It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Swedish military chief says Russian jets released flares

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
You don't "fire" flares, you dispense them or eject them.

Its not dangerous providing the intercepting plane isn't really close. I'd say it was more of a prank, or possibly a test to see what countermeasures might be used.

The problem being the fact that Russia is flying really close, and also releasing flares. The article states the flares nearly hit the Swedish planes.




posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: MrSpad




At least it was until Russia started screwing with it. Just like Finland Russia thinks threats will get these non NATO states to bow to Russia's wishes but, all it has done is drive two states that were neutral through the Cold War, and for Sweden much longer, and drive them into NATO arms.


And this is interesting...


Putin pointed out that there will be consequences, that Russia will have to resort to a response of a military kind and reorientate our troops and missiles. The country that joins NATO needs to be aware of the risks it is exposing itself to,” Tatarintsev told Dagens Nyheter. However, such a response would not take the immediate form of an attack, since "Sweden is not a target for our armed troops," Tatarintsev added.


www.ibtimes.com...

I find it amazing that Putin has the balls to threaten military action because Sweden is discussing joining NATO. If Sweden was on the fence that statement alone would push them closer to NATO than they ever were before.


Putin seems to have no understanding of anything outside of Russia. NATO already has 28 members plus 5 more Georgia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo who wall are trying to join. Why would he want to add Finland and Sweden who were happy to sit on the side lines to his long list of enemies. Threats work in Russia because people fear Putin, threats do not work outside of Russia because they do not fear Putin.


Maybe the Ruskies think they will dilute NATO and spread them thin in the short term with so many new nations clamoring for protection. They are about to make more aggressive land grabs. He already got a free land grab in Crimea and basically half of Ukraine is his for the taking.


Well in the cases of most of these states Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro they are safely surrounded by NATO states and although none of the bring much to the table military wise they also would not require any protection from NATO itself.

With Sweden and Finland we are not talking about to two small weak states. They may not be great powers but, certainly bring something to the NATO table. Both have modern forces and both can call out a good amount of reserves. That is another million men for Russia to worry about when they are already out numbered by a great deal. Plus NATO using Swedish and Finnish naval and air bases just makes things worse for Russia not to mention that Finnish border that would now become a real danger to Russia if the Fins were joined by Swedish and Nord forced plus some US Marines.

Russia's strategic positioned is only weakened and NATOs only made stronger by the addition of those two states. I think Putin looks at Finland and Sweden as weak nations who's people live the good lives and that they would just role over to Russian threats and so whatever Russia tells them to. This is a mistake often made when dealing with the West. Just because our lives are good it is assumed we are soft. When the truth is, war is where the West truly excels.



True, but a million reserves that are bottled up in pincers on day one is only another million to march off to the gulags after having zero impact.


As we have seen in both Georgia and Ukraine the Russian military is a slow beast with bad command and control (half the Russian aircraft shot down in Georgia were by other Russians) and 75% of the military is made up of 1 year conscripts. That is one green military. They have been using their professional troops in Ukraine but, they need them elsewhere to respond to threats to Russia and Ukraine is wrecking their combat readiness. So no worries of great Russian pincers rolling across the land. In particular since they would lose air support pretty quickly to Western air forces. Any Russian advance would be pretty short and then would have to dig in.

And you need a 3 to 1 advantage to go on the offensive, Russia (770,000 active troops) with all reserves called out has only 3 million men. Now that 1 million extra you have to deal with becomes a huge problem since NATO already has over 3.5 million active troops and another 4.3 million in reserve. So Russia already has a huge manpower problem, not to mention the same problem in the air and on the sea. Not mention Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Azerbaijan all waiting to take advantage of Russia's being engaged. The days of the old Soviet steam roller are long dead.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: MrSpad




At least it was until Russia started screwing with it. Just like Finland Russia thinks threats will get these non NATO states to bow to Russia's wishes but, all it has done is drive two states that were neutral through the Cold War, and for Sweden much longer, and drive them into NATO arms.


And this is interesting...


Putin pointed out that there will be consequences, that Russia will have to resort to a response of a military kind and reorientate our troops and missiles. The country that joins NATO needs to be aware of the risks it is exposing itself to,” Tatarintsev told Dagens Nyheter. However, such a response would not take the immediate form of an attack, since "Sweden is not a target for our armed troops," Tatarintsev added.


www.ibtimes.com...

I find it amazing that Putin has the balls to threaten military action because Sweden is discussing joining NATO. If Sweden was on the fence that statement alone would push them closer to NATO than they ever were before.


Putin seems to have no understanding of anything outside of Russia. NATO already has 28 members plus 5 more Georgia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo who wall are trying to join. Why would he want to add Finland and Sweden who were happy to sit on the side lines to his long list of enemies. Threats work in Russia because people fear Putin, threats do not work outside of Russia because they do not fear Putin.


Maybe the Ruskies think they will dilute NATO and spread them thin in the short term with so many new nations clamoring for protection. They are about to make more aggressive land grabs. He already got a free land grab in Crimea and basically half of Ukraine is his for the taking.


Well in the cases of most of these states Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro they are safely surrounded by NATO states and although none of the bring much to the table military wise they also would not require any protection from NATO itself.

With Sweden and Finland we are not talking about to two small weak states. They may not be great powers but, certainly bring something to the NATO table. Both have modern forces and both can call out a good amount of reserves. That is another million men for Russia to worry about when they are already out numbered by a great deal. Plus NATO using Swedish and Finnish naval and air bases just makes things worse for Russia not to mention that Finnish border that would now become a real danger to Russia if the Fins were joined by Swedish and Nord forced plus some US Marines.

Russia's strategic positioned is only weakened and NATOs only made stronger by the addition of those two states. I think Putin looks at Finland and Sweden as weak nations who's people live the good lives and that they would just role over to Russian threats and so whatever Russia tells them to. This is a mistake often made when dealing with the West. Just because our lives are good it is assumed we are soft. When the truth is, war is where the West truly excels.



True, but a million reserves that are bottled up in pincers on day one is only another million to march off to the gulags after having zero impact.


As we have seen in both Georgia and Ukraine the Russian military is a slow beast with bad command and control (half the Russian aircraft shot down in Georgia were by other Russians) and 75% of the military is made up of 1 year conscripts. That is one green military. They have been using their professional troops in Ukraine but, they need them elsewhere to respond to threats to Russia and Ukraine is wrecking their combat readiness. So no worries of great Russian pincers rolling across the land. In particular since they would lose air support pretty quickly to Western air forces. Any Russian advance would be pretty short and then would have to dig in.

And you need a 3 to 1 advantage to go on the offensive, Russia (770,000 active troops) with all reserves called out has only 3 million men. Now that 1 million extra you have to deal with becomes a huge problem since NATO already has over 3.5 million active troops and another 4.3 million in reserve. So Russia already has a huge manpower problem, not to mention the same problem in the air and on the sea. Not mention Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Azerbaijan all waiting to take advantage of Russia's being engaged. The days of the old Soviet steam roller are long dead.


That is assuming NATO would be able to react at all, or in time, or the US would not stand down by a leader like Obama.
The other day he sent out the message he wants the US Marines to get transported by foreign powers, talk about a cluster* of impeachable negligence. If Obama wavered at the critical moment, NATO would be screwed.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   
yawn.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: MrSpad




At least it was until Russia started screwing with it. Just like Finland Russia thinks threats will get these non NATO states to bow to Russia's wishes but, all it has done is drive two states that were neutral through the Cold War, and for Sweden much longer, and drive them into NATO arms.


And this is interesting...


Putin pointed out that there will be consequences, that Russia will have to resort to a response of a military kind and reorientate our troops and missiles. The country that joins NATO needs to be aware of the risks it is exposing itself to,” Tatarintsev told Dagens Nyheter. However, such a response would not take the immediate form of an attack, since "Sweden is not a target for our armed troops," Tatarintsev added.


www.ibtimes.com...

I find it amazing that Putin has the balls to threaten military action because Sweden is discussing joining NATO. If Sweden was on the fence that statement alone would push them closer to NATO than they ever were before.


Putin seems to have no understanding of anything outside of Russia. NATO already has 28 members plus 5 more Georgia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo who wall are trying to join. Why would he want to add Finland and Sweden who were happy to sit on the side lines to his long list of enemies. Threats work in Russia because people fear Putin, threats do not work outside of Russia because they do not fear Putin.


Maybe the Ruskies think they will dilute NATO and spread them thin in the short term with so many new nations clamoring for protection. They are about to make more aggressive land grabs. He already got a free land grab in Crimea and basically half of Ukraine is his for the taking.


Well in the cases of most of these states Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro they are safely surrounded by NATO states and although none of the bring much to the table military wise they also would not require any protection from NATO itself.

With Sweden and Finland we are not talking about to two small weak states. They may not be great powers but, certainly bring something to the NATO table. Both have modern forces and both can call out a good amount of reserves. That is another million men for Russia to worry about when they are already out numbered by a great deal. Plus NATO using Swedish and Finnish naval and air bases just makes things worse for Russia not to mention that Finnish border that would now become a real danger to Russia if the Fins were joined by Swedish and Nord forced plus some US Marines.

Russia's strategic positioned is only weakened and NATOs only made stronger by the addition of those two states. I think Putin looks at Finland and Sweden as weak nations who's people live the good lives and that they would just role over to Russian threats and so whatever Russia tells them to. This is a mistake often made when dealing with the West. Just because our lives are good it is assumed we are soft. When the truth is, war is where the West truly excels.



True, but a million reserves that are bottled up in pincers on day one is only another million to march off to the gulags after having zero impact.


As we have seen in both Georgia and Ukraine the Russian military is a slow beast with bad command and control (half the Russian aircraft shot down in Georgia were by other Russians) and 75% of the military is made up of 1 year conscripts. That is one green military. They have been using their professional troops in Ukraine but, they need them elsewhere to respond to threats to Russia and Ukraine is wrecking their combat readiness. So no worries of great Russian pincers rolling across the land. In particular since they would lose air support pretty quickly to Western air forces. Any Russian advance would be pretty short and then would have to dig in.

And you need a 3 to 1 advantage to go on the offensive, Russia (770,000 active troops) with all reserves called out has only 3 million men. Now that 1 million extra you have to deal with becomes a huge problem since NATO already has over 3.5 million active troops and another 4.3 million in reserve. So Russia already has a huge manpower problem, not to mention the same problem in the air and on the sea. Not mention Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Azerbaijan all waiting to take advantage of Russia's being engaged. The days of the old Soviet steam roller are long dead.


That is assuming NATO would be able to react at all, or in time, or the US would not stand down by a leader like Obama.
The other day he sent out the message he wants the US Marines to get transported by foreign powers, talk about a cluster* of impeachable negligence. If Obama wavered at the critical moment, NATO would be screwed.


Oh boy, you got some bad bad information going on. Would this be the same Obama who has put pre pro equipment i the region, is supporting the new NATO reaction force, who is keeping US forces in the Baltic states and Poland non stop, who has made it clear an attack on any NATO member is an attack on the United States.

And no Obama has not sent a message he wants US Marines to get transported by foreign warships. The Marines have a program they are experimenting with to take Marine from their land bases in NATO and place them on NATO amphibious ships that stay in the region. Otherwise they depend on Ospreys or whatever US Naval assets that are in the region. It is something they have been toying with for years but, with the Marines in ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan their maritime mission was overlooked. It is called the Allied Maritime Basing Initiative. It is in its proof of concept phase. So nobody is sure if it works, if it would replace the land based Marine units or simply augment them. They are also testing a Afloat Forward Staging Base as another idea.

I think it is best to keep politics out of things like this and simply look at the facts as they are. Those facts show an Obama who is aggressively placing the US in the thick of things if a NATO member is attacked.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: MrSpad




At least it was until Russia started screwing with it. Just like Finland Russia thinks threats will get these non NATO states to bow to Russia's wishes but, all it has done is drive two states that were neutral through the Cold War, and for Sweden much longer, and drive them into NATO arms.


And this is interesting...


Putin pointed out that there will be consequences, that Russia will have to resort to a response of a military kind and reorientate our troops and missiles. The country that joins NATO needs to be aware of the risks it is exposing itself to,” Tatarintsev told Dagens Nyheter. However, such a response would not take the immediate form of an attack, since "Sweden is not a target for our armed troops," Tatarintsev added.


www.ibtimes.com...

I find it amazing that Putin has the balls to threaten military action because Sweden is discussing joining NATO. If Sweden was on the fence that statement alone would push them closer to NATO than they ever were before.


Putin seems to have no understanding of anything outside of Russia. NATO already has 28 members plus 5 more Georgia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo who wall are trying to join. Why would he want to add Finland and Sweden who were happy to sit on the side lines to his long list of enemies. Threats work in Russia because people fear Putin, threats do not work outside of Russia because they do not fear Putin.


Maybe the Ruskies think they will dilute NATO and spread them thin in the short term with so many new nations clamoring for protection. They are about to make more aggressive land grabs. He already got a free land grab in Crimea and basically half of Ukraine is his for the taking.


Well in the cases of most of these states Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro they are safely surrounded by NATO states and although none of the bring much to the table military wise they also would not require any protection from NATO itself.

With Sweden and Finland we are not talking about to two small weak states. They may not be great powers but, certainly bring something to the NATO table. Both have modern forces and both can call out a good amount of reserves. That is another million men for Russia to worry about when they are already out numbered by a great deal. Plus NATO using Swedish and Finnish naval and air bases just makes things worse for Russia not to mention that Finnish border that would now become a real danger to Russia if the Fins were joined by Swedish and Nord forced plus some US Marines.

Russia's strategic positioned is only weakened and NATOs only made stronger by the addition of those two states. I think Putin looks at Finland and Sweden as weak nations who's people live the good lives and that they would just role over to Russian threats and so whatever Russia tells them to. This is a mistake often made when dealing with the West. Just because our lives are good it is assumed we are soft. When the truth is, war is where the West truly excels.



True, but a million reserves that are bottled up in pincers on day one is only another million to march off to the gulags after having zero impact.


As we have seen in both Georgia and Ukraine the Russian military is a slow beast with bad command and control (half the Russian aircraft shot down in Georgia were by other Russians) and 75% of the military is made up of 1 year conscripts. That is one green military. They have been using their professional troops in Ukraine but, they need them elsewhere to respond to threats to Russia and Ukraine is wrecking their combat readiness. So no worries of great Russian pincers rolling across the land. In particular since they would lose air support pretty quickly to Western air forces. Any Russian advance would be pretty short and then would have to dig in.

And you need a 3 to 1 advantage to go on the offensive, Russia (770,000 active troops) with all reserves called out has only 3 million men. Now that 1 million extra you have to deal with becomes a huge problem since NATO already has over 3.5 million active troops and another 4.3 million in reserve. So Russia already has a huge manpower problem, not to mention the same problem in the air and on the sea. Not mention Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Azerbaijan all waiting to take advantage of Russia's being engaged. The days of the old Soviet steam roller are long dead.


That is assuming NATO would be able to react at all, or in time, or the US would not stand down by a leader like Obama.
The other day he sent out the message he wants the US Marines to get transported by foreign powers, talk about a cluster* of impeachable negligence. If Obama wavered at the critical moment, NATO would be screwed.


Oh boy, you got some bad bad information going on. Would this be the same Obama who has put pre pro equipment i the region, is supporting the new NATO reaction force, who is keeping US forces in the Baltic states and Poland non stop, who has made it clear an attack on any NATO member is an attack on the United States.

And no Obama has not sent a message he wants US Marines to get transported by foreign warships. The Marines have a program they are experimenting with to take Marine from their land bases in NATO and place them on NATO amphibious ships that stay in the region. Otherwise they depend on Ospreys or whatever US Naval assets that are in the region. It is something they have been toying with for years but, with the Marines in ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan their maritime mission was overlooked. It is called the Allied Maritime Basing Initiative. It is in its proof of concept phase. So nobody is sure if it works, if it would replace the land based Marine units or simply augment them. They are also testing a Afloat Forward Staging Base as another idea.

I think it is best to keep politics out of things like this and simply look at the facts as they are. Those facts show an Obama who is aggressively placing the US in the thick of things if a NATO member is attacked.



He may be following advice and taking the bare minimum steps NATO requires, but ultimately it is up to him to go to war or not. I will say his track record is to engage as little as possible, just look at the Middle East.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   


He may be following advice and taking the bare minimum steps NATO requires, but ultimately it is up to him to go to war or not. I will say his track record is to engage as little as possible, just look at the Middle East.



You mean this track record: The drone war, the raid to get Bin Laden, several raids into Syria, the air campaign against ISIL, the air war in Libya, raids into to Libya, air, drone and special forces strikes in Somalia, raids and airstrikes in Yemen, sending the fleet to scare away Iran in support of the Arab League, the US forces supporting AU forces hunting Boko Haram, US special forces sent to help fininsh off the LRA, US forces sent to support the French operations in Mali, when Germany and other NATO states wanted to take things slow Obama flooded the NATO border states with US forces, When China said nobody was allowed to patrol the South China Sea but China he sent the Navy in to patrol where China then said they were misunderstood than the US was welcome to patrol but, nobody else was. And when Russia took a part of Ukraine he could have followed Clinton and Bush Jr. lead, looking the other way when Russia grabbing part of Georgia and Moldova, and yet he did not. Obama's record is one of non stop intervention. If the guy was not planning on defending NATO he would not have put tripwire forces in the Baltic states. If Russia did not think he would intervene they would have moved on those states already.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Update:
There has been two (officially) "flair popping" incidents, in August and September of last year.

in one of these incidents, it was an russian AM26 (top pic) that were 50 meters (164 feet) from one of our JAS 39 Gripen and the flairs "nearly" bounced off the canopy.

2nd pic is an SU27 doing a little "show and tell" near Gotland.






new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join