Russian Carrier Plans Part One

In article ,
says...
tankfixer wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: tankfixer wrote:
:
: :In article ,
: says...
: : tankfixer wrote:
: :
: : :In article ,
: : says...
: : : tankfixer wrote:
: : :
: : : :In article ,
: : : says...
: : : : tankfixer wrote:
: : : :
: : : : :In article a86ec029-67d2-48c9-916b-4fd3b945b993
: : : : , says...
: : : : :
: : : : : Now you're trying to tell us that Russia has NO shipyards and no deep
: : : : : water ports.
: : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : :None with ready access to the worlds oceans.....
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : Sorry, but you need to buy a map. Once you do, find Murmansk and
: : : : Vladivostok. Unless you maintain that the Atlantic and Pacific are
: : : : not part of "the worlds [sic] oceans" your comment above stands shown
: : : : as false.
: : : :
: : : :Funny how to transit out of Vladivostok you have to pass through fairly
: : : :narrow straits not under the control of Russia.
: : : :
: : :
: : : This pretty well applies to any port anywhere, if someone is waiting
: : : for you. If they go north they can stay in waters controlled by them
: : : until in open ocean.
: : :
: : :Hardly.
: : :Go north and they go straight to choke points the JSDF and USN can
: : :close.
: : :
: :
: : If they want to get sunk by the Russians they can try that.
: :
: :The Soviets couldn't bar the USN from the Sea of Oshkosh when they had a
: :huge navy. What makes you think the Russians can now ?
: :
:
: Oshkosh is in Wisconsin, you idiot!
:
: Must be where you get your clothes - Oshkosh, b'gosh!
:
:Ohh a speeling flam
:

Sorry, but that's why beyond 'spelling'.

:
:The Sea of Okhotsk
:

Yeah, and when the Russians rolled into Baltimore at the end of WWII
...

Oh, wait. I misspelled 'Berlin'.

:
:But then you knew that.
:

No, you were far enough off I didn't even want to hazard a guess as to
what you were talking about.

You do realize that the Sea of Okhotsk is surrounded by RUSSIAN land,
right? No sane US admiral would take a force up there during active
hostilities.

You don't have to enter it. just deny a couple of exit's and Vladivostok
is worthless.




:
:
: I'm not sure precisely what you have in mind, but the size of Russia's
: Navy has nothing to do with it. You're close enough inshore so that
: airplanes will blow your ass off if you try to sit in there.
:
:
:Yes, that is the problem the Russian face in trying to get out of
:Vladivostok....
:

Except most of it is RUSSIAN land...

That will be news to Japan and Korea(north and south)

tankfixer wrote:

:In article ,
says...
:
: You do realize that the Sea of Okhotsk is surrounded by RUSSIAN land,
: right? No sane US admiral would take a force up there during active
: hostilities.
:
:You don't have to enter it. just deny a couple of exit's and Vladivostok
:is worthless.
:

And positioning to deny those exits leaves you in a fixed position and
vulnerable to huge land-based air assets.

:
:
: :
: :
: : I'm not sure precisely what you have in mind, but the size of Russia's
: : Navy has nothing to do with it. You're close enough inshore so that
: : airplanes will blow your ass off if you try to sit in there.
: :
: :
: :Yes, that is the problem the Russian face in trying to get out of
: :Vladivostok....
: :
:
: Except most of it is RUSSIAN land...
:
:That will be news to Japan and Korea(north and south)
:

Might I suggest you look up the meaning of 'most' and realize that it
doesn't equate to 'all'?

No, it won't be news to either Japan or Korea. They can read maps,
you see...


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

In article ,
says...
tankfixer wrote:

:In article ,
says...
:
: You do realize that the Sea of Okhotsk is surrounded by RUSSIAN land,
: right? No sane US admiral would take a force up there during active
: hostilities.
:
:You don't have to enter it. just deny a couple of exit's and Vladivostok
:is worthless.
:

And positioning to deny those exits leaves you in a fixed position and
vulnerable to huge land-based air assets.

Maybe in the old days it did, but now ?

And why would I be on the surface in the first place ?




:
:
: :
: :
: : I'm not sure precisely what you have in mind, but the size of Russia's
: : Navy has nothing to do with it. You're close enough inshore so that
: : airplanes will blow your ass off if you try to sit in there.
: :
: :
: :Yes, that is the problem the Russian face in trying to get out of
: :Vladivostok....
: :
:
: Except most of it is RUSSIAN land...
:
:That will be news to Japan and Korea(north and south)
:

Might I suggest you look up the meaning of 'most' and realize that it
doesn't equate to 'all'?

"most" of that land is just a hinderance to navigation.
Even the Russian bits.

The important parts are NOT Russian.


No, it won't be news to either Japan or Korea. They can read maps,
you see...

I'm not the one who keeps discounting them..

tankfixer wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: tankfixer wrote:
:
: :In article ,
: says...
: :
: : You do realize that the Sea of Okhotsk is surrounded by RUSSIAN land,
: : right? No sane US admiral would take a force up there during active
: : hostilities.
: :
: :You don't have to enter it. just deny a couple of exit's and Vladivostok
: :is worthless.
: :
:
: And positioning to deny those exits leaves you in a fixed position and
: vulnerable to huge land-based air assets.
:
:Maybe in the old days it did, but now ?
:

Making up more ignorance while you scurry about trying to move the
goalposts?

:
:And why would I be on the surface in the first place ?
:

Who said you were? Why do you think that makes a difference? Do you
stupidly believe that submarines are invulnerable to aircraft?

[Keep moving those goalposts.]

:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : I'm not sure precisely what you have in mind, but the size of Russia's
: : : Navy has nothing to do with it. You're close enough inshore so that
: : : airplanes will blow your ass off if you try to sit in there.
: : :
: : :
: : :Yes, that is the problem the Russian face in trying to get out of
: : :Vladivostok....
: : :
: :
: : Except most of it is RUSSIAN land...
: :
: :That will be news to Japan and Korea(north and south)
: :
:
: Might I suggest you look up the meaning of 'most' and realize that it
: doesn't equate to 'all'?
:
:"most" of that land is just a hinderance to navigation.
:Even the Russian bits.
:
:The important parts are NOT Russian.
:

The important parts to whom and for what?

[Shift some more...]

:
:
: No, it won't be news to either Japan or Korea. They can read maps,
: you see...
:
:
:I'm not the one who keeps discounting them..
:

Gee, neither am I. You are, however, the one that is unable to read
either a Usenet article, a map, or anything written on naval tactics.

And the change from shifting the goalposts to outright lying was a
nice change on your part.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

In article ,
says...
tankfixer wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: tankfixer wrote:
:
: :In article ,
: says...
: :
: : You do realize that the Sea of Okhotsk is surrounded by RUSSIAN land,
: : right? No sane US admiral would take a force up there during active
: : hostilities.
: :
: :You don't have to enter it. just deny a couple of exit's and Vladivostok
: :is worthless.
: :
:
: And positioning to deny those exits leaves you in a fixed position and
: vulnerable to huge land-based air assets.
:
:Maybe in the old days it did, but now ?
:

Making up more ignorance while you scurry about trying to move the
goalposts?


What huge fleet of aircraft do the Russians operate nowdays ?




:
:And why would I be on the surface in the first place ?
:

Who said you were? Why do you think that makes a difference? Do you
stupidly believe that submarines are invulnerable to aircraft?

[Keep moving those goalposts.]

They have to find em first..


: : : I'm not sure precisely what you have in mind, but the size of Russia's
: : : Navy has nothing to do with it. You're close enough inshore so that
: : : airplanes will blow your ass off if you try to sit in there.
: : :
: : :
: : :Yes, that is the problem the Russian face in trying to get out of
: : :Vladivostok....
: : :
: :
: : Except most of it is RUSSIAN land...
: :
: :That will be news to Japan and Korea(north and south)
: :
:
: Might I suggest you look up the meaning of 'most' and realize that it
: doesn't equate to 'all'?
:
:"most" of that land is just a hinderance to navigation.
:Even the Russian bits.
:
:The important parts are NOT Russian.
:

The important parts to whom and for what?

The parts the Russians would have to pass by



[Shift some more...]

:
:
: No, it won't be news to either Japan or Korea. They can read maps,
: you see...
:
:
:I'm not the one who keeps discounting them..
:

Gee, neither am I. You are, however, the one that is unable to read
either a Usenet article, a map, or anything written on naval tactics.

And the change from shifting the goalposts to outright lying was a
nice change on your part.

I guess since you can't win you resort to name calling. Oh well

On Dec 2, 4:06 pm, tankfixer wrote:


Were you to actually study Russia a bit you will find they never really
have operated a Blue Water navy successfully...

Ice free ports are in short supply up that way

george wrote:
On Dec 2, 4:06 pm, tankfixer wrote:

Were you to actually study Russia a bit you will find they never really
have operated a Blue Water navy successfully...

Ice free ports are in short supply up that way

Not for very much longer...

Dan

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:09:47 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
aviation organization.

They don't.

I think not wanting any has more to do with it. Argentina had a
carrier, after all.

Casady

On Dec 4, 5:09 am, Dan wrote:
george wrote:
On Dec 2, 4:06 pm, tankfixer wrote:

Were you to actually study Russia a bit you will find they never really
have operated a Blue Water navy successfully...

Ice free ports are in short supply up that way

Not for very much longer...

True.
They'll be able to lay up all those Icebreakers

(Richard Casady) wrote:

:On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:09:47 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
:aviation organization.
:
:They don't.
:
:
:I think ...
:

No, you don't, and that's the root of your problem.

:
:... not wanting any has more to do with it. Argentina had a
:carrier, after all.
:

Argentina had several (serially). They never built one. They never
operated the old obsolete ones they purchased at all effectively. They
were quite small and operated only small numbers of obsolescent
aircraft.

This is the example you want to use to prove that Russia can ab initio
create modern carrier strike groups faster than ANY nation has ever
managed to do?


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson