Russian Hostility to USAF and USN

[gazzzwp]

I wanted to begin a thread to discuss the very recent events between the Russian air force and the US Navy, although the recent events are I believe part of a much broader trend to do with tension between NATO and Russia.

The specific incident I am referring to is what the USN reported as several alarmingly close low level flights over the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic. The Cook apparently was conducting some exercise with a Polish Helicopter on board. The Cook was also buzzed by a Russian helicopter apparently taking pictures of the exercises. How close the Cook was to Russian territorial waters is unclear. I read the figure of 70 Km somewhere if I recall.

Then shortly afterwards, another Russian fighter 'barrel rolls' close to an RC-135 spy plane again over the Baltic. Western media is again lacking details on how close the spy plane was to the Russian territory of Kaliningrad.

These are two of many such incidents reported in the last few years. Other similar incidents have taken place (with the same vessel I believe) in the Black Sea.

So what are we to make of all this? Bearing in mind Russian bombers now frequently fly sorties close to NATO borders in Europe and North America. Yet NATO to my knowledge 'escorts' the bombers away and does not act aggressively. Why is Russia playing such a dangerous game? It would appear to me that it wants a conflict more than NATO does. Is the US behaving in a provocative way or are they acting out of principle with what they see to be an overly hostile assertive Russia.

Kerry was reported in the media as saying that the Cook could easily have taken down these planes last week. Would Russia be forced to retaliate having already suffered some humiliation from the Turkey shoot down? How severe would the retaliation be?

It seems to me that things are escalating between Russia and the US; are we to be alarmed or are we simply back to the old cold war style stand-offs? What part does the faltering Russian economy play in all of this? What about the sanctions war? Are we likely to see Sweden play a greater role since it is clear to me that the Baltic region is becoming a tense hot spot at this time.

Lots of issues here to consider.

 

[2007yellow430]

This has been building since Libya. Here is where it started:

https://www.rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/

Not saying they were right about the actions taken, but it shows their attitude.

Art

 

[ngatimozart]

A polite warning. If this topic turns into politics, rubbish, slanging, breaks the rules, etc. , the thread will be closed and the offenders sanctioned. Secondly, any sources cited be reputable, verifiable and not propaganda mouthpieces.

 

[phreeky]

Does Russia sail that close to US territory? And if they do/did, what action would/does the US take? Keeping in mind the details are all a bit sketchy, I question whether it would be particularly friendly either.

 

[Feanor]

This has been building since Libya. Here is where it started:

https://www.rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/

Not saying they were right about the actions taken, but it shows their attitude.

Art

I don't think western misbehavior in Libya can explain Russian misbehavior here.

Does Russia sail that close to US territory? And if they do/did, what action would/does the US take? Keeping in mind the details are all a bit sketchy, I question whether it would be particularly friendly either.

That's not the point. The point is that Russian action is dangerous, unprofessional, and provocative. Intentionally so.

 

[Boatteacher]

I wonder if some of the replies here are missing the point that the present Russian actions seem to be going further than the usual cat and mouse games that typified the cold war.

I understood the complaints were only that the way in which the Russians behaved crossed the line into behavior that was extraordinarily risky and this was not what generally occurred in the past.

Yes, Russia has restarted some of the old cold war games and that might be regrettable. Whether it is explained by actions taken by the other side can be debated (and I think in previous posts in other threads Fenor has made the point the west may not be blameless). The real point is that I (AFIK) there were well understood rules which the Russians are going beyond

 

[gf0012-aust]

there have also been some unsubstantiated reports that the russians and israelis have had a few incidents. couple this with the 400% increase in border breaches over the nordic countries since 2010 and the pattern issues become a concern

as obliquely inferred - the issue is not so much the event itself, but the fact that the agreements around good behaviour have taken a back seat.

that in itself is dangerous as it indicates an authority/command level mindset change

 

[swerve]

Does Russia sail that close to US territory? And if they do/did, what action would/does the US take? Keeping in mind the details are all a bit sketchy, I question whether it would be particularly friendly either.

Russian aircraft fly up to the edge of US airspace. I presume their ships sail equally close. The USA generally sends someone out to take a look, just as the UK does. They don't do the sort of dangerous stuff that the Russian air force has just done.

Note that 70 km from Russian territorial waters in the Baltic is in the middle of the sea. It's not exactly sailing close to Russia. Ships sailing to some ports in Finland, Lithuania & Poland go closer to Russian territory than that, just because of the distance to the border.

 

[gazzzwp]

there have also been some unsubstantiated reports that the russians and israelis have had a few incidents. couple this with the 400% increase in border breaches over the nordic countries since 2010 and the pattern issues become a concern

as obliquely inferred - the issue is not so much the event itself, but the fact that the agreements around good behaviour have taken a back seat.

that in itself is dangerous as it indicates an authority/command level mindset change

I'll try and put some objective reasoning into this while respecting moderators warnings.

The only conclusion I can draw from it all is that Russia is far more prepared to go to war than NATO is. They are the ones taking the risks. That in turn implies that they feel that they have less to loose, which in turn goes back to the economic circumstances that Russia now finds itself in.

Not that Europe or the US's economic situation is that attractive itself, but Russia as we know has the least balanced of the economies.

Russia must therefore feel highly confident that it can hold it's own against NATO. A good discussion point then would be taking aside the nuclear capabilities is this really true? Russia has been showcasing a lot of it's missiles recently; Iskander, Klub/Kalibre, cruise missiles, and we know about their hypersonic anti-ship missile capabilities as some of these are a decades or so old.

So are Russia saying "We now have enough faith in our attack and defense capabilities to know that we can take on the best that NATO and the US has and win"? Or do we think the whole think is just one big gamble of brinkmanship?

Also to put into the equation is the actions of Iran and China. Iran recently captured a US patrol boat and it's crew, and has arguably been taking huge risks in the Persian gulf close to US Carriers.

Is this all part of some collective policy to challenge US hegemony? Have these nations all collectively agreed to do this in order to make the US think that it will have too much to cope with militarily?

Then finally what if the US scaled back it's operations dramatically? No more patrols in the Baltic close to Kaliningrad, in the Black Sea close to the Crimea, in the S China Sea, and Persian Gulf? Is this all a response to encourage the US to step down from it's assumed position as world policeman and let matters be resolved more locally?

 

[swerve]

As I understand it, US patrols in the Baltic haven't been particularly close to Kaliningrad. The only way to keep them further away (apart from staying out of the Baltic altogether) would be to stay close to Sweden when in the SE Baltic, & don't go anywhere near Klaipeda or Gdansk - both of which are ports, & significant cities, in NATO members.

I'd say it's an attempt to boost Putin's image & "Russia strong!", & distract attention away from economic troubles & corruption.

 

[phreeky]

This all sounds (as does the media talk) quite out of proportion. Was this really more than showboating? Would these aircraft even attack a ship in this manner anyway, like the media are making out? Doubtful.

I dare say that the US ships crew were quite confident that it was nothing more than "childish" and reckless.

 

[Todjaeger]

This all sounds (as does the media talk) quite out of proportion. Was this really more than showboating? Would these aircraft even attack a ship in this manner anyway, like the media are making out? Doubtful.

I dare say that the US ships crew were quite confident that it was nothing more than "childish" and reckless.

Some commentary reported in recent military confirmation hearings is that the US military leadership should/will be advising Russia of what is, and what is not, considered acceptable behavior with respect to fighter intercepts, flybys, etc. The implication was that unacceptable behavior would trigger US ROE and could lead to Russian aircraft being shot down if they were engaged in threatening and/or dangerous behavior.

 

[gazzzwp]

Congress considering new F-22 build. Reason cited is Russian hostility.

Congress looks into cost of producing new F-22 Raptors - CNNPolitics.com

 

[gf0012-aust]

heaven help the US force planners....

 

[t68]

heaven help the US force planners....

I was thinking more about the cost to there ever increasing deficit problems

 

[Blackshoe]

This all sounds (as does the media talk) quite out of proportion. Was this really more than showboating? Would these aircraft even attack a ship in this manner anyway, like the media are making out? Doubtful.

You don't think the Russians would be willing to trade a fighter for a DDG? I do.

Likewise, the action alone is dangerous and provocative. And the problem with being provocative and escalatory is that you have to keep escalating.

I dare say that the US ships crew were quite confident that it was nothing more than "childish" and reckless.

No. They just were never going to shoot first, pure and simple.

No CO is going to be VINCENNES. They'd rather be STARK.

 

[Blackshoe]

The only conclusion I can draw from it all is that Russia is far more prepared to go to war than NATO is. They are the ones taking the risks. That in turn implies that they feel that they have less to loose, which in turn goes back to the economic circumstances that Russia now finds itself in.

Not that Europe or the US's economic situation is that attractive itself, but Russia as we know has the least balanced of the economies.

Russia must therefore feel highly confident that it can hold it's own against NATO. A good discussion point then would be taking aside the nuclear capabilities is this really true? Russia has been showcasing a lot of it's missiles recently; Iskander, Klub/Kalibre, cruise missiles, and we know about their hypersonic anti-ship missile capabilities as some of these are a decades or so old.

So are Russia saying "We now have enough faith in our attack and defense capabilities to know that we can take on the best that NATO and the US has and win"? Or do we think the whole think is just one big gamble of brinkmanship?

I think it's a fair question to wonder whether Russia is more prepared to go to war or wants the West to believe its more prepared to go to war and is just bluffing. There are things that I know there was demand among the siloviki to do that they didn't and haven't (eg invade the Donbas), though whether that's weakness or calculating that they can achieve the same goal with lower force is up for debate.

And to be really honest right now it's hard to figure out exactly what the Russian leadership center (which,despite what people think, isn't solely Putin. Just mostly, although the Power Vertical seems unstable) is thinking. The creation of the Natgvardiya, essentially Putin's own Praetorian guard, implies he's deeply concerned about some liberal color revolution springing up that I just can't see occurring anymore. There's no center of gravity for leadership. Granted, I might be wrong-I trust Putin knows more about Russian than I do-but to me it seems like Putin has gotten lost in the wilderness of mirrors and can't separate his paranoia from reality.

Also to put into the equation is the actions of Iran and China. Iran recently captured a US patrol boat and it's crew, and has arguably been taking huge risks in the Persian gulf close to US Carriers.

Is this all part of some collective policy to challenge US hegemony? Have these nations all collectively agreed to do this in order to make the US think that it will have too much to cope with militarily?

Then finally what if the US scaled back it's operations dramatically? No more patrols in the Baltic close to Kaliningrad, in the Black Sea close to the Crimea, in the S China Sea, and Persian Gulf? Is this all a response to encourage the US to step down from it's assumed position as world policeman and let matters be resolved more locally?

I don't think there's any collective policy, just various self-interested states taking advantage of an unprecedentedly weak (in terms of foreign policy) US President who's in the last year of his term and has never been particularly interested in FoPo anyway. Things have been ramping up over the last five years or so.

Without going political, for the three of these countries collectively, whoever wins the presidency, they will be tougher on foreign policy than the current admin, no matter what (Trump would probably actually be easier on Russia, but way harder on China. You can apply about a million caveats to that statement, because frankly, Trump's actions in the office are unknown).

Overall, now's the time to try it.

 

[gazzzwp]

heaven help the US force planners....

I have been researching the question of F-22 production re-start. Most of the tooling that was allegedly mothballed is missing, the list of suppliers is so huge that gathering together a production inventory would nearly impossible and the processors are way out of date. Some substantial computer redesigns would be required.

Experts seem to be saying that it would be far more cost effective to carry on with existing builds, modify them with up to date equipment where necessary rather than try and restart the F-22 at enormous cost and timescales.

F-22 deployment to Romania. Again reason cited is 'Russian aggression'.

U.S. sends F-22 warplanes to Romania - CNN.com

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have been researching the question of F-22 production re-start. Most of the tooling that was allegedly mothballed is missing, the list of suppliers is so huge that gathering together a production inventory would nearly impossible and the processors are way out of date. Some substantial computer redesigns would be required.

the CPU's are unavailable, so unless Lockmart decide to buy up some spare HP Network printers as spare parts they're buggered.

they can't substitute any other processors, so its also a board issue as it would need to be redesigned

all in all, a 1st class WOFTAM

they would be better off pulling a frame and building a CATBIRD equivalent and starting from scratch to redesign the combat and sensor harnesses and suites

and then they would have to tool up for the new frames

 

[Feanor]

I think it's a fair question to wonder whether Russia is more prepared to go to war or wants the West to believe its more prepared to go to war and is just bluffing. There are things that I know there was demand among the siloviki to do that they didn't and haven't (eg invade the Donbas), though whether that's weakness or calculating that they can achieve the same goal with lower force is up for debate.

It's probably less a question of ability and more of desirability. While many among the siloviki would love to see an invasion of eastern Ukraine, a few at the top did a cost evaluation, and realized that if the price tag of bringing eastern Ukraine up to the level of a typical Russian province is this insanely high, Donbass isn't worth it. Especially when you consider the geopolitical significance of Crimea (control of the Black Sea, in essence) vs the geopolitical significance of a few more millions of population in a landscape of post-Soviet blight and rotting industry.

And to be really honest right now it's hard to figure out exactly what the Russian leadership center (which,despite what people think, isn't solely Putin. Just mostly, although the Power Vertical seems unstable) is thinking. The creation of the Natgvardiya, essentially Putin's own Praetorian guard, implies he's deeply concerned about some liberal color revolution springing up that I just can't see occurring anymore. There's no center of gravity for leadership. Granted, I might be wrong-I trust Putin knows more about Russian than I do-but to me it seems like Putin has gotten lost in the wilderness of mirrors and can't separate his paranoia from reality.

Color revolutions are anathema to Russia's political elites and have been for the past decade and a half. They (possibly correctly) see them as an amazing tool in the western political arsenal (primarily the American one) that allows them to replace the governments of "sovereign states" (remove the quotation marks if you will, the point stands) with a different one. Ideally one more malleable to the policy goals of the west. Objectively speaking use of these sorts of "revolutions" (in quotation marks because unlike revolutions that represent principal shifts between modes of production like the French revolution, the American one or the Russian one, these are just changes of the people in power) typically lead to unpredictable (or poorly predicted) consequences, and have so far failed to produce lasting desirable change. In Eastern Europe they have typically been rolled back a single presidency later, in the Middle East and North Africa they have frequently led to civil war. But this does not stop Russian political elites from fearing (right or wrongly) the use of this tool against them. And given their reliance on nuclear deterrence in the military sense, it's understandable. If they fundamentally believe that no real military threat exists, because they can end the world (effectively) at the push of a button, the a threat like this becomes the most credible external threat.

I don't think there's any collective policy, just various self-interested states taking advantage of an unprecedentedly weak (in terms of foreign policy) US President who's in the last year of his term and has never been particularly interested in FoPo anyway. Things have been ramping up over the last five years or so.

Many people don't understand the concept of convergent interests (not saying you're one of them, this is mainly in reply to gazzzwp).