Rusisian supersonic bombers intercepted by Belgian and UK airforce

Two Russian TU-160 Blackjacks supersonic bombers were intercepted by the Belgian Air Force (two F-16 planes) when they were flying in international airspace but very close to the Dutch Wadden Sea Islands.

They were intercepted by 2 Belgian air force planes because the Dutch and Belgian Air Force have joined forced to protect the Benelux region.

Later on the 2 Russian bombers were intercepted by the RAF (Royal Air Force) when they were flying towards the Northern tip of Scotland.


Sadly this is what we have become, the Russians are the enemy again because Putin has shown that is is not to be trusted whatsoever.

Peter King said:

Two Russian TU-160 Blackjacks supersonic bombers were intercepted by the Belgian Air Force (two F-16 planes) when they were flying in international airspace but very close to the Dutch Wadden Sea Islands.

They were intercepted by 2 Belgian air force planes because the Dutch and Belgian Air Force have joined forced to protect the Benelux region.

Later on the 2 Russian bombers were intercepted by the RAF (Royal Air Force) when they were flying towards the Northern tip of Scotland.


Sadly this is what we have become, the Russians are the enemy again because Putin has shown that is is not to be trusted whatsoever.

Click to expand...

These kind of aggressive acts have increased exponentially of late. Just when many Western governments are cutting back on military spending.

gunner said:

These kind of aggressive acts have increased exponentially of late. Just when many Western governments are cutting back on military spending.

Click to expand...

Americans should stay out of this. If there are problems between Russia and Europe,then those parties will find their own solution.

washunut said:

Americans should stay out of this. If there are problems between Russia and Europe,then those parties will find their own solution.

Click to expand...

that is not possible, these are NATO issues

Peter King said:

that is not possible, these are NATO issues

Click to expand...

Then we need to look at this treaty. Times change, Europe is much better off than they were 70 years ago. After WWII it needed the U.S. as it was war ravaged. No longer is this the case. Time to redo NATO. If Europe wants to defend itself, fine. If not we need not spend tens of billions a year to defend it.

gunner said:

These kind of aggressive acts have increased exponentially of late. Just when many Western governments are cutting back on military spending.

Click to expand...

That is not true actually according to the news.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2017/06/30/defense-spending-increased-significantly-among-nato-allies/

washunut said:

Then we need to look at this treaty. Times change, Europe is much better off than they were 70 years ago. After WWII it needed the U.S. as it was war ravaged. No longer is this the case. Time to redo NATO. If Europe wants to defend itself, fine. If not we need not spend tens of billions a year to defend it.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I doubt most of the allies will significantly want to change the treaty IMHO.

Peter King said:

Maybe, but I doubt most of the allies will significantly want to change the treaty IMHO.

Click to expand...

I agree. It is a great deal for Europe. Lousy deal for the U.S. The U.S. can cut back on it's investment in Europe without formally leaving. That would be my suggestion.

Peter King said:

That is not true actually according to the news.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2017/06/30/defense-spending-increased-significantly-among-nato-allies/

Click to expand...

It's a bit of a minefield when you trawl through the figures, and what is actually included. The UK government has been doing some inventive accounting to make it look like we are meeting our GDP % expressed by NATO.
However, the meeting also heard that only five of the 29 NATO allies, including the United States and the U.K. have so far met NATO's benchmark of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. This year, only Romania is expected to join them.
However, the meeting also heard that only five of the 29 NATO allies, including the United States and the U.K. have so far met NATO's benchmark of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. This year, only Romania is expected to join them.
From your link:

This is what it's all about, nothing more and nothing less....



President Vladimir Putin in the cockpit of a TU-160 in 2005.


In 2018 Trump is Putin's copilot. Trump is absent from the photo however because Trump is too big and fat to get through the door of the cockpit. Little Vlad fits right in though snug as can be. Russia has either 15 or 16 of these 1980s era Soviet planes that Putin has always worshiped. Thing is the Cold War Tupalov won't last two minutes in a real thingy bombing run when they have to come in low and slow.


Here btw is what they look like when Putin's not in 'em.....


Photo of two Russian Blackjack bombers by French Air Force which made an intercept after the nuclear cruise missile capable bombers headed south off the coast or Ireland.


And here's what they looked like up close and personal where Putin never goes....


One of two Russian Tu-160 bombers is shadowed by a French Air Force Mirage 2000-5 fighter as it skirts the airspace of western Europe. Source: French Air Force


Netherlands is a tiny peaceful country and Russia is a big bad country. Putin knows however Netherlands has many loyal friends in high places. Putin anyway only shoots down civilian airliners full of Dutch citizens while flying the regular route. And without warning or any communication.

Those look like a copy of our B2.

gunner said:

It's a bit of a minefield when you trawl through the figures, and what is actually included. The UK government has been doing some inventive accounting to make it look like we are meeting our GDP % expressed by NATO.
However, the meeting also heard that only five of the 29 NATO allies, including the United States and the U.K. have so far met NATO's benchmark of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. This year, only Romania is expected to join them.
However, the meeting also heard that only five of the 29 NATO allies, including the United States and the U.K. have so far met NATO's benchmark of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. This year, only Romania is expected to join them.
From your link:

Click to expand...

Each Nato country can spend a buck per capita and it all adds up....





Each country of Nato has many friends. Putin's on his own. Or until now that Putin has Trump and the Trump Fanboyz.

The reality here is that a shooting war with Russia won’t happen. Nuclear powers only fight by proxy right now. They also use economic war and hacking. If we TRULY consider Russia a threat...we need to harm their economic structure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KevinKohler said:

Those look like a copy of our B2.

Click to expand...

It derives from the WW II B-29 several of which had to land in Russia rather than try to get back to Tinian. Stalin confiscated 'em claiming he'd repair 'em then ordered the B-29s copied to the last rivet.




A U.S. made version of the B-29



The Russian version of the U.S. B-29 Russian designation to be known as the TU–4 NATO designation was “BULL”



Let's just also say regarding the Tu-160 the Soviets of the 1980s were inspired by the U.S. B-52 and then the B-1 Lancer. Lancer had been designed in the 1960s and tested in the 1970s when it came online. The B-1 Lancer bomber remained strictly classified except to some Soviet mindreaders.

USAF B-1B Lancer Supersonic Bomber


USAF B-1 Lancer bomber during a flight over the Korean peninsula 2017.


It's sort of like how a Camaro looks more like a Thunderbird than a Thunderbird does.

Tangmo said:

It derives from the WW II B-29 several of which had to land in Russia rather than try to get back to Tinian. Stalin confiscated 'em claiming he'd repair 'em then ordered the B-29s copied to the last rivet.

A U.S. made version of the B-29

The Russian version of the U.S. B-29 Russian designation to be known as the TU–4 NATO designation was “BULL”



Let's just also say regarding the Tu-160 the Soviets of the 1980s were inspired by the U.S. B-52 and then the B-1 Lancer. Lancer had been designed in the 1960s and tested in the 1970s when it came online. The B-1 Lancer bomber remained strictly classified except to some Soviet mindreaders.

USAF B-1B Lancer Supersonic Bomber

USAF B-1 Lancer bomber during a flight over the Korean peninsula 2017.


It's sort of like how a Camaro looks more like a Thunderbird than a Thunderbird does.

Click to expand...

That's the one I meant, the B1. Why did I think B2? I thought B1 was the designation we had for our stealth bombers...