RAF Typhoon jets took off from Lossiemouth in Moray on Wednesday, after two Russian bombers approached the UK.

A Voyager refuelling aircraft from RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire was also sent to support the two jets. Once the jets left their base in Scotland, the Russian planes turned away.

This is a relatively routine occurrence.

An RAF spokesman said:

“RAF Quick Reaction Alert Typhoon aircraft from RAF Lossiemouth launched to monitor two Russian military aircraft as they approached the UK area of interest, however, the aircraft turned away and no intercept took place.”

In May, two Typhoons were scrambled when two Russian aircraft entered the UK’s area of interest. In October last year, jets from four European countries, including the UK, intercepted Russian aircraft between Norway and Spain.

Typhoon is the UK’s Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) aircraft. RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire looks after the southern UK and RAF Lossiemouth in Moray protects the northern UK.

A QRA response involves the fighter aircraft being scrambled to investigate an infringement of the NATO country’s area of interest. This may also be a civilian aircraft that poses a threat, if not sufficiently responding to air traffic control; incidents of this nature in the UK are monitored by the Control and Reporting Centre at RAF Boulmer which builds a ‘3D Recognised Air Picture’.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

50 COMMENTS

  1. Routine RAF business. However the question is do we test the Russians response times and capabilities? Maybe we should then they would be crying foul.
    simple process fly towards but do not infringe upon their airspace. As soon as Russian jets move to intercept turn away.

  4. Jezza says we will seek to resolve potential conflicts through political action rather than relying on military force.

    So no need for a UK defence force.

    Jezza says article 5 of the Nato treaty outlined a duty to support another nation under threat that doesn’t necessarily mean sending troops. It means diplomatic, it means economic, it means sanctions, it means a whole range of things.

    So no need for a UK defence force.

    Please keep up with Jezzas latest defence policy.

          • You are confused yet again, jezza says no need for military force just use diplomacy.

            Jessa says no need need for military force in defence of a NATO ally just use diplomacy.

            Well if we are not going to use military then why do we need a UK defence force?

            The only conclusion we can see from his comments is that no UK defence forces are required. Jezza has long praised the Costa Rican model, no military just a lightly armed national guard.

            Jezza wants more defence cuts.

            I bet your still confused, sometimes the light of truth has that effect on the weak minded

        • No Mike it’s you that’s weak minded, you have constistently shown on here that you have not got the stomach or knowledge for a proper debate. When you get presented with facts you move onto the next article or make a generalising comment without referring to anyone’s points and then move on.

          http://www.forces.net/news/corbyn-military-needs-more-ships-aircraft-funding-personnel

          There is a quote saying he wants more personal, more ships for the Navy and more aircraft for the RAF.

          It shows how little you know about politics, wether it be JC or anyone else, a proper left wing leader would never, ever advocate the loss of jobs no matter what sector it was in.

          You are referring to a quote about foreign military intervention, he would prefer to use diplomacy, then you say “no need for a defence force” not sure how you get to that conclusion, Japan is a pacifist state and invests heavily in its military. Most countries in the world follow a defensive doctrine and prefer not to get involved in conflict, that does not mean they unilaterally disarm does it.

          Article 5 is a grey area now since Afghanistan, there has always been grey areas in that in fact. Blindly declaring war due to treaties led to the First World War, there is absolutely nothing wrong with assessing all options before declaring war, that’s what you call strong minded.

          Once again you are trying to peddle your own opinion and pass it off as fact, and once again I’ve highlighted another epic fail from yourself.

          Have a good day mate ?

          • Don’t throw throw your toys out the pram, all my facts were sourced from the Guardian.

            I know the truth hurts and when faced with the truth, it’s becomes a grey area or its taken out of context and so on.

            Corbyn has made a statement saying more ships more aircraft, but what ships? More t26 frigates, more assault ships, but what aircraft more F35, more typhoons, more hunter killer drone?

            Hollow promises, just like his promise to deal with student debt.

            By the way I’m not your mate.

          • “By the way I’m not your mate.”

            Keep your panties on pal calm down.

            “All my facts were sourced from the guardian” ?

            You haven’t given any facts you have given us barely a quote and your opinion you fool.

            “I know the truth hurts and when faced with the truth” ?

            Mike, how do you suggest the leader of the opposition should deal with student debt, what can he do?

            Wow, talk about falling for a failed Tory/media smear.

            You need to get out more mate.

      • No no Kieran, he isn’t your mate 😉 Do you really expect JC to specify what ships, aircraft and equipment he is on about? Hardly anybody would have a clue what they were anyway. Is a T26 an AsuW frigate or a bloody fishing boat? Most people won’t know. He is simply showing that he would like a larger British military. Simples.

  7. Corbyn: ‘Fight all the cuts, except those in the armed forces, where we want to see a few more cuts taking place and no more nuclear weapons’2010

    Corbyn ‘Close down Nato’ 2014

    Corbyn ‘I am against the replacement of Trident’ 2015

    Corbyn I’ve been involved in opposing anti-terror legislation ever since I first went into parliament in 1983’ 2011

    The evidence is pretty damning what will happen to our military capability, if jezza becomes PM.

    • The government were actually making the cuts, that comment is from when we were in recession, he was trying to stop more cuts to public services. You highlighting a backbenchers comments over the the government savage cuts in 2010 at the same time shows how stupid you are, once again no context offered.

      Do you think Jeremy Corbyn is the only politician to ever question NATO? shows how little you know once again.

      Yes he is against trident no argument there, although that’s really been settled for the next half a century hasn’t it so I’m not sure why it’s still being used.

      Anti terror legislation that loads of tories were against as well, because it gives to much power to ministers and not the judiciary process. Once again no context offered from you.

      No the evidence is not pretty damning at all.

      Here is some proper evidence for you though

      http://www.forces.net/news/corbyn-military-needs-more-ships-aircraft-funding-personnel

      Keep trying Mike bless ya ?

      • Mike and Kieran, can’t you agree that all politicians are dreadful self serving individuals?

        In the context of this forum they have both badly let down this nations defence over the last 50 years. Poor financial decisions under Labour and savage cuts under the Tories.

        I don’t trust any of them, a professional politician will happily stab anyone in the back to get to the top… They are only interested in their own personal agenda, neither side give a toss about Defence matters.

  8. NATO has always sent its own SIGINT aircraft and RN and USN submarines around the periphery of the then USSR and now Russia so whats the problem?
    When Russia starts sending aircraft directly over our territory like the Americans did with Gary Powers then their a problem.
    Western Hypocrisy alive and well.

  9. I honestly don’t think if one of these bombers continued to fly into UK airspace and over UK land whether or not the military or Government would actually have the balls to order the Typhoons to take them down.

    What does everyone else think?

  10. It could be argued that when Britain launches a Typhoon patrol on the Estonian border that Russia would see this as an “area of interest” and scramble their QRF in response?
    I’m not quite sure where this line is on a UK map? Territorial waters I think are 6 miles from shore 22 miles from shore and halfway between the UK and the next country, eg Norway, depending on which bit of coast we are looking at. In the Air I imagine this in regards to NATO space could be somewhere beyond Norway or even further? A map would really help in these instances.

    • Yes Aaron the UKADR is extensive and runs far to the north of the mainland. Russian aircraft are spotted way before they reach the RAF’s area of responsibility.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here