Kerry: Shooting down Russia jets 'would have been justified'

[F-22Raptor]

The US military would have been within its rights to shoot down Russian aircraft that flew close to one of its warships in the Baltic Sea, Secretary of State John Kerry says.

Two Russian jets flew within metres of the ship on Monday, US officials said.

Russia's defence ministry said the Su-24 fighter jets "turned away in observance of all safety measures" after observing the USS Donald Cook.

Mr Kerry criticised the gesture and said contact had been made with Moscow.

"We condemn this kind of behaviour," he told the Miami Herald and CNN Espanol in a joint interview.


"It is reckless. It is provocative. It is dangerous. And under the rules of engagement, that could have been a shoot-down."

He added that the US "is not going to be intimidated on the high seas" and that a message had been conveyed to Russia over the danger of such a gesture.

Individual Nato members' rules of engagement should clearly outline what are defined as "actions that might be construed as provocative", according to the organisation's own guidelines.

Applying those rules of engagement "requires commanders at all levels to exercise considerable judgment", Nato says.

Mr Kerry did not specify why the US Navy did not fire at the jets.

The two Russian jets flew over the US destroyer almost a dozen times, American officials said.

At one point the jets were so close, about 9m (30ft), that they created wakes in the water around the ship.

The ship was sailing close to a Russian navy base, Russia's defence ministry said.

"After spotting the ship, Russian pilots turned away from it in full compliance with safety measures.

"All flights of the Russian aircraft are in strict compliance with international rules of the use of air space above neutral waters."

The commander of the Donald Cook described the flights as a "simulated attack".

The passes were "unsafe, potentially provocative" and "could have caused an accident," officials said in a release.

The actions of the Russian jets may have violated a 1970s agreement meant to prevent dangerous incidents at sea, but it is not clear whether the US is going to protest.

A Russian helicopter taking pictures also passed by the ship seven times.

The Donald Cook was conducting deck landing drills with an allied military helicopter when the jets made their passes, according to a statement from the United States European Command.

The US suspended flight operations from the ship until the Russian jets left the area.

The next day, a Russian KA-27 helicopter flew circles at low altitude around the ship, followed by more jet passes.

The aircraft did not respond to safety warnings in English or Russian.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36050689

 

[CHD]

That would would have set a precedence for chinese in SCS

 

[Desertfalcon]

Stop talking, start acting.

The world can hardly wait.

Go ahead, otherwise you Are nothing but a pile of smelly sh1t in the eyes of the whole world。

No, because they eyes of the whole world, unlike your own, is not that of a middle school playground. For as old in culture as you Chinese have, it's amazing how you view everything like petulant brat children. The real world of adults doesn’t work that way.

 

[Spectre]

Stop talking, start acting.

The world can hardly wait.

Go ahead, otherwise you Are nothing but a pile of smelly sh1t in the eyes of the whole world。

@WAJsal @Oscar The language above is quite colorful. Please review

 

[boomslang]

Vladi is having his fun now because he know the party is over if anyone but Bernie is the next President. And he has no chance. Even that lying skank Hillary would have those Russian rust buckets go down like a two dollar whore.

 

[C130]

should fire a couple of bursts of 20mm at them as they pass by see how they like that

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watch-as-this-phalanx-close-in-weapon-system-desperatel-1769757260

 

[Indika]

should fire a couple of bursts of 20mm at them as they pass by see how they like that

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watch-as-this-phalanx-close-in-weapon-system-desperatel-1769757260

What is preventing US from doing so? Russians bum slapped your ship and flew away and all that you can say is we have better weapons. Would US have been silent if it was north korea?

 

[C130]

What is preventing US from doing so? Russians bum slapped your ship and flew away and all that you can say is we have better weapons. Would US have been silent if it was north korea?

nothing is preventing us from doing so. the Russians use to do this all the time during the cold war, and nothing ever happened...so why esclate the situation??

it's my own personal opinion that we have the right to shoot these airplane down, and same goes for Chinese planes trying to ram U.S planes.

 

[Indika]

nothing is preventing us from doing so. the Russians use to do this all the time during the cold war, and nothing ever happened...so why esclate the situation??

Then why raise a hue and cry about it.

it's my own personal opinion that we have the right to shoot these airplane down, and same goes for Chinese planes trying to ram U.S planes.

Walk the talk baby....................

 

[UKBengali]

I would love to see the see the US shoot at a Russia jet and then deal with dozens of cruise missiles coming at their warship.

 

[Penguin]

Politicians should not talk about military matters like that, without first consulting their military.

On Tuesday, two Russian warplanes flew simulated attack passes past the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea, and while the move was unnerving and aggressive, it's not the kind of event the Navy responds to with force.

"You don’t get to kill people just because they’re being annoying," retired frigate and cruiser commanding officer Capt. Rick Hoffman told the Navy Times about the incident.

"We’re not at war with Russia," Capt. Rick Hoffman said.

"It would be one thing to be operating and have a threatening attack profile from someone who might not recognize me — that’s not the case here."

As a former commander of a cruiser that protected aircraft carriers and amphibious-assault vehicles from airborne attacks, Hoffman knows how to deal with threatening aircraft.

The Russian planes, Su-24s, had no visible weapons during the passes, and at no point did the USS Cook detect that the Russians were trying to lock onto them with a missile.

Though the passes likely violated a 1973 agreement between the US and Russia and were a clear act of aggression, downing a plane likely means the death of the pilot, which was simply not warranted given the situation.

According to Hoffman, this stunt most likely took place to generate propaganda for Russian President Vladimir Putin's regime.

"It would be real interesting to see what shows up in the Russian papers in the morning, how they play it," Hoffman said.

"It's not that different from North Korea," he said. "He does something and then he plays it domestically however he needs to play it for the purposes of getting his people energized."

.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-navy-didnt-shoot-down-russian-jets-2016-4?r=US&IR=T

What Kerry should be talking about is that 1973 treaty and how it is being violated.

Agreement Between the Government of The United States of America and the Government of The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents On and Over the High Seas

Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation

Signed at Moscow May 25, 1972
Entered into force May 25, 1972

Narrative

In the late 1960s, there were several incidents between forces of the U.S. Navy and the Soviet Navy. These included planes of the two nations passing near one another, ships bumping one another, and both ships and aircraft making threatening movements against those of the other side. In March 1968 the United States proposed talks on preventing such incidents from becoming more serious. The Soviet Union accepted the invitation in November 1970, and the talks were conducted in two rounds -- October 1, 1971, in Moscow and May 17, 1972, in Washington, D.C. The Agreement was signed by Secretary of the Navy John Warner and Soviet Admiral Sergei Gorshkov during the Moscow summit meeting in 1972.

Specifically, the agreement provides for:

• steps to avoid collision;
• not interfering in the "formations" of the other party;
• avoiding maneuvers in areas of heavy sea traffic;
• requiring surveillance ships to maintain a safe distance from the object of investigation so as to avoid "embarrassing or endangering the ships under surveillance";
• using accepted international signals when ships maneuver near one another;
• not simulating attacks at, launching objects toward, or illuminating the bridges of the other partys ships;
• informing vessels when submarines are exercising near them; and
• requiring aircraft commanders to use the greatest caution and prudence in approaching aircraft and ships of the other party and not permitting simulated attacks against aircraft or ships, performing aerobatics over ships, or dropping hazardous objects near them.

The agreement also provides for: (1) notice three to five days in advance, as a rule, of any projected actions that might "represent a danger to navigation or to aircraft in flight"; (2) information on incidents to be channeled through naval attaches assigned to the respective capitals; and (3) annual meetings to review the implementation of the Agreement.

The protocol to this agreement grew out of the first meeting of the Consultative Committee established by the agreement. Each side recognized that its effectiveness could be enhanced by additional understandings relating to nonmilitary vessels. In the protocol signed in Washington, D.C., on May 22, 1973, each party pledged not to make simulated attacks against the nonmilitary ships of the other.

Like other confidence-building measures, the Incidents at Sea Agreement does not directly affect the size, weaponry, or force structure of the parties. Rather, it serves to enhance mutual knowledge and understanding of military activities; to reduce the possibility of conflict by accident, miscalculation, or the failure of communication; and to increase stability in times of both calm and crisis. In 1983, Secretary of the Navy John Lehman cited the accord as "a good example of functional navy-to-navy process" and credited this area of Soviet-American relations with "getting better rather than worse." In 1985, he observed that the frequency of incidents was "way down from what it was in the 1960s and early 1970s."

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/4791.htm

USS Cook was operating in international waters 70 nautical miles off the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. It had departed the Polish port of Gdynia on Monday.

Sputnik News hammers on USS Cook being 'only' 70nm (129km) from Russian territory (i.e. the Kaliningrad Oblast). However, it forgets to mention that is in international waters. Not anywhere near the 12 nmi (22km) territorial zone. And, to put things in context, while the Baltic Sea is 1,601 km long, it is only 193km (104nmi) wide at its widest point.

The distance Kaliningrad city to the Polish port of Gdansk is 118km (64n nmi). To the Polish port of Gdynia is 125km (68 nmi), So, just being in port with NATO partner Poland, USS Cook is already closer to Kaliningrad than where the incident took place....

Russian fighter jet barrel rolls US plane in latest Baltic incident

By John Vandiver
Stars and Stripes
Published: April 17, 2016

A Russian fighter flew within 50 feet of a U.S. reconnaissance plane flying over the Baltic Sea, barrel-rolling over the top of American RC-135 in a dangerous maneuver that put the U.S. aircrew at risk, U.S. European Command said.

http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/...s-us-plane-in-latest-baltic-incident-1.404943

If the Russians keep up these chennenigans, it is just a matter of time before we get something like this
http://theaviationist.com/2016/04/1...the-sea-after-buzzing-a-u-s-aircraft-carrier/
Or like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

I would love to see the see the US shoot at a Russia jet and then deal with dozens of cruise missiles coming at their warship.

At the distances involved, in the Baltic, the use of cruise missiles would be totally rediculous. Leaving aside that fact that Russia's cruise missiles are typically land attack rather than anti ship missiles.....

A cruise missile is a guided missile used against terrestrial targets that remains in the atmosphere and flies the major portion of its flight path at approximately constant speed. Cruise missiles are designed to deliver a large warhead over long distances with high accuracy

Russia has Kh-55SM cruise missiles, with range of 3000 km and able to carry more powerful warhead of 200 kt. They are equipped with a TERCOM system which allows them to cruise at an altitude lower than 110 meters at subsonic speeds while obtaining a CEP accuracy of 15 meters with an Inertial navigation system. They are air-launched from either Tupolev Tu-95s, Tupolev Tu-22Ms, or Tupolev Tu-160s.

Baltic Fleet (BF) – is the operational strategic large unit of the Russian Navy in the Baltic Sea.

It has its main base in Baltiysk (Kaliningrad Oblast) and another base in Kronshtadt (Leningrad Oblast). It is organized with a division of surface ships, a brigade of diesel-powered submarines, units of auxiliary and S&R vessels, the Naval Aviation, units of coastal troops, combat service support and special support units.

http://eng.mil.ru/en/structure/forces/navy/associations/structure/forces/type/navy/baltic/about.htm

The Russian Baltic Fleet isn't all that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Fleet
Large Surface combattants: 2x Sovremenny destroyer, 2x Neustrahimy frigate, 4x Steregushchy corvette, 7x Parchim corvette, at least 4 but possibly up to 11 Nanuchka missileboats.
Submarines: 2x Kilo, 1x Lada
Aviation: some SU-27
Coastal defences: a single coastal missile brigade

No 'rain of missiles' to be expected here.

 

[Sugarcane]

I would love to see the see the US shoot at a Russia jet and then deal with dozens of cruise missiles coming at their warship.

Didn't Turkey shoot down Russian jet?

 

[Penguin]

What is preventing US from doing so? Russians bum slapped your ship and flew away and all that you can say is we have better weapons. Would US have been silent if it was north korea?

USN is better discipined a) they don't buzz russian vessels like this (name and document any examples pls) and b) they don't let themselves be provoked by this. That's professional.

Didn't Turkey shoot down Russian jet?

Yup, and cruise missiles went flying all over the place .... NOT.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Didn't Turkey shoot down Russian jet?

As i said before, people from the developing seem to fantasize about seeing a war between big world P5 powers.lol. He really believes that Russia will declare war on the U.S if the shot down that Rusdian fighter.

If Russia couldnt do shit about Turkey shooting down its fighter and killing its pilot i dont know why people like him think Russia will risk a war with the U.S and NATO for a fighter jet.

 

[xenon54 out]

As i said before, people from the developing seem to fantasize about seeing a war between big world P5 powers.lol. He really believes that Russia will declare war on the U.S if the shot down that Rusdian fighter.

If Russia couldnt do shit about Turkey shooting down its fighter and killing its pilot i dont know why people like him think Russia will risk a war with the U.S and NATO for a fighter jet.

The avarage RT audience, here is an example of what they are being fed daily.


(Notice the title)

And the ''destroyed'' tank.

Would be nice to see the longer video showing the tank shooting back.