Ownership of Greenland is Essential to Our Security

[Loren Pechtel]

Trust an expert in submarine sonar. You can’t go fast without making significant noise.

I don't need to trust here, I know that. And this is not what LP said. He implied that russian subs simply can't go that fast.

No. I said they couldn't do it quietly. And that nobody goes all that fast other than to escape as you'll damage your tiles.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

Cool, so subs are useless, is that what you are saying?
Why US have them then?

Subs aren't a very good idea in an area where your opponent can put up helos. But helos don't fly all that far and there's an awful lot of ocean.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

FIFY.

Not following. Are you implying that Russia does not have nuclear weapons?

You have packages with fissile material and explosives.

Whether they will actually produce a nuclear yield is quite another matter.

 

[barbos]

FIFY.

Not following. Are you implying that Russia does not have nuclear weapons?

You have packages with fissile material and explosives.

Whether they will actually produce a nuclear yield is quite another matter.

Yes, we are stupid.

 

[barbos]

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

Cool, so subs are useless, is that what you are saying?
Why US have them then?

Subs aren't a very good idea in an area where your opponent can put up helos. But helos don't fly all that far and there's an awful lot of ocean.

What makes you think you can put them?

 

[barbos]

Trust an expert in submarine sonar. You can’t go fast without making significant noise.

I don't need to trust here, I know that. And this is not what LP said. He implied that russian subs simply can't go that fast.

No. I said they couldn't do it quietly. And that nobody goes all that fast other than to escape as you'll damage your tiles.

No, you said what I said you said.
And what you said was stupid.

 

[bilby]

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

Cool, so subs are useless, is that what you are saying?
Why US have them then?

Subs aren't a very good idea in an area where your opponent can put up helos. But helos don't fly all that far and there's an awful lot of ocean.

There's also an awful lot of Seahawk ASW choppers (over 300 in active service) and there are over 100 USN ships equipped to carry them to whatever part of the ocean they are needed.

 

[barbos]

there are over 100 USN ships equipped to carry them to whatever part of the ocean they are needed.

LOL, dream on, admiral Bilby.

 

[bilby]

there are over 100 USN ships equipped to carry them to whatever part of the ocean they are needed.

LOL, dream on, admiral Bilby.

The US has 11 carriers; 9 Ticonderoga class Cruisers; 73 Arleigh-Burke destroyers; and 25 Littoral Combat Ships, all of which can carry Seahawks.

Russian arithmetic may not work any better than Russian submarines, but even so, 11+9+73+25 > 100.

That's before we consider the USMC's 31 Assault Ships, all of which can also be equipped with Seahawk ASW helicopters.

I will leave the dreaming to people who can't be fucked with facts.

Despite Russian insistence to the contrary, facts and reality exist, and are objective and immutable.

The statement:

there are over 100 USN ships equipped to carry them [Seahawk ASW helicopters] to whatever part of the ocean they are needed.

...is a fact. It does not depend upon, nor care about, your preferences, opinions, or desires; It is utterly indifferent to the instructions your handlers from the propaganda ministry might give you.

And contra the majority of social media, blatant statements of untruth here don't get you respect, and don't get people doubting reality; They just make everyone realise you are unreliable and a waste of space.

 

[Patooka]

Pretty certain the Perry class frigates have helipads too, making the total number well over 100 ships capable.

 

[barbos]

The US has 11 carriers; 9 Ticonderoga class Cruisers; 73 Arleigh-Burke destroyers; and 25 Littoral Combat Ships, all of which can carry Seahawks.

Surface ships are useless. They are not even that useful against houthis, forget about using them against Russia or China.

 

[Patooka]

The US has 11 carriers; 9 Ticonderoga class Cruisers; 73 Arleigh-Burke destroyers; and 25 Littoral Combat Ships, all of which can carry Seahawks.

Surface ships are useless. They are not even that useful against houties, forget about using them against Russia or China.

Western naval ships are far better designed than the Moskva Reef my dude.

 

[bilby]

The sounds you can hear are caused by goalposts being moved. Please do not adjust your set.

 

[barbos]

The US has 11 carriers; 9 Ticonderoga class Cruisers; 73 Arleigh-Burke destroyers; and 25 Littoral Combat Ships, all of which can carry Seahawks.

Surface ships are useless. They are not even that useful against houties, forget about using them against Russia or China.

Western naval ships are far better designed than the Moskva Reef my dude.

Design of surface ship is irrelevant when it is at the bottom of the sea.

 

[barbos]

The sounds you can hear are caused by goalposts being moved. Please do not adjust your set.

And you are the one moving it.

 

[bilby]

The sounds you can hear are caused by goalposts being moved. Please do not adjust your set.

And you are the one moving it.

blatant statements of untruth here don't get you respect, and don't get people doubting reality; They just make everyone realise you are unreliable and a waste of space.

 

[barbos]

The sounds you can hear are caused by goalposts being moved. Please do not adjust your set.

And you are the one moving it.

blatant statements of untruth here don't get you respect, and don't get people doubting reality; They just make everyone realise you are unreliable and a waste of space.

Blatant statements of untruth are coming exclusively from your side.

The Navy Is Freaked: The Age of Big Warships Is Just About Done

The dominance of large surface warships, especially aircraft carriers, is increasingly threatened by advanced anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems developed by adversaries like China. Hypersonic missiles and other sophisticated weapons, such as China’s Dong-Feng 26B, pose a significant risk...

nationalinterest.org

 

[bilby]

The sounds you can hear are caused by goalposts being moved. Please do not adjust your set.

And you are the one moving it.

blatant statements of untruth here don't get you respect, and don't get people doubting reality; They just make everyone realise you are unreliable and a waste of space.

Blatant statements of untruth are coming exclusively from your side.

blatant statements of untruth here don't get you respect, and don't get people doubting reality; They just make everyone realise you are childish, unreliable and a waste of space.

ETA "childish".

 

[barbos]

Again, you are projecting, you are the one doing all these things you accuse me of.

 

[Bomb#20]

FIFY.

Not following. Are you implying that Russia does not have nuclear weapons?

You have packages with fissile material and explosives.

Whether they will actually produce a nuclear yield is quite another matter.

Yes, we are stupid.

It's not about being stupid; it's about being poor. The weapons haven't been tested in thirty-five years and we know they don't last that long without continuous expensive maintenance. JH and LP appear to be calling into question whether Russia has actually been doing the required periodic refurbishment. The Ukraine war revealed that a lot of Russia's conventional weapons systems fail for lack of maintenance. Which isn't surprising given its overall resource limitations -- tradeoffs have to be made. So since Russia hasn't even been spending what it needs to spend on maintaining the weapons it actually intends to use, why should we believe Russia is prioritizing maintenance of weapons that are only for making threats?