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 Carrier Group Heads for Mediterranean!

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I am in the opinion that it is for Kosovo AND Iran. Putin has already stated that "any attack on Iran will be veiwed as an attack on Moscow"

Also, to imply that Russia is having a hard time paying for these new military actions is to greatly underestimate the amount of money Russia is making from the sale of Oil, natural gas, and various other forms of energy. Russia is worried because the maniacs in the Fedgov are doing their best to pen them in and make them submit. Russia is standing up to globalism and I salute them . Hopefully the American people will figure it out and stand up to our corrupt Government before "They" start another war.

Also, does anyone know what kind of carriers the Russians are using or what their complement is. Or where I can find this info. Checked Wiki but was not satisfied with the answer.

Also, does anyone else think that this Russian group vs. Truman group would be "Mutually Assured Destruction". We have the fighters but the Russians have the Anti-Ship missiles. Thoughts?




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I think it's too early to start hyperventilating about WW3. I have read a lot of posts on this site in the last 6 months or so, in which members are making a case of Armageddon. Russia is acting that way it is because of the US's aggressive neo-colonialism. As long as Bush and Cheney are prevented from doing something stupid, we have nothing to fear but a temporary cold war (until Bush is out, and as long as a Rudy does not get in).
Sometimes I think there are quite a few members here that want to see the end of humanity.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
is it not Iran from which Russia gets most of its oil?


Simple answer - no. Russia is a net exporter of oil, which means it does not rely on anyone for oil.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MiRRoR_MuSiC
What i would be worried about is Russia's break off of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe CFE treaty which would allow them to deploy ground forces to Easter Europe, thusly Kosovo


Russia is not going to deploy any troops in Eastern Europe, because doing so will mean war with NATO. Kosovo is different, because Russians troops would be "invited" there, since Kosovo is still part of Serbia.



Originally posted by MiRRoR_MuSiC
Russia has taken a huge stance that if the West recognizes the UDI, there will be SERIOUS consequences seen in the Balkans and elsewhere around the globe. THe naval excersise is seen to perhaps be a new start to a new Naval cold war weapons build up in the Med. Perhaps gaining Syrian and Iranian ships and subs armed with the Russian "Sizzle" missles the fleet will be able to Challenge the NATO fleet in the Med.


Nobody is going to be challenging NATO, nor is NATO going to be challending Russia over Kosovo. If Russia makes a choice to intervene no one doubts that NATO will back off. NATO cares about Kosovo far less than does Serbia.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Silenceisall
 


To think Rudy is the only up and coming threat is a little naive. We have as much to fear from Romney, Clinton, Obama, and Huckabee. Obama has made it clear on many occasions that he thinks our troops should be in Pakhistan (which is frightening), Clinton's voting record and her own campaign statements make it quite clear that She would be doing the very same things that Bush is doing. All of the "Top Tier" candidates are memebers of the CFR (along with many prominent corporate "newsmen") and have a pre-determined foreign policy. Huckabee is a joke.

As far as the cataclysmic WW3 scenario I agree. We will not be seeing any huge military clash for the future of our civilization. Maybe some sabre rattling or some peace keeping in destabalized regions, even maybe a big throwdown between smaller nations, but the big guns will stay quiet. The USA will recede back into the position it occupied prior to WW2 as our economy collapses and the force of our military is turned inward. I think we will see some equilibrium as far as Russia re-emerging as a military Super power, the EU as an Economic superpower, and eventually I think we will see a China dominant Earth in the late 21st century as we have seen US dominance in the late 20th.

This Serbia situation is getting very interesting. The Europeans learned 90 years ago that the business of the Serbs and Russians is best left to the Serbs and Russians. If Russia presses the issue and gets the invite from Serbia NATO will back down.

This fleet is good news over all I think. This along with the NIE has stopped the Death Cult Evangelical NEO-Con's plans right in their tracks. A beaurocratic revolution, the intelligence community has just joined the rest of the world in voting for no more war.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Tinhatman]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinhatman
Also, does anyone know what kind of carriers the Russians are using or what their complement is. Or where I can find this info. Checked Wiki but was not satisfied with the answer.


Russia only has one carrier - Admiral Kuznetsov.

en.wikipedia.org...

It has a very small number of aircraft compared to US carriers, and is far more dangerous and difficult to operate. Russia never really advanced far in carrier construction like US had, because the role of Russian navy was defensive and not offensive. Even Kuznetsov is designed to provided air support and defense for navy operations - not to be the basis for staging attacks. On the wiki article you can see that it is very well defended however with hundreds of missiles, AA guns, and rocket launchers. Where US carriers rely on supporting fleet to defend it from sea and air attacks, Kuznetsov is capable to defend itself.



Originally posted by Tinhatman
Also, does anyone else think that this Russian group vs. Truman group would be "Mutually Assured Destruction". We have the fighters but the Russians have the Anti-Ship missiles. Thoughts?


If Kuznetsov or Truman gets attacked, for all we know nuclear war has started. It would not matter who has more jets or missiles. The whole point of the Kuznetsov group is that if it intervenes in Kosovo US will be forced to sit on its hands and watch.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 


Thanks, don't know how I missed that article. Interesting enough is that it appears this was designed more as an equal part of a whole, supporting missile attack craft. Russian navy has to be way less costly to operate then the US. It's always cheaper to defend rather then Police an Empire though.

US carriers are already considered obsolete as far as their role in open warfare from what I have read. Still incredibly effective for projecting power as long as the opposition does not have access to advanced AS missiles.

As far as Russian vs US fleet, yes I know it would be TEOTWAWKI but if you take the other factors out of the equation it would be a very tight match. The Russians excel where the US does not and vice versa. To automatically assume US dominance soley based on the fact that we have not been challenged at sea since WW2 would be a mistake.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I'm not into all this but IMO all these guys sleep together so to say. They have to keep this hype up so the peons will stay fearful don't you think?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
It has a very small number of aircraft compared to US carriers, and is far more dangerous and difficult to operate.


Not considreably small enough to neglect though. The Carrier Air Wing is capable of sending a CAP of say 4-5 jets at a time, something that any carrier(even a 100k tonner CVN with 80+ jets) would sweat over.

As for being more difficult to operate, I'm not sure what you mean

Do you mean the inability to operate as efficiently(mean time between successive scrambles) or safely as a CVN?
Absolute quantative efficiency will obv be lower due to skewed ratios of operating crews and a/c between the carriers.
As far as safety goes, I'm not saying that the Kusnetzov is explicitly 'safer' than the CVNs, obv because I do not know for sure. But I see no reason for the Russian carrier to be more 'dangerous' to operate than any CVN,(IF) it is
efficiently manned and sufficiently maintained. I do not know of the money that goes into this ship but it is safe to assume that it is getting more attention than say the first half of the 90s.
Finally, it may be the pure lack sufficient deck and carrier air wing operations that may contribute to sub-optimal performance of the ship.
Other than this the Kuznetsov seems inherently as safe as any other carrier afloat, esp since it is devoid of complex systems like a nuclear and steam catapults.



Russia never really advanced far in carrier construction like US had, because the role of Russian navy was defensive and not offensive. Even Kuznetsov is designed to provided air support and defense for navy operations - not to be the basis for staging attacks.


Yes, It was meant to be a escort for strategic sub forces. Infac the whole Soviet Naval doctrine centered around their strategic arm.
One hopes(for them) that they now move beyond that narrow approach.

Infact, if this deployment does turn out to be aggressive, then it will be the first aggressive Russian carrier deployment ever!*
*Note: The soviets have known to deploy naval forces in extremely aggressive and forward positions the past(not carrier driven though).



On the wiki article you can see that it is very well defended however with hundreds of missiles, AA guns, and rocket launchers. Where US carriers rely on supporting fleet to defend it from sea and air attacks, Kuznetsov is capable to defend itself.


I think this approach is very interesting; It gives the Kuznetsov a another dimension; that can be converted to numerous tactical advantages.



If Kuznetsov or Truman gets attacked, for all we know nuclear war has started. It would not matter who has more jets or missiles. The whole point of the Kuznetsov group is that if it intervenes in Kosovo US will be forced to sit on its hands and watch.


I doubt anyone would dream of attacking the other at this stage. It would be very stupid.
All the same, nobody's going to go out on CAPs in a clean configuration.
They have a very good opportunity to play cat and mouse with each other, 'feel' out each others' radar and jamming capabilities.

Who knows, one (or both the COs) may even get a little cocky authorise a little WVR merge, and we might have some '4G negative dives' with pictures and 'single finger salutes'.. In true TopGun tradition!


However, WVR merging looks highly unlikely, with both types of a/c most probably being loaded out with BVR reach on their CAPs.
Correct me if I'm wrong experts( you guys know who you are
), but once you see a bunch of bogeys on your radars you can only hope they haven't launched(and thus not launch yourself even if they're in range).
Because if and when you see your RWR screaming, you know you've been had, and you've already lost the statistical survival probability of a two way missile volley, even if you manage to get some missiles off on simultaneous tracks after your rude awakening.
So if I'm not mistaken, close encounters of the enemy kind are only possible each side holds their jewels while giving the other side the benefit of the doubt of doing same!
Again experts,anybody for that matter, correct me if I'm wrong.

Whatever happens, I'm sure the atmosphere on both decks would be extremely exhilarating!


Lets hope for the best:Each side goes home with stories to tell at the bar and dinner table and nothing more severe than that!





[edit on 10-12-2007 by Daedalus3]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
As for being more difficult to operate, I'm not sure what you mean?
Due you the inability to operate as efficiently(mean time between successive scrambles) or safely as a CVN?


It is in pretty run down shape. Also Russia never really had a focus on operating carriers, and is not nearly as proficient at it as the US is. I don't believe that the Kuznetsov crew even has any real experience because other than non-intensive training it has never been utilized much.

Sure the jets can take off and provide air-presence and carry out basic operations, but the few jets it has is barely enough to pose and legitimate threat. All it is, is basic emergency air-presence.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
As far as safety goes, I'm not saying that the Kusnetzov is explicitly 'safer' than the CVNs, obv because I do not know for sure. But I see no reason for the Russian carrier to be more 'dangerous' to operate than any CVN


It has a history of several accidents during non-intensive training. I seriously doubt the crew is as trained and prepared for operations as on US carriers. And this a first true Cold War and post-Cold War carrier for Russia, while US had experience with dozens during that time.

I am not an expert on naval power and carriers though, so I am just speculating. I have seen Kuznetsov once and its condition is far from immpresive. As I said - Russian and Soviet naval forces were also focused on defense, and counterstrike in case of a nuclear exchange. The main focus has been on large ballistic submarines and heavy surface battleships with missiles. US navy is completely different in this respect.



Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yes, It was meant to be a escort for strategic sub forces. Infac the whole Soviet Naval doctrine centered around their strategic arm.
One hopes(for them) that they now move beyond that narrow approach.


Navy has historically been the most costly to build and operate among the Soviet military forces. It is far cheaper and more effective to focus on building land-based systems like Topol M and tanks, and aircraft like Tu-160, than ships. Russian military budget is still strained, so money is allocated according to priorities, and a naval force is the lesser priority. Russia wants the sea base in Syria not to accomodate new ships, but to accommodate existing ships from Crimea.

As far as I know Russia is building several small submarines and navy ships right now. Some have recently become operational. But it has no hopes of matching or competing with the US in the seas anymore, except for submarines. US just has too much of a lead.

But Russia is very capable on the seas. My grandfather was a navy officer in Crimea. I was very lucky to see these monsters on live training exercises in Crimea a few times:

www.fas.org...

I could see their staging area and hangars from my house. I wonder what happened to them since.



Originally posted by Daedalus3
Infact, if this deployment does turn out to be aggressive, then it will be the first aggressive Russian carrier deployment ever!*
*Note: The soviets have known to deploy naval forces in extremely aggressive and forward positions the past(not carrier driven though).


In this case I doubt the carrier will play the main role. Russia will likely drop paratroopers via helicopters if it decides to intervene. If so, it doesn't even need Kuznetsov because other surface ships are capable of accommodating helicopters. I don't even know what Russia would use the jets for. Maybe air cover? It is not like it has anyone to bomb or to engage in sorties with.



Originally posted by Daedalus3
I think this approach is very interesting; It gives the Kuznetsov a another dimension; that can be converted to numerous tactical advantages.


True, but with Russia's focus on missile systems it might just as well be converted into a floating arsenal of missiles and abandon its carrier role altogether. That is what it pretty much is now. A floating arsenal with an air wing to back it up.




Originally posted by Daedalus3
Who knows, one (or both the COs) may even get a little cocky authorise a little WVR merge, and we might have some '4G negative dives' with pictures and 'single finger salutes'.. In true TopGun tradition!


One can only hope. As exciting as it would be the world today is reduced to political bickering. I am sure both US and Russian pilots would dream of a chance to engage each other just for a test of skills and machines.




And I have no idea how Russia would utilize its aircraft in Kosovo. It would still have to fly over Montenegro. It might just as well fly the jets from air bases near the Black Sea in Krasnodar via Bulgaria and land them in Serbia.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by maloy]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
From what I have read the Russian Navy is a leaky mess suffering from a very big lack of funding. I think I remember reading that some of there older moth balled nuclear subs are just literally rotting away in ship yards which could turn into a local disaster if they don’t do anything, they just don’t have the money. Twenty years ago we may have had more of a threat, but since the Iron Curtain fell the Russian military has been in decline. Recently Russia changed tune and started revamping there navy; remember it takes years just to build one ship.


The Collapse of the Soviet Union led to a severe decline in the Russian Navy. Defence expenditure was severely reduced. Many ships were scrapped or laid up as accommodation ships at naval bases, and the building programme was essentially stopped. However Sergey Gorshkov's buildup during the Soviet period had emphasised ships over support facilities, and Gorshkov had also retained ships in service that were beyond their effective lifetimes, so a reduction was due anyway.[5] What made matters worse was the impractical variety of vessels which the Soviet military-industrial complex, with the support of the leadership, forced on the navy - taking modifications into account, the Soviet Navy in the mid 1980s had nearly 250 different ship types. [6]The Kiev class aviation cruisers and many other ships were prematurely retired, and the incomplete Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag eventually sold to the People's Republic of China.

Training and readiness also suffered severely. In 1995 only two missile submarines at a time were being maintained on station, from the Northern and Pacific Fleets.[10] The decline culminated in the loss of the Kursk submarine during the Northern Fleet summer exercise that was intended to back up the publication of a new naval doctrine.[11] The exercise, involving some 30 submarines and surface ships, was to have culminated with the deployment of the Admiral Kuznetsov battle group to the Mediterranean.

As of 2006, The Russian Navy has 50 nuclear submarines, compared to 170 vessels in 1991, but only 26 of them are operational. The Navy plans to reduce the number to 20 submarines, including ten strategic missile submarines and ten multi-purpose (attack) submarines, according to unofficial reports



Russian Navy

With the improvement of the Russian economy they are once again starting to dump billions back into there Navy but they are still ways away from having anything that can hold a candle to the U.S. Navy. I don’t think either side would launch nukes over a couple of sunken ships either.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Does anyone know which aircraft are on this carrier? Are they flying the Sukoi's off of carriers yet or are they still flying that Yak-36 VTOL joke?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HatTrick
Does anyone know which aircraft are on this carrier? Are they flying the Sukoi's off of carriers yet or are they still flying that Yak-36 VTOL joke?


Yak-36 might have been a joke, but the Yak-38 VTOL that replaced it was the most capable VTOL of its time - better in most respects than the Harrier. Pilots didn't like it, but it did its job.

en.wikipedia.org...


And Kuznetsov does not have any VTOLs. It mostly has Su-33 - a naval version of Su-27. Also a few Su-25 have been reported. And a whole bunch of Ka-27 helicopters. These jets are very capable, and are not in any way inferior to Western technology. But the fact that there are so few of them makes Kuznetsov's air wing largely unimportant.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
The whole point of the Kuznetsov group is that if it intervenes in Kosovo US will be forced to sit on its hands and watch.


What makes you so sure of this? Is it the fact that there's a Russian carrier in the region or are you considering a political aspect as well? The US and NATO has a significant amount of resources in the region both military and political, far more than Russia. I do not see anyone 'sitting on their hands'.


Originally posted by maloy
Where US carriers rely on supporting fleet to defend it from sea and air attacks, Kuznetsov is capable to defend itself.


The Kuznetsov would not be able to "defend" itself from a comprehensive air and sea attack without the help of dedicated escort vessels. However yes, US carriers focus more on last tier defenses and power projection.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
However, WVR merging looks highly unlikely, with both types of a/c most probably being loaded out with BVR reach on their CAPs.


Depending on the threat and engagement scenario you would have a mix load. However USN fighters almost always carry a pair of Sidewinders no matter the main objective of the flight. And I seriously doubt you will see any ACM within the merge. What is more likely is a mutual escort, line abreast, for a photo opportunity and the furthering of ones message to the other side.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
...but once you see a bunch of bogeys on your radars you can only hope they haven't launched(and thus not launch yourself even if they're in range).


Not really, the USN will always have an E-2 in the air, combine this with the air coverage of the AEGIS cruisers and destroyers, the carriers own radar and perhaps even an E-3. Any missile launch would be detected and tracked. Not to mention more specific and technical indications that occur when a missile is launched etc... Point is, you will not be able to launch such an attack without the US crew knowing, perhaps against another enemy, sure.

Besides the common sense, political and military considerations the USN would never authorize a weapons launch against Russian planes unless they had launched first, the Russians have the same policy. Hence the pilots have no choice and no say in the matter, if a merge is authorized you can rest assured neither side will do anything foolish. There are old, tried and true informal rules of conduct for these things, each side knows the routine.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mel1962
 


LOL weak you say?! WEAK?!

the russians are buggin! there is no way in Hel that they think we're weak politically or otherwise....they have zero influence military-wise....not to mention we globally embarrassed them with our very short decimation of afghanistan...of which they they couldn't do in 10 years. Not that thats a good thing of course. Any aggression toward the free-world will bring the mad smack-down from the usa and they know it.....out-classed.
plus Russians have zero patriotism, they all know its no place to live and look west constantly. Here in NYC Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn is FULL of them.

PAPER TIGERS

Putin is exercising a well used method of political posturing/intimidation...you see it on schoolyard play-grounds all day long.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by blueyedevil666]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by blueyedevil666]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I doubt anyone is going to attack Iran at this point. The "ones" who really run things may have told Bush to back off Iran due to Russia's warnings.


That could have been the reason for the story that came out a few days back in the mainstream press, saying Iran did not have a nuclear program. Did not make much sense the contraditions, except it was a message to back off.

Russia may be sending the fleet for an insurance policy.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Just another"WE"RE back and redy to kick your ass drible.I would take the brinksmanship part seriously althoudh the russian navy is old,inept but still able to start a war



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What makes you so sure of this? Is it the fact that there's a Russian carrier in the region or are you considering a political aspect as well? The US and NATO has a significant amount of resources in the region both military and political, far more than Russia. I do not see anyone 'sitting on their hands'.


Yeah NATO is far more powerful in that region than Russia. But if Russia decides to help Serbia militarily, there is no chance that NATO would risk attacking or interferring with Russia's actions. NATO does not care that much about Kosovo to start a conflict with Russia. Back before the first NATO war in Serbia, the general opinion was that if Russia comes in to help Serbia, NATO will be forced to leave. Same thing now - NATO will pack up and leave before it dares to attack Russian military assets or personel.

But I don't think it will get to that. All Russia and Serbia want is more time for negotiations about Kosovo's future.



Originally posted by WestPoint23
The Kuznetsov would not be able to "defend" itself from a comprehensive air and sea attack without the help of dedicated escort vessels. However yes, US carriers focus more on last tier defenses and power projection.


No it can't. But non-aircraft armament, both defensive and offensive, is far stronger than that of US carriers. Think of it as a battle ship - with a carrier role on the side.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Just a thought. Basically the whole world dislikes the U.S. foreign policy. Iran and Islamic Extremists both hate the U.S. government. How hard would it be for Islamic extremists to get a Mig and a couple missles. Technically, if they had there pilot fly under the radar, it wouldn't come into sensor range until its less then 20 miles away. A mig attacking some U.S. targets could very well further sore relations between the 2. Russia denying it was them. The U.S. getting some sailors killed, and having some MIG reckage on its carrier deck.

I once heard that you could buy a MIG for 20 million, a couple years ago. If the U.S. and Russia involved in a proxy ground war in the balkans both would have less interest in the Middle East, except for oil, but as long as the oil kept flowing to both sides, the extremists could gain further control, and keep right on shipping.

Just a thought, like I said.

Cheers.

Camain



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
It's 100% about Kosovo. Everyone are preparing for the evitable breaking off of the region. Germany just sent 500 men (armed to their teeth) to reinforce the KFOR. Other countries have been deploying ATGMs and such to their contigents. Finns just deployed some new riot gear... Now Russia is opening a second front for any possible operations to secure the Kosovo. I assume that they plan to use the Carrier group as a support base for a deployment to Kosovo and as a medevac location.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join