US Spy Plane Intercepted by Russian Jet over Black Sea

Conspiracies rule our culture, whether they be official theories or unofficial theories. Actually they rule the human mind.

Your explanation is not nearly as persuasive as those stories told when it happened, by several men purporting to have been present or even involved. Theirs was quite plausible, knowing how things happen in government. Thunderbirds flying light on fuel, Secret Service controlling more aviation assets than perhaps they ought to, another ship of the flight flaming out while taxiing in after they were finally allowed to recover at Pete.

I have a lunch friend who flew F-16s USAF. I'll ask him about throttle failures on those ships.

Which conspiracy theories do you prefer? Official or non-official?

 

No they don’t. Conspiracies give generally bored people something to get excited about.

Well, I have jet experience whereas Academy cadets do not. I guess it’s only plausible because it’s more in line with what you believe. No one in the AF flies on low fuel. All through training we’re reminded of how dangerous of a situation it is, and there are numerous stories where people overfly their BINGO (a limit set to cease maneuvering and head home). They’re “written in blood” rules. I was flying in 2016 as well and the AF was no less strict about it.

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Although I did watch Ancient Aliens the other night when I couldn’t sleep.

 

You have lived a sheltered life there in COS it appears. Many years ago I was stationed at Fort Carson.

You might consider broadening your horizons by reading the book by Lance deHaven-Smith, "Conspiracy Theory in America". Conspiracy is part of the human condition, whether you are able to grasp that fact or not.

 

No, I wouldn’t call my life sheltered. I’m very fact-oriented.

I’ll check it out honestly. I don’t buy the premise but it has solid reviews.

 

Conspiracy's have their tendencies to be just theories without viable proof.

There are two types of people:

1. Someone who can read conspiracy theories and vet the nutjob theories from ones that might make a little sense
2. Someone who thinks conspiracy theories are truths and only cite other conspiracy nuts as evidence

Conspiracy theorists are addicts. They love the notion of going against the grain. They are hardly ever right.

 

My thinking and analysis are a bit more sophisticated than yours.

That is, I recognize that there are official conspiracy theories, such as the one regarding 911, and then UNOFFICIAL conspiracy theories. You seem unable to discern the differences.

You buy into the official conspiracy theories offered by the government and media, mostly because you simply cannot fathom that your government and media would deceive you.

That, soldier, is a personal problem.

 

Actually most of them are complete nutjobs.

I find it amazing on the rare occasions I delve down into that area. They will go on and on about things they have no concept of, and spur each other on. And you can have 5 of them with completely different ideas about what actually happened, but they will all back each other up against a skeptic.

I saw one funny exchange a few years back like that. One believed 9/11 was holograms and explosives, the other it was empty drone aircraft and nobody on the plane existed. Yet another that they were drone aircraft filled with dead bodies. And yet another that the people were sent to relocation centers and given new identities. And another that it was not aircraft at all but cruise missiles.

All fantastically they all backed each other up, screaming at somebody who was telling them they were all crazy. It is like going to an asylum and watching 5 people all screaming that they were Napoleon. And instead of fighting each other that they were the real Napoleon, they were instead fighting with the sane person trying to tell them that none of them were.

And it is also fascinating that these nutjobs never believe in just 1 conspiracy. Oh no, they believe in all of them. Chemtrails, NWO, Federal Reserve, Elders of Zion, ZOG, 9/11, Black Helicopters, JFK, Lady Diana, Seth Rich, Denver Airport bunker, Freemasons, the Catholic Church, USS Liberty, Area 51, Roswell, Illuminati, Oklahoma City, Pearl Harbor, Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon, El Paso shooting, Aurora theater massacre, birthplace of President Obama, FEMA trailers, Deep State, Sutherland Springs, AIDS cure hidden in bunkers, Flouride in the water, vaccines, earthquake machines, RFID chips implanted in people, flat earth, killing electric cars, tsunami bombs, microwave mind control and mind reading, and many many more.

It is like they never just believe in one, they believe in a dozen or more of them. It is like they never met a theory they did not like. That is a clear sign of mental illness, but as we see here, instead they scream at the skeptics as being the sick ones.

The fact that they will contradict each other yet insist they are all right and any skeptic is wrong is proof of that.

 

The complete nutjobs are the naïve and gullible souls who believe everything their government tells them, no questions asked.

 

we should not allow any country to threaten our aircraft regardless of where they are operating. i suggest future recon flights be escorted by armed fighters with ROE to destroy any threat that disrupts our missions.

 

RE: US Spy Plane Intercepted by Russian Jet over Black Sea
⁜→ Robert E Allen, et al,

Probably not a good idea; although very macho and heroic sounding.

(COMMENT)

Such confrontations are to be avoided. The purpose of surveilancemissions of this sort is to "prevent" conflicts; not start them.

........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

The purpose of intercepting is to cause a conflict.
As long as we are in international airspace what we are doing is none of Russia's business. Time they learn their place in the world.

 

RE: US Spy Plane Intercepted by Russian Jet over Black Sea
⁜→ Robert E Allen, et al,

No, that is a common misperception.

(COMMENT)

The purpose of intercepting (from an OPFOR perspective) an unarmed intelligence collection platform is to limit, hinder, frustrate, and exploit or altogether disrupt an otherwise overt tactical collection effort; usually IMINT or SIGINT. It is, to the extent possible, to deprive the collector (in this case the US) of critical intelligence for the operations planner.

Unlike what most people think, that it is some sort of cat and mouse game, it is a kind of chess game that compromises Intelligence that is crucial and requires the immediate attention of the end defense user.

What the OPFOR (in this case the Russians) can only guess at, is the capabilities of the collector relative to a specific target or target type. For all the Russians know, the Sukhoi ik7uuli could have been that actual target and the US was collecting telemetry, communications protocols, and MASINT criterion used to assess changes in system behavior, capability, or operational performance.

........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

Sure, bring a basuka along to shoot down any mosquitoes getting in the way. On the other hand, I agree, nobody should threaten, leave alone "touch", the empire's equipment!

 

Hmm... that sounds logical.
In the article it said that the American came close to Russia's border. Was the American pilot trying to provoke a response, or was he falling half asleep and didn't realize where he was headed? It must get boring flying around in empty space.

 

Close to Russian airspace is not i. Russian air space... besides our fighter pilots are bored. I know it's just an su27 hardly a challenge but you gotra throw a dog a bone once in a while, even if its just a milk bone.

Mc Donnell Douglas, worlds leading distributor of Mig parts.

 

Are you, or have you been, a flyer yourself?

 

No, i didn't have the eyes, and I'm not near smart enough or aggressive enough to be one of the best people on the planet.
I know enough however to know that Russian planes are crap and American fighter pilots are thr best of the best.

 

No it’s not. We fly intercepts for a variety of reasons, the vast majority of the time it’s for visual ID. Even when we converge on a friendly tanker it’s called a stern conversion intercept. I don’t think the military and the general population are on the same page with concepts and terminology, especially when it comes to aviation.

I’m not saying the Russians aren’t being dicks but we do the same in return. And what we’re doing is usually their business. “All up in” their business. They’re not going to do **** about it, and they know we won’t either.

 

Saying they were operating close to the border is probably a gross misinterpretation and an attempt to make the story more juicy than it really is. And no, it never gets boring unless you’re enroute somewhere for a long time.

 

I'm sure you're right but i am opposed to enemy missiles being in range of the guys that are out there in my place.

 

It comes with the job and it’s really a non-issue. What I don’t like is when they try to violate a country’s airspace, or their territory in general (ie, Ukraine, Georgia, ect). They are not going to mess with us but they will always pick on the little guys.

* And what I mean by non-issue is that I’m not going to war over some dude flying within visual range.