0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
520 $
MAY 2021

Russia Restricted Foreign Warships Navigation Off Crimean Coast For Six Months

Support SouthFront

Russia Restricted Foreign Warships Navigation Off Crimean Coast For Six Months

BLACK SEA (June 2, 2015) The guided-missile destroyer USS Ross (DDG 71), left, transits the Black Sea with the Ukranian navy frigate Hetman Sahaydachniy (U 130) during an underway exercise. Ross is conducting naval operations in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations in support of U.S. national security interests in Europe. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Robert S. Price/Released)

Russia restricted navigation of foreign warships and state-owned vessels in three areas of the Black Sea for six months, according to the bulletin of the Department of Navigation and Oceanography of the Ministry of Defense. Commercial shipping was not restricted.

The decision was made on April 14, and the restriction takes effect in the evening of April 24.

“From 21:00 on April 24 to 21:00 on October 31, the exercise of the right of peaceful passage through the territorial waters of the Russian Federation for foreign warships and other state vessels is suspended,” the bulletin says.

Exercises of the Russian fleet are planned at this time.

The closed water areas include the coast of Crimea between Sevastopol and Gurzuf, the area off the coast of the Kerch Peninsula near the Cape Opuk and the area off the western edge of the peninsula.

The Kerch Strait and the approach were not included into the restricted zones.

These areas are strategically important for Russia. Radars, coastal anti-ship systems and other equipment are deployed there, as well as numerous military exercises are conducted in these areas.

The restriction is probably aimed at preventing the close reconnaissance activity by foreign forces.

The US and the EU called the restrictions an “unprovoked escalation” of the situation in the region. Ukraine expressed a “strong protest” over the closure of part of the Black Sea and demanded the blockade to be lifted.

On April 20th, Russia partly restricted civil aviation over Crimea and the Black Sea until April 24th amid large-scale military exercises that were carried out on the peninsula and its territorial waters. This decision was also defined as a provocation by Western officials.

On April 23, Russian troops began to return from the southern Russian borders to the places of their permanent deployment.

It seems that Russia is on its way to mark the “red lines” towards the US and it allies that the President Putin was talking about during his address to the Russian Federal Assembly.

Mr Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov later described the “red lines” as “our external security interests, our internal security interests in preventing any outside interference, whether in our elections or other domestic political processes”.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Support SouthFront

SouthFront

62 comments

  1. johnny rotten says:

    The Nazis Ukraini together with the Ziotrolls will complain and curse Putin, accusing him to be a Zioterrorist.

    1. Assad must stay says:

      but they would be accusing him of being one of them LOL

      1. Gotama Siddhartha says:

        I will drink your blood and biden and trump will shake my hand

        1. Assad must stay says:

          Hahahaha in your dreams pal

  2. HiaNd says:

    Russian Shipbuilding Chief Claims Refurbished Kirov Cruiser Will Be World’s Top Surface Combatant
    ………………The navalised S-400 used by the Admiral Nakhimov is expected to have 96 launch cells – accommodating the world’s largest arsenal of surface to air missiles on any warship. Complementary shorter ranged air defence systems include the Pantsir-ME, to replace the battlecruiser’s six Kashtan close in weapons systems, and a navalised variant of the S-350 Vityaz known as the Redut to replace the 44 4K33 ‘OSA-M’ missiles perviously in use………………cruise missiles, including for anti shipping the P-800 Oniks, the 3M54T Kalibr and the Zicron. The Zicron entered service in the Russian Navy in December 2019, and is considered the world’s foremost anti ship cruse missile today with a Mach 9 speed and 1000km range. The cruiser’s ability to carry up to 80 of these missiles alongside its formidable air defences allows it to pose a very serious threat to enemy surface fleets several time its size, and complements its very large and powerful sensor suite.
    https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/russian-shipbuilding-chief-claims-refurbished-kirov-cruiser-will-be-world-s-top-surface-combatant-is-he-right

    1. Lone Ranger says:

      Most Excellent 👍

    2. Lone Ranger says:

      One Kirov could take out 2-3 carrier strike groups, with ease.

      1. Jesus says:

        A battle group has to built around the Kirov, 2-3 frigates, some modernized Udaloy destroyers, support and supply ships and 2-3 subs.

        1. Laurent Parodi says:

          Yasen-M and modernized Oscars are the real deal.

          1. Jesus says:

            Yes, they can provide blue water capabilities to naval formations away from Russian borders.

      2. Cromwell says:

        They don’t get it,those foating five star hotels known as aircraft carriers are obsolete,in WW2 my Uncle was a Orlikon gunner on HS Victorious in the Pacific,it took three strikes from Jap Kamikazi off Okinawa, in my view they have been obsolete since then.these days those huge US carriers have a ships company of over five thousands,if they were hit by a hypersonic anti ship missile they would be toast.

      3. Tommy Jensen says:

        Everybody forget about our military US Space Command Centre with photonic laser weapons.

        1. Lone Ranger says:

          And transphasic torpedos and phaser banks…

          1. goingbrokes says:

            The true secret weapon converts the entire theatre to trans-gender wars at which point all enemies give up or die from depressed exhaustion.

    3. The S-400 shouldn’t exist, it’s overkill, S-300 is enough to deal with all threats, Russia is wasting money for a PR stunt

      1. Jesus says:

        It’s called technological development, so you think S500 is a PR stunt as well?
        It’s good to have capabilities your enemies lack, maintain or increase that advantage.

        1. Yes but US nukes are outdated anyway

          1. Jesus says:

            Even though US nuclear delivery vehicles are outdated, in case of nuclear war it is imperative to get as many as possible before the terminal stage.
            That is how you have control of the air space when the enemy relies on air power to win wars.

          2. Russia has more Uranium in Siberia, they can make more warheads

          3. Icarus Tanović says:

            They have so, so much oil there, diamonds, uranium, lithium, gold, things not known to public science.

          4. Jesus says:

            Yes.

      2. HiaNd says:

        “S-350 Vityaz known as the Redut” (modern medium range system) is replacement for S-300 (similar range but much more modern, more performante).

        S-400 is not overkill simply because:
        1) S-300 are not produced any longer
        2) S-400 are built to be above all anti stealth anti-aircraft system (S-300 are not)
        3) in aircraft battle group some other ships, or even ground marine forces may depend on those air defenses…So the bigger the range the better !
        3) no navy ever makes expensive overhaul of the ship with old systems (but with the newest one) even if they are still in use …

      3. Bob says:

        You do realize there is an S-500 SAM system?! Likewise, you do realize military tech invariably always evolves to better meet new challenges?!

        1. I do realize that but I think Russia can stimulate its economy on other things, like trade

          1. Bob says:

            Likewise, you do realize the scale of economic warfare the US has systematically imposed against Russian Federation commerce and industry?!

  3. Lone Ranger says:

    Isis Navy and Ukropnazis will cry and rage 🤗

    1. Tommy Jensen says:

      Nobody is restricting an American from free navigation in International waterways, nobody!

      US/Nato’s 70 countries Inherent Resolve Freedom Coalition of the Willing and its Navy, are at this moment on its way to the coast of Crimea, to sail ups and downs and around Crimea to show we mean it when we say freedom!!

      1. Lone Ranger says:

        Sarcasm detected…

  4. Jesus says:

    “”” The Zicron entered service in the Russian Navy in December 2019, and is considered the world’s foremost anti ship cruse missile today with a Mach 9 speed and 1000km range. The cruiser’s ability to carry up to 80 of these missiles alongside its ”””

    Who was arguing here that the Zircon did not enter service in the Russian navy?

    1. Ricky Miller says:

      That would be me. I still stand by that. The Tsirkon is still slated for State testing in May and June, so Military Watch Magazine is a bit out in front of actual events here. Although certainly Tsirkon will approve this year and enter active service it will only be deployed in small numbers.

      Also, the 1,000 km range is outer limit performance and isn’t really usable. Tsirkon is a ballistic missile of medium range, designed to target shipping and land based targets. This does not mean that it represents a sure kill. And as covered before, the terminal attack velocity will drop below MACH 6 for targeting and due to atmospheric drag. Also, a previous and only confirmed test against a shipping target was actually demonstrated to probably be a P-800.

      A great weapon, to be sure. But not the superman weapon that some here are cheerleading into a paradigm shifting development. I would again advise caution in believing that the weapon makes things easy for the Russian Navy to confront the huge Naval force that would come at Russia from the West. It is a solid deterrent, and a dangerous weapon to defend against but it’s actual use in combat is going to likely prove underwhelming. To actually get a high statistical hit onto a moving shipping target will require a salvo of these very expensive missiles, not one shot one kill as so many here are thinking.

        1. Ricky Miller says:

          From Sputnik on the 28th of March, 2020 in an article titled: “Test-Firing of Russia’s Zircon Hypersonic Missile Expected This Summer, Sources Say.”

          “In January, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexey Krivoruchko said that state tests of the hypersonic Zircon missile would culminate in 2021 with submarine launches, opening the way for serial production for the Russian Navy in 2022.”

          Military Watch Magazine is a great source for background information. But it’s superficial and prone to mistakes. It’s a fanboy comic site, of sorts. Russian information regarding their own weapons are better: Russian River and Shipbuilding News, TASS, RGRU, AVIAPRO, Sputnik, Lenta, RuBaltic, Eurasia Daily, Krasnaya Zvezda, RT, Mil.Press and more. I wouldn’t base any opinion or claim on Military Watch, but would instead use it as a place to start additional research from. Just Saying.

        2. HiaNd says:

          So?!
          “Serial production” of F-35 didn’t even start yet and nobody knows (if it ever starts) when it will start.
          Yet they already have hundreds of F-35 production models produced (in pre-production mode)
          state tests of the hypersonic Zircon missile”
          Those are final “state” trails for acceptance (certification) since production model has been tested already long time ago!

          1. Ricky Miller says:

            Serial production of the F-35 began in 2011, and the first production model was flown to Eglin AFB in springtime of that year The USMC declared the F-35B operational on the last day of July, 2015.

            No pre-production aircraft run has ever included more than a dozen airframes, the F-35 is approaching 700. No country has ever imported a pre-production airframe as an operational fighter, not in the jet era, and yet the F-35 has been exported to operational squadrons in Australia, the UK, Japan, Norway and Israel. Pre-production weapons are not usually deployed operationally outside of limited situations because their reliability statistics are unknown and because there are so few of them that depending on them in a sustained fight isn’t a possibility yet. The only reason the F-35 can be thought of as pre-production is because the production version is such a lemon and an operational failure. The F-35 is actually an example of a cautionary tale, a front and center share about the danger in thinking too highly of a weapons system before it’s proven and even spending billions of dollars buying planes for multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers that one now has no alternative for.

            Production weapons don’t undergo state tests, but are instead said to be tested “operationally.” The fact that Tsirkon is still in State Testing in it’s third year should give your mind room for pause in drawing any conclusions about the weapon. Time will tell. Tomorrow if the Russian MOD came out and said that the Tsirkon flies to the stratosphere, drops to the target area and engages it’s target at MACH 5, that would be exactly what I’m saying and would still be consistent with almost everything they’ve said to date: It flies at a maximum speed of MACH 9, has a 1,000 km range, and is capable of targeting shipping.

          2. HiaNd says:

            It’s Official: Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision On Hold
            BY THOMAS NEWDICK DECEMBER 31, 2020

            With critical test and evaluation work still unfinished, the full-rate production decision will be left to the future Biden administration.

            In a setback for the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter program, the U.S. Department of Defense has formally decreed that a decision on full-rate production of the jet is on indefinite hold….

            https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38507/its-official-pentagon-puts-f-35-full-rate-production-decision-on-hold

          3. Ricky Miller says:

            That’s a halt in further production. Reviews of the aircraft’s performance have been less than stellar. Last month an American senior officer admitted to Congress that the F-35 is no longer included in most war plans because it’s unreliable. But it was in serial production before, 2011-2019 to the tune of 80+ aircraft a year.

          4. HiaNd says:

            “Pentagon Puts F-35 Full-Rate Production Decision On Hold”

            No.
            You better read that article again… carefully.
            You are twisting the message of the article deliberately, it seams.
            The decision on full-rate production has never happened.

            “wrapping up the Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) is a formal requirement before the formal launch of full-rate production.”

            That “Initial Operational Test & Evaluation” has never been finished. “Full-Rate Production” has never started.

            delays to operational testing in the Joint Simulation Environment. The F-35 needs to prove itself in these trials in order to complete the IOT&E phase and kickstart the full-rate production review.”

          5. Ricky Miller says:

            No need. You’re trying to die on a hill of lame semantics. Hear me, and see the statistics. No jet aircraft era pre-production run has ever exceeded a dozen airframes. Prototypes are hand made. The pre-production run of Su-57 amounts to 10 aircraft. For the Mig-35 it’s 8. A production schedule that includes mass production processes and a supply chain involving half a dozen countries and producing aircraft at a rate of 80 per year is not pre-production. Deploying aircraft from that production line into operational squadrons has never been done for any prototype aircraft.

            The F-35 is such a lemon that confusing language is often used in reports about the airplane around the military and in reports to Congress. What you’re quoting above is spin to pretend that the lemon is still salvageable, see we’re still improving it before considering “full-rate” production. But it’s still in industrial scale production; because that’s what 80 airframes a year represents. If you can’t understand the difference than there’s nothing I’m going to be able to do in order to teach you mathematics or to teach you about the history of aircraft production.

      1. Lone Ranger says:

        No offense but from where do you get your info?
        Tsirkon is not s ballistic missile, its a hypersonic cruise missile.
        And it can easily do a 1000km, in fact upgrades are already in the works to push the range to 1400km.
        Terminal speed is confidental, we only know it can do Mach9-10.
        If anybody told you otherwise its a lie or desinformation.
        Even if it was true, U.S. guided missile cruisers can only defend against targets slower than Mach 3.
        Its already in active service in limited numbers.
        Just because they are still testing it doesn’t mean its not operational.
        This is not a new tendency by the way, almost all new gen Russian cruise missile caught the west by surprise.
        West also told a few years ago the Kalibr will take a long time to deploy and its capebilites are overstated….well Russia proved them wrong time and time again in Syria.
        Kalibrs were often launched from the Black Sea in salvos still hitting their targets accurately inside Syria after performing dozens of course changes, something unheard till that point.
        Its a superweapon, it can be armed with a nuclear warhead.
        It gives the same firepower to every ship and boat as if they were armed with ICBMs, except the range is shorter.
        That means even a small ship can take out a carrier and you wont be able to do anything about it.
        Its the pincle of asymmetrical warfare.
        Never underestimate Russian weapons or tech…

        1. ruca says:

          They were fired from the Caspian Sea. Not sure if the they fired them from the Black Sea at all. Otherwise great points.

          1. Lone Ranger says:

            Both actually.

          2. ruca says:

            I didn’t know that. Thanks LR!

        2. Ricky Miller says:

          Hello Brother. I’m not underestimating Russian weapons or tech. But, I do advocate a more analytical approach. Some Russian weapons systems development are filtered and presented through sources and in a way to comfort the Russian public and present things as a done deal when they are not. I believe in Russia’s approach to foreign policy, and there are weapons and programs that have been successful to amazing degrees. And then there are things to be skeptical about, and programs that have failed to hit the mark. Understanding those helps us, or me I guess, since I seem to be alone sometimes in trying to understand what actually is as opposed to what I hope is.

          There is not a single Yasen-M submarine in service, despite “Kazan” being declared an imminent Saint Andrews flag bearer four times. Sarmat has not been flight tested. There are only two Admiral Gorshkov Frigates in service. And the Tsirkon missile has never been confirmed as successfully tested against a moving naval target. There have been images of the Tsirkon presented as a ramjet air breathing hypersonic cruise missile yet that missile shell has never been sighted leaving a launch tube. There has been no independent confirmation of it’s velocity to target being MACH 8, unlike say the S-500 long range aerial interception record proven by USAF monitoring. In fact, a declared Tsirkon launch in March 2021 proved to be a P-800 launch as described in the Barents Observer article on March 25, 2021 titled: “Northern Fleet Frigate fired missile at target on Novaya Zemlya as British reconnaissance aircraft was watching.” The article describes how the launch was said to be a Tsirkon, was later proven to be a P-800, and how TASS removed information describing the original claim. A similiar issue from last autumn at H.I. Sutton’s website analyzed a Tsirkon test launch where the body of the missile looks like a P-800. Something isn’t adding up.

          A successful air breathing hypersonic cruise missile, especially one capable of targeting shipping, would be a HUGE deal and worth displaying distant images of impact against a naval target. We have those for Kalibr, for P-800’s, for Harpoons, and NSM’s. But not for Tsirkon. Note, no military information of a useful nature would be surrendered by providing documentation of such a capability; exactly the opposite. It would display a dangerous capability openly to the Global Empire by backing up development claims for the weapon. Yet ranges to ground targets match P-800’s. Tsirkon test launches are later demonstrated to be P-800’s. My theory: The Tsirkon isn’t an air breathing weapon at all, but a navalized version of Iskander missiles, and as such not going to be tested around recon aircraft. They didn’t expect H.I. Sutton to be so Johnny on the spot either. It’s just a theory. The Kremlin itself celebrates the Tsirkon as a land strike weapon (Putin-do the math comment) and as such would represent a powerful conventional deterrent to prompt global strike when mated to Yasen-m submarines, when we actually see them in service.

          In conclusion, before donning party hats and heading to the bar I want to know what Russia actually has, as opposed to what we are being made to think they have. I’m a stickler for details. I know Russia has great weaponry: The Kalibr anti-ship missile is world class, as are both KH-32 air launched missiles and P-800’s. The S-350 navalized system is awesome at intercepting attacking missiles, and the Vorenzeh Radar system is a world class early warning equalizer for Russia. The S-400 system is the real deal in preserving airspace control, and the 636 submarines are great at littoral sea control. But something is off about the Tsirkon program, it’s not what it appears to be. I’m not anti-Russian for saying so and waiting for actual proof about what it is, and what it’s not.

          1. Lone Ranger says:

            You are getting lost in western academic thinking and western sources…
            Russia usually tells the Truth about their weapons capebilites, unlike the U.S. or UK for example oftentimes overestimating their own capebilites.
            As for Russians not showing it up close and moving or at impact is understandable, that’s a state of the art weapons system not one but two gens ahead anything the U.S. has, showing anything about it or it’s maneuvering could give valuable info about how it works and they dont want that.
            Lets not forget the U.S. already had the F-117 in the late 70s but was only showed operational in 1991 during Desert Storm.
            The B-2 was already operational around 94-95 but up close pics and in flight movement were first seen in 2003.
            If you have a new weapon you will try to be as confidental be about it as possible, total secrecy would be counterproductive since its a deterrent weapon.
            I often read your comments you are right most the time.
            Not this time tho, sorry, but I respect your standpoint, I wont try to ovepower you, if you wanna believe in it you are welcome.
            Also ship and boat deployment of the Russian Navy is deliberately confusing, to keep the adversaries guessing.
            I read the same talking points about the Borei class, proven to be wrong later.
            I wouldn’t worry much..
            The reality is, currently both Russia and China are producing more ships and subs per year than the U.S.
            With Chinese producing around twice as much as Russia.
            At that rate the Chinese Navy will be able to rival the whole U.S. Navy within 5years, I mean the Whole Navy not just a task force or strike group…
            If we count in Russia too the U.S. is already outgunned.
            Especially with no super and hypersonic tech and the unreliable Trident II ICBMs.
            Anyways have a nice evening.

          2. Ricky Miller says:

            You too. I love you guys and you are on the right side of history. Russia is unusual in it’s honesty about weapons developments, I agree. I view Tsirkon as an outlier in terms of their honesty. I say that not with pleasure or to down on them, but just because things about the program just don’t add up. I could be wrong. I hope I am. As described Tsirkon would be a nearly supernatural weapon. The world would instantly be a better place. But I fear a certain amount of hyperbole and misinterpreted presentation.

            A Tsirkon in my opinion does this: it uses an Iskander base booster to soar to 30,000 meters and it separates from the booster. It’s traveling at MACH 9 as it begins to fall from the upper atmosphere toward the target area. It fires up it’s air breathing engine near the surface and steers toward the target at MACH 5.5 or MACH 6. Actual range is 800 km or so, but without it’s warhead it could make 1,000 km against a static target, using it’s kinetic speed alone as a destructive force. The above would still meet the criteria as described by the Russian government as being MACH 9, capable of targeting shipping, and 1,000 km theoretical range. But it wouldn’t be a 1,000 km high hypersonic missile under powered flight all the way to target. People here have claimed that and group thought it up, sticking to the outer envelope of what might be possible and certified it as a definite in the bag capability, something the Russian MOD doesn’t even claim.

          3. HiaNd says:

            agree with all except small detail :
            Russia and China are producing more ships and subs per year than the U.S.
            It is true nominally (in numbers) …but…
            But Russia is building smaller ships (missile boats, corvettes mostly) comparing to China and they are even more small comparing to average US ships (in metric tons).
            In shipbuilding China is 2 times faster than US (capable to build one (light) air-carrier every year) and has much bigger shipbuilding capacity than US.
            Shipbuilding is the weakest link in Russian military procurement ( except for subs since they never stopped to build them )

            They (Russians) are goring through painful process of re-learning (what was lost know how in shipbuilding of the very large ships) specially because of losing Nikolayev Shipyard where all SSSR air- carriers were built due to separation of Ukraine…
            Now they build 2 light carriers 45 000 tops end it will take them 6 years for each (if not more)

          4. Lone Ranger says:

            True, but they also build quite a few cruisers.
            Also Russia oftentimes calls it’s cruiser sized ships frigates.
            But if you look at the size, displacement and weaponry it’s a cruiser.

          5. HiaNd says:

            True that
            (I didn’t want to talk about China (just as comparison ))
            Both Russia and China do that (Russia does that all the time, frigates (specially Gorshkov M class (project 22350M (enlarged )) are of the size of the heavy destroyers. New Russian Leader class “destroyer” project are actually of the size of heavy cruiser.

            Chinese destroyer “type 055” is size of cruiser (bigger than US cruisers Ticonderoga class)

        3. HiaNd says:

          “Terminal speed is confidental, we only know it can do Mach9-10”
          TRUE!
          “Mach9-10” is top speed

      2. Jesus says:

        You have no concrete data of Zircon dropping its terminal velocity in order to achieve target acquisition or because atmospheric drag. These are mere assumption by US think tanks that share that point of view.
        Russia has an air launched cruise missile KH32 that flies at Mach 4.5-5 which is an improved copy of a legacy missile the Soviets fielded long ago.
        Zircon is not a ballistic missile, it is maneuverable and has similar characteristics to Oniks except it flies much faster and creates a stealth plasma cloud.
        US air defenses will have their hands full defending against Oniks, be outgunned by KH32, and checkmated by Zircon.

        1. Ricky Miller says:

          We have no concrete data of anything. That’s the point. Tsirkon has been described by a former Russian defense official as “climbing to 30,000 meters” before converting to an air breathing cruise missile and dropping to sea level. It has also been described as a hypersonic cruise missile from start to finish. No evidence has been provided of any kind and there’s so much we don’t know. So, we have no images of a hypersonic impact against a Naval target. We have no explanations on how this missile receives targeting information beyond MACH 6 through the Plasma cloud it’s flight creates. Also not explained is how the missile housing shown in visual presentations for the Tsirkon has enough room in the fuselage for enough fuel to both fly at MACH 9 and have a 1,000 km range. It doesn’t have enough fuel to do both, according to critiques I’ve came across. In fact, you accuse me of not having evidence for skepticism while no evidence for the Tsirkon performance as a hypersonic cruise missile has ever been presented anywhere by anyone. If you have it, please bring it. I’m actually rooting for it to be true and for you to be right.

          1. Jesus says:

            There is plenty of data on current Russian anti ship missiles, KH 32 that flies Mach 4.5 -5 has a flight platform at 40 Kms altitude where the SM 6 cannot touch it, and dives on the target from a blind spot. It is pretty much a fire and forget weapon.
            Then there is Oniks another fire and forget supersonic cruise missile powered by ram jet technology. Prior to that Granite missile employed fire and forget technologies and supersonic speed.
            Since Russians develop new weapons on the basis of proven weapons, employing their latest technology, I would say that the zircon will be launched like an Oniks, climb at at 40-50 kms altitude and fly towards the target and dive on the target like the KH32 does.
            Russians obviously have the means to communicate through the cloud plasma, otherwise the hypersonic hype would be a farce. It is not, since Avangard HGV flies at greater ranges and engage in maneuvers during the course of the flight dictated by the presence of anti ballistic missile positions.

          2. Ricky Miller says:

            I know all about P-800’s and KH-32’s, etc. I was speaking about Tsirkon. There is little to no data about Tsirkon. I was talking about the Orange and you reverted to all the apples we are all already in agreement on.

            Providing guidance to a KH-32 at MACH 4.6, no problem. Using onboard sensors to gather targeting information below MACH 5.8-6.2, again no problem. Providing onboard targeting, either from internal or external systems past MACH 6.2 isn’t possible in any usable way in combat. An over the horizon anti-ship missile would need to be in the line of sight of a major communications relay the size of a small radio telescope to recieve useful targeting data through the intense plasma cloud of a high hypersonic missile, especially one traveling near the thicker atmosphere of sea level. Because the Earth is curved a missile isn’t going to both travel beyond MACH 6 and receive terminal guidance. It’s onboard visual and radar sensors are disrupted beyond MACH 6, in a thick atmosphere; it’d be like looking underwater without goggles.

            Avangard doesn’t recieve targeting information during descent and terminal approach. It’s evasions around ABM emplacements and to avoid ABM fire are pre-programed. It’s running a flight program installed in it’s navigation and targeting package. It’s speed also bleeds off in the atmosphere as it makes turns, just like the space shuttle’s. During terminal approach it’s speed will hardly be hypersonic and might slip into the MACH 4+ range.

          3. Jesus says:

            “”” Providing onboard targeting, either from internal or external systems past MACH 6.2 isn’t possible in any usable way in combat. ”””

            Says who? Missile 40N6 E of the S 400 is fired at an altitude of 30 kms and then it dives seeking for a target autonomously at hypersonic speeds.

            “”” An over the horizon anti-ship missile would need to be in the line of sight of a major communications relay the size of a small radio telescope to recieve useful targeting data through the intense plasma cloud of a high hypersonic missile, …..”””

            I said zircon most likely will fly at a high altitude 40-50 kms identify the target and dive on it at hypersonic speed maintaining the lock on the target.

            “”” Avangard doesn’t recieve targeting information during descent and terminal approach. It’s evasions around ABM emplacements and to avoid ABM fire are pre-programed. ”””
            There is no way to know the position of a SM 3 on a ship that is moving 30 knots…..and besides if the priority of the target changes Avangard has to be reprogrammed. I do not think so.

          4. Ricky Miller says:

            Avangard hasn’t been confirmed as an anti-ship weapon at all. It’s actually a strategic glider, and it’s flight program is programed to avoid American ABM defenses after it separates from it’s launch vehicle. It’s atmospheric evasions during terminal approach aren’t guided, they’re random.

            If you’re right about the Tsirkon flight profile than we actually aren’t far apart in our belief about what Tsirkon is and what it’s likely most capable of doing. I say, launch, ballistic apogee reaching MACH 8-9, glide toward the target area while descending lower into the atmosphere, and a kick on of it’s ramjet thrust in the target area with a terminal attack velocity of MACH 4.5-5.5. I think your interpretation is Hypersonic thrust all the way from separation onto target at what, MACH 8? I don’t believe such to be possible against a moving target, not least of which is interference from the plasma bubble created by MACH 8 flight in thick atmosphere near to where the target lives.

            Your point about Russia’s hypersonic surface to air missiles is well made. I would counter that these missiles are within the line of sight for powerful ground based targeting emitters and that their top speeds again occur in thinner air where information can be received. Additionally, in active radar targeting during terminal approach their speed is much less, and remember that the long range S-400 missiles have huge radars that anti-ship missiles don’t have room to carry. They are far beyond the mass of cruise missiles and don’t actually have to guide onto the target in order to destroy it. They explode in the vicinity of several hundred meters and the large mass of their warhead is enough to doom planes from several hundred meters.

          5. Jesus says:

            “”” Avangard hasn’t been confirmed as an anti-ship weapon at all. It’s actually a strategic glider, and it’s flight program is programed to avoid American ABM defenses after it separates from it’s launch vehicle. It’s atmospheric evasions during terminal approach aren’t guided, they’re random.”””

            The Avangard is not a glorified MIRV that is preprogrammed to fly a certain pattern. American ABM defenses are ship deployed that constantly move.
            I see Avangard as a tactical weapon as well, the HGV having autonomous capabilities relying on a variety of space based military assets to determine its trajectory.

            I do not see the plasma cloud to be an issue, since all Russian anti ship missiles are fire and forget going all the way to the technology employed on the Granite missile several decades ago.
            I still think the terminal velocity of Zircon being higher than what you suggest since entering the lower levels of the atmosphere, the oxygen supply would be richer enabling the scramjet to intake more oxygen and burn its fuel with high proficiency.

            The 40N6 missile weighs close to 2 tons, while the Zircon is estimated to be between 3-5 tons. One is fighting gravity attaining hypersonic speed, the other one is enhanced by gravity at hypersonic speed.

  5. shylockracy says:

    Putіn’s Zioterrorist business allies in the EU/NATO can now wait for better warmongering conditions in summer. More crіses, more Putin negotitions with Zioterrorists and new toy deployment.

    1. ruca says:

      Disinformation alert!

  6. Doom Sternz says:

    OK take Russia aggression, biggest con job ever………Here is what is really going on………….Zelensky signs off on decree 117/2021 which is the De-occupation and Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol. This is a declaration of war.

    Ukraine then moved weapons and troops to the front line and started shelling civilians in the Donbass. Russia as a response has moved 2 armies and 3 paratroop divisions to their border with Ukraine. The Putin administration has warned the US/NATO to back off and let Russia deal with Kiev.

    There are over 500,000 Russian citizens, passport holders, in the Donbass hence the shelling of the Donbass is a threat to Russia and a provocation for war. Apart from the war crimes that Ukraine/US/NATO are committing these are just further crimes against humanity which is the standard MO of US/NATO.

    OK take Putin is a killer……….President Lukashenko has stated that Biden gave the order to kill him in a coup organized by the CIA. According to the Russians, a joint operation of the (Belorussian) KGB and the Russian FSB has uncovered the plot early on and the Russians monitored the full operation until they had enough evidence to arrest all the plotters.

    it was the Russians who saved Erdogan from a US-backed coup which was also supposed to include Erdogan’s murder. The Kremlin confirmed the Putin and Biden discussed this topic during their telephone conference. No wonder Putin wont meet Biden for a summit.

    I can go on and on……Its all just Big Lies after Big Lies…………….I am referring to the “lies” that the Malaysian aircraft was shot down by Russians. I am referring to the “lies” that the Crimea referendum was illegal and was carried out under threat of guns. I am referring to the lies that Russia used Novichok to murder an ex spy and his daughter on British Soil.

    I am referring to the “lies” about Saddam Hussein producing yellow cake uranium from N i g e r, I am referring to the “lies” about Saddam Hussein’s milk factories being anthrax facilities ready to bomb the West. I am referring to the “lies” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed an immediate threat to the USA and its “allies”.

    I am referring to the lies that Nicolas Maduro isnt the elected leader of Venezuella and Yuan Guido who never stood for election is. I am referring to the lies that the ‘mujahedin’ were holy warriors and Osama Bin Laden needed US weapons and training to bring democracy to Afganistan.

    I am referring to the “lies” that Muammar al-Qathafi was bombing his own people. I am referring to the “lies” that the Syrian Government was using chemical weapons. I am referring to the “lies” that Russian tanks and armoured personnel carriers were rolling over the borders in their thousands. I am referring to the lies that Russia attacked Georgia in South Ossetia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *