Russian bomber again intercepted near U.S. Navy ship

[austin552]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080305/ts_nm/usa_russia_navy_dc

Wed Mar 5, 6:48 PM ET



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Russian bomber aircraft approached a U.S. aircraft carrier off the Korean coast on Wednesday and was intercepted by American fighter jets -- the second such incident in less than a month, U.S. defense officials said.

According to the U.S. officials, a Russian bomber came within three to five nautical miles and flew 2,000 feet (610 meters) above the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and its accompanying ships.

Two U.S. F/A-18 fighters were launched to intercept the Russian aircraft and escort it out of the area, according to one defense official.

Russian bombers over the past year have increased their flights near U.S. territory and U.S. naval assets, demonstrating their long-range strike capability.

In February, two Russian bombers approached the Nimitz near Japan and one flew over the carrier, escorted by a U.S. fighter jet. That was the first Russian overflight of a U.S. carrier since 2004.

Those operations come as Russian officials say they will revive some of the military power and reach allowed to collapse with the Soviet Union.

U.S. defense officials on Wednesday said they did not consider the Russian bomber flight a threat or concern.

[Steve Carlton]

[BRPORSCHE]

jeez those things are ugly. Now that mig...

[WI wide body]

Gosh, imagine that...one of the world's super powers flaunting it's military might to a foreign nation. Go figure!

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by BRPORSCHE

jeez those things are ugly. Now that mig...

what mig? that's a Hornet!

[rouxroux]

Two Russian Bear bombers (like those pictured above) flew into Barksdale Air Force Base about 20 years ago when the US & Russia were doing the "PC visiting" thing. I took tons of pictures of them on final, they had the strangest sounding engines/counter=rotating props. They also brought one of their huge freighters that is bigger than a C5A full of spare parts for them. Go figure.

[Joeaksa]

The Ruskies did the same thing with Japan recently. They are "showing their power" around the world and sending the message that they want to be a world power once more.

Oil is allowing them to do this and the higher the price for a barrel of oil, the more bold they will become.

[m325ix]

with the new 'doll' as the president, Putin who stepped aside and will now serve as the prime minister, can continue to develop Russia back into the communist superpower without taking all the heat from the West. Blame it on the new president and crazy oil prices

[legion]

Gotta bring the Russian Bear down to its knees.

Maybe not the Russian Bear, Maybe the Swedes...

[onewhippedpuppy]

You have to believe that those Hornet pilots think "fresh meat" when they see a Bear bomber. I know the SU-27 and MIG-29 were both respected as fighters, but they need to do some develpment on their bombers. We have the B1, B2, F117, and B52, makes the Bear look pretty antiquated.

[onewhippedpuppy]

You have to believe that those Hornet pilots think "fresh meat" when they see a Bear bomber. I know the SU-27 and MIG-29 were both respected as fighters, but they need to do some develpment on their bombers. We have the B1, B2, F117, and B52, makes the Bear look pretty antiquated.


Double post....what the hell?

[Rick Lee]

Why is any aircraft allowed to get so close to a carrier? Aren't they able to track bogeys out to around 150 miles? Don't carrier battle groups include an Aegis crusier/system? Why are these guys not getting lit up or locked onto before they get so close. The fly by last month was so close, that our carrier couldn't have prevented anything from happening. Sure, they could have shot the Bear, but it was so close, the debris could have all landed on the carrier. What's going on here?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

I know the SU-27 and MIG-29 were both respected as fighters, but they need to do some develpment on their bombers. We have the B1, B2, F117, and B52, makes the Bear look pretty antiquated.

Why should they bother when we let them get so close? They don't need stealth technology. They only need to know that we'll let them get away with whatever they want.

BTW, a few mos. ago I on a large piece of land in western MD, shooting with my dad and a friend. We had rifle and handguns and there was nothing to hit for miles and miles other than the targets we had set up. As we finished up, we noticed an Apache helicopter hovering a few hundred yds. to our left and at less than 100 ft. alt. No telling how long he had been watching us, but obviously we wouldn't have wanted to appear shooting anywhere near an aircraft. Even with our ear plugs removed, that thing was totally silent. We never saw or heard it coming. We waved hello with weapons pointed to the ground and he took off. Very eery.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Why is any aircraft allowed to get so close to a carrier? Aren't they able to track bogeys out to around 150 miles?

I'm thinking the same thing... THREE miles? WTF, how does an unfriendly aircraft get within three miles of one of our carriers?

And wouldn't it have be more appropriate to send up a couple of P-51's to intercept?

[legion]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Why is any aircraft allowed to get so close to a carrier? Aren't they able to track bogeys out to around 150 miles? Don't carrier battle groups include an Aegis crusier/system? Why are these guys not getting lit up or locked onto before they get so close.

That's a good call. We should have every weapon-system available locked on these guys and the locks not removed until they are 150 miles away...

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by legion

That's a good call. We should have every weapon-system available locked on these guys and the locks not removed until they are 150 miles away...

I don't know what the real capabilities are and they should not be public. Missile lock, AFAIK, is the aviation equivalent of pointing a gun at someone with the hammer cocked back. The target knows he's dead at the push of a button. It's a bit aggressive, but carriers are usually considered to be irreplaceable national assets and should be defended as such.

[cgarr]

Just shoot it down then they will stop doing it. Just like at the border, pop a few and they will stop! word of mouth will take care of it..

[widebody911]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

And wouldn't it have be more appropriate to send up a couple of P-51's to intercept?

I think a Jenny would be sufficient...

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

BTW, a few mos. ago I on a large piece of land in western MD, shooting with my dad and a friend. We had rifle and handguns and there was nothing to hit for miles and miles other than the targets we had set up. As we finished up, we noticed an Apache helicopter hovering a few hundred yds. to our left and at less than 100 ft. alt. No telling how long he had been watching us, but obviously we wouldn't have wanted to appear shooting anywhere near an aircraft. Even with our ear plugs removed, that thing was totally silent. We never saw or heard it coming. We waved hello with weapons pointed to the ground and he took off. Very eery.

Cool story. Was it a black helicopter?

Related to the carrier group, I'd be shocked if they didn't have the Bear lit up like a Christmas tree. The Russians know that without first showing agression, we won't do anything to them. It's a cold war type game, which seems to be the direction we're heading.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Related to the carrier group, I'd be shocked if they didn't have the Bear lit up like a Christmas tree. The Russians know that without first showing agression, we won't do anything to them. It's a cold war type game, which seems to be the direction we're heading.

I agree, but why let ANYTHING get that close to such a valuable asset?