Russia is threating the UK??

[Mihalik]

Russia will be within it's rights in international law - it can block passage of any ship through it's territorial waters for any reason.

Ya'll remember how Russia totally didn't invade Ukraine, and it was just Russian civilians on a holiday.... In tanks.

Cuz we all remember how you spent fucking weeks to months pushing that fucking horseshit!

Clear and premeditated provocation by UK is all that is.

Not accepting the territorial claims of an invading power is not "provocation".

I know in Russia up is down and down is up, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to go along with that bullshit.

[Kellhound]

That document leak is extra embarassing. Some figurative heads will roll, I guess. Britain really needs to get it's shit together, lately it had way too much stupid cases.



Which somehow magically stops guided bombs? Alright then. Also bombs from low flying visible aircraft are quite effective for doing a scare tactic to force leaving waters, you simply cannot do that with ASM's, assuming if they actually did drop those 4 in the Defender's path.

Yeah, taking paper copies of classified material out of controlled spaces is criminal.

No, it makes the planes visible to the ship for sufficient time to shoot them down. That is a scare tactic that impresses civilians, not military people.

[Easo]

Yeah, taking paper copies of classified material out of controlled spaces is criminal.

No, it makes the planes visible to the ship for sufficient time to shoot them down. That is a scare tactic that impresses civilians, not military people.

That tactic makes military people think if the bombs next time could actually fall on them and whether it is time to get out, since the threat is implied to be real. No one is stupid enough to test Russia (or any other major country, for that matter) in regards to that.
So yes, that scare tactic works perfectly well on military people too.

[Yadryonych]

That document leak is extra embarrassing. Some figurative heads will roll, I guess. Britain really needs to get it's shit together, lately it had way too much stupid cases.

That's was most likely just a way to publicly admit the obvious provocation without publicly admitting it, as a nod to Russia. And also giving a hint to british public about the ongoing withdrawal from afghanistan since it's getting very nasty there and rapidly so. Nothing sensitive or previously unknown has "leaked"

[Easo]

That's was most likely just a way to publicly admit the obvious provocation without publicly admitting it, as a nod to Russia. And also giving a hint to british public about the ongoing withdrawal from afghanistan since it's getting very nasty there and rapidly so. Nothing sensitive or previously unknown has "leaked"

Maybe. Because otherwise it just looks way too stupid.

[Kallisto]

Maybe. Because otherwise it just looks way too stupid.

Well it is Bojo's Government. Being stupid, inept and sometimes even outright abhorrent that they'd be on a saturday morning cartoon as the villain is basically every day for them.

[Kellhound]

That tactic makes military people think if the bombs next time could actually fall on them and whether it is time to get out, since the threat is implied to be real. No one is stupid enough to test Russia (or any other major country, for that matter) in regards to that.
So yes, that scare tactic works perfectly well on military people too.

Not really. If you are going to attack, you use the platform most likely to survive and most likely to make a point. That is not a Su-24 dropping bombs.

[Shalcker]

Not really. If you are going to attack, you use the platform most likely to survive and most likely to make a point. That is not a Su-24 dropping bombs.

Anti-ship missiles are much harder to use as a warning, which was the point.

Flying over and dropping bombs ahead is method of highly visible persuasion, not actual attack.

[Kellhound]

Anti-ship missiles are much harder to use as a warning, which was the point.

Flying over and dropping bombs ahead is method of highly visible persuasion, not actual attack.

Flying two Tu-22M3s armed with 3 AS-4s over the ship at close range and then lighting the ship up with their targeting radars would be an actual threat, as they would actually have a chance of sinking her.

[Shalcker]

Flying two Tu-22M3s armed with 3 AS-4s over the ship at close range and then lighting the ship up with their targeting radars would be an actual threat, as they would actually have a chance of sinking her.

If you would want to sink it you would fire from the ground, not air - as that would be least risky move.

But that would be killing move, not a warning.

[Kellhound]

If you would want to sink it you would fire from the ground, not air - as that would be least risky move.

But that would be killing move, not a warning.

Shore battery would need to have external cueing and a straight flight path without significant obstruction. Shore batteries are also easier to counter strike than aircraft in retaliation.

A warning must be credible.

[Shalcker]

Shore battery would need to have external cueing and a straight flight path without significant obstruction.

They are literally 12 km away from shore in the sea. Sea is as straight as it gets as far as "significant obstructions" are concerned.

There are "Bastion" mobile anti-ship launchers there.

From released footage we see that there were enough drones around to provide external cueing if necessary without involving crewed aircrafts.

[Kellhound]

They are literally 12 km away from shore in the sea. Sea is as straight as it gets as far as "significant obstructions" are concerned.

There are "Bastion" mobile anti-ship launchers there.

From released footage we see that there were enough drones around to provide external cueing if necessary without involving crewed aircrafts.

Unless you happen to have a map where all of the ASuW mobile launchers are located, you really have no idea what obstacles may prevent LOS. Its true they could fire them in a more ballistic trajectory, but then they are easier to intercept.

Effectiveness of UAVs for targeting would depend on how well they are linked to the coastal defense units.

It also does not resolve the fact that retaliation against missile launchers based in illegally occupied territory is much easier that hitting an air field well inside Russia.

[Shalcker]

Unless you happen to have a map where all of the ASuW mobile launchers are located, you really have no idea what obstacles may prevent LOS. Its true they could fire them in a more ballistic trajectory, but then they are easier to intercept.

No modern launcher requires LoS.

It makes no difference for supersonic ground-hugging missiles. Not having LoS is optimal as missile can for some time avoid direct detection behind it.

Effectiveness of UAVs for targeting would depend on how well they are linked to the coastal defense units.

Connecting everything have been pushed for a long time.

The missile could just as well use satellite for approximate location then use it's own sensor to acquire target once it's there.

It also does not resolve the fact that retaliation against missile launchers based in illegally occupied territory is much easier that hitting an air field well inside Russia.

Both launchers and airfields from which those aircrafts come from are in Crimea, it makes no difference.

As far as Russia is concerned it's Russian territory, and Russia would be the ones retaliating.

[Yadryonych]

You both may not fully understand how anti-vessel missiles work but they need no line of sight nor cueing. The missile is sent to the approximately calculated ship's location where two objects are supposed to meet, pretty much like torpedoes

[Kellhound]

No modern launcher requires LoS.

It makes no difference for supersonic ground-hugging missiles. Not having LoS is optimal as missile can for some time avoid direct detection behind it.

Connecting everything have been pushed for a long time.

The missile could just as well use satellite for approximate location then use it's own sensor to acquire target once it's there.

Both launchers and airfields from which those aircrafts come from are in Crimea, it makes no difference.

As far as Russia is concerned it's Russian territory, and Russia would be the ones retaliating.

You have no understanding how ASuW missiles work...

Oh sure, use its own sensor, to hit the merchant ship nearby...

Tu-22M3s are not based in Crimea, they fly from airfields in the nw, central, and far east regions of Russia, plus Syria.

- - - Updated - - -

You both may not fully understand how anti-vessel missiles work but they need no line of sight nor cueing. The missile is sent to the approximately calculated ship's location where two objects are supposed to meet, pretty much like torpedoes

I am quite well aware how they work. They lack terrain following ability thus need a clear path to the target unless they are following a ballistic (easy to spot) flight. They need to know the general area to be launched into, and then there is the concern of locking onto the wrong target. Heavy torpedoes are wire guided until terminal phase to avoid this issue.

[Yadryonych]

I am quite well aware how they work. They lack terrain following ability thus need a clear path to the target

But of course it is implied there's no terrain or obstacles in the sea

[Gaaz]

You have no understanding how ASuW missiles work...

Oh sure, use its own sensor, to hit the merchant ship nearby...

Tu-22M3s are not based in Crimea, they fly from airfields in the nw, central, and far east regions of Russia, plus Syria.

- - - Updated - - -



I am quite well aware how they work. They lack terrain following ability thus need a clear path to the target unless they are following a ballistic (easy to spot) flight. They need to know the general area to be launched into, and then there is the concern of locking onto the wrong target. Heavy torpedoes are wire guided until terminal phase to avoid this issue.

These are Russian Bastion-P stationed in Crimea. Armed with 2x Oniks P-800. A very safe bet would be to assume that at least one launcher is present in Sevastopol - the main military base there. Target lock range of Oniks P-800 is about 35 miles, while the distance to the British ship from Sevastopol base was less than 15 miles if I am not mistaken. Basically, they could have precisely designated a target as soon as the missile was launched, without worrying about hitting something else. Especially since there was a direct visual and radar sight from multiple planes and ships to the target. It would have been over in under 90 seconds if we factor in initial acceleration of its 4 ton of thrust engine. In fact. it would not even achieve maximum velocity by that time yet, moving at just over Mach-1 (Mach 2.6 maximum). That is not a lot of time for a ship to move out of a way or hide behind something. Point is, if they really would have wanted to sink it, they would have done it without risking anything in return. No need for a plane or anything else to assist target acquisition. The ship was in range to immediately be target locked upon launch by any P-800 in the 35 mile area. Then there are ships, 9 of them at the very least, stationed with latest 3M-54T missiles in Sevastopol. Each carrying a minimum of 8 of them. HMS Defender would have zero chances to survive

[Kellhound]

These are Russian Bastion-P stationed in Crimea. Armed with 2x Oniks P-800. A very safe bet would be to assume that at least one launcher is present in Sevastopol - the main military base there. Target lock range of Oniks P-800 is about 35 miles, while the distance to the British ship from Sevastopol base was less than 15 miles if I am not mistaken. Basically, they could have precisely designated a target as soon as the missile was launched, without worrying about hitting something else. Especially since there was a direct visual and radar sight from multiple planes and ships to the target. It would have been over in under 90 seconds if we factor in initial acceleration of its 4 ton of thrust engine. In fact. it would not even achieve maximum velocity by that time yet, moving at just over Mach-1 (Mach 2.6 maximum). That is not a lot of time for a ship to move out of a way or hide behind something. Point is, if they really would have wanted to sink it, they would have done it without risking anything in return. No need for a plane or anything else to assist target acquisition. The ship was in range to immediately be target locked upon launch by any P-800 in the 35 mile area. Then there are ships, 9 of them at the very least, stationed with latest 3M-54T missiles in Sevastopol. Each carrying a minimum of 8 of them. HMS Defender would have zero chances to survive

The P-800 would have to be ~500' high before it would be able to locate a ship at 35 miles.

I have never said a single ship could survive the entire Black Sea Fleet. All I stated was Su-24s with bombs would not survive if the Brits decided they needed to defend themselves. Land based ASuW missiles are inferior to air launched ASuW missiles.

They would have been risking a great deal using anything from illegally occupied Ukrainian soil, because of the difference in legal standings involved. NATO would pretty much be compelled to retaliate in kind against forces based in Crimea.

The simple truth is in a full hot war, every warship in the Black Sea would be lucky to last more than a few hours. It makes a usable base for Russia during peace, but if war starts against NATO it becomes utterly useless.

[Yadryonych]

The simple truth is in a full hot war, every warship in the Black Sea would be lucky to last more than a few hours. It makes a usable base for Russia during peace, but if war starts against NATO it becomes utterly useless.

That's true, the fact is Crimea is not about the navy, it's about the land. The fleet is effectively bottled in black sea by turkey anyway