Posted on 10/06/2015 10:04:25 AM PDT by InsidiousMongo
CBS News was given access to CENTCOM radar image showing U.S. and Russian planes not too far one another: yellow aircraft are Russian, green ones are American.
Some “close encounters” between U.S. and Russian aircraft operating over Syria have already occurred in the last few days according to Lt. Gen. Charles Brown, commander of the American air campaign in Iraq and Syria, in an interview given to CBS News
U.S. F-16s out of Incirlik, Tukey, first picked up the Russian planes (Su-34s in the animation shown in the video linked below) on their radars. The RuAF jets closed to within 20 miles from the F-16s, a distance where the American pilots could visually identify them by means of their targeting pods.
How the sort-of engagement is not specified but according to Lt. Gen. Brown, the Russians have come even closer than that to his unmanned drones.
Click here to watch the CBS News video.
Yesterday, Turkey reported two violations of its airspace by Russian aircraft out of Latakia Syria. Newsworthy, in one of the incident, a Mig-29 (that the RuAF has not deployed to the theater) or a Su-30SM (reports are still contradictory), locked on a Turkish F-16 for more than 5 minutes.
This is beginning to look like the Cuban missle crisis, except Obama is no Kennedy.
Don’t worry, it will morph into another Gulf of Tonkin.
20 miles is well within the range of AAMs for both sides.
Active Duty ping.
Agreed. Those SU-34s are likely wearing a pair of R-77s just in case they come into a confrontation. Needless to say, the USAF always outfits it’s F-16CJs with AMRAAMs in any theater.
Two Turkish F-16 jets were harassed by an unidentified MIG-29 aircraft on the Syrian border a day after a Russian fighter plane violated Turkish airspace, the military said on Monday.
“Two F-16 jets were harassed by a MIG-29 plane — whose nationality could not be identified — for a total of five minutes and 40 seconds,” the army said in a statement, saying the incident took place on Sunday.
http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/164937/turkish-jets-harassed-by-unidentified-mig-29
EXCEPT, it will be Russia who claims to have us shoot one of their down. They will escalate and, under this POTUS, America will tuck tail and head for the safety of our new global policy of "hiding from behind."
There are no Russian MIG-29s in the theater. This was likely a Syrian Fulcrum.
Bring our men and equipment home!
Well Kennedy blundered through the Cuban crisis; and almost had us in a nuclear exchange
The big difference is the Russians will shoot, the USAF will get this over their headphones "Hold on, we are trying to get potus, but he is in the middle of putting......"
Ping.
Turkey's military said Tuesday more of its jets patrolling the border with Syria were placed in a radar lock by Russian planes and surface-to-air missile systems, casting further doubt on Moscow's behavior and intentions in the Syria crisis.
Eight Turkish F-16 jet patrolling the Turkish-Syrian border were harassed by a MIG-29 plane as well as surface-to-air missile systems based in Syria in two separate incidents on Monday.
It was the second successive harassment of Turkish planes reported by Turkey. The MIG-29 locked radar on the planes for 4 minutes and 30 seconds, while the missile systems threatened the planes for 4 minutes and 15 seconds, the military said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/turkey-second-day-harassment-by-russian-military/
“This business will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we’ll be lucky to live through it.”
War Party Targets Putin and Assad
Townhall.com ^ | October 6, 2015 | Pat Buchanan
Having established a base on the Syrian coast, Vladimir Putin last week began air strikes on ISIS and other rebel forces seeking to overthrow Bashar Assad.
A longtime ally of Syria, Russia wants to preserve its toehold on the Mediterranean, help Assad repel the threat, and keep the Islamic terrorists out of Damascus.
Russia is also fearful that the fall of Assad would free up the Chechen terrorists in Syria to return to Russia.
In intervening to save Assad, Putin is doing exactly what we are doing to save our imperiled allies in Baghdad and Kabul.
Yet Putin’s intervention has ignited an almost berserk reaction.
John McCain has called for sending the Free Syrian Army surface-to-air missiles to bring down Russian planes. Not only could this lead to a U.S.-Russia clash, but U.S.-backed Syrian rebels have a record of transferring weapons to the al-Qaida affiliate.
The end result of McCain’s initiative, sending Stingers to Syria, could be airliners blown out of the sky across the Middle East.
Hillary Clinton wants the U.S. to create a no-fly zone. And Friday’s Wall Street Journal endorsed the idea:
“Mr. Obama could make Mr. Putin pay a price. ... In Syria the U.S. could set up a no-fly zone to create a safe haven for refugees against ... Mr. Assad’s barrel bombs. He could say U.S. planes will fly wherever they want, and if one is attacked the U.S. will respond in kind.”
U.S.-Russian dogfights over Syria are just fine with the Journal.
Saturday’s Washington Post seconded the motion, admonishing Obama: “Carve out safe zones. Destroy the helicopter fleet Mr. Assad uses for his war crimes.”
Has the War Party thought this through?
Establishing a no-fly zone over Syria, which means shooting down Syrian fighter-bombers and helicopters, is an act of war. But when did Congress authorize the president to go to war with Syria?
When last Obama requested such authority — in 2013, when chemical weapons were used — the American people arose as one to say no to U.S. intervention. Congress backed away without even voting.
Unprovoked air strikes on Syrian government forces would represent an unauthorized and unconstitutional American war. Does the Party of the Constitution no longer care about the Constitution?
Is a Republican Congress really willing to give Barack Obama a blank check to take us to war with Syria, should he choose to do so?
Is this what America voted for in 2014?
A no-fly zone means U.S. warplanes downing Syrian planes and helicopters and bombing antiaircraft defenses at Syrian airfields.
To Damascus this would mean the Americans have committed to the defeat of their armed forces and downfall of their regime.
The Syrians would fight — and not only the Syrian army. For Russia, Hezbollah and Iran are all allied to the Damascus regime, as all believe they have a vital interest in its survival.
How would Russia, Iran and Hezbollah respond to U.S. air strikes on their ally? Would they pack it in and leave? Is that our experience with these folks?
Today, the U.S. is conducting strikes on ISIS, and the al-Qaida affiliate. But if we begin to attack the Syrian army or air force, we will be in a new war where the entire Shiite Crescent of Iran, Baghdad, Damascus and Hezbollah, backed by Russia, will be on the other side.
We will have taken the Sunni side in the Sunni-Shiite sectarian long war.
How long such a war would last, and how it would end, no one knows.
Whatever one thinks of Putin’s policy in Syria, at least it makes sense. He is supporting an ally, the Assad regime, against its enemies, who seek to overthrow that regime.
It is U.S. policy in Syria that makes no sense.
We train rebels at immense cost to fight Assad, who cannot or will not fight. We attack ISIS, which also seeks to bring down the Assad regime. And we, too, want to bring down Assad.
Who do we think will rise if Assad falls?
Do we have a “government in a box” that we think we can fly to Damascus and put into power if the Syrian army collapses, the regime falls and ISIS approaches the capital?
Have we forgotten the lesson of “Animal Farm”? When the animals revolt and take over the farm, the pigs wind up in charge.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3345309/posts
When somebody gets painted it may be too late.
Turk planes dont have the latest AESA radar like our birds.
Wait, I thought we were both after the same enemy. At least the stated story is that we are bombing ISIS, and the Ruskis are bombing ISIS AND other rebels.
NOWHERE is it said that we are protecting any rebel group, or bombing Syrian government. So why should there be ANY engagement beyond simple collision avoidance? And there shouldn’t be any mistaken identity engagements, none of the rebels have air assets and we say we aren’t flying on behalf of any rebels.
So why should there be any issue here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.