What signal sent Russia "Donald Cook" from the Black Sea


I would like to object to some enlightened comrades who are convincing us that the arrival of the new American administration is a marker for a warming of our relations with America, they say, Biden and START III (the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, which expires on February 5, 2021) will be prolonged, and in DON (the Open Skies Treaty, from which Trump left in November last year, and we followed him) will return, and SP-2 will allow us to finish building, and generally revive our bilateral relations, which have dropped below the level of the plinth (by the way, through the efforts, by no means, of Trump, but of his pro-democratic entourage).


START III, Biden may be prolonging (he will probably even prolong it, consultations on this topic are already underway), and maybe he will return to DON (not the fact that we will return there!), But about SP-2 and I have very big doubts about the warming of our relations. Judging by the appointments to key posts in the administration of the 46th President of America, nothing good will shine for us in these matters. And the activation of NATO along the entire perimeter of our borders, and the drawing into it of new members (Ukraine and Georgia), and the flights of American nuclear strategists along our Crimean shores - Biden will not give up all this. This trend in policy He intends to keep Trump.

An additional confirmation of this was the next visit of our old friend of the US Navy destroyer "Donald Cook" (according to NATO classification USS Donald Cook DDG-75), assigned to the 60th squadron of the US Fleet Command, to our Black Sea shores. The 60th Squadron of the United States Navy is one of three squadrons permanently based outside the continental United States, the 60th is specifically assigned to the 6th US Navy, stationed in the Mediterranean. "Donald Cook" is a 4th generation US Navy destroyer destroyer, the main weapon of which is guided missiles (URO - guided missile weapons). The main weapon of the Cook is the Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of up to 2500 km, capable of carrying nuclear warheads. In the usual version, the destroyer is equipped with 56 such missiles; in the strike version, 96 such missiles are expected to be deployed.

This is not the first time that "Cook" has been hanging around our borders. One legend is connected with him, which says that during his visit to our Black Sea shores in April 2014, he was attacked by our front-line bomber Su-24, which did not carry a bomb load, but had one container under the fuselage with the Khibiny electronic warfare system. with which he turned off the entire mythical BIUS "Aegis" "Cook" (a combat information and control system that connects the ship's warning devices with the system of its weapons of destruction into a single system), which completely blinded and stunned the uninvited guest, after which the Russian pilot simulated a missile attack on a defenseless American destroyer. And so 12 times in a row! As a result, the Americans were forced to retire to the Romanian port of Constanta, where 27 sailors, unable to control their nerves, hastily submitted their resignation. In this legendary story, everything turned out to be untrue, starting with the "missile attack" and ending with the resignation reports, except for the fact that the Su-24 flew an American destroyer. By definition, the Su-24 could not turn off the enemy's BIUS by its own means of electronic warfare, rather it was the Americans with their electronic warfare forces that could blind our pilot. Imagine for a second the power of the destroyer's electronic warfare and compare them with the power of our aircraft's electronic warfare. It's like trying to blind an anti-aircraft searchlight with a flashlight. The effect will be the same.

Up the stairs to the underworld


But back to our old friend. Now he again came to our shores, using the Montreux Convention of 1936, which allows warships of the non-Black Sea powers to stay in the Black Sea for no more than 21 days. It would seem, what can surprise us here? But the Americans did it.

I quote from TASS:

The American tanker Laramie entered the Black Sea to provide fuel to the US Navy guided missile destroyer Donald Cook with fuel. This is stated in a message posted on Sunday on the website of the US 6th Fleet. Laramie's arrival in the Black Sea will help bring stability to the region. Laramie's refueling capabilities will help destroyer Donald Cook continue to carry out operations without entering port. It will also allow NATO partners to refuel [their ships] and extend patrol periods.

Strictly speaking, there is nothing unusual in supplying US Navy warships directly at sea, including refueling them with fuel. For a fleet operating on the scale of all the oceans of the planet, often far from its coastal bases, or in the immediate vicinity of an unfriendly coast, such a method of rear support is very often the only possible one. However, the Black Sea in this sense has never been an area of ​​special activity for US Navy supply ships and, in particular, tankers. The explanation for this is quite obvious. On the shores of the water area, there are quite a few states vassal to America, in the ports of which American "carriers of democracy" can always come with a "friendly visit" and replenish any supplies they need.

But then why was such a demonstration of the ability of American "Moremans" necessary to refuel the ship directly at sea, which no one doubted anyway? Moreover, with its extensive media coverage. I think that there is nothing accidental in this. The activity of the US Navy, in principle, is one of the sure indicators of the degree of toughness of the military-political course of Washington, which, with the advent of the new administration, has not diminished at all. And it is no coincidence that immediately after the inauguration of the new president, the Pentagon made an unprecedentedly tough statement about the readiness of the American fleet, together with the Japanese, to "defend against Chinese aggression" the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. And at the same time in the Black Sea, the legendary, in the sense of regular participation in anti-Russian actions, the destroyer "Donald Cook" started exercises with refueling at sea, which were almost equally unprecedented for this water area.

The Americans, who, as they say, ate a dog on various naval provocations off foreign shores, do nothing for nothing. And in this case we have before us a clear signal directed to a very specific addressee. The meaning of this signal is also quite obvious, and for greater reliability it was even duplicated textually: refueling directly at sea will allow the ships "to continue performing operations without entering the port." In practice, this means transferring the ship to a higher degree of combat readiness. Staying in the port does not contribute to this in any way. The ship is in standby mode, part of the crew is busy replenishing supplies, the other is chilling with the girls on the shore (or with the boys, now in the USA this is no longer a rarity, even in the navy). And if you want to show a potential enemy that you have decided to significantly increase the degree of readiness of your fleet for an immediate strike, then there is simply no better way than refueling at sea, which almost does not reduce the combat readiness of ships.

Do not forget that American military strategists are diligent students of the notorious Herman Kahn, who half a century ago invented the so-called "conflict escalation ladder", which is still being studied in all US military academies. And on this staircase, where the upper 44th step is called "Chaotic senseless war for total destruction", there are a number of steps that gradually lead to it. Including step number 4, on which "Tightening of positions and strong-willed confrontation" takes place. It is to this stage that the apparent increase in the combat readiness of the American fleet, which is indicated today on the Black Sea by a rendezvous of an American missile destroyer with a supply tanker, is not quite usual for this water area.

Of course, it would be wrong to think that this “signal” will be the only thing. In recent days, the number of the most diverse and clearly unfriendly "messages" that Washington sends to Moscow has been growing rapidly. And this growth by no means coincided in time with another attempt to storm the Russian authorities, undertaken, at the behest of the same “Washington Regional Committee,” by the local “fifth column” (I mean the action of “Navalny's children”). At the same time, the Americans are clearly counting on the fact that the addressee of these signals, which is undoubtedly the Russian government, will understand them “correctly” and draw “appropriate”, that is, the conclusions pleasing to the United States.

But just with this, our overseas strategists can have the biggest misfire. Judging by the direction in which events are developing in the Russian Federation, and how quickly the Kremlin's line towards Western interference in Russian affairs is tightening, the American authorities may not be upset in a childish way. Because today's Russia is already so tired of their shameless rudeness that even the rupture of diplomatic relations with this completely insolent "Empire of Good" is already seriously discussed in the Moscow media. When they talk about it in the Kremlin corridors, it will be too late to drink Borjomi. By the way, this is already the 10th step on the escalation ladder of Herman Kahn. And his diligent transatlantic students should, finally, count - how many such steps they still have left before they see the underworld. Because, according to Vladimir Putin, they will no longer be able to get to heaven.
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Miffer Offline Miffer
    Miffer (Sam Miffers) 30 January 2021 08: 42
    -3
    One legend is connected with him, which says that during his visit to our Black Sea shores in April 2014, he was attacked ... turned off the entire mythical BIUS “Aegis

    I have read this tale before. I think that local patriots are very upset by the very fact of its obvious impossibility. Twenty-seven sailors were unemployed.
    Pichalka :)
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 10: 44
      -3
      27 couch patriots were left without work, not sailors :)
  2. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 09: 01
    +2
    refueling at sea, which almost does not reduce the combat readiness of ships

    A very controversial statement. The word "almost" softens this statement a little.
  3. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 09: 15
    +7
    The military can hide their capabilities. They even have to do it. But today the information is as follows. The Khibiny was not installed on the SU-24.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 10: 45
      -1
      Even if installed, the electronic warfare of an aircraft, by definition, cannot "put" the CIUS of an entire ship.
      1. Bakht Offline Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 10: 51
        +4
        The Khibiny electronic warfare system has three main modifications intended for various new aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces.

        L-175V "Khibiny-10V" - for Su-34 bombers
        L-265 "Khibiny-10M" - for Su-35S fighters
        complex "Khibiny-U" - for Su-30SM fighters. The development of this version of the complex was started in 2013.

        The question is - if the Khibiny complex, by definition, cannot be installed on the SU-24, then what did the plane do after it made 12 flights over the ship? And why were 27 sailors written off (it would be nice to know the titles of these sailors)
        There is a completely different interpretation of that event. But all this is guesswork. The military won't say anything.
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 11: 01
          -3
          The question is - if the Khibiny complex, by definition, cannot be installed on the SU-24, then what did the plane do after it made 12 flights over the ship?

          I violated the rules of conduct at sea :)

          And why were 27 sailors written off (it would be nice to know the titles of these sailors)

          And they were not written off :)
          1. Bakht Offline Bakht
            Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 11: 01
            +6
            The plane did not violate any rules. A flyby of the ship is quite a routine operation. And held repeatedly by all countries
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 11: 04
              -4
              The plane did not violate any rules.

              https://vz.ru/politics/2016/10/31/841150.html

              Here it is described in detail why this is a violation of the rules, why before (in the Soviet years) such a violation was justified militarily, and now it is just foolishness.
              1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 11: 08
                +3
                From your link

                “The commanders of the aircraft of each Party shall exercise the greatest caution and prudence when approaching aircraft of the other Party operating over the high seas and ships of the other Party operating on the high seas, in particular ships engaged in the release or reception of aircraft, and in the interests of mutual security should not allow: simulating attacks by simulating the use of weapons on aircraft, any ships, performing various aerobatic maneuvers over ships and dropping various objects near them in such a way that they pose a danger to ships or hinder navigation "

                Donald Cook was not engaged in the reception and release of aircraft and whether the SU-24 imitated attacks is also unknown. Moreover, he did not drop anything nearby.
                Sorry, but your link indicates that the SU-24 did not violate the law of the sea.
                1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 11: 13
                  -5
                  You somehow selectively read.

                  one Party operating over the high seas and ships of another Party operating on the high seas, in particular to ships engaged in the release or reception of aircraft, and in the interests of mutual security should not allow: simulate attacks by simulating the use of weapons by airplanes, any ships, performing various aerobatic figures over ships and dropping various objects near them in such a way that they constitute a danger to ships or hindrance to navigation "

                  Su-24 performed aerobatic maneuvers over the ship. He also simulated an approach to attack the ship.

                  And in the article I sent it just said that the Su-24 broke the rules. The whole article is about this.
                  1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 11: 16
                    +5
                    The fact that the plane carried out simulated attacks is said only in the Western media. NATO officers said the plane was flying overflights of the ship. The commander of Donald Cook said that he did not see the threat to his ship.
                    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                      Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 January 2021 11: 25
                      +2
                      Also, pay attention to the discrepancies: officially, the military say that there were no imitations of attacks, and Western journalists are wrapping up the topic with imitations.
                      1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 11: 34
                        +4
                        I am using the translation of the ship's commander and retired Admiral Foggo (if he translated the name correctly) from the NATO command. There was no threat to the ship. There were spans at 1000 feet and one span at 30 feet above sea level. There is a photo. The ship clearly saw that there were no weapons on board.
                        So there were no threats and imitation attacks.
                        Only the military knows what the task was for the SU-24.
                      2. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                        Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 January 2021 11: 42
                        +1
                        Quote: Bakht
                        I am using the translation of the ship's commander and retired Admiral Foggo (if he translated the name correctly) from the NATO command. There was no threat to the ship. There were spans at 1000 feet and one span at 30 feet above sea level. There is a photo. The ship clearly saw that there were no weapons on board.
                        So there were no threats and imitation attacks.

                        A natural question: then why did you have to quit? .. Peacetime, the US is not at war with Russia, the plane is unarmed, there is no real threat to the ship.
                        That Aegis allegedly stopped working with cotton? Has he stopped? On VO, they wrote differently with a detailed analysis of events. Although there are all sorts of opinions in the comments.
                      3. Bakht Offline Bakht
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 11: 46
                        +2
                        Now the very fact of dismissal is being questioned.
                        I did not analyze this incident on purpose, since it is a purely military one. Not political. Apparently there was no Khibiny, there were no threats of attack, the dismissal of the sailors is in question.
                        It is a fact that the ship was flown over with reconnaissance missions and Cook's return to the base in Bulgaria. What exactly happened and what organizational conclusions followed, we can only guess.
                      4. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                        Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 January 2021 11: 50
                        0
                        Yes, here I am about the same. He questioned only the fact of mass layoffs.
                      5. Dear sofa expert. 30 January 2021 20: 42
                        0
                        Yes, here I am about the same. He questioned only the fact of mass layoffs.

                        No, dear. The memory has not yet to beat off. The fact is that then, in 2014, not only Russian media, but also Western ones wrote about this (layoffs, etc.).
                        Yes, of course, it's been a long time. During this period, they "tweaked" everything they could, but not "everything." There are still (unfinished) forums, just like here, where the residents of “those countries” discussed this incident as actively as here.
                        So it is impossible to completely "blur" the fact.
                        Yes, and then, and "those - others", called the same figures and facts .. taken by them not from the ceiling, but from the same official media (later protected).
                        You can't hide an awl in a sack .. so ..,

                        https://www.heise.de/forum/Telepolis/Kommentare/Am-Rand-des-Buergerkriegs/Nach-Scheinangriff-US-Navy-voellig-demoralisiert/posting-26788410/show/
                      6. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                        Marzhecki (Sergei) 31 January 2021 06: 42
                        0
                        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                        No, dear. The memory has not yet to beat off. The fact is that then, in 2014, not only Russian media, but also Western ones wrote about this (layoffs, etc.).

                        I have already explained to Bakhtiyar that the Western media use our materials the same way we use them. They just reprinted the Russian article. And there the journalist himself came up with the idea of ​​mass layoffs.
                        P.S. To clarify again, I am subject to justifiable doubt only the fact of mass self-dismissals. I am not going to talk about the Khibiny, here I am not a specialist, but there are many different opinions.
                      7. Dear sofa expert. 31 January 2021 12: 14
                        +2
                        I have already explained to Bakhtiyar that the Western media use our materials the same way we use them.

                        Yes, of course, this is the case, there is no point in denying this. Moreover, it has become easy to manipulate the truth today. Somewhere podter, somewhere added. The Internet will endure everything.
                        But then what in general, today, can you believe?
                        Here, many often demand, as evidence, references to some more or less official sources, believing that they are the measure of truth.
                        So there ANY state has even more opportunities for censorship and "adjustments".
                        Information has many faces, and therefore, in principle, it is subjective. You have to rely on your instincts and life experience to "separate cutlets from flies."

                        I read a lot of Western press, I like to analyze information myself, compare, look for some nuances that indicate the truth.

                        Reading (and looking) then (in 2014) about the incident with the destroyer, I saw, by the engagement, density, and intensity of the material supply, then the internal tension, and that genuine shock from what happened, among the representatives of the “other side”. This is simply impossible to hide.
                        I watched political debates on TV, with very interesting and competent participants. Arguing, reasoning, giving their own reasons.
                        Then I had no doubt about this detail (the subject of our dispute).
                        The massive dismissal of the ship's personnel was not even questioned. This was simply spoken of as "collateral damage", as an accomplished fact.

                        They argued more about the very technical capabilities of the "evil Russians", a la: how dare they ... the more thoughtful and competent delved into the technical component: how did they manage?
                        By the way, different, very interesting conclusions were drawn on this topic. but this is not today's discussion, ours here.
                      8. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
                        Marzhecki (Sergei) 1 February 2021 07: 27
                        0
                        Well, well, if indeed our Khibiny could turn off Aegis. I'm not a specialist here, and this question is generally beyond the scope of my doubts.
                        Doubts concerned self-dismissal. I'm 99,99% sure that this moment came up with growing up. journalist.
                      9. Dear sofa expert. 1 February 2021 09: 13
                        +2
                        Well, well, if indeed our Khibiny could turn off Aegis. I'm not a specialist here, and this question is generally beyond the scope of my doubts.
                        Doubts concerned self-dismissal. I'm 99,99% sure that this moment came up with growing up. journalist.

                        No, this is exactly what I am not saying. As I understood then, there was a big question about the Khibiny. Energetically, an airplane and a ship are not comparable. Something else, more powerful, influenced Cook's electronics. We considered various options: From a land-based source of energy to an underwater one .... there were many different versions, up to fantastic ones.). But the very version of the flights of SU 24, as a possible, it is a diversionary maneuver, during the test of this "something" is quite tenacious.

                        And on dismissal .. About the dismissal of these people by the leadership - the question was not raised. They just said that these sailors "filed a letter of resignation." The long-standing fate of these people, as far as I remember, was not discussed.
            2. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
              Volkonsky (Wolf) 31 January 2021 04: 27
              0
              "Cook" went not to Bulgaria, but to Romania, the port of Constanta. I will help you, I will give you a link to one video, where everything is disassembled in detail, there is also a document of the Pentagon press secretary, Colonel Warren, who does not give ambiguous assessments, there was no dismissal of 27 sailors, but the Khibins were just

    2. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 11: 32
      -5
      NATO officers said the plane was flying overflights of the ship.

      They also noted that these overflights took place at low altitudethat potentially threatened a collision.
      1. Bakht Offline Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 11: 43
        +4
        I have just skimmed through the information on that time. Already wrote

        Foggo didn't elaborate on those rules of engagement, but a European Command spokesman told Navy Times at the time that the Cook's commanding officer didn't feel threatened, and a retired Navy commanding officer said that, under the circumstances, the Russian aircraft didn 't present a credible threat.

        Regarding 27 sailors - you are right. The first messages were from Sputnik. All subsequent English-language (Times, Daily mirror, etc.) were reprints.

        About the SU-24 mission. On the same day, a helicopter flew over Cook. Little is written about this. Here his commander Cook considered a dangerous rapprochement. But not the SU-24. Most likely, the plane performed the reconnaissance function and perhaps performed it well. So the organizational conclusions regarding some of Cook's officers, I consider quite possible. And then the media inflated it.
        But these are all assumptions. Nobody will tell the true picture. Neither Russia nor the States. Why give information to the enemy?
      2. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 January 2021 11: 47
        -1
        Quote: Bakht
        Foggo didn't elaborate on those rules of engagement, but a European Command spokesman told Navy Times at the time that the Cook's commanding officer didn't feel threatened, and a retired Navy commanding officer said that, under the circumstances, the Russian aircraft didn 't present a credible threat.

        Regarding 27 sailors - you are right. The first messages were from Sputnik. All subsequent English-language (Times, Daily mirror, etc.) were reprints.

        That's what I'm talking about: in the West they also read our press and also use it. The Su-24 flew, but about the dismissals of the sailors, ours came up with it themselves.
        Regarding the organizational conclusions: in the United States there is a tradition of appointing one person as a switchman. But to fire 27 at once is not their method.
      3. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 11: 51
        -5
        I have just skimmed through the information on that time. Already wrote
        Foggo didn't elaborate on those rules of engagement, but a European Command spokesman told Navy Times at the time that the Cook's commanding officer didn't feel threatened, and a retired Navy commanding officer said that, under the circumstances, the Russian aircraft didn 't present a credible threat.

        Didn't imagine "real threat. "But flying at a short distance creates the danger of a collision. This is a violation. This was said by the representative of the American Armed Forces Warren. In addition, the pilot did not respond to the request of the ship's crew, which also created additional tension and could potentially lead to the fact that the aircraft just get shot down.

        Most likely, the plane performed the reconnaissance function and perhaps performed it well.

        Here are just modern means of observation allow reconnaissance without rapprochement. Therefore, the flight of the Su-24 was precisely a military-political foolishness.
      4. Bakht Offline Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 11: 59
        +6
        The opinion of Russian pilots. Flying at low altitude is a MANDATORY pilot training program. The flight took place with the wing open, which means at low speed. The aircraft commander showed his professionalism.
        Flights over ships and planes are quite common practice. Recently, a TU-142 flew over the flagship of the 6th fleet at low altitude. A photo session was held on the bridge of the ship. And nobody solved the big problem.
        NATO planes fly around Russian planes regularly. Recently one of these was driven off the presidential side. Another incident was with Shoigu's plane. They could have been shot down too. Regular flights of NATO drones and reconnaissance aircraft near Russian borders are also potentially dangerous. They can be knocked down.
        Conclusion There is nothing to get into someone else's garden. Donald Cook has nothing to do in the Black Sea. He lives there for 10-15 minutes. So it's not worth provoking. There is also such a view of things.
      5. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 12: 07
        -6
        Flying at low altitude is a MANDATORY pilot training program.

        But it does not include flying at low altitude above a warship of another state.

        The aircraft commander showed his professionalism.

        Professionalism as a pilot, of course. Legal professionalism is doubtful. Although, most likely, the order was from superiors, so the pilot is here. of course, there is nothing to demand.

        NATO planes fly around Russian planes regularly. Recently one of these was driven off the presidential side. Another incident was with Shoigu's plane. They could have been shot down too. Regular flights of NATO drones and reconnaissance aircraft near Russian borders are also potentially dangerous. They can be knocked down.

        As far as I know, their scouts did not violate Russian borders. And they have the right to fly near borders (and not specific objects).

        It is also unclear how close NATO planes flew to Shoigu's plane. NATO members themselves say that their planes simply identified the board and immediately knocked down.

        Conclusion There is nothing to get into someone else's garden. Donald Cook has nothing to do in the Black Sea. He lives there for 10-15 minutes. So it's not worth provoking. There is also such a view of things.

        This is already moralism.
  4. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 11: 48
    +3
    1000 feet is not a low altitude. One flight of 30 feet (10 meters) is recklessness (or aerobatics) as you like.
    Potentially recently there was a case when inograds went to cross the course of an American ship. There was a clear violation of the Russian side, because the American received the helicopter.
    The Americans did not see any threats from the ship in the passage of the SU-24. It was inflated by the Western media. They are also engaged in propaganda.
  5. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 11: 54
    -5
    One flight of 30 feet (10 meters) is recklessness (or aerobatics) as you like.

    It is about him that we are talking.

    The Americans did not see any threats from the ship in the passage of the SU-24.

    The crew themselves did not see a threat in him, because they could shoot him down at any moment. However, this does not negate the very violation of the rules established in the contract.
  6. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 12: 02
    +3
    Could not shoot down. With the same situation in the Baltic with the same Cook, the commander said that "he sees no threat to his ship"
    About the contract. Again. Donald Cook did not receive the plane, the SU-24 did not imitate attacks. What exactly is the rule violation? In a dangerous approach? Different countries have different rules. Flying at low altitude is a mandatory element of training for naval aviation pilots.
  7. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 12: 13
    -6
    Again. Donald Cook did not receive the plane, the SU-24 did not simulate attacks

    Reread that rule passage again. About "aircraft acceptance" it says "in particular" - that is, this is only one of the limiting factors:

    The commanders of the aircraft of each Party shall exercise the greatest caution and prudence when approaching the aircraft of the other Party operating over the high seas and ships of the other Party operating on the high seas. in particular to ships engaged in the release or reception of aircraft

    And further:

    , and in the interests of mutual security should not allow: imitation of attacks by imitation of the use of weapons on aircraft, any ships, performing various aerobatic figures over ships and dropping various objects near them in such a way that they constitute a danger to ships or hindrance to navigation

    Was there a span of 10 meters? Was.

    Flying at low altitude is a mandatory element of training for naval aviation pilots.

    Above the training ground or your ship - yes, of course. But not over a ship of another state.
  8. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 12: 17
    +3
    I still don't see anything extraordinary in the flight of the plane. Such things have happened before and will continue to happen. There is nothing to approach foreign shores. About the fact that "could be shot down." If Soviet ships and planes shot down everything that seemed dangerous to them, then the war would have been going on for a long time.
    You don't want to accept the fact that the NATO officers DID NOT SEE ANYTHING DANGEROUS FOR THEIR SHIP. Let's say Vincennes shot down an Iranian airbus just when something seemed to him. Whipping up horror films about danger and violation of the rules was carried out by the Western media. I say that propaganda is blooming there too.
  9. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 12: 54
    -5
    I still don't see anything extraordinary in the flight of the plane. Such things have happened before and will continue to happen.

    "non-extraordinary" does not negate the fact that this is a violation of the rules established by the document. This was what I said at the very beginning.

    There is nothing to approach foreign shores.

    The Black Sea is not only Russian. And the shores there are also not only Russian. "Donald Cook" did not violate any international norms with his behavior.

    If Soviet ships and planes shot down everything that seemed dangerous to them, then the war would have been going on for a long time.

    So they shot down. And the war didn't start.

    You don't want to accept the fact that the NATO officers DID NOT SEE ANYTHING DANGEROUS FOR THEIR SHIP.

    Once again, they saw nothing militarily dangerous for their ship. Because the plane was not armed.

    That does not negate the fact of approaching a dangerously close distance (10 m), which is a violation. Regardless of the professionalism of the pilot, regardless of the opinion of the crew of the ship itself, this is a violation.

    Let's say Vincennes shot down an Iranian airbus just when something seemed to him.

    Bingo, that's it.

    Whipping up horror films about danger and violation of the rules was carried out by the Western media.

    The Pentagon spokesman said about the violation of the rules, the media only quoted his words.

    I say that propaganda is blooming there too.

    This has nothing to do with the case.
  10. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 13: 01
    +4
    Does the document say something about distances? Flying over a ship is always dangerous. At any distance. As well as the convergence of two ships. As well as rapprochement in the air.
    The flight at low altitude is needed to perform combat missions and is included in the training program. We trained on Cook.
    The Pentagon spokesman said something. The ship commander did not think so. Whom to believe more? Rather, the commander of the ship. Vincennes's example as an indicator.
    In the opinion of the ship's commander, there was no danger. What else do you see as a problem?
    I will find hundreds of cases when the western side violates the same rules. And for some reason nobody is blamed for it. Especially in terms of violation of all the rules, the Greens (Greenpeace) were noted. They have not written any laws at all.
    The warship was located 50-70 km from the coast. The Russian plane flew over. Without weapons, the ship commander saw no danger. What is the problem? That the Pentagon spokesman (for political reasons) said something there? Were there any investigations, lawsuits? As my district police officer used to say: "He said, it is not considered"
  11. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 13: 39
    -4
    Does the document say something about distances?

    The document says:

    Aircrew commanders of each Party shall exercise the greatest caution and prudence when approaching aircraft of the other Party operating over the high seas and ships of the other Party operating on the high seas, in particular ships engaged in the release or reception of aircraft, and in the interests of mutual security should not allow: simulated attacks by simulating the use of weapons on planes, any ships, performing various aerobatic figures over ships and by dropping various objects near them in such a way that they constitute a danger to ships or hinder navigation.

    First, it is clear that the 10m distance is not an example of "great care".

    Secondly, it is indicated that it is inadmissible to perform various aerobatic maneuvers over ships.

    The flight at low altitude is needed to perform combat missions and is included in the training program.

    Once again, it is part of combat training if it is carried out over its own training ground or some object.

    In this case, the object was a warship of another state.

    So, according to your logic, the "Cook" can shoot down a dangerously flying up Su-24 and declare that it was just an air defense crew training exercise.

    The Pentagon spokesman said something. The ship commander did not think so. Whom to believe more? Rather, the commander of the ship.

    And again: if the commander of the ship said that his ship was not real threats - this does not negate the fact of violation.

    Let me explain with an analogy. If you cross the road in the wrong place at the moment when there are no cars nearby at the place of your crossing, you still break the rule, although in fact you do not create a real danger either for yourself or for the cars.

    I will find hundreds of cases when the western side violates the same rules.

    Give an example.

    Especially in terms of violation of all the rules, the Greens (Greenpeace) were noted. They have not written any laws at all.

    At first. we are not talking about Greenpeace (non-governmental organization). Second, Greenpeace flies in regularly for such violations. Moreover, from the most diverse countries.

    The warship was located 50-70 km from the coast.

    The territorial waters of the state end at around 22,2 km from the coast. "Cook" did not violate the maritime borders of Russia.

    The Russian plane flew over.

    Yes, dangerously close.

    the ship commander saw no danger

    The commander of the ship said that the Russian planes did not pose a real danger to his ship in military terms, because they did not carry weapons. He did not say anything about compliance with the Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents at Sea itself.

    Were there any investigations, lawsuits?

    There was an official appeal.
  12. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 15: 44
    +3
    We've figured it out. The plane flew over the ship. Just as it was done before by all parties. It had no consequences. Have you made a complaint? So what? Such cases will be repeated more than once. Moreover, both sides. I don't see any point in this discussion at all. Note

    Russia ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1997, and took advantage of its opportunity to exclude the use of international court proceedings in disputes over the exercise of sovereign rights and jurisdiction.

    I started this discussion, simply because I believed that the Khibiny was not used. Regarding the dismissal of the sailors, they found out that this was possibly a fake.
    Although I do not exclude the dismissal of a couple of officers. This is if the SU-24 has fulfilled its task. There is such an assumption. But I don’t want to discuss assumptions.

    About Greenpeace. Nothing arrives for them. I saw a video of Greenpeace piling on a whaling ship. They didn't get anything for it. And when they got to Prirazlomnaya, they accused Russia of terrorism in general. And even condemned in the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. For some reason, no one was outraged by the violation of the law of the sea by the Netherlands.

    About "could have been knocked down." I will be very pleased if the next plane that comes close to the plane of the President of Russia or the Minister of Defense is shot down. An apology can be made later.
  • 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 31 January 2021 13: 13
    +3
    Are you arguing about this? Kind of like first-hand information hi

  • stepet Offline stepet
    stepet 30 January 2021 13: 15
    -4
    Quote: Cyril
    Su-24 performed aerobatic maneuvers over the ship. He also simulated an approach to attack the ship.

    Once the Americans get tired and they will shoot down such a plane.
    And then they will force Russia to apologize and compensate for moral and material damage (rocket, "the suffering of the sailors", etc.).
    And only after that this delirium of reason will end.
    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 21: 53
      +3
      Once someone will get tired and get knocked down. And then "this delirium of reason" will end in war. Just the other day, several Chinese strategists conducted a simulated attack on an American aircraft carrier. Not just a fly-over, but a real imitation with an exit to the launch distance. Seems 200 miles from the ship. How long does it take for a rocket to fly those 200 miles?
      I repeat. Such tricks are thrown by all countries several times a year (or a month). Well, the Americans wanted to raise a noise because of this, they raised it. They wanted to shoot down an Iranian airbus (it is difficult to confuse it with a bomber), they shot it down. And the Vice President of the States (future president) said, "I am not going to apologize for my country, no matter what the facts."
      It is a pity that there is no such vice president in Russia. Really a pity.
      1. Pete mitchell Offline Pete mitchell
        Pete mitchell (Pete Mitchell) 1 February 2021 00: 15
        0
        Quote: Bakht
        "I'm not going to apologize for my country, no matter what the facts."
        It is a pity that there is no such vice president in Russia. Really a pity.

        Well, after all, no one apologized for the hard overflight of Essex - even the pursuers were rigidly cut off and that's all, they say more photos were sent lol In the club named after Vasily Tsymbal arrived and will arrive, which is glorious
    2. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
      Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 31 January 2021 17: 41
      +1
      Or the Russians can become and sink such a Cook, for example, with a salvo of 4 Onyx anti-ship missiles. Such a dose of one hundred pounds will be enough for him to become an artificial reef at the bottom of the Black Sea.
      1. cmonman Offline cmonman
        cmonman (Garik Mokin) 31 January 2021 18: 13
        0
        Or the Russians can become and sink such a Cook, for example, with a salvo of 4 Onyx anti-ship missiles. Such a dose of one hundred pounds will be enough for him to become an artificial reef at the bottom of the Black Sea.

        This phrase reminded me of an old anecdote:

        Two tomatoes are sitting on the rail - a pessimist and an optimist. The train is going: "chvak_hee-hee_chvak". As you guessed correctly, the optimist managed to giggle, how did you ...
      2. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
        Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 31 January 2021 18: 16
        +1
        The Titanic also sailed optimists, of the same nationality as on Cook ...
  • Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 1 February 2021 09: 30
    0
    Once the Americans get tired and they will shoot down such a plane.
    And then they will force Russia to apologize and compensate for moral and material damage (rocket, "the suffering of the sailors", etc.).
    And only after that this delirium of reason will end.

    The hand of a Ukrainian farmer is immediately felt, sitting down to paint how NATO smears Russia. wink
  • margo Offline margo
    margo (margo) 4 February 2021 16: 30
    0
    This is not foolishness - this is stupidity, and as you correctly noted, a gross violation of the rules,

    The parties must exercise the utmost caution and prudence

    there is nothing of the above in such an act.
  • cmonman Offline cmonman
    cmonman (Garik Mokin) 30 January 2021 19: 44
    +1
    A flyby of the ship is quite a routine operation.

    I remember the story of my friend. It was in the 70s in the USSR. He was an assistant captain on a large warship in the Pacific Fleet. When the Americans were sailing the Pacific Ocean, the Soviet flotilla followed a parallel course or in a wake. And the Americans often made helicopter flights over Soviet ships. He says that one morning he went out on deck during a fly-over by amers and from a helicopter to him, through an amplifier, in Russian “Good morning, Name-Patronymic! How is your breakfast? " He showed in response that the breakfast was OK.
  • Pete mitchell Offline Pete mitchell
    Pete mitchell (Pete Mitchell) 1 February 2021 00: 05
    0
    Quote: Bakht
    The plane did not violate any rules

    Didn't open your counterpart's link, but it's forbidden to fly around the warship; it is forbidden to fly over it, to cross the ship's course only at right angles before or behind him. Something like this.
    When Viggen collapsed during the flyby of Peter the Great, no one was outraged ... I had a chance to talk with people who saw and heard the work of the AK-630 ...
  • Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 January 2021 11: 01
    +1
    Quote: Bakht
    The question is - if the Khibiny complex, by definition, cannot be installed on the SU-24, then what did the plane do after it made 12 flights over the ship? And why were 27 sailors written off (it would be nice to know the titles of these sailors)

    As for the dismissal of 27 people, most likely this is a "duck", the journalist himself came up with a jingoistic patriotic story that everyone liked and reprinted it and began to quote. Service in the American army is quite a profitable business. "Cook" hangs out in the calm Mediterranean Sea, sometimes entering the Black Sea, does not fight with anyone. There was nothing for the sailors to be so scared as to ruin their careers. Let's not consider them to be smears.
    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 11: 03
      +1
      To assert this, one would have to know something more specific than "most likely".
      I think that "most likely" 27 people were fired. But for what real reason is unknown
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 11: 09
        -3
        To assert this, one would have to know something more specific than "most likely".

        So the fact of the matter is that only the Russian media wrote about the "dismissal of 27 sailors", with no references to at least some documents, statements of American officials, the words of the "dismissed" sailors themselves, or at least reports in the Western media. not provided.

        So with a request for "more specific" - this is to the authors of this "duck".
        1. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 11: 10
          +1
          Russian media copied Western ones. The West wrote about the dismissal of 27 sailors. After the story with Porter, they wrote about 200 fired. For some reason, the Russian media did not advertise this information.
          1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
            Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 January 2021 11: 15
            0
            Quote: Bakht
            Russian media copied Western ones. The West wrote about the dismissal of 27 sailors.

            Just in case, I'll tell you. Russian journalists scrutinize Western journalists in search of sensations, while Western journalists study Russian ones just as closely. For the same purpose.
            1. Vladest Offline Vladest
              Vladest (Vladimir) 30 January 2021 18: 22
              -1
              Quote: Marzhetsky
              carefully study Westerners in search of sensations,

              The West is generally a very vague definition.
          2. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 11: 16
            -2
            The West wrote about the dismissal of 27 sailors.

            Is there at least one such link? As a specific (according to your own words) confirmation.
      2. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 January 2021 11: 13
        0
        I am not claiming, I am guessing. It's my personal opinion.
        1. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 11: 17
          +1
          I guess too. According to other sources, the SU-24 fulfilled its mission and 27 people from Donald Cook were fired for wrong actions. But this is also only speculation.
          1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
            Marzhecki (Sergei) 30 January 2021 11: 19
            +1
            Note that I did not write anything about the Su-24. The flyer was given a task, he completed it. It is a fact.
            About dismissal - not a fact.
            1. Bakht Offline Bakht
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 30 January 2021 11: 20
              +3
              We'll have to look. I thought this story was long forgotten.
  • Binder Offline Binder
    Binder (Miron) 30 January 2021 20: 01
    -1
    Quote: Bakht
    And why were 27 sailors written off (it would be nice to know the titles of these sailors)

    Yes, there were no 27 decommissioned crew members, Bakhtiyar. This is a mediocre fake of one of the Russian propagandists. You must understand this ...
    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 31 January 2021 16: 59
      +2
      Most likely a fake. I was not particularly interested in this topic, because there is a lot of aviation specifics. Most likely there was no Khibiny either. They are placed on the end mounts of the aircraft. They are not visible from the photo and video. And on the SU-24 they, in principle, cannot be placed.
      But the SU-24 was doing something. Most likely intelligence. But no one will say for sure.
      1. Pete mitchell Offline Pete mitchell
        Pete mitchell (Pete Mitchell) 1 February 2021 00: 22
        0
        There is a container version complex "Khibiny" / KS-418E - a project of a REP complex for export aircraft Su-24MK
  • alexneg13 Offline alexneg13
    alexneg13 (Alexander) 30 January 2021 19: 55
    0
    Quote: Cyril
    Even if installed, the electronic warfare of an aircraft, by definition, cannot "put" the CIUS of an entire ship.

    Maybe if he was blinded from the Crimean coast, and the Su-24 was only playing the role of a bully.
  • Michael1950 Offline Michael1950
    Michael1950 (Michael) 30 January 2021 10: 47
    -1
    - Of course he sent "SOS"! laughing lol “Save Our Souls”! fellow
    1. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 30 January 2021 16: 55
      0
      The funny thing is that SOS sounds like MAYDAY on the air! wink
  • Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 30 January 2021 10: 49
    -2
    the other is chilling with the girls on the shore (or with the boys, now in the USA this is no longer a rarity, even in the navy).

    Ah, Mr. Volkonsky, I will tell you a terrible secret - it has never been uncommon in all fleets of the world. Including in Russian.
  • Vladest Offline Vladest
    Vladest (Vladimir) 30 January 2021 18: 19
    0
    I would like to object to some enlightened comrades who are convincing us that the coming of the new American administration is a marker for a warming of our relations with America,

    The arrival of the new administration in the United States is a natural process for them. The administration changes there every four years. And it is not changing for the sake of Russia. And then, how lucky Russia will be with the love of this new administration for it. For the United States of the Russian Federation this is one of the problems, of course not the main one. China is yes.
  • Michael1950 Offline Michael1950
    Michael1950 (Michael) 30 January 2021 18: 44
    0
    Quote: Cyril
    the other is chilling with the girls on the shore (or with the boys, now in the USA this is no longer a rarity, even in the navy).

    Ah, Mr. Volkonsky, I will tell you a terrible secret - it has never been uncommon in all fleets of the world. Including in Russian.

    - And not only in the Russian fleet, but also in the army! Even the greatest learned husband Kozma Prutkov wrote: "Who does not disdain the soldier's ass, the flank serves as a niece!" laughing lol
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 30 January 2021 19: 00
    +2
    Garbage from scratch.
    If the KUK is based in the Mediterranean, then naturally, it is he (and the neighbors) who comes to the World Cup from time to time.
    I have already read 2 more stories modeled on the fake with Cook. Almost one to one ...
  • Obama Barack Offline Obama Barack
    Obama Barack (Obama Barack) 30 January 2021 21: 00
    -1
    What signals can such a chandelier send? Let the toilet paper be prepared. )
  • Alexander K_2 Offline Alexander K_2
    Alexander K_2 (Alexander K) 30 January 2021 21: 25
    -2
    I think the key point in the whole article is that Russia DOES NOT HAVE ships capable of performing combat missions anywhere near its shores! Russia DOES NOT HAVE anything to fully supply its ships far from its shores! Russia is not able to provide AIR COVERAGE to its Navy! This is the reason for all the fuss with the COOK, because DON'T GOD'S GOD in the event of a conflict will not be "eaten" at all DONALD KOOK !!!!
    1. Cat Offline Cat
      Cat (Sergei) 1 February 2021 01: 30
      +1
      And what to expect from a country that survived a defeat that even Hitler did not inflict on us? And in numbers: we have lost about 5 million sq. Km. territory, and about 100 million people. And we got 15 "brotherly" countries that sooner or later will incite us. I am generally silent about the economy and the military-industrial complex, since I do not know these data. And we got capitalism. BUT, on the other hand, the country's defense capacity is growing, of course not as we plan, but progress is evident. Specifically for Cook and Porter. Of course, they are serious opponents, but the Navy has a "Weapon tracking" task. What is it? That behind each BNK there is, say, a missile boat with an anti-ship missile at a minimum range of anti-ship missiles, this is usually five kilometers. So, if our Lightning with Mosquitoes walk in the wake of "cookies" this will definitely guarantee their defeat. No amount of protection will save them. They simply will not have enough time to "survive" four four-ton "Mosquitoes" in 6-7 seconds. And now the Black Sea Fleet has four such boats. In addition, they are good because their travel is up to 40 knots, which will prevent 30-knot Burks from breaking away from the wake matelot.
      1. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
        Volkonsky (Wolf) 3 February 2021 20: 10
        0
        the only one out of 80 presented here, written by a professional naval sailor, the rest of the commentators are fighting their battles of local importance, without getting up from the couch, having no idea about the essence of the issue. And the essence is this - "Cook" was in neutral waters, fulfilling the task assigned to him by his command, denoted the presence of the US Navy in the Black Sea (here someone explained this by the fact of his registration with the 6th Fleet, based in the Mediterranean, but in the past year, this did not prevent "Kuk" from being in the Baltic Sea with the same tasks - https://www.blackseanews.net/read/162981), the Su-24 was fulfilling its task, assigned by its command - to practice escort and destruction of the target, the container with the Khibiny was nominally fixed under his fuselage, he could not turn off the Cook's BIUS by definition, he could only slow down the signal (in a missile attack, seconds decide everything - who to celebrate the victory and who to rest at the bottom of the sea). This is true! Everything else is fiction! Nobody filed a resignation report, everyone is safe and sound. Which is what I wish for you. Special thanks to the cat for the common sense.
  • eco3 Offline eco3
    eco3 (erwin vercauteren) 31 January 2021 07: 24
    +1
    The Su 24 was equipped with a Khibiny counter system, which is capable of blinding and interfering with the operation of the radar and counteracts, and also disrupts feedback, reporting that the ship was targeted by several missiles flying in all directions, because of this Aegis could not make any decision on which the target was aimed and was instantly blinded. I don't know about the sailors, but I am almost sure of the effectiveness of the Khibiny, no matter what this guy pretends here
  • Michael I Offline Michael I
    Michael I (Michael I) 31 January 2021 08: 23
    0
    Someone else seriously discussing this duck? This story was written by the author, titled "How It Could Be" and from the very beginning, it was written as fictional. What else to discuss? All Western media rewrote her
  • Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 31 January 2021 17: 37
    +2
    The author has probably never seen how the electronic warfare of aviation works on land or sea air defense systems. Monitors go out, ripples appear, like on a TV screen during technical work on a TV tower. Air defense systems are not fully operational. So who blinded whom, grandmother said for two.
  • Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 1 February 2021 09: 27
    0
    Quote: Dear sofa expert.
    And on dismissal .. About the dismissal of these people by the leadership - the question was not raised. They just said that these sailors "filed a letter of resignation." The long-standing fate of these people, as far as I remember, was not discussed.

    Well, it was written by our Russian journalist. And then it was all reposted because of the hype of the topic. In general, with an extremely high degree of probability, this particular message was a "duck". Either the journalist freely speculated something, or misunderstood something.
  • Vlad Belov Offline Vlad Belov
    Vlad Belov (Vlad Belov) 2 February 2021 07: 15
    0
    Putin's REP did not work, the fighter flew, but nothing happened, the Americans filmed it.
  • Tekila Offline Tekila
    Tekila (Alexander Popov) 2 February 2021 09: 45
    0
    This crap does not pull on a literary masterpiece, it is not clear for what minds this whole badyaga is. Two bears do not live in a den, and therefore this whole game of who is cooler will continue. Today we are not inferior to the American, but what will happen tomorrow, we will see.
  • Valentin ant Offline Valentin ant
    Valentin ant (Valentin Ant) 3 February 2021 05: 21
    0
    I don't care what anyone writes or says, now it's not 41-45 years old, but 2021 soldiers will not be allowed against the ship, therefore, even though the Americans will drive the entire fleet to our shores here and drown, we have more missiles in warehouses on the shore , and the amers have warehouses on another continent, but if it comes to nuclear weapons, then I don't see any reason to write something here, everyone will come, regardless of Zimbabwe or Russia and the United States, a complete nuclear arsenal of all countries such that the planet can be torn apart apart ... and in general they don’t want to teach their democracy here on their continent, let them carry it, I don’t go to their house and I don’t reproach why they walk around the house in street shoes and even lie on the bed in it ...
  • nikolai.shupenin 3 February 2021 11: 43
    0
    While Putin shrugs his shoulders, the entire Black Sea will be filled with amer ships
  • Valery Valeriev Offline Valery Valeriev
    Valery Valeriev (Valery Valeriev) 4 February 2021 15: 05
    0
    The agreement has already been concluded, in my opinion, our president does not worry at all. But Nord Stream 2 is stalled, but this is still. Most of the explored and developed gas fields are in Russia. And in all other countries, suppliers are cunning more than they extract. They are cunning only because they want to get preferences from Russia. However, time is playing against consumers. Gas today serves not only and not so much to boil a kettle, gas is the main raw material for the chemical industry, in the energy sector, even in the automotive industry, there are still a lot of them. These industries are developing today, they are not going to bend in the middle. 40-50 years old. So they will finish building the stream, finish building it.
  • Michael1950 Offline Michael1950
    Michael1950 (Michael) 10 February 2021 11: 39
    -1
    Quote: Volkonsky
    The Su-24 performed its task assigned to it by its command - training in tracking and destroying the target, the container with the Khibiny was nominally fixed under its fuselage, it could not turn off the Cook's BIUS by definition, could only slow down the passage of the signal (in a missile attack, seconds decide everything - who to celebrate the victory, and who rests on the bottom of the sea). This is true! ...

    - For God's sake: no silly tales about how the Su-24 and the Khibiny are needed could slow down the passage of the SPY-1D radar signal... Do not tell anyone this nonsense again, Someone misled you - it happens - do not mislead others.