Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Talking bollocks thread

    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 299
    Points : 278
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Pruned posts from economic thread TEMP

    Post  RTN on Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:22 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Nobody has been banned... isn't that equal treatment?

    OK, I am going to leave this post here for a day or two and then I am going to prune this thread of all this off topic stuff.

    I suspect these guys who are complaining are kids. They have set their expectations based on what they see on other forums. I remember on forums like MP.NET & F16.NET you could get banned simply for criticising Lockheed or Boeing.

    So these kids believe every time you criticise Russia, or Putin or the Russian Military Industrial Complex you should get banned. Thank goodness this hasn't happened so far, thanks to the MODS & ADMIN thumbsup and I hope that's how it remains.

    You can always criticise without being disrespectful. These kids will learn as they age.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25813
    Points : 26359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 19, 2016 11:48 am

    It is very unhealthy to be above criticism...

    Look up the definition of "Yes Men" and you will see it is a real problem where criticism is not acceptable so the leaders feel they can do no wrong... and typically end up doing very wrong things but no one will tell them what they are doing is wrong until everything goes tits up so to speak and everyone loses their job... and usually their life savings...
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2952
    Points : 3828
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:28 pm

    RTN wrote:

    I suspect these guys who are complaining are kids. They have set their expectations based on what they see on other forums. I remember on forums like MP.NET & F16.NET you could get banned simply for criticising Lockheed or Boeing.

    So these kids believe every time you criticise Russia, or Putin or the Russian Military Industrial Complex you should get banned. Thank goodness this hasn't happened so far, thanks to the MODS & ADMIN  thumbsup and I hope that's how it remains.

    You can always criticise without being disrespectful. These kids will learn as they age.

    There isn't much point having a forum if everyone thinks the same way.
    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 299
    Points : 278
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  RTN on Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:12 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:There isn't much point having a forum if everyone thinks the same way.

    Exactly, that's what I said in my last post. However the "Russia Strong" crowd in this forum are intolerant to even the slightest criticism of Russia, especially Putin

    This is despite the fact that these Russia Strong forum members choose not to reside in Russia for some unknown reason though they pass themselves off Russians Very Happy
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25813
    Points : 26359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:51 am

    Well, I am probably part of the Russia Strong crowd, though I have never claimed to be Russian... I don't say Putin is perfect, but I object when everything is Putins fault... whether it is a plot to murder some nobody in London, or to dope all Russian athletes to get the victory in the olympic games.

    Lance Armstrong was a drugs cheat and cheated successfully for decades... you can't tell me he developed the drugs on his own... how about punishment for the drug companies that sell illegal drugs? Or at least some investigation as to how they get them in the first place. I am not suggesting a blanket ban on all American athletes... drug cheats and athletes who have never failed a drug test all in the same ban like the western based authorities are with Russia...
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4984
    Points : 5012
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:03 am

    RTN wrote:
    So these kids believe every time you criticise Russia, or Putin or the Russian Military Industrial Complex you should get banned. Thank goodness this hasn't happened so far, thanks to the MODS & ADMIN  thumbsup and I hope that's how it remains.

    You can always criticise without being disrespectful. These kids will learn as they age.

    in short for them there is not enough Putin in Putin? Smile
    avatar
    Vann7

    Posts : 4582
    Points : 4686
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  Vann7 on Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:11 pm


    GarryB wrote: "They are not in a hurry" to get it into service in enormous numbers because they don't need enormous numbers of them.

    They are not making thousands of PAK FAs because they don't need thousands of PAK FAs... I think the Su-35 is a far better counter to NATO F-35s anyway.



    Please stop with your non sense.
    They training for evacuation of 40 million of civilians. So if that doesn't Ring an emergency to you ,then no idea what's is wrong with your logic.  Russia is in a state of very highly potential war even more dangerous that the one Soviets times . And contrary to Soviet times , here NATO is pushing for provoking Russia into a war in many fronts at same time ,and far from its borders. All that it takes for it to start a major war is a happy trigger general that attack a Russian warship or submarine or plane. So if Pak-FA was invented for the defense of Russia , to guarantee air supremacy , then i can't image a better time ,than NOW!!!! and not in the future for them to having them in Service.  Americans have near 200 F-22 that could be put in Service
    in no time.  and being upgraded and they can carry nuclear weapons, and those will give a major problem to Russia airforce with the ridiculous low numbers of Su-35 Russia have in the few dozens. And lets not go to the Armata T-14 , Russia also needs them.. NOW.. Russia needs Pak-fa and T-14s in the hundreds at very least ,but in reality needs a thousand or two ,and right now ,and not tomorrow or the next week or next year. because Russia face a real state of war NOW.. and not in the future. So why would you say Russia have enough planes and that their 40 or 50 Su-35 can handle near 200 F-22 + NATO airforces is Pure NON SENSE. Russia with all its airforce will be in a 20 to 1 outnumbered to NATO if not more when it comes to modern airforce with modern electronics and radars And to think NATO will fight under ideal conditions for Russia ,is foolishness , In a world war 3 , NATO will force Russia to fight far from its borders ,to create logistical problems for them ,and will fight in as many frontlines as possible ,To significantly reduce Russia capabilities to fight. and this is EXACTLY what NATO is doing today.
    NATO is fighting Russia..
    1)In Ukraine...check
    2)In Syria.... check.

    But this is far from what they can do ,it can provoke more fronts, like TUrkey already shot down Russian plane, Israel, Moldova,Serbia,Armenia ,Georgia,Egypt,Tajikistan ,or even Scandinavia or Kalingrad ,NATO could provoke wars there to bleed Russia to death in wars everywhere. So Russia needs as many Pak-FA or Armatas as they can build IF Russia was piece of mind that is ,that no matter how many front lines NATO support against Russia,That Russia will handle it without problems. but Now that is not the case. Russia can barely hold in Syria. and being slapped in the face there at times.. So you tell me that Russia does not need Pak-fa now and that SU-35 ,the few Russia have are enough?  NON SENSE.  Russia needs to be Prepared for
    a total war with NATO right this year in 2016.. So it will make sense for Russia to have a very lethal Airforce and Army with conventional force ,that can overwhelm NATO in any place. Because again Russia cannot use nukes and risk they fall in the wrong place and kill millions of civilians in cities . So this is why Russia needs to be very strong ,much more than NATO in conventional force too.This is because Russia face war , right Now from NATO ,and is only proxy ,but it will be a matter of time it will become a direct one ,if things dont change.

    Wars That could happen with Ukraine and or Baltics and or Turkey and or US and or UK and or Moldova if invade Transnistria and or to counter Israel.. so many places that Russia will save many lives or even avoid it ,if they had a very strong number of modern planes and tanks deployed there. So that Russia can become a major deterrence with conventional power too. and not be so limited with their nukes ,that will not be ideal to use them first ,because NATO can later use a Russia first use of nuclear weapons ,to claim on its media is bombing million of civilians . Russia will not mind to have a clear major domination, in tanks inventory and Air supremacy to avoid a war before it start.  .. and for the only Reason Russia does not have them in the Hundreds or a thousand numbers is because Russia economy is not there. . Russia even need more Submarines way more and Pak-FA now.. not tomorrow.  So stop the Non sense ,that Russia "don't need them."  because thats not true.  Russia needs to be very strong ,if they want to become a major deterrence for NATO ,not only with nuclear weapons ,but also conventional weapons.

    It was people like YOU garry ,who were saying day and night.. oh noo.. .No one is going to attack Russia since they have nuclear weapons.. then guess what? Turkey shot down a Russian Pilot and did it intentionally and to provoke Russia into a war. So in what way Russia nukes serve as a deterrence to Turkey ? In none.. Because Erdogan knows Putin is weak President and cares a lot of public opinion and sanctions and cannot use nukes against its enemy unless is attacked with Nukes first.  So Russia depends strongly on its Conventional forces ,tanks and airforce to counter NATO.. and its nukes is only to counter the use of nuclear weapons against Russia.  Russia DO needs hundreds if not a thousand of Pak-fa planes ,to fight against NATO.
    Because you cannot say it will never happen, it can. And the only reason Russia does not have them is because of Economic limitations , nothing more and nothing else. But Russia needs a very strong army .. not that is "good enough" as you claim.. but one that is overwhelming superior in numbers and technology that can overwhelm NATO in a domestic war any time .
    This is because the only Thing the west Respect is overwhelming force . They are picking low to medium level fights with Russia ,because they know Russia will not use nuclear of any NATO city ,risking civilians in a meaningful way to stop a war if they are not attacked with nukes first.

    So Russia do needs as many Pak-fa and armatas and pak-da as they can. Not in the future
    but right now ,that Russia is facing a state of war. stop the nonsense that Russia is good enough now.. because is not . "Good enough" , is a myth.. such a thing doesn't exit for Russia today in a fight with NATO. We only need to look at the embarrassing performance of Russia with Georgia and this was even told by medvedev ,where Russia lost a thousand soldiers to a small third world nation like Georgia.  If NATO does what is trying to do ,and Clinton have been hinting will do.. that is provoke a full scale war in Ukraine and Syria . Then Russia will be forced at the same time a war in no less than 2 fronts. and guess what? Russia cannot use nuclear weapons against Ukraine , because it could potentially kill civilians or poison them with radiation .then you have crazy Erdogan ,an ISIS fanatic that could start a full scale war against Syria and Russia a conventional war. Then Russia cannot start using nuclear weapons against Turkey cities . Because that will justify NATO to retaliate with nukes Russia etc and they will claim is because Russia is using nukes against civilians. So Russia not only need a very powerful Nuclear force ,but also a very powerful modern Airforce ,with hundreds if not at least a thousand of Pak-Fa planes and a thousand of Armata ,just in case Russia is forced to fight NATO in a conventional war.  In world war 2 , that war will have never ended if Russia does not invade Germany capital and put a flag in Berlin. So Russia needs to be prepared ,even if you think it will not happen ,for a war against NATO and being forced to invade them to stop them. So this is why you cannot say Russia have "good enough" anything. Russia does not have the Airforces or Tank force to capture Kiev ,Ankara at same time ,without horrendous casualties. And the only thing Russia can win a conventional war with NATO , is by having Modern Tanks and Pak-fa in the hundreds if not a couple of thousands For a very quick victory.  This is because what Russia have today is not good enough for that.  Russia cannot think in defense of its nation only , and needs to think in very potential wars it could face ,far away of its territory to defend its interest as they doing in Syria and as they will have to do in Egypt and Serbia that will be attacked too. By NATO freedom terror fighters.

    What you fail to understand
    is that Russia nuclear weapons is deterrence against NATO use of nuclear weapons.
    But not a deterrence against Nations like Turkey or Ukraine. people who cares NOT SHIT
    about civilians being nuked by Russia since they do not care about its people , So because Russia cannot use nukes against kiev or Ankara.. for the major legal problems it could face
    if kill millions civilians ,it will be forced to use only conventional forces. And only having an overwhelming conventional force , like a Thousand of Pak-FA and many thousands of ARmata tanks can guarantee Russia a very fast war ,a very fast victory with next to no casualties. Having Big numbers of modern military will help Russia to overwhelm the enemy very fast
    in any conventional war and force him to peace ,when Russian tanks in their capital.
    Time is everything in wars ,and delaying things and allowing your enemy to regroup or develop a strategy is not good against an invasion of a NATO country. To fight in 3 or 4 front lines at same times from kaliningrad to Syria to Caucausus and Far east Russia will need at least 5,000 armata tanks to have overwhelming force ,while at the same time have all its borders protected ,and even have them in reserve too .So Russia can deploy in all potential battlefields if forced to fight in many places at same time as NATO is clearly seeking to achieve . but you dont see. If you think Ukraine and Syria is concidence ,then you are seriously behind in understanding what is NATO strategy against Russia. To overwhelm it in many fronts at same time , destabilize all its borders and all the nations Russia have interest to force Russia to interfere and becoming weakened ,something Russia could avoid if had a very overwhelming conventional but also nuclear force to effectively take the fight directly to their powerful enemies . Russia simply needs to be prepared to take the fight Directly to its most powerful enemies ,and that can only be achieved with an overwhelming conventional modern force. Otherwise will continue Russia facing Proxy wars with Alqaeda and ISIS or wars against border nations, endlessly being armed in Russia noses by NATO ,to fight for decades against Russia . So not is not enough , as you claim. Russia military capabilities are only designed to fight an invasion on Russia ,but not to take the fight to their enemies and invade and capture a major NATO power and overthrow its Government by force. So Russia needs to build as many Pak-fa as possible , 500 , 1000 or 2,000. or even more. Because it have a very large nation to protect and cannot have all those planes in the same place . And cannot rely Russia anymore in a defensive war only ,and sooner or later if things dont change Russia will need to take the war directly to NATO ,for what they are doing in Ukraine and Syria. And possibly even Russia will have to prepare to invade NATO too ,as they did with Hitler. Because when you have a tyrant in power ,wars dont end until he is removed by force. So yes Russia does not have such capabilities now , but it have to think plan for it ,whether it like it or not. If want to really protect Russia ,and force them to stop any criminal action against their nation ,then there is nothing better than to take the fight directly
    to them ,and not continue playing embarrasing and weak games like in Syria allowing Alqaeda to continue bombing civilians,of pretending is not a war with NATO and that all is just a "misconception" or "misunderstanding".  IF trump doesn't wins the elections , i don't see
    how Russia will avoid a war with US if clinton elected. Since she have already told in every debate ,she will kick Russia out of Syria and Ukraine too, by force ,by giving lethal weapons to their Alqaeda "moderates" and their Ukraine nazis allies. Moral of the story ,for a WAR with NATO ,Russia will never have "good enough" army or airforce or Navy. it needs to get as many military modern weapons it can, as many planes and tanks and warships, without going bankrupt. because contrary to what you believe ,a world war 3 cannot be predicted ,how bad could be ,and how many theaters of Battle Russia will be forced to fight. Im sure the Pentagon ,
    will try to get as many front lines as possible with violence and war , to take advantage of Russia military weakness ,that is out numbered by the west.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25813
    Points : 26359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:32 am

    They training for evacuation of 40 million of civilians. So if that doesn't Ring an emergency to you ,then no idea what's is wrong with your logic.

    That is what civil defence does. That is what they do.

    Sailors on a ship also train for fires... it is a precaution so they know what to do in the worst case scenario. Not that they expect their ship to suddenly burst into flames.

    Russia is in a state of very highly potential war even more dangerous that the one Soviets times . And contrary to Soviet times , here NATO is pushing for provoking Russia into a war in many fronts at same time ,and far from its borders.

    And even assuming that is right WTF difference would Russia spending 10 billion dollars making a few hundred PAK FAs do to change that?

    Do you think the US and NATO would become more or less aggressive if Russia was stronger?

    Hint in the 1990s when Russia had lots of problems NATO and the US didn't notice they existed.

    happy trigger general that attack a Russian warship or submarine or plane. So if Pak-FA was invented for the defense of Russia , to guarantee air supremacy , then i can't image a better time ,than NOW!!!! and not in the future for them to having them in Service.  Americans have near 200 F-22 that could be put in Service
    in no time.  and being upgraded and they can carry nuclear weapons, and those will give a major problem to Russia airforce with the ridiculous low numbers of Su-35 Russia have in the few dozens. And lets not go to the Armata T-14 , Russia also needs them.. NOW..

    If it just took one trigger happy dick to start a war then we already would have had several wars.

    Russias conventional military power has nothing to do with whether war will start or not.

    So why would you say Russia have enough planes and that their 40 or 50 Su-35 can handle near 200 F-22 + NATO airforces is Pure NON SENSE.

    Russia does not need to fight and defeat NATO... it needs to be able to defend its own airspace and to be able to nuke Europe to the stone age... for that it does not need thousands of anything.

    NATO is fighting Russia..
    1)In Ukraine...check
    2)In Syria.... check.

    Bullshit.

    There are no Russian forces in the Ukraine and NATO forces are attacking non Russian targets in Syria.

    So you tell me that Russia does not need Pak-fa now and that SU-35 ,the few Russia have are enough?  NON SENSE.  

    So Russia gets trillions into debt and builds thousands of PAK FA and T-14... you idiot... NATO does not need to attack Russia anywhere... it owns Russia already... its economy would be in tatters.

    WTF difference would PAK FA do in Syria? In the Ukraine? The US has over stretched its force of F-22s... they are everywhere... oops, no they are not... they are expensive hangar queens they can't even use in Syria because S-400 will shoot them down.

    Because again Russia cannot use nukes and risk they fall in the wrong place and kill millions of civilians in cities .

    Nukes are to kill people... that is their purpose.

     Russia needs to be very strong ,if they want to become a major deterrence for NATO ,not only with nuclear weapons ,but also conventional weapons.

    Russia is strong and getting stronger. Luckily it is not stupid and making things it does not need... even if they had 1,000 PAK FA right now... who is going to fly them?

    It was people like YOU garry ,who were saying day and night.. oh noo.. .No one is going to attack Russia since they have nuclear weapons.. then guess what? Turkey shot down a Russian Pilot and did it intentionally and to provoke Russia into a war.

    And how would a much larger conventional Russian military force in Russia have changed that?

    The cowardly Turks shot down a Russian aircraft, while terrorists on the ground actually murdered two Russians... if they had PAK FAs there in Syria... what difference would it have made?

    The facts are that the Russians did not expect Turkey to interfere with its aircraft as they were there fighting terrorists. It turns out Turkey murdered those Russians and as a result the Russians took precautions... Su-30 and Su-35 escorts and S-400 SAM batteries... note none of which involves PAK FA fighters...

    So in what way Russia nukes serve as a deterrence to Turkey ? In none.. Because Erdogan knows Putin is weak President and cares a lot of public opinion and sanctions and cannot use nukes against its enemy unless is attacked with Nukes first.  So Russia depends strongly on its Conventional forces ,tanks and airforce to counter NATO.. and its nukes is only to counter the use of nuclear weapons against Russia.  Russia DO needs hundreds if not a thousand of Pak-fa planes ,to fight against NATO.

    The Russians were hammering Turkeys terrorist allies and Turkey took an action... an action they clearly recognise now to have been a mistake.

    Are you suggesting that Turkey shooting down a plane killing their allies equates to a threat to Russia that Russian defence forces need thousands of expensive stealth aircraft to defend themselves against?

    Really?

    This is because the only Thing the west Respect is overwhelming force . They are picking low to medium level fights with Russia ,because they know Russia will not use nuclear of any NATO city ,risking civilians in a meaningful way to stop a war if they are not attacked with nukes first.

    OK lets assume you are right... then only having nukes is the best solution... a NATO attack on Russia could only be responded to with a tactical nuclear attack... fuck NATO civilians... why should Russia not nuke a NATO city?

    Im sure the Pentagon ,
    will try to get as many front lines as possible with violence and war , to take advantage of Russia military weakness ,that is out numbered by the west.

    Bring it on... US "advisors" made little or no difference for the Georgian conflict... they likely got killed in Syria... why else would the west be bleating about Russia bombing Allepo? It was obviously the wests centre of operations for their special forces... that explains why the SA couldn't take it previously.
    Who gives a crap about the Ukraine... any of those Russians want to become Russian then declare it or move.

    Very simply the Russians have a rearmament plan which they are pretty much keeping to.

    They will never make thousands of PAK FAs for themselves... they simply don't need thousands of them and have no use for thousands of them... they don't even have use for thousands of planes already in storage.

    What they need to do is keep their heads and react as the west does stupid things like support terrorists in Syria. And I said react... not over react like start WWIII because some Turk pilot shot down a Fencer... even if it was under the personal order of the Turkish leader.

    That would not help Syria and it would not help Russia.

    Turkey has shown guts or is that common sense and realised that Syria has no future in the control of the opposition... which is just a bunch of hundreds of independent factions who don't like Assad.

    They apologised for what they did, and I assume some changes have been made.

    If Russia had just shot down a Turkish aircraft things would not be good for anyone.
    avatar
    Vann7

    Posts : 4582
    Points : 4686
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  Vann7 on Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:35 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    And how would a much larger conventional Russian military force in Russia have changed that?

    The cowardly Turks shot down a Russian aircraft, while terrorists on the ground actually murdered two Russians... if they had PAK FAs there in Syria... what difference would it have made?.

    Simple.

    Having pak-fas in big numbers a thousand or more in service will have no saved the life
    of the Pilot for sure , this is not the point . The point is that if Russia had a thousand of PAK-fa
    in service ,it will have FAR more options ,to fight NATO than the ones they have now. Russia military capabilities today are limited to defense mostly. defense of Russian territory.
    If Russia had a Thousand of Pak-FA and Armata tanks.. it will have the option to invade Turkey
    ,create a no fly zone Very Fast ,destroy all their airforce and military bases in an Hour or Two
    using lighting Strike surprise attack ,using just precision strikes with overwhelming force. And if Erdogan still continues with the war against Russia ,then it will have to remove ERdogan by Brute Force , Russia could send overwhelming Tank force and invade Turkey with a massive overwhelming force. My point is , Only Sheer Power and Overwhelming lethal conventional force will make Russian enemies to change their policies once they provoke Russia into a war.

    BUt if Russia all its does in just turn the other cheek ,as it is shamefully doing in Syria and Ukraine ,then it will be continue being attacked again and again and again. HAving a Thousand pak-fa and a couple of thousand of Armatas or more will allow Russia to fight in many front lines at the same time with overwhelming force , and will give way more options to Russia ,to fight outside Russia ,as well it can do it on its own territory and even invade another nation ,like Turkey or Israel with Overwhelming force is needed.  The advantage of having an overwhelming massive force of Pak-fa will be significant for Russia ,because can quickly very fast withing minutes obliterate Either Turkey or Israel air defenses and Airforce in not time and the so Fast defeat will force them to surrender ,knowing it have no chance to win against Russia.

    Thats the huge benefit Russia can get by having a thousand or more Pak-fas and couple of thousands of armatas  ,that it will save lots of lives by having the capability to overwhelm in an OFFENSIVE their enemies at lighting speed. But If Russia goes inch by inch ,slowing delaying an offensive against any enemy it will provoke many casualties and it will only teach their enemies how to adapt to their war.

    So is non sense that Russia is good enough now , they really need to boost their military capabilies by a factor of 10x at least if not 30x.. so that if a major war with NATO start.. before
    there is any cease of fire , that Russia truly punish their enemies and without using nukes ,in such a way that they will never again dare to mess with Russia.

    Why Russia cannot use nukes against NATO or Turkey ? because if Russia kills a million of civilians ,it will not provoke a civil war in that nation ,to disband it. Since civilians will join their government ,so Russia will help its enemies to get unity if become careless about civilians lives.
    IF in the other side Russia only target Military objectives and do a clean war after being attacked, then the outrage and hate will be against their government and not Russia ,because NATO started the fight.

    Russia needs overwhelming conventional modern force . To quickly dominate its enemies in any confrontation they provoke. and if Turkey for example choose to close the black sea. Which is a declaration of war ,according to treaties they signed. because it blocks illegally Russian water ports. Then Russia could do a lighting invasion on a couple of Turkey cities and wipe all Turkey airforce very fast and then later Turkey will have to capitulate to Russian demands for any peace.  If all Russia have is a few planes , it will not pose a major threat to any NATO country or potential enemies like ,that is also aiding ISIS,and will be very limited on its response.

    Overwhelming conventional modern force is what Russia need. The benefit of it will be ,that NATO will thing twice before provoking a limited short war confrontation. Because Russia will have the abilities ,to cause overwhelming damage with very high laser precision and without using nukes.

    You could win a war (that you know cannot avoid and will have to do it) ,in a preventive strike ,just using massive overwhelming force in a surprise attack. A force of 500 pak-fa's attacking Turkey from All sides , will be create a massive confusion on Turkey military and not allow them to understand how to deal with such force and by the time they start an offensive ,get all their military bases destroyed and all their planes shot down. This is... The Huge Advantage ,Huge benefit Russia can get by using overwhelming force ,surprise attacks on its enemies. It can neutralize its enemies military forces very fast and save many military lives and force that nation to surrender faster.  Delaying things as Russia is doing in Syria ,and Ukraine (such tactic cannot be used against NATO) only will gets lots and lots of people killed and encourage Russia enemies to continue their sabotage on Russia interest because they see,they can handle it.

    The same is true for bombers..
    Pak-fas will help Russia fight close to its territory .  Pak-das will help Russia project power world wide and fight across Pacific and Atlantic. So Russia needs to get as many pak-fas and Pak-das as they can. not just 10 ,20 or 30.. But in the hundreds.. in case of Bombers ,and a thousand or more in the case of combat planes. US airforce and navy have more than 3,000 fighter planes for comparisons. Overwhelming Force will be an ideal case for Russia ,to allow Russia to fight in many front lines at the same and outside of its borders..as they now doing in Syria and will have to do in Serbia too ,to counter NATO . This is how you stop enemies from starting any major war. by showing them ,they cannot win ,neither using conventional weapons or nuclear.

    In world wars ,that Russia Federation is very close to face one.. the term "good enough" is non sense. You never have a good enough army or good enough airforce ,or good enough tanks ,if your enemies surpass you in numbers 10 to 1 at least and have very dangerous weapons.

    if Soviets had an overwhelming Force of modern tanks right from the start and overwhelming force of war planes. The Nazis will have been pushed back in days after invading Soviet Union. But it did not have Overwhelming force ,and just barely enough force..and it cost them 22 millions civilians lives and 3 years of fight,for not having a very strong and massive force right from the start to counter germany.

    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 420
    Points : 416
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  Azi on Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:58 am

    @Vann7

    You underestimate one factor...a big war between NATO and Russia will go very fast nuclear, so the whole war is in 30 Min over!

    The only possible military conflict that can erupt between USA and Russia is in small conflict regions like Syria. Maybe the USA wants to establish a "no fly zone" over Syria, but they would never throw their whole military might in, maximum is a few dozens of fighters and bombers. So Russia must be prepared for this threat!

    And by the way, Russia is doing very well with it's military projects, you would win nothing with 2000 T-50 but no modern air defense like S-500. Russia is investing in a perfect military mix, the only points that lacks a bit is a 5gen light fighter (counterpart to F-16, F-35 etc) and modern 5gen interceptor, but both projects are underway and maybe we will see them soon.

    We have now again a cold war between USA and Russia, and the main objective is to ruin the economy of Russia. Investing to much in arms is exact what the USA wants Russia to do! Remember the USSR had a overwhemling force and "lost" the cold war.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25813
    Points : 26359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 27, 2016 12:06 pm

    The point is that if Russia had a thousand of PAK-fa
    in service ,it will have FAR more options ,to fight NATO than the ones they have now. Russia military capabilities today are limited to defense mostly. defense of Russian territory.

    Russia would not have any other options but to invade NATO countries to pay all their debts if they had thousands of PAKFAs and T-14s.

    A full out war with any NATO country is very unlikely because the risk of escalation to a nuke war is just too high.

    Russia having 10 PAK FA or 10,000 PAK FA does not change that.

    If Russia had a Thousand of Pak-FA and Armata tanks.. it will have the option to invade Turkey
    ,create a no fly zone Very Fast ,destroy all their airforce and military bases in an Hour or Two

    Russia would have no reason or right to invade Turkey and NATO is designed specifically as a collective defence... all NATO countries would be obliged to help Turkey if Russia invaded.

    Invading Turkey would be stupid for Russia.

    What Russia could have done was declare a no fly zone over all of Syria and then shot down any non Syrian or Russian aircraft in Syrian airspace... escort them away at first and then light them up with S-400 if they persist... launch a missile and then detonate it in flight if needed to send clear messages.

    using lighting Strike surprise attack ,using just precision strikes with overwhelming force. And if Erdogan still continues with the war against Russia ,then it will have to remove ERdogan by Brute Force , Russia could send overwhelming Tank force and invade Turkey with a massive overwhelming force. My point is , Only Sheer Power and Overwhelming lethal conventional force will make Russian enemies to change their policies once they provoke Russia into a war.

    You seem to be mistaking Russia for the US.

    Russia is not about regime change... and if they were then Saudi Arabia should be the target, not turkey.

    BUt if Russia all its does in just turn the other cheek ,as it is shamefully doing in Syria and Ukraine ,then it will be continue being attacked again and again and again. HAving a Thousand pak-fa and a couple of thousand of Armatas or more will allow Russia to fight in many front lines at the same time with overwhelming force , and will give way more options to Russia ,to fight outside Russia ,as well it can do it on its own territory and even invade another nation ,like Turkey or Israel with Overwhelming force is needed. The advantage of having an overwhelming massive force of Pak-fa will be significant for Russia ,because can quickly very fast withing minutes obliterate Either Turkey or Israel air defenses and Airforce in not time and the so Fast defeat will force them to surrender ,knowing it have no chance to win against Russia.

    Yeah... because 10 plus carrier groups and thousands of fighter aircraft including stealth fighters and stealth bombers allow the US to succeed and get their way... like in Georgia... oops, no... they are just trillions of dollars of wasted material because at the end of the day military force does not really help that much most of the time. It just kills bystanders.

    if Soviets had an overwhelming Force of modern tanks right from the start and overwhelming force of war planes. The Nazis will have been pushed back in days after invading Soviet Union. But it did not have Overwhelming force ,and just barely enough force..and it cost them 22 millions civilians lives and 3 years of fight,for not having a very strong and massive force right from the start to counter germany.

    Actually that is funny you say that... the Soviets did have an overwhelming force... T-26s were crap tanks but still better than Panzer Mk2s. The Soviets also had the worlds largest air force.

    It was design and training that really let them down... they were not ready for modern war... just like the British and French and Americans etc etc.

    It would not have mattered if all their aircraft were Yak-1s or Polikarpov I-16s or their tanks were T-34s or T-26s... most of the enormous Soviet forces were encircled and captured or destroyed in the first 6 months of the war.

    For Russia now they have no money or manpower to create an enormous conventional military force and they are not stupid enough to try.

    The critical things are high tech and mobility... they wont have a large force, but it will be very capable and very mobile... and where it can't be they can use tactical nukes to defend their territory.

    If you want them to invade their neighbours then the problem is yours not theirs.

    Russia does not need to solve the problems in the Ukraine... it is simply not their problem.

    With all the western bullshit about civilian casualties in Syria I think Russia should start complaining to the west about Kievs atrocities in the Ukraine... they wont report it in the western media but every time they speak they can complain about such barbarous activities just like the west complains about how undemocratic Russia is and how unlike the civilised west the Chinese are... whine whine whine.

    Make them feel that...
    avatar
    Vann7

    Posts : 4582
    Points : 4686
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:51 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Russia would have no reason or right to invade Turkey and NATO is designed specifically as a collective defence... all NATO countries would be obliged to help Turkey if Russia invaded.

    Invading Turkey would be stupid for Russia.

    And this is where you completely fail to understand , That if Turkey in alliance with Americans ,bomb Russia military base in syria killing hundreds of soldiers.. and then later close the bhospurus strait , which is a declaration of war ,how is Russia going to respond? Will Russia use nukes to bomb Turkey cities and kill millions in retaliation?  or will Russia just apologise and leave Syria?

    This is what you fail to understand. That NATO will not fight fairly Russia, but dirty.And using civilians and even people close to Russia as shields.  That Russia will be forced to invade another nation if that country refuse to stop attacking Russia.  So by doing that ,fighting away of Russia territory ,Russia will lose most of its advantages that they will enjoy if fight in their own land. by having to move its army to another country. across the black sea. and with NATO providing weapons to Turkey and logistics.

    IF erdogan which is a radical fanatic ,close the gate to the mediterranean to Russia ,what is Russia going to do? It have to fight Garry and it cannot use nukes so fast. Russia will try to use its airforce ,but with NATO radars deployed in Greece ,Turkey will have a complete vision of every Russian plane and any position ,causing significant casualties to their planes.

    And Russia cannot use all its best planes in Turkey alone ,knowing that its limited airforce numbers , will force Russia to go very cheap , and hold most of their best planes for a fight in another front line or against  Americans.

    This is ,where an overwhelming Conventional force of stealth Planes and modern Tanks can do a major difference. And Give Russia way more options ,by allowing Russia to fight with overwhelming force not only in Russia but also in middle east too and in central Europe or in Serbia or in North Africa. If Russia did not invaded Berlin , after Hitler declared war on Russia ,the war will have never be over. So Russia cannot just be a defensive force. that is not good enough. Russia needs to defend allies.. and i told you A MILLION of times in the past..but you are so stubborn that dont get it. and to defend allies , Like Syria ,Like tranistria,Like Serbia ,Like Egypt Russia needs also a very powerful ,overwhelming conventional force. Why a thousands of Pak-FA will be ideal for Russia? Because it will give far more options in defenses ,and use their numbers ,to very fast ,at lighting speed OVerwhelm enemy defenses and safe lots of lives.

    If Russia do a surprise attack on any enemy ,they know ,they cannot avoid a war with them .and that war in inevitable. Then it will be ideal for Russia to do a first preventive strike with overwhelming force . to totally confuse and paralyse the enemy.

    And Russia also needs in an ideal army ,and overwhelming force of thousands of Armatas .because if an enemy does not surrender ,then Russia will need to invade that nation and hold and important part of that nation territory ,and demand them to surrender and peace and reparation damages if wants Russia to leave.  Russia could capture Istanbul for example and not leave until Turkey agree to surrender for peace and pay damages. See?

    Moral of the story ...
    YOU CANNOT SOLVE EVERYTHING WITH NUKES
    Nukes is not to win wars ,but to destroy a nation. To win a war ,and stop an enemy from attacking you ,and do not reason ,and do not care about civilians, you have no other options
    that use conventional force and invade that nation and capture a major important part of their territory , and say that will not leave until they reverse their policies and aggression on their nation.  Just using fancy cruise missiles and nukes will not win a war. Russia could drop a million of cruise missiles in Syria and still will not defeat ISIS . you need boots in the ground ,with a very strong overwhelming airforce and and overwhelming tank force to hold territory without
    suffering much casualties ,while totally destroying the enemy capabilities to control its airspace and do any offensive. Any thing.. that is "good enough" is not enough. it will be very expensive in human lives in their forces to go with a proportional force than the enemy.

    The failure of your reasoning is your belief ,that NATO will fight Russia ,on its own land ,where they are stronger. hell no.  Americans will fight Russia to the last European and middle east citizen they can get to fight Russia ,and force Russia to move far away of its land. This is exactly what they doing in Syria. Which things become more complicated ,if for example NATO close the IRAQ airspace ,and close the Busphurus strait.. then how is russia going to suply their people in Syria? Russia in such scenario will have to fight Turkey , **in retaliation** for their war..and just a cruise missile here or there is going to achieve NOTHING. Russia will have to invade Turkey to stop them ,and Capture a major important asset of Turkey to force them to surrender. Like it will be capturing Istanbul returning the control back of Russia to the enter in the mediterranean , and to capture also Cyprus ,the Turkish zone. Allowing Russia to deploy military base there to intercept any Turkey supplies .

    The myth that Russia will force its enemies to retreat just using nukes is non sense.
    This will work against leaders who cares about its citizens. but Erdogan is a fanatical extremist and do not think in the same way than normal people. Again any war that NATO provokes in Russia ,will not be fought in Russia territory. So get that shit right atleast that for once.
    NATO will not make things easy for Russia by invading St Petersburg or Crimea,but as Complicate as possible and through third party forces ,not directly. And US can claim all day,
    they have nothing to do with any nation fighting Russia. They can do this day and night all the time , thanks to Putin dependence of its western partners for its energy business NATO is doing this in Ukraine and Turkey and tried to do with Moldova and Azerbaijan too.  If Russia is forced to fight in many battlefields at the same time , it will not have the power to defend its allies or interest . This is why ideally Russia needs an overwhelming force of Airforce ,Tanks and Navy too.  That Russia do not have an economy to finance a major airforce of the size of Americans?
    Of course they dont.   But dont come and say  that ,That Russia with just 50x su-35 and 60x Su-30's  and 11x Tu-160 and other soviet planes  ,"Is all that Russia need" or that "is good enough" because is not. or that Russia don't need Pak-fas now.. Your reasoning is always incorrect into thinking , that 1)Russian enemies will be reasonable and not radical 2)that Russian will only fight in Russia territory ,where they are very strong and that NATO will not force Russia into fight far away of its territory and on many front lines at the same time ,to take advantage of its limited numbers of modern airforce and tank force. This was clearly told by an American NAVY general.. Russian newest Submarines ,like Borei and Yansen he told ,its big fault is that Russia have so few of them. and he is right. Numbers do matter. having just a few pak-fas is not going to make a single difference. but having a thousand of them ,will be an overwhelming force and will allow Russia to fight with a lethal force and finish a war before it start  ,save a lot of lives and just using modern conventional weapons and in big numbers.

    But as if stand now.. Russia military capabilities outside Russia territory are very limited.
    and this is what NATO is going to exploit a lot. and the only way to counter that effectively
    is to have a modern overwhelming force ,that can fight in many frontlines at same time ,with very little to none casualties.

    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2013
    Points : 2005
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:15 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

    Russia would have no reason or right to invade Turkey and NATO is designed specifically as a collective defence... all NATO countries would be obliged to help Turkey if Russia invaded.

    Invading Turkey would be stupid for Russia.

    And this is where you completely fail to understand , That if Turkey in alliance with Americans ,bomb Russia military base in syria killing hundreds of soldiers.. and then later close the bhospurus strait , which is a declaration of war ,how is Russia going to respond? Will Russia use nukes to bomb Turkey cities and kill millions in retaliation?  or will Russia just apologise and leave Syria?

    This is what you fail to understand. That NATO will not fight fairly Russia, but dirty.And using civilians and even people close to Russia as shields.  That Russia will be forced to invade another nation if that country refuse to stop attacking Russia.  So by doing that ,fighting away of Russia territory ,Russia will lose most of its advantages that they will enjoy if fight in their own land. by having to move its army to another country. across the black sea. and with NATO providing weapons to Turkey and logistics.

    IF erdogan which is a radical fanatic ,close the gate to the mediterranean to Russia ,what is Russia going to do? It have to fight Garry and it cannot use nukes so fast. Russia will try to use its airforce ,but with NATO radars deployed in Greece ,Turkey will have a complete vision of every Russian plane and any position ,causing significant casualties to their planes.

    And Russia cannot use all its best planes in Turkey alone ,knowing that its limited airforce numbers , will force Russia to go very cheap , and hold most of their best planes for a fight in another front line or against  Americans.

    This is ,where an overwhelming Conventional force of stealth Planes and modern Tanks can do a major difference. And Give Russia way more options ,by allowing Russia to fight with overwhelming force not only in Russia but also in middle east too and in central Europe or in Serbia or in North Africa. If Russia did not invaded Berlin , after Hitler declared war on Russia ,the war will have never be over. So Russia cannot just be a defensive force. that is not good enough. Russia needs to defend allies.. and i told you A MILLION of times in the past..but you are so stubborn that dont get it. and to defend allies , Like Syria ,Like tranistria,Like Serbia ,Like Egypt Russia needs also a very powerful ,overwhelming conventional force. Why a thousands of Pak-FA will be ideal for Russia? Because it will give far more options in defenses ,and use their numbers ,to very fast ,at lighting speed OVerwhelm enemy defenses and safe lots of lives.

    If Russia do a surprise attack on any enemy ,they know ,they cannot avoid a war with them .and that war in inevitable. Then it will be ideal for Russia to do a first preventive strike with overwhelming force . to totally confuse and paralyse the enemy.

    And Russia also needs in an ideal army ,and overwhelming force of thousands of Armatas .because if an enemy does not surrender ,then Russia will need to invade that nation and hold and important part of that nation territory ,and demand them to surrender and peace and reparation damages if wants Russia to leave.  Russia could capture Istanbul for example and not leave until Turkey agree to surrender for peace and pay damages. See?

    Moral of the story ...
    YOU CANNOT SOLVE EVERYTHING WITH NUKES
    Nukes is not to win wars ,but to destroy a nation. To win a war ,and stop an enemy from attacking you ,and do not reason ,and do not care about civilians, you have no other options
    that use conventional force and invade that nation and capture a major important part of their territory , and say that will not leave until they reverse their policies and aggression on their nation.  Just using fancy cruise missiles and nukes will not win a war. Russia could drop a million of cruise missiles in Syria and still will not defeat ISIS . you need boots in the ground ,with a very strong overwhelming airforce and and overwhelming tank force to hold territory without
    suffering much casualties ,while totally destroying the enemy capabilities to control its airspace and do any offensive. Any thing.. that is "good enough" is not enough. it will be very expensive in human lives in their forces to go with a proportional force than the enemy.

    The failure of your reasoning is your belief ,that NATO will fight Russia ,on its own land ,where they are stronger. hell no.  Americans will fight Russia to the last European and middle east citizen they can get to fight Russia ,and force Russia to move far away of its land. This is exactly what they doing in Syria. Which things become more complicated ,if for example NATO close the IRAQ airspace ,and close the Busphurus strait.. then how is russia going to suply their people in Syria? Russia in such scenario will have to fight Turkey , **in retaliation** for their war..and just a cruise missile here or there is going to achieve NOTHING. Russia will have to invade Turkey to stop them ,and Capture a major important asset of Turkey to force them to surrender. Like it will be capturing Istanbul returning the control back of Russia to the enter in the mediterranean , and to capture also Cyprus ,the Turkish zone. Allowing Russia to deploy military base there to intercept any Turkey supplies .

    The myth that Russia will force its enemies to retreat just using nukes is non sense.
    This will work against leaders who cares about its citizens. but Erdogan is a fanatical extremist and do not think in the same way than normal people. Again any war that NATO provokes in Russia ,will not be fought in Russia territory. So get that shit right atleast that for once.
    NATO will not make things easy for Russia by invading St Petersburg or Crimea,but as Complicate as possible and through third party forces ,not directly. And US can claim all day,
    they have nothing to do with any nation fighting Russia. They can do this day and night all the time , thanks to Putin dependence of its western partners for its energy business NATO is doing this in Ukraine and Turkey and tried to do with Moldova and Azerbaijan too.  If Russia is forced to fight in many battlefields at the same time , it will not have the power to defend its allies or interest . This is why ideally Russia needs an overwhelming force of Airforce ,Tanks and Navy too.  That Russia do not have an economy to finance a major airforce of the size of Americans?
    Of course they dont.   But dont come and say  that ,That Russia with just 50x su-35 and 60x Su-30's  and 11x Tu-160 and other soviet planes  ,"Is all that Russia need" or that "is good enough" because is not. or that Russia don't need Pak-fas now.. Your reasoning is always incorrect into thinking , that 1)Russian enemies will be reasonable and not radical 2)that Russian will only fight in Russia territory ,where they are very strong and that NATO will not force Russia into fight far away of its territory and on many front lines at the same time ,to take advantage of its limited numbers of modern airforce and tank force. This was clearly told by an American NAVY general.. Russian newest Submarines ,like Borei and Yansen he told ,its big fault is that Russia have so few of them. and he is right. Numbers do matter. having just a few pak-fas is not going to make a single difference. but having a thousand of them ,will be an overwhelming force and will allow Russia to fight with a lethal force and finish a war before it start  ,save a lot of lives and just using modern conventional weapons and in big numbers.

    But as if stand now.. Russia military capabilities outside Russia territory are very limited.
    and this is what NATO is going to exploit a lot. and the only way to counter that effectively
    is to have a modern overwhelming force ,that can fight in many frontlines at same time ,with very little to none casualties.


    Alright very easy to debunk these claims of yours.

    Afghan war, Soviets had everything you speak of yet how did that play out sure they killed tons of rats yes sure they lost little man power but the economic cost proved to high.

    Ask the US with their debt about this also.

    Even if the Russians had everything you speak off we would just have Afghan round two.

    The russians will not commit their own ground forces, this is what the US and others wants.

    Ask the US why it won't send in regular troops with all their advanced tech. Simple the cost.

    I am not sure what kind of fantasy land you live in, but It's not Russia's job to protect everyone.

    Turkey will not attack Russia even if they dead the Radar stations would render all the PAK's useless anyway guess why? Stealth planes aren't design to hide against those just other planes.

    I am a marine man and let me say you have little clue what you are talking about. Starting a war with russia would be easy just false flag something, started some small fights here and there, slowly add fuel to that fire and let it burn.

    There is a reason my country hasn't done so yet and I doubt you will understand this. Fact is no nation on earth can afford this force you speak off, field so many super advanced machines, manpower, supply them at multiple fronts with little risk to themselves and more. The kind of force you speak off only exists in Fairy Tales. You have any idea how god dam large a Navy would need to be for this? since the ground forces would require open sea lines and much more more.

    So yes you are gravely wrong here and do not consider reality to these thoughts of yours.
    avatar
    Vann7

    Posts : 4582
    Points : 4686
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty temp stuff

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:17 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Afghan war, Soviets had everything you speak of yet how did that play out sure they killed tons of rats yes sure they lost little man power but the economic cost proved to high.

    Ask the US with their debt about this also.

    Even if the Russians had everything you speak off we would just have Afghan round two.

    The russians will not commit their own ground forces, this is what the US and others wants.

    Ask the US why it won't send in regular troops with all their advanced tech. Simple the cost.

    I am not sure what kind of fantasy land you live in, but It's not Russia's job to protect everyone.


    Please refrain to comment or argue about this subject if you have no Fking idea of what you talking about. The Afgan war? Russia did not lost that war. It wiped the afgans and achieved its objectives .which was the terrorist attacks on Russia across the border ,with American weapons. Russia left afganistan because of economic cost of the war ,not because they lost idiot.
    It passed 3 years after Soviets left afganistan for afgan to overthrow the puppet government and they will have hold another 3 years if it wasn't because Moscow stop supplying weapons to them.. Simply Mishandling of their Economy was what forced them to abandon the project. But they didn't lost the war.. Notice how Talibans did not attacked Russia again after they left.



    but It's not Russia's job to protect everyone


    Russia is defending its own interest in Syria piece of moron. Is defending Russia Federation
    security in Syria . because if they allow Syria to be over run ,then NATO will have a paradise for Alqaeda and ISIS there and that will later move to IRAQ and will their captured oil ,will be able to recruit idiots like you ,in the million ,to arm and train them with weapons and later being relocated to Ukraine to fight Russia on its own territory. So the terrorist Russia does not fight in Syria, and terrorist that Russia will have to fight on its own land.  So only someone with a
    brain dysfunction will think for a second ,that Russia can defend itself only by staying on its territory and only fighting them. Russia cannot allow its enemies to organize very massive Armies on its borders or in the middle east ,that later they know will be used against them.

    So i dont know in which fantasy land you live , but in the real world ,Russia needs to defend its allies ,if they dont want to become isolated in the world. Because if Syria falls, IRAQ will follow and then later IRAN .. and then NATO will get access to the Caspian sea. So im glad that the Russian government does not have idiotic advisors like you.

    What i told about Russia having a thousand of Pak-fas ,is an ideal scenario , i never said that Russia actually can finance a thousand of them today. But that Russia needs to get as many Pak-fas and stealth bombers and Armatas as they can, without going bankrupt .Was replying to Garry that was saying that with just with the handful modern airforce Russia have today is "good enough" but it is not. Because Russia most capable planes are a handful of them ,and it will have to deal with a very large Navy of NATO with overwhelming conventional forces. And if Russia is forced to fight in many battlefields ,the it will end with a very small force in every theater of war. in Kaliningrad ,Russia will be in a major disadvantage ,NATO can lock Russia there and attack it from all sides. in Syria the same. If Egypt is attacked Russia needs to defend them ,other wise ,it will lose the access to the Suez canal and not be able to trade with Anyone in Asia,south Africa or SOuth America by sea.


    Is all about defending your clients$$  the people that buys your weapons . But what are you going to know about business? If Russia does not defend its clients ,India,China,middle east and africa ones ,then what you want Russia to do? To observe how Americans invade nation after nation of Russian allies and later not have anyone to sell anything? Suspect  Fortunately the Russian government is not full of idiocy like you and understand clearly that powers that do not defend their nation interest in the world become alone in the world without allies. Russia cannot just hide its head on the sand ,as morons like you suggest ,and later expect to have any country interested in doing business with them .

    It was overwhelming force what defeated NATO in the korean war ,when they invaded North Korea. this is the only language animals understand overwhelming force. Expecting the west to respect Russia ,by not defending its allies and its interest is laughable and only can come from an ignorant with no clue of how world politics works. Since Russia told Americans was ready to shot down their planes if attack Syrian army military bases ,what they did? they ran away with their tail between their legs. This is how you earn respect. by Defending your allies and your interest and with the use of Force if necessary. Now Obama calls Russia a great nation.. Laughing


    But Russia with the very limited modern airforce it have , just a few dozen of planes of Su-35 and Su-30 ,with a dozen of Tu-160 of the soviet era ,will find itself in a really difficult position to fight NATO outside in borders if they happen to predict ,that Russia can be put under major complicate war if forced to fight in 3-4 or more front lines at the same time. This is Russia major weakness ,its lack of power projection far from its land and NATO knows this. It cannot allow Armenia or IRAN to be over run. it cannot allow Syria to be over run by jihadist. It cannot allow ISIS to over RUN IRAQ either , because of the major threat that ISIS will be in control of IRAQ oil fields. It cannot allow Egypt to be over run by ISIS either or will lose access to the Suez Canal and so and so. So Russia contrary to the claims you made ,it needs to defend some key
    allies ,that losing them pose a major threat to Russia freedom of movement of its navy ,or losing a major client in the world.

    Russia cannot hide its head in the sand and and look to the sides ,whenever its interest attacked in the world ,as they are in Ukraine and SYria and in more nations that also NATO will try to attack. if it wants to continue to have a growing economy in the world ,or else will become in no time a third world nation with no one to trade ,because NATO will have a military base in every country ,that Russia fails to help .Allowing its enemies to become much stronger .


    Last edited by Vann7 on Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:40 pm; edited 4 times in total
    avatar
    victor1985

    Posts : 643
    Points : 674
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  victor1985 on Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:15 am

    garry i have a question for you. if you take the air surrounding a missile during flight would mean much less drag. can that be done with some gases? i mean ...spray a gas wich combine or atract with/the air around missile and take it apart the missile body.
    can be done? or the speed would be too much?
    avatar
    victor1985

    Posts : 643
    Points : 674
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  victor1985 on Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:35 pm

    garry i have a question. why are some radar wavelenghts almost impossible to jam?
    as far as i know its all about flooding the air with radio waves. why with these dont work?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25813
    Points : 26359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:26 am

    garry i have a question for you. if you take the air surrounding a missile during flight would mean much less drag. can that be done with some gases? i mean ...spray a gas wich combine or atract with/the air around missile and take it apart the missile body.
    can be done? or the speed would be too much?

    Air is already fairly thin... it makes more sense to loft a missile up into higher altitudes to reduce drag.

    The Shkval torpedo has a gas generator at its nose so the torpedo is moving through a gas bubble instead of having to push through water which is much denser and much higher drag... this means much higher speed and range.

    garry i have a question. why are some radar wavelenghts almost impossible to jam?
    as far as i know its all about flooding the air with radio waves. why with these dont work?

    Hahaha... why not ask me an easy question.

    Very long wavelength radar signals require very large antennas to both send and receive... very long wave radars on the ground send out signals that bounce back off air targets and most air targets including aircraft and weapons don't have antennas large enough to capture the full signal let alone be able to transmit a fake signal to fool the ground based radar. More sophisticated radars can also send signals in different pulse repetitions and coded signals so any other signal even in the same frequency but using a different code can be ignored and removed from the radar display.

    Very short wave signals can be effected by the shape of the target or various coatings so jamming such a signal would actually reveal your position rather than jam the radar.... It is a game of measure and countermeasure and counter counter measure...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25813
    Points : 26359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:49 am


    Please refrain to comment or argue about this subject if you have no Fking idea of what you talking about. The Afgan war? Russia did not lost that war. It wiped the afgans and achieved its objectives .which was the terrorist attacks on Russia across the border ,with American weapons. Russia left afganistan because of economic cost of the war ,not because they lost idiot.

    First of all there is no need to be rude.

    Second the invasion of Afghanistan was by the Soviet Union... not Russia.

    The Soviets invaded Afghanistan to stop US influence from moving from Iran to Afghanistan... in that sense they succeeded.

    They left the war because they came to the realisation that their presence was not improving things.

    Notice how Talibans did not attacked Russia again after they left.

    The Taliban was not created until after the Soviets left Afghanistan.

    Russia is defending its own interest in Syria piece of moron. Is defending Russia Federation
    security in Syria . because if they allow Syria to be over run ,then NATO will have a paradise for Alqaeda and ISIS there and that will later move to IRAQ and will their captured oil ,will be able to recruit idiots like you ,in the million ,to arm and train them with weapons and later being relocated to Ukraine to fight Russia on its own territory. So the terrorist Russia does not fight in Syria, and terrorist that Russia will have to fight on its own land.

    Actually Russia fights in Syria for the Syrian people because the west double crossed Russia in Libya. Now that their eyes are opened they realised Syria was just another case of the west wanting a Shia majority country ruled by moderates to be overthrown and ruled by Sunni nutters from Saudi Arabia and Qatar and other shitholes of ignorance.

    Russia is doing the region a favour by killing those monkeys.

    So only someone with a
    brain dysfunction will think for a second ,that Russia can defend itself only by staying on its territory and only fighting them. Russia cannot allow its enemies to organize very massive Armies on its borders or in the middle east ,that later they know will be used against them.

    Russia cannot go around the globe as some sort of world policeman righting all the wrongs the west has set in motion... they simply can't afford it.

    And more importantly they would likely not get the results they wanted anyway.


    So i dont know in which fantasy land you live , but in the real world ,Russia needs to defend its allies ,if they dont want to become isolated in the world. Because if Syria falls, IRAQ will follow and then later IRAN .. and then NATO will get access to the Caspian sea. So im glad that the Russian government does not have idiotic advisors like you.

    NATO is already friendly with Georgia so access to the Caspian sea should not be an issue for them already...

    Because Russia most capable planes are a handful of them ,and it will have to deal with a very large Navy of NATO with overwhelming conventional forces.

    Any fight with NATO will not involve thousands of anything... maintaining a conventional force big enough to hold its own against all the countries of NATO including the US is retarded... even the rest of NATO can't do that.

    [qutoe]And if Russia is forced to fight in many battlefields ,the it will end with a very small force in every theater of war.[/quote]

    Fight who?

    A small force with nukes is better than an enormous force you can't afford and don't have enough men to man.

    If Egypt is attacked Russia needs to defend them ,other wise ,it will lose the access to the Suez canal and not be able to trade with Anyone in Asia,south Africa or SOuth America by sea.

    Murmansk and the Pacific Fleet can reach south america and africa without going anywhere near Suez.

    Is all about defending your clients$$ the people that buys your weapons . But what are you going to know about business? If Russia does not defend its clients ,India,China,middle east and africa ones ,then what you want Russia to do?

    Russia sells weapons to its clients so they can defend themselves.

    It was overwhelming force what defeated NATO in the korean war ,when they invaded North Korea.

    Actually China did nothing until UN forces reached the Korean Chinese border... NATO had only just been created and was a European focused thing.

    Now Obama calls Russia a great nation..

    Who gives a sht what that prick thinks...

    So Russia contrary to the claims you made ,it needs to defend some key
    allies ,that losing them pose a major threat to Russia freedom of movement of its navy ,or losing a major client in the world.

    Egypt would piss all over ISIS and so would Iraq if it had not been so fucked up by the Americans. As for Iran being overrun.... hahahah... yeah right.

    Russia cannot hide its head in the sand and and look to the sides ,whenever its interest attacked in the world ,as they are in Ukraine and SYria and in more nations that also NATO will try to attack. if it wants to continue to have a growing economy in the world ,or else will become in no time a third world nation with no one to trade ,because NATO will have a military base in every country ,that Russia fails to help .Allowing its enemies to become much stronger .

    If Russia wants to be a global player it needs to invest more in its navy... it is not its air force or army that will allow world wide projection of power... it is a powerful and capable navy.

    All the greatest actual world powers had great navies and then became world powers... it does not happen the other way around...

    If Russia is going to offer guarantees of intervention to all its weapons export customers it had better increase its prices by about 1000%.

    Ironically the best friends Russia has is not because of the actions of Russia but because of the actions of the west/US.

    avatar
    victor1985

    Posts : 643
    Points : 674
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  victor1985 on Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:12 am

    GarryB wrote:
    garry i have a question for you. if you take the air surrounding a missile during flight would mean much less drag. can that be done with some gases? i mean ...spray a gas wich combine or atract with/the air around missile and take it apart the missile body.
    can be done? or the speed would be too much?

    Air is already fairly thin... it makes more sense to loft a missile up into higher altitudes to reduce drag.

    The Shkval torpedo has a gas generator at its nose so the torpedo is moving through a gas bubble instead of having to push through water which is much denser and much higher drag... this means much higher speed and range.

    garry i have a question. why are some radar wavelenghts almost impossible to jam?
    as far as i know its all about flooding the air with radio waves. why with these dont work?

    Hahaha... why not ask me an easy question.

    Very long wavelength radar signals require very large antennas to both send and receive... very long wave radars on the ground send out signals that bounce back off air targets and most air targets including aircraft and weapons don't have antennas large enough to capture the full signal let alone be able to transmit a fake signal to fool the ground based radar. More sophisticated radars can also send signals in different pulse repetitions and coded signals so any other signal even in the same frequency but using a different code can be ignored and removed from the radar display.

    Very short wave signals can be effected by the shape of the target or various coatings so jamming such a signal would actually reveal your position rather than jam the radar.... It is a game of measure and countermeasure and counter counter measure...
    exacly at something like skhval i am pointing. the drag depends as i know on the lenght of a rocket so in case of icbm lauchers would be effective.

    so a very long radar wave would be received only by a separate aircraft with a huge antenna.
    but i have a question : the long wave radio wave bounce from a metal surface that is smaller than the long wave? also i wanna ask : a radar wave take the shape of a metal thing? what shape would be if a long wave hit a metal plate in form of the c letter? i mean the c- region of metal plate. does the wave become smaller by the time its travelling? because on this you could shrink the wave to the acceptable size for antennas.....
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25813
    Points : 26359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:51 am

    exacly at something like skhval i am pointing. the drag depends as i know on the lenght of a rocket so in case of icbm lauchers would be effective.

    The thing is that Shkval moves through water which is much much denser than air so creates higher drag.

    A rocket moving through air on the other hand is already in a low drag medium so covering it in a gas would not improve drag by very much at all.


    but i have a question : the long wave radio wave bounce from a metal surface that is smaller than the long wave?

    Yes, but the long wave will not be effected by the shape of the target so they wont be reflected away from the antenna that sent them.

    also i wanna ask : a radar wave take the shape of a metal thing? what shape would be if a long wave hit a metal plate in form of the c letter? i mean the c- region of metal plate. does the wave become smaller by the time its travelling? because on this you could shrink the wave to the acceptable size for antennas.....

    No, the wave that hits the metal target will not change shape... if the target is moving it will be distorted which can be used to determine the speed and direction of the target in relation to the radar, but if it changed frequency then the receiver might no longer be able to receive it...
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4698
    Points : 4676
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun Dec 25, 2016 8:30 am

    Some of you guys need to get over this. Tu-154 has a history of being a piece of shit. Unfortunately, it needs to be phased out. It didn't and another one crashed. Doesn't require outside interference. These things are notorious it seems. Hence why such a high demand for MS-21.
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2461
    Points : 2470
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 25, 2016 8:40 am

    miketheterrible wrote:Some of you guys need to get over this.  Tu-154 has a history of being a piece of shit.  Unfortunately, it needs to be phased out.  It didn't and another one crashed.  Doesn't require outside interference.  These things are notorious it seems.  Hence why such a high demand for MS-21.

    Easy to say this. I do not agree.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4698
    Points : 4676
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun Dec 25, 2016 8:43 am

    OK, then one will have to provide a tinfoil hat till the documents are leaked or provided for proving outside involvement. But lets take another look at things - Tu-154 has been phased out by many nations due to its poor safety performance and overall high crash rates.
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2461
    Points : 2470
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 25, 2016 8:48 am

    miketheterrible wrote:OK, then one will have to provide a tinfoil hat till the documents are leaked or provided for proving outside involvement.  But lets take another look at things - Tu-154 has been phased out by many nations due to its poor safety performance and overall high crash rates.

    Even in case of the failure of the aircraft it would not mean you are right, in your comment, which is very opportunistic, and provides zero data in support of your sentence. You have to provide data about the Tu-154 and about other aircrafts to prove what you said.
    avatar
    Vann7

    Posts : 4582
    Points : 4686
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  Vann7 on Sun Dec 25, 2016 8:50 am

    miketheterrible wrote:Some of you guys need to get over this.  Tu-154 has a history of being a piece of shit.  Unfortunately, it needs to be phased out.  It didn't and another one crashed.  Doesn't require outside interference.  These things are notorious it seems.  Hence why such a high demand for MS-21.


    Russia have an abysmal problem of too frequent accidents in planes , that people in this forums
    does not want to admit is real. So is not only TU-154. Is the entire military aviation industry
    from hellicopters to planes. THe mi-8 crash almost every month killing more than a dozen of passenger per time. is a flying coffin. I really think the problem is far more than the plane, 
    but all to do with the quality controls in Russia and poor supervision and training of mechanical
    staff. Russian airliners civilian private industry does not show such abysmal level of accidents
    that Russia military aircrafts show.

    Sponsored content

    Talking bollocks thread - Page 23 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:13 pm