Russian Su-27 intercept P-3 Orion aircraft over the Baltic Sea

[Jimbuna]

Pretty cool video footage

http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/23...rcept-poaf-p3/

[ikalugin]

Note a fairly light combat load.

[Betonov]

I had a Revell model of a Flanker once.
It was shot down by a D.O.G missile

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Note a fairly light combat load.

Not sure I'd call that light looks like two short range and 4 BVR that's a pretty decent CAP loadout right there in fact the Sukoi has nearly every weapons station loaded. Only thing not loaded are the wing tip stations and the station under each intake.

Id say that's the typical Russian Air Force CAP loadout.
Unless you where being sarcastic.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Not sure I'd call that light looks like two short range and 4 BVR that's a pretty decent CAP loadout right there in fact the Sukoi has nearly every weapons station loaded. Only thing not loaded are the wing tip stations and the station under each intake.

Id say that's the typical Russian Air Force CAP loadout.
Unless you where being sarcastic.

I guess it depend on the country

Denmark- machine gun and two sidewinder per plane

Sweden- If I remember correctly it is the same as in Denmark.

Markus

[Stealhead]

It depends on the aircraft as well an F-16 (Denmark) might carry two missiles on the tips which can be either sidewinder or AMRAAM and the typical NATO CAP for a Viper is usually two AMRAAM on tips two sidewinder on outer most hard points and two drop tanks on the inner hard points an alternate is x4 sidewinders and tanks. A common light loadout is two tip sidewinders and a centerline drop tank.

For other mission it will be two tip missiles(depending upon mission plan and expected threats) and ATG munitions on the other hard points subtracting two for drop tanks which for the sake of optimum fuel efficacy allows for two ATG muntions. With the F-16 in most cases the preferred tip mount is the AMRAAM just more versatility over a sidewinder. Not every Viper user has AMRAAM capability but the RDAF ones do. Again there can be lots of variation depending on mission plans.
In Afghanistan the typical Viper load was 500x 20mm shells x2 tip missile either aim-9 or 120 two drop tanks and a JADAM on one hard point on the opposite hard point typically was a LGB both bombs usually where 500 pounders this loadout allowed for optimum flexibility and loiter time as typically they would fly a patrol as an element (two aircraft) and respond to calls for support.

Not overly familaur with the Gripen to know the typical Swedish loadout for a CAP would be. Now the Flanker more than likely had no drop tanks having more than likely been scrambled from Kaliningrad thus not a flight distance requiring the use of drop tanks.

[sharkbit]

Wonder where the Flanker's partner was?

Check 6 Orion?

[Stealhead]

I'm guessing with in a few miles covering six while the lead made the pass. I would say that the point was to display armament and ability to be present to intercept. The Russians do the same in TU-95s and A-50s and get met by various NATO aircraft including ironically enough Polish Mig-29 and Romainan Mig-21s. Been going on in the Baltic since 2004 or so.

The NATO end of this effort is lead by the Portuguese at the moment with various other NATO AF taking part. The "lead" nation rotates every six months or so. It always includes some Baltic forces. Czech,Danish, Spanish, British to name a few all take part and it is constant only the lead nation rotates to share the cost.

Its called Baltic Air Policing(BAP). Currently along with Portugal German,Dutch and Canadian squadrons are taking part.

[Oberon]

At least it wasn't the Norwegians...



http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_287.shtml

[Stealhead]

Or that incident with the US Navy Orion that had to land in China back in 2000 was it? That was the talk of the town on base for a few days. Some of the hotheads hoped a war would result. It was a hairy situation and over ten years later I understand that some Chinese pilots are still overly aggressive.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

To be fair, is it the Chinese being overly aggressive or the United States being overly nosy?

I don't like China's expansionism one bit, but America's aggressive patrols does give their arms buildup a much un-needed defensive legitimacy.

[Stealhead]

Flying so close that you cause a collision with an aircraft flying in international airspace is aggressive no matter how you look at it. The correct action is observe a military aircraft flying near your nations airspace but not in such a manner that it is so aggressive that it is dangerous.

If one nation is wishing to flex its muscles than another so equipped nation has the right to observe. Honestly I fail to see the logic of your argument. To say that Chinas actions over the past 50 are due to American snooping just dose not make sense. Do you ignore that fact that the Chinese military dose the same snooping upon its neghibors? I recon that's OK then?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

If one nation is wishing to flex its muscles than another so equipped nation has the right to observe. Honestly I fail to see the logic of your argument. To say that Chinas actions over the past 50 are due to American snooping just dose not make sense. Do you ignore that fact that the Chinese military dose the same snooping upon its neghibors? I recon that's OK then?

Frankly, the impression I get is that the Chinese have only started getting the ability to snoop around a lot these past few years. It is mostly the Americans that have been using their "power-projection" ability to fly planes to spy on everyone around the world.

It is one thing to be safe. Safe, however, means that you are not creating any pressure on the other guy that's abusing the peaceful use of the sky to spy on everything you have.

The fact the Americans snoop around so much China with their aircraft carriers and reconnaissance aircraft gives China's military a defensive legitimacy to expand. Without the United States, the picture changes into a pure one of Chinese dominance over its neighbors.

[Stealhead]

You statement here just dose not make sense at all. Since China became the state that it is it has shown a clear desire to expand its control has been evident since 1949.

To say that simply because the US snoops on China which it has been doing precisely because China wishes to and has wished since 1949 gives the Chinese government a reason to expand its military power despite the fact that the Chinese displayed this desire from the start just well dose not make sense.

To say that only the US military has the ability to snoop is also a complete falisy many nations have been doing this for years and if not by aircraft(flying in international air space) then via other means.

China has been gathering SIGINT for decades why you this this activity is new for them is beyond me.

[vanjast]

to me it looks like China is doing what the US is doing... the US cannot complain.. after all they moved the technology factories to China.