Kenan Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 Source: http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Articles03/PROstudeman01-2.htm Pacific Faces Crisis in Intel Analysis In June 2002, the USS Fort McHenry (LSD-43) and USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) transited through the Sea of Japan for a port call in Vladivostok. Before they arrived, Russian aviation forces flew a number of aircraft sorties that JICPac initially assessed as routine monthly operations. In fact, the aircraft were operating further south than normal and likely were intended to demonstrate Russia's continued ability to carry out a number of different missions. A detailed accounting of prior Russian aircraft activity with baseline norms for geography, time of day, day of the week, time of year, type and number of aircraft, and length of mission could have enabled JICPac analysts to ascertain in quick and specific ways how these flights deviated from routine patterns, and hence provide perspective analysis to these ships as the activity occurred. To be sure, the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) would have found data such as this useful prior to the Russian Su-24 Fencer and Su-27 Flanker flyovers in the Sea of Japan in fall 2000, after which photos of the flight deck were e-mailed to the aircraft carrier's commanding officer. What makes this photo special? It was taken by unescorted Russian aircraft in 2000. How did this happen? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Commanding Officer of: 2nd Company 1st financial guard battalion "Mrcine" See our squads here and our . Croatian radio chat for DCS World
hitman Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Be nice to know how far away that picture was taken from...from the looks of it the flight deck looks like its on safety standdown or a maintenance standdown. Wonder how many escorts were scrambled after that Hornet took off. Intel 13900k @ 5.8ghz | 64gb GSkill Trident Z | MSI z790 Meg ACE | Zotac RTX4090 | Asus 1000w psu | Slaw RX Viper 2 pedals | VPForce Rhino/VKB MCE Ultimate + STECS Mk2 MAX / Virpil MongoosT50+ MongoosT50CM | Virpil TCS+/ AH64D grip/custom AH64D TEDAC | Samsung Odyssey G9 + Odyssey Ark | Next Level Racing Flight Seat Pro | WinWing F-18 MIPS | No more VR for this pilot.
GGTharos Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 According to a squadmate who served on the USS Enterprise, flyovers were not at all uncommon. The only thing was that they had to prove they had no hostile intentions, and then they'd be escorted throught he carrier's airspace. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
BladeLWS Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Something tells me the aircraft that flew over that carrier was lit up like a Christmas tree. Everything from SM-2 Standard's to Sea Sparrows and Phalanx guns. Hell the RWR probably had a heart attack lol.
GGTharos Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Unlikely. That would be giving up valuable SIGINT. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
D-Scythe Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Unlikely. That would be giving up valuable SIGINT. Count it...GG chalks up another one :p
Trident Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 According to a squadmate who served on the USS Enterprise, flyovers were not at all uncommon. The only thing was that they had to prove they had no hostile intentions, and then they'd be escorted throught he carrier's airspace. According to the article the aircraft taking this picture wasn't. Everyone gets caught with their pants down once in a while, this was obviously one of those occasions ;)
GGTharos Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Uh, again ... unlikely :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Weta43 Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 GG - out of curiosity - on what basis do you doubt it ? Looks like a cosher outfit - if anything I'd expect it to be pro-navy (& therefore unwilling to embarrass the navy unless there's a good reason), & they do specifically say it was an unescorted flight - that took the Kitty Hawk by surprise... Or do you think it's like the Boing tests that found that 1 on 1 an Su30MK would defeat an F-15 every time ? (Publicised for effect) Cheers.
D-Scythe Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 GG - out of curiosity - on what basis do you doubt it ? Looks like a cosher outfit - if anything I'd expect it to be pro-navy (& therefore unwilling to embarrass the navy unless there's a good reason), & they do specifically say it was an unescorted flight - that took the Kitty Hawk by surprise... Or do you think it's like the Boing tests that found that 1 on 1 an Su30MK would defeat an F-15 every time ? (Publicised for effect) Just because it was unescorted doesn't mean that they were not aware they were there. Granted, I have heard some stories where Russians have caught a carrier "with its pants down," but it doesn't happen as often as you think.
Kenan Posted January 31, 2006 Author Posted January 31, 2006 ^^ Well, of course it doesn't. Would be too much if it happens all the time. ;=) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Commanding Officer of: 2nd Company 1st financial guard battalion "Mrcine" See our squads here and our . Croatian radio chat for DCS World
Weta43 Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 "Just because it was unescorted doesn't mean that they were not aware they were there." I guess they knew they were there - they'd have been that big noisy thing flying around over the bow :-) Undoubtedly at some point before they got close enough to the carrier (group?) to lean over & take some snapshots, someone would have seeen them on radar - probably early enough to have shot them down if needed, but the failure is not realising who they were far enough out to provide an escort. "it doesn't happen as often as you think." Actually - I was surprised it happened once. Cheers.
GGTharos Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 What failure? ... Not caring about fly-by's during peacetime, with the cold war over? ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Weta43 Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 The guy who wrote the article seemed to think it a failure - that's what the article is about - falures in intelligence gathering - & it's pretty much his area of expertise (Commander Studeman serves on the Seventh Fleet staff as N20 intelligence operations, fleet support, and intelligence officer.) Me - I'd be surprised if US Navy operational procedures are to allow warplanes from foreign governments to do unescorted sightseeing tours of carrier groups cold war or no cold war. Like you said flying into the airspace around the carrier probably isn't that uncommon "The only thing was that they had to prove they had no hostile intentions, and then they'd be escorted throught he carrier's airspace." The problem here was they didn't know they were coming, & didn't have a chance to put an escort up ("What makes this photo special? It was taken by unescorted Russian aircraft in 2000.") which I'd count as a fairly big failure if I were commander of the carrier. Cheers.
GGTharos Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Like you said flying into the airspace around the carrier probably isn't that uncommon "The only thing was that they had to prove they had no hostile intentions, and then they'd be escorted throught he carrier's airspace." Yep, and that was in the Cold War. Right now, I doubt they care all that munch, and it looks like this carrier was on a maintenance transit of some sort. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Alfa Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 What failure? ... Not caring about fly-by's during peacetime, with the cold war over? ;) GG, Thats just silly - I think you can be quite certain they care ;) A carrier group usually doesnt like to have "alien" flights crossing into "its" airspace and certainly not without an escort....if for no other reason because it may interfere with its own air traffic. - JJ. JJ
Weta43 Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 I think not knowing they were coming would be as big a mistake now as then. I think the unescorted flyover would be less of a big deal now than during the cold war, but that the Navy's preference is probably still for "sightsee-ers" to be escorted & not just call by uninvited. If they prefer it that way then having things otherwise is probably a black mark in someones book. If it turns up uninvited & unescorted you have to do IFF, track it, maybe even lock it up to be on the safe side at least untill you've had a little chat with the pilot & - once again agreeing with you - that's all SIGINT. They probably even got to see just how long it takes to scramble something to meet them, if they were interested enough to keep tabs. I'm not that up on these things but it looks to me like the hornet at the bottom left of the photo is just taxi-ing into position for takeoff so maybe they got their escort after this anyway. Cheers.
Recommended Posts