The Entire Russian Fleet

Originally posted by StellarX
...but i suppose few notice as few bother with reading anything that might upset their particular view.

That's not true, we do read it, we just don't take it seriously. I jest of course.

Originally posted by StellarX
Your just jeolous of my 'fan', arn't you!

Yes, you cought me sir. As for your other point, there's plenty of "US Bashing" to go around on this site so it's not as rosy for us red blooded Americans as it may seem.

Stellar I have a question:

IMHO the time for decisive nuclear victory is past. I doubt anyone can win a nuclear war and survive the global backlash. Nuclear war is not of dreams I agree, but I don't think Russia is at that stage where it will initiate nuclear holocaust at the drop of a hat.

Engagements in today's are tactical, swift and decisive. The question is whether the Russian navy is capable of the same in today's world.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Stellar I have a question:

IMHO the time for decisive nuclear victory is past. I doubt anyone can win a nuclear war and survive the global backlash.

I wont speak to what the backlash will be from the survivors but what i can and have so far argued is that some nations are far better prepared to deal with the consequences of a nuclear war than others. As for 'winning' i can assure you that the North Vietnamese felt they won despite the fact that they had to sacrifice a few lives for every American or Vietnamese that fought for the US backed Souther regime. The same seems to be the case in all such struggle's as the oppressed if they refuse to count bodies or if the would be occupiers leaves anyone alive to oppose them.

Nuclear war is not of dreams I agree, but I don't think Russia is at that stage where it will initiate nuclear holocaust at the drop of a hat.

I most certainly wont as economically and geopolitically it seems to be getting it's way without having to resort to invading other countries.

Engagements in today's are tactical, swift and decisive. The question is whether the Russian navy is capable of the same in today's world.

This once again presumes that the Russian government/policy makers believes that there is such a thing as easy victories or that anything worth achieving could be done in a swift and entirely decisive way. As far as i can tell they hold enough of a strategic edge to keep the US at bay ( obviously you don't build F-22's and aircraft carriers/submarines to fight 'terrorist') while slowly developing the civilian economic base that Russians might eventually fight to protect in the same way Americans do theirs. As it stands it would take a full blown NATO nuclear attack or invasion to spur Russians into action and that is most certainly not the stuff a empire is made off!

Stellar

Hello a newcomer here, I read some replies by Sky...whatever and I would like to counter them. No anti-missile system is perfect, AEGIS is no different, it can be overwhelmed, it can be jammed through electronic means, and most of all it does not guarantee a 100% interception probability against Russian missiles especially ones like Granit with top speed of Mach 2.5. Its, really, really hard to intercept a supersonic missile with another missile and CIWS although effective will runs out of bullets way too quickly and takes about an hour (I may be mistaken, it might be more) to reload. Russia has its own Kashtan system which is comparable in its effectiveness to western alternatives (no networking a la AEGIS but it gets the job done just as well). So yes, if the Russian fleet fires off its cruise missiles the western ships will start sinking very soon afterwards (not to say same wouldn't happen to the Russian ships in a reverse scenario, not the Tomahawks though, that would be easy for Kashtan to should down, not that Kashtan can't be overwhelmed.) As for Russian submarines we do have some pretty stealthy ones such as Akula II or the new Borei class. Its not that they can't be as quiet as the western subs its that they have to move slower to be as quiet as the western subs and Borei does have a reasonably high silent speed. We also have plenty of diesel subs that you would find very, very hard to track down. Now lets look at the Russian aircraft carrier, its not an aircraft carrier, its a Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruiser and it does not have the same role in our navy that ACs do in western navies. It doesn't really matter how many ACs the RN has, an AC is just too much of a nice, big target for an anti-shipping missile to matter. That said Russia is revising its naval doctrine and is planning to create 6 AC groups (actual ACs this time and all the new support ships to compose the groups) until 2050 and that shall be the new lay out of our navy. Russian navy today has a lot more funding then in the 90s and it is quickly (along with the rest of the military) recovering. But even now RN does not pose much of a threat in the unlikely event that US will not be backing it.

Some people that posted here forgot that the little guy before claimed the UK and NOT and I repeat NOT the USA could destroy the russian fleet and with no effort at all , but mostly the long explanation was good explained.

reply to post by neformore


please neformore...you'll have to forgive my american countrymen...they have been under the influence of the neocons for some time now...there are alot more "reality based" people in america who are extremely concerned with the way our country has been run, then what is being reported. the problem is, as in most western nations, the major media outlets, do not gives these people a large enough forum to rationally discuss viable and workable solutions.

Originally posted by Uncle_Vanya
That said Russia is revising its naval doctrine and is planning to create 6 AC groups (actual ACs this time and all the new support ships to compose the groups) until 2050 and that shall be the new lay out of our navy. Russian navy today has a lot more funding then in the 90s and it is quickly (along with the rest of the military) recovering. But even now RN does not pose much of a threat in the unlikely event that US will not be backing it.

Welcome to ATS Vanya.

Could I ask you to share some info (internet sources, links etc) on the new russian naval doctrine? The bit about 6 Aircraft carriers sounds interesting.
Are these intended to be conventional STOBAR type carriers? Carrying the PAK-FA naval variant (if indeed there is such a thing?)

If you want to compare military strength you should check out this site. It has current CIA figures on the major nations military strength that you can compare everybody.


WARFARE AND THE GLOBE

Originally posted by zarlaan
If you want to compare military strength you should check out this site. It has current CIA figures on the major nations military strength that you can compare everybody.


WARFARE AND THE GLOBE

Does anyone notice the curious statement at the bottom of that list?

"Nuclear weapons, past and present military experience, training and equipment quality are not taken into account."

That's just about everything I can think of except numbers, thus I find that list basically worthless.

reply to post by BlackWidow23



The list you're looking at to the right is just that sites ranking of the nations excluding those things. Feel free to rank them however you want. The information for the actual data in the links is whats important on the site. Not their own personal rankings of the nations.

So, yes you're correct. That specific list is worthless and subjective.





[edit on 26-4-2008 by zarlaan]

Originally posted by zarlaan
If you want to compare military strength you should check out this site. It has current CIA figures on the major nations military strength that you can compare everybody.


WARFARE AND THE GLOBE

That site is TOTTALY inacurate, they don't even show the numbers like Global Security and other sites, for example they list the U.S. as having more SAMs, but almost every other sites states Russia has the most in the world.

Not sure how many of you people actually work in Navy... but let me tell you some... my best friend works in US Navy as an engineer... not going to name names... but the ship his on is junk... they had to stay in port for couple month cause of leak... maybe other US ships in better condition but I doubt that... also what about these reports where Russian Air force flew by US Carrier two times before any of US Planes could escort them out.... US Carrier was refueling too... or a Chinese Sub popping out in the middle of US Navy exercises... Superior Navy... you kidding me right?

have also heard story from a friend who has worked on a US Sub during cold war... funny story... lets see if I remamber... Well they were doing coughcough listening of Russian radio channels and were spotted so he said they went down hard and were bombarded by charges in any case they had no choice but to surface... everything was leaking, only electric engine operational... they were prepared for the worst but then Russian cruiser sent a massage "Thank you for an exercise" and sailed away leaving them limping back... that was his story.. Not sure how much that is true...

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


I'd like to hear, specifically, which ship was in port for months due to "a leak" and which submarine was depth charged by Soviets and lost all propulsion with the exception of the Emergency Propulsion Motor.

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
Sorry to burst the bubble, but our economy has been in recession for over a year now. What we might be headed to here is a depression. But it won’t last that long because warfare, and lower gas prices, will bring us right out of it.

War hasn't stimulated an economy sonce WWII, in fact war has drained economies since WWII. Lower gas prices ? In your dreams, America already has the cheapest gas in the western world, it isn't gioing to get any cheaper.

reply to post by oxillini


No idea what was name of the Sub he was on... and not sure if he will tell me... I think it should be still classified!

USS Underwood the ship friend is on...
Deployed: 17 December 1977 so it is a Junk

I'm not an engineer, nor have ever been in the navy, but i do keep up with the developments of the russian navy.

The last time the russians actually tested one of their missile destroyers was a few months ago as i recall, it was before putin gave up power, but what happened was 8 out of the 10 missiles they tried to launch failed. their surface navy is incredibly inexperienced. Not to say that surface based navies will be the dominant force in the world, just that russia's surface navy is not as experienced nor giving the chance for training exercises which could eliminate misfires like that.

A lot of you guys have mentioned missile defense systems and the sunburn missile and various others. the carrier off the persian gulf being used to intimidate iran, i believe it is the nimitz but the airforce is keeping it 289 miles away from the coast at a minimum to stay out of range of iranian sunburn missiles because they don't think our missile defense systems will shoot enough of them down to prevent them from hitting a carrier. The airforce a few weeks ago also said that basically we have no defense to supersonic sea skimming missiles in a press release. The other proof to this is that the carrier hovering around the persian gulf is the only non nuclear aircraft carrier the US still operates, the reason for this was to try to goad iran into an attack because there would be no nuclear fall out. The navy has also done scenarios about what flight paths the iranians would take and if they chose to attack they would be able to fly through a mountain pass below radar, pop up, and launch hundreds of missiles which will instinctively look for the biggest target, the carrier. not to say they wouldn't all be shot down, but one aircraft carrier costs about as much as the iranian airforce(jokingly).

People also forget that the weapons systems russia sells to foreign countries are largely stripped of their advanced systems for example, the tanks sold to the iraqi's by the russians were supposed to have composite armor which actually turned out to be two plates of steel with sand in between. the weapons russia sells to china are far from top of the line russian weaponry, the migs they sell don't have the advanced radar and heat tracking systems those are intentionally stripped.

and to the people debating the efficacy of the ak47, unless you are shooting someone in the face those bullets won't pierce american body armor. Soldiers in iraq are even bitching about the m16 because it fires a high velocity projectile which was designed to slow down when it hit russian body armor and then go through the body cutting up organs, but on unarmored targets it just punches holes through them and they can keep on fighting. In fact some soldiers even want to go back to the m4 because it works better on unarmored targets.

my post isn't neccesarily to debate whose navy could beat whose, but to rectify some misconceptions about the competency/capability of those naval forces.

all of my arguments can easily be found on google news, if needed i can go back and dig up quotes and go through my old debate files.

reply to post by Sky watcher


I have been looking for this for a long time. Please tell me where I can read more of how the U.S. pinged all Soviet subs. I believe it was Regan proving it to Gorby. I remember reading about it years ago.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Sky watcher

 

I have been looking for this for a long time. Please tell me where I can read more of how the U.S. pinged all Soviet subs. I believe it was Regan proving it to Gorby. I remember reading about it years ago.

Read yhis and you'll see Regan didn't do nothing exept keep up the lies, of U.S. advantage.: www.transasianaxis.com...

[ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[edit on 27-9-2008 by wantawanta]

Originally posted by hinky
They could probably take on the Argentinean navy and should win. The UK fleet of 90 ships would defeat them in surface action. The US Navy is the big boy.

Russia has quite a few old ships. 2 problems, they are old ships and they don't have the money for proper upkeep on them. You see the ships tied to piers in harbor. This doesn't make them seaworthy, it just means they haven't sank in harbor, yet.

Great article on Russia's navy and top personnel.

Sorry UK wouldn't be able to withstand Russian navy 1 on 1.
The Russian Navy is in absolute dilapidation after the Soviet Union's collapse but even in its current condition it has some of the most sophisticated and some of the MOST period (in numbers) ships, nuclear subs, etc in the world. The UK Navy is absolute awesome and one of the best in the world in terms of sheer efficiency and pound for pound power but they simply don't have the might or numbers sorry, Russian navy would blast them out of the sea in a day or two.