Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Russia is getting gutsy again, but in their defense we would do the same if Russian spy plane was flying close to the US territory.
Maybe we would not be as aggressive. I mean define aggressive? Came to close and veered off? How close? Is there a distance that would be termed not aggressive? Maybe 1 mile separation?
I don't think it's a big deal. China does it all the times but it's just a little intimidation nothing more.
Wait, what? RUSSIA's getting gutsy? It was a US spy plane, not a scheduled passenger flight, or anything legit. More like the US is getting stupid and reckless. Any and every country has the right to defend its airspace. The US military flies over other countries when it has a treaty with them allowing that. Otherwise, they're lucky they got off with just a buzzing. If this had happened during the cold war, that plane would be down in pieces.
What's there to spy about, anyway? Don't they have satellites for that?
Russia is getting gutsy again, but in their defense we would do the same if Russian spy plane was flying close to the US territory.
Maybe we would not be as aggressive. I mean define aggressive? Came to close and veered off? How close? Is there a distance that would be termed not aggressive? Maybe 1 mile separation?
I don't think it's a big deal. China does it all the times but it's just a little intimidation nothing more.
Before we can answer your questions, we'd have to know how close the US plane was to their airspace. Was it IN their airspace? Then I wouldn't call their manouvre "aggressive". It was conservative. Was the plane skirting their airspace? Then the action was appropriate--a warning.
More info would be helpful. But I agree with the previous poster; why was the US spying in the first place? What was it that was of interest? I can't imagine. Or has this been a routine thing for the US to do all these years, and we're only now just finding out about it? Is this what the US uses NATO for--air bases from which to launch spy planes on Russia?
Russia isn't supposed to stand up for itself, you know that. Russians are supposed to heel.
Causing near-collisions over international waters isn't 'stand[ing] up for' anything - it's either a dick move by hotdog pilot, or ordered harassment by a government that needs some chest-beating to feed the gullible masses, since it has nothing else to offer them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
Would we pay attention to a Chinese recon plane flying over Catalina Island? Or Formosa?
Santa Catalina is American territory. The international waters of the Black Sea aren't Russian - they're international.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHi
Wait, what? RUSSIA's getting gutsy? It was a US spy plane, not a scheduled passenger flight, or anything legit.
There's nothing illegitimate about surveillance from international airspace. Countries do it all the time. And it's perfectly legal.
Quote:
More like the US is getting stupid and reckless. Any and every country has the right to defend its airspace. The US military flies over other countries when it has a treaty with them allowing that. Otherwise, they're lucky they got off with just a buzzing. If this had happened during the cold war, that plane would be down in pieces.
Do any of you bother reading articles on these topics? Apparently not. What part of THIS HAPPENED IN INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE is so hard to comprehend?
Quote:
What's there to spy about, anyway? Don't they have satellites for that?
Again, is reading the an article about this incident that hard? Do you know how to google?
Quote:
The incident occurred Jan. 25 when a Russian Su-27 intercepted a Air Force RC-135 that was flying in international airspace over the Black Sea. The Pentagon called the maneuver “unsafe and unprofessional.”
RC-135s monitor electronic activity. Satellites are visual surveillance platforms. Do you understand the difference between listening and looking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Before we can answer your questions, we'd have to know how close the US plane was to their airspace. Was it IN their airspace? Then I wouldn't call their manouvre "aggressive". It was conservative. Was the plane skirting their airspace? Then the action was appropriate--a warning.
Well, since all reports - not disputed by Russia - have the aircraft in international airspace, it was clearly not in Russian airspace (Moscow would be screaming bloody murder if it had been). And, no, sorry - causing a near collision is not 'appropriate'. At any rate, per a Russian source, it was 40 miles off the Russian coast. International airspace begins 12 nautical miles (just under 14 miles) off a nation's coast, so it wasn't 'skirting' anything.
From RT. That's Russian Times. It's owned by the Russian government.
Quote:
The RC-135U Combat Sent was “flying a routine route in international airspace over the Black Sea” more than 40 miles (64 kilometers) from the Russian coast when the incident occurred.
But I agree with the previous poster; why was the US spying in the first place? What was it that was of interest? I can't imagine.
Which speaks only to your lack of imagination.
Quote:
Or has this been a routine thing for the US to do all these years, and we're only now just finding out about it? Is this what the US uses NATO for--air bases from which to launch spy planes on Russia?
Well, since the RC-135s were built in the early 1970s, it sounds like you're just becoming aware of it four decades after you might have. That's on you.
Quote:
How annoying.
How come you aren't getting all annoyed with Russian planes designed to do the very same thingactually violate the airspace of a NATO power?
Quote:
A Russian spy plane was intercepted Saturday by NATO fighter jets over the Baltic sea Saturday — the second time this week that NATO fighters scrambled to drive away a Soviet-era Russian Ilyushin IL-20, a turbo-prop powered surveillance aircraft. But this time, the Russian plane was caught inside NATO air space over Lithuania — a possible sign that Russian leader Vladimir Putin is growing bolder in stepping up his military provocations against NATO.
Again, standoff surveillance in international airspace (or, for that matter, from the surface of international waters) is perfectly legal and accepted practice. Violating a country's airspace isn't. Remember all those Soviet 'fishing trawlers' that always shadowed USN maneuvers, and always sprouted impressive electronics gear that had no place on a 'fishing trawler'? Perfectly legal. No cause for harassment. It works both ways, you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
too bad we do not have the SR-71 anymore, they russians would not even get close to buzzing it.
And the Blackbird was completely useless for the sort of surveillance tasked to the RC-135.
Excellent posts and rebuttal above. Thoughtful and appropriate.
The 25 Jan 2016 incident wasn't without issue; some reports have the Russian SU-27 within 15 feet of the RC-135. Too close, and this is from someone who's camped out off the wing of KC-135s a fair amount. You want to be close enough to show presence or force, but not too close, in case the reconnaissance aircraft pulls a "Crazy Ivan". In fact, when we performed intercepts in practice, it was to no closer than 100 feet. To me, he was showboating, especially after reports state the RC-135 had controllability problems as the Flanker pulled away (sounds like wake turbulence, something akin to "thumping").
When a Russian (Soviet) aircraft shows up near our borders we intercept it as well, been doing it for years. I never personally did but know many F-15 and F-16 (and former F-4 and F-106) pilots who did... sometimes they would get close enough to see the reconnaissance crew waving or mooning or being otherwise silly. I did "buzz" a Soviet cruiser in the Sea of Marmara back in the day, and the crew was out on the deck, waving and probably flipping us off or wondring what we were doing, it was a game. The Turkish aircraft we were flying with had a great time flying below the superstructure of the ship, we didn't get THAT close.
I am having a hard time with a post that asks "Why were we there, what is of importance?" All I can say is "sigh..."
Wait, what? RUSSIA's getting gutsy? It was a US spy plane, not a scheduled passenger flight, or anything legit. More like the US is getting stupid and reckless. Any and every country has the right to defend its airspace. The US military flies over other countries when it has a treaty with them allowing that. Otherwise, they're lucky they got off with just a buzzing. If this had happened during the cold war, that plane would be down in pieces.
What's there to spy about, anyway? Don't they have satellites for that?
It was a Boeing RC-135. They've been flown by the USAF since the early '60s for recon, over (friendly) foreign airspace and over international airspace. My next-door neighbor was a pilot for one of them 50+ years ago. And yes, the U.S. has been eavesdropping on Russia and other countries all around the globe since before then. Russia does it to us too. I know for a fact that they've come VERY close to U.S. borders if not over our land, and certainly well within our national airspace.
There's plenty of reason to collect intelligence. I don't know that the satellites can collect the same type of info, but I know they can't do it the same way that a C-135 does.
It was a Boeing RC-135. They've been flown by the USAF since the early '60s for recon, over (friendly) foreign airspace and over international airspace. My next-door neighbor was a pilot for one of them 50+ years ago. And yes, the U.S. has been eavesdropping on Russia and other countries all around the globe since before then. Russia does it to us too. I know for a fact that they've come VERY close to U.S. borders if not over our land, and certainly well within our national airspace.
There's plenty of reason to collect intelligence. I don't know that the satellites can collect the same type of info, but I know they can't do it the same way that a C-135 does.
Thanks for posting more info about the incident without being snarky about it. This was helpful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
