Russian Hostility to USAF and USN

[phreeky]

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

Board redesign would doubtfully be the issue, however my understanding is that it's an architectural problem - the software would need a lot of work (how much depending on the development/design method used).

Still, unless the original design was shockingly documented I fail to see how that could be the primary argument against restarting production. There would have to be bigger issues.

I think this is all quite speculative, at least until they do cost it up. Surely then the better question is that IF the cost were found to be tolerable, would it still be a good idea?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think this is all quite speculative, at least until they do cost it up. Surely then the better question is that IF the cost were found to be tolerable, would it still be a good idea?

the whole combat model has changed in the last 5 years - the issue is whether there is merit in spending coin on F-22 Block NN is worth even doing.

my view is that it would just detract from the overall force development model and pollute the current development opportunities.

you don't need to kill the enemy in the same fashion that the F-22 was designed to do - and does well.

does the overall force and development structure need to be disrupted? Not in my view

they can kill the threat that sukhoi 3nn's bring to the table without building more
F-22's

 

[gazzzwp]

New Incident over Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky last week. A MIG-31 apparently flies within 50 feet of a P-8 spy plane.

Russian warplane flies within 50 feet of US spy plane over Northeast Asia | Fox News

Location is Kamchatka peninsula. Apparently the Pacific Command had no concerns. Still, 50 feet is a little close for comfort imho.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Location is Kamchatka peninsula. Apparently the Pacific Command had no concerns. Still, 50 feet is a little close for comfort imho.

there's enough cold war footage around for the US to send the Russians as reminders

they could also send them the XB-70 and F-104 chase footage to show what can happen even with experienced pilots

 

[gazzzwp]

F-22's being strategically positioned in Lithuania and Romania.

My speculation is that these are being used as a message to Russia to refrain from these dangerous fly overs.

It seems a coincidence to me that they are being deployed close to locations where the fly overs have taken place.

F-22 land in Lithuania - Business Insider

 

[Think_Tank]

US forces acted sensibly calmed from Russian military intimidation despite of violating own defense protocol. Russia could have been acting violently after US and European economic sanction and reduction of national revenue from falling energy prices as Russia's source of bread and butter.

 

[gazzzwp]

US forces acted sensibly calmed from Russian military intimidation despite of violating own defense protocol. Russia could have been acting violently after US and European economic sanction and reduction of national revenue from falling energy prices as Russia's source of bread and butter.

Economic conditions may well be one motive for the aggressive posturing, but I tend to think that it is a long term strategy that many nations are adopting in an attempt to counter US hegemony.

Interesting that another 'barrel roll' incident occurred yesterday in the Baltic.

US accuses Russia over Baltic jet manoeuvre - BBC News

So were the F-22's in Lithuania scrambled? Unless the US takes some action it will only continue until some serious incident occurs. Escorting foreign craft is one thing but these dangerous manoeuvres are another.

 

[Think_Tank]

Hypothetical question should US shoot down Russian plane within effective range of defense perimeter as an attack against US naval forces. Will Russia retaliate in large scale operation? Sometimes it is really scary as DOOMSDAY clock is closing in.

 

[gazzzwp]

Hypothetical question should US shoot down Russian plane within effective range of defense perimeter as an attack against US naval forces. Will Russia retaliate in large scale operation? Sometimes it is really scary as DOOMSDAY clock is closing in.

It's a difficult one and as I said in an earlier post it will probably boil down to who wants to go to war the most. Looking at all the evidence the answer to me is Russia as the leadership seems to have the least to lose.

Is Russia really justified in claiming that NATO is a threat? All NATO has really wanted to do as I see it is offer a way for the old satellite nations of the USSR to feel more secure. Russia has taken that deeply personally, and seems to be using it as a pretence to confront.

Yet NATO leaders only advocate defensive not offensive postures towards Russia. Russia must know this. So what is it really all about? I think at the heart of it is the strong desire by Russia to be a strong player in strategic world affairs, and to be respected and recognised as such. So it exhibits a strongly assertive posture and continues to spend huge sums on high tech weaponry and advertises it at every opportunity. Ukraine, Syria, Georgia, being obvious recent examples.

This to me is what Russia is saying; "we are still a strong world power with a highly capable military and we will exert influence anywhere in the world at our discretion. Either respect us, or we will confront you".

Please feel free to debate a necessary; certainly this is becoming a very serious issue indeed reminiscent of the old cold war days.

 

[John Fedup]

I think one important difference is China. From an economic point of view it is not in China's interest (or the rest of the world) to see major shooting event between Russia and NATO. OTH it could enhance their SCS goals. I think money is more important than SCS aspirations and they will make the Russians well aware of this.

 

[gazzzwp]

I think one important difference is China. From an economic point of view it is not in China's interest (or the rest of the world) to see major shooting event between Russia and NATO. OTH it could enhance their SCS goals. I think money is more important than SCS aspirations and they will make the Russians well aware of this.

I hope you are right. The last thing the US would want is China actually demonstrating strong military support for Russia.

Regarding the Russian 'barrel rolls'; why are the US flying these 'spy' planes in the Baltic and North Pacific on such a regular basis? What information are they hoping to actually gather? Does anyone know?

The Naval excursions I can understand as a show of solidarity towards it's allies. The spy plane missions are another matter.

 

[Feanor]

I hope you are right. The last thing the US would want is China actually demonstrating strong military support for Russia.

Regarding the Russian 'barrel rolls'; why are the US flying these 'spy' planes in the Baltic and North Pacific on such a regular basis? What information are they hoping to actually gather? Does anyone know?

The Naval excursions I can understand as a show of solidarity towards it's allies. The spy plane missions are another matter.

Information on the Russian Armed Forces. The Russian military is playing with a lot of new toys, and holding regular large scale exercises. The US is likely taking a peek.

 

[Think_Tank]

I think this is a very serious issue which could flare-up hostilities at any given time. The question is what would be the consequences should US shootdown Russian plane for violating US defense protocol?

 

[gazzzwp]

I think this is a very serious issue which could flare-up hostilities at any given time. The question is what would be the consequences should US shootdown Russian plane for violating US defense protocol?

Having already had a jet shot down by Turkey, Russia would be be bound to make a symmetrical response. The US is faced with some extremely tough decisions. Will the US scale back it's warship exercises or spy plane missions? Having already been red faced over Russia's Syrian intervention it is hardly likely to want to be seen backing down again.

Any further climb down to appease Russia could be seen by Iran, North Korea or China as a weakness to be exploited.

Or should the US just continue to ignore the show boating and let the Russians bear the risk and consequences? It's a tough call.

Should the US play tough in response to Russia's bomber missions over NATO territory? I prefer new initiative to a purely symmetrical response in this case.

 

[John Fedup]

I would like to think that the US (through back channels) has made it crystal to the Russians what actions will result in instant kill responses.

 

[Strannik]

I would like to think that the US (through back channels) has made it crystal to the Russians what actions will result in instant kill responses.

Yea right, "back channels" I wonder what is wrong with "front channels".
In reality nothing that was not seen before from both sides of the fence, did take place. Exactly nothing.
If one think that barrel roll over NATO plane is too rude, what would he/she think about NATO jet shooting virtually unarmed Russian bomber from behind? Perfectly normal... ? Come on.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yea right, "back channels" I wonder what is wrong with "front channels".
In reality nothing that was not seen before from both sides of the fence, did take place. Exactly nothing.
If one think that barrel roll over NATO plane is too rude, what would he/she think about NATO jet shooting virtually unarmed Russian bomber from behind? Perfectly normal... ? Come on.

And at what distance can a potentially hostile aircraft, from any country, be accurately determined to be 'virtually unarmed' as you say, hmm?

It is normal for countries to send an aircraft to investigate military aircraft and naval vessels of other nations, operating in international airspace or waters, near their home waters and airspace. A few countries, for whatever, have had their aircraft observed performing some rather reckless maneuvers while they are checking out the aircraft or naval vessels they were sent to investigate.

Having a set of ROE, and having those known to nations which have pilots who sometimes endanger other aircraft or naval vessels just seems sensible to me. In the case of the US, a mid-air collision involving a P-8 Poseidon could result in the loss of a USD$200+ mil. aircraft and the aircrew. For those who think that could not happen, there was a mid-air collision involving a PLAAF fighter, and a USN EP-3 in international airspace off the Chinese coast, this was back in mid-2001 IIRC.

Similar sort of situation applies to naval vessels. Even an accidental collision (as opposed to deliberate action or attack) between an aircraft an a naval vessel could effectively cause a 'mission kill'. This would be especially true if there was heavy damage to sensors and/or comm arrays. A CVN which loses radio and radar cannot function as a carrier until the kit is either repaired, or more likely replaced. The same holds true for air defence ships kitted out with SPY radar panels. If one (or more) of those panels are damaged, then there is a gaping blindspot in the radar coverage the vessel has or can provide. That is assuming that all the arrays are not knocked out.

Especially after the incident with the USS Vincenes in the 80's, there is a hesitation to shoot, but if an aircraft (or vessel, like one of the Iranian FAC's) presents a threat to a US aircraft, vessel or crew, at some point the ROE will come into effect and there will be a response.

 

[swerve]

Yea right, "back channels" I wonder what is wrong with "front channels".
In reality nothing that was not seen before from both sides of the fence, did take place. Exactly nothing.
If one think that barrel roll over NATO plane is too rude, what would he/she think about NATO jet shooting virtually unarmed Russian bomber from behind? Perfectly normal... ? Come on.

Virtually unarmed Russian bomber? If you're referring to the Su-24 last year, you can't be serious. Whether or not the Turks were right to do it, the circumstances were completely different. Ships or maritime patrol aircraft in what is clearly international waters, in an entirely peaceful sea, going about their lawful (according to laws accepted by Russia) are not the same as an aircraft engaged in a war on the borders of a country which has previously had one of its unarmed reconnaissance aircraft shot down from that country, while in international airspace.

Whatever the fine details of this case, it's obvious to anyone with even half a brain that it's not in the same category. Syria had previously shot down a Turkish RF-4E (unarmed) over the Mediterranean. It was in international airspace at the time. Syrian & Russian aircraft had crossed the border numerous times, sometimes admitting it when the evidence was too strong to deny. Turkey has issued warnings about it, one not long before the shooting down. There's a war going on on the Syrian side of the border. Russian & Syrian aircraft are bombing.

If you really think that's the same as the situation in the Baltic, then you need to think very hard about the level of reason you're applying. Where's the war in the Baltic? How many of the many Russian aircraft which have violated NATO airspace in the region have been shot at? How far from Russian waters was the ship when that Russian idiot buzzed it? Consider the answers to those questions, & if you still think the situations are similar, I suggest you go to the nearest psychiatrist & ask for help.

 

[Strannik]

Virtually unarmed Russian bomber? If you're referring to the Su-24 last year, you can't be serious.

Oh yes I am serious, I said virtually because bomber already offloaded its
4 FAB 250- 270, and the only weapon it still posses was 23 MM cannon and I guess personal hand guns of the pilots for completeness sake.

Whatever the fine details of this case, it's obvious to anyone with even half a brain that it's not in the same category.

Well because I do happened to have the whole brain and not a half, I brought this to highlight the wast difference in severity between two incidents.
And I am glad you noticed it too. So if one was reasonably ok with the second incident, surely, even having half of the brain, one would be reasonably ok with the first incident too.

... Consider the answers to those questions, & if you still think the situations are similar, I suggest you go to the nearest psychiatrist & ask for help.

Well I do not think situations are similar, quite opposite, as I already mentioned above.
Thank you for free and helpful suggestion, I understand that you only expressing you desire to care, in an unusual way. However perhaps before making suggestions like this it would be helpful to not just develop an ability to read what you see, but also understand what you read.

 

[John Fedup]

Oh yes I am serious, I said virtually because bomber already offloaded its
4 FAB 250- 270, and the only weapon it still posses was 23 MM cannon and I guess personal hand guns of the pilots for completeness sake.

A captain of a billion dollar plus warship operating in international waters has ROE that will determine when a kill shot is required. I doubt the ship's sensors can determine the weapon load aboard the jet. For that matter maybe the pilot is a deranged religion of peace type on a martyr mission.