Russia: "We will respond to entry of U.S. naval vessel into Black Sea"
16 replies, posted
[IMG]http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20160610&t=2&i=1140749537&w=644&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXNPEC590G0[/IMG]
[QUOTE]The Russian Foreign ministry said Moscow would respond to a U.S. naval ship's entry into the Black Sea with unspecified measures, saying it and other deployments were designed to ratchet up tensions ahead of a NATO summit, the RIA news agency reported.
Russian state media reported that the USS Porter, a U.S. naval destroyer, entered the Black Sea a few days ago on a routine deployment, a move it said raised hackles in Moscow because it had recently been fitted with a new missile system.[/QUOTE]
Who's up for another high speed Fencer pass?
[URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-ship-idUSKCN0YW0PP[/URL]
It recently had its rear CIWS replaced with another SeaRAM. Basically it just got slightly better at intercepting anti ship missiles. The phalanx cannon was replaced with missiles.
Pretty sure a minor upgrade to the destroyer that was scheduled long before november of 2015 has little to do with it.
All they'll do is fly jets close by to them again.
Pretty sure they did that two-three years ago and it made a couple headlines.
The Black Sea is international waters, and regardless of our current issues with Turkey, they're still a staunch ally with permission for us to sail our ships around.
Russia's foreign ministry can go fuck itself.
Russia; terrified by a single destroyer entering what they perceive as their own bathtub
Oh fuck, that means shit for us eh?
[QUOTE=GunFox;50490851]It recently had its rear CIWS replaced with another SeaRAM. Basically it just got slightly better at intercepting anti ship missiles. The phalanx cannon was replaced with missiles.
Pretty sure a minor upgrade to the destroyer that was scheduled long before november of 2015 has little to do with it.[/QUOTE]
how come anti-anti-ship missile systems are being increasingly missile based?
i would have thought that a hail of bullets was better at destroying an incoming missile purely because there are more "opportunities" to stop it than a single missile
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50491002]how come anti-anti-ship missile systems are being increasingly missile based?
i would have thought that a hail of bullets was better at destroying an incoming missile purely because there are more "opportunities" to stop it than a single missile[/QUOTE]
Educated guess: The range on the missiles is much much better, which makes them better equipped to defend a fleet.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50491002]how come anti-anti-ship missile systems are being increasingly missile based?
i would have thought that a hail of bullets was better at destroying an incoming missile purely because there are more "opportunities" to stop it than a single missile[/QUOTE]
They're guided, and have an added benefit of being AoE. Basically they can guide themselves to get close enough to then explode taking the missile with it, rather than a hail of bullets that might get it and might not. Not to mention it can go many many miles and retain the accuracy, and fire on multiple missiles simultaneously while the CIWS can only fire at one at a time
Not to mention with a CIWS you don't know where all those bullets that miss the missile will land, really don't want to fill some random civilian building full of bullets, the missile self-destructs.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50491154]Not to mention with a CIWS you don't know where all those bullets that miss the missile will land, really don't want to fill some random civilian building full of bullets, the missile self-destructs.[/QUOTE]Don't the bullets of the CIWS have a fuse on them for exactly that sort of reason? All I remember is seeing video of it in action and all the shots that miss would detonate after a while.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50491154]Not to mention with a CIWS you don't know where all those bullets that miss the missile will land, really don't want to fill some random civilian building full of bullets, the missile self-destructs.[/QUOTE]
The rounds detonate after a certain distance.
Missile based aircraft defense is great, but a gun CIWS is better for last resort extremely close defense weapon.
Oh ok didn't know that.
Guess they did think of everything.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50491264]Oh ok didn't know that.
Guess they did think of everything.[/QUOTE]
Think of it this way, most naval ships travel in convoys. You don't want your destroyer to accidentally chew up another one when it's ciws starts firing
[QUOTE=GunFox;50490851]It recently had its rear CIWS replaced with another SeaRAM. Basically it just got slightly better at intercepting anti ship missiles. The phalanx cannon was replaced with missiles.
Pretty sure a minor upgrade to the destroyer that was scheduled long before november of 2015 has little to do with it.[/QUOTE]
even though missile and laser defense is going to have much more reliable Pk than CIWS I'm still sad because CIWS is the raddest looking of the three
[editline]10th June 2016[/editline]
it'll still be more useful for land based mortar defense at least
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.