Russia is threating the UK??

[Gaaz]

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.

That is BS. I do not know where you get your info from, but you should check your sources. A typical Type 45 destroyer has a height of about 50m. Therefore, to see it directly with a radar (i.e. direct beam-reflection) you only need to be at about 50m yourself to cover a 35 mile radius. Here we are talking less than 20 miles from a large number of launchers, that are stationed very high above sea level. You could actually see the radar dome of the HMS Defender if you were swimming in the ocean somewhere within 15 miles from it. P-800 would have immediate direct visibility to the target if launched from anywhere near the Sevastopol base, or any ship stationed around it. It would not even need to ascend to a march height. It could immediately go to a surface skimming attack approach, since they are designed to fly at about 7m above sea level.
NATO would do zilch militarily under any circumstance, even if the Defender would have been sunk and all crew lost. It was a provocation and they knew full well of the risks involved. You do not poke a nuclear armed country and then play a victim. A military action against Crimean targets, infrastructure or personnel would be considered an attack on Russian soil. And in case someone is not aware of this nuance, it was recently amended in the Russian military doctrine that an attack of a Russian territory gets retaliated using all means, including nuclear ones. I would like to see an idiot who would start the ball rolling, facing total annihilation for that idiot Boris Johnson who decided to play cowboy (pirate?) on the high seas. Maximum response from the west would be another wave of economic sanctions sometime later.
In any case, my point is primarily to show that if the HMS Defender had been regarded as a direct threat, it would have been sunk by any one of the 9 Russian ships armed with anti ship missiles that stationed in the area, or a couple of the land based launchers, with no risk of collateral damage and little to no chance of survival for the ship in question. Simply because shooting down anti ship missiles is a hell of a trick even under ideal scenario, when you know the exact attack vector. Israelis can confirm that, having lost a number of ships to them.

[Specialka]

That is BS. I do not know where you get your info from, but you should check your sources. A typical Type 45 destroyer has a height of about 50m. Therefore, to see it directly with a radar (i.e. direct beam-reflection) you only need to be at about 50m yourself to cover a 35 mile radius. Here we are talking less than 20 miles from a large number of launchers, that are stationed very high above sea level. You could actually see the radar dome of the HMS Defender if you were swimming in the ocean somewhere within 15 miles from it. P-800 would have immediate direct visibility to the target if launched from anywhere near the Sevastopol base, or any ship stationed around it. It would not even need to ascend to a march height. It could immediately go to a surface skimming attack approach, since they are designed to fly at about 7m above sea level.
NATO would do zilch militarily under any circumstance, even if the Defender would have been sunk and all crew lost. It was a provocation and they knew full well of the risks involved. You do not poke a nuclear armed country and then play a victim. A military action against Crimean targets, infrastructure or personnel would be considered an attack on Russian soil. And in case someone is not aware of this nuance, it was recently amended in the Russian military doctrine that an attack of a Russian territory gets retaliated using all means, including nuclear ones. I would like to see an idiot who would start the ball rolling, facing total annihilation for that idiot Boris Johnson who decided to play cowboy (pirate?) on the high seas. Maximum response from the west would be another wave of economic sanctions sometime later.
In any case, my point is primarily to show that if the HMS Defender had been regarded as a direct threat, it would have been sunk by any one of the 9 Russian ships armed with anti ship missiles that stationed in the area, or a couple of the land based launchers, with no risk of collateral damage and little to no chance of survival for the ship in question. Simply because shooting down anti ship missiles is a hell of a trick even under ideal scenario, when you know the exact attack vector. Israelis can confirm that, having lost a number of ships to them.

So we agree that the Russian should have not been there ?

[Gaaz]

So we agree that the Russian should have not been there ?

I am not sure what you mean by that. Did they have to be there to actually sink it? No. Should they have sent coast guard ships to intercept an approaching vessel? Of course. After all, that is what coast guard functions are. If everyone would start using anti ship missiles the first chance they get, those refugee ships going to Europe all the time would become terribly unpopular as an option. Lets put it that way, if you have a long range rifle, and you see someone sitting on your fence, you do not start shooting to kill immediately. Planes were not necessary imo, they probably served more as an exercise for pilots and an "I dare you to try anything stupid". Realistically, if any of the planes came under attack from the Defender, no matter what they did, the ship would have been sunk in a matter of minutes. And if Russians were actually serious to sink it in the first place, they would have called these planes away. The OFAB-250 drops served the same function as warning shots. They did it because they could. And it was very cheap compared to some of the alternatives. I doubt that Russians would try assaulting a ship with a ground attack craft armed with unguided free fall ammunition.

[alkyd]

I am waiting for "Russia is threatening Netherlands" thread

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ea-2021-06-29/

Apparently, Russian AF dispatched jets when Dutch ship changed course towards Kersch strait. At this point, it looks like NATO is harassing Russia, and not the other way around.

The incident happened 5 days ago but the Dutch decided to cry about it now for some reason. So that's like 1 day after the incident with UK ship.

[Bakis]

I am waiting for "Russia is threatening Netherlands" thread

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ea-2021-06-29/

Apparently, Russian AF dispatched jets when Dutch ship changed course towards Kersch strait. At this point, it looks like NATO is harassing Russia, and not the other way around.

The incident happened 5 days ago but the Dutch decided to cry about it now for some reason. So that's like 1 day after the incident with UK ship.

Harassing while sailing in an international shipping lane? Thats an odd view.

[alkyd]

Harassing while sailing in an international shipping lane? Thats an odd view.

They changed their course towards Russian waters, and made a u-turn when intercepted. I think if a Russian navy ship was sailing in international waters near US and then suddenly changed its course toward American shores, I am pretty sure USAF would act same way.

[Specialka]

I am not sure what you mean by that. Did they have to be there to actually sink it? No. Should they have sent coast guard ships to intercept an approaching vessel? Of course. After all, that is what coast guard functions are. If everyone would start using anti ship missiles the first chance they get, those refugee ships going to Europe all the time would become terribly unpopular as an option. Lets put it that way, if you have a long range rifle, and you see someone sitting on your fence, you do not start shooting to kill immediately. Planes were not necessary imo, they probably served more as an exercise for pilots and an "I dare you to try anything stupid". Realistically, if any of the planes came under attack from the Defender, no matter what they did, the ship would have been sunk in a matter of minutes. And if Russians were actually serious to sink it in the first place, they would have called these planes away. The OFAB-250 drops served the same function as warning shots. They did it because they could. And it was very cheap compared to some of the alternatives. I doubt that Russians would try assaulting a ship with a ground attack craft armed with unguided free fall ammunition.

Why would Russia have coast guards there as it is ukrainian land ?

[Ashnazg]

Why would Russia have coast guards there as it is ukrainian land ?

Probably the same reason Israel attacked and destroyed a Syrian army outpost in Golan Heights this year, and has repeatedly carried out attacks on Syrian government troops in that area in the past - because they think that land is theirs.

Internationally recognized borders of territories matter little when you have the strength or the support to enforce your own will upon them.

[Specialka]

Probably the same reason Israel attacked and destroyed a Syrian army outpost in Golan Heights this year, and has repeatedly carried out attacks on Syrian government troops in that area in the past - because they think that land is theirs.

Internationally recognized borders of territories matter little when you have the strength or the support to enforce your own will upon them.

Strength or support is very relative here. Curious to see how the Crimea situation will evolve but I doubt it will be good for Russia.

[PACOX]

This is like when someone lunges at someone else (with no intentions of hitting them) and the person backs up. One says 'oh I made you flinch' and the other says 'I wasn't scared'

Both parties are posturing and the event doesn't even matter.

If Russia fired a warning shot, it's just that, a warning shot. They still weren't aiming to hit anything. A warning shot at a vessel just passing by and not even attempting to encroach is meaningless.


The UK acknowledged a shot but said it wasn't even close, also meaningless. It's the equivalent of "I wasn't even scared". Who cares.

The shared accounts are that the ship was passing by, the Russians were conducting an operation, an a shot that was designed not to hit anything was fired. Looks like both parties sought to take advantage of the situation bragging purposes.


How it probably went.

Russia doing tests and wars nearby vessels. UK was sailing by. UK slow walks through the area because 'Russia doesn't tell us what to do' or whatever. Russia sees UK taking its time, does the 'I'm going to pretend like the I accidentally threw the ball in your general direction' with a shot. Both parties go about their day and then go tell their buddies a story, "Russia said they were doing a training and we sailed right through it!“ “The Bdits thought they could just sail right through so I flashed the bliky at them and they ran." New day two varying accounts of the same non-story.

[Combatbutler]

Strength or support is very relative here. Curious to see how the Crimea situation will evolve but I doubt it will be good for Russia.

I'd wager eventually it will be fully annexed, Russia is still one of the most powerful nations on the planet and as such gets away with a lot of shit.

[Kallisto]

Strength or support is very relative here. Curious to see how the Crimea situation will evolve but I doubt it will be good for Russia.

Even if a very pro-western, pro-democracy Russian were to take over the country I sincerely can't see Crimea going back to Ukraine. The situation created by Putin has basically made it pretty much a no go for anyone in Russia to back down on that. There will have to be a ton of behind the scenes work, but I guess in the end a deal will have to be made in which a new vote takes place. In which highly likely the "Go with Russia." will win and Russia pays a load to Ukraine + a lot of other things given to the country as a gesture of goodwill.

[Kellhound]

That is BS. I do not know where you get your info from, but you should check your sources. A typical Type 45 destroyer has a height of about 50m. Therefore, to see it directly with a radar (i.e. direct beam-reflection) you only need to be at about 50m yourself to cover a 35 mile radius. Here we are talking less than 20 miles from a large number of launchers, that are stationed very high above sea level. You could actually see the radar dome of the HMS Defender if you were swimming in the ocean somewhere within 15 miles from it. P-800 would have immediate direct visibility to the target if launched from anywhere near the Sevastopol base, or any ship stationed around it. It would not even need to ascend to a march height. It could immediately go to a surface skimming attack approach, since they are designed to fly at about 7m above sea level.
NATO would do zilch militarily under any circumstance, even if the Defender would have been sunk and all crew lost. It was a provocation and they knew full well of the risks involved. You do not poke a nuclear armed country and then play a victim. A military action against Crimean targets, infrastructure or personnel would be considered an attack on Russian soil. And in case someone is not aware of this nuance, it was recently amended in the Russian military doctrine that an attack of a Russian territory gets retaliated using all means, including nuclear ones. I would like to see an idiot who would start the ball rolling, facing total annihilation for that idiot Boris Johnson who decided to play cowboy (pirate?) on the high seas. Maximum response from the west would be another wave of economic sanctions sometime later.
In any case, my point is primarily to show that if the HMS Defender had been regarded as a direct threat, it would have been sunk by any one of the 9 Russian ships armed with anti ship missiles that stationed in the area, or a couple of the land based launchers, with no risk of collateral damage and little to no chance of survival for the ship in question. Simply because shooting down anti ship missiles is a hell of a trick even under ideal scenario, when you know the exact attack vector. Israelis can confirm that, having lost a number of ships to them.

Most of the height of a Type 45 is in its mast, at 40 meters above waterline, and it is designed to minimize its radar signature. However, I concede I made an error in my calculations, 50km distance against a 20m target from a height of 50m.

NATO would have little choice BUT to retaliate against such blatant violation of international law. Russia would NOT escalate to nuclear weapons because they know they would be wiped off the face of the earth. Nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort, not first.

As I have stated from the beginning, what I said was the use of Su-24 dropping bombs is not much of a threat, as that is not how Russia would actually attack a warship.

Israel lost the INS Eilat in 1967 to a Styx, over 50 years ago. The INS Hanit was only damaged by a Saccade in 2006. Of course the Hanit's missile defenses were not in use at the time of the attack, so it isn't really a good example.

[Yadryonych]

Why would Russia have coast guards there as it is ukrainian land ?

Because it is ukranian land no more?

[Specialka]

Because it is ukranian land no more?

So we do agree that it was invaded by Russia and that it was an act of war ?

[Shalcker]

So we do agree that it was invaded by Russia and that it was an act of war ?

What is the point?

If it's "high moral ground" then just stick to "authoritarians"; territorial disputes are quite complex and multifaceted.

If it's "scary Russia threatening everyone around them" - well, that's what this thread is about. Yes, Russia will defend what it will consider to be Russian interests, including through use of threats, and then, if threats will fail, actual use of force.

It only gets to actual force if you don't listen to warnings - and that often happens because you don't want to listen to anyone not having higher moral ground, and you'll, in circular way, never agree that anyone but you has higher moral ground.

[Egomaniac]

Following Russia's example I think I'm going to go annex my neighbours driveway and then throw rocks at anyone that walks by on the sidewalk.

[Yadryonych]

So we do agree that it was invaded by Russia and that it was an act of war ?

No, because neither side recognised this as act of war Invasion is also not the case becase russian troops were legally present there

[Specialka]

No, because neither side recognised this as act of war Invasion is also not the case becase russian troops were legally present there

Legally ? Whom decided that ?

[Shalcker]

Legally ? Whom decided that ?

According to international agreement, and with explicit permission from legal head of the state.