Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
why russian navy need several attack group?...what is their up against?:coffee:
For me i still like soviet-style 50,000 tank....that is the real core of russian army...:coffee:
Russian hvae a large enough defense budget to keep their Navy up, it's budget have increased with over 200% in recent 3 years and still rising fast.
If the Russians really do mean to build 6 new 50,000 ton nuke-powered carriers, what do they expect to accomplish with them? Who do they envisage as a threat that requires 6 nuke carriers? Presumably, when one goes out of one's way to build that many carriers, it's more than just a matter of prestige, as half that number would do for always having a carrier at hand to show the flag as it were.
Having 3 50,000 ton carriers on each coast, substantial as that is, isn't a great deterrent to a US Navy that can maintain twice as many ships of twice that size on each of its coasts. So, aside from prestige, and given that the Russians appear to be moving their main Pacific bases from the Vladivostok area to the Kamchatka Peninsula, the Russians may have the deterrence of Asian powers in mind.
Having 3 50,000 ton carriers on each coast, substantial as that is, isn't a great deterrent to a US Navy that can maintain twice as many ships of twice that size on each of its coasts. So, aside from prestige, and given that the Russians appear to be moving their main Pacific bases from the Vladivostok area to the Kamchatka Peninsula, the Russians may have the deterrence of Asian powers in mind.
We can't exclude that the possibilities of deterrence of Asian powers in thier mind, but I rather doubt that is the main cause, seeing that China and Russia is making joint military excercise and improved relations, compared with US basicly ignored the Russians internationally and both militarily and politically push further and further towards Russian boarder and intrest sfer.
Anyway, just because your possible enemy have a more powerful military than you can currently build, doesnt mean you dont need to build it.
Neutral Zone
Junior Member
And to emphasise your point, Canada reasserted it's claim over parts of the Arctic this week;
Canada 'to reclaim Arctic waters'
By Ian Gunn
BBC News, Vancouver
Canada has announced plans for six naval patrol vessels and a deep-water port in the north to assert its claim to territorial waters in the Arctic.
Other countries, including the US, say the waters are international territory.
The $3bn (£1.5bn) announcement at Canada's Pacific naval base comes in part to fulfil an election promise.
Ottawa also sees economic potential in protecting its claim to the Arctic, as the area is thought to be rich in natural resources.
'Lucrative'
Since the end of the Cold War, Canada's modest military and coast guard have only rarely patrolled its northern coast line. Now Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the time has come to re-assert Canada's claim to the north.
At a dockside ceremony complete with brass bands, fluttering flags and sharp white uniforms, the prime minister promised to build at least six new patrol ships with ice-breaking hulls to extend his country's presence into the Arctic Ocean.
That presence, Ottawa hopes, will remind other countries - including the US - of Canada's claim to the waters off its northern coast.
The claim could also have serious economic implications. Natural resources including oil, gas and diamonds are thought to lurk - perhaps in abundance - under the Arctic ice.
And then there is the North-West Passage - the northern shipping route between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans that European explorers sought for centuries.
With a warming climate, the route may just become viable and lucrative.
A deciding factor in the territorial disputes may be whether Canadians ever actually venture into the areas in question. And so the time has come, Ottawa says, to make sure that they do.
=====================================
Seems like this area may about to become a source of diplomatic friction over the coming years.
Meanwhile back on Russian defence issues, Putin has suspended Russian involvement in the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, partly in protest at the US decision to install a missile defence system in Central Europe;
Russia suspends arms control pact
Russian President Vladimir Putin has suspended the application of a key Cold War arms control treaty.
Mr Putin signed a decree citing "exceptional circumstances" affecting security as the reason for the move.
Russia has been angered by US plans to base parts of a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) limits the number of heavy weapons deployed between the Atlantic Ocean and the Urals mountains.
'Cornerstone'
The Russian suspension will become effective 150 days after other parties to the treaty have been notified, President Putin's decree says.
The suspension is not a full-scale withdrawal - but it means that Russia will no longer permit inspections or exchange data on its deployments.
Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said Moscow was not "shutting the door to dialogue".
Russia sends warning
"We have submitted to our partners proposals on ways out of the situation. And we continue to wait for a constructive reaction," Mr Kislyak said.
But a Nato spokesman said the alliance "regretted" Russia's decision.
"The allies consider this treaty to be an important cornerstone of European security," James Appathurai said.
He added that the move was "a disappointing step in the wrong direction".
Russia's suspension of its application of the treaty is yet another sign of a worsening relationship between the US and Russia, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Jonathan Marcus.
An informal meeting earlier in July at the Bush family's Maine home seems to have done very little to improve ties between the two leaders, he says.
It is also yet one more sign of a more assertive Russian foreign policy, our diplomatic correspondent says.
The CFE agreement of 1990 was one of the most significant arms control agreements of the Cold War years.
It set strict limits on the number of offensive weapons - battle tanks, combat aircraft, heavy artillery - that the members of the Warsaw Pact and Nato could deploy in Europe, stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals.
In the wake of the collapse of communism, the treaty was revised in 1999, in part to address Russian concerns.
But this revised treaty has never been ratified by the Nato countries who want Russia to withdraw all of its forces from two breakaway regions with Russian-speaking majorities - Abkhazia in Georgia and Trans-Dniester in Moldova.
"The CFE treaty and missile defence are the two major irritants between Russia and the West. It would have been easy, it still is easy, I think Nato allies feel, to move closer to ratifying the CFE treaty," the Nato spokesman added.
Agreed, although I suspect that Russia, with its small population and vast natural resources in its eastern territories, doesn't feel comfortable in the long-term with resource-hungry Asian powers next door, especially ones that are substantially upgrading their militaries.
As to Canada seeking to assert itself in the Arctic, I think the window of opportunity for that may have passed long ago. Without at least a few submarines operating under the Arctic ice at any one time (and obviously either nuclear-powered or with AIP), any other attempts by Canada to enforce its claims there are more or less futile. Twenty years ago there was serious consideration of buying 10-12 nuke subs from the UK or France (the Navy favoured the Brits, but the Government seemed to favour the French) and the US Navy, which had control over some of the UK sub technology, seemed less than enthusiastic about sharing it with Canada. Canada's current subs, the Brit ex-Upholder class, do not have AIP and are proving difficult to bring back into service.
As for the 6-8 medium icebreakers the Government plans to build, don't bother; the 3 heavy icebreakers originally proposed are the minimum, provided of course, there were also going to be subs capable of patrolling under the Arctic ice as well (and of course there aren't). A base in the vicinity of Resolute is required; Iqualuit is a glorified rest-stop for C-130 crews on their way to Alert, and I doubt Cambridge Bay even rates that. Finally, aircraft including a fighter squadron and a rapid-reaction battalion of troops are also required. All of this would require a big base, a big challenge to other countries suspected of having designs on the region, and BIG money - which is why nothing worthwhile will happen, except for a glorified and militarily ineffectual "show-the flag" presence, if that.
