Russian fighters intercepted by US near Alaska

[kent]

Ukraine wasn't so difficult so why not "test" the U.S. and Canada?

news.msn.com/us/russian-fighters-intercepted-by-us-near-alaska

Two Russian fighters entered a US "air defense identification zone" two days ago and were intercepted by American F-22 jets near Alaska, military officers said.

The incursion on Wednesday was followed by a second incident on Thursday involving two Russian long-range bombers, which flew into Canada's air defense identification zone (ADIZ) and were intercepted by two Canadian F-18 jets, officers said.

In both cases the Russian aircraft flew out of the area without incident.

The Russian warplanes "never entered US sovereign air space" or Canadian air space, said Major Jamie Humphries, a spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command.

In Wednesday's encounter near Alaska, the Russian fighters were accompanied by two refueling tankers and two long-range bombers, he said.

Although Russian aircraft have entered the zone previously it was "the first time in a long time" that fighter jets passed through the area, said.......

[billisonboard]

The games nations play. 

[mmhmm]

Sweden has reported Russian military aircraft have violated their airspace. Story is HERE.

[billisonboard]

The United States has not reported that they have violated Russian airspace but we all know good and well we have. 

[mmhmm]

Sept 20, 2014 10:46:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The United States has not reported that they have violated Russian airspace but we all know good and well we have. 

I wouldn't expect them to do so. I would, however, expect Russia to report such a violation.

[billisonboard]

Sept 20, 2014 10:54:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 20, 2014 10:46:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The United States has not reported that they have violated Russian airspace but we all know good and well we have. 

I wouldn't expect them to do so. I would, however, expect Russia to report such a violation.

I am not sure that the Russian military is under the same pressure to consistently leak such things to the press to make sure that their citizenry keeps the money flowing to them.

[mmhmm]

Sept 20, 2014 11:22:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 20, 2014 10:54:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I wouldn't expect them to do so. I would, however, expect Russia to report such a violation.

I am not sure that the Russian military is under the same pressure to consistently leak such things to the press to make sure that their citizenry keeps the money flowing to them.

Probably not. Because of that, there's no way I feel I can know how often we violate their airspace. It may be commonplace and it may be exceedingly rare. Just don't know.

[djAdvocate]

Putin is a dumbass.

[billisonboard]

Sept 20, 2014 11:31:42 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 20, 2014 11:22:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I am not sure that the Russian military is under the same pressure to consistently leak such things to the press to make sure that their citizenry keeps the money flowing to them.

Probably not. Because of that, there's no way I feel I can know how often we violate their airspace. It may be commonplace and it may be exceedingly rare. Just don't know.

I am sure it is often enough for us to have an understanding of how they respond in case we decide we want to do it for real.

[mmhmm]

Sept 20, 2014 11:47:50 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 20, 2014 11:31:42 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Probably not. Because of that, there's no way I feel I can know how often we violate their airspace. It may be commonplace and it may be exceedingly rare. Just don't know.

I am sure it is often enough for us to have an understanding of how they respond in case we decide we want to do it for real.

When it comes to Russia, billis, I'm not sure of anything. Heck, I'm not sure of anything when it comes to our own country.

[marvholly]

The first thought I had when I saw this news report was that the Russian leadership is acting like either a 2 y/o toddler having a temper tantrum or a petulant teenager 'testing' the limits.

Either way, we cannot just ignore and sending 'escort' planes up is the least provocative response (with a private hot line call, "next time your planes will become scrap steel").

[billisonboard]

Sept 21, 2014 5:25:01 GMT -5 marvholly said:

..., "next time your planes will become scrap steel").

The Russian warplanes "never entered US sovereign air space" or Canadian air space, said Major Jamie Humphries, a spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command.
...

To safeguard a country's air space, air defense identification zones extend beyond territorial air space and are designed as a buffer to give a government more time to respond to potentially hostile aircraft. But the zones do not fall under international treaties and are not regulated under international law.

Should we really be shooting down planes flying in international airspace?

[The Captain]

I agree Putin is trying to prove whose is bigger...

But, according to this story, this is not that uncommon - completely different spin.

John Cornelio, a spokesman for NORAD and NORTHCOM, said that such intercepts had happened over 50 times in the last five years as Russian aircraft conducted exercises.

"We do not see these flights as a threat," he said.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/19/us-jets-intercept-russian-aircraft_n_5852952.html

I find it interestering that the frequency of such events is claimed to be very different in both stories...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 20, 2014 10:33:43 GMT -5 kent said:

Ukraine wasn't so difficult so why not "test" the U.S. and Canada?

news.msn.com/us/russian-fighters-intercepted-by-us-near-alaska

Two Russian fighters entered a US "air defense identification zone" two days ago and were intercepted by American F-22 jets near Alaska, military officers said.

The incursion on Wednesday was followed by a second incident on Thursday involving two Russian long-range bombers, which flew into Canada's air defense identification zone (ADIZ) and were intercepted by two Canadian F-18 jets, officers said.

In both cases the Russian aircraft flew out of the area without incident.

The Russian warplanes "never entered US sovereign air space" or Canadian air space, said Major Jamie Humphries, a spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command.

In Wednesday's encounter near Alaska, the Russian fighters were accompanied by two refueling tankers and two long-range bombers, he said.

Although Russian aircraft have entered the zone previously it was "the first time in a long time" that fighter jets passed through the area, said.......

Good to see we're intercepting them now. They've been practicing nuclear strikes with bombers for some months now.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 21, 2014 9:22:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 21, 2014 5:25:01 GMT -5 marvholly said:

..., "next time your planes will become scrap steel").

The Russian warplanes "never entered US sovereign air space" or Canadian air space, said Major Jamie Humphries, a spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command.
...

To safeguard a country's air space, air defense identification zones extend beyond territorial air space and are designed as a buffer to give a government more time to respond to potentially hostile aircraft. But the zones do not fall under international treaties and are not regulated under international law.

Should we really be shooting down planes flying in international airspace?

Nope, just the nuclear armed bombers entering our airspace- 16 times in a 10 day period.


www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/7/russian-bombers-penetrated-us-airspace-least-16-ti/

[billisonboard]

Sept 23, 2014 10:40:27 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... Nope, just the nuclear armed bombers entering our airspace- 16 times in a 10 day period.


www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/7/russian-bombers-penetrated-us-airspace-least-16-ti/

Russian strategic nuclear bombers conducted at least 16 incursions into northwestern U.S. air defense identification zones over the past 10 days, ...

Read more: www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/7/russian-bombers-penetrated-us-airspace-least-16-ti/#ixzz3E9g6QSxh 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Your statement is not true Paul. They did not enter our airspace. Details are important.

[kent]

They did not enter our airspace

Isn't it more a matter of semantics?  It's our early warning line (think DEW line) so saying "our airspace" doesn't really change much.  Maybe calling it "our airspace" should only "count" if they are actually flying over Seattle?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 13:09:11 GMT -5 kent said:

They did not enter our airspace

Isn't it more a matter of semantics?  It's our early warning line (think DEW line) so saying "our airspace" doesn't really change much.  Maybe calling it "our airspace" should only "count" if they are actually flying over Seattle?

don't exaggerate.

but to be clear, yes, it does matter.  if i am standing just outside your property line, scoping your house, that is totally different than standing OVER your property line, doing the same exact thing, legally speaking.

[kent]

Sept 23, 2014 13:45:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 23, 2014 13:09:11 GMT -5 kent said:

Isn't it more a matter of semantics?  It's our early warning line (think DEW line) so saying "our airspace" doesn't really change much.  Maybe calling it "our airspace" should only "count" if they are actually flying over Seattle?

don't exaggerate.

but to be clear, yes, it does matter.  if i am standing just outside your property line, scoping your house, that is totally different than standing OVER your property line, doing the same exact thing, legally speaking.

don't minimize.

If you're standing outside my property line scoping out my house, you can be assured I'll be concerned and not likely to ignore your presence until you actually cross that line.

Am I supposed to wait until you have penetrated five feet, fifteen feet or thirty feet before asking you what you're up to or, at least, making my presence know with a "visual" hint that you could be in for a boatload of problems if you continue?

I think "early warning line" and "our airspace" sufficiently gets the "potential intrusion" point across so why try to cloud the issue with legalese? 

[billisonboard]

Sept 23, 2014 15:33:10 GMT -5 kent said:

... I think "early warning line" and "our airspace" sufficiently gets the "potential intrusion" point across so why try to cloud the issue with legalese? 

[/p]

[/quote]
Why not be accurate? Why say it is one when in reality it is the other? There was no "potential instrusion". There wasn't a chance in hell that they would violate our air space.

[Angel!]

Sept 23, 2014 15:33:10 GMT -5 kent said:

Sept 23, 2014 13:45:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

don't exaggerate.

but to be clear, yes, it does matter.  if i am standing just outside your property line, scoping your house, that is totally different than standing OVER your property line, doing the same exact thing, legally speaking.

don't minimize.

If you're standing outside my property line scoping out my house, you can be assured I'll be concerned and not likely to ignore your presence until you actually cross that line.

Am I supposed to wait until you have penetrated five feet, fifteen feet or thirty feet before asking you what you're up to or, at least, making my presence know with a "visual" hint that you could be in for a boatload of problems if you continue?

I think "early warning line" and "our airspace" sufficiently gets the "potential intrusion" point across so why try to cloud the issue with legalese? 

And we are letting them know we are watching.  But, they haven't actually crossed the line yet, so no need to do anything more.

[kent]

Sept 23, 2014 16:21:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 23, 2014 15:33:10 GMT -5 kent said:

... I think "early warning line" and "our airspace" sufficiently gets the "potential intrusion" point across so why try to cloud the issue with legalese? 

[/p]

[/quote]
Why not be accurate? Why say it is one when in reality it is the other? There was no "potential instrusion". There wasn't a chance in hell that they would violate our air space.

[/quote][/p]

Accurate?  At this point, what difference does it make?  (I heard that phrase somewhere)

And don't fool yourself by saying, "There wasn't a chance in hell that they would violate our air space." 

[billisonboard]

Sept 23, 2014 21:11:11 GMT -5 kent said:

... At this point, what difference does it make?...

Since the flights were not truly significant, they shouldn't even have been making news. The attempt to make them significant by not being truthful as to what took place is why it is important to accurately indicate what actually was done.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 15:33:10 GMT -5 kent said:

Sept 23, 2014 13:45:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

don't exaggerate.

but to be clear, yes, it does matter.  if i am standing just outside your property line, scoping your house, that is totally different than standing OVER your property line, doing the same exact thing, legally speaking.

don't minimize.

If you're standing outside my property line scoping out my house, you can be assured I'll be concerned and not likely to ignore your presence until you actually cross that line.

be concerned all you like.  but you are shifting your point.  your earlier point was that it made no difference.

it does.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2014 15:33:10 GMT -5 kent said:

I think "early warning line" and "our airspace" sufficiently gets the "potential intrusion" point across so why try to cloud the issue with legalese? 

because facts are important in cases like this.  we have gone to war because of lies.  because of failures to make distinctions.  i am not going to let that happen again and stay silent about it.

i want all of the warhawks to zip up their pants and go watch some football.  before it gets a lot worse for everyone.