On The Brink. Order Of Battle Of NATO and Russian Naval Forces In The Mediterranian.

I am not going into the details and background of the Georgian conflict here as this has already been discussed in great detail on ATS and in a thread The Great U.S. Game Plan In The Caucasus that I posted some time ago.

What will be shown here is the Order of Battle (In military parlance) of NATO and Russian Forces in the Mediterranean and the Black sea as a consequence of the Georgian conflict. This is so far the biggest naval build-up of the Russian and American Naval forces since the Gulf War. Are we heading for a major show-down?

Five U.S. strike groups have been sent to the Mediterranean and Gulf regions while Moscow has sent an aircraft carrier task force to the eastern Mediterranean and deployed its Black Sea fleet.



Russian Naval Forces

Eastern Mediterranean

• Task force with Flag ship aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov (52 aircraft, 15 support ships and submarines) deployed at the Syrian port of Tartus.


Admiral Kuznetsov.
Courtesy: Defence Update

Black Sea

• 12 warships led by guided missile cruiser Moskva deployed to shadow NATO ships.


Russian GMC Moskva
Courtesy: Military Images

US/NATO Forces

Mediterranean


USS Iwo Jima.
Courtesy: Rense

• USS Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group which includes;
> Six vessel group with 2,200 Marines.
> Landing ship USS San Antonio.
> USS Carter Hall.
> Guided missile cruiser USS Vela Gulf.
> Guided missile destroyers USS Ramage and USS Roosevelt.
> Fast attack submarine USS Hartford.

Black Sea

• Ten NATO warships including guided missile destroyer USS McFaul.
• US Coast Guard Cutter Dallas.
• US frigate USS Taylor.
• German frigate FGS Luebeck.
• Polish frigate General Pulaski.
• Spanish frigate Admiral Juan de Borbon.
• Five ships ex Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria.

Arabian Sea


USS Abraham Lincoln
Courtesy: Weapons.dk

• Aircraft carrier strike group led by USS Abraham Lincoln (65 fighter aircraft).
• USS Ronald Reagan strike group which includes:
> Nuclear submarine USS Springfield.


USS Ronald Reagan
Courtesy: Brisbanepilots

> Five support ships.
• Aircraft strike group led by USS Theodore Roosevelt (80 combat planes).


USS Theodore Roosevelt
Courtesy: USS TR Public Affairs Office

Red Sea – Gulf of Aden

Expeditionary strike group headed by amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu.


USS Peleliu.

Sending such powerful Russian warships onto the Mediterranean, for any amount of time, is no small matter. With the Mediterranean having been a "NATO lake" for the past 15 years, since the demise of the Soviet Union, the simple presence of a naval Russian force will require reviewed strategy and tactics of many of western and Israeli navies.

Considering that more forces are on their way to beef up force levels of the adversaries, it seems it’s another step towards a new cold war. Or are we on the brink of Armageddon?

www.defense-update.com...
www.hindu.com...
www.graphicnews.com...




[edit on 31-8-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh


NUTTY that our god damned useless media keeps in the dark!

Thank you!

Showdown hopefully...

People have been saying for a while that something big is on the horizon, and many will say it will never come. I say it is like the weather guy in the middle of a drought saying 'chance of rain tomorrow' every day. eventually he will get it right.

I really think the drought is about to break and rain is coming our way soon.

Thanks for thw info Mike

lets see...1 Russian aircraft carrier in the E. Med

1 American carrier in the Med.
3 American carriers in Arabian sea (western Indian ocean)
1 American carrier in Red Sea



does not sound like a standoff to me,
Russian ships do not seem to be in any form of attack mode to me...

I say the U.S. / NATO presence far outweighs the Russian naval presence, big time. I mean .. think of all those hundreds of fighter craft, thousands of marines that can land on any beach at a moments notice, all those guided missile cruisers which would wreak havok on mainland Russian installations that may launch missiles from land @ NATO sea targets, not to mention the many fighter craft which could knock out anything close enough to accurately sink a ship from land.

Then you have the destroyers, cutters, and nuclear submarines to protect the aircraft carriers in a mano-e-mano naval fight. I'd feel safe onboard one of those aircraft carriers if I knew a nuclear sub was shadowing us, picking up potentially targets quite far away.

I'd say in a conventional fight, if it was limited to this sphere, simply put, we'd own the Russians and only take minor losses (compared to theirs). We'd loss less than 5 ships, that I'm confident of. And none of which, with the exception of MAYBE 1, IF they got super lucky, would be a carrier.

Now after such an engagement, Russia would lick its wounds and threaten to go global, ie; world war, nukes, attacking American homeland and probably Canada NATO installations too, flying in from the Bering Strait as a main point of assault. THEN, if they were repelled, they might bust out the ICBMS ..

But lets hope Barack Obama and Joe Biden are in office before it comes to that so that some true active dialogue, face to face, could take place between American and Russian leaders, none of those Bush policy crap of ignoring everyone and acting unilaterally, when just 1 genuine talk could mend misunderstandings.. its so ridiculous..

Originally posted by runetang
But lets hope Barack Obama and Joe Biden are in office before it comes to that so that some true active dialogue, face to face, could take place between American and Russian leaders, none of those Bush policy crap of ignoring everyone and acting unilaterally, when just 1 genuine talk could mend misunderstandings.. its so ridiculous..

Seconded. I dont want to get blown up by a nuke thank you very much. i still have things to do before i die. Maybe we should post Puting and Bush a copy of Threads and The Day After to remind them just how dangerous and horrifying the Cold War was. Or dont they simply care anymore?

Are we sure those pics are up to date-because the Russian ships in those photos look REALLY old and worn? I would be very surprised if those are pictures of Russia's most advanced warships.

Originally posted by mikesingh
I am not going into the details and background of the Georgian conflict here as this has already been discussed in great detail on ATS and in a thread The Great U.S. Game Plan In The Caucasus that I posted some time ago.

What will be shown here is the Order of Battle (In military parlance) of NATO and Russian Forces in the Mediterranean and the Black sea as a consequence of the Georgian conflict. This is so far the biggest naval build-up of the Russian and American Naval forces since the Gulf War. Are we heading for a major show-down?

[edit on 31-8-2008 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by runetang
I say the U.S. / NATO presence far outweighs the Russian naval presence, big time.

I'd say in a conventional fight, if it was limited to this sphere, simply put, we'd own the Russians and only take minor losses (compared to theirs). We'd loss less than 5 ships, that I'm confident of. And none of which, with the exception of MAYBE 1, IF they got super lucky, would be a carrier.

In a situation of force asymmetry a nuclear deterrent is the only option to retain initiative. Russian strategic doctrine mentions:

• Maintaining the structure and state of strategic nuclear forces at a level that will assure inflicting the designated damage on an aggressor under any circumstances.

• Maintaining the entire complex of strategic weapons at a level that ensures the security of the Russian Federation and its allies, deters nuclear and conventional war, and maintains strategic stability as well as nuclear safety. (This is a clear statement, assigning the strategic forces the task of deterring conventional war, which implies first use/strike strategy).

The principle of making up for the lack of conventional forces by greater reliance on nuclear weapons in deterrence strategy and operational planning alike, is as old as the Dulles "Massive Retaliation" strategy of 1954.

And therefore if the supreme national interest and security of Russia is threatened in any way, retaliation would not be mainly confined to conventional means, but nuclear. Would NATO/U.S. risk that?

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
People have been saying for a while that something big is on the horizon, and many will say it will never come. I say it is like the weather guy in the middle of a drought saying 'chance of rain tomorrow' every day. eventually he will get it right.

I really think the drought is about to break and rain is coming our way soon.

Thanks for thw info Mike

Man this hits home on the thread about something big happening in September as seen on September of '08 -- Just Listen.

Not trying to jump to conclusions, but I too have sensed something possibly very bad that could happen in September of 08. This might just be the spark that ignites the powderkeg. We shall see what the Almighty has in store. It isn't actually a result of Him causing this, it has been pre-ordered by Him and will not be changed. It is part of the plan that will bring about the beginning of the end, and although it will be hard, it must come to pass to bring the whole thing full circle. Are you READY?

[edit on 1-9-2008 by TH3ON3]

It has nothing to do with religion.

It's about the New World Order. Russia recently made a statement that the Georgian conflict was "to balance the New World Order". They are completely aware of US plans for a NWO.

The book, "The Grand Chessboard" which is a blueprint for the NWO, states that Russia must be "buffered" by having the former Russian Republics under NATO control. In other words, affiliated with the West.

You can see how both sides are very serious about their agendas.

If the Russian forces are defeated by conventional means, you'll see Russia become a US ally with a common enemy known known as China and against China's quest for "Global Hemogany".

[edit on 1-9-2008 by jetxnet]