Russian jets speed past US Navy destroyer in 'simulated attack profile

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buddah6

The attack profile was carried out well before the video was shot, on the initial approach. The fly by was just a hello from the pilots.

Depending on the missiles used by the attackers, the SM-2 block, Aegis version, and if they have SeaRAM yet, it definitely would be a hot few minutes.

I'm not up on the newer weapon systems but tactic seem to be timeless. It has been many years since I wore a uniform.

a reply to: buddah6

The SM-2 Block III/IV are the current go to missiles. Very capable. The SM-6 is in testing. It uses an improved SM-2 booster, with an AIM-120 seeker. They've put it through Low, High, and High-Low tests so far.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Thanks for rejoining us Zaphod

a reply to: stosh64

It's amazing what a few hours of plane spotting does for an attitude adjustment.

a reply to: intrptr

The older ones had this problem. The Redeye and the SA-7 Grail both had IR detectors that reflections from the water could interfere with.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Then there was that minor issue of the sun.

a reply to: buddah6

More like 30 miles for the SM-2 depending on the slant. About 10 for Sea Sparrow again depending on the slant.

The slant I am talking about is the angle that the missile is launched. The lower the angle the shorter the range. The rocket motor only burns for part of the time. After it burns out the missile coasts, relying on its speed and altitude for range.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Then there was that minor issue of the sun.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yep. I've shot a Redeye twice, never shot a Stinger. They were phasing out the Redeyes so they were using them in training. Right after the Falklands War the US Navy was concerned about missiles like the Exocets. One of the temporary solutions for a last ditch effort to protect a carrier was to volley fire groups of MANPADS at incoming missiles. This was before all of the carriers had Sea Sparrows and CIWS installed.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yep. I've shot a Redeye twice, never shot a Stinger. They were phasing out the Redeyes so they were using them in training. Right after the Falklands War the US Navy was concerned about missiles like the Exocets. One of the temporary solutions for a last ditch effort to protect a carrier was to volley fire groups of MANPADS at incoming missiles. This was before all of the carriers had Sea Sparrows and CIWS installed.

Were the Entenards that launched the exocets ever engaged? Do you know the range at which the exocet was launched?

a reply to: buddah6

I don't know. I do know that certain measures were taken against them based off of information that France gave to the UK. I do know that the US Navy has countermeasures against these types of missiles that I am not going to go into.

a reply to: buddah6

They were 25 miles out when they found Sheffield on radar. The official range is between 20-30 miles, probably closer to 20.

Atlantic Conveyor doesn't have a range estimate.

Glamorgan was 18 miles offshore when she was attacked by two missiles fired from a modified launcher that was on the coast.

a reply to: Ddrneville

Russia defends pilots who buzzed US Navy destroyer.

Of course they did, and I wouldn't expect anything less from them.

a reply to: Majic

as displays like these are used to justify tighter economic sanctions, further diplomatic isolation of Russia, and greater militarization of Western Europe.

And it is also used for their brand of news( insert one of the many state run media outlets here.), so that they can say see look the big bad US is trying to bully us, bring military might close to our shores, and we showed them.

I don't think Putin understands what the consequences of his actions are, because if it gets to be a big problem you are correct it could lead to everything you said.

Sad thing is it won't effect Putin too much, and his cronies may feel a bit of a pinch, but the regular citizen will suffer because of the arrogance of their government.

a reply to: buddah6

How about the ship's radar…they knew the jets were coming and were not surprised about their presents.

Thats the claim, anyway. I have no veracity for it though. How close to land were they at the time, jets could have used terrain to hide from ships radar. The range of modern antiship missiles is greater than a 100 miles.

Point being , this wasn't a attack it was a warning. In a real attack, jets probably wouldn't have been used as primary weapons platform.

Again how far from any shore did this interdiction occur? I don't hold much by the accuracy in reporting of the Daily Mail either…

70 miles off shore

Source

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: intrptr

The older ones had this problem. The Redeye and the SA-7 Grail both had IR detectors that reflections from the water could interfere with.

Okay, so now they don't come from the sunward side to thwart the newer optics amid the sparkle…

Whats the range of shoulder launch seekers targeting acquisition, 'these days'?

Again, the jets were there to deliver a message, not warheads.

is just friendly reminder.

A Pyrrhic Victory Parade

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Oh they're definitely milking it for all it's worth at home. I'm sure most Russians enjoy seeing their military show the U.S. "who's boss", and I can't blame them. Strong nationalist sentiment serves Putin's interests, and increases Russian tolerance of the hardships that have resulted from his policies.

China is also getting in on the act...

Global Times: Putin’s Russia defies simple interpretation

The Russian pilots have demonstrated high professional skills to conduct such extremely dangerous maneuvers. The US military, which intends to provoke Russia in the Baltic Sea, was humiliated by its Russian counterpart instead. The US must feel furious.

Furious? Perhaps, but that's less important than how these tactics will affect U.S. policy. Even after that bit of schadenfreude, the op-ed goes on to point out the weakness of the Russian economy and observe that military posturing is about all Putin has to work with.

Which is the grand irony of incidents like these: they are signs of weakness. The real power is economic leverage, and in that domain, Russia is hopelessly outclassed. The U.S. will spend more on Medicare and Social Security this year than Russia's entire GDP, and the U.S. isn't the only country Russia is alienating. After centuries of bloodshed, Europe has no taste for war and is becoming increasingly fed up with Russian drama.

There's simply not enough weight to throw around anymore.

The only domain left is diplomacy, and there President Putin has shown a remarkable ability to outmaneuver the U.S. time and time again. If there is any hope for Russian success in staving off encroachment from both the West and the East, it's in diplomacy. Russia needs more friends, and fast.

Countries which despise the U.S. as evil may take heart from Russia's willingness to kick America in the shins, but they can also see the handwriting on the wall. Even the most militant of them know how painful it can be to run afoul of international trade sanctions, and tough talk doesn't put food on the table.

Russia needs to undermine U.S. power by presenting itself as a favorable alternative to alignment with the U.S. and NATO. While superficially incidents like these might seem able to impress, the reality is that national leaders don't become national leaders by being gullible. No one wants to marginalize themselves by siding with pariahs, and belligerent nations make themselves pariahs.

Civilized nations don't go around looking for trouble, and Russia is marketing itself as trouble.

U.S. leaders appreciate the monumental error of Russia's "bad boy" self-branding, which is why they were so quick to release the videos and photos and make a big deal of it: they want the world to see this.

Thus my distaste for tactics like these. Russia is playing right into NATO's hands, and I hate seeing a good country do stupid things.

I know that pain all too well.

I'm American.

originally posted by: intrptr
Point being , this wasn't a attack it was a warning. In a real attack, jets probably wouldn't have been used as primary weapons platform.

It was not a warning. It was a stunt. In a real attack... Like we are all military experts here.

The US warship was not in Russian waters.

One day it'll all go wrong, which is why you don't see more disciplined militaries acting like kids.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Zaphod58

i served 2 and a half years on board DDG95 (JWS)
And another 2.5 on the IWO Jima (LHD7).
and got out this time last year, and the answer to your question is not what you are convincing yourself.
ill refrain from what they let out on google as news. but that craft to make such approach, no matter how low they fly,would have been picked up by a multitude of detection system of the accompanying carrier, or amphib ship near the training zone. (possibly 5th fleet); im going to reassure you that the 'international' waters described may not have been 'international' or there are a lot ommited to make this reporrt read as it does.


and if you want examples where US military over stepped boudaries (blatantly) use your news source, the mighty google, and then come debate.

My

Thoughts exactly-!

Worked with a guy at world Corp which served on a US Crusier with an ACS...he said "let no one kid you, it is highly unlikely a fleet will be "surprised" by missle or craft at no less than 10-15miles ...or more with an ACS"

So, what's the media trying to pull here??? Or is it the media?