IN A WAR WITH RUSSIA, NATO HAS NO CHANCE

[KediKesenFare3]

 

[Oublious]

This is enough, still dumb people are writing something. 200 billion is R&D only...

 

[Signalian]

Russo Georgian war should be a good scale to weigh the preparedness and efficiency of russian armed forces in any conflict

 

[Oublious]

Nope USA is spending salaries and pensions for veterans with mental problems.

In a military conflict USA will be bankrupt in no time.

China is so stupid. If they would start WW3 tomorrow they would outproduce westerners easily and march through russia into europe. Their troops would use european slaves to produce naval units to brake USN sea blockade and conquer US soil.

Chinese are so stupid that they dont realise their ultimate chance to world hegemony...

They have almost fighted 10 years in iraq and afghanistam, daily cost 1 billion dollars. Show me a country who can do that? They can operate every wher in the world, they hacve the money.

 

[Ceylal]

They have almost fighted 10 years in iraq and afghanistam, daily cost 1 billion dollars. Show me a country who can do that? They can operate every wher in the world, they hacve the money.

$17 trillions in debt does that answer your question....

 

[Schutz]

Nope USA is spending salaries and pensions for veterans with mental problems.

In a military conflict USA will be bankrupt in no time.

China is so stupid. If they would start WW3 tomorrow they would outproduce westerners easily and march through russia into europe. Their troops would use european slaves to produce naval units to brake USN sea blockade and conquer US soil.

Chinese are so stupid that they dont realise their ultimate chance to world hegemony...

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.

 

[Cyberian]

Do not confuse the USSR with a rising Christian Russia.

You're right. We're going to find out how Russia survives after 2 years in Syria.

By the way, did you hear Russian economy shrank by more than 4% during the last quarter, this is after just small scale sanctions from Western countries on Russia?

 

[ptldM3]

Only NATO countries which have small number of F-4 still are Greece and Turkey. Both are heavily modernized and are far far more capable than Su-24 with dumb bombs we see in Syria.

I have been ignoring most of your post due to the fact that you are a proven blatant liar that ignores facts and makes up stories that can not be proven, but just to put you in your place. Earlier you said the same thing about the SU-24 as well as many other tall claims such as it has no precision weapons, no laser designator, ect.

And why even bring up the SU-24? Why is that an issue? It's already known that SU-24s have been upgraded with precision munitions, ballistics computers, HUDs, navigation, ect. It is no older then the Tornado.


In any case Russia has about 73 SU-34s, 22 SU-30M2s, 93 SU-25SMs (plus many other varients) as well as strategic bombers able to launch modern cruise missiles or drop conventional munitions, not to mention Mig-29Ks.

Mig-21 have few former Warsaw block countries who recently joined NATO and are not even 1 percent of total NATO air force inventory.

A large bulk of the Polish Air Force still uses SU-22s (32 according to weki) and will continue to use them well into the future. Basically all fighters in the Romanian Air Force are Mig-21s. (36 according to weki). The majority of the Swiss Air Force consists of F-5s (41 according to weki). Other then that There are quite a lot of F-4s and Mirages and a lot of older F-16s.


And i don't even need to go into land forces.


NATO stronk!!! Of course many delusional people think that NATO is some super advance, super elite organization when in reality there are only about 4 countries in NATO that have respectable militaries, the rest are either outdated, too small or have almost no military whatsoever.

Same goes about subs. Only NATO country with subs from 1960-es is Poland. But thats hardly 1% of NATO subs and these little quiet subs are actually pretty capable in shallow Baltic waters.

Ummm okay "Think Tank" the Type 209 is operated by Turkey, it's a 1960s design and of course Poland uses dated submarines too, i'm sure other super advanced NATO countries operate other 1960s designs but i wont waste anymore time debunking you. Case in point, NATO is over exaggerated to an almost mythical state, once someone does a little research it's easy to see just how outdated NATO really is.




@flamer84 like i said you are clueless, you are regurgitating the same propaganda. Russia has more modern military hardware than any other NATO country in europe. Let me name just a few systems.

Tigre truck (all variants)
Linx truck
Typhhon MRAP truck


Plus many more types of trucks and other vehicles that have been highly upgraded such as the T-90, ect.

Tornado MLRS
Iskander ballistic missiles

Gepard corvettes
Buyan corvettes
Steregushchy Corvetts
Buyan M corvettes

Gorshkov frigates

Borei submarines
Yasen Submarines
Newly built Kilo submarines
Newly built Lada submarines

And many more types of naval vessels including those that are under construction.


Klub cruise missiles
KH-101 cruise missiles
Plus many other types of air-to-air missile and air-to-ground missiles are under development.

S-400
Topol-M


SU-34s
SU-30SMs
SU-35Ss
KA-60
KA-50
TU-214R ELINT


Future:
PAK-FA
T-14 armata tank
T-15 heavy IFV
Boomerang wheeled IFV
Kurgants-25 IFV
S-600
S-350

Plus many more systems that are too numerous to list.

 

[500]

I have been ignoring most of your post due to the fact that you are a proven blatant liar that ignores facts and makes up stories that can not be proven, but just to put you in your place. Earlier you said the same thing about the SU-24 as well as many other tall claims such as it has no precision weapons, no laser designator, ect.




View attachment 280215 View attachment 280216 View attachment 280217




And why even bring up the SU-24? Why is that an issue? It's already known that SU-24s have been upgraded with precision munitions, ballistics computers, HUDs, navigation, ect. It is no older then the Tornado.


In any case Russia has about 73 SU-34s, 22 SU-30M2s, 93 SU-25SMs (plus many other varients) as well as strategic bombers able to launch modern cruise missiles or drop conventional munitions, not to mention Mig-29Ks.

In over 2.5 months of Russian operation in Syria we have not seen a SINGLE instance of Su-24 flying or using smart weapons. Just WW2 style dumb bombs.

A large bulk of the Polish Air Force still uses SU-22s (32 according to weki) and will continue to use them well into the future. Basically all fighters in the Romanian Air Force are Mig-21s. (36 according to weki). The majority of the Swiss Air Force consists of F-5s (41 according to weki). Other then that There are quite a lot of F-4s and Mirages and a lot of older F-16s.

The bulk of Polish air force are 48 F-16 block 52+. Su-22 used only for CAS - nothing wrong with that.

All other east Europe NATO countries combined are just little percent of total NATO air power. In case of war they will be used for some CAS thats about it. Swiss are not NATO.

NATO stronk!!! Of course many delusional people think that NATO is some super advance, super elite organization when in reality there are only about 4 countries in NATO that have respectable militaries, the rest are either outdated, too small or have almost no military whatsoever.

What u are babbling?

USA - Strongest military power in the world. Several times stronger than anyone else.
UK - Modern army and air force, strong navy.
France - Modern army and air force, strong navy.
Germany - Modern army and air force, quite strong navy.
Italy - Modern army and air force, quite strong navy.
Spain - Modern army and air force, quite strong navy.
Turkey - Balanced strong armed forces.
Greece - Balanced strong armed forces.
Norway - Balanced strong armed forces.
Poland - Balanced strong armed forces.
Canada - small for its size but modern armed forces, good modern navy.
Netherlands - small for its size but modern armed forces, good modern navy.

All the rest are midgets dont play whatsoever role.

Ummm okay "Think Tank" the Type 209 is operated by Turkey, it's a 1960s design and of course Poland uses dated submarines too, i'm sure other super advanced NATO countries operate other 1960s designs but i wont waste anymore time debunking you. Case in point, NATO is over exaggerated to an almost mythical state, once someone does a little research it's easy to see just how outdated NATO really is.

Type 209 were many times modernized and last series are very capable today. The oldest subs operated by Turkey are from late 70-es, and are still very capable in shallow Aegean waters.

 

[T-Rex]

The "Art" dafack ? Never go full retard

Bla, bla, bla!!!!

 

[ASHARR]

The Russian military is a giant scrapyard,manned by untrained conscripts.It can't match NATO's training,technology or firepower.A conventional war between Russia and NATO will not even be a battle but a quick mop up of the Russian peasant ,Soviet equipped Army.It would be a slaughter similar to Desert Storm.It would be child's play for NATO.

Ahaan . really . i dnt think so . i think they are confused about where to deploy their forces .either in tgeir own country or in eastern Europe.

 

[ptldM3]

In over 2.5 months of Russian operation in Syria we have not seen a SINGLE instance of Su-24 flying or using smart weapons. Just WW2 style dumb bombs.

Your standards of proof are pathetic...so you have not "seen" an SU-24 in Syria "using" guided weapons suddenly equals it does not or can not use them. Journalist have only been allowed into the Russian airbase 3 times, and in at least one of those visits we see a picture of an SU-24 with laser guided weapons. We also have dozens of videos of direct hits on targets. Please go call the MOD demanding to know what aircraft launched those guided weapons.

You made an idiotic claim that the SU-24 can not carry smart munitions, does not have laser designators, ect. You have been busted....just suck it up, move on an acknowledge you were making things up again.

The bulk of Polish air force are 48 F-16 block 52+. Su-22 used only for CAS - nothing wrong with that.

So it's okay for you to bash Russia for using SU-24s (which you wrongly claimed do not have smart munitions) but there is nothing wrong with Poland using SU-22's? No double standards in your arguments...not at all.

All other east Europe NATO countries combined are just little percent of total NATO air power. In case of war they will be used for some CAS thats about it. Swiss are not NATO.

A large backbone of NATOs fighters are Tornados which were introduced in 1978. The same year the SU-24 was introduced! But you have no problem bashing the SU-24. Other types or aircraft that are in large numbers are F-16s which was introduced in the late 1970s. Of course up grades matter, but you simply have been ignoring the SU-24 upgrades.


Also according to weki figures both the Greek and Turkish air force operate a combines 93 F-4s which is a fighter developed in the 1950s.


NATO forces operate Rafales and Typhoons but they are an overall small number compared to older Tornados, F-4s, Mirages, F-16s, Mig-21s, SU-22s, Mig-29s ect. Again you and @flamer84 need to go pump each other up with your NATO stronk!!!

What u are babbling?

USA - Strongest military power in the world. Several times stronger than anyone else.
UK - Modern army and air force, strong navy.
France - Modern army and air force, strong navy.
Germany - Modern army and air force, quite strong navy.
Italy - Modern army and air force, quite strong navy.
Spain - Modern army and air force, quite strong navy.
Turkey - Balanced strong armed forces.
Greece - Balanced strong armed forces.
Norway - Balanced strong armed forces.
Poland - Balanced strong armed forces.
Canada - small for its size but modern armed forces, good modern navy.
Netherlands - small for its size but modern armed forces, good modern navy.

All the rest are midgets dont play whatsoever role.

If anyone is babbling, it's you. Again as i said there are only about 4 militaries in NATO that are respectable, the rest would be lucky to compete with Pakistan militarily. Combine all those mediocre militaries into one and suddenly you have a strong force, but unfortunately the changes of all NATO members going to war as one is unlikely.

 

[500]

Your standards of proof are pathetic...so you have not "seen" an SU-24 in Syria "using" guided weapons suddenly equals it does not or can not use them. Journalist have only been allowed into the Russian airbase 3 times, and in at least one of those visits we see a picture of an SU-24 with laser guided weapons. We also have dozens of videos of direct hits on targets. Please go call the MOD demanding to know what aircraft launched those guided weapons.

You made an idiotic claim that the SU-24 can not carry smart munitions, does not have laser designators, ect. You have been busted....just suck it up, move on an acknowledge you were making things up again.

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.

So it's okay for you to bash Russia for using SU-24s (which you wrongly claimed do not have smart munitions) but there is nothing wrong with Poland using SU-22's? No double standards in your arguments...not at all.

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

A large backbone of NATOs fighters are Tornados which were introduced in 1978. The same year the SU-24 was introduced! But you have no problem bashing the SU-24. Other types or aircraft that are in large numbers are F-16s which was introduced in the late 1970s. Of course up grades matter, but you simply have been ignoring the SU-24 upgrades.

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

Also according to weki figures both the Greek and Turkish air force operate a combines 93 F-4s which is a fighter developed in the 1950s.

See above.

NATO forces operate Rafales and Typhoons but they are an overall small number compared to older Tornados, F-4s, Mirages, F-16s, Mig-21s, SU-22s, Mig-29s ect. Again you and @flamer84 need to go pump each other up with your NATO stronk!!!

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

If anyone is babbling, it's you. Again as i said there are only about 4 militaries in NATO that are respectable, the rest would be lucky to compete with Pakistan militarily. Combine all those mediocre militaries into one and suddenly you have a strong force, but unfortunately the changes of all NATO members going to war as one is unlikely.[

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

Source: Top 43 air forces (based on plane quality and quantity).

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

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.

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.

 

[TMA]

You're right. We're going to find out how Russia survives after 2 years in Syria.

By the way, did you hear Russian economy shrank by more than 4% during the last quarter, this is after just small scale sanctions from Western countries on Russia?

Russia will survive WW III. Will Pakistan survive it? That is what I am worried about.

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

.

On a different point. It is still pathetic that a country with a popluation greater than the Russian Federation has such a weak military (relatively speaking).

 

[Cyberian]

Russia will survive WW III. Will Pakistan survive it? That is what I am worried about.



On a different point. It is still pathetic that a country with a popluation greater than the Russian Federation has such a weak military (relatively speaking).

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