Is Rob Bauer right?

[livestock 1]

that's one big exercise , show of strength i guess as much as any thing else

Or lining the ducks in a row to do something

 

[livestock 1]

There must have been some suffering in Ukraine

 

[Bald Rick]

By the cringe we’ve wound down our naval power.

Graphic to today’s Sunday Times reads thus:

Aircraft carriers 1960 = 8, 1982 = 2, 2022 = 2
Submarines 1960 = 54, 82 = 29 2022 = 10
Frigates & Destroyers 1960 = 156, ‘82 = 55 2022 =18
Cruisers 1960 = 14, ‘82 = 0 2022 = 0

So a grand total of 30 fighting ships in the current fleet (& a few support ships, minesweepers and fast patrol craft - when they’re not crashing in to each other)

 

[neilo]

Iran are Shia Muslims, who have come on record and said they will stand with the palestinians, hence attacking American ships.

Pakistan has allowed America to use its bases to bomb Irans supporters. Obviously this hasn't gone down too well, considering Pakistan has a massive Shia population.

The current bombings are a direct result of Gaza. America is not discrediting this.

Nonetheless, Pakistan has ongoing border disputes with pretty much all of its neighbours which regularly flair up. The recent attack from Iran, and the counter attack from Pakistan, was just this border conflict stirring up again.

I know that doesn’t fit with your ‘big, bad US’ agenda, but it’s been ongoing for decades, just the same as it has on Pakistan’s other borders.

 

[Kevtherev]

By the cringe we’ve wound down our naval power.

Graphic to today’s Sunday Times reads thus:

Aircraft carriers 1960 = 8, 1982 = 2, 2022 = 2
Submarines 1960 = 54, 82 = 29 2022 = 10
Frigates & Destroyers 1960 = 156, ‘82 = 55 2022 =18
Cruisers 1960 = 14, ‘82 = 0 2022 = 0

So a grand total of 30 fighting ships in the current fleet (& a few support ships, minesweepers and fast patrol craft - when they’re not crashing in to each other)

Remember though the modern ships although less of them carry more sophisticated weapons than the 1960s
4-5 men to man a turret then nowadays one bloke being gunner remotely from inside the ship.

 

[Vader]

It entirely depends on whether or not Ukraine is properly supported to the point of victory.

Do so and bring it into NATO and it's a near-certainty that Belarus will bin Lukashenko and join too.

Leave Ukraine to Russian aggression and it's a near-certainty that Russia will continue being aggressive.

You think Russia would challenge nato?

 

[livestock 1]

You think Russia would challenge nato?

Nato hasn’t changed Russia up to now anyway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Was Kenny Everett right all along? Preemptive strike?

What a world we are and have created

 

[devonbeef]

Remember though the modern ships although less of them carry more sophisticated weapons than the 1960s
4-5 men to man a turret then nowadays one bloke being gunner remotely from inside the ship.

but when a ship is hit ,as in warfare , i would have thought numbers become important too

 

[Danllan]

You think Russia would challenge nato?

I think, as I've written before, that if Russia / Putin is allowed to gain anything from Ukraine, it will feel emboldened.

And I think that it will then further foment unrest among 'ethnic Russians' in the Baltics. Not overtly, but to the point of civil unrest and then... we will see it supplying men and kit to oppose the states there. From there to pretend separatist republics is a small step, and once that is the case I can see Russia sending in troops openly.

I don't think it would do anything major or significant that from the start, that being too dangerous. But I do think that it will push, push, push at the edges and, by increments, see how far it can go and what it can get away with.

And that is the danger, because nobody knows what the tipping point will be...

 

[Vader]

I think, as I've written before, that if Russia / Putin is allowed to gain anything from Ukraine, it will feel emboldened.

And I think that it will then further foment unrest among 'ethnic Russians' in the Baltics. Not overtly, but to the point of civil unrest and then... we will see it supplying men and kit to oppose the states there. From there to pretend separatist republics is a small step, and once that is the case I can see Russia sending in troops openly.

I don't think it would do anything major or significant that from the start, that being too dangerous. But I do think that it will push, push, push at the edges and, by increments, see how far it can go and what it can get away with.

And that is the danger, because nobody knows what the tipping point will be...

Would have thought it would take beyond putins lifetime for Russia to rebuild its military enough to start playing about domewhete else. And thats IF they can beat Ukraine.

 

[BrianV]

Historians have probably lost count of the 'this is the end of the tank' type comments. The fact is nothing else can get you from point A to point B at speed and whilst someone is firing machine guns and artillery at you.

Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been faced with a load of hostile armoured vehicles coming at them.

If you think drones have put paid to tanks, then why didn't modern man-portable guided missiles- these are far faster, longer ranged and more accurate and more deadly. The tank has faced these for decades as well.

The biggest capability the drone has brought to the battlefield isn't the ability to drop grenades or slam an RPG projectile into something. The USA has loads of well-established and existing toys that will do that already. The biggest advantage is being able to detect the individual infantryman and their location. Again, the Americans were hot on that 20 years ago- where do you think all the combat footage of Iraq and Afghanistan came from? The only difference is now that drones costing less than £200 can do it. Not just a predator drone costing millions. More work will be done on systems that can detect and stop drones- the USA have had systems available that can do this for a fair while. Given that drones operate on a plain RF signal, it is childs play to detect one as it needs to receive and broadcast a signal at all times.

Drones will bring about the downfall of tanks, no tank can remain in action if a drone is flown into it’s tracks from the side rendering a tank useless & a sitting target.

 

[BrianV]

By the cringe we’ve wound down our naval power.

Graphic to today’s Sunday Times reads thus:

Aircraft carriers 1960 = 8, 1982 = 2, 2022 = 2
Submarines 1960 = 54, 82 = 29 2022 = 10
Frigates & Destroyers 1960 = 156, ‘82 = 55 2022 =18
Cruisers 1960 = 14, ‘82 = 0 2022 = 0

So a grand total of 30 fighting ships in the current fleet (& a few support ships, minesweepers and fast patrol craft - when they’re not crashing in to each other)

And made out of fibre class for goodness sake.

 

[essex man]

Drones will bring about the downfall of tanks, no tank can remain in action if a drone is flown into it’s tracks from the side rendering a tank useless & a sitting target.

Mmm the rapid development of cheap drones has exposed the slow speed development and procurement of military systems by governments.
Asymmetric warfare on a large scale is now possible.

 

[Danllan]

And made out of fibre class for goodness sake.
View attachment 1160067

Yes because, you utter f**king idiot, what you want least in a MINESWEEPER is a metal hull...

 

[Danllan]

Would have thought it would take beyond putins lifetime for Russia to rebuild its military enough to start playing about domewhete else. And thats IF they can beat Ukraine.

Hmm... takes relatively few men and not a lot of ordnance to make things awkward, look at NI...

 

[flinty123]

Nonetheless, Pakistan has ongoing border disputes with pretty much all of its neighbours which regularly flair up. The recent attack from Iran, and the counter attack from Pakistan, was just this border conflict stirring up again.

I know that doesn’t fit with your ‘big, bad US’ agenda, but it’s been ongoing for decades, just the same as it has on Pakistan’s other borders.

I don't have an issue with America, they are forward thinking via securing wealth for future generations. They send their military machine where ever they can see a profit Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine etc, they would turn up on your farm if large scale oil reserves were discovered.

The Pakistani and Iranian journalists who claim that the recent attacks were due to the Gaza conflict, should maybe seek advice from yourself, as you obviously have superior knowledge on the subject.

 

[BrianV]

Yes because, you utter f**king idiot, what you want least in a MINESWEEPER is a metal hull...

So why send a fibre glass mine sweeper to the Red Sea where there are no mines but there are missiles being fired at ships clever clogs.

 

[BrianV]

The armaments on HMS Bangor, other than the fact it was sent to simply cover the Americans when we have nothing else available, what other reason would you risk sending a fibre glass ship there.

Armament

1 × 30mm DS30B S30GM1 2 × miniguns (may be replaced by Browning .50-caliber heavy machine guns as of 2023)[2] 3 × General purpose machine guns

 

[Muck Spreader]

So why send a fibre glass mine sweeper to the Red Sea where there are no mines but there are missiles being fired at ships clever clogs.

The Houthis have been drifting reasonable numbers of sea mines in the Red sea for a number of years supplied by the Iranians.