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.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
The US Navy's ASW capability is just fine.
Originally posted by chinawhite
Originally posted by rogue1
Oh and what interpretation is that ?
"could well have escalated into something that was very unforeseen"
Use Dictionary.com
LOL, the US NAvy never shot down any soviet aircraft or sunk any Soviet Naval vessels even though they were detected within attack range many times during the Cold War.
Yes, they have they actively engaged all of them when they were first detected. Ask how much Tu-95 pilots were forced to turn around. OR do you suggest that the carrier lets ALL craft go past them at will because its "peacetime"?
Originally posted by chinawhite
Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, the US NAvy never shot down any soviet aircraft or sunk any Soviet Naval vessels even though they were detected within attack range many times during the Cold War.
Yes, they have they actively engaged all of them when they were first detected. Ask how much Tu-95 pilots were forced to turn around. OR do you suggest that the carrier lets ALL craft go past them at will because its "peacetime"?
Another one where the use of the rules of engament
en.wikipedia.org...
There is an example of the US doing something which happened in the cold war. Depth charges and such
Originally posted by darksided
haha. Ya I guess rogue1 forgot about the Soviet Victor class submarine the USS Kitty Hawk rammed into in 1984. Come on rogue1, the same carrier had a similar situation 21 years ago.
Originally posted by rogue1
Originally posted by darksided
haha. Ya I guess rogue1 forgot about the Soviet Victor class submarine the USS Kitty Hawk rammed into in 1984. Come on rogue1, the same carrier had a similar situation 21 years ago.
Erm, it was an accident, there were no weapons fired. The sub wasn't attacked by the US Navy, you do know the difference ?
Originally posted by darksided
Originally posted by rogue1
Originally posted by darksided
haha. Ya I guess rogue1 forgot about the Soviet Victor class submarine the USS Kitty Hawk rammed into in 1984. Come on rogue1, the same carrier had a similar situation 21 years ago.
Erm, it was an accident, there were no weapons fired. The sub wasn't attacked by the US Navy, you do know the difference ?
I know several sailors that were there, and trust me, it was no drill.
Originally posted by rogue1
Erm, you often take things out of context. Are you saying that there is a state of war in the Pacific with CHina and that all CHinese vessels approaching US naval ships should be considered hostile and sunk?
BTW, any links to the US actually depth charging Russian submarines ?
Previously classified Cuban missile crisis documents, released by the National Security Archive of Washington at an October conference commemorating the 40th anniversary of the near tragedy reveal that the world came closer to nuclear war than anyone had previously thought.
The conference also included the account of U.S. naval officer John Peterson, whose submarine was dropping depth charges on the Soviet submarine B-59.
The recently declassified documents reveal that the B-59 and the four other Soviet submarines stationed at the quarantine line were carrying nuclear-tipped torpedoes.
The U.S. Navy was unaware these submarines were carrying nuclear weapons, and the depth charges exploded right next to the hull of the subs.
In response to the U.S. attacks, the crew of the Soviet submarine considered using its nuclear weapon, but instead decided to surface.
As for the Bear and Badger reconnaissance sorties, NONE were ever shot down by the US Navy.
Furthermore, you didn't see the US shoot down the Russian SU-24 and SU-27's Fencers which over flew the Kittyhawk in the Sea of Japan
Witnesses said Myers immediately ordered the launch of alert fighters, but the ship's scheduled fighter squadron was on "Alert-30" status -- a minimum launch time of 30 minutes where pilots are "in the ready room" but are not sitting in cockpits waiting to be launched.
Bacon told reporters only that there "may have been a slight delay" in getting the interceptors in the air, explaining that because the Kitty Hawk was taking on fuel, it was not sailing fast enough to launch its aircraft.
Before the Kitty Hawk could get a single plane airborne, the Russian fighters made two more passes. Worse, witnesses said, the first plane off the deck was an EA-6B Prowler -- a plane used primarily for electronic jamming of an enemy's radar and air defenses, not a fighter capable of intercepting another warplane.
Originally posted by chinawhite
Yes, they have they actively engaged all of them when they were first detected. Ask how much Tu-95 pilots were forced to turn around. OR do you suggest that the carrier lets ALL craft go past them at will because its "peacetime"?
Another one where the use of the rules of engament
en.wikipedia.org...
There is an example of the US doing something which happened in the cold war. Depth charges and such
Originally posted by chinawhite
If it didn't divert course then depth charges would be dropped in its general location. Then if it didn't stop after that it would be sunk.
Like the case of the Iranian airliner. Because it wasn't detected eariler, none of this happened and when it was first spotted was heading away from the carrier so it wasn't engaged
BTW, any links to the US actually depth charging Russian submarines ?
Previously classified Cuban missile crisis documents, released by the National Security Archive of Washington at an October conference commemorating the 40th anniversary of the near tragedy reveal that the world came closer to nuclear war than anyone had previously thought.
The conference also included the account of U.S. naval officer John Peterson, whose submarine was dropping depth charges on the Soviet submarine B-59.
The recently declassified documents reveal that the B-59 and the four other Soviet submarines stationed at the quarantine line were carrying nuclear-tipped torpedoes.
The U.S. Navy was unaware these submarines were carrying nuclear weapons, and the depth charges exploded right next to the hull of the subs.
In response to the U.S. attacks, the crew of the Soviet submarine considered using its nuclear weapon, but instead decided to surface.
As for the Bear and Badger reconnaissance sorties, NONE were ever shot down by the US Navy.
Because all of them were escorted by aircraft and never managed to get within 5 kilometers of an important target. These were detected a very long away and had been followed and engaged in the apporite manner. The soviet pilots were daring, but not that daring in a massive bomber
Furthermore, you didn't see the US shoot down the Russian SU-24 and SU-27's Fencers which over flew the Kittyhawk in the Sea of Japan
They didn't shoot or engage it down because they didn't want to or they couldn't?
Witnesses said Myers immediately ordered the launch of alert fighters, but the ship's scheduled fighter squadron was on "Alert-30" status -- a minimum launch time of 30 minutes where pilots are "in the ready room" but are not sitting in cockpits waiting to be launched.
Bacon told reporters only that there "may have been a slight delay" in getting the interceptors in the air, explaining that because the Kitty Hawk was taking on fuel, it was not sailing fast enough to launch its aircraft.
Before the Kitty Hawk could get a single plane airborne, the Russian fighters made two more passes. Worse, witnesses said, the first plane off the deck was an EA-6B Prowler -- a plane used primarily for electronic jamming of an enemy's radar and air defenses, not a fighter capable of intercepting another warplane.
Moscow, however, considers the incident much more serious, if not a "victory" of sorts, considering Russian aircrews have not overflown a U.S. carrier in three decades.
www.worldnetdaily.com...
Originally posted by JIMC5499
Yes I know about the Bear pilots. I know about the US planes that tucked in near their bomb bays just in case they tried to open their doors. Been there done that and got the t-shirt.
Originally posted by rogue1
It would be sunk, is this current US Navy doctrine ? PLease post a link.
Very bif difference from being in a war zone
Obviously they weren't viewed as a threat and were not engaged.
The SU-24's and Su-27's clearly were a potential threat and were spotted before they overflew the carrier
The US Carrier was escorted by SAM carrying ships which could have easily shot down the planes.
Originally posted by chinawhite
Originally posted by rogue1
It would be sunk, is this current US Navy doctrine ? PLease post a link.
Thats just a stupid question and wasn't my argument.
Out of contrast, the US was in peacetime and the war zone could have included the whole Middle east area because they were all effected. Because they were under peace time conditions in a potentional warzone does not permit them to act any differently or if you suggest otherwises, Please post a link
On April 14 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine. U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter crashed with no apparent combat damage, killing the two pilots.
In the course of these escorts by the U.S. Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3 1988. The American government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack. The Iranians, however, maintain that the Vincennes was in fact in Iranian territorial waters, and that the Iranian passenger jet was turning away and increasing altitude after take-off. U.S. Admiral William J. Crowe also admitted on Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles. . The U.S. eventually paid compensation for the incident but never apologised.
According to the investigation done by Ted Koppel, during the war, U.S. navy used to set decoys inside the Persian Gulf to lure out the Iranian gunboats and destroy them, and at the time USS Vincennes shot down the Iranian airline, it was performing such an operation.
www.reference.com...
While deployed to the Arabian Gulf, the USS STARK is hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles but only one of them detonates. Both missiles were accidentally fired by an Iraqi F-1 Mirage aircraft, killing 37 sailors and wounding 21 others. The pilot later claims that he had mistaken the STARK for an Iranian oil tanker.
navysite.de...
Obviously they weren't viewed as a threat and were not engaged.
If they weren't viewed as a threat, they never would have been intercepted. Give me a link to suggest they weren't treated as a threat with AS-4/6 and were treated in the same way as a average recon flight by the bear.
Bears with stragic cruise missiles were definately not allowed to practise their bombing runs againest the american coast.
The SU-24's and Su-27's clearly were a potential threat and were spotted before they overflew the carrier
And nothing could have been done about it since those carriers had no aircraft able to deploy when they were spotted and after they did three passes over the carrier. When aircraft were deploy only then were they intercepted
The US Carrier was escorted by SAM carrying ships which could have easily shot down the planes.
And can you please give details of these ships, i know its a normally guarded and such, but it was re-fueling. I would like edvidence that there was destroyers on patrol around the carrier
Originally posted by rogue1
You said they would have sunk it,
They weren't under peacetime conditions in the gulf
They did cruise down both East and West coasts of America, sure they were intercepted. But, they were never shot down.
The Navy aircraft were operating from the aircraft carrier U.S. S. John F. Kennedy, which was conducting routine operations in the Mediterranean Sea as part of the U.S. 6th Fleet.
The Libyan aircraft approached the U.S. Navy aircraft in a hostile manner over international waters, and the Navy aircraft, acting in self-defense, fired airto-air missiles, downing both Libyan aircraft.
NOt to mention Soviet aircraft overflew carriers in the 1970's and were never shot down
They could have been shot down by any of the SAM carrying escorts, especially as they were spottd well before they overflew the carrier.
Originally posted by darksided
I know several sailors that were there, and trust me, it was no drill.
Originally posted by chinawhite
You are taking that statement out of context, I said if it was detected it would have been sunk, which translate into the notion that if the submarine was detected "much" eariler approaching the US carrier it would have been engaged by other methods before it gets within the danger limit of a possible strike.p
I would like a link that says the US would allow a submarine or any other craft to approach the carrier and make it within 5miles and not be sunk
Show me the rules of engagement difference between a ship on escort duties and a ship doing a patrol in the pacific
The bears never were a threat when flying on the american coast, they would have been intercepted before they came within the useful range of their missiles and these flights had almost become routine throughout the cold war.
Now here is another case in which a THREAT was being engaged
The Navy aircraft were operating from the aircraft carrier U.S. S. John F. Kennedy, which was conducting routine operations in the Mediterranean Sea as part of the U.S. 6th Fleet.
The Libyan aircraft approached the U.S. Navy aircraft in a hostile manner over international waters, and the Navy aircraft, acting in self-defense, fired airto-air missiles, downing both Libyan aircraft.
Rules of engagement worked in here, they were spotted and engaged, when they refused to stop they were shot down. Now imagine a Bear trying to make a simulated cruise missile launch, they would have been shot down in a instant
On the morning of the 19th, two VF-41 Black Aces F-14As, Fast Eagle 102 (CDR "Hank" Kleeman/LT D. Venlet) and Fast Eagle 107 (LT "Music" Muczynski/LTJG "Amos" Anderson), were flying combat air patrol to cover aircraft engaged in a missile exercise. An E-2A Hawkeye gained radar contact with two Fitters which had left Okba Ben Nafi Air Base near Tripoli. The Fitters were heading towards the Tomcats and the lead Fitter fired an AA-2 Atoll short range heat seeking missile at the Tomcats. The Tomcats evaded and were cleared to return fire.
www.answers.com...
Unless you come up with the situation they were in when they overflew an american carrier in the 1960's there is no point trying to quote one little line a worldnetdaily article is telling you. I'm sure those Libyan aircraft didn't mind
They could have been shot down by any of the SAM carrying escorts, especially as they were spottd well before they overflew the carrier.
They were claimed to have been spotted a long way away, take time to think when the russian aircraft arrived and when the "immediate" orders of "alert fighters" and how un-threatening the situation was. They might have saw the russians aircraft at altitude, but then they made a dive and was skimming the water which is nearly impossible to detect without look-down radar because radar waves cannot curve.
Originally posted by rogue1
You made the statement you prove it.
I think when you can distinguish between a war zone and a peaceful area, you may be able to work out the difference by yourself.
4 July 1989 A Soviet MiG-23 Flogger, piloted by Colonel Skurigin, took off from an airbase near Kolobzreg on the coast of the Baltic Sea in Poland, on a training flight. After take-off the pilot realized he was losing engine power. The pilot ejected and landed safely by parachute. The engine then regained power and the aircraft flew away to the West, guided by the autopilot. The fighter left the airspace of the East Germany and entered West German airspace where it was intercepted by a pair of USAF F-15s. The F-15s were denied permission to fire on the MiG and had to let it fly away. Eventually, after flying 900 km, the MiG-23 ran out of fuel and crashed into a house near Kortrijk, Belgium. An 18-year old man in the house was killed.
Actually they were well withing useful range of their cruise missiles to attack US coastal targets
You either cannot read or purposely left out the most relevant information. The Libyan planes fired on the F-14's first
The Floggers accelerated and continued to approach. At six miles (11 km) range the Tomcats split and the Floggers followed the wingman while the lead Tomcat circled to get a tail angle on them. The wingman engaged with a Sparrow and downed one of the Libyan aircraft. One of the US pilots broadcast "Good kill! Good kill!" The lead Tomcat closed on the final Flogger and at 1.5 miles (2.8 km) fired a Sidewinder, which again hit its target. One crewman broadcast "Good kill!" and "Let's get out of here." The Libyan pilots were seen to successfully eject and parachute into the sea, but the Libyan Air Force was unable to recover them. The Tomcats then proceeded north to return to the
I'm sure they did overfly carriers n the 1960's. Why are the 1960's so important to you ?
As for being able to be detected, they can be spotted above the water easily, out to the radar horizon. ow being that the escort ships are spread out around the carrier, the SU-24's would have been spotted well past this as well.