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.

 

Russian jets speed past US Navy destroyer in 'simulated attack profile

page: 9
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Quantum12

If they actually launched, unless CIWS hit them, the launch aircraft are an after thought. Kill the inbounds first, then worry about them. Once they shoot they're no longer a threat.


Not unless the didn't unload all of the ordinance at once ...which wouldn't make tactical sense ...




posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Johnrat

Training with our allies in international waters.


LMAO----!

Hmmmmmm...



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: jtrenthacker
Oh, oops... did we leave that on?


Exactly....

My point-!




posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Komodo
Worked with a guy at world Corp which served on a US Crusier with an ACS...he said "let no one kid you, it is highly unlikely a fleet will be "surprised" by missle or craft at no less than 10-15miles ...or more with an ACS"

So, what's the media trying to pull here??? Or is it the media?

The videos, photos and report originated from United States European Command. They released them presumably because they believe it serves U.S. national interests to do so.

As best I can determine, Russia has not disputed the position of the Donald Cook or claimed it to be anywhere other than where publicly reported, which would be in the Baltic Sea approximately 70 miles off the coast of Kaliningrad.

There is no indication that the USS Donald Cook was unaware of the aircraft before their approach. As an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer equipped with an AN/SPY-1D radar, it is likely the Donald Cook tracked the aircraft from takeoff to landing.

Flybys are common and expected when operating near national borders. I think the only real surprise here was how close some of the approaches were, how many of them were executed (reportedly 31 passes total by the SU-24s), and that Russia has apparently decided to violate articles I and II of the Agreement Between The United States of America and The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Nuclear War.

If they want to nullify that treaty in exchange for some Top Gun action, they can go ahead, but I don't think that benefits anyone, least of all Russia.




Edit to add: One little tidbit that adds some flavor to the sauce can be found on the Donald Cook's wikipedia page:


On 12 November 2009, the Missile Defense Agency announced that Donald Cook would be upgraded during fiscal 2012 to RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) capability in order to function as part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.

Wherever the Donald Cook goes, ballistic missile interceptors go with it. This is no doubt an important aspect of its mission (and that of the dozens of other ships so equipped), and that no doubt vexes Russia, which may also be part of its mission.


edit on 4/16/2016 by Majic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:45 AM
link   
The question I would ask is what is US military vessel doing in Baltic Sea

Baltic Sea is defacto Russian

Like the Gulf of Mexico is US sphere

Any power going that close to another will have a "greeting" put up its pipe



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ChloeTTR



Baltic Sea is defacto Russian

Right.
How much Russian coastline is on the Baltic?
How much NATO coastline is on the Baltic? Swedish? Finish?



edit on 4/16/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   

edit on 16/4/16 by Chadwickus because: Not worth it..



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

You've mistaken me with someone

I don't expect you to take me seriously at all




posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ChloeTTR

Nice rant.

The Baltic is not "defacto Russian."


(post by ChloeTTR removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
I smell B.S here I'm afraid.

If the Russian jets were simulating an attack, why did the Cook not fire upon them? If the Russians came as close as being claimed and the Cook was on alert, they should have shot at the Russians, how did they guess it was only a simulation?

If the Russians had conducted a simulated attack, U.S.S Cook would have been within their rights to fire at them, unless they were in Russian waters, which they probably were.


I don't know if it's been mentioned here already, Zaphod mentioned it briefly, but the first encounter the Donald Cook had with Russian aircraft was I think less than a year ago, in the Black Sea.

In that encounter it was reported that the Russians successfully jammed the electronics for the fire control system and/or radar system onboard the Donald Cook.

If that is true, it's likely they did it again on this pass, but I have not seen any reference to that.

Maybe the Cook did not fire because it could not fire?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   
We should have shot those planes down!

We are the USA! The most powerfully country on earth!

What we get for haveing that coward Obama in office!

TRUMP 2016!!!!



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
In that encounter it was reported that the Russians successfully jammed the electronics for the fire control system and/or radar system onboard the Donald Cook.


To be honest, that's an urban myth. No one except a few state owed Russian propaganda sites and other news re-cyclers ever made that claim. The fact that such a baseless report is now cited as fact, shows how effective the Russian propaganda machine is.
edit on 16/4/2016 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Perhaps, or perhaps it is true.

Russian propaganda is not nearly as offensive and deceptive as western propaganda. It is ironic to me, having been raised and schooled during the Cold War days with its strident anti-Russian spin, that all these decades later, the Russian government seems to be much more truthful than the Washington government. MH17 demonstrated that big time. Life is funny.

So if they really did spoof the Aegis system, maybe they did it again?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi


It was not a warning.

Lol, are you agreeing with the Russian announcement they were, "running an exercise and 'happened' to fly by" that low and fast?

US is testing Russian responses everywhere all the time in an ongoing program to analyze weaknesses.

They do it too.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Majic


As best I can determine, Russia has not disputed the position of the Donald Cook or claimed it to be anywhere other than where publicly reported, which would be in the Baltic Sea approximately 70 miles off the coast of Kaliningrad.

"70 miles" from the back of that bay. A little closer to the coast overall,

…according to this 'drawing'…


edit on 16-4-2016 by intrptr because: bbc code, change



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
MH17 demonstrated that big time. Life is funny.


You are of course pulling my leg, so yes, what a laugh. How I chuckled when I read your contribution.

The Russian MH17 story peddled by the state-run and controlled media machine changed several times, flip flopping in a masterfully orchestrated process of smoke-and-mirrors to compromise the truth that it was a Russian-made missile, fired from land controlled by Russian backed rebels, within which it was likely Russian forces were operating.

If you want a case study on why the Russian media is a tool of the Russian regime, and therefore unreliable, then MH17 is a good example.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

They didn't fire because they weren't threatened. The Russian aircraft didn't do anything to cause the Cook to fire on them.

As for the previous incident the Su-24 doesn't even carry the jamming system they claim was involved.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

The Khibiny EW system was designed for the Su-27. The Su-24 doesn't carry it, according to the company that makes it, and even if they do, it's a low power self defense system.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join