Royal Navy frigate intercepts Russian submarine in North Sea near English Channel

A Russian submarine has been intercepted by the Royal Navy as it cruised towards the English Channel. The sub was being escorted by frigate HMS Kent on Tuesday evening and is expected to pass the Strait of Dover on Wednesday morning.

Telegraph

No idea what the Russians are playing out. UK seems to be happy to let Putin play its silly games in Ukraine and the ME. So why provoke us?

Shows that the UK needs to be expanding its Navy not reducing it! We should have kept with the original planned 12 Destroyers and 16 frigates!
Maybe if we had not followed the Americans on their silly little middle eaten adventures our ministry o defence would have needed to cut ACTUALY things for our defence
.

a reply to: crazyewok

Maybe if we had not followed the Americans on their silly little middle eaten adventures our ministry o defence would have needed to cut ACTUALY things for our defence .

Maybe if your leaders didn't have their lips locked to our ass, you would get your wish.
Don't blame us for your troubles, blame your own politicians.

So do you think this is the first sub the Russians sent or just the first one you caught?

a reply to: crazyewok

This topic has been discussed many times here on ATS.

It's been concluded that, this kind of stuff has been done by "both sides" since the cold war, so it's nothing unusual, and there's nothing to be worry about.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
So do you think this is the first sub the Russians sent or just the first one you caught?

*shrugs"

Though getting a sub through that area undetected would be hard.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: crazyewok

This topic has been discussed many times here on ATS.

It's been concluded that, this kind of stuff has been done by "both sides" since the cold war, so it's nothing unusual, and there's nothing to be worry about.

Except in the cold war we had a credible navy and Airforce.

a reply to: crazyewok

Don't blame the US because your government does something stupid.

Nobody forced them to do what they did.

a reply to: DAVID64

Maybe if your leaders didn't have their lips locked to our ass, you would get your wish. Don't blame us for your troubles, blame your own politicians.

i secound that, im from UK too.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: crazyewok

Maybe if we had not followed the Americans on their silly little middle eaten adventures our ministry o defence would have needed to cut ACTUALY things for our defence .

Maybe if your leaders didn't have their lips locked to our ass, you would get your wish.
Don't blame us for your troubles, blame your own politicians.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: crazyewok

Don't blame the US because your government does something stupid.

Nobody forced them to do what they did.

Who says I was blaming you?

If the US of Derping A wanted to spend billions to chase goat herders around the ME fine.

Our politicians should of left the USA to do it on their own.

But it was still a USA led war. A war our politicans should of kept out of.

a reply to: crazyewok

This game of hide-and-seek has been played by both sides for almost 70 years. Nothing new to see here.

a reply to: crazyewok

Russia responded by laughing at this, they said their sub was surfaced and near a tugboat.

Honestly in today's world with Russia and the USA having enough nukes to annihilate every single human inhabited area, there is no such thing as a WW3. It will be the cold war on steroids at best. No real shots will ever be fired, MAD still is the reason for that.

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: DAVID64

Maybe if your leaders didn't have their lips locked to our ass, you would get your wish. Don't blame us for your troubles, blame your own politicians.

i secound that, im from UK too.

Second what?

What point in the OP did I blame the USA solely for the wars? I didn’t! I just said we shouldn’t have followed the USA on their dumb arse adventures. That not saying our politicians are blameless because they are not, they should be strung up for treason for putting foreign interests above ours.

a reply to: crazyewok

what about the massive international fleet that guards the south pole

the real question should be

why can we join forces to protect ice but cant get along any were else

sounds like the whole this is fd from the get go.

but hey everyone keep waving your flags

a reply to: crazyewok

Second what? What point in the OP did I blame the USA solely for the wars? I didn’t! I just said we shouldn’t have followed the USA on their dumb arse adventures. That not saying our politicians are blameless because they are not, they should be strung up for treason for putting foreign interests above ours.

i secound what DAvid64 stated, it was a responce to his Uk should not have noses up USA arse.

a reply to: lSkrewloosel

While there may be a debate who-is-where and doing what-to-whom there is no question that it is happening and that a reach-around is most definitely involved.

a reply to: crazyewok

Oh Pish, why not simply enjoy some borsch and vodka and have a party. Bout time we made friends instead of enemies.

Worry about the odd submarine in our 'seas' whilst we have American nuclear warheads in our country aimed at Russia and we rage about one of their subs. Happy with the plan to protect America whilst we all fry?

"Royal Navy intercepts Russian Submarine..."

- With what? Pretty sure the Royal Navy was sold as part of the crippling austerity program

originally posted by: crazyewok




But it was still a USA led war. A war our politicans should of kept out of.

C'mon dude, if your troops had any balls, they wouldn't have taken part.
Same with our troops here.

It's not just down to the politicians.

"We're just following orders".

Nah, no balls at all.

a reply to: Vector99

MAD has never been a thing. It is a construct of popular imagination and hyped in the Media.

During the late cold war a full scale strategic nuclear exchange between the US and USSR was extremely unlikely. Both the US and USSR planned to win the war, and mutual annihilation isn't exactly a way to win a war.

The war in Europe would likely have been a conventional one between the Armies of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, with limited tactical nuclear exchanges. The declassified warplans from the period confirm this. Comparably few realistic scenarios of the period involve the usage of strategic nuclear weapons, and even then in a very limited capacity primarily against military targets. Such strikes would probably invoke retaliation of destruction of military targets based on lost capability, but not a full scale retaliation.

Also the US and USSR have far less nuclear weapons in their arsenal today than during the Cold War, mostly due to the decommission of the enermous stocks of tactical nuclear weapons in the form of artillery shells, bombs, torpedoes, naval mines, etc.

a reply to: Ohanka

MAD was always a last resort tactic, not a first resort.

Of course, both had strategical plans for winning, but in the end all would end in MAD.

Both nations have at least 2,500 active ready-to-fire nukes, with another 4,000-5,000 that can be re-commissioned in a short period of time.

SLBM's have eliminated the 30-40 minute wait period for a nuclear exchange, as both nations have nuclear armed subs close enough to make it a 3-5 minute warning period. Enough time to kiss your own ass goodbye. There is a reason neither nation never fired nukes at each other, and it isn't because they thought they could win. It is 100% because of MAD. Both nations have made it clear any severe attack would unleash its nuclear arsenal.