IN A WAR WITH RUSSIA, NATO HAS NO CHANCE

[ptldM3]

There are tons of footages of Su-24 and they are ALWAYS with dumb WW2 style bombs.

They showed one pic of Su-24 with old soviet laser guided missile, but never seen it flying or being used.

There is no point in arguing with someone like you, since you have petty arguments that consist of lying . The proof is given to you, in the form of a pictures that not only include an SU-24 at latakia with a laser guided bomb but of the SU-24s cockpit that shows the LCD screens on the weapons systems operators side of the cockpit.

So reiterate again what your trying to prove. You have not "seen" the SU-24 "use" laser guided bombs so now because you have not seen the SU-24 using laser guided bombs then the picture of the SU-24 at Latakia must be fake? You look and sound like a complete fool.

The main attack Polish aircraft is F-16 block 52+. Su-22 used for CAS like Su-25.

Your argument was to bash the SU-24 and make false claims that it can not use laser guided munitions then you pound your chest at NATO superiority and when i actually mention just how dated some NATO weapons are you change your tune--suddenly 'there is nothing wrong with the SU-22' and it's "used for CAS like Su-25". I imagine if the Russian air force still used the SU-22 you would have a field day.

Tornados cary modern thermal pods and modern weapons, like Brimstone etc, which Russian Su-24 lacks.


See above.

First off that is an F-4 not a Tornado Secondly the SU-24 carries a variety of laser guided munitions as well as anti-ship missiles. As for your Brimstone, why would the SU-24 carry it? It has a range of about 20km, the SU-24 can carry the KH-28 which has a range of 110km.

NATO airforces have modern AMRAAM missiles Russia is still in Vietnam era with R-27.

The "AMRAAM" is almost 25 years old, from 1991.
The AIM-7 is from 1959,
The AIM-9 is from 1959.
The AGM-62 is from 1972


The R-27 is from 1983, the Vietnam war ended in 1975 I suggest you focus more on your school work kid. As for R-27 it has been upgraded and improved.

LOL you say Pakistan military like its something weak. Pakistan is a country with population more than Russia with very strong military.

Here my rank on air forces:

1) USA - 13353
2) Russia - 3239
3) China - 2989
4) India - 1505
5) Israel - 1329
6) Japan - 1234
7) South Korea - 1194
8) Saudi Arabia - 1086
9) Turkey - 1049
10) France - 995
11) Taiwan - 989
12) Egypt - 821
13) UK - 784
14) Greece - 762
15) Pakistan - 739
16) Germany - 690
17) Italy - 550
18) UAE - 510
19) Singapore - 497
20) Spain - 492
21) Australia - 472
22) North Korea - 402
23) Algeria - 341
24) Iran - 341
25) Canada - 323
26) Syria - 285
27) Sweden - 280
28) Vietnam - 270
29) Thailand - 261
30) Poland - 251
31) Kazakhstan - 249
32) Netherlands - 238
33) Brazil - 204
34) Finland - 198
35) Uzbekistan - 192
36) Belgium - 171
37) Jordan - 170
38) Norway - 165
39) Malaysia - 156
40) Belarus - 146
41) Venezuela - 120
42) Ukraine - 115
43) Peru - 105

No one cares about your fanboy ranks nor do they mean squat in the real world. Again go focus on your education, i don't take any ranking seriously especially coming from someone that thinks the Vietnam war lasted into 1983.

So we have US 13,353 + Other NATO countries 6,470 (not including midgets like Czech Romania etc) vs. Russia 3,239.

Your numbers are over inflated, if we for instance just look at Germany we will see that it can only operate a fraction of its military equipment:




Revealed: Germany's military feet of clay - The Local




It confirmed that just 24 of the air force's 56 Transall transport planes, which will be critical for the Iraq and West Africa missions, were fit to fly.

The air force is close to overload with its fighter planes also well under half strength.

Helicopters, too, are a weak point, with half the navy's fleet grounded and only 16 of 83 CH-53 transport helicopters flight ready.

There are also problems with the army's Boxer personnel carriers and the navy's frigates. Just 70 of the 180 armoured vehicles and seven of the 11 ships are in fighting condition.




If that was not bad enough, your entire argument is hypothetical. In a war with Russia you can bet that many NATO countries would not join in for the sake of not wanting their cities turn to rubble.

As u can see, although rest NATO combined force is weaker than US alone, its still much stronger than Russia.

Overall NATO is about ~20,000 points vs. Russia's ~3,300.

More proof why no one should take you serious---- "point"

Thats 6 times more. And I did not include NATO/US satellites like South Korea, Australia, Japan.

And my ranking is actually rather pro-Russian, because it does not count lack/very little number of modern weapons and pods in Russian inventory.

This is beyond idiotic, you over inflate NATO numbers, then include every NATO country and now casually throw in South Korea, Australia and Japan.

I'm speechless, I think Russia i should throw in China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Belarus, Syria, Iran, ect.

 

[TMA]

Pakistan survived Soviet occupation of Afghanistan but can't be said the same for the mighty Soviet Union.

It was another superpower who broke up The USSR. Afghanistan and Pakistan could not have done this on their own. Besides Russia survived the USSR period and has now regained Crimea. Russia is a lot stronger than Pakistan!

 

[500]

There is no point in arguing with someone like you, since you have petty arguments that consist of lying . The proof is given to you, in the form of a pictures that not only include an SU-24 at latakia with a laser guided bomb but of the SU-24s cockpit that shows the LCD screens on the weapons systems operators side of the cockpit.

So reiterate again what your trying to prove. You have not "seen" the SU-24 "use" laser guided bombs so now because you have not seen the SU-24 using laser guided bombs then the picture of the SU-24 at Latakia must be fake? You look and sound like a complete fool.

I am talking about the fact: in nearly 3 month of operation there is no SINGLE footage of Su-24 taking off with smart weapons, always dumb bombs. They just pictured once static Su-24 with anicent Soviet laser guided missile, but never Su-24 flying with it or using it.

Your argument was to bash the SU-24 and make false claims that it can not use laser guided munitions then you pound your chest at NATO superiority and when i actually mention just how dated some NATO weapons are you change your tune--suddenly 'there is nothing wrong with the SU-22' and it's "used for CAS like Su-25". I imagine if the Russian air force still used the SU-22 you would have a field day.

Even East European Poland has more modern air force than Russia.

First off that is an F-4 not a Tornado Secondly the SU-24 carries a variety of laser guided munitions as well as anti-ship missiles. As for your Brimstone, why would the SU-24 carry it? It has a range of about 20km, the SU-24 can carry the KH-28 which has a range of 110km.

I said F-4 are modernized. Bimstone allows attacking many targets in one sortie in all weather conditions in fire and forget mode. New versions has 60 km range.

Kh-28 is heavy anti radiation missile, it has nothing to do with brimstone. Su-24 can use Kh-25ML, which we saw once pictured but never used. It is 6 times heavier, has less than 10 km range and needs laser dsignation.

The "AMRAAM" is almost 25 years old, from 1991.
The AIM-7 is from 1959,
The AIM-9 is from 1959.
The AGM-62 is from 1972


The R-27 is from 1983, the Vietnam war ended in 1975 I suggest you focus more on your school work kid. As for R-27 it has been upgraded and improved.

Unfortunately USSR could make the counterpart of AIM-9 only in 1983.

No one cares about your fanboy ranks nor do they mean squat in the real world. Again go focus on your education, i don't take any ranking seriously especially coming from someone that thinks the Vietnam war lasted into 1983.

My rank is based on quantity and quality of planes. If you dont likie my rank u can just count the number of 4th gen jets in NATO and Russia.

Your numbers are over inflated, if we for instance just look at Germany we will see that it can only operate a fraction of its military equipment:

Concisdering that even elite Russian group in Syria does not have active AA missiles, its all useless.

This is beyond idiotic, you over inflate NATO numbers, then include every NATO country and now casually throw in South Korea, Australia and Japan.

I inflated Russia numbers. There countries are satellites of US thats fact.

I'm speechless, I think Russia i should throw in China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Belarus, Syria, Iran, ect.

None of these countries is satellite of Russia. None supported the annexation of Crimea for example or MH-17 vote in UN. OK Syria barrel bombers maybe.

 

[Baybars Han]

lol, China is the least likely country I could imagine that wants war. Chinese troops are pretty poor quality aswell and have never fought anyone, Europe has been under attack for thousands of years and no one has ever really hurt it, Mongols, Persians, Turks, could never get past the shitty poor countries on the outskirts of Europe.

A likely war would be a unification of the countries in the world which arent religious or not the crazy kind religoin, i.e Europe(incl Russia), China, USA and an all out attack on muslim lands, thats far more likely than Chinese attacking their main economic partners where neither side causes harm to each other, they will look at what lies in the middle of Europe and China and notice the threat, thats far more plausible.

How shitty and outskirt is Vienna? A neighbour of Germany?

 

[Schutz]

Russia population of less than 150 million and a GDP of a country a third of its size vs the most advanced and powerful military in the world and several other nations with a decent military and potential to mobilize large numbers quickly.

The top 10 defense manufacturing companies in the world....something like 7 are American, 1 British, 1 German/French and 1 Italian, why is this even a discussion? its like putting a 13 year old kid against prime Mike Tyson

 

[Cyberian]

It was another superpower who broke up The USSR. Afghanistan and Pakistan could not have done this on their own. Besides Russia survived the USSR period and has now regained Crimea. Russia is a lot stronger than Pakistan!

Yes, 120 countries were involved in the destruction of the Soviet Union. Frontline states were Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Now, try working out how many countries are involved in the destruction of Russia. Just yesterday, the European Union renewed their sanctions on Russia while Mr Putin is pleading to the Americans for better ties.

Just wait couple of years and see what happens.

 

[mahatir]

AHAHAHAHAHHA....................I have seen it all on PDF, but your level of stupidity is unmatched so far.

@FrenchPilot , @Taygibay , @Hamartia Antidote ,@Steve781 . This guy really believe his so called fearless Sunni terrorist groups stand a chance in a conventional war with any western power or even Russia. These rats/scums can only use suicide bombs against civilians and behead civilians/Assad poorly trained soldiers. To think this cheerleader thinks they stand any chance fighting against a western power like a regular army is the JOKE OF THE CENTURY.

@Falcon29 , you should know that your Sunni terror groups are smart enough not to engage in any open war with western powers. They can only use suicide bombs and IED then run away.They know that if they were to face/fight like a regular army, the battle wouldn't even last 2 days. In fact, we wont even need to send thousands of our troops. Just about a hundred or so of our special forces will be enough for these jihadists.

You need between 10,000-20000 troops in addition to 80,000 local troops to completely destroy them on the ground in syria and iraq , unless Nato resorts to carpet bombing . Besides the Nato air campaign did manage to contain Isil and reduce their held territory by 50% .

 

[ZerTes]

Or

Choose

 

[Asian.Century]

‘NATO HAS NO CHANCE’

Russia’s secret super submarine fleet could be unstoppable in World War III scenario, expert warns


Putin’s band of nuclear powered death machines have already reportedly breached UK waters

Vladimir Putin is assembling a secret fleet of super submarines which could topple NATO and plunge the world into war.

A report by naval experts warns that Russia already has a small but sophisticated army of subs which are capable of launching missile strikes across the globe.


GETTY IMAGES
4
Experts warns Russia’s secret fleet of super subs could plunge the world into war

GETTY IMAGES
4
President Putin has re-established Russia as a major player on the world stage following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991
The deadly group of stealthy underwater weapons are currently patrolling the world and have already reportedly breached UK waters having approached the Royal Navy’s base in Faslane, Scotland.

Russia is stepping up its secret submarine programme to ‘Cold War’ levels and experts warn NATO members “no longer” have the defences to stop the aquatic death machines.

Andrew Metrick, who co-wrote the report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said: “Russia operates a small number of very small, nuclear powered submarines that are capable of diving in excess of several thousand meters.

“You can imagine what a clandestine deployable deep submergence vehicle could be used for.

“It’s pretty scary to think about some of the types of missions.

“It’s probably the most shadowy part of the Russian undersea apparatus. It’s not operated by their navy, it’s operated by a separate branch of their Ministry of Defense.”

While the fleet is not as big as the Soviet Union’s colossal arsenal, the report says the new subs can dive deeper, and move quieter, than any ever before.

The nuclear-powered ships are armed with electronic warfare gear, long-range cruise missiles, torpedoes and mines.


GETTY IMAGES
4
A new Russian nuclear submarine, the Yuri Dolgoruky, cuts through the water near the northern city of Arkhangelsk

GETTY IMAGES
4
Russian President Putin (2nd R) and Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov (L) watch the launch of a missile during military exercises in the Barents Sea
And while the Kremlin is growing their amphibious firepower, the number of US submarines is dwindling.

The incredible report says the formerly formidable Royal Navy is at its “lowest ebb” while NATO needs to reinvest its defence capabilities or risk being toppled by the might of Putin’s super subs.

Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain with Center for New American Security, told Breaking Defense said: “We’re in a bad place as an alliance with regard to Russia’s underwater resurgence.”

sun.co.uk

 

[Mamluk]

Russia has no chance? Russia got the largest stockpile of nukes. So it's going to be MAD.