US Air Force told how they almost “decapitated” the Russian Black Sea Fleet

2 2020 June 75

Last week, the US Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers practically “decapitated” the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet, writes The Drive, an American online publication.

The US Air Force claims that the B-1B Lancer, which flew to the Black Sea region, practiced the use of the long-range anti-ship missile (LRASM) AGM-158C during the training mission. The flight showed that they pose a serious threat to the Russian fleet, and the Kremlin undoubtedly drew attention to this.

On May 29, 2020, two B-1B Lancer from the 28th bomber wing took off from the Ellsworth air base in South Dakota and tested various activities with aircraft from NATO allies and other European partners. For the first time, the Ukrainian Su-27 Flanker and MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters, as well as the Turkish air tanker KC-135R, took part in such exercises. At the same time, only LRASM became known on June 1, 2020.

B-1B Lancer bombers regularly perform various training missions. American strategic bomber aviation has gained vast experience and has some flexibility, using a wide range of weapons and ammunition. At the same time, it is planned to expand their range. For example, due to the use of LRASM bombers.

The B-1B Lancer is certified to operate the AGM-158C since December 2018. The LRASM is an upgraded air-to-ground cruise missile from the AGM-158 family (JASSM), which are also used by these bombers.

The US Air Force statement regarding the recent flight of the bomber task force is clearly intended for Russia and its Black Sea Fleet. The Black Sea is likely to turn into an anti-ship missile range during a major conflict, but the Russians have certain advantages. Crimea is now part of the Russian Federation, and the Ankara, which strictly adheres to the Montreux Convention, controls the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, despite the fact that Turkey is a NATO country and a US ally.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine

+2

2 June 2020 13: 33

Our falcons should fly across the Gulf of Mexico!
Sapsan136

+4

2 June 2020 13: 38

The Yankees have only three problems.
1) Aviation of Ukraine can only scare the raven, it is rotten trash still Soviet-made ...
2) US B-1B Lancer bombers are perfectly visible on all air defense and Russian air forces radars ...
3) The Yugoslavs showed how the vaunted American Stealth can be brought down, having shot down an American supposedly invisible with an old S-125 Pechora air defense system.
1. Alexey Sergeev
  
  -1
  
  6 June 2020 01: 07
  
  They showed, having shot down the plane once for more than 800 sorties? And the 117th continued in 2003, having served until 2007. Do not believe the ducks, study the whole picture :)
  1. Sapsan136
    
    +2
    
    6 June 2020 10: 43
    
    Fighting NATO against small Yugoslavia is not heroism and knocking down the latest at the time, supposedly invisible F-117 antediluvian air defense missile systems S-125 Pecher, and even in export, simplified configuration, yes, this is an achievement, only for the Serbs, not the Yankees ... Production The Yankees stopped F-117 and V-2 precisely after the war in Yugoslavia ... where they ... to put it mildly ... with their invisibility ... By the way, there is information that in Yugoslavia the Yankees lost not only F-117, but and 2 B-2 bombers, and what a fury the Yankees were, one can imagine recalling that the Yankees bombed the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia in order to try to prevent the Chinese from taking out the wreckage of F-117 from Yugoslavia .... With B-2 it was easier , they fell into the territory controlled by Croatian bandits and the Yankees took their wreckage to the States without any fuss ...
    1. Alexey Sergeev
      
      +1
      
      13 July 2020 22: 06
      
      Legends ... I met this. But for some reason, only on the "yellow pages". Why only 2, I would suggest to rumor that five. :)
      F-117 is too .. not universal. About B-2, the version of the cutback in the military budget looks more logical. (Let me remind you that in the 90s they greatly reduced it, in comparison with the last years of the Cold War).
      The F-22 project and the F-35 station wagon, the creation of the inconspicuous Su-57 are not compatible with your version.
      1. Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        14 July 2020 10: 23
        
        And you just turn on your own head. Imagine that you have in production 2 enemy aircraft invisible to the radar, B-2 and F-117, which can fly unnoticed in the airspace of any country and do whatever they want there. Why do you need to discontinue such efficient machines and continue to release new modifications of the F-16, F-15, F-18, including for the US Air Force, because they are perfectly visible on the radar ?! Su-57 was not built in the United States and not from their materials, this is another car. The Yankees do not consider the budget at all, since they do not earn money, but simply print it.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        0
        
        14 July 2020 14: 22
        
        Yankees don't make money
        
        OK. What is the price of the processor in your PC or laptop? Intel, or AMD. That is, you personally finance their economy. And millions of such chips are sold. Are you flying a Boeing? They also penny.
        You will not argue, the companies mentioned "draw" money? But this light with a large (as opposed to resource extraction) value added.
        The most logical version is that it was enough for them to exist stealth aircraft. The Cold War ended, budget cuts were on. China has not yet looked threatened. But F-117 and B-2 were created precisely in the confrontation of the USSR.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        14 July 2020 20: 51
        
        I agree with the Boeings, and on your computer you have long had a Chinese unlicensed copy with which the United States does not drip anything, and the United States spends a lot more than they earn, so much more that we can say that they live only on the money they print. Do not tell me, 21 V-2 bomber in the ranks, this is good for countries such as Poland ... The reason here is precisely because the super-expensive aircraft turned out to be quite visible for Soviet-made radars. Budget cuts in the United States and does not smell, especially since abandoning the B-2, they continued to stamp quite ordinary F-16, F-15, F-18 packs.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        0
        
        14 July 2020 21: 04
        
        You forget that in addition to the B-2, there is a huge fleet of B-1B and B-52. I said that at that time there simply was no enemy justifying the existence of a large fleet of SUCH expensive ones in the production and operation of aircraft.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        14 July 2020 21: 07
        
        You forget that the last B-52 was released back in the 60s of the last century, and with the B-1 the Yankees had problems, the car turned out to be capricious, and there were less than a hundred of them left in service. If the B-2s were invisible, it would make sense to replace them with all the antique B-52s and the not-so-successful B-1s, but the war in Yugoslavia showed that invisibility did not happen ... Therefore, the ancient B-52s still fly.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        0
        
        14 July 2020 21: 21
        
        The problem is the price. Look: a number of aircraft in the ranks for half a century or more. The same S-130. They do not behave wastefully, quite tight when necessary.
        With a reduction in the military budget, with what means to acquire a new B-2? Purchases limited to 20 pieces.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        14 July 2020 21: 24
        
        There is no problem in the price, because, having stopped production of the V-2, the Yankees did not reduce the production of other combat aircraft, let alone the US spent on the construction of more than 70 destroyers such as Arly-Burke and the like. The United States does not save on the production of weapons, so the price of B-2 is not an argument.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        +1
        
        14 July 2020 21: 24
        
        There has never been talk of invisibility. It’s just that the detection range is reduced many times, the old systems could not capture the target for tracking.
        The factor of reducing the detection range has not gone away, so the concept is relevant.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        14 July 2020 21: 26
        
        In Yugoslavia, these troughs were shot down by the export version of the S-125 Pecher air defense system, which did not differ in either super radar or long range. This is an old system.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        0
        
        14 July 2020 21: 25
        
        There is a large park Tu-95M (2/3). Which are also very ancient, engines are updated, the filling of the bomb carrier, as on the B-52.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +2
        
        14 July 2020 21: 27
        
        Here you are again mistaken. The last Tu-95 VKS of the Russian Federation were built in the early 90s of the last century, they are 30 years younger than the American B-52.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        0
        
        14 July 2020 21: 31
        
        Google the capitalization of the world's largest companies and see where most of them pay taxes. IN THE USA. The most expensive is Apple, with over $ 1 trillion in capitalization. About twice the size of our stock market.
        In my computer there is quite original Core I5 9 series.
        Most smartphones have Qualcomm and Apple processors.
        Studying all these data quite a long time ago led me to think that the stories that “they just print money” are conspiracy theories and speculations, in many ways.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +2
        
        14 July 2020 21: 43
        
        If you were right, the United States would not have such a huge public debt and it would not increase ... By the way, the most fashionable phones in my city are Chinese Xiomi, and not super-expensive American Apple, which are nothing but ponte and price, Xiomi superior.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        0
        
        14 July 2020 21: 50
        
        In your favorite Xiaomi (me too) Xiaomi are American Snapdragon'y. Did you not know?
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +2
        
        14 July 2020 21: 52
        
        Its Chinese copy ... Buy a French air conditioner, disassemble and make sure that all parts in it are Chinese. Be that as it may, the US public debt is growing, which means that the United States lives beyond its means.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        0
        
        14 July 2020 22: 00
        
        It is made in China. Like iPhones. Like Intel processors. Licensed products are by no means pirated. And Xiaomi buys them. Qualcomm earns profits, from which it pays taxes in the USA.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +2
        
        14 July 2020 22: 02
        
        China does a lot of things, China does not bother with copyright. But we moved away from the topic ....
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        0
        
        14 July 2020 22: 04
        
        The Japanese live far beyond their means, according to your logic.
        You see: the size of the debt is not important, but your ability to service it.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        14 July 2020 22: 06
        
        The US economy rests on the army, not the economy. With occupying military bases in a number of states, the United States is simply robbing them. But, we are again distracted from the topic.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        -1
        
        14 July 2020 22: 15
        
        Robbing is not profitable, as you do not understand. These are all cliches zealously created by propaganda.
        They sell a huge amount of their goods. The same Cola. And it is many times profitable, you yourself give money.
        In addition, they have bases in Japan - 3 world economies, in Germany - 4 world economies. Somehow strange they rob :-)
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +4
        
        14 July 2020 22: 19
        
        It is profitable to rob, because the United States is robbing everyone, including the theft of oil from Syria ... The same F-104 received the nickname Flying Coffin from the pilots, which did not prevent the United States from forcing it to forcibly drive countries occupied by the USA, such as Germany, at exorbitant prices.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        0
        
        14 July 2020 22: 26
        
        How much oil is in Syria? In barrels? Transfer to $, and then compare with the profits of the largest companies. Minuscule.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        +1
        
        14 July 2020 22: 32
        
        F-104 pushed through, where possible, Lockheed. It was a plane with good characteristics, but too “on the edge”, difficult to pilot and not forgiving mistakes.
        Take another example: what is the most common 4 generation airplane? - F-16 of various modifications, more than 10000 worldwide. Because he, just, was quite successful. Fast, maneuverable, inexpensive to maintain, with better visibility from the cab (tanning lamp).
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        15 July 2020 12: 07
        
        Miser, this is when in one place, and if in several places, it turns out decently. And Syria is not such a minuscule, oil production there provided a fairly high standard of living, Libya under Gaddafi had a very strong national currency, it had enough oil for this. Lockheed wouldn’t push anything without the support of the US government. The F-104 was never a good plane, the pilots, to put it mildly, did not like it, it also did not achieve success in the air. Now there is another example, the F-35, which is very expensive, almost crude, and of little use. Many believe that it is impossible to attribute this trough to 5th generation fighters, for a number of reasons, including its insufficient speed. US vparivayut this trough occupied by the US Army countries, in a voluntary-compulsory manner. The Internet has long turned into a subject of international creativity, from the model created in the United States for the needs of the CIA there is no trace left for a long time, do not be mistaken in this regard, and it is the American army that stimulates the sale of American firms in the territories occupied by it.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        0
        
        14 July 2020 22: 18
        
        And where does it come from “in the army, not in the economy”. Just the army sits on the neck of the economy. But it is a guarantee that no one will capture the elements of this economy.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +4
        
        14 July 2020 22: 20
        
        The Yankees' economy rests on the US Army, because only the Army provides the USA with the opportunity to rob foreign countries.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        -2
        
        14 July 2020 22: 28
        
        I repeat: do you (conditionally) force the US Army to use their processors, their planes, their Google, their YouTube, their Facebook? Drink their cola? Do they have KFC and McDonald's? And this is a huge amount of money from around the world.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        0
        
        14 July 2020 21: 56
        
        What matters is not the size of the public debt, but its ratio to GDP. In the United States, they are approximately equal, with a public debt in the region of 100% of GDP. In Japan, it is about 300%, by the way.
        What to do if their GDP is so unusual (for us) is large?
        And if you understand the structure of the public debt, it turns out that only a third of it is a debt to other countries, the rest is domestic debts, which are always easier to settle.
        The United States spends about $ 200 billion on servicing the public debt (our entire budget is 260), which they can afford, with a budget of 3500 billion.
        I repeat: a lot of calculations are in the public domain, the analysis of this data is not so complicated.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +2
        
        14 July 2020 22: 00
        
        Be that as it may, the United States does not save on weapons, so this is not an argument. Purchases of weapons there are huge.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        +1
        
        14 July 2020 22: 11
        
        If you delve into the details - then save. Look: they continue to operate the B-52 fleet (heavily modernized, but in the same), the S-130 Hercules fleet. Until now, the M-2 machine guns were in service, until the beginning of the 90s, the Colts M1911 remained in the army. If something works well and copes with responsibilities, they leave it, even having, it would seem, money for the constant purchase of “new toys”. The budget is approved by Congress, and there it is necessary to report on the articles and justify them. In the 90s, it became difficult to justify - there are no enemies threatening the United States, we are cutting back, we will add a social program to the saved money, or something else. Voters will appreciate :-)
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        14 July 2020 22: 15
        
        The B-52s remained in service not because of savings, but because the B-1 and B-2 were unsuccessful. S-130 ?! And what, China is still building copies of the Soviet An-12 and An-24 and in the Russian Federation they are still flying. Colt M-2 is quite a successful model and it is still available. So again, no argument.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        +2
        
        14 July 2020 22: 23
        
        Successful enough, but if there is a lot of money there, then what would interfere, it would seem?
        About the bombers. B-1 about 100 pieces. And how many do you think should be? It is possible that this number is enough. As well as the B-2.
        The B-21 project is interesting, because they are already going to create them in large quantities.
        According to its outcome - it will be possible to draw a conclusion about the viability of the concept of stealth bombers, IMHO. (By the way, they will immediately have the opportunity to use the KR, not just bombs).
        Again, F-35 riveted more than 500, and plans for another 3000 (total).
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        15 July 2020 12: 14
        
        And you read about how many there were before and how many they want to have, but so far the US generals cannot today, and all your questions will disappear. They want to create V-21s in large quantities, because US bomber aircraft needs to be completely replaced, but the question is how successful this V-21 will be and whether it will repeat the fate of V-2 ... About F-35 I already wrote a crude, very expensive aircraft, designed to be sold at exorbitant prices in the territories occupied by the US Army.
sgrabik

+5

2 June 2020 14: 44

Found something to scare us. In the event of a military confrontation, all of these bombers would have been shot down long before they could launch their missiles. Therefore, all this stupid bravado of Americans is designed only for domestic consumption, because the election of the President of the United States is at stake.
1. Alexey Sergeev
  
  -2
  
  6 June 2020 01: 08
  
  Like our story about the "disconnected" American destroyer and escaped crew. If there is an order ...
  1. Sapsan136
    
    +1
    
    6 June 2020 10: 49
    
    Read how the latest American RB-47s shot down the USSR Air Force over Sakhalin and the Baltic at that time. Maybe you’ll understand how easy it is for the Russian Air Force to bring down a B-1B, or a B-52 ...
    1. Alexey Sergeev
      
      +1
      
      13 July 2020 22: 10
      
      Listen, the Air Force can bring down a bomber, there is no doubt about it. But he does not need to fly into the danger zone. He shot at 500-800km from the targets (at low altitude, without attracting attention) - and flew away. To prevent this scenario, we need patrols of AWACS aircraft, although this does not give guarantees.
      1. Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        14 July 2020 10: 16
        
        So, not really. They don’t shoot from small heights and long distances, the homing head does not see the target. The missile is reduced in the last section to the target, otherwise it needs external target designation, and then, at a great distance and start it will be time to detect, and turn on the electronic warfare, and the plane, giving the tip to the missile, to shoot down ... That's why the Yankees climb to the border of the Russian Federation, like bugs .
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        +1
        
        14 July 2020 14: 16
        
        RCC goes without backlight from an airplane. In the case of ships standing in the port, you only need a satellite photo with a coordinate reference. Launching is possible from low altitudes, after which they themselves will find targets and attack.
        The Yankees very persistently invite our former provinces and satellites, worried about the likelihood of returning to their former state.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        14 July 2020 20: 56
        
        RCC does not go anywhere if the homing head does not see the target, but at a great distance and low altitude it does not see it. Therefore, they launch anti-ship missiles along a mixed path. On the marching section, the RCC is at a high altitude, decreasing by the level of waves only not far from the target. If the rocket goes above the waves from a long distance, it needs external target designation. On RCC Vulcan, for example, this is done by using a ship’s attack with a flock when the main swarm of missiles goes above the water, and one RCC goes at high altitude, monitors the target’s movement with its homing head and transmits this data to the missiles going down. If it is shot down, the next rocket rises in its place, one of those that went below.
        
        Alexey Sergeev
        
        +1
        
        14 July 2020 21: 35
        
        You are wrong. New anti-ship missiles (and we are talking about LRASM with the most advanced seeker and autopilot) are sent approximately to the location of the target, without detecting it, they begin to fly in circles or “snake” until they find it. LRASM can relieve new coordinates (if the target has shifted) right in flight.
        (Study the question)
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        14 July 2020 21: 40
        
        This is only advertising so far. In reality, these are new missiles that have never been used anywhere and how they will show themselves is still a big question. And the Yankees are generous in advertising their weapons ... In addition, you forget that the discharge of air at altitude and at the water is different, no one canceled the radio horizon. So, for example, the distance of the Soviet anti-ship missile Moskit along a high path of about 250 km, if you let it above the waves, the maximum range drops to about 90 km. The Yankees can make any rocket, but the radio horizon and dense layers of the atmosphere that create more resistance at the water itself than at altitude, which means that no one has canceled the increased fuel consumption, is physics and the Yankees have no power over it.
2. Alexey Sergeev
  
  0
  
  14 July 2020 14: 24
  
  Shot down long: 800 km from the border? And by whom?
  Are there so dense patrols over the sea? And in the event of a threat to the bombers, you can take a sufficient number of cover aircraft.
Roarv

+2

2 June 2020 17: 14

More goals - targets large and small, radar operators have someone to train on.
Calculation commanders must officially express their gratitude to each crew of US bombers, such exercises - readiness 1 are worth a lot and still express gratitude to the US command .....
1. Alexey Sergeev
  
  -2
  
  6 June 2020 01: 13
  
  B-1 can fly up at low altitude and the curvature of the Earth prevents air defense systems from seeing it and directing a rocket. RCC LRASM fly over the waves, emerged due to the radio horizon 30 km from the target. And thanks to the shape, small size and the radar-absorbing coating of the wave, they can be detected (and start to launch anti-missiles) too late. A massive salvo of such “toys” inevitably means serious losses. Yes, and any anti-ship missiles in general, this is a difficult target to intercept.
Anton Yazov

0

3 June 2020 04: 14

What a clever mind, a fool's tongue!
shinobi

+1

3 June 2020 04: 23

Interestingly, do they seriously believe that two missile carriers will be able to break through our air defense? They will also be brought down at distant approaches.
1. Alexey Sergeev
  
  -3
  
  6 June 2020 01: 14
  
  The location of ships in the port is known in advance. A B-1 can fly at low altitude, hiding behind a radio horizon.
  1. shinobi
    
    +1
    
    6 June 2020 02: 35
    
    This is true. But being behind the radio horizon, they are not visible only for stations with short-wave radars with direct viewing. It is violet to the horizontals; they look in the meter range. There is some kind of trick with a signal reflected from the ionosphere.
    1. Alexey Sergeev
      
      +2
      
      13 July 2020 21: 58
      
      Zagorizontniki myopic. In the sense that they see far (but not always, they depend on the appropriate state of the ionosphere), but not clearly, according to the principle of “about there” (in comparison with high-precision short-wavelengths with a wavelength of 1 cm). They cannot direct a missile with a semi-active seeker (the backlight beam goes in a straight line).
    2. Alexey Sergeev
      
      +1
      
      13 July 2020 23: 06
      
      And an important point: ZGRLS - all two-coordinate. They see the distance to the object, bearing, speed, but not its height. Which again does not give the opportunity to direct missiles.
      Another point: against the meter waves, radar absorbing materials do not work well, but the stealth geometry is just as effective. As a result, the detection range will be reduced, but not so noticeably.
Valery Kuzmin

0

3 June 2020 06: 07

Only laugh with those Americans with their lies. Generally not worth the attention.
misanthrope

+1

3 June 2020 06: 49

So they flew to the moon.
1. Alexey Sergeev
  
  -2
  
  6 June 2020 01: 26
  
  So they flew to the moon
  
  Do not believe the ducks, believe the experts. Our cosmonauts and scientists did not doubt successful flights.
GRF

+1

3 June 2020 08: 25

A beautiful cartoon, under his guise and in connection with the liquidation of the treaty on open skies, it is necessary to raise the issue of closing his sector of the near space.
The attack begins with information from the satellite ...
The hostile unknown should not fly over us.
1. Alexey Sergeev
  
  -2
  
  6 June 2020 01: 16
  
  Ok, suggest to shoot down? Guess who will be able to produce their satellites and missiles to defeat strangers at a faster pace?
  In any case, this is a dead end.
  1. GRF
    
    +1
    
    6 June 2020 06: 49
    
    No, I propose to comply with the contract. And if a side, by virtue of alternative possibilities, begins to consider it not relevant, then Trump is probably right, and a new one must be concluded, with the inclusion of these alternatives ...
Igor Sobilev

+1

3 June 2020 09: 46

I have long said - they must be shot down so that they do not climb near our borders.
1. Alexey Sergeev
  
  -1
  
  6 June 2020 01: 18
  
  It turns out that the Americans also need to shoot down our planes when flying (hooligan, in fact) near their ships?
  What will this lead to?
Sergey palyanov

0

3 June 2020 12: 20

The movie on the front row.
vlki5elev

+1

3 June 2020 12: 59

And how many hours does it fly if it flies. Well, actually, I love cartoons.
1. Alexey Sergeev
  
  -1
  
  6 June 2020 01: 20
  
  It doesn’t matter if the goals are at the pier.
  If at sea - they will receive target designation from AWACS aircraft, as an option. I’ll draw your attention to the fact that all Caliber missiles on the march are subsonic, due to which they have a longer range and are not monstrous in size (P-500, P-700)
2. Alexey Sergeev
  
  +1
  
  13 July 2020 22: 00
  
  At a distance of 800 km? About an hour. But it flies low, secretly, has a fairly powerful warhead.
Valery Valeriev

+3

3 June 2020 16: 20

The information is quite suitable for inflammation of the fantasy of liberal sludge in the company of Internet riffraff. Well, an airplane flew in international waters and in the waters belonging to their Gopnik friends. In essence, the usual military competition between potential opponents. Of course, at some point this may turn into a completely different side. I don’t think that they suddenly appeared here, they were watched, accompanied from the moment they headed for Europe. Each of the parties showed its capabilities, trained. However, the Americans are crazy, turn every ordinary case into a show. But it’s not expensive at all, toss a 3-4 line statement to the newspaper, they will draw a real apocalypse for us for free.
1. Alexey Sergeev
  
  -3
  
  6 June 2020 01: 21
  
  So many do, remember the duck about Donald Cook in our media.
Nikolay1

0

3 June 2020 20: 27

The fact is that under the guise of exercises or flying around the borders, no one will shoot them down, and they can deliver a massive blow to the fleet ... at such distances, intercepting missiles is practically impossible.
1. Alexey Sergeev
  
  -2
  
  6 June 2020 01: 24
  
  It is difficult under any conditions, and especially for these missiles. Stealth and small size, it’s good if they are “seen” from 7-10 km away and begin to attack (and beyond 30km or more they are hidden by a radio horizon).
Andrey_Mart

+1

4 June 2020 09: 08

Ukrainian fighter Su-27 Flanker and MiG-29 Fulcrum

Since when is the Ukrainian fighter? Fighters of the Ukrainian Air Force - yes. And then, flying with a rocket on board does not mean pulnul and hit, and neutralized.
Well, if so, as they say in the headline, then why are the American ...... squealing like scalded pigs when our fighters fly next to their scouts, accompanying (and only accompanying) those in the international sky.

And they, and here, where necessary, are not fools, and each such flight is not only accompanied in the air, but on the ground all services are on high alert, and they know about it. And we know that they know about it, and they know that we know that they know that we know.

So that....
Kondrat

0

8 June 2020 13: 54

... a good place for provocations - they worked as a "good" rocket against the provocateur, without the opportunity to shout "kill", and the sea that absorbed the debris will hide everything behind a layer of hydrogen sulfide, as they say, ends in the water. Here is a new story about UFO victims - here he was, and now he is not there !!
SVKorsunov

+2

12 June 2020 13: 14

Technology is constantly evolving. The most advanced are used in the armies of their countries. All independent, independent countries must have a good army in order to protect themselves from political pressure and aggression. There is a military-industrial lobby that is interested in its income and for this is always looking for an excuse for new orders, exacerbating the situation somewhere.
On this topic. It is possible, using the factor of surprise, to inflict partial destruction of military infrastructure, in particular for the Navy, which may have some kind of restriction in defense of new weapons, or simply because of its massive use and limitation of ammunition. But a blitzkrieg, a quick victory at the beginning, does not mean a final victory. Any conflict of nuclear powers will quickly develop into a thermonuclear conflict. I think that in the beginning, within a few hours, all the satellites of the parties, communications, and the Internet will be destroyed. Perhaps someone will suffer less from the nuclear exchange of strikes, but this country can only be called a winner conditionally. Humanity will suffer, and possibly cease to exist, after a short period of time. And if not, then from this confrontation, by convention, only the third strong side will benefit from not taking part in this conflict. And even then, the government of such a country needs to have steel eggs, so as not to accidentally begin to defend itself, having accepted extraneous aggression at its own expense. So live, enjoy life, watch the improvement of weapons, your own or a foreign country. Let's hope that the mind of self-preservation in hot heads (from the solution of which a war can begin) will be present. Although it must be understood that it’s just from a trivial mistake, with tense distrustful relations, we are all not immune. I wish everyone to die from old age, and not from outside interference.