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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
Bill Kambic wrote:
:On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:19:44 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :snipped for brevity because I appreciate not having to read 1000 :lines of repeat to get one line of comment : :: Not so much. You know airplanes are made out of aluminum, right? :: ::Yes, which is why i used the word "corroded" instead of "rusted". :: ::They also contain significant amounts of magnisium, steel and even a ::good bit of copper. :: :And you presumably think that Russians are too stupid to maintain :their military assets or what? : :It's not a question of stupidity but money. For three lustrums former :Soviet assets have been rotting away. Now they've got the money (and :the will at the top) to start a "resurgence" of sorts. Time will tell :how long the money and the will last. : :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... :: One more time. There are (at least) 4 aviation regiments attached :: directly to the Russian Pacific Fleet. :: ::With an assigned operational strength of what ? ::25 aircraft ? :: :Pull some more numbers out of your ass. Perhaps you'll get closer to :reality. : :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'? 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. :: You think the Russians don't have minesweepers? :: ::I'm sure they have some hull's with minesweeping gear. ::Can they leave port and actually sweep mines ? :: :Better than the few we have probably can, even if you assume that we :have the minelayers to try to close the place off and that they just :let us. : :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? ::I can see why so many folks ignore you around here Fred. :: :Only the idiots, Tanky. It's because they don't like having their :lies, idiocy, and squirming pointed out. : :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? : :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. -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
On Dec 18, 9:42 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
One more time. Airplanes don't 'rust'. http://www.answers.com/rust&r=67 ____ v.intr. 1. To become corroded. 2. To deteriorate or degenerate through inactivity or neglect. ____ http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/s...cts/site1a.jpg give a little time, some salt air, and you can see 1&2 in action, with a lot of time, you get something not worth the remaining value as scrap. Myself now, would have used rotted rather than rusted When the USSR fell apart, they sat, they didn't have a mothball program like Davis-Monthan AFB ** mike ** |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
Fred,
One more time. Airplanes don't 'rust'. mike has answered this one very well. Already going to have P-8s. Be careful about relying upon weapons platforms not yet introduced, much less in use. -- Mike Kanze "Teenagers are God's punishment for enjoying sex." - Maxine "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ... 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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:42:11 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote: One more time. Airplanes don't 'rust'. Indeed? They they were lying to me in Corrosion Control School about what we had to do to maintain the steel parts of the venerable S-2E/G? ::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. Sure it does. Maybe the minelayer will be noticed and maybe not. THAT IS an answer, if not a definitive one. Perhaps you should read them again and figure out just what it is that you're supporting here. I support nothing, just add my own comments. Reat that any way you like. :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. Go back and re-read your Mahan. It has a LOT to do with capability. :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. Indeed. :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? I dunno. Ask Putin. 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. The issue of balance, again, is one that lies with Putin. Maybe he'll spend the time and money and lives and maybe he won't. :Only Putin knows for sure what he'll likely do in this arena. : He probably doesn't know, either. I suspect he knows what he wants. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |