A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Russian Carrier Plans Part One



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #18  
Old December 18th 07, 03:42 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

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
: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).
:

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.