Super Missile Cruiser "Moskva" with Destroyers And Frigates heads for Syria

GargIndia
reply to post by ATSWATCHER

 

I do not think we shall have a US/Russia confrontation due to Syria.

Putin is trying for a deal on chemical weapons (which seems difficult). The end result may be air strikes by US.

I'm not meaning Syria will be the cause of WWIII, but this will lead to WWIII.

Most Russia can do is try to shoot down some planes and ships.

What your post is saying is "Russia's tech has been proven in the cold war to be weak", as stated by our Government threw the media, and President Reagan.", but history has shown things like the many B-52s shot down over Vietnam, by SA-2 or 3s, that's just for starters.

Post strike, Russia can rearm Assad if Assad is still in power. It looks likely that Assad will continue to control a part of Syria no matter what (Alawite base / Christians). So airstrikes will change little on the ground.

What do you mean , "he will control"
1. He's the rightly elected Leader ( by 70%) of the pop, and the Syrian Gov also has a vote/say.

2. The Majority of Syrians want the Parliament leaders, and Pres. Assad in Power.

3. I have to go now but I'll continue with more facts latter on, P.S. Think VERY carefully, homie, "Why did Russia come out of no where with this plan to collect & dispose of Syria's C/B (Chemical/Biological) Weapons, and why did The Whole Gov ( Not just Pres. Assad) agree to give up these weapons that would keep at bay ANY & ALL would-be invaders?

4. The answer when I get back.

reply to post by ATSWATCHER


I would be happy to learn a thing or two from you.

My understanding is that avoiding airstrikes is better for Assad, as he needs the infrastructure that houses his key military units + government arms.

rock427

The Russian ships are just as obsolete as the US ships.....It's all about the anti-ship missile swarms, which can be surface, submarine or air launched.

It would likely take more missiles than the very small Russian navy has (logistical reasons) to overrun an Aegis let alone SIX of them...And Submarines are probably one of the best assets a carrier strike group has. Again, a good defense is a good offense.

By NATO's own admission, A single salvo of no more than 36 Moskit would be GUARANTEED to sink all six Aegis ships.

That's about two to three TU-160s worth.

The surface naval vessel is nothing more than a showy and expensive deathtrap.....Ask the British sailors who served on them in the Falklands (and keep in mind that Exocet is subsonic and packs nothing like the punch of Moskit or its more sophisticated descendants and it didn't come in swarms).

Russia has submarines too and they are more than equal to their US counterparts.....Can you say Shkval?

en.wikipedia.org...

squarehead666

rock427

The Russian ships are just as obsolete as the US ships.....It's all about the anti-ship missile swarms, which can be surface, submarine or air launched.

It would likely take more missiles than the very small Russian navy has (logistical reasons) to overrun an Aegis let alone SIX of them...And Submarines are probably one of the best assets a carrier strike group has. Again, a good defense is a good offense.

By NATO's own admission, A single salvo of no more than 36 Moskit would be GUARANTEED to sink all six Aegis ships.

That's about two to three TU-160s worth.

The surface naval vessel is nothing more than a showy and expensive deathtrap.....Ask the British sailors who served on them in the Falklands (and keep in mind that Exocet is subsonic and packs nothing like the punch of Moskit or its more sophisticated descendants and it didn't come in swarms).

edit on 16-9-2013 by squarehead666 because: clarity/s&p

Any links that prove this?
Interested .. not trying to prove you wrong!

reply to post by rigel4

I'm working on finding a link to the supporting documentation (declassified).....It's no longer where I thought it was.

Bear with me and I'll try to find it.

reply to post by rigel4

Still can't find the original link.....Here's an article that touches on the subject, in this case in the context of a Chinese threat (and Chinese missiles ain't half so good as Russian missiles, believe me):

medium.com...

Here's some info on proposals to deal with the threat:

www.militaryaerospace.com...

reply to post by squarehead666


I know that missiles like Yakhont can sink US ship. However Russian naval concepts are different from American. The role of two navies is different. Russian Navy no longer prepares for or postulates an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with NATO.

Russian surface ships's primary role is protection of strategic assets. Russia considers protection of its strategic assets as most important, as its ability to fire nukes successfully is considered the biggest guarantee of its security.

Middle-east is a messed up place. USA gains nothing from bombing Syria. Why should Russia care too much? The opposition hardcore Islamic fighters are as much against USA as against Russia.

As I said earlier, the chances of a USA/Russia war over Syria are very low. It is not a serious scenario.

squarehead666
reply to post by rigel4

 

Still can't find the original link.....Here's an article that touches on the subject, in this case in the context of a Chinese threat (and Chinese missiles ain't half so good as Russian missiles, believe me):

medium.com...

Here's some info on proposals to deal with the threat:

www.militaryaerospace.com...

The Chinese are very good at stealing, especially Russian technology.

I always assume that Chinese can steal anything that Russia has. The Chinese have also obtained / stolen tech from Europe and USA.

I would not underestimate the Chinese.

The Chinese lack from practical experience, not a lack of weapons.

If Chinese start fighting wars, their capability level will increase quickly.

China is the first REAL challenge since the Nazi Germany to the West. It remains to be seen how the West manages this challenge.

reply to post by GargIndia


China a challenge to the West?

Only if you're insane and operate from a POV of being world policeman, controlling global currency, dominating a lifestyle way ahead of everyone else materially.

Reality

1: China demographically will be world leader, more chinese cross into Siberia every year than there are people in Siberia, next door nations like Kazakhstan have only 20 Million people and there are 1.5 Billion Chinese. Vancouver is known as Hongcouver these days, multiple counties around San Francisco are 50% Asian or better, a whole section of LA is now Asian and i'm in Arizona and I had 6 Asian families online at the bank in front of me a few weeks back and i'm up North not in a city... They will win "peoples war" you're going to share space with China like it or not, the numbers arriving from Asia particularly if you include India in that total are higher than Mexicans ever were at peak...

2: The population of Asia with a huge trade deficit all around if modernized could still keep Japan, America, South Korea, Taiwan and Canada afloat by numbers... 1.5 Billion consumers vs 500 Million people your economy will never suffer terribly with a strong China around and again that is before factoring in India another 1.1 Billion consumers, the REAL method is to support those nations, neither has a history of conquest, India is a democracy straight up and frankly whatever the leadership of China is call it "communist" whatever... they aren't the no 1 police and prison system in the world, we are. They haven't attacked anyone, we keep doing that, there is no actual "threat" on a military level when you're across an ocean with 3500 warheads... never going to happen unless you're a power monger and FORCE it. Would I say that If I was from uzbekistan? No... China could be scary in that case. But it's not to you or I, we are an investment nation worse we get (see no 1) is Asian homeowners

3: 1.5 Billion people in a fair global economy shouldn't be no 2 behind 300 Million people, it's not actually feasible to remain the worlds no 1 economy unless you're starving out 1.2 Billion of them...

4: Close ties would be good, China is an awesome tourist destination, Japan can make more money from China in a year than those stupid oil reserves can ever be worth and it's time for Asia to make peace.

5: China didn't build those incredible cities over the last 20 years because they intend to have a war, with us, who can actually win or lose knock them down.

6: WE can have it BETTER, as I said above, no one invades a nation with a few thousand warheads, someone else please be world police, it's costly, the nations where it is NICE to live are eco friendly, control their population growth, have lots of extra room. America... well making 300 Million people work harder than a collective 1.5 Billion is... slavery, a police state, it's more FUN to live in Shanghi these days, people with jobs get laid have a few drinks.... we are miserable, it's unnatural.

Let China have it's power, there is only ONE invasion plan that will ever control the ME and central Asia, Indian and Chinese boots and eventually it will happen, we don't need the OIl those 2 countries do.

We should sit here on Our own private CONTINENT and let Asia deal with Asia and not interfere, we can only be better off financially, avoid a lot of grief, we have most of the worlds water thanks to Canada, a little spice down in mexico... we have it good. Not controlling the worlds Oil and Money can only make life BETTER for the People of our continent...

And we do... we have a CONTINENT lol... we have it made. Our govt is full of idiots.

reply to post by penninja


exactly. The US lacks nothing for many centuries of bliss and prosperity within its own borders.

I agree with you bud.

Let the worlds wealthy ask China to protect their interests. The US has paid its dues and then some.

I say its time to build ourselves up. Let the world sort itself out.

reply to post by penninja


The basic argument of your post is sound. USA can, if it wants, stay isolated and blissful.

However I do not think USA's leaders are happy with that. If they were, they would not have shipped American jobs to Asia in the name of efficiency.

The problem now is that an average Chinese works harder than an average American. America had a headstart being an advanced industrial economy. However China has caught up (even India to some degree). China has now far more investable surplus than USA. So it can buy and more important develop technology with its own resources.

And it is showing. The Chinese recently acquired a domestically built aircraft carrier, and are about to develop a fifth generation fighter similar to F-22.

The Chinese are no longer a military power that can be ignored by the USA.

While you may think that Chinese will forever keep on buying US bonds and investing in US economy, the fact is they will demand their pound of meat as their confidence grows. This includes making Yuan an international currency (buying oil in Yuan), freedom to control natural resources worldwide etc. If you remember, the primary source of US military strength is control of natural resources. And you must agree that natural resources are not as plentiful as it appears. There is a real competition among nations for control of such resources.

An example is competition between India and China, where India is losing, and may be the reason of India depressed growth in the last three years. The failure to secure natural resources will result is stunted economic growth or worse.

The military power is very much linked to economic power. While you may think your nukes give you unlimited military power, the reality is otherwise. The pre-eminent position of USA is still heavily dependent on its economic strength.

reply to post by GargIndia


I don't think the Nukes give us "unlimited power" they are useful as they are useful as a deterrent. While sharing a border with so much arsenal on both sides China and India for example do need to keep an open eye. The Americas do not actually have that issue, you don't need to keep such a massive and expensive Military force to assure against invasion here, there is no ground to cross, there is only ocean, the numbers count for nothing here because bringing them over is an impossible trick, establishing a beachhead when you're dealing with Nukes in play can't happen, particularly not over massive terrain with an armed populace. If they technology is superior to what avail? Look at what the loss of 2 towers did to the US economy? What does it really take to ruin China? 3 Missiles? One in Shanghai, One in Beijing, One in Hong Kong?

To what purpose would an invasion be? Holding territory in a modern age is a nightmare, the Soviets failed in Afghanistan we didn't do much better. The supply lines would be costly as heck, any large fleet, let's face it.... even if your tech can counter nukes, some will slip by, what are the fears of the USA for 1 Trillion plus a year, we crap bricks over an Iranian speed boat with a Nuke on board taking out a whole Carrier Battle group, or a single EMP strike over the nation launched from an oil tanker....

I'm not talking about eliminating our armed forces, small, shielded well maintained Nuclear systems, continued exploration in high tech, and a reduced forced geared to defense for half the price... No one will be invading us anytime soon... ever, no more than there would be sanity for the USA to even dream it could occupy China or India...

If China builds a Trillion a year military it will be used the same way we use ours, to grab those resources from defenseless nations in which you actually Can grab resources, not us. For us it means we can no longer defend those places which begs the question... why should we?



I also think that to battle (figuratively or physically) China or India over resources is foolish.

China and India need those resources, the only true friction our nations have is US Interventionism which at this point is GREED. America, like Germany and possibly Japan, definitely Canada is capable of going green... The technology is there, the capacity is there, the population size is absolutely not a major problem, meanwhile for China and India to prop up a global economy from recession there are over a billion more people who can use cars, the leap to solar, the amount of energy needed to modernize that many people is massive... The Long term way of looking at this isn't typical western short term thinking, sure there is money to be made selling the oil if you possess the ME, but the BIG money is consumerism, India and China have 2.6 Billion potential customers. Indias business in the future is worth as much as all of Europe, China's is worth 50% more.

Resources?

Energy.... Germany will run the entire nation naturally, largely with solar and their climate stinks for that, The American South West can fuel the whole nation.

Cars... the tech is already there and growing, the need for oil is vastly going to diminish here

Steel, raw materials? Synthetics, the tech is there, Carbon is God

Food, we already feed nearly 50% of the world from this continent

Water... the huge water wars that are coming, lol, not here they aren't

Half a Trillion a year back into infrastructure and we are mightier than ever, we just won't have so much "force projection" Let me add this... if we do have actual enemies, which we don't or at least didn't before we bombed the heck out of everyone in a region.. the best thing you can do to remain on top economically is let your enemies and competitors fight, have to spend more on their own defense.

War? it's not a century ago, it doesn't make money... sure for a few that sell arms or happen to be in oil... but fear doesn't create consumer spending, being part of violence which quickly becomes "conspiracy" as people tell stories via modern media doesn't encourage envy, immigration, tourism, business deals... It's not good for the economy anymore, if we worry about China's war plans... let them have their wars, it will ruin them just like it ruined Russia and now Us.

Today is the communication era, this time is past where these things brought any gain, the smart nation, avoids war. Any war. Boston being closed for the day doesn't do much for the economy, people prepping and storing food is money not at the movie theater.

An old American policy used to be "walk softly and carry a big stick"

It worked

How should we handle Asia?

Embrace it, not Fear it.

Americas strength which is waning for decades was Europe, Nato... This century we Embraced the tides from Europe, those strong ethnic ties left us with great alliances and friends, today's tumultuous region of immigrants is Asia and because the cultures are bit strange to some or harder to relate to we reject that power that we have, the power of immigration, in reality, India and China and korea and Taiwan and Vietnam and even Japan are our NEW source of power. These people are modern civilized immigration. They will create the ties that bring us lasting peace and allow us to tap those markets effectively.

But look at who we are... an Indian woman won Miss America today. a TRUTH a sign of what is REAL of where this nation is going. And people rejected it... for no reason.

Our power here is "give us your tired your poor your huddled masses" not bomb the crap out of them...

Two of the Russian Navy large landing ships have left the Mediterranean and have headed back into the Black Sea.

RFS Peresvet and RFS Admiral Nevelskoi

Images of them going north in the Turkish Straits at following link.

turkishnavy.net...

hellobruce

Originally posted by johncarter
It is accompanied by Destroyers, Fregats and a couple of nuclear Typhoon class subs

So why would Russia be sending SSBN's - who do they plan to nuke?

Putin really wants a war by the sound of it!

it's the usa that is threatening to start a war, russia is trying to prevent ww3.

the usa cannot be allowed to keep on being a rogue nation that attacks everyone they feel like destroying.

lies and propaganda is a cheap excuse to kill hundreds of thousands, as in iraq.

it's sad, but imo, russia is the world's best hope of avoiding another major war.

certainly not much brains in washington dc.

reply to post by penninja


Good post. I like your views.

The natural resources are enough if people recycle and use wisely.

Oil is not needed. I agree with you that oil can be substituted with electricity produced from renewable sources.

intrepid
A question my ATS friends. Who has the most to gain from the US spearheading a Syrian attack?

israel, saudi arabia, and the american military/industrial complex afraid of budget cuts.

reply to post by Catacomb


Russia is very serious along with Iraq because they share space in there...they made an agreement back in 1971 that they would have what amounts to a repair and refuel depot at one of the ports...media is not mentioning this....

Part of the US strategy is to deny resources to adversaries.

Another Ropucha Class landing ship has left the Mediterranean and headed back to home port in Russia. RFS Alexander Shabalin.

turkishnavy.net...

My problem with USA is that USA have never said a word about Christians being killed in Syria by the rebels. Why are rebels burning churches and killing Christians?

USA have proved that it is not on the side of civilians, which is a very grave mistake.

USA has never given a vision of post-Assad Syria. It is not enough to say that 'Assad should go'. It is important to know what comes thereafter.

Americans are dissociated from the ground realities. This has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is now happening in Syria.