Originally posted by ORIEguy
Well it's a nice long relaxing weekend so I'll bite back in for a bit.
But like I said, that's totally missing the big picture.
Well as i keep saying the big pictures involves this never having happened in 30 years.If you can prove otherwise there really is not much left to
talk about.
My problem with Stellar isn't with just any specific set of facts. It's his logic and interpretation of events which is completely different.
Unfortunately, most of my "evidence" is based on experience and interaction with those who work in the naval environment(which btw is where I get
the indications that the USN is hardly worrying about Russian Backfire regiments blasting off AShMs at our CSFs).
Well is'nt individuality interpreting facts and events in different ways? I have as much of a problem with your reasoning as you have with mine so
lets skip the obvious and move on to the why we can not look at the same information and come to the same conclusions. The reason i post sources is so
we can work from the same set information without anyone having a chance of believing what they like instead of what is in evidence.
So I generally prefer not to cite google results for anything other than HARD scientific/engineering facts.
Then you will not get much done as those hard scientific and engineering facts change with time change or gets refined with time. If you want to work
with certainties you better stick to math as using language tends to make
that impossible. The people who attack the internet for not being reliably are mostly the one's who can not defend their point of view of find the
evidence online to back their points of view. From there they normally proceed to
claiming that it somehow involves national security and that they can not disclose their sources. Right!
Any idiot knows the unreliability of Internet sources, or even most journalistic publications on defense topics.
Unreliability is what living and learning is all about and if you can not work with some unknowns and some hard-to-define's your on the wrong forum.
If i post a source for a claim it's normally something that is in my experience
true and as verifiable as most things are. If your not even willing to post sources your just stating opinion not even backed by one or two "crazy"
people on the net. If you can not find at least one crazy person to agree with you might want to consider just how strange your opinion really is.
Here's an example of his line of reasoning, just using the most recent back and forth, showing how he fails to think logically:
Stellar argues buzzing and other "hostile" actions to carriers warrant a shootdown. Consider this the root of this discussion.
If it's happening for the first time since 1972 there should at least be some planes in the air ESPECIALLY when they come back for a second and third
pass. Soviet planes just never managed to overfly a American carrier in nearly 30 years so one has to ask if they were not trying or what sort of
means the US deployed to keep them from reaching the carriers. This was not the roof of the discussion for me but we can deal with this point first if
you like.
A Navy vet brings up Cold War incidents where his ship was locked onto by Soviet antiship missiles to back me on the point that flybys and such
do not warrant attacks. I subsequently point out that he's ignored this as
anecdotal proof from a source other than myself that such "games" are commonplace.
I did not ignore it and politely asked him if he was serving on a carrier and asked for more information in generaly. I have no reason to doubt him
but as he is yet to respond i am going with what i have infront of me. I have no problem with making specific and general apologies when my
information or reasoning is proved bad. All i ask is for more than anecdotal proof from you since i have allready seen how you will bend information
to breaking point.
However, Stellar then chooses to brush this example aside. He instead focuses on the fact that this ship(Pyros says it was a battleship, in
which case it would probably STILL have been part of a BBBG with AAW ESCORTS) was not a carrier.
I did not brush it aside but currently it's not specific enough for me to use it. I am sure he will clear it up eventually.
Now, this argument doesn't work. A surface warfare group being painted by missiles designed to kill them could very EASILY interpret that as a
hostile act. I don't understand why he keeps biting back into the carrier
issue, but I have three ideas why he would've brought it up, and evidence of how all of them still lead back to Stellar being irrational:
I keep biting back into it as the incident is rather unique as far as i can tell. If you do not understand what makes it unique then your the one who
is ignoring the evidence. The only irrational act i frequently engage in is
discussion with people who apparently have no interest in looking at information or changing their minds based on it.
[1)He believes that only the carrier has the "capability" of driving off foreign aircraft. The problem with that argument is that AEGIS ships
have more than enough range to knock down just about any fighter bomber. In fact, (again, i am citing anecdotal experience in conversations with
professional USN SWOs) it is believed within the USN that our AEGIS surface action group shield can defeat any realistic air threat out
there.
The only thing that the AEGIS system has done for sure is shoot down passenger aircraft so lets not get ahead of ourselves.
" It is well known that senior US Navy officers have a tradition of omitting information about the Navy’s weaknesses and deficiencies during
public testimony. For example, in the early 1980s, wrote Scammell, Navy officers
tried to conceal the shortcomings of the new Aegis system by using unrealistically easy operational tests, then by classifying the poor results: “An
amalgam of sophisticated seaborne radar, computers, and surface-to-air rockets ten years in development, Aegis was built to simultaneously track up to
two hundred aerial targets and to control thirty killer missiles. But in sea tests against sixteen easy targets – easy because they were lobbed in
one after another instead of all at the same time, as they would arrive in combat – the supershield missed all but five…” Consequently, “The
results of the sea trials were immediately classified, ostensibly for reasons of national
security, and it was announced that the tests had been successful. When Congressional overseers eventually learned they had been duped –a gain
because not everyone in the fiasco interpreted ‘patriotic duty’ as ‘staying silent’—the Aegis program was very nearly scuttled.” According
to Representative Denny Smith, a Republican from Oregon and former F-4 fighter pilot, Navy officers deliberately deleted key passages from their
initial test reports on the Aegis system to keep him in the dark on its failings.
www.g2mil.com...
What they imagine a "realistic" air threat i have no idea but i suspect it does not involve many countries who have much to shoot back with. The
fact is you can not escort enemy aircraft with missiles of your own so that is why i made it clear that only aircraft can keep soviet aircraft from
overflying American carriers. Your attempt to obscure this simple fact speaks volumes.
So the idea that Pyros's ship simply couldn't do anything lacks merit. Pyros's ship or others in its battle group with AEGIS could've
acquired a lock on the enemy aircraft...and they STILL could have continued on course and we STILL would not have shot them down, in fact I have heard
of this happening.
But that has nothing to do with my original question. It is in fact not even related! My question simply was why these Russian aircraft were not
intercepted and escorted as was the norm for 30 years. Why you want to bring escalation to the use of air defense missiles when aircraft worked so
well? Either way at that range and speed point defense is very unlikely to shoot down modern Russian AS missiles as you should very well know.
2)The other theory is that he only believes that carriers are worth protecting with such aggressive action. This argument is taken down by the
fact that in response to my comment that USN carriers are useless in a nuclear exchange, he asks if that simply means they're not worth protecting.
He suggests the lives of the crew are significant as servicemen...so that's probably not it.
Without carriers American striking power at sea is vastly diminished and that is why they have to sail in task forces that are easy prey to a nuclear
first strike. If carriers where not important why make them the centerpiece of fleet deployments and risk such large concentrations of ships? It's
clear that they ARE important whatever you may want to think.
3)The most likely candidate is that he feels only AIRCRAFT can nudge enemy aircraft away. This seems to be the most likely, as he's mentioned
the EP-3 incident, perhaps suggesting that this SHOULD happen.
Unfortunately, if this is what he believes, it is again completely irrational for two reasons:
That is how it's always been done so why think it should have been different this time around? You are the one not sticking to what is known when
speculating about this incident.
1)We have had aircraft riding herd on Soviet aircraft posing a greater threat. Soviet bombers reguarly were intercepted by US fighters as they
approached US airspace, yet they never turned away except when they had to for either fuel or airspace violation reasons, DESPITE having US fighters
literally within a few FEET of them. So you have an example of US fighters NOT pre-emptively attacking Soviet bombers tasked to carry NUCLEAR weapons
into the United States, a much bigger casualty potential than a CSF.
Apple's and Oranges imo. There were clear international boundaries wich could not be penetrated and unless your suggesting that the Soviet Union
frequently did i do not see any reason for comparison. We KNOW that soviet aircraft were not allowed this close to American carriers since the last
incident/interception failure in 1972 so that is why THIS incident is intersting to me. If i wanted to talk about Russian flying in international
airspace as they have always done i would have.
2)The mention of the EP-3 incident should also be a clear irrational Stellar suggestion
. The analogy that USN fighters could do
the same or threaten the same for approaching Russian fighter-bombers is outrageous. From a simple cost benefit analysis, we lose. We lose a fighter
which a CVW, and hence the nation, RELIES on to be there to provide force projection into regional conflicts. The Russians would lose a fighter-bomber
which probably has a lower monetary investment history than our jet, AND which is not particularly involved or tasked for international
deployment/use.
You must be forgetting the numerous instances of American and Russian submarines running each other for various reasons. Either submarines have a hard
time finding each other or the American navy is willing to put very expensive platforms on the line to reach it's objectives. Now i have read plenty
of accounts suggesting just what Soviet airplanes were subjected to if they were on interception courses. Navy airplanes had plenty of accidents and
writing off a few additional airplanes in the interest of national security does not by all accounts seem hard to understand.
The Chinese incident, IF it had been intentional, (and it's debatable if it was as the pilot allegedly had pulled similar stunts on the same
crew, AND died in the incident-source: any idiot who read the news reports on the
incident could find this) got a EP-3 loaded with the latest US ELINT gear, and it's unknown how much they actually got from it. They lose a F-4
knockoff. Not a fair trade.
Blaming the dead is rather easy but since the plane was in Chinese airspace they might have wanted the message sent clearly that they do not like
being spied upon.
I've completely bunked the notion that we should shoot down aircraft approaching CSFs, using just knowledge which is generally accepted by
everyone. He usually has to go running for an article of this or that shady website written by people who may have been lucky to hear of the incident
thirdhand.
All you have shown is that you believe what you like independent of fact.Using weapons is a very crude way of making your intent clear where there are
so many other effective ways. What problem do you have with the sources i used so far anyways? If you are not willing to state yours no one here is
going to take you seriously unless it serves their interest to do so.
That is why I've determined debating him on this subject is pointless. When somebody is looking that hard for a conspiracy, or a coup, or
other big news, you can't convince them they're wrong.
I asked some simple questions and all i got was abuse and obfuscation. You want to turn this whole issue into a big conspiracy debate just to try put
it beyond discussion. I am well aware of your motives here and you must think me quite stupid to imagine i will let you get away with it. I am going
to stay on topic however long you want to draw this out.
He believes in the existence, despite presenting no actual explanation of his own for the details of the events, therefore it's impossible to
convince him he's wrong.
What i believe or do not believe is far beyond anything you can imagine so why bother trying once again to attack my motives instead of the one or two
obvious facts in question? Why do you imagine you can discourage me from asking questions by avoiding them and calling me names? How old are you?
A little knowledge truly is a dangerous thing. He doesn't know enough to present his own ideas, therefore he can't be debated with. But
apparently he knows enough to think he's knowledgable.
If i am all that ignorent i am sure people would have noticde and stop reading by now. I suggest you let others make up their own minds and try focus
your attention on the issue instead of appealing to a jury that does not exsist.
Hopefully, you and others are smart enough to understand this, God knows i've spelled it out to be pretty damn obvious. He claims he would
like informed people to explain the incident...I've got a pretty good working knowledge of USN procedure, and given what I know this is not some sort
of massive coup for the Russians.
Well what you have stated so far is all text book thinking probably gained from reading too much Tom Clancy. You have towed the line on almost every
issue so all you have is repeated the same old nonsense i also once believed.
Hell, surprising limited enemy forces under peacetime conditions should NOT be some sort of fricking big deal even when it does happen. IT'S
NOT THAT HARD.If we wanted to, we could rotate SSNs to park their asses off the Kuznetsov's home port and shoot a torpedo up its screws and the
Russians probably would be quite surprised, seeing as how there were no tensions.
It is this kind of responses that makes me wonder if you understood much anything i said so far. I am sure American submarines could do it just as
most navies that operate submarines could. 1972 is all i can keep repeating.
Maybe he's just so upset he can't think logically when he reads my posts...I know I can be pretty damn infuriating and condescending.
But any way you look at it, I find his posts incredibly entertaining, although at the same time, rather saddening.
Well as you suggested above the readers will form their opinions no matter what we do. I am not learning anything from you and having little fun.
And as for an old post from someone about the Prowler pilot "screaming for help": Very shady. I've worked with many naval aviators, and
these are guys(and gals) who would rather die than sound scared on the radio. Ever see a night trap video? THAT'S terrifying.
Yes they are just the most competent and awesome people on the planet who never mess up and never get injured. Why do you even bother talking to me
when your intent here is just defend the US navy's reputation when it's not even under attack? You have constructed a straw army of note and i can
only imagine how much fun you had stalking and destroying it. Whenever your ready to discuss the questions, instead of your apparent perceived attacks
on American aviators/America in general, i will be here to listen.
Thanks for nothing.
Stellar
[edit on 21-1-2006 by StellarX]
Not to mention we went in WVR(everyone knows flankers have better maneuverability) and longer
ranged IR missiles. Also they had awacs and we didnt. Well you're not talking of that excercise but just incase you bring it up. A mig 21 vs awacs o
wow what a fight! Not!! An unarmed plane vs ana rmed one! i could take out the latest awacs with a vietnam era plane. 
