Navy Intercepts Russian Bombers

Source: AP

Navy Intercepts Russian Bombers

By LOLITA C. BALDOR – 37 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Associated Press has learned that U.S. fighter planes intercepted two Russian bombers flying unusually close to an American aircraft carrier in the western Pacific during the weekend.

A U.S. military official says that one Russian Tupolev 95 buzzed the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz twice, at a low altitude of about 2,000 feet, while another bomber circled about 50 nautical miles out. The official was speaking on condition of anonymity because the reports on the flights were classified as secret.

more


Read more: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iZnc42XeC-4PKplrnx74ylj3JSLAD8UOC0700

---

Worst. President. Ever.

expect more of this.

the Army and Marines are stretched but the Navy and Air Force not. In the Pacific, it is air and naval power that matters, so no - we are not defenseless. In fact, our Naval power is still unmatched - especially when compared to the Russians. A part from their nuclear weapons, the Russians can't even be considered a first rate military power, they have fallen so far since the end of the Soviet Union.

They wait silently in the depths before taking out their target with a single lethal blow. Don't be caught dead on the surface;)

the Chinese and Russians have none.

without going into all the differences between peacetime and wartime carrier operations, this is somewhat irrelevant. If the Chinese start a war by sinking a US carrier, the response will be devastating . First we would turn out the lights and water in major Chinese cities through large cruise missile strikes launched from surface ships, submarines and B-52s. We would then mine major ports to ensure that no oil can get in. All of that besides sinking the rest of the Chinese navy. In turn, short of mutual nuclear annihilation, they can't really do anything to the US mainland.

Currently there is one - Truman, and they leave the gulf periodically to do Horn of Africa operations.

Get your facts straight.

My guess is that the first targets will be the Air Force installations in Alaska, combined with a Chinese naval blockade of Japan, that just leaves Pearl Harbor and San Diego.

The Pacific fleet cannot cover the entire ocean, and PAC AF can't provide air cover for the entire area either.

You forgot to add in the Chinese satellite killer missiles.

There are just too many variables to conclude that the good old US of A can defend itself against an attack.

"combined with a Chinese naval blockade of Japan, that just leaves Pearl Harbor and San Diego."

The Chinese don't really have a navy large enough to even come close to an operation that large in scope and logistics.

"PLAN (People's Liberation Army Navy) remains little more than a "brown water" coastal defense with limited "green water" capabilities, and no pretense of "blue water" aspirations. Despite a few recent noteworthy additions, the Chinese fleet is overwhelmingly populated with elderly and evidently obsolete units. Even the most recently constructed ships are evidently deficient in anti-air and anti-submarine warfare capabilities."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/plan-overview.htm

they are a world class, high tech navy - China is not. There is no way the Chinese navy can blockade Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Force

The Chinese cannot attack the US with the exception of nuclear weapons - and that would be suicide for them. They can't attack Alaska with conventional forces.

It is not their fault though as they are locked down due to a peacefull constitution, China has plenty of Su-30 Mk2 with modern ASM missiles, they could quite literally send their entire naval fleet to the bottom of the ocean, Air power trumps naval power ALWAYS!!!

and how can it defend it self from Patriot PAC-3 missiles and AEGIS destroyers? The Japanese have purchased state of the art air defense systems including AWACS and F-15s - you are delusional if you think they are defenseless.


Go read my link again - they are the fourth or fifth largest navy in the world. Also one of the most modern. For example, there are two navies in the world that can shoot down ballistic missiles (using AEGIS) - they are one of them.

One has a flight profile of a cannon ball, the other skims the seas taking advantage of the earth's curvature to remain undetected. Not to mention moden HYPERSONIC ASM generally strike their target barely 30 seconds after being detected, just launching the missiles from an AEGIS platform takes around 30 seconds, not to mention tracking, firing and intercepting. Even if CIWS did not suffer from the same limitations it can only engage one target at a time, not to mention positioning can be a mayor issue.

Air will aways trump naval power, always. F-15 stationed in land bases could never accurately defend the entire Japanesse Navy.

my point was simply to point out how high tech the Japanese navy is.

You are wrong about air power, especially vis a vis China and Japan.

The point you want to ignore is Japan's sophisticated air defense systems. The combination of AWACS, tankers, and F-15s ensure that any SU-30s are detected and intercepted hundreds of miles before they can get into launch position. An SU-30 loaded down with missiles and external fuel tanks is a pig - subsonic with little maneuverability. They would be easy to detect and shoot down at long range with AMRAAMs.

The other big issue is actually finding the Japanese navy. There is a lot of shipping in that area and it is a big ocean. If the Japanese turn off their radars and get their air picture from the AWACS via data link, the SU-30s won't have a clue where to go. If they turn on their radars, they simply give away their position to the Japanese and completely give away the element of surprise.

If they were able to evade the F-15s and find the Japanese navy ships, they would still be at a disadvantage against the AEGIS destroyers. AEGIS can detect and engage a SU-30 at ranges in excess of 150 miles. An SU-30, on the other hand, needs to get within 75 miles to engage the AEGIS destroyer. Advantage AEGIS.

Its range is legendary by now. The Japanesse air defense is stuck on islands while their navy would be defenseless to these predators, so unless they plan to keep them in port they pretty much expect to lose a few ships, The Chinese also have AWACS and finding a ship at sea is easier than finding a wing from land.


"If they were able to evade the F-15s and find the Japanese navy ships, they would still be at a disadvantage against the AEGIS destroyers". AEGIS can detect and engage a SU-30 at ranges in excess of 150 miles. An SU-30, on the other hand, needs to get within 75 miles to engage the AEGIS destroyer. Advantage AEGIS."

Not with a Hi-lo-hi profile, they can get as close to them as 15 miles and the ship would never know what hit him. This is why surface navies are all essentially doomed from the get go, no matter long range the radar is, it cannot penetrate the curvature of the earth.

it takes a lot of fuel to lug those missiles around.

Their air defense is not tied to land - did you miss my point about the combination of AWACS, tankers and F-15s? The point of the tankers is to maintain Combat Air Patrol (CAP) stations hundreds of miles from land.

Finding ships is much harder - all you see on radar is blips. No way to tell the difference between a tanker and a destroyer. China has no operational AWACS - they are still testing. They had a major setback due to a crash:

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/specialaircraft/y8-kj200.asp

They can't sneak up on an AEGIS when there is an AWACS providing coverage - did you miss my point about data links? Why do you think that the US Navy has E-2cs? To detect aircraft at long ranges over the horizon perhaps?

However, I believe that there are multi-national (ANZAC, etc.) and American Air and Battle groups that are consistently deployed in such a way as to maximize defense of the Japanese mainland from the threat of air attack at all times.

How many aircraft carrier strike groups are in Iraq?

but the state of our Army, Marines, and National Guard is a shadow of what it was 7 years ago. Frankly, I think Pooty-poot is way too shrewd to do anything stupid. He will just wait until we spend ourselves to death, which shouldn't be too long now.

We have nothing left to defend ourselves with but ourselves. The only reason we haven't been destroyed is because China has to much invested in the country formerly known as the United States.

Russia and China are regional powers at best. Short of using nuclear weapons (which is tantamount to national suicide) just how do you think they can attack the West Coast? How are they going to get an army here?

Destroy us with air power alone. We have no Military left to defend us, the Guard and the Reserve are strung out on their third tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think it's a mistake that the Russian plane was getting close to our carrier? Awhile back a Chinese sub went undetected by one of our carriers, I think it was over the summer. We are in no shape to defend ourselves, we buy our freaking Military rounds from China.
When attacked, we would have no manufacturing set up to make anything. I guess we could piece together some Walmart shotguns to make a pretty impressive weapon.

How exactly would a Sino/Soviet air wing get past the carrier air groups (in addition to 5000 miles of water) w/ enough strength left to damage the west coast's industrial capacity to the degree you describe?

The Chinese air force can't even reach Hawaii, much less the west coast. The Russian's have so few heavy bombers that even if any got past the air force they wouldn't do any major damage.

No military? What about the Navy - just how has Iraq destroyed the Navy? The Air Force - same thing.

Of course the Russian plane got close - do you think we would shoot it down and start a war? Got news for you - during the cold war, overflights were a routine occurrence.

No - we do not buy rounds from China - unless you have a link?

Every major weapon system the US uses is made in America - including all the missiles and ammunition.

absolutely no idea what in the hell you are talking about.

please specify the exact precentage of military that is deployed (I already know) and exactly why you think its "broken" (besides, "I read it on the internet")

Russia don't need 12 aircraft carriers to rule the seas. All it needs is 12 Yakhont missiles to sink 12 US carriers to pretty much equalise things on the chess board. Of course this scenario would lead to nuclear exchange but that is not the matter of the discussion.
I wouldn't give too much fuss about this case though, it was a maritime patrol, we observe their aircraft carrier just as often, the Russians don't make any fuss about it. Everything is cool.


"Russia is never as strong as she looks, nor as weak as she looks". Otto Bismarck

US equipped militaries have kicked Russian/Soviet equipped militaries asses up one side and down the other, I would be so optimistic. Russian military equipment has a dismal combat record against western weapons.

One missile - on carrier is a pipe dream.

where hi tech russian weapon were defeated.

At least two places were Soviet equipment was kicking some of our ass.

You mean Middle East? Those middle eastern armies would fight poorly no matter what kind of weapons they would be given.

And Russian military equipment having a "dismal record"? Where exactly? Lebanon? Chechnya? Serbia? I don't recall. Oh yeah, the old rusty Iraqi T-72s without fuel and spare parts - that was quite a target practice!

It's also the kind of stuff that props up crazy old repuke nominee Johnny McCain!

A more peaceful stance would be wisest, at least as a primary approach to such incidents.

secret info.away under anonymity..what a joke we are...

...in a plane flown first in 1953??? Turbo-prop equivelent of a B-52??? And grandpa snuck up on the Nimitz how??? Top speed 500 knots vs. 200 mile minimum radar coverage=20 minutes to intercept. All fun and games-no one was surprised, so think saber rattling x 2...

catch this little tidbit Cat. In this forum public dissemination of classified information is frowned upon. :evilgrin:

My first thought as well heh. Not quite so detailed as all that but bombers? Old school bombers sneaking up on a carrier group? You're kidding.

This is how it works. The plane that was close to the carrier flies in as low as he can to stay under the radar and be undetected. The second plane stays far far away and does the targeting. The second plane draws the attention because it is doing the active targeting work and the first plane is ignored because it is not drawing attention to itself because it is to low and can't be detected. The first plane just needs to get the targeting information from the second plane. It does not need to make itself known to gather the targeting information from the second plane. The first time the carrier may know of the first plane is when it attempts to launch an attack. Don't just think of bombs as many bombers can carry missiles too. The the first time the Navy knows about the first plane that is in close is when it is under attack by said plane. So you an never be too safe.

Raebrek!!!


I had a typo. sorry.
and again, another typeo.....sorry spell check doesn't catch properly spelled words.

The mid-air plane crash near China in 2001. That was a ordinary plane/flight right? Not to mention the Blackbird or the U2. Variants of the Russian Bear bomber were flying up and down the East coast every week or two up till the fall of the Soviet Union.

Then there are the fishing trawlers operated by the worlds navies....

I used to fly in recon planes in the vietnam era. Russian fighters used to routinely chase us away from their coast. However, it is a Little unusual for theses flights to actually harass an aircraft carrier.

I'd guess those older Russian planes didn't know how close they really were.

As was said earlier, this is classic cat-and-mouse fun, nothing too new I think.

It was just them letting us know that they are watching us. Assuming the Nimitz knew they were there and they almost certainly did, what were they supposed to do about it, shoot it down?

The Nimitz was in International waters. Shooting them down would be a diplomatic disaster.

My husband flew the SR-71 Mach 3 it never crashed anywhere...Daly City to Mildenhall, UK in less than 2 hours . We have nothing like that anymore. Or the U-2.. God help us if we ever need Help here. We have never Experienced the damage ! I pray we never do.

We still have the U-2...and the SR could never make it from Daly City to Mildenhall in under 2 hours; since in 1974, the airplane set a record from New York to London in 1 hour, 54 minutes, and 56.4 seconds.

Just the facts, ma'am.

Or maybe he's more of a "chutes and ladders" kinda guy.

what is it now, 12 lanes across?

.
.
.



Make that 24 if you count the service lanes, where only cops and emergency vehicles are allowed to drive

This was, let's remember, in the western Pacific - probably closer to Russia than the USA.

Just routine stuff, as others have said. Nothing to see here. Both the Russian pilots - - and trust me, the bomber did not in fact "buzz" the Nimitz under any stretch of the imagination - - and the Nimitz battle group sailors probably smiled their way through the whole thing and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Western Pacific


Who was close to whom?

TacticalPeek

Interesting that a old aircraft like Tu95 Bear can "sneak" up on a US aircraft carrier... Even if they fly low and fast I really doubt that it would be a match for the radar operators at a nuclear driven Aircraft carrier?.. I really doubt they was not knowing that the russian aircraft was visiting them before the aircraft was there to fly by...

By the way, the current TU95 Bear are not from the 1950s, but rather from the 1980s, or in some cases from the 1990s.. The aircraft are rebuild and tweaked on a lot since the original TU95 was flying in 1950s.. And the aircraft are still the fastest turbo-prop in the world with 950km... Like a jet in many cases..

More on the old bird at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 Still a nice locking aircraft if you ask me..:evilgrin:

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

The old Bears still have tailgunners, which is way cool.

Baclava

The Bear is a nice looking aircraft, probably the best designed aircraft in the old soviet union arsenal.. And compared to many other aircraft from the same period it is still going strong, and the design is in many cases the same. Even that the aircraft in it self maybe are much more younger than the design should say...

It is as with the B52, that is older than many of the crew flying them I guess... And B52 are still a nice looking aircraft, even that is is many prospect more ugly than the Bear..

But the bear, and the "buff" would possible end in some museum when its time are up.. And i don't how what Will replace it.. Maybe the times of big bombers are out as with the big battle ships of the last century.. The future belong to the smaller, more agile and more steal ty aircraft I guess.. And TU95 Bear are not exactly Stealty..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

Don't know about it's range though....probably the old Bear can still fly longer recon missions

Baclava

True, TU160 is a sleak and nice loking aircraft too.. Similar to the B1 in fact;). But by far bigger than the B1
..

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu160/

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~junap95/bombers/tu160.htm

http://www.livevideo.com/video/818F51332714426F82C8D8A5704501B6/-tupolev-tu160-backjack-bo.aspx

Diclotican

Sorry my bad engelish, not my native language

Sorry, had to ask.

My AboveTopSecret security clearance demands it.

Baclava

Not as I know about.. But If I was that, I doubt I want or have the right to tell the rest of the world I was member of KGB: Bur for the paper, I am not even a russian.. Offically KGB was dispanded in 1991-92 and the whole system teared apart.. At the Old KGB, only the 1 main dirictorate are again.. As FSB.. A itern security system who are FAR from the power the OLD FIRST DIRECTORATE of KGB had.. Even the Spetznas, the "sword" of KGB was allmoust dispanded in the 1990s, and are now under the controll of the Presidental Guard...

But the Old GRU is still alive and verry active... I belive they even have the old name as they had when they was the all-powerfull military intelligence apparatour in Soviet.. And the Russian Intelligence are still a force to recon with even after the breakup of Russia and the old KGB.. They may not have the same equipment as Ford Made where NSA have the system capable of conecting information 24/ 365 days a year But they do have a intelligence system who are first class.. But it is just not that known as their american counterparts.. UK, France, Germany and many others have great intelligence systems all toghter.. I dont know about China yet, but I guess them have learned a lot too...

Just interestning in Aircraft.. American as russian...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad engelish, not my native language

I used to live near El Toro, I would say "buzzed" would entail I can make out individual rivits on the plane.

It was circling just a mere 50 miles away!!! :wow: :wow: :scared: :scared:

....and let's see what happens....

do you REALLY want to see the Russians mad?

Do you know what happened when we did this to China in Hainan?

I, for one, do not want to piss off the Russians.

Maybe quite close to Russia, if in the northwestern Pacific.

.
.
.

Found this in Veterans:

Kyodo News Service
Posted : Monday Feb 11, 2008 12:03:12 EST

SASEBO, Japan — The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Nimitz made its first port call at Sasebo on Monday.

The 91,487-ton Nimitz is the ninth nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to stop at Sasebo port. The last such port call came in February last year and was made by the carrier Ronald Reagan.

The carrier, with a crew of about 4,800, is scheduled to stay at the port in southwestern Japan city for five days to provide the crew with rest and recreation, and replenish supplies.

Local labor organizations and other civic groups opposed to the vessel’s visit staged rallies on some 20 boats and on land as the carrier entered port.
___________________________________________________________________

I think the Russians knew exactly what they were doing ..

The Russians might have been engaged in an informal "assertion of sovereignty".

I seem to recollect reading somewhere that the Russian Federation with its current budget surpluses were investing heavily into new military technologies. Anyone have link for that info handy? If correct.

If they are, I wonder what they are investing in. It will be a few years before you see any of it "buzzing" or popping out of the water next to an aircraft carrier, but I wonder if anyone has any info as to what they got on the drawing board. Hmmm...that reminds me, when that stealth fighter went down in Serbia during the war, where did the wreckage go to?

Xolodno

The Russian Federation are spending a lot of money to re-build the armed forces. You most remember that the Red Army have not given lot of resources since early 1990s, and in the meantime the time have come to show it faces in the most of russian military forces.. They have not have many maneuvers, not many aircraft have been flying, and the aircraft crew, have in many cases not by a long shop the hour that is minimum to made a air force what it is... For the most part the aircraft, and other military equipment have ben sitting and rotten away, eaten by mice and rust.. Even with a modest buildup it Will take decades to make Russia half what the old Soviet was in the cold war.. And with the armed forces who in many cases are demoralized and where abuses against conscript are feared for many of the new conscript who are coming into the armed forces every year. It Will take a long time before the Read Army or air force in any way would be possible to be a treath... But if the armed forces stop abuses, and was treat hing their conscript and lover ranks with dignity and build up the armed forces from the button up. They may manage to do something for them self..

I dint know what the russian have on their drawing board, but I would guess they have a lot of ideas, but haven't have the money to spend on build prototypes.. The russian sientich have never been known for been dumb, rather they are respected in the scientific circles.. And I would thing that Russia have lot of ideas of how the 5ft generation aircraft should look but as they have not have had the money, they have not been possible to do it.. Now when they have the money, in the decades coming it Will come some interesting design from the russian designs.. The Idea of Stealth is by the way russian, a man was made the theoretic idea back the Stealth already in 1920 and many of the theoretic ideas was falling out of knowledge, but some bright american designers on Skuncwork (Locheed Martin) found this theory, and then as the history goes, made the first ideas about build a Stealth Aircraft.. The now famous F117 and B2 bomber..

The wreckage of the F117 that was lost over Beograd, are on display on the air force museum in Beograd. But I would not doubt that both Russia and China was given full access to the wreckage to se what was salvage to take home.. And I would believe that the design are helping both Russia and China with their own design.. Even that I believe that at least Russia have a lot of knowledge about Stealth.. Just doesn't had have the money yet...

Dicloican

Sorry my bad English, not my naive language

Heres some other episodes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq1pUfd1MM8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC7ZiTKt0lI

Props cannot be made stealthy.

I can understand the TU 95 because is is 50's technology but how about a specially designed prop?

Stealth planes hide rotating turbines to prevent the radar from bouncing off them. Shape is important in reducing the reflection of radar waves, but props have a natural limit to what can be done with the shape.

our radar

It's just hard to force a plane to change course in international waters without starting an "incident".

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=5127

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dq1pUfd1MM8

Russian military planes flew undetected through the U.S. zone of the Arctic Ocean to Canada during recent military exercises, a senior Air Force commander said Saturday.

The commander of the country’s long-range strategic bombers, Lieutenant General Igor Khvorov, said the U.S. Air Force is now investigating why its military was unable to detect the Russian bombers.

“They were unable to detect the planes either with radars or visually,” he said.

It is likely that there was a weather event or malfunction that let them sneak by. Stealth aircraft are very obvious by the shape.

but the reason all the news is that they are coming into NATO territories undetected

just like the China Sub who snuck up on US submarines war games

This has been going on for quite awhile now

Denmark had to scramble and was freaked out

Stealth technology only works in accordance with the laws of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology

"Vehicle shape
Certain shapes offer better stealth

The possibility of designing aircraft in such a manner as to reduce their radar cross-section was recognized in the late 1930s, when the first radar tracking systems were employed, and it has been known since at least the 1960s that aircraft shape makes a very significant difference in how well an aircraft can be detected by a radar. The Avro Vulcan, a British bomber of the 1960s, had a remarkably small appearance on radar despite its large size, and occasionally disappeared from radar screens entirely. We now know that it had a fortuitously stealthy shape apart from the vertical element of the tail. On the other hand, the Tupolev 95 Russian long range bomber (NATO reporting name 'Bear') appeared especially well on radar. It is now known that propellers and jet turbine blades produce a bright radar image; the Bear had four pairs of large (5.6 meter diameter) contra-rotating propellers."

As for the sub, sneaking up on ships is what subs are designed to do, and they do it well.

Since that technology is completely unlikely on a prop bomber (aside from Star Trek), it is more likely that someone wasn't doing their job or there was a malfunction.

keeps the big Bomber hidden from our Radar

if nobody saw it then yes it shows maybe we don't have the DEFENSE that we think we do

like who would think the Pentagon would be hit
Get the point

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Everything you said afterward made sense as well.

Do you have any peer-reviewed links illustrating that prop planes are indeed capable of stealth technology? I'd be very interested in seeing anything about that. Thanks.

How would he know what NORAD actually saw?

I seriously question if they have ANY eyesight except what Cheney tells them

So ya I'll take the Russian general and the Pentagon issued the report about the buzz of the Bears

look where NORAD's radars are located and it becomes very clear why they didn't see anything on 911.

In this particular case, the Bears were detected 500 miles away - the carrier was not surprised.

not very stealthy.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330362,00.html

Oh I trust everything they say
I'll still go with the Russian General

or are you just too lazy to look for other sources. Hint: google Nimitz russia bears.

I can google :rofl:

very progressive.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=243a58c5-6e1d-4ad8-a888-ed6acb72cf1b



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=513777&in_page_id=1811

What election?

:yoiks:

looks like something from the air and space museum.

It's got several things going for it. First of all it has tremendous range. The thing can fly forever on a tank of gas. This makes it ideal to cruise out into the ocean and find enemy ships. At that stage it radios back a message and the newer and faster bombers would attack. It maybe a one way mission for the crew but they are professionals just like the US pilots and understand the risks. It can also carry cruise missiles so it can launch them from long range before it gets shot down (see above).

Against the Nimitz the Russians succeeded in their mission. First of all they found her and (I'm sure) radioed back it's location. Second if they had wanted to launch an attack they probably would have succeeded before our F-18's shot them down.

Both countries have been in this situation for decades. You can't really shoot down the other sides planes in international territory during peacetime but you have to be a little nervous since they have a gun on them (the missiles).

This is nothing more than a little muscle-flexing to say, "Don't forget that we're still here, big guy ..."

We've been doing this dance with the Russians for decades.

Bake

Anyone who thinks this is a big fucking deal needs to read the newspaper a LOT more frequently. Or has been living under a rock for the last forty or fifty years.

Redstone

Maybe this carrier is where they are planning to shoot it down from. This would more clearly explain the actions of the Russians. After all, it's those ABS systems they are putting in in Eastern Europe.

Maybe they want to interfere with the ABS systems in some way and stop them from hitting the satellite so it looks like the US failed in their objective. Could radar jamming technology effect them? The bomber could be using it.

After all if the US fails to hit it's own satellite then those ABS systems would lose their popularity pretty quick.

Damn Sometimes I'm psychic-

Just thoroughly read the spy satellite article...

In the middle of it-

"The Pentagon says it plans to shoot down the satellite using a modified missile from a US Navy ship in the Pacific."

BTW Our E-2C's are nothing to look at and they are fitted with the radar jamming tech. Just cause the Tuppolo is an old plane doesn't mean it's not outfitted with the Jamming tech.

Probably all of the carriers in the pacific are being shadowed by Russian planes with radar jamming capability. This could really cause an international incident.

I almost feel a little scared.

To obvious, to easy to knock down if the shooting starts. Bet some were within a hundred or so miles of every carrier in the Western Pacific is a Russian missile equipped submarine. That the way it was through the early 90's anyway. These are the guys that will take the first shot at the carriers if the balloon goes up.

Jamming Technology

the Russians know just how to screw with our ships

Yes everybody can deny that this is SERIOUS but it IS

I don't know how serious it is, though. It could just be that the US attempt to hit it will fail because the russians are jamming it- after all the missiles we are using to hit the satellite won't be equipped with nukes or anything. To make the ABM system fail the Russians wouldn't have to fire a single shot.

Fact is- it was pretty dumb of the USA to give everyone such lengthy advance notice.

These systems aren't all they are cracked up to be anyway. I've read that the star wars tech is not that reliable

this could be a crisis what if Russia screws with the missile signal

China shot theres by a Missile on a pad not from a ship

Something is amiss

is Russia just fed up

Their military forces are a shadow of their former power - apart from their nukes they have declined to the point of near irrelevance. For example, the Soviet navy would have had a powerful navy task force in the Persian gulf to counter US threats to Iran. The Russian can't do that - their navy is rusting at the pier. These overflights are an cheap and easy way to show the flag.

They would saber rattle in the Med with increased sub surface activity ( a month from now ) Kosovo just happened. The Russians can't 'knee jerk' this fast,before the fact.

They want to get some blue water exercises in. imo, they are very very rusty and want to show up China more then the US when it comes to far east relevance

jmo