US Navy warships have been in the Black Sea.
Cites
Getting NATO into the fray instead of just the US would be best since both Greece and Turkey are members.
Yes, I did. One of us is definitely being quite thoroughly wooshed. (Feel free to assume it’s the other person; I certainly am.)
In 1994, I accompanied a couple of P3 aircraft and associated aircrew to Constanta, Romania for naval air exercises with the Romanians. Our hotel was right on the beach on the Black Sea, and I made a point of dipping my feet in so that I could claim to have been in yet another body of water. Only went ankle deep, though - it was late October and the water was freezing.
Romania is now a full-fledged NATO member, as is Bulgaria. These countries could provide staging areas for forces of various kinds even if Turkey does not go along for various reasons - and we should remember that the Navy is a lot bigger than the fleet of ships it owns. It has significant air and special forces and intelligence assets as well.
Well it is known to a certain extent. Postulate that you launch a missile and there are several phases that that it must go through. At each of these junctures, my missile has to reach yours to eliminate the threat.
While the Topol might be resistant to this generation of ABM, the software changes on the next rev will take that into account.
But there is no ABM proof missile , its designed to operate in layers so that if the russians fire off a topol accidentally , a navy destroyer might get it in boost, in the future a satellite might get a few warheads as it goes through low orbit and ground based interceptors get the last shot at the incoming warheads.
Declan
No one is recognizing the fact that we don’t have a working ABM. The tests were conducted against missiles with transponders in them. They have not been tested against hostile missiles launched from unknown points of origin.
[Colonel Chinstrap]Black Russian? I don’t mind if I do.[/CC]
The region is littered with them. The Ukraine is split between Russian and Western leaning groups about 50/50.
I’m not saying it should or that it is wise, just that it can if it wants. Nothing Turkey could do to stop it. I don’t think the Russians consider entering the Black Sea a reason to start ww3.
Well, how could they be? But as to the point of the radar transponders - they have not been needed in end-to-end tests of the THAAD system since at least 2006, and may not have been needed for the radar component for some time before that. I see cites for them being used in 2003. I don’t see cites for radar transponders being used much more recently than that.
If you can find one, please put it up here.
You aren’t recognizing, either, that the Navy component of this system, the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System and the associated SM-3 missile, has had a relatively easier path toward development.
I think, too, you may be overstating the case about hostile missiles from unknown points of origin - we know which countries and forces pose a missile threat, for the most part. And while this may change in the future, missile sites need a considerable infrastructure to keep them going - and this can be tracked.
In any case, while I think our missile defense system is still in its infancy, I think it is a baby that can bite back, and more importantly a baby that can grow. Had we left it up to you, it would have been stillborn.
No quarrel with that. But the point being is that the way I read the OP I thought there was a clear inferrence of the possibilities of the US Navy entering the Black Sea in support of Georgia’s little war. IOW, not just another friendly port of call on a routine patrol.
That’s where my rather vehement disagreement came from.
Well, with someone as belligerently stupid as Bush that is always a possibility.
However Putin is not stupid. He’d use the out-of-proportion belligerence to strengthen international ties with China and Iran as well as split NATO and western public opinion.
And we’re back on track again. Plan to be back in Spain sometime in November…if it’s still there of course 
…should you be able to hop on down, tapas are on me. I like the way you think.
Hell, that’s the main reason we won (with French support) the American Revolution!
They know that , we know that but you have to start somewhere and the abm program is maturing. We are basing a lot of faith that both the American and Russian ICBM force will work as intended if the keys are turned , from limited testing in Kwajalein and where ever the russians test and orbital shots. To me its the same thing with the ABM system.
Declan
Would be tempted but I’m back to University part time. One can never have enough Masters degrees I say.
Actually, the LGM-118 ‘Peacekeeper’ had 17 full-up development test flights (DVT), and then regular ‘Glory Trip’ assurance flights during operational service. The LGM-30A/B/F/G ‘Minuteman’ (in its various evolutions) had countless DVTs and over a hundred ‘Glory Trip’ flights in operational configuration, and the motors have been used in various configurations for target and space launch vehicles. The same applies to Polaris/Poseidon/Trident SLBM. The Russians do the same thing, and in fact offer several of their larger ICBM/SLBM systems in near-operational condition as commercial space launch vehicles. So we don’t have to take their operational reliability on faith; we actually have extensive characterization of reliability under a variety of conditions. Development and operational testing of ABM systems has been hesitant and limited, however, because of the dearth of funding, problems with overpromised capabilities, and fears that a single failed test will result in cancellation of the whole program. It is, to extend the baby metaphor, like birthing a baby by cutting it up in the womb, pulling it out once piece at a time, and surgically reassembling it once extracted.
Two other problems with ICBM-ABM exist; first is that it addresses today’s threat–semi-global range ICBMs from fixed locations and purely ballistic (unmaneuverable reentry vehicles)–while development continues in maneuvering RVs, penetration aids, non-ballistic delivery systems (i.e. NOTE supercruise missiles and supercavitating torpedo-based launchers). This means that by the time you have a real working ABM system it’ll be protecting against yesterday’s threats, and worse yet may not even be adaptable to non-ballistic delivery systems. The second is the political angle; nuclear weapons and ICBMs are not, properly speaking, military weapons but political ones. The ramifications of use extend so far beyond the battlefield that the use of these articles themselves brings in a whole new set of games to deal with, and virtually no analysis between two nuclear-armed parties with anything like parity results in any benefit from use. ICBM-ABM brings in another escalating factor to the point that no extant or proposed system based upon current or near-future technology provides greater benefit–even if it does work to a plausible degree of reliability–than the additional risk it generates due to pressure for proliferation of attack launchers.
I think ABM development for theatre level defense, like PAC-3 or THAAD, is very valuable and applicable to battlespace control and defense. I question that strategic level systems will ever be reliable enough to provide confidence against attack of unprotected targets; certainly Reagan’s image of a protective umbrella that covered the United States and NATO allies was little beyond fantasy. We are certainly not prepared for a facedown with Russia’s current nuclear arsenal, and nor are they with us.
Regarding the question of the o.p., it would be near suicide for a USN ship to attempt to enter the Black Sea, both tactically and politically, nor is there any reason to do so. If we want to break up a hypothetical blockade, B-2 or F-117-launched ALCMs would probably be the best option, followed by carrier-based F/A-18 strikes from the East Med or Aegean. This is all nonsense, though; the US is not going to face off with the Russian Navy over Georgia.
Stranger