![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bill Kambic wrote:
: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. : One more time. Airplanes don't 'rust'. ::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. : No, dear boy. I'm asking you and Tanky to substantiate YOUR claims. I suspect I know more about this than either of you and certainly have no interest or 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. : But that's the claim being made, so you appear to be somewhat confused. ::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). : Which still doesn't address the question. ::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. : Perhaps you should read them again and figure out just what it is that you're supporting here. ::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 : ![]() ::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). : History has nothing to do with capability. There is a big difference between not doing something and not being able to do something. Tanky is arguing the latter. :They could go back to a big sub fleet again and that would have some :intersting consequences for us (S-4A, anyone?). Already going to have P-8s. : :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). It's not even an issue of geography. Do they have any NEED to be a naval power? Wanting a carrier force (where this started) indicates a desire for power projection (which would be a Russian interest). It doesn't necessarily indicate a desire or a need for a balanced navy. : :Only Putin knows for sure what he'll likely do in this arena. : He probably doesn't know, either. -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. -- George Orwell |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Long EZ plans, Mini IMP plans, F4U Corsair plans, materials, instruments for sale | reader | Home Built | 1 | January 26th 11 01:40 AM |
Duster Plans For Sale - BJ-1b fullsize sailplane plans | WoodHawk | Soaring | 0 | April 25th 05 04:37 AM |
Russian Carrier puts to Sea | Tiger | Naval Aviation | 27 | April 9th 05 10:02 AM |
Russian Airlines Prefer Used Boeings to New Russian Aircraf | NewsBOT | Simulators | 0 | February 18th 05 09:46 PM |
Old Plans, New Part Numbers | [email protected] | Home Built | 3 | December 16th 04 10:25 AM |