Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

Russian Su-24's buzz the USS Donald Cook
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6883		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  CATZ [ May 5th, 2016, 12:44 am ]
Post subject:  Russian Su-24's buzz the USS Donald Cook
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/mili ... /82979184/

This has had me thinking for some number of days now, about to what degree the US Warship may have had warning and to what degree of success the SU-24's could have expected. Obviously it's all classified and up to fate itself, but I would think that an old and venerated platform like the SU-24 wouldn't be a match for a DDG.

Interestingly enough it's clear the DDG had quite a bit of warning at the very least, since people were waiting on deck, and filmed it all by hand before the aircraft even entered into visual range. My guess is that these guys had been observing these planes for a while. Though it's unclear why the aircraft would simulate an attack that utilizes a flyby. Obviously they did it to ruffle feathers, but specifically, I can't imagine such a maneuver being overtly successful in an actual application of such a technique. Especially when they have other things at their disposal such as the KH-31.
Author:  erik_t [ May 5th, 2016, 1:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Russian Su-24's buzz the USS Donald Cook
Dickwaving, not a simulation of an act of war.

Nothing to see here, just as there was nothing to see on close passes of ships and other aircraft for the last fifty years.
Author:  CATZ [ May 5th, 2016, 2:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Russian Su-24's buzz the USS Donald Cook
The US Navy actually described it as a simulated attack. Or at least that is how the media has portrayed it. But I'm sure we both know how reliable the media is.

One of many sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-r ... SKCN0XA1UW

It's not surprising since Russia has simulated a few attacks now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... dmits.html

It reads:
The Russian airforce conducted a mock nuclear strike against Sweden during war games less than three years ago, Nato has said.
The 2013 exercise, which saw a contingent of Russian aircraft approach Swedish airspace after crossing the Gulf of Finland, was one of several examples of dummy nuclear attacks against Nato and its allies in recent years, according to a new Nato report.

I agree it's definitely more of a provocation than anything else. But it was definitely intended to be a simulated attack. Not just a flyby. A similar attack is actually portrayed in The Sum of all Fears in which a few Fencers delivered guided missiles at close range in an attack of an American CVN. I believe the tactic comes from the Russian Air Forces contention that over the horizon ranged weapons are overly susceptible to ECM and EW and thus the planes deliver a close up strike, though that seems counter-productive since it brings the manned aircraft closer to the guided missile vessel in the process.

I would have been more impressed if they had used Su-34's.
Author:  citizen lambda [ May 5th, 2016, 8:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Russian Su-24's buzz the USS Donald Cook
CATZ wrote:
I agree it's definitely more of a provocation than anything else. But it was definitely intended to be a simulated attack. Not just a flyby.
I don't know what differentiates a simulated attack from an unauthorized flyby, except if there are targeting EM signals from the aircraft. I understand how both are against the rules in the first place, but the video does not show explicit aggressive intent, unless I'm missing something. Again, I'm not excusing anything here, the action of doing a close flyby with no comms like that is aggressive and provocative in and of itself, but talking unequivocally of "simulated attack" is taking some assumptions already.
CATZ wrote:
A similar attack is actually portrayed in The Sum of all Fears in which a few Fencers delivered guided missiles at close range in an attack of an American CVN. I believe the tactic comes from the Russian Air Forces contention that over the horizon ranged weapons are overly susceptible to ECM and EW and thus the planes deliver a close up strike, though that seems counter-productive since it brings the manned aircraft closer to the guided missile vessel in the process.
Couple of elements here:
- The Su-24 is not just a missile truck but is well-equipped for precision attack with dumb weapons, as has been demonstrated (except maybe the "precision" part) in Syria
- I wouldn't put it past the AVMF to keep training for ship attack with dumb weapons even now.
- Your target ship can have all the air defense in the world and still get sunk if caught unawares (see the INS Hanit in the 2006 Lebanon conflict).
- Even if you're training for attack with stand-off weapons, how do you validate the pass on the target without visual contact?
- And as long as you're in the air, why not practice a strafing run as well?
- This all assumes that we're looking at a simulated attack for training/practice purposes, as opposed to pure chest-banging showing off, in which case you want to be seen.
CATZ wrote:
I would have been more impressed if they had used Su-34's.
Also, the US intel would have been more interested :)
Author:  CATZ [ May 9th, 2016, 4:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Russian Su-24's buzz the USS Donald Cook
Quote:
I don't know what differentiates a simulated attack from an unauthorized flyby, except if there are targeting EM signals from the aircraft. I understand how both are against the rules in the first place, but the video does not show explicit aggressive intent, unless I'm missing something. Again, I'm not excusing anything here, the action of doing a close flyby with no comms like that is aggressive and provocative in and of itself, but talking unequivocally of "simulated attack" is taking some assumptions already.
Yes,

I agree with you completely Citizen. I am a huge fan of Russian tech (I'm American btw) and while I don't concern myself with concepts of who's tech is better or worse (I leave that to the fanboi's) I do really like to pay attention to possible tactics involved.

Also, you said what I was thinking right there. I was confused as to how it was a 'simulated attack' as well, and my initial thought had been that they might have been targeting the DDG with electronic countermeasures or perhaps even went so far as to illuminate the ship with their targeting radar, though that seems overly provocative and very dubious IMO.
Quote:
Couple of elements here:
- The Su-24 is not just a missile truck but is well-equipped for precision attack with dumb weapons, as has been demonstrated (except maybe the "precision" part) in Syria
- I wouldn't put it past the AVMF to keep training for ship attack with dumb weapons even now.
- Your target ship can have all the air defense in the world and still get sunk if caught unawares (see the INS Hanit in the 2006 Lebanon conflict).
- Even if you're training for attack with stand-off weapons, how do you validate the pass on the target without visual contact?
- And as long as you're in the air, why not practice a strafing run as well?
- This all assumes that we're looking at a simulated attack for training/practice purposes, as opposed to pure chest-banging showing off, in which case you want
Oh yes, absolutely.

The Su-24 is a venerable but a well designed attack aircraft in all respects. Which is why it's survived for so long in modern countries in upgraded form.

Though in terms of examples, I would have mentioned the USS Stark incident, which was very similar to this except that the Fencer's were not armed and did not fire. The whole "taken unawares" has played out before.
Quote:
Also, the US intel would have been more interested :)
That's the idea! :)

But I wanted to see them more for my own benefit obviously. Bit of a fan myself.
Author:  Kokia [ May 22nd, 2016, 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Russian Su-24's buzz the USS Donald Cook
As erik_t pointed out, it's just dickwaving. Stuff like this happened all the time in the past. Blame our current political climate if people are making a big deal out of it.

An actual attack would be less obvious. IIRC the fighter had no combat load-out and Modern fighters don't "strafe" modern warships. It was no more a threat than airshow acrobatics.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/