The destruction of boats of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Black Sea revealed several interesting points

16

On the first half of the day on August 22, not far from Zmeiny Island in the western part of the Black Sea, a Su-30SM fighter belonging to the MA of the Russian Navy was destroyed a boat with a landing force of the Navy of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on board. Moreover, the night before this, in the same way, but to the east, another boat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was destroyed, which was conducting reconnaissance near the drilling platforms of the Russian Chernomorneftegaz, which produce hydrocarbon raw materials.


Thus, in less than a day, Russian Naval Aviation destroyed two enemy watercraft in the designated water area. This points to several noteworthy points.


The first one is that the boats of the Navy of the Armed Forces of Ukraine move without cover from the Air Force of Ukraine, i.e. Kyiv simply does not have enough aircraft. The second is that control over the airspace over the specified water area belongs to Russia, therefore, this sea area is also controlled by the Russian military.

Third, the use of a sufficient number of Naval Aviation aircraft will help expand operational awareness and intelligence gathering, which will reduce the threats from the activities of unmanned surface boats of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. This is just confirmed by the detection of a reconnaissance boat at night, the aiming of a Su-30SM at it and the destruction of a medium-range guided air-to-surface Kh-31A anti-ship missile. Fourth, the successful protection of structures located in the waters near the Ukrainian coast makes the situation on the shores of the Crimean peninsula safer and less dangerous, and also creates the prerequisites for the return of Zmeiny Island to Russian control.
  • Photos used: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Reporterin Yandex News
Reporterin Yandex Zen
16 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. calligrapher Lev_Nikolaevich Offline calligrapher Lev_Nikolaevich
    calligrapher Lev_Nikolaevich (Dmitriy) 22 August 2023 20: 37
    +4
    The video of the boat being hit during the day shows the firing of their air cannon. This is still a close distance - as if not to run into MANPADS from the next boat. The tactics of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are already known - the exchange of people for ammunition and equipment of the RF Armed Forces. So it is expected - they will send boats to the drilling rigs, in the hope of shooting down the aircraft attacking them.
    1. ALCA056000 Offline ALCA056000
      ALCA056000 (Sergei) 22 August 2023 21: 12
      -1
      MANPADS from a boat? I assure you it's impossible. You can't take it when everything is dangling under your feet. If only to stop in a calm and everything will stop moving.
      1. calligrapher Lev_Nikolaevich Offline calligrapher Lev_Nikolaevich
        calligrapher Lev_Nikolaevich (Dmitriy) 22 August 2023 22: 00
        0
        You can't take it when everything is dangling under your feet.

        Well, the boat there is quite serious, more like a boat. I said this for a red word, I repent. Is it impossible to capture? Well, if so.
      2. soloist2424 Offline soloist2424
        soloist2424 (Oleg) 23 August 2023 10: 17
        +1
        everyone will stop moving when they are dead.
      3. bossy dude Offline bossy dude
        bossy dude (Thinking out loud) 24 August 2023 00: 33
        -1
        watch the Ukrainian video! It was with the help of MANPADS that the plane was fired upon and driven away. The Ukrainians write that they even damaged the fighter a little
        1. Piramidon Offline Piramidon
          Piramidon (Stepan) 28 August 2023 00: 51
          0
          Quote: Boshkavity dude
          Ukrainians write that they even damaged the fighter a little

          Scratched, right?
  2. JD1979 Offline JD1979
    JD1979 (Dmitriy) 22 August 2023 21: 40
    +1
    Thus, in less than a day, Russian Naval Aviation destroyed two enemy watercraft in the designated water area. This points to several noteworthy points.

    What destroyed it is a fact. This is good, but ... And then it rushed through the pipes)))

    The first one is that the boats of the Navy of the Armed Forces of Ukraine move without cover from the Air Force of Ukraine, i.e. Kyiv simply does not have enough aircraft.

    Sit down 2 - the main defense of such targets is stealth, especially if it is a UAV or NNA of a small class, in fact, it is a consumable item. Attracting manned aircraft to protect them is the fantasy of an illiterate person on the verge of delirium.

    The second is that control over the airspace over the specified water area belongs to Russia, therefore, this sea area is also controlled by the Russian military.

    The grass is green, the water is wet. Interestingly, the writer is not aware that there are such concepts as - "intelligence", control of the database area, etc.

    Third, the use of a sufficient number of Naval Aviation aircraft will help increase operational awareness and intelligence gathering, which will reduce the threat from unmanned aircraft.
    surface boats of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

    Well... he asked for it. Hold on. Dude... you know the proverb about nails and a microscope. So this is what you write. Do you propose to drive a bunch of heavy fighters, working out their motor resources and spending a lot of money where Male-class UAVs should work? And we have UAVs somewhere ... in general, they don’t ... zrada, zrada. But the proposal itself is even greater zrada.

    This is just confirmed by the detection of a reconnaissance boat at night, the aiming of a Su-30SM at it and the destruction of a medium-range guided air-to-surface Kh-31A anti-ship missile.

    Another microscope .... i.e. on a target that is hit by a missile of the Attack / Shtrum / Hellfire / Brimston weight category, such a serious missile was spent ... in no way does it work to disguise evil as a peramoga)))

    Well, now the conclusions of a healthy person:
    1. The Russian Federation still does not have cheap means of controlling the territory of UAVs with OLS and radar. Heavy fighters fly for control, spending their motor resources and a lot of money.
    2. The Russian Federation still does not have normal universal Brimstone / Hellfire-type 3rd generation missiles for hitting light targets such as a boat or an uninhabited surface vehicle with a range of 15 to 40+ km, which can also be used as light anti-ship missiles integrated on airplanes, helicopters, boats, and mobile launchers.
    3. Su-30SM suddenly, for some, again / again / once again confirmed that the Su-34 is rubbish and its production was cut and money was thrown away. The universal fighter performs any tasks.
    1. mr parker Offline mr parker
      mr parker (Wind) 23 August 2023 08: 13
      +1
      Excuse me, but your conclusions are just the same, quite a straight unhealthy person.
      As I understand it, you are an academician of military sciences? Or are you a general staff officer? Do you know what our biggest problem is? The fact that healthy 35-45 year old "military professionals and experts" sit in front of their monitors and tell how to properly wage war in modern conditions. Get up off the couch. There will be more benefits.
  3. anclevalico Offline anclevalico
    anclevalico (Victor) 23 August 2023 08: 32
    +1
    Does not create preconditions. You have to be there to be in control. But under shelling, this is impossible. But to nightmare piglets, just right.
  4. Vlad55 Offline Vlad55
    Vlad55 23 August 2023 10: 10
    0
    I remember on the northern border within an hour the Petriots destroyed 2 turntables and 2 fighters, something similar can be expected over the Odessa Bay.
  5. svoroponov Offline svoroponov
    svoroponov (Vyacheslav) 23 August 2023 11: 26
    +4
    Sushki are constantly on duty in the sky in combat readiness, at a certain distance from the line of warfare, in order to attack air or other targets on command or according to their radar data. Both from the side of the LNR and the DNR, and from the side of the Crimea and its sea area. An order was received or the radar identified the targets, and since they were maneuverable and fast, time played a role. If the sight was able to capture the target along the thermal trail, then they hit with a rocket. If he didn’t capture it, but only determined it visually, then they used a cannon. Comparison of the Su-30 and Su-34 - these are two different sides for use, but both have sights and a gun - for example, a man and a woman, each is a person but the functions are different, but for example, the eyes, that is, both have and their purpose is the same ..
  6. Pavel57 Offline Pavel57
    Pavel57 (Paul) 23 August 2023 18: 25
    0
    It is better to destroy such objects with X-29 missiles if the Su-30 can use them.
  7. Alexander Dutov Offline Alexander Dutov
    Alexander Dutov (Alexander Dutov) 23 August 2023 18: 32
    0
    From a dive, 30 mm, but a sea target ?! It seems that the pilot’s pure improvisation at a sudden meeting at sea ... The person was simply tired of the prohibitions to avenge the cruiser, the Kremlin and the bombed-out Russian border villages ... Like once people who went to bulk on the insolent "Yorktown", South Korean " Boeing", and in Slaten ...
  8. Kuramori Reika Offline Kuramori Reika
    Kuramori Reika (Kuramori Reika) 23 August 2023 19: 14
    +1
    It's expensive to use an expensive rocket on the heels of ukrovoinov. It would have been cheaper to tear them apart.
    1. Piramidon Offline Piramidon
      Piramidon (Stepan) 28 August 2023 00: 56
      0
      Quote: Kuramori Reika
      It's expensive to use an expensive rocket on the heels of ukrovoinov. It would have been cheaper to tear them apart.

      They were shot with a cannon. Where is cheaper?
  9. bossy dude Offline bossy dude
    bossy dude (Thinking out loud) 24 August 2023 00: 34
    -1
    There is already a Ukrainian video on the net, which refutes a missile hitting the boat (you can see it splashing into the water next to the boat). In addition, there was a launch of a MANPADS from the boat, which drove the fighter away. The APU also claims that the drying was damaged