Aggression by Russia/uk?

[LP12]

The world in terms of anti aircraft ship defence has rather moved on in the RN since the Falklands!

[LP12]

Unknown_User said:

Heroic work eh LP12...!!!

You don't get it do you? It's a NATO warship group. It has eff all to do with Boris.

[Puggit]

LP12 said:

The world in terms of anti aircraft ship defence has rather moved on in the RN since the Falklands!

And primarily because of what happened in the Falklands.

[Red 4]

LP12 said:

The world in terms of anti aircraft ship defence has rather moved on in the RN since the Falklands!

Correct. Unfortunately so have anti-ship missile systems.

[Evanivitch]

RowntreesCabana said:

Arent these waters internationally recognised as allowing freedom of passage, only to the entire planet except Russia?

No. We're not at war with Russia. We buy their gas.

[Ayahuasca]

LP12 said:

The world in terms of anti aircraft ship defence has rather moved on in the RN since the Falklands!

It may have but three warships a dozen miles off the enemy’s coast, a few thousand miles from any possible reinforcements or rescue are not likely to be on the winning side if push came to shove.

[Unknown_User]

RowntreesCabana said:

Unknown_User said:

Well if Bozza wouldn’t do anything when the United Kingdom suffered a chemical attack what would he do if the Russians actually carried out their threat of bombing our galant armed forces in the Black Sea?

And if the carrier group now pootles off to China, do you think the Chinese will be emboldened or shaking in their boots by Bozza’s antics?

Youve mot answered the question. You called him a coward for Salislbury, what do you thjnk he should've done?

The tories could have cut all diplomatic and economic ties with the Russians and keep them cut. By showing a lack of backbone demonstrated that Bozza and his tories chums are ripe for a bit of bullying and the Russians now know it. And so do the Chinese now!

And didn't Bozza gift one of his Russian mates a peerage recently? That'll teach them pesky Ruskies eh...!!!! And not to mention Bozza's holibobs at his Russian mates Italian villa.

Ask yourself what would Margaret Thatcher of done? She wouldn't have hidden in a fridge that's for sure.

[Earthdweller]

Red 4 said:

Earthdweller said:

It is telling that the Russian warbirds were flying without missiles on the wings

I thought the Su24 dropped bombs ?

Bombs can be just as deadly. Most ships in The Falklands were damaged/ sunk by bombs (unexploded in some cases) rather than missiles, although Exocet was the much feared/ publicised weapon.

According to US navy news they were described as “flying slick” ie without weapon wing loads

But, ultimately we weren’t there

[LP12]

Ayahuasca said:

It may have but three warships a dozen miles off the enemy’s coast, a few thousand miles from any possible reinforcements or rescue are not likely to be on the winning side if push came to shove.

It's just Putin and his merry men trying to be Billy Big Balls. A Type 45 and and Arleigh-Burke would SERIOUSLY fk up an aerial attack. FFS Fencers (clean wing) flybys are a threat. oh stop me laughing.

[anonymous-user]

Pupp said:

I like that the RN in concert with NATO allies is seemingly taking a firmer line with Russia, but also remember the Argentinian capacity for effective aggression was sadly underestimated, it seemed, in the Falklands.

What was underestimated in the Falklands was the level of stupidity the Argentinian Junta were capable of. It's a shame so many people were killed or wounded because of that idiotic act by a desperate military dictatorship.

It was a failure of intelligence and signalling, not capacity to respond.

[Red 4]

Earthdweller said:

Red 4 said:

Earthdweller said:

It is telling that the Russian warbirds were flying without missiles on the wings

I thought the Su24 dropped bombs ?

Bombs can be just as deadly. Most ships in The Falklands were damaged/ sunk by bombs (unexploded in some cases) rather than missiles, although Exocet was the much feared/ publicised weapon.

According to US navy news they were described as “flying slick” ie without weapon wing loads

But, ultimately we weren’t there

Fair enough. I was talking to my ex-Lt Cdr RN neighbour about the incident earlier.
He reckons lots of reports are probably inaccurate/ politically expedient.
One thing he did say for certain is that The Ruskies really are crackers though, so we can probably all agree on that.

[Earthdweller]

LP12 said:

It's just Putin and his merry men trying to be Billy Big Balls. A Type 45 and and Arleigh-Burke would SERIOUSLY fk up an aerial attack. FFS Fencers (clean wing) flybys are a threat. oh stop me laughing.

Clean wing !

Not slick, that’s the phrase they used

[Ayahuasca]

Russia has something like seven attack submarines in its Black Sea fleet. The probability that at least one of them is shadowing the NATO warships? Rather high.

[anonymous-user]

Ayahuasca said:

Russia has something like seven attack submarines in its Black Sea fleet. The probability that at least one of them is shadowing the NATO warships? Rather high.

who has non attack submarines?

[Catatafish]

Ayahuasca said:

Russia has something like seven attack submarines in its Black Sea fleet. The probability that at least one of them is shadowing the NATO warships? Rather high.

Similar probablity of NATO subs shadowing the shadowers?

[Oil Trash]

jsf said:

who has non attack submarines?

the Beatles ?

[Unknown_User]

LP12 said:

Unknown_User said:

Heroic work eh LP12...!!!

You don't get it do you? It's a NATO warship group. It has eff all to do with Boris.

Oh my days, so a British warship has "off all to do with Boris", who just happens to be the Prime Minister!!!!

Ask yourself what did the Gov do when the Iranians caught a load of our sailors?

[Catatafish]

Oil Trash said:

jsf said:

who has non attack submarines?

the Beatles ?

James Cameron as well

[Red 4]

LP12 said:

Ayahuasca said:

It may have but three warships a dozen miles off the enemy’s coast, a few thousand miles from any possible reinforcements or rescue are not likely to be on the winning side if push came to shove.

It's just Putin and his merry men trying to be Billy Big Balls. A Type 45 and and Arleigh-Burke would SERIOUSLY fk up an aerial attack. FFS Fencers (clean wing) flybys are a threat. oh stop me laughing.

Ancient Skyhawks did lots of damage to modern ships in 1982.

The Destroyer's primary role is air defence (to protect the fleet) but I'm not sure Fencers were the only aircraft present. I wouldn't be so keen to bet on any advanced warship against some of the modern anti-ship weapons and advanced aircraft out there.

Underestimate the Russian Air Force at your peril. It does not consist solely of Fencers and Bears. They have some of the most advanced aircraft in the world.

[Ayahuasca]

Catatafish said:

Ayahuasca said:

Russia has something like seven attack submarines in its Black Sea fleet. The probability that at least one of them is shadowing the NATO warships? Rather high.

Similar probablity of NATO subs shadowing the shadowers?

Maybe, but they would be unable to prevent a Russian sub firing a torpedo and sinking a ship unless they preemptively attacked the Russian sub. Same probably applies (more scarily) to the Chinese and our carriers.