The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on February 11, 2008, 10:35:47 PM
-
Russian bombers intercepted near U.S. Navy vessel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Russian bomber aircraft approached a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Pacific on Saturday and were intercepted by American fighter jets, a U.S. defense official said on Monday.
The bombers, flying south of Japan, were detected turning toward the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and its accompanying ships. Four U.S. F/A-18 fighters were launched to intercept the Russian aircraft, the official said.
One of the Russian "Bear" bombers flew over the deck of the Nimitz, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The U.S. fighters escorted the Russian bombers out of the area where the Nimitz was operating.
"Nimitz launched aircraft to intercept and escort the Russian aircraft in the vicinity of the aircraft carrier," the official said. "It is standard operating procedure for U.S. planes to escort aircraft flying in the vicinity of U.S. Navy ships."
A Russian bomber last flew over a U.S. aircraft carrier in July 2004, when a Bear flew over the USS Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan, the official said.
Russian bombers have ramped up their flights near U.S. territory and U.S. naval assets over the past year, demonstrating their long-range strike capability. In August, Russian bombers were tracked flying a course toward Guam, a U.S. territory in the Pacific
Those operations come as Russian officials say they will revive some of the military power and reach allowed to collapse with the Soviet Union.
Story (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1115998520080211)
-
a tu-95 being "escorted" by an F/A-18.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Tupolev_Tu_95_USAF.jpg/800px-Tupolev_Tu_95_USAF.jpg)
-
It saddens me how the Russians have learned nothing from the last century. If they could only understand they will never ever in a million years be Top Dog, and thet the USA is a much better friend than enemy, they could have it pretty swell.
-
It saddens me how the Russians have learned nothing from the last century. If they could only understand they will never ever in a million years be Top Dog, and thet the USA is a much better friend than enemy, they could have it pretty swell.
the japanese have lodged a protest over the same sortie . . .
Russian bomber cuts into Japanese airspace: official
TOKYO (AFP) — Japan scrambled two dozen military aircraft and lodged a protest, accusing a Russian strategic bomber of entering its airspace over the Pacific Ocean south of Tokyo Saturday.
Russia denied the incursion, but the Japanese foreign ministry said it lodged a strong protest with the Russian embassy in Tokyo over the incident, which followed stepped up Russian long-range air patrols over the Atlantic.
"We have asked the Russian government to make a thorough investigation into the matter," a foreign ministry spokesman said.
The Tupolev Tu-95 bomber, which dates to the Soviet era, flew over the rocky isle of Sofugan, 650 kilometres (406 miles) south of Tokyo, for about three minutes from 7:30 am (2230 GMT Friday), the defence ministry said.
The air force scrambled 24 planes, including F-15 fighters and an E-767 radar plane, the defence ministry said.
They gave "a notice, then a warning and another a notice and a warning," a defence ministry statement said. "There was no response."
The Russian bomber then flew back north towards the Russian island of Sakhalin, it said.
linky (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jbPc204b-rVoFjSvZPlHVg6mKM8A)
-
What pisses me off is that this information got out. It was classified Secret, yet someone went a blabbed about it anyways. I hope they find out who, because he's someone who needs to be removed from the military.
-
What pisses me off is that this information got out. It was classified Secret, yet someone went a blabbed about it anyways. I hope they find out who, because he's someone who needs to be removed from the military.
it would have been a little hard to deny since a diplomatic protest is impossible to hide. I would guess it leaked in japan, and al reuters pounded on every US military source they could find until they finally got something. the ways things like this usually go, there is probably much more to it than this. all we got was one relatively close tu-95 fly-by while another one circled, and four F/A-18's scrambled. pretty sketchy stuff, all things considered.
-
What pisses me off is that this information got out. It was classified Secret, yet someone went a blabbed about it anyways. I hope they find out who, because he's someone who needs to be removed from the military.
it would have been a little hard to deny since a diplomatic protest is impossible to hide. I would guess it leaked in japan, and al reuters pounded on every US military source they could find until they finally got something. the ways things like this usually go, there is probably much more to it than this. all we got was one relatively close tu-95 fly-by while another one circled, and four F/A-18's scrambled. pretty sketchy stuff, all things considered.
This stuff happens a lot more then you hear about... you just don't hear about it because people keep their mouths shut.
-
What pisses me off is that this information got out. It was classified Secret, yet someone went a blabbed about it anyways. I hope they find out who, because he's someone who needs to be removed from the military.
it would have been a little hard to deny since a diplomatic protest is impossible to hide. I would guess it leaked in japan, and al reuters pounded on every US military source they could find until they finally got something. the ways things like this usually go, there is probably much more to it than this. all we got was one relatively close tu-95 fly-by while another one circled, and four F/A-18's scrambled. pretty sketchy stuff, all things considered.
This stuff happens a lot more then you hear about... you just don't hear about it because people keep their mouths shut.
yeah, I am sure that is true.
-
a tu-95 being "escorted" by an F/A-18.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Tupolev_Tu_95_USAF.jpg/800px-Tupolev_Tu_95_USAF.jpg)
is that canadian?
-
Whatever it is, the picture is labelled wrong anyways. The USAF has never flown F-18's.
-
The Russkis have done this stuff forever.
I still have a 1974 picture somewhere of two of my ship's Phantoms, with the VF-41 Ace of Spades on their tail, bracketing a Russian Bear bomber with the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt in the background. They are always probing and testing the American response.
-
Vlad seems intent on either provoking us into something or he's trying to fump some kind of false pride and prestige back in to the Soviet Forces with these show of force stunts.
-
Whatever it is, the picture is labelled wrong anyways. The USAF has never flown F-18's.
hmmm. found the pic at wiki, and didn't notice that they had tagged it as somehow an USAF fighter. I was just looking for a TU-95, and was actually sorta jazzed when I found one with an F/A-18.
-
Vlad seems intent on either provoking us into something or he's trying to fump some kind of false pride and prestige back in to the Soviet Forces with these show of force stunts.
that's pretty much the size of it . . .
. . . relations between the U.S. and Russia have deteriorated to their worst point since the Cold War, largely due to the United States' plans to put a radar system in the Czech Republic and 10 missile defense interceptors in Poland.
The U.S. has defended the plan as necessary to protect its European allies from possible attacks by Iran. But the Kremlin has condemned the proposal, saying it would threaten Russia's security.
"We are being forced to take retaliatory steps," said Russian President Vladimir Putin, who also warned that a new arms race is under way.
-
is that canadian?
Yes that jet belongs to the Canadian Air Force
-
Whatever it is, the picture is labelled wrong anyways. The USAF has never flown F-18's.
Where did it say they were USAF jets?
-
Whatever it is, the picture is labelled wrong anyways. The USAF has never flown F-18's.
Where did it say they were USAF jets?
the actual filename of the picture I linked to from wiki is "/800px-Tupolev_Tu_95_USAF.jpg". like I said, I linked to it just because it was a TU-95 and an F/A-18, which were the two types of aircraft involved.
-
Whatever it is, the picture is labelled wrong anyways. The USAF has never flown F-18's.
Where did it say they were USAF jets?
the actual filename of the picture I linked to from wiki is "/800px-Tupolev_Tu_95_USAF.jpg". like I said, I linked to it just because it was a TU-95 and an F/A-18, which were the two types of aircraft involved.
So other than the actual filename of the picture saying USAF (even though it's identified in 2 other places as canadian) without giving any designation. So the picture is labeled right as it's labeled as a CF-18.
-
Whatever it is, the picture is labelled wrong anyways. The USAF has never flown F-18's.
Where did it say they were USAF jets?
the actual filename of the picture I linked to from wiki is "/800px-Tupolev_Tu_95_USAF.jpg". like I said, I linked to it just because it was a TU-95 and an F/A-18, which were the two types of aircraft involved.
So other than the actual filename of the picture saying USAF (even though it's identified in 2 other places as canadian) without giving any designation. So the picture is labeled right as it's labeled as a CF-18.
I can't even tell from that sentence what it is that you are taking exception to.
-
You don't know what I'm thinking and trying to type??
I was saying that nowhere is that aircraft identified as being in the USAF, other than the file name having USAF in it. Under the description of the picture it sat CAF. On the caption for the picture it says CF-18.
-
Filename probably means USAF was the source for the pic.
Hard to see this as a particularly big deal, any country with an air force probes around with it to see what they can see and to see what they can get away with.
-
Vlad seems intent on either provoking us into something or he's trying to fump some kind of false pride and prestige back in to the Soviet Forces with these show of force stunts.
that's pretty much the size of it . . .
. . . relations between the U.S. and Russia have deteriorated to their worst point since the Cold War, largely due to the United States' plans to put a radar system in the Czech Republic and 10 missile defense interceptors in Poland.
The U.S. has defended the plan as necessary to protect its European allies from possible attacks by Iran. But the Kremlin has condemned the proposal, saying it would threaten Russia's security.
"We are being forced to take retaliatory steps," said Russian President Vladimir Putin, who also warned that a new arms race is under way.
there is definitely something going on in Europe and the Middle East in regards to an arms race... Syria is getting in on it, and Iran has declared they wont back off testing nukes and rockets.
are they trying to force someone's hand?
-
Ruskies flying drunk again -- my bad, did I invade Japan's airspace?
They have been annoying the Brits for over a year now. They have nothing better to do apparently.
-
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.
(http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/photoessay_3313_images/0212081747_M_NIMITZ_Bear.jpg)
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.
-
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.
(http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/photoessay_3313_images/0212081747_M_NIMITZ_Bear.jpg)
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
-
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.
(http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/photoessay_3313_images/0212081747_M_NIMITZ_Bear.jpg)
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.
-
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?
-
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".
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I'm mystified that the socialists are using airplanes with propellers.
I mean, how good can these things be, against modern jetcraft?
-
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.
-
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?
:-)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:cheersmate:
-
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.
(http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/p8a/images/MSF06-1491-02.jpg)