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.

 

Russian and USA Navy Today

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
How does the Russian and US Navys Compaire Today
How many ships , aircaft, etc
PS BY today I Mean 06 not 05




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I'm afraid there's really not very much to compare. At the end of the eighties, just before the breakup of the Soviet Union, a reasonable argement could be made they were on even grounds. (Though I like to think the U.S. Navy would've been at some advantage, while in WW3 the Soviet Navy would've had a home field advantage)

Since then though, The U.S.Navy has continued to update and refit it's ships, as well as building new, modern ships while decommisioning older vessels. However, during this time the Russian navy has had very few funds for new construction, or even operating or maintaining the ships they had. A few prised vessels have been kept in relatively decent condition, ensuring that the Russian navy is more powerful than most other would be contenders, however, it is now far behind the U.S.Navy in terms of ship numbers, classes, readiness, and modernisation. To be fair though, due to the end of the cold war, even the U.S.Navy has cut back on new aquisitions, and spare parts inventories, which most directly affects numbers and readiness. (though to a far lesser degree than our Russian counterparts.)



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
russian navy = rusted old ships barely able to stay afloat
us navy = state of the art equipment

easy



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
russian navy = rusted old ships barely able to stay afloat
us navy = state of the art equipment

easy



Any proof ? Then stop the bs!

And you call that rusted old ships barely able to stay afloat





[edit on 24-2-2006 by Russian Boy]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
i1.tinypic.com...

i1.tinypic.com...


mod edit: Please keep all images under the size: 680x680

How to resize an image (review link)
ATTN: Image Size Guidelines (review link)

[edit on 6-3-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian Boy
i1.tinypic.com...

i1.tinypic.com...


What that

mod edit: Please don't quote large images, resize them if needed and please don't one line

How to resize an image (review link)
ATTN: Image Size Guidelines (review link)

[edit on 6-3-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Russian Boy my views are of what i read in the news


maybe not all ships are out dated and rust buckets



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
believe me russia can still pack a punch!! - if war ever broke our russia would be able to hit, and hit HARD!!

those ships are quite nice russian boy - what are they carriers for tanks and stuff??



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
The Soviet Union, due to different defence requirements wound up building around some very different stratagies from the US, especially in terms of amphibious assault. If I recall correctly, the hovercraft shown were for shore to shore landings of troops and equipment, probrably most useful in the black sea. And mere hovercraft are nothing compared to some of the other projects they had going for the same task!

Quick, somebody else slander the Russian Navy, we need Russian Boy to post more great pics!



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Sheer numbers to gauge the strength of any military has been outdated since the time of the Roman Empire.

To get any real understanding of Naval strength between the two you would need a indepth understanding of the capabilities of each ship and submarine in each Navy to go along with the numbers.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
The Russian Navy was never really able to project power like the US Navy is able to do. Today many ships in the Russian Navy have been retired and a great deal are rusting away. They do have a force, nothing comparable to the US Navy but still a force.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
If the Russians were to keep one unit of every naval vessel that was built to be exported, then they would have a formidable navy.
I tell you guys, if their economy can grow to an extent to support expansion of the armed forces, Russia's back..



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
If the Russians were to keep one unit of every naval vessel that was built to be exported, then they would have a formidable navy.


Well i think they might let the Chinese do the bleeding this time just like the west used Russia to bleed the Germans to death. I think they learnt a lesson of sorts ; "sell whatever you can and use the money to construct more huge underground cities where a good part of the Russian population can ride out the nuclear war."



I tell you guys, if their economy can grow to an extent to support expansion of the armed forces, Russia's back..


Well if you have the time i could probably prove to you that they never left and simply changed tact... The cold war never ended.

Stellar



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
The Russian Navy was never really able to project power like the US Navy is able to do.


Well you might want to go read what some US admirals and strategic planners had to say even back in the early 70's. You might be surprised to find that the SU were projecting alot of power even if most of it were not above water but under....


Today many ships in the Russian Navy have been retired and a great deal are rusting away. They do have a force, nothing comparable to the US Navy but still a force.


Well knowing the Russians ( they tend to not throw stuff away) that rust may very well be painted on just to help the Western media make everyone believe what they would like to.
If one goes by the number of ships/submarines the SU admits to operating these days you are obviously quite accurate in your assessment.

Stellar



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by jetsetter
The Russian Navy was never really able to project power like the US Navy is able to do.


Well you might want to go read what some US admirals and strategic planners had to say even back in the early 70's. You might be surprised to find that the SU were projecting alot of power even if most of it were not above water but under....


Today many ships in the Russian Navy have been retired and a great deal are rusting away. They do have a force, nothing comparable to the US Navy but still a force.


Well knowing the Russians ( they tend to not throw stuff away) that rust may very well be painted on just to help the Western media make everyone believe what they would like to.
If one goes by the number of ships/submarines the SU admits to operating these days you are obviously quite accurate in your assessment.

Stellar



Right...the Red Menace is just biding its time. Golly, can they hurry up with their upcoming international revolution already? I'm getting sick of my meaningless capitalist existence...someone please tell the Russians to hurry up!

OK but seriously, the Russians ARE letting their older ships rust...for good reason. There just isn't any point in their even keeping around older vessels, and it costs money to "properly" decommission them and take them apart...money which needs to be spent maintaining their "core" systems. The publicity shots you see are of the ships getting the maintenance.

And Stellar going by the traditional definition of power projection, the Russians have been very limited. A Cold War era surface action group has very limited capability to influence affairs ashore. That is even more true for submarines.
Which is why naval power projection usually weighs amphibious assault and aviation assets more heavily.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Here is a link from fas.org The current (2005) inventory is listed as well as links to each class of ship
www.fas.org...
Udaloy class destroyer Unti Sub
www.fas.org...
Sovremenny class destroyer Air Defence
www.fas.org...
Neustrashimyy class frigate Multirole
www.fas.org...
Krivak2 class frigate Antisub
www.fas.org...
Slava class Cruiser Multirole
www.fas.org...
www.fas.org...
Kirov class cruiser Multirole
www.fas.org...
Kuznetsov class carrier
www.fas.org...
Ropucha class Amphib 225 marines + tracks + tanks
www.fas.org...
Ivan Rogov class amphib 2500 (1 batalion of marines + 53 tanks/80 APC)
Some eye candy for everyone
enjoy



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Russian navy = lots of poorely maintained ships with a decent ammount of very well maintained ships like the Kirov class.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ORIEguy
Right...the Red Menace is just biding its time.


They were never 'red' or much of a menace considering what they were up against in American and Europe. Mabye you need to focus on how to quote before attempting more complex things such as opinions for instance?


Golly, can they hurry up with their upcoming international revolution already? I'm getting sick of my meaningless capitalist existence...someone please tell the Russians to hurry up!


Well their kinda bidding their time as the western governments are doing just fine at running their countries into the ground. No need for 'revolution' if your enemy is doing what you want anyways.


OK but seriously, the Russians ARE letting their older ships rust...for good reason.


Yeah they ARE letting many rust and selling whatever they can. Did i argue?


There just isn't any point in their even keeping around older vessels, and it costs money to "properly" decommission them and take them apart...money which needs to be spent maintaining their "core" systems. The publicity shots you see are of the ships getting the maintenance.


Yeah they are doing their best to fool us into thinking their ships are not rusting away.



And Stellar going by the traditional definition of power projection, the Russians have been very limited. A Cold War era surface action group has very limited capability to influence affairs ashore.


Well it's not hard to prove that the US battlegroup, with carrier as centerpiece, was not in fact designed to primarily fight a world war. They were designed to serve as a global police force that might have even survived a few days in a nuclear war.


That is even more true for submarines.


Since the SU wanted to win a world war wether it went nuclear or not they based their power projection on submarines which could probably best do that job.


Which is why naval power projection usually weighs amphibious assault and aviation assets more heavily.


And it did so wrongly which is why the US navy would have quickly been destroyed imo. I have at least one supporter it seems :


The most damning comment ever made by a senior officer was that of the Late CNO, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, US Navy, who in 1971 confessed that with the advent of long-range Soviet anti-ship missiles, if there had been a US-Soviet conventional naval war, the US Navy “would lose.”

www.g2mil.com...


There are many other but it's all more specifc on why US carrier task groups would not have been able to stand up to SU attack submarines.


It is also well known that the cantankerous Late Admiral Hyman Rickover, US Navy (Retired) did not think much of his own carrier-centered navy. When asked in 1982 about how long the American carriers would survive in an actual war, he curtly constated that they would be finished in approximately 48 hours.

www.g2mil.com...


Anyways.

Stellar



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
"sell whatever you can and use the money to construct more huge underground cities where a good part of the Russian population can ride out the nuclear war."


i doubt that Russia would let any Civ's into it tbh



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrimalDeaf
i doubt that Russia would let any Civ's into it tbh


"The Stockpiling of Food During an Alleged “Famine”. In 1997 “Ambasssador Richard Star, atop Reagan administration arms control expert, writing in the Wall Street Journal, said that Russia had stockpiled some 362 million metric tons of wheat. (One economist calculated this was enough to feedthe entire population of the former Soviet Union for three years.)”

I would credit the source but i dont atm remember where i copied it from. Feel free to check it out if you like.

Stellar




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join