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 5thGuards
...., hell 1 KIROV class alone could sink THE WHOLE UK surface fleet ALONE.
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 This statement was later withdrawn and may have been the result of internal politics within the Russian Navy, as Admiral Igor Kasatonov (the uncle of Pyotr Velikiy commander Vladimir Kasatanov)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.
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 This statement was later withdrawn and may have been the result of internal politics within the Russian Navy, as Admiral Igor Kasatonov (the uncle of Pyotr Velikiy commander Vladimir Kasatanov)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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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]
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.
ssians), do not have the port and supply infrastructure to carry out extended far from home operations. The RN and USN do this routinely.
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.
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.
Again the bias shows. The Russian armed forces are nowhere near the peak of Cold War Soviet/Warsaw Pact levels.
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...
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.
Um.... using nuclear cruise missiles changes the whole equation and you know that. They would not do that for fear of certain nuclear retalitiation.
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.
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
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.
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....
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!!
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.
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.