>Bosporus strait is a "fatal funnel" for even a

It's a topkek post for sure. The Black Sea Fleet has 3 semi modern ships, and it's a Frigate and 2 Small Artillery Ships (Small Corvettes of the Buyan-M class) and has 3-4 Kilo Class submarines. If America bumrushes the Bosporus by jamming it full of carriers, I doubt Russia can do anything about it. It's not like it's within range of Russian land based anti ship missiles. And if Russia does fire it will have problems with Turkey since they have to fly over Turkey. And Russia does not want to anger Turkey.

>>33356140
>Seeing as an American or NATO flotilla would have to sail through the narrow Bosphorus strait (and no the particulars of the Montreux Agreement is not worth diving into) and into the mouth of the Black Sea, such a mission would be perilous while a conflict or even extreme tensions were underway vis-a-vis Russia.
First of all, this ignores the fact that Tomahawk range is roughly three times the 320mi of your image. Which means, no, the USN would not have to transit the strait to decimate Black Sea ports, facilities and airfields, or launch aircraft and AShMs against surface navy targets.

Once these things are suppressed, then can then transit the strait much more safely and send strikes deeper inland.

Rogoway, in his "analysis", often ignores basic operating features and tactical realities while constructing sensationalist articles.

File: 1484993390653.jpg (111KB, 512x640px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 512x640px

US Navy has no fucking need to sail through a hostile Bosphorus. It can engage Russian Navy in Black Sea from the Mediterranean.

If anything the Russians are at the incredible disadvantage as they have to pass through the Bosphorus to do anything meaningful outside of the Black Sea.

>ITT: Armchair General nerd thinks the US Navy would sail right into a trap.

What a shit article.

>>33356221
>And Russia does not want to anger Turkey.
If they're already pissing off the USA they don't care about Turkey.

>>33356221
lolsto? naval and ground based AShM launchers are just two layers and not even the most capable. You'd sooner sink from the Flanker/Fullback/Backfire missile raids, and those don't even run the risk of getting shot down because there is nothing like the Tomcat with its AIM-54 on current and prospective carriers.

>>33356277
* which are needed to even have a chance at intercepting these AShM carriers before they even launch. Without it the Russians could just hang back and start firing missiles from out of nowhere and laugh as defences eventually get saturated or fail.

>>33356250
Fucking this. There's really no conceivable need for the US Navy to enter the Black Sea. The Black Sea Fleet, on the other hand, may need to leave it at some point.

>>33356234
>, I doubt Russia can do anything about it. It's not like it's within range of Russian land based anti ship missiles.
Actually they are. The Kh-101 is a stealth air-based missile with range of 5500km, you can drop it over North pole and hit British islands. Iskander is a ground based supersonic missile with maneuvering warhead, capable of making violent 90° mid flight. Russians are pretty sure about their capabilities, because NATO does not have designated missile hunters with long-range missiles like MiG-31 against cruise missiles and US build defence can not intercept fucking Scuds in Yemen, much less Iskander, so they sure that ballistic missiles will hit their targets too.
From NATO side there are Tomahawks. They are kinda outdated. Soviets and Russians built defence and prepared countermeasures against this for decades. From OTH radars and Mig-31 to special jammers and Pantsir point-defence system.

In the event of naval war with Russia, the NATO navies will be collectively clenching their arseholes wondering if they're gonna get torpedoed, cruise-missiled or run into a sea laid mine at any moment.

>>33356140
In such terrain the engagement would be decided by carrier air support. So... Gg no re

>>33356140
>Bosporus strait is a "fatal funnel" for even advanced American warships
American warships has nothing to do in fucking Black sea in first place. In case of a conflict no one comes in Black sea and no one comes out of Black sea. Stand-off.

>>33356221
>And Russia does not want to anger Turkey.
They're best buddies now, after NATO didn't support Erdogan in that military coup against him.

>>33356140

Hmmmmm

Bosphorous to Sevastopol = 320 miles

F-35C combat radius on internal fuel = 730 miles

Block IV Tomahawk range = 1000 miles

Câmpia Turzii Airbase (Romania) to Sevastopol = 490 miles

Naval shit in the black sea is meaningless for NATO.

>>33356277
What are you talking about, the latest US aircraft have radars and missiles that are infinitely more powerful/longer ranged than the Tomcats and the Pheonix. Not to mention the P/K factor. Not to mention the Russian military started cutting those kinds of missiles and delivery platforms in the mid 90s. As it stands they can only mobilize a small fraction of those planes.

>>33356140
it's not like it doesn't make some sense

any narrow pass or otherwise necessary stop on a journey is always a good ambush point, and theres a reason people lay ambushes. ambushers generally win ambushes

if nothing else, it would be an explicit battle for either control of the strait, or the area immediately after it if there's political reasons fighting can't take place directly in it, and that battling would probably not be naval at first (because any ships coming out of it would just get mined and rocketed to pieces)

>>33356318

Individually Great Britain and France would be challenging to the Russian navy, enough so to deter any kind of serious action.

Collectively all of NATO would rip the Russian navy a new asshole and would have done so even if the Soviet Union still existed.

>t-they dont have to enter the strait at all because weapon ranges!!

what if they have to do literally anything other than shoot a gun at a building, like say, some sort of interdiction, or blockading a port, or transferring large volumes of materiel or personnel

File: 9Cy5XLD.jpg (568KB, 1654x1181px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 1654x1181px

>>33357641
Individually, a single Russian battlecruiser carries more firepower than the entire British... ehem, surface navy.

>>33356140
Any ship coming within range of land based planes are dead meat to any competent air force.

>>33357601
>the latest US aircraft have radars and missiles that are infinitely more powerful/longer ranged than the Tomcats and the Pheonix
which are?

>Not to mention the Russian military started cutting those kinds of missiles and delivery platforms in the mid 90s
oh please, enlighten us on which missiles and platforms were cut.

>>33356140
Only leftist, Jewish coastal elites want a war with Russia. They see their vision for the future threatened by Russian-supported nationalist movements across Europe and North America.

In reality, America and Russia are natural allies who should be working together to contain the influence of China and of a resurgent globalist Germany and its globalist Western European satellite states.

>>33358235
Super Hornets, late black 16s, F-15E, F-22s, F-35s, F-15s with the updated AESA radar.
Not to mention the AMRAAM which replaced the semi-active missiles including the Phoenix, which was prone to failure and maintenance intensive. Current models can fire at 75 miles while maintaining a high probability of a kill. Not to mention the Meteor and the long ranged AMRAAM is in R&D.

>oh please, enlighten us on which missiles and platforms were cut.
Sure, the Cold War ended and the Russians drastically cut their Air and Naval Aviation. Not to mention their maintenance took a dive.

This sort of situation is why the US needs armored ships

Because any time you move close to shore you very much risk being shot at

>>33356140
fyi Foxtrot Alpha is an old Gawker Media property that is still editorially controlled by GM people even now under Univision. I'm not going to tell you cannot read it, but I can tell you these people have zero regard for disseminating accurate information and you consume this shit at your own peril.

>>33358698
Good thing they normally don't get close to shore.

>>33358962
>you consume this shit at your own peril.
Consuming the shit is not the problem. It's often a good thing for one to use powers of logic and basic research to evaluate incoming information and sort out which parts of it may be useful.

Never be afraid of opposing viewpoints, even badly reasoned or ill informed viewpoints. It both helps you understand how people all across the spectrum view and understand important issues, and it serves as a constant reminder to beware your own bias.

No, the problem is to consume ANY source without critical thinking, close reading, a sense of context and seeking confirmation among other sources. That way lies intellectual death and opens the door to letting yourself become a sock puppet.

>>33356140
this is stupid. Why wouldn't the US just bomb the shit out of anything and everything from the other side of the Mediterranean, then sail through, if need even be?

>>33357670
>blockading a port

Why blockade any of the ports in the Black Sea when you can blockade the outflow of the Bosphorus and effectively blockade all of the BS ports at once?

>interdiction

Same answer as above. If you're referring to some kind of HVT, something like Operation Revenge, that would best be done with aircraft staged out of a nearby NATO country. Turkey comes to mind.

>transferring large volumes of materiel or personnel

The BS is a minor sideshow, strategically and tactically. There's no conceivable reason for the US to be trying an amphibious invasion of any of the countries bordering the BS.

The logical thing to do is, in the event of hostilities, for the US to station a blocking flotilla just outside the Dardanelles. Any Russian forces in the BS stay in the BS, effectively out of the fight. The funnel effect works both ways.

Not the anon you were responding to, btw.

>>33358962
>I'm not going to tell you cannot read it,

How would you go about enforcing such a prohibition?

>>33356140
Okay, but why the fuck would NATO enter the black sea?

>>33359156
Generic advice, very well written. It should be added to the sticky.

>>33359156
I agree but when you talk about GM you are talking about a site that has outright lied, broken the law, been caught being 100% wrong (http://jezebel.com/is-the-uva-rape-story-a-gigantic-hoax-asks-idiot-1665233387) but refusing to admit it. Whereas your advice to be critical about everything you read is good, when you are consuming GM products you need to assume what you are reading is false. They are that bad.

File: 1366872603557.jpg (378KB, 1043x1127px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 1043x1127px

>>33356140
>giving a fuck about the black sea
we're the United States, not the EU. We care about oceans, not some peasant sea surrounded by idiots

>>33359433
I like to think what little /k/ possesses of these qualities separates it from /pol/. Though some days it's hard to see a difference.

>>33359475
>Whereas your advice to be critical about everything you read is good, when you are consuming GM products you need to assume what you are reading is false.
But it's not all false. Some of what Rogoway has put out has actually been very decent interviews, like the following:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/absolute-youngest-marine-in-the-f-35-test-force-shares-1716981177

or

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

These are both actually excellent bits of primary-source journalism, and very interesting reads. And then you look at other things on that site, which are complete and utter shit.

In this particular case, I often find the direct interviews to be useful, at least as a starting point to deeper digging, as well as often hilariously contradictory to the site's own analysis on issues.

That's the point. These people aren't evil and there's not always some grand conspiracy. For the most part, Rogoway seems to genuinely care about bringing complicated military matters to a broader public understanding. It's just a damn shame he's so often mis- or under-informed. Bias, lack of relevant information and manipulation by "experts" who should know their shit, among other things, are all pernicious elements very hard to completely expunge from ANY journalist's catalog.

Folks are human. They get shit wrong, all the time. Conversely, no one is wrong all the time, and blind squirrel, nut, etc.

>>33359146
lol
Except in basically every relevant gulf/sea in the world

>>33356140

>How accurate is this assessment?
I'll put it this way: there's a reason the Russians are so antsy to maintain control of and expand Tartus.

>>33357718

This!

>>33356221

Black Sea fleet has 7 modern Kilo-class subs. Also you forget Moscow cruiser and numerous land based supersonic anti-ship and AA missiles.

File: Kalibr range.jpg (106KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 720x576px

>>33356705

Tomahawk is low tier nigger missile compared to 3M-14/3M-14T Kalibr with a range 2500 km. Pic related.

>>33356660
>NATO didn't support Erdogan in that military coup against him.
why the fuck should they have?
Turkey's never honored its NATO obligations.

>A number of highly specific restrictions were imposed on what type of warships are allowed passage. Non-Black Sea state warships in the Straits must be under 15,000 tons. No more than nine non-Black Sea state warships, with a total aggregate tonnage of no more than 30,000 tons, may pass at any one time, and they are permitted to stay in the Black Sea for no longer than twenty-one days. Black Sea states may transit capital ships of any tonnage, escorted by no more than two destroyers.

>Under Article 12, Black Sea states are also allowed to send submarines through the Straits, with prior notice, as long as the vessels have been constructed, purchased or sent for repair outside the Black Sea. The less restrictive rules applicable to Black Sea states were agreed as, effectively, a concession to the Soviet Union, the only Black Sea state other than Turkey with any significant number of capital ships or submarines.[11][12] The passage of civil aircraft between the Mediterranean and Black Seas is permitted, but only along routes authorised by the Turkish government.[13]

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

>The terms of the Convention were largely a reflection of the international situation in the mid-1930s. They largely served Turkish and Soviet interests, enabling Turkey to regain military control of the Straits and assuring Soviet dominance of the Black Sea.[13] Although the Convention restricted the Soviets' ability to send naval forces into the Mediterranean sea – thereby satisfying British concerns about Soviet intrusion into what was considered a British sphere of influence – it also ensured that outside powers could not exploit the Straits to threaten the Soviet Union. This was to have significant repercussions during World War II when the Montreux regime prevented the Axis powers from sending naval forces through the Straits to attack the Soviet Union[citation needed]. The Axis powers were thus severely limited in naval capability in their Black Sea campaigns, relying principally on small vessels that had been transported overland by rail and canal networks. Auxiliary vessels and armed merchant ships occupied a grey area, however, and the transit of such vessels through the straits led to friction between the Allies and Turkey. Repeated protests from Moscow and London led to the Turkish government banning the movements of "suspicious" Axis ships with effect from June 1944 after a number of German auxiliary ships were permitted to transit the Straits.[14][15]

>Although the Montreux Convention is cited by the Turkish government as prohibiting aircraft carriers in the straits,[16] the treaty actually contains no explicit prohibition on aircraft carriers. However, modern aircraft carriers are heavier than the 15,000 ton limit, making it impossible for non-Black Sea powers to transit modern aircraft carriers through the Straits.

>Under Article 11, Black Sea states are permitted to transit capital ships of any tonnage through the straits, but Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ship. In 1936, it was common for battleships to carry observation aircraft. Therefore, aircraft carriers were defined as ships that were "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea." The inclusion of aircraft on any other ship does not classify it as an aircraft carrier.[17]

>To take advantage of this exception, the Soviet Union designated its Kiev-class and Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers as "aircraft carrying cruisers." The aircraft carriers were armed with P-500 and P-700 cruise missiles, which were also found on the Slava-class cruiser and the Kirov-class battlecruiser. The result of this is that the Soviet Navy could send its aircraft cruisers through the Straits in compliance with the Convention, while at the same time the Convention denied access to NATO aircraft carriers, which exceeded the 15,000 ton limit.[18][19][20][21]

>Turkey chose to accept the designation of the Soviet aircraft carriers as aircraft cruisers. Any revision of the Montreux Convention could leave Turkey with less control over the Turkish Straits. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea had already established more liberal passage through other straits. By allowing the Soviet aircraft cruisers to transit the Straits, Turkey could leave the more restrictive Montreux Convention in place.[21]

>>33357718

But that's wrong.

And you've got to be really, really bad at maths to believe this.

>>33359760

The point is that there is no reason for the USA to put a carrier group in the Black Sea, as not only does it have three NATO allies bordering the sea, but it can carry out a naval strike on Crimea from outside the sea.

Also, so what? the Kalibr is a bigger missile, the largest Kalibr weighs 700 kg more than the largest TLAM, if the USA wanted to make a bigger TLAM, they could. The reason Russia makes the Kalibr so big is because they have decided to ignore the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and so are making similar sea and land missiles. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/02/15/this-is-the-ground-launched-cruise-missile-that-russia-has-reportedly-just-deployed/?utm_term=.4d06a98c2608

>>33359614
South China Sea, GUIK Gap, those are areas that are relevant BECAUSE there's not landmass out there.

>>33360215
Even the south china sea is going to feel real small in the event of a shooting war.

>>33356250
/thread

It's never been a question of "How does NATO access the Black Sea?". It's always been "How will Russia break out of the Black Sea into the Mediterranean?".

Even if Turkey just let the Black Sea Fleet pass through Istanbul, they'd first be locked down in the Sea of Marmara, which is more like a fishbowl than the funnel that OP described. After that they'd have to push through the Aegean, the south of which is so packed with Islands that NATO forces could engage Russian vessels with TOW missiles and small arms if they stopped giving a shit. If they managed to get by Crete, they'd then be locked into the eastern Mediterranean; between the Italian mainland, Sicily, and Malta, there's little chance for the fleet to make it into the Adriatic or Tyrrhenian seas. Plus, NONE OF THIS, would do anything besides result in naval losses for the Italian, Israeli and Hellenic Navies. The Black Sea fleet poses little more than a minor to the Mediterranean sea, and is only really capable of defending a body of water with no real significance to the United States.

>>33360768
What happens when the islamists don't let US pass through the Suez or Gibraltar?

File: 1462247443968.gif (458KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 500x282px

>>33360942
You're a funny guy, anon. You can come to my house and fuck my sister.

>>33360942

Morocco is friendly to the USA, and even if Islamists seized power, the Moroccan armed forces are not capable of closing the Straits of Gibraltar.

Egypt is kept "on side" by massive amounts of US military aid (well over $1 bn a year), this helps prevent islamists from doing anything disruptive to US interests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Egyptian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

>>33359789
>Turkey's never honored its NATO obligations.

It did during the Korean war

>Americans in charge of respecting soldiers

>>33360098
>the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
Cease to exist 20 years ago after America deployed armed drones.

>>33361525
drones don't carry nuclear weapons.

>>33361669
We all hope.

>>33361669
Doesn't matter for INF Treaty.

>>33361525
>>33361695

That is one of the most retarded examples of whataboutism yet.

Comparing a cruise missile that has an easily swapped unitary warhead, and air defense evading flight profile to putting a few small PGMs on a turboprop MALE drone which would die in moments against a modern air defense system utterly ignores what the IRNFT is for. Once again it's a fig-leaf for Russia's forward deployment of nuclear weapons.

>>33361048
>Korean war
>NATO

Wanna know how I know you know nothing?

>>33361889

I can say the same for this thread given the amount of russophobia propaganda

>>33360329
Take out a globe and come back to this thread please.

>>33361929
Maybe they should spot spazzing out and fucking everything up.

>>33361852
Dura lex, sed lex.

And Americans went full cunts mode instead of making additional agreement for INF taking drones out of it they basically went "fuck you stupid ruskies we are Americans we can do whatever we fucking want fuck your stupid treaties". This kills bilateral treaty which is based on good will of participants and nothing else.

>>33361956

Of course there shouldn't be a drone exclusion, because the next gen of stealth strike drones are arguably more dangerous as nuclear platforms.

I just want to know in what way SDBs and Hellfires on a Predator constitutes a potential intermediate range nuclear weapon of concern in a Russia-NATO conflict?

>>33362087
>I just want to know in what way SDBs and Hellfires on a Predator constitutes a potential intermediate range nuclear weapon of concern in a Russia-NATO conflict?
It is mater of treaty. Bilateral treaties are based on trust and nothing else. There is no 3rd party that can punish violator like in case of collective treaty. So we have one side blatantly violating treaty pursuing their own military interests and after accusation they answer with "fuck you" and continue their course. What is point for second side to follow this treaty now?

>but but america can deploy ground based cruise missiles in response!
Why didn't they do this already?
>because muh INF treaty!
Treaty they already violated?

>>33361934
Take a look at the area, then imagine a 900nmi radius circle in the middle of it (Tomahawk range). Or worse yet, an 1,125nmi radius circle (F-35C internal fuel combat radius + LRASM range). From the center of the Spratleys, you can nearly put a Tomahawk in downtown Hong Kong.

>>33362216
>Why didn't they do this already?
Because they're not interested in retroactively justifying Putin's bullshit in geopolitical terms. It's far more useful to let him play the insane asshole, scare the shit out of Europe and quietly beef up/develop more IADS solutions in the area.

>>33362216

You're intentionally ignoring the point. There is no way a Predator can be a useful nuclear strike platform, and would be unlikely to be of any use in a non -permissive environment as a conventional weapon.

Only a Russian could keep a straight face pointing se a COIN platform which wasn't imagined by a Cold War treaty, and say that it justifies creating exactly the weapon the treaty regulated.

File: 6534563.jpg (15KB, 479x290px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 479x290px

>>33362492
>break treaty
>say "fuck yourself" to second side
>expect second side follow treaty you just broke
For what purpose second side should do this again? I am Russia sell me idea of following INF after America broke it.

Russia boos always defending Russia crap is super funny, no matter what facts you tell them.

No matter what, Russia will always be second best when compared to USA, Russia should just go ahead and commit suicide, again.

>>33362672
>I am Russia sell me idea of following INF after America broke it.
Pretty pointless, considering the basic fact that America never broke the fucking treaty, you goddamn cabbage head.

>>33362726
>considering the basic fact that America never broke the fucking treaty

can you prove this?

>>33362726
Fail. Fired. Next.

>>33356250
>ITT: Russian Black sea fleet in permanent blockade by USN

File: 1458451863480.jpg (15KB, 374x378px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 374x378px

>>33361525
This shit is too funny. Fucking Russia. Any excuse to act the retard, I guess.

File: Submarines-of-Europe.png (445KB, 1024x910px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1024x910px

>>33363602
Kek, the Northern Fleet can blockade YOU, son. The Black Sea fleet entire purpose is defensive. Preventing enemy landing operations and serving as a launchpad for cruise missiles. The mere fact that NATO will be cockblocked from entering it's aquatory in the event of war is already strategic success for Russia.

>>33366118
That little pic is too cute. What say we put the pic up of the USN's Atlantic submarines, side by side? I mean, your tiny little Russian dick won't get too jealous of one twice the size, will it? Will it?

>>33366202
You can play with your dick as mush as you want. Doesn't change the fact that the Northern Fleet constitutes a high concentration of conventional and nuclear firepower only a short distance from NATO naval bases in UK and Norway. From the Kola Peninsula it has access to the broad Atlantic and would be able to shut down the sea lanes between North America and Europe during a crisis. And thereby stop US reinforcements from coming across the Atlantic.

>>33362672
>>33362776

Explain how the MQ-9 is a potential nuclear strike platform.

>>33366362
The Soviet Union couldn't do it in the late 70's if they needed to, and they sure as shit can't now. They are literally 1/4 the size of the USN, and well behind the tech curve. Go sell your delusion to people who don't know any better.

>>33357718
>>33359736
>>33359827
Wow, they put all of their eggs into one basket!

>>33359760
Tomahawks are launched from ships, subs and aircraft; a Kalibr can use its active radar to home in ships when it's being launched from just a couple of hundred kilometers away, but trying to use it as an anti-ship missile from 2500km away is pants-on-head retarded.

File: 1487573375968.png (350KB, 848x790px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 848x790px

>>33366118
If the Russian Navy has an entire fleet to block off the Bosphorus, something they can do with weaponry and aircraft from the land, then they are far more retarded then we could have ever imagined.

You don't build, supply and maintain an entire naval fleet just to hold of a strait.

>>33359827
Not at all. Granit P-700 alone outguns and out-ranges Harpoons on Type 45's and Type 23's. And Peter the Great carries 20 of those.

Well, outguns and outranges for now since by 2018 the floating joke known as Royal Navy will no longer have anti-ship missiles
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/royal-navy-to-lose-anti-ship-missiles-and-be-left-only-with-guns/

>>33356221
>America bumrushes the Bosporus by jamming it full of carriers
Are you fucking dumb? That's literally the worst idea of all time. You probably even suck at video games.

It is a death trap for anyone who tries to go through it, in either direction, if an enemy is waiting for them on the other side.

If you needed to get your ships through, you're going to have to wage a war over the strait and win it before sending them through. Just trying to rush through is going to get your entire fleet lost.

To answer OP's Question, it's a totally valid point. If someone tries to go through the strait, they will get fucked up. But like others have said, there's not a ton of reason to push through there.

>>33366498
Have it carry a B61.

>>33366792

So once you've strapped a bomb to it, explain how it carries out this nuclear strike mission.

>>33359744
>Moscow cruiser
AHAHAHAHA

It carries shit Bazalt missiles

>>33356140
It seems kind of pointless to even bother with the straight either way, this isn't 1916 anymore.

>>33358698
GLIDER GAVINS on converted commercial transports with railguns and heavy armor

>>33359789
>why the fuck should they have?
Because equality. They promised support to NATO members against such thing (meaning Bat states against Russian agenda's cops) but ended up in situation when there is some census like - you're good government and we will protect you from coup and you're bad government and we will not support you against coup. Sure thing that Erdogan is not pleased with such treatment. Especially when there are Russians around who will support any government as long as it keeps regional stability in place.

And didn't Turkey provided their forces under NATO command in Yugoslavia? And in Iraq?

>>33367123
More important question: why is USA still making its own missiles, eg ATACMS, INF-compliant?

ivan had to get really good at building ice breakers because russia has no warm water ports.

blockade sebastopol and they're fucked

lol russian "navy"

>>33366775
>You don't build, supply and maintain an entire naval fleet just to hold of a strait.
5th Fleet says hello, sunshine. It's whole purpose is control over critical chokepoints of Suez Canal and Strait of Hormuz. Russian posture in Black Sea is based on geography, and the maintenance of defensible barriers. It cannot and will not attempt to hold land beyond what were essentially the old boundaries of the Russian Empire.

>>33366498
>Explain how the MQ-9 is a potential nuclear strike platform.
It does not matter.

https://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/inf2.html

>2. The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.
>5. The term "intermediate-range missile" means a GLBM or a GLCM having a range capability in excess of 1000 kilometers but not in excess of 5500 kilometers.

And Russians worriers are about VLS in Europe that may use Tomahawk missiles instead of declared SM-3 interceptors. US refused to build up any mechanism for Russians to see what inside that boxes.

>>33367433
>ivan had to get really good at building ice breakers because russia has no warm water ports.
You'll be surprised that they are really good at building ice breakers and have the most powerful fleet of them and that there are warm water ports in Russia other than Sevastopol. Poor American education without basic Geography.

>>33367479
Considering that Russia has been violating the INF since the early 90s, they have no right to complain about anything.

Fuck off with this POOR RUSSIA DINDU NUFFIN nonsense.

>>33366118

I don't get it.

This pic clearly shows EU has way more subs and are based in better strategic positions.

What are you trying to prove?

File: giphy.gif (4MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x270px

>>33358683
this nigger right here

>>33366118
>>33366362
>Russias entire navy can't even get past Sweden, Germany, Poland and Norway, let alone the UK

god damn russia, just kys already and get it over with

File: moskit.gif (2MB, 500x226px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x226px

>>33356221
>If America bumrushes the Bosporus by jamming it full of carriers

oh my. this will end well

>>33367501
>Considering that Russia has been violating the INF since the early 90s, they have no right to complain about anything.
Enlighten me

File: muh british logistic.png (113KB, 880x1098px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 880x1098px

>>33367514
>UK
Top kek.

>>33367520
>In 2012, the US complained about alleged Russian treaty violations.[31] The two systems that appeared to be violations were the R-500, a cruise missile using the 9K720 Iskander launcher, and a short-range ICBM.[32] In July 2014, the United States formally notified Russia of a breach for developing and possessing prohibited weapons, while Russian officials called the treaty unsuitable for Russia and unfair because other countries in Asia had such weapons. Russian officials also called the restrictions of the treaty unsuitable for Russia given the strategic situation in Asia

>The ground-launched variant was subject to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in December 1987 and had been tested but not deployed by that time.[9] 80 missiles had been destroyed by November 1990.[10] Two missile battalions equipped in SSC-8 are deployed as of 14 Feb. 2017 in violation of treaty.

>>33367535
>russia can't even beat that

jej of jejj

EMBARRASSING

File: Libertado.jpg (36KB, 599x449px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 599x449px

>>33356140

"Novorossiysk"
"Rostov-on-Don"
"Stary Oskol"
"Krasnodar"
"Kolpino"
"The Great Novgorod" http://censor.net.ua/n432602

>>33356140
>gawker making up generic bullshit about how anyone needs to go into the black sea and not that russia needs to get out of it

typical gawker retard shit

>>33367540
>2012
>early 90s
>claims about treaty violations are based on visual similarity with old soviet missile rather on actual missiles tests.
So, what about early 90s?

File: 1488954215067.jpg (244KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 500x500px

>>33367575
>80 missiles destroyed in 1990
>thinking that russia magically started production again of an 80s missile with no upgrades, even giving it the exact same designation and mod number

File: and I fucked your mum.jpg (34KB, 426x426px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 426x426px

>>33359477
>What are you talking about, the latest U
As a Romanian, I must agree with this gentleman's post. The Black Sea is of no real interest except for the regional players, which are all poor peasant tier (Romania, Bulgaria lolkraine) or poor peasant tier pretending to be nobleman (Turkey, Russia). I don't even know what Georgia is, probably the porridge that the poor peasant eat.

>>33367595
>thinking that russia magically started production again of an 80s missile with no upgrades, even giving it the exact same designation and mod number
That's what US thinks. That it is same prohibited missile from 80th.

>>33367622
>same identification numbers as what was first tested
>b-b-b-but it's not the same!

bottom jej

not even worth it

>>33357718
>one missile to destroy the entire offensive capability of a fleet vs. Spreading it across many ships requiring many missiles
ISHYGDDT

Why would the US go into the Black Sea? The US can just contain Russians in their own little sea with NATO in full control of the Mediterranean anyway.

>Derp what if the US flies into a hornet's nest with only their shirts on?

Shit thread

>>33366787

That's not an actual answer to the point. As the point was that Peter the Great has 'more' firepower than the RN surface fleet, which is still wrong by the way as you seem to be happy to ignore mathematics.

Neither is the article correct. The RN has two missiles with AsMH capabilities CAMM AND LMM as both Harpoon and Sea Suka are retired. The new missile that will replace Harpoon is yet to be announced, but will be fitted into the Mk41s in the Type 45s and Type 26s.

>>33366498
>Explain how the MQ-9 is a potential nuclear strike platform.
RTFM (INF Treaty text).

>>33363940
Good illustration why any bilateral agreements with US doesn't worth the paper they are written on.

>>33366118
>Kek, the Northern Fleet can blockade YOU, son
Actually no. USA already solved that problem against Soviets with SOSUS in the GIUK gap and numerous NATO sub traps.

Russia inherited the bastion strategy of the USSR (Russia actually has shittier navy than the USSR) so they can't contain shit.

>>33357718
Neat, one big target.

>>33358266
Oh hey FSB bro.

>>33362087
Even a third-rate military can jam drones. Putting a nuclear bomb on them is stupid as fuck because all you'll be doing is giving the weapon to the enemy.

>>33367858
America and their dogs BTFO by hobbyking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X2ORSlPJ10

>>33356660
>after NATO didn't support Erdogan in that military coup against him.
You mean the one that was probably staged so Erdogan could justify a power grab?

>>33357718
>Assuming it stays out at sea without breaking down long enough to be useful

>>33367701
>RTFM (INF Treaty text).
They are specifically and unequivocally non-nuclear platforms, for the last time. There is literally no possible way to install a remote launch authority system for nuclear release on those platforms.

The fact that you keep citing this as a possibility just shows how utterly ignorant you are of nuclear release protocol.

Another day, another excuse Russia needs to peddle as to why they are fucking it all up for the rest of the world.

>>33367628
>We violate treaty on daylight, so let's scream how Russia violates it, so no one will hear their voice about our violations
Bot first time, btw, when US fuck thing up and blaming Russia in same fucking thing even when it didn't exist, just to cover shit under blanket of informational noise.

>>33368140
This is literally play #1 in the old school KGB playbook: blame others for exactly the shit you're doing just before you get called on it. Soviet geopolitical posturing 101. It's part of why whataboutism is such a huge part of Kremlin maneuvering.

So, again, you can take that shit and sell it to idiots who don't know any better.

>>33356221
>Turkey
>relevant

>>33368058
>fuck laws
>america hell yeah!
>this will show them how to follow treaties
Well done, America.

>>33368677
Just keep insisting they broke the treaty in completely ridiculous and non-relevant ways. That's totally the way to win everyone over.

Vatniks. Not even once.

>>33368754
>Just keep insisting they broke the treaty in completely ridiculous and non-relevant ways
>breach treaty
>this is irrveant because amercia
Here is the thing. If America acted like decent human beings they would actually have lever over Russian deployment of mid range missiles. Because they could have threat of breaching treaty themselves and American mid range missiles are more treat to Russia (they target Russian mainland when Russians missiles target lol EU and China). But Americans choose to shartinthemart over treaty without significant reasons just because they are cunts and lost this lever. What can America do to Russia in return? Breach INF and Missiles Defense treaties again? Run stories about Russians hacking US elections and putting KGB agent Drumbff into presidential chair?

>>33368904
>muh whataboutism

this is just boring

>>33356318
>durr rusha has impenetrable defenses, soviets r da bes
>hurr US and GAYTO cant do nuffin bout rusha missuhls
t. Vatnik

>>33368947
You are doing a very bad job of selling to Russians idea of following broken treaties.

>>33367535

Lel, 40-50 year old rusting hulks split between four fleets that haven't been out of littoral waters since the end of the USSR, such power projection.

File: british navy.png (37KB, 320x863px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 320x863px

>>33357641
>British "navy"

>>33356140
just put rollers under the ships hulls and tow them across Turkey :^)

>>33369052
>1 ship of the line

File: britannia rules the waves.jpg (226KB, 1432x964px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1432x964px

>>33369026
whose rusting hulks are you talking about right now

>>33369098
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus'–Byzantine_War_(907)
:^)

>>33367501
>Russia has been violating the INF since the early 90s
Amerishit projections. Meanwhile in real life amerishits were violating it with drones since forever and no one gave a single flying fuck.
>>33367540
>R-500 is the save as RK-55, I say
No one gives a shit about what amerishits say anymore. R-500 has 500 km range, period.

>>33369114
Honorary commissioned HMS Victory.

>>33369052
>>33369117

I'm not British, I just can't believe anyone thinks that the Russian Navy is capable of power projection, or that most of their navy is seaworthy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uda-class_oiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altay-class_oiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Chilikin-class_fleet_oiler

Russia's Navy are so pathetic, they spilled a load of fuel replenishing the Kuznetsov, tried to keep quiet, and then when they got caught lied about it and changed their story three times.

>>33369228

The Irish still claim the spill was ten times bigger than the Russians will admit.

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

File: Без имени20170320121432.png (43KB, 314x374px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 314x374px

>>33367695
>CAMM and LMM
Those are anti-air missiles, sunshine. With a range not exceeding 10km.
> AsMH capabilities
What's that? Did you mean AShM? That would be some stellar British humour I've heard so much about.

>>33367535
>Quantity vs quality: the list

File: small island.png (142KB, 642x943px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 642x943px

>>33369228
>I'm not British, I just can't believe
Kek.

File: r-r-rule br-britannia2.png (41KB, 855x717px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 855x717px

>>33369324
>British "navy"
>Quality
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/destroyers-will-break-down-if-sent-to-middle-east-admits-royal-navy

>>33369237
>Supposedly a superpower
>almost as incompetent as the Irish

>>33369335
>Supposedly a superpower
>our Navy is pathetic compared to our closest rival so let's compare it to a country with a lower military budget and half the population!
>please ignore the fact that last time our navy tried using its ships we embarrassed ourselves in the coastal waters of half of Europe and lost two carrier fighters!
>also please ignore the fact that we have a lower GDP than FUCKING CANADA and we're haemorrhaging money from our sovereign wealth fund!!!

okay then Vlad

File: 1342253393198.gif (4KB, 250x242px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 250x242px

>>33369380
>British damage control
Proceed, this is entertaining.

>>33369397
>>British damage control

just responding to your attempts deflection m8

>>33369380
>please ignore the fact that last time our navy tried using its ships we embarrassed ourselves in the coastal waters of half of Europe and lost two carrier fighters!
At least they could send carrier and planes, unlike UK.

>>33368904
>Waaahhhh, Americans are threatening us by positioning equipment that protects their allies from being threatened by us!

File: Kuzenov engine telegraph.jpg (229KB, 933x700px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 933x700px

>>33369410
>two carriers with stealth fighters by 2025 compared to one floating scrapheap from the 1980s with no replacement

>>33369335

Why is the Royal Navy even a benchmark that the Russian Navy wants to compare itself to? From the days of the USSR navy making US Congress concerned about a "cruiser gap", to the Russian Navy watching its USSR leftovers rust into dust while trying to console itself comparing its numbers on paper to a navy that hasn't been relevant since WW2.

How the mighty have fallen, eh? Maybe next time Russian Navy surface ships leaves port, they'll do better than be an incredibly expensive way to deliver some shitty naval aircraft to Syria (and the bottom of the Mediterranean) while leaking oil in other countries waters.

>>33369114
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution

The US has a commissioned Ship of the Line too.

>>33369425
By 2025 you will be Insular Pakistan tho.

>>33369476
xD Nice on my friend!!

>>33369460
Lol, what? It's the British who always start shitposting about how their "navy" is better.

>>33369425
Case in point, the initial argument was that Royal Navy would present a formidable deterrent against the Russian Navy. When in reality, the Northern fleet alone would wipe the ocean floor with your entire surface navy over the course of one afternoon. With zero casualties. Through the sheer range of onboard stand-off missile platforms.

Come back and argue otherwise in 2025

>>33369461
>Ship of the Line
While technically a 5th rate (and closer to a 4th rate in practical performance), the Constitution was never meant to fight in the line. By the time she was commissioned, nothing less than a 3rd rate was expected to stand in the line of battle.

What you meant to say was "Age of sail frigate/super frigate" or "5th rate". While the Connie could sail circles around the Victory on any point of wind, she could never be expected to stand toe to toe with her. It'd be like sending a Fletcher up against an Iowa. They're both probably best of class designs for their era, but just not in the same class.

>>33369494
>>33369513
Actually the discussion is about the Bosphorous straits, Vatniks in this thread were getting BTFO pretty hard so the solution was obviously to redirect the discussion towards a 'weak' target - a somewhat cash-strapped Royal Navy. No one had actually mentioned the RN until then

>>33369513
>the initial argument was that Royal Navy would present a formidable deterrent against the Russian Navy
Nope. You made it about the RN because you know it'd be laughable to even suggest the same about the USN, who would undoubtedly be fighting hull and hull with the RN in any confrontation.

You're a complete idiot.

File: 1462592712613.jpg (59KB, 604x404px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 604x404px

>>33369542
>Vatniks in this thread were getting BTFO pretty hard so the solution was obviously to redirect the discussion towards a 'weak' target
Vatniks do this quite often in naval threads, their inferiority complex knows no bounds.

File: Без имени20170320215012.png (23KB, 840x128px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 840x128px

>>33369542
>>33369550
Yawn

>>33367512
I mean, it's true.

>>33369425
>by 2025
IIRC, in 2007 it was
>by 2015
But right now Russians had carrier and planes to bomb shit in Syria and Brits had £3.1bn piece of disaster with ramp set on superglue and duct tape.
>>33369542
>Bosphorous straits
It's internal Russian sea de-facto, no one comes in, no one comes out, that's all. You try to go there - they'll blow you to pieces, they try to leave it - you'll blow them to pieces. Not very interesting topic.

>>33369569
First, he mentioned French AND British navies, and he's absolutely correct that the two together could easily close the Mediterranean to the North Fleet. Secondly, you haven't shut up about it for the entire thread, hoping to distract all of us from the very clear ridiculousness of your other points. You've literally spent about 30 posts in a 160 post thread just shitposting about the RN.

Why so scared, Ivan? Is that fig leaf feeling small?

>>33366775
Yes you do, IF its very important.

>>33369494
>>33369513

This thread.

>Retarded article posted by OP makes asinine point about it being dangerous for a US CBG in the Black Sea.

>Every sane person points out that there is no reason for a CBG to enter the Black Sea, and in fact the Black Sea fleet will get shot like fish in a barrel in a war with NATO.

>Some Vatnik posts a picture exclusively of European submarines, imagining a war on NATO without the USN submarines or NATO surface fleet & ASW aviation.

>This is pointed out as retarded.

>Vatnik doubles-down on slavposting with singling out the Royal Navy, since it can't beat the alliance designed to fight it.

>Vatniks oblivious to how pathetic they look choosing smaller targets until they find one that is beatable.

>Still no answers as to how the Russian fleets are supposed to break out of the Black Sea in a war with NATO, or the Baltic & Caspian Seas for that matter.

File: r-r-rule br-britannia1.jpg (146KB, 851x630px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 851x630px

>>33369569
Leave them be, it will be days of singing "Rule, Britannia!" after the Brits will be able to recover from harsh truth.

>>33369615
>But right now Russians had carrier and planes to bomb shit in Syria
Uh, no. You lost two jets out of barely over a dozen, and were forced to operate them off of land because your carrier ops experience and training is so lacking, and your gear so dilapidated.

https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/05/russian-su-33-crashed-in-the-mediterranean-while-attempting-to-land-on-kuznetsov-aircraft-carrier/
http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/11/14/russian-navy-mig-29-in-mediterranean/

Your navy literally cannot operate aircraft off the deck in what are essentially peacetime operations as far as actual launch and recovery operations are concerned. Pathetic.

>>33369052
>Russia can't even challenge THIS

Holy shit, this is just pathetic.

>>33367433
>The town of Baltiysk, just outside Kaliningrad, is the only Russian Baltic Sea port said to be "ice-free" all year round, and the region hence plays an important role in maintenance of the Baltic Fleet.

File: 1430264440883.gif (4MB, 347x244px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 347x244px

>>33369645
>break out of the Caspian Sea
>American geography lessons

>>33367517
is the first one a decoy?

>>33369699

Let me guess, you're only pretending to be retarded?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga%E2%80%93Don_Canal

> the Volga–Don Canal provides the most direct navigable connection between the Caspian Sea and the Sea of Azov, and thus the world's oceans.

>>33369647
boy I'm sure posting the same meme twice in this thread will change EVERYBODY'S opinions! Nice one Igor!

File: 1445269669875.jpg (61KB, 531x640px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 531x640px

>>33366118

>>33369645
Yeah nah, I replied specifically to the supposition that what the British operate can be called "navy" and that it can in any way challenge the Russian Navy.
>Black Sea fleet will get shot like fish in a barrel in a war with NATO
More like vice versa.
>how the Russian fleets are supposed to break out of the Black Sea
The real question is how the USN is going to break in.

>>33369765
>Yeah nah, I replied specifically to the supposition that what the British operate can be called "navy" and that it can in any way challenge the Russian Navy.

so you were cherry picking because you knew you couldn't win the argument right?

>The real question is how the USN is going to break in.

question was answered earlier in the thread: >>33356705
the answer is they don't

>>33369765
>More like vice versa
Someone needs to post the cap where that anon worked out how if every backfire that ever existed magically teleported into firing range of a CBG that any single burke or tico could asign 3 ESSMs to every one of them and still have like a quarter of their battery left to fick around with.
>The real question is how the USN is going to break in.
Why would any branch of NATO want to willingly walk into your trap when we can just destroy it from the outside as described throughout this thread?

>>33369765
>The real question is how the USN is going to break in.
If we absolutely had to, it'd be the same as any other large conventional planning. Massive buildup, then reduce, reduce, reduce and keep reducing both mobile and static defenses until sufficient access lanes and attrition is realized to force a decisive engagement on positive terms, then jump with everything.

>inb4 muh nukes
If tactical nukes start flying, it'll end far, far worse for Russia than the US. I have to believe even they realize this. They're enough of a deterrent to keep large scale conventional conflict a very unlikely event, but they're not much good for anything else.

>>33369804
>Someone needs to post the cap where that anon worked out how if every backfire that ever existed magically teleported into firing range of a CBG that any single burke or tico could asign 3 ESSMs to every one of them and still have like a quarter of their battery left to fick around with.
I wrote that. Let me see if I still have the .txt file. Stand by.

>>33369654
>Your navy literally cannot operate aircraft off the deck
>154 sorties from deck
OK. I guess how many sorties super-duper RN Queen Elizabeth did in Syria.

Frenches did 271 back in 2016. French are better than UK in any way.

>>33369765

Why does the USN need to get into the Black Sea? Of the five countries bordering the Black Sea which aren't Russia, three are NATO members, and two are currently far more friendly to USA/NATO than to Russia.

NATO can just base its aircraft in NATO countries and if it really wants to, it can launch aircraft and cruise missiles from the Aegean if it wants to (a fully NATO controlled sea).

The Royal Navy isn't really anything on its own, but the whole point is interoperability with the rest of NATO, and especially the USN. You can put together a naval task-force with ships from ten different countries, and they'll still work well alongside each other.

>>33369804
>>33369814
Still looking. In the meantime:

I'm not sure they EVER actually won a naval battle on anything approaching even terms against anyone but the Turks:

>Battle of Nöteborg, 1656 - 50 smaller Swedish ships beat off and defeat 250 smaller Russian ships surrounding Noteborg.

Great Northern War
>Battle of Hogland, 1705 - A single Swede ship of the line beats off 7 Russian galleys in tight, constricted waters
>Battle of Hogland, 1713 - Swedes lost a few crewmen, Russians lost a ship of the line
>Battle of Gagnut, 1714 - attacked with 10x+ the force level (1 pram, 6 galleys VS 98 Russian galleys, of which minimum 23 engaged) of the defending Swedes, wiped out the Swedes but lost more ships than the Swedes had (at least 10 galleys lost). This was the first "big victory" of the Russian Fleet.
>>Battle of Osel Island, 1719 - 6 Russian ships of the line and something between a Frigate and Sloop of War defeat and capture a Swedish force consisting of a single ship of the line, a single frigate and a single brigantine. 330 guns VS 92 guns. At least they managed to keep the casualties low this time.
>Battle of Gregnam, 1720 - Swedes lost 4 frigates and 103 killed, Russians lost 43 galleys and 1,100-2,000 killed

Crimean War
>Battle of Sinop, 1853 - Against the Turks, and with a massive force and wind gauge advantage, the Russians are victorious, yet still manage to seriously damage 3 ships of the line (over 1/3 of their own force level, fighting an enemy with no ships larger than frigates)
>Sea of Azov campaign - During the Crimean War (1853–1856), a naval campaign was fought in the Sea of Azov between the Royal Navy and the French Navy against the Russian Navy between 25 May–22 November 1855. British and French warships struck at every vestige of Russian power along the coast of the Sea of Azov. Except for Rostov and Azov, no town, depot, building or fortification was immune from attack and Russian naval power ceased to exist almost overnight.

cont.

File: Russian Naval History.png (369KB, 1896x1700px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1896x1700px

>>33369830
Oh, wait, found the nice screencap someone made after I typed it all out. Still looking for the missile roundup.

>>33369830
>even terms
>in war
Are you retarded? War is about creating uneven terms in your favor.

File: 1385876212582.gif (1MB, 191x200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 191x200px

>>33369819
>154 sorties from deck

For the last time Ivan, dombs dropped =/= sorties. We've been over this dozens of times for about 6 months now.

>>33369138
>no one gave a shit

That's because over-glorified RC planes designed to kill defenseless sandpeople are NOT nuclear-capable cruise missiles you vodka-swigging fuckwit.

Russia claiming Predator drones are cruise missiles has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If this really is the position of your government and not just your inherent lack of intelligence, then the US has nothing to worry about.


25% of your population is kebab, your birthrate is declining, and the ones that are born come out with fetal alchohol syndrome.

You are a sad and broken people, who cannot possibly be behind the "election hacking", since that would require technical skills, something a race of drunkards and retards couldn't possibly posess.

>>33369765
There not going to. Why would they, it's easier to bottle up the Black Sea Fleet completely, and attempted to draw out their forces, which given the disparity would not go well for the Russians.

>>33369804
>Someone needs to post the cap
Sorry, bud. If I've still got it, I've got no idea what dark asshole in my hard drive it climbed into.

>>33369857
>Are you retarded? War is about creating uneven terms in your favor.
When you are literally incapable of winning battles on anything even approaching even terms, there is something seriously wrong with your navy. Period. End of Story.

Outside of a very few small, limited engagements, the Russian Navy, in all of history, never actually won a naval battle that featured even remotely even or outnumbered odds.

Meanwhile, just in WWII, there are multiple examples of the RN and USN doing just that.

>ITT Russiaboos think just because no one can enter the Black Sea means Russians can enter the Mediterranean Sea.
Russians would get slaughtered trying to enter it contested. Not including the GIUK gap.

>>33369891
It's ok boss, If someone else didn't save it I'm sure someone could recreate it. I'm lacking in the prerequisite knowledge to do so however.

>>33369819
>>Your navy literally cannot operate aircraft off the deck
>>154 sorties from deck
If you have to write 2 complete fixed wing airframes off as a complete loss out of 15ish total in 154 sorties, you are doing far, far worse than the fucking Chinese. There's a reason the USN measures mishap rates in the per 10,000 flight hour range, and why those rates are rarely in double digits per 10k flight hours.

Having two complete losses in 154 sorties would represent something close to 28 times the USN combat loss rate from the Gulf War.

>>33369763
The elevators part always gets me.

>>33369793
>so you were cherry picking
I literally posted side by side comparison.
>F-35C combat radius on internal fuel = 730 miles
F-35C armament that can pose any meaningful threat to ships: 404 not found.
>Tomahawk
>Against ships
Lel.
>Câmpia Turzii Airbase
Eats a bunch of cruise missiles.
>the answer is they don't
So the Black Sea Fleet's task is fulfilled.
>>33369804
>backfire teleported into firing range of a CBG
What for? They can send a CBG to feed fish at the bottom of the ocean where it belongs from standoff range.
>>33369805
>If we absolutely had to, it'd be the same as any other large conventional planning
Unlike the Gulf, the Black Sea is constrained by a narrow straight that doesn't really quite allow to "jump with everything".
>If tactical nukes start flying, it'll end far, far worse for Russia than the US
You do realise Russia has borderline infinite amount of tactical nukes, right? Anyway, if nukes start flying it'll end bad for everyone.
>>33369827
>Why does the USN need to get into the Black Sea?
Ask the dude who wrote the article. I'd say to gain a foothold for amphibious operations.

File: battle of chesma2.jpg (359KB, 1409x1500px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1409x1500px

>>33369830
>>33369848
>Navy of a land power
>Still causes butthurt to this day
Priceless.

File: 1414537677345.jpg (81KB, 702x397px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 702x397px

>>33369978
>What for? They can send a CBG to feed fish at the bottom of the ocean where it belongs from standoff range.
And what makes you think that if everyone that ever existed being in optimal range couldn't do it, that the ones left over at standoff range would do any better?

File: Aivazovsky,_Brig_Mercury_Attacked_by_Two_Turkish_Ships_1892.jpg (922KB, 2220x1400px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 2220x1400px

>>33369891
>Period. End of Story.
It's what kept happening to the t*rk washtubs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_brig_Mercury

>>33369989
>russia
>power

that word

it doesn't mean what you think it does

>>33369865
Drones fall under INF treaty. Deal with it.

File: ss (2016-05-30 at 09.28.29).png (29KB, 638x246px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 638x246px

>>33369865
>25% of your population is kebab
You have less white people than colored people
>your birthrate is declining
Not really

>>33369891
>there is something seriously wrong with your navy. Period. End of Story.
Russia is a land power, good morning. What next, sky is blue and 2+2=4? Russian fleet is a mess of nuclear submarines (relevant), old soviet stuff made for nuclear war against CSGs (completely irrelevant) and some new frigates which suffers from under-funding. Russian fleet is not about power projection, it's about working with ground component to create A2\AD zones and protect Russian coasts. They can do it in Black Sea, they maaaaaybe can do it Baltic sea, they can do it in North and they can't do it in Pacific yet.

File: 134534534.jpg (29KB, 499x374px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 499x374px

>>33369865
>Russia claiming Predator drones are cruise missiles has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
>INF treaty definitions are stupid
No surprise here. Look at the author.

>>33369989
>Navy of a land power
>Ottomans being relevant in the 18th and 19th century
Might as well show a picture of kicking a baby.

>>33357718
There is only a single one, yes? Piotr Velikiy?

>>33370026
Pffff, he is a genius and god of charisma compared to god damn Gorbachev.

File: Russparis.jpg (3MB, 2500x1602px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2500x1602px

>>33370018
Sorry, I was busy washing me feet in Seine. What was it that you were saying?

>>33370019
Armed drones.

>2. The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

>In this connection, it is also the position of the Government of the United States of America that the Parties share a common understanding that the term "weapon-delivery vehicle" in the Treaty means any ground-launched ballistic or cruise missile in the 500 kilometer to 5500 kilometer range that has been flight-tested or deployed to carry or be used as a weapon --that is, any warhead, mechanism or device, which, when directed against any target, is designed to damage or destroy it.

>>33357770
Unless they bring their own airpower.

>>33369978
Not the guy you're responding to but:
>F-35C armament that can pose any meaningful threat to ships: 404 not found.
LRASM
>Lel.
SLAMMERS and Harpoons
Also, those tomahawks will be hitting every piece of identified equipment with a Russian star on it, so don't count on some of the shore batteries or airfields being useful after one week of fighting. Also, there's more airfields on the NATO side, meaning more dispersion of planes.
>Eats a bunch of cruise missiles.
See above
>So the Black Sea Fleet's task is fulfilled.
I guess, if you want it to stay on a defensive footing where it's contribution is nearly nothing (tying up NATO forces would help though).

>What for? They can send a CBG to feed fish at the bottom of the ocean where it belongs from standoff range.
The amount that they could bring to bear against a CBG would not be much, given the fact that the aircraft are spread out over the entirety of Russia and they would takes losses from both being shot down and maintenance.
>Unlike the Gulf, the Black Sea is constrained by a narrow straight that doesn't really quite allow to "jump with everything".
Re-read what he wrote, it involved attiring Russian forces to a point where freedom of movement could be practiced. They would would only push everything through if they had the advantage there.

>Ask the dude who wrote the article. I'd say to gain a foothold for amphibious operations.
Why would we do that?

File: Battle of Sinop.jpg (841KB, 2067x1400px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 2067x1400px

>>33370041
If it's so irrelevant how come some american autist was so upset about it he made a cherrypicking list? Checkmate :^)

>>33370048
>Piotr Velikiy
1. Piotr Velikiy is (poorly) operational and currently a flagship of Northen Fleet. It's planned to be modernized after Admiral Nakhimov
2. Admiral Nakhimov is in process of modernization and going to be a fucking Space Battleship Yamato
3. Admiral Lazarev is conservated and might be modernized like Nakhimov. Chances are low.

>>33358266
We were allies after Russia's Nazi allies turned on them. Russian paranoia ended the alliance as soon as Japan surrendered.

>>33370091
I don't care about him but it is funny to brag about beating Turksmells.

File: 1200px-American_troops_in_Vladivostok_1918_HD-SN-99-02013.jpg (187KB, 1200x734px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1200x734px

>>33370051
>Sorry, I was busy washing me feet in Seine. What was it that you were saying?
Which you only got to due because LITERALLY every country in Russia fought against France, and lets not forget, it was the Russia Winter that stopped them.
PS i didn't seem to stop the US military though, pic related

>>33370112
What's really funny is Gallipoli.

>>33370123
>every country in Russia fought against France
I don't understand meaning of that collocation.

File: 1422009147165.jpg (80KB, 603x452px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 603x452px

>>33369647
>russian trying to rip on anybody for clinging on to memories of former glory
Only a vatnik could lack this much self-awareness.

>>33370124
Yes it's funny, how can we forget Ottoman collapse and Pyrrhic victory.

>>33370130
Yeah, typo. I mean to say, they only got to march on Paris because they (Russia) had joined up in a coalition with literally every country in Europe to fight against France.

>>33369978
>F-35C armament that can pose any meaningful threat to ships: 404 not found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile#Joint_Strike_Missile

Vatnik please.

File: sensible chuckle.gif (2MB, 320x384px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x384px

>>33369883
I like how we shifted from "bumrushing the Bosphorus with carriers" to "m-maybe we can d-draw out the Black Sea fleet out of the Black sea?" over the course of 200+ posts. Not without some denial, 300 year old memes and poorly drawn vatnik images, but we've finally reached the consensus that USN + NATO has no realistic hope to contest small puddle from what is effectively a coast guard with few rockets

File: 4660915162e5.jpg (97KB, 807x504px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 807x504px

>>33370086
>LRASM
Enjoy your reduced combat range and increased RCS.
>SLAMMERS and Harpoons
Petards with microscopic range.
>those tomahawks will be hitting every piece of identified equipment with a Russian star on it
If only is were not 60s and Russian equipment had wheels... oh, wait.
>there's more airfields on the NATO side, meaning more dispersion of planes
Dubious. Besides, there's a limited amount of airfields in range.
>I guess, if you want it to stay on a defensive footing
Name me a better task for a fleet in the Black Sea with the straits controlled by Turkey.
>The amount that they could bring to bear against a CBG would not be much
A CBG is not a concentration of all destroyers in the US service in one place. It's a limited formation with, among other ships, a couple destroyers and a cruiser.
>the aircraft are spread out over the entirety of Russia
No, they are not. 3 out of 4 Backfire bases are in the European Russia.
>Why would we do that?
Why, to seek asylum, of course.

File: crimea river.png (837KB, 1000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 1000x4000px

>>33370124
It's not funny, it's rather ironic.

>>33370195
IIRC, French Empire to that moment WAS literally every country in Europe united minus Portugal and Sweden (inb4 UK is not Europe). Russian Empire began their campaign with Brits and Portugal, all others joined later. Does not really matter, because Russia failed to modernize after that war which lead to growing of catastrophic technological/power gap between Europe and Russia later.

>>33370086
>tomahawks
Dude, srsly, tomahawks are top one target for Soviet\Russian AA defense for decades, they build entire military structures to counter them. You need something supersonic and stealthy.

File: Без имени20170320230634.png (23KB, 319x296px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 319x296px

>>33370195
What you meant to say is that Russia has fought off the entire continental Europe, otherwise known as the Grande Armee. Typos are understandable. Heat of the debate and all that.

>>33370258
Stealthy alone is enough.

>>33370224
No, there was no carrier bumrush of the Black Sea, there's no need to because they don't constitute any sort of threat to the SLOCs in the Med or Atlantic.
>no realistic hope to contest small puddle from what is effectively a coast guard with few rockets
Because there's no need to get involved and take away ships from more important operations. You're right, the Black Sea fleets is nothing more than a glorified coast guard that could not constitute any real threat to the USN or NATO even if they wanted to (outside of it's immediate area, and even then it would have a tough time surviving).

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2017-03-20T19-08-13.995Z.png (129KB, 323x666px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 323x666px

>>33370123
>PS i didn't seem to stop the US military though, pic related
Shall I remind you how did that end for the US and half of the world trying to get themselves a piece of Russia?

File: this, this, this and this.jpg (87KB, 340x480px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 340x480px

>>33370268
This.

>>33370258
>>33370268
I stand corrected, thanks dudes.

>>33370258
Well good thing the LRASM and F-35s are a thing. SAM/AA systems have never once stopped a air campaign run by a competent force.

File: 2k12 kub low res.jpg (3MB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2500x2500px

>>33370327
An air campaign run by a competent force is yet to meet contemporary IADS run by a competent force in combat. The last time an air force faced a contemporary SAM network it was butchered by pic related.

>>33370284
Please, I'm all ears. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union

>themselves a piece of Russia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War

>Enjoy your reduced combat range and increased RCS.
Better than no stealth and no ability to effectively fire back.
>Petards with microscopic range.
Not when carried by aircraft
>If only is were not 60s and Russian equipment had wheels... oh, wait.
Thats kinda it, either they stop and fire, or they stay on the move meaning they can effectively participate. Assuming they don't get killed first.
>Name me a better task for a fleet in the Black Sea with the straits controlled by Turkey.
There isn't one, Russia having a weak fleet that can barely do anything is great.
>A CBG is not a concentration of all destroyers in the US service in one place. It's a limited formation with, among other ships, a couple destroyers and a cruiser.
and planes, AWACS, ground based aicraft and shore based batteries. The further you want to negate those advantages means your aircraft need to fly father out to sea with less support from their own side.
>No, they are not. 3 out of 4 Backfire bases are in the European Russia.
Good luck to them in a war, if the Russian Air Force and Navy in wartime is anything liek peacetime, many of their planes will be down and out by being shot down or out for repairs. It's not '86 anymore man.

>>33369989
>>Navy of a land power
Tell it to Peter the Great.

Goddamn, but it's sad when you have to school Russians on their own fucking history.

>>33370024
>You have less white people than colored people
63.7% of the US population is white, dumbass.

>>33370284
>White movement
>got BTFO

kek

>>33370356
That's the thing though, the US and NATO is now bringing in 5th gen aircraft in widespread service with many nations while Russia is further reducing their budget for the military. This divide between tech is only going to get worse. Coupled with the fact that there so only so many of the mot advanced battalions in the Russian Army, it doesn't look good.

What is this, one Russian with some supporters doing research arguing just like every bitch I ever knew?
Seriously, this is how women argue.

File: preview-doc001-1.jpg (145KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 768x1024px

>>33370327
>Well good thing the LRASM and F-35s are a thing
LRASM is not in service yet. Same way Russians can bring Zircon missiles and that radars to this discuss. Also, Redut AA complex is a naval version of S300 and pretty advanced. Normal ESA radar instead of mess of targeting stations like Peter the Great have.
>>33370408
OK, we'll wait
>The nation’s demographics are on a clear trajectory: White people are dying faster than they are being born, which means they are on target to become a minority in the United States in 30 years.

>>33370258
>Russia failed to modernize after that war which lead to growing of catastrophic technological/power gap between Europe and Russia later
Nicholas I was a very "special" emperor. Almost as much as Peter III and Paul I.

>>33369297

No, CAMM has AShM capabilties. MBDA has stated this.

But again, you are unable to address the actual point.

>>33370446
>Paul I
He was OK, he just pissed off military by forcing them to actually do their fucking job. They killed him and wrote history about crazy son of a bitch.
When you actually read about what clusterfuck monarchy caused in Russia, communists are not looking so bad.

>>33356140

I'm not an expert on naval warfare, but I think this is pretty dumb. Seems to me the whole point of an aircraft carrier is.... wait for it.... aircraft.

US strike force could end up with control of local airspace, surgical strike any land based launch systems, suppress ground forces, and carry out attacks against any defending fleets... all before the carrier group enters the "fatal funnel".

Navy isn't stupid. They wouldn't just sail right up a choke point without establishing control before moving up.

File: hiv-death-rate-globally.jpg (46KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x375px

>>33370445
>OK, we'll wait
Not for long, I'm afraid.

Highest HIV/AIDS death rates in the world. Wait for it, it gets worse.

It gets worse because this is only the beginning of the epidemic. True, it's been in Russia longer than admitted, by more than a decade, but it's still the fastest per capita HIV/AIDS growth rate IN THE WORLD.

See the Russians, in their infinite wisdom, waited until a DECADE after HIV/AIDS first appeared in the country to even admit, or publicly allow the diagnosis, much less begin educating their people on how to safely avoid infection.

And now, just like pic related (Russia's complete failure to deal with the spread of other pathogens like drug resistant Tuberculosis), they still refuse to enact the simple measures that might curb the spread. Things like needle exchanges. They refuse to do this, of course, because Russia (publicly) HAS NO DRUG PROBLEM. And thus, no AIDS issue. They'll just let their already ridiculously inadequate health care system bear the burden instead.

In fact, Russia is pretty much shit at giving one single fuck about curbing any sort of infectious or parasitic pathogens.

But, hey, all you Vatniks out there. Keep telling us just how much more awesome Russia is than the rest of the developed world. We'll keep and cherish your words, because we know you'll be dead over a full DECADE before the rest of us. Gotta respect those who've passed on, after all.

Countries with the same life expectancy as Russia:
>North Korea
>Pakistan
>Guyana

Countries with better life expectancy than Russia:
>Turkey
>Brazil
>Peru
>Algeria
>Egypt
>Indonesia
>Thailand
>China
>Lybia
>All of former Yugoslavia
>FUCKING IRAN

>inb4 waaaaaaaaaa
You wanted a demographics fight. You shit the bed. Enjoy laying in your filth.

File: Life_Expectancy_2005-2010_UN_WPP_2006.png (59KB, 1500x625px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1500x625px

>>33370445
>>33370542

>LRASM is not in service yet. Same way Russians can bring Zircon missiles and that radars to this discuss. Also, Redut AA complex is a naval version of S300 and pretty advanced. Normal ESA radar instead of mess of targeting stations like Peter the Great have.
But it IS in development, and is going to be brought into service. Those projects are not having a great time.
Redut: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-answer-the-aegis-missile-defense-system-big-trouble-17199

Brah-mos II: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/02/10/russia-to-test-hypersonic-zircon-missiles-earlier-than-originally-planned/

TL;dr Neither have been fully tested

>>33370393
>Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
Shit system collapsing under itself is of course a major military victory for the US, lol.
>Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War
So how did that little endeavour end for them? Oh right, getting partitioned the 4th time.
>no ability to effectively fire back
Except for the entire branch of the armed forces specifically tasked with shooting things down and firing back.
>either they stop and fire
We are talking about firing and then leaving the position.
>or they stay on the move meaning they can effectively participate
I'm going to assume you mean "can't". Not quire correct either, S-300 is ready after 5 minutes and systems like Tor only need to stop for literal seconds to fire, with the newest version being able to fire on the move.
>Assuming they don't get killed first
Assuming you will be able to successfully target and engage anything.
>ground based aicraft and shore based batteries
You are confusing it for Russian shore defences.
>It's not '86 anymore man.
It's not '96 or '06 either.

File: Infectious and Parasitic disease death rates, Russia VS EU.png (38KB, 696x508px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 696x508px

>>33370445
>>33370549

File: Drug Resistant TB.jpg (98KB, 555x470px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 555x470px

>>33370445
>>33370558

File: aids_regions.jpg (62KB, 688x477px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 688x477px

>>33370445
>>33370568

File: Russian_Tsardom_1500_to_1700.png (93KB, 1000x392px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1000x392px

>>33370398
Bringing up a tsar building a navy for a land power was somehow supposed to prove me wrong? Look at the fucking map, ignoramus, before trying to teach any fucking one on their own history. Fucking retard, Jesus Christ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_campaigns_(1695%E2%80%9396)

File: 1474747185650.jpg (94KB, 1200x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1200x720px

>>33370542
>Not for long, I'm afraid.
>>33370549
>>33370558
>>33370568
>>33370578
holy fucking shit my sides can't take this

File: 1473819638787.jpg (69KB, 640x795px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x795px

>>33370594
>literally more miles of coastline than any other nation on earth
>TOTALLY NOT A NAVAL POWER GUIZE

Jesus Christ.

File: NNIIRT-Nebo-M-CONOPS-1.png (130KB, 768x492px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 768x492px

>>33370432
>US and NATO is now bringing in 5th gen aircraft
And Russia is bringing in countermeasures. As well as 5th gen aircraft.

>>33370617
>>literally more miles of coastline than any other nation on earth
4th most, actually, but still a valid point.

File: russia demographics - population pyramid.gif (59KB, 610x425px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 610x425px

>>33370542
>>33370549
Not only that but Russia's demographics show that the country is heading for collapse.

In a decade they simply won't have enough workers to keep their country running.

Here's a pretty good geopolitical analysis of Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TRM67hA5A

The demographics is probably the reason to why Russia is so aggressive right now (in Georgia and Ukraine) because in 10 years Russia won't have enough young men to fight wars so they have to grab as much now as possible.

>>33370555
>So how did that little endeavour end for them? Oh right, getting partitioned the 4th time.
Well, considering they are now palling around with NATO, fairly well. x2 for every nation that was occupied by the Soviet Union after WW2.

>Except for the entire branch of the armed forces specifically tasked with shooting things down and firing back.
Not when that branch has server shortages of both planes, parts and the money for both.

>We are talking about firing and then leaving the position.
We sure are, which means SEAD when they fire (because why would they be radiating when there's no incoming planes, thereby giving away their position?) And if they're not firing they can do much of anything.

>Not quire correct either, S-300 is ready after 5 minutes.
They would already be set up if they suspect a stike is incoming, which means SEAD and EW aircraft hunting specifically for them and only them. Tor is a medium/close range system with limited ability to fight against high flying aircraft or standoff weapons.
>Assuming you will be able to successfully target and engage anything.
Literally what has happened to every IADS in every war, ever.
>You are confusing it for Russian shore defenses.
No, because a carrier would never get into range of them, if Russia wants to sink a carrier, they have to come out and play.

>It's not '96 or '06 either.
Correct, with the introduction of 5th gen aircraft, we're even more potent.

>>33370445
>>33370542
>vatnik talks shit about minorities in the US
>turns out slavs are so shit their AIDS, parasite, infectious disease and life expectancies are all worse than ANY minority in the US

oh, the ironing. So much fucking ironing.

>>33370620
What 5th gen aircraft?

The PAK-FA is decidedly not 5th gen.

>>33370686
Russia is the Sub Saharan Africa of the Northern Hemisphere.

>>33370620
Which still have yet to be tested or even paid for. Every time they say "We have an F-22/35/whateverthefuck killer!" and people go "What's its capability" they come back and say "It's really good, trust use, its super secret." then it never gets put into production and they're left at square root 1.
>5th gen aircraft
No, they're not. They have 15 prototypes which are sitting in and airfield 40 miles outside Moscow.

Uh oh. Looks like our little Vatnik friend has ragequit.

It was fun ragdolling him around while it lasted.

>>33370550
meant for >>33370445

>>33370480
An occasional couple of good changes doesn't make a good emperor out of a literal autist. He wasn't nearly as bad as Peter III, I give you that.

File: e312d414-a16f-4c7d-be50-d38c5cc65855.png (95KB, 500x571px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 500x571px

>>33370680
Crimea added 3 more millions of Russians. And around million or so of Ukrainians - refugees and immigrants. Russian demographic prognoses is better than any major European country (new waves of refugees may change that). Man, even muslims in Russia are white. You pointed on problems that are considered as problems (and also results of "democratic" and "capitalistic" reforms, basically you're working as pro-communist here, lol). Depopulation of whites on west and fucked up immigration policy are not considered as problems in Europe. So, when everyone around you is sinking, sinking last counts as victory. Sad, but true.

>>33370715
>The PAK-FA is decidedly not 5th gen.
Nice bait

>>33370620
There are no proofs that multi-band searching actually works. I heard about some troubles in building this.

File: trekol-39294 & dt-10 & dt-30pm.jpg (689KB, 1620x1080px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 1620x1080px

>>33370617
>Coastline
>In the fucking Arctic Ocean
Are you a literal idiot, or just pretending?

>>33370830
So, it's about "our system in development will defeat your system in development" It's a battle of CGI renders. What about current AS capabilities of US and UK? France is OK with their Exosets, US and UK experienced that by themselves, lol.

File: 9USS_Narwhal_SSN-671.jpg (449KB, 2100x1629px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 2100x1629px

>>33370869
>Are you a literal idiot, or just pretending?
Are you?

>>33370869
>anon said LOOK AT A MAP
>we did
>then he said, WAIT, I MEANT SOMETHING ELSE

Vatniks...

>>33370770
>Which still have yet to be tested
Name a single occasion when a stealth aircraft was tested against such a system.
>>33370842
>I heard about some troubles in building this.
Oh really? Post it, I'd gladly inform myself.

>>33370934
>Name a single occasion when a stealth aircraft was tested against such a system.
I can guarantee such systems have been played with in many variations over the years in the US. We've had operational manned VLO aircraft since 1983. Did you honestly think we'd just neglect to work out and play with possible counters?

If the counters are so good, why are you still so desperate to get 5th gen VLO aircraft into service?

>inb4 sauce chicken
Use logic, but not before fucking yourself with a cactus.

>>33370934
>Oh really? Post it, I'd gladly inform myself.
Sry, but it's mostly personal talks on defense expos, I will not be able to find trustfully sources. Rumors.

File: Doctor.Who.S03E01.Smith.and.Jones.HQ.Edition.x264-N-(Rus.Eng)-0-20-30-271.jpg (79KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1024x576px

>>33370898
>Peter the Great, Azov campaigns, the eve of the XVIII century
>9USS_Narwhal_SSN-671.jpg

>>33370956
This. The required processing nodes alone make the system incredibly vulnerable, even if you can get the signal over time over distributed sensor arrays network to play nice.

File: 1458436128282.png (402KB, 452x510px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 452x510px

>>33370965
>doesn't understand the concept of submarines
>calls others idiots constantly

wew

>>33370925
>I MEANT SOMETHING ELSE
I literally linked you the wiki article. Quit compensating for your lack of history knowledge and to read a fucking book.

>>33370989
>wiki as a source

my oh my

Say, friend Vatnik, where'd all your snark about US minorities go?

File: Doctor.Who.S03E01.Smith.and.Jones.HQ.Edition.x264-N-(Rus.Eng)-0-19-50-631.jpg (78KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1024x576px

>>33370987
>XVIII century
>Submarines

File: Azov.jpg (224KB, 800x650px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 800x650px

>>33371001
>Azov campaigns (1695–96)
>wiki as a source
I heard about American "education", but this shit going on ITT is simply revolting.

>>33371004
Gee. I'm sorry. Did you miss >>33369848 where the story was brought all the way up to WWII (and current, as Russia hasn't fought a serious naval battle since WWI, in which even the Turks regularly pasted them).

More misdirection and cherrypicking for the BTFO and flailing Vatnik. So sad.

>>33371015
>so fixated on the Azov campaigns
>because they're literally the only unequivocal naval campaign victories in the 300+ year history of the Russian navy
>and you were fighting fucking Turks

This is just pathetic.

>>33370842
>those fertility rates

>Turkey, the UK and France will be the sole European powers in like 20 years

>>33371034
>I'm sorry
It's fine. Losing a pointless argument your started and could not carry out out of shitty reading comprehension is the fault of your education system.

>>33370224
>Missing the point that the entire argument is that NATO doesn't need to walk into an ambush to devastate Russian fleets in the puddle

File: Doctor.Who.S03E01.Smith.and.Jones.HQ.Edition.x264-N-(Rus.Eng)-0-19-50-647.jpg (79KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1024x576px

>>33371065
>Azov campaigns
>naval campaign victories
Oh my fucking god. Sweet Jesus fucking Christ. You are a literal idiot so blind in your rage about losing an argument you can't handle a couple paragraphs of English text.

File: 3kBBxqC.png (2MB, 1136x1136px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1136x1136px

>>33367661
you think that's the only ship they have?

File: 1476185131003.gif (790KB, 375x304px) Image search: [Google]

790KB, 375x304px

>>33370898
Russians were able to create full radar coverage against ballistic missiles from those things and there was a nice story about project of ice researching satellite with radar which suddenly discover submarines under that ice as side effect. After that military came in and no other info were ever posted, lol. Everything I was able to hear from representatives of developer was "yes it can" and "yeas, work is continue".
In general, Russians have a pretty big military build up in Arctic which makes Scandinavian countries pretty nervous, I sure you can find more info by yourself, even Canada and US are remember that their ice breaking fleet is kinda... weak.

>>33371070
>Turkey, the UK and France will be the sole European powers in like 20 years
Don't forget about economical load for all social benefits to old population. Man, this planet is fucked, you should never end Cold War.

>>33371113
That's a pretty cool source.

>>33371160
You can go to this year MAKS and ask for yourself. With current ruble course it's not a very big deal. Visit Russia before Russia visit you!

>>33371113
>Russians were able to create full radar coverage against ballistic missiles from those things
There is a very, very large difference between single-source networked sensors working with very large RCS targets over long distance and multi-source/multi-receptor distributed networks working on multi-bearing weapons track refinement against VLO aircraft. It'd be like saying WWII hull-mounted hydrophones and modern towed+hull mounted array processing are exactly the same thing.

>there was a nice story about project of ice researching satellite with radar which suddenly discover submarines under that ice as side effect
You're either misremembering, are full of shit, or bought into the psyops. There is no physical, conceivable way for radar to detect submarines under significant ice. The only possible explaination for this statement is that their ice surveying satellite also happened to notice surfaced submarines in the ice and/or traces of where submarines had surfaced.

>>33370620
>Magic multi-source radar the US knows about and has definitely planned for

>>33370934
Literally every conflict the US has directly participated in where lethal force was used.
>>33370876
Well it's out of development now and slated for full rate production beginning early next year so I'd say it's not even being developed anymore. Your stuff on the other hand, is having major teething issues even before a live fire test has even been attempted. And the brah-mos missile? It's still a concept at worse and a cheap mock up at best. hardly anything to worry about if fighting kicks off in the next few years.

File: F-117-wreckage.jpg (49KB, 685x452px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 685x452px

>>33371285
Nothing magical about rusty surplus rocket from the 1950s shooting down an overpriced "stealth" toy 1/4 the price of an aircraft carrier.

>>33371319
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. One shoot down of an aircraft that had served for 30+ years undertaking thousands of the most dangerous sorties is hardly indicative of how Russia would fight planes and weapon systems that are exponentially more advanced.

>>33370356
>butchered

>3 planes lost
>only due to the fact that retarded planners using the same routes for every flight

Yup, lotta stupid people look at the current unsustainable state of affairs thinking things will remain the same.

The rapidly changing demographics of the west will inevitably lead to civil war/balkanization/drastic political changes

>>33371319
Your right, it was a combination of spies watching the airfield, complacency of flight planning (same bird, same profile, every mission), lack of EA-6B coverage that night (against regs), lack of Wild Weasel Support that night (also against regs), a modified transmitter, the bomb bay doors being open to enlarge signature, AND a Serbian Commander violating his regulations and attempting a third lock on and getting lucky after the first two failed.

If anything the F-117 shootdown is a success of Stealth technology for how exceeding difficult it still was to even get a lock after knowing the exact flight path, flight timing, and knowing it lacked support aircraft; then it still took it enlarging it's own radar signature to achieve a lock.

>>33371220
I wrote what I wrote. Radar coverage against ballistic missiles. Tomahawks are different thingю Most important objects are covered by AA which can fight against cruise missiles like Tomahawk, they can't fight against ballistic missiles (yet). You shoot cruise missiles - you fight against AA and Russian Northern fleet along with newly established military infrastructure. You shoot ballistic missile - you start full scale nuclear war. Is it possible to win nuclear war against Russia (yes it is) - different topic.

>>33371312
>And the brah-mos missile? It's still a concept at worse and a cheap mock up at best. hardly anything to worry about if fighting kicks off in the next few years.
Brahmos finished and deployed years ago. Brahmos II / Zircon is another story. BTW, it's too planed for production next year.

>>33371360
>civil war
no
>balkanization
As a Croatian American, no
>drastic political changes
yes

>>33371345
True. One shootdown of a contemporarily high end aircraft by a drunk slav with obsolete Soviet radar from is not indicative of how many hundreds will be taken down by infinitely more advanced and most sophisticated air defense in existence.

>>33371373
>Brahmos finished and deployed years ago
It's deployed on meager numbers on Eight (8) EIGHT! Indian navy warships, which themselves are of very questionable construction, quality and ability, not very promising if the US response (LRASM) is to be produced in more numbers for more delivery platforms (planes, shore batteries, VLS cells) and is more advanced (low RCS, very long range).
>BTW, it's too planed for production next year. Considering it's a joint military project between Indian and Russia, I can only say I'll believe it when I see it.

>>33371312
>Literally every conflict the US has directly participated in where lethal force was used
Literally not.
>brah-mos missile
>It's still a concept
Next time thy thinner.

>>33371412
This is assuming of course those sites don't get killed first. There would almost certainly be a SEAD campaign to pick off these SAM/AA defense (specifically if its anything more advanced than an S-300, which would warrant the most bombs from the most advanced aircraft). Combined with both EW and the fact that it almost certainly means there is a ground war, not every piece will make it out alive or even be in a position to eactly cover friendly forces. This is of course assuming there is not fire from land and sea based missile systems aimed at taking out SAMs/AA in conjunction with the air campaign.
tl;dr: It's not easy to stay alive if your enemy (NATO) has both the quantitative and qualitative edge over you

>>33371356
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K12_Kub#Yom_Kippur_War

>>33356140
eh, just drop bombs from drones

>>33371373
>Is it possible to win nuclear war against Russia
Oh yes.
Very possible.

>>33371436
I should have clarified, Brahmos 1, in limited service.
Brahmos 2:Still a concept, considering what the brahmos 1 is now and what they want the 2 to be. This is also not taking into consideration AEGIS and it's recent improvements to combat this very thing, which test have shown it can do very well. (what Redut is supposed to be, if they can ever get it working).

>Literally not.
Literally yes, why would be not bring the most advanced weapon to a fight?