Turkey shoots down Russian aircraft.

[Dan D]

"Massive launch of the Kalibr sea-based missiles was effectuated by the Rostov-on-Don submarine" against ISIS on Monday from the Mediterranean Sea(!)



How did they get past Gibraltar, British Navy?
Macho Man Putin

[Jimbuna]

Is the entrance to the Med supposed to be blocked

[Dan D]

That was just a more or less humorous reference to the movie "Das Boot", Jimbuna.

But is there any need really for Russia to launch missiles from a submarine in the Mediterranean Sea to attack targets in Syria ?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Dan D

But is there any need really for Russia to launch missiles from a submarine in the Mediterranean Sea to attack targets in Syria ?

Well, they could have launched it from the Black Sea over Turkey...but I think they might have upset a few people.
I think that this war has given the Russians a good opportunity to demonstrate some of their new weapons systems for the potential customers in the region.

[Dan D]

That could be.

[Mike Abberton]

I was under the impression that the Rostov-on-Don came out of the Black Sea Fleet, not the Northern or Baltic Fleets. In other words, through the Dardanelles/Bosphorus, not Gibraltar.

Mike

[Oberon]

That's true, B-237 is Black Sea Fleet, so he would have had to transit the Bosporus first. Probably did a while ago before the 24 was downed.

Besides, we've got enough on our hands trying to stop the Spanish from invading Gibraltar, let alone trying to find Russkies subs sneaking through!

[Dan D]

Originally Posted by Mike Abberton

I was under the impression that the Rostov-on-Don came out of the Black Sea Fleet, not the Northern or Baltic Fleets. In other words, through the Dardanelles/Bosphorus, not Gibraltar.

Mike

Good point, Mike Abberton

Because of my German-centric mindset I did not even consider the other option to enter the Med. So Putin's submarine penetrated the Bosphorus to launch it's missile from the Med.

That makes even more sense as it shows that Russian Navy is present in the Med, too and it shows Turkey that Russian Navy crosses the Bosphorus if it wants to.

At least Russia told the US and Israel in advance that it would launch missiles from the Med according BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35041656

[Aktungbby]

A little background there:

The Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits is a 1936 agreement that gives Turkey control over the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles and regulates the transit of naval warships. The Convention gives Turkey full control over the Straits and guarantees the free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime. It restricts the passage of naval ships not belonging to Black Sea states. The terms of the convention have been the source of controversy over the years, most notably concerning the Soviet Union's military access to the Mediterranean Sea.
Signed on 20 July 1936 at the Montreux Palace in Switzerland, it permitted Turkey to remilitarise the Straits. It went into effect on 9 November 1936 and was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 11 December 1936. It is still in force today, with some amendments.
The proposed 21st century Kanal Istanbul project may constitute a possible by-pass to the Montreux Convention and force greater Turkish autonomy with respect to the passage of military ships from the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits Throwing in the the geopolitical issues of the Trojan War (1250 BC) The Peloponnesian War(450 BC) and Gallipoli over this waterway and 'nuthin goes outta style' in 3000 years; Putin took the impoverished Crimea back to get a rent-free port at Sebastopol and I suspect his involvement in Syria is a WWII channel-ports style ploy to expand his naval front-door to the Mediterranean with bases on the Levantine coast west of the easily closed strait. This would greatly circumvent NATO bottling up the southern 'prong' of the Russian Navy as Putin continues his dream of recreating the Stalinist Soviet Empire buffer-zone which is what the Ukraine fracas is about. .....IMHO EDIT: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/is-turkey-closing-the-bosphorus-strait-escalating-with-russia.html [QUOTE]The 1936 Montreaux Convention on the Regime of the Straits governs the passage of ships both naval and civilian through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. Article 2 of the agreement states that “merchant vessels shall enjoy complete freedom of transit and navigation in the Straits, by day and by night, under any flag and with any kind of cargo, without any formalities.” Small and Medium naval warships and vessels must be permitted to pass through the Strait as well during times of peace with Black Sea powers able to sail any class of ship through the waterway. During times of war, the discretion is left up to the Turkish government.[QUOTE]

[Commander Wallace]

[QUOTE=Aktungbby;2365094]A little background there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits Throwing in the the geopolitical issues of the Trojan War (1250 BC) The Peloponnesian War(450 BC) and Gallipoli over this waterway and 'nuthin goes outta style' in 3000 years; Putin took the impoverished Crimea back to get a rent-free port at Sebastopol and I suspect his involvement in Syria is a WWII channel-ports style ploy to expand his naval front-door to the Mediterranean with bases on the Levantine coast west of the easily closed strait. This would greatly circumvent NATO bottling up the southern 'prong' of the Russian Navy as Putin continues his dream of recreating the Stalinist Soviet Empire buffer-zone which is what the Ukraine fracas is about. .....IMHO EDIT: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/is-turkey-closing-the-bosphorus-strait-escalating-with-russia.html [QUOTE]The 1936 Montreaux Convention on the Regime of the Straits governs the passage of ships both naval and civilian through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. Article 2 of the agreement states that “merchant vessels shall enjoy complete freedom of transit and navigation in the Straits, by day and by night, under any flag and with any kind of cargo, without any formalities.” Small and Medium naval warships and vessels must be permitted to pass through the Strait as well during times of peace with Black Sea powers able to sail any class of ship through the waterway. During times of war, the discretion is left up to the Turkish government.


Nothing new here with the exception of the Trojan and Peloponnesian War(450 BC) and Gallipoli .
I'm pretty sure I posted the same thing back in post #135.

One thing to consider. Turkey maintains control of the Dardanelle straits, the Sea of Marmara and the Bosporus These are essentially waterways in Turkey connecting the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean to the Black Sea.
Control of these routes of passage was granted to Turkey under the 1936 Montreux Convention .
This convention has always been a source of tension between Russia and Turkey . Stalin himself chaffed at Turkish control of the straits . In negotiations of the non aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, Stalin indicated a desire to take control of the straits in exchange for the signing of the non aggression pact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montre...of_the_Straits

Russia sends supplies from it's Novorossiysk naval base in the Black Sea to Russian ports in Tartus and Latakia. Russian vessels have enjoyed passage through the straits but Russian flagged vessels are now said to " wait for hours " before being allowed passage .

Logistically speaking, If Russia can't resupply their forces, then what. I'm sure supplies could be airlifted in but still. The question is, how important are the straits to Russia with regards to resupply of their forces in Syria ? How much of their economy in the form of cargo ships pass through those straits ?

If Turkey believes or considers itself in imminent danger of attack, Turkey can legally close or restrict access to those waterways Under article 20 and 21 of the Montreux convention.

The following is taken from the pages of the convention signed in 1936 .

TRADUCTION - TRANSLATION CONVENTION REGARDING THE

REGIME OF THE STRAITS SIGNED AT MONTREUX, JULY 20 TH, 1936

French official text communicated by the Permanent Delegate of Turkey to the League of Nations.

The registration of this Convention took place December 11th, 1936.

HIS MAJESTY

Article 19.

In time of war, Turkey not being belligerent, warships shall enjoy complete freedom of transit and

navigation through the Straits under the same conditions as those laid down in Article 10 to 18.

Vessels of war belonging to belligerent Powers shall not however, pass through the Straits except in

cases arising out of the application of Article 25 of the present Convention, and in cases of assistance

rendered to a State victim of aggression in virtue of a treaty of mutual assistance binding-Turkey,

concluded within the framework of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and registered and

published in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of the Covenant.

In the exceptional cases provided for in the preceding paragraph, the limitations laid down in Article 10

to 18 of the present Convention shall not be applicable.

Notwithstanding the prohibition of passage laid down in paragraph 2 above, vessels of war belonging

to belligerent Powers, whether they are Black Sea Powers or not, which have become separated from

their bases, may return thereto.

Vessels of war belonging to belligerent Powers shall not make any capture, exercise the right of visit

and search, or carry out any hostile act in the Straits.

Article 20.

In time of war, Turkey being belligerent, the provisions of Articles 10 to 18 shall not be applicable; the

passage of warships shall be left entirely to the discretion of the Turkish Government.

Article 21.

Should Turkey consider herself to be threatened with imminent danger of war she shall have the right

to apply the provisions of Article 20 of the present Convention.

Vessels which have passed through the Straits before Turkey has made use of the powers conferred

upon her by the preceding paragraph, and which thus find themselves separated from their bases,

may return thereto. It is, however, understood that Turkey may deny this right to vessels of war

belonging to the State whose attitude has given rise to the application of the present Article.

Should the Turkish Government make use of the powers conferred by the first paragraph of the

present Article, a notification to that effect shall be addressed to the High Contracting Parties and to

the Secretary-General of the League of Nations.

If the Council of the League of Nations decide by a majority of two-thirds that the measures thus taken

by Turkey are not justified, and if such should also be the opinion of the majority of the High

Contracting Parties signatories to the present Convention, the Turkish Government undertakes to

discontinue the measures in question as also any measures which may have been taken under Article

6 of the present Convention.

[ikalugin]

About the improved Kilo class submarine "Rostov on Don", it actually did come from the Arctic, as it was a new sub and was being tested there. It also made a stop in Kronshtat for a minor refit/rearmament before proceding to it's launch area in Med.


About the logistics and the straits. What Turkey did do in the past is to try to unilaterally enforce the status of internal waters or even port waters ("port of Istambul") onto the straights. This means that under internal turkish regulations they could delay or stop traffic, including military traffic.

Because this status was declared unilaterally by Turkey, Russia can (and would) ignore it and act in accordance to the UN conventions and other international agreements applicable.

In the past turks did try to interfere with our passage (ie about 10 years ago they blocked the ship's path and ordered our Large Landing Ship to stop and prepare to be borded) but so far it blew into their face (the landing ship in question did not stop, went to battle stations, prepared armed security teams and trained it's arty on the turkish boat in question and prepared for ramming, the boat retreated.)

As such, should turks block the straights it would be de facto declaration of war against Russia with all the consequences. Logistics wise we could always supply stuff in Syria via Med, if the straights get closed and there is no all out war we have to take care of. Economy wise - a lot of our oil exports go through the straights (and exports in general), but as their closure would be de facto declaration of war that would be a secondary concern.

What turks could do is to make our life harder, with delays on passage. Those delays however can be objective in nature (ie large ammount of traffic going through).

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

About the improved Kilo class submarine "Rostov on Don", it actually did come from the Arctic, as it was a new sub and was being tested there. It also made a stop in Kronshtat for a minor refit/rearmament before proceding to it's launch area in Med.


About the logistics and the straits. What Turkey did do in the past is to try to unilaterally enforce the status of internal waters or even port waters ("port of Istambul") onto the straights. This means that under internal turkish regulations they could delay or stop traffic, including military traffic.

Because this status was declared unilaterally by Turkey, Russia can (and would) ignore it and act in accordance to the UN conventions and other international agreements applicable.

In the past turks did try to interfere with our passage (ie about 10 years ago they blocked the ship's path and ordered our Large Landing Ship to stop and prepare to be borded) but so far it blew into their face (the landing ship in question did not stop, went to battle stations, prepared armed security teams and trained it's arty on the turkish boat in question and prepared for ramming, the boat retreated.)

As such, should turks block the straights it would be de facto declaration of war against Russia with all the consequences. Logistics wise we could always supply stuff in Syria via Med, if the straights get closed and there is no all out war we have to take care of. Economy wise - a lot of our oil exports go through the straights (and exports in general), but as their closure would be de facto declaration of war that would be a secondary concern.

What turks could do is to make our life harder, with delays on passage. Those delays however can be objective in nature (ie large ammount of traffic going through).

Because of geography and misinformation in the media that often has a biased or slanted view , it' s hard to discern truth and fact from fiction. Thanks to you, Aktungbby , Oberon , Catfish , Shroeder and many others who provided insightful posts , we all have a better understanding of things .

Thanks for the clarification and real world view of things in that part of the world.

[Oberon]

Rostov on Don transitted the Bosporus heading back to the Black Sea.




Meanwhile a Turkish fishing boat approached a Russian warship to within 600m (1,800ft) and was shooed away by a warning shot. The Turkish military attache in Moscow has been summoned to the foreign ministry over the incident.

[ikalugin]

http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/count...2071679@egNews

[ikalugin]

http://gas.crimea.ru/index.php/ru/no...koj-federatsii
Turks rock the boat yet again.