Black Sea Fleet vs Turkish Navy

Can the Black sea fleet go up against the Turkish Navy, or do the Turks rule the Black sea?

Well, The Turks have 14 submarines in service,from -74 to -88, maybe 4-6 in black sea against russias one. Also 6 new 214 AIP are under construction.

They have 17 frigates, where 8 are Oliver Perry`s. With 4 modern TF2000 being brought in. These have awesome swedish RBS15 missiles. 7 corvettes, with 12 new stealth types coming into service armed with Harpoons.

Maybe 8 frigates and 6 corvettes deployed in the black sea.

Russia has 1 cruiser, slava class, the Moskva,from 1983 which is aging.
1 kilo class sub, Alrosa from 1990.
1 Kashin destroyer from 1969.
2 Krivak frigates from 1978-79.
And 5 ASW corvettes type Grisha from the 80`s. And 4 Nanuchka missile corvettes, also from the 80`s.

New russian warships are on the way, but for now and the next few years, the Turks rule the Black sea.
Sad, but true.

It's the US Nuclear bombs in Turkey that gives it superiority.

With Turkey going against Israel, those US nuclear bombs might go back home.

Giving Russia the upper hand in the Black Sea.

Russian air power and land based anti ship capability would make the Black Sea a very dangerous place for opponents... even a US carrier group would have trouble.

The Black Sea fleet is getting an upgrade and is going to be greatly reinforced, but at the end of the day it is a puddle and if it wasn't on Russias underbelly there would be little point in trying to own it.

One Kirov CGN could take on most of the Turkish surface fleet by itself without air cover.

Vladimir79 wrote:One Kirov CGN could take on most of the Turkish surface fleet by itself without air cover.

Yes certainly, but i highly doubt one Kirov will be assigned there. In terms of the submarine threat, the Kirov would be very vulnereble.

The question is also about professionship, can the russian sailors bet the Turks with inferior ships, or are the Turks just as good sailors and soldiers?
The Georgian "navy" were certainly no threat, nor the strategic or tactic abilities of the Georgians.

How about Turks, they can buy and build pretty good ships, but can they handle them?
I doubt it. They have virtually no tradition, not of victories at least, and not much experience of real naval warfare.

But in a few years, they can deploy 214AIP subs, and they really have the abilities to be a real threat.

Again, i think the lack of strategic and tactic skills along with lack of experience will se the outcome in favor of the black sea fleet.

The black sea is a puddle that could be dominated by air power and coastal forces... either side could do lots of different things, but in the end the winner doesn't really get much.

I know nothing about the Turkish Navy, but I am sure they are professional and can use the equipment they have.

You talk about new stuff the Turkish Navy is getting and compare it with what the Russian Black Sea Fleet have now... considering the Russian Black Sea Fleet will also get new vessels and equipment I think you are not being fair.

BTW the Kirov carries three helicopters that are very useful against submarines, and has over a dozen SS-N-14 missiles, plus several anti torpedo systems to protect itself from incoming torpedoes.

GarryB wrote:The black sea is a puddle that could be dominated by air power and coastal forces... either side could do lots of different things, but in the end the winner doesn't really get much.


You talk about new stuff the Turkish Navy is getting and compare it with what the Russian Black Sea Fleet have now... considering the Russian Black Sea Fleet will also get new vessels and equipment I think you are not being fair.

A puddle, yes, but a puddle of big strategic importance, like the Baltic sea.
With naval superiority in the black sea, you have the means to deny your enemy the acces to the sea.
Moreover, you have the oppertunity to make landings and strategic assaults where it would really hurt.

But the main thing, you cant afford to lose the sea. Then you can only respond to your enemy, which have all options open.

As with NATO, Romanian and Hungarian navies are obselete and pose very little capabilities.
So the real opponent is Turkey.

And with new ships, the black sea fleet will receive 4 SS subs and 4 Frigates by 2015.

With that they are still outnumbered, but they will have the edge in quality, their ships will be superior.
They will reportadly receive another batch of frigates, subs and landing ships by 2020. Then they should be able to dominate, and own the black sea.

I agree that without airpower the navy would be much useless. But, we havent really seen what jetfighters can do against modern AA defence.
Modern airpower is very potent, but have very small constitution, ie, with average losses they will soon be out of planes.

The Argentinian airforce was moderately succesful against Royal navy in the Falklands war, but after a few weeks of combat they had no planes left.

And then the Brittish had really won that conflict.

Maybe the black sea fleet cannot win against NATO with Brittish and US ships,
But they cannot afford to lose. Its imperitive that they can deny NATO free ruling of the black sea.

Moreover, in local skirmishises, a strong black sea fleet is of immens value.

With naval superiority in the black sea, you have the means to deny your enemy the acces to the sea.

What access?

The Black Sea Fleet is hardly going to steam into the Med and destroy the US fleet...

The Black Sea is Russias tender underbelly and while it can't use its small current BSF to dominate it, it has the air power and the land based forces to make sure no one else could use it either.

Moreover, you have the oppertunity to make landings and strategic assaults where it would really hurt.

A NATO force trying to land troops directly into Russia through the Black Sea would be decimated... it would be much easier to land a large force into the Baltic NATO countries and then attack across the border to Russia.

With that they are still outnumbered, but they will have the edge in quality, their ships will be superior.
They will reportadly receive another batch of frigates, subs and landing ships by 2020. Then they should be able to dominate, and own the black sea.

So what you are saying is that right now they don't have the assets, but they are actually getting them? So what is the problem?

I agree that without airpower the navy would be much useless. But, we havent really seen what jetfighters can do against modern AA defence.
Modern airpower is very potent, but have very small constitution, ie, with average losses they will soon be out of planes.

They have more than 80 Tu-22M3s which can each carry 3 Kh-22M AS-6 missiles, or up to 8 Oniks missiles. They probably have thousands of obsolete SS-N-3 missiles which fired continuously would likely deplete any naval force of defensive missiles and might result in a few lucky hits while remaining well out of range of the targets.

The Argentinian airforce was moderately succesful against Royal navy in the Falklands war, but after a few weeks of combat they had no planes left.

That is because they only had a few planes wired for Exocet missiles and they only had about a dozen missiles. The Russians likely have thousands of obsolete missiles and hundreds of newer much more capable weapons all with stand off ranges that would allow them to be fired from safe positions with excellent chances of a kill.

Had the exocet had more reliable fusing the Argentines would have had a much better kill ratio... as it was their hit performance was actually pretty good.

And then the Brittish had really won that conflict.

If Argentina had had Mig-23s or Phantoms with BVR missiles the British would not have had much of a chance. If the Argentine pilots who didn't lack courage or skill could detect the Sea Harriers at BVR with radar and then fire without getting in close then the manoeuvre advantage and the missile advantage the British pilots had would have been completely erased.
Instead of turning fights the Argentines could have blasted in there at mach 1.3 at medium to high altitude and lined up a few Harriers and fired on them with R-23Rs and R-23Ts and then turned and flown back to Argentina to refuel and rearm and there is very little the Sea Harriers could have done about it. I would suggest that with the side fuselage mounted engine nozzles that made Harriers very vulnerable to modern MANPADS would also make them very vulnerable to R-23T missiles.

In fact if the Argentines had waited till about 1984 till they attacked the British probably wouldn't have had an aircraft carrier at all.

Maybe the black sea fleet cannot win against NATO with Brittish and US ships,

With the support of the Russian AF I don't see how they could lose. Remember by 2020 there wont be F-22s based in Turkey, but there will be PAK FAs based nearby most likely...

But they cannot afford to lose. Its imperitive that they can deny NATO free ruling of the black sea.

The international agreements regarding who can or cannot pass through Turkish waters to the Black Sea are pretty clear. No carriers, which means land based aircraft only... which gives advantage to the Russian AF.

Moreover, in local skirmishises, a strong black sea fleet is of immens value.

Against Georgia it already is a strong black sea fleet.

Against Turkey a strong fleet will likely lead to them expanding their fleet and their presence in the black sea which will be expensive for them and not really that useful to Russia either.

Eventually, as the Russian Navy recovers the Black Sea Fleet will expand and operations will extend into the Med and the Syrian naval base at Tartus will likely be resurrected and improved.
Wont be any time soon though as they need to completely rebuild the entire service.

[quote="GarryB"]

What access?

The Black Sea Fleet is hardly going to steam into the Med and destroy the US fleet...

The Black Sea is Russias tender underbelly and while it can't use its small current BSF to dominate it, it has the air power and the land based forces to make sure no one else could use it either.

So what you are saying is that right now they don't have the assets, but they are actually getting them? So what is the problem?

In fact if the Argentines had waited till about 1984 till they attacked the British probably wouldn't have had an aircraft carrier at all.

Maybe the black sea fleet cannot win against NATO with Brittish and US ships,

With the support of the Russian AF I don't see how they could lose. Remember by 2020 there wont be F-22s based in Turkey, but there will be PAK FAs based nearby most likely...


The international agreements regarding who can or cannot pass through Turkish waters to the Black Sea are pretty clear. No carriers, which means land based aircraft only... which gives advantage to the Russian AF.

Why, you dont think eastern med is a likely warzone in a few years?

I think the problem is really up to 2015, IF the rebuilding continues on path. If it dont..theres trouble.

Yes the British carriers were on their way to the scrapyard. But the harriers could and was deployed on containerships, so they would still have been there.

In a crisis or war situation, it doesnt matter. I dont think Turkey would stop US carriers to enter should they want to.
And that was really the reason why the Kutznetsov was called "Heavy aircraft carrying cruiser", not "aircraft carrier".

Whats about the very long construction time of the Gregorovich 11356 frigates? It was laid down in 2006, and is still not in service?

GarryB wrote:Against Georgia it already is a strong black sea fleet.

Against Turkey a strong fleet will likely lead to them expanding their fleet and their presence in the black sea which will be expensive for them and not really that useful to Russia either.

Eventually, as the Russian Navy recovers the Black Sea Fleet will expand and operations will extend into the Med and the Syrian naval base at Tartus will likely be resurrected and improved.
Wont be any time soon though as they need to completely rebuild the entire service.

Well, the Turks is a rising power, they want to become the arab leading country, much like the Ottoman empire.
The only way to do that, is by having a large competent navy that can go pwer project. Much like thay are doing now against Israel.
I dont think the Turks likes the idea of a modern russian naval base at Tartus, and they have a chance now to reform Syria, to an happy ally.

And dont forget the Turks had the Krim before Russia, not few would want them take it back, not amongst tatars either.

So yes, the Turks will continue to expand their navy. And 4 years is a long time, much can happen, so a speedy rebuildning of black sea fleet is important.

BTW how the hell can Russia stand that Ukraine stole Krim? I cant get over it really.

Why, you dont think eastern med is a likely warzone in a few years?

Not for Russia.

What is there in the Med the Russians need to fight over?

The main problem is that the Turkish control Russian access to the Med and Turkey is part of NATO.
Any NATO action against Syria would likely result in a temporary closure of Turkish straights... for maintainence or whatever... whether Russia has a weak naval force or a very strong one is irrelevant when it comes to picking a fight to get access to the Med.

Of course a large ship force can be sent the long way round but it might not arrive in time to have the desired effect.

It is like Kosovo to Russia and Georgia to the US... Syria is really to far away from Russia for Russia to automatically get their way.

Yes the British carriers were on their way to the scrapyard. But the harriers could and was deployed on containerships, so they would still have been there.

Hahahahaha... that is a theoretical capability... just like the claim they could operate from any clearing in a forest... they can't BTW, because their engine intakes suck up any crap on the ground and on loose ground like grassy areas in a forest they suck up soil and grass and twigs and their engine fails and they don't take off at all.
For any deployment Harriers need either a good hard runway or PSP... pierced steel planking, in other words metal grates linked together to form a hard surface on grass to prevent the soil and grass being sucked up into the engine.

Putting aircraft on container ships creates many problems... first there are no aircraft hangars so all maintainence and arming is done on deck in all weathers, second a container ship is not a war ship and has no electronic or pyrotechnic defences to protect from missiles... case in point the Atlantic Conveyer that was hit by an exocet that was aimed at the military ships nearby... they defeated the guidance with chaff and smoke and electronic jamming and the missile lost its lock on them and acquired the Atlantic Conveyer... which had no defences at all and was hit. Third a container ship has no provisions for dealing with battle damage, so a hit will likely be a kill because fire fighting equipment will be basic and there is no compartmentalism so water filled compartments cannot be closed off to prevent the whole ship from sinking.
Then of course there is no radar on board the vessel, and no command and control facilities to control an air group... and most important there will not be any sonar, which would make the vessels terribly vulnerable to sub attack.

In a crisis or war situation, it doesnt matter. I dont think Turkey would stop US carriers to enter should they want to.

Turkey controls the straights leading to the Black Sea... You would think as part of NATO that Turkey would have supported the US led invasion of Iraq too... but they didn't.
Letting US ships into the Black Sea... even during a period of tension would be very counter productive for Turkey in its relations with Russia.

And that was really the reason why the Kutznetsov was called "Heavy aircraft carrying cruiser", not "aircraft carrier".

No. Russia and the Soviet Union had different designations for their vessels.
The Kuznetsov was not designed as a strike carrier, all of its air to surface capability was largely to be in its 12 Granit missiles under the main flight deck, the aircraft were primarily there for air defence of the Kuznetsov and the ships operating with her.

Now with the upgrade and refit she is going through she will lose those Granits most likely.

Whats about the very long construction time of the Gregorovich 11356 frigates? It was laid down in 2006, and is still not in service?

I think you might be confusing the Russian order with the second Indian order for a second batch of three frigates.

The Gregorovich was laid down in December 2010 and is expected to enter service in 2013 according to Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Grigorovich_class_frigate

Whereas the Indians ordered three more vessels in 2006... the first three vessels were built at Baltiysky Zavod, but the new order of three more went to Yantar, the first two vessels launched in 2009 and 2010 respectively and will be handed over to India in 2012 with the third vessel in 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talwar_class_frigate

Well, the Turks is a rising power, they want to become the arab leading country, much like the Ottoman empire.
The only way to do that, is by having a large competent navy that can go pwer project. Much like thay are doing now against Israel.
I dont think the Turks likes the idea of a modern russian naval base at Tartus, and they have a chance now to reform Syria, to an happy ally.

There is nothing wrong with Turkey becoming a rising power... why shouldn't they be?
It is pretty clear that while Europe sees them as strategically important in its location in relation to Russia, that it does not see Turkey as an equal... it has had plenty of time to get Turkey into the EU... but then again right now I guess Turkey is probably happy to not be part of that train wreck.

And dont forget the Turks had the Krim before Russia, not few would want them take it back, not amongst tatars either.

I am sure if Turkey wants to take back the Crimea that Russia will seek to establish navy basing facilities, and if that is not possible they can start investing money and resources into a Russian port facility on the Black Sea instead of the current port in the Ukraine.

BTW how the hell can Russia stand that Ukraine stole Krim? I cant get over it really.

All it would have taken was a decree from Gorby while he was still in office in the 1980s to give it back... and to solve problems in NK and south ossetia and abkhazia etc etc.

GarryB wrote:[
I think you might be confusing the Russian order with the second Indian order for a second batch of three frigates.

The Gregorovich was laid down in December 2010 and is expected to enter service in 2013 according to Wiki.

My mistake, i meant the Gorshkov class 22350. I know the lead ship takes more time, but hey, 5 years now...

And yes, i also think Turkey has no wish as of now to join EU. They have far better without, and freedom to act.

BTW, they are treatening Cyprus, which have many arms deal with Russia. A naval conflict is brewing there. Not that the Grecee would be a match, but Cyprus is a member of EU..
Some arms rattling and then to the negotionations.

My mistake, i meant the Gorshkov class 22350. I know the lead ship takes more time, but hey, 5 years now...

Well that is the first new Russian Destroyer since early in last century. The UKSK vertical launch system has been developed and is operational but it incorporated existing weapons and sensors so it was a new container launch system for something that was already developed.

The Gorshkov on the other hand will have all new SAMs with brand new AESA sensors and other new bits and pieces, and lets face it it didn't really matter when it was laid down as most programs didn't really get proper funding till after 2008 when the Government suddenly realised how bad the military has been suffering.

Again... according to Wiki it was launched last year and is expected to be commissioned next year, so four years from being laid down to putting it in the water and two years to fit it out... doesn't seem that unreasonable for a yard that has not likely made a military ship that size for 20 years.

And yes, i also think Turkey has no wish as of now to join EU. They have far better without, and freedom to act.

They are also not tied to Europe and its anti Russian policy... there is actually more potential for closer relations between Turkey and Russia than there is for hostility.

Turkey would gain nothing from antagonising Russia and might benefit greatly from more trade and closer cooperation.

BTW, they are treatening Cyprus, which have many arms deal with Russia. A naval conflict is brewing there. Not that the Grecee would be a match, but Cyprus is a member of EU..

Cyprus buys arms from many sources. Greece and Cyprus and Turkey need to sort their sh!t out in talks rather than through conflict. There is a long history of rivalry between Greece and Turkey and it has not really been very good for either state.

Some arms rattling and then to the negotionations.

Or perhaps they can be adults about it and just talk and save each other money they could very well spend on other things.

GarryB wrote:The black sea is a puddle that could be dominated by air power and coastal forces... either side could do lots of different things, but in the end the winner doesn't really get much.

I know nothing about the Turkish Navy, but I am sure they are professional and can use the equipment they have.

You talk about new stuff the Turkish Navy is getting and compare it with what the Russian Black Sea Fleet have now... considering the Russian Black Sea Fleet will also get new vessels and equipment I think you are not being fair.

BTW the Kirov carries three helicopters that are very useful against submarines, and has over a dozen SS-N-14 missiles, plus several anti torpedo systems to protect itself from incoming torpedoes.

This PDF contains all equipments of Turkish military including Navy.

http://www.inss.org.il/upload/(FILE)1302168776.pdf

Turkey has been a leery friend of the US and you don't see any new American military buildings in Turkey. What the Americans have there is what existed 50 years ago. Tin shacks.


Nothing hardened. Since Turkey wouldn't let Americans invest...or join the thieving groups to 'fluff' their economy to have more military spending....

Turkey isn't really a military force anyone would worry about. The only reason they are getting brazen against Israel is because they have backers WHO DO have military assets to protect them.

The Saudi's. They are the current shot callers. Only successful country in the middle east to throw out the US military.

I think the Russians have more to gain by closer and friendlier ties with Turkey than with spending lots of money making the Black Sea force big enough to take on all of NATO.

I also think Turkey has more to gain with closer and friendlier ties with what is practically a neighbour.

Conflict and hostility between these two countries only serves the interests of the US and the EU, and goes against the real interests of Turkey... which suggests the US and EU are not the friends they pretend to be.

GarryB wrote:
Turkey... which suggests the US and EU are not the friends they pretend to be.

True, and as of now Turkey and EU are on a dangerous course about Cyprus. Now i would like to see a Russian ship there, to follow events if nothing else.
And Cyprus would really be a better place for a naval base then Syria... Time for action?

Now would did i say, 4 years is a loong time waiting for new ships..

I think Turkey can lock the Strait of using the army artillery, cannon anti warship combat strait sides, but Russia could easily beat Army, Navy and Air Force Turkey, in other words, Russia will crush the Turkish army, for anti-ship mines and torpedo, Russia will use minesweepers and torpedo VA-111 (If Turkey timely deployment). Currently the Black Sea Fleet added 12 Su-30SM, Russia can mobilize military forces going to the south many times to support Black Sea fleet, in case of conflict with Turkey: A-50/IL-76 AWACS, MiG-29S/SMT, Su-24M/M2, Su-25BM/SM, Su-27SM/SM2, Su-30SM, Su-32 (can ASW), Su-35S, Tu-142M3, Tu-160, Tu-22M2/3, Ka-27, Ka-52K...... Even they will use as Kh-55/101 cruise missiles with a range> 1000km.

In Fact Turkey does not have the right to block any vessels of the Black Sea countries. Under international law, including the Straits Dardanelles and Bosphorus Straits belong to international waters or navigation.

With version >2000 km range the Iskander-K, comfort Russia may resort in Sochi and attacks on Ankara (The Black Sea's greatest length (east-west) is about 710 miles (1,140 km) and its greatest width about 390 miles (630 km), the system only effective defense of Turkey's HQ-9 (not currently receive) and PAC-2/3 (PAC generally less effective when not combined with THAAD, Aegis, fault  within repeat)





http://www.avrupagazete.com/gundemdekiler/16361-rus-savas-gemileri-canakkale-bogazi-nda.html

Turkey Air Force with backbone depends on F-4 and F-16C is absolutely no chance against Russia Air Force  

But I do not think that the Turkish government is crazy :Dand here is the script for ww3









Range Sochi - Ankara 700,92km

Is an old thread still is interesting..
The Main question is badly done .. your comparing the whole of  the Turkey Navy vs the 'Black fleet navy'.
The black fleet navy is something that change ,is not set in stone. If Russia knows they will have to destroy the Turkey navy
They most likely will change the black fleet configuration in order to more easily Knock Down the Turkey navy.

According to wiki Turkey have 16 frigates ,7 corvetes , 27 missile boats , and 14 submarines.. which is a not bad at all NAvy force.
Problem however with Turkey is that is close to Russia.. and they can easily fire or their stockpiles of P-700s or their latest Antiship missiles Oniks or Kalibr wiht 700km -800km range. Firing them safetiness of Land. and no single combat jet of Turkey will have a chance to get close enough of Russia. it will be very easy for Russia to knockdown Turkey navy and from safe distance and just using their Airforce. Turkey frigates defenses range is just 170km ,they use NATO weapons and have nothing in their navy to stop Supersonic missiles ,that fly very low ,very fast and from 700km away.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5LkaU0wj714&refer=home

Most likely they will need to use their airforce to help their navy. Which also will be destroyed easily by Russian airforce with superior beyond visual range capabilities . the following report explain why..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNRMO70Hw0s


But if it was a duel.. of ONLY mediterranean navy vs Turkey navy.. without any other help.. and  Russia had the same force they have now deployed near Syria about 15 warships.. then still Russia could win ,thanks to is longer range weapons but probably not without loses. from Turkey submarines and missile boats. People need to remember that warships are not any better than its weapons. You could have the best super warship in the world but if its weapons sucks ,the warship will not handle even a fishing boat with a yakhont missile fired at them.

NAvy vs navy it will be subsonic Harpoons with 120km range vs super sonic P-700s ,Oniks and Kalibers wiht 700km range.
If the war is 100% conventional and in the black sea.. not even US and ALL NATO navies will have a chance. Russia can use their Huge airforce from land and easily crush NATO navies without risking any warship,just launching anti-ship missiles from combat jets like there is no tomorrow and from safe distance. it will an epic battle however.. worth of watching in holywood.

If the war is in Syria..and Russia needs to defend them , in a conventional war ,its much more complicated and RUssia will be in major disadvantage ,since will have Turkey behind their lines and Israel in the front line.. and NATO navies  in the mediterranean. Totally encircle which is not really good. Without the help of IRAN and IRAQ ,they will be at serious disadvantage in a conventional war.

If the War is in IRAN.. it will be much more easy for Russia to defend IRAN.. since they will be in the last line of combat , IRAN takes the hits and Russia just keep supplying them with weapons and supplying logistics. Similar to another Korea war.. where China pushed Nato out of North Korea without much problem.

If Russia get the support of China huge navy, things change ,Since China Navy already is very close in size to the US navy.
47 frigates ,25 destroyers , and 68 submarines.. those can make a big difference in any major war that Russia needs help.

you can compare top 10 armed forces in this site.. very general Not scientific but still interesting. .

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=China

The Russians haven’t bothered to develop a tube-launched version of the Kh-35/3M-25.

Turkey has the technological advantage . The best on-board ASCM option is either the SM-39 or UGM-84 Harpoon. If Turkey can procure SM 29 and UGM 84 Harpoon in sufficient number there is very little that the RuAF can do.

While heavyweight torpedoes have 40km/48km-range, a tube-launched ASCM like SM-39 or RGM-84A Harpoon can be used for attacking targets up to the horizon.

The SM 39 & RGM 84 is far more superior to the Novator 3M-54E Klub-S supersonic ASCM .

NickM wrote:The SM 39 & RGM 84 is far more superior to the Novator 3M-54E Klub-S supersonic ASCM .

Not only are you comparing a couple of 70s subsonic anti-ship missiles to the late 80s/early 90s Klub series; but you even had the gall to explicitly admit that it's supersonic.

You've set up your own rise and fall, right in the same sentence.

You know, I think you're deliberately trolling here

Lol, that was bad Nick. Even by your standards.

The best on-board ASCM option is either the SM-39 or UGM-84 Harpoon. If Turkey can procure SM 29 and UGM 84 Harpoon in sufficient number there is very little that the RuAF can do.

Even their tiniest Corvette will have a 30mm gatling gun answer to a subsonic Harpoon or Exocet. If Turkey could procure B-2s in sufficient number... say 1,000 of them then the Russian military will not have enough AAMs to shoot them all down and therefore some will make it to Moscow!

Every Black Sea Fleet ship in the Russian Navy carries a better anti ship missile than the Exocet or Harpoon.

GarryB wrote:

The best on-board ASCM option is either the SM-39 or UGM-84 Harpoon. If Turkey can procure SM 29 and UGM 84 Harpoon in sufficient number there is very little that the RuAF can do.

Even their tiniest Corvette will have a 30mm gatling gun answer to a subsonic Harpoon or Exocet. If Turkey could procure B-2s in sufficient number... say 1,000 of them then the Russian military will not have enough AAMs to shoot them all down and therefore some will make it to Moscow!

Every Black Sea Fleet ship in the Russian Navy carries a better anti ship missile than the Exocet or Harpoon.

Eh? I mean for the Slava that's obvious, but the Kara/Kashin/Krivak class vessels carry the Uran at best (which isn't better than even the Harpoon). Then the others have the SS-N-14, which is crap.