Frigate Admiral Makarov To Join Russian Naval Group In Eastern Mediterranean

but this overrated army defeated ruskies in afghanistan, cold war and in all ME wars.

Israel was very close to using nukes in 73 according to what appear to be credible reports and FOI releases. Russia doesn’t have to use strategic nukes and totally anialate Israel if the circumstances don’t warrant it. They may use tactical nukes. And that ship may have one or both on board as a deterrent to both Israel and NATO interference and intimidation attempts.

Russia has a wide variety of delivery options, one or two nukes in case of a strike may not be enough. In 1973 Israel was fighting Egypt and Syria, had they used nuclear weapons it would have been a desperation move they could have gotten away with, since Russia was fed up with Sadat’s ineptitude and neediness.

That region is full of NATO and Israeli nukes. I doubt that Russia is sending large warships into the region without them in case they’re needed, at a minimum as a deterrent, as well as actually using them if they have to.

I do not know where you get the idea that NATO has nukes around Syria, US has a handful of old B61 gravity bombs deployed in several locations in Europe, that are being currently modernized and the closest proximity of those weapons to Syria was Incirlik air base many years ago when US-Turkish relations were cordial. As far as France or England, they have some pathetic SOF groupings, and having tactical nuclear weapons outside of their countries is highly unlikely. As far as naval deployment of nuclear weapons, yes, most likely on a flagship which is normally a capital ship leading a task force of smaller ships, and submarines.

If you don’t think that NATO and Israel have nukes throughout the middle east, then you’re very mistaken. NATO battle groups are throughout the region on a regular basis, there are land based nukes in at least 4 locations in the Mediterranean alone, including Italy, France, Turkey and Israel. And what aircraft have them is anybody’s guess.

One of the primary functions of an advanced Russian missile frigate operating in a nuclear theater is to provide nuclear capabilities. The current conflict in Syria meets all of the criteria for a ship like this to have nukes on board.

You are entitled to your opinions, my position is that Russia has ample standoff capabilities to deliver nuclear weapons anywhere in the Mediterranean basin, above water and below water, with ease and efficiency without the need to burden a conventional frigate with nuclear weapons.

First you foolishly denied that Israel and NATO had a lot of nukes in the area. And when I disproved that you try to imply that this ship is a conventional, not a nuclear weapons platform, when obviously it’s both. It’s not a conventional frigate. It’s a state of the art ship built around dual use conventional and nuclear weapons missiles. And it’s no less of a stand off platform than other systems in theater.

“””First you foolishly denied that Israel and NATO had a lot of nukes in the area.”””

Your assessments are foolish, I know Israel has nukes within Israel proper, as far as Europe, go read my posts, please tell me what locations is the B61 gravity nuclear bomb are stored? How do you know what nuclear weapons the US, France and U.K. have in the area? The number of tactical nuclear weapons for France and U.K. is rather limited, US’s stockpile was reduced and old. The only nuclear warheads on US weapons deployed in the area is on the Tomahawk and some B61 bombs.

“””A project 11356 frigate is truly multipurpose and capable of accomplishing almost any combat task in its operational theater.”””

Accomplishing almost any combat task pertains being able to engage any peer class ships of similar tonnage or higher and defeat it; with Kalibr missiles it can engage ground targets . The Grigorovich and Gorshkov class frigates are intended to engage Arleigh Burke destroyers and defeat them. Conventional weapons are designated for conventional purposes, Soviet doctrine of attacking US carrier task forces with nuclear weapons entailed use of bombers with long range standoff weapons.

My assessments aren’t foolish, your’s are. You’re the one who doesn’t know what types of nukes are deployed in the area. The fact is that at least 4 permanent land based locations in the Mediterranean alone, Italy, France, Turkey and Israel, and there may be more that have nukes. When you add in naval, including carriers and subs, and aircraft. It’s clear that there a lot of nukes in the area.

“Five non-nuclear NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey) still host U.S. nuclear weapons”

– Estimated Nuclear Weapons Locations –

https://fas.org/blogs/security/2009/11/locations/

As far as the frigate goes, I’m sure that it’s designed to carry nukes on as an needed basis. Because the missiles that it’s carrying are nuke capable. And it was designed from it’s inception as a multi role land, sea and air weapons platform. As the article that I quoted and others clearly illustrate.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9022166464e7db1f2b9df96d4b7526d4f3cd4103531f3909eb9ffc859b7b1042.png

– 3M-54 Kalibr –

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr

I am aware of what tactical nukes US navy possesses, they are on Tomahawk cruise missiles and older Asroc anti submarine missile. Nothing else. The B61 bombs store in Europe are for NATO use, in Europe not ME. Yes I make an intelligent assumption saying the French and U.K. tactical nuclear weapons are in secure locations within their country. The frigate in question is a ship to counter other frigates and destroyers for brown or blue water engagements, it is a conventional weapon designed for a conventional use. Yes it carries Kalibr that can carry a nuclear warhead, however, tactical nuclear weapons are not front line deployments, they are positioned in an echeloned depth within a secure defense perimeter.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with Russian nuclear doctrine and capabilities as it relates to the Syrian conflict:

“Its current military strategy, published in December 2014, says that Russia “shall reserve for itself the right to employ nuclear weapons in response to the use against it and/or its allies of nuclear and other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, as well as in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with use of conventional weapons when the state’s very existence has been threatened” …

We estimate that Russia has a little over 1,800 non-strategic nuclear warheads assigned for delivery by air, naval, ground, and various defensive forces.9 9. Russia is also adding conventional cruise missiles to its bomber fleet, a capability that was showcased in September 2015 when Tu-160 and Tu-95MS bombers launched several long-range conventional kh-555 and kh-101 cruise missiles against targets in Syria. New storage facilities have been added to Russia’s bomber bases over the past few years that might be related to the introduction of conventional cruise missiles. View all notes This estimate, and the categories of Russian weapons we have been describing in the Nuclear Notebook for years, were confirmed by the Nuclear Posture Review, which stated:

“Russia is modernizing an active stockpile of up to 2,000 non-strategic nuclear weapons, including those employable by ships, planes, and ground forces. These include air-to-surface missiles, short range ballistic missiles, gravity bombs, and depth charges for medium-range bombers, tactical bombers, and naval aviation, as well as anti-ship, anti-submarine, and anti-aircraft missiles and torpedoes for surface ships and submarines, a nuclear ground-launched cruise missile in violation of the 1987 INF Treaty, and Moscow’s antiballistic missile system” (US Defense Department 2018 US Defense Department, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review. Accessed February 2018. https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF [Google Scholar] , 53).

The Nuclear Posture Review also says:

“Russia possesses significant advantages in its nuclear weapons production capacity and in non-strategic nuclear forces over the U.S. and allies. It is also building a large, diverse, and modern set of non-strategic systems that are dual-capable (may be armed with nuclear or conventional weapons). These theater- and tactical-range systems are not accountable under the New START Treaty and Russia’s non-strategic nuclear weapons modernization is increasing the total number of such weapons in its arsenal, while significantly improving its delivery capabilities. This includes the production, possession, and flight testing of a ground-launched cruise missile in violation of the INF Treaty. Moscow believes these systems may provide useful options for escalation advantage. Finally, despite Moscow’s frequent criticism of U.S. missile defense, Russia is also modernizing its long-standing nuclear-armed ballistic missile defense system and designing a new ballistic missile defense interceptor” (US Defense Department 2018 US Defense Department, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review. Accessed February 2018. https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF [Google Scholar] , 9).”

– Russian nuclear forces, 2018 –

I am familiar with the Russian nuclear doctrine, it is valid only for direct agreesion of any kind against Russia, especially tailored against NATO’s eastward expansion.

What I’ve quoted doesn’t support that, or your other contentions, and it comes directly from Russian government policy statements.

Israel has no sampson option as they are all cowards. If they all die they would no longer have the pleasure of all their Goyim slaves.

Russia should never have destroyed its old nuclear warheads as the Zio USSA has broken every treaty it has ever signed. This is why there is such a great chance of Jewish initiated nuclear war today as the Zio USSA thinks they can intercept or destroy on the ground 1700 nuclear warheads. Russia needs to get back to at least 30,000 warheads (better to go over 50,000 again), then let the racist supremacist Jewish Nazis try to intercept that many nuclear warheads.

Ships should carry medium range, intercontinental and tactical nuclear weapons. Russia needs to deploy its nukes in Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua etc., and in the southern oceans, basically all over the planet, then no Zio first strike.

The Zios at present do not have a first strike capability with a triad that is old and overrated. Their ability to launch a first strike attack is going to diminish even more as Russia will deploy the S500 and the Nudol antiballistic defense systems, that will intercept a lot of SLBMs at their early launch stage and ICBMs at their terminal stages. These anti ballistic missiles will be complemented by over 1400 S400 launchers deployed all over Russia capable of intercepting MIRVS at their terminal stages.

I am sure the US military is aware of these realities, and if the zio arm chair warriors want to start a nuclear war to satisfy their delusions, the military would in my opinion refuse to implement the strike that will lead to national suicide.

Russia does not need to deploy weapons in the Western Hemisphere or elsewhere, they have the weapons and technology that gives them a distinct advantage over any enemy from within Russia.

Its better not to go with the bear minimum for defense. Nukes are cheap compared to large non nuclear forces. The more nukes can be spread around in large numbers the less the chance of any stupid first strike attempt.