New Nato Missle Defense bas in Romainia to go live on thursday

[Espe]

Well obviously Russia is constantly fighting high tech opponents, and shoot down their carrier ships on a weekly basis, like the syrian rebel ones and ofcourse passenger jets.

LOL

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Kellhound]

A lot of people in Russia are really hoping Trump wins the elections. He's the only outsider to the establishment, he's not the lobbies' man, not corporations' man, he's his own person with adequate and reasonable arguments. Hillary is just another warhawk with another Middle Eastern war waiting in her pocket.

As if US would admit its air force is not invulnerable. Ha.

It actually does, its a good way to get more money.

- - - Updated - - -

...which were never tested against anything post-1960s. Like I said, US has never encountered a country with modern warfare capabilities.

Yeah, bad info. That reminds me of an anecdote:
A commission is going to a construction site to check the safety and quality, and the place's completely run down. The foreman tells the workers, "whatever happens, act like it's intended". So, the commission is inspecting the site, and then one of the walls just collapses right before them. The worker looks at the watch, and says with the straight face, "10:35, right on schedule".

Syrian campaign has been a clear display of military capabilities. Several weeks or Russian operations completely seized the initiative from Americans and achieved more than US air force managed to do over 1,5 years.

Russia's SAMs have NEVER been able to dominate battlespace enough to render opposition airpower ineffective, even during their finest hour in 1973.

Russia is Syria displays what happens when you have FACs and loose ROE combined with the best equipment Russia can assemble in small numbers.

[Crispin]

I'm doing what? Russia has permission from UN and Syrian government to act and US does not have it, it's a fact. That anti-ship ballistic missiles exist, it's a fact. That American army is spread thin and that coordinating all European countries at once would be a difficult task for NATO, it's a fact. How latest anti-missile defenses were tested, it's a fact.

So what am I doing?

Making an ass of yourself by parroting your statr media nonsense, and orcourse come out pretty racist ontop of that.

[Easo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-s...listic_missile

Like I said, US army is spread thin, it would take a lot of time to assemble a capable army - not to smack another Goatfuckerstan, but for an actual war. Besides, NATO is a political structure rather than a working army. It's Babylon in terms of coordination. So far its trainings are just about welcoming Americans in different parts of it. I don't think NATO will ever be capable of any kind of united act as one pan-European force.

You know how they test their European anti-missile systems? By launching ONE warhead of a known type in sterile conditions.

Russian military tech is designed to do that. It's always been a paradigm. American military tech is designed to blow US military budget out of proportion, and bomb goatfuckistans.

So? You linked me something, which does not contradict what I am saying. Ballistic missiles are not ship killers.
Chinese missile has HYPEEEE, and nothing else, it has been discussed to death over and over again. They managed to hit stationary targed in desert. Success? xD
Why Russia does not have one right now?
Ballistic missiles will not target ships, they will try to blow up somewhere near their reported locations. That is all.

And why are you so bent on "USA army spread thin"? Most of it is in USA itself. How exactly it is spread thin?
And NATO trainings are bunch of countries together. Or do you think it goes like Germany-USA, Poland-USA, Estonia-USA? It does not.

P.S.
Almost no one does multi-missile (what do you mean by that? Tens of missiles?) tests, Russia included.

[Haven]

So? You linked me something, which does not contradict what I am saying. Ballistic missiles are not ship killers.

First line from the article I linked:

The ASBM's conventional warhead and kinetic energy may be sufficient to cripple or outright destroy a supercarrier with a single hit.

Go back to your English classes and re-learn basic reading. "But what if it moves, it will become invincible if it moves!", you might say. Well, there's engineers who work in the military, and they are smarter than you. They, too, have asked themselves what happens if a target in sea is not stationary. I'm pretty certain that over the last 30 years they've found some solutions.

[Crispin]

I like how you think that US carrier groups are sailing around defenseless, I guess it'll make you sleep better at night.

[Haven]

1. US got permission from the Syrian government when they began bombing runs in the country like 2 years ago. So you're wrong on "fact" 1.

Well thay don't have it now that they're fighting against said government.

2. ASBMs exist, but so do defensive systems to counter them, ie Aegis. Carriers are well defended by many layers of defense, from destroyers and cruisers. Carriers are moving targets and ballistic missiles are not direct on-target weapons, they won't hit the ship and this is assuming they get through any defenses the carrier group has. So you're ill-informed on fact 2.

When was the last time a carries was successfully protected by a full-scale attack? Or when it was even attacked at all, for that matter?

3. The US has the best logistical system in the world. They have hundreds of bases in Europe, all around Europe actually, that can rapidly deploy forces at the outbreak of conflict. All NATO has to do is delay the Russians for long enough for the US to airlift its troops overseas, which they can do in less than 48 hrs. This is assuming that Russia doesn't get bogged down in the Baltics fighting the Polish and Baltic countries, and Russia had trouble against Chechnya with logistics and in Georgia as well, which are just over Russia's border. So you're again wrong.

Polish generals themselves estimate that Poland would last for about 2 hours against Russia. What does it have, a dozen decomissioned American hummers and two tanks? We know what blitzkrieg is, we survived one.

4. You realize that missile systems are tested in all sorts of environments and tests take into account all possible scenarios that a system might face. You don't think the US tests to counter possible threats to its land systems and ships?

The only reliable test is surviving an actual assault by a formidable force that will actually try to eliminate you. Lab tests is one thing. Real life is another. Remember that stealth bomber that was hit in Yugoslavia? Lab tests said it was undetectable.

I have faith in Russian warfare because we survived countless wars. Russia spent half of its history fighting for survival against invaders. USA has only truly fought... once. In the very beginning. Since then, it's always been an agressor, always picking the easiest targets, always enjoying the luxury of initiative. Are you ready to lose twenty million lives? We are. What do you fight for? We fight for our survival. Western media called Alexander Prokopenko "Russian Rambo" for calling fire upon himself, they were shocked. We were not. Such things happened on a regular basis during WW2. Say what you will. Just know that Teutonic knights said that Russia was weak. Napoleon said that Russia was weak. Hitler said that Russia was weak. Join them.

[caervek]

Still waiting for the PAK-FA

Btw any news on the pak-fa?

I know you're making a joke, but the PAK-FA program is actually progressing faster than the F-22, F-35, Eurofighter or Rafale did (which I'm not convinced is a positive thing lol).

[Kellhound]

First line from the article I linked:

The ASBM's conventional warhead and kinetic energy may be sufficient to cripple or outright destroy a supercarrier with a single hit.

Go back to your English classes and re-learn basic reading. "But what if it moves, it will become invincible if it moves!", you might say. Well, there's engineers who work in the military, and they are smarter than you. They, too, have asked themselves what happens if a target in sea is not stationary. I'm pretty certain that over the last 30 years they've found some solutions.

It has not been shown that a carrier would be destroyed by a single hit, or even crippled for that matter (if you are take crippled to mean degradation to is seaworthiness). It is quite possible that even a direct hit would only provide a mission kill, which only requires a hole in the flight deck.

The weak link in long range antiship missiles has always been spotting and tracking the target, a function that China has FAR less ability to do than the USSR in the 1980s. Of course the Chinese ASuW IRBM is inside the interception envelope for the SM-3 deployed on the Burkes, which means China would need to fire multiple missiles to even have a hope of one sneaking through untouched,

[caervek]

1. US got permission from the Syrian government when they began bombing runs in the country like 2 years ago.

No they didn't, in fact Syria complained about it at the time. The USA's justification was that what they were doing was legal under international law, because their ally (Iraq) was under attack from ISIS, and that gave them the right to attack ISIS in Syria without permission from Syria, because the Syrian regime was unable to adequately combat ISIS.

This conveniently ignored the fact that the reason Syria couldn't fight ISIS properly was because they were fighting a civil war against US backed rebels, but regardless the general consensus is that the justification was legal under the letter of international law (even if the situation had been bent to fit that law).

[Keeponrage]

Western media called Alexander Prokopenko "Russian Rambo" for calling fire upon himself, they were shocked. We were not. Such things happened on a regular basis during WW2.

why look so far away. This was practiced in Chechnya as well.

[Kellhound]

Well thay don't have it now that they're fighting against said government.

When was the last time a carries was successfully protected by a full-scale attack? Or when it was even attacked at all, for that matter?

Polish generals themselves estimate that Poland would last for about 2 hours against Russia. What does it have, a dozen decomissioned American hummers and two tanks? We know what blitzkrieg is, we survived one.

The only reliable test is surviving an actual assault by a formidable force that will actually try to eliminate you. Lab tests is one thing. Real life is another. Remember that stealth bomber that was hit in Yugoslavia? Lab tests said it was undetectable.

I have faith in Russian warfare because we survived countless wars. Russia spent half of its history fighting for survival against invaders. USA has only truly fought... once. In the very beginning. Since then, it's always been an agressor, always picking the easiest targets, always enjoying the luxury of initiative. Are you ready to lose twenty million lives? We are. What do you fight for? We fight for our survival. Western media called Alexander Prokopenko "Russian Rambo" for calling fire upon himself, they were shocked. We were not. Such things happened on a regular basis during WW2. Say what you will. Just know that Teutonic knights said that Russia was weak. Napoleon said that Russia was weak. Hitler said that Russia was weak. Join them.

The systems designed to defend the carriers are better tested than the ones designed to hit the carriers. Testing is all either side of the equation has done so the unknowns are equal. The last carrier to come under attack was in 1982, it escaped unharmed.

Lab test said the F-117 had a much reduced chance of being detected by X-band radars than conventional aircraft. The fact only one was ever shot down pretty much backs that up.

Poland has several hundred MBTs, and about 1500 IFVs.

History has show that Russia usually requires its adversaries to advance deep into Russia and be greatly weakened by logistics and winter before it can mount an effective counter. If it was not for its size allowing headlong retreats, Russia would not have survived.

[Crispin]

Well thay don't have it now that they're fighting against said government.

When was the last time a carries was successfully protected by a full-scale attack? Or when it was even attacked at all, for that matter?

Polish generals themselves estimate that Poland would last for about 2 hours against Russia. What does it have, a dozen decomissioned American hummers and two tanks? We know what blitzkrieg is, we survived one.

The only reliable test is surviving an actual assault by a formidable force that will actually try to eliminate you. Lab tests is one thing. Real life is another. Remember that stealth bomber that was hit in Yugoslavia? Lab tests said it was undetectable.

I have faith in Russian warfare because we survived countless wars. Russia spent half of its history fighting for survival against invaders. USA has only truly fought... once. In the very beginning. Since then, it's always been an agressor, always picking the easiest targets, always enjoying the luxury of initiative. Are you ready to lose twenty million lives? We are. What do you fight for? We fight for our survival. Western media called Alexander Prokopenko "Russian Rambo" for calling fire upon himself, they were shocked. We were not. Such things happened on a regular basis during WW2. Say what you will. Just know that Teutonic knights said that Russia was weak. Napoleon said that Russia was weak. Hitler said that Russia was weak. Join them.

lol I love your dramatic "Russia will prevail!" speach, yet noone is talking about invading Russia, all your previous wars fought didnt help you in Afghanistan or Chechnya (what an embarrasment that must have been)

John Robert Fox (May 18, 1915 – December 26, 1944) was an American soldier who was killed in action when he deliberately called for artillery fire on his own position, after his position was overrun, in order to defeat a German attack in the vicinity of Sommocolonia, northern Italy during World War II. He posthumously received the Medal of Honor in 1997, for willingly sacrificing his life

Sorry but your "we r specially made to die in war" story is sorta dumb, altho I'm sure that Russia propaganda sheeps like yourself eat it raw.

- - - Updated - - -

I know you're making a joke, but the PAK-FA program is actually progressing faster than the F-22, F-35, Eurofighter or Rafale did (which I'm not convinced is a positive thing lol).

No doubt it's a joke, honestly just waiting for their first "soon to be released" super weapon to arrive, after that I'll wait for the tank that broke down at the parade rehearsal last year

And tbf, it seems that PAK-FA is just borrowing gear from the SU-35, not even making it a true 5th gen fighter

http://www.janes.com/article/58166/s..._source=Eloqua

(pls keep in mind that I am in no way a millitary expert, and I'm just linking an article I've read and have 0 expertise to defend said article )

[caervek]

And tbf, it seems that PAK-FA is just borrowing gear from the SU-35, not even making it a true 5th gen fighter

http://www.janes.com/article/58166/s..._source=Eloqua

It's a bit of a weird thing with aircraft designations, basically although the Su-35S is classified 4++ gen, the only bit that isn't 5th gen is the airframe, so they can reuse a lot of the parts on their new 5th gen airframe.

Lockheed Martin are just throwing poo at it for the same reason they throw poo at Northrop's/Dassault's/BAE's planes, they're competitors.

[Crispin]

Say what you will. Just know that Teutonic knights said that Russia was weak. Napoleon said that Russia was weak. Hitler said that Russia was weak. Join them.

Didnt they teach you that Russia lost WW1? good thing the Allied won it for you, be sure to send them your appreciation.

[Skroe]

Hahaha yeah right. When was the last time muricans asked anyone for opinions? They make opinions because they own Western media. If muricans want some war, they won't ask anyone, including UN Security Council. And Russia will. Russia actually has, unlike American coalition, a resolution from UN Security Council and invitation from legitimate government of Syria. Muricans just invade shit and throw bombs left and right.

And your posts are not. Oh, right, there's no propaganda in the West.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-s...listic_missile

Like I said, US army is spread thin, it would take a lot of time to assemble a capable army - not to smack another Goatfuckerstan, but for an actual war. Besides, NATO is a political structure rather than a working army. It's Babylon in terms of coordination. So far its trainings are just about welcoming Americans in different parts of it. I don't think NATO will ever be capable of any kind of united act as one pan-European force.

You know how they test their European anti-missile systems? By launching ONE warhead of a known type in sterile conditions.

Russian military tech is designed to do that. It's always been a paradigm. American military tech is designed to blow US military budget out of proportion, and bomb goatfuckistans.

Most of your posts have been worthless garbage others have covered, but there are a few things I want to note here:

(1) Correct the US won't ask for approval if we really want to do something. Perk of being a superpower. We'll look for a political cover (such as NATO if necessary, or even a Congressional vote) but it isn't required.

(2) The US military is not spread thin... not in the way you mean. Quite the contrary more troops are historic bases and fewer deployed to combat roles than any time in the last 15 years. The biggest problem is delayed maintence from the high tempo of combat operations (2016 is the big year for that) and converting readiness standards from being around COIN and Counter Terrorism to traditional mechanized warfare against industrial powers. That process has another 18 months to it.

This claim of yours is groundless.


(3) The "European Anti-Missile system" is Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense. It is actually tested in highly scalable to real world situations tests, comprised of several intermediate, medium range ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles simultaneously. This represents enough of a proof of reliability (as similar tests do for pretty much anything... you don't need to test an attack of 50 missiles to illustrate the effectiveness against 50 missiles). The one you are mistaking it for is the far more developmental Groundbased Missile Defense, which is based in the US. That is an entirely different system. US Missile defense is layered.



(4) I'm not sure what you're getting at with what the Russian military is "designed to do". It's the most advanced military Russia can buy on it's budget and that is it. The US spends more, so get's more advanced, more modern, more breakthrough systems. It's that simple. Furthermore historically it is the US acting to counter the opponent. Classically, for example, the gun of the M1 tank was designed to out range the gun of the T-72. US nuclear weapons in Europe were designed to counter the USSR's overwhelming conventional superiority at the time. So on and so forth.


Just anther angry Russian.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a bit of a weird thing with aircraft designations, basically although the Su-35S is classified 4++ gen, the only bit that isn't 5th gen is the airframe, so they can reuse a lot of the parts on their new 5th gen airframe.

Lockheed Martin are just throwing poo at it for the same reason they throw poo at Northrop's/Dassault's/BAE's planes, they're competitors.

This post is _nonsense_. From top to bottom. What are you trying to pull?

The Su-35S is a modernized Su-27. If it were a US plane, it would be "Su-27E". It's as much a 5th generation aircraft as a F-16E is.

It's not competitor terminology. The Su-35 lacks the whole set of key features of 5th generation systems, such as design for stealth, highly efficient engines, supermanuverabily, internal weapon stores, high degree of composite construction, advanced avionics and status-of-the-vehicle computer systems / avionics, software-driven design with plug-and-play computer systems, sensor fusion and a design around network-centric warfare.


The Su-35 has SOME features of fifth generation fighters... but so does the F-15S Stealth Eagle concept, or the F-16E.

And most of all, it was conceieved as a 4th generation fighter, as the Su-27 and modernized. That's it. In another thread I compared the PAK-FA T-50 to the Japanese X-2 Shinshin. The X-2 takes the basic F-15 design and modernizes it / 5th generations it. As a spiritual sucessor, the F-15 is closer to the X-2 than even the F-22, whose approach is markedly different than what amounts to the "ultimate F-15" in the X-2. The PAK-FA T-50, a deeply troubled program, is essentially the same thing. It is a the Su-35 in a fifth generation bottom-to-top new air frame. It's approach is similar to that of the Su-35.

To claim the Su-35 is a 5th generation fighter though is extremely counterfactual and ludicrous. It defines down 5th generation just to give Russia some, which is nonsense.

I mean consider the technology of the F-35... put aside that program's difficulties. The F-35 is basically Iron Man in plane form, complete with Jarvis. To put that on the same playing field as a tricked out Su-27 is absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

I know you're making a joke, but the PAK-FA program is actually progressing faster than the F-22, F-35, Eurofighter or Rafale did (which I'm not convinced is a positive thing lol).

Not at all. It'll be another decade before the PAK FA is owned by Russia in substantial numbers, by which point it will be a 5th generation fighter at the same time the US is in active design and prototyping of a sixth generation fighter. That'll make it, all said and done,a multi-decade program (the PAK FA program officially began in 2002). The F-35 first flew in 2007 (the X-35 demonstrator flew in 2001). It is gearing up for full rate production right now.



The early stages of the 6th generation fighter program started in this financial year by the way. But that's Russia's problem. It's building a 5th generation fighter about 15 years behind the curve.

[Haven]

lol I love your dramatic "Russia will prevail!" speach, yet noone is talking about invading Russia, all your previous wars fought didnt help you in Afghanistan or Chechnya (what an embarrasment that must have been)

No one talked about it either up until 22.6.1941. What else is NATO amassing its forces for? Besides, Chechnya is done, it's under firm Russian control. And how was Vietmen? What was that war for, and what were the results?

Sorry but your "we r specially made to die in war" story is sorta dumb, altho I'm sure that Russia propaganda sheeps like yourself eat it raw.

Wow. Now link me at least 50-100 more.

Didnt they teach you that Russia lost WW1? good thing the Allied won it for you, be sure to send them your appreciation.

Lost? Who took control over Russia then? Whom did Russia pay reparations to? Russia basically quit it because of revolution brewing up inside.

[Crispin]

No one talked about it either up until 22.6.1941. What else is NATO amassing its forces for? Besides, Chechnya is done, it's under firm Russian control. And how was Vietmen? What was that war for, and what were the results?

NATO is ammasing it's forces due to your recent invasion ande annexation of Crimea and the stunt you're pulling in Ukraine, but please do ignore how the US were pulling forces AWAY from Europe before your President messed up.

Yes, that took a while huh? quite surprising when you consider your countries superiority at throwing soldiers into their deaths.

I'm not going to defend the Vietnam War, nor will I defend the Iraq war, both was imo utterly retarded (Not sure what Vietnam has to do woth anything but ok)

Wow. Now link me at least 50-100 more.

more what?

Lost? Who took control over Russia then? Whom did Russia pay reparations to? Russia basically quit it because of revolution brewing up inside.

In the treaty, Bolshevik Russia ceded the Baltic States to Germany; they were meant to become German vassal states under German princelings.[2] Russia also ceded its province of Kars Oblast in the South Caucasus to the Ottoman Empire and recognized the independence of Ukraine. Furthermore, Russia agreed to pay six billion German gold marks in reparations.

The treaty was effectively terminated in November 1918, when Germany surrendered to the Allies.

- - - Updated - - -

The way in which Haven talks about ''Western media'' (whatever the hell that means) tells us a lot about how things operate in Russia proper and their own experiences with their media market (which over the last 5 has been degenerated in to single-note cacophony).
They know they are being fed lies. So of course, if that`s the way things are handled in Russia - surely it`s a common practice elsewhere, right?

I truly don`t understand what the term means. Does he lump Fox and BBC and DW in the same basket? Shows profound ignorance about the West and how things are run here.
Does he imply Salon and Daily Mail have something in common? Vanity Fair and National Review share the same political agendas?

It`s so confusing. But I can`t blame him - living on the edge of the world must be odd an experience.

Well not even that, throw in Norwegian Media, Swedish Media, Danish Media, German Media, French Media, Spanish Media, Greek Media, Austrian Media (you get the idea), and the term "western media" as a unity seems as stupid as it can.

And then add how western media loves to burn the west, obvious ones beeing Snowden case and recent Panama case.

[Skroe]

No one talked about it either up until 22.6.1941. What else is NATO amassing its forces for? Besides, Chechnya is done, it's under firm Russian control. And how was Vietmen? What was that war for, and what were the results?

Collective defense. Because the world's free countries... it's richest, most powerful democracies, should pool their resources togther to defend ourselves... namely from countries like Russia which are none of that.

Even if Russia did not exist. Even if Russia was an ally, NATO would still exist because it represents a fundamentally good idea and a shining ideal: that free Americans should stand with free Britons and free Frenchmen and free Germans and free Canadians and free Estonians, in the name of shared ideals and mutual defense. Because we are all in this together in a dangerous world.

I know Russian's don't accept that, because they see NATO much as Russia saw the wider Soviet Union and Warsaw pact - as a puppet of a great power and a network of buffer states to do it's will. But that's not how Americans think.

Chechnya ... I wouldn't be so sure that it is done. You'd put it past US intelligence services to stir up trouble there if we wanted to?

Results of Vietnam? Who cares. War was 40-50 years ago. It's irrelevant. See the news?

We're likely going to start selling weapons to Vietnam to arm them against China, as we woo them to let us build a base. Yes... the US and Vietnam could be allies! The US having access to a base in Vietnam would be like the Soviet Union building a base in Mexico.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/09/...es-to-vietnam/

U.S. Likely to Lift Ban on Arms Sales to Vietnam
Despite objections from some lawmakers and human rights advocates, the White House is considering selling U.S. weapons to Hanoi — for the first time since the war.
The White House appears poised to end a ban on arms sales to Vietnam in time for a landmark visit by President Barack Obama later this month, despite misgivings from some lawmakers and human rights advocates.

The step would carry crucial symbolism in the growing contest for influence between China and the United States in the Western Pacific and also for America’s relationship with Hanoi that has come full circle since the dark days of the Vietnam War.

Anxious about China’s aggressive moves to assert its territorial claims in the South China Sea, Vietnam’s government has pressed repeatedly for an end to the prohibition on U.S. arms exports, which would permit Hanoi to buy high-tech American military hardware such as sophisticated radar or surveillance aircraft. Two years ago, Washington partially lifted the ban to permit the sale of weapons related to “maritime security.”

[caervek]

This post is _nonsense_. From top to bottom. What are you trying to pull?

As you're normally a pretty good poster I'm going to assume (from the way the rest of your post is like ~12 lines of totally unrelated ranting which actually makes the same points as me lol) that you either misunderstood my post (or didn't read the conversation it was part off and misunderstood the context).

Nobody is claiming the Su-35S is a 5th gen fighter, Lockheed Martin are implying that the PAK-FA isn't a "real" 5th gen fighter because it uses some of the same 5th gen components found in the Su-35S.

I know you're making a joke, but the PAK-FA program is actually progressing faster than the F-22, F-35, Eurofighter or Rafale did (which I'm not convinced is a positive thing lol).

Not at all.

Assuming Russia doesn't miss their target date (which is quite likely, but I'm going off the info at hand) then the PAK-50 will have gone form first flight to introduction faster than any of those planes (and like I said I don't think that is actually a good thing from Russia's POV as it implies corner cutting has been done).