Plasma Stealth: Past & Present

Excellent researching all of u it really helped me understand more about plasma stealth.

“If you would like to see our Governments surveillance at it's finest, let me know. They slowly take position around nightfall, and after watching them for a few seconds, you know beyond any doubt. To the eye that just happens to look up, they are just another star in the sky. YOu have to be in position to watch them ascend to their positioning and the red light goes away. Thats when they are simply "stars" in the night sky.”

Hilarious. I (or anybody else) can observe this simple optical illusion every clear night.

I too had this misconception, until my friend proved me dead wrong with a telescope and SkyMap soft.

Great info on PS all around.

The only thing to ad is that the trick lies in developing portable high output, low power consumption generators, and Russians seemed to have achieved just that.

I would like to know what its possible power consumption verses output ratio is. So far we only know that the unit weighs only 220lb.

Iskander:Well you seem to have the military background to respect his rank if nothing else....

www.cheniere.org...

Will answer all your questions and all those you would have been coming up with over the next few years.

“Outside-the-Box” Technologies, Their Critical Role Concerning Environmental Trends, and the Unnecessary Energy Crisis

I suggest you start with the second as there is a great summary of his ideas and theories. His website goes into far too many directions for me to try summarize so it's best to stick to the portable energy "gates" ( and i say that for a reason)......

Stellar

govliescabal is Tom Bearden? Whose rank?

Great links though.

Originally posted by iskander
govliescabal is Tom Bearden? Whose rank?

Great links though.

Well funnily now that i think about ( and i am actually reading "Energy from the vacuum: Concepts and principles) he does not seem to be pointing fingers at the government but at the Science community instead. In my estimation he is going with the "incompetent/ignorent/badly advised" insted of the more obvious assumption that it is in every governments interest to keep people dependent by staying in full control of power distribution. I would accuse Bearden of disinformation tactions but his topic is just far too serious and his work so comprehensive that i do not see how the truth he reveals can be compensated for by any disinformation he might be able to spread...

Aynways!

Stellar

[edit on 9-12-2005 by StellarX]

US admits Russians photographed carrier.

This happened within a year ( and there was more than one incident) of the Russian claims that they had a functioning plasma stealth device. The first plane in the air to ward off the threat was a Prowler and only after the Russian planes made two flight-deck level passes.


ARE US AIRCRAFT CARRIERS EQUIPPED WITH AN ANTI-AIRCRAFT DEFENCE SYSTEM?

U.S. ship took 40 minutes to respond to order

Well those who are more familiar with navy operations might be able to tell me wether this is as normal as the Navy says it was.

Stellar

Depends on what you want to know about it.

Was that normal carrier operations? No. With the Cold War over, we don't keep a Hawkeye up 24/7, nor do we have a standing CAP at all times. The reason for that is when you're sailing into say...Yokohama, you can assume that the Japanese do not have their F-2s hiding under the horizon to throw some Harpoons your way.

Just like how you can sort of assume the Russians don't plan to send fighter-bombers overhead when you're just cruising by. Naval vessels are considered sovereign territory, therefore I would not be surprised if a formal diplomatic protest wasn't filed.

Buzzing a foreign naval ship is not wise, as it is a pretty good invitation to get shot down.

Originally posted by ORIEguy
Depends on what you want to know about it.
...Yokohama, you can assume that the Japanese do not have their F-2s hiding under the horizon to throw some Harpoons your way.

They were not sailing into a friendly harbour and was not that far off the Russian Coastline. If anyplace this was a good place to have your Cap on alert.

Just like how you can sort of assume the Russians don't plan to send fighter-bombers overhead when you're just cruising by.

That's how you lose aircraft carriers, battle's and entire wars.....

q[uote]Naval vessels are considered sovereign territory, therefore I would not be surprised if a formal diplomatic protest wasn't filed.

Non was. The fact that they did not want to talk about it tell's me there is more going on here than just lax American procedure. How could they not launch fighters to intercept and why was the first plane in the air not a fighter ?

Buzzing a foreign naval ship is not wise, as it is a pretty good invitation to get shot down.

Well apparently they made a couple of passes before the Carrier even launched planes so they would have been dead long before they lauched anything it seems.

Stellar

"They were not sailing into a friendly harbour and was not that far off the Russian Coastline. If anyplace this was a good place to have your Cap on alert."
No it's not. Frankly, we have no more reason to believe Russian forces will attack USN forces out of the blue than South Africans would.

"That's how you lose aircraft carriers, battle's and entire wars..... "
Yes, such assumptions would be foolhardy...in time of war. The Cold War was long over when this happened. In peacetime, that's called being a loaded gun. There are many good reasons NOT to maintain a 24/7 CAP when you can safely assume you won't be attacked.

"Non was. The fact that they did not want to talk about it tell's me there is more going on here than just lax American procedure. How could they not launch fighters to intercept and why was the first plane in the air not a fighter ?"
Who says the first one up was a Prowler beside Pravda? Or freerepublic? Reporters get it wrong when the US Navy Press Office is talking to them. In fact, a Hornet is much easier to launch.
If you're implying a EW plane went up to collect data on the Russian intruders, that's just plain silly. The Prowler is offensive EW, the proper plane in that case would have been an ES-3 Shadow, which looks nothing like a Prowler, and even then, at that range, the ESM on the battle group's ships would have collected FAR more information.
Just exactly what are you trying to imply? That the Russians have secretly managed to get plasma stealth working? If so, the idea that they'd be stupid enough to fly directly over a US battle group for the intel weenies onboard to gather all the pretty pictures and data readouts is preposterous. Not even the Russians are that dumb(joking).

"Well apparently they made a couple of passes before the Carrier even launched planes so they would have been dead long before they lauched anything it seems."
Not at all. That's why AEGIS and point defense systems exist. Unless you're saying the Russian planes would have been long dead, which is completely true. With the single turn of a key, the CO of any of the Kitty Hawk's escorts could have obliterated those fighters within seconds. At that range, the aircraft would have been ridiculously easy targets for the ship point defense systems.

Originally posted by ORIEguy
No it's not. Frankly, we have no more reason to believe Russian forces will attack USN forces out of the blue than South Africans would.

Then you are not very well informed imo. The Russians are to this day preparing for a full scale nuclear exchange and their lead has been growing since the 70's.

Yes, such assumptions would be foolhardy...in time of war. The Cold War was long over when this happened.

The cold war is only over if you want it to be over. What Russia is doing behind the scenes looks no different than preparing and fighting the same old cold war.

In peacetime, that's called being a loaded gun. There are many good reasons NOT to maintain a 24/7 CAP when you can safely assume you won't be attacked.

Well they must get the briefings so if their not on full alert so near the Russian coast they are badly informed and will suffer the consequences one day.

Who says the first one up was a Prowler beside Pravda? Or freerepublic? Reporters get it wrong when the US Navy Press Office is talking to them.

If you have sources that indicates anything else you can bring them but untill then it's clear your only objection is based on your own bias.

In fact, a Hornet is much easier to launch.

But a hornet was not launched so your just begging the question.

If you're implying a EW plane went up to collect data on the Russian intruders, that's just plain silly.

Well thanks for going for the insult over the fact. Fact is they launched a plane that could not do much beside what your suggesting as "silly".

The Prowler is offensive EW, the proper plane in that case would have been an ES-3 Shadow,

Then i guess they needed an offensive EW plane. Why assume they would launch it first for any other reason? Where the flight deck that much of a mess? Your bias is showing.

which looks nothing like a Prowler, and even then, at that range, the ESM on the battle group's ships would have collected FAR more information.

I am just telling you what the reports say and unless you can bring different takes on the same incident i suggest you do more than question the credibility. I am sure the ships could collect the information but we still have the plane in question taking off first. stick with the facts as we currently know them or introduce new one's.

Just exactly what are you trying to imply? That the Russians have secretly managed to get plasma stealth working?

I am asking for informed people ( Wich apparently rules you out) to explain to me what exactly happened here in logical fashion without just assuming and believing what they want. Your doing nothing of the sort.

If so, the idea that they'd be stupid enough to fly directly over a US battle group for the intel weenies onboard to gather all the pretty pictures and data readouts is preposterous. Not even the Russians are that dumb(joking).

It was not new planes( or at least airframes) and if the USN still needed data on those plane types it just begs more questions. Another swipe at the Russians for no apparent reason under the Sun.

Not at all. That's why AEGIS and point defense systems exist.

And? It would be nice if you could assume that i am not totally ignorent on matters relating to the subject in question.

Unless you're saying the Russian planes would have been long dead, which is completely true.

Wrong plane to launch to do that and if the fleet defense ships saw it coming they might have wanted to inform the carrier to luanch interceptors. Letting Russians overfly your CBG without at least some escorting fleet defense fighters will never look good on your record.

With the single turn of a key, the CO of any of the Kitty Hawk's escorts could have obliterated those fighters within seconds. At that range, the aircraft would have been ridiculously easy targets for the ship point defense systems.

Wich is blatently and boringly obvious to even a casual reader on this subject. If your just here to tell me things everyone here knows you may stop at any time. Fact is they were not escorted and they were not shot down wich under this circumstances would not have been in breach of all that many rules and regulations imo.

The confusion on the American flight deck and the launch of the plane in question is not what you expect to see when there was a 40 minute warning by fleet radars. Your free to call this whole incident a accident of sorts, wich is possible, but please do not make ten other unsupported assumptions to arrive at your opinion.

Stellar


[edit on 15-1-2006 by StellarX]

"quote: Originally posted by ORIEguy
No it's not. Frankly, we have no more reason to believe Russian forces will attack USN forces out of the blue than South Africans would.

Then you are not very well informed imo. The Russians are to this day preparing for a full scale nuclear exchange and their lead has been growing since the 70's."

You're an idiot. That's all I can say to that.

"quote: Yes, such assumptions would be foolhardy...in time of war. The Cold War was long over when this happened.

The cold war is only over if you want it to be over. What Russia is doing behind the scenes looks no different than preparing and fighting the same old cold war."

Again, you're an idiot.

"quote: In peacetime, that's called being a loaded gun. There are many good reasons NOT to maintain a 24/7 CAP when you can safely assume you won't be attacked.

Well they must get the briefings so if their not on full alert so near the Russian coast they are badly informed and will suffer the consequences one day."

Magic briefings. Hidden conspiracies. This how you get off?

"quote: Who says the first one up was a Prowler beside Pravda? Or freerepublic? Reporters get it wrong when the US Navy Press Office is talking to them.

If you have sources that indicates anything else you can bring them but untill then it's clear your only objection is based on your own bias."

Sources...umm personal knowledge based on experience, and long time association with USN personnel and clearly more knowledge of USN operations than you have. That's a source.

"quote: In fact, a Hornet is much easier to launch.

But a hornet was not launched so your just begging the question."

Umm...maybe there weren't any Hornets on the deck fueled at the time?

"quote: If you're implying a EW plane went up to collect data on the Russian intruders, that's just plain silly.

Well thanks for going for the insult over the fact. Fact is they launched a plane that could not do much beside what your suggesting as "silly"."

You're welcome.

"quote: The Prowler is offensive EW, the proper plane in that case would have been an ES-3 Shadow,

Then i guess they needed an offensive EW plane. Why assume they would launch it first for any other reason? Where the flight deck that much of a mess? Your bias is showing."

Offensive EW for what? Do you even know what offensive EW means? Do you understand why in that situation it would be utterly irrelevant? The only thing a Prowler would do in that situation is go up and give the Russians the bird. The Russians pilots, if they know what the CSF's defensive systems are, know they would easily have been blown away. They're just playing mind games and having fighter pilot fun.

"quote: which looks nothing like a Prowler, and even then, at that range, the ESM on the battle group's ships would have collected FAR more information.

I am just telling you what the reports say and unless you can bring different takes on the same incident i suggest you do more than question the credibility. I am sure the ships could collect the information but we still have the plane in question taking off first. stick with the facts as we currently know them or introduce new one's."

So you want a source? umm...I have to go...must write Wikipedia article. Prowlers don't have cameras. The only thing with recon packages are Super Hornets and Tomcats. Neither went up first. So again, it's obvious the Prowler went up to give them the finger. Those are FACTS. Facts meet Stellar, Stellar, meet facts. Learn from them.

"quote: Just exactly what are you trying to imply? That the Russians have secretly managed to get plasma stealth working?

I am asking for informed people ( Wich apparently rules you out) to explain to me what exactly happened here in logical fashion without just assuming and believing what they want. Your doing nothing of the sort."

So...you want people who have operational knowledge of USN procedures and enough engineering knowledge to know about plasma stealth's practical applications(of which currently there are none) to give you classified information on a public Web forum. Genius. If only intel gathering was that easy. We don't need the CIA or NSA. We need Stellar. I've got an immigration visa, please come here, we need you.

"quote: If so, the idea that they'd be stupid enough to fly directly over a US battle group for the intel weenies onboard to gather all the pretty pictures and data readouts is preposterous. Not even the Russians are that dumb(joking).

It was not new planes( or at least airframes) and if the USN still needed data on those plane types it just begs more questions. Another swipe at the Russians for no apparent reason under the Sun."

A swipe? It's a compliment. I'm saying they're NOT dumb enough to do that. Nobody is. NOT dumb. As in NOT stupid. As in NOT a bad thing. I thought you guys spoke the Queen's English down in S. Africa.

"quote: Not at all. That's why AEGIS and point defense systems exist.

And? It would be nice if you could assume that i am not totally ignorent on matters relating to the subject in question."

Umm, normally I start with the assumption that people know at least as much as I do on a discussion. Then, going by their responses, I modify that assumption. My assessment of you is only going down. Sorry.

"quote: Unless you're saying the Russian planes would have been long dead, which is completely true.

Wrong plane to launch to do that and if the fleet defense ships saw it coming they might have wanted to inform the carrier to luanch interceptors. Letting Russians overfly your CBG without at least some escorting fleet defense fighters will never look good on your record."

Again, Prowlers NOT necessary to do the shootdown at time of launch, SM-2s would've been basically point click bang you're dead at that range. Overflying CANNOT be interfered with in international waters. They can fly wherever they want and do whatever they want as long as they do no harm to others. Overflights are harmless, in case you didn't know. Therefore, if the battle group's tapes show that the battle group tracked it on radar(as the USN claims) then this is not an "incident." Furthermore, as the CO of the Kitty Hawk was NOT relieved after this incident as would happen if total ignorance was the case, there's no evidence that what you're suggesting/asking happened.

"quote: With the single turn of a key, the CO of any of the Kitty Hawk's escorts could have obliterated those fighters within seconds. At that range, the aircraft would have been ridiculously easy targets for the ship point defense systems.

Wich is blatently and boringly obvious to even a casual reader on this subject. If your just here to tell me things everyone here knows you may stop at any time. Fact is they were not escorted and they were not shot down wich under this circumstances would not have been in breach of all that many rules and regulations imo."

Apparently not obvious to you. So what's that make you? Here's something you DON'T know, Carriers are ALWAYS escorted...that's why they travel in BATTLE GROUPS.
And again, we can't shoot first...that's an act of war. Geez, and people accuse the US of a shoot first ask questions later attitude. Thank God you're not doing peacekeeping in Iraq or you'd probably shoot everything that looked at you wrong.

"The confusion on the American flight deck and the launch of the plane in question is not what you expect to see when there was a 40 minute warning by fleet radars. Your free to call this whole incident a accident of sorts, wich is possible, but please do not make ten other unsupported assumptions to arrive at your opinion."

Confusion? Were you even reading your OWN sources? If they were refueling the carrier(possible as Kitty Hawk is an old conventional) then the deck would be VERY confused, as there'd be sailors all over the deck involved in manning the lines.
And even during flight ops it looks "confused." You've obviously never seen naval flight ops.
And it actually does fit the profile...if refueling, no launch is possible, as the decks are FOD(look it up-I doubt you know this one)ed up like mad. Sailors can become FOD.

Originally posted by ORIEguy
"quote: Originally posted by ORIEguy
No it's not. Frankly, we have no more reason to believe Russian forces will attack USN forces out of the blue than South Africans would.

Then you are not very well informed imo. The Russians are to this day preparing for a full scale nuclear exchange and their lead has been growing since the 70's."

You're an idiot. That's all I can say to that.

ORIEguy


Please learn to quote correctly, it makes it very hard to follow your post and hard to figure out what you are saying as opposed to what you are quoting.

Don't take this as a personal attack, I think you are making some good points but like I said it is hard to follow your words as opposed to others being quoted.

Thanks

Yeah, sorry I can see how that gets confusing. I didn't realize anybody else cared though. And well, to be honest, I'm not really expecting rational arguments to sway Stellar anyway.

Any easy way to quote fragments of a post?

Or do I just have to write in the

script every time? I'm sorta lazy that way.

Originally posted by ORIEguy
Offensive EW for what? Do you even know what offensive EW means? Do you understand why in that situation it would be utterly irrelevant? The only thing a Prowler would do in that situation is go up and give the Russians the bird. The Russians pilots, if they know what the CSF's defensive systems are, know they would easily have been blown away. They're just playing mind games and having fighter pilot fun.

So you want a source? umm...I have to go...must write Wikipedia article. Prowlers don't have cameras. The only thing with recon packages are Super Hornets and Tomcats. Neither went up first. So again, it's obvious the Prowler went up to give them the finger. Those are FACTS. Facts meet Stellar, Stellar, meet facts. Learn from them.

I seen an alleged quote from a sailor on one of the escorts on another forum (could have been forum.keypublishing.co.uk... )

But anyway, the first plane off was a prowler....

and a Prowler vs a Su-27?

Apparently the flanker was all over the prowler the pilot screaming for help until a hornet got off the deck. The Prowler certainly wasn't giving anyone the bird from what I gather.




On the topic of plasma stealth, I doubt the russian's had it on these aircraft, and I doubt they would have used it here - you keep your aces hidden until you need them, not reveal them like this.

Originally posted by kilcoo316

and a Prowler vs a Su-27?

Apparently the flanker was all over the prowler the pilot screaming for help until a hornet got off the deck. The Prowler certainly wasn't giving anyone the bird from what I gather.

Again, you're not sending the Prowler up to do anything other than to put up a non-hostile buffer. If you wanted to kill it, you would shoot it with ship defenses, not scramble fighters. In fact, SM-2 Extended Range Models can easily "tag" most aircraft before they can even launch long range antiship missiles, while in this case, it would be a simple ESSM shot.

Originally posted by kilcoo316

On the topic of plasma stealth, I doubt the russian's had it on these aircraft, and I doubt they would have used it here - you keep your aces hidden until you need them, not reveal them like this.

Right. It might help you win the bigger #### competition but that doesn't win wars. And the element of surprise for "secret weapons" is crucial.

Overflights are harmless, in case you didn't know. Therefore, if the battle group's tapes show that the battle group tracked it on radar(as the USN claims) then this is not an "incident."

Stop downplaying this as if it happens every day and is common practice! This had not happened in THIRTY YEARS!

Furthermore, as the CO of the Kitty Hawk was NOT relieved after this incident as would happen if total ignorance was the case, there's no evidence that what you're suggesting/asking happened.

Firing anyone would just be admitting the scale of the Russian coup. Do you read before you type? Why did they put up a constant CAP for the next 24 hours after the incident in question?

Apparently not obvious to you. So what's that make you? Here's something you DON'T know, Carriers are ALWAYS escorted...that's why they travel in BATTLE GROUPS.

More extremely obvious and boring details. You would have noted the fact that i said "CBG" earlier and i am sure that you know what it stands for.

And again, we can't shoot first...that's an act of war. Geez, and people accuse the US of a shoot first ask questions later attitude. Thank God you're not doing peacekeeping in Iraq or you'd probably shoot everything that looked at you wrong.

There is a difference between bombing unarmed men women and children from 10 000 feet and choosing not to consign 5500 American sailors and airmen to oblivion imo.

Confusion? Were you even reading your OWN sources? If they were refueling the carrier(possible as Kitty Hawk is an old conventional) then the deck would be VERY confused, as there'd be sailors all over the deck involved in manning the lines.

They were cutting the fuel lines yes wich would once again indicating panick as if they did not bother to cast away the lines before one has to assume they really had no idea the Russian planes were approaching.

The examples above from unscripted naval exercise evolutions provide ample evidence of the vulnerability of US Navy carrier battle groups to attacks from diesel submarines, but of course there are other ways to sink a carrier, as the Russian Air Force knows well. In October 2000, the smart-looking aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk was “mugged” by Russian SU-24 and Su-27 aircraft, which were not detected until they were virtually on top of the carrier. The Russian aircraft buzzed the carrier’s flight deck and caught the ship completely unprepared. To add insult to injury, the Russians took very detailed photos of the Kitty Hawk’s flight deck, and very courteously, provided the pictures to the American skipper via e-mail. In a story in the December 7, 2000 edition of WorldNetDaily, one US sailor exclaimed, “The entire crew watched overhead as the Russians made a mockery of our feeble attempt of intercepting them.” Russia’s air force is now only a faint shadow of what it once was, but even now, they can demonstrate that they can, if necessary, do significant damage to the US Navy. It is little wonder then that a Russian newspaper gloated that “If these had been planes on a war mission, the aircraft carrier would definitely have been sunk.

Why also did the Kitty Hawk, 40 minutes later, finally launch aircraft to intercept the Russian planes that had already flown over, but did no physical harm to the ship? Why was it necessary to belatedly intercept the Russians if the US Navy was so confident that the Russians were no threat? And why did the Washington Times impart that the “Kitty Hawk commanders were so unnerved by the aerial penetration they rotated squadrons on 24-hour alert and had planes routinely meet or intercept various aircraft?” Because in asymmetrical warfare, the very concept is to strike when the larger, more powerful enemy is least prepared. This is what the Japanese did when they attacked Pearl Harbor in the early morning hours on a Sunday. This is why the 1968 Tet holiday offensive was launched when the Army of the Republic of Vietnam was in a low state of readiness. But then, perhaps it would have been more sporting of the Russians to have called in first before launching their mock attack."

www.g2mil.com...

And even during flight ops it looks "confused." You've obviously never seen naval flight ops.

Flight decks are very safe places yes and people just run around as they please.

And it actually does fit the profile...if refueling, no launch is possible, as the decks are FOD(look it up-I doubt you know this one)ed up like mad. Sailors can become FOD.

You do not refuel without a CAP when that close to enemy shores imo. Many of the things you say may very well be true but when everything is taken in context i think they were completely taken by surprise and the launching of the plane in questions makes that clear imo.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Overflights are harmless, in case you didn't know. Therefore, if the battle group's tapes show that the battle group tracked it on radar(as the USN claims) then this is not an "incident."

Stop downplaying this as if it happens every day and is common practice! This had not happened in THIRTY YEARS!

Overflights? Thirty years? I have this picture of two F-15s "escorting" Russian cruisers somewhere in the N.Atlantic, the photo is dated in the late 80's. Commercial air traffic regularly flies "over" naval vessels without incident.

Furthermore, as the CO of the Kitty Hawk was NOT relieved after this incident as would happen if total ignorance was the case, there's no evidence that what you're suggesting/asking happened.

Originally posted by StellarX

Firing anyone would just be admitting the scale of the Russian coup. Do you read before you type? Why did they put up a constant CAP for the next 24 hours after the incident in question?

Eh? The USN fires COs left and right for comparatively trivial things. If he had been taken by surprise, he'd have been fired/had a hearing.

Apparently not obvious to you. So what's that make you? Here's something you DON'T know, Carriers are ALWAYS escorted...that's why they travel in BATTLE GROUPS.

Originally posted by StellarX

More extremely obvious and boring details. You would have noted the fact that i said "CBG" earlier and i am sure that you know what it stands for.

Except YOU said the carrier was "not escorted." Go back and you'll see it. YOU said it. Not me. And that was in response to me talking about the carrier's AEGIS escorts.

And again, we can't shoot first...that's an act of war. Geez, and people accuse the US of a shoot first ask questions later attitude. Thank God you're not doing peacekeeping in Iraq or you'd probably shoot everything that looked at you wrong.

Originally posted by StellarX

There is a difference between bombing unarmed men women and children from 10 000 feet and choosing not to consign 5500 American sailors and airmen to oblivion imo.

This is the equivalent of seeing somebody speeding in Iraq. Our troops in Iraq don't just pop everybody who drives fast. And they say Americans are warmongerers...jeez.

Confusion? Were you even reading your OWN sources? If they were refueling the carrier(possible as Kitty Hawk is an old conventional) then the deck would be VERY confused, as there'd be sailors all over the deck involved in manning the lines.

The examples above from unscripted naval exercise evolutions provide ample evidence of the vulnerability of US Navy carrier battle groups to attacks from diesel submarines, but of course there are other ways to sink a carrier, as the Russian Air Force knows well. In October 2000, the smart-looking aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk was “mugged” by Russian SU-24 and Su-27 aircraft, which were not detected until they were virtually on top of the carrier. The Russian aircraft buzzed the carrier’s flight deck and caught the ship completely unprepared. To add insult to injury, the Russians took very detailed photos of the Kitty Hawk’s flight deck, and very courteously, provided the pictures to the American skipper via e-mail. In a story in the December 7, 2000 edition of WorldNetDaily, one US sailor exclaimed, “The entire crew watched overhead as the Russians made a mockery of our feeble attempt of intercepting them.” Russia’s air force is now only a faint shadow of what it once was, but even now, they can demonstrate that they can, if necessary, do significant damage to the US Navy. It is little wonder then that a Russian newspaper gloated that “If these had been planes on a war mission, the aircraft carrier would definitely have been sunk.

Why also did the Kitty Hawk, 40 minutes later, finally launch aircraft to intercept the Russian planes that had already flown over, but did no physical harm to the ship? Why was it necessary to belatedly intercept the Russians if the US Navy was so confident that the Russians were no threat? And why did the Washington Times impart that the “Kitty Hawk commanders were so unnerved by the aerial penetration they rotated squadrons on 24-hour alert and had planes routinely meet or intercept various aircraft?” Because in asymmetrical warfare, the very concept is to strike when the larger, more powerful enemy is least prepared. This is what the Japanese did when they attacked Pearl Harbor in the early morning hours on a Sunday. This is why the 1968 Tet holiday offensive was launched when the Army of the Republic of Vietnam was in a low state of readiness. But then, perhaps it would have been more sporting of the Russians to have called in first before launching their mock attack."

www.g2mil.com...

Is that what you consider a source? Smart looking Kitty Hawk? You have to be pooing me. They don't call her poo-y Kitty for nothing. The Kitty Hawk is old and nasty looking. That article is total bullcrap. And that quote of the sailor is ridiculous. No name, no rank, no rating, etc. No self-respecting sailor would say that, and furthermore, the E-dogs never know what's going on there anyway, unless they're involved in ATC. I could write an article like that off the top of my head. What a convenient quote.
In fact, I think I may have just found the easiest job in the world. I'm quitting my job to create a website that panders to the small but fanatical(and illogical) group of suckers out there who'll actually buy this crap. I'll write articles using voodoo science out of Pop Sci to tell people how the Russian cell phone grids can detect our B-2s.

And even during flight ops it looks "confused." You've obviously never seen naval flight ops.

Originally posted by StellarX

Flight decks are very safe places yes and people just run around as they please.

OH DEAR GOD! OK I am TOTALLY raising the BS flag here! You have NO idea what you're talking about.
SAFE MY ASS! I have wonderful videos of deck crew being turned into FOD. Yeah, and standing in the middle of a friggin freeway is safe.
This is "basic" knowledge.

And it actually does fit the profile...if refueling, no launch is possible, as the decks are FOD(look it up-I doubt you know this one)ed up like mad. Sailors can become FOD.

Originally posted by StellarX

You do not refuel without a CAP when that close to enemy shores imo. Many of the things you say may very well be true but when everything is taken in context i think they were completely taken by surprise and the launching of the plane in questions makes that clear imo.

Uh, what? Enemy?

Even if the Kitty Hawk battle group was bounced in this case, it doesn't mean jack. We're not at war. Our ships aren't on war footing.
Quite frankly, if the Russians were preparing for war, we'd see it. No, don't give me the usual crap about how the Russians are smarter than that blah blah whatever. No, it doesn't work that way. You can't hide your intentions completely, for what really, really should be obvious reasons(please don't make me explain this).
If that was the case, the carriers WOULD have 24/7 AWACS protection and engage more freely. So when you come up with a recent case of Russian air forces dominating the space above a US CSF(new term, we don't call them CVBG or CBGs anymore) then you've got something significant. Otherwise, you might as well be shocked at the fact a fighter can pretty easily bounce any surface warfare system in the world.
Ship based radars are limited by the horizon, therefore, their range against sea skimming targets is limited. That's why there's AWACS. If there was no AWACS, no real "coup" has been established...no real outstanding precedent.



[edit on 16-1-2006 by ORIEguy]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 17/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Considering that they fired a Carrier Captain for bumping into a Junk (yes, the actual name of the type of boat), and no one was even hurt in that incident, then I have to think that if this was true, or was mishandled as badly as the article claims, this Captain would have been out of the Navy before the week was out after this incident. You DON'T keep a Captain that mishandles the protection of a carrier this badly in command, or even on a ship, on a shore installation, or anywhere else.

Originally posted by StellarX

Flight decks are very safe places yes and people just run around as they please.

Stellar

You can't be serious!
If you truly mean this then you haven't a clue.
If this is an indication of the truthful quality of the rest of your posts' content then it can all be dismissed as digital feces.
You couldn't pay me enough money to get on a flight deck, that is more hazardous percentage-wise than being a foot soldier in Iraq.

Originally posted by intelgurl
You can't be serious!

Actually i can be but i obviously was'nt this time.

If you truly mean this then you haven't a clue.

Thanks for proceeding right to the part where you insult me...

If this is an indication of the truthful quality of the rest of your posts' content then it can all be dismissed as digital feces.

If this is an indication of your interest in reading opinions that differs from your own your free to stop reading my posts any day of the week.

You couldn't pay me enough money to get on a flight deck, that is more hazardous percentage-wise than being a foot soldier in Iraq.

And that is why you need to switch on your sarcasm detector. The fact that your willing to assume that i could possibly be serious just speaks volumes!

Stellar