If Russia sent its entire navy with nukes to the UK it takes 24 hours for the UK navy to respond.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...onse-time.html Defence cuts leave the UK open to destruction.Russia could launch nuke subs and the UK takes 24 hrs to respond.Well guess what you would all be dead in 24 hrs.I know Scotland will not vote to leave but if they did what is left of the UK would be at Russia's mercy.

The Spanish armada was sunk by the great British Navy but now the greatest fleet in the world is gone.

Battle stations! Navy scrambles destroyer to challenge Russian warship off British coast (but it takes 24 hours to make 600-mile journey from Portsmouth base - was Putin testing our response time?)

• Russian vessel detected 30 miles away from Scotland last night
• Only ship available to respond was on south coast of England
• Tensions heightened when aerial photos showed ship full of missiles

A defence source said: ‘This was no exercise – the Russian ship was behaving very aggressively in a stretch of water bordering Britain’s territorial waters.

Aggressive Russia? Or afraid UK!!
What if they had sent a fleet.What size is Russias navy compared to the UK?



Why did Russia send this bad boy......

[YuriVII]

We could also launch a MIRV ICBM from the middle of Siberia and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. By the time that ship gets to within sight of your territorial waters it would already be too late anyways. The payload would be launched well before it got anywhere close to 30 miles of the coast of Scotland. We'd feel the heat of course from Britain's own nuclear arsenal in addition to USA's and France's. Point is, naval response time doesn't really matter in this situation, UK is always open to destruction from Russia and vice versa.

[Rootsie]

These stories are rubbish. For a full explaination have a read of this:
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.c...ut-to-sea.html

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

If USA and France did not help and it was Russia v UK how could the UK destroy Russia.They do not have long range nukes do they.If you struck 1st they would be dead.

These stories are rubbish. For a full explaination have a read of this:
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.c...ut-to-sea.html

Sir HumphreyThis is a private blog, written on a wide range of subjects linked to Defence and International Relations. It has no agendas, merely serving as a collection of the authors thoughts on a range of matters.

That is a bloke not even a paper or source.

[Rootsie]

Aggressive Russia? Or afraid UK!!
What if they had sent a fleet.What size is Russias navy compared to the UK?

It is worth saying that Russia almost certainly lacks the capability to deploy a fleet to the UK that could pose any realistic threat. Although the Russian Navy is large on paper, in reality only a small number of ships are in a fit state to depoy.

The article is full of inaccuracies. For example, the article claims that, "budget cutbacks mean there are no maritime patrol vessels sailing off Scotland." This is untrue. Marine Scotland has three ships who provide maritime patrol in Scottish waters. Until the SNP came to power in 2007 it was common for the RN to have ships working with Marine Scotland, but the SNP - being the total idiots that they are - started throughing tantrums whenever a RN ship patrolled through Scottish waters. The SNP pretty much told the RN that they weren't needed and they should stay away.

That is a bloke not even a paper or source.

It is a blog written by someone who works in the MoD. He knows much more about how these things work than any journalist.

[Copperknickers II]

the SNP came to power in 2007 it was common for the RN to have ships working with Marine Scotland, but the SNP - being the total idiots that they are - started throughing tantrums whenever a RN ship patrolled through Scottish waters. The SNP pretty much told the RN that they weren't needed and they should stay away.

And has Russia attacked Scotland since 2007? No? Then they weren't needed. Well done SNP, showing up the pointless facade of conventional military posturing in a nuclear world.

[Rootsie]

And has Russia attacked Scotland since 2007? No? Then they weren't needed. Well done SNP, showing up the pointless facade of conventional military posturing in a nuclear world.

Actually, the very existance of Marine Scotland would suggest that the SNP love posturing so long as they are the ones in control.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

And has Russia attacked Scotland since 2007? No? Then they weren't needed. Well done SNP, showing up the pointless facade of conventional military posturing in a nuclear world.

Conventional military posturing is diplomatically quite important. Indeed in terms of actual war. It's useless. But this isn't about that, its the game two states play to show who has the balance of power. All nations do it- the US flying two B52 bombers over china's self designated no fly zone, China stopping a US war-ship in it's tracks. It's important to international standing.

What the SNP has done is basically made Scotland look like an idiot with their policy of not allowing the Royal Navy to actually do it's job. Marine Scotland (despite looking rather pathetic in terms of impact) doesn't now have the capability to really do the same thing, otherwise they wouldn't have had to rely on the RN to do this.

Very lazy for the ship to take 24 hrs to respond.A Christmas hangover,.I am sure Russia could have blown most jets from the sky.I have done this in Civ 5.

Budget cuts are destroying the army.With Argentina and Spain wanting land back these cuts cant be done.Now we have Russia mocking and testing response times.
Is this Russias way of saying keep away from Syria and Ukraine Cameron

It's more Russia's way of saying 'we're a regional power...again. The North Sea is no longer your pond'...which they've been doing for the past 7 odd years to be honest. As i said to Coppernickers it's the typical game of 'We can do this to you' and then the UK responds with 'Well we'll block that and raise you' Then i expect in a few months Russia will reply in kind.

The fact it took 24 hours is an issue though...but then again the SNP are idiots as we've discovered.

[Border Patrol]

And has Russia attacked Scotland since 2007? No? Then they weren't needed. Well done SNP, showing up the pointless facade of conventional military posturing in a nuclear world.

Nobody's going to nuke over pirates or other rogue elements. Claiming a conventional navy is useless has absolutely no basis in reality other than some far reaching nationalist fantasy.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Pretty much as Yuri and Rootsie (EDIT! ) has stated Tom, we're all open to destruction, anytime, anywhere. The thing that stops it are economic and political realities, along with the threat of mutual destruction. Also Russia actually lacks the logistics, support and doctrine for a sea bourne threat to be viable.

Also Tom, at the moment the UK's armed forces are undergoing a reshaping, so to be honest i expect us to be quite open for the next several years more at least in terms of capability. Have a look at this thread, My op there should help things out, and the discussion highlighted some of the pros and cons of the UK's future system. I do apologize for not posting the sources here again, but i think it might be slight overkill to ram my sources down peoples throats!

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-a-costly-mess

But in essence modern naval operations are far different to those seemingly highlighted in the article. On a war footing, (where usually their are global exchanges in intelligence as well as various diplomatic signs) i doubt a ship would even be scrambled, it would either be Aircraft (faster reaction times) or indeed missiles.

Also the article again doesn't take into account really that the Navy is undergoing a restructuring (rightly or wrongly in it's said directional doctrine). Their are only 6 Type 45 Destroyers (the current workhouse of the British Navy until the Global Combat Ship comes into service- they'll be 12 of these) to cover all of Britain's global commitments. The possibility of a Black Swan class sloop of war (40 may be built if it goes ahead) as a multi-role patrol vessel. It will at least give the UK the numbers to be able to intervene in these diplomatic testing situations. I think the idea here is to have a comparative counter...though i still would ask why send a Destroyer as our envoy/counter to a Russian Cruiser- the answer, because it's a merely a show of 'we know your there' diplomacy. Fighters could have made it in a far shorter time, but don't really have the same impact.

If USA and France did not help and it was Russia v UK how could the UK destroy Russia.They do not have long range nukes do they.If you struck 1st they would be dead.

The UK does have it's own nuclear deterrent Tom yes. It's not stuck in a land based launch system, thus even if struck first, we still have the capability to hit back. As i said, it's not Nukes, but the thread of being hit back that stop states using them

The article is full of inaccuracies. For example, the article claims that, "budget cutbacks mean there are no maritime patrol vessels sailing off Scotland." This is untrue. Marine Scotland has three ships who provide maritime patrol in Scottish waters. Until the SNP came to power in 2007 it was common for the RN to have ships working with Marine Scotland, but the SNP - being the total idiots that they are - started throughing tantrums whenever a RN ship patrolled through Scottish waters. The SNP pretty much told the RN that they weren't needed and they should stay away.

Indeed my friend. If only the Independence thread was still active... this would highlight potentially again how SNP policy is messing with Scottish and the UK's defense.

[Kirila the Kitten]

Yay finally!
*grabs popcorn*
I was getting bored here. Didn't have some fun since the Irak war.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Very lazy for the ship to take 24 hrs to respond.A Christmas hangover,.I am sure Russia could have blown most jets from the sky.I have done this in Civ 5.

Budget cuts are destroying the army.With Argentina and Spain wanting land back these cuts cant be done.Now we have Russia mocking and testing response times.
Is this Russias way of saying keep away from Syria and Ukraine Cameron

[Condottiere 40K]

The question is what the Russians were trying to prove, because an actual military confrontation with the UK, win or lose, would damage the Russians critically.

Descriptively, it looks like a tongue in cheek power projection.

As far as I can tell, the Russians are prioritizing their Army improvement and reform, and that's costing them (not including graft and wastage) a mint. The Georgians, if they had been better trained and equipped could have handed Putin his ass, and he would have been forced to mobilize another Corps to avoid complete embarrassment.

The Russian Navy has complete squadrons just rusting away at their berthings, a carrier that has to be accompanied by tugs just in case it breaks down, and submarines that you're never quite sure will come back up when they go down.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

How much does Salmond hate being part of the UK.He could be helping the Russians.

Sending a fully armed ship like that is threatening.But we saw the same thing with USA and China in another thread and it took the Chinese no time at all to intercept.

[Rootsie]

Sending a fully armed ship like that is threatening.But we saw the same thing with USA and China in another thread and it took the Chinese no time at all to intercept.

The situation between China and the US is much more charged than the situation between the UK and Russia.

[Condottiere 40K]

Maybe Putin plans to send troops to support the Scottish War of Independence; or perhaps the fate of Marie Antoinette may make him reconsider.

[YuriVII]

Was Russia trying to prove anything? I am not a naval expert but that hull looks like a Kirov. Maybe Sovremenny class desroyer. Point is, there are no hulls like that based in Petersburg or Kaliningrad AFIK so it must have come from Murmansk. If that is the case than any routine sea patrol like the blog posted earlier said would pass by the UK. Really it sounds like a naval patrol with no attached message to it. UK and Russia don't seem to have any international problems with each-other since parliament went nuts about Syria and UK does not seem active at all in the Ukrainian crisis. That's more Germany and Poland's deal.


I think you can chalk this all up to the sensationalist British press doing what they do best.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Was Russia trying to prove anything? I am not a naval expert but that hull looks like a Kirov. Maybe Sovremenny class desroyer. Point is, there are no hulls like that based in Petersburg or Kaliningrad AFIK so it must have come from Murmansk. If that is the case than any routine sea patrol like the blog posted earlier said would pass by the UK. Really it sounds like a naval patrol with no attached message to it. UK and Russia don't seem to have any international problems with each-other since parliament went nuts about Syria and UK does not seem active at all in the Ukrainian crisis. That's more Germany and Poland's deal.


I think you can chalk this all up to the sensationalist British press doing what they do best.

Looking at the current evidence i think your quite right indeed in your assumptions. Though i would add a routine patrol, which used the opportunity to power-play with the UK on a small scale basis. Remember Russian fighters fly into the UK's airspace over Scotland every few years in much the same manner.

One of such incidents:
http://defensetech.org/2010/03/25/ru...over-scotland/

But beyond this, it's not the same scale at all of the US and China. It's more just what Russia does (Many states do the same) when wishing to put forward a show of force on a small scale, enough to make a small diplomatic point, but not nearly enough to start any escalation of political or indeed military rhetoric.

[Pielstick]

Sensationalist crap from the Daily Mail.

Exactly the same thing happened in December 2011. And December 2008. And December 2005. I know because I was on one of the ships sent to meet them. The vessels are tracked by NATO and shadowed by each NATO navy before being handed off to the next navy.

If the Russians have got anything to be worried about, it's not what the RN has got on the water, it's what they've got under the water

There was one awesome comment on the Daily Mail website though - a reader asked if Keith Vaz was there to greet the Russians.

[caratacus]

Sensationalist crap from the Daily Mail.

Exactly the same thing happened in December 2011. And December 2008. And December 2005. I know because I was on one of the ships sent to meet them. The vessels are tracked by NATO and shadowed by each NATO navy before being handed off to the next navy.

If the Russians have got anything to be worried about, it's not what the RN has got on the water, it's what they've got under the water

There was one awesome comment on the Daily Mail website though - a reader asked if Keith Vaz was there to greet the Russians.

Except this is not the Cold War anymore and the British taxpayer hasn't got the money for the Royal Navy to play silly buggers following foreign naval vessels around the coast who shouldn't be there. If this Russian war ship did enter British territorial waters without authorisation, that is a serious transgression of sovereignty and should at least warrant a diplomatic reprimand unless an apology was forthcoming. As far as I am aware, relations between Russia and Great Britain are in fairly good order at present. But if Mr Putin doesn't keep a tight grip on his naval command and escapades like this continue, then that situation will change very rapidly.