|
Russian fighter jet intercepts US Air Force reconnaissance flight
"US files complaint over 'unsafe' and 'aggressive' interception over Poland."
Journalistic hyperbole - the report goes on to state "over the Baltic". In The Telegraph:- The US is protesting against the interception of an American reconnaissance plane by a Russian fighter jet last week, calling it "unsafe and unprofessional" amid what it views as increasingly aggressive air operations by Moscow. Pentagon spokesman Mark Wright on Sunday said the US was filing a complaint to Russia after the April 7 incident over the Baltic Sea. Russian officials have denied their pilot did anything wrong, according to several news reports. According to the Pentagon, the US RC-135U plane was flying in international airspace north of Poland. US officials say a Russian SU-27 fighter intercepted the US aircraft at a high rate of speed from the rear, and then proceeded to conduct two more passes using "unsafe and unprofessional manoeuvres" in close proximity. "Unprofessional air intercepts have the potential to cause harm to all aircrews involved. More importantly, the careless actions of a single pilot have the potential to escalate tensions between countries," Wright said. "This air activity takes place in the context of a changed security environment in view of Russia's aggression against Ukraine," he said. It is not the first time the US has protested to Moscow over what it considered to be an unsafe intercept. Last April, a Russian fighter jet intercepted a US reconnaissance plane in international airspace over the Sea of Okhotsk. We're dancing to the tune of puppet-master Putin. |
Covered here also - Russia and US trade blows over Baltic interception - IHS Jane's 360
|
Which side?
Does anyone know which side the Flanker passed by from behind? Was it on the port side (friendly gesture) or the starboard side (go away gesture). Or do these 'rules' not apply any more?
|
Port: Friendly, Starboard: Go Away.
Now I never knew that before. I spent a week going up and down the Berlin Corridors in April 1965 at minimum level in an Argosy being intercepted by Russian MIG-19s. (The Russians were objecting to Willi Brandt, the Mayor of Berlin, trying to hold a Bundestag meeting in Berlin which was illegal according to the rules of the day). I was a co-pilot at the time and I was a bit surprised that the first (and all subsequent) MIG-19s appeared on the starboard wingtip. I thought at the time that it might have been better if he had come up the port side so that he could go through the intercept signals directly with the captain. So where does the Port; Friendly, Starboard; Not Friendly come from? On a lighter note, when we got intercepted the first time, I drew my captain's attention to what we had on the starboard wingtip. His reaction was to apply full power which got us all of another 11 knots! |
"fighter jet" - does The Telegraph think that the Russians still have piston engine fighters?
That phrase is so often used in the news media generally that one can only despair at their ignorance. |
Oh don't be so daft papajuliet. There are many things you can bash the Telegraph and other media for if that's so important to you, but doing so for using the term 'fighter jet' is just a little bit pernickety even by PPRunE standards.
It's a common enough term, and one that is very much in the popular vernacular. |
Just another ratcheting up of tension?
UK = Bromide in Teapot RU = Testosterone in Samovar Or is this just a manifestation of an ill-disciplined Air Force? |
Radio enthusiasts in the Baltic were monitoring the incident. The RC-135 was in contact with ATC and was also broadcasting regular intentions on 243.0. The Su-27 was using 130.750 for GCI.
FlightRadar24 tweeted to Russia Today that the RC-135 had its transponder on. @RT_com The US aircraft had transponder ON. Transponder code: AE01D5 Registration: 64-14849 Callsign: TELEX97 5:38 PM - 11 Apr 2015 US recon aircraft intercepted by Russian fighter jet over Baltic - Pentagon ? RT News |
melmothtw - sloppiness and inaccuracy might be acceptable in your world [ journalism?] - it isn't in mine.
|
'Jet fighter' is neither sloppy nor inaccurate, papajuliet. If you're going to be pedantic (and I see that you are), it's about the most accurate term there is for a fighter aircraft powered by a jet.
|
But it isn't "jet fighter" that's being said - it's "fighter jet". If that is acceptable why not say "fighter piston" rather than "piston fighter", or more usually, "piston engine fighter" [ to which I have no objection]?
|
Jet fighter or fighter jet, it really doesn't matter.
Google "Fighter Jet" papajuliet, and you'll get 8,750,000 results (it will only take you 0.66 seconds as it happens). That is all. |
Bit like Sabre and Sabre Jet!
this name started I believe when jets were replacing piston powered thingies.. |
Ah yes, but there is
1. F86 sabre - fighter jet 2. F100 Super Sabre - faster fighter jet with knobs on, or at least big flame thing 3. Napier Sabre - piston engine that powered the piston fighter typhoon as opposed to Fighter jet typhoon - not to be confused with "messerschimdt taifun" which was a liaison piston aircraft 4. Sabre liner - Business jet or may be a us airforce liaison jet / spook flight taxi for Dageham.... taxi for Dagenham |
In all fairness to melmothtw, "fighter jet" grips mine as well. If they must use kiddyspeak, "jet fighter" would at least make sense. It's in the same league as calling a certain 3 wheeler car a "Robin Reliant" Get it wrong often enough and long enough, the buggers who edit our dictionaries will decide it must be right.
At least when G-VLCN rocks up for displays, she isn't announced as a "bomber jet"; yet. |
it's about the most accurate term there is for a fighter aircraft powered by a jet |
Fighter Jets or Jet Fighter
Best we get the words right, after all they are basically all we have left to throw at Putin's Armed Forces
|
Is there not a requirement for it to jump before it may be considered a jet?
|
I much prefer 'high speed whizzy pointy thing making lots of noise with whooshy things under the wings' myself, but I'll settle for fighter jet, despite how anachronistic an expression it seems to some.
With regard to international rules on intercepting aircraft, I think the Russians threw that particular rulebook in the bin long ago. Just think, 28 years after an Su-27 clipped a P-3's prop because the pilot was being a dick, they're still behaving like a bunch of juveniles on a Saturday night pi$$-up. Discipline would appear to be an unknown concept for the Russian armed forces, which rather makes me wonder how they would fare against a well-armed, well-trained opponent with orders to shoot back and not worried about being outnumbered. |
Fighter jet isn't that bad - it would be more noteworthy if it had been a bomber jet or a passenger jet, and the OP does mention hyperbole.
However it is surely his title which is misleading. The point is not that those dastardly russians intercepted one of our brave boys (as if we are the only ones allowed to do that) but that the manoeuvre was (allegedly) dangerous. If you are going to close to front-page-photo-opportunity distance, on a passenger aircraft with no escape mechanism, then you need to do it under a modicum of control. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:48. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.