Could the Royal Navy even handle the Russian Navy 1v1? I thi

File: Royal Navy 2020.jpg (329KB, 1600x980px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 1600x980px

>>31742867
The Royal Navy has two roles, firstly to facilitate the projection of UK power to anywhere on earth. Secondly to guard GUIK from Russian submarines. The second role has taken a back seat since the cold war.

The UK has no interest in making a fleet to fight other surface fleets, because the only other blue water navy in the world is on our side.

>>31742867
You ever wonder why the russian navy has so many ocean going tugs? and why thier ships are stuck in port even once the ice thaws.
> Not considered a blue water navy.
> Crap training

British navy is not even a shadow of its former self.
https://soundcloud.com/war_college/what-the-hell-happened-to

Not being able to eclipse decrepit Kuznetsov with a carrier of their own must be embarrassing, but more importantly they wouldn't be able to provide a carrier with an air group and escort order even if they had one.
UK has no cruisers. Russia has 4 of them, carrying ridiculous amount of long-range firepower.
UK has 13 frigates but their purpose is anti-sub warfare whereas the Russians are focused on surface engagements.
Russians have 12 blue water corvettes with cruise missiles capability and can easily overwhelm Type45's with saturation attack.
Russians have more attack submarines and modern Yasen/Akula 2/3 are roughly on par with Astute class.

If these two navies were to engage each other in the middle of the Atlantic right now, Russia is very likely to come on top.
Should it come to defending Britsh Isles, the Royal navy is likely to pull it out. Not without heavy losses and through the help of RAF.
The Royal navy attacking Russia in its home waters is suicidal to say the least. The Russians have a retarded number of stand-off defenses and cruise missiles able to target each British ship with 50 to 1.

All of this being purely theoretical since UK is part of NATO and would never go into war alone.

File: HMS Artful.jpg (778KB, 1280x1810px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 1280x1810px

>>31744435

I love how you completely ignored all the major factors that actually matter in a proper war, such as training, experience, logistics, availability and most above all else, intelligence gathering. Russia has fuck all AEW outside some old helos that could approach with this, whereas the RAF Sentry squadron would be well within range. The same goes for Rivet Joints, SIGINT aircraft that are again within the area. Sentinel ISTAR aircraft, Shadow Surveillance, Reapers and even the Sea King AEW's, of which they have more of than Russia brings on the Kuznetsov.

Intelligence wins wars. Being unable to track, identify, target and confirm is a death sentence in modern conflicts, especially in such a civilian crowded area as the North Sea. Can't saturate what you don't know about.

Speaking of which, you seem to be forgetting location. You're including the whole Russian Navy, but a huge portion of it is either in the Black Sea, Pacific Ocean or Caspian Sea and thus irrelevant, whereas the entire Royal Navy's major fighting arms are in the area of the home islands on a very regular basis. Even the Falklands escort is home right now. So the numbers aren't what you say. The UK has NATO access to surrounding airfields from Iceland and Norway too.

One old carrier using objectively the worst form of launch is not going to make the difference. It's older designs of aircraft, with shit tier range, low payloads and not a huge quantity of them either. Definitely not enough to make much of a difference when you've got Voyager supported Typhoons and Tornados spamming the fuck out of Russia with AMRAAMs and Storm Shadows for air or surface.

Not to mention pic related. The fucking massive ace card the Royal Navy has. Astute Class Submarines. And no, the Yasen/Akula's most certainly are not "on par". Astutes have gone toe to toe with Virginia's and come out equals, and to imply that Russian subs have matched the "cheat mode" Virginia's would just be insanity.

>>31744566
Sure, give Britain land assets and just cut out half of the Russian fleet. That's totally what we call a fair comparison, right?

>>31744611

No, it's what we call an accurate and realistic one.

File: 1330461_original.jpg (550KB, 1200x771px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1200x771px

>>31743784
>and why thier ships are stuck in port even once the ice thaws.
Dunno, but have a picture of Russian fleet deep in the Arctic.

>>31742867

That's a worthless hypothetical because Russia will never have enough allies, or enough powerful allies, to be able to keep England's allies distracted long enough to bring it to a 1v1 between the two nations. Even in the worst-case scenario of Russia-China vs USA-Japan-Britain with no other contenders, it is extremely unlikely that America would ever find itself unable to deploy at least a few ships to reinforce England's position. This is because we have our Japanese position and the JSDF to hold the western line for us while we sail said reinforcements across the Atlantic.

And that's without even mentioning the ridiculous history of Russia's many naval failures.

>>31744700
Obviously if that Russian fleet started shit in British home fucking waters they would get wrecked, but that's not the topic now, is it?

>>31744611
If the Russian Navy was going to sit of the coast of Britain then land assits are fair game.

File: fuckinglobsters.jpg (26KB, 372x285px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 372x285px

>>31743336
For now...

File: HMS RAF Akrotiri.jpg (458KB, 1501x970px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 1501x970px

>>31744781
>Obviously if that Russian fleet started shit in British home fucking waters they would get wrecked, but that's not the topic now, is it?

They can park pretty much wherever they want, we can reach them from our bases.

File: 1_202012.jpg (82KB, 676x384px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 676x384px

>>31744849
They can reach you too. And you pretty much cant do anything to prevent them from doing that. And after that everything that left is Black Buck. Oh wait, you dont have bombers anymore.

>>31744883
You realize the moment Russia launches an Iskander it's now a nuclear conflict?

>>31744883
>They can reach you
>short range ballistic missile

>>31744912
We are speaking about potential conflict involving north fleet here, right?

>>31744921
Yes, what?

>>31744939
So uh, where do you think you would be firing land based short range ballistic missiles from to have any consequence in a naval battle?

>>31744781

>Saying Russia in British area waters isn't the topic
>It's in the literal fucking OP

>>31744883

There was a moron who tried to claim this stuff in a thread a while ago about Russia being somehow able to happily launch swarms of cruise missiles across multiple NATO countries, at extremely long ranges that would take ages to travel, at targets they couldn't locate, targets that were mobile, and with no way of confirming a hit or not. And he saw nothing wrong with this arrangement.

It was amusing watching him get thoroughly BTFO. First time I've ever seen British and French posters both arguing the same side.

>>31744960
In our case from Latakia to RAF Akrotiri, apparently. Obviously they wont fire it at Britain since they probably cant reach it from Kaliningrad. Although they have other ways to reach it. And they definitely will have consequences in naval battle, considering something hitting the runway kind of has something to do with capability to use your airforce.
>Russia being somehow able to happily launch swarms of cruise missiles across multiple NATO countries
Why multiple NATO countries? They have plenty of bombers that can easily reach North Sea and launch quite a significant amount of cruise missiles that will reach Britain quite fast, since North Sea is pretty fucking close. And last time i checked runways werent very mobile.

>>31745006

Happily ignoring all the SAMs, Daring class AAW destroyers, Typhoons intercepting bombers and ABM radars giving warning of pretty much everything from that area of the world. The UK is covered in military length airfields, it's one of the busiest air traffic areas in the world. Saying "lol I just kill all the runways" is massively under-selling the issue at hand.

(Also the usual Vatnik tactic, ignore every other factual point made yet in the thread and try to hope everyone forgets that they were made by gradually trying to whittle the arguement down to one precise little thing until it becomes vague enough that they can start trying to debate it endlessly and hope they get out with some sort of credibility because all the large scale arguements finished in about 4-5 posts against what they want)

>>31744770
wait so you actually think uk has even the slightest chance against russia in a 1vs1 scenario?
they dont even need to come close to uk to create a naval and aerial blockade with their naval version of krashuka4 and s400f
they can fucking be 500km out and still do massive damage to whatever tries to come close..and that is if something happens till 2020
after that and given the reactivation of the remaining kirov class ships and the new lider class bolt in with the s500 missiles i really doubt uk will be in any position to even think doing any serious damage

Daily reminder that Russian ASW is so shit tier that the British once stole a sonar designed to find a submarine...with a submarine that floated right up to it and cut it off the boat.

Astutes would happily have a field day.

>>31745060
>naval and aerial blockade
Are you trying to tell me that they can prevent the Royal Navy sailing out of British waters without pissing off the French?

Besides the fact Russia doesn't have a large enough fleet to do this.

>>31744971
The topic is a 1v1 navy fight. It's just a comparison there's no need to be so butthurt.

>>31745055
>Happily ignoring all the SAMs, Daring class AAW destroyers, Typhoons intercepting bombers
Yes, and all those SAMs (Rapiers, lol?), Daring class and Typhoons will happily ignore the fleet they are supposed to fight and that is launching 44 Granits and other stuff at them. And obviously you can easily take an airplane from a base which airfileld was destroyed and transport it anywhere you want. On a bicycle, for example.
Also usual fatnik tactic - doublethink and call you opponent a vatnik and everything will be ok.

>>31745060
>after that and given the reactivation of the remaining kirov class ships

By remaining ships I assume you're only speaking of the Nakhimov, so using a plural there is a little disingenuous. And considering it hasn't gone to sea for over 15 freaking years i've got some doubts about how effective it'll be.

>the new lider class

Still only a concept at this point. Even if they do make it you won't see the first one until ~2025.

File: 1455239264670.jpg (73KB, 855x717px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 855x717px

>>31745006
>They have plenty of bombers that can easily reach North Sea and launch quite a significant amount of cruise missiles that will reach Britain quite fast, since North Sea is pretty fucking close.
Actually, they can do that from North Pole, range of their strategic missiles allows that.
>>31745055
X-101 are stealth missiles. ABM radars are looking up in space, not down to water. You need OTH radar to look on water surface, Russians do have them, btw. Actually, in hypothetical scenario which can not be implemented in real world, Russians can launch at British fleet more AS missiles than Brits have AA missiles.
>>31745085
>Daily reminder that Russian ASW is so shit tier that the British once stole a sonar designed to find a submarine...with a submarine that floated right up to it and cut it off the boat.
So, that's how they called "to wand wire around screw" nowadays.

>>31745116
>fatnik
You really need to just start off your posts with that so we all know we can ignore it m8. You're wasting our time.

What the fuck does "man mark" mean?

I can't find a definition anywhere

>>31745116
>Daring class and Typhoons will happily ignore the fleet they are supposed to fight and that is launching 44 Granits

Type-45s were specifically designed to defeat the Granit. Even in a saturation attack they won't be operating alone.

>easily take an airplane from a base which airfileld was destroyed and transport it anywhere you want.

He's just explained to you the fact that the UK is covered in military-sized airfields. Even assuming that every single military airfield in the UK can be destroyed by vatnik meme magic granitspam, there are hundreds of civilian airports capable of launching typhoons.

>And obviously you can easily take an airplane from a base which airfileld was destroyed and transport it anywhere you want. On a bicycle, for example.

On a lorry, actually. Because the Russian Navy has little to no ability to hit a moving target from a ship.

>all those SAMs (Rapiers, lol?)

Not to mention the fact that in a realistic scenario, if the Russian Navy did decide to have a go at the east coast you could bet your arse that Patriots would be deployed to the UK by then. Or is there some sort of vatnik magic missile that turns them into bricks?

>>31745093
ofc russia never really did cared enough about their ships if they could have only kirov class with some aircraft carriers they would have done so...

they are mostly a submarine navy with big ass surface ships that dont really need the protection of an entire fleet to survive
this will change when they start to roll out the Project 23000E aircraft carriers i guess
>>31745140
there are 2 currently undergoing massive overhaul changes (at least this is what the ruskies are saying on themess net)
well yeah thats why i stated that if uk has any chance to do any damage at all they will do it till 2020 after that is goodbye my love
(assuming russia will not default again)

>>31745174
It's a sports term. It basically just means maintaining close contact with your opponent to spoil any potential moves they might make.

In this case, the British want to make clear that their navy will be shadowing the Russians 24/7 until they're clear of British waters, which is fair. Russia does this all the fucking time with NATO ships in the Black Sea.

>>31745109

>Vatnik fantasies get BTFO with direct facts
>S-stop being so b-butthurt

>>31745116

You do realise that SAM means "Surface to Air Missile" and encompasses all such missiles in service, right? Not just Rapier, also the Sea-Ceptors on HMs Westminster, Asters on Type 45's and even Seawolf.

>>31745116

Do you genuinely think that modern war is just a big RTS where you select all and then click "attack move" all at once and it all happens in 10 seconds and platforms get to do only one action before it's all over? Again, you're purposefully ignoring the pace of operations in reality, between logistical organisation, human reaction/decision and above all else and the thing you perpetually try and overlook, intelligence gathering on where, what and when.

For example, good luck organising a fleet activity in a sea crawling with SSNs quite happily evading notice, given every time Russia has been called on to consider ASW they've hilariously failed. See Operation Barmaid.

>>31745146

>Russians can launch at British fleet more AS missiles than Brits have AA missiles.

Except they've no fucking method of finding them outside a bunch of obselete AEW helos that'll be splashed before anything else considering the E-3 Sentrys in the area.

>>31745149
>called me a vatnik
>bluh bluh dont call me a fatnik thats offensive

>>31745180
>Type-45s were specifically designed to defeat the Granit.
Were they?
>He's just explained to you the fact that the UK is covered in military-sized airfields
And all of them have combat aircraft, correct?
>Even assuming that every single military airfield in the UK can be destroyed by vatnik meme magic granitspam
Dont put words in my mouth please.
>On a lorry, actually.
How much lorries and how much time?
>Not to mention the fact that in a realistic scenario, if the Russian Navy did decide to have a go at the east coast you could bet your arse that Patriots would be deployed to the UK by then.
Oh, so we count in everything Russia can deploy? Thats a lot, you know.

>>31745182
>there are 2 currently undergoing massive overhaul changes (at least this is what the ruskies are saying on themess net)

They're planning to finish the Nakhimov around ~2019, then take the Velikiy out of service for awhile to modernize it. That's what they might have meant by "two". The Ushakov and Lazarev are in far too terrible condition to consider bringing them back into service.

>>31745180
last time i checked pac3 can engage at supersonic speeds only ballistic missiles..
pretty much is rendered useless on any s300-400-500 missile attack
not to mention that if russia deploys any ew like krashuka 4 which on paper has a range to disable low earth orbit sats...its really just a matter of time

>>31745220
>Were they?

Considering the Type-45s are dedicated missile and air defense ships... yes.

Also, are you seriously trying to imply that Granit has a ground attack mode? Because it's an anti-ship missile and completely unsuited to attacking airfields or hardened facilities.

Not to mention that the moment the fleet launches missiles, the numerous SIGINT and ELINT birds in the air will pick up the activity which means every RAF fighter and bomber gets scrambled, assuming the ones already in the air just don't straight up sink that kirov before it can launch more missiles.

>>31745240
>Ushakov
didnt the rus navy said a year ago that they will halt the scrap process to bring it back?

>>31745085

Operation Barmaid. The number of things that could have gone wrong was almost comical, but they pulled it off regardless.

Fun fact: the submarine picked for the job was HMS Conqueror, fresh from sinking the ARA Belgrano.

>>31745220

>Were they?

If you've ever looked at the capability envelope of an Aster, then yes.

>And all of them have combat aircraft, correct?

Point is they all CAN have them. You think the Bongs forgot how to disperse?

>Dont put words in my mouth please.

Well if that magicmemespam doesn't happen then your entire thing about "can't launch aircraft" just got rekt.

>How much lorries and how much time?

As mentioned, irrelevant. Fighters can be shunted down the road no problem, but concentrating defences on the ones that MATTER to keep the big planes flying (given Russia won't have a fucking clue which of the hundreds of airbases to target to get what they want) means that they WILL be flying. It's almost like the Bongs have been preparing for this shit for the last 60 years or something.

>Oh, so we count in everything Russia can deploy? Thats a lot, you know.

No, just actual realism. The UK has very close relations with multiple countries who wouldn't be left defenseless to put up a few batteries.

Russia putting up all its stuff however, would leave them completely vulnerable in the Pacific, Black Sea and the Med.

And even if you want to pull the O-ONE V ONE ME card, the UK basically already makes notable portions of Aster missiles and has CAMM essentially already operating off flatbeds. SAMP/T could be acquired in literally months if they wanted, CAMM just as fast.

File: Reply.jpg (591KB, 786x1024px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 786x1024px

>>31743336

Never forget it, Britbro. Anglo steel below Anglo sails transformed the world, and one day, it just might transform it again.

>>31745247
The S series are SAM missiles. How is their performance relevant to Patriot's interception ability at all?

And I'm sure Russia has that magic EW system that will magically shut down Arleigh Burkes ready and waiting to go and wasn't a totally made up claim for propaganda purposes.

>>31745272
>Also, are you seriously trying to imply that Granit has a ground attack mode?
Sure, they tested it against ground targets on multiple occasions.
>Because it's an anti-ship missile and completely unsuited to attacking airfields or hardened facilities.
Surely a 7-ton missile with 750kg/500kt missile wont do much.
>just don't straight up sink that kirov before it can launch more missiles.
Sure, 10 other ships and Kuznetsov CAG would just watch how you sink Kirov and somehow Oscar-II.

>>31745286
>No, just actual realism. The UK has very close relations with multiple countries who wouldn't be left defenseless to put up a few batteries.
>And even if you want to pull the O-ONE V ONE ME card
Yes i do, thats what OP implies. So please lets stick to it.

>>31745307
not really well its true for s300
but for s400 and s500 they are perfectly capable of being used for ground attacks i think they used a s400 battery for this on ukraine

>>31745316

>500kt

And here we go. Unable to prove their point, they've pulled the nuclear card to try and brute force the arguement.

GG, Vatniks. You're welcome to try again any time.

>>31745337
>500kt
Thats the only thing you've seen in my post? Is it some kind of reflex?

>>31745333

In which case my point still stands about having a fleet of some of the best A2A interception missiles in the world, excellent overall radar coverage, early warning in the extremes from intelligence dominance from ELINT, SIGINT and AWACS and Russian lack of knowledge on where to fire or when to actually hit something valuable that isn't dispersed from renders this a very expensive, ineffective tactic.

Anyone notice how they've tried to move this as far away from the absolute rapetrain that would be them trying to engage navally as is possible into a discussion purely about hitting airfields?

Dat narrowing the focus arguement method! Always the good option to the desperate!

>>31745337
How the fuck i am supposed not to pull nuclear card, you retard, those nukes are there, on Oscar and Kirov. Did you fucking read the op-post?

>>31744939
>We are speaking about potential conflict involving north fleet here, right?

Yes. But here is the problem- your enemy can't tell whether the ballistic missile you just fired is nuclear or conventional, only that it is a ballistic missile. If you fire one, at best the gloves come off, at worst you take the risk of them warming up the second strike.

>>31745373

Because if you sink to that you've basically made it that the enitre Russian fleet gets evaporated by a Trident warhead and lose the "1 v 1" battle immediately.

And the ramifications of that basically make the outcome after that entirely dependant on whether Russia wants the world to end or not to avenge its lost fleet.

>>31745361
Sure, Russians dont have ELINT, SIGINT and AWACS, they totally do not have any EWAR and surely do not know where Britain's fucking valuable targets are. Seriously?
>Anyone notice how they've tried to move this as far away from the absolute rapetrain that would be them trying to engage navally as is possible into a discussion purely about hitting airfields?
Its not me who brought air power into discussion in the first place, you idiot, it was you. Read the fucking OP post.

>>31745390
>Yes. But here is the problem- your enemy can't tell whether the ballistic missile you just fired is nuclear or conventional
It does not matter, northern fleet is too much of an asset. Any conflict involving it goes nuclear by default. Not to mention at least two ships in the squadron are almost guaranteed to have nukes on them.

>>31745392
>Russian fleet gets evaporated by a Trident warhead
Holy shit. I dont have anything to say here.

>>31745393

> they totally do not have any EWAR and surely do not know where Britain's fucking valuable targets are. Seriously?

Then kindly tell me how in the fuck they are going to, unmolested, get to the area of the fight in the North Sea without passing over British allied hostile territory and remain on station long enough, if they can even reach, to perform such duties? russia doesn't have any airfields anywhere fucking close to the warzone. Do you udnerstand a single thing about sortie rates, orbit times and logistical demands?

Not to mention that American planes of that type (which the British use) have always been better at it anyway.

>Its not me who brought air power into discussion in the first place, you idiot, it was you

I'm happy to keep proving you wrong on every point for both. I just found it amusing how hard you were trying to avoid the naval side of it given how much of a complete disaster it'd be for them.

>>31745392
so one trident warhead will magically teleport near them and destroyed them all
meanwhile russia wont retailate at all when someone launches a nuclear missile to them
nooo they will say "Water under the bridge man"

wtf is wrong with you guys lol

>>31745405

>Make a post about Russia nuking British soil
>Get surprised when the at sea deterrence does its job

Vatnik's everyone.

>>31745430
But Russia can nuke Britain's air fields (and by extension it's cities), and Britain won't retaliate?

>>31745430

It's almost like you don't have any reading comprehension. If Russia struck first, you can bet that fleet would get a suntan immediately.

After that point, if Russia decides to go full on "launch the missiles" mode or not is up to them, given they were the ones who acted first and got second struck on the source of the initial launch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancaster_House_Treaties_(2010)

The moment Russia fuck up in british waters, France will get involved. That's two of the three blue-water navies in the world against a country who will probably fail to supply it's navy this far away from homeland.

Granted, for now, most of the french naval capacity is located in Mediterranea to fuck up some black-claded baboons.

Oh, well, since I live in a coastal city sit on the Channel, I could see some russian ships. That's still something, I guess.

>>31745335
None of the S SAMs are designed or intended for surface attack. I'm not sure why you're trying to imply this.

>Sure, they tested it against ground targets on multiple occasions.

The simple fact that the Granit is dependent on active radar and inertial guidance only, which are completely insufficient for a land attack missile.

>Sure, 10 other ships and Kuznetsov CAG would just watch how you sink Kirov and somehow Oscar-II.

Most of that fleet are unarmed logistic support ships. The only actual armed ships in that fleet are the Kuznetsov itself, the kirov, and two anti-sub destroyers, and probably one sub, against a combined RN/NATO fleet and the entire RAF watching their every move.

The Russians don't have their home turf advantage to fall back on here, either. They're in Britain's backyard now.

>>31745418
>Then kindly tell me how in the fuck they are going to, unmolested, get to the area of the fight in the North Sea
By using things like tankers and going around Norway i presume. Considering their bombers are perfectly capable to reach Atlantic ocean they can do that.
>I'm happy to keep proving you wrong on every point for both.
You either dont bring irrelevant shit up or we expand the definition of relevant and then you do not bullshit about others bringing now relevant shit up, ok?
> I just found it amusing how hard you were trying to avoid the naval side of it given how much of a complete disaster it'd be for them.
>bring up air force to save your sorry ass
>y-you ignore naval side

>>31745454
>The simple fact that the Granit is dependent on active radar and inertial guidance only, which are completely insufficient for a land attack missile.
You surely is an expert on the matter, yet at least Granit and Yakhont/Onyx were successfully tested against ground targets.
>against a combined RN/NATO fleet and the entire RAF watching their every move.
Do you intentionally ignore the topic of the discussion? Read the fucking OP post please.

>>31745455
>By using things like tankers and going around Norway i presume. Considering their bombers are perfectly capable to reach Atlantic ocean they can do that.

Yeah, because Norway and practically the rest of Europe is just going to let Russia fly planes over them in a wartime scenario.

File: 1458204252310.jpg (235KB, 963x608px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 963x608px

>>31742867

>>31745480
Last time i checked "around" does not mean "over".

>>31745477
>You surely is an expert on the matter, yet at least Granit and Yakhont/Onyx were successfully tested against ground targets.

And assuming that Granit CAN attack ground targets, a Kirov can only carry 20 of them in a standard loadout. How are they supposed to take down every airbase in Britain while at the same time remain a credible threat to the RN and NATO surface ships? How do they expect just one Kirov to achieve the target saturation necessary to defeat air defense destroyers specifically designed to counter missile spam?

>>31745489
>flat chested
>or tits

I'd pick the tits because I'm not a "flat" loving fag.

and honestly lets be honest
in an all out attack there isnt a single country in europe that will actually last long enough to hold the russia till murica comes and start the real war..
the saturation level russia can throw to any single country is just too much

>>31745502
>How are they supposed to take down every airbase in Britain
They obviously arent and no one implied they would.

>>31745489
not to mention that the u.s carrier arent really flat they have a declination of 3.1% to the horizon
so that makes them too angled in every way

>>31745490
Have you looked at a map? Pretty much the only place Russia can fly a plane to the Atlantic unmolested by circling through the North Pole. And even then they'd have to thread the needle between Greenland, Iceland, and Norway.

>>31745527
Depends on definition of "molesting" i guess, considering they do it regularly.

>>31745511
Yeah... that's kind of why NATO exists, so Russia can't just zerg rush a single country without pulling the others in.

File: 1323670371.jpg (105KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1200x800px

>>31745200
>Except they've no fucking method of finding them outside a bunch of obselete AEW helos that'll be splashed before anything else considering the E-3 Sentrys in the area.
Ha! Satellites has ability to guide ASM since 80th or even 70th.

>>31745536
They can do that because it's not a wartime scenario right now and nobody is inclined to shoot down Russian planes for no real reason.

>>31745549
Your wartime scenario is pretty irrelevant in our discussion. In a wartime scenario Britain would be nuked long before royal navy can reach russian navy or vice versa.

>>31745541
All indications are that the satellites the Russians use for missile guidance, at least for Granit, don't even work anymore.

>>31745565
So then the issue of Russia getting planes to the Atlantic at all would be irrelevant since Russia would get nuked in response.

>>31745537
well thats why no one cares about nato

who is gonna say yes to attack russia from europe?given that russia is perfectly capable to defend its territory and launch attacks at the same time the baltics will stay neutral for obvious reasons
poland will be poland they see a fly coming from russia and call it an invasion
germany will say meh
so will france..
uk maybe will say yes to back u.s
japan wont even think about it with china near them
so will korea

and here we have it the new cold war 2 superpowers and one that is growing keeping the world at peace through a constant threat of war

>>31745574
Correct. So you either throw your wartime scenario into the shitter and stick to OP post or we do not have anything to discuss here.

I am impressed by the level of discourse on this board.

>>31745590
I sense a lot of projecting going on here. The Russians aren't nearly as potent as they were in the Cold War. They can't even claim to have the largest army anymore because the US and China actually outnumber them in active servicemen.

>>31745541
>thinks RORSAT's won't be completely useless thanks to jamming.

Hilarious.

The UK has more fully crewed ships at sea than Russia. it's great not being poor.

>>31745594
>I-I don't like how people are using facts against me instead of sticking to my intellectually dishonest scenario!

>>31745637
its actually facts...

not a single country in europe will be able to hold them long enough they simply dont have the capability to do so i mean even uk has a reserve of an all out attack for only 6 days after that their logistics goes to hell
so does france..(and that became painfully clear on libya lol)

>>31745668
>UK's logistics goes to hell after six days
In that case what the fuck do you think Russia's logistics will look like? Or do they still train their troops to steal crops?

>>31745661
No, not really. 77 comissioned ships is definitely less than 303.

>>31745686
well i dont know im pretty sure the tactical stockpile of russia is far bigger than uk will ever have

>>31745667
>intellectually dishonest scenario
Well, then your choice is done and we should all abandon thread, while calling OP faggot.

>>31745686
Last time i checked europoors could not even bomb Libya without begging burgers to provide munitions, tankers and UAVs.

>>31745668
>Libya lol
>France devoted the same amount if resources and effort into Libya as it would against a hostile, attacking Russia
This board is for 18+ champ.

>>31745668
And Russia very nearly botched their invasion of Georgia and couldn't even bully Ukraine into submission.

>>31745731
>w-we failed, but seriously guys thats b-because we did not even try

>>31745740
>And Russia very nearly botched their invasion of Georgia
But they did not.
>couldn't even bully Ukraine into submission.
Considering they cant act in the open this is a bad example.

>>31745724
It's also hundreds and thousands of miles away in Russia.
Fuckknuckle.

>>31745740
nearly as in saturated georgia because georgia expected the u.s to fulfill their false promise of helping them against russia?

also why russia will bully ukraine into submission? they took crim in a single day you think they didnt had the capability to destroy ukraine? wtf lol

>>31745744
How did you end up thinking that was the gist of my comment?

>>31745762
no shit im sure russia will launch an attack to uk from siberia
or even worse from kamchatka peninsula

because fuck you logic

>>31745776
What? This a thread about Russian navy vs UK navy, in and around the British isles.
Russia has a much, much longer supply line in this scenario, try to read a post before replying, otherwise you look like a mong.

>>31745709
>thinks russia has anything like the budget to crew all of its ships

I bet you think they actually have thousands of tanks and jets ready for battle too?

Russia is all about building machines then doing fuck all with them because they can't afford to train people to work on them.

Their SSBN's are more than 50% conscripts as it is. its pathetic really.

>>31745804
you didnt even understood what i said earlier lol

>>31745822
>Their SSBN's are more than 50% conscripts as it is. its pathetic really.
Russian subs haven't had conscripts for more than 10 years now.

>>31745854
16 actually

>>31745822
>I bet you think the UK actually has hundreds of tanks and jets ready for battle too?

>>31745854
Russia has more SSBN's at the bottom of the sea full of conscripts than it has on patrol.

>>31745878
lol

>>31745878
There is currently (at least) one 667BDR and one 667BDRM on patrol, the USSR/Russia only ever lost on SSBN (a 667A).
So you are incorrect.

>>31745822
>budget
Russia spends more than Britain
>I bet you think they actually have thousands of tanks and jets ready for battle too?
No, i think that commissioned ships have crews.
>Their SSBN's are more than 50% conscripts as it is. its pathetic really.
They do not have a single conscript on an SSBN or any submarine. Please stop pulling facts out of your ass.

>>31745923
its on 4chan so its correct...

i mean we are comparing uk a country that lost its empire by drinking tea with russia

>>31745923
>Russia spends more than Britain

Wrong.

The UK spends about $10bn more than Russia.

>i think that commissioned ships have crews

Then you'd be wrong.

File: 2015 Defence budgets.jpg (48KB, 615x988px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 615x988px

>>31745923
>Russia spends more than Britain

>>31745993
is this from 1870?
cause last time anyone checked uk is always below russia for like 10 years now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

>>31745993
To be fair, the money is going way farther in Russia than the UK.

>>31745986
>The UK spends about $10bn more than Russia.
Does it?
>Then you'd be wrong.
Pulling facts out of ass: round 2.

>>31745842
It's quite difficult since you insist on typing so incoherently.

>>31746018

I think its more to do with the ass falling out of the rouble so hard it now has its intestines wound up on a spool.

>>31745970
>i mean we are comparing uk a country that lost its empire by drinking tea with russia
1/10

File: ukgp.jpg (83KB, 689x900px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 689x900px

>>31746018
>wikipedia

kek

how about Janes?
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151216006109/en/Growing-Security-Fears-Boost-Defence-Budgets-IHS

>>31746019
>To be fair, the money is going way farther in Russia than the UK

Only if you judge based on numbers of weapons. UK leads in intelligence, R&D, basing, training, skills retention, combat experience, the list goes on and on.

>>31746092
>UK leads in intelligence
Does it?
>R&D
Does it?
>basing
Yes.
>skills retention
Does it?
>combat experience
Nope.
>the list goes on and on
No it does not. Actually you are an empty place without burgers.

>>31746092
>UK leads in intelligence, R&D, basing, training, skills retention, combat experience, the list goes on and on.
>UK
First time I see so many mistakes in word "France".

>>31746117
He meant that it leads Russia in those fields, which it does, not the world

>>31746220
See>>31746247

>>31744912
No, it is not, retard.

>>31742867
Those 12 planes that thing carries vs the entire RAF. Being in the english channel kind of puts the russians in range of everything.

>>31746117
>>UK leads in intelligence
>Does it?
The Five Eyes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

>>31746302
So why are they going there? Are they suicidal?

>>31746400
Ask OP, he specified it

>>31745525
>declination of 3.1%
Do you have a source for that claim buddy?

>>31746400
They are heading for Syrian coast and all NATO countries on their way are doing their best to increase defence budgets. Like Sweden with their mysterious submarines before every budget approval.

>>31746117
Are you trying to claim that Russian forces have more combat experience than bongs?

And are you trying to claim that over what is literally the first ever combat deployment of an elderly carrier?

>>31745842
yes he did you're just an idiot

>>31746492
Bongs don't have a carrier so yes Russia does have more experiance.

Russia should take the falklands to stick it to them,

>>31746556
Bongs not having a carrier is probably the least relevant criteria imaginable, either in the english channel where the russians are now, or in the med where they're going, for the simple reason that the RAF exists.

And russia has never actually used it's carrier. Bongs could borrow a squadron of USMC harriers, whack them on HMS Queen Elizabeth tomorrow, and still have more experience of carrier ops than the russians.

>mfw all the butthurt vatniks in this thread

>>31746556
No they don't their "carrier" has barely put to sea in the entire time it's been commissioned. The British have had decades of aircraft carrier experience.

File: image.png (67KB, 786x1582px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 786x1582px

>>31745146
But what an empire it was!

Russian sail one carrier in the channel.

Meanwhile the US has two at sea and eight ready to go.

Let the Russian puddle pirates stretch their legs. They'll be back home soon enough.

>>31746640
So do Russians.

>>31746809
>decades of carrier experience
maybe in how to keep a carrier from sinking enough to looks trong

>>31746820
jesus i need some fucking sleep, *strong*

File: cat-laughing.jpg (375KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 800x600px

>>31744566

>Astutes are immune to sonobuoys/active sonar.

>There's no such things as SSKs.

>Russia doesn't have EW capability.

>Russia doesn't have long range aircraft, cruise missiles and tanker aircraft.

>Russia can't drop enough sonobuoys so that a man could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting his feet wet.

Whatever that helps you sleep buddy.

>>31746870
Astutes are a very advanced and highly stealthy class of subs, and the Russian navy doesn't have exceptionally great anti sub capabilities. additionally if this was a war that was declared the UN way, and not a "lulinvasiontiem" then the UK has their own fighters and tankers. many people in this thread simply glide over countermeasures and other such equipment and vehicles that are very important, and one thing i haven't seen successfully countered is the UKs intelligence gathering superiority.

>>31742867
Yes, hell even the Canadian navy can take out the vatniks.

>>31746780
Plus they're going to the Med, where there's a Nimitz, the CdG, and a Wasp hanging out.