Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Belgorod can carry up to six nuclear torpedoes that can be guided. The Tsar Bomb is nothing compared to the destruction these Torpedoes would cause on an island or coastal city. Good luck tryint to intercept a torpedo beneath 1000 meters at over 70 knots.Do you have any idea how many missiles it would take to carry warheads of that size?
Tsar Bomba was only 58 megatons. The Belgorod would have to be able to produce almost 3500 times that much explosive power. You are talking out of your ass, as per usual!
The Belgorod can carry up to six nuclear torpedoes that can be guided. The Tsar Bomb is nothing compared to the destruction these Torpedoes would cause on an island or coastal city. Good luck tryint to intercept a torpedo beneath 1000 meters at over 70 knots.
The Belgorod has already been build and is undergoing trials. The Sarmat 2 has already been tested and could reach from one end of Russia the other end in a few minutes.Why do you keep harping and bragging about a weapon that you cannot even prove exists? That's awfully lame.
Even if it did exist, intercepting a torpedo even one swimming along at 70 knots represents no real technical challenge.
Paper tiger? Says the army that lost to Guerillas in Vietnam, Afghanistan and now in Syria and Yemen.
If nuking the US into oblivion means getting russia destroyed, im all with you. Someone has to end this cycle once and for all.
"Ukraine" was never theirs to beginn with, it was merely a gift to them. Russia is taking back what was rightfully hers.You're pitiful. Why does Russia want Ukraine?
"Ukraine" was never theirs to beginn with, it was merely a gift to them. Russia is taking back what was rightfully hers.
Question is: What does the US want in Syria, Northern Cyprus, Lybia and Yemen?
Yet US troops are stationed there.The US had no designs on those countries. Don't you know anything about the. Middle East and North Africa?
Nope.Yet US troops are stationed there.
The Sarmat 2 has already been tested and could reach from one end of Russia the other end in a few minutes.
The Belgorod has already been build and is undergoing trials.
You are depending on a thirty year old hull designed by communist engineers that couldn't come close to matching the US designers. Halfway built, then left to rust in a essentially abandoned shipyard for over twenty five years. It's hoped to be commissioned late this year. The weapon is vaporware touted by Russian propaganda outlets that is supposed to contaminate areas with cobalt. The sub failed sea trials and had to go back to the builders yard to be reworked. It's also essentially the same boat as the Kursk which managed to sink itself and kill it's crew. It's all propaganda.Here you go stupid English. You were in the Navy, rtight? You should know better.
Russian submarine Belgorod (K-329) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System - Wikipedia
RS-28 Sarmat - Wikipedia
That missile is a LAND BASED missile, that is liquid fueled. Liquid fueled ICBMs are an obsolete tech, they can't be kept fueled because the fuel is corrosive and destroys the missile.Here you go stupid English. You were in the Navy, rtight? You should know better.
Russian submarine Belgorod (K-329) - Wikipedia
Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System - Wikipedia
RS-28 Sarmat - Wikipedia
You are ignoring the minor fact that every one of your cheap, mass produced tanks that is destroyed kills a valuable, hard to replace three or four man crew. You can't replace killed infantrymen, tank crews are harder to replace than cannon fodder draftee infantrymen. Since you are embargoed, you can't build tanks more sophisticated than WWII T-34s or IS IIIs since your electronics uses foreign components that you can't produce. The tanks you have are communist designed garbage and your ballyhooed T-14 Armata can't be produced.We can keep producing more tanks and better ones as well. Thats how Russia won WW2 against the Nazis who had superior tanks. They just need to be good enough to defeat their targets and cheap enough to mass produce. Russia has the resources to do so. Can you mass produce your destroyed abram tanks? I think not since your manufacturing slumped greatly.
Name me a single battle the US lost in either Vietnam, or Afghanistan. There weren't any. We defeated Iraq twice in days. We don't have a single man fighting in Syria or Yemen. Don't confuse lack of will in our political leaders with our military capabilities.Paper tiger? Says the army that lost to Guerillas in Vietnam, Afghanistan and now in Syria and Yemen.
If nuking the US into oblivion means getting russia destroyed, im all with you. Someone has to end this cycle once and for all.
Are you seriously using a government propaganda mill for a source?That is nothing compared to the Casualties Russia inflicts on Ukraine.
Intel Slava Z
Intel slava is a Russian News aggregator who covers Conflicts/Geopolitics and urgent news from around the world. For feedback and business enquiries @IntelSlavaFeedbackBott.me
Why did you leave Vietnam and Afghanistan then if it worked out so well for you?Name me a single battle the US lost in either Vietnam, or Afghanistan. There weren't any. We defeated Iraq twice in days. We don't have a single man fighting in Syria or Yemen. Don't confuse lack of will in our political leaders with our military capabilities.
Russia has plenty of qualified tankers in her arsel, Ukraine however, not many. Thats why they can only drive obsolete cold war era trash that breaks down with a single use. Manpower and resources have always been on Russias side, assuming toherwise is just folly.You are ignoring the minor fact that every one of your cheap, mass produced tanks that is destroyed kills a valuable, hard to replace three or four man crew. You can't replace killed infantrymen, tank crews are harder to replace than cannon fodder draftee infantrymen. Since you are embargoed, you can't build tanks more sophisticated than WWII T-34s or IS IIIs since your electronics uses foreign components that you can't produce. The tanks you have are communist designed garbage and your ballyhooed T-14 Armata can't be produced.
Why did you leave Vietnam and Afghanistan then if it worked out so well for you?
The missiles has already been sucessfully tested. Unlike your regular ICBM, this thing glides, which makes it unpredicatble. Even your own government admitted it has no means to intercept these missiles.That missile is a LAND BASED missile, that is liquid fueled. Liquid fueled ICBMs are an obsolete tech, they can't be kept fueled because the fuel is corrosive and destroys the missile.
Only Russian backed government lasted 7 years, yours only lasted 2 weeks.Same reason Russia left Afghanistan.
