Jump to content

Russian Su-24's make "aggressive passes" on US warship


Recommended Posts

crews supposedly being so afraid they decided to stop serving in the navy. :rolleyes:/>

For a lot of people that would be about the coolest thing that happened in 4 whole years in the navy lol

People look more entertained than anything.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Protip: not everything is reported in the media. With the notion that it is, its very easy to confuse not hearing anything, with "then it isn't happening" don't fall into that trap.

besides, the US doens't have the Napoleon complex here. Its very important to Russia that Russia looks tough.

When Russia sends a couple of bombers across the ocean its front page news, when we do it, its called "Wednesday"

That's true. When it's time to fight, there will be flames rather than flybies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it? They weren't trying to kill Americans. Those crew members were serving their country just like the sailors on the Essex. Did they really deserve what happened to them?

Seems pretty cold...

I'm pretty cold and without mercy. I never wish for the untimely end to good people, but one shouldn't be careless in the presence of your mortal enemy. In that view, I am proud we treated the Tu-16 crew with all the respect they deserve. That makes us human and respectable. I will admit that sometimes I want the Navy to shoot every down everything that approaches us to hype the Vladolf Putler Propaganda Parade. Thank God you guys help me to see things more sensibly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it? They weren't trying to kill Americans. Those crew members were serving their country just like the sailors on the Essex. Did they really deserve what happened to them?

Seems pretty cold...

Yes they did, they put a lot of people in danger by their careless act. They could have hit the ship.

As well, they showed aggression at a time they could have easily started a war.

I bet even the Su-24s had weapon systems locked on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they did, they put a lot of people in danger by their careless act. They could have hit the ship.

As well, they showed aggression at a time they could have easily started a war.

I bet even the Su-24s had weapon systems locked on it.

Don't agree. From the video the Badger didn't seem to be that close to the carrier. Just part of the game. I seem to recall that US subs closely shadowed Soviet boomers. Pretty sure that one US sub actually hit a Russian sub it was tailing. By that logic, would the US sailors on that SSN have deserved to die because they were being a bit reckless? I've got no love for the Rooski's but can differentiate their political leadership from the grunts just doing the job they were ordered to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't agree. From the video the Badger didn't seem to be that close to the carrier. Just part of the game. I seem to recall that US subs closely shadowed Soviet boomers. Pretty sure that one US sub actually hit a Russian sub it was tailing. By that logic, would the US sailors on that SSN have deserved to die because they were being a bit reckless? I've got no love for the Rooski's but can differentiate their political leadership from the grunts just doing the job they were ordered to do.

Oh that's a slippery slope... you know what other fellows were just doing their jobs for corrupt regimes...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Low level flying games were common in the Baltic Sea during the cold war and it cost a lot of lifes. Lots of controlled flight into the sea :( Both Russian and Swedish pilots lost their lifes showing their bravado and even following orders. Harrassing ships with high speed low level passes, Viggens and Drakens would buzz Russian ships at over 600kts at less than 20 feet. Once a Draken buzzed a Russian trawler and went through the sound barrier as they passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes they did, they put a lot of people in danger by their careless act. They could have hit the ship.

Tell that to the families of these people......

Italy 1998....

Twenty people died when a United States Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler aircraft while flying lower than regulations allowed, in order for the pilots to "have fun" and "take videos of the scenery", cut a cable supporting a gondola of an aerial tramway, causing it to plunge 260 feet to the ground.

Ken

Edited by Flankerman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell that to the families of these people......

Italy 1998....

Twenty people died when a United States Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler aircraft while flying lower than regulations allowed, in order for the pilots to "have fun" and "take videos of the scenery", cut a cable supporting a gondola of an aerial tramway, causing it to plunge 260 feet to the ground.

Ken

Ken the difference is that the Marines are forbidden from doing that ever again, whereas the Soviets/Russians have had mishaps during 'buzzing' and they still keep doing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell that to the families of these people......

Italy 1998....

Twenty people died when a United States Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler aircraft while flying lower than regulations allowed, in order for the pilots to "have fun" and "take videos of the scenery", cut a cable supporting a gondola of an aerial tramway, causing it to plunge 260 feet to the ground.

Ken

That was a careless act, I used that in my Human Factors in Military Aviation lessons. Why would you think would think this action was any different?

In the case of the Su-24, they were making what could have been perceived as an attack run on a US warship. I would think the ship wild have had the right to defend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It had right to attack based on some "perception"? (that is fantastically illfound, they were practicing what exactly then, skip bombing?)

If we were doing what you say they had the right to, then we would have been in WW3 thousand times over already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It had right to attack based on some "perception"? (that is fantastically illfound, they were practicing what exactly then, skip bombing?)

If we were doing what you say they had the right to, then we would have been in WW3 thousand times over already.

I think the ROE for Western Forces are much more stringent than for the rest. There have been many instances of the Russians doing this. Give me one example of a Western nation doing the same?

The Su-34 is a weapon platform and it was approaching another weapon platform at a high rate of speed and in an aggressive nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell that to the families of these people......

Italy 1998....

Twenty people died when a United States Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler aircraft while flying lower than regulations allowed, in order for the pilots to "have fun" and "take videos of the scenery", cut a cable supporting a gondola of an aerial tramway, causing it to plunge 260 feet to the ground.

Ken

Someday the complete details will come out. Italy furnished the maps, and the maps were worse than bad. Plus there were two or three other major problems to compound the situation. Both sides were in error, but the real error starts with Italy and a couple private errors that seriously compounded the problem.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the ROE for Western Forces are much more stringent than for the rest. There have been many instances of the Russians doing this. Give me one example of a Western nation doing the same?

The Su-34 is a weapon platform and it was approaching another weapon platform at a high rate of speed and in an aggressive nature.

More stringent ROE? Not sure I buy into that. I can think of many examples of less than stringent ROE but let's start with Iran Air 655. I'm sure that Airbus climbing out in a commercial flight corridor was doing so in an aggressive nature and the 290 civilians on board also got what they deserved when the USS Vincennes blew it out of the sky.

We can also discuss the shoot down of two Army UH-60's by a couple of F-15's.

So much for stringent ROE those days. If it flies it dies and God (or Allah) can sort 'em out.

Next time the Rooski's come at us at high speed, let's just smoke them. We always get it right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More stringent ROE? Not sure I buy into that. I can think of many examples of less than stringent ROE but let's start with Iran Air 655. I'm sure that Airbus climbing out in a commercial flight corridor was doing so in an aggressive nature and the 290 civilians on board also got what they deserved when the USS Vincennes blew it out of the sky.

We can also discuss the shoot down of two Army UH-60's by a couple of F-15's.

So much for stringent ROE those days. If it flies it dies and God (or Allah) can sort 'em out.

Next time the Rooski's come at us at high speed, let's just smoke them. We always get it right.

Both of those cases were mistaken ID and admittedly so

And yes especially with COIN, the ROE and EOF are strict even by Western standards. He is correct

How long ago were those BTW?? 20 and 30 years? Wonder if they changed anything afterward...

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell that to the families of these people......

Italy 1998....

Twenty people died when a United States Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler aircraft while flying lower than regulations allowed, in order for the pilots to "have fun" and "take videos of the scenery", cut a cable supporting a gondola of an aerial tramway, causing it to plunge 260 feet to the ground.

Ken

Not seeing the parellels...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Su-34 is a weapon platform and it was approaching another weapon platform at a high rate of speed and in an aggressive nature.

Would a Su-24 attack a destroyer by bombing it at close range? I am no expert, but I would say no.

So, aggressive? It's very subjective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, there weren't any U.S. aviation assets in the area watching the Su-24s doing this? Isn't this boat (USS Donald Cook) part of a carrier battle group or something? Are they that exposed out there? I'm sure they can protect themselves with their weapons systems but, still, a bit surprised there weren't any Super Hornets flying around just in case.

Just curious...

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...