Why launching an electronic warfare attack on American destroyers is a very bad idea

February 2 2021 123

The topic of the regular entry of American warships into the Black Sea and the response to this from the Russian Aerospace Forces is one of the most resonant in our country. "Confrontation" with the destroyer "Donald Cook" has already generated several persistent myths. But when not the very last people in Russia related to defense began to seriously comment on this problem, they inevitably had to grab his head. What did they say there?

The first to "distinguish himself" in this field was Yuri Shvytkin, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee. The parliamentarian called for an "indestructible answer" to the regular calls of the US Navy ships into the Black Sea:

After all, entering the Black Sea itself is a provocation. The US has nothing to do with the water area.

We have to ask ourselves, how competent is Mr. Shvytkin, who is in charge of our defense issues, in general? According to the Montreux Convention on the Status of the Turkish Straits, the United States, as a non-Black Sea power, has the right to send warships to the Black Sea, which correspond in parameters to their destroyers Donald Cook and Porter for up to 21 days. Russia, unfortunately, is not the owner of exclusive rights to the entire Black Sea, we share it with many other countries that are allies of the United States in the NATO bloc. This is a common truth and it is not clear what exactly Deputy Shvytkin saw as an American provocation or violation.

We go further, regarding "provocations". No less surprised by the person from whom you expect professionalism by position and rank. Vice-Admiral Pyotr Svyatashov, ex-chief of staff of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy, in an interview NSN stated that we need to "stop being afraid", "show our teeth" and "end with unceremonious visits":

What are we afraid of? There are methods that should prevent a threat in our waters: electronic warfare and much more. There is no need to be afraid - our business is just.

On this I would like to become more detailed. "Our business is just" in what exactly? If an American or any other foreign destroyer is in international waters in accordance with the Montreux Convention, it is legally in its own right. The Black Sea Fleet and the Russian Aerospace Forces will have the right to stop or attack it only if it enters our territorial waters. Then it will be possible to open warning fire on it or carry out a "bulk body", it will even be possible to sink it if it violated our sea borders, does not react to the order to stop and behaves aggressively. Neither Donald Cook nor Porter did, nor did they plan.

In this context, it will be necessary to return to the already boring topic of "imitation of air attacks" and "electronic warfare attacks" on US Navy ships. There is an opinion that in 2014 our Su-24 "put down" the Aegis system of the destroyer "Donald Cook" with the help of the "Khibiny" complex, after which 27 members of its crew submitted their resignation reports. Alas, this is an obvious myth. The plane did fly over the ship many times, but the rest was most likely invented by some "journalist", and after that this story was widely circulated in our and foreign media because of its resonance. But, perhaps, it's not bad that in reality there was no electronic warfare attack. If you open the website of the state corporation "Rostec", which is engaged in the production of weapons, it turns out that they generally do not consider the use of electronic warfare systems "aggression":

Despite the fact that on the battlefield, electronic warfare means become a full-fledged weapon capable of "blind" and "suppress" the enemy, electronic warfare is predominantly defensive.

However, electronic warfare itself is a kind of armed warfare, therefore, the use of electronic warfare methods against a foreign warship following in international waters, as Vice Admiral Svyatashov advises to do, can be regarded by its crew as an act of aggression with all the ensuing consequences.

The conclusion will not be too comforting and hurray-patriotic: the US Navy destroyers are legally in the Black Sea, and we simply have no real possibilities to expel them from there. However, this does not prevent us from demonstrating our combat capabilities, sending towards enemy ships not only the long-familiar Su-24, but also the long-range Tu-22M3 missile carriers, as well as the MiG-31K based in the south of the country with the Dagger aeroballistic missiles.

Information

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

greenchelman

-14

2 February 2021 14: 46

Great stuff.
The comment was deleted.
Vladimir Tuzakov

+8

2 February 2021 15: 09

As always, everything is much more complicated. First, the Americans are told that Russia is the master of the Black Sea (If only Russian ships were crowding in the Gulf of Mexico, how would the United States react). Second, such attacks reveal the actions of US ships, because alerts are immediately sent through all channels, internal and external. Thirdly, strategically, by this, the Russian Federation asserts its steadfastness to resist further actions to expand the presence of NATO ships in the Black Sea. Conclusion: such pseudo attacks on US destroyers is one of the political tools ...
1. Igor Pavlovich
  
  -21
  
  2 February 2021 16: 04
  
  If only Russian ships were crowding in the Gulf of Mexico
  
  - they won't swim, and if they do, they will drown on the way back. Admiral Kuznetsov has already "frightened" the whole world with his trip to Syria - the world is almost belly laughing, sorry - almost tore fear ...
  1. avg
    
    +18
    
    2 February 2021 17: 13
    
    Calm down and do not tear your stomach, it will smell bad. Yes, the unsuccessful exit of "Kuznetsov", but this is generally the first combat experience and conclusions will be drawn from it. Why don't you comment on the problems of the US Navy with the pride of America, the aircraft carrier Gerald Ford for 13 lards, which cannot be put into operation and each exit of which ends with towing to the dock. Or the French "Chal de Gaulle", which spent most of its 13-year service in repair and got everyone so bad that it was decided to write it off (13-year-old ship, Karl). Or maybe you can tell about the "Prince of Wales", which since 2019, the "mistress of the seas" cannot send to the shores of China, "to demonstrate the power and determination of the United Kingdom." What China, he cannot leave Portsmouth. So it's not that simple.
    Therefore, it is better to tell about the Admiral Gorshkov's circumnavigation, about eliminating dependence on German and Ukrainian turbines, about successful tests of the Zircon. Rejoice in life and for the country, you look, and the belly of goals will be.
    1. Motorhead
      
      +9
      
      2 February 2021 18: 31
      
      You can also add about Zumwalt, like a suitcase without a handle and it's inconvenient to carry, and it's a pity to leave. So much dough has been cut.
      1. alex5450
        
        -12
        
        2 February 2021 18: 40
        
        Zumwalt is a semi-experimental ship with great application prospects. Claims mainly to his artillery systems, which clearly did not work. As for the rest ... we will begin to make these in 10-15 years. Only smaller.
        
        Rum rum
        
        +6
        
        3 February 2021 00: 11
        
        Not a sick experiment.
        Three for the price of several nuclear submarine missile carriers - each.
        
        Only to artillery systems? And what about their missile weapons? And with air defense?
        And of course the most "perfect" power plant.
        And why was the episode closed?
        
        You are so funny.
        
        And yes, these are not my questions, all from the "civilized" media.
  2. Sapsan136
    
    +9
    
    2 February 2021 17: 37
    
    Why, when the Yankees and Yapas lost their newest F-35s, he did not laugh and did not quote Putin, in style - She drowned! Che did not laugh when the Yankees lost the best fighters of their Air Force, the F-22, the production of which, by the way, was curtailed ?!
    1. Anatoly Babug
      
      0
      
      3 February 2021 09: 43
      
      And how many F-35s have been lost in total?
      1. Sapsan136
        
        +2
        
        3 February 2021 09: 47
        
        He did not count by the piece, but more than Admiral Kuznetsov lost in the campaign. And the F-22 lost more than the Su-57
        
        Anatoly Babug
        
        -3
        
        3 February 2021 11: 14
        
        So the link can or will only be blah blah? Or would you advise to search on the Internet?
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +2
        
        3 February 2021 11: 54
        
        And where did you get the idea that I would work as a lackey for a Bandera? First find the links for you, then tell them that they are not like that. You have to find it yourself. Finally, I can say that even the Wikipedia data on the F-35 disasters is not complete. Only the Japanese lost 3 F-35s, although even Wikipedia states that more than 2 that Kuznetsov lost and more F-22s, that 1 Su-57 that the Russian Federation lost
        
        Anatoly Babug
        
        -5
        
        3 February 2021 18: 54
        
        Well, as expected, the young uryak merged as soon as he was offered to prove his blizzard :)))
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        3 February 2021 21: 31
        
        You even open Wikipedia, there is not everything, but something is written and not in favor of the Yankees.
  3. Anna Fedorova
    
    0
    
    9 February 2021 12: 43
    
    You are either a crest, or our hysterical. If it's ours, don't be afraid, son, how it starts, we will give you ak, diapers, and you will go to fight with her like your own)))
    By the way, in Syria with such forces, to carry out such an operation, and get the desired result .... I like to criticize, but it will go down in history. Let me remind you about Afghanistan, and there was more strength and less sense. There is no need to talk about pindasnya in Vietnam. So my son has something to be proud of. Well, we have never really had aircraft-carrying ships, and it's not a fact that they are needed now, the doctrine is changing.
2. alex5450
  
  -4
  
  2 February 2021 18: 49
  
  Concerning the Gulf of Mexico:
  
  We understand that the Russian ships Viktor Leonov and Nikolai Chiker are currently in waters that are not US territorial seas, but not far from Cuba
  
  said Lt. Col. Tom Crosson, a Pentagon spokesman.
  
  We respect the freedom of all peoples, which is reflected in international law, in the operation of warships outside the territorial seas of other peoples.
  1. Rum rum
    
    +6
    
    3 February 2021 00: 20
    
    And why this post?
    We also respect their right to be in international waters, which does not prevent our Armed Forces from practicing "training attacks" on a potential enemy.
    And the deputies - their job is the language.
  2. Sapsan136
    
    +4
    
    3 February 2021 16: 42
    
    So off the coast of Cuba and off the coast of the United States, these are different countries, or the Yankees consider themselves to be the masters of the whole World? They walk wide, not only will the pants be torn, but also what is in the pants
3. zloybond
  
  0
  
  2 February 2021 19: 34
  
  Let's say in this one a sailor with a stinger came out on deck. Gone nerves (after all, they are attacking) dumped Drying ... And ..... we proudly expressed our concern ???? They are in neutral waters, the plane is entering the ship. The mattress sailor has a medal. My condolences to the pilot's mom. Everything is as if on notes. Purely theoretically. Or am I wrong?
  1. Vladimir Tuzakov
    
    -3
    
    2 February 2021 20: 25
    
    Well, yes, but the coastal defense officer saw an American destroyer in our zone and launched the Ball anti-ship missile system at the enemy intruder, he also had a medal, and the remaining intruders were caught by rescuers ?! What's next?
    1. zloybond
      
      +4
      
      2 February 2021 21: 57
      
      generally imaginary respected - we are talking about neutral waters. You have already imagined war twice attacking a neutral ship. If we argue then at least theoretically and logically.
      1. Rum rum
        
        0
        
        3 February 2021 00: 16
        
        Well, the plane is in neutral airspace.
        You will say - he can be armed.
        Well, the destroyer URO, not a fishing scow.
        
        zloybond
        
        +1
        
        3 February 2021 00: 22
        
        Well, we are considering the issue of when our plane attacks a ship in neutral waters. You don't seem to be looking at me through your sight. We are in the same trench with you. The question of the essence of the aggression on our part. In fact, the provocateur who designated the attack will be guilty in neutral waters. Well, if you think logically.
        
        Rum rum
        
        0
        
        3 February 2021 00: 30
        
        Not. We consider that the aircraft is flying over the SHIP in neutral airspace. And what maneuver he does and where is his own business. And yes, electronic warfare is not an attack, but a defense. Do not confuse God's gift with scrambled eggs.
        "Hiding, then guilty" It does not roll here. Then the first shot rolls.
        And enough of this mess.
        
        zloybond
        
        -1
        
        3 February 2021 00: 37
        
        I would like to hear the opinion of a combat pilot. I judge from the position of the commander of the ZRPK calculation. If an attack was simulated on me, there is no time to figure it out. "He" only flies with electronic warfare or bomb. Not written on the forehead (Unless the headquarters have agreed to play in advance). If training games - then purely sofa arguments in the evenings for us idlers.
        
        Rum rum
        
        0
        
        3 February 2021 00: 49
        
        There must be prerequisites for a strike or war.
        There is intelligence, analysts, and a bunch of services that will warn the ship's commander of the potential danger in the region. And even in this case, the commander must have more branchy reasons than his feelings.
        The first shot, then the aggressor, period.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        3 February 2021 16: 44
        
        So my friend is judging from the position of a rocket engineer. The American pelvis floats to show off, or is going to shoot .... By the same logic, it's time to drown the Yankees!
        
        onstar9
        
        -1
        
        3 February 2021 04: 19
        
        Quote: Rum Rum
        Not. We consider that the aircraft is flying over the SHIP in neutral airspace. And what maneuver he does and where is his own business. And yes, electronic warfare is not an attack, but a defense. Do not confuse God's gift with scrambled eggs.
        "Hiding, then guilty" It does not roll here. Then the first shot rolls.
        And enough of this mess.
        
        Well, you comrade argue interestingly. How, then, can such "maneuvers" be distinguished from a real attack? Perhaps you have a real order to attack the ship. They don't know this on the ship and will sit and calmly drink tea. Then the "mock attack" side has a real advantage of first strike and victory in the event of a conflict. Great, you "planned" ...
        
        Anatoly Babug
        
        -3
        
        3 February 2021 09: 47
        
        Well, yes, and if an American pilot simulates an attack on a Russian ship, you will scream that this is a provocation and the provocateurs need to be shot down.
      2. Vladimir Tuzakov
        
        0
        
        3 February 2021 16: 14
        
        There are even fewer reasons to open fire in ordinary waters ... Your logic is out of order ...
  2. Rum rum
    
    +1
    
    3 February 2021 00: 25
    
    What does nerves mean?
    I understand that the tongue is of course without bones.
    But take the trouble to study the procedure for launching the weapon you are writing about.
    There they just do not induce and the nerves do not give up.
    A few seconds and khan to the coolant.
    Without the command of the arrows, it will not even direct it.
    1. zloybond
      
      -1
      
      3 February 2021 00: 27
      
      Purely from the point of view of the gunner standing on watch - an aircraft is approaching you in neutral waters - what are your actions? Express concern to the captain? From the position of a warship - attack - defense. It's another matter - If these are agreed games. Well, then you can make as many visits as you want - journalists will write fairy tales about diapers and layoffs.
      1. Rum rum
        
        0
        
        3 February 2021 00: 38
        
        Dear this is the ARMY. They don't even go to the army without an order. And to aim and lock a target with MANPADS even more so.
        
        And yes - a military (combat) SHIP. And the ships are civil or support (not armed or weakly armed).
Petr Vladimirovich

-6

2 February 2021 15: 49

Pay and repent, repent and pay

(c) Akhedzhakova L.M
1. Sapsan136
  
  +9
  
  2 February 2021 17: 33
  
  It is Akhedzhakova who needs to repent of her sins both before Russia and before the priests (before God). Illegitimate, rootless, walking woman, whom Russia picked up practically from the garbage dump, fed, dressed, shod, but not to feed the horse.
  1. Petr Vladimirovich
    
    -3
    
    2 February 2021 19: 43
    
    Judging by the reaction to my post, four colleagues, most likely foreigners, think differently from you and me ...
DimerVladimer

-6

2 February 2021 16: 04

The more oak trees in the army, the stronger our defense

... the old adage is still valid ...
Bakht

+12

2 February 2021 16: 22

It rarely happens, but in this case I agree. American ships are legally present if they do not exceed 21 days. And they often overlap this limit. But Russia, too, has every right to fly around ships in international waters. So to speak, free targets for practicing naval aviation skills.
Who will lose their nerves earlier is unknown. But this creates the prerequisites for a random incident.
The question should be put a little differently. Who is NATO's enemy in the Black Sea? Russia and they do not hide it. Well then, don't make a surprised face that NATO is Russia's enemy.
And it would be nice for the Black Sea countries to recall NATO's fifth article and its broad interpretation.

An attack by any NATO country on Russia should be interpreted as an attack by all NATO countries

With appropriate conclusions. Let's say the destruction of an anti-missile defense system in Romania and Poland. So, just in case.
1. Dear sofa expert.
  
  +5
  
  2 February 2021 21: 51
  
  Who will lose their nerves earlier is unknown. But this creates the prerequisites for a random incident.
  
  What nerves? What is a random incident?
  The SU-24 bomber has “written on its belly” whether it is armed or not.
  He did not pose any danger to the ship. The same cannot be said about the destroyer, which is stuffed to capacity with various weapons.
2. alex5450
  
  -3
  
  3 February 2021 15: 50
  
  And they often overlap this limit.
  
  "Often" this is the last time?
  1. Bakht
    
    +3
    
    3 February 2021 15: 57
    
    Twice in 2008 and 2014. The second time was explained by a technical malfunction
    1. alex5450
      
      -3
      
      3 February 2021 17: 51
      
      As far as I remember, there was no violation in 2008. Then a headquarters ship + a destroyer + some small comrade like a patrol boat came to us.
      In 2014, a technical failure is not prohibited by the convention. There was no violation on the fact.
      1. Bakht
        
        +1
        
        3 February 2021 18: 22
        
        In 2008, the tonnage was exceeded. In 2014, a technical malfunction. I withdraw my remark. Until the stay was exceeded
        
        alex5450
        
        -2
        
        3 February 2021 21: 10
        
        And there was no excess tonnage in 2008. )
        Quite the Yankees have kept within three vessels in 45 thousand tons.
        
        Bakht
        
        +2
        
        3 February 2021 21: 33
        
        Formally, yes. Indeed, there were no violations. The maximum tonnage can be safely increased to 45 thousand tons.
        But in any case, the presence of ships with missile weapons near the coast of Russia does not in any way contribute to peacekeeping missions. And it doesn't help to reduce tension either.
        So the overflights will continue. And there is nothing to complain about. And in the event of a conflict, there is no point in finding them there. Their lifetime is limited by the flight time of anti-ship missiles. But this is already a full-scale war.
        
        alex5450
        
        -2
        
        3 February 2021 22: 09
        
        But we actually started formally (that is, legal violations).
        As for missiles and provocations, I even remember that we were happy to discuss, back in the early 160s, the flights of our Tu-XNUMXs to the shores of England, then to Alaska, then to Venezuela. This is an escalation, and alas, it is only growing so far.
        
        Bakht
        
        +1
        
        3 February 2021 22: 18
        
        If I am wrong, then I do not argue. There was no formal violation.
Dmitry S.

+4

2 February 2021 16: 24

There is a question: when the descendants of the Vikings accused Russia of using electronic warfare, and perhaps electronic warfare weapons - was it a hint of casus belli? Or was it just looking for those responsible for their incompetent actions in the exercises?
1. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  3 February 2021 08: 08
  
  There is a question: when the descendants of the Vikings accused Russia of using electronic warfare, and perhaps electronic warfare weapons - was it a hint of casus belli? Or was it just looking for those responsible for their incompetent actions in the exercises?
  
  It seems that the second.
Sapsan136

+5

2 February 2021 17: 30

Mr. Marzhetskiy, don't be offended, but the level of your articles starts to disappoint again.
1) Where is the USA and where is the Black Sea? Of course, the dispatch of heavy combat ships (and destroyers of cruising displacement, these are heavy ships) to the shores of the Russian Federation is a military provocation.
2) The Yankees became insolent to the point that their destroyers entered the Gulf of Peter the Great, in the Far East, and this is the territorial waters of the Russian Federation and it's time to drown the impudent ones. If the United States wants war, including on its own territory, so be it. Let's fight, the benefit of the Russian Federation is not Iraq, and it has something to put the Yankees in their place.However, I think that the Yankees will wither after their destroyers sink to the bottom off the coast of the Russian Federation and dare not start a full-scale war. The USSR sold dozens of US aircraft, only in the Gulf of Peter the Great lies the US torpedo bomber, together with the crews shot down by the USSR air defense fighters and nothing, the YSA was swallowed and wiped off.
3) electronic warfare attack. You have no reason to deny its implementation, and the fact that it was carried out by the Khibiny's electronic warfare system, which is already obsolete for the Russian Federation, is a subtle allusion to the Yankees about fat circumstances, since today the Russian Federation already has more serious electronic warfare systems than Khibiny. One of these new systems is called the Himalayas, and even this system is not the latest development of the Russian Federation in the field of electronic warfare.
1. Kristallovich
  
  +2
  
  2 February 2021 22: 25
  
  Where is the USA and where is the Black Sea? Of course, the dispatch of heavy combat ships (and destroyers of cruising displacement, these are heavy ships) to the shores of the Russian Federation is a military provocation.
  
  Turn your head on for a minute. At least. The author writes that the Americans do not violate any international treaties. Try to refute this.
  
  Electronic warfare attack. You have no reason to deny its holding and the fact that it was carried out already outdated for the Russian Federation EW Khibiny
  
  This complex is used to arm the Su-34s, which are now rolling off the assembly line.
  1. Sapsan136
    
    +5
    
    2 February 2021 22: 28
    
    1) I already wrote above that the entry of the US destroyer into the Gulf of Peter the Great is a violation of the sea borders of the Russian Federation and it's time for American boors to drown like rats.
    2) Khibiny is a budget device, and you can install anything on an aircraft within the permitted flight weight.
    P.S. Emotions are a bad advisor here, my friend
    1. Kristallovich
      
      +1
      
      2 February 2021 22: 30
      
      I already wrote above that the entry of the US destroyer into the Peter the Great Gulf is a violation of the sea borders of the Russian Federation
      
      Not a word about this in the article. It's about the Black Sea.
      1. Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        2 February 2021 22: 32
        
        Yes, about the Black Sea, but this implies US actions off the coast of the Russian Federation in general, and not only on the Black Sea, and the dispatch of warships across the ocean to the shores of a foreign country, this is defiant behavior and military provocation. So here I do not agree with your author, who does not call the Yankees' actions provocative.
        
        Kristallovich
        
        0
        
        2 February 2021 22: 34
        
        This is your subjective assessment of what is meant there. The news feed itself was about the Black Sea, the vice admiral's commentary was about the Black Sea, the author's reasoning was also about it.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        3 February 2021 07: 55
        
        Yes, the Yankees also violated the sea border of the Russian Federation off the western coast of Crimea. The fact that the Yankees do not recognize Crimea as part of the Russian Federation is not an argument, they do not recognize the Kuriles as part of the Russian Federation, and the Russian Federation does not recognize the legal transfer of the islands to the Russian Federation off the coast of Alaska by Shevardnadze, a corrupt Georgian man, and what!
    2. akarfoxhound
      
      0
      
      2 February 2021 23: 11
      
      I may disappoint you, but you cannot hang anything on a plane. And Cook in 14g flew around a simple Su-24, not even an M and even less M2, but Khibiny amers extinguished a Su-34, which was at a distance from this process.
      Although I wrote it incorrectly - you can hang anything you want, you cannot apply it, there is such a thing - it is called conjugation.
      1. Sapsan136
        
        +2
        
        3 February 2021 07: 56
        
        The hardware compatibility you mean. Yes, there is, but I assure you, you can put EVERYTHING that is on new and modernized cars, except maybe with the exception of irrelevant junk, because, for obvious reasons, it makes no sense
2. reco
  
  -1
  
  3 February 2021 20: 51
  
  Treat your wild head. He is eager to fight. ...
  1. Sapsan136
    
    +4
    
    3 February 2021 21: 27
    
    Are you eager to surrender the country without a fight for plunder and desecration, as you surrendered the USSR? This is treason, and this is an act of very bad taste and is criminally punishable, from several years in prison now, to the death penalty in the USSR (and according to the laws of wartime, they can be returned, under certain circumstances) You don't want to fight, run to Argentina, this is the best what can people like you, capitulators ... By the way, are you not tired of creating a new account every time in order to write another nonsense?
    1. reco
      
      -2
      
      4 February 2021 00: 02
      
      Do you think everything will be like in the movies? Will you return from the war as a hero, with medals? And everyone will live happily ever after? Not. My relatives and friends will perish. And yours as well. Sitting on the couch is easy to be a hero. And when you grab grief, you will win.
      1. Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        4 February 2021 12: 39
        
        When the USSR surrendered without war, the country turned into ..., there is no money, there is nothing to eat, there is no medicine, there is banditry all around, people were dying in batches. Do you want this ? I was in the war, nothing good, despite the medals, but in order to prevent the new 90s, I am ready to fight again, even if this will be our last fight, like the guys from the Varyag. The Yankees in the 90s ate from the belly and celebrated the victory without a single shot. Let's see how they like it when rockets are raining down on their cities ... Before the holiday ...
Jacques sekavar

+5

2 February 2021 17: 33

entry into the Black Sea itself is a provocation. The USA has nothing to do with the water area

Absolutely right. Regular calls of US ships into the Black Sea, similar to the fact that Russian ships regularly visited the Mexican or Hudson Bay of North America - in both cases this is a provocation.
Provocations will continue until the Russian Federation, according to Vice-Admiral Pyotr Svyatashov, “shows its teeth” as it was in 1961 when the US U-2 was shot down over Sverdlovsk, which also regularly entered Soviet airspace.

The conclusion will not be too comforting and jingoistic: US Navy destroyers are legally in the Black Sea

Strategic bombers of the Russian Federation flew to Venezuela at the invitation, are in Syria also at the invitation of the legitimate government, the MTS point in the Red Sea with the consent of Ethiopia, the exit of Russian ships to the Atlantic also does not contradict international law, but every time hysteria about the US threat and various conspiracy speculations rises about possible strike training and the threat of the USA, Britain, Norway, Sweden, Finland.
In the case of the United States, they have the right, and in the case of similar actions by the Russian Federation, a threat?
1. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  4 February 2021 07: 05
  
  entry into the Black Sea itself is a provocation. The USA has nothing to do with the water area
  
  Absolutely right. Regular calls of US ships into the Black Sea, similar to the fact that Russian ships regularly visited the Mexican or Hudson Bay of North America - in both cases this is a provocation.
  
  A provocation is if the "Cook" violates our sea borders or tries to pass through the Kerch Strait.
monman

-7

2 February 2021 17: 34

Marzhetsky, for your article I rate you higher than the Su-57 - it pulls at “4 ++”, and you at “5 +++” !!!
1. Marzhecki
  
  +1
  
  3 February 2021 07: 58
  
  Marzhetsky, for your article I rate you higher than the Su-57 - it pulls at “4 ++”, and you at “5 +++” !!!
  
  Ugh, can we do without this? I'm just for justice.
  1. monman
    
    -2
    
    3 February 2021 17: 36
    
    Sergey, don't be offended, please! I just ironically praised your article - common sense triumphs and it takes courage to express it. Thank you...
BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine

0

2 February 2021 17: 40

we will drown!
bobba94

0

2 February 2021 17: 57

I read the article, read the comments and made conclusions - do not have a hundred rubles, do not have a hundred friends, but have 11, no, better than 15 aircraft carriers, a military budget of 800 billion dollars and you will be happy ...
Sergey Latyshev

0

2 February 2021 19: 07

It's a matter of everyday life. Because of one fake "hurray-author" (I read, they found the author), so everyone got excited and wasted their energy senselessly.

But it shows that fakes are convenient, profitable, and not punishable ...
Michael1950

-2

2 February 2021 21: 41

- I'll tell you (in confidence!) "why is it a very bad idea to launch an electronic warfare attack on American destroyers" - because in the arsenal of the Russian Air Force there are absolutely no means that could actually "do something", for example, with the SPY-1D radar. THERE IS NO SUCH EW MEANS. Even if you carry the 40-ton "Krasukha-4" on the An-124 next to the ship, they won't even sneeze there ...
Michael1950

-3

2 February 2021 22: 20

Quote: Sapsan136
2) The Yankees became insolent to the point that their destroyers entered the Gulf of Peter the Great, in the Far East, and this is the territorial waters of the Russian Federation and it's time to drown the impudent ones.

- The question for you, the falcon is clear: let's say you decided to drown the destroyer "Donald Cook" in completely neutral waters, which does not violate the Montreux convention.
First: how do you do it?
Secondly: what will become after this with Russian warships in the water area of the world ocean ?! For them, the "Bermuda Triangle" will start everywhere. Do you have any idea of the ratio of forces of the fleets ??

If the United States wants war, including on its own territory, so be it. Let's fight, the good of the Russian Federation is not Iraq, and she has something to put the Yankees in their place.

- That is: you propose full blown exchange of nuclear missile strikes with the United States? Given that it is winter now, and as a result of this, tens of millions of citizens of Russian cities, after the TPPs are destroyed, will simply die from the cold? Given that the United States has some kind of missile defense system, while Russia has it only around Moscow! Given that, as a result of the exchange of thermonuclear strikes between Russia and the United States, China will become the absolute hegemon on the planet. And China will simply enter Russian territory to provide humanitarian aid. As a result, Russia's population will steadily decline ...

However, it seems to me that the Yankees will wither after their destroyers sink to the bottom off the coast of the Russian Federation and dare not start a full-scale war.

- First ask Putin if he agrees with your plan for a nuclear missile war with the United States, taking into account the above factors, which you absolutely do not see?

The USSR shot down dozens of US aircraft, only in the Gulf of Peter the Great lies for the US torpedo bomber, together with the crews shot down by the USSR air defense fighters and nothing, the YSA was swallowed and wiped off.

- Truth? Can you give me links?

3) electronic warfare attack. You have no reason to deny its holding and the fact that it was carried out already outdated for the Russian Federation electronic warfare Khibiny

- It was never carried out by anyone and never - not even because the Khibiny was never installed on the Su-24, but for the elementary reason that the Khibiny is absolutely unable to do anything with the destroyer's radar. Is that something to make me laugh.

this is a subtle allusion to the Yankees about fat circumstances, since today the Russian Federation already has more serious electronic warfare systems than the Khibiny. One of these new systems is called the Himalayas, and even this system is not the latest development of the Russian Federation in the field of electronic warfare.

- And from them in exactly the same way the SPY-1D radar will not be the slightest damage. They will laugh - and that's it ...
1. Sapsan136
  
  +4
  
  2 February 2021 22: 42
  
  1) Are you offering to surrender? Offer to surrender to the government of your Israel, we do not need your advice.
  2) Onyx anti-ship missiles for destruction and several US destroyers is quite enough. By the way, the entry of US ships into the Peter the Great Bay is a violation of the maritime borders of the Russian Federation, and not neutral waters!
  3) After the descent of the flag of the USSR, his countries lost tens of millions of their citizens. Than repeating this and dying of poverty and internecine strife, war and the destruction of insolent Yankees is better!
  4) Your words are empty phrases, since neither the US Department of Defense and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation are accountable to a Jew who escaped from the USSR to Israel. Your knowledge of electronic warfare is based on the knowledge of Soviet complexes such as Beans and the like, and this technique has long been out of date. Your knowledge of the new RF electronic warfare systems is equal to ZERO!
  1. Marzhecki
    
    +3
    
    3 February 2021 08: 06
    
    Quote: Sapsan136
    1) Are you offering to surrender? Offer to surrender to the government of your Israel, we do not need your advice.
    
    Nobody offers to give up. You just do not need to follow stupid advice and provoke the militarily strongest power by attacking its ships in neutral waters with electronic warfare.
    The best response to US expansion will be the development of its own economy and industry, an increase in the standard of living of the population, reintegration in the post-Soviet space, etc.
    1. Sapsan136
      
      +3
      
      3 February 2021 08: 13
      
      I already wrote that Peter the Great Bay and the western coast of Crimea are not neutral waters, but are provoked by the United States, sending its warships to the borders of the Russian Federation, which violate the sea borders of the Russian Federation. It's time to drown the violators! And at the expense of the strongest, we'll see. The US army consists of mercenaries, and the money is needed by the living, so they will not scatter to climb into the heat. Here Vietnam will seem like paradise to them!
      1. Marzhecki
        
        0
        
        3 February 2021 08: 14
        
        The bay is a slightly different matter. There's a status issue there. The article was about the Black Sea.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +4
        
        3 February 2021 08: 18
        
        The US islands, which were transferred to them by the Georgian Shevardnadze, also have a status problem. By the way, the Russian Federation denounced this treaty. However, the Russian Federation does not send its ships to the shores of Alaska. So either the Yankees will dump from the shores of the Russian Federation, or they will regret it. The Gulf of Peter the Great still belonged to the USSR, and before it the Russian Empire and not the United States were in command there. At the bottom of the bay are already two US aircraft, along with the crews that sent the USSR Air Force fighters to swim. Apparently it's time to remind that the Russian Federation has an army, since Washington has forgotten about it!
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +1
        
        3 February 2021 08: 32
        
        Quote: Sapsan136
        The US islands, which were transferred to them by the Georgian Shevardnadze, also have a status problem. By the way, the Russian Federation denounced this treaty. However, the Russian Federation does not send its ships to the shores of Alaska.
        
        We do not have many such ships ... We are in different weight categories from the USA.
        
        Sapsan136
        
        +3
        
        3 February 2021 08: 52
        
        Enough, there would be a desire. There, any corvette of the Russian Federation will walk from the ports of Kamchatka without any problems. Or do you think that the United States can shoot at our ships in regions with a problematic status, but we cannot? You are wrong! The Russian Federation still has enough strength to shake out all the contents of the Yankee and leave it to breathe. They do not weigh much, their soldiers are shaking at their skins. In addition, I see no reason for the problematic status of Crimea, and even more so the Gulf of Peter the Great and the Yankees in Russia are not to be in charge, let the homeless be caught on the border with Mexico, and do not climb to violate the borders of the Russian Federation, until they get over their ears!
2. akarfoxhound
  
  +5
  
  2 February 2021 23: 32
  
  I agree with everything, except for one point - ours actually crumbled enough Americans in the Far East at one time, especially in the 50s-60s. Basically, these were, of course, scouts based on bombers, but there were fighters and transports. Moreover, in the early 50s, the losses were mutual, the minke whales even stormed our airfield with Lend-Lease King Cobras on jet shooters. Everything was. In every fighter unit of the air defense aviation in the museum, there are references with dates and photographs of these incidents, with participants, circumstances and coordinates. Now we are "quietly" driving each other. The last time it was "loud" was in 1998 with the real launch of the R-33 on RC-135 over the Sea of Okhotsk. Then he got the regiment hard, tired, to put it mildly, flew regularly, as if to his home, occasionally flying into our territory. Circumstances coincided that ours "inadvertently" launched a launch, the Amer went into neutral. Turned off the lights, the rocket self-destructed. The scream on the air and then on the diplomatic line was over the edge, the crew of the special officers muted with their "curiosity". But! It seemed like a lot of adrenaline was put into the striped pants, and for a very long time we forgot what the RS-135 looked like and calmly snoozed in the duty forces.
Michael1950

-4

2 February 2021 23: 40

Quote: Sapsan136
1) Are you offering to surrender? Offer to surrender to the government of your Israel, we do not need your advice.

- I suggest do not attack - to start. And do not try to act more energetically than your general staff - you just do not have enough data for competent decisions.

2) Onyx anti-ship missiles for destruction and several US destroyers is quite enough.

- Did you check it yourself? Or did the guys on "Global Adventure" say?

By the way, the entry of US ships into the Gulf of Peter the Great is a violation of the sea borders of the Russian Federation, and not neutral waters!

- Are these internationally recognized borders? Or installed unilaterally ??

3) After the descent of the flag of the USSR, his countries lost tens of millions of their citizens. Than repeating this and dying of poverty and internecine strife, war and the destruction of the insolent Yankees are better!

- Do you dream to die right away? Do you have a family? Wife children? Parents? Consult with them, do they want to die with you?

4) Your words are empty phrases, since neither the US Department of Defense and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation are accountable to a Jew who escaped from the USSR to Israel.

- Why is it "escaped" ?! Honestly served their time, retired on a well-deserved retirement and quite officially, with all the proper paintings and prescriptions left. Why can a Ukrainian go to Ukraine, a Georgian to Georgia, a Latvian to Latvia, a German to Germany, but why can't a Jew "get away to his Israel" ?! People like you dreamed about it all your life, and now - there it is - they are unhappy!
Your knowledge of electronic warfare is based on your knowledge of Soviet complexes such as

Beans and the like, and this technique is not relevant for a long time. Your knowledge of new RFEW systems is equal to ZERO!

- You have no knowledge about electronic warfare systems and means at all, but nevertheless you are trying to say something there! Mostly wild nonsense.
1. Sapsan136
  
  +6
  
  3 February 2021 08: 11
  
  1) Good Lord, your Israel and he is not the only one who sets the borders unilaterally, and if the Yankees there do not recognize something, then it is not our sadness. The Gulf of Peter the Great belonged to Russia in the days of the USSR and the Russian Empire and you have nothing to go there, it belonged Russia before your Israel appeared on the map.
  2) Your knowledge of rare Soviet electronic warfare is now of no interest to anyone. What year did you retire? At the latest in 1990, but in reality they were dumped in Israel somewhere in the mid-80s. So we don’t need to go over our ears (specialist), you are no, you have been a pensioner living in another country for more than 30 years and you cannot know anything about the weapons of the Russian Federation from a word at all. I fought in the 2000s, and you were already sitting on the stove with your grandmother and are still in the service. My classmate serves at the Pacific Fleet, officer, Vladivostok, so I know more than you do.
  3) Yes, here you are right, the more people like you dump from the Russian Federation, the better for the Russian Federation and for you too. It is not necessary to live like you in the Russian Federation. You yourself are tormented here and are beating the indigenous population with your actions.
  4) Onyxes have not yet been launched for real targets, but the Yankees, even with Yugoslavia, have not fought one-on-one, and what their soldiers are worth. Not much.
  5) We'll manage somehow ourselves, without advice from Israel, and it's time to destroy the violators of the Russian Federation's borders! We do not climb to your shores, so you forget the road to us. And if you want war, let's fight, no question, we already have experience in the destruction of NATO special forces. Few? Let's add!
trahterist

+2

3 February 2021 00: 29

Quote: Igor Pavlovich
If only Russian ships were crowding in the Gulf of Mexico

- they won't swim, and if they do, they will drown on the way back. Admiral Kuznetsov has already "frightened" the whole world with his trip to Syria - the world is almost belly laughing, sorry - almost tore fear ...

Oh, the pan rang with "the whole world."
Only the narrow-minded will argue in terms of aircraft carriers.
AUG can show off in the Pacific Ocean or the Atlantic and nowhere else.
In defense, the aircraft carrier is like a weight on its leg, and in the Black Sea any group with it in its composition is doomed to destruction.
And no one in their right mind would allow the presence of such an airplane in that region.
bzbo

+4

3 February 2021 01: 49

That is, a tub filled with missiles next to Russia is in its own right, and a Russian pilot flying over this tub 10 km from the United States is not in its right?
1. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  3 February 2021 08: 02
  
  The point is that there is no need to attack foreign warships in neutral waters using electronic warfare methods. You can circle over them and imitate something within reasonable limits.
  1. Essex62
    
    -1
    
    3 February 2021 11: 20
    
    It is possible and necessary to demonstrate a lack of acceptance of the presence of the enemy pelvis located near the coast of the Russian Federation. The trips of mattress destroyers to the Black Sea are provocative. And in general, in war, as in war. You will not deny that the Cold War -2 has been going on since the resentment of the clan of fighters for not accepting them into the Naglosak club of the backbones? They even convince us about getting up from their knees. Opportunities, with the death of the USSR, of course, diminished, but we must fight back. And what are you so frankly drowning Yankes? This is suggestive.
    Anticipating, you don't need to call me a cheers-patriot. I am not, I was killed at 93, along with my country
    1. Marzhecki
      
      0
      
      3 February 2021 11: 37
      
      Quote: Essex62
      And what are you so frankly drowning the Yankes? This is suggestive.
      Anticipating, you don't need to call me a cheers-patriot. I am not, I was killed at 93, along with my country
      
      Yes, think what you want. Here in the article there is nothing pro-American from the word at all. All adequate people understand this.
      1. Essex62
        
        -1
        
        3 February 2021 11: 47
        
        That's right, adequate. Today you are all citizens of the world, for 30 years the backbone power has brought you to the required denominator for the Freemasons. I absorbed with my mother's milk that there is an enemy behind the Berlin Wall, and now they are your partners.
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +1
        
        3 February 2021 11: 52
        
        I'm 40. don't write any bullshit about me, please. You don't know anything about me from the word at all. I myself was brought up on the right books and films, and it's not for you to teach me to love the Motherland.
        President Putin has partners in Berlin, I have no partners there.
        
        Essex62
        
        -1
        
        3 February 2021 12: 00
        
        You were a teenager when the country was killed. What we are talking about, reformatted you. You live according to the laws and rules written by the enemy. They are partners for you. What else do I need to know what I said wrong?
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +1
        
        3 February 2021 12: 35
        
        You go to the bathhouse with your lectures. I know more about the history of my country than you do, since I taught it.
        I wrote 1 adequate article, you - a bunch of inadequate comments. I am not interested in continuing further. Deal with your cockroaches yourself.
        
        Essex62
        
        -1
        
        3 February 2021 13: 44
        
        There are no cockroaches, we are just at different poles in understanding the structure of the world. Once again, beyond the borders of Belarus, the enemy. This is an axiom proven, moreover, by centuries of opposition. And the enemy must be driven away, in all possible ways. And do not fucking drift, the Black Sea is a zone of our interests, there is nothing for mattresses to do there. They have nothing to do near our borders at all.
        Shl. Which country's history do you know? There were two different ones.
Igor Berg

-1

3 February 2021 10: 45

Everyone here is discussing flights, flights. In real hostilities, no one would have let the plane come so close to him. and amerovsky destroyers have air defense more powerful than Stingers and missile defense, read their characteristics for self-defense.
1. Essex62
  
  -1
  
  3 February 2021 11: 53
  
  The author wants to convince the audience that it is impossible even to fly up to the enemies, no matter what happens. They are in their own right, provoke and let them. Scared to him. Because, as adequate.
  1. Marzhecki
    
    +1
    
    4 February 2021 06: 57
    
    The author is trying to convince that there is no need to conduct electronic warfare attacks on foreign warships in neutral waters. It's even included in the title. There is no need to attribute to me what I did not write.
kriten

+1

3 February 2021 14: 01

The admiral does not understand, the United States may be offended, how then will our authorities live? The article is essentially a call to wipe yourself off after every spit.
1. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  4 February 2021 06: 58
  
  The article is essentially a call to wipe yourself off after every spit.
  
  What kind of nonsense? Nothing like that was written there.
Alexey Sergeev

+1

3 February 2021 16: 49

I propose to send ships of the Russian Navy to the shores of the United States on a regular basis. They will ply at a legal distance from the coast, at the same time, the crews will get the experience of long-distance trips.
And our admirals will not be offended.
1. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  4 February 2021 07: 01
  
  A very good idea. It is a pity that we do not have so many free DMZ large ships. And so, personally I am for.
  1. Alexey Sergeev
    
    0
    
    5 February 2021 09: 15
    
    There is a problem here: such trips consume the ship's resource decently. And this will be a serious challenge for maintenance and repair structures.
    But, the idea is still interesting.
DUTY CARE

+1

4 February 2021 01: 22

Dear author, the reasoning about the conventions written in those distant times when they fired cannonballs is not very reasonable. A warship is not a merchant ship and international contracts must be different. Just imagine, your neighbor put a cannon in the garden with his muzzle in your window, but he is a foreigner and did not violate the border of the fence with the barrel. What conventions will help you here? And meanwhile, everything is happening. I would not want to be in the firing range of these "peaceful" ships and even wait until they kill me. Conclusion: They should be located where their kernels will not reach my garden. And whose members they are there will no longer matter to me when the rocket hits my house. And who do you think is a fool? Did I put it all right?
1. Marzhecki
  
  +1
  
  4 February 2021 06: 59
  
  Quote: DUTY CARE
  Conclusion: They should be located where their kernels will not reach my garden. And whose members they are there will no longer matter to me when the rocket hits my house. And who do you think is a fool? Did I put it all right?
  
  Then get the new Convention adopted. In the meantime, the old one is in effect, electronic warfare attacks on a foreign warship in neutral waters will be an act of aggression and a violation of international law. From our side, by aggression, I emphasize.
2. Alexey Sergeev
  
  0
  
  5 February 2021 09: 18
  
  You forget an important point: if you violate the conventions, they cease to act in our direction.
  How much can the consequences outweigh the illusory benefits? Or do you think that these ships can shell the coastline out of hooliganism? Without the prolonged escalation of MILITARY tension before that?
Dzafdet

+1

4 February 2021 07: 04

The author, do you remember the weapons on Cook? They do not just crawl across the water area. Also, the Germans crawled in the sky before the war. It's just that our banana republic can only be indignant and that's it.
1. Essex62
  
  -1
  
  4 February 2021 09: 59
  
  That's all about what to spit on conventions, when they climb straight into the house with trunks, and Marzhetsky know your oppression. Remember, a petty dirty trick, the Masons can kindle something on the periphery, they can not attack Russia. They value their skins very much and do not want to sit, albeit in a comfortable, bunker until their death from old age. This is any riffraff like admirals and congressmen who creep out and provoke, but with an eye on what the true masters will order. And they are always at gunpoint, otherwise we would have been erased, given their multiple superiority in conventional media and battlegrounds.
  As for the aggressiveness on the part of the Russian Federation, there is a great regret that not a drop of Bronstein appeared in Brezhnev. They had to be thrown into the Atlantic, in view of the Portuguese beaches, to swim in diesel fuel, until they inflicted a flower on us. Through a puddle, it would be very problematic for the Masons to shit.
  1. Marzhecki
    
    0
    
    6 February 2021 14: 01
    
    Quote: Essex62
    That's all about what to spit on conventions, when they climb straight into the house with trunks, and Marzhetsky know your oppression. Remember, a petty dirty trick, Masons can kindle something on the periphery, they can not attack Russia.
    
    You know, everything became clear with you right after the Freemasons
    1. Essex62
      
      -1
      
      8 February 2021 09: 25
      
      And I don't care what you understand. Even your main liberal does not deny the presence of puppeteers, who are Masons. The oldest criminal Naglo-Saxon-Jewish clans. They are the ones who rule all the processes in the world of capital, where they drove us with tank guns in 93m. It's just that our gangsters were not allowed into this party, as equals, they took the bit and ate. The result is Cold War number two. Well, the eternal opposition of the Slavic world -
      west, factor number two.
      And your position is cowardice. It is necessary to drive them, they only understand the power.
      1. Marzhecki
        
        0
        
        8 February 2021 09: 28
        
        "Our" main liberal? In fact, I am a supporter of leftist views, diametrically opposed to liberal ones.
        And "your" main liberal is who:
        
        Russian President Vladimir Putin is an absolute liberal by nature, not a conservative, said presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
        
        Putin commented on the situation with the protection of ambassadors
        “You know, enemies - primarily abroad, but also some enemies within Russia - believe that Putin is more likely a conservative and such a statesman who is alien to the word“ freedom. ”But Putin is an absolute liberal by nature, and a much larger liberal rather than called liberals who call themselves “the opposition,” Peskov said in an interview with the Mir television channel, saying the president is “absolutely liberal in his economic approaches, social policy, and so on.”
        
        https://rg.ru/2016/12/21/peskov-putin-gorazdo-bolshij-liberal-nezheli-nazyvnye-liberaly.html
        
        Clear your mind before discussing topics in which you openly swim.
        
        Essex62
        
        -1
        
        8 February 2021 10: 05
        
        Sorry, what am I talking about, exactly about that. The main liberal Westernizer. Not recognized by this very west.
        Are you a leftist, a Social Democrat, judging by your "reasonable" approaches?
        
        Marzhecki
        
        0
        
        8 February 2021 11: 45
        
        You really tired me. All you deserve.
        
        Essex62
        
        0
        
        9 February 2021 10: 57
        
        Not polite, mister leftist. Well, the same to you. I didn't expect anything else. They could not defend their, let's say, not very daring position, with the offer to lie under the enemy. And it will not work. "Whatever happens" always smells bad.
        
        Marzhecki
        
        0
        
        April 11 2021 07: 55
        
        You would need to be treated
Anchonsha

+1

5 February 2021 23: 40

Well, in general, the author is right in something. But not in everything. After all, the Merikans were the first to show aggression and not only in the Black Sea. After all, it was in the Far East, when the Merikans entered our territorial waters, and if they had not threatened, they would have climbed there, into our bay.
1. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  6 February 2021 14: 00
  
  Quote: Anchonsha
  Well, in general, the author is right in something. But not in everything.
  
  To be honest, I'm right about everything in this matter. Sorry for the immodest straightforwardness.
  1. andynov
    
    +1
    
    7 February 2021 07: 55
    
    You will not die of modesty :) But, all the same, let's remember why Donald entered the Black Sea in 2014. It was then that an adequate answer was needed. Let's not be shy, and one and the other side, that 40 years ago, that now test each other's nerves for strength in neutral waters. And both are well aware of this. But it was in 2014 that it was necessary to adequately show that this is not the time for games. And it was shown more than convincingly. The fact that then someone, someone said in an interview is verbiage and nothing more. Is there an official confirmation of the use of any weapon by Russia in that situation? NOT. The fact that Cook had some kind of problems with the equipment, so many American (and not only) new warships are the norm. The fact that at that time the SU-24 was nearby was just a coincidence. The fact that a number of sailors signed off from Cook in Romania is also understandable - they did not want to go on a problem ship. The approach of foreign warships or aircraft to state borders always evokes a response not only from Russia, but from any country. So talk about a bad idea of an electronic warfare attack, which you can neither prove nor disprove, at least not seriously. Well, if you criticize the "smart people" who give such interviews :)
    1. Marzhecki
      
      0
      
      8 February 2021 09: 30
      
      Quote: andynov
      You will not die of modesty :)
      
      What does modesty have to do with it? I'm just right about what I wrote. The problem is that I'm being credited with all kinds of bullshit that I didn't write.
    2. Marzhecki
      
      0
      
      8 February 2021 11: 49
      
      Is there an official confirmation of the use of any weapon by Russia in that situation? NOT. The fact that Cook had some kind of problems with the equipment, as for many American (and not only) new military ships, this is the norm. The fact that at that time the SU-24 was nearby was just a coincidence. The fact that a number of sailors signed off from Cook in Romania is also understandable - they did not want to go on a problem ship.
      
      Believe it or not, if we really used an electronic warfare attack, we would be blamed for it immediately. This is another indirect proof that the Su-24 did not jam Cook, and no one was fired from it. This is fiction.
oleg.01egov

0

6 February 2021 17: 59

Dear author, when Montreux was signed, the weapons and reconnaissance equipment were not so developed, therefore Russia needs to jam the Americans wherever possible.
1. Marzhecki
  
  0
  
  8 February 2021 11: 47
  
  Jamming a foreign warship in neutral waters would be an act of aggression. We will then be answered symmetrically.
  It is possible and even necessary to fly over destroyers, but within reason.
bzbo

0

9 February 2021 12: 31

Let them swim but only without missiles
Michael1950

-1

10 February 2021 11: 21

Quote: trahterist
In defense, the aircraft carrier is like a weight on its leg, and in the Black Sea any group with it in its composition is doomed to destruction.
And no one in their right mind would allow the presence of such an airplane in that region.

- Who will ask you, if something happens? Well, file a protest with the Security Council, you also need to collect it ...
Michael1950

-1

10 February 2021 11: 32

Quote: Marzhetsky
The author is trying to convince that there is no need to conduct electronic warfare attacks on foreign warships in neutral waters. It's even included in the title. There is no need to attribute to me what I did not write.

- The problem is not that "it is not necessary to carry out electronic warfare attacks on foreign warships in neutral waters", the problem is grandiose in that it is not necessary to conduct attacks on enemy ships in neutral waters, knowing absolutely for sure that this "attack" a) will cause nothing but an explosion of laughter on these ships; b) will demonstrate, reveal to the enemy all the wretchedness of Russian electronic warfare stations. That is why - NOT NECESSARY.
======================
For this reason, no one actually carries out any electronic warfare attacks on enemy ships - this is another myth of couch hamsters, a "hypothesis" "sucked from the finger."
Sleep well!
Marzhecki

0

April 11 2021 07: 56

Quote: Michael1950
- The problem is not that "it is not necessary to carry out electronic warfare attacks on foreign warships in neutral waters", the problem is grandiose in that it is not necessary to carry out attacks on enemy ships in neutral waters, knowing absolutely for sure that this "attack" a) nothing but an explosion of laughter on these ships will not cause; b) will demonstrate, reveal to the enemy all the wretchedness of Russian electronic warfare stations. That is why it is NOT NECESSARY.

Let's do without your Israeli fantasies, okay? You are clearly baked there and you are in a state of dangerous illusions about the omnipotence of your ally.