Russia could destroy NATO ships in 20 mins: Admiral

Then why on earth did the the USA push Georgia into attacking Osstetia?

Really? Where did you read that? That statement that Putin made? Did he have any proof?

Its pretty obvious, don't ask for "proof" since the only way you'll ever know anything as "proven" is by actually standing there and watching it happen with your own two eyes

The US has been supplying Georgia for a while, we stopped recently but there is plenty of our hardware over there.

We have been pushing to have Georgia become a part of NATO etc, we want Georgia on our side because this gives us even more roaming space to setup our net around Iran, I don't think we're intending on going after russia but I know we will go for iran soon, too much is coming together that way

Citizens of Ossetia were running from Georgian troops who were shooting up literally everything, there was a little girl and her mother interviewed on CNN that explained that the russians were helping the civilians, and that the Georgians started this conflict. Though they were promply cut off the air(in a "nice" way to not upset the child).

So yes, the US more than likely pushed Georgia to attack, if not directly it was indirectly done by making the Georgian leader think that USA would support him in this conflict(which we have been). Its all over the news, we are telling russia to "get out" and "backoff" because we want Georgia to remain a democratic state, yet it turns out that we are supporting the people who actually started this war(the georgians), who intentionally killed many many civilians

Russia's Black Sea Fleet is capable of destroying NATO's naval strike group currently deployed in the sea within 20 minutes

Umm yes but Russia needs there whole fleet to do this.
Imagine the whole Nato fleet?Including the USN?
I think they are dreaming some more.

Originally posted by Interestinggg
Russia's Black Sea Fleet is capable of destroying NATO's naval strike group currently deployed in the sea within 20 minutes

Umm yes but Russia needs there whole fleet to do this.
Imagine the whole Nato fleet?Including the USN?
I think they are dreaming some more.

lol, more BS, from


they only need five Tu-22M3 backfire bombers armed with hypersonic Kh-22MA to take out the NATO fleet in the Black sea , or some klub/yakhonts supersonic stealth cruise missiles

I didn't know if to join this discussion or set off a new one.

There is a lot of informed technical stuff here but what I have read with the Russians in Georgia - there appears to be very low tech war so far.
The Russians have had 4 plane shot down (best I could find from various reliable sources) - 2 in the first day!

They have used cluster bombs - but I have not seen a great deal of evidence for smart bombs (they have missed some big targets e.g. fuel tanks with their bombs). They have not used any unmanned air surveillance.

Maybe they are not as technically clever as we seem to be given credit.
The tactics seem to be "cold war"

Originally posted by manson_322

Originally posted by Interestinggg
Russia's Black Sea Fleet is capable of destroying NATO's naval strike group currently deployed in the sea within 20 minutes

Umm yes but Russia needs there whole fleet to do this.
Imagine the whole Nato fleet?Including the USN?
I think they are dreaming some more.

lol, more BS, from


they only need five Tu-22M3 backfire bombers armed with hypersonic Kh-22MA to take out the NATO fleet in the Black sea , or some klub/yakhonts supersonic stealth cruise missiles

Ahh derrrr!
The Nato fleet?
There is a few ships in the black sea and only 1 USN ship.
Go learn to read and find out how many country's are in Nato.
Then look up how many ships they have.
Then you have found the Nato fleet.
And if all those boats were in the black sea.
Russia would run away.

the maximum engagement range of the phalanx CIWS is around 2000 yards , where the real world range is 500m or less ;

given a missile traveling at Mach 2 is moving at over 680 meters per second (mach 3 is 1km per seocnd) that leaves around 2 seconds to track and engage the missile , now phalanx usually fires at 3000 rpm , which is 50 rounds per second


so in the very best case it shoots ~100 rounds at a target 45 cm across moving at mach 3 - the likely case is 30 rounds , fired at a very fast moving target.

so say you hit - you then have a mach 3 exploding fireball/shrapnel ball hitting your ship instead of a missile


this is why the sidewinder seeker mounted on stinger was made (thats the SeaRAM) as russian missles make a carrier commander squeeze tight.

oh and if a carriers own CIWS has to fire , then the multi layered defence system has failed so go grab you life jacket.

edit: spelling

[edit on 30/8/08 by Harlequin]

Originally posted by Interestinggg

Originally posted by manson_322

Originally posted by Interestinggg
Russia's Black Sea Fleet is capable of destroying NATO's naval strike group currently deployed in the sea within 20 minutes

Umm yes but Russia needs there whole fleet to do this.
Imagine the whole Nato fleet?Including the USN?
I think they are dreaming some more.

lol, more BS, from


they only need five Tu-22M3 backfire bombers armed with hypersonic Kh-22MA to take out the NATO fleet in the Black sea , or some klub/yakhonts supersonic stealth cruise missiles

Ahh derrrr!
The Nato fleet?
There is a few ships in the black sea and only 1 USN ship.
Go learn to read and find out how many country's are in Nato.
Then look up how many ships they have.
Then you have found the Nato fleet.
And if all those boats were in the black sea.
Russia would run away.

There is more then just 1 US ship in the black sea at the moment.. And it is a FACT the US fleet is the largest best trained best equipped in the world. Not including NATO ships at all.

Unless Russia was able to suprise the current US ships (Including Sub's) totally unprepared they wouldn't stand a chance in destroying all of them in 20 min. Its propaganda BS..

You all seem to be forgetting that the Black Sea is very confined and it is in Russias backyard. It is not an ideal place for 2 Navies to slug it out in. Then factor in that Russia could also use its airforce as well.

Yes, its great that these weapons look the best .......... but thats on paper and only tested on excercise. Factor in 'Reality' and things can look entirely different.

No the US Navy is NOT the best in the world, its the largest, true.

Russia is a major super power and they do not like the US interfering in everything the US have torn apart Countries like the former Yugoslavia i am serbia and my parent say it was a whole lot better when it was one big countrie

I laugh at u all that are like oh Russia has No Army. Russia has an army but don't show it like America does You could watch the military channel and know the working of their Army so just because Russia isn't as Vocal doesn't mean doesn't mean they don't have something up their sleeve look at the AK-47 is Amazing just imagine what they could of invented

reply to post by airteck

Maybe the former Admiral is loosely referring to the Oniks missile. (Onyx)
How many such missiles exist. Where are they deployed. Are any mounted in planes.
If there are many such missiles, then there is a big problem. There may be no effective defense for such a weapon.



[edit on 30-8-2008 by son of PC]

reply to post by johnsky


care to back that up with proof, because im 100% positive that Russia said that supplying Georgia with military aid would be an act of war against Russia, and well... we aren't at war YET...

please leave the BS rhetoric at the door. we have done nothing tha anybody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. so our hand in all this is pretty much speculation....

unless of course you want to believe the Russian newspapers when they say that they caught a Black marine in Georgia... then they posted what appeared to be a stock photo of a black marine.

reply to post by pexx421


what you aren't taking into consideration is that, Russia nuclear arsenal would not be obsolete if we actually placed the missle defense sheild around them... if they were going to nuke Mainland USA. they would send one over the north pole, and over canada... it's the shortest distance... our missle defense shield are NOT in place for them. they are there so that we can stop Iranian, and other like minded countrie's weapons from reaching western europe...

reply to post by mattifikation


yep people like you and the ignorance you bring is whats driving the standards down, you talk like Russia instigated it all, yet it was Georgia who attacked innocent russian civilians in Ossetia , ethnic cleansing? so naturally Russia retaliated , people's stupidity and desire to believe everything they are fed by the media is quite simply ASTOUNDING!

The Major would like to ask Admiral Eduard Baltin the last time the Russian/Soviet Navy was able to successfully engage a foreign power in a naval battle?

Does the Battle of Tsushima ring a bell? That will look like Sunday float down the Volga on a warm summer day compared to taking on the real naval forces of NATO. The Russian/Soviet Navy has a better track record of sinking itself vice any foreign combatant.

The Admiral needs to go back to his XBox before he gets his ass kicked by real life.

Dismissed



[edit on 30-8-2008 by Major Discrepancy]

reply to post by Magnivea


no actually, Russia has more people, and the US has A LOT more toys, and MUCH BETTER toys at our disposal...

i honestly don't know where you guys are getting your information but you should prolly make sure that the source isn't some Russian/anti-american rhetoric peddler. because there is no way that a country who JUST BARELY started to get money to put into their military, has ANYTHING on a country that has been consistently, and constantly developing it's military since the early 1940's.

reply to post by Major Discrepancy


Major, Russian fleet may be old, poorly trained and maintained. But it is in its "own" territory, with air support and naval base. And it has advantage at least in numbers. I think that it is not an empty threat.
It is a huge mistake by Russian government to let its military talk like this, but it is irrelevant to capability of Russian forces in the area.
Of course ,i am only staff sergeant.
Yes i know, i am dismissed.

reply to post by Interestinggg

Ahh derrrr! The Nato fleet? There is a few ships in the black sea and only 1 USN ship. Go learn to read and find out how many country's are in Nato. Then look up how many ships they have. Then you have found the Nato fleet. And if all those boats were in the black sea. Russia would run away.

lol, russia would run away in your dreams ,

Go learn to read and find out how many country's are in Nato.

Go and read on the kinds of superosnic and hypersonic ASCMs they have , lol ....

And if all those boats were in the black sea. Russia would run away.

lol, thats when the fun begins , Russia will bring in 162 tu-22m3 armed with hypersonic kh-22ma to rip the NATO fleet to pieces


the only and the biggest threat , that Russian navy faces is the sheer numbers of american SSN and Russia does not have much capability to counter the US SSN's in the world , except in the Barents Sea

reply to post by SRTkid86

RUSSIA
Manpower available for military service: Definition Field Listing males age 16-49: 36,219,908 females age 16-49: 37,019,853 (2008 est.) Manpower fit for military service: Definition Field Listing males age 16-49: 21,488,878 females age 16-49: 28,760,976 (2008 est.)

US
Manpower available for military service: Definition Field Listing males age 16-49: 72,715,332 females age 16-49: 71,638,785 (2008 est.) Manpower fit for military service: Definition Field Listing males age 16-49: 59,413,358 females age 16-49: 59,187,183 (2008 est.)

Last time I checked, the CIA isn't some "rhetoric peddler." (debatable, though)

As for the toys, that is sheer opinion. For example, tell me how the M16 and it's variants which were originally developed as a survival rifle for shot down pilots (and at one time were being developed as nothing more than a double stacked .22 round) is even remotely comparable to any AK (aside from the ones produced for civilian use chambered in .223)? I know, we're not talking small arms here, but let's just start there.