Russian Carrier Plans Part One

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:24:32 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

:It's also worth noting that during the Soviet era readiness rates were
:not all that "red hot" even in some elite units. That's one reason
:why they always built fairly simply and in large quantities. I don't
:know if this will change or not.
:

And those 'large quantities just evaporated with the fall of the
Soviet Union...

Pish posh. They're sitting around, rusting. That's make them
"unavailable presently." It does not equal "evaporation." At least
not 'till they are beyond reclamation.

:Why don't you tell us about internal organization of those regiments?
:

Why don't you (or Tanky) tell us about just what forces you think
they'll oppose and eliminate all this 'changing the story'?

You made a claim, you get to substantiate it. I don't have the
interest or the time to do your research for you.

Your belief seems to be that the US can fight at 4,000 miles more
effectively than the Russians can at 40.

Sorry, but I just don't believe it.

Put that way, neither do I.

:SSNs make great minelayers. So do some long range aircraft (but with
:some pretty obvious limitations).
:

And when the other guy notices you mining international waters?

With aircraft he likely will (buy maybe not). With SSNs he likely
won't (but maybe will).

:I always thought it was a sign of natural intelligence when people
:snipped the needless redundancies from their posts.
:

So you don't read any of Tankfixer's maunderings?

Yes...once.

:Clearly the Russian Republic under Putin aspires to a greater world
:role, not unlike the Tsars of old. Can they do it? They've got the
:money and it looks like they've got the will. Putin is the Collosus
f Russian politics (at least for now) and system is clearly dancing
:to his tune. But politicians come and go (even dictators). Building
:a navy is very different from building an army or airforce. They
:certainly CAN do it; whether or not there is a national (as opposed to
:a person) long term agenda to do it is an open question.
:

Not the issue under discussion. Tanky thinks a navy is useless to
Russia because we can bottle it up. Geography seems to disagree, so
he keeps changing his story.

History is on his side; the Russian Navy has never been a substantial
factor for them (except maybe the battleship POTEMPKIN (SP) or some
units during Russian Revolution). The one time they did try a big op
they got whupped at Tsushima (sp). During the Cold War ADM Gorshakov
had enough "juice" to get the state to spring for a real, blue water
navy but I don't see anybody playing that role at present (although
someone could emerge).

They could go back to a big sub fleet again and that would have some
intersting consequences for us (S-4A, anyone?).

The Russians right now are sitting on a mountain of petro dollars.
They look like they're willing to spend a bunch on re-establishing a
naval presence beyond the littoral waters. How much or for how long
is open to question. Geography does not favor them as a naval power,
but it may be less of an issue that it used to be (given higher sea
temps and less ice in ports).

Only Putin knows for sure what he'll likely do in this arena.