French navy frigate buzzed by an armed Russian aircraft

[A.P. Richelieu]

After supporting Britain in skripal drama serial,french should realize now that Russia will not allow them to hit Syria using ships.russia is already sick of Boris Johnson and his lies.attack on Syria by nato and America means war for Russia.

A single destroyer equipped with GPS controlled shells can quickly disable the Russian Airbase in Syria. First the runway is taken out, then the S-400/Pantsirs.
After that, drones will provide targeting solutions for the grounded aircrafts.
Everyone knows that, and this is why neither Russia, nor the West are looking for direct confrontation. Buzzing aircrafts are a hazard both to the ship, and the aircraft.
So far, I think more pilots than sailors have died from buzzing.
I do not see that changing.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Vodka effects.....

Purchase some Vodka for BSF posted on LOC since rum fails to ignite bravery.

We bow in homage to your superior knowledge of what inspires bravery. No wonder you are proud of an Ever-Victorious Army.

 

[Dalit]

A single destroyer equipped with GPS controlled shells can quickly disable the Russian Airbase in Syria. First the runway is taken out, then the S-400/Pantsirs.
After that, drones will provide targeting solutions for the grounded aircrafts.
Everyone knows that, and this is why neither Russia, nor the West are looking for direct confrontation. Buzzing aircrafts are a hazard both to the ship, and the aircraft.
So far, I think more pilots than sailors have died from buzzing.
I do not see that changing.

Can do this can do that. Just STFU and bring it on. You talk a lot. It is time you backed your BS by some concrete action.

Here is my prediction. The Russians will swallow you like a fvcking ant like they been doing all along. LOL at taking out the S-400. B!tch, you cannot even take out S-300. Don't even mention S-400.

Your daddy America hasn't got the courage to face Russia in Syria. WTF are you going to do?

 

[TMA]

I suppose this peacefull French ship have no intensions to somehow attack some independent Arab nation without UNO mandat? If it is so - they have nothing to worry about.

Bravo! Well said.

But Vostok, you must realise that Modern Western militaries are civilized and they do not attack others unless there is just cause (!).

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Can do this can do that. Just STFU and bring it on. You talk a lot. It is time you backed your BS by some concrete action.

Here is my prediction. The Russians will swallow you like a fvcking ant like they been doing all along. LOL at taking out the S-400. B!tch, you cannot even take out S-300. Don't even mention S-400.

Your daddy America hasn't got the courage to face Russia in Syria. WTF are you going to do?

Russia likewise does not ”have the courage” to face the Americans in Syria.
Or to phrase it correctly, neither sees the point in a direct confrontation, because it deviates from the goals both have in Syria.

That is why the Russians are not going to attack foreign ships in International Waters,
and the Russian Air Base is also not going to be attacked.

Artillery barrages of GPS controlled shells are not something you can easily protect against.
Ships can be stationed in International Waters and make the airport inoperable in a minute.

You think the Russians are going to fire an S-400 missile at each shell?
Show *one* successful intercept of an artillery grenade, or remain a fan boy.

It has been proven over and over again that Artillery can hit within 1-2 meters of intended
target at ranges up to 70 km.
If satellites can determine the S-400 launcher position, they can be taken out,
and there is nothing the Russians can do about it once an attack starts.

It is really not a good idea for Russia to attack NATO assets.

Russians know that they can be taken out, since they are in an untenable position.
They would be really stupid to risk anything at this stage.
It is much more cost effective to claim that anything the U.S. do against Syria is a failure,
regardless of all the facts showing something different.

 

[oprih]

Nice! Did macron threw another hissy fit?

 

[Yaseen1]

Russia likewise does not ”have the courage” to face the Americans in Syria.
Or to phrase it correctly, neither sees the point in a direct confrontation, because it deviates from the goals both have in Syria.

That is why the Russians are not going to attack foreign ships in International Waters,
and the Russian Air Base is also not going to be attacked.

Artillery barrages of GPS controlled shells are not something you can easily protect against.
Ships can be stationed in International Waters and make the airport inoperable in a minute.

You think the Russians are going to fire an S-400 missile at each shell?
Show *one* successful intercept of an artillery grenade, or remain a fan boy.

It has been proven over and over again that Artillery can hit within 1-2 meters of intended
target at ranges up to 70 km.
If satellites can determine the S-400 launcher position, they can be taken out,
and there is nothing the Russians can do about it once an attack starts.

It is really not a good idea for Russia to attack NATO assets.

Russians know that they can be taken out, since they are in an untenable position.
They would be really stupid to risk anything at this stage.
It is much more cost effective to claim that anything the U.S. do against Syria is a failure,
regardless of all the facts showing something different.

if russia equipment destroyed in response they can easily sink u.s aircraft carriers and ships which will most costly damage than destroying s400 or few russian aircrafts in Syria

 

[Arsalan 345]

A single destroyer equipped with GPS controlled shells can quickly disable the Russian Airbase in Syria. First the runway is taken out, then the S-400/Pantsirs.
After that, drones will provide targeting solutions for the grounded aircrafts.
Everyone knows that, and this is why neither Russia, nor the West are looking for direct confrontation. Buzzing aircrafts are a hazard both to the ship, and the aircraft.
So far, I think more pilots than sailors have died from buzzing.
I do not see that changing.

How many times America will use west against Russia? I know about sanctions on russia.only God can save allied Navy in case of attack.

 

[ptldM3]

It did not mean war the last time.
The only thing the Russians can afford is to claim that they shot down everything attacking Syria,
and deny that the destroyed equipment shown on their own videos were harmed.
There will be tons of gullible trolls retweeting and quoting, while Russians enjoy beeing able to spread lies without costing them a single kopek. They will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Speaking of spreading lies, please tell us more about:

WMD, babies being thrown out of incubators, Russia attacking innocent Georgia in 2008, Yugoslavian war crimes. Russia not bombing ISIS despite Syria taking back nearly all of ISIS territory, Iran being a few years away from nukes for the past 40 years, Maiden being completely spontaneous without US interference, (never mind US politicians on the ground in Kiev having secret meeting and US officials being wire tapped**caugh**caugh).

If you want honesty look no further then the shinning beacon of democracy in the west.


Russia doesn’t need to claim they shot anything down, since they often just provide photos.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

if russia equipment destroyed in response they can easily sink u.s aircraft carriers and ships which will most costly damage than destroying s400 or few russian aircrafts in Syria

Without a working airport in Syria, Russians will have to rely on submarines,
and Russian submarines have proven to be quite trackable in the past.
Their surface level naval forces in the Mediterranean are on leased time in a conflict.

The Russian position in Syria is fragile. It would not be smart to risk losing it.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

Russia likewise does not ”have the courage” to face the Americans in Syria.
Or to phrase it correctly, neither sees the point in a direct confrontation, because it deviates from the goals both have in Syria.

That is why the Russians are not going to attack foreign ships in International Waters,
and the Russian Air Base is also not going to be attacked.

Artillery barrages of GPS controlled shells are not something you can easily protect against.
Ships can be stationed in International Waters and make the airport inoperable in a minute.

You think the Russians are going to fire an S-400 missile at each shell?
Show *one* successful intercept of an artillery grenade, or remain a fan boy.

It has been proven over and over again that Artillery can hit within 1-2 meters of intended
target at ranges up to 70 km.
If satellites can determine the S-400 launcher position, they can be taken out,
and there is nothing the Russians can do about it once an attack starts.

It is really not a good idea for Russia to attack NATO assets.

Russians know that they can be taken out, since they are in an untenable position.
They would be really stupid to risk anything at this stage.
It is much more cost effective to claim that anything the U.S. do against Syria is a failure,
regardless of all the facts showing something different.

One question to you, in theory its all good, but where are you going to fire those GPS controlled shells from at Russian assets in Syria?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

One question to you, in theory its all good, but where are you going to fire those GPS controlled shells from at Russian assets in Syria?

The Russian Assets are all close to the Mediterranean.
I leave the rest to you.

 

[Yaseen1]

Without a working airport in Syria, Russians will have to rely on submarines,
and Russian submarines have proven to be quite trackable in the past.
Their surface level naval forces in the Mediterranean are on leased time in a conflict.

The Russian position in Syria is fragile. It would not be smart to risk losing it.

russia has nuclear powered cruise missile which is hypersonic and has unlimited range and also submarine drones which can destroy u.s naval assets

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

russia has nuclear powered cruise missile which is hypersonic and has unlimited range and also submarine drones which can destroy u.s naval assets

Russia does not have, Russia has started developing... Big Difference!
The US has started developing countermeasures vs hypersonic missiles.

And it is an unknown how they would fare against each other.
Things might look good until it has a chance meeting with reality.
The Russians managed to sink their own submarine Kursk with another wonder weapon.

The drone appears more for attacking coastal cities, than naval assets.
Russia is not going to win a war that goes nuclear - noone is.

 

[airmarshal]

Both sides should display restraint. I appreciate that overall it remained peaceful.

Its because Russia is present in Syria or else America would have run over Syria a long time ago on a lie.

A single destroyer equipped with GPS controlled shells can quickly disable the Russian Airbase in Syria. First the runway is taken out, then the S-400/Pantsirs.
After that, drones will provide targeting solutions for the grounded aircrafts.
Everyone knows that, and this is why neither Russia, nor the West are looking for direct confrontation. Buzzing aircrafts are a hazard both to the ship, and the aircraft.
So far, I think more pilots than sailors have died from buzzing.
I do not see that changing.

Go slow buddy. Russia is not Afghanistan or Iraq. Its a big power.