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.

 

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

page: 13
46
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by johncarter
Rednecks? Yes, I ve noticed an invasion of rednecks on my thread the last 24 hours. Munsching on their kentucky fried chicken while typing the usual garbage, about what they think russia is capable of, or how ppl live there


Let's see if I understand. Hypothetically, my choices in this bifurcation fallacy are to 1) Agree with you, piss in my pants and acquiesce immediately to the doctrine of almighty, technologically superior, well managed, honest, totally competent and ethical Russia, or 2) be a redneck?




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




posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
The Mediterranean could get even more crowded.

The French will probably move their aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle into striking range. It launched at least 1,350 sorties against Lybia.



The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is preparing to move into the Med.


The Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft carrier will be ready to act as part of a Russian naval group in the Mediterranean by the end of 2013, Navy Commander Adm. Viktor Chirkov said.


rbth.ru...



It will no doubt be escorted by one or more much more capable anti-air and anti-ship Kirov class battlecruisers.



There is also no way of knowing how many advanced Akula class submarines are there already or are moving to the area.



The biggest threat to NATO warships could be the Russian Tupolev Tu-22M Backfire anti-ship bombers.



These Mach 2 bombers have a range of 6,800 km (4,200 mi, 3,700 nmi) and could easily reach the Mediterranean from air bases in Russia. Each one can carry up to 3 enormous 12,800 lb AS-4 'Kitchen' missiles.



Imagine a squadron of 20 Backfire bombers moving at mach 2 launching 60 Kitchen missiles which move at mach 4.6. The crews of the target ship would not have much time to intercept 60 missiles closing at mach 4.6. The Backfire was in fact designed by the Russians to be aircraft carrier killers. I read that when the US Navy tested shooting these down, even if hit, the huge debris moving forward still caused considerable damage.

This reminds me of the Cuban blockade during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. One miscalculation by anyone, and there could be a lot of fireworks.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Here is how it looks when backfires attack lets say Nimitz. Delivered as you described it from the movie Sum of all fears.


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




Originally posted by ionwind
The Mediterranean could get even more crowded.







The biggest threat to NATO warships could be the Russian Tupolev Tu-22M Backfire anti-ship bombers.



These Mach 2 bombers have a range of 6,800 km (4,200 mi, 3,700 nmi) and could easily reach the Mediterranean from air bases in Russia. Each one can carry up to 3 enormous 12,800 lb AS-4 'Kitchen' missiles.



Imagine a squadron of 20 Backfire bombers moving at mach 2 launching 60 Kitchen missiles which move at mach 4.6. The crews of the target ship would not have much time to intercept 60 missiles closing at mach 4.6. The Backfire was in fact designed by the Russians to be aircraft carrier killers. I read that when the US Navy tested shooting these down, even if hit, the huge debris moving forward still caused considerable damage.

This reminds me of the Cuban blockade during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. One miscalculation by anyone, and there could be a lot of fireworks.




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



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   

johncarter

Originally posted by Catacomb
This is quickly becoming another Cuban Missle Crisis. I believe that Russia is very serious about Syria. They have let things go in the past, but Syria is different. With their own people manning air defense stations, it only seems plausible that they would take a threat to attack such systems by the US, seriously.

My hope, is that we do not attack. I believe this is quickly getting out of hand...
edit on 4-9-2013 by Catacomb because: (no reason given)


According to the Russian press agency, the Russian Navy continues stage-by-stage rotation of warships and support ships of the standing naval force in the Mediterranean. Having passed through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits, the big landing ships will reach the designated area in the Mediterranean Sea on September 5 or 6 to start their mission under the command of the remote zone headquartered onboard the big anti-submarine ship of the Russian Pacific Fleet Admiral Panteleyev.

Currently, according to the Russian defence ministry, one of the key tasks of the Russian standing naval force in the Mediterranean is indepth monitoring over the air, underwater and surface situation in the zone of its deployment, adding that the rotation of Russian warships in the Mediterranean Sea would continue till mid-September.

Should Obama fail to understand the Russians or try a move against Assad, this is what could happen very easily and from a vast range of missile batteries of leathal S300 and S400 or even P-800 super fast and super leathal Yakhonts (the so called, "undelivered".. nodge..nodge..blink blink) :





A dozen of these P-800 Yakhonts could zero in on Nimitz and Truman, at speeds up to Mach 2.5 or around Mach 8.5 for later models. One missile can be launched every three seconds. The mobile control centre is able to manage up to 12 TELs simultaneously.

I would be very, very nervous if I were a US sailor on one of these ships right now, trying to start another war for the sake of our dear military industrial complex and their representatives in the White House and Senate.


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


None of Russia's missles have been used in real war, so saying what it can do and what it will do are two different things.

But that for the theatrical writing style, very exciting.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by johncarter
 

If anyone believes Russia would fire on any US Ship, you're delusional. No way would they risk world war 3 over Syria.

As I said before, using video of simulations and from movies is far from reality. Just because someone says these missiles are supposed to work a certain way, does not necessarily mean they will actually work that way.

Besides, what does Russia really know about war anyway. The US is very experienced in real war scenarios.

Putin is an idiot and he isn't going to do SH&^! When this is all over, Putin will look like an idiot and lose even more credibility with the international community.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

hellobruce

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?

abcnews.go.com...



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)

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
 


Yeah, sure, the Russian navy is unsinkable.

Just sit back and WATCH and you;ll see who BLINKS



If the U.S. decides to invade Syria, Russia will do what they did when the US invaded Iraq, nothing,


[/QUOTE]
The D.O.D. KNEW VERY-WELL THE WEAKNESS OF Iraq AND THATS WHY THE WENT IN, THIS TIME Syria HAS THE CAPABILITIES to fight back, just sit back and watch U.S. ship get blown up



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 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Backfires don't just launch two missiles believe me.....And Backfires are small fry, the real bad boy is the TU-160 Blackjack:

Just one of these things can let rip with two dozen nuclear tipped missiles!

Why would the Russians use ancient AS-4 Kitchens when they've had the P-270 Moskit for several decades:

en.wikipedia.org...

These things can be launched from a Naval Flanker (SU-33), are three times faster than a Harpoon and can carry a 120Kt nuclear warhead. These are not by any means the cutting edge of the Russian missile arsenal.....Check this out:

en.wikipedia.org...

God help us all if the lunatics in the White House trigger a full scale war.....The Russians tend to go large if they go at all.
edit on 5-9-2013 by squarehead666 because: content



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

squarehead666
Just one of these things can let rip with two dozen nuclear tipped missiles!


Yes, Russia will really start a nuclear war....


God help us all if the lunatics in the White House trigger a full scale war


Wrong again, the Russians are the lunatics here if they launched their missiles!
edit on 5-9-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
?
edit on 5-9-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 

Russia's government has not as I recall threatened to attack a sovereign nation?

Russia has defence treaty obligations toward Syria and they will certainly defend their naval base at Tartus.....None of the missiles above HAVE to be nuclear tipped, they can all carry conventional warheads capable of reducing an aircraft carrier to a blazing hulk by simply smashing straight through it at several times the speed of sound.

NATO's own naval commentaries acknowledge that even the most modern AEGIS ships are dead in the water in the event of a hot missile war.....They simply do not have enough fire director capability to engage all the missiles that will be fired at them in the brief window before they themselves are hit.

Get it into your head.....America plans to attack Russia's closest regional ally and only direct access to the Mediterranean Sea, in breach of all norms of international law and also in direct defiance of the will of it's people, all based on evidence that they are not prepared to disclose.

Your basket case government and the wilful ignorance of a large section of your population will "USA! USA! USA!" us all right into WWIII.
edit on 5-9-2013 by squarehead666 because: content/clarity



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Bearack

Originally posted by juspassinthru

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!




Huh?

Russia really wants to defend an ally from a rabid, dying AGGRESSOR nation. I don't no how anything could be more clear.


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


Of course, because Russia has been known as the greater liberating country over the last century.. LOL. Eastern Europe would now like to bitch slap you for reality sake.


Victory over the Nazis would have proven difficult if not impossible had it not been for the Russians fighting on the Eastern front during WW2...now tell me, what "liberating" have we done. Second if liberating means installing a central reserve bank and a pro corporate government then I'm not sure our idea of liberation is comprised of the same definition.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


Well said mate.....I'm so sick of this patronising BS from people who have absolutely no idea of history.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


reut.rs...

Report: Friends of Syria group to meet on Sept. 8 in Rome, diplomatic source says - @Reuters
By Jeffrey Heller and Angus McDowall

JERUSALEM/RIYADH (Reuters) - If President Barack Obama has disappointed Syrian rebels by deferring to Congress before bombing Damascus, he has also dismayed the United States' two main allies in the Middle East.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have little love for each other but both are pressing their mutual friend in the White House to hit President Bashar al-Assad hard. And both do so with one eye fixed firmly not on Syria but on their common adversary - Iran.

Israel's response to Obama's surprise move to delay or even possibly cancel air strikes made clear that connection: looking soft on Assad after accusing him of killing hundreds of people with chemical weapons may embolden his backers in Tehran to develop nuclear arms, Israeli officials said. And if they do, Israel may strike Iran alone, unsure Washington can be trusted.

Neither U.S. ally is picking a fight with Obama in public. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that the nation was "serene and self-confident"; Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal simply renewed a call to the "international community" to halt Assad's violence in Syria.

But the Saudi monarchy, though lacking Israel's readiness to attack Iran, can share the Jewish state's concern that neither may now look with confidence to Washington to curb what Riyadh sees as a drive by its Persian rival to dominate the Arab world.

Last year, Obama assured Israelis that he would "always have Israel's back". Now Netanyahu is reassuring them they can manage without uncertain U.S. protection against Iran, which has called for Israel's destruction but denies developing nuclear weapons.

"Israel's citizens know well that we are prepared for any possible scenario," the hawkish prime minister said. "And Israel's citizens should also know that our enemies have very good reasons not to test our power and not to test our might."

That may not reassure a U.S. administration which has tried to steer Netanyahu away from unilateral action against Iran that could stir yet more chaos in the already explosive Middle East.

Israel's state-run Army Radio was more explicit: "If Obama is hesitating on the matter of Syria," it said, "Then clearly on the question of attacking Iran, a move that is expected to be far more complicated, Obama will hesitate much more - and thus the chances Israel will have to act alone have increased."

Israelis contrast the "red line" Netanyahu has set for how close Iran may come to nuclear weapons capability before Israel strikes with Obama's "red line" on Assad's use of chemical weapons - seemingly passed without U.S. military action so far.

"HEAD OF THE SNAKE"

Saudi Arabia, like Israel heavily dependent on the United States for arms supplies, is engaged in a historic confrontation with Iran for regional influence - a contest shaped by their leading roles in the rival Sunni and Shi'ite branches of Islam.

Riyadh is a prime backer of Sunni rebels fighting Assad, whose Alawite minority is a Shi'ite offshoot. It sees toppling Assad as checking Iran's ambition not just in Syria but in other Arab states including the Gulf, where it mistrusts Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia itself and in neighboring Bahrain, Yemen and Iraq.

Saudi King Abdullah's wish for U.S. action against Iran was memorably contained in leaked U.S. diplomatic cables, including one in which a Saudi envoy said the monarch wanted Washington to "cut off the head of the snake" to end Tehran's nuclear threat.

Disappointment with Obama's hesitation against Assad came through on Sunday in the Saudi foreign minister's remarks to the Arab League in Cairo, where he said words were no longer enough.

Riyadh and its allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) risk ending up empty-handed in their latest push for U.S. backing in their campaign to rein in Iran, said Sami al-Faraj, a Kuwaiti analyst who advises the GCC on security matters:

"The idea of a punishment for a crime has lost its flavor. We are on the edge of the possibility that military action may not be conducted," he said. "Congress, for sure, ... will attach conditions to what is already going to be a limited strike. At the end, we as Gulf allies, may end up with nothing."

Israel does not share the Saudi enthusiasm for the Syrian rebel cause, despite its concern about Assad's role as a link between Iran and Lebanese and Palestinian enemies. The presence in rebel ranks of Sunni Islamist militants, some linked to al Qaeda, worries the Jewish state - though Riyadh, too, is keen to curb al Qaeda, which calls the royal family American stooges.

EGYPTIAN LESSONS

Saudi and Israeli support for U.S. air strikes in response to Assad's alleged use of poison gas scarcely stands out less amid a global clamor of reproach for Damascus. But the recent Egyptian crisis saw them more distinctly making common cause in lobbying Washington - since their preference for Egypt's army over elected Islamists was at odds with much of world opinion.

That, too, reflects shared anxieties about the strength of Islamic populism and about Iran, which found a more sympathetic ear in Cairo after the election of President Mohamed Mursi.

Israeli political commentators used terms such as "betrayal" and "bullet in the back from Uncle Sam" when Obama abandoned loyal ally Hosni Mubarak during the popular uprising of 2011.

While some Western leaders voiced unease at the army's overthrow of Mursi in July and bloody crackdown on his Muslim Brotherhood, in Israel even Obama's mild rebuke to the generals - delaying delivery of four warplanes to Egypt - caused "raised eyebrows" of disapproval, an official there said.

A "gag order" from Netanyahu kept that quiet, however, as Israel's military kept open the communications with Egypt's armed forces, not least over militant attacks near their desert border, in a manner that has been the bedrock of the U.S.-brokered peace treaty binding Israel and Egypt since 1979.

Unusually, it was Saudi Arabia which was the more vocally critical of Washington's allies over its Egypt policy.

As U.S. lawmakers toyed with holding back aid to the new military-backed government, Riyadh and its Gulf allies poured in many more billions in aid and loans to Cairo.

And Saudi Arabia told Washington defiantly that it would make up any shortfall if the United States dared to turn off the taps: "To those who have declared they are stopping aid to Egypt or are waving such a threat, the Arab and Muslim nations ... will not shy away from offering a helping hand to Egypt," foreign minister Prince Saud said last month.

DISCREET DIPLOMACY

More quietly, Israel has been engaged in direct discussions with the White House, urging Obama not to waver in support of Egypt's military and saying it is time to act on Syria.

An official briefed on U.S.-Israeli discussions said Israeli intercepts of Syrian communications were used by Obama administration officials in making their public case that Assad was behind the August 21 gas attacks and must be penalized.

Netanyahu, whose frosty rapport with Obama blossomed into a display of harmony on the president's visit to Israel in March, has ordered his ministers not to criticize Obama publicly after the president's decision to take the Syrian issue to Congress.

A government source said the prime minister told his
edit on 5-9-2013 by Dillyk because: Heading



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   

tide88
reply to post by johncarter
 

Besides, what does Russia really know about war anyway. The US is very experienced in real war scenarios.

This statement alone displays a level of idiocy that is beyond astounding!

Do you even know who the Russians are? If the USA f***s with Russia they will crush you just like the other petty-empires they've crushed in the past, ask Napoleon or Hitler!

One of the reasons the British Empire lasted so long was that it was wise enough to maintain "The Great Game" with Russia, avoiding direct confrontation until Russia itself collapsed.

I suspect none of this means anything to you, so hey.....Why not Google some of it, you might just learn something.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by squarehead666
 


And both of those were crushed while invading Russia. Which the weather played a huge role in helping to crush them. Yes, the Russian military was damn good, but look at how the weather both delayed, and destroyed a lot of equipment that wasn't designed to fight in weather like that.

Now, let's get a little realistic (although I tried earlier and the fanboydom beat me down).


Russian military spending has risen steadily in recent years. The current defence programme is the largest since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The plan is to increase military spending from 2011 to 2020 by 11 percent each year, raising the proportion of modern weapons in the army to 70 percent by 2020. Most of the Russian army’s weapons date back to Soviet times.

www.wsws.org...


Konstantin Makienko of CAST delivered a report on “State Armament Program 2011-2020.” The reforms have sought to increase the large-scale acquisition and procurement of modern military equipment. Most of this equipment is Russian-made, but some foreign systems are being imported from foreign countries to help keep the Russian defense industries, not wishing to lose their domestic market, competitive. In contrast, the large size of the State Armament Program (SAP) 2011-2020 means that Russian defense industries will now give priority to providing weapons to the Russian military rather than manufacturing systems for exports.

en.rian.ru...


The most serious problems affect the radar and navigation systems, Izvestia says citing anonymous Russian air force pilots. Apparently, the glitches are not just due to software but there are also some hardware issues.

Maintaining the Su-34 also sounds like a nightmare for the ground crews–as each aircraft is different, and apparently a lot of the wiring is poorly soldered. The worst of the jets are the first two planes which were delivered in 2006–which are basically only there to decorate the airfield according to a senior Russian air force official Izvestia spoke to. But the three newest jets are a lot better, which is not unexpected.

As the Sukhoi rep points out in the story, almost every new aircraft has teething problems. It’s just part of life in the aviation business–early examples often have flaws. They’ll fix it, I’m sure. It’ll just take time and money.

www.flightglobal.com...

The Russian military is rebuilding. It's a threat, but it's not going to "walk all over" the US Navy, or the US military. There are a few units that are up to par, and quite combat capable, but as a whole the Russian military is still not in the greatest condition. They have suffered a collapse of their production capabilities that has led to problems with building new equipment in some fields, as well as having to procure foreign equipment. Give them another 5-10 years, and you'll start to see a Russian military capable of projecting power like they were in the past. As it stands now, until a few years ago, their air force couldn't even fly long range patrols, and they still have a lot of pilots that aren't trained in areas they need to be.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   

squarehead666


Do you even know who the Russians are? If the USA f***s with Russia they will crush you just like the other petty-empires they've crushed in the past, ask Napoleon or Hitler!

Back in 1980 when Afghan civilians armed themselves against the invading Russian army, they were told the same thing. But they decided not to pay attention to the results of obsolete and inapplicable styles of warfare. But the fact is that the USA recently faced only inferior opponents, so there is no way of telling how the USA would fare against a well-armed enemy whose weapons-systems are in many cases more sophisticated than what the USA got.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tremex
 


And the majority of them are on par, or below what the US has. A lot of Russian equipment is from the old Soviet days, with the modernized versions having problems.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Realtruth


The only reason Russia is there is because they want their slice of the pie, and will protect their interests after the the dust settles.

End of story.


Quoted for truth

Show boating.

Literally



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   


and the wilful ignorance of a large section of your population will "USA! USA! USA!" us all right into WWIII.
edit on 5-9-2013 by squarehead666 because: content/clarity


It's been widely reported by every credible source online, as well as the MSM, that the citizens of the US, are war weary. No one wants this war...and that is reported daily.




top topics



 
46
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join