Genuine question: isn't S-300 (and the S series in general) more mobile than Patriot missile defence system?
That's a relative metric for those systems, and it depends on what components.
The systems are mobile compared to previous generation "fixed" launchers, but even when repositioned I believe S300 Tor takes about 15-30 minutes to be ready to launch. Which seems short, but with a 70-90KM range going against a jet able to go supersonic....
The RADAR & command modules are much harder to move than the launchers. When you move a launcher you can't just move it from anywhere to anywhere. You have to first let the system know the launcher is offline, it has to travel to the new location, and (once you've established links) then the system needs to know exactly where the new launcher is.
The PAC-3 launchers are trailers you can park, the S-300 uses TORs which are vehicle-intergrated. That is Patriot can use a truck to get launcher then drop it off, the S-300 the vehicle is stuck with the launcher because it is the launcher.
The advantage to the TOR is that because there's no trailer to hook up or level, its faster to set up and tear-down. The downside is that they are a bitch to reload, and your truck is stuck at the launch site - unable to do anything else and being a very big, juicy target.
The other thing consider is not just how quickly a missile can be armed to fire, but how long a new site takes to set up. PAC-3 has a lot of "machine help" when it comes to bringing new launchers online, as well as moving RADAR/Command. The S300 method is usually to have new launcher sites prechosen and pre-computed, or to reuse previous sites if you are moving launchers. But in modern engagements, you move your RADARs & command a lot more often then you move your launchers.
Reuters seems to think that it's at least partly an attempt to strong arm insurers into refusing to insure Ukraine-bound shipments, and on that front it's already working.
That's what I figured. This less a threat of sinking and more a threat to spook insurers.
Anyway, lets entertain the thought still -What do you think possible NATO/Turkey reaction would be?
Article 5? zero chance
Turkey joins the war? doubt it, would be kino to see an 11th russo-turkish war though.
Turkey+NATObros evaporate the black sea fleet? probably the most likely outcome if its a "something"burger
Turkey+NATObros cuck out? Considering how the West has been treating "non escalation" with Russia for the last... well 3 centuries, I'd say this is probably what will happen.
This is a bit of a loaded question. Its very unlikely Russia's 'enforcement' would come in the form of just sending grainships to the bottom. What they would do would be general blockade/embargo fuck-fuck games of Russian navy stopping and boarding, and marines "inspecting" the ship for weapons and cargos. In short keeping the ship slowed down and hung up as much as possible to fuck with the delivery schedule and making the run expensive.
The "we consider anyone docking ships in Ukraine a Ukraine Ally in this war" is bluster targeting Russia's sphere of influence, mainly the hands-out niggers.
If we want to pretend that some Federation Captain goes full retard and does order a missile strike on 3rd-country flagged civilian vessel, even if said vessel is NATO-flagged Article 5 couldn't be invoked unless Russia attacked them while docked in Istanbul or Romania/Bulgaria as that'd just be an attack against merchant shipping and not territory/military. The host country could request NATO do something militarily in response but couldn't invoke art 5.
Turkey is not going to go to war over a single freighter.
Most likely what you would see would be complaints lodged, civil actions, and
NATO UN escorts for civilian shipping convoys going forward while Russia seethes and bitches about imperialist aggression in the Black Sea. UN condemnations would be entered and Russia would be further sanctioned and isolated.
You also might then see some tit-for-tat with Russian shipping elsewhere in the world.
