Thread: Russian fighter jets close overflights U.S. destroyer

When I look at that map I just wonder which country welcomes U.S. and which one welcomes Russian ships ?
Any clue Pseudo ?

Must be U.S. aggression

Another aerial close call as Russian jet barrel-rolls over U.S. aircraft

A United States Air Force reconnaissance plane was barrel-rolled by a Russian jet over the Baltic Sea during a routine flight in international airspace, U.S. European Command said Saturday.

The incident on Thursday occurred when a Russian jet "performed erratic and aggressive maneuvers" as it flew within 50 feet of the U.S. aircraft's wing tip, Danny Hernandez, a spokesman for European Command, said in a response to a question from CNN.

The Russian SU-27 began the barrel roll from the left side of the U.S. RC-135 and went over the top of it to end on the right side of the aircraft, European Command said.

The U.S. RC-135 aircraft was "intercepted by a Russian SU-27 in an unsafe and unprofessional manner," Hernandez said, adding that the U.S. plane never entered Russian territory.

"The unsafe and unprofessional actions of a single pilot have the potential to unnecessarily escalated tensions between countries," said Hernandez, who added that the U.S. is protesting the incident with the Russian government.

Escalating tensions

This encounter comes just days after the U.S. Embassy in Moscow issued formal concerns with the Russian government over an incident in which Russian fighter jets flew very close to the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea this week.
One of the Russian jets flew within 30 feet of the Cook's ship superstructure, according to a U.S. official.

Close encounters between Russian military aircraft and U.S. warships have become increasing common in recent months. In October, U.S. Navy jets intercepted two Russian Tu-142 aircraft that were flying near the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan in the Pacific Ocean.
In an incident in June, a Russian Su-24 jet flew within 500 meters (1,640 feet) of a U.S. guided-missile destroyer that was sailing in the Black Sea near Crimea.
The Russian aerial maneuvers come amid rising tensions on NATO's eastern flank.

In February, the Department of Defense announced it was spending $3.4 billion for the European Reassurance Initiative in an effort to deter Russian aggression against NATO allies following Russia's 2014 intervention in Ukraine.

In recent weeks, the U.S. has deployed additional military assets throughout Europe as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Air Force deployed F-15s to Iceland and the Netherlands and F-22s to the United Kingdom. And in February the U.S. announced that it would send six F-15s to Finland for a training exercise and pre-position tanks and artillery in Norway, both countries share a border with Russia.

Another aerial close call as Russian jet barrel-rolls over U.S. aircraft - CNNPolitics.com

Originally Posted by hazz

Its a dangerous game the russian pilots were playing there, to use an analogy rather like a black man running at an american policeman holding a unloaded gun.

I suspect the whole exercise was to provoke the americans... easy to do when you consider how paranoid and afraid some navy captins are (william, the murdering peice of shit, rogers III comes to mind) they will atleast illumiated by the ships monitoring radar, but if they are lucky they will also be illumiated by the radar used to identity and taret the aircraft.... and if they are very lucky the americans will fire off the missile allowing them to capture the ships guidance radar and any missile radar, Plus they get the propaganda footage of an american shit shooting down an unarmed russian aircraft.

All very valuable information for the chaps wanting to create counter measures for against the ships radars and the missiles.


If the americans want to piss the russians off... ratheer than having a hissy fit in the press and bitching... just drop a few sonar boys near russian ships or better still get a photograph of the bottom of one of their more modern ships and fax it back to them.... the brits apprently did to the americans and they were most displeased.

I suspect you have that a little wrong Hazz. It is not the Russians who are sailing and flying close to the US but the Yanks who are getting very close to Russian waters and air space. There can only be a couple of reasons for that, spying or deliberate provocation.
With the US record of encouraging, backing and provoking wars elsewhere it would seem very likely they are deliberately there to get a reaction from Russia.

^ There are several NATO states that are there and so the US has every right to be there supporting its allies.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ There are several NATO states that are there and so the US has every right to be there supporting its allies.

Supporting them in what, are they being attacked, threatened, have they requested help from armed warships and planes ?

Have a read of Hans post and you will see that the US is doing their best to surround Russia in military hardware. Why ?

Probably because their stupid sanctions that they put in place for Russia supposedly arming rebels in Ukraine while they are doing the exact same thing in Syria have not worked as well as planned so a new form of provocation is needed.

As if the US has not caused enough trouble in this world with their Middle East disasters.

The shifting strategic focus of the United States, alternately referred to as a "pivot" or "rebalance," has crystalized a debate among our national leadership about how the military can and should achieve its security goals in the coming years. At the operational and tactical levels, it is irrefutable that we must have an adequate number of highly-capable warships — and a sophisticated logistics system to support them — operating forward and ready for tasking to maintain the timely, efficient, and metered response to which we have become accustomed.

Ships and their capabilities are tools ("means" in military parlance) used to achieve tactical, operational, and strategic objectives ("ends"). However, they differ from other military hardware because a constant naval presence — simply "being there" — has characteristics of both ends and means. As a result, the "one-third, one-third, one-third" budget allocations traditionally apportioned among the service branches simply will not achieve current or future security goals. Policymakers should recognize not only the immense payoff that naval forces provide, but how they can strengthen America’s security prospects in the years to come.

However, the debate about the size and capability of the U.S. Navy must not narrowly view ships as "means" to a tactical "end." Rather, it should acknowledge that the routine non-wartime presence Navy ships maintain is an end itself — one that delivers tangible benefit to American security, influence, and responsiveness unmatched by any other service or platform.

Unique to the Navy’s routine presence mission is the ability to provide these security requirements in near real-time without the requirement of a host country. Naval forces are inherently different from Army garrisoned forces because, while long-term land occupations risk undermining security objectives, a strong naval presence can reinforce them. Maritime forces require no diplomatic approval to operate in international waters; they do not force domestic or foreign leaders to expend political capital in order to place troops within striking distance of hot spots; they do not put allies in awkward positions by asking them to house U.S. forces when the local population may be averse to such presence.

Conversely, large garrisoned forces require policymakers in both the United States and in the forward-deployed country to make decisions that could weaken broader security goals. For example, an augmented American ground presence in Germany or Poland would surely increase regional tensions already stoked by the crisis in Crimea. Moreover, it would be difficult for military strategists to argue that placing such forces in Europe would help the outlook in the Pacific, where our security focus will be for the foreseeable future.

The ship on which I serve, the USS Kidd (DDG 100), illustrates the value routine naval presence provides. Kidd recently concluded its 10-day search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370; this journey took the ship from the Gulf of Thailand to the Java Sea, through the Singapore Strait and Strait of Malacca, past the Andaman Sea and on to the Bay of Bengal at the northern edge of the Indian Ocean. In total, Kidd transited more than 3,500 nautical miles conducting visual and radar searches; its two MH-60R helicopters used state-of-the-art sensors to comb nearly 15,000 square nautical miles during round-the-clock sorties.

While some may claim it was "luck" that Kidd and Pinckney (DDG 91), which also participated in the operation, were able to respond to this tragedy so quickly, this timely reaction was made possible only by the U.S. Navy’s continued and persistent presence in the Indo-Asian region. Kidd was conducting routine operations in the South China Sea — only a one-day transit from the initial search location. "Luck," said Branch Rickey, the general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers who signed Jackie Robinson, "is the residue of design."

The U.S. Navy’s presence in neighboring waters permitted a rapid response to the search effort for the missing jetliner without the cost that would result from deploying a San Diego or Pearl Harbor-based ship. Conversely, a deployment announced specifically for the Flight 370 search might have sent a potentially negative signal to the Malaysians that the U.S. distrusted their search process.

Moreover, the transit time (no less than three weeks) would have limited the value of the U.S. contribution. This same logic applies to humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, or any other situation in which tensions rise and threaten free access to waterways essential to U.S. economic and security interests. Deploying to these areas after an event occurs or tensions flare — especially when American naval presence has historically not been routine — can limit the efficacy of response and might well raise the very apprehensions the Navy’s presence was meant to quell.

The Navy is omnipresent in every major geographic area around the world. The very presence of naval ships simultaneously deters military aggression and assures our allies, safeguards the sea lanes and the commerce that flows through them, preserves territorial waterway boundaries and the right to resources contained therein, and facilitates a response to natural disasters and other catastrophes — like the disappearance of MH370. In this case, showing up is well more than half the battle.

The U.S. Navy’s resilience can only endure with the understanding that a firm commitment to building and maintaining a first-rate Navy — capable of being present where our national interests lie — is not only desirable, it is necessary. This commitment is a policy prerequisite if the United States — a maritime nation whose interests have been safeguarded by the Navy since the country’s founding — wants to retain the ability to influence outcomes, create additional windows of diplomacy, and control escalation.

A view from the high seas: The Navy is now more important than other services because it provides unfettered presence | Foreign Policy

Originally Posted by birding

Supporting them in what, are they being attacked, threatened, have they requested help from armed warships and planes ?

Yes the Baltic states as well as Finland and Norway have requested their presence. This is nothing new and is well documented. The Baltic states have asked the US for a permanent ground troop presence but the US has so far declined to do so. It was also pointed out earlier in this thread that the US destroyer was on a routine training mission with Polish forces.

Originally Posted by birding

Have a read of Hans post and you will see that the US is doing their best to surround Russia in military hardware. Why ?

I do not see that. Where is all of this military hardware you speak of?

Originally Posted by birding

Probably because their stupid sanctions that they put in place for Russia supposedly arming rebels in Ukraine

Russia is guilty of far more than just arming rebels in the Ukraine it was a full fledged invader and occupier. The rebel groups armed or not could never have performed that way without the support of a legitimate Army.

Originally Posted by birding

As if the US has not caused enough trouble in this world with their Middle East disasters.

I would remind you that your Prime minister was as deep in the muck as anyone when it came to waging war on Iraq. Undeniably the worst foreign policy error of the US and the UK in history.

Originally Posted by birding

but the Yanks who are getting very close to Russian waters and air space.

Exactly. The brainless morons don't quite understand this.

Actually, they are very aware of where they are.

The Ruskies are worthless. Five years from now ans they'll be begging their neighbors for petrol/gas/diesel.

Truly worthless kunts.

The Ruskies are worthless. Five years from now and they'll be begging their neighbors for petrol/gas/diesel.

Truly worthless kunts.

Originally Posted by hazz

All very valuable information for the chaps wanting to create counter measures for against the ships radars and the missiles.

All part of the game is to see when and how search and tracking devices are operated...

Originally Posted by hazz

If the americans want to piss the russians off... ratheer than having a hissy fit in the press and bitching... just drop a few sonar boys near russian ships

It used to be the norm to track subs with sonar buoys but not really necessary for surface vessels. I wonder if the Donald Cook has spotted the sub(s) trailing it yet.....

Dropping a sonar boy right by a boat is all about getting its acoustic signature and some high quality samples of any sonar pulses they are sending. Years ago one of these recordings was played to a sonar class i was on and the chap mentioned that the boy had been dropped by a british helicopter as it was buzzing the russians in the 1980's and it sparked of a serious diplomatic tiff.

As for the behavior as you said, not exactly unusual. I would have thought a more appropriate response, would be to give the pilots some extra training by released some balloons with steel tethers..... hardly their fault is these chaps don't look where they are flying.

what is it about cold wars bringing out the inner spoilt child in military, polical and diplomatic types?

and much murth by everyone else
Swedish peace group trolls Russian submarines with gay defence system

one has to wonder if its a better deterrent than the ikea... sorry swedish pinapple which blows 100's of 2" holes in the top of the sub?

Russia's military rejects U.S. criticism of new Baltic encounter

Russia's military rejected criticism by U.S. European Command on Sunday that a Russian jet had made aggressive maneuvers near a U.S. reconnaissance plane over the Baltic Sea, a second incident in the region between the Cold War-era foes in the past week.

Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia's military has been beefed up by increased spending and ambitious rearmament, while Moscow, which accuses NATO of expanding toward Russia's borders, tries to pursue a more assertive foreign policy.

The latest incident occurred on Thursday as a Russian Su-27 fighter "performed erratic and aggressive maneuvers", flying within 50 feet of a U.S. RC-135 aircraft, U.S. European Command spokesman Danny Hernandez said, replying to a question from CNN.

The United States had protested to Moscow, Hernandez said. "The unsafe and unprofessional actions of a single pilot have the potential to unnecessarily escalate tensions between countries," he said.

Russia dismissed the report as "running counter to reality", saying its air defenses had to scramble a fighter jet after detecting a high-speed unidentified target over the Baltic Sea heading for its borders.

After making "visual contact" with the Russian Su-27, the American reconnaissance plane changed its course away from Russia's borders, defense ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said in a statement.

The flight of the Russian warplane was in "strict conformity with international laws ... and there were no emergency situations," he said.

That incident occurred just two days after two Russian Su-24 bombers buzzed the Donald Cook, a U.S. guided missile destroyer, in the Baltic Sea on Tuesday, simulating attack passes, with a U.S. military official describing them as one of the most aggressive interactions in recent memory.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry condemned as dangerous and provocative the military encounter in the Baltic Sea.

Russia's military rejects U.S. criticism of new Baltic encounter | Reuters

Originally Posted by Troy

All part of the game is to see when and how search and tracking devices are operated...

No report of all their radars/electronics going down. Not like the Black Sea encounter.

Originally Posted by hazz

As for the behavior as you said, not exactly unusual. I would have thought a more appropriate response, would be to give the pilots some extra training by released some balloons with steel tethers..... hardly their fault is these chaps don't look where they are flying.

I posted a picture of the "cricket ball and rope" defensive measure, probably, taught at the naval academies. It kept the approaching launch away.

The academies training manuals have yet to be updated for those new fangled, flying machines. When they finish building/repairing/upgrading the F35s it's to be included in the navies plans on up-dating the navies training manuals. Once a few billions/years have been spent investigating, designing the prototype, the second and third redesigns will be completed, production will commence and all ships will be updated on a 5 year rolling programme.

Hopefully the Russians will not have spied on the new development and incorporated an anti-cricket ball and rope system into their offensive armaments, on their defensive aircraft.

Here's an Idea - why does the US fook off out of Europe and stay on its own land, in it own waters instead of running around the world thinking they are untouchables.

Exactly Pseudo, I agree. I think the US should just let everyone fight their own God damn battles and only worry if it reaches the American shores. That was my thought going all the way back to the Vietnam conflict, and if I were alive during WWII, I would say the same thing.

Too bad nobody listens to us.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

I think the US should just let everyone fight their own God damn battles and only worry if it reaches the American shores.

If that were the case, there would be 134 wars in the world that are currently happening today.... that would not be in that the US have a hand in each of them.

As for WWII - indeed - especially if it counted with their funding of the Nazis in the first place, profiteering from both sides.

As for Snubbs saying "ohhh sweden invited the merkins".... BULLSHIT. No one invites them. They get told that they are coming, and advised that they might like to issue them an invite to save embarrassment.

Kick them tot he curb - sorry - port is closed. No fuel or goods for you unless you pay in GOLD. Don't fly in our airspace, and don't fuck around with our neighbours. Fuck, we don't go bombing mexico and Canada FFS.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ There are several NATO states that are there and so the US has every right to be there supporting its allies.

NATO pretends to stand for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but anyone with half a fkkn brain knows that what it really stands for is North American Treaty Organization.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Here's an Idea - why does the US fook off out of Europe and stay on its own land, in it own waters instead of running around the world thinking they are untouchables.

Shouldn't be limited to Europe and environs, but worldwide.