Military Review

So that’s why she doesn’t shoot ... About NATO’s plans to increase the Black Sea flotilla

122
The closer the gathering of NATO generals and politicians, the more reason to really think about our relations with the bloc. And, accordingly, about the attitude of the block towards us. Through the mouth of its representatives, NATO is increasingly threatening Russia.


So that’s why she doesn’t shoot ... About NATO’s plans to increase the Black Sea flotilla


Just recently, the Turkish president voiced the idea of ​​the need to “stop” Russian forces in the Black Sea. The need to prevent the transformation of the Black Sea in the "Russian lake".

When the VKS operation began in Russia in Syria, we were shocked by the actions of Turkey in relation to our aircraft. It was clear that this was done on purpose. All the "arguments" of Erdogan were so ridiculous that even his allies tried to dissociate themselves from Turkey.

We do not know what Ankara wanted. We leave this incident to the conscience of the Turks. We will not now intervene in the dismantling of Russia and Turkey, despite the fact that the Turks are members of NATO.

Many experts then tried to explain why this happened. But no one gave a clear explanation. They chose to forget about the plane. Especially since the sanctions of Russia hit a competitor. And to some extent contributed to Erdogan's greater desire to talk about the problems of refugees in the EU.

The thought that I will express today is at first glance absurd. The plane was destroyed with the consent of NATO. It is with the consent. And perhaps on the direct instructions of NATO generals.

Alas, I cannot provide documentary evidence. Too serious a level for "a serious information leak from NATO headquarters to take place today." Therefore, I will proceed from the logic of further events.

A country member of the alliance shot down an aircraft of the armed forces of another country. NATO has repeatedly stated and proved this with the help of pictures and calculations about its capabilities in the field of space reconnaissance. But, as in the case of Boeing, at the time of the incident over this territory there was not a single one of almost half a thousand groups of American military satellites. And the European have disappeared somewhere ...

Following. Erdogan after the destruction of the aircraft quickly "rushed" to NATO. Save! Not to apologize to Moscow, but to Brussels. For protection. And, as subsequent events showed, he was right. We "built muscle" but beat Turkish aviation did not dare. And the sanctions that apply today, as I wrote above, play on the side of Europe in the competition for markets.

Farther. Turkey is beginning to quietly "surrender" its position in negotiations with the EU regarding refugees. Yes, they offered money to the Turks. Serious money, but not as much as the Turks lost from the break in relations with Russia. And an order of magnitude less than requested by Erdogan.

By the way, the expulsion of the premier's political "Olympus" also fits perfectly into the pattern of relations. It was through him that the main communication with the block took place. It means that it is he who is to blame for some, in the future, "unresolved issues."

And today - numerous statements about the "Russian lake". Statements from whom? From a country that has dominated the region since 1936. Together with the USSR, and now, with Russia. The country that controls the Black Sea straits.

We very often speak and write about the famous Montreux 1936 convention of the year. We speak as a guarantee of stability in the region. Is it so?

Of course, now someone will talk about the peaceful Black Sea in Soviet times. After all, during the USSR, NATO had no desire to deploy a fleet or flotilla then. Everyone was happy with everything. The convention was in force.

Well yes. Only supported by this action was the strength of the Black Sea Fleet of the USSR. Let me remind you that 120 combat ships were part of it at that time! In total, the fleet had more than 800 ships! The ratio of forces of the USSR - NATO was almost 5 to 1. Here it is, the real component of the Montreux Convention. And the guarantor of security on the Black Sea.

Can NATO "circumvent" this convention today? Easy! How many countries are in the alliance? You don’t even have to answer. And each can send "his" warship to the World Cup. Only one. But the group will be quite impressive.

Another way? Yes please. Who prevents to transfer several warships to Romania or Bulgaria? In order to help create your own fleet. Countries in the block. They have a right. Even Georgia can get several ships. As a candidate member.

According to experts in the field of the Navy, any grouping of ships in the Black Sea can be destroyed by means already located in the Crimea in a matter of minutes. Even without the help of the given forces and means. And the “immensity” of the Black Sea does not allow having a large number of serious ships there. Maximum of 12-15 frigates.

This is enough to deliver the first and last strike with the same Tomahawks. Further down the drain.

And now that we receive in the total. Launchers in Romania. Launchers in Poland. Placement of NATO battalions in the Baltic States 4-5. Flotilla in the Black Sea. Agreements on the use of territory in the Nordic countries. The development of military infrastructure in the countries bordering on us. The list can be continued.

Nothing like? Look at 70-80 years ago.

I hope NATO will not fight with Russia. But we have already managed to draw us into the enormous costs of rebuilding the modern fleet. Trying to drag us into an arms race. And who is in charge of this process is also understandable.

I will repeat the idea that I have repeatedly expressed in my publications. We need today to understand the word "enough". Not to "tear the veins" of the last forces due to the deterioration of the life of the people, but to plan to build new ships, create new weapons, equip equipment with new missiles. But according to plan! And then all NATO attempts will be just PR.

In the meantime, in order to destroy the NATO flotilla in the Black Sea, today (assuming that it is already there), the Black Sea Fleet forces need only a few minutes. "Bastions" with "Onyx" perfectly cope with this. And with 100% guarantee. 300 km almost complete control. But there are still "experts on the cookies" on the Su-24, there are "Varshavyanka" with cruise missiles.

"There is much in the world, Horatio, that our sages have not dreamed of ..."
Author:
122 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Teberii
    Teberii 2 June 2016 06: 30
    +1
    It will be cramped snooping back and forth. Already not with single ships, but with entire fleets.
    1. Skif83
      Skif83 2 June 2016 10: 17
      +6
      So that different Erdoganks do not incite such a development option, it is necessary to respond to the threat specifically!
      As Koganovich said: "Every accident has a name, patronymic and surname".
      To paraphrase, at least the direct performers, and even better the instigators (with this, of course, more difficult) had to die for a downed Russian plane and a dead pilot. But if everyone ... knows that retaliation is inevitable, I think there will be much less instigators and executors of provocations against Russia.
      Including and those who want flotilimi to defile here.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 2 June 2016 10: 54
        .
        In the meantime, in order to destroy the NATO flotilla in the Black Sea, today

        Do you think what you write? Drown, we drown them in Black, but immediately after that a nuclear-powered response will arrive fool
        1. Bramb
          Bramb 2 June 2016 11: 39
          +19
          A person writes correctly.
          As soon as we have no way to sink their fleet - they will immediately find themselves in the Black Sea! right here!!!
          You are not good at psychology.
          People like you shouted that NATO would stand up for its own. And how quickly did they throw the Turks? Right away !!! They cherish their shirt and it is most valuable to them.
          Therefore: when we have something to destroy their fleet and we will be ready to do it - they will not be here. and if you, like you, will chew snot - they will be right here at our place.
        2. 33 Watcher
          33 Watcher 2 June 2016 12: 54
          +2
          Quote: GSH-18
          In the meantime, in order to destroy the NATO flotilla in the Black Sea, today

          Do you think what you write? Drown, we drown them in Black, but immediately after that a nuclear-powered response will arrive fool

          But no, it’s not flying. No.
        3. aleks26
          aleks26 2 June 2016 18: 15
          0
          Quote: GSH-18
          We’ll drown them in Black, but immediately after that the nuclear-powered response fool will arrive

          Most likely, simultaneously with the "drowning", a nuclear strike will also be carried out, no longer a preventive one (since the process of "drowning" is likely to be a retaliatory measure). I remind you the position of the GDP, IF THE FIGHTS DO NOT AVOID, THEN IT IS NECESSARY TO BEAT FIRST. Well, it goes without saying, with all the strength that is. Russia cannot be pulled against NATO, without nuclear weapons, at least that's what local "experts" said. This is certainly sad, but true. And only if the "ruling" in the NATO bloc are sure that Russia will not chew snot, but will go to the end, there is a CHANCE that everything will end with chatter and swelling of cheeks.
          1. Botanologist
            Botanologist 2 June 2016 22: 01
            0
            Brawlers, ektyl, but didn’t you think that they are only expecting this from us? The answer should not be linear; in politics, these yard principles are the way to the trash. Quickly and irrevocably.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Idiot
            Idiot 4 June 2016 17: 50
            0
            Quote: aleks26
            Russia cannot be pulled against NATO, without nuclear weapons, at least that's what local "experts" said. This is certainly sad, but true.


            This is not a fact. Maybe Russia will pull it out, in the forty-first it was even worse, but is it worth having a nuclear weapons to hope for the generals genius of our generals? For them, soldier’s blood is the same fluid as everyone else.
          4. The comment was deleted.
        4. Ros 56
          Ros 56 3 June 2016 15: 20
          +1
          Quote: GSH-18
          nuclear-powered response


          Where from? Yes, no matter where. Who would dare in Europe - France, England? And no one else. And the states hardly need to be shouted at.
      2. brasist
        brasist 2 June 2016 11: 13
        +1
        The Turks have bad memory ...
      3. Idiot
        Idiot 4 June 2016 17: 46
        0
        Quote: Skif83
        As Koganovich said: "Every accident has a name, patronymic and surname."


        These are the words of Beria L.P. He also specified who held the pen when the excessively obnoxious officials wished to bear collective responsibility.
      4. The comment was deleted.
    2. GSH-18
      GSH-18 2 June 2016 10: 51
      -9
      at the time of the incident, not one of the nearly five thousand grouping of American military satellites appeared over this territory. And the European ones have disappeared somewhere ...

      Actually, at that time our electronic warfare systems were working there. Not surprisingly, the satellites over Syria were stalled and blinded, which cannot be said of Turkish pilots.
      1. Idiot
        Idiot 4 June 2016 17: 54
        0
        GS-18: Actually, at that time our electronic warfare systems were working there. Not surprisingly, the satellites over Syria were stalled and blinded, which cannot be said of Turkish pilots.

        Apparently after this "victory" the Turkish pilots nevertheless became blind and deaf, for this feat was not repeated by them.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  2. mamont5
    mamont5 2 June 2016 06: 38
    +23
    "How many countries are in the alliance? You don't even need to answer. And each can send" their "warship to the World Cup. Only one. But the grouping will be quite impressive."

    Right. But it will not be a grouping, but a collection of different ships, under different flags, and each will "play his own tune." I think that NATO members themselves understand that such a "small pile" is not a military unit, but simply a means to scare the Russian Federation. Therefore, we look after without hysterics, and react accordingly.
    1. domokl
      domokl 2 June 2016 07: 06
      +4
      Quote: mamont5
      a bunch of different ships, under different flags and each will "play his own tune

      Well, I don’t know ... But what about the fact that almost all the commanders of the ships of the alliance received a military education at the US and UK higher educational institutions. And there the training courses are the same.
      So I doubt that Romania or some kind of Poland "will blow its own tune" ... And the flag? and what's the flag? Today, NATO troops operate under the flags of their states. Does it change anything?
      1. ydjin
        ydjin 2 June 2016 13: 39
        +1
        Quote: domokl
        Quote: mamont5
        a bunch of different ships, under different flags and each will "play his own tune

        Well, I don’t know ... But what about the fact that almost all the commanders of the ships of the alliance received a military education at the US and UK higher educational institutions. And there the training courses are the same.
        So I doubt that Romania or some kind of Poland "will blow its own tune" ... And the flag? and what's the flag? Today, NATO troops operate under the flags of their states. Does it change anything?

        And combat coordination, that someone canceled? You can learn a lot, by common standards, by the methodology worked out by someone. But even a platoon is not coordinated immediately. Further company, battalion, regiment, etc. And here are warships crammed with sophisticated electronics and with multilingual users and different mentality, yes from different countries? Utopia! They even following in the wake column will break each other, and no Aegis will help them. The human factor has not been canceled! Not for nothing at the Soviet Navy were the Brigades of homogeneous ships, where interaction and coherence were practiced almost to the mental level.
      2. MarKon
        MarKon 2 June 2016 16: 55
        0
        will be blowing, even as it will)))
    2. Zoldat_A
      Zoldat_A 2 June 2016 10: 43
      +5
      Quote: mamont5
      I think that NATO members themselves understand that such a "small pile" is not a military unit, but simply means to scare the Russian Federation.

      Interestingly, they there, in NATO, do not understand that "frightening Russia" is a thankless task. There will be no sense, and you will make hemorrhoids ...

      They would open a history textbook, read who and when had the desire to "scare" us and what came of it ...

      But America has already removed its missiles from Turkey once. When Nikita decided to "scare" them. And tsykanula America then oh how sickly!
    3. K-50
      K-50 2 June 2016 16: 13
      +2
      Quote: mamont5
      "How many countries are in the alliance? You don't even need to answer. And each can send" their "warship to the World Cup. Only one. But the grouping will be quite impressive."

      Right. But it will not be a grouping, but a collection of different ships, under different flags, and each will "play his own tune." I think that NATO members themselves understand that such a "small pile" is not a military unit, but simply a means to scare the Russian Federation. Therefore, we look after without hysterics, and react accordingly.

      This anecdote reminds me: "Let's wait until the whole herd gathers, go down and ... catch!" laughing
  3. Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 2 June 2016 06: 43
    +20
    Can you imagine how NATE walked freely in the Black Sea if Crimea were not ours? And so, you see, it is more convenient to extinguish "Cookies" from the shore. Crimea is an outpost, a Russian outpost!
    1. grandson of the hero
      grandson of the hero 2 June 2016 06: 53
      +15
      If we had not entered the Crimea, today there would have been an Amer base in Sevastopol with all the pies.
      1. denvar555
        denvar555 2 June 2016 07: 54
        +2
        Of course I would. As the future stronghold of democracy. Ukrainians, however, the Crimea probably has long been sold for cookies to Amers.
      2. Idiot
        Idiot 4 June 2016 18: 08
        0
        Confirmation of US intentions to dig in, as they say, in full growth in the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol was revealed during a study of the American portal of public procurement and tenders, where, in fact, a tender was posted for the repair of Sevastopol secondary school No. 5. (N33191-13-R-1240)
        According to the Prime Minister of Crimea Sergei Aksenov, the school was supposed to be reconstructed for the engineering base of the US Navy. According to the information on the Federal Business Opportunity public procurement website, the tender was added on September 5, 2013 and canceled on April 15, 2014 "due to the current situation in Ukraine." Applications for participation in the tender were accepted until October 21, 2013. The US Navy Civil Engineering Command is listed as the customer in the tender. According to the information on the NAVFAC website, it is engaged in the design, construction and maintenance of facilities and the provision of infrastructure for various units of the US Navy. Among the required work, the tender documents list the repair of the roof, eight washrooms, a gym and changing rooms, RIA Novosti explains. The second tender is in the best traditions of the Pentagon's "image" programs, where the emphasis is on the humanitarian component in order to create a favorable impression of the American military presence on foreign territory. Many will easily remember how, after the total murders of the local population, smiling American invaders walk around orphanages and orphanages with gifts in order to take pictures with children whom the same Americans left orphans. The Pentagon did not seem to be going to bomb the Crimea, however, the Americans clearly intended to form a positive reputation in the eyes of citizens. This is indicated by order N33191-14-R-0601, according to which, "The work includes reconstruction in the prenatal and infectious diseases departments in the Republican Children's Hospital in Simferopol." "The estimated cost of construction is from $ 250000 and $ 500000. The contractor must complete all work within 360 calendar days after the conclusion of the contract" - said in the application dated December 12, 2013, which, however, was canceled on April 14, 2014 for the same reasons - " changing the situation. " Something like this...
      3. Idiot
        Idiot 4 June 2016 18: 08
        0
        "Confirmation of the US intentions to dig in, as they say, in full growth on the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol was revealed during the study of the American portal of public procurement and tenders, where, in fact, a tender was placed for the repair of Sevastopol secondary school No. 5. (N33191-13- R-1240)
        According to the Prime Minister of Crimea Sergei Aksenov, the school was supposed to be reconstructed for the engineering base of the US Navy. According to the information on the Federal Business Opportunity public procurement website, the tender was added on September 5, 2013 and canceled on April 15, 2014 "due to the current situation in Ukraine." Applications for participation in the tender were accepted until October 21, 2013. The US Navy Civil Engineering Command is listed as the customer in the tender. According to the information on the NAVFAC website, it is engaged in the design, construction and maintenance of facilities and the provision of infrastructure for various units of the US Navy. Among the required work, the tender documents list the repair of the roof, eight washrooms, a gym and changing rooms, RIA Novosti explains. The second tender is in the best traditions of the Pentagon's "image" programs, where the emphasis is on the humanitarian component in order to create a favorable impression of the American military presence on foreign territory. Many will easily remember how, after the total murders of the local population, smiling American invaders walk around orphanages and orphanages with gifts in order to take pictures with children whom the same Americans left orphans. The Pentagon did not seem to be going to bomb the Crimea, however, the Americans clearly intended to form a positive reputation in the eyes of citizens. This is indicated by order N33191-14-R-0601, according to which, "The work includes reconstruction in the neonatal and infectious diseases departments in the Republican Children's Hospital in Simferopol." "The estimated cost of construction is from $ 250000 and $ 500000. The contractor must complete all work within 360 calendar days after the conclusion of the contract" - said in the application dated December 12, 2013, which, however, was canceled on April 14, 2014 for the same reasons - " changing the situation. " Something like this...
    2. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 2 June 2016 06: 54
      +4
      Quote: Dmitry Potapov
      Can you imagine how NATE walked freely in the Black Sea if Crimea were not ours? And so, you see, it is more convenient to extinguish "Cookies" from the shore. Crimea is an outpost, a Russian outpost!

      they would lock us in the bay, and the boats would rot ... on time, they did everything on time.
  4. Shiva83483
    Shiva83483 2 June 2016 06: 51
    +3
    I don’t think my speech looks like a hat, however, these types of "military", no matter how airplanes fight head-on, the crews are dismissed by herds ... and this has not yet been an acute phase, ugh three times so as not to jinx it .. .Conclusion-from them the military, as from my causal place-bulk defender. And let everything stay in its place ..
  5. Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 2 June 2016 07: 11
    +19
    In general, I agree with the author of the article. From me + to both the article and the author. But with this provision:
    But we were already able to drag us into huge expenses for the reconstruction of the modern fleet.

    I was not so categorical. The fact is that at one time, liberal politicians, destroying the Soviet legacy, did everything possible and impossible in order to destroy the Russian Navy. Therefore, the reconstruction of the modern fleet for Russia is not only an answer to a new round of the arms race, it is not so much a forced as a necessary step. A country with huge sea borders cannot survive without a fleet.
    Someone like that, but for me such news only gives satisfaction from the growing power of the Navy.
    Already this year, the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy will replenish with a new submarine of project 636.3 Varshavyanka. Today (ie May 31, 2016) at the St. Petersburg shipyard "Admiralty Shipyards" a solemn launching of the diesel-electric submarine B-271 "Kolpino" took place, which became the sixth and final in a series of submarines intended for Black Sea Fleet.

    The Black Sea Fleet - 7 feet under the keel.
    1. denvar555
      denvar555 2 June 2016 07: 56
      +2
      The fact that the fleet is being updated and new ships and PA are coming into operation is definitely a buzz! Given our centuries-old feuds with the Turks at the World Cup, the position needs to be strengthened.
  6. denvar555
    denvar555 2 June 2016 07: 51
    +7
    The relationship with the NATO bloc, we should only be through the sight of a tank gun)
    Negotiations with an organization that was created to counter the Russian Federation need only from a position of strength and each extension should be adequately answered.
  7. Professor
    Professor 2 June 2016 07: 53
    -5
    They are trying to drag us into the arms race.

    The bourgeoisie say that Russia is pulling them in.

    "Bastions" with "Onyxes" will do just fine with this. And with a 100% guarantee.

    Yeah. It was easy on paper, but the ravines prevented it. A 100% guarantee exists only for one thing - we will all die. The probability of hitting a modern warship by a coastal complex is not 100%. By the way, the Black Sea is shot through and from the southern coast.

    Minus article from me. negative
    1. domokl
      domokl 2 June 2016 08: 11
      +6
      laughing Only two questions. What system can resist the Onyx missiles. And second, are there such missiles in service with Turkey and other NATO countries ...
      A modern warship, with all protection systems, has a huge minus; it does not fly at least at the speed of an airplane. So the target. And nobody will shoot one type of weapon at such a target. The complex, which will destroy the craft bully
      1. Professor
        Professor 2 June 2016 08: 57
        -5
        Quote: domokl
        What system can resist the Onyx missiles.

        For example EW, Cap.

        Quote: domokl
        And the second is whether there are similar missiles in service with Turkey and other NATO countries ...

        The bourgeois have no shortage of RCC.

        Quote: domokl
        The complex, which will destroy the craft

        It was easy on paper, but the ravines prevented it. Not everything is as simple as in video games and shelling helpless targets.
        1. domokl
          domokl 2 June 2016 09: 21
          +1
          Quote: Professor
          For example EW, Cap.

          Electronic warfare has no effect on the flight and guidance of the Onyx.
          Quote: Professor
          The bourgeois have no shortage of RCC.

          The anti-ship missiles of the bourgeoisie are capable of drowning everyone except for "Moscow". But, the main thing is not ship, but naval systems. Ground and airborne
          Quote: Professor
          It was easy on paper, but the ravines prevented it. Not everything is as simple as in video games and shelling helpless targets.

          buhaga .. From the series. this cannot be because this does not happen .. It happens smile
          1. Professor
            Professor 2 June 2016 09: 43
            -2
            Quote: domokl
            Electronic warfare has no effect on the flight and guidance of the Onyx.

            I thought so. It turns out they are induced by telepathy. And the radar on the missile set in vain. wink

            Quote: domokl
            The anti-ship missiles of the bourgeoisie are capable of drowning everyone except for "Moscow". But, the main thing is not ship, but naval systems. Ground and airborne

            During my service in the Navy I had to visit the cruiser "Slava". Somehow I didn’t notice that it was unsinkable.

            Quote: domokl
            buhaga .. From the series. this cannot be because this does not happen .. It happens

            The history of naval battles with missile weapons however ...
        2. Idiot
          Idiot 2 June 2016 11: 55
          +5
          To Professor (7) and everyone else from 1 to 6: Name the existing electronic warfare system that can really disrupt the Onyx anti-ship missile attack, any Russian anti-missile system approaching the target at a speed of 3M? Let's discuss. Next: For what purposes will the bourgeoisie shoot anti-ship missiles (for the most part, subsonic)? As far as I know, the Black Sea Fleet is not planning to fight "wall to wall", we have an understanding that this is the murder of the fleet's ship composition at the moment. Or will the bourgeois PKR sink pleasure boats? Further: there are no ravines in the sea area, and modern Russian coastal anti-ship complexes, no matter how unpleasant it would be to you to hear it, are effective precisely against the floating craft of a potential enemy. The drowning process will look strikingly similar to a video game. In the event that the bourgeois watercraft violates the rules of the video game.
        3. Idiot
          Idiot 2 June 2016 11: 55
          +2
          To Professor (7) and everyone else from 1 to 6: Name the existing electronic warfare system that can really disrupt the Onyx anti-ship missile attack, any Russian anti-missile system approaching the target at a speed of 3M? Let's discuss. Next: For what purposes will the bourgeoisie shoot anti-ship missiles (for the most part, subsonic)? As far as I know, the Black Sea Fleet is not planning to fight "wall to wall", we have an understanding that this is the murder of the fleet's ship composition at the moment. Or will the bourgeois PKR sink pleasure boats? Further: there are no ravines in the sea area, and modern Russian coastal anti-ship complexes, no matter how unpleasant it would be to you to hear it, are effective precisely against the floating craft of a potential enemy. The drowning process will look strikingly similar to a video game. In the event that the bourgeois watercraft violates the rules of the video game.
          1. D. Dan
            D. Dan 2 June 2016 19: 49
            0
            So be it.
        4. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 2 June 2016 14: 46
          +2
          Quote: Professor
          For example EW, Cap.

          Missiles are noise-immunity to electronic warfare and can certainly be aimed at the source of interference.
          Quote: Professor
          The bourgeois have no shortage of RCC.

          There are 8 Harpoons on Arly Berks, and not all of them, but the LRASM have not yet been adopted, and if they accept the UV-MK-41 not rubber, it will be necessary to reduce the number of anti-aircraft missiles.
          Quote: Professor
          It was easy on paper, but the ravines prevented it. Not everything is as simple as in video games and shelling helpless targets.

          The professor has launched 50+ Onyxes. Do you seriously believe that none of the 50+ will reach the goal?
          And there is also anti-ship aviation that will add.
          1. Professor
            Professor 2 June 2016 19: 47
            +2
            Quote: Lt. air force reserve
            Missiles are noise-immunity to electronic warfare and can certainly be aimed at the source of interference.

            That's it. The source of interference is the bait.


            Quote: Lt. air force reserve
            The professor has launched 50+ Onyxes. Do you seriously believe that none of the 50+ will reach the goal?

            That's exactly what I’m talking about. The likelihood is increasing. There are no guarantees. Not on either side.
      2. Leto
        Leto 2 June 2016 09: 29
        -5
        Quote: domokl
        What system can resist Onyx missiles

        Your favorite electronic warfare systems and other khibiny. Do you think "Onyx" without correction from external target designation is capable of withstanding induced interference? There it is enough to interfere with the radio altimeter and "Onyx" will either go into the sky with a candle or under water. The "Onyx" GOS is single-channel, radar, and therefore it will not be difficult to drown it out. Here NATO ships have plenty of means, active, passive, false targets.
        Quote: domokl
        And the second is whether there are similar missiles in service with Turkey and other NATO countries ...

        NATO countries in the Black Sea from RCC can have Harpoons, SLAMs, SOMs, Tomahawks and all different guidance systems, radar and optical. There is no lack, as they say ...
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 June 2016 09: 35
          +5
          Quote: Leto
          NATO countries in the Black Sea from RCC can have Harpoons, SLAMs, SOMs, Tomahawks and all different guidance systems, radar and optical. There is no lack, as they say ...

          Dear, there is one thing but ... in any scenario, the Crimean peninsula in the Russian Sea is the most armed and multipurpose "ship". So Harpoons, SLAMs, etc. are not at all in the cashier. If God forbid, something starts in the Black Sea, that's all that does not carry the Russian flag will be sent to the bottom from the coast of Crimea.
          1. Leto
            Leto 2 June 2016 09: 44
            -7
            Quote: NEXUS
            Dear, there is one thing ... in any scenario, the Crimean peninsula in the Russian Sea is the most armed and multipurpose "ship".

            Who argues. I just answered the question of a respondent who doubted the availability of anti-ship means from a probable enemy.
            Quote: NEXUS
            If God forbid, something begins in the Black Sea, everything that does not carry the Russian flag will be sent to the bottom from the coast of Crimea.

            How? Calibrohibins again?
            1. alexej123
              alexej123 2 June 2016 10: 10
              +1
              But why, not only, and not only the fleet. The enemy's naval base (Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria), I think, will also not be "ignored." The fact is that in this case, these countries will be the first to receive an "unacceptable level of losses", to receive the full.
              1. Leto
                Leto 2 June 2016 10: 22
                -5
                Quote: alexej123
                The enemy's naval base (Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria), I think, will also not be "ignored." The fact is that in this case, these countries will be the first to receive an "unacceptable level of losses", to receive the full.

                Is that enough for all the hats?
                1. alexej123
                  alexej123 2 June 2016 23: 00
                  0
                  At all - who? And whose hats? The data is publicly available - compare military potentials, especially aviation, missiles of different classes (except with special ammunition) with NATO countries, except for the United States. Because while they pull up, some will shove it off in full. And the entry of the United States will mean only one thing - an exchange of nuclear strikes. And separately compare the military potentials of Russia and Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria. If you know how to count, you will see that the hats, and not only enough. You have some kind of stupid sarcasm. Here is the "Professor", a competent, intelligent well .. enemy. From you only one slogan - "calibrohibins, enough hats?" You comment in a smart way.
        2. Idiot
          Idiot 2 June 2016 13: 32
          +5
          Leto: The 3M55 Onyx anti-ship missile system is equipped with an onboard two-channel active-passive radar with a complex broadband coherent signal with phase-code shift keying according to a random law both in the survey mode and in the target tracking mode. At an altitude of 15 km and a distance of 300 km to the target, the target is captured, after which the seeker is turned off and the anti-ship missile system is reduced to a height of 5-10 meters above sea level. Further, the flight of the anti-ship missile system takes place along the inertial guidance system in a passive mode. At such an altitude, the anti-aircraft missile defense of the enemy does not see, accordingly, it is not capable of countering. At a distance of 75 km to the target, the active mode of the seeker and anti-ship missiles (3 tons of metal and 250 kg of RDX) is switched on, approaching the target at a speed of 3500 km / h, while maneuvering rather than moving in a straight line. The flight altitude of the anti-ship missiles is still 5-10 meters and, as a rule, the anti-ship missiles do not attack alone. Targets are less than two minutes away to counter. How and with what? Your favorite electronic warfare, such as Aegis, are powerless in this situation. Your actions, admiral ...
        3. Idiot
          Idiot 2 June 2016 13: 32
          0
          Leto: The 3M55 Onyx anti-ship missile system is equipped with an onboard two-channel active-passive radar with a complex broadband coherent signal with phase-code shift keying according to a random law both in the survey mode and in the target tracking mode. At an altitude of 15 km and a distance of 300 km to the target, the target is captured, after which the seeker is turned off and the anti-ship missile system is reduced to a height of 5-10 meters above sea level. Further, the flight of the anti-ship missile system takes place along the inertial guidance system in a passive mode. At such an altitude, the anti-aircraft missile defense of the enemy does not see, accordingly, it is not capable of countering. At a distance of 75 km to the target, the active mode of the seeker and anti-ship missiles (3 tons of metal and 250 kg of RDX) is switched on, approaching the target at a speed of 3500 km / h, while maneuvering rather than moving in a straight line. The flight altitude of the anti-ship missiles is still 5-10 meters and, as a rule, the anti-ship missiles do not attack alone. Targets are less than two minutes away to counter. How and with what? Your favorite electronic warfare, such as Aegis, are powerless in this situation. Your actions, admiral ...
    2. adept666
      adept666 2 June 2016 10: 15
      +3
      The bourgeoisie say that Russia is pulling them in.
      They lie godlessly yes
      The probability of hitting a modern warship by a coastal complex is not 100%.
      For Onyx, subject to an extremely complex radar situation, approximately 60% (the head can select interference and radiation sources), for target ships starting from rank 2, the minimum number of salvos of BRK missiles is 2, so the probability of destruction (without taking into account the enemy’s anti-missile defense ) tends to 100%, taking into account missile defense (despite the fact that their own electronic warfare will also interfere with their work) will be in the region of 80-85%, which in general almost guarantees target defeat when firing in a volley of 2 missiles. Bastin - S is a ship UKSK ZS14U1 buried in a caponier, therefore there can be much more missiles in a salvo than 2 ... hi
      1. Leto
        Leto 2 June 2016 10: 36
        -2
        Quote: adept666
        For Onyx, subject to an extremely complex radar situation, approximately 60% (the head is able to select interference and radiation sources),

        Yeah, but how will she react to passive interference in the form of a cloud of dipole reflectors? Or for false targets equipped with Luneberg lenses?
        1. adept666
          adept666 2 June 2016 11: 41
          +4
          Yeah, but how will she react to passive interference in the form of a cloud of dipole reflectors? Or for false targets equipped with Luneberg lenses?
          Virtually nothing, Onyx has a combined guidance system: inertial, active (own radar), passive (for emission of interference and enemy radar + correction with signature masks). Onyx GOS is adaptive to jamming conditions, i.e. depending on the conditions, the digital computer changes the operating mode of the station and the passive interference listed by Onyx is practically not scary because it combines the information received from the passive and active operating mode of the station (dipoles and lenses do not emit themselves on the frequencies of ship radars). Even in the case of a powerful obstructive jamming (which suppresses the ship’s own missile defense systems), the GOS, based on the primary target designation and target telemetry data, will inertial output the product to the intended meeting point with it.
          1. Leto
            Leto 2 June 2016 12: 29
            -4
            Quote: adept666
            Almost nothing

            You are wrong. When setting passive jamming, a cloud of dipoles shield the attacked ship, preventing the EM radiation of the ship's radar in the direction of the anti-ship missile system, so that the Onyx seeker will see in front of itself a certain wall behind which the desired target is located somewhere. Purely theoretically, the probability of hitting a target is still there if the inertial system guesses. Again, it all depends on the weather, dipoles can be stupidly scattered by the wind, but in any case, one cannot speak of 100% or even 90% efficiency.
            In addition, there is the MK 234 Nulka, in which the launched containers hang in the air and emit a signal that mimics the signal of radar re-reflection from the ship, which takes the attacking rocket away from the target.
            1. adept666
              adept666 2 June 2016 12: 47
              +5
              Wrong.
              Not. Onyx GOS has a wide range of counteraction to such interference, especially in a salvo.
              he will see in front of himself a certain wall behind which the desired target is somewhere.
              Firstly, this wall is not so opaque do not exaggerate the possibility of dipoles (in order for it to become such dipoles you need to put a lot of them and you need to put them all the time), the ship is not an airplane and therefore in the mode when the rocket has already started to operate ARLSGS (the limit is set to 50 km) taking into account the speed under 3 MAX and the ship’s own speed and maneuvering capabilities starting from rank 2 (and for lesser purposes no one will naughty Onyxes) it’s practically pointless to set a dipole cloud, except for this, the ship will close the possibility of dipoles crush a missile with your own short-range missile defense systems and the last frontier of defense (and together they have a little more chance, as it were, than dipoles).
              In addition, there is the MK 234 Nulka, in which the launched containers hang in the air and emit a signal that mimics the signal of radar re-reflection from the ship, which takes the attacking rocket away from the target.
              The combined operation of the GOS (active-passive mode) + sophisticated methods of filtering and analyzing the telemetry of the target with accumulation allow you to confidently sift out such interference sources.
      2. Professor
        Professor 2 June 2016 11: 24
        -3
        Quote: adept666
        For Onyx, subject to an extremely complex radar situation, approximately 60% (the head can select interference and radiation sources), for target ships starting from rank 2, the minimum number of salvos of BRK missiles is 2, so the probability of destruction (without taking into account the enemy’s anti-missile defense ) strives for 100%,

        How do you think? If the probability of hitting one missile is 0.6 (60%), then two is ~ 1.0 (100%)?

        By the way, what kind of enemy electronic warfare systems did the developers take into account when deriving these numbers?
        Quote: Leto
        Yeah, but how will she react to passive interference in the form of a cloud of dipole reflectors? Or for false targets equipped with Luneberg lenses?

        What about "white noise"? I'm telling you, it's not as simple as in video games.
        1. adept666
          adept666 2 June 2016 12: 09
          +3
          How do you think? If the probability of hitting one missile is 0.6 (60%), then two is ~ 1.0 (100%)?
          No, I wrote it is approaching, but it isn’t (besides this, Onyx inherited from Granite the functionality of target data exchange between missiles in a salvo, i.e. missiles can receive correction from two or more spaced GOS, which increases the accuracy and noise immunity of a salvo and the probability of hitting the target with at least one missile from a salvo).
          By the way, what kind of enemy electronic warfare systems did the developers take into account when deriving these numbers?
          1: noise interference in the part of the band (counteraction: passive mode + active mode with a broadband coherent signal with phase-code manipulation according to a random law in the review / tracking modes + joint operation of GOS volley missiles) 2: noise obstruction (counteraction: missile launch ANN at the intended meeting point for the target based on the initial target telemetry data + passive interference guidance system if it coincides with the original target coordinates and has a similar coordinate offset calculated by the digital computer for the target (thus the source of interference is the target itself) + joint operation of the GOS volley missiles) 3: Interference leading away in range and angular coordinates (counteraction: combined of the above). 4: passive interference such as dipole clouds and corner reflectors (counteraction: combined of the above).
          What about "white noise"?
          Filters + items 1 and 2 listed above.
          1. Professor
            Professor 2 June 2016 13: 09
            -3
            Quote: adept666
            No, I wrote approaching, but not

            How do you think? If the probability of hitting one missile is 0.6 (60%)? How many two, three, ten? Are the events dependent?

            Quote: adept666
            1: noise interference in the part of the band (counteraction: passive mode + active mode with a broadband coherent signal with phase-code manipulation according to a random law in the review / tracking modes + joint operation of GOS volley missiles)

            Let's say.

            Quote: adept666
            2: noise obstruction (counteraction: launching the missile by ANN to the supposed meeting point for the target based on the initial telemetry data of the target + passive interference guidance system if it coincides with the original coordinates of the target and has a similar coordinate offset calculated by the digital computer for the target (thus the source interference goal) + joint work GOS missile salvo)

            This is called shoot in the fog and hope that the target is either stationary or moving at a known course.

            Quote: adept666
            3: Interference leading away in range and angular coordinates (counteraction: combined of the above).

            The same fog.

            Quote: adept666
            4: passive interference such as dipole clouds and corner reflectors (counteraction: combined of the above).

            What is it like? Whether or not the modulated signal is dipole reflectors is not important.

            Quote: adept666
            Filters + items 1 and 2 listed above.

            Will not work. It’s like trying to sing when the buzzer sounds. The horn will overlap both in spectrum and in power.
            1. adept666
              adept666 2 June 2016 13: 42
              +4
              How do you think? If the probability of hitting one missile is 0.6 (60%)? How many two, three, ten? Are the events dependent?
              I have already answered this question. I repeat, the more missiles in the salvo (even without the joint operation of the GOS missiles) the probability of hitting the target increases (because the salvo is not the simultaneous launch of missiles at the same time), if they work together, it tends to 100%.
              This is called shoot in the fog and hope that the target is either stationary or moving at a known course.
              Not. They will shoot Onyx only for large targets that have time limits for maneuvering, given the average speed on the Onyx trajectory in the combined high-altitude / low-altitude mode, its low own signature after turning on its own ARLGS (or it may not turn it on, working on radiation from the goal itself, for example) the ship will have about a minute to counteract, even taking into account the cruising speed of 12-14 knots, the ship (with a displacement of 2500 or more tons) simply will not be able to physically evade the RCC, but by putting a barrage in it it will deprive itself of the opportunity to use anti-ship missiles anti-missile defense. In addition, the GOS takes into development the very source of interference in an attempt to determine whether the interference belongs to the target.
              The same fog.
              Not. See above.
              What is it like? Whether or not the modulated signal is dipole reflectors is not important.
              Not. See above.
              Will not work. It’s like trying to sing when the buzzer sounds.
              Well, it’s probably not possible in your universe, only in our Earth it is almost impossible to get noise in a certain region of the frequency range, whose spectral density is always the same even under ideal conditions, so it all depends on the algorithms and sensitivity of the receiver. In addition, the GOS has a passive mode that covers a frequency range different from the active mode, working together + filtering can be more or less effectively counteracted, it all depends on specific conditions.
              1. Professor
                Professor 2 June 2016 13: 56
                -2
                Quote: adept666
                I have already answered this question.

                No, they did not answer. How do you think? If the probability of hitting one missile is 0.6 (60%)? How many two, three, ten? Are the events dependent?
                I'm simplifying the question. A salvo of 10 missiles. Each has a probability of hitting a target of 0.6. What is the probability of hitting the target with a volley. Name the number pliz, not "approaching". 2% is also "approaching" 100%, but very slowly. wink

                Quote: adept666
                Not. They will shoot Onyx only for large targets that have time limits for maneuvering, given the average speed on the Onyx trajectory in the combined high-altitude / low-altitude mode, its low own signature after turning on its own ARLGS (or it may not turn it on, working on radiation from the goal itself, for example) the ship will have about a minute to counteract, even taking into account the cruising speed of 12-14 knots, the ship (with a displacement of 2500 or more tons) simply will not be able to physically evade the RCC, but by putting a barrage in it it will deprive itself of the opportunity to use anti-ship missiles anti-missile defense. In addition, the GOS takes into development the very source of interference in an attempt to determine whether the interference belongs to the target.

                The ship’s radar will be detected by the anti-ship missile system long before it dives to a low altitude, and minutes for maneuver are quite enough + plus electronic warfare + plus interception. If you are lucky, the rocket will fall into the ship, if you are not lucky, you will not fall. There can be no talk of any guarantees. Are you sure that all Onyxes will reach the combat area? A couple will not fall along the road like their slow-moving brothers?

                Quote: adept666
                Well, it’s probably not possible in your universe, only in our Earth it is almost impossible to get noise in a certain region of the frequency range, whose spectral density is always the same even under ideal conditions, so it all depends on the algorithms and sensitivity of the receiver.

                In our universe, the whistle of a steamer steadily suppresses both Chaliapin and Madonna. And it doesn’t matter whether the spectral density is always the same or not. And the energy of a modern ship will be enough for such white noise that no algorithm will help. And no matter whose noise it is, Russian or bourgeois.

                Quote: adept666
                In addition, the GOS has a passive mode that covers a frequency range different from the active mode, working together + filtering can be more or less effectively counteracted, it all depends on specific conditions.

                Practice shows that where RW was used, anti-ship missiles went into milk.
                1. adept666
                  adept666 2 June 2016 14: 52
                  +1
                  I'm simplifying the question. Name the figure pliz, not "approaching"
                  Haha good. Then you have full conditions of use. Wind strength, direction, range to the target (full telemetry data), temperature, atmospheric pressure, latitude and longitude of the target and the attacker (full telemetry data), salvo pace, air humidity, magnetic disturbances, RTS composition with a detailed description of all technical characteristics according to the conditions of use (tables: RTS, weapons, etc.), the level of training of each crew member, his education, well-being (with a description of the state of each of his organs) and moral-volitional qualities at the time of the attack, the technical condition of each hardware up to microstructural deformations in the crystal lattice of the materials of which it consists. Without this, the probabilities of the outcome of the attack cannot be calculated most accurately.
                  Radar ship will notice RCC
                  And it all depends on what mode will be selected for the attack (it may be initially low altitude, then no one will see the rocket behind the radio horizon) - 1. If the radar of the ship sees it, which is also not so easy (Onyx is not Granite, it is a composite!) , then Onyx will also see the ship, therefore it is still unknown to anyone worse, at a long range it is not at all clear who Onyx is attacking, besides it may happen that he sees one missile (goes along the high-altitude profile with pre-reconnaissance), and below it under the screen her brothers are walking smile
                  and minutes for maneuver are enough + plus EW + plus interception
                  Minutes are not enough. This is not a fighter, and not even a helicopter. Do not dissemble prof. In addition, in reality it will be even less because not only the enemy but also the attacker will use electronic warfare, which will reduce the capabilities of the RTS of the defending side. What will be left in time if Onyx on NVD leaves the radio horizon at a distance of 20-30 km?
                  If you are lucky, the rocket will fall into the ship, if you are not lucky, you will not fall. There can be no talk of any guarantees.
                  No, it will be very lucky for the ship if it does not fall, and so for the ship I agree no guarantees smile
                  Are you sure that all Onyxes will reach the combat area? A couple will not fall along the road like their slow-moving brothers?
                  We are responsible for the quality)
                  In our universe, the whistle of a steamer steadily suppresses both Chaliapin and Madonna.
                  It just speaks of the imperfection of your senses and brain filtering methods. laughing
                  And the energy of a modern ship will be enough for such a white noise that no algorithm will help.
                  So not only one algorithm is the same wink White noise will drown out not only the enemy RCC, but also the RTS of the ship itself and other warrant ships.
                  Practice shows
                  And this is all because export modifications of missiles were used as a rule.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 2 June 2016 20: 00
                    -1
                    Quote: adept666
                    Then you have full conditions of use.

                    Already given: A salvo of 10 missiles. Each probability of hitting the target is 0.6 (all the parameters you listed are already hammered into this probability). What is the probability of a volley hitting a target?

                    Quote: adept666
                    And it all depends on which mode will be chosen for the attack (it can be initially low altitude, then no one will see the rocket behind the radio horizon) -

                    Then the rocket will not see anything.

                    Quote: adept666
                    No, it will be very lucky for the ship if it does not fall, and so for the ship I agree no guarantees

                    I immediately recall a couple of three applications of anti-ship missiles: near Latakia, on the raid of Beirut, near Georgia. RCC was somehow unlucky, but on paper, the ships didn’t have a chance. wink

                    Quote: adept666
                    Minutes are not enough. This is not a fighter, and not even a helicopter. Do not dissemble prof.

                    left aboard and the rocket passed by its inertial.


                    Quote: adept666
                    We are responsible for the quality)

                    I believe. yes

                    Quote: adept666
                    It just speaks of the imperfection of your senses and brain filtering methods.

                    This speaks of two courses on signal processing at the world's leading technical university and a dissertation on a related topic.

                    Quote: adept666
                    White noise will drown out not only the enemy RCC, but also the RTS of the ship itself and other warrant ships.

                    If you want to live, you will not be so heated. wassat

                    Quote: adept666
                    And this is all because export modifications of missiles were used as a rule.

                    Of course, the shells were of the wrong system. hi
                    1. adept666
                      adept666 2 June 2016 21: 17
                      +1
                      Already given: A salvo of 10 missiles. Each probability of hitting the target is 0.6 (all the parameters you listed are already hammered into this probability). What is the probability of a volley hitting a target?
                      No, I didn’t, because there is a volley of volley. The probabilities for such complexes are calculated on the basis of application statistics in real / close to real / training / test conditions, as well as as a result of modeling the conditions of use / reaction of both individual parts of the rocket and the complex as a whole. It’s a probability and the probability that in one case it will give 100% result, in another 100% miss. As for the use of a volley of such missiles from 2 or more, an analysis of possible outcomes, taking into account the accumulation of statistics for ships of different classes and saturation with countermeasures, ranges from 80-85% (again, average booklet data). I will not grind this question anymore.
                      Then the rocket will not see anything.
                      And she in this mode and does not need to see anything, she goes to the meeting point with the goal of the ANN. In addition, it can receive a military command center from another missile at the upper echelon or from another target designation system, having reached the attack line at a distance of 20-25 km, it will turn on its own seeker and goodbye, or maybe make a hill for 40 km from the target with short-term operation of the seeker for adjustment.
                      I immediately recall a couple of three applications of anti-ship missiles: near Latakia, on the raid of Beirut, near Georgia
                      I don’t know about Beirut and Latakia (who and what worked there?), But about Georgia, if you are talking about the 2008 conflict about the famous naval battle, then using an obsolete missile for a fast-moving target (for which it can technically work quite conditionally) is not an indicator .
                      left aboard and the rocket passed by its inertial.
                      Just like Chapai laughing The time from detecting a rocket to the realization that it is a rocket and that it’s you who’s target is not a few milliseconds - time, and then you need to somehow understand which way to steer laughing In general, theoretically, this is certainly possible, but in reality, alas, there will be a big boom)
                      This speaks of two courses on signal processing at the world's leading technical university and a dissertation on a related topic.
                      Well, let white noise be impenetrable in your universe (don't insist laughing ).
                      You want to live
                      Will not help. Etanders will come trite and throw pebbles laughing
                      Of course, the shells were of the wrong system.
                      Yes sir! Export modifications of missile weapons always have underestimated characteristics and a decrease in noise immunity is one of the most popular ways in this business.
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 3 June 2016 10: 09
                        -1
                        Quote: adept666
                        I will not grind this question anymore.

                        And rightly so. If the probability of an event is 0.6 and such events are 2, 4, 10 ... and the events are independent, then a simple theory of probability enters into battle. Second semester of the first year.

                        Count and be surprised how the full probability of the event is far from 100%.
                        http://www.matburo.ru/tv_spr_sub.php?p=1

                        Quote: adept666
                        I don’t know about Beirut and Latakia (who and what worked there?), But about Georgia, if you are talking about the 2008 conflict about the famous naval battle, then using an obsolete missile for a fast-moving target (for which it can technically work quite conditionally) is not an indicator .

                        And what is the indicator?

                        Naval battle at Latakia

                        ISRAELI CORVETTE "HANIT"

                        The Black Sea Fleet in the Five Day War
                      2. adept666
                        adept666 4 June 2016 07: 56
                        +1
                        And rightly so. If the probability of an event is 0.6 and such events are 2, 4, 10 ... and the events are independent, then a simple theory of probability enters into battle. Second semester of the first year.
                        Of course, it is right because you proposed to consider stupidity, which you actually confirmed above with the quoted statement.
                        Count and be surprised how the full probability of the event is far from 100%.
                        Those. this
                        I have already answered this question. I repeat, the more missiles in the salvo (even without the joint operation of the GOS missiles) probability of hitting a target increases(because a volley is not a simultaneous launch at a time), if they work jointlythen strives for 100%.
                        prof. you kindly missed your highly sensitive senses. I explain it quite simply, if the missiles in the salvo fly at one target, but each operates independently, then substitute the numbers in your formula and consider it to health (and it still increases as I wrote) + situational conditions (60% under the most unfavorable layouts for the attacker (the enemy uses the entire nomenclature of known EW tools), which are far from always), and since we talked about the probability of tending to 100%, then the keyword is combined (it is highlighted in the quote), i.e. . the missiles in the salvo operate in a single information field and the entire salvo is already a single object with its own performance characteristics, which are significantly different from the performance characteristics of a single missile, so why is it likely that it has its own so I understand the cap? wink
                        And what is the indicator?
                        The combat use of non-exporting modern missiles isn't that obvious? request
                        Naval battle at Latakia
                        Yeah, which was required to prove, on the one hand, firing large anti-ship missiles at targets for which they are not intended (the termite head cruiser captures and brings the missile to its side with a probability of 0,7-0,8) + export missiles + the practical lack of noise immunity as a complex measures on similar weapons at that point in time.
                        ISRAELI CORVETTE "HANIT"
                        A direct hit of a not the most modern and smartest missile manufactured by a country that does not differ in the pursuit of the quality of its products in a fancy RTS ship. Prof. this is my argument, not yours laughing
                        The Black Sea Fleet in the Five Day War
                        Malachite shooting on boats is an indicator, if so, an indicator of what?
                      3. Professor
                        Professor 4 June 2016 10: 43
                        -1
                        Quote: adept666
                        Of course, it is right because you proposed to consider stupidity, which you actually confirmed above with the quoted statement.

                        The laws of physics and mathematics are also valid in wartime.

                        Quote: adept666
                        and since we were talking about probability tending to 100%, then here the keyword is together (it is highlighted in the quote),

                        Okay. Let's end with this. Only then do not be surprised how, with probability, a missile tending to 100% missed, and one more, and another.

                        Quote: adept666
                        The combat use of non-exporting modern missiles isn't that obvious?

                        Convinced. Sound pliz TTX domestic sample and its export counterpart.

                        Quote: adept666
                        Yeah, which was required to prove

                        That's it. With a probability of hitting 0.7-0.8, not a single missile hit the target. But everything was simple on paper.

                        Quote: adept666
                        A direct hit of a not the most modern and smartest missile manufactured by a country that does not differ in the pursuit of the quality of its products in a fancy RTS ship. Prof. this is my argument, not yours

                        A "direct" hit on the sleeping ship (stationary target) and the second missile did not hit at all. But on paper it was simple.

                        Quote: adept666
                        Malachite shooting on boats is an indicator, if so, an indicator of what?

                        An indicator of how the boats "sunk by Malachite" suddenly found themselves sunk by paratroopers at the port wall. But on paper it was simple.
                      4. adept666
                        adept666 4 June 2016 11: 31
                        +1
                        The laws of physics and mathematics are also valid in wartime.
                        Of course, and this does not contradict what I said.
                        Okay. Let's end with this. Only then do not be surprised how, with probability, a missile tending to 100% missed, and one more, and another.
                        Ok cap i won't smile
                        Sound pliz TTX domestic sample and its export counterpart.
                        Well, prof ... You understand that I’m not my own enemy, well, like that, on a voyage of Yakhont, the warhead weight is 200 kg, Onyx is 300 kg, and Onyx’s range on all types of paths is greater, better noise immunity (how can I compare it correct?), on Yakhont there are no complexes for exchanging telecode information, another GOS operation algorithm
                        That's it. With a probability of hitting 0.7-0.8, not a single missile hit the target. But everything was simple on paper.
                        They didn’t shoot at the cruiser wink Prof well, what kind of kindergarten?
                        A "direct" hit on the sleeping ship (stationary target) and the second missile did not hit at all. But on paper it was simple.
                        What was there simply on paper from a Chinese clone of an export French rocket, I do not know alas))) But specifically from the episode. Even if they fired at a standing ship (which you can believe), it is unlikely that this ship was sleeping in the combat area (well, it's just some kind of absurdity), even if the enemy did not have a fleet and was not supposed to that there is such a complex of weapons, I will never believe that the Jews just put the ship 16 km from the coast and sat just fishing, drowning out all the RTS. As for the doublet firing, it’s exactly HANIT that I completely admit, but one missile hit exactly two of the two, the other also hit, but the other ship, which just seemed to go very close to the main target and given the incompleteness of the Chinese GOS clones in the missile’s brain, merged together with a goal marker for which I received unfortunately. But whatever you say, 2 rockets - 2 hits from a clone of an export exoset seem to hint ...
                        An indicator of how the boats "sunk by Malachite" suddenly found themselves sunk by paratroopers at the port wall. But on paper it was simple.
                        One target was sunk by malachite (according to unconfirmed information, the second missile self-destructed after a failure of the attack, according to another version both missiles hit the target), the second was destroyed by two OSA air defense missiles (which is normal practice of the Navy when shooting at high-speed small-sized targets). It’s stupid to shoot malachite at boats, it’s not suitable for such classes of targets, it’s a heavy missile for a completely different class of ships. Nevertheless, he worked well, taking into account when it was developed and the shelf life of specific products. Do not listen or read myths.
                      5. Professor
                        Professor 4 June 2016 11: 55
                        -1
                        Quote: adept666
                        Well, prof ... You understand that I’m not an enemy to myself, well, just like that

                        I don’t understand why then they buy weapons from you if, to put it mildly, not very much. wink

                        Quote: adept666
                        So they didn’t shoot at the cruiser Prof well, what kind of kindergarten?

                        None hit. Zero points, zero tenths. Either you have export missiles, or the target is "not a cruiser." Maybe it's all about the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles?

                        Quote: adept666
                        then this ship is unlikely to be sleeping in the war zone (well, it's just some kind of absurdity)

                        I'll tell you more. The crew gathered at the festive table to meet Saturday together. I posted the link to you.

                        Quote: adept666
                        As for the doublet firing, it’s exactly HANIT that I completely admit, but one missile hit exactly two of the two, the other also hit, but the other ship, which just seemed to go very close to the main target and given the incompleteness of the Chinese GOS clones in the missile’s brain, merged together with a goal marker for which I received unfortunately.

                        "right on target" I would not say, and the second steamer did not pass by at all - the blockade was however.

                        Quote: adept666
                        Nevertheless, he worked well, taking into account when it was developed and the shelf life of specific products. Do not listen or read myths.

                        "Good" is when for a real target with countermeasures in the form of electronic warfare, decoys, curtains and artillery. But even in such ideal conditions, the probability (and here the effectiveness) is far from 100%. hi
                      6. adept666
                        adept666 4 June 2016 12: 49
                        +1
                        I don’t understand why then they buy weapons from you if, to put it mildly, not very much. wink
                        And here everything is simple, in comparison with other export samples it’s even quite quite wink
                        None hit. Zero points, zero tenths. Either you have export missiles, or the target is "not a cruiser." Maybe it's all about the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles?
                        Of course, as Mamalyga says, it is possible to hammer nails with a microscope, but you can use it for its intended purpose, so the stars came together: an export rocket of shaggy years of development + a non-interference-proof GOS (from the word at all) + an inappropriate class of targets (the rocket is designed to destroy larger ships of the type Eilat, well, you are in the know) Therefore, judging the effectiveness of RCC by a specific example is stupid and you know it very well how did the leading university graduate wink
                        I'll tell you more. The crew gathered at the festive table to meet Saturday together
                        Well, the hit was laughing , but how would it turn around if yes, if you can guess for a long time on the coffee grounds. Now, if for such a goal they wouldn’t have hit right then, okay. What are you trying to prove to me with this example? laughing
                        "right on target" I would not say, and the second steamer did not pass by at all - the blockade was however.
                        Well, let it be not exactly on target, but not the most outstanding missile hit it. Not quite close is how much?
                        "Good" is when for a real target with countermeasures in the form of electronic warfare, decoys, curtains and artillery. But even in such ideal conditions, the probability (and here the effectiveness) is far from 100%.
                        Well, such missiles are not adapted for firing at high-speed, small-sized targets, she has a high-explosive warhead of 800 kg, and with special equipment it’s generally an achtung. The USSR did not consider boats as a threat, he made them himself and armed them with heavy weapons against large NATO ships and it’s not Malachite’s problem that the Georgians didn’t use all of the above; An old rocket not adapted to work on a specific category of targets at the line of use strikes a target. Do you think this is a bad result? What was interesting that the poor fellow malachite should have done so that the result of the shooting was considered good? - Stop, take a selfie against the background of the target, write a trolling professor’s comment on VO, then throw the glove into the wheelhouse and slowly start to hit it with expansion?
                      7. Professor
                        Professor 4 June 2016 12: 56
                        -1
                        Quote: adept666
                        shaggy export rocket

                        Excuse me, of course, but it all sounds like an excuse. None of the modern rockets at that time hit the target.

                        Quote: adept666
                        Well, the hit was

                        ... but not direct.

                        Quote: adept666
                        What are you trying to prove to me with this example?

                        RCC capabilities are clearly exaggerated. Even here, when hit, the target was not achieved - the blockade was not lifted.

                        Quote: adept666
                        Not quite close is how much?

                        EMNIP a couple of tens of miles.

                        Quote: adept666
                        An old rocket not adapted to work on a specific category of targets strikes a target. Do you consider this a bad result?

                        Either your missile is not adapted, then the performance characteristics are underestimated, then the target is not suitable. Again, it smells of excuse. And the most interesting, but about which approaching 100% of the speech is out of the question.
                        It was a pleasure to talk with you. All the best to you. hi
                      8. adept666
                        adept666 4 June 2016 15: 01
                        +1
                        Excuse me, of course, but it all sounds like an excuse. None of the modern rockets at that time hit the target.
                        No excuses what are you talking about? This is harsh truth, termite - this is essentially the first steps of this type of weaponry, as if squealing the same did not differ either in rate of fire, or in slaughter, or in accuracy, although they were already proudly called firearms, but cuirasses had not yet been pierced. Will you wear a cuirass against SVD? smile
                        ... but not direct.
                        It may be difficult to understand the nature of the damage from the photo, but the gap in the stern area is visible, it does not look like tangent or fragmentation.
                        RCC capabilities are clearly exaggerated. Even here, when hit, the target was not achieved - the blockade was not lifted.
                        It's funny ... how interesting it is that several salvos of not the best RCCs could solve a similar problem, which is solved by a whole complex of measures and obviously not by such quantity and not such quality of products? Prof. leading university of a certain country exactly in your standings? In my opinion you do not quite understand what you are writing about.
                        EMNIP a couple of tens of miles.
                        Those. you don’t know exactly?
                        Either your missile is not adapted, then the performance characteristics are underestimated, then the target is not suitable. Again, it smells of excuse.
                        If this is an objective reality, why did it suddenly become an excuse? If the pistol does not penetrate the tank, then this turns out to be a worthless class of weapons? laughing
                        And the most interesting, but about which approaching 100% of the speech is out of the question.
                        So of course I wrote personally about Onyx (where was it used in real conditions?), And not about other anti-ship missiles.
                        It was a pleasure to talk with you. All the best to you.
                        Similarly hi
                      9. Idiot
                        Idiot 4 June 2016 18: 48
                        0
                        It was nice to watch the dialogue between the Professor (7) and adept666. Honestly, when the Professor rolled out a three-story formula, I realized how insignificant I am. But, in my opinion, in this dispute, the battlefield remained for adept666. In general, I noticed that when the Professor meets a competent opponent, he slowly merges. We must pay tribute, does it with dignity, without rudeness. Professional, however ...
  • Idiot
    Idiot 2 June 2016 11: 40
    +5
    Professor (7), as always introducing some semblance of a different opinion, like the rest of the professors from 1 to 6: "the bourgeois say that it is Russia that is drawing them in." Facts in the studio! You love to nail your opponent to the infamous wall so much. Give an example of Russia's aggressive intentions towards the West. Let's discuss. Further: "The probability of destruction of a modern warship is not 100%." Bravo! It is better not to meet with you in court. We will agree on 99%, perhaps a lower percentage of the probability of hitting a ship, but will you argue that a modern Russian anti-ship missile system is guaranteed not to destroy (no matter what the percentage of the probability of defeat) any modern NATO warship, provided it is within the range of the coastal complex , in the case of a target lock and missile launch? Next: what targets are you going to shoot through from the southern coast (the northern coast of Turkey)? Minus you from me.
    1. Professor
      Professor 2 June 2016 13: 00
      -1
      Quote: pft, fkb
      Facts to the studio!

      Which country specific statement brings you? Maybe just NATO?

      Quote: pft, fkb
      but will you argue that modern Russian anti-ship missiles are guaranteed not to destroy

      I will not.

      Quote: pft, fkb
      t? Further: what targets are you going to shoot right through from the southern coast (the northern coast of Turkey)?

      I'm not going to shoot any targets.

      Quote: pft, fkb
      Less to you from me.

      And I give you a "plus" once it's important for you.
  • Idiot
    Idiot 2 June 2016 11: 40
    0
    Professor (7), as always introducing some semblance of a different opinion, like the rest of the professors from 1 to 6: "the bourgeois say that it is Russia that is drawing them in." Facts in the studio! You love to nail your opponent to the infamous wall so much. Give an example of Russia's aggressive intentions towards the West. Let's discuss. Further: "The probability of destruction of a modern warship is not 100%." Bravo! It is better not to meet with you in court. We will agree on 99%, perhaps a lower percentage of the probability of hitting a ship, but will you argue that a modern Russian anti-ship missile system is guaranteed not to destroy (no matter what the percentage of the probability of defeat) any modern NATO warship, provided it is within the range of the coastal complex , in the case of a target lock and missile launch? Next: what targets are you going to shoot through from the southern coast (the northern coast of Turkey)? Minus you from me.
  • ydjin
    ydjin 2 June 2016 13: 58
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: domokl
    What system can resist the Onyx missiles.

    For example EW, Cap.

    Quote: domokl
    And the second is whether there are similar missiles in service with Turkey and other NATO countries ...

    The bourgeois have no shortage of RCC.

    Quote: domokl
    The complex, which will destroy the craft

    It was easy on paper, but the ravines prevented it. Not everything is as simple as in video games and shelling helpless targets.

    Well, the professor will not be himself unless he says: Baba Yaga is against it! laughing
  • Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 2 June 2016 14: 43
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    The bourgeoisie say that Russia is pulling them in.

    I wonder what? This is the United States actively developing missile defense, lasers, railguns, etc. etc.
    Quote: Professor
    Yeah. It was easy on paper, but the ravines prevented it. A 100% guarantee exists only for one thing - we will all die.

    The professor has the number of missiles, there are several complexes of the bastion, 1 complex of 24 Onyx, so consider it.
    1. cumastra1
      cumastra1 2 June 2016 15: 34
      0
      In a natural conflict, the calculation must be done primarily on nuclear weapons. Onyxes, calibers - this is a good thing, but you need to keep meat snacks in the house. And fewer are more reliable than a dozen kilotons to destroy an enemy flotilla.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 2 June 2016 17: 18
        +2
        Quote: cumastra1
        In a natural conflict, the calculation must be done primarily on nuclear weapons. Onyxes, calibers - this is a good thing, but you need to keep meat snacks in the house. And fewer are more reliable than a dozen kilotons to destroy an enemy flotilla.

        1. Makarov
          Makarov 2 June 2016 19: 56
          +1
          Hmm ... the targets literally evaporated ...
  • Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 2 June 2016 07: 59
    +1
    the upcoming exercises of the Black Sea Fleet do not give them peace ....... again hysteria about the Aggressors.
  • Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik 2 June 2016 08: 14
    +1
    certainly the fleet needs to be restored and modernized, but within reasonable limits! but we must forget the USSR from the collapse did not save a powerful fleet soldier
  • Volzhanin
    Volzhanin 2 June 2016 08: 27
    +3
    Ships are good, of course, but a thousand hypersonic missiles are better! And cheaper.
    1. domokl
      domokl 2 June 2016 09: 23
      +3
      Every vegetable has its own fruit. All sorts of mothers are needed, all sorts of mothers are important. And rockets and ships. Just do not tear the veins, but plan to upgrade. And do not follow the path of quantitative increase.
  • AKsvlad047
    AKsvlad047 2 June 2016 08: 30
    +1
    Our Black Sea and there is nothing to do in it flotillas of either NATO or anyone else, but we do not deploy missile defense systems in Cuba or Venezuela against a possible threat from Mexico !!!!
    1. Essex62
      Essex62 2 June 2016 09: 10
      0
      And in vain, the trump card would not have been killed. The Cubans will disagree now, their maize has already thrown once ....... they say we’ll start, we’ll smash yao across the USSR. Fuck, they would decide, the gut is thin. And then, when Leonid Ilyich proposed to repeat, in an even more serious version, Fidel refused.
  • Samarin
    Samarin 2 June 2016 08: 35
    -4
    the forces of the Black Sea Fleet need only a few minutes. "Bastions" with "Onyxes" will do just fine with this.

    And they are there, "Bastions" with "Onyxes"?
    1. Essex62
      Essex62 2 June 2016 09: 15
      +4
      The Crimean defense group is now one of the most powerful in the RF Armed Forces, do not hesitate.
      1. grandson of the hero
        grandson of the hero 2 June 2016 10: 55
        +2
        I know a little and have no doubts. Our "friends" and their singers of different calibers know this. Here is piss with boiling water on this resource as well.
        What is very touching yet with what zeal they are trying to provoke the issuance of information "not for everyone."
        I propose to organize a section - "noodles for friends". Talk about Buryat armored divisions, aircraft carriers off the coast of Belarus and nuclear pistols.
    2. domokl
      domokl 2 June 2016 09: 25
      +1
      Quote: Samarin
      And they are there, "Bastions" with "Onyxes"?

      bully And who knows them ... Ie. those who need to know ...
      By the way, I agree with Samarin. To the point of comment
    3. adept666
      adept666 2 June 2016 16: 12
      +1
      And they are there, "Bastions" with "Onyxes"?
      Where from? Downstairs in the video, Chinese firecrackers are shot and shot as Bastion ...
      1. Samarin
        Samarin 4 June 2016 07: 59
        +1
        Well, one was launched and that one.
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 2 June 2016 08: 53
    0
    Why are you so eager to fight ...
    There will be no war; nobody needs it.
    More precisely, we need it, but everyone will have sacrifices and considerable sacrifices.
    Because they will poke slowly from all sides, with the wrong hands.
    1. domokl
      domokl 2 June 2016 09: 27
      +2
      Quote: Zomanus
      Because they will poke slowly from all sides, with the wrong hands.

      And in the war of nuclear powers will be the wrong hands? We just wait. But for some reason, NATO is already around, as a pack of stray dogs gathered ... Suggest not to resist?
  • Leto
    Leto 2 June 2016 09: 09
    -5
    According to experts in the field of the Navy, any grouping of ships in the Black Sea can be destroyed by means already located in the Crimea in a matter of minutes.

    And what kind of specialists are these? Ranks, positions?
    And the "vastness" of the Black Sea does not allow having a large number of serious ships there. Maximum 12-15 frigates.

    The area of ​​the Black Sea is 422 thousand km2, according to experts, this is a maximum of 15 frigates, in this case, should it be similar in the Baltic? Germany alone has 15 frigates. In short, what kind of nonsense?
    1. domokl
      domokl 2 June 2016 09: 30
      +2
      laughing Specially re-read the article ..
      Quote: Leto
      according to experts, this is a maximum of 15 frigates,

      Where do the lines come from? Or, then there’s a hundred grams, then there’s a hundred grams, then you’re in the morning? And the experts ... Read and find laughing Now the topic of the Navy is popular. And the sea of ​​comments ... Including from respected admirals
      1. Leto
        Leto 2 June 2016 09: 37
        -4
        Quote: domokl
        Where are the lines from?

        From the article. Know how to use the search?
        According to experts in the field of the Navy, any grouping of ships in the Black Sea can be destroyed by means already located in the Crimea in a matter of minutes. Even without the help of the given forces and means. And the “immensity” of the Black Sea does not allow having a large number of serious ships there. Maximum of 12-15 frigates.

        Found?
    2. Idiot
      Idiot 4 June 2016 19: 03
      -1
      Quote: Leto
      And what kind of specialists are these? Ranks, positions?


      Polite naval people.

      Quote: Leto
      The area of ​​the Black Sea is 422 thousand km2,


      To Turkish territorial waters less than 10 minutes fly a three-ton disc with 250 kg. RDX. In other areas, even less. What kind of NATO strategy in this area can we talk about? The Black Sea Fleet will not be measured with their letters ...
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 2 June 2016 09: 18
    +1
    After a long downtime of the Black Sea Fleet, in connection with agreements with Ukraine (when Crimea was still Ukrainian), now we have to update and re-equip the Black Sea Fleet in emergency mode, which is what happens. There is a saturation of submarines, corvettes and different classes of RTOs. At the same time, do not forget about that the Crimean peninsula is also equipped with new complexes and systems, aerodromes are being built, and the aviation group is being strengthened. But the Black Sea Fleet update is only at the beginning of the journey. The Admiral series of frigates must be completed according to the construction plan and transferred to the fleet as soon as possible. At the same time, the Kalina submarine project needs to be completed as soon as possible transfer from the drawings to the shipyard.
    1. domokl
      domokl 2 June 2016 09: 32
      -1
      Quote: NEXUS
      . At the same time, the Kalina submarine project must be transferred from the drawings to the shipyard as soon as possible.

      will not work ... "Kalina" without VNEU is almost no different from Varshavyanka ... The point is to build much more expensive boats of the same generation. "Rubin" has not yet coped with the order for VNEU
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 2 June 2016 11: 30
        +2
        Quote: domokl
        will not work ... "Kalina" without VNEU almost does not differ from Varshavyanka ...

        Is this a fright? Do you know something specific about the Kalina project?
    2. Leto
      Leto 2 June 2016 09: 33
      -3
      Quote: NEXUS
      At the same time, we do not forget that the Crimean peninsula is also equipped with new complexes and systems, airfields are being built, and the aviation group is being strengthened.

      Aviation is not enough, with anti-submarine aircraft in general, seams, anti-mine weapons at the "primitive" level. So do not flatter yourself.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 2 June 2016 11: 32
        +3
        Quote: Leto
        Aviation is not enough, with anti-submarine aircraft in general, seams, anti-mine weapons at the "primitive" level. So do not flatter yourself.

        There is such a thing as re-equipment and renewal. Time has not passed much since the annexation of Crimea.
        1. Leto
          Leto 2 June 2016 12: 51
          -4
          Quote: NEXUS
          Little time has passed since the annexation of Crimea.

          And here it doesn't matter. It would be important when it would be something to fill the "voids", but these "voids" in all fleets.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 2 June 2016 14: 55
            +2
            Quote: Leto
            And here it doesn't matter. It would be important when it would be something to fill the "voids", but these "voids" in all fleets.

            Do you, dear, reliably know what is in the Crimea and what is not? The General Staff reports to you? From the moment of the annexation of the Crimea, the peninsula immediately began to be saturated with coastal complexes, electronic warfare systems, an aviation component, and God knows what else. in comparison with what is on this "ship" in fact. So do not let bubbles.
            The one who owns the Crimea, he is the master of the Russian Sea, and this is recognized not only by our military, but also by the West.
  • Bramb
    Bramb 2 June 2016 10: 10
    +2
    We need to understand the word "enough" today. Not to "tear the veins" of the last forces at the expense of worsening the life of the people, but to build new ships on a planned basis, create new weapons, equip equipment with new missiles. But planned!
    -------------
    I agree.
    But there is one small, but rather big "but"!
    Veins are tearing now not so much the army and navy as our liberals, who are seated in the highest financial and state apparatuses. We have more than 3 trillion (!!!) rubles, free for the development of production. We do not need western loans! We have enough of our money. But first we buy American paper for $ 10 billion, then freeze our rubles. Kudrin will confirm. And 5 billion was allocated for the development of the entire agricultural economy of the country. This is chickens to laugh!
    One was arrested yesterday. But there are many more around us.
    That's where the main enemy is hiding !!!
    1. Essex62
      Essex62 2 June 2016 10: 38
      +3
      The Russian people have not reached the point where there is a clear understanding that it is necessary to stomp on the elections, and then stand up to those who consider the result. So liberal vampires frolic, pouring water on the mill of the Masons. Our indifference costs us dearly.
  • Berkut24
    Berkut24 2 June 2016 10: 17
    +4
    In Soviet times, NATO did not crawl into the Black Sea for one reason: In the event of hostilities, everything that appeared on this side of the Bosphorus no longer has a chance of survival. Even in Soviet times, the World Cup shot through and across. Now it’s only along, but much further - up to the coast of North Africa.
    Over the years, nothing has changed. The World Cup is not the area where you can maneuver. here everything is choking on electronic warfare. Coastal missile systems reach anywhere, aviation, even without a naval grouping, will easily clean up the entire coastal infrastructure.
    Landing on the coast of Russia is futile. It only makes sense to hit cruise missiles. So 2-3 carriers of tomahawks for NATO will make sense, but it makes no sense to keep a serious connection at the range of a direct shot for the most peace-loving bloc. In the NATO World Cup, there’s simply nowhere to wait for help - this is the most natural bag.
  • Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 2 June 2016 11: 28
    +1
    I looked at the photo for the article, yes, I was impressed, but not frightened! Probably our generation is used to the fact that the USSR, and now Russia, can not only give a worthy, but also a guaranteed rebuff. European politicians amuse themselves with hopes for the might of the United States and NATO, while forgetting, if not to say, "erasing" the historical memory of their citizens, about the lessons and results of Russian campaigns in Europe.
  • MATROSKIN-53
    MATROSKIN-53 2 June 2016 11: 52
    0
    In the Black Sea there is already so much wood from Turkish ships !!! ... And now they’ll give a lift to scrap.
    The sea is not enough for the drowned. But if there is a desire, let them go ... Russia is a generous soul! Forgot foreign stupidity about the soul of a Russian sailor ?! So recall. We are not greedy.
  • aleks.29ru
    aleks.29ru 2 June 2016 12: 51
    0
    Turks once again shake the straits. Can attach them to the Crimea ..?
  • Idiot
    Idiot 2 June 2016 13: 11
    +2
    To Professor (7) and everyone else from 1 to 6: PBRK "Bastion" armed with anti-ship missiles 3M55 "Onyx". Knowing how infuriated you are by the phrase "unparalleled", I declare: this product has no analogues in the world in terms of efficiency, including constructive. The twilight Russian genius: invented a mortar start, placed a solid-propellant upper stage in the combustion chamber of the main engine, forced the incoming air stream to eject the burnt-out TRB from the combustion chamber, so that the direct-flow sustainer jet engine could turn on. He brought the anti-ship missile system to a height of 15 km, with the aim of detecting, capturing and selecting targets, entered into the memory of the on-board computer of the anti-ship missile system the silhouettes of all NATO ships, tactics for building an order and made the intelligence of the anti-ship missile system collective. I made the seeker switch off (two-channel, active-passive radar, in the active mode performing phase-code manipulation according to a random law both in the survey mode and in the target tracking mode, continuously rebuilding the time-frequency parameters during the flight, distinguishing active interference, i.e. .REB: leading by range and angular coordinates and passive: dipole and corner reflectors), descend to a height of 5-10 meters (at such an altitude, the air defense systems are powerless) and continue the flight using the inertial guidance system. He made the active guidance mode switch on at a distance of 75 km to the target and, at a speed of 3500 km / h, sent three tons of metal, composites and 250 kg. RDX into the board of a modern NATO ship. Yes, Russia is the birthplace of elephants, and the most advanced weapons systems are being developed in the West and in Israel. But, sincerely, it will not take me much pleasure to remind you that in the world history of the use of anti-ship missiles there is a fact: the first anti-ship missile system is Russian, the first victim of anti-ship missiles is the Israeli frigate Eilat.
    1. Professor
      Professor 2 June 2016 13: 20
      -4
      Quote: pft, fkb
      This product has no analogues in the world in terms of efficiency.

      Convinced. Just give an example of efficiency and I will continue to read your long, continuous comment. hi
      1. Idiot
        Idiot 2 June 2016 14: 05
        +3
        There is an opinion that “Donald Cook” was frightened off by “Bastion”, and not the notorious “Khibiny”. Isn't this an example of efficiency. A battle won is one that has not begun. Liddell Garth called it an indirect strategy. "Bastion" switched on, "Donald Cook" retreated. And if you reply to comments without having read them to the end, then why go to the forum? Read "Echo of Moscow". Everything is relevant there.
      2. Idiot
        Idiot 2 June 2016 14: 05
        0
        There is an opinion that “Donald Cook” was frightened off by “Bastion”, and not the notorious “Khibiny”. Isn't this an example of efficiency. A battle won is one that has not begun. Liddell Garth called it an indirect strategy. "Bastion" switched on, "Donald Cook" retreated. And if you reply to comments without having read them to the end, then why go to the forum? Read "Echo of Moscow". Everything is relevant there.
      3. Makarov
        Makarov 2 June 2016 19: 59
        +1
        people usually read first, and after they ask questions ... after all, perhaps the answers to the questions are concluded in the text below. This is about efficiency.
    2. realist
      realist 2 June 2016 13: 47
      +1
      Russia is not the birthplace of elephants, we shoe a flea here and keep bears at home!
  • realist
    realist 2 June 2016 13: 46
    +1
    the author is right. it is necessary to find ways with minimal costs to respond as efficiently as possible to the challenges of the West, not to rush into the arms race, but to systematically move along the path of replacing outdated equipment with new ones. and answer asymmetrically - the "partners" ship entered the Black Sea - deployed an additional anti-ship missile battery, went out - turned off!
  • sa-ag
    sa-ag 2 June 2016 14: 23
    -3
    "... According to experts in the field of the Navy, any grouping of ships in the Black Sea can be destroyed by means already located in the Crimea in a matter of minutes. Even without the help of the attached forces and means. And the" vastness "of the Black Sea does not allow a large number of serious ships maximum 12-15 frigates.

    This is enough to deliver the first and last blow with the same Tomahawks. Further - to the bottom. "

    The author, well, what a jingo-patriotism, well, who will make launches while in the zone of defeat of the coastal complex, especially from a surface ship, which is much easier to do because of the straits and from the submarine and to the bottom nothing will go
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 June 2016 14: 59
      +2
      Quote: sa-ag
      The author, well, what a jingo-patriotism, well, who will make launches while in the zone of defeat of the coastal complex, especially from a surface ship, which is much easier to do because of the straits and from the submarine and to the bottom nothing will go

      Oh, how famously ... And did the S-400, Carapace-S, etc., for decorations in the Crimea be thrown? Or do you think that the ax in such a thin salvo will pass the Crimean missile defense?
      1. sa-ag
        sa-ag 2 June 2016 17: 39
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        And S-400, Shell-S and so on for the scenery in the Crimea thrown?

        Any operation begins with jamming, so that life does not seem like honey :-) Something will be shot down, something will not
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 June 2016 17: 48
          +1
          Quote: sa-ag
          Any operation begins with jamming, so that life does not seem like honey :-) Something will be shot down, something will not

          In the development of electronic warfare systems, we have moved further than the adversary. We do not forget that the same thing can happen with the guidance systems of NATO ships, including axes. So life will not seem like honey to us, but to a group of NATO ships.
          1. sa-ag
            sa-ag 2 June 2016 18: 23
            0
            Quote: NEXUS
            including axes

            well, what’s going to happen, the ax’s inertial guidance with satellite correction and the infrared or thermal imaging guidance in the last section, we can say we’ll type in the interference path of the satellite orientation system, but for this we need to be above the ax and it’s unlikely they will fly in an understandable and predictable course, most likely the route will be different, most likely they will raise aircraft to intercept and this will end, but if so, then it will not start, in general, NATO ships will go into the Black Sea, no one will make any live fire firing at them , just like them, the writers of the site will warm up the cheers-patriotic mood of the electorate in anticipation of the elections, the electorate will be happy to do this, everything seems to be the case :-)
    2. K-50
      K-50 2 June 2016 16: 41
      +1
      Quote: sa-ag
      The author, well, what a jingo-patriotism, well, who will make launches while in the zone of defeat of the coastal complex, especially from a surface ship, which is much easier to do because of the straits and from the submarine and to the bottom nothing will go

      Would you like to try? lol laughing
  • Nross
    Nross 3 June 2016 15: 08
    0
    The thought that I will express today is at first glance absurd. The plane was destroyed with the consent of NATO. It is with the consent. And perhaps on the direct instructions of NATO generals.


    Phew! Discovered America. The stump is clear that Basurman could not be pulled without the amers pointer. Yes, and they can’t. Everything was ordered exactly there - in NATO, in the State. Depe and other vrazhinami.

    And the fact that the "allies" "dissociated themselves" from the unfortunate Turks was also in the script, so as not to shine black asses under a flurry of international "condemnation".

    Only one question remains open - what kind of bun did the Turks (or maybe Erdogan personally) have had from all this provocation?