Tuesday, September 19, 2023

Does It Surprise Anyone?

Except that it wasn't "errand" but deliberate, which is MO of Kiev regime and its Western curators. But at least it is something, isn't it? 

The Sept. 6 missile strike on Kostiantynivka in eastern Ukraine was one of the deadliest in the country in months, killing at least 15 civilians and injuring more than 30 others. The weapon’s payload of metal fragments struck a market, piercing windows and walls and wounding some victims beyond recognition.  Less than two hours later, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy blamed Russian “terrorists” for the attack, and many media outlets followed suit. Throughout its invasion of Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly and systematically attacked civilians and struck schools, markets and residences as a deliberate tactic to instill fear in the populace. In Kostiantynivka in April, soldiers shelled homes and a preschool, killing six. But evidence collected and analyzed by The New York Times, including missile fragments, satellite imagery, witness accounts and social media posts, strongly suggests the catastrophic strike was the result of an errant Ukrainian air defense missile fired by a Buk launch system.The attack appears to have been a tragic mishap. Air defense experts say missiles like the one that hit the market can go off course for a variety of reasons, including an electronic malfunction or a guidance fin that is damaged or sheared off at the time of launch.

No, there was NO "tragic mishap", it is as certain as NYT being enablers, together with other corporate media, of war crimes and crimes against humanity--the only skill they teach in journo schools in the West. Not to mention the fact that nobody, zero, among shysters and media whores who work for NYT can conduct any "investigation" into anything other than lingerie of presidential candidates. It is just that the time to face reality has come and they follow orders from "owners" of the "free press" in the West. 

Meanwhile America's greatest military minds, Austin and Milley call on support of 404 for a "Winter War". Absolutely, who wouldn't love to support 404, right? Meanwhile aggregate of VSU's KIAs for September alone crossed the number of 12,000. Somebody should tell Milley to pick up pencil and calculator and do the simple math and then project it n the US capabilities, or, rather lack thereof. Now to Rostov-on-Don submarine in Sevastopol. The photos of the sub, allegedly "not doctored" started to circulate n the web. 

While the damage is substantial, it is NOT a write off as, and you have guessed it: 

It has to be stated upfront, that neither of them are "authorities" on Russian submarine fleet, with H.I. Sutton being altogether a shady "expert" primarily about browsing Russian open source media, while Amick simply lacks basic engineering knowledge with his NCO level service on subs and community college level of education. But here are two points which are crucial in all this:

1. Neither Sutton nor Amick will be allowed anywhere near defectation (or damage assessment) commission of Russian Navy, which will be the only authority which will make assessment and propose the further course of actions. Judging by the announcements of Russian MoD, the sub will be restored. In other words--they have neither qualifications, nor access. But that brings us to the other issue...

2. Most what all kinds of Western "experts" continue to BS about is this "successful" salvo by Storm Shadows (Scalp) cruise missiles. But here is the issue, Russian MoD merely pointed out that among MANY missiles, not just Storm Shadows, which attacked several positions in and around Sevastopol 7 out of 10 namely Storm Shadows have been shot down. But here is the thing which none of the "experts" want to note--the salvo was much more numerous and involved Ukie made missiles married to boosters of S-200 AD complex missiles. 

And that brings us to the point: Storm Shadow's "payload" is 450 kilograms of explosives. This is nearly half-a-ton. Let me demonstrate what a single half-a-ton explosion does to a ship. 

This is HMAS Torrens getting acquainted with 290 kilograms (1.5 times smaller payload than that of a single Storm Shadow) of explosives, granted blown under the keel, of MK-48 Torpedo. And here is the issue--Rostov-on-Don damage IS NOT consistent with Storm Shadow but is clearly a result of surface explosions of a much smaller charge.
And that means only ONE thing--those have been most likely much faster supersonic, but also much lighter, cottage industry missiles by 404. Moreover, even a first year enlisted moron would see the lack of deformation of submarine's hull which is the first indication of a limited explosive impact, which was primarily limited to... drum roll--light hull of a submarine, because ALL Russian SSKs of pr. 877 and 636, same as second and third generation of Russian nuclear subs have a TWO hull design--light (outside-лёгкий) and hard (жёсткий) hull, where all systems are. But, of course, neither Sutton nor Amick, who have zero knowledge and experience, unlike me, with Soviet/Russian SSKs can recognize the damage to the LIGHT hull which took the brunt of explosion, which, BTW, almost fully intact sail testifies to.  

Not to be overly offensive to these so called "experts", here is Yegorov crawling precisely in the межкорпусное пространство (the space between two hulls) of the SSBN pr. 667 BDRM (Delta IV) Tula which explains to you what it is. 

Russian Navy went for one and a half or singe hull designs only recently. But, of course, these "experts" have a very weak "expertise" on the issues of weapons systems and their impact, as well--cannot recognize that, while the damage looks dramatic for a layperson, it is the damage primarily to the OUTER hull which is highly repairable. And yes, God forbids those "experts" to ever experience a hit by a half-ton explosive charge of anti-shipping 3M54 Kalibr into the hull of a ship the size of a frigate.

No comments:

Post a Comment