Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Russia fire warning shots at British Navy

«13456711

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,450 ✭✭✭ Cody montana


    This will end well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,122 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,746 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,895 ✭✭✭ Hamsterchops



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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭ 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭ Allinall


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,937 ✭✭✭✭ Varik


    Russia has naval bases other than Crimea in the Black Sea


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,673 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭ WrenBoy


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,751 ✭✭✭ 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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,882 ✭✭✭ Smee_Again


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,388 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 710 ✭✭✭ TefalBrain


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,895 ✭✭✭ 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?


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,388 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Tabnabs


    Who's side are you on, Nato or the Ruskies?
    I have no skin in the game on either side.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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" :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,122 ✭✭✭✭ 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,122 ✭✭✭✭ 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,299 ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭ WrenBoy


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

    ooooh you!! *shakes fist


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,895 ✭✭✭ Hamsterchops


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,868 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,820 ✭✭✭ 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.

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,122 ✭✭✭✭ 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?


Advertisement