Russia could destroy NATO ships in 20 mins: Admiral

Originally posted by Wotan
reply to post by dragonridr

 

And that is the crux of the whole matter. It is to defend the US from missile attack but are placed in Europe. A bit selfish dont you think?

The US puts up a missile shield in someone else's country therefore making that said country a bloody great target ...... nice friends we have. With friends like you, who needs enemies.

Wouldn't protest to loudly eastern Europe benefits by being included under that umbrella thus why the United kingdom is backing plans for missile defense. They get a free ride on us taxpayers. And in reality without the Uk this Nato plan would have fell apart years ago

Originally posted by dragonridr
Wouldn't protest to loudly eastern Europe benefits

How so? Do they get paid for hosting U.S. military assets on their land? Or are they getting protected from imaginary Middle East threats, with their imaginary nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by dragonridr
by being included under that umbrella thus why the United kingdom is backing plans for missile defense.

Umbrella of what? NATO - an outdated military alliance created to fight an enemy that no longer exists? And what UK military does doesn't necessarily have to do with threats, but with political and military lobbyists.

Originally posted by dragonridr
They get a free ride on us taxpayers.

A free ride to where?

Originally posted by dragonridr
And in reality without the Uk this Nato plan would have fell apart years ago

What is UK afraid of exactly?

reply to post by dragonridr


I dont see as how we are getting a free ride is a good thing when you are the target of a nuclear weapon.

The way I see it is, that those bloody missile shields makes us more of a target from Russia. From the collapse of the Warsaw pact to when those missile shields were first mentioned we in Europe had nothing to fear from Russia. Its the US that has now pissed off the Russians not we in Europe.

You can take those missile shields and shove em where the sun doesnt shine.

Those who understand how nuclear weapons and mutual destruction "works" know that ABM won't change much. The biggest deterrent to any use of nuclear weapons - is the other side's nuclear weapons.

All ABM does is add instability to the equation. A truly capable ABM system is extremely expensive - no less expensive than the money it takes the other side to build more ICBMs to overcome it. So the ABM system will not lead to any safety or security - it will only lead to further ICBM production and development.

Originally posted by maloy
Those who understand how nuclear weapons and mutual destruction "works" know that ABM won't change much. The biggest deterrent to any use of nuclear weapons - is the other side's nuclear weapons.

All ABM does is add instability to the equation. A truly capable ABM system is extremely expensive - no less expensive than the money it takes the other side to build more ICBMs to overcome it. So the ABM system will not lead to any safety or security - it will only lead to further ICBM production and development.

Then with you own logic why is Russia worried no big deal they can stop leaking threats call it a day and go have a beer at the local pub! Obviously there worried or they wouldn't care what Europe does what organizations they join. No to straighten things out Im not against Russia the fact is this whole mess is political the EU is ignoring Russia and trying to find ways to get oil without them. Former Soviet bloc countries still consider Russia a huge threat Again will say the only way to resolve this is open dialog.

Originally posted by dragonridr
Then with you own logic why is Russia worried no big deal they can stop leaking threats call it a day and go have a beer at the local pub!

They are concerned because of NATOs implicit goals to create a buffer zone around Russia. Russia not really afraid - but rather reluctant to play these idiotic Cold War games.

And Russia already replied by renewing development of new ICBMs to overcome any potential shield U.S. is cooking. The deal is that rather treating this as reactionary to NATO, the West is brainwashed to see it as Russian aggression.

Originally posted by dragonridr
Obviously there worried or they wouldn't care what Europe does what organizations they join.

Well Europe is worried about what Russia does. Concern in international politics is a healthy thing - so long as it doesn't turn into a fearmongering fest (and behold!).

Originally posted by dragonridr
Former Soviet bloc countries still consider Russia a huge threat

What countries are you referring to, and why do you think they feel threatened by Russia?

Originally posted by dragonridr
Again will say the only way to resolve this is open dialog.

Agreed. But useless egos seem to dominate at this point.

Originally posted by airteck

Russia could destroy NATO ships in 20 mins: Admiral

www.ibnlive.com

Moscow: Russia's Black Sea Fleet is capable of destroying NATO's naval strike group currently deployed in the sea within 20 minutes, a former fleet commander said Friday.


"A single missile salvo from the Moskva missile cruiser, the flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, and two or three missile boats would be enough to annihilate all the NATO ships deployed in the Black Sea," Admiral Eduard Baltin said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

If the nukes start flying Putins net worth crash to near zero.
I heard that Putin is unofficially the richest man in the world.
He stole the wealth from a russian billionaire.

Originally posted by Wotan
reply to post by crisko

 

Do you really think that your Destroyers defences are that good? How the hell do you know? The US has not fought a Naval War since WW2.

Norway, UK and Australia and even China have proven to you (The US) that the US Fleet is not invulnerable.

There is only one navy that has had recent Naval Warfare experience and that is the Royal Navy.

Three of the four you mentioned are U.S. allies mate, at least the last time I checked they were. Do you thing if the U.S.Navy were to do battle with Russia, they wouldn't be there too?Hell, their destroyers and cruisers all use the Aegis defense system too.

The person who made this statement was a RETIRED Russian Admiral,not the present Admiral in charge of the fleet.He is obviously out of the loop because he mentions the formidable cruiser Moskva,which when he comes out of his vodka induced stupor,he will find was damaged during this last exchange of unpleasantness by a Georgian missile boat.

His great Black Sea fleet can barely defend itself from a third rate navy using cast off Russian equipment.

Then there is the Ukrainian Navy,which isn't really friends with Russia anymore.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by calcoastseeker]

My original draft of this post included responses to two other people who addressed posts to me, but since they were off topic to begin with I've decided to cut them out. Apologies to anyone who wished to argue with me about something that isn't the subject at hand, but frankly, I just don't care that much about what you have to say because it doesn't make a darn bit of sense anyways.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


I will address this post though.

If your whole point is that "diplomacy should never involve threats," and you're making that statement as a criticism against the United States, then you should take a look at the TOPIC and the TITLE of this thread. At any rate, I'll be starring your post when I'm done writing this because in spite of the side-splitting irony I do agree with it to a large extent.



Now, on to the topic at hand.

First of all, the Phalanx is considered by many analysts to be worthless against multiple incoming supersonic cruise missiles. If you look at the numbers, it makes sense. However, SeaRAM has demonstrated a 95% success rate against such missiles in trials, which means that Russia would have to fire a whole lot of ordnance to saturate the NATO navy's defenses.

Second of all, well, Russia has a whole lot of ordnance. If they had a brain in them, and when it comes to war they definitely do, they might decide to launch their old, low-tech missiles in a massive strike at the NATO ships. Once the anti-missile defenses were busy engaging all those smaller threats, NATO's fleet would be open to a more advanced attack from the "good stuff," so-to-speak.

Third, however, is the fact that 20 minutes is more than enough time for NATO to respond by firing off just as many missiles as Russia fired at them. It doesn't take 20 minutes to push a button, after all.

All these people arguing "which side would win" need a serious clue in. The situation would never boil down to one fleet being sunk by the other. The only issue would be which fleet was sunk first.

It's just like mutually assured destruction - there's just so much firepower involved that can be launched so easily and so quickly, that when the smoke cleared there wouldn't be anything left. Even if one side is more advanced than the other, neither is advanced enough to survive the sheer quantity of weaponry that the other side is fielding right now.

I do believe the moral of the movie "Wargames" is very applicable to a war between the U.S. and Russia: "The only way to win is by not playing."

[edit on 31-8-2008 by mattifikation]

(edit to remove the phrase "wouldn't be nothing" and replace it with something that doesn't make me sound like a hillbilly.)

[edit on 31-8-2008 by mattifikation]

Originally posted by mattifikation
Third, however, is the fact that 20 minutes is more than enough time for NATO to respond by firing off just as many missiles as Russia fired at them. It doesn't take 20 minutes to push a button, after all.
[edit on 31-8-2008 by mattifikation]

Sorry have to say Nato Fleet would go under quickly. This is not a naval fleet by any means theres enuff fire power to sting a little but to be honest Nato just doesnt believe Russia would attack. Its only there to have a nato presents at the port to give the russian 2nd thoughts about cutting georgia off from the rest of the world.

According to a Russian military intelligence source, the NATO warships that have entered the Black Sea carry over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles between them.

NATO has so far deployed the USS McFaul and the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Dallas, the Polish frigate General Pulaski, the German frigate FGS Lubeck, and the Spanish navy ship Admiral Juan de Borbon.

1 destroyer and 4 frigates is not for naval fight but now they would work for air defense of a port maybe with alot of luck

100 Tomahawk missiles is a lot of missiles. I probably never would have known they had that many on hand if you wouldn't have said something, so you basically doomed your own argument right there. Consider that in addition to those missiles, there's also going to be artillery and shore-based aircraft to contend with, coming in from both sides.

I stand by my earlier statements: by the magic 20 minute mark this Russian admiral came up with, there wouldn't be anything left in the Black Sea of either fleet.

In fact, 20 full minutes after such a conflict started, the human race would be damned lucky if it wasn't 19 minutes into the last hour of its existence.

reply to post by calcoastseeker


I am well aware that 3 out of the 4 mentioned are US Allies. It was initially those 3 that brought to the attention that the US Navy is vulnerable when they successfully ''attacked'' a US fleet with submarines whilst on excercise.

Originally posted by Harlequin


the KH-22 or AS-4 Kitchen is from 1950`s , and ; it has a range of 250 miles , cruises at 90,000 feet and terminal dive of mach 4 (not hypersonic)

its an old weapon - the russians much prefer Moskit et al now since they are much harder to shoot down

the KH-22 or AS-4 Kitchen is from 1950`s , and ; it has a range of 250 miles , cruises at 90,000 feet and terminal dive of mach 4 (not hypersonic)

The raduga kH-22m Burya The massive, supersonic Kh-22 (AS-4 Kitchen) was designed during the 1960s for dual role use as a nuclear armed standoff weapon equivalent to the RAF’s Blue Steel and as an anti-shipping missile with either radar or antiradiation seekers.The Kh-22 remains in service as the primary armament of the RuAF’s residual fleet of Tu-22M3 Backfires. The Kh-22 is a formidable weapon by any measure, powered by an Isayev R-201-300 (S5.33) liquid rocket delivering 83 kN full thrust and 5.9 kN cruise thrust. It is claimed to exceed 4.6 Mach in cruise at 80,000 ft AGL. Cited range varies between 145 NMI (270 km) and 300 NMI (550 km), subject to variant and launch speed/altitude. Russian sources claim the 900 kg shaped charge warhead will blow a five metre diameter hole, penetrating 12 metres deep when impacting a large warship.
www.ausairpower.net...

the supersonic kh-22 was upgraded to hypersonic Kh-22ma standards in the 70's

its an old weapon - the russians much prefer Moskit et al now since they are much harder to shoot down

the problem with moskit is its range , the launch platforms would have to be in 200 km in CBG range, makes them vulnerable ,

this problem is not faced by Kh-22MA or the Granit long range supersonic missile(which Oscars are armed with )

reply to post by SRTkid86


I will once again and again say this , invasion of russia would be a logistical nightmare , and MAD continues to be in place

show me the logistical capability of USA for invading Russia , and analysis on whether it is sufficient ....

[edit on 31-8-2008 by manson_322]

reply to post by mattifikation


lol, Searam .....

read this :

General characteristics (Block 1)

* Primary Function: Surface-to-Air Missile
* Contractor: Raytheon, Diehl BGT Defence
* Length: 2,780 mm (109.4 in)
* Diameter: 127 mm (5 in)
* Fin span: 445 mm (17.5 in)
* Speed: Mach 2.0+
* Warhead: 11.3 kg (24.9 lb) blast fragmentation
* Launch Weight: 73.5 kg (162 lb)
* Range: 7.5 km (4.7 mi)
* Guidance System: three modes—passive radio frequency/infrared homing, infrared only, or infrared dual mode enabled (radio frequency and infrared homing)
* Unit Cost: $444,000
* Date Deployed: 1992

en.wikipedia.org...

---------------------

Kh-22MA is capble of mach 4+ , enough said ...

reply to post by mattifikation


lol, Searam .....

read this :

General characteristics (Block 1)

* Primary Function: Surface-to-Air Missile
* Contractor: Raytheon, Diehl BGT Defence
* Length: 2,780 mm (109.4 in)
* Diameter: 127 mm (5 in)
* Fin span: 445 mm (17.5 in)
* Speed: Mach 2.0+
* Warhead: 11.3 kg (24.9 lb) blast fragmentation
* Launch Weight: 73.5 kg (162 lb)
* Range: 7.5 km (4.7 mi)
* Guidance System: three modes—passive radio frequency/infrared homing, infrared only, or infrared dual mode enabled (radio frequency and infrared homing)
* Unit Cost: $444,000
* Date Deployed: 1992

en.wikipedia.org...

---------------------

Kh-22MA is capable of mach 4.5+ , enough said ...




[edit on 31-8-2008 by manson_322]

reply to post by manson_322

Thank you

Then we have to think what if china got into this because china and Russia are great allies then no matter what u tell me then the us would be destroyed except if they made a bomb that only target Russians and Chinese then id be scarred.

Suddenly everyone on ATS is an expert on military hardware... The cruel reality of all of this is its what car people call bench racing. My car has 1000hp so its faster than your 800hp car! Nothing is known for sure, the bull# stops when the throttle drops. Now the cruelest reality is, if a war were to break out with Russia it would be the end of the world as we know it because nukes will fly from every corner of the globe till the only thing not on the endangered species list is coacaroaches and twinkies.