Vesti => Ostale vesti => Topic started by: Rade on February 13, 2008, 04:53:57 pm

Title: Ruski bombarderi " nisu provocirali"
Post by: Rade on February 13, 2008, 04:53:57 pm
13. februar 2008. godine

Visoki krugovi američke mornarice ne smatraju nedavni prelet ruskih bombardera preko američkog nosača provokativnim, već više "običnim protezanjem krila".

The Navy’s top officer said he did not find the recent flyover of a U.S carrier by two Russian bombers “provocative,” adding that the bombers were simply “stretching their wings.”

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead told reporters at the Pentagon that such flyovers — first revealed by The Associated Press on Monday — were common in the past.

“This was something that was really quite common in the days of the Soviet navy,” Roughead said on Tuesday.

The AP reported that two Tupolev Tu-95MS Bear long-range bombers approached the carrier Nimitz off the coast of Japan over the weekend, and a single Bear twice flew over the carrier at the low altitude of 2,000 feet. The Nimitz launched two F/A-18 Hornets to escort the Russian aircraft when they were about 500 miles away from the ship.

Roughead said he thought the incident was an example of a Russian navy trying to re-emerge on the global scene. He cited the recent example of Russian ships exercising in the Mediterranean Sea as proof of this attempt to return to prominence on the seas.

“I do not consider [the incident] to be provocative,” Roughead said.

There has been no communication about the incident between the two navies, he added.

“My sense is that they are stretching their wings, so to speak,” Roughead said. “We had a ship out there, they flew out and we intercepted it — I know I’m not playing this up very much but that’s the way I see it.”

“They came out to look, we joined up and flew with them until they went home,” he added.

In turn, Roughead also addressed other matters in Tuesday’s 40-minute press conference, the first such event he has hosted since becoming CNO in late September.

Addressing the recent decision to deploy the Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group, which consists of amphibious ships, surface warships and a submarine, without its usual complement of Marines and equipment, Roughead said deploying without the Marines adds flexibility to the ships’ movement.

“The decision was made for the Marines to deploy not using amphibious shipping, and we had worked up that group of ships, the Nassau ESG, and consistent with our strategy using those ships to go forward to be able to conduct operations with other navies, other militaries, not just in the Central Command area of operations but to have the flexibility for those ships to do some work perhaps in the Mediterranean or as far as the Pacific area of operations,” he said.

The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, set to deploy to Afghanistan, trained with the Nassau ESG last year in anticipation of a February deployment. The Marines will now fly overseas, while their equipment is being carried by the Military Sealift Command cargo ship Algol. At the time of the announcement, one Navy official said it was “faster, easier and cheaper to fly the Marines and ship their equipment.”

Roughead declined to say whether cost was involved in the decision to deploy minus the Marines.

“There are a lot of factors that go into why we make certain deployment decisions,” he said. “I don’t want to get into whether or not it’s cheaper, there are just a lot factors involved.”

On the subject of the Navy’s 313-ship fleet plan, Roughead told reporters he remains committed to the number 313 as a “floor,” or the minimum number of ships the service needs by 2020. He added that he has a team within the Navy working to figure out what the “ceiling,” or maximum number, might be.

The Navy must pursue common hull forms to reduce shipbuilding costs, Roughead said. However, he defended the troubled Littoral Combat Ship program and said that the suggestion by some members of Congress, and others, that the Navy should buy the Coast Guard’s National Security Cutter instead of LCS is not the solution to meeting the Navy’s near-shore capability gap.

“LCS is the best ship to fill that gap — it has the speed, the shallow draft that expands and it’s been designed to have rapidly changeable mission modules,” Roughead said.

The NSC does not have the “war-fighting” capabilities LCS has, he said.