At least the Russians didn’t actually run into the ship this time. Though that’d probably be fatal for that Su-24, just like smacking that converted P-3 was for that Chinese fighter pilot.
Here is a supersonic pass from a small fighter jet, a Mirage F2000, maybe about 150 feet altitude:
Sonic boom intensity is directly related to aircraft weight and size. I wonder if a B-1B (10 times heavier than the above Mirage) made a Mach 1.2 supersonic pass 30 ft from a naval vessel what the effect would be?
I gather that close approaches like this are pretty rare - thus the formal protests in the diplomatic community - but less hazardous cat-and-mouse shenanigans may be much more common. I have a book, The Cutting Edge, which is mostly an album of photos by Charles Heatley, a (now retired) F-14 pilot. I recall him writing that once you get about 1500 miles out of port (and pretty much any time you’re in the Mediterranean), you can assume you’re being tracked by the Russians. He described encountering Russian aircraft at altitude, with them (and he) flying to within a distance where they could see each others’ faces in the windows (I remember at least one close-up photo of an airborne Soviet bomber). He said sometimes they would do goofy shit like shining bright lights at you, but I don’t remember him mentioning anything like what happened to the USS Donald Cook the other day, i.e. flying in a hostile attack pattern.
I admit I was hasty with my “it happens all the time” type quip.
CV’s being shadowed by air and/or surface craft happens several times a year. “Aggressive” flyby’s are more notable. But it was in the Baltic, which I’m sure the Russians consider to be their own doorstep & playground.
What are you basing this on? I did my military service in a combat control center for the Swedish Navy and Air Force during the cold war, where the Baltic Sea was our focus, naturally, and know that a lot of shenanigans was going on over the Baltic Sea at the time – but this type of extreme close encounters was unusual even at that time.
After a couple of decades of friendlier behavior between the Baltic Sea neighbors, Russia has become very provocative (for instance simulating invasion and bomb raids against Sweden, its a long list) during the last few years.
I’m not in any control center anymore, obviously, but I would be very surprised if this was something “sailors are used to” (!). I may be wrong, however, and would be happy have my ignorance fought, as always.
Ground effects should actually help keep a plane aloft at such low altitudes, and allow much slower flight without stalling.
Now, I don’t know how that works for a big heavy aircraft. But it works for gliders. If you get that low, you can glide a long way on ground effect. I got a demo of that when I was taking glider lessons. The instructor flew us to within about one foot off the ground over a cow pasture at the downwind end of the runway – lower than the height of the fence. Then we headed toward the runway, hopped up and over the fence, and did a normal landing.
In 1988 the US Navy shot down an Iranian aircraft which the Navy believed was in attack mode.
Given the recent incident in which the Russians staged a mock attack on the US destroyer, why did the Navy not shoot the Russians down?
What is the difference between the Iranian and Russian incidents ?
Surely there are protocols which state that when an aircraft does “X” or approaches within “Y” of a US warship, it is shot down.
After all, it is a warship, it can’t definitively identify the aircraft’s intent, and the consequences of a mistake would be disastrous. Also, killing the enemy is why the warship was created.
Furthermore, if the Russian aircraft had caused any kind of damage to the US ship or its personnel, would the Captain be court marshaled for negligence?
Or has the US joined the French as surrender monkeys?
