• Hey Russia, fuck your ships - France may scuttle the Mistral class ships meant for Russia.
    79 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kite_shugo;47671253]looks like it may just get sold[/QUOTE] [quote=rtsource]Russia says it is not opposed to France selling the vessels to a third party. Le Figaro says that potential clients include,“Canada, a northern country and Egypt.”[/quote] Sorry, did RT have to clarify Canada as "a northern country" ?
I was gonna say "give them to Poland", since they'd probably be next on "the list", but then I realised they don't have a coast on the Black Sea. And then I remembered they have a Baltic coastline AND share a border with Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave between Poland and Lithuania. So all in all if Poland could afford the ships, they'd have a legitimate reason to bid.
[QUOTE=Thlis;47671856]Sorry, did RT have to clarify Canada as "a northern country" ?[/QUOTE] Honestly I thought they forgot a coma and were referring to like, the Nordic countries.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;47671809]Is it bad that reminded me of a contest from Taco-Bell offering 1,000,000 Pesos as a grand prize, which came out to $88,000? I don't know why, we're talking about foreign currencies and exchange rates. Jesus some currency is inflated as fuck.[/QUOTE] I mean I'd still be super happy to win $88,000
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;47671883]Honestly I thought they forgot a coma and were referring to like, the Nordic countries.[/QUOTE] I think they are refering to a Nordic country. A Swedish defense expert is saying that the Mistral ships fits Norway's and Sweden's requirements perfectly.
The ultimate plan sell the ships to Afghanistan nobody will expect it
It's like waving a vodka bottle in the face of a Russian, then waiting a few months, throw their money back at them then throwing the bottle into the ocean, all while they watch.
Seems pretty criminal to me.
If Canada can get a discount on them, considering the exercises they did last summer, I wouldn't be surprise to see at least one end up here.
I don't remember, if I said it anywhere, but I'll tell again - Russia barely needs these. They were ordered when Defence Minister Serdyukov was still at power (right now he and his wife are under investigation for corruption), and ordered just in spite of "Europe are our allies, so let's ask them for a ship or two, to show great friendship!". And of course to launder some stolen dosh.
[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;47672684]I don't remember, if I said it anywhere, but I'll tell again - Russia barely needs these. They were ordered when Defence Minister Serdyukov was still at power (right now he and his wife are under investigation for corruption), and ordered just in spite of "Europe are our allies, so let's ask them for a ship or two, to show great friendship!". And of course to launder some stolen dosh.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships[/url] Actually it looks like you need them pretty bad. This navy is pretty sad. You are picking a fight with NATO and this pathetic list isn't even enough to fight France. Mind you, France is relatively well equipped for their size, but they are far smaller than Russia and have far less coastline to defend. You have a loooooong coastline to defend. [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline[/url] Your media lies to you in order to make your government look better.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47673177][url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships[/url] Actually it looks like you need them pretty bad. This navy is pretty sad. You are picking a fight with NATO and this pathetic list isn't even enough to fight France. Mind you, France is relatively well equipped for their size, but they are far smaller than Russia and have far less coastline to defend. You have a loooooong coastline to defend. [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline[/url] Your media lies to you in order to make your government look better.[/QUOTE] Or maybe nobody gives a damn about a naval attack on a MAD player. I think there was great post by someobdy else regarding this... ah, there it is - [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47669796]When people talk about the country having or not having money for tanks, they don't realize that Russia doesn't really need anything to replace their jets and tanks. They are one of the two MAD main players. The know their army won't ever clash with the USA, just like USA knows that theirs won't clash with Russia itself. Nobody is going to bring a tank, or a jet fighter, to a nuclear fight. The point of Russia's and America's conventional armies shifted from defence of the country to power projection, political dickwaving and occasionally kicking a some middle eastern shithole or a balkanized slavistatn into a curl. It's why F-35 seems so underwhelming to people. It's why Armata isn't a ground breaking superiority weapon, but looks some sort of cheap and simple. [/QUOTE] This is no RTS buddy, you don't need to counter 10 00 ships with another 10 000 ships when you got nukes ready.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;47673225]Or maybe nobody gives a damn about a naval attack on a MAD player. I think there was great post by someobdy else regarding this... ah, there it is - This is no RTS buddy, you don't need to counter 10 00 ships with another 10 000 ships when you got nukes ready.[/QUOTE] And yet the US continues to invest massive amounts of money into our military and has a massive economy that dwarfs the Russian economy. It is the age of globalization. Your interests don't stop at your border. The US can show up on the far side of the world and wipe the floor with someone standing in the way of our economic interests. You can't. This is why we laugh at you parading your new main battle tanks around. Who is that intended to fight? You don't have the boats to take them anywhere.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47673350] This is why we laugh at you parading your new main battle tanks around. Who is that intended to fight? You don't have the boats to take them anywhere.[/QUOTE] Do you not understand that, even today, the Russian military isn't some paper tiger. I don't care what cool new toys I have that they don't, I'd rather not be pulling my pants down for a dick made of hornets.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;47673364]Do you not understand that, even today, the Russian military isn't some paper tiger. I don't care what cool new toys I have that they don't, I'd rather not be pulling my pants down for a dick made of hornets.[/QUOTE] They don't have the logistics necessary to transport them. They are fancy tanks that can't show up for a fight. I'd rather have a Sheridan light tank on station rather than an MBT back home. It isn't fancy tricks, it is literally a matter of lacking the boats necessary to operate outside of their borders. Stuff like helicopter carriers and amphibious assault ships aren't sexy, but they are how you project power. They are what make a defense navy into a blue water one.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;47672220]The ultimate plan sell the ships to Afghanistan nobody will expect it[/QUOTE] Just like when they stationed Coast Guard personnel in Kabul?
[QUOTE=Swebonny;47672122]I think they are refering to a Nordic country. A Swedish defense expert is saying that the Mistral ships fits Norway's and Sweden's requirements perfectly.[/QUOTE] We already have Visby-corvettes tho that fit our navy better by far.
Russia doesn't have the economy attack anyone anyway
I am okay with this, at least it's a middle finger to the Russian military.
[QUOTE=Viper123_SWE;47673417]We already have Visby-corvettes tho that fit our navy better by far.[/QUOTE] They are vastly different ships though. The Mistral ships are assault ships, don't think we actually have those here.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47673398]They don't have the logistics necessary to transport them. They are fancy tanks that can't show up for a fight. I'd rather have a Sheridan light tank on station rather than an MBT back home. It isn't fancy tricks, it is literally a matter of lacking the boats necessary to operate outside of their borders. Stuff like helicopter carriers and amphibious assault ships aren't sexy, but they are how you project power. They are what make a defense navy into a blue water one.[/QUOTE] Well, Russia does not need to cross oceans to solve economic problems with tanks, crossing ground borders is enought for our sphere of influence. Just because US prefer to stick their nose in far regions, does not mean we should - with three bases of tactical and strategical nukes, all far threats would be dealt with without fleet. Not to mention that existence of said nukes automatically prevents any naval offensive from NATO or US to Russia aswell. Soo good luck laughing at parade when YARS rolls through - [img]http://militaryrussia.ru/i/284/430/Z3qqh.jpg[/img] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-24_Yars[/url]
[QUOTE=karimatrix;47673822]Well, Russia does not need to cross oceans to solve economic problems with tanks, crossing ground borders is enought for our sphere of influence. Just because US prefer to stick their nose in far regions, does not mean we should - with three bases of tactical and strategical nukes, all far threats would be dealt with without fleet. Not to mention that existance of said nukes prevent any naval offensive from NATO or US to Russia aswell.[/QUOTE] That strategy only works because your government's batshit insane and would launch nukes rather then repel an invasion
[QUOTE=Kyle902;47673839]That strategy only works because your government's batshit insane and would launch nukes rather then repel an invasion[/QUOTE] Yeah, cause building a matching fleet to counter invasion is more logical than have a weapon that prevents invasion in a first place. Seriously how silly is that? [I]"Russia, drop your nuke shield, we can't invade you properly!"[/I]
[QUOTE=GunFox;47673398]They don't have the logistics necessary to transport them. They are fancy tanks that can't show up for a fight. I'd rather have a Sheridan light tank on station rather than an MBT back home.[/QUOTE] Well, they actually operate pretty big number of strategic transports, like, around 150 in total. Pretty much enough to quickly transport stuff within a continent.
Don't India use a lot of russki hardware? Maybe they'd buy them.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;47673225]This is no RTS buddy, you don't need to counter 10 00 ships with another 10 000 ships when you got nukes ready.[/QUOTE] Sitting there being like [I]"Oh by the way, if things ever go sour, we're blowing up the entire world."[/I] isn't something to be proud of imo.
Why not just sell them to the Indian government? They use Russian technology and Russian helicopters, and I don't see anything wrong with giving them a larger naval presence to balance out the extra influence China's been pushing these days.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47674077]Sitting there being like [I]"Oh by the way, if things ever go sour, we're blowing up the entire world."[/I] isn't something to be proud of imo.[/QUOTE] It has nothing to do with pride, it's a solution we got and we sticking with it, until there is something to obsolete nukes and bombs. Like it or not, it works how intended and nobody gives a damn about impression that it makes. And it's not like those nukes exist with a stamp "use incase of invasion", this is silly. Imagine if tomorrow somebody going to attack USA and say "Don't worry guys, they won't use nukes at all!" Soo trying to shame us for having an arsenal that solved requirments for protecting coastal line means to dig all the way and shame us for having bombs in a first place. Again, entire argument was just to explain why Russia does not pursue spending fuckton of resources on massive fleet.
A large fleet is not in Russia's vision at the moment, Kari is right about the nukes. None of you guys know a damn thing about Russia's military doctrine. France shouldn't be withholding ships that Russia brought, this isn't like an Iran situation. They built ships tailored to Russia's needs, and now are playing an economical and political game over it, while wasting money. I strongly dislike Russia's actions in Ukraine, but it's clear that shit like this won't work. Give em the damn ships, and can the keyboard generals here at FP actually read Russia's military doctrine. I mean shit guys, you're rating someone dumb for literally saying the truth.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;47674325] Imagine if tomorrow somebody going to attack USA and say "Don't worry guys, they won't use nukes at all!" [/QUOTE] There's no country on earth physically capable of invading the United States that would be worth the political suicide that would be using nuclear weapons. The US is one of the best, if not the best defended country on earth because of our strong Navy and Air Force. The only threat to the US mainland in recent history has been terrorism, which has managed to hurt us on our soil a bit, but we didn't need to use nukes to retaliate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.