Russian Jet Provokes U.S. Military Naval Ship

Zaphod58
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

The formal treaty isn't posted online. But overflights like this are a technical violation of the treaty.

I understand you want me to take your word for it & i would like to ,however witout evidence i simply can't accept it.. Sorry

namehere
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

no but do you ignore someone who is harassing you? i think giving a warning is perfectly justifiable, besides russia doesn't own it either.

12 passes 1000 yards away ,never flying over the ship.....is hardly "harassment" and i won't pass judgment like so many here have ,without answers..

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere


It's the U.S.–Soviet Incidents at Sea agreement signed in 1972. I found the bullet points online.

requiring aircraft commanders to use the greatest caution and prudence in approaching aircraft and ships of the other party and not permitting simulated attacks against aircraft or ships, performing aerobatics over ships, or dropping hazardous objects near them.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

LightningStrikesHere

namehere
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

no but do you ignore someone who is harassing you? i think giving a warning is perfectly justifiable, besides russia doesn't own it either.

12 passes 1000 yards away ,never flying over the ship.....is hardly "harassment" and i won't pass judgment like so many here have ,without answers..

Is there a ratio of offensive weapons delivery vs. countermeasures as a function of distance? Maybe 3000 feet is too close for an adequate defense or countermeasure?

Zaphod58
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere

 

It's the U.S.–Soviet Incidents at Sea agreement signed in 1972. I found the bullet points online.

requiring aircraft commanders to use the greatest caution and prudence in approaching aircraft and ships of the other party and not permitting simulated attacks against aircraft or ships, performing aerobatics over ships, or dropping hazardous objects near them.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

fair enough, we know that their were no simulated attacks, and they admitted that the ship was never endanger....

I would really like to hear russia side of the story.

I mean parking a ship in russias back yard while all these things are going on ,can be seen as an act of aggression...

Just saying..

Thanks for the info

junglimogli

yuppa

TDawgRex

TritonTaranis
Russia behaving increasingly aggressive towards just about everyone in recent years

A sure sigh when you know someones wounded and trapped, so that's good to know

Putin is scared and doesn't really want to admit it. His country is falling apart...again. (In what, thirty years?)

If this cat stays in power much longer, he will do something that bodes ill will for us all. He's more narcissistic than Obama, but willing to act on it, that's the scary part.

edit on 14-4-2014 by TDawgRex because: Just a ETA

TD youre not acting ballsy enough when earlier you mentioned a radio message to the pilot. ID a gave him a ultimatum. either you leave this airspace or we will light you and your compatriot up the next time you decide to make a pass. What are you rintentions?(of course in russian so he cant say he didnt understand) Say do those CIWS have training rounds liek Paint rounds? Imagine if they did and you lit them up with paint rounds. would they had crapped their pants i wonder?

Ya good luck with that .. had there been such an action to fire anything upon those jets ..that donald duck boat would be sunk .. both sides know they can posture and have to show 'they are there' ..but nobody will fire anything first .. this ain't Iraq .. it's the Russian federation ..

A high speed pass can be considered a attack mowgli. And it was in iternational waters too. If the crew felt threatened they had the right to shoot them out of the sky. And how praytell would Un armed fighters shoot and sink that ship? The SEA ram its equipped with would have knocked down the missiles such as the sunburns(they were designed to kill those with a 98 percentile rating A peice btw) Then the russians would a lost that ship shadowing them and also two fighters all because of some idiot fly by.

If the crew felt threatened they had the right to shoot them out of the sky

Well, i did work with Iran 655, from the US point of view.

Maybe the Russians felt threatened but decided not to sink the ship using an unarmed plane.

reply to post by yuppa


I was reading that one of the jets armaments (if it was equipped) a Kh-23 missile can move at about 1,500 feet per second at top speed - that's way too fast for an onboard ship system to acquire and destroy. The missile when fired plus its acceleration lag would only take two seconds to reach the ship. 3,000 feet is way too close.

this document en.m.wikipedia.org... Russia has the right to send trough on the bottom, when the bandit with a weapon in the kitchen did not call the police destroy him

Big whoop. Obama and Pootin spoke on the phone today. Obama promised Pootin the US would not send lethal arms to Ukraine.

The US is doing everything they can to reassure allies but not overtly provoke Russia. If Bush was in power right now, that Russian jet would be ashes and we would be in the middle of a conflict.

Many have said that Obama is welcoming the grand-standing by Russia. He has given reassurances to Pootin that any US military presence is for domestic and allied consumption but in no way should be taken as a challenge to Russia. The "bussing" by the Russian plane was a test of that assurance. It passed with flying colors.

Russia, carry on. The US will not stand in your way. They had their wars, you can have yours.

agnisvaha
reply to post by yuppa

 

I was reading that one of the jets armaments (if it was equipped) a Kh-23 missile can move at about 1,500 feet per second at top speed - that's way too fast for an onboard ship system to acquire and destroy. The missile when fired plus its acceleration lag would only take two seconds to reach the ship. 3,000 feet is way too close.

edit on 14-4-2014 by agnisvaha because: wording.

Kh-23M Specifications
Dimensions
Diameter: 275 millimeter (10.8 inch)
Length: 2.49 meter (98 inch)
Wingspan: 780 millimeter
Performance
Max Range: 10,000 meter
Speed
Top Speed: 805 mps (2,899 kph)
Weight
Warhead: 110 kilogram
Weight: 286 kilogram (631 pound)
CEP: Circular Error Probable
Meters (m) Kilometers (km) Nautic Miles (nm) Inch (in) Yard (yd) Foot (ft) Millimeter (mm)
Pound (lb) Kilogram (kg) kN (KiloNewton) Ton (t)
Meters per Second (mps) Kilometers per Hour (kph) Knot (kt) Miles per Hour (mph)
Liter (l) Galon (gl)
Year (yr) Minutes (min) Second (sec)
Shaft-Horse-Power (shp)
___________________________________________________________
SEA ram

In 10 scenarios, real Anti-Ship Missiles and supersonic Vandal target missiles (Mach 2.5) were intercepted and destroyed under realistic conditions. RAM Block 1 achieved first-shot kills on every target in its presented scenarios, including sea-skimming, diving and highly maneuvering profiles in both single and stream attacks.

The RAM Block 2 is an upgraded version of the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) ship self-defense missile system. The RAM Block 2 missile upgrade aim is to more effectively counter the emerging threat of more maneuverable anti-ship missiles. The US Navy awarded Raytheon Missile Systems a $105 million Block 2 RAM development contract on May 8, 2007, with the missile development expected to complete by December 2010. LRIP began in 2012.[4] 51 missiles were initially ordered. On October 22, 2012, the RAM Block 2 completed its third guided test vehicle flight, firing two missiles in a salvo and directly hitting the target. This verified the command and control capabilities of the system, upgraded kinematic performance, guidance system, and airframe capabilities. Raytheon is scheduled to deliver 25 Block 2 missiles during the integrated testing phase of the program.[5][6]

BLOCK 2 is being equipped this year and the arleigh burkes have them now I am sure.
They are faster more manuverable as well. the block 1 was mach 2.5. the block 2 is mach 3 something and able to hit targets in 360 degrees simultaniously no matter if its sea skimming or not. That old missile from russia isnt even in th esame class and is worse than the sunburns/moskits.

mangust69
this document en.m.wikipedia.org... Russia has the right to send trough on the bottom, when the bandit with a weapon in the kitchen did not call the police destroy him

The passage of US warships through the Straits also raised controversy, as the convention forbids the transit of non-Black Sea nations' warships with guns of a calibre larger than eight inches (203 mm). In the 1960s, the US sent warships carrying 305 mm calibre ASROC missiles through the Straits, prompting Soviet protests. The Turkish government rejected the Soviet complaints, pointing out that guided missiles were not guns and that such weapons had not even existed at the time of the Convention's agreement so were not restricted.

doompornjunkie

LightningStrikesHere
Does the US own that part of the sea? Or air space? sounds like FUX news is trying to make a Mountain out of a mole hill..

wish we had Access to record on how many times US drones violated "air space"


Just saying....

No, they don't own that part of the sea, but all naval ships are surrounded by a no fly zone. You DO NOT fly anywhere near them, it's damn near an act of war.

That is a wrong statement !! It does not matter if a jet is 1 km or 5km away. Once a mach 2 missile is released mere half second extra matters a little.

An act of war would be if jet is near and it locks its radars on the ship. Russians have several times buzzed the US ships in the past and flown directly above them. One was a low fly in and then rise up at the last moment to test their abilities to evade Aircraft carrier's defensive radars.

I suspect this repeated buzz around was some sort of intelligence gathering mission.

a little bit of history size is not important . ramming ( bulk ) 1988 youtu.be... Soviet sailors not squeals from fear, they without life jackets, even those who have to be in them

a little humor NATO in Crimea youtu.be...

my appologies if this has been mentioned, I do normally read an entire thread before posting but I am a little pressed for time.
If the Russians made 12 passes in 90 minutes at different heights, they where researching defences.

everytime the US locked onto the jet, a record would of been kept of speed, altitude and number of locks at each pass.

Technology is a wonderful thing.

This is the black sea, what does America expect? Of course they are going to get buzzed. Park a Russian destroyer off the coast of America and it will be buzzed.

The fact the bomber was unarmed means s$it, the point is if the ship attacked it then the ship would be destroyed by land based "defences". It is a honey trap. Russia knows America wouldn't shoot it down.

I am not saying that the ship is not gods gift to war and is certainly a nice piece of kit, but in the black sea, it is history if any thing happens.

munkey66
my appologies if this has been mentioned, I do normally read an entire thread before posting but I am a little pressed for time.
If the Russians made 12 passes in 90 minutes at different heights, they where researching defences.

everytime the US locked onto the jet, a record would of been kept of speed, altitude and number of locks at each pass.

Technology is a wonderful thing.

Exactly, what people forget is that an unarmed version of the SU-24 is a what?.... that's right an SU-24R. A reconnaissance model. Nice post munkey66

1000 yrds seems well within the range of a Phalanx system to be triggered automatically. Unless it was put in manual mode which did not work out so well for the USS Stark.

reply to post by LightningStrikesHere


However, he didn't use caution or prudence approaching the ship. So he broke that portion of it.