Russian attack aircraft just flew within 30 feet of a U.S. Navy ship

[Caolela]

The Russians have zero reason to be near San Diego or Norfolk, or Charleston, or anywhere near the US coastline. They might have reason if they were doing joint exercises with the Cubans. If not, what reason would they have to be there other than to stir up trouble?

There is no reason for the U.S. to be poking around Russian waters in the Baltic. Poland is no excuse, since the U.S. railroaded several countries into NATO to begin with for just this purpose. That's a whole other issue that some of you would know about if you had any knowledge on this at all.

- - - Updated - - -

So you still think morons think the US is just there to provoke and gather intel? I mean, that's what you said after all.

It's good to know that rational people think they were there to placate poland after they asked for a base and nato said they aren't going to base a permanent one there, you know, to avoid provoking russia.

It's okay kiddie, you'll eventually be old enough to have a real discussion.

I'll be 55 in about a month. How old are you, "kiddie"? BTW, anyone who wants to be taken seriously has learned to use the Shift key for place names and titles, etc.

If you're still that naive to believe the usual spin that's put out by the gov't and aped by the media, then you have a long way to go.

[Ripster42]

There is no reason for the U.S. to be poking around Russian waters in the Baltic. Poland is no excuse, since the U.S. railroaded several countries into NATO to begin with for just this purpose. That's a whole other issue that some of you would know about if you had any knowledge on this at all.

- - - Updated - - -



I'll be 55 in about a month. How old are you, "kiddie"? BTW, anyone who wants to be taken seriously has learned to use the Shift key for place names and titles, etc.

If you're still that naive to believe the usual spin that's put out by the gov't and aped by the media, then you have a long way to go.

No one believes you're 55. I'm 108.

[Kellhound]

Kellhound, stop grasping for straws, MIG 29 is a cold war plane, people buy Sukhois now.

as for f22 CRAPtor, it breaks down all the time, that's why they stopped making them, and how many combat missions have they flown? How many fighters have they downed? When I say combat missions I don't means some terrorist in a pickup with an AK.

You call Mig 29 junk n then say your fail planes that break down all the time are the best thing ever.. you have zero credibility. I however don't say mig 29 is the best plane ever made, it was a good plane is all and had like all planes problems but by no means to the extent that your "best planes evah" have.

People buy Sukhoi because MiGs were CRAP and Sukhois are cheap and less crappy.

The most significant maintenance issue with the F-22 is its stealth coating, not its air frame, power plant, or avionics.

Hell, the latest MiGs STILL have less air frame and engine life expectancy than F16Cs or F-18Cs.

Germany refused to use their MiG-29s in combat because of their limitations compared to the F4 in complex battle-space, it was decided it would be more of a hindrance than a help.....

The MiG-29 was good for point defense of air fields under ground control.

[Caolela]

No one believes you're 55. I'm 108.

Good for you. Delusion is fun though, hmm?

[Kellhound]

Sure, conveniently spun as "WRECKLESS AND UNPROFESSIONAL!1" D: - when it's someone else besides the U.S. If the U.S did the same it would be spun as "hey, that's what skilled pilots do. They're just doing their jobs."

- - - Updated - - -



The Baltic Sea also borders Russia and is part of their normal area of ops. Russia would have just as much right, as I said, on the West or East coasts of the U.S., or in the Gulf of Mexico as the U.S. claims to "benignly" have in the Baltic.

Any moron knows why the U.S. is there with a warship, and the Poland exercises are another excuse to gather intel and to provoke. I know, I was an Army Intel Analyst.

No, if US pilots did that they would be in deep shit. It is unacceptable from any pilot.

- - - Updated - - -

Not even close, it would stand no chance against an Eurofighter.

The F-22 has a 25km+ first shot range advantage, after that until it gets to the merge they tied. So the Typhoon's marginally better maneuverability only comes into play if the F-22 pilot totally fucks up for ~65km of flight.

“In the dogfight the Eurofighter is at least as capable as the F-22, with some advantages in some aspects,” he said. “This is without the helmet. The Raptor’s unique capabilities are overwhelming, but as soon as you get to the merge, which is [admittedly] only a very small spectrum of air combat, the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22 in all aspects. We gain energy better than the F-22 when we are slow, for example.” This from a Eurofighter pilot who fought against F-22s.

[Caolela]

No, if US pilots did that they would be in deep shit. It is unacceptable from any pilot.

Whether it's "acceptable" or not, those types of things are often OK'ed by the higher-ups and later excuses are made. Either way, the media will spin it in the best interests of the gov't.

This whole thing is just the U.S. sabre-rattling, and looking for a response from the Russians. It's a common tactic seen for years now.

[Easo]

I swear that Summerdrake's speeches are getting more and more degraded as time passes.
Fighting against the enemies of Rogjina must have taken it's toll.

[Kellhound]

Whether it's "acceptable" or not, those types of things are often OK'ed by the higher-ups and later excuses are made. Either way, the media will spin it in the best interests of the gov't.

This whole thing is just the U.S. sabre-rattling, and looking for a response from the Russians. It's a common tactic seen for years now.

Considering I have seen pilots reprimanded for hot dogging, and do not know a single CAG that would ok such activity...

[Caolela]

Considering I have seen pilots reprimanded for hot dogging, and do not know a single CAG that would ok such activity...

Of course you don't, because they're not going to tell you, do you think? This kind of thing usually goes much higher than the commander on the spot. It's often political, not strictly military.

[Kellhound]

Of course you don't, because they're not going to tell you, do you think? This kind of thing usually goes much higher than the commander on the spot. It's often political, not strictly military.

The "Commander on the Spot" was a Rear Admiral, whom I provided a briefing to every morning. All orders of that sort would have been relayed to the pilots in my workspace, I would know about it instantly.

[ringpriest]

I was talking about the US saying the Chinese warship entering US (Alaskan) waters was a case of innocent passage. We generally do site freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, and it is the only reason the USN prefers to give.

<goes back and re-reads Kell's post> So you were, mea culpa for misreading what you said. However... the US did also innocent passage and not freedom of navigation when the USN recently passed through China-claimed waters in the Spratly's: "U.S. Destroyer Made an ‘Innocent Passage’ Near Chinese South China Sea Artificial Island in Recent Mission".

[Hif]

China is creating islands and trying to use that as a reason to claim international water. It doesnt work that way. Very few of the "islands" involved are actually sufficient for ANY country to claim them as justifying a territorial claim.

Partly true. The Spratley and Parcel Islands are actual Islands which the chinese claim. Those are not artificial and those do increase territorial claims. That is extremely different and not the same as the islands built on coral reefs.

While the US media protrays them as the same issue they aren't. The claim over the actual Islands is a legitimate claim. The same the Malaysians have as do the Taiwanese.

The islands built on the coral reefs are separate issue, where the chinese are building artificial islands to project their naval power. They have made no legal claims over territorial waters based on those artificial islands. If they have please provide evidence to back up those claims of yours.

It is the US media who linking the two together to portray the issue as linked. They aren't. The law of the seas is very clear. Coral reefs do not signify territorial boundaries.

[Caolela]

The "Commander on the Spot" was a Rear Admiral, whom I provided a briefing to every morning. All orders of that sort would have been relayed to the pilots in my workspace, I would know about it instantly.

I don't give a shit if he was a 2-star, or even a 4-star admiral. It goes way over military rank and is almost always political. I briefed a 2-star Major General on a regular basis, with plenty of foreign (allied) high-ranks in tow. So what?

What planet are you living on today?

[Kellhound]

<goes back and re-reads Kell's post> So you were, mea culpa for misreading what you said. However... the US did also innocent passage and not freedom of navigation when the USN recently passed through China-claimed waters in the Spratly's: "U.S. Destroyer Made an ‘Innocent Passage’ Near Chinese South China Sea Artificial Island in Recent Mission".

I am aware of that major fuck up by the Obama Administration, which is why I said "generally" and not "always"....

- - - Updated - - -

Partly true. The Spratley and Parcel Islands are actual Islands which the chinese claim. Those are not artificial and those do increase territorial claims. That is extremely different and not the same as the islands built on coral reefs.

While the US media protrays them as the same issue they aren't. The claim over the actual Islands is a legitimate claim. The same the Malaysians have as do the Taiwanese.

The islands built on the coral reefs are separate issue, where the chinese are building artificial islands to project their naval power. They have made no legal claims over territorial waters based on those artificial islands. If they have please provide evidence to back up those claims of yours.

It is the US media who linking the two together to portray the issue as linked. They aren't. The law of the seas is very clear. Coral reefs do not signify territorial boundaries.

The islands that have been subject to US "incursions" are mainly the enhanced ones, but I am aware of the islands that are actual islands (do note the "Very few of the "islands" involved are actually sufficient for ANY country to claim them as justifying a territorial claim."). You are forgetting Vietnam, Brunei and Philippines as claimants.

Fiery Cross Reef is the biggest current bone of contention, and given its outer location it is integral to China's territorial claim.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't give a shit if he was a 2-star, or even a 4-star admiral. It goes way over military rank and is almost always political. I briefed a 2-star Major General on a regular basis, with plenty of foreign (allied) high-ranks in tow. So what?

What planet are you living on today?

Any orders to behave in an unprofessional hazardous manner with no real purpose would be met with protest, and if actually given I would have known before the pilots, thats what. Acting that way may have been OK for the Army, but it would not have gone over well with the Navy brass. Though I do not see the USSR being very intimidated by being buzzed by OV-1 Mohawks....

[Hif]

The islands that have been subject to US "incursions" are mainly the enhanced ones, but I am aware of the islands that are actual islands (do note the "Very few of the "islands" involved are actually sufficient for ANY country to claim them as justifying a territorial claim."). You are forgetting Vietnam, Brunei and Philippines as claimants.

Fiery Cross Reef is the biggest current bone of contention, and given its outer location it is integral to China's territorial claim.

And that is on the US and not the Chinese. The US is treating them like islands with a 12 nautical mile border. Not the Chinese.

[Kellhound]

And that is on the US and not the Chinese. The US is treating them like islands with a 12 nautical mile border. Not the Chinese.

The Chinese are treating them as islands with 120+mile borders.

[caervek]

Eurofighter wouldn't be able to detect the F22 when the F22 is in its preferred engagement range (a big ass distance away). On the other hand, if the F22 sleeps and comes too close, that is the hunting grounds of the more agile Eurofighter with bigger engines.

I think a lot of people are overestimating the threat of the F-22's stealth, it's not a Klingon bird of prey, it's a design from the 1980's, it will be about as effective against modern detection as the F-117 was a decade ago.

[Kellhound]

I think a lot of people are overestimating the threat of the F-22's stealth, it's not a Klingon bird of prey, it's a design from the 1980's, it will be about as effective against modern detection as the F-117 was a decade ago.

Its ability to reduce detection range from X-band radars isnt very diminished, and that is what fighters still use. The Su-35 for example is given a 90km detection range for a RCS of 0.01m2, while the F-22's RCS is less than 0.001m2 (I have seen reports down to below 0.0002m2). Of course that assumes the RAM on the skin is in good shape. The real challenges to stealth are from radars operating at lower frequencies, but those have issues of their own.

[Crispin]

Lol I get insulted by people who can't read basic sentences. American education

You wrote

it is called the south china sea for a reason and you say china has no claim, are you delusional or something?

It's pretty straightforward and stupid which is why you're beeing ridiculed. Don't write nonsense if you don't want people laughing at you, son.

[Slant]

I think a lot of people are overestimating the threat of the F-22's stealth, it's not a Klingon bird of prey, it's a design from the 1980's, it will be about as effective against modern detection as the F-117 was a decade ago.

So... pretty effective, then?