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.
Originally posted by bodrul
russian navy = rusted old ships barely able to stay afloat
us navy = state of the art equipment
easy
Originally posted by Russian Boy
i1.tinypic.com...
i1.tinypic.com...
Originally posted by Daedalus3
If the Russians were to keep one unit of every naval vessel that was built to be exported, then they would have a formidable navy.
I tell you guys, if their economy can grow to an extent to support expansion of the armed forces, Russia's back..
Originally posted by jetsetter
The Russian Navy was never really able to project power like the US Navy is able to do.
Today many ships in the Russian Navy have been retired and a great deal are rusting away. They do have a force, nothing comparable to the US Navy but still a force.
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by jetsetter
The Russian Navy was never really able to project power like the US Navy is able to do.
Well you might want to go read what some US admirals and strategic planners had to say even back in the early 70's. You might be surprised to find that the SU were projecting alot of power even if most of it were not above water but under....
Today many ships in the Russian Navy have been retired and a great deal are rusting away. They do have a force, nothing comparable to the US Navy but still a force.
Well knowing the Russians ( they tend to not throw stuff away) that rust may very well be painted on just to help the Western media make everyone believe what they would like to. If one goes by the number of ships/submarines the SU admits to operating these days you are obviously quite accurate in your assessment.
Stellar
Originally posted by ORIEguy
Right...the Red Menace is just biding its time.
Golly, can they hurry up with their upcoming international revolution already? I'm getting sick of my meaningless capitalist existence...someone please tell the Russians to hurry up!
OK but seriously, the Russians ARE letting their older ships rust...for good reason.
There just isn't any point in their even keeping around older vessels, and it costs money to "properly" decommission them and take them apart...money which needs to be spent maintaining their "core" systems. The publicity shots you see are of the ships getting the maintenance.
And Stellar going by the traditional definition of power projection, the Russians have been very limited. A Cold War era surface action group has very limited capability to influence affairs ashore.
That is even more true for submarines.
Which is why naval power projection usually weighs amphibious assault and aviation assets more heavily.
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.”
www.g2mil.com...
It 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.
www.g2mil.com...
Originally posted by StellarX
"sell whatever you can and use the money to construct more huge underground cities where a good part of the Russian population can ride out the nuclear war."
Originally posted by PrimalDeaf
i doubt that Russia would let any Civ's into it tbh