Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

LR:

Everyday I get a load of YouTube stuff popping up on my home page. TBH there has never seemed to be any rhyme or reason for the subjects (chalk and cheese) they appear to be random. Although, if I've been watching something, other similar things get presented in a section of it.

I think you will find that they are some how linked to the subjects you previously accessed. I have been watching 'Car Crashes in Russia' as entertainment ...... unbelievable ..... makes the driving here look impeccable or maybe Russians all have dash cams, but the next evening I get links to the same sort of sites. Amazing what they can fathom out from what you type in all innocence. If Putin ever notices ..... I could get The Kremlin Medal of Honour for services to Russia and I promise to invite you to the presentation!!!!

[Londonrake]

Now be fair on PCR he did say that he did not have the knowledge to determine whether what he had been told, was true or not. You have to admit, that with his background he has access to sources that are almost as good as those Paphitis has!

But the US did confirm the incident but what the reason was for the destroyer just shutting down is anyone's guess. Maybe they just forgot to put 'a-shilling-in-the-meter' ?

Yes, I appreciate that this was somebody attempting to relay technical information outside of his experience. I'm not so sure that "sources" with any credibility would be rushing to offload their confidential knowledge to somebody like Mr Roberts though. Why? I am always suspicious of people who claim to have impeccable sources but "I can't reveal them for reasons of confidentiality". It gives the appearance of being authoritative without having to substantiate it.

Anyway, whilst we may disagree on Russian motivations and actions I think we would both sign up to their not being stupid. To display such a game-changing trump card weapon in a ridiculously offhand way like this would be nothing less than moronic - I submit.

If this were/is as powerful an EW capability as inferred can you imagine what a squadron of SU24s might do to a carrier battle group in a war? Although, of course, it would be one thing to overfly a ship and then, within meters of it's aerial arrays project a powerful RF pulse but quite another to attempt the same against an AEGIS equipt ship which was on alert in a war zone. You might need some good luck with that one.

I have to say that IMHO it's most likely to be tongue-in-cheek propaganda. It probably went down very well with the Russian viewers/readership. Well - and in here it seems.

[Londonrake]

LR:

Everyday I get a load of YouTube stuff popping up on my home page. TBH there has never seemed to be any rhyme or reason for the subjects (chalk and cheese) they appear to be random. Although, if I've been watching something, other similar things get presented in a section of it.

I think you will find that they are some how linked to the subjects you previously accessed. I have been watching 'Car Crashes in Russia' as entertainment ...... unbelievable ..... makes the driving here look impeccable or maybe Russians all have dash cams, but the next evening I get links to the same sort of sites. Amazing what they can fathom out from what you type in all innocence. If Putin ever notices ..... I could get The Kremlin Medal of Honour for services to Russia and I promise to invite you to the presentation!!!!

Actually, I've watched some of those videos and - absolutely - they're unbelievable.

I would have thought you'd be a little more concerned about the likes of Langley/NSA Maryland/GCHQ "noticing".

[Robin Hood]

LR:

I think the capability and significance of Carriers as stated in many of these reports is a well over-egged puddin'

.

I can agree with that comment. I think the carrier is today’s version of the mighty Dreadnaughts and Battle Ships, battle tanks, heavy bombers and the cavalry! Technology overtakes the requirement and a modern major war will be based on cyber warfare, drones and much more advanced missiles than we see today. Maybe even weapons based in space?

You can trace this phenomenon back in history from The Walls of Jericho and The Trojan Horse, through the Maginot Line and even today .... The Israeli wall around Gaza ..... Hamas dug under it and the Israelis realised that under their wall was an ant’s nest teeming with terrorists. What seemed to be the ultimate protection got bypassed by someone who worked out the weaknesses rather than trying to counter it. So the mighty aircraft carrier has really seen its days as the extension of US power that it once was, as they can be defeated by modern technology.

It is a pity Cameron didn't work that out before he committed to UK to building two large carriers ..... for which they won't even have aircraft for a few years! I can see them ending up as scrap and being sold to the Chinese!

Even today a single non-nuclear SATAN could take out a battle group or at least cripple it. No doubt the US could do the same to a Russian battle group ..... except they don’t really have one.

[Robin Hood]

Now be fair on PCR he did say that he did not have the knowledge to determine whether what he had been told, was true or not. You have to admit, that with his background he has access to sources that are almost as good as those Paphitis has!

But the US did confirm the incident but what the reason was for the destroyer just shutting down is anyone's guess. Maybe they just forgot to put 'a-shilling-in-the-meter' ?

Yes, I appreciate that this was somebody attempting to relay technical information outside of his experience. I'm not so sure that "sources" with any credibility would be rushing to offload their confidential knowledge to somebody like Mr Roberts though. Why? I am always suspicious of people who claim to have impeccable sources but "I can't reveal them for reasons of confidentiality". It gives the appearance of being authoritative without having to substantiate it.

(You must be having a field day with this fake news hoo-ha in the US and UK ..... I came to the conclusion a long time ago that no source was 100% ..... it was just that some made more sense than others.)

Anyway, whilst we may disagree on Russian motivations and actions I think we would both sign up to their not being stupid. To display such a game-changing trump card weapon in a ridiculously offhand way like this would be nothing less than moronic - I submit.

If this were/is as powerful an EW capability as inferred can you imagine what a squadron of SU24s might do to a carrier battle group in a war? Although, of course, it would be one thing to overfly a ship and then, within meters of it's aerial arrays project a powerful RF pulse but quite another to attempt the same against an AEGIS equipt ship which was on alert in a war zone. You might need some good luck with that one.

I have to say that IMHO it's most likely to be tongue-in-cheek propaganda. It probably went down very well with the Russian viewers/readership. Well - and in here it seems.

The thing is it obviously happened! I could understand scepticism if it were one of BellingCats 'simulations' but this looked like for real to me. One probability is that the Russians could have just been demonstrating their capability on a small scale, as you say, a close pass by a suitably equipped SU-24 could do it on a single ship but ...........

Not too long ago there were several articles about cars with GPS systems in Moscow that found when they came close to the Kremlin the GPS showed they were at an airfield some 17 miles away! Maybe another demonstration even an accidental display of capability, to take the wind out of the sails of those that believe the US is invulnerable. I believe most cruise missiles use GPS to navigate? Just think what would happen if the US say, were to launch a missile at Russia and the Russians then turned it round and sent it back the way it came, using a system that could replicate GPS satellite signals .......... only saying!

[Londonrake]

LR:

I think the capability and significance of Carriers as stated in many of these reports is a well over-egged puddin'

.

I can agree with that comment. I think the carrier is today’s version of the mighty Dreadnaughts and Battle Ships, battle tanks, heavy bombers and the cavalry! Technology overtakes the requirement and a modern major war will be based on cyber warfare, drones and much more advanced missiles than we see today. Maybe even weapons based in space?

You can trace this phenomenon back in history from The Walls of Jericho and The Trojan Horse, through the Maginot Line and even today .... The Israeli wall around Gaza ..... Hamas dug under it and the Israelis realised that under their wall was an ant’s nest teeming with terrorists. What seemed to be the ultimate protection got bypassed by someone who worked out the weaknesses rather than trying to counter it. So the mighty aircraft carrier has really seen its days as the extension of US power that it once was, as they can be defeated by modern technology.

It is a pity Cameron didn't work that out before he committed to UK to building two large carriers ..... for which they won't even have aircraft for a few years! I can see them ending up as scrap and being sold to the Chinese!

Even today a single non-nuclear SATAN could take out a battle group or at least cripple it. No doubt the US could do the same to a Russian battle group ..... except they don’t really have one.

I hate these multiple interleaved quotes. However.

You have misinterpreted me.

There were all sorts of theories, most conspiritorial, that the absence of the US carriers could lead to a disaster. As I posted earlier, the "Pearl Harbor" set up. The North Koreans crossing the border. The Chinese invading Taiwan. The common theme was that the lack of carriers could precipitate any or even all of these events. Total bull of course.

Nevertheless, a CVN taskforce is a formidable example of power projection. I don't subscribe to your faith in their vulnerability. Where? Although I readibly concede that of course no target is invulnerable. Nevertheless, it would be a hard nut to crack.

What I wouldn't wish to do is get into a "My Dad is bigger than your Dad" exchange. A la with Paphitis.

[Paphitis]

Paphitis:

BTW, Aircraft carriers do not have a secondary role. they are purely carriers and rely on the battle Group for Missile Area defence.

Check your facts! Kuznetsov is classified by the Russians as an 'aircraft carrying cruiser'. Its function is not the same as a US aircraft carrier. As I said before ..... it is basically intended as a floating airfield for parts of Russia where standard airfields do not exist or are very few and in the wrong places.

Secondly, the USA and allies as well as Israel have the most advance missile defence shields on the planet.

Well, that’s what they think. Let’s hope they don’t find out too late that isn’t quite true!

There are no guarantees any Russian Missile will reach its target as opposed to our which will reach their target.

Well, that’s what they think. Let’s hope they don’t find out too late that isn’t quite true! The US has stated that it could not stop an attack by Russian missiles SATAN II (?) because they change both trajectory and heading ..... continuously throughout their flight.

The only reason why Russians are more effective is because they do not have any rules of Engagement. WE could do the same if WE wanted, but then WE would be exactly the same as Pootin and the Regime, as WAR CRIMINALS. WE are the Coalition! WE are the democratic WEST! WE do not kill thousands upon thousands of civilians or bomb hospitals. there is a BIG difference between the Coalition vis a vis Russia and Syria or Assad shouldn't even be in the same sentence as us. it's offensive!

YOU just ignore all international Law and Conventions! YOUR actions in Syria are illegal and therefore YOUR actions are ALL war crimes! YOU just kill millions of civilians and ignore your guilt! YOU bomb hospitals just as much as those you accuse but you never recognise the fact that in either case it is invariably accidental!

You are full of crap!!!!

Of course its function isn't the same as a USS Fleet carrier. That's because the Kuznetsov is a lot smaller, and less capable.

The Kuznetsov isn't in the same league as a USS Nimitz Class. It isn't even a military threat to the USN.

In addition, there is only one Kuznetsov, which probably won't even last 2 days against the USN Fleet.

[Paphitis]

Paphitis said; (at 11:35)

People are actually over-stating the threat against the USA and or its allies.

Paphitis then said: ( at 13:22)

No one ever stated anything about a threat to the USA ......... there is (are?) however threats to our interests ........

I said you were too dumb to realise what you said ..... you just proved it.

BTW: I did say that their threats to the rest of the World were mostly to protect their commercial interests, not to counter military threats ....... so once again you prove me right!

The rest of the post is simply your opinion and of no significance ..... or is this what they call planting 'false news' ?

You are too dumb to understand that what I was saying is that the Russians do not pose any significant military threat to the Americans.

In other words, if Russia has a war with the West, it would lose its entire military capability and it would go back to the stone age if it were to launch a single ICBM and Pootin knows it too, which is why its unlikely he would launch or even fight the USA.

If the Russian military were going to be attacked in Syria, Pootin would be doing back flips and cartwheels to crawl back into his hole. Even if the Coalition bombed its base in Syria, Pootin would be begging for negotiations rather than avenge this act of war because it would be a war he would lose.

America's military supremacy isn't opinion, but fact.

[Paphitis]

Paphitis:

BTW, Aircraft carriers do not have a secondary role. they are purely carriers and rely on the battle Group for Missile Area defence.

Check your facts! Kuznetsov is classified by the Russians as an 'aircraft carrying cruiser'. Its function is not the same as a US aircraft carrier. As I said before ..... it is basically intended as a floating airfield for parts of Russia where standard airfields do not exist or are very few and in the wrong places.

Secondly, the USA and allies as well as Israel have the most advance missile defence shields on the planet.

Well, that’s what they think. Let’s hope they don’t find out too late that isn’t quite true!

There are no guarantees any Russian Missile will reach its target as opposed to our which will reach their target.

Well, that’s what they think. Let’s hope they don’t find out too late that isn’t quite true! The US has stated that it could not stop an attack by Russian missiles SATAN II (?) because they change both trajectory and heading ..... continuously throughout their flight.

The only reason why Russians are more effective is because they do not have any rules of Engagement. WE could do the same if WE wanted, but then WE would be exactly the same as Pootin and the Regime, as WAR CRIMINALS. WE are the Coalition! WE are the democratic WEST! WE do not kill thousands upon thousands of civilians or bomb hospitals. there is a BIG difference between the Coalition vis a vis Russia and Syria or Assad shouldn't even be in the same sentence as us. it's offensive!

YOU just ignore all international Law and Conventions! YOUR actions in Syria are illegal and therefore YOUR actions are ALL war crimes! YOU just kill millions of civilians and ignore your guilt! YOU bomb hospitals just as much as those you accuse but you never recognise the fact that in either case it is invariably accidental!

You are full of crap!!!!

Who told you they can't stop an attack of Russian ICBMs including SATAN 2? They can. What they were meaning is that they won't be able to stop all attacks but that is just common sense.

The Missile Defence Shields that NATO and Israel have implemented IS the most advance system on the planet and worth more money than our Nuclear Arsenal which is an indication of money well spent rather than making weapons we know pretty much for sure will NEVER be used. Russia will not launch an ICBM, because if it did, there will be no more Russia.

BTW, who are you to talk about International law. we all know International law doesn't apply to Syria so bight us! When your side are held accountable to the many War Crimes, including the use of barrel Bombs and Chemical warfare (Sarin and Chlorine gas) against civilians then perhaps our sides can talk at the peace talks, but until then we have free reign and our actions in Syria are perfectly justifiable as no one in their right mind is going to even attempt to hold us to account for these alleged International Law violations, whilst Assad remains in power.

Get use to it!

[Robin Hood]

LR:

You have misinterpreted me.

Then I apologise ..... I commented as I understood your expressed opinion.

There were all sorts of theories, most conspiritorial, that the absence of the US carriers could lead to a disaster. As I posted earlier, the "Pearl Harbor" set up. The North Koreans crossing the border. The Chinese invading Taiwan. The common theme was that the lack of carriers could precipitate any or even all of these events. Total bull of course.

I agree, just wild hypothesis. I never have a problem with these wild stories as they never stand up to close investigation. You missed from your list of ‘Total bull of course.’ ....... Russia invading the Baltic States/Eastern Europe and Iran nuking Israel.

Nevertheless, a CVN taskforce is a formidable example of power projection. I don't subscribe to your faith in their vulnerability. Where? Although I readibly concede that of course no target is invulnerable. Nevertheless, it would be a hard nut to crack.

As you say “A hard nut to crack.” The US carriers are the Brazil nut of the fleet, not so much by their own invincibility but by virtue of the battle group. Take away that and they become very vulnerable ..... as the Jap’s demonstrated in WWII.

What I wouldn't wish to do is get into a "My Dad is bigger than your Dad" exchange. A la with Paphitis.

I didn’t know your Dad ! Anyway I thought the expression was ‘d**k’ not ‘Dad’ ?