Super Missile Cruiser "Moskva" with Destroyers And Frigates heads for Syria

page: 10
46
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SubTruth

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

Originally posted by blackthorne
the slava class cruiser was designed in the 60's and the moskva was commissioned in 79, over hauled in 98. only three of this class were built. she really is not a"super" ship. you see all those missile tubes? they have no reload capacity. the soviet style of warfare was the steam roll strategy. throw every thing at your enemy in the first round and hope that it knocks them out. yes, she is deadly, but not any more deadly than any other warship.

as to how i know this. when i first enlisted in the navy back n 86, i was going to be an intelligence specialist. i was trained to recognize all soviet warships, their weapons and ranges, and their radars and their ranges.

If what you say is correct why did Adm. Zimwult say in 78 that a Naval war with the Soviets would sink ALL of our Carriers in 48 hours.







So we have another armchair quarterback calling the plays.
It might help out your cause if you do not offer up quotes that are 40 years old.


I remember right before the Iraq war posters saying how the US would be destroyed..............
.



Double laugh does not even do it justice.
edit on 5-9-2013 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)

Remember how in 02 Russia flew over the U.S. Carrier Group, and FAXED in the pictures directly to the Carrier's Admiral's office, Do I need to show Youtube video of Iran's videoing of the U.S. Carrier, So don't give me that (40 year old tech is now better crap.) The D.O.D. knew very well in 91 AND 03 that Iraq had old tech, thats why they attacked, lets sit back and see how Syria will react to an attempted attack, with the massive amounts of Modern Russia weapon the have, I''m putting my money on the U.S.-Mil getting their tails handed to them conventionally, and then they (U.S. Mil) will launch, either nukes or scalar type weapons, which Russia more advanced once to.



P.S. I really don't think U.S.A. will do an attack, they know what;s better for them, I.M.O. but lets just sit back over the next 10 days and meet back up on this thread, to see who will win this argument.
:lol
edit on 5-9-2013 by ATSWATCHER because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-9-2013 by ATSWATCHER because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Good for Russia. I wonder if those Russian subs have those super-speedy torpedos. Somebody needs to stand up to the current evil empire. Also hope Iran is sending over to Syria some of its long-range surface-to-surface missiles. Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact, although Syria and Russia do not; however, with all the Russia troops/personnel and a naval base in Syria, it seems like any attack could well be a trip wire.

Perhaps if the US and France and whoever else go ahead with attacking Syria, Russia will respond with counterstrikes and call on the UN to deal with the criminal aggression of the US and its small band of lawless countries. Seems like it would be a good, legitimate, excuse to take out some of the US navy in the region.

I think Russia, in particular, has had enough of the US's shenanigans, and Obama's craptastic handling of this whole affair just makes the US look weak. If Russia sees a chance to take some potshots at the US -- and to do so with international law on its side -- I think Putin would jump at the chance.
edit on 5-9-2013 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


P-1000's are probably fitted on the Moskva.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 5-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
 


No offense but you can not back up with proof what you are saying. Take a good hard look at my ATS handle. Many people can not tell the difference between truth and fact.


Personal truth is subjective the facts are not. You do not deal in facts you deal in truth. Like I said earlier before the last Iraq war we had many posters dealing in personal truths not facts.
edit on 5-9-2013 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by johncarter

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by johncarter
 


I always laugh when people think they are invincible...........Do they remember this....

The uninvited guest




Good one. I too laughed that day...Those arrogant as.holes always think they are invincible behind their leathal toys. They are just high on testosteron flooding their system, making them see rivals in need of annihilation everywhere
edit on 4-9-2013 by johncarter because: (no reason given)


Quoting the Daily Wail it is you who is laughe at. I wouldn't use it asa source of truth, and as previously pointed out, an advertised mopvement of ships not on deployment, at risk or on a war footing is a little different than sailing into the med with the knlowledge your CinC is goingt to push a military option.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SubTruth
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
 


No offense but you can not back up with proof what you are saying. Take a good hard look at my ATS handle. Many people can not tell the difference between truth and fact.


Personal truth is subjective the facts are not. You do not deal in facts you deal in truth. Like I said earlier before the last Iraq war we had many posters dealing in personal truths not facts.
edit on 5-9-2013 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)

I take offence to ANYONE who doesn't know their own laws (Constitution) and supports the oppression of innocent Governments/people, by evil people U.S./U.K./E.U./Israelis, what are you asking me to do, just say it in simple form and I'll try my best to live up to it.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I do not think that the US should strike without putting the proof on the table at the UN.

If Russia and China are the only ones who do not accept the proof and use a veto, then I think the UN mandate needs to change as they are abusing their power.

I also think that Russia's military and tactics are unproven having not fought a war since the 80's. On the other hand, the US and allies have fought across Iraq, learned vital street to street combat, logistics, strike capability and damage, ship to shore warfare, drones and force multipliers.

Its not like WW2 where the Russian people would die as they would be killed by the Nazis anyway - see how much stomach they have for war in another country when they are being killed by the bus load.

Its all hypothetical anyway - its not WW3 - its a minor scrap in a sandbox.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Senduko
Nice ship, well what did you aspect, how many ships has the US send so far? I think the last ACC was one ship to many.

I don't think this will end badly, at this point i'm just thinking that we are heading indeed for a cold war scenario. Something to distract.

I do think Syria is key in a series of unfolding events, but where it lies, time will tell.


US thinks it 'won' the cold war. USA's behaviour since 1991 has been to ignore Russia's interests.

Let us see what happens now. This is a new world. Conflicts are flaring everywhere.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
What if UN inspectors says that it is the Rebels that used Chemical Weapons (which they already said 4 months ago).

Can Russia then get a UN approval to protect Syrians from Chemical attacks by Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaida/USA?



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by johncarter
It is accompanied by Destroyers, Fregats and a couple of nuclear Typhoon class subs


So why would Russia be sending SSBN's - who do they plan to nuke?

Putin really wants a war by the sound of it!


out of everyone involved you think its putin who wants the war?? wow!



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Please keep the religious crap out of my thread. This is about Syria, not your abrahamic idols.



Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by Darkmask
reply to post by ElohimJD
 

I hope you are wrong because I for one never want the lies of religion crammed down my kids throats. We will never have peace on Earth as long as there is Religion. It is poison for the soul.

Even though that's way off topic, can you clarify or elaborate on that, in a rational way..?

Are you familiar at all with the teachings of Jesus, Darkmask, like the sermon on the mount for example or any of the parables?

Got I hate this kind of ignorance when I see it cropping up on the net.


Originally posted by Darkmask
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge
 

Israel will be the first player eliminated from the game.

Hmph, you don't make a very good case for a newfound enlightened mutual best interest..

May God grant me the capacity for tolerance, mercy, forgiveness.. and love.. Amen.

edit on 4-9-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-9-2013 by johncarter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia
 


no no

logic dictates

new tech is greater than older tech.

tech is the end all be all of warfare.


Yes, that assessement certainly worked in the Vietnam war, Afghanistan and so on..yeah, tech comes first..good military minds of good strategic and tactical thinking comes last. Yes, yes,....superior tech is everything...Long live Raytheon and Lockheed and General Dynamics....our gods and saviours in these wars..
edit on 5-9-2013 by johncarter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321

Originally posted by poet1b



No one is going to win if Russia blinks.




You go and get them Derek.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by johncarter
 


The navy has the capability to stop any deployed anti ship missile with SeaRAM. The Brahmos II is a joint Russian-Indian development so it's actually easier to get information on it. It's not operational yet.

I can assure 100% that U.S.A. has absolutly NOTHING, that can stop the SS-22/27, exept U.S. Scalar weapons which Russia has better of, please show and proove, Iremember how Stellar X used to put you in check with facts back in 08, you just sound like you know what your talkin about, but your just another U.S. Fan-boy, just kick back and lets see if U.S.A. gets away "trying" to bomb another innocent President/Country this time.
edit on 5-9-2013 by ATSWATCHER because: (no reason given)



I miss StellarX. He knew his stuff. Man, would he be able to provide good intel now



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive


I think Russia, in particular, has had enough of the US's shenanigans, and Obama's craptastic handling of this whole affair just makes the US look weak. If Russia sees a chance to take some potshots at the US -- and to do so with international law on its side -- I think Putin would jump at the chance.
edit on 5-9-2013 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)



Obama, has been convinced by his joint chiefs that an attack on Syria without military retaliation from the Russkies is possible. He has additionally been assured by the hawks, representing RAND corporation, Raytheon and GD+ Lockheed (drooling to test heir weapons in this conflict), that should the slimy Russkies respond, our boys and girls in the navy will steam right over them like there where never there.

The President is thus, in all his feebleminded wisdom, sure that he can push the button on "Bombs away" and if things go wrong he can always invoke executive directive 51, which grants him dictatorial powers and unlimited time in the WH.

He is in a win, win situation. 'Frankeinsteins monster'-Kerry, Hagel and the rest of these war hawks knows this and are now spreading the propaganda about "we will just lob a few cruise missiles on assads head" tall tales.

edit on 5-9-2013 by johncarter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER

Originally posted by SubTruth
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
 


No offense but you can not back up with proof what you are saying. Take a good hard look at my ATS handle. Many people can not tell the difference between truth and fact.


Personal truth is subjective the facts are not. You do not deal in facts you deal in truth. Like I said earlier before the last Iraq war we had many posters dealing in personal truths not facts.
edit on 5-9-2013 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)

I take offence to ANYONE who doesn't know their own laws (Constitution) and supports the oppression of innocent Governments/people, by evil people U.S./U.K./E.U./Israelis, what are you asking me to do, just say it in simple form and I'll try my best to live up to it.





Actually I am anti-war. And nothing I said had anything to do with law or the constitution. I think you might have some comprehension issues so I will keep it very simple and short.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by all2human
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


P-1000's are probably fitted on the Moskva.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 5-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)


Thx! I forgot about these deadly suckers. If two or three slips through the SDSMS and SSDS-systems on lets say the Nimitz strike group, she is truly toast

If my memory serves me well, couldnt these ship killers also be launched from russian Typhoon class subs?



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by johncarter

Obama, has been convinced by his joint chiefs that an attack on Syria without military retaliation from the Russkies is possible. He has additionally been assured by the hawks, representing RAND corporation, Raytheon and GD+ Lockheed (drooling to test heir weapons in this conflict), that should the slimy Russkies respond, our boys and girls in the navy will steam right over them like there where never there.

The President is thus, in all his feebleminded wisdom, sure that he can push the button on "Bombs away" and if things go wrong he can always invoke executive directive 51, which grants him dictatorial powers and unlimited time in the WH.

He is in a win, win situation. 'Frankeinsteins monster'-Kerry, Hagel and the rest of these war hawks knows this and are now spreading the propaganda about "we will just lob a few cruise missiles on assads head" tall tales.


Don't know about your Executive Directive 51 thinking, but you're right about your other points. The US and its leaders have gotten so used to running roughshod over second- and third-tier countries that it thinks it can do anything, and doesn't consider Russia to be a real actor/factor in this situation. I think they are quite wrong on this point, and they will rudely be disabused of this notion should they try to illegally attack Syria, without any real international consensus or backing. Heck, even Ban Ki-Moon, the Sec. General of the UN, who has essentially been a US stooge up to this point, is saying that any attack on Syria would be wrong and illegal.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER
Remember how in 02 Russia flew over the U.S. Carrier Group, and FAXED in the pictures directly to the Carrier's Admiral's office,


No, care to provide a valid source for that claim?


Do I need to show Youtube video of Iran's videoing of the U.S. Carrier,


Please do.... Hey, I have pictures of a US carrier also, what is the significance of that?
edit on 5-9-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
[

The US and its leaders have gotten so used to running roughshod over second- and third-tier countries that it thinks it can do anything, and doesn't consider Russia to be a real actor/factor in this situation. I think they are quite wrong on this point, and they will rudely be disabused of this notion should they try to illegally attack Syria, without any real international consensus or backing. Heck, even Ban Ki-Moon, the Sec. General of the UN, who has essentially been a US stooge up to this point, is saying that any attack on Syria would be wrong and illegal.


Yes.How true!

Well perhaps this pic serves as the proverbial "a picture is worth a thousand words", to explain the nutcases on 'the hill'?





edit on 5-9-2013 by johncarter because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
46
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join