Forum: F-16 News

newKerala.com wrote:

Moscow, May 10: Russia today warned NATO fighters against dangerous maneuvering near Russian Tupolev Tu-95MS and Tu-160 strategic bombers, saying it may lead to air incidents.

''I would not want to single that out but I must say that they are acting tactlessly, to put it mildly,'' Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force Col Gen Alexander Zelin told Interfax news agency today.

''They approach our strategic bombers within unacceptable distances and at unacceptable intervals, conduct various maneuvers around them and violate flight safety rules in every way,'' Col Gen Zelin said.

''It is good that our crews have good self-control and discipline,'' he added.

''They turn on monitoring equipment and record the violations. So if there is any dispute we will always be able to prove that we were right and acted properly,'' he claimed.

''Especially as there exist certain agreements in the framework of international conventions that must be strictly fulfilled,'' he informed.

Russia has bilateral agreements on the prevention of air accidents with almost all leading nations he said, pointing out ''They define clear distances and intervals between aircraft.'' Gen Zelin said Russian strategic aviation continues patrolling the air above the oceans which was resumed last August. Russian bombers make regular flights over the Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic oceans in addition to the Black and Mediterranean seas, he added.

''Today in line with the approved plans we are making 20-30 flights over the indicated areas. Simultaneously we are carrying out air defence and other missions,'' he said.

''As a rule such missions are coordinated with naval tasks and rescue operations,'' he noted.

''Duty aircraft both from NATO members and other states regularly escort us when during our combat patrol flight. By the way, as far as we know British pilots are very happy that we have started making flights to the North Atlantic - they are being paid additional fees for combat duty,'' he said.

''However, this is no friendly escort for our strategic bombers,'' he added.

''F-15, F-16 and F-22 fighters regularly attack us above the Artic Ocean. It is not a misuse of the word ''attack'' because our partners are training combat action reaching the point of attack. I must confess that this is quite unpleasant and even dangerous.

Naturally we rehearse our counteractions,'' Col Zelin said.

Source: http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action ... p;id=58921

------------

In your opinion, what should be NATO/US/ verbal (and deployment) response to this warning?

F-16.net Sponsor

I would say that a response is needed but not one that denounces/downplays the situation. Fact is that we probably "play" with them as much as they "play" with us. Nothing new, happened for 30 years during the cold war

Response--Continue to "escort" their 'combat' patrols.
I'm curious about the 'extra' pay the Brits are being paid? Anyone know about this? By the way which countries in the west routinely fly their bombers towards Russia to maintain their combat patrol? The Russians have got to figure out a way to get their information out with out pushing such patently false information. For example the shoot down of the Georgian UAV. Russian officials said the video was manipulated and that the fighter in question was a single tail fighter with missiles on the wing tips. Well, look at the video again. And as for dangerous actions near another countries forces--look at how they fly near/over our carrier groups at low level.

I wonder how they would react if we flew our B-1's and B-52's near their borders. I'm sure they would say it was an act of aggression by the United States. Its weird how America is always the double standard. If a nation does anything against us its protecting its national interests and exercising its right as a nation. But when America does anything like what the Russians are doing we are called a big bully and "condemned" by the whole world go figure.

F16 guy, thanks for reply. I would agree to stay the course re: 'escorts', (as it seems this is yet one more fatigue move, to try to burn out the response effort among certain members?) However, I would hope NATO could verbally qualify a joint policy statement in response to Zelin's remarks. I think there' maybe some opportunity to exploit this bold and antagonistic statement as well? Perhaps offering to negotiate a new NATO-Russian 'safe protocol' with goal to reduce need for aggressive NATO scrambles and to reduce threat posture of the patrols. (at the least, Russian mil should inform NATO about precise package and route being trained prior to exercise)? And one could contemplate certain diplomatic capital which could be better leveraged by NATO. Just some random ideas.

Anyhow, the clear public perception being expressed by NATO/ForMinisters should be what Rus Mil can do to make more responsible and less provocative training modifications, NOT what NATO must do to modify a more responsible intercepts. (of course NATO is forced now to train how to engage a new, unprecedented post-Soviet strategic AF threat)

The Kremlin/mil has always been genius at twisting the story around of course and shaping the perceptions as such... e.g. this latest example stating that NATO escorts are "Attacking the harmless Su/Tu packages" while in response, RuAF will be justified if they ever have to "counter NATO's intercept attacks"! Now that's some brilliant public opinion judo right there..(just saying that NATO needs to effectively nip these types of verbal judo points in the bud - and take the wind from under it's wings).

And afn, I've long supported the camp of some sort of B-1R type platform as an optimal intercept escort. It could be done more from stand-off range, have significantly more endurance/fires and mostly, could enable a rather effective political capability too (that provocative long-range aviation cannot go uncontested).

Hmmmm...maybe the NATO/American interceptors are taking a page from the Communist fighter pilot's manual and doing aerobatics around the target just like the Chinese "ace" did with our P-3 several years ago. I'd guess that what that guy did before he killed himself doing it was something he learned from his Soviet mentors years earlier.

Let the Russkies cry about it. They just wish they could get as close to our borders as we can to theirs with our stealthy jets.

Actually Sixer, I'm sure more than a few folks would not want to promote either side getting close to the other's borders in a provocative fashion. And the problem is actually that recent 'training patrols' have reportedly crossed friendly space (and very near to others), in a hostile manner (on offensive strike training against NATO/US/allied bases, naval assets, radar, C&C, etc).

Something needs to be worked out so that these provocative incidents can be less threatening and antagonistic, imo, to defuse the situation.

Quote:

In your opinion, what should be NATO/US/ verbal (and deployment) response to this warning?

How 'bout "Put up or shut up, Ivan..."

Sixer nailed it: Let ol' General Whatsisname go cryin' to the press. If he's got incriminatin' evidence that we've done or are doin' something stupid, let's see it, Tovarich! That' what a free and open society does. OOPS...sorry. Wink

I don't care if the Bears are towin' a banner sayin' "Howdy! The Stoli's on Us!" with a big-a$$ happy face on it, they're gonna have company until they've cleared out. If that means gettin' a little close to make our point, then tough. That's life. Fact is, these are combat aircraft of a foreign, potentially hostile, government approaching friendly airspace or forces with unknown intentions.

If we learned a lesson from the USS Cole, it's that you can't afford to let your guard down no matter how secure or benign you may think the situation is.

Link out..

I'd just love to know how a Bear managed to fly over the Nimitz without getting intercepted... Shocked

Haha, OK, well stated Link.

And VK2070, I'd conjecture that there wasn't round the clock CAP in the air at the time the Bears were detected as a possible boggy from surface radar. By the time the 5-6 min alert Hornets could meet them they were inside of 50 miles apparently. (And imo, launching 2 alert 5 aircraft is a rather inefficient means to 'intercept and defend a carrier' in the days of dozens of supersonic cruise missiles coming from out of nowhere within seconds). And if the carrier groups are unable or unprepared to be at maximal state of readiness to respond against surprise, rogue attack 24/7 while on the seas, then perhaps they should cut back on the deployments? And yes, if we're not there yet, then it will be very soon, that a rogue 'private' force could acquire a submarine/Bomber, upgrade it and outfit it will high-grade weapon systems. One just has to work on this premise in this day and age, imho.

Geogen - You make some great points. Perhaps the radar picket ships didn't interpret them as a threat, or they would put all their faith in the Phalanx/Sea Sparrow systems. I just have trouble believing they would allow them to fly over, especially with all these recent probing flights near Alaska and Denmark...Gaguing how close they would be able to get to a carrier before getting a response...

Forum: F-16 News

Col Gen Alexandr Zelin warns NATO re: Bomber intercepts