It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Royal Navy frigate intercepts Russian submarine in North Sea near English Channel

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok



Problem is we have less and less to push back with.


Indeed.
From Thatcher onwards there has been a steady and sustained reduction in our independent military capability.

Just further evidence of some cross party agenda that is being played out over a number of years.....an agenda that certainly doesn't have the best interests of the likes of you and I at its heart.

a reply to: alldaylong



...... The U.K. spends it's tax payers money on The National Health Service.


Well, it used to.
Don't know if that's quite as true under Cameron what with his constant attempts to undermine the NHS due to his desire to privatise it.

Ever wondered where all the money allegedly saved in his 'austerity cuts' have gone?

Apologies if strayed slightly off-topic.




posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

disarmament.un.org...


basicly in the name of "peace" worlds navys guard a continent and only let who they allow in.

sure seems like it must be an important chuck of ice if they can all get along in order to protect it.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: InTheLight
The Russian Arctic missiles are landing in Canada's economic zone and they are toxic.

Yup.

Funny how there was no outrage when the US put 2 tons of toxic chemicals into our waters in 2005.

Maybe only the Russian toxic chemicals are toxic to us...


I highly doubt there was no outrage from environmentalists.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Come on OP. Are you serious? This is nothing new. This is standard procedure for the improved Kilo Class submarine (Varshavyanka) deliveries to the Black Sea Fleet. They transit with a Baltic Fleet Tug for support and normally link up with a Black Sea Fleet Tug in the Mediterranean to escort them and eventually pass through the Turkish Straits.

www.janes.com...

Kilo Novorossiysk transited the English Channel on delivery to the Black Sea during 2015.

www.independent.co.uk...

The Russians plan to have 6 of the improved Kilo Class delivered to the Black Sea Fleet by the end of 2016.

www.rt.com...

The Kilo Alrosa was delivered through the English Channel to the Black Sea Fleet back in 2012. It was escorted by tugs.

tass.ru...



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Aliensun




He knows we have you covered...as always.


The U.S. spends it's tax payers money on The Military

The U.K. spends it's tax payers money on The National Health Service.

I know which i prefer.



Actually the USA spends even more of its tax money on government healthcare than UK does, but gets and covers far less, because somehow the prices and costs are criminally expensive.

data.worldbank.org...

USA spends on total healthcare expensve of $9403 per capita at PPP, UK spends $3377. So USA is spending nearly THREE TIMES as much, and doesn't even have universal coverage like U.K. It's revolting.

edit on 9-6-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
They were probably on their way to their new Arctic surface-to-air defence missile base, and perhaps felt like flipping the U.K. off on their way.

l


This transit is standard procedure for the new improved Kilo Class deliveries for the Black Sea Fleet. It shouldn't even be news and certainly not the way it has been hyped! The Russians plan to have 6 of the class in service with the Black Sea Fleet by the end of 2016.


edit on 9/6/2016 by tommyjo because: spelling



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

Yes, I got that from another post above.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
This is impossible.

Everyone knows Russian subs are invisible both above and below the surface.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: howmuch4another
This is impossible.

Everyone knows Russian subs are invisible both above and below the surface.


Unless their periscope gets caught in fishermen's nets.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
oh, the intrigue! the shenanigans! the endless game!

actual photo of global war stratagems



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: howmuch4another
This is impossible.

Everyone knows Russian subs are invisible both above and below the surface.


Until there reactor melts or they sink.

Infact Im less worried about Russian aggression and more worried one of there shoddy ships has a incident in or near UK waters.

Last thing the UK needs is a Russian reactor to melt down in our fishing waters. Royal Navy needs to keep those Rusty Russian death traps as far away from us as possible.
edit on 9-6-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I have a very serious question for you all as this type of "situation" comes up regularly on ATS.
The question for UK and USA. Just what does Russia want to invade or take over the UK or the USA for?
Do they want land? NO. They have more than enough of their own.
Do they want to rule the people? NO. They have enough trouble ruling the people they have got.
Do they want our resources? NO. They have enough resources of their own. Besides Britain ain't got any resources.
If Putin wanted the UK all he has to do is wait for winter and turn the gas tap off. After two weeks we would be begging him to take over.
Best of all why would even think of using nuclear weapons when all he has to do is buy us? Why are people worried about them flying in UK airspace (apart from crashing) we have absolutely nothing for them to see that they do not already know about. Eccept all the houses that are being built everywhere for god knows who.
And it's the same for the US, if he wanted the US he would just buy it. Why dirty the countryside up with fallout? Oh yes, you have your little boys toys you play with in your little no go areas. But that's all they are really, boys toys.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

Russian aggression doesn't much concern me. As you said whats the point of invading? Hell thats the reason we built a entire empire as there is not much of intrest here.

Its more how badly built russian subs are and how the thought of one of those death traps in UK waters sends shivers down my spine.
edit on 9-6-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: LordAstaroth


My bad. Did you guys have your "no take backs" vote already?


I admit I don't pay much attention.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok




Who says I was blaming you?


I don't know, you tell me



Maybe if we had not followed the Americans on their silly little middle eaten adventures


Americans silly middle eastern adventures...if the US hadn't have went on this your government wouldn't have followed...you are blaming the US.



But it was still a USA led war. A war our politicans should of kept out of.


Again not the US fault.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: Vector99

No it's in Syria because it was invited there by Assad.

If they didn't have a naval base there they wouldn't have accepted Assad's invite. If you think otherwise you're not well informed on Russia.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: crazyewok




Who says I was blaming you?


I don't know, you tell me



Maybe if we had not followed the Americans on their silly little middle eaten adventures


Americans silly middle eastern adventures...if the US hadn't have went on this your government wouldn't have followed...you are blaming the US.



But it was still a USA led war. A war our politicans should of kept out of.


Again not the US fault.


What the # is your point?

No it was not the USA fault our politicians were dumbarses and followed but they were still stupid US led middle easten adventures.

The US and UK cocked up over there accept that fact and get over it.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=20831511]crazyewok[/post
Infact Im less worried about Russian aggression and more worried one of there shoddy ships has a incident in or near UK waters.

Last thing the UK needs is a Russian reactor to melt down in our fishing waters. Royal Navy needs to keep those Rusty Russian death traps as far away from us as possible.


The problem with that is that they were in international waters, so there's nothing that the UK can do. Even if they were in UK territorial waters, unless they were there for malicious purposes and/or were a security threat, the concept of innocent passage would allow them to legally sail there anyway.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

You made the thread and pretty much blamed the US for your government becoming the way they are because of the US involvement in the ME. The point is quit blaming us for your government's stupidity.

I never said the US was right and not as you call it cocked up...I am tired of the US being blamed for other governments making their own dumb decisions...point shown now deal with it.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

They don't guard anything as there are no militaries keeping you from the continent.

Did you read the source page you linked because the first article tells you that military maneuvers are not allowed, but I see because scientific research is done by military personnell that means it has to be nefarious...guess what it isn't. In fact it's against the same treaty you posted as evidence to back your claim.

But as asked before where is the evidence that backs your claim...because what you posted isn't it.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join