Tu-16 Carrier Buzz Ends in Tragedy
Rob Arndt
May 25th, 1968. The above film capture was taken from the deck of the
aircraft carrier USS Essex whilst on maneuvers in the Norwegian Sea. A
Soviet Tupolev Tu-16 “buzzed” the carrier at extremely low altitude,
before it eventually (and accidentally) clipped the water and crashed
into the sea.
There were no survivors. the remains that were recovered were handed
over to a Soviet destroyer..
Rob
Richard
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3bijF2--os
My russian is rusty.
mkf
Why are all the planes idle on deck? Shouldn't they have been
launching aircraft to intercept this daredevil, rather than sitting
down and enjoying the show?
Gordon
Peter Stickney
In the early '60s, the Essex was a CVS - an antisubmarine carrier.
(With its hydraulic catapults it couldn't operate any jet fighters in the
inventory at that time)
The Air Wing consisted of S2F/S-2 prop-driven ASW airplanes, and, depending
on the exact date, SH-34 or SH-3 ASW helicopters.
Makes it kinda hard to scramble after jet bombers.
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system.
Gordon
mkf
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can the carrier claim a "kill" for encouraging the enemy to get stupid?
John
>
> - Show quoted text -
I seem to remember (which means I could be entirely wrong) that for a
short time, the Navy would place a detachment on A-4 Skyhawks on CVS's
to provide some some CAP capability. Loadded with two AIM-9s, a load
of 20mm, and perhaps an external tank may have been doable despite the
hydraulic catapults.
Jim Campbell
It looks like at one time (1958) there were Skyhawks operating from
Essex, ref: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A4D-2_VA-83_squadron_pers_CVA-9_NAN11-58.jpg
-- it would seem that A-4s could be launched from her catapults.
Jim
Ad absurdum per aspera
> > Why are all the planes idle on deck? Shouldn't they have been
> > launching aircraft to intercept this daredevil, rather than sitting
> > down and enjoying the show?
> In the early '60s, the Essex was a CVS - an antisubmarine carrier.
> (With its hydraulic catapults it couldn't operate any jet fighters in the
> inventory at that time)
Even if you had suitable aircraft, it'd be a bit late to launch them
when something like this happens, no?
I'd further speculate that if what's coming is a Badger rather than
its standoff missiles, it wasn't playing for keeps anyway -- says here
that the plane was so armed as early as the mid 50s, with improvements
to the missiles and guidance systems through the years.
--Joe
Peter Stickney
>
>> > Why are all the planes idle on deck? Shouldn't they have been
>> > launching aircraft to intercept this daredevil, rather than sitting
>> > down and enjoying the show?
>
>> In the early '60s, the Essex was a CVS - an antisubmarine carrier.
>> (With its hydraulic catapults it couldn't operate any jet fighters in the
>> inventory at that time)
>
> Even if you had suitable aircraft, it'd be a bit late to launch them
> when something like this happens, no?
Well, there's this thing called RADAR, which sees stuff way off in the
distance. Against an incoming Tu-16, you'd have about 20 minutes warning.
The carrier, even a CVS doesn't travel alone - it's got a bunch of
Destroyers, with the same detection capability and (even in the early '60s)
data links to the CIC on the carrier. Also, usually, a detachment of E-1
(WF-1) radar picket airplanes with the same data links. It's not like the
Badget just turns up.
>
> I'd further speculate that if what's coming is a Badger rather than
> its standoff missiles, it wasn't playing for keeps anyway -- says here
> that the plane was so armed as early as the mid 50s, with improvements
> to the missiles and guidance systems through the years.
A potentially armed enemy is dangerous no matter what. What we weren't in
the habit of doing was shooting down any airplane that flew near our ships.
We would intercept them and then fly really close escort - not only taking
inventory of the rivets (and antennae, and new panel lines, and such) of
their airplanes, but ensuring that any pictures they took would have a USN
sircraft right there. Note that when performing this escort, a second
section of fighters would be back in position to get a shot off immediately
if need be.
There were/are a set of rules prescribed for shadowing/overflying The Other
Guy's ships. That doesn't mean that it didn't get exciting.
Track down Gordon's tales of tweaking the Soviet Bear's tail in the Sea of
Okhotsk.
Gordon
intel platform than as a shooter - some variants provided mid-course
guidance to sub-, ship-, and aircraft-launched cruise missiles. Even
if it didn't transmit right at that moment, after it CPA's the carrier
all it has to do is broadcast where in the formation the HVU / CV is
steaming, and watch the goblins come screaming in. Overflights were
part of life - and Badgers and Bears were the vehicles most often
chosen to do it. We had a choice each time it happened - to go to war
or not. Same choice we gave them on occasion.
Ad absurdum per aspera
> > Even if you had suitable aircraft, it'd be a bit late to launch them
> > when something like this happens, no?
> Well, there's this thing called RADAR, which sees stuff way off in the
> distance. Against an incoming Tu-16, you'd have about 20 minutes warning.
Well, yeah, by "something like this," I meant the moments of actual
close-in flyby -- the presence of planes spotted on the deck doesn't
mean that nothing is being done, as an earlier poster had suggested,
because any interception/escort is being done by planes that have been
in the air for several minutes already.
So did something like, "You heard right, we're letting 'em think they
snuck in on us this time -- something to do with the egghead who put
up the extra antennas" ever happen?
--Joe
Bob
The ships defensive weapon systems radar is locked on to the aircraft
coming and going during the fly by. IF any of those signals are jammed
by the incoming aircraft that is an act of war. The ship fires
defending itself and their aircraft in the air join in.
Andrew Chaplin
I have never heard of use of ECM as being a hostile act, let alone an
act of war. If hostilities have not opened, would not the normal
weapons control order be HOLD?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
Ken S. Tucker
I'll be using bad language delibrately...
Shades of gray. Most Recon does Electronic Intelligence, radar
frequencies
communications, response, for the purpose of fucking that up if the
shit hits
the fan, and generally speaking the adversary would not tip his hand
about
it's capability of fucking up the system unless they meant business.
If you're a fleet commander and an inbound fucked your radar and
communications, you would definitely be worried, what would you do?
What if that was done deliberately?
Well go to Defcon 4, a vital military asset has been attacked.
At that point one needs to evaluate the whole scenario, because
Defcon 5 means people die, and that's not something to be done
lightly.
If there is no reasonable possiblity of shutting off the blinding I
suppose I'd order the available anti-aircraft assets to Defcon 5,
what would you do if someone blinded you?
Ken
Yeff
> At that point one needs to evaluate the whole scenario, because
> Defcon 5 means people die, and that's not something to be done
> lightly.
> If there is no reasonable possiblity of shutting off the blinding I
> suppose I'd order the available anti-aircraft assets to Defcon 5,
> what would you do if someone blinded you?
You've got things a bit backwards. You've got an inbound spewing
electrons and you order your assets to... normal peacetime readiness.
The scale goes down (up?) from 5 meaning everything's fine to 1 meaning
OMFG!!!
--
-Jeff B.
zoo...@fastmail.fm
"You, you, and you: panic. The rest of you, come with me."
Bob
Not according to the B-52 EWOs I debriefed around 1980 that went out
and did some fly bys. Most of them were still pretty excited hours
after when they landed. Watching and listening to the real thing for
the first time was not your average run of the mill mission.
frank
You're doing a fly by with ECM on, might piss off the boat driver, but
its not a hostile act. Start doing that on an attack profile turn on
some targeting systems, you have a while different deal. But you have
systems further out to deal with that.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Go read a good book on
how the boat drivers chauffeur their airdales around and how much
stuff they take with them.
frank
Not much to see in the bowels of the Buff. Not like being the hired
help that gets the bomb/nav and his baggage to the right IP.
Bob
Don't underestand what you mean about the bowels of the Buff?
The EWO sits up on the main crew deck and can pretty much see and
hear everything electronic that is within range.
>Not like being the hired
>help that gets the bomb/nav and his baggage to the right IP.
EWO has a very important job on the B-52.
Makes the coffee and keeps the salad bar fresh...
Ken S. Tucker
Say Frank, um we have predecent in simple civil Law,
1) Someone pepper sprays you in your eyes, well I beat the attacker
with my cane, jury would agree.
2) Someone shines a laser into a cockpit is a criminal offense,
meaning
an attack that risks lives.
I respond with full defense, in either case.
What would you do, surrender (Y/N)?
Get real, learn to fight!
Ken
Dan
There's a bit of a difference between individual self defense and
national defense. Do try to think this out logically. Should you defend
yourself against pepper spray with a cane as per your analogy no more
than you and your attacker will be hurt. If you extend that to one
nation tweaking another at sea and you risk war should one side over
react. Military forces know how to fight, but that isn't always the best
solution to a given problem. Do you want to go to war over the national
equivalent of making a rude gesture?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
frank
These are nations dum dum. They HAVE shone LASERS into our cockpits.
that's why we came up with the nifty visor to prevent that stuff. You
don't start letting weapons loose over some fly by. There has to be a
specific threat, start opening weapons bays, getting targeting RADAR
on. There are a lot of things the secret beamrider society comes up
with.
Here they will jail you for beating the attacker. Don't ask me why I
didn't write the laws. Not as long as they sentence the attacker, but
you will go to jail.
Though I did like the laws in Missouri , eye gouging, biting off of
ears, turning someone into a soprano in a fight were felonies. Have to
have laws like that, that's a bar fight.
frank
Why does a SAC bomber pilot wear a helmet ? Helps keep the ego in
check.
Salad bar? Next they'll have liquid toilets. Don't ask, B-1 had one.
Had an inflight emergency once where blue stuff splashed into the Mark
One eyeball of one of the Rockwell flight engineers.
Though flush urinals on the cargo cattle cars were interesting. One of
the brighter bulbs used one on the ground at Clark once.
Timur
Ken S. Tucker
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:28:01 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > At that point one needs to evaluate the whole scenario, because
> > Defcon 5 means people die, and that's not something to be done
> > lightly.
> > If there is no reasonable possiblity of shutting off the blinding I
> > suppose I'd order the available anti-aircraft assets to Defcon 5,
> > what would you do if someone blinded you?
>
> You've got things a bit backwards. You've got an inbound spewing
> electrons and you order your assets to... normal peacetime readiness.
>
> The scale goes down (up?) from 5 meaning everything's fine to 1 meaning
> OMFG!!!
Thanks Yeff, correction noted.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
Perhaps Danelda will opine on this shot,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Was it right or wrong?
Would Denalda court marshall the captain, and which one?
Ken
PS:Danelda get a fresh Depends, the next questions will make you crap.
Yeff
> Though flush urinals on the cargo cattle cars were interesting. One of
> the brighter bulbs used one on the ground at Clark once.
When were you at Clark? I was with the 6922nd ESS, the people with the
big round antenna (AN/FLR-9 (Flare-9/Elephant Cage)) out behind the 13th
AF hospital. '87 to '91.
Despite the terrorist, typhoons, earthquakes, and volcanoes, it was a
great assignment.
Dan
Perhaps you'd care to share with us how this has anything to do with
your prior argument.
Daryl Hunt
Would you two ladies please get a room? :)
Dan
Tucker's not my type, I prefer adult females.
frank
Just passed through. Had a C-54 fly us there then we sort of did this,
ok, we're transient, right? We don't have to walk anywhere do we? and
what do we walk to? they know we're here, right? right?
way before that. when you were there, was listening to all the 'we''ll
never give up Clark and the Philippines, its the bulwark of our
national defense' . then there was a minor hiccup in one of the green
mountains up there.
at least it was a real base. some places have transient and what used
to be MATS shut down at 1630. then it was dealing with the locals. um,
hi, American airplane?? taxi? hotel room? food? av gas?
could be worse. when I was at Edwards had some F-14 drivers want to
'do some spins' in our airspace. Maybe China Lake told them no. So did
the 'gota phone call here' talked to some of the range Gods , got
this, ok, they have to fill out our forms to plan to do some flight
testing in our airspace, get it approved by the General, our Col, who
then sends it up to AFSC, then it comes back, you get the drift. After
they lost the B-1 on a low level run, got real anal about doing
anything 'dangerous'.
I remember having the CC in on way more stuff that was 'dangerous'.
Bigger danger was having Security Police anywhere on a road out of the
base on Friday afternoon. Wasn't road rage, more lead follow or get
out of the way school of driving.
Navy guys could have flown up to Canada and nobody would care. Mexico,
that's another story. They were still upset over us chasing Pancho
Villa. And other stuff. But at least we stopped at the Rio Grande.
Ken S. Tucker
Ok, but I've already nailed Danelda's ass, she's crashed and burned.
I think this incident,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
and others such as 007 and more, are real 'topical' examples.
I think that linked incident is trigger happy, OTOH I'll reiterate, a
bomber
inbound trying to blind my sensors, I'd assume is a pre-emptive
attack,
and shoot it down. That would discourage it from happening again, and
no it wouldn't start a larger war, it'll deter one.
A U2 was shot down over Cuba, that didn't lead to war by US, but it
deterred the US from violated Cubian airspace.
Ken
Dan
It did? That's odd, the U.S. flew a few more overflights.
Ken S. Tucker
Danelda, read history, the US obtained permission to resume U2 flights
Ken
Timur
Dean
Permission from who?
Dan
JFK? Maybe someone named Court Marshal? Certainly not the "Cubians."
Ken S. Tucker
Khruschev likely. There was a lot of mis-communications from Soviet
High
Command to it's Cubian SAM battery theater commanders, who held the
keys. Then there was the Cubans themselves, with their own AA assets.
K likely freaked when a Soviet SAM shot down a U2, no one wanted a
'shooting war' over a little country like Cuba. As the situation
diffused the
verification by US Air Recon was permitted. The downing of the U2 over
Cuban was then transferred to an overzealous SAM Battery commander
and was NOT Soviet policy.
Also recall the US was on a hair trigger, and if they were denied
intel,
invasion was near certain.
A lot of the details are still classified, Obama wants most of it made
open to the public, we'll see.
Regards
Ken
Dan
First you say permission was given, now you say it was "most likely"
given. That doesn't prove anything.
There was a lot of mis-communications from Soviet
> High
> Command to it's Cubian
What is a Cubian?
SAM battery theater commanders, who held the
> keys. Then there was the Cubans themselves, with their own AA assets.
> K likely freaked when a Soviet SAM shot down a U2, no one wanted a
> 'shooting war' over a little country like Cuba. As the situation
> diffused the
> verification by US Air Recon was permitted. The downing of the U2 over
> Cuban was then transferred to an overzealous SAM Battery commander
> and was NOT Soviet policy.
It didn't stop U.S. overflights either.
>
> Also recall the US was on a hair trigger, and if they were denied
> intel,
> invasion was near certain.
Of course the U.S. was denied intelligence, one doesn't tell a
potential enemy what card one holds. That's why the U.S. had to overfly.
>
> A lot of the details are still classified, Obama wants most of it made
> open to the public, we'll see.
When did he say that?
> Regards
> Ken