Russia’s Anonymous Sources Try to Sink U.S. Destroyer

"USS Ross" conducting northbound transit of Turkish Straits – May 23, 2015
[credit: Yörük Işık]

Russian news outlets were overly active this weekend recycling and enhancing a story that originated from two anonymous sources who want you to believe that a U.S. destroyer operated in, or extremely close to, Russia’s territorial waters until it was chased away by fighter-bombers – all while the U.S. Secretary of Defense and Russian Deputy Minister of Defense were both in Singapore discussing security in the Asia-Pacific region.

The U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer “USS Ross” (DDG 71) entered the Black Sea on May 23 to “work closely with [U.S.] allies and partners to enhance maritime security, readiness, and naval capability, and to promote peace and stability in the region.” The U.S. destroyer is the latest in a long series of naval ships from the U.S. and other foreign nations to regularly operate in international waters in the Black Sea much to the dismay of Russia. Moscow considers naval operations by non-Black Sea littoral countries – more specifically by NATO countries – in the Black Sea to be provocative.

After completing drills with Romanian naval forces on May 28, the destroyer continued independent operations in the Black Sea, apparently in the vicinity of the Crimean Peninsula. On May 30, RIA Novosti (aka MIA Russia Today) published a news article in which an unnamed “source in a Crimean power structure” reported that Black Sea Fleet SU-24 Fencer fighter-bombers were scrambled and successfully “forced” the U.S. destroyer, which was operating in a “provocative and aggressive” manner, “to depart for neutral waters in the eastern portion of the Black Sea.”

As the source never said “USS Ross” was operating within Russia’s territorial waters, this story could be characterized as routine activity for the two nations’ navies as viewed by an excitable RIA Novosti anonymous source. But then the source loses all credibility when he says that the “Americans have not forgotten the incident in April 2014 when one SU-24 actually ‘shut down’ all of the instruments on the new American destroyer ‘USS Donald Cook’, which has ballistic missile defense elements.” Even the Russian Ministry of Defense had to chuckle at that version of the April event.

Seeing an opportunity to prove it’s still relevant, Pravda.ru, masquerading as Politonline.ru, published its own amazing details in an article titled ‘SU-24s Almost Sink NATO Destroyer in Black Sea’. According to its article, the U.S. destroyer was “lit up by a ‘Bastion’ system from a Black Sea Fleet missile ship.” That’s a mistake – Bastion is a coastal defense cruise missile, not a sea-based weapon. The article goes on to say, citing an unnamed “highly-placed” MOD source, that “USS Ross” was within 50 meters of the “border” – presumably Russia’s territorial waters.

What’s strange is that both anonymously-sourced reports would have you remember, but then forget, that one or more Russian naval ships, armed with guns and anti-ship cruise missiles, were trailing the U.S. destroyer at the time. This raises several obvious questions:

• Why did the escorts not operate between Crimea and the destroyer to prevent the latter from entering or coming that close to Russian territorial waters?
• Why were SU-24s scrambled to deal with the incursion? Where the escorts incapable of dealing with that mission?
• Why would the destroyer even attempt such a dangerous undertaking knowing that the Crimean-based SSC-5 Stooge and SSC-6 Sennight coastal defense cruise missiles, as well as the escort ships and land-based fighter-bombers, could and likely would respond to an incursion?

If this incident occurred on Friday or Saturday, then it would have coincided with the Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore, which was attended by U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Russian Deputy Minister of Defense Anatoliy Antonov. And Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s introduction of former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili as governor of the Odessa region.

Did SU-24s fly near “USS Ross” as it operated in the Black Sea? Yes, as the U.S. 6th Fleet confirmed on Sunday. No official statement has yet been made by either side as to exactly when and where this activity occurred. The RF Ministry of Defense and Ministry for Foreign Affairs have been silent about the “incident” all weekend – probably because no serious “incident” actually occurred. The official websites for both agencies were open for business and publishing news over the weekend, but not a single mention of any "incident."

RF Ministry for Foreign Affairs silent on Black Sea "incident"

But “non-incidents” don’t sell newspapers, nor do they generate advertising money. So, expect both Russian and non-Russian media outlets alike to rehash the event on Monday as they bring in “experts” (with no reliable access to the details of the event) who will state unequivocally that Russia or the U.S. or NATO (depending on which country you’re in) is destabilizing regional security in the Black Sea. Expect flashy, nonsensical headlines, like “NATO-Russia Cold War Stand-Off in Black Sea” or “Did Putin Order Strike on U.S. Destroyer?”

It would be interesting to attend the next INCSEA [English] [Russian] talks to hear what either side has to say about the most recent event... if anything.

XLT: Why NATO Fears Russian Exercises

                                 [Translation of Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper article]

WHY NATO FEARS RUSSIAN EXERCISES
November 3, 2014
By Anton Balagin
http://www.rg.ru/2014/11/03/uchenia-site.html

In peacetime, every military drains its soul in exercises. Moreover, such maneuvers by Russian military forces causes a nervous reaction, more like fear, from NATO. At times, not only are government officials and the press scared, but also professional military troops. We found out why this is happening.

"Sukhoi" versus "Aegis"

The encounter of a Russian bomber with the U.S. Navy destroyer DONALD COOK is worthy of a place in military training manuals as an example of an effective psychological attack. On April 12, an unarmed SU-24, which took off from Shagol (Chelyabinsk) Airbase, was flying over the Black Sea and approached the new American combatant ship, which is armed with cruise missiles and the latest “Aegis” command and control system. After the encounter, DONALD COOK quickly headed to the Romanian port of Constanța where, according to media reports, 27 sailors from the destroyer’s crew requested to be released from service. On April 14, the Pentagon released an emotional statement in which the SU-24 flight was called a violation of military traditions and international agreements.

What really upset the Americans? The Aegis system, with which the destroyer is equipped, is the latest word in technology in terms of detecting and destroying seaborne and airborne targets. It brings together the radars, fire control systems, and missiles of all ships equipped with it into a single network resembling a naval internet. Aegis radars can simultaneously track and target missiles at hundreds of targets located thousands of kilometers away. Altogether, a magnificent system.

But in place of bombs or missiles, the SU-24s approaching DONALD COOK carried a container with a Khibina radio-electronic warfare system. After approaching the ship, the Khibina systems turned off its [the destroyer’s] smart radar, combat control links, and data transfer systems – in a word, the entire Aegis, like we turn off a television with the push of a button on a remote. Afterwards, the fighter-bombers conducted a simulated missile attack on the blind and deaf destroyer. Then another and then... a total of 12 combat approaches.

DONALD COOK never approached Russian waters again. Nor did NATO ships that relieved it in the Black Sea.

The Russians are Coming!

Flying over American ships is a time-honored tradition for our pilots. In Soviet times, TU-95 strategic bombers would sneak up, undetected, to American aircraft carriers in the Atlantic and perform low-level flyovers while photographing their equipment and showing them friendly gestures through the windows. In naval parlance, this is called demonstrating the flag. The encounters occurred in neutral waters and, from the view of international law, were absolutely without reproach.

The U.S. wasn’t taken to court after, in August, Northern Fleet ships detected an American Virginia-class submarine in waters adjacent to the Barents Sea and forced it to leave the area. Everyone trains: when one penetrates, others detect and thwart. Some succeed, others don’t.

Each flight by Russian bombers along U.S. borders and its allies causes a storm of indignation by NATO. Fighters are scrambled to intercept, and then a whirlwind is stirred up in the press. In the end, some important official rises to the NATO pulpit in Brussels to call the incident “another provocation by Russia.” By the way, such flights – near Chinese borders, let’s say – are performed regularly by American bombers. And they conduct large-scale exercises there. And U.S. Navy Lockheed P-3C Orion intelligence collection aircraft patrol near Russia’s eastern borders, and our MIG-31s scramble to intercept. And no one objects – everyone trains.

Incidentally, TU-160 flights far from Russia that unnerve the West – they are not just combat training or demonstrating the flag. Intercepting a super-sonic strategic bomber is a very expensive luxury. Whereas super-sonic is cruising speed for a “White Swan” [TU-160], for fighters chasing it such speeds require the exertion of all of their forces – afterburners at a minimum. Which is harmful to the engine’s service life. And for an F-22 Raptor, each such flight turns into repairs of its priceless, in the true sense of the word, stealth coating.

Where are We?

Sometimes there is no need for the Russian military to scare its colleagues from the North Atlantic bloc or western journalists – NATO does that successfully on its own. Not too long ago, residents of the small Polish town of Gruta, 220 kilometers north of Warsaw, were on the brink of panic when they saw foreign military helicopters in a rapeseed field next to the town.

Recalling World War II, elder residents thought that the Germans had again invaded, while younger residents believed that the Russians were coming. Additionally, soldiers in foreign uniforms poured out of the helicopters and began wandering around the town trying to find out from passersby where they had ended up. They asked in English.

They turned out to be American helicopters that had become lost on a return trip from exercises held in Latvia. Six UH-60 Black Hawks were flying to the Polish airbase in Mirosławiec, but fell behind the main group and got lost. Finding a farmer who understood a little English, the pilots unfolded a map and asked him to show where their current location. He did, and the mayor of Gruta presented the Americans with a pamphlet that described the local attractions.

One of the most effective points of that exercise (besides the forced landing of the Black Hawks in the rapeseed field) was the assault landing of 500 troops at the Latvian airport of Lielvārde. “But there, the NATO military personnel at least knew where they had landed,” wrote an El Mundo military affairs reporter.