Russian aircraft conditionally destroy US destroyer in the Black Sea

January 24 2021 107

On January 23, 2021, the USS Donald Cook ("Donald Cook", DDG-75) destroyer entered the Black Sea. He was immediately taken under observation by the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy.

On the same day, the aviation of the Russian Aerospace Forces carried out testing of the conditional destruction of the specified American warship. Twitter Cyber Diver published a diagram of approximate flight routes for Russian aircraft participating in the training operation.

In total, six aircraft were involved from two air bases in the Crimea: a pair of Su-27 and Su-30SM fighters, as well as two Su-24M front-line bombers. It is shown that first the Su-27 and Su-30SM go into the attack, and the Su-24M is carrying out the finishing off of a potential enemy.

It should be noted that "Donald Cook" (in service since 1998) since 2014 has been in the 6th Fleet of the US Navy. He often appears at the borders of the Russian Federation in the Black and Baltic Seas, so he had to experience the attention of the Russian military more than once.

The Americans call their voyages to these seas useful for their allies and for "ensuring the safety of navigation." According to the Montreux Convention, "Donald Cook" can stay in the Black Sea for no more than 21 days in order to return again after some time. The last time before this, the ship entered the Black Sea in November 2020.

107 comments

Information

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

123

+3

24 January 2021 20: 50

Cook did not come to training. Mom won't let you in?
1. Alexander K_2
  
  -4
  
  24 January 2021 22: 07
  
  Read the article carefully:
  
  On January 23, 2021, the USS Donald Cook ("Donald Cook", DDG-75) destroyer entered the Black Sea.
  1. Cyril
    
    -3
    
    25 January 2021 08: 30
    
    123, it turned out, had problems with reading attentiveness.
Alexzn

-2

24 January 2021 21: 59

The planes carried out a conditional destruction of the destroyer, the destroyer conducted exercises on the conditional destruction of enemy aircraft ... Everyone is happy, it would always be like this.
1. 123
  
  +5
  
  24 January 2021 22: 21
  
  The planes carried out a conditional destruction of the destroyer, the destroyer conducted exercises on the conditional destruction of enemy aircraft ... Everyone is happy, it would always be like this.
  
  We do not need to tell us fairy tales, we saw how joint exercises are going on. Visual controls and selfies, that's all they can. They look and count how many times they have flown. We smile and wave the motto of sailors from our Donald Cook
  1. Cyril
    
    -5
    
    25 January 2021 08: 33
    
    Visual controls and selfies, that's all they can. They look and count how many times they have flown.
    
    Do you want them to shoot down Russian planes?
    1. sgrabik
      
      +3
      
      25 January 2021 08: 57
      
      If they try to do this, they will be sunk at that very moment, they also really look at things and know perfectly well how it can end up for them in the end !!!
      1. Cyril
        
        -3
        
        25 January 2021 09: 01
        
        But even if Russian planes attack an American destroyer first, there will be a big, big problem.
        
        boriz
        
        +4
        
        25 January 2021 11: 53
        
        Why should our planes attack first? There is Ball, Bastion. There are supersonic missiles. In the future - Zircon.
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        25 January 2021 11: 58
        
        but it was the planes that worked out the blow.
        
        boriz
        
        +3
        
        25 January 2021 12: 00
        
        The guys need to practice! Do not hesitate, we have also practiced along them from the shore. You can't miss the case when you get a real target for free.
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        25 January 2021 12: 01
        
        the question was not about that. Read my comments above.
        
        boriz
        
        +3
        
        25 January 2021 12: 04
        
        Read my comments above.
        
        I have nothing else to do? You answered my comment. I answered you. It's all.
        Don't tell me what I have to do and I won't tell you where to go.
        
        Cyril
        
        -5
        
        25 January 2021 12: 09
        
        You answered my comment
        
        No, comrade, it's you first answered my comment.
        
        I answered you.
        
        The answer was not to the point.
        
        Don't tell me what I have to do and I won't tell you where to go.
        
        So who made you poke your nose into someone else's conversation without bothering to understand its meaning?
        
        boriz
        
        +2
        
        25 January 2021 12: 14
        
        Freedom of expression is here.
        I can repeat it again, about the advice on what to do.
        
        Cyril
        
        -5
        
        25 January 2021 12: 18
        
        So I do not limit you in your freedom. I just indicated that your opinion in the context of my question is not expressed in substance.
        
        I can repeat it again, about the advice on what to do.
        
        It would be better if you spent your efforts on something useful.
        
        Vladest
        
        -3
        
        25 January 2021 16: 52
        
        Quote: boriz
        There is Ball, Bastion.
        
        In fact, why are planes? Rockets are safer. You are smart!
      2. lahudra
        
        -4
        
        25 January 2021 21: 49
        
        This is how they shot down planes and helicopters, and it seems that the adversaries get off with only apologies. Or with Donald Cook a separate account?
    2. shinobi
      
      +1
      
      25 January 2021 13: 32
      
      A flight at such a distance over a ship means that it has been destroyed. Reaching such a distance in a real battle is required for the hardware fixation of the fact of the destruction of an object in the event of a single flight. Usually this is done by an observer aircraft or a drone. So this is pure demonstrative foolishness.
    3. 123
      
      0
      
      25 January 2021 14: 32
      
      Do you want them to shoot down Russian planes?
      
      Can they?
      I want this substance to be loaded on board its lackeys and downstream to its shores ... let it float there
      1. Cyril
        
        -2
        
        25 January 2021 14: 47
        
        Can they?
        
        The Donald Cook destroyer is equipped with Aegis air defense missile systems equipped with Standard-3 guided missiles with a doubled (up to 500 km) range, RIM-7 Sea Sparrow air defense systems, and Falanx cannon mounts.
        
        So to shoot down not the newest Su-27 and Su-24, and the Su-30SM - yes, they can quite.
        
        I want this substance to be loaded on board its lackeys and downstream to its shores ... let it float there
        
        Dream, dream ...
        
        123
        
        0
        
        25 January 2021 15: 23
        
        The Donald Cook destroyer is equipped with Aegis air defense missile systems equipped with Standard-3 guided missiles with a doubled (up to 500 km) range, RIM-7 Sea Sparrow air defense systems, and Falanx cannon mounts.
        
        Therefore, a girl was sent to the deck ... to count the planes
        
        So to shoot down not the newest Su-27 and Su-24, and the Su-30SM - yes, they can quite.
        
        Su-27 and Su-24, and the Su-30SM, can send this old trough to feed the fish. They will twitch to the bottom While the "caution" of American sailors overpowers madness and courage, let them enjoy life until.....
        
        https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/2429145/uss-donald-cook-celebrates-thanksgiving-in-bulgaria/
        
        Dream, dream ...
        
        Dreams Come True
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        25 January 2021 15: 39
        
        Therefore, a girl was sent to the deck ... to count the planes
        
        Naturally, what else to do with them? Do you propose to shoot rockets?
        
        Su-27 and Su-24, and Su-30SM can be sent to fish feed
        
        Theoretically, old torpedo bombers from the Second World War can do it. In the absence of any opposition.
        
        it's an old trough.
        
        The "Old Trough" is younger than all the aircraft mentioned.
        
        let them enjoy life laughing bye ..... sad
        
        They forgot to ask you :) Oh, sorry, they don't even know about your existence.
        
        Dreams Come True
        
        Not everyone.
        
        123
        
        -1
        
        25 January 2021 16: 22
        
        They forgot to ask you :) Oh, sorry, they don't even know about your existence.
        
        Nobody was interested in your opinion. Did the OMON not like you at the rally? Is that why you are so horny?
        
        Cyril
        
        -5
        
        25 January 2021 16: 26
        
        Did the OMON not like you at the rally?
        
        And I didn't go to the rally. You are familiar with the "love" of OMON better than me.
        
        Is that why you are so horny?
        
        I am calm, like a boa constrictor. But you are spinning like a snake in a frying pan, as always :)
        
        123
        
        -1
        
        25 January 2021 16: 30
        
        You didn’t answer there about Crimea ... Scary?
  2. eco3
    
    -1
    
    25 January 2021 18: 22
    
    everyone knows about what happened to Donald Cook on this youtube video their radar and communication in positioning that almost fried the alarm was in overdrive because the defense systems received signals they were attacked from all directions but they were not possible but the main problem was that the computer could choose the target it also fried the hole a lot of software was re-repaired in Romania and 27 crew members demanded a transfer you will prove me that I am wrong
2. Stanislav Bykov
  
  +4
  
  24 January 2021 22: 24
  
  the destroyer conducted exercises to conditionally destroy enemy aircraft
  
  What is the conditional destruction of aircraft? the crew of the kamikaze destroyer or what? will immediately be sunk by the Crimean BRK if it twitches
Alexander K_2

-8

24 January 2021 22: 09

So the takeoff was conditional?
Binder

-14

24 January 2021 22: 24

Russian aircraft simulated destruction of the US destroyer Donald Cook, and the destroyer simulated destruction of two Russian air bases in Crimea with its 96 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Etc...
1. Rum rum
  
  +4
  
  24 January 2021 23: 04
  
  You are so funny.
  What's the use of 96 axes, when "Cook" is enough for one "Onyx" with a speed more than two times higher than that of an ax and a cross through the entire Black Sea.
  1. Alexander K_2
    
    -5
    
    24 January 2021 23: 11
    
    I understand Onyx will fly like planes, conditionally? Along the way, then let the entire US Navy annihilate, why spend money on fuel, peel it like that - SEVEN ONE Punch!
    1. Rum rum
      
      +5
      
      25 January 2021 00: 47
      
      Onyx comes like a northern fox - once. And it is difficult to give it a retreat, and it is expensive, and planes can spoil your nerves on a regular basis. This is true for both parties.
      1. Alexander K_2
        
        -6
        
        25 January 2021 07: 14
        
        So Onyx will fly conditionally！ Then let him destroy the entire NATO fleet in one with the US Navy, why fly twice.
    2. sgrabik
      
      +5
      
      25 January 2021 09: 02
      
      Why write these absurd nonsense, maybe, in your opinion, a very likely nuclear conflict for someone will also be conditional, if only everyone would always fight like this !!!
      1. Alexander K_2
        
        -5
        
        25 January 2021 17: 35
        
        And for whom is the news about the conditional interception calculated?
    3. shinobi
      
      +4
      
      25 January 2021 13: 46
      
      In the conflict over the Falklands, the Argentines drowned the British destroyer with just one exosset. It didn’t even explode. Onyx has twice the explosives and flies faster. So yes, Donald will most likely just be broken in half after being hit by onyx. I saw the table somewhere. correspondence of the equivalents of our anti-ship missiles to the main calibers of WWII cruisers. Onyx, it is about 350-400 mm high-explosive armor-piercing projectile of those times. The skepticism is somewhat inappropriate.
      1. Cyril
        
        -8
        
        25 January 2021 16: 11
        
        In the conflict over the Falklands, the Argentines sank the British destroyer with just one exosset.
        
        The destroyer "Sheffield" had a not very successful design, which used a lot of combustible materials, which caused a fire.
        
        It is far from a fact that with the destroyer "Donald Cook" there will be a similar situation even if the "Onyx" hits.
        
        shinobi
        
        +4
        
        25 January 2021 16: 34
        
        What do you think will happen to the ship if something with a dry mass of 2,6-2 tons flies to it at a speed of Mach 3? Mach 1120. And the armor of the current destroyers is cardboard compared to the armor of WWII destroyers. So when our Bastions and BALs get nervous at Cook, they get nervous. An aircraft carrier still has a chance when hit by our heavy anti-ship missiles, it will survive one or two , but as a combat unit will be unusable.
        
        Cyril
        
        -6
        
        25 January 2021 16: 42
        
        What do you think will happen to the ship if something with a dry mass of 2,6-2 tons arrives at a speed of Mach 3?
        
        I don’t know, because there haven’t been such cases yet.
        
        And the armor of today's destroyers is cardboard compared to the armor of WWII destroyers.
        
        Less thickness does not necessarily mean less security.
        
        Cyril
        
        -5
        
        25 January 2021 16: 52
        
        But about the aircraft carriers:
        
        “Today's nerds with a tiny racket from the Su-24 can easily sink American aircraft carriers like paper boats,” the General of Naval Aviation says indignantly in an interview with the VZGLYAD newspaper. - Yes, even in Soviet times, the command of the naval missile-carrying aviation (MRA) never even talked about the sinking of aircraft carriers. " Then the MPA had 15 regiments, each regiment had 30 vehicles, the division consisted of three regiments, the general recalls.
        
        “During the exercises with less than a division, there was no point in attacking an aircraft carrier. That is, 100 Tu-16 aircraft were launched at once. Each carried three missiles... And during the exercises, this armada struck at a conditional enemy aircraft carrier group. But even so the probability of the destruction of an enemy aircraft carrier was 18-22 percent.
        
        Moreover, this means only a temporary incapacitation, there was not even a talk about the destruction of the ship. At the same time, from these three of our regiments - according to calculations - almost nothing was left in the end. "
        
        shinobi
        
        +3
        
        25 January 2021 17: 42
        
        Tu-16? Why not World War I stacks? The general is either openly lying, or his words are misinterpreted by the interviewee. In fact, to disable an aircraft carrier (do not drown!), It is enough to drive an armor-piercing aerial bomb under the control superstructure half a ton. Well, or an equivalent anti-ship missile system. That's it. The aircraft carrier turns into a floating, sooo expensive, pile of rubbish. If the bomb reaches the reactor compartment, then also into a dead pile. Dead McCain, with one air-to-air missile, took out his aircraft carrier and built for almost a year. a strike of 300 anti-ship missiles (100 aircraft, and 3 missiles each) will not hold any warrant, even now, especially during the time of the general with his Tu-16, despite the fact that only one special warhead of 25-30 kt should reach the target. In those days, the height of the Cold War, other scenarios were not considered against the AUG. So what kind of 100 aircraft are there? A maximum of 3 vehicles, 9 missiles in a salvo, one with special warheads. Actually, our Granites work on this scheme. Volley, 8 v "flock" and 9 manager. She of them with a nuclear warhead. Which of 9, prot Ivan does not know. He cannot knock everything down at once physically at the distance when he begins to see them. There are believers that modern aircraft carriers are unsinkable. Let them believe further. This is a matter of personal preferences.
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        25 January 2021 17: 45
        
        Tu-16? Why not WWI bookcases?
        
        Well, you also cited the example of a bomb from the WWII times.
        
        As for everything else, I still have more trust in the source than in you.
        
        shinobi
        
        +1
        
        25 January 2021 18: 23
        
        A question of trust, you say? Some (an American, you will find it on YouTube) in all seriousness claims that the earth is flat. And NASA, Roscosmoss, and before them Giordano, Gallileo and Copernicus, are deceiving everyone. This I exaggerate on the topic of sources. What to believe and whom trust, everyone decides for himself. Americans can assert anything about their aircraft carriers, this is impossible to verify because after the war, no one has ever attacked them. Any blow to the AUG will lead to a war, regardless of the result of the winners in which there will be no winners. But ask yourself why the Yankees quickly move their AUGs out of the reach of our anti-ship missiles wherever they appear. Strange huh? An unheated platform, super aircraft, the first fleet in the world. Somehow it doesn’t dock.
        
        Cyril
        
        -3
        
        25 January 2021 18: 33
        
        Some (an American, you can find it on YouTube) in all seriousness claims that the earth is flat, and NASA, Roscosmoss, and before them Giordano, Gallileo and Copernicus, are deceiving everyone.
        
        So it's not some American astronomer or astrophysicist saying this, is it?
        
        And about the Tu-16 and aircraft carriers spoke of a general who is directly related to the Naval Aviation.
        
        The Americans can assert anything about their aircraft carriers, it is impossible to verify this because after the war no one has ever attacked them.
        
        So I did not quote the words of the Americans.
        
        But ask yourself why the Yankees quickly move their AUGs out of the reach of our anti-ship missiles wherever they appear. Strange is it? An unheated platform, super planes, the first fleet in the world. Somehow it doesn't dock.
        
        No, not strange.
        
        First, they don't want war with us.
        
        Secondly, no one says that anti-ship missiles do absolutely no harm to aircraft carriers or other ships. The question is how many are needed for:
        - breakthrough air defense AUG;
        - incapacitation or sinking of the aircraft carrier itself and escort ships.
        
        shinobi
        
        0
        
        25 January 2021 18: 53
        
        And who checked this general? The signature on non-disclosure, again, has not been canceled. How long did Skripal serve for a long tongue? Before he dumped to England? Also a retiree. You can say anything, we have no way to check his words.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        25 January 2021 19: 01
        
        You can say anything, we have no opportunity to check his words.
        
        As well as your words that one missile will sink a destroyer.
        
        shinobi
        
        0
        
        25 January 2021 19: 40
        
        But this is not true, there is a precedent. The seeker, let him find. The net will help you.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        25 January 2021 19: 41
        
        The Sheffield case is the Sheffield case. Not with Arleigh Burke.
        
        shinobi
        
        0
        
        25 January 2021 19: 52
        
        And Exosset is far from Onyx. Watch the PKRmi shooting at the ships, after all! There are a lot of videos on the net. That ours, that the Yankees, Iranian at the end. Cretzser is drowned. Well, you like ArlieBurk, say so. But you don't need to prove that he will survive after being hit by Onyx or Granite. Videos where cruisers sink anti-ship missiles speak for themselves. In general, goodbye, it's time to sleep. Overnight.
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        25 January 2021 20: 08
        
        Well, read the results of firing the Redoubt supersonic missiles.
        
        https://topwar.ru/90612-raketa-protiv-korablya-chem-zakonchitsya-boy.html
        
        And the results of hitting the Ukrainian P-35 supersonic cruise missile are also funny - attention! - cargo-passenger steamer "Vereshchagino".
        
        It's in the same place, in the article.
        
        Restless Sagittarius
        
        +2
        
        28 January 2021 22: 01
        
        The Argentines sank the British destroyer Shefield in 1982 with one Exocet missile. The British destroyer was smaller in size than Cook, but the warhead of the Exocet anti-ship missile system, with which it was sunk, only 50 kg of explosives, against 300 kg of explosives from the Russian anti-ship missile system Onyx. So there will be enough for both Cook and Tikanderoga.
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        29 January 2021 05: 18
        
        and for some ships it was not enough even to be hit by PK-35 anti-ship missiles with a 500-kilogram warhead. So what?
        
        Restless Sagittarius
        
        +2
        
        2 February 2021 02: 32
        
        To some, is it a dry cargo ship whose superstructure got a training missile without explosives? You are comparing a penis to a finger, and these are different parts of the body.
        
        shinobi
        
        +2
        
        25 January 2021 16: 53
        
        Oh! Comrade! I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the brainchild of a German gloomy genius. The air bomb of the second world FX-1400. The first of its kind. The prototype of a high-precision guided weapon. There is even a video on YouTube about this device. The charm is that, dropped from a height of 4000 m, a bomb, had to forcibly slow down, otherwise, with its 0,8 max, she pierced the battleships through and through.
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        25 January 2021 18: 54
        
        I don’t know, because there haven’t been such cases yet.
        
        This is how the consequences of a motor boat with explosives and bearded horsemen hitting an American destroyer look like. 17 dead, 40 injured. And the kinetic energy of a motorboat is slightly less than that of a rocket.
        
        Less thickness does not necessarily mean less security.
        
        What does it mean? Equal or Greater Protection? You're just ridiculous in your pathetic attempts to come up with arguments
        
        Cyril
        
        -4
        
        25 January 2021 19: 09
        
        This is how the consequences of a motor boat hitting an American destroyer look like with explosives and bearded horsemen. 14 dead, 40 wounded. And the kinetic energy of a motorboat is slightly less than that of a rocket.
        
        It is precisely that the consequences are more determined by the energy of the explosion, and not by the kinetic energy of the projectile itself. The projectile itself at high speed can simply pierce the ship without causing much damage.
        
        What does it mean? Equal or Greater Protection? smile You are simply ridiculous in your pathetic attempts to come up with arguments
        
        Of course, I understand that in your 3 grades of the parish school there were no subjects such as materials science and even elementary physics with chemistry. But still, one could first read at least a little about the properties of various metals and their alloys, about what strength is, what factors it depends on, etc.
        
        123
        
        +1
        
        25 January 2021 19: 55
        
        It is precisely that the consequences are more determined by the energy of the explosion, and not by the kinetic energy of the projectile itself. The projectile itself at high speed can simply pierce the ship without causing much damage.
        
        What a deep ignorance Good night, my young dimwitted foe This is for you instead of a good night kids
        
        Cyril
        
        -5
        
        25 January 2021 20: 26
        
        AND? The decommissioned target ships are such a target equivalent to a modern destroyer, right?)
        
        In addition, many of these video examples involved several rockets hitting before the target ships began to sink.
        
        https://topwar.ru/90612-raketa-protiv-korablya-chem-zakonchitsya-boy.html
        
        Read it, you will be very, very much surprised.
        
        Especially about the cargo-passenger ship "Vereshchagino" is funny. And there the rocket will be larger than the Onyx, and its speed is slightly less.
        
        Cyril
        
        -6
        
        25 January 2021 16: 50
        
        So when our Bastions and BALs are on Cook, they get nervous, they are quite appropriate.
        
        Against the missile, not only armor protects, but also the radio-electronic hulls of the ship, the ship's air defense.
        
        And the electronic warfare of a destroyer will be more powerful than the electronic filling of the rocket. No matter how large it is.
      2. Alexander K_2
        
        -1
        
        25 January 2021 17: 39
        
        The whole trouble is that we all heard something somewhere! Therefore, the Russian Armed Forces for the last 20 years have only been able to sink their own ships and destroy their planes!
  2. Igor Berg
    
    0
    
    26 January 2021 14: 53
    
    what if 96 axes fly out in the Bosphorus region or before it? Where will Onyx fly?
2. The comment was deleted.
3. Igor Pavlovich
  
  -8
  
  24 January 2021 23: 59
  
  The plot on the screen is almost 30 years old - the current warriors and commentators are in the same age category as the actors in Yeralash ...
  1. monman
    
    -8
    
    25 January 2021 06: 30
    
    Igor Pavlovich, such a movie should be shown for almost every topic in the Reporter! After all, the submission of material in the Reporter provokes humor and sarcasticism!
    Thank you for the amusement !!! It's amazing that your post got so many Cons, although your comparison is very true.
    1. sgrabik
      
      +5
      
      25 January 2021 09: 15
      
      This is all to the extent of your mental development, you can try to attract different stories and anecdotes here, joke and humor, but it's really not funny here, if a military conflict occurs, it will with a 99% probability develop into a nuclear phase, and then certainly no one will not seem a little, that's when the clowns and joke, and laugh !!!
      1. Alexander K_2
        
        -1
        
        25 January 2021 17: 42
        
        For military action, you need at least 2 opponents (the US Armed Forces and NATO - and?), The rest is conflicts!
  2. monman
    
    -2
    
    25 January 2021 17: 35
    
    Igor Pavlovich, accept my condolences - your movie was censored and was cut from the commentary. One can see the childish fragment of Yeralash appears to the dangerous virgin and pure (or virgin-pure?) Minds of the readers and can make (!?) them think “aren’t_ stupid_li_my?”
4. sgrabik
  
  +5
  
  25 January 2021 09: 35
  
  At the first real salvo of Tomahawks, the American destroyer will be sunk, every NATO ship in the Black Sea is constantly and closely monitored, they never go uncontrollably in the Black Sea.
  1. Alexander K_2
    
    -2
    
    25 January 2021 17: 43
    
    I hope the binoculars have something to watch out for?
5. boriz
  
  +3
  
  25 January 2021 12: 06
  
  In Syria we saw how they destroy with Axes. Amused.
Michael1950

-5

25 January 2021 08: 56

- On "Donald Cook" know that he was "conditionally destroyed"?
1. Alexander K_2
  
  0
  
  25 January 2021 17: 45
  
  GLORY to the Russian Navy!
2. shinobi
  
  +1
  
  25 January 2021 18: 28
  
  He's a suicide bomber. His task is precisely to find out what, how much, from what directions, in what quantity and how quickly it will be. Therefore, they train pilots on him, at least some benefit ...
Michael1950

-5

25 January 2021 09: 00

Quote: Stanislav Bykov
the destroyer conducted exercises to conditionally destroy enemy aircraft

What is the conditional destruction of aircraft? the crew of the kamikaze destroyer or what? will immediately be sunk by the Crimean BRK if it twitches

- He will intercept missiles ...
1. boriz
  
  +5
  
  25 January 2021 11: 57
  
  Something shitty they get in practice, even on land. When relations with Iran deteriorated, they rented the Pantsir from Iraq to protect their bases.
Volga073

-1

25 January 2021 09: 22

Why are there no Russian destroyers in the Gulf of Mexico?
Protecting Cuba is a sacred cause!
1. Alexzn
  
  -4
  
  25 January 2021 11: 55
  
  Are you ready to pay for this sacred cause out of your pocket?
  1. boriz
    
    +3
    
    25 January 2021 12: 11
    
    So from our pocket for such things and pay. Not yours?
    1. Alexzn
      
      -5
      
      25 January 2021 12: 43
      
      So who is against? If you enjoy your destroyers in the Gulf of Mexico and you have the money to do so, why not?
      1. boriz
        
        +1
        
        26 January 2021 00: 49
        
        If they see fit, they will be sent. You will not be asked.
2. Binder
  
  -6
  
  25 January 2021 14: 59
  
  Because their technical condition gives no hope that they will get there at all.
  1. Stanislav Bykov
    
    +3
    
    25 January 2021 17: 00
    
    If necessary, they will reach:
    https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/5d1101939a79477147e4c306
    The squeal was then due to one ship for the whole continent,
    Before that, two "White Swans" flew to Venezuela, the screeching was no less, the length of Russia's arms would be enough to reach any enemy wherever it was
    1. Binder
      
      -4
      
      25 January 2021 19: 51
      
      Yeah, Russian destroyers, which have no analogues in the world, are surfing the Bolshoi Theater.
      1. Stanislav Bykov
        
        +3
        
        25 January 2021 20: 35
        
        Not only destroyers, but also cruisers, frigates, corvettes, and not just theaters, but supposed theaters of military operations
        
        Binder
        
        -6
        
        25 January 2021 20: 50
        
        You, most importantly, believe, comrade ...
        
        Stanislav Bykov
        
        +2
        
        25 January 2021 21: 01
        
        You can believe it or not in Israel, but I live in Russia and therefore I know, especially about our Armed Forces
        
        Binder
        
        -5
        
        25 January 2021 21: 06
        
        Yes, for us in Israel, your knowledge is somehow not very interesting.
        
        Stanislav Bykov
        
        +1
        
        25 January 2021 21: 16
        
        Well, then in Russia, all the more, we owe you a favor, despite the fact that it’s you who are hanging around in a bunch of Russian sites, and not us.
        
        Binder
        
        -4
        
        25 January 2021 21: 31
        
        So it's difficult for you to hang around on foreign-language sites - many Russians do not really speak their native language either.
        
        Stanislav Bykov
        
        +2
        
        25 January 2021 21: 49
        
        many Russians do not really speak their native language either.
        
        Yes, but do not confuse Russians and Russians, if someone knows other languages they can crawl on foreign-language sites, another question is for what purpose, you know Russian, but why are you sitting here, especially since you are not interested in Russia, you just spread anti-Russian propaganda? Boring
Michael1950

-5

25 January 2021 14: 37

Quote: boriz
Something shitty they get in practice, even on land. When relations with Iran deteriorated, they rented the Pantsir from Iraq to protect their bases.

- Can you link to this dazzling fact?
1. Stanislav Bykov
  
  +3
  
  25 January 2021 16: 32
  
  Can you link to this dazzling fact?
  
  You haven't learned how to use search?
  https://vpk-news.ru/news/56417
Vladest

-6

25 January 2021 16: 47

It's good that it's conditional. We must always remember about the Second World War and the 27 million victims in that war.
Michael1950

-4

25 January 2021 17: 43

Quote: Stanislav Bykov
Can you link to this dazzling fact?

You haven't learned how to use search?
https://vpk-news.ru/news/56417

- "Pantsir" is rolling around the Iraqi base. Summary: Shields Americans from Iran's Ballistic Missiles!
1. Stanislav Bykov
  
  +3
  
  25 January 2021 18: 15
  
  The "Pantsir" is rolling around the Iraqi base.
  
  You also do not know how to read, it clearly says that this is the AMERICAN Tadji airbase in Iraq, and "Pantsir" was transferred there by Iraq at the request of the American side
Cat

-1

25 January 2021 17: 53

Oh my God! I read the opinions ... hurray pioneer ... Well, first of all, the Su-24 is not trained to carry anything except cast iron, well, it does not have long-range anti-ship weapons, as well as on all the Su ... Unfortunately. Although the Hornets, too, all they can do is carry 2-4 Harpoon anti-ship missiles at a range of 375 km ... We can't even do that ... It is clear that Cook, if ordered, will shoot them all right during takeoff. That is, all this flight, nothing more than our teachings, which, well, do not teach anything. Well, if IT starts, what will we meet them with cast iron? So this is suicide. And we have nothing else, for tactical fighters. This is not a Tu-22M3 with an X-22/32, which, by the way, Cook will shoot down anyway. Unless, of course, you wet it with the entire Tu-22M3 squadron. Then he is definitely an amba! Of what is in service in the BRAV, only the Onyx anti-ship missile system is dangerous for him and, oddly enough, the subsonic Ball ... And we have one Bastion "brigade" in Crimea, in which there are as many as four launchers (according to in fact, it is a battery) each with two anti-ship missiles, for a total of 8 anti-ship missiles in a salvo (which will not be enough for Aegis) and one Bala brigade, the same four launchers with 32 anti-ship missiles. It seems that he will shoot down all 8 Onyx anti-ship missiles ... The survivability of an anti-ship missile depends on the launch range. The further, the greater the probability of interception and vice versa. ACS of air defense "Aegis" will calmly digest all this and they will not get anything for it. But a salvo of "Bal" in 32 anti-ship missiles is deadly for him. Just like that, you can't fight off so many anti-ship missiles. The main thing is to withstand the "volley density" so that all 32 arrive at the address simultaneously. It is clear that not everyone will get there, but those that get there will definitely drown. There are, of course, the rocket ships of the fleet, but each of them has no more than eight Caliber, there are no Onyxes on them. Whether "Buyans M", frigates and submarines can beat at least 3M54 "Alpha", with a supersonic warhead, this is not known to the people. There is no information about this in the media. And if they could, it would undoubtedly be trumpeted on every corner. After all, this is an export potential. And don't underestimate an EM like Arlie Burke. The best EVs in the world, but in fact a cruiser. No wonder it costs 2 billion green. All countries of the world "lick their lips" at him and, if possible, build their replicas. Yes, and we are no exception, when we will have something like that in each fleet.
1. shinobi
  
  +1
  
  25 January 2021 18: 46
  
  Do not believe everything that the Yankees write. Have you ever seen, heard, read that a shell was shot down from a main battery gun? This is Mach 2,5-3. RCCs flying below the radio horizon with the same speed are very difficult to shoot down. Maneuvering is almost impossible, there will not be enough time for reaction even in cars. Do not have illusions, to shoot down a supersonic missile and a supersonic aircraft are not the same. Overloads during missile maneuvers, 15-25 is the norm. . All the vaunted missile defense systems, both ours and theirs, are effective at distances of 12-10 km minimum. Otherwise, the missile simply does not have time to orientate. What is 15 km for Onyx? 15 seconds of flight.
2. 123
  
  +1
  
  25 January 2021 19: 23
  Well, first of all, the Su-24 is not trained to carry anything but cast iron, well, it does not have long-range anti-ship weapons, as well as on all the above-mentioned Su ... Unfortunately.
  
  In my opinion, your regret is feigned.
  
  The picture shows the anti-ship Kh-35U "Uran" mounted on the MiG-29.
  
  The aviation version of the Kh-35 missile can be used from the Russian Air Force and Navy aircraft of the Su-24M, Su-30, MiG-29K, Su-35S, Tu-142 and Il-38 types (after revision). The helicopter version of the missile is used from the Ka-27 and Ka-52K helicopters.
  
  There are at least Su-30SM and Su-24M in Crimea.
  
  https://dfnc.ru/katalog-vooruzhenij/aviatsionnye-rakety-i-bomby/h-35-uran/
  
  And we have nothing else, for tactical fighters. This is not a Tu-22M3 with an X-22/32, which, by the way, Cook will shoot down anyway.
  
  You have a rather strange idea of reality. Our missiles do not exist, but rather controversial in terms of the effectiveness of the air defense of the American destroyer is omnipotent.
  Forgive me, I did not read your further rantings. It's a shame, go teach materiel
  1. Cat
    
    0
    
    26 January 2021 23: 40
    
    Ah ... even so. So enlighten us poor people about the capabilities of the Aegis air defense system and the SM-3 Cook SAM. In how many seconds would he fill up the entire Sukhoi six? And at the same time all 8 "Onyxes" from all over the Crimea. Don't be shy. Shine your mind and conquer us. Zhdemsss ...
    1. 123
      
      0
      
      27 January 2021 00: 14
      
      Ah ... even so. So enlighten us poor people about the capabilities of the Aegis air defense system and the SM-3 Cook SAM. In how many seconds would he fill up the entire Sukhoi six?
      
      With pleasure The answer is simple - not for how much. Electronics "Cook" is suppressed by means of electronic warfare, then everything is as in the video posted above, but with the launch of missiles. 6 "Dry" is redundant.
      
      And at the same time all 8 "Onyxes" from all over the Crimea. Don't be shy. Shine your mind and conquer us. Zhdemsss ...
      
      As you say (s) You will probably be surprised, but there are more Onyxes in Crimea, I will not go looking for how things are in the rearmament of coastal complexes, I will only say that there are launchers on the Buyan MRK, frigates 11356, and submarines. Some of them are with Onyx and this is clearly more than eight.
      There will be more questions, do not hesitate, contact
      Hello polymers
      1. Cat
        
        0
        
        27 January 2021 12: 03
        
        But lying to society is not good. There are no Onyx anti-ship missiles on any of our BNK in the Black Sea. They stand only on frigates of Project 22350. What's on Buyan M, what's on pr.11356 ONLY RKO "Caliber". And I understand that you are hinting about "Onyx" on DPL pr.06363 .... well, this is also not true! In the same place, the caliber of torpedo tubes is 21 inches (533 mm) and the Onyx in the TPS is 720 mm. "Onyxes" are submerged only in the VPU "Ash". Well, why are you doing that? Face it. No matter how bitter she is. The impression is that you live in 1940, when "with little blood, but on foreign territory", but 1941 will come ... in which my 18 year old dad retreated 80 km a day, until Stalingrad itself .... And the last , I myself am an EW specialist, though a former one, therefore, if you know, if there is radiation, a Shrike or something more perfect will arrive. In short, we have nothing to break through the "Aegis" in the World Cup. That's the whole truth for you.
        
        123
        
        0
        
        27 January 2021 16: 24
        
        But lying to society is not good.
        
        I completely agree with you
        
        There are no Onyx anti-ship missiles on any of our BNKs in the Black Sea.
        
        What is BNK?
        
        They stand only on frigates of Project 22350. What's on Buyan M, what's on pr.11356 ONLY RKO "Caliber".
        
        How do you know this? Does the Defense Department report which missiles have been installed? The 3S14 universal shipborne firing system is installed on all of the listed ships. Suitable for installation of both Calibers and P-800 "Onyx" (3M55).
        
        And I understand that you are hinting about "Onyx" on DPL pr.06363 .... well, this is also not true! In the same place, the caliber of torpedo tubes is 21 inches (533 mm) and the Onyx in the TPS is 720 mm. "Onyxes" are submerged only in the VPU "Ash". Well, why are you doing that?
        
        As for "Varshavyanka", I was probably mistaken, I need to delve deeper into the topic. it may very well be that you are right.
        
        Well, why are you doing that? Face it. No matter how bitter she is.
        
        These words can be fully applied to you. By the way, as far as aviation is concerned, there are no more disagreements?
        
        The impression is that you live in 1940, when "with little blood, but on foreign territory," and after all, 1941 will come ... in which my 18 year old dad retreated 80 km a day, until Stalingrad itself ...
        
        It seems that you worked with Chernomyrdin and are still looking for the missing polymers. Dad only told you about 1941? Did you talk about 1945 and Berlin? This time there is no need to retreat anywhere, it is pointless, everything will burn in a nuclear fire.
        
        And lastly, I am an EW specialist myself, though a former one, therefore, if you know, if there is radiation, a Shrike or something more perfect will arrive.
        
        I suppose the word "ex" explains a lot. as far as I understand, electronic warfare has received a decent development in recent years. with all due respect, I doubt you know its capabilities.
        
        In short, we have nothing to break through the "Aegis" in the World Cup.
        
        Where does this confidence in Aegis come from? Where did she show herself? The Japanese changed their minds to install them on their shores. The US decided to buy air defense from Israel. On the coast, the American air defense showed itself not in the best way (the Middle East), at sea everything is more difficult. So why do you think it is impenetrable?
        
        So much for the truth.
        
        Everyone has their own truth. Maybe you should look for the truth?
        
        Cat
        
        -1
        
        27 January 2021 17: 28
        
        And ........... so you 123 .... somehow did not immediately pay attention to the author .... In general, as a young man, it is useless for me to communicate with you, you are always "right" experience of your relationship with other authors on the forum, so sorry. Your remarks are not interesting to me. Do not be offended, I will not answer you anymore. USELESS! Good luck ....
        
        123
        
        0
        
        27 January 2021 17: 41
        
        And all the best to you
Michael1950

-2

27 January 2021 13: 37

Quote: 123
You have a rather strange idea of reality. Our missiles do not exist, but rather controversial in terms of the effectiveness of the air defense of the American destroyer is omnipotent.

- Generally speaking, to call the air defense of American warships with Aegis "controversial in terms of effectiveness" is just a wild lack of knowledge of the materiel and a misunderstanding of it ...
1. 123
  
  0
  
  27 January 2021 16: 32
  
  - Generally speaking, to call the air defense of American warships with Aegis "controversial in terms of effectiveness" is just a wild lack of knowledge of the materiel and a misunderstanding of it ...
  
  So enlighten me, do me a favor
Michael1950

-1

27 January 2021 19: 21

Quote: 123
- Generally speaking, to call the air defense of American warships with Aegis "controversial in terms of effectiveness" is just a wild lack of knowledge of the materiel and a misunderstanding of it ...

So enlighten me, do me a favor

- What prevented you from being enlightened earlier?
1. The SPY-1D radar is too powerful for any Russian electronic warfare equipment to create even the slightest hindrance to it. Extremely high noise immunity of both the radar and the missile defense system.
2. Against fire suppression - there is no dead zone at all.
3. A large stock of different missiles, and against aerodynamic targets, and against ballistic targets.
4. Ability to simultaneously fire on dozens of targets in all 360 degrees.
https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/07.naval/karte003.en.html
https://mostlymissiledefense.com/2012/08/03/ballistic-missile-defense-the-aegis-spy-1-radar-august-3-2012/