Russian Fleet off the coast of Syria.
How to Sink This?
Luke Hughes
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
arstechnica.com
eng.ktrv.ru
en.wikipedia.org
google.com
twitter.com
Lucas Miller
>submarines
>lots and lots of harpoons
>maybe some AARGMs/HARMs
>maybe some LRASMs
Hunter Flores
Wait 20 years and let rust finish the job
Aiden Thompson
spbp
Logan Howard
ITT: good goys
Evan Murphy
>russian fleet
The entire russian navy
Brayden Baker
swedish uboats by saab dynamics, it literally sank the crown jewel of the american navy also known as the USS Ronald Reagan
Mason Allen
wait for rust to do its thing.
Elijah Barnes
>t.
Jaxon Edwards
that's ok, because Ronald Reagan was a horrible president.
John Jenkins
>Is this ship coming closer?
>bbaaaawww
>What was that sound
>BBBBBBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW!
>Abandon ship! Everyone get the fuck of the boat!
Lets see who gets the reference.
Dylan Taylor
Why doesn’t the picture feature the tugs?
Lincoln Bailey
>russian navy
Nathan Martin
missiles and torpedoes?
Landon Green
target the tug-boat
Lincoln Martin
Seething
Russia is undefeatable
Carson Johnson
gottem
Hunter Gray
Tell Greenpeace that they are destroying the ozone layer.
Brody Foster
You just spam missiles until they run out of interceptors
Noah Reyes
>>submarines
>>lots and lots of harpoons
>>maybe some LRASMs
Ok.
>>maybe some AARGMs/HARMs
Lol.
William Sanders
>Russian Fleet
>Tell Greenpeace
Good point, fuck Greenpeace.
en.wikipedia.org
Ryan Young
That was in a no active sonar exercise. Soviet/Russian ASW and naval doctrine in general involves fucking spamming active at the drop of a hat. Nuclear attack subs would be quiet enough. Sterling engines will not be required.
Liam Morgan
You realise ships normally have more interceptors than anti-ship missiles, right? Like Project 1164 alone has 64 SA-N-6 and 40 SA-N-4. Meanwhile, the opponent has what, like 4 Harpoons per destroyer and 8 per cruiser? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Isaac Jones
Figure out why Syria is worth risking WW3.
Then just tell the Navy to work it out themselves. It's what they're for after all.
Luke Ross
F18s.
Leo Robinson
I don't think anyone is implying that this has anything to do with Syria.
Making slavtards look (even more) naval challenged however might be worth it.
Nathan Morgan
Stuff a potato in their exhaust.
Christian Walker
looks like no one
Parker Brown
>GODDAAAAAMNIT CHONG
>MR NOSEBERG IS GOING TO BE SO MAD WE ARE LATE TO DELIVERY HIS SHEKELS
Carson Taylor
>16 ships
>One 688i carries about 21 Mk 48s
>do the math
Leo Adams
classic whataboutism
Ian Brown
classic shabbos goy
Aaron Roberts
Aiden Wright
Josiah Ortiz
Take out their tugboats
Isaiah Taylor
>whataboutism
everyone bringing this up is making an argumentation error themselves
Parker Sanchez
>I don't think anyone is implying that this has anything to do with Syria.
I think this is Syria related...
US-sponsored terrorists are preparing another chemical attack hoax complete with footage of dust and still kids and people coughing.
Russia said they would start sinking launch platforms and moved 30 warships in situ.
Ethan Anderson
Quads of truth. Gas the boats, Naval war now.
Aiden Murphy
Zachary Collins
Nice runglish you got there, pal.
Gabriel King
how's life on the moscow troll farm, ivan? you earning those rubles?
Aiden Miller
>Mk 48s
>do the math
eng.ktrv.ru
So I did. What now?
Ayden Torres
>Then just tell the Navy to work it out themselves
That's what you do when you plan to set a flamboyant faggot party.
Levi Davis
>Russia said they would sink launch platforms
Didn't they say that last time? And all they ended up doing was chasing a bong sub while the Virginias slipped past and dumped their loads unmolested? And claim they shot down more missiles than were ever fired?
John Taylor
And don't forget to send some to France too.
en.wikipedia.org
Gavin Young
>russian defenses are so good they can shoot down 120% of incoming missiles
The US is doomed, this century belongs to Russia
Thomas Lee
>Didn't they say that last time?
No, they did not. The literal quote was "we shoot down anything that attacks Russian servicemen". Then media bullshitting about "Russians promise to shoot down everyone" began. And I motherfucking bet it is the same now too.
Justin Peterson
Deal with it, yrokuk.
Nathan Robinson
Because tugs are not "action"?
Carson King
Leave it alone and it will sink itself.
Bentley Martinez
You just know there's more subs than that
Levi Rivera
Asher Williams
>All the Soviet era ships will rust way
>Meanwhile Kommuna will still be floating because the thing just doesn't rust for some reason
Isaiah Gutierrez
>because the thing just doesn't rust for some reason
Imperial metal imbued with the love for the Motherland spanning from Ionian Islands and Cattaro to Kauai and Fort Ross.
This one is like half the age, but still holding up well.
Colton Torres
Ask India to join them and station crew on their ships. Only a matter of time until 1 opens a hatch to poo out of that sinks each ship.
Jackson Harris
>it literally sank the crown jewel of the american navy also known as the USS Ronald Reagan
Literally no it didn't. It was able to get a firing solution during an exercise were no active sonar was allowed.
Christian Brooks
That submarine looks like it's almost completely rusted anyway. Will sink any day now
Austin Adams
Whatever makes you sleep at night.
Gabriel Morales
Depends who's "the opponent"
A Ticonderoga has a mix of about 130 missiles.
The number of Harpoon is low as those are not launched from a VLS.
But most of the US Navy surface-to-air missiles double as anti-ship missiles.
Now how far they would do in an actual battle is left to your best guess but they would definitely provide the number necessary to overwhelm a ship's anti-missile defense.
Also, there's the fact that NATO simply has more ships in the Mediteranea alone than Russia has ships in total.
Jackson Smith
give me a RHIB, a power drill and 45 minutes. Russians can't into damage control
Luke Reyes
All surface-to-air missiles can be used in anti-shipping role. And they're extremely ineffective as such due when compared to actual anti-ship missiles to this being a by-effect of their primary role. It's a last resort and a huge "I'm here and I'm desperate, please sink me" sign right over your head.
>but they would definitely provide the number necessary to overwhelm a ship's anti-missile defense
Not before the retaliation with the actual anti-ship missiles strikes back. American navy is simply ill-suited for anti-ship warfare, as its primary role is to toss land-attack missiles into cavemen with sticks and defend aircraft carriers.
Camden Taylor
>NATO
I'm pretty sure having soil in a handful of countries on two continents turned into glass by artificial sunrises is not quite the most efficient way to deal with several ships.
Isaiah Foster
honestly a lot of US anti-ship capability seems tied up in carrier-launched aircraft and attack subs, so that's what this fleet would have to defend against.
Alexander Hernandez
Carriers are spread over the world ocean. A single carrier is nothing a well composed combat group can't be expected to realistically deal with.
Kevin Robinson
Seems more efficient than any sort of long drawn out bureaucratic conflict
plus it would look cool
Kayden Myers
>Let's move the topic from naval warfare over the coast of Syria to nuclear warfare.
>That way, I can say Russia's nuclear stockpile trumps all deficiencies of Russia.
If the two only strategic options of a country are bluff and total nuclear war, said country won't last long.
First of all because the second option will be seldom used and the first option will quickly get old.
Isaiah Foster
>plus it would look cool
Lol, go play your fucking video games.
Carson Bell
>Brings up the entire NATO to the topic of naval warfare over the coast of Syria
>Expects anything less than get glassed in a nuclear holocaust in return
I mean feel free to try. It's not like the west tried it once already, right?
Ayden Torres
Seems like Russia has the upper hand in any naval engagement because of US aircraft carriers.
They're basically gigantic targets with 4,000 people each. Deploying those against an opponent with capable anti-ship missiles like Russia is like holding yourself hostage.
How would America react to the loss of a carrier with all hands?
Jaxson Rivera
>vatniks on peak damage control
Josiah Nguyen
Depends on the context.
Are we talking "out of the blue" alpha strike in peace time that somehow get through the Carrier Group and sink the carrier ?
Or like a carrier deployed around Cyprus getting sunk by Russian subs in the middle of a escalating conflict in Syria ?
Charles Clark
Throw some vodka in the Mediterranean.
Andrew Thomas
wwwwww
Do you know the childrens story of tar patch and brer rabbit?
The reaction of America if carrier sunk is a stronger armor than whole of Russian fleet.
Jason Taylor
How’s life on the JIDF farm? Earning those shekels?
Xavier Mitchell
Power fantasy of a manchild brainwashed by CNN.
Adam Torres
You say power fantasy, DOD says "strategic power projection."
SSNs win naval battles. Aircraft carriers are for metaphorically teabagging lesser powers and daring them to do anything about it.
Justin Powell
Your "strategic power projection" ends where the tip of a warhead carried by R-36M2 reaches.
Benjamin Thomas
Yeah, that only works if you can avoid getting MIRV'd in the process of projecting your strategic power, which you don't.
Colton James
lol
I was explaining basic politics condescendingly on a imageboard but it turns out you actually are retarded.
Nobody attacks a strategic asset because nuclear war will start, you say? What if I told you carriers are such an asset?
Matthew Fisher
I don't see an issue with this assessment, a strike against naval targets in this day and age should involve SEAD/DEAD
Daniel Carter
And what if I told you trying to wave a glorified cargo ship acting tough around a country that is able to defend itself will result in getting your shit pushed in? Russia is not an aggressor, it doesn't give a shit about your boats. The premise of the very thread we are in is that someone commits an act of aggression against Russian Mediterranean Naval Group.
Owen Cook
it's ok frend
russia will be glorious again one day (far in the future that is). until then, maybe tone down the krokodil od's and petro dependence.
Nolan Smith
A single Astute.
Carter James
So now you're trying to backpedal your way out of being exposed to the fact that the US trying to commit an act of war against Russia will cause your beloved Wisconsin to turn into a desert? Whatever, come back when you will grow come actual balls.
So that Russian servicemen are temporarily rendered disabled due to an uncontrollable spike of laughter?
Hudson Roberts
>So that Russian servicemen are temporarily rendered disabled due to an uncontrollable spike of laughter?
There are literally only 4 ships in that image that are capable of detecting an astute in good conditions.
The warm water of the med creates a strong thermal layer and the busy sea traffic creates a lot of background noise for a submarine to hide.
You wouldn't even need an Astute, a Trafalgar would be well up to the task. the Russians have no weapons that can compete with the range and speed of a spearfish.
Liam Ortiz
took me 30 mins to make this, but you see my point
Nolan Morales
>block gibraltar strait
>negative water seepage will start to kick in
>wait 1 year
>all ships have been banked on the dried up bottom
Brayden Turner
So that's four ships that will fuck an Astute up. Good luck with that.
>Russians have no weapons that can compete with the range and speed of a spearfish
What the fuck are anti-submarine missiles, anti-torpedo torpedoes, maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft?
Lucas Powell
Russia has no chance even in a nuclear war - western missile tech and strke capability is superior to anything Russia has and since Russia is a poor country with serious issues with civil protection, their society would simply collapse.
This is what happens when you are poor and unskilled, it's completely normal for 3rd world countries like Russia to end this way.
Camden Cruz
>It took him 30 minutes to put 4 pictures together
>Assad is winning and went-support terrorists are pretty much #rekt
Lol, what a fucking loser. What are you going to do, toss another handful of $1 million missiles into an empty barn or stage another gas attack as Russian Su-34 and Su-35S keep removing the shit your of your muslim radical friends? What are you going to do, you fucking sissy bitch? That's what I thought. Go play with your commieshit identity politics back at your continent, wimp.
Nathan Brooks
>western missile tech and strke capability is superior to anything Russia has
Motherfucking lol, call me back when you will come up with an operational ICBM not from the 60s.
Jose Walker
>So that's four ships that will fuck an Astute up. Good luck with that.
No, thats the only four you need to avoid. the majority of the fleet are corvettes and transports with no sonar of any relevence, the most advanced towed arrays they have on their surface ships are from the 70's.
SSK's will always be out detected in the deep water available.
>What the fuck are anti-submarine missiles, anti-torpedo torpedoes, maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft?
SS-N-14 is garbage hence why it was dropped for Udaloy 2. and it's successor SS-N-15 has a shorter range than a float out Spearfish attack plus the torpedo can't get deep enough.
The RBU's are a gimmick that won't ever be used because of their sub 5KM range. russian MR aircraft are still in the 70's and are no threat.
Ethan Powell
>Russian Mediterranean Naval Group
Oh god...
Ian Morgan
>just because they tested Paket-E, doesn't mean it's on their ships or it works as an ATT
>implying they'll have MPA up already
>implying the MPA could even find a turd in a toilet bowl
>implying anti-submarine missiles will even hit
Robert Morris
Why are you posting things that don't matter in a nuclear war scenario? That piece of shit can be intercepted by western tech easily :D
Come back when Russia can afford something instead of putting a new name plate on an old 90s tech level missile designed by poor people...
Russia is poor and that is literally the best they can do, it only makes western people feel sorry for them.
Jackson Gray
Fee Fii Foo Fecting
It seems like this little faggot is projecting
Nicholas Price
The problem with that is that the second your ICBM is fired, you'll be equally fried as your opponent. Which sort of renders ICBMs moot in terms of usability.
It's sort of like the "fleet-in-being" concept, where your fleet is too valuable simply sitting in harbor to risk sending it out.
Ryder Smith
Have a (you)
Hunter Lewis
>toss another handful of $1 million missiles
You know the best part, Ivan ?
Americans can actually afford to do that.
Russia, not so much.
Gavin Rivera
>How to Sink This?
How to spot a terrorist 101