You'd think the Russians would have learned their lesson after their plane was shot down by the Turks.
Videos and photos within
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-flyby-uss-donald-cook-baltic-sea-alarms-experts-n555921
QuoteRussian Flyby of USS Donald Cook in Baltic Sea Alarms Experts
A series of extremely low passes by two Russian jets over a U.S. destroyer this week was a dangerous example of brinkmanship by Moscow in what has become an increasingly worrying trend, according to Western analysts.
With the jets coming as close as 30 feet, just one mechanical failure, a pilot error, or a patch of freak turbulence could have caused catastrophe — both for the American sailors and the fragile geopolitical situation, experts warned.
Here's a look at the potential fallout.
What happened?
Two Russian Sukhoi Su-24 fighter jets flew at extremely low altitude over the American guided-missile destroyer USS Donald Cook in the international waters of the Baltic Sea.
Monday's and Tuesday's incidents happened around 70 miles from the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, which features a city of around 500,000 people near a key military base.
Known as "buzzing" the technique of low flybys was a staple of the Cold War, but this week's maneuvers were so close that even the experts were startled.
"Certainly this is the closest I have seen on video," Keir Giles, an associate fellow at the London-based Chatham House think tank, told NBC News on Thursday. "One of the jets was actually lower than the ship's superstructure."
The ensuing U.S. outcry was dismissed by Russia later on Thursday, with an official saying that "we don't understand such a painful reaction from our American colleagues."
How dangerous was it?
The jets came close enough for the U.S. sailors to see that the aircraft appeared to be unarmed. Nevertheless, flying so close to a warship was still extremely risky.
"Say they had an engine failure or a hydraulic failure, and the Russian jet had barreled into the side of the destroyer, you would have had multiple U.S. Navy casualties and possibly even the loss of a ship," said Justin Bronk, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a British security-research organization.
"That's the sort of thing that starts wars," he added.
Accidents can happen even with modern military technology. But the Russian-built Su-24 came into production more than 40 years ago and the last one rolled off the production line in 1993.
Bronk estimates that the jet came as close as 30 feet to the destroyer, an altitude that was "undeniably extremely aggressive."
For comparison, Federal Aviation Administration regulations say that planes should not fly closer than 500 feet to "any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" except when landing or taking off.
"The military pushes this closer," according to Bronk, "But you see just how close they got and you think, 'Oh my gosh, that's outrageous.'"
Has it happened before?
The U.S., Russia, and their allies had several similar run-ins during the Cold War.
While relations improved following the fall of the Berlin Wall, a return to hostilities sparked by 2014's political upheaval in Ukraine saw a corresponding spike in military encounters.
A report by the European Leadership Network in Nov. 2014 recorded 40 "sensitive incidents" in the eight months after Ukraine erupted — including Russia conducting mock bombing on the U.S. off the Canadian coast and forcing a Boeing 737 airliner to take evasive action after it came within 300 feet of a spy plane.
"This is an escalating trend," according to Chatham House's Giles. "There have been lots of provocative actions by Russian aircraft, but they have been getting more provocative, more dangerous, and more in breach of safety regulations at sea."
What could the consequences be?
Although it is highly unlikely that either side would open fire, there is scope for the situation to spiral out of control.
Like many of Russia's hair-raising maneuvers, the jets this week appeared to be in breach of the Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas, signed in 1972 by the United States and the Soviet Union.
Among other things, this agreement says that both sides should "use the greatest caution and prudence" when approaching each other, and bans the "performance of various aerobatics over ships."
Not only could ignoring these rules inflame international relations, if anything went wrong it could escalate matters further.
"If you're operating with no margin for error in an extremely tense geopolitical situation, and any error could result in the deaths of lots of sailors, then that's obviously a huge problem," according to Bronk.
Related: NATO, Russia Lock Eyes as Rivals Flex Military Muscle
Short of such an accident, however, it's unlikely that this narrow miss would be enough to spark an exchange of fire between two nations who are not at war, Capt. Rick Hoffman, a retired Navy commanding officer, told the Navy Times.
"Only in 'Top Gun' does a war suddenly break out between two airplanes that is completely not related to something going on ashore," he added. "You don't get to kill people just because they're being annoying."
Does the U.S. bear any responsibility?
The USS Donald Cook was stationed outside Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave sandwiched between NATO members Lithuania and Poland where Moscow deployed state-of-the art Iskander missiles last year
Its proximity was no coincidence, according to Bronk, who said it was "just as calculated by the Americans" as the Russian jet flyby — albeit far less immediately dangerous.
"The Russians do not like the Aegis system anywhere near its airbase," he said, referring to a combat system carried by the Donald Cook that its manufacturer describes as the "world's most advanced combat system."
This all comes against the backdrop of Russian President Vladmir Putin being unhappy about what he sees as a gradual creep by NATO, which in 2004 enveloped the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Not everyone agrees.
"The Russians like to equate NATO's defensive maneuvers on a tiny scale to their own enormous preparations for conflict," Giles said. "It's completely disingenuous."
Alarms experts? Really?
And the lesson the Russians are supposed to learn is what, exactly?
Jesus H. Morgenthau Christ...why, it's almost as if the United States Navy hasn't been practicing professional brinksmanship on the open seas since 1947.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXWOuu8G.gif&hash=91a3819680778a2ee9e2afd1d43dae2fa170ce5d)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 14, 2016, 06:45:59 PM
Alarms experts? Really?
And the lesson the Russians are supposed to learn is what, exactly?
That their planes will eventually get shot down if they keep pulling this shit.
They've been pulling this shit for decades, numbnuts. And there's no grounds to shoot them down.
Plenty of grounds to beat you with a full colostomy bag, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 14, 2016, 06:53:28 PM
And there's no grounds to shoot them down.
Just need to jam their hotdogging asses.
You can't kill somebody for just flying by. The jet was clearly unarmed too.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 14, 2016, 07:07:03 PM
You can't kill somebody for just flying by. The jet was clearly unarmed too.
They'll think twice if you just jam their electronics.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 14, 2016, 06:51:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 14, 2016, 06:45:59 PM
Alarms experts? Really?
And the lesson the Russians are supposed to learn is what, exactly?
That their planes will eventually get shot down if they keep pulling this shit.
We've had a thread on this kind of thing before. Russia does it, China does it, the US does it. It made headlines yesterday because the Russian miscalculated and nearly hit the ship. Remember 15 years ago when a Chinese plane played this game with a US spy plane? The Chinese pilot also miscalculated and ran into the US plane. The American plane was forced to land in China, and the Chinese plane crashed.
Locking radar might be an appropriate response.
Quote from: citizen k on April 14, 2016, 07:09:14 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 14, 2016, 07:07:03 PM
You can't kill somebody for just flying by. The jet was clearly unarmed too.
They'll think twice if you just jam their electronics.
We'll just go take it out on one of their subs somewhere, and ping the fuck out of it until the crew gets migraines. Or we'll buzz one of their shitball fire hazards, if they can find one that's ocean-going. Or we'll sonic boom the shit out of one of their choppers in Syria.
Circle of Life and all that.
Quote from: lustindarkness on April 13, 2016, 07:50:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 13, 2016, 06:24:36 PM
That's quite close:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fr%2F%3Fm%3D02%26amp%3Bd%3D20160413%26amp%3Bt%3D2%26amp%3Bi%3D1132571516%26amp%3Bw%3D%26amp%3Bfh%3D%26amp%3Bfw%3D%26amp%3Bll%3D644%26amp%3Bpl%3D429%26amp%3Bsq%3D%26amp%3Br%3DLYNXNPEC3C1HL&hash=29f0b5a9df06b896cc126986de858b2410c5673e)
QuoteAn U.S. Navy picture shows what appears to be a Russian Sukhoi SU-24 attack aircraft making a very low pass close to the U.S. guided missile destroyer USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea in this picture taken April 12, 2016 and released April 13, 2016.
Article here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-simulatedattack-idUSKCN0XA1UW?utm_source=twitter (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-simulatedattack-idUSKCN0XA1UW?utm_source=twitter)
:hmm: Tim has not started a thread on this. Yet.
One sonic boom only, Yevgeni.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/14/john-kerry-russian-military-incident-us-warship-baltic-sea (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/14/john-kerry-russian-military-incident-us-warship-baltic-sea)
Quote"We condemn this kind of behavior. It is reckless. It is provocative. It is dangerous. And under the rules of engagement that could have been a shoot-down,"
See, that's what should have been said in the first place. Not that limp-wristed statement the White House made.
Real Navy types say otherwise.
QuoteThis is why the Navy didn't shoot down Russian jets
Meghann Myers, Navy Times
2:31 p.m. EDT April 14, 2016
Russian pilots rattled nerves aboard the destroyer Donald Cook, buzzing within yards of the ship in the Baltic Sea. Provocative, sure. But they weren't a credible threat.
So concludes a retired Navy commanding officer, who reviewed photos and videos from the run-ins on Monday and Tuesday, when unarmed Sukhoi Su-24 fighters flew within 1,000 feet of the ship — once coming as close as 30 feet in what U.S. officials called "simulated attacks." On Monday, a low-flying Russian Ka-27 Helix helicopter also appeared to take photos of the ship.
This was definitely provocative, but it doesn't amount to a threat, said the retired frigate and cruiser CO.
"Well, we're not at war with Russia," Capt. Rick Hoffman said. "It would be one thing to be operating and have a threatening attack profile from someone who might not recognize me — that's not the case here."
If you have visual identification of the jet, can see it isn't carrying weapons, and don't detect any electronic emissions suggesting there was a missile lock on the ship, there's nothing to be done.
And ultimately, the the rules of engagement put the CO in charge of how to respond.
"You don't get to kill people just because they're being annoying," [ :mad: #FuckingLanguish] said Hoffman, who commanded frigate DeWert and cruiser Hue City. Cruisers are the fleet's foremost air defense platform and are tasked with guarding flattops from incoming threats.
There's a possibility that the "simulated attack" might violate a 1973 treaty between the U.S. and Russia that deals with this behavior.
Otherwise, Hoffman added, it just amounts to showboating.
"Only in 'Top Gun' does a war suddenly break out between two airplanes that is completely not related to something going on ashore," he said.
To be sure, the rules might be different in another situation. The Baltic Sea is not a contested area of responsibility.
"We would probably not have accepted that from an Iranian aircraft in the Persian Gulf, although we've seen it," Hoffman said.
Or if it had been a civilian aircraft, he added, the CO would have been more on guard for a potential suicide mission. But the likelihood that a rogue Russian pilot would take a shot at an American ship and then try to fly home through the airspace of multiple NATO partners is very low.
It's more likely that the stunt will end up as a public relations tool for Russian President Vladimir Putin, showing force against the Americans operating in his backyard.
"It would be real interesting to see what shows up in the Russian papers in the morning, how they play it," Hoffman said. "It's not that different from North Korea. He does something and then he plays it domestically however he needs to play it for the purposes of getting his people energized."
Quote
"You don't get to kill people just because they're being annoying,"
Aw damn. :(
Wouldn't have thought Seedy would go all soft on the Russians. Even when his boy Kerry says we could have shot it down.
Quote from: derspiess on April 14, 2016, 07:56:15 PM
Wouldn't have thought Seedy would go all soft on the Russians. Even when his boy Kerry says we could have shot it down.
George W. Bowed and scraped and said he was sorry when an American plane had the audacity to be crashed into by a Chinese plane.
Quote from: derspiess on April 14, 2016, 07:56:15 PM
Wouldn't have thought Seedy would go all soft on the Russians. Even when his boy Kerry says we could have shot it down.
Attention-starved Russian revanchists popping wheelies don't bother me. Now, if this were the South China Sea, where things are actually important...
Quote from: Razgovory on April 14, 2016, 08:01:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 14, 2016, 07:56:15 PM
Wouldn't have thought Seedy would go all soft on the Russians. Even when his boy Kerry says we could have shot it down.
George W. Bowed and scraped and said he was sorry when an American plane had the audacity to be crashed into by a Chinese plane.
Yeah, I wasn't happy about that either. SEE I CAN CRITICIZE MY GUY
Meh. Just give them enough time and those Su-24s will crash on their own.
Hopefully not into one of our ships.
FWIW, I tend to agree with CdM on this one.
Quote from: derspiess on April 14, 2016, 09:22:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 14, 2016, 08:01:32 PM
George W. Bowed and scraped and said he was sorry when an American plane had the audacity to be crashed into by a Chinese plane.
Yeah, I wasn't happy about that either. SEE I CAN CRITICIZE MY GUY
Then I know you're relieved that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate remaining that not only gives a shit about actual foreign policy but is the only one with any experience in it, and that she can count on your support this November.
Time to hit the reset button again.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2016, 12:03:24 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 14, 2016, 09:22:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 14, 2016, 08:01:32 PM
George W. Bowed and scraped and said he was sorry when an American plane had the audacity to be crashed into by a Chinese plane.
Yeah, I wasn't happy about that either. SEE I CAN CRITICIZE MY GUY
Then I know you're relieved that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate remaining that not only gives a shit about actual foreign policy but is the only one with any experience in it, and that she can count on your support this November.
He'd vote for Putin if he could.
read that as donald duck the first time
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2016, 12:03:24 AM
Then I know you're relieved that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate remaining that not only gives a shit about actual foreign policy but is the only one with any experience in it, and that she can count on your support this November.
Yeah, no thanks. She's a bit too interventionist for my tastes.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2016, 12:13:44 AM
He'd vote for Putin if he could.
Hey, at least we'd have a decisive non-effete leader that would get some things done.
;)
Quote from: derspiess on April 14, 2016, 10:56:16 PM
Hopefully not into one of our ships.
Hopefully, but you can't just shoot them down for being nearby and otherwise not doing anything.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 14, 2016, 06:53:28 PM
They've been pulling this shit for decades, numbnuts. And there's no grounds to shoot them down.
Plenty of grounds to beat you with a full colostomy bag, though.
:yes:
My dad was in the Navy during Vietnam and he did a cruise or two in the Barents Sea. Both sides constantly maneuvered aggressively against each other all the time. Business as usual.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on April 15, 2016, 09:17:36 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 14, 2016, 10:56:16 PM
Hopefully not into one of our ships.
Hopefully, but you can't just shoot them down for being nearby and otherwise not doing anything.
If it's heading straight for you as if it's making an attacking run, knock it down. I don't care if there were no bombs or missiles visible-- it still has a 23mm gun, doesn't it?
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2016, 10:24:40 AM
If it's heading straight for you as if it's making an attacking run, knock it down. I don't care if there were no bombs or missiles visible-- it still has a 23mm gun, doesn't it?
Cmon, man. The Russians are not going to start a war with the US by strafing a destroyer in the Baltic. And even if they did go full retard and strafed the destroyer, you just shoot them down on the way out because they just attacked you.
What it the thing had hit our ship, which it almost did? Would you be so lackadaisical then?
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2016, 09:01:01 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2016, 12:03:24 AM
Then I know you're relieved that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate remaining that not only gives a shit about actual foreign policy but is the only one with any experience in it, and that she can count on your support this November.
Yeah, no thanks. She's a bit too interventionist for my tastes.
yes, Trump has a non interventionist foreign policy, and since he's going to be friend wiht Putin, even adopt his style of governance as a tribute, these kind of things won't ever happen again. And as he's pulling out of Sout-East Asia, there will be no more incidents with China either.
Great thinking there.
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2016, 10:27:40 AM
What it the thing had hit our ship, which it almost did? Would you be so lackadaisical then?
You mean if it clipped the mast or something? Yes, I still wouldn't shoot at the sinking airframe holding a now dead pilot. If it somehow kamikazed into the ship, which it look slike it came the closes aft near the flight deck, you want to use the CIWS to shoot up the smoking hole it made?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on April 15, 2016, 10:28:55 AM
Yes, I still wouldn't shoot at the sinking airframe holding a now dead pilot.
I would. It'd be fun as hell.
Screw you guys-- my lizard brain wants what it wants.
Quote from: viper37 on April 15, 2016, 10:28:13 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2016, 09:01:01 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2016, 12:03:24 AM
Then I know you're relieved that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate remaining that not only gives a shit about actual foreign policy but is the only one with any experience in it, and that she can count on your support this November.
Yeah, no thanks. She's a bit too interventionist for my tastes.
yes, Trump has a non interventionist foreign policy, and since he's going to be friend wiht Putin, even adopt his style of governance as a tribute, these kind of things won't ever happen again. And as he's pulling out of Sout-East Asia, there will be no more incidents with China either.
Great thinking there.
Who said anything about Trump?
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2016, 10:27:40 AM
What it the thing had hit our ship, which it almost did? Would you be so lackadaisical then?
Depends on whose in power. With Trump, he'd call his friend and say "sorry for placing a destroyer in the path of your aircraft, I swear, I will never do it again! You know how much your friendship means to me, Vlad."
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2016, 10:30:45 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 15, 2016, 10:28:13 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2016, 09:01:01 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 15, 2016, 12:03:24 AM
Then I know you're relieved that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate remaining that not only gives a shit about actual foreign policy but is the only one with any experience in it, and that she can count on your support this November.
Yeah, no thanks. She's a bit too interventionist for my tastes.
yes, Trump has a non interventionist foreign policy, and since he's going to be friend wiht Putin, even adopt his style of governance as a tribute, these kind of things won't ever happen again. And as he's pulling out of Sout-East Asia, there will be no more incidents with China either.
Great thinking there.
Who said anything about Trump?
Because I have no idea if the other GOP candidates have any foreign policy. It seems to change from week to week, depending on what Trump says.
GOP candidates have not generally distinguished themselves re: foreign policy in this primary-- you'll get no arguments from me there. The only one that came close to my foreign policy views was Rand Paul.
Maybe Putin wanted the plane shot down to distract from his thieving kleptocratic ways :P
Overredundant much?
Quote from: lustindarkness on April 14, 2016, 07:15:27 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on April 13, 2016, 07:50:00 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 13, 2016, 06:24:36 PM
That's quite close:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.reutersmedia.net%2Fresources%2Fr%2F%3Fm%3D02%26amp%3Bd%3D20160413%26amp%3Bt%3D2%26amp%3Bi%3D1132571516%26amp%3Bw%3D%26amp%3Bfh%3D%26amp%3Bfw%3D%26amp%3Bll%3D644%26amp%3Bpl%3D429%26amp%3Bsq%3D%26amp%3Br%3DLYNXNPEC3C1HL&hash=29f0b5a9df06b896cc126986de858b2410c5673e)
QuoteAn U.S. Navy picture shows what appears to be a Russian Sukhoi SU-24 attack aircraft making a very low pass close to the U.S. guided missile destroyer USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea in this picture taken April 12, 2016 and released April 13, 2016.
Article here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-simulatedattack-idUSKCN0XA1UW?utm_source=twitter (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-simulatedattack-idUSKCN0XA1UW?utm_source=twitter)
:hmm: Tim has not started a thread on this. Yet.
:D
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2016, 10:27:40 AM
What it the thing had hit our ship, which it almost did? Would you be so lackadaisical then?
It would be an international incident, the US would likely demand compensation from the Russian government, but that would be the end of it. We do this to Russians all the time, you don't think they should shoot down our planes, do you?
We don't do this to Russia all the time. AFAIK no US military airplane has ever flown within 30 feet of a Russian navy ship.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2016, 06:20:11 PM
We don't do this to Russia all the time. AFAIK no US military airplane has ever flown within 30 feet of a Russian navy ship.
I didn't say the US military has flown within 30 feet of a Russian ship. I am saying that the US has "buzzed" russian targets. It has also engaged in mock attack runs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2016, 06:20:11 PM
We don't do this to Russia all the time. AFAIK no US military airplane has ever flown within 30 feet of a Russian navy ship.
So if the Russians shoot down a US warplane, and say they did so because it flew too close to one of their ships, you would be all "Had it coming to them! Good job Russkies!"?
Quote from: Berkut on April 15, 2016, 07:08:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2016, 06:20:11 PM
We don't do this to Russia all the time. AFAIK no US military airplane has ever flown within 30 feet of a Russian navy ship.
So if the Russians shoot down a US warplane, and say they did so because it flew too close to one of their ships, you would be all "Had it coming to them! Good job Russkies!"?
Badly photoshopped pic or it didn't happen.
Quote from: Berkut on April 15, 2016, 07:08:50 PM
So if the Russians shoot down a US warplane, and say they did so because it flew too close to one of their ships, you would be all "Had it coming to them! Good job Russkies!"?
When you start this sentence with the word "so," does that mean you think the part that follows is a natural inference from my statement? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2016, 06:20:11 PM
We don't do this to Russia all the time. AFAIK no US military airplane has ever flown within 30 feet of a Russian navy ship.
Do you have to dial in for those National Security Council briefings every morning, or is it more like a downloadable podcast or something?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2016, 07:47:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 15, 2016, 07:08:50 PM
So if the Russians shoot down a US warplane, and say they did so because it flew too close to one of their ships, you would be all "Had it coming to them! Good job Russkies!"?
When you start this sentence with the word "so," does that mean you think the part that follows is a natural inference from my statement? :huh:
Yes. Am I incorrect?
QuoteDuring one cruise we were being followed – as usual – by a Russian "fishing boat." The scare quotes are a requirement because that ship was bristling with more antennae than quills on a medium sized porcupine and they never did seem to find much time to do any actual fishing. As long as they stayed several miles away toward the horizon we generally ignored them and went about our business. It was obviously a spy ship, but we tracked all their vessels too and it was all in the game. But during one period they decided to get really up close and personal, moving in to within a half mile or so and tracking us off the rear starboard quarter. This went on for a little while until the Captain clearly grew tired of it.
The day was dark and overcast with an extremely low cloud ceiling. In a break from our normal flight schedule, the Air Boss launched five F-14s from one of our Tomcat squadrons which quickly climbed through the cloud ceiling and disappeared. A short time later three of them landed. The guys up top in the signal shack were watching the Russians through binoculars and I happened to be out there one deck below them outside of our air search radar shack. They reported that the Soviets were watching us closely.
Nobody seemed to notice that two of our fighters were still out there until one of them dropped in a flat fall out of the clouds pretty much right on top of the Russian ship. The pilots kicked in the afterburners and they gunned the jets low over the small ship producing a ton of flame and a lot of noise. The signalmen were laughing hysterically as they reported that the Soviet sailors were diving for the decks and down through open hatches. Back in the day this was known as "roasting them." Our second F-14 followed a moment later doing the exact same thing. A short time later the Russians dropped back to a distance of about ten miles.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/14/russian-and-american-jets-buzzing-each-other-are-nothing-new-another-view/
Quote from: viper37 on April 15, 2016, 10:34:11 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 15, 2016, 10:27:40 AM
What it the thing had hit our ship, which it almost did? Would you be so lackadaisical then?
Depends on whose in power. With Trump, he'd call his friend and say "sorry for placing a destroyer in the path of your aircraft, I swear, I will never do it again! You know how much your friendship means to me, Vlad."
Or Trump will have our aircraft buzzing Russian ships. :menace:
Discussion with Yi are always so illuminating and instructive.
Quote from: Berkut on April 15, 2016, 07:08:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2016, 06:20:11 PM
We don't do this to Russia all the time. AFAIK no US military airplane has ever flown within 30 feet of a Russian navy ship.
So if the Russians shoot down a US warplane, and say they did so because it flew too close to one of their ships, you would be all "Had it coming to them! Good job Russkies!"?
The US does not buzz Russian ships or aircraft.
They used to, but signed an agreement with the Russians (Soviets, back then) not to do that sort of thing.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2016, 10:52:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 15, 2016, 07:08:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2016, 06:20:11 PM
We don't do this to Russia all the time. AFAIK no US military airplane has ever flown within 30 feet of a Russian navy ship.
So if the Russians shoot down a US warplane, and say they did so because it flew too close to one of their ships, you would be all "Had it coming to them! Good job Russkies!"?
The US does not buzz Russian ships or aircraft.
They used to, but signed an agreement with the Russians (Soviets, back then) not to do that sort of thing.
An agreement was signed but both sides have violated it (the story I posted post-dates that agreement).
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2016, 06:44:10 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2016, 06:20:11 PM
We don't do this to Russia all the time. AFAIK no US military airplane has ever flown within 30 feet of a Russian navy ship.
I didn't say the US military has flown within 30 feet of a Russian ship. I am saying that the US has "buzzed" russian targets. It has also engaged in mock attack runs.
"Tower, this is Ghost Rider, requesting a flyby"
"Отрицательно, Ghost Rider , картина полна ."
Raz's story smells to high heaven. First of all, the whole "fishing boat" thing sounds like it is written by a guy who wasn't there. No one who was there ever confused a Soviet AGI with a fishing boat, or ever thought it was "disguising" itself as a fishing boat. AGIs flew the Soviet naval ensign and carried naval hull numbers. This dude's description sounds like he heard it as part of a sea story someone told him (or else he is telling his own sea story, which makes the rest of the story suspect as well).
Secondly, US navy jets always go to full power when landing on the carrier. That's because, if they miss the wire ("bolter"), they have to have the speed to take off again and make another landing attempt. If the AGI was as close as this guy seems to be claiming, it is going to get a lot of noise from low-flying planes. I ran plane guard any number of times in WestPac and the IO, and that is what it is like back behind the carrier.
I also highly doubt that these pilots would be farting around like this in such close proximity to the carrier. Violating the INCSEA agreement with the CAG just a few thousand yards away is not going to be a career-enhancer, and doing so where you could be fucking up the pattern is likewise unlikely.
If it walks like a sea story and talks like a sea story, I think that we can dismiss this as a sea story.
A similar incident happened several years ago in the South China sea with a Chinese plane and an American ship. Seedy was on the warpath and Grumbler related a very similar story, which is what informed my opinion on this matter. If only there was some way for Grumbler to directly communicate what the difference is, or what my error was. Oh well.
Anybody with an ounce of brains can see the sea story nature of Raz's linked account:
(1) the Soviet AGI is supposed to be 1,000 yards off the carrier's starboard quarter
(2) Aircraft approach the carrier from the starboard quarter, because the angled deck leads them towards the port bow:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.stack.imgur.com%2FwHaAl.jpg&hash=75fe1aca6b4918f9c04d06495a765bda51806f3a)
(3) The author says that
QuoteIn a break from our normal flight schedule, the Air Boss launched five F-14s from one of our Tomcat squadrons which quickly climbed through the cloud ceiling and disappeared.
That's not how flight ops work. The Air Boss cannot just order five F-14s to launch. The Battle Group Commander's staff has complete control over the launch schedule. F-14s aren't just sitting around, fueled and ready, in case the Air boss wants to launch them. There wil be X number of fighters in Ready-15 and Ready-30 (numbers are minutes to launch), but they belong to BB, not the Air Boss. No one who has actually been on a carrier could make that mistake.
(4) I especially liked the line that
QuoteNobody seemed to notice that two of our fighters were still out there
because I am like "really? No one noticed? Not one of the flight deck crew Master Chief Aviation Bosun's Mates could count to five? The Soviets couldn't count to five? Not credible.
(5) Also, the author argues that
QuoteFrom 1979 until early 1983 I spent the better part of my time floating around on an aircraft carrier during WESTPAC (Western Pacific) deployments. If you're checking your calendars right now you'll see that this was during the height of the cold war and the Russians (who we referred to as the Soviets back in the day) were looked upon with a rather jaundiced eye by western forces.
My response is:
(a) The US was worked up about Iran at the time; the Soviets were an old, well-known factor at the time, and certainly not resented. The height of the Cold War had been over for more than a decade by then. This guy wasn't there.
(b) Does any Navy man tell a story like this without naming the carrier and the year? I've never seen or read such a man. Other Navy types here can chime in if they disagree.
My supposition is that this guy never served on a carrier, but has read a bit about carrier ops. He read about the Russian flyby, and desperately wanted to Tyr himself into a conversation about the Russian flyby, so found some old post and kinda updated it.
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2016, 08:50:10 PM
(b) Does any Navy man tell a story like this without naming the carrier and the year?
No because the immediate follow-up question for any story like this would be "what ship were you on" if they didn't know already.
There is no bar story too small for grumbler to fact check with visual presentations and annotated references right then and there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 17, 2016, 09:24:00 AM
There is no bar story too small for grumbler to fact check with visual presentations and annotated references right then and there.
It's wonderful.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2016, 03:00:39 PM
A similar incident happened several years ago in the South China sea with a Chinese plane and an American ship. Seedy was on the warpath and Grumbler related a very similar story, which is what informed my opinion on this matter. If only there was some way for Grumbler to directly communicate what the difference is, or what my error was. Oh well.
Umm, the difference is a Chinese ship is not a Russian ship. Nobody ever said US pilots never engage in this kind of behavior. You said, "We do this to Russians all the time, you don't think they should shoot down our planes, do you?" That is a reference ti a specific nation with which we have a bilateral agreement not to do this kind of shit to each other. Whether or not we ever did this to a
Chinese ship is irrelevant.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2016, 10:50:09 PM
QuoteDuring one cruise we were being followed – as usual – by a Russian "fishing boat." The scare quotes are a requirement because that ship was bristling with more antennae than quills on a medium sized porcupine and they never did seem to find much time to do any actual fishing. As long as they stayed several miles away toward the horizon we generally ignored them and went about our business. It was obviously a spy ship, but we tracked all their vessels too and it was all in the game. But during one period they decided to get really up close and personal, moving in to within a half mile or so and tracking us off the rear starboard quarter. This went on for a little while until the Captain clearly grew tired of it.
The day was dark and overcast with an extremely low cloud ceiling. In a break from our normal flight schedule, the Air Boss launched five F-14s from one of our Tomcat squadrons which quickly climbed through the cloud ceiling and disappeared. A short time later three of them landed. The guys up top in the signal shack were watching the Russians through binoculars and I happened to be out there one deck below them outside of our air search radar shack. They reported that the Soviets were watching us closely.
Nobody seemed to notice that two of our fighters were still out there until one of them dropped in a flat fall out of the clouds pretty much right on top of the Russian ship. The pilots kicked in the afterburners and they gunned the jets low over the small ship producing a ton of flame and a lot of noise. The signalmen were laughing hysterically as they reported that the Soviet sailors were diving for the decks and down through open hatches. Back in the day this was known as "roasting them." Our second F-14 followed a moment later doing the exact same thing. A short time later the Russians dropped back to a distance of about ten miles.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/14/russian-and-american-jets-buzzing-each-other-are-nothing-new-another-view/
"The sea was angry that day, my friends. like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli."
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 18, 2016, 12:35:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2016, 03:00:39 PM
A similar incident happened several years ago in the South China sea with a Chinese plane and an American ship. Seedy was on the warpath and Grumbler related a very similar story, which is what informed my opinion on this matter. If only there was some way for Grumbler to directly communicate what the difference is, or what my error was. Oh well.
Umm, the difference is a Chinese ship is not a Russian ship. Nobody ever said US pilots never engage in this kind of behavior. You said, "We do this to Russians all the time, you don't think they should shoot down our planes, do you?" That is a reference ti a specific nation with which we have a bilateral agreement not to do this kind of shit to each other. Whether or not we ever did this to a Chinese ship is irrelevant.
I didn't say that Grumbler's story was about a Chinese vessel though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 17, 2016, 09:24:00 AM
There is no bar story too small for grumbler to fact check with visual presentations and annotated references right then and there.
:lol: Poor Grumbler, I think he's becoming obsessed with me.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on April 16, 2016, 11:09:07 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2016, 08:50:10 PM
(b) Does any Navy man tell a story like this without naming the carrier and the year?
No because the immediate follow-up question for any story like this would be "what ship were you on" if they didn't know already.
And the teller of the story would start to go on about how he couldn't say because they were on a secret mission, and he was undercover...
I was with the Navy Seals,
Special Unit carrier...
Commando Airborne Tactics...
Specialist Tactics Unit Carrier.
Yeah, it was real hush hush.
I was Agent Orange,
Special Agent Orange, that was me.All to avoid the possibility that his interlocutor was, in fact, on the ship in question and could call bullshit.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2016, 04:15:56 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 18, 2016, 12:35:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 16, 2016, 03:00:39 PM
A similar incident happened several years ago in the South China sea with a Chinese plane and an American ship. Seedy was on the warpath and Grumbler related a very similar story, which is what informed my opinion on this matter. If only there was some way for Grumbler to directly communicate what the difference is, or what my error was. Oh well.
Umm, the difference is a Chinese ship is not a Russian ship. Nobody ever said US pilots never engage in this kind of behavior. You said, "We do this to Russians all the time, you don't think they should shoot down our planes, do you?" That is a reference ti a specific nation with which we have a bilateral agreement not to do this kind of shit to each other. Whether or not we ever did this to a Chinese ship is irrelevant.
I didn't say that Grumbler's story was about a Chinese vessel though.
Actually, I reversed the adjectives on your story in my head. :blush:
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 19, 2016, 04:42:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2016, 04:15:56 PM
I didn't say that Grumbler's story was about a Chinese vessel though.
Actually, I reversed the adjectives on your story in my head. :blush:
I have no idea what raz is talking about, unless it was my description of "Bear Day" in a WestPac transit (that's the day your formation got overflown by a Soviet Bear surveillance plane; it was kinda the initiation in your transit from EastPac to WestPac). I wouldn't worry too much about raz's claims about what other people said; he could be just referring to the voices in his head.
For someone who doesn't worry, you sure respond a lot! Particularly for someone who tries not to respond to me. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2016, 06:08:56 PM
I have no idea what raz is talking about, unless it was my description of "Bear Day" in a WestPac transit
Grabon's ears just perked up.