Russia could destroy NATO ships in 20 mins: Admiral

Originally posted by wolfmanjack

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..

lol, more BS , coming from an ignorant patriotic american civilian ...

read this :

Admiral Rickover said , US carriers will survive only two days in a battle against Russia

About thirty years ago, my first boss, Senator Robert Taft Jr. of Ohio, asked Admiral Hyman Rickover how long he thought the U.S. aircraft carriers would last in the war with the Soviet navy, which was largely a submarine navy. Rickover’s answer, on the record in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was, “About two days.” The Committee, needless to say, went on to approve buying more carriers.
www.d-n-i.net...

also warships and destroyers would be made short work of by russian supersonic sea skimmers or the hypersonic kh-22 of the russian AF

reply to post by Nebules


im pretty sure the Smith and Wesson M4 is a far superior assualt rifle than a 50 yearr old, albeit tried and true, reliable, and accurate gun. but you are dreaming if you think for some reason that russia is better equipped than they US, they haven't been dumping a fraction of what we do into military R&D

you also seem to be forgetting our black budget for top secret mililtary developement... we have A LOT that the world doesn't know about, and we are just waiting for the right time to turn it loose on someone who gets uppity and starts thinking they have a chance... a jet skimming the upper atmosphere moving at mach 4+ carrying a large payload of nuclear weapons to drop off on Moscows doorstep would end this conflict pretty quickly

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by Nebules

 

you also seem to be forgetting our black budget for top secret mililtary developement... we have A LOT that the world doesn't know about, and we are just waiting for the right time to turn it loose on someone who gets uppity and starts thinking they have a chance... a jet skimming the upper atmosphere moving at mach 4+ carrying a large payload of nuclear weapons to drop off on Moscows doorstep would end this conflict pretty quickly

we have A LOT that the world doesn't know about, and we are just waiting for the right time to turn it loose on someone who gets uppity and starts thinking they have a chance... a jet skimming the upper atmosphere moving at mach 4+ carrying a large payload of nuclear weapons to drop off on Moscows doorstep would end this conflict pretty quickly

where does this BS come from
??????????

Yes. Russia could destroy a single Arleigh Burke and some Coast Guard ships. So? What Navy COULDN'T? But I don't think that question is the real, proper one. I think this one fits better.

How would the United States react to it? I have one idea - they would destroy the entire Russian navy, within a single day. This is why it's painfully obvious Russia is not going to be 'attacking' ( ) any time soon.

It's simply business as usual.

"We will not strike first, and they do not look like people with suicidal tendencies," he said.

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

And America only needs 1 nuke to destroy Moscow? What's your point? Imagine, if Bush came out and said, "We only need one nuke to take out Moscow", Ridiculous huh. Truth be told, it's in neither of the sides best interests to do these suicidal acts - they're only fantasy situations stating the militarily plain obvious in order to provoke fear, promote propaganda, and for MONEY.

Does this even qualify as 'news'?

[edit on 30/8/2008 by C0bzz]

reply to post by manson_322


from many witness reports of multiple sonic booms in rapid succession with NOTHING around to see it.

it's not 100% verified fact, but you would be seriously ignorant to think that we layed all our card out on the table.

just look at how much we spend on our military, and then try to sit there and insunuate that we have used everything at our disposal. think about the SR-71 blackbird... they didn't come right out with it until right before we started using it.

im not saying Russia doesn't have tricks up their sleeves. but let's be intellecuatlly honest here... military technology tends to be about 10 yrs ahead of the public sector technology. we have A LOT that nobody knows about, and won't know about until we unleash it on somebody unfortunate enough to be in our corsshairs... do you not understand why we are able to project our influence all the way across the globe? because any 1 country knows it's a death wish to tangle with us. they may win the battle, but we will win the war... assuming they don't dress like civilians and use them as cover to attack us...

Aurora Aircraft

our currently stealth fighters and bombers have been needing a replacement/upgrade for a LONG time now.

[edit on 8/30/08 by SRTkid86]

reply to post by Magnivea


im talking about currently standing militaries here... nobody has set a military draft in action yet. so you can't use those number as the lithmus test for how many people each country has in their military.

reply to post by manson_322


it's pretty convienient how you didn't bold the part where he asked that guy about 30 years ago... things have changed A LOT since then...

3 lines.

Originally posted by C0bzz
Yes. Russia could destroy a single Arleigh Burke and some Coast Guard ships. So? What Navy COULDN'T? But I don't think that question is the real, proper one. I think this one fits better.

How would the United States react to it? I would say it's a pretty good excuse to destroy the entire Soviet Navy.

& this is why it's painfully obvious Russia is not going to be 'attacking' (

) any time soon.

How would the United States react to it? I would say it's a pretty good excuse to destroy the entire Soviet Navy.

& this is why it's painfully obvious Russia is not going to be 'attacking' (

) any time soon.

and then what , ww3 ....

by the way , there is no soviet navy, its russian navy

reply to post by SRTkid86


But like you say there is plenty russia might have too. We all know about usa and the drug money funded black projects.

MAD is in existence again, altough i think america think they could win a neclear war, how we do not know.

We will see what and how they do with russia and china in the future, but they have something planned.

Imagine, if an a American ship or a Russian ship went down and both Russia, and the US blamed Iran, or georgian rebels?

The chances of a war between the US and Russia is non existent, neither will be willing to sacrifice mankind... putins not an idiot.. and neither is bush. so, how about they both profit from a ship going down?

One takes Iran, the other the southern states.

No one would dare question both the USSR and US,

if only we could relay this plan to putin, via a letter or something?

Originally posted by C0bzz
Yes. Russia could destroy a single Arleigh Burke and some Coast Guard ships. So? What Navy COULDN'T? But I don't think that question is the real, proper one. I think this one fits better.

How would the United States react to it? I would say it's a pretty good excuse to destroy the entire Soviet Navy.

& this is why it's painfully obvious Russia is not going to be 'attacking' (

) any time soon.

"We will not strike first, and they do not look like people with suicidal tendencies," he said.

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

And America only needs 1 nuke to destroy Moscow? What's your point? These are really in neither of the sides best interests to do these suicidal acts - they're only fantasy situations stating the plain obvious in order to provoke fear, propaganda, & make a quick news story.

Does this even qualify as news? :down:

Do you start EVERY post with lol?

[edit on 30/8/2008 by C0bzz]

Explain to me how american fleet defends itself, against 50's technology in nuclear bombs, it cannot in our 3d reality.

So explain to us how america stopps russia using nuclar boimbs on a fleet, and how that fleet would be able to protect itself from that. From my understanding it cannot.

Amrica cannot do anything either to russia, so mad still exists.

reply to post by SRTkid86


and to be honest, Soviets/russians have an equally good number of tricks

but let's be intellecuatlly honest here... military technology tends to be about 10 yrs ahead of the public sector technology. we have A LOT that nobody knows about, and won't know about until we unleash it on somebody unfortunate enough to be in our corsshairs... do you not understand why we are able to project our influence all the way across the globe? because any 1 country knows it's a death wish to tangle with us. they may win the battle, but we will win the war... assuming they don't dress like civilians and use them as cover to attack us...

do you not understand why we are able to project our influence all the way across the globe?

lol, you use gunboat diplmoacy against third world nations

won't know about until we unleash it on somebody unfortunate enough to be in our corsshairs...

and you won't see Russian power till they unleash it on USA

because any 1 country knows it's a death wish to tangle with us. they may win the battle, but we will win the war..

history has shown again and again
those nations which attacked and invaded Russia were destroyed by Russia


by the way , read on russian black projects:
russian bioweapon program(biopreparat)
red mercury nukes
Ayaks aerospace vessel(superior to aurora)
russian underground cities (yamantau,uragan defence etc..)



[edit on 30-8-2008 by manson_322]

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by manson_322

 

it's pretty convienient how you didn't bold the part where he asked that guy about 30 years ago... things have changed A LOT since then...

3 lines.

lol, ,yes things have changed , yes , russian superosnic ascm are more advanced and russia has hypersonic ascms too , rendering the surface fleet obsolete

reply to post by andy1033

And uh, if you actually read my post that was exactly what i was saying. Russia will not attack the fleet. And I hardly need some kid tell preach to me about '3d reality', on an issue I know backwards and forwards, sonny boy.


[edit on 30/8/2008 by C0bzz]

the KH-22 or AS-4 Kitchen is from 1950`s , and ; it has a range of 250 miles , cruises at 90,000 feet and terminal dive of mach 4 (not hypersonic)

its an old weapon - the russians much prefer Moskit et al now since they are much harder to shoot down

reply to post by manson_322


yea, but the US to my recollection has NEVER tried to invade Russia (not that i want that to happen.) so there is no history on how we would do... you know the country that is pretty much known for kicking ass and taking names in any toe to toe war we have been in.

im not trying to say that Russia wouldn't put up a fight, or that they don't have their own black programs going on... but we have been at this non-stop, dumping billions of dollars into black projects more consistently then they could dream.

no doubt a war between the US and Russia wold be a long bloody fight... but there i no doubt in my mind, that if you take nukes out of the equation... we are far superior to them... and when you add nukes, we would be equals.

i understand that you don't like America... i have seen your posts... but you don't ALWAYS have to take the opposite side of the fence, just because America is involved... i wish that some of you people would just accept that there is a reason that we are a hyper power (one step above super power.) in the world, and Russia is not... because we "won" the cold war... our economy continued to thrive and progress while their's collapsed... they are just now getting to a point where they can afford to beat their chests... they may not be all old and rusty, but they won't be a military threat to us for at least the next 10-15 years.. when they actually start to get some of their new ships online.

I'm not responding to anyone in particular, but can we keep these 'secret' technologies' out of it. I mean, sure they may EXIST, but are they in SERVICE? I think not. And we don't even know what these 'secret technologies' are either - I could claim it's a Mach 50 Space Ship based on UFO technology from Dulce with lasers and powered by anti-gravity - Pure fantasy.

Go with what's known and verified. Please.

Accidentally double posted, AGAIN.

by the way , there is no soviet navy, its russian navy

Sorry. Edited.

[edit on 30/8/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by SRTkid86
yea, but the US to my recollection has NEVER tried to invade Russia

There is a reason for that - it's impossible. Irregardless of how many billions you dump into your military.

Originally posted by SRTkid86
you know the country that is pretty much known for kicking ass and taking names in any toe to toe war we have been in.

Yet still utterly incapable of facing off against an insurgency.

Originally posted by SRTkid86
but we have been at this non-stop, dumping billions of dollars into black projects more consistently then they could dream.

U.S. government spends huge amounts of money on its military because it is all a political and corporate game with three players - the government, the pentagon, and the corporations building your military machine. U.S. purposely overspends in this area thanks to lobbyists and the corporate/military elite, where as countries like Russia try to balance off value and pay-off for their projects.

Originally posted by SRTkid86
we are far superior to them...

Yes, but that doesn't mean U.S. is guaranteed a win in a clean war.


But the main thing - neither side wants any war, not U.S. not Russia. Why not? For one thing it would launch the world into a major economic depression. For another - neither side is sure that it can win, even in a non-nuclear standoff. And finally - there will be only one victor, and that is China.

reply to post by SRTkid86


Uh hum, YOU do not know that you are superior to Russian armed forces because there has never been a battle between the US and Russia - You are just chest beating. Largest, most expensive and biggest does not always mean its the best.

Just because something looks good on paper does not make it so. The proof as they say is in the eating.

DO NOT rely on technology ...... it has a habit of letting one down when it is needed the most.