First sign your losing a argument is when you restort to personal attacks
- Gawd, are you stupid ?
- I feel like I'm talking to an idiot
I see you dropped and did not pick up your argument about the Su-27 being allowed to fly over the US carrier when you realised I was questioning you
for a source. When you quote me, can you make sure you put my words around the quote button
Originally posted by rogue1
No it is your interpretation and using a dictionary is not going to tell me anything LOL.
Its clear to anyone what "escalated into something that was very unforeseen" meant. it meant the chinese sunk being sunk. They are the comments from
the US admiral about the reports that the chinese submarine
very unforeseen means a sudden unexpected development. Unless your going to say the chinese submarine surfaces and the crew does a dance, there is
only one meaning when he combinded that with "But if they had been, and this Chinese submarine happened to come in the middle of this" means that
they would have sunk the submarine as part of their exercises or treated that as a threat. If a chinese submarine has penerated the carrier battle
grouops inner layer, they would have been attacked as stated by this comment about American battle group tactics
"If a submarine is detected after it penetrates to the inner screen the issue is getting weapons in the water, even if they are not accurately
targeted. All and any efforts to distract the submarine from attacking the HVUs are made. Torpedo evasion maneuvers are also necessary." Which means
a alert will be issued and all avaible weapons will be francitly thrown in the water. This is what Mr Fallon was meaning about the alert posture of
the carrier group if the submarine was detected
Not in international peaceful waters. Sorry but you are wrong. US carriers have been overflown many times
Overflown means an aircraft, which you have yet to present some edvidence for. We are talking about a submarine underneath the aircraft carrier. You
have made these statements yet you have absolutly no edvidence to suggest otherwise. You said the that the US carrier won't engage craft approching
US aircraft carriers have been flown around when the civillan aircraft was given permission to be flown around, and when they were flown near the
carrier they wont flown over the top of the carrier. The difference between that and a situation where a submarine is ignoring warnings and has been
fired upon and refuses to stop, just like the situation of the MiG-23. This just shows the rules of engagement, the Libyan aircraft did not fire on
shot but refused to abide by the US aircraft and were shot down
- Libyan jets spotted.
- Libyan jets approach carriers direction (contact initiated).
- Libyan jets continue to approach, F-14s begin intercept.
- Libyan jets continue their approach and comes within threatening distance.
- After warnings are dismissed, US jets are cleared for kill.
- Submarine jets spotted.
- Submarine approach carriers direction (contact initiated).
- Submarine continue to approach, Pinging begins.
- Submarine continues its approach and depth charges begin to be thrown.
- Submarine continues its approach and is sunk because the aircraft carrier already has a 200km "no fly" perimiter around it. (*note - no fly
indicates no un-authorised entry).
You mentioned something about a previous incident 8 years ago and somehow set a "precident" for future engagements. That is pure non-sense, the
rules of engagement doesn't take into account previous incidents and focuses on the threat leeel at that situation. They dont treat different
countries aircraft differently, so they'll attack chinese aircraft because they were fired upon in the Korean war or vietnamese aircraft?. These are
basic rules of engagement rules to abide by
Chinese and american armed forces aren't exactly friendly over the past decade and have/still are hostile because of a few incidents over that past
You still do not understand the difference oh well.
Its not about understanding anything, i dont believe you is closer to the truth. So you make statemetns like "its a warzone, dont you get it" does
not consitute edvidence nor does that make it anymore believable if you put it that way. If you want to prove something, you should actually provide a
source to state the difference between the two. Using a statement like "its a warzone, dont you get it" is not going to work.
I would the difference between the rules of engagement between a carrier on a routine military exercises and a naval vessel on a escort mission. I
already know they were under orders not to fire until they are fired upon which caused the USS stark to be fired upon. Thats just one point i was
going to make about their so called "warzone" metality you have. They wont there to engage other craft and were there for esort and protection
duties which is much different from actually partaking in a warzone like a war in europe where naval crews and captains ahve free reign on their
Erm, looks like you've tied yourself into knots. unpiloted planes fon't often land by themselves
How did i tie myself in knots?. I said that rather than shooting it down and expoding the aircraft, they would have let the aircraft fly and run out
of petrol so it would hopefully land safety. I dont know what you are trying to imply by that accusation
"Because it was un-piloted and more probaly hoping it landed safety so they could examine the fighter
. If overflew german airspace and wasn't
shot down because it was not considered a threat. If a Soviet plane did enter and was piloted and then engaged and still continued its course, it
would have ended the same way as the Libyan fighters .What my point is, they were prepared to shoot down a fighter after they engaged in the rules of
engagment. Your notion that no fighter was ever shot down has been disproved with the MiG-23 incident."
And it does give a prime example of rules of engagement, the fighter was not a threat and wasn't dealt with as a threat. They saw there was no pilot
inside and were giving overriding commands by head quarters not to shoot it down.
the US military didn't know if the Russian bombers were carryin weapons or not and as for a simulated attack run it would look no different
from any approach of Soviet aircraft to teh US caostline.
You can actually observe what variant was being flown and how many bombers were being flown at the same time. As i said before, the Bears would have
to be escorted away when they reached the ADIZ (thats if they ever reached it). I know of the Bears attempts to go to the West coast of America
through their pacific bases and were intercepted BEFORE they even reached the west coast. They were noramlly intercepted near Iceland and Alaska
before they had the chance to come near the east coast. They also made trips down to cuba but these were monitored and did not come within range of
the US coast
The Bombers did not make simulated attacks runs 200km and you are taking simulated attack runs to closely, they were flights to probe the American
defense and to know their alert status which meant them making the flight to Alaska and making a quick break to see how fast they get inertcepted.
To know the difference between one Tu-95 coming towards America and one armed with nuclear weapons is much different, if they made threatening
manuvers or tried to break away or open their bomb bays, they would have been shot at. But because they did not pose a threat, they were not dealth
with. Again, this was at a different era from the one we are living in now. Flights by Tu-95 in the 80's were quite routine and tracked by the US.
Fighters would be agressively manuvering over the Bears and would have had them on radar lock. The bears never made a threatening approach and were
dealth with as if they did make one. The rules of engagement in the Cold war was set very clearly so incidents like this couldn't have happened. If
you want to try and make a point about the bears making a simulated attack and being threatening you can reference something to prove your point
instead of using this approach and trying to attack me into believing what you stated
You see it has set a precedent, the Mig-23's were engaging in the same tpye of provocation
Rules of engagement state, that you are only allow to engage when engaged. Like i have said before in this thread, it doesn't matter and does not
take into account past incidents when you consider the ruels of engagment. All that matters is a case by case situation. China did fire on US aircraft
in the Korean war. Would they be treated differently because of this mentality?. How about the vietnamese airforce, do people make them down as shoot
The Su-17 engaged in actual combat which lead to their downing. The MiG-23 did not and where there for a interception. they did not aim their missiles
or target them at the F-14. This is clearly different situation from one which happened eight years beforehand. Dont try to divert this with "set the
precident" for a future incident because thats has no backing at all. Like i have been saying in this thread, the RoE are set rules for case by case
situation and does not factor in a past engagement between the forces a few years ago. And please dont associated this with some sort of make Libya
look bad campaign because we are talking about a engagement between the fighters and not why they were there. Why were they attack in a non-warzone
like you have claimed was the only area they would have been attacked. The rules of engagement stipulate quite clearly that you may only attack when
you have been attacked and the MiG-23 were making intercept manuvers and did not pose an apparant threat to the American fighters and