- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Russia Unveils New Main Battle Tank, Among Other Things
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:10 am to Hold my beer
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:10 am to Hold my beer
quote:
I'm not reading 20 pages of who has the "bigger military expertise dick" to find out my information.
Cliffs: While the Navies are trying to duke it out, the land battle will only last until the Nuc parade happens..All that will be left is the few surface ships and submarines that will have to play hide and seek..
Other discussions have focused on who will pay for it, etc., those are offshoots from the original topic..
ETA: It has been surprisingly civil and is pretty straightforward in identifying those of use who aren't just starry eyed wannabees
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 10:13 am
1
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:13 am to GrammarKnotsi
How does a submarine find a carrier in the ocean?
Surely not observance from the air, right?
Surely not observance from the air, right?
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:15 am to Hold my beer
quote:
How does a submarine find a carrier in the ocean?
Surely not observance from the air, right?
Now I can't tell if you're being an arse
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:19 am to GrammarKnotsi
quote:
Now I can't tell if you're being an arse
This is why it's been 20 pages of crap.
I'm really asking this question, because the air would be patrolled 24/7 by us, because we have the air superiority.
Sorry I'm just a pleb, guy
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:21 am to Hold my beer
quote:
I'm really asking this question, because the air would be patrolled 24/7 by us,
Ok..Yes, Aviation plays a role in ASW, but it is not the main way..I would say 1/3..(1) Literally trying to spot a ship/boat from the air (2) Listening/looking for one from a surface ship (3) Subs listening/looking on their own for targets..Other ways are....classified...(unless you can Google)
Make sense..?
ETA: P-3 guy must still be on deployment
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 10:24 am
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:22 am to Hold my beer
quote:
This is why it's been 20 pages of crap.
I'm really asking this question, because the air would be patrolled 24/7 by us, because we have the air superiority.
Sorry I'm just a pleb, guy
Sonar is what's used I believe for the sub to find the carrier. it's also what's used by those who are hunting the sub. Grammer is much more of the ASW expert then I am though so I'm sure he can give far more details on the matter than I.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:26 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
If we wait until the Russians move, it's too late. Either we rebuild our forces in Europe or Europe has to build up their own forces.
1. They are never ever going to move on NATO. Nobody is stupid enough to risk a nuke war.
2. Russia can't even go through a parade without there new toys breaking down.
quote:
As it stands now, Russia is obviously rearming to regain is old Soviet era strength. The West at this time isn't. Yea we are still stronger overall, but not in Europe. Russia isn't totally rearmed yet to the point of invading Central Europe. But at the rate things are going, they'll be ready within about a decade.
No they won't. They can never afford to get back to being the big red bear. They economy is on life support, they are cutting military spending by 10% this year and they have 20 years worth of military spending to catch up. Hell, even when oil was over a $100/barrell their spending wouldn't get them close to strong enough to take on NATO. They will never be able to afford the numbers of tanks needed to invade europe especially since a drone and a missile can take them out from a safe distance away.
This ain't the 1980s anymore. Russia is broke and warfare has changed.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:27 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Not just C-17's brother. That was a C-5 I posted. Those pilots fly those routes daily. Also we have so much shite stockpiled in europe, we would be fine until a major resupply happened.
Not nearly as much as you think. My father flew the C-17's until 2013 based out of Ramstein. Up until he retired, he was flying supplies back to the US as part of a "phasing out" mission. If you've ever been to that base, they have a huge fricking warehouse that was once full..I've been inside and that fricker is nearly empty now
From what I heard him talk about, other bases were doing the same. It costs money to keep those supplies there and major downsizes/cutbacks were in process. This was all around 2010-2013 though so things may have changed.
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 10:29 am
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:27 am to GrammarKnotsi
It does.
I'm just trying to figure out how long it would take to spot just one, not 11 of these carriers. I feel like the task of even finding the sheer number of carriers in our arsenal would be a daunting task that would not be a very good tactic, spreading their navy way too thin and would be destroyed pretty easily.
I'm just trying to figure out how long it would take to spot just one, not 11 of these carriers. I feel like the task of even finding the sheer number of carriers in our arsenal would be a daunting task that would not be a very good tactic, spreading their navy way too thin and would be destroyed pretty easily.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:30 am to Hold my beer
quote:
I'm just trying to figure out how long it would take to spot just one
They're hard to spot even if you know where to look..
The premise however would be that Russia would have an idea where we were because we would be in a defensive position..
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:31 am to Hold my beer
quote:
I'm just trying to figure out how long it would take to spot just one, not 11 of these carriers. I feel like the task of even finding the sheer number of carriers in our arsenal would be a daunting task that would not be a very good tactic, spreading their navy way too thin and would be destroyed pretty easily.
Spy satellites can see carriers pretty easily. We should probably get busy killing those quickly.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:33 am to CadesCove
quote:
Spy satellites can see carriers pretty easily. We should probably get busy killing those quickly.
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 10:34 am
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:35 am to CadesCove
quote:
Spy satellites can see carriers pretty easily. We should probably get busy killing those quickly.
Those Russian Spy Satellites are mean brah..you ever seen space cowboys?
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:36 am to GrammarKnotsi
Operating killer sats has to be a bad-arse job.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:37 am to CadesCove
quote:
Operating killer sats has to be a bad-arse job
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:37 am to CadesCove
quote:
Operating killer sats has to be a bad-arse job.
It was one of the coolest places I had ever been..At one point, they had the roof painted to look like a city street from above..
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:40 am to GrammarKnotsi
Are the Russian sats as good as ours? I would imagine ours could make out which nut a guy on the flight deck is scratching.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:50 am to WeeWee
quote:
1. They are never ever going to move on NATO. Nobody is stupid enough to risk a nuke war.
Putin appears to be betting that we won't risk nuclear war to defend Europe. He's not ready to move yet, but he's building up for it.
quote:
2. Russia can't even go through a parade without there new toys breaking down.
Things break down. If I had a dollar for every time we had to call an 88 to drag our tank back to the battalion maintenance point, I'd be a rich man.
quote:
No they won't. They can never afford to get back to being the big red bear. They economy is on life support, they are cutting military spending by 10% this year and they have 20 years worth of military spending to catch up. Hell, even when oil was over a $100/barrell their spending wouldn't get them close to strong enough to take on NATO. They will never be able to afford the numbers of tanks needed to invade europe especially since a drone and a missile can take them out from a safe distance away.
As others have done in this thread, you've grown accustomed to the US have complete and total air supremacy. If we were to have to face Russia, they would contest our air and considering their air defense capabilities, I'd say at best we'd be able to achieve air superiority (yes, there's a difference between air supremacy and air superiority). And Drones are highly vulnerable to modern day SAMS.
Plus, if you look at how many drones we have and compare that to the number of tanks the Russians have today, you'll see how the notion that a Russian armored offensive being crushed by a fleet of drones is pure fantasy.
And as for Russia being able to take on NATO, to quote your own words, this ain't the 1980's anymore. As I've already shown more than once in this thread, NATO of 2015 is only a shadow of NATO of 1989.
quote:
This ain't the 1980s anymore.
It's not the 1990's either.
quote:
Russia is broke and warfare has changed.
Russia is not broke. And yes warfare has changed. But there are many aspects of warfare that will never change. first on that list is that to win a conventional war, you've got to have men and equipment on the ground with which to take and hold land. And that's what a war with Russia would entail. It would be a continental war for control over eastern & central Europe.
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 10:52 am
Posted on 5/7/15 at 10:54 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
And Drones are highly vulnerable to modern day SAMS.
Which Russia has a shite ton of.
We would have a tough time getting anything with wings into russian air space without getting shot down
Posted on 5/7/15 at 11:03 am to Adam4LSU
quote:
Which Russia has a shite ton of.
And they're damn good ones as well.
quote:
We would have a tough time getting anything with wings into russian air space without getting shot down
It would be no cakewalk for sure. The Russian air defense system is no joke.
Page 21 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News