Hole wrote:What would Russia want there? The Baltics are so shit that even the balts are leaving it.
Well, it would give them a land bridge to Kalingard, they currently do not have that.
That said Russia isn't going to be attacking the Baltics
Hole wrote:What would Russia want there? The Baltics are so shit that even the balts are leaving it.
SeigSoloyvov wrote:Hole wrote:What would Russia want there? The Baltics are so shit that even the balts are leaving it.
Well, it would give them a land bridge to Kalingard, they currently do not have that.
That said Russia isn't going to be attacking the Baltics
Isos wrote:SeigSoloyvov wrote:Hole wrote:What would Russia want there? The Baltics are so shit that even the balts are leaving it.
Well, it would give them a land bridge to Kalingard, they currently do not have that.
That said Russia isn't going to be attacking the Baltics
They better let the russian go freely to Kaliningrd through their country than bring more troops from nato. At least for civilians. Invading a nice neighbourg would then be seen very bad by russian population.
SeigSoloyvov wrote:Hole wrote:What would Russia want there? The Baltics are so shit that even the balts are leaving it.
Well, it would give them a land bridge to Kalingard, they currently do not have that.
That said Russia isn't going to be attacking the Baltics
Hole wrote:What would Russia want there? The Baltics are so shit that even the balts are leaving it.
PapaDragon wrote:SeigSoloyvov wrote:Hole wrote:What would Russia want there? The Baltics are so shit that even the balts are leaving it.
Well, it would give them a land bridge to Kalingard, they currently do not have that.
That said Russia isn't going to be attacking the Baltics
Land bridge is some seriously retro concept in this equation
Building actual bridge to Kaliningrad would be both more efficient for Russia and more harmful for Baltics
So not only that Fregat would be cheaper to produce, but also to operate. I hope those recon and fighter pilots won't lose their jobs. And, oh, so much fuel will go unspent!
Yes, that should be more viable threat now. Hopefully also Syrian S-300 will be good enough for that.
Since early nuclear submarine days, Soviets trusted machines more than people. Compare the level of automation between US and Russian submarines and tell me Russians won't exploit machine learning and artificial intelligence in control and command at tactical level.
Kirov length Hindenburg could lift something more than 9 tonnes nett, while more mobile Fregat can lift more than 1 tonn gross, care to bet how long will it take it to surpass that?
I don't know how many Russian engineers do you want to work on that kilometer long airship, but I'd prefer them to work on Karakurt diesel.
Okay this sounds like doomsday survivalist paranoia, but, hell, military lives for worst case scenarios.
They cannot build an actual bridge, that would require them building it other nations territory. That bridge would also be extremely long and pointless because if Russia can actually stamp down support pillars that means they own the land they are building on.
Thats interesting, you mean like the relatively small ones that have been seen in Syria?Russia has sold several aerostats to China that are designed to hold radar antenna and radio transmission equipment..
But the obvious problem is that there is no win for Russia
Hole wrote:The ones on Syria are Au-17 Bars, the tethered baloons sold to China are larger Au-21 Puma.
No tactical, only strategic meaning. If NATO doesn't answer and Russia proves it's phoney aliance, it would decrease existenatial threat the US pose on Russia and be their greatest victory since Great Patriotic.
Appears to be French oui?the tethered baloons sold to China are larger Au-21 Puma.
JohninMK wrote:I obtained slides from a powerpoint made by Ukrainian military intelligence for Western allies
Hole wrote:Au-33 Gepard
Christopher Miller
Verified account @ChristopherJM
Oct 25
I obtained slides from a powerpoint made by Ukrainian military intelligence for Western allies that show the types & number of Russian vessels patrolling Sea of Azov. Ukraine says Russia has 56 vessels, including war ships from Black Sea Fleet & Caspian Flotilla, in Azov waters
JohninMK wrote:
Christopher Miller
Verified account @ChristopherJM
Oct 25
I obtained slides from a powerpoint made by Ukrainian military intelligence for Western allies that show the types & number of Russian vessels patrolling Sea of Azov. Ukraine says Russia has 56 vessels, including war ships from Black Sea Fleet & Caspian Flotilla, in Azov waters.
..................
Ah, French resellerAppears to be French oui?
http://www.aero-systemes.com/airships
|
|