Russia fire warning shots at British Navy

Working class heroes

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57583363


Could get interesting.....

Cody montana

This will end well.

Signore Fancy Pants

UK MOD denying allegation, stating that RUS had planned naval exercises and that UK naval assets had not been subject to naval/aerial warning shots.

Donald Trump

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

UK MOD denying allegation, stating that RUS had planned naval exercises and that UK naval assets had not been subject to naval/aerial warning shots.

I heard the MODs tried to site ban the Russians from the UK. They're always at that craic.

Larbre34

In fairness, there is a massive NATO fleet heading into the Black Sea for a big exercise involving Ukraine, which is bound to upset Russia.

However that doesn't excuse aggressive and reckless behaviour like this in international waters and its long past time Russia were ejected from Crimea one way or the other.

Hamsterchops

Working class heroes wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57583363

Could get interesting.....

It's a NATO exercise, not just the Royal Navy.

agoodpunt

Brits doing business supplying and upgrading for the Ukraine navy pissing off them ransonware ruskies

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-23/russia-fires-warning-shots-at-british-warship-in-black-sea

Allinall

Donald Trump wrote: »

I heard the MODs tried to site ban the Russians from the UK. They're always at that craic.

i think they successfully appealed it in Dispute Resolution.

Snickers Man

Larbre34 wrote: »

Its long past time Russia were ejected from Crimea one way or the other.

Is it worth WWIII over?

I think that's what it would take. They ain't leaving their principal naval base on the Black Sea.

Same reason the Brits won't let Scotland go. Not without a cast iron agreement on nuclear subs bases. Sort of like the Russians had with Ukraine and the Crimea/Sevastopol, and were afraid of losing following the ousting of Yanukovych from Ukraine.

Power politics is its own immovable force.

Varik

Russia has naval bases other than Crimea in the Black Sea

jam_mac_jam

Larbre34 wrote: »

In fairness, there is a massive NATO fleet heading into the Black Sea for a big exercise involving Ukraine, which is bound to upset Russia.

However that doesn't excuse aggressive and reckless behaviour like this in international waters and its long past time Russia were ejected from Crimea one way or the other.

Yeah a big war is exactly what the world needs.

Who is going to eject them? The Brits and Americans? Who can't even beat the Taliban? I wouldn't be holding my breath.

WrenBoy

Side Question:
Are subs used / effective in modern warfare or are they going the way of the tank ?

LillySV

This is gas , seen a vid the other day of Uk new aircraft carrier with us f35s onboard and they were goin on about the Russians coming by for a luck for curiousity and showing respect to each other etc … now they know they weren’t saying hi or tryin to show respect!

Smee_Again

I still have some loo-roll stockpiled from lockdown 1 so I'll be ok if WWIII kicks off.

Snickers Man

Varik wrote: »

Russia has naval bases other than Crimea in the Black Sea

Fair enough. Changed my post from "only" to "principal" but Sevastopol is still the Headquarters of the Black Sea fleet and their main naval base.

Rest of my point stands.

Tabnabs

Don't poke the bear, or you might get mauled. The excuse by the British is laughable. They pushed their luck, got too close and the Russians barked back.

TefalBrain

Russia could nuke London and RTE would still have the delta variant as their lead headline.

Hamsterchops

Tabnabs wrote: »

Don't poke the bear, or you might get mauled. The excuse by the British is laughable. They pushed their luck, got too close and the Russians barked back.

Who's side are you on, Nato or the Ruskies?

Tabnabs

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Who's side are you on, Nato or the Ruskies?

I have no skin in the game on either side.

Tabnabs

Tabnabs wrote: »

Don't poke the bear, or you might get mauled. The excuse by the British is laughable. They pushed their luck, got too close and the Russians barked back.

Apparently the Captain of HMS Defender is a Cathedrals entusiast and really wanted to see St Vladimir's Cathedral.

better?

Hamsterchops

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Who's side are you on, Nato or the Ruskies?

the Mod of the survivalist forum?

Probably just wants east and west throwing nukes at each other so he can say "I told you so"

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

Apparently the Captain of HMS Defender is a Cathedrals entusiast and really wanted to see St Vladimir's Cathedral.

better?

The UK doesn't even have Teresa May to run off to Brussels looking for help this time

Donald Trump

WrenBoy wrote: »

Side Question:
Are subs used / effective in modern warfare or are they going the way of the tank ?

Limited to six I think in normal time with three more in extra time

BloodBath

WrenBoy wrote: »

Side Question:
Are subs used / effective in modern warfare or are they going the way of the tank ?

Of course they are. You can still sneak subs right up to the coast of your enemies to launch missiles from.

In fact Russia has done this several times in recent history just to prove to the yanks that they can circumvent their defenses.

WrenBoy

Donald Trump wrote: »

Limited to six I think in normal time with three more in extra time

ooooh you!! *shakes fist

Hamsterchops

Donald Trump wrote: »

The UK doesn't even have Teresa May to run off to Brussels looking for help this time

Why would she want help from Brussels when the NATO fleet is off the Crimea, hence the Ruskies getting agitated.

WrenBoy

BloodBath wrote: »

Of course they are. You can still sneak subs right up to the coast of your enemies to launch missiles from.

In fact Russia has done this several times in recent history just to prove to the yanks that they can circumvent their defenses.

Thanks, was just wondering with technological advancements if they were still as effective. Submarine combat must be the most nerve shredding experience wouldn't step foot on one for all the money in the word.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

The UK doesn't even have Teresa May to run off to Brussels looking for help this time

oh no, does that mean the UK won't have the mighty EU to bash the bad boys, like they over Navalny and Roman Protasevich?

Russia get away with whatever they like, because no one wants to take them on. Which is understandable because Russia are like the nutter in the playground. Everyone knows they could give them a good kicking, but no one will go near them because you're never sure what the mad bastard might actually do.

indioblack

Aegir wrote: »

Apparently the Captain of HMS Defender is a Cathedrals entusiast and really wanted to see St Vladimir's Cathedral.

better?

Be careful with the Russkies - they can be poisonous.

thomil

WrenBoy wrote: »

Side Question:
Are subs used / effective in modern warfare or are they going the way of the tank ?

As always, it depends on the type of submarine and the operating environment. Generally, submarines today are a far cry from what many regular people associate with them, which in my experience seems to be focussed around WW2/ "Das Boot" type of impressions.

Of course, there are the large nuclear hunter-killer submarines, such as the Los Angeles, Seawolf or Virginia class boats of the US Navy, The Akula and Yasen class boats that Russia operates, or the Trafalgar and Astute class operated by the Royal Navy. They are fast, very quiet for their size which makes them very hard to detect and are heavily armed. Every single of these submarines has the capability to launch both torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and land-attack cruise missiles. In the open ocean, these submarines pose a significant threat to any surface warship. I'm leaving out ballistic missile submarines here because I don't think ANYONE wants to see those guys fire their primary armament!

Even the "smaller", more conventional submarines that most navies use are not to be sneered at, as the US Navy has found time and time again during NATO exercises. These usually have a diesel engine for running on the surface and charging the batteries and a large battery bank for underwater running. They can charge their batteries underwater while at periscope depth using a snorkel and are generally able to operate 6-7 days on battery power alone, though it is naturally hard to get precise numbers on this. They have a similar weapons loadout as their nuclear counterparts though they will obviously have fewer of them due to their smaller size. They also have very similar sensor suites. Their smaller size also allows them to operate in shallower and more confined waters than a nuclear submarine would be able to effectively operate in.

Crucially, these boats are virtually silent when running on battery, which gives them a massive advantage over nuclear submarines, who for the most part still need to run coolant pumps to keep their reactors going. This makes them virtually undetectable, and indeed, US Navy carriers have been "sunk" by these small conventional subs multiple times during exercises, with the Norwegian Submarine Ulla and the Swedish submarine Gotland coming to mind immediately. When you combine that with the fact that a number of these conventional submarines are now equipped with air independent propulsion (AIP) systems, such as the German Type 212A submarines or the aforementioned Gotland class of the Royal Swedish Navy, which will allow for submerged operations for weeks on end without charging batteries, I'd say that modern submarines are probably more lethal than ever before.

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

oh no, does that mean the UK won't have the mighty EU to bash the bad boys, like they over Navalny and Roman Protasevich?

Russia get away with whatever they like, because no one wants to take them on. Which is understandable because Russia are like the nutter in the playground. Everyone knows they could give them a good kicking, but no one will go near them because you're never sure what the mad bastard might actually do.

Maybe you are correct. But then Ms. May's dash to Brussels for support on the issue, despite being in the middle of rows about Brexit would seem to have been even a bit more embarrassing and illogical - no?

Gatling

Russian bull**** ,

They said similar previously and shared zero evidence to back up their claims ,
If they fired on a NATO vessel they would face consequences , just bigging up oul Vlad as usual

suicide_circus

FIRE ZE MISSILES!!

d15ude

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yeah a big war is exactly what the world needs.

Who is going to eject them? The Brits and Americans? Who can't even beat the Taliban? I wouldn't be holding my breath.

I remember another country unable to beat the Taliban... :rolleyes:

Gatling

d15ude wrote: »

I remember another country unable to beat the Taliban... :rolleyes:

Russians couldn't beat the goat headers despite bombing the country back to the stone age ,
The Taliban were beaten ,the issue is the Taliban aren't a big standing army ,they loose ground , gain ground and repeat over and over , ideology is difficult to defeat especially when you have a country like Pakistan supplying and training them , while claiming to be an Allie.

Russia doesn't fight big wars they couldn't even beat Ukraine despite having bigger and more forces

CalamariFritti

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

Its provocation. Imagine Cuba doing naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Mexico. But sure Russia is the aggressor....

jam_mac_jam

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

Its provocation. Imagine Cuba doing naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Mexico. But sure Russia is the aggressor....

Exactly. They need to learn to mind their own business.

swarlb

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Who's side are you on, Nato or the Ruskies?

Well... my daughter is Russian.... and my wife is English

I suppose I could always get another wife !!

Gatling

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

It's open water agreements the blacksea belongs to multiple territories NATO ensure russia doesn't interfere with other states it's that simple .

thomil

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Its provocation. Imagine Cuba doing naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Mexico. But sure Russia is the aggressor....

Used to be regular occurrences back during the cold war, when Cuba still had a navy capable of sustaining such operations. Back in those days, the USSR also made sure to send their latest & greatest down to port visits in Cuba just to make a point. There's no one stopping the Russians from doing it again if they can muster enough ships to actually make it worthwhile. Pick a better example next time.

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

First of all, Exercise Sea Breeze is not a recent invention. This exercise has been a regular occurrence since 1997. Secondly, it's not just US & Ukraine, but also includes Bulgaria and Romanian, who are NATO members as well. Why shouldn't they be allowed to have exercises with their allies in the Black Sea when both have their entire port infrastructure and navies based there?

CalamariFritti

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

Its provocation. Imagine Cuba doing naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Mexico. But sure Russia is the aggressor....

why is an organisation designed to protect its members states, doing military exercises off the coast of four of those states, along with a state that wants to join because their neighbour has steadily increased its military presence on their border?

it isn't about minding their own business, it is about practicing for the job the organisation was created was to do.

And yeah, Russia is the aggressor.

CalamariFritti

Ye sure. Sorry I asked. Extending NATO right up to the Russian border. Very peaceful intent indeed.

Tabnabs

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Its provocation. Imagine Cuba doing naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Mexico. But sure Russia is the aggressor....

Or a large scale Russian naval exercise about 30 miles off Hawaii, last week.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-navy-warships-come-within-two-dozen-miles-of-hawaii/ar-AALlJQW

Gatling

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Ye sure. Sorry I asked. Extending NATO right up to the Russian border. Very peaceful intent indeed.

But Russia can expand it's borders towards NATO states

Elmer Blooker

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

Trying to be relevant and justify its existence. A meaningless exercise.
A war in the South Atlantic almost forty years ago showed that warships are obsolete and only purpose is to show the flag in what used to be called 'gunboat diplomacy' in the 19th century.

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

A war in the South Atlantic almost forty years ago

A more recent conflict showed having a big army made up of conscripts are usless when the other side have the ability to rain hell from land ,sea and air 24/7 365 .

Comrade go back to bed

Elmer Blooker

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Trying to be relevant and justify its existence. A meaningless exercise.
A war in the South Atlantic almost forty years ago showed that warships are obsolete and only purpose is to show the flag in what used to be called 'gunboat diplomacy' in the 19th century.

Would this be the conflict that involved one of the beligerants jumping in to a load of ships, sailing 8000 miles and winning said conflict?

FileNotFound

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

Its provocation. Imagine Cuba doing naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Mexico. But sure Russia is the aggressor....

Yeah sure peaceful little Russia didn't annex that part of Ukraine and going on a poisoning spree or send subs to wander around the coasts of multiple nations

How dare NATO use waters their allowed to use for exercises.

Russians are like rats these days (nation not the citizens), become a sorry little dictatorship who's only relevance is a nuclear arsenal and F all morals.

The New North Korea.

thomil

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Trying to be relevant and justify its existence. A meaningless exercise.
A war in the South Atlantic almost forty years ago showed that warships are obsolete

What is it with the poor "examples" in this thread? If anything, the ability to deploy significant landing force to the other end of the world with minimal shore support, land said force on territory occupied by your enemy, and establishing local air superiority over the target area clearly shows the immense utility of a navy.
Also, the most decisive sinking of that entire conflict, that of ARA General Belgrano, was carried out by another warship, HMS Conqueror. So yeah, great choice of example there...

Mr. teddywinkles

Smee_Again wrote: »

I still have some loo-roll stockpiled from lockdown 1 so I'll be ok if WWIII kicks off.

Don't forget the bread

Elmer Blooker

thomil wrote: »

Also, the most decisive sinking of that entire conflict, that of ARA General Belgrano, was carried out by another warship, HMS Conqueror. So yeah, great choice of example there...

The HMS Conquerer was a submarine.