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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5thGuards
...., hell 1 KIROV class alone could sink THE WHOLE UK surface fleet ALONE.


Hmm, a ship with 20 cruise missiles could sink the whole UK surface fleet......and you call me a homer.

It's good that only one KIROV ship could do that considering that the WHOLE Russian fleet only has TWO of them! And one of them is of questionable service :

On March 23, 2004, the Russian Northern Fleet Chief Commander, Admiral Vladimir Kuroedov said that Pyotr Velikiy's reactor was in an extremely bad condition and could explode "at any moment". This statement was later withdrawn and may have been the result of internal politics within the Russian Navy, as Admiral Igor Kasatonov (the uncle of Pyotr Velikiy commander Vladimir Kasatanov) was testifying in the court hearings on the loss of the K-159 and the Kursk disaster.


[edit on 6-4-2008 by pavil]




posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by 5thGuards
...., hell 1 KIROV class alone could sink THE WHOLE UK surface fleet ALONE.


Hmm, a ship with 20 cruise missiles could sink the whole UK surface fleet......and you call me a homer.

And how much does actualy royal navy posses of the so called fleet?

8 Type 42 destroyers and thats it , and they are useless decent anti air destroyers , with lack of total anti ship capability and ASW.

Or were you thinking that Royal navy would also have certain Frigates with ASW role pitted against the russian SURFACE fleet such as type 22? lol

Yes 1 Kirov could destroy all 8 of them.


It's good that only one KIROV ship could do that considering that the WHOLE Russian fleet only has TWO of them! And one of them is of questionable service :

Yeah too bad those 2 Kirovs are capable of sinking a US carrier , the Russian navy also has 3 Slava class cruisers and a Kuznetsov cruiser/carrier and a Kara cruiser.
And the reserve fleet ( if there was any need in a total war ) has quite some more cruisers , same as the US reserve fleet.

NOTE im not even talking about destroyers , frigates , submarines , Naval aviation..



On March 23, 2004, the Russian Northern Fleet Chief Commander, Admiral Vladimir Kuroedov said that Pyotr Velikiy's reactor was in an extremely bad condition and could explode "at any moment". This statement was later withdrawn and may have been the result of internal politics within the Russian Navy, as Admiral Igor Kasatonov (the uncle of Pyotr Velikiy commander Vladimir Kasatanov) was testifying in the court hearings on the loss of the K-159 and the Kursk disaster.


Too bad your source is a mere fiction of the truth , the cruiser has been active and participating in several excercises.

099(183) PETR VELIKIY BCGN Kirov 1996 #189 Baltiiskyy SSZ NOR

(until 1992 known as Yury Andropov). Keel laid down on April 25, 1986. Launched on April 25, 1989, and first sea trial completed in autumn 1995. The battle cruiser is scheduled to be transferred to the Pacific Fleet. Undergoing sea trials Northern Fleet, Kirov-4. 1999 twice took part in military exercises. 2003 took part in military exercises. Took part in military exercises on Feb 17-18, 2004. 08.2005 took part in military exersises on Northern fleet with President Putin aboard. 04.2007 visited by foreign media delegation. 07.2007 visited by US Navy CINC in Europe.


And it has been modernized and so is the other Kirov with the complete new anti air navalized S-400 and some other neat toys.






posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
One navy F18 with a few laser guided bombs could decimate any navy.

I think a few of the people on here fail to remember why the navy has had to increase the distance of it fleets. Ships are so far apart these days they are not even within viewing distance of each other.

Munitions are extremely accurate these days. Any ship on the high seas is like putting a tank in the middle of an open desert and thinking that its safe from attack.

“The Russians could kick Britain’s ass!” Yeah right. I admit that I may have underplayed Russia’s abilities, but I think some of you are drastically overplaying their hand. Russia’s Navy is completely vulnerable if for no other reason than the fact that they have very little sea posts in which to operate from.

Russia has always put a lot of time and attention upon their navy. But the simple truth is that a modern Navy is very vulnerable in modern warfare. Have you forgotten what happened at the bikini atoll? I think some of the people here need to remind themselves about what actually happened to a Navy fleet when it was attacked by a nuclear bomb.

The oceans are a much different story when it comes to nuclear attack. The chances of hurting civilians on the high seas are minimal compared the advantages of taking out air craft carriers with a single tactical nuclear weapon.

Modern technological warfare has almost made the tank a relic. Do you think that Navy ships are any different. They are simply larger, slower moving targets sitting like ducks on a pond waiting to be destroyed.

Nuclear submarines are about all that would be left in the 3rd world war. Carriers would be located by satellite destroyed with long range nuclear missiles. That’s the real reason the U.S. has its naval forces all spread all over the damn globe. It’s not just to play world cop, its for possible protection by spreading them out, and not putting all your ducks in the same pond to be nuke’d.

Russia has a serious disadvantage in the next world war, and they know it, which is partly why they never started one even though they fully realized that it was do or die time for the Soviet Union. It just took them almost 20 years to realize that they didn’t really stand much of a chance in a total nuclear war.

The New World Order is almost complete. Just a few “rogue nations” are left standing in the way. I bet some of you didn’t put two and two together when bush used the term “Rogue Nations” a few years ago. Notice that he doesn’t mention that phrase much these days.

Russia and China can get themselves ready to fight against the New World Order, but it won’t stop it. The European Union and the future North American Union will all but seal the fate of communism. Democratic Oligarchies are simply far too efficient for the slower communistic countries to compete against.

Russia, it seems, is also about to be left out of the future Asian Union. But I am sure that smart people all ready know that an Asian Union cannot proceed without warfare. So, China will be allowed to conquer Taiwan, Japan, and south Korea. I think that the power at be are far to concerned about global resource control to let a few “Rogue Nations”like Russia stand in the way of the New World Order.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5thGuards
Too bad your source is a mere fiction of the truth , the cruiser has been active and participating in several excercises.



www.rferl.org... -433b-8792-68c2b7780c6c.html

Still think it's fiction? Read up and then we can talk. The Russian surface fleet in wartime will be a coastal fleet as they lack any real air cover. The only way they will get an attack in is if they sneak attack during peacetime. In a wartime situation, the Russian fleet would not get near the U.S. CBG's save for their subs, which are a threat. Just a FYI, when was the last Russian real naval operation?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hot_Wings


Russia has always put a lot of time and attention upon their navy. But the simple truth is that a modern Navy is very vulnerable in modern warfare. Have you forgotten what happened at the bikini atoll? I think some of the people here need to remind themselves about what actually happened to a Navy fleet when it was attacked by a nuclear bomb.

Yes I saw the BikiniAtol video on ATS, I suggest you look at it too, NONE of those ships sank, 1 or 2 just flew a little in the air, go to the "search" engine and look carefully at the video again.








Nuclear submarines are about all that would be left in the 3rd world war. Carriers would be located by satellite destroyed with long range nuclear missiles. That’s the real reason the U.S. has its naval forces all spread all over the damn globe. It’s not just to play world cop, its for possible protection by spreading them out, and not putting all your ducks in the same pond to be nuke’d.

There's a reason why Russia has 400 Tu-22's you should look and think before "assuming" Russia can't search and destroy ALL of the U.S. Carriers.




Russia has a serious disadvantage in the next world war, and they know it, which is partly why they never started one even though they fully realized that it was do or die time for the Soviet Union. It just took them almost 20 years to realize that they didn’t really stand much of a chance in a total nuclear war.
Before you go on with wrong assesments, I think you should look at the links StellarX has posted with the U.S. pretty much addmitting USSR had the REAL advantage of winning a nuke war, here start with page 2 and go all the way threw the last page: www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 7-4-2008 by Lambo Rider]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by 5thGuards
Too bad your source is a mere fiction of the truth , the cruiser has been active and participating in several excercises.



www.rferl.org... -433b-8792-68c2b7780c6c.html

Still think it's fiction? Read up and then we can talk. The Russian surface fleet in wartime will be a coastal fleet as they lack any real air cover. The only way they will get an attack in is if they sneak attack during peacetime. In a wartime situation, the Russian fleet would not get near the U.S. CBG's save for their subs, which are a threat. Just a FYI, when was the last Russian real naval operation?



When the hell did I say a Russian ship can get into a CSG ( yes the carrier battle groups are gone or did you not know that? ) and hope to fire a salvo on a carrier without ever beeing detected or enganged???
And is the US = UK by any chance?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Lambo Rider
 




Some correction the Russians operate around 170 Tu-22M3 supersonic bombers and given their submarines Oscar II and the regiments of Backfires I would give them 2 at most 3 carriers that they could severly comprimise but at a price of lossing the whole AVMF and their submarines.

Mod Edit: Removed large quote and replaced with reply to.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by GAOTU789]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5thGuards
When the hell did I say a Russian ship can get into a CSG ( yes the carrier battle groups are gone or did you not know that? ) and hope to fire a salvo on a carrier without ever beeing detected or enganged???
And is the US = UK by any chance?


Probably when you said this: You imply it.

Yeah too bad those 2 Kirovs are capable of sinking a US carrier , the Russian navy also has 3 Slava class cruisers and a Kuznetsov cruiser/carrier and a Kara cruiser.

You claim they are capable, they would not get in range of the CBG ( I like the sound of that better, sorry) to even attempt to sink a Carrier should it come to real warfare. The best you might get is the outer ships at the perimeter. You are correct, they would be detected and engaged and sunk.


I didn't really understand the last sentance of your previous post US =UK?



[edit on 7-4-2008 by pavil]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   
No correction, I knew some one would come and post about, what Russia has "Operational" from what is in "Storage", all in all, there are 400 Tu-22/M1/M2/M3's and ALL could/will be brought out during WORLD WAR 3.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Lambo Rider]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
You claim they are capable, they would not get in range of the CBG ( I like the sound of that better, sorry) to even attempt to sink a Carrier should it come to real warfare. The best you might get is the outer ships at the perimeter. You are correct, they would be detected and engaged and sunk.


I didn't really understand the last sentance of your previous post US =UK?



Try reading it again , I said that they are capable of sinking a Carrier and not that they can sink a carrier strike group , im saying they have enough weaponry on board to be ABLE to sink a carrier WITH that weaponry as it is powerfull enough , do you understand what im saying?

And I was implying that you dont mix US in this conversation because US = not UK in naval power , its BY FAR superior.


Mod Edit:Proper Quoting. Please review this link.


[edit on 8-4-2008 by GAOTU789]

[edit on 8-4-2008 by GAOTU789]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lambo Rider





No correction, I knew some one would come and post about, what Russia has "Operational" from what is in "Storage", all in all, there are 400 Tu-22/M1/M2/M3's and ALL could/will be brought out during WORLD WAR 3.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Lambo Rider]


Lets say they have 170 operational Tu-22M3's and 200 in storage , how much of those would even fly? Alot of those are very old airframes that have not been maintanced for years ,from those 200 maybe 50-80 could fly.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by 5thGuards

Don't know why you talk about sinking US Carriers if you are just talking theoritical. I wouldn't be so sure as to what it would take to sink a Carrier. We have set up ships for test firing of weapons and they have withstood a massive amount of ordinance sometimes. Those were older Carriers, not the Nimitz sized ones. Of course one lucky hit and you could sink them with one shot as well. The Super Carriers are more durable than people give them credit for.

Sure one of The Kirovs could sink a Carrier if it was out alone in the ocean. That will never be the case. Each Carrier carrys a full complement of escort ships whose main goals are to see to the survival of the Carrier. A Launch of 20 cruise missiles would not mean 20 strikes on the Carrier.

Hopefully for all parties concerned, we will never find out who is right.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Well the kirov wont go around alone either.....

But yeah a cruiser is not a carrier.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:55 AM
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.


What flexibility does the RN have,besides for those aircraft carrying targets, that the RN does not have?


ssians), do not have the port and supply infrastructure to carry out extended far from home operations. The RN and USN do this routinely.


Oh right and they lack the technology to build supply ships? How many ships would survive to return to port and how many would be required to make such a trip for the Soviet naval interdiction strategy to be effective? The RN and USN HAS to do such things because it needs to support interventions in the third world but since the Soviet navy was never designed for anything but a mid Atlantic showdown why should there be similar capabilities or the requirement for such?


Okay.... I undertand your bias in matters regarding Russian/Soviet forces, nice spin on the collaspe of the Russian Fleet.


It's just a relatively well understood fact as far as i can tell but i suppose you would have had to read what i did not become aware of it.



You are correct though, the early to mid 80's was the more correct time of their peak Sub capability. I stand corrected.


Yes and this is another well known fact!


You make the broad assumption that the Soviet fleet could have broken out into the Atlantic and Pacific to attack convoys.


But as i said i am only agreeing with people who really had the means to know what was and was not possible. If you want to believe that the US could have kept those hundreds of Soviet submarines out of the Atlantic that is your business but i for one have little reason to believe in such fantastical notions.
So please go back a bit and check the credentials behind those earlier claims by all those US admirals.


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.


Is that not much like claiming that the US army in Germany were there to block the Soviet air force the only problem being the Russian ground forces? You must have heard of combined armed warfare and if so what's with this notion that they could survive the hundreds of backfires, bears and submarines in general to interdict the passage of surface forces so perfectly? Wouldn't it quickly degenerate in the same type of warfare as on land where the combinations of weapons is what determines the outcome irrespective of if greatly outnumber the enemy in some weapons classes?


Again the bias shows. The Russian armed forces are nowhere near the peak of Cold War Soviet/Warsaw Pact levels.


No they are not but since the US can not commit enough forces to even suppress the rebellion in Iraq ( or the Russians apparently the one in Chechnya) both sides seems to be experiencing similar issues of legitimacy; soldiers just don't seem to care for dying while fighting for such worthless causes. What is probably revealing is statements such as the following:


In his analysis of U.S. military operations in 2003 in northern Iraq, Wilson also touches on another continuing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq -- the number of troops there. "The scarcity of available 'combat power' . . . greatly complicated the situation," he states.

Wilson contends that a lack of sufficient troops was a consequence of the earlier, larger problem of failing to understand that prevailing in Iraq involved more than just removing Hussein. "This overly simplistic conception of the 'war' led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies . . . and too little allotted time to achieve 'success,' " he writes.

www.washingtonpost.com...


and i am not so sure that this is true for the Russians but then i suppose both Bush and Putin could be trying to get nationalist feelings going by getting their various armed forces into no win situations?


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?


Because it was a staged breakup to confuse people such as yourself into believing that the Russians had lost control of both their continental empire and Russia itself. And yes, i do believe that Golitsyn were not just particularly good at guessing.


Just remember too if the US economy goes the rest of the world's soon follows. We are all interconnected.


Sure we are still interconnected but these days there are in fact many more alternatives than their used to be. If the US economy should move into a severe recession there are in fact other markets that would emerge very quickly as soon as the worse of liquidity problems have been resolved. This is no longer a time when the world is entirely dependent on the US for producing finished goods or oil and while people still think in this way they are unlikely to see Russian economic strength for what it truly is. It is certainly true that China may be torn apart by internal strife in a crisis where foreign funding suddenly dries up as far as i can tell this has not been the case for Russian in the last few decades.


Um.... using nuclear cruise missiles changes the whole equation and you know that. They would not do that for fear of certain nuclear retalitiation.


It does not as the RF are far better prepared to fight and win a nuclear world war than is NATO or more specifically the US. The USSR were always preparing for a full blown nuclear war and the structure of it's armed forces reflects this fact.


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.


It was certainly better two decades ago but since the USN have not changed it's STUPID 'up or out' policy i think the result would still be much the same as it would have been in the 80's.


Japan doesn't even have carriers as far as I know.[/qupte]

Smart people those...


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.


What coverage? The Japanese has as much of a blue water navy as the RN does and frankly i won't put my faith in harriers to protect me. Maybe that's just my 'bias' showing again and if it wasn't for a dire lack of cruise missiles those carriers could not have and would not have been risked as close to shore as they needed to be to make any kind of difference. Sure i like aircraft carriers, especially those nice big one's, but when it comes to cruise missile carriers i prefer submarines over aircraft any day of the week.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by hinky
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.


Thanks for the background information...


I enjoyed the Russia worshiping going on about how great they are.


As opposed to the very reasoned arguments of obvious US superiority? Thanks for your objectivity....


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.


Ships sinks ( especially if their submarines) and while it's obvious that the RF has plenty of decent ships i just don't understand why you have a problem with the statistics as provided by western defense and intelligent specialist as to what Russian ships are operational and which are not? Going by that numbers where is the evidence that they are NOT in fact operational given how these sources have for decades on end persistently underestimated first Soviet and then Russian abilities?


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


By what measure? Please how the second claim logically flows from the first statement of fact?


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....


Mushroom clouds is what the Russians regimes have long been preparing for so if a war goes nuclear we have very good evidence as to who will very likely be the losers. I suppose the decline of the imperial economy does not prove anything other than that it should build more ships and submarines so as to best try stealing more?

RIght...

Stellar



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
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.


But where would they have to operate other than in the North Atlantic Ocean to win a global war? Could they in peace time deploy to friendly ports and in the opening shots of a global war largely decide the naval outcome? Isn't the evidence we have indicative of such, a battle of the first salvo if you will, a Soviet Naval strategy so as to best isolate Europe for possible conquest?


The U.S. and R.N. could.


Because they have fleet supply vessels or because it's presumed that they will have allies willing to get risk having their ports nuked to close it to them? Do you really believe major European/Northern ports would remain for such usage? Do you believe that they could not spare the nuclear warheads or that many would risk it?


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?


Since the Russians do not seem interested to do that why would they have to be able? Why would they want to operate there?


They don't do that, not because they don't want to, but because they can't.


In your opinion...


Sure the Russians have port access at some places now in peacetime, those would dry up in a full fledged war.


Why? Aren't we presuming that everyone believes NATO would win or that it is NATO who should be winning?


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.


And if any of that mattered i would care to agree that the SU could not go as many places as the USN. If only it NEEDED to it might have been relevant.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 



You seem to be itching for a resumption of the Cold War with it turning very hot. Russia is not our enemy. Your contention that the Soviet era strategy of "winning the North Atlantic" would still work. Are the Russians planning on invading Europe? I guess we will have to agree to disagree.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


I LOOVE when Stellar gets into these discussions, he knows how to put the R back into REALITY, GO STELLAR!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
I LOOVE when Stellar gets into these discussions, he knows how to put the R back into REALITY, GO STELLAR!!!!!!!!


Stellar's posts, like most, are simply an informed and highly arguable opinion stated in a proper and convincing manor, nothing to dismiss outright of course. But nothing to claim as "reality" either, that's much more difficult for any one individual to ascertain. In any case, either contribute something meaningful or don't post unnecessary comments.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Stellar's posts, like most, are simply an informed and highly arguable opinion stated in a proper and convincing manor, nothing to dismiss outright of course.


And yet many tries.
I don't particularly like the implication that there are many here that does anywhere near as much sourcing as i does but i suppose few notice as few bother with reading anything that might upset their particular view.


But nothing to claim as "reality" either, that's much more difficult for any one individual to ascertain. In any case, either contribute something meaningful or don't post unnecessary comments.


Your just jeolous of my 'fan', arn't you! I would not have minded some of that old boy backslapping type of support but i guess some of us are just too damn stupid to defend 'convention' as if was under any serious threat.


So please, don't hate me for having ONE enthusiastic supporter while you practically have to call the Russians, and anything they do or make, less than human to get any type of negative response. Have you ever wondered why it's so easy to get away with Russia/Iraqi bashing?

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join