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.
Originally posted by tremex
Originally posted by johncarter
Originally posted by tremex
Slava, the Russian cruiser, didn't steam to the destination, because of its enormous firepower, but because of its updated and very sophisticated detection gear. Russians agreed on providing Assad with the best possible information about the expected missile attack - about its tactical aspects. It's sort of a similar situation as it existed during the Falklands war waged between the UK and Argentina where US military intelligence supplied data gathered by the network of US spy satellites to the British military.
www.nytimes.com...
edit on 5-9-2013 by tremex because: (no reason given)
I can assure you that the russian military satellites, like the Molniya-1 and 2, will handle that task without any problems.
Molniyas 1 and 2 were communication satellites and got nothing to do with tracking tomahawks.
www.astronautix.com...
2013 Jan. 15: Russia opened a record of space launches in 2013 with a liftoff of a converted ballistic missile carrying a trio of military satellites Tuesday. A Rockot booster equipped with a Briz-KM upper stage lifted off from Pad No. 3 at Site 133 in Plesetsk Cosmodrome on Jan 15, 2013, at 20:25 Moscow Time. The vehicle was carrying a trio of military communications satellites for a constellation believed to be designated Rodnik-S.
Originally posted by blackthorne
reply to post by johncarter
john, i want to thank you for a visual that i now must burn out my eyes so as to be able to remove it!
Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Not to rain on the Doomsday Parade, but I followed the provided links in the original post, and didn't find mention of 'destroyers and frigates'...the Moskva is escorted by one of each. There's also no mention of a Typhoon-class SSBN in the group. The articles mention RAF Typhoons being in the area, and a Russian anti-submarine vessel, but no Typhoon-class submarine.
There's also the minor point that the Russians are calling this a routine ship rotation. Whether that's the case or not is certainly open to debate, but if the point of bringing a force into an area is to send a 'diplomatic signal', why make it look like something routine? The Russians aren't known for taking the subtle approach when it comes to that sort of signal, after all.
While the leaders of the two superpowers are shaking hands for the camera in St. Petersburg, their navies are sending a different message. Here is the latest breakdown of the world's key navies in the Mediterranean theater of naval operations as of last night. By now it is likely woefully outdated, now that there are reports the Chinese have joined the fray too (not on the side of the 'free droning world').
Originally posted by johncarter
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
Yeah, sure, the Russian navy is unsinkable.
If the U.S. decides to invade Syria, Russia will do what they did when the US invaded Iraq, nothing.
Tell me again how Russia is less corrupt than the US.
Originally posted by sechmet
Yeah
And with the war on Syria paid by Arab States, with US marines as a dogs of war..
Its really great business !
And even Peter Great with ballistic missiles in the Arctic Ocean does not say anything to the rednecks..
But nevermind, it doesn't mean who is right and really it is good for US to support Al Kaida in Syria, because of the real enemy is Iran and then Russia.
So you may be sure, Putin knows how this game can go on.
And he will rather sink US fleet - even if the next step would be ballistic missiles, maybe some "not so great nuclear war" with some "tactic small nuclear bombs"
So he knows how it works, and Peter Great with Northern Fleet is waiting for the orders in the Arctic Ocean. And a few subs too, you may be sure.
Does it make you happy ?
Originally posted by eagledriver
Somebody has described Russia as 'Strong' . Actually, the rawest measure of power is your population base. Russian birth rate is in the negative territory for a long time. They are losing 700,000 every year ( 7 million in 10 years ). The money they have is very limited, and they do not want war either. Their weapons are old and their R&D is very limited. They are even considering buying outside equipment (France and Germany) since they can't afford to start up their R&D again. Not the mark of a strong country.
Originally posted by peck420
Originally posted by eagledriver
Somebody has described Russia as 'Strong' . Actually, the rawest measure of power is your population base. Russian birth rate is in the negative territory for a long time. They are losing 700,000 every year ( 7 million in 10 years ). The money they have is very limited, and they do not want war either. Their weapons are old and their R&D is very limited. They are even considering buying outside equipment (France and Germany) since they can't afford to start up their R&D again. Not the mark of a strong country.
You may want to refresh your latest Russia file. Your data screams 2006.
They are back up to 2006 population and growing.
GDP is rising rapidly.
Debt is negligible.
R&D is clandestine.
Cyber capabilities are impressive.
Russia is not capable of going toe to toe with the US..yet, but they are more then capable of bloodying her nose.
reply to post by Rodinus
So the US Gvt and their allied puppies on a leash don't want a war then?