Russian Bomber Approaches U.S. Aircraft During Training Off South Korea

[TheSarge]

SEOUL, South Korea  —  U.S. and South Korean fighter jets scrambled to turn back a Russian bomber that approached a U.S. aircraft carrier during training exercises, South Korean and U.S. officials said Thursday.

The Russian plane flew close to the USS Nimitz in waters off South Korea's eastern coast Wednesday, but retreated shortly after the fighter jets approached, an official at the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff said on condition of anonymity, citing policy.

The official refused to provide details of the fighter jets involved.

Yonhap news agency quoted an unidentified military official as saying two F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters from the carrier and four South Korean F-16 jets were deployed to intercept the Russian plane.

The Russian navy confirmed that a Tu-142 anti-submarine aircraft flew over the American carrier, calling it a routine mission over the open sea.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335591,00.html




These  are trying to push us into starting something.

[JohnMatrix]

odd that they call an anti submarine plane a bomber.

[TheSarge]

odd that they call an anti submarine plane a bomber.

You need to actually look up the aircraft before you say things like you did above:

This is the Tu-142 Bear



Gee what ever were they thinking describing that plane as a "Bomber"?

[JohnMatrix]

odd that they call an anti submarine plane a bomber.

You need to actually look up the aircraft before you say things like you did above:

This is the Tu-142 Bear



Gee what ever were they thinking describing that plane as a "Bomber"?

I guess because it cannot drop bombs?  the article you posted even states: "The Russian navy confirmed that a Tu-142 anti-submarine aircraft flew over the American carrier, calling it a routine mission over the open sea."

Its like calling a P-3 Orion a "bomber"

[Rebel]

I guess because it cannot drop bombs?  the article you posted even states: "The Russian navy confirmed that a Tu-142 anti-submarine aircraft flew over the American carrier, calling it a routine mission over the open sea."

Its like calling a P-3 Orion a "bomber"

That's nothing like calling an Orion a bomber. The Bear IS a bomber. You gonna attach missiles to a B-52 and call it a fighter?

[The Night Owl]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/tu-95.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/tu-95-specs.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/tu-95-variants.htm

BEAR F - TU-142 / TU-142M -- The Tupolev Tu-142 'Bear' is the final maritime version of an aircraft originally introduced as a strategic bomber in the early 1950s. It was also one of the most visible, and Soviet Bears flew long patrols across all major oceans. They monitored the US coast from a base in Cuba, and they observed the British Task Force off the Falkland Islands, by flying from Angola. Throughout the 1980s they operated from the former US base at Cam Ranh in Vietnam. The Bear F exists in two major versions with differing numbers of radomes consisting of at least four distinct variants [up to at least the Bear-F Mod IV]. The mission of the Bear F is the detection and destruction of submarines. Development of the Tu-142 maritime reconnaissance aircraft began in the mid-1960s, soon after the initiation of the BEAR D Tu-95RTS. Design changes include a new cockpit and slightly longer nose' along with a new undercarriage (with bulged undercarriage doors) and an extended-chord rudder. The Tu-142 lacks dorsal and ventral gun turrets. This upgraded version of the TU-95RTS, with more powerful NK-12MV engines, began flight tests in the summer of 1968 and was deployed with naval aviation in December 1972. According to Russian sources, series production took place at the plant Nr. 18 in Kuibyshev and from the mid-1970s at Plant Nr. 86 in Taganrog. Western sources report that the production line at Taganrog reopened in 1983 to build the Bear-F and Bear-H. Upgrading of the TU-142 in 1972 resulted in the TU-142M, used for anti-submarine warfare. The first flight of the TU-142M [Bear F Mod 2 ] was on 04 November 1975, and deployment to the Soviet Naval Aviation began in 1980. The Tu-142M2 [Bear-F Mod 3], which entered service around 1982, featured a new MAD in a spike-like tail fairing and a lengthened sonobuoy bay. The Tu-142M3 [Bear-F Mod 4] incorporated a new undernose sensor pacakge. First identified by Western intelligence in 1986, the Bear-F Mod 4 remained in low volume production at the end of the 1990s. The Tu-142 (Bear F) antisubmarine warfare patrol airplanes, although designated by the Soviet Union as a separate type of airplane from the Tu-95, have a design essentially identical to the design of the Tu-95 heavy bomber. Under the START I agreement, all airplanes designated by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as Tu-142, which are known to the United States of America as Bear F or Bear J, depending on how a particular airplane is equipped, were not considered to be former heavy bombers.

[JohnMatrix]

I guess because it cannot drop bombs?  the article you posted even states: "The Russian navy confirmed that a Tu-142 anti-submarine aircraft flew over the American carrier, calling it a routine mission over the open sea."

Its like calling a P-3 Orion a "bomber"

That's nothing like calling an Orion a bomber. The Bear IS a bomber. You gonna attach missiles to a B-52 and call it a fighter?

its different.  The Tu-142 is a maritime patrol/anti sub plane.  Would a B-52 have sonobuoys? would it have a MAD on it? can a b-52 carry torpedoes? no.  This is why the Tu-142 cannot be classified as a bomber. 

[Rebel]

Jesus H. Christ, you idiots love arguing about semantics. It's a modified ****ing bomber, period.

[Ptarmigan]

Tu-142 is a bomber, like the B-52.

[Rebel]

Tu-142 is a bomber, like the B-52.

No, you're wrong. Just like adding an NSA mission to a destroyer makes it, well, not a destroyer anymore. 

[Crazy Horse]

I guess because it cannot drop bombs?  the article you posted even states: "The Russian navy confirmed that a Tu-142 anti-submarine aircraft flew over the American carrier, calling it a routine mission over the open sea."

Its like calling a P-3 Orion a "bomber"

That's nothing like calling an Orion a bomber. The Bear IS a bomber. You gonna attach missiles to a B-52 and call it a fighter?

its different.  The Tu-142 is a maritime patrol/anti sub plane.  Would a B-52 have sonobuoys? would it have a MAD on it? can a b-52 carry torpedoes? no.  This is why the Tu-142 cannot be classified as a bomber. 

Itr's a damn bomber period and only designated ASW as a result of ARM. Also yes a B52 can carry sonar bouys

[Crazy Horse]

Hey I guess when a SSN is doing research it's no longer an attack sub that could have the ability of firing nuclear payloads.......It's just a research vessel

[JohnMatrix]

I guess because it cannot drop bombs?  the article you posted even states: "The Russian navy confirmed that a Tu-142 anti-submarine aircraft flew over the American carrier, calling it a routine mission over the open sea."

Its like calling a P-3 Orion a "bomber"

That's nothing like calling an Orion a bomber. The Bear IS a bomber. You gonna attach missiles to a B-52 and call it a fighter?

its different.  The Tu-142 is a maritime patrol/anti sub plane.  Would a B-52 have sonobuoys? would it have a MAD on it? can a b-52 carry torpedoes? no.  This is why the Tu-142 cannot be classified as a bomber. 

Itr's a damn bomber period and only designated ASW as a result of ARM. Also yes a B52 can carry sonar bouys

right.  Maybe it will drop torpedoes on a carrier then.

[TheSarge]

right.  Maybe it will drop torpedoes on a carrier then.

Why are you always such a fuc*king 'Tard about this stuff.  We can arm B-52's with anti-Ship missiles.  Just like the Russians can load those Bear Bombers with AS-4 'Kitchen' anti-ship missiles.


It doesn't not change the fact that it's a damn bomber.

[JohnMatrix]

right.  Maybe it will drop torpedoes on a carrier then.

Why are you always such a fuc*king 'Tard about this stuff.  We can arm B-52's with anti-Ship missiles.  Just like the Russians can load those Bear Bombers with AS-4 'Kitchen' anti-ship missiles.


It doesn't not change the fact that it's a damn bomber.

no, you can't put "kitchen" missiles on the Tu-142.  Only the "Tu-95K-22" could carry them.  It is no longer in use.

Its not like they just took some tu-95s and just renamed them.  The Tu-142 is quite different from the tu-95, enough to warrant a different designation.

[TheSarge]

no, you can't put "kitchen" missiles on the Tu-142.  Only the "Tu-95K-22" could carry them. 

Since you get your rocks off splitting hairs and consistiently ignore the broader meaning to defend all things USSR...you are incorrect.

The missile was designed originally for the Tu-22 and Tu-22M.

Get it right dumb@ss.

Its not like they just took some tu-95s and just renamed them.  The Tu-142 is quite different from the tu-95, enough to warrant a different designation.

Perhaps you missed this from TNO:

The Tupolev Tu-142 'Bear' is the final maritime version of an aircraft originally introduced as a strategic bomber in the early 1950s.

They gave it a different designation because of the maritime bombing and ASW duties.

But it's apparently NOT different enough for NATO to give it a different designation from the Tu-95.


You should really just STFU and quit trying to act smarter than you really are about military things on a board that has so many current and former members of the armed services on it.

You only serve to make yourself look like more of a idiot when you run your mouth on this stuff.

[JohnMatrix]

no, you can't put "kitchen" missiles on the Tu-142.  Only the "Tu-95K-22" could carry them. 

Since you get your rocks off splitting hairs and consistiently ignore the broader meaning to defend all things USSR...you are incorrect.

The missile was designed originally for the Tu-22 and Tu-22M.

Get it right dumb@ss.

Its not like they just took some tu-95s and just renamed them.  The Tu-142 is quite different from the tu-95, enough to warrant a different designation.

Perhaps you missed this from TNO:

The Tupolev Tu-142 'Bear' is the final maritime version of an aircraft originally introduced as a strategic bomber in the early 1950s.

They gave it a different designation because of the maritime bombing and ASW duties.

But it's apparently NOT different enough for NATO to give it a different designation from the Tu-95.


You should really just STFU and quit trying to act smarter than you really are about military things on a board that has so many current and former members of the armed services on it.

You only serve to make yourself look like more of a idiot when you run your mouth on this stuff.

obviously, but we are not talking about the tu-22 here, were talking about the bear.  How am i defending the USSR?

btw, since you apparently don't know that much about the Tu-142, heres a good intro to it for you.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=240

[Wretched Excess]

I guess because it cannot drop bombs?  the article you posted even states: "The Russian navy confirmed that a Tu-142 anti-submarine aircraft flew over the American carrier, calling it a routine mission over the open sea."

Its like calling a P-3 Orion a "bomber"

That's nothing like calling an Orion a bomber. The Bear IS a bomber. You gonna attach missiles to a B-52 and call it a fighter?

its different.  The Tu-142 is a maritime patrol/anti sub plane.  Would a B-52 have sonobuoys? would it have a MAD on it? can a b-52 carry torpedoes? no.  This is why the Tu-142 cannot be classified as a bomber. 

this was an old soviet trick;  to slightly alter existing strategic aircraft so that they did not count under startegic arms limitations treaties, but could be reconverted to a strategic bomber very quickly.  they also removed the refueling probes from the (if memory serves) the TU-22 so they wouldn't be considered "strategic".  for the most part, the difference between a 142 and a 95 only exists on paper.
 

[asdf2231]

I guess because it cannot drop bombs?  the article you posted even states: "The Russian navy confirmed that a Tu-142 anti-submarine aircraft flew over the American carrier, calling it a routine mission over the open sea."

Its like calling a P-3 Orion a "bomber"

That's nothing like calling an Orion a bomber. The Bear IS a bomber. You gonna attach missiles to a B-52 and call it a fighter?

its different.  The Tu-142 is a maritime patrol/anti sub plane.  Would a B-52 have sonobuoys? would it have a MAD on it? can a b-52 carry torpedoes? no.  This is why the Tu-142 cannot be classified as a bomber. 

Itr's a damn bomber period and only designated ASW as a result of ARM. Also yes a B52 can carry sonar bouys

right.  Maybe it will drop torpedoes on a carrier then.

ARMAMENT:

External Hardpoints: 0
Armament:
2 x 23mm cannons

Up to 9,000lbs of mission-specific ordnance that would include sonobouys, torpedoes and anti-ship mine dispensers.

[Rebel]

Is this moron for real? Aircraft are armed with munitions dependent upon their mission.

When did you serve, John? What branch?

[JohnMatrix]

Is this moron for real? Aircraft are armed with munitions dependent upon their mission.

When did you serve, John? What branch?

what does that have to do with anything? 

let me ask you a question.  Do you consider the EP-3 to be a maritime patrol plane?  the original p-3 is, and the ep-3 looks the same as it.  It must also carry similar weapons to the original P-3, right? 

The same thing can be said about the tu-142.  It might look similar on the outside, but on the inside it is very different.

[JohnMatrix]

I guess because it cannot drop bombs?  the article you posted even states: "The Russian navy confirmed that a Tu-142 anti-submarine aircraft flew over the American carrier, calling it a routine mission over the open sea."

Its like calling a P-3 Orion a "bomber"

That's nothing like calling an Orion a bomber. The Bear IS a bomber. You gonna attach missiles to a B-52 and call it a fighter?

its different.  The Tu-142 is a maritime patrol/anti sub plane.  Would a B-52 have sonobuoys? would it have a MAD on it? can a b-52 carry torpedoes? no.  This is why the Tu-142 cannot be classified as a bomber. 

Itr's a damn bomber period and only designated ASW as a result of ARM. Also yes a B52 can carry sonar bouys

right.  Maybe it will drop torpedoes on a carrier then.

ARMAMENT:

External Hardpoints: 0
Armament:
2 x 23mm cannons

Up to 9,000lbs of mission-specific ordnance that would include sonobouys, torpedoes and anti-ship mine dispensers.

ok, maritime partol aircraft do drop mines.  Thanks for the confirmation.

[Rebel]

 

The same thing can be said about the tu-142.  It might look similar on the outside, but on the inside it is very different.

How many bombers have you been in, John? Fighters? Warships? Do you know how many times missions change? How easily one system is to convert? It's a ****ing bomber with a different mission.

[Rebel]

Let me put it to your non-military ass another way, there are many variations of the Stryker being developed as we speak. From armored personnel carrier to anti-tank vehicle to anti-aircraft vehicle. Guess what, it's STILL called a Damn Stryker.

[JohnMatrix]

Let me put it to your non-military ass another way, there are many variations of the Stryker being developed as we speak. From armored personnel carrier to anti-tank vehicle to anti-aircraft vehicle. Guess what, it's STILL called a Damn Stryker.

true.  The Tu-142 is indeed a bear.  It is not a bomber. Just as the recon varient isn't a bomber either.  All of them are still "Damn" bears though.