Russian Naval Flotilla Docks in Syria: State Media

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LongbottomLeaf
 


They stopped making the raptor because of it's costs. It is a far superior aircraft then the f-35 as far as performance via speed and maneuverability. The main advantage of the f-35 is the vertical take off and that is only on the navys version. I think it was around an eigth of them would have these capabilities. I know that several nations will be receiving them. It has actually caused the vote of disconfidence that sent Canada to an early federal election last spring. The Harper government failed to fully disclose the cost of the purchase of the f-35s'.




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by IronNuts
 


And we must remember these are the out in the open craft that we're allowed to see and know about.


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pointr97
To keep history from repeating itself.....history needs to be reviewed.....



Agreed...

When was the last time Russia {or China for that matter} have fought and won any significant Naval battle against a worthy adversary?


Sorry, but anyone that thinks a Russian unit is a push over needs to really look back at history.


The question still stands...


The Russian Subs are mean,

The Russian Tanks are mean

The Russian Ballistic missiles are mean

The Russian Migs are mean

The Russian mainland is isolated and not easily hit


Looking mean doesnt win naval battles. Also, The last statement betrays ones ignorance...


History shows that anyone that does, is lucky if they live to regret it.


Again, it would obviously do some good for some to review Naval History
edit on 8-1-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
The only clout Russia has is its nukes. While it conventional military is "formidable", it would get absolutely wiped out, absloutely wiped out, i said ABSOLUTELY WIPED OUT by the US military. No IF'S AND'S or BUT'S ABOUT IT.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The only clout Russia has is its nukes. While it conventional military is "formidable", it would get absolutely wiped out, absloutely wiped out, i said ABSOLUTELY WIPED OUT by the US military. No IF'S AND'S or BUT'S ABOUT IT.


Th US Army?? For real? You mean the army that is losing every War (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan)? This US Army?

"Mission Accomplished" somebody said.. I say don't even think about Russia. They have trained Military, not payed Kids.

It's tragically enough that those Kids die in the Name of this Company called "US Army"



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by DAZ21
reply to post by Hellas
 


No what will the Russians do, "quickly! To the cannons!!"

Please don't make me laugh.

Really? Ever heard of super-cavitating torpedoes?

VA-111 Shkval

The VA-111 Shkval (from Russian: шквал - squall) torpedo and its descendants are supercavitating torpedoes developed by the Soviet Union. They are capable of speeds in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h)[1].

Launched from 533 mm torpedo tubes, the VA-111 exits the tube at 50 knots (93 km/h). Shortly afterwards, its liquid-fuel rocket ignites and propels it to speeds of up to 200 knots (370 km/h). Some reports indicate that speeds of 250+ knots may be achieved, and that work on a 300-knot (560 km/h) version was underway.


Good luck stopping that.


Oh yeah the ones that sunk their own Kursk, Yeah we remember those. I hear they still have a lot of issues with the rocket fuel and all. Iran will be lucky to fire one off in battle, i am sure the Russians are holding on to the ones that are more reliable per say. Also the torpedo moving that fast wouldn't be very maneuverable and is only good for very short range. I am sure this will turn out to be another dud in the hands of the Arabs, Russians maybe not so much but the U.S. has a good history of smashing Russian equipment in Arab hands.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Everytime Russia makes a port call, why does everyone freak out about it? I particularly love how people still assume its because of potential conflict.

Wake up call -

If hostilities break out, Russia will not get involved. Russia is not going to risk a larger conflict in an effort to save a ship that has already sunk.

The fearmongering is great though.. Needed humor relief.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The only clout Russia has is its nukes. While it conventional military is "formidable", it would get absolutely wiped out, absloutely wiped out, i said ABSOLUTELY WIPED OUT by the US military. No IF'S AND'S or BUT'S ABOUT IT.


Th US Army?? For real? You mean the army that is losing every War (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan)? This US Army?

"Mission Accomplished" somebody said.. I say don't even think about Russia. They have trained Military, not payed Kids.

It's tragically enough that those Kids die in the Name of this Company called "US Army"


Everyone knows you can not fight a descent sized country using guerrilla type tactics and win unless you pull a WWII Carpet bomb raid on every city in said country. Politics is the only thing that ties the hands of the U.S. Army. Unleash the U.S. Army on a country with no limits and they will win hands down but this nation building crap is impossible and everyone knows that.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The only clout Russia has is its nukes. While it conventional military is "formidable", it would get absolutely wiped out, absloutely wiped out, i said ABSOLUTELY WIPED OUT by the US military. No IF'S AND'S or BUT'S ABOUT IT.


Th US Army?? For real? You mean the army that is losing every War (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan)? This US Army?

"Mission Accomplished" somebody said.. I say don't even think about Russia. They have trained Military, not payed Kids.

It's tragically enough that those Kids die in the Name of this Company called "US Army"


As much as I disagree with all this war mongering the West is pursuing in/at the moment, you would have to agree that you'd choose the devil you know as opposed to the devil you dont....or does it become a fact that one any potential adversaries are all eliminated whether its the devil you know or not, they both become one and the same in the end?

Yes, the US has made a mess of recent military campaigns but that is what they are - campaigns.

Do not confuse this with an all out WW3 scenario.

In a WW3 scenario, you can kiss your Geneva Convention and any other agreements the governments may have signed in the past goodbye.

When the gloves come off....civilians are just collateral damage.

Carpet bombing would become the norm, WMD's aswell.....

the fact that the west went after saddam based upon WMD's will be laughable when the west starts using their own in earnest.

WE have nothing to say or due....its out of our control. If you survive, you are lucky (or unlikely depending on where and how).

The story MUST get to its final chapter, regardless of the method.....will we be here to see the closing curtain and credits roll on remains to be seen.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pointr97
Besides, carriers are old school tactics, they are more for show than anything else....there is a reason the Chinese haven't built many. This will not be a naval war if it occurs, it will be a land war of domination, and yes, quantity doesn't necessarily out due tech....Yet, if you only have 100 high tech bullets, but there are 110 attacking.....You loose.


China had no Carrier because of know how and cost, let alone they did not have a plane to take off from one that could stand a chance against anything. They refitted an old Russian Carrier, whoopdy doo! Bet that works well. We all know Chinese products.

I think the Russians and the U.S. would majorly disagree with you on the importance of Carrier battle groups witch allows the U.S. and Russia to project force to anywhere in the world. China backed down on threatening Taiwan when Clinton sent in the Carrier battle groups to protect them. Now if China backs down from two carrier groups then you may rethink their power in the world. Especially when they have complete air and sea cover protecting them.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




The fearmongering is great though.. Needed humor relief.


Still pending verification?




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Everyone has heard of the super cavitating torpedo it's what sank the kursk.

Yawn these threads always turn out to a peeing contest of whose got the better military.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




The fearmongering is great though.. Needed humor relief.


Still pending verification?



Since you want to be a smartass the comment I made in that thread revolved around me pointing out that you changed the title fo the thread after I called you out on it. I asked a mod to verify that was indeed the fact, and it was.

I just didnt feel the need to continue playing your games. You are more than capabale of undermining your own arguments and you dont need my help. Especially when you ignore the facts and just spin whatever the hell you want with nothing to support it, like the bulk of people on this site do who are to lazy to actually research.

With that being said you got anything on the topc itself, or was your intent to continue to act childish and derail the thread because of your inability to debate facts?

The port call of the Russians is nothing new and has nothing to do with NATO. Russia announce about a year or 2 back they wantd an increased naval presence in the MED / ME region to protect their economic interest, and since they do more and more business withthe rest of the world its a valid position for them.

Its closer and cheaper to port call in Syria rather than return to their main base in the Black Sea, whcih is a bit out of the way on the off chance you have no concept of the geography in the region or the military structure of the Russian fllet / operations.

Syria is done, Russia knows this, and wont get invovled if action is taken.

Any thoughts / propoganda for us on the topic?



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DAZ21
reply to post by pointr97
 


Basically, they're good at defending the motherland. But on the offensive they are tacticaly inept.

Well they did defeat the Nazis. But yeah, they took a beating doing so.

The war against Georgia in 2008 showed great skill by the Russian army. But a lot of stuff can be fixed.

The biggest problem of the Russian army and armament is corruption.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellas

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The only clout Russia has is its nukes. While it conventional military is "formidable", it would get absolutely wiped out, absloutely wiped out, i said ABSOLUTELY WIPED OUT by the US military. No IF'S AND'S or BUT'S ABOUT IT.


Th US Army?? For real? You mean the army that is losing every War (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan)? This US Army?

"Mission Accomplished" somebody said.. I say don't even think about Russia. They have trained Military, not payed Kids.

It's tragically enough that those Kids die in the Name of this Company called "US Army"


I've made it clear that I don't support the war In Iraq, and haven't since about '05 when I realized the reasons for the war were a lie. But brother, we ain't losing dick. I may not agree with the policies of our government, but our war fighters are second to none. There will always be the odd asshole that throws puppies off a cliff or rapes a young girl, but those incidences are FAR from the norm and they are always punished. The VAST majority of our soldiers, sailors, and Marines are taking the missions handed to them and they are kicking ass, and I for one am proud of the way they do their jobs in a professional and compassionate manner.

And Slayer, you're right. You did.
Star for you.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp

Originally posted by Hellas

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The only clout Russia has is its nukes. While it conventional military is "formidable", it would get absolutely wiped out, absloutely wiped out, i said ABSOLUTELY WIPED OUT by the US military. No IF'S AND'S or BUT'S ABOUT IT.


Th US Army?? For real? You mean the army that is losing every War (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan)? This US Army?

"Mission Accomplished" somebody said.. I say don't even think about Russia. They have trained Military, not payed Kids.

It's tragically enough that those Kids die in the Name of this Company called "US Army"


I've made it clear that I don't support the war In Iraq, and haven't since about '05 when I realized the reasons for the war were a lie. But brother, we ain't losing dick. I may not agree with the policies of our government, but our war fighters are second to none. There will always be the odd asshole that throws puppies off a cliff or rapes a young girl, but those incidences are FAR from the norm and they are always punished. The VAST majority of our soldiers, sailors, and Marines are taking the missions handed to them and they are kicking ass, and I for one am proud of the way they do their jobs in a professional and compassionate manner.

And Slayer, you're right. You did.
Star for you.


More truer words have never been spoken.

I stand behind our troops,I do not agree with government polices.

But the troops are doing us proud.Like rescuing the Iranians.

I would like to hear what they think about the us military in there own words.

With out the fear of there heads being chopped off.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DAZ21
reply to post by CaticusMaximus
 


Was that in reference to me?? Because I'm from the UK.

How do you come to these conclusions when their defence budget is nowhere near the US defence budget??

It's just not possible.


That's because the US dollar is almost worthless, big numbers don't mean lots of money.

On a very serious note, numbers don't win the day.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Agree.


The Russian Navy has suffered severely since the dissolution of the Soviet Union due to insufficient maintenance, lack of funding and hereby training of personnel and timely replacement of equipments. Another setback is attributed to Russia's domestic shipbuilding industry which is reported to have been in decline as to their capabilities of constructing contemporary hardware efficiently. Some analysts even say that because of this Russia's naval capabilities have been facing a slow but certain "irreversible collapse"



As of 2006, The Russian Navy has 50 nuclear submarines with only 26 operational compared to 170 vessels in 1991. The Navy plans to reduce the number to 20 submarines, including ten strategic missile submarines and ten multi-purpose (attack) submarines, according to unofficial reports. As of February 2008, The Russian Navy had 44 nuclear submarines with 24 operational; 19 diesel-electric submarines - 16 operational; and 56 first and second rank surface combatants - 37 operational. Despite this improvement, the November 2008 accident on board the Akula-class attack boat Nerpa during sea trials before lease to India represents a concern for the future. In 2009, Admiral Popov (Ret.), former commander of the Russian Northern Fleet, said that the Russian Navy will greatly decline in combat capabilities by 2015 if the current rate of new ship construction remains unchanged, due to the retirement of ocean going ships.


Link

Russia's Navy is a non factor.

Now Chinas Navy?


Until the early 1990s, the navy performed a subordinate role to the PLA Land Forces. Since then, it has undergone rapid modernisation. The PLAN is the second largest naval service in the world behind the United States Navy. With a personnel strength of over 250,000, the PLAN also includes the 35,000 strong Coastal Defense Force and the 56,000 man Naval infantry/Marines, plus a 56,000 PLAN Aviation naval air arm operating several hundred land-based aircraft and ship-based helicopters. As part of its overall program of naval modernization, the PLAN has a plan of developing a blue-water navy


Link

Untested though.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


May be the USA have one of there TORUS CAVITATION INHIBITING ATTACK SUBS
UP FROM TRIALS IN Australia.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Nice pros and cons about US and Russia military...all of them biased.

Lets look at what every country did after WW2.US had: Koreen War, Witnam, Iraq 1+2 and Afghanistan (as major wars),Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan (as minor operations) and maybe some other minor ones i don't remember right now.
Russia had : Afghanistan, Chechnya and Georgia.

Now, US had serious fights in Koreea and Wietnam.Its not important if they lost/won/draw...its important that the US had been involved in those wars with land troops, tanks, fighter planes and bombers, navy, marines, etc.
Almost the same for Iraq 1+2 and Afghanistan (tho much much easier due to powerful bombing campaigns).

Russia, on the other hand, didn't had any major wars.Afghanistan wasn't a major war, was just 10 years of battles with INSURGENTS (not a real army).Chechnya...Russia had been humiliated by a 2 million people country, with nothing but RPGs and AK's.Georgia...Russia kinda won, but seriously, no real army was against them.

Soooo, Russia didn't had a real battle after WW2.They did not had tanks battles, or sea battles or even serious bombings.Doesn't matter why they didn't had, the point is that their last serious battle experience was in WW2.

US, on the other hand, had AT LEAST Korrea and Vietnam as serious battles.Might add BOTH Iraq 2 and Afghanistan with hundreds of thousand troops deployed, aerial campaings, navy deployments...

In a TOTAL war WITHOUT nuclear weapons involved, US alone ( without UK, France, rest of NATO) will WIPE THE FLOOR with Russia and / or China.
The only chance for US to lose a war against Russia and/or China is if the US wants to invade those countries.Anyone will lose if they want to invade other enemy country.

But in a REMOTE war (when you need to deploy A LOT of troops, planes, navy, instalations, etc) US have the ABSOLUTE egde : just look at how many bases US have allover the world and how many carrier groups can deploy.China have near 0 capabilities to deploy any significant force outside their region.Russia can, in theory, deploy much more, but will have HUGE logistic issues to last more then 2-3 weeks overseas.

And since we talk about Syria, just look at how many NATO countries are in the region.

Any limited or regional battle without the use of WMD or invasions its practicaly won by US and Allies with ease.





top topics
 
15
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join