Russian planes again fly over U.S. Navy ships

#1
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/03/19/us.russia.planes/index.html

Russian military aircraft flew just 500 feet over two U.S. Navy ships this week as the ships participated in a joint military exercise with South Korea in the Sea of Japan, according to U.S. military officials.
...
On Tuesday, the USS Blue Ridge, a lead command and control ship, and the Stennis were overflown by two Russian "Bear" long-range bombers multiple times, according to U.S. military officials.

The Bears overflew the ships at about 2,000 feet, officials said.

U.S. military officials said that in both cases, U.S. Navy F/A-18 fighters met up with the Russian aircraft about 70 nautical miles from the U.S. ships and flew alongside them until they left the area.

On both days, U.S. aircraft tried contacting the Russian planes on international air frequency radio channels, but the Russian pilots did not respond, officials said.
Using what language? English? Teach Russian to contact.

Although the Pentagon does not often talk about the overflights, there is nothing illegal about the actions, and they are generally seen by the United States as nothing more than muscle-flexing by the Russian military.
 
#2
The only language in international aviation is English. If Russian aircrew do not understand English, then maybe they ought to stay at home, plenty of room there to play toy soldiers.
 
#3
English is the legally accepted international language for aviation Sergey.

We routinely speak with your aircrews (and ships company if we're overflying your assets), as we did during the Cold War. Indeed, good airmanship often dictates we attempt comms during an intercept; whether you guys wish to answer is another issue.

Regards,
MM
 
#4
With the age and condition of those bears the US were probably more worried about them falling out of the sky onto the ships than anything else :lol:
 
#5
Argee2007 said:
With the age and condition of those bears the US were probably more worried about them falling out of the sky onto the ships than anything else :lol:
The Bears will be significantly younger than all USAF B-52s. And let's not even mention our 43 year old VC10s and C-130Ks.

Most of the current Bear F, H and Js remaining in service will have been produced in the mid-late 1980s.

Regards,
MM
 
#6
I just do not get this at all.
I am NOT saying that the United States has some God given right to a Hegimonic position in the World. But what the Russian government is doing does not change the relative BoP? It seems to me, to be an almost Lilliputian display of "power". Does it gain political marks in the domestic political market?
Lets say something does "happen" during one of these displays of "power". What is the next step, a nuclear exchange (because the conventional forces at Russia's disposal are hardly a "threat" to the United States?
 
#7
This is an utter non-story.

We watch them. They watch us. We watch them watching us and so on. It happens on an almost weekly basis.

The only thing which makes this newsworthy is that Russian activity is returning to Cold War levels because Putin wants to reassert Russian image and influence after some 20 years where funding reduced their military to third world status.

Regards,
MM
 
#8
Drlligaf said:
The only language in international aviation...
in civil aviation

Drlligaf said:
...is English.
I'm unaware about any agreement that establish specific language as common for military aviation on duty.

Drlligaf said:
If Russian aircrew do not understand English...
then it is not a tragedy at all. Though I suppose that they understand.
 
#9
Magic_Mushroom said:
This is an utter non-story.

We watch them. They watch us. We watch them watching us and so on. It happens on an almost weekly basis.

The only thing which makes this newsworthy is that Russian activity is returning to Cold War levels because Putin wants to reassert Russian image and influence after some 20 years where funding reduced their military to third world status.

Regards,
MM
However, would it be logical and usefull to sign an agreement that specifies details - altitude of such overflights, the procedure of communication (language, radio frequency)?
 
#10
KGB_resident said:
Drlligaf said:
The only language in international aviation...
in civil aviation

Drlligaf said:
...is English.
I'm unaware about any agreement that establish specific language as common for military aviation on duty.

Drlligaf said:
If Russian aircrew do not understand English...
then it is not a tragedy at all. Though I suppose that they understand.
How do Russian air crew communicate while abroad then in let's say Venezuela?....do they do the English thing of just speaking their own language, but louder?
 
#11
If anything accidental were to happen, then there'd be some mild muttering, but precedent suggests no more than that.

The old HMS Ark Royal was cut up by a Soviet destroyer in 1970, and although she'd gone full astern, physics took over and the Ark rammed the Russian ship. Several Russians on deck were flung into the oggin as a result. Two died, a one or two were rescued by Ark's boats, and another chap refused to get aboard a capitalist rowing boat and swam back to the destroyer, escorted by the boat conveying the rescued sailor back to mother.

Ark sustained minor damage, but the destroyer was managled in several places and lost its no claims bonus.
 
#12
Archimedes said:
If anything accidental were to happen, then there'd be some mild muttering, but precedent suggests no more than that.

The old HMS Ark Royal was cut up by a Soviet destroyer in 1970, and although she'd gone full astern, physics took over and the Ark rammed the Russian ship. Several Russians on deck were flung into the oggin as a result. Two died, a one or two were rescued by Ark's boats, and another chap refused to get aboard a capitalist rowing boat and swam back to the destroyer, escorted by the boat conveying the rescued sailor back to mother.

Ark sustained minor damage, but the destroyer was managled in several places and lost its no claims bonus.
Not to mention a few submarines going bump under the oggin.
 
#13
KGB_resident said:
Drlligaf said:
The only language in international aviation...
in civil aviation
KGB_resident said:
Drlligaf said:
...is English.
I'm unaware about any agreement that establish specific language as common for military aviation on duty.
Military aircrew are required to operate under ICAO regulations which stipulate a wide variety of airspace and procedural issues. For instance, CAA and FAA (acting under the auspices of ICAO) have legally stopped several US and UK military practices and have the final say of nearly all airspace use.

At the very least, it is poor airmanship if Russian military aircrew fail to adhere to the basic principles.

Regards,
MM
 
#14
KGB_resident said:
Drlligaf said:
The only language in international aviation...
in civil aviation

Drlligaf said:
...is English.
I'm unaware about any agreement that establish specific language as common for military aviation on duty.

Drlligaf said:
If Russian aircrew do not understand English...
then it is not a tragedy at all. Though I suppose that they understand.
Sergei we all share the same airspace a lot of the time, there are lots of scheduled and non scheduled civilian flights over the North Sea, and when the Russian Air Force decides to pay us a "courtesy visit" we have to distinguish between them and legitimate visitors and messages will be passed in English, also the civvies like to know what's going on. As for agreements, I cannot name any, I have been out of the business for too long now, but common sense dictates that a knowledge of English is vital. This was demonstrated a few years ago in southern Germany just north of Switzerland. A Russian aircraft bumped into another cargo aircraft, no survivors and most of the Russians were children or young persons. Lack of English was a deciding factor.
 
#15
KGB_resident said:
Magic_Mushroom said:
This is an utter non-story.

We watch them. They watch us. We watch them watching us and so on. It happens on an almost weekly basis.

The only thing which makes this newsworthy is that Russian activity is returning to Cold War levels because Putin wants to reassert Russian image and influence after some 20 years where funding reduced their military to third world status.

Regards,
MM
However, would it be logical and usefull to sign an agreement that specifies details - altitude of such overflights, the procedure of communication (language, radio frequency)?
If you had the slightest idea of what you were talking about you would know what it is and that it already exists.
 
#16
Drlligaf said:
...few years ago in southern Germany just north of Switzerland. A Russian aircraft bumped into another cargo aircraft, no survivors and most of the Russians were children or young persons. Lack of English was a deciding factor.
It is not right. The Russian pilot knew English and he performed command issued by the dispatcher. He lowered the altitude while automatic system ordered to climb.

It is a bitter irony - if he would not know English then the children would be safe.
 
#17
Ord_Sgt said:
KGB_resident said:
Magic_Mushroom said:
This is an utter non-story.

We watch them. They watch us. We watch them watching us and so on. It happens on an almost weekly basis.

The only thing which makes this newsworthy is that Russian activity is returning to Cold War levels because Putin wants to reassert Russian image and influence after some 20 years where funding reduced their military to third world status.

Regards,
MM
However, would it be logical and usefull to sign an agreement that specifies details - altitude of such overflights, the procedure of communication (language, radio frequency)?
If you had the slightest idea of what you were talking about you would know what it is and that it already exists.
Really? So what is permittable altitude for overflights of warships by military planes? 500ft or maybe 100ft?

And had Russian pilot to answer on radio calls while approaching to the American warship?
 
#18
KGB_resident said:
Ord_Sgt said:
KGB_resident said:
Magic_Mushroom said:
This is an utter non-story.

We watch them. They watch us. We watch them watching us and so on. It happens on an almost weekly basis.

The only thing which makes this newsworthy is that Russian activity is returning to Cold War levels because Putin wants to reassert Russian image and influence after some 20 years where funding reduced their military to third world status.

Regards,
MM
However, would it be logical and usefull to sign an agreement that specifies details - altitude of such overflights, the procedure of communication (language, radio frequency)?
If you had the slightest idea of what you were talking about you would know what it is and that it already exists.
Really? So what is permittable altitude for overflights of warships by military planes? 500ft or maybe 100ft?

And had Russian pilot to answer on radio calls while approaching to the American warship?
I'm not arguing with you as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
 
#19
KGB_resident said:
Drlligaf said:
...few years ago in southern Germany just north of Switzerland. A Russian aircraft bumped into another cargo aircraft, no survivors and most of the Russians were children or young persons. Lack of English was a deciding factor.
It is not right. The Russian pilot knew English and he performed command issued by the dispatcher. He lowered the altitude while automatic system ordered to climb.

It is a bitter irony - if he would not know English then the children would be safe.
Spot on. The pilot obeyed the controller not TCAS, regrettably the wrong decision. That said, how is he supposed to know which one to trust, the machine or the man ?

In any event the Swiss ATC agency Skyguide ended up apologising and shelling out millions, while the controller responsible for the mistake was stabbed to death by one of the parents of the dead children.

Tragic, but irrelevant to the Rusians getting back in the game by winding up the USN.
 
#20
One_of_the_strange said:
KGB_resident said:
Drlligaf said:
...few years ago in southern Germany just north of Switzerland. A Russian aircraft bumped into another cargo aircraft, no survivors and most of the Russians were children or young persons. Lack of English was a deciding factor.
It is not right. The Russian pilot knew English and he performed command issued by the dispatcher. He lowered the altitude while automatic system ordered to climb.

It is a bitter irony - if he would not know English then the children would be safe.
Spot on. The pilot obeyed the controller not TCAS, regrettably the wrong decision. That said, how is he supposed to know which one to trust, the machine or the man ?

In any event the Swiss ATC agency Skyguide ended up apologising and shelling out millions, while the controller responsible for the mistake was stabbed to death by one of the parents of the dead children.

Tragic, but irrelevant to the Rusians getting back in the game by winding up the USN.
Procedures dictate that TCAS instructions should be followed in preference to ATC.

The controller was at fault, although the Tu-154 pilot should have ignored the direction and continued following his cockpit indications.

Directions for pilots to follow TCAS alerts rather than ATC directions were reemphasised following this tragic incident.

Regards,
MM
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads