Read Why the USS Donald Cook Crapped It's Pants and was 'gravely demoralized' in the Black Sea

In reality this kind of thing isn't really needed anyway. The Russians have a range of very lethal long range supersonic anti-ship missiles. Shoot about 10 to 20 at an Arleigh Burke or Ticonderoga class and they will have a hard time stopping them all, if one or two get through let's just say it will be bad for the ship. As usual nothing is invincible and if you shoot enough stuff at it, it will get hit.

a reply to: JimTSpock



So far the only ones repeatedly mentioning the supposed US NAVY claim of 'Invincibility' are those who are convinced Russia has this or related abilities and that THEY are overwhelming or fool proof in their abilities.


Seems a tad bit ironic

a reply to: Zaphod58

The only rules are about flying directly over the deck of the ship

I am no expert but that's a tiny area and by the time a plane is aver the deck then its dropped its bombs and is trying to get away.

Here I could be wrong but I was thinking more like a 20 miles exclusion zone and even then it only give the ships a few seconds to react !

I like how the USA say it was unprofessional so just how do you buzz a ship professionally but no, on this one I am with you and Russia would not had revealed its hand when its not even at war and it subs could had taken the ship down and blame it on bad weather or someone else.

Trouble is the USA does so many false flags that no one would get to know the truth anyway.

a reply to: JimTSpock

The Russians have a range of very lethal long range supersonic anti-ship missiles.

They also have torpedo's that do over 500mph under water I am told so I don't think they would need to fire many of these things to make a hit.

The USA long range projection as they like to call it has some serious faults but on the other hand Russia is still building ships so they cannot be that useless in a modern war.

Now if China turns on its war machine then they could build five ships a week even if they are not quite as good as those produced in the USA the sheer numbers would take the enemy out.

a reply to: StopThaZionistWorldOrder

Come on Alex Jones and info wars. Seriously? The guy probably believes the old story about the US Navy and the lighthouse. I see the lighthouse story is still going strong even today with various updates.

a reply to: VirusGuard

I am with you and Russia would not had revealed its hand when its not even at war

For me Nuland with cookies is the start of war.

Stay away from Russians borders, I think they made that obviously clear.

a reply to: MGaddafi


What would you say to both sides knocking it off?

Some here believe when Russia sends bombers/fighters/subs etc towards sovereign nations territories it's justified but when the West does something similar it's considered provocative. Why not both sides put away their penis extensions and act like adults?

..was this linked from infowars?
(that would be all we need to know here)
can't remember 3 pages back & apparently it's too big a deal for me to just click back & check..
(wow, don't know how i'm gonna sleep tonight)

They also have torpedo's that do over 500mph under water I am told so I don't think they would need to fire many of these things to make a hit.

there's also some technique where they'll explode something underneath a ship & the water rushing back into the blast area is sufficient to bring down even large targets like carriers

don't ya just love the bright sparks who invent all this wonderful stuff?
i think this story is just doom porn.. perfectly timed..
a display like this seems a bit naff
although there was that woodpecker thing that time in the embassy...

anyway, at least ww4 will be fought with sticks & rocks

penis extensions

PMSL
check the sig. link

a reply to: SLAYER69

Maturity between kids in politics would b e a grat improvement as you rightly point out.

I find it odd reading the report that NATO also doesn't have an arsenal of EMP weapons just as the russians appear to have.

What concerns me is whether all the money paid for sophisticated pieces of equipment such as the AEGIS or whatever NATO uses to link its defence system with from the relative publics whose armed forces are involved, is being wasted on systems that can be easily broken so are in fact a waste of defence budgets.

I am more interested to know what the proof of this is, who supplied this system and of course how much money they have made and whether it can be made (russian basket proof) or not. Far too much money is paid into the defence budgets of countries and that's despite cuts to some of these budgets, but what are these warmongers buying with our taxes and are they buying the best equipment possible? Always seems to be vested interest in granting contracts to provide defines weaponry.

a reply to: SLAYER69

To me it's a bunch of reckless kids with toomany toys too much money and no parents in sight. One of these days it will get out of hand and the world will pay unfortunately for the arrogance of both sides.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StopThaZionistWorldOrder



The more passes they make, the more data they can collect on the radar and other systems.

I think this statement is close to being the best reason for the event. They very well could have been fishing to see if we had counter measures. So they would be able to try out their counter-counter measures. Unless we all want to believe that they really are that naive?

a reply to: SLAYER69

What would you say to both sides knocking it off?

Yes agree so new lines need to be drawn and in the end I think Russia will hold Crimea and east Ukraine and the west can mop up the rest but its not like the EU needs another poor member on the team.

NATO needs to stick to its promises about not one more inch and disband itself or stop blaming Russia if it creates a new Walsall pack.

We are as close as ever to a all out nuclear war and a lot of kissing and making up will need to be done

originally posted by: Shiloh7

I find it odd reading the report that NATO also doesn't have an arsenal of EMP weapons just as the russians appear to have.

I'd direct your attention way back to 1991.

The highway of death, Iraq. The drivers of those thousands of vehicles didn't just all of a sudden decide simultaneously to park their vehicles and become sitting ducks/miles of burnt wheeled scrap metal.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StopThaZionistWorldOrder

Wow, this one again? The biggest reason that this is crap is that there's no way that Russia would reveal something this shocking against a single ship, when we're not fighting. Revealing this gives the US time to figure out how it happened, and work to correct it from happening again. You NEVER reveal something that changes things as radically as this system supposedly does unless you're engaged in an active shooting war, and you have a high value target in your sights. A single destroyer is nothing.

That and the fact that the best white analysis of this system puts it on par with the self protection systems used on the F-16 and C-130J, which are good, but nowhere near good enough to take down an entire Aegis system.

- Denies it happened because [Russia isn't that stupid]
- Says (doesn't cite) analysis of EW systems

Did it ever occur to you that if Russia is showing us these systems, they might have more advanced systems?

There are very high speed torpedos but not sure how effective they really are, just the normal modern torpedos have sonar tracking, long range and are very deadly. Just shoot a salvo of them accurately and most ships will have some big problems. And yes torpedos can be programmed to detonate under the keel of a ship which can do huge damage to even the biggest ships, such as an aircraft carrier. This was a common technique in WW2.

I think cluster bombs from coalition airpower mostly did the highway of death in Iraq in '91. Convoys being hit with cluster bombs would just incinerate and blow up everything. BBQ. War is killing, death, destruction there is very little good about it. Except maybe if you're a billion dollar weapons contractor with some buddy politicians to help business along.

a reply to: JimTSpock

All I'm saying is that the whole 'EMP' shtick has been known, looked at and counter measures developed since the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s etc. That and supposed 'Tesla technology' which if Tesla military tech variants were true then out of both sides the US should have the upper hand since Tesla lived in and did many of his experiments/developments in the US not to mention the fact that many of his patents are still held as 'Classified' in the US.


The EMP angle isn't anything new and was popularized fairly recently [past 11 years or so] to a younger generation through Video games mostly. In reality both sides have taken appropriate technical development to minimize that potential threat through 'Hardening of electronics'

Neither sides are foolish enough to send their better assets into harms way without first having some level of protection.

Ex-Navy here.

War ships and their equipment are hardened / shielded against EMP and have been for decades since nuclear testing showed what EMPs can do to electrical and electronic equipment. It is possible for damage to occur to radio, radar and passive EW equipment, but not always a sure thing. If you want to make a ship loose it's power, the best way to do that is to destroy it's power plants with a few well placed missiles.

IF you can get those missiles past the ships defensive systems, which is going to depend a lot upon what type of ship it is, what they have aboard, and what the crew is doing, and how many missiles you've sent their way.

The days of needing to fly directly over a target in order to bomb it are long gone, and have been long gone for quite a while. You don't fly over a war ship to take it out, not unless you're trying to commit suicide. That's what long range cruise missiles are for (and torpedoes and mines).

The commanding officer of a US warship is not going to take out anything simply because it's flying over his or her ship. The CO wants to protect their ship, but at the same time are not willing to make a mistake and take out civilians (it's happened in the past), or take down another country's fighter jet and cause a international incident or war. Not unless it's known that the aircraft is armed and is actively using it's fire control devices.

A fighter jet from one country flying of the ship of another country is not a military act. It's a political statement.

As for the CO being rotated to shore duty: of course he was. Commanding officers of ships are rotated sea duty to shore duty, then back to sea duty just like everyone else in the US Navy. You go where the Navy needs you. I spent 7 years on sea duty and had to actually specially request that (I didn't want to loose my sea pay as it was a nice chunk of money that I would loose once rotated to shore duty), however 7 years was the maximum and I had no choice but to be rotated to shore duty.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: StopThaZionistWorldOrder

Then why are they so stupid as to use them on a single destroyer that is no threat whatsoever, and letting people see them, and find ways to counter them, if they're so secret that no one has ever seen them?

Perhaps they wanted a real world test, to make sure it worked, thus showing the faults and or positives of their device. Then they can improve even more. Fact is no one really knows what they have up their sleeves. Doesn't really matter though, in the end we all lose, and the elites gain.

a reply to: tavi45

Go ahead, Just remember that we don't know what the US has been working on.