Talk:Khibiny (electronic countermeasures system)

Mention of report re khibiny and USS Donald Cook

Re this edit, fair enough re mention that it was a state media report. However, the newly cited source at https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ which opines "It’s a bullshit story" might be of questionable reliability and does not confirm the added assertion that the claim was denied by the US Navy and could not be independently verified. Overall, I would say that this tidbit currently has sufficient topical weight to merit mention. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The only US DOD response to the entire incident of 12 April 2014, alleged jamming, supposed mass resignations of the crew was this story: [1] Officials later said the aircraft approached within about 1,000 yards of the ship. The USS Cook was never in danger, Warren said. “The Donald Cook is more than capable of defending itself against two Su-24s,” the colonel said. They were apparently so frightened by the incident that the ship proceeded to port and gave the President of Romania a tour of the ship on 14 April 2014[2] when the crew was supposedly mass resigning. Realistically speaking the only way anyone outside that ship could know what happened is if the ship was destroyed by Russia during the jamming. Otherwise there is no way to concretely prove that the jamming was effective. There is no warning light in the aircraft that says "jamming effective" the only way the aircraft would know it worked is if they were not shot down, but since the two countries are not in a shooting war, there is no way to know that. There is no way a third party could verify either side of this story. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

http://in.sputniknews.com/indian.ruvr.ru/2014_04_21/Russian-Su-24-scores-off-against-the-American-USS-Donald-Cook-5786/ is the original state run news release which is extremely unreliable in it's language, while they didn't use the word bullshit in their article they made a number of unprovable assertions, like:

• "Apparently, all efforts to revive the "Aegis" and provide target information for the defence failed." - How would they know this? Since the SU-24 did not get shot down that means Aegis was jammed?
• "suddenly all the screens went blank. "Aegis" was not working any more, and the rockets could not get target information" - Again, how could they see what is on a radar screen inside a ship? What rockets were getting targeting information? Are they saying Donald Cook was trying to shoot them down but failed?
• "foreign media reported that "Donald Cook" was rushed into a port in Romania. There all the 27 members of the crew filed a letter of resignation" - And none of these men that supposedly resigned ever found their way in front of a TV camera to tell of this traumatic ordeal? 10% of the crew of a Navy ship resigns and there is no leak of that to the press? And the ship ran to port in Romania and promptly gave the President of Romania a tour of a disgraced ship that had 10% of it's crew resign? None of that makes sense. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, but WP editors have no business analyzing assertions by cited sources and drawing conclusions about truth vs. falsehood from such analysis. WP:NOR prohibits "... any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Where sources differ, WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no analysis in western media because it is easily recognizable as propaganda and reads as such. I can't cite the New York Times because they didn't even bother to print a story about this alleged jamming. The fact that they say the crew resigned is pretty much the tipoff that it's BS. The source that you added is just a copy of the Russian state media allegations, it's not serious analysis either. I can't find a single serious analysis piece on this topic.American Thinker has an article about the absurd propaganda being released by Russia and the author describes the Russian reporting of this incident as "radically isolated from basic facts" compared to other reporting. A US defense analyst's interpretation of the incident is that it was routine cold war style flyby harassment and "about as tame a flyby as you can get."[3] The American ship apparently was not even concerned enough to be at battle stations[4] and the author of the American Thinker piece thought that Russian state media was apparently confused about the number of crew on the Donald Cook saying "It claimed that when the ship arrived, its entire crew (which it incorrectly numbered at just 27) resigned in fear and shame."[5] As for "War is Boring", I don't know how reliable of a source it is for every topic, but it was cited in 2011 as a top 10 defense blog by defenceiq.com and it appears in wikipedia fairly often. It seems more reliable of a source than most of the hits I'm seeing searching for discussion on this topic. They described it saying: "It's a bullshit story." I can't argue with that analysis. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Donald cook and the AEGIS has an archive of events (on the day of incidence was carried out standard reporting or all left to the memory of the head captain of the ship). this can be shown and then to refute the fall of AEGIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.95 (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)