Russian submarine with nuclear warheads headed for the US coast

Stealth works just fine. Sophisticated powers will not be able to target our bombers.

Stealth fighters. There is a considerable difference.

Those stealth fighters were vulnerable from the side, and we flew the same route over and over again, which was bad tactics. Serbia merely positioned a mobile radar where it could catch them from the side as they flew their typical route.

Stealth bombers are not nearly so vulnerable. And hopefully we will not be so lazy as to repeat the same route over and over again.

Modern Russian air defenses will pose no problem whatsoever. If there is anything that our stealth bombers can't get past, they will just pick it off from afar using cruise missiles.

 

That's just inflammatory rhetoric, which, very obviously, you like to post.

Russian ballistic missile submarines are always near the US, for the same reason US ballistic missile submarines are around Russia.

Your lack of understanding of all things-Russia is disturbing to say the least.

If you had a clue about Russian military strategy and doctrine --which is based on surprise and speed -- then you'd know the Russians never telegraph their intentions. Whatever they say or do is just political rhetoric.

It's when the Russians are quiet that you need to be very afraid.

Your Media --at the behest of your government -- goes into a frenzy when Russian military aircraft approach anywhere near the US.

Unfortunately, your Media refuses to report the 1,000s of times US military aircraft not only approach Russian territory, but actually violate the sovereignty of Russia.

 

Because there are Americans who believe they won't have to fight. All they have to do is wave pictures of Chuck Norris and the enemy will run away.

 

I thought the Serbians shot down one F-117A. Though even this is misleading as the F-117A in question was downed as much due to poor mission planning than anything else.

 

Not true at all. Modern SLBMs have ranges in the thousands of miles meaning ours don't need to come remotely near Russia and vice versa.

 

One was shot down. Another was heavily damaged but made it back to its home base on a wing and a prayer (but never flew again).

 

Yes .. was 2 F-117s that were hit .. nothing misleading about it .. they were able to 1) detect 2) target the planes .. and shoot them down with 1970's technology .. the poor planing helped with the targeting.

 

What makes you think that most Russian air defense technology is significantly more advanced than the 1970s technology used by the Serbs?

 

Cause the US is scared sht-less of it

Here is something pathetic for you to ponder. You will argue till blue in the face .. that US has missiles which can hit a Ballistic missile - cruise missile - hypersonic -- anything . even ICBMs -- hit a bullet head on travelling 24,000 km/hr - this is despite not working very much on this technology.

but the Russians .. the one's who introduced the first super sonic anti ship missile in the 90's - the one's whose rockets we used for a decade cause we couldn't be bothered to create our own --relying on Elon Musk to make rockets for us can't hit a Plane . moving at sub sonic speeds

A) Plane at sub-sonic speeds ~ 1000 km/hr - short distance away - or a ship travelling real slow B) bullet travelling 24,000 km/hr. thousands of KM away.

Now while the US has been largely ignoring this technology -- this is all the Russians have been doing since the fall of the wall - and in the late 1990's joined up with India and shortly after that China .. all three of which have been fielding and testing and using amazing technology - that other nations are buying - even US allies - despite massive US protestation and threats.

but .. these folks have not advanced since the 70s ..

That about right

 

The targeting would not have been possible without the poor planning.

Except, we aren't scared at all.

Any SAM site that can detect our bombers will only be able to detect them at short range, and that site will be destroyed by cruise missiles launched from the bombers at long range.

Not when they can't even see that plane.

 

That is, do you actually admit the fact that the United States has repeatedly violated the territorial space of Russia? In other words, if there is a military conflict, then you are sure that this conflict was provoked by the United States and all responsibility for the consequences lies with the United States.
Agree. The United States is a threat to the world.

 

Your have no clue what you are talking about -- just making stuff up you think sounds good. Circling around to your own vomit - contradicting your own words.

Now go listen to someone who does no what they are talking about -- and perhaps you will not make so many nosensical claims.

"The Battle of Britain Radar can detect every Stealth Aircraft that has ever been made" .. and no .. the Bombers are not going to be shooting cruise missiles at the Russian fighters that will be making short work of the bombers shortly after detection--- nor destroy the Sam sites prior to launch.

Only Moron's are not scared .. and our Generals are not a bunch of Morons ..

 

Is this the same sub the Americans were following a few months ago as it entered Gibralter and headed to Syria. Then when leaving Syria it disappeared somewhere near Israel and the jets were searching for it for days. Putin told them the sub was fine, and that they were getting messages from it.

I think these nuclear subs is a Russian response to Washington's buildup of nukes near the Russian border. Frankly, I wouldn't mess around with the bear.




I sometimes shake
and dance with glee
when listening to
the reverie
of lands a-far.

For what I know,
it's but a show
and soon they'll go.

But not before
they suffer dear
for having poked
the Russian bear.

- Jeannette

​

 

I know exactly what I am talking about.

Everything I've said is true.

I have not contradicted myself.

Not when Mr. Sprey is being so misleading.

Everything that I've said is true.

False. It cannot detect stealth bombers.

And the claim that it can detect stealth fighters is extremely misleading.

No Russian fighters are capable of doing any such thing.

But if such fighters did exist, their base would indeed be picked off with cruise missiles launched from afar.

Wrong. If such SAMs are any sort of threat to a stealth bomber, they will be destroyed by cruise missiles launched from afar.

That is incorrect. People who are well informed know that our stealth bombers are highly survivable.

True. But then they know that our stealth bombers are highly survivable.

 

I'm not too worried about Russia. I think those new tactical nukes that the EU is getting will convince Putin not to invade the EU. I am much more worried about China starting a war over Taiwan.

But I am confident that the US Navy will be able to track and sink either Russian or Chinese subs if it ever comes to war.

 

So, did it ever make it to the US coast? Did it ever make it back to port? I hope it didn't end up like the Kursk.

 

It always gives me a chuckle when American war hawks freak out over this sort of thing, given just how aggressive and provocative the US itself is in these matters, with military bases around the globe and constantly rubbing up against international borders.

Seriously, just reverse this story, and make it about a Russian Destroyer following a US sub that submerges and the Russians think may be headed close to Russia, and it's dismissed as another routine nothing story.

 

Today the power in the USA has been seized by madmen. Therefore, you can expect anything from them. For example, Biden, undergoing medical procedures, transfers all power to random people. What's on their mind? Unknown.

 

Mr Sprey stated "Battle of Britain Radar can Detect Every Stealth Aircraft that has ever been built" .

You say "no no no"

Mr. Sprey was one of the leaders of the Team that brought us the F-16 .. and the A-10 .. two of the best aircraft ever built in their respective day.

You on the other hand are some anonymous poster -- who thinks outfitting F35's with tactical nukes to defend Europe is plausible / sensible .. something that is demonstrably Not Plausible .. and makes absolutely no sense on so many levels it is hard to imagine someone with any knowledge of the nuclear situation could suggest such a thing .. Sorry mate .. but thats just loopy.

So my position .. who would you chose to believe ?

 

The fact that one Russian jet with a small box on its wing, was able to knock out our navy's Aegis system 7 years ago and send our sailors to the mental ward. I'm sure Moscow today is well beyond that level. To believe otherwise is self deception.

 

A one off incident in no way indicates broader capabilities.

 

I recall the Saker who is ethnically Russian and who once worked for our Intelligence agencies, saying that the Russians never threaten, they consider it a weakness.

What I noticed is that once in a while the Russians will reveal their capabilities - like their submarine which was watched and followed from the English Channel to Syria, and then suddenly disappearing in the waters off Israel. It sent the Americans into a panic, so that our jets were sent to find it. Putin told them the sub was fine, and that they were getting messages from it.

Before that, our military was shocked when they shot missiles to Syria from their ships in the Caspian Sea. The ships were considered too small to have the capability to shoot from that distance and yet they did, and they were accurate as well.

From what I read, Russians are very secretive when it comes to their capabilities, so one never knows what is true and what isn't. Are there subs in the Black Sea able to hit our ships, or along our coast line? Who knows?

 

Well, Mr. Sprey is lying (given his expertise his untrue statements cannot be from ignorance).

It is proper that I confront his untrue statements.

Hold on here. I did not say what I thought of the idea. I merely told you that we are actually doing it, and gave you links to articles that prove that we are actually doing it.

However, you did make a good guess. Although I did not say so, I do find the idea entirely sensible.

If you bothered to read the articles, you saw that these tactical nukes have a small clean yield and extremely high accuracy. They will be able to land direct hits on Russian military formations while causing little collateral damage to friendly Europeans.

You might want to think about that for a minute. Since we are actually doing it, that it a pretty good indication that it is possible for us to do it.

I can assure you that a direct hit by a 50 kiloton bomb will eradicate a Russian military formation that is invading the EU.

I can also assure you that a yield that comes mostly mostly from fusion will spread little fallout on friendly Europeans. And a 50 kiloton blast will cause a lot less collateral damage than would be caused by larger explosions.

These new tactical nukes will be quite effective at eliminating any Russian invasion of the EU.

I would consider the arguments and think for myself.

 

Are you daft?

Is there some part of "Gary Francis Powers" that you don't understand? Maybe "U-2 Incident" confuses you.

That the US repeatedly violated the Russian territorial airspace is an irrefutable fact.

When Powers was shot down in his U-2, that was not the first time he violated international law and Soviet air-space. And he wasn't the only US pilot to do so. Every single U-2 pilot violated international law and Soviet air-space multiple times.

So did SR-71s. In 1984, I reviewed photos from multiple missions spanning several years. I was looking for nuclear weapons infrastructure, because that's one of my skill-sets.

On top of that, there were around a dozen or so electronic eavesdropping platforms that were shot down with the loss of the entire crew, or the loss of some crew, and some crew were captured.

The government did not tell their families they had been captured, but the government did negotiate for their successful release in most cases. I had heard stories from people in-the-know, but Clinton did declassify most of those incidents in 1996. Even so, I'm pretty sure a few other incidents are still classified. However, I don't believe any US air crews are still being held captive.

The Russians would go to war for any number of reasons, but violating their air-space isn't one of them.

Having said that, any conflict with Russia will have been instigated by the US and likely with the help of the Brits.

The US instigated the Korean War. Sygnman Rhee and a number of others have publicly said so and are quoted in US newspapers and periodicals. There US military personnel who were there prior to the start of the conflict that it was instigated by the US.

What I was told was that the US did not think China would intervene. My guess is those documents will be declassified once the last Korean War veteran has died, but probably not earlier than the year 2030.

The goal of the US is control of the eastern Russian republics, meaning everything east of the Ural Mountains, not that Americans actually know where that is.

Everyone knows that -- except blind Americans -- and Putin and his predecessors and his successors know that as well.

Like I said, it's called MECAS. Once the US regains control of Central Asia -- the US had control but Clinton lost control because you absolutely have to have control of Iran -- then the US will start smuggling weapons, ammo, and supplies to "pro-Democracy" groups in the eastern republics (and oblasts for the not too bright.)

Moscow will, of course, move to suppress any rebellion and that's when the US and Brits set up a No-Fly Zone.

The No-Fly Zone will be enforced by NATO aircraft in Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and the Central Asian States.

If the US is successful in acquiring Belarus, then air bases in Belarus.

That's why Russia desperately needs Crimea.

Russian surface groups are decent air defense platforms that will shoot down NATO aircraft coming out of Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey, plus they'll have air defenses in Crimea.

Air bases in Crimea can handle Russian bombers, which will be used to launch cruise missile attacks against NATO air bases in Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey.

Once the blind people accept that as reality, then everything starts making sense.

Note that a NATO ground invasion would be a disaster.

The Russians still have about 3,000 1 kt to 12 kt neutron warheads that are AFAPs or short-range missile warheads, or gravity bombs (I'm not aware of any PGMs) and they will not hesitate to use them on their own soil against NATO troops.

That's a problem for NATO, because US nuclear doctrine says tit-for-tat and the US dismantled all of its neutron warheads in 1991-1993.

That means the US would have to violate its own nuclear weapons and escalate or eat it.

Sadly, Americans don't understand how vulnerable they really are.

One day, the world will have had enough and some people are gonna meet secretly, someone will give the order, and the next thing you know, three 400-450 kt warheads launched from some rust-bucket itinerant tramp steamer on the high seas will detonate 85 miles over the US.

Those 3 warheads will not kill even one single American, but the chaos from the EMP will result in the deaths of 310-320 Million Americans within 9 months (or less.)

People should be afraid. Very afraid.

 

No .. Sprey is not lying .. but even if he was .. why would I take an unsupported internet claim .. over his.

2) We are not going to be using Tactical nukes on Russia .. this was the point .. as pointed out by other posters .. this would be <MAD>