You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Military Aviation

Two Russian planes flew close to a US guided missile destroyer almost a dozen times, American officials have said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36039703

Diplomatic incident aside, that's some damn cool footage.

Very cool.

SHOULD have been a nice test of the Phalanx . . . .

ANCFlyer wrote:Very cool.

SHOULD have been a nice test of the Phalanx . . . .

My first thought as well.

Oh come on now, let's not be too hard on the Russians. I mean, they do have to do flight training somewhere now that Turkey won't let them in anymore. Poor SU-24 pilots weren't getting their flight hours in. Silly American destroyer was just in their way.

All I can say is where is Ronald Reagan when we need him?

Queso wrote:All I can say is where is Ronald Reagan when we need him?

ANCFlyer wrote:Very cool.

SHOULD have been a nice test of the Phalanx . . . .

These are the feelings of most of us in the office today. We should be reading about two downed Russian jets this morning, rather than a them buzzing a Destroyer.

Oh please. No Reagan wouldn't have. Reagan played worse games than this with the Soviets back in his day. How quickly we forget how the Cold War played out with both sides pulling stunts like this all the time. The internet is full of pictures of Bears, Badges, B-52s and even an occasional Vulcan doing low passes on the other sides ships. We've even bumped ships at sea several times playing these games. No one is going to shoot at anyone.

Now, if you really want to screw with them, next time they are doing a high speed pass from the stern, put the rudder hard over and turn into their exit vector. Radar masts are no joke to aviators.

Click Click D'oh wrote:

The cold-war was long ago.

I hear what you're saying, but this is clearly a poke at 0bama and his lack of a spine. We should do more than say "hey, please don't do that anymore"

Click Click D'oh wrote:Oh please. No Reagan wouldn't have. Reagan played worse games than this with the Soviets back in his day. How quickly we forget how the Cold War played out with both sides pulling stunts like this all the time. The internet is full of pictures of Bears, Badges, B-52s and even an occasional Vulcan doing low passes on the other sides ships. We've even bumped ships at sea several times playing these games. No one is going to shoot at anyone.

First reasonable comment I read on this incident today, and it's all over social media here as well.

I've been myself on a warship, in the exact same location, getting buzzed by the Russians. It was their "thank you" for us going full speed towards their waters, measuring the time it took them to get their fighters scrambled.

It's games big boys play with their big toys. The only newsworthy part about the story is the US crew going all mimimi over it.

The incident took place some 50 miles off the Russian coast. What did they expect the Russians to do when they show up there? Don't tell me for a second the Americans won't do the same (or worse) when Russian vessels show up off the US coast.

Don't want to get buzzed by Russians? Stay away from their coast, problem solved. Though, as far as I am concerned, if a little buzzing leaves you pantytwisted, you shouldn't have any business in the Navy in first place.

Click Click D'oh wrote:Now, if you really want to screw with them, next time they are doing a high speed pass from the stern, put the rudder hard over and turn into their exit vector. Radar masts are no joke to aviators.

That is how the game is played.

Zak wrote:Don't tell me for a second the Americans won't do the same (or worse) when Russian vessels show up off the US coast.

Our navy would show up with Girl Scout cookies and flower wreaths.

miamiair wrote:Our navy would show up with Girl Scout cookies and flower wreaths.

And apologizing for getting in the way of their jets.

Click Click D'oh wrote:Oh please. No Reagan wouldn't have. Reagan played worse games than this with the Soviets back in his day. How quickly we forget how the Cold War played out with both sides pulling stunts like this all the time. The internet is full of pictures of Bears, Badges, B-52s and even an occasional Vulcan doing low passes on the other sides ships. We've even bumped ships at sea several times playing these games. No one is going to shoot at anyone.

Reagan's buddy Thatcher used to love a good near-incursion and was known to demand photos from the MOD for her private collection. You can imagine the conversation: "I say Mikhail, would you mind awfully sending over a Tu-22. Dennis doesn't have a shot of a Blinder in the old scrapbook".

Besides, if you've got a pair of Fencers that are in full working order you have to show them off to whoever's around, otherwise nobody will believe you've got a pair of fully functional Fencers (they have a terrible reputation for corrosion if anyone was wondering).

ORFflyer wrote:

miamiair wrote:Our navy would show up with Girl Scout cookies and flower wreaths.

And apologizing for getting in the way of their jets.

Yup.

Today's 'merica. FFS.

ANCFlyer wrote:Very cool.

SHOULD have been a nice test of the Phalanx . . . .

Well, since they were apparently unarmed, and in the same international waters/airspace the destroyer claimed to be in, I don't think that would have gone over well with anybody. Of course I know you were being sarcastic.

If the ship was Russian and in the Gulf of Mexico, practicing air ops with the Cubans, we would have done the same thing. Nothing to see here, move along. Nice air show and camera opportunity for the sailors though! Good for them, a nice break in what is probably a boring cruise.

What would happen when that destroyer is coming into Norfolk or Alameda and a 172 does the same thing? Or a G IV?

Easy answer is "Ghostwriter, this is Mustang 117, this bogey is all over me, he has missile lock on me do I have permission to fire?" "Do not fire until fired upon!".

In reality though, since this would be a civilian aircraft, as ANC noted, it would be a good test of the phalanx CIWS.

These incursions have always seemed to be, a vast majority of the time, a one way street-all cynical stories of Thatcher and Reagan aside. While it has happened much in the past, there seems to be much more of a feeling that it is happening with our pants and hands around our ankles in these times. In the past we would stand firm on other more important issues ssuch as red lines in Syria, cancelling a missle defense system in Poland with nothing in return, or punctuating the death of a US embassador with election year lies and "who cares?".

The FACT remains that the only successful interactions with Russia have come from calculated and stoic hard nosed stances. That is what they expect, that is all that works with the Russians, and we currently have a doormat as a President. Russia will only get more aggressive.

Are people really that surprised that there is an association, amongst people who know history, between our current spineless Russian foreign policy and their increasingly antagonistic actions?

DXing wrote:

ANCFlyer wrote:Very cool.

SHOULD have been a nice test of the Phalanx . . . .

Well, since they were apparently unarmed, and in the same international waters/airspace the destroyer claimed to be in, I don't think that would have gone over well with anybody. Of course I know you were being sarcastic.

If the ship was Russian and in the Gulf of Mexico, practicing air ops with the Cubans, we would have done the same thing. Nothing to see here, move along. Nice air show and camera opportunity for the sailors though! Good for them, a nice break in what is probably a boring cruise.

Lol, and how was the ship to determine, with confidence, that they weren't armed?

I've read some pretty knowledge people stating that the law can easily justify a shoot, but it's fairly ambiguous. Don't get me wrong, I am glad calmer heads prevailed, but to me the Russians are asking for an international act of war for a reason. To claim that it is no big deal is incorrect.

Fumanchewd wrote:These incursions have always seemed to be, a vast majority of the time, a one way street-all cynical stories of Thatcher and Reagan aside.

Oh please, that's just not even true. Talk to any old P-3 hands and they have plenty of stories of doing the same thing to Soviet and later Russian ships. It's so common that the practice of buzzing a ship has it's own slang, "a rigging pass"

Fumanchewd wrote:Lol, and how was the ship to determine, with confidence, that they weren't armed?

Probably because every rational brain on the planet knows that Russia isn't about to start WWIII by sinking a lowly destroyer.

Click Click D'oh wrote:

Fumanchewd wrote:These incursions have always seemed to be, a vast majority of the time, a one way street-all cynical stories of Thatcher and Reagan aside.

Oh please, that's just not even true. Talk to any old P-3 hands and they have plenty of stories of doing the same thing to Soviet and later Russian ships. It's so common that the practice of buzzing a ship has it's own slang, "a rigging pass"

The P3's have always gotten real close to Soviet and Chinese territory, thus we had one that was hit by a Chinese fighter and landed in Hainan 15 years back. BUT, it was used for surveillance only, and it is known that they NEVER carry weapons. Comparing a P3 and a Bear is not an apples to apples comparison and you cannot find a low fly by incident with one of our fighters in the last 5 years, or for that matter probably in the last 25 years.

The fact remains that the US has never had a policy of allowing close fly overs with fighters. And my understanding is that it has been expressly forbidden for a long long time. The US has also does not allow incursions with our bombers into unauthorized airspace except in times of active bombing missions.

The fact remains that the Russians have done all of the above to a much more more frequent degree in the last 5 years including bomber intrusions right to the edge of neutral airspace in Northern Europe (specific incidents in Norway, Sweden, UK, etc. Russian aircraft has also illegally entered Turkish airspace on numerous occasions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/world ... .html?_r=0

A one year old article that doesn't even mention recent events.

It is not even in the same ballpark of what we do.

Click Click D'oh wrote:

Fumanchewd wrote:Lol, and how was the ship to determine, with confidence, that they weren't armed?

Probably because every rational brain on the planet knows that Russia isn't about to start WWIII by sinking a lowly destroyer.

I highly doubt any assumptions of the sort were made. Does a cop assume a gun on a young looking man is unloaded because any rationale brain would not throw his life away and shoot at a cop?

This is not realistic nor how things work. I guarantee every protocol onboard that ship required them to assume that the fighter was armed.

But note that you initially stated that they knew the fighter was unarmed and now you are saying that they would assume that he wouldn't sink a destroyer. Being armed and actually attacking the destroyer are two very distinct and important differences in this case. My objection was that they would not assume that he was unarmed.

Fumanchewd wrote:
Lol, and how was the ship to determine, with confidence, that they weren't armed?

No use of the attack radar would be a good first indicator. Once in visual range, nothing but aux fuel tanks hanging under the wings would be confirmation. After that, sit back and enjoy the show.

Fumanchewd wrote:This is not realistic nor how things work. I guarantee every protocol onboard that ship required them to assume that the fighter was armed.

Agreed, but absent a threat such as the attack radar lighting them up or a spray of shells coming across the water at them, the fingers would be off the triggers. Do not fire until fired upon would remain the ROE. Only one time has a navy ship disregarded that and an Iranian airliner paid for the mistake.

DXing wrote:Agreed, but absent a threat such as the attack radar lighting them up or a spray of shells coming across the water at them, the fingers would be off the triggers. Do not fire until fired upon would remain the ROE. Only one time has a navy ship disregarded that and an Iranian airliner paid for the mistake.

I don't believe that's the accurate ROE. If the Russians lit up their fire control radar, I suspect the US vessel would be allowed to shoot at that instance.

DXing wrote:
Agreed, but absent a threat such as the attack radar lighting them up or a spray of shells coming across the water at them, the fingers would be off the triggers. Do not fire until fired upon would remain the ROE. Only one time has a navy ship disregarded that and an Iranian airliner paid for the mistake.

Not an aircraft but Gulf of Tonkin as well.

Fumanchewd wrote:The P3's have always gotten real close to Soviet and Chinese territory, thus we had one that was hit by a Chinese fighter and landed in Hainan 15 years back.

Completely different topic. That was an EP-3 flying a high altitude ELINT mission, not a patrol P-3C doing a rigging pass. Completely different aircraft, completely different mission profile, completely different circumstances.

Fumanchewd wrote: BUT, it was used for surveillance only, and it is known that they NEVER carry weapons.

EP-3 yes, ELINT only and no weapons. Patrol squadron P-3Cs are a completely different story. So when I mention P-3s doing rigging passes, talking about the Hainan incident is pointless.

Fumanchewd wrote: Comparing a P3 and a Bear is not an apples to apples comparison

Uh, no. The P-3 and TU-142 Bear F are direct counterparts to each other. Both are long range maritime patrol and interdiction turbo props capable of conducting ASW warfare. They are both very capable of sinking anything above or below the waves. A TU-142 or a P-3 doing a rigging pass is equally a threat because they both are telling you "hello, I could kill you"

Fumanchewd wrote:The US has also does not allow incursions with our bombers into unauthorized airspace except in times of active bombing missions.

Have you ever read any good books on the Blackbird? Pretty much our whole MO with it was sprinting directly at Soviet airspace to piss off their missile crews and interceptors. What we complain about the Russians doing with Bears and Backfires now we have done all along with B-52s. And we still do it. Look up Polar Growl

Please stop pretending the US doesn't do this stuff. We pretty much taught the Soviets how to do it with first U-2s and RB-47s then later with the SR-71. There's a rather long list of US Reconnaissance planes that didn't come home because we sent them into enemy airspace.

Oh and FYI, stop pissing your pants about an outdated TU-95 flying up next to your airspace. The Russians aren't cave men. If they wanted to drop a nuke on you they wouldn't fly over you like the Enola Gay. The Russians have long since figured out ALCMs too. If they are flying right up to your airspace it's because they want you to see them. They are saying "Hello, I have a bomber. Do you have a Typhoon that can come up and play?" Then the pilots show each other center folds from their respective countries or put on funny gorilla masks then go their separate ways.

Only the Chinese, who are relatively new to this game have a problem with figuring it out. The NATO forces and former Soviet forces know very well how it is done.

Fumanchewd wrote:I highly doubt any assumptions of the sort were made. Does a cop assume a gun on a young looking man is unloaded because any rationale brain would not throw his life away and shoot at a cop?

Lol, and you dared try apples and oranges before then you throw out this?

Come on. At least try. We aren't talking street toughs here. We are talking captains in charge of warships. I guarantee you the first thing on the mind of the captain is trying not to start WWIII by being unnecessarily provoked into doing something stupid. As I have been trying to point out to you, this sort of thing has been going on by both sides for decades. There have been casualties in the past and there will be casualties in the future, but those were accidents when the games was pushed too far. Neither side is going to commit an act of war. It's blustering. It's saber rattling.

Fumanchewd wrote:But note that you initially stated that they knew the fighter was unarmed.

If you are going to claim I said something, make damn sure I actually said it.

Where did I say they knew the fighter was unarmed? I didn't.

But, what does it matter if they were? Do you think the ships captain was going to start WWIII because he didn't see the blue band on a weapon indicating it was an inert training round instead of a war shot? Of course not. He's going to stay the course with his ship, even if the SU-24 had a bundle of GPs hanging from it. This game is played with men who have nerves of steel or they wash out quickly. Pussies can't be ships captains.

I never said that we should have shot down the aircraft. My main point has only been that we are not on the same level as Russia with bomber and fighter incursions. Its not even close despite the rhetorical relativism.

Comparing a Bear and a SU24 with the SR71, E aircraft, and missions over international airspace of the pole? Lol, do I need to explain the difference to you? I don't have time for the silliness, so let me make it simple for you.

We have had Russia flying nuclear capable bombers right to the edge of at least 4 NATO country's airspace (that we know of). We have had Russia entering NATO member Turkey's airspace unauthorized and armed. We have had Russia buzz our war ships with fighters over and over. Just tell me in the last 5 years where we have had a similar incident with our fighters or bombers and Russia.

Fact: We are not on the same level, it is NOT a two-way street.

Click Click D'oh wrote:This game is played with men who have nerves of steel or they wash out quickly. Pussies can't be ships captains.

Lol, so this is just you trying to do your best Tom Clancy writing? I understand now.