Canadian Jets scrambled to intercept Russian Jet

[kitty1]

Source: CBC News

A Canadian Jet intercepted a Russian F-18 the eve of the visit by Barack Obama.
It was intercepted in the Arctic very close to Canadian Air Space.
Peter McKay, the Minister of Defense thought it more than a coincidence that the timing of the incicdent was so close to Obamas' visit.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/

[Lost in CT]

1. Canada has jets??? nt

[jeff30997]

17. Of course not.

We still travel on horseback and we have combat balloons.

[Lost in CT]

18. Whew...thank God I was worried for a minute...nt

[DemoTex]

39. I've heard that those combat balloons have a real tight turning radius.

Not many people know that.

[Ediacara]

42. That would be AWESOME

[damntexdem]

45. Well, I'm glad that the mounties got their Russian jet.

But why does Russia have F-18s?

[liberation]

20. The real question is: The Russians have American F-18s!!!????

EOM

[Lost in CT]

23. Maybe they found some in Georgia. nt

[damntexdem]

46. No, those were poison peanuts.

[Abacus]

28. That surprised me as well. /nt

[Gore1FL]

48. Not according to the article.

CF-18s were dispatched to intercept the Russian jet. The Russian jet type was not identified. I think the OP made a typo.

[ConcernedCanuk]

29. WE had the FASTEST jet in the World, the Avro Arrow, and our PM at the time killed it

.
.
.

Pressure from the "superpower" could NOT allow little old Canada to be superior in the air

and our PM kissed the USA's butt

We still have some pretty mean shit of our own

but we are not telling anymore . . .

EVER

[Billy Burnett]

31. Yep. We still have the fastest Dories in the world.

[ConcernedCanuk]

32. Ahhh - good ole Nova Scotia- Did the Cabot trail and Fundy Park in the 60's as a kid

.
.
.

Stayed in a place called "Neil's Harbor" once - had a sand bar way below that only got a wee bit of water at high tide - so was REALLY salty in the pond behind the sand bar

would literally "bounce" back up to the surface when you dived in

Father took us on camping trips from the late fifties to early sixties EVERY SUMMER for 5 weeks a year

Mom and pa - 4 kids and a dog - every year from the time I was 6 until I was 14 (1965)

Visited PEI one whole summer on a Potato farm - yup that was BEFORE the causeway - went by ferry

Never visited the East coast in the winter -I hear it's much more wicked than here (Northern Ontario)

But it's great in the summer

I miss the trips to the East - can ya tell?

[Posteritatis]

35. You can flip a coin on the winters here

Half the time Nova Scotian winters are a funny little joke, the other half it's like the four horsemen of the arctocalypse grind us into flour with their wintry hooves. This year it's more been the ice than the snow.

I was over in London for school last year. Southern Ontario rather than northern, I know, but I was surprised at how shocked they were by the terrible terrible winter there; to me it was pretty warm, not much snow, etc.

PEI is actually too photogenic; there oughta be a law.

[ConcernedCanuk]

54. PEI is actually too photogenic; there oughta be a law - yup -

.
.
.

PEI is one of the nicest provinces if one has money to live on, not much economy there

but it IS a beauty Province

although it can get wicked weather , well just like Nova Scotia - y'all down there take the beating from the storms off of the Atlantic

Us Ontarians and other in-landers shouldn't complain about "storms"

I remember one while in Fundy National Park that ripped our tents down and literally trashed our campsite

some storms are sure wicked on the coast

gotta be tough to live down there methinks . .

[Wizard777]

40. Nova Scotia? How many USO's has the guy in that boat seen?

:rofl:

Just in case your unfamiliar with the term. USO = Unidentified Submerged Object. They are the underwater equivalent of a UFO. Some USO's actually fly out of the water to become UFO's. But Nova Scotia is a USO hot spot.

[Posteritatis]

37. Ahhh, Diefenbaker, one of the Canadianity tests

I need to put together a list of names/phrases that get immediate reactions only from Canadians or something. I found it funny as hell a few months ago how a casual mention of Celucci on another thread had the Canadians dropping out of the woodwork to howl in reflexive rage at the smarmy little bastard's name alone. ;)


( o/` A log-driver's waltz pleases girls completely... o/` )

[ConcernedCanuk]

52. ahhhh - Celucci - sure put a stink on the title of "Ambassador"

.
.
.

and yeah - actually a thread on "trigger" words to excite us Canuks would be interesting

the MOST interesting part would be how long it would last before it got locked . .

:dunce:

[happyslug]

63. As did the US to its super fast jet in the same time period, all ere questionable

The Soviet union did build its Mach 3 interceptor, but rarely used in combat do to its ineffectiveness. The problem with Mach 3 jets is their size. Such Jets eat fuel, thus must carry massive amount of fuel, which means the engines must be massive so must the Air Frame. These are just some of the "costs" involved with operating Mach 3 planes (And when I use the term "Cost" I mean more than money, in the case of Mach 3 jets combat performance).

The American SR-71 Black Bird was also designed as a Mach 3 Fighter (The YF-12). The main problem with ANY Mach 3 plane is the sheer size of the plane, it takes half a continent to change course. For all practical purposes it has to be land based controlled, the pilot is going so fast he can NOT see the target till he is on it and will NOT recognize it as a target till he is well passed it. If the plane it was flying again was going super sonic in the same direction the pilot would have time to fire a missile, but in almost any other case not a chance (Speed differential was to much, and we are talking of the late 1950s and early 1960s).

In actual combat it was found the idea speed was no faster then 900 mph (And generally below Supersonic Speed but the ability to burst into supersonic was a huge advantage). If you design a plane for sub-sonic speeds with only an ability to burst into supersonic speeds, that permitted a much smaller plane which would also used less fuel (Which meet the plane could be even made even smaller). The smaller planes could engage slower planes and shoot them down. The smaller planes could maneuver to avoid being "locked on" when is anti-aircraft missile territories. Furthermore, as shown by Gary Power's U-2 being shot down over Russia in 1958, high attitude planes were within the combat range of most Soviet Anti-aircraft missiles (The US and NATO in response to the increase ability to shoot down high flying planes adopted a low-low-low combat policy, i.e. fly at 600 feet over the ground and use the ground to black radar from detecting the planes). The Soviets also adopted low-low-low flying doctrine (Low-Low-Low meant fly low over one's own held territory, fly low over any area in actual combat and low over enemy held territory). Given these combat Restrictions, a Mach 3 fighter made no sense, one of the chief costs involved with flying at Mach 3, is an inability to fly at treetop level. The sound blast of going supersonic can bounce off the ground right into the plane and cause it to crash (and the increase speed means increase air intakes which means more birds hitting the engine and causing crashes).

Sorry, Mach 3 fighters were all the rage in the late 1950s and into the 1960s, but the cost to operate those planes quickly became to high, especially given that the Soviet refused to adopt a supersonic bomber (and when the Soviet Union did design one, I do not believe it was even built, to replace the turbo-prop Bear bomber it was like the American B-1, design to fly at tree top level at subsonic speed and then have the ability to burst to supersonic speeds if needed (This was also in the B-1, but removed to keep costs down under Reagan when Reagan re-instated the B-1 program when he became President).

The Mach 3 Fighters all had a problem, long range anti-aircraft Missiles could do what such planes did best better and cheaper (Shoot down high flying supersonic planes) even in the late 1950s (As seen by Gary Power's and his U-2, which was NOT supersonic but flying as extreme heights). To avoid such missile defenses, Air forces switch to flying at much lower altitudes to avoid radar detection. At such attitude Mach 3 speeds could NOT be used, furthermore the ability to go mach 3 made the plane to large to maneuver at such heights. In simple terms, super Sonic Interceptors are design for a war that had almost no aspect of occurring even today.

The US did play around with Mach 3 Fighters while into the 1960s, but found in Vietnam the best fighter in the world at that time was the US Navy's F-4 Phantom, which barely went supersonic (and the US Navy in the late 1950s was looking at replacing the F4 with a straight wing sub-sonic jet plane which was viewed as a launch platform for its then new long range antiaircraft missiles, these later became the intended missiles of the F-14 via the attempt in the 1960s to adapt the above navy program with the US Air Force F-111 Bomber program).

George Bush Flew a F-105 Delta Wing Interceptor, which was the last sub-sonic interceptor adopted by the US Air Force and was on its way out when George Bush was trained to fly it (Its sister the F-106 was supersonic but Bush never was trained on it, both were replaced by the F-15 in the early 1970s as the US Air Force accepted that fact that most Air Combat would be at 1000 feet or less). Both the F-105 and f-106 were design to cruise at much higher speeds then the later F-15, and to do so from longer Air fields then are needed for F-15s. The price was a much lower ability to maneuver AND thus almost no ability to engage in any form of Dog0fight.

Now at least two Mach 3 Fighters did survive well into the 1980s, the SR-71 being the best known (And while some reports said it was designed as a fighter, that appears to be more a cover story or a possible variation then actually designed, thus the fighter was called the YF-12). The other is the Soviet Union whose MIG-25, which was used as an interceptor, but much like the SR071 used more often for reconnaissance. The Soviet's seem to embrace ground control much more then western Air Forces did so the MIG-25 can be viewed a less as a Interceptor and more as a anti-aircraft weapons platform that could get is missiles into areas of the Soviet Union without Air Defenses faster then anything else. How much this was done in unknown, all the reports of operations use of the MIG-25 has been in the same role as the SR-71, aerial photography and reconnaissance as opposed to actual combat (Some were used in the first Gulf War. Some combat Victories are claimed for the MIG-25 in that war, but at least two were shoot down by F-15s during the war and another by a F-18 after the war when one entered the no fly zone, which again shows the weakness of Mach 3 planes in actual aerial combat, which has been the case since the late 1950s).

Sorry Canada's cancellation of the CF-105 was more an acceptance of the actual threat to Canada (ICBMs and Sub-since prop driven Bear Bombers) then any American pressure. The US followed Canada's lead and canceled its similar program within a decade.

AS a Rule Canada Armed Forces have had a history, since WWII, to adopt equipment that the US Military wanted but do to political consideration could NOT adopt. The Classic Example is the Leopard I Tank, the US Congress refused to even permit the Army to consider adopting it then the M60, even through the Leopard I was considered then and now the better design. Another example was the Canada's adoption of the FAL Rifle in the 1950s, Again internal Politics in the US refuse to permit the adoption of a foreign design (The M14 which the US Army did adopt, was and is as good, but given the additional time needed to get it up and running many in the US Army wanted to Adopt the FAL at the same time as Canada did). I can go on (Canada's adoption of the F-5 as a Cheap but effective Fighter in the late 1960s when the US Air Force was adopting the much more costly F-15, is an example of Canadian foresight, the F-5 was a good plane for its time and effective for what it was designed to do, it stayed in Canadian service till 1995, where it was replaced by Canadian Version of the US Navy F-18 instead of the much more expensive F-15).

As to this Avro, Canada just lead the US where it going anyway, it would have saved a lot of money to have canceled all of those Mach 3 Planes at the same time, but it took the US another ten years to accept the fact they were military useless.

More on the Mig-25:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-25

More on the YF-12 (Sr-12 Fighter Version):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

[tekisui]

2. How did it get past Sarah?

:shrug:

[AyanEva]

3. RRRROFL

Putin reared his head in the middle of the night, I suppose. She must have been asleep.

[ellacott]

4. Funny!!!

:)

[LynnTheDem]

5. She wasn't on her porch.

Lot of good she is, when she doesn't bother keeping watch on Putin's rearing head!

[AyanEva]

10. *spews coffee across keyboard*

YOU OWE ME A NEW KEYBOARD.

[BlooInBloo]

6. And that's the end of this thread.

[derby378]

16. You should follow that with...

"You've been a lovely audience! I'll be here all week! Try the London broil!" :rofl:

[kiranon]

36. Thank you. Best line of the week for me. n/t

[City Lights]

60. ROFL!

:thumbsup:

[Astrad]

7. Russia has F-18s?

[Gore1FL]

49. No n/t

[jordi_fanclub]

8. "A russian F-18" ?!?!?! (n/t)

[jeff30997]

15. I believe that there's a big error here.

Russia have MiGs and Canada have F-18s.The person at CBC have obviously mixed them up.

[acmavm]

9. Just testing the waters I suppose. Putin must want to see just how

far he can push his luck.

[Posteritatis]

38. Medvedev, you mean (nt)

[acmavm]

41. No, I absolutely & positively mean Putin. That's who's still running

things over there. Never doubt that for a minute.

<snip>

In his eight years as president, Mr. Putin remained extremely popular, and though the terms of his power may be altered now that he has handed the presidency over to his personally chosen successor, Dmitry A. Medvedev, and assumed his new post as prime minister, he has shown no sign of relinquishing control.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/p/vladimir_v_putin/index.html

[liam_laddie]

11. Typo!

The F-18 is a USN/USMC fighter-bomber. Unless someone is selling F-18's under-the-counter to the
Russians, this error calls into question just what type of aircraft it was. Yours for accuracy in reporting/typing. :wtf:

CBC story says it was Canadian CF-18's which intercepted the Russkie...I'm guessing a TU Bear turboprop.

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. And yet it took Bush almost 2 hours to scramble a jet to NYC on 9-11.

[MineralMan]

13. Those pesky Russians...they just love to test the waters.

Once, when I was stationed at a remote USAF base in Turkey, way back in the 60s, we got buzzed by a TU-85 Bear bomber, which passed over the base at an altitude of about 500'. Sadly, I was without my camera that day. I'd have loved to have a photo of that "incursion."

[kentauros]

14. I don't think the Russians have F-18s

The story only said "Russian aircraft" but did point out that "The CF-18s took off from Cold Lake, Alta., on Feb. 16 after NORAD detected the bomber headed for Canadian airspace."

Interesting they bother to point out what the Canadians were flying, but not for the Russians...

[kitty1]

21. It actually was a Russian bomber, not f-18 intercepted

my bad. I misinterpreted that one earlier

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. You have 20 minutes or so to edit your OP

It may prevent you having to answer more questions on this :D

[ohio2007]

26. Reuters link saves his Canadian bacon

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE51Q2W220090227?sp=true

I trust the bear didn't sh!t any fuel in the circle ;)

[kentauros]

34. No problem

I automatically figured it was the fault of the CBC anyway ;)
You know how non-investigative reporters are these days...

[Thothmes]

57. Probably a Bear D

[achtung_circus]

19. It was Canadian CF-18s

intercepting a Russian Sukhoi SU-24.

[mcjackson]

24. SU-24s are...

....bad ass.

[Swede]

33. The TU-95 is codenamed the Bear.

It is a Russian longrange bomber. CF-18 is the Canadian version of the
F-18.

The Sukhoi SU-24 (codenamed Fencer) do not have the range to probe North American airspace. The Fencer is an attack/interceptor.

[ohio2007]

25. NINE day old news zzzzzzz

reuters;

Canadian fighters scrambled to intercept an approaching Russian bomber less than 24 hours before U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Ottawa last week, ....

...

Obama spent a few hours in the Canadian capital on February 19

....
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE51Q2W220090227?sp=true

intercepted the Bear on the 18th

[Pierre.Suave]

27. Russia has F-18s?

Impossible.

[ConcernedCanuk]

30. Two things - the bomber was close to Alaska - nowhere near Ottawa - 3,000 miles away

.
.
.

It was a regular patrol, and never entered USA or Canadian Airspace

Russia probably wouldn't even be hanging around over here if the USA didn't have all that weaponry in Russia's back yard

SO

We sorta asked for it . . .

They'll be back

[fed_up_mother]

43. Close to Alaska? And Palin didn't scramble her National Guard fighters?

[ConcernedCanuk]

53. Actually - interesting point - did the USA know the Russians were there?

.
.
.

Alaska must have some air defense,

no?

[fed_up_mother]

55. Of course. Remember all that commander-in-chief experience Palin has?

:rofl:

[damntexdem]

44. That was no jet -- that was Putin's head.

Obviously strayed into Canadian airspace from Alaska.

[ConcernedCanuk]

56. FYI - the Russian bomber isn't a jet - it's a 4 engine turbo prop

.
.
.

AND - it never got into Canadian airspace - just close enough for us to pay attention

The Russians ARE testing our awareness, there is no doubt about that - AND I doubt they intended any harm -

BUT

They are no doubt recording our reaction time to their presence close to our country

SOOOOO

again

where were the USA fighters while this was going on ???

[MellowDem]

61. Probably staying away from Canadian airspace...

I think the Canadians could handle this all by themselves just fine, no reason for the US to scramble jets. And it gives the Canadians a brief, fleeting touch of power ;-)

We don't even have to worry about Russia anymore, Canada can handle them! They'll have to sooner or later, what with all the claims to the North Pole.

[Nortonator]

47. Its time to take a stand

Anyone else think Canada and the USA should take this as a sign of aggression, cause i do. I think we should drop off a couple Patriot Batteries up there and maybe a military airbase in The Northwest Territories Or Nunavut. I'm Canadian by the way and i think we need to protect our boarders more against things like this.

[ConcernedCanuk]

50. Pic

.
.
.



A CF-18 Hornet, left, from 4 Wing Cold Lake flies next to a Russian Tu-95 'Bear' long-range strategic bomber on Sept. 5, 2007. (Canadian Forces)

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090227/Russia_planes_090227/20090227/?hub=TorontoNewHome

[ThoughtCriminal]

58. I did not know the Russian Air Force still used a red star

instead of the Russian flag on the tail.

[ohio2007]

59. Can't afford the paint but they have plenty of bears in the woods to cannibalize from

[applegrove]

51. That jet reared its ugly head.

[BrightKnight]

62. Whatever he rears is going to get shot down without much discussion. - n/t