Just days after Russian fighter jets flew within 10 meters of a U.S. warship in the Baltic Sea, a similar incident has occurred, involving a U.S. reconnaissance plane:
A United States Air Force reconnaissance plane was barrel-rolled by a Russian jet over the Baltic Sea during a routine flight in international airspace, U.S. European Command said Saturday. The incident on Thursday occurred when a Russian jet "performed erratic and aggressive maneuvers" as it flew within 50 feet of the U.S. aircraft's wing tip, Danny Hernandez, a spokesman for European Command, said in a response to a question from CNN.
The Russian SU-27 began the barrel roll from the left side of the U.S. RC-135 and went over the top of it to end on the right side of the aircraft, European Command said. The U.S. RC-135 aircraft was "intercepted by a Russian SU-27 in an unsafe and unprofessional manner," Hernandez said, adding that the U.S. plane never entered Russian territory.
Secretary of State John Kerry said that under the rules of engagement the U.S. could have shot down the jets buzzing the USS Donald Cook.
[The craft involved: Boeing RC-135 and Sukhoi SU-27. -Ed.]
Related Stories
U.S. defense officials say that a Russian fighter jet flew as close as within 3 meters of a US Navy P-8A Poseidon aircraft in international airspace:
The Pentagon says a Russian fighter plane flew within about 10ft (3m) of one of its reconnaissance aircraft operating over the Black Sea. US officials described the intercept by the SU-27 jet on Wednesday as "dangerous and unprofessional". Russia's defence ministry said the US plane had been approaching Russian territory and the SU-27 pilots had adhered to international rules. Russia is currently carrying out military exercises in the Black Sea.
Pentagon spokesman Capt Jeff Davis said the US Navy P-8A Poseidon aircraft had been conducting routine operations in international airspace when the Russian fighter made the unsafe manoeuvre. "These actions have the potential to unnecessarily escalate tensions, and could result in a miscalculation or accident," he said. A US defence official quoted by AFP news agency said the Russian plane had flown within 30ft of the P-8A before closing to just 10ft.
Also at Reuters. You may remember this similar incident.
Related: UK Defence Minister: New Cold War "Warming Up"
US Jets Scramble to Intercept Russian Planes near US Aircraft Carrier
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @03:08AM
He died in the process. [theregister.co.uk]
...and a fictitious version from an '80s flick.
Canopy-to-canopy snapshot (still photograph) [ytimg.com]
Top Gun Inverted Engagement Re-enactment (video) [youtube.com]
Archived [archive.is]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Funny) by frojack on Monday April 18 2016, @03:16AM
Sounds like Putin flexing his biceps knowing he can scare Obama back under his desk.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @03:38AM
Sounds like Putin flexing his biceps... while wearing a phony muscle suit stuffed with propaganda, old newspaper and stained with a dying economy...knowing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H THINKING he can scare Obama back under his desk.
FTFY.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @03:33PM
Don't agree with a poster? Mod down as troll! And here I thought the parent was going for humor...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @03:33AM
"The Big Bad Russians are scaring us again please please please give us more money!" --- The Military
I think America is the only country that has ever tried to achieve world domination by whining everyone to death. Seriously grow the fuck up. I thought you had the best, highest tech, most expensive military in the world. What the fuck are you afraid of?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @03:42AM
Who cares if we lose a RC-135, they're due for decommissioning soon anyhow. Lose one, it gets replaced with a newer model and an excuse to add a replacement to the new plane roster.
Sounds win/win for the military industrial complex to me, nothing to scrap and easy justification for a replacement.
Oh, they DIDN'T collide? You'll just have to bump him during the barrel roll next time.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Monday April 18 2016, @03:51AM
I'm pretty sure the Russians are reacting the same way the US would react if the Russians had ships and planes off the coast of California.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday April 18 2016, @03:57AM
Ah no.
Russian ships and planes enter american waters all the time. Especially off alaska. Planes go out. But nobody buzzes them or barrel roles over them, and they would be grounded an busted down to sergeant if they tried.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Funny) by gawdonblue on Monday April 18 2016, @08:08AM
Off Alaska - do you mean Siberia? What would the Russians be doing with ships and planes there?
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday April 18 2016, @05:39PM
I mean Alaskan coastal waters, as well as overflights of Alaska itself.
Why do you ask such silly queestions, this has been going on since the 50s. Are you actually unaware of this?
http://www.adn.com/article/20150314/russian-military-increases-capabilities-overflights-near-alaska-airspace [adn.com]
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/13/us/u-s-russia-military-flights/ [cnn.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Monday April 18 2016, @02:32PM
the same way the US would react if the Russians had ships and planes off the coast of California
Russian ships and planes enter american waters all the time. Especially off alaska.
Not really the same thing.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday April 18 2016, @05:42PM
Well how about this then?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/13/us/u-s-russia-military-flights/ [cnn.com]
All of these were interdicted by US aircraft, and not a single barrel roll occurred.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by c0lo on Monday April 18 2016, @04:09AM
Being captive to their own MilInd complex which, for sure, gets them the most expensive military in the world?
With a nod to the F35 debacle, I'll stop short in characterizing it further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @04:32AM
Indeed. Who's poking who? Let's put some missiles to Cuba and see how US reacts...
I personally hate both countries about the same.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @06:40AM
It would be good if people who mention that ALSO knew that USA **already** had nuclear-tipped missiles in Turkey just across the border from the Soviet Union.
...and "The other guy blinked" shows the wisdom and maturity of Khrushchev.
If the Premier hadn't been the bigger man, I shudder to think what the inexperienced youngster then occupying the Oval Office might have done.
The missiles in Turkey were withdrawn very quickly after that--though USAian "journalists" don't tend to mention that.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday April 18 2016, @07:04AM
Yes, and they were targeting summer house of Russia's leader Nikita Khrushchev. One could actually see Turkey and presumably the rocket base from the dacha.
Also, American spy planes U2 were doing regular flights over Russia - all the way from Iran to Norway if I remember correctly - and one was shut down.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @08:59AM
You got Norway right as the landing spot.
Francis Gary Powers took off from Pakistan in a U-2.
His engine flamed out over Sverdlovsk (Yekaterinburg) and he had to descend to a lower altitude to relight that.
A Soviet surface-to-air missile got his aircraft and Powers was captured.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @01:12PM
That's the incident which the Tom Hanks movie "Bridge of Spies" is based on. [putlocker.is]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @07:55PM
The U-2 shootdown also demonstrated that Soviet SAM capability was better than USA military planners believed possible.
It signaled the end of the XB-70 weapons program. [blogspot.com]
Two prototypes of that high-altitude Mach 3 intercontinental nuclear weapon delivery platform had been built.
Those continued to be used for aeronautical research for some years.
One of those was lost in a collision with an F-104 chase plane in 1966 and the remaining unit is now on display at the Wright-Patterson museum in Dayton.
...but any thought of high-altitude manned penetration of Soviet airspace was shelved.
Low-altitude terrain-following techniques were instead adopted for the existing USA strategic bomber fleet.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @03:43PM
Afraid of actually getting into a real war. So far they have done a bang up job beating up the scrawny kids on the playground for their lunch money (oil). Russia is that poor, loner, psychopath in the corner with nothing to lose. They are more pumped up with nationalism than the right wing, flag waving, god fearing loonies in the USA. They'll kills themselves if it means destroying the USA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @11:42PM
Well, we ignored FDR: We like to fear fear itself. It allows us to go into debt making cool expensive toys.
(Score: 1) by pipedwho on Monday April 18 2016, @03:40AM
Was the pilot just trying to keep up international relations?
Did he show them the bird?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @06:51AM
"Did he show them the bird?"
By definition, yes.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday April 18 2016, @12:25PM
Did he show them the bird?
It would have been worse if he'd showed him Kuzma's mother...
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Username on Monday April 18 2016, @03:40AM
"Unsafe and unprofessional manner," that’s sure got the Russians shaking in their boots.
If someone said that to me, they’d get an extremely sarcastic response.
The Russians didn’t break any international laws. They know it, we know it, shouldn’t even responded to it.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday April 18 2016, @03:54AM
What happens when a Russian airplane smashes into a US boat or airplane?
What happens when either one of the parties opens fire?
Containment or apocalypse now?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @04:13AM
Turkey is a NATO member [bbc.com], Russian showed restrain.
The other way around? It depends on whether or not Trump is president.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday April 18 2016, @05:33AM
Makes you wonder if Trump will enter a chicken race with the rocket nukes.
So downing Russian aircraft works. The question is what happens when a USA aircraft is destroyed by, say thumping?
Any ideas on USA vs China in this respect?
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday April 18 2016, @06:56AM
They - "good terrorists" Turkey was protecting - also captured, tortured and killed the parachuted pilot. I guess the rebels did not sign the Geneva Convention.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @02:33PM
Trump may or may not. The interesting thing about Trump is that I've heard Putin likes him. If he's in the general election, I'll watch the debates to see whether or not I'll vote for him or just abstain all together. We might as well refer to him as a joker instead of a trump card. Joker's wild.
TPP, TTIP, and TISA are the real threat, and it sounds like Trump would torpedo TTIP and TISA--maybe even roll back TPP and NAFTA. I don't know if going as far as dismantling NAFTA would be good for the USA in the end. What makes the T[A-Z]{2,3} trifecta dangerous is their exclusion of China and India and inclusion of many other places that would be glad to sell their slave labor to the USA in particular instead of China and India. On top of that, I think the Western elite are gambling that China and India will not be able to complete their transition to a modern economy if they're effectively cut off from the West. That's not a bet I would make. In fact, a war might be just what the doctor ordered to really jumpstart China's economy at least.
There happens to be a candidate that the Western elite have coronated far in advance. Clinton is being pulled far to the left by Sanders now, and she may continue her position against TPP/TTIP/TISA against Trump. Keep in mind that Kasich is the only person batting for the Rs who can defeat Clinton according to the polling data I've seen. At this point, unless there's a "yuuuuge" upset in New York and California or Clinton gets prosecuted; and Trump, Cruz, or Roboromney get the R nomination, our next president has already been elected. All that remains is the formality of holding a general election, and then Clinton can be sworn in next year. At that point, I will be flabbergasted if President Clinton does not flipflop back to Secretary Clinton's position on TPP/TTIP/TISA.
(Score: 2) by CortoMaltese on Monday April 18 2016, @04:32AM
Well the Israelis sank an American boat once and nothing happened, maybe some lawsuits, maybe some dick wavin' probably much ado about nothing.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday April 18 2016, @05:29AM
That ship with big ears in the waters outside of said country? A fighter jet did the job?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 18 2016, @06:14AM
The LIberty was strafed from the air, and shot up by patrol boats. The jets did the lion's share of the carnage, yes. The attack lasted for awhile - I want to say for a couple hours, but maybe it wasn't that long. Lemme find a link for us to refresh our memories . . .
This particular story offers the time line, with the Liberty being buzzed repeatedly, from sunrise until 14:00, when the first rocket launch took place. From there, it stops telling the time. From start to finish, it couldn't have been less than an hour, and probably took two or three hours. http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/day-of-infamy-the-attack-on-the-u-s-s-liberty/ [nationalvanguard.org]
Let it be noted that the IDF doesn't have experience with sinking military ships. Two, four, or six torpedoes would have been needed to sink the Liberty, spread out from one end of the ship to the other, in the short period of time they were hoping for. Rockets and missiles, and small cannon only cause superficial damage to a war ship. TOrpedoes caused the only casualties inside of the ship - smaller munitions (from the aircraft) only killed people exposed on the main decks. Even the napalm, which could have been fatal to the ship, was delivered in small quantities.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @07:42AM
Your signature/ the content of the post .... Causing my brain to short circuit.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 18 2016, @09:01AM
Let me try to alleviate the pain for you: There ain't no "Good guys in white hats" out there. The Jews are less evil, Islam is more evil, and we are the biggest baddest most evil sumbitches in the Valley of Death.
https://memegenerator.net/instance/61537001 [memegenerator.net]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @02:33PM
How the hell is the parent "flamebait"?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2016, @05:03AM
How the hell is the parent "flamebait"?
Maybe this [wikipedia.org] will explain...
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2016, @05:56AM
Modded off-topic already I see..
Way to prove a point, so +1 Internets to you..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 18 2016, @06:21AM
Oh - for bonus points, you might ask yourself, WTF is Bradford Hanson? (the author of the article I linked to) He has an - uhhhh - interesting history. No, he's not a Liberty survivor, forget that line of thought.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2016, @05:17AM
Oh - for bonus points, you might ask yourself, WTF is Bradford Hanson?
Ok, I'll bite...
unfortunately almost every link I go to after a Google search gets zapped by my anti-everything filters, and I really can't be arsed making exemptions for these sites..(hell, I even checked ED, just in case...)
Care to give us a quick summary of his WTFness?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Absolutely.Geek on Monday April 18 2016, @04:21AM
There was a spy plane off their coast and they didn't like it....the US feels the right to antagonize the Russians by deploying just off the Russian coast and the Russians feel that it is rather arrogant and decides to bring it to the attention of the entire world using a stunt; a dangerous and probably badly thought out stunt, but a stunt none the less.
Why are the US deployed in the Baltic sea?
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @04:42AM
Why are the US deployed in the Baltic sea?
from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
It would be surprising if they weren't.
(Score: 2) by Absolutely.Geek on Monday April 18 2016, @10:40PM
This doesn't answer the question though.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @05:43AM
"Why are the US deployed in the Baltic sea?"
Why are pencils sharp?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 18 2016, @06:22AM
Because there's no point in being at the sharp end of the stick, if the stick ain't sharp? Hmmmm - interesting . . . .
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @06:00AM
Maybe because it can operate there to support Baltic NATO members like Poland, Germany, Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania (did I miss any?).
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 18 2016, @02:37PM
"Just off the Russian coast" in international waters.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday April 18 2016, @05:51AM
These sort of dick size contests are normal. It was our idiot President that made it a thing by overreacting and letting Kerry say something utterly dumb. You DO NOT threaten to shoot down Russian jets. Especially when they went to the trouble of making sure we would see they were unarmed, You want to really jack up world tension, shoot down an unarmed Russian jet.
There really isn't a nice way to put this: We have been trolled, and we have lost. We looked like a bunch of clueless 'tards[1] making empty threats. Well played Mr. Putin.
In a sane world we would have quietly signaled our displeasure by returning the favor somewhere else in a week or two. Then some midlevel diplomats would have chatted about it over lunch in that maddening way diplomats talk for an hour and say nothing but reach an agreement, out in some out of the way capital with zero media coverage of course, reports would have been written and a memo would go down both military chains of command to knock it off for a while.
[1] No slight against the actual mentally disabled intended.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 18 2016, @06:38AM
Why do you have such a hardon for Putin? And do you think any of the GOP would have done better? Christ, the thought of W's or Trump's response to this sends chills down my spine...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Monday April 18 2016, @06:43AM
The sad part is that the jets in simulated ship attack used radar jammers and came from the sun side. Ship's weapons probably did not see them and could not shut them down. The whole point of exercise was to test if the US already upgraded so the jammers need work as well (the previous one was in Black sea when the US ship went in there after Crimea story). That's simply another Russian asymmetric response, in this case to stealth technology. Cheap and effective, but need constant work.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday April 18 2016, @07:16AM
I'd hope the crew was smart enough to not give the Russians any clues as to whether we could or could not track them. As for the truth of those sort of classified details, we won't ever know for sure and don't need to know.
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday April 18 2016, @07:40AM
My understanding is (I sure may be wrong - I just sometimes read speculations of people who watch that kind of developments) that it is pretty much a robot thing. One provokes the radar, it sends some signals to the weapons, a spy plane in the area is looking for signatures. The system could be turned off of course, but what the point of the exercise in this case?
Anyway, during cold war it was a big part of the game - a way to find out capabilities - which, at the end, made the world safer I think because the last thing one wants is a true secret weapon. Secret advantage is dangerous because it makes the opponent nervous.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gravis on Monday April 18 2016, @02:54PM
There really isn't a nice way to put this: We have been trolled, and we have lost. We looked like a bunch of clueless 'tards[1] making empty threats. Well played Mr. Putin.
In a sane world we would have quietly signaled our displeasure by returning the favor somewhere else in a week or two.
no way. you are totally missing the obvious response: claiming the russian pilot was drunk! there's no better way to troll an expert piloting maneuver than to claim it was unintentional and a result of negligence! of course you have to claim they were "lucky" to not have caused a serious incident. to really spurn them, wish the russian airforce well in their fight against rampant alcoholism amongst their ranks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 18 2016, @05:52AM
My ass. Their military and ours does this crap all the time. The only difference here is, the pilots were not both willing participants in the maneuver. You can browse Youtube for videos of aircraft flying in formation, within feet of each othere. Sometimes, within inches of each other. Precision flying at it's best.
Salute, to the Russian pilot. I'm quite tired of hearing how wimpy our military has become. Last time, it was the Navy, whining about how aggressive the Russians were. FFS - if we can't run with the big dogs, maybe it's time we crawled under the porch with the bitches and pups.
This isn't the age of wooden ships, and iron men anymore.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday April 18 2016, @10:50PM
It's funny, but for once we are in complete agreement. My first reaction was to crack a smile and give a thumbs-up to the Russian pilot.
Yes, it's dangerous... maybe even unsafe.... but these are fighter pilots. It's just made organized with the Blue Angels, anyways.
Our pilots have had similar antics in the past. I think our correct move is to let the Russian air force discipline their own pilot, and remind him that he's writing checks his body can't cash :)
These things seem like the least aggressive things that can happen between military forces, and we don't need to stoke up the fires over something like this.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2016, @05:49AM
..Our pilots have had similar antics in the past.
It used to be fun watching F-111s flying in formation overhead, swapping their positions in the formation by barrel-rolling over and under the rest of the jets, done purely for hell of it by the looks of things. If it happened once, ok maybe bored pilots that day, but it used to be a regular occurrence.
(Still, not as impressive as watching three B-52s going low-level over water, and when I say low-level, I'm talking wave hugging... )
(Score: 2) by Rich on Monday April 18 2016, @11:56AM
See how relaxed things were handled during the cold war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMOg6UBY9oI [youtube.com]. (And that leaves out how the Americans greeted the Russkies back with a display of the latest Playmate.)
Back in those days, I spent some of my holidays at my grandma's house at the (german) countryside. At times, the Luftwaffe was flying their Starfighters closer to her house than the Russians come to the ship in one of the videos published. That was some glorious noise. The F-4 were louder, but the 104 had that certain single-turbine howl :)
Besides that, why would anyone want to fly that close to a ship he wants to attack unless he's Japanese?
(Score: 4, Informative) by forkazoo on Monday April 18 2016, @07:45PM
Dark joke... That said, the airplane wasn't necessarily simulating what an airplane would be doing during an attack. It was probably approximating the flight path of a missile, from what I have heard. They can monitor what sort of radar they were hit with, and see how quickly the CIWS pointed at them, that sort of thing, and get an estimate of how well they would be able to track an incoming missile at the same range/angle, etc. Though presumably the US has some sort of policy not to have all sensors cranked up to 100% when not at wartime alert, so the Russians can't see exactly how an actual tactical response would play out. And the US was also gathering information during this encounter. They will keep the radar track of the Russian plane and have some extra data on how it can fly, how much IR signature it emits, etc. Everybody tries to get as much information out of the other guy as possible, without giving too much away themselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rich on Monday April 18 2016, @09:12PM
That was a very elaborate answer to what was mostly a rhetorical question. Indeed, it is better than any report on the "professional" media I've seen yet. The clip on CNN after the one linked (on the same topic) sounds more like a WWII newsreel in full propaganda mode than analytical journalism, and that's only CNN, not FOX. I think that at the price of having to watch 30 seconds of ad for a stupid HP Windows 10 laptop before the report, we deserve better.
I would have assumed mostly the same; not long ago we've seen it the other way round with German Tornados at the Syrian border, which in the reported configuration would've been utterly useless there, except of course, they were there for the (unmentioned, again) task of picking up some interesting S-300 signature in case the Russkies turn the radar fully on.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18 2016, @03:37PM
The U.S. plane never entered Russian territory.
The Russian plane didn't enter US territory either...