Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Russia building up its forces in the Crimea

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Russia building up its forces in the Crimea

Old 2nd Feb 2021, 12:45
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
The Turks have always been flexible on interpretation - they allow "helicopter carrying cruisers" if they are Russian as they do Russian Submarines both of wish are stretching the Convention as written 100 years ago to its limits
As a country on the Black Sea, the Montreux convention allows these countrys to do as they wish. Control is for Foreign navies entering the Black Sea.
racedo is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2021, 13:21
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by racedo View Post
So much for the "NEW" regime in Washington observing Treaties and obligations.

US sending more warships into Black Sea in trying to ignore Montreux Convention which controls amount of military shipping in Black Sea.

Guess Hunter's friends in Ukraine are pleased.
Ahem. Note that the DDGs referenced would class as light surface vessels under the treaty.
https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/up...he-Straits.pdf
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2021, 15:04
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Probably going to take a look at the palace that VV Putin doesn't own on the Black Sea Coast....................
You mean this one that cost the Russian people $Bns with it's own vineyards, underground ice-hockey rink, tunnels through the cliffs to its own harbour with kms of sea exclusion area, no-fly zone to FL130 etc.?
I don't think he wants us to talk about it. I think he would rather we believe that his former Judo sparing partner has somehow managed to persuade many of the main state-owned companies to pay for this.

Putin's Palace - Wikipedia
https://goo.gl/maps/8nbzYNHygWot6sBEA
Dan Dare is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2021, 19:37
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin View Post
Ahem. Note that the DDGs referenced would class as light surface vessels under the treaty.
https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/up...he-Straits.pdf
Max Tonnage fully loaded for war for Non Black Sea Powers and can stay for 21 days maximum. Weight based on fully loaded so 2 is max allowed.

racedo is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2021, 20:03
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Black Sea treaties died when the treaties regarding Georgia, the Crimea and Ukraine itself hit the fan. Russia triggered the military free-for-all so I doubt they will be reaching for old bits of paper in the foreseeable future.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2021, 22:30
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Just This Once... View Post
The Black Sea treaties died when the treaties regarding Georgia, the Crimea and Ukraine itself hit the fan. Russia triggered the military free-for-all so I doubt they will be reaching for old bits of paper in the foreseeable future.
You may think that was but not the way US Navy sees it and have publicly stated their intention to abide by the Treaty.
racedo is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 07:40
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 1,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by racedo View Post
Max Tonnage fully loaded for war for Non Black Sea Powers and can stay for 21 days maximum. Weight based on fully loaded so 2 is max allowed.
And the US Navy has 2 DDG in the black sea, so I'm struggling to see how you believe this is breaking the convention?
pba_target is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 09:30
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pba_target View Post
And the US Navy has 2 DDG in the black sea, so I'm struggling to see how you believe this is breaking the convention?
Because USA evil bullies, reasons, obvs!
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 17:59
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5,061
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"As a country on the Black Sea, the Montreux convention allows these country's to do as they wish"

That's not quite true - Aircraft Carriers were banned for years - which is why the Russians changed the designation on their boats - but the Turks are reasonably flexible

and after all a couple of US warships give VV Putin something to think about other than Turkey.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 23:28
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
"As a country on the Black Sea, the Montreux convention allows these country's to do as they wish"

That's not quite true - Aircraft Carriers were banned for years - which is why the Russians changed the designation on their boats - but the Turks are reasonably flexible

and after all a couple of US warships give VV Putin something to think about other than Turkey.
Max 21 day stay.

I am not sure why Russia would be worried about Turkey, they happy to sell them weapons, sadly because of Obama it has meant Turkey has moved away from US sphere of influence.
racedo is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 23:30
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Exit stage right.
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pba_target View Post
And the US Navy has 2 DDG in the black sea, so I'm struggling to see how you believe this is breaking the convention?
My initial reading was inclusion of USNS Laramie breached the tonnage but rereading it, provided it transited on its own and has no weapons it doesn't.
racedo is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2021, 18:14
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by A_Van View Post
It seems that Donald (Cook, DDG-75) is still scared and "invited his twin" DDG-78 to join the party. Some years ago an old Su-24 played tricks on him :-)

What frightened the USS Donald Cook so much in the Black Sea? (wildboar.net)

"....The Russian Su-24 then simulated a missile attack against the USS Donald Cook, which was left literally deaf and blind. As if carrying out a training exercise, the Russian aircraft — unarmed — repeated the same maneuver 12 times, before flying away. After that the 4th-generation destroyer immediately set sail towards a port in Romania.
...."
Good grief. You do realise that is an article from Voltairenet. Simply die-hard conspiracy theorists embellishing multiple flypast in internationals waters. Conspiracy loons propaganda nonsense. The likes of Voltainenet embellish the story in order to get hits and clicks on the donate buttons.

Since that incident, which the Atlanticist media have carefully covered up despite the widespread reactions sparked among defense industry experts, no US ship has ever approached Russian territorial waters again.According to some specialized media 27 sailors from the USS Donald Cook requested to be relieved from active service.
The question is why did you fall for it?
TEEEJ is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2021, 18:48
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by A_Van View Post
It seems that Donald (Cook, DDG-75) is still scared and "invited his twin" DDG-78 to join the party. Some years ago an old Su-24 played tricks on him :-)"
USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) went back into the Black Sea later that year (2014).

26th December 2014 to 14th January 2015.

https://ua.usembassy.gov/u-s-navy-de...navy-flagship/

19th February 2019 to 1st March 2020

https://ua.usembassy.gov/tag/uss-donald-cook/


TEEEJ is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 12:05
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 64
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TEEEJ View Post
....

The question is why did you fall for it?
I did not. It was nothing but a sarcasm. Just to show that non-Russian media often generate nonsense.

As for that old incident, I assume some e-interference might have taken place (though I doubt that the Su used any jammer at all) but in a more serious situation a Su would never approach the ship so closely.
A_Van is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2021, 09:26
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5,061
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
that's what the British thought about the Argentinian Air Force in '82 Van...................... always best to assume the worst
Asturias56 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.