Forum menu
Bloody great Russia...
 

[Closed] Bloody great Russian Carrier in the Channel

Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 
[#8119513]

A bit far off for the iphone camera, but it's just passing Dover.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:13 am
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

It's ok Brexiters, 2/3rds of the UKs navy are shadowing it.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:15 am
Posts: 16167
Free Member
 

They are doing it especially for the Daily Mail


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:15 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Notice that a tug went through first? There's a reason for that.....

Like that they parked 2 jets up front though, just in their normal storage postion and not showing off at all ๐Ÿ˜‰


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:15 am
 aP
Posts: 681
Free Member
 

Admiral Kuznetsov?
Is it being towed by a tug?


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:15 am
Posts: 12809
Free Member
 

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37725327 ]BBC News[/url]

They're in International Waters, but it's another bit of Sabre Rattling by Putin.

Can anyone remember why we've got 'beef' with the Russians? It pre-dates Syria doesn't it, but post Iron Curtain? They've been flying bombers near our borders for years.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:17 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

aP - Member
Is it being towed by a tug?

It seems more smokey than it was yesterday..... so I assume it will be shortly


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:19 am
Posts: 7214
Free Member
 

I don't see the problem. We're doing as much sabre rattling as they are by making an issue of it. We could have welcomed them and made a virtue of the inevitable. Trying to look hard with two tiny ships just makes us look like ****s.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:20 am
Posts: 9112
Free Member
 

It's not [i]that[/i] great, though, is it?

Under Pres. Vladimir Putinโ€™s regime, the Kremlin has laid plans to rebuild the fleet. But thatโ€™s easier said than done when the vessels most badly in need of replacement are also the most difficult to buildโ€”heavy cruisers, powerful destroyers and Admiral Kuznetsov, Russiaโ€™s sole aircraft carrier, which is barely seaworthy after nearly three decades in service.

From [url= https://warisboring.com/the-russian-navy-is-on-the-verge-of-collapse-b0ce344ebf96#.j5j0teqh4 ]here[/url].


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:22 am
Posts: 7203
Full Member
 

They're in International Waters, but it's another bit of Sabre Rattling by Putin.

Absolutely - it's easier to take a carrier group round the other way then thread it through the channel. It's not that much farther either.

Could go a bit pear shaped if somebody accidentally paints them with a targeting radar, but that won't happen.

Trying to look hard with two tiny ships just makes us look like ****.

They might be smaller than an aircraft carrier, but they are more than a match.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:23 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I agree with outofbreath. The UK is like a silly little yappy dog against a Pitbull. It can yap all it wants, but the Pitbull can snap it's neck in an instant.

Empire is over. Britain no longer rules the waves. Bulldog spirit? It's nothing more than a posturing poodle now.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:23 am
Posts: 12809
Free Member
 

I say "Sabre Rattling" a quick glimpse of a map and it's seems it's just 'the way'.

[img] [/img]


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:23 am
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

but it's another bit of Sabre Rattling by Putin
what sailing a warship to where they are "at war"

Its just sensible

Can anyone remember why we've got 'beef' with the Russians?
Proud empire used to own half the world - ok Europe- reduced to bit part player as we encroach [ NATO/EU] to its borders

It wants to be something it no longer is,just like us, a superpower


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:24 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

You missed out the part about having a configuration that means the jets must be extremely light to get airborne, meaning they can hardly carry anything and the durations are measured in minutes rather than hours


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:24 am
 aP
Posts: 681
Free Member
 


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:25 am
Posts: 46070
Free Member
Posts: 16167
Free Member
 

a quick glimpse of a map and it's seems it's just 'the way'.

..or if they wanted to get some nicer holiday snaps they should have gone around the West Coast of Scotland as would be normal.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:26 am
Posts: 7214
Free Member
 

They might be smaller than an aircraft carrier, but they are more than a match.

If two ships can beat a Aircraft Carrier & escorting fleet, why have fleets with Aircraft Carriers?


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:29 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

20 years ago, the Russians would have avoided using the north Sea/channel, and gone round the top of Scotland. Just to avoid diplomatic awkwardness. Now, Putin is deliberately sending that ship down the Channel as a way of telling the UK he can do what he wants. And the UK is more or less powerless to stop him. 20 years ago, the USA would have sent some ships to block the Channel. Shows how much less power they've got now, and for all the support the UK has given the US military, just how much they wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:30 am
Posts: 19914
Free Member
 

Russiaโ€™s sole aircraft carrier, which is barely seaworthy after nearly three decades in service

We should do them a favour and pop a torpedo through the side of it. I'm sure they'd thank us for it.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:31 am
Posts: 28593
Free Member
 

Makes you pine for the good old days when we used to send out a cobbled together and badly maintained taskforce for a show of strength in some far-flung shithole.

Perhaps we should send out one of our aircraft carriers for a bit of sabre rattling? Oh wait....


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:32 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

P-Jay well invading Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and then shooting down a passanger plane would do it (what did Russia do ?)

It's not really "the way" the western route isn't that much longer and would normally be used as military don't want to be "observed" up close

๐Ÿ™‚ at tug towing that ancient aircraft carrier - it does seem likely it's there in case the carrier breaks down !


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:34 am
Posts: 11402
Free Member
 

smokey ol' ****er ain't it!


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:35 am
Posts: 13291
Free Member
 

[url= http://mashable.com/2016/10/19/vladimir-putin-calendar/#_eNYvyGJ5aqp ]Are they giving out any free calendars?[/url]


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:35 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

@clod of course we are powerless to stop a ship sailing in International Waters in peacetime

Russia's economy has shrunk to the size of Australia's. The sanctions and oil price are hurting them badly.

smokey ol' **** ain't it!

Blimey yes ! Powered by a VW diesel ?


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:36 am
 cpon
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

clodhopper - Member
I agree with outofbreath. The UK is like a silly little yappy dog against a Pitbull. It can yap all it wants, but the Pitbull can snap it's neck in an instant.

Empire is over. Britain no longer rules the waves. Bulldog spirit? It's nothing more than a posturing poodle now.

Throughout history our military have fared well against stronger opponents. But this isn't just posturing, it's necessary. Imaging how we'd all be moaning if a Russian attack happened on the UK from those boats and we'd sent absolutely nothing.

One, it's a useful training exercise for our Navy. Two, it's helpful to get a intel on Russian Vessels, we'll have plenty of eyes on their fleet as they pass by. Three, it's one of the world's busiest shipping lanes and vitally important to our Isles, we need to protect and keep open. Why on earth would we let that go un-monitored?


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:37 am
 aP
Posts: 681
Free Member
 

If two ships can beat a Aircraft Carrier & escorting fleet, why have fleets with Aircraft Carriers?

The Admiral Kuznetsov isn't really an aircraft carrier, its a "heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser".


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:37 am
Posts: 7203
Full Member
 

If two ships can beat a Aircraft Carrier & escorting fleet, why have fleets with Aircraft Carriers?

Normally, you put your aircraft carriers out of range of any other ships - not really possible in the channel.

And the UK is more or less powerless to stop him.

... And the UK is more than happy to get a good look at an aircraft carrier that would normally be kept well out of reach.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:38 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

There's so much smoke it looks like it's on fire already.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:39 am
Posts: 8416
Free Member
 

And the UK is more or less powerless to stop him. 20 years ago, the USA would have sent some ships to block the Channel.

They are powerless. The Russians are entitled free and peaceful passage, as are the millions of other Foreign vessels who go that way every year.

Besides there will be 2 or 3 NATO subs sniffing around, my money would be on the subs in the completely unlikely event of anything actually happening.

๐Ÿ™‚ at tug towing that ancient aircraft carrier

At least it has aircraft, unlike the RN [s]white elephants [/s]carriers.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:40 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

๐Ÿ™‚


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:41 am
Posts: 28593
Free Member
 

So, basically, if you sink the tug, the whole battle group is screwed?


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:42 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

... And the UK is more than happy to get a good look at an aircraft carrier that would normally be kept well out of reach.

They can really get more by peering at it through binoculars than by doing a [url= https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Admiral+Kuznetsov&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5uZPH2-vPAhWIIMAKHd71ByUQ_AUICCgB&biw=1395&bih=919 ]Google image search[/url]?


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:45 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

@gobuchal agreed our navy and armed forces aren't properly funded. Spending should be increased significantly


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:45 am
 aP
Posts: 681
Free Member
 

As recently as 1982 the United Kingdom could quickly muster no fewer than 115 ships?โ€”?including two aircraft carriers carrying jet fighters plus 23 destroyers and frigates?โ€”?to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina while also undertaking other missions.
Today the Royal Navy doesnโ€™t even have jet fighters or carriers capable of supporting them, having mothballed the last Harriers in 2010 and the final flattop in 2014. On a good day, the Royal Navy can call on just 17 destroyers and frigates for all of its operations everywhere.

[url= https://warisboring.com/what-sank-the-royal-navy-f5b0aedc0914#.4sbemp7r6 ][/url]


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:46 am
Posts: 8945
Free Member
 

ALthough having steamed past Hull, Lowestoft, Dover and Southampton the russian sialors will go back with terrifying tales of the UK as a land inhabited by septuagenarian mutant zombies chasing eastern europeans into the sea on mobility scooters. So a propaganda win for us I think.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:49 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

I did shake a stick at it. ๐Ÿ˜‰


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:51 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

@matt thanks for that link interesting. Russia's largest ship ! I remember going out to see that huge US carrier off Portsmouth after the Gulf War. This Russian ship is a joke in comparison


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 11:54 am
Posts: 3351
Free Member
 

As has already been pointed out, the [I]Kuznetsov[/I] isn't in the very best of mechanical health and is very expensive to maintain. Sections of the ship are missing heating, hence the Russian Navy's deployments to warmer climes.

The aircraft themselves are adapted from land based designs, with no catapult to hurl them off the deck, they're reliant upon engine thrust and a 'ski-jump' to get them airborne, which hurts range and weapon load.

However, the Russians have exactly one more aircraft carriers than we do (unless we include our Naval alliance with France whereby we share access to the [I]Charles De Gaulle[/i]). Clever Dave scrapped the [i]Ark Royal[/i] in 2010, the [i]Kuznetsov[/i]-sized [i]Queen Elizabeth[/i] and [i]Prince of Wales[/i] are at least four and eight years away from their in service dates and have exactly zero planes to fly from their decks. Our new carriers will also have no catapults and rely on 'ski-jump' ramps to get their hideously expensive and controversial jets airborne.

Probably best to just let the Russian Navy show off for a while and before waving them farewell once they clear the Channel.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 12:02 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

If we're playing warship top trumps then it is fair to say that the T45 ships are a quantum leap forward from anything the Russians are currently running.
Yes, the T45s are plagued with propulsion issues but when it is all working, they are probably the most capable AAW Destroyers anywhere in the world.
They have provided support to several US Naval battle groups in the middle east, as the Sampson + S1850M Radar suite is the most advanced ever fitted to a surface combat vessel.

The Russian Destroyers are well tooled up, but much of the technology is old, obsolete and poorly maintained.
I visited one last year, which had been built in Kaliningrad for the Indian Navy (INS Trikand) it was surprisingly old school considering it was only a couple of years old.

All this is just posturing from Putin, nothing will come of it other than news headlines.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 12:02 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

"Throughout history our military have fared well against stronger opponents. But this isn't just posturing, it's necessary."

Mostly myths. British military strength was mainly dependent on having numerous colonies from which to draw resources, and subjugated populations from which to press-gang cannon fodder.

Russia can now sail a knackered old barge right off our coast, just to show that they can, and there's absolutely **** all our military can do about it.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 12:03 pm
Posts: 66105
Full Member
 

So in terms of aircraft carrier top trumps, they still beat thailand because they have some planes, and they definitely beat us. But it seems like a low overall score.

OTOH we win destroyer top trumps as long as it's our turn and we can choose "expense". But if it's the other player's turn and they choose "reliability", "value for money" "saleability" or "Actually having enough of the things that you can keep at least one at sea all the time", we lose the card.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 12:05 pm
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

On a good day, the Royal Navy can call on just 17 destroyers and frigates for all of its operations everywhere.

But, eh but, but what will the Brexiteers do to patrol that river between us and that there Urup?

Quick, someone tell the Daily Brexit #10thcenturyintellect


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 12:06 pm
 scud
Posts: 4108
Free Member
 

jambalaya - Member
@matt thanks for that link interesting. Russia's largest ship ! I remember going out to see that huge US carrier off Portsmouth after the Gulf War. This Russian ship is a joke in comparison

i remember that well, i come from Portsmouth originally and had a summer job working in a sports shop, all the yank sailors would come in asking for XXXXXL vests as the fashion was to wear them down to their knees.

They said that the captain pretty much had to be escorted by security round his own ship, it was that big that they had ghettos on board, areas where certain people would't go.

Also remember prostitutes coming down on the train from London (part of the service industry i guess) and getting of at the Hard train station.


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 12:07 pm
Posts: 57367
Full Member
 

Empire is over. Britain no longer rules the waves. Bulldog spirit? It's nothing more than a posturing poodle now.

You do realise that in our brave new world talk like that will get you clapped in the tower for treason?

*adds name to the list*


 
Posted : 21/10/2016 12:08 pm
Page 1 / 4