Russian NAVY detected foreign subs near Kamchatka

[Michael Petukhov]

http://gazeta.ru/lenta.shtml?274014#274014 (in russian)

Aug 25, 7:40

commander-in-chief of Russian NAVY admiral Kuroedov told
press that forces of russian pacific ocean fleet have
detected in Saturday and also today foreign submarines
in the area near Kamchatka where large scale manoeuvres of our
fleet are carried out. "We are fully in control of this
situation and prepared to interact with our foreign
"observers" in this way as well. Perhaps those subs
came instead of observers who were invited but did not
came from some countries", he said //Interfax

Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.

Michael

[Gordon]

>
>Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
>to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
>zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.

"Never" Another typical Michael lie. The Breakout in April 85 included an
entire regiment of Central Asian-based Backfires, flying out over -- guess
where ? -- the Pacific, in the area south-east of Kamchatka. Keep it up,
Michael, you have a little bit of credibility left to destroy.

Gordon

[Yeff]

On 25 Aug 2003 15:16:54 GMT, Gordon wrote:

> "Never" Another typical Michael lie. The Breakout in April 85 included an
> entire regiment of Central Asian-based Backfires, flying out over -- guess
> where ? -- the Pacific, in the area south-east of Kamchatka. Keep it up,
> Michael, you have a little bit of credibility left to destroy.

Aren't you confusing Backfire's (Tu-22M) and Blackjack's (Tu-160)?

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Gordon]

>
>Aren't you confusing Backfire's (Tu-22M) and Blackjack's (Tu-160)?
>

LOL Hate to admit I screwed that one up! I read his post as saying Backfire.


v/r
Gordon

[Mikhail Medved]

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> > http://gazeta.ru/lenta.shtml?274014#274014 (in russian)
> >
> > Aug 25, 7:40
> >
> > commander-in-chief of Russian NAVY admiral Kuroedov told
> > press that forces of russian pacific ocean fleet have
> > detected in Saturday and also today foreign submarines
> > in the area near Kamchatka where large scale manoeuvres of our
> > fleet are carried out. "We are fully in control of this
> > situation and prepared to interact with our foreign
> > "observers" in this way as well. Perhaps those subs
> > came instead of observers who were invited but did not
> > came from some countries", he said //Interfax
> >
> > Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> > to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> > zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.
> >
>
> Probably could make this statement 360 days out of the year and it
> would be true, no need to actually 'detect' them, they are there.
>
> Deployment of Tu-160s reminds me of the chapter in one of the "We
> Joined the Navy" books in which the aviators each get up and recite
> their search plan with no sightings. One junior type actually saw a
> submarine and is the hit of the debrief.
>
> What are Tu-160s like at low altitude? Good gas mileage, as we used to
> say? Fine observation areas, the esplanade deck with its floor to
> ceiling glass and comfortable observation points? Get real, 600 knots
> is not going to see anything unless the thing wants to be seen. These
> are submarines, not submersible boats.

Where did you get an idea that Tu-160 were going to be used for subs
detection or on the low altitude? Do you have anything to say on the
subject? If the answer is decisive "no", why did you bother writing?

[Jack Linthicum]

(Mikhail Medved) wrote in message >...
> (Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> > (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> > > http://gazeta.ru/lenta.shtml?274014#274014 (in russian)
> > >
> > > Aug 25, 7:40
> > >
> > > commander-in-chief of Russian NAVY admiral Kuroedov told
> > > press that forces of russian pacific ocean fleet have
> > > detected in Saturday and also today foreign submarines
> > > in the area near Kamchatka where large scale manoeuvres of our
> > > fleet are carried out. "We are fully in control of this
> > > situation and prepared to interact with our foreign
> > > "observers" in this way as well. Perhaps those subs
> > > came instead of observers who were invited but did not
> > > came from some countries", he said //Interfax
> > >
> > > Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> > > to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> > > zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.
> > >
> >
> > Probably could make this statement 360 days out of the year and it
> > would be true, no need to actually 'detect' them, they are there.
> >
> > Deployment of Tu-160s reminds me of the chapter in one of the "We
> > Joined the Navy" books in which the aviators each get up and recite
> > their search plan with no sightings. One junior type actually saw a
> > submarine and is the hit of the debrief.
> >
> > What are Tu-160s like at low altitude? Good gas mileage, as we used to
> > say? Fine observation areas, the esplanade deck with its floor to
> > ceiling glass and comfortable observation points? Get real, 600 knots
> > is not going to see anything unless the thing wants to be seen. These
> > are submarines, not submersible boats.
>
> Where did you get an idea that Tu-160 were going to be used for subs
> detection or on the low altitude? Do you have anything to say on the
> subject? If the answer is decisive "no", why did you bother writing?

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/87/346/10123_fleet.html

Well then, maybe you can explain what they are doing ?

"Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area."

The poster juxapositioned the two statements, I didn't. Maybe they are
looking for nice U.S. Navy escort by F-14s or trying to find an
American aircraft carrier?

The following information is based on articles in Nezavisimaya Gazeta
and other Moscow papers May 23-25.

"On May 15, TU-95 and TU-160 strategic bombers and TU-22 long-range
bombers accomplished military training over the Polar and Pacific
oceans. All the bombers had a full battle load: Each T-95 carried 6
X-55 missiles, each TU-160 12 missiles. The X-55 usually is equipped
with a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. All the bombers simulated hitting
important U.S and U.K. targets."

[Michael Petukhov]

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> > http://gazeta.ru/lenta.shtml?274014#274014 (in russian)
> >
> > Aug 25, 7:40
> >
> > commander-in-chief of Russian NAVY admiral Kuroedov told
> > press that forces of russian pacific ocean fleet have
> > detected in Saturday and also today foreign submarines
> > in the area near Kamchatka where large scale manoeuvres of our
> > fleet are carried out. "We are fully in control of this
> > situation and prepared to interact with our foreign
> > "observers" in this way as well. Perhaps those subs
> > came instead of observers who were invited but did not
> > came from some countries", he said //Interfax
> >
> > Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> > to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> > zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.
> >
>
> Probably could make this statement 360 days out of the year and it
> would be true, no need to actually 'detect' them, they are there.

1) the detected sub is dead sub in a war conditions.
2) the detected spy (and it is in a spy mission) is useful
only for its opponent uploading all kind of false data.

I guess this what admiral Kurioedov means
under "interacting". I do hope they indeed can do it 360 days
per year.

Just for comparison during her last patrol in march-may, 1999 in
the Mediterranean Kursk 5 times could undetecteced approach NATO
ships for a salvo of his deadly Granit missiles. And they did mock attacks
Next they did 3 mock torpedo attacks. All were undetected. This was
a bit unpleasant surprise since the plan was to train also escape
capabilities agaist US battle group. Then they understood that in order
to alarm "high professionals" from US NAVY they had to make full speed
noisy approach to hand gun shot distance. They did just to train their
escape capabilities. 3 times fully seccessfully. This story has been
recently published in memories of the crews who was not aboard the
Kursk in her last mission.

>
> Deployment of Tu-160s reminds me of the chapter in one of the "We
> Joined the Navy" books in which the aviators each get up and recite
> their search plan with no sightings. One junior type actually saw a
> submarine and is the hit of the debrief.
>
> What are Tu-160s like at low altitude? Good gas mileage, as we used to
> say? Fine observation areas, the esplanade deck with its floor to
> ceiling glass and comfortable observation points? Get real, 600 knots
> is not going to see anything unless the thing wants to be seen. These
> are submarines, not submersible boats.

Tu-160 searching for US subs.... Well sounds like a joke
of the week. We have other means to search for your subs like
Tu-142, Il-38, Ka-27 etc.

Michael

[Michael Petukhov]

(Gordon) wrote in message >...
> >
> >Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> >to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> >zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.
>
> "Never" Another typical Michael lie. The Breakout in April 85 included an
> entire regiment of Central Asian-based Backfires, flying out over -- guess
> where ? -- the Pacific, in the area south-east of Kamchatka. Keep it up,
> Michael, you have a little bit of credibility left to destroy.

Do I? Thanks a lot! It is particularly valueablefrom you who has a
stainless credibility of high flying US NAVY aviation expert. Although
the question remains do all US NAVY aviation experts still believe that
Tu-160s and russian NAVY Tu-22M3s are the same planes? Just curiosity.

Michael

>
> Gordon

[Jack Linthicum]

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
>
> Just for comparison during her last patrol in march-may, 1999 in
> the Mediterranean Kursk 5 times could undetecteced approach NATO
> ships for a salvo of his deadly Granit missiles. And they did mock attacks
> Next they did 3 mock torpedo attacks. All were undetected. This was
> a bit unpleasant surprise since the plan was to train also escape
> capabilities agaist US battle group. Then they understood that in order
> to alarm "high professionals" from US NAVY they had to make full speed
> noisy approach to hand gun shot distance. They did just to train their
> escape capabilities. 3 times fully seccessfully. This story has been
> recently published in memories of the crews who was not aboard the
> Kursk in her last mission.
>
Is that before or after the Kursk sank itself?

[Mikhail Medved]

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> (Mikhail Medved) wrote in message >...
> > (Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> > > (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> > > > http://gazeta.ru/lenta.shtml?274014#274014 (in russian)
> > > >
> > > > Aug 25, 7:40
> > > >
> > > > commander-in-chief of Russian NAVY admiral Kuroedov told
> > > > press that forces of russian pacific ocean fleet have
> > > > detected in Saturday and also today foreign submarines
> > > > in the area near Kamchatka where large scale manoeuvres of our
> > > > fleet are carried out. "We are fully in control of this
> > > > situation and prepared to interact with our foreign
> > > > "observers" in this way as well. Perhaps those subs
> > > > came instead of observers who were invited but did not
> > > > came from some countries", he said //Interfax
> > > >
> > > > Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> > > > to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> > > > zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Probably could make this statement 360 days out of the year and it
> > > would be true, no need to actually 'detect' them, they are there.
> > >
> > > Deployment of Tu-160s reminds me of the chapter in one of the "We
> > > Joined the Navy" books in which the aviators each get up and recite
> > > their search plan with no sightings. One junior type actually saw a
> > > submarine and is the hit of the debrief.
> > >
> > > What are Tu-160s like at low altitude? Good gas mileage, as we used to
> > > say? Fine observation areas, the esplanade deck with its floor to
> > > ceiling glass and comfortable observation points? Get real, 600 knots
> > > is not going to see anything unless the thing wants to be seen. These
> > > are submarines, not submersible boats.
> >
> > Where did you get an idea that Tu-160 were going to be used for subs
> > detection or on the low altitude? Do you have anything to say on the
> > subject? If the answer is decisive "no", why did you bother writing?
>
> http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/87/346/10123_fleet.html
>
> Well then, maybe you can explain what they are doing ?

Why should I?

> "Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area."
>
> The poster juxapositioned the two statements, I didn't. Maybe they are
> looking for nice U.S. Navy escort by F-14s or trying to find an
> American aircraft carrier?
>
> The following information is based on articles in Nezavisimaya Gazeta
> and other Moscow papers May 23-25.
>
> "On May 15, TU-95 and TU-160 strategic bombers and TU-22 long-range
> bombers accomplished military training over the Polar and Pacific
> oceans. All the bombers had a full battle load: Each T-95 carried 6
> X-55 missiles, each TU-160 12 missiles. The X-55 usually is equipped
> with a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. All the bombers simulated hitting
> important U.S and U.K. targets."

Not a single word about hunting submarines or carrying out low-altitude missions.

[Gordon]

<snip my mistake from three days ago>

>Do I? Thanks a lot! It is particularly valueablefrom you who has a
>stainless credibility of high flying US NAVY aviation expert. Although
>the question remains do all US NAVY aviation experts still believe that
>Tu-160s and russian NAVY Tu-22M3s are the same planes? Just curiosity.

No, comrade Mikey, I simply made a small mistake that was discovered days ago
and apologized for at that time.

Gordon

[Jack Linthicum]

(Mikhail Medved) wrote in message >...
> (Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> > (Mikhail Medved) wrote in message >...
> > > (Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> > > > (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> > > > > http://gazeta.ru/lenta.shtml?274014#274014 (in russian)
> > > > >
> > > > > Aug 25, 7:40
> > > > >
> > > > > commander-in-chief of Russian NAVY admiral Kuroedov told
> > > > > press that forces of russian pacific ocean fleet have
> > > > > detected in Saturday and also today foreign submarines
> > > > > in the area near Kamchatka where large scale manoeuvres of our
> > > > > fleet are carried out. "We are fully in control of this
> > > > > situation and prepared to interact with our foreign
> > > > > "observers" in this way as well. Perhaps those subs
> > > > > came instead of observers who were invited but did not
> > > > > came from some countries", he said //Interfax
> > > > >
> > > > > Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> > > > > to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> > > > > zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Probably could make this statement 360 days out of the year and it
> > > > would be true, no need to actually 'detect' them, they are there.
> > > >
> > > > Deployment of Tu-160s reminds me of the chapter in one of the "We
> > > > Joined the Navy" books in which the aviators each get up and recite
> > > > their search plan with no sightings. One junior type actually saw a
> > > > submarine and is the hit of the debrief.
> > > >
> > > > What are Tu-160s like at low altitude? Good gas mileage, as we used to
> > > > say? Fine observation areas, the esplanade deck with its floor to
> > > > ceiling glass and comfortable observation points? Get real, 600 knots
> > > > is not going to see anything unless the thing wants to be seen. These
> > > > are submarines, not submersible boats.
> > >
> > > Where did you get an idea that Tu-160 were going to be used for subs
> > > detection or on the low altitude? Do you have anything to say on the
> > > subject? If the answer is decisive "no", why did you bother writing?
> >
> > http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/87/346/10123_fleet.html
> >
> > Well then, maybe you can explain what they are doing ?
>
> Why should I?
>
> > "Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> > to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> > zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area."
> >
> > The poster juxapositioned the two statements, I didn't. Maybe they are
> > looking for nice U.S. Navy escort by F-14s or trying to find an
> > American aircraft carrier?
> >
> > The following information is based on articles in Nezavisimaya Gazeta
> > and other Moscow papers May 23-25.
> >
> > "On May 15, TU-95 and TU-160 strategic bombers and TU-22 long-range
> > bombers accomplished military training over the Polar and Pacific
> > oceans. All the bombers had a full battle load: Each T-95 carried 6
> > X-55 missiles, each TU-160 12 missiles. The X-55 usually is equipped
> > with a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. All the bombers simulated hitting
> > important U.S and U.K. targets."
>
> Not a single word about hunting submarines or carrying out low-altitude missions.

This is what Russians consider "refuting the argument". Mikhail
volunteered a statement about finding a "foreign" submarine somewhere
that the Pacific Ocean Fleet could find and announce. The he added a
statement about Tu-160s going to Valdivostok. Then stated that
Tu-160s had never operated in the Pacific Ocean area. Those sound like
connected statements, please demonstrate the disconnect between the
three statements or stop whining about your meager ration of strategic
aviation. One, two of the total Tu-160s are off to visit Grandma.
Whooee folks aint them Rooshians the limit?

[Michael Petukhov]

(Gordon) wrote in message >...
> <snip my mistake from three days ago>
>
> >Do I? Thanks a lot! It is particularly valueablefrom you who has a
> >stainless credibility of high flying US NAVY aviation expert. Although
> >the question remains do all US NAVY aviation experts still believe that
> >Tu-160s and russian NAVY Tu-22M3s are the same planes? Just curiosity.
>
> No, comrade Mikey, I simply made a small mistake that was discovered days ago
> and apologized for at that time.
>
> Gordon

Look at the dates. your "days" are from the same department of "small
mistakes". It seems Gordon you do have propesities to distort
unpleasant
reality according to your current needs. Yeah Gordon small useful lie?
As for Tu-22M3 vs. Tu-160 well some "small mistakes" can destroy
professional reputation forever. in my personal view this
"small mistake" does speak for the real professional level of
its maker. I do not know how about others but sorry Gordon after that
"accident" I cannot take you seriousely anymore, at least not in the
field of military aviation.

Michael

[Chris Mark]

Russia would be better off if it sold its Tu-160s to the Confederate Air Force
and used the money to buy medicines:

AIHA's CommonHealth

What does the coming decade hold for the New Independent States?

"Demograhically the outlook is bleak. I expect population growth to decline and
possibly even become negative over the next few years, in virtually all of the
former Republics. Although it is difficult to generalize, several factors
contribute to this trend.

First, and most visibly, is the military unrest in several regions and the
attendant emigration patterns....

Second, my gloomy projections reflect disturbing decreases in life expectancy,
and equally troubling increases in infant mortality. Moreover, abortions
continue at a high level, often causing secondary infections and infertility.
Thus in many regions of Russia and Ukraine, crude death rates now exceed crude
birth rates....

In part these patterns reflect the third notable factor in NIS demographic
trends: dramatic increases in childhood diseases. For example, Moscow, which
has a population of 9 million, recorded an astonishing 46 cases of diphtheria
in 1988, 94 in 1989, 688 in 1990, and 1,100 in 1991. The 1991 incidence of
diphtheria in Moscow (12.5 per 100,000) was more than 7, 000 times the rate in
the US (.0016 per 100,000). Stated another way, if the incidence of diphtheria
in the US were the same as it is in Moscow, diphtheria would strike 30,500
Americans each year.

Tragically, we can also expect these remarkable numbers to climb in the NIS,
because immunization levels in the NIS are much below the minimum considered
necessary to prevent an epidemic. Current global standards define that level as
90 percent (although Soviet sources usually referred to 95 percent as the
necessary epidemic-prevention level). For the NIS as a whole, immunization
levels are below 80 percent. In Russia, those rates hovered near 65 percent; in
Uzbekistan they run as low as 40 percent.

All of these conditions have been aggravated by long decades of environmental
degradation. For example, 70 million persons in the NIS currently live in
cities where air pollutants exceed Maximum Pollution Concentration levels (the
"PDK") by five times: 50 million reside in cities where pollutants exceed the
PDK by ten times or more. In general, each five-fold increase in pollution
rates over the PDK represents a doubling in the illness rate. Surface water and
land contamination throughout the NIS pose analogous problems.

Perhaps the single most important environmental factor now under study is
radioactivity. Chernobyl's release of 50 million curies is minor compared to
the release of radioactivity by military testing in Chelyabinsk,
Sami-Palatinsk, and the Northern Seas, or the release of radioactivity by
civilian nuclear explosions throughout the entire country. I believe that this
radioactivity is related to the sharply rise in birth defects and deformities
throughout the former Soviet Union. It also offers an explanation for why life
expectancies are so low (45 to 50 years at birth) in areas such as the northern
tier of Russia and the Urals. All of these factors contribute to relatively low
life expectancy throughout the NIS.

The current situation is greatly aggravated by the state of the health care
system in the NIS. Medicines are in such short supply that a leading Russian
physician told the Moscow Medical Society that the expects 1.5 million excess
deaths in Russia this year due solely to lack of medications -not including
shortages of bandages, single-use syringes and needles, electrocardiographs,
and other supplies and equipment.

There is no simple cure for this confluence of negative factors...."

Murray Feshbach is Research Professor of Demography at Georgetown University
(Washington, DC).


Chris Mark

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> As for Tu-22M3 vs. Tu-160
>

Have one great similarity...

They sit on the ground alot.....



--
--
Remember, Friendly fire, Isn't :

[The Enlightenment]

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> http://gazeta.ru/lenta.shtml?274014#274014 (in russian)
>
> Aug 25, 7:40
>
> commander-in-chief of Russian NAVY admiral Kuroedov told
> press that forces of russian pacific ocean fleet have
> detected in Saturday and also today foreign submarines
> in the area near Kamchatka where large scale manoeuvres of our
> fleet are carried out. "We are fully in control of this
> situation and prepared to interact with our foreign
> "observers" in this way as well. Perhaps those subs
> came instead of observers who were invited but did not
> came from some countries", he said //Interfax
>
> Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.
>
> Michael



I'm told that the Russians had a huge Joke with an american nuclear
sub after exercises in Australias North recently. After the exercises
the Americans were relaxing on their "steel beach" (Mouring the
submarine in such level that it forms a recreational beach.)

A Russian "observer" sub that the Americans knew was there suddenly
sufaced at high speed for 20 seconds and its bow wave washed the USN
sailors into the water.

I'm sure there was payback.

[Michael Petukhov]

(The Enlightenment) wrote in message >...
> (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> > http://gazeta.ru/lenta.shtml?274014#274014 (in russian)
> >
> > Aug 25, 7:40
> >
> > commander-in-chief of Russian NAVY admiral Kuroedov told
> > press that forces of russian pacific ocean fleet have
> > detected in Saturday and also today foreign submarines
> > in the area near Kamchatka where large scale manoeuvres of our
> > fleet are carried out. "We are fully in control of this
> > situation and prepared to interact with our foreign
> > "observers" in this way as well. Perhaps those subs
> > came instead of observers who were invited but did not
> > came from some countries", he said //Interfax
> >
> > Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> > to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> > zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.
> >
> > Michael
>
>
>
> I'm told that the Russians had a huge Joke with an american nuclear
> sub after exercises in Australias North recently. After the exercises
> the Americans were relaxing on their "steel beach" (Mouring the
> submarine in such level that it forms a recreational beach.)
>
> A Russian "observer" sub that the Americans knew was there suddenly
> sufaced at high speed for 20 seconds and its bow wave washed the USN
> sailors into the water.
>
> I'm sure there was payback.

Sounds like a joke.

Michael

[D. Scott Ferrin]

On 26 Aug 2003 20:57:31 -0700, (The
Enlightenment) wrote:

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
>> http://gazeta.ru/lenta.shtml?274014#274014 (in russian)
>>
>> Aug 25, 7:40
>>
>> commander-in-chief of Russian NAVY admiral Kuroedov told
>> press that forces of russian pacific ocean fleet have
>> detected in Saturday and also today foreign submarines
>> in the area near Kamchatka where large scale manoeuvres of our
>> fleet are carried out. "We are fully in control of this
>> situation and prepared to interact with our foreign
>> "observers" in this way as well. Perhaps those subs
>> came instead of observers who were invited but did not
>> came from some countries", he said //Interfax
>>
>> Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
>> to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
>> zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.
>>
>> Michael
>
>
>
>I'm told that the Russians had a huge Joke with an american nuclear
>sub after exercises in Australias North recently. After the exercises
>the Americans were relaxing on their "steel beach" (Mouring the
>submarine in such level that it forms a recreational beach.)
>
>A Russian "observer" sub that the Americans knew was there suddenly
>sufaced at high speed for 20 seconds and its bow wave washed the USN
>sailors into the water.
>
>I'm sure there was payback.


You gotta admit though that is pretty funny :-)

[Mikhail Medved]

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> (Mikhail Medved) wrote in message >...
> > (Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> > > (Mikhail Medved) wrote in message >...
> > > > (Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> > > > > (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> > > > > > http://gazeta.ru/lenta.shtml?274014#274014 (in russian)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aug 25, 7:40
> > > > > >
> > > > > > commander-in-chief of Russian NAVY admiral Kuroedov told
> > > > > > press that forces of russian pacific ocean fleet have
> > > > > > detected in Saturday and also today foreign submarines
> > > > > > in the area near Kamchatka where large scale manoeuvres of our
> > > > > > fleet are carried out. "We are fully in control of this
> > > > > > situation and prepared to interact with our foreign
> > > > > > "observers" in this way as well. Perhaps those subs
> > > > > > came instead of observers who were invited but did not
> > > > > > came from some countries", he said //Interfax
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> > > > > > to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> > > > > > zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Probably could make this statement 360 days out of the year and it
> > > > > would be true, no need to actually 'detect' them, they are there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Deployment of Tu-160s reminds me of the chapter in one of the "We
> > > > > Joined the Navy" books in which the aviators each get up and recite
> > > > > their search plan with no sightings. One junior type actually saw a
> > > > > submarine and is the hit of the debrief.
> > > > >
> > > > > What are Tu-160s like at low altitude? Good gas mileage, as we used to
> > > > > say? Fine observation areas, the esplanade deck with its floor to
> > > > > ceiling glass and comfortable observation points? Get real, 600 knots
> > > > > is not going to see anything unless the thing wants to be seen. These
> > > > > are submarines, not submersible boats.
> > > >
> > > > Where did you get an idea that Tu-160 were going to be used for subs
> > > > detection or on the low altitude? Do you have anything to say on the
> > > > subject? If the answer is decisive "no", why did you bother writing?
> > >
> > > http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/87/346/10123_fleet.html
> > >
> > > Well then, maybe you can explain what they are doing ?
> >
> > Why should I?
> >
> > > "Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> > > to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> > > zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area."
> > >
> > > The poster juxapositioned the two statements, I didn't. Maybe they are
> > > looking for nice U.S. Navy escort by F-14s or trying to find an
> > > American aircraft carrier?
> > >
> > > The following information is based on articles in Nezavisimaya Gazeta
> > > and other Moscow papers May 23-25.
> > >
> > > "On May 15, TU-95 and TU-160 strategic bombers and TU-22 long-range
> > > bombers accomplished military training over the Polar and Pacific
> > > oceans. All the bombers had a full battle load: Each T-95 carried 6
> > > X-55 missiles, each TU-160 12 missiles. The X-55 usually is equipped
> > > with a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. All the bombers simulated hitting
> > > important U.S and U.K. targets."
> >
> > Not a single word about hunting submarines or carrying out low-altitude missions.
>
> This is what Russians consider "refuting the argument". Mikhail
> volunteered a statement about finding a "foreign" submarine somewhere
> that the Pacific Ocean Fleet could find and announce. The he added a
> statement about Tu-160s going to Valdivostok. Then stated that
> Tu-160s had never operated in the Pacific Ocean area. Those sound like
> connected statements, please demonstrate the disconnect between the
> three statements or stop whining about your meager ration of strategic
> aviation. One, two of the total Tu-160s are off to visit Grandma.
> Whooee folks aint them Rooshians the limit?

You're right and statements were not very related. But you picked the
wrong Mikhail to blame: those unrelated statements were posted by
Mikhail Petukhov, not Mikhail Medved.

I just noted that your own statement was incorrect and, by the way,
quite disdainful with no apparent reason.

[Jack Linthicum]

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> (The Enlightenment) wrote in message >...
> > (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message >...
> > > http://gazeta.ru/lenta.shtml?274014#274014 (in russian)
> > >
> > > Aug 25, 7:40
> > >
> > > commander-in-chief of Russian NAVY admiral Kuroedov told
> > > press that forces of russian pacific ocean fleet have
> > > detected in Saturday and also today foreign submarines
> > > in the area near Kamchatka where large scale manoeuvres of our
> > > fleet are carried out. "We are fully in control of this
> > > situation and prepared to interact with our foreign
> > > "observers" in this way as well. Perhaps those subs
> > > came instead of observers who were invited but did not
> > > came from some countries", he said //Interfax
> > >
> > > Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> > > to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> > > zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm told that the Russians had a huge Joke with an american nuclear
> > sub after exercises in Australias North recently. After the exercises
> > the Americans were relaxing on their "steel beach" (Mouring the
> > submarine in such level that it forms a recreational beach.)
> >
> > A Russian "observer" sub that the Americans knew was there suddenly
> > sufaced at high speed for 20 seconds and its bow wave washed the USN
> > sailors into the water.
> >
> > I'm sure there was payback.
>
> Sounds like a joke.
>

Question: did the Russians get their much-valued suntime in before
they did the super belly flop? My experience with our semi-trusted
neighbors to the North is that they truly love their rays.

[Gordon]

Let me get this straight, comrade Mikey - I made a mistake, admitted it
immediately, and, in your rather dim eyes, you see this as "destroying" my
"professional reputation"?

Well, I could take a page from your playbook and deny my error in the face of
overwhelming evidence (MOON HOAX) or slightly backpedal without ever admitting
I made a mistake, but to tell you the truth, I wouldn't want to do anything in
your manner. I prefer to admit my mistakes when they happen.

>>you who has a
>> >stainless credibility of high flying US NAVY aviation expert.

Thanks, comrade Mikey! Here I thought I was just a face in the crowd of people
who think of you as a nationalist ex-patriot.


>Although
>> >the question remains do all US NAVY aviation experts still believe that
>> >Tu-160s and russian NAVY Tu-22M3s are the same planes? Just curiosity.

Ask them, comrade - since I have been out of the Navy for years, it seems
ridiculous of you, as usual, to think I am speaking on their behalf. I don't
represent the US Navy; I represent the people who think you are a fool.



>
>Look at the dates. your "days" are from the same department of "small
>mistakes". It seems Gordon you do have propesities to distort
>unpleasant
>reality according to your current needs. >Yeah Gordon small useful lie?

Funny, that - I made a mistake and didn't try to cover it. In the last couple
years of watching you here in RAM, I don't recall ever seeing you do the same.


>As for Tu-22M3 vs. Tu-160 well some "small mistakes" can destroy
>professional reputation forever.

I didn't confuse these two numerical designations, I confused their quite
similar NATO reporting names, ONCE, in a posting, and admitting to my mistake.
Since you seem in a position of being able to claim you've never made a similar
mistake, I'd love to see you say that in print.

>in my personal view this
>"small mistake" does speak for the real professional level of
>its maker.

Your "personal view" is mighty narrow anyway and is of no concern. Or are you
pretending that before this error of mine, you considered me an expert...?
You're just being churlish, as I'd expect of you.


>I do not know how about others but sorry Gordon after that
>"accident" I cannot take you seriousely anymore, at least not in the
>field of military aviation.

Please, Mikey, don't feel sorry - I think I can live with it.

Gordon

[Gordon]

>
>Russia would be better off if it sold its Tu-160s to the Confederate Air
>Force
>and used the money to buy medicines:

They can have my Confederate Air Force patch when they pry it from my old,
wrinkled uniform shirt. :)

v/r
Gordon

[Gordon]

>
>I'm told that the Russians had a huge Joke with an american nuclear
>sub after exercises in Australias North recently.

cite? I'd love to hear how this occurred, name of subs involved, etc. - what
did the fCommie sub do, broach alongside the US boat? Swift. Sounds like the
"two Sov... errr Russian bombers "surprised" the Connie, making terrified
sailors run in all directions" bull**** story from last year.

G

[Stuart Wilkes]

(Chris Mark) wrote in message >...
> Russia would be better off if it sold its Tu-160s to the Confederate Air
> Force and used the money to buy medicines:

Actually, Russians were better off when they were building the Tu-160s.

Higher death rates since then have accounted for about 6 million of 'em.

Stuart Wilkes

[Michael Petukhov]

(Gordon) wrote in message >...

> Let me get this straight, comrade Mikey - I made a mistake, admitted it
> immediately, and, in your rather dim eyes, you see this as "destroying" my
> "professional reputation"?

It depends on type of mistake certanly. The fact is that aviation
experts
cannot confuse T-160 and Tu22. This just cannot happend with aviation
experts. And the fact that you indeed admitted it does not change the
fact
that your are not an aviation expert.

>
> Well, I could take a page from your playbook and deny my error in the face of
> overwhelming evidence (MOON HOAX) or slightly backpedal without ever admitting
> I made a mistake, but to tell you the truth, I wouldn't want to do anything in
> your manner. I prefer to admit my mistakes when they happen.

Of course. What you could do else? Insisting that Tu-160 and Backfires
are the same? That would be funny indeed.

>
> >>you who has a
> >> >stainless credibility of high flying US NAVY aviation expert.
>
> Thanks, comrade Mikey! Here I thought I was just a face in the crowd of people
> who think of you as a nationalist ex-patriot.

Wrongly thought. In fact I am internationalist and patriot, Russia
patriot of course.
Not a US patriot. That's the only reason for you pathological hate
against me.

>
>
> >Although
> >> >the question remains do all US NAVY aviation experts still believe that
> >> >Tu-160s and russian NAVY Tu-22M3s are the same planes? Just curiosity.
>
> Ask them, comrade - since I have been out of the Navy for years, it seems
> ridiculous of you, as usual, to think I am speaking on their behalf. I don't
> represent the US Navy; I represent the people who think you are a fool.

Are you an impostor in addition? Why would not you speak for yourself
only?
But you want bring others who gave you no rights for "speaking on
their behalf".
Why is that? Just make your empty words looking a bit more heavier.
That's why. A small useful lie, Gordon, again.

>
> >
> >Look at the dates. your "days" are from the same department of "small
> >mistakes". It seems Gordon you do have propesities to distort
> >unpleasant
> >reality according to your current needs. >Yeah Gordon small useful lie?
>
> Funny, that - I made a mistake and didn't try to cover it.

I never said you tried to cover it. It was simply impossible.
Otherwise
I think you almost certainly would try.

>In the last couple
> years of watching you here in RAM, I don't recall ever seeing you do the same.

Perhaps s bad vision.

>
>
> >As for Tu-22M3 vs. Tu-160 well some "small mistakes" can destroy
> >professional reputation forever.
>
> I didn't confuse these two numerical designations, I confused their quite
> similar NATO reporting names,

Are "Blackjack" and "Backfire" names so really similar for you?

>ONCE, in a posting, and admitting to my mistake.
> Since you seem in a position of being able to claim you've never made a similar
> mistake, I'd love to see you say that in print.

Although I am not an aviation expert I indeed never confused Tu-160
and Tu22Ms.

>
> >in my personal view this
> >"small mistake" does speak for the real professional level of
> >its maker.
>
> Your "personal view" is mighty narrow anyway and is of no concern.

Lie again Gordon, You are very concern about my "personal view".
Otherwise you would not respond in the way you did. Your reputation
is in danger. That's why you so concern. Note every time you try
to fix it you go in even more traubles. So recommend you: shut up.
Maybe it will be forgotten ... or maybe not.

Michael

[Gordon]

Mike says:

>> Let me get this straight, comrade Mikey - I made a mistake, admitted it
>> immediately, and, in your rather dim eyes, you see this as "destroying" my
>> "professional reputation"?
>
>It depends on type of mistake certanly. The fact is that aviation
>experts
>cannot confuse T-160 and Tu22. This just cannot happend with aviation
>experts. And the fact that you indeed admitted it does not change the
>fact
>that your are not an aviation expert.

Clutch the pearls, I've been discovered!!! Horrors.

Michael, I don't sign my posts with "Gordon, aviation expert" - I don't claim
it. Trying to put words in my mouth doesn't help your claim, Moonboy.

>> Well, I could take a page from your playbook and deny my error in the face
>of
>> overwhelming evidence (MOON HOAX) or slightly backpedal without ever
>admitting
>> I made a mistake, but to tell you the truth, I wouldn't want to do anything
>in
>> your manner. I prefer to admit my mistakes when they happen.
>
>Of course. What you could do else?

Lie. Like you. Like Mladen. Like Venik. Thats what separates you and them,
from me.

> Insisting that Tu-160 and Backfires
>are the same? That would be funny indeed.

Talking about something I didn't do..?

>> >>you who has a
>> >> >stainless credibility of high flying US NAVY aviation expert.
>>
>> Thanks, comrade Mikey! Here I thought I was just a face in the crowd of
>people
>> who think of you as a nationalist ex-patriot.
>
>Wrongly thought. In fact I am internationalist and patriot, Russia
>patriot of course.

An external patriot then? I wonder how such a "patriot" helps his country from
a distance. In your case, it does make sense -- "Comrade Michael, you serve us
best by leaving."

>Not a US patriot. That's the only reason for you pathological hate
>against me.


No, no - just a few annoying traits of yours. Like other nationalistic
chest-beaters, when you spend 100% of your efforts driving down the country you
oppose, it makes you look shrill.


>> >Although
>> >> >the question remains do all US NAVY aviation experts still believe that
>> >> >Tu-160s and russian NAVY Tu-22M3s are the same planes? Just curiosity.
>>
>> Ask them, comrade - since I have been out of the Navy for years, it seems
>> ridiculous of you, as usual, to think I am speaking on their behalf. I
>don't
>> represent the US Navy; I represent the people who think you are a fool.
>
>Are you an impostor in addition?

LOL No, Mikey, I really DO represent the people who think you are a fool.

>Why would not you speak for yourself
>only?

Who else would I speak for, Comrade? My kids, perhaps. That's about it.

>But you want bring others who gave you no rights for "speaking on
>their behalf".

Well, its supposed to be a big secret, but I'm sure we can trust you. You
see, Michael, there are about 50 of us that meet twice a month in Francoise'
cellar where we plot ways of making you look dense. By popular vote among the
Moonboy Fanclub, I am their spokesman.

>Why is that? Just make your empty words looking a bit more heavier.
>That's why. A small useful lie, Gordon, again.

If you can't tell sarcasm, there isn't anything I can do to help you. "I
represent the people who think you are an idiot" is not a lie.

>>
>> >
>> >Look at the dates. your "days" are from the same department of "small
>> >mistakes". It seems Gordon you do have propesities to distort
>> >unpleasant
>> >reality according to your current needs. >Yeah Gordon small useful lie?
>>
>> Funny, that - I made a mistake and didn't try to cover it.
>
>I never said you tried to cover it. It was simply impossible.
>Otherwise
>I think you almost certainly would try.

You _think_?

>>In the last couple
>> years of watching you here in RAM, I don't recall ever seeing you do the
>same.
>
>Perhaps s bad vision.

Riiiiiiiiiight, Moonboy.

>>
>>
>> >As for Tu-22M3 vs. Tu-160 well some "small mistakes" can destroy
>> >professional reputation forever.

Thankfully, I am not a professional in aviation at this point in my life. Just
a person who made a small mistake and admitted to it. Sorry, Moonboy, but if I
had a professional reputation to damage, I think claiming Apollo was a hoax
would be the proper way to "destroy" it. :)

>> I didn't confuse these two numerical designations, I confused their quite
>> similar NATO reporting names,
>
>Are "Blackjack" and "Backfire" names so really similar for you?

Simple mistake, comrade. Like when you call yourself a patriot, when you live
and work in a different country, contributing nothing to your country.

>>ONCE, in a posting, and admitting to my mistake.
>> Since you seem in a position of being able to claim you've never made a
>similar
>> mistake, I'd love to see you say that in print.
>
>Although I am not an aviation expert I indeed never confused Tu-160
>and Tu22Ms.

I did. Once.

>> >in my personal view this
>> >"small mistake" does speak for the real professional level of
>> >its maker.

Wow, that stings.

>> Your "personal view" is mighty narrow anyway and is of no concern.
>
>Lie again Gordon, You are very concern about my "personal view".

LOL No, I am very concerned about my kids. Little else.

>Otherwise you would not respond in the way you did. Your reputation
>is in danger.

Well... so far, you seem the only person to have taken notice that 1) I HAD a
reputation or 2) that I am in danger of destroying it.

>That's why you so concern. Note every time you try
>to fix it you go in even more traubles. So recommend you: shut up.

Michael, I have thought over your suggestion and have decided that it is more
enjoyable to get into trauble.

>Maybe it will be forgotten ... or maybe not.
>
>Michael

Spoken by Moonboy, that's not much of a threat.

Gordon

[Michael Petukhov]

(Gordon) wrote in message >...
> Mike says:
>

>
> >> >>you who has a
> >> >> >stainless credibility of high flying US NAVY aviation expert.
> >>
> >> Thanks, comrade Mikey! Here I thought I was just a face in the crowd of
> people
> >> who think of you as a nationalist ex-patriot.
> >
> >Wrongly thought. In fact I am internationalist and patriot, Russia
> >patriot of course.
>
> An external patriot then?

internal, Gordon internal since 2000.

>I wonder how such a "patriot" helps his country from
> a distance. In your case, it does make sense -- "Comrade Michael, you serve us
> best by leaving."

Don't you think Gordon it is a bit stuipid to cry "get out" then nobody around?

>
> >Not a US patriot. That's the only reason for you pathological hate
> >against me.
>
>
> No, no - just a few annoying traits of yours. Like other nationalistic
> chest-beaters, when you spend 100% of your efforts driving down the country you
> oppose, it makes you look shrill.

I remember one time you said I am brilliant... I know it was
yet an other "small mistake" but still very sincerely. However
you did not apologize for that one till now.

>
>
> >> >Although
> >> >> >the question remains do all US NAVY aviation experts still believe that
> >> >> >Tu-160s and russian NAVY Tu-22M3s are the same planes? Just curiosity.
> >>
> >> Ask them, comrade - since I have been out of the Navy for years, it seems
> >> ridiculous of you, as usual, to think I am speaking on their behalf. I
> don't
> >> represent the US Navy; I represent the people who think you are a fool.
> >
> >Are you an impostor in addition?
>
> LOL No, Mikey, I really DO represent the people who think you are a fool.

Gordon, you DO represent fools in this NG who totaly incapable to keep
their own views without hate the opposite ones of others.

>
> >Why would not you speak for yourself
> >only?
>
> Who else would I speak for, Comrade? My kids, perhaps. That's about it.

What?

>
> >But you want bring others who gave you no rights for "speaking on
> >their behalf".
>
> Well, its supposed to be a big secret, but I'm sure we can trust you. You
> see, Michael, there are about 50 of us that meet twice a month in Francoise'
> cellar where we plot ways of making you look dense. By popular vote among the
> Moonboy Fanclub, I am their spokesman.

Is it a kind of humor attempt? Increadible even that this kind
style still can survive somewhere in a dark corner.

>
> >Why is that? Just make your empty words looking a bit more heavier.
> >That's why. A small useful lie, Gordon, again.
>
> If you can't tell sarcasm, there isn't anything I can do to help you. "I
> represent the people who think you are an idiot" is not a lie.

Well You believe I am idiot I believe you are idiot. Since in this game
there will be always draw game, how about switching on something else,
for instance similarities in NATO names for Tu-160 and Tu-22M. Ready?

>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Look at the dates. your "days" are from the same department of "small
> >> >mistakes". It seems Gordon you do have propesities to distort
> >> >unpleasant
> >> >reality according to your current needs. >Yeah Gordon small useful lie?
> >>
> >> Funny, that - I made a mistake and didn't try to cover it.
> >
> >I never said you tried to cover it. It was simply impossible.
> >Otherwise
> >I think you almost certainly would try.
>
> You _think_?

You knows it better than I do.

>
> >>In the last couple
> >> years of watching you here in RAM, I don't recall ever seeing you do the
> >same.
> >
> >Perhaps s bad vision.
>
> Riiiiiiiiiight, Moonboy.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >As for Tu-22M3 vs. Tu-160 well some "small mistakes" can destroy
> >> >professional reputation forever.
>
> Thankfully, I am not a professional in aviation at this point in my life. Just
> a person who made a small mistake and admitted to it. Sorry, Moonboy, but if I
> had a professional reputation to damage, I think claiming Apollo was a hoax
> would be the proper way to "destroy" it.

Well claiming only would mean that. But collecting scientific
papers, looking into details, learning space physics and based
on it drawing your own conclusions on that purely scientific
matters would mean totaly different. For intance you could try
to estimate radiation dozage based on published data for crossing
van-allen belts and compate it with an official NASA data. Although...
you are not only aviation expert also you are not a researcher...
One day you said you are news (TV I guess) eater, or something like
that. Than my appology your life horizonts are indeed too narrow
to think about such things like could manned moon landing be for real
or not.

>:)
>
> >> I didn't confuse these two numerical designations, I confused their quite
> >> similar NATO reporting names,
> >
> >Are "Blackjack" and "Backfire" names so really similar for you?
>
> Simple mistake, comrade. Like when you call yourself a patriot, when you live
> and work in a different country, contributing nothing to your country.

And where this false conclusions were derived from. Morerover unlike
your contributions my dear, my contributions is very easy to find out.
Go to a library and ask for "Petukhov M" in a pubmed search engine.

>
> >>ONCE, in a posting, and admitting to my mistake.
> >> Since you seem in a position of being able to claim you've never made a
> similar
> >> mistake, I'd love to see you say that in print.
> >
> >Although I am not an aviation expert I indeed never confused Tu-160
> >and Tu22Ms.
>
> I did. Once.

And rightly! But russians say "there is no bad without good"
next time you will think twice before open your mouth.

>
> >> >in my personal view this
> >> >"small mistake" does speak for the real professional level of
> >> >its maker.
>
> Wow, that stings.
>
> >> Your "personal view" is mighty narrow anyway and is of no concern.
> >
> >Lie again Gordon, You are very concern about my "personal view".
>
> LOL No, I am very concerned about my kids. Little else.

What's wrong with your kids, Gordon? Perhaps wrong country?

>
> >Otherwise you would not respond in the way you did. Your reputation
> >is in danger.
>
> Well... so far, you seem the only person to have taken notice that 1) I HAD a
> reputation or 2) that I am in danger of destroying it.

What? The only one? yeah Gordon I did not know that. Terrible. I can imagine...

>
> >That's why you so concern. Note every time you try
> >to fix it you go in even more traubles. So recommend you: shut up.
>
> Michael, I have thought over your suggestion and have decided that it is more
> enjoyable to get into trauble.

what you mean under "I have thought"? Planning another trap, Gordon
for such a good innocent guy like I am is not what I would recomended
you. Think more about your poor life, its sense which was totally lost
and so on.

Michael

[Frank May]

Why the emphasis on "NAVY"? Is that something unusual for the Russian
Navy to do?

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
(Michael Petukhov) wrote:

> > > commander-in-chief of Russian NAVY admiral Kuroedov told
> > > press that forces of russian pacific ocean fleet have
> > > detected in Saturday and also today foreign submarines
> > > in the area near Kamchatka where large scale manoeuvres of our
> > > fleet are carried out. "We are fully in control of this
> > > situation and prepared to interact with our foreign
> > > "observers" in this way as well. Perhaps those subs
> > > came instead of observers who were invited but did not
> > > came from some countries", he said //Interfax
> > >
> > > Yesterday there were news reports that two Tu-160s arrived
> > > to Vladivostok to carry out missions in "long distant ocean
> > > zone". Tu-160s never operated in Pacific Ocean area.
> > >
> >
> > Probably could make this statement 360 days out of the year and it
> > would be true, no need to actually 'detect' them, they are there.
>
> 1) the detected sub is dead sub in a war conditions.

You've obviously never done ASW. Detecting the sub is only part of the
battle; you still have to localize it, develop an attack plot, and then
launch the attack. Of course, the sub will probably know it has been
detected and wont wait around to become a victim during all this.


How many subs have you ever tracked, Mikhai?



> Tu-160 searching for US subs.... Well sounds like a joke
> of the week. We have other means to search for your subs like
> Tu-142, Il-38, Ka-27 etc.



You have a lot of aviation means to _search" for our subs...but this
doesn't mean your aviation assets can actually find them. I've seen the
ASW avionics in the Ka-25 and 27....what a joke. I doubt the Il-38 is
any better.

Remind me sometime to tell you about the time the aircraft carrier I was
on (USS Kitty Hawk) ran over one of you Victor class subs in the Sea of
Japan (1984) and spun it 360 degrees leaving one of its props stuck on
the side of our ship. I'm sure some people on that sub must have been
majorly messed up. Funny story...eh?


--Mike

[Fred J. McCall]

Michael Wise > wrote:

:In article >,
: (Michael Petukhov) wrote:
:>
:> 1) the detected sub is dead sub in a war conditions.
:
:You've obviously never done ASW. Detecting the sub is only part of the
:battle; you still have to localize it, develop an attack plot, and then
:launch the attack. Of course, the sub will probably know it has been
:detected and wont wait around to become a victim during all this.

I suspect that by 'detected', he means the first two of Sagire.
Classis, Destructum have occurred.

:Remind me sometime to tell you about the time the aircraft carrier I was
:on (USS Kitty Hawk) ran over one of you Victor class subs in the Sea of
:Japan (1984) and spun it 360 degrees leaving one of its props stuck on
:the side of our ship. I'm sure some people on that sub must have been
:majorly messed up. Funny story...eh?

We used to scare them by transmitting VDS-VDS-VDS on the hull mount
when they'd move in close behind us. Tended to flush them right back
out of there again. We did this even if the ship didn't HAVE a VDS.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[captain!]

wow. the russian navy detected some subs. good for them.

[gblack]

--

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
om...
: (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message
>...
: >
: > Just for comparison during her last patrol in march-may, 1999 in
: > the Mediterranean Kursk 5 times could undetecteced approach NATO
: > ships for a salvo of his deadly Granit missiles. And they did mock
attacks
: > Next they did 3 mock torpedo attacks. All were undetected. This
was
: > a bit unpleasant surprise since the plan was to train also escape
: > capabilities agaist US battle group. Then they understood that in
order
: > to alarm "high professionals" from US NAVY they had to make full
speed
: > noisy approach to hand gun shot distance. They did just to train
their
: > escape capabilities. 3 times fully seccessfully. This story has
been
: > recently published in memories of the crews who was not aboard the
: > Kursk in her last mission.
: >
: Is that before or after the Kursk sank itself?
Yeah. that load of rubbish reminds me of the Japanese suicide squad in
Monty Pythons 'Life of Brian'
Any comment from a Perisher ???


George Black
http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> wow. the russian navy detected some subs. good for them.
>


Staggered back to the pier at Murmansk most likely.....



--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

[Jack Linthicum]

Tank Fixer > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> says...
> > wow. the russian navy detected some subs. good for them.
> >
>
>
> Staggered back to the pier at Murmansk most likely.....

Murmansk? Petropavlovsk is about 5700 miles closer.

[Duke of URL]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
om
> Tank Fixer > wrote in message
> >...
>> In article >,
>> says...

>>> wow. the russian navy detected some subs. good for them.
>>
>> Staggered back to the pier at Murmansk most likely.....
>
> Murmansk? Petropavlovsk is about 5700 miles closer.

Yeah, but they can only afford the First Generation GPS...

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> Tank Fixer > wrote in message >...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > wow. the russian navy detected some subs. good for them.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Staggered back to the pier at Murmansk most likely.....
>
> Murmansk? Petropavlovsk is about 5700 miles closer.
>

They were drunk and got lost.




--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, "Duke of URL"
<macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> says...
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> om
> > Tank Fixer > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> In article >,
> >> says...
>
> >>> wow. the russian navy detected some subs. good for them.
> >>
> >> Staggered back to the pier at Murmansk most likely.....
> >
> > Murmansk? Petropavlovsk is about 5700 miles closer.
>
> Yeah, but they can only afford the First Generation GPS...


One of the Lieutenants was navigating...



--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

[Jack Linthicum]

Tank Fixer > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> says...
> > Tank Fixer > wrote in message >...
> > > In article >,
> > > says...
> > > > wow. the russian navy detected some subs. good for them.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Staggered back to the pier at Murmansk most likely.....
> >
> > Murmansk? Petropavlovsk is about 5700 miles closer.
> >
>
> They were drunk and got lost.

Old Norse trick, also practiced by Cristobal Colon famous Italian:
when navigating to the East of a continent steer 270 until you see or
hit something.

[Christians for Cheeseburgers.]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
om...
> Tank Fixer > wrote in message
>...
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > > Tank Fixer > wrote in message
>...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > says...
> > > > > wow. the russian navy detected some subs. good for them.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Staggered back to the pier at Murmansk most likely.....
> > >
> > > Murmansk? Petropavlovsk is about 5700 miles closer.
> > >
> >
> > They were drunk and got lost.
>
> Old Norse trick, also practiced by Cristobal Colon famous Italian:
> when navigating to the East of a continent steer 270 until you see or
> hit something.

In that case he would have been the first to discover Corsica?

[Jack Linthicum]

"Christians for Cheeseburgers." > wrote in message >...
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Tank Fixer > wrote in message
> >...
> > > In article >,
> > > says...
> > > > Tank Fixer > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > says...
> > > > > > wow. the russian navy detected some subs. good for them.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Staggered back to the pier at Murmansk most likely.....
> > > >
> > > > Murmansk? Petropavlovsk is about 5700 miles closer.
> > > >
> > >
> > > They were drunk and got lost.
> >
> > Old Norse trick, also practiced by Cristobal Colon famous Italian:
> > when navigating to the East of a continent steer 270 until you see or
> > hit something.
>
> In that case he would have been the first to discover Corsica?

More likely Arenzano, Corsica is 180 from Genoa. He did practice
before he tried the big jump.