If you watch this and feel anything but complete terror, you're missing the point. An AI controlled drone swarm is a military nightmare: you can blind radar; shut down comms; interrupt C3 at a crucial moment.

The things that can be done with a thousand cheap drones and some basic AI can render billion-dollar military systems moot in the event of real combat. The US Navy is already shitting themselves over this (there's already been a few incidents, most recently off the coast of San Diego), and the USAF isn't far behind. Serious drones incidents -- from unknown attackers -- have happened in the US. This including an attempted attack on a power station and a bizarre cat-and-mouse game between USBP/HLS and an unidentified "super drone" over Arizona on more than one occasion.

Did you notice what they were displaying? This wasn't meant to be oo-aah cute, this was China telling the US military they fuck around at their own risk. The last time someone sent a message this clearly, Billy Mitchell was flying a biplane over a captured German destroyer.

"Far less chance for severe mishaps, too" -- I know you meant something totally different, but in the case of what I'm talking about, the exact opposite holds true.

Your video, US Navy "Sky Penis" Cockpit Audio (released 5/14/19), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, How a Single Swedish Submarine Defeated the US Navy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Spain-1 US Navy-0, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

\

Published on Apr 14, 2016

The aerobatics skills of Russian pilots over the US destroyer Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea left the Pentagon and other US official running for cover in Washington over “aggressive close interactions” with Russian fighters jets.
Trends
Russia-NATO relations
Releasing the footage of Russian jet flybys in the vicinity of the destroyer, the US Navy said that its vessel has encountered multiple “aggressive flight maneuvers ...within close proximity of the ship,” some as close as 30 feet (10 meters) on Monday and Tuesday.

The set of incidents took place as the US ship, which had sailed from the Polish port of Gdynia, was conducting exercises with its NATO ally Poland in the Baltic Sea. The Navy announced that the SU-24 first flew over Donald Cook on Monday as US sailors were rehearsing “deck landing drills with an allied [Polish] military helicopter”. The numerous close-range, low altitude encounters were witnessed at 3:00pm local time, forcing the commander of the ship to suspend helicopter refueling on the deck until the Russian jets departed the area.

The next day, the Navy said, Russia caused concern among US sailors when a Russian KA-27 Helix helicopter flew seven times over the ship at low altitude in international waters at around 5:00pm. Some 40 minutes later, two Russian SU-24 jets allegedly made a further 11 “close-range and low altitude passes”.

“The Russian aircraft flew in a simulated attack profile and failed to respond to repeated safety advisories in both English and Russian. USS Donald Cook’s commanding officer deemed several of these maneuvers as unsafe and unprofessional,” the Navy said.

Judging by the videos released by the US Navy, the sailors were nonplussed by the Russian aerobatic skills. They gathered on the top deck of the destroyer to watch the Russian pilots.

“He is on the deck below the bridge lane...It looks like he’ll be coming in across the flight deck, coming in low, bridge wing level...Over the bow, right turn, over the bow...” the voiceover on the footage states in what looks more like an instructor’s advice on how to maneuver in open waters, rather than the panic that the central command presented it to be. At least on the video no one can be seen running for cover.

According to a US defense official who spoke with Defense News, sailors aboard the Donald Cook claimed that the Russian jets’ low altitude stirred waters and created wake underneath the ship. US personnel on the American vessels, also claimed that Su-24 was “wings clean,” meaning no armaments were present on the Russian jets that could have posed a threat to US operations in the Baltic.

Yet at the same time, the official noted, that this week's incidents are “more aggressive than anything we’ve seen in some time,” as the SU-24 appeared to be flying in a “simulated attack profile.”

The Russian overflights have caused panic over in Washington, with White House spokesman Josh Earnest calling the actions of the Russian pilots “provocative” and “inconsistent with professional norms of militaries.”

“I hear the Russians are up to their old tricks again in the EUCOM [US European Command] AOR [area of responsibility],” Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman Col. Steve Warren said during a briefing on Wednesday, adding that the US is “concerned with this behavior.”

“We have deep concerns about the unsafe and unprofessional Russian flight maneuvers. These actions have the potential to unnecessarily escalate tensions between countries, and could result in a miscalculation or accident that could cause serious injury or death,” the US European Command said in a statement.

In the meantime Adm. John Richardson, the chief of naval operations, thanked the US crew for keeping their cool during the stressful situation.

“Bravo Zulu to the crew of USS Donald Cook for their initiative and toughness in how they handled themselves during this incident,” the admiral said on Facebook.

Russia has yet to comment on the incidents but most likely the Russian air craft flew from the Kaliningrad region, bordering Poland. Kaliningrad is the headquarters of the Russian Baltic Fleet, which also includes the Chernyakhovsk, Donskoye, and Kaliningrad Chkalovsk air bases.

Description Credits: Russia Today

Video Credits: Defense Media Activity - Navy

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

The sheer energy advantage of jet aircraft overwhelms any maneuverability advantages of WWII aircraft, so when a modern aircraft can't outturn and/or out-energy a 40 year old fighter, it's a steaming pile of shit...

And it's always completely irrelevant until it's completely relevant. eg. new technology comes online jamming guided missles and reducing planes to cannon warfare...

And I'd love to see how your prancing sniper does when he has to get in to knife range (close ground support where cannon fire does matter...).

The plane is an overpriced turd that has been repeatedly polished to give it the shine of a gem, but ultimately it's still a turd.

I love the last line though... "then the rest of the enemies would be mopped up by..." By? By the 40 year old workhorses that the turd is supposed to replace... X D

The F-35 will replace the US Air Force A-10s and F-16s, US Navy F/A-18s, US Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18s, and UK Harrier GR7s and Sea Harrier

Two of your three mop up planes are already F35's. Good luck with that!

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video New Super Vehicle US Navy. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

US Navy's Laser Weapon System (LaWS) has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/US-Navys-Laser-Weapon-System-LaWS

You're missing the point. The USA may be able to say that they own the moon, and even get everyone on earth to agree to it, but without a permanent base on the moon, and a way to defend it, they can't enforce the claim.

Let's imagine that the whole of a small country, like France, is magically teleported to the moon. (With a protective air bubble, and the necessary resources to survive and defend it.)

The entire population of earth might still agree that the moon belongs to the USA, (as they could be coerced by military action and trade agreements), but the entire population of the moon would say the moon belonged to France - or the Moonians as they might call themselves - until the USA becomes motivated to put a competing presence there.

Flags are an effective means of designating territory on earth because they represent the nation whose power is backing up the claim. The flag on the moon is not backed up by the US Navy or Airforce, but instead with the knowledge that they last put three people there, for under a week, 41 years ago.

A DIY Rail Gun! 1.25kJ Homemade Magnetic Coilgun has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.

US Navy Elecromagnetic Rail gun has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/A-DIY-Rail-Gun-1-25kJ-Homemade-Magnetic-Coilgun
*related=http://videosift.com/video/US-Navy-Elecromagnetic-Rail-gun

Tags for this video have been changed from '1955 Hover Board, Pathe' to '1955 Hover Board, Pathe, US Navy, Flying, Platform, VTOL, Thrust' - edited by calvados

Got in another debate with a hardcore conservative today. Different one this time. I learned some pretty awesome things.

1. If you spend more money on your military, it will always be stronger. No matter what! If you slightly reduce spending on your military while removing troops from conflicts such as Iraq, thereby freeing troops up for other things, your military will still be weaker.

2. Military might is virtually solely determined by number of people in it. China has a better military than the US. In fact, China could successfully land invade the US right now!!! When presented with the fact that China has not even attempted a land invasion of Taiwan because a portion of the US navy is sitting between the two, this was ignored. When I pointed out the US spends multiple times more than China does on military, and therefore he contradicted himself, this was promptly ignored because China apparently also has a better economy than the US, too.

3. When I disputed the proposition that China could successfully land invade the US by pointing out that amphibious assaults require air power, and China doesn't have sufficient aircraft carriers, I was told that air power is not required for a successful massive land invasion. For example, the only thing air power was used for during D-Day was patrols and to parachute some troops in behind enemy lines. They were not required to protect naval vessels carrying troops, nor did they participate in any significant bombings of Normandy. Also, the US successfully invaded Normandy without aircraft carriers, so the fact that China only has one aircraft carrier is irrelevant. I asked how China would get its air force over to the West Coast of the US without aircraft carriers, but that was ignored because an air force wasn't necessary.

4. When I pointed out multiple sources of info showing that air superiority was needed during D-Day, and was specifically sought out prior to even contemplating invasion, and the fact that I have a degree in History, taught it, and my concentration in college was WWI to the present, he responded that he knew more because he was in the navy for 8 years.

In the end, I was accused of thinking I knew more about everything than anyone else, and ridiculed for thinking I knew things because I went to college.

Sadly, this is a true story, and I'm related to this person.

I know there are idiots in every political group, but the amount of ignorance and idiocy coming out of the right these days is staggering, and so many of them are obnoxiously loud and proud about these kinds of views.