Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
This probably isn't very new but new to me and I would like to know if this new(er) Russian ATGM is as good as it is portarayed in the following vid. And if so, how does it compare to some of our (USA) ATGM such as Javelin. In the vid its called Hrisantema or Crisanthemum(Sp?):
I don't doubt that the Russians could fund this if they really wanted to, but it would probably entail cuts to the air force and army. That kind of a nval buildup doesn't come out of nowhere because not only do you need to actually build the ships, you need to build and repair ALL the supporting infrastructure.
I forgot about Petropavlovsk. That could do but it is a bit far North.
Vlad Plasmius
Junior Member
I'm not sure about that. Russia's expanding state control of crucial global resources. They're approaching a large corporate empire where many countries are going to have to go to Russia for industrial metals, uranium, oil, natural gas, gold, diamonds, and coal. Russia is also making sure all the means of transport and management are controlled by the state as well. In addition they're expanding their aircraft industry.
Many crucial industries are being controlled by the Russian government and some of these things are escalating in price. Russia's economy is also growing at a consistent 7% rate. Their GDP will have at least doubled by 2015. It will have more than tripled by 2025. All of these factors considered together mean Russia's government will be drowning in cash, essentially and could have massive foreign exchange reserves of current Chinese levels.
Also Russia's cooperation with India on many major aircraft projects means the funds are split more there. If any other country joins in on those it could be even easier.
The army won't be much trouble for funding I think. The biggest problem there would be wage increases.
Well, unlike other parts of Russia, this would be completely open to the ocean. It would not be blocked off by any islands at all and would put the Russian fleet right with the US Pacific Fleet. Other possibilities would be a base in Sakhalin and some positions on the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk. All of this would keep Russia from being tightly constrained by the territory of other countries. I imagine much of Russia's Pacific Fleet buildup will move towards that area.
Pointblank
Senior Member
1. Upgrading an existing location will costs many billions of dollars. That includes refurbishing of existing infrastructure, expanding and upgrading existing, etc. If the port is not a deep water port, you will have to come in and dredge the port so that it is deep enough. That will costs a lot of money. Then there are the long term costs associated that occur yearly, such as operating and maintenance.
2. If I remember correctly, Petropavlovsk is not a warm water port, in that sea ice will freeze over the port for a number of months during the winter. So in effect, the Russians will be trapped in their port for a number of months per year.
Vlad Plasmius
Junior Member
Some are already upgraded or being built so there's already costs being paid.
I think it is, it's right by a volcano, which usually means warm water.
Pointblank
Senior Member
No.
The concern is pack ice. There is one way that a port at such latitudes can be ice free throughout the year is through a warm ocean current; for example, the Norwegian port of Bergen (at a higher latitude than Petropavolosk), is ice-free throughout the year thanks to the Gulf Stream Current, which carries warm water from the Gulf of Mexico into the northern latitudes of the European Atlantic coast. Petropavolosk in contrast has the Kamchatka current, which is a cold water current running south from the Arctic. This means cold water, and pack ice during the winter. That is why Petropavolosk will freeze over during the winter; not a good location for a naval base, as most warships are not ice strengthened.
For me the moving of the main naval base from Vladivostok to Petroplavosk is bit odd, I would like to ask what is the source for this?
There are few reasons why its extremely odd choise. Its mainly tied to the location. If you haven't noticed, Kamkathca is a penisula that has narrow landconncetion to the main continent deep in the north and no railroad nor highway connects it to the more habitable parts of russian fareast. Its bit strange to imagine your primary naval base is in such remote location.
Another is this? Whats wrong with Vladivostok? Its old and tradditional naval base to russians, there is existing infrastructure to support the base alongside with the Komsomolensk-na-amurs naval shipyard and other associated facilities.
There are few reasons why its extremely odd choise. Its mainly tied to the location. If you haven't noticed, Kamkathca is a penisula that has narrow landconncetion to the main continent deep in the north and no railroad nor highway connects it to the more habitable parts of russian fareast. Its bit strange to imagine your primary naval base is in such remote location.
Another is this? Whats wrong with Vladivostok? Its old and tradditional naval base to russians, there is existing infrastructure to support the base alongside with the Komsomolensk-na-amurs naval shipyard and other associated facilities.
Pointblank
Senior Member
I would have to agree. The existing infrastructure for Petroplavosk just isn't there to support a major naval base. Basing a couple of ships, yes. But not the entire Russian Pacific Fleet.