Russian aircraft? If they are no threat, and you know what they are, why intercept them?Is it purely to help them navigate through civilian airspace where airtraffic is heavy? And if so, why can't that be done via radio? Does the interception make any difference to the flightpath of the Russian aircraft?
Is it all built up tension because of the Ukraine and others wanting to join Nato?
Jay
UK
This is a bit of a false premise, as we actually don't know whether these aircraft are a threat. For all we know a Bear flying towards the UK could be laden with nuclear cruise missiles, although this is, I admit, far from likely.
By not intercepting them you give the green light for foreign governments to control your own airspace, gather reconnaisance information and disrupt civil aviation, as well as pose a military threat.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 12:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do Nato aircraft ever get intercepted by Russian planes?Jay
UK
Yes.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 14:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is very simple. The UN do demand, that every country is responsible to secure the own air-space (= air-policing). To fly in the European airspace a flight-plan has to be filled in advance. At a given size air-corridors have to be used to avoid "near-misses" and aircraft transponders to work for the same purpose. Austria, Sweden a.s.o. did intercept NATO and other aircraft too every year. When paper work was not done, delayed, transponder did not operate or pilots are "asleep", when missing the communication demands.
Flying over a foreign airspace is not for free. Their to pay a fee for the ATC always. Russia does earn a lot of money from that, when the shortest way to Asia is over Sibiria f.e..
Cutting some corridors can save expensive fuel sometimes and so such incidents "do happen" frequently.
You can set a "speed-limit" on a "highway" for several reasons, when you do not control that none will care about that after some time. :diablo:
No SENS NATO membership requires you to secure your own airspace nothing to do with the UN.
This has caused some issues with new NATO members in Eastern Europe who have no fighters. Hence NATO airforces rotating into the area to do it for them.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 14:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. I understand NATO takes care of the air defense for these nations on a 3 or 6 month rotation - is this correct? And so far Polish, Dutch and Norwegian F-16s, RAF F3s and German F-4Fs, have been based there so far over the past 10 years - is this correct?
Are there any publicly known incidents of NATO violations of Russian air space over the last ten years?
If NATO ever expands to include Ukraine, they will be responsible for defending thier own airspace surely? So we could see a situation where a Ukraine Su-27 intercepts a Russian Tu-95, and then the next day a Russian Su-27 could intercept a Ukraine Tu-95 (if they still use them). Crazy situation.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 14:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why do NATO aircraft intercept Russian aircraft? If they are no threat, and you know what they are, why intercept them?Is it purely to help them navigate through civilian airspace where airtraffic is heavy? And if so, why can't that be done via radio? Does the interception make any difference to the flightpath of the Russian aircraft?
Is it all built up tension because of the Ukraine and others wanting to join Nato?
Jay
UK
http://www.nato.int/issues/air_defence/practice_policing.html
Legally the aircraft can go all the way up to the 12nm limit off the coastline. It is both sides policy to intercept and has been going on for decades.
Russia does the exact same with NATO aircraft that are detected near their airspace. During the height of the cold war there were more variants and types flying about. Both sides were interested in gaining intelligence from photographing the equipment/weapons/antenna fits, etc.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 14:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. I understand NATO takes care of the air defense for these nations on a 3 or 6 month rotation - is this correct? And so far Polish, Dutch and Norwegian F-16s, RAF F3s and German F-4Fs, have been based there so far over the past 10 years - is this correct?Are there any publicly known incidents of NATO violations of Russian air space over the last ten years?
If NATO ever expands to include Ukraine, they will be responsible for defending thier own airspace surely? So we could see a situation where a Ukraine Su-27 intercepts a Russian Tu-95, and then the next day a Russian Su-27 could intercept a Ukraine Tu-95 (if they still use them). Crazy situation.
Yes thats it, Romanian Lancer's have done it as well.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 15:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gate wrote
Are there any publicly known incidents of NATO violations of Russian air space over the last ten years?
Those days have long since gone. There is no need or requirement to violate Russian airspace. Intelligence collection is collected from international airspace. As stated before the aircraft can legally approach all the way up to the 12nm to conduct their missions.
If NATO ever expands to include Ukraine, they will be responsible for defending thier own airspace surely? So we could see a situation where a Ukraine Su-27 intercepts a Russian Tu-95, and then the next day a Russian Su-27 could intercept a Ukraine Tu-95 (if they still use them). Crazy situation.
If Ukraine joins NATO then of course they will police their own airspace. Ukraine today will have standing Quick Reaction Alert aircraft to police their own airspace as it is. Ever since the events of 9/11 governments worldwide have re-assessed their policy and procedures in such an event.
All Ukrainian Tu-95s are in museums/scrapped or have been returned to Russia. Ukraine decided that it no longer required any strategic capability and disbanded their strategic forces.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 15:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No SENS NATO membership requires you to secure your own airspace nothing to do with the UN.This has caused some issues with new NATO members in Eastern Europe who have no fighters. Hence NATO airforces rotating into the area to do it for them.
Every sovereign country has the obligation to defend its airspace, if they want to be truly sovereign and have the rights according to that. The difference with NATO is that the members do not only have that obligation for themselfs, but for all NATO.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 15:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Every sovereign country has the obligation to defend its airspace, if they want to be truly sovereign and have the rights according to that. The difference with NATO is that the members do not only have that obligation for themselfs, but for all NATO.
That is true theoretically but it is not a requirement from the UN, also there are a fair few countries out there who have no requirement to patrol their airspace at all often for geographic or financial reasons.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 15:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes thats it, Romanian Lancer's have done it as well.
Portuguese Vipers, Spanish Hornets, etc, etc...
Almost every airforce in NATO has already contributed.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 16:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the situation in Georgia could of also of easliy happned in any of those 3 countires.
What would of the situation been then? WW3?
By: - 28th November 2008 at 16:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gate wroteThose days have long since gone. There is no need or requirement to violate Russian airspace. Intelligence collection is collected from international airspace. As stated before the aircraft can legally approach all the way up to the 12nm to conduct their missions.
Official Russian MoD data shows for 2007:
- more than 650 trackings of foreign military aircraft "close to national airspace"
- more than 120 intercepts
- 24 recorded border near-violations resulting in intercepts: 8 administrative violations (military transport that thought it was cleared but the respective administration failed to deliver the report to the Air Force), 7 near-violations or unintended violations (navigation failure, violation of air safety rules, direct course violations), 9 intended violations, 7 of them in the Far East.
It does of course include not only NATO, but Ukrainian, Chinese, Kazakh, Iranian etc aircraft.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 16:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is true theoretically but it is not a requirement from the UN, also there are a fair few countries out there who have no requirement to patrol their airspace at all often for geographic or financial reasons.
Every country has an obligation to ensure their territory, waters and airspace is not used for actions against other countries. If not they don't have the full rights as a sovereign country according to international law.
Afghanistan is the most prominent example as the attack on WTC was not launched by the Afghan government but by an organisation using their country for bases. As the government did not do anything about it and not allowed the UN to send troops a UN resolution was issued that allowed an invasion. Wether the government was just weak or actively supported the actions was not an issue.
If a country neglected to defend its airspace in such a way that it could be used for military attacks or criminal acts against a neighbour its sovereignty could be questioned. The attacked neighbour could then itself use that airspace to defend itself. An example was during the war on the Balkans when the Austrian air force was very busy fending off serbian planes that had strayed into their airspace. They were not a part of the conflict, but wanted to prevent NATO and Serbia to fight each other in their airspace, because NATO would not have accepted austrian airspace as some kind of free haven.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 16:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the situation in Georgia could of also of easliy happned in any of those 3 countires.What would of the situation been then? WW3?
Yes, but it is rather unlikely.
Georgia has sepratist enclaves within its borders that are backed by the Russians, which I do not believe to be the case for any of the Baltic states, so the flashpoint that caused the Georgia crisis doesn't apply.
By: - 28th November 2008 at 16:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is Russia responsible for any other airspace other than it's own? For example regions on the poles?
By: - 28th November 2008 at 17:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No SENS NATO membership requires you to secure your own airspace nothing to do with the UN.This has caused some issues with new NATO members in Eastern Europe who have no fighters. Hence NATO airforces rotating into the area to do it for them.
I am aware about that, so I did choose Swede and Austria as examples too.
The NATO or Russia are nothing special about that. When you do claim that. ;)
Posts: 83
By: gate - 28th November 2008 at 11:10
Why do NATO aircraft intercept Russian aircraft? If they are no threat, and you know what they are, why intercept them?
Is it purely to help them navigate through civilian airspace where airtraffic is heavy? And if so, why can't that be done via radio? Does the interception make any difference to the flightpath of the Russian aircraft?
Is it all built up tension because of the Ukraine and others wanting to join Nato?
Jay
UK