Why can't they use land based systems to provide air cover? Russia is just a few kilometers away from the city.The remaining 2 Admiral Grigorovich active in the Black sea has the Shtil SAM system which is nowhere near the range of the S-300F aboard the Moskva. I expect an intensification of Ukraine air strike near Kherson anytime soon.
I was talking about potential consequences caused by conventional fire outbreaks on ships. I am well aware that explosions can have devastating effects.Missiles and rockets tend to fuck shit up when they catch fire
It's called escalate to deescalate and it's becoming more likely every dayat some point unfortunately i wont be surprised if putin decides to use tactical nukes, humiliation after humiliation and I dont think he will settle for this.
The Russian air cover will always be there, but the loss of Moskva will degrade the mass of air defense they deploy around. Russia just lost 4 batteries worth of S-300 launcher with the loss of Moskva.Why can't they use land based systems to provide air cover? Russia is just a few kilometers away from the city.
Not being sarcastic or anything, I am asking because I could not understand your wording. Are you suggesting Ukraine could somehow smuggle air defence assets through Russian defences in Mariupol and elsewhere?Why can't they use land based systems to provide air cover? Russia is just a few kilometers away from the city.