It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia Eyes New Aircraft Carriers Next Decade

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
This is just talking. Russia will never build 2 carriers for their navy. Their priorities are:
1. Army reform
2. NUkes
3. Space
4. Air Force
5. Submarines
6. Ships
7. Carriers

As you see there is a lot of things to do, until they produce aircraft carriers. They had almost zero carrier force during Cold War, when they were superpower, so why do you think they would build CBG now? And please stop talking how econimically powerfull russians are. Their economy is better than years before,but it's definitely not what's considered 1st world economy. What do they produce? Just minerals and remains of their Soviet era military&space tech. Over 80% Russsian exports are minerals and raw materials, nothing else.
And considering russian science - most of their scientists are not in Russia anymore. They work for Lockheed, Boeing and Microsoft.




posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Senor Freebie

As for Europe, yes they will be a very different place in years to come. ......

Eastern Europe will be a weird mix of CIA puppet governments, recovered democratic socialist nations and pro Moscow governments. The latter 2 will be deciding their own fate for the first time in probably more then 60 years.


Like the Ukraine right now eh.

The heavy handedness of Putin is displaying in Eastern Europe is really more suited for the the 1950'S rather than now. Russia is wanting to flex it's muscle again on the world stage only to find that it is a out of shape old man with clogged arteries, unable to do what it once could.

Where is the Warsaw Pact when you need it? Most of Russia's former eastern european allies are still worried about it's intentions and Russia isn't doing anything to make them feel at ease.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Ahh.. Then I guess we'll buy em'!!

That'll take our carrier count at that time to 3+ whatever we buy!
The Indian Ocean is ours!!!
Wuahahahahaha



posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
People frequently and mistakingly predict the future as a straight line extension of the present, but some stark facts remain.

* Russia has a declining population. The birth rate is well below replacement; there is still time to arrest this situation but it grows short.
* Russia has a GDP smaller than California
* Russia might as well be run by organized crime.

None of the above facts bode well for a country that wishes to be a force on the world stage.

* America has the largest, most productive and competitive economy on earth.
* At the hight of the cold war, the USSR was devoting as much as %50 of her GDP to defense spending. One can only imagine it's gone down significantly since then. In contrast even though the US spends more on defense then the next ten or so countries combined, it amounts to less the %5 of US GDP.
* While the debt and deficit are large in dollar terms are large as a percentage of GDP they are historically small and manageable.
The most alarming thing on the horizon for the US economy is Social Security / Medicaid liabilities. However this will be managed by increasing the retirement age and means testing benefits.

Fifty years from now America will still be the world's sole superpower. Deal with it.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Since most of the naval powers have carriers to their fleets, it makes sence for Russia to build them too. Spain has them as does Italy. France has bigger carriers and UK is planning even bigger carriers. China may well have carriers soon and India has had carriers since the 1960s. I understand some other countries in Pacific Rim are also considering Carriers including Japan. Its getting to be sheer folly to consider a naval force without carrier air cover....like it or not Russia needs carries and they have had several since the 1970s.

Deal with it.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I'm not saying they don't have a right to build carriers, just that the money could be better used for different things in their military. If they want to splurge and buy carriers so be it.

There seem to be much higher priorities that would have a better pay off in regards to actual military situations than building a couple of carriers.

The Russian Military is a land based force that still hasn't adjusted post Soviet Union and its navy primarly a coastal defense one. I just think the money could be better utilized for other projects.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I am sorry, but I find it hard to believe that aircraft carriers would be used for coastal defence-as some have suggested.

In my opinion, they are clearly for projecting influence (a politically correct term for military power).

Nothing like having 40-50 Russian fighters to influence most countries minds.

My question is which ones(countries). Maybe ones in the middle east? Maybe in defence of a country in the middle east. Maybe to stand up to a us battlegroup?

Now, being a nationalist American, I feel it would not be able to take on an entire US battle Group. Now if we go with that idea just for a second, we get interesting possibilities.

What if the US wanted to "influence" a country that was allied with Russia? Nogociations fail and a US battle group is sent to "Influence" the situation. What would happen if there was a Russian carrier/battle group sitting there protecting the country.

It would not matter who could win that battle, it would lead to all out war between the US and Russia-something I think/hope/pray the US really doesn't want.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Since Russia considers Sea of Japan; Baltic ; Sea of Murmansk and Black Sea as immediate back yard , while mediterainan/North sea & related seas in the pacific are seen as strategic seas ...then you must study Navies in these areas.All these areas have nations now fielding or planning on fielding carriers. So if Russia wishs to hold command of them or supply influence, they must have credible force which usually means navies [which means Carriers]. Land based patrol planes can always help, but its hard to extend fleet fighter patrols over large seas efficently. Makes more sence to use carriers.

Besides whos to say 20 years from now China India and Russia see a vested interest in combined security policies. Combined naval actions can play a big role there.The side with the biggest navy may well dictate what happens. Not every thing in the world evolves around America
and every country has a right to pursuit its own foreign and security policy

[edit on 8-1-2006 by psteel]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   


I am sorry, but I find it hard to believe that aircraft carriers would be used for coastal defence-as some have suggested.


Kuznetzov and her predecessors were actually not designed with power projection in mind. Or coastal defense. Apparently they were originally desiged to be tasked with protecting Russian "boomer bastions" (SSBN patrol areas) in the Barents Sea. Their job was to provide AAW, ASuW, and ASW cover for the missile subs in time of war.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Kuznetzov and her predecessors were actually not designed with power projection in mind. Or coastal defense. Apparently they were originally desiged to be tasked with protecting Russian "boomer bastions" (SSBN patrol areas) in the Barents Sea. Their job was to provide AAW, ASuW, and ASW cover for the missile subs in time of war.




That is pretty much what i would have said if asked. If Russia chooses to build true-blue fleet carriers i would be quite suprised as i just do not see their current of future need for those. They are in my opinion allready deploying very effective space based weapon systems so this must probably have something to do with replacing their current anti submarine helicopter carriers with dual use flight decks that could form the basis of a future carrier force while still being able to deploy large numbers of helicopters. Having said that i'm still not sure as you simply wont need such massive platforms for the Ucav's that will probably be serving the future fleets of the world.

Anyways!



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElTiante

Allow me to explain the real world to you. Russia is dying. Alcoholism is rampant, AIDs cases are exploding and life expectancy and birth rates are in decline. Russia will be a far, far different place (along with lots of Europe) in 50 years. The last thing Russia should be doing is building aircraft carriers.

The only people having children in Russia are the ones who kneel on a rug and pray five times a day. And if their recent behavior is any guide; they want the rest of Russia dead.




Allow me bring the truth in front of you.Some of the datas that you have posted are true ....But let me Add to this ..... they are Propaganda motivated One Side of the truth ........ The western /US media sources that give you these information will always project all possible drawbacks of Russia but will intellegently hide her progress.

They will tell you that the population is declining, corruption is everywhere, blah blah blah but will never tell you the other part of the truth ....they will never tell you these conditions were there and were even worse during the USSR the only difference is that during the USSR the government never brought out the truth but now the Government is slowly but steadyly changing the policy

When it comes to Russia western news sources have a propaganda of potraying in what a bad condition it is so let me address you some of the media myths



""""the general condition""""
instead of making your own assumption about Russia ask the Russians about it . 80% of the Russians will say that their country is better now that it was during the soviet Union .

The ones who tell that the soviet union was better than today have one thing in common they made an assumption that the state will provide them everying for free as it used to do during the soviet times and were never ready work hard for their own ....there is one more class who are unhappy with todays situation ....the old pensioners who with their limited pensions and facilities see it really tough to survive in this new world of competition
but this accounts to only 20% of the population the rest are acctually making good use of the new world ..Today Russia is a land of oppurtunities for any hard workibg fellow (a fact proven by record Investments)

..ask this question to anyone who had been to Russia both in 1990s and 2000 you will get the real picture



"about wealth being concentrated in the cities and rural areas are really poor "

this media propaganda is true(as it is in many cother rich country) but the media cleaverly hides the other half of the truth :::80% of the russians live in the cities (mainly due to climate ) ...and go to their dachas(villages) during their vacations.... the rest who live in the villages are the ones (mostly alcoholics ) who have failed in this new form of struggle for exsistance




"""about the decling Population, life expetancy and health care quality "

me being a medical student can tell you the best about this issue ...the fact is that the medical facilities are actually improving in a great pace only it will take time for the results to take place ...patients today get much better and modern care than they used to get douring the soviet times ...only the diffrence is that during the soviet docs and patients were made to believe by the state that these are the best facilities available in the world ...but now we know that there is better facility available in some other rich countries ....i donno if you have go me or not..its a complex issue





"some facts that are always intellegently hidden by the media"
In today in Russia Health care and Education are 100% FREE .
Electricity, Gas ,telephone ,water etc are almost free ......I have seen any other developed country where the govern offers such facilities to her citizens ........in this issue the situation of USA is worse (thats what I saw when I was in Philadelphia)




"about the diffrences in wealth between the rich and the poor""

the US is in a worse condition in this isssue too as copmpared to Russia ...the US Gini index is approx 45 (source CIA) compared to Russia's 37 (another media propaganda )


In the whole post I just want to pin point in one view ...today Russia is under a big change from communism to capitalism and is facing the same problems which any country faces on the eve of a socio-politico-economic change ....I never say that everythin is ok but I rather say that everything is approching towards ok .its only a matter of time ..a fact that is always delibarately kept unnoticed by the western media because they dont want a strong Russia to emerge for their own selfish interests . And the most rediculous fact is the same media speaks about China(GDP per capita 4500$ approx) and India(GDP per capita 2500 approx ) to be the most rising economies. rediculously China and India have a per capita income of half and one fourth than that of Russia (GDP per capita 12000 approx)

...explaining these in details is beyond my time limits so I will rather invite you to visit AND STUDY the country yourself instead of being driven by all those media propagandas

And one more request if you are open to productive discussion you are always invited ...but please for God's sake No blind ended Debates...I am fed up with the unproductive debates ..quite popular in this forum (in many of which I had been also a part )
And atlast sorry for the my poor english...its not my mother tongue




[edit on 11-1-2006 by prelude]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Nice post prelude!

Glad to hear some things are going in the right direction. How do you feel about some of the freedom of the press and election issuses that have cropped up lately?



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
alright prelude it was intresting but let me hit you with some facts

1. did you even mention carriers if you havent noticed ...thats the subject of the thred

2. no kidding media is full of propaganda but i bet you yours is just as full of crap as ours b/c that is part of how a goverment keeps its power. if you realy beleve yours is free of it you have been influinced far more than you think by it and have lost your abilaty to think for your self(no ofence)

3. if you are better off now then you where in the cold war honestly i dont care b/c the russian fleet is pathetic(no ofence)

4. i would love to see russia come with a new carrier but they wont use it and let it rust like there nice nuke powerd subs that just sit there

5. it is no hidden fact that russia is going or has gone as you claim through some tough times there are so many better things to spend that kinda money on.

if you wish to contest this you can allways U2U me insted of mucking up this thred



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Anybody who wants to have a say in world matters will at some stage need to have a carrier force. Frozen ports and all that stuff is irrelevant. Russia needs carriers and its good to see them increasing their carrier force.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Russia needs carriers and its good to see them increasing their carrier force.


It good to seem them planning to increase their carrier force, If and once they actually build the carriers then your statement would be correct


[edit on 11-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Last time the Russian carrier ventured out of port they tried limited flight ops and STILL managed to lose one of their fighters in an accident.

I think they need a functional military and surface warfare navy first, THEN try the tricky stuff(subs and carriers). You need to train hard with subs and carriers just to keep from killing yourself puttering around, much less trying to fight a battle.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Aircraft carriers are not turn-key operations. The US Navy has 50+ years of operating jet aircraft at sea and that institutional knowledge will not come quickly or easily to other countries.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:12 AM
link   
A couple of Sunburn or similar cruise missiles hitting any big carrier from any country and carriers may go the way of the battleship. Carriers may prove vulnerable to such weapons which a number of navies now possess and they haven't been seriously challenged since WW2 ended.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ORIEguy
Last time the Russian carrier ventured out of port they tried limited flight ops and STILL managed to lose one of their fighters in an accident.


The USN lost hundreds of planes due to accidents/wear&tear over the last few decades ( If not thousands) and to think that the Soviet Union could somehow do better with only one carrier is rather biased imo.


I think they need a functional military and surface warfare navy first, THEN try the tricky stuff(subs and carriers).


They have built as much if not more nuclear powered submarines than the US so their not bad at it.


You need to train hard with subs and carriers just to keep from killing yourself puttering around, much less trying to fight a battle.


I think you should consider doing abit more reading before deciding wich countries could fight with what and how.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by ORIEguy
Last time the Russian carrier ventured out of port they tried limited flight ops and STILL managed to lose one of their fighters in an accident.


The USN lost hundreds of planes due to accidents/wear&tear over the last few decades ( If not thousands) and to think that the Soviet Union could somehow do better with only one carrier is rather biased imo.


I think they need a functional military and surface warfare navy first, THEN try the tricky stuff(subs and carriers).


They have built as much if not more nuclear powered submarines than the US so their not bad at it.


You need to train hard with subs and carriers just to keep from killing yourself puttering around, much less trying to fight a battle.


I think you should consider doing abit more reading before deciding wich countries could fight with what and how.

Stellar


OK so what makes you so qualified? Years of experience as a...?

I never said they couldn't build the damn things, I said it's dangerous enough to operate them and that they're not experienced enough to do it right now.

Yeah we've lost in the low hundreds, nowhere near thousands. If you're considering pre-angled deck, or shootdowns/training mishaps this discussion is pointless.

Per hours flown, the USN has a good safety record. No $hit you lose more over a few DECADES of flight ops with TWELVE CSFs with LARGER CVWs, deploying regularly as opposed to ONE CSF, deploying only when they need a national pick me up on the news. Oh...night landings. The Russians didn't do those either.

They have too much excess. They have some good units, and plenty of terrible ones. They need to slim down and organize their civilian and military bureaucracy first to support the warfighters worth supporting in a logical way. This is something even they admit to.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join