What's new

Britain says fighters intercept Russian aircraft approaching Baltic states.....

Since when flying in international airspace became an "aggression"?
Invade Estonia for bully big bear . Estonia should learn a lesson from Goergia . In real time Estonia will find herself alone ,but no uncle sam or camila parker will help them shii!
 
.
That is to say the aircrafts of other states nevertheless have the right to fly in the international airspace? Or is it an "agression"? Or west has privatized all of the air and all the waters of the planet Earth?
This is what they desire!
 
.
That is to say the aircrafts of other states nevertheless have the right to fly in the international airspace? Or is it an "agression"? Or west has privatized all of the air and all the waters of the planet Earth?

It's a military aircraft, not a civilian one. It has no rights other than the right to be shot at by enemies of Russia.
 
.
Invade Estonia for bully big bear . Estonia should learn a lesson from Goergia . In real time Estonia will find herself alone ,but no uncle sam or camila parker will help them shii!

I liked your comment Because it shows how naive some people can be.
Do you think the Soviet Union at its peak who never dared invade any NATO member, what makes you think a farrrrrr weaker Russia will take such a risk? Lol
Do you even know the implications of invading a NATO member? Lol any country is welcome to try and see for themselves :)
 
.
So how much is this all costing the British taxpayer? I understand and I'm full on board with collective defence through NATO, but this does cost a great deal of money. Is Estonia going to be contributing more?
 
.
I liked your comment Because it shows how naive some people can be.
Do you think the Soviet Union at its peak who never dared invade any NATO member, what makes you think a farrrrrr weaker Russia will take such a risk? Lol
Do you even know the implications of invading a NATO member? Lol any country is welcome to try and see for themselves :)
you know what happened in Goergia .Well NATO policy is failed in Syria due to aggressive putin .If the Russia invade Estonia I can tell you nothing will be happen. Tell me what NATO can do to Russia ? Nuke them ? If you know the history then you wont call me a naïve .Nepolean failed , Hitler failed too . Your NATO can do is call an emergency meeting in Brussels then sanction again Russia .You know how Russia take crimea from Ukraine , just by force even . sorry for my bad English :)
 
Last edited:
.
So how much is this all costing the British taxpayer? I understand and I'm full on board with collective defence through NATO, but this does cost a great deal of money. Is Estonia going to be contributing more?
The modern Estonian Air Force has been rebuilding the destroyed military infrastructure since 1994 when the last Russian Army units left Estonia. Most of the funds were directed to the Ämari military airfield which was completed in 2011. Due to the lack of modern and developed military aviation infrastructure the Estonian Air Force development has been very slow. All aircraft are unarmed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Air_Force#Current_inventory

The task of Air Policing is one of the main peace-time/non-wartime activities of today's Air Forces. Mostly jet fighters are used due to their large range of services at all altitudes and speeds, its comprehensive sensors (radar, IR, Data Link) and versatile armament. For slow and low-flying aircraft (gliders, balloons, helicopters) normally turboprop aircraft and helicopters are used.
Contrary to popular perception, air policing is one of the most complex and challenging tasks of the Air Force. Unknown aircraft must be identified within a short time and in all weather conditions with no margin of error and intercepted if necessary. Air policing is performed daily and is always a real commitment and not sidelined to things happening in parallel (such as air combat exercises). Air policing ensures the control and sovereignty of the national airspace and security in air transport. Thus, the Air Force not only carries out the tasks of an independent state but also acts for the benefit of civil aviation.
Some nations are too small to carry out this task in their airspace. For instance, Liechtenstein's air policing is undertaken by the Swiss Air Force. Other nations have not the equipment and/or the money for this task. These often have an agreement with another nation or belong to an organization such as NATO) or are in Baltic Air Policing or Icelandic Air Policing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Policing

The Baltic air-policing mission is a NATO air defence Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) in order to guard the airspace over the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Within the Alliance, preserving airspace integrity is conducted as a collective task jointly and collectively using fighter aircraft for Air Policing. Air policing is a purely defensive mission. Since the 1970s, NATO has established a comprehensive system of air surveillance and airspace management means, as well as Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) assets for intercepts (QRA(I)) provided by its member nations.
This structure of weapon systems, control centres and procedures is referred to as the NATO Integrated Air Defence System (NATINADS).
NATO members without their own Air Policing assets are assisted by other NATO members. Luxembourg is covered by interceptors from Belgium, while Slovenia and Albania are covered by Italian and Greek aircraft.
Since March 2004, when the Baltic States joined NATO, the 24/7 task of policing the airspace of the Baltic States was conducted on a three-month rotation from Lithuania's First Air Force Base in Zokniai/Šiauliai International Airport, near the northern city of Šiauliai, and starting 2014 at the Ämari Air Base in Harju County, Estonia. Starting with the Turkish deployment, rotations changed to a four-month basis. Usual deployments consist of four fighter aircraft with between 50 and 100 support personnel.
The three host nations contributed €2.2 million in 2011 to cover the deployment expenses and are supposed to contribute €3.5 million yearly by 2015. In 2012, the Alliance allocated €7 million for Šiauliai airfield modernisation from the Security Investment Programme.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing

Then why do they fly near the Russian borders?
Because 93% of Baltic coastline is non-Russian. And because most international air routes run there. Define 'near'
tni.aspx


mueller02.jpg

http://schiw.sf.hs-wismar.de/siw/paper/heft6/mueller1

Intercepts happen all the time, on both sides. That is never been the issue.
The issues are a) what prompts the need for an intercept and b) how is the intercept conducted.

Starting with b), you'ld like it to be conducted in a safe and professional manner, than minimizes risk to any of the involved. As for a) if you fly without having provided a flight plan, if you suddenly deviate from a filed flight plan, or fly without active transponder, and/or don't respond to e.g. radio calls, any plane is a potential threat that needs to be investigated (keeping 9/11 in mind).
 
Last edited:
.
Because 93% of Baltic coastline is non-Russian. And because most international air routes run there. Define 'near'
I was just trying to find out from the topic starter - why when Russian planes fly in international airspace ("near" the borders of the Baltic countries) - is an act of aggression, and when NATO planes flying in international airspace near Russia's borders - this is a normal working process.
I tried to explain to him that in both cases we have a regular pilots job. This is not an aggression.
 
.
I was just trying to find out from the topic starter - why when Russian planes fly in international airspace ("near" the borders of the Baltic countries) - is an act of aggression, and when NATO planes flying in international airspace near Russia's borders - this is a normal working process.
I tried to explain to him that in both cases we have a regular pilots job. This is not an aggression.
I merely responded to you post 13 "Then why do they fly near the Russian borders?"

Whether or not something could be contrued as aggression has to do with what I stated earlier:if you fly without having provided a flight plan, if you suddenly deviate from a filed flight plan, or fly without active transponder, and/or don't respond to e.g. radio calls, any plane is a potential threat that needs to be investigated (keeping 9/11 in mind). That applies for any plane. If a plane is not doing any of the above and it is intercepted and the interceptor doesn't conduct the interception in a professional manner, that can also be considered aggression.

You are suggesting same situations get treated differently and you generalize from specific cases to all cases in general. In reality, we are dealing with specific cases and in these cases situations are different and hence get treated different.
 
.
I merely responded to you post 13 "Then why do they fly near the Russian borders?"

Whether or not something could be contrued as aggression has to do with what I stated earlier:if you fly without having provided a flight plan, if you suddenly deviate from a filed flight plan, or fly without active transponder, and/or don't respond to e.g. radio calls, any plane is a potential threat that needs to be investigated (keeping 9/11 in mind). That applies for any plane. If a plane is not doing any of the above and it is intercepted and the interceptor doesn't conduct the interception in a professional manner, that can also be considered aggression.

You are suggesting same situations get treated differently and you generalize from specific cases to all cases in general. In reality, we are dealing with specific cases and in these cases situations are different and hence get treated different.
As far as I know, the rule about obligatory turning on of transponders does not apply to military aircrafts. There is no formal agreement between Russia and NATO on this.
In fact, there is no single word about transponders in the statute of the Russian Air Force at all. Russian military planes simply do not have them. As far as i know.
 
Last edited:
.
Invade Estonia for bully big bear . Estonia should learn a lesson from Goergia . In real time Estonia will find herself alone ,but no uncle sam or camila parker will help them shii!

There's a fondamental difference between Georgia and Estonia. One is a NATO member,the other isn't.

you know what happened in Goergia .Well NATO policy is failed in Syria due to aggressive putin . Tell me what NATO can do to Russia ? Nuke them ? If you know the history then you wont call me a naïve .Nepolean failed , Hitler failed too . Your NATO can do is call an emergency meeting in Brussels then sanction again Russia .You know how Russia take crimea from Ukraine , just by force even . sorry for my bad English :)

Russia has no intentions to invade a NATO member and will not do so.
In case they do,they would have to fight a coalition of armies including the most powerful military force of the world.

If the Russia invade Estonia I can tell you nothing will be happen.

Did you see that in your crystal ball ?

PS : No one is calling to invade Russia... If back in the cold war and at the peak of the tensions no one dared to move what makes you think they would today ?
 
.
As far as I know, the rule about obligatory turning on of transponders does not apply to military aircrafts. There is no formal agreement between Russia and NATO on this.
In fact, there is no single word about transponders in the statute of the Russian Air Force at all. Russian military planes simply do not have them. As far as i know.
Hahaha, nice try.

I do believe Russian Federation is a member and a council member of ICAO. http://www.icao.int/Pages/default.aspx

While the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) does not regulate the military, Article 3 (d) of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (‘the ICAO Convention) does state: The Contracting States undertake, when issuing regulations for their state aircraft, that they will have due regard for the safety of navigation of civil aircraft.

The following ICAO documents relate to civil/military:
–Annex 11 contains civil/military coordination provisions( 2.16, 2.17), including:
•minimising interference with normal operations of civil aircraft
•minimising the size of military airspace
•civil/military early coordination and direct communication
–Annex 2 —provisions on coordination with military authorities
–Doc 4444 …procedures for strayed or unidentified aircraft
–Doc 9554 …military and ATS coordination requirements
–Doc 9443 Manual Concerning Interception of Civil Aircraft
–Doc 9750 Global Air Navigation Plan
–Circular 328 Unmanned Aircraft Systems
–Circular 330 Civil/Military Cooperation in ATM

Are you suggesting Russian military aircraft do not have an IFF system?
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/russia-design-new-iff-system/
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/24/politics/syria-russian-fighter-jets/

Military planes, including those of Russia, do have transponders. If not then why does e.g. Swedish and Brit government complain about Russian military aircraft flying near its airspace with its transponders turned off to avoid being spotted by civilian radar. That choice of words alone suggest the sometimes they do fly with transponders turned on. Anyway, there have been near collisions with passenger jets as a result, and that is quite irresponsible.

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.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/29/russian-bombers-english-channel-ambassador-summoned

Russian military planes that turn off their transponders and neglect to send flight plans to air traffic officials have endangered civilian aircraft, the U.S. ambassador to NATO said Monday. U.S. Ambassador Douglas Lute pointed to “multiple incidents” in which Russian military planes have failed to properly communicate, making it difficult for civilian air authorities to track their movements.
http://www.ibtimes.com/russian-mili...lanes-turn-transponders-us-ambassador-1731603

To ensure safety in designated air corridors, commercial and civilian aircraft employ what is called secondary surveillance radar (SSR) to identify themselves to air traffic control (ATC). This is a transponder that periodically transmits location, bearing, altitude and other information to ATC. Military aircraft employ similar but more secure systems known as Identification Friend or Foe (IFF). In peacetime or when military aircraft fly in designated air corridors, IFF is operated in a civilian-compatible mode for safety in order to remain “visible” to air traffic controllers.

Russia’s Bears, on the other hand, turn off their IFF transponders so as to maintain the element of surprise. This prompts British air defences, using active radar to sweep the skies, to detect and respond to them as an unknown potential threat. It also means they are invisible to civilian air traffic control and invisible to other aircraft in the sky – unless close enough to be seen by pilots and crew themselves.
http://theconversation.com/do-russias-flying-bears-really-pose-a-risk-to-civilian-air-traffic-38119

In August 2013, Sukhoi signed a contract with the Kazan-based Radiopribor holding company for 184 "friend-or-foe" transponders for the Su-34 to be delivered by 2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

60R identification system for the 4202R aircraft radar transponder

The aircraft radar transponder is designed to identify the country of origin for an aircraft in response to inquiries from all land, marine, and air vehicles

The transponder is designed for aircraft such as Su-27, Su-30, and MiG-29 SMT airplanes; Mi-24, Mi-8, and Ka-28 helicopters; and others.

The specific composition of the transponder will be determined by the aircraft’s purpose and characteristics, which will be matched with a corresponding avionics system.
http://kret.com/en/product/10163/
 
Last edited:
.
Hahaha, nice try.

I do believe Russian Federation is a member and a council member of ICAO. http://www.icao.int/Pages/default.aspx

While the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) does not regulate the military, Article 3 (d) of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (‘the ICAO Convention) does state: The Contracting States undertake, when issuing regulations for their state aircraft, that they will have due regard for the safety of navigation of civil aircraft.

The following ICAO documents relate to civil/military:
–Annex 11 contains civil/military coordination provisions( 2.16, 2.17), including:
•minimising interference with normal operations of civil aircraft
•minimising the size of military airspace
•civil/military early coordination and direct communication
–Annex 2 —provisions on coordination with military authorities
–Doc 4444 …procedures for strayed or unidentified aircraft
–Doc 9554 …military and ATS coordination requirements
–Doc 9443 Manual Concerning Interception of Civil Aircraft
–Doc 9750 Global Air Navigation Plan
–Circular 328 Unmanned Aircraft Systems
–Circular 330 Civil/Military Cooperation in ATM

Are you suggesting Russian military aircraft do not have an IFF system?
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/russia-design-new-iff-system/
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/24/politics/syria-russian-fighter-jets/
A very detailed response. Your job is somehow related with this sphere?
 
. .
New photos released by Belgium give a close-up look at some interesting Russian aircraft that Belgian F-16 fighters encountered during a four-month stint as part of NATO's Baltic Air Policing mission.

The Russian planes intercepted by the Belgians included a Su-27 Flanker, a Tu-134AK, an Il-76, an An-72 and an An-12PPS

Four Belgian F-16s were based out of Amari Air Base in Estonia, a NATO member country, from January to April. The Belgian jets paired with Spanish Eurofighter Typhoon jets based out of Siauliai, Lithuania, to keep watch over the airspace of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, all of which joined the alliance in 2004.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/30/world/belgium-russian-plane-intercepts/index.html
 
.
Back
Top Bottom