Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: sorry disagree
cant remember the name i used lasttime    11/12/2001 4:48:38 AM
Jane's as in Jane's Information Group, if you've never heard of them, then go to www.janes.com ... its a good site with lots of info ... unfortunately most of its subscriber, but they do have a few assessments of the Russian Navy, and why its important. Navy forming an important part of the nuclear deterrent pure garbage? The current generation 6 Typhoon SSBNs 7 Delta IV SSBNs thats 13 boomers ..... the US built how many Ohios? 12-14? What about the Kara Sea Bastion? Ie where all/most of Russia's Northern Fleet boomers (including the Typhoons) were, completely safe from US attack in the event of WW3? The Typhoons didnt even need to leave the Bastion to launch their load of SS-N-20 STURGEONS ... well they could be tied up at dock. The previous generations 14 Delta III SSBNs 4 Delta II SSBNs 18 Delta SSBNs 21 Yankees 8 Hotels 14 Golf IIs Currently Russia is building the Borey-class SSBN, ie the Yuri Dolgoruky. As you can judge by the amount of boomers they built, you can see a significant nuclear presence on the high seas. The Soviet Navy was generally accepted as the second most powerful in the world, next to the US. Also, your statement that the CGN Kirovs were originally designed as ASW ships and that this somehow detracts from their capability doesnt follow. Don't just spout conjecture, give reasons. With the introduction of the Granit (SS-N-19 SHIPWRECK) missile complement they can pose a serious threat to a carrier battle group while being defended from air attack by the navalized S-300 system (S-300F Rif, GRUMBLE) and having good ASW ability also (embarking three Ka-27s and having all the relevant gear etc). Whats your definition of a large ship? The Soviet Navy (current generation) had/has a considerable number of Sovremenny and Udaloy destroyers, Krivak frigates, etc etc etc But yes of course the Soviet Navy most of its ships are littoral warfare, the USSR had the largest coastline on earth! I wont be childish, your point about the warm water ports is valid to my knowledge, but i dont see this as saying that the Soviet Navy couldnt project power far from home port at all.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Navyman    RE:sorry disagree You can disagree all you want it doesn't change the truth (part 2)   11/12/2001 7:49:55 PM
(Cont.) I think your problem is that you are: number one taking something at face value simple because it is from Janes, number two you are not looking at the big picture, and number three you are looking at the military power as you would a balance sheet. Military power, can be greater or less then the sum of its parts. US forces implement the RMA in ways that cause even small advantages to act as incredible force multipliers. Whereas, the Russian look very impressive on paper, but when you get right down to it, a nation that stores WW2 era weapons, uses (unimproved) 1950?s systems, and places the ideas of numbers ahead of either quality or even safety then you get a shell of a military force. Never forget, Russia has a tradition of striving to be a continental power not a naval power. (Although your assertion that Russia has the largest coastline, approximately 37,653 km compared to the US with 19,924 km, yet what you failed to note is that over ¾ of the Russian coastline is above the artic circle.) Whereas the US has been both a continental power and has a long tradition of being a naval power rivaled in the last few centuries by only England, France and perhaps Spain, this is of course because of our geography. (I did not include Japan or Germany, because their large navies were very short lived.) Now of course, we are the only true global power. Before you go off on another rant about the greatness of Russia, ask yourself, can they conduct large-scale operations far from their boarders, could they now or ever operate in say Honduras or Nigeria with the amount of force the US is using in Afghanistan, or that we did in Desert Storm? (While maintaining other commitments.) Have they ever been capable of projecting air, sea, and ground forces in a combined nature at any level even approaching Inch?on or Normandy I don?t think so. In all honesty, I do not think most of the worlds population, including those in the US, have the slightest concept of the amount of pure military force we are capable of executing. As the Indian defense minister said following desert storm, any nation seeking to successfully engage the US would need to use nuclear weapons.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy