taylorde Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I see news articles on a big increase in Russian Military 'training' flights, and the articles mention that they do not have their transponders on, is that new for them ? The article mentions this is dangerous as air traffic control cannot see them. Just wondering if this is something that could be considered an act of war, flying military planes without transponders, or is this something US, NATO does too ? DaveT Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ALF18 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 It is not unusual to have a military aircraft shut off its transponder in uncontrolled airspace, or in military-reserved "special-use" airspace (Class F). I notice you live in Nova Scotia; many times I would fly CF-18s or T-33s out of Shearwater or Greenwood, transit to an off-shore restricted airspace, and shut off my transponder to play enemy or unknown. We did this in the confines of reserved airspace, but it was done all the time. There have even been times I've been flying in US airspace (restricted areas) off Florida's South coast, and seen (on radar) Cuban military aircraft, who could paint us as well on radar. They may have been at times operating with no transponder as well. It depends on what kind of airspace the Russians are operating in. Sure, they should have transponders on all the time. Do they? Not always, especially if they operate in uncontrolled airspace over international waters. It is not an act of war, nor is it always in contravention of ICAO or other regulatory agency rules (FAA, Transport Canada, etc). If you take the case of Russian Bear bombers, they tend to operate without clearances, in uncontrolled airspace, but below the normal altitudes used by jet passenger or cargo aircraft (around 25,000 feet or so). The games of "cat and mouse" involve practised dance steps that have been going on for decades. The only thing that may be new is a little more public awareness of what has been happening since the late 1940s. ALF Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Just wondering if this is something that could be considered an act of war, How could that possibly be considered an "act of war" ??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 How could that possibly be considered an "act of war" ??? A new generation, the internet, news sensationalism, paranoia..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Has there actually been an increase in russian patrols or is it simply more media attention? If there is an uptick how much more is it? I'm always curious about this. OSW and ONW flights got shot at almost constantly for years, and it was never even considered noteworthy by the media. This in turn leads to a lack of awareness, and then the idea that if its not being reported on, then it must not be occurring. This has only become worse as the current media now monitors "trending" stories online and on social media, and then tailors their coverage accordingly. So you are even more likely to hear one topic being beat to death and turned to glue while other very relevant stories get ignored. This further cements a more and more narrow world view. Worse, these things are blown up beyond all proportion. this isn't a new thing with the news media, but its become more acute, and far more streamlined. We then feed the addiction because "new news" is getting older, faster, so we need our fix for the next "big thing" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) I see news articles on a big increase in Russian Military 'training' flights, and the articles mention that they do not have their transponders on, is that new for them ? The article mentions this is dangerous as air traffic control cannot see them. Just wondering if this is something that could be considered an act of war, flying military planes without transponders, or is this something US, NATO does too ? DaveT Flying with transponders off in international waters is an act of war? Wat. What if i told you that an ATC friend of mine who works up north have never seen Russian planes trespassing on Norwegian airspace. What if i told you an American plane has done that, and ignored ATC instructions (his) to sod off... Should we, as NATO country declare war on USA? :) Edited October 30, 2014 by Berkut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 This has only become worse as the current media now monitors "trending" stories online and on social media, and then tailors their coverage accordingly. So you are even more likely to hear one topic being beat to death :deadhorse1:/> and turned to glue while other very relevant stories get ignored. This further cements a more and more narrow world view. Worse, these things are blown up beyond all proportion. this isn't a new thing with the news media, but its become more acute, and far more streamlined. We then feed the addiction because "new news" is getting older, faster, so we need our fix for the next "big thing" This is how the media, at the behest of governments or corporations, controls the masses' world views. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Should we, as NATO country declare war on USA? :)/> I would think very carefully at that. But, in the worst case scenario, Norway gets rebuilt into a industrial/economic powerhouse like Germany or Japan :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Indeed, we are such a hell hole at the moment. :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aigore Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Indeed, we are such a hell hole at the moment. :)/> Heck yeah, you charge for beer as you didn´t want ppl to drink it!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hajo L. Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Has there actually been an increase in russian patrols or is it simply more media attention? If there is an uptick how much more is it? From this article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/30/nato-jets-intercept-russian-warplanes "Nato said it had conducted more than 100 such intercepts of Russian aircraft this year so far, about three times as many as in 2013 before the confrontation with Moscow over separatist revolts in Ukraine soured relations." HAJO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Transponder or no, if I were a Bear-H pilot flying Norway to Portugal and back, I'd be looking over my shoulder and sweating profusely at the thought of any number of air-to-air missiles headed my way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) This is how the media, at the behest of governments or corporations, controls the masses' world views. Its not that nefarious IMHO its just the media's endless desire to sell advertising, and the fact that the field of journalism is biased toward one political ideology. I don't think they meet in smoke filled rooms to pull the levers of the globe, I just think its pure shortsightedness and finding themselves locked into their old routines and narratives. Which means its kind of a "lite" but inadvertent version of the above. I think its more incompetence than conspiracy. kid goes to school gets his/her degree in journalism, goes into journalism. life experience= school+journalism. Real world experience = 0. Then its about just keeping your job/moving up in the ranks so you can get your paychecks and retire someday. There is little pressure to get it right, and you have to work much harder to get it right, so a lot of people don't. The news is a business, and that always needs to be remembered. Their biggest weak spot is catering to an increasingly self-centered audience. People are effectively neutering the messenger. IE Human interest stories/off beat stories replacing actual accurate reporting and important info. and make mistake TV news and newspapers even more so, are feeling the hurt the internet has put on them. I remember after 9/11 there was this big introspection and everyone in the media was like "wow real things are happening, its time to start reporting on real issues and real threats instead of stories about a squirrel being rescued by the fire department or the worlds biggest potato" But Then!! in 2004 Janet Jacksons nipple popped out and they regressed to the norm. The "awakening" was short lived. Its not news, its fark. Some NSFW language, but hilarious^ Edited October 31, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I agree with you on every point, but the results are the same and the beneficiaries never change. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Its not that nefarious IMHO its just the media's endless desire to sell advertising Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I agree with you on every point, but the results are the same and the beneficiaries never change. eh, Theres a difference between steering a huge conspiracy from a smoke filled room and simply taking advantage of blind spots that appear in my opinion at least. I would say the beneficiaries do change and the results as well. You can say thats splitting hairs, and I am not doing the best at really articulating the differences, but I think there is a difference. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) I'm glad you have some trust in the news, but because of 95% of what I see, I don't. News is an entertainment industry that has to sustain itself. Maybe you thought I was being paranoid about the news when in reality I just rarely accept any news accounts. Just look what Tom Cooper has said about Syria that the news still hasn't caught up to. They just barely started talking about Iranian control/funding of large chunks of the existing Syrian military. I don't think it's "nefarious" the vast amount of times, but it is sometimes. Time on a news channel, in terms of promoting a product or cause, is regularly bought, and though I see it as mostly a dichotomy, I don't see much interest in it short of seeing what the rest of the world is following. I too feel that the news reports on so many inane topics, and ignores big issues that could be happening around you. I have a hard time trusting a news source that spins court cases that could lead to different Constitutional interpretations. The court of public opinion is so erratic. But in this case, with foreign nations acting aggressive toward us, we need to remember that we are the biggest fish in the ocean (maybe even universe?), and the threat of nuclear war isn't going away in our lifetimes. The news is so late on almost everything. Edited October 31, 2014 by Exhausted Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 It's clear to me that many in the media are no smarter than the general populace. They will gobble up whatever comes their way. Journalism in the mainstream media is a thing of the past. They can't even be bothered to check basic facts anymore. There are a few notable exceptions, but they're rare. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 It's clear to me that many in the media are no smarter than the general populace. They will gobble up whatever comes their way. Journalism in the mainstream media is a thing of the past. They can't even be bothered to check basic facts anymore. There are a few notable exceptions, but they're rare. Checking facts is really, really expensive. And people don't want to pay for that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ElectroSoldier Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 This is how the media, at the behest of governments or corporations, controls the masses' world views. But not yours and his views? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ElectroSoldier Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 I see news articles on a big increase in Russian Military 'training' flights, and the articles mention that they do not have their transponders on, is that new for them ? The article mentions this is dangerous as air traffic control cannot see them. Just wondering if this is something that could be considered an act of war, flying military planes without transponders, or is this something US, NATO does too ? DaveT It depends on the situation but it can be quite normal. It can be dangerous to other air traffic in the same way as a bus driving down the street is dangerous to pedestrians on the pavement next to the road. Not an act of war, it would be hard to call it an overt act even... it makes the news story look interesting though and the media need to make the Russkiis look like the bad guys at the minute. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FM-Whip Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 I remember after 9/11 there was this big introspection and everyone in the media was like "wow real things are happening, its time to start reporting on real issues and real threats instead of stories about a squirrel being rescued by the fire department or the worlds biggest potato" But Then!! in 2004 Janet Jacksons nipple popped out and they regressed to the norm. The "awakening" was short lived. Its not news, its fark. There's a good reason why the news divisions of the major broadcasters are part of the entertainment sector. The media wouldn't put this garbage out there unless somebody was eating it up. They are driven by what people want to see, and obviously many, many people in the public love tabloid-type "news" - low-brow crowds have always been known for discerningly good taste. Put serious, deeply-researched news out there? Relatively few people will watch/read it, and it won't bring in advertising dollars or act as clickbait. And of course the redneck Yahoos will deride it as "elitist". Just like we get the politicians we deserve, we get the news we deserve. In fact we are getting everything we deserve. I go with Theodore Sturgeon's Law or Revelation: "90% of everything is crap" except nowadays only more so. John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horrido Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 It's clear to me that many in the media are no smarter than the general populace. Less so, actually. Put serious, deeply-researched news out there? Relatively few people will watch/read it, and it won't bring in advertising dollars or act as clickbait. Why confuse the livestock when their purpose is to be fleeced? Just like we get the politicians we deserve, we get the news we deserve. 51+% of us get the politicians we deserve (where honestly democratically elected). The rest of us are trapped in the river of lemmings. In fact we are getting everything we deserve. Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair and all the terrible things that happen to us, come because we actually deserve them? So now I take comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the Universe. -- Marcus Cole, Babylon 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Has there actually been an increase in russian patrols or is it simply more media attention? If there is an uptick how much more is it? Returning this thread more to its original topic, and disregarding the sidebars on media matters... The answer to the above question is yes. It's a significant uptick, and the manner and disposition of these flights is a damned bit different than the standard characterization of a "routine" ADIZ penetration. If you read some of the quoted articles, you'll note the flights have involved multiple aircraft formations (and by multiple, I mean 'more than two' in this case), extremely long routes involving multiple, complex refueling procedures, and, perhaps the most "different" aspect, long range fighter escort. One or two of these features alone would be enough to characterize these recent developments as aberrant events in and of themselves. Combined, they make these Russian patrols highly abnormal. Anything "highly abnormal" tends to get folks' attention, especially when we're talking about military equipment operating in close proximity to one another. The US and Russia (and previously the Soviet Union) were intelligent enough to realize their frequent military encounters were a potential source of conflict which could rapidly escalate, both on the high seas and when prodding their respective ADIZ and exercising rights to Freedom of Navigation. As such, they developed and signed a document to help control these events: the "Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities Agreement." It lays forth many additional rules and agreements to standardize things like air intercepts and ship-to-ship encounters, specifically to help keep folks from getting overly excited whilst operating advanced military gear in close proximity to one another. These recent events deviate (in some cases, GREATLY) from the established standard. Intercepting a bomber or ISR aircraft operating in international environs along another nation's ADIZ has become very, very standardized and routine in the past 40 years or so. The intercepting pilots know it, the bomber pilots know it, and they each have an expectation of what will or will not happen. And let's face it, the bombers know not to deviate because you're talking about fighters/interceptors who can relatively easily ruin their day. The fighters know it because they're not particularly threatened by the bomber/ISR aircraft, and they are quite literally risking an international incident or war initiating act if they do something stupid. Throw in fighter escorts, and now you have a whole different ballgame. Intercepting fighters running up against bomber/ISR aircraft with a fighter escort now have a scenario in which both sides can legitimately and very quickly threaten each other...it totally upsets the balance. And it happens so infrequently--especially in the past 20-25 years--that it's not something either side has seen enough to become "routine." It's not standard, and any one on either side of the eventual intercept and identify timeline can quickly make the other side very jumpy by doing something unexpected. Which is pretty much anything. Finally, failing to file flight plans, not operating with transponders, and not adhering to internationally recognized (however begrudgingly) orbits and exercise tracks is NOT a good way to make the other side comfortable. It's a great way to highlight the difference from "normal" operations, and to ensure the other side questions, "what are these guys doing...and why?" I'm sure that's exactly the message conveyed here: "we are not predictable, and have the ability to hold any of you at risk at any time." And quite frankly, it's a dangerous game, because it dramatically increases the risk of miscalculation. The media's reporting, in this case, accurately reflects a raising of concern by the military leadership. We don't know what these guys are doing, we don't know why they're doing it, and they're not adhering to established norms and agreements. Despite reassurances these events are, "nothing to be concerned about," failing to agree to these established norms is, rightfully, going to get folks excited. And that excitement will bleed over into media reporting on the events. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) But not yours and his views? Or especially yours? Edited November 1, 2014 by Exhausted Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.