View Full Version : Russia's Navy On Verge Of Collapse?
Manifest Destiny
07-19-2009, 03:25 PM
The Fleet That Has To Die (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/731xwcwk.asp)
This will probably come as good news to those in the region who are tired of having their nations bullied by Russia. :thumbs up
Bah, that's a little "optimistic", to say the least. The Russian navy isn't just going to roll over and die because the Russophobes would like it to. This article is not very balanced.
Russia outwitted U.S. strategic defenses with missile test (http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090715/155530936.html)
MOSCOW, July 15 (RIA Novosti) - The United States was unable to detect the presence of Russian strategic submarines in the Arctic before they test-launched two ballistic missiles, a Russian intelligence source said on Wednesday.
Russia carried out test launches of two Sineva intercontinental ballistic missiles from two Delta IV class nuclear-powered submarines, located near the North Pole, on July 13-14.
"The American radars certainly detected the missile launches but their location took them by surprise," the source said.
The first missile, flying a ballistic path, hit its designated target at the Kura testing grounds on the Kamchatka Peninsula, while the second, fired with a flat trajectory, destroyed a target at the Chizha testing site on the White Sea.
The source said that the launch area, covered by ice floe, was heavily patrolled by Russian attack submarines and the Americans were unable to detect the arrival of two strategic submarines before the launch.
"At the same time, U.S. reconnaissance satellites are unable to detect submarines under thick ice floe in the Arctic," he said.
The region around the North Pole is a perfect place for launches of ballistic missiles because it allows the submarines to arrive in a designated area undetected and to shorten the missile flight time to the target.
The RSM-54 Sineva (NATO designation SS-N-23 Skiff) is a third-generation liquid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missile that entered service with the Russian Navy in July 2007. It can carry four or 10 nuclear warheads, depending on the modification.
Russia plans to equip its Delta IV class submarines with at least 100 Sineva missiles.
The NVO review (with gloomy predictions about the Russian Navy) is written by the same clown who professed back in 2008 that the Russian army would have been totally annihilated by the superior NATO/US trained Georgian army if it ever dares to attack peace loving Georgia. Enough said.
Manifest Destiny
07-19-2009, 11:04 PM
The NVO review (with gloomy predictions about the Russian Navy) is written by the same clown who professed back in 2008 that the Russian army would have been totally annihilated by the superior NATO/US trained Georgian army if it ever dares to attack peace loving Georgia. Enough said.
Do you have any evidence that the article is inaccurate? On one hand, I figure that it would be hard to completely determine the readiness of a nation's military unless they cooperate with the evaluation. On the other hand, if Russia's military was so great, they wouldn't be picking fights with little backwater nations with tiny armies.
Skandi
07-19-2009, 11:06 PM
they wouldn't be picking fights with little backwater nations with tiny armies.
Pots and kettles there.
Do you have any evidence that the article is inaccurate?
Do you have any evidence that the article is accurate?
On the other hand, if Russia's military was so great, they wouldn't be picking fights with little backwater nations with tiny armies.
I wonder, does the same principle apply to the US? No? Of course not...
I wonder, does the same principle apply to the US? No? Of course not...
There's no denying this statement.
SwordoftheVistula
07-20-2009, 02:57 PM
What does Russia even need a navy for? It makes sense for them to use their resources in other areas in the post-Soviet era.
The question should more properly be: Why does Russia need a Cold War-era navy? A navy can do more than menace other nations, such as enforce customs laws, engage in anti-piracy operations and engage in maritime research.
Manifest Destiny
07-20-2009, 04:47 PM
Do you have any evidence that the article is accurate?
The Weekly Standard is a fairly reputable source. If you think the article is false, please present your evidence.
I wonder, does the same principle apply to the US? No? Of course not...
I wish America was less involved in the affairs of other nations.
SwordoftheVistula
07-20-2009, 05:02 PM
The Weekly Standard is a fairly reputable source. If you think the article is false, please present your evidence.
It's run by Bill Kristol, son of neo-conservative founder Irving Kristol, a jewish former Trotskyite who at one time supported the USSR but turned against them after Trotsky was exiled and later killed. People who are still pissed off at Russia over the pogroms. In it's early years, Rupert Murdoch took a multimillion dollar loss on it because he thought it would advance his ideas.
I don't doubt the truth of the facts presented in the article, but the relevancy?
Manifest Destiny
07-20-2009, 05:21 PM
It's run by Bill Kristol, son of neo-conservative founder Irving Kristol, a jewish former Trotskyite who at one time supported the USSR but turned against them after Trotsky was exiled and later killed. People who are still pissed off at Russia over the pogroms. In it's early years, Rupert Murdoch took a multimillion dollar loss on it because he thought it would advance his ideas.
I don't doubt the truth of the facts presented in the article, but the relevancy?
All media is run by somebody who undoubtedly has political views.
I think it's relevant, as Russia is still something of a world power. If the article was about the military of Andorra, I wouldn't have posted it. Heck; they're probably wouldn't have been an article about it in the first place.
The Weekly Standard is a fairly reputable source. If you think the article is false, please present your evidence.
I'm sure that The Weekly Standart did not misquote the NVO review. But I was asking you about the facts backing the claims made in the NVO article... You're not going to vouch for an obscure military review you just heard about, are not you?
I wish America was less involved in the affairs of other nations.
And what is about my question? Are you going to answer it?
Manifest Destiny
07-20-2009, 05:33 PM
I'm sure that The Weekly Standart did not misquote the NVO review. But I was asking you about the facts backing the claims made in the NVO article... You're not going to vouch for an obscure military review you just heard about, are not you?
I haven't seen the Russian Navy myself, but I just posted an article about its condition. If you have information that proves otherwise, please share it.
And what is about my question? Are you going to answer it?
Which question was that?
I haven't seen the Russian Navy myself, but I just posted an article about its condition. If you have information that proves otherwise, please share it.
I have not seen the Russian Navy myself either, but the author of the information in question is the person which is well known for his blunders, such as the prediction of the absolute defeat of the "decrepit" Russian military machine in a conflict with Georgian NATO-quality armed forces. That's why I kindly ask you to share the information which could substantiate the claims made in the NVO review.
Which question was that?
The one you do not want to answer, evidently.
Manifest Destiny
07-20-2009, 06:01 PM
I have not seen the Russian Navy myself either, but the author of the information in question is the person which is well known for his blunders, such as the prediction of the absolute defeat of the "decrepit" Russian military machine in a conflict with Georgian NATO-quality armed forces. That's why I kindly ask you to share the information which could substantiate the claims made in the NVO review.
Share some actual information that proves this article may be untrue, and then I'll look for more info.
The one you do not want to answer, evidently.
I've answered every question I've seen you ask me in this thread. I'd be pissed off if America was invading its neighbors as blatantly as Russia did to Georgia, and I've criticized America and NATO for it's part in defending Muslim terrorists in Kosovo.
Share some actual information that proves this article may be untrue, and then I'll look for more info.
The article says little, if anything, about actual condition of the Russian Navy. Where are the facts which could be proved untrue?
I've answered every question I've seen you ask me in this thread.
No.
I'd be pissed off if America was invading its neighbors as blatantly as Russia did to Georgia, and I've criticized America and NATO for it's part in defending Muslim terrorists in Kosovo.
You should be pissed off permanently. Invading its neighbours and neighbours of its neighbours that's what the US does for the living...
As for Russia invading Georgia... we've been thou this many times, do you have memory lapses? Russia did not invade Georgia, it just reinforced its peacekeeping formations...
Manifest Destiny
07-20-2009, 06:23 PM
The article says little, if anything, about actual 768condition of the Russian Navy. Where are the facts which could be proved untrue?
No point continuing this discussion. :rolleyes:
No.
Yes.
You should be pissed off permanently. Invading its neighbours and neighbours of its neighbours that's what the US does for the living...
I've plenty of problems with America's foreign policy; believe me.
As for Russia invading Georgia... we've been thou this many times, do you have memory lapses? Russia did not invade Georgia, it just reinforced its peacekeeping formations...
If Russia didn't invade, why did their tanks roll into South Ossetia? Russia was trying to make a land-grab by aiding separatists, plan and simple.
No point continuing this discussion.
What discussion? I asked you to supply some facts to substantiate your propaganda with the purpose to discus things. You refused to do so. There was no discussion, unfortunately.
If Russia didn't invade, why did their tanks roll into South Ossetia?
To reinforce the Russian peacekeeping batallion which was protecting local civilians fighting off the illegal and criminal Georgian advance... all within the scope of the relevant international agreement.
Russia was trying to make a land-grab by aiding separatists, plan and simple.
You are plain and simple. And as Russians say, simplicity is worse than stealing.
You have got no facts to back your silly claims you keep repeating.
Octothorpe
07-21-2009, 03:43 PM
Come to think of it, wasn't the 1917 Commie revolution preceeded by a ruckus in the Russian Navy? Hmmm. Funny how history echoes.
Osweo
07-21-2009, 04:40 PM
What I saw of the Pacific Fleet in Vladivostok admittedly looked a little shoddy. The Matrosy (Sailors) had scuffed shoes, and the few destroyers lined up at the quay looked in need of a lick of paint.
But then again, Russia has never gone in for style and glamour. This is not the Italian Navy we're talking about, nor Hugo Boss designed SS uniforms! :P
Perhaps more significantly, Russian always keeps its trump cards carefully up its sleeves. Not a few people I know in aeronautics are often told to put forward the less impressive stuff at international displays and competitions. The real stuff is kept well under wraps. The engineers involved are not even allowed to leave the country. I'm sure the better part of the Pacific Fleet is kept well behind Ostrov Svyatoi Eleny, or out in the Kurils and whatnot. Not too bad an idea to have your opponents 'misunderestimate' you... ;)
Manifest Destiny
07-22-2009, 06:16 PM
What discussion? I asked you to supply some facts to substantiate your propaganda with the purpose to discus things. You refused to do so. There was no discussion, unfortunately.
I posted an article that contained something called "information". If you think it's untrue, the appropriate response is to post information of your own, not to keep asking me to post more and more and more information. If the article is so obviously bullshit, then it should be easy for you to find something that refutes it.
The article states that Russia's navy isn't in such great condition and that they may lack the shipbuilding abilities to do something about it. If this isn't true, post something (preferably in English) that says so.
To reinforce the Russian peacekeeping batallion which was protecting local civilians fighting off the illegal and criminal Georgian advance... all within the scope of the relevant international agreement.
...in a conflict that was largely caused by Russia interference, rather than leaving the Georgians and South Ossetians alone to settle their problems. They're making the same mistake that NATO did when it attacked Serbia during the Kosovo Conflict.
And the reason cited by Russia for this latest interference in Georgian affairs was that they wanted to protect Russian citizens in the territory. Oddly enough, lately Russia has been issuing citizenship to people in Ukraine (which is a violation of Ukrainian laws against dual citizenship). Gearing up for another "peacekeeping" opportunity, no doubt.
Osweo
07-22-2009, 06:45 PM
The article states that Russia's navy isn't in such great condition and that they may lack the shipbuilding abilities to do something about it.
Lacking the 'abilities'? Are you joking? After having kept up with the USA for so long, often pushing further ahead - especially in ballistics and rockets?
...in a conflict that was largely caused by Russia interference, rather than leaving the Georgians and South Ossetians alone to settle their problems.
And you believe that?!? A Georgian ruler, US trained and supported tries to alter the constitutional arrangements of a country on Russia's border, which was created in its present form by a Georgian ruling the Russian state, where a nation sits on both sides of this Stalinist border and has more sympathy for the Russians, and this is not Russia's BUSINESS??? How is it America's, at all?!?
They're making the same mistake that NATO did when it attacked Serbia during the Kosovo Conflict.
No mistake made there. The traitors in charge of NATO knew full well what they were doing, and how it didn't really forward the interests of its member nations. :(
And the reason cited by Russia for this latest interference in Georgian affairs was that they wanted to protect Russian citizens in the territory. Oddly enough, lately Russia has been issuing citizenship to people in Ukraine (which is a violation of Ukrainian laws against dual citizenship). Gearing up for another "peacekeeping" opportunity, no doubt.
There are RUSSIANS in the Ukraine. Constituting a majority in solid regions. Why their fellows over the border are expected to have no interest in their welfare is beyond me. You're promoting anti-Nationalist agendas here.
I posted an article that contained something called "information". If you think it's untrue, the appropriate response is to post information of your own, not to keep asking me to post more and more and more information.
What's your problem? I merely inquired if you have any facts substantiating the dubious source of the information in question. Apperently you don't have any. End of story...
...in a conflict that was largely caused by Russia interference,
That's just another out-of-arse opinion.
rather than leaving the Georgians and South Ossetians alone to settle their problems.
Russians had to defend the civilian population of south Ossetia according to international treaties and humanitarian law.
They're making the same mistake that NATO did when it attacked Serbia during the Kosovo Conflict.
The result of the NATO aggression was the ethnic cleansing of Serbs, the result of the Russian peacekeeping effort was prevention of ethnic cleansing of South Ossetians.
And the reason cited by Russia for this latest interference in Georgian affairs was that they wanted to protect Russian citizens in the territory.
The reason was Russia's obligation to protect the population of South Ossetia from US/NATO backed and trained murderous Georgian forces.
Oddly enough, lately Russia has been issuing citizenship to people in Ukraine (which is a violation of Ukrainian laws against dual citizenship). Gearing up for another "peacekeeping" opportunity, no doubt.
It is not against the international law. And Russia is not bound by Ukrainian laws.
Creeping Death
07-23-2009, 09:50 AM
The Fleet That Has To Die (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/731xwcwk.asp)
This will probably come as good news to those in the region who are tired of having their nations bullied by Russia. :thumbs up
Russia has no need of a strategic Navy as it has so many nations bordering it, in fact it should make those nations even more frightened as resources saved from the Navy will go into strengthening its Airforce. Airpower is the determining factor in wars .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.