| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Russia surprised by U.S. reaction to bomber flights |
| 2008-02-12 |
| MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia expressed surprise on Tuesday that the United States had scrambled fighter jets at the weekend to intercept strategic Russian bombers, one of which flew over a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Pacific. That's US territory you are overflying. Four U.S. F/A-18 fighters were launched after Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers flying south of Japan were detected turning towards the Nimitz aircraft carrier and its escort, a U.S. defense official said. Messing with us in the UN security counsel is one thing. Messing with a Carrier strike group is totally different. Please learn said distinction ASAP. One of the Russian 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. Lucky for you. That was a 'Look Down Shoot Down' episode if I've ever saw one. "It is standard operating procedure for U.S. planes to escort aircraft flying in the vicinity of U.S. Navy ships," the U.S. defense official said. That is a nice way of putting it. The Russian Air Force said the February 9 mission by four Tu-95s was part of long-distance patrols of the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans and the Black Sea begun in August last year. It said all flights were made over neutral waters, did not breach international borders and all concerned parties were notified in advance. When you get whithin striking distance of a US flat-top, you are no longer in 'neutral waters.' "We are surprised by all the clamor this raised," RIA news agency quoted Russian Air Force spokesman Alexander Drobyshevsky as saying. Nice climb-down. 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. They're lucky to be alive. 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. Those 'assets' are known as STATE INSTRUMENTS, and the Russians should be VERY careful about provoking a response to silly challenges. |
| Posted by:Free Radical |
| #21 Some WAFF.com Posters are specul that Russ is retaliating for the flyby of a US F16 o'er their carrier a while back. ION, GUAM K57/KUAM NEWS > A USN EA6B PROWLER EWS REPORTEDLY CRASHED OFF GUAM's ANDERSEN AFB YESTERDAY, All 4 crew survived and have been success retrieved, recovering. RELATED INCIDENT TO BOMBERS??? OTOH, GLOBALRESEARCH > THE US-NATO NUCLEAR PREEMPTIVE DOCTRINE: STARTING A NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST IN THE MIDDLE EAST TO SAVE THE WESTERN WAY OF LIFE? RUSS definition of CONVENTIONAL AGGRESSION > broadly includes any [major?] terror attacks agz Russ as originated or launched by Terror group(s) from the sovereign territories of any and all foreign powers/states, and with or without the foreknowledge or consent of the local sovereign Govts. RUSS IS GIVING ITSELF THE RIGHT TO ATTACK TERROR GROUPS OR TERROR-CONTROLLED AREAS IN FOREIGN SOVEREIGN STATES, IN RESPONSE TO ANY AND ALL TERROR ATTACKS AGZ IT, WIDOUT NEED OF INFORMING OR SEEKING THE CONSENT OF LOCAL GOVT AUTHORITIES. NOT THAT THEY WON'T ASK, BUT AFATAC THEY DON'T NEED TO ASK IFF THEY DON'T WANT TO. RUSS NATIONAL SECURITY = MANIFEST DESTINY = FOREIGN POLICY = MIL/MILPOL-LED ANTI-TERROR, etc. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-02-12 21:24 |
| #20 PRAVDA > PUTIN INSISTS ON A NEW SCENARIO FOR RUSSIA. Speech - Putin admits that ONE IN EVERY SECOND RUSS MALE WON'T SEE AGE 60, + RUSS LABOR PRODUCTIVITY REMAINS DANGEROUSLY VERY LOW IN THE LIGHT OF INTENSIFYING GLOBAL COMPETITION. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-02-12 20:24 |
| #19 So, JFM - we are STILL fighting the last war? I love to watch Dogfights on the History Channel, and the F-4 used in Vietnam didn't even have guns - they were designed to down Russian Bombers, not dogfight. There were some dogfights in the 1991 war, so apparently, the Lawn Dart is a reaction to that war? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2008-02-12 18:12 |
| #18 OK Steve S, you called it! The Lawn dart is Not the do all end all the figther attack mafia in DC claims it to be. (that is all) TW, back during the cold war, whenever an unkniwn was inbound to the boat, fighters were launched to escort the bogie away. the good guys were always between the bogie and the boat. I would be interested in knowing why the CO allowed the Bear to get that close. sounds a lot like an airborne version of the Chinese sub that snuck up on the Kitty Hawk a while back. Are the boat CO's that hamstrung by stupid ROEs that it is going to get one sunk before we let go of our ankles????? At Steve's request, i will refrain from any more Lawn Dart bashing. ( Must. Breathe. Slowly.) |
| Posted by: USN,Ret. 2008-02-12 18:06 |
| #17 How much is an unmanned drone, could be wroth launching a few and really crapping on the Soviet windshields. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-02-12 17:13 |
| #16 Ugggh... that is NOT what I wanted to hear. I have been led to believe that the super-hornet is SOTA. The super-Hornet could be all the SOTA what you want it is still not an interceptor. The F14 had greater speed Mach 2.34 vs 1.8), tactical range (500 nm vs a ridiculous 150 nm). Also due to F14's wing behaving as a supersonic delta she had a far greater range at supersonic speeds. That means that in emegencies the F14 can reach the target well before the superhornet. Compound to that the very long range F14 missiles: by the time the F18 gets into a shooting position the F14 has already reached and shot a second intruder tens of miles away. Did I mention the long range radar and its very wide angle? And that I am comparing the latest and greatest F18 versus a twenty year old F14. Now imagine if the F14 had been upgraded too. It is very possible that the F18 beats the pants of the F14 for the task of dueling enemy fighters but that is not the job of an interceptor. An interceptor's job is to destroy enemy bombers before they get into firing range: a single of the missiles carried by the Bear can literally blow a destroyer out of the water and would do major damage on a carrier. The sooner you intercept the Bear the better. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-02-12 15:22 |
| #15 can an A-10 land on a flattop? UACVs could bump all they wanted. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-02-12 14:17 |
| #14 The US needs to develop a super-sturdy bumper car plane that can land on carriers. That way when someone gets too close we clip them, damage them, blame them for flying into the heavily congested area around a carrier, and laugh as they now pay to fix their expensive bomber. The Chinese would get the hint as well and wouldn't pull that nonsense they did in 2001. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-02-12 14:05 |
| #13 Don't be getting USN, Ret. riled up about the F/A-18. You know how he feels about Lawn Darts! |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-02-12 13:42 |
| #12 The Navy has a great interceptor - the SM-3... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2008-02-12 13:16 |
| #11 The F18 is not an interceptor. Ugggh... that is NOT what I wanted to hear. I have been led to believe that the super-hornet is SOTA. JFM, could you elaborate on your statement? If it is long, maybe the mods would allow you to post it on the 'opinion' page. I am certainly interested, and have no first-hand knowledge to contradict you. |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2008-02-12 12:35 |
| #10 one hopes we return the favor. a 117 momentarily appearing over Vladivastok and then disappearing might be appropraite. |
| Posted by: Thirong Henbane3790 2008-02-12 12:28 |
| #9 We should have buzz'd them with some AA. |
| Posted by: Thromosing the Rasher of Bacon5030 2008-02-12 12:04 |
| #8 The F18 is not an interceptor. No she isn't! And that sad fact is going to cost us dearly in the not too distant future. |
| Posted by: Angeager McCoy5898 2008-02-12 10:34 |
| #7 Apparently bombers buzzing and fighters scrambling in response happened all the time during the Cold War, without being considered newsworthy. Any thoughts from those who know? During Cold War there were well defined rules about what was allowed and not allowed in order to not accidentally trigger WWIII. Buzzing an aircraft carrier was one of the not to do things. Also, in times of the F14 who was a real interceptor the Bear would have never been able to close so much. THe F18 is not an interceptor. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-02-12 10:29 |
| #6 This is the action of lower primates who flash genitalia to 'impress' others in their hierarchy order. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-02-12 09:23 |
| #5 Back then wife, the were considered normal "training missions" for both sides. The Bears opened their bomb doors once the US fighters came up along side to show that they were empty. However, the MSM is now surprised that an ex-KGB thug is running the country like it used to be when he was a KGB thug and react like it. The Soviet Union is back, but in far worse shape than before. He is trying for an arms race with a GDP that is less than what the US spends on its own military in two years. samizdata.net has a good snark about it. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-02-12 09:17 |
| #4 Apparently bombers buzzing and fighters scrambling in response happened all the time during the Cold War, without being considered newsworthy. Any thoughts from those who know? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-02-12 08:37 |
| #3 Is this the same incident or a seperate one? A Russian strategic bomber briefly entered Japanese airspace over the Pacific south of Tokyo Saturday, prompting 22 Japanese military aircraft to scramble, officials said. Russia denied the incursion, but the Japanese foreign ministry said it lodged a strong protest with the Russian embassy in Tokyo. "We have asked the Russian government to make a thorough investigation into the matter," a foreign ministry spokesman said. The Soviet-era Tupolev Tu-95 bomber flew over the rocky isle of Sofugan, some 650km south of Tokyo, for about three minutes from 7:30:36, the defense ministry said. The air force scrambled 22 planes, including F-15 fighters and an E-767 airborne early warning and control aircraft, a defense ministry statement said. They gave "a notice, then a warning and another a notice and a warning," the statement said. "There was no response." The Russian bomber then flew back north toward the Russian island of Sakhalin, it said. Russia denied the incursion. "Russian air force planes carried out their mission according to plan. Japanese military airspace was not breached," Alexander Drobyshevsky, a spokesman for the air force, told ITAR-TASS. The bomber flights "were carried out in strict accordance with international rules on flying over neutral waters, without violating the border between the two countries," Drobyshevsky said. Japan said it was the first Russian violation of its airspace since January 2006. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-02-12 08:34 |
| #2 Get an F-18 to practice touch-n-go landings in the Bear. Be sure to give the landing gear a good workout. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-12 08:15 |
| #1 Probably just wanted a few hi-res pics is all. |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-02-12 08:03 |