Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ukrainian Ranger]

with second strongest military in the world

by numbers only

[Strife26]

I'd put Russia far underneath second strongest military. Maybe fourth. I mean, they got a modern plane, in a war zone, taken down by a f16. Nothing against the Turks, but I'd bet my car that their Viper  fleet isn't up to newest block standard.

[miljan]

with second strongest military in the world

by numbers only

No, that would be china. Russian has numbers and technology.

[Dorsidwarf]

My personal definition of a superpower is the military definiton rather than the economic.
You're a superpower if you have the capacity to initiate Armageddon.

Also there's a difference between being interdicted by an f16 then shot down and losing in an actual fight. A game of supersonic dodgeball rather than a game of supersonic knocky-nine-doors.

[RedKing]

There is unfortunately  only one supper power and that is USA

We are indeed the world-acclaimed masters of eating everything in sight. And we're about to have the Super Bowl of Eating tomorrow.

And not to contribute to the nationalist dickwaving, but I'd say the PLA has Russia beat in numbers and tech. I mean, they got everybody beat in numbers, and they've spent the last 15 years modernizing. This is not the same Chinese army that lost more troops in North Korea to frostbite (due to a lack of shoes) than to enemy fire. Even if Russia has a slight edge in tech (which is questionable), the scale of the PLA more than makes up for it.

Also, Putin is sending SAM batteries to Assad as a "fuck you" to Turkey. Let's see if we can blow on that smoldering tinder, shall we? If Syrian forces shoot down a Turkish jet with Russian-supplied SAMs, where does that put us? Especially as Turkey is a NATO member?

[miljan]

I'd put Russia far underneath second strongest military. Maybe fourth. I mean, they got a modern plane, in a war zone, taken down by a f16. Nothing against the Turks, but I'd bet my car that their Viper  fleet isn't up to newest block standard.

I guess you dont know alot about military when you make comments like this. The air planes/bombers flying in syria dont have any type of air defence against other fighters (at least this type of bomber, su 24 as its a old model), because you know you don't expect that. There are no airplane  jammers , nothing on them, nor was there any preparation for that type of combat  (witch I think is a huge mistake form russia part). They where just hit in back.

I mean if you want to talk about it, we can talk about things like american f 117 getting shot down by a old 70 years old soviet missile, showing that USA has bad military technology and that soviet even from 70 had better one? No, i dont think so that things work like that, and its a good way of thinking.

[Erkki]

I'd put Russia far underneath second strongest military. Maybe fourth. I mean, they got a modern plane, in a war zone, taken down by a f16. Nothing against the Turks, but I'd bet my car that their Viper  fleet isn't up to newest block standard.

Their fleet isnt quite up to date... But they all still carry Aim-120s. It was a close shot, the Su-24 crew may have had just two-three seconds of warning from when the weapon turned on its own radar. An Su-24 at that range doesnt evade or defeat kinetically anything...

[Culise]

Also, Putin is sending SAM batteries to Assad as a "fuck you" to Turkey. Let's see if we can blow on that smoldering tinder, shall we? If Syrian forces shoot down a Turkish jet with Russian-supplied SAMs, where does that put us? Especially as Turkey is a NATO member?

It only puts us at the "extra-firmly-worded letter" stage, in my opinion.  Turkey lost a jet to Syrian ground fire in 2012; the loss of a jet to a modern Russia-built SAM instead of an older Soviet-built missile or AA gun is not that large of an escalation, all things considered.  Now, if Russian jets or a missile from the ship redeployed to cover their bombing runs hits a Turkish fighter in Turkish airspace, that would be more of an escalation, but one that would still likely be contained.

Also, I'm in accord with those who put the PLA over the Russian Army as well, albeit narrowly; Russia isn't even in the top three when it comes to expenditures (that said, this is only because it's fourth, and third in the list is the infamously anemic Saudi army).  That said, I do still think Russia is a powerful contender regionally, and it is a bit unfair to comment on the modern jet getting shot down by a thirty-year-old jet.  Besides, while both have been thoroughly modernized over the decades, the Su-24 is actually older than the F-16.  Unless the news has consistently been getting the Su-24 confused with the Su-34...

[miljan]

Also, Putin is sending SAM batteries to Assad as a "fuck you" to Turkey. Let's see if we can blow on that smoldering tinder, shall we? If Syrian forces shoot down a Turkish jet with Russian-supplied SAMs, where does that put us? Especially as Turkey is a NATO member?

No, Putin is not sending SAM to assad, but to his own forces.

Also what does it matter if syria shot down turkey plane with their missiles? Is that a problem? I guess its also a problem than that a lot of ISIS have USA arms. Or that the russian rescue choper was shot down with USA TOW missile?  Is it also a problem that turkey a NATO member is sending ammo and arms to a lot os ISIS and other radical rebels. Does that mean NATO supports turkey in arming ISIS? Ohh wait, no need to call out turkey, we can only look at USA directly with their arming of rebel groups in syria including ISIS (ohh they didnt know that so called free syrian army gives their arms to ISIS and other scum, or in fact majority of them are actually ISIS, al qaeda, ohh, we are so naive and dumb).

In fact you know what, syria can shoot down any air plane in its air space, including USA and NATO air planes, and do you know why? Because they are there illegally (and i am not taking of them being close to border), syria didnt ask for them, nor was there agreement in UN, but you know USA, being  USA, fuck  laws, we do what we want to do.

Ok, enough of my ranting, but i guess you get a idea.

Normally no one should shoot down anyone's plane, this was just a example

[Strife26]

I'd put Russia far underneath second strongest military. Maybe fourth. I mean, they got a modern plane, in a war zone, taken down by a f16. Nothing against the Turks, but I'd bet my car that their Viper  fleet isn't up to newest block standard.

I guess you dont know alot about military when you make comments like this. The air planes/bombers flying in syria dont have any type of air defence against other fighters (at least this type of bomber, su 24 as its a old model), because you know you don't expect that. There are no airplane  jammers , nothing on them, nor was there any preparation for that type of combat  (witch I think is a huge mistake form russia part). They where just hit in back.

I mean if you want to talk about it, we can talk about things like american f 117 getting shot down by a old 70 years old soviet missile, showing that USA has bad military technology and that soviet even from 70 had better one? No, i dont think so that things work like that, and its a good way of thinking.

Phahahaha. That's called excuses, incompetence, and complacency.  If you're not expecting to get shot down, then your whole chain of command is fucked up in the head. And yes, that included those idiots who kept flying a 117 down the same flight path over and over again.

If anything, getting shot in the back is worse, because the Ruskies should have been more than smart enough to expect something like that.

[martinuzz]

There is unfortunately  only one supper power and that is USA

My country ruled by Dinner Party. Dinner bigger than supper. My country win.

[miljan]

I'd put Russia far underneath second strongest military. Maybe fourth. I mean, they got a modern plane, in a war zone, taken down by a f16. Nothing against the Turks, but I'd bet my car that their Viper  fleet isn't up to newest block standard.

I guess you dont know alot about military when you make comments like this. The air planes/bombers flying in syria dont have any type of air defence against other fighters (at least this type of bomber, su 24 as its a old model), because you know you don't expect that. There are no airplane  jammers , nothing on them, nor was there any preparation for that type of combat  (witch I think is a huge mistake form russia part). They where just hit in back.

I mean if you want to talk about it, we can talk about things like american f 117 getting shot down by a old 70 years old soviet missile, showing that USA has bad military technology and that soviet even from 70 had better one? No, i dont think so that things work like that, and its a good way of thinking.

Phahahaha. That's called excuses, incompetence, and complacency.  If you're not expecting to get shot down, then your whole chain of command is fucked up in the head. And yes, that included those idiots who kept flying a 117 down the same flight path over and over again.

If anything, getting shot in the back is worse, because the Ruskies should have been more than smart enough to expect something like that.

Not sure what so funny, but yes, russie should know better (as they also probably lack experience compared to west), and its their error for trusting turkey, but again it doesn't say a lot about technology and military power that you wanted to make a wrong conclusion from. 

[Dorsidwarf]

Also, Putin is sending SAM batteries to Assad as a "fuck you" to Turkey. Let's see if we can blow on that smoldering tinder, shall we? If Syrian forces shoot down a Turkish jet with Russian-supplied SAMs, where does that put us? Especially as Turkey is a NATO member?

No, Putin is not sending SAM to assad, but to his own forces.

Also what does it matter if syria shot down turkey plane with their missiles? Is that a problem? I guess its also a problem than that a lot of ISIS have USA arms. Or that the russian rescue choper was shot down with USA TOW missile?  Is it also a problem that turkey a NATO member is sending ammo and arms to a lot os ISIS and other radical rebels. Does that mean NATO supports turkey in arming ISIS? Ohh wait, no need to call out turkey, we can only look at USA directly with their arming of rebel groups in syria including ISIS (ohh they didnt know that so called free syrian army gives their arms to ISIS and other scum, or in fact majority of them are actually ISIS, al qaeda, ohh, we are so naive and dumb).

In fact you know what, syria can shoot down any air plane in its air space, including USA and NATO air planes, and do you know why? Because they are there illegally (and i am not taking of them being close to border), syria didnt ask for them, nor was there agreement in UN, but you know USA, being  USA, fuck  laws, we do what we want to do.

Ok, enough of my ranting, but i guess you get a idea.

Normally no one should shoot down anyone's plane, this was just a example

Extracted salient points from general grumpiness:

1: Putin is arming russian bases(?) with Surface-Air-Missile batteries (Bases because the russian ground presence in syria consists of one airbase, as far as we know)
2: ISIS has US armaments taken from the Iraqis government forces.
3: A US TOW anti-tank missile was used to blow up the downed pilot's rescue chopper on the ground
4: Turkey is arming ISIS
5: Turkey is arming other radical rebels
6:Something something NATO doesn't support turkey
7: Something something "don't look at the US and blame us"?
8: The FSA is arming ISIS
9: The FSA is ISIS
10: The FSA is Al-qaeda
11: The US is naive and dumb
12: Syria's autocratic, weak, despotic millitary dictatorship has the right to shoot down any of the aircraft from the various sides who are making bombing runs on ISIS (US, Turkey, France, Russia) and the FSA(Russia) because they weren't invited
13: It's the USA's fault that the USA, Russia, France, and Turkey have aircraft on combat missions in Syria.
14: The various countries and groups fighting ISIS should stop shooting down each others' planes

Not sure what so funny, but yes, russie should know better (as they also probably lack experience compared to west), and its their error for trusting turkey, but again it doesn't say a lot about technology and military power that you wanted to make a wrong conclusion from. 

Russia should have known better, but flying armed bombers near or into NATO airspace has been their air force's only source of amusement ever since the nuclear warheads were put back into the shed.

[boki]

I'd put Russia far underneath second strongest military. Maybe fourth. I mean, they got a modern plane, in a war zone, taken down by a f16. Nothing against the Turks, but I'd bet my car that their Viper  fleet isn't up to newest block standard.

Just you know SU-24 is 10 years older than Viper, and is also a bomber. 

[Dorsidwarf]

I'd put Russia far underneath second strongest military. Maybe fourth. I mean, they got a modern plane, in a war zone, taken down by a f16. Nothing against the Turks, but I'd bet my car that their Viper  fleet isn't up to newest block standard.

Just you know SU-24 is 10 years older than Viper, and is also a bomber.

The SU-24-M 'Fencer' is also at least 5 years older than any of the F-16s in Turkey's air force