PDA

View Full Version : Russian Flyby of USS Donald Cook in Baltic Sea Alarms Experts




Brian4Liberty
04-14-2016, 11:38 AM
This made the news on all of the local affiliates of the networks. Local news is probably more involved in propaganda than the cable news networks.

The story went something like this:

"OMG! OMG! Russian jets attacking US ships! Unheard of! Russia trying to start something! Putin evil! Turkey shot down a Russian jet and then Putin backed off..."


Russian Flyby of USS Donald Cook in Baltic Sea Alarms Experts (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-flyby-uss-donald-cook-baltic-sea-alarms-experts-n555921)
by Alexander Smith


A series of extremely low passes by two Russian jets over a U.S. destroyer this week was a dangerous example of brinkmanship by Moscow in what has become an increasingly worrying trend, according to Western analysts.

With the jets coming as close as 30 feet, just one mechanical failure, a pilot error, or a patch of freak turbulence could have caused catastrophe — both for the American sailors and the fragile geopolitical situation, experts warned.

Here's a look at the potential fallout.

What happened?

Two Russian Sukhoi Su-24 fighter jets flew at extremely low altitude over the American guided-missile destroyer USS Donald Cook in the international waters of the Baltic Sea.

Monday's and Tuesday's incidents happened around 70 miles from the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, which features a city of around 500,000 people near a key military base.

Known as "buzzing" the technique of low flybys was a staple of the Cold War, but this week's maneuvers were so close that even the experts were startled.

"Certainly this is the closest I have seen on video," Keir Giles, an associate fellow at the London-based Chatham House think tank, told NBC News on Thursday. "One of the jets was actually lower than the ship's superstructure."

The ensuing U.S. outcry was dismissed by Russia later on Thursday, with an official saying that "we don't understand such a painful reaction from our American colleagues."

How dangerous was it?

The jets came close enough for the U.S. sailors to see that the aircraft appeared to be unarmed. Nevertheless, flying so close to a warship was still extremely risky.

"Say they had an engine failure or a hydraulic failure, and the Russian jet had barreled into the side of the destroyer, you would have had multiple U.S. Navy casualties and possibly even the loss of a ship," said Justin Bronk, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a British security-research organization.

"That's the sort of thing that starts wars," he added.

Accidents can happen even with modern military technology. But the Russian-built Su-24 came into production more than 40 years ago and the last one rolled off the production line in 1993.

Bronk estimates that the jet came as close as 30 feet to the destroyer, an altitude that was "undeniably extremely aggressive."

For comparison, Federal Aviation Administration regulations say that planes should not fly closer than 500 feet to "any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" except when landing or taking off.

"The military pushes this closer," according to Bronk, "But you see just how close they got and you think, 'Oh my gosh, that's outrageous.'"

Has it happened before?

The U.S., Russia, and their allies had several similar run-ins during the Cold War.

While relations improved following the fall of the Berlin Wall, a return to hostilities sparked by 2014's political upheaval in Ukraine saw a corresponding spike in military encounters.

A report by the European Leadership Network in Nov. 2014 recorded 40 "sensitive incidents" in the eight months after Ukraine erupted — including Russia conducting mock bombing on the U.S. off the Canadian coast and forcing a Boeing 737 airliner to take evasive action after it came within 300 feet of a spy plane.

"This is an escalating trend," according to Chatham House's Giles. "There have been lots of provocative actions by Russian aircraft, but they have been getting more provocative, more dangerous, and more in breach of safety regulations at sea."
What could the consequences be?

Although it is highly unlikely that either side would open fire, there is scope for the situation to spiral out of control.

Like many of Russia's hair-raising maneuvers, the jets this week appeared to be in breach of the Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas, signed in 1972 by the United States and the Soviet Union.
...
Does the U.S. bear any responsibility?

The USS Donald Cook was stationed outside Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave sandwiched between NATO members Lithuania and Poland where Moscow deployed state-of-the art Iskander missiles last year.

Its proximity was no coincidence, according to Bronk, who said it was "just as calculated by the Americans" as the Russian jet flyby — albeit far less immediately dangerous.

"The Russians do not like the Aegis system anywhere near its airbase," he said, referring to a combat system carried by the Donald Cook that its manufacturer describes as the "world's most advanced combat system."

This all comes against the backdrop of Russian President Vladmir Putin being unhappy about what he sees as a gradual creep by NATO, which in 2004 enveloped the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Not everyone agrees.

"The Russians like to equate NATO's defensive maneuvers on a tiny scale to their own enormous preparations for conflict," Giles said. "It's completely disingenuous."
...
More: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-flyby-uss-donald-cook-baltic-sea-alarms-experts-n555921

tod evans
04-14-2016, 11:50 AM
"Say they had an engine failure or a hydraulic failure, and the Russian jet had barreled into the side of the destroyer, you would have had multiple U.S. Navy casualties and possibly even the loss of a ship,"

Why isn't this moron spouting the same rhetoric in regard to local and DEA copters used in drug raids?

What about the radar planes used to ticket motorists?

Suzanimal
04-14-2016, 12:08 PM
инакомыслящий and Гусь?

luctor-et-emergo
04-14-2016, 12:13 PM
"Say they had an engine failure or a hydraulic failure, and the Russian jet had barreled into the side of the destroyer, you would have had multiple U.S. Navy casualties and possibly even the loss of a ship,"

Damn, that guy is not an optimist.

unconsious767
04-14-2016, 12:20 PM
Well boys, I reckon this is it. Nuclear combat, toe to toe with the russkies. :p

TheTexan
04-14-2016, 12:54 PM
Well boys, I reckon this is it. Nuclear combat, toe to toe with the russkies. :p

Bring it. I've got a closet full of "back-to-back-to-back undefeated world war champs" hats and tshirts I wanna wear

pcosmar
04-14-2016, 01:55 PM
Russian Planes would be expected along the RUSSIAN COAST.


Why was a US warship threatening the Russian coastline?

Brian4Liberty
04-14-2016, 02:20 PM
Russian Planes would be expected along the RUSSIAN COAST.

Why was a US warship threatening the Russian coastline?

Yeah, those Russian planes really had to go a long way to do that flyby. They may have had to deviate from their landing or take-off path by a couple of miles.

Having the most advanced missile ship in the world stationed outside a coastal airbase is threatening? /s

Our Orwellian media at it again. The Ministry of Truth speaks. Up is down, down is up. 2+2=5. No doubt the ignorant masses see those brief news reports about "Russian aggression" and say "those damn Ruskies, I'm gonna go vote for McCain and we can go to war with Russia!"

vita3
04-14-2016, 04:30 PM
Let's cut the crap, stop all our secret arming of jihads & work with the Ruskkies in Raqqa

World is a awfully big place & we will be better off, sharing it a little going forward.

AZJoe
04-14-2016, 07:31 PM
https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/12998595_1735898276630432_8830440709665357777_n.jp g?oh=06449c2e81ecbf87af4fdbdcb0225e01&oe=577EE4F6

Brian4Liberty
04-14-2016, 07:43 PM
Heard a few minutes of hourly network news on the radio. They are pushing this story hard. "Outrageous Russian aggression!" The American Bolsheviks are drooling for their Reconquista of Russia. Somewhere Bill Kristol is grinning.

TheTexan
04-14-2016, 08:22 PM
инакомыслящий and Гусь?

Reported.

oyarde
04-14-2016, 10:05 PM
Heard a few minutes of hourly network news on the radio. They are pushing this story hard. "Outrageous Russian aggression!" The American Bolsheviks are drooling for their Reconquista of Russia. Somewhere Bill Kristol is grinning.

I hate amerikan bolsheviks .

TheTexan
04-14-2016, 10:36 PM
Did we at least blow up the russian jet?

Danke
04-14-2016, 11:20 PM
Did we at least blow up the russian jet?

It was unarmed, so that would have been a microagression, and we can't do that.

UWDude
04-14-2016, 11:25 PM
Look up the USS Donald Cook for past news of fly-bys. They are still mad about the one a few years ago.

I know they were hoping the Russians would do what they did last time, so they could study it. They are mad the Russians DIDN'T disable their ship this time.

The rumor from 2014:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/13/aegis-fail-in-black-sea-ruskies-burn-down-uss-donald-duck/

TheTexan
04-15-2016, 12:11 AM
It was unarmed, so that would have been a microagression, and we can't do that.

Unarmed my ass. It was carrying sensors and/or jammers.

Danke
04-15-2016, 12:26 AM
Unarmed my ass. It was carrying sensors and/or jammers.

If you give into your fears, they have won.

AZJoe
04-15-2016, 05:28 AM
Unarmed my ass. It was carrying sensors and/or jammers.

TheTexan's ass is carrying sensors and/or jammers? :D

AZJoe
04-15-2016, 05:52 AM
It was carrying sensors and/or jammers.

Ohh Wow. Russian plan off Russian coast is armed with sensors and/or jammers- unlike the U.S. Warship that Washington parked off the Russian Coast., the USS Donald is armed with guided missiles.

Why in the world is Washington sending guided missiles 7000 miles from the US coast and 70 miles from the Russian Coast? It is pure provocation, a very threatening and aggressive act by Washington imbeciles.

Imagine if Russia decided to park guided missiles 70 miles off the coast of Baltimore. Washington would have done a lot more than flybys with planes carrying no missiles or bombs.

If you are going to be foolhardy enough to park guided missiles off another country's coast and think that is not aggressive and provocative, then you deserve a lot more than mere flybys. What idiots!

pcosmar
04-15-2016, 09:11 AM
The rumor from 2014:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/13/aegis-fail-in-black-sea-ruskies-burn-down-uss-donald-duck/

I wonder if they replaced the crew?

Brian4Liberty
04-15-2016, 09:40 AM
Did we at least blow up the russian jet?

The scary part is that the local news-readers, aka propaganda mouthpieces, talked about how Turkey taught those evil Russkies a lesson by shooting down one of their jets recently. The obvious implication is that we should do the same.

presence
04-15-2016, 10:29 AM
http://cdn5.img.sputniknews.com/images/103286/84/1032868421.jpg




From their perspective us even being there is like Russian Destroyer Moskva sailing up the Saint Lawrence to Lake Ontario

alucard13mm
04-15-2016, 05:35 PM
http://cdn5.img.sputniknews.com/images/103286/84/1032868421.jpg




From their perspective us even being there is like Russian Destroyer Moskva
sailing up the Saint Lawrence to Lake Ontario

Looks like its using older models of missile launchers? Those exterior missile tubes are rather old and phased out. Most missile launched tubes are vertical and embedded into the deck of the ship.

idiom
04-16-2016, 03:22 AM
Looks like its using older cheaper models of missile launchers? Those exterior missile tubes are rather old inexpensive and phased out. Most missile launched tubes are vertical and embedded into the deck of the ship.

FTFY

luctor-et-emergo
04-16-2016, 03:36 AM
Looks like its using older models of missile launchers? Those exterior missile tubes are rather old and phased out. Most missile launched tubes are vertical and embedded into the deck of the ship.



Laid down:1976
Launched:1979
Commissioned:30 January 1983
Decommissioned: September 1990
Recommissioned: April 2000

Old boat but hey, the damn thing floats.
It has a load of missiles and other weapons.

The destroyer from the OP is scared a jet with a hydraulic failure might sink it if the jet crashed into it... Surely a heavily armed missile cruiser, can be a threat as well. Surely it wouldn't matter too much what age and shape a tube is when it fires a deadly missile at you ? ;)

tod evans
04-16-2016, 05:40 AM
Looks like its using older models of missile launchers? Those exterior missile tubes are rather old and phased out. Most missile launched tubes are vertical and embedded into the deck of the ship.

They look to be opened manually....

Maybe such hardware is wise in the face of an EMP?

Not so long ago missiles were targeted sans computers/IC's........Are there any in the US capable of doing so in today's technowarfare model?

Brian4Liberty
04-18-2016, 11:09 AM
This new "incident" really set their panties on fire in the establishment media. They fear-mongered this story to death yesterday:

Russian Jet Does a Barrel Roll Over U.S. Recon Plane in the Baltic (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?494053-Russian-Jet-Does-a-Barrel-Roll-Over-U-S-Recon-Plane-in-the-Baltic)

Pericles
04-21-2016, 04:11 PM
There was a great deal of playing chicken during the Cold War. It was occasionally fatal.