Russian SU 24 buzzes US Navy ship; gets as close as 30 ft from it
143 replies, posted
[URL="http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/13/russian-su-24-attack-aircraft-us-navy-destroyer-donald-cook-baltic-sea/82979184/"]http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/13/russian-su-24-attack-aircraft-us-navy-destroyer-donald-cook-baltic-sea/82979184/[/URL]
[QUOTE]In one of the most aggressive actions in recent memory, Russian warplanes conducted “simulated attacks” on the a U.S. Navy vessel in the Baltic Sea on Tuesday, repeatedly flying within 30 feet of the ship, according to a defense official.
Sailors aboard the destroyer Donald Cook said the aircraft flew low enough to create wake in the sea waters surrounding the ship, and the ship’s commanding officer said the incident was “unsafe and unprofessional,” the defense official said.
“This was more aggressive than anything we’ve seen in some time,” according to the defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because U.S. officials have not officially disclosed the incidents.
The nature of the overflight as a “simulated attack” may violate a 1973 treaty between the U.S. and Russia that specifically prohibits this type of maneuver, the defense official said.[/QUOTE]
Why not just land on it at that distance.
30 feet, that's 9 meters, quite insane.
One of these days a Russian jet will crash because of something like this, and then Russia will blame the US. What a shitshow.
why did they let a hostile aircraft fly 9 metres from the ship multiple times? what kind of lax defensive orders does the US navy have, one would imagine at least some warning shots?
[QUOTE=Orkel;50125804]why did they let a hostile aircraft fly 9 metres from the ship multiple times? what kind of lax defensive orders does the US navy have, one would imagine at least some warning shots?[/QUOTE]
they did check that it was clean first
they probably didn't want to start anything
[QUOTE=Orkel;50125804]why did they let a hostile aircraft fly 9 metres from the ship multiple times? what kind of lax defensive orders does the US navy have, one would imagine at least some warning shots?[/QUOTE]
Since when is Russia considered hostile?
[QUOTE=Aman;50125910]Since when is Russia considered hostile?[/QUOTE]
Any craft that threatens a military ship is considered hostile.
Flying 9m close is pretty damn close to threatening.
What kind of attack, aside from Kamakazi involves being within 30ft of a ship anyways.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;50125941]What kind of attack, aside from Kamakazi involves being within 30ft of a ship anyways.[/QUOTE]
It was still a dangerous stunt, had anything gone wrong with the plane or pilot and it could have very well crashed on the ship.
And if that happened it would have been really, really bad.
So after one of their jets was shot down by Turkey, they decide to do this?
And then they wonder why NATO is so antagonizing towards them.
[QUOTE=Orkel;50125804]why did they let a hostile aircraft fly 9 metres from the ship multiple times? what kind of lax defensive orders does the US navy have, one would imagine at least some warning shots?[/QUOTE]
Because the aircraft appeared unarmed, apparently the Captain kept trying to radio the Russians to tell them to fuck off but they didn't respond. He probably didn't want to be responsible for WW3. Still a dumb fucking stunt by Russia and they should be reprimanded for it.
I am curious about the treaty
This kind of thing, correct me If I am wronf, is done to probe the reaction time and organization of others. The US did this during the cold war with the airspace of the soviets and viceversa (which had something to do with the downing of that korean flight. The russians thought it was a USAF plane, warned it and then shot it down. Nevermind check twice if its a civilian plane).
Any way, the russians know if they get away with this, there is no real punishment. Perhaps they were testing ECM or some stuff like that?
I'm sure if they tried to pull that shit against an aircraft carrier they would be shot down
[QUOTE=Ajacks;50125941]What kind of attack, aside from Kamakazi involves being within 30ft of a ship anyways.[/QUOTE]
both that and "what kind of non-aggressive maneuver involves flying within 30ft of another nation's warship multiple times" are good questions
[QUOTE=Orkel;50125804]why did they let a hostile aircraft fly 9 metres from the ship multiple times? what kind of lax defensive orders does the US navy have, one would imagine at least some warning shots?[/QUOTE]
You can't really "warning shot" an aircraft. You put something in the air and you're threatening to potentially shoot it down. I guess you could have ol' Joe hop on a manual gun and blap the ocean waves a few times, but that'd only be if the pilot got visual confirmation and that's a really risky, dumb path to choose. In a fast moving aircraft, they might only see the muzzle-flash and assume that they're being shot at.
It's also generally not a wise idea to shoot down another nations' aircraft that you're not currently at war with just because the pilot is pulling a dumb stunt. Especially when it's not carrying a payload. Granted, I agree that its' weird that we don't have more strict airspace rules around Navy vessels considering how (rightfully) twitchy we are now about [I]any[/I] waterborne vessels approaching.
Now I wouldn't just jump the gun and start blaming the Russian military as a whole. This could have just been an extremely dumb stunt by some very unprofessional pilots. When something like this happens you can't just assume they were ordered to it, sure their controller takes responsibility for their actions but jumping the gun and assuming it was an intentional order could be as dangerous as the stunt itself, you don't want to create any more tension after such an incident.
Just like you can't assume the American Military ordered a few soldiers to rape and torture prisoners out in the Middle-East, that's on the people that committed the crime.
[QUOTE=Wickerman123;50126254]Now I wouldn't just jump the gun and start blaming the Russian military as a whole. This could have just been an extremely dumb stunt by some very unprofessional pilots. When something like this happens you can't just assume they were ordered to it, sure their controller takes responsibility for their actions but jumping the gun and assuming it was an intentional order could be as dangerous as the stunt itself, you don't want to create any more tension after such an incident.
Just like you can't assume the American Military ordered a few soldiers to rape and torture prisoners out in the Middle-East, that's on the people that committed the crime.[/QUOTE]
As we all know russia has never violated airspace on purpose :v:
Yeah I'm aware of that, they do it to UK airspace too. You still can't afford to make assumptions here, the stunt is beyond anything they've tried before and shit flinging won't make things better.
I could have sworn that the exact same thing has happened before, the same ship and everything
[QUOTE=Wickerman123;50126254]Now I wouldn't just jump the gun and start blaming the Russian military as a whole. This could have just been an extremely dumb stunt by some very unprofessional pilots. When something like this happens you can't just assume they were ordered to it, sure their controller takes responsibility for their actions but jumping the gun and assuming it was an intentional order could be as dangerous as the stunt itself, you don't want to create any more tension after such an incident.
Just like you can't assume the American Military ordered a few soldiers to rape and torture prisoners out in the Middle-East, that's on the people that committed the crime.[/QUOTE]
It could be nothing more than a rouge pilot being a dumbass, but I highly, highly doubt that.
Fiver says it was pilot showboating
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;50126365]I could have sworn that the exact same thing has happened before, the same ship and everything[/QUOTE]
Says that in the article.
[QUOTE=Wickerman123;50126254]Now I wouldn't just jump the gun and start blaming the Russian military as a whole. This could have just been an extremely dumb stunt by some very unprofessional pilots. When something like this happens you can't just assume they were ordered to it, sure their controller takes responsibility for their actions but jumping the gun and assuming it was an intentional order could be as dangerous as the stunt itself, you don't want to create any more tension after such an incident.
Just like you can't assume the American Military ordered a few soldiers to rape and torture prisoners out in the Middle-East, that's on the people that committed the crime.[/QUOTE]
Yes and the Russian tanks just got lost and ended up in Ukraine.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;50126716]It could be nothing more than a rouge pilot being a dumbass, but I highly, highly doubt that.[/QUOTE]
You're right to doubt that. Incidents with pilots "being dumbasses" have happened before here (flying like 10 meters above roads in some areas, for example, seems "tame" in comparison), and AFAIK those incidents ended with pilots getting kicked out of the military altogether and banned from even looking in a direction of any airborne vehicle's controls. Shit's [b]very[/b] strict.
I'm 99% certain the pilot was operating under orders from his superiors, no chance in hell someone doing that on their own and risking dire consequences back on base.
[QUOTE=Orkel;50125804]why did they let a hostile aircraft fly 9 metres from the ship multiple times? what kind of lax defensive orders does the US navy have, one would imagine at least some warning shots?[/QUOTE]
Mutally Assured Destruction
[QUOTE=Aman;50125910]Since when is Russia considered hostile?[/QUOTE]
Flying within 30 feet of a ship that has a Polish helicopter actually on the deck that was conducting flight operations is dangerous, reckless, and honestly they should have lit him up with Radar to get his attention, and then told him to fuck off or get shot down
There was no reason to do it other than to shove their dick in our faces
