Russian war ships steaming toward Australia in a show of strength

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by elninjo, Nov 12, 2014.

  1. errol43

    errol43 New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    Bundaberg
    Who is Tony Abbott's speech writer? Must surely lift his game. It is a shame that when Australia has a chance to show off our best as far as speeches go, we have to listen to a very poor one.

    Malcolm Turnbull/Kevin Rudd/John Howard IMO would have done much better.

    Abbott is about as good a speaker as Joh was here in Qld.

    Regards Errol 43
     
  2. errol43

    errol43 New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Location:
    Bundaberg
    OC...What about the Swedish Sub, Gotland. See the VIDEO CLIP ON U tube where the US GOVERNMENT LEASED ONE FOR A YEAR after the yanks realized how good it was against US subs/air craft carriers.

    Theses subs are super quiet . An Admiral in the US navy remarked, that God it is Sweden that makes this sub and not one of Americas enemies.

    Regards Errol 43
     
  3. phrenzy

    phrenzy In Memoriam - July 2017 Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    R.I.P
    The Swedes and Germans both make fantastically quiet subs, inn many cases their diesel electrics are quieter than their nuclear cousins. Unfortunately the European subs are designed for relatively short range missions and aren't off the shelf suitable for long range pacific operations that Australia needs.

    Their propulsion systems would be a good get for a larger Australian boat, unfortunately the screw design probably wouldn't work on a larger boat so well and the screw is half the stealthy battle when it comes to subs.
     
  4. Old Codger

    Old Codger Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    4,936
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I have long felt that the old Chinese? proverb of "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar" should apply to 'the Taiwan question'.

    If the PRC spent a few years showing Taiwan that things can go well for the people of Hong Kong, they may well charm the pants off Taiwan and get her to partake in the joys of a honeymoon with China.

    JMO


    OC
     
  5. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,422
    Likes Received:
    2,705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    You've been missed OC.

    Good to see some good use of the vernacular back!
     
  6. AngloSaxon

    AngloSaxon Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think the people of Taiwan are watching the consequences of protests in Hong Kong closely and know any capitulation to the communists will result in a similar slow decline in their liberties.

    Interestingly, the people of Hong Kong have come up with a good defence for their protest barriers:

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-hW6ZdUTJU[/youtube]
     
  7. AngloSaxon

    AngloSaxon Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think all that bomb threatens is 3nd world areas of the Russian Federation like Chechnya and 2nd world republics in the mandatory Russian sphere of influence like Georgia. Most of the aircraft Russia has that can deliver something like that were already obsolete before President Gorbechev took office.
     
  8. phrenzy

    phrenzy In Memoriam - July 2017 Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    R.I.P
    most definately true. It's a slightly bigger daisy cutter that has been a tool barely employed at all by the US in the last 40 years.

    I still wouldn't want to be in one of the little break away republics when the bears fly overhead with one of those. Not much of a concern for a CBG though.
     
  9. Skyrocket

    Skyrocket Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    5,907
    Likes Received:
    857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Melbourne
    They used those old Russian bombers just for testing the bomb. They could easily fit one of those bombs on their ICBM's and send it that way and also make as many of them as they want because these non-nuclear bombs are not subject to the nuclear bomb reduction agreement between the US and Russia.

    Either way, in a World War 3 scenario all those US aircraft carrier fleets are sitting ducks and could/would be destroyed in a day by Russia with ICBM's, whether they carry nuclear or non-nuclear warheads.
     
  10. Old Codger

    Old Codger Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    4,936
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Skyrocket,


    "Either way, in a World War 3 scenario all those US aircraft carrier fleets are sitting ducks and could/would be destroyed in a day by Russia with ICBM's, whether they carry nuclear or non-nuclear warheads."



    Interesting, can you tell me how our peace loving Russian brothers will know the co-ordinates for launching an ICBM at a CVN somewhere in the Pacific/Indian/Atlantic Oceans? One place they will NOT be is Pearl Harbor!

    And Pine Gap will give the ICBM launch data to the Pentagon inside 5 minutes, or less.

    FYI, a CBG has its escorts spread over MANY square miles, NOT in the bulls-eye like the pics show for effect, and the CVN itself will be underway at 30+ knots in ANY direction at the same time.

    Our peace loving friends are scared stiff of a threat they cannot pinpoint by the minute.


    OC
     
  11. phrenzy

    phrenzy In Memoriam - July 2017 Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    R.I.P
    The only missile that could come near carrying a single FOAB, the Russian bomb your talking about skyrocket is the ss-18 and even then by the time you added a standard bus and pen aids I think you would be pushing it. Besides which the type out weapon it is (a thermobaric explosive) is only really effective when air blasted, meaning that your wasting all of the energy of the speed of the incoming warhead, a conventional explosive with a heavy penetration casing would do much, much more damage.

    Then you have the fact that such a weapon would be entirely impossible to differentiate from one carrying multiple thermonuclear warheads while it was in flight, it's use possibly triggering a nuclear exchange before the thing hits the ground. The Americans were desperate for a conventional weapon that could target anywhere on the planet in under an hour and looked at using conventional warheads on ICBMs but it was too risky for this reason and were so convinced that it was too dangerous to use that they are spending billions in hypersonic research to fulfill this role without using an ICBM.

    Plus, as old codger points out, hitting a moving target is REALLY hard at those ranges and speeds, you not only need VERY accurate constantly updated targeting data but you need to be able to feed it to ground station or up to a satellite and back down to your warhead in an unjammable way and the USN is very good at jamming. Anyone who has seen apollo13 knows things reentering the atmosphere are covered in a plasma sheath that makes communication very difficult. That's before you talk about trying to accurately maneuver something moving at 6km/s to hit a moving target with a CEP.of say 25meters. And again, even if you could do so, a thermobaric explosive like the weapon you mention wouldn't be as effective as much smaller explosive in a heavy penetrating casing (energy of a projectile increases by the square of its weight but the cube of it's speed so you may as well
    exploit the many thousands of kilos of rocket fuel you spent to get the thing moving fast enough to get into space to do most of the work).

    The Chinese have a conventional IRBM (DF-21d) they say can target carriers but a great many serious people think that the hurdles of live targeting updates and maneuvering in the lower atmosphere at those speeds (for non moving targets most of the moving a warhead into position can be done in space to get the warhead pointed where it needs to go and just let it fall but to hit a maneuvering target you need to make course changes right down to almost sea level), are too great to make it a practical weapon. Even if all the pieces could work the whole kill chain is vulnerable from hacking or jamming signals to killing the satellites or drones used for targeting. Lastly, even if all that is ironed out it's a highly specialised weapon full of very expensive technology that solves a very specific defence problem that China has, Russia doesn't fear carriers in the same way simply because of geography.

    In addition to all of that, this type of weapon isn't really suited to killing carriers, thermobarics are really anti personnel and light anti materiel weapons. You might do some damage and blow the planes on the deck apart but sending a lump of tungsten to blow a great hole right through the ship would be much more effective (see Wikipedia article: rods from God).


    Technically you could put that warhead on an ICBM but I really don't think they will, they have much more effective ways to threaten their enemies.
     
  12. Court Jester

    Court Jester Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Gold Coast QLD

    the Russians are not as stupid as you believe them to be. I would be surprised if the Russians didnt know the whereabouts of the US surface fleet at any point in time. They have satellites and probably track their movements.
     
  13. Shaddam IV

    Shaddam IV Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    3,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    House Corrino
    And Abbott the "American puppet" slaps down the president of the US at the G20 summit. Looks like you need a new theory there too.
     
  14. Court Jester

    Court Jester Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Gold Coast QLD

    lol hardly, it was over climate change which the USA is doing very little about even Abbot has a better plan then them
     
  15. Old Codger

    Old Codger Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    4,936
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    CJ,

    "the Russians are not as stupid as you believe them to be. I would be surprised if the Russians didnt know the whereabouts of the US surface fleet at any point in time. They have satellites and probably track their movements."


    Not sure about stupid, but they sure are not as advanced or competent as the Yanks. The Russians have been stealing or buying technology from the west since 1917, when they first heard the word technology. Check out the sub called 'Kursk", a good example of Russian skills. And the Tu4 'Bull'.

    I have been reading claims about Russian gear for decades, and most of it is based on what they stole or bought from fools like PM Attlee and a series of US Presidents.

    They may well have an idea where a USN CVN happened to be but NOT within the 50 miles they would need to do anything about it, AND in your WW3 scenario ALL Russian fixed ICBM sites would be zapped in the first hour. Mobiles take a little longer!

    The Yanks have a world wide series of underwater listening posts that tell her EXACTLY where Russian subs are at any one time. Russia does not.

    My money is on the Yanks every time. Try WW3 and you will LOSE! That is why the Russians never did, and the Chinese never will.

    OC
     
  16. Shaddam IV

    Shaddam IV Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    3,566
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    House Corrino
    Yes, America and China basically cut a deal that means nothing.
     
  17. Court Jester

    Court Jester Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Gold Coast QLD
    yes have you actually read the details, it is nothing China have agreed to only stop increasing emissions only after 16 years -- nothing about reducing them -- China will only stop (maybe if it suits them ) growing them after 16 years -- lol hardly a deal to write home about.

    Also dont get me started on the US, who are all talk and no action -- literally nothing. Obama is now just a puppet, with no real power with the republicans controlling both houses anything he says is never going to get legislated.

    Which in my view is positive as man made climate change is the myth.
     
  18. Skyrocket

    Skyrocket Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2014
    Messages:
    5,907
    Likes Received:
    857
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Melbourne
    What makes you think Russian ICBM's are not able to now change course during flight? Do you think the Russians don't upgrade their weapons systems? They now have ICBM's with multiple nuclear warheads (up to 10) and I don't think they can only drop them in straight dotted lines. Also do you not think the Russians have come up with something to take out all US CVN's where ever they are. Of coarse they have come up with something to take them out. The Russians aren't stupid.

    The Russians are way ahead of the US in Scalar technology. Scalar would easily destroy all US CVN's in one day. And the US has HAARP technology.

    As I said US CVN's are obsolete and are only good for terrorizing 2nd world countries to exploit them.



    US RUSSIA START TREATY FALSE FLAG NUKES OBSOLETE MORE POWERFUL evil WEAPONS HAARP SCALAR !!!
    Former US senator Gary Hart

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvkN2BpGLBI[/youtube]

    SCALAR TECHNOLOGY SUPERCEDE NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR WW III AGAINST HUMANITY

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GGxAvRoMYg[/youtube]



    Your dumb for saying the Yanks will win against Russia.

    In a full blown out war they will both lose against each other. It's M.A.D. and it's been like that for decades now. None will win.


    .
     
  19. phrenzy

    phrenzy In Memoriam - July 2017 Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    R.I.P
    The Russians absolutely know where every CBG is even if they don't know where exactly the accompanying subs are even they aren't surfaced. They have live eyes on them most of the time. It's just that they can't feed that to ICBMs , they've never really had to deal with road or rail mobile ICBMs so they've never had to devote much effort to that sort of kill chain.

    skyrocket: they've had MIRVed (multiple warhead) ICBMs for decades now, nobody doubts that but because of their basic Newtonian physics involved, yes they almost invariably travel in a straight line. Terminal maneuvering is no small feat and that which exists is not normally used to maneuver to a specific place, it's mostly just to move around almost randomly to avoid potential interceptors.

    Please don't bring up HAARP or scalar, yes HAARP has some military applications but if you think that's going to be any sort of deciding factor in a serious shooting match then you've been reading the wrong books.
     
  20. Old Codger

    Old Codger Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    4,936
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    "Please don't bring up HAARP or scalar, yes HAARP has some military applications but if you think that's going to be any sort of deciding factor in a serious shooting match then you've been reading the wrong books."

    I didn't


    OC
     

Share This Page