U.S. says Russian planes buzzed navy ship in Baltic Sea

Wow, the Russian war plane was that close huh? Remember when the USS Vincennes shot down passenger liner Iran Air Flight 655 that was around 20 kms way (all within Iranian waters)? Yeah, it's something to think about lol.

Not the 1st incident where they bullied the USS Cook. The russians know the US will do nothing, unlike the Turks who shot down that russian bomber.

They have been doing this on and off since at least the 60's. Proper response would be to hoist Bravo and fire a few bursts from the CIDS. Or light them up with the missile tracking radar; good practice for the fire control techs.

I wouldn't worry too much. The Su-24 looks like rubbish.

i would have at least lit up the plane with the guided missile radar...

I'm with the above, We should have lit them up and let them scurry.

Any particular reason the U.S. Feels the need to send their military into the Baltic, near the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad?

Simple strategic way to deal with this. Always have aircraft carrier support with wings on deck. Then get your boys up for some fun and games. This would also happen in a live situation. You should always have wing support around your boats. So this was a poor exercise.

Any particular reason the U.S. Feels the need to send their military into the Baltic, near the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad?

If you look a map, Kaliningrad is an isolated Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania and directly across from Sweden.

why are they there,,,well done Russian

why are they there

Kaliningrad is in Oblast, an isolated remnant of Soviet Russia, and strategically placed next to Poland and close to Sweden and Denmark. Oblast is basically Russia most western territory in Europe, and Russia's frontline. The Americans are part of NATO, whose job it is to be prepared for armed conflict with Russia.

Now ask yourself a question. Not much of a choice, but would you rather support Putin's plans for the world or the Americans. I think we know the answer so it was irresponsible to say 'well done Russia'.

What's more "unsafe", Russian planes buzzing overhead, or NATOs hegemonic creep towards the Rusian federation for the last 20 years.

@TigersTokyoDome, the days of "kill a commie for your mommy" are over. Time to take a new look at WHO has plans for the world. I'd reccomend starting with military budgets, both public and black.

Like I said Fizz it's not a great choice. But just ask yourself this. Would you rather live in Russian-planned world or would you rather live in American-planned world. Quite a simple and quick answer. Putin is playing his aggressive skies policy in the UK and over Japan. He tried to play with the Turks and they dont play games so that was the end of that. There are no "commies" in Russia anymore and I myself am much more of a "commie" than a free western capitalist. But I definitely wouldnt want to live in Putins order.

Planes fly close sometimes. It's not that big of a deal.

Russia got a little close on this one, probably a pilot error. They already lost one plane to the Turks, looks like they haven't quite learned about keeping proper distance for safety.

I wonder how close the US aircraft get to the Russian ships? Do you think only the Russians do this?

Paulinusa: I asked for a reason the U.S. feels the need to send their military to Kaliningrad, your reply doesn't address that at all. I already know where Kaliningrad is on a map.

TigersTokyoDome: Where does it say that this was a NATO mission?

Would I rather live in a Russian planned world or an American planed world? Lol, Neither! Though if I look at both countries track records (of númerous armed conflicts in my lifetime), I'd say America has been more continuously aggressive in war and invasions.

I don't condone Russia's reations in regards to this incident but I also can't support America's idea of policing the world with its militaries either.

SuperLib

Russia got a little close on this one, probably a pilot error.

The article reports with a video clip showing;

A Navy video clip shows another low-altitude pass with a U.S. sailor shouting, “Below the bridge wing,” meaning the Russian plane was flying below the level of the Cook’s navigation bridge.

No one accepts a plane flying below 50 meters as pilot error.

What's more "unsafe", Russian planes buzzing overhead, or NATOs hegemonic creep towards the Rusian federation for the last 20 years.

Gee, I dunno, Fizz. Perhaps you'd like to ask the citizens of the former Eastern Bloc countries why they are not particularly eager to rejoin an Eastern Bloc II. Or perhaps you'd just like to dictate backyards.

I wonder what the US reaction were if Russian or Chinese ships conducted an exercise near the coast of Florida or California?

@TigersTokyoDome

Not much of a choice, but would you rather support Putin's plans for the world or the Americans

What a silly question! I would support my government, not someone's else plans. And by the way, I've never heard about any "Putin's plans for the world". Can you share your insights with us?

Russia wouldn't operate off the US coast. This buzzing incident is extremely huge victory for them; probably made the day/week/month for the average Russian. Small victories are important.

"Unsafe and unprofessional"... and probably a violation of the 1972 US USSR Incidents at Sea agreement.

Russia wouldn't operate off the US coast

Right. And the US ships frequently operate near the Russian coast. Now the question: who provokes whom?

This buzzing incident is extremely huge victory for them

A fly-by? Nah, it's just a routine exercise for pilots, not a victory. Taking Palmyra from ISIS - that was a real victory, mostly ignored by the West.

@Asakaze"Taking Palmira from ISIS-that was a real victory, mostly ignored by the West."

By western two-faced political hypocrites, to be precise.

Perhaps you'd like to ask the citizens of the former Eastern Bloc countries why they are not particularly eager to rejoin an Eastern Bloc II

Huh! What Eastern Bloc II? Are you feeling OK?

I see the usual suspects avoid debating my comment and only know how to press the down vote button. To disagree with me is fine but at least point out what or why you disagree.

Not only flying too close but also radio silence was incredibly irresponsible. Accidents can happen. Remember when a Chinese fighter jet collided with an US intelligence plane off the coast of Hainan in 2001?

Or what if some nutjob got ahold of a Russian fighter jet and wants to start an incident? The ship couldn't see if the jet is unarmed or not, until it's too late. It's within reasonable action if the ship had followed warning signals to keep the jets at a safe distance.

What if the US did this to a Russian ship? Or Japan to a Chinese ship, or China to a Japanese ship? People would complain too, and rightfully so. Because it increases the possibility that an incident could occur.

As long as it's on international waters, international water norms should be followed as to minimize possible incidents. (If it wasn't on international waters, the fighter jets would not be radio silent but repeatedly telling the ship to turn back.) Jets are much more maneuverable than ships, so it's up to the jets to avoid the ships. Circle the ships if they want but keep a good distance just to be safe from accidents. (When ya can see the pilots on the jets, that's too close.)

But what's funny is that Russia is even denying that the jets flew close to the ship, even in light of the video. (Then again, they also said that the green men on Crimea weren't Russian soldiers........ until admitting later that they lied intentionally.)

Any particular reason the U.S. Feels the need to send their military into the Baltic, near the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad?

The US ship was departing from a Polish port on the Baltic Sea. They were conducting deck landing drills with a Polish military helicopter. The jets and the helicopter could had also collided accidentally.

I wonder what the US reaction were if Russian or Chinese ships conducted an exercise near the coast of Florida or California?

The US even let the Chinese navy ships pass thru Alaskan territorial waters just last year:

http://news.usni.org/2015/09/03/chinese-warships-made-innocent-passage-through-u-s-territorial-waters-off-alaska

The U.S. recognizes the right of nations to send warships into another country’s territorial waters as long as they do not conduct any military or intelligence related activities, a concept known as “innocent passage”.

So it's not that Russia sent jets to monitor the ship near their coast but still on international waters. It's that the Russian jets did it both too close to the ship and in radio silence, that unnecessarily increased the possibility of an accident on either side.

Russians should be careful playing Russian roulette...

Stuart haywardApr. 14, 2016 - 10:32AM JST Any particular reason the U.S. Feels the need to send their military into the Baltic, near the Russian enclave of >Kaliningrad?

The U.S. military has alliances with many countries and conducts joint exercises with them all over the world at their invitation. The U.S. does not claim territory all over the world as inherently theirs since ancient times.

The U.S. military has alliances with many countries and conducts joint exercises with them all over the world at their invitation. The U.S. does not claim territory all over the world as inherently theirs since ancient times.

"Ancient times" - Has the US been around that long? Relatively speaking, it is a young country. Also, the US did sorta (indirectly) claim territory all over the world via The Monroe Doctrine.

Wow, the Russian war plane was that close huh? Remember when the USS Vincennes shot down passenger liner Iran Air Flight 655 that was around 20 kms way (all within Iranian waters)? Yeah, it's something to think about lol.

There are SOME similarities between the two ships (both are AEGIS ships with Vertical Launch Systems carrying SM-2 anti-air missiles), but they're different situations entirely. At the time of the Vincennes incident, the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf had already been in actual combat situations four different times in the previous year: The Iraqi air attack on the U.S.S. Stark, exchanging gunfire with Iranian gunboats, the U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts striking an Iranian mine, and the sinking of the Iranian frigate Sahand. The result was that by the time of the Vincennes incident, things flying from Iran were assumed hostile until proven otherwise. This doesn't excuse the crew of the Vincennes. Despite the crew's insistence that the target was transmitting a military transponder, their own on-board AEGIS system recorded that the target was transmitting a civilian transponder. The crew just screwed up royally and innocent people died as a result. The Vincennes had no capability to monitor civilian air traffic at the time and therefore could not hear the conversations between the aircraft and civilian air traffic control. As a result of the incident, the ability to monitor the communications of civilian air traffic was added to all ships.

In this case, there had been no hostile actions in the Baltic Sea. There was no "hostile intent" mentality in-place. PLUS, no captain wants their ship to be part of another "Vincennes Incident".

Any particular reason the U.S. Feels the need to send their military into the Baltic, near the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad?

All SORTS of reasons: International waters, freedom of the seas, the fact that they're conducting exercises with the Polish military and Gdynia, Poland - where the ship departed from - is only 70 nautical miles from the city of Kaliningrad. As soon as the ship left port, it was ALREADY only 70 nautical miles away from Kaliningrad! Maps are your friends!

Asakaze, Russia doesn't have the nearly the same number of alliances that the US has, which will always impact your ability to operate far from home Maybe you should develop some meaningful partnerships instead of throwing conspiracy theories at other countries.

On rt.com they had no less than 4 stories on the front page about the incident, including the lead photo, which is still there at the time of this writing. Massive, massive story in Russia. No signs of The Panama Papers anymore.

Now ask yourself a question. Not much of a choice, but would you rather support Putin's plans for the world or the Americans. I think we know the answer so it was irresponsible to say 'well done Russia'.

But Putin has no plans for the world similar to that of America's plans. It's already very telling that you said "Not much of a choice", because the US doesn't give the world options, do they? You're justifying America's over-expansionism by creating a boogeyman that you try to portray as acting in the same manner as the US really. The "Well done Russia" is not an irresponsible statement in my opinion. It's a compliment for fighting the odds.

Who is militarizing the Baltic Sea?

SuperLib

Maybe you should develop some meaningful partnerships

I remember how 2 Russian bombers flew in 2008 to Venezuela for exercise and how US media reacted - "What the hell are Russians doing in our hemisphere"? I think Russians can ask the same question. And don't forget that US / NATO is represented in the Baltic region not only by warships, but also fighters (Zoknyai and Emari AFBs), and US pouring there additional armor and infantry. Here is a question: how would the US react if Russia deploys a squadron of fighters in Cuba and a tank brigade for live firing exercise near Guantanomo?

Massive, massive story in Russia. No signs of The Panama Papers anymore.

Ha, and who is talking about conspiracy theories?! OK, let's see the whole Su-24 story in this way: "massive, massive story in US. No signs of the Panama Papers. What about David Geffen, a major contributor to the Obama election campaign? Or a Russian bank that had dealings whith Hillary-connected organizations? No signs of the Panama Papers, only the Su-24 story".

It was reported that at the very moment the Russian fighter did a barrel role over the US destroyer President Obama wet his pants in the Oval Office.