Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Entire Russian Fleet

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Hot_Wings
 


And this compromises the ability to of Russia to wage a long drawn-out war?
Are they lacking oil? Or the manufacturing/maintenance infrastructure?




posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
All of my discussions about Russia’s current military strength will stem from their current inefficient and delapidate economic situation. Despite their military numbers or technological advancement, no military can sustain the capability for warfare without an efficient economic underpinning. If we cannot agree on this simple truth, then our discussions about Russia’s “true” military capacity as a threat to its neighbors will be flawed.


Then, I think we may already be too deep in this flawed approach.
Your definition of efficient economic underpinning is moot according to me.
Please let me know how all this limits the ability of Russia to wage war?



There are other more important factors that actually constrain and limit a militaries capabilities. It is these factors that I will address first. Later, I will examine the size and technological weakness of Russia’s rusting away fleets.


Please do. And while you're at it, please understand that you make a global claim to that same effect which includes a large portion of the Chinese and Indian navies; they're running on this weak tech too.



However, someone has all ready posted good links to to the truth about Russia’s rusting fleet, so I will not repost that information unless somone still requiers me to defend my statements further by continuing my analysis to the military conclusion.

Thank you, to the others who also have posted the truth about Russia’s rusting fleet and severely compromised military capabilities.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Hot_Wings]


For the life of me.. where are these good links?! Please defend these statements!
You need a point of reference with such comparisons. So if you consider everything that is inferior to the Virginia SSN/ AEGIS DDG as rust then you do have a rusty naval world out there.
What is your point of reference?



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
One problem, Every Russian sub is loud and the Akula can be heard over a thousand miles away.


Tell that to my friends that have been on late flight Los Angeles subs and never knew that the Akula was there until the Akula knocked on the door. And they were running quiet listening for threats. Way back in the 1980s the Russians were given the technology to make new propellors for their submarines making them MUCH quieter than they ever had been before. Akula class subs were making it a habit to sneak up on late flight LAs for awhile.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

For the life of me.. where are these good links?! Please defend these statements!
You need a point of reference with such comparisons. So if you consider everything that is inferior to the Virginia SSN/ AEGIS DDG as rust then you do have a rusty naval world out there.
What is your point of reference?



Oddly enough, there was a documentary on TV last night on the History Channel with it dealing only with the Soviet Navy. They spent over 1/2 hour talking about the subs and good/bad points. It was about 2 hours of Russian naval history from founding to today.

www.thehistorychannel.co.za...

They have some modern ships that are impressive, but very few. The bulk of their fleet is in rust mothballs. There just isn't enough money for the entire military so the navy has had to concentrate their money on very select ships.

Try to catch this show, some folks might learn a thing or two.

As for just a quick internet search, search "Russian Navy rusting" and you too will find links from the BBC just over 3 years old to more modern news sources.

The Bear's navy is just a shadow of itself. I knew they had the French looking aircraft carrier, but I was even impressed with the cruiser Peter the Great. Sure, they have only one of each, but they are able to leave the harbor AND come back at a later time.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
warfare.ru...

I have not consulted Janes Defense Weekly yet at the library, however according to the site listed above there are very important developments going on right now in the Russian Navy. The last time I looked into this their entire fleet was being sold off or was being kept at the docks, rusting away. Do any of you remember the Russian Akula class submarine that was auctioned off on ebay a few years ago?

Yet, according to this web site, Russia has overhauled over 20 different ships between 2005 and 2006 and the list also stated that over 20 more ships are due for overhaul in 2007. It seems that the Russian government is spending every dime that they have on their military at the moment. I wonder why?

According to this report,

www.strategycenter.net...

Russia has been making many deals with China and has been selling a massive amount of arms to them. Of most concern it seems is the selling of over 300-400 Falker fighter jets. As well, it stated that in 2005-2006 Russia participated in a massive joint military exercise involving both countries Navy and Marine forces designed at demonstraiting to the world that Russia and China are close military allies.

The author of the report also stated that China has paid for the military exercise completely, which would explain how Russia can now afford to overhaul over 20 of their surface ships in 2007. Russia and China are apparently good bedfellows for the time being.

I am glad that another poster challenged me to back up my previous statements. It is true that the Russian Navy has many problems, and I will know more about them when I read the Janes Defense reports, however, in recent years (2005 to now), Russia has been in a massive reorganization and revitalization effort with its naval forces.

Perhaps I was wrong in my statements about Russia no longer being a player in the Security Counsel. Yet, it is China who is artificially holding them up and paying for their revitalization efforts. One of the analysts of the reports claimed that this was because without Russia, China would not have enough support at the UN for vetoing against the US. This to me is a more important discovery than learning that the Russian Navy is overhauling as many ships as they can.

Thier fleets were most certainly rusting away, yet things may have changed just in the past 2 years. This prompts a bigger question.

Why are Russia and China so fervently helping each other to build up thier militaries?


[edit on 25-3-2008 by Hot_Wings]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
warfare.ru...
Russia and China so fervently helping each other to build up thier militaries?


[edit on 25-3-2008 by Hot_Wings]


Because they are striving to achieving a multi polar world in which no single power can have the might (economic/military/social etc etc.) to impose its will on others?
So the biggest irony of em' all is that the Communist PowerHouses of yesteryear and today in this world (Russia, China) are striving to achieve democracy in the sense of multi-polarity in superpowers.
Makes you tingly all over eh?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


en.wikipedia.org...

This is the NATO code named Shipwreck missile that is on every navy ship and sub. It has a better range than Brahmos otherwise they are just about the same. The Sunburn is yet another of the same just a little faster with less range.

Courtesy of Free Republic. www.freerepublic.com...

"In 10 scenarios, real Anti-Ship Missiles and supersonic Vandal target missiles (Mach 2.5) were intercepted and destroyed under realistic conditions. RAM Block 1 achieved first-shot kills on every target in its presented scenarios, including sea-skimming, diving and highly maneuvering profiles in both single and stream attacks."

"With these test firings RAM demonstrated its unparalleled success against today's most challenging threats. Cumulatively to date more than 180 missiles have been fired against anti-ship missiles and other targets, achieving a success rate over 95%"

The SeaRAM is a drop in replacement for the Phalanx system. The RAM missile itself is a mach 2, second generation derivative of the Sidewinder and Stinger missiles. It features BOTH infrared and radar based target tracking, allowing for use against future low radar cross section (stealthy) anti-ship missiles.

These are the two beautiful ships that I was talking about with their carrier. Unfortunately they may fall the fate of the Bismark if they don't get more help.

en.wikipedia.org...


The U.S. Navy strives for perfection everyday and they make sure these systems work before spending billions to install them on every surface ship, So we have three layers of defence that should get the job of defence done. The U.S. has way to many ships and carrier based aircraft to even think that the Russian fleet will stand a chance. They probably will not even see the first blinding shot come in knowing what our technology is like. While they once had a very powerful navy they are far from what they once were and I for one said that we and Russia should have became great allies after the cold war but war mongers in each country kept that from happing.

The show that I watched was on the History Channel and it was called the History of the Russian Navy.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
So the biggest irony of em' all is that the Communist PowerHouses of yesteryear and today in this world (Russia, China) are striving to achieve democracy in the sense of multi-polarity in superpowers.


I wouldn't call it Democracy, but they are edging up on the way to becoming full fledged Superpowers again, in the case of Russia or just trying to join the Superpower Club (China). Neither are at the capability or late Cold War USSR yet. They have a ways to go.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hinky
They could probably take on the Argentinean navy and should win. The UK fleet of 90 ships would defeat them in surface action. The US Navy is the big boy.


I believe the Russian cruise missiles submarines will probably be more than enough to deal with the Royal navy. If anything remains to escort British convoys the Russians may bother to commit some other surface forces.


Russia has quite a few old ships. 2 problems, they are old ships and they don't have the money for proper upkeep on them.


So does everyone else on the planet. Here is a list of laid up US ships :

www.hazegray.org...

Will anyone argue that the USN is inferior based on the state of many of those ships?


You see the ships tied to piers in harbor. This doesn't make them seaworthy, it just means they haven't sank in harbor, yet.


They may not be very seaworthy at the moment but there is a whole lot of things you can do to refurbish and recommision ships if a serious world wide conflageration breaks out. I am sure that the Russians are well aware of what is required to keep the ships they still see potential future use for in conditions that keep them servicable?


Great article on Russia's navy and top personnel.


If that's what you want to hear...

Stellar



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
Russia is a “Has Been” trying to remain a player at the UN Security Counsel Table.


A country with as much or more strategic nuclear potential as the US certainly deserves it's place on the Un security council.


Virtually no one takes them seriously anymore.


Point me to someone and explain why?


Russia knows that China and the U.S. rule the world and so Putin has been trying to flex his military muscles like a child whining at his bigger brothers saying, “Give Me More Respect Dangit!”


But it's the Rf and China that are in a strategic alliance so how do you figure Bush really managed to see 'the truth' in Putin's eyes? Why on Earth do you think China or Russia shares the interest of the United States of America?


Russian technology is completely outdated;


How so? What exactly is so outdated about their armed forces that it renders it useless? How significant is the part that is rendered useless and how does it effect the strategic balance? Why has the US economy went to hell while the Russian economy goes from strength to strength?


and now that the iron “lie” curtain has fallen, everyone who matters fully knows how weak and sad Russia has become.


I don't see that they are weaker than they were and given the comparative disposition of forces i think i can make the argument that they are in a better position than they were back in 1990.


It’s pathetic really, how hard Putin is trying to remain a “Big Boy” at the international table.


And as far as i can tell his doing far less damage to the Russian economy and armed forces than GW is doing to the US.


Sorry Putin, we’re all out of booster seats at the U.N. Security Counsel. Why don’t you go sit with the kiddies over at the World Hunger Table. I think there is a seat left open right next to the Somalian representative.


Cute...


American Military Forces have utterly destroyed the Russian weapons that they sold to the Iraqis.


But at least the Russians got cash for it and only sold what they could do without. It's funny how Iran had at one time more F-14's than the USN did and managed the feat without the US taxpayer even getting paid. Once the Us finally fights a country that can buy the most modern Russian equipment to the same volume as the US we may learn which side makes the most 'useful' weapons or employs the 'best' technology' ( not that it will be so easily proved or disproved but lets pretend) but until then it's just nonsense to argue that third world countries losing wars with Russian equipment says anything about Russian equipment. It's much like arguing that Russian equipment are 'superior' because the US withdrew from Vietnam.


the crapp was practically garbage, and now that we have taken out Iraq, not once, but twice, the world doesn’t buy Russian crap anymore.


But they still buy Russian equipment as few national leaders and defense forces are led by people that make decisions based on such stupid and fundamentally flawed arguments. People will keep buying Russian equipment for as long as it's reasonably priced, easy to employ and maintain and in no way comparatively inferior given the same resource expenditures.


Well, that is unless its more of that old crap and it’s practically given away.


DId you know that 3/4 of American foreign aid are in fact meant for or spent on American weapons? They really are helping out the third world! IF the Russians had a similar policy of giving away billions of dollars worth of weaponry i can assure you their defense industry would be doing as well or better than the American one.


Stellar



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
Sorry to burst the bubble, but our economy has been in recession for over a year now. What we might be headed to here is a depression. But it won’t last that long because warfare, and lower gas prices, will bring us right out of it.


Lower gas prices? In modern times i think the THREAT of war can induce others to comply with arrangements that helps the US economy but i think we are past the time , if there ever was, when war was actually good for the 'economy'. One might always ask which part of the economy is served and how many people are actually getting rich by it.


Yes, America is due for some really hard times. We’ve fully earned it too.


I'm not even American and i don't think the American public deserves what it might get in this new century It's fascinating how some Americans think that they do deserve it ( fooled by the 'liberals' where you?) despite all the evidence showing how hard Americans do try to prevent these wars from happening. Since they are ever more succesful odds are the pressure on them will increase while the unelected government becomes ever more unresponsive to the wishes of it's citizens.


Our people are largely stupefied by the mass media and wholly incapable of logical reasoning.


So stupified that the Bush regime had to tell them that SH practically staged 9-11 and had nukes to use next time? Right... You might find the American public to be stupified but i just think that they can't cope with the scale of the lies that are being told and in failing to do so i just see that their as human as people anywhere. As Americans become smarter and smarter to the crimes the lies will just get grander and grander while the freedoms to protest the lies dwindle. It wont be the first time things are done this way and it has never meant that the host society were a bunch of fat fascist morons...


Our politicians have sold us down the river almost completely now and very soon we will have to pay the piper.


As they have been doing for a century or more. The American public have been out to sea for a while now but since the pretense of luxury liners existed before it hasn't been so obvious.



The falling…oops, did I say falling. I mean, the plummeting dollar will enable our pathetically incompetent and innovatively deficient export market companies to perhaps fully stay afloat in the realm of the global economy.


That's pretty unlikely given the fact that the companies you are competiting with not only has American trained managers and owners ( or are Americans or owned by them ) but have well educated work forces that benefited from decades and decades of Amerian subsidies. There is little chance that the American middle class will be maintained while the pentagon keeps spending money and the state department keeps propping up foreign regimes by giving them tens of billions in security payments. If all those things were done away with i suppose some measure of competitiveness might result but in the race to the bottem i wonder if Americans could and would wish to compete.


This, of course, precariously, and hopefully, preventing the utter collapse of the American Government Worthless bond market.



We can all hope.


Stellar



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
en.wikipedia.org...

This is the NATO code named Shipwreck missile that is on every navy ship and sub. It has a better range than Brahmos otherwise they are just about the same. The Sunburn is yet another of the same just a little faster with less range.



In short, No. There a big difference in flight profile.




"In 10 scenarios, real Anti-Ship Missiles and supersonic Vandal target missiles (Mach 2.5) were intercepted and destroyed under realistic conditions. RAM Block 1 achieved first-shot kills on every target in its presented scenarios, including sea-skimming, diving and highly maneuvering profiles in both single and stream attacks."


And what are these Vandal target missiles? What is their flight profile?



"With these test firings RAM demonstrated its unparalleled success against today's most challenging threats. Cumulatively to date more than 180 missiles have been fired against anti-ship missiles and other targets, achieving a success rate over 95%"


Good. So all is not lost. btw, do we know if the system was tested for saturation attacks? 2,3,5,10 inbounds missiles (Vandal?).



These are the two beautiful ships that I was talking about with their carrier. Unfortunately they may fall the fate of the Bismark if they don't get more help.

en.wikipedia.org...


And what is this 'help'? They could have a bit of LO re-scalping IMHO.



The U.S. Navy strives for perfection everyday and they make sure these systems work before spending billions to install them on every surface ship, So we have three layers of defence that should get the job of defence done. The U.S. has way to many ships and carrier based aircraft to even think that the Russian fleet will stand a chance. They probably will not even see the first blinding shot come in knowing what our technology is like.


You're drifting.. we are talking about the current RN? Aren't we?

I whole heartedly agree that in a ship for ship/plane for plane comparison between the Russian Navy and the USN, the USN wins hands (conventionally) down due to numerical superiority and an edge in a/c carrier and SSN capability.



While they once had a very powerful navy they are far from what they once were and I for one said that we and Russia should have became great allies after the cold war but war mongers in each country kept that from happing.


Noble thoughts. Lets hope we see that day some day.



The show that I watched was on the History Channel and it was called the History of the Russian Navy.


When does it replay again?

I would like if you would answer my above questions before digressing onto other topics. If the answers are not available at the time you form a reply, fair enough, please state that, and we can wait.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
The Russian/Soviet Navy has never been more than a coastal defence force, with very limited naval power projection.


So much so that some of the following people felt the need to make some of the following comments?


The Late Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, US Navy (Retired), himself a former aircraft carrier skipper, was also an outspoken critic of the Navy and its infatuation with big aircraft carriers and its collective fear of change. He once said that if the United States continues on its path to build ever larger and ever more expensive aircraft carriers, it will eventually degenerate into a “bankrupt nation.” 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.”



Even in the open ocean NATO fleet exercises demonstrate, time and again, that a proportion of SSKS (diesel subs) will get through the screen.” - Commander Richard Compton-Hall, Royal Navy (Retired)



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. Former President Jimmy Carter, a former US Navy officer, and Annapolis graduate, was also none too keen on the big carrier Navy, either. Vistica mentioned that Carter did not want any more new carriers, and for the existing fleet to be cut dramatically.


All from :
www.g2mil.com...

www.transasianaxis.com...

Now given the massive volumes of Submarines the USSR could deploy by 1980 as well as the anti ship missile technology of that time what improvements were made that would have prevented the US navy of 71' to survive 81'?


Their subs were probably their biggest asset, when they were at their peak about 15 years ago.


I would say the early 1980's were about the peak year as that's the time the USSR fully expected the US to make a last grasp for power before the opportunity faded away completely. They simply kept every ship they could affloat it it obviously created a imense strain. The 'rusting' ships of the 90's were a direct result of policies in the 80's that artificially increased the numbers available so as to ward of foreign aggression.


Surface ship wise, with the way the Russian Navy was treated for decades, they aren't very impressive.


But they do not have to be very impressive as modern war is about creating platforms for launching massive missile strikes and then running for safety and or reloading. Remember that the role of the Soviet navy were to shut down Atlantic and pacific convoys and that it was never intended to sail around forever attempting to intimidate third world nations. Sure Russian ships did not always have high operational tempo's but what is the point of that when world wars would be won be the side that could flood tha Atlantic with ALL availble ships for the two or three months it would take to decide the battle for Europe?


Their Navy and armed forces in general need to retool and overhaul. Not to say they aren't a force to be reckoned with, just that they have been more powerful in the past.


I can and will argue that the current strength is comparatively more intimidating than it was in 1989; at least that's what the geopolitical conditions seems to tell us given the fast declining US economy and the growing economic strength of both Russian and China.


The top two Fleets in the world are the USN and RN in that order.


For raw capability i will agree that my money would be on the USN in a straight up fight against the RF but given that they only have to succesfully interdict convoys with nuclear tipped cruise missiles you hardly need the dozens of submarines the RF can still deploy. As for the RN they are probably more efficient , than the USN ( who isn't ) given their meager resources but most certainly not equiped to deal with shear volume of firepower the RF could unleash.


Both are fine, well trained, with very modern equipment, tactics and training.


Man for man i would have put my money on Soviet officers( mostly due to organizational decisions with crew staying with officers staying with their respective ships for most of their active duty careers ) for most of the cold war but these days i am not so sure and i suppose it will come down to just how effective anti cruise missile defenses really are.


Everybody else is a quite distant third from those two. They are the only two full blown, go anywhere, Navies in the world. I would not want to tangle with either of them if given the choice.


I would probably pick the Japanese navy over the RN most days of the week but maybe i am just hopelessly biased against these widely propagated norms.


Stellar



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Thats right lambo rider you slag off the brits.The british navy kicks ass and always will.Unfortunetly though we are stuck as the us lapdog following you into a unjustfied war.Killing your own citizens in buildings for oil is sick.I know ive went a little off topic here and i by no meens hate americans i just hate your presdent and goverment.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
With the Royal Navy you have men and systems that can be trusted, You can not say that with a navy that is in taters and has no combat experience at all.


And yet the Israeli quickly learnt from their naval mistakes and did away with all their major combatants in favor of fast missile boats. The RN may have men and systems that can be trusted but when you are expected to with with knives in a gunfight professionalism and and well handled knives will probably not be sufficient. The Russian navy does have combat experience but the reason i think it would have prevailed has far more to do with the weapon systems it chose to develop and it's relative professionalism ( the US officer advancement system that forces them to gain experience in various boats asap without allowing men to stay in their posts for extended periods) than with it's past combat experience.


When it all comes down to it British subs will sink every Russian surface ship in one day if the whole Russian fleet is in range of the British sub fleet.


And i suppose Russian submarines and ASW forces wont have any say in the matter? Why will the British be so successful when the Russian submarines are more numerous and according to open sources more sophisticated?


Then the same may happen to the Brits surface ships because the subs are going to be the last ones to survive. Then again you would never just have the Brits taking on the Russians by themselves, That would result in the U.S. Navy making sure every Russian ship and sub meets the bottom.


At which point we have world war three with the Russians probably using their submarines to devastate US task groups with nuclear armed cruise missiles.


During the cold war in the late 80s or early 90s the U.S. president decided to send Russia a message to back off on a certain issue and the message was a ping in the rear to every Russian sub around the world at the same time to let them know that our U.S. subs were right behind them and we could sink them at any time any place of our choosing.


Since the USSR had at that time three times as many submarines as the US that was probably never possible. I have always supposed that the rumour may have to do with US hunter subs having pinged all Russian SSBN's but even that scenario is stupidly unlikely given how Russian SSBN's can all fire their SLBM's from port to hit targets in the US. How the US could have managed such a organizational feat against the dozens of SSBN's the USSR then operated i never explained but why bother when you are selling such nonsense to a utter gullible audience?


I can only imaging the reports coming into the Kremlin and the look on the old Admirals faces


If such a thing ever happened in reality i imagine some Soviet heads might have become detached but since it seems like a logistical impossibility Russian admirals probably died for the normal reasons.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
So much so that some of the following people felt the need to make some of the following comments?
The Russian Fleet while able to move around, has nowhere near the flexibility of the RN or USN to be based basically anywhere in the world and be functional. They (Russians), do not have the port and supply infrastructure to carry out extended far from home operations. The RN and USN do this routinely.




I would say the early 1980's were about the peak year as that's the time the USSR fully expected the US to make a last grasp for power before the opportunity faded away completely.
Okay.... I undertand your bias in matters regarding Russian/Soviet forces, nice spin on the collaspe of the Russian Fleet. You are correct though, the early to mid 80's was the more correct time of their peak Sub capability. I stand corrected.



But they do not have to be very impressive as modern war is about creating platforms for launching massive missile strikes and then running for safety and or reloading. Remember that the role of the Soviet navy were to shut down Atlantic and pacific convoys and that it was never intended to sail around forever attempting to intimidate third world nations. Sure Russian ships did not always have high operational tempo's but what is the point of that when world wars would be won be the side that could flood tha Atlantic with ALL availble ships for the two or three months it would take to decide the battle for Europe?


You make the broad assumption that the Soviet fleet could have broken out into the Atlantic and Pacific to attack convoys. Nato Doctrine and the USN fleet in the Pacific were geared to prevent that from happening in the first place. The only real threat was the Soviet Subs.


I can and will argue that the current strength is comparatively more intimidating than it was in 1989; at least that's what the geopolitical conditions seems to tell us given the fast declining US economy and the growing economic strength of both Russian and China.


Again the bias shows. The Russian armed forces are nowhere near the peak of Cold War Soviet/Warsaw Pact levels.If they are so intimidating, why did the Baltics basically just thumb their noses at Russia and the Eastern European countries get out from under their sphere of influence?
Just remember too if the US economy goes the rest of the world's soon follows. We are all interconnected.


For raw capability i will agree that my money would be on the USN in a straight up fight against the RF but given that they only have to succesfully interdict convoys with nuclear tipped cruise missiles you hardly need the dozens of submarines the RF can still deploy.
Um.... using nuclear cruise missiles changes the whole equation and you know that. They would not do that for fear of certain nuclear retalitiation.


Man for man i would have put my money on Soviet officers( mostly due to organizational decisions with crew staying with officers staying with their respective ships for most of their active duty careers ) for most of the cold war but these days i am not so sure and i suppose it will come down to just how effective anti cruise missile defenses really are.
I'll grant you that the caliber of the Soviet Navy personel was/is better than the Russian Navy. The PTB in Russia seemed to have decided that the Fleet just wasn't a high priority for a long time and it now shows.




I would probably pick the Japanese navy over the RN most days of the week but maybe i am just hopelessly biased against these widely propagated norms.


Japan doesn't even have carriers as far as I know. Can't be that good if they are missing that coverage. Sorry. I am sure they are fine ships but Japan's constituiion limits it to being a maritime defense force, not a real blue water going, force projecting Navy.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
The Russian Fleet while able to move around, has nowhere near the flexibility of the RN or USN to be based basically anywhere in the world and be functional. They (Russians), do not have the port and supply infrastructure to carry out extended far from home operations. The RN and USN do this routinely.


Oh you should know better than that. they have palces to stop at in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean , Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean (Well maybe no the Atlantic). But yes, the sheer number of places they can replenish are limited.
blue water capable replenishment vessels are also in service for high-seas resupply.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I'll be the very first person to tell everyone I'm not a Navy guy. I know some and for the most part, they're okay; but I'm an Army guy.

I enjoyed the Russia worshiping going on about how great they are. I even agree that they have a couple of decent ships. Let's do a reality check. A couple of ships is not a fleet and their subs are sitting in the harbor since there great cruise missile sub, The Kursk, (remember this, cream of the fleet, best in the world world) blew itself apart a few years ago.

Accidents happen, but this is just an indicator of the shape of the vast majority of the Russian fleet.

We can play what if with anything. Here is what will happen in real life. War... ship is sunk, aircraft carrier is sunk, everyone goes apesh*t. Mushroom clouds start appearing. Game over....



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


Dude not that I'm dissing you or anything but do I seem like Google or something? If you want answers look them up.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 



I'm not looking for answers that I feel are not even there! Plus they are your points to prove; no mine to refute. And if you aim to make a point you should come up with figures, graphics numbers etc..
not some sales pitch subjective paragraphs!

Lay off the abstract adjectives.

In fact I went to the extent of trying to contact the source of your source from freerepublic.com; one 1stfreedom esp since he conveniently decided to not post any sources or even note where he got his info from!
But guess what ?! The1stfreedom account is banned/suspended!


[edit on 26-3-2008 by Daedalus3]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join