Russian bombers intercepted near US Navy vessel (Tupolev 95 flew 2000ft directly over USS Nimitz)

ynet ^ | 02.12.08 | ynet

[Flavius]

Russian bomber aircraft approached a US Aircraft carrier in the Pacific on Saturday and were intercepted by American fighter jets, a US Defense official said on Monday...

Excerpt. Story continues: YNetNews

---

---

Update:

Google AP

Navy Intercepts Russian Bombers

By LOLITA C. BALDOR – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. fighter planes intercepted two Russian bombers, including one that buzzed an American aircraft carrier in the western Pacific during the weekend, The Associated Press has learned.

A U.S. military official says that one Russian Tupolev 95 flew directly over the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz twice, at a low altitude of about 2,000 feet, while another bomber circled about 58 miles out. The official was speaking on condition of anonymity because the reports on the flights were classified as secret.

The Saturday incident, which never escalated beyond the flyover, comes amid heightened tensions between the United States and Russia over U.S. plans for a missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Such Russian bomber flights were common during the Cold War, but have been rare since.

The bombers were among four Russian Tupolev 95s launched from Ukrainka in the middle of the night, including one that Japanese officials say violated their country's airspace over an uninhabited island south of Tokyo.

U.S. officials tracked and monitored the bombers as two flew south along the Japanese coast, and two others flew farther east, coming closer to the Nimitz and the guided missile cruiser USS Princeton.

As the bombers got about 500 miles out from the U.S. ships, four F/A-18 fighters were launched from the Nimitz, the official said. The fighters intercepted the Russian bombers about 50 miles south of the Nimitz.

At least two U.S. F/A-18 Hornets trailed the bomber as it came in low over the Nimitz twice, while one or two of the other U.S. fighters followed the second bomber as it circled.

The official said there were no verbal communications between the U.S. and the Russians, and the Pentagon has not heard of any protests being filed by the United States. Historically, diplomatic protests were not filed in such incidents because they were so common during the Cold War era.

This is the first time Russian Tupolevs have flown over or interacted with a U.S. carrier since 2004.

In that incident, a Russian Tupolev flew over the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan on Jan. 29, 2004. Since then, however, relations between the U.S. and Russia have deteriorated to their worst point since the Cold War, largely due to the United States' plans to put a radar system in the Czech Republic and 10 missile defense interceptors in Poland.

The U.S. has defended the plan as necessary to protect its European allies from possible attacks by Iran. But the Kremlin has condemned the proposal, saying it would threaten Russia's security.

"We are being forced to take retaliatory steps," said Russian President Vladimir Putin, who also warned that a new arms race is under way.

Japan, meanwhile, filed a formal protest with the Russian Embassy in Tokyo after Saturday's incident, saying that one of the Russian bombers crossed into Japanese airspace for three minutes. Russia has denied there was an intrusion.

AP Google

[American in Israel]

The fighters intercepted the Russian bombers about 50 miles south of the Nimitz.

In other words, in real life the russian planes were intercepted about 25 miles after they launched their cruise missiles sinking the Nimitz.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

If you say so.

[Jeff Head]

Not irrational in the least, and certainly not ignorant.

I answered what my views were upthread, and never suggested we should willy nilly shoot down anything. I did however suggest, and stand by it, that allowing any of these aircraft that are capable of carrying advanced cruise missiles to adopt any type of flight profie that could be an attack profile on our carriers is not a wise thing.

As I explained there are a number of things we can...and IMHO should...do to prevent it short of shooting them down.

FRegards.

[Jeff Head]

Actually, they can carry cruise missiles with a much greater range than 75 miles. Out beyond 200 miles if they know where the carrier is.

But 75 miles for supersonic sea skimmers allows very little time to react.

[Gondring]

I agree with you about the B-52s. The last B-52 left the production line in 1962, and they are still flying today...that was my first thought in response to the previous comment. But regarding our appropriate response to the flyovers, I wonder what you think our response should be.

BTW, I think you know enough to realize that we do the same thing to foreign ships. If you want our planes shot at, just say we should do that to others.

You say:

The newer TU-95s and the upgrades now can carry some pretty wicked anti-shipping cruise missiles, giving them a much better strike capability and increasing their danger IMHO if they are allowed to get close enough.

Clearly, there are those on this thread who disagree with that [...]

Where has anyone disagreed with that?

[sam_paine]

As I explained there are a number of things we can...and IMHO should...do to prevent it short of shooting them down.

Good thing you're not in a position to set policy, then.

Sincerely yours.

[Gondring]

In order to prevent such a near fly-over our pilots and vessels could institute a phased escalation of response from electronic to visual identification and inspection, to signaling, to manuevering, to direct radio contact, to “lighting-up” the approaching aircraft.

So, what's different here...how does this "prevent" the flyover?

[Blue State Insurgent]

It’s time to buzz Moscow again with a Cessna.

[StAnDeliver]

68 should have blinded the bear and watched it topple into the unforgiving ocean.

[lentulusgracchus]

I was talking to an EW type some time ago and he was telling me that with its variable wing geometry, its large airframe size it’s huge carrying capacity, the Tomcat airframe was much better suited for alternative roles than the Hornet ever could have been.

Well, "price tag" was the issue that caused "Big Dick" to throw over the Tomcat. That, and wanting the "peace dividend" Poppy had promised his fellow Yalie Bonesmen and all the blue-haired ladies on Park Avenue.

Carrier landings and other rough treatment being what caused the Toms to age in the first place, maybe their lives could be extended by reassigning them to land bases, ee.g. Okinawa or Korea, restaging to Taiwan as needed. How hard would it be to scrape together a wing or two for deployment to Okinawa? I'm sure the Japanese would like to have them there.

They've only been stored, many of them, for a few months.

[Clovis_Skeptic]

Thanks for all the info .... this is news to me. Guess I’ve seen too many movies, where anytime a plane comes near they scramble, and engage.

[PAR35]

Never said that we shuld start a shooting war, simply said that we should intercept them earlier.

OK, I don't disagree with that. I had understood the earlier statement to mean that we should block a flyover, which can't be done without a high risk of a mid-air collision.

If 50 miles was, in fact, the intercept point, it does appear that someone wasn't on their toes.

[El Gato]

I spent about 9 years on active duty back in the late 70's and 80's. If we shot down every Russian bomber that buzzed a carrier then we would have been in a hot war rather than a cold one.

But I'll bet they did not fly right over it, and they were escorted, as this one was.

Flying right over a warship is an unfriendly act because the ship being overflown cannot tell the intent of the overflying aircraft, at least until it's too to do anything useful in preventing an attack. My understanding of Russian missiles is way out of date, but I would think that modern ones would be "lock on after launch" sorts, considering that they are carried *inside* the bomb bay, not on wing pylons. It might not even take a change in mode of the bomber's radar, or it might. IOW, they could launch on information obtained in scan/search mode, with no need to "lock on".

We once had an Agreement Between the Government of The United States of America and the Government of The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas with the Soviets, Article IV of that agreement provided:

Article IV Commanders of aircraft of the Parties shall use the greatest caution and prudence in approaching aircraft and ships of the other Party operating on and over the high seas, in particular, ships engaged in launching or landing aircraft, and in the interest of mutual safety shall not permit: simulated attacks by the simulated use of weapons against aircraft and ships, or performance of various aerobatics over ships, or dropping various objects near them in such a manner as to be hazardous to ships or to constitute a hazard to navigation.

It was signed by John Warner, as Secretary of the Navy, and Sergei Gorshkov as CinC of the Soviet Navy, May 25, 1972.

A direct overflight could be, and is, considered a simulated attack (with gravity bombs)

BTW, I never said it should have been shot down, I said it was performing an unfriendly act or a hostile act.

From the reports, it sounds like the F/A-18s took a good long time to get to the intercept. They detected the Bear(s) at 500 miles (which probably means with an airborne radar or other elevated sensors) but didn't make the intercept until it got to 50 miles. 50 miles is likely withing range of the Bear's weapons.

[nicmarlo]

Ivan is all puckered-up ‘bout now...(factor 8.5)..

Well...finally read the article, and perhaps the first 50 replies, plus the post to which you pinged. I don't follow too much things Russian...first...who's "Ivan" (not ringing a bell at the moment)...and what're they all freaked about with us putting in GPS or whatever in Poland, etc.?

[Ron in Acreage]

El Presidente’ Jorge at it again. He’s a sellout.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20080212-1306-ca-mexicantrucks.html

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

“Ivan” is a name for the Russian military,,,

I think all this is over the missile shield the US wants

to put in Poland and the Czech Rep. area...

[nicmarlo]

oh about Ivan : )

I still don’t get the big deal about a missile shield in Poland (our friend) and the Czech Rep. area (our friends also)....unless they had plans to harm them, of course.

[El Gato]

Do our planes make similar runs over Russian carriers?

What Russian Carriers?

They only have the one.

The "Admiral Flota Svetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov".

They sold his incomplete brother, the Varyag to the Chinese, who are fitting her out. (The Russians call ships he, not she, but AFAIK, the Chinese do not). The Chinese *said* they were buying it to convert it to a floating entertainment complex and casino. They lied.

The "Varyag" as of June 2007.

The Varyag being towed away from "Mother Russia" (actually the Ukraine)

The Chinese also have the former "Minsk" (An "Entertainment Complex", complete with Mig-23s on deck, Near Hong Kong) amd some sort of replica or mock up of a Nimitz Class ship (near Shanghai)

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

I think the system must far enough east to be able to hit an

incoming missile from Russia or the ME...

[El Gato]

Jimmy Carter was not a better CINC than Ronald Wilson Reagan. The veteran versus civilian canard does not fly.

Reagan served in the Army Air Corps during WW-II. Neither saw any combat. Reagan made training films...somebody had to do it.