Bears at it again

[DuckHunter]

WASHINGTON — U.S. fighter planes intercepted two Russian bombers flying unusually close to an American aircraft carrier in the western Pacific during the weekend, The Associated Press has learned.

A U.S. military official says that one Russian Tupolev 95 buzzed the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz twice, at a low altitude of about 2,000 feet, while another bomber circled about 50 nautical miles out. The official was speaking on condition of anonymity because the reports on the flights were classified as secret.

The Saturday incident, which never escalated beyond the flyover, comes amid heightened tensions between the United States and Russia over U.S. plans for a missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Such Russian bomber flights were common during the Cold War, but have been rare since.

The bombers were among four Russian Tupolev 95s launched from Ukrainka in the middle of the night, including one that Japanese officials say violated their country's airspace over an uninhabited island south of Tokyo.

U.S. officials tracked and monitored the bombers as two flew south along the Japanese coast, and two others flew farther east, coming closer to the Nimitz and the guided missile cruiser USS Princeton.

As the bombers got about 500 miles out from the U.S. ships, four F/A-18 fighters were launched from the Nimitz, the official said. The fighters intercepted the Russian bombers about 50 miles south of the Nimitz.

At least two U.S. fighters trailed the bomber as it came in low over the Nimitz twice, while one or two of the other U.S. fighters followed the second bomber as it circled.

The official said there were no verbal communications between the U.S. and the Russians, and the Pentagon has not heard of any protests being filed by the United States. Historically, diplomatic protests were not filed in such incidents because they were so common during the Cold War era.

This is the first time Russian Tupolevs have flown over or interacted with a U.S. carrier since 2004.

[Guest Fogo]

Putin's speech the other day on his ending Presidency doesn't make any of this a surprise. He was bashing the west with the usual rhetoric, and stating Russia would need to amp up their military blah blah blah.

Apparantly the new President (who magically is going to win the election easily- different rant) is going to name Putin Prime Minister so he won't be going away.

[Guest echofox]

Thought this post might have been about the Monsters of the Midway...guess not. Anyways

The official was speaking on condition of anonymity because the reports on the flights were classified as secret.

This never made much sense to me. You see it all the time when there is some military incident. I can just picture some nerd picking up the phone after something like this and calling CNN.

[Guest wildblue]

Is anyone here familiar with the ROE for this situation? Should the carrier have engaged?

In other news, did anyone else notice that Time magazine named Putin their "man of the year"? At what point did American mass media stop routing for America?

Edited February 12, 2008 by wildblue

[Guest Robes]

In other news, did anyone else notice that Time magazine named Putin their "man of the year"? At what point did American mass media stop routing for America?

I think it was about 1966 they started to return around 89 and then they left again around 95, back in 2001 and they jumped ship for good in 03.

[Bergman]

Is anyone here familiar with the ROE for this situation? Should the carrier have engaged?

If they should have engaged, I'm sure they would have.

This sort of thing is not new. One does have to wonder how the -18s were scrambled with the Bear 500 miles out, and only completed the intercept at 50 miles (or at least that's what was released to the public). Lastly, I want to go on record as saying the Bear crew is a bunch of soft-bellied commie pinkos for only going down (sts) to 2000' for the photo op.

Bring back the wall. I have a strong urge to fly, and no place to fly to!

[Guest wildblue]

If they should have engaged, I'm sure they would have.

True... I worded my question poorly. No disrespect indented to the crew of the carrier or the Hornet guys.

I was more curious as to what the "line" is. IF the story is accurate then apparently 2000' directly over the carrier is cool.

[bucky60k]

Ah the Good ole Days!

[dmeg130]

Is anyone here familiar with the ROE for this situation? Should the carrier have engaged?

"Do not fire unless fired upon!"

Maybe they had a broken cat before they could launch Maverick and Goose off Alert-5.

[PapaJu]

Putin's speech the other day on his ending Presidency doesn't make any of this a surprise. He was bashing the west with the usual rhetoric, and stating Russia would need to amp up their military blah blah blah.

Apparantly the new President (who magically is going to win the election easily- different rant) is going to name Putin Prime Minister so he won't be going away.

Yep. I also read that they might change the constitution so the prime minister will have more power. Some things never change.

And people gave me "The Cold War is over!" quips when I began taking Russian in college. All I have to say to that is

[vsu8992]

This sort of thing is not new. One does have to wonder how the -18s were scrambled with the Bear 500 miles out, and only completed the intercept at 50 miles (or at least that's what was released to the public).

Or the USN PA dudes are getting taught at our PA Tech school:)

Probably a good comfort zone for the Hornet to do fleet DCA and not stray to far from MOTHER. This is exactly what the Tomcat was designed for w/ the longer legs and bigger everything. Hard to imagine they're being sawed up at the Boneyard.

[

Edited February 12, 2008 by vsu8992

[Guest Jimmy]

In other news, did anyone else notice that Time magazine named Putin their "man of the year"? At what point did American mass media stop routing for America?

I could've sworn Hitler made TIME's MotY back in the day.

[M2]

Russia's playing all sides here, read this latest STRATFOR report on the Deputy PM's recent speech...

Cheers! M2

Geopolitical Diary: Parsing Russia's Arms-Control Offer

February 11, 2008 | 0330 GMT

The Russians seemed to change directions a bit on Sunday. Sergei Ivanov, Russia’s deputy prime minister (and one generally aligned with the more nationalist elements in Russia), delivered a speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy that sounded more conciliatory to the West than the message that has been delivered by Russian President Vladimir Putin and others in recent weeks.

Ivanov proposed a new strategic dialogue with the United States, intended to restart arms-control talks and improve counterterrorism cooperation. Ivanov said, “I am firmly convinced that making use of the Russian-American strategic heritage as a ground for creating a modern, open collective security system, also in Europe, represents a reasonable alternative to unilateral destruction of its potential.” Ivanov also indicated that Russia might start participating again in the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty.

The Russian shift is more apparent than real, however. Moscow’s goal has been consistent: It wants to regain its position as a major power. Even if it isn’t a superpower, it wants to be treated as a major, even the major, regional power. Ivanov’s two major proposals addressed a traditional Cold War issue (arms control) and a post-Cold War issue (the global war on terrorism). In tying the two together, Ivanov was recalling a time when Russia was a superpower and reminding everyone that it remains a major nuclear power. He was also reminding the United States that it needs the Russians in its continuing struggle against radical Islamists.

Both major proposals also treated the United States, not the Europeans, as the major partner. The speech, then, was in part an attempt to split the Americans from the Europeans — this time by courting not the Europeans but the Americans.

For Europe’s benefit, Ivanov also reiterated Russia’s opposition to the looming issue of independence for Kosovo. Albanians in Kosovo are preparing to declare independence from Serbia in the next few weeks, something that is supported by most — but not all — European countries. The Russians are making it clear that an independent Kosovo, supported by the Europeans, would lead to a crisis in European-Russian relations and that Europe’s room for unilateral movement is limited.

Ivanov reminded the Europeans, heavily dependent on Russian energy flows, that Russian currency reserves are closing on half a trillion dollars and that Russia expects to increase its global influence as a result. This reference was intended to show that the relative balance of economic power has shifted away from the Germans and the rest of the European Union toward the Russians. This, combined with the desire to talk to the Americans as equals, was designed to put Europe in its place.

Javier Solana, the leading EU foreign affairs official, commented, “Sometimes I think Russia is investing in future leverages instead of future production.” Ivanov did not say — but could have — that Solana was absolutely correct. He might have followed by asking what Solana planned to do about it.

No one really cares about Kosovo except for the Serbs and Albanians. But it is a perfect test case for Russian power. If Russia can get the Europeans to back off by postponing Kosovo’s independence indefinitely and can enter into bilateral talks with the Americans in a way that excludes the Europeans, it will have taken a major stride in achieving its goals. In reminding the United States that Moscow has much experience in working together with Washington in maintaining global stability, Ivanov was trying to drive home to the Europeans that the Americans don’t much like them, the Russians are getting sick of them, and neither really has to take them into account, individually or collectively. The United States probably won’t respond warmly to this, but, on the other hand, Washington won’t mind seeing Europe squirm.

Related Special Topic Pages

* Kosovo, Russia and the West

© Copyright 2008 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.

[M2]

I could've sworn Hitler made TIME's MotY back in the day.

First, no, I wasn't around back then; but TIME did declare Adolph Hitler their Man of the Year back in 1938...

Interesting factoid:

The TIME cover, showing Organist Adolf Hitler playing his hymn of hate in a desecrated cathedral while victims dangle on a St. Catherine's wheel and the Nazi hierarchy looks on, was drawn by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper, a Catholic who found Germany intolerable.

Cheers! M2

[Guest echofox]

Don't forget Khrushchev in 1957

Edited February 12, 2008 by echofox

[M2]

Here's a complete list and a couple of factoids...some interesting folks have received the distinction (e.g. Joseph Stalin - twice and Ayatullah Khomeini).

TIME's Man of the Year

Since 1927, TIME Magazine has chosen a man, woman, or idea that "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." Though TIME's list is not an academic or objective study of the past, the list gives a contemporary viewpoint of what was important during each year. There are many interesting facts about the list:

Charles Lindbergh (1927) was the first, and the youngest, person to receive the distinction. He was 25 years old.

Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson, the woman whom English King Edward VIII abdicated in order to marry, was the first woman to receive the honor - 1936.

Though a number of people have received the honor twice, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the only person to have been named three times: 1932, 1934, and 1941.

Adolf Hitler, the murderous leader of Nazi Germany, received the honor in 1938.

A whole generation was named in 1966 - "Twenty-five and Under."

In 1982, the computer became the first object ever to receive the distinction.

There are several years where large groups of people were nominated: the American Fighting-Man (1950), the Hungarian Freedom Fighter (1956), U.S. Scientists (1960), Twenty-Five and Under (1966), the Middle Americans (1968), and American Women (1975).

TIME Man of the Year Winners:

1927 Charles Augustus Lindbergh

1928 Walter P. Chrysler

1929 Owen D. Young

1930 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

1931 Pierre Laval

1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt

1933 Hugh Samuel Johnson

1934 Franklin Delano Roosevelt

1935 Haile Selassie

1936 Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson

1937 Generalissimo & Mme Chiang Kai-Shek

1938 Adolf Hitler

1939 Joseph Stalin

1940 Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill

1941 Franklin Delano Roosevelt

1942 Joseph Stalin

1943 George Catlett Marshall

1944 Dwight David Eisenhower

1945 Harry Truman

1946 James F. Byrnes

1947 George Catlett Marshall

1948 Harry Truman

1949 Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill

1950 American Fighting-Man

1951 Mohammed Mossadegh

1952 Elizabeth II

1953 Konrad Adenauer

1954 John Foster Dulles

1955 Harlow Herbert Curtice

1956 Hungarian Freedom Fighter

1957 Nikita Krushchev

1958 Charles De Gaulle

1959 Dwight David Eisenhower

1960 U.S. Scientists

1961 John Fitzgerald Kennedy

1962 Pope John XXIII

1963 Martin Luther King Jr.

1964 Lyndon B. Johnson

1965 General William Childs Westmoreland

1966 Twenty-Five and Under

1967 Lyndon B. Johnson

1968 Astronauts Anders, Borman and Lovell

1969 The Middle Americans

1970 Willy Brandt

1971 Richard Milhous Nixon

1972 Nixon and Kissinger

1973 John J. Sirica

1974 King Faisal

1975 American Women

1976 Jimmy Carter

1977 Anwar Sadat

1978 Teng Hsiao-P'ing

1979 Ayatullah Khomeini

1980 Ronald Reagan

1981 Lech Walesa

1982 The Computer

1983 Ronald Reagan & Yuri Andropov

1984 Peter Ueberroth

1985 Deng Xiaoping

1986 Corazon Aquino

1987 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev

1988 Endangered Earth

1989 Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev

1990 The Two George Bushes

1991 Ted Turner

1992 Bill Clinton

1993 The Peacemakers

1994 Pope John Paul II

1995 Newt Gingrich

1996 Dr. David Ho

1997 Andy Grove

1998 Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr

1999 Jeff Bezos

2000 George W. Bush

2001 Rudolph Giuliani

2002 The Whistleblowers

2003 The American Soldier

2004 George W. Bush

2005 Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, & Bono

2006 You

2007 Vladimir Putin

The ones such as 'The Computer,' 'Endangered Earth' and 'You' are cop outs. Was there no distinct individuals from those years?

Cheers! M2

[Guest FoxGolf]

Vulcan paying the Kiev a visit, photographed by a P3 apparently, looks a bit less than 2000ft to me...

Click the image to enlarge

Edited February 13, 2008 by FoxGolf

[MojoF16]

Vulcan paying the Kiev a visit, photographed by a P3 apparently, looks a bit less than 2000ft to me...

Click the image to enlarge

Obviously never been on a navy ship but what is spraying up towards the rear of the vessel?...It almost looks like they are trying to spray the jet.

[spectre56]

Obviously never been on a navy ship but what is spraying up towards the rear of the vessel?...It almost looks like they are trying to spray the jet.

Think that's either something on the lens of the camera or the window of the plane.

Unless the Ruskies were trying to develop some sort of spider web defense.............

[Guest FoxGolf]

Think that's either something on the lens of the camera or the window of the plane.

Unless the Ruskies were trying to develop some sort of spider web defense.............

possibly a couple of flares dropped by the Vulcan....common practice during mock attacks of Naval vessels

Edited February 13, 2008 by FoxGolf

[Guest Fogo]

Is anyone here familiar with the ROE for this situation? Should the carrier have engaged?

In other news, did anyone else notice that Time magazine named Putin their "man of the year"? At what point did American mass media stop routing for America?

In their defense (and believe me, I am not a TIME magazine apologist) the Man of the Year isn't so much an award for doing good (sometimes it is) as it is just a person who was the biggest in the news, or had the biggest affect on the world, etc.

That being said, how in the world is it Putin? Seems to me there is a lot else going on in the world than ol Vladimir wishing it was still super power USSR. Let's hope TIME does not have some kind of crystal ball that sees his current action as a prediction of future disaster.

[Guest Brewdog]

I wouldn't underestimate the potential leverage of his energy assets. I think if anything, the west has too casual an attitude about the moves Putin has made and continues to make. They are intent on slowly rebuilding their empire while we are distracted by other things. There is a great deal of anti-American sentiment among the Russian people. The Russian propaganda machine is alive and well in the former Soviet republics. There are youth movements over there reminicent of the Hitler Youth. Young angry people that talk openly about armed conflict with America. Their military capability is improving. The Russian people care more about having a leader that is strong and demands the respect and fear of the world community, than they care about individual freedom or democratic progress. The Russian people do not see things the way we do. For example, we think Gorbi was great, they think he sucked. If the price of bread is low and people are employed for a decent wage, they will get behind whatever war their new Czar leads them into.

[AEWingsMN]

1990 The Two George Bushes

1991 Ted Turner

1992 Bill Clinton

1993 The Peacemakers

1994 Pope John Paul II

1995 Newt Gingrich

1996 Dr. David Ho

1997 Andy Grove

1998 Bill Clinton and Kenneth Starr

1999 Jeff Bezos

2000 George W. Bush

2001 Rudolph Giuliani

2002 The Whistleblowers

2003 The American Soldier

2004 George W. Bush

2005 Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, & Bono

2006 You

2007 Vladimir Putin

Though I was very young at the time and have no recollection of politics from then other than the Gulf War, why would BOTH George Bushes have been MOTY in 1990? It seems that it would be referring to Dubya and his father (his father would make sense b/c he was the president), but why Dubya? And if it was Dubya, wouldn't 1990, 2000, and 2004 make him the second person to be put as MOTY 3 times?