Flanker tira uma onda com a marinha americana, três vezes.

[Patton]

É sempre mentira e o escambau e blah blah blah... mas ultimamente muitos desses relatos aparecem na net, esses tempos havia um post no key publish forum sobre uma materia que saiu com o relato da passagem de alguns Mig-29 russos sobre o sea hawk, e diz-se que alguns dias depois cheguo um e-mail no navio com uma foto enviada por um dos tripulantes de um Mig diz-se tambem que muitas cabeças rolaram.


Um abraço e t+

Cade o foto? Tambem nao conheco um Port-Avioes com o nome de "Sea Hawk."

[Adelphi]

Esse fato foi verídico, porém o Porta-Aviões não estava preparado para algo do gênero e o Prowler realmente foi lançado.

Depois disso muitas cabeças rolaram...

Lembro de ter visto as fotos, vou procurar nos meus arquivos.

[Adelphi]

Russian flyover takes Navy by surprise?
Ship personnel say incident more serious threat than Pentagon admits

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 7, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon E. Dougherty
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

A pair of Russian warplanes that made at least three high-speed passes over a U.S. aircraft carrier stationed in the Sea of Japan in October constituted a much more serious threat than the Pentagon has admitted and were easily in a position to destroy the ship if the planes had had hostile intentions, say Navy personnel.

According to reports, a Russian air force Su-24 "Fencer" accompanied by an Su-27 "Flanker" made unopposed passes over the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) on Oct. 9, as the carrier was being refueled.

Russian fighters and reconnaissance planes made a second attempt to get close to the carrier on Nov. 9 -- a repeat performance for which the Pentagon, as well as eyewitnesses aboard ship, said the carrier was prepared. But it was the first incident in October that caused alarm.

Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said during a regularly scheduled press briefing Nov. 30 that the Russian fighters were detected on radar well in advance of their high-speed passes. Naval officers aboard ship who spoke of the incident on the condition of anonymity agreed.

However, at the time the carrier's combat information center alerted the ship's commander, Capt. Allen G. Myers, that the Russian fighters were inbound, none of the carrier's fighters were airborne. The ship carries 85 aircraft, according to Navy figures, and has a crew of over 5,500.

Witnesses said Myers immediately ordered the launch of alert fighters, but the ship's scheduled fighter squadron was on "Alert-30" status -- a minimum launch time of 30 minutes where pilots are "in the ready room" but are not sitting in cockpits waiting to be launched.

Bacon told reporters only that there "may have been a slight delay" in getting the interceptors in the air, explaining that because the Kitty Hawk was taking on fuel, it was not sailing fast enough to launch its aircraft.

One naval officer onboard the ship said, "40 minutes after the CO [commanding officer] called away the alerts," the Russian planes "made a 500-knot, 200-foot pass directly over the tower" of the carrier.


EA-6B Prowler lands on the deck of the USS Kitty Hawk.

Before the Kitty Hawk could get a single plane airborne, the Russian fighters made two more passes. Worse, witnesses said, the first plane off the deck was an EA-6B Prowler -- a plane used primarily for electronic jamming of an enemy's radar and air defenses, not a fighter capable of intercepting another warplane.

The EA-6B "ended up in a one-versus-one with a Flanker just in front of the ship," one witness said. "The Flanker was all over his a--. He was screaming for help when finally a [F/A-18] Hornet from our sister squadron got off the deck and made the intercept. It was too late."

Naval personnel noted that "the entire crew watched overhead as the Russians made a mockery of our feeble attempt of intercepting them."

The Clinton administration downplayed the incident.

"In neither case did the [Navy] feel that any protest was warranted, and, therefore, no protest was made to the Russians," Bacon said last month.

Moscow, however, considers the incident much more serious, if not a "victory" of sorts, considering Russian aircrews have not overflown a U.S. carrier in three decades.

The mission, which according to Russian military officials who spoke with the BBC was billed as a "top-secret intelligence operation," was specifically designed to test U.S. carrier group defenses.

"To determine [the Kitty Hawk battle group's] complement, their order of forming up, their strength and type of weapons, including the aircraft onboard a carrier, the actions of the duty personnel, any temporary features," were all elements Russian military planners were attempting to gauge, according to Yuriy Ulanov, Russian chief of intelligence for the Far East air force and air defense group, who spoke to the British news agency.

"We went down as low as possible and from the direction of the Japanese coast -- without crossing the Japanese border, of course," said Aleksandr Renev, the reconnaissance mission's squadron commander. "We went over the aircraft carrier. It looked as if they were not expecting us."

Indeed, according to one witness aboard the Kitty Hawk, U.S. personnel on deck likely were surprised.

"Four days [after the flyovers], the Russian intelligence agency e-mailed the CO of the Kitty Hawk and enclosed pictures they had taken of dudes scrambling around the flight deck, trying to get airborne," the witness explained.

Yesterday, Jon Yoshishige, media director for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, downplayed the incident, telling WorldNetDaily it was likely the Russian press was "exaggerating" it for public-relations purposes.

"Reports by some Russian media misrepresent and exaggerate a meeting when several Russian aircraft flew out to collect reconnaissance photographs of USS Kitty Hawk several weeks ago," Yoshishige said in response to an e-mail inquiry about the incident.

"The reports imply that USS Kitty Hawk was unaware or unprepared when in fact the approaching aircraft had been detected, tracked and identified for an extended period of time and then escorted by U.S. aircraft," he said. "It is not uncommon for aircraft from other nations to occasionally approach our ships at sea to conduct routine surveillance. In each of these cases, the aircraft were detected, identified, tracked and escorted if appropriate.

"Our aircraft carriers and ships maintain a high situational awareness of the threats in the air, on and under the sea," Yoshishige said.

His assessment was echoed by Myers when the carrier returned to his home port in Yokosuka, Japan, Nov. 20, after 55 days at sea.

"We had a superb deployment," Myers was quoted as saying by the ship's public affairs department. "We've worked very hard at perfecting our core competency -- conducting carrier operations at sea -- and made great strides in the effort to preserve Hawk for years to come. We are, and will remain, ready for any mission we may be called on to execute."

The BBC, however, said that it was evident by the photographs taken by the Russian jets that there was "panic aboard" when the planes made their over-flights.

"The Kitty Hawk was caught unawares while taking on fuel from a tanker, and the pilots saw the aircraft carrier start to jettison the fuel line to speed up the ship," most likely to launch its interceptor aircraft.

The BBC report also substantiates what witnesses aboard the carrier said regarding the amount of time it took to finally launch the first aircraft.

"It took the Americans some five minutes" after the first flyover "to scramble fighter-interceptors," the BBC said. "The Russian intelligence officers managed to make two passes over the deck of the aircraft carrier and to photograph the Kitty Hawk."

Said Yoshishige, "The Navy uses a wide array of information/intelligence sources to provide the necessary data to determine intentions and classify any potential threats and takes the appropriate actions to address them."

"We regard the Cold War as being over," Bacon said in November. "And although we clearly monitor [Russian] ships and airplanes ... we keep an eye on what the Russians are up to.

"But we are well-trained, and we're ready to deal with these episodes," Bacon added.

Another recent incident suggests that while the Cold War may not be officially "on" again, clearly Moscow is taking a more aggressive stance against the U.S.

In late November, Russia dispatched five strategic bombers to bases in the Far East -- opposite Alaska and near Japan -- "in apparent preparation for training runs to probe U.S. air defenses around Alaska," Agence France-Presse reported Nov. 30.

Pentagon officials may have disclosed the Russian air force movements to let Moscow know the U.S. was still capable of monitoring Russian military activity and was actively doing so.

In response to the deployment of the bombers -- propeller-driven Tu-95 "Bear" aircraft capable of delivering standard bomb loads or conventional and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles -- the Pentagon and Canadian defense ministry officials dispatched F-15 and CF-18 fighters to forward bases in Alaska.

The Pentagon said a pair of Tu-95's was sent to a base at Anadyr on the Bering Sea, while three others were dispatched to a base at Tiksi, on the Laptev Sea in eastern Siberia.

Officials said bombers from those bases flew missions to test U.S. air defenses in March and in September 1999 as well.

[Adelphi]

Russian flyover takes Navy by surprise?
Ship personnel say incident more serious threat than Pentagon admits

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 7, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon E. Dougherty
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

A pair of Russian warplanes that made at least three high-speed passes over a U.S. aircraft carrier stationed in the Sea of Japan in October constituted a much more serious threat than the Pentagon has admitted and were easily in a position to destroy the ship if the planes had had hostile intentions, say Navy personnel.

According to reports, a Russian air force Su-24 "Fencer" accompanied by an Su-27 "Flanker" made unopposed passes over the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) on Oct. 9, as the carrier was being refueled.

Russian fighters and reconnaissance planes made a second attempt to get close to the carrier on Nov. 9 -- a repeat performance for which the Pentagon, as well as eyewitnesses aboard ship, said the carrier was prepared. But it was the first incident in October that caused alarm.

Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said during a regularly scheduled press briefing Nov. 30 that the Russian fighters were detected on radar well in advance of their high-speed passes. Naval officers aboard ship who spoke of the incident on the condition of anonymity agreed.

However, at the time the carrier's combat information center alerted the ship's commander, Capt. Allen G. Myers, that the Russian fighters were inbound, none of the carrier's fighters were airborne. The ship carries 85 aircraft, according to Navy figures, and has a crew of over 5,500.

Witnesses said Myers immediately ordered the launch of alert fighters, but the ship's scheduled fighter squadron was on "Alert-30" status -- a minimum launch time of 30 minutes where pilots are "in the ready room" but are not sitting in cockpits waiting to be launched.

Bacon told reporters only that there "may have been a slight delay" in getting the interceptors in the air, explaining that because the Kitty Hawk was taking on fuel, it was not sailing fast enough to launch its aircraft.

One naval officer onboard the ship said, "40 minutes after the CO [commanding officer] called away the alerts," the Russian planes "made a 500-knot, 200-foot pass directly over the tower" of the carrier.


EA-6B Prowler lands on the deck of the USS Kitty Hawk.

Before the Kitty Hawk could get a single plane airborne, the Russian fighters made two more passes. Worse, witnesses said, the first plane off the deck was an EA-6B Prowler -- a plane used primarily for electronic jamming of an enemy's radar and air defenses, not a fighter capable of intercepting another warplane.

The EA-6B "ended up in a one-versus-one with a Flanker just in front of the ship," one witness said. "The Flanker was all over his a--. He was screaming for help when finally a [F/A-18] Hornet from our sister squadron got off the deck and made the intercept. It was too late."

Naval personnel noted that "the entire crew watched overhead as the Russians made a mockery of our feeble attempt of intercepting them."

The Clinton administration downplayed the incident.

"In neither case did the [Navy] feel that any protest was warranted, and, therefore, no protest was made to the Russians," Bacon said last month.

Moscow, however, considers the incident much more serious, if not a "victory" of sorts, considering Russian aircrews have not overflown a U.S. carrier in three decades.

The mission, which according to Russian military officials who spoke with the BBC was billed as a "top-secret intelligence operation," was specifically designed to test U.S. carrier group defenses.

"To determine [the Kitty Hawk battle group's] complement, their order of forming up, their strength and type of weapons, including the aircraft onboard a carrier, the actions of the duty personnel, any temporary features," were all elements Russian military planners were attempting to gauge, according to Yuriy Ulanov, Russian chief of intelligence for the Far East air force and air defense group, who spoke to the British news agency.

"We went down as low as possible and from the direction of the Japanese coast -- without crossing the Japanese border, of course," said Aleksandr Renev, the reconnaissance mission's squadron commander. "We went over the aircraft carrier. It looked as if they were not expecting us."

Indeed, according to one witness aboard the Kitty Hawk, U.S. personnel on deck likely were surprised.

"Four days [after the flyovers], the Russian intelligence agency e-mailed the CO of the Kitty Hawk and enclosed pictures they had taken of dudes scrambling around the flight deck, trying to get airborne," the witness explained.

Yesterday, Jon Yoshishige, media director for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, downplayed the incident, telling WorldNetDaily it was likely the Russian press was "exaggerating" it for public-relations purposes.

"Reports by some Russian media misrepresent and exaggerate a meeting when several Russian aircraft flew out to collect reconnaissance photographs of USS Kitty Hawk several weeks ago," Yoshishige said in response to an e-mail inquiry about the incident.

"The reports imply that USS Kitty Hawk was unaware or unprepared when in fact the approaching aircraft had been detected, tracked and identified for an extended period of time and then escorted by U.S. aircraft," he said. "It is not uncommon for aircraft from other nations to occasionally approach our ships at sea to conduct routine surveillance. In each of these cases, the aircraft were detected, identified, tracked and escorted if appropriate.

"Our aircraft carriers and ships maintain a high situational awareness of the threats in the air, on and under the sea," Yoshishige said.

His assessment was echoed by Myers when the carrier returned to his home port in Yokosuka, Japan, Nov. 20, after 55 days at sea.

"We had a superb deployment," Myers was quoted as saying by the ship's public affairs department. "We've worked very hard at perfecting our core competency -- conducting carrier operations at sea -- and made great strides in the effort to preserve Hawk for years to come. We are, and will remain, ready for any mission we may be called on to execute."

The BBC, however, said that it was evident by the photographs taken by the Russian jets that there was "panic aboard" when the planes made their over-flights.

"The Kitty Hawk was caught unawares while taking on fuel from a tanker, and the pilots saw the aircraft carrier start to jettison the fuel line to speed up the ship," most likely to launch its interceptor aircraft.

The BBC report also substantiates what witnesses aboard the carrier said regarding the amount of time it took to finally launch the first aircraft.

"It took the Americans some five minutes" after the first flyover "to scramble fighter-interceptors," the BBC said. "The Russian intelligence officers managed to make two passes over the deck of the aircraft carrier and to photograph the Kitty Hawk."

Said Yoshishige, "The Navy uses a wide array of information/intelligence sources to provide the necessary data to determine intentions and classify any potential threats and takes the appropriate actions to address them."

"We regard the Cold War as being over," Bacon said in November. "And although we clearly monitor [Russian] ships and airplanes ... we keep an eye on what the Russians are up to.

"But we are well-trained, and we're ready to deal with these episodes," Bacon added.

Another recent incident suggests that while the Cold War may not be officially "on" again, clearly Moscow is taking a more aggressive stance against the U.S.

In late November, Russia dispatched five strategic bombers to bases in the Far East -- opposite Alaska and near Japan -- "in apparent preparation for training runs to probe U.S. air defenses around Alaska," Agence France-Presse reported Nov. 30.

Pentagon officials may have disclosed the Russian air force movements to let Moscow know the U.S. was still capable of monitoring Russian military activity and was actively doing so.

In response to the deployment of the bombers -- propeller-driven Tu-95 "Bear" aircraft capable of delivering standard bomb loads or conventional and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles -- the Pentagon and Canadian defense ministry officials dispatched F-15 and CF-18 fighters to forward bases in Alaska.

The Pentagon said a pair of Tu-95's was sent to a base at Anadyr on the Bering Sea, while three others were dispatched to a base at Tiksi, on the Laptev Sea in eastern Siberia.

Officials said bombers from those bases flew missions to test U.S. air defenses in March and in September 1999 as well.

[Adelphi]

7 December 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= N E W S B R I E F I N G
=
= OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
= (PUBLIC AFFAIRS)
= WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301

====================================================

DoD News Briefing

Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD PA

Thursday, December 7, 2000 - 2:08 p.m. EST

[Excerpts]

Q: Ken, as part of this game of "gotcha" that the Russians have been playing with the Kitty Hawk -- and we get all these new versions of exactly how long it took to react -- one, can you give us the latest version of how events unfolded? And two, is it true that the Russians e-mailed photos that their aircraft took of the Kitty Hawk to the Kitty Hawk? And three, if that's true, can we have them?

Bacon: There were actually three incidents. One was on October 12th, one was on October 17th, and I believe the last was on October 9th (sic).

Staff: (Off mike.)

Bacon: I'm sorry. November 9th? November 9th. And the first incident, on the 12th, they were a number of nautical miles away from the Kitty Hawk. On the second, on the 17th, they were actually quite close, and I have to admit that I misspoke about this last time, based on misinformation. They did fly very close to the carrier, within several hundred feet. They had been acquired by radar well in advance, as I said earlier, but they flew closer than I said last time.

They did take some pictures. They did e-mail the pictures to the Navy, and -- to the ship, actually. And I would refer you to the Navy for those pictures. But those are the facts at this stage.

Q: And what about November 9th? What happened?

Bacon: November 9th, they flew relatively close, more than, I would say, certainly more than a thousand feet, somewhere between a thousand and 2,000 feet to the -- close to the carrier. As I said --

Q: By close, do you mean overhead, and that's the altitude above the carrier?

Bacon: The altitude was below a thousand feet on October 17th, and they flew, if not directly over the carrier, close to over the carrier. They were being escorted by American planes, is my understanding, at the time. This is very similar to events that happened routinely during the Cold War but have not happened very often, if at all, since the Cold War until this period. So in that -- for whatever reason, this was a change in their procedures.

Q: Ken, has the secretary or anybody else in the department asked any Russian official what the deal is?

Bacon: We did not file a protest with the Russians on this. As I said, it's the type of thing that used to happen quite regularly. It has not happened for a while. Our internal analysis is basically that it has to do with internal budget and force posture negotiations going on in Moscow.

Q: Well, regardless of whether you filed a protest, has anybody asked the Russians, just in a collegial way --

Q: Cohen met with Sergeyev in Brussels?

Bacon: He did. This did not come up in their discussions. They talked about a number of other things, including the Kursk situation, at some length, but they did not talk about this in particular. Remember, the press did ask Marshal Sergeyev about it at a press conference in Belgium.

Yes?

Q: During the Cold War, there was a -- I don't know whether it was a bilateral treaty or a convention or something about incidents like this. A, does that remain in force with the successor -- you know, with Russia, rather than the Soviet Union? And B, does this kind of incident -- is it prohibited or discussed or --

Bacon: Well, I'm not an admiralty lawyer, but I've been informed by the Navy that the Incidents at Sea Agreements does not deal -- it deals with ship-to-ship contact and not overflights.

So this didn't violate any such agreement.

And as I said, this was -- this was an event that would have been a very normal -- very normal in the regular course of operations during the Cold War, but has been -- not been happening since the Cold War.

Q: Just one parting shot here. Is it still the contention of the Navy and the Defense Department that in none of these three incidents was the Navy surprised by this? And as I remember, you said that planes were not scrambled in one of these incidents because the ship was moving too slow across wind conventionally? Is it the contention that the Russians did not surprise the Navy at all here?

Bacon: We were not surprised in that the planes were acquired by radar, I don't have the timeline here, but it was half an hour to 45 minutes before they came close to the ship, is my recollection. They were acquired by radar. They were followed. On the October 17th episode, the Kitty Hawk was refueling, and there was a slower response, partially as a result of that. But planes were eventually dispatched.

Q: But when were the planes dispatched? This flyover at whatever-hundred feet it was by the Russian bombers, didn't you say earlier that they were escorted by U.S. fighters when they were -- the 17th?

Bacon: Yeah, I do not have the exact timeline. They were -- they were launched late as a result of the refueling. But I don't have the timeline.

Q: But you said -- were they or were they not escorted? (Inaudible.)

Bacon: They were -- they were cleared away from the carrier. I hesitate to answer this question, because I don't know the answer.

I don't know when they were first -- and I would refer you to the Navy on this -- I don't know whether the first overflight was done with American planes in the air or not. I don't know that.

Q: When you clear it away from the carrier, what does that mean?

Bacon: Well, I mean, the planes went up and sort of escorted them away from the carrier.

Q: Do you know how many planes, U.S.?

Bacon: Two.

Q: F-18s?

Bacon: No, there were two Russian planes. There were -- the American planes were launched sequentially, and the first plane, in the October 17th episode, was an E/A-6B that was launched.

Q: What were the Russian planes?

Bacon: They were 24s and 27s, I think.

Q: Fighters, then?

Bacon: Yeah.

Q: SU -- the Sukhoi-24s?

Bacon: Yes.

Q: Is General Shelton going to bring this up when he goes to Russia? And did the e-mail say anything in addition to the pictures? Was it like, "nehny-nehny-nehny" or was it a message or --

Bacon: That is an interesting question that I have asked the Navy. I have not seen the e-mail.

Q: And Shelton -- Russia.

Bacon: The Navy did not regard this as a big deal when it happened. I don't know whether General Shelton will bring this up or not. That's something you should ask his office.

Q: Was this e-mail directly from the Russian Ministry of Defense? Who exactly sent it?

Bacon: I do not know exactly who sent it. I have not seen the e-mail.

Q: The e-mail was to the Navy rather than to the ship or --

Bacon: The e-mail was to the ship.

Yes?

Q: You said the Navy did not regard this as a big deal. So there was no action taken in terms of the command of the ship or the air wing? Nothing changed aboard the Kitty Hawk?

Bacon: No, there have been various changes in procedures since this took place.

Q: (Off mike.)

Bacon: No, I don't think I will tell you, but various procedures, basically in alert posture that have been taken since.

Q: Well, that sounds like it was a big deal.

Q: It was no big deal?

Q: So they had to go back and --

Q: But you say it's been enhanced?

Bacon: Pardon?

Q: The alert posture has been enhanced under such --

Bacon: Yes. Yes.

Q: I missed that. What did --

Bacon: He asked if the alert posture had been enhanced, and I said yes.

Q: So they went to a higher state of alert after the flyovers?

Bacon: They have changed their procedures to deal with flyovers like this.

I can't get into details of how they've changed them, but they have made some changes. I don't think they are major changes, but they have made some changes in their response times, essentially.

Q: Doesn't that sound like they regarded this as a matter of some consequence? I mean, if it were not a big deal, then they wouldn't change anything.

Bacon: I think the ship took appropriate action, yes. The ship made the changes, not the Navy. The ship made the changes itself.

Yes?

Q: But when you said on the 17th incident, the first overflight, did each of these planes, the 24 and the 27, fly over once, or did they fly over multiple passes over the deck?

Bacon: Well, on October 17th was the only time, I believe, they flew over. I think they flew over once.

Q: Each -- each one?

Bacon: Right.

Q: I guess I'm just a little confused. Then the EA-6B took off after they disconnected from refueling or what have you. Then were they escorted away by fighter jets? What were the jets that the Navy had to escort them?

Bacon: Well, when the Navy planes were in the air, the planes went away.

Q: So they just -- they launched; they didn't follow them along as wingmen?

Bacon: I don't know how long they followed them.

Q: Was there any communication with the Russian planes?

Bacon: I can't answer that question.

Q: Where did the Russian --

Bacon: I think what I'm going to do is ask the Navy to provide the details on this because, clearly, based on what I have, I don't have all these details.

Q: Do you know where the Russian planes came out of?

Bacon: I do, but I don't have the -- I mean, they came from land bases, not at sea. And I do not have the chart here.

Q: Could you ask the Navy --

Q: Do you know if the all came from the same base?

Bacon: Pardon?

Q: Do you know if they all came from the same base on the three occasions?

Bacon: Charlie, I'm afraid -- I think they came --

Q: Will you get back to us on it?

Bacon: I think they came from two bases, and I think they were the same two bases on each occasion.

Q: Were they loaded with weapons? (Inaudible.)

Bacon: I do not know the answer to that question.

Q: Ken, can you ask the Navy to provide that information on a timely basis today?

Bacon: Yes, I can ask the Navy.

Q: I realize that the Russian Navy doesn't go to sea that often any more. But when they do, does the United States as a matter of routine have airplanes that overfly Russian ships?

Bacon: We have largely stopped that after the Cold War.

Q: Largely stopped it. So we haven't entirely stopped it?

Bacon: I can't say that it never happens. But it's generally not -- we don't do it with the regularity that we used to during the Cold War.

Q: Sir, just to revisit this aircraft carrier one more time. Are you saying that the aircraft carrier has established new procedures to address instances like this? And you said the Navy has not -- in other words, the Navy has not told carrier battle groups that they might run into something now, because it's especially in that area of the world? And perhaps they should enhance procedures. You're saying that only --

Bacon: I'm saying that Kitty Hawk itself reported on changes that it had made following this incident reported back to the Navy. And that's the action that was taken.

Q: And no one has been disciplined or anything?

Bacon: No.

Q: Since, Ken, as you pointed out that Kitty Hawk is the only conventionally powered carrier, it has a unique situation in that it has to be refueled while at sea.

Bacon: It is a conventionally powered carrier there. Is there one other? There's --

Staff: There's three other --

Bacon: There's the America and Constellation. Excuse me. So, I misspoke on that. [Correction: the three conventionally powered U.S. Navy aircraft carriers are USS Kitty Hawk, USS Constellation and USS John F. Kennedy.]

Q: So those three ships would be in -- the situation would come up where they were refueling.

Bacon: Right.

Q: Whereas, it wouldn't happen with others.

Bacon: Right.

Q: Might the changes that they would might take be putting up a cap before they undertake refueling operations, or something like that?

Bacon: I just don't think I'll get into the details. There are a number of things that carriers could do in a situation like this.

Q: But all aircraft carriers refuel at sea, regardless of if they're nuclear-powered or conventionally --

Q: Yeah.

Bacon: Well, they have to get jet fuel, certainly.

Q: Right. Right.

Bacon: Right.

Q: And food --

Q: Right.

Q: And maintenance.

Q: And replenish.

Bacon: Yeah?

Q: (Off mike.)

Bacon: Pardon?

Q: They don't need to get mail; they get e-mail.

***

Q: Different subject?

Bacon: Sure.

Q: Do you have a cost figure from that Hollywood party?

[The party including bestowing a medal on Jack Valenti, head of MPAA.]

Bacon: Yes.

Q: Holy smokes! Whoo!

Bacon: The event -- the total cost was approximately $295,000, and this -- which, I might add, since the point of this event was to look for ways to generate interest in the military on the part of the film industry and the television industry, the average 30-second recruiting ad on a typical prime-time program costs about $150,000. So for a minute of advertising time, we would pay -- one of the services would pay approximately $300,000.

We're hoping that Hollywood will continue to promote movies that portray the military in a good light, such as the program tonight, "The Shooting War." And we think that these -- not only these television films and movies, as well as the promotion of them, will pique interest in the military. So I think you need to put the cost of this event in that type of context.

By far the largest part of the cost involved the transportation and support of 94 military musicians and performers who went to Los Angeles. And they all flew out there commercially. They were put up in a hotel, the Doubletree Inn. They obviously had to be fed. They were there approximately three days.

And we had to also rent some lighting, stage equipment, and other things. That was the principal part of the support costs for the musicians.

Q: (Off mike.)

Bacon: The total support for the musicians -- transportation, logistics support, and food and hotel -- was approximately $165,000.

The dinner itself, for 350 people, was $76,000. And to put that into context, the cost was $218 a person. That compares about with what the secretary would spend for major dinners here. I can't give you a range, but I can tell you that on May 16th, for instance, he had a dinner for the minister of Defense of Argentina, and the cost per person there was $265 for the dinner.

Q: What did they eat?

Bacon: Well, it involves renting the place, it involves the food, it involves beverages, it involves decorations, et cetera. It's the total per person cost. I do not know what the menu was.

Q: Did you go?

Bacon: No, I don't know. I did not go. I stayed here so I could brief you. (Laughter.) Because I thought it would be more fun.

Q: Do you have the total budget, the entertainment budget, for the secretary of Defense?

Bacon: I do not know what his representational budget is.

Q: Can I get that?

Q: Does he plan to bill the services, considering the fact it would benefit each service?

Bacon: He does not. A decision was made to pay for this all out of administrative funding and not to -- in fact, typically -- frequently when musicians fly, the military band or music group will pay. Sometimes they're reimbursed by other accounts. The secretary decided that this would be paid out of administrative costs, so they were paid out of Washington Headquarters Services funds for administration, not out of service funds directly.

Q: Which musicians and performers were these?

Bacon: Well, there was the 82nd Airborne Chorus from Fayetteville, North Carolina. There was an Army band -- there were two vocalists, Army Band vocalists. There were the Air Force Airmen of Note; a Navy group called the Country Current. There was also a joint service color guard, a joint service drill team, a Marine Corps ensemble, and there were some bagpipes from the Reserves.

Q: What would you say to somebody who might say that this $300,000-almost is a lot of money -- a lot of taxpayer money to spend on a party?

Bacon: Well, I think you have to put it into context. This was spent to help promote a good image of the military on the part of the entertainment business. I think that there have been a number of movies and television shows recently that have portrayed the military in a good light. We are living in an age of an all-volunteer force where there's a lot of competition for young men and women today, particularly of the quality the military is attracting. We're trying to find ways that will catch people's attention. And Secretary Cohen has worked very hard on working with entertainment figures and sports figures to try to get them to understand the military and to portray it in the most positive way. Obviously, we have no control over how Hollywood portrays the military, but to the extent they understand it, to the extent that they get to meet troops, to the extent they get to see how well the troops perform and do their job, I think it helps us.

I talked earlier about the recent show, "Men of Honor," that's about a Navy diver who was extensively promoted. I think that we have learned from the past that movies can have a big impact on recruiting. "An Officer and a Gentleman" is one that had a big impact. "Top Gun" is another one that's had a big impact. And basically, if we can have television shows and movies that show the excitement and the importance of military life, they can help generate a favorable atmosphere for recruiting and service.

The secretary has, as I said, worked hard on this. And you may have seen promotional spots recently on Fox for its pre-game shows over the weekend of December 16th and 17th. This comes directly as a result of having Terry Bradshaw go on the Christmas tour to visit troops in Bosnia and Kosovo and in the Mediterranean last year. And he came back with the idea of doing this show, which is already being promoted, will be great for morale. It will take place from the deck of the Harry S. Truman on December 16th and 17th. It will show the country something about the military that they might not ordinarily see.

I would anticipate that you will see other coverage of the secretary's Christmas tour, and perhaps coverage that focuses specifically on the troops, that I think will be good exposure for the troops, it'll be good for morale.

So this is part of a program. And as I said, it's a program that began with the secretary's interest in advertising, the secretary's interest in finding better ways to recruit. It's not THE answer, but it's part of the answer, to explaining the military to America.

Q: How would you answer charges from some quarters that now that the secretary is leaving office that this might be to enhance his own image among -- with the film industry and with Hollywood celebrities?

Bacon: Well, I'd say those are pretty simplistic and wrong. And I just don't think that they begin to capture what the secretary has spent his time doing over the last four years. He's spent his time on quality of life initiatives, he's improved housing, he's improved pay, he's improved benefits, he's in the process of improving medical care, he's spent his time on readiness, he's spent his time getting a very large increase in the Defense budget -- $112 billion over five years -- he's spent his time improving the procurement budget, boosting it from $43 billion to over $60 billion this year, and it's headed up. So he's spent his time on building and maintaining strong forces that can protect American ideals around the world.

A small part of this has been working with entertainers and sports figures and others to try to improve the image of the military across the board. Our entertainment business is an extremely powerful, influential business. And it only makes sense that we would try to work with it in any way we can to present the most positive portrayal of the military.

I think if you look at the impact of a film such as Men of Honor, the upcoming Pearl Harbor, the television series JAG, they all keep the military in front of people's consciousness and in their minds, and that's what he's trying to do.

Yes.

Q: Do you see this dinner as a thank you to the work that has come before or a bribe to try to convince folks to keep on doing it? And how exactly does having this dinner and having these military musicians perform lend itself to more movies about the military? It seems that there's always been military movies.

Bacon: I think there have been military always. Obviously I think the tone of the movies has changed over the last 20 or 25 years. I think that the military is being, in general, portrayed more positively today than it was 10 or 15 years after the Vietnam War. Some of this is the passage of time. Some of it has to do with the fact that in a strange way since the end of the draft, the military has become more exotic. It used to be part of everybody's life. Now it isn't. It's not a part of every family's life. And that's one of the -- one of the problems that we in the Pentagon and in the military have to pay attention to. We have to make sure that people realize that we have the world's best military that is on patrol all around the world every day protecting our interests. One way to do that is through movies and television shows. It's not the only way. But it is one way that does have a lot of public appeal.

Q: I still don't see the connection between having this party and having more --

Bacon: I think there are two -- there are three very specific answers. First, it was a recognition of the more positive portrayal from within movies over the last several years. Two, it was a way to show the quality of military musicians off to a Hollywood audience. Steven Spielberg reportedly said that -- in fact did say publicly that he was incredibly impressed by the quality of musicians, and he was particularly impressed that they had decided to make their careers in the military rather than outside, and he thought it was a real credit to their sense of duty and their sense of dedication.

And I think the third is that we went out of our way to invite a large cross-section of Hollywood -- film writers, including new film writers, producers, actors, et cetera. And it was a way for them to see the importance that the secretary places on the power of Hollywood in portraying the military. So I think it will have -- it will have benefits for years to come.

Q: So what do you say to the senior airmen on food stamps, if secretary throws Hollywood bashes at $218 a plate, that he's eating chateaubriand on his behalf? I don't see how those two things jive.

Bacon: Well, I think it's a querulous question in a way.

I think that what the secretary has done is worked very hard to get people off food stamps, and he's done it by increasing pay. And the pay increase this year was $2.1 billion. That was the pay increase in one year. He has done it by increasing housing allowances. He has done it by increasing reenlistment bonuses. He has done it by improving retirement benefits. Those are the way you fight food stamps, and I think he's done that very effectively. Unfortunately, we have not eliminated, but we have sharply, sharply reduced the number of service member on food stamps.

I think that the secretary of Defense has a number of jobs, and one of his jobs is to lead the nation in making sure that the military is seen in the best possible light. That's important for morale, it's important for recruiting, and it's important for increasing public understanding of the military. There are a number of methods of doing that; this is just one of them. And a number of other methods are getting people -- getting people out to meet the troops -- I think he's worked hard on that -- to going out and meeting the troops himself. God knows he's worked hard on that. He's spent a lot of time talking to troops, answering their questions, explaining what he's doing to them.

We have a massive program to communicate with soldiers, to convey Washington's policies, to convey personnel policies, pay and benefit policies to them.

We've expanded that dramatically over the Internet. It's all part of trying to keep morale and education high.

So I think that every secretary of Defense has to do a number of things at once, and this is just one small part of his job.

[Adelphi]

AGORA A VERSÃO RUSSA (St. Petersburg Times)


Link para a foto
http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=4&photo_id=2682

MOSCOW - Russian naval reconnaissance planes twice caught a U.S. Navy battle group off guard in the Sea of Japan and hovered over the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier, photographing its deck, commanders said Wednesday.

Two Su-24MR planes spotted the group of U.S. Navy vessels on Oct. 17 and managed to fly over the Kitty Hawk before any of the carrier's fighter jets could take off to ward them off, air force chief Anatoly Kornukov told reporters in Moscow.

"The arrival of our planes came as a complete surprise to the Americans. Photographs show there was panic on the aircraft carrier's deck," he said.

The two planes from the Pacific Fleet repeated their stunt on Nov. 9, the commander said. In both cases they were accompanied by Su-27 fighter jets from an air force unit stationed in the Far East.

The results of the two reconnaissance sorties were "impressive" and the pilots who flew over the Kitty Hawk will be decorated, Kornukov said.

The U.S. Navy denied that the Russian jets had slipped past the KittyHawk's radar defenses. "The approaching Russian aircraft had been detected, tracked and identified for an extended period of time, and then escorted by U.S. fighters," said a statement released by the U.S. Seventh Fleet, The Associated Press reported.

A spokesman for the fleet, which is based in Japan, said the U.S. and Russian militaries often encounter each other without incident. "It's not unusual or unexpected to see Russian units while we're at sea," said spokesman Matt Brown.

It was unclear what impressive information the Russian military could have gained about the Kitty Hawk, which was commissioned back in 1962.

Also, the Russian air force and navy can not claim any credit for detecting the U.S. aircraft carrier as it can be easily spotted, and photographed, by Russia's intelligence satellites. The carrier's approximate location also can be determined with the help of its official Web site (http://www.kittyhawk.navy.mil/) on any given day.

The Kitty Hawk and its battle group, which remained in the Sea of Japan on Wednesday, were to have begun a joint naval war game with vessels of the Japanese navy when the second incident took place Nov. 9, according to this site.

Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy head of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, said the Su-24MRs do not boast any stealth characteristics or carry any equipment powerful enough to jam the radar defenses of the U.S. Navy battle group.

Thus, the pair of reconnaissance planes could have passed undetected only if the entire battle group had shut down its radar systems in order not to interfere in satellite communications with the U.S. Navy command, he said.

The Kitty Hawk, which has a displacement of more than 83,000 tons, has four different radar systems for air and surface search and an impressive arsenal of surface-to-air missiles, including Sea Sparrows that have a range of 55 kilometers.

The commander of the air force unit that sent up the Su-27s, Lt. Gen. Anatoly Nagovitsyn, told reporters in Moscow that the Kitty Hawk was being refueled when the two Su-24MRs advanced during one of the sorties.

This, he said, made it impossible for pilots of the F-14 and F/A-18 squad rons based on the Kitty Hawk to scramble off the deck until the Su-24MRs had flown over the carrier for a second time.

Nagovitsyn didn't specify whether it was during the Oct. 17 or the Nov. 9 sortie when the Kitty Hawk was being refueled.

Makiyenko said that it was possible that the U.S. planes were unable to scramble because the carrier was taking on fuel.

[Adelphi]

E aí Patton, continua achando que nada disso aconteceu?

[Fábio Nascimento]

não sei porque, mas abri o forum hoje, e fiquei feliz da vida ahcando q vou ter um dia maravilhoso!!! hehehe

[Carlos Mathias]

"The Flanker was all over his a--. He was screaming for help when finally a [F/A-18] Hornet from our sister squadron got off the deck and made the intercept. It was too late."

[Carlos Mathias]

Novinha a notícia... Afinal de contas, de 2001 pra cá só se passaram 5 anos...

Não é nova e por isso mesmo pior ainda para a US NAVY. Hoje, com caças mais modernos, devem acontecer uns quatro passes antes dos E-6 decolarem.

Outra coisa, o fato da notícia ser relativamente antiga invalida o feito russo, né? Então aquelas vitórias dos M-III contra os franceses, o nosso IKL-209 e o Astúrias, os americanos no pacífico e tudo mais que não seja de ontem perde valor? Ou só perde valor quando se tratar de um feito de uma força que não a invencível US NAVY?

Bandeirinha, hino e marcha!!!! Stars and strips!!!!!! Tipo assim ó:

http://www.zonalibre.org/blog/imsomnio/ ... /CHINO.JPG

Vai ver era o Chuck Norris que estava voando por lá e confundiram com um Flanker, aí sim, deve ser mais crível!

[rodrigo]

Não entendi, qual é o grande feito dos russos?

[Adelphi]

Não é todo dia que alguém consegue fazer várias passagens sobre um CVN e sair impune

[Carlos Mathias]

Tem jeito não....

[rodrigo]

Não é todo dia que alguém consegue fazer várias passagens sobre um CVN e sair impune

Então qual é o procedimento padrão? Derrubar o invasor? Em tempo de paz isso é fácil, não estou dizendo isso porque o avião é russo e o navio é americano. Sobrevôo qualquer um faz, os vôos de reconhecimento são para isso. Quero ver fazer isso em tempo de guerra.

[Adelphi]

Rodrigo,
É óbvio em em tempos de guerra a situação seria bem diferente.
O problema é que os russos/soviéticos sempre fizeram esse tipo de coisa principalmente com bombardeiros e aeronaves de EW, porém os F-4 e posteriormente os Tomcats sempre interceptavam, não deixando as aeronaves "inimigas" chegarem perto do CV/CVN. Dessa vez não conseguiram... Essas provocações fazem parte do jogo.