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.

 

The Entire Russian Fleet

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
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.


Your right, I do know better. JK. The Russian Navy could not, in a full war time scenario, operate far from their coastline Naval bases for any meaningful length of time with major portions of their fleet. The U.S. and R.N. could. When was the last major naval exercise that the Russians put on oh in say the Southern Pacific or off the coast of West Africa with a substaintial portion of their fleet? They don't do that, not because they don't want to, but because they can't.

Sure the Russians have port access at some places now in peacetime, those would dry up in a full fledged war. Exactly where would they be stopping in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Far Pacific in a wartime Scenario to refuel / rearm / repair? They simply do not have that kind of power projection now, it was better in the Cold War era than now.




posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Exactly where would they be stopping in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Far Pacific in a wartime Scenario to refuel / rearm / repair? They simply do not have that kind of power projection now, it was better in the Cold War era than now.


They can stop in Syria for the Mediterranean (the Kusnetzov) made a controversial stop there recently.
The Indian Ocean has options of India, Iran, Malaysia, and Indonesia. There will be some African nations that may fall into this category as well.
The North Pacific has the entire eastern seaboard for Russia.
China could be an option too.

Now I understand that stopping over in India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Syria etc might be an issue if it is an open war with a major western force that also has relations with these countries.

Having said that, the same western powers would not be able to access these
services as well; which they have been doing most liberally for the war on Iraq btw.

What one must understand is that when countries have military exercises with each other, the PRIMARY objective is to initiate/improve a high level of interoperability in their forces, esp in the realm of maintenance, resupply and
allied operations. All that publicized jazz about who 'won' in 'vs.' encounters, counter-terrorism ops etc. is just what we hear.

Another point to note is that though the Russian Navy might have been relatively larger in the Soviet Era, interoperability standards with other friendly/allied forces have never been at a higher level.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


Like I said, in peacetime Russia has that kind of port access. Should it come to a full out war, Russia would not have that kind of access nor would it be able to rearm at those ports. They would be severly limited in where they could "put in" . Maybe Iran and Syria would still allow them, but the Western fleets would deny them that possibility.

The Russian fleet will not overextend itself and has never shown itself capable of forward projecting a major portion of it's fleet. It's subs are the exception to that statement, they routininly travel far as a part of their mission.

Western powers would still have the majority of their port arrangements. They would most definetly control the sea lanes and overall command of the Sea, so countries would be more willing to work with them as they would control the water. The Russian surface fleet would always be hounded when it moved out of it's ports, the same can not be said for the RN or USN forces. Sure Russian Subs are the major threat, but tgey probably will not sink enough captial ships before being destroyed to matter enough in the long run.


[edit on 27-3-2008 by pavil]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Like I said, in peacetime Russia has that kind of port access. Should it come to a full out war, Russia would not have that kind of access nor would it be able to rearm at those ports. They would be severely limited in where they could "put in" .


So here's the deal: For The war(s) in the Gulf Western forces regularly stop at Indian ports to resupply on non-military items (much to the chagrin of NAM supporters). This is purely because India does not see any direct alliegence to protect to Gulf states the west is at war with currently, even though India morally opposes the whole thing.

So If Russia engages in a war with a third party that is of no real concern to Indian relations, they can use Indian ports to resupply and even re-arm as the equipment is very similar if not exactly the same. Same with Iran, Syria, China, Indonesia etc etc..



The Russian fleet will not overextend itself and has never shown itself capable of forward projecting a major portion of it's fleet. It's subs are the exception to that statement, they routininly travel far as a part of their mission.


True on both counts from the Soviet Era stand point. The Indo-Pak 1971 war never really became WWIII just because the Soviets were able to deploy naval forces to 'discourage' any USN intervention (74th Task Force) into this conflict.



Western powers would still have the majority of their port arrangements. They would most definetly control the sea lanes and overall command of the Sea, so countries would be more willing to work with them as they would control the water.


I'm glad you make that point and I agree to a certain extent. This is precisely why most non-aligned states are building navies to hold their own in their regional waters. Global policing of international waterways is a global responsibility and not a privilege to a select few.



The Russian surface fleet would always be hounded when it moved out of it's ports, the same can not be said for the RN or USN forces. Sure Russian Subs are the major threat, but tgey probably will not sink enough captial ships before being destroyed to matter enough in the long run.


If they are waters that are home to allied forces with decent blue water/ littoral navies then the hounding is not so easy. Of course, there are regions where the west dominates to a great extent; namely the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and the Central Pacific.



[edit on 27-3-2008 by Daedalus3]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 



I don't dispute much of what you say.
However I don't forsee a third party war that the Russians would be involved with that would have the Western navies sitting by letting them do what they want. Either they would support the Russian move or oppose it. Either way the Russians would need either outright or tacit approval of the Western Navies to carry out it's tasks far from home ports. While both may be showing favoritsm, mine is based on actual track histories of the navies while yours is more conjecture. I don't even recall the last time a Russian Naval vessel fired in actual hostile conditions or performed actual live military actions. The USN and the RN have the actual experience with them.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by Daedalus3
 



I don't dispute much of what you say.
However I don't forsee a third party war that the Russians would be involved with that would have the Western navies sitting by letting them do what they want. Either they would support the Russian move or oppose it. Either way the Russians would need either outright or tacit approval of the Western Navies to carry out it's tasks far from home ports. While both may be showing favoritsm, mine is based on actual track histories of the navies while yours is more conjecture. I don't even recall the last time a Russian Naval vessel fired in actual hostile conditions or performed actual live military actions. The USN and the RN have the actual experience with them.


Mod Edit - Unwarranted personal attack removed. Please see your U2U

Russia wouldn't ask ANY western powers for ANY permission, in a war, you assume because Russia doesn't have the same amout of ships that it did during the cold war, they can't,
they just held a MAJOR excersize in Feb of this year,you said western ships would deny them axcess to ports
dude they will blow those ships up with thier subs, you can believe these "textbook" sceinarios (AND THIS WHAT THEY ARE) all you want but that will not happen PERIOD.

[edit on 28/0308/08 by neformore]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


That is exactly why the Aegis system was built. To protect the fleet from the barrage of cruise missiles that the Russian ships and subs will use. The whole idea of the super carrier is force projection and the ability to bring massive air power to bare on hostile countries quickly when needed. Not that they are invisible against a foe like Russia, Its just they are a great asset to have don't you think?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Lambo Rider
 



Dude, don't go personal with comments on this website, debate the topic. Please tell me the details of the Russian naval exercise, ie, where, how many, how long ect. How long has the USN had carriers in the Persian Gulf region now? Could the Russians do the same for such an extended period.

Think what you want, but the Russian fleet is no match for the combined force of Western navies nor do they have the port infrastructure and arrangements overseas that the West does. Their Sub fleet is their primary threat, the Missle threat from their surface fleet is predicated on them getting anywhere close enough to do the damage, which would be the hard part unless they "sneak attack" from a peacetime setup. Pretty much everyone is agreement that the Russian close in missile defence is less than the West's, so getting in range to attack means the Russian ships will also be in range for a counterattack, with far less levels of defence.

Again, Russia would NEVER get involved in a Naval engagement with a third party that the West would support militarily with their naval forces. Russia just wouldn't attempt it and in fact NEVER has attempted it.That's what I meant by outright or tacit approval of the West to any far ranging Russian Naval engagements.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pavil
I don't dispute much of what you say.


aahh but you do?



However I don't forsee a third party war that the Russians would be involved with that would have the Western navies sitting by letting them do what they want.

True dictatorship at its best huh?
I believe the day will come when when the west will not be able to do the same without the 'tacit' approval of the multi polar world.



Either they would support the Russian move or oppose it. Either way the Russians would need either outright or tacit approval of the Western Navies to carry out it's tasks far from home ports. While both may be showing favoritsm, mine is based on actual track histories of the navies while yours is more conjecture. I don't even recall the last time a Russian Naval vessel fired in actual hostile conditions or performed actual live military actions.


That's because the Russian navy has not engaged live publicized naval battles with any force, let alone a naval force of the same pedigree.
That does not mean it is not capable of projecting influence far from its borders and it has done so effectively in the past (a long time ago as far as I personally know, but it HAS happened).
In one instance, the Soviet Navy mobilization prevented the actual initiation of the first-ever hostilties between the IAF/IN and the USN.
I can assure you that there were Hawker Hunter aircraft preparing for one way kamikazi missions against the USS Enterprise which ad parked itself in an area where it was most certainly not welcome.
Only the timely intervention of a nuclear-tipped soviet naval battle group blockade forced the 74th task force to withdraw.

This is just one instance that I most definitely know of. I can stake my ATS reputation on it.



The USN and the RN have the actual experience with them.


I do not think the USN has engaged in battle with a navy that is even remotely comparable to its caliber since WWII.
Every shot fired has been an overkill since the word 'go'.
Not to take anything away from them; its just that you cannot use the USN naval engagement history since WWII as a milestone for comparing with any other navy, let alone Russia.
The RN on one hand got away with the slimmest of victories against the CANA and FAA in 1982.
However, yes, the USN/RN has had much more experience in certain areas of naval ops, carrier operation for example.

Edited the right name into the quote for clarity's sake

[edit on 28/0308/08 by neformore]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Well, the US seem to have big problems intercepting russian anti-ship missiles.

www.softwar.net...

In 1997 the U.S. Navy test fired four kerosene ramjet powered MA-31 missiles with a blistering Mach 2.7 performance at 30 feet over the sea. Three of the MA-31 target drones were test fired to verify performance - which according to the manufacturer was over 1700 miles an hour at sea level and over Mach 3.5 at altitude.

The fourth MA-31 drone was flown in a live fire exercise in which the Navy was reportedly unable to shoot it down. The Navy was so impressed with the MA-31 they have requested and obtained permission from the Clinton administration to purchase nine more of the hot cruise missiles...
The MA-31 is derived from the Russian ramjet powered Kh-31 cruise missile. The titanium Kh-31 was built in 1988 by Zvezda-Strela for the former Soviet Union as an anti-ship cruise missile.

www.worldnetdaily.com...
www.wnd.com...

"Current anti-ship cruise missiles are faster, stealthier, and can fly at lower altitudes than the missiles that hit the U.S.S. Stark in 1987, killing 37 sailors," states the report. "The next generation of anti-ship cruise missiles -- most of which are now expected to be fielded by 2007 -- will be equipped with advanced target seekers and stealthy design. These features will make them even more difficult to detect and defeat."



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Rav3n
 


That was from ten years ago. It takes less time to build an air craft carrier than that so I'm pretty sure they have fixed that problem if they ever had one to begin with.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Then with what?

Searam?

im not so sure as there are also new russian anti shipping missles.

The fact is russia didnt need force projection as much. WW3 was supposed to happen in europe where russian submarines and such would try to cut of the reinforcements transmitted through the atlantic from the US. The US needed carriers to protect them and the russians realized the best way to stop such a thing is with submarines.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Mod Edit - I have edited the Original post to reflect the correct name, and removed the rather long fully quoted post from here because it is no longer relevant

Hey YOU, you better EDIT that "quote" supposedly from me, or I'll do what it takes to get you temporarly BANNED, because that quote, is NOT mine, go back and LOOK at my post, thats NOT MINE


[edit on 28/0308/08 by neformore]

[edit on 28/0308/08 by neformore]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Lambo Rider
 


Daedalus3 is a respected member here, even though I may have disagreements with him. I am sure it was an simple error, it's easy enough to make a mistake with nested quotes. A simple U2U would have cleared it up.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
Hey YOU, you better EDIT that "quote" supposedly from me, or I'll do what it takes to get you temporarly BANNED, because that quote, is NOT mine, go back and LOOK at my post, thats NOT MINE


Chill.

Step away from the keyboard.

Breathe deeply.

No one is getting banned. Mistakes happen, particularly with quotes.

I do it all the time. No need to go off the deep end, ok?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
Hey YOU, you better EDIT that "quote" supposedly from me, or I'll do what it takes to get you temporarly BANNED, because that quote, is NOT mine, go back and LOOK at my post, thats NOT MINE



You must've like had a major infarction or something there!
I fell of me chair laughing!

Ok.. enough..
~wiping the tears of me eyes~
You're quite right; it wasn't yours. A genuine switcharoo while copy pasting quotes there. My sincere apologies.

I shall change it right now!

EDIT: Alas! I cannot change it anymore! Its got no edit options!

Have you like reported me or put me on your enemies list or something?





[edit on 28-3-2008 by Daedalus3]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
EDIT: Alas! I cannot change it anymore! Its got no edit options!



It has been resolved by the magic of moderator editing. Its like it never happened.

All is now well with the world - for a minute there I though the Russian Navy was putting to sea......



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
Hey YOU, you better EDIT that "quote" supposedly from me, or I'll do what it takes to get you temporarly BANNED, because that quote, is NOT mine, go back and LOOK at my post, thats NOT MINE


Chill.

Step away from the keyboard.

Breathe deeply.

No one is getting banned. Mistakes happen, particularly with quotes.

I do it all the time. No need to go off the deep end, ok?

Looks like my "Temper tantrum" worked relax guys, I just wanted a "QUICK" edit I'm not realy mad at him.


[edit on 29-3-2008 by Lambo Rider]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Lambo Rider
 


If you think that throwing "temper tantrums" is going to get your own way here, think again, because they will most likely get you warned and/or banned if they carry on.

You could simply have asked for an edit.

Courtesy is Mandatory



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I find it funny how little knowledge some people posses.

ok so lets go


1st claim Russian navy is outdated , repeat SEVERLY OUTDATED

Oh really?
Now how exactly is Russian navy outdated , no I REALLY REALLY wanna know how exactly is the russian navy outdated , cuz last time I checked the " most tehnologicaly advanced US navy " for most people anyway , had their state of the art Oliver Hazard Perry's and Ticonderoga cruisers commisioned the same year AND BEFORE the Russians commisioned Udaloys , Kirovs , Slavas etc..
If you think a 1980 ship is outdated and crippled then you seem to know NOTHING about armed forces at all , ZERO.
The Us B-52 strategic bomber that has a excelent combat history and is somewhat the best big strategic bomber of this time was commisioned in 1952!!!!!!!!!!
Seriusly if you know nothing then better to shut up than make yourself look dumb.
Furthermore not only is the russian naval tehnology quite on PAIR in most things with the USN , its AShm's and Torpedos are the best in the world , faster and with longer range than ANY other country has , including USA.

2. Regarding the UK navy ... thats a complete joke , what will the UK with their ridicilously incapable only usefull for medium range A-A support Type-42 destroyers do against 27.000T CRUISERS ARMED WITH 600KM ANTI SHIP MISSILES and multi layer air defence, hell 1 KIROV class alone could sink THE WHOLE UK surface fleet ALONE.
AND WE ARE NOT EVEN MENTIONING THE IMMENSE RUSSIAN AVMF with its Tu-22M3 supersonic bombers from which a single regiment could sink the whole UK fleet , seriusly this debate is ridicilous.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join