Russian bombers intercepted near U.S. Navy vessel

[JohnMatrix]

the wording has been inconsistent in many of the stories about this incident as to exactly how close the russian bomber got to the nimitz.  well, the answer is that it flew directly over it at pretty damn low altitude. 

Feb. 12: A U.S. F/A-18 fighter intercepts a Russian Tupolev 95 as the giant bomber buzzed the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz in the western Pacific over the weekend.

I saw this photo on foxnews last night, and googled it up this morning.  on the FNC broadcast, this photo was purportedly taken from the flight deck.  THAT is freaking CLOSE.

I wonder why the Task Force Commander allowed the "Bear" to get that close to the carrier?  I would've thought it would have been intercepted before coming over the horizion.....what was their CAP doing??

doc

they intercepted it about 500 miles out.  They just escorted it as it flew over.

[Rebel]

they intercepted it about 500 miles out.  They just escorted it as it flew over.

Why would they have allowed it to fly over instead of diverting it away from the carrier?

[Wretched Excess]

they intercepted it about 500 miles out.  They just escorted it as it flew over.

Why would they have allowed it to fly over instead of diverting it away from the carrier?

just a guess, but I would suspect that the protocols for this sort of thing are established, and dictate that you don't get in each other's way.  that's one of the (many) reasons why the collision between the chinese fighter and the E-3 was so outrageous.

having said that, my preference would be that the headline about this incident had read "Large Mysterious Splash Detected Near U.S. Aircraft Carrier".

 

[Chris_]

they intercepted it about 500 miles out.  They just escorted it as it flew over.

Why would they have allowed it to fly over instead of diverting it away from the carrier?

just a guess, but I would suspect that the protocols for this sort of thing are established, and dictate that you don't get in each other's way.  that's one of the (many) reasons why the collision between the chinese fighter and the E-3 was so outrageous.

having said that, my preference would be that the headline about this incident had read "Large Mysterious Splash Detected Near U.S. Aircraft Carrier".

 

Strange protocol.....I would have imagined that an aircraft that was not squalking "friendly" on the IFF transponder would have either been forcibly diverted, or "splashed".

doc

[JohnMatrix]

they intercepted it about 500 miles out.  They just escorted it as it flew over.

Why would they have allowed it to fly over instead of diverting it away from the carrier?

just a guess, but I would suspect that the protocols for this sort of thing are established, and dictate that you don't get in each other's way.  that's one of the (many) reasons why the collision between the chinese fighter and the E-3 was so outrageous.

having said that, my preference would be that the headline about this incident had read "Large Mysterious Splash Detected Near U.S. Aircraft Carrier".

 

Strange protocol.....I would have imagined that an aircraft that was not squalking "friendly" on the IFF transponder would have either been forcibly diverted, or "splashed".

doc

why?  these flyovers occurred all the time without incident during the cold war.  Why start shooting now?

[Wretched Excess]

they intercepted it about 500 miles out.  They just escorted it as it flew over.

Why would they have allowed it to fly over instead of diverting it away from the carrier?

just a guess, but I would suspect that the protocols for this sort of thing are established, and dictate that you don't get in each other's way.  that's one of the (many) reasons why the collision between the chinese fighter and the E-3 was so outrageous.

having said that, my preference would be that the headline about this incident had read "Large Mysterious Splash Detected Near U.S. Aircraft Carrier".

 

Strange protocol.....I would have imagined that an aircraft that was not squalking "friendly" on the IFF transponder would have either been forcibly diverted, or "splashed".

doc

once more, I am making some assumptions that are well beyond my depth.  perhaps this was so commonplace during the cold war that a protocol had to be developed to prevent every encounter with russian reconnaissance aircraft from developing into a flash point for WWIII.   they seem to have settled on a policy to visually identify and physically intercept aircraft . . . at least before they started shooting.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

why?  these flyovers occurred all the time without incident during the cold war.  Why start shooting now?

Why restart the flyovers? Are we back in a Cold War?

What about when the Russian splashed a commercial airliner full of civilians?

And why are you such an apologist for the most abhorrent behavior so oong as it comes from somone opposing the US?

[DumbAss Tanker]

why?  these flyovers occurred all the time without incident during the cold war.  Why start shooting now?

Why restart the flyovers? Are we back in a Cold War?

What about when the Russian splashed a commercial airliner full of civilians?

And why are you such an apologist for the most abhorrent behavior so oong as it comes from somone opposing the US?

Actually he's pretty much on target.  Rules of engagement require a demonstration of hostile intent, recon aircraft checking something out in international waters is not hostile intent.  Generally turning on a targeting radar or opening internal bomb bays would be considered such a demonstration depending on the nationality of the AC and our current relations with that country.  We detect them, we send up escort fighters to blow them to bits if we get such a demonstration, but with a few extremely rare exceptions it's just their planes and our planes flying along giving each other a "Yeah, we know you're there" eyeball.
Our carrier battle groups have no superior right to be in any particular place outside our own territorial waters versus their recon planes or a fishing boat for that matter.  A US ship does not have "US national airspace" around it, what it has is an inherent right to self-defense IF there is a reasonable basis to believe it is actually being attacked.  As far as KAL 007 goes it doesn't actually compare, since however insanely paranoid their reaction was, it did involve a bona fide intrusion into territorial Soviet airspace.  We have screwed the pooch on this ourselves, as for instance in the recently-mentioned Iranian airliner shootdown.
We lost several planes 'probing' them back in SAC's Curtis LeMay heyday, all pretty much definitely in Soviet airspace.  I would not be at all surprised to find out there was more than one Tu95 on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean or in various backwaters between the northern Canadian islands since there is kind of an unwritten law of payback to these things, but if there are nobody has ever come out and said so. 

[franksolich]

I'm mystified that the socialists are using airplanes with propellers.

I mean, how good can these things be, against modern jetcraft?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Actually he's pretty much on target.  Rules of engagement require a demonstration of hostile intent, recon aircraft checking something out in international waters is not hostile intent.  Generally turning on a targeting radar or opening internal bomb bays would be considered such a demonstration depending on the nationality of the AC and our current relations with that country.  We detect them, we send up escort fighters to blow them to bits if we get such a demonstration, but with a few extremely rare exceptions it's just their planes and our planes flying along giving each other a "Yeah, we know you're there" eyeball.
Our carrier battle groups have no superior right to be in any particular place outside our own territorial waters versus their recon planes or a fishing boat for that matter.  A US ship does not have "US national airspace" around it, what it has is an inherent right to self-defense IF there is a reasonable basis to believe it is actually being attacked.  As far as KAL 007 goes it doesn't actually compare, since however insanely paranoid their reaction was, it did involve a bona fide intrusion into territorial Soviet airspace.  We have screwed the pooch on this ourselves, as for instance in the recently-mentioned Iranian airliner shootdown.
We lost several planes 'probing' them back in SAC's Curtis LeMay heyday, all pretty much definitely in Soviet airspace.  I would not be at all surprised to find out there was more than one Tu95 on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean or in various backwaters between the northern Canadian islands since there is kind of an unwritten law of payback to these things, but if there are nobody has ever come out and said so. 

All granted without argument but my points about why defend rekindling the Cold War and asking why everytime Putin shows his penis in public John Matrix seems attached still stand.

[DumbAss Tanker]

All granted without argument but my points about why defend rekindling the Cold War and asking why everytime Putin shows his penis in public John Matrix seems attached still stand.

Well, let's put it this way, if you were running the Russian Air Force, can you think of a better way to convince your men that your force is still a credible global playa?

 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

All granted without argument but my points about why defend rekindling the Cold War and asking why everytime Putin shows his penis in public John Matrix seems attached still stand.

Well, let's put it this way, if you were running the Russian Air Force, can you think of a better way to convince your men that your force is still a credible global playa?

 

meh

Putin is pretending there's a Cold War to keep the Russians in line while tucked comfortably in the knowledge that the US has no such ambitions.

And JM is his ever-fawning defender. Useful idiot now without so much useful.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I'm mystified that the socialists are using airplanes with propellers.

I mean, how good can these things be, against modern jetcraft?

The Tu95 is actually a pretty amazing airplane, and extremely well-suited to its long-range reconnaissance mission.  In its own niche, it may well be the best plane ever designed.  In terms of airframe performance, we don't fly any kind of maritime recon/patrol bomber (or land-based bomber anymore for that matter) that has the remotest chance against a fighter either, if the fighter gets a visual on it.

 

[JohnMatrix]

why?  these flyovers occurred all the time without incident during the cold war.  Why start shooting now?

Why restart the flyovers? Are we back in a Cold War?

What about when the Russian splashed a commercial airliner full of civilians?

And why are you such an apologist for the most abhorrent behavior so oong as it comes from somone opposing the US?

try not to go on a tangent.  This is not about why or why not the flyovers started.  This is about why it was allowed to come so close to the carrier. 

[JohnMatrix]

All granted without argument but my points about why defend rekindling the Cold War and asking why everytime Putin shows his penis in public John Matrix seems attached still stand.

Well, let's put it this way, if you were running the Russian Air Force, can you think of a better way to convince your men that your force is still a credible global playa?

 

meh

Putin is pretending there's a Cold War to keep the Russians in line while tucked comfortably in the knowledge that the US has no such ambitions.

And JM is his ever-fawning defender. Useful idiot now without so much useful.

yea, right.  I defended them so much.  Get some reading comprehension, then reread my posts.  After that, you can actually take a deep breath and call down.

[JohnMatrix]

I'm mystified that the socialists are using airplanes with propellers.

I mean, how good can these things be, against modern jetcraft?

The Tu95 is actually a pretty amazing airplane, and extremely well-suited to its long-range reconnaissance mission.  In its own niche, it may well be the best plane ever designed.  In terms of airframe performance, we don't fly any kind of maritime recon/patrol bomber (or land-based bomber anymore for that matter) that has the remotest chance against a fighter either, if the fighter gets a visual on it.

 

quit defending putin dumbass tanker!

[/snugglebunny]

[JohnMatrix]

I'm mystified that the socialists are using airplanes with propellers.

I mean, how good can these things be, against modern jetcraft?

frank, they are turbprops, which are actually jet engines.

[djones520]

I'm mystified that the socialists are using airplanes with propellers.

I mean, how good can these things be, against modern jetcraft?

Frank, the US Navy still uses the P-3 Orion for anti-submarine warfare.  It's a 4 prop-aircraft that tends to break down more often then fly.  It's designed to fly out there find subs, and sink them.

These types of aircraft aren't intended for ariel combat.  Thats what the Su-27 and F-16 are designed for.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I'm mystified that the socialists are using airplanes with propellers.

I mean, how good can these things be, against modern jetcraft?

The Tu95 is actually a pretty amazing airplane, and extremely well-suited to its long-range reconnaissance mission.  In its own niche, it may well be the best plane ever designed.  In terms of airframe performance, we don't fly any kind of maritime recon/patrol bomber (or land-based bomber anymore for that matter) that has the remotest chance against a fighter either, if the fighter gets a visual on it.

 

quit defending putin dumbass tanker!

[/snugglebunny]

So shoot me with an internet gun.

 

[Wretched Excess]

I'm mystified that the socialists are using airplanes with propellers.

I mean, how good can these things be, against modern jetcraft?

Frank, the US Navy still uses the P-3 Orion for anti-submarine warfare.  It's a 4 prop-aircraft that tends to break down more often then fly.  It's designed to fly out there find subs, and sink them.

These types of aircraft aren't intended for ariel combat.  Thats what the Su-27 and F-16 are designed for.

the venerable P-3 is scheduled to be replaced by the MMA, designated the P-8, and based on a B737.