Russian naval expansion

[Werner]

They would have to sell all the art in The Hermitage to buy American stuff at the rate things are going. $200 million per $F-22 or $800 million per Burke? That makes a market of one.

[ar]

Speaking as a capitalistic investor, all that matters is how I can make money out of this thing.
The Fed will be lowering rates soon so as to avoid a downturn in the market. Money becomes cheaper, business picks up.
End os year audits for the financial sector, ie, come to Jesus time.
Through to the light by spring of next year. Buy financials then.
Bottom line; make money.
Rates go down, dollar goes down. No big deal as long as the decline is not too swift.
Yours in greedy anticipation.

[Werner]

Ar, don't forget to add the early election season into the machinations of the Fed. Bernacke may be more likely to use his immense powers as a political lever than was Dr. Greenspan.

[Dave Wooley]

They would have to sell all the art in The Hermitage to buy American stuff at the rate things are going. $200 million per $F-22 or $800 million per Burke? That makes a market of one.

With out putting to finer point on it I doubt very much that the Russians would consider the Burke's even if they were in the market for such vessels. For a start one of the very few practical assets inherited from the old command economy of the Soviets is the ability to do more with less, not quite the way Bath Iron Works, Ingalls or Grumman conducts business, not exactly the shining example of fiscal constraint were the public purse is concerned.if this escalating cost for Military hardware continues on its present path no western navy will be in a position to afford to build enough of the right warships to protect its own citizens let alone its vital interests .
Dave Wooley

[Tim Jacobs]

Here's an interesting take on the sub-prime mess... and amazingly, there's not one politician named in the list of top contributors!

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... eMess.aspx

[Tim Jacobs]

Now, on topic - Does anyone really think the Russians can crank out 6 CVBGs in 20 years? In the last 25 years, the US has built/commissioned what, 5 CVs? And that's with all the expertise we've accumlated over the last 70+ years of carrier building plus a Congress more than happy to spend massive amounts of tax dollars to do it.

Russia doesn't have the shipyards to build a large deck CV. The large yards were in the Ukraine. So, new from the ground up yards and then ports, piers and support facilities before you have a place to park one if you can actually build it. And all those petro-rubles are going a lot of different directions, not funneled just to the fleet. So, I'm one of those who says "Nice idea. Wishful thinking, but it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime."

[Werner]

Would it be that hard if it was little more than a mercantile hull with a flight deck on top? An ACV has always been assumed to be the way a power could obtain carriers quickly.

The requirements of stability, length and speed do not need to imply the presence of other military features added for survivability and so on.

I fear, however, based on their shipbuilding record 1981-2008, even this modest specification is beyond Russia's skills and budget. One only need look at the inventory of mercantile and military vessels built in this period to realize an entire generation of experience and skill has been lost for them.

[gs]

I don't think the Russians presently have the shipyards capable of building supercarriers. They should be able to build Principe de Asturias sized carriers without any problem but these would probably be most useful as antisubmarine ships rather than VTSOL aircraft carriers as they don't have a jump jet comprable to the Harrier.

However, even if they could build supercarriers, I can't see doing so unless they build a lot of escorts to go along with the carriers.

Russia is also geographically disadvantaged. She has to maintain a Northern fleet, a Baltic fleet, a Black Sea fleet & a Pacific fleet. Problem is that each can be isolated & destroyed piecemeal ala the Russo-Japanese war due to the enromous distances involved. The Pacific fleet is also handicapped by a tenuous supply line.

This is not to say that carriers would not be a useful political tool if a confrontation with the USA is not envisioned.

[Dave Wooley]

Now, on topic - Does anyone really think the Russians can crank out 6 CVBGs in 20 years? In the last 25 years, the US has built/commissioned what, 5 CVs? And that's with all the expertise we've accumlated over the last 70+ years of carrier building plus a Congress more than happy to spend massive amounts of tax dollars to do it.

Russia doesn't have the shipyards to build a large deck CV. The large yards were in the Ukraine. So, new from the ground up yards and then ports, piers and support facilities before you have a place to park one if you can actually build it. And all those petro-rubles are going a lot of different directions, not funneled just to the fleet. So, I'm one of those who says "Nice idea. Wishful thinking, but it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime."

Suggest you read this :-
http://www.shipmodels.info/mwphpBB2/vie ... sc&start=0
Much has changed since 1991 and 5or 6 carriers the size of the Kutznetzov are possible . If the Brits can build 2- 60000ton CVs with a much reduced building capacity then I fear the Russians are equally capable even with the loss of Nikolayev and the Black Sea yards. Even the CIAs projection from 1991 strongly indicated that Russia would be in an economic and physical position to embark on a carrier building program by 2008-20 .
Dave Wooley

[Dave Wooley]

I don't think the Russians presently have the shipyards capable of building supercarriers. They should be able to build Principe de Asturias sized carriers without any problem but these would probably be most useful as antisubmarine ships rather than VTSOL aircraft carriers as they don't have a jump jet comprable to the Harrier.

However, even if they could build supercarriers, I can't see doing so unless they build a lot of escorts to go along with the carriers.

Russia is also geographically disadvantaged. She has to maintain a Northern fleet, a Baltic fleet, a Black Sea fleet & a Pacific fleet. Problem is that each can be isolated & destroyed piecemeal ala the Russo-Japanese war due to the enromous distances involved. The Pacific fleet is also handicapped by a tenuous supply line.

This is not to say that carriers would not be a useful political tool if a confrontation with the USA is not envisioned.

Russian naval strategy and the concept of stand-alone area defence has been around for a generation the Kirov�s are a Soviet example of this . Even the old Kuznetsov has a good area defence screen probably better than that aboard US carriers. However the equivalent to Aegis does not seem to have been developed. The building of carriers the size of Kutnetzov is within the capability of the present infrastructure available but I agree the building of larger carriers is highly speculative . Also having to distribute naval resources between three operational centres with the distances and logistic involved will remain a demanding task for any enlarged Russian navy. But I think to underestimate and assess the future capabilities of the Russian navy by simply revisiting the past is a blind ally and it would also be folly to assume that any future development of the Russian navy will simply be a rerun of Soviet doctrines. .Russia certainly has the ability to match the West in developing military technology and what it doesn't have it will acquire from it's new economic/ military partners. Russia has seen how the US is able to project power and influence events with the use of carriers. Given the trends with in the present Russian leadership it could be a safe bet to consider that Russia perceives it�s future as a global player , able to influence events and protect its own interests around the globe but for that it will need carriers.
Dave Wooley

[Werner]

Building frigates is all well and good, but Russia currently possesses only 4 cruisers and 17 destroyers. No more than half are deployable, having been severely cannibalized to keep the others operating. Nearly all were built or building in 1991 when the hammer and sickle came down, and they have not demonstrated the ability or will to make more ships of this size since. Fifteen years is a long time for your workers to sit on their hands, even in Russia. These skills are probably now lost, and will have to be relearned.

[Dave Wooley]

Building frigates is all well and good, but Russia currently possesses only 4 cruisers and 17 destroyers. No more than half are deployable, having been severely cannibalized to keep the others operating. Nearly all were built or building in 1991 when the hammer and sickle came down, and they have not demonstrated the ability or will to make more ships of this size since. Fifteen years is a long time for your workers to sit on their hands, even in Russia. These skills are probably now lost, and will have to be relearned.

All the yards inside the boarders of Russia are active and the skill base remains in place. It does well to remember that the UK lost 90% of it's building and technical capacity in less than 25 years, almost three times that of Russia yet large vessels such as the CVFs are to be built. Methods of Construction of warships have changes considerably since the rationalization of its inefficient yards. And it's a sobering thought that the most modern destroyer available to the RN is HMS Edinburgh "22 years old� Your view of Russia is one that did indeed exist, 5 years ago but good old fashioned market /economic forces have allowed a sea change in fortunes and attitudes. Incidentally the most modern of the large surface warships CGN Peter Velikiy entered service in April of 1998 and the large DDG Chabanenko in January 99. And 4 of the Sovremenny�s all completed in the mid 1990s and they were indeed ordered under the Soviet regime. What's under discussion is the ability of Russia to construct an almost new force of DDGs and Carriers, which can only be contemplated if there is the political will and more importantly the finance. Bring together these two shakers and movers and it will happen. The present Russian government has laid down it�s objective for the Russian navy and given the experience in the UK of rationalising yard management and improving constructional methods this in turn will bring it�s rewards. But in comparison how efficient are US yards and will these have to change in the coming years. What�s left of UK yards are amongst the most efficient of any shipyards. As an exercise it would be interesting to correlate the cost per meter of US ships to those emerging from Russian yards. The estimated cost as of FY �02 to the US tax payer to build the CVN-78 is a very sobering $7-10 billion and rising multiply that by 3 . That doesn�t even allow for decommissioning of the older CVNs . The truth is with the weakening dollar can the US afford to build any new carriers with the staggering sums already known .

[bengtsson]

I certainly agree that the Russian shipbuilding base could build a Carrier force. I'm just not sure why they want one given their strategic situation. Of course we don't know the thinking going on in the Kremlin. Who they see as a future naval opponent. What seas they feel the need to control and what seas they feel the need to try and deny an opponent.
My dealings with Russians over the last 25 years tells me that there is a stong streak of national pride at stake in their Naval building. SOmetimes they go for the prestige ship rather than the most useful type.
The Russians have a strong stake in controlling the Baltic and the Northern Seas. The sea control needs arise from a desire to protect a planned Baltic pipeline and the real needs to stake a strong presence in the rapidly melting arctic seas. I can see a need for a carrier force in the far north. This may be what is behind a desire for a carrier fleet. The arctic is big, close to home and resource rich and all the time the ice free sea area grows.
Then there is the Far East. I'm not so up on Russias's needs there.
As long as oil stays expensive, Russia has capital and an incentive to invest some of it in Naval Forces to secure resource rich sea areas. I just doubt Carrier survivability in the era of the super sonic anti shipping missile. We may be in a new era as regards surface ship survivability, or then again maybe not. Only a war will tell the story on that one.
If I'm running the Russian Naval effort. My money goes into submarines, anti ship cruise missiles and shore based naval aviation. I'de want to make any waters near my areas of interest to be very hot indeed for a rival's surface warships. If after all that is made first rate, I'de build some Carriers. They'de be nice to have, but aren't the first priority at this time.



Bob B.

[bengtsson]

Here's an interesting take on the sub-prime mess... and amazingly, there's not one politician named in the list of top contributors!

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... eMess.aspx

I'm going off topic again because I enjoyed the above linked article.
Just yesterday I was reading of a court ruling against a large German bank that was sued by 14 homeowners. I think in NJ. Anyways, the German bank was foreclosing on the homeowners who were behind in their payments. So the homeowners asked in court for the German bank to produce the mortgage documents to prove they held these folk's mortgages. The Bank could not do that. All they had was a piece of paper saying someone somewhere was holding them and that the German bank somehow owned an option on them. The judge said "No mortgage documents, no foreclosure. COme back when you produce these people's mortgages". The German bank said "Gee, we never had to have mortgages before to kick people out". The judge said "Times have changed" The German bank is appealing to a higher court. If the ruling stands, Bank losses could skyrocket as people refuse to hand over their homes to banks with no legal documents i.e. The Mortgage!

fun and games


Bob B.

[Dave Wooley]

I certainly agree that the Russian shipbuilding base could build a Carrier force. I'm just not sure why they want one given their strategic situation. Of course we don't know the thinking going on in the Kremlin. Who they see as a future naval opponent. What seas they feel the need to control and what seas they feel the need to try and deny an opponent.
My dealings with Russians over the last 25 years tells me that there is a stong streak of national pride at stake in their Naval building. SOmetimes they go for the prestige ship rather than the most useful type.
The Russians have a strong stake in controlling the Baltic and the Northern Seas. The sea control needs arise from a desire to protect a planned Baltic pipeline and the real needs to stake a strong presence in the rapidly melting arctic seas. I can see a need for a carrier force in the far north. This may be what is behind a desire for a carrier fleet. The arctic is big, close to home and resource rich and all the time the ice free sea area grows.
Then there is the Far East. I'm not so up on Russias's needs there.
As long as oil stays expensive, Russia has capital and an incentive to invest some of it in Naval Forces to secure resource rich sea areas. I just doubt Carrier survivability in the era of the super sonic anti shipping missile. We may be in a new era as regards surface ship survivability, or then again maybe not. Only a war will tell the story on that one.
If I'm running the Russian Naval effort. My money goes into submarines, anti ship cruise missiles and shore based naval aviation. I'de want to make any waters near my areas of interest to be very hot indeed for a rival's surface warships. If after all that is made first rate, I'de build some Carriers. They'de be nice to have, but aren't the first priority at this time.
Bob B.

These are valid points and the Russians like the former Soviet navy remains committed to submarine building all be it at a much reduced number particularly new SSBNs of the Borey class, new SSNs and a new generation of conventional submarines in the Lada class. As for �survivability of carriers�, well that's problematic. The same goes for any carrier. One of the great fears of any Cold War confrontation was saturation attacks from long-range cruise missile armed Backfire bombers on a carrier battle group. Equally any new Russian carrier would no doubt be well armed in order to deal with such an attack. But carriers are really power projection instruments and it is the USN that has demonstrated over the years just how effective the carrier can be. For the Soviets their naval air arm, land or sea based was for sea denial and ASW. It could be argued that for Russia it could be power projection, not unlike that exercised by the USN. Knowing the Russians I certainly agree with regard to their �national pride� which was sorely dinted with the disillusion of the Soviet Union . As for prestige warships , perhaps this did play some part in the Soviet era thinking but Russia today is much more pragmatic the type of warships built reflect this. The question is do we turn a blind eye and dismiss any Russian expansion of its navy as a mere apparition, or a genuine attempt to become a major player in carrier based power projection.
Dave Wooley .

[gs]

Aircraft carriers, as mentioned above, have become political status symbols, actually, just like battleships in the early 20th century. Hence, Thailand has a small one as a royal yacht. With the UK planning to build two and China gearing up to build carriers, it is natural for Russia to want to build a few, I contend primarily for national pride. I don't see much operating room for carriers in the Artic. There are more operating space in the vast reaches of the Pacific, but their facilities there would be limiting and would cause increased tensions with China, Japan, & the USA.

As I see it, Russia has continental ambitions to regain landlocked territories lost during the breakup of the USSR. A build up of air and land forces would be more logical.

[bengtsson]

.

As I see it, Russia has continental ambitions to regain landlocked territories lost during the breakup of the USSR. A build up of air and land forces would be more logical.

I tend to agree with that line of reasoning. Russia is by it's nature primarily a land and air power. Their naval needs seem to me to be more of the sea denial and coast defence nature. Except in the Arctic and Baltic where they have real sea contol needs. The Arctic is heating up in more ways than one. The scamble for oil up there will involve claiming seabed rights and sea surface control. The US is badly behind the curve on this one. Canada has woken up and is starting an expansion program to be able to enforce it's claims by a naval presence. Probably Russia will want a very active surface naval presence in the Arctic.
I'm not sure where at this point US and Russian Naval interests clash. We have interests all over the world, but few of a naval nature in the same waters that Russia sees as vital to itself. It may be China and the US are more at odds in the Pacific. Wherever China looks it will bump up against US naval bases and fleets.

Bob B.

[Seasick]

Putin is just trying to raise moral. Russia needs to replace all the Udaloy and Sovermeny destroyers with new builds because many suffer from poor material condition due to a shortage of cash after the Soviets collapsed.

[Werner]

It remains to be seen if the UK's three partners can actually build aircraft carriers. So far, all that's been "built" is paperwork and fees. The idea that the ships should be built in thirds and shipped to a common location for final assembly reeks of compromise and shortcomings.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... a/ship.htm

Just walk this list and you see Russia has not built a major combatant since the hammer and sickle flew over the shipyard. I would say based on their current experience, 7,000 tons is their limit for a surfaced or submerged ship.

[Dustermaker]

The situation is not recursive, or even comparable. Globalization has made the kind of world war we've seen in the past a distant possibility. Regional bullying seems more likely the future as long as the USA is the pre-eminent military power.

It is a common misconception to view national debt or trade debt through a "zero-sum" game. If the Chinese have invested in U.S. securities, they purchased them from US entities who could then use their liberated capital for other uses. It is very unlikely this American capital has been idle while the lending instruments are in Chinese hands.

Finally, look at the announcement in stem-cells today. The announcement did not happen in the centrally planned economy of China, nor the progressive economies of Europe, but the highly Capitalist economies of Japan and the USA. Not only has the released capital been put to good use, but it has created entirely new regions of capitalism, the produce of which will have to be purchased by the rest of the world.

I think "gs" is closer to the mark as your appraisal of the present situation is precisely the view of superiority we in the West have nurtured for so long. Assuming that only western styled progressivness can produce what the world needs. Those days are coming to an end as much as the end of the superior attitude adopted by the British in days of Empire. The Empire was unstainable and by 1947 Britain reluctantly had to start dismantling that Empire . The sooner we come to terms with the changes the sooner we adapt .
Dave Wooley

I gotta agree with Werner. We dont have an "Empire" granted we are in Iraq and a few other countries, but we arent totally controlling them as the british were back then. Just wait, the next time there is trouble in a region of the world everyone will look to the US to come and help. I really dont understand why people are always like THE US WILL COLLAPSE AND BE POOR, well when that day comes.... you just wait. China, Russia.....someone will try to pull something and everyone will be like.....oh maybe the USA wasnt so bad after all....War will come its just the nature of humans and there wont be a USA to help.