And in the news..... WTF???

[keeblercrumb]

Okay.... consider these two.... curious top stories....

http://us.cnn.com/2008/US/02/11/rand.insurgencies/index.html

The Rand "think tank" has been thinking real hard and decided that there really isn't a Military solution the US can achieve in Iraq and Afghanistan.... we should be training, building the country, blah, blah, blah.... as opposed to trying to conquer it.....

Well.... my first reaction, of course, is "No shit! Really? You think?"

And my second question is "Where were these high-priced experts 5 years ago?" I suppose we should be grateful that someone finally noticed it ain't and can't work and actually asked the question.... too bad 4,000 Americans and countless Iraqi's have had to die finding it out the hard way.

WTF?????

Oh and the second remarkable story today is....

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/11/russian.bomber/index.html

A flight of Russian Tu-95 (which originally entered service in 1954) approached the USS Nimitz carrier group and one allegedly buzzed the carrier at only 2,000 feet. The old and large bomber is the principal launching platform for Russian Air to Ship cruise missiles....

You hardly know where to start with this..... Don't the phones work between the White House and the Kremlin anymore? Or did we stop talking when we became "friends"? There have allegedly been 8 such "incidents" since July of last year.....

Anybody want to guess if the US does similar things with the Russian navy, etc.?

I guess the Russians felt like if a bunch of Iranian speedboats and piper cubs can embarass our quadrillion dollar navy, why can't they?

As you will note from the article, there apparently were no communications with the Russian planes throughout the incident. And let me ask you...How confident are you that these bombers are under Moscow control? In my humble opinion, it is far more likely today then ten years ago, but hardly a sure thing.

This situation is totally unacceptable.... It is a "high risk" game being played... which can literally blow up in everyone's face. I can't decide what is worse.... that the US Navy let bombers get so close without taking defensive action (I.E. shoot the muthers down) or the fact that we do not have the diplomatic ability to put an end to this kind behavior a long time ago... (say after incident #1 back in last July)...

Maybe I am feeling a little paranoid about this because I am a couple thousand miles behind "enemy" lines here. Please note the rail mobile Russian ICBM in my AV which, by itself, is capable of delivering 10 independently targeted nuclear warheads...

Still want to play games? You call this a "foreign policy"????

WTF?????????????

Excuse me, while I go find a hole to hide in.

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Randists are nutty because destroying nations and salting the place is an option.


As for the other, why have air cover if youre afraid to use it? This is America's Achilles heel. We're consumed with doubt about ourselves.

 

[keeblercrumb]

The Randists are nutty because destroying nations and salting the place is an option.


As for the other, why have air cover if youre afraid to use it? This is America's Achilles heel. We're consumed with doubt about ourselves.

I just KNEW you would respond! And it would not be more than 4 sentences...

You know I really don't want to be shooting down Russian bombers but my initial reaction was obviously the same as yours.... "use it or lose it"......

Dubya keeps insisting he and Putin are good personal friends.... But then there is that great Warren G. Harding quote again.. “I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights!” Except Dubya cannot take care of his enemies either....

We have (well... Moscow has) a truly exceptional "alternative" Newspaper called "The eXile" ... one of it's regular feature is the highly entertaining (I suspect you will love it, if you don't already know about it) column "War Nerd" (aka Gary Brecher, a self proclaimed "data entry clerk fat guy from fresno" ).....

http://www.exile.ru/articles/list.php?IBLOCK_ID=35&SECTION_ID=156

They also have a mind boggling feature called "Death Porn" but that is whole other story.....

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KEEBLER

I'm telegraphic, no question about it.

I do a lot of writing for the newspapers, and they like pithy. When I worked for the state I had to compress huge amounts of information into a paragraph or two. Then we got 80 lines to use! Holy Moly! I thought I was Tolstoy after that.

Judges and attorneys like pithy, too. At bond hearings on holidays and weekends, the last goddamned thing a growly judge wants is "It was a dark and stormy night..."

 

[rgraham666]

So far as I know, the Bear is used chiefly for reconnaissance. It's too old and slow for anything else.

If the Russians were going to attack they'd be using their Backfires, which is really excellent for the job.

One of Tom Clancy's books, Red Storm Rising had a really excellent chapter on a Russian (Soviet actually, the book's that old) strike force fucking a U.S. carrier task force up the ass.

Anyway, the Randists are the modern equivalent of sophists. It's their job to give their paymasters philosophical cachet for their decisions. No matter how dumb those decisions are. The sophist's jobs would be a stake if they told their paymasters that said employers were stupid.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Bolsheviks want to capture the electronics the US has. If we fire up the missles, the companion aircraft gets the information. In the meanwhile we tag along behind them, gambling a carrier for peace.

If someone steps on your foot, you ask them to move. If they remain on your foot, you shove them off.

 

[trysail]

Olmert: Certain Iran secretly building nuclear arms By Jeffrey Heller
Tue Feb 12, 6:54 AM ET

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Tuesday he was convinced that Iran was leading a secret operation to build nuclear weapons and urged a greater international effort to prevent Tehran from succeeding.

"We are certain that the Iranians are engaged in a serious ... clandestine operation to build up a non-conventional capacity," Olmert said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel after a meeting.

Olmert said he was sharing information with other countries about Iran's nuclear program, and that no options should be forgotten in trying to prevent Iran from developing atomic weapons.

"As (U.S.) President (George W.) Bush once said: no option is ruled out," he said.

Israeli officials have said Olmert planned to press Merkel for stronger international pressure on Iran at the United Nations, where a new sanctions resolution has been drafted.

"This issue is mainly a challenge for the great powers," Olmert said, speaking through a translator.

"We are very interested in coming to a solution that prevents the Iranians from continuing this program," he said, adding all diplomatic efforts to find a solution were welcome.

Last month, Germany joined the five permanent U.N. Security Council members -- Britain, the United States, France, Russia and China -- in circulating a proposal for a third sanctions resolution against Iran calling for mandatory travel bans, asset freezes and vigilance on all banks in Iran.

"I have always said that I believe strongly in a solution via diplomatic channels, that I count on a diplomatic solution and nothing else," Merkel told the news conference.

Iran says it wants only to generate electricity so that it can export more oil and gas.

PRESSURE ON GAZA

Turning to the situation in Gaza, Olmert said Israel would keep up pressure on militants but did not say whether Israel would broaden its operations by attacking Hamas leaders.

Israeli leaders have vowed to step up their war against Hamas, but Defence Minister Ehud Barak said earlier that a full-scale military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip would not take place right away.

Militants in Gaza hit southern Israel daily with rockets and mortars, in what Hamas says is a response to Israeli attacks.

Israel has tightened economic sanctions in Gaza since Hamas seized control in June after routing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's secular Fatah faction. But Olmert is wary of launching a major ground offensive in the densely populated coastal territory for fear of heavy casualties on both sides.

Olmert reiterated that he would continue to pursue peace talks with Abbas and intended to meet him in next week, despite the ongoing violence along the Israeli-Gaza border.

Merkel said the humanitarian situation in Gaza -- home to 1.4 million Palestinians -- was difficult.

"The easiest response to this is for the shootings on the state of Israel, the terrorist activities, to stop. Then there's no need to talk about other sanctions," she added.

Merkel said Israel and Germany would start regular government consultations, with a first meeting scheduled for March.

(Reporting by Jeffrey Heller, writing by Kerstin Gehmlich; Editing by Samia Nakhoul)

Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited.

 

[angela146]

A flight of Russian Tu-95 (which originally entered service in 1954) approached the USS Nimitz carrier group and one allegedly buzzed the carrier at only 2,000 feet. The old and large bomber is the principal launching platform for Russian Air to Ship cruise missiles....

I don't *know* this, but I would *suspect* that the fighters that patrol the area around the carrier have the ability to see the TU-95 up close. After all, it's propeller-driven and our guys have, like, jets to play with.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Tu-95_Bear_J.jpg/300px-Tu-95_Bear_J.jpg

Before launching any air-to-ship missiles, the TU-95 would have to open some doors on the outside of the fuselage *unless* the missiles were strapped onto the wing.

If there were missiles hanging from the wings of one of those things, I would guess they would have had a conversation.

If the TU-95 opened it's doors to drop missiles, the fighters could have shot the plane down *or* they could have shot down the missiles themselves.

That leaves two scenarios:

1. A kamikaze attack, which would require the plane to descend to a low altitude and fly directly *at* the carrier (or another ship). Again, a turbo-prop can't do that very quickly. If they tried it, the ship itself or the fighter-cover could have shot them down once they descended below, say, 500 feet on an intercept course.

That tactic worked OK during WWII when the US didn't have jets. But a Kamikaze run from a prop plane is just too slow in modern times.

On 9/11, the kamikaze attacks worked because the WTC and Pentagon didn't have fighter cover or defensive weapons.

2. A higher altitude attack where they TU-95 releases missiles at the last instant while it's directly over the carrier (or another ship). In this case, again, they have to tip their hand by opening the doors. The instant the fighters see them do that in proximity to a ship, the prop-plane is toast.

A modern FA-22 can open its weapon doors and eject a missile in a couple of seconds, but I gotta think it takes longer for a 1950's era plane to crank open the bomb doors. They just were not designed to be fast or stealthy. As soon as they do that, they get blown out of the sky.

Opening your bomb doors is an aggressive act.

As a reference point, have you ever been at an airport and watched the planes come in? When you see them on the horizon, you have a *long* time - say 2-3 minutes - before a plane gets close enough to actually do any damage. I'm talking about 747-type planes, i.e. jets and assuming you have nothing but your naked eye to watch them.

In a carrier vs. TU-95 action, the plane is much slower (those damned propellers and all) and they have, you know, RADAR and, like, cameras with zoom lenses. They can sit there and watch the thing as if it were in slow motion - which it pretty much is. They don't have to act until it actually does something dangerous.

If it were a supersonic aircraft, things would be different - say 2000 mph vs. 300 mph. That reduces your reaction time by a factor of 7.

And that is probably *why* the Russians used an *antique aircraft* to buzz the carrier with.

It's kind of like a guy standing a mile away from Fort Knox, carrying a musket. If he aims from that distance, he's not going to hit anything. And more to the point, he's going to be dead before he can pull the trigger.

As I said at the beginning, I'm speculating here. I don't know the specifics of the tactics they use.

 

[only_more_so]

I don't *know* this, but I would *suspect* that the fighters that patrol the area around the carrier have the ability to see the TU-95 up close. After all, it's propeller-driven and our guys have, like, jets to play with.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Tu-95_Bear_J.jpg/300px-Tu-95_Bear_J.jpg

Before launching any air-to-ship missiles, the TU-95 would have to open some doors on the outside of the fuselage *unless* the missiles were strapped onto the wing.

If there were missiles hanging from the wings of one of those things, I would guess they would have had a conversation.

If the TU-95 opened it's doors to drop missiles, the fighters could have shot the plane down *or* they could have shot down the missiles themselves.

That leaves two scenarios:

1. A kamikaze attack, which would require the plane to descend to a low altitude and fly directly *at* the carrier (or another ship). Again, a turbo-prop can't do that very quickly. If they tried it, the ship itself or the fighter-cover could have shot them down once they descended below, say, 500 feet on an intercept course.

That tactic worked OK during WWII when the US didn't have jets. But a Kamikaze run from a prop plane is just too slow in modern times.

On 9/11, the kamikaze attacks worked because the WTC and Pentagon didn't have fighter cover or defensive weapons.

2. A higher altitude attack where they TU-95 releases missiles at the last instant while it's directly over the carrier (or another ship). In this case, again, they have to tip their hand by opening the doors. The instant the fighters see them do that in proximity to a ship, the prop-plane is toast.

A modern FA-22 can open its weapon doors and eject a missile in a couple of seconds, but I gotta think it takes longer for a 1950's era plane to crank open the bomb doors. They just were not designed to be fast or stealthy. As soon as they do that, they get blown out of the sky.

Opening your bomb doors is an aggressive act.

As a reference point, have you ever been at an airport and watched the planes come in? When you see them on the horizon, you have a *long* time - say 2-3 minutes - before a plane gets close enough to actually do any damage. I'm talking about 747-type planes, i.e. jets and assuming you have nothing but your naked eye to watch them.

In a carrier vs. TU-95 action, the plane is much slower (those damned propellers and all) and they have, you know, RADAR and, like, cameras with zoom lenses. They can sit there and watch the thing as if it were in slow motion - which it pretty much is. They don't have to act until it actually does something dangerous.

If it were a supersonic aircraft, things would be different - say 2000 mph vs. 300 mph. That reduces your reaction time by a factor of 7.

And that is probably *why* the Russians used an *antique aircraft* to buzz the carrier with.

It's kind of like a guy standing a mile away from Fort Knox, carrying a musket. If he aims from that distance, he's not going to hit anything. And more to the point, he's going to be dead before he can pull the trigger.

As I said at the beginning, I'm speculating here. I don't know the specifics of the tactics they use.

575 mph is not slow! That's the Tu-95's speed. Also, it doesn't matter how fast the plane is going, it's how fast the missile go, and how far! For instance, the Russian Kh-22 (which the Tu-95 can carry) goes Mach 4 and has a range of 270 miles. So the missile takes a little over 5 minutes from launch to potentially nuclear detonation.

Yes Nuclear! It was specifically designed to attack US carrier groups. So it is more like a guy driving a winnebago, towing a howitzer, and he parks it 5 miles away from your neighborhood military base.

 

[rgraham666]

If the Tu95 knows where the Task Group is.

That's what Hummers are for. Their radar can reach to 400 miles out, and a Tomcat can get into Phoenix range really quickly.

 

[R. Richard]

Let me explain how modern air warfare works.

A Tu95 approaches a US Navy ship at 500+ MPH and an altitude of 2,000 feet. The Tu95 is 'painted' by the ship's radar and the fighter cover radar. 'Painting' a military aircraft with radar is an act of war. If the Tu95 makes even one false move, the Navy ship and/or the US fighter cover splash the Tu95. Of course, the US does not splash the Tu95, because there was no real danger. If the Tu95 had externally mounted missiles, the Tu95 would have been splashed, per normal operations.

Why did the US not splash the Tu95? Because the Tu95 did not present real danger to the US Navy ship. There was no need to create an international incident and the Russians knew this. However, the situation is one of those razor edge things. Chances are theTu95 pilot needed a change of underwear before he headed for home.

Why did the Russians send the Tu95? The Russians are gradually rebuilding their military might. It is to Putin's political advantage to project an aggressive attitude. It may be that if the US Navy had splashed the Tu95, Putin would have declared a war situation with the US and put himself in the Stalin position, to defend mother Russia.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Let me explain how modern air warfare works.

A Tu95 approaches a US Navy ship at 500+ MPH and an altitude of 2,000 feet. The Tu95 is 'painted' by the ship's radar and the fighter cover radar. 'Painting' a military aircraft with radar is an act of war. If the Tu95 makes even one false move, the Navy ship and/or the US fighter cover splash the Tu95. Of course, the US does not splash the Tu95, because there was no real danger. If the Tu95 had externally mounted missiles, the Tu95 would have been splashed, per normal operations.

Why did the US not splash the Tu95? Because the Tu95 did not present real danger to the US Navy ship. There was no need to create an international incident and the Russians knew this. However, the situation is one of those razor edge things. Chances are theTu95 pilot needed a change of underwear before he headed for home.

Why did the Russians send the Tu95? The Russians are gradually rebuilding their military might. It is to Putin's political advantage to project an aggressive attitude. It may be that if the US Navy had splashed the Tu95, Putin would have declared a war situation with the US and put himself in the Stalin position, to defend mother Russia.

It is unacceptable.

These guys are supposed to be something like our friends if no longer exactly allies.... All the "cold war" games (the rules for "radar" painting etc. as noted above) should be over and done with.

Even the evil French do not "buzz" our ships.... If the Russians want to practice against somebody.... try it out on the North Koreans or somebody who would be conceivably be an military enemy.

I do not want to get into a discussion of the venerable Tu-95 and its many rolls.... suffice it to say it remains a powerful military asset that the Russians rely on.... and, as noted above, don't be fooled by the "prop" thing... it is reputed to be the fastest propeller plane ever made...(the current fleet was manufactured in the 80's and 90's) it is some 100 mph faster than our vaunted quadrillion dollar B-2 stealth bomber.. Of course it is not remotely stealthy but it appears it does not have to be, doesn't it?

Oh... and by the way... when you are only 2000 feet over the Nimitz....flying anything... firing anything... you win..As the USS Cole discovered after it was put out of action by a "friendly” high tech garbage scow....

If the Russians actually think that...which after living here and following their local press (the Russian government generously has a cable station in English to project the government view... their “Fox News” if you will), I am convinced they DO think we are a potential military enemy... somebody needs to "get their mind right".

Dubya needs to get his ass on Air Force One and go have a long serious talk with his "personal friend" Putin. Dubya created this mess and he needs to fix it..... Now!

What? Dubya created it?

Absolutely.... The process of humiliating Russia was begun under Clinton but that was a basket case Russia we were dealing with.... But it was Dubya who ratcheted it way up under his "endearing" fuck you attitude toward the rest of the world....

Somewhere between the aggressive expansion of NATO to include everyone in Eastern Europe EXCEPT the Russians... and the even more provocative deployment of an "anti-missile" system on their WESTERN borders (Poland and the Czech Republic to stop IRANIAN missiles???) just what are they supposed to think?

And now, with $100 oil, Russia has the economic muscle to start pushing back and stop playing the "Thank you sir, may I have one more" game that Yeltsin had nailed......

So...... WTF??????????? We don't have enough problems??? Do we really want more?


-KC

 

[trysail]

Russia expresses surprise over reports of bombers' interception
12/02/2008 12:43 MOSCOW, February 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is surprised by the commotion raised in Western media reports over a recent incident involving Russian bombers in the Pacific Ocean, an aide to the Russian Air Force commander said on Tuesday.

Western media earlier cited an anonymous United States military official as saying that Russian bombers were intercepted on Saturday flying near an American aircraft carrier in the West Pacific.

Colonel Alexander Drobyshevsky said: "During the flight they [the bombers] were escorted by F-15 fighters of the Japanese Air Force and [U.S.] F-18 fighters from the Nimitz aircraft carrier, which happened at that time to be in the patrolling zone of the Russian Tu-95s."

"We are surprised by the commotion that has been raised over this," he said.

According to the media reports, one Russian Tu-95 Bear bomber flew close above the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier to the south of Japan, and another circled some 50 nautical miles (93 kilometers) from the ship. Four F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters were reportedly launched from the air carrier to escort the Russian jets away from the area.

The reports also said the Russian fighters violated Japanese air space, prompting Japan to lodge a complaint with the Russian Embassy in Tokyo.

Drobyshevsky reiterated that all Russian strategic aviation flights are conducted in strict compliance with international regulations on the use of airspace over neutral waters and do not violate the borders of other states.

"We submit all necessary requests well in advance and deliver proper notifications," the official said.

Interceptions of combat aircraft were a common occurrence during the Cold War, but became a rarity when Russia abandoned permanent long-range patrol flights after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The last such incident was in July 2004, when a Bear bomber buzzed the USS Kitty Hawk in the Sea of Japan.

Russia resumed strategic bomber patrol flights over the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans last August, following an order signed by President Vladimir Putin. The move was widely seen as a sign of Russia's increasingly aggressive military stance.

In addition to Russia's opposition to U.S. plans to deploy 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, relations between the countries have been strained by Russia's decision late last year to impose a unilateral moratorium on the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, a key arms reduction pact, as well as by NATO's expansion into the former Eastern Bloc.

In a speech last Friday, President Putin blamed the West for unleashing a new international arms race.

 

[trysail]

The Moscow Times
Wednesday, February 13, 2008. Page 3.
Putin Agrees to Go to NATO Summit

Combined Reports
President Vladimir Putin will attend a NATO summit in April, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday.

The Bucharest meeting will be the first time a Russian leader has taken part in a NATO summit since Rome in 2002.

"President Vladimir Putin has accepted an invitation to take part," Lavrov said during a speech in Geneva, RIA-Novosti reported. "This yet again testifies to the fact that Russia is open to dialogue on any issue."

Lavrov reiterated Russia's opposition to the further expansion of NATO, saying this process is "difficult to explain from the point of view of strengthening genuine European security."

Putin's decision to accept NATO's invitation came as a surprise, given his bristling criticism of the alliance. Most recently, Putin lashed out at NATO in a speech Friday to a session of the State Council. He noted that some NATO member states were increasing their defense expenditures and that "NATO is expanding, nearing the borders of the Russian Federation."

He also accused the West of starting a new arms race, saying the United States was ignoring Russia's concerns over its plans to deploy elements of a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Putin's decision to travel to Bucharest comes less than a month after he conducted what the Kremlin said was his last presidential trip abroad, visiting Bulgaria on Jan. 19 and 20.

Three days after that trip, NATO announced that its secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, had invited Putin to meet with leaders of the 26-nation alliance at its summit in Bucharest.

"It made sense in terms of clearing the air. ... There is a lot to discuss," a NATO spokesman said at the time, referring to differences with Moscow on issues ranging from Kosovo to the U.S. missile-shield plan.

Lavrov also said Tuesday that a unilateral declaration of independence by Serbia's Kosovo province would violate international law and damage security in Europe.

He said the United States and European countries did not understand the potential consequences of independence for Kosovo, whose Albanian leaders are expected to announce the move Sunday in defiance of Serbia.

"It would undermine the basics of security in Europe, it would undermine the basics of the United Nations charter," Lavrov said.

He said Western countries were dealing with the problem in a "haphazard" way.

"Many of them, frankly, do not understand the risks, dangers and threats associated with a unilateral declaration of Kosovo's independence," he said. "They do not understand that it would inevitably result in a chain reaction in many parts of the world, including Europe and elsewhere."

The NATO summit will bring together NATO heads of state and government from April 2 to 4, the organization said on its web site. Meetings of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and of the NATO-Ukraine Commission will also be held at the summit, according to the web site.

Reuters, MT

© Copyright 2008 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.